[Senate Hearing 112-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                         S. Hrg. 112-12

PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   TO

   CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE 
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                               __________

                             MARCH 2, 2011


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources



                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
  66-126 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC 
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 
20402-0001









               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                  JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

RON WYDEN, Oregon                    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK UDALL, Colorado                 DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota                JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia      BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware

                    Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
               McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
               Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................     1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa U.S. Senator From Alaska....................     2
Salazar, Ken, Secretary, Department of the Interior..............     4

                                APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions................................    45

 
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff 
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW 
                             MEXICO

    The Chairman. We'll go ahead and get started with the 
hearing.
    Before we begin I'd just like to take a moment to note the 
passing of our former colleague, Jim McClure. Senator McClure 
served the people of Idaho with great distinction, served as 
chairman and ranking member of this committee for many years. 
He was the chair when I first joined the committee. We extend 
our heartfelt condolences to his family.
    This morning we're reviewing the President's proposed 
budget for the Department of Interior. We welcome Secretary 
Salazar back to the committee. He's always welcome here, of 
course. We look forward to hearing from him in just a few 
moments.
    I realize that the President had to make very tough choices 
in putting this budget together. I generally support the 
decisions that were made given our current fiscal situation. In 
my opinion the budget request of $12.2 billion in discretionary 
funds for the Department is a reasonable proposal. It's one 
that is about even with the amount appropriated under the 
current continuing resolution and with fiscal year 2010 enacted 
levels.
    The proposed budget includes significant funding increases 
for a few key areas including the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, regulation and enforcement and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I'd like to touch on these key areas for 
just a minute.
    Oil and gas production from our Federal lands and 
particularly from the Outer Continental Shelf plays an 
important role in our economy. Obviously last year's Deepwater 
Horizon disaster was a dramatic reminder of the risks involved 
in these undertakings and the importance of effective and 
efficient regulatory oversight.
    I strongly support the President's budget request for 
additional funding for these purposes including his request for 
increased fees from industry to fund inspections of offshore 
operations.
    The budget proposes significant new funding for Land and 
Water Conservation Fund which I also strongly support. For many 
years I've advocated that this important conservation tool be 
fully funded at its authorized level at $900 million annually.
    Regarding water issues while not all of the priority water 
projects received funding, in my view the Department's budget 
for the Water Smart programs continue to demonstrate a 
commitment to addressing the Nation's water resource 
challenges. Water Smart implements many of the goals of the 
Secure Water Act which was passed by the Congress 2 years ago. 
I'm looking forward to receiving the Administration's progress 
report on that later this year.
    I'm also glad that the Administration's budget included 
funding for Indian Water Settlements. The Indian Water 
Settlements account will help ensure the settlements are 
implemented within the timeframes required by Congress.
    The budget also proposes sweeping changes in the allocation 
formula for the Abandoned Mine Land Program under the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act. I'm concerned that this 
could have very adverse impacts on states and tribes. We will 
want to work with the Administration before anything is done on 
that.
    So at this time let me recognize Senator Murkowski for her 
opening statement. Then we'll hear from Secretary Salazar.

        STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 
                          FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good 
morning, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Hayes, Miss Haze.
    Secretary, I appreciate the time that you have given me on 
one-on-one conversations, through which we can explore some of 
the issues more thoroughly, and I appreciate your time before 
the committee here this morning.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that you mentioned the contributions 
of the former chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Jim 
McClure. He was truly one of a long line of chairmen who have 
sustained the tradition of the Energy Committee as a forum for 
fair consideration and resolution of serious policy debates. We 
continue in that tradition. But he was a leader here and I also 
would like to extend my condolences to his family.
    Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for being here to discuss 
the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012. Certainly much has 
changed in our Nation's political landscape since the time that 
you were serving here with us on this committee and now as the 
Secretary of the Interior. In looking at the budget that we 
have before us though, I look at this and it appears to me that 
it takes us back to that time when the budget situation was 
perhaps a bit more optimistic, a bit more rosy. Today's world, 
as we know, is not that way.
    Many of the Department of the Interior's recommendations 
ignore what I believe is our current reality. Among other 
things: a $1.6 trillion Federal deficit, and rising unrest that 
has spiked oil prices to the point where our economic recovery 
could be threatened. Instead of addressing those challenges, 
the Department is seeking to expand the role and the footprint 
of the Federal Government, increase taxpayers' liability for 
maintenance and place more lands off limits to recreation and 
resource exploration.
    I have a few things that I'd like to note this morning.
    First on the list is the Department's new Wild Lands 
Policy. Your order has vast potential to lock up and limit 
access to lands throughout the country, but particularly in 
Alaska where two-thirds of our land is owned by the Federal 
Government. On its face the Wild Lands Policy appears to be a 
work-around of limitations within the Wilderness Act.
    Interior has specifically stated that BLM land, which was 
previously designated for a specific purpose, like the National 
Petroleum Reserve Alaska, will be re-evaluated and could be 
designated as wild lands. So it appears that Interior not only 
wants to take control over land designations, to take this away 
from Congress, but also intends to review and perhaps overrule 
past Congressional decisions.
    Insofar as the oil and natural gas related budgets, I think 
this year's proposal presents some issues. There are some 
serious questions about the wisdom of the proposed increases in 
so many taxes and fees across the board on the energy companies 
that we're responsible for regulating, and whether that's 
really more likely to result in a law being carried out in the 
expeditious manner that we here in Congress have demanded. 
Given the deeply troubling situations in Libya, Bahrain, and 
Iraq, I think there is little, if any, patience for continued 
delay in bringing back our American energy production and the 
associated jobs.
    Another area that causes me some trouble in the budget here 
is the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the full funding of 
that under this category of America's Great Outdoors 
Initiative. Given the critical need to balance our budget, I do 
have to question this spending. Each land management agency 
within the Department of Interior already has a sizable 
maintenance backlog. The National Park Service alone is at $9 
billion. So, if we can't afford to manage the land that we have 
already entrusted to the Federal Government, I question whether 
it's responsible to acquire more.
    Then finally on a more parochial note--we've had an 
opportunity to discuss this briefly--I am concerned about the 
reduction to the Alaska Lands Conveyance Program. This was an 
act that was designed to fulfill the commitment to the State of 
Alaska that was given to us at statehood, a little over 50 
years ago. The Alaska Lands Acceleration Act was put in place 
to say we will fully convey these lands by the fiftieth 
anniversary of statehood.
    That was several years ago. We are still behind on that. 
Given last year's budget it looked like it was going to take an 
additional 20 years to complete the conveyances. Now given what 
is proposed in this budget, it looks like it will take us until 
2075 to complete the conveyances.
    This is not acceptable to me. It's not acceptable for the 
people of Alaska. We need to work to address that.
    With that, Mr. Secretary, I know members on the committee 
will have many, many questions. I certainly do. But again, I 
appreciate your responsiveness when I have called you and we 
have had an opportunity to meet.
    We have some difficult issues ahead of us. You have a lot 
on your shoulders. I appreciate you taking that on, and I 
appreciate you being here this morning.
    The Chairman. For the information of Senators I think what 
we'll do is hear from the Secretary. He'll take whatever time 
he would like and describe the budget. Then we'll do 5-minute 
rounds. We will plan to recess about 11 when the vote is 
called. I'm told that we're going to have a vote on the 
continuing resolution about 11.
    Secretary Salazar, thank you for being here. Go right 
ahead.

    STATEMENT OF KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
    INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PAM HAZE, DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT 
                 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman, 
for your leadership on this committee and to you, Senator 
Murkowski as the ranking member. I am proud of having served on 
this committee and the fact that this committee really has had 
a tradition of bipartisanship and problem solving on a number 
of different fronts. We certainly have no shortage of those 
issues to work on in this budget and in the year ahead.
    So I very much look forward to working with you. Senator 
Wyden and Senator Franken and Senator Hoeven, congratulations 
on your election and I look forward to working with you as well 
on the issues in your State.
    Let me start out by saying here with me at the table are 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Hayes. He is in charge 
of the operations of the Department of Interior and has helped 
put together the budget. Along with our budget director, Pam 
Haze, who has worked under multiple Administrations on Interior 
budgets over many years.
    Let me start out by saying that the Department of Interior 
is, in my view, one of the most important Departments of the 
United States of America. I see it in my way of describing it 
as being the Department that is a custodian of America's 
natural resources and America's natural heritage. We take that 
responsibility very seriously. I take that responsibility very 
seriously as a Secretary.
    We oversee about 20 percent of the land mass of the United 
States. So places where I have been have included Barrow, 
Alaska and Anchorage all the way to the Everglades and down on 
the border at the Imperial Sand Dunes in Southern California, 
up to Maine to Acadia and the Middle Rio Grande and the forests 
of Oregon and in every State there are huge assets that we 
have. But it's an awesome responsibility we have on the land of 
the United States. We also control over 1.75 million acres of 
the Outer Continental Shelf which is important for many uses 
including the significant oil and gas production that comes 
from the oceans, in particular from the Gulf of Mexico.
    As I look at the job that I have as Secretary of Interior I 
see my job as being part of powering America's economy. We do 
that through the great outdoors of America. We do that through 
the energy production that we do both onshore and offshore. As 
well as the use of the other resources which belong to the 
American public.
    The 2012 budget in a word is simply a freeze budget. It is 
a freeze budget as Senator Bingaman pointed out at $12.2 
billion it basically is a budget that has no increases. It's 
important to remember that as we went through our budget line 
by line we found significant cuts to make.
    I think it's something that the American public expects of 
us. It's something that President Obama has asked his Cabinet 
to take seriously. That's that we get rid of any programs and 
cut back on expenses and just to be lacerative on that.
    We cut out about $1.1 billion in the budget. There were 
tough choices to be made. Some of it we will--there will be 
discussions obviously with Members of the Congress as we move 
forward. But there were some very tough choices. These are not 
the kinds of program reductions that I obviously wanted to make 
or OMB or the President wanted to make.
    The Alaskan Conveyance Act is one, Senator Murkowski, where 
I think there is a responsibility for us to move forward to 
complete that program. Yet there are cuts that are placed on 
that program which are very painful cuts.
    Besides those kinds of cuts in the Administrative area, we 
have cut $42 million in travel for the Department of Interior. 
We have cut back on information technology to the level of $36 
million. We have cut back $53 million just through procurement 
reform.
    Those are the kinds of cuts which I think in a deficit and 
debt situation which we're trying to address. Senator Hoeven, 
you as Governor would know that that's where you go first is to 
see where you cut your budget to try to make it balance. So we 
have cut about $1.1 billion in this freeze budget.
    Let me speak to 3 or 4 of the key priorities which I know 
are of great concern to all of you.
    First, energy. This is a part of the budget which has both 
conventional energy and oil and gas as well as what we do with 
respect to new energy and renewable energy.
    First with respect to conventional oil and gas production. 
I can tell you that we have a robust oil and gas program. Even 
in the aftermath of the Deep Water Horizon spill of nearly 5 
million gallons in the Gulf of--or barrels in the Gulf of 
Mexico last year, our production in the Gulf of Mexico has 
continued uninterrupted essentially at what have still been the 
highs of production just from the Gulf of Mexico. So our 
program both onshore as well as offshore is one for oil and gas 
production which continues in a robust way.
    We have proposed a budget here which will allow production 
to take place in a robust way where we can expedite the 
permitting. But we can also ensure the right kinds of 
inspections and the right kind of environmental protections so 
that we're protecting the environment and we're protecting the 
people of America. Those are key components of the budget.
    So we have asked for and would ask that the U.S. Congress 
approve the requests that we've made with respect to the new 
Bureau of Ocean Energy which has replaced the former Minerals 
Management Service. If we do not have a robust agency that can 
oversee the development and production of our oil and gas 
resources in the Nation's oceans then we will be setting 
ourselves up to essentially what had been the 30-year neglect 
that had been given to MMS with respect to the funding and the 
robustness that an agency with that kind of important mission 
should have. As we look forward to working with the Congress 
not only on the budgetary aspects but also on the organic 
legislation with respect to the new Bureau of Ocean Energy.
    With respect to the onshore oil and gas programs, we 
continue to move forward with a robust onshore oil and gas 
effort. We issued, in 2010, approximately 5,200 APDs. We expect 
that in 2011 we will issue about 7,000 permits to drill. So the 
program there to work on developing our onshore resources is 
also important.
    The word on renewables and just renewable energy, we have 
made significant progress on renewable energy. This last year 
alone permitting close to 3,700 megawatts of power from solar 
and geothermal and wind energy. The 2011 effort will continue 
to stand up additional renewable energy projects in many places 
around the West. As well as standing up the renewable wind 
energy potential off the coast of the Atlantic.
    I know Oregon now is in play to do some things as well with 
respect to offshore winds. So we are looking forward to 
continuing our efforts on renewable energy with a goal in the 
2012 budget that we will be up to 10,000 megawatts of renewable 
energy power. Now 10,000 megawatts we're supporters of clean 
coal technology and coal energy as well, but just as a sense of 
equivalency the 10,000 megawatts of power would be the 
equivalent of approximately 25 to 30 coal fired power plants in 
terms of generation. So that's a kind of robustness that we're 
moving forward on the renewable energy sites.
    We're doing both. We're doing conventional. We're doing the 
renewable energy side.
    I think as President Obama would say to all of you, we 
believe that we need to do all of these things. We need oil and 
gas. But we also need to embrace the new energy frontier and 
clean energy that this committee has discussed a lot over the 
last several years.
    Next I want to briefly mention conservation and the 
America's Great Outdoors Initiative. This was an effort which 
was launched by the President in April of last year. It 
concluded in the report that he received at the White House 
several weeks ago and the effort there was to try to define 
what the conservation agenda for our country should be in the 
21st century.
    President Roosevelt did the same thing 102 or 103 years ago 
in 1908. It was our thought that it was time to have that 
conversation around the country. So we went out around the 
country.
    We had listening sessions. Over 100,000 people commented on 
what we ought to be doing on conservation. Many of those ideas 
are included in the America's Great Outdoors report.
    Let me make 2 or 3 comments about that. First, it's 
important for us to remember that job creation comes from 
tourism. That is supported by our America's Great Outdoors in 
every one of your States. So whether it's Wyoming or Oregon or 
New Mexico or Alaska, the number of people who come there to 
visit the great parks and wildlife refuges and to visit the 
great outdoors pump a significant amount of money into the 
economy.
    The Outdoor Industry Foundation alone estimates that there 
are about six and a half million jobs just from the outdoor 
industry alone that are created through the outdoor 
recreational opportunities that are afforded by these lands. 
The approach that we're taking with America's Great Outdoors 
and it will touch Senator Murkowski, on the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund proposal here on the budget, is that we're 
looking at doing this in a bottoms-up approach and listening to 
the local communities as we work on developing our projects on 
conservation moving forward. I will give you 2 examples because 
they're real examples of not theoretical examples, but they're 
real examples.
    One is in the Flint Hills of Kansas where former Senator 
Brownback and I pulled a meeting together 2 months ago with the 
Kansas Cattlemen's Association, with the Kansas Farm Bureau, 
with the ranchers in the community, where we announced the 
National Conservation Area for the Flint Hills. The Flint Hills 
is the last of the remaining of the tall grass prairies in 
North America, 1.1 million acres. It is an initiative that will 
preserve the working lands of those ranchers that have been on 
that same land now for 5 generation on the 1.1 million acres. 
It also will preserve the great environmental and ecological 
values of the tall grass prairies.
    We have done the same thing in Florida with respect to the 
headwaters of Everglades National Wildlife Refuge where we had 
put together a partnership with the ranchers in that area and 
with the business community as well. So that's the kind of 
approach that we're taking to the America's Great Outdoors 
Initiative. It's a kind of approach we'll take as well with 
respect to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    Now the investments that we have asked for in the 
President's 2012 budget do include full funding of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. I think it's important for this 
committee, who has so much history on the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund to look back at the history of this fund. The 
fact that when it was created by Stewart Udall and by President 
Kennedy back in 1964, their view was that we take from the 
Earth. We should put something back into conservation.
    Yet when you look at the nearly 50 year history of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund it has only been fully funded, to 
my knowledge, once. So this effort would be to fully fund the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund of the $900 billion level. In 
the time that the LWCF has been authorized it has been credited 
with $31.7 billion which is an accounting measure that is on 
the books.
    However it's only been funded to about the tune of $16 
billion. So there's--if you've talked about a broken promise. I 
think that with respect to the LWCF it's one that's been going 
on for about the last 40 years.
    Second, we will work and have asked in the budget for 
support for landscape conservation cooperatives. Again, this is 
a reflection of an effort where we are working with local 
communities, states, to try to find out how we coordinate the 
conservation efforts at the local level. Deputy Secretary David 
Hayes yesterday, met with the Atlantic Landscape Conservation 
Cooperative. He reported that out of that meeting already about 
100 of these locally driven efforts that are going on in the 
Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. We hope to be able 
to move those efforts forward around the country.
    Finally the Climate Science Centers as Senator Murkowski, 
we have informed your office, we have one of the Climate Change 
Science Centers that we have established with the University of 
Alaska. We're doing this across the country because we need to 
understand the impacts that climate change is having on our 
world. Alaska, as we have often talked about, is really the 
point of the sphere.
    But it's not only Alaska. It's those of you who share the 
waters of the Colorado River Basin and know that we are in the 
driest period of record in 102 years. With Lake Mead at an all 
time low in terms of its water level. An additional 20 percent 
projection in the decline of water supply in the Colorado 
River. It's important that we work with the ranchers and 
farmers and municipalities and the states to get ahead of the 
impact that climate change is going to have on the water issues 
of the Southwestern part of the United States. So that's part 
of what we're trying to do with the Climate Science Centers.
    Just 2 other quick points and I'll conclude my remarks.
    Water. Obviously if you come from an arid State, as many of 
you do, you know water is a life blood of our communities. So 
how we manage and conserve water is very important. That 
without the water resources, for example, that have been stored 
and now used in the Colorado River, we frankly would not have 
had the flowering of the American desert or so much of the 
agricultural production that comes from those particular 
states.
    The Water Smart Program is proposed to be funded in this 
budget. I know you will have a hearing on it, on what we have 
done in 2010, Chairman Bingaman. But just as an illustration, 
the 37 projects that were funded through Water Smart in 2010 
are projected to save 490,000 acre feet of water a year, 
490,000 acre feet of water a year. For us from arid states you 
know that that's a very significant amount.
    Finally with respect to youth and jobs. From day one when I 
went into the Department of Interior I wanted to stand up a 
Civil Conservation Corps for young people to come and work and 
help us do the work that we have to get done in fulfilling our 
mission. But also get engaged in the outdoors and engaged in 
conservation. As a result of the efforts and the support of 
this committee and Congress over the last several years we have 
about 21,000 young people who are working with us as part of 
our Conservation Corps in the Department of the Interior. This 
budget would continue to expand on that program.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, look forward to working with 
you and with Senator Murkowski and the members of this 
committee and Congress to move forward in the budget that 
strengthens our economy and makes our country stronger.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Salazar follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Ken Salazar, Secretary, Department of the 
                                Interior
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here 
today to present the details of the 2012 budget request for the 
Department of the Interior. I want to thank the members of this 
Committee for your support of our Department. Your efforts have helped 
to build a strong foundation for our initiatives over the last two 
years.
    The 2012 budget builds on that strong foundation with $12.2 billion 
requested for the Department of the Interior. This is a freeze at the 
2010 level, including significant reductions and savings totaling $1.1 
billion, while funding key priorities. The budget demonstrates that we 
can responsibly cut the deficit, while investing to win the future and 
sustain the national recovery. Our budget promotes the actions and 
programs that America told us are important in 50 listening sessions 
across the Country. With that inspiration we developed a new 21st 
Century conservation vision--America's Great Outdoors. The budget 
continues to advance efforts that you have facilitated in renewable 
energy and sustainable water conservation, cooperative landscape 
conservation, youth in the outdoors, and reforms in our conventional 
energy programs.
                              introduction
    Interior's mission is simple but profound--to protect America's 
resources and cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust 
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Interior's 
people and programs impact all Americans.
    The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's lands 
including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and the public 
lands. Interior manages public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf--
providing access for renewable and conventional energy development and 
overseeing the protection and restoration of surface-mined lands. The 
Department of the Interior is also the largest supplier and manager of 
water in the 17 western States and provides hydropower resources used 
to power much of the country. Interior is responsible for migratory 
wildlife and endangered species conservation as well as the 
preservation of the Nation's historic and cultural resources. The 
Department supports cutting edge research in the earth sciences--
geology, hydrology, and biology--to inform resource management 
decisions at Interior and improve scientific understanding worldwide. 
The Department of the Interior also fulfills the Nation's unique trust 
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, and provides 
financial and technical assistance for the insular areas.
    The Department makes significant contributions to the Nation 
measured in economic terms. The Interior Department supports over 1.3 
million jobs and over $370 billion in economic activity each year. 
Parks, refuges, and monuments generate over $24 billion in economic 
activity from recreation and tourism. Conventional and renewable energy 
produced on Interior lands and waters results in about $295 billion in 
economic benefits and the water managed by Interior supports over $25 
billion in agriculture. The American outdoor industry estimates 6.5 
million jobs are created every year from outdoor activities.
    In measures that cannot be translated into dollars and cents, the 
Department protects the Nation's monuments and priceless landscapes, 
conserves wildlife and fisheries, offers unparalleled recreational 
opportunities, protects and interprets the cultural collections that 
tell America's history, and manages resources that help to fulfill the 
Nation's demands for energy, minerals, and water. Through its trust 
responsibilities on behalf of American Indians and Alaska Natives, 
Interior supports tribal self-governance and the strengthening of 
Indian communities. For affiliated island communities, the Department 
fulfills important commitments providing much needed technical and 
financial assistance.
                 2010--a year of challenge and success
    At the start of the Administration in 2009, I set Interior on a 
course to create a comprehensive strategy to advance a new energy 
frontier; tackle the impacts of a changing landscape; improve the 
sustainable use of water; engage youth in the outdoors; and improve the 
safety of Indian communities. These priority goals integrate the 
strengths of the Department's diverse bureaus and offices to address 
key challenges of importance to the American public. Interior has been 
making progress in these areas, including:

   Approving 12 renewable energy projects on public lands that 
        when built, will produce almost 4,000 megawatts of energy, 
        enough energy to power close to one million American homes, and 
        create thousands of construction and operational jobs.
   Designating more than 5,000 miles of transmission corridors 
        on public lands to facilitate siting and permitting of 
        transmission lines and processing more than 30 applications for 
        major transmission corridor rights-of-way.
   Establishing three of eight planned regional Climate Science 
        Centers and nine of 21 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
   Issuing grants to water districts and other water delivery 
        authorities resulting in the conservation of 150,000 acre-feet 
        of water.
   Increasing the number of youth employed in conservation 
        through Interior or its partners increased by 45 percent over 
        2009 levels.
   Reducing overall crime in four Indian communities as a 
        result of a concerted effort to increase deployed law 
        enforcement officers, and conduct training in community 
        policing techniques, and engage the communities in law 
        enforcement efforts.

    The tragic events resulting from the explosion and sinking of the 
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April of last year drew the attention 
of the world to the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the focus of Interior's 
bureaus and offices in 2010 was on oil spill response, Gulf Coast 
restoration, strengthening safety and environmental standards for 
offshore energy production, and re-organizing and reforming the former 
Minerals Management Service (MMS). Nonetheless, the Department advanced 
other key priorities and strategic goals that will improve the 
conservation and management of natural and cultural resources into the 
future:

   Interior, along with the Department of Agriculture, the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council on 
        Environmental Quality, participated in the White House 
        Conference on America's Great Outdoors and held 50 public 
        listening sessions across the Country that have helped shape a 
        conservation vision and strategy for the 21st Century. We have 
        released a report, America's Great Outdoors: A Promise to 
        Future Generations, that lays out a partnership agenda for 21st 
        century conservation and recreation.
   In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new 
        national wildlife refuges in Kansas and Colorado and proposed a 
        new conservation area in Florida at the headwaters to the 
        Everglades. These refuges mark a new era of conservation for 
        the Department, one that is community-driven, science-based, 
        and takes into account entire ecosystems and working 
        landscapes.
    The Department worked with others to develop an action plan 
        to bring relief for the drought-stricken California Bay-Delta 
        area, invested over $500 million in major water projects over 
        the past two years, and moved forward on long-standing water 
        availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
   In December, I issued my recommendation to Congress to 
        undertake an additional 5.5 miles of bridging on the Tamiami 
        Trail in the Everglades above and beyond the 1-mile bridge now 
        under construction. When combined with other planned work in 
        the Everglades Agricultural Area and water conservation areas, 
        this project should restore 100 percent of historic water 
        quantity and flow to Everglades National Park.
   With the help of Congress, we brought about resolution of 
        the Cobell v. Salazar settlement and resolved four long-
        standing Indian water rights issues through enactment of the 
        Claims Resolution Act of 2010. We also completed negotiation of 
        a new Compact of Free Association with the island of Palau 
        which awaits Congressional approval.
   In December of last year, the President hosted the second 
        White House Tribal Nations Conference bringing together tribal 
        leaders from across the United States; we are improving the 
        Nation-to-Nation relationship with 565 Tribes.
                      interior's budget in context
    In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama spoke 
of what it will take to ``win the future.'' He challenged the Nation to 
encourage American innovation, educate young people, rebuild America, 
and shrink the burden of mounting debt. Interior's 2012 budget request 
responds to this challenge. The investments proposed in this budget are 
balanced by reductions in other programs--recognizing the Nation's need 
to live within its means to ensure a legacy of economic strength.
    Taking Fiscal Responsibility.--Interior's 2012 budget must be 
viewed in context of the difficult fiscal times facing the Nation and 
the President's freeze on discretionary funding. The 2012 budget 
reflects many difficult budget choices, cutting worthy programs and 
advancing efforts to shrink Federal spending. The budget contains 
reductions totaling $1.1 billion or 8.9 percent of the 2010 Enacted/
2011 CR level. Staffing reductions are anticipated in some program 
areas, which will be achieved through attrition, outplacement, and buy-
outs to minimize the need to conduct reductions in force to the 
greatest extent possible. These reductions are a necessary component of 
maintaining overall fiscal restraint while allowing us to invest 
additional resources in core agency priorities.
    This budget is responsible. The $12.2 billion budget funds 
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower priority 
programs, deferring projects, reducing redundancy, streamlining 
management, and capturing administrative and efficiency savings. It 
maintains funding levels for core functions that are vital to uphold 
stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The 2012 
request includes $11.2 billion for programs funded by the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation. This is $69.2 million, 
or less than one percent, above the 2010 enacted level and $87.6 
million above the 2011 annualized CR level. The 2012 request for the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion Act, 
funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is $1.1 
billion in current appropriations, $88.3 million or eight percent below 
the 2010 enacted level and $78.3 million or seven percent below the 
2011 CR level.
    Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing 
legislation without further action by the Congress results in an 
additional $5.6 billion, for $17.8 billion in total budget authority 
for Interior in 2012.
    Program Reductions and Terminations.--Interior's $12.2 billion 
budget proposal includes $913.6 million in program terminations and 
program reductions of which $188.0 million are featured in the 
President's list of terminations and reductions. This also includes the 
elimination of $47.6 million in congressional earmarks not related to 
land acquisition or construction.
    These cuts were identified as part of a top to bottom review that 
considered mission criticality, the ability of partners to support the 
function, duplication or overlap, relevance to key initiatives, program 
performance, the relevance of timing and if the activity could be 
deferred, and short-and long-term strategic goals.
    Examples of the tough decisions made in 2012 include terminating 
the $7.0 million Rural Fire Assistance program which is duplicative of 
other fire assistance grant programs managed by the Department of 
Homeland Security and Department of Agriculture. The National Park 
Service's Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs are 
eliminated in 2012 to focus NPS resources on the highest priority park 
requirements. The NPS Heritage Partnership Programs are reduced by half 
to encourage self-sufficiency among well-established National Heritage 
Areas while continuing support for newer areas. In the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program is reduced 63 percent in 
2012 pending an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and 
alternatives to improve program performance.
    Program reductions are proposed in every bureau and office in the 
Department. One area that is reduced Interior-wide is construction. The 
budget includes $178.8 million for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service construction programs; 
in total this is a reduction of $100.2 million or 36 percent from the 
2010 enacted/2011 CR level. To achieve these reductions, the Department 
has frozen construction of new facilities in 2012 and deferred 
construction of replacement facilities. Interior's 2012 request for 
construction focuses on the highest priority health and safety and 
mission critical projects and defers lower priorities. The Department 
is committed to the repair and rehabilitation of current assets and 
funding for facility maintenance is held nearly level. The 2012 budget 
also slows the construction of major water management programs, 
including the Central Utah Completion Act. The 2012 budget request for 
CUPCA is $33.0 million, a reduction of $9.0 million.
    Administrative Savings.--The budget includes $99.4 million in 
reductions reflecting administrative cost savings as part of the 
Administration's Accountable Government Initiative. These reductions 
will be generated by efficiencies throughout Interior, changing how the 
Department manages travel, employee relocation, acquisition of supplies 
and printing services, and the use of advisory services. These 
reductions are in addition to $62.0 million in travel, information 
technology, and strategic sourcing savings identified as part of the 
President's 2011 request. These reductions are sustained in the 2012 
request along with bureau-specific efficiencies.

   The Department will achieve $42 million in savings in travel 
        and relocation through improved management at the program level 
        and re-examination of Departmental policies.
   An estimated $53 million in savings will be achieved through 
        acquisition improvement initiatives including shared contracts 
        to use Interior-wide for the acquisition of commodities, 
        supplies, and services. In 2011, Interior is implementing 
        Department-wide strategic sourcing initiatives for office 
        supplies and copier-based multifunctional devices. Savings from 
        expanded strategic sourcing is one component of a comprehensive 
        plan to improve acquisition practices throughout Interior.
   Efficiency savings from expanded strategic sourcing is one 
        component of a comprehensive plan to improve acquisition 
        practices throughout Interior. Another component to reduce 
        advisory services spending will achieve an approximate $15 
        million in savings.
   Through careful planning, strategic investments, and 
        unprecedented cooperation, significant opportunity exists to 
        realize efficiencies in the Department's IT infrastructure of 
        an estimated $36 million, including energy and cost savings. 
        The Department has identified five primary focus areas: risk-
        based information security services, infrastructure 
        consolidation, unified messaging, workstation ratio reduction, 
        and radio site consolidation.
   The Department's 2012 budget reflects a freeze on Federal 
        salaries for 2011 and 2012 and requirements to address fixed 
        cost increases are limited to anticipated changes in the 
        Federal contributions to health benefits, GSA rent increases, 
        changes in workers and unemployment compensation costs, and 
        specific contract requirements for P.L. 93-638 agreements.

    Cost Recovery.--The budget proposes to increase cost recovery to 
offset the cost of some resource development activities that provide 
clear benefits to customers.
    The budget proposes to increase fees for offshore oil and gas 
inspections from $10.0 million in the 2010 enacted budget to $65.0 
million in 2012. These fee collections incorporate a more robust 
inspection program and expand the scope of offshore inspection fees to 
include offshore drilling rigs, given the need for greater scrutiny of 
drilling operations as a core component of deepwater oil and gas 
development. This is consistent with the National Commission on the BP 
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The report states 
that 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.''
    Similarly, the budget proposes to collect $38.0 million for onshore 
oil and gas inspection activities conducted by BLM. The budget also 
proposes new fees totaling $4.4 million for coal and other minerals 
inspections conducted by BLM to recover the costs of inspecting these 
operations.
    Likewise, the budget proposes to decrease OSM grants to state 
programs that regulate the coal industry, to encourage those states to 
increase cost recovery fees for coal mine permit processing.
                       investments for the future
    America's Great Outdoors.--Last year, the Administration initiated 
a national dialogue at the White House Conference on America's Great 
Outdoors. In 50 listening sessions held across the Country, the public 
communicated their conservation and recreation priorities, and the 
result is a report to the President, America's Great Outdoors: A 
Promise to Future Generations. The report outlines how the Federal 
Government can support a renewed and refreshed conservation vision by 
working in collaboration with communities, farmers and ranchers, 
businesses, conservationists, youth and others who are working to 
protect the places that matter to them and by engaging people across 
the country in conservation and recreation.
    The report calls for the government and its partners to help 
conserve and recreate on the lands and places that Americans care about 
most. To this end, the report recommends expanding access to green 
spaces for recreation, restoring and connecting open spaces and rural 
landscapes to power economic revitalization and species conservation, , 
and increasing our investment of revenue from oil and gas development 
in the protection of open spaces. The report calls for the revision of 
government policies to improve program effectiveness and alignment, and 
leverage local, community driven efforts and asks the Federal 
government to be a better partner with States, Tribes, landowners, 
local communities, the private sector and others to meet shared 
conservation goals.
    The 2012 President's budget identifies resources that are targeted 
on these outcomes with $5.5 billion for programs included in the 
America's Great Outdoors initiative, an increase of $363.0 million over 
the FY 2010 level. The components of this budget request include land 
management operations, programs funded through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and grant programs focused on partnerships that 
conserve natural resources, restore, rivers and trails, and preserve 
the Nation's historic assets.
    The 2012 budget for America's Great Outdoors includes $4.6 billion 
for core operations, an increase of $13.5 million, in the land and 
resource management bureaus--BLM, FWS, and NPS. Increases in Interior's 
land management bureaus will enhance cultural and interpretative 
programs throughout our network of national parks, refuges and public 
lands. This funding will also support day-to-day operations, improve 
the condition of facilities, and address natural resource management 
needs. More than 285 million Americans and foreign tourists visited the 
Nation's national parks in 2009, nearly 11 million more than in 2008, a 
3.9 percent increase. This was the fifth busiest year for the national 
park system, just missing the all-time visitation record set in 1987. 
The increased visitation to the national parks reinforces the 
importance and value Americans place on their treasured landscapes.
    The initiative also includes $675.0 million for programs funded 
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The components of this 
request are: $375.0 million for Federal land acquisition, $200.0 
million for an expanded LWCF State grants program including competitive 
grants, and $100.0 million for Cooperative Endangered Species 
Conservation Grants.
    The 2012 budget for Interior and the U.S. Forest Service includes 
full funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
This funding is drawn from revenue generated each year from oil and gas 
development. This fulfills the vision for the LWCF, with a dedicated 
source of funding generated from the depletion of resources to be used 
annually to advance resource conservation and recreational 
opportunities. For the 2012 budget, the Department coordinates Interior 
bureaus' and the Forest Service's land acquisition priorities and 
presents a joint conservation strategy that maximizes conservation 
outcomes in key geographic focal areas.
    The 2012 budget also includes $150.0 million for fish and wildlife 
conservation grants, an increase of $7.0 million, including $50.0 
million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $95.0 
million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and $5.0 million for 
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Grants. An additional $72.4 
million is proposed for NPS partnership programs, including $62.4 
million for historic preservation grants to States and Tribes, an 
increase of $6.5 million and $10.0 million for the Rivers, Trails and 
Conservation Assistance program, an increase of $1.1 million.
    The 2012 America's Great Outdoors initiative focuses on investments 
that will lead to healthy lands, waters and resources while stimulating 
the economy--goals that are complementary. Through strategic 
partnerships, Interior will support and protect historic uses of lands, 
restore lands and resources, protect and interpret historic and 
cultural resources, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities. All of 
these activities have significant economic benefits in rural and urban 
communities. An economic impact analysis completed by the Department in 
December 2009 estimates that in 2008 more than 400 million visits to 
the Nation's parks, refuges, and public lands generated nearly $25 
billion and over 300,000 jobs in recreation and tourism, contributing 
significantly to the economic vitality of many communities.
    New Energy Frontier.--The 2012 budget continues the Department's 
New Energy Frontier initiative to create jobs, reduce the Nation's 
dependence on fossil fuels and oil imports, and reduce carbon impacts. 
Facilitating renewable energy development is a major component of this 
strategy along with effective management of conventional energy 
programs.
    The Department has made significant advances in its priority goal 
to increase approved capacity for renewable energy production on 
Interior lands by at least 10,000 megawatts by the end of 2012, while 
ensuring full environmental review. To date, BLM has approved projects 
that, when built, will generate approximately 4,000 megawatts of 
energy. The budget requests $72.9 million for renewable energy programs 
in 2012, an increase of $13.9 million above the 2010 enacted/2011 CR 
level.
    While we work to develop renewable energy sources, domestic oil and 
gas production remain critical to our nation's energy supply and to 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. As was underscored by the 
tragic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the oil spill that 
followed, we must take immediate steps to make production safer and 
more environmentally responsible. The recently-released report from the 
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 
Drilling concludes there are risks for which neither industry nor the 
government have been adequately prepared. The report recommends 
fundamental reforms to ensure technical expertise, independence, and 
full consideration of environmental protection as well as continued 
reforms in human safety, regulatory oversight, energy exploration, and 
production.
    The Commission's recommendations are, in many ways, a strong 
validation of the reforms that we at the Department of the Interior 
have been undertaking to promote safety and science in offshore oil and 
gas operations. Moreover, the Commission's findings and recommendations 
bolster the case for Interior's comprehensive reforms and 
reorganization of offshore oil and gas activities that will remedy 
conflicted missions, stand up a stronger regulatory framework, create 
an internal review unit to identify problems in a timely manner, 
improve agency and industry management of safety and environmental 
protection, and expand the team of inspectors, engineers, and other 
staff to oversee OCS operations. Many reforms have already been 
accomplished including:

   Implementation of strong new safety and environmental 
        standards including: a safety rule that raises standards for 
        everything from drilling equipment and well design to casing 
        and cementing; a requirement that companies establish 
        comprehensive risk management programs; a requirement that 
        operators demonstrate capability to deal with a catastrophic 
        blowout; limiting the use of categorical exclusions so that 
        proposed lease sales and drilling projects go through rigorous 
        environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy 
        Act (NEPA); and requiring companies to put their signature on 
        the line to state that their rigs comply with safety and 
        environmental laws and regulations.
   Termination of the controversial royalty-in-kind program, 
        which accepted oil and natural gas from producers in lieu of 
        cash royalty payments, in favor of a more transparent and 
        accountable royalty collection system.
   Dissolution of the Minerals Management Service with the 
        transfer of minerals revenue management to the Office of 
        Natural Resources Revenue in the Office of the Secretary and 
        creation of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 
        and Enforcement as an interim organization while further 
        structural changes are made.
   Formulation of a plan for reorganization that will separate 
        the offshore resource management and the safety and 
        environmental enforcement programs into two independent 
        organizations--the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the 
        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
   Development and implementation of regulations and guidance 
        to operators responsive to the recommendations of the DOI 
        Safety Oversight Board, the National Academy of Engineering, 
        and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil 
        Spill.
   Completion of a review of ethics issues related to the 
        Department's management of the OCS program and creation of the 
        Investigations and Review Unit.
   Implementation of a recruitment strategy for BOEMRE to 
        expand the field of inspectors and engineers, with BOEMRE 
        receiving more than 500 applications in two weeks.
   Establishment of the Offshore Energy Safety Advisory 
        Committee to advise BOEMRE on issues related to offshore energy 
        safety, including drilling and workplace safety, well 
        intervention and containment, and oil spill response.

    The 2012 budget includes $506.3 million for the components of the 
former Minerals Management Service to continue our efforts at 
reorganization and reform of both offshore energy development 
activities and mineral revenue collection. This includes a total 
program of $358.4 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement, an increase of $119.3 million, or 50 
percent, over the 2010 enacted level, after adjusting for the transfer 
of mineral revenue collections to the new Office of Natural Resources 
Revenue. The budget proposes to offset BOEMRE program funding with 
$160.2 million in offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries and 
$65.0 million from oil and gas inspection fees.
    The budget makes investments to increase capacity for leasing and 
environmental review, safety and environmental enforcement, and oil 
spill research. This request will enable Interior to hire over 100 
inspectors, engineers, and other safety and enforcement staff by the 
end of 2012. The 2012 budget includes funding for the Investigations 
and Review Unit to respond to allegations or evidence of misconduct and 
unethical behavior; oversee and coordinate internal auditing, 
regulatory oversight and enforcement systems and programs; and ensure 
the organization's ability to respond to emerging issues and crises, 
including spills and accidents. Funding is also included to support an 
independent advisory board that will review and analyze environmental 
studies and analyses to support the use of sound science in all of the 
Department's offshore energy activities.
    The 2012 budget request also includes $147.9 million for the Office 
of Natural Resources Revenue located in the Office of the Secretary. 
The proposed $38.7 million increase over the 2010 enacted level will 
allow us to strengthen auditing and compliance efforts for royalty 
revenue collections and to complete the transition of the royalty-in-
kind (RIK) program to royalty-in-value collections.
    Youth in the Great Outdoors.--Furthering the youth and conservation 
goals of the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the 2012 budget 
proposes to continue engaging youth by employing and educating young 
people from all backgrounds. The 2012 budget includes $46.8 million for 
youth programs, an increase of $7.6 million above the 2010 enacted/2011 
CR level.
    Interior is uniquely qualified to engage and educate young people 
in the outdoors and has programs that establish connections for youth 
ages 18 to 25 with natural and cultural resource conservation. These 
programs help address unemployment in young adults and address health 
issues by encouraging exercise and outdoor activities. For example, 
Interior is taking part in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to 
combat the problem of childhood obesity. The Bureau of Land Management, 
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have Let's Move 
Outside programs to promote physical activity for children and families 
on the Nation's public lands. Interior has long-standing partnerships 
with organizations such as the 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, 
the Youth Conservation Corps, and the Student Conservation Association. 
These programs leverage Federal investments to put young people to work 
and build a conservation ethic.
    In 2010, Interior met its high priority performance goal to employ 
15,900 in conservation-related careers through the Department or its 
partners. This is a 45 percent increase from 2009. The 2012 goal is to 
increase this youth employment by 60 percent.
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--The 2012 budget realigns 
programs and funding to better equip land and resource managers with 
the tools they need to effectively conserve resources in a rapidly 
changing environment. Significant changes in water availability, longer 
and more intense fire seasons, invasive species and disease outbreaks 
are creating challenges for resource managers and impacting the 
sustainability of resources on public lands. These changes result in 
bark beetle infestations, deteriorated range conditions, and water 
shortages that negatively impact grazing, forestry, farming, as well as 
the status of wildlife and the condition of their habitats. Many of 
these problems are caused by or exacerbated by climate change.
    The 2012 Budget includes $175.0 million for cooperative landscape 
conservation, an increase of $43.8 million. The budget funds the 
completion of the Climate Science Centers and Landscape Conservation 
Cooperatives, the organizing framework for the Department's efforts to 
work collaboratively with others to understand and manage these 
changes. These efforts will allow the Department to meet its priority 
goal to identify resources vulnerable to climate change and implement 
coordinated adaptation response actions for 50 percent of the Nation by 
the end of 2012.
    The request for USGS climate variability science is $73 million, 
which includes $14.3 million for carbon sequestration research. USGS is 
conducting cutting edge research in biological and geological carbon 
sequestration, to investigate the potential of removing carbon dioxide 
from the atmosphere for storage in vegetation, soils, sediments, oil 
and gas reservoirs and saline geologic formations. The 2012 budget will 
advance USGS research to assess rates and potential capacity for carbon 
storage in ecosystems, and evaluate the Nation's potential resources 
for geological storage.
    Water Challenges.--Interior is working to address the 21st Century 
pressures on the Nation's water supplies. Population growth, aging 
water infrastructure, changing climate, rising energy demands, impaired 
water quality and environmental needs are among the challenges. Water 
shortage and water use conflicts have become more commonplace in many 
areas of the United States, even in normal water years. As competition 
for water resources grows, the need for information and tools to aid 
water resource managers also grows. Water issues and challenges are 
increasing across the Nation, but particularly in the West and 
Southeast due to prolonged drought. Traditional water management 
approaches no longer meet today's needs.
    Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $58.9 million, $11.0 
million below 2011 levels. The three ongoing WaterSMART programs 
include: the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $18.5 million; Basin 
Studies funded at $6.0 million; and the Title XVI Water Reclamation and 
Reuse program funded at $29.0 million. Two programs are being added to 
WaterSMART in 2012, the continuing Water Conservation Field Services 
program, funded at $5.1 million, and participation by Reclamation in 
the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000. This 
is a joint effort with the USGS. The USGS will use $10.9 million, an 
increase of $9.0 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water 
availability and use assessment program. Other significant programs and 
highlights include:
    In 2010, I issued a Secretarial Order establishing a new water 
sustainability strategy to coordinate Interior's water sustainability 
efforts, create a clearinghouse for water conservation best practices, 
implement a water footprint reduction program to reduce consumption of 
potable water by 26 percent by 2020. We are in dialogue with Mexico on 
the management of the Colorado River and we are actively pursuing 
workable solutions to regional issues such as in the California Bay-
Delta.
    The Bay-Delta is a source of drinking water for 25 million 
Californians and sustains about $400 billion in annual economic 
activity, including a $28 billion agricultural industry and up until 
recently supported a thriving commercial and recreational fishing 
industry. Our efforts in the Bay-Delta are focused on co-leading an 
inter-agency effort with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to 
implement the December 2009 Interim Federal Action Plan for the 
California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. In coordination with five other 
Federal agencies, we are leveraging our activities to address 
California water issues, promote water efficiency and conservation, 
expand voluntary water transfers in the Central Valley, fund drought 
relief projects, and make investments in water infrastructure. Over the 
past two years, we have invested over $500 million in water projects in 
California. We have also, in close coordination with NOAA and the state 
of California, worked on the California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, a 
long-term plan aimed at restoring both reliable water supplies and a 
healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem.
    On February 18 we announced the initial 2011 Water Supply 
Allocation for Central Valley Project water users. We were pleased to 
report that some of the CVP contractors and waters users will receive a 
100 percent allocation due to the precipitation and snowpack in the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains and improved carryover reservoir storage. 
Agricultural water service contractors South-of-Delta have an initial 
allocation of 50 percent but this is an improvement on the 46 percent 
initial allocation they've averaged over the past 20 years. These 
allocations represent good news given recent years, but many challenges 
remain. We will continue to work with our Federal, State and local 
partners to improve water supply reliability while addressing 
significant ecological issues.
    Our 2012 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation includes $53.1 
million for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund that is offset 
by collections estimated at $52.8 million. The 2012 budget for 
Reclamation includes $39.7 million for the California Bay-Delta 
Restoration account and $35.1 million for San Joaquin River 
restoration. An additional $6.9 million is included in the budget for 
the FWS and USGS activities in support of Bay-Delta ecosystem 
restoration.
    Strengthening Tribal Nations.--The 2012 Budget for Indian programs 
is $2.5 billion, a decrease of $118.9 million. The reduction includes 
completion of a one-time $50.0 million forward funding payment to 
tribal colleges, completion of $47 million in public safety projects 
normally funded by the Department of Justice, and $ 14.5 million for 
completed water settlements.
    The BIA budget includes reductions that are tougher choices, 
including reductions of $27.0 million in Trust Real Estate Services, 
$14.2 million in central oversight programs, and $5.1 million in the 
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.
    The 2012 budget provides $89.6 million in increases including: 
$42.3 million for programs that advance the Nation-to-Nation 
relationship; $20.0 million to enhance public safety and justice 
programs; $18.4 million to improve trust land management; and $8.9 
million for education programs. The 2012 budget includes an increase of 
$29.5 million for contract support and the Indian Self-Determination 
Fund--this was the highest priority of the Indian Tribes. These funds 
will enable Tribes to fulfill administrative requirements associated 
with operating programs.
    The 2012 budget supports achievement of a priority goal to reduce 
violent crime by at least five percent within 24 months on targeted 
tribal reservations through a comprehensive and coordinated strategy. 
The budget includes $354.7 million, an increase of $20.0 million, for 
law enforcement operations, detention center operations and 
maintenance, tribal courts, and conservation law enforcement officers.
    Indian Land and Water Settlements.--The 2012 budget includes $84.3 
million in the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
implement land and water settlements.
    The Bureau of Reclamation's budget includes $51.5 million, an 
increase of $26.7 million, for the initial implementation of four 
settlements authorized in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The 
legislation included water settlements for the Taos Pueblo of New 
Mexico and Pueblos of New Mexico named in the Aamodt case, the Crow 
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona.
    The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 establishes trust funds for 
Tribes to manage water systems and settlement funds to develop 
infrastructure. The primary responsibility for constructing these water 
systems was given to the Bureau of Reclamation, while the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs is responsible for the majority of the trust funds, 
which includes $207.2 million in mandatory funding in 2011.
    These settlements will deliver clean water to the Taos Pueblo and 
the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque in New 
Mexico, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe 
of Arizona. In addition to funding for the initial implementation of 
these four settlements, Reclamation's budget includes $24.8 million for 
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In the 2012 budget, Reclamation 
is establishing an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure 
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to 
highlight and enhance transparency.
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs 2012 budget includes $32.9 million for 
ongoing Indian land and water settlements, a reduction of $12.9 
million, reflecting completion of the Pueblo of Isleta, Puget Sound 
Regional Shellfish, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians settlements.
    Land Remote Sensing.--For forty years, Landsat satellites have 
recorded the global landscape, creating an archive of both natural and 
man-made changes. This imagery generates $935 million in value for the 
U.S. economy by driving innovation in the agricultural, water 
management, and disaster response sectors. For example, foresters 
around the country use Landsat imagery to remotely map and monitor the 
status of woodlands in near real-time. This allows them to track the 
devastation caused by the pine bark beetle in the Rocky Mountains and 
monitor drought and fire-prone areas.
    Landsat fills an essential need for data that is refreshed on a 
time scale and with a level of resolution and granular detail that is 
otherwise not available. Commercial data is not available that fill a 
void that could be created in the absence of continuous Landsat 
coverage.
    The 2012 budget for the U.S. Geological Survey includes $48.0 
million to begin planning activities with the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for an operational Landsat program. Consistent 
with the Administration's National Space Policy, the 2012 budget 
enables the USGS to assume management responsibility for a new 
operational Landsat program that will ensure continuity of Landsat data 
in the future. USGS will provide data requirements and funding, while 
NASA, drawing on its historic expertise, will build the Landsat 
satellites on a reimbursable basis for the USGS. This new operating 
structure is consistent with the approach used for NOAA's JPSS weather 
satellites, and will ensure sufficient oversight while avoiding 
duplication.
    The 2012 budget will enable USGS to gather and prioritize Federal 
user community requirements for land image data, conduct trade studies 
on key design alternatives related to the development of the imaging 
device, initiate the procurement process through NASA for the Landsat 9 
and 10 instruments and spacecrafts, and establish a science advisory 
team, in order to launch Landsat 9 in FY 2019 and Landsat 10 in FY 
2024.
    Also included within a new separate account for National Land 
Imaging is an increase of $13.4 million to complete the retooling of 
the ground receiving stations to be able to receive data from the new 
instruments on Landsat 8, expected to be launched in December of 2012.
                          mandatory proposals
    Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury 
than its annual discretionary appropriation. In 2012, Interior will 
generate revenue of approximately $14.1 billion and propose mandatory 
legislation estimated to generate another $3 billion in revenue and 
savings over ten years. The budget assumes the enactment of legislative 
proposals that we plan to submit to Congress in the coming weeks. These 
proposals will reform abandoned mine reclamation and hardrock mining on 
Federal lands, and collect a fair return to the American taxpayer for 
the development of Federal resources.
    Reform Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.--The Administration 
proposes to reform the Abandoned Mine Lands program to reduce 
unnecessary spending and ensure that the Nation's highest priority 
abandoned coal and hardrock 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 as 
these payments are no longer needed for reclamation of abandoned coal 
mine lands. Second, the budget proposes to reform the distribution 
process for the remaining reclamation 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 mine lands sites, 
so that the Office of Surface Mining can distribute grants to reclaim 
the highest priority coal sites each year.
    Third, to address the legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the 
U.S., Interior will create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands program for 
abandoned hardrock sites. Like the coal program, hardrock reclamation 
would be financed by a new abandoned mine lands fee on the production 
of hardrock minerals on both public and private lands displaced after 
January 2012. The 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.
    Altogether, this proposal will save $1.3 billion over the next ten 
years, focus available coal fees on the Nation's most dangerous 
abandoned coal mines, and hold the hardrock mining industry responsible 
for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors.
    Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The budget proposes to 
provide a fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on 
Federal lands. The 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 five percent of gross proceeds. 
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. The Office of 
Natural Resources Revenue will collect, account for, and disburse the 
hardrock royalty receipts. This proposal would generate an estimated 
$100 million in revenue over ten years.
    Fee on Non-producing Oil and Gas Leases.--The Administration will 
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on lands 
and waters leased for development. A $4.00 per acre fee on non-
producing Federal leases both onshore and offshore 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 $4.00 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 that companies diligently develop 
their Federal leases. Although the report focused on administrative 
actions that the Department could undertake, this proposal requires 
legislative action. This proposal is similar to other non-producing fee 
proposals considered by the Congress in the last several years. The fee 
is projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $25 million 
in 2012 and $874 million over ten 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 2013. 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 
2012, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral revenue payments 
to States would be implemented as an offset to the Interior 
Appropriations Act, consistent with the provision included in 2010 and 
continued under the 2011 CR. Permanent implementation of net receipts 
sharing is expected to result in savings of $44 million in 2013 and 
$441 million over ten 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 2013. 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. Congress has 
implemented permit fees through appropriations language for the last 
several years and the 2012 budget proposes to continue this practice. 
Starting in 2013, upon elimination of the fee prohibition, BLM will 
promulgate regulations to administratively establish fees for 
applications for permits to drill. In combination with normal 
discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will then 
replace the permit fees set annually through appropriations language 
and the mandatory permit fund, which would also be repealed starting in 
2013. Savings from terminating this mandatory funding are estimated at 
$20 million in 2013 and $57 million over three 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 five 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 2010 Interior Appropriations Act. 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 $6.5 million in 2012 and $74 
million over ten 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 that 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 end up 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 future royalty payments will 
be properly accounted for. 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 would not be initiated at 
some point in the future.
    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The Administration 
proposes to reauthorize this Act, eliminating the 2011 sunset date and 
allowing lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use 
plans to be sold using the Act's authority. The Act's sales revenues 
would continue to be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally 
sensitive lands and 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 $15.00 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 $25.00 per stamp per 
year, beginning in 2012. Increasing the price 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 
2012. Total acres acquired for 2012 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and the Republic of Palau. Permanent and 
indefinite funding for the compact expired at the end of 2010. The 2012 
budget seeks to authorize permanent funding for the Compact as it 
strengthens the foundations for economic development by developing 
public infrastructure, and improving health care and education. Compact 
funding will also undertake 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 U.S. and its 
location is strategically linked to Guam and U.S. operations in 
Kwajalein Atoll. The cost for this proposal for 2012-2021 is $188.5 
million.
    Extend Service First Authority.--The budget includes legislative 
language to extend authority for the Service First program. The laws 
creating Service First give Interior and Agriculture the authority to 
establish pilot programs that leverage joint resources. Service First 
allows certain land management agencies to conduct activities jointly 
or on behalf of one another; collocate in Federal offices or leased 
facilities; make reciprocal delegations of respective authorities, 
duties, and responsibilities; and transfer funds and provide 
reimbursements on an annual basis, including transfers and 
reimbursements for multi-year projects. This authority is currently set 
to expire at the end of 2011. The extension included in the budget will 
make the Service First authority permanent to continue these 
arrangements that have saved costs and improved effectiveness.
                               conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2012 
budget request for the Department of the Interior. I want to reiterate 
my appreciation for the long-standing support of your Committee. We 
have a tremendous opportunity to improve the future for our children 
and grandchildren with smart investments. This budget has fiscal 
discipline and restraint, but it includes forward looking investments. 
For America to be at its best and win the future, we need lands that 
are healthy, waters that are clean, and an expanded range of energy 
options to power our economy. 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.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Secretary, let me ask first about the issue that Senator 
Murkowski mentioned in her comments. That is this Wild Lands 
Policy that you've announced. As I understand you, you issued a 
Secretarial Order directing the Bureau of Land Management to 
inventory public lands with wilderness characteristics and to 
use that information in the Land Use Planning Process.
    The concern that's been raised or one of the concerns has 
been that your action in the Secretarial Order might be an 
effort to override the authority of Congress to designate 
wilderness areas and replace that or substitute for that. Could 
you describe what is involved in this Wild Lands Policy and how 
you see it benefiting the country?
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
    The Wild Lands Policy and the Secretarial Order that I 
issued, from my point of view, is something that is required by 
law. Circuit courts have ruled on the mandamus responsibility 
of the Secretary of Interior and the BLM to have an inventory 
of lands of the wilderness characteristics under Sections 201 
and 202 of FLITMA. So we are moving forward with creating that 
kind of inventory because first of all it is a requirement of 
us to do it under the law, in my view.
    Second of all, from my point of view, as we manage the 
public estate for the United States it's important that we 
also, as we manage it for oil and gas and for so many other 
purposes that we also manage it for its wilderness 
characteristics.
    You think about the public estate of the BLM, some 245 
million acres. There are about 41 million of those acres that 
are leased for oil and gas production. When you combine the 
wilderness areas designated by Congress and the WSAs which were 
put into place beforehand, you're talking about only maybe 8 to 
9 million acres. It's a much smaller percentage, obviously than 
is what leased out there for oil and gas. So conservation, in 
my view, is a key part of how we ought to manage the BLM lands 
that we do have.
    Now there are a couple of points that I think are 
essential. I know Senator Barrasso, others, are interested in 
what this order will do and its consequence.
    First, they're very clearly if you read the order carefully 
there is language that I inserted in there that says that 
existing rights are protected. So we're not going to come in 
and undo any existing rights.
    Second, we do not intend to usurp the authority of 
Congress. I recognize and I say it here on the record that it's 
Congress' responsibility and Congress' authority to designate 
additional wilderness areas. That's not my job as Secretary of 
the Interior.
    I think if you will look at what we have done with the 
wilderness designations in the past. They have been done in by 
both Democrats and by Republicans. In fact many of the bills 
that have been introduced on our public lands for this year in 
this Congress to designate wilderness have been introduced by 
Republicans. So there's certainly areas for designation as 
wilderness within the public estate.
    Finally I ask you also to read the order carefully because 
within the order there also are provisions in there that 
recognize that impairment can occur when you have lands with 
wilderness characteristics if there is another multiple use 
purpose that should override the wilderness characteristic 
purpose of a particular land. So it provides a kind of 
flexibility that allows the BLM to have a road map with which 
to manage the entire public estate.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me ask also about the issue of drilling in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. I know you've spent a lot of time over many 
months here focused on how to put in place the appropriate 
safety precautions for drilling, particularly deep water 
drilling. I think you now just this week, perhaps, begun once 
again the issuance of permits in that area.
    Could you give us a short status report as to where things 
are and what you see as the prospect for additional issuance of 
permits for deep water drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf?
    Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman, it's an issue where I 
obviously, along with the Deputy Secretary and with Michael 
Bromwich, have spent a good amount of our time in making sure 
that we're moving forward with a safe ocean energy program. Let 
me say the following because I think it's important for this 
committee to know.
    No. 1, I think the policy that we have in place is 
unmistakably clear. We are moving forward with the development 
of oil and gas including in the deep waters of America. That's 
a statement and position the President has made clear. It's a 
statement that I have made clear as well.
    No. 2 and as importantly, it is important for this 
committee, especially for this committee and for me to 
understand the importance of doing it in a way that will 
provide safety and environmental protections. The methodology 
of what had existed for 30 years that you could not have a 
Maconda well blow up in U.S. waters was blown up on April 20th 
of last year. So we are in a post Maconda well situation.
    We have been working closely with industry and with others 
to make sure that we are doing oil and gas productions and 
permitting it in a safe way in America's oceans. Earlier on 
when we imposed the moratorium, it was the correct thing to do, 
from my point of view, because the Maconda well was spewing out 
some 50,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 
days. Since then there have been significant measures that have 
been taken by enhanced regulations that involve cementing and 
casing and a whole host of other measures by the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy and Management.
    Most recently on Friday, Deputy Secretary and Michael 
Bromwich and I were in Houston where we actually reviewed the 
subsea containment mechanisms that have been put together by 
industry. One called the Helix Project the other called the 
Marine Well Containment Corporation. Those systems are being 
stood up in order to be able to deal with a Maconda well type 
of situation.
    They're not perfect yet. They're moving in that direction. 
That's going to be a work in progress. But based on the 
progress that has been made we felt comfortable enough to go 
ahead and issue the first of the deep water permits on Monday 
of this week.
    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, let me just follow up on that. The court 
ordered the Department of Interior to act on 5 of the pending 
deep water exploration permits within 30 days of that ruling. 
That was a couple weeks ago.
    Are you on track then? You've issued the one to Noble. But 
are you on track for the remaining 4 given the court order?
    Secretary Salazar. The last time when I came I testified 
all the time and I didn't let my Deputy Secretary testify. So 
I'm going to have him make a comment on this as well. But let 
me make an opening comment on this.
    That is you know, the judge in this particular case, in my 
view, is wrong. Will argue the case because I don't believe 
that the court has a jurisdiction to basically tell the 
Department of Interior what my Administrative responsibilities 
are. So that will be argued in the court at the right time. The 
more important question I think that you raise is how are we 
moving forward?
    If you look at what we did on the shallow water permitting 
issue and some of these wells in the shallow water are very 
deep. We're already at the point where we have 37 permits that 
have been issued. Those rigs are out there already working in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    The Noble permit which was issued on Monday is a very deep 
permit that will go, I believe, some three and a half miles 
into the ocean floor to some very deep places. But we know a 
lot about that formation. We know a lot about the pressures. So 
we feel safe in that.
    There are other deep water permit applications that are 
pending. The ones that will go out the door will hopefully be 
the templates that will allow us to move forward with an 
additional, significant number of deep well permits that I 
expect will be issued.
    David, do you want to comment briefly on that question 
because I know it's a very important question not only to 
Senator Murkowski but others on the committee.
    Mr. Hayes. Certainly, Mr. Secretary.
    Senator, we will comply with the court order and make a 
decision up or down on the pending permits that were identified 
in the court order within the timeframe required. Just to 
provide additional context and give a little feel for what is 
in play. In the shallow water we've received 47 applications 
for shallow water permitting since the moratorium. 37 of those 
47 have been approved. There are only 7 pending and under 
active consideration.
    In the deep water we are only now able to begin issuing the 
permits because only now has industry been able to demonstrate 
containment capability. So we expect that the first permit is 
far from the last permit. The first permit we granted on 
Monday.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. We certainly hope so.
    Let me ask a couple questions here on the fees on non-
producing leases. This relates to both onshore and offshore. As 
you know up north, we're in a situation where we have onshore 
producers that are looking to advance on the NPRA, but we 
haven't been able to get the permits to advance a bridge so 
that we can explore. Offshore Shell has been waiting for 5 
years now to get their permits to go offshore.
    Is it the position of the Department that penalties for 
non-producing whether onshore in NPRA or offshore in the 
Chukchi would be assessed if it's the agency that is holding up 
the production or the attempt to produce? I'm trying to 
understand what this means for us in Alaska because we're 
trying our hardest to get to production. It is the Federal 
Government: it is the agencies that are keeping us from doing 
this.
    But if the Department's approach is going to be: ``We're 
going to assess fees, we're going to assess penalties because 
you haven't been producing,'' this is a real issue for us. So 
I'm trying to understand where this might take us.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Let me just say at the outset I think it's important for 
all of us to know the context that there are huge swaths of the 
public estate that are out there that have been leased to oil 
and gas companies which simply are not being produced on the 
onshore itself. We have 41.2 million acres of land that we have 
leased much of which has been leased under my watch. Yet we 
only have 12.2 million acres that are actually producing on the 
onshore.
    In the offshore we have a total of 38 million acres of OCS 
that has been leased to get only 6.3 million acres that are 
actually in production. Now I recognize the fact that it takes 
time to go out and to do the seismic and the exploration and 
the development of these fields. The fee that is in the 
President's budget will be imposed in a way that we will work 
out the details of how exactly that will be imposed.
    But let me say this. On permits, especially, the ones that 
you speak about, the NPRA, we are working to try to see how we 
could move forward with that. The BLM had proposed the approval 
of a necessary bridge to allow the development of CD5. We are 
continuing to work on that to see how we can make that happen.
    As we have spoken as well it was our view that as we move 
forward with developing additional information so that we can 
look at how oil and gas might be developed safely in a smart 
way in the Arctic. We had prepared to move forward with the 
Shell permit. We will see how that moves forward as additional 
permits are required into the next season.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Secretary, I did not hear you say 
that there will not be fees imposed for non-producing leases if 
it is in fact our own Federal agencies that are prohibiting any 
production. In both of these cases it's EPA that has held us 
off at every turn. So I would certainly like the assurance that 
as long as there is the effort being made that we're not going 
to be penalized when it's the Federal Government that is 
holding us back.
    Secretary Salazar. Let me have either David or Pam maybe 
flush this out a little bit. But it seems to me the concept 
here is that we want diligence and the development of the 
public estate. OK?
    So the monetary fee will produce a kind of diligence that 
hopefully will move forward with additional development and 
production. I don't believe--and Pam, you don't have to write 
me a note. Just I'm going to ask you a question.
    [Laughter.]
    Secretary Salazar. But the question I think is whether the 
$4 fee per acre will be applied everywhere or how are we going 
to bifurcate between those areas that may be in the situation 
as the Bulford and the Chukchi are today verses other areas. I 
would expect Pam or David correct me on this if this is 
something that we would be working on with OMB and with the 
Congress to figure out exactly how we're going to do it.
    Senator Murkowski. I would suggest that $5 billion by Shell 
demonstrates a due diligence over a 5-year period. I would like 
to get some clarification on this if this advances. I'm well 
over my time but this is an extraordinarily important issue not 
only for us in Alaska, but throughout the country.
    Secretary Salazar. I agree with you. I mean, you know, the 
due diligence concepts on natural resource development are 
shredded in--are a part of the culture of the development of 
our natural resources and our water resources in this country. 
I do agree with you that there has been due diligence that has 
been shown there.
    Now how we're going to tease that out, Pam I want you to 
speak about that a little bit.
    Ms. Haze. Sure.
    Secretary Salazar. Or if David you have some comments on it 
as well.
    Ms. Haze. We're developing the draft legislation with OMB 
right now. So it's in the discussion stage with some words on 
paper.
    The intention is clearly to incentivize and not punish. So 
as the Secretary said, that's something we'll have discussions 
about and work with you on.
    The Chairman. Any other comment on this?
    Secretary Salazar. Do you have any comment on it?
    Mr. Hayes. Only comment, Mr. Chairman and Senator, is that 
a very large number of these acreage have no activity 
whatsoever. So the intent is only to incentivize either the 
beginning of some activity or and if not, provide a put it back 
so that others can bid on the leases who would be willing to go 
forward and do it. There's no intent to dis-incentivize those 
who are doing development work like Shell.
    Senator Murkowski. I understand that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman for the indulgence here.
    I think it will be critically important as we develop this 
though to recognize that things are not equal around the 
country. When you are exploring and producing in an Arctic 
region where by law we limit you to a season of 3 months it 
takes longer to produce on a lease in certain areas. I hope 
that those types of factors are considered as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good 
to have you and I remember when you sat next to me up here.
    Secretary Salazar. Down here. You were down here in those 
days. Look how far you've moved up.
    Senator Wyden. I remember it well. I remember it well.
    Secretary, as you know when the oil and gas companies drill 
on public lands they're required to pay royalties. Now this 
week the government auditors, the folks at the General 
Accounting Office, Inspector General, said there continue to be 
significant management problems with royalty collection. They 
said the government is still too dependent on oil industry 
data. It's not at all clear that taxpayers are getting what 
these companies owe. It may be a very substantial sum.
    In your view, how much money is out there that's owed and 
is not being collected? What's being done to finally turn this 
around? As you know this has gone on for a long, long time.
    But the government auditors said just a couple of days ago 
that there continue to be significant problems.
    So one, what's owed?
    Two, what's being done to finally get on top of this and 
get this program on track?
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Wyden. If I may, just 
a quick response on Senator Murkowski. We will work on the 
diligence issues with you and with your staff. I just wanted to 
make sure that we were closing the loop on that.
    On the collection issue, Senator Wyden, and what we do to 
collect revenues at the Department of the Interior. Let me 
first congratulate you and thank you for the focus that you had 
on MMS long before the Deep Water Horizon and trying to make 
sure that the American taxpayer was getting a fair return for 
the use of the American taxpayer's property. In part because of 
your suggestions and your work we have eliminated programs like 
the Royalty in Kind Program because of the conflict issues and 
other problems that were in that agency.
    As part of the reorganization of this part of the 
Department of Interior what we have done is we have created an 
Office of Natural Resource Revenue which is focused exclusively 
on that issue of revenue collections. So I expect that some of 
the--there are--we have made progress. I expect that some of 
the remaining issues with respect to the natural resource 
revenue we will be able to address.
    Let me ask David to comment on that since that's an 
operating issue as well.
    Senator Wyden. Specifically, Mr. Hayes, I mean this is a 
current analysis. I mean, these auditors saying are the 
problems are ongoing. They exist today. The agency is too 
dependent on industry data. It's not possible to determine what 
taxpayers are getting relative to what's owed.
    What's the status in terms of cleaning up those kinds of 
problems?
    Mr. Hayes. Senator, We are working very hard on that as we 
proceed. In fact we have management consultants who are in our 
offices in Lakewood in Colorado helping us to ensure that we 
have good systems in place. Probably most importantly as the 
Secretary identified, we're trying to look at systemic change 
that will reduce a reliance on industry supplied data.
    The Royalty in Kind program elimination is a good example 
of that. The other example that we are actively considering is 
to move away from the deduction for processing and 
transportation of oil in the royalty collection effort.
    Senator Wyden. Can you give me a ball park in terms of how 
much money it is that we're coming up short on? That's the 
concern.
    Mr. Hayes. Yes, we're working with the GAO on that. I know 
they testified yesterday. They indicated they're not sure of 
the amount. We're going to work with them. We'll work with you 
to share the information we can come up with.
    Senator Wyden. How soon can you get us that information? 
Can you get us that within a couple of weeks?
    Mr. Hayes. We'll certainly try.
    Senator Wyden. I mean the point is this is relevant to the 
budget.
    Mr. Hayes. Yes.
    Senator Wyden. I mean we're forced now to make these very, 
very difficult decisions and the estimates, as you know, range 
from billions to smaller amounts. So we need that information. 
Can I have it in 2 weeks?
    Secretary Salazar. Let me say you'll have it as soon as we 
can get it to you, Senator Wyden. It may be sooner than 2 
weeks.
    Senator Wyden. Good.
    Secretary Salazar. Let me just say the GAO, I think, in 
their testimony has said that we are--have been working closely 
with them to take their advice which frankly had not happened 
before. It's a major issue for us. I have directed the BLM to 
do a study that will provide us some of this additional 
information.
    I just asked them when that would be done. She says that 
the study that looks at the central question of whether or not 
the American taxpayer is getting a fair return on the resource 
that we're allowing to be developed that whether the 
collections are being done in the best way possible that that 
will be done in the fall. But I will give you an update within 
2 weeks, Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Very good.
    Let me ask you one other quick question. Did you know this 
committee put together the Timber Payments law, the County 
Payments bill? Under the program the Bureau of Land Management 
makes payments to Oregon's O and C counties. In the budget 
request there is no funding for the Timber Payments Program in 
the Bureau of Land Management budget.
    So we're trying to figure out exactly what's happened. I 
can see in your expression that you're puzzled too. But in 
effect the part of the program run by the Bureau of Land 
Management now seems to be shifted to the Forest Service. We're 
trying to explain how the money is actually going to get to 
these rural communities that are just on life support for all 
practical purposes.
    Ms. Haze, can you give us some direction on it? Because we 
can't figure out what portion of the County Payments Program is 
going to come from the Forest Service? What your role is going 
to be? Particularly where they're going to get the money they 
used to get from you all?
    Secretary Salazar. Senator Wyden, I'll have Pam comment on 
the split between Forest and BLM.
    Senator Wyden. Right. Good.
    Secretary Salazar. But according to Secretary Vilsack, the 
money in the President's budget for these payments is about 
$328 million. That's in the USDA Forest Service budget.
    As you know since my time here in the Senate it was an 
issue that I worked with you on. I was very concerned about. We 
continue to work with the rural communities in Oregon to see 
how we can pilot some of the timber harvesting efforts that I 
believe would be helpful for the economies of these rural 
communities.
    Let me ask Pam though to describe for you to the extent 
that we know at this point in time how the $328 million that 
will go through the Forest Service budget a part of which is to 
go through the BLM budget how that ultimately will impact the O 
and C counties.
    Pam.
    Ms. Haze. So the 2012 budget for the Forest Service 
includes as the Secretary said, $328 million to the first year 
of a 5-year re-authorization to come in behind the secure rural 
schools that's expiring. They put the full amount of funding in 
the Forest Service as opposed to splitting it between Forest 
Service and BLM. The budget says that the Administration is 
open to discussions with Congress about whether this should be 
a discretionary or mandatory appropriation.
    So at this point it's not viewed as a split in payments. 
It's all sitting in Forest Service.
    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll need to go 
over this with you further because we're still baffled about 
how the BLM funds are going to get out there. But I'm way over 
my time.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, good to 
see you again. Thank you for your visits to our State. Been 
there a number of times and of course, even some times when we 
had some serious flooding and you were there to help out. We 
appreciate that very much.
    One of the things I'd like to talk to you about for just a 
minute is the oil and gas development in Western North Dakota 
in the Williston Basin areas. This affects you directly through 
BLM lands that you have. It also affects you directly through 
the BIA because of the reservations we have. There is 
significant oil and gas development on the reservations which 
is tremendous benefit to the tribes as well as, you know, to 
our State and creates not only more energy but employment 
opportunities and revenue to the tribe.
    One of the things that we're working on right now though 
involves USGS which is under your purview. The Bakken Formation 
was originally identified as having about 2 billion barrels of 
oil recoverable under the USGS survey that was done. So I've 
been talking to Brenda Pierce about coming back and having the 
USGS do an updated survey with the North Dakota Geological 
Survey. We'd do it together with you jointly.
    I know that, you know, resources are tight and that there 
are many demands on USGS to do analyses around the country. But 
we have a unique situation in that we're looking at both at the 
Bakken Formation and the Three Forks Formation. The last study 
done, as I say, identified 2 billion plus recoverable barrels, 
far more that oil in plays.
    But some of the companies that are in there now producing a 
tremendous amount of oil. We'll produce an excess of 120 
million barrels of oil this year which is a significant benefit 
obviously to our country, feel that there's significantly more 
recoverable reserves there. So USGS coming back and working 
with the State of North Dakota to do an updated study would 
help bring resource development to that area.
    Not just oil companies because we have them in there. But 
some of the infrastructure development, some of the housing 
development, restaurants, all those kinds of things which not 
only off reservation but on reservation bring that private 
investment if people and companies understand that there's a 
significant level of recoverable reserves there. So I think it 
represents a great opportunity and should be a real priority 
for USGS.
    Brenda Pierce has been very good to work with but again 
this is a resource issue. But it has tremendous revenue 
potential for the tribes, for our State, for the Federal 
Government because these oil companies and the revenues that 
they generate. So I would ask one, I guess, if you're aware of 
it.
    Two, if you'd be willing to look into it and really lend 
your weight and your support to this effort. I think it's a 
real opportunity.
    Secretary Salazar. The answer to that, Senator Hoeven, is 
yes. We absolutely will. I will make sure. Ask David and Pam to 
help me follow up with Dr. McNutt and with Brenda.
    I know the potential in North Dakota. I have visited there. 
You are correct that there has been a lot of new geophysical 
information that has been developed. It seems it would be 
timely for us to do an update on the USGS study.
    You also are very correct in putting your finger on the 
possibility of bringing some economic development to oil and 
gas development production on tribal lands. I personally 
visited the Fort Berthold Reservation where frankly it was 
incredulous to me that in the past there was no oil and gas 
production there because it was taking so long and so many 
bureaucratic hoops at getting permits. So we developed a one 
stop shop permitting process at Fort Berthold and are working 
with the tribes to make sure that they are able to develop 
their resources. So it's a high priority within BIA.
    But you're right. You know the economy of your State. But 
there's huge potential there.
    Senator Hoeven. That help with BIA has been very important. 
We're going to need it going forward both for continued oil and 
gas development but also they're working on a refinery project. 
So we're going to need Department of Interior's help. So we 
appreciate that help. We're going to continue to need it.
    The other thing is touch on for just a minute. You talked 
about renewable energy development. Would you touch on that for 
just a minute in the remaining time?
    Secretary Salazar. We are working very hard on renewable 
energy projects that are located on public lands. Some that are 
located on private lands where there's a Federal nexus. Much of 
the activity has been focused in California because of Governor 
Schwarzenegger's leadership there and because of their legal 
structure and the potential of solar in the deserts of 
California and Nevada and Arizona.
    But we believe that there is strong potential in many other 
states on renewable energy. So as part of the conversation with 
the Western Governors just this last weekend we spoke about how 
we could expand those efforts beyond where the focus has been. 
I believe specifically that with North Dakota when you look at 
the key issue that we have with renewable energy in North 
Dakota we have the best wind in North Dakota but we have the 
constriction of transmission.
    So we have put together a team which includes Secretary Chu 
and Chairman Wellinghoff from FERC and other key people who are 
trying to look at the creation of what we call foundation lines 
that will help us deal with the transmission issue. I will note 
parenthetically that just in the last 2 years since I became 
Secretary we have permitted about 5,000 miles of transmission 
on public lands mostly in the West. I don't know that any of 
them involve North Dakota.
    But it's something that we're keenly aware of. Harnessing 
the power of the wind in North Dakota and being able to move 
that power down into consuming cities like Chicago is something 
that I know is of high priority to the President. It's a high 
priority to us.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Secretary. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Franken.
    Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'm pleased that Senator Hoeven 
asked you about development of energy projects in Indian 
country. That's something that as a member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee and of this committee that I'm obviously very 
interested in. We're of course right next to North Dakota and 
our wind is very good to and closer to Chicago.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Franken. So but not to sound too parochial. But I 
do want to get into some cuts in the Bureau of Reclamation 
budget, especially the $146 million cut in for water projects. 
This is a major issue in Southwestern Minnesota which is a 
rural part of my State that doesn't have enough water. It's 
killing economic development in the region.
    To help these communities as well as many in South Dakota 
and Iowa, Congress authorized the Lewis and Clark Water Project 
for $274 million back in 2000. Are you familiar with the 
project?
    Secretary Salazar. I am.
    Senator Franken. OK. The State and local communities in 
Minnesota have already paid their full share for this project. 
So it's my job to make sure the Federal share comes through.
    I know that the President shares my view that we need to 
invest in infrastructure projects to create jobs right now. 
That's exactly the type of project we need to do that. The 
$493,000 in this budget proposal is virtually nothing to move 
this forward.
    At this rate the project will literally never get done. I 
just do not believe that's fair to the communities that have 
put up their full share. Communities like Luverne or 
Worthington or any of the others who've paid their full share 
and are waiting for the Federal Government to pull its weight.
    You talked in your testimony about broken promises. This 
feels like, to me, like a broken promise to those states and 
those communities. When you're considering annual funding for 
rural water projects how does your prioritization account for 
whether or not the local funding share has already been paid if 
State and local share has been paid for all 7 rural water 
projects funded in the FY 2012 budget?
    Secretary Salazar. Senator Franken, let me just say that 
the Lewis and Clark project is a priority project for us. We 
want to figure out a way of moving it forward. You, I know, are 
aware that just from the Recovery Act funds I directed $59 
million plus just to go into advancing the Lewis and Clark 
project. I know it's not complete and we have a lot more work 
to do.
    Senator Franken. At this rate it will never get done. It 
just will never get done.
    Senator Franken. The 493, I don't know what it could do. It 
could probably maintain what's been built so far, maybe.
    Secretary Salazar. I think there are different components 
of the project that are moving forward. As I said at the 
beginning, you know, this is a tough choices kind of budget. 
There are a lot of places that are being hurt and impacted.
    I want to find a way in moving this project forward because 
I know the importance of that project. I know the fact, the 
importance of honoring the investments that have been made both 
by the locals as well as by the Federal Government in moving 
the project to where it's at today. So it's one of those things 
where we need to keep figuring out ways of moving forward.
    It relates in large part, I think, to the infrastructure 
needs that we have in the United States of America relative to 
our water supply projects because it's not just the Lewis and 
Clark diversion. I think in almost every place around the 
country you will find huge needs with respect to our 
infrastructure.
    Senator Franken. But I had a particular question. I don't 
know if maybe Mr. Hayes or Ms. Haze knows the answer to this. 
But have the State and local shares been paid for all 7 rural 
water projects funded in the FY 2012 budget?
    Secretary Salazar. I think for the Lewis and Clark, it has 
been paid. The local----
    Senator Franken. Yes, that was my point.
    Secretary Salazar. The local share has been paid.
    Senator Franken. That's my point. In other words what are 
local communities to think if they hold up their end of the 
bargain on a water project or any other project and then they 
start to build it and all the building starts? I mean this 
feels like a waste of money if you start something and then 
it's not funded.
    The Federal Government doesn't hold up its end.
    Secretary Salazar. Let me tell you, we, if I had my way, we 
would be fully funding it and I mean, done it. OK?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Franken. OK.
    Secretary Salazar. The question here is the budget and 
there are specifics probably with the Lewis and Clark project 
and let me ask either the Deputy Secretary or the----
    Senator Franken. Maybe we can do that later, right? I mean?
    Secretary Salazar. If that is your wish where they would?
    Senator Franken. Do you have an answer? Oh, you do? OK. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Haze.
    Ms. Haze. Yes, sir. In allocating the money across the 
projects that are in the budget what the Bureau of Reclamation 
uses to prioritize and where they focus the resources is based 
on 3 things.
    The first is operations and maintenance is a first 
priority. So as you were saying if there's an operation, 
ongoing operation need that gets a high priority as opposed to 
construction which would be a lower priority.
    Based on Federal law and to protect the Federal investment 
already made.
    Then the third is on reservation and off reservation 
populations.
    Then fourth the percentage of project completed.
    So they use those 4 factors to look at the rural water 
projects.
    Senator Franken. OK, I thought--that doesn't answer my 
question.
    Ms. Haze. About whether they consider the investment made?
    Senator Franken. No, I asked have State and local shares 
been paid for all 7 rural water projects funded in the FY 2012 
budget?
    If you have to get back to me on that, it's fine.
    Secretary Salazar. Yes, let me do----
    Senator Franken. But that was my question.
    Secretary Salazar. Yes, Senator Franken, let me get back to 
you on the specific information on the 7 projects. My 
understanding is that the Lewis and Clark part has been paid 
the local share. But let me get back to you.
    Senator Franken. Yes, I know that we've paid.
    Secretary Salazar. They will have--I will have Commissioner 
Connor also just provide you an update on where we are on Lewis 
and Clark and how it is that----
    Senator Franken. I'm glad that you said that if it was up 
to you it would be fully funded. We'll see what we can do about 
getting things more up to you.
    Secretary Salazar. We would appreciate it.
    Senator Franken. Yes, I'll talk to some people.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Why don't we take a short recess?
    Let me just advise that Senator Landrieu is chairing 
another committee and has asked if she could come when we 
reconvene and ask her 5 minutes of questions. I've told her to 
plan to do that so she could come back here fairly quickly and 
start the hearing again in my absence. But we will startup as 
quickly as we can get back after the vote.
    [Recess.]
    Senator Landrieu [presiding]. The meeting will come back to 
order. I thank everyone for joining us. The chairman will be 
back shortly as we're in the middle of a vote. Some of the 
members are here so we're going to continue our line of 
questioning.
    I thank Senator Bingaman for allowing me to take my time 
now. I've been chairing a Homeland Security Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Secretary, all morning and was just not able to 
slip in here earlier to greet you. But I thank you for being 
before the Energy Committee this morning.
    I want to get right to the issue of the day for Louisiana 
and the Gulf Coast which is the permitting process in the Gulf 
of Mexico. As you are keenly aware although the accident of the 
Deep Water Horizon didn't have anything really to do with 
shallow water drillers it was in deep water. It was the first 
such explosion in over 40 years.
    The shallow water permitting process has been severely 
impacted. Just to give you the numbers.
    In 2009 there were 16 shallow water permits issued in 
January.
    In 2012--I'm sorry in 2010, there were 12.
    This January that we just passed there were 2 shallow water 
permits that were not the cause nor were they close to the 
accident in the deep water. The technology is exceedingly 
different.
    So my first question will be about shallow water.
    My second will be about deep water.
    But Mr. Secretary, what are you specifically doing to get 
these permits increased so our people can get back to work? As 
I said when I greeted you I wished that you had brought some in 
your pocket this morning. But go ahead.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu.
    I believe that I have probably been to Louisiana as much as 
I have been to any other State in large part because of our 
need to deal with issues of oil and gas in the Gulf. As well to 
deal with the restoration of the Gulf of Mexico and the 
programs that you care so much about. So I look very much 
forward to continuing to work with you on the whole set of 
panoply of issues in the Gulf of Mexico where we respect the 
permits near the cathartic experience of April 20th required us 
to make sure that we are moving forward to stand up an agency 
that would be robust. Would be able to do the right job in 
terms of protecting the environment and protecting people and 
allow oil and gas exploration to move forward.
    Would say very quickly our policy is clear. That is that we 
support exploration and development in both the shallow waters 
and in the deep waters. We have moved forward to develop the 
kinds of standards that will allow us to meet our safety and 
environmental objectives as well.
    In the shallow water the last number that I saw and I'll 
have David talk just a little bit about numbers, is that we 
have issued 37 well permits for the shallow water. I think 
there are a number that are pending in the deep water. As I 
know we communicated to your office on Monday we issued the 
first deep water permit.
    Let me have David give a little more texture though as to 
the pathway forward on permits because I know that's a key 
issue for you.
    Senator Landrieu. You can be as specific as possible and as 
brief as possible.
    Mr. Hayes. Yes, Senator, on both scores. On the shallow 
water we have received 47 applications since the moratorium. 37 
of the 47 have already been approved. Seven are pending. So we 
are continuing to process those on a regularized basis.
    Then on the deep water----
    Senator Landrieu. Is that for shallow or deep?
    Mr. Hayes. That's for shallow. So 47 received. 37 already 
approved. Seven pending. So I believe that 3 have been sent 
back for more information.
    Then on deep water we've received 18 permits. 12 were 
returned for more information. We've already approved one on 
Monday. We expect now that the containment system is available 
to be approving more.
    Senator Landrieu. OK. But another to say that and this is 
my last question because I've got to leave or comment. 18 deep 
water have been applied for. 12 have been returned. One has 
been issued.
    So I add 18 plus 12 is 30. So 30 are trying to get 
operational again. You all have issued one.
    So when applications are returned what I'm hearing, Mr. 
Secretary, from the industry is they're returning them to us 
because we're not sure of the requirements that they are 
requesting of us. I know the containment was an issue. That's 
being fixed with the Helix system and the larger system. So 
that is one area.
    But what I'm still hearing from the industry is there's 
uncertainty. They're still, you know, getting mixed signals 
from the office down in the Gulf as well as from up here. So 
I'm going to crunch these numbers, you know, again, with you.
    But for the deep water permits we've issued one. But there 
are other applications pending. For shallow water just because 
they're returned, you know, doesn't mean that they're not 
intent upon drilling.
    Again, I'll just go back to just the shallow water numbers. 
Again, in January 2009 there were 16 shallow water permits 
operating. Then the next year there were 12 were issued. This 
January it was 2.
    We're so far off the historic level. We've got to get it 
back up as quickly as possible. I just urge you to continue to 
do everything that you can to do so.
    Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Salazar. I think the numbers just, if I may, 
Senator Landrieu, I think David--the numbers I think are--
repeat the numbers so we make that we're all----
    Senator Landrieu. It will be clear what we have.
    Mr. Hayes. Just to be clear, Senator. It's not a total of 
18 and 12. There have only been 18 applications filed.
    Senator Landrieu. OK.
    Mr. Hayes. Twelve of those 18 were returned.
    Senator Landrieu. Twelve returned. OK, so it's 18 that are 
pending and one, not 30, but 18 deep water either pending or 
trying to get to the point----
    Mr. Hayes. Right.
    Senator Landrieu. Where they can be examined and one 
issued.
    Mr. Hayes. Until literally last week there was no 
containment capability being shown by any of the permit 
applicants. Now that is in place for on a well by well basis. 
So we're very pleased to be able to move forward and begin 
granting permits once again.
    Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, just one more question.
    That's again on a well by well basis. Some of these wells 
are very similar in the sense of their volume that they're 
trying to produce. We know what these containment capabilities 
are now.
    I understand you've got to look at each individual permit 
and each individual well drilling plan. But if this equipment 
is sufficient you could say a more positive statement about we 
anticipate that if you're using the Helix system or you're 
using the well containment system, we anticipate no problem 
with your application. As opposed to the comments well, even 
though the containment systems are there we're still going to 
take it well by well.
    I mean some of it is just language in terms of leaning 
forward so the industry gets some more positive signals. I 
would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you would take that in the 
spirit of constructive criticism. I hope that we can be a 
little bit more positive so that the industry gets some more 
positive signals from you all in the near future.
    Secretary Salazar. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Sure.
    Secretary Salazar. A response to Senator Landrieu because 
this is a huge issue for the country that obviously goes beyond 
Louisiana and the Gulf. We are doing everything we can to stand 
up the oil and gas production capability that we have in the 
Gulf of Mexico. But I will also tell you that given the lack of 
preparedness on the part of industry and the consequence of the 
Maconda well which was a nightmare that you and many people in 
this country lived through.
    It's important that we get it right going forward. You 
know, I spent all of my Friday in Houston taking a look at the 
2 containment systems NWCC and the Helix containment system. It 
is no secret, I mean, there may be those who would go out and--
it is no secret that there is still a lot of work to be done.
    There may be some who would go out and cheerlead and say we 
have the latest and greatest and it will deal completely with 
the problem. It is not the case. There's still significant 
amount of work to be done with the NWCC system, a second 
chapter that is going to take a year or 2 to be able to 
develop.
    With respect to the Helix system those the ceiling cap 
itself was just tested in the last couple of weeks. So we have 
been doing everything that we can knowing that it's going to be 
a work in progress. But I think what should be unmistakably 
clear is that the policy that we have in this Administration is 
to support oil and gas drilling both in the shallow waters as 
well as in the deep waters. We just want to make sure that it's 
done right and in an environmentally safe way.
    We recognize the importance of the production of oil as 
well as jobs. Very interestingly even in the last since the 
Maconda well, we continue to produce, very robustly, from the 
Gulf of Mexico. In fact the production has not been interrupted 
because of the actions that we've had to take since April 20.
    Senator Landrieu. But the jobs have. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Secretary, welcome back to the committee. It's always good to 
see you.
    A little earlier, Mr. Chair--Mr. Secretary, you mentioned 
something about the importance of putting things into context. 
Associated Press headline Monday of this week was ``High Gas 
Prices Rattle Drivers and Businesses.'' That's the context.
    Oil topped $100 a barrel last week. Oil prices have been 
heading this way for months and just last week a USA Today 
headline, ``If Unrest Spreads Gas May Hit Five Dollars a 
Gallon.'' They're talking about this summer.
    That's what I hear about at home. It's what I heard about 
at home in Wyoming this past weekend. It seems to me though 
that this Administration has put a virtual freeze on offshore 
drilling.
    The Department of Energy estimates that the domestic 
production will decrease at least 13 percent because of the 
shut down. Costly regulations are making all forms of energy 
more expensive. In the State of the Union, the President said 
he supported an all of the above energy strategy.
    Unfortunately the policies that I see coming out of the 
Administration don't always match the words that are being 
spoken. I think when it comes to the Energy Policy this 
Administration is picking winners. It's picking losers and has 
cutoffshore production.
    Recently announced it was slow progress on oil shale even 
though the Western United States has the largest known oil 
shale deposits in the world. The Office of Surface Mining has 
proposed coal mining regulations are going to jeopardize 
thousands of jobs. The Department's Wild Lands Policy which you 
discussed a little earlier will further block energy production 
on public lands.
    The President recently said I'll go anywhere, anytime to be 
a booster for American businesses, American workers and 
American products. So the question is, in your opinion, does 
domestic energy development boost American business, American 
workers and American products?
    Secretary Salazar. The answer to that is, Senator Barrasso, 
yes, indeed. That's been the policy that this Administration 
has followed. I think when you look at any of the statistics 
which I could cite to you. But let me just cite a couple to 
you.
    In 2010, the issuance of 5,237 APDs onshore.
    In 2011, we expect to issue even more than that. The 
projection is that we'll have 7,250 permits that are issued.
    We have 41 million acres of the public estate that are 
leased out offshore for oil and gas leasing.
    In the offshore we have 38 million acres. We are hopeful 
that we'll be able to move forward with a new lease sale in the 
Gulf of Mexico this year.
    The efforts that we have put into developing a robust 
energy program in the oceans of America is central to this 
budget. So we need your support, Senator Barrasso and that of 
Congress in order to make sure that we have a robust Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management which is one of the key issues that we 
addressed earlier on in the hearing.
    Senator Barrasso. Because in October 2010 the 
Administration issued new offshore drilling regulations. I have 
the Federal register here with the--from the Department of 
Interior. In justifying the new rules and its impact on 
American production, this is what your Department said. This is 
October 14.
    The impact on domestic deep water hydro carbon production 
as a result of these regulations is expected to be negative.'' 
Expected to be negative. They go on in the same page. 
``Currently there is sufficient spare capacity in OPEC to 
offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deep water production that 
could occur as a result of this rule.''
    I guess the question is do you still agree with that 
statement made by the Department? Don't worry about domestic 
oil production. We can just get more from OPEC because that's 
what the Department said in October?
    Secretary Salazar. Let me just say that our expectation on 
our conclusion is that we do not produce enough oil and gas--
oil. Gas is a different subject. Oil in this country to 
influence the price of oil because it's set on the world 
markets, OK?
    So what we do here in terms of production is not going to 
influence the price of oil. The amount, for example, from Libya 
at 2 percent which I think is what is disrupted here. There are 
other ways in which that may be handled another issue that 
are--alternatives that are being looked at.
    But in terms of the Gulf of Mexico and production we 
continue to have a robust production as we did this last year. 
We expect to continue to have a robust production in 2011 as 
well.
    Senator Barrasso. I would hope that the Department would 
consider what another run up in oil prices would do to any sort 
of an economic recovery and make additional opportunities 
available for production in the United States. Because I just 
have a lot of concerns when I see the Department of Interior 
with a statement, ``Currently there's sufficient spare capacity 
in OPEC to offset a decrease in Gulf of Mexico deep water 
production that could occur as a result of this rule,'' a rule 
written by the Administration. Those are American jobs, 
American families, American businesses that are being impacted, 
jobs that are then just going overseas.
    Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Last year when the 
Secretary testified on the President's budget, March 3, the 
committee didn't actually receive responses to the questions 
submitted for the record until October 19, 7 months later. I 
think this lack of responsiveness is something that is not 
right.
    I'm going to be submitting questions for the record today. 
I hope I can get your commitment, Mr. Secretary, that the 
Department will be able to get back with a much more timely 
response.
    Secretary Salazar. We will work on them and get back to you 
as soon as we can, Senator Barrasso. As you know my phone is 
always available to you to call me on any of these questions. 
We have a lot of work to do in the Department.
    Standing up the new agency at the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, looking at these oil spill containment issues and 
in every one of the states there are huge issues which we spend 
a lot of time on whether it's in the State of Alaska or the 
State of Wyoming or the State of Utah. But we will attempt to 
get you the information that you asked.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Secretary Salazar, thank you for your 
testimony today. As a fellow Westerner I welcome you to the 
committee.
    As you know two-thirds of my State, the State of Utah is 
owned by the Federal Government. The overwhelming majority of 
that, 42 percent of all the land in Utah is owned and managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management. So we clearly have a lot of 
work to do together.
    There are many areas of the Department's budget that 
potentially affect my State. I think there is certainly no 
institution anywhere that has a more profound impact or even as 
profound an impact on my State, on its economy, on its 
citizens, on businesses and on people engaging in recreational 
activities in my State than the U.S. Department of Interior. So 
this is of most importance to us.
    The U.S. Department of the Interior has never possessed the 
power to designate wilderness. That power has always been 
reserved and is always exercised exclusively by Congress. In 
your correspondence with my predecessor, Senator Bennett, you 
acknowledged in a letter written in May 2009 that Interior's 
authority pursuant to section 603 of FLTMA to identify lands 
for wilderness characteristics and make recommendations to 
Congress about possible wilderness designation of those lands 
expired in 1993.
    I'd like to ask you to state clearly what the distinction 
is between the FLTMA authority under section 603 that expired 
in 1993 and your authority that you have now given yourself 
under your Wild Lands Policy. How does your Wild Lands Policy 
and what it does? What it does as far as setting aside land 
effectively for management for its wilderness characteristics? 
How does that differ from designating something under section 
603?
    Secretary Salazar. First, let me say, Senator Lee, 
congratulations on your election. I look forward to working 
with you as you serve here in the U.S. Senate on the issues 
relating to Utah and this country.
    We recognize the importance of the public estate and the 
involvement of the Department of Interior on so many features 
of your State. I think the economic contributions from Zion and 
our National Parks as well as energy development both 
conventional as well as renewable are huge economic 
contributors to your State. We work closely with your Governor 
and we work closely with others on making sure that we have the 
right kind of partnership.
    With respect to the wild lands issues which use raise. 
There is authority, in my view, conclusive authority in 
sections 201 and 202 of FLTMA to manage the public estate for 
multiple purposes including conservation. So the Secretarial 
order that I issued recognizes that. That conservation and 
lands with wilderness characteristics are part of that 
responsibility which I have as Secretary of Interior.
    So I recognize that No. 1, that in terms of the designation 
of a wilderness area that that is a Congressional authority and 
not an authority that I have as Secretary of Interior or the 
BLM has. So I recognize that.
    No. 2, I also recognize that our order, the order which I 
signed, doesn't set aside a single acre of lands with 
wilderness characteristics. What we will do is to work with the 
states and local communities in terms of the resource 
management plans to address those areas where there may be 
agreement with respect to how we take care of these places that 
need to be protected for their conservation purposes----
    Senator Lee. But how will the management of those lands 
differ from wilderness areas? In other words, will in practical 
affect if you designate something as wild lands?
    Secretary Salazar. In practical affect if you read the 
order and Senator Lee, knowing your legal acumen, you probably 
have read the order several times.
    First, there's certainly a recognition there of honoring 
existing rights.
    Second of all there is also the multiple use concept that 
is included in several of the sentences of the order that say 
even if lands are designated for wilderness characteristics 
that if the other multiple use purposes for which BLM must 
manage its lands under FLTMA, take precedence. That will be a 
use that will be allowed. So it will have a different 
management regime than lands that have been designated as 
wilderness by Congress.
    Senator Lee. But this still will differ than how the lands 
would be managed in the absence of the policy, correct?
    Secretary Salazar. In the absence of the policy there will 
be a difference as a result of the resource management plan so 
that we make sure that the conservation values are at the table 
in the same way that oil and gas development is at the table or 
other uses of the public estate.
    Senator Lee. What about the fact that over the last 10 
years or so we've had counties and State government officials 
throughout my State, throughout Utah, who have worked really 
hard on resource management plans and on laws of negotiations 
that go along in the development of resource management plans? 
We've also got a number of counties that have worked with 
officials from BLM. That have worked with people from the 
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other environmental 
interest groups to develop comprehensive land use management 
bills that have gone forward like what we had from Washington 
County.
    What do I say to the State and local government officials 
in Utah who now fear that the negotiation, the effort that they 
put into that, is now placed in jeopardy? That they can't rely 
on that. What do I tell them?
    Secretary Salazar. We will go through the regular resource 
management plans. I'm going to have David, because he went to 
Vernal, Utah to meet with about 800 of your constituents within 
the last year respond in part to how we will incorporate the 
resource management plans that have been developed in 
connection with the new policy.
    Deputy Secretary.
    Mr. Hayes. Senator, the whole point of the wild lands 
policy is to use that public process that you're talking about, 
the R and P process to identify lands that will be managed for 
wilderness characteristics. Primary difference between this and 
603 is that it can be changed. That's the whole concept of R 
and Ps is that they can be changed.
    What happened in your State, as you well know, is that 
there were inventories done for wilderness characteristics but 
the R and Ps for the 3 major R and Ps in the East, Eastern 
Utah, did not identify, provide guidance at all to BLM or to 
lessees about whether the fact that there were these lands with 
wilderness characteristics should have any impact at all on 
leasing decisions. We think that's not right.
    That R and P process should provide some guidance to 
lessees and to the public about how those lands will be 
managed. If in the future or in connection with this process 
some lands with wilderness characteristics should not be kept 
that way, that can be part of the process as well. There's no 
prejudging going on here.
    Senator Lee. But my understanding is that those R and Ps, 
let's take the fertile R and P for example. It identified 
certain lands as suitable for leasing and others as not.
    Mr. Hayes. It identified virtually everything as suitable 
for leasing. The amount of land in the Vernal R and P, the 
other 2 R and Ps, I think it was a very, very small percentage 
of the lands with wilderness characteristics.
    Senator Lee. But it did identify some?
    Mr. Hayes. Yes, it did.
    Senator Lee. Those were not identified as suitable for 
leasing.
    Mr. Hayes. That is correct.
    Senator Lee. So this is an effort to undo that.
    Mr. Hayes. No. It's an effort to raise the question to talk 
about--to provide some guidance to everybody as to the areas 
that have wilderness characteristics that for which there's no 
guidance to anyone as to whether specific leases will be 
honored or not. We want to provide more guidance.
    Because what has happened, as you know in Utah, is that 
some of those area's leases have come in. They've all been 
protested. So the whole system has been gummed up by litigation 
because the environmental groups have expressed concern about 
putting leases in areas where there's no infrastructure, where 
there are wilderness characteristic, etcetera. We think there 
should be more clarity to the process.
    Senator Lee. OK. The fact that they've been protested, the 
fact that they've been litigated doesn't mean that there wasn't 
an analysis undertaken. The fact that there was less land than 
you would like to have been designated as not suitable for 
leasing doesn't mean the question wasn't asked and answered 
during this protracted process.
    So you haven't really answered my question as to what I'm 
supposed to tell these local government authorities. But I see 
my time is far expired. I'll submit the remainder of my 
questions in writing.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Portman.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. I'm sorry 
that I couldn't have been here earlier, Senator and Secretary 
Salazar to hear your comments. As you know we're asked to be 
sometimes several places at once.
    You must like that about your new job. You kind of know 
where you're supposed to be and you can be there.
    Secretary Salazar. I remember when you were on this side of 
the dais.
    Senator Portman. Yes. It's actually a lot nicer on this 
side in some respects.
    [Laughter.]
    Secretary Salazar. It's a little bit higher, see?
    Senator Portman. Yes. I think that's on purpose.
    I'm sure this question has come up already in the hearing. 
But as you can imagine one of my questions is one that I would 
guess the chairman and ranking member have already asked you 
about which is the leasing, Outer Continental Shelf leasing and 
specifically the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico and the deep 
water permits. I understand one has now been granted.
    But the moratorium is now, what, 10 months old. My 
understanding from press reports I've seen is that a number of 
rigs have left the Gulf making it very difficult for us to 
resume what is a more and more important issue for us as energy 
prices are going up and foreign oil is becoming even more 
expensive. My understanding is that we're looking at the 
possibility of 100 dollar a barrel coming up or nearing it now. 
If you look at the amount of oil that could be produced the 
moratorium is probably costing the United States 200,000 
barrels of new supply and maybe up to 600 to 800,000 barrels 
per day at the last for a couple of years.
    These rigs have gone to Africa. They've gone to Latin 
America and elsewhere. It's tough for them to come back.
    So can you tell me, again you may have had to answer this 
question already today? What specifically is your plan as 
Secretary of the Interior, as you know you have the lead on 
this, not the Secretary of Energy or others? How much longer do 
we intend to keep these policies in place and how quickly can 
we get oil production back?
    Secretary Salazar. Senator Portman, I very much appreciate 
the question. Congratulate you also on your election here to 
the U.S. Senate.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Secretary.
    Secretary Salazar. Let me first say that there is a myth 
about the exodus of rigs from the Gulf of Mexico because 
frankly if you do a count of the rigs that are in the Gulf of 
Mexico now. The number has actually gone up. Including 
companies that have told me that they're moving their rigs from 
other places into the Gulf of Mexico because they view that 
that is a place where there is significant resource and that we 
are moving forward with the policy that encourages development 
in the oceans of America including in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Second, with respect to the so called moratorium. The 
moratorium was lifted back at the end of last year. I believe 
in the month of October. What was not ready at the time and 
still is in the process of getting ready is the oil spill 
containment capability. So that if you have another blow out 
like the Maconda well at 50,000 barrels a day, that they'll be 
the capacity to come and to shut that oil spill down in a quick 
fashion. That the response capabilities are there.
    I was in Houston on Friday meeting with both the Helix 
containment system officials as well as with the Marine Well 
Containment Corporation officials. Frankly, while components of 
that program have been built so that at least with respect to 
one of the systems we were able to issue one of the permits 
that was dependent on that oil spill containment program, 
there's still other chapters that they are working on to get 
those systems in a better position. But there are key 
questions.
    I, at the end of the day, Senator Portman, have the 
responsibility to make sure that we have safe oil and gas 
production. So while I agree with the policy that I know you 
advocate and Senator Murkowski, Senator Bingaman as well, that 
we develop these oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico. I 
ultimately have the responsibility to make sure that it's done 
in a safe way. That is where Michael Bromwich and David Hayes 
and a number of other people have been working with me to make 
sure that it happens.
    The first deep water permit issued I expect that that will 
become a template. There are others that will be issued in the 
days ahead that will become a template for additional deep 
water permits to be issued.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Secretary. It might be helpful 
for the committee to get the correct information on the rigs 
and that's such an important component here because the press 
account certainly indicates there has been significant 
movement. That's why I mentioned the 2-year figure because some 
have said it would take that much time for some of this 
infrastructure to return.
    Second, I think on behalf of a lot of members of this 
committee, we do believe that given the turmoil in the Mid East 
and just given our energy issues that we had prior to that in 
terms of our dependency on foreign oil that this is a critical 
part of at least a transition strategy to get us to an energy 
policy that makes sense.
    So I thank you for your answer today. Look forward to 
follow up, and I appreciate your being before the committee.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Portman and if I may 
just add one more thing.
    I think there is a sense among some people that production 
in the Gulf of Mexico essentially was brought to a standstill 
at the time of the Maconda well explosion. Even during the 
spill we continued to produce significant amounts of oil and 
gas from the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, I believe that we are 
currently producing 50 million barrels of oil a month which is 
essentially the equivalent of what have been the all time highs 
of production of oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico.
    So the policy which I think is one that we can agree on is 
that we are moving forward with the development of oil and gas 
resources as part of the broad energy portfolio which the 
President spoke about in the State of the Union.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 
happy birthday.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Coons. Welcome. Senator Carper specifically urged 
me to convey to you his birthday wishes today. As you know we 
in Delaware are very interested in team play.
    This has been an engaging committee hearing today, and I am 
grateful for the hard work you're doing. A lot of the 
discussion today is focused on oil and gas leasing.
    Understandably it's a central concern for our Nation and 
for your Department. But I'd like to focus a little if I could 
on offshore wind. I was pleased to see that the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund get full funding. I was interested in the 
Rivers and Trails program in the Park Service. But I want to 
focus our conversation today about offshore wind.
    I was pleased to be able to join you last November for the 
announcement of the Smart from the Start initiative. Glad to 
see that initiative continuing to move forward. To see in your 
budget that Delaware gets another, I think, nearly $2 million 
increase in funding for renewable energy development.
    I just want to make sure that as we're moving toward, 
hopefully, permitting and transmission line for offshore wind 
off the whole region and permitting for the Delaware offshore 
wind site that you've got all the resources and all the focus 
that you need. Wanted to make sure if there was anything else 
we could be doing to encourage that rapid progress to develop a 
U.S. based renewable energy source that I had a chance to ask 
of you what else could we be doing to support and sustain this 
effort by your Department?
    Secretary Salazar. Senator Coons, thank you for the 
question. Congratulations on your election as well to the U.S. 
Senate and I very much look forward to working with you on 
Delaware issues including offshore wind and the last remaining 
State without a national park. So hopefully we'll be able to 
work on those issues together.
    On offshore wind let me just say that on the Atlantic I 
think that is one of the most significant opportunities that we 
have as a Nation because of the grid capacity and our ability 
to hitch into the grid without having to go through the 
constriction of transmission that sometimes we have on the 
onshore as well as the quality of the winds. What we have done 
is launched a Smart from the Start project on the Atlantic 
because of the potential there. I'm going to ask David to speak 
some about that because he's been leading with them in the 
Department how exactly we're going to get it done.
    My goal is to make sure that when we look back at these 
times 20 years from now one of the things that we will see is a 
robust offshore wind electrical production that is capable of 
powering a significant amount of our Nation's power needs along 
the Eastern Gulf.
    David.
    Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator and thank you for joining us 
in Baltimore for the event in November. We are proceeding. I 
think we have the support we need. We do need the additional 
resources to keep it going.
    What we're doing, as you know, is we've identified a wind 
energy areas off the coast that look like they are the most 
promising for development. We're now in the process of 
preemptively bringing together all of the Federal family to 
pull together data that will be relevant to potential leasing 
out there. We will then have lease sales as early as the end of 
this year where the prospective bidders will have detailed 
information from the Department of Defense, from NOAA, from 
Interior, from Transportation and all the equities so that they 
will have a better base of knowledge to make sound leasing 
decisions in.
    We believe this will concentrate the development in areas 
that make the most sense off the coast. Also potentially 
facilitate an offshore transmission line. So we are proceeding.
    It's really an unprecedented effort. I will say that the 
support of other agencies in working with us is going to be 
critical here. So we appreciate the chance to continue to work 
with you on this.
    Senator Coons. I would appreciate if you'd let me and 
others who are interested know if there are challenges in terms 
of your working with other agencies because it is, in my view, 
critical that we appropriately streamline the permitting and 
review process here. The University of Delaware is also 
standing up a research facility to provide some of that data on 
wind and waves and conditions and so forth which I hope you'll 
be collaborating with because I think they bring additional 
resources to the table.
    Are there any major barriers that you see to the deployment 
of the offshore transmission line? What do you see as the 
possible timeline for reviewing permitting on that project?
    Mr. Hayes. Senator, I think the ball is in FERC's court on 
that in terms of the offshore lines. We are prepared to process 
an application as soon as it comes in.
    Senator Coons. Tremendous. Thank you, Secretary.
    Secretary Salazar. Let me add a comment to that, Senator 
Coons because I know that when you look at the Atlantic and the 
fact that we control those submerged lands as one United States 
of America creates a great opportunity for us to build 
transmission that then we can connect up to the grid of the 
major consumers of electricity along the Atlantic coast. So 
there are a number of proposals out there. Some of them look 
very promising with significant capital from the private 
sector.
    We have looked at this issue of transmission with 
interdepartmental effort and meetings with Secretary Chu, 
Secretary Vilsack because of the onshore Forest Service world 
as well as Commissioner Wellinghoff from FERC to make sure that 
we are being as helpful as we can to deal with the transmission 
issues. So they're promising projects that are out there. There 
are projects out there that have significant capital behind 
them.
    So it is something which is, I would say, if you talk about 
5 highest priorities within the Department of Interior in the 
renewable energy world, this is one of the very highest.
    Senator Coons. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your 
response. Thank you for your sustained leadership on this 
important issue. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski, did you have additional questions?
    Senator Murkowski. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. This is 
always an easy one, Secretary. This is about ANWR.
    Last week, you unveiled your vision plan on the wildlife 
refuge systems. We look forward to commenting on that.
    But ANWR has the wildlife refuge up north. As you know 
we've gone through the public hearing process that you have 
started to gain ideas for what plans should be considered. 
There has been considerable opposition, from what I understand, 
in terms of comments that have been submitted, to a proposal 
for additional wilderness in the Arctic Coastal Plain area.
    We've had a lot of discussion today about wilderness, the 
Wild Lands policy. You have repeated numerous times here that 
it's Congress' job to designate wilderness area. The question 
that I have for you and the direction that the Department is 
undertaking with this new ANWR plan is pretty basic: is the 
Department considering wilderness studies or proposed 
wilderness classifications for the Coastal Plain of ANWR?
    Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we are currently in 
the process of doing the review on the Alaska National Wildlife 
Refuge. The schedule is at there will be a draft EIS scheduled 
for public release in the late spring of 2011 with a record of 
decision expected in 2012. We will, as we move forward, keep 
you and your staff apprised of what is in those documents and 
make sure that we're working closely with you.
    Senator Murkowski. I hear your statement. But there are 
many of us who feel very strongly that with the provisions that 
were outlined in the 1980 ANILCA Law where we have the ``no 
more'' clause. We feel pretty strongly that when it says no 
more wilderness, there will be no more wilderness. More 
specifically in that area designated as the Sec. 1002 area of 
the Arctic Coastal Plain.
    So there's a lot of folks back home that are looking and 
saying, well, we can figure out some areas to reduce the budget 
within Interior. They don't need to be spending money to do a 
wilderness review or a wilderness plan when it's very clear 
that there should be no more wilderness allowed, most 
specifically in the Sec. 1002 area. I'm hopeful that the 
comments that you've heard from Alaskans on this will be 
respected.
    I think we recognize that we have some great opportunities 
up north anywhere between 6 billion and close to 20 billion 
barrels of recoverable oil in that Sec. 1002 area. I would like 
to think that, at a time when there's great uncertainty in the 
Middle East, and great uncertainty as to how we are going to 
deal with--it is truly an ``oil addiction,'' we'll use 
President Bush's words--that we can do more domestically.
    I think we recognize that we have opportunities up north. 
We've had a chance to talk about them whether they're offshore, 
whether they're NPRA or whether they are ANWR which quite 
honestly is the most lucrative opportunity for us. But we need 
that permission from Congress in order to access it.
    Putting ANWR in permanent wilderness status would put those 
resources and those reserves offline for all of America. I 
would hope that the Department would not move forward in this 
direction. So I just wanted to make sure that my message to you 
was clear from Alaskans on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Secretary for 
being here today.
    Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    The Chairman. Senator Portman, did you have additional 
questions?
    Let me just indicate for the record that if there are 
questions that people would want to submit to the Secretary 
those should be submitted by the close of business tomorrow, 
Thursday, March 3.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. We 
appreciate your candid, constructive testimony. We will 
conclude the hearing with that.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
                                APPENDIX

                   Responses to Additional Questions

                              ----------                              

    Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Bingaman
          office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement
    Question 1. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
Amendments of 2006 provide for the repayment of unappropriated state 
and tribal share balances over seven years. Please provide a chart 
showing the expected annual payments of unappropriated balances to each 
state and tribe under these provisions.
    Answer. The following chart provides the requested information.

                                      SCHEDULE FOR TITLE IV PRIOR BALANCE REPLACEMENT FUND DISTRIBUTION  3/24/2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total State/Tribal
                                   Share Balance to
                                     Distribute as    Total Distributed as of   Projected Distribution   Projected Distribution   Projected Distribution
           State/Tribe               Prior Balance        March 1st, 2011           Year 5 FY 2012           Year 6 FY 2013           Year 7 FY 2014
                                         Funds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama                                20,392,584.98            11,652,904.00             2,913,226.00             2,913,226.00             2,913,228.98
Alaska                                  2,262,651.79             1,292,944.00               323,236.00               323,236.00               323,235.79
Arkansas                                   64,924.73                37,100.00                 9,275.00                 9,275.00                 9,274.73
Colorado                               29,824,085.60            17,042,336.00             4,260,584.00             4,260,584.00             4,260,581.59
Illinois                               31,337,587.81            17,907,192.00             4,476,798.00             4,476,798.00             4,476,799.81
Indiana                                45,968,100.79            26,267,488.00             6,566,872.00             6,566,872.00             6,566,868.79
Iowa                                       26,611.85                15,208.00                 3,802.00                 3,802.00                 3,799.85
Kansas                                    453,775.66               259,300.00                64,825.00                64,825.00                64,825.66
Kentucky                              136,629,091.05            78,073,768.00            19,518,442.00            19,518,442.00            19,518,439.04
Louisiana                               1,724,874.00               985,644.00               246,411.00               246,411.00               246,408.00
Maryland                                4,434,691.51             2,534,108.00               633,527.00               633,527.00               633,529.50
Mississippi                               934,788.80               534,164.00               133,541.00               133,541.00               133,542.80
Missouri                                1,118,258.84               639,004.00               159,751.00               159,751.00               159,752.83
Montana                                56,483,602.15            32,276,344.00             8,069,086.00             8,069,086.00             8,069,086.15
New Mexico                             21,066,519.27            12,038,012.00             3,009,503.00             3,009,503.00             3,009,501.27
North Dakota                           13,921,230.24             7,954,988.00             1,988,747.00             1,988,747.00             1,988,748.24
Ohio                                   26,214,335.46            14,979,620.00             3,744,905.00             3,744,905.00             3,744,905.45
Oklahoma                                2,394,017.04             1,368,008.00               342,002.00               342,002.00               342,005.04
Pennsylvania                           63,459,961.11            36,262,836.00             9,065,709.00             9,065,709.00             9,065,707.11
Tennessee                                          -                        -                        -                        -                        -
Texas                                  23,348,838.75            13,342,192.00             3,335,548.00             3,335,548.00             3,335,550.75
Utah                                   16,521,373.90             9,440,784.00             2,360,196.00             2,360,196.00             2,360,197.90
Virginia                               29,799,414.55            17,028,236.00             4,257,059.00             4,257,059.00             4,257,060.55
West Virginia                         149,851,959.08            85,629,692.00            21,407,423.00            21,407,423.00            21,407,421.08
Wyoming                               578,905,314.38           330,803,036.00            82,700,759.00            82,700,759.00            82,700,760.38
Crow Tribe                              9,227,458.55             5,272,832.00             1,318,208.00             1,318,208.00             1,318,210.55
Hopi Tribe                              6,156,670.98             3,518,096.00               879,524.00               879,524.00               879,526.98
Navajo Nation                          36,277,452.75            20,729,972.00             5,182,493.00             5,182,493.00             5,182,494.75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                               1,308,800,175.57           747,885,808.00           186,971,452.00           186,971,452.00           186,971,463.57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 2. The Budget proposes significant changes to the AML 
program and the allocation of funds under the program. Did you engage 
in government-to-government consultation consistent with the trust 
responsibility regarding changes to the program and impacts on the 
Tribes? Please provide information on the specific meetings and 
consultations that you have conducted with the tribes on the proposals 
that have been included in the FY 2012 Budget requests relating to the 
allocation of AML program funds.
    Answer. Because the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal to reform the 
abandoned mine lands program will affect tribes, the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) will again consult with the 
Navajo Nation and the Hopi and Crow Tribes. Letters were sent by OSM to 
Tribal representatives on March 9, 2010, proposing to meet with a 
representative from the Tribes to discuss the impacts the budget 
proposal may have on the Tribes and to consider their concerns.
    Question 3. The Budget proposal with respect to the allocation of 
AML funds contemplates the award of AML monies through a competitive 
process based on recommendations of an advisory group. Please provide 
more detail on how this process would work, the timeline for the 
process, and what criteria would be used to select the projects.
    Answer. The legislative proposal to reform the AML program is 
currently being finalized, but will be transmitted to Congress shortly. 
This proposal will ensure that the Nation's highest priority AML coal 
sites are addressed by replacing the current production-based formula 
grants with a competitive allocation. As discussed in the Department of 
the Interior's Budget Justification for OSM, an advisory council 
composed of representatives from states, tribes, and non-governmental 
groups with AML coal reclamation knowledge will be created to review 
and rank reclamation projects proposed by states, tribes, federal 
agencies and other parties using a set of publicly available criteria 
that identify the coal AML sites posing the most danger to public 
health and safety and the environment. This system will leverage on-
the-ground knowledge and experience to more efficiently and 
transparently allocate available funds to the highest priorities.
    Question 4. There has been concern over recent years regarding the 
level of funding for state and tribal regulatory grants. Please provide 
a chart showing on a state-by-state and tribe-by-tribe basis the 
funding for the regulatory program over the past 10 years. Please 
provide a chart showing the level of Federal funding for regulatory 
grants that would be provided to each state and tribe if the 
Administration's Budget proposal is enacted.
    Answer. 

    
    
    The FY 2012 Budget encourages the States to increase their cost 
recovery fees for services to the coal mining industry. With additional 
funding from these fees, the States will need less federal grant 
funding, so the budget proposes to reduce grant funding accordingly. 
The regulatory grant distribution for FY 2012 will depend on the 
efforts undertaken for cost recovery of fees for services to the coal 
industry.
    For the FY 2011 grant distribution, the OSM is preparing Operating 
Plans as directed in the FY 2011 Full-Year Appropriation bill. Those 
plans will include the level of funds proposed for regulatory grants. 
We will provide the Committee the FY 2011 regulatory grant 
distribution, by State and Tribe, once the Operating Plans are approved 
and submitted to the Appropriations Committee. In the meantime, States 
are being provided partial grants to cover their needs.
    Question 5. The SMCRA Amendments of 2006 provided that Indian 
tribes can be granted primacy to administer the regulatory program 
under Title V on lands within their reservations. What is the status of 
implementation of this provision? Please describe your work with the 
tribes with respect to regulatory primacy.
    Answer. OSM is working closely with the three tribes that are 
pursuing tribal primacy: the Crow, Hopi, and Navajo. Applications for 
tribal primacy could be submitted by the Crow Tribe and Navajo Nation 
in 2012, and by the Hopi Tribe in 2013. In FY 2012, OSM will continue 
to work with the Tribes to review applications for primacy as they are 
received. OSM is reviewing informal materials as they are received from 
the Tribes.
    The Crow Tribe plans to seek primacy in phases. The Tribe plans to 
seek primacy for inspection and enforcement and bond release beginning 
in 2012. The Navajo Nation has expressed its intent to obtain primacy 
as soon as possible, but has also indicated that it may seek primacy 
only over inspection and enforcement, depending on its ability to 
recruit and hire staff for the regulatory program. The Hopi Tribe also 
intends to assume primacy. The Tribe has indicated that it plans to 
first obtain primacy for inspection and enforcement and bond release, 
but has not established a schedule to do so.
    Question 6. OSM is in the process of revising permanent program 
regulations relating to excess spoil and stream buffer zones. This 
rulemaking has implications for the use of the controversial practice 
of mountain-top removal mining. Please provide your time table for this 
rulemaking.
    Answer. OSM expects to publish the proposed Stream Protection Rule 
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2011. The final EIS 
and final rule will be completed and published after fulfilling the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and 
Administrative Procedure Act.
                       bureau of land management
    Question 7. I am pleased to see the increased funding proposed to 
support the development and implementation of travel management plans 
for off-highway vehicles. In 2008, I held an oversight hearing on off-
highway vehicles. At that time, I was told the BLM was 10 years away 
from completing their travel management plans. Is the agency still on 
track to finish these plans?
    Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has effectively used 
partnerships, ARRA funding and other redirected resources to 
accelerate, complete, and implement travel plans in many high priority 
areas, such as the Carrizo Plains National Monument (California), Table 
Mesa (Arizona), Moab Field Office (Utah), and Royal Gorge Field Office 
(Colorado). BLM has completed 125 of 551 travel management plans 
covering approximately 14 percent of the lands it manages. The FY 2012 
budget requests $2.2 million to address off-highway vehicle management 
and completion of more travel management plans in high priority areas.
    Question 8. The President's Budget proposes to reform the Mining 
Law of 1872 by instituting a leasing system pursuant to the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920 for hardrock minerals. The Budget also proposes to 
include an abandoned Mine Reclamation Program for hardrock minerals 
funded by a fee on the hardrock mining industry.

          a. What level of royalty does the President's Budget 
        contemplate? How much revenue do you assume the royalty will 
        generate each year for the next 10 years?

    Answer. The BLM's Budget Justification for FY 2012 indicates that 
the proposal would implement a royalty on the covered hardrock minerals 
of not less than 5 percent of gross proceeds, with half the receipts 
distributed to the states in which the leases are located and the other 
half deposited in the Treasury. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue 
(ONRR) will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty 
receipts, which, if enacted, would total an estimated $200 million in 
revenue over ten years.

          b. Please describe how this royalty is proposed to be 
        structured. Is it an ad valorem royalty? Is it a gross proceeds 
        royalty? Is it a net royalty, i.e., do you propose that any 
        production or transportation costs be deducted prior to 
        imposition of the royalty?

    Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, the 
legislative proposal assumes a royalty of not less than 5 percent on 
gross proceeds.

          c. What assumptions does the Budget proposal make regarding 
        the level of claim maintenance fees and the revenues generated 
        by the increases over the next 10 years? How much of this 
        revenue is generated by eliminating the exemption for miners 
        holding fewer than 10 mining claims?

    Answer. The legislative proposal is under development.

          d. When will the Administration transmit its legislative 
        proposal to the Congress?

    Answer. The legislative proposal is under development and will be 
transmitted to Congress once it has been reviewed within the 
Administration.

          e. What level of reclamation fee does the President's Budget 
        contemplate? How much revenue do you assume the reclamation fee 
        will generate each year for the next 10 years?

    Answer. The final details of the legislative proposal have not yet 
been finalized. The proposal will be transmitted to Congress once it 
has been reviewed within the Administration. Currently, the budget 
proposal assumes estimated revenue of $200 million per year for 10 
years starting in 2013, though these numbers are estimates that will be 
refined as the proposal is finalized.

          f. Please describe how the reclamation fee is proposed to be 
        structured. Is it based on volume (tonnage) of material (ore 
        and waste) displaced? Please describe how this would work. 
        Would the amount of the fee vary based on the type of mineral 
        mined? Would it vary depending on whether the mine was a 
        surface mine or an underground mine? How would you expect this 
        to be enforced?

    Answer. While the final details of the legislative proposal have 
not yet been finalized, in general the budget proposal envisions that 
the AML fee would be levied on all uranium and metallic mines on both 
public and private lands, and would be charged on the volume of 
material displaced beginning after January 1, 2012.

          g. Why does the Budget propose that the Office of Surface 
        Mining Reclamation and Enforcement be the collection and 
        enforcement agency for the reclamation fee? What are the pros 
        and cons of having OSMRE perform this function versus the 
        Bureau of Land Management? Would you expect the States and 
        Tribes to administer the program as they do under the Surface 
        Mining Control and Reclamation Act?

    Answer. While the final details of the legislative proposal have 
not yet been finalized, we expect the proposal to build off of each 
bureau's expertise and capabilities. Because OSM has created the 
infrastructure to collect the coal AML fee, the Budget assumes OSM will 
collect the new hardrock AML fee. BLM, because of its long experience 
managing activities on the public lands, including hardrock mining, 
would be responsible for allocating and distributing the receipts using 
a competitive allocation program.

          h. When will the Administration transmit its legislative 
        proposal to the Congress?

    Answer. The legislative proposal is currently being reviewed within 
the Administration and will be transmitted once that process has been 
completed.
    Question 9. GAO recently issued a report (GAO-11-292) that 
highlights weaknesses in BLM's policies relating to financial 
assurances for onshore oil and gas leases on public lands. The 
regulations establishing a $10,000 minimum bond amount for individual 
leases were issued in 1960. The $25,000 minimum bond to cover all 
leases in a state and $150,000 nationwide minimum bond amounts were 
last set in 1951. How do you plan to address the issues pointed out by 
GAO?
    Answer. The BLM is taking or plans to take the following actions in 
response to the GAO report:

   The BLM is in the process of evaluating its minimum bonding 
        levels and, upon completion of this evaluation, will determine 
        if an increase in minimum bonding amounts is necessary. Any 
        increase in minimum bonding amounts would require a new 
        rulemaking.
   Existing regulations provide BLM with the authority to set 
        bond amounts higher than the regulatory minimum. On July 21, 
        2010, the BLM issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-161 which 
        reiterated the regulations and clarified the existing policy 
        and guidance for oil and gas bonding adequacy reviews and 
        requirements. This IM provided field office guidance on how and 
        when to increase minimum bonding amounts.

    Question 10. What is the total amount of funding for the oil and 
gas I&E program included in the request for FY12? Please provide a 
table showing the funding for this program (both requested and enacted) 
for the previous 10 fiscal years. I had requested funding for 
additional inspectors in the Farmington Field office. How many 
additional inspectors have been added to this office in each of the 
past five fiscal years? Are you planning to hire additional inspectors 
in offices where the workload is increasing due to methane gas 
production? Please provide specifics.
    Answer. The BLM does not request funds specifically for oil and gas 
inspection and enforcement activities; rather, funds are requested for 
the overall oil and gas program and a portion of those funds are spent 
on inspection and enforcement. The following table shows estimates of 
the total amount of funding spent on the inspection and enforcement 
activities in BLM's oil and gas program for the previous 12 fiscal 
years. The total spent includes spending from the oil and gas 
management account, the APD processing account, and the permit 
processing improvement fund.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Fiscal Year                                              Total Spent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000                                                                                                $18,391,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001                                                                                                $23,841,424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002                                                                                                $28,444,012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003                                                                                                $29,762,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004                                                                                                $29,523,986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005                                                                                                $31,219,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006                                                                                                $36,854,783
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007                                                                                                $38,473,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008                                                                                                $42,194,335
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009                                                                                                $41,855,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010                                                                                                $47,418,939
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 42 full-time employees dedicated to inspection 
and enforcement (I&E) at the BLM's Farmington Field Office. In 2005, 
there were 32 full-time I&E employees; in 2005, the BLM transferred 6 
employees to the Farmington Field Office from the Cuba, NM Field 
Office; and in 2006, the BLM hired 4 I&E inspectors with funding from 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Since that time, the Farmington Field 
Office has maintained the level of 42 I&E staff. The following chart 
shows the breakdown of I&E staffing at the Farmington Field Office.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            # of Farmington Field Office
               Fiscal Year                           I&E Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005                                       21 Petroleum Engineering
                                            Technicians (PETs)
                                           3 Production Accountability
                                            Technicians (PATs)
                                           2 PETs for Federal Indian
                                            Mineral Office
                                           5 Tribal I&E inspectors                                           1 Onsite State Office
                                            Coordinator
                                           32 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions in 2005                          Transferred from Cuba, NM,
                                            Office
                                           2 I&E Inspectors
                                           1 Supervisory PET
                                           3 Tribal I&E Inspectors
                                           38 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions in 2006                          Mandatory funding authorized
                                            by Energy Policy Act of 2005
                                           4 I&E Inspectors
                                           42 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-2010                                  All vacancies filled
                                           42 total I&E Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLM uses its Inspection & Enforcement annual strategy to 
identify any need for additional inspection staff. Additionally, the 
Production Accounting Team at BLM's National Operations Center (NOC) in 
Denver has increased the BLM's ability to perform production 
accountability reviews nationwide, providing assistance and expertise 
to Production Accounting Technicians in the field.
    Question 11. What is the total amount of requested funding for oil 
and gas NEPA compliance for FY12? Please provide a table showing the 
funding for NEPA compliance (both requested and enacted) for the 
previous 10 years.
    Answer. The BLM aggregates costs associated with NEPA activities 
across various portions of the oil and gas budget, including APD 
processing, sundry notice processing, and inspection and enforcement. 
The table below estimates these costs based on the number of leases and 
permits processed. Over the past ten years, these costs have risen in 
response to an increase in the number of leases and permits processed. 
Many of these costs would be incurred in the normal course of planning 
and review of various oil and gas-related activities and in complying 
with other laws and regulations, so one should not imply that these 
costs are only being incurred in order to comply with NEPA.
    The following is a table of the BLM's estimated NEPA-associated 
costs in the Oil & Gas program over the last ten years. (These costs 
include the development and review of environmental compliance 
documentation for proposed fluid minerals development authorizations in 
conformance with requirements.)

  Estimated Costs Associated with NEPA Activities  (Oil & Gas Program)
                                 ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Estimated NEPA Compliances
                 Fiscal Year                             Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001                                          $9,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002                                          $10,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003                                          $10,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004                                          $11,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005                                          $12,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006                                          $15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007                                          $19,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008                                          $19,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009                                          $21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010                                          $21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011                                          $21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 12. What is the total backlog of APD's? Please provide a 
table showing the backlog over the last ten years and the number of 
APD's received, processed, and issued during each of the last ten 
years. Please display this information on a state-by-state basis.
    Answer. The tables below show the number of complete APDs pending 
for more than 60 days, the number of APDs received during each fiscal 
year, the number of APDs approved during each fiscal year, the number 
of APDs returned during each fiscal year, and the total number of APDs 
processed during each fiscal year from FY2001 to FY2010.

                                   Complete APDs Pending Longer than 60 Days (``Backlog'' APDs) at End of Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                                             15          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                          5          6          7          3          4         41          3          5          1          1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                           74         67         65         52         74        129        177        168        204         97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern States                                      7         10         23         12         21          9          1          0          0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana                                            67        134        114         82         89          7          7          7          7          1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                              0          0          0          7          6          0          0          0          0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico                                        503        740        692        501        546        459        353        324        289        220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                              266        526        443        353        397      1,421      1,237      1,176      1,463      1,310
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                         1,059      1,597      1,436      1,204      1,324        244        143         79         45         58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide                                      1,196      3,080      2,780      2,214      2,461      2,310      1,921      1,759      2,009      1,687
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          APDs Received During Each Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                                             23         12          6         18          8          9          9         12          8          0
California                                         70        118         69        116        235        198        280        256        162        342
Colorado                                          299        265        323        502        605        896        870        756        497        617
Eastern States                                     23         14         73         70        136         49         91         92         33         28
Montana                                           213        221        325        421        451        529        260        282        258        349
Nevada                                              1          7          4         15          9          7         14          7          9          5
New Mexico                                      1,351      1,087      1,385      1,668      1,619      1,843      1,376      1,452      1,130      1,084
Utah                                              680        496        639        792      1,245      1,584      1,298      1,125        992        566
Wyoming                                         2,159      2,365      2,239      3,377      4,043      5,377      4,172      3,902      2,168      1,260
Nationwide                                      4,819      4,585      5,063      6,979      8,351     10,492      8,370      7,884      5,257      4,251
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          APDs Approved During Each Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                                             11         12          8         14          8         10          7         12          8          0
California                                         72        108         73        109        232        162        313        233        170        283
Colorado                                          235        208        296        407        608        668        797        711        479        715
Eastern States                                     27         13         44         63        110         42         91         81         40         24
Montana                                           168        202        294        213        425        269        247        273        195        335
Nevada                                              0          6          3         10         10          8         14          6          7          3
New Mexico                                        930        960      1,183      1,492      1,475      1,866      1,286      1,308      1,109      1,135
Utah                                              505        463        437        677        770      1,016      1,128      1,134        673        551
Wyoming                                         1,688      1,568      1,623      3,467      3,380      3,704      3,678      3,150      1,890      1,547
Nationwide                                      3,636      3,540      3,961      6,452      7,018      7,745      7,561      6,908      4,571      4,593
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         APDs Returned* During Each Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska                                              2         21          1          1          0          0          0          0          0          0
California                                         24         12          4          5          3          1          0          2          7          1
Colorado                                           20         51         29         17         30         90         61         41         43         42
Eastern States                                      6          5         20         13          8          3         14          6          1          8
Montana                                            18         59         64         79         29         19        138        157        279         10
Nevada                                              0          0          0          0          2          3          0          1          1          0
New Mexico                                        310        413        407        165         95        129        113        114         30         51
Utah                                               34         84        120        178         16         81        241         86        102        103
Wyoming                                           216      1,645        537        441        535        783        836        531        272        429
Nationwide                                        630      2,290      1,182        899        718      1,109      1,403        938        735        644
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  ``Returned''--APDs returned after review because of incomplete information.


                                                     Total APDs Processed** During Each Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK                                                 13         33          9         15          8         10          7         12          8          0
CA                                                 96        120         77        114        235        163        313        235        177        284
Colorado                                          255        259        325        424        638        758        858        752        522        757
Eastern States                                     33         18         64         76        118         45        105         87         41         32
Montana                                           186        261        358        292        454        288        385        430        474        345
NV                                                  0          6          3         10         12         11         14          7          8          3
New Mexico                                      1,240      1,373      1,590      1,657      1,570      1,995      1,399      1,422      1,139      1,186
Utah                                              539        547        557        855        786      1,097      1,369      1,220        775        654
Wyoming                                         1,904      3,213      2,160      3,908      3,915      4,487      4,514      3,681      2,162      1,976
Nationwide                                      4,266      5,830      5,143      7,351      7,736      8,854      8,964      7,846      5,306     5,237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**  ``Processed''--APDs approved plus those returned.

    Question 13. The Budget proposes an increase in Federal onshore 
royalties and also proposes various user fees for the oil and gas 
industry. Please describe each of these proposals and provide 
information on revenues assumed to be generated by each proposal in 
each of the next 10 years.
    Answer. To ensure a better return to the public on federal 
resources, BLM has begun a rulemaking process to amend 43 CFR 3103.3-1 
to authorize increased royalties for new competitive oil and gas leases 
on federal lands. This process includes carrying out a cost-benefit and 
economic impact analysis, which will be completed in 2011. The 
development of a draft proposed rule that will address a range of 
potential royalty rate options is also underway, and BLM expects to 
publish the new rule in draft for public review in 2011 and promulgate 
the final rule by the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. The budget 
assumes these reforms will increase federal oil and gas revenues by 
$937 million over the next ten years.

                                           ESTIMATED OIL & GAS ROYALTY REVENUE BY FISCAL YEAR  ($ IN MILLIONS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020       2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Oil & Gas Current Royalty      2,628      2,981      3,146      3,240      3,318      3,390      3,460      3,527      3,593      3,660      3,834
 Rates (12.5%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Oil & Gas Higher Royalty       2,628      2,981      3,146      3,240      3,336      3,434      3,537      3,645      3,760      3,882      4,127
 Rates (18%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase                                 0          0          0          0         18         43         77        118        167        221        293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The budget request also includes a proposal for a fee to encourage 
diligent development of lands and waters leased for energy development. 
A $4.00 per acre fee on new nonproducing leases on federal lands and 
waters 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 re-leased and developed by new parties. The proposed fee 
would apply to all new leases and would be indexed annually. The 
proposal assumes 1.5 million new nonproducing lease acres per year and 
is projected to result in revenue to the Treasury of $330 million over 
ten years from onshore leases managed by BLM.
    The total is a table showing the projected onshore revenue from the 
nonproducing lease fee over the next 10 years:

                                           PROJECTED ONSHORE OIL & GAS NONPRODUCING LEASE FEE REVENUE, BY YEAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ($000)                 2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020       2021      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Net Revenue                   5,000     11,000     17,000     23,000     30,000     36,000     43,000     50,000     58,000     66,000    330,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The budget also includes several proposals to charge cost recovery 
fees onshore, including:

   A proposal, to be implemented through appropriations 
        language, for a new onshore inspection fee in 2012 for oil and 
        gas activities subject to inspection by BLM. As noted in the 
        budget material provided by the Department, this proposal is 
        expected to offset the costs of onshore inspections in 2012, 
        generating an estimated $38.0 million, and supporting federal 
        efforts to increase production accountability, safety, and 
        environmental protection. The estimated collections generated 
        from the proposed inspection fees would fully offset the 
        proposed reduction in appropriated funding. The inspection fee 
        is based on historical spending for inspections, and the number 
        of wells and leases that must be inspected. The fee is designed 
        to recoup the majority of the costs of performing inspections. 
        The fee will be reevaluated each year to ensure funding is 
        adequate to fulfill the agency's inspection and enforcement 
        responsibilities and to meet the needs of the program. The 
        proposed language for the appropriations bill is included in 
        the FY 2012 President's budget request. The following fee 
        schedule is tied to the number of active and inactive wells for 
        each lease or agreement:

    --$600 for each lease or agreement with no active or inactive 
            wells, but with surface use, disturbance or reclamation;
    --$1,200 for each lease or agreement with one to ten wells, with 
            any combination of active or inactive wells;
    --$2,900 for each lease or agreement with 11 to 50 wells, with any 
            combination of active or inactive wells; and
    --$5,700 for each lease or agreement with more than 50 wells, with 
            any combination of active or inactive wells.

   The continuance, through appropriations language, of a fee 
        for processing drilling permits taken by Congress in the 2009 
        and 2010 Appropriations Acts. If the fee of $6,500 per drilling 
        permit, authorized in 2010, is continued, it would generate an 
        estimated $32.5 million in offsetting collections in 2012.
   A proposal to administratively implement a fee to recover 
        the cost of inspecting coal and other minerals management 
        program activities carried out by the BLM. The fees would be 
        carried out through existing cost recovery authorities and 
        would generate an estimated $4.4 million a year beginning in 
        2012, reducing the need for discretionary appropriations for 
        these programs.

    Question 14. What is the current level of funding and what level is 
proposed for fiscal year 2012 for the administration of renewable 
energy development on public lands? Please provide allocation by energy 
type.
    Answer. The 2012 budget request for renewable energy activities 
carried out by the BLM include an increase in appropriated funding of 
$3.0 million over the 2010 enacted/2011 Continuing Resolution level of 
$16.7 million.
    BLM currently spends a majority of this budget (approximately $11 
million) to fund the positions in the Renewable Energy Coordination 
Offices (RECOs), interdisciplinary teams across the West that examine 
all types of renewable energy proposals on public lands. The increase 
in funds will focus on the environmental elements of renewable energy 
project proposals, including regional planning studies and 
environmental reviews of potential wind energy zones in Nevada and 
Oregon, which will be completed in addition to those under development 
in New Mexico, California, and Wyoming. This is in addition to the $5 
million for ongoing studies in New Mexico, California, and Wyoming.
    For geothermal leasing and permitting activities, the BLM continues 
to spend the remaining balances in the mandatory Geothermal Steam Act 
Implementation Fund. The BLM anticipates spending about $4.5 million in 
FY2011 and $4 million in FY2012, after which this source of funding 
will be exhausted.
    Question 15. Please describe all geothermal leasing activity, 
including date and state for all lease sales, subsequent to the 
Geothermal Steam Act amendments contained in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. Please provide a table showing acres under geothermal lease (and 
whether production is occurring) by state.
    Answer. BLM Geothermal Sales since passage of Energy Policy Act of 
2005 are contained in the following chart:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LEASE SALES                      STATE             PARCELS/APPROXIMATE ACRES      REVENUE GENERATED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2007                  Utah                        8 parcels; 15,000 acres     $9.4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14, 2007                California/Nevada           49 parcels; 125,000 acres   $19.7 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 6, 2008                 Nevada                      35 parcels; 105,000 acres   $28.2 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 19, 2008              Utah                        44 parcels; 194,000 acres   $5.7 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14, 2009                  Nevada/California/Utah      98 parcels; 255,000 acres   $9.1 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 17, 2009              Utah                        3 parcels; 3,700 acres      $209,257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 23, 2010              Utah/Idaho                  21 parcels; 70,800 acres    $378,349
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2010                   Nevada                      75 parcels; 212,000 acres   $2.8 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 10, 2010              Colorado                    1 parcel; 800 acres         $31,345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 22, 2011                 Nevada                      29 parcels, 87,469 acres    $506,446
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS                                                     363 parcels; 1.1 million    $76.1 million
                                                            acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BLM Geothermal Leases by state and Producing Status are contained 
in the following chart:

                                                  BLM-MANAGED GEOTHERMAL LEASES, AUTHORIZED & PRODUCING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Authorized                                         Producing
                        State                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            # of Leases               # of Acres              # of Leases               # of Acres
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                                     1                    2,084                      n/a                      n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                                104                  120,132                       29                   37,936
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                                                    1                      799                      n/a                      n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho                                                                      17                   33,007                      n/a                      n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico                                                                  4                    3,581                        2                    2,781
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                                    548                1,149,809                       23                   18,633
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon                                                                     84                  113,430                      n/a                      n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                       59                  162,205                        5                    4,928
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL                                                                     818                1,585,047                       59                   64,278
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 16. How many applications for solar rights-of-way are 
pending? How many applications for wind rights-of-way are pending? 
Please provide listings by state and location. How many of each have 
been approved by state?
    Answer. Information related to pending wind energy right-of-way 
development applications is contained in the following charts:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                         Application
                          State                                   BLM Field Office                Serial Number          Customer Name  (Project Name)    Received         MW         BLM Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                                         KINGMAN                   AZA 032315AA        BP WIND ENERGY (Mohave Count7/21/2009           500         31338
                                                                                                                                                Wind)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                                             CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 048254     GRANITE WIND LLC (Gr7/24/2006            74          1960
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 048WEST FRY WIND ENERGY LLC   12/11/2007           N/A          3248
                                                                                                                                      (West Fry Wind)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 0495AES WIND GENERATION INC    12/6/2007            84          2930
                                                                                                                                      (Daggett Ridge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-EL CENTRO                  CACA 049698        Iberdrola/PACIFI12/26/2007           200         12133
                                                                                                                                       DEVELOPMENT LLC (Tule)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             EAGLE LAKE                               CACA 049709        INVENERGY LLC (Hor3/6/2007            50         11407
                                                                                                                                                Wind)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 0506AES WIND GENERATION INC (S12/29/2008           150          4162
                                                                                                                                               Ridge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-PALM SPGS-S CST FLD O      CACA 0515PATTERN ENERGY GOUP LP     10/9/2009           560         14691
                                                                                                                                           (Ocotillo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-RIDGECREST                 CACAPOWER PARTNERS SOUTHWEST LLC   12/30/2009           N/A          1200
                                                                                                                                         (Tylerhorse)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 051581        Iberdrola/PACIFI12/29/2009           180          6720
                                                                                                                         DEVELOPMENT (Silurian Valley)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-BARSTOW                    CACA 05160HORIZON WIND ENERGY (Camp12/29/2009           N/A           150
                                                                                                                                                Rock)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  UKIAH                               CACAALTAGAS RENEWABLE ENERGY PAC    1/22/2010            70          7662
                                                                                                                                        (Walker Wind)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-EL CENTRO                  CACA 052078    IMPERIAL WIND LLC (Bl5/28/2010            48          2054
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-EL CENTRO                  CACA 052186        RENEWERGY LLC    7/16/2010           N/A         11227
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-RIDGECREST                 CACA 052309                 ENXCO DE10/5/2010 INC       N/A           275
                                                                                                                                             (Avalon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-RIDGECREST                 CACA 052348      BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES7/7/2010           292          9267
                                                                                                                                    (North Sky River)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-RIDGECREST                 CACA 052BENT TREE WIND FARM, LLC   10/28/2010           N/A           540
                                                                                                                                          (Bent Tree)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CDD-EL CENTRO                  CACA 052435 ORO VALLEY POWER LLC   12/10/2010           180         11227
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho                                                                      TWF JARBIDGE                     IDI 035183                               CHINA 5/1/2007 WIND LLC  425         20000
                                                                                                                                                    (China Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        BOI FOUR RIVERS                     IDI 035672                     ARKOOSH MICHAEL8/31/2006ll)        N/A             0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           TWF JARBIDGE                     IDI 036838                          VERTICAL E10/5/2009 (Bell      40             1
                                                                                                                                              Rapids)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             TWF BURLEY                     IDI 036923                        OAKLEY CITY10/19/2010           N/A            40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                                        LAS VEGAS                     NVN 073726                TABLE MTN WIND CO LLC5/5/2000            80          8320
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   ELKO                     NVN 084103                  LS POWER ASSOCIATE8/17/2007ck         N/A           957
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CARSON CITY          NVN 084113     RIDGELINE NEVADA ENERGY LLC    8/28/2007           100          3128
                                                                                                                                      (Pah Rah Range)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              LAS VEGAS                     NVN 084626      DUKE ENERGY (Searchlight)     1/29/2008           200         24382
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                         Application
                          State                                   BLM Field Office                Serial Number          Customer Name  (Project Name)    Received         MW         BLM Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CARSON CITY          NVN 085186     GREAT BASIN WIND ENERGY LLC    4/21/2008           200          3093
                                                                                                                                                (New Comstock)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    ELY                     NVN 087411                        WILSON CREEK4/27/2009(Wilson    N/A          3053
                                                                                                                                                     Creek)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    ELY                     NVN 088201                   NEVADA WIND CO (E2/16/2010           700         14267
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             VALE BAKER                    OROR 064395            JOSEPH MILLWORKS INC. (12/21/2009           N/A            18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          BURNS ANDREWS                    OROR 065553    HORIZON WIND ENERGY NW X LLC    12/1/2008           N/A         17982
                                                                                                                                    (Pueblo Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             VALE BAKER                    OROR 065616   HORIZON WIND ENERGY NW IV LLC     7/7/2008           500         11000
                                                                                                                                        (Burnt River)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         PRINEVILLE DESCHUTES              OROR 065874       WEST BUTTE WIND POWER LLC   12/12/2008           100            14
                                                                                                                                         (West Butte)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                          SALT LAKE                     UTU 082906    SOUTH UTAH VALLEY ESD (West     6/18/2008           N/A            10
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CEDAR CITY           UTU 083061   EVERGREEN WIND PWR PRTNRS LLC   11/12/2008            53          4717
                                                                                                                                   (Mineral Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CEDAR CITY           UTU 083075                          WASATCH WI5/22/2009C (Harmony  90          4183
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               FILLMORE                     UTU 088017                  MILFORD WIND CRRDR 6/1/2010           450           500
                                                                                                                                                   LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington                                                                SPOKANE WENATCHEE                WAOR 065492                   INVENERGY LLC (Va5/21/2008           N/A            40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                                                         RAWLINS                     WYW 166407           SHELL WIND ENERGY INC (S12/22/2009            50          3101
                                                                                                                                               Hills)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                RAWLINS                     WYW 167155                         POWER COMPA1/31/2008(Choke    1000        107105
                                                                                                                                                     Cherry/Sierra Madre)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     ROCK SPRINGS           WYW 167597                  TETON WIND LLC (W11/12/2007           108          2641
                                                                                                                                            Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     ROCK SPRINGS           WYW 167691   EVERGREEN WIND PWR PRTNRS LLC     2/2/2009           200          8767
                                                                                                                                    (Miller Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     ROCK SPRINGS           WYW 167692   EVERGREEN WIND PWR PRTNRS LLC     2/2/2009           N/A          5156
                                                                                                                                     (Aspen Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     ROCK SPRINGS           WYW 167746                          WASATCH WI11/5/2009weeney     250          4872
                                                                                                                                               Ranch)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     ROCK SPRINGS           WYW 167748   EVERGREEN WIND PWR PRTNRS LLC   12/23/2009           200          5000
                                                                                                                                     (White Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CASPER               WYW 178872                          WASATCH WI11/5/2009PMENT LLC  105          3560
                                                                                                                                     (Black Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       CASPER               WYW 178922                          WASATCH W12/16/2009           N/A          5532
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             SUMMARY TABLE OF PENDING WIND RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                        Active Applications         Acres            Estimated MWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                             1               31,338                  500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                         17              100,853                 1888
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho                                                               4               20,041                  465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                              7               57,200                 1280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon                                                              4               29,013                  600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                4                9,410                  593
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington                                                          1                   40                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                                             9              145,734                 1913
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS                                                             47              247,856                 5326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information relating to approved wind right-of-way applications is 
contained in the following chart:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             State                                       BLM            Serial Number              Holder                     Name of Project                   Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                                    Safford           AZA-33259                   Iberdrola     Dry Lake Wind Project--Phase 1           Issued 10/24/08
                                                                                                                                                   30 MW, 4,452 acres          Expires 10/23/38
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                            Palm Springs                    CACA-9755 San Gorgonio Farms                 San Gorgonio Farms            Issued 3/31/83
                                                                                                                                                    25 MW on BLM land           Expires 3/30/13
                                                                                                                                                 159.7 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-11688-A             PAMC ManagemWestern Wind Mesa Facility            Issued 1/26/83
                                                                                                                                                    30 MW on BLM land           Expires 1/25/13
                                                                                                                                                   477 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-13198        FPL Energy                                   Cabazon PoweIssued 12/8/82
                                                                                                                                                    40 MW on BLM land           Expires 12/7/12
                                                                                                                                                   437 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-14632   B P Alternative          Energy Edom Hills Project           Issued 12/14/83
                                                                                                                                                           (Yaponcha)          Expires 12/14/14
                                                                                                                                                    11 MW on BLM land
                                                                                                                                                   320 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15549Desert Wind Energy          Desert Wind--San Gorgonio            Issued 3/31/84
                                                                                                                                                     8 MW on BLM land           Expires 3/30/13
                                                                                                                                                 58.63 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562      Foras Energy                    Difwind Farms V            Issued 3/29/84
                                                                                                                                                     8 MW on BLM land           Expires 3/30/14
                                                                                                                                                   401 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-A        Sea West                  San Gorgonio Pass             Issued 9/4/84
                                                                                                                                                     6 MW on BLM land          Expires 11/30/15
                                                                                                                                                  31.9 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-B        Sea West                  San Gorgonio Pass             Issued 9/5/84
                                                                                                                                                     4 MW on BLM land           Expires 3/30/14
                                                                                                                                                  92.8 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             State                                       BLM            Serial Number              Holder                     Name of Project                   Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-C        Sea West                  San Gorgonio Pass            Issued 3/31/84
                                                                                                                                                    14 MW on BLM land          Expires 11/30/15
                                                                                                                                                 167.2 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-D    Foras Energy                    Difwind Farms V            Issued 2/11/85
                                                                                                                                                     8 MW on BLM land           Expires 3/30/14
                                                                                                                                                   211 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-E    Dutch Energy                       San Gorgonio            Issued 7/13/93
                                                                                                                                                    12 MW on BLM land            Expires 1/1/13
                                                                                                                                                 58.58 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-15562-F      PPM Energy                       San Gorgonio            Issued 3/29/84
                                                                                                                                                     3 MW on BLM land          Expires 11/30/15
                                                                                                                                                 16.24 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-17192  Energy Unlimited                       San Gorgonio            Issued 6/26/85
                                                                                                                                                    12 MW on BLM land           Expires 6/25/15
                                                                                                                                                    80 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-19136Windpower Partners              Windpower Partners 91           Issued 10/26/87
                                                                                                                                                     5 MW on BLM land          Expires 10/25/17
                                                                                                                                                 80.85 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-37Difwind Farms Limited                    Difwind Farms V            Issued 3/23/98
                                                                                                                                                     3 MW on BLM land           Expires 2/25/27
                                                                                                                                                 29.66 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-40556          Sea West          San Gorgonio Westwinds II               Issued 1999
                                                                                                                                                    13 MW on BLM land          Expires 11/30/15
                                                                                                                                                   105 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-40557          Sea West          San Gorgonio Westwinds II               Issued 1999
                                                                                                                                                    12 MW on BLM land          Expires 11/30/15
                                                                                                                                                 126.6 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-42139          Sea West       Mountain View Power Partners            Issued 3/21/01
                                                                                                                                                     4 MW on BLM land            Expires 4/1/27
                                                                                                                                                    52 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Palm Springs                    CACA-441Whitewater Hill Wind                    Whitewater Hill            Issued 4/11/02
                                                                                                                                                    35 MW on BLM land           Expires 4/10/32
                                                                                                                                                 159.7 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ridgecrest                    CACA-13528              Oak Creek Energy                   Oak Creek EnergyIssued 2/15/84
                                                                                                                                                     4 MW on BLM land          Expires 12/31/14
                                                                                                                                                    80 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ridgecrest                    CACA-26387           GE Wind                    Sky River Ranch            Issued 9/17/91
                                                                                                                                                     3 MW on BLM land           Expires 9/16/21
                                                                                                                                                    26 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ridgecrest                    CACA-9501                   Cameron Ridge LLC                  Cameron RidgIssued 7/28/98
                                                                                                                                                    16 MW on BLM land          Expires 12/31/28
                                                                                                                                                   600 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ridgecrest                    CACA-13768                  Cameron Ridge LLC    Horn Toad Hill            Issued 7/28/98
                                                                                                                                                    14 MW on BLM land          Expires 12/31/28
                                                                                                                                                   250 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Ridgecrest                    CACA-40435          Pacific Crest Power LLC                    Cameron RidgIssued 2/10/99
                                                                                                                                                     6 MW on BLM land          Expires 12/31/28
                                                                                                                                                    40 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho                                                                       Burley          IDI-033676                    Windland                                   Cotterel WinIssued 8/15/06t
                                                                                                                                         139 MW, 4,545 acres (pending           Expires 8/14/36
                                                                                                                                                         constuction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                                         Ely          NVN-084148          Spring Valley Wind         Spring Valley Wind Project           Issued 10/15/10
                                                                                                                                         150 MW, 8,320 acres (pending          Expires 10/15/40
                                                                                                                                                        construction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             State                                       BLM            Serial Number              Holder                     Name of Project                   Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                              Cedar City UTU-82972                  First Wind      Milford Wind Project (300 MW)           Issued 10/15/08
                                                                          Fillmore           UTU-82973                                    80 MW, 7,800 acres BLM land          Expires 10/14/38
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                                                    Rawlins          WYW-142464            Pacificorp (71%)                             Foote Creek Rim I Issued 7/18/97
                                                                                                                Eugene Elect (19%)                  21 MW on BLM land           Expires 7/17/33
                                                                                                              Seawest Energy (10%)              940.61 acres BLM land
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Total MW permitted    726 MW (includes 289 MW pending
                                                                                                                                                        construction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information related to pending solar energy right-of-way 
applications is contained in the following charts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Customer Name (Project Name and/or     Application                    Total Case         Planned
                      State                        BLM Field Office      Serial Number              Geographic Area)                Received           MWs          Acres         Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                  Hassayampa          AZA 034184                       BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC (Ag06/26/2007           500         7,335                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034186                       BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC (Bu06/26/2007in/        500         5,912                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                   Big Horn)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 034187               NextEra/BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC    06/28/2007           375         4,000                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                             (Sonoran Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Kingman          AZA 034200               NextEra/BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC    06/22/2007           250         6,705                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                           (Mountain Spring)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Kingman          AZA 034201                       BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC (Se06/22/2007           250        15,634                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034321                 AREVA SOLAR AZ II LLC (AUSRA 10/01/2007          1120         5,748                    CSP/CLFR
                                                                                                                      Verde)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Lake Havasu: Yuma          AZA 034335                       BOULEVARD ASSOC LLC (Bo06/08/2007           500        24,221                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 034357              FIRST SOLAR (Gila Bend)         11/06/2007           500         6,003                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 034358             FIRST SOLAR (Saddle Mtn)         11/06/2007           300         5,997                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034416                                   PACIFIC SOL12/02/2007NC (Iberd1,500        26,082                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                 (Eagletail)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034424                                   PACIFIC SOL12/04/2007NC (Iberdro300         7,240                    CSP
                                                                                                                  (Big Horn)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Lower Sonoran;          AZA 034425                                   PACIFIC SOL12/07/2007NC (Iberdro300         5,794                    CSP/Trough
                                                               Yuma                                                  (Hyder)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034426                                   PACIFIC SOL12/02/2007NC (Iberd2,000        25,860                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                  (Ranegras)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034427                                   PACIFIC SOL09/06/2007NC (Iberd2,000        38,212                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                     (La Posa Solar Thermal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034540               HORIZON WIND ENERGY LLC (Horizo03/04/2008           250        11,535                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                     Aguila)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034554         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/26/2008           500        20,699                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                 (Quartzite)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034560         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/26/2008           500        15,040                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                 (Vicksburg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034566         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/26/2008           500        13,428                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                           (Centennial)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034568         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/26/2008           500        20,165                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                   (Palomas)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034665                      SOLARRESERVE LLC (Black 05/27/2008           600         5,600                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034666                      SOLARRESERVE LLC (Quartz05/27/2008           100        25,204                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034668                      SOLARRESERVE LLC (Agua C05/27/2008           600         5,678                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034737               ARIZONA SOLAR INVST INC        07/10/2008           250        14,047                  PV
                                                                                                               (Haraquahala)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034739                              IDIT INC (Little07/09/2008         1,000        12,291                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Lake Havasu          AZA 034754               HORIZON WIND ENERGY LLC (Wenden03/04/2008           250        28,760                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 034774                              IDIT INC (Dendor08/12/2008           250        14,765                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Customer Name (Project Name and/or     Application                    Total Case         Planned
                      State                        BLM Field Office      Serial Number              Geographic Area)                Received           MWs          Acres         Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 034797                               LSR JACKRABBIT 08/27/2008ackrabbit) 500        27,036                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 034799                    LSR PALO VERDE LLC (LSR Pa08/27/2008           600         5,855                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Yuma          AZA 034936                                 WILDCAT QUART01/29/2009(Quartzite)800        11,960                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Lake Havasu          AZA 034946                                 WILDCAT HARCU01/28/2009LLC (Bright800        10,947                    CSP/Tower
                                                                                            Source Energy) (Wildcat Harcuvar
                                                                                                                         SO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 035166                              IDIT INC (Arling07/27/2009       Unknown         5,800                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Safford          AZA 035236   SOLAR RESERVE (Safford Solar Energy        01/04/2010           250        22,892                  PV
                                                                                                                            Center/San Simon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 035387                  Ridgeline Energy LLC (Forepa05/04/2010            10           640                  PV
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hassayampa          AZA 035388                  Ridgeline Energy LLC (Cave C05/04/2010             5            40                  PV
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Lower Sonoran          AZA 035399                  Ridgeline Energy LLC (Pinal 05/04/2010            10           160                  PV
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Arizona Strip          AZA 035413                  Ridgeline Energy LLC (Page P05/21/2010            10           160                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 048FIRST SOLAR (Desert Sunlight)         11/07/2006           550         9,481                  PV
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 0FIRST SOLAR (Stateline/Ivanpah)         12/14/2006           380         4,168                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                            Palm Springs-                    CACA 048728            FPL ENERGY (McCoy)     01/31/2007           250         7,771                    CSP
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 048741      SOLAR INVESTMENTS LLC (Baker 01/18/2007           800         8,384                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 048742      SOLAR INVESTMENTS LLC (Siluri01/18/2007         1,000        10,611                    CSP
                                                                                                                     Valley)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 048808                          CHUCKWALL09/15/2006LLC (Chuckw200a)       4,099                  PV
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 048810        SOLAR MILLENNIUM/ CHEVRON (03/14/2007           484         5,213                    CSP/Trough
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Ridgecrest                    CACA 048FIRST SOLAR (Desert Sapphire)         02/13/2007           745         5,325                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 048875     DPT BROADWELL LAKE LLC (Broadw01/24/2007           500         8,625                    CSP
                                                                                                                   Dry Lake)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049002                  LEOPOLD COMPANY L04/02/2007alley)   4,100        35,466                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049006            BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES LL05/14/2007k)       1,000        12,046                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049008            BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES LL05/14/2007         1,000        35,639                    CSP
                                                                                                                       Lake)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Ridgecrest                    CACA 049016       SOLAR MILLENNIUM LLC (Ridgec03/23/2007           250         3,811                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 049097 BULL FROG GREEN ENERGY LLC (Mule  10/01/2008         2,500         6,634                  PV
                                                         Southcoast                                                Mountain)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                El Centro              CACA 049150          SUNPEAK SOLAR LLC (Supers07/17/2007           500         5,464                  PV
                                                                                                                    Solar I)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 04FIRST SOLAR (Desert Quartzite)         09/28/2007           600         7,548                  PV
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049430   IBERDROLA RENEWABLES INC (Cadiz)12/08/2008           500         4,910                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049432                    PG&E (Cadiz/Tri09/24/2007           800         5,313             Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Customer Name (Project Name and/or     Application                    Total Case         Planned
                      State                        BLM Field Office      Serial Number              Geographic Area)                Received           MWs          Acres         Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 049488                       ENXCO INC (L11/13/2007 Dry Lake) 300         1,327                    CSP
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 049490                       ENXCO INC (M11/13/2007           300        20,608                    CSP
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 049491                       ENXCO INC (E11/13/2007ain)       300         1,327                    CSP
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 049584             SOLENERGIS LLC  (Caith12/18/2007Mt)        350         7,995                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 049585                       ENXCO DEVELO12/12/2007(Troy Lak1,000         3,710                    CSP/Tower
                                                                                                                     Soleil)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                El Centro              CACA 049615                        PACIFIC SOL09/04/2007ENTS INC 1,500        17,807                  PV
                                                                                                              (Ogilby Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 049702 BULL FROG GREEN ENERGY LLC (Big   06/01/2008         2,500        22,717                  PV
                                                         Southcoast                                             Maria Vista)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 049813   IBERDROLA RENEWABLES INC (Cadiz-04/01/2008           300        12,833                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                       East)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                El Centro              CACA 049884          SOLAR RESERVE LLC (Solar 04/24/2008           100         3,830                    CSP/Tower
                                                                                                                   Imperial County)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 050528                   IDIT INC (Rabbit12/08/2008            40           404                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 051625       SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO 12/17/2009       Unknown           351                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Bakersfield                    CACA 051812    ELEMENT POWER (Atwell)         04/09/2010       Unknown           320                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico                                                     Las Cruces   NMNM 119969                                  ENXCO DEVELO02/06/2008 (Afton)   600         3,000                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Las Cruces   NMNM 120310      IBERDROLA RENEWABLES (Lordsburg         03/25/2008         1,500        24,320                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                       Mesa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Las Cruces   NMNM 121092                     SOLAR RESERVE LLC (Lordsb08/11/2008           100         5,296                    CPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                    Las Vegas          NVN 083083                                     COGENTRIX01/18/2007VICES LLC1,000mm/      9,760                    CSP
                                                                                                                       Jean)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 083129                                     COGENTRIX01/18/2007VICES LLC1,000        19,840                    CSP
                                                                                                                         (McCullough Pass)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 083150                                     COGENTRIX02/14/2007VICES LLC1,400        13,440                    CSP
                                                                                                                  (Amargosa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 083151                                     COGENTRIX02/14/2007VICES LLC1,000        30,720                    CSP
                                                                                                                   (Pahrump)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 083220                                     COGENTRIX03/05/2007VICES LLC1,400        12,800                    CSP
                                                                                                                    (Beatty)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 083221                                     COGENTRIX03/05/2007VICES LLC1,400        22,400                    CSP
                                                                                                                       Dune)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 083914                          BRIGHT SOURCE ENGY S07/25/2007           500        10,000                    CSP
                                                                                                               (Morman Mesa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 084052                            NV POWER CO (Dry L08/14/2007)          120         1,775                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 084232          FIRST SOLAR (Desert Spring)         10/22/2007           400         5,500                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 084465                                   PACIFIC SOL12/07/2007ENTS INC   300         7,500                  PV
                                                                                                (Iberdrola) (Amargosa North)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 084466                                   PACIFIC SOL12/07/2007ENTS INC   500         7,700                  PV
                                                                                                            (Amargosa South)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 084467                                   PACIFIC SOL12/07/2007ENTS INC  1000        11,000                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                    (Bowman)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 084631                          BRIGHT SOURCE ENGY S01/28/2008         1,200         2,000                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Customer Name (Project Name and/or     Application                    Total Case         Planned
                      State                        BLM Field Office      Serial Number              Geographic Area)                Received           MWs          Acres         Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Stillwater          NVN 084654                              NAVY FACENG CMND01/25/2008n NAS        4            37                  PV
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 084704             AMARGOSA FLATS ENERGY LLC (Crysta03/12/2008           140         7,040                    CSP/CLFR
                                                                                                                    Johnnie)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 085077         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/21/2008           340         7,000                  PV
                                                                                                       (Silver State South])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 085117            BULL FROG GREEN ENERGY LLC (South 03/18/2008           500         3,639                  PV
                                                                                                                    Keyhole Canyon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 085201                         EWINDFARM INC (Johnni05/14/2008           500        10,880                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Stillwater          NVN 085215                LUNING (Luning Solar)         05/20/2008            30           575                  PV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 085612                                     COGENTRIX07/11/2008VICES LLC  240         2,012                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 085657                                     COGENTRIX07/11/2008VICES LLC  720         7,700                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                            (Amargosa South)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 085773                                     COGENTRIX07/11/2008VICES LLC1,000        11,584                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 086158          POWER PARTNERS SOUTHWEST LLC        09/18/2008           250         3,885                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 086159          POWER PARTNERS SOUTHWEST LLC        09/19/2008           250         1,751                    CSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 086217                                 NYE COUNTY SO09/29/2008 (Mercury) 300        14,160                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 086246                        AUSRA NV I LLC (Skelet10/06/2008           140         4,460                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                              Lathrop Wells)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 086248                        AUSRA NV I LLC (Highwa10/06/2008           420        10,080                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 086249                        AUSRA NV I LLC (Specto10/09/2008       Unknown         4,480                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Caliente  NVN 086350                     SOLAR RESERVE LLC (Pahroc10/02/2008           180         7,680                    CSP/Tower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 086571                     ABENGOA SOLAR INC (Lathro12/12/2008           500         1,920                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pahrump          NVN 086782                SOUTHWEST SOLAR LAND CO LLC (S02/23/2009           138           530                  PV
                                                                                                                Solar Ridge)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 087366                  SOLAR MILLENNIUM LLC        09/22/2008       Unknown         6,400                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 087756                  SOLAR MILLENNIUM LLC        06/04/2009       Unknown        13,571                    CSP/Trough
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 088552                                GA-SNC SOLAR L05/13/2010       Unknown           825             Unknown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    SUMMARY TABLE--PENDING SOLAR APPLICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Active
                        State                            Applications            Acres           Estimated MWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona                                                              36             457,445              18,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                           30             273,737              22,849
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                                              0                   0                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico                                                            3              32,616               2,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                               35             282,324              17,052
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                                                  0                   0                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS                                                              104           1,046,122              60,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information relating to approved solar right-of-way applications is 
contained in the following chart:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Application                    Total Case         Planned
                      State                        BLM Field Office      Serial Number       Customer Name  (Project Name)          Received           MWs          Acres         Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California                                                  Barstow                    CACA 049537           TESSERA SOLAR (Calico So03/14/2007           664         4,604                    CSP/Dish Engine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 048880    NextEra/BOULEVARD ASSOCIATES LL01/31/2007           250         1,950                    CSP/Trough
                                                         Southcoast                                  (Genesis/Ford Dry Lake)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Palm Springs-                    CACA 048811        SOLAR MILLENNIUM/ CHEVRON (02/15/2007         1,000         7,025                    CSP/Trough
                                                         Southcoast
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Barstow                    CACA 049561                          CHEVRON E12/07/2007TIONS CO    45           516                  PV
                                                                                                            (Lucerne Valley)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                El Centro              CACA 04TESSERA SOLAR (Imperial Valley         01/06/2005           709         6,360                    CSP/Dish Engine
                                                                                                                      Solar)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Needles                    CACA 048668       SOLAR PARTNERS I LLC (Ivanpa11/17/2006           370         3,471                    CSP/Tower
                                                                                                                   includes CACA 049502, 3, and 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada                                                      Pahrump          NVN 084359                  SOLAR MILLENNIUM LLC (Amargo11/20/2007           484         4,350                    CSP/Trough
                                                                                                                       Road)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Las Vegas          NVN 085077         NEXTLIGHT RENEWABLE POWER LLC        03/21/2008            50           618                  PV
                                                                                                        (Silver State North)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Tonopah          NVN 086292   Solar Reserve/TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY         11/05/2008           110         7,680                    CSP/Tower
                                                                                                                          LLC (Crescent Dunes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Totals         3,682        28,894
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 17. How many new mining claims have been located over the 
past 10 years? Please provide number of claims located by year. Please 
provide a table displaying the total number of mining claims in each 
state.
    Answer. The following chart lists new claims over the past 10 
years. The total number of active claims over the 10 years has ranged 
between 320,000 to more than 400,000.



                         u.s. geological survey
    Question 18. What funds does the USGS propose to expend on each of 
the following ecosystem restoration efforts during FY 2012: California 
Bay-Delta; Everglades; Platte River; Upper Mississippi River; and Great 
Lakes?
    Answer. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) proposes the following 
expenditures on restoration efforts during FY 2012:

   California Bay-Delta ($3.513M): Funding provides leadership 
        through the support of the CALFED lead scientist office, and 
        support to the interdisciplinary Interagency Ecological 
        Program, place-based studies in San Francisco Bay through the 
        USGS Priority Ecosystems Science program, long-term studies 
        tracking contaminant transportation and distribution in the 
        Bay-Delta, and the National Water-Quality Assessment program 
        for the Sacramento and San-Joaquin Basins.
   Everglades ($6.907M): USGS research and monitoring focuses 
        on ecosystem history, water quality and contaminants, surface 
        and groundwater flows, and species response to hydrologic 
        dynamics such as timing and distribution of water flow, water 
        depth and inundation duration.
   Platte River ($0.263M): Funding supports science to restore 
        the riparian ecosystem and sustain endangered migratory and 
        resident bird populations by understanding the linkages between 
        hydrology, river morphology, biological communities and land 
        use within the Platte River Basin.
   Upper Mississippi River ($5.88M): Restoration of aquatic 
        environments requires understanding the effects of natural and 
        human factors on sediment dynamics, stream flow, water quality, 
        fish and wildlife, and aquatic habitats. The new funding would 
        build upon this existing work and develop a comprehensive new 
        data management structure.
   Great Lakes ($19.285M): The restoration initiative in the 
        Great Lakes will support invasive Asian Carp control science 
        that includes spawning requirements and identifying potential 
        spawning areas.

    Question 19. The FY 2012 budget includes $59.6 million additional 
funding for a total of $99.8 million for the Landsat program to conduct 
land imaging and remote sensing activities. How will these activities 
be coordinated with NASA and other federal agencies? How will these 
activities benefit citizens who may utilize the information collected 
through the program?
    Answer. Of the $59 million increase requested in FY2012, $48 
million for planning and development of Landsats 9 and 10 will support 
USGS and NASA efforts to explore design alternatives, gather user 
requirements, and establish a science advisory team among other 
activities. The USGS is meeting regularly with NASA's new Joint Agency 
Satellite Division to discuss these activities. The USGS Landsat 
Program also coordinates with many other federal agencies, including 
NOAA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the State Department 
and other bureaus within the Department of the Interior as well as the 
academic community. Gathering and prioritizing the operational 
requirements of current missions has been a USGS responsibility for 
years and will remain so for future Landsat missions. Also included in 
the National Land Imaging budget is $13.35 million to complete the 
additional requirements for the ground system to account for the 
addition of the thermal infrared sensor to the Landsat Data Continuity 
Mission (Landsat 8).
    Landsat data is provided to the public free of charge, and is 
therefore widely used by the general public, private organizations and 
the academic community. By one estimate, the absence of Landsat data 
would cost the American economy $935 million per year. This is due in 
part because the satellite has become vital to America's agricultural, 
water management, disaster response and national security sectors. 
State water managers in the West use Landsat's thermal sensor to 
measure water use more accurately and cost effectively than with 
traditional methods. Foresters around the country use Landsat's imagery 
to remotely map and monitor the status of woodlands in near real-time. 
The military meanwhile uses Landsat for mapping, terrain-change 
detection, and graphics-display applications.
    Landsat satellites have provided imagery of the Earth's surface for 
nearly four decades and are the source of the most consistent, reliable 
documentation of global land-surface change ever assembled. Landsat 
remains the gold standard of land remote sensing satellites because it 
images the surface of the Earth regularly, thoroughly and at the 
optimal resolution for a variety of natural resource and environmental 
management applications.
    Question 20. USGS's FY 2012 budget request contains $89.1 million 
in program reductions that will result in the loss of approximately 230 
jobs. Has USGS evaluated the impacts of those reductions on federal-
state partnership programs?
    Answer. We recognize that some USGS federal-state partnership 
programs will be impacted by programmatic reductions as well as cost 
savings or efficiencies reductions contained in the Administration's 
budget request for the USGS. The 2012 budget makes some very difficult 
reductions to worthy programs including science partnerships. In 
programs, such as the Water Resources Research Institutes Program, 
where funds are leveraged there will be impacts relative to the reduced 
federal funding and the reduced matching funding.
    Question 21. USGS's FY 2012 budget for water resources is $21.6 
million less than the FY 2010 enacted level. Cuts in this area will 
impact programs that leverage federal funding with state and local 
contributions. In addition, many of the programs in the water resources 
department help provide basic data to water managers who rely on the 
data for purposes such as irrigation allocations and interstate compact 
compliance. In addition, the funding reductions include the cessation 
of funding for the nation's Water Resources Research Institutes which 
exist in all 50 states. What are the USGS's plans for restoring funding 
for these critical programs?
    Answer. The FY 2012 budget request for USGS water resources 
includes both program increases and decreases to focus the available 
resources on the highest national priorities, as well as reductions due 
to management efficiencies and the reduction in the Enterprise 
Publishing Network. The Groundwater Resources Program, the National 
Water Quality Assessment Program, and the Water Resources Research 
Program received program reductions, while the Hydrologic Networks and 
Analysis and National Streamflow Information Programs both received 
program increases to meet priorities. The Cooperative Water Program 
(CWP) is funded at $62,252, the only reductions to this program are due 
to management efficiencies and the Enterprise Publishing Network. The 
core work of the water resources program has been preserved in the 
budget request.
    Question 22. Considering the Department's ongoing efforts to work 
cooperatively with Mexico on water supply issues on the Colorado River, 
why has USGS failed to include funding in its FY 2012 request for the 
on-going Transboundary Aquifer Assessment program which would involve 
cooperation with Mexico on groundwater assessments affecting Arizona, 
New Mexico and Texas? In light of the recent agreement between the U.S. 
and Mexico regarding the aquifer assessment program, wouldn't it make 
sense to make as much progress as possible to develop a bi-national 
relationship along the border regarding water supply issues?
    Answer. The U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program 
has been a successful partnership between the USGS and the Water 
Resources Research Institutes from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. 
Progress has been made in developing and implementing bi-national 
workplans. Funding for this effort has been provided through 
unrequested increases. The FY 2012 eliminates all unrequested 
increases.
    Question 23. Recognizing the important role of having basic data 
available to help understand the current and future water supply needs 
in increasingly stressed systems, why does the USGS budget request for 
FY 2012 fail to include any funding for a national groundwater 
monitoring network as authorized by the SECURE Water Act? According to 
the National Groundwater Association, 78 percent of community water 
systems, nearly all of rural domestic supplies and 42 percent of 
agricultural irrigation water are supplied by groundwater. What are the 
Department's plans for assessing the security of our nation's 
groundwater supplies?
    Answer. Basic data are important building blocks to construct the 
foundation necessary to understand current and future water supply 
needs. Although no new funds are requested in FY 2012 for the proposed 
national groundwater monitoring network, some water-level and water-
quality data will be collected through USGS programs such as the 
Cooperative Water Program and the Groundwater Resources Program (GWRP). 
The GWRP provides scientific information necessary to assess and 
quantify availability and sustainability of our Nation's groundwater 
resources. Program funds added to the GWRP through the WaterSMART 
initiative will allow some of the ongoing groundwater assessment 
activities to continue.
    Question 24. Water Use & Availability Census--USGS has just 
completed a pilot project to assess the water use and availability of 
the waters of the Great Lakes region. What are the agency's plans next 
for the census? As learned through the pilot program, a successful 
census will benefit from the active support of the states and local 
water users to ensure as comprehensive data set as possible. How will 
USGS ensure that it will receive support from states and local water 
users in collecting data and developing the census? How might the flow 
of information be improved to maximize the accuracy of the census?
    Answer. The budget request for the USGS in 2011 and 2012 included 
funding for the Department of the Interior's WaterSMART initiative. 
This $9.0 million initiative will begin USGS plans to conduct a 
national census of water availability and use. A complete description 
of the initiative is contained in the ``Water Challenges'' section of 
the Department's 2012 budget request. The Department agrees 
wholeheartedly that a successful census will benefit from active 
support of the states and local water users. The USGS has been working 
with an ad hoc advisory committee to shape the plans for our WaterSMART 
Initiative. This committee has representation from a host of government 
and non-governmental organizations:
    In addition, one of the areas where the USGS needs the most help 
from state and local agencies is in the arena of water use. The USGS 
investment in water use science through the WaterSMART Initiative will 
include a program of grants to state water resource agencies to assist 
them with critical work on their water use databases. This information 
is vital to our understanding of the current and historical trends in 
water demand. This is a new authority under the SECURE Water Act, which 
allows each state to receive up to $250K in grants for improvements to 
their water use data.
    Question 25a. How are USGS's efforts contributing to the 
Department's New Energy Frontier initiative?
    Answer.
Geothermal Energy
    The USGS is building upon the updated national geothermal resource 
estimate of the potential for geothermal power. The study indicates 
that full development of conventional, identified systems alone could 
expand geothermal power production substantially and a much larger 
potential exists in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS; high temperature, 
but low permeability). The USGS is working in collaboration with other 
federal and state partners to focus on regional studies to augment 
resolution of the national assessment. Primary objectives will be to 
collect, analyze, and interpret regional datasets that supplement a 
resource assessment and to support development of a conceptual model 
that ties observations of particular parameters (e.g., thermal state of 
the crust, variations in basin depths) to physical and tectonic 
processes (e.g., active extension, magmatic intrusions, fault 
interactions) responsible for formation of geothermal systems.
Biofuels
    The USGS recently completed an assessment of the effects of biofuel 
production on water quantity and quality in the Mississippi Delta. To 
produce biofuel crops in the Mississippi Delta cotton acreage declined 
50 percent and corn acreage almost tripled in 2007. Because corn uses 
60 percent more water for irrigation and more nitrogen fertilizer than 
cotton, this widespread change is accelerating water-level declines in 
the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer at a time when 
conservation is being encouraged due to concerns about sustainability. 
A mathematical model calibrated to existing conditions in the Delta 
shows that increased fertilizer applications on corn also will increase 
the extent of nitrate movement into the alluvial aquifer.
    To assess the impacts of biofuel production more widely, accurate 
data, and appropriate decision support tools founded on sound science 
are necessary to evaluate potential outcomes and impacts. The 
Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) Program of the USGS supports 
the assessment of these impacts by: identifying areas suitable for 
production; developing land use change models that predict future 
scenarios of land allocations; and assessing the impacts on water 
quality and quantity and carbon sequestration. The GAM Program's 
current work focuses on two geographic areas with the potential to see 
an increased demand for land suitable for biofuels production: the 
northern Great Plains and the Platte River basin.
Wind Energy
    The USGS is conducting basic wildlife research on life history, 
population status, mortality factors, and habitat use including 
application and development of many innovative tools and techniques 
that will help predict movements of wildlife in relation to wind 
turbines. State-of-the-art techniques are being used to evaluate 
regional scale development and cumulative impacts on species that are 
vulnerable to turbine blades (e.g. golden eagles, bats) and habitat 
loss (e.g. sage grouse). Design of an adaptive management framework for 
wind energy permitting is continuing to evolve. Adaptive management 
allows for evaluation of current information to enable short term 
management decisions while supporting essential monitoring towards 
continued improvement of management approaches over time.
    The USGS is identifying and addressing gaps in regional information 
needed to assess potential impacts of siting and installation of 
offshore energy systems and associated cables. This research project is 
designed to understand the cumulative impacts of installation of varied 
size, configuration and spacing of offshore wind energy turbines on the 
seafloor. Research will address scientific questions related to changes 
in sediment deposition, migration and erosion patterns; disturbance or 
nourishment to habitats, and compaction of sediments. Resultant maps 
would be a part of an information portfolio used by the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), the National 
Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 
evaluate potential cumulative impacts of installation of offshore 
alternative energy structures and cabling on sea floor disturbance 
caused by bottom stressors.
Solar Energy
    The USGS is researching the interaction of solar energy 
development, placement, infrastructure support systems (roads, 
transmission lines), and facility operations with wildlife and the 
ecosystems on which they depend. Research will provide critical 
information to guide development and help determine what management, 
placement, construction and operational measures will help us meet our 
future energy needs while maintaining sustainable wildlife populations 
and ecosystems under DOI's conservation and resource mandates. This 
includes research to identify the type and scope of potential impacts, 
developing and validating maps and models to predict the impacts of 
mortality, habitat loss and other factors on wildlife populations, 
particularly on the desert ecosystems of the Southwest.
Hydropower
    The USGS maintains a network of about 7,700 streamgages across the 
Nation. Long-term streamflow records at these sites provide the basis 
for any assessment of developable power, including both hydropower and 
conventional thermo-electric facilities requiring cooling water.
    In 2011-2012, the USGS is conducting a hydropower assessment. This 
work is being done in cooperation with the Department of Energy's Idaho 
National Laboratory, and is a conventional, as opposed to low-head, 
hydropower resource assessment, building on the initial 2003 
assessment. For a prototype region (the Pacific Northwest), two 
assessments are being conducted. The first evaluates the power 
potential of greenfield site (never before developed) hydroelectric 
plants. This work will involve assessing the gross power potential by 
using a dam development model of all stream reaches on which there is 
currently no civil structure. The developable power along with 
necessary dam width, height, and inundated area will be estimated. The 
second assesses and identifies sites for the development of new pumped 
storage hydroelectric plants for the Pacific Northwest. This work will 
involve identification of topographic features (natural bowls and 
sinks) that could potentially form the upper reservoir of a pumped 
storage plant.
Water--Energy Coordination
    In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a 
performance audit of the agencies that collect key data about water use 
at thermoelectric generating plants in the United States. Two federal 
agencies--the USGS and the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
(EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the 
Department of Energy--collect and disseminate this information. The GAO 
released the findings of their performance audit in a GAO-10-23 
entitled: ``ENERGY-WATER NEXUS Improvements to Federal Water Use Data 
Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use.'' The 
USGS and the EIA are taking the recommendations in this report very 
seriously and intend to fully implement them. Our actions will include:

   Expanding efforts to disseminate available data on the use 
        of alternative water sources, such as treated effluent and 
        groundwater that is not suitable for drinking or irrigation 
        reinstating collection and distribution of water consumption 
        data at thermoelectric power plants.
   Improving the overall quality of data collected on water use 
        from power plants through regularly coordination with EIA, 
        USGS, water and electricity industry experts, environmental 
        groups, academics, and other federal agencies, to identify and 
        implement steps to improve data collection and dissemination.

    These measures will help us in understanding how this important 
aspect of energy production influences water availability.
    Question 25b. Has USGS conducted studies to evaluate the impacts of 
energy production on water supplies from a water quality and water 
quantity perspective?
    Answer. The USGS has been investigating the environmental impacts 
of water co-produced during oil and gas production for some time. 
Previous investigations have included documenting impacts of historical 
releases of produced brines in Oklahoma. Currently the USGS is: 1) 
identifying impacts for the use/disposal of coalbed natural gas 
produced waters in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin; 2) 
studying the composition and potential human health issues of 
naturally-occurring organic compounds in coalbed methane produced 
waters; 3) characterizing the composition and radioactive nature of 
produced waters (including flowback waters) from oil and gas wells in 
the Appalachian Basin (an area of few well-documented data); and 4) 
creating a method to estimate water requirements and waste water 
volumes from development of continuous hydrocarbon resources.
    The USGS is augmenting monitoring networks to establish a baseline 
of water quality and availability in the Appalachian Basin where 
drilling is proposed or ongoing, to better understand the potential 
contamination associated with Marcellus Shale gas drilling and 
hydraulic fracturing.
    The USGS is investigating ``produced well waters'' generated as a 
by-product of drilling to provide information on the volume, quality 
(including radioactivity), impacts, and possible uses of water produced 
during generation of oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas production and 
development.
    In Colorado, the USGS recently conducted an energy production 
related study on sources of nitrate and methane in groundwater in 
Garfield County.
    Under the WaterSMART Initiative, the USGS proposes to report to 
Congress routinely in the future on the effects of new energy supplies 
development on water use sectors throughout the country. This proposal 
is part of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request.
     A federal committee, chaired by the USGS, has been formed and is 
actively working on a plan for a comprehensive assessment of the 
effects of shale gas (and hydrofracturing) on water quality, beginning 
in the Delaware River Basin.
    Question 25c. Has USGS conducted studies to evaluate the 
constraints that insufficient water supplies pose for the additional 
development of conventional and renewable energy sources?
    Answer. The USGS completed a water availability pilot study in the 
Great Lakes Basin. A key aspect of that investigation was an evaluation 
of water use in the Great Lakes. Thermoelectric power production is a 
key industry in the Great Lakes and the water use associated with this 
industry was evaluated as part of an overall water use evaluation in 
the Great Lakes.
    The USGS is also in the early stages of creating a methodology for 
estimating water inputs and outputs for the development of continuous 
hydrocarbon resources such as tight gas, shale gas, shale oil, and 
coalbed methane. The initial pilot work is being conducted on the 
Bakken Shale but similar studies are anticipated for other areas of 
hydraulic fracturing. In the case of the Bakken Shale, the water 
requirements are being compared to available regional water resources.
    Question 25d. What activities is USGS undertaking to evaluate 
carbon sequestration?
    Answer.
Geologic Carbon Sequestration
    In 2010, the USGS published the final assessment methodology to 
estimate geologic carbon sequestration storage potential across the 
United States. The USGS methodology to assess the CO2 
storage resource of individual storage assessment units in the 
sedimentary basins of the United States is a geology-based, 
probabilistic methodology. The USGS is assembling multi-disciplinary 
teams to address challenges related to assessing sequestration 
potential. For example, a critical issue when evaluating storage 
resources is the integrity and effectiveness of the seal that will 
retain the CO2 . In 2010, the USGS and Stanford University 
co-sponsored a participatory workshop on Seals and Caprocks in Geologic 
Carbon Sequestration. This workshop brought together scientists with 
expertise in petrophysical, geological, hydrological, and geochemical 
properties of caprocks and seals for water and petroleum retention with 
scientists concerned with carbon capture and storage for CO2 
storage and retention in geologic strata.
    Work on the national assessment is ongoing in order to estimate the 
CO2 that can be stored in the technically accessible pore 
volume in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations. In addition to 
the assessment activities, complementary research activities will be 
undertaken, including studying the geologic controls on storage 
capacity such as injectivity, factors associated with enhanced oil and 
gas recovery and CO2 storage potential, issues related to 
storage of CO2 in coal beds, and statistical relationships 
between storage assessment units, volumetric parameters, and 
aggregation to a national scale.
Biologic Carbon Sequestration
    The development of the assessment methodology for biological carbon 
sequestration and greenhouse gas flux in ecosystems was completed in 
2010 and published in November 2010. The application of the peer-
reviewed and public-commented assessment methodology to evaluate the 
Nation's ecosystems for carbon storage and reduction of greenhouse gas 
fluxes began in January 2011.
    In 2011 and 2012, the USGS will apply a scientific framework to 
analyze natural and anthropogenic effects on long-term carbon storage, 
sequestration, and vulnerability of releasing carbon into the 
atmosphere. Within this framework, the USGS will use an extensive set 
of measured and observed data including field inventory data, land 
management data, and land change trends (including wildfires). The USGS 
will use these datasets as input data to run land use, biogeochemical, 
and hydrological models to generate carbon and greenhouse gas flux 
estimates for forests, wetlands, grass and shrub, cropland, and aquatic 
ecosystems.
    Question 25e. Has USGS evaluated the effects of hydraulic 
fracturing on water supplies?
    Answer. The USGS is performing a number of activities relevant to 
the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies including

   Natural gas resource assessments are complete or underway 
        for tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane. These 
        assessments can help resource planners predict future resource 
        development trends and therefore potential water availability 
        and water quality effects.
   The USGS operates an ongoing nationwide surface water flow 
        gaging network and targeted water availability studies. These 
        form the baseline for evaluation of effects of oil and natural 
        gas drilling, including wells requiring hydraulic fracturing.
   Water quality sampling and monitoring is being tailored 
        using existing networks on streams in some areas affected by 
        shale gas drilling, and some limited flowback water sampling 
        has been initiated.
   A pilot study of production and basin water budget was 
        performed in the Williston Basin.
   A regional long-term baseline of groundwater and surface 
        water quality is maintained by the USGS and can be used to 
        evaluate future regional effects of hydraulic fracturing.
   The USGS is in the process of publishing a study on the 
        radionuclide content of produced waters being generated from 
        the Appalachian Basin, including the Marcellus.

    The USGS is cooperating with EPA's hydraulic fracturing study and 
with DOE on related research.
                       office of insular affairs
    Question 26. The OIA budget again proposes a new program, 
``Empowering Insular Communities'' (EIC), but the request is for $4.1 
million instead of the $5 million proposed last year. The goals of the 
program remain vague. On page 83, the budget again says that the 
program is designed to: 1) ``strengthen the foundations for economic 
development in the islands by addressing challenges preventing reliable 
delivery of critical services needed to attract investment'', and 2) 
``pursue economic development initiatives that encourage private sector 
investment . . .''. But then on page 85, the budget says that $1.1 
million would be used for projects related to the Guam Military 
Realignment, and $3.0 million would be used ``to help the territories 
implement actions identified in these (NREL) energy plans.'' Would you 
support a budget that explicitly focuses the non-Guam funds on the 
funding energy projects identified in the strategic energy plans and 
that eliminated the ``call-letter'' process for determining the 
allocation of funds.
    Answer. Yes, the Department of the Interior endorses the 
utilization of $3 million in Empowering Insular Communities (EIC) funds 
for the implementation of strategic energy plans. As the 2012 Budget 
Justifications for the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides, ``OIA 
will use the remaining $3.0 million requested for Empowering Insular 
Communities in 2012 to help the territories implement actions 
identified these (NREL) energy plans.''
    We believe that consultation with the territories via a call letter 
is an important part of determining priorities. We plan to use the call 
letter process in future years. Fiscal year 2012, however, is 
different. The NREL energy plans will be published soon. Because 
budget-busting energy costs are of such a high priority in all the 
islands, we plan to devote the remaining $3 million in EIC funds to 
implementation of island energy plans. We believe that this designation 
of funds will meet high-priority needs on the islands.
    Question 27. What positions within OIA are currently vacant, and 
are there funds within the FY12 budget to fill these positions?
    Answer. Currently, OIA has three vacant positions: the Federated 
States of Micronesia Compact position, an Education Sector Specialist 
in the Honolulu field office and an Evaluator in the Honolulu field 
office. The FY 2012 budget adds an additional two positions for field 
personnel in Guam.
    Question 28. How many of the DOI/OIG auditors are reliably 
available for grant monitoring in U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands?
    Answer. The Department and our Office of Inspector General (OIG) do 
not have auditors assigned full-time for grant monitoring in the U.S.-
affiliated Pacific islands. If requested by the OIA to investigate a 
specific set of circumstances, the OIG considers and usually grants the 
request.
    Question 29. The budget proposes an increase of $300,000 to station 
two staff to conduct grant monitoring in Guam. However, there are more 
OIA grant funds provided to the other five U.S.-affiliated Pacific 
island jurisdictions than to Guam. Why was Guam selected as the site of 
this expended monitoring capability and wouldn't it be more cost 
effective to stationed staff in Hawaii, or in other islands where there 
are more DOI funds to monitor? What would be the OIA priorities if an 
additional $300,000 funds were to be made available for grant 
monitoring?
    Answer. Guam and Palau are the only islands to which OIA 
responsibility extends that currently do not have OIA field offices. An 
additional two officials on Guam, as proposed in the 2012 budget, would 
provide the Department with needed support and oversight for activities 
that are primarily taking place on Guam, but also provide more regional 
oversight.
    Near term priorities of the Guam field staff would be monitoring 
the Guam build-up and the associated large influx of federal funds. The 
field staff would also be expected to provide oversight assistance to 
grant managers by conducting regular construction project site visits 
and in-person audits of grantee files both on Guam and other insular 
areas as assigned. Being located on Guam, the officials would be 
conveniently located to assist with OIA responsibilities and oversight 
in Palau, the CNMI and FSM. Given high travel costs from Hawaii, we 
believe that locating the officials in Guam would be cost-effective.
    Question 30. Please describe the anticipated FY12 workload for the 
Ombudsman's Office in the CNMI and whether it will be greater, less, or 
about the same as this fiscal year?
    Answer. OIA supports the President's budget submission for the 
Ombudsman's Office in the CNMI. OIA expects the fiscal year 2012 
workload for the Ombudsman to remain consistent with the 2010 and 2011 
workload.
    Question 31. Please briefly describe the status of the 
implementation of P.L. 110-229 including a list of issues that need to 
be addressed through FY12, and OIA's recommendation on how these issues 
should be managed.
    Answer. Implementation is on-going, and along with other federal 
agencies we are finding ways to resolve the unique challenges presented 
by the task of extending federal immigration law to the CNMI after 30 
years of CNMI control.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued its final rule 
governing CNMI-only E-2 investors. DHS has not yet issued final 
regulations governing the CNMI-only transitional worker program, the 
interim final rule for which currently is enjoined as a result of 
litigation filed by the Government of the CNMI. DHS has published 
interim final rules, which are currently in effect, for conforming 
amendments to immigration regulations (a joint rulemaking with the 
Department of Justice) and the Guam-CNMI visa waiver program. In 
addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exercised her 
discretionary authority to parole eligible visitors into the CNMI on an 
individual basis from China and Russia.
    Under the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, the 
Department of the Interior was instructed (1) to report with 
recommendations on what actions should be taken with regard to foreign 
workers in the CNMI, and (2) to provide technical assistance to aid in 
the diversification of the CNMI economy and to aid CNMI employers in 
hiring United States-eligible workers.
    The Interior Report on the Alien Worker Population in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was issued in April 2010, 
with the recommendation that ``consistent with the goals of 
comprehensive immigration reform, we recommend that the Congress 
consider permitting alien workers who have lawfully resided in the CNMI 
for a minimum period of five years to apply for long-term status under 
the immigration and nationality laws of the United States.''
    With regard to technical assistance, the OIA conducted a Forum on 
Economic and Labor Development (FELD) in November 2010 in order to get 
stakeholder in-put in the development of a technical assistance 
program. The results of the FELD are being finalized and will soon be 
posted on OIA's website. From information obtained during this forum, 
OIA is developing a technical assistance program to assist the 
Commonwealth in its economic recovery efforts and aid employers in 
hiring United State-eligible labor.
    Question 32. When there is a disagreement between OIA and DHS on 
how to handle an alien worker case in the CNMI, have OIA and DHS 
established a system to exchange information and reach an agreement on 
how resolve the disagreement?
    Answer. OIA and many agencies within DHS working on issues in the 
CNMI have established good working relationships and are working 
together to facilitate the transition to federal immigration law in the 
CNMI. DHS' USCIS has been responsive to the unique situation in the 
CNMI and cognizant of the challenges of applying the federal 
immigration categories to the lawfully present aliens in the CNMI. They 
continue to work collaboratively with the Ombudsman's Office in this 
area.
    CBP has also been responsive when an alien's lawful status is in 
question and has responded quickly to any concerns raised by the 
Ombudsman's Office.
    The Ombudsman's Office and ICE are developing a cooperative working 
relationship. In the area of anti-trafficking, smuggling or other 
criminal matters, ICE has been responsive.
    Question 33. What agency is the source of the grants that are 
currently being investigated in the Marshall Islands?
    Answer. The source of grants being investigated is the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS). The investigation is continuing, 
including a determination of other funding sources that may be 
involved.
    Question 34. Please describe the status of this investigation.
    Answer. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) Attorney General 
has been investigating the fraud since 2010.
    The RMI Attorney General briefed U.S. members of the Joint Economic 
Management and Financial Accountability Committee on the status of the 
investigations on March 22, 2011. Twenty-two cases have been filed 
involving various forms of fraud against the Government of the RMI, 
totaling between $600,000 to $700,000. Some conspirators have been 
suspended without pay and three have been terminated. The RMI expects 
to get convictions on all cases and will continue to prosecute pending 
cases.
    Only half of the embezzled amount was drawn down by the RMI from 
the affected HHS programs. This means that RMI local funds were stolen 
as well. So far, only one transaction of $9,000 in Compact-related 
funding is being investigated for possible fraud. The Government of the 
RMI anticipates the recovery of some of the lost assets.
    The Department of Interior is collaborating with HHS by sharing 
information and coordinating the response. The OIA led a meeting 
between U.S. officials (including HHS staff) and RMI officials in late 
February.
    The U.S. Embassy urged the RMI to engage outside assistance. The 
RMI welcomed participation by OIA and OIG personnel. The investigation 
is on-going.
    Question 35. Are DOI/OIG or OIA investigators participating in this 
investigation?
    Answer. Currently, OIA has two officials participating in the 
investigation. One is the OIA representative permanently assigned to 
the U.S. Embassy in Majuro. The OIA Accountability Specialist has also 
been assigned temporary duty in Majuro to assist. The Office of 
Inspector General has also assigned an auditor to participate in the 
investigation.
    Question 36. In light of the problems in the Marshall Islands, does 
the DOI/OIG or OIA plan any specific oversight or investigation of 
grants in the other U.S.-affiliated islands in the Pacific?
    Answer. OIA does not currently plan any other investigations. The 
problem in the RMI was allegedly the work of a ring of conspirators, 
originally assumed to be trustworthy, who methodically falsified 
documents in league with vendors. This is a difficult fraud to detect. 
The Department auditors provided guidance to the RMI in improving 
procedures and detecting fraud. When staffed with OIA evaluator/
auditors, the OIA will have the capacity to provide an in-depth review 
of procurement practices in the insular areas.
    Question 37. What is the status of Rongelap the resettlement 
program and do you expect that resettlement will be initiated by the 
October 1st target date?
    Answer. Phase II of the OIA-funded Rongelap resettlement housing 
program has four clusters. There are five houses in the first cluster. 
At Rongelap Island the contractor has finished the exterior, six-inch 
concrete-masonry-unit (CMU) block works for all five houses and has 
begun the CMU block works for the interior, four-inch walls for some of 
the five houses. In Majuro the contractor has in progress the 
procurement and delivery of roofing materials, windows, doors/hardware, 
lumber and cement.
    The second cluster has thirteen houses; the third cluster, twelve 
houses. At Rongelap Island, preparation for the workers' camp for each 
of these clusters continues. In Majuro the contractor has undertaken 
the material testing of the CMU blocks for these two clusters and has 
substantially completed the procurement and delivery of cement, blocks 
and aggregate for both clusters.
    The fourth cluster will have ten houses, for which the contract in 
the amount of $799,999 has been awarded to Majuro Building Solutions. 
The notice to proceed has been issued with a completion date of January 
12, 2012. A pre-construction meeting has been held to discuss, among 
other topics, construction safety, logistics and workers' barracks at 
Rongelap Island.
    Based on available information, the OIA anticipates that 
resettlement at Rongelap Island will begin by the October 1st target 
date.
    Question 38. Please report briefly on what steps OIA has taken in 
the past year to reduce the impact of FAS migrants on communities in 
Guam and Hawaii.
    Answer. Currently, there are two OIA initiatives intended to reduce 
the effect of Micronesian migration on United States jurisdictions. 
First, in order to better educate and prepare citizens from the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) traveling to the United States, 
OIA has awarded a technical assistance grant to develop an orientation 
pamphlet and video. These materials identify important documents that 
are necessary to live and work in the U.S., information about housing, 
employment, health care, education, U.S. law, and additional resources 
that can contribute to a better understanding of their rights and 
responsibilities while in the U.S.
    Second, OIA has engaged in discussions with the Government of the 
RMI to establish an RMI health screening process. The goal of this 
initiative is to ensure that RMI citizens receive medical attention 
they need prior to traveling and limit the spread of communicable 
diseases, such as drug resistant tuberculosis. This targeted effort 
will assist in reducing the burden of providing expensive medical care 
and can prevent unnecessary loss of life. This is an on-going 
initiative that OIA is pursuing with the RMI government. Areas of 
continued discussion include how to deliver this service, how to handle 
the costs, and how to convince RMI citizens that the screening can 
benefit them and is not an effort to prevent them from travelling.
    Under Article 141 of the Compacts as Amended with the Republic of 
the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federated States of Micronesia 
(FSM), as well as the Compact with the Republic of Palau (ROP), 
citizens of the FAS can travel, live, and work in the United States 
without a visa. The possibility of the U.S. embassies in the FAS 
reviewing public charge/medical ineligibilities for FAS citizens 
seeking to travel to the United States would not be a viable solution. 
The U.S. embassies would have to increase significantly the size 
(personnel, equipment, and space) of their consular sections in order 
to properly review public charge/medical ineligibilities for FAS 
citizens seeking to travel to the U.S. The public charge issue would be 
especially difficult to adjudicate as it is typically associated with a 
U.S.-based sponsor who is the petitioner for an immigrant visa. Without 
a petitioner we would have to evaluate applicants more like non-
immigrant visas where we look at the applicant's own financial capacity 
or skills-based employability. If this were the case, few FAS citizens 
would likely qualify. Any system set up to screen FAS citizens going to 
the U.S. for any medical ineligibility would do little to solve the 
problem of the financial burden of Compact migrants on the states. The 
health issues of FAS migrants that are the most costly to the states 
are diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. None of these diseases 
in themselves would make a traveler to the U.S. ineligible to enter.
                         bureau of reclamation
    Question 39. Rural Water--Although the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act provided significant funding for Reclamation's rural 
water projects, there continues to be a significant funding backlog for 
those projects. Many of those projects, like the Eastern New Mexico 
Rural Water Project, are designed to meet critical water needs where no 
reliable water supply exists. What are Reclamation's plans for meeting 
the funding requirements of the existing authorized projects?
    Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the 
required operation and maintenance component, which is $15.3 million 
[Bureau of Reclamation-wide] for FY 2012 for tribal features of the Mni 
Wiconi and Garrison projects. Reclamation has applied a consistent 
method for allocating funds for the construction component based on 
objective criteria that gave priority to projects that serve on-
reservation needs and projects nearest to completion. Reclamation is 
making progress in funding construction of rural water projects. The 
Mid-Dakota rural water project was completed in FY 2006; numerous 
features within the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota have been 
completed; the Perkins County Project is scheduled to be completed in 
2011, and the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is scheduled to be 
completed in 2013, dependent on funding. Approximately $232 million in 
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds were provided for 
rural water projects ($20.9 million on O&M, and the remainder of 
approximately $211.1 million on construction), an amount approximately 
$32 million more than initially allocated.

           Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project is in the FY 2012 
        budget request for $16.3 million in construction funds.
            Garrison Diversion Unit Rural Water--The state and 
        tribal components of this rural water project are in the FY 
        2012 budget request for $1.0 million each.
           Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie RWS in Montana is 
        in the FY 2012 budget request for $493,000.
           Lewis and Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota, 
        Iowa, and Minnesota, is in the FY 2012 budget request for 
        $493,000.
           Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana RWS in Montana is 
        in the FY 2012 budget request for $493,000.
           he Jicarilla Apache Rural water system is in the FY 
        2012 budget request for $496,000.

    For the Eastern NM Rural Water Supply Project, Reclamation has 
completed all the prerequisites for construction including the issuance 
of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Environmental 
Assessment for the Project on January 28, 2011. There is no funding 
requested in the 2012 budget for this Project but the local sponsors 
will be utilizing a portion of the 25 percent cost share to break 
ground on the project this year. The Administration will be reviewing 
funding needs in FY 2013 and beyond.
    Since the project was authorized in 2002, Reclamation has received 
approximately $10.3 million for the Jicarilla Apache Rural Water 
System. To date, the Jicarilla Apache Nation (Nation) has expended 
approximately $5 million of this appropriated funding and more than $20 
million from other sources. The Nation has approximately $5.5 million 
in available federal funding for work this year, has hired a new 
Project Manager, and has plans to spend about $2.5 million. Reclamation 
requested appropriations in the amount of $496,000 for FY2012 for this 
project.
    Question 40. In 2010, Reclamation initiated funding opportunities 
in connection with the rural water program. What is the status of the 
funding that was allocated through those opportunity announcements? 
Does Reclamation intend to initiate a new round of funding 
opportunities in the near future?
    Answer. In FY 2010, Reclamation awarded $2.6 million to fund 10 
appraisal investigations and 3 feasibility studies under the Rural 
Water Program. All of the appraisal investigations are anticipated to 
be completed within two years of the award, by the end of FY 2012. The 
feasibility studies awarded in FY 2010 are expected to be finished by 
2016.
    Reclamation is currently evaluating 45 applications received in 
response to the FY 2011 Funding Opportunity Announcement. The total 
amount of federal funding requested was over $7.5 million. Thirty of 
the forty-five applicants were asked to submit a full application (due 
April 5, 2011) for further consideration of funding. The FY 2012 
Funding Opportunity Announcement is scheduled in late 2011.
    Question 41. It does not appear that Reclamation's budget includes 
any funding to initiate the loan guarantee program authorized by the 
Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (P.L. No. 109-451). What is the basis 
for the Administration's delay in establishing the loan guarantee 
program? What is the status of the criteria that the Secretary is to 
establish which identifies the entities and projects for which loan 
guarantees will be available?
    Answer. Overall, our budget continues to support the need to 
maintain infrastructure in a safe operating condition while addressing 
the myriad challenges facing water users in the West. No appropriations 
are requested for the cost of loan guarantees. On October 6, 2008, a 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register with a 30-day 
public comment period. The proposed rule established criteria to 
determine eligibility of entities to use loan guarantees to fund Rural 
Water projects, as well as extraordinary maintenance and rehabilitation 
for existing facilities.
                           rio grande project
    Question 42. Has Reclamation evaluated the consequences from a 
water supply perspective of the recent agreement entered between 
Elephant Butte Irrigation District and El Paso Water Improvement Dist. 
No.1 related to operation of the Rio Grande Project? How would the 
water supply allocations be different if Reclamation had continued to 
follow the prior allocation formulas that Reclamation had previously 
used to allocate project water? Has Reclamation developed and released 
a revised version of the operating manual? Does Reclamation have any 
plans for further modifications to the operating manual or the 
agreement? What has Reclamation done to address the concerns raised 
about the agreement from the States of Colorado and New Mexico? Is 
Reclamation open to further discussions with those states regarding 
their concerns?
    Answer. The Rio Grande Project's water supply is determined by the 
Rio Grande Compact. The Operating Agreement functions within the 
constraints of the Compact, and consequently, Project supply under the 
Compact is unaffected.
    The allocations to each District prior to the new operating 
agreement, as well as under the Operating Agreement, are based on the 
respective acres in each District. The Elephant Butte Irrigation 
District (EBID) receives 57 percent of the deliverable water to the 
headings and the El Paso Water Improvement District No. 1 (EP#1) 
receives 43 percent. Under the Agreement this balance is maintained 
because the EBID is still allocated a 57 percent of surface supply and 
the EP#1 is still allocated 43 percent of surface supply. However, 
because of the effects of river pumping in New Mexico, the EBID agrees 
to forgo the delivery of a portion of its surface allocation so that 
the delivery to the Texas portion of the Project remains 43 percent of 
the annual delivery based upon historical delivery criteria. The EBID 
then obtains its historical Project allocation by recovering Project 
water from the ground. The amount of water in the river remains within 
the same range as has resulted from project deliveries over the 
historical operation of the Rio Grande Project. The issue of the amount 
of pumping allowed by the State of New Mexico and the effect of such 
state authorized pumping is, of course, part of the reason for the 
adoption of the Operating Agreement. However, as the purpose of the 
Operating Agreement was to preserve the historical allocation of 
Project supply, the major effect of pumping in New Mexico is not an 
effect of Project operations but, instead, is a function of the water 
rights granted by the State of New Mexico.
    As allowed by the Agreement the Operations Manual is revised each 
year in order to address minor changes needed to make the Agreement 
work in all situations. Changes are made by consensus with all Project 
water users. Once adopted and approved these changes are made available 
to all interested parties.
    Reclamation has been in discussions with the New Mexico Office of 
the State Engineer, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and 
the Engineering Advisors to the Rio Grande Compact Commission since 
2008 on Rio Grande Project operations under the new Operating 
Agreement. Representatives from each Compact State have been invited to 
attend the monthly meetings held by the Project water users to help all 
parties gain a better understanding of Project operations. Reclamation 
will continue to work with the Rio Grande Compact States and the two 
Districts to address concerns as they arise.
    Question 43. What actions, if any, is Reclamation taking to prepare 
for a below-average snow pack this year in New Mexico?
    Answer. In preparation for below average snow pack in the Rio 
Grande, Reclamation is taking various actions:

   The Rio Grande Project only allocates water that is in 
        storage. As of March 1, 2011, Reclamation has made allocations 
        equal to only 27 percent of a full allocation. As more water 
        reaches Project storage it will be allocated to the Project 
        water users in accordance with existing agreements. The 
        irrigation Districts and Mexico have been notified of the 
        anticipated decreased water supply and have been provided with 
        a projected inflow schedule and allocation based on the latest 
        snowpack and runoff scenarios. These projections are for 
        planning purposes only and are not a guarantee of the final 
        allocation for 2011.
   Under the 2003 Emergency Drought Water Agreement, which 
        allows storage while under Article VII restrictions, we plan to 
        store 10,000 ac-ft in El Vado, which will supplement the 
        approximately 21,500 ac-ft of supplemental water already 
        available.
   We will soon have a contract in place to monitor the river 
        for BiOp requirements, and we have extended the dates of the 
        contract so that monitoring can begin earlier, if necessary.
   To address the issue of Prior and Paramount (P&P) storage 
        for Indian users, Reclamation met with the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs (BIA) and the affected Pueblos on March 22, 2011 about 
        P&P storage, including plans for P&P storage this spring. The 
        final stored amount will be determined in May, consistent with 
        the 1981 Agreement for Procedures for the Storage and Release 
        of Indian Water Entitlements of the Six Middle Rio Grande 
        Pueblos. Based on existing knowledge of available flows, it is 
        anticipated that the entire P&P amount will be stored during 
        Article VII restrictions.

    The forecast on the Pecos River is for 36 percent of the 30 year 
average inflow to Santa Rosa Lake. Water users are working with 
Reclamation to manage limited storage supplies and base flows in order 
to meet requirements under the current Biological Opinion. In addition, 
Reclamation has been proactive by conserving water used to meet ESA 
BiOp flow targets in close coordination with FWS staff. Together, we 
agreed that, given this year's forecast, Reclamation will not manage 
for the 35 cfs target at Taiban, but instead will manage for continuous 
flow. Reclamation staff is continuing efforts to acquire more water, 
via leases with river pumpers and the Carlsbad Irrigation District.
                       middle rio grande project
    Question 44. Reclamation is in the process of preparing a 
biological assessment that will lead toward a new biological opinion 
for its operations within the Middle Rio Grande. How will the new 
biological assessment address concerns that the existing 2003 
biological opinion is not sustainable on a long-term basis? What has 
Reclamation done to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to ensure that there is a smooth transition to a 
new biological opinion for the Middle Rio Grande? Is there a clear path 
forward for the new biological opinion? Does Reclamation anticipate any 
problems in meeting the benchmarks it has established for the process 
of developing the new biological assessment or obtaining a biological 
opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service? What specific activities 
are being carried out with the funding provided in 2010 and 2011 to 
address ESA issues in the Middle Rio Grande?
    Answer. Based on our modeling of the Middle Rio Grande, water 
operations as described in the 2003 biological opinion (BiOp) are not 
sustainable into the future, and therefore it is critical that new 
operations and management tools be identified and implemented as soon 
as possible. In addition to development of the Biological Assessment 
(BA), several other concurrent efforts are underway which are essential 
for the success of the consultation process. Updating the current Long 
Term Plan (LTP) and development of an Adaptive Management Plan by the 
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program (Program), 
and Reclamation's efforts to secure additional water supplies and new 
water operations tools to meet science-based flow requirements will all 
be crucial pieces of the consultation process. The 2003 BiOp is the 
point of departure but realistically it will be a few years into the 
new BiOp before new science-based information and understanding through 
the performance of hypothesis testing in adaptive management allows for 
changes in water operations.
    Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers (CoE) are proactively 
working to draft BAs on the effects of discretionary Middle Rio Grande 
water management actions and river maintenance. A joint federal/non-
federal ESA consultation team has been established to support the 
consultation efforts. Beyond Reclamation and CoE the interagency team 
includes the FWS and a few non-federal entities. Reclamation also meets 
and coordinates with the FWS and the Corps individually on an as needed 
basis.
    Reclamation does not anticipate major problems in meeting its 
benchmarks in developing the new BA. Reclamation continues to work 
collaboratively with the Service, and other stakeholders, to ensure 
that we can successfully negotiate the path to achieve a BO that will 
be satisfactory to all parties.
    FY 2010 and proposed 2011 funding would allow the Collaborative 
Program to continue activities to support transitioning into a Recovery 
Program. This included (1) revising the LTP, (2) initiation of 
developing an adaptive management plan for Program-related research and 
management actions, (3) initiation of scientific peer review of 
nominated Program projects including the 2003 BiOp requirement to 
implement fish passage at San Acacia Diversion Dam, (iv) supporting 
compliance with the 2003 BiOp , including ongoing activities such as: 
habitat restoration; supporting efforts of the FWS through interagency 
agreements for Big Bend silvery minnow reintroduction, Program 
management, and Endangered Species Act support; silvery minnow 
assessment and genetics monitoring, augmentation, rescue efforts, egg 
spawning and monitoring, population monitoring and estimation, 
Population Viability Analysis modeling, fish community sampling 
methodology evaluation, age and growth sampling and analysis; and 
continued operation and maintenance of USGS Middle Rio Grande gages and 
silvery minnow rearing and breeding facilities.
                               watersmart
    Question 45. The WaterSMART program included an increased budget 
request in FY 2011 but has been scaled back for FY 2012. Why has 
Reclamation sought a decreased amount of funding in FY 2012 for the 
WaterSMART grants? Regarding the Title XVI program, what is the status 
of the funding backlog for the existing authorized Title XVI projects? 
Have any projects been taken off the prior backlog list as a result of 
information provided by the project proponents that funding is no 
longer necessary. Has Reclamation begun to utilize the new criteria it 
has developed for the Title XVI program? Last year, Reclamation 
initiated a funding opportunity announcement for the Title XVI 
program--does Reclamation intend to go forward with awards and if so, 
what is the anticipated time frame for doing so?
    Answer. The budget request for WaterSMART Grants in FY 2012 does 
represent a decrease from the FY 2011 request due to the economic 
conditions facing the Nation and competing budget priorities. The FY 
2012 request is similar to the level of appropriations for WaterSMART 
Grants in FY 2010, when Reclamation was able to award funding for 51 
new cost-shared projects. The overall amount of funding requested for 
WaterSMART is substantially increased in 2012 compared to 2010.
    Reclamation included new program criteria in its FY 2011 funding 
opportunity announcement to identify project phases that most 
effectively meet program goals. Applications submitted by the February 
11, 2011 deadline are currently under review. Selections are expected 
to be announced in early April 2011, or later as necessary to ascertain 
the amount of FY 2011 funding available for such projects.
                               hydropower
    Question 46. The Department is a party to the Memorandum of 
Understanding for Hydropower which addresses the development of 
additional hydropower resources at the Bureau of Reclamation's 
facilities. What is the status of Reclamation's discussions with FERC 
regarding a revised memorandum of agreement between the agencies 
regarding coordination of the development of hydropower projects? Does 
Reclamation anticipate it will develop an inventory of the projects 
that Reclamation has power development authority for that can be made 
available to the public? What are Reclamation's procedures for 
development of ``in conduit'' hydropower within Reclamation projects? 
What are Reclamation's plans for publicizing the availability of the 
potential to develop additional hydropower, including within conduits, 
at Reclamation facilities?
    Answer. Reclamation met with FERC on February 15, 2011 to discuss 
options regarding a revised MOU regarding coordination on development 
of hydropower projects. Reclamation is currently doing preparatory work 
on a preliminary list of Reclamation sites that identify the 
developmental authority of the site. The goal is to get a list that 
both FERC and Reclamation can agree to that details the developmental 
authority. At that time the list will be made publicly available.
    Currently Reclamation's procedures for development of ``in 
conduit'' hydropower within Reclamation projects is the same as for 
development at existing dams. Reclamation is reviewing if/how ``in 
conduit'' projects should be addressed in the future. Reclamation, in 
collaboration with DOE is performing a resource assessment in 2011 that 
will identify potential for development of hydropower on Reclamation 
canals and conduits. This assessment is the second phase of the 
hydropower resource assessment started in 2010. The first phase, just 
completed, identified hydropower development capability at 530 
Reclamation dams.
                           energy/water nexus
    Question 47. The connection between energy and water is becoming 
increasingly important. How is Reclamation incorporating renewable 
energy sources into its projects? Does Reclamation need any additional 
authorizations to be able to utilize renewable energy sources at its 
facilities? Will Reclamation be able to document the conventional 
energy saved or renewable energy generated at its facilities? Is the 
Department considering water supply implications in connection with its 
energy development strategies?
    Answer. Reclamation currently generates over 40 million MWh's per 
year of clean renewable energy through its existing hydropower fleet, 
and Reclamation is consistently evaluating opportunities for increasing 
generation at these facilities through generator rewinds, more 
efficient turbines and optimization programs. Reclamation is also 
exploring ways to encourage non-federal development of sustainable 
hydropower development at existing facilities through its ``Hydropower 
Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities'' report and 
tool. These all fall within existing authorizations.
    Reclamation is working with the Department of Energy on funding 
advanced hydropower system testing projects on new low-head hydropower 
technologies that are designed to bring down the costs of development 
for previously marginal hydropower sites. DOE anticipates releasing 
this Funding Opportunity Announcement, which would be released by DOE 
and is designed to be implemented at a Reclamation site.
    Reclamation is also exploring whether other renewable generation 
resources (solar, wind, etc.) can be developed by Reclamation or by 
others on Reclamation land. We are working with the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory to do a preliminary investigation on the best sites 
for this kind of development. We believe that this kind of development 
also falls under existing authorizations.
    In addition, under the authority of Section 9504 of the SECURE 
Water Act, Reclamation makes cost-shared funding available through 
WaterSMART Grants for projects that increase the use of renewable 
energy in the delivery water. Reclamation has revised its grant 
consideration criteria to include incorporation of renewable energy 
initiatives into water projects and projects that achieve an overall 
reduction in energy use.
    In 2011, Reclamation will be quantifying energy efficiency savings 
and renewable energy generated at its facilities. This renewable 
generation is through hydropower, solar, and wind energy generated on 
Reclamation lands. Funding opportunities specifically seek proposals 
that quantify estimates of renewable energy to be generated.
                    indian water rights settlements
    Question 48. The FY 2012 budget includes funding for recently 
enacted Indian water rights settlements and establishes an Indian Water 
Rights Settlements account to assure continuity in the construction of 
the authorized projects. Is that account intended to be the same 
account that was established by Congress in P.L. 111-11, known as the 
Reclamation Water Settlements Fund? How were the amounts for each of 
the settlements requested in FY 2012 determined? How is Reclamation 
coordinating with BIA and other agencies to ensure that the settlement 
implementation deadlines will be met?
    Answer. The new Indian Water Rights Settlements account is intended 
to subsume the funding for the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, and 
include both funding directed by Congress into the Fund established 
under P.L. 111-11 and also funding that Congress directed for other 
settlements in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA). The Reclamation 
Water Settlements Fund received appropriations as a result of the CRA 
under Title VII ($60 million for FY 2012 through FY 2014). This funding 
is directed for use for Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects, 
of which the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is the first priority, 
as enacted in P.L. 111-11. The CRA also provided additional 
appropriations for four settlements, the White Mountain Apache, Crow, 
Aamodt, and Taos settlements (Titles III, IV, V, and VI of the CRA). 
The 2012 budget for the Indian Water Rights Settlement account requests 
funds for the four settlements enacted in the CRA as well as the 
Navajo-San Juan settlement. The intent of the new Indian Water Rights 
Settlements account is to maintain high visibility and transparency for 
the settlements treated in the CRA by keeping them separate from the 
account in which most Bureau of Reclamation programs and projects are 
funded.
    The amounts requested for each of the settlements were determined 
by requesting capability statements from the Regions/Project managers 
for each settlement, as to what funding they could reasonably be 
expected to use under the complex circumstances ascribed to each 
settlement under the CRA. These statements were requested and completed 
within a very short turnaround period.
    The Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office has appointed 
Implementation Teams for each settlement that include representatives 
from Reclamation, the BIA, the Solicitor's Office, the Department of 
Justice and other agencies as appropriate. These Teams coordinate the 
implementation of the settlements with the tribes and the local 
entities. In addition, there have been multiple high-level coordination 
meetings under the auspices of the Department of Interior's Program, 
Management and Budget Office amongst the Bureaus, including Reclamation 
and BIA, as well as budget staff and solicitors.
                            reclamation fund
    Question 49. What is the projected balance in the Reclamation Fund 
in FY 2011 and FY 2012? Are there projections in the budget beyond the 
FY 2012 timeframe? If so, please identify those projected balances.
    Answer. The actual balance in the Reclamation Fund at the end of FY 
2010 was $8.5 billion. The projected balance in FY 2011 is $9.4 billion 
and $10.5 billion in FY 2012. There are no projections beyond the FY 
2012 budget.
                                  alp
    Question 50. What is the current schedule for completion of the 
Animas-La Plata Project? What is the status of development of the 
recreational facilities at Lake Nighthorse? What activities are 
scheduled for 2011 and planned for 2012?
    Answer. Construction completion of the Animas-La Plata Project is 
scheduled for FY 2012. Additional funding will be required for 
continued life cycle operations and maintenance in order to complete 
the commitments of the Federal Government required by the Colorado Ute 
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000. These include the requirement that 
the United States pay the two Colorado Ute Tribes' operations, 
maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs until such time as the Tribes 
put their Project water to use. The Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy 
District, Reclamation, and the community of Durango are developing a 
recreation plan for Lake Nighthorse and expect to have the plan 
available to the public in the spring of 2011. Currently, the area in 
and around Lake Nighthorse remains closed to public use due to 
construction and will remain closed until Reclamation finds a 
recreation manager and appropriate recreation facilities are in place 
to provide for public safety and protect land and water resources from 
damage due to uncontrolled use. Activities scheduled for FY 2011 
include:

   Continue construction of the Navajo Nation Municipal 
        Pipeline in New Mexico, under contract with the Navajo 
        Engineering and Construction Authority.
   Continue construction of the Permanent Operating Facility in 
        Colorado, under contract with Weeminuche Construction 
        Authority.
   Continue filling of Lake Nighthorse. The reservoir is 
        approximately 2/3 full with about 80,000 ac ft in storage.
   The process of transferring the project to O&M status in 
        2012 has started. As part of this process, work on identifying 
        and addressing transfer stipulations has begun.
   Work will continue on the life cycle operation and 
        maintenance of improvements for wetland and wildlife mitigation 
        lands associated with the project.

    Activities scheduled for FY 2012 include:

   Completion of the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline.
   Completion of the filling of Lake Nighthorse.
   Continue toward completion of the transfer of the project to 
        O&M status, and anticipated transfer stipulations.
   Continued life cycle operation and maintenance of 
        improvements for wetland and wildlife mitigation lands 
        associated with the project.
                         san luis drainage unit
    Question 51. What is the status of the litigation involving 
drainage issues within the San Luis Unit? Is a settlement of these 
issues imminent? If so, what are the general terms expected in a 
potential settlement?
    Answer. In February 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower district court that 
section 1(a) of the San Luis Act of June 3, 1960 imposes on the 
Secretary of the Interior a duty to provide drainage service to the San 
Luis Unit, but held that the Secretary has discretion to meet that 
obligation with a plan other than constructing the Drain to the Bay/
Delta, as originally envisioned in the Act. The district court 
subsequently amended its mandatory injunction to reflect the decision 
of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Following completion of an 
environmental impact statement that evaluated numerous alternatives, 
Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 
March 2007, selecting the ``In-Valley/Water Needs/Land Retirement 
Alternative'', which was consistent with a locally developed 
alternative for implementation. The selected alternative relies upon a 
combination of in-Valley treatment of drain water (i.e., it avoids the 
exportation of drain water from the San Joaquin Valley) and land 
retirement to meet the drainage service requirements of the district 
court's injunction.
    The Department also prepared and submitted to Congress a 
feasibility report which concludes that the cost of implementing the 
selected alternative will be approximately $2.7 billion. That amount 
far exceeds the remaining appropriations authorized for construction of 
the Unit. As a result, the alternative selected in the ROD cannot be 
implemented fully under existing law.
    As part of the ongoing litigation, the Department advised the 
district court in November 2009 that, while it could not implement the 
entire ROD, sufficient appropriation ceiling remained to allow the 
Department to construct one subunit of drainage facilities within the 
Westlands Water District. At the same time we also filed with the 
district court a control schedule projecting the activities and fiscal 
year budget needs to support this construction. In December 2009, the 
district court issued an order directing Reclamation to perform the 
undertakings we presented to the court including the control schedule. 
Since that time, Reclamation has been performing activities consistent 
with this court order, and has been filing status reports every six 
months to update the district court on the status of these activities. 
On September 1, 2010, Reclamation sent a letter to Senator Feinstein 
outlining the key elements of a long-term legislative drainage strategy 
that would accomplish the goals of transferring responsibility for 
irrigation drainage to local control and providing corresponding 
financial incentives to the districts. In the meantime, the parties to 
the litigation have cross-moved for summary judgment on the remaining 
claim in the case, and those cross-motions are now briefed. The 
district court has scheduled oral argument for May 20, 2011.
    We are not aware of any active settlement discussions for the 
Firebaugh litigation.
                         central valley project
    Question 52. Reclamation's efforts to manage the CVP include 
construction of a new pumping plant and fish passage at the Red Bluff 
Diversion Project. Will that construction project be completed with the 
funding requested in FY 2012? What will the impacts be if sufficient 
funding is not received?
    Answer. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) contained in 
the June 4, 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) BiOp for the 
continued long-term operation of Reclamation's Central Valley Project 
and the State of California's State Water Project requires Reclamation 
to operate the Red Bluff Diversion Dam with all gates out of the water 
no later than May 2012 to allow unimpeded fish passage. In order to 
continue to provide for agricultural water deliveries Reclamation needs 
to have the pumping plant and fish screen operational by May 2012. The 
RPA allows Reclamation to request to close the Red Bluff Diversion Dam 
gates from May 2012 to September 2012 if the pumping plant and fish 
screen are not expected to be operational by May 2012.
    Reclamation is currently on schedule and on budget to meeting the 
May 2012 deadline with a total project cost of approximately $220 
million. Reclamation is utilizing nearly $116 million in American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding to construct the temporary 
pumping plant, to design and construct the project.
    All of the funding requested in 2012 is necessary to complete 
construction of the project and have the pumping plant and fish screen 
operational by May 2012. Once complete, this project can yield benefits 
to several listed fish species, including winter-run and spring-run 
Chinook salmon, green sturgeon, and Central Valley Steelhead, while 
simultaneously insuring the ability to reliably divert irrigation water 
to 150,000 acres across multiple counties in the Sacramento Valley.
                          california bay-delta
    Question 53. What is the Smarter Water Supply and Use program? What 
is the anticipated date of completion of the Bay-Delta Habitat 
Conservation Plan that is in the process of being developed by federal 
agencies and non-federal partners? What efforts have been made to 
coordinate federal efforts to develop sustainable and complementary 
biological opinions for the Bay-Delta?
    Answer. The California Bay-Delta funding request was realigned in 
FY 2012 to reflect the four interconnected priorities described in the 
Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta (Plan). 
Smarter Water Supply and Use is one of the priorities described in the 
Plan. The Plan is available at the following website:

          https://www.doi.gov/documents/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf

    The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has been a collaborative 
effort to develop a long-term plan to achieve the dual objectives of a 
healthy Bay-Delta and a reliable water supply for water users who 
depend on through-Delta conveyance. It is the keystone for restoring 
and protecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem and California's water supply 
system for the long-term. Federal agencies participating in BDCP are 
working closely with the new State Administration and non-federal 
partners in the development of a BDCP process to advance current 
planning efforts. The agencies are evaluating and currently updating 
BDCP schedules and National Environmental Policy Act/California 
Environmental Quality Act documents. As of now, a public draft of the 
BDCP is scheduled to be released in December 2011, and a Final BDCP 
released in December 2012.
    The FWS and NMFS, together, with Reclamation, are working to lay 
the technical, policy, and regulatory foundation necessary to develop 
an integrated biological opinion that could be issued jointly by both 
agencies for the BDCP and continued operation of the Central Valley 
Project (CVP). This approach is consistent with the March 2010 National 
Research Council assessment of the two BiOps under the Endangered 
Species Act which called for better integration across agencies. The 
agencies are also jointly developing analytical tools to help assess 
future management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, reduce uncertainty, and 
foster improved integration. FWS and NMFS are also building regulatory, 
legal, and policy teams that will work with Reclamation in a multi-
agency process to complete the integrated opinion. An integrated 
biological opinion will be a key component for the long-term management 
of the Bay-Delta, by combining the BDCP and CVP actions into a single, 
comprehensive analysis that ensures coordination of water operations 
and restoration activities for all potentially impacted species.
                          cvp restoration fund
    Question 54. What activities will account for the increase in 
funding requested for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund? Are 
all of these funds offset by collections of revenues from other 
sources?
    Answer. The collections of revenues into the Central Valley Project 
Restoration Fund (CVPRF) are cyclical based on the three-year rolling 
average requirement established in the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act (CVPIA or Act). The Act requires collections based on a 
three-year rolling average for the collection amounts of:

          (1) $50.0 million (October 1992 price levels) from all six 
        revenue sources and one contribution source.
          (2) $30.0 million (October 1992 price levels) from mitigation 
        and restoration charges (one of the six revenue sources).

    The $50.0 million three-year rolling average requirement has not 
been met as collections have not materialized over the years as 
envisioned from all sources. As a consequence, Reclamation has always 
maximized the $30.0 million three-year rolling average requirement. 
However, the three-year rolling average has resulted in peaks and 
valleys in the CVPRF collections. This has caused the Reclamation 
budget to also have peaks and valleys. Under the current CR, the CVPRF 
is about $15 million below the President's Budget request for FY 2011.
    As an example of how the rolling average works, the effect on 
collections and budget for FY 2012 resulted in an increased amount due 
to the cycle. In order to meet the indexed $30.0 million requirement on 
a three-year rolling average, the FY 2012 amount had to be $52.8 
million because the FY 2011 estimate and FY 2010 actual amounts were 
$49.6 million and $36.8 million, respectively.
    The collections into the CVPRF are used for the activities/projects 
specified in the CVPIA. The collections will offset water and power 
obligations for the activities/projects. The entire amount of the 
increase in the 2011 Budget request from 2011 to 2012 is fully 
supported and offset by an increase in discretionary collections.
                             esa activities
    Question 55. What significant ESA issues does Reclamation expect to 
encounter in FY 2011 and FY 2012? Are there any situations where 
contract water deliveries are at risk because of restrictions that 
might be imposed because of the ESA? With respect to funding for the 
San Juan and Upper Colorado River Recovery Programs, are Reclamation's 
recovery efforts impacted by the lack of authority to utilize basin 
fund revenues for capital projects?
    Answer. The Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery Programs 
(Programs) are not impacted by lack of authority to use Colorado River 
Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower revenues for Capital Projects but 
they will be impacted by lack of authority to use this funding source 
to support Base Funding activities after FY 2011. The Programs each 
have two separate and distinct funding authorizations under P.L. 106-
392. One for Capital Projects and one for Base Funding, as follows:

   Capital Projects consist of facilities and interests in land 
        and water required to recover the listed fish species. Examples 
        include fish passages, fish screens, fish hatcheries, lands 
        adjacent to rivers considered to important habit requiring 
        protection and restoration, reservoir storage space, etc. P.L. 
        106-392, as amended, provided a cost sharing formula for 
        constructing and acquiring Capital Projects. These costs were 
        allocated between the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and 
        Wyoming, CRSP hydropower revenues, and appropriated funds from 
        Reclamation. The legislative cost sharing requirements assigned 
        to the States and CRSP hydropower revenues for Capital Projects 
        have been met, so Capital Projects now are entirely funded with 
        appropriated funds from Reclamation.
   Base funding is used to support Program activities including 
        management, research, non-native fish control, monitoring, and 
        operations and maintenance (O&M) of Capital Projects. CRSP 
        hydropower revenues, as authorized by P.L. 106-392, provide the 
        majority of the funds to support these activities along with 
        contributions from the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and 
        Wyoming and FWS appropriations. P.L. 106-392 authorized the use 
        of $6 million (indexed) of CRSP hydropower revenues through FY 
        2011. After FY 2011 the use of CRSP hydropower revenues is 
        limited to monitoring and O&M of Capital Projects. This will 
        result in a reduction in funding of approximately $3 million 
        annually after FY 2011 unless additional legislative authority 
        is obtained. Failure to obtain this authority could result in 
        loss of ESA compliance for 2,162 federal, tribal and non-
        federal water projects depleting over 3.7 million acre-feet 
        annually.

             cooperative landscape conservation initiative
    Question 56. What will Reclamation's responsibilities include in 
connection with being the lead agency for the Desert and Southern 
Rockies LCCs? How will Reclamation's actions differ for those LCC 
projects as opposed to the other LCCs?
    Answer. Reclamation is co-leading the establishment of the Desert 
and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) with 
the FWS. As co-leads, Reclamation and FWS are leading the effort to 
form a permanent steering committee for each LCC by engaging partners 
through outreach and scoping activities. Reclamation has committed 
resources to this effort, funding a facilitator to support outreach 
efforts, and reimbursing states and tribes for travel expenses. 
Reclamation is also participating in Department-wide working groups to 
develop guidance for a national network of LCCs. Beginning in 2011, 
Reclamation will provide funding through competitive funding 
opportunities for research and applied science tools within the Desert 
and Southern Rockies LCCs, contingent on the availability of 
appropriations. Reclamation is also hiring a full-time, permanent 
Science Coordinator for the Southern Rockies LCC and an LCC Coordinator 
for the Desert LCC. Going forward, Reclamation will continue to 
participate in Department workgroup efforts related to the LCCs and 
will help lead the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs by participating on 
each of the steering committees. As a water management agency, 
Reclamation will bring an emphasis on water resources to the Desert and 
Southern Rockies LCCs, in addition to fish and wildlife resources 
emphasized in other LCCs. Reclamation has actively engaged state and 
tribal water resources agencies in our outreach efforts. Reclamation 
has initial support, through these outreach efforts, for the 
development of a subcommittee focused on water resources that will 
include participants in the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs, focusing 
on the Colorado and Rio Grande River basins. Additionally, Reclamation 
will share information and work products related to water resources 
with LCC partners. For example, Reclamation is conducting water 
resources vulnerability assessments through our Basin Study Program and 
will share information resulting from these studies with our LCC 
partners.
    Question 57. In connection with the Department's efforts to engage 
young people in its America's Great Outdoors initiative, are there any 
youth initiatives underway at Reclamation that are designed to 
encourage young people to continue agricultural traditions for future 
generations? Are there efforts underway to instruct or educate young 
people regarding conservation techniques or water management best 
practices? Is any additional authority needed for Reclamation to be 
able to enter into cooperative agreements with, or provide grants to, 
youth programs designed to encourage young people to continue 
agricultural traditions? What have Reclamation's efforts to engage 
young people in the American's Great Outdoors activities included?
    Answer. To support the President's America's Great Outdoors 
initiative's recommendations about engaging youth, Reclamation is 
participating in the Secretarial Youth in the Great Outdoors initiative 
by enhancing public and private partnerships to expand employment 
opportunities for youth on our public lands. This is a critical step 
toward building the next generation of conservation leaders and 
environmental stewards. In the past year, Reclamation has been engaged 
with the Corps Network, the Student Conservation Association, and other 
federal partners to develop opportunities for expanding youth 
employment on public lands.
    In support of the Secretary's Youth in the Great Outdoors 
Initiative, Reclamation competitively selected and awarded two five-
year Master Cooperative Agreements with The Corps Network and the 
Student Conservation Association. Task agreements awarded against these 
Master Cooperative Agreements fund specific conservation activities and 
internships in support of the initiative. No additional statutory 
authority is needed for these initiatives. In general, activities 
funded by these agreements include on-the-ground conservation projects 
involving youth in cooperative efforts in cultural and natural resource 
conservation and internships with youth to promote understanding and 
appreciation of natural and cultural resources. To date, eight task 
agreements have been issued for a total estimated amount of $1.0 
million.
    Question 58. With respect to Reclamation's procedures for title 
transfers, are there standard procedures for title transfer that are 
consistent for all area offices and are those procedures available to 
the public and districts who may be interested in going forward with 
the procedures. Would additional authority regarding title transfer be 
helpful in making the title transfer process more efficient?
    Answer. Reclamation has a set of standard procedures and processes 
for title transfers that are consistent for all area offices. That 
process and the criteria that all Reclamation offices follow are 
articulated in the Framework for the Transfer of Title--Bureau of 
Reclamation Projects that was originally developed in 1995, and was 
updated and revised in 2004. This is available to districts and the 
public who are interested in the process. Since each project is 
unique--with its own specific legislative authorities, stakeholders and 
issues--Reclamation has learned that while the steps are all 
consistent, the structure of the title transfer agreement must be 
tailored to meet the unique circumstances and needs of the Project.
    Question 59. Does Reclamation have an estimate of the number of 
non-federal jobs created or sustained on an annual basis as a result of 
its various activities? How will those jobs be impacted by decreases in 
Reclamation's budget?
    Answer. The Department of the Interior Economic Impact Report 
presents bureau impacts on major economic sectors. The most recent 
report published in December 2009 indicates Interior supported a total 
of 78,928 domestic jobs. This number represents additional jobs beyond 
Departmental employees. Of that number, Reclamation supported 6,189 
jobs. Since the FY 2011 and FY 2012 appropriations are not final, we do 
not know how many non-federal jobs will ultimately be impacted by those 
budgets.
    Question 60. How will the Department ensure that its activities at 
the Climate Science Centers, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and 
through the Cooperative Watershed Management program will complement 
each other and any other ongoing efforts within the department and not 
be duplicative of each other?
    Answer. Reclamation is coordinating activities including the 
Climate Science Centers, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and 
Cooperative Watershed Management Program in many ways to ensure that 
programs are complementary and not duplicative. As identified in 
Secretarial Order 3297 which established the WaterSMART Program, 
coordination within the Department of the Interior and externally is 
necessary to promote sustainable water strategies. Reclamation is 
coordinating each of these WaterSMART activities through the Department 
of the Interior's WaterSMART Task Force, the Task Force on Energy and 
Climate Change, the Climate Change Working Group, and the Department's 
Climate Change Response Council. Reclamation is also working within the 
framework established by the WaterSMART Strategic Implementation Plan, 
including sharing information through the WaterSMART Clearinghouse to 
bring all stakeholders together to identify best practices in water 
conservation, incentives, and the most cost-effective technologies. 
Consistent with the Department's implementation of Secretarial Order 
3289, establishing the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and 
Climate Science Centers (CSCs), Reclamation is ensuring that one of the 
primary functions of the LCCs is coordination and prevention of 
duplication. This is being accomplished for the LCCs by creating a 
forum and structure for federal, state, tribal, and local governments 
as well as non-governmental organizations to collaborate and share 
information on climate change and resource management at landscape 
scales. Reclamation is hiring a coordinator for this purpose and is 
also working with the Department on the sharing of data and information 
across the national network of LCCs and CSCs.
    Question 61. What is the status of the Department's and/or the 
Bureau of Reclamation's review of the potential impacts of climate 
change on hydropower generation?
    Answer. Reclamation has begun to evaluate the impacts on hydropower 
from climate change. Reclamation is coordinating with the Department of 
Energy and the Federal Power Marketing Administrations with respect to 
activities authorized in the SECURE Water Act within Sections 9503 and 
9505. As authorized by Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act Reclamation 
will be evaluating the impacts of climate change on water supplies in 
the west. Under section 9505, DOE is assessing the impacts of climate 
change to federal hydropower generation.
    Reclamation is coordinating with the Department of Energy and the 
Federal Power Marketing Administration with respect to activities 
authorized in the SECURE Water Act in Section 9505, authorizing the 
completion of a hydroelectric power assessment. Additionally, as 
authorized by Section 9503 of the SECURE Water Act, Reclamation will be 
evaluating the impacts of climate change on hydropower generation at 
Reclamation facilities through the Basin Study Program, to be reported 
in future SECURE Water Act reports to Congress.
    Question 62. With respect to implementation of the SECURE Water 
Act, authorized in P.L. 111-11, when does the Department anticipate 
that the requested reports will be completed?
    Answer. In accordance with Section 9503(c) of the SECURE Water Act, 
Reclamation expects to complete the first report required under this 
section in the spring of 2011.
    Question 63. In connection with the Department's New Energy 
Frontier initiative, what efforts are being undertaken to evaluate the 
energy/water nexus? How are the effects of energy production on water 
supplies being evaluated? How are the constraints on energy production 
associated with insufficient water supplies being addressed?
    Answer. As stated in the answer to question 9, Reclamation 
currently generates over 40 million MWh's per year of clean renewable 
energy through its existing hydropower fleet, and Reclamation is 
consistently evaluating opportunities for increasing generation at 
these facilities through generator rewinds, more efficient turbines and 
optimization programs. Reclamation is also exploring ways to encourage 
non-federal development of sustainable hydropower development at 
existing facilities through its ``Hydropower Resource Assessment at 
Existing Reclamation Facilities'' report and tool. Reclamation is also 
working with the Department of Energy on funding advanced hydropower 
system testing projects on new low-head hydropower technologies that 
are designed to bring down the costs of development for previously 
marginal hydropower sites. This Funding Opportunity Announcement will 
be released by DOE and designed to be implemented at a Reclamation 
site.
    In addition, Reclamation prioritizes WaterSMART Grant applications 
that describe the nexus between proposed water conservation projects 
and any expected reductions in energy demands. In Fiscal Year 2010, 
Reclamation awarded 37 WaterSMART water and energy efficiency grants 
for amounts as high as $1 million, including several proposals that 
achieved water efficiency improvements and energy savings. Applicants 
are encouraged to describe and quantify expected energy savings, such 
as reduced pumping needs, which are assessed as part of the review and 
ranking of applications.
    Also as stated above, under the SECURE Water Act, Section 9505, 
Reclamation will identify the constraints on hydropower production due 
to insufficient water supplies. To begin addressing those constraints, 
Reclamation, in partnership with the PMA's and our federal power 
customers, are installing more efficient turbines on our 
hydrogenerating units, working with irrigation customers to install 
more efficient pumps and finding other ways to save energy at its 
facilities.
    Question 64. The Department is a party of the Memorandum of 
Agreement with the Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers 
relating to hydropower resources and seems to be making progress toward 
evaluation of the potential for development of additional resources. 
Why isn't an increase in developing hydropower resources included in 
the Department's Renewable Energy Goal? How much additional hydropower 
capability do you anticipate could be developed at BOR facilities?
    Answer. Reclamation is identifying opportunities for non-federal 
renewable energy development at its facilities. While we encourage 
these entities to pursue projects where renewable development makes 
sense, the completion of these projects is largely out of our control. 
We estimate that approximately 200 MW of hydropower capacity could be 
economically viable to develop on Reclamation's existing infrastructure 
through the reconnaissance level Resource Assessment mentioned above, 
but site specific feasibility analyses will need to be performed by the 
potential developer of the site to determine if they want to pursue 
construction of the site.
    Additionally, Reclamation is pursuing opportunities for increasing 
generation at these facilities through generator rewinds, more 
efficient turbines and optimization programs. Most of these 
improvements will not include capacity gains, but will instead improve 
the efficiencies of the plants and result in increased generation. The 
Renewable Energy Goal is a capacity goal.
     Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Wyden
                            county payments
    Question 65. In this budget request, there is no funding for the 
county payments program in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) budget. 
Under the existing county payments program, the BLM makes payments to 
Oregon's O&C counties. That obligation arises from the O&C lands that 
BLM administers and for which a timber receipt sharing obligation 
exists under the law that established these lands. My staff has been 
told that the BLM's role in providing county payments to the O&C 
counties has been handed over to the Forest Service, who also appears 
to be solely funding the program from its discretionary budget. I still 
have not received details from the Administration on how much funding 
in the proposed 5 year reauthorization will be used for the BLM 
payments and how such a determination will be made. Can you provide me 
the amounts, under the Administration's proposal, of the county 
payments program funding will be provided to cover payments to the O&C 
counties for each of the five years of the proposal and explain how the 
allocation of funding for Forest Service and BLM lands will be made?
    Answer. Previously, the program has recently been funded through 
mandatory appropriations. The 2012 Budget proposes a five-year 
reauthorization with funding through discretionary appropriations with 
$328 million in proposed funding for FY 2012 in the FS portion of the 
Budget. The Administration is open to working with Congress to fund the 
program through either discretionary or mandatory appropriations. These 
funds will be used to pay states and counties on behalf of the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) and the BLM. A legislative proposal is being 
developed and more details will be provided at that time. For counties 
choosing not to receive payments under the reauthorization proposal, 
the payments would revert back to payments under the 1937 Oregon and 
California Lands Act and subsequent legislation, or, in the case of 
Coos and Douglas Counties, to the payments authorized by the 1939 
statute.
    Question 66. Will the Interior Department be providing funding to 
cover its portion of the county payments program and, if not, why not 
given the historic obligation that belongs to the BLM for lands that it 
manages?
    Answer. Section 601 of P.L. 110-343, the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Program, authorized an extension and 
ramping down of payments to the counties through fiscal year 2011. The 
final, mandatory payments by Sec. 601 were previously authorized. Final 
Secure Rural Schools program payments will be made in October 2011. 
Upon expiration of PL 110-343, the BLM's authority to make payments for 
FY 2012 to the O&C grant lands and CBWR counties is limited to the 
Oregon and California Grant Lands Act of 1937 and the Act of May 24, 
1939. As noted in the previous answer, the Budget proposes a five-year 
reauthorization with funding through discretionary appropriations with 
$328 million in proposed funding for FY 2012 in the FS portion of the 
Budget.
                    golden eagles and wind turbines
    Question 67. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been raising 
objections to a number of wind projects in Oregon because they are 
concerned about conflicts with Golden Eagles and other threatened bird 
populations. Many of requirements that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
have proposed to protect the Eagles are simply not practical--like not 
operating turbines during migration periods. The Department recently 
proposed some additional guidance for siting new projects which moves 
in the right direction, but there some requirements that could block a 
number of projects, like having three years worth of wildlife impacts 
before a permit could be granted. In Oregon, there are projects that 
are ready for construction. Starting over in order to collect years' 
worth of data may save the eagles, but it's going to kill off a lot of 
clean energy projects. Can I have your assurance that you will continue 
to work with the wind industry to try to resolve these issues so that 
the eagles are protected, but that projects in the development pipeline 
don't get canceled?
    Answer. Renewable energy is a key part of keeping America 
competitive, creating jobs, and winning the future for our children. At 
the Department of the Interior, we have a responsibility to ensure that 
solar, wind and geothermal projects are built in the right way and in 
the right places so they protect our natural, cultural and wildlife 
resources. The FWS developed the draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance 
to assist wind energy developers to comply with the Bald and Golden 
Eagle Protection Act and the regulations implementing it. The FWS 
encourages wind developers to use the draft guidance as they prepare 
eagle conservation plans. The FWS developed the draft Wind Energy 
Guidelines based on recommendations from a federally-chartered advisory 
committee which included representatives of the wind industry, states, 
and environmental organizations. We are currently soliciting public 
comment on both draft documents. As currently drafted, both of these 
documents are guidance and neither represent mandatory regulations. We 
look forward to continue working with the renewable energy industry and 
all stakeholders so that the final guidance represents the best path 
forward.
                   blm western oregon pilot projects
    Question 68. I appreciate the leadership that you personally have 
taken in helping push forward pilot projects on the BLM forestlands in 
western Oregon. I also appreciate the funding provided in the budget to 
advance these projects and pursue additional timber sales in FY 2012. 
As you know, the pilot projects are critical to finding a way to move 
forward with meaningful, sustainable timber management in Oregon's BLM 
forests. I'm anxious that the projects tackle some of the barriers the 
agency faces in implementing a long term sustainable management plan. 
Can we count on your continued support to ensure this process stays on 
track and that decisive action will be taken to address the lessons 
learned so that a long term sustainable timber management strategy can 
be implemented?
    Answer. I share your interest in finding ways to address the 
sustainability of forest management and the economic issues facing the 
region and to help bolster public involvement and support of these 
efforts. To that end, The BLM is committed to facilitating the Oregon 
pilot projects. The Department of the Interior/BLM pilots will serve 
two purposes: 1) demonstrate the principles of ecological restoration 
and evaluate the economic merits of the restoration strategy outlined 
by Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin in moist and dry forests; 2) 
serve as a continuing source of information to help the BLM identify 
challenges and barriers to implementation and modify management 
strategies in the future. The pilots are intended to help inform public 
dialogue on development of future management policy for BLM-managed 
forest in western Oregon. The BLM's intent is to be as transparent as 
possible with the public regarding our selection and evaluation 
process. The BLM will provide the public with opportunities to 
participate in several meetings, workshops and field visits, as well as 
comment on the environmental analysis for each pilot. In addition, 
while using a collaborative process to achieve public involvement is 
encouraged, testing a collaborative process is not the purpose of the 
pilots. While there may not be unanimously shared perspectives of the 
pilots, the BLM is hopeful that there will be substantial agreement.
                    blm western oregon timber sales
    Question 69. The agency offered over 230 million board feet of 
timber in its Western Oregon program in FY10. I am hearing that the 
sales program may be lower in FY11--possibly around 186 million board 
feet. Is this true and what can you do to ensure the BLM's regular 
program of work, outside of the pilot projects, is delivering needed 
sawlogs to an industry that's desperate for them this fiscal year?
    Answer. The BLM in western Oregon plans to offer for sale 
approximately 190 million board feet of timber in FY2011. We also 
expect to offer up to 12 million board feet of reoffer volume from 
cancelled timber sale contracts where standing timber remains within 
the original contract area. The volume to be offered from the pilot 
projects is part of the 190 million board foot target. In 2012, BLM 
expects to offer almost 194 million board feet. The FY2012 budget 
proposes a program increase of $3.0 million in the Oregon and 
California Grant Lands account. Of that amount, $1.0 million will be 
used to increase the volume of timber offered for sale; support key 
resource management planning objectives; increase surveying for rare, 
uncommon, or endangered species; provide for landscape-level timber 
sale project environmental analysis; and facilitate joint development 
and implementation of a revised recovery plan for the northern spotted 
owl. An increase of $2.0 million will be used to prepare draft resource 
management plans in support of the Secretary's western Oregon strategy.
                                soda ash
    Question 70. As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee on the Finance 
Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenge that American businesses 
face in competing with foreign competitors who try to stack the deck. A 
few years ago, the soda ash industry faced intense competition of China 
which manufactures a synthetic substitute and Congress enacted 
legislation to reduce the royalty rate for soda ash mined on Federal 
lands to help our domestic industry compete. That statutory reduction 
ends in October and your Department is supposed to be preparing a study 
of the costs and benefits of the royalty reduction on preserving 
American jobs. Assessing trade competition is not something your 
Department normally does, but there are hundreds of jobs in Oregon and 
Wyoming and California that depend on this industry. Can I have your 
assurance that the Department will give us a thorough assessment of the 
international competition that this industry faces and work with 
Committee on considering an extension of the current law on royalties?
    Answer. The Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 provided for a 
reduction in the soda ash royalty rate to two percent for a period of 
five years beginning on the date of enactment of the Act, and requires 
that the Secretary prepare and submit a report to Congress by October 
11, 2011, on the effects of the rate reduction, including information 
on several specifically delineated issues. The Department is in the 
process of preparing the report.
    Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Cantwell
         land and water conservation fund (lwcf)--mount rainier
    Question 71. Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased to see the commitment to 
full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Budget 
Request. It's been my experience that in addition to protecting land 
for conservation and recreation, LWCF acquisitions can result in 
management savings. Mount Rainier National Park is a prime example. The 
Park is in the process of completing acquisitions within an expansion 
area in the northwest corner of the park. These acquisitions will allow 
the Park Service to relocate a road, campground, and other visitor 
facilities in order to avoid frequent excessive management and repair 
costs due to recurring floods. Such a flood in 1996 resulted in a cost 
of $750,000 just to repair the road. Portions of the road were 
destroyed again in 2006 and 2008. Wouldn't you agree that land 
acquisition can have multiple benefits, including management savings, 
and do not necessarily result in increased management costs for the 
Department's land management agencies?
    Answer. Yes, acquiring lands for federal protection can have many 
benefits. In the example of the northwest corner of Mount Rainier 
National Park, the acquisition of additional park land has enabled the 
NPS to stop making costly repairs to a road that repeatedly floods yet 
continue to serve the visiting public by providing camping and 
recreation activities in that portion of the park. Acquiring land does 
not necessarily result in increased management costs, particularly in 
cases where purchasing inholdings enables land management agencies to 
consolidate holdings and achieve management efficiencies.
                      lwcf--olympic national park.
    Question 72. Full funding would ensure that the full amount 
available from offshore drilling receipts be used for high-priority 
land acquisition projects, as Congress intended when it established the 
program. I'm particularly pleased to see FY12 funding proposed for two 
National Park Service units including Olympic National Park. In 2009, 
more than 3.2 million people visited the park, spending more than $113 
million and creating more than 1,500 private-sector jobs. I appreciate 
you understand the importance of land acquisition for investing these 
places that don't just protect our national heritage, but drive 
substantial economic activity. The president's request for Olympic 
National Park this year is for a $3.5 million project that would 
protect the water quality of a fish-bearing tributary stream to Lake 
Quinault. Can you tell me what the threat is to this land parcel or 
others like it in the president's budget? And why during a time when we 
are seeking to identify cost savings, we should invest in land 
acquisition?
    Answer. As with many parcels of land within the boundaries of 
national parks, acquiring the identified property within Olympic 
National Park is needed to protect park resources, in this case water 
quality, from the impacts of development. We recognize that there are 
many competing priorities for limited budget dollars. However, full 
funding of the LWCF in 2012 will increase the Federal Government's 
ability to engage in strategic conservation that yields measurable 
ecological outcomes and community benefits. Federal land acquisition of 
identified lands address the most urgent needs for recreation; species 
and habitat conservation; and, the preservation of landscapes, and 
historic and cultural resources. Such acquisition may also assist the 
government to achieve greater efficiencies that resolve management 
issues. Additionally, this investment will have a significant economic 
impact. It is estimated that the Department's $675 million portion of 
the $900 million LWCF request will contribute an estimated $1.0 billion 
in economic output and support about 7,600 jobs.
    Response of Hon. Ken Salazar to Question From Senator Mark Udall
    Question 73. President Obama has committed this nation to double 
the amount of clean electricity on the grid over the next 25 years. You 
highlighted the support for renewable energy development on public 
lands in the FY2012 budget for the Interior Department. Wind energy 
will undoubtedly be one of these renewable energy sources. I am hearing 
from a broad spectrum of wind farm developers and turbine manufacturers 
that the guidelines released last week by Department of the Interior 
for species protection from wind farms, which the US Fish and Wildlife 
Service played a key role in drafting, could halt the development of 
tens of thousands of megawatts of wind energy development in the U.S. 
These parties also tell me there are more efficient ways to protect the 
golden eagle and other species without significantly slowing the 
development of the American wind industry. Please provide me with your 
views on this and how we can promote renewable energy while protecting 
wildlife and our natural resources.
    Answer. Renewable energy is a key part of keeping America 
competitive, creating jobs, and winning the future for our children. At 
the Department of the Interior, we have a responsibility to ensure that 
solar, wind and geothermal projects are built in the right way and in 
the right places so they protect our natural, cultural and wildlife 
resources. The FWS developed the draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance 
to assist wind energy developers to comply with the Bald and Golden 
Eagle Protection Act and the regulations implementing it. The FWS 
encourages wind developers to use the draft guidance as they prepare 
eagle conservation plans. The FWS developed the draft Wind Energy 
Guidelines based on recommendations from a federally-chartered advisory 
committee which included representatives of the wind industry, states, 
and environmental organizations. We are currently soliciting public 
comment on both draft documents. As currently drafted, both of these 
documents are guidance and neither represent mandatory regulations. We 
look forward to continue working with the renewable energy industry and 
all stakeholders so that the final guidance represents the best path 
forward.
     Response of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Shaheen
    Question 74. Mr. Secretary, you have placed a high priority on 
landscape scale conservation projects in your FY 2012 budget, including 
the focus on the Connecticut River and the North Woods of New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York. This is to be commended. You 
may recall that I encouraged your consideration of these very areas 
during your preparation of the FY 2012 budget. I am pleased that your 
budget places a high priority on the Silvio O. Conte NWR, which 
includes the watershed of the Connecticut River. But I am perplexed as 
to why you do not similarly prioritize and provide adequate funding for 
an ongoing project within the North Woods focal area at Umbagog NWR. I 
am referring to the Androscoggin Headwaters project which, at over 
31,000 acres, is the largest unprotected ownership in the entire state. 
This 5-phase project will acquire conservation easements and fee 
ownership by both the State of New Hampshire and the US Fish and 
Wildlife Service. It is a collaborative project of local, state, 
federal and non-governmental partners working with a cooperative 
landowner to protect some of the best wildlife habitat and productive 
timberland in the Northern Forest. This project certainly meets your 
landscape criteria: There is a shared investment in this project among 
multiple stakeholders; the project complements other federal, state, 
local and privately protected land; there is significant local and 
regional community buy-in and economic benefit; and the natural 
resource, wildlife protection and recreational values are outstanding.
    Question 75. Unfortunately, in your FY 12 budget, the project did 
not receive the funding it needs to complete the project in a timely 
way. Specifically, the Umbagog NWR was allocated only $1.5 million in 
LWCF funds--much less than the $3.7 million needed this year. You have 
previously supported this project, as evidenced by a $2 million request 
in your FY 2011 budget and an allocation of $1 million from the 
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund approved in September. The USDA Forest 
Legacy Program has proposed $9.1 million for its share of the project 
in FY 2011 and FY 2012, and the State of New Hampshire and private 
funders are committing $4 million to the effort. While I appreciate 
that you have included a portion of the needed FY12 funding in your 
budget for this critical project, the collaborative effort here is 
truly in jeopardy without $3.7 million from USFWS this year.
    Question 76. Especially in light of the new emphasis state/federal/
private partnerships as highlighted in the America's Great Outdoors 
Report and the emphasis on landscape scale projects, can you explain 
this shortfall in LWCF funds for Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge for 
the Androscoggin Headwaters project? Can you assure me that the US Fish 
and Wildlife Service will identify additional funds to ensure that the 
Androscoggin Headwaters project will be completed in a timely way, 
including the allocation of the remaining $2.2 million needed to secure 
Phase I in FY 11, and an additional $3.7 million in FY 2012?
    Answer. For FY 2011, the FWS requested $2 million for the 
Androscoggin Headwaters project. For 2012, the FWS requested $1.5 
million for the Androscoggin Headwaters project.
    Also, in September 2010, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 
approved expenditure of $1 million for the Androscoggin Headwaters 
project and the Trust for Public Land is also contributing funds for 
this project.
    Protecting the Connecticut River and other Northern Forest 
resources remains a priority for the FWS and the Department. The use of 
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission program remains a possible 
source of funding, and, as in previous years, the Androscoggin 
Headwaters project will be rated using appropriate criteria.
    Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Franken
    Question 77. I'm glad to see that the administration is taking the 
oil spill commission's recommendations seriously. One of the most 
troubling revelations in its report was that some oil well operators 
would--quote--``shop around''--for someone within the Interior 
Department who would eventually approve a permit for the project. In 
light of the risks deepwater drilling can pose to both people's lives 
and livelihoods, this is something we've got to get right. What can the 
department do to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, and what 
has the department done since the spill?
    Answer. This permit shopping tactic was included in the report to 
Secretary Salazar by the Outer Continental Shelf Safety and Oversight 
Board in September, 2010. Immediately following receipt of that report 
and the recommendations included in it, BOEMRE Director Michael 
Bromwich issued an implementation plan recommending that BOEMRE revise 
permit review protocols to prevent this type of activity.
    Question 78. The oil spill commission also recommended that the 
Interior Department adopt a ``safety case'' for dealing with offshore 
drilling. Basically, they mean that the burden should be on the oil 
company to prove that its operations are safe. This is how oil 
companies operate in the UK and in Norway. I'm glad that you're moving 
the Interior Department in that direction as well. According to the oil 
spill commission report, the department has been considering putting 
the burden of proof on the oil companies for twenty years. Why hasn't 
it happened until now?
    Answer. The National Commission's report provides detail on the 
history of this effort over the 20 or more years that it has been the 
subject of consideration. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, 
however, the Department has embarked on substantive and systematic 
reforms that address the failures seen and the shortcomings identified 
in the offshore program. A strong and independent agency has been 
created with the resources, tools and authority it needs to hold 
offshore operators accountable for offshore oil and gas development.
    The Workplace Safety Rule (also known as the Safety and 
Environmental Management Systems, or SEMS, rule), published by BOEMRE 
in October 2010, requires offshore operators to have clear programs in 
place to identify potential hazards, a clear protocol for addressing 
those hazards, and strong procedures and risk-reduction strategies for 
all phases of activity, from well design and construction to operation, 
maintenance, and decommissioning. Reforms like these have raised the 
bar on industry's safety practices and equipment.
    Question 79. Ms. Haze, You described a fairly complicated set of 
criteria that you take into account when prioritizing your budget 
requests for rural water projects. Yet three of your six project 
requests were all for the same amount of money--$493,000--and another 
project request was for $496,000. In years past these numbers were far 
more differentiated, and the Lewis and Clark project historically 
enjoyed higher funding levels than the other projects that will now 
receive equal funding. Are we to conclude from your FY12 request that 
four of your six projects are of the exact same priority level, even 
after using such a complex set of criteria?
    Answer. The first priority for funding rural water projects is the 
required operations and maintenance component. The remaining funding 
for rural water projects is based on an analysis of the following 
criteria: 1) percent of project complete and 2) on-reservation/off-
reservation populations. In the case of the requests for the Lewis & 
Clark, Ft. Peck/Dry Prairie and Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana rural 
water projects, these projects received a combined total of $133.1 
million through Reclamation pursuant to the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) during 2009 and 2010. These ARRA funds are now 
99 percent obligated, but still not fully expended. The amounts 
requested in FY 2012 will allow a minimal level of administrative 
business for the project to continue during this process; no design or 
construction funds are requested in FY 2012.
   Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Murkowski
                              oil and gas
Domestic Production
    Question 80. According to the EIA, domestic offshore oil production 
will fall 13 percent in 2011, a loss of about 220,000 barrels a day, 
mainly due to the fact that no new exploration has happened in the Gulf 
since last April. The interim rule stated that there was sufficient 
spare capacity in OPEC to cover this gap, which gave us great comfort, 
but now Saudi Arabia is already having to increase its production to 
replace the production that's gone offline in Libya. How do you propose 
that the United States make up this loss in production in 2011 and 
beyond? What role does Alaska play?
    Answer. As discussed at the hearing, the Department's oil and gas 
program is continuing in a robust way. Even taking into account the 
Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill, oil production 
from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico continued steady at around 50 
million barrels per month from October 2009 to October 2010. Onshore, 
oil production has increased 5 percent over the last year, from 109 
million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010. Total domestic 
natural gas production in 2010 was 26.9 trillion cubic feet, a 5 
percent increase from 2008 and the highest level in more than 30 years. 
The Administration has offered, and will continue to offer, millions of 
acres of public land and federal waters for oil and gas exploration and 
production.
    Onshore, approximately 41 million acres of public lands are now 
under lease for oil and gas development, of which 12 million acres are 
producing. The BLM held 29 oil and gas lease sales for public lands in 
the West last year, offering 1,643 parcels covering 3.2 million acres, 
and is scheduled to hold 36 sales this year. The BLM issued 
approximately 5,200 Applications for Permits to Drill last year, and 
expects to issue about 7,000 permits this year. In Alaska, land use 
planning efforts are underway for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 
(NPR-A) and the Eastern Interior planning area. According to the USGS's 
updated assessment, the 23 million-acre NPR-A contains 896 million 
barrels of technically-recoverable oil and 52.8 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. BLM held a lease sale in Northeast NPR-A and selected 
portions of Northwest NPR-A in August 2010. The total acreage currently 
leased in the NPR-A is 2.16 million acres.
    Offshore, BOEMRE offered 40 million acres in the Central Gulf of 
Mexico for oil and gas leasing last year, receiving $950 million in 
high bids for 2.4 million acres. A total of 38 million acres of the OCS 
are under active lease, of which 6.5 million acres are producing. Since 
the Deepwater Horizon spill and the implementation of stronger safety 
standards, BOEMRE has approved 39 shallow water permits in the Gulf of 
Mexico. BOEMRE also recently issued its sixth deepwater permit since 
the new standards, including the new requirement that operators 
demonstrate the ability to contain a deepwater blowout, and approved 
the first new deepwater exploration plan since the Deepwater Horizon 
explosion and resulting oil spill. BOEMRE has also issued 22 permits 
for deepwater wells that were allowed under the temporary moratorium. 
An updated list of well types, pending and approved permits, and 
information on new safety regulations, is available online at: http://
www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/well_permits.html.
    Last March the Department issued its strategy for offshore 
development for 2012-2017, and offshore drilling in Alaska is under 
careful review. OCS lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, as 
well as the Cook Inlet planning area, will be scoped for the EIS for 
the proposed 2012-2017 OCS Program. The Department's efforts relating 
to offshore development in the Arctic include scientific and 
environmental studies, public meetings, government-to-government 
meetings, and expanded analysis of oil spill response capabilities in 
the Arctic. Decisions about the proposed 2012-2017 program will be 
informed by an ongoing USGS assessment of resources, risks, and 
environmental sensitivities in Arctic areas, and input from other 
federal agencies, including NOAA.
    The Department's proposed budget will allow for improved 
enforcement of safety standards, improvements in critical functions 
such as permitting and research, as well as inspections and oversight. 
We have undertaken needed reforms to make oil and gas development safer 
and are working to ensure the public receives a fair return from the 
development of their resources.
Non-Producing Leases
    Question 81. Let's clarify some points on fees on ``non-producing 
leases.'' This issue relates to both onshore and offshore development. 
Does the Department favor penalizing leaseholders for non-producing on 
leases where they are waiting for the federal government to permit 
their proposed development? Does the Department favor assessing 
penalties for any of the non-producing leases in the National Peteoleum 
Reserve, even though the EPA continues to block even the first ever 
production in those oilfields?
    Answer. The final details of the legislative proposal have not yet 
been finalized, and these and other issues are being considered during 
this review. However, as discussed at the hearing, the intention of the 
proposal is to provide a financial incentive to diligently develop oil 
and gas leases, not to punish lessees.
Pace of Permitting
    Question 82. The budget calls for raising inspection fees for 
offshore oil and gas exploration and raising fees on any ``non-
producing'' leases, this is of course in addition to the hike in 
royalty percentages which you levied last Congress. At the same time, 
Mr. Bromwich has stated publicly that the pace of permitting in the 
Gulf of Mexico will ``probably never'' return to its pre-Macondo speed. 
In other words, the budget asks consumers to deal with higher costs 
being passed along to them while expecting a lower level of service in 
return, a bit like raising metro fares and reducing the number of 
trains.

          a. Does Interior not have confidence that the new inspection 
        regime--which is supposed to be much greater in both number and 
        abilities--cannot get our offshore program back on track?
          b. Can Interior at least state as a *goal* that we should be 
        trying to restore and even improve the speed of the regulatory 
        process? If there are enough permit writers and inspectors to 
        do their jobs and ensure safety, what is the problem with 
        resuming speed?

    Answer. The budget changes will increase the return to the public 
on their resources; have industry--rather than taxpayers--pay for more 
stringent inspection costs, because it's appropriate, and create 
incentives for lessees to develop oil and gas resources or turn their 
leases over to someone who will develop them in a timely way. The 
public will benefit from all of these activities. As noted in response 
to question 80 above, the Administration has not only made historic 
strides in improving the regulatory process but is continuing to 
process permits and offer lands for development. BOEMRE continues to 
review and approve applications that demonstrate the ability to operate 
safely in deep water. The rate of deepwater permit applications is 
increasing, which reflects industry's growing confidence that it 
understands and can comply with the applicable requirements, including 
the containment requirement. BOEMRE expects additional permit approvals 
in the near future. However, the need for additional resources to 
support this function is widely recognized and supported by industry. 
With the resources requested in the FY 2012 budget, BOEMRE will be able 
to hire additional personnel to provide for a thorough and timely 
review of permitting requests.
    Question 83. Let's clarify some points on fees on ``non-producing 
leases.'' This issue relates to both onshore and offshore development: 
Let's say company A owns two leases right next to one another, over the 
same reservoir of hydrocarbons. It's drilling on one lease and doing 
nothing with the other. Company A obviously doesn't need two rigs right 
next to each other because it will eventually produce the entire 
reservoir from one. But the budget states that the non-production 
penalty on the adjacent lease is to either make Company A drill that 
acreage as well, or to force Company A to surrender its lease so 
Company B can come in and produce the same reservoir--which then will 
be developed twice as quickly.

          a. Is this a plausible scenario?
          b. How does this scenario result in or incentivize new 
        exploration or discoveries that would not have otherwise taken 
        place?
          c. What function do fees on non-producing leases serve which 
        annual rentals do not serve?

    Answer. While the final details of the legislative proposal have 
not yet been finalized, it is contemplated that the proposal will take 
into account all relevant Departmental policies, including unitization 
and communitization of leases. In this hypothetical scenario, it would 
be in the interest of Company A to propose unitizing the area to both 
solve this problem and promote the efficient development of the 
reservoir. The ultimate intention of the proposal is to ensure that the 
public interest is served by timely development of the public's oil and 
gas resources. Regarding rental fees, a producer is obligated to pay 
rent up until the lease produces paying quantities of oil or gas.
    Question 84. What rights attach when a company pays for a lease to 
explore for oil or gas on federal property?
    Answer. A federal onshore oil and gas lease grants the exclusive 
right to drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the oil 
and gas (except helium) on the lands described in the lease together 
with the right to build and maintain necessary improvements on the 
leasehold for the term of the lease, subject to obtaining required 
permits and approvals. Rights granted are subject to applicable laws, 
including, but not necessarily limited to: (1) the terms, conditions, 
and stipulations of the lease, (2) the Secretary of the Interior's 
regulations and formal orders in effect as of lease issuance, and (3) 
regulations and formal orders later promulgated when not inconsistent 
with lease rights granted or specific provisions of the lease. However 
no unfettered right to produce oil and gas attaches upon issuance of 
the lease. Instead, a lessee obtains the exclusive right to explore for 
and develop oil and gas from the leased area, subject to obtaining 
required permits and approvals, and subject to applicable statutes, 
regulations, and orders.
    Question 85. The budget contemplates an OCS lease sale in 2011 but 
many people close to this issue think that litigation from 
environmental groups over NEPA adequacy will force more delay, and this 
would be the first year since 1964 where we don't have an offshore 
lease sale in this country. Are you prepared for this eventuality?
    Answer. BOEMRE is conducting environmental analysis with the intent 
of holding a lease sale this year, and a total of 3 Gulf sales before 
the current program expires in June 2012. The final Western GOM Sale 
218 remains on schedule to be held by the end of 2011 or early 2012. 
Central GOM Sale 216, which had been scheduled for March 2011, will be 
consolidated with Central GOM Sale 222; this consolidated sale is 
currently scheduled for 2012.
    Question 86. Interior ended the royalty-in-kind program. Has this 
resulted in a more efficient revenue collection system?
    Answer. The termination of the Royalty in Kind program is a part of 
our commitment to ensuring that royalty collection on behalf of the 
American people is conducted transparently, accurately, and 
efficiently. The Department of the Interior should be regulating 
industry, not participating in their market activities, and the work we 
have done to successfully end the RIK program only enhances our 
continued efforts to eliminate the real and perceived conflicts of 
interest as we fulfill our regulatory oversight and revenue collection 
responsibilities.
    Question 86a. Yet Interior's budget demands, as nearly as I can 
tell, 50 to 100 new employees for the independent revenue management 
office. And these are presumably skilled auditors so they will come at 
substantial expense. Why do you need more people when the office is 
doing only one job now (revenue collections) instead of two (revenue 
collection plus processing royalty oil)?
    Answer. The ONRR's FY 2012 request includes an increase of $13.5 
million in discretionary appropriations from the 2010 Enacted level to 
transition royalty-in-kind (RIK) activities to royalty-in-value. There 
is not an increase in employees associated with this funding. The 
requested increase in discretionary funding will be used to replace the 
loss of mandatory funding from receipts that were previously available 
from the RIK program. These funds are no longer available since we have 
terminated the RIK program.
    Separately, the 2012 budget also includes increased funding and 
staffing to enhance audit, oversight and enforcement activities and 
ensure the taxpayers receive a fair return for the use of the Nation's 
resources. ONNR is responsible for the collection of disbursement of 
revenues from the OCS program and the onshore oil and gas programs 
managed by the BLM and the BIA as well as other mineral leasing 
activities.
    Question 86b. In any case, revenues will be down due to lost 
production in the Gulf. Why are more employees necessary to process 
less revenue?
    Answer. The Department has not seen a decline in revenues in the 
Gulf. Revenue estimates resulting from federal oil and gas activities 
in the Gulf of Mexico are expected to generate $5.2 billion in 2012 as 
compared to collections of $4.6 billion in 2010. The FY 2012 Budget 
request for ONRR is $147.9 million, a $38.7 million increase over the 
2010 enacted level and $25.8 million over the 2011 CR level. The 
Administration is requesting funding increases for this program in 
order to implement long-needed enhancements to audit, oversight and 
enforcement activities for mineral revenue collection activities, as 
highlighted by recent reports from the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) and DOI's Inspector General (IG).
    Question 87. Experts are projecting that Gulf of Mexico deepwater 
oil production will account for 30 percent of total US production and 
nearly 95 percent of offshore production by 2020. Do you consider that 
a reasonable target?
    Answer. Although the future of deepwater GOM exploration and 
production remains very promising, BOEMRE does not set targets for 
production nor make projections of the Gulf's share of total domestic 
production.
    Question 88. According to the EIA, domestic offshore oil production 
will fall 13 percent in 2011, a loss of about 220,000 barrels a day, 
mainly due to the fact that no new exploration has happened in the Gulf 
since last April. The interim rule stated that there was sufficient 
spare capacity in OPEC to cover this gap, which gave us great comfort, 
but now Saudi Arabia is already having to increase its production to 
replace the production that's gone offline in Libya. How do you propose 
that the United States make up this loss in production in 2011 and 
beyond? What role does Alaska play?
    Answer. See the response to Question 80.
    Question 89. Between 1944 and 1981 the federal government in 
federally funded oil exploration programs in northern Alaska drilled 
137 exploratory wells. So far only 10 of the wells have been properly 
plugged and abandoned. This is a record that would not be permitted by 
any private oil and gas firm. While BLM two years ago did mobilize to 
prevent environmental damage from a failing cap of a well near 
Teshekpuk Lake, funding for remediation of the remaining 127 ``legacy'' 
wells is grossly insufficient. Will the Department commit to an 
orderly, sufficiently funded program to attempt to complete the proper 
plugging and abandonment of federal wells inside the National Petroleum 
Reserve Alaska over a given number of years?
    Answer. The Department is committed to an orderly, sufficiently 
funded program to complete the proper plugging and abandonment of 
federal wells inside the NPR-A. There are 136 legacy wells within the 
23-million-acre NPR-A. In 2004, the BLM completed a three-year 
inventory and assessment of these 136 legacy wells. The BLM evaluated 
the wells for threats to human health, safety, and the environment in 
their existing condition.
    Following is a summary of the status of the 136 legacy wells:

   23 wells (with associated rights and responsibilities) were 
        conveyed to the North Slope Borough through the Barrow Gas 
        Field Act of 1984 or to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation;
   39 wells are shallow uncased test holes which pose no threat 
        to human health, safety or the environment;
   11 wells have been plugged and fully remediated;
   17 wells are currently in use by USGS in climate change/
        permafrost studies (all of these wells are properly plugged 
        above the hydrocarbon bearing zones up to the surface casing 
        shoe and pose no risks under current management); and
   46 wells remain to be remediated

    During the last nine years, the Department and the BLM have 
committed to an orderly and sufficiently funded program. Since 2002, 
the BLM has plugged and remediated 11 wells in the NPR-A (J.W. Dalton, 
East Teshekpuk, Atigaru, Drew Point, Simpson Core-26, 27, 30, 30A and 
31, and Umiat 2 and 5). In 2005, plugging and pit remediation of the 
J.W. Dalton well cost $8.9 million. In 2006, plugging five wells on the 
Simpson Peninsula cost $1.8 million. In 2008, plugging and pit 
remediation of the East Teshekpuk well cost $12 million. In 2009, 
plugging and pit remediation of the Atigaru well cost $14 million. In 
2010, plugging and remediating Drew Point, the last remaining coastal 
erosion high-priority well, cost $16.8 million.
    Question 90. If the government does not seriously begin to properly 
plug these wells--a process that requires adding sufficient downhole 
cement and plugs to prevent leakage--the casing of these wells likely 
will deteriorate further making plugging and abandonment far more 
costly and threatening oil seepage that could affect water quality in 
the fragile Arctic environment. Delaying of plugging has already caused 
several of the wells to be ``lost'' below the surface due to subsidence 
and two wells are at the bottom of what have turned into lakes because 
of snowmelt. Will the Department this year commit to meeting State of 
Alaska environmental requirements to prevent serious downhole 
mechanical integrity issues that will increase the longer it takes to 
properly abandon these federal exploration sites?
    Answer. The Department will continue to work with the State of 
Alaska in developing a strategic approach to systematically plug the 46 
legacy wells that remain to be remediated. The 17 USGS climate change/
permafrost monitoring wells will be plugged if they are found to pose 
an environmental risk.
     america's great outdoors and land and water conservation fund
    Question 91. The Land and Water Conservation Fund budget request is 
for the full funding level of $900 million, a 100% increase over last 
year, for land acquisition for each land management agency in DOI. Can 
you please explain to me why, with such an enormous maintenance 
backlog, DOI is focusing such a large amount of money on acquiring more 
federal land?
    Answer. We recognize that there are many competing priorities for 
limited budget dollars. However, the funding proposed for federal land 
acquisition is part of a strategy that reflects the President's agenda 
to protect America's great outdoors and demonstrates a sustained 
commitment to a 21st Century conservation agenda. It reflects the 
strong support for land conservation and additional outdoor 
recreational opportunities that was voiced at the 51 America's Great 
Outdoors listening sessions held last summer. The lands identified for 
acquisition in the FY 2012 budget request address the most urgent needs 
for recreation; species and habitat conservation; and the preservation 
of landscapes, and historic and cultural resources. Such acquisition 
may also assist the government to achieve greater efficiencies that 
resolve management issues. In addition, increased federal land 
acquisition funding would provide more opportunities for landowners, if 
they wish, to sell their property yet ensure that it will be protected 
in perpetuity rather than developed in a way that threatens resources 
in national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and other public lands. 
While seeking full funding for the LWCF, the Administration will 
continue to address the deferred maintenance backlog.
    Question 92. Can't DOI use land exchanges to acquire the in 
holdings of sensitive lands rather than paying to acquire these 
additional lands?
    Answer. The Department considers all possible avenues to address 
the most urgent needs for recreation; species and habitat conservation; 
and the preservation of landscapes, and historic and cultural 
resources. The Department has used land exchanges to acquire needed 
land in certain situations. However, in many situations, land exchanges 
are not a viable option, and therefore the Department uses other means 
to acquire lands from willing sellers.
    Question 93. Given the budget stresses on the DOI agencies how can 
you recommend such large increases in land acquisition when your budget 
proposal makes it clear you are not able to fund the programs you're 
currently being asked to deliver to the American Public?
    Answer. The FY 2012 budget request ensures that Departmental 
agencies will be able to maintain their core responsibilities on 
federal lands while providing for strategic increases to conserve land 
for current and future generations. The lands identified for 
acquisition in the FY 2012 budget request address the most urgent needs 
for recreation; species and habitat conservation; and the preservation 
of landscapes, and historic and cultural resources. Such acquisition 
may also assist the government to achieve greater efficiencies that 
resolve management issues. In addition, increased federal land 
acquisition funding would provide more opportunities for landowners, if 
they wish, to sell their property yet ensure that it will be protected 
in perpetuity rather than developed in a way that threatens resources 
in national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and other public lands.
               wilderness and international border issues
    Question 94. Given the definition of Wilderness in the Wilderness 
Act of 1974 that says: ``A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 
where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby 
recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 
untrammeled by man,  . . . '' and the impacts being made on border 
Wilderness Areas, shouldn't we consider pulling all Wilderness Area 
boundaries back from the international border to reduce the cost of 
border patrols as well as the cost of cleaning up the waste that is 
left by those crossing these areas?
    Answer. The Department is committed to the protection of wilderness 
as provided in the Wilderness Act of 1964. We are also committed to 
working cooperatively with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
including the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to accomplish our 
respective missions on federal lands near the border. We believe that 
the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the Department, DHS, 
and the Department of Agriculture in 1996 titled ``Cooperative National 
Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along the United 
States' Borders'' has provided an appropriate framework to address the 
issues you have raised.
                       alaska specific questions
    Question 95. One of the budget emphasis areas within you Budget in 
Brief book for FY 2012 is ``Strengthening Tribal Nations,'' which said: 
``The Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative is a multi-year 
comprehensive effort to advance the President's commitment to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.''
    As I discussed in my opening statement, you are proposing to cut 
funding for the Alaska Conveyance Program by 54% and may even undertake 
a Reduction in Force (RIF) to reduce the number employees by more than 
half. Secretary Salazar, with all due respect, the Conveyance program 
has now taken 40 years since the law was signed. With the funding that 
was provided to the BLM last year you suggested it would take another 
20 years to complete the conveyance program. Given that most of those 
people waiting for their conveyances will now have to wait 40 to fifty 
more years at this proposed funding level, can you help me better 
understand your commitment to Alaska Natives and just what signal this 
sends to those people?
    Answer. The Department is committed to the conveyance of lands, not 
only to individual Natives and to corporations formed under the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act, but also to the State of Alaska under the 
Alaska Statehood Act. We are working closely at the local level to 
determine priorities so that either we can convey by patent (if 
surveyed) or by interim basis (if unsurveyed) working title to the 
lands the clients really need now. The BLM has already issued final or 
interim conveyance on most of the acres. Surveying millions of acres of 
entitlements now constitutes the bulk of the remaining program work. 
The BLM will prioritize survey work on a geographic basis, maximize the 
use of contract surveyors, and use available technology to ensure this 
work is done in the most cost efficient manner. The Administration will 
evaluate options for additional program reforms and efficiencies to 
complete final transfers in a timely manner.
    Question 96. OCS North Aleutian Basin: The Department has removed 
potential oil and gas lease sales in the North Aleutian Basin near 
Bristol Bay from the current and the proposed five-year OCS sale 
schedule to 2017 because of concerns about the level of baseline 
scientific study that had been conducted in the area. I can accept 
that, but I am concerned that the Department will now shift all BOEM 
funding for baseline scientific studies away from the area because no 
sales are scheduled, creating a self-fulfilling prophesy that the area 
can't be considered for leasing after 2017 because there will still not 
be sufficient environmental data to make an informed decision. Will the 
Department commit to better funding environmental studies in the area 
now, so that an informed decision on leasing can be made in the future?
    Answer. In March 2010 Secretary Salazar and President Obama 
announced the OCS oil and gas strategy emphasizing both science-based 
decision-making and public outreach. The scheduled Beaufort and Chukchi 
lease sales in the Arctic were canceled in the current 5-Year -plan. 
However, those planning areas, along with the Cook Inlet planning area, 
are being scoped for the EIS for the 2012-2017 program.
    As noted in the question, Bristol Bay was removed from leasing in 
both the current plan and the next 5-Year plan. President Obama 
withdrew the Bristol Bay area of the North Aleutian Basin from 
consideration until June 2017. However, BOEMRE's Environmental Studies 
Program is working to complete research that is well underway in the 
North Aleutian Basin, and will have some new baseline information if 
leasing resumes after June 2017. This includes reports on oceanographic 
circulation modeling, ocean acidification, habitat use of North Pacific 
Right Whales, and community subsistence harvest and sharing networks.
    Question 97. Izembek Wildlife Refuge EIS: I am very pleased that 
the Department has moved forward to complete the Environmental Impact 
Statement required before a land swap approved in 2009 involving land 
in the Izembek National Wildllife Refuge can go forward. Does the 
Department now have all the funding needed to bring the EIS to 
completion by early next year, so that the Secretary can make a final 
decision on the 61,000-acre land swap by spring 2012?
    Answer. The FWS is currently working on the EIS associated with the 
proposed land exchange at Izembek NWR in Alaska. Although there is no 
request for funding in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request to 
complete the EIS, it remains a priority and we are confident that the 
EIS will be completed by the Spring of 2012 in accordance with Public 
Law 111-11.
                                  nssi
    Question 98. Most of the federal agencies in your Department helped 
form an initiative called the North Slope Science Initiative several 
years ago to better coordinate and fund wildlife and geophysical 
science reviews that play a role in Arctic development. Will the 
Department actually provide sufficient federal funding in FY 12 to 
allow the NSSI process to be successfully implemented?
    Answer. The President's FY 2012 Budget proposes $1.0 million for 
the North Slope Science Initiative. The proposed amount in the 
President's budget for the Initiative is at the same allocation level 
as FYs 2009, 2010, and 2011.
                         petroleum well cleanup
    Question 99. During this past year the Alaska Oil and Gas 
Conservation Commission has repeatedly urged the BLM to put more money 
into the cleanup and rehabilitation of abandoned federal oil wells on 
Alaska's North Slope, most the result of the NPRA federal exploration 
program in the early 1980's. How much money does your Department intend 
to commit to clean up of abandoned wells in FY 12 in Alaska?
    Answer. In FY 2011, the BLM obligated $3.1 million for the Umiat 
well plugging in the NPR-A. The FY 2012 budget includes $1.0 million 
for the BLM to use for plugging legacy wells.
                  yukon-charley national park incident
    Question 100. There have been a number of recent incidents at 
Yukon-Charley National Preserve involving National Park Service Rangers 
and local residents in and around the Park Unit. I have a great deal of 
concern about how the NPS Rangers have behaved in these incidents and 
previously requested a full review of the incident. What is your 
assessment of how the Park Rangers engaged with citizens in the Jim 
Wilde case? Do you believe that NPS employees should be required to 
take a sensitivity class before working in rural Alaska?
    Answer. Public employees should treat the public in a courteous and 
professional manner. In Yukon-Charley and other Alaska units, the NPS 
incorporates discussions of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act and aspects of rural life in Alaska NPS employee training and that 
NPS is helped in this effort by more than 125 rural Alaska residents 
who come to work for NPS each year. The NPS is confident that NPS 
rangers involved in this incident treated Mr. Wilde appropriately, in 
accordance with policy and their training.
                         access to alaska lands
    Question 101. Just recently, small placer miners in Alaska have 
been informed that the Bureau of Land Management is planning to 
restrict motorized access to a host of mining claims in Alaska. While 
access across lands created by the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act to inholdings clearly is protected by the 1980 act, 
these complaints are arising because of new efforts to restrict 
motorized access to claims on general BLM lands in Alaska. While I know 
the Department has a very different interpretation about the residual 
impact for motorized access on rights of way across lands that the 
State of Alaska has claimed under Revised Public Law 2477, this closure 
of access appears to be precedent setting. What exactly is the reason 
for the closure to access, under exactly what scope of authority is the 
Department moving to deny access, and exactly how can small miners 
access their valid claims to minerals under national mining law without 
having the right to motorized access on routes they have used for many 
decades? I am seeking a complete understanding of the Department's 
proposed policy on access to mineral deposits in my state.
    Answer. The Department is committed to the attentive protection and 
support of the access provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act. The BLM has not taken any action, nor does it plan to 
take actions, to restrict motorized access to a host of mining claims 
in Alaska. In individual cases that may involve access across BLM-
managed public lands to reach inholdings, including state and federal 
mining claims, the BLM works with the individuals and corporations 
involved on a case-by-case basis, and is committed to the timely 
resolution of these issues.
                         national park service
    Question 102. Can you please explain why the National Park Service 
is updating their Oil and Gas regulations at this time? Is this a 
necessary expenditure of time and resources? Do you foresee this 
hindering any oil and gas production on private lands within National 
Park Units in the future?
    Answer. The NPS is considering revising its oil and gas 
regulations, which have been in effect for over 30 years without 
substantive change, to update them to reflect current policies, 
practices and advances in technology to improve the ease of applying 
the regulations for the NPS and industry; and to increase the 
effectiveness of the regulations in protecting park resources and 
values. The NPS does not foresee the regulations hindering oil and gas 
production in parks.
    Question 102a. Is it possible for Alaska's National Parks to be 
exempted from this review since many of the National Park Units in 
Alaska operate under unique laws and regulations?
    Answer. Although Alaska's national parks are not exempted from this 
review, in considering revision to its oil and gas regulations, the NPS 
will take into account the terms of all laws applicable to national 
park units in Alaska, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act of 1980.
    Question 103. The National Park Service construction program is 
$80.8 million below the 2010 Enacted/2011 CR level, primarily due to 
reductions in line-item construction projects. Will this reduction only 
impact new construction, or will maintenance backlog projects be 
affected as well?
    Answer. The majority of the $80.8 million construction program 
reduction falls on the line-item construction program, which would be 
$76.6 million lower than in FY 2010 under the proposed budget. The 
NPS's five-year line-item construction program--the major projects that 
have been prioritized for proposed 2012 funding--consists almost 
entirely of projects that would help reduce the maintenance backlog.
    Question 104. Does the National Park Service have any plans to 
reimplement the hunting closures within Yukon-Charley National Preserve 
or Denali National Preserve? If so, on what grounds does the National 
Park Service feel that it is necessary to reimplement these hunting 
closures?
    Answer. The NPS has prohibited the taking of black bear sows and 
cubs within Denali and Gates of the Arctic National Preserves since 
2010. The practice of killing bear cubs, and sows with cubs, at den 
sites has been generally prohibited in Alaska. However, in 2009, the 
State of Alaska allowed resident hunters to use artificial light to 
take black bear sows and cubs in certain areas, including Denali and 
Gates of the Arctic National Preserves. The NPS considers State laws 
which seek to manipulate wildlife populations in favor of prey species, 
or which have that practical effect, to be inconsistent with NPS 
statutes, regulations, and policies requiring natural abundance, 
distribution, and behavior of wildlife and exceed the authorization for 
sport hunting contained in Alaska National Interests Land Conservation 
Act (ANILCA). Because the state authorizations remain in effect, the 
NPS has determined the closure is still warranted at these two units.
    In the case of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, the purpose 
of the 2010 closure to sport take of wolves was in part to ensure the 
protection of wolves and preserve hunting and trapping opportunities 
for local rural residents under Title VIII of ANILCA. This was prompted 
by a 43 percent decline in wolf numbers and the loss of one complete 
pack in months preceding the closure. The 2010 closure expired on May 
31, 2010. Future decisions on closure will be based on resource data 
available at the time.
    Question 105. When does the National Park Service plan to revaluate 
the authorizations for air transport companies to provide transport 
services in Noatak National Preserve? How was the original number of 
allocations determined?
    Answer. The NPS will reevaluate the terms for commercial use 
authorizations for transporters during this fiscal year, as those 
authorizations expire on December 31, 2011. The original allocations 
were determined by a mix of historical use numbers and requests by 
operators. In response to dissatisfaction with that process, 
allocations for 2011 were recently modified to better match the needs 
of the transporter companies. This modification has been seen as a 
satisfactory remedy for this year.
    Question 106. When will the Administration submit a legislative 
proposal with the criteria needed to evaluate potentially qualified 
national heritage areas and the process for designation and 
administration of those areas?
    Answer. The Administration is very interested in establishing in 
law the criteria for evaluating areas for their potential as national 
heritage areas and the process for designating and administering 
national heritage areas. However, at this time, no timeline has been 
determined for submitting a legislative proposal to Congress.
                                 mining
Jobs Impact of Rulemaking on Coal Mines
    Question 107. The Interior Department recently distributed a draft 
EIS for its rulemaking on stream protections and coal mining. The EIS 
projects massive job destruction as a result of your agency's 
`preferred alternative'. The Department has tried to distance itself 
from the EIS, but that does not reverse the fact that it was officially 
transmitted to states for comment--a process that consumes time, money, 
and other resources. Will you consider withdrawing the `preferred 
alternative' in the draft EIS; developing a new one; and re-issuing an 
impact analysis that identifies the actual changes made to the rule and 
explains how they correspond to any reductions in economic damage from 
what was projected in the draft EIS?
    Answer. It is important to note that the Department has not 
published a draft environmental impact statement with a preferred 
alternative. The proposed rule and draft EIS are still under 
development. Preliminary working drafts of portions of the draft EIS 
were leaked to the media, and they contained unverified data and 
figures. OSM will develop the draft EIS and rule thoughtfully and 
deliberately. The draft EIS and proposed rule will be made available 
for public comment, and both documents will be based on sound 
information.
Critical Minerals and Permitting Delays
    Question 108. Last year, the Energy Department issued a report on 
critical minerals. It discussed the time it takes to permit domestic 
mines and noted that the U.S. ranks dead last in this category 
worldwide. It can take a decade to obtain approval in the U.S. but just 
1-2 years in Australia, for example.
    Question 109. We must protect the environment, but that goal should 
be met through competent implementation of the laws we have--not by 
using them to delay projects and strand private capital. Such tactics 
are short-sighted and result in mines operating in areas of the world 
with far less stringent protections than we have here in the U.S. The 
DOE is scheduled to release an update of this report by the end of 
2011. Will you commit to working with Secretary Chu to propose actual 
solutions to these permitting delay problems, in that updated report?
    Answer. The Department's approach to mineral development on public 
lands has been one of balance and coordination. We have to ensure that 
development occurs in a manner consistent with the need for mineral 
resources and the protection of the public, public lands, and water 
resources. We agree with the statement in the report that coordination 
among relevant government agencies, federal, state, and local, is a key 
factor.
Competitiveness Impact of Hardrock Royalty Proposal
    Question 110. The Interior Department's budget contains a proposal 
to impose a 5% gross royalty, increase existing fees, create new fees, 
and convert to an entirely different system of providing land tenure 
for domestic, hardrock mineral operations. Hardrock minerals trade in 
global markets and decisions about where to invest in their production 
are made in a highly competitive environment. We talk a lot about our 
reliance on foreign oil, but other minerals are equally problematic. 
The U.S. imports 100% of the quartz crystal for solar panels, 100% of 
the indium for LED lighting, and 100% percent of the rare earth 
elements for batteries and magnets.

          a. We know that the Administration believes these fees and 
        royalties would raise $2.3 billion over 10 years--which is 
        useful, in terms of paying for other programs--but I want to 
        know: did the Department conduct any kind of analysis of the 
        impact this proposal would have on the domestic production of 
        minerals critical to national security and clean energy 
        technologies?

    Answer. The legislative proposal, would implement a leasing and 
royalty system on a discrete number of specifically identified 
minerals, including gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and 
molybdenum that are currently covered by the General Mining Law of 
1872. This would ensure a fair return to the public on the development 
of their resources, with half of the receipts distributed to the states 
in which the leases are located and the remaining half deposited in the 
Treasury. Moreover, pre-existing valid claims could continue to exist 
and operate consistent with current regulations.
                       bureau of land management
Wildlands policy
    Question 111. Much of the material the Department of the Interior 
has published and much of the information provided describes the new 
``wild lands'' policy in very similar terms to ``Wilderness'' and often 
it appears that the terms ``wilderness'' and ``wild lands'' are used 
interchangeably.
    Answer. Wilderness areas and Wild Lands both have wilderness 
characteristics defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act. However, wilderness 
areas are designated by Congress and protected and managed indefinitely 
under the law with strict prohibitions on certain activities. Wild 
Lands are temporary designations resulting from a land use plan with 
full public participation. A wider range of actions and activities may 
be allowed in Wild Lands than can occur in designated wilderness. Lands 
can be identified as having wild land characteristics, but the land use 
planning decision process would determine how the lands would be 
managed.
    Question 111a. Secretary Salazar, you are directing the Bureau of 
Land Management to protect an area's ``wilderness characteristics'' by 
designating them ``wildlands.'' Since you are using the ``Wilderness 
Study Areas'' currently identified in your BLM land management plans as 
the starting point for the inventory, don't you believe that it is 
possible that many will think you are attempting to circumvent the 
current laws and designate wilderness under a new name, but with 
virtually identical regulatory and land use impacts?
    Answer. The BLM is not using Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as a 
starting point for the inventory; WSAs are very specifically not 
subject to the Wild Lands policy (BLM Manual 6301.01). The manuals 
developed by BLM to implement Secretarial Order 3310 clearly describe a 
process that includes full public involvement in the land use planning 
process before a Wild Land can be designated in a plan decision. 
Additionally, Wild Lands are managed under different guidelines than 
either designated wilderness or WSAs. A wider range of actions and 
activities may be allowed in Wild Lands than can occur in designated 
wilderness, and future planning decisions can change the management of 
the lands.
    Question 111b. Aren't you violating the spirit, if not the law, of 
the long standing understanding between the Department of the Interior 
and Congress that Congress designates all new Wilderness Areas?
    Answer. No. Only the Congress can designate Wilderness Areas. The 
BLM will be identifying lands with wilderness characteristics. Through 
its open and public land use planning process, BLM will be making 
decisions regarding which areas should be protected and managed as Wild 
Lands for the life of the land use plan. These are not permanent 
designations, and will be revisited in future planning cycles. Uses 
allowed in designated Wild Lands can be broader and more flexible than 
those allowed in WSAs and wilderness.
    Question 111c. If you're telling the Bureau of Land Management to 
protect an area for the area's ``wilderness characteristics'' by 
designating them ``wildlands'' and using the ``Wilderness Study Areas'' 
currently identified in your BLM land management plans as the starting 
point for the inventory, do you seriously think anyone is going to 
believe you have not simply changed the label to attempt to get around 
the law in some instances, and Court ordered Settlements in other 
instances? If you decide to continue down the wild lands path and your 
visitor numbers continue to drop as they have over the last 3 or 4 
years, tell me why Congress shouldn't reduce the Department's budgets 
for those lands your agencies consider wild lands?
    Answer. The BLM is not using Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as a 
starting point for the inventory; WSAs are specifically not subject to 
the Wild Lands policy (BLM Manual 6301.01).
    Over the last three years, visitation to BLM managed-lands has 
steadily increased from 56.9 million visitors in FY2008 to 57.3 million 
visitors in FY 2009, and 58 million visitors in FY 2010.
    Question 111d. If the Department proceeds with its plans to 
designate wild land areas and manage these areas for their wild land or 
wilderness resource values, why would any Congress take the time to 
consider any new Wilderness bills proposed on blblands?
    Answer. A Wild Land designation, unlike wilderness, is a temporary 
designation that is in effect for the life of the land use plan, and 
can change in a future plan decision. Only Congress can designate 
wilderness and only Congress can resolve the long-standing issue of 
which lands should be designated wilderness and which lands should be 
released for non-wilderness uses.
                         wilderness boundaries
    Question 112. Please tell me how many miles of Wilderness boundary 
lines each of the agencies within your Department manage? And how many 
of those miles of Wilderness boundary are signed in such a manner that 
someone unfamiliar with an area would know they are inside or outside 
the designated Wilderness Area?
    Answer. The most current information and statistics related to the 
wilderness lands managed by the Department can be found at http://
wilderness.net, which houses a comprehensive inter-agency database of 
information about all BLM, FWS, NPS, and USFS wilderness areas. 
Unfortunately, statistics related to total boundary miles are not kept 
on this site. However, the site indicates that BLM is the steward of 
221 wilderness areas totaling more than 8.7 million acres, and 545 WSAs 
totaling nearly 13 million acres; FWS manages 75 congressionally-
designated wilderness areas on 63 units of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System in 26 states, with about 90 per cent, 18.6 million acres, in 
Alaska. Forty-four million acres of wilderness are in 47 parks and 
total 53 percent of National Park System lands, with additional 
national park areas are managed as ``recommended'' or ``proposed'' 
wilderness until Congress acts on their status.
    Regarding signage, the Wilderness Act contemplates that a certain 
level of signing may be appropriate in wilderness when used to manage a 
system of trails, water routes, or access points or possibly to 
implement management regulations such as marking designated campsites. 
In other cases, however, such as areas without trails, no signs are 
needed in wilderness. Providing just what is needed and no more 
contributes to wilderness being maintained in an undeveloped condition 
in contrast to lands which exhibit a higher level of human 
modifications.
                         us geological service
    Question 113. I note within the USGS budget proposal to eliminate 
funding for the Data Preservation Program, and in your Budget in Brief 
document, claims that this Data Preservation program is ``largely 
duplicative of other Federal and private programs.'' Each year I am 
visited by the State Geologists and each year they remind me how very 
important this program is to their efforts to deal with the renewable 
energy programs like geothermal and carbon sequestration.

          a. Can you tell me exactly what other federal agencies are 
        collecting and maintaining these drill logs and whether those 
        agencies are more committed than the USGS at maintaining this 
        information?
          b. Your document also suggested that there are private 
        programs that are collecting and maintain similar information. 
        Can you assure me that those private programs will allow other 
        potential users of that data free and unfettered access to the 
        information?
          c. Secretary Salazar, I am fearful that in your Department's 
        zeal to completely do away with the oil and gas industry in the 
        United States, that you may be throwing the baby out with the 
        bathwater when you suggest defunding this program. I am not 
        prepared to lose the data already collected, nor to force 
        future renewable energy companies to have to expend millions of 
        dollars to replace the drill core data that could be lost if we 
        defund this program. I am sure that my staff will be able to 
        identify enough funds from the Department Offices account to 
        cover the million cost of this important program.

    Answer. The National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation 
Program (NGGDPP) is the only federal program dedicated to preserving 
physical and analog geoscience data. The proposed reduction would 
eliminate the NGGDPP. The National Digital Catalog would still exist, 
however it would no longer be maintained and access to it would be 
restricted.
                    bureau of reclamation and water
    Question 114. The FY 2012 budget proposes a decrease in water 
related project funding.
    Please describe the process you undertook to prioritize funding for 
authorized projects that have received Federal funding in the past. In 
addition, please describe the process that Reclamation is undertaking 
to assess and prioritize the funding needs required to ensure that our 
water infrastructure is safe and reliable.
    Answer. Overall, our budget continues to support the need to 
maintain infrastructure in a safe operating condition while addressing 
the myriad challenges facing water users in the West. Approximately, 51 
percent of our water-related resources budget or $407 million is 
dedicated to operation, maintenance and rehabilitation activity. These 
activities include the Dam Safety Program, Site Security Program, and 
RAX (Replacement, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance).
    Reclamation employs a variety of strategies to assess and 
prioritize funding needs required to ensure that our water 
infrastructure is safe and reliable, including 1) an annual review/
examination program for high-and significant-hazard dams to assess dam 
safety and condition; 2) the power review of operations and maintenance 
program to assess the operational and maintenance condition of 
generation assets; 3) the associated review of Operations and 
Maintenance Program to assess the operational and maintenance condition 
of water diversion and delivery assets; 4) pursuit of cost-effective 
financing alternatives for the remainder of the power O&M/capital 
investment program; 5) addressing financing of Maintenance, 
Rehabilitation, and Repair (MR&R) needs-related aging infrastructure 
and 6) completing HydroAMP power train component guides and deployment 
throughout Reclamation generation sites.
    Further, the Bureau employs an exhaustive annual formulation 
process, called the Budget Review Committee, that involves all of its 
Regions, representatives of employees at all levels, as well as Area 
and Program management. The Budget Review Committee debates and 
prioritizes the compiled proposed budgets from all sources, and reaches 
its decisions based on group consensus predicated on the 
Administration's and Commissioner's priorities, as well as those of our 
Congressional stakeholders. Funding allocations of certain programs and 
projects are based on criteria including risk, how close to completion 
a project may be, serving on-reservation populations, how many 
constituents are served, etc.
    Question 115. Please describe how much of the Reclamation budget is 
reimbursable vs. non-reimbursable?
    Answer. The reimbursable amount contemplated in a typical year is 
approximately one-third of the annual request to Congress for 
appropriations--approximately $313 million is anticipated for 2011. The 
amount will vary somewhat each year as reimbursement will vary based 
upon the rules and requirements associated with the authorization for 
each project/program, the terms and conditions of the repayment 
contract and where each project is in its repayment cycle. For example, 
operation and maintenance work is typically repaid within the same 
year; construction typically has a multi-year repayment schedule.
    Generally, projects requiring reimbursement include those 
associated with the development of agricultural, municipal and 
industrial, or power facilities. Also, extraordinary maintenance and 
replacement work undertaken by Reclamation on projects that have a 
reimbursable cost allocation to local beneficiaries is reimbursable. 
Construction, water conservation, and other work not normally 
considered operation and maintenance are not within the meaning of 
``extraordinary maintenance and replacement activities'' in the 
provision. By the same token, as authorized, rural water projects as 
well as Title XVI projects do not have reimbursement requirements, but 
their authorizations require a non-federal cost share which is a 
percentage of the total costs that are determined by the authorizing 
legislation.
    It is important to note that the annual appropriations request 
funds only a portion of overall Reclamation activities. For example, 
many completed Reclamation projects are operated and maintained by 
water districts using their own staff and financial resources pursuant 
to contracts entered into with Reclamation (transferred works). In 
cases where a portion of the costs for transferred works are non-
reimbursable based on the project authorization and project purposes, 
Reclamation may request funds for the non-reimbursable portion. For 
situations where Reclamation operates and maintains completed projects 
(reserved works), water users are typically required to fund their 
portion of O&M costs in advance (water user advances). For project 
operation and maintenance costs allocated to hydropower, approximately 
80 percent (hundreds of millions of dollars) of the total Reclamation-
wide is direct funded by power customers (e.g., Hoover Dam), Western 
Area Power, or the Bonneville Power Administration. Finally, for many 
construction type activities, upfront cost sharing provided by non-
federal partners is not counted as ``reimbursable,'' since it is 
provided upfront rather than repaid. There are also significant 
Reclamation programs for Title XVI water reclamation and reuse, rural 
water project construction, and WaterSMART Grant programs that, in most 
cases, result in facilities owned by local districts and not the 
federal government. These examples demonstrate the high level of 
resources contributed by non-federal entities that do not show up in 
the reimbursable calculation.
    Question 116. Please describe the current backlog for aging 
infrastructure. Have you projected the costs associated with this 
infrastructure over the next 10 years? If so, what are the estimated 
costs?
    Answer. Reclamation is currently updating a preliminary inventory 
of potential reinvestment needs and associated costs estimates. For all 
Reclamation assets, independent of the source of financing, the current 
estimate is approximately $3.1 billion. Some of this will be financed 
under our Safety of Dams program, some will be financed by power and 
irrigation and water users, and some will be financed by appropriations 
with reimbursement by power and irrigation and water users or repayment 
contracts negotiated. There are several measures of ``aging 
infrastructure'' depending on the context. Reclamation's most recent 
Asset Management Plan, published after Fiscal Year 2009, indicated that 
Reclamation's deferred maintenance fluctuated around $40-$45 million 
annually prior to 2008, when a large jump occurred as a result of 
updating identified maintenance estimates from previous years. 
Following the update of estimates to current prices, Reclamation's 
deferred maintenance has averaged $84 million (2008-2010). The 
existence of deferred maintenance is common for the utility industry, 
is an accepted management practice, and will never be eliminated. As 
existing deferred maintenance is resolved, new deferred maintenance is 
identified and placed on the list. A ten year projection could be 
derived based on these figures, but Reclamation does not prepare or 
publish such a projection.
    Question 117. Please describe the role that the Administration is 
playing in the California Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Within that 
process, please describe the process Reclamation will play to ensure 
that Federal water contract deliveries will be met.
    Answer. Federal agencies are helping to develop the Bay-Delta 
Conservation Plan (BDCP) and are engaged in it in order to help set a 
long-term path for reliable water supply, habitat restoration, and 
response to the Delta's non-water-supply stressors. The Department, 
through the Bureau of Reclamation and the FWS, and the Department of 
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), together with the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have significantly enhanced federal 
engagement on the BDCP. The federal agencies have resources dedicated 
to develop and process the documents needed to expeditiously move the 
plan forward, including the associated Environmental Impact Statement, 
and permits under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) that comply 
with the provisions of federal laws.
    Reclamation is a partner in the development of the BDCP. 
Reclamation has and will continue to provide expertise throughout the 
BDCP process to ensure Central Valley Project (CVP) operations and 
water deliveries are considered, evaluated, and addressed. Reclamation 
will evaluate the BDCP in consideration of CVP statutory and 
contractual obligations. Reclamation expects to pursue ESA Section 7 
consultation with NMFS and FWS for CVP operations with the BDCP as part 
of the project description.
    Question 118. Please describe the flexibility you have to deliver 
water south of the delta. Are there any legislative changes needed to 
improve this flexibility? If so, please describe them.
    Answer. Reclamation operates the Central Valley Project to deliver 
water to our contractors within the physical constraints of the system 
in accordance with the laws, directives, and orders affecting the CVP. 
Recently, Reclamation indentified a number of activities to improve the 
south of Delta water supplies including: facilitation of water 
transfers, continuing improvements to the Delta near term science, 
implementing water augmentation actions, and continued coordination on 
the Interim Federal Action Plan. These activities were recently 
summarized in a document by Reclamation, ``Central Valley Project Water 
Plan 2011'' which can be found online at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/PA/
water/docs/Water_Plan_2011_02-15-11.pdf. Reclamation continues to focus 
on both short-and long-term solutions and will work closely with 
Congress on those requiring additional authority or funding. As stated 
in House testimony on April 11, 2011, this year, Reclamation will 
deliver 100% of the contractual water supplies for most CVP 
contractors, including agricultural contracts and refuge level 2 water, 
as well as municipal and industrial (M&I) water.
    Question 119. Over the last four years members have expressed 
interest in identifying the impact that water shortages may have on 
employment within the Central Valley of California. Have you quantified 
any employment impact that may have occurred due to water shortages 
within the Central Valley?
    Answer. Attributing unemployment in the Central Valley to water 
delivered is difficult given the diverse nature of the economy in this 
area. Reclamation generally does not collect detailed production and 
employment information from the numerous districts it serves in the 
Central Valley. Individual districts may have better information from 
their individual producers. Also, universities in California have 
prepared reports assessing the relationship between water shortages and 
jobs. These reports are publicly available. Over the past four years, 
Reclamation and the Department have focused their efforts on finding 
ways to alleviate the shortages and make best use of the water that is 
available. We are sympathetic to those affected by shortages and will 
continue to work to address this issue.
    Question 120. Please describe the new approaches that you have 
undertaken, or will undertake to improve your operational, maintenance 
and rehabilitation obligations.
    Answer. Reclamation's program and budget formulation processes 
typically begin three years prior to a budget enactment year. Through a 
``bottom-up'' process, anticipated needs for operational, maintenance, 
and rehabilitation (OM&R) activities are identified through various 
inspection and condition assessment procedures undertaken at 
Reclamation's water and power facilities which it directly manages. 
Often times, however, the field conditions, and consequently the OM&R 
needs, may change from what was originally envisioned through the 
budgeting process to the year of execution. Reclamation has 
acknowledged that OM&R needs at our facilities must be communicated 
effectively and timely so that corporate decisions can be made to best 
utilize (and obligate) funding for the highest-priority activities in 
the interest and accomplishment of our agency's primary missions. 
Processes have been implemented to better communicate and coordinate 
decision-making related to these funding priorities and needs on a 
corporate basis for improved OM&R obligations within Reclamation.
    Question 121. Please identify the types of projects included in the 
WaterSMART grant program? Have you broken down the different funding 
levels for agricultural/environmental/urban projects?
    Answer. WaterSMART Grants are available for projects that will 
conserve water, improve water and energy efficiency, and address 
endangered species issues; pilot and demonstration projects to explore 
the use of advanced water treatment techniques to create new water 
supplies; system optimization reviews to assess the potential for water 
management improvements; and activities designed to develop tools and 
information to more efficiently manage water resources in a changing 
climate. The most significant portion of requested funding will be used 
to award Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, which in the past have 
included on-the-ground activities such as lining or piping of existing 
canals, installation of automated irrigation management systems and 
flow measurement devices, construction of new canal gates or conveyance 
improvements, installation of pump stations and energy recovery 
turbines, and other similar projects. Funding has also been awarded for 
urban water conservation improvements, such as residential meter 
installation efforts and turf replacement rebate activities, among 
other projects.
    Reclamation began identifying funding levels for agricultural and 
urban projects in FY 2010, when Reclamation awarded approximately $9 
million (29 projects) to agricultural projects; approximately $6 
million (14 projects) for municipal and industrial (M&I) projects; and 
approximately $600,000 (3 projects) for projects that address both 
agricultural and M&I uses. (Other awards were made for projects to 
develop climate analysis tools that do not specifically address either 
agricultural or M&I uses.) Many of the funded projects, both 
agricultural and M&I, are intended to address environmental concerns. 
Reclamation has not separately identified the amount of funding 
specifically addressing environmental concerns.
    Question 122. Since the mid-90s when the Bureau of Reclamation's 
title transfer process was articulated in the Framework for the 
Transfer of Title, how many titles have been transferred to date?
    Answer. Since 1995, Reclamation has transferred title to 27 
projects or parts of projects. This includes a partial conveyance in 
the cases of the Gila Project (Wellton Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage 
District in Arizona) and Provo River Project (Provo River Water Users 
Association in Utah). In both these cases, the entities that are 
authorized to take title requested to break up the transfer into 
multiple phases for specific reasons. Reclamation and these entities 
are continuing to work on completing the rest of the transfers. In 
addition, there are two other title transfers that are currently 
authorized, but which have not been completed: Transfer of lands and 
facilities associated with the Humboldt Project (P.L.107-282) in Nevada 
is working its way through the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. 
And transfer of features associated with the Cachuma Project in 
California to the Goleta Water District is nearly complete and should 
be transferred by the end of April, 2011.
    Question 123. Is there any authority provided to Reclamation to 
transfer small components of projects, or does each transfer of title 
require legislation? Are you aware of any project facilities/components 
that been transferred without legislation?
    Answer. Reclamation and the Department have operated with the 
understanding that the Reclamation Act of 1902 effectively requires a 
specific Act of Congress to authorize the transfer of title from the 
United States to a non-federal entity. There have been several 
instances where the original project authorization allowed for the 
transfer of title when specific conditions are met--such as the 
complete repayment of the water district's capital obligation. In those 
cases, title transfer has been carried out and has been timely. But in 
general, Reclamation is not aware of any transfers that were completed 
without a specific Act of Congress.
    Question 124. Since the mid-90s, how many districts have indicated 
interest versus those that have actually received the transfer of 
title? Can you explain the difference in numbers? What have been the 
major obstacles to transferring of titles? Have there been any major 
changes since the mid-90s to address these obstacles and to create 
additional opportunities to encourage title transfers? What are you 
doing to encourage people to take title?
    Answer. Since the mid-1990's, Reclamation has fielded many 
inquiries from water districts about the possibility of title transfer. 
Many have determined that it did not meet their needs and interests and 
decided not to pursue title transfer. In some cases, the process began 
but was abandoned for various reasons. In general terms, Reclamation 
has come to understand that there are a number of reasons why entities 
consider, but then decided not to pursue title transfer--or initiate 
the process, but later determine that it does not meet their need and 
discontinue the effort. First, some districts are concerned about 
assuming ownership liability, which is otherwise held by the United 
States. Second, some districts initiate title transfer in hopes of 
avoiding the need to deal with certain issues, but find that they must 
deal with those issues as part of the title transfer process. Third, 
when doing their own evaluation of the benefits and costs, they 
determine that the benefits of taking title do not outweigh the costs--
both in terms of the transaction costs associated with the process and 
the long-term costs versus benefits of holding title. And fourth, some 
have initiated the title transfer process and met with opposition from 
other Project stakeholders, so they stopped their title transfer effort 
because they determined that it was not worth the effort, cost or 
relationship strains to continue to pursue title transfer.
    In terms of changes to the process, Reclamation has done several 
formal and informal evaluations of its title transfer processes and 
policies and taken steps to improve the process to make it more 
efficient and timely. As referenced in the answer to question 20 above, 
as part of the Managing for Excellence (M4E) initiative, Reclamation 
undertook a comprehensive review of each step with an eye toward 
improving the process. This included interviews with Reclamation 
employees, water districts and representatives from other stakeholder 
groups who had been involved in various transfer efforts--both 
successful (where title transfer was completed), as well as those where 
transfer was not completed. Reclamation also conducted broader scoping/
brainstorming meetings as part of the M4E initiative that were held in 
coordination with the National Water Resources Association and the 
Family Farm Alliance. As a result of all of those interactions, we made 
several changes to the process to make it clearer, more consistent and 
more transparent. Finally, we continue to work with entities interested 
in title transfer to proactively identify the costs, benefits and the 
steps that are necessary to minimize controversy and get all of the 
potential issues or concerns on the table at the earliest possible 
stage. In recent years, since implementation of those changes, 
Reclamation has seen a number of transfers proceed to and through the 
legislative process without significant cost or controversy. It is that 
model that we share with entities who express an interest in title 
transfer.
    Question 125. What are the typical costs associated with these 
transfers? If each transfer is deemed unique, could you then tell me of 
those that have been completed, what was the cost? Have these transfers 
led to a decrease in personnel and other costs associated the federal 
holding of titles?
    Answer. The cost associated with the title transfer process has 
varied widely depending upon the circumstances. Because title transfer 
decisions must comply with both the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Reclamation 
must complete the activities required under those laws. The cost of 
compliance with those laws is generally the largest percentage of the 
total title transfer transaction cost. In most cases, the NEPA process 
has resulted in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and we have 
been able to sign an Environmental Assessment (EA). However, in some 
cases, where parties are proposing the transfer of potentially historic 
or culturally significant sites, a more detailed analysis is required 
both under NEPA (resulting in the completion of an Environmental Impact 
Statement) and under the NHPA. Of the 27 transfers completed to date, 
only 2 have required a more detailed analysis than an EA-FONSI.
    The costs of title transfer transactions have ranged from roughly 
$3,000--$5,000 for the simplest transfers to $1.5 million for those 
that required the most extensive compliance activities. Over time, as 
Reclamation and our partners have gotten more experienced, we have seen 
the costs and timeframes go down.
    In response to the last part of the question, due to the types of 
projects and facilities that are being considered for title transfer, 
Reclamation has seen very limited budgetary savings as a result of 
title transfer. Nearly all the projects and facilities where title has 
been transferred were already being operated and maintained (O&M) by 
the entity interested in taking title. This meant that the costs for 
that O&M were already off-budget for Reclamation. As a result, of the 
27 title transfers undertaken so far, there have been only two 
transfers that have resulted in financial or specific budgetary savings 
(Middle Loup Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program transferred 
to the Sargent, Farwell and Middle Loup Districts in Nebraska, and the 
Palmetto Bend Project in Texas transferred to the Lavaca-Navidad Water 
Authority). In general, the financial benefits to the United States are 
associated with a transfer of ownership liability, which is difficult 
to quantify and is not a direct budget item.
    Question 126. What do you consider the goal of the title transfer 
program?
    Answer. Reclamation sees the goal of its title transfer effort as 
multi-faceted. First, it is an opportunity to increase the efficiency 
of operating and maintaining projects and project facilities. Title 
transfer can increase operational flexibility and can potentially 
remove obligations--such as certain reporting and permitting 
requirements that exist by virtue of the fact that the facilities are 
owned by the United States. We also see title transfer as a tool for 
assisting water users to address long term maintenance needs associated 
with an aging infrastructure. In many cases, the entities that operate 
the projects would like to undertake major maintenance efforts that, by 
law, are their responsibility. However, they cannot borrow the needed 
capital because they do not actually own the facilities and therefore 
do not have sufficient collateral. Taking title gives them that 
flexibility. And lastly, Reclamation has a multi-billion dollar backlog 
of obligations. While there may not be an immediate budgetary savings, 
we do see title transfer as a means, over the long term, to focus our 
resources on meeting the highest priority needs at core facilities in 
order to most effectively meet the contemporary water and power needs 
of the Western United States.
    Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Barrasso
                         stream protection rule
    Question 127. In January, the President directed agencies to review 
regulations. How has OSM's stream protection rulemaking complied with 
President Obama's recent Executive Order 13563 Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review? Please provide a justification for making the rule, 
particularly as it relates to Wyoming stream protection. How many days 
have states been allowed to review each section of the draft EIS? 
Please also provide the number of pages for each correlating review. 
What is the estimated cost on states for the implementation of this new 
proposal in comparison to the 2008 rule?
    Answer. The 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule was challenged in District 
Court, and the Department of the Interior entered into a settlement 
agreement staying that litigation. OSM shared early, contractor-
generated draft chapters of the Draft EIS with the cooperating states 
in a continuation of its effort to be more open and transparent in its 
rulemaking process. These draft documents are not official OSM 
documents and do not reflect either the official views of the 
Department of the Interior. The OSM is still in the process of 
determining the content of the proposed rule, as well as developing the 
information necessary to assist in the bureau's decision making. As OSM 
moves forward, it will seek to protect the streams and other 
environmental assets that are critical to the health and economic well-
being of communities, while protecting jobs and maintaining coal 
production. Any final rule will comply with all applicable law and 
Executive Orders.
                          abandoned mine land
    Question 128. The President's budget calls for ending abandoned 
mine cleanup payments for certified states. Current law also requires 
Abandoned Mine Land (AML) funding go to pay for United Mine Workers 
health care benefits. How much AML funding was directed toward union 
health care benefits in 2010? How much funding is projected to be used 
for union health care benefits in 2011 and 2012? Does the 
Administration view this expenditure as coal mine reclamation?
    Answer. In FY 2010 the following funding was provided to the three 
health care plans within the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds as 
required by SMCRA:

          From the AML Fund: $63,926,377.69
          From Treasury: $108,772,514.30
    We project the following funding to be provided to these three 
health care plans in 2011 and 2012:

          FY 2011
                  AML Fund: $57,246,486.91
                  Treasury: $216,063,772.85

          FY 2012
                  AML Fund: $64,062,038
                  Treasury: $161,191,363

    The Administration does not view the payments to these three plans, 
which are mandated by the 2006 Amendments to the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), as funding applied to reclaiming abandoned 
coal mines. The 2012 Budget proposal would not affect the payments to 
UMWA healthcare plans.
                               wild lands
    Question 129. Livestock grazing is ``ordinarily'' consistent with 
LWCs. Manual 6302 Sec.  .13.D.6. The Manual then notes that some 
grazing management practices such as new range improvement projects, 
vegetation manipulation or needs for motorized access could impact the 
overarching duty to protect the wilderness characteristics.
    These possible limitations on grazing are more restrictive than the 
restrictions which apply to the FLPMA 603. Under Section 603(c), the 
Secretary is directed to manage lands with wilderness characteristics 
designated as Wilderness Study Areas so as to not impair their 
suitability as wilderness ``subject, however to the continuation of 
existing . . . grazing uses . . . in a manner and degree in which the 
same was being conducted [in 1976 and the passage of FLPMA].''
    The BLM manual fails to recognize this exception within 603 that 
grandfathers existing grazing uses in existence in 1976. Even the 
Wilderness Act itself provides for ``non-conforming uses,'' one of 
which is livestock grazing established prior to the effective date of 
the Act. 16 U.S.C. Sec.  1133(d)(4)(2).
    The Manual calls into question the compatibility of grazing on 
lands that were not included in the FLPMA Sec.  603 inventory process 
and that are under existing land use planning authorizations. The 
Manual's policy preference that LWCs are chiefly valuable for 
wilderness seems to conflict with the Secretary's obligations to manage 
those lands as chiefly valuable for grazing. Whenever the BLM considers 
a proposal to cease livestock grazing on public rangelands and those 
lands are within a designated grazing district, as the vast majority of 
BLM grazing lands are, the BLM must analyze whether the lands are still 
``chiefly valuable for grazing and raising of other forage crops'' 
under the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec.  315.
    Neither the Secretary's Wild Lands Order nor the implementing BLM 
manuals explain how the Secretary reconciles the use of BLM grazing 
districts as chiefly valuable for grazing when those lands also contain 
wilderness characteristics. In the absence of an explanation, the BLM 
is directed to elevate wilderness protection above grazing use in 
seeming contradiction to the Taylor Grazing Act.
    Answer. The BLM manual directs the agency to maintain an inventory 
of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs). This does not change 
management decisions but simply assesses the condition of the existing 
landscape to determine whether wilderness characteristics are present. 
The BLM will then use the land use planning process, with full public 
involvement, to make decisions about the management of these areas, 
including whether or not to designate the LWC as a Wild Land. The 
manual affirms that livestock grazing is ordinarily consistent with the 
protection of wilderness characteristics. Lands that are grazed could 
be considered for designation as Wild Lands and grazing could continue 
in areas designated as Wild Lands.
    Question 129a. Please explain the apparent conflict in priority 
between grazing and LWCs created with the Order and Manuals and the 
existing law.
    Answer. The manual affirms that livestock grazing is ordinarily 
consistent with the protection of wilderness characteristics. Lands 
that are grazed could be considered for designation as Wild Lands and 
grazing could continue in areas designated as Wild Lands.
    Question 129b. Currently the BLM offices are directed to elevate 
wilderness protection above grazing according to the Manuals. How will 
the agency revise the manuals to give BLM offices clear guidance?
    Answer. There is no direction to elevate protection of wilderness 
characteristics above livestock grazing. The Secretarial Order and BLM 
manuals simply affirm that managing the wilderness resource is an 
important part of the BLM's multiple-use mission, and that the BLM 
should protect wilderness characteristics consistent with its 
management authorities and its multiple-use mission.
    Question 129c. What will the agency do to correct the conflict and 
ensure grazing continues to takes place on any designated wild lands?
    Answer. Any conflicts would be resolved through the public land use 
planning process.
    Question 129d. How will the Department manage proposed wild lands 
areas while the Department reviews the proposed wild land area?
    Answer. The BLM will manage LWCs according to the terms of the 
applicable land use plan pending a plan decision on whether or not to 
designate a specific LWC as a Wild Land. Specific projects proposed in 
LWCs not yet analyzed for Wild Lands designation will be considered 
according to the review procedures of manual 6303.
    Question 129e. Will permits for recreation, grazing, or energy 
development be approved on areas proposed for wild lands areas? If so, 
under what specific circumstances will each of these activities be 
considered ``appropriate and consistent with applicable requirements of 
law and other resource management considerations'' (Secretarial Order 
3310)?
    Answer. The BLM will manage LWCs according to the terms of the 
applicable land use plan pending a plan decision on whether or not to 
designate a specific LWC as a Wild Land. Specific recreation permits, 
grazing projects or energy developments proposed in LWCs not yet 
considered for Wild Lands designation will be considered according to 
the review procedures of manual 6303.
                              wild horses
    Question 130. According to BLM Director Bob Abbey's comments on 
February 24th, the new Wild Horse and Burro reforms include cutting 
back on gathers, increasing fertility control and adoptions. Director 
Abbey further stated there were approximately 38,000 wild horses and 
burros on BLM land and the target was 26,000. This means there are 
12,000 additional horses damaging rangeland health. Increased adoption 
and fertility control were given as the primary solution and need for 
an additional $12 million dollars for Wild Horse and Burro management. 
However, the BLM cannot adopt out horses that aren't first removed. 
Additionally, horses treated with fertility control will still eat. The 
only way to manage for healthy rangelands is to reduce the number of 
wild horses to your own target numbers. Why aren't your reforms 
targeting the BLM's sustainable 26,000 horses figure?
    Answer. Congress has asked the BLM to find ways to manage these 
symbols of the West in a cost-effective, humane manner, and we are 
committed to do that. However, the costs to humanely care for so many 
unadopted wild horses are not sustainable and changes are needed. 
Finding ways to place the program on a sustainable track is a top 
priority. Ultimately, placing the program on a sustainable track will 
depend on the BLM's ability to identify safe, effective, and humane 
options for suppressing population growth without removing horses from 
the range, and boosting adoptions of horses that are removed from the 
range. Over time, better balancing of removal numbers with adoption 
demand should result in fewer unadopted animals held in short-or long-
term holding and reduced costs. On February 24, 2011, the BLM released 
for public review and comment a Proposed Strategy for fundamental 
reform to the management of the Wild Horse and Burro program. The 
public comment period closed March 30, and the BLM is in the process of 
analyzing the comments received. The BLM intends to reduce the annual 
number of wild horses gathered and removed from the range from 10,000 
to 7,600 horses (a 24 percent reduction); continue to pursue public-
private partnerships to hold excess horses gathered from Western public 
rangelands; and increase significantly the number of mares treated with 
fertility control, from 500 in 2009 to a target of 2,000 in 2012. Also, 
the BLM is soliciting requests for proposals to do a review of previous 
wild horse management studies and make recommendations on long-term 
sustainable management of wild horses and burros in light of the latest 
scientific research. We expect to receive these recommendations in 
2013.
                              wind energy
    Question 131. In January, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued an 
Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance for wind energy facilities. What is 
the scientific basis for deviating from the consensus recommendations 
from the Federal Advisory Committee (``FAC'') created to advise the 
Secretary on Wind Turbine Guidelines? Did the Fish and Wildlife Service 
conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the implementation of these 
guidelines on wind energy development? What is the estimated impact on 
wind energy development?
    Answer. The FWS did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the 
estimated impact of the guidelines on wind energy development. The 
separate draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance was developed to 
facilitate the protection of eagles in the siting, design and operation 
of wind energy development projects. Eagles, among all bird species, 
are particularly affected by wind energy projects because eagles tend 
to fly along many of the most productive wind corridors. Both the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the 
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668(d)) 
generally prohibit the ``take'' of protected species, which includes 
killing or injuring a bird of a protected species. They allow ``take'' 
under limited circumstances and within statutorily defined standards 
for the conservation of protected species' populations. The FWS is 
working closely with the wind energy industry on guidelines to help 
wind energy projects move forward while meeting these conservation 
standards. The current guidelines are based on the best available 
science, and we anticipate, through our work with the industry and 
continued monitoring of eagle populations, that they will evolve and 
become more effective for both protecting eagles and facilitating wind 
energy projects over time. This collaborative effort currently allows 
the wind industry and the public an opportunity to comment on the 
guidance document for a 90 day period.
    The Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) did not provide 
recommendations specific to the protection of eagles, rather it 
provided recommendations on general wildlife conservation. Because of 
the very specific restrictions of federal statutes relevant to eagle 
protection, the FWS has prepared the separate draft Eagle Conservation 
Plan Guidance. The wind energy industry is encouraged to provide 
comments on this draft guidance.
    The FAC did develop recommendations on a general wildlife 
conservation program for wind energy. The FAC was advisory in nature, 
and it brought together its members, representing diverse points of 
view and expertise. They moved toward a mutually acceptable set of 
recommendations and this was an important step toward the development 
of official, federal guidelines for the wind energy industry to 
minimize impacts on wildlife.
    We are confident that we can work effectively in partnership with 
the wind energy industry, as we have with more long-established 
industries in the past, to develop infrastructure and technology that 
ensures both renewable energy development and the achievement of 
federal requirements for the conservation of eagles and other wildlife.
      Responses of Hon. Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Lee
    Question 132. Utah counties have been working with the BLM, other 
relevant federal agencies, Members of Congress, and the Wilderness 
Society to create land use legislation, like the legislation passed for 
Washington County. These would create Wilderness Areas from some of the 
lands currently protected as WSAs and release others from the WSA 
designation. These lands may no longer be designated as WSA, but they 
could be pulled back under a similarly stringent management structure 
under the Wild Lands policy and undermine good faith efforts of the 
interested parties to work toward agreement. How do you plan to deal 
with lands, such as those in Washington County, where the U.S. Congress 
has specifically elected not to include them in Wilderness Areas?
    Answer. Many former WSAs legislatively released by Congress may 
continue to have wilderness characteristics and fall under the 
definition of a LWC. When determining whether or not such an area 
should be managed for wild land characteristics, the BLM will engage in 
a public planning process and consider the Congressional action as well 
any other change in circumstances.
    Question 133. Interior's proposed budget includes $375 million for 
BLM, Fish and Wild life Service, and National Parks for additional land 
acquisition. Coming from a State where the federal government already 
owns and does not pay taxes on more than 2/3 of our land, this proposal 
raises some consternation. How many additional acres is the federal 
government proposing to purchase with these funds? On average, how much 
does it cost the Department of Interior to maintain an acre of its 
land? When citizens of Utah already raise concerns over the federal 
government's inability to adequately maintain the resources and land 
currently in its possession, and federal funds are vastly overdrawn, 
how do you justify additional purchases?
    Answer. We recognize that there are many competing priorities for 
limited budget dollars. The funding proposed for federal land 
acquisition is part of a strategy that reflects the President's agenda 
to protect America's great outdoors and demonstrates a sustained 
commitment to a 21st Century conservation agenda. It reflects the 
strong support for land conservation and the need for additional 
outdoor recreational opportunities that was voiced by the American 
public at the 51 America's Great Outdoors listening sessions held last 
year. The lands identified for acquisition in the FY 2012 budget 
request address the most urgent needs for species and habitat 
conservation and the preservation of landscapes, and historic and 
cultural resources. They also promote increased opportunities for the 
public to access land for outdoor recreation, such as hunting, fishing, 
hiking, and motorized use. Many of these acquisitions will also assist 
the government in achieving greater management efficiencies, such as 
managing invasive species across a landscape, conducting law 
enforcement activities, and reducing right-of-way conflicts. Increased 
federal land acquisition funding would provide opportunities for 
willing landowners to protect their property in perpetuity rather than 
in a way that potentially threatens resources in national parks, 
wildlife refuges, forests, and other public lands. While seeking full 
funding for the LWCF, the Administration remains committed to managing 
and maintaining the lands and resources that the federal government 
manages.
    Interior's acquisition programs work in cooperation with local 
communities, rely on willing sellers, and maximize opportunities for 
easement acquisitions. The public is engaged in the planning, 
development, and conservation of these areas. To formulate the 2012 
federal land acquisition priorities, the Department and USDA worked 
together on a government-wide process--the first of its kind--to 
coordinate land acquisition and conservation strategies for programs 
funded by the LWCF using merit-based criteria tied to bureau mission 
goals. The goal was to collaboratively identify important landscapes 
and strategically leverage federal resources to conserve them 
throughout the country. The agencies identified geographic areas in 
which local, state, tribal, and federal partners share strategic 
conservation objectives, where collaboration is feasible, and where 
prompt action can protect important natural and cultural resources. 
They sought out areas with significant opportunities to leverage 
additional non-federal funding and to realize economic and community 
benefits, such as new or enhanced outdoor recreation and outdoor and 
heritage tourism opportunities from strategic investment in land 
conservation.
    The agencies agreed to focus in twelve geographic areas as well as 
yet to be defined urban areas:

          California Desert Mediterranean Coast to Desert--California
          Chesapeake--Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New 
        York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
          Connecticut River--Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
        Vermont
          Crown of the Continent--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
          Everglades and South Florida--Florida
          Grasslands and Prairie Potholes--Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, 
        Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming
          Longleaf Pine--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 
        Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas
          Lower Mississippi Valley--Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, 
        Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee
          North Woods--Maine, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont
          Pacific Northwest--Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, 
        Washington
          Southern Rockies--Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, 
        Utah, Wyoming
          Southwest Desert--Arizona, New Mexico
          Urban Areas

    Projects may have been given additional weighting during the 
selection process if they also contributed to conservation objectives 
in these areas. These criteria include the mission value of the planned 
acquisition, feasibility of acquiring and operating lands, availability 
of willing sellers, potential for imminent development of the property, 
and participation of partners. Some criteria may be more heavily 
weighted for certain bureaus, such as the value of acquisition for 
threatened and endangered wildlife in the case of FWS. Additional more 
specific information regarding bureau land acquisition can be found in 
the America's Great Outdoors section of the Department's Budget in 
Brief, found at http://www.doi.gov/budget/2012/12Hilites/DH003.pdf, and 
in bureau specific Budget Justification material fund on the 
Department's Office of Budget website, http://www.doi.gov/budget/.
    Question 134. What is the average value of an acre of the land 
owned by the Department of Interior?
    Answer. As a general rule value is only determined for lands owned 
by the Department if those lands have been identified for exchange or 
disposal because they meet certain criteria making them eligible for 
disposal. Therefore there is no average cost and each parcel is 
evaluated separately for its FMV through established appraisal 
procedures.
    Question 135. Oil and natural gas companies have indicated that 
more than $3.9 billion of investment in oil and natural gas has fled 
the West primarily because of frustration and dissatisfaction with the 
federal permitting process. And yet, Interior's proposed budget seems 
to further undercut Western oil, natural gas and coal production 
through the institution of hundreds of millions of dollars of 
inspection and permitting fees for oil, gas, coal, and mineral sites. 
Does the Department plan to offer any increase in benefits for these 
increased fees? Will this speed up the lengthy permit process? Will it 
speed up the lengthy environmental process that currently keeps 
companies from moving forward on the leases in their possession? Why is 
the Administration singling out essentially the only profitable part of 
your Department?
    Answer. The Administration believes in encouraging sustainable 
domestic oil and gas production while ensuring a fair return to 
taxpayers. The President's budget includes legislative proposals to 
charge new fees that will encourage production and offset the costs of 
managing federal mineral programs. Collectively, these proposals 
increase the return to taxpayers on federal mineral resources and will 
not affect the time necessary to complete environmental reviews.
    Question 136. It is my understanding that you have placed a time 
out on uranium mining in an area known as the Northern Arizona Uranium 
District and are considering withdrawing these lands from mineral entry 
and claiming processing. How can you justify taking this large uranium 
reserve off the table when there are looming worldwide shortages, which 
have already driven up prices of uranium from $40 to $70 in the last 
year and would cost the area billions of dollars in lost economic 
activity and more than a thousand jobs?
    Answer. In July 2009, Secretary Salazar proposed the withdrawal of 
nearly one million acres of federal lands in the Arizona Strip, managed 
by BLM, and the Kaibab National Forest, managed by the USFS, from 
location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872 for up to 20 years, 
subject to valid existing rights. Notice of the Secretary's proposal 
was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2009, which resulted 
in the segregation of those lands from location and entry under the 
Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, for up to two years. This 
segregation from new mining claims is intended to allow the Department 
to gather the best science available, engage the public, and make an 
informed decision about whether lands in the watershed should be 
withdrawn from new mining claims. In February 2011 the Department 
announced the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) and a schedule for seeking public comment on a proposal to 
withdraw lands in the Grand Canyon watershed that would affect uranium 
and other hardrock mineral development in that area. Public meetings 
were held in early March in Arizona and Utah, and the input gathered at 
these meetings and from public comments on the Draft EIS will be used 
to inform the Department's final decision on the withdrawal.
    Question 137. Last summer, Department of Interior conducted 
``listening sessions'' on the Administration's ``America's Great 
Outdoor Initiative.'' How did you get word out about these listening 
sessions? I have heard that some in the recreation community received 
notice of the sessions only days in advance, making it nearly 
impossible for them to adequately participate. I have also heard that 
some in the environmental community were given advanced notice of the 
sessions so they would have additional time to get participants to the 
event. Is this true?
    Answer. The Administration--including the Department, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and 
others--carried out unprecedented outreach on this initiative, 
including 51 listening sessions throughout the country, 21 youth 
listening sessions, and seven sessions for Tribes and Tribal youth. 
Thousands of invitations went out to participants from a broad range of 
recreation interests--motorized (snowmobilers, OHV, ORV, ATV, 
motorcyclists), non-motorized (bicycling, hiking, mountain climbing, 
canoeing, kayaking, hunting and fishing), as well as organized sports 
(soccer, football, etc.). In some cases, the sessions were announced a 
relatively short time before they were held, due to the challenge of 
organizing such a large number of listening sessions around the country 
on a short timeline; recreation stakeholders received the notices at 
the same time as other stakeholders. We also heard from parents and 
teachers, conservationists, civic leaders, business owners, state and 
local elected officials, tribal leaders, farmers and ranchers, historic 
preservationists, and thousands of young people under the age of 25; 
people from all ethnic groups, ages and political affiliations shared 
their passion for our country's great natural and cultural heritage. 
The sessions resulted in more than 100,000 comments and ideas, many of 
which have been made publicly available, along with other information, 
on the AGO website, found at www.americasgreatoutdoors.gov.
    This diverse representation of stakeholders resulted from our 
concerted effort to disseminate listening session information as 
broadly as possible--including through email, websites and local 
papers. At all of the sessions, senior members of the Administration 
would speak briefly on their agencies' involvement and interest in the 
AGO initiative. In about a quarter of the sessions, we invited local or 
regional people to share their expertise on subjects that were 
important to that region and important for the agencies to understand. 
The formats of listening sessions were also intentionally varied to 
capture different viewpoints and expertise. These perspectives gave 
those Administration officials working on the AGO initiative a much 
deeper sense of the challenges and opportunities for conservation and 
outdoor recreation that exist across this great country.
    Question 138. This year, the Cuban Government plans to begin 
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico close to the Florida coast and in the 
Gulf stream. Are you confident that their drilling contracts will have 
the same or greater technologies than employed in American waters? What 
are you doing to protect U.S. shorelines from any potential disasters? 
Does Cuban production have the potential of draining U.S. reserves?
    Answer. Given the relatively sparse contact between U.S. and Cuban 
government officials, there is a paucity of information regarding 
Cuba's plans and capacity for regulating offshore oil and gas 
development. While the Administration has taken steps to ease some 
restrictions on U.S. citizen travel to Cuba, and recognizes that a 
certain level of scientific and technical cooperation with Cuba may be 
within U.S. interests, the State Department remains cautious about any 
cooperative activities and retains a strong interest in reviewing and 
clearing on any engagement with the Cuban government or associated 
entities on a case by case basis.
    It is not clear what the scope of Cuba's exploration will be, nor 
what environmental and safety measures will be implemented by Cuba if 
and when they drill. Without an effective exchange of information 
between the U.S. and Cuba governments, BOEMRE and other federal 
agencies are unable to thoroughly assess risks associated with drilling 
by Cuba. We do know that the Spanish oil company Repsol holds the 
rights to drill in Cuban waters and plans to begin drilling this 
summer. Repsol is active in the Gulf of Mexico and is familiar with 
both U.S regulatory requirements and industry best practices.
    BOEMRE has not conducted any analysis that would provide 
information on the potential for transboundary reservoirs.
    Question 139. Why is the National Park Service taking the lead on 
determining releases from the Glen Canyon Dam instead of the Adaptive 
Management Program?
    Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for the operation 
of Glen Canyon Dam pursuant to its authority, including the scheduling 
of releases in cooperation with the Western Area Power Administration. 
The process for determining dam operations includes coordination within 
the Department of the Interior and with other members of the Adaptive 
Management Program, including the NPS, who collectively make 
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.
    The Adaptive Management Program was developed to provide an 
organization and process for cooperative integration of dam operations, 
downstream resource protection and management, and monitoring and 
research information, as well as to improve the values for which the 
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park 
were established.





