[Senate Hearing 114-185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Cochran, Blunt, Daines,
Cassidy, Udall, Feinstein, Leahy, Reed, Tester, Merkley.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. MIKE CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY
opening statement of senator lisa murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Good morning. I would like to welcome
everyone to the first hearing of our Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee.
A special welcome to our new members on the committee. We
have Senator McConnell who has joined us. Senators Daines and
Cassidy are new to the committee. I think on the other side,
everybody is pretty much an old hand at this, so thank you for
being with us this morning.
Before we start with our witnesses, Secretary Jewell and
Deputy Secretary Connor, I want to begin with just a couple of
housekeeping matters for us. I intend to follow the early bird
rule here in the committee for recognizing members for
questions. I will call on members in the order in which you
have arrived. We will go back and forth between the Majority
and the Minority.
My proposal is to do six minute rounds. I figure that is an
appropriate time to have a good dialogue with the witnesses. My
expectation is we will do two, hopefully three rounds, but
really trying to accommodate everyone so that they have a fair
opportunity to address the issues that they wish to raise.
I also want to acknowledge Senator Reed for his excellent
leadership on this subcommittee for the past couple of years. I
am very pleased that you are staying with us on the committee,
Senator Reed, but I have appreciated how you and I have been
able to work on the committee under your leadership, and I
thank you for that.
I would like to recognize and welcome Tom Udall, our new
ranking member on the committee. We have already had an
opportunity to meet and talk about some of the priorities and
issues that we share.
Senator Udall shared with me that he has already climbed
the tallest mountain in our State. My hope is--you and I call
it ``Denali''--that we can actually make that permanent. I have
a bill I will talk to you about later. I thank you for your
engagement and your work as we move forward with the committee.
Finally, before turning to the Department of the Interior's
budget, I think it is important for all of our members and the
public to hear from me as the subcommittee chairman that we
will be marking up an Interior bill this year. We are going to
do it. It has been 5 years since that has happened. I feel
pretty strongly that we need to get back to regular order.
I think we appreciate that within this particular
subcommittee we have some issues under our jurisdiction that
are perhaps are a little more thorny than in some of the other
committees, but that should not keep us from advancing to a
markup.
I think it is our job to take up the tough issues and work
together to produce legislation that reflects the collective
will of the members, and I intend to do just that, working with
Senator Udall here.
budget request
Turning to the budget request for the Department, and
again, Secretary Jewell, thank you, Deputy Secretary Connor,
thank you for being here. The budget request is $12.1 billion
for programs within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. This
includes $200 million for a proposal similar to last year,
which allows certain firefighting costs to be appropriated as
disaster funds. The budget request is almost $1.4 billion above
the current year spending levels.
Secretary, I noted when you were before the Energy
Committee last week that the request violates the Budget
Control Act. It ignores those statutory caps that are imposed
by the BCA, and proposes new spending as if we had already
moved to lift sequestration.
As I mentioned in that committee, and I will repeat here, I
do think that demonstrates wishful thinking and not the
governance we need with this budget.
Putting aside the discretionary spending request, there are
other proposals in your budget to establish new mandatory
spending totaling $2 billion. The request includes $500 million
for the LWCF program in 2016, and $500 million per year for 3
years in the new mandatory spending for the Park Service
Centennial.
Unfortunately, there are no specific offsets for these
spending increases.
Somewhat stunningly to me, when oil prices have fallen
dramatically, the Department indicates that it will propose a
host of new fees and royalty rate increases on energy producers
that will exceed $2.5 billion. Energy producers are already
fleeing our public lands because of regulatory headaches and
permitting delays. I am looking at this and saying I do not see
how making it more expensive and difficult to do business on
public lands is good, sound policy, or good for the U.S.
Treasury.
I think you noted yourself, Secretary, at the Energy
hearing, you said it is hard to do business on our Federal
lands. We need to do better. We must do better.
There are certainly some things in this budget that I can
support. We have the addressing of the backlog of maintenance
in our national parks. That is something that I hope we can
agree should be a priority for us. Also, fully funding contract
support costs for our Native Americans.
The concern that I have with the budget in front of us is
that in many cases, it avoids the tough choices that must be
made between programs in the constrained fiscal environment in
which we are operating.
In all likelihood, we will have roughly the same amount to
spend this year as we did last year under the budget caps, and
yet we have a budget, a proposed budget, that is $1.4 billion
above that level.
This committee is forced to make some very difficult
choices in how to prioritize among the many programs within the
bill, and unfortunately, the budget does not help by giving us
guidance as to the programs that the administration sees as its
priorities.
Madam Secretary, when you appeared before the Energy
Committee last week, I raised with you a number of recent
actions that the administration has taken of late that either
has or has the potential to do enormous damage to my State.
I mentioned the withdrawal of over 22 million more acres of
Alaska from energy production. This has occurred on top of many
other restrictions and regulations being imposed on us. These
withdrawals have occurred despite the tremendous energy
potential in those areas, despite the pressing need to refill
our pipeline, and despite extreme opposition from most
Alaskans.
Finally, I mentioned at the hearing in Energy that beyond
energy, we still have the issue of King Cove that is yet
unresolved. Last Monday marked 14 long months since the
rejection of the necessary life saving, again, ten mile, one
lane gravel non-commercial use road, and yet there is nothing
in the budget to help those whose lives are needlessly in
danger.
I was informed this morning that since the Energy hearing
last week, there have been yet two more Medivac's out of King
Cove, until the time we are here this morning. One was a Coast
Guard Medivac, the other private.
I mention to my colleagues here at the committee these
issues again so that you are aware that these are priorities
not just for me but priorities for Americans that live in
perhaps some very unique and different situations. I intend to
do what I can to address and correct what I see are clear
deficiencies and failures there.
Again, my thanks to the Secretary and appreciate the time
you will give us this morning. We do have votes, two votes,
that are beginning at 11:30. We will try to move quickly
through it.
I want to recognize my ranking member, Senator Udall, for
his comments at this time.
statement of senator tom udall
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, and good
morning and also welcome to the new members, Senators Cassidy
and Daines.
Since this is my first hearing as ranking member of the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, let me begin by saying
how honored I am to serve in this position. The Interior
Appropriations bill, I believe, is an essential tool to protect
our Nation's rich, natural and cultural resources. It is our
way to honor our commitment to American Indians and Alaskan
Natives.
The programs funded by this bill are also incredibly
important to New Mexico, and I look forward to using this
position to ensure that our remarkable natural resources are
protected and managed responsibly.
Let me also say how pleased I am to serve under the
leadership of my new chairman, Senator Murkowski. There will be
times when the Senator from Alaska and I will have to disagree,
but I know there are many areas of common interests where we
can work together. We have had some very good productive visits
and I look forward to many more.
Madam Chairman, I can say without hesitation, I look
forward to working with you as we move through the
appropriations process this year, and I think it is a very good
move that you say we are going to do a markup. I think that is
a healthy part of the appropriations process, and I think we
need to move our bills.
I also want to take a moment to thank our immediate past
chairman, Senator Jack Reed. Over the last 4 years, Senator
Reed worked very hard and in the face of some very difficult
political issues to pass Interior bills that protected major
environmental laws, and he supported critical conservation
priorities. He had tremendous success, and I would like to
thank him for his leadership.
Turning to the budget request, I am pleased to welcome
Secretary Jewell and Deputy Secretary Connor before the
subcommittee. I look forward to working more closely with both
of you. You have given us a lot to discuss this morning.
This request clearly demonstrates the investments that we
can make if Congress and the President work together to end
sequestration and revisit the spending limits in the Budget
Control Act.
Secretary Jewell, you proposed to increase the budget for
the Department in fiscal year 2016 by 11 percent. That is more
than $1 billion in new spending for the programs in your
Department, and it is, I must say, a bold vision.
Your budget includes a 17 percent increase to help the
National Park Service to prepare for its 2016 Centennial. It
also includes new funding to manage other public lands, fund
energy development activities, and address climate change.
I want to thank you for your commitment to Tribal programs
and for requesting a large increase for Indian education. That
funding is long overdue.
I am also glad to see that your request again proposes to
reform the Federal Wildland Firefighting budget by authorizing
a new disaster cap adjustment to pay for the costs of the most
catastrophic wildfires.
I also want to applaud you and the President for making a
strong statement on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In
your request, LWCF just celebrated, as you know, its 50th
anniversary, and it is up for reauthorization. Your support has
never been more important or more timely.
I especially appreciate the increases for New Mexico
priorities, including land acquisition, construction projects,
Indian land and water claim settlements, as well as funding to
support the newest national parks and monuments in our State.
As good as this budget request is, however, it is important
to remember it is just a proposal. Until the law is changed,
Congress has to live with the spending limits set by the Budget
Control Act. That means non-defense discretionary programs like
those in this budget request are facing a freeze in fiscal year
2016. A freeze does not even cover the costs of basic fixed
cost increases, let alone the new investments in this budget.
In other words, many of the things in this budget will
never happen if we do not end sequestration. We all need to ask
ourselves, how is this Congress going to get serious about
supporting important discretionary programs like these?
I want to commend Secretary Jewell for giving us an
excellent place to start that conversation, and thank you very
much, both you and Deputy Secretary Connor, for being with us.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. I know that
Senator Cochran has another Appropriations hearing that he has
to go to, and I want to give you the courtesy of making a
statement before you leave, before we turn to the Secretary.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
recognition, but I am not going to take time away from the
other Senators who have already been here and are awaiting
their turn.
I want to ask unanimous consent that my statement be
printed in the record.
I join you in welcoming the distinguished Secretary to our
hearing and I am looking forward to working with her and the
officials at her Department to see that the intent and specific
authorization and appropriations language is respected as we go
through this next fiscal year.
We appreciate the cooperation that we received in special
attention to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians located in
our State on Reservation lands and elsewhere. They are a very
important part of our State's economy and attraction as a
tourist destination, and also part of the living history that
our State has contributed to our country.
I also want to support especially the Gulf of Mexico energy
security legislation allowing Gulf States to receive specific
portions of the revenues derived from offshore leases and
production of oil and gas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and
the attention of the committee to assuring this is appreciated.
I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks and
my statement be printed in the record.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Cochran, your full opening
statement will be included as part of the record.
[Clerk's note: Senator Cochran did not submit additional remarks
for the record.]
Senator Murkowski. If any other members have any statements
they would like to have incorporated, they will be as well.
[Clerk's note: Members did not submit any additional statements.]
Senator Murkowski. With that, I would like to turn to the
Secretary, recognizing that we probably have a lot of questions
and a limited amount of time here this morning. With that,
welcome to the committee, Secretary Jewell.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL
Secretary Jewell. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, Chairman Cochran, and members
of the subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify
today on the Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2016
budget request.
I want to thank you for the collaborative working
relationship we have with the subcommittee and acknowledge and
thank Leif, Rachel, and the subcommittee staff for the hard
work they do on the budget.
Joining me today is Deputy Secretary Mike Connor.
I submitted a detailed statement for the record, so I will
be brief in these opening remarks.
BUDGET REQUEST
This is a forward looking budget providing targeted
investments to grow our domestic energy portfolio, creating
jobs here at home, building community resilience, and
revitalizing our national parks as they approach their 100th
anniversary.
Our budget invests in science to help us understand natural
resources on a landscape level and to apply that understanding
to better manage America's assets for the long term.
Importantly, the budget also helps fulfill our Nation's
commitments to American Indians and Alaskan Natives, including
significant and much needed investment to help improve
education for Indian children.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
I want to emphasize our investments in our national parks
and public lands, places special to our Nation but which also
boost local economies. On the 50th anniversary of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act, the budget proposes full funding
of $900 million annually for LWCF programs. This is dollar for
dollar one of the most effective Government programs that we
have.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL
Next year will mark another important milestone in our
Nation's history. The National Park Service will celebrate its
100th anniversary, and this budget makes investments to launch
a historic effort to celebrate and revitalize national parks
and public lands.
The discretionary and mandatory portions of the budget
include a $150 million matching fund to leverage private
donations to parks, and $859 million to provide critical
maintenance investments in high priority assets. Additional
funding of $43 million will provide staff to improve the
visitor experience and support the expected influx of visitors
during and after the Centennial.
CIVIL RIGHTS
We will also commemorate this year the 50th anniversary of
the Voting Rights Act. The budget proposes $50 million to
restore and highlight key sites that tell the story of the
struggle for civil rights, such as the Selma to Montgomery
National Historic Trail, and the Martin Luther King, Jr.
National Historic Site.
One of my top priorities is connecting young people to the
great outdoors and our rich history and culture. We need to
inspire and engage the next generation to be scientists,
engineers, and stewards of our Nation's most prized assets,
particularly as 40 percent of the Department's workforce will
be eligible to retire very soon.
YOUTH
This budget proposes over $107 million for Interior's youth
programs, to provide opportunities for our Nation's young
people to play, to learn, to serve, and to work on public
lands. We will accomplish this through partnerships with youth
conservation corps, schools, organizations like the YMCA and
the National League of Cities, and private businesses.
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Next, I want to highlight the administration's continued
commitment to Tribal self determination and strengthening
Tribal communities. I recently visited Arizona to launch the
administration's Native American Youth Listening Tour, to give
young people in Indian country the opportunity to engage with
Cabinet members directly about the challenges they face.
My recent trip to the Arctic also included meeting with
youth leaders in Kotzebue who are helping their classmates cope
with personal challenges.
Across the Federal family, agencies are committed to
working together to better coordinate our services to more
effectively serve American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
This budget holds the promise for a brighter future for
Indian youth through education, for Native American communities
through economic growth and social services, and for improving
the stewardship of Trust resources.
We are requesting $2.9 billion for Indian Affairs, an
increase of 12 percent, which includes full funding of contract
support costs that Tribes incur as they deliver services for
Tribal members.
The Generation Indigenous Initiative includes an $1 billion
investment in Indian education to support a comprehensive
transformation of the Bureau of Indian Education to better
serve and support Tribes in educating their youth.
ENERGY
When it comes to powering our Nation, the budget continues
to invest in both renewable and conventional energy, so we can
diversify our domestic energy portfolio, cut carbon pollution,
and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The budget includes
$100 million for renewable energy activities, helping us fast
track projects like the SunZia Project in New Mexico. We also
propose a total of $658 million for conventional energy
programs.
SCIENCE
This budget invests in science and technology initiatives
to support energy development, to create economic
opportunities, to help communities build resilience.
The budget includes $1.1 billion for research and
development activities that range from scientific observations
of the earth to applied research to better address problems
such as invasive species and coastal erosion.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
I recently visited Kivalina, a village on the Northwest
Coast of Alaska where I heard directly from residents about
their concern for their personal safety as encroaching storms
threaten to wash away their village.
The budget includes a total of $147 million to fund
projects to help coastal communities. Tribes, Insular areas and
land management bureaus use this science and technology to
strengthen community and ecosystem resilience.
WATER
Finally, I want to touch on water and fire. Western States
are on the front lines of dealing with both drought and
catastrophic wildfires. The budget includes $1.1 billion for
the Bureau of Reclamation to support water availability
projects, Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem
restoration, healthy watersheds, sustainable secure water
supplies, and the WaterSMART program, to address drought and
other water supply issues across the West.
WILDLAND FIRE
This budget also renews the call for a new funding
framework for wildfire suppression, similar to how the costs
for other natural disasters are met. The initiative proposes
base level funding of 70 percent of the 10 year average for
suppression costs within the discretionary budget, and an
additional $200 million available in the event of the most
severe fire activity, which comprises only 1 percent of the
fires but 30 percent of the costs.
This is a common sense proposal that would help ensure that
USDA and the Interior do not have to rob our budgets for fire
prevention in order to fight the Nation's most catastrophic
fires.
In closing, this is a smart and balanced budget that
enables the Department to carry out these important missions. I
look forward to discussing these issues and many other
important investments proposed in this budget with you during
your questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sally Jewell
Ms. Chairman, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to present the 2016 President's budget for
the Department of the Interior.
This is a forward-looking budget that invests in Interior's key
missions so we can continue to serve the American people. This budget
provides investments to grow our domestic energy portfolio, to
revitalize our national parks as they approach their 100th anniversary
and celebrate all of our public lands, and to strengthen science and
management across all bureaus. The budget also helps fulfill our
Nation's commitments to American Indians and Alaska Natives, including
a significant and much-needed investment to help improve education for
Indian children.
Interior's programs and activities serve as economic engines in
communities across the Nation, contributing an estimated $360 billion
to the Nation's economy in 2013 and supporting more than 2 million
American jobs. Of this total, energy and mineral development on
Interior-managed lands and offshore areas generated more than $237
billion of this economic activity and supported 1.1 million jobs. An
estimated 407 million recreational visits to Interior lands--including
national parks, wildlife refuges and public lands--contributed $41
billion and supported nearly 355,000 jobs nationwide. Water supply,
grazing and timber activities, primarily on public lands in the West,
contributed nearly $63 billion and supported more than 400,000 jobs. In
2016, the Department will generate an estimated $13.8 billion in
Federal receipts; these funds are deposited in the Treasury and serve
to offset the cost of general government services, support a range of
specific Federal programs, and support State and local governments
through various revenue sharing arrangements.
2016 budget
The 2016 budget proposal is $13.2 billion, an increase of 8
percent, over the 2015 enacted level. This total includes a proposed
$200 million budget cap adjustment to ensure critical funds are
available in the event of a catastrophic fire without requiring harmful
transfers from other Interior programs that support land management and
operations. It includes $11.9 billion for Interior programs funded by
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation, and $1.1
billion for Interior's Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, funded in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act. The budget would generate $5.6 billion in savings
over 10 years through legislative reform proposals, including oil and
gas management reforms to encourage diligent development of Federal
energy resources while providing a fair return to taxpayers from
royalty and other reforms.
The 2016 budget enables the Department to carry out its important
mission by maintaining core capabilities and proposing investments in
key priorities. This budget lays the groundwork for the future while
meeting current commitments. The programs in this request emphasize
partnerships, public engagement in Interior's places and programs,
comprehensive upfront resource planning, tribal self-determination and
self-governance, and increased scientific understanding leveraged with
advanced tools and open access to data.
Importantly, the President's budget proposes to end sequestration,
fully reversing it for domestic priorities in 2016, matched by equal
dollar increases for defense funding. The last time sequestration was
in full effect, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it reduced
the gross domestic product by 0.6 percentage points and cost 750,000
jobs. But beyond the economic impacts, these across-the-board cuts also
had severe programmatic impacts. At the Department of the Interior,
sequestration required cuts to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
program and mineral payments to States, slowed down permitting of
energy projects because of cuts to operation budgets, and further added
to the deferred maintenance backlog at national parks and on other
public lands. All of these cuts impact local economies.
preserving and protecting america's natural and cultural resources
The budget launches the National Parks Centennial to celebrate and
revitalize national parks and public lands, and connect a new
generation to the great outdoors. The budget includes funding in 2016
to allow the National Park Service to make targeted, measurable
upgrades over the next 10 years to all of its highest priority, non-
transportation assets, restoring and maintaining them in good
condition. The budget also proposes $150 million in discretionary and
mandatory funding for a Centennial Challenge matching program to
leverage private donations to parks, and $100 million in mandatory
funding for a Public Lands Centennial Fund that competitively awards
funds to Federal land management agencies for signature projects and
programs. The budget includes complementary initiatives in the Bureau
of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service to engage the
American public with Interior's broad range of outdoor recreation and
natural learning opportunities.
To mark the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, the 2016
budget proposes $50 million to restore and highlight key sites across
the country that tell the story of the struggle for civil rights.
State, local and tribal governments may also apply for grants to
document and preserve stories and other sites related to the Civil
Rights Movement.
On the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) Act, the budget requests Congress to support full funding for
LWCF programs. The innovative, highly successful program reinvests
royalties from offshore oil and gas activities into public lands,
enabling access for sportsmen and hunters, protecting historic
battlefields and providing grants to States for recreation and
conservation projects. In 2016, the budget proposes a total of $400
million in discretionary funding and $500 million in mandatory funding
for LWCF programs. From Maine to Kansas and up to Washington and
Alaska, the fiscal year 2016 request includes 105 projects in 39
States. The budget also includes a legislative proposal to provide full
mandatory funding for LWCF starting in 2017.
The budget continues efforts to manage and promote the
sustainability and resilience of ecosystems on a landscape scale, such
as the California Bay-Delta, the Everglades, the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf Coast. To protect and restore the American
West's vast sage steppe landscape which supports abundant wildlife and
significant economic activity, including recreation, ranching and
energy development, the budget proposes an investment of $78.1 million.
Interior spends over $140 million in current funding within the
Arctic for activities that include science, energy, Indian Affairs and
land management. As the United States assumes the 2-year Chairmanship
of the Arctic Council in April, we recognize this is an important
opportunity to work with all eight Arctic countries to address the
impacts of rapid climate change in the region, improve economic and
living conditions of the people who live there, and enhance Arctic
Ocean safety, security, and stewardship. Interior bureaus will play a
significant role in these activities, which provide an important
opportunity to build the resilience of Arctic communities and the
ecosystems upon which they depend.
strengthening community resilience in a changing climate
The budget includes increases to strengthen the resilience of
communities--including tribes and insular areas--and ecosystems to
climate impacts, such as increased flooding and drought. The budget
builds on the success of the Department of Interior's (DOI) Hurricane
Sandy Coastal Resilience Grant Program, proposing a competitive grant
program that would restore natural coastal systems to help reduce
flood, storm, and sea level rise risks. To complement that program, the
budget proposes an increase of $30 million for the Challenge Cost-Share
program, to be split evenly across the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS).
The bureaus will prioritize projects to conserve and restore landscapes
and resources vulnerable to change. Project funding will be leveraged
with non-Federal investments to build resilience to inland threats such
as drought, flooding, and wildfire. Proposed investments in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
specifically address the changing Arctic landscape and offer support to
Alaska Native villages and other critically vulnerable communities in
evaluating options for the long-term resilience of their communities.
For example, the FWS is developing a demonstration project to enhance
involvement of local people and subsistence users in the decisionmaking
process for resource management on Federal lands. Through a pilot
effort based at the Yukon National Wildlife Refuge, FWS and Native
Alaskans are developing a draft fisheries cooperative management
proposal to improve subsistence uses as the Kuskokwim River drainage
changes. An additional $7.0 million is also provided for insular areas
to address needs related to sea level rise.
Tribes and other communities throughout the U.S. are already
experiencing drought, intensifying wildfires, changes in plants and
animals important to subsistence and cultural practices, impacts to
treaty and trust resources, and coastal erosion and sea level rise. The
budget provides a total of $50.4 million, a $40.4 million increase over
2015, across nine BIA trust resource programs to support tribal
communities in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate
change. Funds will provide support for tribes and Alaska Native
villages to develop and access science, tools, training, and planning
for building resilience.
The budget renews the call for a new funding framework for wildland
fire suppression, similar to how the costs for other natural disasters
are met. The initiative proposes base level funding of 70 percent of
the 10-year average for suppression costs within the discretionary
budget and an additional $200 million available in the event of the
most severe fire activity, which comprises only 1 percent of the fires
but 30 percent of the costs. Wildland fire continues to be one our most
important land management challenges. In January, I issued Secretarial
Order 3336 that recognizes the critical importance of fire in
protecting, conserving, and restoring the health of the sagebrush-
steppe ecosystem on which rural economies, wildlife--including the
sage-grouse--and a way of life depend. Shortly, we will release our
strategy for the 2015 fire season, to be followed by a long-term
strategy for addressing rangeland fire prevention, management, and
restoration. On a broader scale, the Department is firmly committed to
the National Wildland Fire Cohesive Strategy and the three goals of
restoring and maintaining fire-resilient landscapes, creating fire
adapted communities, and safe and effective operations. In support of
those goals, the budget reflects an integrated approach to wildland
fire management, including $30.0 million for a Resilient Landscapes
program to create landscapes that are resilient to wildfire through
long-term, landscape scale, place-based projects. Resilient Landscape
program projects will be accomplished through collaborative
partnerships that include non-fire bureau resources and land management
programs along with other Federal, tribal, State and non-governmental
partners. The budget continues to include funding for the Fuels
Management program to improve the integrity and resilience of forests
and rangelands, contribute to community adaptation to fire, and improve
our ability to safely and appropriately respond to wildfires.
As part of the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed $1.1 billion budget
for fiscal year 2016, the WaterSMART program would receive $58.1
million to support water conservation initiatives and technological
breakthroughs that promote water reuse, recycling and conservation, in
partnership with States, tribes, and other partners. Reclamation will
continue strong partnerships with local water and conservation managers
to conduct ongoing comprehensive water studies of river basins in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma and Oregon. In 2015
and 2016, the budget supports one or two new basin studies in the
western U.S and one new West-wide climate risk impact assessment. In
addition, Reclamation anticipates funding 40 new WaterSMART Grant
projects that will contribute to water conservation. As part of
WaterSMART, the USGS would receive $31.0 million to continue to advance
the National Water Census to create a more accurate picture of the
quality and quantity of the Nation's water resources. The USGS will
support focus area studies in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
Basin, the Colorado River Basin and the Delaware River Basin.
powering the future through balanced energy development
To enhance national energy security and create jobs in new
industries, the budget invests in renewable energy development
programs, providing about $100 million to review and permit renewable
energy projects on public lands and offshore waters.
In order to address the continuing legacy of abandoned mine lands
on the health, safety, environment and economic opportunity of
communities, the budget makes available to States and tribes $1
billion, over 5 years, as part of the President's POWER+ Plan. Funding
would come by accelerating payments from the unappropriated balances in
the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Fund, administered by the
Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement. The budget also includes reforms to strengthen the
healthcare and pension plans that provide for the health and retirement
security of retired coal miners and their families.
The budget invests in onshore energy permitting and oversight on
Federal lands, with the BLM's oil and gas program receiving a 20
percent increase in funding, compared to the 2015 enacted level. The
National Defense Authorization Act included an important authority that
allows the BLM to implement increased fees for Applications for Permit
to Drill to provide the funding needed to quickly and efficiently
process APDs. To further improve responsiveness to industry demand and
workload, the 2016 budget proposes a new fee system to meet program
needs on the back end through inspections. A strong inspection program
fully funded through fees, estimated to be $48 million, will provide
assurance BLM would not have to divert funds from processing permits or
leasing activities in the event that appropriations for inspections did
not keep pace with the workload associated with this critical
responsibility. The inspection fee authority proposed for BLM is
comparable to that already in place for offshore inspections. Coupled
with the transition to the implementation of a new automated permitting
system that eliminates paper applications, these budget resources will
significantly strengthen the BLM's program management capacity.
The budget request would fund Interior agencies overseeing oil and
gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf as follows: $170.9
million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; and $204.7 million
for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. The President's
proposal also supports continued reforms to strengthen oversight of
industry operations following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
with an additional emphasis on risk management.
supporting tribal sovereignty and native youth
The budget maintains the administration's strong commitment to
tribal self-determination and strengthening tribal communities. It
provides increases across Federal programs that serve tribes, including
a proposed 12 percent increase over the 2015 enacted level for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian Education. The
budget includes a $26 million increase to fully fund Contract Support
Costs that tribes incur from managing Federal programs, and a
legislative proposal to reclassify Contract Support Costs as mandatory
funding in 2017 in support of self-determination. The budget also
capitalizes on the role of BIA as a broad ranging provider of Federal
services by proposing to create a one-stop shop approach for
facilitating tribal access to Federal programs across the U.S.
Government. A total of $244.5 million is requested to resolve Indian
water rights claims and implement enacted settlement commitments--
supporting sustainable water sharing and management, and providing
critical infrastructure, jobs, and clean drinking water to some of the
most impoverished communities in the Nation.
The President's budget supports a new and integrated approach to
addressing barriers to success for Native youth. The Generation
Indigenous, or Gen-I, initiative takes a comprehensive approach to help
improve the lives of and opportunities for Native youth. Gen-I includes
a $1 billion investment in Indian education to support a comprehensive
transformation of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). This multi-year
process will transform the BIE into an organization that serves as a
capacity builder and service provider to support tribes in educating
their youth and deliver a world-class and culturally appropriate
education across Indian Country.
engaging the next generation
The future of the Country's natural, cultural, and historic
heritage depends on the next generation of active stewards. Interior's
unique assets provide an unparalleled opportunity to connect the next
generation to the great outdoors and the Nation's rich history.
Building on the President's vision for the creation of the 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps and implementation of My Brother's Keeper, I
launched a youth initiative to inspire millions of young people to
play, learn, serve and work outdoors. There is a growing disconnect
between young people and the great outdoors and it is a gap Interior
can help bridge through public-private partnerships coordinated with
all levels of government. Interior is expanding efforts to pass on our
Nation's rich conservation legacy and to inspire millions of young
people to play, learn, serve and work outdoors.
The budget includes $107.2 million for youth programs across the
Department, a $45.5 million increase from the 2015 enacted level.
Within this increase, $20.0 million is provided to NPS for youth
activities, including bringing one million elementary school children
from low-income areas to national parks. This increase will also fund
dedicated youth coordinators to help enrich children and families'
learning experiences at parks and online.
Our goal is to reach 10 million children through recreation
programs, an additional 10 million children through environmental
education programs, one million volunteers caring for our lands, and
100,000 young adults and veterans working on public lands. To do this,
we need to engage the private sector and create more public-private
partnerships. I have a personal goal to raise $20 million for this
endeavor and am happy to say we have received support from strong,
enlightened companies like American Eagle Outfitters, Coca-Cola,
CamelBak and The North Face. We can't do this alone, and we are
actively involving partners from the private and nonprofit sectors to
join us in creating a movement that helps prepare the next generation
of stewards, policy-makers and leaders.
legislative proposals and offsetting collections
In 2016, the Department will generate an estimated $13.8 billion in
Federal receipts; these funds are deposited in the Treasury and serve
to offset the cost of general government services, support a range of
specific Federal programs, and support State and local governments
through various revenue sharing arrangements. The 2016 budget includes
a number of revenue generating proposals estimated to result in savings
to the Treasury of $5.6 billion over 10 years.
Studies by the Government Accountability Office and Interior's
Inspector General found taxpayers could earn a better return from DOI's
oil and gas management programs through policy changes and more
rigorous oversight. The budget proposes a package of legislative
reforms to bolster administrative actions focused on advancing royalty
reforms, encouraging diligent development of oil and gas leases, and
improving revenue collection processes.
The administration is also committed to ensuring American taxpayers
receive a fair return from the sale of public resources and benefit
from the development of offshore energy resources owned by all
Americans. The budget proposes the Interior Department work with
Congress to redirect the distribution of expanded revenue payments
under the 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. These payments,
allocated to just four States in the Gulf of Mexico, are expected to
increase significantly starting in 2018. Under the administration's
proposal, funds will instead be directed to programs that offer broader
natural resource, watershed, and conservation benefits for the entire
Nation, help the Federal Government fulfill its role of being a good
neighbor to local communities, and support other national priorities.
The budget includes a number of other legislative proposals,
including full mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund starting in 2017, full mandatory funding for Contract Support
Costs starting in 2017, 3 years of mandatory funding for the National
Parks and Public Lands Centennial, and a 1 year mandatory funding
extension of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program.
The budget also includes a number of discretionary user fee
proposals to offset certain costs to the taxpayer.
bureau highlights
Bureau of Land Management.--The 2016 request is $1.2 billion, an
increase of $107.6 million from the 2015 enacted level. The 2016
request assumes the use of $64.5 million in proposed offsetting fees
that provide an effective increase of $172.1 million above 2015. The
2016 request includes $1.1 billion for the Management of Lands and
Resources account, and $38.0 million in current appropriations for Land
Acquisition, including $4.0 million to improve access to public lands
for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. The budget proposes $107.7
million for Oregon and California Grant Lands, which includes a $3.2
million decrease in Western Oregon Resource Management Planning,
reflecting expected completion of six revised plans in spring 2016.
To advance America's Great Outdoors, the request includes $19.8
million in program increases for BLM's Recreation Resources Management
program, National Conservation Lands, and Cultural Resources Management
program. This includes a $6.6 million increase to accelerate and
enhance implementation of BLM's National Recreation Strategy--
Connecting with Communities, which will enable BLM to more aggressively
develop partnerships with communities and service providers to
encourage recreational opportunities on public lands. The funds will
also be used for such activities as improving signage and
interpretative exhibits and meeting accessibility standards at visitor
centers. An increase of $11.2 million for the National Conservation
Lands (also known as the National Landscape Conservation System) will
enable BLM to accommodate the increased workload and responsibilities
that have accompanied the addition of recently designated units. A $2.0
million increase in Cultural Resources Management will enhance BLM
capacity to preserve and protect the vast treasure of heritage
resources on public lands. The budget request also includes $6.0
million for youth programs, an increase of $5.0 million from 2015, to
put more young Americans to work protecting and restoring public lands
and cultural and historical treasures.
The BLM continues to support the President's all-of-the-above
energy strategy on public lands, including an initiative with important
increases critical to BLM's ability to effectively manage onshore oil
and gas development. The 2016 budget request for oil and gas management
activities, including the request for direct and fee-funded
appropriations and estimated mandatory appropriations, represents an
increase of $29.1 million, or 20 percent, in total program resources
over the 2015 enacted level. The additional resources will enhance the
bureau's ability to process Applications for Permits to Drill more
quickly and efficiently, accelerate the development and completion of
master leasing plans in support of BLM's leasing reform efforts, and
strengthen its inspection and oversight program. The $29.1 million
total funding increase for BLM's Oil and Gas Management program
includes a proposal to institute a fee system to support the inspection
program. The estimated $48.0 million in collections generated from the
inspection fees will reduce the need for direct appropriations for the
program by $41.1 million while also providing for an increase of $6.9
million above the amount appropriated in 2015 for this critical BLM
management responsibility.
The 2016 budget request includes an increase of $45.0 million, to
support the increased workload and commitments required as
implementation of the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation plans ramp up.
The requested funds support activities that fall into three broad
categories which involve both on-the-ground work and establishing the
processes and organizational capability to plan and oversee the effort:
managing resource uses in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats; restoring and
reconnecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitats; and assessing, monitoring,
and reporting on conditions in priority habitats.
Other budget highlights include a $5.0 million program increase in
the Resource Management Planning subactivity to expand BLM's
Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring program that will support
increased data collection and monitoring needs central to the success
of high priority landscape management efforts, such as the Western
Solar Energy Plan, the implementation of the plan for the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska, the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
Strategy and the Department's broader landscape mitigation strategy.
The request also includes an increase of $7.8 million to accelerate
implementation of BLM's enterprise geographic information system, which
aggregates data and viewing information across boundaries to capture
ecological conditions and trends; natural and human influences; and
opportunities for resource conservation, restoration, development, and
partnering. The BLM's geospatial proposal is a critical component of
Interior's growing enterprise geospatial capabilities and strategy. A
$10.0 million increase in BLM's Challenge Cost Share program will be
dedicated to projects that increase the resilience of landscapes in
response to changing climate
A proposed grazing administration fee will enhance BLM's capacity
for processing grazing permits. A fee of $2.50 per animal unit month,
estimated to provide $16.5 million in 2016, is proposed on a pilot
basis. This additional revenue, which would be retained by BLM, more
than offsets a decrease of $3.0 million in appropriated funds in
Rangeland Management. The net increase of $13.5 million will allow BLM
to expedite permit renewals and reduce the permit backlog.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The 2016 operating request is
$170.9 million, including $74.2 million in current appropriations and
$96.6 million in offsetting collections. This is a net increase of $1.8
million in current appropriations above the 2015 enacted level.
The 2016 budget maintains a strong offshore renewable energy
program at slightly above the 2015 level of $24.3 million for the total
program. To date, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has
issued seven commercial wind energy leases offshore Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Virginia. In June 2014, BOEM issued
the first outer continental shelf lease for marine hydrokinetic
technology testing offshore Florida, and in November 2014, BOEM offered
its first transmission right-of-way grant offshore Rhode Island.
Offshore conventional energy programs are funded with an increase
of $10.2 million, bringing total funding to $59.9 million in 2016. To
date, under BOEM's Five-Year OCS Leasing Program for 2012-2017, six
sales were held generating over $2.4 billion in high bids, and two
additional lease sales are scheduled during calendar year 2015. The
request includes an increase of $2.5 million for establishing a risk
management program, to better protect the Federal Government and
taxpayers from financial risks that may arise from unfunded
decommissioning costs.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The 2016 budget
request is $204.7 million, including $82.5 million in current
appropriations and $122.2 million in offsetting collections,
essentially level with 2015. The request for offsetting collections
assumes $65.0 million from offshore oil and gas inspection fees. The
2016 request allows the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) to begin to establish a renewable energy inspection program, and
continue to strengthen regulatory and oversight capability on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), and oil spill response prevention.
The budget includes $189.8 million for Offshore Safety and
Environmental Enforcement. The request includes a program increase of
$1.7 million to establish an Engineering Technology Assessment Center
to develop top-level engineering support for BSEE decisionmaking at all
levels of the organization. Funding for Oil Spill Research is
maintained at the 2015 level of $14.9 million.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.--The 2016
budget request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement is $160.5 million, an increase of $10.4 million from the
2015 enacted level. The 2016 budget for Regulation and Technology is
$128.4 million, an increase of $5.7 million above the 2015 level. The
request includes $12.6 million, a program increase of $3.8 million
above the 2015 level, to improve implementation of existing laws and
support State and tribal programs. It also includes $65.5 million for
State and tribal regulatory grants. This request fully funds estimated
State requirements based on the return each year of an estimated $3
million in previously appropriated regulatory grant funds by States.
The 2016 budget for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is $32.1
million, an increase of $4.7 million above the 2015 level. The budget
includes a $2.0 million program increase for technical assistance to
States, Tribes, and communities on Abandoned Mine Land (AML) site
reclamation and area-wide reclamation planning and a $1.4 million
program increase to evaluate AML program implementation, including
identifying more effective and efficient tools for AML site
identification, contract management, and program oversight. The 2016
budget proposes to distribute an estimated $926.1 million in mandatory
appropriations. This includes $385.3 million to noncertified States and
tribes in reclamation grants and $540.8 million in payments to the
United Mine Workers of America retiree health and pension plans. The
administration proposes legislation to revitalize communities impacted
by abandoned coal mines, reform current funding of abandoned coal mine
land clean-up, increase funding for hardrock abandoned mine land clean-
up, and provide for retired coal miners and their families.
U.S. Geological Survey.--The 2016 request is $1.2 billion, an
increase of nearly $150 million above the 2015 enacted level. The 2016
budget reflects the vital role the USGS plays in advancing the
President's commitment to scientific discovery and innovation to
support sustainable economic growth, natural resource management, and
science-based decisionmaking for critical societal needs. The budget
includes funding for science to inform land and resource management
decisions, advance a landscape level understanding of ecosystems, and
develop new strategies to support communities in responding to climate
change, historic drought, water quality issues, and natural hazards.
The budget also funds science to support the Nation's energy strategy
and to help identify critical mineral resources and address the impacts
of energy and mineral development on the environment.
The 2016 budget provides an increase of $14.6 million above the
2015 enacted level for science to support sustainable water management.
The budget provides increased funding to support resource managers in
managing competing demands related to water availability and quality
and to enable adaptive management of watersheds. This includes a $3.2
million increase for science to respond to drought, a $4.0 million
increase for water use information and research, a $2.5 million
increase to study ecological water flows, a $1.3 million increase for
streamgages, and a $1.0 million increase to advance the National
Groundwater Monitoring Network.
The 2016 budget provides an increase of $11.0 million across the
energy, minerals and environmental health portfolio for science to
support the sustainable development of conventional and unconventional
oil and gas resources; renewable energy sources such as geothermal,
wind, and solar; critical minerals such as rare earth minerals; and
address the environmental impacts of resource development such as
uranium. These investments include $19.5 million, $5.3 million above
2015, to support an interagency effort with the Department of Energy
and the Environmental Protection Agency to better understand the
potential impacts of unconventional oil and gas development.
The budget includes a program increase of $1.0 million for mineral
resources science to continue life-cycle analysis for critical minerals
such as rare earth elements, and to develop new science and tools to
reduce the impacts of minerals extraction, production, and recycling on
the environment and human health. A life-cycle analysis will trace the
flow of critical minerals from occurrence through interaction with
society to ultimate disposal. The increase will support new workforce
capability to address the main thrusts of the President's four working
groups in the Office of Science and Technology Policy that are
currently focused on critical and strategic materials essential to
national security, economic vitality, and environmental protection.
The budget provides increases totaling $6.6 million above the 2015
enacted level for natural hazard science. This includes $4.9 million to
expand the Global Seismic Network used for worldwide earthquake
monitoring and tsunami warning and $1.7 million to support solar flare
(space weather geomagnetic) monitoring which is critical to mitigating
impacts to the electrical grid and other hazards. The budget supports
the installation and operation of rapid-deployable streamgages to help
manage flood response activities. The funding will increase volcano,
landslide, wildfire, and sinkhole response capabilities as well as
build on investments to continue development of an earthquake early
warning system, with the goal of implementing a limited public warning
system for the U.S. west coast by 2018.
The budget includes $15.6 million to expand and enhance ecosystem
science activities to increase the understanding of the Nation's
landscapes. Increases totaling $6.7 million support research in
critical landscapes, including $4.2 million for the Arctic, $1.0
million to study sage steppe landscapes, and $1.5 million to support
science for Puget Sound, Columbia River and the upper Mississippi
River. USGS research will continue to support restoration of other
priority ecosystems, such as Chesapeake Bay, Everglades, Great Lakes,
California Bay-Delta, and Gulf Coast. Increases totaling $3.8 million
support research on invasive and declining species, including $2.2
million for invasive plants and animals and $1.6 million to study the
decline of pollinating insects, birds, and mammals. The budget also
requests $5.1 million to support coastal resilience and adaptation to
long-term change from sea-level rise and coastal erosion.
The President's budget request includes an increase of $37.8
million to provide data and tools to help land and resource managers
make informed decisions across the landscape and provide data and
information to the public for use in a wide variety of applications.
The budgets of USGS and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration provide complementary funding to sustain the Landsat
data stream, which is critical to understanding global landscapes.
Funding in the USGS budget supports the ground system portion of the
Sustained Land Imaging Program, including funding for ground systems
development for a Thermal Instrument Free Flyer, Landsat 9 (a rebuild
of the Landsat 8), and to receive data from international partners. The
budget also includes a $4.0 million increase for Landsat science
products for climate and resource assessments.
The budget provides increases for foundational data and tools
needed to support landscape level understanding, increases for mapping,
expanded lidar collection through the 3D Elevation Program, making data
more easy to access and use under the Big Earth Data Initiative, and
developing information and tools to assess ecosystem services and
benefits. For example, an increase of $3.7 million will expand three-
dimensional elevation data collection in Alaska and elsewhere in the
United States, mitigate the effects of coastal erosion, storms, and
other hazards, and support many other critical activities. A $1.8
million increase will enhance understanding of the benefits of the
Nation's ecosystem services and a $1.1 million increase for the Big
Earth Data Initiative will make high-value data sets easier to
discover, access and use.
The USGS plays an important role in conducting research and
developing information and tools to support communities in preparing
for, and responding to the impacts of global climate change. The budget
includes an increase of $32.0 million for science to support climate
resilience and adaptation. The budget includes a $6.8 million increase
in science for adaptation and resilience planning and an increase of
$2.3 million for the USGS to provide interagency coordination of
regional climate science activities across the Nation, an increase of
$9.1 million to support biological carbon sequestration, and $11.0
million for the USGS to support the community resilience toolkit, which
is a web based clearinghouse of data, tools, shared applications, and
best practices for State, local and tribal resource managers, decision-
makers, and the public.
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The 2016 budget for FWS totals $3.0
billion, including current appropriations of $1.6 billion, an increase
of $130.7 million compared to the 2015 level. The proposed funding
level will allow the bureau to facilitate collaboration and action on
the ground as the best way to preserve the wildlife and open spaces so
important to the Nation. For this reason, I ask the committee remove
the rider included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations Act that
prevents the FWS from writing rules to list several species of sage-
grouse. Our approach to working collaboratively among Federal agencies,
States and stakeholders could provide the path for conserving species
so Endangered Species Act protection for both the bi-State and Greater
Sage-Grouse is not necessary. The fiscal year 2015 rider has
complicated implementation of the urgent work needed to protect the
sagebrush-steppe from threats such as invasive species, fire and
fragmentation. These threats impact not only the sage-grouse, but 350
other species of wildlife and traditional economic activity like
ranching, hunting and recreation central to the Western way of life.
Absent effective conservation efforts to reduce or remove the threats
now affecting the species, the likelihood of eventual listing of the
Greater Sage-Grouse under the ESA will be increased.
The budget includes $1.4 billion available under mandatory
appropriations, most of which will be provided directly to States for
fish and wildlife restoration and conservation. In 2016, a total of
$1.5 billion in current funding is proposed for FWS as part of the
administration's initiative to reconnect Americans to the outdoors.
Creating opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors through
programs at FWS will help to ensure future generations appreciate and
conserve natural resources and preserve natural places. Investments
that support this effort in 2016 include $1.3 billion for FWS
operations, an increase of $114.2 million over the 2015 level. The
request includes $5.0 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System's
Urban Wildlife Conservation Partnerships that will reconnect the
Nation's urban populations with the outdoors. With 80 percent of the
U.S. population currently residing in urban communities near more than
260 wildlife refuges, using the Refuge System to help urbanites to
rediscover the outdoors is a priority for FWS. The budget also requests
$108.3 million for grant programs administered by FWS that support
America's Great Outdoors goals. Within this amount is an increase of
$11.3 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife grant program on which
many States and tribes rely to fund non-game animal conservation. The
request also includes program increases of $10.0 million for Challenge
Cost Share projects and $5.0 million for the Joint Venture program to
support cooperation with non-Federal partners to enhance the resilience
of habitat to adapt to a changing climate.
The budget proposes $16.8 million, an increase of $2.6 million, for
activities associated with energy development. Of this increase, $1.4
million supports scientific research into the impacts of energy
transmission and development infrastructure on wildlife and habitat.
The research will identify potential impacts associated with the
development of energy infrastructure and strategies to minimize the
impacts on habitat and species. An increase of $1.2 million for the
Ecological Services Planning and Consultation program supports
assessments of renewable energy projects proposed for development.
The budget request for the Resource Management account continues
support for key programs with program increases of $110.6 million above
2015. The request provides $258.2 million in Ecological Services to
conserve, protect, and enhance listed and at-risk species and their
habitat, an increase of $32.3 million. Within this request are
increases of $4.0 million to support conservation of the sage steppe
habitat across 11 Western States and $4.0 million to support Gulf Coast
restoration.
The request includes funding within Law Enforcement and
International Affairs to combat wildlife trafficking. The budget
provides $75.4 million for the law enforcement program to investigate
wildlife crimes, enforce the laws governing the Nation's wildlife
trade, and expand technical forensic expertise, with program increases
of $8.0 million over 2015.
The budget includes $147.5 million for Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Conservation, a program increase of $4.9 million. Within this
request is $53.4 million for operation of the National Fish Hatchery
System and a $2.4 million increase to prevent the spread of Asian carp
in the Missouri, Ohio, upper Mississippi Rivers, and other high
priority watersheds.
Funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation activity is $17.9
million, an increase of $3.9 million, and funding for Science Support
is $31.7 million, a program increase of $14.7 million. The budget
supports applied science directed at high impact questions to mitigate
threats to fish and wildlife resources, including $2.5 million to
address white-nose syndrome in bats, an increase of $1.0 million to
study biological carbon sequestration, and an increase of $1.0 million
to analyze ecosystem services valuation.
The 2016 budget proposes to eliminate the current funding
contribution to the National Wildlife Refuge fund, a reduction of $13.2
million below 2015. An estimated $8.0 million in mandatory receipts
collected and allocated under the program would remain available to
counties.
National Park Service.--The 2016 budget request for NPS of $3.0
billion is $432.9 million above the 2015 enacted level. The 2016 NPS
budget request for operations is $2.5 billion. This is an increase of
$239.4 million above the 2015 enacted level, consisting of $213.4
million in program increases, and $25.3 million in fixed costs
increases. Highlights of the 2016 budget include the increases for the
Centennial. A $40.0 million increase to the Centennial Challenge
program will provide an important Federal match to leverage partner
donations for projects and programs at national parks in anticipation
and support of the upcoming Centennial.
Other changes include a $2.2 million programmatic reduction to
refocus operations funding which partially offsets the following
increases: $16.3 million to provide healthcare insurance to seasonal
employees, $6.0 million to fund projects that will document and
preserve civil rights history in the national park system, $3.5 million
for climate change adaptation projects, $3.0 million to improve
baseline cultural resource documentation at park units, and $2.5
million for science priorities. The 2016 budget also broadens the scope
of NPS programs contributing to the understanding of and preparing for
the impacts of a changing climate. A $10.0 million program increase is
requested in the Challenge Cost Share program for NPS to work with non-
Federal partners on projects that increase the resilience of landscapes
in response to changing climate.
The administration proposes an initiative to Celebrate Civil Rights
in America in 2016 by commemorating the struggles undertaken by
Americans to secure civil rights and liberties. The 2016 budget will
provide resources to celebrate how those actions inspired many groups
in America and around the world to continue to pursue progress for
civil rights. The budget proposes increases of $50.0 million, including
$6.0 million to fund projects that will document and preserve civil
rights history in the national park system, and $1.5 million to address
critical base operating NPS needs at sites such as the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Maryland, and the
Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio. Also included
in the $50.0 million initiative is $30.0 million for competitive
historic preservation grants to preserve the stories and sites
associated with the Civil Rights movement, and $2.5 million for grants
specifically to Historically Black Colleges and Universities to
document, interpret, and preserve the stories and sites associated with
the progression of Civil Rights in America. Finally, $10.0 million will
provide the necessary resources to complete high priority facility
projects at NPS sites associated with the Civil Rights movement such as
the Selma Interpretive Center at the Selma to Montgomery National
Historic Trail, the Lincoln Memorial and the Martin Luther King, Jr.
National Historic site.
The 2016 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is $89.9
million, an increase of $33.5 million. Of this total, $46.9 million is
requested for grants-in-aid to States and Territories, which is level
with 2015. A total of $10.0 million is requested for grants-in-aid to
tribes, an increase of $1.0 million. The budget proposes to fund
grants-in-aid to Historically Black Colleges and Universities through a
$2.5 million increase, which is an important component of the Civil
Rights initiative. Finally, the budget includes $30.5 million for
competitive grants-in-aid, a $30.0 million increase for new competitive
grants as part of the Civil Rights initiative, and $500,000 for the
existing competitive grants targeted toward communities currently under
represented on the National Register of Historic Places.
The 2016 request includes $54.2 million for the National Recreation
and Preservation account, a decrease of $8.9 million compared to 2015.
These changes consist of a program reduction of $9.7 million to
Heritage Partnership Programs, a programmatic increase of $703,000 for
the National Register program to digitize records, a programmatic
increase of $260,000 for the Federal Lands to Parks program, and fixed
costs increases of $506,000.
Programs funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are a
key strategy to enhance America's Great Outdoors. The budget requests
$117.5 million for the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account,
an increase of $18.5 million. This includes $53.2 million for the State
Conservation Grants program, a programmatic increase of $5.0 million,
and $64.3 million for NPS Federal land acquisition, a programmatic
increase of $13.3 million. Of this amount, $16.3 million supports
Collaborative Landscape projects.
Funding for Construction totals $251.0 million, an increase of
$112.6 million. Of this amount, the budget includes $153.3 million for
line-item construction projects, a $91.7 million program increase
compared to 2015. The request includes $8.7 million to provide seismic
stabilization at the Mammoth Hotel at Yellowstone National Park and
$3.0 million to rehabilitate the Selma Interpretive Center at the Selma
to Montgomery National Historic Trail.
Indian Affairs.--The 2016 budget for Indian Affairs is $2.9
billion, $323.5 million above the 2015 level. This includes an increase
of $231.4 million for Operation of Indian Programs; an increase of
$32.0 million for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements; an increase
of $60.1 million for Construction; and level funding of $7.7 million
for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
The 2016 budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $277.0
million, an increase of $26.0 million above 2015. Based on the most
recent analysis, the requested amount for 2016 will fully fund Contract
Support Costs. To stabilize long-term funding and address programmatic
concerns with Contract Support Costs, the 2016 budget also proposes--
for the first time--a legislative proposal to reclassify these costs as
mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2017. Mandatory funding for
Contract Support Costs will help stabilize this vital funding for
Tribes and further self-governance and self-determination efforts.
The budget contains a number of critical increases to support
tribal nation-building and economic development. The budget capitalizes
on the important role BIA plays as a broad provider of Federal services
by proposing $4.0 million to establish the One-Stop Tribal Support
Center to make it easier for tribes to find and access hundreds of
services available to tribes across the Federal Government. The 2016
budget includes $4.5 million to establish an Indian Energy Service
Center to facilitate vital energy development in Indian Country of both
conventional and alternative energy and to support assessment of the
social and environmental impacts of energy development on tribal lands.
A data initiative of $12.0 million is proposed to improve and expand
access to quality data for tribal leaders and other decision makers.
This funding will establish an Office of Indian Affairs Policy, Program
Evaluation, and Data which will help the Department collect, analyze,
and utilize evidence to support effective policy making and program
implementation. Lastly, a $1.3 million increase for the Small and Needy
Tribes program is proposed to assist eligible Tribes in expanding and
sustaining tribal governance.
The 2016 budget proposes an additional $15.0 million to expand
Indian Affairs' capacity in current programs that address Indian child
and family welfare and job training issues. The budget proposes program
increases of $6.0 million for social services programs, $4.0 million
for law enforcement special initiatives, and $5.0 million for tribal
courts. The law enforcement increases will expand on pilot projects
initiated in 2015 in which BIA law enforcement is implementing a
comprehensive strategy to support alternatives to incarceration.
Funding increases for these programs will be integrated with other
funding increases across the Federal Government, including an
additional $25.0 million to the Indian Health Service to address
behavioral health issues, a $25.0 million increase to the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for the Tribal
Behavioral Health program, and a $132.0 million increase for the
Administration for Children and Families for Tribal Child Care
programs, cultural and language preservation programs, tribal child
welfare programs, Tribal Head Start, and other native programs.
The 2016 budget proposes a $1.0 billion investment in Indian
education to support a comprehensive transformation of BIE. The multi-
year process will transform BIE into an organization that serves as a
capacity builder and service provider to support tribes in educating
their youth and deliver a world class and culturally appropriate
education across Indian Country. The budget provides increases totaling
$138.4 million for elementary and secondary school education activities
funded by BIE and education construction. The request includes a
program increase of $45.5 million in Elementary and Secondary
education. An increase of $12.9 million will fully fund Tribal Grant
Support Costs which, similar to Contract Support Costs, assists tribes
that run their own schools by covering the costs of administering
programs. The Education Program Enhancement program is increased by
$10.0 million to encourage creative solutions for school
transformations. Requested facility maintenance and operations
increases totaling $20.0 million will provide essential preventive and
routine maintenance and operating expenses so schools are operated in a
safe and educationally conducive manner. The 2016 budget also includes
a $34.2 million increase for education information technology to
enhance broadband and digital access for students at BIE-funded
schools.
The budget requests a $58.7 million increase for Education
Construction to support the education transformation. This includes a
$25.3 million increase for replacement school construction to complete
construction of the final two schools on the 2004 replacement school
construction priority list: Little Singer Community School and Cove Day
School, both in Arizona. A $17.7 million increase for facilities
improvement and repair is requested for repairs to building structures
and components necessary to sustain and prolong the useful life of
education buildings. Additionally, the budget includes $11.9 million to
address major facility replacement needs at schools like the Bug-O-Nay-
Ge-Shig school on the Leech Lake Band of the Ojibwe reservation.
Lastly, an increase of $3.7 million is requested for employee housing
repair which will complement a new $10.0 million set-aside proposed in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to address teacher
housing needs.
The 2016 budget also includes increases totaling $7.4 million to
meet educational needs beyond the BIE elementary and secondary system.
To further higher education, a $4.6 million increase is requested for
scholarship and adult education and a $250,000 increase is requested
for Special Higher Education Scholarships. The 2016 budget includes a
$2.6 million increase for the Johnson O'Malley program to provide
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending public schools
with additional resources to meet their unique and specialized
educational needs.
The 2016 budget strongly supports the sustainable stewardship of
trust lands, natural resources, and the environment in Indian Country.
The budget includes program increases totaling $63.2 million for the
trust natural resources and real estate services programs. The budget
provides a total of $50.4 million, a $40.4 million increase over 2015,
proposed across nine natural resource programs, to support tribal
communities in sustainable resource management and in preparing and
responding to the impacts of climate change, such as drought,
wildfires, changes in the plants and animals important to subsistence
and culture, rights protection, coastal erosion, and sea level rise.
The budget includes a total increase of $16.2 million for trust
real estate service activities to reinforce the stewardship of trust
resources. The expanded capacity will address the probate backlog, land
title and records processing, geospatial support needs, and database
management in addition to providing expanded technical and legal
support for authorized settlements involving tribal water rights. The
BIA increases for water rights settlements represent a subset of
increases totaling $73.0 million across the Department to support
resolving tribal water rights claims and ensuring that tribes have
access to use and manage water to meet domestic, economic, cultural,
and ecological needs.
Collectively, the 2016 budget proposes a total of $982.7 million in
Tribal Priority Allocations, an increase of $56.2 million over the 2015
level.
The 2016 budget request for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements
is $67.7 million, a $32.0 million increase over the 2015 enacted level.
Several funding increases demonstrate the administration's strong
commitment to resolve tribal water rights claims to ensure tribes have
access to use and manage water. Funding for the Taos Pueblos Indian
Water Rights Settlement is increased by $13.8 million over 2015 for a
total funding request of $29.2 million. This funding amount will
constitute the final payment of the Taos Pueblo settlement. The Navajo-
Gallup Water Supply project is increased by $8.8 million to meet
projected 2016 funding needs. The budget proposes a $9.4 million
increase for the second year of funding for the Aamodt Settlement
enacted as part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The budget also
contains increases of $14.1 million to provide expanded technical and
legal support for tribal water rights settlement negotiations and
implementation.
The 2016 budget for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program is $7.7
million, equivalent to the 2015 enacted level. This will provide $113.8
million in loan guarantee authority to support Indian economic
development.
Departmental Offices and Department-wide Programs.--The 2016
request for the Office of the Secretary is $327.9 million, an increase
of $62.7 million from the 2015 enacted level. The budget reflects an
increase of $50.0 million for Coastal Resilience grants. The Coastal
Resilience competitive grants will support the restoration and
conservation of key ecological systems that protect communities and
infrastructure from the impacts of coastal storms. In collaboration
with State, local, and tribal governments, non-governmental
organizations, universities, and other stakeholders, the program's
goals are to mitigate the impacts of climate change on coastal and
inland communities from storm wave velocity, salt water intrusion,
erosion, flooding, sea level rise, and associated natural threats; and
to strengthen the ecological integrity and functionality of coastal and
inland ecosystems to protect communities and enhance the ability of
Federal lands to support important recreational, wildlife, and cultural
values. The program will also enhance understanding of the impacts of
extreme weather events, the benefits of nature based infrastructure and
ecosystem services, and identify cost-effective tools that help
mitigate and support community resilience with future events. Such
information, tools, and investments are of particular interest to
vulnerable communities in Arctic Alaska, where villages are suffering
the full impact of rapidly accelerating erosion rates and flooding due
to loss of protective sea ice and degraded permafrost. As buildings are
being claimed by the sea and critical infrastructure is threatened,
representatives from Arctic villages and communities in coastal Alaska
have repeatedly appealed for this type of support.
The budget proposes an increase of $1.5 million for work with the
National Invasive Species Council to develop an Early Detection Rapid
Response framework in support of climate resilience efforts. Invasive
species pose one of the greatest threats to the ecological, economic
and cultural integrity of America's landscapes. Detecting invasive
species early and rapidly responding to control their spread is one of
the most cost effective strategies to mitigate their threat. The
additional funding will support planning efforts for a coordinated
invasive species early detection and rapid response framework with
other Federal agencies, States, tribes and other partners. The funds
also will be used to implement commitments identified in the
Department's Invasive Species Action Plan, the National Invasive
Species Council work plan, and the White House Priority Agenda--
Enhancing the Climate Resilience of America's Resources report. As with
coastal resilience support, Governors and tribal leaders from across
the country have appealed for coordination and support for early
detection and rapid response efforts, and this was of particular
interest to a task force of State, local, and tribal leaders eager to
build resilience for their communities and lands.
The budget proposes a $5.9 million and 18 FTE increase to support
the Office of Natural Resources Revenue's Osage Tribal accounting
activities, to expand ONRR's Geospatial Information Systems
capabilities, and to expand on-shore production verification and data
integration efforts. The budget for the Office of the Secretary also
includes $3.0 million for the development of a Digital Service team,
which will be responsible for driving the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Department's highest-impact digital services.
The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $103.0
million, an increase of $13.7 million from the 2015 enacted level
excluding the Palau Compact Extension funding of $13.1 million. Within
this amount, a program increase of $10.4 million is requested in Office
of Insular Affairs and General Technical Assistance to increase the
grant management staff to improve oversight, and address needs in the
insular areas related to sea level rise by supporting development of
infrastructure and community resilience initiatives. The Maintenance
Assistance Fund request includes a program increase of $3.9 million to
improve health and safety conditions in insular school facilities. The
budget also requests a program increase of $1.5 million in Empowering
Insular Communities to implement energy projects identified by the
territories in their comprehensive sustainable energy strategies. Brown
Treesnake Control is funded at $3.0 million, a program decrease of
$500,000, which reflects completion of an automated aerial bait system
in 2015. The budget requests $1.3 million for Compact Impact, a program
decrease of $1.7 million from 2015. This funding is supplemented by
$30.0 million annually in mandatory Compact Impact funding. The budget
includes a mandatory proposal to fund the Palau Compact, as a result it
does not include stopgap discretionary funding of $13.1 million
provided in the 2015 appropriations process.
The Solicitor's 2016 budget is $69.9 million, $4.1 million above
the 2015 enacted level. Maintaining sufficient attorney resources to
handle filed litigation, avoid potential litigation, and provide timely
counseling is critical to ensuring that litigation risks are minimized.
Front-end counseling is critical to realizing cost savings by either
preventing litigation or narrowing the issues that might be challenged
in litigation. The increase for legal services will allow for the
continuation of existing services with sufficient resources to provide
the Secretary and the Department the necessary legal services for the
advancement of priority goals and other mission areas.
The Office of Inspector General request is $52.2 million, an
increase of $1.8 million compared to the 2015 enacted level. The 2016
budget includes $423,000 in funding to support the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The Inspector General
estimates staffing will equal 286 full time equivalents in 2016.
The Office of the Special Trustee request is $143.0 million, $3.9
million above the 2015 enacted level. The budget includes an increase
of $2.8 million in Program Operations and Support. A $1.6 million
increase is requested in field operations to provide additional estate
planning opportunities to Indian Trust beneficiaries. This will help
stem the growth of both land fractionation in Indian Country and the
number of Trust beneficiary estates that require probate. A $1.2
million increase is requested in appraisal services for an appraiser
training program to address the shortage of qualified appraisers and
the resulting delays in completing appraisal evaluations. Lastly, a
$1.0 million increase is requested in trust records to expand the
records training program at Haskell Indian Nations University, create
new records training programs at two additional tribal colleges, and
fund the increased requirements related to the Department's email
Enterprise Records and Document Management System initiative. The
budget also includes a $972,000 reduction in funding for Office of
Historical Trust Accounting based on anticipated workload levels.
The 2016 request for the Department-wide Wildland Fire Management
program is $805.5 million without the proposed fire cap adjustment, and
$1.05 billion including the adjustment. The request includes $268.6
million for fire suppression within the base budget, which is 70
percent of the 10 year suppression average spending. The cap adjustment
of $200.0 million would only be used for the most severe fires, since
it is 1 percent of the fires that cause 30 percent of the costs. The
new budget framework for Wildland Fire Management eliminates the need
for additional funds through the FLAME Act.
The 2016 budget requests $30.0 million in a new Resilient
Landscapes subactivity to build on resilient landscapes activities
supported by Congress in 2015. Congress provided $10.0 million for
resilient landscapes activities in the 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Act
by designating that amount within Fuels Management. While fuels
treatments and resilient landscapes activities are complementary and
synergistic, they also have distinct differences, including the
methodology for prioritizing place-based projects and a leveraged
funding requirement for resilient landscapes. Establishing a separate
subactivity for Resilient Landscapes will assist the Department and
Wildland Fire Management bureaus in tracking funds obligated and
program accomplishments. The $20.0 million increase in funding will
enable the Wildland Fire Management program to take better advantage of
the shared goals of bureau resource management programs to treat large
landscapes to achieve and maintain fire-adapted ecosystems that both
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and achieve restoration and
other ecological objectives. The increase for Resilient Landscapes is
partially offset with a program realignment of $17.7 million in the
Fuels Management program from 2015; total funds for the combined Fuels
Management and Resilient Landscapes subactivities are $14.3 million
above 2015.
The 2016 request for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration program is $9.2 million, an increase of $1.5 million over
the 2015 enacted level. The budget includes program increases of $1.5
million for Restoration Support, $233,000 for Program Management,
$100,000 for Inland Oil Spill Preparedness, and a program reduction of
$448,000 for Damage Assessment reflecting a reallocation of funding to
increase restoration activities.
The budget includes $10.0 million for the Central Hazardous
Materials Fund, equal to the 2015 enacted level.
The Department's 2015 request for the Working Capital Fund
appropriation is $74.5 million, an increase of $17.4 million from the
2015 enacted level. Within this request is $53.9 million for the
operation and maintenance of the Financial and Business Management
System, an increase of $1.0 million to continue support of the
Department's Cultural and Scientific Collections initiative, an
increase of $702,000 for the Department's Service First initiative, and
an increase of $5.2 million to support Interior's Office Consolidation
strategy. The budget also includes an increase of $10.5 million to
support Interior's multi-year effort to implement requirements
identified under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, known
as the DATA Act, and monitor compliance.
legislative proposals
The 2016 President's budget includes a suite of legislative and
offsetting collection proposals affecting spending, revenues, and
available budget authority that require action by the congressional
authorizing committees. These proposals address a range of
administration priorities, from investing in high-priority conservation
and recreation programs to achieving a fair return to the American
taxpayer from the sale of Federal resources and reducing unnecessary
spending. The 2016 budget includes seven spending proposals with $15.2
billion in estimated outlays over the next decade. This spending is
partially offset by revenue and savings proposals estimated to reduce
outlays from the Treasury by more than $5.6 billion over the next
decade.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support Costs.--The budget
includes a legislative proposal to reclassify the existing Contract
Support Costs program from current to mandatory funding beginning in
fiscal year 2017. Congress requested that both BIA and the Indian
Health Service consult with tribes to develop a long-term approach to
funding Contract Support Costs. The leading tribal recommendation was
to provide funding for contract support costs as a mandatory
appropriation. Beginning the reclassification in 2017 will allow time
for tribal consultation in 2016 on operational details. The budget
proposes to adjust the discretionary budget caps to reflect the
reclassification. The estimate for projected BIA program growth, above
the discretionary cap amount, totals $105.0 million for 2017-2019 and
will be treated as a Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 cost for the
authorizing legislation. New contract support cost legislative
proposals and offsetting collections estimates will be provided on a 3-
year cycle as part of the reauthorization process.
Coal Abandoned Mine Lands Reform.--As part of the administration's
POWER+ Plan, the budget proposes to accelerate payments from a portion
of the remaining unappropriated balance of the AML Fund to target the
cleanup and redevelopment of AML sites and AML coal mine polluted
waters in a manner that facilitates sustainable revitalization in
economically depressed coalfield communities. The proposal will provide
$1.0 billion over 5 years to States based on AML program and economic
eligibility factors--such as the unemployment rate of coal mining
regions--and remaining priority coal problems, including abandoned mine
drainage, where reclamation linked to job creating economic development
strategies will help revitalize impacted communities.
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.--The Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 opened some additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico
for offshore oil and gas leasing, while maintaining moratoria on
activities east of the Military Mission Line and within certain
distances from the coastline of Florida. The Act provides that 37.5
percent of Outer Continental Shelf revenues from certain leases be
distributed to just four coastal States--Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas--and their local governments based on a complex
allocation formula. Under the administration's all-of-the-above energy
strategy, domestic energy production has grown each year. Offshore, the
Department has made 60 million acres available for development in the
past three lease sales alone. The administration is committed to
ensuring American taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of
public resources and taxpayers throughout the Country benefit from the
development of offshore energy resources owned by all Americans. The
administration proposes to work with the Congress on legislation to
redirect funds currently allocated to GOMESA revenue-sharing payments
to just four States from Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases. The
administration proposes to redirect these payments, which are set to
expand substantially starting in 2018, to programs that provide broad
natural resource, watershed and conservation benefits to the Nation,
help the Federal Government fulfill its role of being a good neighbor
to local communities, and support other national priorities. Such
programs could include the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Payments
in Lieu of Taxes, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, Federal coastal
restoration and resilience programs, and other national priorities.
United Mineworkers of America Health and Pension Reform.--The
budget proposes to better provide for retired coal miners and their
families by revising the formula for general fund payments to the 1993
UMWA Health Benefit Plan. The new formula will consider all
beneficiaries enrolled in the plan as of enactment, as well as those
retirees whose health benefits were denied or reduced as the result of
a bituminous coal industry bankruptcy proceeding commenced in 2012.
Additionally, the proposal will transfer funds through the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation to the trustees of the 1974 UMWA Pension
Plan to ensure the plan's longterm solvency. The plan, which covers
more than 100,000 mineworkers, is underfunded and approaching
insolvency. The new formula will provide an additional $363.0 million
to the UMWA in 2016 and $3.9 billion over 10 years.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The budget proposes $900.0
million in current and mandatory funding in 2016, and starting in 2017,
the budget proposes permanent authorization of $900.0 million in
mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture. During a transition to mandatory funding in 2016, the
budget proposes $500.0 million for mandatory funding and $400.0 million
for current funding, to be shared by Interior and Agriculture.
National Parks and Public Lands Centennial.--The Centennial
initiative proposes $500.0 million a year for 3 years or $1.5 billion
in mandatory funding beginning in 2016 for the following programs:
$100.0 million a year for a National Park Service Centennial Challenge
to leverage private donations; $300.0 million a year for addressing NPS
deferred maintenance backlogs; and $100.0 million a year for a Public
Lands Centennial Fund, which will competitively allocate funds for
projects on public lands. Interior's public lands bureaus and
Agriculture's Forest Service will identify projects that enhance
visitor services and outdoor recreation opportunities, restore lands,
repair facilities, and increase energy and water efficiency. The
availability of mandatory funding to address deferred maintenance and
other conservation projects will allow these agencies to plan ahead
more efficiently to achieve significant results. Stable and predictable
funding streams will allow projects to be appropriately scheduled and
phased for effective project delivery and completion from a capital
investment standpoint.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The Department proposes
to reauthorize this Act that expired on July 25, 2011 to allow Federal
lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to
be sold using this authority. The sales revenues would continue to fund
the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and administrative
costs associated with conducting the sales.
Recreation Fee Program.--The Department of the Interior proposes to
permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act,
which will expire September 30, 2016. The program currently brings in
an estimated $281 million in recreation fees annually under this
authority and uses them to enhance the visitor experience at Interior
facilities. In addition, as a short-term alternative to proposed
legislation for long-term reauthorization, the budget proposes to
extend authorization through September 30, 2017.
Federal Oil and Gas Reforms.--The budget includes a package of
legislative reforms to bolster and backstop 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. Proposed statutory
and administrative changes fall into three general categories: (1)
advancing royalty reforms, (2) encouraging diligent development of oil
and gas leases, and (3) improving revenue collection processes.
Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in net
revenue to the Treasury over 10 years, of which about $1.7 billion
would result from statutory changes. Many States will also benefit from
higher Federal revenue sharing payments.
Palau Compact.--On September 3, 2010, the U.S. and the Republic of
Palau successfully concluded the review of the Compact of Free
Association and signed a 15-year agreement that includes a package of
assistance through 2024. The 2016 budget assumes authorization of
mandatory funding for the Compact occurs in 2015. The cost for this
proposal is estimated at $163 million for 2016 through 2024.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--The Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2015 provides $372.0 million in current funding
and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015
provides mandatory funding of $33.0 million in 2015 and $37.0 million
in 2016. The 2016 budget proposes to extend authorization of the
program an additional year while a sustainable long-term funding
solution is developed for the PILT Program. The PILT payments help
local governments carry out vital services, such as firefighting and
police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search
and rescue operations. The cost of a 1 year extension is estimated to
be $452.0 million in 2016.
Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines.--To address the legacy of
abandoned hardrock mines across the U.S. and hold the hardrock mining
industry accountable for past mining practices, the Department will
propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands Program
for abandoned hardrock sites. A new AML fee on hardrock production on
both public and private lands would generate an estimated $1.8 billion
to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal,
State, tribal, and private lands.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--Interior will submit a
legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from
hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal will
institute a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for
certain hardrock minerals including gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper,
uranium, and molybdenum, currently covered by the General Mining Law of
1872. The proposal is projected to generate net revenues to the U.S.
Treasury of $80 million over 10 years, with larger revenues estimated
in following years.
Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic
Levels.--The budget proposes legislation to modify the 2006 amendments
to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which lowered the
per-ton coal fee companies pay into the AML Fund. The proposal would
return the current fee of 28 cents per ton of surface mined coal to 35
cents a ton, the same level companies paid prior to the 2006 fee
reduction. The additional revenue, estimated at $306 million over 10
years, will be used to reclaim high priority abandoned coal mines and
reduce a portion of the estimated $4.0 billion needed to address
remaining dangerous coal AML sites nationwide.
Termination of AML Payments to Certified States.--The budget
proposes to discontinue unrestricted payments to States and tribes
certified for completing their coal reclamation work. This proposal
terminates all such payments, with estimated savings of approximately
$224 million over the next 10 years.
Termination of Geothermal Energy Payments to Counties.--The
Department proposes to repeal Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 to permanently discontinue payments to counties and restore the
disposition of Federal geothermal leasing revenues to the historical
formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the Treasury.
This results in estimated savings of $4.0 million in 2016 and $47.0
million over 10 years.
Bureau of Land Management Foundation.--The budget proposes
legislation to establish a congressionally chartered National BLM
Foundation. This Foundation will provide an opportunity to leverage
private funding to support public lands, achieve shared outcomes, and
focus public support on the BLM mission.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.--The passage of
the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014 raised the price of a Duck Stamp for
the first time in more than 20 years. To provide greater stability in
the future, the budget includes a legislative proposal to provide the
Secretary limited authority to increase the price of a Duck Stamp, with
the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, to keep
pace with inflation.
offsetting collections and fees
The budget includes the following proposals to collect or increase
various fees, so industry shares some of the cost of Federal permitting
and regulatory oversight. The budget also includes a proposal to
recover costs from anyone who damages a national wildlife refuge.
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the Department proposes to implement
inspection fees in 2016 for onshore oil and gas activities subject to
inspection by BLM. The proposed inspection fees are expected to
generate $48.0 million in 2016, $6.9 million more than the 2015 enacted
program funding level, thereby expanding the capacity of BLM's oil and
gas inspection program. The fees are similar to those already in place
for offshore operations and will support Federal efforts to increase
production accountability, human safety, and environmental protection.
Grazing Administrative Fee.--The 2016 budget proposes a new grazing
administrative fee of $2.50 per animal unit month. The BLM proposes to
implement this fee through appropriations language on a pilot basis.
The provision will generate an estimated $16.5 million in 2016, more
than offsetting a decrease of $3.1 million in appropriated funds in the
Rangeland Management program. The net increase of $13.4 million in
funding will assist BLM in processing backlogged grazing permits.
During the period of the pilot, BLM will work to promulgate regulations
to continue this cost recovery fee administratively, once the pilot
expires.
National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery.--The budget proposes
appropriations language to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to
pursue and retain recoveries from responsible parties, to be used to
restore or replace damaged National Wildlife Refuge resources.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2016
budget request for the Department of the Interior. This budget is
responsible, and proposes to maintain core capabilities with targeted
investments to advance the stewardship of lands and resources,
renewable energy, oil and gas development and reforms, water
conservation, youth employment and engagement, and improvements in the
quality of life in Indian communities. I thank you again for your
continued support of the Department's mission. I look forward to
answering questions about this budget. This concludes my written
statement.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I assume,
Deputy Secretary Connor, you are available as we probe into the
intricacies of the budget here, so appreciate your being here
as well.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Secretary, I have a number of questions that are related to
this revised comprehensive conservation plan, and then the
final EIS for the ANWR area, the Arctic National Wildlife
Region.
More questions that we have time for here in this
committee, so I am going to be asking a number of these
questions about the plan and the FEIS for the record. I will be
inquiring about when they were initiated, how, who worked on
them.
I think it is important that folks understand how this plan
came to be and the thinking behind it. I would just ask for
your cooperation and that of the Department in receiving
thorough, complete and prompt answers to these areas of
inquiry.
KIVALINA, ALASKA
You mentioned your visit to Kivalina a couple of weeks ago.
I appreciate the fact that you not only went to see Kivalina
but you met with not only our Native leadership at their winter
retreat but also with the Governor, the leadership in the House
and Senate, and the entire Alaska Congressional Delegation on
issues that are of concern to us.
You mentioned the funding in the budget that is available
to help Tribes and coastal communities, and when you were in
Alaska, you mentioned there was $8 million that could be made
available by way of grants.
I visited with the folks from the Northwest Arctic Borough
region just yesterday in my office, and I asked them about
accessing any of these funds that were available.
They described the offers almost laughable, that in fact,
half of this $8 million in grants would not be made available
to them, that when you are looking to build an evacuation route
or in many cases move a community, the costs that are
associated are in the realm of $100 to $120 million for the
community of Kivalina. Of course, we know Kivalina is just one
of many.
They asked me to ask you this morning what is your
proposal, having seen Kivalina and the situation that community
faces, what is your proposal to help address their immediate
needs for an emergency evacuation route.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I, too, had
an opportunity to drop in on a meeting with our friends from
Northwest Alaska.
The $8 million in the 2015 budget is intended to support
Tribal programs around resilience, but was certainly never
intended to relocate villages. We have, since my visit to
Kivalina, already visited with OMB looking at potential areas
in the budget where we might be able to move relatively
quickly, not just for Kivalina but many of the other coastal
communities that are threatened.
The first step is planning and understanding options, and I
certainly got some very helpful insights when I was in Kivalina
about the decisions the village itself is facing, and what it
wants to do.
There is certainly not enough money in the 2016 budget--or
in the 2015 budget to do any major changes. That would require
probably subsequent legislation, but I think working along side
the State, understanding what other Federal resources we can
bring to bear, which we are currently investigating right now,
is a good step forward to try to figure out these very
difficult situations that your State faces.
Senator Murkowski. I think you would probably agree that we
need a full on action plan because again it is not just
Kivalina we are talking about. As our Governor has reminded
you, we have a $3.5 billion hole in our budget. The price of
oil not looking like it is going to increase in the near term
and production only going down, that is a concern for us, how
we deal with that.
SHELL DRILLING IN CHUKCHI SEA
Let me speak just a moment here to the situation with Shell
and their plans to drill in the Chukchi this summer for the
first time since 2012. This is good news for us, particularly
at a time that the price of oil is causing companies to really
scrutinize their investment decisions on very large scale
projects.
It makes it all the more important that Shell have the
certainty that it needs before it proceeds to spend even yet
more billions of dollars. It needs to retain its existing lease
portfolio to warrant this enormous investment.
The difficulty, and I think you know this, is that Shell's
leases were issued back in 2008. They are all scheduled to
expire in 2020. Because of this very short window, a 75 day
Arctic drilling season, and the difficulties, the delays, and
legal challenges that are all out there, that Shell has endured
for the past decade, there really are not enough drilling
seasons remaining for Shell to complete more than a handful of
exploration wells before the Chukchi lease portfolio expires.
The question to you--they have requested a suspension of
operations and the application that Shell has presented has
explained this suspension is warranted because of these delays,
because of the challenging environment they operate in, and
they are waiting for a little bit of certainty here.
I am told that in the Gulf, suspensions of operations are
handled pretty routinely, pretty perfunctorily. They take a few
months for a response. I understand absolutely that we have
different issues in the Arctic. I appreciate that, but it has
been 8 months now. The question is whether or not you can give
me some certainty as to when Shell will receive an answer in
response to its suspension of operations request.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, we are actively working with
Shell and other leaseholders up there on their requests for
suspensions. Our team has been working very, very hard to
address the supplemental EIS that was required of us by the
courts to support Shell's activities potentially this summer.
The team focused on that, and the leases were suspended
during the time that the court order was in place. As we have
now released draft standards for the Arctic, and those are
going through public review, we are continuing to work with
Shell for this drilling season and the team is focusing a lot
of attention on their request for suspension. We will be
resolving that relatively soon. We understand the circumstances
the companies have. We also understand the circumstances that
Shell had in 2012. We get that it is complicated to do work up
there. We want to make sure it is done safely and responsibly,
and we want to be responsive to the companies.
Senator Murkowski. You agree that it has taken--eight
months is not a reasonable time period. Would you agree?
Secretary Jewell. I do not know what a reasonable time
period is honestly. It is very complicated up there. I do know
we took our resources and focused them as we were requested to
do on helping Shell move forward for this drilling season.
I also know we are actively working with them on
suspensions, and I think they can expect an answer in the
relatively near future.
Senator Murkowski. I think you also would agree as a
business person and one who looks longer term that it is
difficult for any company to make the kinds of investment, the
sizable investment that Shell will, without certainty as to
whether or not you are going to have these leases.
I would appreciate it and I think not only Shell but others
who are looking to advance operations in the offshore would
appreciate some expediency on these requests for suspensions.
I will go to my ranking member.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski. Secretary
Jewell, I was pleased to see that your budget request includes
a 17 percent increase for the National Park Service to prepare
for the Centennial, and I am especially proud that Congress, as
you know, in the last Congress, authorized two new national
parks in my State of New Mexico through the Defense
Authorization Act. That is the Manhattan Project National
Historical Park and the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which
was transferred to the Park Service.
VALLES CALDERA
First, I would like to ask about Valles Caldera. This
Preserve is an incredible natural and cultural resource, and I
was honored to work with other members of the New Mexico
Delegation to get this done. We fought for this legislation to
ensure this special place receives the resources that it needs.
That is why I am concerned that the Park Service budget
request proposes reducing funding for the Preserve to $2.8
million. That amount is a 17 percent cut below the level
requested last year.
Secretary Jewell, this cut just does not make sense,
especially in the face of other program increases you include
in your budget for the National Park Service. Will you commit
to working with me to ensure that the Valles Caldera receives
the funding it needs to operate successfully in fiscal year
2016 and beyond?
Secretary Jewell. Thanks, Senator. There is, as you point
out, a shortfall from what the Forest Service was funding and
what is in our budget. We are actively working with the Forest
Service right now for additional funds that were lost in the
shuffle on the budget, and certainly, we will continue to work
with you on this over the course of the year.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you. We have discussed this and
we will also work closely with the Forest Service and the
Forest Service Chief on this.
PERMIT PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT FUND
As you know, I support responsible energy development on
public lands as part of a ``do it all, do it right'' approach
to energy policy. I was proud to sponsor legislation included
in the National Defense Authorization Act enacted in December
to improve permit processing for BLM oil and gas leases,
providing certainty for industry and it aligned the fee with
the actual cost to the BLM for processing applications for
permits to drill.
Can you tell me where you are with fully implementing the
Permit Processing Improvement Act, and share with us how the
new resources provided through the bill will improve your
ability to responsibly manage energy development. And then, are
there aspects of the 2016 budget request that you need us to
focus on to implement the improvements we made through the
bill?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Senator, for your
support of increasing the APD, or application for permits to
drill for the BLM to $9,500. There was 15 percent of that that
was taken away for other programs, so we have put in our budget
to make up for that $7.1 million in the discretionary request,
so we do have the full money available for permitting.
That will help us on the permitting side, but it is not
enough in and of itself to do the job that we are expected to
do. We have requested in the budget the ability to learn a
lesson from the offshore industry, and that is to charge a
modest fee for onshore oil and gas producers to cover our costs
for inspection and enforcement.
We have been criticized by the Government Accountability
Office and our own Inspector General for not inspecting the
wells that we have. We are overseeing over 100,000 wells on
public lands. We do not have the resources to inspect those
wells. That is a challenge from a return to the taxpayer
perspective, as well as ensuring there is no environmental
damage.
We do request in the budget a couple of other things to
make our program better. In addition to what you have done in
terms of fees for the authorizations for permits to drill, we
would very much appreciate fees to cover inspections,
particularly for production and a fair return for taxpayers,
and also there are funding requests to automate our system.
As I have gone out to Carlsbad, New Mexico, North Dakota,
other States, we have a very paper oriented system, and as a
business person, I know it costs money up front to put in
investments for automating and streamlining that program, and
there is money in this budget to do that, which will help us
respond more quickly to oil and gas companies for the permits
they want.
We have also brought the permitting time down because of a
lot of hard work and streamlining and piloting. We want to take
and roll some of those lessons out, and that is also in this
budget.
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Senator Udall. We look forward to working with you on that.
Quick question on Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). As you
know, this is very important to many of the counties in our
Western States, and there are many members on this committee
that have spoken with me a number of times about PILT.
Can we count on you to make mandatory extension of PILT a
personal priority, and what is the Department doing to work
with the relevant congressional committees to pass a long term
mandatory extension for the PILT Program?
Secretary Jewell. We understand how critically important
PILT is to many, many rural counties across the country,
particularly in the West. Yes, we are committed to working
along side members on introducing legislation to make it
mandatory.
I think to have it as uncertain as it is for the counties
is very frustrating for them. There are real costs associated
with the inability for rural counties to tap into a tax base on
public lands, so we are supportive and look forward to working
with you on that.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thanks, Madam
Chairwoman.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Daines.
SAGE-GROUSE
Senator Daines. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Secretary Jewell,
good to see you again here today. I would like to follow up on
an item that we discussed last week at the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee hearing, and I would mention the importance
of incorporating Montana State's plan into the BLM's sage-
grouse conservation efforts.
I would like to know what is the status of finalizing the
BLM's RMPs as it pertains to sage-grouse conservation?
Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the question. To say the work
going on on sage-grouse with States is unprecedented is an
understatement. A phenomenal amount of effort on the part of
States, the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and parts of
USDA, to really orchestrate an understanding of these
ecosystems in a way such that we hope a listing will not be
warranted.
The BLM plans are in place and being finalized right now.
The State plans are in different stages but also are being
finalized. There has been very close cooperation between
States, the BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service throughout
this process.
You will see the BLM plans finalized this spring, and State
plans are in different stages depending on which State.
Senator Daines. Again, we have a couple of Senators here
from Montana that will be curious about that plan. Will these
plans mirror the stipulations in the Montana State plan?
Secretary Jewell. I have not looked at the details of the
Montana State plan relative to the BLM plans. I do know there
has been close cooperation between the State and the BLM as
these have been developed. I would not expect there to be
radical differences as we have talked about with the
checkerboarding, but that is something I will look into.
Senator Daines. With the checkerboard nature of some of our
lands in Montana, those sage-grouse do not know whether they
are on a BLM section or State section or private section.
Secretary Jewell. I understand.
Senator Daines. We would just like to have the State have
primacy there to get that all aligned on one plan that would
reflect a lot of work going on back in Montana for the folks
who are closest to the bird, and we all want to ensure we
protect the sage-grouse and prevent the listing.
Secretary Jewell. I understand.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Senator Daines. I would like to move over to LWCF. I want
to thank you for recognizing the importance of LWCF to Montana
in your budget. As a sportsman, someone that represents the men
and women who enjoy the outdoors in Montana, it is very
important back home.
In a State like Montana, we have a lot of public lands,
about a third of our State. Are you aware of the number of
acres of Federal land in Montana and frankly across the West
that are inaccessible to the public?
Secretary Jewell. A major part of our effort with LWCF is
addressing that. There are private land holdings that sometimes
prevent people from getting to the public lands, which are
very, very important for sportsmen/women and anglers. There is
actually a proposal in our budget to identify a portion of the
LWCF money specifically for access, and I would say when we
have an opportunity to use conservation easements for access as
opposed to acquisitions, that could help make our money go
farther.
We are definitely planning to do more of that, and it
certainly is a big factor within your State.
Senator Daines. Do you have a sense of what portion of the
budget you might propose to be used for increasing access to
both Federal and State lands? We have about two million acres
in Montana right now that are inaccessible to the public.
Secretary Jewell. I want to say $8.5 million in
discretionary funding specifically for access, and then there
is another chunk in the mandatory proposal specifically
earmarked for that.
Senator Daines. All right. I think we all agree the LWCF is
one of the important tools we have to increase access to public
lands.
Secretary Jewell. Absolutely.
Senator Daines. Great. Thank you. By the way, I am glad to
see some of the Montana projects on the list here this morning.
We have the Trumbull Creek Watershed, we have a couple of
projects at Beaverhead-Deerlodge. We look forward to working
with you on that, Secretary Jewell.
COAL
Last, I would like to talk a little bit about coal. I want
to thank you for accommodating the request from the State of
Montana, from the Montana Delegation, Senator Tester and
myself, to extend the comment period for the new coal valuation
rule that was issued on January 6, 2015.
Last week in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee in reference to the new coal valuation rule, you
stated that the proposed rule will ``Streamline and make the
process more efficient, providing more certainty on the return
which we will be getting for the American people.''
I would like to perhaps better understand the basis of that
assertion. I am hearing from stakeholders back in Montana that
the rule contains ambiguities, uncertainties, which actually
act as a disincentive to mine coal.
We are concerned with less coal produced. That is going to
reduce royalty payments, reduce the taxes that coal companies
pay, and it is going to add to the Federal deficit.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator. The coal rules are a
proposal. That is part of the benefit of the comment period, to
hear comments for how people believe it is going to impact
them.
We have been criticized from a number of different sectors
for not getting a fair return for taxpayers on coal. When what
we have been doing is criticized and ends up in court, that
slows things down dramatically.
We are trying to put in place rules that identify a fair
value for taxpayers that we believe will clear this up, but we
welcome comments during the comment period on these coal rules,
and if people feel there is a concern, we welcome comments on
how to make that more streamlined.
Senator Daines. Have you calculated the impact to coal
production based on the ONRR rule, what that might be?
Secretary Jewell. I have not personally. I am not sure if
my team has. Mike, do you know?
Mr. Connor. I do not know.
Senator Daines. As a follow up there, if we could take a
look at what impact that is going to have in declining coal
production, or is it going to increase it or decrease it. I
would like to get a sense from the Department of the Interior
of where you see that is headed.
Secretary Jewell. If I can answer quickly, I know we are
out of time. I will say that the regulations are only one part
of an equation on whether or not a company chooses to go
through that.
There are economics, global economics really at play. I am
not sure how much we are going to be able to isolate as
associated with our rule as opposed to the broader issues of a
commodity, how it is priced, and what that does to the overall
economics.
Senator Daines. Thanks.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Reed.
BLACKSTONE VALLEY NATIONAL PARK
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, let me
thank you for your extraordinary collaboration over several
years. You did a superb job. I know you are going to do a
superb job as chair of this committee.
You have a great partner in Senator Udall. In fact, much
better than myself, I must admit. You did okay with me so you
are going to do great with Tom.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your service, and Deputy
Secretary Connor, thank you also. Let me start with an issue
that is close to home, and that is the Blackstone Valley
National Park. We are so pleased it was authorized last
Congress. I understand there is about $927,000 in the budget to
start the process.
Could you tell us what you want to achieve, Madam
Secretary, initially in terms of preparation and planning for
the Park?
Secretary Jewell. First, I want to say thank you very much
for your advocacy of this special place. To say it was fun to
kayak the river with you would be an understatement. It
certainly opened my eyes into the history of our rivers and the
history of the industrialization of the United States and how
important that river corridor is.
The $927,000 that is in the budget for park operations will
really be around planning, understanding what the boundaries
should be, understanding land ownership, what the priorities
might be for the State and for the Federal Government with
regards to filling out that over time.
We know there is an important historic story to be told
there, and this money will help us plan for the future.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. There
is another issue, coastal resilience. We caught the tail end of
Sandy, thank goodness, but it was still pretty devastating.
With help, particularly help from the Department of the
Interior, Sachuest is one of our national wildlife, and you
were able to help us rebuild the road. Literally, it was cut
off. It could not be used.
We still have a lot to do. I understand you have a $50
million program that is going to talk about coastal resilience.
Let me tell you, from someone in a coastal State, we had a
great trauma with Sandy, but we know it is coming again, and
this time it might not veer off to the right or left, it might
come barreling in and be even more destructive. Coastal
resilience has to be key.
Can you just again give us an idea of what you would like
to do with this resource?
Secretary Jewell. There is $50 million in the budget, and
it is lower than I would like it to be, but we think it is a
step in the right direction, learning lessons from Sandy. We
had $100 million of the $60 billion that you provided for
Sandy, $100 million of that within the part that came to
Interior was used for competitive coastal resilience grants,
and it worked so well because it was highly leveraged by local
communities, it created collaboration with communities.
Some of that did go to Rhode Island. Understanding the
impact of dredging and what that does to coastal resilience and
how we rebuild those landscapes, being in Block Island, seeing
the damage, even though through the periphery of the storm,
there is no question this is really important.
It is a drop in the bucket. I would hope in the future we
could learn lessons from Hurricane Sandy and recognize that we
are on the firing lines as I saw in Kivalina, for other
reasons, but related to climate change, and invest in advance
of a catastrophe as opposed to after a catastrophe.
We learned from that storm that when we prepare our coastal
communities and we use things like green infrastructure, dunes,
as in the case in Block Island, and wetlands, as in the case of
many places up and down the East Coast, that we will protect
those communities.
We would welcome your support for this or even more.
Senator Reed. Two other things. One is this is a much more
efficient way to spend resources because we know when these
storms barrel through and just obliterate beaches and homes, we
will go back in and fix them, and that is billions of dollars,
where if we could take proactive steps and much less than that
to make them much more resilient, less exposed to these storms,
we would be better off, and the point you raised about climate
activity.
Not only are we getting more volatile storms, but we all
the ocean level is rising. Every day it seems like there is
another story about rising oceans, and that just complicates
coastal preservation and coastal survival.
SEQUESTRATION
Thank you, Madam Secretary. A final point. I have the
opportunity to serve as the ranking member of the Armed
Services Committee with Senator McCain, my chairman. We both
sent a letter to the Budget Committee indicating that
sequestration would be devastating to defense, but the point
has to be raised, it would be devastating to every department
of the Federal Government.
Just looking from the center point of defense, without
Homeland Security, without FBI, without the State Department,
without the CDC for Ebola, et cetera, our national security is
threatened. You cannot draw a line. We have to get rid of
sequestration, and to your Department, too, with sequestration,
you will not be able to perform basic functions.
I think your budget, the President's budget, recognizes
this, and if you will, you might elaborate, if you would.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much for pointing that
out. We agree on a strong defense but we also recognize that a
strong national economy is also critical.
When we went past sequestration last year, when we had a
reasonable budget, we saw increases in the economy. As a
business person, I know that it is crazy to operate a business
without having certainty of what your budget is going to be.
We have put forward investments that we are confident will
help grow the economy, will provide the certainty to
businesses, and will take care of the assets that will help
support our economy and our national security.
We do want to move beyond sequestration. That is in the
President's budget. It does reflect his priorities. We do
believe in a strong defense budget and we do believe in a
strong non-defense budget, which is also essential, I think,
for our Nation's security and our economic prosperity.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Blunt.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary,
congratulations on getting the opportunity to launch the second
hundred years of the National Park Service. It is a great time
to reflect back on what the Park Service has been and what it
can be.
I know in your request for money, just to focus on this
anniversary opportunity to draw attention to the Park Service,
a focus I certainly do not object to, one of your thoughts is
private donations as part of that.
I have three questions I want to get to here in the next
five minutes and 28 seconds. I will try to get that done.
DONATIONS
One is in the fiscal year 2015 omnibus bill, there was
language included, report language, asking the Park Service to
exercise maximum flexibility in recognizing donors. I just
wondered if you would want to comment on your thoughts on that
as we move forward, and particularly your thoughts on that even
in the $300 million request, looking for private additions to
that.
Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the question. I think there is
uniform support from the Park Service and in the language that
was reflected in the NDAA to give appropriate recognition to
donors. There is no question we have high potential for donor
money as seen in the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,
Gateway Arch, and the City Arch River Project.
Nobody wants to brand inappropriately, but we do think
recognition is important. There is $50 million in the
discretionary budget and an additional $100 million in the
mandatory recommendation to match donations, which we think
will take this great interest in supporting our national parks
and spur it to even greater action.
Recognition for donors is going to be an important part of
that, and that is something we are committed to doing.
Senator Blunt. I agree. The St. Louis Arch Project that you
and I both are very familiar with, nobody suggested neon lights
or anything like that. I think people's desire to be able to
offer some recognition when they are talking to donors, it is
usually a recognition of a relatively modest impact.
Secretary Jewell. Agree.
JEFFERSON MEMORIAL ARCH PROJECT
Senator Blunt. I am glad you are looking at that the way
you are. On that same project, Secretary, of course, the local
input there to expand the Jefferson Memorial, the Arch Project,
you have $210 million in private donations, $90 million in a
new tax that the City of St. Louis put on itself for this
process. The Park Service's budget is $10 million, so $300
million to $10 million, clearly local people are leveraging
this in a significant way, and by the way, there is also a
Department of Transportation amount, $45 million, so it is $55
million total Federal dollars, only $10 million Park dollars.
I just want to say that our ongoing discussions, I think,
just continue to be better and better, and your team as well as
you, understand if you are going to look at the second century
of the Park Service in a different way, you have to truly look
at it in a different way. You just cannot say we want it to be
different and we want local partners, but by the way, we do not
want the local partners with a 300 to 10 match to have any real
say in the discussions.
I think we are getting there and I think your understanding
of how important that is helps get there.
The one other question I want to ask on this, in that
money, the Park Service has decided that the $200 or so million
of outside money needs to be paid to the U.S. Treasury under
current law instead of putting it in a third party escrow
account.
Local donors would love to see any income earned on that
money go to the park itself, for maintenance and other needs.
We have been talking to your staff about that. I think your
staff is open to how to deal with this new idea of input of
local money and how that money is used to benefit the project
it goes for.
I wonder if you would just comment on your own views on
that and what we can do to help you make it possible for those
local funds to be truly focused on the local project.
Secretary Jewell. I think as we enter this second century
of the national parks, we are going to see more interest like
you had in St. Louis of communities saying we do not want the
visitor center that just the Park Service could afford on its
own, we want something better, and we believe that can be good
for the economy and good for our city, and that is exactly what
your folks have done.
If there are things that get in the way of our ability to
get private donations and use those efficiently and
effectively, we could certainly work together on changing the
law to update that.
The Park Service is working on a Centennial piece of
legislation to clean up some of the things that get in the way
of its ability to be as efficient and effective in its use of
resources.
Having been to St. Louis and talked specifically about this
Fund, I do not have an update on where we are, but I do know
there were some legal reasons why they could not do what the
community wanted, and I will see if that is something we can
fix in the Centennial legislation.
Senator Blunt. As I understand that, Chairman and members
of the committee, I think the goal here would be to come up
with some language legislatively, if there is no other way to
do it, so that money can be invested in U.S. Treasuries or some
other vehicle that provides income for the project that is
being donated to instead of just go into the U.S. Treasury and
frankly not be used at all or invested at all, or if it is
invested, to go to other purposes.
We are going to continue to work with the Park Service on
that. I have a question I will submit for the record on Doe
Run, which employs 1,500 people in Missouri, and how the
Natural Resources Damages group and the Fish and Wildlife
Service is relating to that. I will submit that for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Senator
Merkley.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you, Secretary Jewell, for your testimony and your
efforts to tackle so many significant issues across the
country.
I wanted to start with the Secure Rural Schools Program,
and thank you for framing in the budget a 5 year
reauthorization with mandatory United States Forest Service
funding.
I just wanted to emphasize that this is a partnership
related to funds that the counties have foregone because of so
many restrictions on the use of the O&C lands. There is a lot
of work being done to try to work out sustainable production,
environmental responsible production. That work is not yet
complete. The counties are hurting greatly.
Thank you for including this, and we can count on your
cooperation in pursuing this. Thank you.
WILDLAND FIRE
Turning to the wildfire side, which has been mentioned by a
couple of my colleagues, the challenges. In Oregon, we have had
an increase in the fire season of about 20 days over the last
20 years, the amount of acreage has increased. Right now we are
looking at very, very low snow levels in the Cascades, which
generally corresponds to much dryer forests in the summer. We
may have yet another major bad fire season, if you will.
Beginning to treat fires as something that the entire
Forest Service budget has not depleted in the course of
fighting them, because it means we rob everything on the front
end, forest health and fire prevention, so I appreciate this
proposal, which says there will be a baseline funding but then
when there is a terrible fire year, which we do not know yet if
this year will be or not, it will be treated as emergency
funding.
Can you just make a comment on why that is a logical way to
go forward?
Secretary Jewell. One percent of wildfires eat up 30
percent of suppression costs. When we have a bad year, we have
to rob all our other budgets to pay for it. That means we are
not doing prevention that reduces the risk of fire in the
future.
There is no question that not doing prevention programs
cost us more in the long run, and this is a very sensible
program that says let's take the catastrophes and treat them as
the catastrophes they are. Take them outside of the regular
budget and put them in the disaster budget so we can, year in
and year out, manage our landscape.
Senator Merkley. When you rob those other budgets, does not
work stop in those other key functions in the Forest Service?
Secretary Jewell. It does.
Senator Merkley. That creates an enormous inefficiency and
failure to pursue many of the goals that we have laid out in
the budget.
Secretary Jewell. It does. In fact, it is a downward spiral
that facilitates longer, hotter, drier fires with the drought
situation we have, so it just makes the situation worse.
KLAMATH
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I want to turn to the Klamath.
We had a multi-year process of trying to work out an agreement
between stakeholders, and those stakeholders include the
fishermen, the Tribes, the ranchers, the farmers, so on and so
forth.
They have set aside the decades and decades of water wars
to work out a strategy, but that strategy requires us to pass a
bill here to fund it, and a piece of that is for them to get
back a piece of their Reservation that they lost when the Tribe
was terminated in the 1950s.
There are two ways to do that, either through purchasing a
commercial tract if it is available or regaining a share of the
Reservation land that has now been converted into the Winema
National Forest.
Can we count on your Department's support in trying to
figure out whether it is Plan A or Plan B, but a successful way
to address this piece of the puzzle?
Secretary Jewell. Absolutely, you can count on our support
to try to get this across the finish line. We know that the
forest part of it is very important, and we are disappointed
that the deal did not go through as expected.
You can count on us to work with the Tribe. You can count
on us to work with the Forest Service to see if there is a
solution that gets this done, because it is very, very
important.
Do you want to make any other comments, Mike?
Mr. Connor. No.
Senator Merkley. Should we not succeed in doing it, it
could be a catastrophe in many, many ways, for all of the
stakeholders. We have had the worse ever drought in 2001
followed by the worse ever drought in 2010 and a terrible
drought in 2013.
The ranching and farming community has agreed to many
conservation practices that would mean the amount of water that
is lost is greatly reduced. It is a win-win all the way around,
and thank you.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
SAGE-GROUSE
Senator Merkley. Turning to sage-grouse, my colleague from
Montana has already mentioned it. This is across a number of
western States. In addition to the $15 million that has been
allocated to try to develop specific strategies to enhance
preservation of sage-grouse, there is additional funds, I
believe, of $4 million, that are now in the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and some additional funds for broader conservation of
sage-grouse type or sage terrain, if you will.
Our whole goal in Oregon is to avoid a listing. You are
coming out to Oregon shortly to draw attention to a particular
valuable part of this puzzle. Could you share some comments on
that?
Secretary Jewell. Yes. In Oregon, you have a lot of private
land owners, and they are very interested in supporting
conservation efforts. It was an Oregon rancher who said what is
good for the bird is good for the herd. That recognizes that a
healthy sagebrush ecosystem is important to the ranching
community as well.
In the State of Oregon, through the work by the State along
with private land owners and the Fish and Wildlife Service, we
have multiple candidate conservation agreements with assurances
that will be signed that will provide certainty to those
ranchers, that if they take the conservation measures they
signed up for, should the bird be listed as threatened in the
future, it will not change their practices.
We share everybody's common interest in getting to a point
where a listing is not warranted, but these ranchers, by virtue
of the actions they have taken, will be reassured they can
continue their ranching practices through these agreements. We
are really appreciative of the private sector in Oregon
stepping up.
Senator Merkley. Are we starting to see a similar strategy
emerge in some other States?
Secretary Jewell. We are in a number of other States. We
signed some similar agreements in Wyoming not too long ago, and
we are encouraging other States to sign up as well.
Senator Merkley. I really celebrate this type of
partnership between the goal of conservation and the practices
of local ranchers. I must say those who have been signing those
agreements have been telling me in town halls that they are
sleeping a lot more easier. They are happy and pleased to be
part of the conservation effort, but also to know they do not
face some catastrophic loss down the road if the broader
efforts are unsuccessful.
I know the chair has raised her concerns about the
conservation strategies in Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. The Senator's time has expired, if you
could wrap up, please.
Senator Merkley. I am over time. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. There will be an opportunity
for a second round as well. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, and
Ranking Member Udall. I look forward to working with you guys
on this committee. Thank you for being here today, Secretary
Jewell and Deputy Secretary Connor. You are getting off easy
today, Mike, and I am not going to break that here.
I think it was nearly a year right now that Secretary
Jewell was out in Montana and we got to visit about issues that
are important and they were reflected in your testimony, the
importance to the outdoor economy or balanced energy
development, or upholding our trust responsibilities for
American Indians. I just want to thank you for the job that
both of you have been doing in the Department of the Interior,
I very much appreciate it.
We always look at Federal lands as to the highest and best
use for those public lands, because they are very, very
important to our economy.
I would just say not unlike the work that has been done on
the Rocky Mountains front, I have to thank you personally for
your work to protect pristine landscapes like the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. I very much appreciate that. They do
not make places--well, what we have is what we have, and if we
destroy it, we will no longer have special places on this
earth.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
I want to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
too, because it is very, very important. You have already
talked about access. I appreciate the dollars you have plugged
into this program. I think it is money that will be paid back
multiple times over.
The issue I have is could you talk about your vision for
use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund? You have already
addressed access. That is critically important. What other ways
is this going to help further build a $5.8 billion economy in
the State of Montana and other States represented here?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator Tester. In my old day
job working in the outdoor industry, we recognized the
necessity of public lands to a $646 billion national industry,
and certainly Montana feels that in a lot of its communities.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund facilitates
transactions that actually help manage these lands much more
effectively. As I spoke with Senator Daines, it is about access
to resources, and much of that access can be provided through
conservation easements. It does not have to be fee simple
lands, but it helps align the interest of the private land
owner with the public lands in a way that supports breadth and
diversification of the economy.
I would also say there are some circumstances where costs
are lowered by use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
When we have an in-holding within a national park, for example,
or in a wildlife refuge or in a critical migration corridor for
animals, it costs us more to deal with that in-holding than it
would if we actually owned that land.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used in just
about every county across the country. The stateside program is
very important to local communities. In the eastern part of the
country, there is a hunger for more public lands than we have
because they see the economic engine that it provides to other
parts of the country and they want to be a part of that.
It is one of the most successful programs we have ever had,
one of the best laws passed by Congress, and we really
appreciate your support and also reauthorization.
Senator Tester. I would also tell you from a ranching
perspective, they have used these funds very, very effectively
in keeping ranches in the family, and I appreciate that. I also
appreciate the fact that not only is it about hunting, fishing,
bird watching, hiking and biking, and all that stuff. It is
about recruiting businesses to places like Montana.
Secretary Jewell. It is.
SUN HIGHWAY GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
Senator Tester. We thank you for that. I want to talk about
Sun Highway for a minute. We will get a little parochial here.
It is in the middle of a rebuild. Can you give me an idea of
what percentage is done? Well, if you give me what percentage
is done, I can do the math on what percentage is left.
Secretary Jewell. I do not have an update on that. Mike, do
you?
Mr. Connor. I do not.
Secretary Jewell. We will have to get back to you.
[The information follows:]
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK--GOING TO THE SUN ROAD
As currently planned, by the end of 2015 approximately 80 percent
of the rehabilitation of the 50-mile historic Going-to-the-Sun Road
will be completed. By the end of 2017, at current funding levels, the
project is anticipated to be completed.
Senator Tester. I would love to see when that is going to
be finished. That is also a jewel for the American people.
Secretary Jewell. It is beautiful.
ONSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Senator Tester. It is also $1 million a day to that economy
just in the northwestern part of Montana. I want to jump over
to a question that Senator Udall asked about wells. Did you say
you had 100,000 wells?
Secretary Jewell. 100,000.
Senator Tester. That you are doing oversight on right now?
Secretary Jewell. That is right.
ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES
Senator Tester. How much money did you put into that budget
line item for well oversight? Has it been increased from the
previous year?
Secretary Jewell. I think the number is $48 million, and
that would be fees to industry to cover our costs. We have had
this in the budget multiple times. I think there is $41 million
in our current budget for 2015, which was appropriated money.
Senator Tester. I assume those inspections include making
sure the well casing is adequate. Is there anything else that
is being inspected?
Secretary Jewell. We have a well in the State of Utah where
we heard from people that were out in the outdoors that they
saw oil in a creek. It turned out that well had been leaking
for many, many years or a pipeline associated with that well,
and we had not been out there.
It is about production and making sure the meters are
working and the taxpayers are getting a fair return. It is
about environmental inspections. Neither of those are being
done adequately, and we are not able to do our job effectively
without these resources.
Senator Tester. First of all, I applaud your efforts on
this, I think it is critically important. We just had a
pipeline break in Montana that cost far more money than if we
had proper inspectors on the ground to take care of it, and we
bumped that up. We plused those accounts up.
This is a big concern of mine and I will tell you why. I
think drilling is important. I think it helps power our
economy, but if we are screwing up water in the process, long
term, we are making a huge mistake.
Do you think those funds are adequate that you presented
for the inspection angle in this budget?
Secretary Jewell. I think it is an important step forward.
I cannot say they are fully adequate, but it is as much as we
felt was reasonable to put in this budget in 2016.
COASTAL RESILIENCE
Senator Tester. Thanks. I am going to close with just one
thing. Senator Reed talked about coastal resilience, and you
have $50 million in that account, which is a drop in the
bucket. We are going to spend $3 billion in this election cycle
on something that people hate to hear all the time on the t.v.
I have to tell you, we have to redo our priorities in this
country. It is ridiculous you do not have the kind of dollars
you need to protect because of climate change, what is going on
on the coasts of this country, and in Alaska, as you said
earlier.
So, thank you very, very much.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Feinstein.
DROUGHT
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Let me
begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, of the Energy Committee,
for what you helped with, with our number one problem, which
was drought. Without you, I do not think that bill would have
passed the Senate. I just want you to know that, and thank you
very much,
Madam Secretary, and it is hard to call you Deputy
Secretary, Mike, I want to thank you, and particularly
Reclamation, for all your efforts to help with water supply. If
you ask me what my number one issue is for the biggest State in
the Union is, it is drought.
I just learned something very distressing ten minutes ago.
As chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, I was able to
get in the omnibus $50 million for western drought. I think you
spoke about it, Madam Secretary, when you were in California
with the Governor. I just learned that it is not being
continued this year.
I just want you to know that is really a serious concern
for me because the situation is no better. If anything this
year, it is going to be worse. Our snow pack is at 19 percent
of normal. The reservoir levels are all very low. There is only
one that is at 60 percent.
The Bureau just told Federal water contractors that they
will be receiving no water allocation for the Central Valley
Water Project for the second year in a row, and we all know
that fish, wildlife and refuges are suffering as well.
I am deeply concerned, and given these conditions, the last
time I talked to the Deputy Secretary, we talked about what
could be done to operate the pumps with the kind of flexibility
that did not violate any Endangered Species Act, any Clean
Water Act, any biological opinions, in other words, really
adaptive management by the day, using the pumps from what we
have learned from science.
I have a question. Is everything being done that can
possibly be done now? Is there anything else that you can think
of that can be done to improve water supply?
Secretary Jewell. I am blessed with a Deputy Secretary that
is immersed in these issues. Pardon the pun. I am going to turn
it over to Mike to answer.
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for the question,
and thank you for the leadership and resources provided in the
$50 million of drought funding, and the funding even
beforehand, which I think has really enhanced our abilities to
implement strategies that are along the lines you stated,
adaptive management.
We have a couple of biological opinions that control our
pumping operations, both the Central Valley Project and State
Water Project. Those biological opinions for the last couple of
years, we have gotten increasing flexible in adjusting those,
given the drought conditions, the emergency conditions, to try
and increase pumping even above the limits that were first
established in those biological opinions, and we do it because
of the resources we have applied towards monitoring data
collection and day to day operational management.
We have better strategies. We have more flexibility with
respect to our water quality permits. We just do not have any
precipitation. Those strategies are really geared towards
making use of the high flow events, and we had one high flow
event earlier, in February. Now, we are kind of past that and
we are getting down to very low flows in the Delta.
As you mentioned, given the lack of reservoir levels, we
are at the lowest levels since 1993, and 1993 was an above
normal year, so it picked up then. We are just stressed on all
levels.
A couple of years ago we did an exchange with Metropolitan
Water District and got 100,000 acre feet more for the Central
Valley, but we cannot do that this year because they are
stressed because the Colorado River has also been in drought
for the last 15 years. Now, some of the excess supplies they
have had are not there.
Senator Feinstein. That is why, if I may say, we have to
get that $50 million for western drought, which does not only
affect California, it affects all the States on the Colorado,
too.
Mr. Connor. Absolutely. You can see the two systems
affecting each other right now. The options are tough to figure
out. We need to continue to look and adaptively manage and see
if we cannot increase some supplies from our existing
operations, but we are losing flexibility in the system, both
with groundwater, as you know, which is reducing fast, and our
other basins that we can move water over from.
Senator Feinstein. What you are saying to me is there are
no more things that you can pull out of your hat, essentially,
because of the dismal lack of water.
Mr. Connor. It is getting tougher and tougher.
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Let me move on to feasibility
studies. California has now passed a bond issue for $2 billion
for a dam. I know you have been focused on these feasibility
studies. Where are we with respect to Shasta undergoing final
executive review? I understand it is ``very close to
completion.'' Can you give us a date for finalization?
Mr. Connor. I cannot give you a specific date on
finalization for Shasta right now, but I think it is within the
next month or two, and as soon as we understand when that can
be completed, we will let your office know. We are very close
in completing that study.
Senator Feinstein. Temperance Flat. Commissioner Lopez said
the technical work is on track to be completed by July 2015.
Will it stay on track?
Mr. Connor. It will stay on track. We will still have to
complete the technical work so we can get to the final
feasibility study. Everything is out in draft, as you know. We
will still have to go through the same review process within
the administration. There is always a little uncertainty as to
timing at that point in time.
We have projected completion of the technical studies this
summer, moving towards finalizing it and getting it out by the
end of the year. We are going to try to stay on track to do
that.
Senator Feinstein. Sites. I had the privilege of meeting
with the Joint Powers Authority to complete a project
management plan. I was very impressed with it. It was scheduled
to be completed at the end of February. Was it completed?
Mr. Connor. I do not know the specific answer, whether they
wrapped up those discussions. I can get back to you on the
record with that.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
[The information follows:]
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
A meeting was held with representatives from Reclamation and the
Sites Joint Powers Authority (JPA) on February 3, 2015, to discuss
options for completing the feasibility study. It was agreed to develop
a project management plan and cost share agreement to specify roles and
responsibilities and a related schedule and budget as a basis to secure
funding and develop and evaluate the potential effects of additional
operational alternatives. It should be noted that Reclamation does not
have the financial resources to conduct further study unless or until
additional non-Federal cost shares are available consistent with non-
Federal cost share requirements. Sites JPA expects that JPA and/or
investor funding will be available later in 2015 to contribute to
remaining study costs. The project management plan will include major
decision points and milestones to support go/no-go decisions as
critical determinations emerge regarding the type and extent of Federal
and non-Federal interests in a potential North of the Delta Offstream
Storage project.
Senator Feinstein. This is very important because there are
a lot of people that know, who think that Sites may be the best
alternative. I do not know that. I know it is the most costly,
and that concerns me. I really think we have to get this
quickly to be able to evaluate it completely.
Senator Murkowski. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Leahy.
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Jewell, I have to thank you for all you have done at
the Department. I sometimes think you have cloned yourself
because you have to protect our natural resources and you have
to manage them. Sometimes that may seem at odds with one
another as you protect special places, not just for us but for
next generations after, and how you facilitate development and
extraction of natural resources.
Over my 40 years here, occasionally parochial questions
will be asked. Your Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Geological Survey staff in Vermont work very hard to address
water quality, the ecological challenges in Lake Champlain, and
outside the Great Lakes, it is the largest body of fresh water
in the United States, they work with USDA on wetlands and
wildlife conservation projects, and work with the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission, and so on.
A concern I have is that the EPA has requested a dramatic
cut in funds for Lake Champlain compared to the fiscal year
2015 spending level, so creativity becomes far more important.
We saw Lake Erie when it was not protected, it became so
polluted, the river caught fire. It took two or three days to
put the fire out.
I know you are going to be on the shores of Lake Champlain
soon and I look forward to that. Will you work with me to
dedicate as many resources, and I know resources are limited,
but as many as we can to address water quality, invasive
species, climate driven challenges that we have in this huge
body of water?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I certainly cannot weigh in on
the EPA side of the budget, but we do have significant money in
the budget particularly for invasive species around Lake
Champlain. I am very happy to continue to work with you to
understand those issues perhaps as I am up there in a week or
two, to even deepen my understanding and to work with you on
whatever resources we can bring to bear.
Senator Leahy. We will probably inundate you with all kinds
of things. Lake Champlain means a lot to us. This has been a
non-partisan issue in Vermont. We have had Republican
Governors, Democratic Governors. We have worked with New York
State. We have worked with the Province of Quebec to protect
it.
MISSISQUOI AND TROUT RIVERS
We also have constituents in Vermont where we call the
``Northeast Kingdom,'' my wife was born there, my mother was
born there, I am well aware of it. One of the final acts of the
113th Congress was to approve legislation designating over 46
miles of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers in Vermont as wild and
scenic. The Department moved quickly to request resources for
these Vermont rivers, through the Park Service, in the 2016
funding request.
What motivated the National Park Service to request funding
so quickly? I am not complaining. I am glad they did. What
motivated the Department?
Secretary Jewell. I cannot speak specifically to what
motivates the Park Service to put different things in the
budget other than they prioritize their resources based on the
areas they feel have the greatest need and the greatest
potential. I have to assume that is the case there.
Senator Leahy. Will they work at promptly implementing
these new Vermont wild and scenic designations?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, they will.
NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I started raising years ago the
question of what has happened with white-nose syndrome, putting
money into various budgets on it. I was teased a little bit
that I might be worried about Batman or something. It turns out
if we lose these bats, it is going to cost our farmers in a
whole lot of States, 25 States, billions of dollars in
pesticides and everything else, as well as ecological problems.
If the Fish and Wildlife Service lists the northern long-
eared bat as threatened, what kind of support can we continue
to get on conservation measures that will protect habitats? I
wish I knew the answer on this. What is happening with the bats
is creating a huge ecological problem to half of the
continental U.S.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, first, I want to thank you
profoundly for raising awareness about white-nose syndrome and
bats early on, and providing the kind of support we needed to
study this. We do not have an answer yet, but we have the U.S.
Geological Survey and Fish and Wildlife Service and others
working hard on trying to come up with a solution.
The northern long-eared bat in specific has been really
decimated in the East, and the problem is marching West. The
Fish and Wildlife Service preemptively produced what is called
a 4(d) rule to provide guidance on measures that could be taken
to protect the remaining habitat, even though the threat to the
species is white-nose syndrome, for those that survive and are
threatened. They need good habitat to be able to recover.
They preemptively put that out there for comment and are
taking comment on that. That will help provide the kind of
certainty to the logging industry, to the oil and gas industry,
and to other industries about what is needed to try and prevent
a catastrophe here, which we are well on the way to seeing
because of white-nose syndrome.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator Murkowski, just on a
personal level, I have pestered you with photographs of our
home in Vermont and hundreds of acres. We have a quarter of a
mile up on our land behind our house where there has been for
decades a bat cave. In the early evening, we would sit out on
our front lawn. The bats would come out and there would be no
mosquitos. It was just wonderful. The bats have disappeared.
Now we get pestered by mosquitos.
That is just a personal discomfort. Think of the farms that
have thousands of acres of crops growing, bugs and pests that
are normally kept in check by the bats, now they are not. We
have a real problem.
I applaud the Secretary for keeping this on the
Department's priorities. It means a lot. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Leahy, I do not know, maybe
there is a correlation. Alaska's mosquitos are legendary in
their size. We do not have many bats up there.
Senator Leahy. We use fly swatters. I remember Ted Stevens
told me they use baseball bats in Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. They are real.
Senator Leahy. There are aspects that are humorous. It was
amazing when we started looking into this and realizing, and
all of a sudden we started to hearing from other States. This
is costing them a fortune in either crops lost or pesticides,
if you are trying to raise organic farms, that creates a
problem.
Anyway, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I am told the
vote has been pushed back a few minutes so we will have a
little more time. I know I have more questions and hopefully my
colleagues will as well.
KING COVE
Secretary, I do want to make sure I correct the record. I
noted in my opening comments that since the last time we were
together in a hearing, there had been two Medivac's from King
Cove, and one had been Coast Guard Medivac. I stand corrected.
The information that I have received is on the 24th of
February, there was an individual, a 50-year-old man from
California, who was having a cardiac emergency there in King
Cove. The Coast Guard was requested to come because of weather,
the private Medivac was not able to get in. The Coast Guard
said they could not come. They had other emergencies they were
attending to. The individual, fortunately, was able to be
stabilized and he went out the next morning in a private
Medivac.
I think it speaks to the issue that we cannot always count
on our Coast Guard to be the Medivac. That is not their mission
set. That is not what they do. Fortunately, they have been
there to help with life saving efforts in the past. It speaks
again to the need, the very direct need to address the
situation in King Cove, to provide a life saving road to folks.
ARCTIC
I wanted to ask a follow up to the question regarding
funding for the Arctic that I presented in the Energy
Committee. I mentioned to you that under the implementation
plan that the administration has for the national strategy for
the Arctic region, that DOI has oversight or lead for five
different projects, as well as being designated as the
supporting agency.
What I would like to get from you, Secretary, is an
individual or a point of contact that we can be working with on
these Arctic initiatives, whether it is what you are doing with
the integrated Arctic management implementation plan or the
invasive species project.
I am moving forward with an Arctic initiative. You are
going to be invited to be part of the Arctic caucus tomorrow,
having an opportunity to speak on the Floor about what it is we
need to do from a legislative perspective. The administration
is obviously moving forward with multiple directives as we
advance toward the Arctic Council.
One of my frustrations has been with every agency having a
little bit of a piece of it, there is nobody that really has
that ownership. I am looking for that point person within your
Department, whether it is all the way up to the top to you or
whether you have a deputy secretary or somebody underneath. I
would like to know that we can work with them to determine how
we are coming with these benchmarks. If you could provide me
with that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Jewell. Just quickly because I know you probably
have other questions you want to ask, Tommy Beaudreau, my chief
of staff, who you know, is my point person on Arctic issues.
You already know Tommy, so I would direct you there.
I would also say we have detailed a full time person over
to the State Department to coordinate our efforts with theirs,
because they are the lead role on the Arctic Council. Across a
number of our Bureau's, there are investments in the Arctic
specific to the five areas we are responsible for for the
Arctic Council. We are happy to identify each of those for you,
but Tommy is probably the easiest focal point for you to work
with.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. He is very, very
conversant in all these areas, I appreciate that.
TRIBAL COURTS
Let me ask about Tribal courts and funding. Last year in
the 2015 omnibus appropriations bill, we included some language
that directed the BIA to work with the Department of Justice to
issue a report on the budgetary needs of Tribal courts in
Public Law 280 States.
I am very concerned that we get no funding from DOJ within
BIA for our Public Law 280 States, of which Alaska is one. I
brought this issue up with Assistant Secretary Washburn last
Wednesday when we had a hearing in Indian Affairs. I wanted to
know the status of the report, because the report is due in
June.
His words were ``We do not have a report for you yet, and
actually, the report is not required by law, we understand it
was not in the bill, so there is no legal requirement for that
report. It surfaced on my radar screen only fairly recently.''
That concerns me because when something is included in our
annual spending bills, whether it is in the bill or in report
language, we expect that both the letter and the spirit of the
law is going to be adhered to. He knows this is a big priority.
I want you to know that this is a big priority for me,
certainly for my State, and really all the Public Law 280
States.
Mr. Washburn indicated that he was going to work on it, but
I need to know there will be a commitment from the Department
that there will be a report issued by the June 14 deadline that
details these budgetary needs.
Secretary Jewell. We will certainly work with the
subcommittee to follow the directions in the explanatory
statement.
GREATER MOOSES TOOTH
Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let
me speak a little bit about where we are with Greater Mooses
Tooth and the Secretarial Order on mitigation. You know I have
expressed my frustration on the mitigation requirements that
are associated with the GMT permitting process.
We have had discussion. I recognize mitigation is an
important tool, but what I am concerned about is that we are
perhaps moving in this direction of pay to play. I do not think
that is where we should go, and I hope that is not where the
Department is intending to go.
It appears that companies that have deep pockets and pretty
considerable investments face some requirements that may be
tangentially related, maybe not even related at all, but
requirements that could harm their operations as they impose a
condition on permits.
We have talked about where we are with Greater Mooses Tooth
and the mitigation. I understand we have ratcheted that number
down, which I think was important, but I am concerned about how
we go forward with these mitigation requirements.
That perhaps with Greater Mooses Tooth and what Conoco has
faced there in this process is going to be formalized and
perhaps exported to the Lower 48, I do not know, by way of the
Secretarial Order, Secretarial Order 3330 on mitigation.
We saw as with Greater Mooses Tooth Unit 1 (GMT1), that the
Department is free and able to accept voluntary mitigation
efforts as part of the permitting process, but I would like to
know what you believe the legal justification is for the idea
that you have authority to require them to make a payment into
a mitigation fund in order to authorize what would otherwise be
a permissible activity under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA).
I am trying to understand where we go forward from here,
because the great concern, and you know because you have had
these conversations, as has Tommy Beaudreau, the concern is
what is the precedent of this going to be, what happens going
forward.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I am going to speak in broad
terms about mitigation, and then I will turn it over to Mike
because he was right in the thick of the discussions with
ConocoPhillips around Greater Mooses Tooth in specific.
First, mitigation is not new. When I wrote the Secretarial
Order on mitigation, it was to say let's look broadly as we
develop, for example, as we look at developing the California
and Nevada deserts for renewable energy, project specific
mitigation on site may be less important to addressing the
mitigation issues than looking more broadly on a landscape
scale.
In the California desert, for example, with the renewable
energy permits we have done, we have done some landscape level
mitigation, for example, setting aside desert tortoise habitat,
buying conservation easements and land to address the impact of
those solar farms on the desert tortoise.
Mitigation is not specific to oil and gas, it certainly is
not specific to the project you referenced. It is something
that we have done all along and what we are trying to do is say
let's make sure that mitigation money is put into the projects
that are most important to address the issues this development
impacts.
In the case of Greater Mooses Tooth, we are within a
setback for Fish Creek, and there will be a gravel road that
goes through to that development, and it will have impacts on
the subsistence and food security of the people.
The mitigation addresses the ability for the company to
work with the village and others impacted by that to put that
mitigation money into the most affected areas.
Mike has been working on that in specific. Is there
anything you want to add?
Senator Murkowski. If I can just give you a little
direction here, in terms of the different mitigation ratios
that are out there, part of what we are dealing with, I think,
is the uncertainty to the operator, what will be required.
It seems to me there is a potential for a great deal of
subjectivity here with what these mitigation ratios may or may
not be.
Mr. Connor. I understand the concern, Chairman Murkowski.
There is no specific mitigation ratios that were used with
respect to Greater Mooses Tooth. I know with respect to Army
Corps permitting and wetlands impacts, there is a ratio that is
applied, and we have certainly looked at that, but there is no
ratio that has been specifically applied here.
What we did with respect to Greater Mooses Tooth was there
were impacts overall from the project that were identified,
particularly to subsistence resources. Some of those were
mitigated with the project itself, and always our goal is to
avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and then compensate for the
remaining impacts. That is the approach we took with respect to
Greater Mooses Tooth.
There were impacts to subsistence resources in general, and
there were specific impacts, as the Secretary alluded to, from
the final decision that we made to intrude upon the Fish Creek
setback. That setback had been identified in planning documents
for some time, including the 2012 integrated activity plan.
Really, when we went to ConocoPhillips, in our mind, we had
an objective, rational basis to request some compensatory
mitigation. They took issue with the size of that.
We had a discussion and we came to an agreement with
ConocoPhillips as to the level of compensatory mitigation, and
most effectively, how to use those dollars to develop a
regional mitigation strategy with ConocoPhillips, BLM, and the
Alaskan Native entities that are affected, to put together how
to best mitigate those impacts on subsistence resources.
I think that is viewed as a good approach. That is not BLM
making decisions unilaterally about how to move forward in that
mitigation strategy. I think we have a good result, and that
strategy will help us facilitate future projects as we move
forward.
I want to assure you that the specific mitigation for
Greater Mooses Tooth was focused on the impacts we saw with
that development itself.
Senator Murkowski. Again, I will repeat myself here, the
fear, of course, is that rather than creating efficiencies,
what we may have developing here is additional
unpredictability, lack of clarity in terms of where you are
going with the project that deters investment, that really can
derail a project.
I think what we are trying to do is avoid what would be
viewed as surprise requirements or requirements that come up at
a later point in the process, where you have a company that has
invested millions of dollars into it already, and they are
looking at a situation where because of these requirements that
had not been anticipated or anticipated to the level that
perhaps the agency was, that they actually have to revisit that
project.
Those are exactly the conversations we were having with
ConocoPhillips, who were saying we have invested millions in
this, and are we going to have to pull the plug on this because
of where we are.
I am a little more optimistic now today where we are with
GMT1 than I was a month ago. I think it is important to state
very clearly that the concern and the anxiety up north is this
is GMT1, what is the next project going to hold, what will the
precedents be. We need to know there is a level of transparency
that is fair and equitable.
I have long exceeded my time, and I need to turn to my
ranking member.
NEW MEXICO MONUMENTS
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski. Just a quick
question on our New Mexico monuments, Secretary Jewell. You
have been out and seen them and assisted with their
establishment, Organ Peaks and Rio Grande Del Norte.
I noticed the President's budget proposes a significant
increase of $16 million for monuments throughout the country,
what are BLM's plans for moving forward with management changes
on the new monuments in New Mexico, and what funding is
included in the President's budget for these monuments, and how
will those funds be used?
Secretary Jewell. I am going to address the first part
while Mike takes a look through the book to come up with the
actual numbers.
First, in any new national monument, our first approach is
to make sure we plan, we understand the resource, we work with
local folks, and that is where these first steps are. Some of
that involves where can we leverage existing resources, where
can we work with other partners?
That planning effort is going on, along with making sure we
are working along side those existing landowners and land uses
within the monuments so they are reassured.
Specific numbers, Mike, do you have it? Go ahead.
Mr. Connor. Senator, overall, as you mentioned, there is a
bump up in the BLM national conservation lands account. We have
$4.4 million allocated to New Mexico, specifically $2 million
to Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, and $1.5 million to Rio Grande
Del Norte. They will be used for visitor services needs, basic
security, starting partnership programs, those fundamental
aspects that are key to those people enjoying those monuments.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony. Thank you for your service. I just want to say to
the chair, you and Senator Leahy talked about the mosquitos. My
experience has been in a lot of western States, if there are a
lot of bugs and a lot of mosquitos, the fishing is great. I do
not know whether that is true in Alaska. The more bugs, the
better the fishing. You have to endure it, but it is always
enjoyable.
Thank you. I see Senator Cassidy has come, so I am going to
yield back any time I would have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. I will note
that we do have a vote, but I want to let Senator Cassidy go.
Welcome.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and thank
you, Dr. Jewell, for your phone call the other day, very
gracious.
We do have a vote. I am going to ask one question and then
submit the others for the record.
REVENUE SHARING
The last time we spoke, my concern was the budget chooses
to take away dollars from the Gulf Coast States, and your reply
was that it was a Federal resource and really beyond the
control of the State. We made a case that the states have
disproportionately borne this.
That said, I am told that recently you stated that states
in the Atlantic will have a chance to pull themselves out of
the running for possible Federal approval of offshore drilling.
In that case, you are giving the states control over what in
the Gulf Coast is stated to be a federally controlled interest
without the states having any say so.
How can you in a sense reconcile the two? On the one hand,
I am on the Atlantic and I do not want to develop, Federal
taxpayer be gone with you because I have control. On the other
hand, in the Gulf of Mexico, if I am the people of Louisiana
relying on those dollars to rebuild my coast line, sorry, we
are the Federal Government and we have complete control and you
have no stake.
I do not see how you reconcile those two.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks for the question. I
appreciate your passion for the State of Louisiana. Let me give
you a simple example, and that is Florida. Florida is on the
Atlantic. It is also on the Gulf. Florida has made it very
clear to our Department that they do not want to see----
Senator Cassidy. If I may----
Secretary Jewell. Let me just finish, if I may. That is
input in advance of our draft proposed plan for the five year
drilling plan. There are several states in the Atlantic that
have said we would like you to consider a lease here, and there
are several States that have not. The Pacific states have said
we do not want to be in--other than Alaska, of course.
We have moved to honor the interests of those states as we
take limited resources and focus them on the areas where the
states do want Federal offshore leasing because of the economic
activity it does drive to their states.
Revenue sharing as you talked about with GOMESA is an
element, but there are many other economic activities that
occur on the shore lines by virtue of the Federal offshore oil
and gas activities, and I think that is resulting in some of
the Atlantic states saying we would like to be included. There
are many more bites at that apple on the Gulf lease sales.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you. As I gather, I think you just
supported my contention. If you are going to say listen, the
states have the option to pull themselves out and we recognize
they have an interest, and we are going to honor that they have
an interest, et cetera, than in the case of the Gulf of Mexico,
it is not as if we have an interest, rather, we must do exactly
what we are told.
I am not sure it is reconciled any other way.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, the point I am making is
development of the Outer Continental Shelf, which is a Federal
resource, already supports the economies onshore for many of
those states.
Senator Cassidy. That is a different issue, so the
development of the Outer Continental Shelf has borne some role
in the dissolution of Louisiana's coast line. That is actually
a separate issue.
The primary issue is that in this case you say the State
can effectively control access to the revenue associated with
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, but in the case of the
Gulf Coast states, you do not have control over this revenue,
because denying access to drilling in the OCS off these states
is effectively denying access to the revenue.
So, okay. You control the revenue on behalf of the Federal
taxpayers, and in these states, however, you have no control
over that revenue. We consider it a Federal dollar, and we are
going to distribute it elsewhere.
We have a call for votes, and I promised I would be short.
I do think your answer supports my contention that the State is
the one which should have a role. You have established the
precedent really in allowing them to deny the Federal taxpayer
access to the revenue derived thereof.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, may I have a response?
Senator Murkowski. Very briefly.
Secretary Jewell. I just want to say that I do not think my
comments are any different than what I stated, the Gulf Coast
States, with the exception of Florida, have said we want you to
continue to lease the Outer Continental Shelf, and we are, and
we are doing it twice a year.
Some states have said we do not want leasing, and they have
been excluded from the plan.
Senator Cassidy. The issue is not the lease, the issue is
the revenue derived thereof. That is really what we are talking
about with the GOMESA revenue sharing. That is where I think
you in the one case allow the State to deny the Federal
taxpayer the revenue, and in the other State, you say no, you
cannot deny the Federal taxpayer the revenue. That seems to be
the inconsistency, not the leasing, per se.
Secretary Jewell. I do not believe I am being inconsistent.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Cassidy, know how much I agree
with your concerns here and know that the issue of revenue
sharing, fair and equitable revenue sharing, from our Outer
Continental Shelf areas, is going to be a priority of mine.
I do think as we look at this budget and areas where I
think the administration is just way off base is exactly what
they have done with the GOMESA revenue sharing, the agreement
that was made to pull back on that, I think, is just wrong.
I think it is going to be important to make sure that we
have a level of revenue sharing where those states, those
coastal states, that host economic activity off their shores,
their coast lines, are fairly compensated.
I mentioned the issues of the Arctic and whether it is an
emergency evacuation route for a community like Kivalina or how
we are going to fund a deepwater port for Arctic activities, I
look to revenue sharing and increased production in our OCS as
being that way we will be able to fund these vital priorities.
It is pretty tough trying to find the money under rocks
onshore right now, particularly on our Federal lands. This is a
priority of mine and I look forward to working with you on
that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I think they have probably closed out our vote, so I hate
to wrap it up when we are having so much fun.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Secretary Jewell, thank you for being
here, and Deputy Secretary Connor, thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Sally Jewell
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. I have some concerns over the process associated with
access to public lands for purposes of filming and have heard numerous
complaints about people having access to our public lands in this
regard. Most of the criticism is associated with issues on forest
lands; however, it is an issue in National Parks and on the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands as well.
I am concerned that the law on commercial filming that Congress
passed back in 2000 is being misconstrued and applied in a way to
potentially restrict or outright deny access--certainly that is the
case on Forest Service lands. It is my understanding these are not
large movie scale kinds of operations but 1, 2, or maybe 3 people with
cameras or hand held video camera equipment who do not disturb the
landscape. In some places people are being allowed access and in some
areas they are not leaving folks quite frustrated.
What activities do the Park Service and BLM consider ``commercial''
for purposes of issuing permits under the law?
Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) issued regulations on
August 22, 2013, (43 CFR PART 5) to implement the commercial film rule
in Public Law 106-206. While the Department of Interior's regulations
adopt a broad definition of commercial filming, there are exceptions
which ensure the permitting and fee requirements do not impose an
unreasonable burden.
Under the regulations, commercial filming includes the ``film,
electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording, of a moving image by
a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the
intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to,
feature film, videography, television broadcast, or documentary, or
other similar projects. Commercial filming activities may include the
advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models,
sets, or props'' (43 CFR Sec. 5.12). While commercial filming
activities are generally required to obtain a permit, most still
photography is exempt from this requirement unless: (i) it uses a
model, set, or prop; or, (ii) the agency determines a permit is
necessary because a proposed location is in a closed area or the agency
would incur costs for providing oversight. Practically, this means, for
example, that a photographer shooting an engagement photo in an area
otherwise open to the public without any props would not need a permit
even though he or she was presumably getting paid. The other important
exception relates to news gathering activities. They do not require a
permit unless: (a) one is necessary to protect natural and cultural
resources, avoid use conflicts, ensure public safety, or authorize
entrance to closed areas; and, (b) getting one does not interfere with
news gathering (43 CFR 5.4(a)).
The requirement that other commercial activities outside of these
exceptions obtain a permit is consistent with Public Law 106-206, which
directs Federal land management agencies in DOI and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to collect a ``fair return'' for the use of the
lands they manage. With respect to smaller groups that are required to
get a permit, the recently issued fee schedule establishes a sliding
scale linked to a group's size.
Question. What are the fees for individuals to get a permit for
filming on Park or BLM lands? How long does it take? What sort of
paperwork is involved?
Answer. Only individuals or groups required to obtain a BLM permit
are subject to a fee requirement, which includes two pieces. The first
is cost recovery to reimburse the Government for the cost of processing
their application. This is determined by the number of hours it takes
to process the application. Cost recovery for a typical permit taking 1
to 8 hours to process would be $121. Cost recovery fees are updated
each fiscal year using the GDP/IDP index for inflation (43 CFR
Sec. 5.8, 43 CFR 2920.8(a) and (b)). In addition to cost recovery,
individuals must also pay a location fee based on the type of filming
(still or motion), the number of people involved, and the number of
days. Location fees vary by State and group size and were established
using statewide appraisals. Fees range from $100 to $250 per day for
commercial still photography and $250 to $600 per day for commercial
filming of live action depending on the number of people.
Processing times vary from a day or two to several weeks depending
on the complexity of the production operation, whether the location is
a popular area, and whether the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) has to be completed before filming can begin. The processing
time also depends on the potential for impacts to other resources or
activities, and the availability of BLM personnel to process the
permit. On public lands, the BLM works with applicants to find
alternate locations for filming activities if the location selected
initially presents unique management challenges.
The permitting process and items needed vary depending on the
location chosen and the type of filming proposed. The BLM works with
film crews to ensure they are aware of the requirements specific to
their request. To apply for a permit on public lands, film crews must
complete Land Use Application Form 2920. They must also prepare a
Detailed Description of Filming Activity form and provide a map showing
the specific location(s) requested. Depending on the location, time of
production, and type of production, additional items may be required,
such as a bond or reimbursement for overtime costs. Bonds may be
required to assure reclamation of sets or sensitive locations as
appropriate.
The National Park Service (NPS) uses two applications for
commercial filming and still photography--a short form for small crews
with minimal equipment, and a long form for more complex proposals.
Contingent on the complexity of the request, a short form may take as
little as 2 days to be processed, while a request involving large
crews, more equipment, and unique activities such as pyrotechnics, may
take several weeks. Permits are subject to cost recovery charges and
location fees. Cost recovery charges are based on the actual costs
incurred in accepting the application, processing the request, and
facilitating the permitted activity once approved. Location fees are
based on a schedule developed by the NPS, Bureau of Land Management,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. The schedule ensures
consistent location fees between the agencies for similar activities.
Fees are determined by the number of people involved with the permit
and the number of days the activity is on Federal lands.
Question. How do the requirements for individuals or small groups
(less than five compare) with the large Hollywood style operations?
Answer. On BLM public lands, smaller operations typically pay
reduced application processing and location fees. Their applications
are also likely to be simpler to prepare and process because less
information would be necessary for activities that are smaller in
scope. Larger operations (e.g., a major motion picture shoot) routinely
require a bond, an onsite filming monitor, and additional permit
stipulations that would not typically be required for smaller film
crews. Large productions and requests to film outside popular locations
will also usually require an onsite pre-application conference with the
relevant BLM personnel.
The NPS uses two applications for commercial filming and still
photography--a short form for small crews with minimal equipment, and a
long form for more complex proposals. Commercial video crews of three
people or less can be issued a permit for an extended period of time,
usually up to 1 year, with authorization for unlimited access to areas
of the park open to the general public. Fees are determined by the
number of people involved with the permit and the number of days the
activity is on Federal lands. Small groups do not necessarily require
on-site monitoring. Proof of insurance would be required of all
commercial filming, though larger operations and operations with
certain special effects would be required to carry higher amounts.
Question. How do the agencies ensure fair and consistent
application of the law?
Answer. In order to ensure consistency among Bureaus, the
Department of the Interior issued regulations on August 22, 2013, (43
CFR PART 5) to implement the commercial film rule in Public Law 106-
206. Taking into consideration comments received from the public and
industry and trade groups during the rulemaking process, the agencies
developed a location fee schedule for use by all agencies to ensure
consistency and that regulations were well-defined.
Question. Would the Department consider exempting from permitting a
de minimis number of people who might engage in filming on Forest
Service and other public lands?
Answer. With respect to activities on public lands, the
Department's regulations contain a number of exemptions from the
permitting requirement that capture a number of de minimis activities.
As explained above, still photography and news gathering activities
generally do not require a permit except under the specific
circumstances identified in the regulations (43 CFR 5.2(b)). The
Department would defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding
management actions on Forest Service lands.
Question. Shell is forced to use the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) existing Suspension of Operations
regulations which were developed to address circumstances in the Gulf;
however, Alaska is not the Gulf. Because of the unique and complex
operations and the short timeframe for actually being able to operate
in the Arctic compared to the Gulf, it is appropriate for BSEE to have
Arctic-specific suspension regulations that reflect those differences.
Do you agree? Why or why not? Additionally, BSEE has the authority to
draft such regulations, but apparently has declined to do so. Why?
Answer. BSEE's regulations governing offshore oil and gas
operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) apply to all
activities on the OCS regardless of location. BSEE does have the
ability to issue additional regulations to address unique operating
conditions and constraints. For example, BSEE is currently taking
public comment on an Arctic exploratory drilling proposal. BSEE has not
declined to draft Arctic specific suspension regulations and continues
to explore these issues. BSEE is evaluating whether it can use its
existing regulatory authority to address any unique and complex
challenges associated with Arctic operations (ice coverage for the
majority of the year). BSEE's analysis of this issue is ongoing with
the goal of continuing to ensure the safe and environmentally
responsible exploration and development of the Arctic OCS in accordance
with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the ability to address
suspension concerns in a timely manner.
Question. I have mentioned on many occasions that I am concerned
about the pace of development on public lands--particularly in Alaska
where lack of production threatens the sustainability of the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline. The Department had a goal of permitting 10,000
megawatts of renewable energy production on Federal lands that was met
in 2012. And currently, the administration has a goal for a ``new
renewable energy economy.''
Does the Department have a similar goal for conventional
production?
Answer. The BLM provides for oil and gas development under the
Mineral Leasing Act. Industry currently holds valid leases to 34
million acres of public lands but is only actively developing one in
three of those acres. Last year, the BLM approved 50 percent more
drilling permits than industry drilled that year, and oil and gas
companies currently hold approximately 6,000 permits ready for drilling
with no further action from the BLM--a 2-year supply under current
drilling rates.
Question. If not, why? And, to what extent has the lack of any
goals played a role in the downward trend of leasing on Federal lands?
Answer. BLM is responsible for making oil and gas resources
available to industry where appropriate through its land use and
leasing processes; however, actual production that takes place is
generally up to industry. Oil and gas production is largely driven by
economic and geologic considerations of the companies developing those
resources. As a result, market conditions and technology advances cause
shifts in areas where that development is focused. Oil and gas
production trends from public and Indian lands have closely tracked
that of comparable State and private lands. In fact, from 2008 to last
year, oil production from lands requiring a BLM permit has increased 81
percent--from 113 million barrels to 205 million barrels. That is 92
million more barrels in 2014 than in 2008. Even where industry has seen
declines, like natural gas, those numbers often track statewide trends
in the Western States where BLM predominantly works (e.g., New Mexico
and Wyoming).
Question. According to the leasing statistics on DOI's own Web site
for BLM lands over the past two decades, there is a downward trend.
Over the course of the Clinton administration, the average acres leased
per year was 3.3 million. Throughout the George W. Bush administration,
the average acres leased was 3.6 million per year. During the first 6
years of the Obama administration, that number drops to an average of
1.6 million acres per year. If, like me, you view this information as
negative, DOI's proposed rules relating to hydraulic fracturing,
methane, and potential royalty rate increases certainly won't help
reverse this trend.
Is this a trend the Department is aware of and happy with?
Answer. The BLM continues to provide significant opportunity for
industry through leasing on public lands and permitting on public and
tribal lands. However, industry has chosen to lease fewer acres in
recent years, likely due in significant part to a large inventory of
existing leases companies acquired in prior years. During the last
fiscal year, the BLM offered over 5,500,000 acres for leasing, yet
industry only bid on roughly 900,000 acres or 16 percent. Excluding
Alaska, the BLM offered roughly 1.22 million acres in fiscal year 2014,
yet industry only bid on 674,084 of those acres (55 percent), even
though nearly all of the parcels offered for lease in the lower 48 were
based on industry expressions of interest. These parcels are offered on
top of the 34 million acres that industry already holds under lease,
only one-third of which are actively producing oil and gas.
The recently published final rule on hydraulic fracturing is
estimated by the BLM to cost industry on average less than one-quarter
of 1 percent of the total cost of drilling a well. The BLM does not
anticipate this rule to appreciably impact oil and gas production from
public and Indian lands. The BLM has not yet published its proposed
rule on venting and flaring or made specific decisions with respect to
royalty rates, but will take into account the full range of information
regarding anticipated impacts to both industry and Federal revenues as
specific proposals are developed or considered.
Question. Is there anything the Department is proposing that you
would argue is going to result in a reversal of that trend?
Answer. Most parcels with high development potential and low
resource conflict are part of the 34 million acres already under lease
to the oil and gas industry. For parcels with more potential for
conflict, the BLM is working hard to resolve conflicts where they
arise. For example, BLM reduced the number of successful protests
because of improvements in its process. In calendar year 2014, while
690,958 acres within 484 parcels were protested, 478 of those parcels
or 98 percent were eventually offered for leasing, reflecting the
strong upfront analysis for the parcel posting.
Similarly, the BLM continues to work closely with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Western States on a West-wide planning effort to
put in place meaningful conservation measures for the Greater sage-
grouse along with innovative mitigation programs that together will
increase certainty for industry while providing for the long-term
protection of the species. The BLM is also working to finalize Master
Leasing Plans in sensitive areas across the West. Together these plans,
once finalized, will allow for responsible oil and gas development
while also protecting other resources that are important to local
economies.
Question. If the Department is unhappy with this trend, what are
you doing to see that leasing on our public lands occurs at a rate
similar to previous Republican and Democratic administrations?
Answer. Most parcels with high development potential and low
resource conflict are part of the 34 million acres already under lease
to the oil and gas industry. For parcels with more potential for
conflict, the BLM is working hard to resolve conflicts where they
arise. For example, BLM reduced the number of successful protests
because of improvements in its process. In calendar year 2014, while
690,958 acres within 484 parcels were protested, 478 of those parcels
or 98 percent were eventually offered for leasing, reflecting the
strong upfront analysis for the parcel posting.
Similarly, the BLM continues to work closely with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Western States on a West-wide planning effort to
put in place meaningful conservation measures for the Greater sage-
grouse along with innovative mitigation programs that together will
increase certainty for industry while providing for the long-term
protection of the species. The BLM is also working to finalize Master
Leasing Plans in sensitive areas across the West. Together these plans,
once finalized, will allow for responsible oil and gas development
while also protecting other resources that are important to local
economies.
Question. In 2013, a report commissioned by the Department
concluded that raising royalty rates on onshore oil and gas production
on public lands would discourage investment and bring less money to the
treasury, and consequently was not warranted.
What has changed since then to convince the Department that a
royalty increase is warranted?
Answer. One of the Department's primary responsibilities with
respect to oil and gas development from public lands and waters is
ensuring that the American public receives a fair return from the
production of those resources. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA)
requires the BLM to impose a royalty rate ``at a rate of not less than
12.5 percent in amount or value of the production removed or sold from
the lease'' for new competitively issued leases. (30 U.S.C.
226(b)(1)(A)). The BLM currently fixes the rate for such leases at 12.5
percent. (43 CFR 3103.3-1(a)(1)). For non-competitively issued leases,
the royalty rate is fixed by the MLA at a flat 12.5 percent (30 U.S.C.
226(c)).
The conclusions of the report referenced (``Comparative Assessment
of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System'') were nuanced. In addition,
a range of other reports and information suggest that taxpayers could
be getting a better return from increasing the onshore royalty rate.
The adequacy of the Department's oil and gas fiscal system has been the
subject of many studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and others.
The most recent one was completed by GAO in 2013 (``Oil and Gas
Resources: Actions Needed for Interior to Better Ensure a Fair
Return''). Both the GAO and the OIG have expressed concerns about the
adequacy of the existing BLM regulations. Based on comparison of
Federal Government oil and gas revenues with revenues received by
foreign governments, both have concluded that the Federal Government
receives one of the lowest ``government takes'' in the world. Rates
charged by many State and private resource owners in the U.S. suggest
similar a similar discrepancy for the Federal onshore rate. As result,
the United States could be foregoing significant revenue from the
production of Federal oil and gas resources. Most recently, in 2013 the
GAO expressed concerns about the BLM's ``lack of price flexibility in
royalty rates'' to respond to market conditions and ``the inability [of
the BLM] to change fiscal terms on existing leases.''
The GAO also faulted the Department for not having procedures in
place to routinely evaluate the ranking of the Federal oil and gas
fiscal system, or the industry rates of return on Federal leases versus
other resource owners. In response to these findings, the BLM, in
coordination with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
contracted for a comparative assessment of oil and gas fiscal systems
(IHS CERA Study 2011). While that study concluded that the Federal
Government's fiscal system and overall Government take were generally
in the mainstream nationally and internationally, it pointed out the
benefits of a sliding scale royalty system instead of the current fixed
rate established by existing regulations. The purpose of the sliding
scale system would be to allow the Department to better respond to
changes in market conditions and other factors. In addition to the IHS
CERA Study, the BLM also reviewed a separate study that was conducted
by industry, independent of the BLM (Van Meurs Study (2011)). The Van
Meurs Study looked at a wide range of jurisdictions and regions across
North America and provided a comparison of the oil and gas fiscal
systems on Federal, State, and private lands throughout the United
States and the provinces in Canada. At the time it was published, the
Van Meurs Study suggested that in the United States: (1) Government
take was generally lower on Federal lands than the lessor's ``take'' on
State lands or private lands; (2) Government take was higher for gas
than for oil; and (3) The internal rate of return on leases was lower
for gas than for oil.
To date there is no decision to change the royalty rate. However,
based on the foregoing, the BLM published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments on potential changes to its
royalty rate regulations, among other things, with the intent of
ensuring that BLM is providing the American people a fair return on the
oil and gas resources extracted from BLM-managed lands.
Question. Does the Department believe raising royalty rates would
discourage investment and bring less money to the Federal treasury?
Answer. No, the Department anticipates that any decision to adjust
the onshore oil and gas royalty rate would be made with the expectation
that there would be a positive effect on net royalty revenues to the
Treasury (with any Federal revenue gains shared with the States in
which the production takes place). The Department has not made any
decision yet regarding specific changes to the regulations governing
the royalty rate charged for competitively issued oil and gas leases.
Question. Does the Department worry that increasing the royalty
rate and driving away investment on public lands will make it even more
difficult to provide funds for the land and water conservation fund?
Answer. No. Any increase in the royalty rate would be designed to
ensure that taxpayers are receiving a fair return from oil and gas
development, not to discourage that development.
Question. In the budget request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management 2.5 million was requested to address aging infrastructure
and the future needs to decommission and plug aging offshore wells.
While I can understand that the Department is seeking to protect
Federal waters offshore by ensuring that the responsible party pays for
such costs, it is bewildering that people are still waiting in Alaska
for the necessary remediation of legacy wells drilled by the Federal
Government.
Please provide an update on the requirement from the current
spending bill on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
contaminated sites, as well as the most current information as it
relates to expenditure of funds provided through the Helium bill for
cleanup.
Answer. The BLM is in the process of developing a database of
potential contaminated sites conveyed to ANCSA corporations based on
inventories compiled by State and Federal partners in Alaska. A
preliminary review of inventoried sites in the database has found that
a majority of sites are not on land conveyed to an ANCSA entity, and
those sites that were conveyed are on parcels that were not managed by
the BLM prior to conveyance. The BLM expects to make the database
available to the public after verification of its contents. The BLM is
on schedule to submit a report to Congress during the summer of this
year. Additionally, BLM Director Neil Kornze hosted a stakeholder
roundtable discussion on contaminated lands with Federal partners and
congressional staff in Anchorage on March 10, 2015, to discuss the
proposed interagency database verification process and establish a path
forward, including outreach to ANCSA corporations.
With respect to the use of funds from the 2013 Helium Stewardship
Act, BLM-Alaska is currently using approximately $7 million to plug
Umiat Wells 1, 3 and 11 and remove wellheads at Umiat 4, 8, and 10 in
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). This work is being
performed by Marsh Creek, LLC, under an interagency agreement with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This work is scheduled to be completed by
mid-to late April 2015. In addition, the BLM National Operations Center
will soon announce a solicitation for remediation services of
additional NPR-A Legacy Wells based upon priorities established in BLM-
Alaska's 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan.
Question. In May 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued two
draft rules and one draft policy related to critical habitat
designations under the Endangered Species Act. The Service suggests
that these proposals are simply an update that makes the regulations
regarding critical habitat designations consistent with current policy
and current practices. I am concerned that this is not the case and
that the proposals greatly expand areas the Service may designate as
critical habitat for two reasons.
First, the proposals give the Service the authority to designate
unoccupied areas as critical habitat even if occupied areas are
sufficient to provide for the conservation of the species. Second, the
proposals give the Service the authority to designate unoccupied areas
as critical habitat if the habitat is not currently suitable--and may
not ever be suitable--to be habitat essential to the conservation of
the species. Under these proposals, the Services could designate large
swaths of land without a species as critical habitat if they believe
one day it might be suitable habitat using climate change models that
may or may not be accurate.
Will the Department commit to ensuring that the final rules and
draft policy do not expand the Service's ability to designate critical
habitat in areas that are not currently suitable for a listed species?
What is the timeframe for releasing a final rule?
Answer. The proposed rule you are referring to is the May 12, 2014,
proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service implementing changes to the
regulations for designating critical habitat (79 FR 27066-27078). That
proposed rule serves to revise regulations at 50 CFR 424 which, in
part, interpret and implement the statutory definition of ``critical
habitat'', which includes ``(ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed . .
. upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.'' The FWS's authority and ability
to designate critical habitat in areas that were not occupied at the
time of listing and are not currently suitable for a listed species
flows from the statutory definition, but is limited to circumstances in
which there is a specific determination that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
The FWS has learned through years of experience that the step-wise
approach provided by the existing regulation can result in a larger
designation that is less effective for species conservation. The
proposed rule change would subsume and supersede language in the
existing regulations that provides that areas outside the
``geographical area presently occupied by the species'' shall be
designated only when ``a designation limited to its present range would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.'' While the
Department cannot commit to the outcome of the final rulemaking, be
assured the FWS's objective in proposing this revision is not to expand
authority to designate critical habitat, but rather to remove an
unnecessary limitation to achieve targeted designation of areas
essential for the conservation of the species. The FWS focuses on areas
where designation can make a difference for conservation of the species
and avoiding areas where designation may provide a disincentive for
voluntary conservation efforts.
To that end, the Service's proposed policy with regard to the
discretion to exclude specific areas from designation under authority
of section 4(b)(2) reflects the intention, based on years of experience
in designating critical habitat and defending those designations, to
focus the designation on those areas where an added consideration to
any section 7 consultation may benefit conservation of the species, but
to generally exercise discretion to exclude from a designation areas
where such benefits are unlikely or small and where designation may be
a disincentive to voluntary conservation actions.
FWS anticipates finalizing the revised regulations and policy for
critical habitat in early summer 2015.
Question. The sage-grouse rider that was included on the fiscal
year 2015 Interior appropriations bill prohibits the Department from
writing or issuing a proposed rule pursuant to the greater sage-grouse
as is required when listing a species under Section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act. The Department made the determination that the language of
the bill allows you to continue working on a listing determination and
only prohibits writing and publication of a rule.
Many question that interpretation and would argue that, regardless
of whether you can technically take such actions, doing so is outside
of the spirit of the appropriations language and is one more example of
the Department using a questionable technical interpretation to
circumvent the actual intent of Congress.
Regardless of whether the Department believes that you are legally
entitled to do everything other than write or publish a rule on the
Greater sage-grouse, do you think moving forward full steam a-head
squares with the intent of the provision?
Answer. The Department and the FWS are not ignoring the General
Provision relating to sage-grouse included in the fiscal year 2015
appropriation. At the same time, the Department is trying to comply
with its obligation to the court to make a determination by the end of
fiscal year 2015 as to whether a listing proposal is warranted or not
warranted, as established in the 2010 settlement agreement. If FWS
determines that a listing is not warranted, FWS will be in compliance
with the settlement agreement and require no extension or relief. If
the FWS determines that listing is warranted, the FWS will not write or
publish a proposed rule listing the species until such time as Congress
restores the authority to do so.
Question. The Department is prohibited from writing or issuing a
proposed rule related to the greater sage-grouse. Is it in your legal
authority to use the work product the Department gathers over the
remainder of this fiscal year, when the rider is in effect, to write
and publish a rule should the rider go away?
Answer. Yes. We believe doing so would be consistent with our
Solicitor's opinion that we can gather information for the listing
determination and be in compliance with the appropriations language.
Question. This is a slightly more complicated issue, but I am
interested in the Department's interpretation of how the settlement
agreement interacts with the appropriations bill, which is the law.
Paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement expressly states ``[t]he
[Department] shall submit a Proposed Rule or a not-warranted finding to
the Federal Register for the . . . Greater sage-grouse, including any
Distinct Population Segments, by fiscal year 2015.'' Paragraph 21 of
the settlement agreement then states, ``No provision in this Agreement
shall be interpreted as, or constitute, a requirement that the
[Department is] obligated to expend or pay any funds exceeding those
available, or take any action in contravention of . . . any other
appropriations law.''
Paragraph 2 requires the Department to submit a proposed rule in
the Federal Register. The fiscal year 2015 prohibits the Department
from writing or issuing a rule that would be published in the Federal
Register. Paragraph 21 makes clear that the settlement agreement does
not supersede Federal law.
If the settlement agreement requires the Department to submit a
proposed rule to the Federal register and you're prohibited from doing
so by Federal law, doesn't the appropriations bill, by its very
language, prohibit the Department from acting in the manner that the
settlement agreement requires you to act? And, if so, how can the
Department justify the course of action in moving forward with a
listing determination?
Answer. The FWS will comply with the court-ordered settlement to
make a determination by the end of fiscal year 2015 as to whether a
listing proposal is still warranted or not warranted. Reaching a
determination does not involve writing or issuing a proposed rule. If
FWS finds that listing is still warranted, the General Provision in the
fiscal year 2015 appropriation and the Anti-Deficiency Act will prevent
the FWS from writing or issuing a proposed rule.
Question. I was pleased to see that the Department included $22
million towards completion of Alaska land conveyances. This is the
first time in many years that the Department hasn't slashed the program
funding from the previous year. Last year, there were about 7 million
acres pending approval of interim conveyances and about 56 million
acres lacking surveys.
What will the Department be able to accomplish with the funds
requested in the Budget?
Answer. The BLM estimates that survey and patent work is needed on
40.8 million acres of land in order to complete the United States'
obligation to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act. This
field season BLM plans to survey approximately five million acres of
the remaining State survey obligation. The BLM is also working with the
State of Alaska to implement a new survey method using modern
technology that could reduce the timeline for surveys by 60-75 percent
and reduce the cost to the American taxpayer by 50 percent or more.
For lands covered by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
BLM estimates 11.9 million acres are left to survey and patent in order
to complete the United States' obligation to the ANCSA corporations. In
2015, the BLM received $22 million in conveyance funding which allows
the BLM to conduct surveys for two of the 18 tracts conveyed to
Sealaska on March 6, 2015, pursuant to the 2015 National Defense
Authorization Act. Additionally, final surveys will be completed for up
to six village corporations, allowing their entitlement to be finalized
by patent in approximately 3 years. BLM will complete ``14(c)'' surveys
for three village corporations and ten Native Allotment parcels. Focus
will shift from fulfilling entitlement by interim conveyance to
finalizing entitlement by patent. This year BLM already fulfilled
entitlement, by patent, to seven ANCSA village Corporations with
another seven village entitlements in the adjudication process.
Additionally, the BLM anticipates reducing the 9.5 million acres in the
interim conveyance status by nearly 500,000 acres by the end of the
fiscal year.
As noted, the Department's fiscal year 2016 budget requests $22
million to continue Alaska land conveyances. With this funding, the BLM
plans to approve 1,000 miles of prior cadastral field surveys, complete
700 miles of new field surveys, and process 20 Native allotment claim
applications. In addition, approximately 600,000 acres of Native
corporation entitlements and 800,000 acres of the State of Alaska
entitlement will be patented. Transfer of title through ``Interim
Conveyance'' or ``Tentative Approval'' will continue to be completed,
as necessary, for Native corporations and the State of Alaska.
Question. The Federal Government and the State are joint partners
in the Alaska Mapping Initiative, with the goal of improving the
topographic maps for the State. Some of the current topographic maps
are over 50 years old and vital to aviation safety, land use planning,
and research. The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposes to
increase funding for this program by $1.3 million.
Would the Department please provide an update on where we are with
the Mapping Initiative, how much of the State now has updated maps, and
how long will it take to complete?
Answer. The Alaska Mapping Initiative is an interagency effort to
update base geospatial information in Alaska. The Alaska Mapping
Executive Committee (AMEC) coordinates Federal agency activities and
works in partnership with the Alaska State government. This effort will
result in statewide high-resolution geospatial coverage for elevation,
hydrography, topographic mapping, and other thematic datasets.
The Department appreciates the support of the Alaska delegation in
this effort. Chaired by the Department of the Interior Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, the AMEC has led the Alaska Mapping
Initiative since 2012, with an initial focus on acquiring statewide
high-resolution elevation data derived from interferometric synthetic
aperture radar (ifsar). To date, ifsar elevation data collection has
been completed for approximately 53 percent of the State. In July 2014,
the AMEC endorsed a 3-year strategy (2015-2017) to complete the
remaining ifsar elevation data acquisition for Alaska, contingent on
funding. Progress to date is the result of very effective coordination
and cooperation among the partners and funding contributions from
participating Federal agencies and the State of Alaska.
The State of Alaska is acquiring SPOT satellite imagery and will
have complete State coverage by 2016. The U.S. Geological Survey will
use the topographic contours derived from the ifsar elevation data in
conjunction with the SPOT satellite imagery, high-resolution National
Hydrography Dataset information, and other base geospatial information
to create updated 1:25,000-scale topographic maps. These maps will
replace the outdated and less accurate topographic maps which currently
exist for Alaska.
To date, approximately 1,100 new maps have been completed, for
which new ifsar elevation data and imagery have been acquired,
representing 10 percent of the State, with another 600 maps scheduled
for production in 2015. The current goal is to complete the coverage of
Alaska with new maps over the next 6-8 years.
Question. I have expressed my frustration with the mitigation
requirements associated with the Greater Moose's Tooth (GMT) permitting
process. Getting through the permitting process on public lands is not
easy by design. There are strict environmental laws that industry must
comply with. This is reasonable. However, I am concerned that the
uncertainties the Greater Moose's Tooth faced in the process are going
to be formalized and exported to the lower 48 via Secretarial Order
3330 on mitigation, which was signed on October 31, 2013.
As we saw with Greater Moose's Tooth, the Department is free to
accept voluntary mitigation efforts as part of the permitting process.
Please describe to me the legal justification for the idea that the
Department has the authority to require them to make a payment into a
mitigation fund in order to authorize an otherwise permissible activity
under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA).
Answer. As discussed in the GMT1 Record of Decision (ROD), BLM's
authority for management of NPR-A and to issue land use authorizations
for the GMT1 project comes from several statutes, including the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act (NPRPA), Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing
Act. Each of these statutes and their implementing regulations require
BLM to consider impacts to the environment and other resources and uses
during processing of applications for land use authorizations.
Additionally, each of these authorities provide broad authority for BLM
to impose measures requiring applicants to mitigate adverse impacts to
resources and uses, including measures that avoid or reduce impacts and
measures that will compensate for unavoidable impacts.
The congressional declaration of policy for FLPMA requires that,
``the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality
of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and
atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values . . . .'' (43 USC
Sec. 1701(a)(8)). The FLPMA directs that ``[i]n managing the public
lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action
necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands''
(43 USC Sec. 1732(b)).
The NPRPA provides BLM with additional mitigation authority
specific to oil and gas operations in the NPR-A, directing the
Secretary to ``include or provide for such conditions, restrictions,
and prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on
the surface resources of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska . . .
.'' (42 USC Sec. 6506a(b)).
Title VIII of ANILCA further requires Federal land managing
agencies to evaluate impacts of proposed actions on subsistence uses,
and provides that any action which would significantly restrict
subsistence uses cannot be approved unless the agency takes reasonable
steps to minimize impacts to subsistence uses and resources resulting
from such actions (16 USC Sec. 3120).
Additionally, section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act provides BLM
with authority to issue rights-of-way across Federal lands for oil and
natural gas pipelines and related facilities, and provides that such
rights-of-way ``shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the
Secretary or agency head may prescribe regarding extent, duration,
survey, location, construction, operation, maintenance, use, and
termination'' (30 USC Sec. 185). Specific to environmental protection,
subsection 28(h) of the Act requires BLM to impose stipulations which
are ``designed to control or prevent damage to the environment
(including damage to fish and wildlife habitat)'' and that ``protect
the interests of individuals living in the general area of the right-
of-way or permit who rely on the fish, wildlife, and biotic resources
of the area for subsistence purposes'' (30 USC Sec. 185(h)).
According to BLM interim draft mitigation policy (IM 2013-142),\1\
offsite compensatory mitigation is generally appropriate when the
agency determines that impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable
level onsite, and it is expected that the land use authorization as
proposed would not be in compliance with law or regulations, or
consistent with land use plan decisions or other important resource
objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Interim Policy, Draft--Regional Mitigation Manual Section--
1794, June 13, 2013. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/
Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_
instruction/2013/IM_2013-142.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of the GMT1 development project, the BLM conducted a
public review process under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and determined the preferred alternative for the project would
result in major impacts to subsistence hunting and fishing activities
that were not able to be mitigated through changes to siting or project
design. In order to address these unavoidable impacts and allow
development to proceed, the BLM worked with the project applicant to
identify compensatory mitigation measures to offset those impacts
consistent with these authorities. These funds will be directed, as
part of a broader regional mitigation strategy process, to projects
that will compensate for impacts to subsistence hunting and fishing
opportunities caused by the project.
Question. The Secretarial Order describes new policies, handbooks,
and manual updates that will result from the Order. What information is
the Department using to formulate these changes and when can we expect
to see them?
Answer. The Department is in the process of updating policies,
handbooks, and manuals to provide greater consistency in how mitigation
is planned for and considered in the process of permitting projects.
The Department and its bureaus are taking as inclusive an approach as
possible for this effort. We rely on the insight and knowledge of our
managers, specialists, and biologists on the ground that have a long
history of permitting projects and collaborating with project
proponents, States, communities, and other stakeholders. Such input is
based on best-practices examples that have worked on the ground. Where
appropriate, we have also sought public input. For example, BLM took
the unusual step of publishing its interim draft mitigation guidance in
2013, to allow for public input and coordination with stakeholders and
partners. The BLM's final mitigation guidance, due out this summer, has
improved as a result of this engagement. Likewise, FWS plans to propose
their mitigation policy revision in the Federal Register for public
comment and review. Other policies, such as a new Departmental Manual
codifying Secretarial Oder 3330, have also been informed by discussions
with bureaus receiving public comment and from direct discussion with
stakeholders and project proponents.
Question. Projects across the Department's holdings have different
mitigation ratios. What is the mechanism that will determine what the
mitigation ratios are for a specific project?
Answer. Compensatory mitigation measures are analyzed as part of a
project's public review under NEPA and are based on the impacts the
project would have on important resources as defined by FLPMA, the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other statutes. As mentioned above,
the BLM and FWS are currently updating guidance that will bring greater
consistency to the assessment of mitigation measures, though local
conditions and public input will remain important considerations, and
project decisions will continue to be made with the relevant line
officer. In order to bring further predictability to mitigation and
permitting decisions, the Department implements landscape strategies
for areas of intensive development or special resource concern. For
example, FWS routinely works with partners and stakeholders to
implement Habitat Conservation Plans and Candidate Conservation
Agreements that provide for conservation of species while providing
assurance to developers and landowners. Similarly, BLM is working to
develop regional mitigation strategies for Solar Energy Zones under the
Western Solar Plan and routinely works with oil and gas companies to
define mitigation measures for field-wide development plans. With these
strategies, BLM is able to provide prospective developers with
knowledge of where best to site projects as well as the certainty of
foreseeable compensatory mitigation requirements, e.g. ratios, etc., if
projects produce residual impacts. A similar regional mitigation
strategy has been undertaken pursuant to the ROD for the GMT1 project,
which will provide greater predictability for subsequent development
projects in the northeastern portion of the NPR-A.
Question. There seems like potential for a tremendous amount of
subjectivity. Given the idea that the Department thinks there is the
authority to require this, how would you determine a mitigation ratio,
particularly in the context of a project proponent who is not
volunteering this?
Answer. For decades, the Department has determined mitigation
measures for a range of resources and project types. When determining
appropriate mitigation for a proposed project on Federal land, the BLM
bases the need for compensatory mitigation on what is necessary and
effective to offset residual impacts to resources considered important,
scarce, or fragile as typically identified by applicable statute,
regulation, or land use plan. In identifying appropriate mitigation
measures, the BLM ensures there is an appropriate connection between
the reasonably foreseeable impacts of a land use activity and the
benefits of the compensatory mitigation. In some cases, the rough
proportionality of mitigation requirements may be expressed in terms of
ratios to reflect: (1) the fact that mitigation is not always
successful (e.g.. if on average restoration succeeds only half the
time, then a 2:1 ratio is needed to offset expected losses of habitat),
and (2) differences in conservation value (e.g., 2 acres of low value
habitat must be enhanced for each acre of high value habitat lost).
The updated policies referenced above will provide greater
consistency to how project managers consider these impacts and account
for them in project reviews under NEPA. The Department is also
improving how it plans for mitigation in advance of individual project
reviews, including through the use of landscape strategies. Where these
strategies exist, they provide project developers with an upfront and
predictable framework for how the Department seeks to manage a
particular set of resources or type of impact. For example, in the case
of the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) Regional Mitigation Strategy, a
ratio of less than 1:1 was recommended to account for the solar
development impacts to a landscape in a previously disturbed state.
Generally, these strategies can provide increased certainty for
developers in advance of project reviews.
Question. And, in the context of the Order, what qualifies as a
``large development'' project that requires the Order to ``effectively
offset impacts?'' Will projects not classified as ``large'' be exempt
from the mitigation order?
Answer. The development and consideration of landscape-scale
strategies and plans will help to inform planning and permitting
decisions relating to infrastructure projects of all types and sizes.
Because large infrastructure projects often result in large-scale and
complex impacts to the land and water resources, landscape-scale
strategies and plans are particularly useful for these projects. Such
strategies and plans can also be valuable when working to mitigate the
impacts of a smaller project, such as a mine expansion or the siting of
an oil and gas well. Opportunities identified by landscape-scale
mitigation strategies and plans should be available to all appropriate
development projects, regardless of size or type.
Question. I am concerned that, rather than creating efficiencies,
the actions the Department is planning to take related to the Order
will add duplicative requirements, give too much flexibility to agency
personnel and create situations where ``surprising'' requirements at
points in the process create an atmosphere of undue leverage. This will
make responsible development on public lands even more difficult than
it already is. What steps is the Department taking to promote clarity
and predictability for both investors and agency personnel so that
plans can proceed with less uncertainty and potential for conflict?
Answer. Improving consistency, predictability, and timeliness of
permit decisions is a primary goal of this effort. Advancing
development of landscape strategies department-wide and ensuring
consideration of the mitigation hierarchy up-front in the project
planning process can dramatically increase operational certainty. As
noted in a report to the Secretary, ``identifying mitigation needs
early in the project development process can provide greater
predictability and certainty in the design, development and
implementation of projects by avoiding the need for late project
revisions and analyses, and by providing for coordination and
consistency among agencies. This can serve to reduce project costs and
increase the confidence of investors, purchasers, and other project
beneficiaries in the ultimate success of the project.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices
of the Department of the Interior, April, 2014. http://www.doi.gov/
news/upload/Mitigation-Report-to-the-Secretary_FINAL_
04_08_14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With established landscape strategies, project developers are
better armed with a comprehensive description of management objectives
for resources that may be impacted by their project. As a result,
project proponents can better design and develop projects that avoid
and minimize risk, and then compensate for unavoidable impacts when
they do occur. More transparency and coordination will save time and
money for developers and agencies alike.
In the case of the GMT1 project, the proposal represented the first
oil and gas production from Federal lands in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska. As noted above, the ROD for that project provides for
the development of a regional mitigation strategy that will allow the
public to weigh in on how to direct the existing compensatory
mitigation efforts for the GMT1 project and will provide greater
predictability and efficiency for subsequent projects located in the
northeastern portion of the NPR-A.
Question. On February 23, 11 State regulators sent a letter to
Office of Surface Mining Director Joseph Pizarchik. The letter
expressed concern from the State regulators that the Office of Surface
Mining had not ``provided for meaningful participation by the
cooperating agency States in preparation of the [Environmental Impact
Statement] and it seems unlikely the agency will do so prior to release
of the Draft EIS and proposed rule this spring.''
Does the Department disagree with their assertion that there has
not been ``meaningful participation by cooperating agency State?'' If
not, how has ``meaningful participation'' been achieved?
Answer. When Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) prepared the 2008 stream buffer zone rule, it did not include
State coal mine regulators as cooperating agencies. However, when OSMRE
began the development of the stream protection rulemaking to replace
the now vacated 2008 rule, OSMRE, for what is believed to be the first
time in its history, invited State regulators to be cooperating
agencies. The cooperating State agencies provided meaningful input and
comments. Their help is appreciated and has been used by OSMRE. OSMRE
provided a report to the States on the status of the rulemaking in
October 2014. The OSMRE also recently invited the cooperating State
agencies to meet in late April regarding the analysis in the current
draft EIS, specifically with regard to the issues they raised
previously.
Question. What is the schedule for release of the Draft EIS and
proposed rule?
Answer. Dependent on the timing of that review, the OSMRE hopes to
release the Draft EIS in fiscal year 2015. The draft EIS is with the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB.
Question. What is the total amount of funding spent by the OSM in
development of the Draft EIS and proposed rule?
Answer. OSMRE has spent approximately $9.5 million to develop the
rule, including the evaluation of multiple options, review of current
science and technology, and consultation with stakeholders.
There have been significant advances in science and technology
since the promulgation of the 1983 rule that were not addressed in the
2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Incorporating the most up-to-date
science, technology, and knowledge concerning the effects of surface
coal mining is essential to developing maximally beneficial modern
regulations. In addition, the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule did not
provide objective standards for certain important regulatory decisions,
such as a requirement to collect baseline information about pre-mining
conditions so the regulatory authority can accurately assess the
impacts of mining and assure proper reclamation. Therefore, OSMRE began
work to modernize its regulations, incorporating new science,
technology, and knowledge in areas that can improve, update, and more
completely implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA).
Many scientific advances have occurred in the past 30 years. Under
SMCRA, OSMRE can and should consider those advances when modernizing
its rules. That is one reason why, combining OSMRE's on-the-ground
experience with peer-reviewed academic study, they are modernizing
rules and using the best available technology and science to improve
mining practices to minimize and mitigate environmental damage from
surface coal mining. A revised rule that incorporates modern science,
technology, and knowledge will enable the coal industry to do a better
job of reclaiming land and restoring natural resources, and in many
cases, will lead to that work being done in a more economical and
efficient manner.
Question. I appreciate the Secretary's pledge to cooperate in
providing answers to my further questions regarding the Revised
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (``CCP'' and ``FEIS''
respectively). Will the Secretary appoint a senior Departmental
official (e.g. your Chief of Staff, Mr. Tommy Beaudreau) to discuss the
most productive means to provide my questions to the Department such
that you may provide thorough and complete answers promptly?
Answer. Tommy Beaudreau, the Chief of Staff, will be the point
person.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. It is my understanding that the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund received $100 million as part of the BP settlement
following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Is it true that these funds
are intended to be used for the purposes of wetlands restoration and
conservation located in States bordering the Gulf of Mexico to benefit
migratory species and other wildlife affected by the oil spill? Is it
true that of the total $100 million in funding received, approximately
$30 million has been spent, and only 25 percent of it has been spent in
the Gulf States? Is it true that these funds are supposed to help the
areas most affected by the oil spill, and there is no shortage of
public and private entities in Mississippi ready to help leverage these
funds? If so, do you expect this trend to continue with the remaining
expenditure of the funds?
Answer. Through the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement with BP,
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (Fund) will receive $100
million over a 6-year period, made in annual payments that started in
2013, and were available to spend in 2014. As of March 1, 2015,
$40,041,992 has been deposited into the Fund under the court-approved
payment schedule. Of this amount, and consistent with 16 U.S.C
4407(a)(1), $1.4 million (4 percent of the total deposited to date) has
been used for administrative costs consistent with the authorizing
statute, and nearly $3 million has been withheld due to sequestration.
Settlement funds will continue to be withheld due to sequestration
through fiscal year 2023, unless subsequent legislation is enacted
eliminating sequestration.
After considering sequestration and administrative costs, the
settlement has provided $35.6 million to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA). The settlement requires these funds be used
``for the purpose of wetlands restoration and conservation projects
located in Gulf Coast States or otherwise designed to benefit migratory
bird species and other wildlife and habitat affected by the Macondo oil
spill.'' To date, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council
(Council), which oversees the Fund, has followed this direction
carefully, funding projects with the greatest potential benefit to
migratory bird species affected by the oil spill and where habitats
supporting those species are facing urgent and widely acknowledged
threats in Gulf States as well as others. For example, the Prairie
Pothole Region of the Upper Midwest is undergoing a land conversion
crisis and migratory birds affected by the spill are highly vulnerable
to further losses of vital breeding habitat. Furthermore, the
settlement funding is subject to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (Act), which requires no less than 30 percent and no
greater than 60 percent of available funds must be spent in Canada and
Mexico. The Council decided to allocate the minimum (30 percent) to
Canada and Mexico and is directing these funds to benefit species
affected by the spill.
Based on that guidance, approximately $18 million (50 percent) has
been awarded to projects in the United States and $5.2 million (15.5
percent) to projects in Canada and Mexico. During its April 29, 2015
meeting, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission will consider
awarding $3.8 million for eligible domestic projects and $8.6 million
will remain in the Fund to support future projects.
The total funding available from the settlement for domestic
projects is $70 million, less the costs of administration and
sequestration. Of this amount, $22 million has been identified for
projects in the five Gulf States, including two projects in
Mississippi. The Council will continue to prioritize and fund high
quality projects in Gulf States, in addition to those high quality
projects that will provide the greatest benefit to affected migratory
bird species, such as those within the prairie potholes.
Question. Residents and private landowners in South Mississippi are
very concerned about the proposed rule published by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service designating the Black Pinesnake as ``threatened''
under the Endangered Species Act. The prohibitions and conservation
actions that could be required as a result of this designation, should
the rule become final, could have a negative impact on one of the main
economic drivers in the area--timber and forestry production. I
certainly hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take this into
consideration moving forward. Should the Service issue a final rule on
this determination, what type of restrictions would be placed on timber
harvesting activities? If forestry management activities are
drastically reduced on the DeSoto National Forest, how will the
counties containing large tracts of Federal land be compensated for the
lack of revenue from timber production?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed listing
the black pinesnake as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), with a special rule under authority of section 4(d) of the Act
that would tailor regulatory prohibitions to only those necessary for
conservation of the species. The proposed special rule reduces the
regulatory burden on landowners, while promoting forestry activities
that provide an overall conservation value to the snake. Activities
such as riparian and longleaf pine restoration, herbicide treatment,
burning, and thinning are covered under the special rule, meaning those
activities could continue to take place if the conservation measures in
the rule are followed.
The black pinesnake depends on open longleaf pine habitats. As a
result, much of the forested land in southern Mississippi is not
considered black pinesnake habitat. Forest management activities in
areas not occupied by the snake would be unaffected by the proposed
listing. In areas where the black pinesnake is known to occur, the FWS
is working with the forest industry and landowners to minimize and
avoid potential impacts to the snake from activities such as
clearcutting and stump removal.
The FWS worked closely with the U. S. Forest Service as they
prepared the proposed listing of the black pinesnake to find
conservation measures that will protect the snake while allowing for
timber harvest and other forest management activities. If the proposed
listing is made final, FWS does not expect forest management activities
to be reduced on the DeSoto National Forest. Under the Forest Plan,
activities in the DeSoto National Forest would accelerate timber
management treatments, such as thinning, to restore the longleaf pine
ecosystem. These efforts will have a number of benefits, including
restoring habitats for the black pinesnake and other threatened and
endangered species also present in the DeSoto National Forest, such as
the red-cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, and dusky gopher frog.
Question. Pearl River Elementary School on the Mississippi Choctaw
Reservation was originally built to serve approximately 300 students,
is now serving more than 700. On February 27, the Government
Accountability Office released a document stating that ``information on
the physical condition of Bureau of Education schools is not complete
or accurate as a result of longstanding issues with the quality of data
collected by the Department''. Does the administration's fiscal year
2016 budget proposal provide adequate funding to improve data
collection and address the construction needs at Bureau of Indian
Education schools? What steps is the Department taking to help tribes
recruit quality teachers, particularly in States where funding
available to pay teachers at tribal schools is significantly lower than
public school teacher salaries?
Answer. Indian Affairs is in the process of finalizing the
verification of an up-to-date, accurate database of deferred
maintenance needs for each school. The data update and verification
process is important at all times, but especially critical at this
point in time when Indian Affairs is developing a list of schools
eligible for the next list of BIE-funded schools slated for replacement
and renovation. In fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 to date, BIA
has actively conducted outreach to notify schools to update information
in the deferred maintenance database. BIA has also provided technical
assistance where necessary. The fiscal year 2016 education construction
budget request includes $1.3 million to continue triennial facilities
condition assessments at BIE schools. Going forward, the scope of the
condition assessments will expand to provide a more in-depth assessment
to assure data accuracy, deferred maintenance, and programmatic needs
for BIE schools.
To address the education construction needs, the fiscal year 2016
budget includes $45.5 million for replacement of the last two schools
on the 2004 Replacement School Priority List and to begin planning and
design of the schools on the next replacement and renovation priority
list, currently under development. In addition, the fiscal year 2016
education construction request revitalizes the Facilities Component
Replacement Program (FCRP) and funds it at $11.9 million. This program
is an important part of the Indian Affairs' plan to bring all BIE
schools into good condition. The FCRP identifies individual buildings
on a school campus where it is more cost effective to replace the
building than repair it but where the whole campus does not need
replacement. Indian Affairs is currently re-establishing criteria for
buildings to be prioritized for FCRP. The fiscal year 2016 budget
request also includes significant increases for education facilities
improvement and repair projects and for education employee housing
repair.
BIE-funded schools are operated by the BIE or under grant by a
tribe or tribal organization. BIE is only able to report on strategies
at BIE-operated schools. Tribally controlled schools are not required
to report to BIE regarding any aspects of tribal operation of a BIE-
funded school. With respect to strategies to recruit quality teachers,
BIE is partnering with Tribal Colleges and Universities to create
programs to align aspiring teachers with BIE-funded schools. BIE is
also working with the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards to provide teachers an opportunity to work on a multi-year
program to yield an advanced teaching credential to exceed State
requirements. Tribally controlled BIE-funded schools may work with the
BIE to participate in either of these strategies.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. Due to the growth in western North Dakota, this part of
our State has experienced a dramatic cost of living increase while
Federal wages in these areas have remained the same. I have urged OPM
to address these salary issues for Federal employees in western North
Dakota, and I understand that OPM is waiting until it can review a
special rate request for North Dakota from the Department of the
Interior before taking any action. When will your department complete
its special rate request?
Answer. The Department of the Interior submitted a special pay rate
request for mission critical energy occupations, including positions in
the Bakken region, to OPM in November 2014. The Department has been
working together with OPM and other Federal employers in the Bakken
region to collectively address recruitment and retention issues there
through the use of available pay flexibilities. These flexibilities
include recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives as well as
special rates of pay. Federal agencies have been using recruitment and
retention incentives in the short term. OPM recently approved agency
requests to establish special wage rates for around 160 skilled trades
positions in the region, including certain Department of the Interior
positions, and is engaged in an interagency coordination of agency
special rate requests for certain General Schedule positions. OPM
informs us that it expects to complete its interagency coordination and
respond to agencies with a decision on the special rate requests in the
near future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Cassidy
Question. Recently you stated that States on the Atlantic will have
a chance to pull themselves out of the running for possible Federal
approval of offshore drilling.
What are your thoughts here? Your quote suggests that States along
the coast have a role?
Based on the logic you just gave, how can you then claim that
revenue shouldn't have been shared with States since they do have a
role and an impact in hosting energy production offshore?
Answer. States clearly have a role in decisions about whether and/
or how to develop Federal energy resources off their shores, both as a
statutory matter and as a general principle. In fact, section 18 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCS Lands Act) requires the
Secretary to consider eight factors in determining the timing and
location of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities. One
of those factors is ``(a)(2)(F) laws, goals, and policies of affected
States which have been specifically identified by the Governors of such
States as relevant matters for the Secretary's consideration;.'' For
the Secretary to consider such information, comments from affected
States are solicited and considered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) during the Program development process. Per section
18(c)(1) of the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
invite and consider suggestions for the leasing program ``. . . from
the Governor of any State which may become an affected State under such
proposed program . . .''.
How the Federal revenues generated from those Federal leasing and
development decisions are spent is a different matter, and the
administration stresses its commitment to ensuring American taxpayers
receive a fair return from the sale of public resources and that
taxpayers throughout the country benefit from the development of
offshore energy resources owned by all Americans. Any revenue sharing
of OCS revenues must be provided for by statute. The Secretary of the
Interior does not have the authority to expand, extend, or otherwise
revise revenue-sharing provisions. Congress would have to implement
legislation to authorize any new revenue sharing arrangements. The
administration proposes to work with the Congress on legislation to
redirect funds currently allocated for GOMESA revenue-sharing payments
to select States from Gulf of Mexico oil and gas leases. The
administration proposes to redirect these payments, which are set to
expand substantially starting in 2018, to programs that provide broad
natural resource, watershed and conservation benefits to the Nation,
help the Federal Government fulfill its role of being a good neighbor
to local communities, and support other national priorities. Such
programs could include the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Payments
in Lieu of Taxes, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, Federal coastal
restoration and resilience programs, and other national priorities.
Question. The Department recently proposed the Draft Proposed
Program for the 2017-2022 OCS 5-Year Leasing Program. Given that the 5-
Year OCS Leasing Program development process involves multiple
iterations and is designed to whittle down the areas under
consideration for leasing at each stage of the process, can you explain
the decision to remove areas from consideration in certain planning
areas without having the benefit of a full environmental analysis or
compatibility study?
Answer. The Draft Proposed Program (DPP) analyzed all 26 planning
areas and reflects a balanced proposal that would make nearly 80
percent of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources available
while protecting special areas and reducing potential multiple-use
conflicts. The options in the DPP include sales in the offshore areas
that have the highest oil and gas resource potential, highest industry
interest, and are off the coasts of States that expressed a strong
interest in potential OCS energy exploration. The selection of these
areas also considered potential environmental impacts, stakeholder
concerns, and competing uses of ocean and coastal areas. Public
involvement is an important step in the development of the Program and
will help the Department determine whether and how it should be further
refined in the next stages of 5-Year Program development.
Using authority granted in section 12(a) of the OCS Lands Act, 43
U.S.C 1341(a), the President withdrew certain areas within the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas to protect areas of critical importance to subsistence
use by Alaska Natives, as well as for their unique and sensitive
environmental resources. The majority of the withdrawn areas have a
long history of being deferred in 5-Year Programs and lease sales. Even
with these withdrawals, the DPP contains 90 percent of the undiscovered
technically recoverable resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
The DPP proposes a sale in the Program at least 50 miles offshore
the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in
a portion of the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas. This
option allows for consideration of a targeted area with resource
potential, while limiting potential impacts to the environment and
other ocean uses. The 50-mile coastal buffer was included for the
Atlantic sale to minimize many multiple use conflicts, such as those
from Department of Defense activities, renewable energy activities, and
commercial and recreational fishing, while making available the vast
majority of potential resources in this area. Further environmental
analysis regarding minimizing potential impacts will be performed as
part of the 5-Year Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Question. In 2010, the Atlantic was not open for leasing and
Congress had a moratorium for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (EGOM). BOEM
announced in March 2010 that the 2010-2017 5-Year Program would include
lease sales in the Atlantic and some additional portions of the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico contingent on Congress lifting the EGOM moratorium.
After the Macondo incident, those plans were scrapped. You have now
proposed opening the Atlantic, but refuse to consider the EGOM. More is
understood about the EGOM's potential resources and because of the
proximity to the Central Gulf of Mexico the infrastructure is also
there. Why did you not include the EGOM is the draft plan using the
same contingency that was proposed in 2010?
Answer. The vast majority of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (EGOM) is
under congressional moratorium and is unavailable for leasing
consideration through June 30, 2022, pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006.
With regard to the Atlantic OCS, this area has not been under
Presidential withdrawal since July 14, 2008, and has not been subject
to congressional moratoria since October 1, 2008.
Question. The Department included one sale for the Atlantic in the
draft proposed program. Unfortunately, the sale has been put at the end
of the planning period, 2021. Given the frontier nature of the
Atlantic, it would be useful to have the sale earlier in the plan to
give time for companies to analyze data and use the information from
that sale to inform the Department for the 2022-2027 program. Why did
you push the sale so late into the program?
Answer. Current geological and geophysical (G&G) information
regarding the oil and gas resources potentially available in the Mid-
and South Atlantic Planning Areas is based on older data collected in
the 1970s and 1980s. Significant advances in instrumentation and
technology for the acquisition and analysis of G&G data have been made
in the intervening decades. The proposed sale is late in the Program to
afford companies more time to collect and analyze data on the location
of potential hydrocarbon resources. It also allows the government more
time to consider this data, as well as gather new information on the
environment and multiple use conflicts. As part of the lease sale
process, the Department must also prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement of the sale area, which will require additional time in an
area not recently analyzed.
Question. In your announcement for the Draft Proposed Program (DPP)
you were quick to point out that you can narrow or take away areas
altogether away. With such a limited proposal to begin with it's hard
to understand how or why you would limit it any further especially
given all of the support for offshore drilling in the regions you've
proposed? Are you, through your current authority able to expand the
DPP or are you only able to subtract leasing acreage?
Answer. The DPP analyses examined and compared all 26 of the
planning areas. As required under section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, the
Secretary must consider and balance critical needs, and this resulted
in the decision to include a schedule of 14 potential lease sales in 8
planning areas in the Draft Proposed Program, which would make nearly
80 percent of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources
available.
If an area or sale is not included at the DPP stage, it cannot be
added back into the DPP without analyzing the option and rebalancing
the entire DPP decision. Therefore, the DPP decision is the broadest
Program decision available for further consideration, per the OCS Lands
Act. As additional comments are received, an Environmental Impact
Statement is prepared, and section 18 criteria are further analyzed and
balanced, the Department will refine the DPP analysis and develop a
Proposed Program.
Question. Why are you allowing environmental groups to dictate the
5-year leasing program? I ask because last year the Request for
Information had a 45-day comment deadline as dictated by the planning
process but yet, the Department extended the deadline an additional 15
days and I must assume it was because there weren't enough comments
submitted from anti-drillers.
Answer. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) granted the
extension of the comment period in response to requests from several
State governments along the Atlantic coast. BOEM recognizes the
importance of input from stakeholders and the public and wanted to be
responsive to requests to provide additional time for those States in
particular that had not had OCS activity in many years to understand
the process in order to provide critical information, recommendations,
and concerns to help apprise the Department on preparation of the DPP.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
Question. The report language in the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal
year 2015 Omnibus included the Committees' continuing support for park
partnerships and urged the Department of the Interior ``to continue
reassessing recent policy interpretations and review procedures to
promote the greater use of partnerships'' . . . that have historically
proven beneficial to national parks and partners.
What further steps have you taken to adopt policies and an internal
organization addressing management of truly collaborative operating and
conservancy relationships in order to encourage the shared stewardship
and funding so essential for the National Park Service to fulfill its
mission?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) encourages shared
stewardship and funding through its partnership authorities and
policies. In June 2014, the NPS issued a policy memorandum to help the
NPS connect with broader philanthropic communities, offer updated tools
to help current partners engage new and more diversified philanthropic
partners, support more robust engagement of partners for the upcoming
Centennial in 2016, and provide the framework and standards for testing
philanthropic practices that could be implemented more broadly. The
National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 also set guidelines for the
NPS to accept and acknowledge donations to parks and programs; which is
intended to help generate private donations in advance of the
Centennial. Additionally, NPS Director's Order 21--Partnerships and
Philanthropic Stewardship--is currently being revised and will be
released in the coming months. The NPS is also working with the
National Park Foundation to support its multi-million dollar capital
campaign in support of the 2016 Centennial of the NPS.
The fiscal year 2015 Appropriations Act included $10.0 million for
the NPS Centennial Challenge program, an innovative public-private
partnership program that requires a 1:1 non-Federal match to accomplish
high priority projects in national parks. The NPS received over 200
project submissions, with many projects leveraging more than 50 percent
in donations. The fiscal year 2016 NPS budget proposal seeks to build
upon fiscal year 2015 enacted by requesting an additional $40.0 million
in discretionary funding, as well as a mandatory proposal for $100.0
million annually over 3 years, to provide additional resources for this
cost share program for these signature projects.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
national park service budget
Question. I was pleased that Congress authorized the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park to honor important American scientific
and military achievements. I understand that the Department's fiscal
year 2016 budget request includes $180,000 in start-up funding for this
new park, and that you are now working with the Department of Energy to
determine future management needs. Can you explain how the planning
process with DOE will work and what you expect the outcome to be? How
will you ensure that this new park has the resources it needs to
operate?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) and the Department of
Energy (DOE) are working on a memorandum of agreement on the roles of
the two agencies in administering the facilities proposed to be
included as part of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The
purpose of the park is ``to improve the understanding of the Manhattan
Project and its legacy through interpretation of the historic
resources''. The park offers an excellent opportunity for people from
around the world to visit these historic sites and gain a deeper
understanding of the history and world-changing events that happened as
part of the Manhattan Project as well as engage in learning about
innovations in science, engineering, and technology.
The new park will preserve and interpret the historic properties at
three major sites associated with the Manhattan Project: Los Alamos,
New Mexico, where the scientific laboratory that designed and tested
the bomb was located; Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where facilities were built
to produce enriched uranium; and Hanford, Washington, dedicated to the
production of plutonium. To help identify future management needs, an
interagency team conducted site visits and public meetings at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee March 25-26, 2015. Site visits and public meetings
will take place in Hanford, Washington April 14-16, 2015, and Los
Alamos, New Mexico June 3-5, 2015.
The Department of the Interior is committed to working with DOE, as
well as engaging with State, county, local and other stakeholders
during the planning process. As the planning and discussions on the
memorandum of agreement proceed, NPS, in concert with DOE, will
continue to evaluate operating priorities for the park.
Question. What is the Park Service's long-term strategy to address
your maintenance backlog? With respect to the Centennial Challenge, how
does the Park Service plan leverage its Federal funds with partner
contributions to specifically address capital needs?
Answer. The NPS strategy to address deferred maintenance needs
provides for the long-term sustainability of essential NPS assets by
prioritizing capital investment funding for the most important assets,
such as historic buildings and mission critical infrastructure. The
fiscal year 2016 President's budget request includes an increase of
$242.8 million in discretionary funding and a proposal to create a
mandatory appropriation funded at $300.0 million annually for 3 years
to address the deferred maintenance backlog on the NPS' highest
priority non-transportation assets. Overall, the Centennial Initiative,
including discretionary and mandatory proposals, will allow the NPS to
ensure all of its highest priority non-transportation park assets are
restored and maintained in good condition over 10 years.
The fiscal year 2015 appropriation provided $10.0 million for the
Centennial Challenge program. The evaluation criteria for Centennial
Challenge project proposals prioritizes projects that leverage higher
rates of partner contributions and address critical high priority
deferred maintenance needs. The NPS is nearing final selection of the
fiscal year 2015 Centennial Challenge projects, many of which support
deferred maintenance or related needs, such as accessibility of
facilities for visitors with disabilities. While the NPS can and will
demonstrate success with many of the deferred maintenance and capital
improvement projects to be accomplished with partner support, donors
and partners ultimately determine the projects they wish to support. It
is unlikely that a match can be found for many of the lower-profile,
but no less critical, projects that keep the parks open for visitors,
such as repaving parking lots or fixing wastewater treatment systems.
Question. Can you please provide additional detail about the
investments you are proposing in your budget to put ``Every Kid in a
Park''? How will the dollars be allocated, and how will you measure
success for this initiative? In particular, how are you going to reach
out to urban and underserved communities to get those children and
their parents connected with national parks?
Answer. As part of President Obama's commitment to protect our
Nation's unique outdoor spaces and ensure that every American has the
opportunity to visit and enjoy them, he launched the ``Every Kid in a
Park'' initiative to provide all fourth grade students and their
families with free admission to national parks and other Federal lands
and waters during the 2015-2016 school year. This initiative will help
us build lasting partnerships with kids, parents, and educators far
beyond that timeframe, cultivating a better understanding and
appreciation of the spectacular natural and cultural resources and
recreational experiences offered in the national park system. Some of
these students will come as part of organized field trips, and others
will come with their families and friends.
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget request prioritizes
engaging youth and expanding programs and services to help support this
initiative, including a request for $20 million to support
transportation and visitor services for Every Kid in a Park outings.
This request, combined with the public-private partnerships being grown
and strengthened across the Federal family, will allow this initiative
to build off successful models already in existence for connecting
young people to the outdoors. The request includes $11.5 million to
transport more than one million students from Title I elementary
schools in urban areas to nearby national parks and $8.5 million to
support park-level youth engagement coordinators.
To track usage and measure success, NPS will work with schools and
partner organizations that run youth outings to report their visits.
Over time, this initiative can help develop better baseline data for
youth visitation to national parks and other public lands and waters.
While the U.S. Department of Education does not have outdoor
education statutory authorities, it has offered to help NPS connect
with education partners and will be working in a communications
capacity to get the word out about this opportunity to State, local,
and school officials; teachers; key non-profit groups; and education-
related associations.
energy development on public lands
Question. I understand that the Department is close to completing
work to revise and implement a new rule increasing disclosure and
strengthening operating requirements where hydraulic fracturing is
being used on public lands. Can you update us on the current timeline
for the rule?
Are there aspects of the inspection program in your budget request
that will specifically help to ensure that hydraulic fracturing on
Federal lands is properly regulated?
Answer. On March 20, 2015, the Department of the Interior (DOI)
finalized its hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulations. The rule provides
a strong framework for the environmentally safe and economically viable
development of onshore oil and gas resources. It addresses key issues
such as the protection of water resources, well-bore integrity, and the
public disclosure of materials used in the process, among other things.
Until now there have been no Federal rules in place that specifically
address the increasingly complex nature of hydraulic fracturing
processes taking place on public and tribal lands. The new rule updates
regulations that are more than three decades old. It will be effective
90 days after the date of Federal Register publication, which was March
26, 2015.
The 2016 budget request for the BLM inspection program does not
contain a specific component related to hydraulic fracturing, as the
implementation of the rule will be part of the oil and gas program's
overall oversight responsibilities. However, the budget request would
provide the resources to enable the BLM to fulfill all of its annual
inspection responsibilities, which include better oversight of
hydraulic fracturing operations on Federal and tribal lands, along with
other deficiencies identified by the February, 2011, GAO report on the
Federal management of oil and gas resources. Instituting the
administration's proposed new inspection fees, which are analogous to
fees already charged for offshore operations, is a key component of
this effort.
bureau of indian education
Question. I appreciate the large increases in your budget request
for tribal education programs, and I want to commend you for making
Indian education programs such a high priority for the Department. In
particular, I'm glad to see that your budget includes a $59 million
increase for school construction and renovation programs in Indian
Country. Can you talk more about how these funds will be used, and how
you will allocate them to ensure that the highest priority
infrastructure needs get met?
Answer. The Indian Affairs fiscal year 2016 budget proposal
includes a total of $133.2 million for BIE Education Construction, an
increase of $58.7 million over the fiscal year 2015 budget. Within this
request is $45.5 million, an increase of $25.3 million, for replacement
of the last two schools on the 2004 Replacement School Priority List
and to begin planning and design of schools on the next school
replacement and renovation priority list currently under development.
In addition, the fiscal year 2016 education construction request
revitalizes the Facilities Component Replacement Program (FCRP) with a
request of $11.9 million. This program is an important part of the
Indian Affair's plan to bring all BIE schools into good condition. The
FCRP identifies individual buildings on a school campus where it is
more cost effective to replace the building than repair it but where
the whole campus does not need replacement. Indian Affairs is currently
re-establishing criteria for buildings to be prioritized for FCRP. The
fiscal year 2016 budget request also includes $68.2 million for
education facilities improvement and repair projects, an increase of
$17.7 million, and $7.5 million for education employee housing repair,
an increase of $3.7 million.
Question. What is the administration's plan to update a new school
construction priority list to address the needs of other schools?
Answer. In fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 to date, BIA has
been actively conducting outreach to notify schools to bring their
database of deferred maintenance needs up to date, providing technical
assistance where necessary. Indian Affairs is in the process of
verifying the updated database to ensure accurate data is used to
determine initial eligibility for a new school replacement and
renovation priority list. After verification of the data, Indian
Affairs will calculate each school's Facility Condition Index (FCI) to
determine schools in ``poor'' condition, one of the requisites for
eligibility for replacement or major renovation. Another way to be
eligible is for a school to be both 50 years or older and educating 75
percent or more of students in portables, regardless of its FCI.
Schools eligible to apply for the School Replacement and Renovation
Program will be invited to complete applications for consideration.
Applications received from these schools will be evaluated by using the
method determined by a Negotiated Rule Making Committee. After a review
and scoring of the applications by the Review Committee, the top 10
schools will be invited to present to the Review Committee in a Public
Meeting. After the presentations, the Review Committee will identify
five projects and forward their recommendations to the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs for acceptance. Indian Affairs anticipates
the new School Replacement and Renovation priority list identifying
five schools will completed by the end of July 2015. After the list is
finalized, DOI will present the list to Congress.
Question. Ensuring access to technology is a critical way to make
sure American Indian and Alaskan Native students receive the world-
class education that they deserve, no matter where they live. I was
pleased to see that your budget includes $34 million in new funding to
connect tribal schools to broadband.
How many schools do you expect to reach with these funds? Do you
expect this to be a multi-year investment? What is your ultimate goal
for this funding?
Answer. The budget proposal requests a $34.2 million increase as
part of a 3 year plan for all schools and dormitories in the BIE-funded
school system to achieve the ConnectED standard for bandwidth and have
access to prevailing technology for Internet connectivity. Most of the
request will fund non-recurring charges for bandwidth upgrades over 3
years. After the upgrades are accomplished, some funding will be needed
for increased operations costs due to higher monthly broadband costs
and to upgrade information technology as it becomes outdated.
The overarching goal of the plan to provide BIE-funded schools with
bandwidth and information technology, including computers and other
mobile devices, is to enrich the education experience for Native
American students and to provide a means for students and teachers to
have access to online testing, distance learning, and multimedia
resources.
Question. Infrastructure programs are important--but to be
effective they must be accompanied by efforts to recruit and retain
good teachers and improve curriculum. Can you tell us more about the
$10 million in your request to fund school reform efforts? How do these
funds fit into the administration's larger vision for reforming the
Bureau of Indian Education? What metrics will you use to define
success?
Answer. The $10.0 million increase requested for Education Program
Enhancement will be used for multiple purposes. The additional funding
will allow BIE to provide targeted support and interventions focused on
school improvement efforts and other activities that promote student
achievement. School improvement efforts include establishing a tribally
managed school reform plan and expansion of curriculum areas like
Native language immersion. Other activities include the consolidation
of professional development delivery to multiple schools, content
specialists providing technical assistance to schools and tribes, and
programs to improve the quality of instruction and leadership across
the school systems.
We agree that efforts to recruit and retain good teachers are
fundamental to BIE reform efforts. BIE is partnering with Tribal
Colleges and Universities to create teacher pipelines to BIE-funded
schools. BIE is also working with the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards to provide teachers an opportunity to work on a
multi-year program that yields an advanced teaching credential that
goes above and beyond the State requirements.
These efforts with the tribes, teachers, and partners fit into the
administration's larger vision to transform the Bureau of Indian
Education into a 21st century education system grounded in both high
academic standards and tribal values. The reform focuses on five areas
which include (1) having highly effective teachers and principals in
the schools, (2) building a responsive organizational environment, (3)
promoting educational self-determination for Tribal Nations, (4)
fostering partnerships, and (5) developing a budget that is aligned
with and supports BIE's mission of tribal capacity-building.
We are working now to establish a strong set of indicators and an
evaluation strategy to assess and refine all of the components of the
transformation effort. We will conduct ongoing evaluation of school
administration, best practices, graduation rates, and school facility
condition, however, the real measure of success will be in the
achievement of the students themselves.
Question. Secretary Jewell, the last official Johnson O'Malley
student count was taken in 1995. Relying on 20-year old data is no way
to run a program, which is why the Appropriations Committee has been
asking the Bureau of Indian Education to release a new student count
for the Johnson O'Malley program for several years. Yet we have had
little success. Where are you in the process of developing the new
Johnson O'Malley student count? When can we expect the Department to
release those figures to the public, and what is your plan to engage
tribes once they are released?
Answer. The updated Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) count was electronically
delivered to Congress on March 30, 2015. The total 2014 JOM student
count is 341,126. The BIE announced four tribal consultation sessions
on the JOM count in the March 4, 2015 Federal Register. There will be
two on-site consultations and two Webinar-teleconference consultations.
These consultations are scheduled between March 31 and April 10. During
these consultations, the BIE will ask for tribal input on how to ensure
the count data is accurate and to discuss funding distributions under
the new count.
Question. While I appreciate the emphasis on K-12 education in this
request, I am concerned that tribal colleges haven't received the
attention that they deserve. Overall, your budget includes flat funding
for tribal colleges--and it does nothing to provide forward funding for
the remaining tribal colleges that do not receive it. These schools
have struggled to operate without funding certainty under continuing
resolutions, and I am told that it was particularly hard for them to
keep their doors open during the 2013 shutdown. The administration has
supported forward funding for other tribal colleges in the past. Will
you work with me to find a solution to provide forward funding for
these remaining schools?
Answer. BIE understands how difficult multiple CRs and uncertainty
at the start of the fiscal year can be in operating an educational
institution. We would like to work with you to address this problem.
The 28 tribally controlled colleges and universities that receive
funding through BIE under authority of Public Law 95-471, the Tribally
Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Act of 1978, as amended,
have been forward funded since 2010. The other four colleges funded in
the BIE budget, two BIE owned and operated colleges (Haskell Indian
Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute) and
two tribal technical colleges (United Tribes Technical College and
Navajo Technical College) are not forward funded.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Question. Can you talk about your experience using the LWCF program
as a conservation tool for the Department? As you seek to address the
many pressing needs of the Department of the Interior, how do you see
the role of LWCF funds in supporting local economic needs and
addressing agency management challenges?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund--established with
overwhelming and bipartisan support by Congress 50 years ago--is one of
the most important conservation tools we have to safeguard the Nation's
natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage, and to provide
recreation opportunities to all Americans. Americans care deeply about
our outdoor heritage, want to enjoy and protect it, and are willing to
take collective responsibility to protect it for their children and
grandchildren. Over its 50 year history, the Fund has protected
conservation and recreation land in every State and supported tens of
thousands of State and locally driven projects through grants to
States.
Dollar for dollar, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is
one of the most effective conservation programs we have. For every
$1.00 invested in Federal land acquisition through LWCF, there is a
return of $4.00 in economic value from natural resource goods and
services, as published in Return on the Investment from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, 2010, a study conducted by the Trust for
Public Land. LWCF frequently leverages significant funding match from
States, cities and other partners. The Land and Water Conservation Fund
also plays an important economic role for local communities. Recreation
activities in national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, marine
sanctuaries, and other federally managed lands and waters contributed
approximately $51 billion and 880,000 jobs to the U.S. economy in 2012,
as published in the Federal Interagency Council on Recreation, Fact
Sheet on Outdoor Recreation: Jobs and Income, 2014. Nationally, outdoor
recreation activities contribute $646 billion to the economy annually
and support 6.1 million jobs, as published in The Outdoor Recreation
Economy, 2012, by the Outdoor Industry Association.
The Department of the Interior LWCF programs work in cooperation
with local communities, rely on willing sellers, and maximize
opportunities to partner with private landowners on conservation
easements where conservation and management objectives can be achieved
without fee-simple acquisition. Proposed Federal land acquisition
projects are developed with the support of local landowners, elected
officials, and community groups.
Acquisition of inholdings does not generally require additional
operating costs as no new staff or equipment are required to manage new
lands within existing boundaries. Occasionally, agencies may incur up-
front costs to remove existing improvements (fences, buildings, etc.)
from an acquired property. By removing unwanted structures on newly
acquired land, agencies avoid adding to ongoing operation and
maintenance requirements.
In fact, acquisition of inholdings can greatly simplify land
management for Federal managers and neighboring landowners. Eliminating
checkerboard ownership within Federal units simplifies nearly every
aspect of land management:
--Wildland fire managers can apply appropriate fuels reduction,
planned burns, and fire suppression treatments more easily
across an unfragmented landscape; fire management is more
challenging and costly when private inholdings and developed
properties are intermixed with federally managed forests and
public lands.
--Law enforcement and public safety personnel can more easily patrol
and respond to emergencies when public ownership is
consolidated. An unfragmented unit allows unified signage, road
networks, and other infrastructure that will best enable safe
public access and allow for the efficient movement of emergency
personnel and vehicles to locations frequented by visitors.
--Recreation managers can more easily provide access for the public
to enjoy their public lands. In some cases checkerboard
ownership can cause confusion among the public about acceptable
land uses, and can restrict the public's ability to access some
areas of public land.
--Natural resource management is simplified in an unfragmented
landscape. When checkerboard ownership is eliminated,
biologists, geologists and other natural resource professionals
can move freely across the land that they are responsible for
surveying, and natural resource management actions can be
applied more efficiently across a landscape in single
ownership.
An example of management efficiency gained through LWCF acquisition
is the: St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). St. Vincent NWR is
an island off the panhandle coast of Florida in Apalachicola Bay, off
the Gulf of Mexico. Acquisition of a 5-acre tract on the mainland of
Apalachicola Bay provides permanent deep water mooring with a launch
site, secure parking and equipment storage. An important point is that
dredging and channel maintenance are allowed in Apalachicola Bay,
activities that are prohibited in other nearby areas. The lease at
Indian Pass, the current deep water mooring and launch site, was ending
and would not be renewed as the owners were looking to develop the
mainland at the launch site. In addition, the upland portion of the
leased Indian Pass site had been significantly reduced due to severe,
continuing, and progressive erosion that the landowner failed to
address.
As the refuge is only accessible by water, the new deep water
mooring and launch site enables site management and reduces staff
travel time from the refuge office to transfer supplies and heavy
equipment. Daily boat access for St. Vincent NWR staff is required 24/7
for all island management activities, such as sea turtle nest
monitoring and protection, habitat management, prescribed burning,
hunting and fishing management and protection, and response to visitor
emergencies.
wildland fire budget reforms
Question. I am very pleased to see that your budget request again
proposes to pay for a portion of fire suppression funding with a new
disaster cap adjustment. The disaster cap adjustment is the key to
breaking the cycle of fire borrowing and putting an end once and for
all to the need to steal funds from land management programs to pay for
emergency firefighting needs. Many of the programs that we borrow
funding from to fight fires are the same programs that create a more
resilient landscape to resist wildfire. Can you talk about how
important this proposal is to the administration's overall vision for
reducing the threat of wildfires?
Answer. Fire is a normal occurrence that is beneficial to
landscapes when managed properly, however, population growth near
forests and rangelands, past management practices, and changing climate
have dramatically increased fire risk and fire costs. For the past
couple of decades we have budgeted for fire suppression using the
rolling average of suppression costs of the prior 10 years. When those
funds are insufficient, as is often the case, funding for real-time
firefighting costs is provided by transfers and borrowing of funds from
other fire management activities (e.g. fuels management) and other
Forest Service and Department of the Interior programs and activities.
This practice of transferring and borrowing funds has undermined
Department of the Interior and Forest Service programs, including
critically important forest and rangeland management and fire risk
reduction activities. The cap adjustment proposal provides a mechanism
to fund the extraordinary costs of approximately 1 percent of our
wildland fires by providing an alternative to transferring and
borrowing funds from other programs, including programs important to
reducing future fire risk. This proposal treats extraordinary fires in
the same way the Nation treats other natural, unpredictable disasters.
The President's budget includes a wildfire suppression cap adjustment
of $200.0 million for the Department of the Interior for this purpose.
These funds would only be available under those extraordinary
instances.
The budget cap adjustment proposal is designed to improve the
wildland fire management program's ability to adequately invest in
preparedness, forest and rangeland health, and other fire risk-
reduction work. The new funding approach would stabilize the fuels and
prevention programs' ability to plan and execute treatments mitigating
the costs of future wildfires. Under this approach diverting funds from
these important programs to pay for wildfire costs would be eliminated.
wildlife trafficking
Question. Secretary Jewell, the demand for ivory and rhino horns
has skyrocketed. Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports that a
rhino horn is worth more than $50,000 per kilogram--more than even gold
and platinum. The profit incentive is just staggering--so it's no
surprise that terrorist networks such as al-Shabab and the Lord's
Resistance Army are turning to poaching to support their operations.
Can you tell us what the Department is doing to address the market
demand that is fueling wildlife destruction AND financing terrorist
organizations?
Answer. The Department, particularly through the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), is actively engaged in addressing poaching and wildlife
trafficking throughout the entire trade chain. As identified in the
recently released implementation plan for the National Strategy on
Combating Wildlife Trafficking, we are undertaking activities
supporting all three strategic priorities for the U.S. Government:
strengthening enforcement, reducing demand for illegally traded
wildlife, and expanding international cooperation and commitment. We
are supporting on-the-ground protection of wild populations of
elephants, rhinos and other species targeted by wildlife traffickers
through grant programs that provide training and material support to
rangers and other foreign enforcement officials. We are stationing
special agents overseas, engaging in bilateral and multilateral
wildlife trafficking investigations, supporting demand reduction
efforts overseas, and working through the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and other international agreements
to build capacity to combat wildlife trafficking and hold countries
accountable when they fail to live up to their commitments.
Domestically, we are strengthening our ability to effectively regulate
illegal trade in elephant ivory while also implementing a partnership-
driven demand reduction campaign.
Question. The Fish and Wildlife Services has so far placed one
special agent in Bangkok to help combat wildlife trafficking, and plans
to place four more this year in Tanzania, Botswana, Peru, and Asia. The
fiscal year 2016 request would place five more agents overseas. How
will these agents help combat wildlife trafficking? What has been the
experience in Bangkok? What is being done at embassies without special
Fish and Wildlife staff?
Answer. The FWS agents are training African and Asian wildlife
officers at the International Law Enforcement Academies in Botswana and
Thailand, increasing the intelligence shared among law enforcement
agencies with common missions, enhancing the targeting of illegal
wildlife shipments, and utilizing wildlife detector dogs to support
frontline wildlife inspectors and special agents.
The special agent stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok,
Thailand, has been addressing wildlife trafficking issues throughout
Southeast Asia. He has supported not only U.S. based investigations,
but also provided expertise to other U.S. law enforcement agencies, a
variety of foreign law enforcement agencies, and supported training
efforts. Working closely with the Department of State, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Bangkok, the
special agent has briefed several other regional embassies on wildlife
trafficking issues and is supporting local efforts.
The FWS anticipates that the deployment of additional special
agents will expand enforcement capabilities to other regions by working
with other embassies to combat illegal wildlife trafficking.
Question. The administration's National Strategy for Combating
Wildlife Trafficking included nearly 200 specific tasks for the Fish
and Wildlife Service and partners at the Departments of Justice,
Commerce, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Treasury, and State. How will
the administration track progress on this massive plan so that in the
future, we can target resources to what has worked best?
Answer. As indicated in the recently released implementation plan,
we will continually evaluate our progress, both by assessing the extent
to which we are able to achieve the specific objectives identified in
the National Strategy and by looking more broadly at the effectiveness
of these objectives to advance our strategic priorities and the
ultimate goal of ending wildlife trafficking. Robust and effective
enforcement of wildlife trafficking laws at home and abroad, measurably
reduced poaching and other trafficking in wildlife, and increases in
wildlife populations will provide overarching measures of our efforts
to combat wildlife trafficking. The Task Force agencies will meet
regularly to assess progress toward these objectives, with the lead
agencies responsible for ensuring that progress remains on track for
each objective. The Task Force will prepare and make public progress
assessments on an annual basis. These annual assessments should guide
the allocation of resources to areas where we have made substantial
progress and where resources can have the greatest impact.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. As I mentioned at the hearing I am concerned about
maintaining economic incentives for private landowners to own and
maintain forest habitat, which is essential to the northern long-eared
bat, while we address the real cause of the problem, which is white-
nose syndrome. I would like to know what support, financially or
through technical assistance, your Department can provide at the
Federal and State level for the inventory and monitoring of maternity
colonies and hibernation sites, and to study the status and trends of
these populations that we still know so little about?
Answer. Prior to the advent of white-nose syndrome (WNS),
population information for bat species not federally listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was generally only collected, if collected
at all, as part of monitoring efforts for listed species. At this time,
no standardized, rangewide monitoring program exists for North American
bat species not federally listed, including the northern long-eared
bat. The FWS, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service, and other partners, have been working to develop the
North American Bat Monitoring Program, or NABat, which is an
international interagency program designed to monitor bat distributions
and abundances on public and private lands, and provide trend data at
State, provincial, tribal, regional, and rangewide scales. The FWS has
contributed over $1.2 million to develop and implement this program,
with additional contributions from other Federal and private partners.
Since WNS began afflicting bat populations but prior to the
establishment of NABat, the Department has used several funding sources
to provide financial and technical assistance for bat inventories,
monitoring, and status assessments. These sources include agency base
funds for species conservation and inventory and monitoring programs.
The FWS also provides grants from programs, such as the State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants, which can be used to support bat conservation.
In addition, FWS has provided over $4 million since 2011 in grants to
State wildlife agencies for the WNS National Response, which includes
inventory, monitoring, and technical assistance efforts to determine
the population status and trends of bat species. For example, in 2014
the FWS WNS program funded and provided technical assistance for a
population monitoring project of an important bat hibernaculum near
Dorset, Vermont.
Question. Does the Department have any resources available to
support conservation measures on private or public lands that would
reduce non-white-nose syndrome threats to surviving and still-
unaffected populations to aid in the recovery of the species?
Answer. Federal agencies receive funds for species and habitat
conservation, some of which have been directed to address non-WNS
threats to the species. The FWS funding sources to support conservation
measures on private and non-Federal lands include species conservation
funding within the Resource Management account, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife and Coastal program funding, Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation grants to States, and State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
Also, the FWS provides technical assistance to private landowners for
planning and implementing conservation measures.
Question. I am pleased to see your budget requests to address
wildlife trafficking, particularly the increase for law enforcement
support for efforts on the ground in Africa and here in the U.S. to
combat the growing threat from poaching. I hope this leads to better
prosecution of the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes. Last
February, the Fish & Wildlife Service released new prohibitions on the
import, export, and sale of products containing ivory. While I am very
supportive of the administration's work to combat illegal wildlife
trafficking, I would not want to see the initial criticism of the
prohibition threaten its viability in the long run and hamper your work
to fight wildlife trafficking.
I would like to know if and when the Department expects to update
the ivory import/export restrictions to address the concerns that have
been raised about de minimis amounts of ivory and also concerns from
those who might not be able to provide some of the documentation that
the Department has required for family heirlooms and antiques?
Answer. We have made great strides to significantly restrict
commercial trade in elephant ivory within the U.S. and across our
borders--including a ban on all commercial ivory imports-- making it
harder for criminals to disguise the source of poached and trafficked
ivory.
The FWS issued Director's Order 210 on February 25, 2014, which re-
affirmed enforcement of the African Elephant Conservation Act
moratorium and addressed how the FWS would enforce the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) antiques provision. Following issuance of the
Director's Order, the FWS met with a wide array of stakeholders,
including individuals and groups representing antiques dealers, auction
houses, musical instrument makers, museums, and orchestras. As a result
of these constructive meetings, we revised the Director's Order to
address several of their concerns, allowing a broader class of
noncommercial items to be imported into the United States and
clarifying how we intend to enforce the ESA antiques provision, while
still maintaining our goal of ensuring the United States is not
contributing to poaching of elephants and illegal trade in ivory.
We also improved our ability to protect elephants, rhinos, and
other CITES-listed wildlife by publishing a final rule in June 2014,
revising our CITES regulations, including ``use after import''
provisions that limit sale of CITES-listed wildlife within the United
States. The result of this rule is that items, such as elephant ivory,
imported for noncommercial purposes may not subsequently be sold within
the United States.
We are currently working on a proposed rule, which will be made
available for public comment, to revise the ESA special rule for the
African elephant. This proposed rule will include proposed limitations
on the interstate sale of African elephant ivory. As part of this
rulemaking effort, we also intend to propose common-sense exceptions
for activities and items that we do not believe are contributing to the
ongoing poaching crisis.
Question. I was encouraged to see the news in late February that
China is taking some steps to reign in its exploding ivory trade by
placing a 1 year ban on carved ivory imports. However, I remain
concerned that the Chinese are not doing nearly enough to address the
high stockpile if ivory already in their country.
How are you encouraging other countries to reduce demand for ivory
that is the driver of the skyrocketing poaching levels we are seeing in
Africa?
Answer. We are working on several fronts to address the demand for
ivory in other countries, including supporting non-governmental
organizations who are working on demand reduction campaigns in China,
Vietnam, and other key consumer countries through our species and
regional grants programs, engaging in bilateral discussions with China
and other countries about how we can work cooperatively to address
wildlife trafficking, and ensuring that these countries are following
through on their CITES commitments.
For example, CITES requires several key consumer countries of
particular concern with regard to illegal ivory trade, including China,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, to develop and
implement National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs). The United States played
a key role in negotiating these mandates and serves, as the North
American regional representative and as the Vice Chair, on the CITES
Standing Committee, the body responsible for evaluating these NIAPs and
their implementation. On March 19, the CITES Standing Committee
recommended a suspension of trade with Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo for failure to
develop adequate NIAPs.
By lending support and ensuring that commitments are met, we
believe that we are making substantial progress in several key consumer
countries.
Question. What more do we need to do to increase/support
prosecution of these wildlife trafficking cases in this country?
Answer. The 2016 President's budget sufficiently supports FWS
efforts to prosecute wildlife trafficking, including a $4 million
increase for Law Enforcement (OLE) to combat wildlife trafficking. With
this funding, the FWS will hire 25 new personnel to focus on daily
detection, interdiction, and investigation, both domestically and
abroad, of illegal commercial exploitation. The 2016 budget also
requests another $4 million increase to hire a class of 20 new special
agents. Additional special agents are needed to address officer safety,
efficiency of cases, and staffing shortfalls that affect OLE's ability
to perform ongoing investigations. After training, the new agents will
be deployed to the field for direct interdiction of illegal commercial
exploitation by organized criminal elements.
Current violations for most wildlife trafficking laws carry only a
maximum 1 year sentence and minimum fines. Additional tools are needed
as a means of deterrence to combat global wildlife trafficking,
including increasing the penalties for conducting illegal trade.
Granting the Federal Government the authority to prosecute a criminal
violation of the Endangered Species Act, the African Elephant
Conservation Act, or the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act with
more stringent fines and sentencing would further deter would-be
poachers.
Question. The White River National Fish Hatchery (WRNFH) in Bethel,
Vermont, is a fine Federal facility in very good physical and
operational condition. The main mission of the WRNFH has sunset,
however, with discontinuation of the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon
Restoration Program. I am aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
exploring a repurposing of this facility, possibly to serve as a
regional watershed conservation center for the upper Connecticut River
and Long Island Sound. This makes great sense to me, as I am well aware
of how well the Fish and Wildlife service does on partnership projects
and of the significant conservation needs in the Connecticut basin. It
would be a nationally unique and innovative project.
Will you support the Northeast Region of the Fish and Wildlife
Service as they transition the White River National Fish Hatchery to an
innovative valuable new Federal asset for the region?
Answer. Thank you for your interest in White River National Fish
Hatchery (NFH). We sincerely appreciate your support during the years
we worked to restore the facility after the damage from Hurricane Irene
in 2011. As you recognize, the current state of the facility and
infrastructure at White River NFH is excellent. The completed
renovation has fully restored large-scale fish production capabilities.
As your inquiry points out, the facility's primary operational
activity--restoration of Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River--was
discontinued several years ago.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff in Vermont is exploring
opportunities to ensure optimum public benefits accrue from this public
investment. The FWS is looking forward to determining how to best use
the White River NFH for hatchery production to support species
recovery, restoration, and fisheries in New England, and is exploring
areas where we share a common mission for activities in the Connecticut
River watershed. We have initiated discussions with others whose
facilities serve as potential models for addressing dynamic aquatic
conservation needs and are investigating prospective partnerships where
benefits can be derived from collaborative or co-located use of the
assets and infrastructure at White River NFH.
Evolving conservation challenges require us to be adaptable and we
support innovative solutions to meet our mission and address aquatic
conservation goals. Our State, Federal, and other partners are vital to
developing cohesive and complementary purposes for the National Fish
Hatchery System and we value their input. Naturally, working with our
partners is our top priority as we move forward. We will be talking
more with you and other partners as we continue to explore
opportunities at White River NFH. Thank you for your support and
encouragement.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., Wednesday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]