[Senate Hearing 113-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-102
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
JUNE 6, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-374 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, Department of the Interior;
Accompanied by Hon. David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 6
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 4
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 45
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 69
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Chairman. Good morning. Senator Murkowski is on her way
and because we have votes at ten o'clock, we're going to try
and move everything quickly this morning.
I want to thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Barrasso. We
always do these kinds of matters in a bipartisan way. I want to
thank my colleague.
This morning we're going to review the programs and
activities in the Department of the Interior. The hearing marks
the first time that Secretary Jewell--I like those words,
Secretary Jewell--has testified before the committee since her
confirmation in April. So I'd like to welcome her back to the
committee. We look forward to her statement in just a few
minutes.
I believe this hearing also marks the final time that
Deputy Secretary David Hayes will appear before the committee
before he leaves office later this month. I'd like to extend my
appreciation to him for his long career in public service and
advocacy as Deputy Secretary, and especially his work over the
past 4 and a half years in his second tour of duty with the
Department.
I want to just take a minute to highlight a few provisions
in the Department's current budget proposal. Overall, I'm
pleased with the Administration's proposed budget for the
Department of the Interior which is $11.7 billion, nearly a 3
percent increase over the 2013 continuing resolution level.
Budgets are places where you've got to make tough decisions.
The Administration, in many particulars, has done a
thoughtful job of putting scarce dollars in the right places.
The President has made the conservation of our public lands
through our national parks, policies encouraging outdoor
recreation, and support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
high priorities. I strongly support the President's commitment.
Outdoor recreation, as we have talked about in this
committee, is major, major business and a jobs producer for our
country. Studies have found that Americans spend $646 billion
each year on outdoor recreation. That equates to over 6 million
direct American jobs. Secretary Jewell understands a whole lot
about this because she's been living and breathing it in the
private sector and is acutely aware of the link between
conservation, jobs, and economic growth.
It's encouraging the Administration has proposed partial
mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in
fiscal year 2014 and intends to see full mandatory funding
starting in 2015. I look forward to seeing the legislative
proposal to authorize full and permanent annual funding for
this program. LWCF is an essential component in the country's
effort to conserve lands and provide areas for people to get
outside and recreate.
With respect to our national parks, I've been exploring new
ways to provide necessary funding for our parks. I've talked
about this at length with the National Park Service Director
Jarvis. I'm going to discuss it further with the Secretary this
morning because, clearly, with the enormous challenge presented
as a result of sequestration, we ought to be looking at fresh
ideas; creative, new ideas; ideas that bring in the private
sector and look to public/private partnerships to do a
responsible job of addressing the needs of our parks in a
fiscally challenging environment.
Turning to energy issues, the Department plays an important
role in providing energy resources for the country. Significant
strides were made during Secretary Salazar's tenure on the
siting of renewable energy projects on public land. The
Department, just this week, announced its first lease sale for
renewable energy projects on the OCS. Secretary Jewell, we're
going to encourage you to continue those efforts in the area of
renewable energy.
I'm also pleased to see strong budgetary support for the
Department's new energy frontier initiative that promotes
responsible energy development on our public lands.
As the Secretary knows--and colleagues, we talked an awful
lot about it here we're especially concerned about the
management of our forests. As the length and severity of both
drought and wildfire seasons have increased year after year.
I'm one who believes that certainly a measure of this is due to
climate change.
It's clear that Federal forests are in poor health, making
them more vulnerable to catastrophic forest fires. As we
discussed just a couple of days ago in this room, I am troubled
that the President's budget request includes nearly a 50
percent reduction in hazardous fuels treatments for the
Department of the Interior. As we discussed on Tuesday, you
were not here Secretary Jewell, but I'm sure you have gotten
the report. We're anxious to work with you, Secretary Vilsack,
and we're going to make sure that the folks on the Office of
Management and Budget side are part of these discussions as
well to get a new, big picture effort to improve our policies
with respect to fire budgeting.
Finally, I'm grateful the Administration's budget proposes
to extend the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program as a permanent
program at the full funding level in fiscal year 2014. The
Secretary knows how strongly we feel about the Secure Rural
Schools program. That, of course, appears in the Forest Service
budget. We also know that there's a very important component
that is run by the Bureau of Land Management especially for the
O&C lands.
I'll be working on legislation to address both the short
term reauthorization of these programs and long-term funding
for counties as well as jobs from increased forest management.
On that point, we appreciate the proposed budget increase of
1.8 million in the O&C forest management program to increase
the volume of timber offered for sale and for other forestry
work. This is of enormous importance to Oregon.
As the Secretary knows, we're focused on increasing the
harvest. Let me underline that, increasing the harvest on O&C
lands. I've recently released a framework for legislation to
make that happen. I look forward to working with the
Administration, with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and
making it a bicameral effort with the House of Representatives
as well.
With that, I'd like to recognize my colleague, Senator
Murkowski, for any comments that she'd like to make. I so
appreciate the chance to work on these issues in a bipartisan
way and welcome my colleague's remarks.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator From
Louisiana
Mrs. Jewell, I want to begin by thanking you for taking the time to
appear today to discuss the Department of the Interior budget for 2014.
I take great interest in the priorities laid out in the budget for
several reasons-it directly funds and provides program support for the
5 National Parks, 1,346 listings on the National Register of Historic
Places, and 24 National Wildlife Refuges in my state.
This budget is also an important indicator of how the
Administration intends to proceed on several issues vital to my state
and to our nation, particularly an issue that I am strongly supportive
of-domestic oil and gas production. Specifically, I want to focus on
the portions of this budget that deal with oil and gas revenues and
permitting.
The first thing that I notice in your budget proposal is funding
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund-beginning with a total of $600
million requested through appropriations and mandatory funding for
2014, and a full $900 million beginning in 2015.
Now, let me say first that I am a supporter of some of the things
that the LWCF does-however, I take issue with this program, which
benefits primarily Western states, receiving full funding-taken from
oil and gas production off the shores of my state, Texas, Alabama and
Mississippi-while those states paying for the program continue to
receive nothing from that production.
It's not as though interior states do not produce revenues through
conventional energy production-in 2012, they produced $4.5 billion, and
have sent $61 billion since 1950. However, they have kept 50% of that
money-to spend on schools, roads, environmental protection, however
they see fit.
Now compare that to coastal states-in 2012, they sent nearly $7
billion, and kept nothing. Now, before those coastal states see a
penny, we are taking nearly $1 billion of those revenues and sending it
to states that already keep 50% of their energy revenues.
Despite my support for some aspects of the LWCF, I have serious
problems with continuing to direct oil and gas revenues away from the
states that produce them, particularly when they could be put to good
use protecting the environment in those very states.
For instance, my state loses one football field every hour of every
day to coastal erosion-erosion that could be stopped if we received
some portion of the revenues from the oil and gas production occurring
just off our shore.
In my state, any money that we receive is directed by our
constitution to be used for coastal protection. I would think that this
environment is just as important to protect as the lands that benefit
from LWCF.
I also see that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) are receiving
increases of $9 million and $25 million, respectively.
One of the things I hear most often is that while producers do not
have issue meeting the very high standards of safety that we place upon
them, they are hampered by long wait times for permit approvals and
inspections-both things which are managed by these agencies.
While I recognize that we ask quite a bit from these bureaus-for
instance, the BOEM manages 6,686 active oil and gas leases, spread over
36 million acres, while BSEE conducts over 21,000 inspections per year-
I would hope that these additional funds will be used to speed approval
of permit applications and reduce the wait for inspections-both of
which are currently a massive hindrance for producers.
I also notice that you have made improvements in the offshore
permitting arena. You note that BOEM has seen a 35% decline in the time
required to approve production plans from Oct. 2010 to Oct. 2012, while
BSEE has seen a 37% decrease in the time needed to issue permits in
roughly that same time.
I also note that over issuance of permits has increased to pre-
Macondo levels.
While these are encouraging, I would point out that the reductions
in time are compared to the worst period in history for offshore
development, and that the time needed to receive these approvals is
still far too long-I have heard from some companies that all told it
can take nearly a year.
I also notice that you point out a 40% improvement in the time
needed to issue permits for onshore development from 2006 to 2012. I
applaud this move in the right direction.
However, compare this to the amount of time needed to receive a
permit for production on private land-land that in many cases directly
abuts Federal land-the wait there is typically between 4 and 6 days.
Or, to put it more simply, one work week.
I am pleased to note that you also have recently announced the
first competitive lease sale for offshore renewable energy. I welcome
any increase in domestic energy production, but am still concerned for
the lack of any system to share the revenue from this new production
with the states that support it.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program. Yesterday, the
National Academy of Science (NAS) published its report on the BLM wild
horse and burro management program. The report offered sharp criticism
of many of BLM's management strategies. BLM management strategies must
change to better serve the public, improve the lives of America's wild
horses and burros, and get BLM back on track to fiscal sustainability.
While I support investment in research and fertility control, I am
concerned about the number of animals being removed from the range.
This concern was corroborated by NAS in its report. The BLM has only
been able to adopt about 3,000 wild horses and burros per year.
Considering the high costs of both short-term and long-term holding and
the 40,000 horses already in BLM holding, we should not be removing a
number greater than the number of animals that can realistically be
adopted. As I'm sure you are aware, if the ongoing expenses associated
with maintaining tens of thousands of horses in long-term holding
facilities are not addressed, BLM is on a fiscally unsustainable path.
Mrs. Jewell-Again, thank you for appearing today. I recognize that
you do not directly control the distribution of revenues from offshore
oil and gas production, and that the systems for oil and gas permitting
were in place before your arrival, but I would hope that you will be
willing to help me address these issues, particularly the glaring
inequality between onshore and coastal states as we move forward.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madame
Secretary, Mr. Hayes. Good to see both of you.
Madame Secretary, first I want to thank you for your
commitment that you have made as it relates to King Cove. The
Director of Indian Affairs, Mr. Washburn, is going to be
visiting King Cove in late June. The commitment that you have
made to visit in August is one that, again, I appreciate. I
look forward to joining you on that trip.
I don't want to belabor this point. But I am looking
forward to this visit for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, to introduce you to my constituents.
I think you know how strongly I feel. How strongly the
members of the Alaska delegation feel about this road that we
have been talking about. This ten mile, single lane, gravel,
non-commercial use road that would help provide for essentially
emergency access for the residents of King Cove to an all
weather airport.
So we thought we had reconciled that in the 2009 Omnibus
Act. It's not done yet. But I want to work with you to see that
we finally and fully resolve this fairly for the citizens of
King Cove.
I do have a number of questions to ask today. I know that
we're going to have some votes that are going to interrupt. But
I do hope that we will have a chance to have further discussion
about some of the things that I find really timely for us right
now.
One that I want to bring up is the situation that we have
with our legacy wells up in the National Petroleum Reserve. My
statement has been that I think that the Department is
presiding over an environmental disaster within the National
Petroleum Reserve and that this has to be addressed. It has to
be remedied.
We have more than 100 wells that were drilled by the
Federal Government. Then they walked away. They abandoned them.
These legacy wells, as they are referred to, are full of
contaminants that pollute the environment. The Federal
Government has all but abandoned the responsibility to clean up
after itself. BLM's annual budget has, for many years,
contained a base funding of only about $1 million for cleaning
up these wells. Yet the last two sites cost the agency $2
million each to remediate.
So if we keep it up at this pace it's going to be more than
100 years to clean up the mess that the Federal Government
participated in. As I have told you, Madame Secretary, in
person and in recent hearings, it's categorically unacceptable.
So is the Administration's proposal to use Alaska's share of
future NPRA revenues for remediation.
I met with the Mayor of the North Slope Borough, Charlotte
Brower as well as others several weeks back. I know that you
had a chance as well. I have a copy of a letter from the Mayor,
from our Commissioner of Natural Resources, from the President
of ASRC and the President of the Inupiat community on the North
Slope that I would like to have included as part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A related concern is the pattern of falling production on
Federal lands. It's true that our Nation is in the midst of an
historic oil and gas boom. But it's also true that production
on Federal lands is in trouble.
Contrary to some of the statements, the rhetoric that we've
heard, oil production from the Federal estate actually fell 5
percent last year after falling by even more than that in 2011.
Natural gas production from the same Federal areas, meanwhile,
is in virtual freefall, down 8 percent last year and down 23
percent since 2009. The fact of the matter is that America's
energy boom is happening in spite of Federal policies that
stymie our production.
We should be opening new lands to development.
Making sure that permits are approved on time and
preventing regulation and litigation from locking down our
lands.
If anyone's looking for a place to start I'll invite you to
look to Alaska.
I also want to very briefly mention before I conclude, Mr.
Chairman, this sue and settle tactic that the Department has
engaged in to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Sue and
settle, in my view, is alarming. With decisions now due on
hundreds of species the economic consequences could be
considerable.
Madame Secretary, I recognize that you have a unique
background to sit before us as the Secretary of the Interior,
background in the oil and gas industry, in the private sector,
in the conservation community. I think this is all the right
mix. I welcome you in this position.
You have promised to bring stakeholders together to help
solve problems to be that convener. We need that. Again I
welcome it.
I'm hopeful that you will bring that fresh perspective to
help us move through some of these long standing stalemates. I
look forward to working with you. Thank you for being here this
morning.
The Chairman. Madame Secretary and colleagues, here's where
I think we are with the votes at ten. If the Secretary takes 10
minutes or so, if she's comfortable with that, we could have
each Senator who is present here get 5 minutes worth of
questioning in before the vote. It will be tight, but if
colleagues find that's acceptable, let's give that a try.
Secretary Jewell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Murkowski, other members of the committee. I
appreciate you being here today.
Congratulations on grandparenthood, Senator Franken. That's
pretty exciting. I'm looking forward to that day.
No pressure on my kids, though.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. I think there should be pressure on them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Put that in the record.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Jewell. I want to begin by echoing comments of
Chairman Wyden on the colleague to my left, David Hayes, has
been an enormous help to me. But more importantly an enormous
help to the American people in his service to this country
through the Department of the Interior. It is very helpful to
me, certainly today, to have him beside me. But more
importantly, he has been very generous with his wisdom and his
experience.
I'm going to miss him terribly. But I know he's only a
phone call away and I'll make sure I have a hot line right to
his office as he goes to support students at Stanford
University and the communities through the Hewlett Foundation.
So we will miss him. But I'm very happy he's with me today.
The Chairman. Well said.
Secretary Jewell. I want to thank you for inviting me to
appear before the committee. I have learned a lot in these 7
and a half weeks on the job. I've been to many, many places
around the country, many of your States. So what I want to do
is just organize my thoughts into a few broad categories.
I want to start with energy, on shore. Onshore oil
production on public lands is actually at its highest level in
over a decade. The amount of producing acreage continues to
increase. I'm very happy, Ranking Member Murkowski, to provide
you with some statistics that are a little different than the
comments that you just referenced in terms of oil production.
I have looked at leasing reforms that the BLM has put in
place. They changed them in 2010. We've actually had the lowest
number of protests on lease sales on BLM lands in 10 years. So
we're making progress there.
I know the team is working hard on reducing the time for
permitting and approval of new projects. That will be
facilitated through automation. Sequestration has impacted that
a bit. But we're still committed to getting that done.
I also want to reference the hydraulic fracturing rule that
we released just a short while ago with the 30-day comment
period. Lots of comments have been made on that rule, 177
thousand of them since the first rule was put in place. We
changed it significantly.
One of the consistent things I've heard is a request for
more time. So I'm announcing right now that we're going to give
an extra 60 days to that comment period on the hydraulic
fracturing rule. So rather than expiring here in a week or two,
it will have another 60 days on top of that. I think that will
give ample time for people to express their views on it. But we
do need to get on with this regulation that's been over 30
years in place and technology has moved forward.
I also want to say that Alaska, of course, is an important
component of our Nation's energy strategy. The plans that we
have for the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska provide access
to over 70 percent of the oil potential there. It also supports
infrastructure needs but recognizes the importance of providing
protection for vital subsistence habitat like Teshekpuk Lake
which certainly Ranking Member Murkowski is very familiar with.
On the offshore side, sorry Senator Landrieu just stepped
out. I've been out on oil rigs and oil production platforms.
Visited a deep water floating rig, which turns out just a few
weeks after I visited had a major discovery in the Gulf of
Mexico. It's a very substantial project and something that is
growing in development.
I also went to a production platform from Chevron and saw
that how the technology has evolved since I was in the industry
and frankly, how it has also stayed the same in many ways.
In April we announced the proposed notice of sale for lease
sale 233 which will make available 21 million acres offshore
Texas which will be the third sale in the current 5-year
program.
We've also implemented key reforms that reduce the time for
review of exploration and development plans for deep water
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I will say there's actually now
more floating deep water rigs operating in the Gulf than prior
to the Deep Water Horizon spill. I think it's something close
to a 25 percent increase over what was happening prior to that
activity.
Our Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has begun a
programmatic environmental impact statement to support
assessment of resource potential off the mid and south Atlantic
and that is continuing.
On the renewable side, as Chairman Wyden mentioned, we have
a critical role to play in renewable energy and particularly in
fulfilling the President's goal of doubling renewable
electricity generation by 2020 on public lands. As an overseer
of those lands I'm pleased to say that since 2009 we've
authorized 42 renewable energy projects on public lands. That
has the potential to produce electricity for more than 4.2
million homes.
On the offshore side, the Bureau of Ocean and Energy
Management just issued a notice that we'll have our first ever
competitive lease sale off the coast of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts with another one to be held offshore Virginia
this year. That's about 278 thousand acres and could produce
electricity to power 1.9 million homes.
Now I want to shift gears to Federal lands and reference
something Chairman Wyden mentioned which is the National Park
Centennial. It's coming up in 2016. I hope that you will all
join me in making sure that we take this milestone seriously
and engage the American public more in the support of our
national parks, but also broadly, our public lands.
Besides being out in a number of national park sites, I
have also joined with young people in several places. One at
City Park in Portland, Oregon and another in Jamaica Bay and at
Gateway National Recreation Area where we were working with
shovels and in the case of the park in Oregon removing evasive
species. In the case of New York City, shoveling sand that was
delivered by Hurricane Sandy in areas where it wouldn't have
been previously, most importantly engaging young people in
conservation and building a connection to those lands that will
stay with them forever.
This 21st century Civilian Service Corps is listening and
learning from the Civilian Conservation Corps, but doing it in
the form of public/private partnerships again, referencing
Chairman Wyden's comments. That is a great lesson of how we
connect people to public lands in a way that stays with them
forever. I hope that you will join me in supporting more of
those kinds of programs.
As the Chairman mentioned we, in our budget, are looking
for mandatory funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
over a 2-year period. Those funds have been used to support
every single county across the United States. Very, very
important program that has made a big difference on a local
level, but also a big difference on a national level. So we
hope you'll support us there.
As the Chairman mentioned we're committed to ensuring
multiple uses on our public lands. So they support the
resources and the opportunities important to Americans. The O&C
lands that the Chairman mentioned, we're very committed to
supporting sustained yield with the BLM and working closely
with the folks from Oregon and California on that.
One of the things that you're keenly aware of is our
commitment to wildland firefighting. The 2013 season is
unfortunately off to a hot start. You've seen fires in
California, New Mexico and Arizona. This is early. It looks
like it could be a severe fire season.
Our ability to fight those fires is certainly impacted by
sequestration to some degree, particularly our ability to
reduce hazardous fuels and to remediate after fires. But we're
working in a way that is so cooperative across agencies to do
the best job that we can.
I visited Boise, the Interagency Fire Center, along with
Senator Risch. We saw what's happening there. I think it's very
encouraging the way people work together without regard to
agency. But it's a big issue and something that we'd appreciate
your support and help in addressing over a longer term basis.
Last I want to talk about water. Water, as Chairman Wyden
takes a drink, it's critical to our lives. But it is under a
lot of pressure from population growth and a changing climate.
I want to give a particular nod to my colleague here, David
Hayes, also Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation and Ann Castle, Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science.
They're doing a really great job of convening people
together to address these really, really, significant issues:
Providing leadership to communities as we address the competing
demands for water, the need to increase water availability,
restore watersheds, and to resolve conflicts that have been out
there for a long time.
So through water conservation, water smart is the program
that we call the best drop of water that we don't need is the
one we don't use. We certainly played an important role in
finding better ways to stretch existing water supplies and
highlight best practices that are out there that everyone can
learn from.
To wrap up I want to just say that sequestration is and
continues to be an enormous frustration. As a business person
you would never run a business the way we are required to run
government with sequestration. I know that budget times are
tight. We're committed to being very thoughtful about the money
we spend.
But doing it across the board in programs that are
important to all of you is not a sensible way to run our
business. We've frozen hiring. We've done furloughs in some
cases. We have had to cut across every line item. Some of those
line items are very important to all of you. So I ask for your
support in getting us past this sequestration period and on to
a much more rational budget climate.
With that, I look forward to taking your questions. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Jewell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary, Department of the
Interior
Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski, thank you for inviting
me to appear before your Committee to discuss the programs and
activities of the Department of the Interior. I am happy to be here
today.
When I appeared before you at my confirmation hearing in March I
talked about the scale of the duties of the position and the incredible
diversity in the Department's mission. Every day Departmental employees
are working to preserve our nation's great heritage and history, manage
our federal lands, waters, and other resources, ensure the delivery of
water for diverse users, empower insular communities, and support
Native American communities. Since that time I have come to see and
truly appreciate the astonishing breadth of the issues and
responsibilities located within this one Department, many of which fall
under the jurisdiction of this Committee. The Department's complex
mission affects the lives of all Americans; nearly every American lives
within an hour's drive of lands or waters managed by the Department.
During the past 7 weeks my duties have taken me from south Florida
and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and
Everglades National Park, where I saw, firsthand, Everglades
restoration projects underway; to Boise, Idaho, where I met with a
group of smokejumpers--some really tough firefighters--at the National
Interagency Fire Center and learned how our federal firefighters are
deployed when a wildfire is reported; to the Gulf of Mexico where I
viewed an offshore drilling rig and a production platform with an
inspector from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; and
to Portland, Oregon, where I signed an agreement with the States of
Oregon and Washington to expedite the review and permitting of energy
generation, transmission, and other infrastructure development.
The Department's bureaus serve as stewards of the nation's parks,
wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, seashores, and national
monuments and recreation areas, and as the keeper of the history of
this country. We share responsibilities to protect and advance the role
of public lands and Indian lands. The lands and resources we manage are
also a huge economic engine, powering our economy through energy
development, tourism and recreation, logging, grazing and other uses.
The Department oversees the responsible development of 23 percent of
U.S. energy supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of water in
the 17 western states, maintains relationships with 566 federally
recognized tribes, and provides services to more than 1.7 million
American Indian and Alaska Native peoples.
In 2012, there were almost 500 million visits to lands managed by
the Department. Recreational visits to our lands contributed an
estimated $49 billion in economic benefits to local communities in
2011. We collect nearly $13 billion annually through mineral extraction
and other activities, and share nearly $5 billion of these revenues
annually with states, tribes, counties, and other entities. An
additional $2 billion of our budget is used in local communities across
the nation through contracts for goods and services. In many of your
states, the revenues we share from energy production and other
activities are a critical component of the local economy. Overall, the
Department estimates the exploration and production of oil, gas, coal,
hydropower, and minerals on federal lands contributed nearly $275
billion to the U.S. economy in 2011.
It is with this fitting introduction to the Department's
significant responsibilities that I come before you again to discuss
the major programs and highlight some of the activities at the
Department and my goal to ensure that it continues in its role as a
resources manager, a job creator, and a partner to tribes and state and
local governments.
STRENGTHENING OUR ENERGY FUTURE
As I noted back in March, I believe that rapidly advancing
technologies, smart policies, and a commitment to the President's ``all
of the above'' energy strategy will allow us to continue with the safe
and environmentally responsible expansion and diversification of our
nation's energy production, further cutting our reliance on foreign
oil, and protecting our land and water at the same time. We have been
pushing forward with that goal.
Onshore Energy Development
Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management held 31 oil and gas sales
last year and is scheduled to hold more than 30 this year. Oil
production from federal onshore lands is at its highest level in over a
decade. The amount of producing acreage continues to increase, and was
up by about 200,000 acres between 2011-2012. And the onshore leasing
reforms put in place in 2010 resulted in the lowest number of protests
in ten years--fewer than 18 percent of parcels offered in FY 2012 were
protested, reducing costs and further speeding development.
The Administration is making more coal available as well, with the
number of producing acres rising 4 percent from FY 2009 to FY 2012. The
amount of coal the agency leased last fiscal year is the highest since
FY 2003. And through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, we are working to ensure that communities impacted by coal
mining and the environment are protected during mining. We are also
pursuing the reclamation of priority abandoned mine sites, with a goal
of reducing the number of remaining dangerous abandoned mine sites
nationwide.
I have heard from a number of members about the need for better
onshore oil and gas permit processing. Secretary Salazar instituted
reforms to the BLM's oil and gas program, including transitioning to an
electronic system that will automate and streamline the application
process and significantly reduce the time for approval of new projects.
From FY 2006 to FY 2012, the amount of time it took for all BLM field
offices to process and approve complete drilling applications fell by
40 percent and the number of inspections completed by all BLM offices
rose 73 percent. The Administration has proposed extending and
expanding the interagency permitting pilot office authority under the
2005 Energy Policy Act to allow BLM to focus pilot office resources in
areas of highest demand. We are headed in the right direction and will
continue to look at procedures, processes, and the regulatory framework
to identify areas for further reform.
The Department also published several weeks ago an updated proposed
rule on hydraulic fracturing on public and Indian lands. These are
common sense updates to 30-year old regulations that will increase
safety in oil and gas production on public lands while, at the same
time, provide flexibility and foster coordination with states and
tribes. This is an important step in ensuring that the public has full
confidence that the right safety and environmental protections are in
place.
Alaska is an important component of our nation's energy strategy.
The Arctic holds substantial oil and gas potential, but also presents
unique environmental and operational challenges. The BLM recently
finalized a new comprehensive plan--the first ever--for the 23-million
acre National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. This balanced plan provides
access to over 70 percent of that area's estimated oil potential and
provides for an important east-west corridor that could be needed for
pipeline infrastructure to eventually carry Chukchi Sea oil to the
Trans-Alaska pipeline. At the same time, it will protect the vital
subsistence resources of Alaska Natives and the habitat of world-class
wildlife populations.
I recently appeared before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
and noted at that hearing that the Department is committed to assisting
Indian tribes in expanding renewable, reliable, and secure energy
supplies on Indian lands and safe and responsible oil and gas
development. Including Indian Country in the ``all of the above''
energy strategy will help increase domestic energy supplies and improve
the economies of many Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages.
Offshore Oil and Gas Development
We also are moving forward with oversight of the safe and
responsible development of our offshore oil and gas resources. The
first two sales of the 2012-2017 Five Year Program were held in the
Gulf of Mexico in November 2012 and March 2013, and resulted in over
$1.3 billion dollars in industry investment and government revenue
through bidding on 436 tracts. At the end of April we announced the
Proposed Notice of Sale for Lease Sale 233, scheduled for this August,
making available 21 million acres offshore Texas. With this sale, all
unleased acreage in the Western Gulf of Mexico will be available for
leasing.
Over the past several years, since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
the Department has reformed the way development on the Outer
Continental Shelf takes place. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement has implemented safety and environmental management system
regulations; issued a new drilling safety rule to refine safety reforms
and strengthen requirements; taken steps to hold contractors
accountable for their actions offshore; conducted two full-scale
capping stack deployment exercises to respond to potential future well
blowout scenarios; and provided new guidance on oil spill response
plans.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has also significantly
reduced the time for review of exploration and development plans for
deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, with time from submission to
approval down almost 35 percent from the period between October 2010
and October 2011.
BSEE has achieved similar, significant improvements in the
processing of deepwater permits, with the average time for review
reduced by about 37 percent between 2011 and 2012. This has contributed
to the approval by BSEE of 112 new deepwater well permits, higher than
in either of the two years preceding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
There are more floating deepwater drilling rigs working in the Gulf of
Mexico today than prior to the Deepwater Horizon spill, and we expect
drilling activity to steadily increase over the coming year. And both
BOEM and BSEE are working to modernize and streamline their data
systems and the processes for the submission and review of plans and
permits. When completed, this investment will achieve significant gains
for both the rigor of analysis and the efficiency of review, saving
time and money and enhancing accountability.
Science continues to drive decision-making for the OCS leasing
program. BOEM conducts rigorous scientific and environmental analysis
to support all stages of the OCS program, partnering with academic
institutions and other federal agencies to produce top-tier applied
research to support decision making. BOEM also conducts thorough
assessment of resource potential to identify areas of the OCS that are
most promising for exploration and development. Last year BOEM began a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to support permitting
decisions for geological and geophysical surveys that will be used for
assessing energy resource potential off the coast of the Mid and South
Atlantic. The Department also uses the results of exploratory drilling
to improve its knowledge of the resource potential. As part of this
process, the Department oversaw the first new exploratory activity in
the Alaskan arctic in a decade, with Shell Oil Company beginning
limited preparatory drilling activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas under strict safety and environmental oversight.
A priority for the Administration is implementation of the
Agreement between the United States and Mexico concerning Transboundary
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. Implementation of the
Agreement will make nearly 1.5 million acres of the Outer Continental
Shelf, currently subject to a moratorium under the Western Gap Treaty,
immediately available for leasing and will make the entire
transboundary region, which is currently subject to legal uncertainty
in the absence of an agreement, more attractive to U.S.-qualified
operators. BOEM estimates that the transboundary area contains as much
as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural
gas. We look forward to working with you on legislation to implement
this Agreement.
Renewable Energy Development
The Department has a critical role to play in fulfilling the
President's goal to double renewable electricity generation again by
the year 2020 by facilitating renewable energy development on public
lands. I will continue to build on the Department's successes and work
to make sure we are accomplishing this in the right way and in the
right places.
Securing clean sources of energy not only is good for the
environment, it creates American jobs, and promotes innovation. In
2009, there were no commercial solar energy projects on or under
development on the public lands. From that time, the Department
authorized 42 renewable energy projects on or through the public lands
which, if constructed, will have the potential to produce enough
electricity to power more than 4.2 million homes. The Department also
plays a key role in efforts to strengthen the nation's electric
transmission grid, approving permits enabling several hundred miles of
transmission lines in seven states across federal lands in 2012.
BLM has focused on an accelerated, but environmentally responsible,
permitting process for the development of renewable energy on public
lands that ensures the protection of signature landscapes, wildlife
habitats, and cultural resources.
Since 2009, BLM has authorized more than 12,000 megawatts of energy
on public lands and waters, established a road map for responsible
solar development in the West by designating energy zones, and flipped
the switch on the first solar energy project to deliver power to the
grid. BLM also released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a
proposed 750 megawatt facility in Riverside County that would be one of
the largest solar energy projects on public lands in the California
desert. BLM is also moving forward on wind energy, with a proposed
complex in Wyoming that would generate up to 3,000 megawatts of power,
making it the largest wind farm facility in the U.S. and one of the
largest in the world. BLM also expects to propose rules that would
establish a competitive process for issuing rights-of-way leases for
solar and wind energy development on public lands.
Significant progress has been made to advance offshore wind energy.
BOEM issued the second non-competitive commercial wind lease off the
coast of Delaware in 2012. Earlier this week I announced the first ever
competitive lease sale, to be held in July, for a wind energy area
offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and BOEM will hold another
competitive lease sale offshore Virginia this year. These sales involve
nearly 278,000 acres proposed for development of wind generation to
produce electricity to power as many as 1.9 million homes. We expect
additional competitive lease sales to follow for wind energy areas
offshore Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, and we continue to
make progress on potential projects in areas offshore New York, North
Carolina, and Maine.
BOEM has established renewable energy task forces with a total of
12 coastal states, including recent task forces in the States of Hawaii
and South Carolina, and is overseeing progress in the planning of a
potential Mid-Atlantic wind energy transmission line, which would
enable up to 6,000 MW of wind turbine capacity to be delivered to the
electric grid along the East Coast.
And the Bureau of Reclamation's 58 hydroelectric power plants
generate more than 40 billion kilowatt hours of electricity to meet the
needs of over 3.5 million households and generate over $1 billion in
gross revenues for the federal government.
MANAGEMENT OF OUR LANDS AND WATERS
I will also work hard to build on the progress this Administration
has made in the management of the federal lands and waters that make
this ``America the Beautiful.''
America's Great Outdoors
One of the major goals of President Obama's America's Great
Outdoors initiative is to better connect youth and families to nature
and outdoor recreation. Engaging with America's youth through the great
outdoors helps lay the foundation for the next generation of our
nation's stewards, scientists, business leaders, teachers, and others
who will understand the key role that national parks and public lands
and waters play in conservation and preservation of our nation's
treasures and the significance they have for local communities, drawing
visitors and boosting the economy.
With the National Park Service's centennial anniversary approaching
in 2016, we have the opportunity to both celebrate and confirm the
NPS's stewardship of our cultural and natural treasures and its role in
building enduring connections and enriching experiences with its
visitors, including the nation's youth. I recently had the opportunity
to meet students from Stonewall Middle School at Prince William Forest
Park in Virginia to celebrate National Park Week and highlight the
importance of outdoor recreation and education, especially to young
people.
I have also had an opportunity in these first weeks on the job to
work alongside young people in Gateway National Recreation Area in New
York and in a city park in Portland, Oregon, where high school and
college-aged young people were restoring habitat and engaging other
youth in environmental education and stewardship--all great examples of
our commitment to a 21st Century Civilian Service Corps. In an effort
to learn from the Civilian Conservation Corps of the last century, this
will provide a tangible way to boost youth employment and job training,
supporting our public lands infrastructure in a cost-effective way
while giving youth a lifetime connection to public lands close to home
and far away. It will also provide great opportunities for public/
private partnerships with businesses and non-profit organizations.
Through partnerships with states, tribes, nongovernmental
organizations, and concerned citizens, we will continue to use AGO to
expand opportunities for recreation and conservation and to promote
America's parks, refuges, and other public lands and waters. The
innovative partnerships developed through this important initiative
have helped create great parks and green spaces in urban areas, expand
access to rivers and trails, support the $646 billion outdoor
recreation economy (according to the Outdoor Industry Association's
2012 report), connect the next generation to the great outdoors, create
wildlife corridors, and promote conservation on large landscapes while
working to protect historic uses of the land including ranching,
farming, and forestry.
An example of the great work done under this program is the Swan
Valley Conservation Area, established as a unit of the National
Wildlife Refuge System by the Department in 2012, which is situated
between the Canadian Rockies and the central Rockies of Idaho and
Wyoming, in partnership with landowners who voluntarily entered their
lands into easements. The new Area will protect one of the last low
elevation, coniferous forest ecosystems in western Montana that remains
undeveloped and provides habitat for species such as grizzly bears,
gray wolves, wolverines, and Canada lynx.
The AGO initiative also benefits from fee receipts that are
collected and reinvested in visitor services under the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). The Department currently collects
over $200 million in recreation fees annually under this authority and
uses them to enhance the visitor experience at Interior facilities.
Surveys show that most visitors believe that the recreation fees they
pay are reasonable for the amenities and services provided; in fact, 94
percent of visitors to NPS sites believe that the value for the
entrance fee paid is ``very good'' or ``good.'' The Department
encourages the Committee to reauthorize the REA, which sunsets in
December 2014.
And we are continuing our commitment to America's Great Outdoors
through our request this year, for the first time ever, of mandatory
dedicated funding for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, with
full funding at $900 million annually beginning in 2015. Enactment of a
mandatory LWCF program would ensure continued funding for this program
designed to make investments in conservation and recreation for the
American people to balance the development of oil and gas resources.
Protecting this balance through mandatory LWCF funding would reduce
landscape fragmentation, making it more efficient to protect wildlife
habitat, respond to wildfires and other natural disasters, and increase
recreational access on the lands and waters that belong to every
American.
We recognize the challenges--including those of this Committee--in
establishing new mandatory programs in the current fiscal environment.
That's why as part of the FY 2014 Budget we have also identified a
variety of mandatory savings proposals that, while justifiable on their
own merits, could also be used to partially offset a mandatory LWCF
proposal. Detailed descriptions of all of these proposals can be found
at: http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2014/highlights/upload/
overview.pdf
I would also note that our legislative proposal to reauthorize the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which expired in 2011,
provides a unique opportunity to supplement our LWCF resources to
protect additional high-value conservation lands by selling properties
that have been identified as suitable for disposal. The proposal would
use the sales revenues to fund the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive lands and to cover the administrative costs associated with
conducting the sales. We believe this is a win-win proposal that we
hope would have bipartisan support in this Committee.
Our nation's public lands that are managed by BLM include
rangelands, forests, deserts, and mountains, all administered for
multiple uses. They support a variety of resources and opportunities
important to Americans such as forage for livestock, water storage and
filtration, carbon sequestration, habitat for an abundance of wildlife,
scenic beauty, and many forms of outdoor recreation.
The National Landscape Conservation System, which includes 19
national monuments, 21 national conservation (and similarly designated)
areas, and 221 wilderness areas designated by Congress offer a
different conservation model where many traditional uses are allowed.
These spectacular lands provide a multitude of benefits including
scientific and historical resources, critical habitat for a variety of
species, and diverse recreational opportunities including hunting,
fishing, and hiking that generate millions of dollars for local
communities.
The conservation and sustainable use of our rangelands is important
to those who make their living on these landscapes--including public
rangeland permittees, whose operations are important to the economic
well-being and cultural identity of the West and to rural western
communities. While significant workload and resource challenges exist,
BLM is committed to reducing the backlog of grazing permit renewals and
to issuing permits in the year they expire.
BLM manages the timber on its Oregon and California (O&C) Grant
Lands according to the principle of sustained yield. We are increasing
support in 2014 for resource management on the O&C lands to implement
the Western Oregon Strategy, including increased timber volumes offered
for sale while at the same time increasing surveys of species under the
Northwest Forest Plan and facilitating recovery of the northern spotted
owl, as well as increased support for the BLM to continue its
comprehensive effort to prepare new Resource Management Plans covering
six BLM Districts in western Oregon.
Wildland Fire
You heard several days ago from the Department on the outlook and
planning for the coming fire season. Just a few weeks ago I had the
opportunity to join with Secretary Vilsack at the National Interagency
Fire Center in Boise to see this well-coordinated operation firsthand
and discuss the efforts the federal government is making to protect
citizens and property from wildfire.
After a decade of drought and the continued proliferation of non-
native plant species and accumulation of hazardous fuels in our forests
and rangelands, the 2012 fire season was one of the worst on record for
BLM rangelands and woodlands in the lower 48 states. The 2012 season
also impacted the other 3 bureaus with resource responsibilities, and
with the outlook for the 2013 season to be as severe throughout much of
the West, there may be record fires this year. To be prepared we are
working together with other federal agencies, tribes, and local
governments to ensure that we're doing everything we can with the
resources that we have. Additionally we are working with our partners
to reach the goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management
Strategy to restore and maintain resilient landscapes, create fire-
adapted communities, and respond to wildfire.
Let me add that the complexity and intensity of fires over the past
ten years present enormous budgetary challenges for the federal
government. While the latest projection for fire costs for the 2013
season indicates that we have sufficient funding, because of
sequestration we absorbed an overall $37.5 million cut to the
Department's fire program that resulted in a reduction of approximately
7 percent of the Department's firefighter seasonal workforce, with
reduced lengths of employment for those hired. This reduces our
capability and significantly constrains our work in fire response and
in remediating land after fire damage.
Water Resources
The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest wholesaler and manager of
water in the 17 western states and the nation's second largest producer
of hydroelectric power. Its projects and programs are critical to
driving and maintaining economic growth in the western states.
Reclamation manages water for agricultural, municipal and industrial
use, and provides flood control and recreation for millions of people.
Reclamation activities, including recreation, have an economic
contribution of $46 billion, and support nearly 312,000 jobs. As a
result, Reclamation facilities eliminate the production of over 27
million tons of carbon dioxide that would have been produced by fossil
fuel power plants.
Reclamation has a long-standing commitment to support the
Secretary's goal to strengthen tribal nations, including through
ecosystem restoration, rural water infrastructure, and the
implementation of water rights settlements.
Population growth, development, and a changing climate are creating
growing challenges to the nation's water supplies. In many areas of the
Country, including the arid West, dwindling water supplies, lengthening
droughts, and rising demand for water are forcing communities,
stakeholders, and governments to explore new ideas and find new
solutions to ensure stable, secure water supplies for the future. The
Department is tackling America's water challenges by providing
leadership and assistance to states, tribes, and local communities to
address competing demands for water by helping improve conservation and
increase water availability, restore watersheds, and resolve long
standing water conflicts. Today, many of Reclamation's activities
address drought through the use of enhanced water management that helps
guard against and, to a certain extent, mitigate the devastating
effects of drought. Water conservation by agricultural, residential and
commercial users is a prime example.
Through our national water conservation initiative, WaterSMART, we
are finding better ways to stretch existing supplies and helping
partners plan to meet future water demands. In 2012 the U.S. Geological
Survey, a key partner in the WaterSMART initiative, began a three year
study of three focus areas in the Delaware River Basin, the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, and the Colorado River
Basin. The study will contribute toward ongoing assessments of water
availability in these large watersheds with potential water-use
conflicts, provide opportunities to test and improve approaches to
water availability assessment, and inform and ground truth the Water
Census with local information. This is in addition to focusing on water
availability, and investigating the components of a regional water
budget to understand the amount entering and leaving each basin. This
work also contributed to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and
Demand Study, the first of its kind, released by the Department in
December 2012, which projects an average imbalance in future water
supply and demand greater than 3.2 million acre-feet by 2060. The study
projects the largest increase in demand will come from municipal and
industrial users, owing to population growth, and estimates the number
of people that rely on Colorado River Basin water could double to
nearly 76 million people by 2060 under a rapid growth scenario. Based
on this study, the Department, along with representatives from the
seven Colorado River Basin states, the Ten Tribes Partnership, and
conservation organizations, last week outlined a path for next steps to
address these projected imbalances.
I am committed to continuing to work with our stakeholders to
assess the implications of water shortages, develop flexible
operational plans that account for expected periods of drought, and
support projects that conserve water and improve the efficiency of
water delivery infrastructure.
COMMITMENT TO SCIENCE
The Department's mission requires a careful balance between
development and conservation, achieved by working closely with our
diverse stakeholders and partners to ensure our actions provide the
greatest benefit to the American people. The development and use of
scientific information to inform decision making is a central
component.
Science at the Department promotes economic growth and innovation.
At the Department, we use science to address critical challenges in
energy and mineral production, ecosystem management, invasive species,
oil spill restoration, climate adaptation, and Earth observation--such
as satellite and airborne land imaging, and water and wildlife
monitoring. And in support of the President's new Open Data Policy, the
Department continues to make federal data collected through these
efforts publically accessible. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and the U.S. Geological Survey have collectively contributed
over 100 datasets to ocean.data.gov, to support regional efforts under
the National Ocean Policy.
Scientific monitoring, research, and development play a vital role
in supporting Interior's missions and Interior maintains a robust
science capability in the natural sciences, primarily in the USGS. An
example of how this expertise is applied is USGS's work as part of an
interagency collaboration on hydraulic fracturing, which is aimed at
researching and producing decision-ready information and tools on the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment, health,
and safety, including water quality and inducement of seismic activity.
The USGS is also a leader in resource assessments, and just recently
published an updated assessment of the Bakken and Three Forks
Formations, finding greater resource potential there than previously
thought.
The President has also made clear that climate change is an
important issue for the nation, especially as we face more frequent
droughts, wildfires, and floods. Here at the Department, we are using
the science expertise in our bureaus to assist our land managers to
effectively prepare for and respond to the effects of climate change on
the natural and cultural resources that we manage.
While USGS provides exceptional support to Interior bureaus, other
Departmental bureaus work collaboratively to bridge gaps in knowledge,
leveraging the complementary skills and capacity to advance the use of
science to support management decision making, ensure independent
review of key decisions and science integrity, and adaptively use data
to assist states, tribes, and communities throughout the nation.
IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION
Finally, I want to mention the impact sequestration and uncertainty
about the future has had on the Department and its programs. The budget
cuts that we have seen push us back to funding levels last seen in
2006, and reverse much of the progress made by Secretary Salazar, who
worked in partnership with the Members of this Committee to advance the
President's all-of-the above energy strategy; conserve our federal
lands, waters and wildlife; advance youth engagement in the outdoors;
and honor commitments to Native Americans. The process put in place by
the sequestration undermines the work we need to do on many fronts, and
we will continue to see impacts across the country in all of our
bureaus during the coming months.
We will survive these cuts this year by freezing hiring,
eliminating seasonal positions, and cutting back on our programs and
services, but these steps are not sustainable, as these actions which
are eroding our workforce, shrinking our summer field season, and
deferring important work cannot be continued in future years without
further severe consequences to our mission.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
Committee, thank you again for inviting me to appear before your
Committee. Achieving success in all of these important responsibilities
on behalf of the American people is the Department's primary focus. I
look forward to working with you as we advance these important issues.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
We're also going to call another audible. We've had other
Senators join us. So I think we are going to have to come back
for a few minutes after the vote.
Several colleagues have been very gracious--Senator
Murkowski, Senator Franken--about the possibility of keeping
this going. So my hope is we'll be able to get most of it done
before the end of the vote at 10:15. Then we'll come back after
that.
Just a quick question on the O&C matter, Secretary Jewell,
and this is really to confirm something. As you know the Oregon
delegation feels so strongly about this. We've got 18 of these
O&C counties and they are really hurting. We're pushing very
hard to get the harvest up.
We talked when you were in Portland about you all,
particularly the BLM, giving us technical support so we can get
into these maps and find a way to address the kind of partition
concept that have areas where you focus on the harvest, areas
where we protect the treasures. Could you just state publicly
in affect what you said privately that you will be there to
give us, through the BLM, the technical support we need here
over the next few weeks?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, sir. I'm happy to work closely with
you, with the BLM.
I know the checkerboard situation that is prevalent
throughout the West is a challenge in terms of managing these
resources, consolidating, doing it in a thoughtful, sustainable
yield way is something we're committed to. So the BLM people
will be happy to work closely with you on that.
The Chairman. Very good.
Let me talk about next national park funding. We've had
several Senators raise concerns about authorizing new national
parks given the scope of the backlog, this very significant
backlog. I'm one who says we ought to be working on two tracks.
We've got colleagues here, Democrats and Republicans, who want
to designate new parks. I support that effort.
I also share the view of colleagues who say we've got to
come up with a fiscally responsible approach to deal with the
backlog. We've been talking to the Director, John Jarvis, about
it. My question is I understand that you all are reviewing
several funding recommendations that are in the National Park
Conservation Association report. The park concession errors
have offered some ideas with respect to the Bipartisan Policy
Center.
Can you tell us a little bit more about ways in which we
could look to bring in the private sector, fiscally responsible
approaches, given the fact that we're going to try hard to
build a bipartisan coalition so that we can have these new
parks which you and I have talked about? They're good for our
future of preserving our treasures. But they're also good for
the economy.
But I do think colleagues are making legitimate points
about the backlog. Please tell us what ideas you may be looking
at from the Park Conservation Association and the Bipartisan
Policy Center.
Secretary Jewell. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. This is
certainly something that I'm familiar with having served on the
Second Century Commission of the National Parks along early
with Senator Portman, although he left us to run for elected
office which we certainly appreciate as well.
There's no question that we have a significant deferred
maintenance backlog. It's estimated to be over $11 billion in
our national parks. That is really something that has been
accumulating over many, many years of not treating our assets
in the public lands in the way we might do them in the private
sector in terms of setting aside depreciation. That has more to
do with appropriations and less to do with what the national
park would like to do. They would like to maintain these
facilities.
But it is a challenge in budgetary times. We need your help
to put the Federal Government's part in the budget to
supplement what we might do from the private sector. There are
opportunities for private sector engagement.
One of the things that the Second Century Commission worked
on was public/private partnerships and recognizing that people
love their national parks. There is an opportunity to leverage
that love of the parks to find ways to support and recognize
private donations. But I think it's fair to say, and this came
from the Second Century Commission as well, that private
philanthropy should be the margin of excellence for the parks,
not the margin of survival.
It's critically important that we step up as a Federal
Government to support these assets that are so important.
There's hardly a Senator that I visited with on either side of
the aisle that didn't have some wish or desire that related to
a national park in their district or certainly public lands in
their district and support for them. So we do need to work with
you and with the appropriators on adequate funding to begin to
address the maintenance backlog. But we are very willing and I
know Director Jarvis is in particular, in finding ways to
support and enhance private sector engagement.
Just a quick story. I went up the Washington monument with
a private donor who is splitting with the Federal Government
the cost for the renovations of that facility, David
Rubenstein. I appreciate his support. He's setting a great
example for the private sector. We're certainly looking for
more opportunities like that.
The Chairman. I'll give you just one question for the
record and stay under time. On the Klamath issue in Oregon,
which, as you know, is a classic challenge. Fish, agriculture,
water, energy. Commissioner Connor testified a few weeks ago
that the Bureau of Reclamation didn't anticipate any supply
cut-off to on-project users.
If you could just get that back to me in writing with a
quick confirmation, that would be much appreciated. I have not
heard anything to the contrary. My time is up.
If you could just get back to me with a response
reaffirming what Commissioner Connor said, that would be
helpful.
Secretary Jewell. Sure, we're happy to do that.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, I'm going to defer my questions until my
colleagues have had a chance to address theirs because I'm
going to be coming back after the votes.
But I did want to just put a statement on the record. You
had noted in your opening statement that oil production from
Federal onshore lands is at its highest level in over a decade.
You noted that perhaps our commentaries differed. I had said
oil production from the Federal estate actually fell 5 percent
and the reference there.
So I think it is important to just give some of the numbers
here very briefly because I think it can be confusing.
Federal onshore oil production was at 89.5 million barrels
back in 2003. It's gone up to 108.7 million in 2012. So you do
have a substantial increase there. But it's not the full
picture and that's my point.
Because on Federal offshore production we've seen that fall
from 532.7 million barrels in 2003 to 430.6 million barrels in
2012. So what we've got is Federal onshore production which
rose by about 20 million barrels. But Federal offshore
production fell by 100 million barrels, more than 5 times the
onshore increase.
So I think it's important that when we're talking about
this we look at the full picture. So if your numbers are
different than mine I'd be happy to share with them. But with
that, Mr. Chairman, I will defer to others so that they can get
their questions in before the vote.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Yes, can I ask? Did the BP oil, the
moratorium after the BP oil spill was that, is that really what
has caused that dip? I mean, we had a huge thing happen. There
was a moratorium after that.
Is it OK if I ask that of Mr. Hayes?
Secretary Jewell. Sure.
The Chairman. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Senator. It is true that oil production in
the Gulf did decline because of the safety issues that arose
and the need to upgrade our safety standards.
The good news is that there's an EIA recently reported a
very strong upward trend now in the Gulf. The Secretary
mentioned a major discovery. There have been ten major new
discoveries. There are now more than 50 rigs drilling in the
offshore.
The lease sales are very strong that we're having and that
we've had in the Central Gulf and the Western Gulf. So we
expect to be back to where we were and further. But there
certainly was a time that we did a pause and increased the
safety standard and changed the way we did business. That did
effect, we believe, temporarily production of the offshore.
Senator Franken. Yes, I'm sorry. I just wanted to clarify
that. It's a shame it might come out of my time to put pressure
on the Secretary's children for grandchildren.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. I regret that. But I'm going to be
chairing lately and later.
The Chairman. You will?
Senator Franken. Where I can do that we can find out the
whole story there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Secretary Jewell, I want to very briefly
talk about an issue that is really important in Northern
Minnesota. There are 93,000 acres of school trust lands that
belong to the State that are trapped in the Boundary Water
Canoe Wilderness Area which means they can't contribute to the
economic development of the support schools in Minnesota.
The Forest Service is working with the State to both
purchase land from the State and to exchange the rest of the
lands with Minnesota. The Superior National Forest has
submitted to the Administration a pre-proposal for the purchase
piece. I want to urge you to give every consideration to this
application. It's an important issue to Minnesotans and to our
schools.
Secretary Jewell. Just to clarify, Senator, if it's Forest
Service it's in the Department of Agriculture. So I'm not sure
that we're involved directly in that one unless David knows
otherwise.
Mr. Hayes. Not sure but we'll certainly work on it.
Secretary Jewell. I mean, we certainly can support that
with my colleague, Tom Vilsack.
Senator Franken. It goes to both agencies.
Secretary Jewell. Does it?
Senator Franken. But we'll clarify.
Secretary Jewell. Yes, I'd be happy to review that.
Senator Franken. Yes.
I just want to get into water a little bit. You mentioned
water. It's critical, obviously, to our economy and to our well
being. We need water for farming, for healthy ecosystems and we
need it for energy production.
The drought that devastated so much of the country last
year drove home just how important water is. To make ourselves
resilient to drought we need to monitor our ground water
resources. We need to know if the rates at which our aquifers
recharge are sustainable given how much water is being taken
out.
Your Department is issuing a lot of oil and gas permits in
drought prone areas. These activities require huge amounts of
water. For instance, a single hydraulic fracturing well uses
between one and ten million gallons of water. We've even heard
about competition now between farmers and oil and drilling.
So can you just give me your take on a walk through how you
consider water issues when issuing permits for energy
development on public lands? The largest wholesale supplier in
the Nation is the Department of the Interior. You have to be a
leader in sustainable management.
Can you just walk through these considerations?
Secretary Jewell. I'll do it at a high level. I'll ask my
colleague, David Hayes, to weigh in with a little more detail.
First, on hydraulic fracturing one of the things that we
are encouraging is the reuse of hydraulic fracturing fluids so
it can be reused. Another thing that's happening within the
industry is the potential of using produced water which is salt
water from lower depths for hydraulic fracturing as opposed to
water, ground water, that may be competing with other
resources. Those activities are being encouraged.
The water is generally controlled by States. So as energy
companies purchase water, they're not purchasing it from us or
asking us for it. It's coming from State and local resources.
So I think that the role that we can play is encouraging
reuse and monitoring appropriate use of produced water so that
there isn't competition for that. It's certainly very expensive
for the energy companies to buy water for these purposes as
well.
But David, I want to turn to you to give, perhaps, a little
more detail specific to this topic.
Mr. Hayes. Just very quickly, Senator. Obviously the water
use is a big issue for us. The President's budget follows
through on the requirement that Congress laid out for us in
2007 for a water census. We're asking for about 15 million for
the U.S. Geological Survey to help provide the data for that.
In terms of permitting what the Secretary said is very
important. Typically the States have primacy with regard to the
water use. The proposed fracking rule that is now out for
further comment suggests that we require a tracking of that
water because when it comes up it can be, if it's not handled
appropriately, it can cause damage to, for example, the public
lands.
But we look forward to a further dialog. It's a very
important issue.
The Chairman. Let's do this. We're going to have Senator
Franken chair after the break.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Hayes, thanks for your dedicated service. We're
very grateful. Thank you.
Madame Secretary, you brought up sequestration. I just
wanted to ask about this revenue owed to States under the
Mineral Leasing Act. In March the Department of the Interior
notified States that it would withhold over $109 million of
revenue during the remainder of fiscal year 2013.
This was before you were confirmed. This was before you
were sworn into office.
At that time the Department said that its decision was in
accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011, the sequester.
Three weeks ago a bipartisan group of us, ten Senators, 5
members of this committee.
Senator Heinrich was one, Senator Mark Udall, Senator
Hoeven, Senator Lee. I sent a letter to OMB. You have a copy of
the letter.
But in that letter we asked OMB to confirm that your
Department would return mineral revenue withheld in fiscal year
2013 to the States and do that next year in fiscal year 2014.
We explained that a provision within the Federal budget law
required the Department to return withheld mineral revenue to
the States when sequestration took place back in the mid-1980s.
The same provision of the law applies today to the sequester
which took affect this year.
So you have a copy of the letter to OMB. So can you confirm
that the Department will return mineral revenue withheld in
fiscal year 2013 to the tune of $109 million to the 35 States
to which it is owed?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks for the question and your
letter. I understand the importance of mineral revenue to the
States. We are doing our best to comply with the Balanced
Budget Under Emergency Deficit and Control Act otherwise known
as the sequester.
Our understanding is that we were required to withhold
payments. It is designed to be inflexible, damaging and
indiscriminate. It is. This is an example of that.
So I will be fulfilling my obligation under the law.
Whether that requires a repayment to the States or not is
something that certainly OMB is the right place to assess this.
If we're asked to do that we'll absolutely will do that. We
appreciate the importance to the States. But we are doing our
best to comply with the law as it written.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I'd like to ask about the BLM's revised hydraulic
fracturing rule. Today you announced extending the comment
period another 60 days. I understand the oil and gas producers
will be able to obtain a variance from BLM's rules in States
which have their own hydraulic fracturing rules that ``meet or
exceed the BLM's rule and how it's written.''
Secretary Jewell. Correct.
Senator Barrasso. BLM may, it says also that the BLM may
rescind this variance or modify the conditions of approval at
any time. So this is hardly the certainty that you acknowledged
during your confirmation process is so important for the
private sector. You had said they need certainty.
It's unclear to me why BLM is adding Federal regulations on
top of State regulations. You know, Wyoming adopted hydraulic
fracturing regulations about 3 years ago. Since then nearly all
States who have meaningful oil and gas production have adopted
or are in the process of adopting their own hydraulic
fracturing rules. Many States, such as Wyoming, already apply
their rules to Federal lands within their borders.
So in this respect BLM's rule is a solution it seems to me
looking for problems. Do you believe that States which are
currently regulating hydraulic fracturing aren't doing a
sufficient job? If so, which States do you have in mind?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I want to say that it's highly
variable between States. The State of Wyoming is sophisticated
in its oversight of hydraulic fracturing. We applaud that.
You understand the resources within the State and I think
that it's a good example of a State that's doing an effective
job. Our role is to provide minimal acceptable standards on
public lands. That is our oversight on behalf of the American
people. That's what we're doing.
The reason for the comment period, the 30 days initially
and now the extension of 60 days is to provide an opportunity
for people to comment on those rules to determine if it's
problematic for them. So we will be listening to those comments
and reacting appropriately.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate it because the variance
process leads to uncertainty. It doesn't give the kind of
certainty that you talked about in your confirmation. So I
appreciate that.
Final question about leadership of the Bureau of Land
Management. Last year Bob Abbey, the Director retired.
President Obama has yet to nominate a successor. As the
President considers a replacement it's critical that he look to
qualifications outlined in Federal law.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act states the
Director of the Bureau shall have ``a broad background and
substantial experience in public lands and natural resource
management.'' Bob Abbey had over 30 years of experience working
for land management agencies prior to his nomination as BLM
Director. His predecessor, Jim Caswell, also over 30 years of
experience in land and natural resource management prior to his
nomination.
So do you believe the BLM Director should have a broad
background and substantial experience in land and natural
resource management as the law calls for?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'm going to do my best job to
find someone that's highly qualified for the position that has
the requisite experience. I need to take into account the
talent that exists throughout the BLM and the ability of an
individual to lead that organization, leveraging the talent
that's there. That's what we would do in private industry. You
take all of these things into account. I'm certainly committed
to doing that here as well.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank my colleague.
Senator Heinrich is going to be next and just because I
think colleagues are trying to figure their schedules what
we'll do is we'll get as many colleagues in. In fact now
Senator Landrieu has come, Senator Heinrich, so she'll be next.
I think we're going to get you in before 10:15.
But when the votes start at 10:15, we will break. I
anticipate those votes being done at 11. Senator Franken will
come back and Chair and Senator Murkowski will be there. So
we'll just keep going.
Senator Landrieu will be next. After Senator Landrieu will
be Senator Risch.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize. I had to step out for another meeting.
Welcome, Secretary Jewell. Thank you so much for taking one
of your first trips down to the Gulf Coast. I understand you
were off the coast of Louisiana at one of our offshore oil and
gas rigs. We really appreciate you reconnecting with that
important industry and resource for our Nation based on your
experience earlier in your career.
I wanted to bring up two issues and have questions just on
two issues.
First is the request in the budget for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. There are many of us that are very
interested in funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
many reasons. There's a Federal side that helps our parks and
our land acquisition. There's a State side that helps our
States to really leverage those conservation dollars to expand
recreational opportunities and save special places.
I don't think there's really a member on this committee
that doesn't want to do that, within reason. Recognizing the
Western States think they still, they have too many, too much
land already purchased by the Federal Government. I acknowledge
that, their concern.
However, my concern is that in this budget we are using
revenues generated off the coast of Louisiana and Texas when
Louisiana and Texas and Alabama and Mississippi and Florida are
coastal areas have so much need. The money that we're
generating it seems like to me which is pretty significant. I'm
going to put up a chart in a minute. Is basically being used to
fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, all the money goes
elsewhere in the country.
We're saving the redwoods, you know, in the Northeast and
California and the sequoias. But we're not saving the marsh
where the revenues are coming from. Do you have a comment about
that or what are your general feelings?
I say, coming from Louisiana, I mean, our States are
serving as platforms for the production. Without the south
Louisiana, Texas, there would be no way for the Federal
Government to access resources that are clearly ours. But
without our States, there could be no access to the offshore.
Secretary Jewell. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, I support full funding
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has not been the
case for more than 1 year in its almost 50-year history.
I appreciate the revenue generated from offshore oil and
gas production. As I went to the Gulf Coast I saw firsthand the
positive impact it has on the residents of Louisiana through
the jobs that it's created including visiting our offices there
which has over 500 people in the offices there.
Senator Landrieu. Listen, and look, we appreciate the jobs.
But 500 jobs and the jobs that are created along the coast do
not compensate for the loss of revenues. This is 6 billion in
2006. It's projected to be 11 billion annually coming off the
coast of Louisiana and Texas. Yet we are struggling here for
years trying to get a fair share of that money just to be kept
at home along the coast that's producing these revenues.
Now meanwhile if you put up the other chart. The inland
States which I do not, you know, I'm a little jealous actually
of what the deal that they were able to get because Wyoming and
New Mexico, Senator, your State, as you know, keeps 50 percent
of their revenues. But Western States have a deal with the
Federal Government. All the money that they generate on Federal
lands, they keep 50 percent.
So over the course of time the Western States have kept $61
billion, the Western States to spend on anything they want, not
even on conservation. They spend it on schools, hospitals,
roads. They don't even have to spend it on the environment.
Meanwhile the Gulf Coast States get nothing, get nothing.
We generate more money than they do and in our case we are even
willing, at least for the State of Louisiana, we are willing to
dedicate all of that money to coastal restoration. So I just
can't impress upon the both of you how critical this is.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their support of this general concept. Now how we work out the
details I don't know. But again I want to say to the Western
States, I just want the same deal you all have.
I'm even willing to take a little bit less. I'm willing to
be more flexible. The people I represent are truly desperate.
This is the largest land loss in the continent of North
America, in the whole continent, the largest land loss.
Alaska has some serious erosion issues, and they're
serious. I don't think they're as serious as Louisiana's. This
is a river that supports the whole Nation. This river is not a
stream or a little paddle place where you just paddle around
and have an enjoyable time. We're putting the largest tankers
and commerce down this river.
So I'm not going to stop on this. I just want to tell you
that, you know, or just share with you that, you know, I'm
going to be watching this budget very carefully.
The second question I have I will not ask because my time
is over, but I will submit is on the permitting process. We
cannot produce any of these revenues, not in the Western
States, not off of our shore without streamlined, efficient,
best practices permitting. I'm still, despite the good work
that you're doing. Hearing complaints from the industry that
they've got to get some green lights to drill.
They can do it. They can do it safely. They need permits.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, again.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary Jewell, thank you for visiting the
interagency fire center in Boise. I think you'd agree with me
after you and I toured that facility that the agency is
prepared. They're ready and they're willing and able to take on
the 2013 fire season.
Well equipped, even better trained, but at the end of the
day, of course, it's going to depend upon the fuel loads and
mother nature and the number of fires that they have to deal
with. But we appreciate your input. We certainly appreciate you
appearing there.
They've already been tested. Last Friday they had a fire, a
small one, but none the less a fire less than 5 miles from the
facility. So they'll be at it this summer.
You know I've had a number of conversations about Sage
Grouse. You're probably tired of hearing about Sage Grouse. But
I just, I want to get a response from you now that's you've
been on the job for a while and been able to review this.
You and I talked about the letter that first of all, the
comments and the suggestions that Secretary Salazar made
regarding how we should rehabilitate the population of the Sage
Grouse and particularly his letter of December 18, 2012, which
outlined the Department's view of how that should be done and
the questions for the record and the answers that were
attached. All of it is in sync with my view of a collaborative
method and a State driven method to address this issue. I think
in sync with what your view is about the collaborative system.
After you've been on the job now for the period of time
you've had, do you have any more thoughts on this? Are you
still in agreement that this is the best way to pursue how we
do, what all of us want to do? That is preserve, protect and
rehabilitate the greater Sage Grouse. Are we still singing off
the same sheet of music?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, Senator, I believe we are. I've seen
great collaboration between States, private landowners, the
Bureau of Land Management, Indian tribes, all in, working
together to how can we preserve and protect this important
habitat. It's a challenging issue with invasive species and
wildland fires, as you know. But these are things that we want
to work on together and there's some great examples out there
for us to learn from. We certainly are learning from that. So
I'm very committed to an ongoing collaborative effort as you
describe.
Senator Risch. Thank you. I appreciate that. We know that
in past years all of this has been driven top/down from the
Federal Government. I think we've learned that this new
approach of doing it from the State up seems to work a lot
better and actually gets results.
So I'm delighted to hear that you remained committed to
that. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
Here's where we are. Senator Portman can't come back.
Senator Heinrich is being very gracious. He will Chair at 11
and Senator Murkowski will be here.
So Senator Portman we can get you in before the break
because of the thoughtfulness of Senator Heinrich.
Senator Portman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've
always Heinrich was a particularly thoughtful guy. Now it's
been proven.
[Laughter.]
Senator Portman. He's also my mentee. We have a mentor/
mentee relationship here. I can't go into detail because your
time is too precious. But I think that's really the reason he's
willing to do it. He's looking for something.
[Laughter.]
Senator Portman. Thank you, Martin.
Quickly on hydraulic fracking, I know you've come up with
this rule for federally controlled lands. Thank you for your
testimony on that. It's a big deal because, as you know, about
90 percent of your wells will be fracked probably on public
lands.
I would just, you know, Ohio frankly doesn't have a lot of
public lands. However we do have a lot of fracking. We've been
doing it for about 50 years.
We have some good regulations. We think they're some of the
best in the country. We have no documented cases, for instance,
of any ground water contamination. We're proud of that.
So I would just raise the point that on average it takes
307 days to get needed permits on Federal lands. This is one
reason I've been working with some colleagues on both sides of
the aisle on permitting reform. We're now 17th in the world
based on the IMMF metrics for the ease of doing business with
regard to building something.
It affects everybody. Energy developers who are seeking
approvals for major capital projects whether it's oil and gas
or whether it's wind or solar are facing the same thing. On
Federal lands often a bureaucratic gauntlet of, you know, going
through multiple separate agencies and the threat of litigation
concerning permits can go as long as 6 years, as you know. So
it's uncertainty, I think, that's leading to a lot of investors
being hesitant to make these kind of commitments to new capital
investments.
So I would hope that as you look at this issue or look at
what the States are doing and specifically our State of Ohio
where, you know, again, we do have a good record.
Second, that you help us on this permitting bill. This is
not something we've introduced yet. We're still looking for
input and ideas. But we want to be sure that we have it, have
the input from the Department and that it's a bipartisan effort
going forward.
Second, I want to ask for your comment on that because of
the short period of time, but if you have any comments after I
raised two of the quick issues, I'd appreciate it.
This World War II prayer bill, we talked about this during
your confirmation process. It passed the House last year with a
vote of 386 to 26. It would take this D-Day prayer that FDR
said on the day of the D-Day invasion.
As you know today is the 69th anniversary of D-Day. We're
interested in moving it forward in the Senate as well. Last
year Senator Lieberman and I were able to make some progress
but not get it through the process. We would love your help on
that.
The Park Service has worked with us to ensure the bill is
subject to the standard commemorative works approval and review
process. Again, your support on that would be terrific. Since
it's the anniversary of D-Day today I thought I had to raise
that. It's S. 1044.
Finally on national parks. Your comments were correct that
we need to do better on the public/private partnership front.
I'm interested in your specific example of Washington monument.
This $11 billion backlog and the deferred maintenance
backlog, I was at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park over
Memorial Day which is a real jewel and top ten park in the
country I'm told in terms of attendance. They've got some
serious concerns on this very issue. So my question to you is
in the process of the centennial coming up do you all have a
plan to try to encourage more public/private partnership?
As you know when I was at OMB we started this initiative
that you, Madame Secretary, know a lot about. The notion was to
with the Centennial Challenge to challenge the private sector
frankly to match dollar for dollar. Do you have a centennial
plan that you all have put together? We haven't seen one yet.
We are, as you know, trying to encourage that.
Mark Udall and I had sent a letter on to our colleagues on
this that you may have seen. So anything you can tell us about
what you're doing on the permitting, any thoughts on the World
War II prayer and any thoughts on the public/private
partnerships as we come up to the centennial, we'd appreciate
it.
Secretary Jewell. I'll try and do this quickly.
First on the centennial. There's actually quite a lot of
work going on with the National Park Foundation and with the
National Park Service and various advisory boards to look at
what we can do to facilitate the public/private partnerships
which I think are going to be a very important part of that.
Also raises visibility among the American people.
People love their parks. We want to give them an easy
opportunity to support their parks. So that is coming and
should there be legislation involved I'll make sure that you're
well aware of that. At this point we're working within the Park
Service and the external friends groups and so on to facilitate
that.
On the permitting side, there's actually been a lot of work
that has been done by the BLM to streamline the permitting
process. We've also done that offshore. There's lessons from
offshore that we think we can bring onshore. There is a need, a
desperate need for automation in the process.
We've also found that unfortunately with sequestration
across the board the offices that are most active still have to
scale back their operations, so getting past that would be
very, very helpful. We--so there's a lot of work going on. In
the 2014 budget there is a request for fees generated to
support that activity so it doesn't become just strictly a line
item in the budget that can be cut.
It's a variable depending on the demand which is going to
depend on the areas that we are, where the development is going
on. It doesn't--formations don't go across State lines, but
that's how we're required to fund these agencies. So we're
going to need your help on some of those things for
streamlining.
On the World War II prayer bill. Certainly we appreciate
the importance of faith in the lives of all Americans and the
sacrifices made in World War II. Happy to continue to work with
you on that bill.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. OK, we will stand in recess
until 11 or until the series of votes are concluded. I'll be
back and Senator Heinrich will be back. Thank you.
[RECESS]
Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Secretary Jewell and Mr.
Hayes, thanks for your patience. We're going to get started
here. I'm going to go ahead and ask the question that I held
off earlier. Then we've got a couple of other Senators who've
been very patient as well. We'll get to them as quickly as we
can.
Secretary Jewell, you mentioned interagency cooperation
around your firefighting effort, something that is very timely
for me right now. That coordination is especially important
when it comes to post fire rehabilitation and flood prevention
in the communities that are oftentimes downstream from
Department of the Interior lands as well as downstream from
Forest Service lands.
Are there any additional authorities that you need to
ensure a seamless and coordinated response between Interior
agencies like BLM, BIA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service
and the Forest Service to make sure that we're meeting these
challenges in as coordinated and consistent and seamless way as
possible?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks for bringing up the
important issue of wildland fire. I would say that on the
coordination front we are very well coordinated. When I went to
the Interagency Fire Center I went there with Secretary
Vilsack. All the various units of the Federal Government as
well as the State governments and the local governments are
well coordinated.
I would say that you raise an issue around post fire
remediation and making sure we prepare lands for fires in
advance whether that's prescribed burns or hazardous fuels
removal and other means. Those are being squeezed from a
budgetary standpoint. That is the biggest challenge I would say
that we face.
When we do have a wildland fire, for example, on rangeland
the ability to go back after that and replant native, you know,
shrub step, sage and so on is really, really important. If we
don't do that you end up with cheat grass and other non-native
species that are much more prone to fire and actually habitat
destroying. We have not had sufficient money to be able to do
that work. That's very important.
Not to mention on our tribal lands where year round it's an
important source of jobs for tribes as well. So I would
appreciate support in making sure that the emergency part of
firefighting gets segregated so that we can year in/year out do
the right job in terms of management of the lands for wildland
fire.
Senator Heinrich. Oh, I appreciate that.
We recently had a hearing earlier this week with the Forest
Service about this issue. We've had real challenges in terms of
some of the downstream impacts on tribes and other communities
in New Mexico after the big fires of last year and the year
before. So it's something I'm more than happy to work with you
on.
Senator Franken brought something up which I hadn't thought
of before the hearing, but I think bears a little attention. He
talked about the issue of land consolidation and State lands
within Federal lands. Not knowing the specifics of the
situation in Northern Minnesota I can say that that is an
enormous issue that has not received a whole lot of attention
but is ubiquitous across much of the West.
Whether you're in New Mexico or Utah or Nevada, you have
these situations where you have State lands checker boarded
through Federal lands. It's a very large resource efficiency
issue. Some of the tools that we typically use to consolidate
and do land swaps and other things are limited in that case,
particularly the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a tool we
can't use to purchase State lands.
I've proposed reauthorizing FLTFA which was used for about
10 years and actually resulted in higher disposal rates at BLM
but also was something we could use to resolve these sorts of
conflicts and then focus those resources back on high value
lands. But I would be curious if you have any sort of concerted
effort. I would encourage you to give this issue its due while
you're the Secretary because I think it's something that has
festered for a long time and it leads to a lot of unnecessary
management and resource conflicts between States and the
Federal Government.
Secretary Jewell. I very much appreciate your support of
reauthorizing FLTFA. I think that's a useful tool that has
worked in the past and would be helpful to have in the future.
So thank you for your support there.
We're in full agreement. I would say that we've done it
more on a case by case basis as land swaps have made sense.
There's certainly some that are pending that I'm aware of.
There's also some lands that are Federal that may not serve
the Federal Government as well as they might service States. So
we are very open to that. I think have the procedures in place
to be able to deal with those things.
I don't think we've looked at it necessarily on a landscape
level basis. There may be an opportunity to do that in some
areas. But we are with you in concept fully.
Senator Heinrich. Great. I know that it can be challenging
and they're oftentimes transparency issues. But I would urge
you to take a look at that. When it's done well it can
definitely serve the public on multiple fronts.
Let's see. It's just the two of us.
Senator Murkowski. Alright.
Senator Heinrich. So I'm looking around at my list but none
of them are here. So.
Senator Murkowski. They may.
Senator Heinrich. Do you want to?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it,
Mr. Chairman.
Madame Secretary, let me start with some questions that I
alluded to in my opening. This is as it relates to the NPRA
legacy wells. I think that you feel my frustration and my
concern.
As I mentioned in our conversations earlier, you know, if
the Federal Government was a private operator and had abandoned
these wells as the Federal Government has, the State would have
had an opportunity to levy some fines on that private operator.
Our estimates are that it would be about $41 billion in fines.
So I've just been so concerned about what I believe to be a
double standard here because I think we do have an expectation
that if you were going to be exploring and producing in an
arctic environment there is an absolute need to be responsible,
to be cautious, to really be careful. So it just hurts to see
what we have left. So now we get to the part where, OK, it
happened. Let's figure out how we're going to clean it up.
I thought that we had agreed that, look, there's got to be
a better path forward rather than just telling the State, you
figure it out. So when we met before the Interior probes
hearing last month, I thought we had a pretty good discussion
on how we might work together to find a path forward that
didn't require the State to pay for these Federal well
remediation efforts. Since that time I've had constituents come
back to me who have had meetings, not only with you, but those
in your Department and they have effectively told me that they
believe that the Department and that you, actually support and
agree with the proposal that was put out again before you took
the position as Secretary.
Those decisions that were made before you came, you're now,
kind of, stuck to deal with them, to settle with them. But I
guess the question that I would have of you this morning. I had
submitted the letter from Mayor Brower for the record that
outlines their concerns about that. Is it your opinion that the
State of Alaska should be held financially responsible for the
Federal Government's responsibility to remediate these wells?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I completely agree that the
legacy wells are a problem that we need to solve.
They were drilled by the USGS and the Navy years ago to
access the potential of the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska. It's one of the reasons we have a sense of the resource
potential there and of course modern techniques have been used
as well. They do need to be cleaned up.
I'm pleased that the BLM has done an assessment and has
shared with the State a priority list of where they would go
first so that we deal with the worst offenders first. We do
need money to be able to do that. I would like to think that as
the resource was assessed in part through the use of these
wells that the revenue from the resource, State and Federal, be
used to help in the clean up.
I think that it is a revenue generator. It puts oil in the
pipeline.
Senator Murkowski. But who?
Secretary Jewell. We need to work on figuring out how to
pay for it because right now there isn't sufficient money.
Senator Murkowski. I would agree that we have some very
difficult budget limitations. We all know that. But I have a
very difficult time suggesting that those revenues that would
go to the State that in turn go to the residents of the North
Slope Borough.
Again, I will refer you to the Mayor's letter and the
Commissioner's letter. That somehow or other you think that it
is right to take those revenues that would go to those
residents for no value that they have gained from the
exploration of these wells some 30, 40 years ago. All that's
left is an eyesore and a level of contamination.
I want to work with you on a path. But if that path is
going to mean that moneys that would be going to the State of
Alaska and the residents of the North Slope are going to be
choked back that's not appropriate. So I'm hoping to hear you
say that you're willing to work with us to find a better path
forward.
Secretary Jewell. I'm absolutely willing to work with you
and to find the money that we need to remediate the legacy
wells and certainly committed to doing that. Any creative
suggestions you have on how we can fund that, I'd be all ears.
Senator Murkowski. Let's work on this. We do need to be
creative. But being creative does not mean that we assess the
State for the cost of the cleanup that the Federal Government
is responsible for.
The other area that I wanted to visit with you on and this
is, again, a little bit of a rub to Alaska. As you know we
became a State some 50 odd years ago. Our lands have not been
yet fully and finally conveyed under the terms of the Native
Claims Settlement Act.
Lands that are owed to our native peoples have not yet been
finally conveyed. We're working on that. We had some good
discussions about some ways.
We're thinking creatively. OK, can we use a different
methodology to do the surveys? The how we reduce our costs to
still accomplished that same goal. I think that that's a good
step for us.
But again, in the proposal that we have before us with the
budget effectively Alaska, those revenues that would be coming
to our State, we're saying OK, we will take from you in order
to complete the conveyances or to pay for those conveyances. I
cannot understand why any State should ever be expected to
effectively pay the Federal Government to perform that Federal
obligation of conveying the lands that have been approved by
Congress and clearly passed Administrations. Yet somehow or
other it seems that the Interior Department is suggesting that
Alaska needs to share in this financial burden.
So you need to know that, again, I've been pushing on this
issue since I came to the Senate. We advanced legislation that
put in place an expedited process. We're still, 9 years later,
and we still have not yet fully and finally finished these
conveyances.
So we need to make better progress on that. We've got more
in the budget this year. That's helpful.
But again, we're still looking at decades and decades
before these conveyances are complete. So I'd like to hear your
proposal on how we might move forward with that. But again, if
the expectation is that the State is going to have to pay for
the conveyances or the costs that are associated with the
conveyances, that's just not going to work.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'm not aware of anything that
has suggested the State pay for the cost of the conveyances. So
I appreciate an opportunity to work with you and better
understand that aspect.
Senator Murkowski. What they're suggesting is that a share
of the mineral payments that Alaska would receive would be
utilized to help cover the costs for the conveyances.
Secretary Jewell. OK, I'll look into that.
On the survey themselves the BLM is really committed to an
expedited process so that we can move forward. We agree that we
want to convey these lands. I really appreciate your
willingness to do an expedited process and use GIS mapping
techniques because the way the legislation is you put actually
a physical stake every two miles. You know how impractical and
expensive that is in Alaska.
So we'll be working with the BLM to get it moving forward.
Again, I hadn't heard of the issue about the State paying.
We'll look into that further and better understand.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate you looking into it. The
other thing I learned in my most recent meeting with Bud
Crippley from Alaska was that in fact there will be no surveys
that will be conducted in Alaska this year. He pointed the
finger to the budget. But if there's no surveys going on at all
how are we ever going to get this done?
So if you could look into that aspect as well, I would
appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've gone over my time. I've got
another question but I'm going to defer to my colleagues here.
Senator Heinrich. OK. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
Secretary Jewell, thank you for appearing before us today
and taking the time to answer a couple of questions. I know
you're new on the job. So, congratulations on your
confirmation.
As it relates to the environmental impact study in the
Atlantic, we're about running a year late. Have you been able
to discover why we're running about a year late on the EIS?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, this is for the geological and
geophysical survey activity?
I know that it's in process and that we're doing the
programmatic EIS right now in order to move forward on that.
Deputy Secretary, do you know about delays or are we on
schedule as far as you know?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, we have been pushing forward on this
actually. I recall a year ago we accelerated the schedule. My
sense of it is that we are moving forward in a deliberate pace.
We are very, very interested in getting this done.
So we're certainly not dragging our feet. We're telling our
folks we want this environmental analysis done.
Senator Scott. Do you believe that you have enough of the
right folks working on this project as we speak now?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, yes. We are giving it, again, in this time
of sequester.
Senator Scott. Yes.
Mr. Hayes. It's a challenge. But we are very committed to
funding that effort and bringing it to completion.
Senator Scott. The one thing, Mr. Hayes, is to recognize
that I got this started before the sequester. So we're about a
year late from our perspective. So one of the questions that I
have for you is do you have any expectation on what you believe
will be a part of the completed EIS?
Do you have any idea what year or anticipations are on what
the report will show?
Any indications at all at this point?
Mr. Hayes. I have no personal knowledge of any special
items there. My understanding is there's a very vigorous
analysis that will be put forward. There are consultations with
the other affected agencies including NOAA in particular. Those
are proceeding along.
So we're helpful that this will be and obviously, Senator,
as you know, an environmental impact statement is a major deal
particularly for such a large area as this, the Mid and South
Atlantic, but nothing on the horizon as far as we're aware in
terms of issues that would be out of the ordinary in terms of
an EIS.
Senator Scott. Certainly, Secretary Jewell, you've
expressed support of moving forward to collect more data so
that we'll be in a better position realizing that some of the
data is about 30 years old. So for us it's an important part of
the equation where they get the revenues and the opportunity
for job creation off in our Atlantic OCS. From the southland
perspective we think about the companies that would go out and
shoot the seismic and perhaps the discover the resources.
After discovering the resources the question that they're
going to ask is will we have the opportunity to then gain, to
get those resources. My question is as you look at that, the
company's necessity of a return on the investment, what do
think the prospects are of our ability to move forward and to
provide the companies with the necessary opportunities to
recoup their investment?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, as someone that's spent time
early in my career in the oil and gas industry.
Senator Scott. Yes.
Secretary Jewell. I appreciate not only the importance of
resource development, but also the timeframe that it takes.
These are massive investments when you're talking about
exploring and developing new areas. So I think that this first
step toward the geological and geophysical analysis is
important.
It will take time for industry to analyze that data and to
decide where their priorities are and where they want to lease.
We certainly will be there in terms of lease sales to open the
lands as appropriate. It's not in the 5-year plan that came out
the 2012 to 2017.
Senator Scott. Year 2017.
Secretary Jewell. But the data will be accessible once we
do the analysis. So companies can plan for that.
Having been recently out in the Gulf of Mexico, these are
long term operations. They require infrastructure development
and planning. In my early career I did some of that development
and planning. So I think, you know, when 2017 rolls around and
that 5-year plan is regenerated that will be the opportunity
for people to actually do the exploration production
activities.
Senator Scott. Are there any other obstacles or impediments
to moving forward, from your perspective, that you would like
assistance with?
Secretary Jewell. I think that the programmatic EIS that
we're doing is going to be really important in identifying if
those obstacles exist. But there's nothing that I'm aware of at
this point in time.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Is that it?
Senator Scott. Yes, thank you.
Senator Heinrich. Great. Super.
We'll do another quick round for those folks who have stuck
around.
Senator Murkowski, why don't you go first and then I'll
wrap up with a couple of questions.
Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you.
Just a couple here to follow up. This follows on Senator
Landrieu's comments about revenue sharing. It's something that
she and I have worked on for a period of time. We're hopeful
that we'll have an opportunity to have that bill presented here
before the committee so that our colleagues can take a look at
it.
In your confirmation hearing you indicated that you'd be
willing to work with us on the concept. So the question is
whether or not you've had a chance to look at our legislation
if you think that this is an approach that you might be able to
support and work with us on.
Secretary Jewell. Senator I haven't looked at any specific
legislation. I know that it's a tricky issue in terms of
Federal revenues going here and then, you know, what to use to
support the Federal Government. These are assets in the outer
continental shelf that are Federal assets.
So I'm happy to look into the bill language. I haven't seen
it specifically.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
It is when we're talking about, kind of thinking outside
the box and how we're going to deal with some of the issues
that are at play. I know that the Chairman has mentioned that
when we talk about revenue sharing it needs to be broader than
we have envisioned in the past. It might be able to assist us
with some of the issues that we face, for instance, on land
with our Secure Rural Schools funding.
So I would commend that to you for your review.
We have had a whole series of hearings and moved some
public lands bills through the committee already. I'd like to
think that we can move them through to the Floor and see
passage on them. But one of the issues that comes up
continually as we deal with parks and park issues is the fact
that we have a $13 billion park's maintenance backlog. So a lot
of the conversation around this Dias is gosh, should we really
be adding more to the parks when we can't afford to maintain
what we already have.
It was noted by yourself and by others that we've got the
park's centennial coming upon us in just this year after next.
It seems to me that this would be a great time to really kind
of re-evaluate how we establish, how we maintain our parks as
we move into this second century and really also how we build
support for our parks within our local communities and
effectively nationwide and whether it's getting support through
private dollars, whether it's just getting the local people
engaged and having ownership in their parks. I think that
that's going to be important for us.
So just very generically asking if you will work with
Chairman Wyden, work with myself and other members of the
committee to review the options and really how we define a path
forward for the parks as we advance into the second century of
our National Parks.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator.
There's no question that this historic opportunity, the
centennial, that will fall on this Congress and this
Administration is extraordinarily important to seize. I'm very
happy to work with you and Senator Wyden on whatever we can do
to address the maintenance backlog on our national parks and
look more broadly at just the challenges we have in maintaining
our public lands.
I will also say that sometimes you've got a willing buyer
and a willing seller in the Federal Government on private lands
and it doesn't necessarily increase the costs. So I don't want
to stop doing, thinking about landscape level issues and what
we need to do because of the maintenance backlog. We want to
knock it down. But I think there is, I'm learning, about the
complexity of land management and landscape level conservation
and understanding.
So would really love to work with you and Chairman Wyden
and others on this committee for a more permanent solution.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Good.
Another thing that we have discussed a lot is duplication
of efforts within government agencies, the redundancies that
are inherent there. DOI published what they called an inventory
of programs last week. Under the heading for Bureau of Land
Management there's a program called Wildlife and Fisheries.
There's another one called Threatened and Endangered.
If you look a little further down you see that Bureau of
Reclamation also has a program called Fish and Wildlife
Management and Development and Endangered Species Conservation
Recovery Program. They've got another one Fish and Wildlife
Management and Development.
I say all this to suggest that it looks, just from the
casual observation, that you've got about 24 different programs
within Fish and Wildlife and then within the other departments.
I'm not suggesting here that all of these 28 programs in the 3
bureaus are duplicative. But it does, kind of, beg the question
as to whether or not they are and what kind of review is
underway.
Just, kind of, from a department perspective if you've got
your folks looking internally to make sure that we are being
smart in how we are advancing these programs and paying for
these programs.
Secretary Jewell. If I could take just a minute to respond.
These are budget category titles, but I have observed as I've
gone corridor by corridor and sat down with a lot of people
that they're actually leveraging each other. There are
scientific resources that are available in the USGS, in the
Fish and Wildlife service that are working to support those
wildlife or fish needs that are in the National Park Service or
the BLM.
So I'm looking for duplication of effort.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Secretary Jewell. I'm certainly looking for opportunities
to streamline where we can. I don't see a lot of overlapping
effort when you have, sort of, land manager on the ground
that's trying to do the work with the scientist that may be at
the U.S. Geological Survey. There are ways that that knits
together.
But I appreciate the sentiment that we need to be making
sure we're not overlapping. I'm certainly committed to doing
that.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Good. Knowing that you're all
looking at that is important.
Then one final question here. Fish and Wildlife came out
with their draft conservation plan and their EIS for ANWR. It
did not include a developmental alternative for gas and oil
within the coastal plain. I've been told that the service's
rationale for this was that development requires an act of
Congress.
But the draft plan also included some alternatives for
additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers which also
require an act of Congress. So it seems a little bit
inconsistent there. So the question to you is whether or not
the conservation plan in the EIS for ANWR will include an oil
and gas development alternative. If you're not proposing that I
guess the question would be why would you not consider that?
Secretary Jewell. I'm going to give a high level answer and
then ask my colleague, David Hayes, who has been very involved
in Arctic issues to add more color.
The President has made it clear that it is not part of his
agenda to do oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. I support that position. So further details on
this, David is very immersed in issues around the Arctic and
has been really committed to the issues there.
So David, would you mind adding?
Mr. Hayes. Sure.
Senator, I believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service was
consistent in not including as alternatives, alternatives that
require Congressional action.
Senator Murkowski. But you would agree that when you have
an alternative that allows for additional wilderness or wild
and scenic that that also requires act of Congress.
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, absolutely. But in fact all it does is
there is no actuation of any wilderness designation by an
agency. There can only be a recommendation.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Hayes. So and then as the Secretary said, the and of
course, the law is very clear on the oil and gas side about
needing Congressional decision before going forward.
Let me just, if I can, Senator, mention that thank you for
your Arctic leadership. I just wanted to state publicly that
the White House came out, as you know, with a new national
strategy for the Arctic and promised to have some outreach
sessions in this month, in Alaska as a follow up. We are going
to go forward with these listening sessions in Alaska at the
end of next week.
We will have leadership from across the government in those
sessions and are taking very seriously the issues that you take
so seriously. Thank you for your leadership in the Arctic
generally.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate what you have done to help
us on the Arctic issues. Your leadership in advancing the
report out of Department of the Interior was very important.
You will be missed.
I've said that. I'm not afraid to say it publicly. I think
you have been a big help to us. I appreciate that.
Let me just conclude then. Do you know, David, when the
final plan might be released? Do you have any timeframe on
that?
Mr. Hayes. We do not have a timeframe on that, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Then you mentioned the listening sessions up North. I was
pleased to see that they will be moving forward. We're trying
to get things pinned down so that we can make sure that the
appropriate folks are in place.
I was a little troubled this morning. There's an article in
one of our online newspapers. The headline is, are the Interior
Department's Alaska listening sessions just hot air? It takes a
little punch at me. It takes a little punch at you, not you
personally, me personally.
But I do hope that they're not hot air. I do hope that
there is real substance that we, as Alaskans, are not only
engaged but I will reach out to my colleagues from all States.
New Mexicans need to be reminded that we are an Arctic nation.
It's not just Alaska as a State. We are an Arctic nation.
Hopefully these listening sessions will allow us to push
that reality out so that people know and understand it. So I
look forward to working with the folks at Interior on that.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Senator Lee, why don't you go next? Then I'll wrap things
up.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank our
witnesses for joining us.
Madame Secretary, as you've undoubtedly heard from some of
my Western colleagues on this committee, the potential listing
of the Greater Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species would
inevitably have some real far ranging impacts on the people of
Utah and on the residents of several of our neighboring States.
As you know the State of Utah has proposed a management plan
that would protect more than 90 percent of Utah's Greater Sage
Grouse while significantly limiting the adverse economic
impacts that these efforts would have. So we see it as a real
win/win potentially should it be improved.
Now during your confirmation process you stressed, quite
repeatedly, that cooperation and coordination with States and
with all the stakeholders involved would be the hallmarks of
your tenure at Interior. Can the State of Utah and its 3
million residents count on your commitment to give serious
consideration to approving our State management plan for the
Greater Sage Grouse? Can I count on your commitment to work
with the State of Utah and with other Western States on this
issue and on similar issues under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Interior?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, you have my commitment that we will
work with States. We'll work with private landowners. We'll
work with everyone that is involved in this.
The habitat necessary for the Greater Sage Grouse is vast.
It covers a lot of jurisdictions. The only way we're going to
really be able to take care of this over the long term is by
working together.
Senator Lee. OK. Thank you. I hope you'll take a very
serious look at the efforts that have been put forward by the
State of Utah because, again, I think they achieved the
environmental gains that are necessary, but they do so in a way
that also respects the needs of our residents, the people on
the ground that are most affected.
A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reveals that
from 2009 to 2012 a total of 71 lawsuits against various
Federal agencies were settled under circumstances that could be
described as sue and settle, sue and settle cases, sue and
settle case resolutions. The settlement of these cases directly
resulted in more than 100 new Federal rules many of which were
major rules meaning rules that carry an annual aggregate
economic compliance impact of $100 million or more. While some
of these cases involved EPA settlements under the Clean Air Act
and the Clean Water Act, more than a few of them fell under the
jurisdiction of your department highlighted by some key Fish
and Wildlife service settlements under the Endangered Species
Act.
The sue and settle process that I'm describing allows
agencies to avoid, in some circumstances, the normal
protections that are built into the rulemaking process
including a first review by the Office of Management and
Budget. But also including, not insignificantly, the public,
the review process by the public. The opportunity the public
has to review their proposed rulemaking.
As your tenure as the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior begins do you think the practice of using settlement
agreements and consent decrees to further policy goals is
consistent with your commitment to how you want to run the
Department including your commitment to transparency?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, as a business person you want to
avoid lawsuits at all costs. I have certainly been struck by
the amount of lawsuits that are filed against Interior. We're
trying to uphold the laws. People differ with that and they
sue.
As a business person I know that sometimes the most cost
effective way to deal with a lawsuit is to settle certainly not
something that I want to make any kind of a practice of. I want
to avoid lawsuits to begin with by making sure that we have
parties around the table that understand the law and understand
what we're up to doing in upholding the law. Certainly
transparency is something I've been known for in the business
side and I'm committed to being transparent in this process as
well.
I do know that we have laws that have time requirements on
them such as the Endangered Species Act. We are overwhelmed
sometimes with the amount of volume that comes in. We work to
try and address the underlying needs in the most cost effective
way that we can in dealing with upholding those laws.
So this is an area that I'm becoming more familiar with
particularly as all the lawsuits now bear my name. We want to
avoid lawsuits to begin with. That's going to be my commitment.
Senator Lee. I understand that. I respect that. I certainly
understand that, as a businesswoman, when you were involved in
lawsuits you had an obligation to find resolutions of those
cases. You also had a natural inclination to defend the most
important thing for your business and settle only where it was
reasonably possible without doing harm to your business.
Settlements involving government are sometimes a little bit
different because when the aim of the lawsuit is to achieve a
different policy that can have the effect of a law making
effort. So where there is not a distinct adverse interest on
the part of the government with the plaintiff, you do have some
potential for what some people call, a friendly suit or a
friendly suit resolution where two people can just agree.
The government can agree with the plaintiff. Yes, that's a
good policy. We should implement that. You have de facto law
making by means of a friendly suit resolution. Do that's the
problem we're concerned about there.
Mr. Chairman, if I could have your indulgence to ask just
another line of questions. I know we're on a short time line.
Is that a possibility?
Senator Heinrich. How many do you have?
Senator Lee. Just one more.
Senator Heinrich. You bet.
Senator Lee. OK, so the U.S. Congress recognized the need
for the development of domestic oil shale resources with the
passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in which the Congress
directed in now almost 8 years ago the Department of the
Interior to establish commercial oil shale leasing program.
Then following an extensive public process the Bureau of Land
Management issued a final programmatic EIS for oil shale
development. It established a commercial oil shale leasing rule
in 2008.
Then in 2009 a group of non-governmental organizations
challenged the 2008 oil shale management plan resulting in a
settlement agreement with Interior that was followed by new oil
shale regulations in 2012 that reduced the acreage available
for oil shale development by almost 75 percent. Just a few
weeks ago BLM was notified that another group of NGO's is
planning a lawsuit concerning these new regulations. So with
the understanding that all these decisions were made during
Secretary Salazar's decision will you commit to take a fresh
look at the oil shale leasing program and whether it complies
with the objectives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, as I understand we have about
600 thousand acres available for oil shale development under
these research and development leases. I think that, you know,
the realities right now are more economic on oil shale
development not to be mixed up with shale oil.
Senator Lee. Right.
Secretary Jewell. That, you know, there's work to be done
to assess the value of these resources and their potential for
the future. Certainly continuing to do that as part of the
President's All of the Above Energy Strategy and I'm supportive
of that.
I'm going to ask my colleague, David Hayes, to provide a
little more detail as it specifically relates to these
programs.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I would just add that per the previous
point about settle and sue. This was a situation where there
was a lawsuit, but what followed was a notice and comment
proceeding that led to the final rule that's before us.
Senator Lee. Sure. I understand.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Lee. I didn't intend necessarily to lump that to
the previous statement.
Mr. Hayes. OK.
But I think that our view is that the final rule is solid
and that we are open for business for demonstration projects in
the oil shale area.
Senator Lee. OK, so it sounds like you're prepared to
defend the 200----
Mr. Hayes. Correct. We are.
Senator Lee. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both of you for your
service and for your testimony.
Senator Heinrich. Thanks, Senator Lee.
A couple more things I wanted to bring up. I very much
appreciate the ranking member's comments around the need to
address the backlog in the Park Service and to be efficient
with our conservation and public lands dollars.
I thought I'd bring up a situation we have in New Mexico
where we currently have a national preserve that is basically a
one off model, the Valles Caldera National Preserve. It is
almost an agency in and of itself. As a result their spending
per visitor right now is 250 per visitor. You drive across a
two lane road to the Bandolier National Monument and the
spending is $13 per visitor, oftentimes for the same visitor.
So I thought I'd bring that up. We are going to be looking
at legislation on this committee to consider transferring
management of that to the Park Service to see if we can't
achieve some level of efficiency there. So I just put that on
your radar screen.
I did want to ask a question about the work that the BLM
has done around renewable energy on public lands. I think
you've done an incredible, a lot of good work, using existing
authorities. I would note that Congress has really never
directly addressed the question of how best to site wind and
solar projects on public lands. I wanted to get your view as to
whether there are any additional authorities that you feel
would help facilitate good siting of renewable projects on
public lands and what issues you would ask us to consider if we
look at legislation on this topic?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks. Thanks for the question.
One of the things that pretty exciting to me as I enter
this job is the potential that we have to use modern techniques
like GIS mapping to better understand the whole Federal land
management picture. We have done some good work over the last
few years on understanding the solar and the wind energy
potential, understanding the underlying environmental
sensitivities. I think that's very, very useful.
There could be some things that we would work with you on
that facilitates the development. Certainly transmission, as
you're well aware of in your home State, is an important
element of that. Perhaps there's ways we can work together to
streamline that as I become more steeped in the rules and the
lawmaking process.
David, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Hayes. I would just add, Senator, that I think on the
wind side, the wind energy guidelines that came out of the
Federal Advisory Committee effort that included developers,
conservationists and government officials really do provide a
template for and criteria for siting that help developers
understand what types of sites are going to provide the least
likely conflict with birds and bats and other aviant species.
We appreciate also your support for the solar siting
approach that we've done where we've worked collaboratively
with parties to identify solar energy zones that attract
industry to the best places, we think. Our sense is that we
don't need new authority here. But we're certainly open to a
validation of these efforts. We're very pleased with the
cooperation across all interests, developers, conservationists,
tribes, States, Federal interests. Only together we've been
able to site over 12 thousand megawatts of new renewable energy
within the last 4 years.
Senator Heinrich. I will say I very much appreciate your
efforts and your attention to the transmission issues. That's
certainly something that has, you know, there's an enormous
amount of generation right now that is just waiting for the
transmission for us to be able to move energy potential from
New Mexico into markets to the West. That is the bottleneck
right now is being able to get good transmission, well sited
transmission, to do that.
Let me ask you one more question and then we'll wrap up. I
know you have a speaking engagement in a few minutes.
The Department's 2010 oil and gas leasing reforms introduce
the master leasing planning process to allow BLM to take a more
in depth look at areas opened to mineral leasing. I think we
can all agree that there are many places on our public lands
where energy development is not only appropriate but often
times the highest and best use. But there are also other places
where development may be incompatible with important uses like
hunting and fishing, watershed protection or the preservation
of important cultural sites.
How can the master leasing plans help identify and resolve
some of the conflicts we've seen there with other resources
including cultural resources and in particular tribal sacred
sites?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator. This fits right into
my comment earlier about the potential that we have on
landscape level conservation marrying together with the science
of GIS mapping.
The people on the ground in these communities, tribes know
their sacred sites. People on the ground in those communities
know the special places that are very, very important to them.
They know, you know, the land like the back of their hand.
Oil and gas companies, mineral development companies
understand the resource potential as does the U.S. Geological
Survey. It's important to know those things too so that we can
help facilitate the right kinds of transactions where there is
not conflict. If there is substantial conflict we know that up
front and we can plan accordingly. I think that's really
useful.
So David has done some great work in terms of the notion of
landscape level planning. Landscape conservation cooperatives
have been really helpful in terms of thinking about water on a
watershed at a landscape level. Fire management is another
thing. Sage Grouse habitat.
We have great potential to accelerate this right now given
the technological advancements that we have with mapping. We
just activated Landsat 8 which will give us even more data that
I think will be helpful. We can overlay those things that
people know on the ground, like the sacred sites, to better
understand that and manage the resource effectively.
Senator Heinrich. I think those tools are going to be quite
important. We're obviously, in Northwestern New Mexico, we have
incredible oil and gas resources. We also have some of the most
important archeological sites, places like Chaco Canyon and
being able to avoid those conflicts up front is always better
than trying to reverse engineer once you've got a mess on your
hands.
So I would say members of the committee are going to be
able to submit additional questions in writing. I'd certainly
ask that you answer those for inclusion in the hearing record.
I'll defer to the ranking member for your last questions.
Senator Murkowski. It's not a question, Mr. Chairman. I
just wanted to make a clarification. When I mentioned this
article yesterday in hot air with DOI, we've got a couple
different listening sessions that are going on this week in
Alaska with Mr. Boudreau. We have the BOEM hearings.
Apparently that was what the individual was referencing. So
you've got your listening session next week on the 14th is what
I understand. I am hopeful that we will have good commentary on
that.
So I just want to make sure that we're clear for the record
here that when we talk about the national Arctic strategy we're
all on the same page there.
Then just one final clarification and this relates to the
question that I had asked about ANWR and the EIS there. It's my
understanding that NEPA does require that the Department
analyze all reasonable alternatives for ANWR. This includes the
oil and gas development.
So I understand the President's position. I understand the
position that has been iterated here. But it's my understanding
that you just can't decide not to include a development
alternative because you don't have support for that. But that
the regulations, the CEQ NEPA requires that the Department
evaluate the reasonable alternatives even if it, the
alternative, would require an Act of Congress.
So I would just ask you to look at that. I understand where
the politics is on this. I'm just wanting to make sure that
we're complying with NEPA and the requirements out there.
I apologize for taking so much time. But as the Secretary
knows and Mr. Hayes knows, when we talk about the Department of
the Interior and its role in my State, there's a lot we've got
to talk about. So I appreciate that.
I look forward to seeing you in Alaska, Mr. Hayes.
Secretary, I look forward to welcoming you at the end of the
summer.
Senator Heinrich. Thanks for joining us. With that this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. In March, then Secretary Salazar responded to a letter
from Sen. Murkowski and me inquiring about the status of the operations
of the Federal Helium Reserve. The response stated that, under current
law, the Helium Production Fund will terminate when the Department
makes its final payment to the U.S. Treasury within 7 days after
October 1, 2013. According to the letter, ``when the Helium Production
Fund terminates, the Department will lose the source of funds
established to operate the Reserve and storage, transport and
withdrawal facilities and equipment at the Cliffside Field. Absent
action by Congress this would hinder or prevent management of the
Reserve, including sales and revenue.'' Can you confirm that October 7,
2013 is a hard deadline for the continued operation of the Reserve, and
that the matter requires the urgent action of Congress to prevent a
supply disruption that will have severe consequences on major sectors
of the economy, including advanced manufacturing?
Answer. The House and Senate recently passed H.R. 527, which
prevents termination of this important program and allows the Bureau of
Land Management to continue implementing the program, and the enrolled
bill was signed by the President on October 2, 2013.
Question 2. What is DOI doing to assist states, like Oregon, who
are trying to develop Sage Grouse plans and implement conservation
measures to prevent the USFWS from having to list the Greater Sage
Grouse on the ESA list?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to working
with each state within the range of the species, including the State of
Oregon, to develop a comprehensive conservation plan to address threats
to greater sage-grouse and to provide timely feedback to states about
their plans, both during plan development and upon completion of the
plans. The Service has reiterated this commitment to the Governors'
Sage-grouse Task Force and has also committed to providing the states
with a more explicit framework and/or criteria to use to report their
sage-grouse conservation efforts leading up to the 2015 decision. We
are hopeful this approach will help states and others accurately
quantify and qualify the efficacy of collective work to conserve sage-
grouse and allow the Service to conduct a comprehensive and robust
analysis of the species' status.
Question 3. With the number of wild horses in holding facilities
now surpassing 50,000, what concrete steps has the BLM taken to reduce
the holding population? Has the agency analyzed Herd Areas from which
wild horses have been eliminated to identify potential habitat areas
that would be appropriate for reintroduction of horses from holding
facilities?
Answer. The BLM's Wild Horse and Burro program is dedicated to
reducing the population of wild horses and burros currently in holding
facilities. When rangeland health concerns require the BLM to gather
and remove wild horses and burros from public lands, the BLM actively
works to place as many as possible into private care through adoptions
and sales to good homes. Ford Motor Company and Take Pride in America
have joined together through the Save the Mustangs Fund in support of
the BLM's effort to place sale-eligible animals into good homes. In
addition to humane sales and adoptions, the BLM recently delivered 300
non-reproducing wild horses to the first wild horse eco-sanctuary in
Wyoming, and is currently conducting an environmental review for a
proposed eco-sanctuary in Nevada.
Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the BLM
manages wild horse and burro herds within areas where they were found
roaming in 1971. Section 1339 of the Act states that nothing in the Act
``shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to relocate wild free-
roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they do not
presently exist.'' In many herd areas where the BLM does not manage
public lands for wild horse and burro use, herd reintroduction at this
time is not possible because the lands were transferred out of BLM
ownership; they were removed from wild horse and burro use through
court decisions; they featured checkerboard land ownerships where water
sources were not controlled by the BLM; they held substantial conflicts
with other resource values; or they did not provide critical habitat
components necessary to support a herd (such as winter range). BLM
periodically reviews wild horse and burro use of public lands through
its land use planning process.
Question 4. The Bureau of Land Management recently re-proposed its
rule on hydraulic fracturing that would apply to oil and gas operations
on federal land. I want to encourage you to personally ensure that the
BLM issues a strong final rule--one that provides for advance public
disclosure of fracking chemicals; well integrity requirements; and
sound water management, including baseline and follow-up monitoring.
Advance Disclosure of Fracking Fluids.--Why shouldn't the
public get advance notice of what fracking chemicals are used
in their vicinity? I understand that the mix of chemicals can
change after the drilling begins but why not have advance
notice supplemented by updates if the mix of chemicals change?
FracFocus.--BLM proposes to rely on FracFocus, a private
not-for-profit entity, as a means of public disclosure.
However, I understand that there is no verification of the
information that is posted by industry on that site. Also, the
site doesn't conform to federal requirements regarding data and
record retention. And it's not clear that regulators can
enforce if false information is provided on a private website.
Will the final rule require that any internet site relied on by
BLM for public disclosure address these problems?
Backstop Standard.--At the Committee's Natural Gas hearing
earlier this year, Frances Beinecke of NRDC raised an
interesting point about having some sort of a national backstop
standard to reassure the public that our water resources are
protected, given the boom in hydraulic fracturing that is
likely to continue for the foreseeable future. What do you
think about that?
Answer. The revised proposal, on which the Department sought public
comments until August 23, 2013, supports the Administration's
commitment to an all-of-the-above approach to energy development by
expanding domestic oil and gas production on public lands in a safe and
responsible way in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil imports.
BLM's current regulations governing hydraulic fracturing operations on
public and Indian lands have been on the books since 1983 and were not
written to address modern hydraulic fracturing activities.
As indicated in the revised proposal, a number of comments were
received requesting that BLM require up-front disclosure of the
chemicals proposed for use in fracking fluid. In response, BLM noted
that an analysis of the impacts from fracking is done as part of the
National Environmental Policy Act analysis conducted prior to the
issuance of permits and that, for this purpose, the exact composition
of the fluid proposed for use is not required because chemicals used in
the process are generally considered potentially hazardous for the
purpose of impact analysis and mitigation. Also, operators will be
aware that the rule requires disclosure of chemicals after operations
are complete and operators will also be required to certify that the
fluid used complied with all applicable permitting and notice
requirements and all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules,
and regulations. Finally, operators would also be required to certify
that wellbore integrity was maintained prior to and throughout fracking
operations. Through these requirements, BLM believes that the post-
fracturing disclosures and certifications would provide adequate
assurances that fracking operations protect public health and safety
and protect federal and Indian resources, and will ensure that the
public is informed about the specifics of the actual fracking
operations which are ultimately performed. Moreover, it is the practice
in the industry for operators to change fracking contractors and for
the fracking contractors to change the chemicals used for a variety of
reasons. Thus, a prior disclosure rule would either provide the public
with information of low reliability, or the operators would have to
delay operations every time a chemical was changed from its previously
filed plan. Neither of those options would promote the goals of the
rulemaking.
Similarly, comments were received on the FRACFOCUS issue referenced
in the question and were addressed in the revised proposal. BLM
recognized and understood that FracFocus is in the process of improving
the database with enhanced search capabilities to allow for easier
reporting of information. Moreover, information submitted to the BLM
through FracFocus will still be required to comply with this federal
rule, including its requirements that the operator must certify the
information submitted is correct.
Finally, the Department agrees that it is important that the public
has full confidence that the right safety and environmental protections
are in place. The revised proposed rule will modernize BLM's management
of hydraulic fracturing operations and help to establish baseline
environmental safeguards for these operations across all public and
Indian lands.
Question 5. The Department of Interior has had an Acting Inspector
General since February 23, 2009--a period of more than four years--when
the President appointed Earl Devaney to chair the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board. It is important that the
Department of Interior have a permanent watchdog who can lead the 300
employees in its mission to ``provide independent oversight and promote
excellence, integrity and accountability within the programs,
operations, and management of the Department of Interior.'' Will you
work with the White House and the Committee to bring a qualified
nominee to the Senate for confirmation?
Answer. This is an important position and we will work with the
White House to ensure continued excellence and integrity.
Questions 6-7. Less than a decade ago, energy experts said that
coal, like natural gas, was a commodity the U.S. would be importing
rather than exporting. But last year the U.S. exported 125 million tons
of coal, the most in 30 years. Arch Coal estimates the nation's coal
export capacity will double over the next five years, with proposed
coal terminals in Oregon, Washington, as well as the Gulf and East
coasts. With protection of federal and state revenue in mind, Ranking
Member Murkowski and I wrote a letter in January that prompted the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue to begin an audit of coal mined on
federal land then sold to international buyers.
What progress has the Office of Natural Resources Revenue and its
state audit partners made since the audits began earlier this year?
Answer. In December 2012, ONRR formed a special task force that
includes our state auditor partners to review U.S. federal coal mines
located in the Powder River Basin through a risk-based audit and
compliance action plan. ONRR is also working closely with the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG) office as needed to provide a further check
on overseas coal sales.
To date, the task force has reviewed all sales summaries and sales
contracts submitted by federal coal lessees to ONRR for all PRB mines/
leases. The goal was to identify whether additional documentation is
needed to determine if reported transactions are U.S. coal export sales
from federal leases involving non-affiliated or affiliated marketers or
brokers and non-affiliated foreign companies. ONRR has also identified
the universe of ONRR and State partners' completed or current audits of
PRB coal mines/leases through a review of audit work plans covering
sales in CYs 2009 through 2011. In addition, ONRR and its auditing
partners in Wyoming and Montana are auditing all 15 producing federal
Powder River Basin coal mines in their Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014 audit
work plans.
Question 8. The agency is using a risk-based strategy to narrow the
number of leases and mines that are being audited. How many leases or
mines have been identified as being in need of an audit, and what
percentage of leases or mines being reviewed does this group represent?
Answer. ONRR and its state audit partners are auditing all 15
producing federal PRB mines for calendar years 2009 through 2011, to
verify whether export sales are occurring from a mine and whether coal
lessees are properly valuing coal production under federal statutes,
lease terms, and regulations.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. Do you support the implementation of some form of
revenue sharing to coastal energy producing states, specifically the
acceleration of GOMESA?
Do you believe that allowing coastal states to share in the
revenues that they produce will allow those states to implement
important coastal protection measures, protecting invaluable
infrastructure, wilderness and population centers?
Answer. The Administration has been clear that all American
taxpayers, who own the nation's natural resources and public assets,
should get a fair return from the sale of the public resources. It is
through continued rigorous dialogue with stakeholders that the
Department, as steward of our public lands and waters, must strike the
right balance of the interests of local communities and the public
owners of the resource as the President's all-of-the-above energy
strategy is advanced.
Question 2. Do you see room for improvement in the current
permitting system for on and offshore oil and gas development?
Specifically, do you see a way to bring the time required to
process onshore permits on Federal lands more in line with the time
required to process permits for practically identical private lands?
Currently, one issue I hear come up frequently regarding offshore
permitting is the issue of permits being ``deemed received''-
essentially, permits are being returned to their submitters multiple
for spelling and other minor errors before they may be reviewed for
technical criteria, slowing the process of permit submission and
review. Do you support a commonsense reworking of this system to allow
permits which are 100 percent technically accurate, but may have
differing abbreviations or very minor typos to be considered without
the process of return and resubmission?
Answer. The leasing reforms put in place by the Department in 2010
established an open and environmentally sound process for developing
oil and gas resources on public lands in a manner that maintains a
robust leasing system and provides certainty in acquiring federal oil
and gas leases. We will continue to maximize efficiencies and to work
with industry and the public to ensure that these resources are
developed safely and responsibly, while also delivering a fair return
to the American taxpayer, businesses and communities. As noted at the
hearing, BLM is also taking steps to implement an online permitting
system that is designed to reduce the time it takes to process drilling
permits, and the bureau recently hosted an interagency meeting that
included executives from multiple agencies to establish strategies for
decreasing permitting times while improving environmental outcomes.
Offshore, BOEM has achieved substantial efficiencies in its review
process for offshore oil and gas exploration and development plans,
while requiring compliance with the heightened safety and environmental
protection standards. Exploration and development plans for deepwater
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico submitted between October 2010 and
October 2011 averaged 190 days from submission to approval. In
contrast, since October 2011 these plans have averaged 125 days for
approval. Similarly, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) achieved an average review time of 52 days for deepwater permits
in 2012, down from 83 days in 2011, all while requiring compliance with
the heightened safety standards. The FY 2014 budget includes a package
of legislative reforms to bolster and back-stop administrative actions
being taken to reform the management of Interior's onshore and offshore
oil and gas programs, with a key focus on improving the return to
taxpayers from the sale of these federal resources.
Question 3. Though immunocontraception tools have been used on wild
horses for research purposes, the BLM has vaccinated only a relatively
small handful of horses over the years. The NAS indicates that this is
the most promising technology that is available to humanely reduce
population growth without resorting to removals.
Why has the BLM been seemingly so resistant to embracing and using
the technology and how will you ensure that the agency begins to fully
utilize this methodology to control wild horse population growth while
limited or eliminating capture and removal of animals.
Answer. The BLM's Wild Horse and Burro program utilizes a variety
of strategies to ensure herd populations are maintained within the
land's capacity to support them. Since 1978, BLM efforts to safely and
sustainably control herd population growth have included support for
the development of an effective contraceptive agent. Several approaches
developed in that time were tried but abandoned as ineffective or
impractical. The BLM currently utilizes the immunocontraceptive vaccine
Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) in the formulations known as ZonaStat-H
and PZP22; however, appreciable decreases in on-the-range herd growth
rates as a result of these treatments have not yet been apparent--in
part because too few mares were treated but also because the duration
of effectiveness is too short lived. The President's Fiscal Year 2014
budget provides $2 million in funding for the implementation of
recommendations made in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
independent review of BLM wild horse and burro management practices.
The BLM is currently considering the report's findings, and will
evaluate contraception and population growth suppression
recommendations for potential implementation on the range.
Unfortunately, the impacts of the sequestration will be unavoidable and
will result in difficult choices in future budgets.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Cantwell
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Question 1. We've learned that climate change is causing more
extreme storm events and changing seasonal temperatures and
precipitation patterns in the Pacific Northwest. Some parts of the
Cascades have already experienced a more than 30 percent decline in
spring snow water melt-off over the past five decades, and the April
1st snowpack at mid and low elevation basins is projected to decline by
44 percent by the 2020s.
In the Yakima Basin, agricultural output is highly sensitive to
water availability, and to potential impacts of climate change that
increase the probability of water shortages. Expected annual crop
losses due to water shortage increases are estimated to be $79 million
by midcentury, roughly six times the historic average losses. While we
need to begin reducing carbon emissions as much as we can and as soon
as possible, natural resources will continue to be hurt due to the
carbon pollution already in the atmosphere. In anticipation of coming
water challenges, we've been working on long term management plans in
Washington state. Particularly, the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water
Resource Management Plan is the product of extraordinary work and
compromise with many potential long term benefits for both farmers and
the environment.
The tens of millions of dollars that Washington State has already
contributed and is planning to contribute into the Integrated Plan
demonstrate the commitment of a diverse group of stakeholders to
ensuring adequate water supplies in Yakima valley and adequate flows
for fish as the region faces increasingly erratic snow fall patterns.
While we appreciate the Administration's inclusion of $8 million in its
FY14 budget for enhancement projects in the Yakima River Basin, there
will have to be a significant federal commitment over the long term to
make this happen and realize all of these benefits. Former Secretary
Salazar came to the Yakima Valley and expressed support for these
efforts. Will you continue support for the Integrated Plan at the
federal level, and will you give due consideration for funding projects
on the Yakima River as part of the FY15 budget process that is already
underway?
Answer. The Administration's FY 2014 budget request included $8
million for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, and due
consideration will be given to funding programs and projects on the
Yakima River as part of the FY 2015 budget process. In the meantime,
the Department continues to partner with the Washington State
Department of Ecology on the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water
Resource Management Plan (Integrated Plan), along with the Yakama
Nation, irrigation districts, environmental groups, and local and
county governments.
Ongoing Departmental activities in the Yakima Basin include the
completion of the Yakima River Basin Study under the Bureau of
Reclamation's WaterSMART Basin Study Program, jointly funded with the
Washington State Department of Ecology; coordination with basin
stakeholders to implement early action items from the Integrated Plan;
funding early action items such as the Manastash Creek Project to
increase instream flows and the Cle Elum Fish Passage; and the release
of the Final programmatic environmental impact statement in March 2012.
Reclamation and the Washington State Department of Ecology developed
the proposed Integrated Plan, which has the strong support from basin
stakeholders.
WOLF MANAGEMENT FUNDING
Question 2. Montana and Idaho received over $500,000 in FY11 and
FY12, and Wyoming has received over $300 over that time for wolf
management activities. Over that same period, Washington, which was the
only one of these states that currently had Endangered-Species-Act-
listed wolves present, is expected to receive only $50,000 in FY13 for
wolf activities. Washington received only $100,000 in FY12.
Do you feel that this disparity in funding levels is fair and
equitable, given the greater burden on Washington State for managing
the recovery of wolves under the Endangered Species Act? Will you work
with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure
that adequate resources are available to implement the wolf recovery
plan in Washington state?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working closely
with the State of Washington on their recovery plan for gray wolves and
will continue to do so. Generally, once a species is delisted, the
amount of funding available to assist in their management is reduced.
When a species is delisted, a minimum of five years of post-delisting
monitoring is required under the Endangered Species Act. Wyoming,
Montana, and Idaho have and will continue to receive funds to support
post delisting monitoring efforts until the five year period ends. Last
year FWS also provided recovery funds to Oregon and Washington to
assist in building capacity for wolf management and is also providing
recovery funds this year.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. The State of Michigan is home to 36,000 miles of rivers
of streams, many of which flow through major cities like Detroit,
Flint, Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo. As you can imagine, these rivers
face many challenges in an urban setting, including contamination, fish
passage and spawning problems, and pollution run off. I am pleased that
the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, which includes the Department of
the Interior, will be working with the City of Grand Rapids on
rehabilitating the stretch of the Grand River that runs through the
city. This work is important in tackling problems that this river has
faced for decades and serves as a good example of how people at the
local, state, and federal levels can work together to support urban
waterways nationwide. Could you please describe the plans of the
Department of Interior's to work with our nation's cities on providing
cleaner, safer rivers for our urban areas?
Answer. The Urban Waters Federal Partnership is an innovative union
of thirteen federal agencies that is improving coordination and
collaborating with local community-led revitalization efforts. This
program is a key component of the America's Great Outdoors initiative.
By uniting landowners, businesses, nonprofit organizations, tribes, and
local, state and federal agencies, we can lead the efforts to stop
pollution of the waterways and make them safe for recreational use. In
2013, Grand Rapids was selected as one of 20 AGO national urban
projects, as well as one of eleven new Urban Waters Federal Partnership
locations. America's cities serve as centers for innovation and engines
for economic growth. By coordinating efforts of federal agencies, and
collaborating with community revitalization efforts, we can improve our
nation's water systems and promote their economic, environmental, and
social benefits.
Question 2. As you know, the National Park Services is facing
$153.4 million in cuts due to sequestration. The timing of these cuts
are especially concerning as we approach tourism season in the State of
Michigan. My state is home to five national parks that attract millions
of visitors each year, generating over $159 million for the economy.
The parks play an integral role in enhancing communities, business,
and Michigan's way of life. For example, Isle Royale in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula contributes an estimated $2 million to nearby
communities. However, due to the cuts forced by sequestration, the park
is shutting down facilities, reducing law enforcement, and will not be
hiring staff to ensure visitors have access to safe drinking water.
This will undoubtedly affect not only how the park functions, but the
economic benefit the park provides for local communities.
What effect are you expecting the sequestration cuts to have in
terms of economic impact and attendance at our nation's parks?
Answer. In planning for the sequestration cuts, the National Park
Service (NPS) took care to minimize the potential negative effects of
sequestration on visitors. However, with a reduction of this magnitude,
implemented in a compressed timeframe of seven months, the impacts are
not entirely avoidable. The NPS has delayed road openings and reduced
hours of operation for programs and services. In addition, the NPS has
hired about 1,000 fewer seasonal employees for the summer of 2013 than
were hired last year and will leave approximately 900 permanent
vacancies unfilled for the remainder of FY 2013. These actions are
resulting in some diminished services for visitors. In addition, as
parks adjust operating seasons and facility staffing schedules, we
expect to see negative impacts to park entrance fee revenue, concession
revenue, and the economies of gateway communities. However, we do not
know the impact sequestration is having on park attendance, since
attendance levels are based on a variety of factors.
Question 3. As you know, the Department of Interior is a member of
the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and shares responsibility for
providing funds through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
I am glad the President's FY2014 Budget proposes to at least keep
funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at levels similar to
FY2013. It is imperative that the federal government continue to focus
on projects that will improve and protect this region.
Since the start of the Initiative, the Great Lakes are experiencing
a resurgence in Lake Sturgeon and other native fish populations, as
well as reduced contamination by toxins. And as our hunters and anglers
can attest, natural habitat has been restored in many areas.
The GLRI has also helped introduce new methods to combat the
destructive sea lamprey eel, and is a key source of funding to address
the growing threat of Asian carp to the Great Lakes region.
Can you please describe how the Department of Interior plans to
work with other federal agencies to combat the spread of Asian carp and
other invasive species?
Answer. Protecting the Great Lakes ecosystems and fisheries from
invasion by the Asian carp is a significant challenge. Confronting this
issue is a major priority of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GLRI), an unprecedented regional collaborative effort under the Obama
administration to restore ecosystem health in the Great Lakes. The FWS
and the USGS, partners in the implementation of the GLRI, serve on the
Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, a multi-agency body that
coordinates an intensive, comprehensive strategy with federal, state
and local partners to stop the spread of Asian carp in the Great Lakes.
The FWS is also providing technical assistance and support to the Great
Lakes states to monitor for the presence of Asian carp.
The USGS is researching use of seismic technology to contain Asian
carp; determining the potential use of pheromones or food cues to herd
Asian carp; and developing and improving existing molecular tools to
detect Asian carp in areas of low abundance. USGS researchers are also
working closely with private industry to develop chemical formulations
for new control methods that can target specific aquatic invasive
species. However, we note that the impacts of the sequestration will be
unavoidable and will result in difficult choices in future budgets.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. The Land and Water Conservation Fund budget request is
for a funding level of $600 million, which represents a nearly $300
million increase above the current level for DOI agencies and the
Forest Service. Shouldn't these funds be used to pay down our
maintenance backlog? With such an enormous maintenance backlog, why
would DOI focus such a large amount of money on acquiring more federal
land.
Answer. The commitment for the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
proposed by President Kennedy and enacted in 1964, is to use a portion
of the proceeds from the development of our public lands and waters for
investments in conservation and recreation for the benefit of all
Americans. Enactment of a mandatory LWCF program would ensure continued
funding for this program designed to balance investments in
conservation and recreation with the development of oil and gas
resources. This funding will provide stability needed for agencies and
States to make strategic, long-term investments in our natural
infrastructure and outdoor economy to support jobs, preserve natural
and cultural resources, bolster outdoor recreation opportunities, and
protect wildlife. The Department also takes seriously its
responsibility to maintain facilities and infrastructure, and the
budget request proposes $4.7 billion in fiscal year 2014 for core land
management operations, a $141 million increase from 2012. Within this
is $585 million for maintenance of our parks, refuges, and public
lands, a $5 million increase from 2012. The Department is committed to
working with the Committee to explore available opportunities for a
long-term solution to these funding issues.
Question 2. More generally, how do you reconcile additional federal
land acquisition at this time of staggering national debt and
maintenance backlogs?
Answer. The land acquisition component of our budget request is a
long-term investment as part of a balanced approach intended to protect
our natural and cultural treasures and support the robust outdoor
recreation economy. LWCF funds are used to acquire parcels to create
and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation areas and
facilities and to stimulate non-federal investments in the protection
and maintenance of recreation resources across the United States.
Strategic land acquisition allows DOI to join with partners to conserve
significant landscapes before they require more expensive efforts to
sustain them, resolve conflict, and reduce landscape fragmentation
making it more efficient to protect wildlife habitat, respond to
wildfires, and other natural disasters and to improve access to
recreational opportunities. The program also provides matching grants
to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of
outdoor recreation areas, helping to create and maintain nationwide
high-quality recreation areas and to stimulate non-federal investments
in recreation resources. Permanent authorization and mandatory funding
also provide certainty for planning and accomplishing our priority
conservation efforts, coordinated in concert with our state and tribal
partners.
Question 3. Recently, the National Park Service has closed a number
of preserves in Alaska to certain methods of bear and wolf hunting or
shortened the hunting seasons as defined by the Alaska Board of Game.
When instituting the closures, the NPS has cited ``Park Values'' in
those closures. Please provide a definition of ``Park Values.'' Please
be specific.
Answer. In the last several years, the State of Alaska has adopted
measures to reduce predators in order to increase game (generally moose
and caribou) for human consumption. State regulations that seek to
manipulate natural wildlife populations for human consumption are
inconsistent with NPS statutes, regulations, and policies. Section 101
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487)
cites ``values'' among the purposes for establishing conservation
areas. Section 1313 of the Act authorizes NPS to designate zones where
and periods when to close or restrict hunting in preserves for reasons
of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or
public use and enjoyment. Additional definition of park resources and
values are found at Section 1.4.6 of the 2006 NPS Management Policies.
Question 4. Do you believe that the State of Alaska has the right
to manage wildlife within the borders of the State? When is it proper
for the federal government to reverse State Board of Game decisions?
Answer. In general, the State of Alaska manages wildlife within the
State. In some cases, however, the federal government must act to
ensure that State measures do not compromise wildlife conservation and
management actions mandated by federal law. By law and policy, non-
conflicting State general hunting and trapping regulations are adopted
on lands within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and on National Park Service (NPS)
Preserves. However, there have been instances when State regulations
created direct conflicts with federal statutes and policies underlying
the management of NWRS and NPS lands. In those instances, it is
appropriate for the federal government to act to supersede state
regulations. For NWRS lands in Alaska, a number of statutes provide
authority and directives, including the following three key statutes:
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the NWRS
Administration Act (as amended), and the Wilderness Act. In addition,
FWS policies 601 FW 3 (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health) and 610 FW 2 (Wilderness Stewardship Policy)
provide guidance as to actions that are allowable on NWRS lands.
Practices that are counter to NWRS requirements are also
inconsistent with NPS statutes, regulations, and policies on wildlife
management and hunting. Additionally, Title VIII of the Alaska National
Lands Conservation Act provides for a subsistence priority on federal
public lands in Alaska. Accordingly, it is also appropriate for the
Federal Subsistence Board to override the State of Alaska's decisions
if those decisions were contrary to Title VIII of ANILCA. Finally, we
note that before regulations are issued, the proposals are subject to
public notice and comment including from the State of Alaska, tribes,
localities and interested stakeholders.
Question 5. Last month, BLM released new draft regulations on
hydraulic fracturing. While the new proposal did make some improvements
over the previous draft, states are best positioned to regulate
hydraulic fracturing that occurs within their borders. BLM appears to
recognize the important role states play by including provisions that
would allow for a ``variance'' from these rules when state regulations
``meet or exceed'' federal law. However, it is unclear how this
variance process would work.
Could a blanket variance from the regulations be provided if a
state's rules ``meet or exceed'' federal law? If not, why not, and
which regulations could a state not obtain a variance from?
Answer. The revised proposed rule would allow for two kinds of
variances. One would be proposed by an operator that has a technology
that will be as effective in protecting the resources as a requirement
in the rule. The other would be developed with a state or a tribe and
would apply to all lands within that state or tribal lands, or in
specific fields or basins.
An approved variance would allow the use of an alternative
standard, technology, or process that meets or exceeds the hydraulic
fracturing rule's protections of the public's resources and lands.
However, variances are not necessary in many of the situations where a
state's regulation meets or exceeds standards in the hydraulic
fracturing rule. If an operator, through compliance with state rules,
is automatically meeting the requirements of the hydraulic fracturing
rule, no variance is necessary.
In those cases where compliance with state rules would not
automatically put the operator in compliance with the hydraulic
fracturing rule, the revised proposed rule would allow the BLM to
approve a variance that would apply to all lands within a field, a
basin, a state or within Indian lands and that would be based on the
BLM's determination that it will meet or exceed the objectives of the
regulation. The variance process would allow the BLM to work with
States or tribes to appropriately adapt the regulatory requirements to
the unique geology of an area or defer to a standard, technology, or
process required or allowed by State or tribal government, as long as
application of the standard, technology, or process meets or exceeds
the objectives of the hydraulic fracturing rule. BLM would issue the
variance in cooperation with the state or tribe. The variance would
apply only to the requirements of the hydraulic fracturing regulations.
Question 6. Once it's been determined that the state's regulations
``meet or exceed'' federal law, what federal obligations would remain
for the regulated entity?
Answer. The hydraulic fracturing rule contemplates that variances
would be granted as to specific requirements under it. If BLM in
cooperation with a state has issued a variance from certain provisions
of the hydraulic fracturing regulation, then compliance with the state
rules specified in the variance will be deemed compliance with the
specific provisions of the fracking rule. All requirements of the
Mineral Leasing Act, or the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands,
other federal statutes and other all regulations would continue to
apply to all lessees and operators.
Question 7. BOEM is in the process of developing Arctic-specific
regulations for the exploration and development of Alaska's OCS oil and
gas resources. Exploration has been delayed in part because of the
regulatory uncertainty surrounding oil and gas projects in the Arctic
OCS.
What is the timeline for the development of these regulations? Is
it your intent to have these regulations in place in time for a 2014
drilling season?
Answer. The Department plans to have proposed Alaska OCS
regulations published in the Federal Register by the end of 2013. As
part of the process, the Department held Listening Sessions to obtain
public comments in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska, on June 6 and 7,
respectively. We anticipate developing a performance-based approach
that will fully inform BOEM and BSEE how lessees plan to achieve safe
operations under the operating conditions likely to be experienced
while drilling and while transporting equipment into and out of the
Alaska operating theater.
Question 8. How will you intend the new regulations to impact
Exploration Plans and Oil Spill Response Plans for 2014?
Answer. There have been no proposals received for 2014. Since it is
unlikely the regulations will be in place for 2014, if a proposal were
to be submitted for 2014, appropriate Arctic-specific standards would
be put in place as conditions of approval for Exploration Plans and Oil
Spill Response Plans.
One of the goals of the rulemaking is to codify and further develop
Arctic-specific standards that were applied during the 2012 drilling
season. As a result, these standards would be in place for all
companies that may propose drilling offshore Alaska, rather than impose
the standards on an operation-by-operation basis.
Question 9. What will the stakeholder engagement process look like?
Answer. BOEM and BSEE are already actively engaged in obtaining
stakeholder input on the development of the proposed Alaska OCS
regulations. The stakeholder engagement process began with public
outreach efforts in the form of Listening Sessions, held in Anchorage
and Barrow, on June 6 and 7. Public comments will also be accepted
through Regulations.gov. In addition, BOEM and BSEE held more detailed
meetings with industry, non-governmental organizations, State of
Alaska, local government, and Native Alaskans and Tribes in Anchorage
on June 17 through 19. The purpose of these follow-up meetings was to
obtain a more comprehensive understanding of concerns and criteria for
consideration in the proposed rules.
Stakeholder comments will be used to develop the scope of the
Alaska OCS regulations and identify appropriate issues applicable for
BOEM and BSEE oversight to ensure safe and responsible oil and gas
exploration, development, and production on the Alaskan OCS. BOEM and
BSEE will develop draft regulations that addresses issues and goals
identified during the comment period.
The proposed Alaska OCS regulations will be published in the
Federal Register, and stakeholder input will again be solicited.
Question 10. BOEM has worked with NMFS on the EIS for the impacts
of oil and gas activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. There are
major problems with this document, including development alternatives
that are not realistic and the lack of participation from relevant
agencies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service expressly declined to participate in
the EIS, yet the EIS still analyzes impacts to polar bears and
walruses--species for which the Service has trust responsibility. Why
was this approach taken? Will these species be removed from the next
draft? If not, please explain why not.
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to be a
cooperating agency on the Arctic EIS in 2010 because it had recently
completed Environmental Assessments (EA) on the effects of oil and gas
activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas on polar bears and Pacific
walruses in conjunction with issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act
Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs). The potential effects of oil and
gas activities on polar bears and Pacific walruses had been adequately
addressed in the ITRs and effectively considered in the EAs. Instead,
the Service offered to provide copies of these EAs and an informal
review and comment on the Draft EIS. The Service is currently reviewing
the Draft EIS and, as appropriate, will provide feedback to National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Since both the polar bear and Pacific walrus occur in the area of
the Arctic EIS, the Service expects that NMFS would retain discussion
of each in the Final EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act
requires that all resources in an action area are analyzed in an EIS
regardless of which agency has jurisdiction. Because polar bears and
walruses are important resources in the Arctic region, NMFS must
analyze any potential impacts to them.
Question 11. The new draft also appears to cap each company to one
drilling rig at a time per Sea. This is inconsistent with Exploration
Plans previously submitted and approved by BOEM. Is it BOEM's intent to
limit exploration in this way? If it is, what is BOEM's rationale for
the change of course? If it isn't, will BOEM clarify this point in the
next draft?
Answer. NMFS is the action agency on the Draft Supplemental EIS
(SEIS). The purpose of the Draft SEIS is to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of seismic and exploration activities for the
purpose of informing NMFS' decisions regarding authorizations for the
incidental take of marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
The seismic and exploration activities analyzed in the Draft SEIS
are not limited to one drilling unit at a time per sea per company. The
alternatives analyzed in the Draft SEIS consider up to four drilling
units operating in each sea at one time.
It is important to note that a NEPA document is not a decision
document; rather, it is an analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with particular activities. BOEM will use the information in
the Draft SEIS, as appropriate, to inform its own decisions for
specific projects.
Question 12. The new draft appears to have no timeline--for
example, the last draft covered a 5-year period, this draft does not.
Is there precedent for an environmental document with no timeline? What
was the rationale for an open-ended document?
Answer. The Draft Supplemental document provides an analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of a reasonable range of OCS activities
that changes and adds to the analysis begun in the 2011 Draft EIS.
Question 13. How do you plan to ensure that this document is not
used to limit exploration in the Arctic?
Answer. As previously noted, the Draft SEIS is not a decision
document but is an analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with particular activities. BOEM will use the information in
the Draft SEIS, as appropriate, to inform its own decisions for
specific projects, and all decisions made will be consistent with
statutory authority.
Question 14. The Fish and Wildlife Service's draft conservation
plan and EIS for ANWR did not include a development alternative for oil
and gas in the coastal plain. The Service's rationale for this omission
appears to be that development requires an Act of Congress. However,
the draft plan included several alternatives for additional wilderness
and wild and scenic rivers, which also require an Act of Congress.
Will the final conservation plan and EIS for ANWR include an oil
and gas development alternative? If not, why not? And if the reason
that the oil and gas development alternative was omitted is that, as a
policy matter, the President does not favor oil and gas development for
ANWR, on what legal basis has the oil and gas development alternative
been omitted?
Answer. The final conservation plan and EIS have not yet been
finalized and, as such, it would not be appropriate to speculate as to
the content of any final documents. However, any additional exploration
would require Congressional authorization because it is currently
prohibited under the terms of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act.
Question 15. When do you expect the final plan to be released?
Answer. While there is no date set for release of the plan, the FWS
has completed its public engagement process and the plan and companion
EIS are currently under review.
Question 16. Last month, the State of Alaska presented an oil and
gas resource evaluation and resource proposal for ANWR and offered to
provide $50 million to help complete seismic work. Does the Department
intend to move forward with the State's proposal? If not, why not?
Answer. As noted in response to Q. 14, any additional exploration
in the coastal plain would require Congressional authorization because
it is currently prohibited by the terms of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act.
Question 17. The U.S. Geological Survey has steadily reduced the
amount of geological surveying that it conducts. These activities
accounted for less than 9 percent of the USGS budget in FY 2012. The
rest was spent on facilities, climate change research, and other
activities. Yet the USGS has managed to use hyperspectral imaging to
map 96 percent of Afghanistan with DOD funding. But only 5 percent of
the U.S. has been mapped using these same technologies.
When the Afghan data was released, a DOD official stated that ``The
mineral resources in Afghanistan have the potential to completely
transform the nation's economy.'' I agree that surveying is important,
and that it facilitates investment, but American mineral resources
provide an equally significant opportunity to transform our own
economy.
For this reason, I sent a letter to the President--with a dozen of
my Senate colleagues--explaining that we believe the next nominee for
Director of the USGS should be an economic geologist. The position of
USGS Director remains vacant, and it is clear to me that someone with a
background in economic geology would be best suited to restore an
emphasis on the activities contemplated by the agency's Organic Act. Do
you agree?
Please share your perspective on mission creep at the USGS over the
years, and any thoughts you might have on how to restore the agency's
focus on conducting geological surveys.
Answer. In 2014, the USGS will celebrate 135 years of providing the
Nation with reliable scientific information. The Administration is
evaluating potential nominees who will ensure strong leadership is
brought to the USGS.
The Department, mainly through the USGS, serves the Nation by
providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand
the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters;
manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance
and protect our quality of life. Research on and assessments of the
location, quantity, and quality of the Nation's and world's mineral and
energy resources, including economic and environmental effects of
resource extraction and use, are supported through a range of USGS
programs and provide valuable contributions to the President's ``all-
of-the-above'' strategy for energy development. The USGS continually
works to enhance its ability to bring its core strengths to bear on the
challenges the Nation faces today and into the future.
Conducting geological surveys remains an important component of the
USGS mission. Application of remote sensing technologies, such as the
hyperspectral survey of Afghanistan funded by DOD, here at home in the
United States is helping to delineate areas that may contain concealed
mineral resources. A survey released at the beginning of this year of
the U.S. mid-continent conducted by USGS minerals scientists imaged
deep subsurface structures similar to those associated with mineral
resources now being mined in Canada. The USGS's role in understanding
the Nation's mineral endowment is essential to supporting national
security and a robust economy. However, assessments of mineral and
energy resource potential, using tools such as geological surveying or
remote sensing, are but one component of the USGS's activities to
produce decision-ready information. For example, in early September the
USGS made available as part of its Alaska Mapping Initiative more than
400 new topographic maps for the State of Alaska. These digital,
layered maps update foundational data for the State and replace the
existing 50 year old maps.
The 2014 budget requested support for several programs that will
continue to enhance our understanding of domestic energy and mineral
resources including $28.3 million for the National Cooperative
Geological Mapping Program, which advances the understanding of earth-
surface processes, groundwater availability and quality, and energy and
mineral resources; $46.4 million for the Minerals Resources Program to
support data collection and research on a wide variety of nonfuel
mineral resources; and $31 million for the Energy Resources Program,
which addresses the challenge of increasing demand for energy sources
by conducting basic and applied research on geologic energy resources
and on the environmental and human health impacts of their production
and use.
Question 18. What is the process and current status of nominee
selection for USGS Director?
Answer. Science plays an important role at the Department and this
is an important position. The Administration intends to ensure that
USGS remains a world leader in basic research, and as part of that
commitment we are reviewing highly qualified candidates for this
position.
Question 19. Alaska is the largest state in the United States. It
has roughly 229 million acres of land in federal ownership, more than
any other state in the country. The federal lands in Alaska alone
exceed 36 percent of the total land area of the state of Texas, the
second largest state in the nation. As a result, PILT payments make up
the largest percent of federal land payments in Alaska. PILT payments
have not gone out yet but are expected to go out sometime this summer.
How will sequestration affect PILT payments?
Answer. The 2013 authorized level for PILT payments is $421.7
million, which was reduced by $21.5 million due to sequestration. After
administrative expenses, a total of $399.8 million is allocated for
payments to counties.
Question 20. When does the Department plan to make its PILT
payments to states?
Answer. On June 13, 2013, The Department announced it will be
making payments to counties totaling $399.8 million; and payments were
made that day to over 1,900 local governments. A breakdown of payments
by state and county can be found at the following website: http://
www.doi.gov/pilt/county-payments.cfm
Question 21. You recently described the condition of our western
forests as a tinderbox and called for more focus on reducing the
hazardous fuel loads on public lands. Yet, the FY2014 budget proposal
for the Department, if enacted, would result in steep budget cuts to
your hazardous fuels programs--a 50 percent cut. What is the rationale
behind these budget cuts?
Answer. The budget request provides funding to cover anticipated
preparedness and suppression needs, and we developed a sequestration
implementation plan that preserves our fire response capabilities in
the short term. We have concerns that long-term effects of the
sequestration are unavoidable. One of the difficult choices that this
budget makes is a reduction to the hazardous fuels budget.
Question 22. What do you understand the relationship to be between
the Department's hazardous fuel reduction programs and its wildfire
management program?
Answer. The Department's Wildland Fire Management Program is a
Department-wide program that funds fire preparedness, suppression, and
rehabilitation activities carried out by the Department's land
management bureaus (and the Bureau of Indian Affairs). Generally,
hazardous fuels reduction activities are part of that program and are
carried out to remove or modify wildland fuels to reduce the risk of
intense wildfire behavior, lessen post-fire damage, limit the spread
and proliferation of invasive species and diseases, and restore and
maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems. Along with improving fire risk
reduction and suppression, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and
promoting community assistance, hazardous fuels reduction is one of the
goals identified in the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management
Strategy. Consistent with the Strategy, the Wildland Fire Management
Program is continuing to focus fuels reduction on the highest priority
projects in the highest priority areas resulting in the mitigation of
risks to communities and their values.
Question 23. In Northwest Alaska, with the increase in ships
transiting the Northwest Passage, there is a growing need for America
to develop a northern Arctic port that can be used to base
environmental cleanup equipment to aid with shipping accidents or oil
and gas development or other activities in the Arctic. Soon, the U.S.
Coast Guard will be turning back to your Bureau of Land Management a
several thousand acre tract at Port Clarence, the site of now-abandoned
Loran Station. Alaska's Bering Straits Native Corporation, the
corporation representing Alaska Natives in the area, selected that site
back in 1976 as one of its prime land selections under terms of 1971's
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Corporation is perfectly
willing to reserve for the Coast Guard areas at Port Clarence for it to
use for docks and air facilities for future operations. Options should
be opened to speed development of one or more facilities to handle
Arctic development needs.
Will you commit to work with Alaska to accelerate the Port Clarence
land conveyance to Bering Straits once the Coast Guard's needs have
been fully met in any agreement?
Answer. The Department supports the goals of completing ANCSA
entitlements as soon as possible so that Alaska Native corporations can
take advantage of the economic benefits of completed entitlements. BLM
is committed to exploring opportunities for completing the Port
Clarence land conveyance in a manner that ensures the Coast Guard's
needs are met in a timely fashion.
Question 24. You recently stated that it is the Obama
administration's position to build a ``strong renewable energy
portfolio on our public lands and water.'' This is evident in the
Administration's approval of 45 solar, wind, and geothermal power
projects on over 250,000 acres of federal land since 2009. Missing from
this equation however, are sustainable hydroelectric power projects.
Hydropower remains a viable, proven source of clean renewable energy
and must be a part of our public lands energy portfolio.
Given ecological advancements in hydroelectric generation, the
demand advantages of pump storage, and the promise of marine
hydrokinetics, is this administration willing to take another look at
hydropower projects on public lands and water?
Answer. Hydropower remains a clean and efficient way to produce
energy and is a renewable resource. The Department signed a Memorandum
of Understanding with the Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on March 24, 2010 to increase communication between federal
agencies and strengthen the long-term relationship among them to
prioritize the generation and development of sustainable hydropower.
And in 2011 Reclamation released the results of an internal study,
the Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities,
that estimated the Department could generate up to one million megawatt
hours of electricity annually and create jobs by addressing hydropower
capacity at 70 of its existing facilities. Last year Reclamation
completed the second phase of its investigation of hydropower
development. While the first phase focused primarily on Reclamation
dams, the second focused on constructed Reclamation waterways such as
canals and conduits, and estimated the Department could generate over
365,000 megawatt hours of electricity annually by addressing hydropower
capacity on 373 of its existing canals. In total, the two studies
revealed that an additional 1.5 million megawatt-hours of renewable
energy could be generated through hydropower at existing Reclamation
sites.
The budget allocates $1.1 million to increase clean renewable
energy generation by exploring how renewable technologies including
solar, small hydropower, and hydrokinetics can be integrated into
Reclamation projects; by continuing the effort to optimize Reclamation
hydropower projects to produce more energy with the same amount of
water; by investigating hydro pump-storage projects that can help
integrate large amounts of variable renewable resources such as wind
and solar into the electric grid; and by working with Tribes to assist
them in developing renewable energy sources.
Question 25. How can the Department of the Interior assist in
moving hydropower projects forward in their resource agency role in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process? Please provide
a list or a link to the list of hydropower projects currently under
review in the Department.
Answer. One of the goals of the MOU referenced in the previous
response was to gather federal agencies involved in the permitting
process, including the Department of the Interior and DOE's Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, to clarify the current processes for
projects and development occurring at federal sites and facilities, and
identify the most time-intensive and resource-intensive components of
each process. DOE, Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
also held a collaborative workshop in June of 2010 to identify ways in
which processes could be shortened by reducing unnecessary delay,
streamlined, or simplified for appropriate projects. Reclamation and
its regional offices, power and water customers, investors, and
developers have conducted several meetings to identify ways to improve
the lease of power privilege (LOPP) process.
Reclamation developed a directive and standard in 2012 to provide
standardized guidance for Reclamation offices and developers in
permitting under the LOPP process. Since the signing of the MOU, there
has been non-federal hydropower development interest and activity at 43
Reclamation sites through FERC and LOPP. The MOU agencies are
continuing to move forward under the framework of the MOU by developing
a new list of action items to be initiated between 2013 and 2015.
Attachment 1 to this document is a spreadsheet indicating projects
under review in the Department. The first tab lists FERC projects under
Reclamation review as of 7/2013, and includes all FERC projects on
Reclamation facilities that are currently in development. The second
tab lists all FERC projects under Departmental review, as indicated by
DOI bureaus, as of 9/2012. This second list is currently being updated.
Question 26. In 2010, the State of Alaska adopted a goal of meeting
50 percent of its energy needs with renewable energy by 2025. To help
achieve this goal, in 2011 the Alaska State Legislature enacted
legislation directing the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to undertake
the licensing and development of the Susitna-Watana Hydro Project.
To facilitate development of the Project, the State has requested
BLM to open certain withdrawn federal lands in the Project area for the
limited purpose of allowing title to those lands to be conveyed to the
State. These lands previously were selected by the State of Alaska
under the Alaska Statehood Act many years ago.
It is my understanding that BLM previously has followed a process
that did not require amendments to the relevant Resource Management
Plan to facilitate Alaska Statehood Act conveyances at other proposed
and existing hydroelectric projects in Alaska. It also is my
understanding that BLM has raised questions about its ability to follow
this approach with respect to the Susitna land conveyances. Finally, I
understand that BLM has a fair amount of discretion under the law
regarding the procedural steps it will take to open the lands for
conveyance to the State.
What is the likelihood that the administrative action of opening
the Susitna lands for the limited purpose of allowing conveyance to the
State may evolve into a time-consuming exercise that is likely to
create greater risk of challenge and potentially delay development of
the Project?
Answer. The BLM's Alaska State Office is actively working with the
State of Alaska and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to explore
the possibility of opening the withdrawal and conveying state-selected
lands related to the Susitna-Watana hydropower project. Several
procedural and legal questions have been raised related to the request.
The BLM is working to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.
Question 27. Can you assure me that BLM will exercise it discretion
in a manner that allows the Susitna lands to be conveyed in a timeframe
that meets the State's schedule and that minimizes the risk of
challenges and delay?
Answer. As mentioned in the previous response, several procedural
and legal questions have been raised related to the request to open the
withdrawal. The BLM is working to resolve these issues as quickly as
possible, and I have asked the BLM to keep you informed of the status
of that effort.
Question 28. Please describe the level of collaboration between the
agencies of the Interior Department and the Department of State. How is
this collaboration coordinated?
Answer. The Department conducts international activities to
accomplish its mission and support complementary U.S. foreign policy
priorities. These cooperative activities include facilitating access to
energy and mineral resources in an environmentally responsible manner;
conservation and management of wildlife and other natural resources;
protection of cultural resources; cooperation on indigenous affairs;
and scientific research and monitoring of natural hazards such as
volcanoes and earthquakes. The Department collaborates on these
activities at all appropriate levels with the Department of State. Some
interactions take place at the technical or field level. For example,
DOI makes technical experts available for meetings with visiting
foreign officials upon request of DOS, and coordinates with the
relevant DOS and U.S. Embassy personnel when technical personnel carry
out activities in foreign countries. As needed, DOI and DOS leadership
coordinate to provide appropriate management and guidance. For
instance, the Secretary of the Interior accompanied the Secretary of
State to the 2011 meeting of the Arctic Council in Greenland, to
highlight U.S. government priorities involving Arctic natural resource
management.
Question 29. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,
U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and other Interior
Department agencies have international programs. Is there a Department-
level strategy to coordinate these various efforts?
Answer. While there are clear linkages between some of the bureaus'
international activities, such international activities are shaped by
bureau program goals and through the budget process, in coordination
with complementary foreign policy goals set by DOS. The Secretary has
delegated the authority to coordinate DOI international activities to
the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget in order to
maximize effectiveness and efficiency. By facilitating meetings and
exchanges of information as needed, AS-PMB personnel help bureaus
identify activities where they can work most effectively with each
other, as well as with DOS and other federal agencies. Through this
flexible approach, DOI and its bureaus work to ensure strategic
coordination across their international activities.
Question 30. Are any Interior Department personnel currently
deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Answer. With the understanding that the term ``deployment'' means
long-term stationing, the Department does not currently have personnel
deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq. However, Departmental personnel do
travel to those countries on occasion, pursuant to coordination with
relevant agencies such as DOS and DOD.
Question 31. Please provide an overview of the recent trends in
Reclamation's maintenance backlogs, including trends over the past ten
years.
Answer. Reclamation's anticipated expenditures for major
rehabilitation and replacement (MR&R) needs, which are focused on its
aging infrastructure, have been relatively steady, totaling
approximately $3 billion for a five-year time horizon. Reclamation
began compiling its MR&R needs in 2008, which initially totaled $3.2
billion. The most recent annual update, at the end of fiscal year FY
2012, totaled $2.5 billion (five year outlook). Some of this decrease
can be attributed to the completion of work activities in recent years,
but most of the decrease is reflective of continued data verification
and validation which has occurred over these years.
These MR&R estimates have been compiled for all facilities based on
current conditions, at the major facility level, and irrespective of
the source of financing. It should be noted that of the FY 2012
estimated total (five year outlook), approximately 50 percent was
related to activities funded through annual appropriations.
As defined in the amended Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standard No. 6, ``deferred maintenance and repairs'' are maintenance
and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were
scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period.
Deferred Maintenance (DM) amounts have been reported by Reclamation
since FY 1998 for reserved works assets only; no mission critical
maintenance is deferred.
DM is reported on the amount of maintenance that was scheduled, but
not completed, and Reclamation does not ``project'' DM into the future.
The trend over the last ten years has been for increasing DM.
Question 32. What are the plans or expectations for each of these
backlogs going forward (e.g., steady state, significant increases,
decreases)?
Answer. Reclamation has been constructing water, power and
associated facilities for over 111 years, and many of these facilities
now have an average age of over 50 years. Although Reclamation has
lengthened the service lives of many of these facilities through its
preventive maintenance activities, a number of these facilities are
showing increased operations and maintenance needs.
Question 33. What is the average amount of time it takes
Reclamation to address a deferred maintenance project, from the time it
is documented to the time the project is complete? (If exact statistics
are not available, please provide an approximation.)
Answer. Reclamation tracks and reports an accumulated deferred
maintenance amount for its reserved works facilities, which, at the end
of FY 2011, was slightly more than $128 million. A certain amount of DM
is typical for the ``utility-type'' missions that Reclamation is
responsible for, and there is no expectation that this amount will be
significantly reduced or eliminated in the foreseeable future under the
current budget climate. DM continues to be completed within reasonable
timeframes, and Reclamation is adequately managing its accumulation of
DM. The data on accumulation of DM on Mission Critical Assets
demonstrates that, over time, DM identified in one year is addressed
and generally becomes a smaller percentage of the overall outstanding
DM in subsequent years.
Question 34. In recent years, deferred maintenance needs doubled in
one region (Mid Pacific, FY2007-FY2008) and tripled in another (Great
Plains, FY2010-FY2011). Please provide a more detailed explanation for
these major increases. Are similar increases expected for other regions
in future years?
Answer. The doubling of deferred maintenance from FY 2007 to FY
2008 was almost entirely due to the Mid Pacific Region bringing
outstanding DM work up to current prices. Between FY 2010 and FY 2011,
the reported DM for the Great Plains Region tripled due to management
decisions to reschedule and do more research to determine the best
methods to complete the work. Similar increases are not expected, but
are possible in the future as each region continues to evaluate the way
maintenance is managed and addressed.
Question 35. What is the status of Reclamation's loan guarantee
program authorized under P.L 109-451? What actions has OMB requested as
needing to be complete, as referenced in the FY2011 AMP, for this
program to be implemented?
Answer. P.L. 109-451 authorized loan guarantees for certain rural
water supply projects; operation and maintenance of facilities
authorized by or under contract pursuant to Reclamation law, and
improvements to some existing Bureau of Reclamation water projects.
Reclamation requested public comment on a proposed rule to implement
the loan guarantees program published in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2008. 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 federal facilities. Reclamation received comments from 14
entities mainly dealing with: 1) the appropriate portion of loans to be
guaranteed; and 2) using loan origination fees to offset appropriations
needed to fund the program. The rule has not been finalized. Authority
for the program will end in December 2016.
Question 36. Why have no requests been made for the long-term
extended repayment of extraordinary operations and maintenance costs
(XOM) under Title IX of P.L. 111-11? Have any users approached the
Administration or requested to use this funding? What actions could
Congress take to facilitate usage of this program?
Answer. Reclamation has received five requests for funding and
repayment under Title IX. All five requests have been approved;
however, only three of the requesting entities chose to move forward
with the funding. Two of the entities opted to use their own funds for
the necessary XOM costs after the request for Title IX funding and
repayment had been approved. Reclamation is aware of an additional
request that is in preparation at this time for XOM funding and
repayment under Title IX.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1A. What is the current estimate for Reclamation's
indicated maintenance backlog?
Question 1B. What are the plans/expectations for each of these
backlogs going forward (e.g., steady state, significant increases,
decreases)?
Answer. Reclamation's anticipated expenditures for major
rehabilitation and replacement (MR&R) needs have been relatively
steady, totaling approximately $3 billion for a five-year time horizon.
Reclamation began compiling its MR&R needs in 2008, which initially
totaled $3.2 billion. The most recent annual update, at the end of
fiscal year FY 2012, totaled $2.5 billion (five year outlook). Some of
this decrease can be attributed to the completion of work activities in
recent years, but most of the decrease is reflective of continued data
verification and validation which has occurred over these years.
These MR&R estimates have been compiled for all facilities based on
current conditions, at the major facility level, and irrespective of
the source of financing. It should be noted that of the FY 2012
estimated total (five year outlook), approximately 50 percent was
related to activities funded through annual appropriations.
As defined in the amended Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standard No. 6, ``deferred maintenance and repairs'' are maintenance
and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were
scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period.
Deferred Maintenance (DM) amounts have been reported by Reclamation
since FY 1998 for reserved works assets only; no mission critical
maintenance is deferred. DM is reported on the amount of maintenance
that was scheduled, but not completed, and Reclamation does not
``project'' DM into the future. The trend over the last ten years has
been for increasing DM.
Reclamation has been constructing water, power and associated
facilities for over 111 years, and many of these facilities now have an
average age of over 50 years. Although Reclamation has lengthened the
service lives of many of these facilities through its preventive
maintenance activities, a number of these facilities are showing
increased operations and maintenance needs due to age.
Question 2. In the FY 2011 Asset Management Plan (AMP), Reclamation
notes a total of $1.3 billion for ``Other RAX'' items (i.e., not
deferred maintenance or dam safety). Is it accurate to say that
Reclamation's indicated maintenance needs for non-Dam Safety projects
are $1.3 billion?
Answer. Other Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary
Maintenance (RAX) items are those items that have been identified and
scheduled to be completed within the next five years but do not fall
under any of the other three criteria. It would be accurate to say that
``Other RAX'' items are non-Dam Safety projects.
``Indicated/identified maintenance'' is maintenance that is
recognized as needing to be accomplished and may or may not be
scheduled by the office responsible. Most indicated/identified
maintenance on mission critical reserved works is identified either in
Reclamation's annual budget process, or through advanced funding
agreements from Reclamation's (mostly power) customers. Other indicated
maintenance is identified through Reclamation's Facility Reviews and
Review of O&M Program Examination of Associated Facilities.
Question 3. Does the Bureau of Reclamation maintain a listing,
including dollar amounts, of Reclamation's deferred and indicated
maintenance needs at the project level? How much of this information is
publicly available?
Answer. Reclamation currently tracks deferred and indicated
maintenance needs at the project level and is annually reported as part
of Reclamation's Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) needs.
Reclamation's 2012 MR&R needs are approximately $2.5 billion.
Reclamation also reports the deferred maintenance (DM) five year
plan as required by the Department of the Interior's Budget Guidance
Attachment G. The five year plan only lists those projects reported in
the MR&R that have been scheduled to be completed within the five year
timeframe. Depending on the reporting period, some projects may fall
before or after the reporting time period and therefore would not be
included in the five year plan.
Question 4. In recent years, deferred maintenance needs doubled in
one region (Mid Pacific, FY2007-FY2008) and tripled in another (Great
Plains, FY2010-FY2011). Please provide a more detailed explanation for
these major increases. Are similar increases expected for other regions
in future years?
Answer. The doubling of deferred maintenance from FY 2007 to FY
2008 was almost entirely due to the Mid Pacific Region bringing
outstanding DM work up to current prices. Between FY 2010 and FY 2011,
the reported DM for the Great Plains Region tripled due to management
decisions to reschedule and do more research to determine the best
methods to complete the work. Similar increases are not expected, but
are possible in the future as each region continues to evaluate the way
maintenance is managed and addressed.
Question 5. How is ``indicated maintenance'' tracked?
Answer. ``Indicated/identified maintenance'' is maintenance that is
recognized as needing to be accomplished and may or may not be
scheduled by the office responsible. Most indicated/identified
maintenance on mission critical reserved works is identified either in
Reclamation's annual budget process, or through advanced funding
agreements from Reclamation's (mostly power) customers. Other indicated
maintenance is identified through Reclamation's Facility Reviews and
Review of O&M Program Examination of Associated Facilities.
Question 6A. Is Reclamation's Facility Reliability Rating (FRR)
information publicly available?
Question 6B. Where would the public find this information?
Answer. The percentage of water infrastructure in good condition,
as measured by the FRR, is available to the public. The details of the
FRR criteria and scoring specific to each facility are available only
within Reclamation.
The percentage of water infrastructure in good condition, as
measured by the FRR, can be found at: http://www.doi.gov/bpp/upload/
DOI_FY2011-FY2016_StrategicPlan.pdf
Question 7. What is the process for tracking and reviewing
maintenance needs on transferred works, and how does it differ from the
process for reserved works?
Answer. Essentially, the operating entities for transferred works
facilities are responsible for the day-to-day tracking and reviewing
(and funding) of related maintenance needs. As part of Reclamation's
oversight responsibilities of these facilities, Reclamation is aware of
general performance of routine maintenance activities and most
extraordinary maintenance needs through the MR&R estimates.
These MR&R estimates are compiled for all facilities based on
current conditions, at the major facility level (e.g., dam, canal
system, power plant, major pumping plant, pipeline, etc.), and
irrespective of the source of financing (e.g., appropriated monies,
power financing, funding agreements, revolving funds, non-appropriated
funds used by operating entities of transferred works, etc.).
Question 8A. What portion of transferred works do not track
performance data for the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP)?
Question 8B. Are there any estimates as to the cost of compliance
with these metrics?
Answer. Reclamation's Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP)
reporting is at the major asset level for transferred and reserved
works. The metrics for these assets are computed and reported as part
of the FRPP. The estimate of cost of compliance is currently not
available.
Question 9A. Has the Administration considered how it could improve
its approach to tracking and addressing maintenance needs at
transferred works?
Question 9B. What options are available to you to address
maintenance needs at transferred works?
Answer. It is important to note that much of the O&M funding
responsibilities of Reclamation's assets lies with our project
beneficiaries and those operating entities that O&M Reclamation's
transferred works facilities. For some operating entities and project
beneficiaries, rehabilitation and replacement needs may exceed
available resources. In particular, many smaller irrigation or water
conservancy districts are unable to fund these needs in the year
incurred absent long-term financing assistance. To address this issue,
the Administration is currently developing a strategy for appropriate
implementation of a program of loan guarantees, as authorized in P.L.
109-451, to assist water users in financing costly rehabilitation and
replacement of project facilities. We are also exploring opportunities
for utilization of the authority provided under P.L. 111-11 to allow
extended repayment with interest of extraordinary (non-routine)
maintenance costs on project facilities. Water users are currently
required by Reclamation law to pay these costs, often substantial, in
advance.
Question 10. Page 28 of the AMP notes that indicated maintenance is
identified in Reclamation's annual budget process, through examination
of facilities, or arrangements with customers. To what extent does
Reclamation track indicated maintenance for transferred works?
Answer. Most indicated/identified maintenance on mission critical
reserved works is identified either in Reclamation's annual budget
process, or through advanced funding agreements from Reclamation's
(mostly power) customers. For transferred works, where maintenance
needs are identified as part of formal O&M recommendations, which
result from facility reviews, such recommendations are tracked until
completion through Reclamation's electronic database tracking system
(i.e., Dam Safety Information System.)
It is important to note that much of the O&M funding
responsibilities of Reclamation's assets reside with our project
beneficiaries and those operating entities that O&M our transferred
works facilities.
The following questions were submitted on April 8th during your
confirmation process. With respect to each of these questions,
you responded that it would be ``premature and inappropriate''
to answer until you were confirmed.
Question 11. What specific steps, if any, will you take to expedite
the Department's preparation and completion of environmental impact
statements for large scale coal, oil and gas, and uranium projects on
Federal public lands?
Answer. The Department's view has been that in most cases existing
environmental review provisions do not unduly delay project development
and, at the same time, provide for important public input into the
process and ensure environmental health and safety in the management of
the public lands. However, Departmental staff understand the value of
expedient environmental review and its importance for efficient
decision making by both businesses and government. The leasing reforms
that were implemented in 2010 established an orderly, transparent, and
environmentally sound process for developing resources on public lands
in a manner that has maintained robust leasing and permitting. These
reforms focused on increasing predictability and certainty for
stakeholders, including industry, and restoring needed balance with
comprehensive upfront analysis added to the development process. We
will continue to work toward increasing efficiency and decreasing the
time necessary for completion of these reviews.
Question 12A. Do you believe States and local governments which
would be impacted by settlement agreements between the Department and
environmental groups should have a say in such agreements?
Question 12B. Will you agree not to enter into any settlement
agreement unless the States and local governments which would be
impacted by the agreement are party to the agreement?
Answer. Unfortunately, litigation is a common occurrence when
implementing the numerous statutes under our jurisdiction. We agree
that the Department's resources are best spent on implementing these
statutes than on litigation. However, often settlement is the most
prudent course. Much of our litigation involves missed mandatory
statutory deadlines. In each of these cases, before any settlement is
entered, its merits are carefully reviewed, in conjunction with our
colleagues at the Department of Justice, to ensure it is in the
interest of the United States. In such settlements, we do not commit to
any substantive outcomes, but rather only to making otherwise
statutorily required determinations by a date certain. All of these
agreements are approved by a court. Before any determination called for
in a settlement agreement has regulatory effect, it is subject to
public notice and comment, including from States and local governments
if they so desire.
Question 13. Will you commit to supporting the principles of S.
258, the Grazing Improvement Act to streamline the renewal process for
grazing permits and extend the term of a grazing permit from 10 to 20
years?
Answer. As stated in the Department's statement at the April 2013
hearing on this legislation, the Department shares the interest in
identifying opportunities for increasing efficiencies in public land
grazing administration and for finding ways to make permit renewal less
complex, costly, and time-consuming. The Department also supports the
concept of having the flexibility to issue, in certain circumstances,
longer term permits. The Department supports a solution that achieves
these goals without limiting the BLM's ability to provide for
appropriate environmental review and public involvement, critical
components of the BLM's multiple-use management of the public lands.
Question 14. What do you plan to do, or what specific actions will
you take to ensure the Department complies with the National
Environmental Act in a more timely fashion? What specific ways is the
Administration proposing to ``modernize NEPA'' as you put it?
Answer. As noted in the response to question 11, the Department's
view has been that in most cases existing environmental review
provisions do not unduly delay project development and, at the same
time, provide for important public input into the process and ensure
environmental health and safety in the management of the lands that
belong to them. However, we understand the value of expedient
environmental review and its importance for efficient decision-making
by both businesses and government.
The leasing reforms that were implemented in 2010 established an
orderly, transparent, and environmentally sound process for developing
resources on public lands in a manner that has maintained robust
leasing and permitting. These reforms focused on increasing
predictability and certainty for stakeholders, including industry, and
restoring needed balance with comprehensive upfront analysis added to
the development process. We will continue to work toward increasing
efficiency and decreasing the time necessary for completion of these
reviews. The Administration, through the Council on Environmental
Quality, has made public a number of proposals to strengthen and
modernize NEPA. Detailed discussions of those proposals and related
information can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa. Unfortunately, the impacts of the
sequestration will be unavoidable and will result in difficult choices
in future budgets.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Risch
Question 1. If legislation is not enacted extending BLM's
authority, will BLM have to stop private sales of helium from the
reserve when the BLM makes its final payment to the U.S. Treasury
sometime around October?
Answer. The House and Senate recently passed H.R. 527, which
prevents termination of this important program and allows the Bureau of
Land Management to continue implementing the program, and the enrolled
bill was signed by the President on October 2, 2013.
Question 2. Since the reserve represents about half of U.S. helium
supply the concern is that if the reserve closes, a helium shortage
would follow. Does the BLM have emergency authority to sell helium to
prevent an economic disruption or would Congress have to act first?
If Congress does not act, will BLM still have the authority to
operate the reserve for federal use? If so, how will BLM fund the
operations?
Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, enrolled
bill H.R. 527 was signed by the President on October 2, 2013.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Scott
OFFSHORE ATLANTIC
The investment to collect seismic data is only worth something to
energy producers if there is the future prospect of being able to lease
in the areas where new data shows there are resources. When President
Obama came into office nearly all off America's offshore was available
to lease. Unfortunately, the President's restrictive 5-year lease plan
eliminated the Mid and South Atlantic offshore areas from the 2012-2017
plan and only left 15 percent of America's offshore available to lease.
Question 1a. Given that we still need to collect seismic data in
these areas to update our current resource estimates, do you think that
government, through the reorganization of the MMS and the
implementation of new regulations--and the industry, through the
development of new and the creation of the Center for Offshore Safety--
have made sufficient progress to consider future leasing in the Mid and
South Atlantic offshore areas?
Answer. By applying modern seismic interpretation techniques to
existing data and incorporating more recent information from
geologically analogous offshore regions worldwide, BOEM has made
significant progress in updating their resource estimates as reflected
in their 2011 National Resource Assessment. BOEM is proceeding with a
region-specific strategy in the area that focuses on the need to update
information in order to inform future decisions about whether and, if
so, where leasing would be appropriate. As part of that strategy, the
bureau is working to complete a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement evaluating the potential environmental impacts of proposed
geological and geophysical activities in the Mid and South Atlantic.
Completion of the PEIS will inform future decisions about whether
leasing in the Atlantic would be appropriate and, if so, where such
leasing should take place. The current goal is to complete the PEIS by
the end of the year.
Question 1b. If so, when will you direct that the development of a
new 5-year Plan begin?
Answer. In order to comply with all statutory requirements and have
a new program in place July 1, 2017, we envision we will begin the
process in late 2014 or early 2015.
Question 1c. If not, what else do you see that needs to be done
(outside of collecting new seismic data)?
Answer. Collection of new seismic data is not a pre-requisite to
developing the next Five Year Program. BOEM has begun informal efforts
to put in place the data, procedures, and agreements necessary to begin
the preparation of the next Five Year Program. One example is BOEM's
work with the Department of Defense on complex issues relating to
identifying and mitigating multiple or conflicting use issues.
NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
On August 21, 2012 John Holdren and Nancy Sutley sent a
``Memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies'' with the
subject ``National Ocean Policy Implementation Guidance for the FY2014
Budget'' to your agency and others instructing DOI to present to OMB,
along with their FY14 budget proposals, ``an explanation of their
continuing efforts and plans to comprehensively support the goals and
objectives of the National Ocean Policy through existing ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes programs.''
Question 2a. Did you make such a presentation to OMB and include
the National Ocean Policy budget explanation?
Answer. The Department did make a presentation.
Question 2b. If so, please provide a copy of DOI's National Ocean
Policy budget explanation as requested in the memo.
Answer. The budget explanation and related material are internal,
deliberative Executive Branch communications. However, an explanation
of most of the programs addressed in this memo, and some program
accomplishments, are contained within the Federal Ocean and Coastal
Activities Report for FY 2010-11, which was transmitted to Congress on
July 19, 2013.
Question 2c. How many people within DOI worked to draft this
explanation? If not, why did you not make such a presentation to OMB?
Answer. One person from each of the participating bureaus (BLM,
BOEM, BSEE, FWS, NPS, OIA and USGS) selected applicable information
from data already assembled for the budget development process,
accomplishment reports and similar existing sources. One person at the
Department assembled the information into the memorandum.
Question 3. The same memo references the importance of ``Regional
Efforts'' in implementing the National Ocean Policy. What efforts if
any have been made by DOI to coordinate, work with or partner with
local entities in South Carolina and the Southeast as a whole,
including but not limited to State and Tribal entities and authorities
and local and national non-governmental organizations? If none, are
there currently plans for any such efforts in the future?
Answer. The Department's work related to South Carolina under the
National Ocean Policy is largely conducted through the Governors' South
Atlantic Alliance (the Alliance) comprised of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. These States have joined together to
work on various ocean- and coastal-related issues, with an emphasis on
Clean Coastal and Ocean Waters, Working Waterfronts, Disaster Resilient
Communities, and Healthy Ecosystems. The Department has been a
supporting partner to the Alliance since its inception four years ago,
and provides support at all levels of the Alliance with personnel from
the USGS, FWS, and NPS stationed in those States. These bureaus also
cooperate directly with the State of South Carolina, tribes and
stakeholders on many programs, including those related to ocean and
coastal areas, but as this is part of their normal operations, the
Department does not track those efforts.
Question 4. How many people at the Department of the Interior are
working on implementation of National Ocean Policy? How much of their
time is dedicated to working on the National Ocean Policy? Have any
additional hires at DOI been made to specifically work on or coordinate
with others who are working on the National Ocean Policy?
Answer. A large number of individual employees work on actions
related to implementation of the National Ocean Policy as part of their
regular work. The actions to implement the Plan on which the Department
is engaged, as set out in the May 2013 Implementation Plan, are all
directly related to the statutory responsibilities and on-going work of
the Department and its participating bureaus. Many of these actions are
work long underway which is now being better coordinated with other
agencies, resulting in more productive use of resources. Because of
this, we do not know nor could we readily determine how many employees
are involved. The Department has not hired anyone to work specifically
on or to coordinate with others who are working on the National Ocean
Policy, although the Department's Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes
Activities office has played a significant supporting role in this
matter.
Question 5. In your view, what are the immediate and long term
goals for DOI in the implementation of the National Ocean Policy?
Answer. The Department supports the long-term goals of the National
Ocean Policy as set out in Executive Order 13547. These are to ensure
the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, enhance the
sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our maritime
heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive
management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to
climate change and ocean acidification, and coordinate with our
national security and foreign policy interests. The intermediate goals
of the Policy are set out in the Implementation Plan, and are focused
on several priority areas--the Ocean Economy, Safety and Security,
Coastal and Ocean Resilience, Local Choices, and Science and
Information needed to support those priorities.
Question 6. How has the implementation of the National Ocean Policy
impacted or influenced the current programmatic EIS being conducted in
the Atlantic for the assessment of the oil and natural gas resources in
the OCS?
Answer. The development of the Programmatic EIS incorporates the
guidance of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. It takes an
ecosystem based approach to assessment of environmental resources, is
fully transparent, provides for stakeholder input through NEPA public
review opportunities, and makes use of the best available science and
data to inform the analysis. It also increases efficiencies in
decision-making as the Programmatic EIS was developed to meet the NEPA
environmental analysis needs for both BOEM and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, thereby avoiding duplication of efforts and
generating cost savings.
Question 7. How do you see implementation of the National Ocean
Policy impacting the potential for portions of the South Atlantic
planning area to be included in the next 5-year offshore leasing plan?
Answer. The marine planning information in the National Ocean
Policy Implementation Plan lays the groundwork for all stakeholders to
be involved in identifying multiple ocean uses and resources in the
South Atlantic planning area. BOEM anticipates the affected States and
South Atlantic Regional Planning Body, when established by the region,
to play important roles in providing local perspective in future
planning for this area.
Responses of Hon. Sally Jewell to Questions From Senator Portman
Question 1. I have been told that on October 7, 2013, barring
Congressional action to authorize the continuation of the Helium
Production Fund, BLM will not be able to operate or maintain the
Federal Helium Reserve. Is this your understanding?
Answer. The House and Senate recently passed H.R. 527, which
prevents termination of this important program and allows the Bureau of
Land Management to continue implementing the program, and the enrolled
bill was signed by the President on October 2, 2013.
Question 2. Are there administrative actions which could be taken
that would allow BLM to continue to deliver crude helium to refiners
for processing and delivery for end market users?
Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, enrolled
bill H.R. 527 was signed by the President on October 2, 2013.
Question 3. Do you agree that the upcoming centennial is an
excellent opportunity to engage all of those who utilize and benefit
from our national parks in helping prepare for their future?
Answer. The centennial of the National Park Service in 2016 is an
exciting opportunity to engage all American's, including park visitors,
the public in general, and local civic and business communities.
Question 4. How does the Department intend to engage the private
sector in the upcoming NPS centennial?
Answer. The NPS is engaging a broad array of stakeholders in its
planning for the centennial, and recently established a Centennial
Advisory Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board,
including representative stakeholders for gateway communities, local
and national business operators, education and youth program partners,
park friends groups, and advocate organizations for conservation,
preservation and recreation. The task of this committee is to offer
guidance and recommendations to the National Park System Advisory
Board, and by extension, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director
of the NPS, on centennial strategies, products and programs that
celebrate the national park idea and its growing value to society.
In addition, the National Park Foundation, the national
philanthropic partner of the National Park Service is also engaging the
private sector in planning and a range of opportunities for support and
engagement for the centennial.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation,
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope,
May 15, 2013.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 6156, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Jewell:
On behalf of the State of Alaska and the undersigned North Slope
governments and entities, we want to offer our congratulations on your
recent confirmation as Secretary of the Interior. We look forward to
working with you on the Department of Interior's wide variety of
activities in Alaska, and we want to continue the efforts to strengthen
the relationship between your department, the State of Alaska, the
North Slope Borough and other North Slope communities and stakeholders.
To accomplish this, an open, constructive dialogue will be critical.
In that spirit, we are writing to you to inform you of our strong
objections to the Department of the Interior's budget proposal, under
which Alaska's 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas
activity in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) would be
``temporarily'' diverted to pay for cleaning up more than 100 abandoned
oil wells drilled decades ago by the federal government and for
completing land conveyances owed to the State of Alaska and Alaska
Natives.
From 1944 to 1981, the federal government drilled 136 wells in
what's now the NPR-A. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the
federal custodian of those wells, and is obligated to plug the wells to
prevent damage to the environment. Only 18 of the wells have been
plugged, and seven of those were taken care of by the North Slope
Borough, not by BLM. The remaining wells remain in various conditions
of non-compliance with State law.
The federal government's land conveyance responsibilities grow out
of the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act
of 1971, and this mandate has been reinforced by further federal law,
including the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004. Your
Department's 2014 funding proposal includes just $17 million-nearly a
50 percent cut from 2012 funding levels-for land conveyances. At this
annual funding level, BLM estimates it will take as long as 80 years to
finish patenting the conveyances.
Alaska's share of NPR-A revenues are allocated to the State of
Alaska's NPR-A Impact Aid Fund. Deposits into the Impact Aid Fund have
declined steadily as many of the leases in the NPR-A have been
relinquished during the last four years. Impact Aid funded grants in FY
2012 totaled just $3 million dollars, and FY 2013 grants totaled $4.7
million. In FY 2014, we believe the State of Alaska will receive
approximately $3.8 million, dropping to around $3.4 million in FY 2015.
The majority of NPR-A Impact Aid grant funding goes to four
communities located within the NPR-A-Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright and
Atqasuk-which rely heavily on Local Government Operation grants to
sustain their city governments. The four Local Government Operational
grants total approximately $3.1 million annually, subject to NPR-A
Impact Aid funding. These projects support operations and maintenance
costs necessary to operate the local governments.
The Department's proposal to divert NPR-A revenues owed to the
State will result in the elimination of NPR-A Impact Aid payments to
the four NPR-A villages that depend on NPR-A revenues to operate. In
2010, the North Slope Borough completed a comprehensive Economic
Profile and Census project in our region. The results indicated that
26.5% of our residents are unemployed and 49.4% are underemployed. If
NPR-A revenue sharing payments cease, our villages and our residents
will be harmed.
Based on figures cited in the Anchorage Daily News, the Department
has expended $86 million to address 18 legacy wells ($4.77 million per
well). Current NPR-A Impact Fund deposits are less than $4 million per
year, and there are more than 110 additional wells to address-that
means the ``temporary'' halt in revenue sharing payments proposed by
the Department would end in about 150 years if all revenues are
diverted to the Legacy Well cleanup program and no funding is committed
to State and Native land conveyances.
We cannot understand why the Department would choose to deprive our
villages and our residents of Impact Aid grant funds, which are
specifically authorized by Congress to address the impacts of oil and
gas development in the region. Moreover, NPR-A revenues cannot support
either the Legacy Well cleanup program or the Alaska Land Conveyance
program, as proposed in your budget. We hope BLM will consider other
solutions to fulfill its federal commitments to Alaska and to our
people.
We are committed to working with you on this and other issues of
importance to Alaska, and look forward to positively developing our
relationship.