    [Senate Hearing 114-465]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-465

      THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 23, 2016

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

               Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov

                                     ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    98-968                         WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Christopher Kearney, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff
                                     Member
                Angela Becker-Dippman, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
             David Brooks, Democratic Professional General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria. Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior...     6

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    Cribley, Bud:
        Letter dated December 15, 2015 from the U.S. Department of
          the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to Mr. Brent
          Goodrum, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources...    48
    Goodrum, Brent:
        Letter dated July 1, 2015 from the State of Alaska Department
          of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau of Land
          Management, Alaska State Office............................    40
        Letter dated January 13, 2016 from the State of Alaska
          Department of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau
          of Land Management, Alaska State Office....................    53
    Jennings, Mr. Gerald:
        Letter dated October 16, 2015 from the State of Alaska
          Department of Natural Resources to Mr. Michael Schoder,
          Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office.............    46
    Jewell, Hon. Sally:
        Opening Statement............................................     6
        Written Testimony............................................     9
        Letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski dated July 15, 2015.........   207
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   214
    Myers, Dr. Mark:
        Letter dated September 18, 2015 from the State of Alaska
          Department of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau
          of Land Management, Alaska State Office....................    38
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   276
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District:
        King Cove-Cold Bay: Assessment of Non-Road Alternatives dated
          June 18, 2015..............................................    89

      THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, February 23, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

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

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        Welcome, Secretary Jewell, as well as other members of the
    Department of the Interior (DOI). It is good to have you with
    us today. We are meeting this morning to review the budget
    request for the Department of the Interior for Fiscal Year
    2017.
        Secretary Jewell, welcome back to the Committee. You and I
    have had many discussions over the years since your tenure at
    Interior, and you know that I have expressed my concerns about
    how Interior has approached some of the issues in Alaska as
    well as the rest of the nation over the past eight years. But
    as you and I have discussed, we need to figure out how we can
    find those opportunities to work together. I think there is
    agreement that there are plenty of areas where it should be
    possible to find that agreement, but I have to be very frank
    with where we are this morning when we look at the budget in
    front of us. It looks like, again, a rocky start to the final
    year of this Administration.
        Some of the things, and I will include this as part of my
    questions to you this morning, but the first one that strikes
    me is Interior's proposal to assist Alaskans impacted by
    climate change through this new resiliency fund. It appears to
    be modeled after a provision of a bill that I wrote, the Opens
    Act, that our Committee reported out last July. They say
    imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but unfortunately
    you did not carry my ideas all the way in terms of the pay for.
        You did pick up the idea, and I appreciate the President
    doing that. But depriving the Gulf states of revenue sharing
    from offshore production is just a nonstarter. It would up end
    a deal that 71 Senators supported and take money away from
    states that are counting on it to protect their coastlines. The
    effort to repeal revenue sharing is not going to go anywhere.
        In terms of paying for this new fund, I have suggested that
    a much better option is to increase domestic energy production
    and use those revenues to help communities in need. That would
    allow us to create jobs and reduce our foreign dependence
    instead of simply re-dividing the pie.
        The Administration also claims that this budget, ``invests
    in Alaska's long-term economic and environmental well-being.''
    Again, I have looked through this budget proposal and what I
    see, unfortunately, is a continuation of the efforts that block
    our ability to safely develop our resources and really take
    away so many of the best opportunities that I think my state
    has to grow and prosper.
        One of the areas I am going to be asking you about this
    morning, Madam Secretary, is the Alaska land conveyances. We
    are sitting here 57 years after statehood, 45 years after
    passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and we are
    still dealing with our land conveyances, as you well know. I
    think it is fair to note that BLM did make some progress in
    2015, but what we are seeing within this proposal is more than
    a 20 percent decrease from last year's levels.
        We still have about 5.3 million acres left to convey. In
    our questioning we will have an opportunity to talk about how
    the methodologies are being used to provide for the surveys.
    This has been something that has, again, lingered so long. When
    you think about any state's ability to develop their lands, you
    cannot do it unless you have had that title conveyed.
        Other areas that we look at as being restrictive in terms
    of the Federal Government limiting opportunities for a state
    are the proposed regulations coming out of National Park
    Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, controversial within the
    state, certainly, but also nationwide. It just seems that the
    Department is intent on overriding state management authority
    over Fish and Game resources within their borders inconsistent
    with ANILCA. But again, we will have an opportunity to discuss
    that in Q and A.
        But it is not just Alaska. On top of all the regulations
    and restrictions we have seen, this budget would repeal a
    number of tax provisions that help maintain domestic energy
    production. It would impose an ambiguous new $10.25 per barrel
    tax on oil that will hurt families and businesses.
        We were out in Bethel just last week with five members of
    this Committee and myself. If you were to ask the people in
    Bethel if they think that it is a smart thing to do anything
    that would increase the price of oil to them, they are paying
    about $5.65, so they are having a tough time reconciling how
    this could possibly be a good thing.
        The budget also seeks to impose new fees on energy
    producers and a new royalty on hard rock miners. At a time when
    energy and commodity prices are low, I would expect that
    Interior would be looking for practical ways to make our energy
    and mining industries more competitive. Based on this budget it
    looks like the goal is to drive them away from our Federal
    lands and waters.
        With regards to the miners out in the Fortymile District,
    you ask them if these RMPs that they are looking at make it any
    easier for them to basically pursue what they have spent a
    lifetime trying to pursue as small, small operators out there.
    It is very tough to make that argument.
        Then at a time when we are recognizing that when we talk
    about energy insecurity, that also includes the insecurity that
    comes when we rely on others for our sources of minerals. When
    we look at new fees and new taxes on top of already slow
    permitting within the industry, it does make me question how
    does this help us when it comes to mineral security which, in
    turn, leads to economic security and national security?
        Legacy wells. This is an issue that you and I have
    discussed at great length over the years. We have suggested
    that it is the height of double standards that the Government
    would be allowed to basically take a pass in terms of clean-up
    when the private sector would be sued until the sun sets if
    they had done the same thing that the Federal Government has
    done. It is on ongoing environmental insult that the Government
    should never tolerate. I think we recognize the budget here is
    far short of what is needed where at $2.8 million, if I
    understand what it is costing us on a per well basis, it is
    pretty much close to $3 million a well because we have gotten
    beyond the easy ones, if you will.
        There has been a lot of news just this past week back home
    about the $50 million that I was able to secure through the
    Helium Stewardship Act which BLM is now using to clean up about
    40 percent of the legacy wells which, I think you and I would
    agree, gets us on that track. But making sure that we are on a
    path after that is, I think, critically important, particularly
    recognizing that we are looking at perhaps 29 more wells to be
    cleaned up. If you estimate maybe $2 to $3 million per well, do
    the math and we are going to be sitting here for a long time
    cleaning this up.
        Of course beyond energy there is King Cove. It was 26
    months ago today, today, that you rejected the lifesaving road
    for this remote community. At that time you promised that you
    were going to find some way to help the local residents, but I
    do not see anything in this request to protect those people
    whose lives remain in needless danger.
        More broadly, the Administration continues to ignore budget
    realities and propose billions in mandatory spending including
    for proposals that have been rejected in the past for very
    valid reasons.
        We have had a lot of consensus in this Committee about
    support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). We
    have actually moved through this measure as part of our energy
    bill, a provision that would address some reforms. But you are
    advancing full funding for LWCF without any offset and without
    reforms.
        Yet again, we will have an opportunity to speak more to
    this in question and answer. But when we recognize the
    substantial backlog that we have within the Federal agencies,
    the National Park Service at close to $12 billion backlog, it
    kind of begs the question, why are we pushing to acquire more
    land when it is obvious that we have a great need, a great
    demand, to care for the lands that we have.
        Now having said all that, I think that there are some
    important issues where I hope that we would be able to forge
    this common ground despite the budget proposals that we have
    here.
        We talk a lot about wildfire and the problem that we face
    in terms of budgeting and actual forest management. I noted
    that in the news yesterday in Alaska, we have our first
    wildfire out in the BLM area, outside of Delta, that has been
    contained. But it is a reminder that the season is coming a lot
    earlier. We just do not have the snow cover that we would hope
    up there. Our Committee is going to dedicate much of March to
    finding a solution to the challenges of budgeting and forest
    management.
        A second area where, I think, collaboration is possible is
    the National Park Service Centennial. I know that this is a
    priority of yours. I have said the Administration's proposal is
    unrealistic at $1.5 billion in mandatory spending, but I do
    think this is an opportunity for us to put the Park Service on
    a long-term path toward viability with its 100th birthday here.
    This is an opportunity for us to figure out how we can work
    through the maintenance backlog so that we have a park system
    that we can all be proud of. That would be a legacy for us all.
        With that, Madam Secretary, again, thank you for being here
    before us this morning. We look forward to your comments and
    that of your colleagues as well.
        Senator Cantwell?

     STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
    Senator Murkowski, for scheduling this hearing. It is good to
    be here to discuss the President's budget proposal for the
    Department of the Interior. I welcome all the witnesses here
    this morning. Certainly welcome to Secretary Jewell. This will
    be your final budget presentation before the Committee, so
    thank you for your work on this.
        Many of the priorities in this budget, such as the full
    funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
    development of funding for the National Park Centennial
    initiative, reflect tireless efforts by those in the agency to
    work on these issues. One of the signature issues here involves
    finding new ways to get young people to the outdoors and
    experience and enjoy our national parks and public lands.
        This budget includes funding for the Secretary's Every Kid
    in a Park initiative, which provides a free one-year admission
    pass for every fourth grader in the country to visit our
    national parks and other public lands. So thank you, Secretary
    Jewell, for your leadership on that initiative. It is greatly
    appreciated. I commend you for that and look forward to
    discussing many of these proposals.
        The proposed budget of $13.4 billion for the Department of
    the Interior reflects a very modest increase totaling half of
    one percent over current level funding. In my view this is a
    very responsible proposal that balances the funding for the
    Department of the Interior's often conflicting conservation and
    development mandates. More importantly, I'm pleased that the
    budget and the recent secretarial directives are taking a long
    term and forward looking approach to responsible energy
    development on public lands to address the impacts of climate
    change into the future.
        At the budget hearing last year I expressed my concern that
    the Department's efforts to reform the coal program were not
    going far enough and fast enough. What a difference a year
    makes. I want to thank Secretary Jewell for her bold action to
    modernize the Federal coal program. She has been a deliberate
    and thoughtful person when it comes to this issue. Thank you
    for the open and honest conversation.
        What we have now is the Bureau of Land Management's
    proposed rulemaking. The Bureau of Land Management held five
    listening sessions on this last August. The Secretarial Order
    that Secretary Jewell issued this January requires the Bureau
    of Land Management to undertake a programmatic EIS, or I should
    say programmatic environmental impact statement, to update the
    coal leasing program and ensure that taxpayers get a fair
    return. While the programmatic EIS is being prepared, no new
    Federal coal leasing will be issued, with limited exceptions.
    This programmatic EIS is long overdue. It has been 37 years
    since the current EIS was written. I think 37 years is long
    enough, so I'm thankful that this process is underway.
        This pause on new leasing activities is consistent with the
    actions of five previous administrations, four Republican and
    one Democrat, as well as a leasing moratorium approved by the
    Republican-controlled Senate in the 80s. So we cannot continue
    with business as usual. The cost to the taxpayers and the
    public do not match. We cannot continue to lease coal for $1.00
    a ton and collect another $1.00 in royalties while the cost to
    society is about $70 per ton. That enormous gap between public
    revenue and ultimate cost to the public is simply not
    defensible.
        There is much more to do in reforming coal leasing. So I
    plan to ask you about this, finishing the Stream Protection
    Rule and fixing reclamation self-bonding requirements, which
    are hugely important to addressing the legacy and impacts of
    coal to society. I want to thank you for taking action on
    these.
        The past year has also been a busy one for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. Working with Senator Murkowski and
    other members of this Committee we were able to pass out of
    Committee bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund
    legislation and make it permanent and dedicated to address the
    National Park Service maintenance needs. So this legislation,
    which is still in the energy bill that we are trying to move
    forward on, is a critical agreement. Hopefully we will be able
    to get this ultimately enacted.
        The Omnibus Appropriations bill that was passed last
    December extended Land and Water Conservation Fund authority
    for three years and increased the funding by almost 50 percent
    to $450 million. While this is certainly a step in the right
    direction and was a hard fought achievement, I want to make
    sure that we continue to get permanent reauthorization of LWCF
    and full dedicated funding.
        I strongly support the President's budget proposal to fully
    fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized
    level of $900 million. The President's Administration proposal
    to transition to a mandatory funding stream for the program in
    future years is also something I fully support.
        I would like to mention a couple of other issues.
        In addition to conservation proposals, I am pleased to see
    that the President's budget is focused on science and landscape
    and watershed management. I am particularly pleased to see the
    proposals throughout the budget to foster climate change
    resilience in these areas, and I believe we must invest in
    science and smart solutions.
        In this vein I am particularly pleased to see the
    Administration's continued commitment to the Yakima Basin
    project. This $3 million increase in the proposed budget for
    the Yakima Basin is critical to completing fish passage and
    continuing to provide the stewardship that's needed. This
    project will restore fish runs that have been blocked for more
    than a century and one of what is the largest sockeye salmon
    runs in the lower 48.
        Secretary Jewell, as a fellow Washingtonian, I know you
    understand the importance of salmon issues to the entire
    economy. I want to thank the Bureau of Reclamation for being
    such great partners on a plan that, I think, is a model for the
    rest of the nation in watershed management.
        I will save the rest of the comments for the record on the
    Yakima Basin project but turn to the National Park Service
    Centennial. It is our 100th anniversary since the founding of
    the National Park Service. Along those lines, I want to say
    that I support our efforts to get legislation in and was happy
    to introduce the initiative by the Administration.
        But having said that, we need to work together, Senators
    Murkowski and Portman and others, on a National Park Service
    bipartisan effort to help make sure that the National Park is
    well positioned for it's next 100 years. I know this is a big
    challenge here in supporting new dollars and coming up with how
    we upgrade our park system, but I am sure that if there's
    anyone here that can meet that task it is Secretary Jewell
    because of her great love of the National Park system, her
    great utilization of it, and her great promotion of it.
        I hope that a number of the issues that have been detailed
    by both Chairman Murkowski and myself, as we talk about this
    proposal, actually come to fruition with some legislation that
    we can get passed because clearly the next 100 years of our
    parks deserves the investment that was made at the first 100
    years.
        With that, Madam Chair, thank you for holding this
    important hearing.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        With that we will turn to Secretary Jewell. Welcome before
    the Committee.

     STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
      THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY THE HONORABLE MICHAEL CONNOR,
    DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND KRISTEN
      SARRI, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SECRETARY OF POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND
                BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski,
    Senator Cantwell and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the Department's Fiscal Year '17 budget
    request.
        I'd like 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 11th 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'm proud of our DOI law enforcement personnel who
    supported the response and helped keep our employees safe. We
    continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice, 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 Fiscal '17 budget request is $13.4 billion, half
    a billion above the 2016, excuse me, half a percent above the
    2016 enacted level. It builds on the successes we're 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 role in job creation and economic
    growth.
        The budget invests in our public lands providing $5 billion
    to support operations at our National Parks, historic and
    cultural sites, wildlife refuges and habitats and managing
    multiple use and sustained yield on our nation's public lands.
        It focuses investments on important working landscapes like
    the Western Sage Steppe and the Arctic and proposes a ten-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 that
    dedicates 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 fires. And I'd like to
    thank you for your leadership on this and look forward to
    working with you, particularly, next month.
        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 USGS, urban community partnerships,
    scholarships and job corps training for tribal, rural and urban
    youth and work opportunities in our bureaus.
        There's $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 the fair return
    for taxpayers with $800 million for renewable and conventional
    energy development, a $42 million increase.
        We're on track to meet the President's goal of permitting
    20,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity on public lands
    by 2020 and 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, $20 million supports BLM's efforts to develop a
    landscape level approach to oil and gas development, modernize
    and streamline permitting and strengthen inspection capacity.
        We're expanding educational job opportunities for Native
    communities with $3 billion for Indian Affairs, a five-percent
    increase, to support Native youth education, American Indian
    and Alaska 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
    rights settlements and support sustainable water management in
    Indian Country with $215 million, a $5 million increase.
        The budget includes funding to strengthen cyber security
    controls across all agencies. It also invests in science and
    innovation with $150 million for natural hazards in the USGS,
    an $11 million increase, and a $5 million increase for 3D
    elevation mapping in Alaska and nationwide.
        Funding will continue development for 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, Chairman and Senators, and I'm happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Jewell follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Jewell.
        I understand that Ms. Sarri and Mr. Connor are available
    for specific questions but are not providing comments this
    morning. Great.
        Let me start with some of the things that I raised in my
    opening.
        I will begin first with the Alaska land conveyances. As you
    know this has long, long been a priority of mine. I mentioned
    that your budget reflects more than a 20 percent decrease from
    last year's level.
        I know that there's been back and forth about the potential
    for change in Federal survey requirements. I have a full pack
    of correspondence that has gone back and forth between the
    State of Alaska and the Department of the Interior, but it is
    very clear that the state is asking that there be engagement.
        I am reading directly from a letter dated February 9th from
    the Commissioner of Natural Resources saying that, ``We need
    BLM to engage in an open and transparent manner to ensure that
    we come to agreement that advances both the state and Federal
    interest in terms of survey methodologies.''
        My question to you, first off, is why you felt you needed
    to advance a 20 percent decrease when we still have 21 million
    acres of survey work to complete between the state and the
    Native Corporations. We have got nearly 300 pending Native
    allotment parcels to convey which have been pending since 1906
    and then about 80 of the Village Corporation conveyances. It
    does not make sense to me that we would take the foot off the
    gas, if you will, when we have such a line up in front of us.
        Then if you can also speak to the commitment from Interior
    to engage with the state to ensure that the peer review which
    is underway and which, I understand, is due to be complete
    probably by the end of this fiscal year, that there is that
    discussion going on and that commitment to work with the state
    to ensure that the method, survey methodologies, are not going
    to get the State of Alaska in trouble. We do not need to be
    told that conveyances are complete only to find out that the
    methodologies do not hold up.
        So if you could speak both to the cut in the budget and to
    working with the state on this.
        Secretary Jewell. Well thank you, Senator.
        The BLM believes that new tools, largely the accuracy of
    GPS measurements, enable us to do conveyances in a much more
    efficient and faster way than we have before which is why we
    took some money out of this budget and actually put some of
    that into the legacy well clean-up.
        We believe that with these tools we can accelerate the
    timeframe to complete the conveyances for both Native lands as
    well as state lands which we think can be done within 15 years.
        The Chairman. But you will acknowledge that the state has
    not accepted the methodology that BLM is effectively pushing on
    them at this point in time, that there has not been acceptance
    of that, that the process that has been handled, historically,
    and has been outlined in terms of the requirements, that there
    has not been agreement between the state and the Federal
    agencies?
        Secretary Jewell. Well, we will continue to work with the
    state on that to reach agreement.
        I know that----
        The Chairman. I do want to hear that commitment that that
    will be ongoing.
        My concern is that while these discussions are ongoing that
    we are, again, taking the imperative off of the funding to
    allow for these conveyances to proceed. So this is something
    that, I think, the state has been very clear in terms of its
    need, its demand, for this peer review because we do not have
    the monuments and the technologies in place in the State of
    Alaska for you to be able to measure to the same degree that
    you can in the lower 48 where you do not have as much space as
    you are dealing with.
        My last question to you, real quickly, is and this has been
    communicated very, very clearly. It stated that the most
    significant obstacle, and again I am reading from
    correspondence from the state, and I will submit this for the
    record, ``the most significant obstacle to accelerating the
    completion of the state's remaining land entitlement is the
    revocation of long standing PLOs, the public land orders, that
    prevent the state from accurately prioritizing these lands most
    economically beneficial.''
        [The information referred to follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Again, I put that out in front of you as a direct request
    from the state that we can move on lifting these PLOs and the
    Federal withdrawals that unnecessarily delay. That is something
    that we would like to attempt to work with you to advance that
    aspect.
        Secretary Jewell. We're happy to take that question for the
    record and provide you with a written response on this.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Secretary Jewell.: Thank you.
        The Chairman. Since Senator Cantwell is not here, I will
    turn to Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Jewell, first of all, before I get to two issues
    that you have heard from me about for the last several years, I
    would like to thank you for providing full funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. Thank you for that.
        Secretary Jewell, ever since I first came to the Senate I
    have been raising the issue about the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School
    on Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota. I have been pushing
    very hard to get construction money for the school, since I
    have been here.
        I am pleased that you had the opportunity to visit the
    school, thank you for doing that, and you got to see the
    deplorable conditions for yourself. You saw first-hand what the
    students and teachers of the school have to deal with every
    day. Children in Indian schools must be able to learn in a safe
    environment with modern facilities. I am very disappointed that
    the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School has still not been rebuilt.
        Secretary Jewell, what is the status of rebuilding the
    school and why is it taking so long?
        Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the question and more
    importantly, Senator, thank you for your advocacy in raising
    awareness of the issues that we face across Indian Country with
    the condition of tribal schools. It's really deplorable in many
    locations with nearly a third of our schools in poor condition.
        I did visit the Bug School. It is in bad condition, the
    high school is. I appreciate the support that you put in the
    budget for 2016 with regard to replacement facilities.
        We are undertaking a process of prioritizing schools that
    need full campus replacement. We have, just now, identified the
    final two schools on the 2004 list because funding has been
    made available for their replacement. We're going through a
    process that's dictated by the No Child Left Behind Act on
    creating that next priority list, but that is for whole campus
    replacement.
        So we will, this spring, come out with the prioritized list
    for whole campus replacement. The replacement school
    construction for a building like the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School
    is separate from that. I would anticipate that in the coming
    months you will see clarity on that facility and replacement
    school facilities facilitated by the support that you provided
    in the budget for 2016. So, thank you.
        Senator Franken. I understand. Thank you.
        I continue to be frustrated with the slow pace of funding
    for rural water projects. Local communities in Minnesota have
    prepaid 100 percent and throughout the project in South Dakota
    and Iowa, paid 100 percent of their share of the Lewis and
    Clark Regional Water System. State and local partners are doing
    their part, but the Administration has routinely underfunded
    the project and unfortunately your Fiscal Year '17 budget
    request is no exception. I raised this issue, as you know, year
    after year because it continues to be a source of frustration
    for Minnesota communities.
        What is your recommendation for addressing this funding
    shortage? How can we work together to complete the Lewis and
    Clark Regional Water System and deliver water to these rural
    communities that have paid in full their fair share and still
    have not gotten water?
        Secretary Jewell. Senator Franken, I appreciate your
    ongoing advocacy for Lewis and Clark and rural water in general
    and working toward a budget set in the budget agreement
    negotiated. We did have to make some hard decisions but with
    your indulgence I'm going to turn to my colleague, Mike Connor,
    who is really our expert on water issues.
        Mike?
        Mr. Connor. Thank you.
        Senator, we've lived through this frustration with the
    funding for rural water projects, and I've talked to you many
    times. Since we invested about $240 million in rural water
    projects through the Recovery Act funding, our budgets have
    been constrained given other priorities, legal obligations,
    that Reclamation has.
        We're trying to maintain a level of funding to keep the
    project moving forward. I think we had $3 million in '16, $3
    million in the '17 budget. We are very pleased with the
    additional money that Congress wrote in, the additional $47
    million for construction activity, and I think we allocated an
    additional $7 million to Lewis and Clark specifically from
    those resources.
        I think we will continue to invest those funds that are
    written. I know it's a priority for many members here and work
    with the communities to make incremental progress and
    meaningful completion of segments of each of these projects.
        We've got about a $1.3-$1.4 billion backlog in these
    projects. They're good projects. They just don't compete at the
    level of some other legal obligations that we have within
    Reclamation's budget.
        Senator Franken. I am out of time. So thank you for those.
    I have some other questions I would like to submit for the
    record.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
        Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you,
    Secretary Jewell, for being with us today to talk about the
    budget.
        First, I would like to highlight the condition, I think we
    have talked about this, the Canaan Valley National Refuge
    Headquarters in, sort of, the center of West Virginia. I
    visited there several times and have talked with the director
    and regional director at Fish and Wildlife regarding the
    undesirable condition of the Canaan Valley National Refuge
    Headquarters and Visitors Center.
        We have been working with them and with you all to try to
    bump them up on the list. I understand they are not on the list
    for this present year, but I am putting a plug in for that and
    hoping that maybe if some construction funding becomes
    available for planning that we can move forward on that. I do
    not know if you have a comment on that or if you are aware of
    that project?
        Secretary Jewell. I am certainly aware of the project.
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        Secretary Jewell. Appreciate your advocacy. It didn't make
    it on the priority list.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Secretary Jewell. Because of the long list of demands, but
    we'd be very happy to continue to look at that as construction
    money comes available.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you for that, I appreciate that.
        I would like to talk a little bit about the impact the
    Stream Protection Rule is having on mining, particularly on the
    underground mining. I know the rule is not completely finished.
    We just had Mr. Pizarchik at, I said his name wrong, Pizarchik,
    at EPW to talk about the effect not only on surface mining but
    on the underground mining. As you know, there is a definite
    difference of opinion as to whether this actually will impact
    our underground mines. What comment would you have on that and
    where is the status of the rule?
        I was looking through your budget and I do not see any kind
    of implementation dollars that you have allotted for to
    implement this thousands of pages rule which, I think, is very
    complicated. What is the status of that?
        Secretary Jewell. Let me talk briefly about the status of
    on the rule, and then I'm going to turn to Kris Sarri for
    specifics around budget amounts.
        The Stream Protection Rule is really updating a rule that
    says we need to know what the baseline water situation is in
    watersheds so that we know if they've been impacted, can put
    them back to the way that they were. We believe this is very
    important given the water quality impacts that have happened
    across, particularly Appalachian regions, with mining practices
    in the past and the impact on water quality.
        Kris, the timing on the rule?
        Ms. Sarri. I am sorry. We just have one mic up here.
        The rule is still under development.
        Senator Capito. Right. Right.
        Ms. Sarri. So there's no specific time yet.
        Senator Capito. I would just say here that I have had some
    serious reservations about the far reaching nature of it. If we
    are going to be going after a balanced energy policy, this will
    have great impacts on my state, as many of the other
    regulations that have moved through.
        I want to ask a final question. I noticed in your budget
    you have the money for the miner health and pension fix with
    the UMW miners, who are basically up against the wall in terms
    of their ability to realize a benefit that was promised to them
    and had been promised to them through their service as our
    nation's coal miners and their families. Obviously this heavily
    impacts both Senator Manchin and I, from West Virginia, heavily
    impacts our state. I noticed that you have a $4.2 billion
    allotment for this, that you are going to go through the PBGC.
    Where are you going to get this money?
        I want to see this fix come forward. I do not know if you
    figured out how we are going to get this done because we have
    been trying to work very deeply, thought we might have it on
    the Omnibus. What is the Department of the Interior's solution
    to this problem?
        Secretary Jewell. I'm going to take a crack at a high level
    then turn to my colleagues to add a bit more detail.
        The Power Plus recommendation in the President's budget for
    last year and again in the 2017 budget begins to address this.
    It's by no means a full fix, but it begins to say let us
    accelerate challenges we have with mining families and their
    coverage as well as let's accelerate money from the Abandoned
    Mine Land funds to put miners to work in Reclamation projects.
        So Power Plus is our step in that direction. It's by no
    means a full fix but within the context of the budget
    restraints that we're operating on, it's a step in that
    direction.
        We would welcome an opportunity to work on a longer term
    fix with you because we understand the devastating situation
    that you face as many of these coal mines are closing down and
    people are losing their jobs.
        Kris, do you want to add anything?
        Ms. Sarri. I think the only thing to add is, as you
    mentioned, we also have mandatory money in our budget for
    United Mine Workers. And I'm happy to get back to you more on
    the record.
        Senator Capito. When you say you have mandatory money in
    your budget, it has not been authorized, no?
        Ms. Sarri. There's, kind of, there's the Power Plus
    Initiative and then there's some additional funding.
        Senator Capito. But we are a long way, to get to where you
    are saying we need to be and to where, in reality, we are going
    to end up with there is just too much gap there to have any
    kind of satisfaction that we are actually going to help these
    coal miners and their families as they retire with their health
    and pension benefits.
        But we will work together, hopefully, and be able to find a
    more satisfactory solution that is actually going to turn into
    the reality of the promises that were made that will be kept.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Manchin?
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Just following up on what Senator Capito has been speaking
    about because we are very much concerned. First of all, on the
    building up in Canaan Valley. When the Fish and Wildlife gave
    up the new building that we had on top of the mountain and they
    gave that to the STEM, to the academy, 4H youth academy. That
    was going to go for STEM research. That was a high priority,
    and Fish and Wildlife, you all, were very, very gracious in
    doing that for the highly needed STEM education.
        With that we were promised that that would be a high
    priority on getting them the new Fish and Wildlife building
    that they so desperately need. I think that is where Senator
    Capito and I are both committed to helping on. But that was the
    whole crux of the meetings that we had had up there, Secretary
    Jewell. I would hope that maybe you could follow up of the
    importance of getting that accomplished because you all were
    very gracious.
        It was for a tremendous cause for STEM, for all the STEM
    education for children around the country, not just West
    Virginia. This is around the country bringing it to this
    setting. But we left them in a dilapidated situation because
    they were gracious enough to put the kids first.
        We are pleading with you on that one to please move them
    up. I think it is a $5 or $6 million project which is a lot of
    money in West Virginia but here in DC it is just unnoticed.
        Secretary Jewell. Excuse me, it's a really challenging
    situation with the number of buildings that we have in
    dilapidated conditions from Indian schools to National Parks
    and wildlife refuges and not enough money to actually address
    it long-term. But I appreciate your advocacy for this project--
    --
        Senator Manchin. Yes, well I am just saying that was part
    of the dialog that went on and the commitments were made.
        In a report dated December 2015, the Omnibus Consolidated
    Appropriations bill language, language was included noting
    concern that the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is not working
    with important state partners in an effective manner. The
    language goes on to state OSM should reengage state partners
    before finalizing the stream buffer zone rule in order to
    achieve the best outcome possible.
        OSM was directed to provide state with extensive data
    analysis relative to the environmental reviews as well as draft
    and final environmental impact statements. The only thing I
    would ask, Secretary, is why is the requested information on
    environmental reviews and impact statements relating to the
    stream buffer zone rule not yet been released?
        Secretary Jewell. We will have to get into the detail. My
    understanding is the rule has been released for comment and
    there are a number of states that are going through the
    details. If there's particular elements of that rule that you
    don't have access to or the states don't have access to, we
    will follow up on that, but we are now in a process where we
    look forward to input from the states and welcome that input as
    we finalize this rule.
        Senator Manchin. My staff, if you do not mind, will get in
    contact with you and we will work with you very closely on
    that. But we need your attention on this. That is very
    important for us to be able to continue to do any business
    whatsoever.
        Secretary Jewell. Do you want to add to that?
        Mr. Connor. Senator, I think you were referring to the
    language in the Omnibus that directed us to provide additional
    materials.
        Senator Manchin. Correct. Correct.
        Mr. Connor. And I think that material is being pulled
    together. And I do think it's by, within, a few weeks where we
    anticipate fulfilling that commitment under the Omnibus.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Mr. Connor. We'll work with your staff----
        Senator Manchin. Okay, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Connor. They understand that.
        Senator Manchin. Also to reiterate the UMW, the Miners
    Protection Plan is a commitment made in 1946 because of the
    need of fossil energy that made this country as great.
    Everybody has forgotten about what fossil has done. All we have
    been doing is demonizing it, and demonizing it since I have
    been here is ridiculous from the standpoint we want to move
    forward with technology but we cannot get this Administration
    to even take a good look at what technology is needed to use a
    resource that has made the country what we are today, the
    greatest power on Earth.
        With that being said, there was a promise made in 1946 as
    far as the pension and their health benefits. That is about to
    go completely bankrupt, as we have talked about. The Miners
    Protection Plan has the excess AML monies going towards
    strengthening that so they will be able to get the commitment
    that was made to them. That is what we are asking for.
        I do not know if that is in your evaluation but your
    support would be desperately needed because it is not taking
    away from the projects that are needed to be reclaimed. Most of
    the Appalachian, who have done the heavy lifting over all these
    years, is where it really is needed. We are not taking away
    from that, we are basically saying excess funds should be used
    to fulfill the commitment promises made. I would desperately
    ask you to maybe get up to speed on that and help us.
        Secretary Jewell. Yeah, we're happy to continue to work on
    that particularly through OSM. Also I will say the Department
    of Energy does continue to have research into carbon capture
    and sequestration for coal but I'm not familiar with their
    numbers----
        Senator Manchin. I can tell you, trust me, we do not want
    to get down this road.
        Secretary Jewell. Okay.
        Senator Manchin. Because they talk a good game, but have
    not done a darn thing. The bottom line is, as you know, the
    standards that they are wanting us to set are unattainable
    because the technology has not been developed to where it is
    under commercial load.
        You know, we can do scrubbers, and we can do low Nox
    boilers, we can bag houses, and we have proven all that.
        We do not even mandate there are other countries that are
    polluting the world, even use that, China, India or any of
    them. But yet we are pushing the cart of CO2, capture of CO2,
    which we have not even commercialized yet. And we won't go that
    extra step. So that is a whole other meeting to be had.
        Secretary Jewell. Fair enough.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cassidy, apparently I skipped over
    you in an effort to get down to Senator Capito. I apologize.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Murkowski----
        Senator Capito. That's because I went to Alaska with her,
    see, so I got to go ahead. [Laughter.]
        Senator Cassidy. No harm done, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. And I got to hear my colleague speak, so
    that was worth it.
        I gather at the outset, Senator Murkowski, you said the
    changes in revenue sharing were off the table, so I appreciate
    that.
        I will begin, Madam Secretary with, kind of, that
    discussion. Craziest thing in the world. To paraphrase Ronald
    Reagan, it appears sometimes the left hand does not know what
    the left hand is doing.
        On the tenth anniversary of Katrina I was in the Lower
    Ninth Ward, and of course the whole area had been devastated.
    You can still see, kind of, marks where the water was this
    high, all as a result of Katrina. Yes/No.
        Louisiana began to lose its wetlands in 1928 when the
    Federal Government began to levy the Mississippi River
    primarily for the benefit of commerce inland. A commitment was
    made by a unanimous, almost unanimous, group of Senators, and
    House of Representatives, in order to begin to dedicate some of
    that offshore oil revenue to rebuild our wetlands.
        I am sitting in the midst of this devastation and now the
    rebirth and the President is there to celebrate. And I said to
    the President, ``Mr. President, do you know that your budget is
    trying to take away the money that Louisiana is
    constitutionally directed to use to rebuild our wetlands?'' He
    looked over to Mr. McDonough sitting there and I said, ``Mr.
    President, I do not expect you to know this level of detail,
    but this is what your budget is doing.'' He looked over at Mr.
    McDonough and said, ``Is this true? It can't be true.'' He gave
    a little, kind of, well, we didn't know the state was going to
    use the money appropriately. I said, ``Well, constitutionally
    we have to use it to rebuild our wetlands.'' And the President
    said, ``We'll change that. I don't want this to happen again.''
    Implicit in that is his understanding the only way to keep that
    from happening again is if we rebuild our wetlands. Low and
    behold, your budget takes away those dollars.
        I appreciate the Chair's defense of it, but I would really
    like to know the kind of thought process associated with that
    because it seems to be, kind of, a recurring theme in your
    budgets. They, sort of, neglect Louisiana's needs and you will
    dispute that characterization, but it is clear it is a neglect
    of Louisiana's needs.
        So let me just lay out some points.
        In our state's master plan to restore and protect coastal
    Louisiana, there is about $1.8 billion anticipated in offshore
    revenue sharing for this coastal restoration over the next ten
    years, $3.5 billion over the next 20. The whole project will
    take $50 billion. Louisiana is committing its own significant
    resources. But this, as you might guess, is a part of that.
        The Coastal Climate Resilience Program referenced on page
    five of your testimony basically deprives those Gulf Coast
    communities of the resources and predictability that is
    currently given, so the contracts will not be left with the
    same sort of understanding. So again, I am not sure how your
    Department arrived at this.
        By the way, it is not just me representing the State of
    Louisiana. The Environmental Defense Fund, the National
    Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Lake
    Pontchartrain Basin Foundation stated, as a group, they are
    ``Disappointed by the budget's proposed aversion of critically
    needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal Louisiana
    and the Mississippi River Delta.''
        By the way, Oxfam America, a group dedicated to fighting
    poverty, stated that, ``America's Gulf Coast is home to some of
    our nation's highest rates of poverty, greatest risk of natural
    hazards, like sea level rise, hurricanes, flooding and coastal
    land loss. Oxfam recognizes and appreciates efforts to promote
    more equitable sharing of offshore energy revenues and support
    new investments in the resilience of our coastal community.''
        All this, let me ask, the Federal Government's decision,
    let me just ask. Do you dispute that the Federal Government's
    effort to channel the Mississippi River for the benefit of the
    rest of the country's economy has had a negative impact upon
    our coastline? You might just dispute the facts, so I guess I
    would like to start there.
        Secretary Jewell. Let me start by saying that there's no
    question that Louisiana's wetlands have been impacted over the
    years by the channelization. I've been out and I've seen MR-GO
    and what's happened when that has been blocked off and the
    rebuilding of the Barrier's Islands, seen that personally.
        I've been out to a lot of these coastal wetlands that are
    diminishing. I acknowledge that Louisiana has a significant
    problem with coastal erosion that is exacerbated by sea level
    rise, climate change and, of course, that was very much brought
    home to the world in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on that
    region.
        We believe that coastal communities like Louisiana do
    warrant additional support. We have recommended in this budget
    that the GOMESA program which distributes revenue sharing for
    four Gulf Coast states go to coastal Reclamation projects
    across the country including the Gulf Coast because----
        Senator Cassidy. Of course that would subtract
    substantially from what the area most vulnerable will receive.
        Secretary Jewell. Well I think it would, it's fair to say,
    having been also to the Arctic, that they are having
    significant problems with coastal erosion as well. And this was
    an effort on our part to say these are Federal waters in the
    Gulf Coast as well as, you know, offshore and other areas that
    belong to all Americans and the benefit of the revenue from
    that supports the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But also,
    we believe should support coastal resilience projects as
    opposed to just being limited to those four Gulf Coast states.
        Senator Cassidy. Except seeing that those areas are the
    ones most impacted, I mean, is there, if it affects their
    Federal lands. I will always point out that onshore, we get
    37.5 but onshore Federal lands 50 percent of the revenue
    returns to the state. So there is already a decrease in the
    amount that the coastal states receive.
        By the way, the way I would address that is to expand
    revenue sharing to the Atlantic and Arctic coast. If you did
    that then again you would have an increased amount of money to
    share with those coastal communities as well as the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. It seems the better way to go.
        I am over my time. I apologize. I went too long setting the
    context. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, I appreciate the
    expansion of the pie.
        Senator Cantwell?
        Senator Cantwell. I'll pass to my colleague.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich?
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    Ranking Member Cantwell.
        Secretary Jewell, welcome.
        I want to start out on the Valles Caldera National
    Preserve. In December 2014 Congress transferred management of
    the preserve to the National Park Service. One of the reasons
    that I fought so hard for that legislation was the opportunity
    that it presented for increased public access to what was a
    very limited situation before at the preserve for things like
    hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other visitation.
        Can you talk a little bit about whether any changes have
    been made since the Park Service took over management of that
    site and what we can look forward to in the future?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you for the question and more
    importantly for your advocacy, not only of that monument
    designation, but also Organ Mountains Desert Peaks.
        We have seen a substantial increase in visitation in the
    Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. I'm going to turn to my
    colleague, Kris, to see if you have specifics on the numbers
    and what might be in the budget for this coming year. But we
    will continue to do the master planning and determine what is
    appropriate with the anticipated visitation.
        Kris, do you have a number?
        Senator Heinrich. Actually Secretary, that is something I
    want to ask about, the budgeting for the two landscape level
    BLM National Monuments. But specifically, in this case, I was
    hoping to get a sense for changes in management posture at
    Valles Caldera.
        Secretary Jewell. I'm sorry, you said Valles Caldera.
        Senator Heinrich. Under the Park Service.
        Secretary Jewell. And I--yes, yes, yes.
        So I have been out to Valles Caldera, incredible resource.
    We did the handover to the National Park Service. Jorge, who
    was working in Interior and then running that, is now the
    Superintendent. Many of the staff members have been picked up
    by the Park Service and are working on a plan overall to
    determine what kind of visitor use facilities are appropriate
    there.
        I will say that there's been incredible research in
    archeology, in the impact of climate change and wildfire in
    that region that I think will continue to tell a really
    important story, as well as, engaging with local pueblos,
    tribes that are interested in playing some role in bringing
    their history with this area to bear.
        But specifically a dollar amount, Kris, do you know?
        Ms. Sarri. We're continuing the investment made in 2016, so
    it's $3.4 million overall in 2017.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay, great. Thank you.
        Secretary Jewell. Sorry for my miscue on location.
        Senator Heinrich. No, that's alright.
        I want to move to Carlsbad Caverns. Last year both of the
    passenger elevators broke down at Carlsbad Caverns National
    Park and have now been inoperable for a number of months. This
    really puts a crimp in visitation to, sort of, the main
    attraction there.
        That means the visitors have to take a fairly substantial
    hike back out of the caverns on foot, and it limits
    accessibility, in particular, for people with physical
    disabilities, and for small children. Needless to say that is a
    major portion of Eddy County's economy with visitors buying
    gas, staying at local hotels and motels oftentimes when they
    visit both Carlsbad Caverns and White Sands National Monument
    which is not far away.
        With spring break season coming up I think it is critical
    that we get these elevators back up and running so that
    Carlsbad, as an area, does not lose out on that critical
    recreational and visitation spending.
        Can you tell us a little bit about what happened to the
    elevators, what the Park Service is doing to fix them, and when
    we might see at least one of them available for visitor use
    again?
        Secretary Jewell. Well in a nutshell this is a good
    indication of what we're struggling with, with deferred
    maintenance across the National Parks with $12 billion of
    backlog in both transportation and non-transportation assets.
        In the case of Carlsbad, which I have been to, those
    elevators are over 40 years old and they've been working hard
    to keep them going. But ultimately they break down. The
    estimated cost to replace the works there is over a half a
    million dollars. So right now the National Park Service is
    looking to retrofit the existing freight elevators to make them
    safe for passengers to use, and the goal is to have this work
    around in place sometime early to the middle of next month for
    the reasons you expressed. But it's another indication of the
    challenges we have when we've got this deferred maintenance.
        Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich. Great, I appreciate that.
        I want to say a couple of other things, just quickly,
    before we go.
        I want to thank you for the Administration's proposal to
    create a hard rock royalty fee.
        You know, we have obviously experienced incredible
    challenges with the Gold King Mines bill but there are
    literally thousands of abandoned mines all across the West that
    are leaking acid, water and heavy metals into our streams and
    rivers. That is a direct threat to the Western economy. It
    hampers downstream users, be that industry, be that recreation,
    irrigated agriculture, etcetera.
        I also want to thank you for the efforts in this budget to
    facilitate access to the Sabinoso wilderness, a BLM wilderness
    area in New Mexico, that I believe is the only unit in the
    United States that you cannot currently legally access because
    there is no easement, no fee simple land, no ability to get
    into it by the public. The folks up in the Las Vegas area are
    incredibly excited at the prospect of that, and I want to thank
    Interior for its work there.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Barrasso?
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, over the last year you have repeatedly
    questioned whether American taxpayers are receiving a fair
    return on coal leased by the Federal Government. Your agency is
    now in the process of considering whether to increase royalty
    rates on coal. I am having a difficult time understanding why
    the agency is taking this step because over the last three
    years the demand for Federal coal has collapsed.
        Since 2012, the amount of coal that the Federal Government
    has leased is down 95 percent, so that amount is down 95
    percent. Prior to coming to the Department of the Interior you
    served as the Chief Executive Officer of REI, a retailer of
    sporting goods. I know you are familiar with basic economics.
    Economics 101 says you should not raise prices on a product
    when demand for that product is collapsing. So given the demand
    for Federal coal is down by 95 percent do you really believe it
    is reasonable to increase the royalty rates on coal?
        Secretary Jewell. Well Senator, the Government
    Accountability Office and our own Inspector General questioned
    whether we were getting an adequate return for taxpayers on the
    Federal coal program. This launch of a programmatic EIS broadly
    will take a look at some of those issues.
        Our Office of Natural Resources Revenue has done some work
    regarding royalties. The rates that the taxpayers receive for
    coal is very low and I recognize that the industry is
    struggling right now for a variety of reasons, not the least of
    which is the conversion to natural gas for electricity
    generation. But we have been criticized roundly for not
    generating a fair return for taxpayers, not having any
    competition in the leasing process for coal and that has
    resulted in relatively small cost paid by coal producers for
    the coal in the ground that belongs to all Americans. So this
    really has been in response to criticism that we have received
    over multiple years.
        Senator Barrasso. But doesn't it seem to you that if the
    demand goes to zero that the revenue coming in is going to go
    to zero as well for the Government? So in fact, you are
    actually going to get less revenue, higher royalty rates and
    you are going to reduce demand. The revenue generated from coal
    is going to continue to go down.
        This is why the environmental extremists have aggressively
    lobbied you to raise royalty rates on coal, to kill coal. They
    know it will kill coal production. So I think if you are really
    willing to be honest with Congress, you would admit that here
    today.
        Secretary Jewell. Well Senator, I think that the, you know,
    as a business person you recognize that there is a cost to your
    business and you factor all of those costs in and that
    determines whether or not you go forward.
        There's no question that the cost that coal companies have
    been paying for coal is extremely low, less than a dollar a
    ton. We've had many coal leases that have been offered for sale
    that have had no bidders on them whatsoever. So I think that to
    conflate the two is not necessarily accurate.
        There are phenomenal differences going on in the energy
    sector across this country. Switching to natural gas, switching
    to renewables, the cost of coal royalty is only one component
    in the overall cost that if I was a mining company I would be
    looking at.
        So, I think, we are responding to criticism that we've had
    that's been very fair with regard to the coal program. And as
    Senator Cantwell said in her remarks, we will be looking at
    this thoroughly over the coming three years or so.
        Senator Barrasso. I am delighted that the Administration
    will be ending in a lot less than three years.
        I would like to turn to the BLM's proposed rule of natural
    gas flaring and venting. According to the BLM's rule, the
    primary means to avoid flaring gas from oil wells is to
    capture, transport and process the gas for sale using the same
    technologies that are used for natural gas wells.
        The rule goes on to explain in areas where the rate of gas
    production is outpacing the infrastructure capacity that is
    existing. In areas where capture and processing infrastructure
    has not yet been built, the rule notes that the cost to install
    natural gas gathering lines is not cheap. It costs us,
    according to the rule, the cost of installing equipment and
    pipelines to capture and transport can be up to $400,000 to $1
    million per mile for the pipeline. I think BLM's proposed rule
    does, actually, a very good job describing the problem that oil
    and gas producers face.
        Then BLM's solution completely misses the mark. Rather than
    taking steps to expedite the permitting of these natural gas
    gathering lines on Federal land, the rule simply raises cost to
    producers and does so at a time when natural gas sells at
    bargain basement prices. BLM's goal seems to be to reduce
    flaring by eliminating oil and gas production on Federal lands.
    So if the BLM is sincere about helping producers reduce
    flaring, which is the goal that the BLM states, why doesn't the
    proposed rule expedite the permitting of these gas gathering
    lines on Federal lands?
        Secretary Jewell. Well, may I answer?
        The Chairman. Yes, please go ahead.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        First, thank you for acknowledging that we're trying to
    work very hard and we're also paying attention to states that
    have venting and flaring rules and that are doing work along
    this line, including your home state of Wyoming.
        I think it's a very fair question to say, as we look at
    addressing the venting and flaring, can we expedite permitting?
    And we will look into that with the BLM providing it runs along
    state lands. Oftentimes, as you know in the West, we've got a
    checkerboard pattern which complicates rights of way over long
    distances. But I think that is fair.
        I also will say that the practice of venting and flaring
    the gas associated with oil production is something that, I
    think, your state and we do not feel is acceptable over the
    long run that should be captured.
        So we are in a comment period on this. We look forward to
    taking those kinds of comments and to the extent that
    expediting permitting can be done to address that, I think
    that's a very fair point.
        Senator Barrasso. Madam Chairman, my time has expired.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Wyden?
        Senator Wyden.. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Jewell, it is good to have you here. Last week I
    was getting all out and about through rural Oregon, and what I
    saw was an awful lot of economic hurt people just walking on a
    tightrope balancing the food bill against the shelter bill and
    they are working two or three jobs and are just trying to catch
    up.
        So what I want to talk to you a little bit about is rural
    economics and ways in which we can pump some more economic
    opportunity in those communities for good paying jobs in Ag and
    Forestry and a variety of areas.
        One that I have been particularly struck by is getting
    people to work together so they do not end up in Federal Court.
    I think the best recent example is the sage grouse where we
    were looking at having another major Endangered Species Act
    listing. Under your leadership a lot of Democrats and
    Republicans got together and we avoided that listing.
        We are doing that same kind of work in forestry, as you
    know, the militants at one point were headed from the Malheur
    Refuge up to John Day. And one of the county commissioners
    said, you know, we've got a pretty good partnership here. We've
    got a collaboration with stewardship contracting and we have
    tripled the harvest here. These are not my words. These are
    words of a county commissioner. So getting people to work
    together is key.
        Secure Rural Schools has been a lifeline, and that is a
    bill that was written in this room on a bipartisan basis.
        Recreation is a third area. I saw that with our tour of the
    seven wonders and we are working on a backpack full of fresh
    ideas Democrats and Republicans can support to build the
    outdoor recreation economy.
        The list just keeps going. Tapping our green energy
    resources, biomass, a huge opportunity in my state that is both
    good forestry policy and helping to create jobs as well.
        Finally right at the top of this year's priority list
    should be to eliminate this text book example of government
    inefficiency that we call fire borrowing which is this absurd
    process of shorting prevention, having lots of fires and then
    raiding the prevention fund in order to put it out.
        So those are some on my list of things that we can work on
    in rural economies and to a great extent, build on what we are
    already doing.
        Tell the Committee while we have colleagues of both parties
    here, what do you think are the next steps, in your view, for
    building on this progress? Next steps for getting people to
    work together, for example, collaboratives, this kind of thing.
        Secretary Jewell. Well thank you, Senator Wyden.
        You know, as you point out, there's lots of opportunities
    to work together. And I think it's also fair to say that the
    work around the greater sage grouse, the support of the
    National Resources Conservation Service at USDA, the incredible
    work that took place in Harney County which actually had a
    significant impact, I think, on the reasons why people in the
    county generally did not support the rhetoric of those that
    illegally took over the refuge, is an example of how we can
    work more cooperatively together.
        I do think that there are opportunities with a wildland
    fire fix which Senator Murkowski talked about addressing
    particularly next month. You have, all three of you, actually
    have worked very hard on this. That is essential because if we
    could stop borrowing against the burned area rehab money and
    the prevention of fire money, we could put more money into
    those local communities for thinning whether it goes to biomass
    or whether it goes to sawmills.
        And I think that is also very important to rural economies.
        But as you point out embracing outdoor recreation and
    tourism is also a great opportunity to drive additional revenue
    into these communities as Senator Heinrich was referencing in
    the monument designations within his state and the investments
    there.
        So I think working closer together than we ever have
    before, learning the lessons we did from the greater sage
    grouse effort that we had collaboratively and providing our
    folks on the ground with the kinds of tools and support to work
    locally with communities is a great way to move forward.
        The USDA's National Resources Conservation Service, our own
    efforts in the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state
    efforts, the collaboration that we've seen, particularly over
    the last two, three years is something that we can learn from
    in the future.
        Senator Wyden.. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Senator Lee?
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today.
        I would like to ask you just a few questions about the
    Antiquities Act. Based on conversations I have had with you in
    the past and based on other statements you have made elsewhere
    in the past, I know you placed a lot of emphasis on the
    importance of local engagement during the process leading up to
    any monument designation under the Antiquities Act, and I
    appreciate that.
        For instance, after designating the Berryessa Snow
    Mountains in California as a national monument you said,
    ``Today's action honors more than a decade of work by the local
    community to protect this beautiful landscape.'' After
    designating the Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado you
    repeated the same sentiment saying, ``Today's designation
    follows more than a decade of work by the local community to
    protect this spectacular area.''
        Now it is widely reported, Secretary Jewell, that President
    Obama is considering designating a nearly two-million-acre
    national monument in San Juan County, Utah that is in the
    Southeastern corner of my state, the so called Bears Ears
    National Monument. Much of this land, as you know, is owned by
    the Federal Government and managed by the Department of the
    Interior.
        So since we both believe in local consultation or we
    believe that that ought to be a prerequisite to anything that
    culminates in a monument designation under the Antiquities Act,
    I was just wanted to point out that there is not one elected
    official, not a single one, representing San Juan County, Utah,
    who supports the creation of a national monument under the
    Antiquities Act.
        Specifically I want to point out that on September 1st of
    last year the San Juan County Board of Commissioners passed a
    resolution stating, ``Be it resolved the San Juan County
    Commissioners strongly oppose the unilateral use of the
    Antiquities Act to designate a national monument within San
    Juan County and instead supports locally driven land use
    planning.''
        On February 10th of this year the entire Utah Federal
    delegation wrote a letter to President Obama plainly stating,
    ``We do not support the use of the Antiquities Act within our
    community and ask that the Administration withdraw any plans to
    do so.''
        Then just yesterday Utah Governor Gary Herbert wrote a
    letter to the President in which he said, ``As evidenced by
    opposition from virtually every elected county, State and
    Federal official, the State of Utah strongly opposes any
    unilateral monument designation within our state.''
        Now this of course does not mean that the people of Utah or
    the people in San Juan County, in particular, do not care about
    the land or about protecting it. Quite the contrary, elected
    officials throughout Utah, including and especially those in
    San Juan County, have been very supportive of a three-year
    intensive effort involving the Public Lands Initiative. And
    there is a lot of support for protecting the land in this way.
        So let me just start by asking you, do you still believe
    that collaboration and local support is a necessary condition
    precedent that ought to precede any designation of a monument
    under the Antiquities Act?
        Secretary Jewell. Well Senator, the Antiquities Act is a
    very important tool that Presidents have had since Theodore
    Roosevelt. It's been used, I would argue, sparingly and
    carefully. And so, I have no ability to change the President's
    capacities to act in his own way as it relates to that.
        I will say that he's used it 22 times in his
    Administration. In every case we have had engagement on the
    ground in the communities to understand everybody's opinions.
    I've been to many of those meetings. They have never been
    unanimous, but they have also always provided a good balance.
        And so----
        Senator Lee. You have at least had widespread public
    participation. You have at least had widespread, a lot of
    support, even if it is not unanimous.
        Secretary Jewell. Well we've had public participation. I
    don't know how one defines widespread, but I will say this----
        Senator Lee. You have had some. You had some. There has
    been some widespread participation.
        Secretary Jewell. We have had some participation in the
    case of Utah. We have been invited by the tribes to go out
    there. There's a number of tribes that are very interested in
    protecting an area that you reference that has tremendous
    archeological, anthropological and cultural significance to
    them.
        They have met with me in my office. I have actually asked
    that they come over and meet with the Utah delegation,
    particularly Congressman Bishop, because of his public lands
    initiatives work.
        I've met with Congressman Bishop and Chaffetz on that. We
    had two meetings scheduled over the last couple of weeks, both
    of which they canceled because of votes which I understand.
        I will also say that what started off as an effort that
    seemed to be very collaborative is now fracturing somewhat so
    there is a lot of interest in protecting lands that people
    thought in the Public Lands Initiative would have greater
    protections than how that initial language is coming out.
        So I'll continue to meet with the delegation on this. And
    as we have interest to move additional protections in places
    like San Juan County, we will be engaging with people in those
    communities.
        Senator Lee. Okay, so I am out of time but before I stop I
    just want to make sure. Will you commit to consulting with
    Utah's local communities, Governor and our congressional
    delegation before anyone makes a final decision?
        Secretary Jewell. Well to be clear, I can't commit to
    anything with regard to the Antiquities Act because that is a
    tool of the President of the United States.
        I will commit that we will go out and spend time within the
    community and take input from the community. That is something
    that we have done every time, and we will continue to do that.
        Senator Lee. Okay. I appreciate that and I appreciate
    knowing that everywhere else the President has used this he has
    had some local buy in and we don't have that here. So I
    appreciate your commitment on that.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        The Chairman. Senator Hirono?
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Jewell, I wanted to take a moment to thank you
    for the extraordinary commitment in protecting Hawaii's natural
    and cultural treasures in the President's budget using the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund.
        The Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge and Hawaii
    Volcanoes National Park are the number one and number two land
    acquisition projects for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    the National Park Service, respectively, in Fiscal Year 2017.
    This effort builds upon last year's commitment to fund certain
    land acquisitions highlighted in Hawaii's Island Forests at
    Risk proposal which is very important to Hawaii.
        Additionally the funding your budget provides for
    Honouliuli National Monument which, by the way, was a monument
    that was very much supported by Hawaii, our communities and the
    political leadership there, including the delegation. It is
    critical in getting things up and running so that the unique
    stories of our nation's past, and Honouliuli was a place of
    interment, can be told.
        Your attention to the unique needs in Hawaii is
    appreciated. Thank you for coming to Hawaii for that dedication
    of Honouliuli, and I want to continue working with you and your
    Department in amassing these initiatives.
        Finally, as you know, Hawaii is the state most impacted by
    our nation's compact of free association. I look forward to
    working with the Department in the coming year to ensure the
    compact impact is adequately addressed which currently it is
    not. Our country has a responsibility to meet our obligations
    under the compact with Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall
    Islands.
        I want to turn to the Regional Biosecurity Plan for
    Micronesia and Hawaii. I recently led a letter with my
    colleagues from the Hawaii delegation as well as Congresswoman
    Bordallo of Guam and Congressman Sablan to the National
    Invasive Species Council (NISC), Co-Chairs of which you are
    one. This letter requested information on NISC's plan to
    implement recommendations made within the Regional Biosecurity
    Plan, RBP, for Micronesia and Hawaii and was published in March
    2015. The Office of Insular Affairs' budget justification
    includes support for proposed action within the RBP and
    mentions increasing the Coral Reef and Natural Resources budget
    by $1 million over Fiscal Year '16 levels to augment control
    and eradication efforts for the Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle and
    the Little Fire Ant.
        This is a positive step. However, can you speak a bit on
    any additional resources the Department of the Interior intends
    to commit to implement the RBP's recommendation to manage and
    mitigate invasive species across the Pacific, an issue that is
    of such concern to Hawaii since we are very much impacted by
    invasive species?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator.
        I'm going to talk at a high level and then turn it to Kris
    to give you specifics on numbers.
        Invasive species are a huge problem across the landscape,
    and it's particularly acute in the Islands. I was working with
    young people on eradication of the Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle,
    obviously the Brown Tree Snake is a big issue. Hawaii is kind
    of ground zero for invasive species.
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Secretary Jewell. So we are committed to chipping away at
    it. There's not nearly enough money to do it but we are
    continuing to prioritize including, what's the acronym rapid
    response?
        Ms. Sarri. Early----
        Secretary Jewell. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR)
    process so that we can nip these things in the bud before they
    become a problem.
        But Kris, do you have specifics on the budget number?
        Ms. Sarri. Senator, thank you for the question. And earlier
    this week we actually announced a framework for early detection
    and rapid response. The President's budget has a request of
    $1.5 million to help with EDRR projects and that could go to
    the Regional Biosecurity Effort.
        Senator Hirono. While that is a positive step, that $1.5
    million does not go far enough, that is for sure.
        Turning to the rapid Ohia death. Native forests on Hawaii
    Island are losing a keystone species at an alarming rate and
    that is the Native Ohia tree. Of course when the Native Ohia
    trees disappear then it really negatively impacts our
    watershed.
        A pathogen which causes these trees to wilt and die within
    days of showing symptoms has affected approximately 34,000 of
    our total 810,000 acres of Ohia Forest across Hawaii Island.
    That is four percent of our Native Ohia Forest, slightly
    smaller than the size of Washington, DC, and it is more than
    twice the impacted area observed in 2014. This problem is
    rapidly escalating, and right now the pathogen is contained to
    Hawaii Island, but the potential to impact our Native Ohia
    Forests across the state is there.
        I know that in the USGS Fiscal Year 2017 budget there is
    mention of rapid Ohia death and the agency's plan to develop
    models and genetic essays to address the pathogen. I also know
    that the USGS invasive species research budget is, as you
    mentioned, receiving additional sums.
        I am sorry, Madam Chair, may I continue? I am over my time.
    I think I need, maybe, another ten seconds, 15 seconds.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Senator Hirono. The addition of your Department-wide budget
    provides $2.4 million over Fiscal Year '16 levels for early
    detection and rapid response. Given the emerging threat that
    the rapid Ohia death is posing to our native forests on Hawaii
    Island and the potential to spread to the remaining islands,
    could these additional research and EDRR funds be used to help
    address the rapid Ohia death in Hawaii, in particular?
        Secretary Jewell. And I'll have to get back to you with
    that question. As we pointed out earlier there's just nowhere
    near enough money to address the invasive species challenge. So
    whether we could take a limited amount more and put it over
    there I don't know. But thanks for putting it on the radar, and
    we'll get back to you.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, and we will continue our dialog.
        Secretary Jewell. Okay.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines?
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First of all, Secretary Jewell, I want to commend you and
    your Department for recognizing the value of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, both to our country as well as to Montana.
    Some of these importantly locally supported projects are ranked
    high in your budget proposal, and I will do all I can to
    support robust funding through LWCF throughout this process.
        I also want to commend your Department for recommending a
    slightly, slightly higher level of funding for the Bureau of
    Reclamation Rural Water projects. Senator Franken earlier, I
    think, requested that we re-look at that. I still think the
    recommended level is too low. It is well below the enacted
    level. As we chat with tribes, particularly, as well as rural
    communities across Montana, it is very, very important and it
    would certainly help Congress in the appropriations process,
    speaking as a member of the Appropriations Committee, if a
    department prioritized this funding better in its budget.
        But I want to transition to the issue, I think, Senator
    Barrasso brought up on coal leasing. In Montana we do see the
    moratorium on coal leasing as a direct assault on our state.
    Our state relies on production of coal, including Federal coal,
    to support our state's essential services. Montana tribes like
    the Crow Tribe rely on coal production to fund its tribal
    essential services. Coal creates good paying Union and Tribal
    jobs and also, very importantly, affordable electricity prices.
        Yet this Administration seems committed to taking that
    lifeline away combined with the EPA power plan. Now with this
    moratorium on the coal leasing program, it is creating a
    significant problem for a Montanan factor crisis at 7,000 jobs,
    $500 million of economic activity and $140 million in tax
    revenues that go to our schools, our teachers, our
    infrastructure. In fact, the University of Montana put out a
    study that suggests this would be the most significant economic
    impact to hit Montana in over 30 years.
        Now I support ensuring the taxpayers receive their fair
    share of the revenues. I am not here to argue or make that
    point. However, we must be careful to not make producing
    Federal coal completely uneconomical, a reality that is
    dangerously close under this Administration's halt on coal
    leasing and if not inevitable if our states and our tribes are
    left out of the process.
        So the question is without discussing the merits of the
    environmental review and the moratorium itself, having done
    some due diligence I have been told that up to two years is
    very generous. It is realistic, and it is a well-placed
    timeline to complete a programmatic review. So given that why
    do we think three years is necessary for this programmatic
    review?
        Secretary Jewell. Well thank you very much for the
    question.
        If we could do a programmatic environmental impact
    statement in two years that would be terrific. The pause on new
    leases on coal, with certain exceptions, only applies until the
    programmatic EIS is completed. So if it can be done faster we
    will certainly do it faster, but based on our experience for
    programmatic EISs, they do take, typically, around three years.
        Can I also say that we did have, we do have, about 20 years
    of supply already under lease based on current production
    levels. And as production level comes down those may last
    longer. And we did put exceptions in place so that no mine
    should close, no plant should close. There's emergency
    exceptions to do that as well as grandfathering in projects
    that had a signed record of decision that were close to the
    end.
        So in terms of the reference to coal jobs and ongoing coal
    production, we do not believe there will be an impact. And
    we've made provisions for those individual circumstances where
    there might be.
        Senator Daines. On the three-year question, could you
    commit to us though that the review will not take any longer
    than three years?
        Without some kind of accountability or commitment here, who
    is to say it is not going to take even longer than three years?
    I mean it looks like you have got a commitment saying it will
    not exceed three years, and I think arguably it could be two
    years.
        Secretary Jewell. Well sir, my position will end here in 11
    months, so I can't commit to my successor on a timeframe. But I
    can reassure you that we will complete this as quickly as we
    possibly can. My goal is to have an interim report out that
    clearly defines the scope and gets us on a clear path forward
    with a timeline by the time I'm out of this job.
        Senator Daines. Let me ask, and I recognize there is a time
    domain here on the limits about what happens after January
    2017, but what are the consequences? Who is held accountable if
    it goes three years and one day? What happens if you go past
    the timeline?
        I came from being the private sector 20 years. If you miss
    your timelines, there is a big issue with that. What happens if
    they go beyond three years?
        Secretary Jewell. The pause is tied to getting the PEIS
    done. If it's done quicker, the pause ends. If it goes longer,
    the pause continues.
        And if you look at the times that this has been done before
    and we modeled our pause on the, what had happened in prior
    administrations. In some cases, it took something like six or
    seven years. In other cases, it may have been shorter.
        So three years is not a fixed timeline. It's tied to the
    programmatic EIS. So the more cooperation we get, the quicker
    we'll get it done. And my intent is to get a clear timeline
    done before I'm finished.
        Senator Daines. My last question is are you seeking the
    advice and analysis of impacted states and the tribes, like
    Montana, like Wyoming, like the Crow, like the Navajo, like the
    Hopi and other interested stakeholders regarding Federal
    mineral policies that are related to royalties and leasing? My
    concern is to shorten the timeline and we talked about it, but
    are we getting the input?
        Secretary Jewell. Yeah.
        Senator Daines. From those who will be affected the most,
    the tribes and the states?
        Secretary Jewell. May I answer quickly, Madam Chairman?
        The Chairman. Quickly.
        Secretary Jewell. We held six listening sessions which
    included input from states, from tribes, from individuals, coal
    producers, stakeholders on the ground, before we even decided
    to do a PEIS. So we did those, mostly in coal company--country,
    one in Washington, DC, one in Billings, Denver, Farmington, New
    Mexico and Gillette, Wyoming, to get input which really advised
    this process.
        So we will continue that openness. This is a very open
    process. We'll make sure that all of those voices are heard in
    this process.
        Senator Daines. Alright.
        Thank you, Secretary.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator King?
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair and I want to thank
    you again for inviting me to Alaska last weekend. It was a
    wonderful trip. I note that we have Alaskan glacial water
    today, and my only concern is with the retreat of the glaciers
    I do not know whether to drink it or send it to the
    Smithsonian. But it is wonderful water. Thank you for that. We
    had a great trip. I have enjoyed telling people in Maine about
    driving on a river. That was a new experience for me.
        Secretary Jewell, a quick question on the budget. The
    budget figures that are in this budget that you have submitted
    correspond to the budget caps that were negotiated two years
    ago?
        Secretary Jewell. They do.
        Senator King. So it is all within that. There's no
    additional spending that assumes a new revenue or anything? It
    is within those caps that were negotiated, the President and
    the leadership?
        Ms. Sarri. The discretionary number is within the budget
    deal.
        Senator King. Okay.
        Second, Secretary Jewell, I want to really thank you and
    thank the National Park Service for the work on the online park
    pass. If you will remember I made myself obnoxious at a meeting
    about a year ago which my friends tell me is a skill that I
    have, and your Department reacted. There is a pilot program
    being announced in the next week or so for online National Park
    passes. I think it is going to work. Interestingly enough, one
    of the first pilots is at Acadia in Maine. I thank you for
    that. Hopefully that will increase revenues and access to the
    park, so I really appreciate the quick response and very
    thoughtful one on that issue.
        On the backlog issue, this is important because it has
    become a, kind of, political lightning rod. How is the backlog
    built? Who determined? Where did the numbers come from park by
    park? First question.
        Secretary Jewell. Kris, do you want to answer that?
        Ms. Sarri. Our Bureaus all--both, whether it's Parks or
    Fish and Wildlife Service, do surveys across the parks and
    their properties and develop a prioritized list in terms of
    backlogs and deferred maintenance that they have.
        Senator King. Is there any third party validation or is
    this--I'm not trying to use pejorative terms but where does
    backlog end and wish list start? In other words, how do you
    define what the elements are and is there anybody else that
    looks at it and says, oh yes, that really is a maintenance
    backlog as opposed to something a park manager might like to
    have? Do you see my question?
        Ms. Sarri. Yes, I do.
        I think I'd probably want to get a little bit back to you
    more on the record after having a chance to talk with the
    Bureaus.
        But they go through a pretty thorough vetting process that
    is ranked against criteria so they can understand, kind of,
    what their needs are with parks.
        I mean, unfortunately we have buildings that we have to
    maintain to certain health and safety standards, and so they're
    always looking at those type of measures.
        Senator King. Would the backlog, if I looked at it, be
    prioritized by seriousness and health and safety versus other
    criteria?
        Ms. Sarri. Yes, they develop a prioritized list. And like I
    said, I think with the Bureaus, they look at them somewhat
    differently. So I'd like to get back to you more on the record
    to make sure I'm providing accurate information.
        Senator King. And what percentage of the backlog is roads
    as opposed to buildings, sewer systems, those kinds of things?
        Secretary Jewell. It's about half.
        Senator King. About half is roads.
        Secretary Jewell. About half of it is roads, right, which
    typically is largely taken care of through transportation.
        Senator King. Well that was what I was going to ask, is
    there any help on the way from the Highway bill that was passed
    this past winter?
        Secretary Jewell. There is help on the way. The passage of
    the Highway bill is enormously important to roads, not only in
    National Parks, but Indian reservations and so on, as well.
        What that bill does not do is specific large projects, like
    for example, the Memorial Bridge which in and of itself is $250
    million. There is not money earmarked for the National Park
    Service which has that bridge and is responsible for its
    maintenance through that so that would require separate
    supporter legislation to address.
        Senator King. Okay.
        But there is a significance so the backlog is roughly 50
    percent roads and there will be significant assistance coming
    so it is not quite as daunting as it originally----
        Secretary Jewell. No, that's correct. It's still a $6
    billion number, roughly $6 billion is daunting in terms of the
    facilities relative to the Park Service budget, but the roads
    are helped through this.
        Senator King. Just for the record, this is not a case of
    the Park Service not asking for this money, it is a case of it
    not being appropriated by an organization which will remain
    nameless.
        Secretary Jewell. That's correct.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        I just want to end by thanking you for the work with the
    National Parks and particularly as we enter this 100th year. I
    understand that part of the President's budget talks about or
    focuses on the Centennial and the ability to raise private
    funds. Could you end my time on that part of this budget?
        Secretary Jewell. Madam Chairman, do you mind if I just do
    this quickly?
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Secretary Jewell. So we have in the discretionary part of
    the budget, a significant increase. I think it's a $20 million
    increase in the matching fund program to $30 or $35 million.
    And then in addition to that, we have $100 million in a
    mandatory fund which would require a congressional action to be
    a match with private philanthropy.
        The National Park Foundation just announced a, I think $350
    million capital campaign. They are well on their way, over $200
    million raised as we announced another generous grant from
    David Rubenstein to fix up the Lincoln Memorial. He has been
    extraordinarily generous. But there's a lot of individuals out
    there that would like to provide support but they also would
    like to see the Federal Government have skin in the game.
        So there is an increase on the discretionary side of the
    budget and recommended in the mandatory portion that would
    increase that Centennial match and drive additional
    philanthropy that is very helpful to the National Park Service.
        Senator King. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Gardner?
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
    Secretary Jewell, for your time and testimony today.
        I want to thank you as well for your participation in
    making the celebration of Rocky Mountain National Park's
    Centennial a very great year. Last year, 2015, we set record
    attendance again at Rocky Mountain. I think had a 21 percent
    increase in attendance in 2015 over the prior year. So people
    continue to enjoy Rocky Mountain National Park and all that it
    has to offer in year 2016 and beyond. Thank you for making that
    special.
        I also want to thank you for your work at the Colowyo Mine
    this past year. It is a significant challenge, as you know. You
    held a meeting in Northwestern Colorado, meeting with local
    participants to understand the unfortunate outcome of the court
    decision out there. It is too bad that it went to that point,
    but the fact is I appreciate you working with local communities
    and others to make that mine continuing to be a part of the
    future of Northwestern Colorado and also your diligence,
    continued diligence, on Trapper Mine. I thank you. I know there
    is some work still to be cut out there but, you know Western
    Colorado when we have coal layoffs and natural gas cutbacks,
    and the last thing it needs is another double whammy of
    Federally-induced setbacks. So thank you very much for your
    work with the Colowyo and Trapper Mines.
        I also want to, again, commend you for your work on the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have been part of an effort
    to make sure that it is permanently authorized. There were a
    couple of projects in Colorado, like the Cascade Cottages
    project, Rocky Mountain National Park, within Rocky Mountain
    National Park and the Sanberg acquisition near the Black Canyon
    of the Gunnison National Park that did not get funded in the
    Department's budget this year.
        I would just like to know what we can do to try to make
    sure that that is funded somehow, if you will consider LWCF
    that is unspent or how you will consider these projects in the
    future. I certainly would just advocate that those projects be
    considered. I do not know if you would like to comment on those
    at all or?
        Secretary Jewell. Well I'll just say that we know they're
    very important projects. We've had several others referenced
    today that people would like support for.
        I want to thank you for your support for LWCF. It's
    bipartisan support. The Chair and Ranking Member of the
    Committee have recognized that. We would like to see full
    funding and then a lot of these items, the list is very long,
    would get done. And certainly we can pass along your interest
    in those two projects to the Park Service as it evaluates any
    money that might become available, but it's very tough each
    year because there's never enough money for the really, very
    important projects that are out there.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        Returning to the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Mr. Connor and I
    have had many conversations about the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
    I just want to talk about its importance.
        This was first authorized in the 1960s under President
    Kennedy. Over the past several years we have put $1 million or
    $2 million behind it. I believe the commitment now is $3
    million, $2 million for Fiscal Year 2016, $3 million for Fiscal
    Year 2017. I thank you for your commitment to this project.
    Will the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
    continue to make the funding commitments necessary to get
    construction on this critical project underway?
        Mr. Connor. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
    you for your support for moving forward with the Arkansas
    Valley Conduit. It's been very helpful as we've tried to
    provide a base level of funding at slightly higher levels than
    we had previously. And you've seen that now with our '17 budget
    and the additional resources we put in '16 through this
    Reclamation spending plan.
        I think we want to maintain a certain level of funding to
    complete the preconstruction work that needs to be done, and
    then I think we need to work with the sponsors, the community,
    local communities, on how we will continue to support moving
    forward with construction but look for other resources that
    exist.
        I know they have reached out to the state and secured a
    loan to begin funding. We have a Natural Resource Investment
    Center that we created last year that we've just hired a new
    Executive Director for. This is a high priority for us to put
    together a comprehensive plan to look for, not just the next
    couple of years, but more long-term, how we can work with the
    communities and get this project funded.
        Senator Gardner. Thanks, Mr. Connor.
        I know my office has been in communication with the Bureau
    of Reclamation regarding potential revisions to the current
    funding mechanism for the project so that we can maximize the
    use of miscellaneous revenues when funding the project. Will
    you commit to continue working with us for the long-term
    funding mechanism in the project so that we can make sure we
    are using the optimum use of the miscellaneous revenues?
        Mr. Connor. Absolutely. That's a very good plan that
    creates more budget space, so it's going to be a number of
    ideas like that. But we'll continue to work with you.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        A couple of quick questions.
        I know Senator Barrasso touched briefly on the question of
    the BLM venting and flaring rule. Do you know if you will be
    perhaps extending the public comment period on that rule, on
    the venting and flaring rule at BLM?
        Secretary Jewell. Well I think at this point we intend to
    stick with the schedule the way it is.
        Senator Gardner. You have given, excuse me, you have given
    it. That is correct, I believe, right?
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        Senator Gardner. Okay.
        Secretary Jewell. Well, I'm not sure. Do you know if we,
    did we extend the period?
        Mr. Connor. I'm not sure----
        Secretary Jewell. On the venting and flaring?
        Yes, we'll have to get back to you. I'm sorry.
        Senator Gardner. Okay.
        Secretary Jewell. It's probably in my notebook here. I can
    find it, yes.
        Senator Gardner. I think it is 60 days to comment. Of
    course it is a very complex rule, and we hope that you would
    consider extending it if that is something that you could get
    back to us. That would be great.
        Senator Gardner. Just a final question here. Are you aware
    of any considerations for land acquisitions or land
    designations through the Antiquity Act or other acts that are
    currently being discussed? If so, what and when, particularly
    as it relates to Colorado?
        Secretary Jewell. I don't have a list of items that, you
    know, are lined up to be Antiquities Act. That's obviously
    something that rests with the President.
        There are a number of groups and individuals and elected
    officials that bring things to our attention where they would
    like to see a designation.
        Senator Gardner. But you are unaware of any consideration
    being made on specific locations in Colorado?
        Secretary Jewell. I can't think of any. We did the Browns
    Canyon, obviously.
        Senator Gardner. Right.
        Secretary Jewell. That was important. I can't think of any
    others off the top of my head.
        Senator Gardner. Well if you would just, perhaps, go back
    and talk to staff and relay to us if there are considerations
    that are underway and designations in Colorado, that would be
    great.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Jewell. Okay.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell?
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I wanted to go back to the coal issue. I have listened with
    interest to my colleagues' questions, and certainly I do not
    think there is anything in Federal statute that mandates that
    the Federal Government lease a certain amount of coal off of
    Federal lands. I do not think there is any mandate there.
        I definitely think that there is a mandate that we make
    sure that we do an environmental impact statement, and the fact
    that we have not done one in 37 years is quite astounding to
    me. But I think I learned a lot about our Minerals Management
    Agency after the Deepwater Horizon program and a lot of holes
    in our process. The fact that we have not done something here
    in 37 years, I think, is another issue of the bright light of
    day being shown on the agency and making sure we do things in
    an orderly fashion. So as I said in my opening statement, I
    applaud you for taking this action here. I think it is
    critically important.
        Another related issue is the same scrutiny that I think
    that we need in the state reclamation programs and the issue of
    their acceptance of self-bonding. You know, we have had our own
    impacts in Washington State and backyards in Tacoma,
    Washington, after they had been dug up or left when somebody
    went bankrupt and literally walked off the job. I am very
    concerned with how states are applying these self-bonding
    issues. How do we know they even have the resources? So now we
    are having these bankruptcy court issues and the law does not
    say we must accept self-bonds, and these self-bondings are not
    working. How are we making sure that the taxpayer is not left
    on the hook? Do you think these self-bondings are working or do
    they present a problem and a risk to the taxpayer?
        Secretary Jewell. I think there's a very significant
    potential problem and risk to the taxpayer with the pretty high
    profile bankruptcies that have taken place recently with coal
    companies.
        I'll say that there's different ways that states handle
    bonding. Largely in the Appalachian states they have companies
    pay into a bond fund, like an insurance policy. And so they
    have the capacity to cover when some companies go bankrupt. In
    other states, like Wyoming, for example, they allow self-
    bonding. And with some of these recent bankruptcies we have
    seen a negotiation between the state and the company that the
    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement find of
    concern with regard to what, we believe, the liability is to
    clean up the mines relative to the amount that's been accepted
    by the state.
        So we have issued ten-day notices which is a tool that we
    have to put the state on notice that we believe that what they
    have accepted, in terms of self-bonding, is inadequate relative
    to the clean-up liability. And that has been done now, not just
    in Wyoming, but in multiple states as we've seen an
    acceleration of bankruptcies with some of the large companies,
    Arch, Alpha and Peabody, or not Peabody, but Arch and Alpha so
    far. I will say even in Appalachia where they have more of an
    insurance plan, there is no question that there's very
    significant reclamation liability that we are concerned with
    there. So this is a very topical issue and something that is
    getting a lot of our attention.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I hope so. I mean because they
    would not have even gotten a permit in the first place. They
    are getting it based on a reclamation bond that is not worth
    anything. They would not even have gotten the permit, right, if
    you knew up front that the value was zero?
        Secretary Jewell. They wouldn't have been self-bonded. They
    would have been required to come up with an outside bond in
    order to cover their liability.
        Senator Cantwell. Well the more I learn about this, the
    more I think representing the taxpayer here--and actually I did
    not hear my colleague say that they did not want the taxpayer
    represented. So I think these are key issues, making sure that
    the public is not left with a cleanup of pollution as coal
    companies go bankrupt and making sure that the taxpayer also
    gets a fair share is part of our responsibility of leasing on
    Federal lands. There is nothing that says in the law that we
    have to lease this amount?
        Secretary Jewell. Correct.
        Senator Cantwell. Right. But it certainly says we need to
    pay for and make sure that the environment is protected as we
    do so, so I think it is astounding to find out that 40 percent
    of our coal comes off of these Federal lands and yet we do not
    even have an updated system to make sure the taxpayer is
    protected. I appreciate your leadership on that. Is there
    something we should be doing right now in clarifying about the
    self-bonds and making sure that there are real resources behind
    protecting the taxpayer?
        Secretary Jewell. Well I think that your scrutiny,
    transparency of the situation and increased visibility is very
    important for taxpayers to understand.
        I'll also say that we are taking action through the tools
    that we have with the Office of Surface Mining. There are
    surety bonding companies that are willing to sign up and
    provide bonds for these companies that are in bankruptcy. These
    are things that certainly it changes the economics because you
    do pay for these bonds but we believe that those alternatives
    should absolutely be considered. And we'd like to have good
    cooperation with the states as we go through this so that
    neither the states nor the Federal Government and the taxpayers
    get to end up holding the bag, as we do, with abandoned mine
    lands on hard rock mining where we don't have this capacity.
    Hence, huge problems in the hard rock area that the taxpayer
    right now is the only place to go to clean up.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Portman?
        Senator Portman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
        Secretary Jewell, thanks for being before us again. I want
    to talk to you about a couple of topics quickly.
        First, of course, is the National Parks. This is the
    Centennial year, as my colleague from Maine talked about. In
    fact, on August 25th we celebrate the 100th year anniversary of
    our National Parks. We are working on Centennial legislation,
    as you know, with you and with others. Ranking Member Cantwell,
    Chairman Murkowski and I introduced an amendment to the energy
    bill that talks about how we can properly celebrate the
    centennial, including providing additional resources for the
    National Parks going forward. I appreciate working with Senator
    Cantwell on that legislation.
        There has been discussion about whether or not there really
    is enough interest out there in the private sector to have a
    centennial match. As you know this is something that I have
    been working on since my days at OMB, going back a decade. I
    strongly believe that this is a way for us to not only
    incentivize the private sector to do more but specifically to
    get them more engaged and involved with the parks and to really
    leverage that private sector help.
        So I would ask you this question. Over the last couple
    years Congress has appropriated a little bit of money into the
    Centennial Challenge. We do not have an authorization for it,
    but the appropriators have gone ahead and made some
    commitments, which I appreciate. In FY'15 it was $10 million.
    In FY'16 it was $15 million. So that is $25 million. What was
    the match from the private entities over the past two years
    with these appropriations for the Centennial Challenge?
        Secretary Jewell. I'll have to look up the exact number.
        Secretary Jewell. We don't have it but the fact is that the
    National Park Foundation has just announced its Centennial
    Capital Campaign at $350 million, and they have already raised
    well over $250 million. Certainly, that has been inspired by
    support from Congress and the Federal Government willing to put
    skin in the game.
        We can look specifically at which of those projects were
    matched, but I can guarantee you they were more than a dollar
    for dollar match on multiple.
        Senator Portman. They were more than a dollar for dollar.
    They were more like two to one or more.
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        Senator Portman. In the private sector. So the answer is an
    unequivocal, yes. They were matched.
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        Senator Portman. In fact, they were overmatched. Also, as
    you say, you took away my thunder there, the National Parks
    Foundation has just started their $350 million campaign which
    is non-Federal, private donations. So I think there is a
    tremendous appetite out there.
        I know you agree with me on that having been from the
    private sector yourself and probably your former company would
    be one of those companies interested in being involved and
    engaged in helping our parks.
        Secretary Jewell. They've already committed $5 million.
        Senator Portman. I like that. I am sure they would be doing
    even more if you were still at the head.
        I just think this is a great opportunity for us, and I
    think if we take too long to get this out there and get this
    moving, we are going to miss this opportunity.
        So I encourage you to continue to work with us. The
    Administration has a proposal out there that is very expensive,
    well over $1 billion, but not paid for. We are going to have to
    pay for it here. We want to have something that is practical,
    that can get done, but really help the parks and can leverage
    that private sector money. I know you are, again, personally
    committed to that and I look forward to working with you on
    that going forward.
        The second topic I have for you is about the Office of
    Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement's Stream Protection
    Rule. This is one you might want to talk about less eagerly
    than the national parks, but it is one that concerns me a lot.
    It concerns me because my sense is you are not working with the
    local stakeholders. I hear this from my State of Ohio where, as
    you know, we have a considerable interest in this potential
    change in terms of the Stream Protection Rules and what impacts
    it is going to have on jobs.
        The Office of Surface Mining themselves talk about this
    having a cost of over $15 million annual compliance cost, coal
    production being reduced dramatically, 1.9 million tons a year,
    41 to 590 jobs annually. These numbers are a lot lower, as you
    know, than those by independent sources which were even worse
    for Ohio. According to the communication I am getting from my
    folks in the State of Ohio, there has not been the kind of
    communication you would expect with state and operating
    agencies regarding the rule.
        Given so many states have publicly expressed disappointment
    with the lack of engagement so far, I would ask you will OSM,
    the Office of Surface Mining, re-engage with the states, such
    as Ohio, in the rulemaking process to ensure any final rule is
    practical and reasonable?
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, the OSM is engaging the states
    at this point, and now that the rule is out there and the
    states are reviewing it we'd welcome that input. And we
    absolutely would welcome specific input from the State of Ohio.
    I know that it was very important to get a rule out and across
    the finish line. States were engaged early, that input was
    taken, a rule was put on the table, and we'd welcome that input
    and you certainly have my commitment to do that.
        Senator Portman. Okay.
        We were told OSM has not reached out proactively to the
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources. I do believe you are
    going to see a formal request coming from them very soon for
    you to engage with them as you are required to do under the
    Omnibus. As you know in December, there was a law passed that
    says you have to re-engage with states in a ``meaningful manner
    prior to the final rulemaking if requested by the states.'' You
    are going to get that request from Ohio, I will tell you. If
    states request more information, how are you going to carry out
    in a meaningful manner providing the documents and data in a
    timely fashion? So I assume that you are going to comply with
    that legislation.
        Secretary Jewell. Certainly we will comply with the
    legislation. I also want to say that on December 2, 2015 the
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources did have a telephone
    conference with Joe Pizarchik, who heads the Office of Surface
    Mining. That was with the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources
    Management Chief, Lanny Erdos. So we have had those meetings
    and we will continue to have those meetings and certainly
    comply with all legislation.
        Senator Portman. Well they are going to request additional
    meetings at even a higher level, as I understand it. They are
    in town this week, and I appreciate your commitment to do so.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Flake?
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As you know, Secretary Jewell, water is never far from the
    mind of anybody in Arizona. I want to thank the Bureau of
    Reclamation, particularly Commissioner Lopez and his staff, for
    the efforts to support the Colorado River Basin Contingency
    Drought Plan.
        Additionally, I have been pleased to see efforts throughout
    the basin to implement the Colorado River System Conservation
    Pilot Program. This is a priority, obviously, for Arizona. I
    commend the Bureau of Reclamation also for dedicating $5
    million of their Fiscal Year 2016 appropriation to expand the
    program.
        Can you give us an update, you or Mr. Connor, of the status
    of the system conservation program including the number of
    projects funded and the effect on the reservoir levels?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, Senator.
        Thank you for the question and thanks to the State of
    Arizona. I think they'd be, Reclamation would be, equally
    complementary. This has been a very productive partnership,
    particularly with the lower basin states.
        So far of the $11 million that was allocated for the System
    Conservation Pilot in '15, $8.25 million was allocated for
    lower basin projects. I think they've selected six projects,
    and those are projected to save about 64,000 acre feet of water
    when they're completed. The balance of that funding will go for
    upper basin projects and then, as you stated, based on the
    success and the quality of the project so far, reclamation
    allocated another $5 million toward that effort.
        Overall, you know, this is in context to an MOU where the
    states are looking at, you know, close to a million acre feet
    over the next five plus years. And given the projections in the
    Colorado River Basin, that's something that they need to be
    pursuing. The challenges keep increasing in the basin. The
    projections that were developed in 2008 are already no longer
    valid. The challenges are greatly increasing as far as
    reservoir levels in Lake Mead. So we're going to have to build
    upon this System Conservation Pilot.
        Senator Flake. Well thanks, Mr. Connor.
        You will recollect that on June 1st, I asked you to follow-
    up on several issues surrounding the ability to withdraw and
    transport stored groundwater in Arizona having these
    arrangements in place, obviously we will be able to access
    millions of acre feet of water that we have stored underground.
    It is critical to our long-term planning. I again want to thank
    the Bureau for their recent work with the Central Arizona
    project on these wheeling arrangements.
        Can you give us some kind of update on the status of other
    discussions with tribal governments that are required to
    complete these arrangements?
        Mr. Connor. I'm not up to speed on those recent
    discussions, so I'll be happy to get back to you on the record
    for that.
        Senator Flake. Okay, thank you.
        Senator Flake. Secretary Jewell, I am told that Senator Lee
    talked about national monuments and designation and the
    importance of consultations with local and state governments.
    In this regard I just want to add my voice to his that when
    these measures are taken that these consultations are made
    prior to.
        It is extremely important for states like Arizona, Utah and
    others where the impacts on the economic viability of these
    local communities is really impacted.
        Secretary Jewell. As I said to Senator Lee, in all the
    monument designations that the President has done there has
    been outreach within local communities and meetings held on the
    ground in local communities, and we're committed to continuing
    to do that.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Hoeven?
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary, for appearing before our Committee
    here today.
        The first question I would like to ask is in regard to the
    Stream Protection Rule or the Stream Buffer Rule.
        Assistant Secretary Janice Schneider has agreed to come to
    North Dakota to actually get input and to see on the ground
    what our industry is doing and how they are managing water and
    why the Stream Buffer Rule is problematic. We would like for
    her to come, she originally wanted to come in the winter, in
    January or February, where you would not be able to see,
    really, the ramifications of the rule. I just want to make sure
    that we get her to come in say, May or June, when she will
    actually be able to assess the impact, and we would like your
    commitment that you would agree to that.
        Secretary Jewell. She's very happy to travel. So let us
    know when the best time of the year is, and we'll work that
    into her schedule.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        The other thing is keeping the comment period open so that
    the input that she gets from the industry, I mean, being there,
    seeing it and then getting good on the ground input is
    important. And it is important that the comment period is open
    to accommodate that.
        Secretary Jewell. Well Senator, we're really committed to
    getting this rule done during the time we're here. And so we
    would love to have people work within the comment deadlines
    that are out there to the extent possible. We certainly
    consider increases to the comment period but I will say that I
    would encourage people that have comments to get those comments
    in early.
        Senator Hoeven. Certainly. But she is going to get input
    while she is out there and that just makes sense. If you truly
    want good input, she will have an opportunity to do that. We
    would try to accommodate getting her out there in May so we are
    not talking about dragging this out, but it is important that
    we are able to comment based on her experience out there.
        Secretary Jewell. Well I think she'd get out there as soon
    as possible within the comment period. If her visit doesn't
    coincide within the context of the comment period I can't
    commit to an extension, but I will certainly make her aware of
    that concern.
        And we do take input into account after comment periods
    close. I mean, it certainly continues to influence us in any of
    these rules before we come out with a final.
        Senator Hoeven. We will try to make that work so she can be
    there on the ground within the comment period.
        Secretary Jewell. That would be great.
        Senator Hoeven. If you would make the same effort for us.
    Are you willing to do that?
        Secretary Jewell. If I can work it into my schedule. Mine
    is a little tougher than Janice's but I will----
        Senator Hoeven. No, no, I mean in terms of getting her----
        Secretary Jewell. Oh yes, absolutely, yes.
        Senator Hoeven. The time frame open. We will try to work so
    that we can match the two.
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay, thanks.
        The second thing I wanted to ask about is there are two
    coal leases. One that is pending back to 2011, that is with BNI
    Coal, and then there is another one that has been pending since
    2013. Two coal leases, and the second one is with North
    American Coal.
        Now BLM has considered both these grandfathered relative to
    the three-year moratorium. So I just want your assurances that
    you will work with BLM to continue to see if we can get
    agreement on those coal leases as they have said that they
    would work to do and not make them subject to the three-year
    moratorium.
        Secretary Jewell. If they were on the BLM's list which we
    published on the website as being grandfathered, then the BLM
    has every intention of going through with that and so do I.
        Senator Hoeven. Good, Okay, good.
        My final question relates to the BLM permitting pilot
    project. Now this is legislation I think Senator Barrasso was a
    prime sponsor, I think the Chairman, myself, a number of us
    were on this bill, and it passed.
        It is the BLM Permitting Pilot Project. Essentially what it
    allowed, and you may recall, but just in case, it allowed that
    applications for permits to drill were backed up and taking a
    long time to get approval. So essentially what this pilot
    project allowed is that BLM could increase the fee that they
    charge for an APD from $6,500 per APD to $9,500. And the idea
    was that additional $3,000 per permit was to go to getting the
    permit done more quickly. But instead the BLM in DC has
    decreased general fund appropriation out to the BLM Office. So
    they have offset the funding that comes from these drilling
    permit applications.
        That money was supposed to go to expedite the process, and
    instead it has been offset so that the permittee is getting
    charged but they are not getting the benefit that they were
    supposed to get from the higher fee, from the $9,500 instead of
    $6,500. This is important because that was not the intent of
    the legislation. I would ask that you would look into this and
    make sure that the intent of that legislation is honored.
        Secretary Jewell. Yes, the characterization you're giving
    is different than my understanding. So let us get back and
    maybe drill into specifically what you're asking and get you a
    solid response.
        I know that we are very committed to streamlining the way
    we do our permitting, to doing increased automation which is
    part of the budget request.
        We've also requested fees from the industry on shore to
    help offset the cost that we actually incur in both permitting
    and in inspections.
        So if we can get back to you with a little more detail on
    that I think that would be better than me trying to respond
    right now.
        Senator Hoeven. That would be fine.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        Senator Hoeven. And I appreciate your looking into it.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Secretary, I mentioned in my opening my concern about the
    King Cove road and the fact that today is 26 months to the day
    that you have rejected this ten mile, one lane, graveled, non-
    commercial use road. We keep count of that because it is
    important to the people of that region.The other thing that we
    keep count of is how many Medevacs have occurred from King Cove
    since the rejection of the road.
        Last year I asked you if you were aware how many Medevacs
    had been required since the time you rejected the road. I would
    ask you the question again this morning, if you are aware as to
    how many Medevacs, both Coast Guard and non-Coast Guard, have
    actually gone into King Cove since December 23rd of 2013?
        Secretary Jewell. I don't have the number, Senator, but I
    am sure that it is dozens of them.
        The Chairman. The number is 39 total, 14 by the Coast Guard
    which is unacceptable by anyone's standards.
        I understand that Interior commissioned a study that was
    completed last year by the Army Corps. You again looked at the
    use of marine vessel helicopter or perhaps building a new
    airport, alternatives, all of which have been reviewed in the
    past. They have been deemed impractical, unaffordable,
    particularly when you put it up against, again, a one lane,
    gravel, non-commercial use road. So the question to you this
    morning is whether or not you have publicly released that
    report and whether the people of King Cove were actually
    consulted as that core report was developed?
        Secretary Jewell. The team is telling me we have not
    released the report publicly.
        The Chairman. Will you?
        Secretary Jewell. I don't see any reason why not.
        The Chairman. Okay. We would look forward to the release of
    that.
        [The information referred to follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        And were the people of King Cove consulted as that report
    was being prepared?
        Secretary Jewell. I'd have to go back and check with the
    Army Corps. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my
    head.
        The Chairman. Okay, if you can get us an answer to that as
    well.
        [The information referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And then, as I mentioned, you promised that
    you would work to address the situation of the people in King
    Cove. I do not see anything in this FY'17 budget to actually
    implement any of the ideas that were contained in the study of
    these alternatives.
        So the question this morning is whether or not you are
    planning on doing anything in this year or is this a situation
    where you basically just run the clock and you leave the people
    of King Cove hanging?
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, I have no intention of leaving
    the people of King Cove hanging, and I would be delighted to
    work with you on a marine-based solution that was identified in
    the Army Corps report.
        As you and I have talked and I know it is unlikely we're
    going to agree on this point, I do not believe it is
    appropriate to run a road through this very sensitive
    wilderness area and wildlife refuge that is a very narrow
    isthmus that was set aside, originally in the 40s, and made
    wilderness in the 80s and is an area of international
    environmental concern that the wildlife biologists agree would
    be really severely damaged by a single lane, gravel road.
        And so----
        The Chairman. A ten mile, one lane, gravel, non-commercial
    use road.
        Secretary Jewell. Correct.
        The Chairman. In an area that has seen road traffic since
    World War II. What we are asking for the people of King Cove is
    a lifesaving access to an all-weather airport that is an
    affordable solution as opposed to the alternatives that have
    been considered over the years and rejected as either
    unsustainable, unaffordable or just completely impractical.
        Let me ask a question about the Fortymile area. This is
    actually the draft Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan
    and its designation of about 700,000 acres of the Fortymile
    River Mining District being designated as or identified as
    areas of critical environmental concern where the Department is
    considering closing the area to mining.
        This was an area that was specifically kept open to mining
    by Congress under ANILCA when it was not included in the Yukon
    Charlie National Preserve. There are a host of concerns about
    these new regs that we are seeing coming out. I mentioned that
    these are the Reclamation cost estimates, Reclamation
    standards, new bonding processes and the turnover in our
    compliance staff making consistency with enforcement really
    challenging.
        The budget notes that resource management plans provide the
    basis and this is a quote here, ``Provide the basis for every
    BLM management action and are necessitated by changes in
    resource use and demands.''
        So the question for this area in the Interior is what
    changes in resources and the demands then in this Fortymile
    region necessitate this nearly 700,000 acre of Environmental
    Concern Management Plan? It is not just the Fortymile. It is
    the resource management plans for the Central Yukon. Again,
    where we are seeing these resource, these changes in resource
    use and demands that have somehow necessitated these actions
    within both the Interior, the Eastern Interior resource
    management plan and the Central Yukon and the Bering Sea
    Western Interior.
        We have had these conversations where you have folks out in
    the region, they have said we have been working as a small
    placer miner operating for decades. Tell me where the changes
    are that all of a sudden make this, ``an area of critical
    environmental concern,'' that are not only limiting access and
    opportunity but potentially just shutting it all down.
        Secretary Jewell. Well Senator, with regards to the,
    specifically the Fortymile area Resource Management Plan, I've
    not reviewed it, nor had any input with the Alaska State Office
    for the BLM. So, I will----
        The Chairman. I would ask you if you could, Madam
    Secretary, because again, 700,000 acres. It pretty much takes
    your breath away.
        Secretary Jewell. So I certainly will follow-up. But I will
    say this, that we are, we change our knowledge over time. We
    get better science. We understand the landscapes better. We
    understand the impact on the environment from historic uses and
    activities. And so, they are intended to be documents that are
    updated with current information.
        I will look specifically into that and will get back to you
    with what changed on the landscape, how our knowledge changed,
    that resulted in the recommendations they have in that R and D.
        The Chairman. And then if you could also look to what
    specific efforts BLM is making to ensure that the miners are
    apprised of what their obligations may be under your new
    enforcement procedures because it is not right. It is not
    appropriate that there is now, kind of, the waving of the wand,
    there is a new designation. And all of a sudden a small
    operator, who has been out there with his family for the past
    25 years, you have regulators coming in saying you are in
    violation of all of this and we are going to slap you with a
    fine. So I would like to know what kind of outreach, what kind
    of communication is going on between BLM and those that are
    working out in the region. So if you can back to me on that one
    as well.
        Secretary Jewell. We will.
        The Chairman. My last question for you this morning relates
    to the five-year OCS plan. You released the draft five-year
    plan over a year ago. That was actually last January.
        We are sitting here with 2017 just now ten months away, so
    the question to you is when does Interior plan to release the
    final five-year plan?
        Secretary Jewell. So there's another bite at the apple. The
    draft proposed plan, as you pointed out, was released about a
    year ago. The proposed plan will be released in the coming
    weeks. I don't have a specific date for you, but it will be
    coming out relatively soon. We will take comments on that
    proposed plan.
        The final plan, you know, our intent is to get it finished
    before the Administration's time ends here. So sometime around
    the end of the year you should see the final plan. But between
    the draft proposed plan and the proposed plan we've taken a
    tremendous amount of input including from industry. That will
    be reflected in this plan. And then the final plan will be
    sometime around the end of the year.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that.
        So then when the final plan is released and we are able to
    take a look at it I would hope that you will be able to commit
    to coming back before the Committee to testify about what it
    includes, if we decide that we will hold an oversight hearing
    on it. But obviously we need to receive it from you first.
        Secretary Jewell. I'm very happy to respond to your
    Committee in whatever way you like.
        The Chairman. Okay. Good.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell?
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to go back to the self-bonding thing because
    you said something at the end of your testimony that I thought
    was important. Again, having experienced this myself where I
    mentioned Sarco left people high and dry in Tacoma. In that
    case I think we actually had to go through DOJ to make sure
    that we got the assets that we needed for the cleanup.
        BLM has ended the practice of, you were mentioning, you
    said it and it really rang with me, of corporate guarantees for
    hard rock mining, the BLM rule that it could not do corporate
    guarantees unless they were secured forums for financing
    guarantees.
        I think in 2003 CBO laid out the problem and said, ``Unlike
    surety bonds, corporate guarantees do not allow the regulator
    to lay claim to specific financial assets in the event that an
    operator becomes insolvent and cannot meet its Reclamation
    obligations.''
        My understanding is that we, with these coal companies that
    are facing bankruptcy, that there is something like $3 billion
    in liabilities. Is that a number that you or your team knows?
        Secretary Jewell. I haven't heard that number but we can
    check with the team and get back to you.
        Mike, have you heard anything?
        Mr. Connor. It sounds familiar, but we need to check the
    number.
        Secretary Jewell. We'll check.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay. It is a big number.
        I certainly would like a follow-up from you on what we plan
    to do to end this kind of self-bonding approach, because I just
    think it is putting too much at risk for the taxpayers. And you
    have taken similar steps in hard rock mining, so I think we
    should do the same thing here.
        Senator Cantwell. This is not about leaving us with the
    deep pockets. As I have said, I have had my own experience
    where we literally had to go to DOJ and get them in an
    agreement about a bankruptcy to protect and make sure the
    cleanup was going to move forward and happen.
        If I could, Mr. Connor, just one of the things that I keep
    becoming increasingly aware of is how much cooperation in our
    water agreements making traction. Do you think we should be
    doing more to incent from the Federal level this kind of
    integrated planning? I like the integrated planning because
    first of all, it is collaborative, and so it is more likely to
    succeed as opposed to lawsuits that take forever.
        Oftentimes the approach is integrated so you are not really
    choosing one over another. You are basically saying here are
    the ways in which we can have a holistic approach to try to
    solve our problems with water and drought. So do you think we
    should be doing more to incentivize that?
        Mr. Connor. Thanks for the question.
        Absolutely. I think the Yakima Integrated Plan, that
    process, is a model not just for working through watershed
    challenges, but for any natural resource management whether
    it's public land management issues. It's the right process to
    bring folks together in a holistic and realistic manner and
    decide on a path forward that addresses, in that particular
    situation, both water supply, environmental needs, tribal
    responsibilities, etcetera.
        The plan is realistic. It's expensive. And--but we are
    increasing our budget over time in just a three or 4 year
    period I think we have close to doubled the budget for Yakima
    enhancement activities. And we've put in additional resources
    in the 2016 spending plan with the additional resources that
    Congress wrote into Reclamation's budget to support that
    effort.
        So we're moving forward with the state, who has put in a
    lot of resources into this whole process to implement the plan.
    And I think from that standpoint the stakeholders see the
    progress being made and it incents them to do more. And so,
    after our basin studies program we continue to invest in those.
    We'd like to take that Yakima model to other basins.
        We've expanded in this budget our cooperative watershed
    program, doubled it to try and help fund local watershed groups
    that can build the relationships that can then enter into the
    planning process, the model.
        Senator Cantwell. So those funds could be used for that
    kind of integrated planning?
        Mr. Connor. For the planning aspect, absolutely.
        That's the goal, to help bring the different interests
    within a watershed together to help them start a planning
    process that we can take into basin studies or other means to
    develop a comprehensive approach. And then we can start to look
    at implementation strategies.
        Senator Cantwell. I wouldn't say that it is not a panacea.
    Your problems are not solved once you incent them, but I do
    think that everybody gets to the table and I think all the
    issues get on the table and then I think the management of the
    problem is based on science and facts and information. I think
    people buy into that process and then we get cooperation.
        It's got to be, obviously, more cost effective than the
    lawsuits that we are seeing which are getting us nowhere on
    trying to either recharge aquifers or save water or save fish.
        So anyway, I hope we can look at ways to continue to
    enhance the incentives to these various Western states and
    communities to work in a collaborative fashion on something
    that is integrated.
        So thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We have a lot of work to do on some basic things, fire and
    water and others.
        I know that colleagues will have additional questions for
    the record. I certainly do.
        The Chairman. And I would just direct your attention,
    Secretary, to one specifically as it relates to earthquakes. As
    you had mentioned, just last week, I think, your earthquake
    initiative, and Alaska was not included as part of that. And it
    was, coincidentally, days after a 7.1 earthquake in South
    Central Alaska.
        We are about to get some earth scope seismographs that will
    help us in the state. This is through a grant through the NSF,
    and I think that is going to help us as we look to improve our
    seismic and just get better understanding. But NSF funding runs
    out in two years, so we are going to be in a situation where
    these monitors are then moved from the state. I am trying to
    figure out some kind of collaborative way that we can work to
    provide for a level of continuation. So I would like to visit
    with some of your folks about that as a possibility and a
    prospect. We are, maybe because we are one fifth the size of
    the country, but we are more active from a seismic perspective
    than other states out there. So enlisting your support in that
    would be helpful as well.
        Secretary Jewell. Can I just respond quickly?
        The Chairman. Madam Secretary, yes.
        Secretary Jewell. I completely agree. There's no question.
    I've visited Earthquake Park. I remember the earthquake in the
    60s very clearly because we could feel it in my home community
    of Seattle, that nine plus magnitude earthquake. And, as I
    think you know, I did ask the USGS in this earthquake early
    warning system that we were addressing, where is Alaska? So
    it's a pilot project. The prototype is about to come out. We
    would love to include Alaska. It needs appropriate sensors. So
    we're very much of like mind there.
        We'll be happy to work with the state. It's a prototype so
    if, you know, it may be a little less expensive to wait until
    it's to the next level, but whatever you need to do on the
    infrastructure. I know that's something that I support, the
    USGS supports, and we would welcome a joint effort to make that
    happen.
        The Chairman. Good. I will look forward to working with you
    on that, and we have got some volcanoes that we have got to
    monitor as well.
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        The Chairman. All kinds of fun challenges.
        With that, we thank you for the time that you have given
    the Committee and we look forward to working with you.
        Thank you.
        We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]