[Senate Hearing 114-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Cochran, Blunt, Daines,
Cassidy, Udall, Feinstein, Leahy, Reed, Tester, and Merkley.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MICHAEL CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY
KRISTEN SARRI, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
opening statement of senator lisa murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Good morning. I would like to welcome
everyone to our first hearing of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee for fiscal year 2017. We are here to review the
budget request for the Department of the Interior.
I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. We have
the Honorable Secretary Sally Jewell, who is accompanied by
Deputy Secretary Mike Connor as well as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary Kris Sarri. Welcome to all of you.
Since this is our first hearing this year, I will just
remind colleagues that we will follow past practices and adhere
to the early bird rule for recognizing members for questions. I
will call on members in the order they arrive, going back and
forth between majority and the minority. We will do 6-minute
rounds of questions.
My expectation this morning is that we will likely do two
to three rounds of questions, depending on votes and schedules
of the members and the witnesses. I will try to accommodate
everyone so that they have an opportunity to address the issues
that they wish to raise.
I also want to thank and welcome my ranking member, Senator
Udall. We managed to mark up this bill for the first time in 6
years in fiscal year 2016. While we didn't agree on everything
that was in the bill, things were never disagreeable. I really
appreciate that. I think that my friend from New Mexico has an
overall good nature and a passion for the issues that are
important to this subcommittee and I greatly respect it. So I
am looking forward to another productive year for the
subcommittee, working with both you and all the members of the
subcommittee.
Turning to the budget request for the Department of the
Interior, it is $12.25 billion for programs within this
subcommittee's jurisdiction. This includes $290 million for a
proposal similar to last year, which allows certain
firefighting costs to be appropriated as disaster funds. This
total is 2 percent above the enacted level.
But I should note for my colleagues that the department's
request does not include funds for the Payments in Lieu of
Taxes program (PILT) as part of the discretionary budget.
Funding for PILT was provided within our bill last year at
the fully authorized level of $452 million. So when you look at
an apples-to-apples comparison to fiscal year 2016, my
assessment is that the President's request is roughly 5.8
percent above current levels.
Secretary, as I noted when you appeared before the Energy
Committee last week, there are a number of aspects of the
President's budget proposal that I do find troubling. It
includes a number of mandatory spending proposals without
providing any offsets.
Mandatory spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) is at $425 million without an offset. Similarly, for the
National Park Service, the budget proposes mandatory spending
of $1.5 billion over a 3-year window, again with no offsets.
This administration has engaged in this somewhat
questionable practice of proposing mandatory funding for
popular programs with no offsets during the last several budget
cycles. This approach raises expectations that funding will
materialize when we all know that finding payfors--even for the
most popular programs--is extremely difficult in this budget
environment.
If the authorizing committees are unable to find offsets in
their jurisdiction to pay for these proposals, it puts more
pressure on this subcommittee to find funds out of our limited
resources.
The budget also prioritizes certain programs within this
subcommittee's jurisdiction over others, and essentially places
them on autopilot at the expense of other dire needs. Some of
those needs, and I am sure we will hear about them this
morning, are the needs in Indian country, where our schools are
failing and suicide rates are so far above the national average
that it is just heartbreaking.
I know, Secretary, that you share concerns about what is
headed in Indian Country with me.
The healthcare system is strained to its limits, often
providing services in facilities that are over 100 years old.
So you have a situation where funding increases, as
proposed for LWCF and the National Park Service, are elevated
and prioritized each year among all the programs over which
this subcommittee has oversight. This budget appears to have
done just that.
I don't want to send the wrong impression here. I will work
with the administration and my colleagues on a responsible,
bipartisan National Park Service centennial bill. I think that
is important. But I do think the $1.5 billion proposal put
forward is not realistic. I hope we can be creative in the use
of public/private partnerships and other means to stretch our
Federal funding further and to reach consensus on a bill that
appropriately celebrates the 100th anniversary of our national
parks.
I am also concerned that, yet again, when oil prices have
fallen dramatically and many companies are on the verge of
bankruptcy, the department indicates in its budget request that
it will propose a host of new fees and royalty rate increases
on energy producers that will exceed $1.7 billion. There are
also new fees on grazing and hard-rock mining.
I just don't see how making it more expensive to do
business on public lands is sound policy or good for the United
States Treasury.
I am pleased that this budget fully funds contract support
costs and adopts the approach that I put forward in the Senate
mark for fiscal year 2016, which establishes a separate,
indefinite appropriation for these costs to ensure that these
legal obligations are met and other programs will not be
affected.
We have come a long way since a couple years ago when the
administration proposed circumventing the tribes' victory in
the Ramah decision and sought to cap these costs. I thank all
my colleagues both here in the Senate and in the House for
their support in this effort.
Finally, Madam Secretary, there remains King Cove, which is
still totally unresolved. We once again discussed this issue
last week in your testimony before the Energy Committee. But,
again, I don't see anything in this budget request to help
those whose lives are in needless danger. You did agree last
week, Secretary, to publicly release the nonroad, nonsolutions
study that Interior commissioned for King Cove during the
budget hearing. When we get to the questions time, I do plan to
ask you about the timing on this report.
I have talked to virtually all of my colleagues about the
need for a lifesaving road to King Cove. I mention it again
here, particularly for the information of members who are not
on the Energy Committee, so that they remain aware that I
remain committed to do everything in my power as the chairman
of that committee and as chairman of the Interior Subcommittee
to fight for the construction of this critical road.
With that, I want to thank, again, the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretaries, and my colleagues for their appearance here
this morning.
And I will now turn to Ranking Member Udall for any
comments that he would like to make.
statement of senator tom udall
Senator Udall. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
those very kind comments at the beginning. I will reciprocate
here in a minute with some also.
Good morning, also, Secretary Jewell. We are very pleased
to have you appear before the subcommittee to discuss the
Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2017 budget request. I
am also pleased to welcome Deputy Secretary Mike Connor and
Deputy Assistant Secretary Kris Sarri before the subcommittee.
Before we turn to the budget, I want to thank Chairman
Murkowski for working with me to produce what I think is a very
good budget for the department in 2016. Madam Chairman, we have
had some challenging policy issues to work through, so I am
very pleased that we were able to pass a bill that included
critical increases for national parks, tribal programs, Land
and Water Conservation Fund, and many of the programs that we
will discuss this morning.
I also want to recognize, Madam Chair, your hard work and
your leadership of this subcommittee. I know it will be a
pleasure to work with you again this year, and to work with
your very fine staff to support our common interests in this
bill.
That said, this subcommittee's job is not going to be easy.
Under the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending for
nondefense programs is essentially flat in 2017. At the same
time, we have to fund certain must-do increases across the
Government, including firefighting and tribal contract support
costs for this subcommittee. So that flat funding level
effectively means a cut.
On paper, the department's discretionary request also looks
flat compared to fiscal year 2016, in keeping with the budget
caps. But if you dig a little deeper, it is clear that the
President used savings from a number of proposals to create
room for some significant increases. These proposals include
funding part of the firefighting budget with a new disaster cap
authorization and providing mandatory funding for the Payment
in Lieu of Taxes program.
In fact, when you factor in all the sources of funding,
this budget is really a 2 percent increase overall for the
department. I like many of the increases that this budget
proposes. It provides a 9 percent increase for our national
parks and a 5 percent increase for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
to support tribal education and social service needs.
I could not agree, Chairman Murkowski, with you more, in
talking about the dire state and dire situation in Indian
country, in terms of education.
This budget also expands on the increases that we provided
in the 2016 omnibus to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF). It proposes $475 million for LWCF programs funded by
this bill, and proposes to transition the program to its full
authorized level of $900 million in future years.
There are many important increases as well for wildlife
refuges, energy development, science and climate change
programs--all very important investments. But let's be clear.
Since funding is tight, our ability to fund many of these
increases depends on getting agreement to reform the wildland
firefighting budget and enacting a long-term mandatory funding
source for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.
Until we are successful in enacting those changes, we will
have to prioritize what we fund very carefully, and that means
very tough trade-offs.
The budget also includes some important legislative
proposals that I expect we will discuss today. In particular, I
want to applaud the administration's leadership to reform
energy and mining activities on public lands and make sure that
taxpayers are getting a fair return from the development of
those lands. I am pleased to see that your budget addresses
hard-rock mining reforms, including setting a fair royalty for
mining operations on public lands and proposing a hard-rock
abandoned mine fee to address legacy cleanup issues.
I have also sponsored legislation to take on this issue. We
need real mining reform, and we have needed it for a long time.
It makes no sense that we still rely on an antiquated law that
is nearly 150 years old as the framework for mining in this
country.
Events like the Gold King Mine disaster should serve as a
wake-up call for all of us. We have to get serious about
cleaning up abandoned mines. There are abandoned toxic mine
sites throughout the West. These mines are ticking time bombs.
They are releasing a slow-motion stream of lead, arsenic,
cadmium, and toxins into water supplies, water we need for
drinking, irrigation, and recreation.
The cleanup costs are absolutely astronomical. I have seen
estimates between $9 billion and $21 billion. In New Mexico
alone, the cost is estimated between $385 million and $840
million.
Today's mining industry has much better standards, but this
toxic legacy cannot be left unaddressed. The damage has been
done, and taxpayers should not be left holding the bag for the
mess as well as for future cleanup costs. The cost of inaction
on mining reform has been too great already. We cannot afford
to wait, and it is time that we act.
You are doing the right thing, Secretary Jewell, and I want
to work with you to enact common-sense reforms.
Thank you again for appearing before us. I look forward to
hearing your testimony and having a good discussion and
dialogue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
We have the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee
with us this morning.
Mr. Chairman, would you care to make any comments or
statements before we hear from the Secretary?
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, I appreciate the recognition.
I am delighted to be able to announce that, this year, the City
of Natchez, Mississippi, is celebrating its tricentennial
anniversary, a very rich history. A historically significant
area of the Lower Mississippi River Valley will be brought
together with local municipalities and counties in helping make
sure that tourists know of this destination site where you will
learn a lot and meet a lot of fine people. So come to Natchez
and help us celebrate. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just had to think, tricentennial. As a State, we are
about 58 years old in Alaska. So boy, if that does not remind
you----
Senator Cochran. To be 58 again. [Laughter]
Senator Murkowski. To be 58 again, yes. America is a
beautiful place.
With that, let us go to the Secretary of the Interior.
Welcome this morning. We appreciate you being here and look
forward to your comments and the questions that will follow.
summary statement of hon. sally jewell
Secretary Jewell. Thank you. And congratulations on the
tricentennial. It would be fun to be there.
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, Chairman Cochran,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget request for
the Department of the Interior. This is the administration's
final budget, and I want to take the opportunity to thank all
of you and your capable staffs for working with me over the
last 3 years to help the Department meet its mission for the
American people.
I would like also to take a moment to mention the incident
at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County,
Oregon. Through tremendous patience and professionalism, the
FBI, with support from State and local law enforcement, ended
the occupation on February 11 as quickly and safely as possible
after more than 40 days.
It was an incredibly disruptive and distressing time for
our employees, their families, and the Harney County community.
I am proud of our Department of the Interior law enforcement
personnel who supported the response and helped keep our
employees safe.
We continue to cooperate with DOJ, the FBI, and others, as
the investigations move forward. And we remain committed to
working with local communities on the management of public
lands.
Interior's overall fiscal year 2017 budget request is $13.4
billion, a lion's share within this subcommittee. Specifically
for programs within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, as
mentioned, is $12.3 billion.
It builds on the successes we are achieving through
partnerships, the application of science and innovation, and
balanced stewardship. It gives us the tools to help communities
strengthen resilience in the face of climate change, conserve
natural and cultural resources, secure clean and sustainable
water, engage the next generation with the great outdoors,
promote a balanced approach to safe and responsible energy
development, and expand opportunities for Native American
communities.
These areas are core to our mission and play a vital rule
in job creation and economic growth.
The budget invests in our public lands, providing $5
billion to support operations of our national parks, historical
and cultural sites, wildlife refuges and habitats, and managing
multiple use and sustained yield on our Nation's public lands.
It focuses investment on important working landscapes like
the western Sage-Steppe, and the Arctic, and proposes a 10-
year, $2 billion coastal climate resilience program to support
at-risk coastal States and local governments, including funding
for communities in Alaska to prepare for and adapt to climate
change.
As the National Park Service begins its second century, the
budget provides $3 billion and includes a proposal to dedicate
significant funding to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.
It calls for full and permanent funding of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and extends the expired authority for the
Historic Preservation Fund.
It reflects the administration's strategy to more
effectively budget for catastrophic wildfires, as you pointed
out. And in response to drought challenges across the West, it
continues to safeguard sustainable and secure water supplies.
We continue to engage the next generation of Americans to
play, learn, serve, and work outdoors with $103 million for
youth engagement. This includes mentoring and research
opportunities at the U.S. Geological Survey; urban community
partnerships; scholarships and job corps training for tribal,
rural, and urban youth; and work opportunities within our
bureaus. There is $20 million for the Every Kid in a Park
initiative, which introduces America's fourth graders to their
public lands, providing education programs across the country
and transportation support for low-income students.
We continue to promote a balanced approach to safe and
responsible energy development that maximizes a fair return for
taxpayers with $800 million for renewable and conventional
energy development, a $42 million increase. We are on track to
meet the President's goals of permitting 20,000 megawatts of
renewable energy capacity on public lands by 2020, with nearly
$100 million for renewable energy development and
infrastructure.
Offshore, this budget supports the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement with funding to reform and strengthen
responsiveness, oversight, and safety for oil and gas
development.
Onshore, an increase of $21 million supports the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM's) efforts to develop a landscape-level
approach to oil and gas development, modernize and streamline
permitting, and strengthen inspection capacity.
We are expanding educational and job opportunities for
Native American communities with $3 billion for Indian Affairs,
a 5 percent increase, to support native youth education,
American Indian and Alaskan Native families, public safety, and
building resilience to climate change. The President's budget
calls for a $1 billion investment in Indian education as part
of Generation Indigenous, and $278 million to fully fund
contract support costs, a cornerstone of tribal self
determination.
The budget supports our commitment to resolve Indian water
right settlements and supports sustainable water management in
Indian country with $215 million, a $5 million increase.
The budget includes funding to strengthen cybersecurity
controls across all agencies. It also invests in science and
innovation with $150 million for natural hazards at the USGS,
an $11 million increase. Funding will continue development of
Landsat 9, a critical new satellite expected to launch in 2021.
This is a smart budget that builds on our previous
successes and strengthens partnerships to ensure we balance the
needs of today with opportunity for future generations. So
thank you, members of the subcommittee. I look forward to any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sally Jewell
Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to present the 2017 President's budget for
the Department of the Interior providing $13.4 billion for the
Department's programs with $290 million available in the event of
catastrophic fires. Of this amount, $12.3 billion is within the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee, an increase of $224.4 million with
the fire cap adjustment.
This is a strong budget that builds on our accomplishments. Our
request enables us to carry out our important missions--maintain our
core capabilities, meet commitments, and invest in key priorities. The
investments in this request show the administration remains focused on
meeting the Nation's greatest challenges looking forward and ensuring
our economy works for all.
Our budget is part of the President's broader strategy to make
critical investments in domestic and national security priorities while
adhering to the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law last fall,
and lifts sequestration in future years to continue investment in the
future. This budget recognizes the importance of Interior's programs to
the overall strength of the Nation's economy. To put this into
perspective, in 2014, Interior-managed lands and activities contributed
about $360 billion in national economic output, supporting an estimated
2 million jobs. Of this, energy and mineral development on Interior-
managed lands and offshore areas generated more than $241 billion in
economic activity and supported nearly 1.1 million jobs.
At the same time, our 2017 proposed investments lay the groundwork
for promoting renewable energy development, managing the Nation's lands
responsibly, helping to protect communities in the face of climate
change, and investing in science to inform natural resource management.
Our budget features investments to launch the second century of the
national parks and expand public accessibility to and enjoyment of
America's public lands. It supports tribal priorities in Indian
Country, including a $1.1 billion investment to transform Indian
schools and education, and provides full funding for tribal contract
support costs. This request addresses significant resource challenges
for the Nation, including water availability, particularly in the arid
West, and makes important investments in America's water
infrastructure.
The 2017 budget includes $1.0 billion for research and development
activities throughout the Department, an increase of $84.5 million from
the 2016 enacted level. Activities supported include scientific
analysis of natural systems and applied field research to address
specific problems, such as thawing permafrost, invasive species, and
flooding. With multiple science programs across the Department's
bureaus and offices, science coordination remains a critical component
in the process of effective science application. Interior is well
served by the deployment of science advisors in each bureau. These
advisors serve critical roles within the organizations and across the
Department by sharing information concerning new research efforts,
identifying and evaluating emerging science needs, and ensuring
effective science delivery and application. The Interior 2017 budget
reflects high priority needs identified for scientific research across
the Department.
the 2017 budget advances a record of achievement
This budget builds on a record of achievement across Interior's
diverse mission. For the past several years, the Department led an
unprecedented proactive strategy to develop land use plans with
Federal, State, and local partners to address the deteriorating health
of America's sagebrush landscapes and the declining population of the
Greater sage-grouse. This landscape scale conservation effort is an
extraordinary collaboration to significantly address threats to the
Greater sage-grouse across 90 percent of the species' breeding habitat.
These efforts enabled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conclude
the charismatic rangeland bird does not warrant protection under the
Endangered Species Act. This collaborative, science-based strategy is
the largest land conservation effort in U.S. history, and helps to
protect the species and its habitat while also providing certainty
needed for sustainable economic development across millions of acres of
Federal and private lands throughout the western United States. The
2017 budget includes $89.7 million for Sage Steppe conservation, an
increase of $22.9 million over 2016 enacted.
This budget continues to advance development of renewable energy.
Over the summer of 2015, Interior's offshore wind energy leasing
efforts led to beginning construction of the first offshore wind farm.
This first of its kind project will provide a model for future
development of offshore wind energy. Since 2009, Interior has approved
56 wind, solar, and geothermal utility scale projects on public or
tribal lands. When built, these projects could provide about 14,600
megawatts--enough energy to power nearly 4.9 million homes and support
more than 24,000 construction jobs. The 2017 budget includes $97.3
million for clean energy programs, an increase of $3.1 million over
2016 enacted.
The 2017 budget sustains President Obama's strong commitment to
tribal self-determination, strengthening tribal nations, and investing
in the future of Native youth. Interior established the Land Buy Back
Program which, in only 2 years of active land purchases, invested more
than $730 million in Indian Country to restore nearly 1.5 million acres
of land to Indian tribes. The effort to improve and transform the
Bureau of Indian Education to better serve American Indian and Alaska
Native youth is building the foundation for improved student outcomes
and enduring traditions and native cultures. In 2016, work will begin
to replace the final 2 of 14 Bureau of Indian Education schools
identified in 2004 as requiring the greatest need for replacement
construction. Also, in 2016, Interior will finalize the next list of
replacement schools determined through a negotiated rulemaking process.
This budget includes $138.3 million for education construction and
maintains a commitment to continue to invest in improving educational
opportunities and quality from the earliest years through college.
Interior continues to engage in innovative efforts to leverage
youth engagement and partnerships to advance the Department's
extraordinary mission. Interior set the goal to provide 40,000 work and
training opportunities during 2014 and 2015 for young adults, toward a
goal of 100,000 by 2017. Interior met its priority goal--providing
52,596 work and training opportunities over the past two fiscal years
by collaborating across all levels of government and mobilizing the
21st Century Conservation Corps. From Denali to the Everglades, members
of the youth conservation corps are gaining work experience, helping
improve the visitor experience, and mobilizing entire communities in
the stewardship of our parks, refuges, waters and heritage. The 2017
budget includes a total of $102.5 million, an increase of $37.6 million
over 2016 enacted, for programs to advance youth engagement.
Partnerships are critical to enhancing our public lands and
providing additional recreational opportunities to the public. An
example of the significant impact of these efforts is the CityArchRiver
project is a public-private partnership building connections that
enhance downtown St. Louis, the Gateway Arch grounds at the Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial, and the Mississippi riverfront. This
partnership includes the National Park Service, Missouri Department of
Transportation, Great Rivers Greenway District, City of St. Louis, Bi-
State Development Agency, CityArchRiver Foundation, and others. In
January, the Foundation completed a $250 million capital campaign which
means the Foundation has raised $221 million in private funding for
construction of the $380 million CityArchRiver project and an
additional $29 million to seed an endowment that will help maintain and
operate the park moving forward.
promotes the conservation and protection of america's natural and
cultural resources
This year, the National Park Service celebrates 100 years of
preserving and sharing America's natural, cultural, and historic
treasures. Interior's 2017 budget makes investments to connect a new
generation to ``America's Best Idea,'' and to care for and maintain our
national parks for the next 100 years. Last year, the National Park
Service's 410 units welcomed 307 million visitors--setting a new
visitation record. Every tax dollar invested in a park returns more
than $10 to the U.S. economy.
The budget includes a discretionary increase of $190.5 million to
invest in the next century of the National Park Service. This includes
a $20.0 million increase for the Every Kid in a Park initiative, a
$20.0 million increase to the Centennial Challenge program providing a
Federal match to leverage partner donations for projects and programs
at national parks, and a $150.5 million increase to address high
priority deferred maintenance needs across the national park system.
This current funding is complemented by a legislative proposal to
provide new mandatory funding, The National Park Service Centennial Act
includes $100.0 million a year, for 3 years, for Centennial Challenge
projects to provide the Federal match in support of signature projects
at park units; $100.0 million a year for 3 years for the Public Lands
Centennial Fund, a competitive opportunity for public lands agencies to
support conservation and maintenance projects; and $300.0 million a
year, for 3 years, for Second Century Infrastructure Investment
projects to make a meaningful and lasting impact on the NPS deferred
maintenance backlog. The Act also provides authority to collect and
retain additional camping or lodging fees and funds collected from
purchases of the lifetime pass for citizens 62 years of age or older.
Receipts for this Second Century Fund will be matched by donations to
fund visitor enhancement projects.
Together, the discretionary and mandatory funding proposals will
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.
America's public lands and waters offer space to get outside and
get active, and provide living classrooms with hands-on opportunities
to build skills. The administration launched the Every Kid in a Park
Initiative to inspire the next generation to discover all America's
public lands and waters have to offer. Starting with the 2015-2016
school year, all fourth grade students and their families are able to
receive free admission to all national parks and other Federal lands
for a full year. The National Park Service budget for 2017 includes
$20.0 million for Every Kid in a Park to introduce at least one million
fourth grade students from elementary schools serving disadvantaged
students in urban areas to nearby national parks and provide park
programs tailored for young people and their families, especially at
high visitation and urban parks.
Investments in America's great outdoors create and sustain millions
of jobs and spur billions of dollars in national economic activity
through outdoor recreation and tourism. An estimated 423 million
recreational visits to Interior lands contributed $42 billion to the
economy and supported about 375,000 jobs nationwide. The 2017 budget
proposes full funding for Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
programs at Interior and the Department of Agriculture. This
innovative, highly successful program reinvests royalties from offshore
oil and gas activities into public lands across the Nation. Starting in
2017, the budget will invest $900.0 million annually into conservation
and recreation projects, equal to the amount of receipts authorized for
deposit into the LWCF each year, through a combination of $475.0
million in current discretionary funding and $425.0 million in
mandatory funding. These investments will conserve public lands in or
near national parks, refuges, forests and other public lands, and
provide grants to States for close-to-home recreation and conservation
projects on non-Federal lands.
The budget continues efforts to manage and promote the health and
resilience of ecosystems on a landscape scale, including a continued
focus in priority landscapes such as the California Bay-Delta, the
Everglades, the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf Coast. The
request includes a total of $79.2 million for Bureau of Land Management
efforts, to protect and restore America's vast sage steppe landscape
supporting abundant wildlife and significant economic activity,
including recreation, ranching and energy development. This investment
reflects Interior's continued support of the unprecedented Federal and
State collaboration to conserve the imperiled sage steppe landscape in
the face of threats from fire, invasive species, expanding development,
and habitat fragmentation. The budget also invests $160.6 million in
landscape scale efforts to address the complex natural resource issues
facing the Arctic.
implements the president's climate action plan
As manager of roughly 20 percent of the land area of the United
States and a partner with tribal, Federal, State, local, and
territorial government land managers, the Interior Department works to
address the challenges of natural hazards brought on by a changing
climate as an integral part of its mission. The budget includes funding
to improve the resilience of communities and ecosystems to changing
stressors, including flooding, severe storm events, and drought as part
of the administration's effort to better understand and prepare for the
impacts of a changing climate.
The budget proposes $2.0 billion in mandatory funding for a new
Coastal Climate Resilience program, to provide resources over 10 years
for at-risk coastal States, local governments, and their communities to
prepare for and adapt to climate change. This program would be paid for
by redirecting roughly half of the savings that result from the repeal
of offshore oil and gas revenue sharing payments that are set to be
paid to only four States under current law. A portion of these program
funds would be set aside to cover the unique impacts of climate change
in Alaska where rising seas, coastal erosion, and storm surges are
threatening Native Villages that must prepare for potential
relocations.
Population growth near forests and rangelands and a changing
climate are increasing wildfire risk and resulting costs. The budget
calls for a new funding framework for wildland fire suppression,
similar to how other natural disasters are addressed. The budget
includes base level funding of 70 percent of the 10-year average for
suppression costs and an additional $290.0 million through a cap
adjustment, available in the event of the most severe fire activity,
which comprises only 2 percent of the fires but 30 percent of the
costs. This framework allows for a balanced suppression and fuels
management and restoration program, with flexibility to accommodate
peak fire seasons, but not at the cost of other Interior and U.S.
Department of Agriculture missions.
Healthy communities require secure, sustainable water supplies.
This is particularly challenging with record drought conditions and
increasing demand taxing watersheds throughout the country, especially
in the arid West. To help increase the security and sustainability of
Western watersheds, the budget continues investment in the Department's
WaterSMART program to promote water reuse, recycling, and conservation,
in partnership with States, tribes, and other partners. Funding is also
included for research, development, and challenge competitions to find
longer term solutions through new water technologies. The budget
invests in the Nation's water infrastructure to ensure millions of
customers receive the water and power that are the foundation of a
healthy economy.
powers 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
to review and permit renewable energy projects on public lands and in
offshore waters. Under the President's Climate Action Plan, these funds
will allow Interior to continue progress toward its goal of increasing
approved capacity authorized for renewable--solar, wind, geothermal,
and hydropower--energy resources affecting Interior managed lands,
while ensuring full environmental review, to at least 16,600 Megawatts
(since the end of fiscal year 2009). The budget includes an increase of
$2.0 million for the Office of Insular Affairs to provide assistance to
implement energy projects identified by the territories in their
comprehensive sustainable energy strategies.
To address the continuing legacy of abandoned mine lands on the
health, safety, environment, and economic opportunity of communities,
the budget proposes $1.0 billion to States and tribes over 5 years from
the unappropriated balance of the AML Trust Fund, administered by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. As part of the
President's POWER+ Plan, the AML funding will be used to target the
reclamation of mine land sites and associated polluted waters in a
manner that promotes sustainable redevelopment in economically
distressed coalfield communities. The budget includes legislative
reforms to strengthen the healthcare and pension plans that provide for
the health and retirement security of coal miners and their families.
The budget provides support for onshore energy permitting and
oversight on Federal lands, with the Bureau of Land Management's
discretionary and permanent oil and gas program receiving a 17 percent
increase in funding compared to the 2016 enacted level. The funding
increase will enhance BLM's capacity to oversee safe, environmentally-
sound development and ensure a fair return to taxpayers, with increases
targeted to improve leasing processes, implementation of new
regulations and rules, and a modernized automated permitting process.
The BLM's costs would be partially offset through new inspection fees
totaling $48 million in 2017, requiring the onshore oil and gas
industry to share in the cost of managing the program from which it
benefits, just as the offshore industry currently does.
The budget also supports reforms to strengthen oversight of
offshore industry operations following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, with an additional emphasis on risk management. The budget
includes $175.1 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and
$204.9 million for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,
which share responsibility for overseeing development of oil and gas
resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.
strengthening tribal nations
The President's budget maintains the administration's strong
support for the principle of tribal self-determination and
strengthening tribal communities across Indian Country. This commitment
is reflected in a nearly 5 percent increase for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs over the 2016 enacted level. The budget calls for full funding
for contract support costs that Tribes incur from managing Federal
programs, complemented by a proposal to secure mandatory funding in
future years. The budget provides significant increases across a wide
range of Federal programs that serve tribes; proposes a ``one-stop''
approach to improve and coordinate access to Federal programs and
resources; seeks to improve the quality of data by partnering with the
Census Bureau; supports sustainable stewardship of land, water, and
other natural resources; provides funds for communities to plan,
prepare, and respond to the impacts of climate change; and expands
resources to promote tribally based solutions and capacity building to
strengthen tribal communities as a whole. The budget continues to
address Indian water rights settlement commitments and programs to
support tribes in resolving water rights claims, developing water
sharing agreements, and supporting sustainable water management.
The budget includes key investments to support Generation
Indigenous, an initiative addressing barriers to success for American
Indian and Alaska Native children and teenagers. In addition to
Interior, multiple agencies--including the Departments of Education,
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Agriculture,
and Justice--are working collaboratively with tribes on new and
increased investments to implement education reforms and address issues
facing Native youth. The budget provides over $1 billion for Interior
investments in Indian education.
improves oversight and use of federal dollars
Interior has several multi-year efforts underway to reduce its
nationwide facilities footprint, and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its information technology infrastructure and
financial reporting capabilities. The budget includes $6.4 million to
consolidate building space and reduce costs to the taxpayer for
privately leased space. Interior achieved a 4.6 percent reduction--2.1
million square feet--in office and warehouse space between fiscal year
2012 and fiscal year 2015. This represents a net annual cost avoidance
of approximately $8 million. In 2016, the modernization of the sixth
and final wing of the Main Interior Building will be completed,
including infrastructure upgrades that improve energy efficiency and
sustainability and reconfigured space to support higher occupancy.
The budget includes $3.0 million for Interior's Digital Services
team to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's
highest impact digital services. The budget continues to optimize the
Department-wide Financial and Business Management System with targeted
investments to improve reporting and increase data quality and
transparency, as envisioned in the DATA Act.
The budget includes an increase of $2.6 million to support
implementation of Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform
Act, to improve standardization of information technology investments
by strengthening the role of the Department's Chief Information Officer
in strategic planning, budget formulation and execution, and
acquisition of information management and technology activities. The
budget includes $34.7 million in the appropriated working capital fund
to continue the Department's remediation of its cybersecurity systems
and processes, an increase of $24.7 million above the 2016 enacted
level. The additional funding will allow the Department to secure its
valuable information on behalf of our employees, customers, partners
and the American public.
The United States Treasury received $7.2 billion in 2015 from fees,
royalties and other payments related to oil and gas development on
public lands and waters. A number of studies by the Government
Accountability Office and Interior's Office of Inspector General found
taxpayers could earn a better return 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 committed
to ensuring American taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of
public resources and benefit from the development of energy resources
owned by all Americans.
The budget includes legislative proposals related to Reforms of
Hardrock Mining. To increase safety and minimize environmental impacts,
the budget proposes a fee on hardrock mining, with receipts to be used
by States, tribes and Federal agencies to restore the most hazardous
sites--similar to how coal Abandoned Mine Lands funds are used. In
addition, to ensure taxpayers receive a fair return from mineral
development on public lands, the budget proposes a royalty on select
hardrock minerals--such as silver, gold and copper--and terminating
unwarranted payments to coal producing States and tribes that no longer
need funds to clean up abandoned coal mines.
bureau highlights
Bureau of Land Management.--The 2017 request is $1.3 billion, $7.1
million above 2016. This includes $1.2 billion for BLM operations, an
increase of $2.1 million above the 2016 enacted level, with $1.1
billion for Management of Lands and Resources and $107.0 million for
Oregon and California Grant Lands programs. The change in total program
resources from 2016 and 2017 is larger, as the budget proposes
offsetting user fees in the Rangeland Management and Oil and Gas
Management programs which reduce the total request by $64.5 million.
The budget also includes $44.0 million in current appropriations
for LWCF land acquisition, including $8.0 million to improve access to
public lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. BLM's LWCF
land acquisition investments promote the conservation of natural
landscapes and resources by consolidating public lands through
purchase, exchange and donation to increase management efficiency and
preserve areas of natural, cultural, and recreational importance. The
BLM estimates 23 million acres (or nine percent) of BLM-managed public
lands lack public access or have inadequate public access, primarily
due to checkerboard land ownership patterns. The BLM's proposed land
acquisition project within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument
in New Mexico illustrates the many benefits of land acquisition to
BLM's mission. An investment of $1.3 million would allow BLM to acquire
1,186 acres of private inholdings within the monument to preserve
traditional uses, secure connectivity to the Rio Grande Wild & Scenic
Corridor, preserver avian and wildlife habitat, protect prehistoric
human habitation sites, and improve recreation and tourism.
Complementing the second century of the parks, the BLM budget
includes investments in the National Conservation Lands, which recently
celebrated their 15th anniversary. Thirteen new National Conservation
Lands units were designated during the current administration and
visitation and visitor expectations and demands have consistently
increased for the whole National Conservation Lands system during this
period. The 2017 budget features a $13.7 million increase to meet basic
operating requirements and support critical and overdue investments to
effectively safeguard the cultural, ecological, and scientific values
for which they were designated and provide the quality of recreational
opportunities intended with the National Conservation Lands
designation. A program increase of $1.1 million in Cultural Resources
Management will enhance BLM's capacity to preserve and protect the vast
treasure of heritage resources on public lands and a program increase
of $2.0 million in Recreation Resources Management will further
implement a National Recreation Strategy to facilitate access to public
lands.
The BLM continues to support the President's broad energy strategy,
with significant increases requested in 2017 to strengthen its ability
to effectively manage onshore oil and gas development on Federal lands.
The 2017 budget for oil and gas management activities, including the
request for direct and fee funded appropriations and estimated
permanent appropriations totals $186.6 million, an increase of $27.6
million in total program resources over the 2016 enacted level.
For direct appropriations, the oil and gas request is a net program
increase of $19.9 million. Within this net total, $13.1 million will
support implementation of rules and regulations to ensure oil and gas
operations are safe, environmentally responsible, and ensure a fair
return to the taxpayer. These include new oil and gas measurement and
site security regulations, hydraulic fracturing regulations, and
venting and flaring regulations. A $2.1 million increase will complete
modernization of the Automated Fluid Minerals Support System. The
development work associated with Phase II of AFMSS modernization
includes new functionality supporting new proposed rules and those
currently expected to be finalized in 2016. Overall, the AFMSS
modernization project also will support greater efficiencies in oil and
gas permitting and inspection activities.
The Oil and Gas Management request also includes a program increase
of $2.6 million for oil and gas special pay costs to improve BLM's
ability to recruit and retain high caliber oil and gas program staff to
provide effective oversight and meet workload and industry demand.
Finally, the BLM budget request includes a program increase of $2.8
million to enhance BLM's capability to address high priority legacy
wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to supplement permanent
funds provided in the Helium Security Act of 2013. The 2017 budget
continues to request authority to charge inspection fees similar to
those in place for offshore oil and gas inspections. Such authority
will reduce the net costs to taxpayers of operating BLM's oil and gas
program and allow BLM to be more responsive to industry demand and
increased inspection workload in the future. A $48.0 million decrease
in requested appropriations reflects shifting the cost of inspection
activities to fees.
In 2017, BLM will continue to invest heavily in the Greater Sage
Grouse Conservation Strategy and the budget includes a program increase
of $14.2 million to protect, improve, or restore sage steppe habitat.
Funds will also assist States in implementing GSG conservation plans.
The BLM's efforts to implement the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation
Strategy are also reliant upon successful execution of the National
Seed Strategy, which is also integral to the administration's wildland
fire rehabilitation efforts and the success of the Secretary's
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy. The budget includes a
$5.0 million program increase within Wildlife Management to more
aggressively implement the National Seed Strategy.
Other budget highlights include program increases totaling $16.9
million in the Resource Management Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring
subactivity. This includes $4.3 million to expand the BLM Assessment,
Inventory, and Monitoring program for increased data collection and
monitoring central to the success of high priority landscape management
efforts such as the Western Solar Energy Plan, as well as
implementation of the Department's plan for the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska, the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy, and the
broader landscape mitigation strategy. The request also includes an
increase of $6.9 million to accelerate implementation of the BLM
enterprise geographic information system, which aggregates data across
boundaries to capture ecological conditions and trends; natural and
human influences; and opportunities for resource conservation,
restoration, development, and partnering. The remaining $5.7 million
increase will support high priority planning efforts that could include
the initiation of new plan revisions in 2017, as well as plan
evaluations and implementation strategies.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The 2017 President's budget for
BOEM is $175.1 million, including $80.2 million in current
appropriations and $94.9 million in offsetting collections. This is a
net increase of $4.3 million in current appropriations above the 2016
enacted level.
The total 2017 estimate of $94.9 million for offsetting collections
is a net decrease of $1.7 million, including reductions in rental
receipts partially offset by a new $2.9 million cost recovery fee for
the Risk Management Program. An increase in direct appropriations of
$6.0 million makes up for the projected decrease in rental receipts.
The budget provides $23.9 million for offshore renewable energy
activities. To date, BOEM has issued 11 commercial wind energy leases
offshore; conducted 5 competitive wind energy lease sales for areas
offshore Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and
Virginia; and approved the Construction and Operations Plan for the
Cape Wind project offshore Massachusetts. Additionally, BOEM is in the
planning stages for wind leasing offshore New York, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. In 2015, BOEM executed the first wind energy research
lease in U.S. Federal waters with the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy.
The 2017 budget provides $64.2 million for conventional energy
development, a programmatic increase of $4.2 million above 2016. These
funds support high priority offshore oil and gas development
activities, including lease sales outlined in BOEM's Five Year OCS Oil
and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017. Under this program, BOEM's eight
sales generated over $2.97 billion in high bids. Five lease sales
remain on the lease sale schedule through mid-2017. The next lease
sales are Eastern Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 226, Central Gulf of Mexico
Lease Sale 241, and Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 248, all
scheduled to be held during 2016.
The 2017 provides $68.4 million for BOEM's Environmental Programs.
These funds support world class scientific research to provide critical
information informing policy decisions regarding energy and mineral
development on the OCS.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The 2017
President's budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement is $204.9 million, including $96.3 million in current
appropriations and $108.5 million in offsetting collections. The 2017
budget is a net $196,000 increase above the 2016 enacted level,
reflecting an increase of $7.9 million in current appropriations and a
$7.7 million decrease in offsetting collections. The total 2017
estimate of $108.5 million in offsetting collections assumes decreases
from 2016 of $11.5 million for rental receipts, $2.2 million for cost
recoveries, and a $6.0 million increase for inspection fee collections.
Funding for Oil Spill Research is maintained at the 2016 enacted level
of $14.9 million. The 2017 budget supports continued safe and
responsible offshore energy development.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.--The 2017
budget request is $157.9 million, $82.6 million below the 2016 enacted
level.
The 2017 budget for Regulation and Technology is $127.6 million,
$4.3 million above 2016. The request includes $10.5 million, $1.8
million above 2016, to improve implementation of existing laws and
support State and tribal programs. The 2017 budget includes $65.5
million for State and tribal regulatory grants, this level of funding
supports State requirements.
The budget includes program increases of $2.5 million to advance
the Bureau's GeoMine Project; $1.2 million for applied science to
conduct studies to advance technologies and practices specific to coal
mined sites for more comprehensive ecosystem restoration; $1.0 million
to expand the use of reforestation techniques in coal mine reclamation
and provide opportunities for youth and community engagement; $2.3
million to support Technical Assistance; and $1.6 million for National
Environment Policy Act compliance document preparation, legal review,
and program monitoring.
The 2017 budget for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is $30.4
million, $86.9 million below 2016. The 2016 enacted level included a
$90.0 million increase for grants to three States for the reclamation
of abandoned mine lands in conjunction with economic and community
development activities. The 2017 budget proposes a broader legislative
effort to support reclamation and economic and community development as
part of the administration's POWER+ Plan. POWER+ would provide $200
million per year 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 budget includes a $1.5 million program increase for
technical assistance to States, tribes, and communities to address AML
technological advances and issues for AML site reclamation. The budget
also includes program increases of $525,000 for applied science studies
pertaining to abandoned mines, $799,000 to enhance and expedite current
OSMRE efforts in digitizing underground mine maps, and $287,000 for
support within the Office of the Solicitor.
U.S. Geological Survey.--The 2017 budget is $1.2 billion, $106.8
million above 2016, to advance our national commitment to research and
development that supports economic growth, balances priorities on
resource use, addresses climate change, and ensures the security and
well- being of the Nation. The budget improves response to and warning
of natural disasters, responds to drought and other water challenges,
supports sustainable domestic energy and minerals development, and
advances scientific understanding of land use, land change, and the
effects of resource decisions to assist communities and land managers
in making choices informed by sound science.
The 2017 budget invests in the USGS's capabilities for science and
innovation to monitor and respond to natural disasters with increases
for priority science to help stabilize and rehabilitate ecosystems
after fires and provide geospatial information, monitoring strategies,
and other relevant scientific information faster for real-time fire
response. Related increases build USGS' capability to respond to
landslide crises, and expand the use of flood inundation mapping and
rapidly deployable streamgages to meet urgent needs of flood-threatened
communities lacking a permanent streamgage.
The budget continues $8.2 million to develop the West Coast
Earthquake Early Warning system to complete a production prototype
system, expand coverage, and beta-test alerts. The budget continues
funding of $3.0 million to repair and upgrade monitoring stations on
high-threat volcanoes. The budget includes funding to assume long-term
operations of the Central and Eastern United States Seismic Network
from the National Science Foundation and allows USGS to continue a 5-
year effort to deploy, install and improve the Global Seismic Network,
ensuring that the Network continues to provide global earthquake and
tsunami monitoring, nuclear treaty research and verification, and earth
science research.
The budget provides an increase of $18.4 million for science to
support sustainable water management, nearly doubling the investment
made in 2016. As climate models forecast increasingly frequent and more
intense droughts, improving water management science is a paramount
concern for land and water management agencies, States, local
governments, and tribes. The budget would improve water use information
and research, provide grants to State water resource agencies, and
create hydrologic models and databases for better decision support. The
budget also includes $3.9 million for drought science and $4.0 million
to develop methods to assess regional and national water use trends
during drought. Innovation is critical to address the severe threats to
water supply posed by drought and climate change.
The budget provides increases across several programs to advance
understanding of conventional and unconventional energy, critical
minerals such as rare earth elements, and the environmental health
effects of resource development. These investments include $3.6 million
to provide decision ready information to support safe and prudent
unconventional oil and gas development, $2.0 million to study the
environmental impacts of uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, and $1.0
million to identify and evaluate new sources of critical minerals and
continue criticality analysis for mineral commodities.
The USGS budget increases science investments for changing
landscapes, including $9.8 million in the Arctic, $3.0 million for the
vulnerable sagebrush habitats of the Intermountain West, and $3.9 to
improve coastal science that will help communities build resilient
coastal landscapes and improve post-storm contaminant monitoring
network along the Atlantic coast. The budget also establishes a Great
Lakes Climate Science Center to focus on the many natural resource
challenges in the distinct bio-geographic Great Lakes region. As with
the eight existing Climate Science Centers, the Great Lakes CSC will
help address regional concerns associated with climate change,
providing a pathway to resilience and supporting local community
priorities.
The budget includes increases of $2.1 million to address research
on pollinator health and expand the small group of USGS researchers
working on this critical component of agricultural and ecosystem
health, $1.4 million for tribal climate science partnerships, and $2.5
million for better tools to detect and control invasive species,
particularly new and emerging invasive species. The budget continues a
commitment to priority ecosystems including the Chesapeake Bay, the
Everglades, Puget Sound, the Upper Mississippi River, the California
Bay-Delta, and the Gulf Coast.
The USGS plays a pivotal role in providing research, analysis, and
decision support tools. The budget supports these efforts and includes
investments to extend the four-decade long Landsat satellite program
with the development of Landsat 9, and provide information to better
understand and respond to changes in the environment. The 2017 budget
provides an increase of $17.6 million for satellite operations, funding
the development of Landsat 9 ground systems and satellite operations
and an investment to retrieve and disseminate data from the European
Space Agency's Sentinel-2 earth observation satellite. The budget
provides an increase of $4.9 million to expand the three-dimensional
elevation program and leverage partnerships across the Nation,
accelerate Alaskan map modernization, and provide coastal imaging to
help communities make infrastructure resilience investments. The budget
also provides $3.0 million to develop the computing resources necessary
to produce and disseminate Landsat-based information products.
High-quality science depends on a strong science infrastructure.
The budget makes necessary investments to continue the USGS legacy of
reliable, valuable scientific information and monitoring. These
investments fund science support, facilities and equipment, including
laboratories, and the administrative support that is the backbone of
science production and delivery. The 2017 budget also includes program
increases to enhance the Mendenhall post-doctoral program, support
tribal science coordination, enhance science education, and engage
youth in underserved communities in earth and biological sciences
through outreach activities and science camps.
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The 2017 budget for FWS includes
current appropriations of $1.6 billion, an increase of $54.5 million
compared to the 2016 enacted level.
The 2017 request for FWS includes $1.3 billion for FWS operations,
of which $506.6 million supports National Wildlife Refuge System
operations and maintenance. A feature of the 2017 FWS budget is support
to expand opportunities for all Americans to access public lands and
experience the great outdoors, regardless of where they live. With 80
percent of the U.S. population currently residing in urban communities
near more than 260 wildlife refuges, Interior is leveraging the
National Wildlife Refuge System to encourage urbanites to rediscover
the outdoors. The request includes $10.0 million for the Refuge
System's Urban Wildlife Conservation Partnerships to expand
opportunities for urban populations including an increase of $2.0
million for additional Refuge System law enforcement officers to ensure
the safety of visitors, natural and cultural resources, and Federal
employees and facilities. The budget includes $40.7 million for general
Refuge Law Enforcement operations.
The request also includes funding within Law Enforcement and
International Affairs to combat wildlife trafficking. The budget
provides $75.1 million for the law enforcement program to investigate
wildlife crimes, enforce the laws governing the Nation's wildlife
trade, and continue cooperative international efforts to prevent
poaching and trade in illegal wildlife products. The request includes
$15.8 million for the International Affairs Program, an increase of
$1.1 million above 2016. This includes increases of $500,000 to provide
technical support for international efforts to reduce illegal wildlife
trafficking and develop innovative conservation activities. Also within
International Affairs, is $550,000 to support the U.S. Chairmanship of
the Arctic Council.
The budget invests in resources for the Refuge System which has
lost more than 400 staff positions since 2010. The request for the
Refuge System is $506.6 million, an increase of $25.2 million above
2016. This includes increases of $1.0 million for pollinator
conservation, $3.7 million for wildlife and habitat inventory and
monitoring, $2.0 million to establish management capability across 418
million acres of submerged land and water within the Pacific Marine
National Monuments, and $4.4 million to begin rebuilding capacity
within the Refuge System to improve the condition of refuge system
facilities and resources, improve the visitor experience and manage
natural resources.
The budget emphasizes improving the resilience of communities and
wild landscapes, enabling them to better adapt to a rapidly changing
environment, and uses smart investments in conservation and landscape-
level planning to improve the Service's ability to facilitate economic
growth, while avoiding and mitigating the impacts on wildlife and
habitat.
Within the FWS main operating account, the request provides $252.3
million for Ecological Services to conserve, protect, and enhance
listed and at-risk species and their habitat, an increase of $18.3
million. Since 2008, FWS has downlisted or delisted 15 species, more
than in any other administration. The increases within Ecological
Services include $5.7 million to support conservation, restoration and
economic development across the Gulf Coast region and other parts of
the Country.
The budget includes $152.8 million for Fish and Aquatic
Conservation, a program increase of $4.6 million. Within this request
is $53.8 million for operation of the National Fish Hatchery System and
$7.9 million to combat the spread of Asian carp in the Missouri, Ohio,
upper Mississippi Rivers, and other high priority watersheds. The
request also includes an increase of $1.5 million to support fish
passage while improving the resilience of communities to withstand
flooding.
The budget funds Cooperative Landscape Conservation at $17.8
million, an increase of $4.8 million above 2016. The approach employed
by Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to identify landscape scale
conservation solutions fosters collaboration across a wide variety of
partners and builds capabilities beyond the scale any single State,
tribe, Federal agency, or community could achieve alone. The requested
increase will support landscape planning and design, and partner
cooperation that will improve the condition of wildlife habitat and
enhance the resilience of communities.
The 2017 budget for Science Support is $20.6 million, an increase
of $3.6 million above 2016. The request includes an additional $1.0
million to expand application of Strategic Habitat Conservation, an
approach to conservation that, in cooperation with stakeholders,
identifies priority species and habitat, desired biological outcomes,
and develops conservation strategies to achieve these outcomes. This
approach supports the design of successful management strategies that
deliver measureable improvements to wildlife populations and habitats.
The FWS will use a program increase of $2.6 million to obtain high
priority data and scientific tools needed by on-the-ground resource
managers.
The FWS budget includes $137.6 million for LWCF Federal land
acquisition, composed of $58.7 million in current funding and $79.0
million in permanent funding. Within the request for current funding,
is $19.9 million for high priority acquisition projects focused on FWS
specific needs, including $16.0 million for collaborative projects in
coordination with partners and other Federal agencies, and $2.5 million
to support increased access to FWS lands for sportsmen and
recreationists. The FWS requests $2.5 million in discretionary funding
for the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area, one of the great grassland and savanna landscapes of eastern
North America, to acquire nearly 1,000 acres to help protect high-
quality habitat for 278 Federal and State listed species. Acquisition
of this property would protect the headwaters, groundwater recharge,
and watershed of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, Kissimmee River, and
Lake Okeechobee region, and improve water quantity and quality in the
Everglades watershed, supporting the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan goals and protecting the water supply for millions of
people.
Supporting the administration's America's Great Outdoors initiative
objectives is $106.0 million for grant programs administered by FWS.
The 2017 budget maintains 2016 funding levels for grants through the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund, Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Funding for the
State and Tribal Wildlife grant program on which many States and tribes
rely to fund non-game animal conservation, is an increase of $6.4
million.
National Park Service.--The 2017 President's current budget request
for NPS of $3.1 billion is $250.2 million above the 2016 enacted level.
Highlights of the 2017 budget include $190.5 million in increases for
the NPS Centennial, as well as a focus on the stewardship of natural
and cultural resources, including a $20.0 million increase for the
Historic Preservation Fund grant programs to document and preserve
stories and sites related to the Civil Rights Movement.
The NPS budget request for operations is $2.5 billion, an increase
of $154.8 million from 2016. A $2.2 million programmatic reduction to
refocus operations funding partially offsets the following increases:
$49.2 million for additional repair and rehabilitation projects, $46.6
million for additional cyclic maintenance projects, $20.0 million for
the Every Kid in a Park initiative, $10.7 million for new parks and
responsibilities, $8.1 million for healthcare insurance for seasonal
employees, $3.0 million for climate change adaptation projects, $2.6
million for increased communications bandwidth at parks, $2.0 million
for the Vanishing Treasures program, $1.2 million to address energy
development near parks, $1.1 million for Arctic science and monitoring,
and $1.0 million for uranium mining studies in the Grand Canyon.
The 2017 budget provides a total of $35.0 million for the
Centennial Challenge matching program, an increase of $20.0 million.
These funds will provide a Federal match to leverage partner donations
for signature projects and programs at national parks into the NPS'
second century. All Federal funds must be matched on at least a 50:50
basis. In 2016, Congress appropriated $15 million for projects which
will be matched by almost $33 million from more than 90 park partners.
This program is bolstered by the administration's legislative proposal
to fund an additional $100.0 million a year for 3 years for this
program as a permanent appropriation.
The 2017 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is $87.4
million, an increase of $22.0 million from 2016. Of this total, $46.9
million is requested for grants-in-aid to States and Territories, which
is level with 2016. A total of $12.0 million is requested for grants-
in-aid to tribes, an increase of $2.0 million. The remaining $20.0
million increase is for grants to document and preserve the sites and
stories of the Civil Rights Movement; of which $17.0 million is for
competitive grants, and $3.0 million is for grants to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities.
The 2017 budget includes $54.4 million for National Recreation and
Preservation programs that support local community efforts to preserve
natural and cultural resources. This is a decrease of $8.2 million
compared to 2016. These changes consist of a program reduction of $10.4
million to Heritage Partnership Programs; and programmatic increases of
$0.9 million for modernization and digitization in the National
Register program, $0.8 million for the Preservation Technology and
Training grants program, $0.3 million for the Federal Lands to Parks
program, and fixed costs increases.
Construction funding totals $252.0 million, $59.1 million above
2016. This request provides funding critical to the implementation of
the Centennial initiative to make a meaningful impact on the NPS
deferred maintenance backlog. The budget includes $153.3 million for
line-item construction projects, a $37.1 million increase, which will
fund projects such as the $13.2 million rehabilitation of the Paradise
Inn Annex and snow bridge connection at Mount Rainier National Park in
Washington, and $13.9 million for the final phase of the rehabilitation
of the El Portal sanitary sewer to prevent raw sewage spills at
Yosemite National Park in California.
The 2017 current funding request for LWCF Land Acquisition and
State Assistance is $178.2 million, an increase of $4.6 million from
2016. This includes $110.0 million for State Assistance grants,
maintaining the increase provided in 2016. The budget requests $68.2
million for Federal Land Acquisition, an increase of $4.6 million. This
provides $26.6 for projects addressing NPS specific needs, $10.8
million for collaborative acquisition projects, $2.0 million for
projects to improve recreation access, and $10.0 million for American
Battlefield Protection Program acquisition grants. A high priority for
NPS, the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park is also part of the Island
Forests at Risk collaborative landscape proposal. An investment of $6.0
million would allow NPS to begin acquisition of a parcel which protects
the hawksbill and Green turtles, and island monk seal habitat, and
contains anchialine pond communities and coastal strands of endangered
plants. Significant archaeological sites, cultural landscapes,
petroglyphs and ancient trails are also present. Time is a concern as
the area faces potential rezoning from conservation to medium density
urban and resort development.
Indian Affairs.--The 2017 President's budget for Indian Affairs is
$2.9 billion in current appropriations, $137.6 million above the 2016
level. Funding for the main operating account for Indian Affairs,
Operation of Indian Programs is $2.4 billion, $127.9 million above
2016. The 2017 request for Construction is $197.0 million, $3.0 million
above 2016.
The 2017 budget supports continuing efforts to advance self-
governance and self-determination, improve educational outcomes for
American Indian children, support human services activities, prudently
manage tribal natural resources, build stronger economies and self-
sufficiency, and maintain safer Indian communities.
Key to self-governance and self-determination is full funding for
Contract Support Costs. The 2017 request includes $278.0 million for
Contract Support Costs, $1.0 million above 2016, which will fully fund
these costs based on the most recent analysis. As in the 2016 enacted
bill, the budget requests funding for Contract Support Costs in a
separate dedicated current account. To further stabilize long-term
funding, the 2017 budget includes a legislative proposal to reclassify
these costs as permanent funding beginning in fiscal year 2018.
The Interior budget proposes a $1.1 billion investment in Indian
education and construction to continue to support the transformation of
the BIE to support tribes in educating their youth, and deliver an
improved and culturally appropriate education across Indian Country.
The budget includes $49.3 million in increases across a number of
programmatic areas in BIE related to the transformation.
The budget includes $138.3 million for Education Construction,
maintaining the $63.7 million increase provided in 2016. The request
will provide the funding stability necessary to develop an orderly
education construction pipeline and properly pace projects. The 2016
enacted appropriation will replace two remaining BIE school campuses on
the 2004 priority list--Little Singer Community School and Cove Day
School, both in Arizona--and support planning for the schools
identified on the new school replacement construction list nearing
finalization. The 2017 funding will be applied to construction costs
for projects chosen from the new list.
To further higher education, the budget includes increases of $9.4
million for scholarships, adult education and tribal colleges and
universities; and $3.6 million for Johnson O'Malley education grants to
provide additional resources to tribes and organizations to meet the
unique and specialized educational needs of American Indian and Alaska
Native students.
To foster public-private partnerships to improve the student
experience at BIE-funded schools, the 2017 budget again proposes
appropriations language enabling the Secretary to reactivate the
National Foundation for American Indian Education. The proposed bill
language will initiate a foundation focused on fundraising to create
opportunities for Indian students in and out of the classroom.
As part of the President's commitment to protect and promote the
development of prosperous tribal communities, Indian Affairs proposes
to expand the Tiwahe ``family'' initiative. This effort takes an
integrated approach to address the inter-related challenges impacting
the lives of youth, families, and communities in Indian Country--
including poverty, violence, and substance abuse. The Tiwahe approach
seeks to empower individuals and families through health promotion,
family stability, and strengthening communities as a whole.
The 2017 budget expands the Tiwahe initiative with increases
totaling $21.0 million for programs in social services, Indian Child
Welfare Act, housing, tribal courts, and job placement and training. To
better focus funding and evaluate outcomes in meeting social service
needs in Indian Country, the Department will evaluate social service
and community development needs in Indian Country in 2016. The
evaluation will inform programmatic design, assessments, management,
and budgeting.
The budget contains a number of increases to support tribal nation-
building and economic development. The budget includes $4.0 million for
a Native One-Stop Support Center to make it easier for tribes to find
and access hundreds of services available to tribes across the Federal
Government. The 2017 budget includes $1.0 million to help tribes adopt
uniform commercial codes which help build the legal infrastructure on
reservations to promote credit and other capital transactions. The
budget provides $12.0 million to enable Interior to work with American
Indian/Alaskan Native communities to improve Federal data quality and
availability, to create a reimbursable agreement with the Census Bureau
to address data gaps in Indian Country, and to create an Office of
Indian Affairs Policy, Program Evaluation, and Data to support
effective, data-driven, tribal policy making and program
implementation. The budget also proposes $1.3 million increase for the
Small and Needy Tribes program to assist eligible tribes in expanding
and sustaining tribal governance.
The 2017 budget strongly supports sustainable stewardship of trust
lands, natural resources, and the environment in Indian Country. These
priorities include the protection and restoration of ecosystems and
important landscapes; stewardship of land, water, ocean, and energy
resources; resilience in the face of a changing climate; and clean and
sustainable energy development.
The budget provides a $15.1 million program increase over 2016
across eight natural resource programs to support tribes in developing
science, tools, training, planning, and implementation of actions to
build resilience into resource management, infrastructure, and
community development activities. Funding will be set-aside to support
Alaska Native Villages in the Arctic and other critically vulnerable
communities to evaluate options for the long-term resilience of their
communities. The budget also includes $2.0 million to address
subsistence management in Alaska to better prepare for the impacts of
climate change, as part of an ongoing commitment to improve the
Nation's resilience. In addition, the budget includes a total increase
of $8.7 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 2017 budget request for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements
is $55.2 million, a $5.7 million increase over the 2016 enacted level
for payments on enacted settlements. The budget includes $25.0 million
for the final payment to the Aamodt settlement and $10.0 million in
one-time funding to provide the Yurok Tribe, located in Northern
California, funds to acquire lands as authorized in the Hoopa-Yurok
Settlement Act. This acquisition supports efforts by the Yurok Tribe,
State of California, private foundations and individual donors to
conserve over 47,000 acres of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion to ensure
the long-term health of temperate forests, rare wildlife, and
extraordinary runs of wild salmon. The land, to be conserved as a
salmon sanctuary and sustainable community forest, will restore the
Yurok Tribe's historic connection to the land, support the Yurok
economy through jobs in forestry and restoration, and provide revenue
to the tribe through sustainable timber and salmon harvests and the
sale of carbon credits. The budget also includes increases totaling
$12.9 million in the Operation of Indian Programs account to provide
expanded technical and legal support for tribal water rights settlement
negotiations and implementation. A reduction of $29.2 million in the
settlement account reflects completion of the Taos Pueblos water
settlement in 2016.
The 2017 budget request for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program is
$7.8 million, the same as 2016, which will provide loan guarantee and
insurance authority for $106.0 million in loan principal to support
Indian economic development.
Departmental Offices.--The 2017 budget request for Departmental
Operations is $278.4 million, a decrease of $443.4 million below the
2016 enacted level. The decrease reflects a reduction of $452.0 million
associated with the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. In 2017, the
budget proposes to fund PILT as permanent funding not subject to
appropriation. State and local governments depend on PILT funding to
finance such vital services as firefighting and police protection,
construction of public schools and roads, and search and rescue
operations. Providing a mandatory source of funding will create greater
certainty that PILT investments will be available in future years. The
budget proposes mandatory PILT funding for 1 year, while a sustainable
long-term funding solution is developed for the program.
The budget proposes program increases of $1.5 million for work with
the National Invasive Species Council to develop an Early Detection
Rapid Response framework. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) has
the potential to result in significant cost savings, as compared to
battling invasive species such as Asian carp, cheatgrass, and emerald
ash borer once established. The EDRR request support multiple pilot
projects to demonstrate early detection and rapid response approaches,
as well as conducting assessments to identify current capacities and
gaps in capacities to implement EDRR.
The budget includes $1.0 million for Native Hawaiian community
development through capacity building and technical assistance. This
request will allow the Department to provide support to Native
Hawaiians similar to the capacity building and technical assistance the
Department provides to other Native Americans, and the Insular areas
consistent with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and Hawaiian Homes
Land Recovery Act. The Department will work with the Native Hawaiian
community on a variety of economic, social, and cultural projects.
The 2017 Budget includes critical investments to ensure
effectiveness and compliance of Interior information technology
investments. The request includes $3.0 million to develop a Digital
Service Team responsible for driving the efficiency and effectiveness
of the Department's highest-impact digital services. Additional
information technology investments are proposed under the Working
Capital Fund appropriated account.
Within the request for Departmental Operations is $129.3 million
for Office of Natural Resources Revenue's receipts management programs,
$3.8 million above 2016. The increase includes $968,000 to fully fund
Osage Trust Accounting responsibilities in compliance with the Osage
settlement agreement; $1.0 million to expand Geospatial Information
Systems; and $1.2 million to strengthen ONRR's audit and compliance
mission activities.
The 2017 request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $102.7
million, $12.4 million above the 2016 level excluding Palau Compact
Extension funding of $13.1 million. The 2017 budget proposes $149.0
million in permanent funding to support enactment of a new Compact with
Palau. The appropriated funding request includes increases of $4.0
million for community, landscape and infrastructure adaptation and
resilience initiatives; $3.9 million to improve health and safety
conditions in insular school facilities; $2.0 million to implement
energy projects; $2.0 million for Coral Reef Initiative and Natural
Resources; $1.6 million for direct technical assistance grants; and
$1.0 million to support invasive species eradication efforts, including
the coconut rhinoceros beetle and little fire ant. Brown Treesnake
Control is funded at $3.0 million, a program decrease of $500,000,
reflecting completion of an automated aerial bait system in 2015. The
budget requests $3.3 million for Compact of Free Association, level
with 2016, excluding $13.1 million provided for Palau Compact Extension
in 2016.
The budget includes $69.4 million for the Office of the Solicitor,
$3.6 million above 2016 to support additional personnel and necessary
legal services for delivering the Department's mission. The Office of
the Solicitor's ability to provide early and continuous legal counsel
in new priority areas to ensure that developing programs are grounded
in established legal principles and precedents is absolutely vital. The
requested increase will allow the Office of the Solicitor to provide
the much needed preventive assistance that is lost to the demands of
non-discretionary litigation. The additional funding will also be used
to restart the Honors Program, where recent law graduates are hired at
the entry level and trained to assume senior positions. This program
will ensure DOI has experienced lawyers as many senior staff becomes
eligible for retirement.
The request for the Office of the Inspector General is $55.9
million, $5.9 million above 2016 to support audits concerning Offshore
Energy Oversight, Indian Country, and Cybersecurity, and Offshore
Energy Investigations.
The Office of the Special Trustee request is $140.4 million, $1.4
million above 2016. The budget includes increases of $1.5 million to
provide additional estate planning opportunities to Indian Trust
beneficiaries; $1.3 million for an appraiser training program to
address the shortage of qualified appraisers and the resulting delays
in completing appraisal evaluations; $1.5 million to enhance talent
management capabilities and systems automation; and less than $400,000
to modernize and improve business processes and enhance the Trust Funds
Accounting System. These increases are partially offset by a $3.4
million reduction in funding for Historical Trust Accounting based on
anticipated workload levels.
Department-wide Programs.--The 2017 request for the Department's
Wildland Fire Management program is $824.6 million without the proposed
fire cap adjustment, and $1.1 billion including the adjustment. The
base budget includes $276.3 million for fire suppression, which is 70
percent of the 10 year suppression average spending. The cap adjustment
of $290.0 million covers the remaining 30 percent of the 10-year
average and provides a contingency. The cap adjustment would only be
used for the most severe fires, since it is 2 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 2017 budget includes $179.1 million for Fuels Management and
Resilient Landscapes subactivities, $9.1 million above 2016 enacted. Of
this, $30.0 million is proposed in a new Resilient Landscapes
subactivity to build on resilient landscapes activities supported by
Congress in 2015 and 2016. This equates to a $20.0 million increase for
the 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 $21.7 million in the Fuels Management
program from 2016.
Other highlights in the Wildland Fire Management budget include an
increase of $6.9 million in Preparedness to maintain or strengthen
initial and extended attack capacity. Specific increases include $2.8
million to enhance the initial attack capability of rural fire
departments and rural fire protection associations. The budget includes
program increases of $1.6 million to purchase replacement vehicles for
the BIA fire program and $1.5 million to cover utility costs for the
Alaska Fire Service's leased space. The budget includes $20.4 million
for Burned Area Rehabilitation, a $1.5 million increase to address
greater post-fire rehabilitation needs caused by the 2015 and 2016 fire
seasons; and $10.0 million for Facilities Construction and Deferred
Maintenance, a $3.6 million increase to address the deferred
maintenance backlog.
The 2017 budget request for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund is
$13.5 million, $3.5 million above 2016, to fund the remedial design for
the Red Devil Mine cleanup in Alaska. The 2017 request for Natural
Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration is $9.2 million, $1.5
million above 2016 to increase restoration activities.
The 2017 budget proposes $111.5 million for the appropriated
portion of the Department's Working Capital Fund, $44.4 million above
2016. The majority of the increase, $24.7 million, continues
cybersecurity remediation in the wake of the serious cyber intrusions
experienced during 2015. Other increases include: $10.2 million to
support the Department's multi-year effort to implement requirements
identified under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, known
as the DATA Act, and monitor compliance; $5.2 million for the
Department's Office Consolidation Strategy; $2.6 million to fund
Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act coordination and
reporting activities for the Department; $1.0 million for Cultural and
Scientific Collections; and $702,000 for Service First activities.
legislative proposals
The 2017 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 mandatory 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 2017 budget includes seven spending proposals with an
estimated $18.0 billion in outlays over the next decade. This spending
is partially offset by revenue and savings proposals to reduce outlays
from the Treasury by an estimated $4.5 billion over the next decade.
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act and the Coastal Climate
Resilience Program.--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
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. The administration proposes to repeal
GOMESA revenue-sharing payments to these select States from Gulf of
Mexico oil and gas leases, which are set to expand substantially
starting in 2018.
More than half of the savings, $2.0 billion, from the repeal of
GOMESA revenue sharing payments to States will be redirected to a new
Coastal Climate Resilience Program to provide resources for at-risk
coastal States, local governments, and their communities to prepare for
and adapt to climate change. A portion of these program funds would be
set aside to cover the unique impacts of climate change in Alaska where
some native villages are so threatened by rising seas, coastal erosion,
and storm surges, that they must prepare for potential relocation.
Historic Preservation Fund.--The budget includes a legislative
proposal to extend the authority to deposit $150.0 million in receipts
from offshore oil and gas revenues annually into the Historic
Preservation Fund.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support Costs.--The budget
includes a legislative proposal to reclassify funding for the existing
Contract Support Costs program from discretionary to mandatory
beginning in fiscal year 2018. The budget proposes to adjust the
discretionary budget caps to reflect the reclassification to mandatory
funding. New contract support cost estimates will be provided on a 3-
year cycle as part of the reauthorization process.
POWER+ Accelerate AML Distribution for Mine Cleanup and Economic
Recovery.--The budget proposes to allocate a portion of the remaining
unappropriated balance of the Abandoned Mine Lands 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.
United Mineworkers of America 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 long-term solvency. The plan, which covers more than 100,000
mineworkers, is underfunded and approaching insolvency. The new formula
will provide an additional $375.0 million to the UMWA in 2017 and $4.2
billion over 10 years.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The budget proposes $900.0
million in combined current and mandatory funding in 2017, and starting
in 2018, 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
2017, the budget proposes $425.0 million for mandatory funding and
$475.0 million for current funding, to be shared by Interior and
Agriculture.
National Parks Centennial Act.--The budget proposes enactment of
legislation, the National Park Service Centennial Act, to honor the
Park Service's 100th anniversary. The Act specifically authorizes the
following: $100.0 million a year for 3 years for the Centennial
Challenge to leverage private donations; $300.0 million a year for 3
years for NPS deferred maintenance; and $100.0 million a year for 3
years for a Public Lands Centennial Fund, which will competitively
allocate funds for projects on public lands to 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 NPS to plan ahead more efficiently to achieve significant
results. Stable and predictable funding streams will allow projects to
be appropriately scheduled and phased for more effective project
delivery and completion. The proposal includes the authority to collect
additional camping or lodging fees, and funds from purchases of the
lifetime pass for citizens 62 years of age or older. Receipts for this
Second Century Fund will be matched by donations in order to fund
visitor enhancement projects. The impact of this new revenue source is
estimated at $40.4 million in 2017. Also included is a proposal to
establish a program to allow a Visitor Services Management Authority to
award and manage contracts for the operation of commercial visitor
services programs and activities.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The budget proposes to
reauthorize this Act which expired on July 25, 2011, to allow lands
identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to be sold
using this authority. The sales revenue will be used to fund the
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and administrative costs
associated with conducting the sales.
Recreation Fee Program.--The budget proposes legislation to
permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act,
authorized through September 30, 2017. The program currently brings in
an estimated $335 million in recreation fees annually under this
authority that are used to enhance the visitor experience on Federal
land recreation sites.
Federal Oil and Gas Reforms.--The budget includes a package of
legislative reforms to bolster administrative actions to reform
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 and on improving transparency and oversight.
Proposed statutory and administrative changes fall into three general
categories: advancing royalty reforms, encouraging diligent development
of oil and gas leases, and improving revenue collection processes.
Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $1.7 billion in
revenue to the Treasury over 10 years, of which $1.2 billion will
result from statutory changes. Many States also will benefit from
higher Federal revenue sharing payments as a result of these reforms.
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. The budget assumes authorization of mandatory funding for
the Compact in 2017 to strengthen the foundations for economic
development in Palau by developing public infrastructure and improving
healthcare and education. The cost for this proposal for 2017-2024 is
$149.0 million.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--The budget proposes to extend PILT
mandatory funding for an additional year with the current PILT payment
formula based on the amount of Federal land within an eligible unit of
local government, its population, and certain other Federal payments
the local government may receive. The cost of a 1 year extension of the
PILT program is estimated to be $480.0 million in 2017.
Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines.--The budget proposes to
create an Abandoned Mine Lands Program for abandoned hardrock sites
financed through a new AML fee on hardrock production on both public
and private lands. The fee is estimated to generate $1.8 billion
through 2026 to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites
on Federal, State, tribal, and private lands.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The budget proposes to
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. Half of the receipts will be distributed to the States in which
the leases are located and the remaining half will be deposited in the
U.S. Treasury. The proposal is projected to generate revenues to the
U.S. Treasury of $80.0 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 $258 million over 10
years, will be used to reclaim high priority abandoned coal mines and
reduce a portion of the estimated $6.0 billion needed to address
remaining dangerous coal AML sites nationwide.
Termination of AML Payments to Certified States.--The 2017 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 $520.0 million
over the next 10 years.
Termination of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties.--The 2017
budget 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 $41.0 million over 10 years.
Bureau of Land Management Foundation.--The budget proposes to
establish a congressionally chartered National BLM Foundation to
leverage private funding to support public lands, achieve shared
outcomes, and focus public support on the BLM mission.
National Foundation for American Indian Education.--The budget
proposes appropriations language enabling the Secretary to reactivate a
foundation created by Congress in 2000 to generate private donations in
support of the mission of the Bureau of Indian Education. The proposal
will allow the foundation to start anew to obtain nonprofit tax exempt
status, with a new Board of Directors focused on making the foundation
a successful fund raising entity.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act--Duck Stamp.--The
budget includes a legislative proposal to provide limited authority to
increase the price of a Duck Stamp, with the approval of the Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission, to keep pace with inflation.
Wildland Fire Suppression Disaster Cap Adjustment.--The budget
proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
to establish a new framework for funding Fire Suppression Operations to
provide stable funding, while minimizing the adverse impacts of fire
transfers on the budgets of other programs. Under this new framework,
the 2017 budget request covers 70 percent of the 10-year suppression
average within the domestic discretionary cap or $276.3 million for the
Department of the Interior. This base level ensures the cap adjustment
will only be used for the most severe fire activity as 2 percent of the
fires incur 30 percent of the costs. Only extreme fires that require
emergency response or are near urban areas or activities during
abnormally active fire seasons--which rightly should be considered
disasters--will be permitted to be funded through the adjustment to the
discretionary spending limits. For 2017, the request for the budget cap
adjustment for the Department is $290.0 million. The cap adjustment
does not increase overall spending, as the ceiling for the existing
disaster relief cap will be reduced by the same amount as the increase
required for fire suppression.
offsetting collections and fees
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Risk Management Fee.--The budget
proposes appropriations language for a new cost recovery fee to recoup
funds for services rendered by the Risk Management Program. The program
is critical to protecting the American taxpayer from becoming
financially responsible for liabilities associated with oil and gas and
renewable energy operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. This
proposed fee will generate an estimated $2.9 million annually, fully
offsetting the requested risk management programmatic increase in 2017.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Inspection Fee.--The
budget includes appropriations language modifying and expanding the
enacted inspection fee language to clarify that facilities subject to
multiple inspections are subject to additional fees for each
inspection. The BSEE estimates the inspection fees will generate $65.0
million in 2017.
Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through appropriations
language, Interior proposes to implement inspection fees in 2017 for
onshore oil and gas activities subject to inspection by BLM. The
proposed inspection fees are expected to generate $48.0 million in
2017, level with 2016. The fees are similar to those already in place
for offshore operations and will support Federal efforts to increase
production accountability, safety, and environmental protection.
Grazing Administrative Fee.--The budget proposes a grazing
administrative fee to offset costs to administer the program. The
budget proposes to implement a fee of $2.50 per animal unit month
through appropriations language on a pilot basis. Interior estimates
the fee will generate $16.5 million in 2017 to support the Rangeland
Management program at the 2016 level. 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 includes
appropriations language to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to
retain recoveries for the cost to restore or replace damaged habitat
from responsible parties.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2017
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, Secretary.
Mr. Connor or Ms. Sarri, were either of you prepared to
provide an opening statement or should we just go to questions?
Secretary Jewell. Just questions.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, thank you.
KING COVE
Let me start off, Madam Secretary, as I mentioned to you in
my opening statement, and as we discussed in the Energy
Committee hearing last week, my ongoing concern about the
situation in King Cove, the promise that you had made to me and
to the committee to do what you could to help the people of
King Cove. As I noted, I do not see anything in the President's
budget that would help to facilitate that promise.
You have indicated that the report that you had requested
has been completed. I asked if that would be released. You
indicated that it would be. Can you give me an indication as to
when we might expect that?
Secretary Jewell. I did ask my Chief of Staff, as you know,
an Alaskan, to follow up on that, which he is doing. One
complication I did not realize last week is it is actually the
Army Corps' report, so we will need to work with them on
posting it. But Tommy is working through it, and we will make
sure we get it to your office as soon as we are able to do
that.
Senator Murkowski. We conveniently have a hearing with the
Army Corps this afternoon, so perhaps I will have a chance to
ask them that question at that point in time.
Are you able to provide me any details of the report at
this point in time?
Secretary Jewell. I am happy to go through just a high-
level overview. As I expressed in the letter from July, three
alternatives were identified in that report. As we discussed,
and I know we differ on this point, I do not support a road
through the refuge because of the extraordinary damage we
believe----
Senator Murkowski. I understand that. If what you are
telling me is that what we will see in this report is what we
have seen before, then I would rather not take the
subcommittee's time to have you detail that right now, because,
as you know, that was unacceptable not only to me before, but
it was unacceptable to the people of King Cove.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
So we will continue this discussion, but let me move to
another issue that is equally unsettling to the people of
Alaska right now. That is the proposed regulations from the
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife on the proposal to govern
wildlife management and procedures to close areas that are
currently open to hunting and fishing in the State.
These are controversial because they call into question
State management authority over fish and game, over resources
within their borders. This is contrary and inconsistent with
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), a
statute which gives the State of Alaska and the Department of
Fish and Game management inside our preserves, our refuges, and
our parks. Do you believe that the State of Alaska has the
right to manage its wildlife within the borders of the State?
Secretary Jewell. Certainly, Senator Murkowski, I believe
the State has the right to manage its wildlife. I also, though,
say that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service
must operate within the congressional mandates they have. What
they have struck in this is really around non-subsistence take
of predators, things like----
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about that subsistence take,
because I know you have said that these regs do not impact
subsistence. But since the amount of game that is available for
natives around the State is definitely impacted by the take of
wildlife by predators, how can you suggest that somehow the
subsistence rights of our native people are not impacted by
these new predator control policies?
A bigger question is whether you think it is proper for the
Federal Government to effectively reverse the State Board of
Game decisions, because that is effectively what we are seeing
here. From Alaska's perspective, we have ANILCA that says the
State has the right to manage. Now you have the Federal
Government, the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
saying, yes, except for when we think that what we are doing is
more appropriate.
It is a violation of what has been set out not only within
ANILCA but within the United States Constitution. I hope you
appreciate the anxiety that has been created right now in the
State because of these proposed regulations.
I know you had a discussion with Congressman Young about
this yesterday. You know where he is coming from, clearly. I
think you know where myself and Senator Sullivan are coming
from on it.
We have a collision going on right now between your Federal
agencies with the Park Service and with the Fish and Wildlife
Service stepping in and telling a State that, effectively, we
do not think that the State can manage what by Constitution and
Federal law we have given you that authority to manage.
That is more of a rhetorical question for you, but you need
to understand how significant an issue this has become in the
State of Alaska. It may be right up there with the fight on the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and King Cove. It may
surpass them all, because this truly does go to a State's
rights issue.
I am out of my 6 minutes already, so I am going to turn to
my ranking member, but we will have time for multiple rounds
here.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Several Senators on my side have urgent hearings to
actually chair, so I am going to defer my questions and call on
Senator Leahy to ask questions at this point. Thank you very
much, Madam Chair.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Udall.
Secretary Jewell, as I mentioned to you earlier, it is
great to see you here. I was thinking, as we were looking at
the picture, when you were in Vermont this time for the Leahy
Environmental Summit, I am glad you were able to enjoy a day of
snowshoeing in Vermont's Green Mountains, something both my
wife and I love to do at our home.
But you know what? Last year, you had about 6 feet of snow
in Vermont's backcountry. If you were there today, the grass
would be sticking up through the little bit of snow on the
ground. At our home, we have not been able to snowshoe or
cross-country ski. It has just been strange, so let me ask you
a couple questions.
I understand you got an earful on the House side yesterday.
Members blamed you and the administration for all sorts of harm
to the States, almost suggesting you personally control the
price of fossil fuels. Oil just went up, so I am sure they are
all going to call you this morning and give you credit for
that, too.
But I want to praise you for your foresight and leadership
in addressing this problem. We have an obligation not only to
current taxpayers, but to future generations to see that all
Federal programs deliver a fair return to American taxpayers.
That can be coal mining activity, offshore oil exploration,
logging, even our Federal grazing permits. The price to extract
these natural resources should not be so heavily subsidized
that it encourages damage to our Federal lands or wildlife or
causes, as it could, permanent damage to the taxpayers of this
country.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
My question is, does your proposed fiscal year 2017 budget
provide the resources to complete a full evaluation of the coal
leasing program? Will it include a cost-benefit analysis to
consider, among other things, carbon emissions and medium- and
long-term impacts of climate change? Could you do a similar
valuation on oil exploration?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. It
was a pleasure to be in your State.
I will say, a year ago, when I was in Senator Murkowski's
State, the green grass was poking through, because they did not
have snow.
We are launching a programmatic environmental impact
statement on the coal program. It has not been done for 30
years. It is very evident from a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report and our own Inspector General report, there
are not only questions about the adequacy of payment to the
taxpayers, but also that it does not take into account the
impact of climate change.
The assessment we will launch with this programmatic
environmental impact statement (PEIS) will take into account
climate change and the impact broadly of the coal program, as
well as the returns and the royalties.
I cannot get it done within the time I am here. It is too
complicated. It takes too long. We will have an interim report,
which will scope out exactly what will be done, with a timeline
through which we intend to complete that work.
I have not, at this point, contemplated a similar program
on the oil and gas activities. Coal has been criticized, as I
mentioned, by our own Inspector General and the GAO, so I am
prioritizing that.
WIND ENERGY AND BATS
Senator Leahy. There are other programs that you have for
development of renewable energy projects. You have wind energy
on Federal land. I wrote to the department last week on Bat
Week. I will point out that I don't talk about fictional
Batman. I talk about real bats and what they do helping with
our crops, keeping down pests, and other all these other
things.
If you have wind energy, you also have this question of bat
and bird interaction, migrating birds, bats, and so on. If
additional resources are available, what could your department
do to, one, make progress on wind energy, but also in a way
that would help with flights of birds and flights of bats, all
of which are so important to our whole ecosystem.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much for pointing out the
importance of bats, in particular, as pollinators, and they are
in real trouble right now because of White-Nose Syndrome, which
you are well aware of.
I have seen through the USGS the work we are doing with the
wind energy industry and others on early warning systems to
detect when there are avian species like bats and birds in the
area, that will proactively shutdown wind turbines. It is a
relatively modest amount, and I would say that if we had more,
we could probably accelerate that work. Some of it is being
paid for by industry, which is also appropriate, to reduce
those impacts. And it is a concern of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Where we site these wind energy projects on public lands,
it does take into account the migration patterns and the
potential impact.
But with more resources, we certainly could do more.
Senator Leahy. Let me and my office help you with that, and
also, help you with industry, because people are concerned, as
you know. And I know you are.
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
One last question. Your department, like others, relies on
temporary employees for programs we have funded either through
partnership agreements or the discretion of Congress. I worry
sometimes these temporary employees are on permanent things.
For example, at the risk of being at all parochial in this
committee of all committees, we have the Lake Champlain sea
lamprey control. The Fish and Wildlife Service has run this
continuously now for 25 years. Some of the employees are
classified as temporary. We always have money in there for this
program.
I worry these temporary--they have to be experts. If they
are temporary, they say, I can get a job somewhere else, and
they leave and we lose all the expertise. How do we make these
people permanent?
Secretary Jewell. Madam Chair, do you mind if I respond? I
know we are over time.
Senator Leahy. I am sure she has similar things in Alaska,
for that matter.
Secretary Jewell. Well, quickly, I will say our budget does
support an increase for the wildlife refuge system. That would
enable us to take some positions that are temporary and make
them permanent.
Specific to the sea lamprey, we actually have four
positions that are supported by the State Department because of
the cross-border issues with Canada. Those, because they are
not funded by our department, are term positions, and, are
therefore, temporary. We certainly would be willing to look at
a more permanent authorization for them.
There is a blend of the Fish and Wildlife budget being
lower in the past, and we asked for increases, but also part of
it is being supported by the State Department. We appreciate
the challenge.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. If one of my colleagues has a hearing to
chair, they can go ahead.
Senator Reed. I have a hearing. Thank you. Very gracious.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me begin by
commending you and your colleague for your great leadership.
Thank you very much.
BLACKSTONE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK
Madam Secretary, thank you. One of the major developments
in Rhode Island, as you know, is the creation of the Blackstone
National Historic Park. Thank you, because you were there with
us kayaking along the Blackstone River. We thank you for that.
The way it is envisioned, it is a partnership park. The
existing Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor, a federally
funded entity, is going to work in partnership with the
National Park Service to develop the plan to implement it and
to do all those things.
But there is a growing concern, and I would like your
comments about how you balance these two entities, so that they
have adequate resources to continue their jobs and one does not
suffer at the expense of the other as we go forward and
coordinate their operations. Could you comment on that, Madam
Secretary?
Secretary Jewell. I will make a quick comment. We have just
slightly above the funding recommended for 2017 versus 2016.
For 2017, it is $932,000. In 2016, the funding with the
National Heritage Areas was $501,000. Once we get the 2017
amount, the Park Service will work closely with the National
Heritage Area to figure out what the appropriate split is.
I certainly understand how important that funding is, and I
will pass that along to the Park Service.
Senator Reed. Thank you. I think both entities now have to
continue at an appropriate pace. At some point, there might be
a transition point where the Park Service accumulates more
support and activities as we go forward. But at this point, I
think it is important to keep both those entities empowered,
resourced, and working together.
Another issue with respect to the park, because it is such
a major undertaking, the first one in our State, and we are all
looking forward to its successful implementation, one of the
first sites is likely to be Slater Mill, which is really the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the United States. It
is the first real factory in America.
That is likely to be the first component of the park. Do
you have any notion about how that transfer will be completed
in this fiscal year, the resources available, and sort of
anything else you might want to add?
Secretary Jewell. I have been to the Slater Mill site. It
is extraordinary, and compliments to the community on that. I
have not spoken with the Park Service specifically about plans
for Slater Mill, so let me get back to you on the record for
that one.
[The information follows:]
slater mill
The National Park Service (NPS) is working closely with the Old
Slater Mill Association to acquire the Historic Slater Mill campus. The
board of the non-profit has agreed to the property transfer, which will
make this property the anchor and manageable unit of the new park. The
estimate for the transfer of the property is spring 2017. Currently,
title work is underway.
Once the property is owned by the NPS, it is anticipated that the
Old Slater Mill Association will continue to offer high quality
programming at Slater Mill and remain an active partner in the
management of the national park property. The NPS will use its current
budget to support that programming, as well as preserve and maintain
the historic structures. Of the $926,000 budget this fiscal year, the
park retained $425,000 and transferred $501,000 to the national
heritage area. This $425,000 is the core of the resources available for
the new park, though it is also anticipated that the NPS will fund one-
time projects such as investing in waysides and signs within the next
year.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Secretary, and your staff.
And I want to thank the chairwoman again, and particularly
thank Senator Cassidy for his graciousness. Because I have to
get back to another hearing, I will just wish you well.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. So, theoretically, that was the
majority's turn. We should go to this side, but Senator Cassidy
was gracious, so I do not know, we will ask you, Senator
Cassidy.
Senator Reed. We all vote for Senator Cassidy.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
OIL AND GAS RULEMAKING
Senator Cassidy. Secretary Jewell, when you put out the
well control rule and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
venting rule, I am told that you used $80 oil and $4 natural
gas to justify the economics. Is that correct?
Secretary Jewell. I do not know specifically what was used
in the economic assumptions. That probably is correct, given
the timing that it was done, but we can get back to you and
confirm that.
Senator Cassidy. Is it fair to say that probably the
economics of that are now different because of the lower
prices?
Secretary Jewell. To the extent the economics are dependent
on oil prices, it would be, but oil prices, of course, are a
commodity and they fluctuate from $100 to below $30 a barrel.
So, I do not know how much that specifically impacts the cost
of the well control rule. It certainly impacts the industry.
Senator Cassidy. Now, when it impacts the economics of the
industry, it is fair to say that a well that could be
economically developed at $80 a barrel probably cannot be at
$30. That just goes without saying. There is a marginal cost to
compliance with regulation, and if that marginal cost is on $30
as opposed to $80, it is going to make a difference in
economics. I think that goes without saying.
Secretary Jewell. Well, if I can just say there are a lot
of things that will impact the economics. The cost of the rig,
the cost to drill, the risk, and all of those things are
factored in.
Senator Cassidy. Absolutely.
Secretary Jewell. I used to do this for a living, so I
certainly understand that.
Senator Cassidy. I get that. But, marginal cost of
regulation is a cost.
WELL CONTROL RULE
Now, according to a Wood Mackenzie report, the well control
rule, the cost of compliance, could cause a decline of 55
percent in exploratory wells by 2030. I just say that for the
record. Others may fuss with that.
But at the same time, it is fair to say that there is some
cost associated with the well control rule.
That said, one of the concerns that has been raised with me
regarding the well control rule is that the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is promulgating this, and
they are promulgating it, but it apparently violates a
congressional mandate that specifically is the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the NTTAA, which bars
the use of government unique technical standards in lieu of
voluntary consensus standards. Again, I have a document here
that goes through the statement of it.
Any thoughts about that? Because it does seem, what I have
heard about the well control rule is being given kind of ex
cathedra as opposed to from a voluntary consensus methodology.
Secretary Jewell. I have never heard of the Act you
referenced, but I am confident through our solicitors that
everything we are doing in regard to the well control rule is
within our rights and consistent with what we believe we must
do for the safe and responsible development of offshore
resources, particularly in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon
spill.
Senator Cassidy. It isn't insofar as--believe me, I care
about the Deepwater Horizon. It is not insofar as regulations
are not required but rather that BSEE is supposed to show that
voluntary consensus standards are impractical. I am not sure
that it is clear that the voluntary consensus standards are
impractical, and I am not sure that it has been shown.
So, it is not so much the regulation should not be
promulgated but rather the technique should be first the
consensus standards, and then only, again, my term, if you
will, is ex cathedra being prescribed without the consensus
standards being formed.
Obviously, that might be something a little technical, but
if you could address that for the record, I would appreciate
that.
Secretary Jewell. We are happy to follow up.
Senator Cassidy. Related to that, and again on the well
control rule, is that, clearly, if we are going to have an
impact upon the ability of oil wells to be drilled, that is
going to affect the energy supply in the United States. I am
told that under Executive Order 13211, from May 18, 2001, such
things require a statement of energy effects.
BSEE has denied that there is an impact upon energy supply
from these regulations, which seems a little crazy. But
nonetheless, if they do, it means that they have another
reporting requirement.
Any thoughts about that? It just seems so self-evident that
if you are going to have an impact upon the supply of oil and
gas that you are going to have an energy effect. That may be a
little technical for this conversation. I do not know if you
are prepared to comment on that.
Secretary Jewell. I will just comment briefly that the well
control rule really codifies many of the practices currently in
place in the Gulf that were addressed after the Deepwater
Horizon spill. I do not support the notion that the regulation
itself would impact energy supply. I am happy to get back to
you for the record.
[The information follows:]
impact of the nttaa on the development of the well control rule
BSEE's promulgation of the rule is consistent with the NTTAA's
requirement that agencies use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies rather than government-
unique standards, except where inconsistent with law or impractical.
BSEE expressly proposed to incorporate the following voluntary
consensus technical standards in its rule:
--American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 53 (Blowout Prevention
Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells);
--American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/API Specification
(Spec.) 11D1 (Packers and Bridge Plugs);
--ANSI/API Spec. 16A (Drill-through Equipment);
--API Spec. 16C (Choke and Kill Systems);
--API Spec. 16D (Control Systems for Drilling Well Control Equipment
and Control Systems for Diverter Equipment);
--ANSI/API Spec. 17D (Design and Operation of Subsea Production
Systems--Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment); and
--ANSI/API RP 17H (Remotely Operated Vehicle Interfaces on Subsea
Production Systems).
The NTTAA and the associated implementing guidance in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 permit an agency to include
in its regulations a voluntary consensus standard ``in whole [or] in
part . . . .'' (OMB Circular A-119, at p. 3). Thus, the NTTAA does not
require that BSEE incorporate every provision of each standard. For
example, BSEE has excluded from its regulations the API Standard 53
provision that authorizes offshore operators to ``opt-out'' of the
requirement to use dual shear rams for BOPs on floating facilities.
BSEE believes that a decision to ``opt out'' should be based on a risk
assessment subject to oversight.
In addition, OMB explains that the NTTAA:
[D]oes not preempt or restrict agencies' authorities and
responsibilities to make regulatory decisions authorized by
statute. Such regulatory authorities and responsibilities
include determining the level of acceptable risk and risk-
management, and due care; setting the level of protection; and
balancing risk, cost, and availability of alternative
approaches in establishing regulatory requirements. (OMB
Circular A-119, at p. 25).
BSEE's proposed variations from the industry standard do not
indicate that the bureau is seeking to use government-unique standards
in its regulations. Rather, BSEE's non-incorporation of portions of
industry standards is fully consistent with the NTTAA because OMB has
clarified that agencies may incorporate consensus standards in whole or
in part in their regulations. Additionally, OMB has clarified that the
NTTAA does not preempt or restrict an agency's authority to make
regulatory determinations about the level of acceptable risk and risk-
management, and due care, setting the level of protection, and
balancing risk and cost. BSEE's incorporation of less than all of API
Standard 53 is based upon these principles and is not inconsistent with
the NTTAA.
The potential impacts of the well control rule on oil and gas
supplies:
BSEE received comments that the initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
did not account for asserted impacts of the proposed regulation on
national energy security. These comments appear to assume that this
rulemaking will cause a reduction in domestic oil production, thereby
implicating the requirements of Executive Order 13211 applicable to
agency actions that significantly affect the Nation's energy supply,
distribution, or use. These comments suggested that the rule would
weaken national energy security by reducing domestic oil production and
increasing reliance on foreign oil. BSEE does not agree with this
comment. BSEE's own analysis indicates that the net effect of the final
rule on the oil and gas industry would be positive (i.e., the potential
benefits exceed the potential costs). This does not support the
assumption that the rule would precipitate a reduction in domestic oil
production. The regulations consist of an envisioned level of safety
derived from numerous post-Deepwater Horizon studies and existing
industry standards. The regulations also allow for alternative methods
to achieve the envisioned level of safety. There is no reason to
conclude that this approach will adversely affect U.S. energy
production. Technological advancements and variable market factors,
such as the price of oil, which are unrelated to the requirements of
the proposed rule, are likely to be the most important factors to
affect future domestic oil production.
Senator Cassidy. Please. And I will say that, speaking to
folks, they actually feel like the initial rules that came out
after the Macondo were actually fairly reasonable. It is those
that were proposed that would go beyond it that are again being
given almost, in effect, by fiat, not with consensus standards.
According to at least one consultant, it is going to have a
significant impact upon the drilling of exploratory wells.
So we will fashion these for the record, and look forward
to your reply.
Secretary Jewell. If I could just say briefly, there was a
lot of industry input after the draft rule. Those have been
taken into account, and I believe you will see significant
changes from the draft rule to the final when it is released.
Senator Cassidy. Sounds great.
LAND BUY-BACK PROGRAM
On the Land Buy-Back Program, what is the cost basis for
the sale of the land? Does that include the mineral rights that
might be beneath it, the grazing rights, et cetera?
Secretary Jewell. Mike.
Mr. Connor. We are not typically acquiring land through the
Land Buy-Back Program with mineral rights on it. We are right
now excluding----
Senator Cassidy. I thought this is where the Indian tribes
were allowed--the Native American tribes were allowed to buy
land back from the United States. Did I misunderstand that
program?
Mr. Connor. This is one where resources are provided to
acquire these fractionated interests in lands and restore to
tribal ownership. So there are significant tracks out there
that do not have mineral interests. We are doing appraisals of
those lands and restoring those to tribal----
Senator Cassidy. I see. So, those typically do not have
mineral and grazing rights associated with them.
Mr. Connor. That is correct.
Secretary Jewell. Just to clarify, they are not Federal
lands. Typically, they are in fractionated private ownership
consolidated for the tribes.
Senator Cassidy. Okay. I yield back. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
I, too, want to thank Senator Cassidy for his courtesy.
That happens seldom around here, so we thank you for that very,
very much, even though I was not the beneficiary directly.
Secretary Jewell, thank you for being here. I want to talk
about the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a second. We
have been over the numbers before. You know the impact it has
on Montana's overall economy--$5.8 billion in consumer spending
in a State of 1 million people. Seventy percent of Montana
businesses list public access as a major reason they do
business in our State.
In 1978, this fund was funded at $900 million--1978, the
year I graduated from college, a long time ago. Now we are
finally back up to $900 million, $475 million discretionary,
$425 million mandatory. I appreciate that.
Back in 1978, it was supposed to be funded by offshore oil
revenue. When we had this debate on the Senate floor, people
said there was lots of money in this account, lots of money in
this account. It was my understanding it flows into the general
fund.
The question for you is, do we need an offset for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund? When it was set up in 1978, it was
set up to be at $900 million, and somebody took that money and
we never heard a word about offset back in those days.
Secretary Jewell. There are people here with much more
history on this body than I have. It was authorized at $900
million. It has fluctuated wildly, and less than half, I
believe, has actually been appropriated, and the rest has been
used for other purposes.
Senator Tester. Was it appropriated at $900 million back
then, do you know?
Secretary Jewell. It was.
Senator Tester. And it has been appropriated at that level
a few times since then.
The reason I bring this up is because in my opinion at
least these places are not going to be around forever. They
might not be around in 10 or 20 years. When you are looking at
proposals, what are you looking at when you utilize this fund
money?
Secretary Jewell. There is a stateside program, which is
prioritized by States. That is very, very important. On the
Federal programs, we really have a list that is far longer than
what we are able to do for things like sportsman's access,
critical parcels between pieces of public land that promote
access, inholdings where it is costing us money to provide
rights-of-way that would actually reduce our costs. There are a
number of different things.
Senator Tester. Does the $900 million bring you up to a
point where you can address all of the requests?
Secretary Jewell. No.
Senator Tester. Half the requests?
Secretary Jewell. No. It would just enable us to make
progress. There is a much longer list of requests.
Senator Tester. I appreciate you trying to get back to the
$900 million figure. It actually should have been indexed so it
would be more than that now, in my opinion. These are special
ecosystems that are not going to be around much longer.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
I want to talk about the Federal coal program for a second.
I believe in transparency. I believe in a fair return to the
taxpayer. These public lands are owned by every citizen in this
country, contrary to what some might say.
I think that it is critical that we get a fair return on
those coal dollars. I think, and correct me if I am wrong, the
last time there was an assessment done on Federal land, coal
leasing was in the early 1980s. Is that correct?
Secretary Jewell. It was 30 years ago. It was 1986.
Senator Tester. Nineteen eighty-six, the year that I bought
a brand-new Chevy pickup four-wheel drive, three-quarter ton
for $12,000. That same pickup would cost around $38,000 now, by
the way, because I am looking to trade it off.
But that aside, can you tell me, I think it is a good idea
to do the research and it is a good idea to make sure we are
getting a fair return, but this cannot go on forever. I mean,
it has to be a date certain.
I have heard 3 years. Is 3 years a reasonable amount time
to get this survey done? And, if it is, would you support
legislation saying that?
Secretary Jewell. I would support legislation putting a
date certain. Three years, we believe, is as fast as we could
do it. The program review done in the 1980s was longer than
that. The pause on coal leasing extended longer than that, as a
result.
I will be putting in place a date certain timeline when I
leave, but that could be undone by a successor and I would
welcome a clear timeline so we can complete this in a timely
way.
GRAZING FEES
Senator Tester. Okay, Madam Chairman brought up the Federal
grazing fee. It was raised up to $2.11 in this budget, correct
me if I am wrong, maybe it was not. Maybe it was done before
that.
The point I want to make is this. There are some who want
to transfer our Federal lands to our States. The amount of
grazing fees that are charged by the States are much, much,
much higher. And the private grazing fees are much higher than
the State fees.
Could you talk about, because I do not know that a lot of
people are talking about this--we have more cattle in Montana
than we have people, by the way. Can you talk about the impact
transferring these Federal BLM or Forest Service lands to
States would have on grazing fees?
Secretary Jewell. The impact would be dramatic. The Federal
Government charges $2.11, which was set by Congress many years
ago. While our budget asks for an administrative fee of $2.50,
right now we cannot even cover 35 percent of our costs of
administering the program.
Just to give you some examples, in your home State, the
State charges $19.57 compared to the Federal Government's
$2.11. In Colorado, it varies between $9 and $15.25. In
Wyoming, it is $6.14. On private lands, it is $21, 10 times
what the Federal Government rate is. That is pretty consistent.
I would say that for the grazing interests, people are
getting an incredibly good deal on BLM lands right now. The
increase we are talking about still would not even fully cover
our costs just to administer the program.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you on this budget.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good to see you again, Secretary Jewell.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
Last week in the Energy Committee, I mentioned my concerns
about the programmatic review and the pause on coal leasing. It
is very troubling for many back home in Montana and for the
Crow tribe. I think we need to be careful to not make producing
Federal coal completely uneconomical.
That is a reality that is dangerously close under the
current administration's moratorium on coal leasing, and if not
inevitable, if our States and I think our tribes are left out
of the process.
At last week's hearing, I asked about gathering input from
the States and the tribes, and you mentioned six listening
sessions the department has had, and that there is a very open
process. Several tribal members and others who rely on these
coal jobs to provide for their families for the revenues, for
the general fund, expressed strong concern regarding potential
administration actions at the listening session that was
actually held in Billings, Montana. In fact, most present there
expressed concern.
Yet the administration is moving forward with this
programmatic review and a coal leasing moratorium. Quite
frankly, I think there needs to be something more formal to
allow the States and tribes and other stakeholders a more
predictable and impactful seat at the table, like the Royalty
Policy Committee, which actually you allowed to lapse in 2014.
I think Congresswoman Lummis mentioned that yesterday in a
hearing.
ROYALTY POLICY COMMITTEE
The question was, why did the agency allow the proposed
rulemaking initiative to move forward when the Royalty Policy
Committee, which was important--it has members from the States,
from the tribes, from non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
from industry, the committee lapsed in 2014, a very important
voice in this process. Why did we go forward with rulemaking
initiatives when you allowed that committee to lapse?
COAL PROGRAM
Secretary Jewell. Let me say a couple things, if I may.
First, I will have to look into the committee lapsing, but
royalty rates on the Federal coal program have not changed in
30 years, so I am not sure of the function of the committee.
There are minimum royalty rates set, and then a lot of
exceptions that actually reduce the royalty rates. We have seen
a real decline in revenue coming in from the coal program, and
the decline in production is really due to economic factors
like the switch to natural gas and a change in the interest in
exports of coal, which I know the Crow tribe was interested in.
The bonuses over the last 10 years were about $.875 per
ton. And in 2015, $.315 a ton, so the price is collapsing on
coal due to market conditions.
ROYALTY POLICY COMMITTEE
Senator Daines. Right. I understand the dynamic nature
certainly of what is going on. I guess, it makes it in my
opinion even more important--why wouldn't we want to have the
States' voice, the tribes' voice, industries' voice, NGOs'
voices there in a more formal process as far as their input
goes, which was a key part of this Royalty Policy Committee,
which lapsed in 2014?
Secretary Jewell. I just had some more recent information
handed to me.
The Royalty Policy Committee last met in 2008. The charter
was renewed in 2010, but did not meet because of other events--
Deepwater Horizon, after which the Minerals Management Service,
was reorganized and created the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue was created. The Royalty Policy Committee was set up to
expire in 2012.
It was renewed as a potential vehicle for the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative multi-stakeholder group, but
the most recent charter expired in 2014, and our Office of
Natural Resources Revenue did not feel it made sense to
reestablish it.
But we are happy to look into that more for the record.
That is as much information as I have right now.
Senator Daines. The concern I hear back home is that we
want to make sure the States' voices are heard in that process,
that the tribes' voices are heard in that process, the industry
voices are in that process, as well as NGOs. I think the stakes
are perhaps much higher now than they might have been in the
past and why it is so important.
I believe this policy needs to be reinstated. And I am
concerned why rulemaking is going forward here without having
that important body functioning, given I think the dynamics and
the stakes are a lot higher today than they might have been in
the past.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
Secretary Jewell. Just to adjust a little bit, rulemaking
is not what is happening. It is a programmatic and
environmental impact statement, which is a review of the
overall program. We absolutely will be listening to industry.
We will be listening to tribes. We will be listening States,
local stakeholders, local communities. People impacted by this
on the ground will be a very robust part of this process, I
promise you.
Senator Daines. I appreciate Senator Tester's concerns
voiced a little earlier about trying to get a 3-year date
certain, in terms of this programmatic review. I have an
amendment that I am trying to work to get bipartisan support on
that to, again, deliver some certainty here in what is very
much an uncertain process in many regards.
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
I want to pivot over and talk about the meaningful
consultation with Indian tribes. The Crow tribe I do not think
believes they have had meaningful consultation.
What does meaningful consultation look like to you,
Secretary Jewell, because they are saying that they do not
really feel like they have had a meaningful consultation.
Secretary Jewell. I have not met with the Crow for probably
1.5 years, maybe a bit more. But, if they feel the consultation
they had is not meaningful, please have them let us know, and
we will make sure we are responsive.
I would say meaningful consultation is not necessarily
reaching an agreement on a position a tribe necessarily wants,
but it is making sure their position is known and heard. We
have been committed to that throughout this administration.
Senator Daines. As you know, their unemployment rate today
is about 40 percent. The loss of these jobs takes the
unemployment rate to north of 80 percent. It is devastating for
the tribe.
Secretary Jewell. I understand, and I know you understand,
too, that the economics of coal are changing dramatically. What
we are looking to do is not the cause of that. There is a
multifaceted global market for coal that is, in fact, going
down dramatically.
Senator Daines. I would argue that the EPA power plan is
having a tremendous impact right now in creating uncertainty
there as well.
I understand the economic dynamics. The EPA power plan is
probably the single most devastating impact right now on the
coal business up there in Montana. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Daines, I appreciate you
bringing up the issue, though, of tribal consultation.
Secretary, I am going to turn to Senator Feinstein, but I would
just like to put you on notice.
I have a large delegation of Alaskan Native leaders that
are in Washington, DC, this week. Every single one of them is
bringing up with me the breakdown that they are seeing with
tribal consultation with the agency. So I will put that on your
plate as well, and I can speak with you about specifics.
Senator Feinstein.
WATER
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I just want to say, it is fortuitous you are also chairman
of the Energy Committee, and the subject I want to bring up
today is a bill that we have submitted for your consideration,
and that is a California water bill, which would hopefully be
part of a Western water bill.
I cannot express too strongly how serious this drought is
for California. A lot of people have counted on El Nino. It may
or may not bear real fruition, but the State has really had
dramatic problems. Let me just give you a few.
We have 69 California communities that face significant
water supply and water quality issues. In other words, most of
them do not have water. We have lost $2.7 billion from the
drought in just 2015. More than 1 million acres of California
farmland have been fallowed in 2015. The drought has led to a
loss of 35,000 permanent jobs in the State.
Land subsidence in the southern Central Valley has caused
large areas to begin to sink because of overpumping
groundwater, and it is sinking as much as 2 inches per month.
As a result, bridges, aqueducts, and roads have begun to crack.
So, I would like to ask a couple questions of the Deputy
Secretary on the subject. Deputy Secretary Connor, is it true
that we have worked closely with Reclamation and your office in
the drafting, redrafting, and amending of this bill?
Mr. Connor. It is absolutely true.
Senator Feinstein. Deputy Secretary Connor, is it true that
every amendment or suggestion, and there have been many, made
by Reclamation and your office has been worked through and
incorporated into the bill?
Mr. Connor. Senator, a great many. I would hesitate to say
all, but I think for the most part, most of the very
substantive ones have been addressed. I believe there may be
some technical issues that we still are discussing. But yes, in
general, I agree with your statement.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, I would like to know, not now, but
what those technical issues are.
Do you believe that the bill, if enacted, would increase
operational flexibility and increase water supply during this
drought?
Mr. Connor. I agree, yes, on both counts.
Operational flexibility in the bill incorporates provisions
that reflect the flexibility we have tried to maintain in our
water operations, and that we have over the past couple years
developed, consistent with our drought contingency plan.
It institutionalizes those provisions. It provides greater
resources for monitoring activities that greatly help in our
operations. It facilitates transfer. I think in the midst of
this drought, it does increase flexibility and has the capacity
to provide for more water. I would say, in the long-term, it
absolutely, unquestionably will provide for more water supply
reliability for California.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA MONUMENTS
Madam Secretary, if I may, I want to thank you for your
efforts related to the President's designation of three new
national monuments in the California desert. The California
desert has been a very big deal for me. We have done two desert
bills. As a city girl, the California desert is such a
wonderful place to visit. At night, the shadows, the dawn, the
flora, the fauna, the petroglyphs, it is just an incredible
place. So I am very delighted to see these monuments.
If I understand your budget request, it includes $6.5
million for the BLM office in California that is responsible
for managing the national monuments. That is an increase of
$1.9 million when compared with last year.
While I understand the monuments were designated after
submission of the President's fiscal year 2017 budget, do you
believe the additional $1.9 million will be enough for BLM to
manage the 1.7 million acres of land it is now responsible for?
Secretary Jewell. I am just going to do a high level
answer, and then turn it to Kris for the direct answer.
I want to say a profound thank you for your work on the
drought legislation--hard, hard work--and also for your
tireless work over many, many years on the protection of the
California Desert.
Senator Feinstein. You might be interested to know, Madam
Secretary, we have done 26 drafts of that legislation and made
41 amendments to it, as the time has gone on, and as we have
talked and consulted with others. So, that has been 2 years of
work, and I might say, much harder than the desert bill.
Secretary Jewell. It was very constructive. And the
subsidence you pointed out is something few people know about.
We have increased money in the budget overall for the
National Landscape Conservation System in BLM that does include
the California deserts. There is not specific money in the
budget for them beyond an allocation for that, because of the
timing of the monuments. We will be doing a lot of planning
associated with that, and future budgets will reflect that.
But, Kris, do you want to jump in?
Ms. Sarri. Sure.
Senator, thank you very much for the question. As the
Secretary mentioned, there is an increase for BLM's
conservation lands. We are up to $50 million for the request.
That does include the $1.9 million increase for the California
areas. BLM thinks that will be sufficient if they get the
budgetary increase to take care of the new monument.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That is very helpful. I
appreciate it.
ABANDONED MINES
Just a quickie, one of the prior Senators mentioned the
problem with abandoned mines. It is a serious problem in our
State. We have some 24,422 abandoned mines. According to BLM,
there are 1,672 known mine sites on or near BLM property. BLM
estimates that there were an additional 22,730 sites that have
yet to be even inventoried.
BLM says that will require $118 million just to complete
the inventory. That is an enormous cost just to inventory.
My question is, would you take a look at that cost? I am
concerned about these. I know we get $1 million, $2 million a
year to deal with these, and some have been boarded up where
people can fall into them. But I am very concerned that we
could still have some kind of a catastrophic event.
So, if you would take a look, BLM has requested $20 million
in discretionary funding for its nationwide Abandoned Mine
Lands program. You propose $1.8 billion in mandatory funding
from a new fee that most people think will not go anywhere in
Congress.
So, if you have some suggestions, Madam Secretary, I would
love to hear them.
Secretary Jewell. I will just say thank you for pointing
out this issue, as did Senator Udall. He does have some
legislation he is proposing.
This is an enormous problem. We will certainly look into
the cost and get back to you on the record for that, because I
do not have a great answer, except that I know that just to
inventory across landscape is hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is because these are remote sites. To inventory them, we
have to understand what is happening, and the features within
those sites. That is very labor-intensive work.
But we will look into that and be happy to work with this
subcommittee and others on bringing a long-term solution.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you just quickly this
question. To inventory them first, so much money, could there
be another criteria for selecting abandoned mines to take care
of? It seems to me those would be the mines where you have
hikers, visitors, where there is the most jeopardy of an
accident. Could it be done on that basis?
Secretary Jewell. I will talk to the BLM and ask them. I am
fairly confident those are the ones they have prioritized
within the National Park Service, those that do have closed
visitor access. But we will check into that, and I will get
back to you on it. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
abandoned mine lands
The BLM confirms the estimated cost of completing an inventory of
abandoned mine lands in the State of California is $118 million. The
BLM also confirms for both conducting inventories and reclaiming AML
sites, priority is given to areas and sites with high visitation or
near population centers.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
ST. LOUIS ARCH
Secretary Jewell, I want to thank you for mentioning the
arch in your written testimony. It is one of the very first
projects, and maybe in terms of private funding the largest
project in terms of local funding that is going into that
partnership.
It does seem to me that we have a real opportunity there
and in other places to really usher in what I believe is your
vision of the second century of the Park Service. I would say
that I hope it would not hurt his reputation in the service,
but the new regional director, Cam Sholly, appears to fully
understand the importance of setting this model. We are
enjoying working with him, as, more importantly, the people
locally are enjoying working with him.
We were able to get some language in the omnibus
appropriations bill. Chairman Murkowski supported that
legislation that just would help attract private dollars.
What that language does is direct the Treasury Department
to invest the dollars privately raised in interest-bearing
accounts. I know in the case of the arch the goal is to raise
$29 million of endowment funding. I would hope the endowment
funding and any future funding raised for that and other
projects benefits from that new sense of direction to the Park
Service and, more importantly, to the Treasury. I do not think
the Park Service ever resisted the idea that private money
should actually benefit the project it had been raised for as
opposed to any interest going into the general treasury.
Secretary Jewell. We share a common interest in that. I
have to compliment the St. Louis community; $250 million of
private money raised for the CityArchRiver project, which is
extraordinary.
Thank you for your efforts, so that they could use the
interest during the interim timeframe as opposed to going to
the Treasury. That is very helpful. We will continue to
advocate for that, broadly.
STE. GENEVIEVE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY
Senator Blunt. Right. There is another study going on that
should be released any time. I will just bring it to your
attention to be sure that you spend a little time looking at
it. This is on Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, which is just south of
St. Louis on the Mississippi River.
It is a French settlement that still actually has a
substantial number of 18th-century French buildings in that
community, some of which have been under the direction of the
State parks system for some time.
But my belief is that both the State parks system and study
that the National Park Service is about to do will reach the
conclusion that a better place to preserve that unique part of
our history is probably as a unit of the National Park Service.
I would expect that to come out any day. I hope you have a
chance to look at it.
Like I said, these are 18th-century structures west of the
Mississippi River. A lot of them are the vertical log structure
that was unique to the way the French were building housing
compared to the horizontal structure that other people were. I
am interested in that and hope you will be, too.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
Just to follow up a little bit on one of Senator Daines'
comments, on the 3-year date certain on the coal study, I
actually do not know how much there is to figure out about coal
that we do not already know. I was going to suggest that I
thought 3 years was an excessive amount of time for that study.
So, you hear that point of view, as well as just promise us
that you will get it done in 3 years.
I really think you should look at this and determine what
you are going to know that takes 3 years as opposed to half
that time or 2 years or sometime that is less than 3 years. I
think the questions on coal have already been well asked.
I will say that, in Missouri, we are 80 percent coal-
dependent for utilities. Ninety percent of that coal comes from
the Powder River Basin. The fact that a taxpayer should get a
fair return there is important, but it is also important in the
other energy resources. While oil and gas on State and private
lands have almost doubled between 2010 and 2014, there have
been no changes, no appreciable change, on Federal Government
lands.
I do think return to taxpayers for what we can minimize the
intrusiveness of in terms of oil and gas is an important
return.
SOLAR PROJECTS
I also know that on a significant amount of Federal land,
over 30 solar projects have been approved since 2010. I am not
opposed to solar at all, but if you are worried about impacting
the way the landscape should look, or it would look if people
were not involved in the landscape, I am sure 30 solar projects
have more impact on that topic.
And there is no Federal return, there is no taxpayer
return, on solar. I am not objecting to that. I am not opposed
to solar. I am not opposed to wind. I am actually truly an all-
of-the-above person.
But if we are interested in fair taxpayer return, it would
seem to me that we would be looking pretty aggressively at why
we have 89 percent more production in State and Federal lands
and essentially no more production on Federal lands. I will let
you respond to that.
Secretary Jewell. Let me just clear up one point. We do
actually charge solar energy companies when they are leasing
Federal land for solar, and for wind. There is a charge to
them. Just as we are doing for offshore wind in the Atlantic,
we are doing lease sales similar to what we do in the Gulf of
Mexico for offshore oil and gas.
Senator Blunt. Good. Would you provide me or the
subcommittee how that works?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, we are happy to.
[The information follows:]
Solar and wind energy developments are authorized under the
authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires
that the BLM generally receive fair market value for an authorization.
The BLM has established payment requirements for solar and wind energy
developments based off of comparable commercial practices from non-
Federal lands. The payments to BLM consist of both an acreage rent and
megawatt (MW) capacity fee. The acreage rent is required annually each
year, regardless of the operational status of the development, and is
determined based upon the location of the development on the public
lands. A per MW capacity fee is required annually at the start of
energy generation of the development, and is determined based upon the
development's capacity and efficiency of the technology. The annual
payments may differ between solar and wind energy developments based
upon the acreage encumbered, efficiency of the technology used, and the
generation capacity for that development.
The BLM has received increased payments for solar and wind energy
developments since 2010, corresponding with the increasing number of
rights-of-way issued. In 2010, the BLM received little more than $3
million in payments, almost all of which was from wind energy
developments. In 2015, the BLM received over $15 million in annual
payments for solar and wind energy developments, of which over $10.5
million were annual payments for solar developments, compared to $4.5
million for wind energy developments. In addition to the annual
payments, the BLM may also hold auctions for solar developments in
designated areas. Such auctions are held infrequently; the most recent
was held in 2014 for lands in Nevada. The BLM received over $5.8
million in bids for the parcels auctioned. Both the bonus bid revenues
and the required annual rental payments are returned to the Treasury.
Senator Blunt. If that is a one-time payment or an ongoing
payment, as you would have from production from other
facilities. I would like to see that.
Secretary Jewell. Yes, we are happy to do that. It is an
ongoing rental payment. There is a bonus paid upfront, and then
there is an ongoing rental payment. I think it is per acre or
per tract, but we will get back to you on that.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
Also, just to point out, because I had not said it earlier
today, on the programmatic EIS for coal, it actually is
complicated. There are a lot of different interests at stake
and a number of different States at stake. There is
metallurgical coal. There is steam coal.
We do believe, based on how long it takes us, for example,
to do a programmatic EIS on an offshore leasing program, that 3
years is a pretty expedited timeframe.
I will be not in this job, clearly. That will change in
about 11 months, maybe we're down to 10.5. We do have 20 years
of supply of Powder River Basin coal, Federal coal, under lease
to companies already. We do have emergency provisions in the
pause that we put on the leasing program during the PEIS to
allow companies to continue to mine and to get a permit, if
their mine is at risk of closing because of the pause or if a
coal-fired power plant is at risk of closing because of the
pause. We also grandfathered projects that were nearing their
completion.
So we do not believe there will be disruption in the supply
of coal or to the jobs.
Senator Blunt. Let me make one point there before the end
of my time, and we are at the end of my time, but I noticed
last time was little extensive too.
How long the study would take if the study hadn't put long-
term Government program in abeyance until the study was over, I
think that is two different questions. Patriot Coal in St.
Louis just went into bankruptcy. Shortly after they went into
bankruptcy, as I understand it, I have not talked to them, but
everything I have read about this would indicate that one of
the things they thought would bring them out of bankruptcy was
that they were right at the end of the permit process to get
access to some coal mining area that they hadn't previously
had.
That is now postponed until the study is over. I do not
know what impact that is going to have on the company, but I
assume it is significant. They, as many others would have,
would have pursued what they understood to be Government
policy, which just suddenly stopped so the Government can
figure out what they were doing. It does seem to me the
Government can figure out what they are doing without
necessarily stopping everything we have been doing for a long
time.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here and helping
us understand a variety of things.
When you started out your commentary, you mentioned Harney
County and Malheur Refuge. That has been a traumatic experience
for Oregon. We are hoping to work with the Department of
Justice in terms of some compensation back to the completely
overstrapped local system of justice that was dealing with
that, in partnership with FBI.
But also the Burns Paiute Tribe, and this would be more
relevant to Interior, had to incur a lot of increased costs and
damage to sacred sites. It is still being evaluated.
Is it possible that the BIA could assist the tribe in some
of these expenses that they are going to incur?
Secretary Jewell. It is certainly something we would be
happy to look at. I know that the FBI left recently, and we are
just now doing an inventory of the damage. But certainly, we
can work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) if there are
costs incurred by the tribes in addressing that.
I did meet with the tribes on the phone beforehand. I did
meet with Judge Grasty from the county recently in my office. I
will be making a trip there when the time is right to visit. We
will make sure we encompass the tribes and I engage with the
BIA as well.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I really appreciate that. I
know the tribe appreciates that as well.
One of the ironies is that that particular county where the
occupation occurred has had some terrific successes on
collaboration, the types of successes that we all say need to
happen through dialogue and cooperation and sharing
perspectives and so forth, one including sage-grouse
conservation, another being the Malheur Refuge itself,
management of the refuge.
Judge Grasty, who you mentioned, has thought that, given
their successes in Federal-county collaboration, this would be
a very good place to have a center that helped advance that
type of collaboration, both from the local experiences, but
bringing in the issues from throughout the West.
So, I think it is a terrific idea. There are tensions that
certainly are natural between a longstanding landlord, the
Federal Government, and a longstanding ranching and grazing
tenants, and issues over the use of the land. And having a
center to facilitate collaboration, it seems like a pretty cool
thing.
Any chance we could get some support for that idea from the
administration?
Secretary Jewell. This is a new concept I have not really
considered, so we would be happy to consider it.
I will say what happened in advance of the occupation of
the refuge and the cooperation that has happened throughout
Oregon with not just our own agencies, but also the Natural
Resources Conservation Service has been extraordinary. I think
there are models there to learn from.
I would hope it will set a model for every office--Fish and
Wildlife Service, BLM--working cooperatively across the
landscape. But we are happy to do give that consideration, and
I will chat with Judge Grasty the next time we talk.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
KLAMATH
I also appreciate the administration's support for the
Klamath settlement efforts. We had substantial development with
the process of decommissioning the dams being taken offline
and, therefore, removing some of the obstacles. There is still
a lot of work to be done to capture through legislation the
water certainty for the irrigators, the land for the Klamath
Tribes, habitat restoration, and so on and so forth. You have
been a great partner.
Can we continue to ask you to assist us?
Secretary Jewell. We absolutely will be there. We know
there is a legislative fix that is needed to move this forward,
and we are fully supportive.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And there was, by the way, $3 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2016 to support the agreements, specifically
habitat restoration. Because the agreements were not concluded
or the legislation was not concluded, we just want to try to
make sure that the $3 million actually does get spent on the
habitat restoration efforts, so it would be helpful to keep
moving the process forward as much is possible.
Mr. Connor. I believe that process will continue with
additional funds that were made available from Reclamation with
the spending plan. The upper basin agreement with the Klamath
Tribes is still in effect, and there is some restoration
activity that is contemplated as part of that agreement, and we
want to carry forward with that.
Senator Merkley. Great. Thank you. Thank you for all your
assistance on this, Michael.
COAL LEASING PROGRAM REVIEW
Turning to coal leasing, I think it flies to the top of the
chart for questions that you have been asked. It shows how much
different Senators care about this from substantially diverse
perspectives.
I certainly agreed with Senator Blunt when he was saying
that we should be able to figure out the answer in a shorter
period of time. To me, the answer is already obvious, but it is
probably the opposite of what Senator Blunt might conclude.
Currently, we have, I believe, in terms of leases, already
granted about a 20-year supply of coal already leased out for
extraction. Am I in the ballpark on that?
Secretary Jewell. That is correct. It is 20 at current
production rates, and production rates are declining, so it is
likely more than 20.
Senator Merkley. So we have a tremendous supply that
already has been leased. And we also know that when you do a
new lease, that lease might be exploited for decades
thereafter. So if we do a new lease now--there are occasions
where a lease has been exploited for 30, 40, even 50 years--we
are essentially locking in a contract for many decades in the
future. Am I still on track?
Secretary Jewell. That is correct.
Senator Merkley. So here is the thing, we are seeing the
impact of burning fossil fuels all over Oregon from the growth
of the pine beetle because winters are warmer and so damage to
our forest.
We have three of the worst ever droughts in the last 15
years in Klamath Basin, a huge impact on agricultural families.
The winter sports in the Cascades have declined as the
snowpack has declined. The trout streams are getting smaller
and warmer, which nobody who fishes likes to see smaller,
warmer streams.
Our oysters on the coast are having trouble reproducing
because the ocean is more acidic, 30 percent more acidic than
before the Industrial Revolution. If that is not a canary in
the coal mine, I do not know what it is.
So we have the knowledge, not just in some theoretical
model in the future, but right now facts on the ground. We know
there is extensive damage to our forestry, to our fishing, to
our farming, to our natural resources. And therefore, why would
we possibly do a new lease locking in more extraction and
combustion decades into the future?
So that is the conclusion I would come to. If the
administration reaches the same conclusion, as you put it,
before your time is up, I would love to see the coal leasing
program ended.
Secretary Jewell. All right. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
NATIONAL PARKS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
Secretary Jewell, I am pleased to see that you have
proposed a 9 percent increase for national parks, including
major investments in construction and maintenance programs to
address the estimated $11.9 billion maintenance backlog at
parks nationwide. It is mind-boggling, that number.
CARLSBAD CAVERNS
We have a particular issue with park maintenance in New
Mexico I want to briefly raise. The public elevators at
Carlsbad Caverns National Park have been out of service since
early November, leaving visitors to hike in and out of the
caverns if they want to visit.
Obviously, the lack of elevator service creates a problem
for visitors who have accessibility issues as well as a problem
for the general public.
I have had the chance to raise this issue with you
personally. And you know how important it is to me for the Park
Service to restore temporary elevator service at the park as
possible and to come up with a plan to permanently upgrade the
elevators. I appreciate you working with me on this to resolve
this issue as quickly as possible and to ensure that the local
communities know what to expect.
VALLES CALDERA NATIONAL PRESERVE
I also would like to thank you for your strong support of
the Valles Caldera National Preserve during its recent
transition to become part of the national park system. I am
also pleased to note that you have included $3.3 million in
your budget request to continue funding for the preserve into
2017.
Now that you have visited, I know you will agree with me
that the preserve is one of the crown jewels of the national
park system. What makes it so special is not just a stunning
landscape, however. There is recreation, hunting, fishing, and
grazing at Valles Caldera. All those make it a vibrant park for
New Mexico's community and for our local economies.
That is why I am concerned to hear that the Park Service is
still weighing whether to continue traditional grazing permits
on the preserve for this upcoming season. The law that
transferred the Valles Caldera to the National Park Service
allows these longstanding permits to remain in place while the
Park Service develops its long-term management policies. These
ranchers deserve to know now that they can count on their
grazing permits for the season.
Can I have your commitment that you will work with me and
other members of the congressional delegation who are also very
concerned about this to resolve this issue quickly and avoid
any further disruption to these traditional grazing permits?
Secretary Jewell. Certainly, Senator, we will be happy to
engage directly with you. The Park Service is well aware of the
need to act fast on this.
I will say there are some complexities, an endangered
species, for example, that needs to be incorporated into their
planning process, and figuring out the market rates for
appropriate grazing fees. But we are very happy to work with
your office to keep the priority high for the Park Service.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. I think on the
endangered species issues, there are areas where there are not
endangered species issues, and I think the park superintendent
is very aware of those, and the local people on the ground.
Another issue related to the transition of the Valles
Caldera is the importance of continuing a multiyear stewardship
contract with the Jemez Pueblo. This project supports vital
landscape restoration work and jobs for tribal members.
As you know, I worked to include $1.5 million in the 2016
omnibus to support forest restoration projects at new parks
like Valles Caldera. Could you tell me what work you expect to
accomplish this year with the funding we provided? Is funding
included in your fiscal year 2017 budget to continue this
effort?
Secretary Jewell. So the short answer is yes, funding is
included. It is going to be used for thinning about 1,200 acres
of forest. As we are both aware, they had devastating forest
fires, and that is really important. So that will continue.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much for that
response.
VENTING AND FLARING
As you know, I am very supportive of the department's
efforts to develop new rules related to methane venting and
flaring. New Mexico's natural resources provide jobs and
royalty payments that are an important part of our State's
economy, but outdated requirements are resulting in over $100
million worth of natural gas being wasted, which has cost my
State $43 million in lost royalties since 2009.
There is also a serious health component to this issue.
I understand that you are now in the public comment period
on the methane venting and flaring rule. Could you give us a
sense of the timeline for the final rule? What are some of the
issues you are hearing from industry that you believe will be
addressed in the final rule?
Secretary Jewell. At this point, the public comment period
ends next month on April 8. So far, we have had two public
listening sessions, one in Farmington, New Mexico, the other
one in Oklahoma City. We will be taking input on all of those
comments.
I cannot tell you what all of them are because we have not
analyzed them yet. I am sure you are aware of what some of them
are, in terms of cost and methodology and the importance of
doing this. But once we have all of those comments in, we will
be happy to analyze them and factor that into the rulemaking.
Senator Udall. Great, thank you very much.
COAL
I have a question here on coal, but that one is kind of
like beating a dead horse. Senator Wyden and I have a piece of
legislation on that, and I think I will submit that one for the
record.
INDIAN EDUCATION CONSTRUCTION
I am very pleased that this subcommittee was able to
provide an 85 percent increase for Indian school construction
and improvements in the 2016 omnibus. That amount includes
funds to finish the schools on the 2004 school construction
priority list. It also provides a down payment to begin work on
new schools that the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is in the
process of selecting. I am glad that you were able to include
another $45 million for replacement school construction in your
2017 budget.
I know that BIE is currently considering applications for
schools that want to be considered for the next round of
funding. There are four schools in New Mexico that are
currently competing for a place on the final list, and they are
all very anxious to find out whether they will get selected.
In addition, this subcommittee needs to know how the funds
in your budget will be used so that we can support your efforts
during the appropriations process.
When do you expect to finalize your new school construction
list? And what is your plan for providing the subcommittee with
more detail on how year 2017 budget request will align with
that list?
Secretary Jewell. The Indian Affairs team is hard at work,
and they are nearing finalizing the list. We narrowed the list
down from many, many schools to 10 that submitted additional
information, which has been received. It is being analyzed, and
I would expect that sometime in the coming weeks to see the
final version of the list for the new school construction.
There are also replacement buildings, which would be
considered afterwards.
We are very happy to provide you with information on how
the funding would be used. We are happy to work with the
committee and provide you with an inventory of that.
But as you pointed out, this is a much bigger issue than we
have money in the budget to address. We can just begin to chip
away at the list and work on stemming the increase in deferred
maintenance.
But we need a longer-term solution, as happened with the
Department of Defense schools, to really address this long-term
systemic problem, which is afflicting fully a third of our
schools that are considered in poor condition, including a
bunch of them in your State.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I know you have a real passion
for this.
Madam Chair, I see I am well over time here. I do not know
whether we are doing another round or not.
Senator Murkowski. I have some more questions. We have
given our colleagues some latitude here so they can move on to
other things, but if we can continue for a little bit longer,
that would be great.
MITIGATION
Madam Secretary, I want to go back to some of the lands
issues. Something that has caused a level of concern is where
we are in this big discussion about mitigation.
As you know, the President has issued this memorandum on
mitigation, and then you have your Secretarial Order Number
3330. I think these two issues are causing more questions than
resolving any issues.
Just a couple years ago, as we were dealing with issues
within the National Petroleum Reserve, the concern was the
metrics that were relied on to arrive at a $8 million cost for
mitigation within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA).
BLM, at that time, had discussed a real rigorous understanding
of how this impacted subsistence use. It seemed to so many who
were observing that this was just kind of divined from
different individuals, agencies, and that it had come to a
point where it was, how much can we get? That is not a standard
that anyone would suggest is reasonable.
But the bigger question is whether or not there is
authority to require mitigation for projects on public lands in
the first place. When you move forward on natural resource
development, responsible natural resource development by
definition includes reclamation of disturbed lands and our
Federal laws require that reclamation then occur. Laws that
govern multiple use on public lands do not have this mitigation
requirement.
I led a letter that went out just about a week ago with
about 18 other colleagues here in the Senate outlining a series
of questions to DOI focusing on we are with developing this
program guidance--not only for DOI but for all the relevant
agencies that are involved.
So a couple questions on mitigation. Can you provide a
status update as to program guidance about the bigger point,
which is what is the authority that the department has to
require mitigation for projects on public lands in the first
place? Additionally, the bigger problem and the consideration
that we face in Alaska is that you have multiple agencies that
have seemingly different standards or different approach to
mitigation. As a consequence of the lack of certainty,
operators are not even able to begin a project, because whose
standards are we going to be looking to?
So, a longer question that hopefully has a clear answer. We
have not gotten the guidance that we have asked for.
We are going to be having a hearing in the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on this within this month to
hopefully gain more clarity. Can give me a little bit of
guidance here from your perspective?
Secretary Jewell. Let me do a high level answer and then I
am going to turn it over to Mike Connor, who has worked on the
details for me on this.
First, we believe the individual, localized mitigation does
not actually address sometimes the bigger issue that
development has on the landscape. This is something that I
looked at from day one.
When you have the fragmentation of habitat, when you have
road networks and so on, there tend to be impacts to the
landscape, the animal migration patterns, and so on, that are
not necessarily contained within the footprint of that area. We
are looking at landscape-level mitigation, understanding what
those impacts are.
Good examples of that, I would say, in the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, understanding the caribou calving
grounds, understanding the oil and gas development potential,
understanding that if there is offshore development, how do you
move that. All of those things were factored in.
As a project gets done, there is now a greater
understanding of what the impact will be. That is the whole
concept of mitigation.
Senator Murkowski. Can I interrupt on that? What you are
describing is that it is going to be a case-by-case
determination. How can you give some level of certainty then to
anybody who is looking to develop a project, whether it is oil
and gas or whether it is a new runway or whether it is a
driveway? How can there be any level of certainty and
understanding when everything is done on a case-by-case basis?
Because what you described is going to depend on what is
happening with the landscape around it. Every landscape is
going to be different.
Secretary Jewell. The intent is to bring certainty. Another
example, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, what
are the areas that are set aside for development? What are the
areas critical to conserve?
So as this gets developed, the mitigation would be used on
the area that is highest priority for conservation, not
necessarily on that footprint. The overall intent, to bring
greater certainty, not less.
I am going to turn it over to Mike for the specifics on
what he is working on.
Mr. Connor. I think I would just continue along the lines
with the view that the President's memo I think gets to the
point you are trying to have us do, which is having more
consistency across the agencies in developing our mitigation
criteria and not doing it project-by-project, by doing these
planning efforts, which I think have demonstrated they do
facilitate permitting processes because they add more certainty
as we work with companies.
A perfect example is the Western Solar Plan and the Solar
Energy Zones we did in Dry Lake in Nevada. We identified the
corridors of development, and the appropriate mitigation
standards, that should apply there. We worked with companies
taking environmental analysis that used to take 18 to 24 months
down to 6 months to complete those environmental analyses.
I think the NPRA is a situation I am particularly familiar
with having been involved in the discussions with
ConocoPhillips. The mitigation was not pie-in-the-sky what can
we get. It was very specifically related to the intrusion on
the Fish Creek barrier. That was the issue we were discussing
with ConocoPhillips. We talked about specific ways to
compensate for that. We had a disagreement about methodology.
Quite frankly, we all agreed there was a range of dollar
figures we were talking about to compensate for that particular
intrusion, and it could best be applied toward developing a
regional mitigation plan with the affected communities,
including the Alaskan Native communities. That is the process
that is ongoing right now, which should add greater clarity to
further developments in the NPRA, quite frankly.
Senator Murkowski. I think what you established there is a
precedent that basically says, if you want to operate within
this area, you are going to pay, not mitigation--it is not
being viewed as mitigation by those who are looking--a penalty.
We would differ mightily in terms of the specific project with
Conoco and whether or not that $8 million that was ultimately
arrived at or settled upon was where it was started. We
recognize that was not where the conversation started. It was
being used more as a bargaining tool for Conoco to be able to
move forward.
So, again, we have a letter out there that we are looking
for concrete answers on, and we will have an opportunity to
have this before us in the Energy Committee to get a better
understanding.
This is a concern that, again, we are not talking just
about development of oil and gas opportunities in my State or
in others. It is the opportunity to advance any kind of a
project, whether it might be an area for school or runway or
what have you.
I want to recognize that Senator Udall will have more
questions, too, but let me follow on to a couple comments that
were made by Senator Udall in his opening, and by Senator
Feinstein.
ABANDONED WELLS
Senator Feinstein was talking about abandoned mines,
developing potential for an inventory. As you all know, legacy
wells, which is horribly, horribly misnamed, are abandoned oil
and gas wells in Alaska that were drilled by the Government and
then just left in varying states of disrepair. We have been
making some progress. We have identified the universe there in
terms of the cleanup.
To Senator Feinstein's point, when she talks about an
inventory, I think we have established that at least in Alaska.
You identify what it is that you have, now you have to
prioritize how we are going to be spending the money. We were
successful in getting $50 million, with helium funding last
year.
I appreciate the fact that we have a path, an action spend
plan, for that $50 million. But my concern is that there is
still going to be a significant number of wells that will need
to be attended to when that fund is exhausted.
You have included $3.8 million in this budget for next
year. I understand that this is a budget for this year. But we
are still hoping to get an understanding as to how we intend to
deal with all of the Federal Government's obligations to clean
up these wells up on the North Slope. Because if you are
suggesting that it is $3.8 million this year, and perhaps a
like amount next year, I am told we are looking at 30, 40 years
to clean up these wells, if that is the case.
Do you have an estimate of the likely cost to finish this
environmental cleanup project, in both money and time?
Secretary Jewell. I will give you the information I do
have, and we will get back to you on the record for what I do
not have.
There are 136 wells, these legacy wells. Fifty were
identified in 2013 as requiring remediation.
Senator Murkowski. I want to make sure that we are both
clear on that, because I have heard that there is still some
disagreement between the State of Alaska and Interior in terms
of whether or not some of these wells require that level of
remediation. I understand what you are saying, but I want to
make sure that we are in alignment between State and the
Federal Government on what the level of responsibility is.
Secretary Jewell. Okay. I am not aware of that dispute, but
I will say, because of the work that you did with the Helium
Fund, we will have 29 left requiring work at the end of 2016.
We will have three to five wells we can do with what is in the
budget for 2017, the Wolf Creek cluster. I think because they
are together, we will be able to address that.
That still will leave somewhere on the order of the mid-20s
that need to be cleaned up. What I do not have is the estimated
cost to do that or the amount of time it would take.
Of course, we would welcome the opportunity to work with
you on a more permanent funding solution for this, just as we
would on abandoned mines, and just as we would on school
construction. It is very difficult putting small amounts of
money toward a program each year that is much larger than what
we can address in the regular budget cycle.
Senator Murkowski. Understood. Absolutely. But I think this
is one of those glaring examples where our Federal Government
is being absolutely hypocritical when it comes to environmental
standards. In this case, it is the Government that has drilled
wells, and the Government that has walked away. The Government
acknowledges that it left a mess, and yet the budget does not
prioritize that.
Part of the problem is, unlike perhaps abandoned mines in
California where you have a lot of people who are wandering
around and hiking, the North Slope is a long way away, and
there are not that many people on that North Slope.
You and I both agree that we have a responsibility to clean
up that land. We have a responsibility to those subsistence
hunters and fishers up there who are worried about the
contamination. Our Federal Government left a mess, and they
have an obligation to clean it up.
I am going to continue my push on this, and we need to be
working together.
CONTAMINATED LANDS
I also want to raise the contaminated lands issues. These
are lands that have been conveyed to Alaskan Natives under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that are separate from the
legacy wells the Federal Government drilled.
Here we have a situation where lands have been conveyed
that were already contaminated. These are Native lands, given
to Natives as part of a settlement.
We have done an inventory of these lands. We have asked
that inventory be updated. At the budget hearing last year, you
said the survey was nearing completion, and that it would be
soon released.
We are still sitting here a year later. It still is not
public. I am told by BLM officials that it will be released
soon. But we were told it was going to be released last year.
Assuming that this inventory is completed and will soon be
made publicly available, I would like to have an assurance
that, along with legacy wells, there is going to be an action
plan from the Department of the Interior to accelerate the
cleanup of contamination on Native lands that the BIA, the BLM,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, or
the Bureau of Mines actually caused.
I also need to know that there is going to be some level of
coordination in terms of how we are going to clean this up,
because there are other Federal agencies, that have
responsibilities, whether it is DOD or FAA.
Understanding how we are going to meet our Federal
responsibility for this cleanup is something that we are going
to continue to knock on your door, bang on the drum, raise our
voices, because it is a responsibility that we have.
Can you give me any updates on when we might see the
inventory, the updated inventory?
Secretary Jewell. The information I have says next month.
That is the best I can do. I do not know why it has taken so
long, but that is the best information I have at this point.
Senator Murkowski. And that information will be made
public?
Secretary Jewell. I do not know.
Do you know?
Ms. Sarri. I will get back to you on that one after I talk
to BLM a little bit more about it.
[The information follows:]
alaska contaminated lands
The requested report on Contaminated Lands in Alaska has been
drafted and is currently in the review stage. It will be transmitted to
the Committee soon. The BLM plans to publicly release the Contaminated
Lands Inventory database. With the Committee's permission, BLM would
also like to make the report public by posting it on the BLM Web site.
Senator Murkowski. The first inventory was completed at the
request of my father in the 1990s. It had a timeline to be
renewed and updated frequently and prioritized. So
``frequently'' has now turned into almost a decade.
It is not just this administration's fault. If for some
reason it is not going to be released next month, I would
certainly appreciate a very detailed explanation as to why it
is not, because you can count on me to continue to make a big
stink about this.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
REPATRIATION OF SACRED OBJECTS
Secretary Jewell, an issue of serious importance for tribes
in New Mexico is the repatriation of sacred objects back to the
tribes.
First, I want to applaud your recent efforts to work with
French authorities to seek cooperation in these efforts. As you
know, these items are not pieces of art to be sold. They are
sacred objects that are deeply important for tribal identity.
What's more, it is illegal to traffic these items within the
United States.
I think we need to be doing more to crack down on the sales
of these priceless cultural objects. One idea I have heard from
the Pueblo of Acoma is to establish an antiquities unit within
the BIA to investigate these kinds of cases.
I want to work with you to ensure that BIA and other
bureaus within the department have the ability to put a stop to
these illegal trafficking efforts.
Can you elaborate on the work of the department in terms of
bringing awareness to this issue and preventing tribal objects
from being trafficked? And are there specialized law
enforcement resources within the department able to handle
these repatriation cases?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, this is a significant issue.
When I was in Paris as part of the climate talks, I met with
the Minister of Justice for France, and I also met with the
individual that administers the auction houses in France.
They typically produce a catalog with a number of these
items that are exactly as you described. They are not works of
art. They are critical artifacts that were removed from the
tribes for whatever means many, many decades ago and have been
circulating in the art market. They do not provide sufficient
time for the tribes to even know they are there, let alone take
the kind of action the French authorities say they need.
I was met with a very sympathetic voice in the Minister of
Justice. Unfortunately, she just quit, so we will have to start
over again with the next minister.
I do think there was a path forward that we learned about,
about the repatriation of articles taken in Nazi Germany from
families at that time. That may be a path we can use.
On the international market, I would say the State
Department is a critical ally in this effort. They have the
people that work the legal systems there. I would say that to
dedicate someone from BIA's law enforcement to this is
something that would have to come out of another area of BIA's
law enforcement, so it is a trade-off, given the law
enforcement challenges we have in Indian country.
But I do think the BLM has some capabilities in this area.
I know the State Department, Interpol, the international
organizations do. It is on our agenda to raise awareness
internationally to see if we can actually address this.
I will also say we are not without fault. Our auction
houses in New York City, for example, do trade in artifacts.
And they may be those that are inappropriate to trade, and then
we do not find out about it until too late.
This is very, very important. The New Mexico tribes are
quite active in this, but so are the Alaska tribes as well. It
is important. And thanks for raising visibility.
Senator Udall. Thank you for your efforts on that.
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION REORGANIZATION
As you know, we have had extensive discussions, and I know
the chairman has also been involved, on this reorganization of
the Bureau of Indian Education. And I understand the department
is now moving forward with the first phase of proposed
reorganization of the BIE, including the establishment of new
educational resource centers that your 2017 budget anticipates
additional changes to the bureau.
This subcommittee supports your efforts to improve
education for Native students, and we recognize that you are
tackling some of the very tough issues as you overall the
bureau. But I want to make sure that the reorganization is done
right and actually leads to concrete improvements in the
classroom.
I also want to make sure stakeholders at all levels, from
tribal governments to educators and parents, understand clearly
what to expect from these changes. As part of the first phase
of the reorganization you have proposed a number of staffing
changes, including changes to the regional office in
Albuquerque to create these new centers to assist BIE and
tribally controlled schools.
What is your timeline for staffing up these centers? And
what services can schools expect to receive starting in the
fall? And what is your plan to ensure that all stakeholders,
including BIE employees whose jobs may be affected, know what
to expect during the reorganization?
There are other questions there that I will submit for the
record, but I want to get an answer from you on those.
Secretary Jewell. Okay, I am happy to give you a quick
update. I will also say that taking on reorganization of
something as storied, and not necessarily in a good way, as the
BIE is, from a business person's perspective, unbelievably
difficult over a multiyear period of time and extraordinarily
difficult in the timeframe I have left.
The goal is to set a path forward so we continue to make
progress on Indian education reform. It is not all going to be
done in 1 year.
We have had multiple meetings with all employees. Those
were held in February, and we outlined the whole process. On
February 22, so just a week or so ago, we announced 65 vacancy
announcements across the BIE. Some of them are vacant. Some are
new positions. People will apply. Those positions will close on
March 11, and we will begin filling the jobs in April. So, it
is really a fast timeline.
I would say what you will see in terms of near-term
improvements, we have been working now for more than a year on
professional development of teachers aligned with Common Core.
We have been providing training for effective school boards,
financial accountability training for school leadership, and
then training for certain tribes that have wanted alternative
accountability standards like the Miccosukee and Navajo.
There is a lot of work going on. I personally met with
leadership of the BIE to see how it is going. We have a lot of
work to do, but I would say people understand the importance of
this. People are now a bit more reassured all their jobs are
not in jeopardy. We are working toward a common end, which is
better education for these students and self determination in
education by tribal communities that want to take control of
the schools.
So we continue to have an open door to any suggestions you
have in this regard, but we are well on our way.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
hard work on that.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Since Senator Murkowski mentioned her father, just as a
closing comment here, when we were talking about the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, and Senator Tester asked a question,
as you know, my father worked in the 1960s when he was
Secretary of Interior to start the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. He worked with Congress. He went down and I believe met
with a Congressman by the name of Wilbur Mills from Arkansas,
and they came up with idea of taking offshore oil and gas,
knowing that these resources are limited, taking some of it and
dedicating it to permanent protection of land.
The original idea I think came from a national commission,
a blue ribbon panel, an incredible panel headed I think by
Lawrence Rockefeller and others that said, what do we need to
do in terms of parks? The suggestion was from this commission--
these were people outside of politics--you should spend $1
billion a year and everybody should know you are going to spend
that and split it up between the State program, as you talked
about, and the Federal program. And the reason you do that is
everybody can plan. All these city councils and States and
Federal Government and its agencies can all plan and look to
see that money is there.
As Senator Tester pointed out, we have now reached the
point where we have authorized it at that level. The money is
over there in the fund. But somehow we do not dedicate the
resources there.
So we are all trying to figure out how we got to this
place. I know President Obama and you have encouraged us now to
move forward.
I thank very much, Senator Murkowski, for working with me
on the increase that happened in Land and Water Conservation
Fund. That was a good step. But we are not anywhere near where
we need to be in terms of the original idea behind the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
But thank you very much. I know she was trying to get out
of here. We are running over here a little bit.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Yet one more reason why this energy bill is a good energy
bill that we are going to try to get moved through the Senate,
because we do have the LWCF piece in there that allows for
permanent reauthorization. It does have some reforms in terms
of reminding us of the significance of State-side LWCF at the
same time we have Federal.
Secretary, I know that you have to go. I have just a couple
more questions and hopefully your answers will be yes and no.
ALASKA LAND CONVEYANCE
I mentioned the land conveyance and reductions that we have
seen in the budget, a 20 percent reduction from last year. I
have raised the issue of the methodology for the survey. There
is a peer-review that is going on. BLM has agreed to that.
Can you commit to me that BLM will not act unilaterally to
implement their preferred method of survey, if the State of
Alaska formally objects, once that peer-reviewed process is
complete? I just want to know that the State has been heard on
this.
Secretary Jewell. We absolutely are working closely with
the State. I hope it does not come down to a veto of what we
want to do. We are working now with the National Society of
Professional Surveyors at the State's request.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Secretary Jewell. We are providing them with all the needed
information. I think it is our collective hope they will come
to a meeting of the minds, and it does not come down to the
State saying this is not acceptable. I hope they can find
something that both agree is acceptable.
Senator Murkowski. We are going through that peer review
process, so I think that is important.
TRIBAL COURTS
I will submit for the record several questions, one on
tribal courts. We were successful in getting funding for Public
Law 280 States for the first time last year in the amount of
$10 million. The President's request cuts this by $8 million. I
am very concerned about that.
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
We just sent a letter to you, the Alaska delegation, on the
USGS earthquake program. I mentioned that to you. I would like
assurances that any future summits or meetings you are
conducting regarding earthquake preparedness at least include
Alaska. Additionally, the earthquake monitoring cost-benefit
study is being formulated, and I would like to see the status
of that report. Can you let me know when we might see some of
the findings?
BOTTLED WATER BAN
I also want to raise the bottle ban on bottled water in
parks, not the ban but giving parks the option to eliminate the
sale of bottled water on a park-by-park-basis. We have asked
for a report within the omnibus about the justification for
making this determination. The report was due February 16. We
have not gotten it. I would hope that you can let us know when
you are expecting that report.
I still have some concerns. We can sell bottled sugar water
in the parks, but we cannot sell good glacier water. We are
actually drinking Alaskan Glacier water here at the committee.
I was contacted by the COO of Alaska Glacier Products. He
is worried that he is not going to be able to sell his Alaska
product in the Alaska park units. This concerns me.
I do not know whether or not, for instance, Denali National
Park is opting not to sell bottled water.
I understand we are trying to eliminate the waste, but you
are still allowing the waste from pop in our parks as well. Not
every parent is able to bring or remembers to bring water
bottles.
ALASKA MAPPING
The last thing that I am going to raise is where we are on
Alaskan mapping, the Alaska Mapping Initiative, improving our
topographic maps for the State.
I was present at a celebration in Alaska last summer where
we celebrated 55 percent completion of mapping the State. Where
else in America would you celebrate being just a little over
halfway?
We have a way to go on this. I remain concerned that, as we
look at our priorities, mapping, both terrestrial mapping and
mapping our waters, is something where we are woefully behind.
I have much more that I will submit to you all, and we
would hope for timely responses. I appreciate you being here
before the subcommittee, and I apologize that the subcommittee
has gone over time.
Thank you for your indulgence, and we look forward to your
responses. Thank you very much.
Secretary Jewell. Can I just say that I actually do have a
response on the mapping.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, please. Go ahead.
Secretary Jewell. We were at 63 percent at the end of last
year. By the end of 2017, we will be 70 percent complete. We
should be fully complete by 2020.
I do have personal vested interest. My son actually is a
critical care flight nurse and does medevac flights.
Senator Murkowski. He knows.
Secretary Jewell. He knows. He does that in Alaska as well.
So, we share the concern and also share the urgency of why this
is so important for the State of Alaska.
Thank you both very much. This is a little different in
terms of tenor and tone than the session that I was at
yesterday. I do appreciate the constructive nature and also the
flexibility with which you ran the agenda to allow me time to
answer after time had expired. So thank you both very much, and
we look forward to working with you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
[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 (1). Last year the Alaskan Village of Council Presidents
(AVCP) was selected to participate in the Tiwahe d emonstration project
and has received approximately $986,000 in base and Tiwahe funding. For
those of you not familiar with the AVCP, it is a consortium of 56
Alaska Native villages in western Alaska. The villages are remote and
somewhat isolated over a 59,000 square mile area with a population of
approximately 25,000. All travel to and from the villages is by small
plane or boat. The AVCP administers programs, fund projects, and
provides social services to the villages.
The Tiwahe initiative is a 5-year pilot program that aims to help
tribes develop a comprehensive approach for the delivery of services to
communities through partnerships with the tribe, local communities and
the State and Federal Government. The overall goals and objectives are,
to improve screening and access to family and social services, to
create alternatives to incarceration via solution focused sentencing,
improving links to appropriate prevention, intervention and treatment
opportunities.
a. I understand this is a 5-year pilot program, but I am
interested in hearing more about how the program is structured for each
tribe and how the funding for each pilot site is determined. Would you
briefly explain how the sites are selected, how the pilot is designed,
and how the funding is determined and delivered?
Answer. Tiwahe sites were selected based on geographic diversity,
governance structure diversity, unmet need, and capacity. Alaska's
geographic diversity from the lower 48 tribes and level of Federal
resources to support tribal families, combined with AVCP's
administrative capacity and interest in developing wrap-around
services, led to BIA's selection of AVCP as a pilot site.
Tribes at the six pilot sites (four in fiscal year 2015 and two in
fiscal year 2016) are required to develop plans to address their needs.
Each site plan must address goals in the areas of social services,
child welfare, employment and training, recidivism and/or tribal
courts. BIA provided funding through a 50 percent increase to their
Social Services Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) and Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) fiscal year 2014 base level funding, and a pro rata
increase in Job Placement and Training Funds. BIA delivered funding
through either an Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance
Act (ISDEAA) contract or compact. In addition to the funding received
by the pilot sites, all tribes and BIA regions operating social
services and ICWA programs received increases from their fiscal year
2014 base levels as part of the Initiative.
b. The President's proposal for the initiative is $21 million over
fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. What is the plan for this increase?
Would you seek to expand the pilot to additional sites in Alaska and
elsewhere?
Answer. Of the $21.0 million Tiwahe Initiative increase in the
fiscal year 2017 request, $18.4 million is for social/human services
programs and $2.6 million is for the Public Safety and Justice's Tribal
Courts program. Here is a summary of the funding breakdown:
--+$12.3 million--Social Services (TPA)
--$5.0 million: Provide expanded social services such as child
welfare and family and domestic services at five additional
Tiwahe sites;
--$5.2 million: Focus on capacity building at specific tribal
sites, including the hiring of 30 additional social workers
in Indian Country;
--$1.0 million: Support the continuation of the Research and
Evaluation contract which will assist tribes with goals and
performance measures;
--$1.1 million: Support the continuation of the Center for
Excellence which gives tribes opportunities to continue
learning, cross training, and to conduct information
sharing in areas related to leadership, best practices,
research, support and training.
--+$3.4 million--Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) TPA: Increase tribal
preventive services efforts in providing family assistance and
home improvement services, which should build stronger families
and decrease instances of child removal from the home.
--+$1.7 million--Housing Improvement Program (HIP): Improve housing
conditions, and access to suitable housing, at the Tiwahe sites
with a focus on veterans and single family households.
--+$1.0 million--Job Placement &Training Program (JPT): Support
employment and training activities at Tiwahe sites.
--+2.6 million--Tribal Courts: Sustain the existing Tiwahe sites and
provide targeted base funding to five additional locations
under the Tiwahe Initiative. The resources will assist tribes
in creating stronger tribal court infrastructure to address
issues related to children and family services, as well as
develop special projects to reduce the rate of repeat offenders
and criminal recidivism.
If funded at the President's request, BIA would add five additional
Tiwahe sites in fiscal year 2017. These five would join the original
four selected in fiscal year 2015, and the two selected in fiscal year
2016 (bringing the total number of Tiwahe sites to eleven by the end of
fiscal year 2017).
Question (2). ANILCA is perhaps the largest conservation
contribution in the world's history and certainly the Nation's. Alaska
has more Conservation System Units (``CSUs'') than the entire Nation
combined, yet we continue to see more and more land taken off the table
for development. Land planning in Alaska is managed in a tenuous and
never-ending process that specifically ignores ANILCA. The process
results in outcomes that do not favor development. In addition, few
people have the time, energy, and expertise to participate in these
plans. For example: Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP contained 56 maps,
1,200 pages, and 63GB of data. Furthermore, this plan and similar plans
exclude multiple-use through ACECs, RNAs, and other proposed closures.
What is being done to ensure the balance for conservation and economic
opportunity intended by ANILCA is considered for future land management
plans?
Answer. The land use planning process in Alaska encourages
collaboration and partnerships that assist the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in determining how to balance the needs of adjacent
communities with the management of public land resources. Recognizing
the challenges associated with the timeliness of long term planning
activities, BLM has recently developed the Planning 2.0 initiative that
will improve the bureau's ability to respond to environmental, economic
and social changes in a timely manner; strengthen opportunities for
State and local governments, Indian Tribes, and the public to be
involved in initial decisions leading to the development of land use
plans; and improve the BLM's ability to address landscape-scale
resource issues. In Alaska, the provisions of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) are regularly incorporated into the planning
process and when considering mitigation, provisions of FLPMA and ANILCA
help identify significant resources and Conservation System Units that
could be impacted by development. Early and frequent public engagement
and a robust planning process that balance both conservation and
resource use will continue to be the key to BLM's land use planning.
Question (3). As you know, once covering 160 million acres, the
Public Land Orders (``PLOs'') were put in place after 1971 to guarantee
that Alaska Natives could select their ANCSA selections. The
Department's own report in 2004 said there was no need for any more
than 6.7 million acres to still be encumbered--and that number has
since been further reduced over the past dozen years with the
completion of revised Bureau of Land Management plans. Moreover,
Natives have now filed all their selections.
a. Please provide specifically what actions your agency is taking
to actively lift the remaining Public Land Orders (PLOs) reserving
lands throughout the State of Alaska.
Answer. Public Land Orders (PLOs) determine which lands are or are
not available for selection by either an Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation or the State of Alaska. This
authorizes the Secretary to classify and reclassify the lands withdrawn
and to open the lands to appropriation in accordance with the
Secretary's classification. The original PLOs state that any lands not
conveyed to an ANCSA corporation would remain reserved for study and
review for the purpose of classification or reclassification. The
Bureau's land-use planning process satisfies the requirement for such
study, review, and classification and is the appropriate mechanism for
recommending a withdrawal be lifted. Over the decades, many of these
PLOs were amended several times to allow for millions of acres to be
made available for State selection and/or entry under the mining laws.
The State currently has an estimated remaining entitlement of 5.2
million acres, but an estimated 14.9 million acres selected. By
contrast, the State has 6.5 million acres of ``top-filings'' (future
selections that would ``attach'' if and when the pertinent withdrawal
(PLO) is lifted). It should be noted that the State has a statutory 25
percent limitation on its over selections. Based on its existing
remaining entitlement, the State should have only 6.6 million acres of
selections. The State is currently 8.3 million acres over its statutory
limit on over-selections. Lifting any PLOs to make more lands available
for the State to select would further increase its over-selection.
Currently, lands selected by the State are not available for a
rural subsistence priority. Accordingly, lifting PLOs to allow a State
top-filing to attach and become a selection will reduce the acreage of
lands available for rural subsistence priority. This is one of the
reasons the BLM feels that the Bureau's land use planning process,
which is open to public input and comment (including by the State) is
the appropriate mechanism for recommending a withdrawal be lifted.
b. I would like your commitment to lift all the remaining PLOs as
soon as possible, and please provide a timeline by which you commit to
abide.
Answer. The appropriate mechanism for recommending withdrawals is
through the Bureau's land-use planning process. This process is open to
public input (including the State of Alaska) and comment. Since 2007 in
Alaska, four resource management plans have been completed where
recommendations were made to lift withdrawals and currently there are
three resource management plans ongoing where recommendations will be
made upon completion.
Question (4). On February 4, I sent you a letter with Chairman
Cochran, Chairman Rogers, and Subcommittee Chairman Calvert regarding
the Office of Surface Mining's Stream Buffer Zone Rule. The letter
related to the directive in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus that required
the Office of Surface Mining to provide States with information they
requested related to the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, as well as to meet
with States at their request.
I am extremely concerned about the manner in which this rule has
been written--primarily because 9 out of 10 of the States who entered
the process as cooperating agencies decided to withdraw from the
process because of a lack of meaningful consultation with OSM. This
directive was meant to reverse course and ensure that OSM moves forward
in a more cooperative manner.
Shortly after my letter was sent, the State of Alaska sent the
Department a letter related to the requirement that OSM provide States
with relevant reports, data and analyses. As an initial step, the State
of Alaska requested that OSM provide a summary of the documents. The
letter indicated that Alaska would then request a subset of those
documents and eventually, request a meeting with OSM.
a. Have you provided the State of Alaska with the summary of
documents they requested? If not, when do you anticipate that such
information will be provided?
Answer. OSMRE made these documents available to all of the States
on March 24, 2016, by uploading reference materials cited in the
proposed rule on the Web site regulations.gov with the exception of
reference materials protected by copyright law. OSMRE has also offered
assistance through its librarian to those States that request such help
to obtain copyright protected materials. The materials are available to
the public. The Assistant Secretary and OSMRE officials are holding
meetings with the State of Alaska on May 18-22, 2016.
b. In a recent budget hearing in the Senate Energy Committee,
Deputy Director Connor said the documents specified in the report
language would be ready for the States ``in a few weeks.'' What is your
plan for meeting with States after they have had time to review the
information you are required to provide them?
Answer. OSMRE offered to dedicate its time at the Interstate Mining
Compact Commission on April 18, 2016, to meet with the States. During
these meetings, the Stream Protection Rule as well as other topics were
discussed. In addition, OSMRE scheduled a series of technical meetings
to further engage the States. Staff from 6 State regulatory authorities
participated in the meeting on April 14, 2016 and 5 State regulatory
authorities participated in the meeting on April 21, 2016.
c. Additionally, can you share the timing and process you envision
for moving forward with the stream buffer zone rule? Given that the
States will presumably be raising a number of new issues based on the
information they receive in the technical documents, will you reopen
the comment period so that the public has the opportunity to comment on
that information as well?
Answer. OSMRE has prepared a summary of the State meetings for the
administrative record. No additional public comment period for the
rulemaking is currently planned.
Question (5). Within the Fish and Wildlife Service's Ecological
Services budget, and specifically within the Endangered Species Listing
program, the Department has proposed shifting a sizeable portion of the
budget from ``critical habitat designations'' to ``petitions.'' I am
concerned about this shift because I am still hearing concerns from
members who opposed the Department's decision to enter into a multi-
species settlement agreement in 2011.
I have heard from members that this effort, which required the
Service to make listing determinations on more than 250 species was
done without consultation of local governments or communities that are
impacted by that settlement agreement. With the actions required in
that settlement agreement coming to an end in 2016, I am concerned that
the Service will see fit to enter into another similar agreement.
How can I be certain that, if we decide to shift money from
critical habitat designations to petitions, the Service will not be
inclined to enter into a similar, closed-door settlement agreement?
Answer. The Endangered Species Act establishes mandatory duties and
timeframes for various listing duties including petition findings,
listing determinations, and critical habitat designations. Failure to
meet the statutory timeframes can lead to lawsuits. When it is in the
best interest of the Government to do so, litigation can be resolved
through settlement agreements; this typically occurs when the Service
does not have a viable defense and a settlement is expected to achieve
more favorable terms through negotiation. To avoid litigation, the
Service strives to meet the ESA's deadlines and has requested the
funding needed to do so.
The requested amounts in the Listing subactivity reflect the
anticipated fiscal year 2017 workload. In fiscal year 2017, the Service
will need less funding than in fiscal year 2016 to address critical
habitat designation for already listed species because there are fewer
such critical habitat designations outstanding. In contrast, the
anticipated workload for petition findings will be greater in fiscal
year 2017 than in fiscal year 2016; thus, the budget includes funding
under the subcap for the functional area to be increased. By having the
subcaps reflect the distribution of the workload, the Service hopes to
reduce litigation by working on all types of outstanding actions.
Question (6). I have been concerned with the Department's actions
related to the polar bear for a number of years. I disagree with the
2008 listing determination and vehemently disagree with the designation
of more than 187,000 square miles of land--an area larger than the
State of California--as ``critical habitat'' for polar bears. When
combined with the other hostile actions undertaken by the
administration when it comes to developing our public lands, the
listing and designation has the potential to devastate our State's
economy.
My concern has long been that the Department based its listing
decision more on the expectation that climate change would decrease
polar bear habitat and stocks in the future, than on fact that stocks
are currently in decline. I have seen no data to show that polar bear
stocks currently are in significant decline across northern Alaska (the
issue of potential Russian poaching aside) and thus, the species does
not warrant protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Has the Department undertaken any recent efforts to consider new
science related to polar bears in an effort to determine whether the
species should be listed under the Endangered Species Act? If so,
please provide me with the studies that you have considered. If not,
please share with me the reason for not moving forward and whether
there is a plan for moving forward.
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) initiated a 5-year
status review under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA), for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) on October 13, 2015. The
purpose of this 5-year review is to ensure that the polar bear has the
appropriate level of protection under the Act. The polar bear's
``threatened'' status reflects the finding that it is not presently in
danger of extinction, but is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. A 5-year review affords the opportunity to
periodically take a comprehensive look at the full body of information
available for a species and assess its progress toward recovery. These
reviews assist the Service and its partners in identifying conservation
needs, better targeting and prioritizing conservation efforts for the
species, and determining whether a species may warrant downlisting,
delisting, or uplisting.
As a part of the 5-year review, the Service published its intent to
collect the following data regarding the polar bear species: species
biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution,
abundance, demographics, and genetics; habitat conditions, including
but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability; conservation
measures that have benefited the species; threat status and trends; and
other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited
to changes in taxonomy or nomenclature and identification of erroneous
information contained in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
In addition to the 5-year review process, through the Service's
participation in co-management arrangements via the U.S.-Russia
Bilateral and Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreements, the Service considers new
science on an annual basis as it relates to sustainable harvest levels
for the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulations of the polar
bear, which are harvested for subsistence. The Service does not have a
recent population estimate for the Chukchi Sea subpopulation, but does
have evidence that polar bear body size and condition remains stable
despite the declines in habitat (sea ice). In the Southern Beaufort Sea
subpopulation, multiple lines of evidence suggest that polar bears may
be in decline due to decreased sea ice availability, including
reductions in body size, body condition, and recruitment in recent
decades (Regehr et al. 2006, Rode et al. 2010, 2014a). A recent
publication (Bromaghin et al. 2015) indicates that polar bear numbers
in the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation significantly declined from
2004 to 2007 and survival of subadult bears declined throughout the
entire period of 2001-2010.
Regehr et al. 2006:
Regehr E.V., S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear
population status in the southern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2006-1337, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science
Center, Anchorage, AK, USA.
Rode et al. 2014:
Rode, K.D., E.V. Regehr, D.C. Douglas, G. Durner, A.E. Derocher,
G.W. Thiemann, and S.M. Budge. 2014. Variation in the response of an
Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive
ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20:76-88.
Rode et al. 2010:
Rode K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 2010. Reduced body size
and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline.
Ecological Applications 20:768-782.
Bromaghin et al. 2015:
Bromaghin, J. F., T. L. McDonald, I. Stirling, A. E. Derocher, E.
S. Richardson, E. V. Regehr, D. C. Douglas, G. M. Durner, T. Atwood,
and S. C. Amstrup. 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in the southern
Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Ecological
Applications 25:634-651.
Question (7). The Fish and Wildlife Service has requested the
authority to seek compensation from responsible parties who damage or
destroy National Wildlife Refuge System or other Service resources.
This legislative language has been circulating for a number of years.
In 2014, a hearing was held in the Environment and Public Works
Committee a bill that was introduced by Senator Cardin. My
understanding is that no legislation has been introduced in the current
Congress and the Environment and Public Works Committee has not taken
action on the matter.
a. Why has the Department only requested this authority for the
Fish and Wildlife Service? I understand the National Park Service has
similar authority already, but the Bureau of Land Management does not.
Is there a reason that the request was made only for the Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land
Management both have authorities to allow them to retain collections
from damages for repair and restoration.
The NPS authority provided by 54 U.S.C 100721-25 allows NPS to use
response costs and damages recovered under the authority or amounts
recovered under any statute as a result of damage (destruction, loss
of, or injury) to any resource within a unit of the National Park
System to be retained and used for response costs, damage assessments,
restoration, and replacements.
The Bureau of Land Management's annual appropriations language for
Service Charges, Deposits and Forfeitures provides general Federal
authority to collect fees for rehabilitation of damaged public lands.
The BLM has specific requirements in the BLM Realty Trespass Abatement
Handbook on the deposit and use of rehabilitation/stabilization funds.
It states that funds received for rehabilitation/stabilization of
damaged lands as result of trespass settlement or bond forfeiture are
deposited into the Service Charges, Deposits and Forfeitures account
and are available for in-State rehabilitation and stabilization work on
lands damaged by trespass.
b. I have heard concerns that providing this authority will lead
to additional prosecutions of individual because the Service will be
incentivized by the prospect of additional revenue. What can you do to
assure me that this will not happen?
Answer. The Service has a responsibility to manage public resources
for both current and future generations. In order to maintain these
resources, the Service expects parties responsible for damaging them,
not taxpayers, to pay restoration costs. The intent of this authority
is to ensure that the Service, and the American people, will not have
to pay for restoration activities and that those causing these impacts
pay for their restoration. It is not intended to generate revenue for
the Service.
While this authority would be new for the Service, it is not a new
authority for government agencies. The National Park Service (NPS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) have similar authorities and we look to their
models to implement this law, if enacted.
Any funds collected to compensate for resource injuries will be
used to rectify that specific injury alone. The legislation, if
enacted, would deposit the recovered funds into the Department of the
Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund, as is
done with natural resource damages recovered under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Oil
Pollution Act, and the Park System Resource Protection Act (16 USC
19jj). These funds would be maintained separately and used solely for
cases handled under this authority.
Question (8). The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill
contained a substantial increase for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF). The total discretionary appropriation was $450 million, an
increase of $50 million over the President's fiscal year 2016
discretionary total and $144 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level of $306 million. Congress was able to fund the President's
proposed discretionary funding lists and increase the NPS State side
program to $110 million. Given the funding pressures for the Interior
bill this year it will be hard to meet the fiscal year 2016
appropriated level; therefore, we need to carefully look at the
projects the President has proposed in his budget submission to make
sure they have been fully vetted and are ready to go.
The explanatory statement on the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus stated
that many of the projects the administration has proposed over the
years lack sufficient information, and that requested projects should
have identified properties, willing sellers, updated appraisals or
market information, and the support of Federal, State, and local
officials.
Have all of the projects submitted in the fiscal year 2017 budget
met all of these conditions?
Answer. To the greatest extent possible, LWCF land acquisition
projects proposed by the fiscal year 2017 budget meet the conditions
laid out by the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus explanatory statement;
however, the Department chooses to use discretion when it comes to
disclosing certain details on the projects in the Greenbooks for a
variety of reasons. Upon request from the Appropriations Committee, the
bureaus may provide further details to cover the conditions, and both
the bureaus and Department make a point to alert in a timely manner the
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees if project details and/or status
change.
The bureaus included the following information in the Greenbook
project data sheets, as well as briefing materials for Congress, for
each proposed acquisition:
--Full page profiles and maps of each acquisition, including
estimated cost, acres, and location. Should those details
change or be updated, the bureaus and Department relay that
information to the Appropriations Committee.
--Contributors known to the bureaus' State and regional offices that
are partners or supporters of the proposal acquisition. These
identified contributors may include, but are not limited to,
the following: State, county or local governments or agencies;
national, State or local private non-profit organizations;
Federal Government partner agencies; charitable foundations;
land and battlefield trusts; and local and regional committees
or networks (including those representing ranchers, farmers,
hunters, anglers, and other outdoorsmen).
The bureaus did not cite by name in the Greenbook project data
sheets individual Federal, State, and local officials who support
projects, choosing instead--where applicable--to cite the support of
Federal, State, county, or local governments or agencies.
Willing sellers are not identified in the budget for several
reasons. Bureaus, working through their field and regional offices,
identify land parcels in or adjacent to public lands for purchase, as
well as potential willing sellers. Given that acquisition projects may
take 2 to 3 years to complete, in the early stage of a budget request,
bureaus may not have concrete willing sellers yet (only potential).
Privacy issues may arise when landowners and potentially willing
sellers do not want their neighbors to know that they are talking to
the government about selling. Additionally, there is the value
expectation. If a landowner sees his or her name listed along with a
request number, the landowner comes to expect the entire amount,
regardless of the actual appraised value.
Details on each land acquisition project also reflect consideration
of several additional criteria important to the bureaus and Department,
including the ecological, economic, and cultural values the project
conserves; contribution of leveraged funds; partner participation and
support; and the urgency of project completion to protect natural areas
and wildlife species habitats from development or other incompatible
uses.
In a continuing effort to provide user friendly data, the
Department provides an interactive map of the properties it submitted
for consideration to Congress for the 2017 budget at: https://
www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/LWCF_BIB_map_
FY2017.pdf.
Question (9). The explanatory statement also expressed that the
agencies should include the feasibility of phasing projects as well as
a description of which parcels are being considered for conservation
easements or fee simple acquisition.
Discuss compliance with this guidance. What number or percent of
the requested projects were identified as able to be accomplished in
phases? What number or percent of the projects were identified as
acquisitions for conservation easements versus fee simple acquisitions?
Answer. For the BLM, several of the fiscal year 2017 projects could
be phased--within discretionary funding 10 of the 14 projects (or 71
percent) could be phased. Within BLM discretionary funding, 68 percent
would be invested in fee acquisitions and 32 percent would be invested
in easement acquisitions.
The FWS discretionary request for fiscal year 2017 would purchase
approximately 16,375 fee acres (39 percent) and 25,670 conservation
easement acres (61 percent). Most of the FWS projects have already been
phased; however, four of the projects, or 25 percent, can be further
phased since they are comprised of multiple tracts.
Of the 33 projects included in the NPS fiscal year 2017 budget for
Federal land acquisition, four projects are parts of phased
acquisitions:
1. Grand Teton NP(Discretionary): The State of Wyoming entered
into an agreement with the United States for a phased conveyance of
approximately 1,400 acres of State-owned land within Grand Teton
National Park. The fiscal year 2017 budget includes $22.5 million which
will be obligated to cover the Federal cost of a portion of that phased
conveyance.
2. Hawaii Volcanoes NP (Discretionary): Funding requested ($6
million) will be used to acquire half of the 16,467-acre Pohue Bay/Kau
Coast property at the park.
3. Hawaii Volcanoes NP (Mandatory): Funding requested ($6
million), if appropriated, will be used to acquire the second half of
the Pohue Bay/Kau Coast property at the park.
4. Palo Alto NHP (Mandatory): The requested funds would commence a
phased acquisition of a tract containing 1,353.84 acres of land (Total
Estimated Value: $9,125,000) located within the national historic site.
Of the 33 projects included in the NPS fiscal year 2017 budget
request for Federal land acquisition, three projects are identified as
easement or less-than-fee acquisitions (Death Valley NP, Katmai NP and
Redwood NP), one project involves both fee and easement acquisitions
(Martin Van Buren NHS), and two projects may involve either fee or
easement acquisitions (Little River Canyon NPres and Nez Perce NHP).
The possibility of acquiring a conservation easement varies, depending
on the contemplated Federal use of the property and the willingness of
the landowner to sell such easement.
Question (10). The explanatory statement also included language to
increase the transparency of the project selection and prioritization
processes in the annual budget requests, particularly in regard to
collaborative landscape projects. Over the years, there has been
concern among many in the community and here in Congress about how the
administration picks projects for the discretionary and mandatory
lists. It appears that many of the projects have been geared toward the
Western US and that geographic distribution of funds has not been a
factor in your project selection. Typically Congress has funded the
proposed lists in the order requested; however, with questions about
the quality of projects and the process used to select projects
Congress may need to revisit this approach.
Given these questions about quality and process: What process does
the Department use to compile the project lists, including for
identifying collaborative areas? What considerations does the
Department take into account when selecting and prioritizing projects?
What is the geographic distribution of requested funds?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2017 budget includes 135 land
acquisition projects across the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture's four land management agencies in 41 States.
The wide range of projects proposed for funding includes important
wildlife habitat and migration corridors in Florida's Everglades,
grassland and wetland habitats popular with hunters and anglers in
eastern North Dakota and South Dakota, historic structures associated
with the Wright brothers and the early development of the airplane at
the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in Ohio,
permanent public access to the South Puget Sound Coastal Forest in
Washington State, scenic vistas along the Appalachian Trail, and
popular public recreation sites in national monuments in Arizona, Idaho
and New Mexico. The attached map shows the location of each proposed
land acquisition project, and demonstrates the geographic diversity of
projects in fiscal year 2017.
The National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) each has its own criteria that are
used to evaluate and prioritize proposed land acquisitions.
NPS utilizes a nationwide priority ranking system, the Land
Acquisition Ranking System (LARS). The initial information for each
project is provided by the park unit and reviewed by regional or field
offices of the Land Acquisition Program. Land Acquisition staff in each
office assists the Regional staff in ranking the requests received
using guidelines provided by the Washington (WASO) Program Office. The
LARS incorporates several criteria, including, but not limited to: the
threat to and preservation of the resource; a commitment has been made
to acquire; involvement of partners, non-profit group support or
availability of matching funds; recreational opportunities; existence
of legislative authority to acquire; and ability to obligate
appropriated dollars.
For BLM, submissions include a completed project narrative, fact
sheet, questionnaire, representational map(s) and digital color
images--and are limited to no more than 20 projects per State Office
(SO). To be eligible projects must be:
1. Within or contiguous to, a unit of the National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS) (with the exception of Wilderness Study
Areas), an Area of Critical Environmental Concern or a Special
Recreation Management Area;
2. Comply with Section 205 (b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (identified for acquisition within an approved land use
plan); and
3. Be available for purchase from a willing seller owner.
Submissions are then reviewed by the National Review Team (NRT).
The NRT is a multi-disciplinary team consisting of representatives from
different levels of the organization. The NRT recommends a prioritized
list of project proposals to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
leadership. The BLM Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Land
Acquisition list reflects bureau and departmental priorities, potential
sources and levels of funding, and the latest information on willing
sellers.
FWS's 2014 Strategic Growth Policy directs FWS to focus on
acquiring lands and waters in fee, conservation easement, and/or
donation that support three conservation priorities:
1. Recovery of threatened and endangered species;
2. Implementing the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and
3. Conserving migratory birds of conservation concern.
Based on these three priorities to evaluate proposed NWRS land
acquisitions, FWS uses the Targeted Resource Acquisition Comparison
Tool (TRACT). The TRACT provides a biological, science-based, and
transparent process for ranking proposed NWRS land acquisitions.
TRACT biological evaluation plays a role in LWCF budget
formulation, but is not the only factor considered when making
decisions about where to request LWCF funds for NWRS land acquisition.
The LWCF project list submitted by FWS reflects additional
considerations, such as bureau operational priorities, partner support,
potential non-Federal funding sources, unique land acquisition
opportunities, and the latest information on willing sellers. Land
acquisition projects proposed for the fiscal year 2017 budget reflect
additional important factors, including conservation partner
participation, and urgency of project completion to protect natural
areas from development or other incompatible uses.
The Service considers the minimum interest necessary to reach
management objectives. For example, conservation efforts for the
greater sage grouse and central Florida ecosystem are compatible with
traditional land use. Therefore the Service may choose to seek
conservation easements or, to enhance public access and recreational
opportunities, a combination of fee and conservation easements
acquisition.
The administration's strategic approach to using LWCF land
acquisition funds in fiscal year 2017 includes funding for
Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) projects. This interagency
program brings the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture together
with local stakeholders to identify large natural areas where LWCF
funds can achieve the most important shared conservation and community
goals in the highest priority landscapes. Conserving large-scale
natural areas provides multiple resource and economic benefits to the
public, including clean drinking water, recreational opportunities,
protected habitat for at-risk and game species, and jobs generated on
and off these lands. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
follow a rigorous competitive and merit-based based evaluation process
to select collaborative landscapes for investment. After evaluating and
prioritizing multiple ecosystems, they selected seven landscapes for
discretionary and mandatory funding in fiscal year 2017:
--Island Forests at Risk (Hawaii)
--High Divide (Idaho, Montana)
--Rivers of the Chesapeake Collaborative (Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia)
--National Trails System (California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee)
--Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative (Florida)
--Southern Blue Ridge (Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia)
--Pathways to the Pacific (Oregon, Washington).
Qualifying projects are submitted by bureaus which are evaluated
and selected for inclusion within available budget resources.
Question (11). According to the EPA, methane emissions from
hydraulic fracturing at natural gas wells is down 83 percent since 2011
and total methane emissions from natural gas production are down 38
percent since 2005.
a. Is natural gas a key component of GHG reductions?
Answer. Reducing natural gas emissions reduces waste of America's
public resources and provides important greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reductions. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is an
especially powerful GHG. Its climate impact is roughly 25 times that of
CO2, if measured over a 100-year period, or 86 times that of
CO2, if measured over a 20-year period.\1\ Thus, measures to
conserve such gas, avoid its waste, and reduce unnecessary releases
significantly benefit local communities, public health, and the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8, Anthropogenic and Natural
Radiative Forcing, at 714 (Table 8.7), available at https://
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Does the use of natural gas help drive down GHG emissions?
Answer. The effect of use of natural gas on GHG emissions depends
on both the energy source that would be used in lieu of the natural
gas, and on the quantity of methane lost during the natural gas
production process. Assuming limited methane losses, replacing coal or
oil with natural gas can help drive down GHG emissions. Where natural
gas replaces non-carbon energy sources, such as renewable or nuclear
energy, however, the use of natural gas increases GHG emissions. Also,
because methane is a far more potent GHG than CO2, methane
lost during the natural gas production process can offset the benefits
of using natural gas in place of other fossil fuels.
c. Does the administration want to see U.S. natural gas production
continue to help bring down GHG emissions?
Answer. The continued production and use of natural gas are
consistent with the administration's goal of achieving a cleaner, more
secure energy future, provided that gas losses are minimized.
Consistent with this recognition and our overall climate goals,
finalization of the recently proposed Methane and Waste Prevention rule
will help curb waste of our Nation's natural gas supplies, reduce
harmful methane emissions that worsen climate change, and provide a
fair return on public resources for Federal taxpayers, tribes and
States.
Question (12). Over the course of the U.S. energy boom, according
to the Energy Information Administration, marketed natural gas
production has increased by 35 percent, over the 9-year period from
2005 to 2013, from about 19 trillion cubic feet of gas per year to
about 25 and a half trillion cubic feet of gas per year. Over this same
period, EPA data show that methane emissions from hydraulically
fractured natural gas wells decreased by about 80 percent, emissions
from natural gas production decreased by about 38 percent and total
methane emissions decreased by about 11 percent.
a. In view of this information, and in view of EPA's continued
efforts to reduce methane emissions from industry sources, why has the
BLM, under your authority, chosen to promulgate its own methane
regulations?
Answer. The proposed Methane and Waste Prevention Rule aims to
reduce the waste of natural gas from BLM-administered mineral leases.
This gas is lost during oil and gas production activities through
flaring or venting of the gas, and equipment leaks. The BLM has an
independent statutory responsibility to address this waste.
Specifically, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) requires the BLM to
ensure that lessees ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste
of oil or gas . . .'' (30 U.S.C. 225). While oil and gas production
technology has advanced dramatically in recent years, the BLM's
requirements to minimize waste of gas have not been updated in over 30
years. The BLM believes there are economical, cost-effective, and
reasonable measures that operators should take to minimize waste, which
will enhance our Nation's natural gas supplies, boost royalty receipts
for American taxpayers, tribes, and States, and reduce environmental
damage from venting and flaring.
EPA has finalized regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce
methane emissions from certain new, reconstructed, and modified oil and
gas production activities. While these requirements will have the
effect of reducing some losses of gas as well, the EPA requirements are
not aimed directly at waste and would not fulfill the BLM's statutory
responsibilities. For example, unlike the proposed BLM regulations, the
proposed EPA regulations do not address gas losses through flaring, and
do not address gas losses from existing sources, unless the existing
source is modified or reconstructed (as defined by EPA).
b. Related to this question, can you describe the consultation
that the BLM has undertaken with EPA, and with the State regulatory
agencies with Clean Air Act authority in the states with operations on
BLM lands?
Answer. The BLM has engaged in substantial stakeholder outreach in
the course of developing the proposal. In 2014 and 2016, the BLM
conducted a series of forums to consult with tribal governments and
solicit stakeholder views to inform the development of the proposed
rule (2014) and to discuss the proposed rule after publication (2016).
The outreach included tribal and public meetings (some of which were
livestreamed) in Colorado (2014/2016), New Mexico (2014/2016), North
Dakota (2014/2016), Washington, DC (2014), and Oklahoma City (2016).\2\
For each forum, BLM held a tribal outreach session in the morning and a
public outreach session in the afternoon. The BLM also accepted
informal comments generated as a result of the public/tribal outreach
sessions (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Further information can be found at the BLM oil and gas
program's outreach-events page: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/
energy/public_events_on_oil.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM also consulted State regulators (both oil and gas
regulators and air quality regulators) both while developing the
proposal and since its issuance. Specifically, the BLM held discussions
with regulators from: North Dakota (2014/2016), Wyoming (2014/2016),
Alaska (2014/2016), Colorado (2014/2016), Utah (2014/2016), and New
Mexico (2014) to discuss the States' rules and practices, their
effectiveness, the States' recommendations with respect to the BLM
rulemaking, and their views on the proposal. The BLM is continuing to
hold further discussions with States, is looking forward to receiving
detailed written comments from State regulators, and will take those
comments into careful consideration in developing the final rule.
During the development of the proposed rule, the BLM and the EPA
held regular discussions to share data and technical information,
identify areas of potential overlap between the two regulatory efforts,
consider ways to align the proposed rule requirements as much as
practicable, and identify provisions where the BLM could exempt
otherwise covered sources or activities because they are or are
proposed to be subject to equally effective EPA requirements. Those
meetings are continuing during development of the final EPA and BLM
rules.
Question (13). Over the last few years the United States has
undergone an energy renaissance which has created thousands of new
well-paying jobs, made the United States more energy secure and less
reliant on evil powers across the globe as well as make U.S. energy
more affordable--just look at the cost of gasoline today--all while
methane and GHG emissions have dramatically declined. During this same
time BLM's permitting process continues to lag which is not only a lost
opportunity for the benefits I just described, but also to the
detriment of potential revenues to the Federal Treasury and the States.
Additionally, the BLM has put out a number of regulations and proposals
including the Hydraulic Fracturing, updates to Onshore Orders 3, 4, and
5, and the proposed venting and flaring rule. Each of these, separately
and combined, could have real effects on U.S. energy production, jobs,
revenues, etc. If the goal of the Climate Action plan is to decrease
GHG emissions, does it make sense to propose a suite of regulations
that will shut down U.S. natural gas production?
Answer. The common-sense and cost-effective rules BLM has proposed
or finalized in the last 2-plus years are an important component of its
efforts to modernize its oil and gas program. These regulations--
including the proposed updates to Onshore Orders 3, 4, and 5, the
Hydraulic Fracturing Rule, and the proposed Methane and Waste
Prevention Rule--are all necessary updates to 30-year old regulatory
requirements that no longer reflect modern technology or practices. The
BLM expects that these regulatory efforts will increase production and
royalty accountability, enhance the safety of operations, and conserve
resources, without harming U.S. energy production.
These rules often propose or adopt standards and practices
developed by industry that are already being successfully employed by
operators. Updating and clarifying the regulations will make them more
effective, more transparent, and easier to understand and administer,
which will benefit both industry and the public. The proposed and
adopted changes will provide modern, effective regulation of oil and
gas operations on BLM-administered leases, ensuring such development
occurs in an environmentally responsible way that provides a fair
return to taxpayers.
Question (14). For several years, the EPA has been working on the
development of new requirements for compliance with elements of the
Clean Air Act for oil and gas production operations. The process of
developing new regulations for emissions from new sources has
involved--indeed required--highly technical discussions, and has been
characterized by regular opportunities for substantive discussion
between EPA and the regulated industry. Why is the BLM undertaking its
own separate rulemaking process?
a. Did the BLM work with the EPA to make sure the two packages
were not in conflict with one another? If so, why are there many
examples of the two rules differing or the BLM requiring something the
EPA determined was not necessary or cost prohibitive?
For example: BLM's inclusion of liquids unloading requirements
when EPA has determined there is not a single cost-effective method
that can address this source. Additionally, there are differences
between survey frequency based on number of leaks (BLM) versus percent
of components (EPA).
Answer. The BLM and the EPA have worked closely together throughout
the rulemaking processes to ensure that the two regulatory packages are
not in conflict with each other, as discussed in more detail in the
response to Question 12a. In some cases the two rules are different
because they are being adopted under different statutory authorities
and they have different primary purposes.
For example, our understanding is that section 111 of the Clean Air
Act requires the EPA to base its standards on an identified ``best
system of emission reduction.'' The EPA proposed that it could not
identify a single best system of emission reduction that should apply
in all situations to reduce emissions from liquids unloading. In
contrast, the Mineral Leasing Act simply requires the BLM to ensure
that lessees ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil
or gas . . .'' 30 U.S.C. 225. With respect to liquids unloading, the
BLM has determined that there are multiple technologies and practices
that would reduce gas losses from liquids unloading, depending upon the
particular circumstances of the well. The BLM has not proposed to
require operators to use specific technologies. Rather, the BLM has
simply proposed a performance-based standard--to prohibit liquids
unloading through manual well purging from new wells--allowing
operators to choose the technologies or practices to apply to achieve
this result.
Question (15). What assurance do we have that the two agencies'
efforts can be coordinated such that BLM's rulemaking will be informed
by the EPA effort so that regulatory conflict is avoided?
Answer. The BLM and the EPA fully understand the importance of
coordinating their approaches, have coordinated closely throughout the
rulemaking processes to date, and are committed to continuing to
coordinate until both rulemakings are finalized. As a practical matter,
the EPA's rulemaking was finalized before the BLM's rulemaking, which
allows the BLM to take EPA's final rule fully into account before
finalizing the BLM's rule.
Question (16). How do these rules interact with the State's own
efforts on methane? What consideration did you give the State programs?
Is there a scenario where projects will need to comply with a State
methane program and regime, a different BLM methane program and regime
and a different EPA methane program and regime? Is that necessary and
reasonable?
Answer. As discussed in the response to Question 12b, the BLM has
reached out to many States to gain an understanding of State
regulations and the States' experiences with their regulations. In
fact, many of the provisions in the proposed rule track elements of
effective State programs.
The BLM has also constructed its proposed rule to address concerns
about the potential for multiple applicable regulations. To minimize
any overlap with EPA regulations, the BLM proposed that sources meeting
the EPA requirements would either be exempt from the BLM rules
altogether, or be permitted to demonstrate compliance with the EPA
requirements in lieu of meeting the BLM requirements, depending on the
specific requirement. In addition, the BLM and the EPA proposed to
align their requirements to a very significant degree and aim to
further align the final rules, to the full extent consistent with legal
authorities and with consideration of comments received.
With respect to State rules, the BLM proposed specific provisions
to allow variances from one or more BLM requirements where one or more
State requirements are equally or more effective.
Question (17). How does the cost-benefit analysis hold up when
there are a lot of legacy producing wells that would cost more to
comply with these proposals than the energy that is produced which
would then result in production being shut-in? Would this mean that DOI
loses in royalty revenue?
Answer. The proposed rule includes several exceptions and
alternative limits that would apply if implementing provisions of the
rule would impose such costs as to cause the operator to cease
production and abandon significant recoverable oil reserves under a
lease. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule projects
that the rule would produce modest increases in both gas production and
royalties.
Question (18). In January, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake hit Alaska.
Though a handful of families lost their homes, damage was limited
because the earthquake occurred away from populated areas. Alaska's
history demonstrates clearly, however, that we are not always so
fortunate.
a. In 2000, congress authorized the Advanced National Seismic
System to ``establish and maintain an advanced infrastructure for
seismic monitoring throughout the United States that operates with high
performance standards . . .'' A decade and a half later, many of the
baseline performance standards set by this program have not been
achieved in Alaska. As other States with high earthquake hazard move on
to advanced technologies, such as earthquake early warning, what is the
Department doing to make sure Alaska has access to the instrumentation,
technology, and funding needed to expand and modernize the seismic
infrastructure?
Answer. In the past 15 years, the USGS has invested in earthquake
monitoring and reporting, seismic hazard assessment, and other
earthquake loss reduction activities in Alaska, and collaborates with
several groups in the State. The USGS supports the Alaska Earthquake
Center and the University of Alaska--Fairbanks (UAF), our regional
seismic network partner in the State, at about $600,000 per year. The
USGS also supports the Anchorage Strong Motion Network, a collaborative
effort among the USGS National Strong Motion Project, the Alaska
Volcano Observatory (a joint center of the USGS, UAF, and Alaska
Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys). The network consists of
more than 30 free-field stations, a borehole site, and several
instrumented buildings and bridges. USGS monitoring investments in
Alaska also include USGS National Network stations, and the services
provided by the USGS National Earthquake Information Center.
In recent years, the USGS invested in improvements to the Anchorage
and Alaska regional seismic networks. For example, in 2010, USGS made
an award to the UAF of $483,000 plus seismic equipment for upgrading
these networks. The USGS has also invested in improving the Anchorage
monitoring infrastructure. As a result of these improvements, high-
quality data on how shaking varied across the Anchorage urban area were
successfully collected from the January 2016, magnitude-7.1 earthquake.
The USGS has also supported the Delaney Park geotechnical array in
Anchorage, operated by the University of California, which provides
field observations of earthquake activity and uses these observations
as control data for testing models and simulation techniques.
b. Language was included in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus for USGS
to conduct a cost benefit study related to earthquake monitoring for
Alaska. Please tell me what the status of that report is and when we
may be able to expect to see some of the findings?
Answer. A working group has been formed to conduct a cost-benefit
study for monitoring improvements in Alaska: the study will be released
in the fall of 2016 or before. The working group will evaluate the
costs and benefits of seismic station adoptions, earthquake early
warning, as well as improvements to existing monitoring operations.
USGS will use the results of this study in its planning for future
investment in seismic monitoring in Alaska.
c. President Obama's 2013 arctic strategy document emphasizes
cooperative efforts with the State of Alaska to respond to natural and
man-made disasters. In the last 2 years there have been significant
swarms of earthquakes in the Bering Sea, Northwest Alaska and the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. How does the Department intend to
engage with the State of Alaska to develop earthquake mitigation
strategies for the Arctic region?
Answer. The USGS is a member of the four-agency National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) partnership, but developing
earthquake mitigation strategies are primarily the responsibility of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Federal
Emergency Management Agency. As a member of the NEHRP, the USGS
conducts and supports targeted geoscience research investigations on
earthquake causes and effects; produces seismic hazard maps and
assessments; monitors and reports on earthquakes and shaking
intensities; works to improve public understanding of earthquake
hazards; and coordinates post-earthquake reconnaissance carried out and
supported by NEHRP agencies and other organizations.
Question (19). The President's proposal includes an increase of
$8.8 million for USGS activities related to the Arctic.
a. Could you provide more detail on the Department's Arctic
priorities, particularly as they relate to the administration's
``Implementation Plan for its National Strategy for the Arctic
Region''?
Answer. On May 10, 2013, the President issued the National Strategy
for the Arctic Region (Strategy). The accompanying Implementation Plan
set forth the methodology, process, and approach for executing the
Strategy. The Implementation Plan follows the structure and objectives
of the Strategy's three lines of effort:
--Advance United States Security Interests
--Pursue Responsible Arctic Region Stewardship
--Strengthen International Cooperation
The Implementation Plan reflects the reality of a changing Arctic
environment and upholds national interests in safety, security, and
environmental protection, and works with international partners to
pursue global objectives of addressing climatic changes. The
Implementation Plan complements and builds upon existing initiatives by
Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities, the private sector, and
international partners, and focuses efforts where opportunities exist
and action is most needed.
Under the Implementation Plan, the Department's priorities include:
--Ensuring the safe and responsible exploration and development of
onshore and offshore Arctic non-renewable energy resources in
an environmentally sound manner;
--Implementing Integrated Arctic Management and employing management
approaches, such as ecosystem-based management, to enhance good
governance to provide for sustainable economies in the region,
ensure long-lasting benefits of balanced ecosystems, and
preserve cultural activities of the people that depend on the
Arctic environment; and,
--Coordinating and integrating terrestrial ecosystem research to
increase the understanding of geophysical and ecosystem
responses to a changing climate and to inform management
decisions and subsistence uses.
The Department continues to study offshore environments, evaluate
energy development and spill response capabilities, and to promote
safety across all energy development activities. In cooperation with
the State of Alaska and Alaska Native organizations, the Department is
also encouraging use of Integrated Arctic Management, a science-based,
whole-of-government approach for stewardship and planning, that
integrates and balances environmental, economic, and cultural needs and
objectives.
The Department is also a member of the Interagency Arctic Research
Policy Committee (IARPC) to advance research in areas of common
interest to member agencies. The IARPC 2013-2017 research plan was
drafted with contributions from all IARPC agencies with public
involvement. The plan, which is currently being updated, intentionally
builds on the strong intellectual accomplishments and ideas of the
research community at the Federal, State, local, and tribal levels as
well as inclusion of ideas from the academic community, non-
governmental organizations, and industry. As an IARPC member, the
Department is engaged in answering key research questions such as
determining the impact of diminishing permafrost on Arctic ecosystems
and inhabitants.
The 2017 budget request for the Department's activities in the
Arctic is $160.6 million, an increase of $15.8 million above the 2016
enacted level. The request for USGS includes increases totaling $9.8
million, which includes $8.8 million in Arctic funding and a net
addition of $1 million primarily for Alaska map modernization that will
be applied to the Arctic. Across the USGS, these increases will be used
to analyze the impacts of a changing climate, including changing
distributions of fish and wildlife populations, the melting of glaciers
and the resulting impact to fresh water resources; to analyze the risks
posed by sea-level rise to coastal communities; and to develop
predictive models.
b. Also, can you provide specific details about the type of
research and activities that would be conducted if this funding were
approved? For example, will these activities improve our understanding
of the continental shelf offshore Alaska's north coast?
Answer. With these increases, the USGS will support research and
development efforts focused on the Arctic through a multidisciplinary
approach designed to both individually understand and holistically
evaluate ecosystem processes and interactions in the Arctic to provide
the objective science needed for effective management of Arctic
resources. Additionally, an increase of $1.5 million within the
National Geospatial program for Alaska map modernization will be used
in the Arctic region and a proposed decrease in the Mineral Resources
program reduces Arctic spending by $500,000. Including the Alaska map
modernization funding to be used in the Arctic, the President's budget
request includes an increase of $9.8 million for USGS Arctic
activities.
The increase of $1.0 million in the Environments Program in the
Ecosystems Mission Area will be used to analyze changes in fish and
wildlife population distribution and habitats. Additionally, the
program will use computer simulations to improve strategies for
estimating polar bear populations from data gathered in Western Hudson
Bay, the Chukchi Sea, and the Southern Beaufort Sea.
The increase of $500,000 for the DOI Alaska Climate Science Center
and other related programs will develop a process to estimate total
glacier loss in Alaska and any changes in freshwater input. These and
other forecasts will improve understanding of effects on river systems
and ecosystem dynamics that affect economically and culturally
important species such as salmon and caribou. The funding would build
upon other research investments in interior Alaska to better understand
the potential for larger scale and more frequent effects of ecological
drought in the region.
Additionally, the increase of $1.9 million in the Climate and Land
Use Change Mission Area's Land Remote Sensing Program is to develop
predictive models for permafrost melt. Using remote sensing data from
satellites and airborne systems, in combination with field-based
studies, this work will prepare Arctic communities for the effects of
the thawing land beneath them and improve global climate modeling.
The increase of $3.5 million in the Coastal and Marine Geology
program within the Natural Hazards Mission Area accelerates work for
underserved communities dealing with impacts of sea level rise, severe
storms and melting permafrost on their coastal communities and
economies. The cost of field studies in these large and remote areas,
the lack of baseline data, and the poorly understood dynamics of ice-
bound and permafrost coasts limits the availability of coastal change
tools to benefit Alaskan communities. The increase will accelerate
bringing Artic communities the tools available to open-ocean coastal
regions of the coterminous United States. The investment will improve
coastal change models for forecasting and assessing vulnerability over
the next 10-25 years.
The increase of $2.0 million for the Water Resources Water
Availability and Use Science Program will address interactions among
water-mediated processes in a warming Arctic and assess system
feedbacks (e.g., effects of warming on hydrology and biogeochemical
cycling, which subsequently affects climate and hydrology). The program
will investigate methods that allow extrapolation from monitored to
unmonitored locations and expand monitoring of sentinels of change,
including permafrost temperature, streamflow, and materials exported
from watersheds.
Within base funding, continued analyses of geologic data resulting
from the joint USGS-NOAA-Department of State effort to define the
limits of the Extended Continental Shelf will result in enhanced
understanding of the continental shelf, slope, and Arctic Ocean basin.
Analyses of these data, and data from surveys supported by USGS-DOE
investigations of methane gas hydrates, will enhance our understanding
of the stability of the continental shelf and slope and the potential
for and consequences of hydrate release in response to changing
oceanographic conditions.
c. Will the research improve our understanding of the resource
potential for new oil and gas discoveries, as well help us understand
how to minimize the risks of utilizing those resources?
Answer. The USGS Energy Resources Program conducts oil and gas
resource assessments across the Nation. The program has several active
projects in the Arctic, including research on unconventional oil and
gas (UOG), which will continue with base program funds. These continued
studies of shales and other tight formations on the Alaskan North Slope
will help underpin more accurate resource assessments and reduce the
uncertainty associated with resource development.
The 2017 President's budget proposes several increases for
unconventional oil and gas research across the Nation, including $1.0
million for the USGS Energy Resources Program, a portion of which will
support field research in Alaska to assess undiscovered UOG resources
on the North Slope of Alaska. This additional funding will provide for
field research in Alaska on an annual basis instead of the current
research cycle of every other year, allowing more comprehensive data
collection and accelerating assessments.
The proposed increase for the program's unconventional oil and gas
research will better characterize environmental and operational risks
posed by oil and gas development (e.g., the mitigation of produced
waters derived by oil and gas production), and the increase supports
research and field work activities to lessen the statistical
uncertainty associated with resource potential estimates, allowing
efficient, environmentally responsible development. The increase for
unconventional oil and gas continues leveraging capabilities with the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources in support of these field
studies.
The USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program will conduct studies to
provide actionable science to respond to changes along the Arctic
shoreline, and help inform decisions with respect to infrastructure and
development associated with development of energy resources.
Question (20). 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 maps are over 50 years
old and vital to aviation safety, land use planning, and research. The
President's fiscal year 2017 budget proposes to increase funding for
this program by $1.5 million.
a. If the President's proposed increase of $1.5 million is
included in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill, that would bring
this initiative to a total program funding level of $6.7 million. At
that rate, how long would it take to complete the maps?
Answer. Alaska has many broad mapping needs, including topographic
maps. The $1.5 million proposed increase relates to topographic mapping
supported/implemented by the USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP).
With the proposed increase and continued funding from our Federal
partners, we estimate that it would take 5 years (2021) to complete
statewide coverage of ifsar elevation data and 6 years (2022) to
complete the statewide topographic maps for Alaska.
b. What percentage of the State now has updated maps and what
areas pose the most challenges for mapping?
Answer. As of March 2016, 15.6 percent of Alaska has published
topographic maps. The NGP's most challenging areas for collecting and
assembling high-quality elevation map data for Alaska include low-lying
coastal deltas with complex lake and river systems, the Aleutian
Islands and other remote islands in the Bering Sea. Other challenges
include expensive aircraft mobilization costs, limited time over the
acquisition targets, and severe weather conditions.
c. Will these maps be available in digital form and how accurate
will they be compared to topographic maps in the Lower 48?
Answer. All Alaska topographic maps are available online in digital
format (geoPDF). The data are free and the public can easily use this
file type across multiple platforms (desktop, Web, and mobile). Anyone
can upload the data into digital mapping/spatial analysis software to
build new applications for research, education, or industry.
USGS follows the same procedures used for map production for the
lower 48 in compiling new maps for Alaska. The elevation data accuracy
for the Alaska topographic maps (produced at a scale of 1:25,000) is
the same for topographic maps for the lower 48 States which follow
USGS' National Map Accuracy standards for 1:24,000 scale mapping. With
current funding, USGS corrects major errors for the majority of Alaska
map production and we have updated approximately 10 percent of the
State hydrography to meet higher specifications, where State funding
contributions have supported these efforts.
Question (21). The United States Geological Survey operates the
Alaska Volcano Observatory, a joint entity with the University of
Alaska. USGS operates five such observatories in the Western United
States. The observatory maintains a series of seismic monitors on
volcanoes in Alaska, largely on the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian
Chain, near the air corridor for flights to America from Asia. Ash from
eruptions is particularly dangerous to such flights as shown by the
near crash of a jumbo jet years ago.
a. The President's fiscal year 2017 budget proposes a very small
increase for the Volcano Hazards Program, $117,000 for fixed costs,
even though the entire USGS budget request is an increase of 10
percent. I understand there has been some progress made on the repair
and monitoring systems on Alaska Volcanoes and I appreciate the good
work that is being done there, but I am afraid we are not doing enough.
It was also brought to our attention that the good work we are doing
now to repair these systems may not be in compliance with the changing
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations over radio
frequency spectrum allocations.
Answer. USGS radio telemetry networks fall under the jurisdiction
of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) for spectrum allocation. Telemetry networks at most Very High
Threat volcanoes in Alaska (Spurr, Redoubt, Augustine, and Makushin)
are nearly compliant with NTIA spectrum allocation regulations. The
Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), operated by the USGS in partnership
with the University of Alaska and the Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, is focused on achieving full network compliance at
these volcanoes as soon as possible. As part of ongoing maintenance and
repairs, the USGS typically converts six to eight stations per year
from analog to digital.
To address near-term public safety concerns, the USGS used funding
received in 2015 to bring defunct and severely impaired networks back
on line. This required maintenance of existing analog telemetry links
that USGS cannot use past 2020.
b. Are you familiar with the FCC spectrum allocation issue? Are
the systems we are repairing in compliance with the FCC regulations or
are we repairing a system that will need to be converted to digital in
the next few years?
Answer. USGS radio telemetry networks fall under the jurisdiction
of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) for spectrum allocation. Changes to the spectrum guidelines and
allocations made USGS analog telemetry networks for volcano monitoring
in Alaska non-compliant. NTIA authorization permits USGS to use the
deprecated frequencies until 2020, which provides time to bring the
system into compliance by transitioning the networks to new digital
technology operating on an authorized spectrum.
As part of ongoing repair and maintenance, the USGS makes analog to
digital conversions when possible. This typically results in converting
six to eight stations per year. To address public safety concerns, the
USGS used fiscal year 2015 funding to bring defunct and severely
impaired networks back on line. Bringing the networks back on line
required maintenance of existing analog telemetry links that the USGS
cannot use past 2020.
c. Could you provide this committee with the current gaps in the
monitoring infrastructure at the Alaska Volcano Observatory and the
estimated costs to complete the monitoring system?
Answer. The USGS has identified five Very High Threat and 27 High
Threat volcanoes in Alaska. None of these 32 volcanoes have complete
monitoring networks by the USGS standards for the National Volcano
Early Warning System (NVEWS) and none of the existing networks are
compliant with National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) regulation and guidelines for spectrum
allocation.
The USGS has until 2020 to achieve compliance with the NTIA
regulations. Telemetry networks at most Very High Threat volcanoes are
nearly compliant. The estimated cost of upgrading to a NTIA-compliant
system is $18.5 million over 4 years over current funding levels.
Completing the conversion in 3 years, instead of four, would increase
the cost to $20.2 million, with the increase necessary to fund
additional staff to complete the work at the accelerated pace.
Additionally, to fully reach the USGS standards for NVEWS for the
32 Very High Threat and High Threat volcanoes in Alaska, the USGS
estimates 237 additional monitoring instruments (e.g., seismometers,
GPS receivers, and remote cameras) are required. The chart below
describes the current monitoring capabilities of the USGS in Alaska.
The average cost of deploying an instrument on an Alaskan volcano is
approximately $90,000. The total estimated cost to bring Alaska's
volcano monitoring networks up to NVEWS standards is $21.3 million
($4.4 million for the five Very High Threat volcanoes and $16.9 million
for the 27 High Threat volcanoes). This includes all aspects of
installation, including instrument procurement, logistics, power
systems, data telemetry, instrument housing, and permitting, but does
not include the cost associated with the telemetry upgrades needed for
NTIA compliance. The telemetry upgrades are necessary to support the
new instrumentation. In most cases, NVEWS-guided augmentation with
additional instruments would proceed in tandem with the analog-to-
digital conversion work.
Upgrading the monitoring system to NTIA compliance and completing
the monitoring system to NVEWS standards would cost an estimated $39.8
to $41.5 million in total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Volcanoes
---------------------------
Current Monitoring Level Current Monitoring Level Capabilities Very High
Threat High Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None............................... Eruptions detected after the fact by satellite 0 4
or direct observation. Eruption forecasting is
not possible. No research potential.
Minimal............................ Significant eruptions likely detected, but 0 5
small events missed. Eruption forecasting is
not possible. Little if any research
potential.
Limited............................ Most eruptions detected. Forecasting possible 1 17
under ideal circumstances. Sensor data of
limited usefulness for research.
Basic.............................. Nearly all eruptions detected and some 4 1
successfully forecast. Sensor data have
research potential.
Complete........................... All eruptions detected and most successfully 0 0
forecast. Sensor data have excellent research
value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................................................ 5 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question (22). In 2014, Congress passed the BLM Permit Processing
Improvement Act of 2014.
a. How has the passage of the legislation impacted permit
timelines?
Answer. The higher application for permit to drill (APD) fee of
$9,500 and associated allocations to the particular BLM offices went
into effect on October 1, 2015. The increased fee has the ability to
generate additional revenue, and therefore provide increased resources
for processing permits, all other things being equal. However, because
of market forces beyond the BLM's control, most notably the recent
steep drops in the price of natural gas and oil, there has been a
significant drop in the number of APDs submitted, which has reduced
revenues coming to BLM for APD processing. Based on the past 6 month's
observation, the BLM has not seen any overall impacts to the permitting
timeline as a result of the Act. That said, over the past 4 years, the
BLM has made significant progress in reducing the time to process an
APD--permit times have dropped from an average of 307 days in 2011 to
an average of 220 days in 2015.
b. The reauthorization also required BLM to report to Congress by
February 1 each fiscal year the allocation of funds to each office and
the accomplishments of each office. Where is that report?
Answer. The BLM has prepared a draft report for fiscal year 2015.
This report is in the Department of the Interior review process and
will be submitted as soon as that process has been completed.
Question (23). Over the last several years the Department of the
Interior has proposed or finalized a number of offshore and onshore
rules and regulations including the BLM hydraulic fracturing rule,
updates to BLM Onshore Order 3, 4, and 5, the BLM venting and flaring
proposal, the release of BLM Land Use Plan Amendments that limit areas
where oil and natural gas development can take place, changes to ONRR's
civil penalty regulations, additional regulations to Arctic OCS
operations as well as the proposed Well Control Rule, potential changes
to onshore royalties, bonus bids, etc. Interior is also expected to
propose updates to offshore air regulations and there are also a number
of additional items included in the Unified Agenda that have not been
proposed. All of this regulatory activity is taking place at a time
when investment on Federal land oil and natural gas production
continues to fall. Each of these items on their own may have a chilling
effect on future investment and interest in Federal production of oil
and gas and taken together, the cumulative impacts could potentially
alter not only production on Federal lands but also government revenue
as a result.
a. Are you analyzing and considering the cumulative effect of each
regulation on an individual basis as well as combined with the entire
suite of regulations? How do you ensure that the Department adheres to
its multiple-use mandate and continues to place great value on the oil
and gas production on Federal lands and the important revenues that
come to the Treasury as a result?
Answer. The regulations being updated have not been revised for
decades, and it is long past time to modernize them to reflect recent
technological advances in oil and gas production, health and safety
protection, and waste prevention. Reflecting reasonable and common-
sense revisions to existing requirements, these regulatory updates
incorporate modern industry practices and technology, and we therefore
do not expect them to pose an undue burden on industry.
Consistent with Federal requirements, the Department has conducted
analyses of the economic effects of the rules and presented those
findings in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for each rule. These
analyses evaluate each rule individually, because there is so much
geographic and operational variability in where and when the rules will
apply, and whether and how they will impact operators. That said, a
number of the new standards reflect existing industry best practices,
with which many operators are already in partial or full compliance.
Moreover, some of the measures will actually save producers money.
Finally, many of the rules incorporate grandfathering or other
provisions that are specifically designed to take account of operators'
concerns about the rules' impacts, including impacts on lower-producing
wells.
Question (24). The decision by DOI to pull the Arctic lease sales
in the 2012-2017 Five Year Program as well as the denial of lease term
extensions was shortsighted and without justification. Access to oil
and natural gas resources in the Alaska OCS is essential to the
Nation's economy and energy security and predictable leasing and
workable regulations are necessary to take advantage of this vast
resource. The Arctic contains the world's largest remaining
conventional undiscovered oil and natural gas. Given the resource
potential and long timelines required to bring Arctic resources to
market, decisions made today will have an impact on industry's ability
to provide the U.S. oil production of the future.
a. How does the Department view the importance of Arctic resources
and our need to continue exploration and development in the Arctic,
especially as other nations continue to reap the benefits of Arctic
development?
Answer. Alaska continues to be an important part of the Nation's
energy strategy. BOEM estimates that there are more than 23 billion
barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the Chukchi Sea
and Beaufort Sea planning areas, including multiple geologic plays.
This is based on information gathered from over 30 exploration wells
drilled in the Arctic, seismic data, and analogous reservoir analysis.
Significant acreage in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas is already
under lease, including some of the best prospects. As of April 2016,
there were 434 existing leases in the Chukchi Sea and 77 in the
Beaufort Sea. In addition to the Liberty project that is currently
under review, should DOI receive any exploration and development
proposals from industry, we will review them to ensure safe and careful
exploration and development in the Arctic.
Recognizing the significant oil and gas potential in the Arctic OCS
region, industry interest, and the views of the State of Alaska, the
2017-2022 Proposed Program, published on March 18, 2016, schedules
three potential sales offshore Alaska, one in each of the Beaufort Sea,
Chukchi Sea, and Cook Inlet. The Department is soliciting comments on
this proposal through June 16, 2016. In March, Director Hopper traveled
to the North Slope of Alaska to get input on the proposed Five Year
Program and the bureau will continue its outreach to encourage
stakeholder and partner feedback from Alaskan communities. Comments
received will inform the Proposed Final Program, scheduled to be
published in late 2016.
In advance of any potential lease sale offshore Alaska, BOEM will
continue to use scientific information and stakeholder and partner
feedback to proactively determine which specific areas offer the
greatest resource potential while minimizing potential conflicts
associated with the environment, subsistence activities, and multiple
use concerns.
b. Does the Department's lack of regulatory uncertainty, which
only becomes greater with the proposed Arctic rule and the proposed
Well Control rule, play a part in the unsuccessful project last year?
Answer. Over the course of two different offshore drilling seasons,
the Department has been transparent and consistent about what it will
require to ensure drilling operations conducted in the Arctic are
conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. On
September 28, 2015, Shell announced in a press release that it ``found
indications of oil and gas. . . . but these were not sufficient to
warrant further exploration.'' This followed the 2015 drilling season,
during which BSEE and BOEM approvals were conditioned on requirements
consistent with many of the provisions contained in the proposed Arctic
Rule. These requirements were similar to a number of the requirements
that BSEE and BOEM imposed on Shell during 2012.
Question (25). I am very concerned with the BOEM-BSEE proposed
Arctic rule because it imposes prescriptive requirements, including the
requirement for a same-season relief well, assuming that one solution
universally applies to any given Arctic location. Instead, the rule
should look to using performance-based rule which allow an operator to
minimize risks by designing a well program specific to the landscape,
ecosystem, ice conditions, water depths and weather of that particular
well. The rule should focus on prevention and consider fit-for-purpose
response planning alternatives to respond to potential loss of well
control.
a. What is the likely timing of the final Arctic rule? Do you
believe that you have an opportunity to step back and take time to
assess the Arctic rules package and examine the NPC report before
putting out a final rule since you've closed the door on leasing in
this current Five Year program?
Answer. BSEE and BOEM have closely considered the National
Petroleum Council (NPC) Arctic Potential Study, as well as many other
studies and resources. Representatives from BSEE were involved in the
NPC Study and were aware of many of the technical discussions and
analysis that occurred prior to publication. The Department is in the
process of finalizing its Arctic drilling rule, which would apply to
exploratory drilling operations in the U.S. Arctic. The Department is
carefully considering all comments received on the Proposed Rule as it
works to complete the rulemaking process. We intend to publish a Final
Rule later this year.
b. How will this timing match with the BSEE well control rule,
which as you know will also apply in the Arctic? Would it make more
sense to hold the Arctic rule's final release until after the well
control rule is final and allow for comments to inform how both set of
rules will affect the Arctic before finalizing and implementing?
Answer. The Department promulgated the Well Control Rule on April
29, 2016 (see 81 FR 25887). BSEE has carefully considered comments on
each Rule and the potential overlaps between the two Rules.
c. Has DOI taken a hard look at the NPC report and made agency
adjustments or taken counsel from it?
Answer. Yes, the Department has reviewed the NPC Arctic Potential
Study carefully, along with many other studies and analyses. Many of
the findings are consistent with BOEM and BSEE's assessment of
operations in the Arctic.
For example, the NPC study recommends that BSEE ``[e]ncourage
innovation by providing for the incorporation of technological
advancements'' (NPC Study, Executive Summary, p. 51). BSEE regulations
specifically allow for approval of innovative technologies that provide
equal or greater protection to personnel and the environment (30 CFR
Sec. 250.141). The proposed Arctic regulations clarify that this
provision can be utilized to approve equipment for use in Arctic
drilling operations.
Additionally, Chapter 10, entitled ``The Human Environment,''
presents a detailed assessment of the effects of oil and gas activities
in the Arctic on human health, economic development, and culture. BSEE
agrees with the NPC's recommendations that industry, government, and
stakeholders should work to preserve cultural sustainability, ensure
food security, optimize consultation and community engagement, develop
traditional knowledge studies, standardize socioeconomic impact
assessment processes, and evaluate collaboration frameworks.
In some areas, BSEE does not agree with the study. Chapter 8 of the
study, entitled ``Arctic Offshore Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and
Response,'' stressed the importance of prevention ``as the primary
defense against loss of well control.'' The chapter identifies a number
of controls and barriers that should be in place to prevent oil spills
in the Arctic. BSEE agrees that the identified barriers and controls
are crucial to operators' prevention efforts. BSEE does not, however,
agree that the implementation of prudent prevention measures should
eliminate the need to have available equipment and/or a rig to respond
to a loss of well control.
There are many other aspects of the NPC Study--both the findings
and the recommendations--that are consistent with both the proposed
Arctic offshore drilling regulations and with BSEE's overall approach
to oversight of offshore drilling operations on the Arctic OCS.
Question (26). The increased domestic oil and gas production we
have been witnessing is occurring almost entirely on private and State
lands where the Federal Government does not have control. This is
because it can still take from 240 to as much as 300 days to get a
permit to drill on BLM managed lands, and where it can take as much as
10 years to complete an environmental review. The Department has taken
steps to expedite the permit process for projects on Federal lands that
involve renewables, or the infrastructure for renewables, but in the
case of oil and gas resources the Department has increased permitting
burdens.
a. Can you explain the apparent discrepancy between how the
Department treats permitting for renewable energy projects, and
projects for the exploration and production of natural gas and crude
oil?
Answer. Since 2008, oil production is up 108 percent on lands where
drilling requires a BLM permit. This doubling of production is greater
than the 88 percent increase in oil production that occurred on all
lands nationwide during the same time period. In fiscal year 2015, the
BLM approved over 4,228 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) on
Federal and Indian lands, yet industry only drilled 1,927 wells. The
BLM also continued to make significant progress in reducing the time to
process an APD--permit times have dropped from an average of 307 days
in 2011 to an average of 220 days in 2015. The BLM also continued to
make significant progress in fiscal year 2015 at reducing the number of
pending APDs. As of the end of the year, the BLM had roughly 7,500
approved APDs that have not yet been drilled, more than ever before.
These APDs are ready for immediate use by industry without further
action by the BLM.
To further build upon these improvements, the BLM continues to make
strategic investments in technology to streamline the permit review
process. Most notably, BLM recently completed the bureau-wide
deployment of the update to its permit processing system, AFMSS II.
That update will help streamline the review process and will allow BLM
and applicants to better track the progress of individual applications.
The BLM is committed to building on this progress and continuing to
improve the APD review and approval process.
It should also be noted with respect to the BLM's treatment of
permitting requests for renewable energy relative to oil and gas that
much of the expedited process currently used for renewable energy
projects is patterned directly on efficiencies developed in the oil and
gas permitting context.
Based on its experience in the oil and gas program, the BLM took
the following actions with respect to the Renewable Energy Management
program:
--Established special permitting offices (Renewable Energy
Coordination Offices),
--Improved early coordination with State and other Federal agencies,
and
--Identified important energy zones and then completed comprehensive
environmental analyses (i.e. Solar PEIS, Wind PEIS and the
Geothermal PEIS), in order to provide additional upfront
analysis that could then be used to simplify the project-
specific NEPA required for permitting individual development
projects.
All of these processes were first developed and utilized for oil
and gas. The processes used for both energy sources are largely driven
by the same or similar land and environmental laws and procedures. The
most expedited solar project approval occurred in the Dry Lake Solar
Energy Zone in Nevada; utilizing these steps, the BLM took 300 days
from lease sale to project approval.
Question (27). On lands administered by the BLM there are thousands
of older wells, many producing less than 15 barrels of oil per day.
However, in the aggregate, this so-called ``stripper production''
represents several percent of America's domestic crude oil production.
In the past year, BLM has introduced four rulemakings (site security
and commingling, measurement of crude oil, measurement of natural gas,
venting and flaring) that taken together could significantly increase
costs of operation on these older leases, possibly resulting in
shutting in production.
a. Is an agency like BLM that already struggles to issue permits
to drill from companies holding BLM leases within 300 days, staffed and
equipped to manage the expansion of its regulatory mandate?
Answer. The BLM has an obligation to ensure that operators
accurately measure, properly report, and account for all oil and gas
production, and reduce waste associated with that production. Yet the
BLM's rules governing oil and gas measurements and waste reduction have
not been updated in over 25 years. As a result, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Office of the Inspector General, and
the Department of the Interior Royalty Policy Committee have all
concluded that these existing rules provide no assurance that
production is being accurately measured, that all of the royalties due
are paid, and that waste is minimized. The proposed rules also address
the many new technologies that have been developed and adopted by
industry since the current regulations were put in place.
That said, the BLM also recognizes that the royalty risk (i.e., the
risk posed by inaccurate measurement from a particular well) at a given
well is a function of its overall production level and that low level
wells pose less of a risk than higher level wells. It is precisely this
recognition that led the BLM to include in the proposed onshore orders
thresholds that reduced the requirements applicable to lower volume
wells. In some cases these proposed changes reduced the compliance
burdens on low volume properties relative to existing requirements.
Based on the comments received, the BLM is carefully evaluating those
thresholds to see if further refinements are necessary to ensure that
the burden imposed on any given facility by the new measurement rules
is comparable to the royalty risk presented by that facility.
In addition, the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule includes some
provisions to streamline implementation for both industry and the BLM.
For example, the flaring provisions would reduce regulatory burden by
eliminating the existing requirement to submit a sundry notice for each
request to flare gas.
b. Why is the focus of the Department and BLM on adding permit
obligations for oil and gas operations when on the contrary the
Department's focus is on expediting permitting for renewable energy?
Answer. As part of the administration's All-of-the Above Energy
Policy, the BLM manages the public lands for both conventional and
renewable energy. The BLM has a statutory obligation to balance this
energy development with other use of the public lands and to ensure
that the development occurs in an environmentally sound manner and
provides a fair return to the taxpayers for use of those lands and
mineral resources.
With respect to the permitting requirements for conventional energy
development, the BLM is not adding permit obligations, but rather is
proposing commonsense updates to its existing rules designed to ensure
that operators accurately measure, properly report, and account for all
production from Federal and Indian lands. The existing rules do not
reflect modern technology or practices, and therefore, in some
instances, require the review, submittal, and processing of unwarranted
variance requests. These circumstances will be addressed by the final
rule.
Question (28). Not long ago, the Social Security Administration
engaged in an aggressive program to obtain a new custom designed
computer system to deal with disability claims. After spending over
$300 million, they had a very little to show for it. They had a program
racked with delays and mismanagement, but no new working custom system.
Likewise, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spent more than
$1 billion trying to replace its approach to managing immigration
documents with digital online forms, and as of this fall it had only a
single online form, the form to replace a lost green card online.
You're probably wondering what does this have to do with the
Federal land management agencies. But right now, as I understand the
situation, those agencies are working to refurbish the Federal
Government's campsite booking Web site, Recreation.gov, which hosts
virtually all online booking for not only the National Park Service but
also the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation in
addition to Forest Service campgrounds, and even many of the Army Corps
of Engineers facilities. Many people use this online system every year,
and if things go bad it could be a very big black eye for these land
management agencies that could have broader impacts to the recreation
fee program in general, particularly as we approach the Park Service
Centennial.
I am asking for an assurance from you that you are going to do
everything possible to make sure that any improvements to the online
reservation system doesn't risk ending up with missed deadlines, and
rollout delays caused by mismanagement and untested products or custom
created software, like I mentioned. I hope you will work to ensure that
the system will be dependable, time tested, secure and cost effective
for the United States.
a. Will you examine the situation and make sure that we are not
headed down a pathway like those I mentioned?
Answer. The Recreation.gov contract is funded entirely by revenues
generated from the recreation fees and reservation fees charged to
visitors who make reservations. The current contract that provides the
reservation and trip planning service for Recreation.gov is nearing the
end of the period of performance and will be extended as needed to
ensure that there is no disruption of service.
In this digital age, software solutions should be designed not by
software engineers writing code but by the people who will be using the
system so that the final product truly serves the needs of the
government and the people. It is also critical to ensure that the
solution is nimble enough to adapt to emerging technologies throughout
the life of the contract. The Recreation One-Stop (R1S) program has
been conducting market research for over 2 years in order to identify
emerging technologies and additional vendors who can provide the kind
of service that meets modern customer expectations.
The R1S program has adopted the tenets laid out in the US Digital
Services Playbook in which we will employ `Agile' software development
principles and processes. Agile development is the new norm in the
private sector and, by following its best practices, we aim to provide
a superior service and pleasant customer experience. This will entail
face-to-face meetings with the contractor's program management and
software development teams. We intend to work in short `sprints' to
write, test, and deploy usable code that will provide all of the tools
for trip planning, reservations, financial processing, reporting,
design, and customer service. As sprints are completed, we will test
each portion of the code to ensure that it meets the government's needs
and public expectations. Code that does not pass testing will be
immediately identified for correction. By using this method, the R1S
program will be involved at every step to ensure that we do not end up
with an unusable product when it is time to transition. The public and
many other stakeholders will be involved in the development and testing
throughout this process to ensure that we are able to deliver what the
public wants. The contract requirements include the highest levels of
information security, privacy protection, secure financial processing,
and compliance with all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to
government IT services.
b. As a way to ensure data security indeed does meet the highest
standard, will you be using people who are Payment Card Industry Data
Security Standard (PCI) compliant?
Answer. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI)
compliance is an absolute requirement in the new (and current)
contract. With the number of credit card transactions processed, the
contractor's system is required to meet the highest level of PCI
compliance.
The contractor must also deliver security that ensures compliance
with the Federal Risk and Authorization Program (FedRAMP), Federal
Information Processing Standards (FIPS), Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA), and the Privacy Act.
Question (29). While many land management agency units are
available as part of Recreation.gov, we know there are additional units
that could take benefit from additional exposure. What are you doing to
make sure more of your units are able to be part of the recreation.gov
system and timeframes for bringing them online?
Answer. Recreation.gov currently hosts reservation services for
over 3,200 locations which include campgrounds, picnic shelters,
cabins, lookouts, yurts, tour ticketing, event lotteries, and a variety
of wilderness permits. More locations continue to be added every year.
When the system was launched in 2006, the primary focus was to provide
reservations for basic front country campgrounds. Since that time, the
R1S program recognized the need to expand the service to cover many
different types of facilities and activities. This was one of the
driving factors in moving to a more agile approach that affords the
agencies the flexibility to use the platform for a wide variety of
facilities and activities.
The R1S program expects that, upon launch of a new contract, the
service will be able to support many more operations; this should
facilitate the incorporation of reservation services more broadly. The
new contract also requires that the contractor proactively `market' the
service to all agencies where it is appropriate. This includes offering
Web services which can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
local operations.
Question (30). What, if any, human resources planning has OSMRE
done in preparation for or in advance of the proposed Stream Protection
Rule?
Answer. OSMRE typically makes human resource planning decisions
based upon on the overall workload for the entirety of its regulatory
and oversight program. The actual staff number may change depending on
the program areas, the presence or absence of problems, input from the
public, and the terms of the performance agreements in each State. The
estimated annual hours for Federal oversight of the proposed Stream
Protection Rule does not warrant any additional human resource
planning.
Question (31). Which, if any, employment assignments or employee
deployments have been made as a consequence of the Stream Protection
Rule?
Answer. OSMRE has not found it necessary to make new assignments or
employee deployment changes as a consequence of the Stream Protection
Rule.
Question (32). Does OSMRE employ any ``hydrogeologists''?
Answer. OSMRE currently has about 15 highly qualified technical
staff classified under the ``hydrologist'' title. All have formal
education, experience, and technical credentials in the area of surface
and groundwater hydrogeology.
Question (33). What, if any, human resources planning has BLM done
to satisfy mitigation measures, both those created by the Presidential
Memorandum and the Department's own mitigation manual and efforts?
Answer. In the fall of 2013, Secretary Jewell released Secretarial
Order 3330, Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the
Department of the Interior. Secretary Jewell directed the Department
and each of its bureaus to follow a common set of principles for its
mitigation programs while using a landscape-scale approach building on
and expanding concepts pioneered in the BLM's 2013 interim mitigation
policy. Consistent with Secretarial Order 3330 and incorporating key
lessons learned since release of the interim mitigation policy, the BLM
is working to revise and finalize its mitigation policy to ensure it is
responsive to emerging best practices and compatible with similar
policies being developed by sister agencies and States.
Secretarial Order 3330 and the BLM's interim mitigation policy
address concepts that broadly apply to mitigation--including principles
of additionality, durability, and transparency--without prescribing the
amount of mitigation that might be required for any given project. In
general, the BLM will continue to identify appropriate mitigation
measures by evaluating the specific impacts of each project proposal,
in light of applicable BLM land use plans and in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Mitigation broadly refers to a set of tools that allows the BLM to
permit projects while responding to the concerns of local communities
and meeting our mission of multiple use and sustained yield. For many
years, the BLM has recognized a need to bring greater consistency to
the use of these tools and to increase their availability to solve
resource challenges like supporting development while planning for the
recovery of the Greater sage grouse. Accordingly, the BLM has sought to
better plan and train staff to help support the implementation of
mitigation policies that will allow for more streamlined permitting,
more consistent application of mitigation across offices, and better
outcomes for resources. This includes identifying a national mitigation
lead in the Washington Office as part of the agency's resource planning
and decision support staff to ensure greater consistency and
identifying State mitigation leads in each State Office to provide
expertise as well as a consistent point of contact for State
governments seeking to coordinate with the BLM on mitigation efforts.
Already, State governments across the West are working with the BLM and
our Federal partner agencies to establish and deploy some of these
innovative tools. The BLM seeks to further support these collaborative
efforts.
Question (34). Which, if any, employment assignments or employee
deployments have been made as a consequence of the new mitigation
efforts? If the answer is that mitigation efforts have had no human
resource planning or employment consequences, please explain why that
is the case.
Answer. As noted above, the BLM has identified a national
mitigation lead to bring greater consistency to our efforts and has
identified State mitigation leads to provide stronger State-level
expertise and coordination with State governments. The BLM has long
considered mitigation through the agency's routine resource management
planning process and through individual project reviews as appropriate,
and that will continue to be the case.
Question (35). What vacancies does the Department currently have,
and what are the Department's plans or intentions to fill those
vacancies?
Answer. The BLM has not increased staffing levels to address
mitigation efforts. However, staffing has been reorganized to meet the
requirements of the Presidential Memorandum and the Department's
mitigation work. This reorganization includes identifying one position
on the Washington Office staff for the role of national mitigation
lead. This position is currently being advertised on USAJOBS. At the
State level, mitigation leads are assigned as a collateral duty and
these are not new positions. At the field level, mitigation functions
are generally performed by BLM's existing planning or project
management specialists.
Question (36). The BLM's draft updated planning rule, known as
Planning 2.0, seeks to updated the agency's planning process.
a. One of the frustrations frequently expressed by public lands
communities regarding the planning process is that the BLM takes their
comments, but does not truly consider the needs of the area,
particularly when it comes to projects that potentially provide
opportunities for economic development. How will the new rule improve
BLM's coordination with State, county, and local governments? Will
there be certainty for the manner in which BLM will consider the needs
of State, county, and local governments.
Answer. The proposed rule would improve coordination with State,
county, and local governments by requiring communication and
coordination early in the planning process. Two new steps would include
(1) input into the development of the planning assessment and (2)
review of the preliminary alternatives, rationale for alternatives and
basis for analysis prior to issuance of the draft plan.
During the planning assessment the BLM would coordinate with State
and local governments to identify the best available data for the
planning area. BLM frequently hears from our State and local partners
that they often have the best data for a resource and they want to
ensure that BLM uses this data. This proposed step would respond to
these requests and ensure early coordination on data and information
sharing. During this step the BLM would also coordinate with State and
local governments to identify existing State and local land use plans
to begin to seek consistency between local land use plans and BLM's
Resource Management Plans (RMPs).
Once BLM has developed a preliminary range of alternatives, the BLM
will make these preliminary alternatives and rationale available to
State and local partners for review. This new coordination step will
allow State and local governments to provide early feedback to the BLM
on the alternatives and whether the range of alternatives adequately
considers the needs of State and local governments. The BLM will use
this feedback to revise the alternatives and develop a draft resource
management plan that is more responsive to the needs of State, county,
and local governments.
Question (37). One of the goals of Planning 2.0 is to ``improve the
BLM's adaptability to respond to social and environmental changes.''
What types of social change does the BLM need a new rule in order to
adapt to? Also, what types of environmental change require the new
rule?
Answer. The proposed rule would provide the BLM the tools necessary
to respond to both social and environmental change in an efficient and
effective manner. Examples of social change that affect the public
lands include the increased demand for recreation on public lands,
changes in the composition and needs of local communities, or new
emerging markets such as the increasing demand for renewable energy
development on public lands. Examples of environmental change that
affect the public lands include severe drought, catastrophic wildfire,
or changes in plant community composition due to invasive species or
pest infestations.
Question (38). I've made no secret about my concerns with this
administration's practices relating to mitigation. The President's
Memorandum entitled, Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from
Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment, coupled with
your Secretarial Order 3330 on mitigation have only served to further
my initial apprehension.
The President's Memorandum mandated that, ``[w]ithin 1 year of the
date of this memorandum, the Department of the Interior will develop
program guidance regarding the use of mitigation projects and measures
on lands administered by bureaus or offices of the Department through a
land-use authorization, cooperative agreement, or other appropriate
mechanism that would authorize a project proponent to conduct actions,
or otherwise secure conservation benefits, for the purpose of
mitigating impacts elsewhere.''
a. Is there a status update as to where the DOI and its relevant
agencies are in the development of program guidance?
Answer. The Department is working diligently on the policies
required by the Presidential Memorandum (PM), including the guidance
document identified above. The primary work by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Department since the publication of the PM has
been to finalize BLM's forthcoming mitigation handbook and manual.
Question (39). I understand mitigation can be a great tool for land
managers, but what authority does the Department have to require
mitigation for projects on public lands under the Department's
jurisdiction? And, to that end, what authority is there to require that
mitigation meet a standard of benefit for natural resource damage?
Answer. The Department's authority to seek a net benefit in
recommended or required mitigation actions is derived from the
underlying statutory authority mandating the management of the impacted
resource. Under these authorizations, the bureaus and offices of the
Department are responsible for managing different resources and for
different purposes.
For example, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA)
mandates management of resources in accordance with the principle of
sustained yield, which is defined as the ``maintenance in perpetuity of
a high annual or regular periodic output'' of such resources. Where,
for example, past practices have degraded resources so as to reduce
their annual or regular periodic output to low levels, requiring that
mitigation achieve a net benefit is consistent with the statutory
mandate to achieve and maintain a high periodic output by restoring
such resources to pre-degradation levels.
Question (40). Along the same lines, given that much of the
framework from the Presidential Memorandum reflects your own mitigation
efforts stemming from your Secretarial Order 3330, please explain in
detail what you hoped to achieve through your own mitigation efforts?
a. How will those efforts would be implemented across your
Department and with other Department sub-agencies and among sister
agencies where mitigation efforts and/or natural resource impacts
straddle multiple jurisdictions.
Answer. A stated goal of the Council on Environmental Quality and
the Department in establishing new mitigation policies is the
transparency, efficiency, and consistency such guidance will bring to
permitting processes. Although a multitude of factors play a role in
successful permitting and project development, mitigation principles
espoused by these policies, such as efforts to produce better avoidance
and the consideration of mitigation measures early in the permitting
process, are intended to reduce permit times and create better outcomes
for impacted resources.
To ensure the Department's ability to achieve these objectives
consistently, bureaus and offices of the Department have established
common frameworks to apply the mitigation hierarchy in the development
of mitigation recommendations and requirements. The frameworks create
consistency in how bureaus and offices implement mitigation in a number
of important ways, including the use of a compensatory mitigation goal;
a clear and stated preference when selecting between compensatory
mitigation providers; use of standardized definitions and terms; and
adherence to a consistent set of standards to ensure equivalency among
compensatory mitigation providers, among others.
Question (41). The Bureau of Land Management briefed the Senate on
the Presidential Memorandum, and admitted to not having a rigorous
understanding of impacts to subsistence use. Nevertheless, the
Department assigned an $8 million impact in the National Petroleum
Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A). What metrics are used generally to determine
dollar values associated with anticipated natural resource damage(s),
and specifically, what metrics were relied upon to arrive at the $8
million dollar cost in the NPR-A?
Answer. The Record of Decision for the Greater Mooses Tooth One
Project included a voluntary contribution by ConocoPhillips Alaska,
Inc. (CPAI) of $8 million to a compensatory mitigation fund to address
impacts to subsistence uses that were not sufficiently avoided or
minimized in the decision--in particular, encroachment of the project
footprint into the established setbacks for Fish Creek and the
Ublutuoch River. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
directs the BLM to specifically consider subsistence uses when
reviewing projects and prohibits the BLM from approving projects with
significant impacts that have not been adequately addressed (16 USC
3120 section 810). This contribution represents less than 1 percent of
the cost estimate cited by CPAI for development of the project.
Question (42). The Department's Budget Brief for 2017 notes
``(r)esource management plans provide the basis for every BLM
management action and are necessitated by changes in resource use and
demands . . .'' (emphasis added)
a. What, specifically, are the changes in resource uses and
demands that necessitate potential management of:
-- 715,000 acres of the Fortymile and Mosquito Flats Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the Eastern
Interior Management Plan;
Answer. Based on public comment on the Eastern Interior Draft
Resource Management Plan (EIRMP)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
the BLM considered changing the boundary of the proposed Fortymile Area
of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and designating a new ACEC on
the Mosquito Flats, also in the Fortymile region.
The Fortymile ACEC (685,000 acres) is proposed for the purpose of
protecting caribou calving and post calving habitat for the Fortymile
caribou herd, and Dall sheep habitat. The Fortymile caribou herd is
both a highly important subsistence resource in east central Alaska and
an international resource, with a considerable portion of its historic
range occurring in Canada. BLM-managed lands in the Fortymile region
are used by Fortymile caribou for calving, post-calving, and winter
range. The population and range of the herd is currently depressed
compared to its historical extent. The herd was estimated at more than
500,000 animals in 1920, but currently numbers 50,000 animals. A
cooperative planning effort, involving diverse interests in Canada and
the United States, focuses on the recovery of the herd in numbers and
into historic range. Calving and post-calving habitats were identified
as the most sensitive habitats by the Fortymile Recovery Planning Team.
Additionally, the planning area is predicted to become warmer and drier
with a likely rise in tree line. These changes will increase the
importance of alpine and subalpine habitats for calving and year-round
habitat. Focusing on limiting impacts to the most critical habitat
areas is the most efficient strategy for maintaining this important
resource.
The Mosquito Flats ACEC (30,000 acres) was proposed to protect a
unique high elevation wetland. This wetland is atypical; the Mosquito
Fork River flows over continuous sand beds that are
uncharacteristically clean, light colored, well-sorted, and low in
organics, suggesting the origin of the sand is likely from a past
depositional environment, possibly related to eolian deposits of
Pleistocene or later age. These wetlands are an important moose calving
area and support BLM sensitive species, including nesting trumpeter
swans and short-eared owls.
--Nearly 700,000 acres in the Sheefish Bering Sea-Western Interior
Plan;
Answer. While developing the Bering Sea-Western Interior (BSWI)
RMP, the BLM received a number of public comments and nominations from
tribes, advisory councils, and individuals regarding the increased
importance of non-Salmon species due to the crash of the salmon
population. Sheefish is one of the species specifically mentioned.
Sheefish were mentioned as being a culturally significant fish
species along the Kuskokwim River. They are harvested for subsistence
use by many, especially in the middle and upper river. Sheefish are
often caught before salmon in the spring, and offer an opportunity for
fresh fish early in the season. In recent years, salmon have been in
decline and there has been an even greater shift in harvest patterns
away from salmon and more toward whitefish and other salmon species.
Sheefish spawning grounds have very specific needs and occur in small
numbers on the Kuskokwim River. Sheefish spawn in relatively small and
specific locations, and a section of the Big River located south of
McGrath has been identified as a well-known spawning area for sheefish.
Local residents depend on the fish and wildlife resources of this
drainage. The local Athabascan name for the river is ``Zidlaghe
Zighashno'' which translates as ``Sheefish Spearing (Harvest) River''
and the river has been expressed as very important to local people.
A November 2012 ADF&G report on sheefish spawning grounds on the
Kuskokwim River provides detailed information about documented spawning
areas. The report shows three spawning locations on the Kuskokwim River
for sheefish, located on the Tonzona, Middle Fork and Big River, all
located in the upper Kuskokwim River area. Of these locations, there
are BLM-managed lands near the Big River. The sheefish that populate
the entire Kuskokwim River spawn in very discrete areas or, smaller
tributaries of the main Kuskokwim River. Eighty percent of the sheefish
spawning in the Kuskokwim River spawn in a 15.5 mile section of the Big
River (Stuby, 2012, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) Report).
As a result of the local importance expressed in public comment and
after review of the ADF&G studies, the BLM found there were relevant
and important values and proposed the Sheefish ACEC to protect the
sheefish spawning areas.
--Any of the over 6 million proposed acres in the Central Yukon
Management Plan; and
Answer. The BLM is in the early stages of planning for the Central
Yukon RMP and does not anticipate a final decision until 2019. There
are approximately 1.8 million acres of existing ACECs in the Central
Yukon Planning Area. These were designated in 1986 by the Central Yukon
RMP and in 1991 by the Utility Corridor RMP. During scoping and public
outreach in 2013-2014, the BLM received numerous nominations for new
ACECs (approximately 3.7 million acres) and expansions of existing
ACECs (approximately 1 million acres). Many of the nominations identify
habitats of important subsistence species such as caribou, Dall sheep,
and salmon. The Central Yukon interdisciplinary team members reviewed
all ACEC nominations and BLM-managed lands in the planning area to
determine whether any areas should be considered for designation as an
ACEC. Team members also reviewed all existing ACECs and research
natural areas (RNAs) to determine if the designations were still
relevant. The interdisciplinary team determined that approximately 5.2
million acres met the relevance and importance criteria. These findings
are published in the Central Yukon RMP Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/
ak/cyrmp.
To date, the BLM has only made determinations on relevance and
importance criteria and not special management attention. If needed,
the special management approach is determined by the resource at risk
and the BLM implements the least restrictive management needed to
protect the resource. These restrictions could be seasonal restrictions
on an activity, or additional stipulations on permitted activities, or
limiting off highway vehicle use to designated trails. While the
special management needed could be a recommendation to close the area
to mineral entry, this would only be the recommendation if a closure is
necessary to protect the relevant and important resource at risk.
The BLM will further analyze potential ACECs during development of
draft alternatives and in the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM will allow for
public comment on both the preliminary alternatives and the Draft RMP/
EIS when reaching those stages of the planning process.
--Some of the proposed ACECs would result in the closure of the
public lands to mining or other activities. Please articulate
how the Department would satisfy its multiple-use, sustained
yield mandate in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act if
any of the ACECs proposals that contemplate a form of closure
are finalized.
Answer. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are
specifically defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) as ``areas within the public lands where special management
attention is required . . . to protect and prevent irreparable damage
to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife
resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and
safety from natural hazards.'' In FLPMA, Congress also directed that,
``In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary
shall . . . give priority to the designation and protection of areas of
critical environmental concern . . .'' in addition to the broader
considerations of multiple use and sustained yield.
In addition to the specific discussion of ACECs, FLPMA sets a
policy 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; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain
public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and
habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will
provide for outdoor public recreation and human occupancy and use. . .
.''
FLPMA defines the term multiple use as ``making the most judicious
use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services
over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic
adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use
of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of
balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-
term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable
resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber,
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific
and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the
various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of
the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being
given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to
the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or
the greatest unit output.''
FLPMA defines sustained yield as ``achievement and maintenance in
perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the
various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with
multiple use.''
In the event that some ACECs are closed to the mining laws, the BLM
will meet FLPMA's multiple use mandate by allowing mining on lands
outside of the those ACECs. For example, in the Eastern Interior RMP
Fortymile Subunit, the agency preferred alternative recommends mining
be allowed on more than half (70 percent) of the BLM-managed lands in
the planning subunit. Should this alternative become the final
decision, the BLM will meet the sustained yield mandate for caribou by
designating ACECs for calving and post calving habitat.
b. Please tell me what efforts the Department has made to apprise
Alaskans, and specifically Fortymile placer miners, of developing
management plans, individual obligations and new enforcement
approaches?
Answer. The BLM uses a variety of methods to notify and engage the
public in planning efforts and changes to policy and practices,
depending on the issue and the scope of the impact. For many planning
efforts, the BLM is required to publish notices to the Federal
Register. However, the BLM generally creates many more opportunities
for public outreach than the Federal Register and is currently revising
its planning regulations to include more robust public outreach and
collaboration.
Other types of BLM actions require different levels of public
involvement. Of recent concern was the development and implementation
of the ``mining IMs'' in Alaska. These Instructional Memoranda (IMs) on
mining reclamation and bonding are direction to staff on how to
interpret the current mining regulations in 43 CFR 3809 in a consistent
way. These IMs provide consistency in how the BLM evaluates reclamation
performance and will provide miners with consistent methods for
measuring reclamation success. The regulations that define reclamation
standards have been in place since 2001.
In 2013 and 2014, BLM staff began discussions with miners and
mining organizations on current practices that were not meeting
reclamation performance standards. There have been many advances in the
last 15 years since the regulations were developed and many of the past
practices for rehabilitating fish, wildlife, and riparian habitat after
placer mining have, in many cases, failed to meet a number of
reclamation performance standards required by regulation. The BLM was
also concerned about whether there were adequate financial guarantees
to cover all of the Federal mining operations in the State.
After the issuing IMs, the BLM sent a letter with associated
information to every Federal miner in Alaska and met with individual
miners to go over the regulations and how BLM would be measuring
reclamation. The BLM also provided presentations on reclamation and a
short course on revegetation with the Alaska Miner Association (AMA)
and Alaska Minerals Commission in the Fall of 2015. In the summer 2015,
the BLM implemented the Jack Wade Demonstration project in the
Fortymile Wild and Scenic River Corridor to test new reclamation
techniques for placer mined streams in Alaska. The project is designed
to accelerate the recovery of in-stream and riparian habitats in a
historically mined area. The ultimate goal was to find new approaches
to reclamation and to help miners meet the reclamation standards more
quickly. If the techniques are successful it will help miners to plan
and implement their own reclamation work and assist them in meeting the
reclamation performance standards required by regulation. Several
Fortymile miners attended a workshop in Chicken to discuss reclamation
evaluations and view the demonstration project. One of the successes
from the workshop is that one of the area miners has asked BLM to help
develop another demonstration project in 2016 on his mine site.
In April 2016, the BLM plans to give presentations on reclamation
and a short course on revegetation at the AMA conference in Fairbanks.
The BLM will also organize field workshops and demonstrations for
miners in Chicken, Central and Coldfoot in the summer of 2016 and
develop booklets and videos describing reclamation techniques.
c. And please elaborate on what the Department's policy is in the
interim while new policies, enforcement approaches, management plans
and the like are being developed. For example, is it the Department's
position to continue operating under existing policies while a new
policy is being drafted?
Answer. Existing operations are not affected until new policy,
plans or regulations are finalized. In some instances, operations are
``grandfathered in'' and follow the old regulations. For example, some
mining operations are covered by the 1980 version of the CFR while
others are covered by the 2001 version. However both versions require
revegetation and the rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat.
The mining IMs outline ways to measure the effectiveness of the
reclamation and assure that it meets either version of the regulations.
When the new Resource Management Plan is completed, the
stipulations in the plan will only affect new or modified mining plans
of operation. Existing plans of operation, or those with only minor
modifications, are not affected.
Question (43). The administration has been vague on the details
surrounding your proposed $10.25/barrel ``fee,'' as you call it.
a. Has the Interior Department performed any analysis of how a
$10.25/barrel fee would impact energy production on Federal lands? If
not, why not?
Answer. The proposed oil fee, which would be gradually phased in
over 5 years, is an important part of the administration's effort to
address the challenges of our outdated transportation system. The fee
would raise the funding necessary to make these new investments, while
also providing for the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund to
ensure we maintain the infrastructure we have. By placing a fee on oil,
the President's plan creates a clear incentive for private sector
innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invest in
clean energy technologies that will power our future.
The proposed fee is not a wellhead tax and is not specific to oil
production from Federal lands. Therefore, BLM has no reason to believe
that energy production from Federal lands would be disproportionately
impacted--either positively or negatively--by the fee and has not
performed an analysis on its impact. The Department understands that
the administration has indicated a desire to work with Congress on how
to optimize collection of the fee. However, the Department would not
have a direct role in developing or implementing the details of this
fee proposal. Further questions about this proposal should be directed
to the Department of the Treasury.
b. In 2013, a report commissioned by the Department of the
Interior 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. With oil
prices drastically lower than in 2013 and the literally thousands of
pages of new regulations that have come out of your Department to
regulate industry over the last few months, has your Department
analyzed what the cumulative impact of all of these actions will be on
production on Federal lands and revenue to the treasury?
Answer. Consistent with Federal requirements, the Department has
analyzed the economic effects of each rule. These analyses evaluate the
rules individually, because there is so much geographic and operational
variability in where and when the rules will apply and whether and how
they will impact operators. That said, a number of the new standards
reflect existing industry best practices, with which many operators are
already in partial or full compliance, and some of the measures will
actually save producers money. Additionally, many of the rules
incorporate grandfathering or other provisions that are specifically
designed to take account of operators' concerns about the rules'
impacts, including impacts on lower-producing wells.
c. In light of these news regulations and fees, can you tell me
that your actions are designed to increase production on public lands,
or are you ready to concede that we have different policy objectives
when it comes to energy development on Federal lands?
Answer. With respect to onshore production, the Department has a
unique and broad mission to manage public lands on behalf of the
American people under the dual framework of multiple use and sustained
yield. This means we manage these lands for a broad range of uses
including renewable and conventional energy development, livestock
grazing, timber production, hunting, fishing, recreation, and
conservation. These rules are part of a broad regulatory framework
designed to balance oil and gas production on the public lands with the
many other uses of those lands and assure development of the public's
oil and gas resources occurs safely, responsibly, and in the right
places.
Question (44). The fiscal year 2015 Omnibus included a requirement
for a comprehensive inventory of contaminated sites conveyed through
ANCSA and a detailed plan on how the Department intends to complete
cleanup of each contaminated site within 180 days of enactment.
a. When will the report be completed and made public?
Answer. The report is complete and in the midst of a final review.
It should be available this summer.
b. Does the Department have any plans to accelerate the cleanup of
contamination on Native lands, either the lands that BIA, BLM, FWS,
NPS, or Bureau of Mines actually caused, and do you have any plans to
coordinate a cleanup among the other Federal agencies: DOD, FAA, the
National Weather Service and the Forest Service since as Secretary you
do have a trust responsibility to Alaska Natives?
Answer. The BLM developed a database with the most comprehensive
inventory to date of known contaminated sites on lands conveyed to
Alaska Native Corporations through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA). The database contains current information about each
site's land and regulatory status, including (1) the entity to which
the BLM conveyed the property; (2) the precise coordinates, if known,
for where the contaminated site is located; (3) the current
understanding of the site's type and amount of contaminants, if known;
and (4) any data gaps. Before it can be considered final, the inventory
needs to be refined with further regulatory and site characteristics,
when that information is identified. Additionally, further outreach
needs to be completed to those Alaska Native Corporations that did not
respond during the BLM's facilitated meetings with stakeholder groups.
Once finalized, the inventory will provide Alaska Native entities and
the appropriate Federal and State regulators with a powerful tool to
help address these contaminated sites.
It is important to stress that, once non-Department of Defense
lands pass from Federal ownership, former land-managing agencies no
longer have authority under CERCLA and Executive Order 12580
(Superfund) to compel or conduct clean up, although the United States
may remain liable for pre-conveyance contamination. The Department of
Defense is the only Federal agency besides the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) authorized to execute or compel cleanup of contaminated
lands no longer under its ownership per 10 USC 2701(c)(1)(B). The BLM
and DOI have no authority over other entities that may be identified as
parties responsible for existing contamination on lands conveyed to
ANCSA corporations. With the completion of this comprehensive database,
the BLM has worked to the full extent of its authority in fulfilling
its responsibilities under the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-235).
Among the sites known to be in need of cleanup, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has identified a
responsible party or parties for almost all sites. For the vast
majority of parcels, the BLM was not managing the lands when they
became contaminated and ADEC has identified other agencies as the
responsible party. Once responsible parties have been documented for
the sites identified in the completed inventory, the final phase of
work will be directed by the appropriate regulatory agency. Within
Alaska, this authority lies with ADEC and EPA for sites not on
federally managed lands. For sites where a Federal agency has been
identified as the responsible party, funds for cleanup will require
budgetary planning and prioritization.
c. Does the Department have any estimates or intend to develop
estimates for exactly what it will cost to clean up the lands so they
are usable by Natives to generate the benefits that were intended when
the Native Claims Settlement Act passed 45 years ago?
Answer. The sites not currently in a clean-up program vary in
levels of confirmation with regard to the extent of the contamination.
Without the details related to a verification of a release, extent of
hazardous material, and other site characteristics that would support
estimates for cleanup, it is difficult to predict cleanup costs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question (1). I'm very pleased that this subcommittee was able to
provide an 85 percent increase for Indian school construction and
improvements in the 2016 omnibus. That amount includes funds to finish
the schools on the 2004 school construction priority list. It also
provides a down payment for to begin work on new schools--that BIE is
in the process of selecting.
Selecting five new schools for priority construction is only the
beginning of the investment we need to make in tribal schools--and I
believe we won't get there unless we develop some kind of ``Marshall
Plan'' for Native youth that fully funds infrastructure needs. We
included language in the 2016 omnibus urging the Department to follow
the lead of the Defense Department--and develop a comprehensive plan to
modernize and improve all BIE schools. DOD produced a plan to modernize
its education facilities needs in 2009--and has been able to make
significant progress towards fixing its schools as a result. There's no
reason that the administration and Congress can't work together to do
the same for tribal schools.
a. Secretary Jewell, can you share what steps the Department is
taking to develop a comprehensive plan to improve all Indian schools?
Answer. Indian Affairs and the Department have directed the Office
of Facilities, Property, and Safety Management, through its Division of
Facilities Management and Construction to work with a contractor to
develop a ``Poor-to-Good'' 5-year plan to identify the approach and
resource requirements necessary to modernize our school facilities. The
results of the assessment will be ready for internal review and further
strategic planning development in May 2016.
b. Is there any reason that the Department can't move forward with
preparing a comprehensive needs assessment--and plan to address the
needs identified by such an assessment--this fiscal year?
Answer. As described above, the Office of Facilities, Property, and
Safety Management, through its Division of Facilities Management and
Constructions is engaged in developing such a plan. The results of the
assessment will be ready for internal review and further strategic
planning development in May 2016.
Question (2). I understand that the Department is now moving
forward with the first phase of the proposed reorganization of the
Bureau of Indian Education--including the establishment of new
Educational Resource Centers--and that your 2017 budget anticipates
additional changes to the Bureau. As part of the first phase of the
reorganization, you have proposed a number of staffing changes,
including changes to the regional office in Albuquerque, to create
these new centers to assist BIE and tribally controlled schools.
a. What is your timeline for staffing up these centers, and what
services can schools expect to receive starting in the fall?
Answer. Staff hiring is planned to be completed by the end of June
2016 in time for the new school year 2016-2017.
The Education Resource Centers are geographically positioned close
to schools and will be staffed with School Solutions Teams. These Teams
will ensure that principals and teachers have the resources and support
they need to operate high achieving schools. These Teams will assist
schools in their improvement efforts by providing data-supported best
practice models in such areas as school management and climate,
professional development, curriculum, and instruction. These Teams will
not micromanage or direct reforms in schools; rather, they will listen
to principals and teachers and then provide the support that is
requested.
b. I am still hearing from tribes in New Mexico that they don't
feel fully informed about changes to expect from the reorganization.
What is your plan to ensure that all stakeholders--including BIE
employees whose jobs may be affected--know what to expect during the
reorganization?
Answer. The BIE has sought to inform Tribes about the expected
changes to the BIE reorganization through consultation and outreach. In
2015, the BIE held 12 regional and individual consultations along with
six national consultations. The BIE welcomes further questions or
comments.
In terms of informing BIE employees, the BIE Office of Human
Resources (HR) has held an open house, as well as encouraged BIE
employees to stop by the office to discuss the reorganization and
positions. All employees were notified by email that HR was available
for private meetings to discuss the reorganization and the potential
impact on them individually; approximately 110 individual counseling
sessions were held in person or via telephone. Since February 22, 2016,
the BIE has issued vacancy announcements for available positions under
the new structure. The Acting HR Director and his staff have sent email
updates as the vacancy announcements have been made and provided
letters to all staff affected by the reorganization. In addition,
information is posted on the HR Web site and distributed by the BIE
newsletter and flyers. HR has also provided Webinars that can be
accessed at any time by staff explaining how to access USAJobs and how
to apply for jobs using USAJobs.
c. Your budget request provides $8 million dollars in new funds to
implement more changes to the Bureau to ``increase capacity'' and
provide additional services to BIE-funded schools, but it doesn't
provide much more detail. What specific changes are you proposing to
make, and what additional capacity will BIE build with these funds?
Will these funds be used to address shortfalls in facilities
management, contracting and other services provided to schools, as
identified by the Governmental Accountability Office?
Answer. The additional $8 million is required to stand up the new
Schools Operations Division within the Bureau of Indian Education. The
School Operations Division will include the following functions:
Facilities (school construction, repair and maintenance, school safety
and school property); Human Resources; Educational Technology;
Acquisitions; Budget and Finance; and Communications. The redesign and
restructuring of the Schools Operations Division will address the
Government Accountability Office recommendations related to
accountability and management of funds, school safety issues,
shortfalls in facilities management, and the planning and execution of
acquisitions. These issues are addressed in several ways under the
restructuring of the BIE as follows: (1) dedicated, additional
staffing; (2) establishment of new offices with new responsibilities
(e.g., auditing, technical assistance, policy development); (3) new
reporting chains to ensure oversight of functional experts; (4) new
business processes that support school needs, and (5) consolidation of
functions to eliminate duplication.
Question (3). Secretary Jewell, I am pleased to see your 2017
budget includes a $350,000 increase to expand the Manhattan Project
National Historical Park, for a total budget of $691,000. I know that
the Park Service is still working with the Department of Energy to
develop its plan for the park.
Could you please provide an update on what we can expect to happen
with the park in 2016, particularly in Los Alamos? What activities do
you plan to fund with your requested increase?
Answer. If appropriated, funding would provide for adequate initial
staffing of all three park locations, including Los Alamos. A
Superintendent, a site manager at each location, and some interpretive
staff are planned based on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2017.
If funding is appropriated, the Los Alamos site will hire a site
manager in 2017 and will expand interpretive staff. The Department of
Energy is working to have the first buildings open to the public in
late calendar year 2017.
In the meantime, the park has developed a brochure showing the
Manhattan Project resources visitors can see in town, and will be
hosting regular ranger talks and tours by summer 2016. NPS anticipates
expanding the interpretive presence in 2017 with the additional funding
as well as continuing to develop partnerships with the local community.
Question (4). Secretary Jewell, I am very pleased that my
colleagues and I were able to provide the BLM National Conservation
Lands line item with its first increase since fiscal year 2012. As you
know, we recently established two new national monuments in New
Mexico--the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in the
southern border area of the State, and the Rio Grande del Norte
National Monument in the north near Taos. Tourism at these monuments
creates critical economic opportunities for the people in surrounding
communities--and they are also places that New Mexicans enjoy visiting
ourselves. The President's budget once again proposes a significant
increase of $13.8 million dollars for monuments throughout the country.
a. Can you tell us what BLM's plans are for utilizing the new
funds we provided in fiscal year 2016-- particularly to support the
monuments in New Mexico?
Answer. The BLM's National Monuments and National Conservation
Areas (NM&NCA) program received a $5.0 million increase in fiscal year
2016. The increase brings the program's total appropriation to $36.8
million, which is used to administer 46 areas covering about 12.2
million acres (as of April 1, 2016). New Mexico has received $1.3
million, or 26 percent, of the increase because of several new NM&NCA
designations. This brings the State's total NM&NCA program funding to
$2.5 million--a 110 percent increase from fiscal year 2015.
These funds will support all NM&NCAs in New Mexico, including newer
national monuments. Specific direction includes funding managers,
critical staff, signage, and educational materials, among other things.
Funding is also directed for New Mexico's critical maintenance needs,
to inventory and protect the resources, objects, and values for which
units were designated, to reduce staffing vacancies, provide education
and interpretation to the public, hire youth and veterans, and provide
safe and legal public access.
b. With the increased funding included in the 2017 Budget for
national monuments, what will you be working on? What are the needs
that should be addressed?
Answer. The BLM plans to use the proposed $13.8 million increase to
the NM&NCA program as described in the fiscal year 2017 President's
budget. Specifically, the program will use the increase to fill
critical management and staff vacancies, conduct vital inventories,
provide safe and legal public access, perform basic maintenance on
infrastructure, protect wildlife habitat and irreplaceable historical
resources, and provide opportunities for recreation, volunteering,
youth and veteran engagement, and scientific research.
c. Since the budget was delivered, the President has designated
new monuments in California, and I understand there is still the
potential for additional designations. Will the funding needs for those
areas be covered by the increases you've proposed? If not, how will you
fund them without impacting other states like New Mexico?
Answer. The 2017 budget was formulated prior to these most recent
designations. BLM base funding has been used to manage these acres
prior to their designation as national monuments. Decisions on
allocation of the requested increase have yet to be made. The BLM will
have a better idea of 2017 funding needs for the new monuments in the
coming months, and will be able to reprioritize estimated NM/NCA State
allocations at that time.
Question (5). The budget proposes $1.7 million dollars to implement
a Departmental Southwest Border Radio Initiative--in partnership with
the Forest Service--to improve communications infrastructure amongst
the various land management agencies, based on some issues the
Inspector General uncovered.
a. Can you talk about how this funding specifically addresses the
concerns raised by the Inspector General? Will this initiative improve
Interior's ability to communicate with Border Patrol and State and
local law enforcement as well?
Answer. The funding proposed for the fiscal year 2017 Bureau of
Land Management Deferred Maintenance budget will allow the Department
of the Interior to complete the first pilot projects aimed at resolving
deficiencies in the land mobile radio program in an area with a
critical need for improved communications. Projects to be completed
with these funds will focus on resolving concerns over safety of DOI
personnel using and maintaining land mobile radio facilities. In
addition, land mobile radio infrastructure will be consolidated,
removing redundant facilities and upgrading equipment on remaining
sites. The priorities for work will be accomplished in collaboration
with other DOI Bureaus in the region including the National Park
Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Forest Service. There may be as many
as 32 sites in the region which could be eliminated through this
consolidation.
When completed this project will lead to reduced infrastructure
costs since there will be fewer sites to maintain and the condition of
the remaining sites will be much improved. A key aspect of this project
is the cross Bureau cooperation within DOI and the inclusion of the
USFS as a full partner. Safety and effectiveness will also be enhanced
with upgraded replacement communication hardware and operational
support for the infrastructure will be shared.
Radio coverage and reliability will be enhanced which should lead
to better communications with other partners including the U.S. Border
Patrol. The work to be done is not focused on correcting
interoperability issues. These issues have been addressed through MOUs
and exchange of radio frequencies and encryption keys. On the Southwest
Border, the DOI and USFS Law Enforcement have been successfully
interoperable with the Department of Homeland Security since 2008, in
some cases much earlier. Our Officers communicate on these shared
frequencies and infrastructure every day.
b. Can you tell us why BLM was chosen as the lead agency and why
the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service do not have similar
increases proposed for this project?
Answer. BLM currently administers and operates a regional
interagency dispatch center in Phoenix and has been a leader in
managing land mobile radio communications in the region. The Arizona
BLM State Directors Office and staff have collaborated with other DOI
Bureaus and the USFS to identify priority actions needed to address
field communications issues and has entered into a partnership with the
NPS, FWS, and the USFS in the border region of New Mexico and Arizona.
Radio communications are a common operational activity and BLM has
agreed to manage the requested funds to address needs across all
Bureaus and the USFS. The funding will be used to consolidate existing
infrastructure, removing towers that provide overlapping service and
upgrading the towers that will remain and serve all the participating
agencies. The specific sites to be worked on will be identified based
on technical information gathered through a collaborative effort with
the partners involved.
c. What are the tangible impacts we will see on the ground in New
Mexico if this program is funded?
Answer. When project work is completed there should be fewer land
mobile radio communication sites in New Mexico since sites that provide
overlapping service will be removed. This will reduce environmental
impacts and maintenance costs for unneeded sites. Maintenance visits to
the sites will no longer be required reducing disturbance to sensitive
species and removal of equipment and associated infrastructure will
allow for restoration of previously impacted sites.
Improvements at remaining communication sites will increase radio
coverage and reliability for DOI Bureaus and the USFS and should make
these sites viable for colocation use by the New Mexico FirstNet Public
Safety Broadband Network, counties, cities, and other Federal agencies.
Question (6). I am the lead cosponsor of legislation with Senator
Wyden that would require the Department to collect royalties for coal
mined on Federal lands based on the actual market value of coal. The
bill also increases transparency within the Federal coal program by
making it a requirement to calculate and publish the going market rate
for coal and coal transportation.
I know that you have called for a comprehensive review of the coal
program. What is the status of that review, and the expected timetable
for completion? Will the reforms proposed in our bill be evaluated as
part of your review? Please provide a comprehensive list of the issues
that you expect to investigate or address as part of the review.
Answer. On January 15, 2016, the Secretary of the Interior issued
Order No. 3338 directing the BLM to conduct a broad, programmatic
review of the Federal coal program it administers through preparation
of a Programmatic EIS under NEPA. The Order was issued in response to a
range of concerns raised about the Federal coal program, including, in
particular, concerns about whether American taxpayers are receiving a
fair return from the development of these publicly owned resources;
concerns about market conditions, which have resulted in dramatic drops
in coal demand and production in recent years, with consequences for
coal-dependent communities; and concerns about whether the leasing and
production of large quantities of coal under the Federal coal program
is consistent with the Nation's goals to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to mitigate climate change. In light of these issues, the
coal Programmatic EIS will identify and evaluate a full range of
potential reforms to the Federal coal program, including those related
to ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer.
On March, 30, 2016, the Department of the Interior published a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a programmatic EIS to review the
Federal coal program and conduct public scoping meetings [Pages 17720-
17728 [FR DOC # 2016-07138]]. Scoping meetings are scheduled for May
and June 2016. The BLM will invite interested agencies, States,
American Indian tribes, local governments, industry, organizations and
members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in
identifying significant issues and in determining the scope of this
Programmatic EIS. All comments and recommendations submitted during the
scoping process will be collected for consideration. The estimated
completion time for the program review is 3 years.
Question (7). Secretary Jewell, the demand for ivory and rhino
horns has skyrocketed. The Congressional Research Service 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.
The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus included $8 million dollars, a 12
percent boost, to the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts to combat
wildlife trafficking. The budget request for fiscal year 2017 would
maintain that increased effort.
What progress is the Service making on hiring the planned 45 new
specialists and agents, and how quickly will they get into the field?
What other steps is the Service planning to take with the new funds,
both in 2016 and 2017?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus included an $8 million dollar
increase for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Law
Enforcement to combat wildlife trafficking. These funds are being used
to strengthen the Service's capacity to combat trafficking by hiring
additional international special agent attaches, digital forensic
specialists, intelligence analysts, and special agents.
International attaches are experts on investigating wildlife
trafficking and breaking up smuggling networks. They are stationed
around the world in strategic international locations to strengthen
ongoing international partnerships to protect the world's wildlife from
poaching and illegal trade. In August 2015, three additional attaches
were stationed at U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Gaborone,
Botswana; and Lima, Peru. The Service continues to work with the State
Department to place a fifth attache in Beijing, China in May 2016. In
2016, the Service plans to deploy an additional four international
attaches in areas of the world that have been determined to be
strategically important in the fight to combat illegal wildlife
trafficking. The Service is in final discussions with the State
Department concerning the placement of four additional attaches. The
Service anticipates advertising the positions before July 2016, with
selections for the positions to be made in August 2016.
Digital forensic specialists support agents in case development and
execution by providing forensic results concerning computers, cell
phones, and other digital technologies. The Service is currently
reviewing applications for the five new special agent positions funded
in the fiscal year 2016 budget. The Service aims to place the new
agents at the Digital Evidence and Recovery Computer Forensics Lab by
June 2016.
Intelligence analysts support special agents and wildlife
inspectors working in the field in numerous ways, including providing
information concerning trends in wildlife trafficking, researching
information on smuggling syndicates, performing criminal history
checks, and producing and distributing intelligence bulletins. The
Service is on track to select a new Special Agent in Charge of the
expanded Intelligence Unit in June 2016, with plans to bring the
remaining agents on board shortly thereafter.
The Service has also hired 43 special agents to ensure its ability
to enforce the Nation's wildlife laws and safeguard protected species.
The additional special agents will address the current staffing level
shortfall that has limited the Service's ability to perform ongoing
investigations. A portion of the new agents have completed initial
training and are already working at field locations. Final training
will take place in June 2016 at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center in Glynco, Georgia. After completion of all training, new agents
will be deployed to the field for direct interdiction of illegal
commercial exploitation by organized crime elements.
Through increased staff in these vital areas of expertise, the
Service will strengthen our own and our global partners' capacity to
prosecute and deter criminals that engage in the poaching and smuggling
of wildlife and plants.
Question (8). Secretary Jewell, the Fish and Wildlife Service's
efforts to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf in New Mexico and Arizona
has had a promising start. They were virtually eliminated from the wild
by the 1970s, but thanks to the program, the population reached 110
wolves in 2014.
Unfortunately, the 2015 count brought some troubling news--the
Mexican gray wolf population dropped to 97. I also understand that two
wolves passed away during or right after being darted and tagged by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Wild populations can naturally ebb and flow,
but we know that these wolves are at risk for a number of factors. It's
critical that we investigate closely.
a. Do your scientists have a theory for why the population is
trending downward? Are there plans underway to help support a rebound?
Answer. The drop in numbers from 2014 to 2015 represents 1 year and
does not yet indicate a trend. The population decline in 2015 was due
to a combination of factors. There were 13 Mexican wolf mortalities (5
illegal, 2 natural, 1 capture complication, 5 awaiting necropsy)
compared to 11 in 2014. Ten additional wolves are considered fate
unknown compared to three in 2014. Finally, a significantly lower
proportion of pups survived to December, relative to last year: 55
percent survival in 2015 compared to 86 percent in 2014. In the 2014
Environmental Impact Statement for the revised regulations for the
Mexican wolf experimental population, the Service anticipated an
average annual population growth of 10 percent. In 2014, Mexican wolves
had higher than usual pup survival and a population growth of 30
percent. The Service maintains that the strategy for the experimental
population continues to be viable. The Service and its partners remain
focused and committed to making this population genetically healthy and
robust so that it can contribute to the recovery of the Mexican wolf.
b. Why did the two wolves die during the count and capture
operation? Has the Fish & Wildlife Service done a full review of their
policies and procedures to prevent similar accidents?
Answer. The Service conducted preliminary investigations
immediately following the two deaths during the 2015 count and capture
operation. Both wolves are undergoing necropsies at the Service's
Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, to determine cause of death.
We have requested that the lab specifically determine if either wolf
experienced capture myopathy and if there was any other contributing
underlying health issue. The techniques, protocol, and drugs used were
the same as those used throughout this year's and last year's count and
capture operations. This year, 13 additional wolves were successfully
darted, processed, collared, and released back into the wild. Based on
the outcome of the necropsies, the Service will determine if any
changes to protocol are needed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
Question (1). Could you please provide a comparison of the revenues
returned in the last several fiscal years from oil, gas, and coal
leases, versus any revenue brought in from solar energy. Please include
in the report what the revenue is generated from, such as rents.
Further, please identify where there this money is accounted for in the
Interior budget. It does not appear to be documented in Interior's
Office of Natural Resources Revenue which lists revenues from other
sources.
Answer. A comparison of the revenues generated for oil, gas, coal
and solar energy are provided in the tables below.
Revenues from oil, gas, and coal leases: Data with respect to
revenue generated by the production of Federal oil, gas, and coal is
maintained by ONRR on its Statistical Information Web page (http://
statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx). Information made available is
broken down into information on Revenue Type (reported royalties,
rents, bonus, and other revenues), Commodity (leased solid and fluid
minerals), and the total Revenue collected. Definitions for these
categories are provided by ONRR on its Web site.
The tables below present the total revenue collected from Federal
oil, gas, and coal production on both an annual and aggregate basis
from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015.
OIL AND GAS REVENUE
Fiscal Year 2010-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas (mcf)......................................... $1,444,790,640 $1,360,191,600 $976,195,024 $1,008,066,360 $1,161,006,314 $915,071,846
NGL (gal)......................................... $210,688,138 $253,774,439 $298,372,582 $284,957,168 $279,379,284 $154,241,725
Oil (bbl)......................................... $870,739,500 $1,110,883,193 $1,275,117,598 $1,459,973,589 $1,634,903,295 $1,269,596,134
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Royalties............................. $2,526,218,278 $2,724,849,233 $2,549,685,203 $2,752,997,117 $3,075,288,892 $2,338,909,704
Oil & Gas Rents................................... $48,800,065 $45,002,896 $43,758,281 $41,036,833 $36,684,823 $30,886,105
Oil & Gas Bonuses................................. $201,872,509 $233,467,555 $283,051,994 $188,982,219 $161,936,505 $112,651,284
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Royalty, Rent and Bonus............... $2,776,890,852 $3,003,319,684 $2,876,495,478 $2,983,016,170 $3,273,910,220 $2,482,447,094
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAL LEASE REVENUE
Fiscal Year 2010-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 2010-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$856,793,241 $956,018,290 $1,364,744,116 $1,165,066,525 $1,161,706,509 $1,137,450,911 $6,641,809,592
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues from Solar Energy: ONRR does not collect renewable
resource revenue information. Renewable energy revenue is reported by
the BLM in the Public Land Statistics. Since 2010, the BLM has
authorized 35 solar projects. As of April 2016, there are 6 projects
that have been built and are providing power to the grid. The following
table summarizes renewable energy revenues that BLM has collected over
the past several years.
The table below reflects annual payments that the BLM collects for
solar and wind energy development. It does not include revenues
collected through competitive bidding for development parcels at an
auction since there has only been one auction held to date, in 2014,
which resulted in over $5.8 million in bids. This is an amount that the
BLM collected in addition to the amounts reported in the table below.
All revenues, including bid monies, are sent to the General Fund at the
Treasury.
SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY REVENUE
Fiscal Year 2010-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Solar Wind Fiscal Year Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2010.................................... $3,911.76 $3,115,480.25 $3,119,392.01
Fiscal Year 2011.................................... $6,230,982.09 $3,713,338.16 $9,944,320.25
Fiscal Year 2012.................................... $5,199,338.42 $4,354,260.32 $9,553,598.74
Fiscal Year 2013.................................... $6,343,817.72 $4,315,856.99 $10,659,674.71
Fiscal Year 2014.................................... $7,307,687.93 $5,402,276.42 $12,709,964.35
Fiscal Year 2015.................................... $10,686,757.63 $4,538,337.65 $15,225,095.28
-----------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................ $35,772,495.55 $25,439,549.79 $61,212,045.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question (2). Given that your department has concluded that a PEIS
for the coal leasing program is necessary, will you commit to
refraining from other major modifications to the coal program while
this analysis is being conducted?
Answer. The intent of the discretionary Programmatic EIS is to
analyze potential leasing and management reforms to the current Federal
coal program in response to concerns raised by the Government
Accountability Office, the Interior Department's Office of Inspector
General, Members of Congress, interested stakeholders and the public.
Any potential reforms or changes to the Federal coal program will be
identified in the scoping process.
Question (3). You have indicated that a number of coal leases that
have received record of decisions will be grandfathered. Are you firmly
committed to allowing those lease sales to move forward as planned?
Answer. The Secretarial Order states that applications having
records of decisions or decision records issued by either the surface
management agency or the bureau at the time of the order will be
processed and not affected by the pause.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question (1). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Public
Law 114-113) included a directive to require the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide States with
technical reports, data, analyses, comments received, and documents
related to the environmental review and environmental impact statements
for the agency's proposed stream buffer zone regulation. To date, what
has OSMRE done in conjunction with the Department of Interior to comply
with Congress' directive?
Answer. OSMRE made these documents available to all of the States
on March 24, 2016. Reference materials cited in the proposed rule were
uploaded on the Web site regulations.gov with the exception of
reference materials protected by copyright law.
Question (2). The Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement (OSMRE)
claims that States have been reluctant to work with the agency despite
their outreach efforts on the proposed stream buffer zone regulation.
The Energy and Environment Cabinet in Kentucky sent a letter to your
agency on February 8, 2016, indicating that the State agency would be
interested in receiving the information directed by Congress in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-113) to see how
those studies and assessment documents compare with their own findings
and reviews. Where is your agency in the process of responding to this
request? What steps will your agency take to ensure that the newly
elected and appointed officials in the commonwealth of Kentucky are
brought up to speed with the proposed rule and reviews and findings
associated with it? What sort of engagement can the Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet expect from your agency before the stream buffer
zone rule is finalized?
Answer. OSMRE has and will continue to honor its commitment to
provide the State of Kentucky as well as all other States the
information directed by Congress. In this regard, OSMRE scheduled a
series of technical meetings to provide answers to questions the States
might have with any of the documents provided. The State of Kentucky
was invited to participate in these meetings held on April 14, 2016 and
on April 21, 2016.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Cassidy
Question (1). In 1996 Congress passed the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). The law prohibits the use of
technical standards unique to the Federal government in lieu of
voluntary consensus standards as they relate to agency rule making.
However, the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control final rule, RIN
1014-AA11 violates the NTTAA by using government unique technical
standards. This violation makes it impossible to implement numerous
portions of the rule while remaining compliant with existing law. In
its formulation of the rule BSEE also infringes upon OMB Circular A-
119. The circular requires the publishing of a NTTAA ``statement'' in
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) detailing why government
unique technical standards were necessary in lieu of consensus
standards if exceptional reasons existed.
a. Why did BSEE not include a NTTAA statement in its original
NPRM?
Answer. BSEE's Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control final
rule is consistent with the NTTAA's requirement that agencies use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies rather than government-unique standards. The
final rule expressly incorporates the following voluntary consensus
technical standards as required by the NTTAA:
--American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 53 (``Blowout
Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells'');
--ANSI/API Specification (Spec.) 11D1 (Packers and Bridge Plugs,
--ANSI/API Spec. 16A (Drill-through Equipment);
--API Spec. 16C (Choke and Kill Systems);
--API Spec. 16D (Control Systems for Drilling Well Control Equipment
and Control Systems for Diverter Equipment);
--ANSI/API Spec. 17D (Design and Operation of Subsea Production
Systems--Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment); and
--ANSI/API RP 17H (Remotely Operated Vehicle Interfaces on Subsea
Production Systems).
The final rule does not use government-unique standards in lieu of
voluntary consensus standards. As a result, BSEE is not required to
provide a statement that identifies government-unique standards and
explain why using voluntary consensus standards would be inconsistent
with law or otherwise impractical.
b. How does BSEE plan to implement all of rule RIN1014-AA11 if key
provisions violate existing statues?
Answer. BSEE does not believe that any provisions of the rule
violate existing statutes. As BSEE described in the preamble to the
proposed rule, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(OCSLA), Congress authorized BSEE to promulgate regulations concerning
natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf.\3\ BSEE relied on
this legal authority as its basis for developing and issuing the final
Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control rule. The final rule is
consistent with OCSLA and other existing statutes described in the
rulemaking record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 80 Fed. Reg. 21505 (April 17, 2015); 43 U.S.C. 1334.
c. Does the Department plan to publish a NTTAA statement and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reopen the public comment period?
Answer. As the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well control rule
complies with the requirements of the NTTAA and the guidance in OMB
Circular A-119 concerning the Bureau's identification of voluntary
consensus standards used in the rule, the Department does not plan to
reopen the public comment period.
Question (2). The NTTAA does allow for exceptions from the
voluntary consensus standards mandate when their use ``is inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical'' and requires agencies to
``transmits to the Office of Management and Budget an explanation of
the reasons for using such standards.'' In accordance with 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 272.
a. Please explain the Department's process for justifying a NTTAA
exemption when BSEE was actively involved in creating and approving the
consensus standards at issue.
Answer. BSEE's promulgation of the final Blowout Preventer Systems
and Well Control rule is consistent with the NTTAA's requirement that
agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, rather than government-unique
standards, when such technical standards are consistent with the law
and practical (e.g., when the technical standards would serve the
agency's program needs and would not be ineffectual, inefficient or
inconsistent with the agency's mission). The final rule does not rely
on an exemption from the NTTAA.
b. Please explain the justification that voluntary consensus
standards are ``impractical'', especially taking into account that
government-unique standards lack a technical basis and create potential
safety risks.
Answer. Each departure from voluntary consensus standards is
founded on a sound technical basis, generally accepted engineering best
practices, and BSEE's determination that the relevant consensus
standard, or a specific provision of the standard, does not provide an
acceptable level of risk, risk management, or due care. For example,
API Standard 53 contains a provision that allows an operator to opt out
of a requirement to have dual shear rams on a subsea blowout preventer.
The final version of the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control
rule incorporates API Standard 53, but does not incorporate the ``opt-
out'' provision as the Bureau determined that full incorporation of
Standard 53 cannot provide the same level of safety as an absolute
requirement to have dual shear rams. In instances such as this, where
the Bureau decided that a departure from consensus standards was
appropriate, BSEE exercised its authority carefully with an eye toward
establishing an acceptable level of protection while also balancing
risks, costs, and the availability of alternative approaches in
establishing regulatory requirements.
Question (3). In its NPRM BSEE claims the proposed rule is not a
``significant energy action'' triggering the need for a Statement of
Energy Effects under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (``OCSLA'')
and procedural requirements under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001)
requiring a ``Statement of Energy Effects.'' However, based on comments
received from the public it is unreasonable for BSEE and the Department
to continue this claim. BSEE has acknowledged that the proposed rule in
total ``represents one of the most substantial rulemakings in the
history of the BSEE and its predecessor organizations.'' While
simultaneously and inconsistently claiming that the proposed rule is
not a significant energy action under E.O. 13211, BSEE has not met the
mandate under OCSLA for a reasoned analysis of the rule.
Given the obvious and BSEE acknowledged impact this rule will have;
will the Department renew its analysis and prepare the requisite
Statement of Energy Effects and submit the Statement for public
comment, as required by law?
Answer. The rule represents one of the most substantial rulemakings
in BSEE history because it codifies significant improvements to the
safety of well control operations, not because of any possible energy
effects. The Bureau's analysis of the final rule indicates that it will
not have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution,
or use because its estimated impacts will not exceed the thresholds
established by OMB.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OMB Memoranda 01-27 (Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211)
(2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question (4). BOEM has stated that offshore sources have not been
demonstrated to impact onshore air quality. At the same time, BOEM is
currently undergoing air modeling studies to inform its air quality
rulemaking and these studies are not expected to conclude until 2017.
However it appears the agency is on the cusp of proposing an entirely
new regulatory program for offshore operators.
a. Is the agency going to move forward with a proposed rule before
receiving the results of the air modeling studies that are intended to
inform the rule for which it has commissioned nearly $4 million? What
assurance can you provide today that the agency will issue a draft
report of the studies for public review and comment prior to finalizing
the report or incorporating its conclusions into any revised regulatory
requirements?
Answer. The proposed regulations continue the framework of the
current BOEM air quality regulations. The framework, a construct in
place since 1980 when the Department of the Interior first issued air
quality regulations, was designed to meet the Department's statutory
mandate to ensure that offshore oil and gas activities do not exceed
onshore national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Given today's landscape, we acknowledge the need to update the 36
year-old regulations to reflect current science and technology and
recent determinations about pollutant levels that are potentially
harmful to human health and the environment. The existing regulations
reflect outdated air quality standards that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has since revised to better reflect current
science.
The proposed regulations will more effectively protect public
health and the welfare of affected States. In addition, BOEM's current
regulations do not take into account air quality impacts over State
coastal waters, which BOEM believes would more accurately meet its
statutory responsibility. Finally, revisions are also needed to address
BOEM's responsibility to assess air quality impacts in the Arctic, as
required by The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-
74).
The proposed regulations are designed to allow advances in science
and assessment of air quality impacts to be flexibly and efficiently
incorporated into BOEM's air quality rules, including results of the
modeling studies currently underway. The modeling studies are intended
to inform air quality requirements within the framework of the proposed
regulations, not the framework itself. Consistent with BOEM's practice
for scientific standards, the studies will be peer-reviewed and made
public once final. Also, as BOEM's proposed regulation provides, any
changes in the current emission exemption thresholds, which the models
are designed to inform, would not occur until the studies are
completed, and would not occur before BOEM gives notice in the Federal
Register that it intends to revise the thresholds and provide an
opportunity for public comment.
Conclusions about the environmental impact of OCS air emissions
depend on the focus of review and the most recent science. Those
assessments are determined when BOEM reviews site-specific plans of
operations. In that context, it is possible for emissions to exceed
significant impact levels or lead to deterioration of State air
quality. Accordingly, it is necessary for BOEM to conduct a broad
cumulative impact analysis, as well as a site-specific review of plans.
b. What justification does the agency have for moving forward
without the results of the studies when your agency, through its
environmental impact assessments, has repeatedly concluded that
offshore sources do not impact onshore air quality?
Answer. The proposed regulations continue the framework of the
current BOEM air quality regulations. The framework, a construct in
place since 1980 when the Department of the Interior first issued air
quality regulations, was designed to meet the Department's statutory
mandate to ensure that offshore oil and gas activities do not exceed
onshore national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Given today's landscape, we acknowledge the need to update the 36
year-old regulations to reflect current science and technology and
recent determinations about pollutant levels that are potentially
harmful to human health and the environment. The existing regulations
reflect outdated air quality standards that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has since revised to better reflect current
science.
The proposed regulations will more effectively protect public
health and the welfare of affected States. In addition, BOEM's current
regulations do not take into account air quality impacts over State
coastal waters, which BOEM believes would more accurately meet its
statutory responsibility. Finally, revisions are also needed to address
BOEM's responsibility to assess air quality impacts in the Arctic, as
required by The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-
74).
The proposed regulations are designed to allow advances in science
and assessment of air quality impacts to be flexibly and efficiently
incorporated into BOEM's air quality rules, including results of the
modeling studies currently underway. The modeling studies are intended
to inform air quality requirements within the framework of the proposed
regulations, not the framework itself. Consistent with BOEM's practice
for scientific standards, the studies will be peer-reviewed and made
public once final. Also, as BOEM's proposed regulation provides, any
changes in the current emission exemption thresholds, which the models
are designed to inform, would not occur until the studies are
completed, and would not occur before BOEM gives notice in the Federal
Register that it intends to revise the thresholds and provide an
opportunity for public comment.
Conclusions about the environmental impact of OCS air emissions
depend on the focus of review and the most recent science. Those
assessments are determined when BOEM reviews site-specific plans of
operations. In that context, it is possible for emissions to exceed
significant impact levels or lead to deterioration of State air
quality. Accordingly, it is necessary for BOEM to conduct a broad
cumulative impact analysis, as well as a site-specific review of plans.
c. What reassurance can you provide that the agency will not rush,
in order to meet an artificial deadline, the regulated community's
ability to comment on the proposed rule and allow the agency time to
engage with stakeholders as you analyze and digest those comments in
order to incorporate any appropriate revisions into the final rule?
Answer. BOEM is proceeding with the rulemaking in a deliberative
manner with ample opportunity for public comment. For instance, while
drafting the Air Quality proposed rule, BOEM held a number of meetings
and listening sessions with other government entities, and
environmental and industry stakeholders. The proposed rulemaking
provides 60 days for public comment following its publication on April
5, 2016 in the Federal Register. Additionally, the proposal was posted
on BOEM's Web site on March 17, 2016, providing the public an
additional 19 days to review the proposed rule. BOEM will carefully
review the comments it receives on the proposed rule as it develops a
final rule.
Question (5). BSEE is currently working to finalize its BOP/Well
Control Rule which as proposed may actually decrease safety and
increase risk. Will the final rule make offshore operations less safe
and increase risk like the proposal did?
Answer. The Department announced the final rule on April 14, 2016,
and the final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 29,
2016. The Bureau's analysis of the administrative record, including the
many recommendations associated with the Deepwater Horizon blowout and
explosion investigations and the public comments indicates that the
final rule will reduce the risk of an offshore oil or gas blowout that
could result in the loss of life, serious injuries, or substantial harm
to the environment. Accordingly, the final rule represents one of the
most significant safety and environmental protection reforms the
Interior Department has undertaken since Deepwater Horizon, and builds
upon a number of reforms instituted over the last 6 years to strengthen
and modernize offshore energy standards and oversight.
a. Prior to the rule's proposal last year did DOI thoroughly
examine all of the safety improvements made since 2010 and identify the
existing gaps to determine what this rule needed to address?
Answer. Following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, several immediate
actions were taken to address specific offshore safety concerns
involving drilling operations. The regulations that were issued in 2010
and 2012 provided new standards for well design, casing and cementing,
and third-party certification of designs. These rules represented an
important first step in addressing regulatory gaps in the offshore
program, but did not address the full cadre of regulatory deficiencies
identified after Deepwater Horizon.
The Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control rule represents the
next step in the process of creating a robust regulatory program that
is responsive to all of the recommendations received from the several
investigations of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BSEE employed a
number of strategies to ensure that regulatory gaps were identified and
addressed, including, but not limited to, involving industry and other
stakeholders in the development of the proposed rule and in the final
rulemaking process.
b. DOI received significant comments and feedback on a number of
safety concerns with the proposed rule. A recent Wall Street Journal
article, which may have been written as a result of a DOI leak of the
final rule, suggests that changes have been made to the proposal. What
changes have been made to enhance safety?
Answer. The Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control rule
codifies many important improvements to offshore drilling. The final
rule addresses key recommendations made after the Deepwater Horizon
tragedy and closes gaps in existing regulations and updates BSEE
regulations to reflect industry best practices. Parts of the final rule
that were modified after the public comment period on the proposed rule
include the safe drilling margin requirement, real-time monitoring,
blowout preventer (BOP) inspection requirements, and BOP accumulator
capacities.
As to the drilling margin requirement, text was added to clarify
the acceptability of risk-based justifications for specifying an
alternative drilling margin, which clearly provides the flexibility
requested in numerous industry comments. With regards to the real-time
monitoring provisions, language was revised to clarify the Bureau's
intent and to address misperceptions reflected in the comments. The new
provision reflects the Bureau's intent to allow maximum flexibility in
complying with real-time monitoring requirements.
In addition to enhancing safety and flexibility, many of the
changes reflected in the final rule will result in substantial cost-
savings for offshore operators. For example, the final rule modifies
the 5-year BOP inspection requirement, allowing inspections to occur in
phases, provided every component is inspected once every 5 years.
Compliance dates were also extended for several important requirements,
including the extension of the requirement to use BSEE-Approved
Verification Organizations (BAVOs) to perform certifications from 90
days to no later than 1 year from the date when BSEE publishes the list
of BAVOs. In response to industry comments, the requirement to use
``hydraulically operated locks'' on surface BOPs was modified to allow
the use of remote-controlled locks and the effective date of that
requirement was extended to 3 years after the date of publication.
These are just a few instances where comments and other feedback BSEE
received were reflected in changes to the final rule.
c. A number of us in Congress have real concerns with the proposal
all centered on safety and as a result the DOI needed to undertake a
more robust analysis and engage in real dialogue to make sure the
unintended consequences were addressed and the rule actually made
offshore operations safer. As a result, the fiscal year 2016 omnibus
spending bill expressed the need for more robust analysis and that
further examination needed to take place prior to the finalization of
the rule. Did DOI heed to the call of the Congress prior to finalizing
and sending the rule to OMB? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes. BSEE conducted extensive stakeholder engagement after
publication of the proposed rule and during the extended comment
period. BSEE participated in numerous meetings with industry and other
stakeholders before and after publication of the proposed rule on
subject matter related to the Blowout Preventer Systems and Well
Control rule, a number of which dealt specifically with clarifying
stakeholders' written comments on the rule. BSEE also attended
listening sessions arranged by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) during the E.O. 12866 review period for the draft final rule,
most of which were requested by members of industry. BSEE staff
carefully considered all stakeholder comments and input.
The Bureau's comprehensive and transparent outreach was critical to
the development of the final rule. The final rule does not represent a
``one-size-fits-all'' approach. Rather, the final rule incorporates
sufficient flexibility to allow operators to focus on the ultimate goal
of increasing safety and reducing risk offshore. The final rule also
allows for the development and deployment of new technologies that lead
to safer operations. Additionally, the final rule employs a phased
implementation approach for some of its more complex provisions that
gives industry sufficient time to come into compliance with new
technological requirements.
d. Does the final rule address and fix all of the safety concerns
stakeholders and Congress had with the proposal? Does the final rule
enhance safety?
Answer. The final Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control rule
combines prescriptive and performance-based approaches to regulation to
ensure that oil and gas companies and offshore rig operators are
cultivating a greater culture of safety with a focus on risk reduction.
Based on the extensive technical comments received during the
rulemaking process, several adjustments were made to provisions of the
proposed rule that are reflected in the final rule. The final rule
provides a level of flexibility sufficient to ensure that regulatory
oversight keeps pace with technological advancement, provided future
innovations can meet the rule's standards for safety performance. The
key concerns of industry based on the proposed rule are addressed in
the final rule including, but not limited to safe drilling margins,
accumulator capacity, BOP inspection intervals, and real-time
monitoring requirements. The Bureau firmly believes that the regulatory
process has resulted in a final rule that will raise the bar for
offshore safety, both in United States Federal waters and
internationally.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]