[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]