[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S SPENDING PRIORITIES AND THE
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 22, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-970 PDF 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR Jimmy Panetta, CA
Garret Graves, LA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Jody B. Hice, GA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
David Rouzer, NC
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 22, 2017.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, accompanied by Olivia Barton Ferriter,
Deputy Assistant Secretary Budget, Finance, Performance and
Acquisition; and Denise Flanagan, Director, Office of
Budget..................................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 17
.............................................................
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Kurta, A.M., Department of Defense, Office of the Under
Secretary, April 26, 2017 Letter to the Hon. Matt Gaetz,
House of Representatives................................... 104
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 106
Speer, Robert M., Department of Defense, Acting Secretary of
the Army, May 31, 2017 Letter to the Hon. Stevan Pearce,
House of Representatives................................... 69
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S
SPENDING PRIORITIES AND THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET
PROPOSAL
----------
Thursday, June 22, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Gohmert, Lamborn,
Wittman, McClintock, Pearce, Gosar, Labrador, Tipton, LaMalfa,
Westerman, Graves, Hice, Radewagen, Bergman, Cheney, Johnson,
Gonzalez-Colon; Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Tsongas,
Huffman, Lowenthal, Beyer, Torres, Gallego, Hanabusa, Barragan,
Soto, Panetta, McEachin, and Clay.
The Chairman. All right, the Committee will come to order.
The Committee on Natural Resources is here. We are happy to
hear testimony from the Secretary of the Interior that examines
the Department of the Interior's spending priorities, as well
as the budget proposals.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral statements at hearings
are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority Member, and
the Vice Chair. This will allow us to hear from our witness
sooner, and help Members to keep on some kind of schedule,
because we are on a tight schedule, especially Mr. Zinke.
Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
record if they are submitted to the Committee Clerk or the
Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
Let me start.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Let me recognize myself for my original
opening statement.
Mr. Zinke, I want to welcome you back here to the
Committee. It is good to have you back here in this particular
room. I want to personally thank you at the very beginning for
being here.
I also want to thank you for visiting my home state, and
for doing that. You and your Department have brought
transparency, more transparency over the past few months than I
think has happened in the entire 111-year history of the
Antiquities Act. What you did was a first-of-its-kind,
inclusive process that actually tried to assess local support
for monuments. And I want to thank you for conducting that
review, you did it with aplomb, even if you made fun of what I
was wearing. I was not going to a golf course, I was
legitimate.
You also, I think, are bringing a breath of fresh air to
the Department. You clearly understand why the Department was
created and what its core statutory functions are, and how they
have strayed over the few years. Mismanagement, as I view it,
of Federal lands did not start recently. It has gone on for
several decades, long before the Obama administration was
there. But I have to admit the layers of arbitrary rules and
regulations over the past 8 years, especially the last 2 years,
seem to compound the challenges that we have with the
Department of the Interior.
So, what I hope to do is be able to have a new relationship
that is here that will work in concert with you to give you
whatever kinds of tools are necessary to produce the kinds of
reforms that you have been talking about in public.
Over the past few months, you have taken numerous actions
to re-establish core agency functions and begin addressing
regulatory excesses. I am very proud of you for doing that. You
have facilitated a diverse and abundant energy development
strategy, and made clear your priorities for things like the
USGS funding increase, offshore development, the 5-year
planning process, which, I think, shows a commitment to make
America stronger through energy security. I appreciate you
doing that.
I am also appreciative, especially for this Committee, of
your prioritization of resource needs to address the Park
Service's massive deferred maintenance backlog. Once again,
that is something that must take place.
A component of that strategy does include the transferring
and exchanging of surplus lands. I want to be clear about this,
that this does not mean a wholesale transfer of Federal lands.
There are voices out there who are spreading misinformation, if
not downright lies, that our goal is to try to sell off all the
iconic areas and landmarks, when actually nobody is talking
about that.
What we are talking about, and clearly understanding, is we
have to resolve the checkerboard issues of land management,
isolated and hard-to-manage isolated parcels of land, and
selected transfers that would maximize local communities. That
is merely what we were talking about. That is the goal and the
effort of where we were going.
I am also encouraged to hear your public statements,
specifically concerning federally recognized Indian tribes.
These Native American issues are important. Many people in the
past have given lip service to tribal self-determination, but
their actions have consistently fallen very short of the
rhetoric that is there.
So, the idea that you have established and desire to
improve tribal control over tribal lands, rather than
blockading economic opportunities in Indian Country is
refreshing, and I appreciate that.
I also want to thank you for the broader reforms that you
have talked about, and I want to let you know that this
Committee is ready to try to do whatever legislation you feel
is necessary to help you succeed in those kind of broader
reforms that you wish to do.
We all realize that there is a $20 trillion deficit that
all of us have inherited. What you need to do is, with the
funds that are available, try to leverage the natural resources
and the responsibilities that go with that, develop the energy
potential.
We realize the amount of revenue that has come in has
deteriorated over the years, but also access to public land has
deteriorated over the years, as well as the level of service. I
am grateful that the Department realizes that and is going to
take positive efforts to try to improve on all three of those
areas. I hope that what we can do is to build a future together
with your Department to serve the communities that your
Department actually serves.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Today, we are pleased to have Secretary Zinke here to testify on
the Administration's budget and broader policy priorities for the
Department of the Interior.
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary.
I'd first like to take a quick moment to personally thank you for
being here and for recently visiting my home state of Utah. Your
Department has brought more transparency and accountability to National
Monument designations in the past few months than the rest of the
Antiquities Act's 111-year history by creating a first-of-its-kind,
open, and inclusive process to gather public comments and assess local
support for National Monuments. Thank you for conducting this review.
After 8 years, it is a breath of fresh air to have someone leading
the Department who understands the reason why it was created in the
first place--and just how far its core statutory functions have strayed
since that time.
Although mismanagement of our Federal lands and Washington's
neglect of local, state and tribal communities began long before the
Obama administration, the layers of arbitrary rules and regulations
promulgated over the past 8 years have certainly compounded these
challenges.
Congress and the executive branch working in concert is the only
way for us to overcome years of mismanagement at the Interior
Department and its sub-agencies. As such, I am excited to have you in
this role, and an Administration committed to reform, so that we can
finally partner with the executive branch to actually solve problems
and help improve the Department's accountability to taxpayers.
In just the first few months of the Secretary's tenure, the
Department has taken numerous actions to re-establish core agency
functions and begin addressing regulatory excesses created by the last
administration.
The President's 2018 budget reflects a commitment from the Trump
administration to increase access to Federal lands, reduce burdensome
regulation, and improve conservation without unduly impacting economic
development.
I am also pleased with several clear priorities put forward within
this request to help facilitate a diverse and abundant energy
development strategy. From supporting onshore development through
increased USGS funding in mineral assessments, to offshore development,
with the re-initiation of the 5-year plan process, you've committed to
making America stronger through energy security.
I am also pleased with the Administration's commitment to improve
management of existing Federal lands and resources rather than growing
the bureaucracy and siphoning money from productive uses to expand
Federal land acquisition. This includes prioritizing resources to
address the Park Service's massive deferred maintenance backlog.
A component of this strategy must include transferring or
exchanging surplus lands in and around local communities. To be clear,
this does not mean a wholesale transfer of our Federal lands. There are
special interests and voices out there spreading lies who want the
public to think these efforts amount to selling iconic parks or
landmarks, when nobody here is talking about that. We--members of both
political parties--are simply talking about resolving checkerboard land
issues, removing isolated and hard to manage parcels, and selectively
transferring certain lands to maximize the benefits of those lands to
local communities.
I've been very encouraged to hear your public statements about
improving self-determination for our First Americans, federally
recognized Indian tribes. Under previous administrations there's been a
lot of lip service paid to tribal self-determination, but actions have
consistently fallen short of the rhetoric. I look forward to working
with you to actually improve tribal control over tribal lands rather
than blockading economic opportunities for Indian Country.
The shared priorities of balancing our budget, improving land
management and expanding access can't be fully achieved without broader
reforms. So, in addition to our discussion on budget priorities, I also
look forward to hearing your thoughts on how this Committee can provide
the Administration with the tools necessary for it to succeed.
Amidst a nearly $20 trillion national debt that they inherited, I
commend President Trump and Secretary Zinke for putting forward a
responsible and strategic budget to leverage the Nation's natural
resources and to responsibly explore and develop America's energy
potential. This Committee is dedicated to working with you, the
Administration and our colleagues in Congress to build a better future
for the Department and the communities it serves.
I yield back.
______
The Chairman. Before I yield to Mr. Grijalva I do want to
make one formal announcement simply that deals with the decorum
under the Committee Rules, as well as the Rules of the House.
And I have to ask, since this is a formal Committee
hearing, that there not be any disruptions regarding the
testimony that is going to be given here today. It is important
to respect the decorum and the rules of the Committee and the
House, and to allow Members and the public to hear those
proceedings.
With that, I am appreciative, and I will yield to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary. Not too long ago you sat up here with us, and I am
sure you are full of fond memories of that experience and your
time with us. Being in the Majority is still more fulfilling, I
could tell you that, but our side has a role, an important
role. And we appreciate the opportunity to exercise our
oversight responsibility today, our shared oversight
responsibility. So, thank you very much for being here.
Much of what comes from the Trump White House is not true,
but the President's 2018 budget tells us the truth. My
Republican colleagues can run from it or claim this budget is
DOA, but this is an honest Republican budget. I don't mean the
math is honest, because it is not. This budget double counts
non-existent savings from tax cuts as a gimmick to pretend to
balance. The math in this budget is disingenuous, at best, and
needs to be treated as such.
But the budget is an honest reflection of Republican long-
held priorities. If Speaker Ryan brought an Interior
appropriations bill to the Floor that included a 10 percent
cut, as this proposal does, House Republicans would pass it.
It seems that every time we have a Republican in the White
House, we suddenly hear that the richest nation on earth is
flat broke, cannot afford these programs any more, and all of a
sudden the talk is about doing more with less, tightening our
belts, and making sacrifices. We don't see in this budget oil,
gas, mining making sacrifices, nor polluters funding cleanups
in the mess that they create and leave behind.
The budget reflects the bottomless desire for irresponsible
drilling and mining on every inch of public land. They even
insist on doing permanent damage to the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, even when we know it will not help average
Americans at all.
The budget reflects Republican's constant attacks on
science and repeated claims that climate change is fake. OMB
Director Mulvaney, who was a House Republican until recently,
told the truth when he said Republicans think spending on
climate change is a waste of money.
The budget reflects their endless campaign to sell off
public lands that the American people love. Years of Republican
bills and speeches demonizing Federal lands, and Federal
employees, prove that House Republicans support a budget that
would close national parks and force layoffs of Federal land
managers, as well.
Some of my Republican colleagues claim they support the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, but for years they have
allowed false claims about the program to go unchallenged. They
have voted to undermine the fund, and they even allowed it to
expire on their watch. Of course, they support a budget that
slashes LWCF funding by 85 percent.
This budget reflects the Republican belief that this
generation of politicians gets to decide which species go
extinct, and their conviction that extinction is better than
reasonable limits on drilling or mining.
The budget guts the Fish and Wildlife Service and makes a
functioning Endangered Species Act impossible, and that is the
goal.
There is no confusion about where Democrats stand. We
support full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We support the funding levels needed to operate a world-class
system of national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands.
We believe our climate is changing and that money spent on
research, stopping pollution, and mitigation are the most
important investments we can make. We support Federal spending
to improve the health of our oceans and fisheries. We support
funding for programs that pull endangered species back from the
brink. And, we support investments to make permanent
improvements in the quality of life in Indian Country.
The President's misguided and irresponsible budget does
none of these things. The Trump budget is just standard
Republican talking points in budget form. The Trump budget is
the Republican vision for this country, spelled out in dollars
and cents.
Democrats have resisted these destructive proposals before,
and we will do so again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Much of what comes from the Trump White House is not true, but the
President's 2018 budget tells the truth. My Republican colleagues can
run from it, or claim this budget is ``DOA,'' but this is an honest
Republican budget.
I don't mean the math is honest, because it's not. This budget
double-counts non-existent savings from tax cuts as a gimmick to
pretend to balance. The math in this budget is a lie.
But this budget is an honest reflection of House Republicans' long-
held priorities. If Speaker Ryan brought an Interior appropriations
bill to the Floor that included a 10 percent cut, as this proposal
does, House Republicans would vote for it.
This budget reflects their bottomless desire for irresponsible
drilling and mining on every inch of public land. They even insist on
doing permanent damage to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even
when we know it won't help average Americans at all.
This budget reflects Republican's constant attacks on science and
repeated claims that climate change is fake. OMB Director Mulvaney--who
was a House Republican until recently--told the truth when he said
Republicans think spending on climate change is a waste of money.
This budget reflects their endless campaign to sell off public
lands that the American people love. Years of Republican bills and
speeches demonizing Federal lands--and Federal employees--prove that
House Republicans support a budget that would close national parks and
force layoffs of Federal land managers.
Some of my Republican colleagues claim they support the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, but for years they have allowed false claims
about the program to go unchallenged, they have voted to undermine the
Fund, and they even allowed it to expire on their watch. Of course,
they support a budget that slashes LWCF funding by 85 percent.
This budget reflects the Republican belief that this generation of
politicians gets to decide which species go extinct, and their
conviction that extinction is better than reasonable limits on drilling
or mining. A budget that guts the Fish and Wildlife Service, and makes
a functioning Endangered Species Act impossible, is what they want.
There is no confusion about where Democrats stand. We support full
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We support the
funding levels needed to operate a world-class system of national
parks, forests, refuges, and public lands. We believe our climate is
changing and that money spent on research, stopping pollution, and
mitigation are the most important investments we can make. We support
Federal spending to improve the health of our oceans and fisheries. We
support funding for programs that pull endangered species back from the
brink. And we support investments to make permanent improvements in the
quality of life in Indian Country.
The President's misguided and irresponsible budget does none of
these things. The Trump budget is just standard Republican talking
points in budget form. The Trump budget is the Republican vision for
this country, spelled out in dollars and cents.
Democrats have resisted these destructive proposals before, and we
will do so again.
______
Mr. Grijalva. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Otherwise, everything is OK,
right?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
The Chairman. All right, good. The Vice Chairman has waived
his right to give an opening statement, so we will go directly
to Mr. Zinke, if you would.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. It is the
Honorable Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, and you are accompanied by Olivia Barton Ferriter--
did I say that correctly--who is also the Deputy Assistant for
Budget and Finance within Interior, as well as Denise Flanagan
from the Director of the Office of Budget in the Interior
Department.
We welcome all three of you here. I remind our witnesses,
obviously, you all know how the 5-minute rule works. Also, the
microphones are not self-activated, so make sure you turn it on
before you speak there.
With that, welcome back, Secretary. It is all yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Zinke. Thank you. I am glad to see the tenor has
not changed between the Ranking Member and the Chairman. But
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and
it is indeed a deep honor to be on this side of the podium.
I do request permission to submit my entire statement for
the record.
So, the budget. This is what a balanced budget looks like.
It is a starting point. And it is good to have discussions on
what a balanced budget would look like. Many Members identify
areas of concern in it, and I completely understand that. But
you cannot ignore every year Congress goes through and looks at
raising the debt, and you cannot ignore a budget that is in
arrears.
So, while this budget focuses on savings for many of you, I
will also address the revenue picture. But this is what a
budget, a balanced budget, would look like. And there are tough
decisions, and it is good to have honest dialogue about them.
Second, I fully understand the Department of the Interior
touches the lives of more Americans than any other department.
In fact, nearly every American lives within an hour drive of
our public lands, enjoys our parks, our wildlife refuges, and
our public lands. Interior is not a partisan issue. Our public
lands are an American issue.
The President's budget itself proposes $11.7 billion, and
saves the taxpayers about $1.6 billion. We make strategic
investments to ensure that our Nation's energy and national
security are met, and we address core issues, and public
access.
The President's budget prioritizes an all-of-the-above
energy strategy that includes oil, gas, coal, and renewable
energies. The President does not favor one energy source over
another. It is an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We also
have a prudent focus on boosting revenue through legislative
proposals to raise $5.8 billion.
Let me talk about revenues. In 2008, the Department of the
Interior, on offshore alone, made about $18 billion a year.
Last year, we made $2.6 billion. We had a drop of $15.5 billion
a year on revenue. Some of it was the gas and oil prices, but
not all of it. When you add timber, when you add onshore, the
picture gets worse.
So, when we talk about $11.5 billion behind on
infrastructure in our parks, which represents 73 percent of
infrastructure in the Department, on scale, we would have made
up our entire backlog plus $3 billion of additional investment
to fund programs, schools, and honor our Indian trust in 1
year. That is the scale of what occurred.
There are two sides of every balance sheet: there are the
revenues and the expenses. As a Secretary, I immediately signed
a Secretarial Order to look at revenues across the board. I re-
established the Committee on Revenues. And revenues, we are
looking at every enterprise that operates on public land,
whether it is wind, gas, oil, coal, across the board, because I
want to make sure that the American public's interest is met.
If you are going to operate on public land, then the
stakeholder is us, the public. I want to make sure that our
rules and regulations are not arbitrary, trust but verify, and
the American public interest is served.
When it comes to infrastructure, we plan to take care of
what we have first. So, yes, the LWCF program, which I have
always supported, what has dropped is additional land
acquisition. It does not prevent such things as conservation
easement programs, but more land has dropped from the budget as
it sits today. It is a starting point.
And I have always supported LWCF, but over the course of
time LWCF is funded through offshore assets. So, when offshore
assets, oil and gas, go to the bottom, so does the fund. But
having said that, over the course of time there is $20 billion
of unappropriated funds in LWCF. Was that the intent?
Even though every year money comes in, whether this gets
appropriated or not is a congressional issue. Same as, and it
is worse, over in Reclamation. There is about $20 billion in
Reclamation that has not been tasked either. Those funds were
for one thing, to build our water, our rural, and projects, so
there is an appropriation issue, as well, that we will address.
The budget calls for a $35 million increase, for a total of
$766 million for national parks infrastructure. And if you want
to look at our infrastructure of the national parks, I invite
you to look at Arlington. It is a national disgrace. And it
just didn't happen in the last 8 years. But our Park Service,
our assets, deferred maintenance has been a problem. But if you
want to look, go to Arlington. The shutters are falling off,
the garden grounds are unacceptable. The building itself is in
ruin. And that is hallowed ground, and it is not very far from
here.
We fully fund fire suppression. This Committee has talked
about it year after year after year of why we have to spend
billions of dollars every year fighting forest fires. The
Forest Service, which is not part of the Department of the
Interior, has 71 million acres of dead and dying timber. It
will not happen on BLM land. So, we have purposely funded fire
suppression to get the dead and dying timber off our public
lands so we don't have to fight the forest fires.
We found savings in Federal land acquisitions. I talked
about eliminating some programs and allowing states and local
communities in private partnership to take a bigger play. At
the end of the day, we made tough decisions.
Payment in Lieu of Taxes, for the first time in a long
time, we put $397 million in Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Last
year, there was zero. So, we put it in the discretionary side
as a marker. I don't know what is going to happen on the SRS
side, but on PILT, that is $397 million plus-up from last
budget. Although it doesn't fully fund it, it is a plus-up from
last budget.
So, yes, this is a starting point. But I want everyone to
realize this is a starting point of a balanced budget. And
there are fundamental differences on what programs should get
funded, and this is why we are here. I look forward to working
with you, I look forward to working on both sides. I know you,
personally.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zinke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 2018
President's Budget for the Department of the Interior, which provides
$11.7 billion for Interior's programs, with an additional $123.9
million of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations requested
to be transferred to the Department of the Interior to support
enactment of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau.
Because of the timing between enactment of the Fiscal Year 2017
Omnibus Appropriations Act and submission of the Fiscal Year 2018
President's Budget, my statement compares requested funding to the
Fiscal Year 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution unless otherwise
noted.
2018 budget priorities
The 2018 budget for the Department of the Interior features
targeted investments to further the Administration's America First
national energy goals. At the same time, this budget reflects the
President's commitment to fiscal responsibility--proposing sensible and
rational reductions and making hard choices to reach a balanced budget
by 2027.
Across Interior's diverse mission, this budget emphasizes the
Department's crucial role in promoting economic growth. America's lands
hold tremendous job-creating assets. Visitors to our parks spend more
than $18.4 billion in local gateway communities, supporting
approximately 318,000 jobs and contributing $34.9 billion into the
national economy according to the 2016 National Park Service Visitor
Spending Effects Report.
In 2016, the Department's energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry
activities resulted in $8.8 billion in revenue to the American people,
including direct revenue payments to states, tribes, and local
communities. These same activities supported $136 billion in economic
output. The Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation invests over $1
billion in safe, reliable, and efficient management of water resources
throughout the western United States. In addition, direct grants and
payments to states, tribes, and local communities provided an estimated
$10 billion in economic output.
The Department's 2018 budget reflects the Administration's
commitment to strengthen America's economic and energy security, focus
on the Nation's infrastructure, be responsible stewards of magnificent
lands, encourage public access for outdoor recreation, and strengthen
tribal sovereignty and support self-determination.
america's energy
The Department is the steward and manager of America's natural
resources, including oil, gas, coal, hydropower, minerals, and
renewable energy sources. The Department has a critical role to play in
the future energy security of our Nation as well as our overall
economic well-being. American energy resources create jobs and generate
significant revenue both to the U.S. Treasury and states. This budget
proposes $791.2 million in current and permanent funding for energy
related programs across the Department, an increase of $16.3 million
from 2017. The 2018 budget supports an ``all-of-the-above'' energy
development strategy, increasing funding for onshore and offshore oil
and gas, strengthening coal management activities, and sustaining the
current pace of renewable energy development.
The budget reflects the importance of offshore energy production to
America's economic and energy security. The 2018 budget shores up
offshore oil and gas programs with appropriated funding to continue a
strong offshore program. The request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management features a $10.2 million increase to update the Five-Year
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, consistent with
the President's Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore
Energy Strategy to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and
production. The 2018 budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement includes a $1.2 million increase to focus on workforce
training, permitting, and information technologies to better permit
exploration, development, and production operations.
Onshore, the budget requests a $16.0 million increase for the
Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas management program, providing a
total of $75.9 million in appropriated funds focused on improving oil
and gas permit application processing, streamlining leasing, and
modernizing practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million for the
BLM coal management program, an $8.0 million increase to reduce
administrative processing times, simplify the lease application
process, and improve the timeliness to complete lease sale fair market
value determinations.
The 2018 budget includes $78.1 million for Renewable Energy
programs both on and offshore. Although a reduction from prior years,
this funding level will sustain the current pace of development at a
level consistent with anticipated project interest.
To ensure the public continues to receive the full value of natural
resources production on Federal lands, in April, I signed a charter
establishing a Royalty Policy Committee of 28 local, tribal, state, and
other stakeholders to advise me on the fair market value of and revenue
collection from Federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including
renewable energy sources.
the nation's infrastructure
Interior plays an important role in maintaining and improving the
Nation's infrastructure. Interior's national role includes managing
significant real property assets as well as conducting reviews and
processing permits to support national infrastructure development as
part of a balanced multiple land use strategy.
Interior's 2018 budget maintains the 2017 level of $98.8 million
for Fish and Wildlife Service planning and consultation activities.
This level maintains the FWS capability to meet its legal consultation
requirements and avoid logjams that could delay infrastructure projects
and associated economic benefits. The BLM budget also directs base
funding to address siting for energy transmission projects, and
proposes an increase in the oil and gas management program to
facilitate rights-of-way associated with energy development projects.
Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio with a
replacement value exceeding $300 billion, ranging from elementary and
secondary schools serving Indian children, to highways and bridges
serving the daily commuting needs of the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area. Interior owns approximately 43,000 buildings, 100,000 miles of
road, and 80,000 structures--including iconic landmarks, as well as
dams, bridges, laboratories, employee housing, and irrigation and power
infrastructure. Taking care of this significant asset portfolio is a
persistent challenge. Interior's deferred maintenance backlog has grown
to over $15 billion in 2016. Construction and maintenance funding
across the Department totals $1.4 billion in 2018, not including the
Bureau of Reclamation.
From my first day on the job, one of my top priorities has been to
prioritize efforts to address the National Park Service maintenance
backlog. Our National Parks have 73 percent of Interior's deferred
maintenance backlog while hosting 324 million visitors last year. The
2018 budget for NPS includes $236.3 million for construction and
deferred maintenance projects, an increase of $21.0 million from 2017.
Total estimated funding for NPS maintenance and construction needs
including estimated recreation fee revenue is $765.7 million, an
increase of $34.7 million from Fiscal Year 2017. This increase will
support targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS'
highest priority assets, including the first phase of repairs to the
Arlington Memorial Bridge project.
america's lands
In my first days in office, I issued two Secretarial Orders to
expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and
recreation opportunities nationwide. The 2018 budget includes $4.4
billion for the Department's land management operations in the NPS,
FWS, and the BLM. While a reduction of $354.3 million from 2017, this
figure includes funding for operational programs as well as management
and maintenance of the national parks, national wildlife refuges, and
BLM's network of national conservation lands. Within land management
operations, the budget prioritizes funding to protect and conserve
America's public lands and natural resources, provide access to public
lands for the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts, and ensure
visitor safety.
To support land management priorities, funding for lower priority
activities, such as Federal land acquisition projects, is reduced. The
2018 budget emphasizes taking care of our current assets, rather than
adding more by purchasing new land. Accordingly, the budget for land
acquisition programs is $54.0 million, $129.1 million below 2017. A
small amount of funding is maintained in each bureau for emergencies or
acquisition of inholdings needed to improve management of established
areas or to increase public access.
To better manage and balance these responsibilities, the Department
relies on its front-line land managers, field scientists, and partners
to monitor, assess, and collect information about the status of
resource conditions. Interior's U.S. Geological Survey is the Nation's
leading source of expertise in earth and natural sciences and works
closely with other Departmental bureaus and state, local, tribal and
other Federal partners to help resource managers adapt to changing
conditions on the ground. The 2018 budget includes $922.2 million for
USGS programs, to focus on core science activities including land and
water resources, energy and minerals, mapping, ecosystems, invasive
species, natural hazards, and environmental health.
The 2018 request budgets responsibly for the Payments in Lieu of
Taxes program. The budget includes $397 million for these payments as
part of the discretionary request, to ensure continued support to the
communities neighboring the Department's and other Federal lands
without assuming enactment of separate legislation. The 2018 level for
PILT is reduced 12 percent below the 2017 CR level, consistent with the
total reduction in the Interior budget.
A key component of the Department's land stewardship is management
of wildland fire. The 2018 budget provides $389.4 million for wildfire
suppression--the full 10-year average of suppression expenditures. This
level of funding is projected to be sufficient to meet fire suppression
needs in an average fire season without the risk of needing emergency
transfers from other departmental accounts.
america's waters
The 2018 budget also continues efforts to address the challenges of
water availability and drought conditions.
The Department, primarily through the Bureau of Reclamation, works
with states, tribes, local governments, and non-governmental
organizations to pursue a sustainable water supply for the West by
providing Federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of
water. The 2018 budget continues these efforts to address the
challenges of water availability.
Interior's $1.1 billion budget request for Reclamation invests in
our water and power infrastructure, facilitating the delivery of water
to 31 million people across the West. It is the Nation's largest
renewable energy resource, and the Bureau of Reclamation plays an
important role as the second largest producer of hydropower in the
United States.
This budget also continues to strengthen our Tribal Nations by
implementing Indian water rights settlements, and focuses on the
protection and restoration of aquatic and riparian environments to
ensure we can continue to provide a reliable water supply and power to
the West.
america's trust responsibilities
Interior maintains strong and important relationships with Native
and insular communities, helping to promote efficient and effective
governance and to support nation-building and self-determination. The
Department provides services directly, or through contracts, grants or
compacts, to 567 federally recognized tribes with a service population
of nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The budget
prioritizes support for programs serving the broadest service
population and proposes reductions in initiatives that are more
narrowly focused. The President's budget maintains the Administration's
strong support for the principle of tribal self-determination, and
efforts to strengthen tribal communities across Indian Country. The
budget includes full funding for Contract Support Costs and Tribal
Grant Support Costs that tribes incur from managing Federal Indian
programs.
The 2018 budget request includes $786.4 million to continue support
for core Indian education programs, including formula funding and
operation and maintenance funding for elementary and secondary schools,
and support for post-secondary programs. The 2018 budget continues to
meet Federal responsibilities outlined in enacted land and water rights
claim settlements with Indian tribes, and includes $160.8 million for
authorized settlements and technical and legal support involving tribal
water rights, to maintain the Department's ability to complete these
settlement requirements within the statutory time frames.
In recognition of the importance of the Nation's relationship with
Palau and the Pacific national security strategy, the budget requests
$123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations to
be transferred to the Department of the Interior to support enactment
of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau.
management and reform
As part of the President's March 2017, Executive Order on a
Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the executive branch, the
Administration launched a government-wide effort to create a leaner,
more efficient, and more responsive government. The Order directs
agencies to begin planning to operate at the funding levels in the 2018
budget and develop a broader Agency Reform Plan to address long-term
workforce reductions. Interior is moving prudently with implementation
and has put in place hiring controls to enable limited hiring,
prioritizing filling field positions rather than office positions, and
limiting hires in the Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, areas. This
process enables the Department to continue to fill important positions
as work is underway to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful agency
plan.
The 2018 budget reduces lower priority programs $1.6 billion below
2017 and supports 59,968 full time equivalents. This represents an
estimated reduction of roughly 4,000 full time equivalent staff from
2017. To accomplish this, the Department will rely on a combination of
attrition, reassignments, and separation incentives. Actual attrition
rates and acceptance of separation incentives will determine the need
for further action to reduce staffing.
Reducing the Department's physical footprint and seeking ways to
consolidate space and resources will continue to be management
objectives going forward. Efforts will build on several multi-year
actions to reduce Interior's nationwide facilities footprint and
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its information technology
infrastructure and financial reporting capabilities. Ensuring the
Department's cybersecurity strength continues to be a priority. The
2018 budget maintains $10.0 million in the appropriated working capital
fund to continue the Department's remediation of its cybersecurity
systems and processes.
bureau highlights
Bureau of Land Management--The 2018 request for the BLM is $1.1
billion, a decrease of $162.7 million below the 2017 CR level and
$180.5 million below the 2017 enacted level. The budget proposes $963.2
million for Management of Lands and Resources and $89.8 million for
Oregon and California Grant Lands, BLM's two primary operational
appropriation accounts.
The BLM request features increases in oil, gas and coal management
programs reflecting national energy security priorities. The budget
proposes $75.9 million for Oil and Gas Management to support permitting
and rights-of-way processing, streamline leasing, and modernize
practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million to strengthen BLM's
Coal Management program, an increase of $8.0 million from 2017.
To maintain the BLM's land stewardship responsibilities, the budget
includes $67.8 million for Rangeland Management and $70.7 million for
the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. As part of a broader
effort to consider all necessary options to manage the unsustainable
growth of this program, the budget proposes to eliminate current
appropriations language restricting the BLM's ability to use the tools
provided in the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and enable
BLM to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. The budget
also proposes $47.2 million for Recreation Resources Management and
$27.7 million to continue support for the National Conservation Land
areas.
The budget includes $89.8 million for the Oregon and California
Grant Lands programs. At this level, the budget prioritizes offering
the allowable sale quantity in new resource management plans.
Mineral development on Federal lands is important to the national
economy. However, a long-standing challenge is to provide a fair return
to taxpayers for the use of these natural resources without
discouraging development. To meet this challenge, the Department will
conduct a study starting in 2017 to evaluate the production and
development of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. The review will
include an analysis of revenue recovered by other entities, including
other countries, which permit mining on their land. The Department will
also consult with other appropriate agencies, such as the Department of
Agriculture. The findings will be considered as part of ongoing efforts
to improve agency management and streamline permitting related to
natural resources produced from Federal lands.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--The 2018 President's budget for
BOEM is $171.0 million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including
$114.2 million in current appropriations and $56.8 million in
offsetting collections from rental receipts and cost recoveries. The
budget maintains a level program by increasing appropriated funding by
$35.5 million to address a commensurate shortfall in estimated
offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries. The 2018 budget
features a $10.2 million increase to support the development of a new
Five-Year Plan for the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement--The 2018
President's budget request for BSEE is $204.9 million, slightly above
the 2017 CR level, including $112.0 million in current appropriations
and $92.9 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts, cost
recoveries, and inspection fees. The budget maintains a strong offshore
safety and environmental enforcement program by increasing
appropriations and estimated inspection fee revenue to address
anticipated shortfalls in offsetting rental receipts and other cost
recoveries. The 2018 budget includes a $1.2 million increase for
technical training to expand staff development efforts for BSEE's
inspector, engineer, and geoscientist workforce, and $12.7 million for
oil spill research, a reduction of $2.2 million from 2017.
Bureau of Reclamation--The 2018 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation is $1.1 billion in discretionary appropriations. This
figure reflects a decrease of 13.1 percent from the 2017 CR level. Of
the total, $960 million is for the Water and Related Resources account,
Reclamation's largest account; $59 million is for the Policy and
Administration account; $37 million is for the California Bay Delta
Restoration account; and $41.4 million is for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement--The 2018
budget request for OSMRE is $129.4 million in current appropriations,
$110.7 million below the 2017 CR level. The majority of this reduction
reflects the elimination of $89.9 million for Abandoned Mine Lands
Economic Development Grants. Although beneficial, funding for this
pilot program overlaps with existing mandatory Abandoned Mine Lands
grants which continue without any proposed changes. The budget includes
$60.2 million for state and tribal regulatory grants, a level
consistent with anticipated state and tribal program obligations.
U.S. Geological Survey--The 2018 budget request for the USGS is
$922.2 million, $137.8 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget
includes $70.9 million for satellite operations, which supports
continued development of the Landsat 9 ground systems, supporting a
launch date in early Fiscal Year 2021 to replace the Landsat 7
satellite, which is reaching the end of its usable life.
The request emphasizes energy and mineral development, supporting
essential hazards monitoring, and providing scientific information to
support decision making by resource managers and policy makers. The
budget maintains support for nationwide networks of more than 8,000
streamgages and nearly 3,000 earthquake sensors. The request provides
$17.3 million for nationwide efforts to counter invasive species and
wildlife diseases such as white-nose syndrome and highly pathogenic
avian influenza, and the budget maintains $17.3 million for 40
cooperative research units that support state-specific needs,
particularly related to fish and game species. It continues acquisition
of modern elevation data for Alaska and the 3-year cycle of topographic
map updates for the contiguous United States.
The 2018 request proposes to realign the 2018 budget structure to
create a new Land Resources activity to reflect focused science related
to on-the-ground land management and adaptive management challenges. As
part of this request, the budget proposes $17.4 million for the
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers, reflecting
the proposed consolidation of eight regional centers to four.
Fish and Wildlife Service--The 2018 President's budget requests
$1.3 billion for FWS programs, a decrease of $202.9 million from the
2017 CR level. The budget includes $1.2 billion for FWS operations, a
decrease of $85.3 million below 2017. Within Resource Management, the
budget prioritizes funding to maintain operations and maintenance for
the National Wildlife Refuge System ($470.1 million) and the National
Fish Hatchery System ($51.9 million). Funding will continue operations
for all refuge areas and hatchery sites.
The budget includes $225.2 million for Ecological Services programs
with an emphasis on species recovery and planning consultation
activities. Consistent with efforts to focus adaptive management
related science within the USGS, the request proposes to eliminate
funding for Science Support at $17.0 million and Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives at $13.0 million.
The budget is $118.6 million for FWS conservation grants including
$52.8 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, $33.6 million for
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $19.3 million for the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $9.0 million for the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and $3.9 million for
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. Consistent with decreases in
other land acquisition programs across the Department, the request
proposes to eliminate funding for Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund land acquisition grants.
National Park Service--The 2018 President's budget request for NPS
is $2.6 billion, $296.6 million below the 2017 CR level.
The budget proposes $2.2 billion for NPS operations. Within this
account, funding is prioritized for the care and maintenance of
existing resources. The budget includes $99.3 million for repair and
rehabilitation projects, which addresses the deferred maintenance
backlog, as well as $112.7 million for cyclic maintenance projects,
which ensures maintenance is conducted in a timely fashion to avoid
increasing the deferred maintenance backlog.
The budget proposes $226.5 million for Construction projects, an
increase of $34.0 million to help address deferred maintenance and
allow for targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS's
highest priority assets. Within this request is $18.2 million for phase
one construction requirements for the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Also
included in the request is $15.0 million in appropriated funds for the
Centennial Challenge program to provide the Federal match to leverage
partner donations for signature projects and programs. An additional
$15.0 million from fee revenue is also anticipated for 2018 to support
Centennial projects.
The request provides $37.0 million for National Recreation and
Preservation programs to support local community efforts to preserve
natural and cultural resources. The budget assumes savings of $18.8
million from the proposed elimination of payments to National Heritage
Areas. The 2018 budget includes $51.1 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund core grants-in-aid programs. The budget proposes to
shift support for Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants from
appropriated to mandatory funding comparable to an estimated $90
million the program will receive from oil and gas activities from
certain Gulf of Mexico offshore leases.
Indian Affairs--The 2018 President's budget request for Indian
Affairs is $2.5 billion, $303.3 million below the 2017 CR level.
Funding for Operation of Indian Programs totals $2.1 billion, a
decrease of $181.1 million below 2017. In 2018, priority is given to
programs serving the broadest audience rather than initiatives or
pilots. Within this total is $786.4 million for Bureau of Indian
Education programs where funding focuses on direct school operations
and full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs. The main operating
account also includes $349.3 million for Public Safety and Justice
programs and $277.5 million for Trust Services programs, which includes
the elimination of the Tribal Climate Resilience program.
The budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $241.6 million,
$35.4 million below 2017, which will cover all anticipated requirements
at the requested program funding level. The budget requests $143.3
million for Construction programs. The 2018 budget prioritizes dams,
irrigation projects, and irrigation systems which deliver water to aid
economic development as well as protect lives, resources, and property.
The budget prioritizes funding within education construction for
operations and maintenance of existing facilities. The budget also
includes $14.0 million to provide payments to ongoing Indian Land and
Water settlements and $6.7 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan
Program.
Departmental Offices
Office of the Secretary--The 2018 budget request for Departmental
Operations is $123.9 million, $596.5 million below the 2017 CR. The
majority of this reduction is $451.1 million associated with the shift
of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program which was appropriated within
Departmental Operations in 2017. In 2018, the budget proposes to fund
PILT as discretionary funding within Department-wide Programs. The
budget also reflects the proposed transfer of $140.3 million associated
with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue to a new appropriation
within Department-wide Programs. The proposed transfer of ONRR funding
will increase transparency in the budget for the Department's energy
revenue programs. The 2018 request for remaining Office of Secretary
programs reflects a reduction of $4.0 million from central program
management activities across the Office of the Secretary organization.
Of this, $2.6 million is associated with reductions to the Office of
Valuation Services consistent with the proposed Department-wide
decrease for new land acquisition.
Office of Insular Affairs--The 2018 OIA budget request is $84.3
million, $19.0 million below the 2017 CR. In addition, the majority of
OIA's budget proposal reflects a request to fully fund the renegotiated
Compact with Palau by transferring $123.9 million from the Department
of Defense, rather than $13.1 million in extended incremental annual
payments. The Compact is an important element of the Pacific national
security strategy.
Office of the Solicitor--The 2018 budget proposes $65.7 million for
the Office of the Solicitor, the same as the 2017 CR level, to provide
legal counsel, administer the Department's ethics program, and help
resolve legal issues among bureaus and offices as they fulfill their
duties.
Office of Inspector General--The 2018 budget proposes $50.0 million
for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the 2017 CR level, to
continue support for audit and investigations across the Department.
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians--The 2018 budget
requests $119.4 million for OST, $19.4 million below the 2017 CR level.
The budget proposes a $3.7 million reduction below 2017 in Field
Operations reflecting prioritization of services to continue operations
at the beneficiary call center. A reduction of $3.1 million is proposed
within Historical Trust Accounting in expectation of reduced
requirements. Smaller additional reductions are taken across the
organization.
Department-wide Programs
Payments in Lieu of Taxes--The 2018 budget proposes $396.9 million
in discretionary funding for PILT, a decrease of $54.3 million from the
comparable 2017 CR level of $451.1 million appropriated in Departmental
Operations in 2016. This is a reduction of 12 percent, commensurate
with the Department of the Interior's overall reduction from 2017 CR
budget levels.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue--The 2018 budget request
includes $137.8 million for ONRR's receipts management programs, a
decrease of $2.5 million below the comparable 2017 CR level of $140.3
million. The 2018 budget request proposes to transfer ONRR's receipts
management program from the Office of the Secretary's Departmental
Operations account to a separate appropriation within Department-wide
Programs to increase transparency of the program. The request includes
$3.5 million for anticipated contract cost increases for the Minerals
Revenue Management Support System.
Central Hazardous Materials Fund--The 2018 budget requests $2.0
million for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund, $8.0 million below
the 2017 CR. The budget request funds program management and legal
staff. The program will fund the highest priority remediation projects
based on the availability of recoveries and focus resources on
remediation projects with potentially responsible parties.
Wildland Fire Management--The 2018 budget request for the Wildland
Fire Management Program is $873.5 million. The total request represents
a decrease of $118.3 million from the 2017 CR level for the Wildland
Fire Management and FLAME accounts. At this level the request provides
$389.4 million for Suppression Operations to fully fund the 10-year
average. To streamline financial management processes and improve the
efficiency in allocating suppression funding, the Department proposes
to fund all suppression activities in the Wildland Fire Management
account and eliminate the separate FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve
Fund account once all current balances in the FLAME account are drawn
down. The request also includes $322.2 million for Preparedness
activities, essentially level with 2017, and $149.5 million for Fuels
Management, $20.2 million below 2017.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration--The 2018
request for NRDAR is $4.6 million, a decrease of $3.2 million below the
2017 CR level. The budget includes funding needed for ongoing damage
assessments and restoration activities.
Working Capital Fund--The 2018 budget proposes $59.5 million for
the appropriated portion of the Department's Working Capital Fund, a
decrease of $7.5 million from the 2017 CR level. The reduction is from
funds requested for the Financial and Business Management System which
is proposed at $46.3 million. The request maintains $10.0 million for
Department-wide Cybersecurity needs.
legislative proposals
Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer--The Administration is
developing a proposal to better facilitate title transfer of
Reclamation facilities to non-Federal entities when such transfers are
beneficial to all parties. This proposal will allow local water
managers to make their own decisions to improve water management at the
local level, while allowing Reclamation to focus management efforts on
projects with a greater Federal nexus.
Cancel Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Account
Balances--The budget proposes legislation to cancel $230.0 million in
unobligated balances from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act program over a 3-year period. This would redirect a portion of the
program balances to the Treasury for broader taxpayer use. The SNPLMA
program is not proposed for elimination and viable conservation efforts
will continue to be supported.
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act Payments--The Administration
proposes to repeal revenue sharing payments to four coastal states--
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--and their local
governments, which are currently set to expand substantially starting
in 2018. This proposal will ensure the sale of public resources from
Federal waters owned by all Americans, benefits all Americans.
Mandatory funding for LWCF State Grants would continue, but this
legislative proposal would replace GOMESA's complicated allocation
formula with a fixed annual appropriation of a comparable dollar
amount, starting at $90.0 million in 2018 and increasing to $125.0
million in 2022 and remaining at $125.0 million each year thereafter.
Land and Water Conservation Fund--The LWCF receipts authorization
expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2018 and the Administration will
review options for reauthorization, including consideration of a range
of conservation-related investments that could be funded through the
LWCF.
Oil and Gas Leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--The
Administration will propose legislation to allow oil and gas leasing in
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also known as
the ``1002 area.'' The budget assumes lease sales would begin in 2022
or 2023, allowing adequate time for the completion of appropriate
environmental reviews and an updated assessment of the state of the oil
and gas market and lease bidding potential prior to scheduling specific
lease sales. An additional lease sale or sales would be held in 2026 or
2027. Lease sales in the ANWR are estimated to generate $3.5 billion in
bonus bids to be split between the U.S. Treasury and the state of
Alaska. The proposal is estimated to generate a net of $1.8 billion in
new revenue to the Treasury over 10 years.
Reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act--The
budget assumes permanent reauthorization of FLTFA's land sale
authority, allowing Interior to dispose of lands with low conservation
value and use the proceeds to acquire lands with higher conservation
values, consistent with the original FLTFA mandate.
Recreation Fee Program--The budget proposes to permanently
reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which
currently expires in September 2018. As a precaution, appropriations
language is also submitted with the budget proposing a 1-year extension
through September 2019. The revenues collected by Interior from these
recreation fees--nearly $290 million annually--are an important source
of funding for land management operations, maintenance, and
improvements to recreation facilities on public lands.
Termination of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties--The budget
proposes to restore Federal geothermal leasing revenue allocations to
the historical formula of 50 percent to the states and 50 percent to
the U.S. Treasury by repealing Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
offsetting collections and fees
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Offshore Inspection
Fees--The budget includes appropriations language to amend the current
fee structure for BSEE inspection fees to better align with BSEE's
inspection practices and program costs. The language structures fees
charged for the inspection of offshore facilities to distinguish
between those ``without processing equipment'' or ``with processing
equipment'' and incorporate consideration of the number of wells and
water depth. These changes to the fee structure are estimated to
generate $65.0 million in 2018.
National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery--The budget includes
appropriations language to authorize the FWS to retain recoveries from
responsible parties to restore or replace damages they cause. This is
similar to authorities provided to the NPS for damages to national
parks and monuments.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2018
budget request for the Department of the Interior.
In closing, this is a responsible budget to help balance the
Federal budget by 2027. It maintains core functions important to the
American people, including providing the public the unique American
experience that comes from visiting our parks, refuges, and public
lands. It reflects tough choices to prioritize and focus limited
resources where investments have the most impact, but continues to
deliver access and services which are critical to Americans. I thank
you again for your continued support of the Department's mission. I
look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes
my written statement.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Ryan Zinke, Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Rep. McClintock
Question 1. There are some 150 conservation corps across the
Nation. These corps have a long tradition of stewardship of our public
lands and waters. By partnering with corps, land managers leverage
their budgets with cost-effective projects that reduce the multi-
billion-dollar maintenance backlog, remediate wildfires, curb the
spread of invasive species, improve access to public lands, build and
maintain trails, and ensure good fish and wildlife habitat for
enthusiasts, hunters, and anglers.
-- Are you aware of any impediments that have limited growth of this
program?
Answer. Interior bureaus have a long history of collaborating with
a wide variety of volunteer groups, education partners and youth
organizations including conservation corps. These partnerships assist
land managers in maintaining resources in a cost effective manner while
providing participants with developmental jobs skills training and
education. Not all of the work done by land management agencies can be
done by conservation corps, but we are not aware of any impediments to
using these partnerships, to the extent that our resources permit,
where it is appropriate to do so.
Question 2. After years of talking and concerted efforts by
telecommunications companies and concessioners, too many front country
areas of our national parks and too many key road corridors in our
parks still offer no cellular or WiFi connectivity. There are safety
issues and lost opportunities to boost park experiences with helpful
visitor information.
-- Does the FY 2018 budget envision additional WiFi connectivity
requests for proposals?
-- Will this be one of your priorities as Secretary?
Answer. Yes, one of my top priorities is to expand recreational
access to public lands and waters, and connectivity is one way to
achieve this goal. As I have previously remarked, in parks, we're the
old generation; the young generation appreciates connectivity and we
should embrace that to make sure the park experience going down a trail
is available on your phone. We will look to build public-private
partnerships to make our outdoor recreation experience even better.
Question 3. Across the National Park System stays are down. RV
overnights in national park campgrounds are down more than 2 million,
or almost 50 percent, at a time when the RV market is booming. Recently
while speaking to the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association you
stated, ``As the secretary, I don't want to be in the business of
running campgrounds.''
-- Does the FY 2018 budget include a major push to improve and
transfer campground operations?
Answer. This budget is focused on leveraging public-private
partnerships in order to improve visitor experiences on public lands
and waters, while also helping to reduce the Department's maintenance
backlog. The Park Service has a long history of working with our
partners and concessioners to create positive experiences for visitors.
We look to improve and build upon that cooperation.
Question 4. Mr. Secretary, you have previously stated that one of
your top priorities as Secretary was to increase employee morale and
ensure that employees on the front lines have the right tools,
resources, and flexibility to make the decisions to get their jobs
done. According to the 2016 Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government rankings compiled by the Partnership for Public Service and
based on OPM's annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, employee
engagement at DOI has been improving since 2015. However, several of
the agency's components continue to rank low in their employee
engagement, including the Bureaus of Land Management, Indian Affairs
and the Park Service.
-- What are you doing to hold leadership across the Department
accountable for engaging employees? How can this Committee
help?
Answer. As I said at the hearing, we are looking at how to better
leverage and align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and
push assets and personnel where they should be. Accountability from
managers, for employee actions and program performance, will be an
important component as we move forward. We are reviewing a number of
comments on reform that we have received from the public and we expect
to include some proposals with the FY 2019 budget request.
Question 5. Within the Department of the Interior, agencies like
the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fish and
Wildlife Service frequently interact with citizens in their day-to-day
operations. As part of their 2015 cross-agency priority (CAP) goals,
agencies should be working to ensure the delivery of smarter, better
and faster service to their citizens.
-- What steps are Department and agency leaders taking to meet their
customer service CAP goals?
-- What is the agency doing to collect feedback from customers to
improve its service to citizens?
-- How is the Department incorporating citizens' experience into its
reform plan due to OMB on June 30?
Answer. I have said before that it is my belief that more
meaningful involvement and cooperation with communities closest to our
public lands will result in innovative ideas and practices as well as
better stewardship of the land and its resources. We are in the process
of updating the Department's strategic plan and, as part of this
process, are reviewing goals, objectives, and key performance
indicators to best reflect our team's priorities and main activities as
we look forward to the next 5 years. The Department's Annual
Performance Plan and Report for FY 2017-FY 2018 was released on May 26,
2017, www.doi.gov/bpp, and describes in some detail the agency's
priority goals.
Question 6. The government reorganization Executive Order and
subsequent OMB guidance attempt to align government reform efforts with
the Federal budget and performance planning processes. In response,
agencies are developing high-level reform and workforce reduction plans
outlining proposals to reduce duplication, increase efficiency and
maximize employee performance.
-- What are you doing as Secretary to lead reform and reshaping
efforts within the Department?
-- What actions will the Department take to reduce duplication in
its operations, increase the effectiveness and efficiency
of its services and maximize the performance of its staff?
Answer. As I said at the hearing, we are looking at how to better
leverage and align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and
push assets and personnel where they should be. We are reviewing a
number of comments on reform that we have received from the public and
we expect to include some proposals with the FY 2019 budget request.
Question 7. Just 14 percent of the DOI workforce falls under age
34, but 48 percent of the workforce is over 50. Filling positions in
remote locations and retaining employees are difficult issues for the
Department and, in particular, for organizations like the National Park
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management.
-- What barriers does the Department face in reaching and utilizing
entry-level talent to fill these key positions?
-- What steps is the Department taking to better attract, recruit,
and retain the next generation of public servants to solve
the Department's complex challenges?
Answer. Recent Government Accountability Office studies have
reported on the challenges that the Department and its bureaus have
faced in recruiting and retaining staff. It is important that we have
an effective workforce, particularly in those positions doing the work
on the ground. As part of my review of the Department's organization,
we are looking at how to better leverage and align bureau resources in
the field, cut duplication, and allocate assets and personnel more
effectively.
Question 8. Increasing Public Private Partnerships is one of the
many ways to help reduce the National Park Service maintenance backlog.
-- Which types of P3s do you believe will be most effective in
addressing the backlog while also upholding the guiding
principles of the NPS?
Answer. In July, I hosted a roundtable meeting focused on expanding
public-private partnerships on America's public lands in order to make
the outdoor recreation experience even better. Public-private
partnerships can help address the backlog by upgrading visitor
accommodations, including RV hookups and campgrounds, expanding visitor
services, including boat ramps and cafeterias, to name a few.
Question 9. Historic leasing is an example of a public-private
partnership that could help alleviate the deferred maintenance backlog.
-- What are your recommendations for how to expand this innovative
approach?
Answer. The Department is currently reviewing opportunities to
lease under-utilized Federal properties, both historic and non-
historic, as one approach to addressing the maintenance backlog.
Public-private partnerships will help reduce the Department's
maintenance backlog, while improving the visitor experience on public
lands and waters.
Question 10. What are the goals that the National Park Service
hoped to achieve with the Capital investment strategy?
-- Does the focus on the high-priority projects come at the expense
of lower-priority projects?
Answer. The President's budget proposes to balance the Federal
Government's budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be
identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we
currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot
be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Thompson
Question 1. Last year, EPA finalized a rule on Privately Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs). Since then, I've weighed in with the agency to
express great concern over its impact on treatment facilities in
Pennsylvania that appear to be inadvertently caught up in the
regulation. Although the rule was intended for unconventional
production, I've heard a lot of concern that water derived from
conventional production will also be subject to the regulation due to a
lack of definitions and the individual basins cited in the rule.
What is EPA doing to correct this problem and ensure that
conventionally derived wastewater is not subject to the POTW rule?
Answer. Because this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency and not the Department of the Interior,
we would defer to the EPA for a response to this question.
Question 2. I would like to request an update on the status of the
remedial action at the Folcroft Landfill, a property which was
purchased by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1980 and
incorporated into the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge under
legislative authority provided by Congress. In 2001, the property was
added to the National Priorities List (NPL). Congress initially
appropriated $11 million for the development of the Refuge, and then
increased funding to $19.5 million for expansion, including acquisition
of the Folcroft Landfill (P.L. 96-315). The legislative history of the
Refuge indicates that Congress intended a portion of the funds to be
directed toward investigation and on-going maintenance of the Folcroft
Landfill (P.L. 99-191). Guidance from the EPA requires the Agency to
consider future land use in the selection of a remedy. What
communication has the Department of the Interior had with the EPA
regarding the selection of a remedy for the Folcroft Landfill? What
remedies are under consideration? Are the remedies under consideration
by EPA consistent with the future use of the property outlined in the
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge's 2012 Comprehensive Conservation
Plan?
Question 3. What is the timeline for implementation of a remedy?
What role will the Department of the Interior play in the remediation
effort? Can you provide an estimate of the cost of the remediation?
What will be the contribution from the Department of the Interior and
other Federal agencies that have been identified as potentially
responsible parties? Are any of the $19.5 million appropriated by
Congress still available to fund this effort, or will additional
appropriations be necessary?
Question 4. What measures must be put in place by the Department of
the Interior to maintain the property once remediation efforts have
been completed?
Answer to Questions 2-4. During the 1980s and 1990s, the EPA and
FWS undertook several investigations of contamination within the
Folcroft Landfill and issued several reports of their findings.
EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement with a subset of
private potentially responsible parties, known as the Folcroft Landfill
Steering Committee (PRP Group), to perform a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The RI/FS work is
being conducted by the PRP Group with EPA oversight and in coordination
with the FWS. The Draft RI report, dated May 2017, was submitted to EPA
and FWS for review. Comments are currently being compiled and will be
forwarded to the PRP Group for inclusion in the final document. Once
the RI is completed, the FS, which discusses and evaluates potential
remedies for the Folcroft Landfill, will be performed and a FS Report
will be produced for the agencies' review and comment. It is
anticipated the draft FS Report will be submitted for review in 2019 or
2020. Once alternatives have been evaluated, EPA will select a
preferred remedy for the site in a Proposed Plan, which will be made
available for public review and comment. Upon receipt of public input,
EPA will publish a selected remedy in a Record of Decision. The FS
Report and Proposed Plan should have information regarding estimated
costs for the various remedy alternatives.
An integral part of the CERCLA process is the identification of
``legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standard(s),
requirement(s), criteria, or limitation(s)'' (ARARs) pursuant to the
Section 121(d). In May 2017, FWS provided EPA and the PRP Group with
ARARs for the Folcroft Landfill that include the Refuge's 2012
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and other relevant documents to
be considered with respect to future use of the Refuge. FWS has
emphasized that any response action selected for the site must comply
with these requirements in order to be compatible with the intended
purpose and future use of the Refuge. In addition, the Department
issued an Environmental Compliance Memorandum applicable to CERCLA
response actions on Department-managed lands; it states that the
Department must concur with a remedy that another agency selects for
Department-managed land, in order to grant access for implementation of
that remedy. This should ensure that FWS and the Refuge have an
adequate voice in determining the remedy for the Folcroft Landfill,
including ensuring that future land uses are appropriately considered.
Once a remedy has been selected for the Folcroft Landfill, EPA,
FWS, the PRP Group, and any other appropriate parties, will negotiate
the terms of funding and implementing the remedy. FWS does not
immediately have a response for the inquiry regarding the funds
appropriated from Congress in 1972 (P.L. 92-327), 1976 (P.L. 94-548),
and 1980 (P.L. 96-315), ``for acquisition of the Tinicum National
Environmental Center, for construction of environmental educational
center facilities, and for other development projects on the Center,''
(P.L. 96-315 July 25, 1980) but a search has commenced for records from
that time period to confirm the expenditures for these expressed
purposes.
Once a remedy has been implemented, FWS will amend its CCP to
include any necessary restrictions on activities (such as actions that
could disturb the integrity of the remedy), so that the proper
institutional or engineering controls are memorialized.
Questions Submitted by Rep. LaMalfa
Question 1. As we all know, the Endangered Species Act is in need
of significant reforms, with the success rate of species' moving from
endangered to fully recovered around 1-3 percent. In my district, the
Service's own scientists recommended de-listing the Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle, yet it remains listed today and imposes major costs to
flood protection and other projects.
Listing of other species, like the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged
Frog, has resulted in such low-impact events as a trail run being
canceled. Federal agencies actually believed humans running on existing
trails could negatively impact listed frogs. What is the Fish and
Wildlife Service doing to review the listing status for threatened or
endangered species which have been recommended for de-listing, like the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle?
Answer. I agree that ESA is in need of reforms and modernization so
it can operate in a more effective manner, which is why the Department
has testified before this Committee in support of certain bills
proposed by your colleagues. The FWS de-lists and down-lists species
when their status changes and resources are available. Getting species
off the list due to recovery is a priority, and allows us to focus our
attention and resources on species that need attention. The pace at
which de-listings and down-listings occur is dependent on resources
devoted to on-the-ground recovery implementation and the progress
toward recovery of individual species, as well as on the complexity of
status reviews and rulemakings. A total of $225.2 million is proposed
in the President's FY 2018 budget request to implement the ESA and
related programs under FWS's Ecological Services program, of which
$79.6 million is for recovery of species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. At these funding levels, the FWS will
continue to address approximately 50 species that have been identified
for potential de-listing or down-listing under the ESA based upon
recent 5-year status reviews. FWS plans on making final determinations
for six species currently proposed for de-listing in FY 2018.
Question 2. Last year, we saw the Fish & Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service issue conflicting requirements for
the operation of Shasta Dam, one demanding higher water releases, the
other demanding lower releases. These proposals would have dramatically
reduced water supplies for homes and farms.
Could centralizing responsibility for ESA-listed species with the
Fish & Wildlife Service prevent conflicting directives like these? For
example, having the Fish & Wildlife Service subsume the
responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service?
Answer. This Administration is examining all options to better
align agency resources in the field both within Interior and across the
Federal Government in order to reduce administrative duplication and
better leverage taxpayer dollars. This review includes consolidating
Interior bureaus with other Federal agencies. The Administration is
pursuing near- and long-term strategies to achieve a leaner, and more
accountable and efficient government.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Hice
Question 1. As you are aware, President Trump has asked for an all-
hands-on-deck approach to offshore research and development, and you
yourself signed an order on May 1, 2017 directing Interior to look at
the entire Gulf of Mexico region for potential drilling sites. However,
A.M. Kurta, acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, sent a letter to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), on April 26, 2017,
stating his belief that military training and related exercises in the
eastern Gulf necessitate a continuation of Congress' ban on drilling in
the area (see Letter on page 104).
Eastern Gulf Of Mexico--Shared Use with DoD
-- As a Navy SEAL Commander, you have a strong understanding of
the need for military preparedness. How do you reconcile
the mission of your Department to promote responsible
Federal offshore development with the DoD's mission of
military preparedness? Can the two co-exist if the
moratorium is lifted?
Answer. Yes, oil and natural gas exploration and development can
co-exist safely on the OCS, including in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
This is made evident by the fact that in the Central Gulf of Mexico
Planning Area (CPA) there are 822 active leases, 36 percent of all
leases in the CPA reside within DoD operations or warning areas. The
CPA contains the highest amount of oil and gas production on the OCS.
Another example is that out of the 23 total platforms on the Pacific
OCS, 11 reside within a DoD equity area. The Department and the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management work closely with the DoD to identify those
areas that industry may gain access to via the offshore oil and gas
leasing process and to develop lease terms and conditions that protect
DoD interests.
-- In the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, military preparedness operations
coincide with potential oil and gas development. This
requires constant, open communication and an understanding
and respect for the mission of both Departments occupying
the land. How will you coordinate with the DoD to ensure
mutual, responsible management of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico?
Answer. As with all offshore leasing programs and initiatives, BOEM
works closely with DoD under a Memorandum of Agreement that facilitates
the coordination of mutual concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf. DoD
is consulted early in the leasing program development process and
collaboration is maintained all the way through the individual lease
sale execution.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) ``National
Oil and Gas Leasing Program'' (previously known as the 5-
Year Plan)
-- You've called a new 5-year plan, now known as a ``National Oil
and Gas Leasing Program.'' How will the new plan differ
from the previously approved plan?
Answer. The new plan is being developed under the same process
prescribed by the OCS Lands Act as all other recent 5-year programs. As
we are early in the new program development it is not possible to say
if, or how, the new program may differ from the current approved
program.
Atlantic
-- In order to responsibly manage our Nation's natural resources,
we must first account for what we have. Please explain the
importance of conducting geological and geophysical
research in our offshore areas, and how we can use this
information to make informed decisions regarding resource
management.
Answer. The main objective of the acquisition and analysis of
geological and geophysical data is the development of maps and other
information that can guide and inform our work on the OCS. This is done
by incorporating the data acquired through G&G surveys and analyzing
technical information, which develops a basic knowledge of the geologic
history of an area and its effects on hydrocarbon or strategic/critical
minerals generation, distribution, and accumulation within the planning
area. G&G surveys are not used exclusively for oil and gas exploration.
Seismic surveys, which include geologic coring, are also helpful in
identifying sand used for restoration of our Nation's beaches and
barrier islands following severe weather events and for protecting
coasts and wetlands from erosion. Recent examples of BOEM's sand
restoration projects include New Jersey, where Long Beach Island has
been restored in response to erosion caused by Hurricane Sandy and
Louisiana, where 1,100 acres of marsh, dune, and beach habitat at
Whiskey Island have been reconstructed. Seismic and geologic coring
surveys also provide information that is vital to the siting and
development of offshore renewable energy facilities. G&G surveys also
help to advance fundamental scientific knowledge and are currently
conducted in the Gulf of Mexico and in countries around the world.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
Sacred Sites:
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, without thoughtful review, land
management decisions relating to mining and energy development have the
potential to degrade and desecrate sacred sites, areas, and landscapes.
How will your approach to energy development on public lands comply
with the Federal Government's legal and moral obligation to protect and
preserve sacred places and Native Peoples' religious cultural rights
and practices?
Answer. I strongly believe the Department can responsibly develop
energy resources while working in coordination with tribes on a
government-to-government basis. I am committed to working with tribes
to ensure meaningful consultation on land management decisions occurs,
not only with the Bureau of Land Management, but also with other
cooperating bureaus that would have an impact on tribes.
Tribal Climate Resilience:
Question 2. Are American Indian and Native Alaskan communities
facing profound challenges to their culture, economies, and livelihoods
because of climate change?
Answer. The Department is working to support tribal governments and
trust land managers through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Tribal
Resilience Program (TRP) with training, data, tools and access to
technical experts in order to understand the vulnerabilities of these
communities and identify risk management strategies. Coastal tribes in
particular face risk management challenges ranging from harmful algal
blooms, to ocean acidification, degrading ecosystems, changes in food
availability, and storm surge and disaster recovery.
Question 3. Would you agree that the Federal Government has an
essential and unique role in helping tribal nations prepare for and
adapt to the impacts of climate change on their land and natural
resources?
Answer. As indicated in the response to the previous question, the
Department fills an important role through the TRP, which coordinates
with other Federal, tribal, and state partners to invest in information
and tools needed to support managers, thus enabling tribal and trust
managers to implement strategies for resilient communities and to
encourage cooperative solutions.
Question 4. Why does this budget eliminate the Tribal Climate
Resilience program?
Answer. The budget request made difficult choices this year. The
Department's budget prioritizes self-governance and self-determination,
and focuses funding in Indian Country on core service activities, fully
funding the costs for tribes to administer programs for themselves, and
maintains essential management functions for tribal resources, among
other things.
Question 5. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Tribal Climate Resilience
Program was one of the few programs at BIA with the word `climate' in
its name. As of last week, the word `climate' has been removed from the
title of the BIA program. Did you direct your staff to not use
``climate change,'' in written memos, briefings or other written
communication?
Answer. No, Department staff have not been directed in this manner.
As an example, climate change continues to be listed as a priority on
the Department's official website.
Question 6. Did the President direct your staff to not use
``climate change,'' in written memos, briefings or other written
communication?
Answer. No.
Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii:
Question 7. The National Invasive Species Council is located within
the Department of the Interior and is responsible for coordinating the
Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii. Will you commit
the Department of the Interior to full participation in implementing
the Regional Biosecurity Plan?
Answer. The Department understands the importance of biosecurity in
the Pacific region, and we continue to support the intent and scope of
the Regional Biosecurity Plan, which supplements ongoing activities at
the Department to deal with invasive species. The Department is
coordinating with NISC and other relevant Federal agencies to implement
the Regional Biosecurity Plan.
Policy and Managerial Decisions:
Question 8. Can you point to a single significant policy or
managerial decision you have made as Secretary that has been to the
detriment of the coal, oil, and natural gas industries?
Answer. As I said at my confirmation hearing, as Secretary I am
committed to managing our Federal lands in a way that best serves those
who use it, including for recreation, conservation, and responsible
energy development.
Coal Industry Jobs:
Question 9. How many Americans were employed in the U.S. coal
industry in 1985?
Question 10. How many Americans were employed in the U.S. coal
industry in 2008?
Question 11. What factors do you believe led to the decline in U.S.
coal jobs between 1985 and 2008?
Question 12. According to both you and President Trump, the ``war
on coal'' is now over. You have enacted policies and made decisions
with the intent of reviving the U.S. coal industry. How many jobs do
you expect to return to the U.S. coal industry by November 2020?
Question 13. Are you confident that there will be more jobs in the
U.S. coal industry in November 2020 than there were in November 2016?
Answer to Questions 9-13. One of my key priorities at the
Department of the Interior is to support the Administration's America
First Energy Plan and maintain our Nation's energy dominance by
advancing domestic energy production, generating revenue, and creating
and sustaining jobs throughout our country. The free market development
of our abundant coal resources is an important component of our overall
energy mix. An all-of-the-above energy approach that includes coal has
positive impacts on our economy and rural communities that depend on
coal jobs.
Department of the Interior Employees:
Question 14. As a Member of the House of Representatives and now as
the Secretary you have said that the Interior Department needs more
scientists in the field and fewer lawyers. However your FY 2018 budget
request decreases full-time staff for the Bureau of Land Management by
11.3 percent, the National Park Service by 6.4 percent, and the U.S.
Geological Survey by 13.7 percent. Employees of these bureaus include
biologists, geologists, chemists, forestry technicians, and other
scientists. Conversely, the Office of the Solicitor--an office
comprised almost entirely of lawyers--would add three full-time
positions under your proposed budget. How does your budget proposal
comport with your statements that the Department needs more scientists
and fewer lawyers?
Answer. The goal is to create a more efficient government that
effectively delivers programs of the highest importance to the public.
I have tasked my team to review all programs across the Department to
determine if there is duplication, and if so, how best to consolidate.
This review process remains ongoing.
Science-Based Decision Making:
Question 15. Mr. Secretary, when you were still on this Committee,
you stated in a 2015 hearing that with respect to the Interior
Department's decision-making process, ``I think we need to be more
science-based and less politics, and that would be helpful.'' However
your budget includes significant cuts to numerous scientific programs
that conduct vital scientific work. Do you have any science-based
evidence that the threats facing our Nation's land, water, and wildlife
from climate change have decreased to the point that these cuts are
appropriate?
15a. Do you believe that the cuts within your budget will allow
decisions made by the Department of the Interior to be more science-
based?
Answer. As I said at the hearing, in order to reach a balanced
budget the Department had to make difficult decisions. I believe it
will encourage the Department and its bureaus to be innovative when
identifying ways to better manage programs and increase revenues. It is
also a focused budget that will allow the Department to maintain its
assets, offer a world-class experience on public lands, promote
economic growth, and continue to provide unbiased, multi-discipline
science for use in understanding, mapping, and managing natural
resources.
Poaching and Trafficking:
Question 16. Your proposed budget includes significant funding cuts
for programs that fight poaching and trafficking. It reduces the Fish
and Wildlife Service law enforcement and international affairs
accounts, and slashes the Multinational Species Conservation Funds by
nearly 20 percent. Do you have a plan for how to continue making
progress in the fight against wildlife crime under these circumstances?
Answer. The budget proposal maintains sufficient capacity to
enforce wildlife laws; curb the poaching of some of the world's most
iconic species, such as elephants and rhinos, by curtailing illicit
trade; ensure sustainable legal trade; and reduce demand for illegal
products.
Damage to National Wildlife Refuge Property:
Question 17. Your budget includes a request for authority for the
Fish and Wildlife Service to seek compensation from people who damage
National Wildlife Refuge property. Both the Park Service and NOAA have
similar authority. Why is it important for the Fish & Wildlife Service
to have this authority?
Answer. This authority is important because when Refuge System
resources are injured or destroyed, the costs of repair and restoration
falls upon the appropriated budget for the affected refuge, often at
the expense of other refuge programs. Competing priorities can leave
the Service's work undone until the refuge obtains appropriations from
Congress to address the injury. This delay may result in more intensive
injuries, higher costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned
Service resources. The public expects that refuge resources, and the
broad range of activities they support, will be available for future
generations.
National Wildlife Refuge System:
Question 18. Do you believe the proposed funding levels for Refuges
are consistent with your vision of increasing access to America's
public lands, while also managing and expanding the Refuge System to
protect and enhance America's wildlife resources?
Answer. Yes. Through the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
Service continues the American tradition, started by President Theodore
Roosevelt in 1903, to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats and
to provide recreation opportunities for hunting, fishing and other
outdoor recreation. The proposed budget maintains a commitment to
provide outdoor recreational opportunities in both rural and urban or
suburban settings, as well as to support the vital role of volunteers
on our Refuges.
Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs:
Question 19. When you do anticipate we will see the nomination of
an Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs? This is a priority for the
people of the territories because it represents the equal treatment of
their concerns with the Department's other programs and priorities.
Answer. The President nominated Doug Domenech to be Assistant
Secretary for Insular Areas on June 29, 2017, and Mr. Domenech's
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 13, 2017.
Senior Executive Service (SES):
Question 20. According to news reports, around three dozen Senior
Executive Service (SES) staff within the Interior Department have
received notices that they have been reassigned and transferred into
new positions within the Agency. At the earliest possible time that you
can disclose information while respecting privacy concerns, please
provide answers to the following questions:
20a. How many SES employees have been sent letters informing them
that they were being transferred into new positions?
20b. How many of these employees requested those transfers, and
with how many employees were the transfers discussed, before the
letters were sent?
20c. What are the names and current positions of the employees who
have received these letters? What positions are they being transferred
into?
20d. Please provide copies of these letters.
20e. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify
those that work in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are being
moved to positions outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
20f. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify
those that work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are
being moved to positions inside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
20g. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify
those that work in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are being
reassigned to positions within the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
20h. Once the complete relocation costs for each employee being
relocated is known, including any assistance for selling an employee's
home, please provide the complete permanent change of station (PSC)
move figures for each employee, their spouse, and dependents to the
Committee.
20i. Will you be sending similar letters to more SES employees in
the coming months?
20j. In total, how many SES employees do you expect to reassign and
transfer?
20k. As is recommended by the Office of Personnel Management, are
these reassignments linked to individual Executive Development Plans
for each employee? For any employee where the transfer is consistent
with information contained in their Executive Development Plan, please
provide information on how the transfer is consistent with the Plan to
the Committee.
20l. For any employee where the transfer is not consistent with
information contained in their Executive Development Plan, please
provide the analysis that was conducted or information that was
reviewed in order to make the determination to transfer that employee.
20m. Do you subscribe to the belief that there is a ``deep state''
operating within the Federal Government?
20n. Are Interior Department SES employees a part of the ``deep
state''?
Answer. The Senior Executive Service is intended to be a corps of
versatile, senior Departmental staff. When Congress created the SES
corps, the intent was to construct a mobile cadre of Executives. Talent
management and succession planning are crucial to the development of an
effective SES corps. Managing talent within the SES ranks ensures the
agency has qualified pool of executives who have the leadership and
managerial expertise to occupy any number of different executive
positions based on the needs of the organization. Developing the best
leadership talent is essential, not just to support agency strategic
planning, but to contribute to a thriving, sustained performance
culture in the Federal workforce. The rotation of the SES corps through
a variety of leadership positions has been recognized as an effective
method of strengthening leadership and executive skills. Indeed, the
Obama administration issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13714 on December
25, 2015 on ``Strengthening the Senior Executive Service.'' That E.O.
required agencies to develop plans to increase the number of SES who
are rotated to different assignments ``to improve talent development,
mission delivery, and collaboration.'' The E.O. established an annual
Government-wide goal, beginning in FY 2017, of rotating at least 15
percent of SES to different departments, agencies, sub-components,
functional areas, sectors and non-Federal partners. In its 2016
guidance to implementing the SES rotations requirement, OPM identified
executive reassignment and transfers as two options for implementing
SES rotations. The SES rotations at Interior were consistent with the
Civil Service Reform Act (which created the SES), E.O. 13714, and OPM
guidance on managing the SES.
Border Wall:
Question 21. Secretary Zinke: You have indicated support for
President Trump's proposal to construct a wall along the southern
border. Construction of such a border wall would split the Tohono
O'odham Nation and threaten the tribe's connection to its ancestral
lands. How will President Trump's border wall respect tribal
sovereignty and self-determination?
Answer. I defer to the Department of Homeland Security for
decisions on the details of the wall, but I expect the Department of
Homeland Security will work closely in consultation with the Tohono
O'odham Nation as it moves forward to secure our borders in accordance
with the President's directives.
Question 22. Federal agencies are required to initiate formal
consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service if their actions ``may
affect'' a listed species or designated critical habitat. President
Trump's border wall would affect listed species or designated critical
habitat. Federal agencies are required to prepare an environmental
impact statement on major Federal actions ``significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.'' President Trump's border wall
constitutes a major action significantly affecting the environment.
Have the Departments of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection conducted a new analysis of the proposed wall?
22a. Do they intend to do so before any construction takes place?
Answer. I cannot speak to the actions undertaken or contemplated by
another Department outside my purview and I defer to the Department of
Homeland Security on this question. More generally, under my
leadership, Interior bureaus will fully comply with the President's
directives and existing law as they pertain to securing our borders and
protecting the environment.
Question 23. As you have noted, building a wall along the southern
border is complex. Where then, would the wall go? On the Texan side of
the Rio Grande? Down the middle of the river? Through Big Bend National
Park? Through Tribal lands?
Answer. As noted above, I defer to the Department of Homeland
Security for decisions on the details of the wall.
Question 24. How exactly will President Trump extract payment from
Mexico to pay for the border wall?
Answer. Decisions related to payments necessary to secure our
border will be made by the President, in accordance with applicable
laws.
Question 25. Should money come from the Interior Department budget
if Mexico refuses to pay?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the agency with
responsibility for securing our borders.
National Heritage Areas:
Question 26. Last year Senator John McCain requested that the
National Park Service undertake a ``Reconnaissance Study'' of the Yuma
Quartermaster Depot to determine its suitability to tell the nationally
significant story of the past, present, and future of the Colorado
River. I support his efforts. We know that the work in the field has
been done by the NPS Intermountain Region. Can your office provide me a
status report on the ``Reconnaissance Study''?
Answer. I understand that the NPS continues to make progress on the
reconnaissance survey of the Yuma Quartermaster Depot, but has not yet
completed it.
Question 27. Secretary Zinke, I understand that your community of
Great Falls is considering asking for designation as a National
Heritage Area. My community in Arizona has had pretty good results in
Yuma with the program. What are your general thoughts about the
National Heritage Area program, which seeks to conserve national and
historic resources through a community-based approach, as opposed to a
top-down approach?
Answer. National Heritage Areas provide cultural benefits, and are
an example of the benefits of partnerships. However, the President's
budget proposes to balance the Federal Government's budget by 2027, in
order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget
prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of
ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance
needs have been postponed for too long. The National Heritage Area
Program can be supported through partnerships and community engagement.
Department Staffing:
Question 28. I'm concerned about the March Executive Order to
reorganize the executive branch and subsequent Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) memo on reducing the Federal workforce (M-17-22) and what
that could mean for Interior Department agencies. In the case of the
National Park Service, I understand that staff levels have been in
decline, there are now more than 1,500 vacant positions, and that
Interior has frozen hiring for certain positions as a result of this
effort. Secretary Zinke, for your confirmation hearing both your verbal
and written testimony indicated one of your priorities is to ensure
that park rangers have the resources they need, but this exercise
threatens that priority.
28a. What has the Department's position been on this government
reform effort in conversations with OMB?
28b. Can you commit to following through on your commitment to
support staff by ensuring that the Park Service and other Interior
agencies aren't further understaffed as a result of this exercise?
Answer. This review process remains ongoing within the Department.
I have tasked my team to review all programs to determine if there is
duplication, and if so, how best to consolidate. The goal is to create
a more efficient government that effectively delivers programs of the
highest importance to the public. We anticipate a larger effort may be
folded into the FY 2019 budget process.
Question 29. The March Executive Order on reorganizing the
Executive branch and subsequent OMB and DOI guidance concern me a great
deal. It appears the exercise could be used as an excuse to further
understaff the park service and other land agencies and cut funding for
certain programs the administration may not find to be critical. The
OMB guidance on reducing the Federal workforce (M-17-22) directs
agencies to use the FY 2018 and FY 2019 budget processes to drive
workforce reductions. However, while there may well be carefully
considered opportunities for reform within Interior agencies, I'd like
to remind you that funding levels for staff and specific agency
programs are ultimately up to the appropriations committees. To
prematurely attempt some of these reorganization efforts that would be
subject to the decision of appropriators without our consultation and
consent would be a poor use of agency resources. Can you commit to soon
updating us in writing on the status of this exercise and commit to be
in regular contact with us in regard to it?
Answer. As I indicated in response to the previous question, this
review process remains ongoing within the Department, and we anticipate
the larger effort may be folded into the FY 2019 budget.
Question 30. What is the current status of the workforce reduction
exercise subsequent to the March Executive Order to reorganize the
Executive branch and subsequent OMB memo on reducing the Federal
workforce (M-17-22)?
30a. Please list by agency the programs you will seek to eliminate
or merge for each Interior agency.
30b. Please list the staff positions you intend to eliminate for
each Interior agency.
Answer. This review process remains ongoing within the Department,
and we hope to have outcomes to the larger effort folded into the FY
2019 budget.
Ethics Waivers:
Question 31. On January 28 of this year, President Trump issued
Executive Order 13770 entitled: Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch
Employees. Among other provisions, E.O. 13770 states that appointees in
the Trump administration will not work on matters they used to lobby
on, or on matters involving their former employers or clients, for a
period of 2 years after they are appointed.
31a. Are you familiar with E.O. 13770, and is it your intent for
the Interior Department to comply with it?
31b. Assuming that Mr. Bernhardt is confirmed to be your Deputy
Secretary, will you require him to comply with E.O. 13770--meaning he
will not be permitted to work on any matters he was involved in as a
lobbyist for 2 years?
31c. Have you been involved in any discussions regarding the
possibility that Mr. Bernhardt might receive a waiver from complying
with the E.O.?
31d. Would you recommend to the President that Mr. Bernhardt
receive such a waiver?
31e. Would you make such a waiver public?
31f. How would such a waiver serve the public interest?
31g. Have any such waivers been granted to anyone in the Department
and if so, will you make those waivers public?
31h. How is nominating Mr. Bernhardt to serve as your Deputy
consistent with ``draining the swamp'' here in Washington?
31i. Can you assure this Committee that none of the nominees for
the remaining Senate-confirmable jobs will turn out to be lobbyists for
clients with interests before the Department?
31j. Will you commit to making any waivers of E.O. 13770 granted to
any employee of the Department of the Interior available to the public?
Answer. Under my leadership, all Department staff have complied and
will comply with all applicable ethics requirements and will seek the
guidance of the Department's Designated Agency Ethics Official when
clarification is necessary.
Interior Department Hiring Strategy:
Question 32. Mr. Secretary, you've ordered a hiring freeze for any
position in Washington, DC and Denver. Interior agencies are also
subject to a freeze for any GS-12 and higher position, no matter the
location. Your office must approve waivers to fill these positions and
has placed a priority on positions involved in oil and gas development.
You have repeatedly said that Interior's energy strategy will be ``all
of the above,'' yet you have singled out positions focused on oil and
gas development for priority hiring. While some agencies within
Interior are centered on energy development, the NPS and FWS are not,
and it goes against their mission. It is concerning that you are
putting a priority on oil and gas development to fill jobs within these
agencies. Are you trying to change the mission of these two agencies
with this new hiring strategy?
Answer. No. With regard to the waiver process, it has been
structured so that it should not significantly impact the Department's
ability to address necessary staffing requirements.
Protecting Public Lands:
Question 33. Mr. Secretary, you've said repeatedly that the review
of national monuments is not about selling public land. Can you
guarantee that not 1 acre of Federal land will be given to state or
county control during your tenure as Secretary?
33a. If you do give that land away, can you guarantee none of it
will be sold to private interests?
Answer. As I have previously stated on multiple occasions, I am
firmly against the large-scale sale or transfer of Federal lands. I
also support taking care of the land we own. In all instances, we will
comply with the laws established by Congress for the management of our
Federal lands.
National Monuments Review:
Question 34. Mr. Secretary, you've said the governor and state
congressional delegation have to be consulted before you make
recommendations on national monuments. So far you've only met with the
Republican governors of Utah and Maine. How many governors do you plan
to meet with as part of this review?
34a. Just to look at the states affected by this monument review,
have you reached out yet to the Democratic governors of Washington,
California, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island or
Montana?
Answer. To comply with the President's Executive Order, and provide
a recommendation to the President, we have sought input from
stakeholders on all levels, from governors, tribal leaders, and Members
of Congress, to locals on the ground and county commissioners and I
thank you for the time you took to provide your written comments as
well. We took all this information into consideration before making
recommendations to the President.
Question 35. Mr. Secretary, during your hearing before the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee you informed Senator Gardner
that Canyons of the Ancients wasn't ``currently on our priority list.''
35a. Will you share with this Committee what is on your priority
review list?
35b. If the public comment period is still underway what determines
whether a monument is a priority for review?
35c. What does it take for a monument to be left alone or removed
from the review list?
35d. How can the public trust this review process if we have just
now discovered that there is a second list of monuments that are
especially threatened by this review?
35e. Shouldn't the public, elected officials and other stakeholders
have been aware of this when the comment period started?
Answer. On May 11, 2017, the Notice of the Opportunity for Public
Comment was published in the Federal Register, which included a list of
national monuments under review by the Secretary in accordance with the
President's Executive Order. The public comment period related to the
Bears Ears National Monument closed on May 26, 2017, and the comment
period for all other National Monuments closed on July 10, 2017. The
Secretary evaluated comments and, in certain instances, visited
monuments as he prepared his recommendations for the President. As
monuments were reviewed and found to require no modification, the
Department removed them from the review and letting press and local
stakeholders know the Department's decision to keep all interested
parties informed. A draft report was submitted to the President on
August 24, 2017, and the final report was released to the public on
December 5, 2017 and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/
files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and authority
rests with the President.
Access to Public Lands:
Question 36. Mr. Secretary, according to the BLM, the American
public does not have adequate access to 23 million acres of BLM-managed
land, primarily because of land ownership. The previous administration
dedicated $8 million in 2017 to improving access to these public lands
by purchasing adjacent property or securing rights-of-way, but your
budget includes no funds for this purpose. Wouldn't you agree that this
limits access to BLM land for American hunters, anglers, and outdoor
enthusiasts?
Answer. This budget supports efforts to expand access to
recreational opportunities through targeted investments. Infrastructure
related investments at our land management bureaus will address areas
like trail maintenance and signage, which are critical to ensuring
access to public lands and safety.
The Antiquities Act:
Question 37. Mr. Secretary, I have heard you say on numerous
occasions that your top priority as Secretary of Interior is to ensure
that the Federal Government is a good neighbor and steward of public
resources. Recommending executive action to decrease protections for
national monuments would go directly against this fundamental
principle. Does the President have the legal authority to shrink or
abolish national monuments?
Answer. Being a good neighbor remains one of the Department's top
priorities. Our goal throughout this review process has been to listen
to our state, local, tribal and Federal partners and make
recommendations that reflect the wishes of the neighbors who are most
affected by these monuments. Ultimately, however, our role in the
review of monuments is to provide a recommendation to the President.
Final action and authority rests with him.
National Park Service Services:
Question 38. Since 2011, National Park Service commercial services
staff has declined by 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of commercial
leases has increased by 25 percent, and the number of Commercial Use
Agreements has nearly tripled. Moreover, the program's workload keeps
growing, particularly as the agency begins to award new contracts under
the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority established by last
year's National Park Service Centennial Act. Your budget proposal
includes an over half a million dollar cut to commercial services. How
do you plan to increase P3 partnerships and ensure adequate oversight
of public resources while reducing the amount of staff devoted to
commercial services?
Answer. The President's budget proposes to balance the Federal
Government's budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be
identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we
currently own. It also focuses on leveraging public-private
partnerships in order to improve visitor experiences on public lands
and waters. In addition, as we move forward, I believe that we have to
realign our employees to make sure that the focus is at the field
level, rather than in layers of bureaucracy. I am committed to
providing our front lines in the parks with the appropriate resources
to get the job done.
Endangered Species Act:
Question 39. Mr. Secretary, you have said recently that you think
the states should play a larger role in species conservation but this
budget proposal absolutely savages the funding streams that make this
cooperative work possible, including cutting Cooperative Endangered
Species Fund grants by $34 million to one-third of the current level.
You can prevent listing species by doing proactive conservation work or
you can recover species once they require listing; however, this budget
cuts funding for both. Do you believe that these funding levels are
adequate to help states be full partners in conserving fish and
wildlife?
Answer. The budget requests $19.3 million for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The budget requests $10.5 million
for conservation grants to states, $6.5 million for Habitat
Conservation Planning assistance grants, and $2.3 million for
administrative costs. The budget does not provide funding for land
acquisition grants in order to focus resources on our current land
management priorities. The Department encourages states' participation
in developing recovery plans and proactive conservation work. For
example, when the yellowcheek darter, a small fish native to forks of
the Little Red River in Arkansas, was listed as endangered, the Service
formed a recovery team comprised of yellowcheek darter experts from
organizations including the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission,
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and others. These members are
integral to development of the recovery plan and increasing
participation in recovery efforts among private landowners. States,
through the State Wildlife Grants have focused on proactive
conservation projects; at least 19 domestic Candidate fish and wildlife
species were conserved by state fish and wildlife agencies using State
Wildlife Grant funds.
Question 40. Along these same lines, you have long opposed the
historic conservation agreement reached between states and the Obama
administration to protect the greater sage-grouse and avoid an ESA
listing. Your recent Secretarial Order requiring a review of the plans
threatens to turn this conservation success story into a failure, and
this budget is not helping. The budget cuts $11.5M--22 percent--from
BLM's sage-grouse conservation efforts.
40a. Do you think these cuts will have a negative impact on greater
sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitat?
40b. Do you think these cuts make it more likely that the bird will
require the protections of the ESA?
40c. Do you oppose the inclusion of a rider on your Department's
appropriations bill that would prevent you from listing the species
even if it is shown that such an action is necessary to prevent
extinction?
40d. FY 2017 funding for sage-grouse conservation efforts is
already out the door but your recent order has created uncertainty
about if and how it will be used. Are BLM field offices authorized to
use that funding for sage-grouse conservation efforts under the current
conservation plan, or has your office ordered them to stop?
Answer. The Department's 2018 Budget reflects the President's
commitment to fiscal responsibility--proposing sensible and rational
reductions and making hard choices to reach a balanced budget by 2027.
This required the Department to take a thorough look at all of our
mission areas to determine where we could potentially increase
efficiencies yet continue the implementation of our multiple-use
mission. The budget includes over $75 million in the Bureau's Wildlife
Management Program to continue work on the sage landscape and maintain
our commitment to sage habitat. BLM will continue restoration and
conservation efforts in priority areas, which will benefit more than
350 species. This budget continues conservation work with partners and
supports science at FY 2017 levels. Legislative prohibition on listing
the greater sage grouse would provide time to implement plans and work
more closely with states to craft solutions.
Question 41. As a Member of Congress, you voted against the
protection of threatened and endangered species 100 percent of the
time. You are now in charge of implementing the Endangered Species Act,
not undermining it, but this budget shows that you may not have fully
made that transition yet.
Even though it is widely known that current funding levels are
insufficient to make significant progress toward protecting and
restoring imperiled fish and wildlife populations, this proposal
slashes funding for species listing, recovery, habitat protection,
consultation, and work with states and tribes to prevent listings.
Given that we are in the middle of a global extinction crisis
driven by irresponsible land use and climate change do you believe that
this budget will allow you to meet your statutory obligations under the
ESA to prevent extinction and recover threatened and endangered
species?
Answer. Yes, a total of $225.2 million is proposed to implement the
Endangered Species Act and related programs under the Service's
Ecological Services Program, of which $79.6 million is for recovery of
species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act. A focus on recovery has recently resulted in the de-listing and
down-listing of several high-profile species, including the West Indian
manatee. Included in the Ecological Services request is $98.8 million
to facilitate planning and consultation that will support economic
recovery and job creation in the United States. Timely evaluations of
proposed infrastructure, energy, and other development projects
contribute to job creation and economic growth, while ensuring that
impacts to native wildlife and habitat are avoided and minimized to the
greatest degree possible. Funding will allow the Service to expedite
project reviews and work with project proponents on appropriate
mitigation and avoidance measures.
Question 42. Republican Members of this Committee, including you in
the past, have argued that the ESA is a failure because more species
are not being de-listed. This is in spite of the fact that the ESA has
been 99 percent effective in preventing species from going extinct.
In order to be de-listed, though, species must be shown by the best
available science to have recovered. Before the process of recovery can
even begin, species must first be listed so that they can receive the
protections of the Act just to ``stop the bleeding.'' This is the
simple, stepwise fashion in which the ESA works.
Unfortunately, this budget proposes to cut the listing program by
more than 17 percent. It also proposes to cut the recovery program by
more than $3.5 million.
42a. Do you believe these cuts will allow you to meet your
obligations to give species ESA protections when it is show that it is
scientifically necessary?
42b. Do you believe this budget will achieve your goal of de-
listing more species without running afoul of the requirement to base
decisions on the best available science?
42c. Do you believe that at these funding levels FWS will be able
to avoid losing lawsuits over failing to take required actions to
protect species in a timely manner?
Answer. I still believe that ESA is in need of reforms and
modernization so it can operate in a more effective manner. The FWS de-
lists and down-lists species when their status changes and resources
are available. Getting species off the list due to recovery is a
priority, and allows us to focus our attention and resources on species
that need attention. The pace at which de-listings and down-listings
occur is dependent on resources devoted to on-the-ground recovery
implementation and the progress toward recovery of individual species,
as well as on the complexity of status reviews and rulemakings. A total
of $225.2 million is proposed in the President's FY 2018 budget request
to implement the ESA and related programs under FWS's Ecological
Services program, of which $17.1 million is for listing species and
$79.6 million is for recovery of species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. At these funding levels, the FWS will
continue to address the backlog of listing determinations and develop
rulemakings for approximately 50 species that have been identified for
potential de-listing or down-listing under the ESA based upon recent 5-
year status reviews. FWS plans on making final determinations for six
species currently proposed for de-listing in FY 2018.
Resource Advisory Committees:
Question 43. Time and time again, you have said you're a champion
of public access and transparency. On your first day as Secretary, you
signed Order No. 3347 which encourages access, conservation
stewardship, and hunting and fishing activities. This order gave
department agencies 30 days to report on Executive Order 13443, and
then calls on the expertise of two Resource Advisory Committees to
refine recommendations. You have since suspended ``all 225 different
councils and boards . . . so [you] could ask what do you do, who is on
your board, what have you done in the last year''--this includes the
two which are involved in Secretarial Order 3347. How is this
suspension improving access, transparency and efficiency at the
Interior Department?
Answer. As you note, Secretarial Order 3347 is designed to engage
stakeholders on a variety of issues concerning management of public
lands, including actions to improve habitat, cooperation with state
wildlife managers, and access to the outdoors. We intend to work with
stakeholder groups, including but not limited to the two referenced
groups. The Department's review of advisory groups is ongoing. The
review is intended to ensure the Department receives maximum feedback
from these boards and that they are compliant with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA).
Coastal Barrier Resources System:
Question 44. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers the
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), established by Congress in
1982 to prevent government-subsidized development from occurring in
hazard-prone, undeveloped coastal areas. This simple yet ingenious
program does not prevent private citizens from using their own money to
develop land that is included in the System but it does prohibit the
use of Federal funds including flood insurance, transportation and
housing grants, and energy infrastructure assistance.
44a. Do you agree that sea level rise, increased coastal flooding,
and other hazards due to climate change are a threat to coastal
communities?
44b. Do you believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for
bailing out individuals, companies, and localities that make risky
development decisions?
44c. Will you commit to funding the CBRS program at levels that
reflect the urgent need to address the impacts of sea level rise on
coastal communities?
Answer. Coastal communities face weather-related challenges not
experienced in other parts of the country. The Department will be a
good partner in working with these communities to address changing
climate conditions using adaptive management. Through the CBRA program,
the FWS provides mapping products and data bases that are essential
tools for conservation and restoration activities by other Federal and
state agencies and the public and this budget provides sufficient
resources to support those efforts.
Stream Protection Rule Job Figures:
A February 21, 2017, a blog post on the Department of the
Interior's (DOI) website claimed that the Stream Protection Rule (SPR),
which was repealed by President Trump's signature of a Congressional
Review Act resolution of disapproval, ``was estimated to put 7,000
clean coal jobs in 22 states at risk.'' This figure appears to come
from a widely discredited and outdated draft environmental study,
generated by Polu Kai Services (PKS) under contract from OSMRE, and
contradicts the job impacts published by the Department and OSMRE. An
investigation by the DOI Office of Inspector General found that there
was widespread dissatisfaction with PKS' performance. Furthermore, the
OIG investigation found no evidence of any inappropriate behavior by
anyone in the Obama administration in relation to the dispute over the
job-loss numbers or the decision to allow the PKS contract to expire.
This conclusion was also backed up by a multi-year investigation
conducted by the House Natural Resources Committee, which was also
unable to find evidence of any wrongdoing.
Given this, I request answers to the following questions:
Question 45. Please provide a source for the February 21 claim that
the Stream Protection Rule put 7,000 clean coal jobs at risk.
Question 46. Does OSMRE agree with the blog post claiming that the
SPR would put 7,000 jobs at risk? If so, what is the evidence that the
regulatory impact analysis performed for the final rule is less
accurate than the February 21 blog post?
Question 47. If the February 21 blog post was based on the DEIS
completed by PKS, are the methods and standards used by PKS to develop
the DEIS the same methods and standards Congress and the public should
expect for work performed by OSMRE or DOI throughout the Trump
administration?
Question 48. Does OSMRE or DOI believe that the PKS DEIS from 2011
adequately reflects the provisions of the final SPR published in 2016?
Question 49. Does OSMRE or DOI disagree with the characterization
of PKS' performance included in the OIG study? If so, what did the OIG
miss?
Question 50. How does the Department define ``clean coal''?
Answer to Questions 45-50. President Trump signed H.J. Res. 38 into
law on February 16, 2017, nullifying the SPR. Since then, the
Department has renewed its focus to put America on track to achieve the
President's vision for energy independence and bring important jobs
back to communities across the country. Our Nation's abundant coal
supplies are an important and stable component of the energy mix. The
President's energy program will have positive impacts on employment in
the communities that depend on coal industry jobs.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue Rule:
As part of responding to the dozens of valuation and royalty-
collection recommendations from the past decade, on July 1, 2016, the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) published a final rule
entitled Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal
Valuation Reform, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. Despite
the fact that the rule became effective on January 1, 2017, ONRR
published a Federal Register notice on February 27, 2017, announcing
that the effective date of the valuation rule would be postponed
indefinitely due to legal challenges pending against the rule, using
the authority under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA). The legality of this action is highly questionable. It appears
that ONRR has used this provision to repeal an active and in-effect
regulation in contravention of the notice-and-comment procedures
required by the APA.
With the rule in full effect as of January 1, 2017, it became the
role of the courts, and not ONRR, to adjudicate the challenges to the
valuation rule. The rule cannot be unilaterally subverted by ONRR. In
the light of this, I would like answers to the following questions:
Question 51. Did DOI's Office of the Solicitor provide a written
opinion or memo regarding the legality of postponing the effective date
of a rule after the effective date has already passed? If so, please
provide a copy of that opinion or memo.
Question 52. Please provide any examples that the Department has of
other rules where 5 U.S.C. 705 has been successfully invoked to delay
the implementation date of a rule after the effective date has passed.
Question 53. Did DOI's Office of the Solicitor review the February
22, 2017, memo from ONRR?
Question 54. Please provide the surnaming page of the Federal
Register notice that was published on February 27, 2017, showing the
identity of those officials within DOI who reviewed and approved the
notice.
Answer to Questions 51-54. As ONRR Director Greg Gould noted in his
July 12, 2017 response to your previous letters, ONRR's stay of the
rule is currently the subject of litigation and cannot be commented on
at this time.
Backlog of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs):
The recent publication of internal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
strategy and communications documents has provided some disappointing
insight into the intended focus of the BLM during the current
administration. One of the more surprising items in the document is the
instruction to, ``[a]ddress backlog of Applications for Permit to Drill
(APDs).'' It is not clear that there is a significant backlog of
unprocessed APDs; in fact, the BLM's own data indicate that there is a
glut of drilling permits that the oil and gas industry cannot act on
fast enough. According to the BLM's FY 2017 Budget Justification, there
were 3,785 APDs pending at the end of FY 2015, but also 7,532 approved
permits in industry's hands just waiting to be used.
Question 55. Therefore, in order to understand the true nature of
the ``backlog'' of APDs, please provide the number of ADPs that are
pending and the number of approved ADPs waiting to be drilled as of the
end of the FY 2016.
Answer. The BLM estimates that, as of the end of FY 2016, there
were 2,552 pending APDs and 7,950 approved APDs that had not been
drilled.
U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative:
In 2011, as part of the Open Government Partnership, the United
States announced its intention to become an Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI) compliant country. The EITI Advisory
Committee was scheduled to meet on June 7 and 8 to continue the work
required of the United States to become EITI compliant. However, on May
25, 2017, the Department of the Interior published a notice postponing
the scheduled meeting, saying merely that it would be ``rescheduled at
a later date.'' When combined with reports from earlier this year, this
postponement appears to reflect a lack of commitment to EITI by this
Administration. The Secretary of the Interior serves as the
Administration's senior official representative for EITI
implementation.
Question 56. What is Trump administration's stance on the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative?
Question 57. Can you commit to holding the postponed U.S. EITI
Advisory Committee meeting no later than the end of August, 2017?
Answer to Questions 56-57. The Department of the Interior is
committed to institutionalizing the principles of open government and
accountability. The U.S. Department of State will continue to lead the
United States' commitment to the EITI as a Supporting Country, a role
that the United States has played since the beginning of the
initiative.
Review of 5-Year Offshore Leasing Program, as Instructed by April 28
E.O.:
The Department of the Interior has begun a review of the 5-year
offshore leasing program, as instructed by President Trump's April 28,
2017, offshore energy Executive Order. Given the likely adverse impacts
of this action on the environment, fishing, and tourism industries, I
am deeply concerned with President Trump's decision to lift the leasing
ban in regions currently closed to development. Secretary Zinke, please
address the following:
Question 58. The Executive Order directs a review of areas
currently closed off from drilling, including the Mid- and South
Atlantic, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea. Please provide all
risk assessments and analysis undertaken to determine how lifting the
ban on drilling in these areas would not adversely affect fragile
ecosystems or damage fishing, restaurant, or tourism interests.
Answer. On May 1, 2017, I issued Secretarial Order 3350 to further
implement the President's Executive Order entitled: ``Implementing an
America-First Offshore Energy Strategy'' (April 28, 2017), in which I
directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to initiate development
of a new 5-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Section 18 of the OCS
Lands Act prescribes the major steps involved in developing a 5-year
program, including the ability of the Secretary to review and approve
the leasing program. During the initial stage of program development,
the Secretary examines all 26 OCS planning areas to consider and
balance the potentials for environmental damage, discovery of oil and
gas, and adverse impact on the coastal zone in making a decision on the
Draft Proposed Program--the first of three proposals required in the
Program development process. This process includes conducting risk
assessment and analysis on the impacts of oil and gas development and
production. Recently, BOEM began seeking a wide array of input during
development of this new OCS leasing program, including information on
the economic, social, and environmental values of all OCS resources.
BOEM will also seek input on the potential impact of oil and gas
exploration and development on other resource values of the OCS and the
marine, coastal, and human environments. All of these analyses will be
made public as they are completed. At this stage of development of a
leasing program, no decisions have been made regarding what planning
areas may be included in the new leasing program.
Question 59. What additional actions or plans does the Department
intend to take to protect coastal communities from the possibility of
another catastrophic oil spill, particularly in light of the unique
challenges of responding to an oil spill in these environments?
59a. For example, has the Department conducted any analysis with or
otherwise coordinated with the Coast Guard to ensure that Area
Contingency plans are sufficiently robust to address an oil spill the
magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon?
Answer. The Department, through its Bureaus and the Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), serves on national and
regional interagency oil spill response teams to develop and maintain
detailed spill response policies, plans, and procedures, as well as up-
to-date Regional Contingency Plans, Area Contingency Plans, and site-
specific geographic response plans.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) oversees
oil spill planning and preparedness activities for offshore oil and gas
exploration, development and production facilities in both Federal and
state waters. BSEE reviews industry Oil Spill Response Plans to verify
that owners and operators of offshore facilities are prepared to
respond to a worst case discharge of oil; the U.S. Coast Guard
participates in these reviews in certain situations. BSEE, in
cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, validates the soundness of these
plans by conducting exercises with operators.
The Department and BSEE's (as well as other bureaus) oil spill
preparedness program is a keystone component of the National Response
System. As such, the Department regularly participates in meetings and
supports activities by Regional Response Teams and Area Committees
where offshore oil and gas operations are conducted. These groups are
focal points for contingency planning with local, state and Federal
partners including the Coast Guard. In addition, the Department
formally engages the U.S. Coast Guard on a regular basis at both the
regional and headquarters levels to support joint planning initiatives
and information sharing.
Question 60. The March 16, 2017 budget blueprint calls for a $1.5
billion, or 12 percent, reduction to the Department's FY 2018 budget.
How would these proposed cuts affect the ability of the Department to
draft a new 5-year plan, which presumably would also include oil spill
response and mitigation plans, while administering an even greater
number of oil and gas leases?
Answer. The Administration's budget makes difficult choices in
focusing on and funding our top priorities and sets the course to a
balanced budget by 2027, saving taxpayers $1.6 billion. Among the
Department's top priorities is to boost domestic energy production to
stimulate the Nation's economy and ensure our security while providing
for responsible stewardship of the environment, which includes the
development of a new 5-year plan. The budget reflects a careful
analysis of the resources needed to advance this priority and to
development our bureaus' capacity to carry out its functions carefully,
responsibly and efficiently.
Question 61. American fishing, tourism, and recreation industries
rely on a healthy ocean ecosystem to generate billions of dollars each
year in economic activity. If this review goes forward, please indicate
what additional analysis the Department intends to conduct to determine
what safeguards will be required to protect these industries.
Answer. At this point, the Department is only establishing a
schedule of potential lease sales and framing the geographic scope for
which OCS development can occur. The process is guided by the OCS Lands
Act which specifies eight factors that are considered in determining
the timing and location of leasing, including location with respect to
other uses and environmental sensitivity and marine productivity. As
required by the law, I will consider each of these factors in deciding
which areas will be contained in the next National OCS Oil and Gas
Leasing Program. Public input is critical to this process. There are at
least three points during the program preparation process when comments
are solicited, analyzed summarized and used to develop the final
program.
Question 62. Given the significant growth of U.S. oil production on
both private and public lands over the past 7 years, the United States
is now one of the largest producers of crude oil in the world, and the
world leader in total liquid hydrocarbon production. In fact,
oversupply in oil production has led the United States to begin
exporting crude oil for the first time in generations. Further, gas
prices in 2016 were the lowest they have been in more than a decade.
Given these market conditions, why is a new planning process required
now, as opposed to waiting only 3 years to continue on the normal
planning schedule?
Answer. Developing a new National Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing
Program that respects environmental and economic sensitivities but
still allows us to responsibly develop our resources is critical to
reaching President Trump's goal of American energy dominance. Offering
more areas for energy exploration and responsible development was a
cornerstone of the President's campaign and this action is the first
step in making good on that promise for offshore oil and gas. Under the
last administration, 94 percent of OCS acreage was off-limits to
responsible development, despite interest from many state and local
governments and industry leaders. This Administration is dedicated to
energy dominance, growing the economy and giving the public a say in
how our natural resources are used, and that is exactly what we are
doing by opening up the Request for Information and a new OCS leasing
program.
Question 63. Under the current leasing program, approximately 70
percent of the economically recoverable offshore resources in the OCS
are available to the oil and gas industry for leasing. In the Gulf of
Mexico, companies hold leases on approximately 16 million acres, but
have developed only approximately 26 percent of that acreage. Please
provide all the assessments and analysis the Department has undertaken
to determine the need for additional leasing acreage at this time.
Answer. As described in the previous response BOEM has initiated
development of a new 5-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program in which
all 26 planning areas are considered. At this stage of development of a
leasing program, no decisions have been made regarding the need to make
available additional acreage for leasing.
Regarding the statement that industry has only developed 26 percent
of the acreage leased in the Gulf of Mexico, this percentage applies
only to the number of leases currently producing, substantially
understating the percentage of leases on which there is exploration or
development activity. As of August 1, 2017, there are 2,912 active
leases in the GOM of which 1,318 (45 percent) have had wells drilled or
plans approved. Since oil and gas is not uniformly distributed across
the OCS, there is always a risk of not finding oil and gas on leased
acreage. New leasing in the Gulf of Mexico allows industry to better
manage their prospect portfolios and mitigate these risks through
access to additional acreage where there is potential for discovering
new oil and gas fields on the OCS. It is important to note that prior
to acquiring a lease through a BOEM lease sale, the oil and gas
industry uses geophysical and other types of data extensively in order
to identify promising prospects and bid on the acreage considered to
have the best potential.
During lease primary terms, operators have time to gather, process,
and interpret additional data. Of course, not all leases contain
drillable oil and gas resources and wells can be extremely risky and
expensive to drill. Further, the finite number of drilling rigs
available for contract limits the number of leases that can be drilled.
Therefore, lessees are constantly evaluating and prioritizing the
acreage in their lease inventory in order to drill the most promising
leases first. This prioritization changes as the exploration process
plays out (e.g., geological data comes in from new wells and/or new or
reprocessed geophysical data is acquired, etc.). During the period
after the lease is acquired, OCS projects compete for the operator's
available capital with other prospects held by the operator in onshore
and offshore oil and gas basins worldwide. This dynamic process of
evaluating, ranking, and funding all worldwide projects of interest to
a lessee is an important reason why lessees desire to maintain an
inventory of leases so they can allocate and re-allocate capital
expenditures as new information becomes available.
Secretarial Order 3349 and Executive Order 13783:
On March 29, 2017, you signed Secretarial Order No. 3349, which was
designed to implement the directive in the Executive Order of March 28,
2017 (Executive Order 13783), to ``review all existing regulations,
orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency
actions . . . that potentially burden the development or use of
domestically produced energy resources.'' The Executive Order and
Secretarial Order also rescinded or ordered the rescission of a number
of important Obama administration climate and mitigation policies,
lifted the moratorium on new coal leases, and ordered the review of
four common-sense regulations affecting oil and gas operations on
National Park Service lands, fish and wildlife refuges, and other
public lands. In order to understand the potentially massive changes in
public lands policy and management that will arise from the Executive
Order and Secretarial Order, please provide the following documents
described in Secretarial Order 3349:
Question 64. The list of all Department Actions related to
mitigation policies provided to the Deputy Secretary by each bureau and
office, as required to be completed by April 12, 2017, as per Section
5(a)(i) of Secretarial Order 3349;
Question 65. The list of all Department Actions related to climate
change policies provided to the Deputy Secretary by each bureau and
office, as required to be completed by April 12, 2017, as per Section
5(b)(i) of Secretarial Order 3349;
Question 66. The report from the Director, Bureau of Land
Management, on the rule entitled, ``Waste Prevention, Production
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation,'' as required to be
provided to the Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management by
April 19, 2017, per Section 5(c)(ii) of Secretarial Order 3349;
Question 67. The report from the Director, National Park Service,
on the rule entitled, ``General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas
Rights,'' as required to be provided to the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks by April 19, 2017, per Section 5(c)(iii) of
Secretarial Order 3349;
Question 68. The report from the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, on the rule entitled, ``Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas
Rights,'' as required to be provided to the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks by April 19, 2017, per Section 5(c)(iv) of
Secretarial Order 3349; and
Question 69. The reports from each bureau and office head provided
to the Deputy Secretary that identify all existing Department Actions
that ``potentially burden . . . the development or utilization of
domestically produced energy resources,'' as required by April 19,
2017, per Section 5(c)(v) of Secretarial Order 3349.
Answer to Questions 64-69. On November 1, 2017, the Department
announced the availability of the Final Report: Review of the
Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic
Energy, prepared pursuant to Executive Order 13783. The Department
published the report in its entirety in the Federal Register, and it is
available at 82 FR 50532.
DOI Memo Directing Bureau and Acting Directors to Report to the Acting
Deputy Secretary:
On April 12, 2017, you sent a memo to the Assistant Secretaries of
the Department of the Interior directing them to ensure that all bureau
heads and office directors report to the Acting/Deputy Secretary on all
``proposed decisions'' that have ``nationwide, regional, or statewide
impacts,'' and that decisions may not be made until the Acting Deputy
Secretary has ``reviewed the report and provided clearance.'' The memo
also directs bureau heads and office directors to report to the Acting
Deputy Secretary all FY 2017 grants and cooperative agreements of
$100,000 or greater before the final award is issued, in order to
``assess how we are aligning our grants and cooperative agreements to
Department priorities.''
In order for us to better understand how this memo will affect
Departmental policy and operations, please provide answers to the
following questions:
Question 70. Has any guidance been provided to bureau heads or
office directors regarding what constitutes a decision with
``nationwide, regional, or statewide impacts''? If so, please provide
that guidance.
Question 71. Is the Acting Deputy Secretary maintaining approval or
modification authority over the grants, cooperative agreements, and
decisions that are provided to him as a result of the April 12 memo?
Question 72. Has the Acting Deputy Secretary denied any grants or
cooperative agreements, or required or requested changes to the terms
of those grants or cooperative agreements, as a result of information
provided to him as a result of the April 12 memo? If so, please
identify those grants or cooperative agreements, and information
regarding why the Acting Deputy Secretary denied or required or
requested changes to those, as appropriate.
Question 73. Who in the Secretary's office or Deputy Secretary's
office, other than the Acting Deputy Secretary, is also reviewing the
information provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary as a result of the
April 12 memo?
Question 74. For all grants and cooperative agreements awarded
between April 12 and the date of this letter, please provide the
information under items #1 through #11 as provided to the Acting Deputy
Secretary under the ``Template for Data Call on Fiscal Year 2017 Grants
and Cooperative Agreement Awards.''
Question 75. For all records of decision issued after review by the
Acting Deputy Secretary between April 12 and the date of this letter,
please provide all information provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary
under the ``Template for Data Call on Proposed Records of Decision and
Other Significant Decision Documents.''
Answer to Questions 70-75. The process was put in place to help me
better understand where the approximately $5.5 billion in grant and
cooperative agreement funding is going and how that benefits the
Department's mission. I believe we must have a thorough accounting of
how the Department distributes the taxpayer's dollar. The process has
moved along quickly and once the review has been completed it will be
suspended.
DOI Regulations Task Force:
On April 24, 2017, an article in E&E News reported that you had
appointed a task force for abolishing regulations, consisting of five
political ``beachhead'' employees and one career staffer, but no
Senate-confirmed personnel and no one with clear technical expertise in
land management, wildlife management, environmental protection, or
safety regulation. While the task force is required under Executive
Order 13777, there is no reference to this task force in your
Secretarial Order implementing Executive Order 13783 (S.O. 3349), and
no information provided about how this task force will operate, where
it fits in the regulatory review process created by S.O. 3349, whether
any of its activities or decisions will be transparent and be made
known to the public, whether it will accept public comments, or any
other logistical detail. In order to better understand this task force
and how it will operate, please provide the following information:
Question 76. The names of each member of the task force and their
qualifications for analyzing regulations related to land management,
wildlife management, environmental protection, and safety;
Question 77. How career staff with technical expertise in land
management, wildlife management, environmental protection, and safety
will be involved in the operations of the task force;
Question 78. How the task force fits into the process laid out in
Secretarial Order 3349;
Question 79. The timeline for the regulatory task force to make
decisions;
Question 80. The criteria to be used by the task force to make
decisions related to whether or not to modify or rescind existing
regulations;
Question 81. Whether there will be any public meetings of the task
force and whether or not the task force will accept comments from the
public; and
Question 82. Whether any documents created by the task force are
intended to be made public once the task force has completed its work.
Answer to Questions 76-82. In addition to Associate Deputy
Secretary James Cason's response to your May 2017 letter, we offer the
following information. The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force
was established on March 15, 2017, and meets monthly to evaluate
existing regulations and provide recommendations to the Secretary
regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. The Task Force
focuses on regulations that: (1) place unnecessary burdens on the
economy or the American people; (2) are outdated, ineffective, or
unnecessary; or (3) are incompatible with regulatory reform principles
or directions established in E.O. 13771 and 13777. The Department has
invited public input to identify important areas of focus. Since
publishing a Federal Register notice on June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28429),
asking the public for ideas to lessen regulatory burdens, we have
received approximately 215 public comments related to this effort. The
public also has the opportunity to comment on the inclusion or
exclusion of any individual regulatory action from the unified
regulatory agenda, which is issued on a semi-annual basis in accordance
with E.O. 12866. We have also established a website (https://
www.doi.gov/regulatory-reform) to periodically provide information to
the public on regulatory reform and encourage the public to share ideas
on specific regulations that should be repealed, updated, or otherwise
improved. Regulation development will continue to be informed by public
input and by agency expertise in the relevant subject matter, whether
related to land management, wildlife management, environmental
protection, or safety.
U.S.G.S. Climate Change Report:
In May of this year, the Washington Post reported that officials
within the Interior Department ordered employees at the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to remove a reference to climate change from a
press release announcing the publication of a new study on sea level
rise and coastal flooding. Scrubbing this press release over the
objections of some of the scientists involved in the study deprived
media outlets and the general public of the context of the study. In
order to prevent future abuses of this kind, I request responses to the
following questions:
Question 83. Did Acting Deputy Secretary of the Interior James
Cason, or anyone in his office, or at the Office of Management and
Budget, review the USGS press release before it was issued?
Question 84. If so, who made the decision to remove the line
reported by the authors of the study to read: ``Global climate change
drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding.''?
Question 85. If not, what was the highest level Departmental office
that reviewed and edited the press release?
Answer to Questions 83-85. The U.S. Geological Survey announced the
findings of the study entitled, Doubling of Coastal Flooding Frequency
Within Decades Due to Sea-Level Rise in a May 18, 2017, press release
consistent with existing practices for all Departmental press releases.
The press release aimed to summarize the overall findings of the
report, and did not undermine the study findings, as evidence by the
opening line of the study's abstract, which stated, ``[g]lobal climate
change drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal
flooding.''
Political Appointees Granted Ethics Waivers:
On January 28, 2017, President Trump repealed President Obama's
Executive Order No. 13770 and replaced it with his own Executive Order
requiring all political appointees to sign an ethics pledge. As with
his predecessor, President Trump reserved the right to issue waivers to
exempt certain individuals from this ban. Unlike President Obama,
however, President Trump is refusing to comply with the Office of
Government Ethics' request for a list of those political appointees
granted such waivers. The current Administration's refusal to comply
with this completely reasonable and standard request for information
flies in the face of the President's repeated claims to support an open
and transparent government of which the American people can be proud.
Question 86. In the interests of clarity and openness, please
disclose all ethics waivers granted since the beginning of the current
Administration for political appointees working for the Department of
the Interior.
Answer. We are not aware of any ethics waivers granted since the
beginning of this Administration for political appointees at the
Department.
Review of National Monuments:
On April 26, 2017, President Trump ordered a sweeping review of a
wide range of national monuments established under the Antiquities Act
in the last 20 years. The Executive Order directed the Department of
the Interior with 45 days to issue a report on the Bears Ears National
Monument in Utah and any other monument determined appropriate for
inclusion in the interim report. The justification for this review was
the allegation that certain monument designations were made without
sufficient public input and a review was needed to allow the American
people to comment on their national monuments. The justification for
this review was the allegation that certain monument designations were
made without sufficient public input and a review was needed to allow
the American people to comment on their national monuments.
Question 87. In the spirit of transparency and open government,
please provide a detailed itinerary and list of your meetings while in
Utah and any other location associated with the review of national
monuments.
Question 88. Additionally, please provide an account of all
comments received during the public comment period that includes a
tally of positive and negative submissions.
Answer to Questions 87-88. A draft report, which includes the
Department's findings and recommendations on national monuments was
submitted to the President on August 24, 2017 in accordance with the
President's Executive Order. The final report was released to the
public on December 5, 2017 and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/
sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and
authority rests with the President.
Methane Waste Rule Pullback:
On June 15, 2017, in apparent contravention of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in
the Federal Register a postponement of the effective date of portions
of the BLM's rule on methane waste, titled Waste Prevention, Production
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation (Methane Waste Rule).
As with the Department's postponement of the Consolidated Federal Oil &
Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform (Valuation Rule)
regulation on February 27, 2017, the authority claimed for postponement
of the effective date is Section 705 of the Administrative Procedures
Act (5 U.S.C. 705), a questionable interpretation of that section that,
to my knowledge, the Department has made no effort to defend as of this
date. Postponing the compliance dates contained in the Methane Waste
Rule unlawfully deprives the American people of valuable revenue,
wastes a non-renewable resource, and threatens people's health by
increasing the amount of harmful pollution in our air. Please provide
answers to the following:
Question 89. Did DOI's Office of the Solicitor provide a written
opinion or memo regarding the legality of postponing the compliance
dates in a rule after the effective date of that rule has already
passed? If so, please provide a copy of that opinion or memo.
Question 90. Did DOI or BLM perform a legal analysis of the Methane
Waste Rule under the four-part test for preliminary injunctions? If so,
please provide a copy of that analysis.
Answer to Questions 89-90. The BLM's Waste Prevention Rule is
currently the subject of ongoing litigation. I note that in the June
15, 2017 Federal Register publication postponing certain compliance
dates for the rule, the BLM concluded that, in light of the pending
litigation related to the rule and the ongoing administrative review of
rules, postponement of the January 2018 compliance dates would be in
the interest of justice, consistent with section 705 of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Huffman
Question 1. Reliable broadband access can frequently be hard to
come by in rural communities that border our public lands. As you may
know, I recently introduced the Public Lands Telecommunications Act,
which provides public land management agencies with fee retention
authority to increase funding for telecommunications deployment, and
cooperative agreement authority to improve partnerships with local
communities and the private sector to expand broadband access. I have
long believed that our public land management agencies could do more to
improve broadband access in remote and rural communicates.
How do you believe the Department of the Interior could achieve
this aim with new, sustained funding for telecommunications deployment,
as well as cooperative agreement authority to improve partnerships with
our constituents and the private sector?
Answer. The Administration has not been requested to provide its
position on your bill, H.R. 2425, the Public Lands Telecommunications
Act, which was reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee on
June 27, 2017. However, the Department supports innovative public-
private partnerships, and believes that they are important for
management of all Federal lands. I have consistently advocated for
increased Internet access on our Federal lands to help enhance the
outdoor experience for visitors, particularly millennials.
Question 2. Ranching is important to my district. Last year, I
rallied with local cattle and dairy operators to fight a lawsuit that
would have limited their grazing rights in the Point Reyes National
Seashore area. This is because I believe that carefully management of
land resources can allow ranching and conservation to co-exist.
In my district, the Marin Carbon Project has demonstrated that
rangeland soils can achieve significant carbon sequestration through
use of `carbon farming' techniques, such as the application of compost
as a soil amendment. Barriers to such carbon farming techniques from
being more widely among California's ranching community include lack of
state and Federal funding, and lack of understanding among conservation
and land management agencies, and ranchers, regarding how carbon gets
stored and lost in soils.
What steps could the Department of the Interior take to help local
ranching communities integrate carbon farming techniques into
traditional ranching practices?
Answer. Being a good neighbor through better collaboration with
local ranchers and ranching communities is a critical step to ensure
the success of any government action. It is my belief that more
meaningful involvement and cooperation with communities closest to our
public lands will result in innovative ideas and practices as well as
better stewardship of the land and its resources.
Question 3. California salmon runs have collapsed during the recent
drought, in both the Klamath and Bay-Delta watersheds. This year marked
the lowest they have been on record, prompting a complete fisheries
closure on the Klamath.
3a. How will your agency prioritize salmon restoration in the
coming fiscal year? How is this need reflected in the Department of the
Interior's budget, as proposed in the President's Budget Request?
3b. Does the Department of the Interior plan to participate in
financing the proposed Delta tunnels (California WaterFix) that are
currently under evaluation by Federal regulators and the Bureau of
Reclamation?
3c. Is there a finance plan for those tunnels? If so, can you
provide it to us?
3d. Are any Bureau of Reclamation contractors ready to pay their
proportional share of the cost of the tunnels?
3e. How confident are you that this project will not result in the
large cost over-runs that are commonly characterize large
infrastructure projects?
3f. Is the Bureau of Reclamation considering asking Federal
taxpayers to subsidize the construction of a Shasta Dam raise?
Answer. The President's Budget Request includes funding for salmon
restoration activities in the Klamath and Bay-Delta watersheds. While
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the primary agency
charged with implementing salmon protections; Bureau of Reclamation
project operations support many NMFS activities. Pursuant to the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), the Department
developed the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program's 2001 Final
Restoration Plan, which identified 289 actions and evaluations that
were determined to be reasonable given numerous technical, legal and
implementation considerations. The annual appropriation bill from
Congress provides budget authority based on estimated CVPIA
collections, and the obligation of these funds can only occur after the
collections are made.
The President's budget request includes $9.2 million for the
Klamath Project for ESA activities for the 2013 Biological Opinion that
will be implemented over 10 years, including effects analysis of
ongoing Reclamation project operations and the Klamath River Coho
monitoring program.
On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS
released biological opinions on the proposed construction and operation
of California WaterFix. The Department has made no funding-related
commitments and has not been engaged regarding the creation of a
finance plan. No decisions been made on raising Shasta Dam, as
alternative means of financing (primarily non-Federal) for the
construction costs would have to be identified and approved by
Congress.
Question 4. Renewable energy development has broad bipartisan
support, and plays a large and growing role in our economy. A 2017
Department of Energy report found that solar supports 373,807 jobs.
This is more than the number of jobs in natural gas (362,118), and over
twice the number of jobs in coal (160,119). Wind also supports 101,738
jobs. Smartly sited, large-scale renewable energy projects on public
lands have drawn support from rural counties and other important
stakeholders.
If the new Administration is committed to an ``all-of-the-above''
energy strategy, then why is renewable energy the only energy program
that is proposed to be cut?
Answer. The America First Energy Plan is an ``all-of-the-above''
approach that includes oil and gas, coal, and renewable resources. The
FY 2018 budget request funds onshore and offshore renewable energy
development at a level that is expected to address current industry
demand. The Department is also taking steps to improve its leasing
processes, including implementation of BLM's competitive leasing rule.
This will support a competitive leasing process for solar and wind
energy development. The rulemaking updates and codifies acreage rent
and megawatt capacity fees for wind and solar energy projects,
establishes a new rate adjustment method that provides greater
certainty and fair return for use of the public lands, provides
incentives for leases within designated leasing areas, updates project
bonding requirements, and incorporates sensible solar and wind energy
policies into the right-of-way regulations.
Question 5. On June 20, 2017, when Senator Cory Gardner asked you
whether Canyons of the Ancients National Monument would be impacted by
the broader Federal review of NMs, you mentioned that it wasn't on your
``priority review list.'' This was despite the Canyons of the Ancients
NM being specifically named on your list of National Monuments under
review. Again, the following day (June 21, 2017), during a Senate
subcommittee hearing, you indicated to Senator Tom Udall that you were
unlikely to recommend changes to any New Mexico monuments.
Stating that some National Monuments will be left alone, even
though they were listed on the DOI ``priority review list'' and before
the public comment period is finished, seems arbitrary. Which national
monuments are actually on your ``priority review list?''
Answer. All of the national monuments listed in May 11, 2017,
Federal Register have been reviewed in accordance with the President's
Executive Order. The Secretary evaluated comments and, in certain
instances, visited monuments as he prepared his recommendations for the
President. As monuments were reviewed and found to require no
modification, the Department removed them from the review and let press
and local stakeholders know the Department's decision to keep all
interested parties informed. A draft report was submitted to the
President on August 24, 2017 and the final report was released to the
public on December 5, 2017 and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/
sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and
authority rests with the President.
PART II
On May 24, 2016, Mr. John Bezdek, Senior Advisor to the Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, testified before the Water,
Power and Oceans Subcommittee regarding the bills H.R. 4366, ``To
affirm an agreement between the United States and Westlands Water
District dated September 15, 2015, and for other purposes;'' and H.R.
5217, ``To affirm ``The Agreement Between the United States and
Westlands Water District'' dated September 15, 2015, ``The Agreement
Between the United States, San Luis Water District, Panoche Water
District and Pacheco Water District,'' and for other purposes.'' At the
time, the Department of the Interior was supporting a legal settlement
between the United States and Westlands Water District, and you have
given no indication that this support no longer holds true in this new
Administration. The Department of the Interior never responded to
questions regarding this, that I repeatedly submitted, and as such it
is my sincere hope that you will address the following questions now
that they fall under your tenure.
Question 1. Please provide an estimate of the total financial
benefit that would be provided to San Luis Unit contractors if H.R.
4366 and H.R. 5217 are enacted. Please include financial benefits
associated with waiving Central Valley Project (CVP) repayment
obligations, Reclamation Reform Act waivers, title transfers of
property owned by the Federal Government and other direct and indirect
financial benefits contained in both bills.
Answer. The Department continues to support the enactment of
legislation to resolve Reclamation's statutory obligation to provide
drainage to the entire San Luis Unit, provided that an appropriate
offset is identified. The settlement agreement authorized by H.R. 1769
would relieve the United States' obligation to provide drainage service
to Westlands Water District (Westlands) in exchange for relieving
Westlands from the obligation to repay certain debts, primarily
consisting of its share of capitalized construction costs for the
Central Valley Project (CVP). While H.R. 1769 would reduce the need for
appropriations related to this construction, it would have an upfront
mandatory cost. If an appropriate offset were identified, the
Administration would support H.R. 1769. The present value of the debts
that would be relieved is estimated to be $331.1 million. Reclamation's
assessment of the benefits to the San Luis Water District pursuant to
the April 2017 Agreement between the United States and San Luis Water
District is estimated at $69.1 million. These benefits primarily
consist of the relief of current, unpaid capitalized construction costs
for the CVP, relief of the current operations and maintenance
obligations for the Grasslands Bypass Project and relief of the
current, unpaid capitalized construction costs of the Demonstration
Treatment Plant.
Question 2. Under the settlement agreements, does the waiver of CVP
repayment obligations include the capital obligation for the Trinity
River Division facilities including the Trinity River hatchery?
Answer. The relief of current, unpaid CVP capital obligations
includes the Trinity River Diversion facilities, but does not include
the Trinity River hatchery because the hatchery is considered non-
reimbursable.
Question 3. If the settlement agreements are enacted, how much
Trinity River Division water will be allocated under the new 9(d)
contracts provided for in the settlements?
Answer. The CVP is an integrated system and is operated as such.
Reclamation does not allocate or quantify water deliveries uniquely
from individual units/divisions of the CVP. Under the settlement, new
9(d) contracts, if authorized by Congress, would continue to allocate
CVP water as an integrated system, in compliance with Federal law,
including then-existing biological opinions, and subject to shortage
provisions.
Question 4. As Trustee for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, how can the
Administration agree to a settlement based on a CVP water supply to
which the trust beneficiary tribe has first priority under Reclamation
law, without ensuring that any pending dispute the San Luis Unit
contractors have about that priority is fully and finally resolved in
the beneficiary's favor?
Answer. If the settlement agreements were approved by Congress, the
Department would continue to fulfill its trust responsibilities to the
Hoopa Valley Tribe, while managing the CVP as an integrated unit,
subject to reclamation and other laws.
Question 5. Section 3404(c)(2) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA) requires the Secretary of Interior to
incorporate in any contract for CVP water the provisions of the CVPIA
and other law. Will you agree to fulfill that requirement in the
agreements that would be authorized by the settlement, including: (1)
the CVPIA requirement for contractors to pay for the costs of the
Trinity River Restoration program for as long as water is diverted by
the Trinity River Division; (2) acceptance of the separate priorities
provided for in section 2 of the 1955 Act authorizing the Trinity
Division and senior to diversions to the Central Valley? If not, why
not?
Answer. It is Reclamation's standard practice to include compliance
with all applicable laws in any contract. In terms of funding, the
Trinity River Restoration Program is funded by both the CVP Restoration
Fund and appropriations. Westlands will continue to pay the CVP
Restoration Fund charges based on its full contract amount, including
on water above the 75 percent cap that Reclamation may use for other
CVP purposes. Therefore, the Settlement will not impact CVP Restoration
Fund collections.
Question 6. Why does the Administration believe that this this
drainage settlement should proceed when fundamental issues regarding
entitlement to water for delivery to the San Luis Unit remain
unresolved? If San Luis Unit contractors are not entitled to the water
being sought in this settlement, wouldn't a consequent reduction in
water deliveries to the San Luis Unit potentially resolve a portion of
the drainage problem by reductions in CVP water deliveries to the San
Luis Unit?
Answer. Reclamation is unaware of any fundamental issues regarding
its obligations to fulfill the San Luis Act of 1960 and deliver water,
subject to certain conditions, to the CVP contractors in the San Luis
Unit. Under the drainage settlement, the United States will have the
exclusive right to use all CVP water made available to Westlands in
excess of 75 percent of Westlands' contract quantity, or 895,000 acre-
feet. The United States' exclusive right to use the CVP water made
available to Westlands in excess of 895,000 acre feet will also be an
enforceable term in Westlands 9(d) repayment contract.
Question 7. On December 23, 2014, the Solicitor of the Department
of the Interior issued Opinion M-37030 regarding Trinity River Division
Authorization's 50,000 Acre-Foot Proviso and the 1959 Contract between
the Bureau of Reclamation and Humboldt County. In the 18 months since
then, have the Department's water managers accounted for that opinion's
conclusion in CVP operations models and estimates of water supply? If
yes, what has the Department done? If not, why not?
Answer. Reclamation has begun implementing the opinion through its
Long Term Plan to Protect Adult Salmon in the Lower Klamath River,
including through the development of an environmental impact statement
supporting the Plan, and its flow augmentation in prior years. Each of
these actions is supported by modeling of CVP water supplies that
includes consideration of proviso 2 of the opinion.
Question 8. In an April 21, 2016 letter to Representative David
Valadao, Deputy Interior Secretary Michael Connor states that ``it is
widely recognized that the drainage issue may have lessened over the
last few years due to drought and irrigation efficiencies.'' Has the
Department of the Interior developed any updated calculations since the
2007 Record of Decision to estimate the current cost of providing
drainage to the San Luis Unit? If no updated estimates have been
developed, does the Department of the Interior believe--based on
increased irrigation efficiencies and other developments since the 2007
Record of Decision--that a current estimate of drainage costs would be
less than the costs identified in 2007?
Answer. While Reclamation has not completed a comprehensive
analysis of the changes in drainage patterns and needs that may result
from the changes in cropping patterns and irrigation efficiencies that
have occurred in the San Luis unit since the a 2008 Feasibility Study,
historic hydrologic records indicate that wet cycles will return and
drainage will again become a substantial challenge in the San Luis
Unit. A variety of factors influence the cost of providing drainage
service. Some costs, such as the costs of evaporation ponds, reuse
areas, collection systems, and selenium biotreatment, could be reduced
by changes in cropping patterns or other irrigation efficiencies, while
other costs such as land retirement could increase over time. However,
any such future cost estimates are speculative absent additional
analysis, and any such cost savings are not expected to result in
savings of such a magnitude that the Department would not continue to
support the Westlands Settlement and San Luis Agreement.
Question 9. The Termsheet on the proposed Northerly District
Agreement is vague about the future status of the San Luis Drain, and
the future management and cleanup of sediments in the Drain. Under some
scenarios, the future management of the Drain and its sediments could
have an adverse impact on national wildlife refuges and other wetlands
that Interior Department agencies are supposed to protect under
numerous laws. For example, Section 3406(d) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act requires the Secretary of Interior to maintain
and improve wetland habitat areas in California, by providing water
supplies and supporting the objectives of the Central Valley Habitat
Joint Venture. In accordance with the Department of the Interior's
wetlands-related responsibilities, what is the Department's plan for
the future management of the San Luis Drain in and around the
Grasslands complex of state, Federal and privately managed wetlands?
How will the Department of the Interior ensure that all potential
impacts from the Drain and its future management and cleanup will not
adversely impact these wetlands and the numerous species they support
before the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation
relinquish Federal control of the Drain?
Answer. Reclamation intends to continue to use the San Luis
Interceptor Drain for the purposes of conveyance of drain water and
storm water for the duration of the Grassland Bypass Project, which
operates under the terms of the 2009-2019 Agreement for Continued Use
of the San Luis Drain between the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority and Reclamation. The impacts of this use were evaluated in
Reclamation's Grassland Bypass Project 2010-2019, Environmental Impact
Statement and Environmental Impact Report and resulting Record of
Decision.
Reclamation has met several times with Grasslands Water District
and other stakeholders to discuss the possible future use of the San
Luis Drain. However, no formal discussions have begun regarding the
future use of the San Luis Drain outside of the general discussions
with stakeholders.
If the San Luis Drain remains in Reclamation ownership and a new
stormwater use agreement is desired by the local stakeholders after the
expiration of the Grasslands Bypass Project in 2019, or other uses were
sought for the drain by the local stakeholders, then Reclamation would
work to negotiate the appropriate agreements for those uses and comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable Federal
law to determine the potential impacts of those uses. If title transfer
for the San Luis Drain to another entity or entities is authorized by
the Congress, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
other applicable Federal law would be required prior to the transfer.
As part of the title transfer effort, Reclamation would work with the
receiving entity or entities to determine anticipated future use of the
drain and analyze this anticipated future use, as appropriate, in the
National Environmental Policy Act documentation and in compliance with
applicable Federal law, prior to such title transfer.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Napolitano
Question 1. President Trump's Executive Order on the Review of
Designations Under the Antiquities Act on April 26, 2017 stated,
``Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall
provide a final report to the President.'' Do you expect the report to
be finished on time?
1a. Will your report recommend any action and/or changes through
the legislative process or through Executive Order?
1b. After these recommends, how can local residents, business and
cities be confident to implement their city and business plans without
fear that the President or the Interior Department will review their
nearby designation again?
Answer. A draft report, which includes the Department's findings
and recommendations on national monuments in accordance with the
President's Executive Order, was submitted to the President on August
24, 2017, and the final report was released to the public on December
5, 2017 and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. As we move forward in managing the
Federal lands, we will continue to coordinate with all levels, from
locals on the ground and county commissioners to governors, tribal
leaders, and Members of Congress to fulfill our mission to be a good
neighbor.
Question 2. Do you plan to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National
Monument before the comment period ends on July 10, 2017?
2a. If not, how do you plan to make a decision on the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument without meeting with local residents,
businesses and cities?
2b. What other information besides public comments made online will
you take into consideration? Where will that information come from and
who? How can local residents, businesses and cities ensure that that
information is in their best interest?
Answer. Each monument was reviewed in a holistic fashion. Although
I was not able to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument
before the comment period ended, we heard from the local communities
including state, county and federally elected officials, tribes, local
businesses, and trade associations and I thank you for the input you
provided to me. For all of the reviews, each group's input was weighed
when we crafted recommendations for the President.
Question 3. The monument designation has helped San Gabriel
communities leverage additional Federal dollars for critically needed
recreation, trail maintenance, trash collection and fire prevention.
Seeing that three major fires--the 2009 Station Fire, the 2014 Colby
Fire, and the 2015 Cabin Fire--have threated our local communities. How
do you expect our region to continue to fight forest fires without this
critical designation?
Answer. Wildfires are not constrained by land ownership or land
designation. The Department is committed to ensuring that all our
firefighting assets are utilized in the most efficient way possible,
regardless of land designation, and that we work with other Federal
agencies, along with our state and local partners, to improve our
operational efficiency and take advantage of the firefighting
infrastructure and assets that are currently in place.
Question 4. Thanks to the help of the designation, the monument has
raised more than $5 million through the San Gabriel Mountains National
Monument fund. One example, is Coca-Cola was has donated $900,000
toward clean-up efforts in the forest. This was possible because USFS
land cannot form private-public partnership unless they are designated
a national monument. Seeing that the USFS and Interior Department
budgets continue to shrink, do you believe public-private partnerships
like the one listed above is important for our parks?
a. Without a monument designation, how do you plan to allow USFS
lands to form these partnerships?
Answer. We support innovative public-private partnerships, and
believe that they are important for management of all Federal lands,
regardless of designation or land managing agency.
Question 5. Many water agencies in the arid West are looking toward
recycled water projects as the most cost effective solution to drought
management; do you believe we should start to refocus our investments
toward recycled water?
5a. What does President Trump's budget do to support recycled water
projects?
5b. How can an increase in funding impact the amount of water
projects that can be introduced in the drought-stricken West?
Answer. I believe it is important to look at a wide range of
approaches when it comes to helping the west effectively manage
drought. The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and
Reuse Program supports water supply sustainability by leveraging
Federal and non-Federal funding to conserve tens of thousands of acre-
feet of water each year. Since 1992, approximately $672 million in
Federal funding has been leveraged with non-Federal funding to
implement more than $3.3 billion in water reuse improvements.
Reclamation announced in July 2017 a new funding opportunity for Title
XVI projects pursuant to new authority under the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act (P.L. 114-322).
Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan
Question 1. In 2005, Interior's Office of Insular Affairs started a
competitive system for allocating among the U.S. territories $27.72
million in Covenant Funds that originally all went to the Northern
Marianas to help build our public infrastructure. The Northern Marianas
currently receives only about a third of the money. The competition is
largely based on financial management criteria. Financial management is
important but so is infrastructure. According to the EPA, Saipan, the
main island in the Northern Marianas, is the only U.S. municipality
without 24-hour potable water. That is a serious health concern. Isn't
it time to look at new criteria for the $27.72 million in Marianas
Covenant Funds, so that public health and safety needs are prioritized?
Answer. The capital infrastructure project (CIP) program funds a
variety of critical infrastructure needs in the U.S. territories, such
as ports, hospitals, schools, water, public buildings, solid waste,
energy and public safety. As you noted, the annual allocation of CIP
funds is made on the basis of competitive criteria that measure the
demonstrated ability of the governments to exercise prudent financial
management practices and to meet Federal grant requirements. These
criteria are evaluated and revised as necessary every 5 years.
Question 2. OIA budget justifications for FY 2018 tout the
importance of various programs including the Technical and Maintenance
Assistance Programs, the Brown Tree Snake Control and Coral Reef
Initiatives, and the Empowering Insular Communities program. Yet the
request includes steep funding cuts to each of these programs. I
appreciate the need to control spending, but these across-the-board
cuts would likely end up costing much more, both at the Federal and
local levels, if programs are not properly implemented. The Brown Tree
Snake Control Program costs a few million, but if these snakes spread,
as they have on Guam, the cost in damage to electrical systems and the
extermination of native endangered birds would cost tens of millions or
more. Isn't it a wiser use of taxpayers' money to prevent problems than
to try to fix them after the damage is done?
Answer. Overall, for 2018, the Administration identified areas
where the Federal Government could reduce spending and also areas for
investment, such as addressing the maintenance backlog across the
National Park System and increasing domestic energy production on
Federal lands. The 2018 budget requires restrained spending in order to
meet the goal of balancing the budget within 10 years. Specifically
with regard to the brown treesnake, we recently announced approximately
$3.5 million through the Office of Insular Affairs to continue
supporting efforts to control the brown treesnake on Guam and prevent
its spread to Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the larger Micronesian region. This supplements more than $250,000
in brown treesnake investments made by the U.S. Geological Survey and
the FWS in FY 2017.
Question 3. Territorial Representatives Bordallo, Radewagen,
Plaskett, and I sent you a letter dated March 9, 2017, asking that you
retain the position of Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas. We have
not received a response to date. The Office of Insular Affairs has
administrative responsibility for coordinating Federal policy in the
U.S. territories of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Keeping the position of Assistant
Secretary for Insular Areas, equal to other Assistant Secretaries in
the Department, is an important symbol of respect for our constituents
as it shows their concerns are taken as seriously as citizens residing
in the states, and insular area issues are viewed equally significant
as other issues under the Department's jurisdiction. In your
reorganization of the Interior Department, will you retain the position
of Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas?
Answer. The President nominated Doug Domenech to be Assistant
Secretary for Insular Areas on June 29, 2017, and Mr. Domenech's
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 13, 2017.
Question 4. In my reply to your letter soliciting comments to
assist your review of the Marianas Trench National Monument under
Executive Order 13792, I wrote about the promises made to the people of
the Northern Mariana Islands that remain unfulfilled. For years, we
have been urging Interior to produce the management plan, required when
President Bush created the Monument. The plan is key to fishing and
other resource use in the Monument, public education and outreach, and
the development of a Monument visitors center. Please provide an update
on any progress and a specific date for issuance of the Monument
Management Plan the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working on for 8
years now.
Answer. FWS continues to work with its partners, including the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Coast Guard, and Department of Defense toward completion of a
management plan for the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument.
A number of steps have been taken to address or resolve important
issues. FWS issued a patent under the Territorial Submerged Lands Act
for the CNMI's territorial waters in December 2016. This was an
important step in ensuring that the final monument management plan
included all applicable jurisdictions and authorities, including that
of the CNMI. NOAA Fisheries has developed and published fishing
regulations for the Islands Unit of the Monument. Management
regulations for the Trench and Volcanic Units were implemented under
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended, through Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3284.
A draft Monument Management Plan and associated Environmental
Assessment are awaiting completion of the Administration's national
monuments review and any associated Presidential decision arising from
the Secretary's recommendations.
Question 5. The Fish and Wildlife Service requests $470 million--a
decrease of $13.8 million--for management of National Wildlife Refuges.
This includes decreases to wildlife and habitat management, visitor
services, law enforcement, and elimination of funding for refuge
conservation planning. These cuts will surely ensure that American
hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts will have less access
to sporting opportunities on public lands. Do you believe the proposed
funding levels for Refuges are consistent with your vision of
increasing access to America's public lands, while also managing and
expanding the Refuge System to protect and enhance America's wildlife
resources?
Answer. Yes. Through the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
Service continues the American tradition, started by President Theodore
Roosevelt in 1903, to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats and
to provide recreation opportunities for hunting, fishing and other
outdoor recreation. The proposed budget makes tough choices that will
lead to a balanced budget, but maintains a commitment to provide
outdoor recreational opportunities in both rural and urban or suburban
settings, as well as to support the vital role of volunteers on our
Refuges.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Beyer
Question 1. Please confirm for me that the contract for Dyke Marsh
is on track to be awarded before the end of the fiscal year.
Answer. I am advised that the NPS awarded the contract for
construction at Dyke Marsh this past fall, but work will probably not
begin this calendar year since not all permits are yet in hand.
However, I understand that the construction documents are complete and
the permit application process is well underway.
Question 2. I increasingly hear concerns about traffic and traffic
safety along the GW Parkway.
2a. Please indicate how the Department tracks usage statistics for
the Parkway.
Answer. I understand that there are traffic counters on the roadway
that track the number of vehicles on the George Washington Memorial
Parkway (Parkway), trail counters on the Mount Vernon Trail to track
bicycle and pedestrian usage, and entrance counters at some park sites
that track vehicles and tour buses.
2b. Please indicate how the Department tracks accidents along the
Parkway.
Answer. The United States Park Police (USPP) utilizes a centralized
database, the Department's Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting
System (IMARS), that allows law enforcement officers to electronically
document accidents/incidents.
2c. What is the Department doing to increase the safety of the
parkway? Please speak to the Department's plans for Morningside Lane
and how it will budget appropriately to be able to address safety
concerns.
Answer. The safety of park visitors is of the utmost importance. I
understand that the NPS has implemented several recommendations from a
2016 Federal Highway Association safety assessment of Morningside Lane.
Also, NPS has scheduled an additional study to begin next year to
identify alternate traffic patterns within the local community to
increase safety at Morningside Lane.
2d. What is the Department doing to improve the accuracy of its
traffic counts?
Answer. I am told that the NPS is currently assessing equipment
along the Parkway and working to replace those pieces that are in
disrepair.
2e. What is the Department doing to improve how it tracks
accidents?
Answer. The USPP continue to work on crash reporting in IMARS.
Specifically dispatchers are being trained to document detailed
locations of crashes. This associated with previous improvements should
allow for more detailed and accurate reporting.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Torres
Tribal Concerns:
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, there has been some disturbing rhetoric
coming from some members of this Committee, as well as some in the
Administration, attacking the sovereignty of tribes and questioning the
recognition process and the land into trust process. Will you reaffirm
your and the Department's commitment to its trust responsibility to all
tribes that are currently federally recognized, including the ability
to take land into trust?
Answer. I have said before that the importance of my mission as
Secretary to partner with American Indians and Alaska Natives is one
that I do not take lightly. Our duty as Americans is to uphold our
trust responsibilities and consult and collaborate with tribes on a
government-to-government basis.
Question 2. To follow up on that, I would like you to address the
ongoing issue that is the Carcieri decision. That decision has troubled
Indian Country since it came down 2009, and has left many land
decisions in limbo. It's been almost 10 years now--do you agree that
Congress needs to resolve the Carcieri issue once and for all?
Answer. Congress, as the trust settlor for all Indian Affairs
matters, has the sole authority to amend existing statutes, such as the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Congress alone will determine if
land into trust statutes should be constrained or expanded. The
Department welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress on any
recommendations to modernize the land into trust process.
Question 3. The Tiwahe Initiative has proven to be exceptionally
successful at assisting tribes in addressing the inter-related problems
of poverty, violence, substance abuse, and their associated outcomes
like youth suicide. Tiwahe is currently in its pilot phase and
impacting 61 tribes directly, with an additional $24 million in Tiwahe
Social Services and ICWA funds distributed to tribes across the
country. In spite of this success, Tiwahe is being targeted for
elimination. Can you tell us if the Department will be able to support
the Tiwahe Initiative's success through its continued funding?
Answer. The budget request made difficult choices this year. The
Department's budget prioritizes self-governance and self-determination,
and focuses funding in Indian Country on core service activities, fully
funding the costs for tribes to administer programs for themselves, and
maintains essential management functions for tribal resources, among
other things.
Question 4. I understand that the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act Review Committee has been suspended as part of a
larger review of DOI committees. This is congressionally charted
committee and does critical work across the country in the rightful
return of human remains to Indian tribes. Do you have an estimate of
when the department's review will be completed and the committee re-
activated?
Answer. In order to make sure all commissions are giving local
communities adequate opportunities to comment on park management
decisions, the Department is reviewing the more than 200 boards,
committees, and commissions under its responsibility. Throughout this
review process, committees and commissions have been given the option
to pursue waivers to meet. We recognize the critical work performed by
these committees.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Gallego
Sexual Harassment:
Question 1. Secretary Zinke, as a follow-up to Mrs. Tsongas'
questions during the hearing, please address the following. A workforce
survey on sexual harassment is an important tool available to those
that are serious about rooting out sexual harassment in their
organizations. As you alluded to in your testimony, the military has a
sexual assault and harassment problem of its own. In seeking to address
this grave and prevalent issue, the military now conducts such a survey
every other year. Making the surveys recurring is an honest way to
track progress in eliminating sexual harassment, helps refine
departmental efforts, and sends a clear signal to employees that sexual
harassment is a priority.
With this in mind, will the Department commit to ensuring the
National Park Service (NPS) performs its survey on a recurring basis?
Answer. We are mindful of the opportunity to perform this survey on
a recurring basis and understand the value of doing so. A decision has
not been made yet on whether to repeat the survey.
Question 2. In his recent testimony before the Senate, acting NPS
Director Michael Reynolds said this about the results of the sexual
harassment workforce survey they are currently conducting: ``I assure
you that we are committed to transparency and once we receive the final
data, we will share it widely with this subcommittee as well as all
employees and interested stakeholders.'' It's a step in the right
direction but accountability requires true transparency. And true
transparency means anyone--not just the employees or stakeholders--can
see the results. Again, the military published the results of its
survey for all to see.
In your testimony before the Committee, you indicated your openness
to sharing the results of both the January 2017 survey and the seasonal
survey scheduled for July 2017. Please confirm that the Department will
make both survey results available on the public-facing website.
Answer. The Department has worked with the NPS to ensure that the
survey is appropriately shared with stakeholders. The January 2017
survey results were posted on October 13, 2017, to https://www.nps.gov/
aboutus/transparency-accountability.htm.
Question 3. You indicated during the hearing that the sexual
harassment issues known to exist in the National Park Service ``may be
department-wide.'' Accordingly, and given your stated zero-tolerance
policy, please explain what efforts you will undertake to expand
information gathering and response efforts so to include the totality
of Interior Department personnel.
Answer. As Secretary of the Interior, I am committed to combating
all forms of harassment. On April 12, 2017, I issued a memorandum to
all employees setting forth the Department's policy on harassment. I
directed the Chief Human Capital Officer and the Solicitor to establish
additional harassment reporting procedures for managers and
supervisors. I also ensured that all managers and supervisors
throughout the Department will now be required to complete training on
preventing harassment and improving the workplace environment. In
addition, I have directed the Department to update its policy,
procedures, and guidance to address the impact of harassment as it
relates to performance and conduct. This is an important and ongoing
process here at the Department and I look forward to working with you
and your colleagues to craft real solutions that protect employees and
hold wrongdoers accountable.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Hanabusa
Hazards Programs:
Question 1. The U.S. Geological Survey's natural hazards programs
are critical for communities across our Nation to understand the
science behind natural disasters and how we can best prepare for them.
The Earthquake Hazards Program and the Volcano Hazards Program as
examples today, since they are of particular importance to Hawaii.
These programs use science and technology to monitor signs of activity
to help ensure the public is given ample warning of an earthquake,
tsunami, or volcanic activity, so that proper precautions can be taken
to reduce the amount of damage and loss of lives.
Your budget seems to reflect the opposite. On cuts to the
Earthquake Hazards Program, it says ``This reduction would diminish the
EHP's ability to execute its core activities . . .'' On cuts in the
Volcano Hazards Programs, it says ``This reduction would diminish the
VHP's ability to execute its core activities to provide forecasts and
warnings of hazardous volcanic activity at volcanoes in the United
States with the current monitoring networks,'' among other things.
These proposed cuts are deeply concerning. Although they are not
large, they could have serious consequences, especially if these cuts
hinder these programs' abilities to ``execute its core activities.''
1a. Please explain the rationale behind these proposed cuts.
Answer. For 2018, the Administration identified areas where the
Federal Government could reduce spending and also areas for investment,
such as addressing the maintenance backlog across the National Park
System and increasing domestic energy production on Federal lands. The
2018 budget requires restrained spending in order to meet the goal of
balancing the budget within 10 years. The 2018 budget request focuses
on core capabilities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous
volcanic activity with current monitoring networks, including Hawaii;
produce updated hazard assessments for high-threat volcanoes; and to
revise the national volcano threat level assessment. The budget
maintains support for robust national and regional earthquake
monitoring and reporting, including Hawaii.
Invasive Species:
Question 2. Invasive species is a global problem that will continue
to invade our lands and waters with devastating economic and ecological
impacts unless we actively protect our resources. It has been shown
time and again that prevention of invasive species saves far more money
than trying to eradicate the pest after it has been introduced. It is
problematic to cut invasive species funding, seeing as invasive species
continue to cost the United States more than $120 billion in damages
annually (Pimental et al. 2005).
Invasive species management requires a holistic effort due to the
impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial resources. Especially troubling
in the budget are reductions for the Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Insular Affairs, and National Parks Service for invasive species
management, while funding is increased by more than $4.5 million for
the Bureau of Reclamation, which focuses on dams. While there are
invasive species in dams, the issues plague areas on both land and in
the sea. The funding shift away from offices within the Department of
the Interior that have jurisdiction over areas with invasive species
and to an agency with little expertise in this area would be an
inefficient waste of taxpayer money.
My home state of Hawaii, for example, has very unique ecosystems
that are particularly vulnerable to invasive species. We require robust
invasive species funding to prevent further damage from such species as
the Brown Tree Snake, Little Fire Ant, Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle, and
the Coqui frog, much of which is best managed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
2a. Given that the threat from invasive species is not diminished
and reducing prevention will cost us much more in eradication, can you
explain the rationale behind cuts to invasive species management?
2b. How is the Bureau of Reclamation going to effectively manage
invasive species in places like Hawaii where the Bureau has no
presence?
Answer. Invasive species are a significant threat to the Nation's
economy, food and water security, public health and environment. The
Department leads extensive work to prevent, eradicate and control
invasive species, including efforts to strengthen early detection and
rapid response capabilities, enhance biosecurity measures, and address
high impact invasive species, such as the brown treesnake. The
Department is committed to working with the state of Hawaii and all of
our partners on these important issues. The budget includes $101
million for invasive species work across the Department, nearly level
with 2017.
The Department recently announced approximately $3.5 million
through the Office of Insular Affairs to continue supporting efforts to
control the brown treesnake on Guam and prevent its spread to Hawaii,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the larger
Micronesian region. This supplements more than $250,000 in brown
treesnake investments made by the U.S. Geological Survey and the FWS in
FY 2017. The budget requests an increase for the Bureau of Reclamation
to help address the threat posed by zebra mussels, which is a serious
concern in the West due to the experience seen in the Great Lakes
region.
Questions Submitted by Rep. McEachin
Sexual Harassment:
Question 1. Secretary Zinke, during questioning at the hearing, you
agreed that your hiring freeze was the reason the DOI attorneys needed
to work through the backlog of sexual harassment allegations have not
yet been hired. But you seem to blame others for that. There are only
two people that can approve exceptions to your hiring freeze; you and
your Deputy Secretary--or acting Deputy Secretary in this case. There
are really only two people to blame for the failure to do what it takes
to work through the backlog. When will those attorneys in the ELLU unit
be hired?
Answer. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. While
positions in Washington, DC, and Denver, and positions in the field at
the GS-12 level and above, are still generally subject to hiring
controls, the Solicitor's Office has authority to hire personnel
lawyers and is in the process of doing so. I look forward to working
toward a solution to this problem. As I have stated before, I have a
zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and the Department remains
committed to addressing this issue head on.
Question 2. Sexual harassment is a sizable, difficult, complex
problem that requires a serious long-term commitment. A problem like
that needs a plan with clear goals and a viable path to achieving them.
I have not found a plan for NPS. I could cobble together the promises
made in various statements, memos, and briefing notes to see what has
been said but I have not found a plan. Without a plan, it's hard to
address the problem efficiently and have accountability for those in
charge of getting rid of sexual harassment. Is there a written plan for
how NPS will address its sexual harassment problem?
Answer. The National Park Service is pursuing a number of proactive
strategies on multiple fronts to address the harassment issues. First,
the NPS is examining the breadth and depth of the problems with a
workplace survey of both permanent and seasonal employees. Second, the
NPS is encouraging employees to consult with a newly established Ombuds
Office if they encounter workplace problems. Third, the NPS is
improving training programs aimed at recognizing and addressing
harassment. Fourth, the NPS is seeking input from employee resource
groups. Fifth, the NPS building stronger procedures for reporting,
investigating, tracking, and resolving work environment issues. And
sixth, the NPS is acting as quickly as possible when new cases are
brought to its attention. These issues did not develop overnight and
they will not be solved overnight, however, NPS is committed to
bringing a culture of transparency, respect and accountability back to
the organization.
Inspector General:
Question 3. Secretary Zinke, would a permanent Inspector General
help you and your department function more efficiently and
transparently?
Answer. The Department appreciates the work of Interior's Office of
the Inspector General, currently led by the Deputy Inspector General
Mary L. Kendall, in the detection and investigation of waste, fraud,
and abuse. I would note that the appointment of an Inspector General is
a decision to be made by the President, with the advice and consent of
the Senate.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Brown
Environmental Justice:
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, decades of studies have proved that
minority, low-income, rural, tribal and indigenous populations face
tremendous environmental and health disparities. Do you agree?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the studies you mention, the
Department of the Interior, and I, recognize that there remain
impediments to economic, environmental, and health prosperity for a
significant number of rural and underserved communities. The Department
supports underserved communities efforts to overcome disparities in
much of the work we do.
Programs at the Department of the Interior address issues in Indian
Country that range from remediation of legacy wells in Alaska, in some
cases to protect the health and safety of Alaska Native communities, to
assisting tribes in addressing important human services matters, like
child welfare, health, and other social services issues.
Question 2. In 1994 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898
requiring that the U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies implement
environmental justice policies. That order required all Federal
agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their
missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts to
minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate
the development of data and research on these topics. Do you support
the goals of this order?
Answer. I believe it is necessary that the Department's management
of the Nation's natural and cultural resources is done in a manner that
is inclusive of all populations. As I have said before, I recognize
that the Department has not always stood shoulder-to-shoulder with
tribal communities. I also recognize that all tribes are sovereign and
we must respect their right to self-determination and the decisions
that they make. We are working to foster stronger and more resilient
Native communities.
Question 3. Under your budget, this order faces its gravest
assault. The Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), part
of the Office of the Secretary, is the focal point for implementing the
Department's environmental justice policy, including the environmental
justice executive order, and ensuring compliance. The proposed budget
would cut the Office of the Secretary--your office--by over 80 percent.
How can a cut this large not undermine the environment and health of
minority, low-income, rural Americans, tribal and indigenous
communities?
Answer. The request for the Office of the Secretary appears to
reflect a large reduction because the FY 2018 budget request would
transfer funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program from
the Departmental Operations account, from which both FY 2016 andFY 2017
funding for PILT was appropriated, to a separate PILT appropriation.
With regard to Indian Affairs programs specifically, while this budget
makes tough choices, it prioritizes self-governance and self-
determination for Indian Country, fully funding the costs for tribes to
administer programs for themselves, and maintains essential management
functions for tribal resources, among other things.
With regard to environmental justice, while OEPC provides support
at the Departmental level, implementation of environmental justice
activities at the Department has always occurred at the bureau level.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will start
with a round of questions and try to get as much as we can in.
First of all, I remind the Committee members that we have a 5-
minute limit to questions of the Secretary and the staff that
is here. I am going to do that. I am going to be mean on that,
so same thing, we will cut you off at 5 minutes. If you are
talking when it is 5 minutes, I will cut you off. Don't ask a
question when there are only 20 seconds left. Do it the right
way.
I also want to apologize because in the middle of this I
and Mr. Grijalva have another meeting we are going to have to
go to. We are not walking out on you, we will be back. If you
are still here, we will come back.
Let me open it up and start with questions, if I could, for
you, Secretary Zinke.
There are some people, there are some voices out there that
simply try to measure success by the increased dollars and a
bigger bureaucracy. As you have mentioned before, that simply
is a different era. And you have mentioned before how the
revenues have decreased, how access to public land has been
further restricted. Overall, a return on services for taxpayers
has been diminished, even though there was supposedly, on
paper, an increase in revenues.
Can you just tell us more clearly how you expect to try to
solve those three problems of the access, the service, and the
revenue coming into the country, and how you intend to do that?
And if there is some way, statutorily, we can assist you in
hitting those areas?
Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of
things.
One, on the revenue side, it is oil and gas and all of the
above, but I am a Boy Scout. We are going to do it right. You
leave your campground in as good or better condition than what
you found it. But clearly, when you put 94 percent of all
offshore holdings off limits, it has a consequence. When you
decide you are not going to cut any timber, it has a
consequence. When you decide you are not going to do anything
onshore, there is a consequence.
Compensatory mitigation was a problem. Some people would
call it extortion. But when you have a project, let's say a
pipeline or a power line, and you force a company to do $90
million worth of compensatory mitigation in a project that is
$109 million, that is a problem. When the permitting process
becomes arbitrary, that is an issue.
In the case of North Shore, when a company buys a $3.1
billion lease offshore, and is forced to go further out in an
unproductive area, and is forced to drill a well that is not
proved true because of a Fish and Wildlife rule that is maybe
pertinent to the Gulf, where you cannot have platforms and
systems 15 miles apart, that forces them to drill a dry hole,
that is a $3.1 billion hit, and that sends signals throughout
the industry that we cannot be trusted.
So, my biggest job is to be trustworthy, to be a partner,
making sure we work with people, rather than against people,
make sure we have a system that we hold industry accountable,
because accountability is important. That is why we
reintroduced the Royalty Committee, to make sure we have a
system that we hold people accountable, but we are viewed as an
advocate, rather than an adversary.
Reorganization is not just about number of people in
budget, it is how we do things. Let me give you an example. If
you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream, and that
upstream has perhaps a dam or a lock, and downstream is
irrigation, and if that stream happens to pass by tribal lands,
you have at least five different bureaucracies. Fish and
Wildlife will handle the trout, NOAA will handle the salmon,
Bureau of Reclamation will handle the irrigation, Army Corps of
Engineers will handle the locks, and BIA will be the subject
matter on tribal lands.
Five bureaus, and it could be more, all will have different
views, different biological opinions, mind you, and some of the
opinions might be unreconcilable. So, how do you manage your
public lands? We are looking at more of a joint model on the
region side, because if the government cannot align, then how
do you expect industry, or how do you expect the public to have
a view and transparency of what is best?
We are looking at a reorganization based on jointness,
based on how to get the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior together on issues, so we can be more transparent
and address things like wildlife corridors and watersheds.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Secretary, I am cutting myself
off here, too, so let me thank you for that. That is a
significant issue.
Can I just say on Antiquities, very quickly, four of the
last six presidents have actually changed the way Antiquities
has been used. In Bears Ears, you were very nice to actually
challenge Congress to come up and solve some of the questions
that should be presented. I appreciate that. I know Senators
Hatch and Lee will take that on the Senate side; the membership
here will do something with that, we will take upon the
challenge, and we will give you something legislatively that
can be used in that particular area.
I have 9 seconds. I said I wouldn't do a question with that
period of time, so let me just give it out to you, that if
there is something that you think we can do to help to assist
in providing transparency, accountability, dealing with the
Antiquities Act, we would like to hear from you and are willing
to do that.
I apologize, and I will now recognize Mr. Grijalva for his
questions. Since I went 8 seconds over, we will take it off of
yours.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Secretary, the Office of Legal Counsel
within the Department of Justice has a written opinion stating
fundamentally that only letters or inquiries from committee
chairmen should receive responses from the Trump
administration. All other letters from Members of the Congress
can and have been ignored. We submitted more than a dozen
letters to the Administration seeking information, and we have
received no responses.
I really believe this policy is undemocratic, as well as
offensive to every Member in Congress. Even Chairman Grassley
said that it frustrates the constitutional functioning of
legislature.
My question is to that issue of information, the flow of
information, and the equal treatment of Members. Mr. Secretary,
when you were a member of this Committee, if you wrote a letter
to the Administration, did you feel your letter deserved to be
answered?
Secretary Zinke. Well, first, I can say up front there is
no gag order.
And second, I have met with the Minority in person. I also
recall you were in the meeting that I committed to meet with
the Minority Members quarterly. And if a Member, which I think
is a courtesy, it is not a right, but it is a professional
courtesy, that if you have an issue, then I will give you my
phone number and we will talk about it personally. I will
arrange to come over.
When I was in Boston recently, I called young Joe Kennedy,
who I think very highly of. I talked to all Members and said
exactly where I----
Mr. Grijalva. And I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, but the
point here is the free and open flow of information, Members
receiving information.
Our oversight responsibility is more encompassing than your
gesture, and we need information, information that becomes part
of the record. And while I appreciate the gesture, and would
take advantage of it, the fact remains that for the record
these responses need to occur.
You wrote nine letters to the Obama administration. All
nine you received responses to when you were a Member of this
body. And I think that, quite frankly, every Member here, and
certainly representing the Minority side, deserves the courtesy
that you were extended by the previous administration.
The purpose of these letters was to get the reasoning for
the various policy decisions that you would be making. And I
really think, and let me ask you, as Members of Congress
entitled to a full understanding of the reasonings behind your
policy decisions, don't you think that is part of the
legislative oversight responsibility that this Committee has?
Secretary Zinke. I would think hearing it from the
Secretary of the Interior directly probably is the most
important access I can think of in a democracy.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me----
Secretary Zinke. As you know, when you write a letter, it
is probably your staff that writes it. It probably comes to my
staff that answers it. But I have said, and I have absolutely
committed, that I will talk to you in person. I don't think
that there is a better system, and I can't remember, and I was
only here for one term, but I can't remember a Secretary that
would offer to talk to you about an issue in person.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I appreciate that. Let me be very
specific, though.
Let's talk about Bears Ears. The comment period is over,
extended comment period. One of the letters that we sent was
wanting an accounting, how many support existing monuments, how
many support making changes to the existing monuments. Will
your office provide that accounting of those comments as a
response to that letter? I realize those comments are public,
but there are tens of thousands of them. We would simply like
an accounting of the positives and the negatives.
We are going to be resubmitting letters to you as official
questions for the record for this hearing. And, as you know,
questions for the record are technically coming from the
Chairman. Because of that being on the record, my second
question, will you commit to providing answers to those letters
for the record, given the submittal today?
Secretary Zinke. As you know, the Antiquities Act is
singular in authority. It is by the President, by the
executive. It does not require NEPA, it does not require public
access or public comment.
Mr. Grijalva. All I want is----
Secretary Zinke. However, on the review, for the first time
it was regulations.gov. So, we opened up a website so every
comment could be heard. And the President asked me to go
forward and get every comment. And I would certainly----
The Chairman. I have 10 seconds to finish up with you.
Secretary Zinke [continuing]. Make that available.
And if you want to talk about the Bears Ears in the next
round, I will talk about the Bears Ears----
Mr. Grijalva. Well, the question was already asked.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Lamborn, you are up.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here. I remember
when you sat on this side of the dais, and you always had
great, penetrating questions. And I am so happy to see you
sitting where you are at now.
Secretary Zinke. It is easier on that side, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lamborn. The subcommittee that I chair, the
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, has an active
infrastructure agenda, already hearing testimony on a number of
bills. And a subcommittee bill is also going to be on the Floor
today that Mr. McClintock has sponsored, streamlining the
permitting process for water and infrastructure projects.
How do these kinds of bills that would remove bureaucratic
obstacles and streamline America's water resource developments,
including title transfer bills like with the Bureau of
Reclamation, when they have hydropower projects, how do these
fit into the Department's goals of advancing the production of
American energy infrastructure improvement?
Secretary Zinke. Well, how we are approaching it, one is
that it is just not about funding, it is about process and how
we do our permits. If there is one small clerical error, it can
go back in a loop, and we added more money in our budget for
permitting. But some of it is structural. And that is why we
are convinced that, as an example, looking at a joint model
would be what we call joint management areas, where, rather
than the different bureaus are represented, they are grouped
together into a NEPA process or a permit process, where every
bureau has representation.
It is not a new concept. This is how we fight forest fires
out West, and this is how the military operates under combatant
commands. But looking at it more joint, so you don't have the
problems up front with different biological opinions, where we
actually can work together as a government, and have state
input, because a lot of the permitting process also involves
state and local communities, which should have a voice.
So, helping streamline the process to making sure it is
fair, not arbitrary, consistent in approach, but also
understanding that there needs to be some flexibility because
the geology is different than what the geology is in the
Appalachians or Colorado. So, you need the right people to
understand the nuances in the different projects.
Again, being an advocate, rather than an adversary, is a
big change.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And we will work
with you and your Department on that.
One specific line item in the budget that I do want to ask
you about has to do with 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP. And
that does concern me, because it is important to have high-
quality 3D elevation data to help resource management of
forests, alternative energy, agriculture, other industries,
including flood risk management.
Why are you proposing a reduction in that particular
program? I am just curious where the Department is coming from
on that.
Secretary Zinke. Well, this is a balanced budget. Look at
it. I will work with you on it, but we looked at the USGS,
where that program, I think, resides. We did reduce USGS, not
all programs, we consolidated some on there.
As far as the program goes, we think there is a good
opportunity for public-private partnerships. In many of the
cutting-edge technologies, the government is not the lead any
more. Now, there are a lot of reasons why, and I think the
government should be on the lead in some areas. But, quite
frankly, our processes, our acquisition, the way that we
approach technology, we are lagging behind some of the private
enterprises.
So, we think there is an opportunity for public-private
partnership on some of the 3D modeling, certainly some of the
surveys, and some of the higher technologies.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. And last, applications for permit
to drill are supposed to only take 30 days. Under BLM, they
take an average of 220 days. What can we do to speed up that
particular process?
Secretary Zinke. We added money into it. I have also
appointed a counselor for energy affairs that is specifically
looking at the energy sector and the permitting process.
One is, you have to be fair. Two is, it is not a free-for-
all in that a public review is necessary on this. So, we make
sure the reclamation plan is in place, that it is the right
drilling, we have a casing, et cetera. We are actively looking
at that, and our goal is to reduce it, but we have added more
money in the budget to look at it.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. You violated my 30-second rule
there and got away with it.
Mr. Lamborn. It was 20 seconds.
The Chairman. Twenty-second rule, right. Well, Mr. Huffman
has usurped the Ranking Member's chair, and therefore he gets
the right to ask the next questions.
Mr. Huffman. Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary.
It is good to see you.
Secretary Zinke. Good to be here.
Mr. Huffman. I notice that you are proposing something in
the order of $10 million to come up with a new 5-year offshore
oil and gas leasing plan. I wanted to ask if you can tell us
when you expect to publish the request for information on that
plan.
Secretary Zinke. I know we are going to do the first
Federal Register asking for that, I want to say, within the
next 30 days, if not sooner. We think the whole 5-year plan
will be done between 2 and 3 years on it.
Again, we looked at the process, the way it is set up----
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. I was just trying to hone
in on the timeline, if I could.
Secretary Zinke. I think in the next 30 days we should have
something out on it.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciated
your testimony about your desire for a balanced budget to do
more with less, and you are undertaking this new $10 million
planning process. I know you want to make sure all those
dollars are well spent.
So, let me just save you some trouble when it comes to
California and the West Coast. We do not want new leasing off
our coastline in California. We learned way back in 1969 in
Santa Barbara, with that blowout, what that means. We have been
reminded many times of the Deepwater Horizon and other events.
We have made that abundantly clear during the preparation of
the current leasing plan.
The people of California are simply not going to allow it
to happen. In fact, our state wants to remove the existing oil
and gas rigs in our waters. We are looking forward to the
development of offshore renewable energy, and we are not happy
about backwards steps.
So, I know that you want to do more with less. Let me just
submit that whether it is the fervent opposition from the
people of California, from the state of California, from the
local governments in California, from the court challenges that
will ensue, to the state lands commission right-of-way and
permits that would be necessary to make that happen, you will
be doing less with less if you attempt to drill for oil off the
coast of California.
Secretary Zinke. I am very familiar with Santa Barbara, and
I am sure you also appreciate there are 10,000 gallons a year
that seep naturally out of that harbor. And to some degree the
science will say, actually, relieving some of the pressure is a
good thing. But I am very familiar with Santa Barbara.
Mr. Huffman. And I am familiar with that old industry
trope, as well.
Secretary Zinke. Absolutely.
Mr. Huffman. That has been debunked many a time.
I want to ask about, again, on this theme of doing more
with less, you have talked about reorganization. You want to
have an efficient government. You have provided some welcome
gestures about accessibility, at least at a personal level,
which I appreciate very much.
But as you reorganize, and as you try to instill more
responsiveness and accessibility, you have also mentioned
having a Department that works with local communities, listens
to issues at the community and state level.
Three months ago, on an issue near and dear to my
constituents, the safety of Trinity Dam in Trinity County, I
and the Board of Supervisors from that county wrote letters to
the Bureau of Reclamation. We were asking about the safety of
this dam. This is an earthen dam, similar to the one at
Oroville, which, as you know, was in real hot water just a few
months ago. And we have not had a response back. In fact, we
have heard nothing but red tape about an elaborate process
necessary to review and sign off on this letter.
So, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about how this 3-month
delay on something so vital to the communities I represent, and
a community impacted by this reclamation facility, involving 25
people, we are told, signing off on a letter in response to a
potential disaster, how does that adequately affect an agency
that works with local communities, is efficient and responsive,
and listens to issues about their safety?
Secretary Zinke. Well, I may be good at reorganizing, but I
am not that good. I have not heard. I will check on the Trinity
Dam thing.
For the record, it is interesting, I don't have a Deputy. I
have about 70 appointments. To date, there is not one that has
gone through Senate confirmation yet.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate it. In the little time I have
left, let me just ask this, Mr. Secretary.
You said this is what a balanced budget looks like. But
this is not what a balanced budget has to look like. You have
chosen to balance the budget with some winners and losers. On
the losing side, we see cuts to renewable energy, climate
change, ESA implementation, abandoned mine remediation,
environmental health, science, national wildlife refuges, LWCF,
it goes on.
On the winning side, we see more exploration, drilling,
mining, et cetera. Is there any sacrifice for the fossil fuel
industry in your budget?
The Chairman. But you can't answer, I am sorry. Time has
expired.
Secretary Zinke. May I have 3 seconds?
The Chairman. Three, I am counting.
Secretary Zinke. As the executive proposes, as the
Congress, you have a say, and that is why I am here.
The Chairman. We have, Secretary, eight other Members from
California on this Committee. You are going to hear a lot more
California questions.
But first we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us. As panel
members, we appreciate the opportunity. And, Mr. Secretary, as
you and I worked very hard here on Indian recognition bills, as
that process continues, and I want to thank the Chairman for
his leadership, too, to try to fix the process to make sure
that Congress is the central decision maker there.
As the bill that has passed out on the Virginia tribal
recognition, and hopefully also for Little Shell, goes forward,
and hopefully the Senate acts, how will your office look upon
that bill and your recommendation to the executive branch,
hopefully, when that gets to the President's desk?
Secretary Zinke. Well, as Secretary, I cannot comment on
issues before the Interior. But certainly, as Secretary, I can
say that I have always thought that it is the view of Congress
to recognize.
In Bears Ears, for instance, I asked Congress to take a
look at some things that I thought were outside of the
executive. One is co-management of monuments. There are a lot
of monuments that have cultural relevancy to our tribes, and I
think that should be co-managed, rather than just an advisory
group. I asked Congress to look at things and take the lead on
determining some issues in there.
But I think Congress should take the lead in recognition. I
think it is the right body, constitutionally.
Mr. Wittman. All right, good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to talk a little bit now about energy development
specifically in the draft plan for the Mid and South Atlantic.
As you know, the 5-year plan for 2017 through 2022 looks at
that particular region. There is also a 2015 Department of
Defense plan that looked at compatibility within those areas. I
wanted to get your viewpoint on how the DoD assessment report
will play in the Department of the Interior's decision making
for potential leasing in that area, and does this report, in
your mind, show compatibility with DoD mission functions and
the ability for the oil and gas development to take place off
the Atlantic coast?
Secretary Zinke. The Atlantic coast is, in some ways, no
different than other areas. As the Secretary of the Interior, I
think seismic review and inventories are prudent. I cannot give
you a decision because I don't know what is there, but as the
steward of our public lands, I think having an inventory on
what is our potential is important. And that stretches in the
1002 as well as north. It stretches on our precious metals.
I think having an inventory of what is actually there,
based on science, is important. Then much of the decision rests
on Congress whether or not, given that inventory and science of
actually what we have, whether it is prudent to go forth on
drilling extraction or not.
But my job, the way I see it, is to have, and we have a
wonderful USGS, we have a lot of capability there. Let's do the
inventory, and let Congress decide whether it is appropriate in
the case of California or off the coast. And I think that is
the way the democracy should run.
Mr. Wittman. In asking specifically about renewable energy,
and the leasing that takes place offshore, as you know, within
the Department of the Interior there are a number of different
processes: the solicited bid process, the unsolicited bid
process.
One of the concerns that I have when we are looking at that
is the length of the approval process. I put a bill in prior to
that to make sure that we truncate that approval process to
make sure it takes place more quickly. But more importantly is
to make sure that in that process, that we get the perspective
of everybody within those particular regions, and that is to
make sure that we have the views of folks that are users in
that particular area, fishermen, our maritime industry, and
other stakeholders, to make sure that their perspective gets
reflected in that process, whether it is a solicited or
unsolicited bid process.
Give me your idea about how robust you think that
involvement process needs to be with all the different
stakeholders for the use of those particular areas that we
would look to for renewable energy.
Secretary Zinke. I was up in the great state of
Massachusetts, talking to the lobstermen and the fishermen, and
they were a little irate about the monument because what they
saw was reduced access to fishing. The length of the processes
that we have, we looked at a sequential model, where you have
to do 6 months, and then after you complete this do another,
but it is in sequence, you know? And I think you can do a lot
of it simultaneously to reduce the time frame, but yet make
sure you have the stakeholders' view.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming and addressing us. You
began, and I am going to follow up, on the offshore revenues
and the relationship to what those revenues could be used for.
You mentioned that revenues are down significantly since 2008.
You mentioned how we made almost $15.5 billion more in revenues
in 2008 than we did in 2016, and that the revenues could be
used for the parks, or some of those revenues.
So, I assume that you are talking about it would be good to
get back to that revenue. And while you don't say it directly,
there must be some policies during the Obama administration
that you would like to revise, if that is really so.
So, I would like to understand the steps that you are going
to take to increase offshore revenues. Would it be more
leasing? Faster permitting? Less regulations? Exactly what do
you see to change some of the policies?
Secretary Zinke. Well, we had yesterday, as a matter of
fact, the first successful lease in the Cook Inlet, on a $3
million lease. That was, I think, an indicator that we are
willing to be a partner, rather than an advocate.
But on leases there is, again, if you are going to operate
on public land, then the responsibility is to make sure it is
done right.
Dr. Lowenthal. Got it.
Secretary Zinke. Transparent. What we are doing is we are
doing our seismic surveys, we are moving ahead on that. That is
important. But also is an indicator that the rules are not
going to be arbitrary.
I could go through some horrific stories of compensatory
mitigation, of arbitrariness of rules that the industry looked
at us as not a good partner, and they would prefer to drill
elsewhere.
Dr. Lowenthal. Are we talking about offshore now?
Secretary Zinke. Offshore and onshore.
Dr. Lowenthal. OK.
Secretary Zinke. Onshore, both. The revenue, though, I can
tell you offshore, as you know, goes into the LWCF program,
which is important. So, when the revenue goes down, so does the
LWCF program, the potential for appropriation, but that is not
the whole story. Over the course of time, there is about a $20
billion buildup in LWCF, which most of us recognize is a
wonderful program. So, let's fix the system, so you don't have
to go----
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes, I would like to go back, though, to
just some of the revenues, and ask some of the questions.
You are aware that 2008 was an outlier year. That is where
gas prices were roughly $4 a gallon. In 2008, the price of oil
was somewhere about $145 a barrel, in July almost exactly, I
guess that would be 9 years past. There was an average price of
$107 per barrel.
You know that in 2016, the price was about $41 a barrel,
less than a third of what it was. So, we are talking about a
tremendous drop. And even in natural gas, it is even more.
And we also, as I understand, we had more oil production
offshore in 2016 than we had in 2008, so the prices were very
high. We certainly don't want to go back to that era, where it
was over $4 a gallon to buy gasoline.
So, the question is if in fact there are policies that
really impacted this besides the price of oil, which I think
what we are really talking about is the price of oil, what year
was the second most productive year, in terms of oil production
offshore?
Secretary Zinke. I will look at that. But to your point,
the oil and gas price----
Dr. Lowenthal. It was 2014, and the third most was 2013.
The Obama administration has produced the greatest amount of
revenues, besides the one outlier year. Is that not so?
Secretary Zinke. If your contention is the last
administration was pro-energy, I think----
Dr. Lowenthal. I am----
Secretary Zinke [continuing]. Your supposition is----
Dr. Lowenthal. Just the data, just the data. What was the
second, 2013 and 2014 we had the greatest amount of revenues
from offshore oil production besides the year 2008. I am just
asking. Is that not true?
Secretary Zinke. I would have to look. But if your
contention is that the compensatory mitigation, the
arbitrariness of the regulatory framework, of the signals the
oil and gas, or any industry, to include timber harvest, if
your contention was that it was up in the last 8 years, I will
get you the statistics from the Department of the Interior that
would show a different mind.
Mr. Gohmert [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. We will
now go to Mr. McClintock.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And just to follow
up on that question, can you tell me when were the offshore
facilities that produced that oil actually approved? Before or
after the Obama administration?
Secretary Zinke. Well, to be fair, I have to get the data
to you on that. I know the trend lines, and I have seen them,
and I don't want to misrepresent the issue.
The overall theme, which was correct, is that revenues have
gone significantly----
Mr. McClintock. My point is that the projects were actually
approved, for the most part, prior to the Obama administration.
And I believe we will find, in looking at the data, that the
Obama administration was very lackluster in approving new
projects that will come on-line 10 years from now.
But what I first wanted to do was to thank you for your
trip to California, for your visits to the Sacramento regional
office, on to Yosemite Valley, and on to Kings Canyon from
there. That was a tremendous morale boost for all of the
employees that safeguard these national treasures, and really
signaled a hands-on Interior Secretary. I just want to
acknowledge that and tell you how much it was appreciated from
the rank and file and the general public.
On that trip, you saw the condition of our forests in the
Sierra. And the Sierra National Forest is adjacent to Yosemite.
We have had a 90 percent mortality of pine trees. The tree
density in the Sierras is now, typically, three or four times
what the land can actually sustain, because we had an 80
percent decline in timber harvests in the Sierra, with a
concomitant increase in acres destroyed by forest fire. What
can we do about that?
Secretary Zinke. In the budget, we prioritized fire
suppression. And to your point about the front line, the front
line is too thin. My opinion, as a former SEAL commander, is
that our front line, that is people that are out there with our
parks and wildlife refuges, we are too short in the front line
and we are too heavy in middle and upper management. And part
of the reorganization is to put more assets where they were.
Almost every cost-cutting measure previous has always
regionalized assets up. And there is a lot of frustration on
the front line, and the frustration is they feel like they have
been micromanaged, there are not enough resources. And you
would think being a park ranger is the greatest job ever.
Employee surveys rank it at the bottom.
So, whether it is a prevalent sexual harassment, a culture
of intimidation, whether or not our employees feel
micromanaged, they don't have the resources, there are a lot of
reasons why. But I am competitive. I want the rangers to be
number one, period, the best job in the world, as it should be.
So, I am going to, we are going to, push a lot of resources
back where they belong, out of the middle and upper management,
and back on the front line to where our rangers, our wildlife
refuge managers, or BLM professionals feel like they are
supported.
Mr. McClintock. That would be a big step in the right
direction.
As you know, on the Federal Lands Subcommittee we have
three over-arching goals: first, to restore public access to
the public lands; second, to restore good management to the
public lands; and third, to restore the Federal Government as a
good neighbor to those communities that are directly impacted
by the public lands. Could you comment on your plans in those
areas?
Secretary Zinke. I think public lands are for public use.
And philosophy-wise, I think Muir was correct in some of our
lands, where man is a lightest footprint, more of an observer,
but much of our lands I think should fall under the Pinchot-
Roosevelt of public access, multiple use.
You can extract wealth from our public lands, but you have
to do it with a reclamation plan that makes sense, using best
science and practices, and understanding the interest of the
public is to make sure that the public lands in perpetuity are,
over time, the same experience.
I am concerned about our parks. I am concerned about
Yosemite, because the experience, for many Americans, the first
time they see a park, it is Yosemite. And when the traffic is
what it is on the 405, we have to look at how to manage not
only our parks, but the public lands around our parks, so the
watersheds make sense, the trail systems connect, so we utilize
our public lands in a better and more efficient way to maintain
the experience. I don't think any of us want to see our parks
atrophy and to experience the same as what you would see on our
freeways.
Mr. McClintock. I believe Pinchot's maxim was the greatest
good for the greatest number of people in the long run. Thank
you.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. We will now go to
Mr. McEachin.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. You made a comment
about sexual harassment that I want to go into a little bit. As
you know, Mr. Secretary, deeply troubling cases of sexual
harassment at the Park Service have come to light in recent
years. The Inspector General has revealed in detail behaviors
that would be reprehensible in any setting, let alone a
taxpayer-funded agency tasked with celebrating the very best of
American culture, history, and values.
I am surprised, personally, that we have not had a hearing
on it in this Committee, so I am asking the Chairman for one
today, and I have sent a letter to the Chairman, as well as the
Chairman of Oversight. I have the privilege of being the
Ranking Member on Oversight.
You have declared a zero tolerance policy and promised an
update of policies, new training requirements, and new
reporting procedures. But I want to suggest to you that is not
enough. The previous administration left you a transition
briefing book which revealed that the high-profile sexual
harassment cases at the Park Service have spurred about 120 new
sexual harassment and related reprisal allegations at the
Department that need to be resolved.
The brief went on to say, ``Because the employment and
labor law units existing resources were inadequate to manage
and litigate these cases, as well as to undertake efforts
necessary to ensure such cases do not recur in the future, the
division of general law requests funding to hire six new
experienced employment and labor law attorneys.'' As you know,
these attorneys do not just litigate cases, they also provide
guidance to supervisors who have to investigate the allegations
themselves.
My question is this. When I checked last week to see
whether the attorneys were hired, only some have been. It seems
that there may be a hiring freeze that prevents the rest of
them moving forward. Is that still the case?
Secretary Zinke. The sexual harassment, let me begin. I
have a zero tolerance. As a former commander, I have seen it.
But some of it is structural. Let me give you an example to
clarify it.
I had credible IG reports too, when I assumed office, of a
sexual harassment case, as well as abuse of power, with our
senior law enforcement officials. Senior law enforcement
officials. What were my options? I brought my solicitors
together. Fire him. Couldn't fire him. Wasn't available to me,
because he has to go through these two committees. They find
it, then it goes to appeals process.
Mr. McEachin. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretary, I am----
Secretary Zinke. So, structurally, I think I need some help
from Congress.
Mr. McEachin. I can appreciate that. And hopefully, if we
are able to have a hearing on this, you will be able to
elaborate on that. But my question is this. Have you been able
to hire the attorneys necessary that the last administration
recommended to you be hired? Have you been able to hire them?
If so, that would be a yes. And, if not, please explain to me
why not.
Secretary Zinke. I have five solicitors that are pending
confirmation and appointment. To date, zero. Zero. I don't have
a Deputy. I have five solicitors that are appointments. To
date, zero. I don't have a Director of Fish and Wildlife. I
don't have a Director of Parks. I don't have a director of
anything. So----
Mr. McEachin. Are these the solicitors that you are talking
about, the ones you just----
Secretary Zinke. Well, solicitors on our side, as
leadership, and I would think that if you are going into a
campaign, and you hire your chief of staff, your chief of staff
should have some say on who you hire. And that is the
predicament I find myself in, is that----
Mr. McEachin. So, are you suggesting that you have not been
able to hire these attorneys because you don't have these
solicitors in place? Is that what you are telling us?
Secretary Zinke. What I am saying is that I don't have any
of my five solicitors in. And what I am also saying is this, is
that as far as----
Mr. McEachin. My question is not about the solicitors. I
thought this was going to be relatively simple, but I see that
I am not as experienced at running out the clock as you are. My
question is----
Secretary Zinke. I would find that an inaccurate statement,
but go ahead, sir.
Mr. McEachin. I am sure you would, but I am trying to get
an answer to a question. Have you been able to hire the
attorneys or not? And we could go into the why, but I just want
to know, do you have them?
Secretary Zinke. I have put a hiring freeze on Washington,
DC and Denver for a reason, because I think that the hiring is
better at the field. If that solicitor, and I will check in
what grade it is, if the solicitor is GS-12 and above, which I
assume it is, and that solicitor is found in Washington, DC or
Denver, then maybe it falls into that. Although there is an
exception clause. If the Deputy, which I don't have, the Acting
Deputy feels that it is necessary, then he can do an exception
on that.
But the idea was to put our hiring where it belongs, as in
the field, and not in the headquarters. But I will give you a
detailed, line by line, on that position.
Mr. McEachin. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. McEachin. I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired. And the
gentleman from Alaska, if he is OK with using the term
``gentleman''----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman [continuing]. From Alaska, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Young. We are all being gentlemen and ladies today,
aren't we?
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for appearing
before this Committee. I only have a couple of statements, and
then one question. Our job is to write this budget, and I know
the Secretary knows it. He has presented a balanced budget to
us, and our job is to write the budget. We can stand here and
beat him up all we want, but reality is it is the job of the
Congress, not the job of the President. It is his philosophy.
And I know, having served with the Secretary for many
years, that he has some requirements for the President, that is
why he is the Secretary, and he will follow through with those.
Our job is to try to make sure that the money is spent where we
want to spend it, and still end up with a balanced budget.
I happen to agree, Mr. Secretary, with your resigning
certain people out of the agency because it got stagnant. It
was a stagnant agency, and they were forgetting, very frankly,
the people they served. I commend you on that.
One question I want to ask you, or maybe two. The prior
administration refused to listen to the people, especially in
Alaska. They locked up land in Alaska behind Congress' back
under the pretense of areas of critical and environmental
concern. The land was then managed by wilderness, circumventing
the No More clause in my state.
And just out of curiosity, what is your direction in those
lands that were designated as critical habitat and then managed
by wilderness, circumventing the law?
Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I follow the law. Alaska is
unique. When it came into the union there were certain
provisions on Alaska that no other state had on wilderness, on
management of wildlife, on surveys, to make sure that we finish
the surveys, because there is land as you came into the union,
there is land that is supposed to be surveyed and transferred
into the state. That is unique. So, I recognize the uniqueness
of Alaska, and certainly look forward to working with you and
Lisa Murkowski on it.
But part of my job is to go up to Alaska and look at it.
You learn a lot. As Secretary, I think my position should be
out in the field, asking the right questions, because it is,
and I view my job as non-partisan, public lands. Of the things
that are partisan today, I would think public lands would be
uniquely an American issue, because we all care about it, we
all share the same land experience.
But on your example with Alaska, I view Alaska as unique,
and I follow the law.
Mr. Young. All right, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have
great fondness for wildlife refuges and preserves, et cetera,
but I do not appreciate agencies that set the policy against
the law, and do not allow access. That is one of my basic
complaints. They have this idea that the land belongs to the
agency. It does not. It belongs to the people. And they have
insisted on conducting themselves as the lord and master, and
the lord will not let the peasants come on the land without
permission.
That is not the way to operate a park or a refuge or any
other area that is owned by the public. Doesn't mean we are
going to rip and ruin and rape. We are going to take and
actually visit. Not inside of a building, but see the beauty
and the grandeur of the land, experience the stars above us,
not inside of a building. And that has been in my frustrations
the last, actually, under my administration was just about as
bad. The last 8 years has been a horror dream.
Again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your presence. I feel
sorry for you in many ways. You have been before the Senate, I
believe, before two committees. You are going to listen to this
Committee and probably the Appropriations Committee. I just
wish we would leave you alone and let you go do your job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman yields back. At this time the
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Torres,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first of all, I
wanted to associate myself with the comments from my colleagues
from California regarding offshore drilling in the coast of
California.
Secretary Zinke, I agree with you in your comment, your
opening statement, when you said that we cannot ignore the
problem of a growing deficit. But we also cannot ignore the
problems that we are creating by continuing to
disproportionately fund programs that impact the basic human
needs of the Native American people.
Now, as a local mayor, for the first time in my city's
history we actually balanced the budget. Republicans and
Democrats came together and went through it, line item by line
item. And we actually balanced our budget, and everybody voted
for it.
As a member of a State Assembly in the state of California,
we went through a $30 billion deficit. When I left in 2014 to
come to Congress, I left the State Senate with a $2 billion
surplus. I am not a stranger, and I am not afraid of making
cuts. But we have to make smart cuts, cuts that are not going
to impact, and I am not talking about quality of life issues, I
am talking about basic life, human-right issues that impact
Native Americans.
In this Committee, time after time after time, and I know
that you have participated in the hearings, but we have heard
about the unmet needs and the broken promises made to American
Indians and Alaska Natives, as well as the immense inequalities
that this has created in Indian Country. Yet, this budget
slashes or eliminates key programs that aim to address the
disparities.
And looking over the budget for the BIA, I am very
concerned that there is an effort to ignore the Department's
trust responsibility. Can you explain how cutting $27.3 million
from tribal justice programs, $22.7 million from human
services, $26 million from resource management, and $10.6
million from tribal government operations, how does this
strengthen self-determination? With cuts like this, how do you
expect tribal leaders to build the capacity to expand self-
governance in these critical areas?
Frankly, I am just sick and tired. Yesterday I was at a
hearing in this room where we heard time and time again how
tribal leaders are invited for a meet-and-greet meeting, but
yet none of their input is ever taken for consideration. As a
matter of fact, their questions are not even responded to. And
that is incredibly offensive.
Secretary Zinke. Well, first, as a former Congressman in
Montana, I was honored to represent the seven tribes in
Montana. And I have always viewed sovereignty should mean
something: self-determination and respect. And consultation
should be consultation, so I agree with you on that.
The budget is a starting point. Again, a balanced budget
makes difficult decisions. The budget honors the core trust
responsibilities, the core treaty responsibilities, but it does
not add money into a lot of areas which we both would agree, it
is going to be the Congress' decision, are worthy----
Mrs. Torres. Let me just say that if this were to become
the actual 2018 budget, the overall funding provided to Indian
Affairs would be lower than any level in the past 15 years, a
full 20 percent lower than the 2010 funding level. This is a
disturbing trend, one that is dangerous for Indian Country.
Native children, specifically, have substandard schools and
facilities, and the result of their education suffers. Their
future and their potential future is being stolen from them
every day that we ignore their problems. And their safety is a
major concern.
Secretary Zinke. I will get back to you. I don't think that
that is accurate. But if you want to look at education, for
instance----
Mrs. Torres. It is not accurate that we are shutting down
health clinics----
Secretary Zinke. I don't, I will look----
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. That school roofs are collapsing,
sir?
Secretary Zinke. Schools, we spend $15,000-plus per
student. That is well above the national average of $9,000. So,
why are Indian schools failing? Why is Indian health failing?
Why is the Bureau of Indian Affairs, even if you increase the
money, if you give us a grade, how we have done in the last 8
years, I would say that grade would be maybe passing in a few,
but overall, failing.
Mrs. Torres. And I recognize this is not all on you, sir.
Secretary Zinke. Well, I think we do need a discussion of
how to provide services better, but particularly on education
and Indian health. And I am willing to look for it----
Mrs. Torres. Ran out of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentlelady's time has expired. At this
point we recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. I appreciate all of the interesting
questions. I just have several observations. I will kind of
walk my way through them. I am probably not going to ask for
too much response from you, but just to know what some of the
problems we face in the budget are.
First of all, as far as others have mentioned, the APDs and
oil and gas drilling, again, oil and gas pays for 40 percent of
our teachers pay in New Mexico, so that is a fairly significant
contribution. So, as we are looking at the APDs, we have seen
numbers as high as 440 hours to do APDs, compared to 220
nationally. Again, we need focus there.
The discussion about, or the decision to pay for, in our
budget, selling off the strategic petroleum reserve, I
supported the President's three-part agenda: jobs, jobs, jobs.
But when you sell from the petroleum reserve, what you are
doing is undermining the oil and gas production. So, just look
at that with contemplative eyes, if you would, please.
Also, you have commissioned the Royalty Policy Committee.
Again, when an industry is struggling with low prices, the last
thing you want to do is increase the tax take-off of that.
I appreciate your objectivity on finding efficiencies in
the BLM. We have fought that fight before. They were going to
put New Mexico underneath Arizona, and Arizona has very little
oil and gas production, yet it is one of the main functions of
the BLM in New Mexico. We fought that off, but I fear that
there are going to be people still in the agency who will
resurface that suggestion. We have experience in that
discussion, if you would.
In 1988, and then later in 1993, Fort Wingate was closed.
That was in the northern part of my district, and it was
supposed to be distributed to two different tribes, the Zunis
and Navajos. For 24 years that languished. We put the
distribution into the NDAA last year, so right at the end of
the year.
And yet, I get a letter, May 31, 2017, from the current
Acting Secretary of the Army, Robert M. Speer. His basic
conclusion is that public law neither imposes any legal
obligation to divest the property at the closed installation,
meaning closed after a BRAC, nor places any limitation on the
stationing of new forces or functions at the installation.
I think it is going to take the secretarial level to work
through this. It is in the NDAA that it is supposed to be
distributed, and the Army refuses to comply. Your agency could
offer a great deal of help.
With respect to the wolf recovery program, the plan was
developed in 1982, $37 million has been spent. We still do not
have recovery. We don't even know what recovery looks like. So,
we would request that no more money be spent on the wolf
introduction and the wolf recovery program until they give us
some plan and some program.
The next area that we would like to talk about, and by the
way, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the Robert Speer
letter for the record if you wouldn't mind. The national
monument, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, is a
very highly volatile issue in the district. Even when the
Democrats owned the House, Nancy Pelosi, they had a filibuster-
proof Senate, and Mr. Obama was in the White House, they still
could not get this passed through law because it was so
contentious.
I would like to submit a list of the 800 businesses who are
opposed to the large footprint. Many people on this list feel
that the law was not followed in the establishment of the
monument, that it was supposed to be the smallest footprint.
That would be 60,000 acres, rather than the 600,000 acres that
were used. So, I would like to submit this list, Mr. Chairman,
for the record, the 800 businesses and the individuals who
opposed that designation and would like to see it not revoked,
but taken back down to the smallest footprint.
Mr. Gohmert. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Rep. Pearce Submission
Department of Defense,
Secretary of the Army,
Washington, DC
May 31, 2017
The Honorable Stevan Pearce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Pearce:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis asked me to respond on his behalf
to your May 18, 2017 letter concerning the former Fort Wingate Depot
Activity (FWDA).
Let me assure you that the Department of the Army will completely
and properly implement its responsibilities under section 2829F of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328), without delay. The extensive due diligence and
documentation preparation necessary to complete the initial transfer of
approximately 2,496 acres under this newly enacted authority is
underway. The Army expects to deliver the Letter of Transfer to
Department of the Interior (DOI) for this initial phase by July 2017.
The Army expects to transfer approximately 4,511 additional acres to
DOI by 2022 as environmental remediation of additional parcels is
completed with concurrence of the New Mexico Environment Department.
It is important to note that the Department of Defense (DoD) does
not currently control all of the lands that once comprised the former
FWDA. Prior to enactment of section 2829F, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act governed disposal of the withdrawn public lands
comprising the former FWDA. Pursuant to that law and its implementing
regulations, DOI transferred jurisdiction over approximately 5,855
acres at the former FWDA from the Army to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
by Public Land Orders published by DOI in 2000 and 2001. In subsequent
years, as Army completed environmental remediation of additional
parcels, the Army provided notices to DOI that an additional 2,384
acres were ready for transfer. DOI had not yet acted on those notices
when section 2829F was enacted, establishing a new transfer process
that the Army and DOI are now implementing.
Furthermore, retention and continued use of the Fort Wingate Launch
Complex (FWLC) portion of FWDA by the Army is wholly consistent with
section 2829F, and neither reverses nor violates the 1988 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendation to close FWDA. Section
2829F(a)(6) explicitly provides for retention of the area designated as
the FWLC until ``certification by the Secretary of Defense that the
area generally depicted as `Fort Wingate Launch Complex' on the Map is
no longer required for military purposes and can be transferred to the
Secretary of the Interior.'' Regarding BRAC, the 1988 BRAC Commission,
pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and the Base Closure
and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), recommended that the FWDA be
closed and that its existing depot mission be relocated to Hawthorne
Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada. Relocation of that mission was completed
by January 1993, constituting closure of FWDA. Once implementation of
the recommendation is complete, Public Law 100-526 neither imposes any
legal obligation to divest the property at the closed installation, nor
places any limitations on the stationing of new forces or functions at
that installation.
Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and for your continued
support of our Soldiers and their Families.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Speer,
Acting Secretary of the Army.
______
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the decision
to cut PILT in the budget reflects on the eastern viewpoint
that PILT is simply welfare to the West. We, in the West, say
either give us the land and let us use it for productive
purposes, or pay the PILT.
We have seen over the past decade decreases in PILT.
Counties in New Mexico, the rural counties with a lot of public
land, cannot even have a tax base to pay for their budgets. So,
please take a look at that.
And again, I am not looking for a response, I just wanted
to put these things on your radar. I appreciate it, Mr.
Secretary. Thanks for being here.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired. At this time
the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, one of the
classiest people ever in Congress, Ms. Bordallo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back, Secretary Zinke. It is nice to see you
again. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Department of the
Interior has broad jurisdiction to administer and coordinate
Federal policies in the territories. The Department is also
responsible for providing assistance through the compacts of
free association to our allies in the Federal States of
Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. And this agreement
provides for development assistance, and allows for the FAS
citizens to travel to the United States, while providing access
to sea, air, and land for national security purposes.
Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned by the cuts being
proposed to the Office of Insular Affairs, especially the
decreases in technical assistance to the territories, and the
elimination of $3 million for discretionary compact impact
provided to our local governments. Although this is seemingly
very small compared to DOI's overall budget, the $1 million cut
to technical assistance could have large negative impacts on a
variety of programs at Guam and the other territories.
I am concerned that you have eliminated $3 million in
discretionary compact impact that helps to supplement the
mandatory $30 million shared by the affected jurisdictions each
year.
In Guam alone, Mr. Secretary, the government of Guam
estimates that it spends well over $100 million per year to
provide social services to the compact migrants, especially in
the area of health. When these migrants travel to Guam for
special operations, or if they are on dialysis, or whatever the
case might be, most of them have no insurance. We have to take
care of them, and then it is costing us about $100 million per
year, maybe over. And yet our share of compact impact is only
about $16 million.
The difference here is shocking to me. And certainly we
cannot turn down anybody that has a health problem. Again, Mr.
Secretary, what are your comments about these decreases? And
how can you help us?
Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you, and I certainly recognize
the importance of the territories, particularly in the West. I
will say that they, to a degree, are on the front line, again.
In World War II, they were front-line on the Japanese empire
expansion. Today, they are on the front line of the rise of
China.
Ms. Bordallo. That is correct. We are very strategic.
Secretary Zinke. So, in our budget we did include $123.9
million in discretionary to Palau on that. We support the
compacts. But you are right, I will go back to this is what a
balanced budget would look like. There are some difficult
choices.
Congress gets the last say, but it is important also to
give a forum for the territories, as you are, to express why
the territories should not be forgotten, why such cuts or
savings, depending on how you look at it, are inappropriate,
and would hurt the citizens of Guam and Palau and everything
out there that is important.
Certainly, in my conversations with General Mattis, he is
particularly aware of the strategic importance, as well the
President is aware. The Vice President has been out there,
Tillerson has been out there, Mattis has been out there
recently. I intend to go out as well. But I am grateful that
you represent such beautiful and great people, and I look
forward to working with you on it.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary,
when I think about this, to my colleagues here on the
Committee, to our Chairman, being in the Minority, and being a
Representative from the territory is certainly one of the most
challenging jobs I have ever had. So, I hope in some way you
can be of help to us. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. I think you are up to the task.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, Dr. Gosar, for 5
minutes.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is great
seeing you. Thank you for all that you do. And I know that
Congress, at least on this side, should be petitioning our
Senate Members to get your confirmations. When we have somebody
hired for a job, we should empower them with the right tools,
the right people, and the right places to get their job done. I
think it is up to us now to petition our Members in the Senate
to make sure that those confirmations go through.
I want to bring attention to the Administration's idea in
regards to improving our transportation and infrastructure. One
of those aspects I believe in is that we have to look at the
prevailing wage, a fair wage for a fair job that is fair to the
taxpayers.
But the second part of that is NEPA reviews. I am going to
highlight, according to the 2014 ranking of countries for
mining investments analysis, permitting delays are the most
significant risk to mining projects in the United States. This
kills jobs, it takes a lot of pressure, and increases the cost
to do these.
The discovery-to-production process in our country is 20
years or longer for large copper deposits, whereas in Canada
and Australia they have shown to do it in 2 to 3 years, without
limiting environmental protections. So, if we are serious about
getting to this aspect and unleashing this wealth, we have to
have those improvements.
Here is my question. Can you discuss some of the concerns
you have been made aware of regarding the BLM's planning
environmental review process?
Secretary Zinke. I can. As far as infrastructure goes, the
permitting process has been a particularly painful issue,
because it has extended programs out, in some cases stopped
even replacement of a bridge. The mitigation, compensatory
mitigation, that means things that are outside the construction
of the bridge have been painful. In some cases, we are at 17
years for permits on a bridge, which ends up spending
multitudes more money, because if you push a project out over
time it increases the cost over time, and delays.
So, the permitting process, particularly within prescribed
easements, if you are going to replace a bridge, expand an
existing road, those should be streamlined. And the President,
who is a builder, gets it, and we are looking hard at doing
that. Some of it can be fast-tracked, we believe, under the
FAST Act, and we are looking at executive ways within the
confines of the law to do that, particularly in the prescribed
easements.
On Interior, and maybe you would be surprised or not, what
we are responsible for. About half the backlog in the parks,
$11.5 billion, is roads. And about a third of those roads
aren't in the park. They are the Memorial Bridge that is a $262
million bill, which this budget has $18 million set against it.
We got matching grants from the Department of the Interior. But
a lot of our parks are gateways, actually, are part of the
Department of the Interior. We own the George Washington
Parkway, the parkway out to the Baltimore Airport. It is
amazing what we own but are also responsible for that is
``outside our park system.''
Dr. Gosar. Do you look at coordination and working with
states and limiting some of the duplicity as an option? How do
you look at that opportunity to help with that backlog?
Secretary Zinke. Well, we are thinking the reorganization
will be helpful. For example, within the Fish and Wildlife,
there was a bat, an Indiana bat, that came into the great state
of Georgia. One bat, radio-controlled, shut down, I think, 30
counties because it was now potential habitat for a bat, and
they will never be able to find the bat again. They have
looked. It has been millions of dollars. But this one bat
caused disruption and about $1 billion worth of construction,
and that is the Fish and Wildlife part of it, and then within
bureaus on my side, we had to coordinate better.
And that was one single bat with a radio tracking device
caused havoc in 30 counties or so in Georgia, again, at an
expense of delaying projects that were $1 billion worth of
construction. Certainly, we can do better, as a country, than
that.
Dr. Gosar. Let me ask you about right-sizing the NEPA
process. Can you give me an example or ideas on how you would
use environmental assessments, compared to environmental impact
statements? And maybe right-sizing those types of mitigations?
Secretary Zinke. Well, up front, I think NEPA has been the
backbone of prudent environmental policy. I am a great
supporter of NEPA. But within prescribed easements, there is
CatEx, environmental assessment, and EIS, and I think we have
to realistically look what is appropriate to the project.
If it is replacing a bridge in a prescribed easement, then
maybe a CatEx is more appropriate, or an EA if it is in the
sensitive area. But certainly not an EIS. So, I think, looking
at giving some judgment, and making sure that we coordinate and
collaborate with the local community and the state better on
such things to make a determination that is in the best
interests of the taxpayer and America would be a great step
forward.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
time, without objection, the Committee will stand in brief
recess. It will be no more than 5 minutes, so I would ask the
folks here in the audience to be close, because we do not want
disruptions when we start back promptly.
Thank you; we will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gohmert. The hearing will come back to order. At this
time the Chair will recognize the gentleman from the Mariana
Islands, Mr. Sablan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back, sir. And congratulations,
again, on your appointment. I want to begin with some thank
you's. First, I want to thank, the President included in the
Fiscal Year 2018 budget funding for the long-overdue, I think
it is 8 years now, compact review agreement with the Republic
of Palau. My bill, H.R. 2085, to authorize that agreement has
passed this Committee. So, thanks to the Administration for
recognizing the strategic importance of America's relationship
with our Pacific ally.
Also in February, Mr. Bishop visited the Northern Marianas.
One highlight, sir, was the tour of an ancient village on the
island of Rota. The national parks resource study team, which
Congress authorized to look at a possible national park on
Rota, gave us the tour. I learned a lot of things in that, and
all of us appreciated it, and we are looking forward to the
team's recommendations on the park status.
Thank you also for inviting my comments to assist your
review of the Marianas national monument under Executive Order.
In my reply, I wrote about the promises made to the people of
the Northern Marianas that remain unfulfilled, Mr. Secretary.
We are frustrated, very frustrated for some, that the required
monument, the key to long-awaited public education programs and
the development of a visitor center is over 6 years past the
due date stated in President Bush's proclamations.
So, would you, sir, maybe even at a later time, but soon
provide us with an update on any progress, maybe have someone
in your office provide us with an update, and a specific date
for issuance of the plan, Mr. Secretary? I don't know if you
have the answer here now, but I----
Secretary Zinke. Thank you. As you know, the President
tasked me, through an E.O., to review all monuments from 1996
forward of 100,000 acres or greater.
The Department of Commerce has the lead on maritime,
although it seems we are taking the lead on many of the
maritime monuments.
Mr. Sablan. I understand, but that decision has not been
made, so I am continuing to look at the President's decision
that there is still a monument in the Marianas, and maybe with
the management plan issued, maybe you would decide that that
monument remains.
And in 2005, your Office of Insular Affairs started a
competitive system for allocating among the U.S. territories
the $27 million in covenant funds that originally all went to
the Northern Marianas to help us build our public
infrastructure. The competition is largely based on financial
management criteria. And today, the Northern Marianas, which
was the principal, the sole recipient intended in that fund,
gets less than a third of the money.
Financial management is very important, I agree, and no one
can argue against that. But so is the infrastructure needed to
provide basic services. According to the EPA, Saipan, the main
island in the Northern Marianas, is the only U.S. municipality
without 24-hour potable water. To me, sir, and I am sure you
would agree, that is a very serious public health concern.
Shouldn't new criteria be established for the $27 million
in Northern Mariana's covenant funds so public health and
safety needs in the Marianas are prioritized?
Secretary Zinke. Yes. And again, the budget presented is a
balanced budget, but also it gives an opportunity to hear from
you on it. I recognize the importance not only strategically,
but also the contributions. I think we forget about that side
of the Northern Marianas, and the contributions you continue to
make.
Mr. Sablan. Right, and----
Secretary Zinke. I will be glad to look----
Mr. Sablan. And as you know, sir, I think I invited you, a
standing invitation, Mr. Secretary. And my time is running out,
but I want to mention some justification. The importance of
technical and maintenance assistance programs, the brown tree
snake control and coral reef initiative, the Empowering Insular
Communities program. However, the request includes deep funding
cuts to each of these programs. The brown tree snake control
program costs a few million, but if these snakes spread, as
they have on Guam, and if they spread to Hawaii or the Northern
Marianas, or any other place, the cost in extermination of
native endangered birds could cause tens of millions of dollars
more. So----
Mr. Gohmert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sablan. My time has----
Mr. Gohmert. Time is expired.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, great to have you here. I did want to be
able to point out I really appreciated the comments that you
have made to Senator Gardner on Tuesday in regards to the
Canyon of the Ancients. And I will not re-ask the same
question, but I would like to be able to reiterate how the
Canyon of the Ancients is important in my district and to me,
personally, of course. And should there be any changes moving
forward, we would really appreciate making sure that we are in
concert with your office, and having good communication on it.
Secretary Zinke. My intent on the monument review is to
ensure that some of the monuments are settled. My intent was
not to, and I have said before, not to rip off Band-Aids and
then create wounds where there are none, to make sure that the
monuments had public input, that there is overwhelming support
with it, and to make sure that the monument designations in the
prescribed period follow the law.
So, there are monuments, there were 27 on the list, and I
think we are focusing on just a few. And, quite frankly, most
of them are either on the proclamation side, maritime monuments
is fishing, to make sure that we have a vibrant and healthy
fishing community, so in some cases, the proclamations on that
would eliminate our ability to fish, which is a big issue,
especially out West. So----
Mr. Tipton. Great. Well, I appreciate that. And one other
issue that you are probably aware of, that Senator Gardner and
I are working on as well, is the BLM Headquarters Relocation
Act. And, as you are going through some of the reorganization
in your Department, I just wanted to make you aware of that,
and look forward to being able to work with you on that, as
well.
We do have one important issue. It does fall under your
area, as well. It is called the Arkansas Valley Conduit
Project. Actually, it goes back to 1962, with the Frying Pan
Arkansas Project legislation, which requires clean drinking
water to be able to be delivered down into southeastern
Colorado.
Unfortunately, we have only seen enough resources that are
going through right now to be able to make sure that the
feasibility design be able to service 50,000 people in the
Arkansas Valley who would benefit from completion of the
project, those are the only resources that have been provided.
The Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District has
recently come up with a new plan that would shave somewhere
between 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the project off, and
the Bureau of Reclamation thus far seems to be amiable to
pursuing that.
I have to note that yesterday there was some disappointment
in our office, certainly, that the project was not given any of
the Fiscal Year 2017 plus-up dollars for water-related
resources account, despite the fact that we have been
advocating for this for an extended period of time.
I would like to be able to get, actually, your commitment
to be able to work with my office to be able to ensure that
every effort will be made by the Department, under the Bureau
of Reclamation, under your purview, to complete it in a timely
manner and a cost-effective fashion, which I believe we all
want to be able to achieve.
Secretary Zinke. Yes, and I believe the budget has a $3
million target for that project, so you have my commitment to
work with you to finish it on time.
Some of these projects, as you know, as they extend out,
they become more expensive, just because of the time. So, the
art is to reduce the amount of time, that will reduce the
amount of cost and get the projects done.
Mr. Tipton. Exactly. And your comments to an earlier
question, in regards to going through some of the review
process, as well, and the environmental assessments, EISs, is
something that can certainly help accelerate this project and
to be able to save some resources for a very important project
for southeast Colorado.
One issue that I believe you are aware of is we have had,
through the Forest Service and now somewhat through the BLM as
well, conditional use of permit. We just had testimony in
Committee a few weeks ago in Utah, under the BLM, for ranchers
to be able to divert water out of a stream, to be able to fill
a stock pond, conditional use of permit. If you wanted to be
able to do that, you were to sign your water rights over to the
Federal Government.
We have draft legislation that we are working on right now,
the Protecting Our Water Rights Act, which I think is going to
be very important to standing up for a very western issue:
private property rights, when it comes to water in the West,
priority-based systems, and also State Law, as well.
I want to make sure that that is going to be on your radar,
going forward. An important issue, certainly for the West, and
for our economies, as well.
Secretary Zinke. And as I find myself the water master, to
a degree, in the West, I am learning. And I will go back, it is
very similar to Montana. Whiskey is for drinking and water is
for fighting. It is absolutely an important issue in the West.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gohmert. Time is expired. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, welcome back to the Committee. Nice to
have you here. Looking at the big picture, I have to say I have
real concerns with the Administration's entire Fiscal Year 2018
budget request. The President's approach to budgeting
prioritizes defense spending around which we know we do have to
make some additional investments, but does so at the expense of
many other national priorities, including those at your
Department.
As your testimony indicates, and as we on this Committee
know so well, Interior has a very broad mission, and plays a
critical role in the lives of all our constituents. Managing
our treasured public parks and public lands, overseeing
development of U.S. energy supplies, understanding and reacting
to the impacts of climate change, serving as the largest
supplier and manager of water in the West, and working closely
with 566 federally recognized tribes, all this has to be
managed on behalf of all Americans.
Cutting Interior's budget by well over $1 billion,
approximately 10 percent, while not as bad as some other
departments, nevertheless, it will significantly and certainly
hamper the Department's ability to meet these many
responsibilities.
As you well know, the National Park Service is facing many
challenges, you have referenced some of them, including
responding to disturbing reports of sexual harassment in the
workplace. Representative McEachin has referenced that. There
have been a number of troubling Inspector General reports and
newspaper stories regarding a number of incidents of sexual
harassment in some of our most well-known national parks.
We, on this Committee, have worked across the aisle to make
sure the Park Service was taking these reports seriously, which
is why we recommended that the Park Service conduct a service-
wide anonymous survey that hopefully will shed light on the
extent of this problem. In my service on the Armed Services
Committee examining the alarming incidents of sexual assault
and sexual harassment in the military, we have learned that
such cases do not happen in isolation. And the survey can serve
as an important first step to better understand the scope of
the problem. In fact, under the previous administration they
reached out to the Defense Department as they were crafting
this survey.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you provide an update on the status
of this survey, and the Park Service's work analyzing the
results?
And also, in responding to that question, it is my
understanding that the Park Service will also be conducting a
second survey in July to include seasonal employees who were
not included in the first survey, and want to be sure that that
is correct moving forward.
Secretary Zinke. I share your concerns about sexual
harassment and intimidation in the workplace, and I think the
overall survey of job satisfaction reflects that something is
wrong.
We did complete the survey. We will gladly share the
results when we get the review done. We are doing a second
survey, you are correct in that, on seasonal employees.
I attribute a lot to leadership. And I take my job
enormously serious on being a commander of what I see as a
70,000-member command. We have a lot of good people. I am
surprised, maybe not surprised, that is not the right word, I
am honored a lot of times to go in these places and you see
really dedicated people.
There is some frustration, though. The frustration is,
again, they feel like they have been micro-managed, they feel
like the job description does not match the job execution. They
are spending a lot of time in the office, rather than the
field. They feel like the resources to the front line have been
pared down, which they are correct, in lieu of building these
larger regions and headquarters. And it has kind of been a,
when you see a broken window, go past it.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your looking
at the broader issues around the culture of the National Park
Service. But as we have learned so well in the Armed Services,
and all the work that has been done there to address the
egregious issues of sexual assault and harassment, it takes
both a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach, and there
are unique ways in which one has to address the situation.
I hope that you will commit to coming forward to letting us
know the results of both surveys so that we can have a better
understanding of how the Park Service is going to specifically
address the issue of sexual harassment. Would you commit to
that?
Secretary Zinke. Absolutely, and I think this is going to
take working together. It is not just the Park Service, it is
BLM, and we talk a lot about the Park Service because most of
America sees the Interior through the eyes of the parks. But
also we have Bureau of Reclamation, Wildlife, BIA, and all the
different bureaus that make up the Interior family.
Ms. Tsongas. So, you are suggesting it is a broader issue
throughout the Department of the Interior?
Secretary Zinke. I am suggesting there is indication that
it is a broader issue than just the parks. Certainly BLM has
had issues on it. I am aware of other issues within it. So, I
think, it may be department-wide. I think that would be a fair
assessment.
But it is going to take us working together. Some of it
might be legislative, to make sure that a voice is heard, and
make sure that the voice is protected when that voice is heard.
And also, culturally, do some hard thinking about what we
should be, what our goals are. I think the military, overall,
has done a good job with it. But there are imperfections in the
military, and there are improvements the military could do. And
I don't think there is one person that knows all the answers,
but certainly working together I think we can carve a good
path, because I know where we want to be. We want to make sure
we have an environment that is free of harassment, free of
intimidation, that allows our employees to be the very best
they can be.
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I agree with you that wanting is not
always enough.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Tsongas. I look forward to hearing how you plan to
address it.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, great to see you, good to have you here
today. You will be pleased to know H.R. 1873 moved across the
Floor yesterday. That was the bill to streamline the process
for removing hazardous trees from power lines, a topic, in the
previous session, that you were very interested in, as well.
Secretary Zinke. It took an Act of Congress to remove a
tree.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. It is my understanding also that you have
made contact with the National Sheriffs' Association for a
meeting on improving coordination between Federal and local law
enforcement, which could be very, very helpful and important in
establishing a little greater trust with local rural residents
and the agencies under your jurisdiction. And also issues we
have had with marijuana cultivation by foreign nationals under
local enforcement. And we have had legislation on the Plant Act
in the past, on helping with that, so I appreciate that
contact, whatever you are able to make with the National
Sheriffs' Association, and then establishing that.
Let me shift real quickly to the Indian Affairs issues. I
sit as Chair of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska
Native Affairs. We had a very important hearing yesterday about
some issues in the Great Plains area with tribal health and the
facilities there, too.
So, I urge you, in the infrastructure bill that might be
coming out, legislatively, later this year or whenever, that we
have an important funding component there, addressing the
backlog on Indian health facilities and their issues, as well
as some of the other issues they are working on for
transportation, education they are needing in Indian Country.
If you heard the testimony yesterday, there are some big, big
problems with Indian health, and especially in some of the
Great Plains areas.
Also, more uniquely to California, but in general, as well,
the previous administration had engaged in litigation
supporting two off-reservation gaming facilities in California.
One was outright objected by the voters and was rejected. The
other of which did not ever have a valid state of California
compact. So, if you would, Mr. Secretary, if you could review
those cases that are being litigated, and determine if the
activities of the Interior really reflect the policies that we
should be pursuing, and in the Administration as well.
Last, and coming back to California, on water issues.
Obviously, big challenges here. We had some very huge snowpack
and rainfall. We are blessed by that, and happy for it, but the
infrastructure still needs to keep up with that, as well.
So, may I ask, what actions would you be looking at to help
with the non-Federal water storage projects we have, like Sites
Reservoir in California, which is an off-stream project I am
sure you are well aware of, 1.8 million acre-feet, or other
projects similar to that, where Federal investments could
trigger several times as much funding from other sources as a
source of confidence in the investment? And that should be part
of the key infrastructure plan the Administration has.
We could see a three to four time return in other
investment, buttressing the Federal one. What do you think we
could be doing to advance that with some Federal investment in
water projects?
Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you. And real quickly, on the
Indian gaming land-into-trust issue, on January 19, there were
a number of Indian trust issues that were assigned by the
previous Secretary. We are reviewing how much latitude I have
to review. Some of it is legislatively, when land is taken into
trust, what are my options. We are looking at that and going
through them. I think I got sued six times the first day in
office. So, we are reviewing what legal course and
determination, and what should be our policy on it; and we are
coordinating with the tribes in question on that to get a path
forward.
It is a mistake to think that the Indian tribes are
monolithic. Every tribe has a different story, different
cultural backgrounds, and different expectations and we are
working through that.
On water in the West, we committed to about $23.4 million
on grants for reuse projects. Clearly, in California, water
storage is an issue. One of the first trips I made was to
California and visited with the governor to try to align our
priorities on expenditures, so we weren't at loggerheads moving
forward with that. We were lacking in storage capability.
And also, if water begins in California and ends in
California, what is the role of the Federal Government?
Clearly, if water transits outside, between state boundaries,
to a different state. But if the source and end and use is in
California, in this case, the Central Valley, what is our long-
term role, as the Federal Government?
There are Federal water holders, but I find myself being
the adjudicator between all California issues. And, no matter
where I turn, I am not sure that we can ever get in the
position where we are not the adversary. So, we are looking at,
structurally, what is best to protect all users. But then,
going forward, what should we do as a Federal Government?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. Congratulations on the new
job. I have a plethora of questions, so I would appreciate not
one-word answers, but maybe two-sentence answers.
Number one, you mentioned 70 appointments that you don't
have yet. Can you tell us how many political appointments
President Trump, other than yourself and the Deputy Secretary,
has submitted to the U.S. Senate?
Secretary Zinke. I will get that number. The White House
slate has been approved, to a degree. I can tell you the hold-
up has been the Office of Government Ethics. I could give you a
core example in two sentences.
I have a terrific candidate for USGS. I don't think I could
find a better kind of candidate for that. And TS, SBI, SSEI. He
has circled the earth. I will give you a hint: a great, great
candidate, but trying to get through candidates of that
caliber----
Mr. Beyer. OK. I just wanted to make clear that it was not
the Democrats that were holding up your appointments, so----
Secretary Zinke. At least so far. It has been frustrating.
Certainly, David Bernhardt is the first up----
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Secretary, let me move on to the Memorial
Bridge.
Secretary Zinke. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. I heard you had mentioned that earlier. Thank
you. It is in desperate need of repairs. It leads into
Arlington Cemetery. We have the first $90 million for the Fast
Lane Grant project, but it requires a 40 percent match from the
National Park Service.
The whole National Park Service transportation budget is
$268 million. So (a), do you have a plan for addressing
Memorial Bridge? (b), can we perhaps request that
appropriations get rid of the match? Or (c), a one-time step-up
in the Park Service's transportation budget?
Secretary Zinke. What we are looking at to incorporate in
the President's infrastructure bill are some pathways to
particularly address the national parks part of it. We are also
looking at public-private partnerships.
I would love to transfer ownership of the bridge and some
of our parkways to the states, but I don't think the states
want to assume that liability. Clearly, for northern Virginia,
Maryland, and DC, those bridges are less of a park and parkways
as they are a vital transportation hub. So, I am particularly
concerned that we honor our obligation to make sure that the
potholes are fixed, and the bridge is fixed, because I think it
would be catastrophic for Washington, DC to have that bridge--
--
Mr. Beyer. Well, we would love to work with you on plans
going forward, because you do own it for the time being.
Secretary Zinke. I do, and I have talked to Elaine Chao at
Transportation, and she wouldn't take it either. So, I guess it
is going to be mine in the outyears.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Secretary, you and I, and many others, have
gone back and forth on the Endangered Species Act. And one of
the great concerns, and this is one of the most successful
Federal programs of all time: 99 percent of the list of species
have been preserved so far. But we see a 17 percent cut in the
President's budget to listing, almost $4 million in recovery.
So, three quick questions: Is the budget sufficient for you
to meet the ESA obligations under the law? Can you achieve the
goal of de-listing more species without running afoul of the
good science, the best available science? And can you do it in
a way that the Fish and Wildlife Service will not continue to
lose lawsuits over failing to take the required actions?
Secretary Zinke. Well, it does fund core tasks. Some of the
reintroduction of species is not funded. In regards to the
courts, I think we are on firm ground on many of the cases we
put forward, and the courts have rejected those grounds, even
though we have, in some cases, the American Academy of
Science's back.
So, we have what I think is a fine legal argument by some
of the greatest biologists, wildlife experts, and yet the court
will not see that in the same light. I am hoping we can narrow
the gap on such things, because we spend a lot of money on
litigation that could have been spent in better uses.
Mr. Beyer. Well, let me ask you----
Secretary Zinke. I want to work with you on that one.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Yes, please. In the last 30 seconds, one
more endangered species are senior executive service employees
at the Department of the Interior. I know we just had 36 of
them receive letters getting relocated. Are there going to be
more letters to come? How many more people are going to be
affected by this?
Secretary Zinke. It is interesting, because it is normal
course. The SESs, by definition, should be prepared to move. We
looked at it, we had a board, and some of the positions had
been there for 30 years. Some of it is looking at where we need
help, which is actually the front lines. I don't need a lot of
help in Washington, DC, other than maybe my Deputy and a few
people. I need more help in the front lines.
So, moving people that are in the designated areas, by
definition, I think it was appropriate. And quite frankly, some
of them are voluntary moves. And we will have a list of who,
because they could voluntarily move or not. And some of it is
trying to match skill sets, if they have a degree in biology, a
degree in things like that, where should they go, better
served. So, we are looking at that.
It is our first round, I am sure we will look at other
rounds, as necessary. The reorganization is going to have a
look at that, too, as we look at shifting more assets to the
front line. What the structure of that front line should look
like, that is yet undetermined, because we don't want to do the
same thing that I talk about, is one-size-fits-all. So, we
actually have to coordinate with the front line to see what
skill sets and what structures would be appropriate.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Zinke,
thanks for being here today. It was good to see you in Idaho
recently. I hope the comments you heard there from Idahoans
will have a positive impact on the decisions you make as
Secretary.
I recently heard from some Idaho companies that to print
simple notices in the Federal Register, the BLM process takes
up to 6 months or longer than the Forest Service process. I am
told that this is due to extra redundant steps of bureaucracy
that do nothing more than delay.
Mr. Secretary, I think, and I think you believe that this
can be remedied by mirroring the Forest Service's process and
implement through internal policy. It does not take an Act of
Congress. Will you work with me to make the necessary changes
to address this issue?
Secretary Zinke. I will. I look forward to working with
you. I am not sure the Forest Service, and I don't mean to be
critical, it may be a better model than what we are doing, but
I am not sure the Forest Service is the best model. So, I think
we should work together to find the best model, of which the
Forest Service and BLM can be on the same page. Because a lot
of times the checkerboard system in the West, we should be
consistent in superior performance.
Mr. Labrador. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate that.
In its Fiscal Year 2018 budget justification, the Office of
the Solicitor noted an anticipated increase in litigation
brought against the Department in the coming year. How does
constant litigation impact the Department's ability to fulfill
its core missions?
Secretary Zinke. Well, certainly being sued six times in
the first day, it is different because all of a sudden it is
Ryan Zinke versus somebody, and they very artfully, by name, I
follow the law. So, if the court mandates that we stop, desist,
or change, then I am going to follow the law. Does it slow me
down? Depending on the suit. I wish that the country was not as
polarized as it is. And I think the law sometimes should be
clearer on direction.
I could tell you we have a great staff of people that, when
we make a ROD, or record of decision, I think it is based on
science, it is based on what is appropriate in the best
interest of the public lands and all parties concerned. So, I
am pretty confident what we bring forward is a good piece, at
least during my tenure. The courts may or may not see it
differently. And it also depends on what court it is.
Mr. Labrador. Yes. You recently issued a Secretarial Order
on sage-grouse. Can you describe your order, and how you will
involve states in the review process and beyond?
Secretary Zinke. Yes, the Secretarial Order did two things.
One, it established a group, an advisory within Interior,
because Fish and Wildlife, BLM, National Parks in some cases,
Bureau of Reclamation, we want to make sure that we are unified
in our message. And two, to give an indicator to the states
that we are willing to look at the state issues and state plans
because they are different.
So, we are going to be flexible in approach, and not be
one-size-fits-all, to give latitude to the states to include if
a state so chooses to look at numbers, a numbers management
vice habitat, we are going to honor that. Then we are going to
work with the state to determine what a healthy population
would look like, and then work with the state to develop a
management plan that addresses that vice just habitat alone.
We also incorporated things like predator control, captive
breeding, and give the states latitude in the development of
their plan.
Mr. Labrador. During the previous administration, your
predecessors repeatedly said that they were going to work with
the states. But when the states had some plans, then they
wouldn't follow the input of the states. Are you committing to
this Committee that we will work together with the states, and
we will be able to have better management and input from the
states?
Secretary Zinke. I am absolutely committed to work with the
states in many ways. I think the states are in a better
position to manage the sage-grouse than the Federal Government,
and we should honor a flexible approach based on a variety of
metrics to make sure that we do our part to ensure the bird
does not get listed.
Mr. Labrador. And finally, I wish Mr. McEachin was still
here, but I thought his line of questioning was interesting.
Last year, he is a freshman, so maybe he didn't know this,
but last year the OGR Committee, the big oversight committee,
not the Natural Resources Oversight Subcommittee, had four
hearings on sexual harassment, two in the National Park
Service, one in the Forest Service, and one in the EPA. I don't
mind having another hearing on that, I am the Oversight
Chairman here in Natural Resources. I don't mind having that
hearing.
But I thought it was interesting that he would accuse you
of not doing something that happened under the previous
administration. All he had to do was ask me, and I would have
agreed to do a hearing in our Committee. Anyway, thank you very
much.
Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Congratulations. I don't know if
the view is any better from where you are sitting today from
where you used to sit, but I look forward to working with you,
and this will be part of a longer conversation that we will
continue to have. There are many areas, from forest management
to our parks that I would like to talk to you about, but I am
going to confine my focus today to water. Water, water, water.
You noted a bit ago that you are not so sure that you are
ultimately going to be able to be Solomon-like in dealing with
all the challenges we have in California, but I think you are
off to a good start. You are meeting with the governor,
obviously, who is important as we look toward fixing a broken
water system in California. And as you know from your previous
experience, it is either feast or famine in California.
The fact that you have taken the time to come out there in
your early months, not only to visit our parks but to meet and
talk with other folks, I think is a significant good step,
first step forward.
You and I voted for the WIIN Act last December, which was
important. The President signed it, that really begins to make
incremental progress in fixing that broken water system. The
legislation has multiple provisions that impact all of
California water users, which is why we had such a broad-based
bipartisan support.
I want to talk to you about some specific areas of the
legislation, Sections 4001 and 4003 that provided greater
flexibility for the Department to operate the movement of water
through the Federal pumps. Can you provide details on how these
sections have been implemented during this very wet water year
that we have had? We are very thankful to God for it. As well
as whether operating these sections resulted in any additional
water supply.
Quickly, and then I have a couple of other questions.
Secretary Zinke. I don't know the specifics of that,
because I don't want to mislead you, but I will find it.
But I know that, given the wet winter, it was a unique
winter because it was a lot wetter.
Mr. Costa. Right.
Secretary Zinke. And it did not provide the opportunity to
look at what would happen as depletion goes lower. So, our
report will be more on the, well, geez, we got a lot of water
vice on how well we reacted when we didn't.
Mr. Costa. Right.
Secretary Zinke. That was some of it. But I agree with you,
that providing more flexibility, and some of this solution
needs to be a made-in-California solution with us in the
supporting role, rather than the other way around.
Mr. Costa. One size does not fit all, that is for certain.
Sections 4010(a)(4) and 4010(b)(5) both deal with efforts
to restore delta smelt, a listed species that impacts project
operations. Specifically, 4010(a)(4) requires delta smelt
distribution study to be completed to better inform real-time
operations under Section 4010(b)(5). It also requires
utilization of the delta smelt conservation fish hatcheries.
Can you provide an update on the status of the Department's
implementation of these actions specifically related to the
Fiscal Year 2018 budget?
Secretary Zinke. I know we are working with the state and
the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is NOAA, and the
Bureau of Reclamation. Again, this is part of our problem, that
we are not acting as joint as we should be, so there are
different views within different departments that has created
an issue for the smelt.
Mr. Costa. Right.
Secretary Zinke. As you know. But we are looking at new
facilities and to evaluate supplementing the native fish. We
are also looking at the problem with the striped bass.
Mr. Costa. Right, the predator species.
Secretary Zinke. Yes, predator control, which was
previously not a priority.
Mr. Costa. You know, some of the water agencies up on the
Sac Valley and Reps. LaMalfa and John Garamendi know this and
are doing some very unique things to provide other habitat for
salmon that we should continue to encourage and expand.
Also, on the monitoring, for real-time monitoring, a number
of water agencies have offered to provide us additional support
for boat crews, so that we can improve coverage and resulting
data at real time. I would like you to get into that or provide
some support for that.
There are also some areas on how the capability of the USGS
could be used to assist in implementing science activities. And
if you could look into that, as well. Additionally, other
partnerships with public agencies, as I noted above, can be
helpful toward dealing with the biological opinion consultation
process for not only delta smelt, but other listed salmonoid
species.
What do you think about the Stafford Act applying to
dealing with emergency, with the fire conditions that we are
facing, instead of using all the management for forestry to put
out fires?
The Chairman [presiding]. Which you will have a chance to
answer soon. Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, it is great to see you back here in the
Committee. It was an honor to be elected with you in the same
class in Congress, and to serve with you here on this
Committee. And I know that not just me, but a lot of Americans,
are grateful to you for your military service, your service in
Congress, and now it is great to see you over at the Department
of the Interior.
I know from personal experience that you and I share a lot
of the same ideas on conservation and land management. I know
that one area that you have supported during the last Congress
was on reauthorization of the LWCF, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. And I know that in your testimony you
mentioned briefly that the LWCF receipts authorization expires
at the end of Fiscal Year 2018, and the Administration will
review options for reauthorization.
If we look at that fund and the history of it, it has
generated about $38 billion since it was set up in 1965, $17.5
billion has been spent, which leaves a balance of about $20.5
billion. Over that time frame there have been over 5 million
acres purchased, 42,000 state and local projects done through
that fund. When the fund was originally set up, it was supposed
to be 60 percent state and 40 percent Federal. It is now, in
reality, about 40 percent of the fund went to state projects
and 60 percent went to Federal projects.
The purpose of that fund is to require, preserve, and
ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities. And I want to
tie this in to infrastructure. I am so pleased to see your
emphasis on infrastructure and the recognition that we need to
do more on the infrastructure on our public lands, especially
on the Park Service.
But there has not been a whole lot of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, I believe, spent for the preservation and
ensuring access to outdoor recreation facilities, and
infrastructure plays a vital role in that. So, my question to
you is, do you think that there is opportunity, maybe through a
reauthorization, to restructure LWCF so it is focused more on
state projects, focused more on taking care of the assets that
we currently have in the system?
Secretary Zinke. I do, and it is hard to recreate on a
beach if the beach doesn't exist because there is not a
reclamation program to support it, particularly on the Gulf
Coast, and in the Gulf states, I don't mean to talk for your
esteemed colleague to your right, but----
Mr. Westerman. I am sure he will have----
Secretary Zinke [continuing]. When all the money is
received, revenue is received offshore, and much of it goes
inland, there is always an argument about why is it
appropriate. But I think the mission of LWCF and expense, I
think we need to look at it. It is hard to recreate if you
don't have a road to get there, or the road is closed because
they do not have the maintenance to make sure it is safe.
So, using the LWCF in the spirit of how it was formed, to
restore lands that would provide access to public activities,
recreation, I think is an area where we would agree that the
states should have more say. It was set up where, the states
are always in a better position to look at recreational
opportunities within that state, and to highlight their assets.
So, giving more latitude to the states so the states can
decide what their opportunities are, what they should be, I
think is a good thing.
Mr. Westerman. Do you feel like you have authority under
the current authorization to use more of the LWCF funds for
infrastructure?
Secretary Zinke. It would be nice if I had more latitude,
quite frankly. The law is pretty clear. But it would be nice,
one is if we had a steady stream of income. You rightly point
out that there is over $20 billion that has not been used, even
though offshore assets, oil and gas primarily, have given the
revenue for a purpose, and that purpose has not been authorized
and not used.
Same with Bureau of Reclamation, by the way. Bureau of
Reclamation, about $18 billion of unused. These are revenues
intended to build our rural and reclamation opportunities for
water. That is untapped, so I would like, personally, to work
with you to have a steady stream, and give the states more
flexibility, and use those monies with more flexibility to
provide greater public access and use.
Mr. Westerman. I look forward to working with you on that.
Secretary Zinke. So do I.
The Chairman. You will get it.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am sorry you came in between my two stints
in Congress, so I did not have the pleasure of working with
you. I am the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Federal
Lands. So, as you can imagine, the issues regarding the
National Park Service are of great concern to me.
You have stated in your opening statement, as well as
throughout your statements that you have provided to us, that
this is a balanced budget. And I would like to understand how.
We know that the National Park Service has about 417 units.
In 2016, it had a record 331 million visits and about $18.4
billion in direct spending, 318,000 jobs, and $34.9 billion in
economic output.
You also issued in your statement that, and it is on Page
3, ``In my first days in office I issued two Secretarial Orders
to expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing,
and recreation activities nationwide.'' Yet, your next sentence
talks about a $354.3 million reduction in the 2017 budget.
If I am understanding where you are getting those figures
from, a lot of it is coming from National Park Service because
of the $2.9 that was there in 2017, $2.6 is part of the 2018
budget. I am trying to understand how you justify the budget
cuts and say you are opening the access, and at the same time
your statement to NPS says basically that they will utilize
various strategies on a park-to-park basis, which may include
limiting the use or closing of certain areas as campgrounds.
How do those two actually jive?
Secretary Zinke. Thank you for the question. It is a
balanced budget. As you know, the President submits a budget.
It is what a balanced budget would look like, overall.
The Park Service itself did not receive more of a savings
than any other one. But also, you notice that there was an
increase in areas where we gain revenue. And I don't give
judgment, it is just that the revenue picture has been tough.
The best use, or the most flexible funds, are through the front
door in our parks.
And you are right, we had 330 million visitors last year.
But here are the statistics. About half the parks do not charge
anything. The Park Service has a four-tier system. A lot of the
parks do not even follow that. So, I have also commissioned an
internal study, and we want the parks to be the most
outstanding, great deal, and incentivize families and usage.
But by the same token, we have to look at our revenue picture.
So, what we are looking at on the revenue process, so we
don't have to go through these cuts, in a balanced budget is
looking at making sure the front door tickets are appropriate,
that incentivize families.
Public-private partnerships, since you sit on the Federal
Lands, look at Yosemite. What is the opportunity at Yosemite in
regards to how do you mitigate the traffic problem?
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to interrupt you,
but is that really what NPS is supposed to do? Is it supposed
to be a revenue-generating enterprise? Because I always thought
one of the things that we talked about was the fact that NPS
and the Park Service were a way to get our families engaged.
And Mr. Secretary, I don't have very much time, but I want
to talk to you about an issue that is also very dear to my
heart, which is also one which talks about cuts. And that is
the Japanese confinement. It is not a lot of money in your
budget, it is about $2.8 billion now. You have cut it to $1
million. I am the granddaughter of someone who was in Santa Fe,
New Mexico, but also in Hawaii, where we are beginning to do
what we need to do.
Honouliuli was very unique in that Honouliuli not only had
Japanese-Americans, but also German-Americans and Italian-
Americans, because Hawaii's makeup is very unique. We are all
minorities, so everyone that was considered an ``enemy,'' even
though the Japanese-Americans, and neither were they truly
enemies, were interned. And these cuts are going to slow down
the necessary work, so I would really like for you, when you
say a balanced budget, to keep that in mind.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate Mr. Gohmert taking
over in my absence, and he missed his chance to give you
questions, so I am going to go to him next for questions.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary. You really are a breath of fresh air, and the
Department could use it.
I am curious. You mentioned 70 nominations that are still
out there unconfirmed that you desperately need to help achieve
your mission. In your office, in the building, Department of
the Interior over there, how many of those people that are
working there around you are actually people you personally
hired?
Secretary Zinke. Well, I want to correct it there. I have
70 appointments.
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Secretary Zinke. In the 70 appointments, some of them have
been appointed by me.
Mr. Gohmert. I see, OK.
Secretary Zinke. I have, I would probably say around 20 or
so. Some of the deputy acting assistants are. But to date, the
Senate-confirmed, which are the major leadership team, that is
solicitors, the five solicitors I have, my deputies, directors
of all the departments, the assistant secretaries, all of them
are yet to be in the seat.
Mr. Gohmert. Right. About how many employees are in that
building?
Secretary Zinke. Overall, I have about 70,000 employees
within the Department of the Interior. In DC, somewhere in the
order of maybe 6,500. In Denver, 4,200. We had some really
large regions.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes.
Secretary Zinke. And yet in the field we are pretty short
when it comes to a specific----
Mr. Gohmert. I am sure it would be great to have at least
some of those folks that are as allegiant to you as they were
to the Obama administration.
I want to take you to a problem that seems to exemplify
problems we see across the country. In Harrison County in my
district, east Texas, we have one of the greatest natural
assets in the country called Caddo Lake, at one time the
largest natural lake south of the Great Lakes in the United
States. At one time during World War II, there were 10,000,
11,000 or so employees working at a plant there, an ammunition
plant.
But when BRAC said military no longer needed the land, it
had been used for a lot of purposes, they worked great with the
community, and you can imagine that many employees, what a
difference it made in our small county. When you lose that many
employees and then we look into BRAC, OK, maybe the community
could get it. Could it be a park? Could it be something great,
really help? Well, under BRAC, any Department of the Federal
Government can jump in and claim it.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, it turns out, apparently, they love
to run in and grab land. And I found out previously that,
actually, if they go through and mark pine trees for clearing,
and I am a big fan of management, we don't do enough of it, but
they do get a personal bonus, based on how much money is made
cutting the pine trees.
Well, I went wow, that gives them incentive to claim land
that they may not need, but an area where they can make
personal money.
Well, we got a new guy in there named Eric Derkov, and he
met with me and county judge, Hugh Taylor, Sheriff McCool. He
arbitrarily decided that, he felt like it was probably against
the law, but he cited NEPA and some other things, and showed a
complete ignorance of the law. But despite his lack of
knowledge and ignorance, it didn't prevent him from being
immovable and incalcitrant.
There was a firing range there that law enforcement, for
130 miles, from Louisiana over to Dallas, would come and use.
They would train people to drive. And Eric Derkov just decided
that that is inconsistent with NEPA and the Department of the
Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, nobody would be allowed
there. They say we may have as many as 10 local people walk
their dogs through there, but we are talking about a huge area
that is basically devastated, Harrison County, surrounding
area, and now we have, I am sure he is competent in some areas,
I just couldn't find any within U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
But we need help, and I am just asking if you would look
into Mr. Derkov and the damage he is doing there to people in
east Texas.
Secretary Zinke. I will look into it and make sure he is
consistent with the policies. You will be happy to know, too,
that Interior's south building, we gave that up as we are
bringing National Park Service into the main building. And we
have given up Interior south back to GSA.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Can we have it?
Secretary Zinke. I am sorry, sir?
The Chairman. Giving it up? Can we have it? We are doing
construction out here. Never mind.
Mr. Soto.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary. I am from Florida, and we care
deeply about the Everglades. We recently sent you a letter
about designating the Kissimmee River, where we spent billions
to restore it, on making it a wild and scenic river. Can we
expect a response at some point soon?
Secretary Zinke. Yes, absolutely. And I have met with the
governor, and am catching up to speed on the seagrass, which
has become the creek of not much. I understand the problems
with the overflow and the reservoir, the need for the levee
system to be redone.
My intention is to be down in Florida right after the break
in there to look at it and assess it, and I would be glad to
work with you on that. I understand it is a huge problem, but
there are solutions. And my commitment to you is to work
together to find the solutions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We also have a 125-mile
buffer through 2022 in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida for
oil drilling. Is that buffer in jeopardy right now?
Secretary Zinke. We are looking at, with the military,
there are some areas that are closed that we would look at
seismic assessment. We are working with the military to look at
their letter, which I am sure you got a copy of, to make sure
that we are all on the same page. I would not say it is in
jeopardy one way or the other, we are just making sure it is
based on military needs.
As a former military officer, if the military, which is
non-political, if they say they need an area, then certainly I
would pay attention to that, which I am.
Mr. Soto. We also saw White House attorney Udham Dillon say
that individual Minority Members, Ranking Members, and
basically, Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans do not have
an individual authority to conduct oversight. Is that the
policy of the Department of the Interior, that unless our
Chairman sends a request we don't have an oversight right?
Secretary Zinke. My policy has been any Member has a
privilege of being a Member, so I have, as you know, offered to
come quarterly and sit down with the Minority in a group and
discuss the issues so you know exactly where we are. I think I
have given more access than certainly any Secretary in my time.
I think, as an elected official, you deserve the courtesy.
As a Secretary of the Interior, it is our Interior Department,
it is not just one party's or another. And my commitment is to
be responsive to you and make sure there is a level of trust
that exists in the Minority, just like the Majority.
Mr. Soto. And then we have had such a focus on Bears Ears.
I know you went over there, there have been a lot of hearings
on it. What is the main focus? Why are we setting our sights on
an area that has ancestral ties for five Native American
tribes? What is it about Bears Ears that has brought your gaze
to it?
Secretary Zinke. Well, an excellent question. Here is the
laydown for those that have not been out there. It is 1.5
million acres, about 1.5 times the size of Glacier Park. Within
Bears Ears itself, there is a monument, an existing monument.
There is a wilderness study area, about 400,000 acres. There is
a national forest. There is BLM. And there are antiquities. So,
reasons why it became a monument are varying, but it became a
monument.
My task was to look at a monument and make sure, first, are
there antiquities there? Yes, there are. Does it follow the
law, which is smallest area compatible with protection of the
object? When I looked at it and talked to everyone, the tribes
before, and it is not true that I only spent an hour with the
tribes. We had meetings before I got there, we have had
meetings afterwards. I called the tribes, and this was the
recommendation, that the antiquities within the Bears Ears can
be segregated, identified, and the border revised to protect
those antiquities.
What I found is when you go out there, and the antiquities
that are to be protected, some of the dwellings, when there is
no parking lot, designated parking lot, there are no bathrooms,
there is no infrastructure that, you can drive in it multiple
ways and pilfer. Part of the responsibility when I become the
monitor and protector of the antiquities, we need borders to
make sure that I can actually do my job. So, the border is
revised.
The second thing is I am asking Congress to authorize co-
management of that monument with the tribes there. This has
never been done. And the authority does not rest with the
executive. The authority rests with you. So, I have to ask you
to provide co-management, and the request from the President, I
think, will be to ask you that.
Last, there are areas within the monument that are better
suited, in my judgment, to be national recreation areas,
conservation areas.
And last point, Mr. Chairman, if I can indulge you for 15
seconds, is that what happens when you put a monument over a
wilderness, over an existing wilderness. A monument is managed
by the proclamation. A wilderness, in many cases, can be more
stringent in its management application. So, I am asking
Congress to provide clarity of what the intent of Congress is
when you put a monument over top of the wilderness. What system
do you manage it as?
The Chairman. Thank you. We accept that responsibility, we
are going to do it.
I will just notice here that there is no policy anywhere
that says all the questions have to go through the Chairman.
But I would like to note that I wouldn't mind that. If we want
to do that, I kind of appreciate that one.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being
here. I want to make note for the record that, actually, at a
hearing similar to this with Secretary Jewell, I actually asked
her to provide follow-up information to our office, and we
never heard back. We called them after that and never heard
back.
As a delegation, we requested a meeting with the Secretary.
That meeting was refused, as a delegation. We requested a
meeting with BSEE Director Salerno. That meeting was refused.
And we also tried to get NOAA to accept some of Louisiana's
science, which was much improved, based upon NOAA related to
red snapper fisheries, and NOAA refused to accept that data, or
utilize the state data that was better.
Mr. Secretary, you mentioned earlier that in the last year
of the Bush administration in excess of $18 billion was
generated from offshore energy revenues, and the last year of
the Obama administration approximately $2.7 billion was
generated from Outer Continental Shelf energy revenues.
Extraordinary disparity.
And, as you correctly noted, there are certainly in
addition to policies by the administration, certainly what goes
on in the Middle East, policies and other issues affected
energy production and revenues.
If you add up the six states that produce offshore energies
in Federal waters: Alaska, California, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama, and if you add up the production of
the five states of Alaska, California, Texas, Mississippi, and
Alabama, multiply it times three or four, that is what
Louisiana produces in our Federal waters.
Right now, based upon Federal policy, other states like the
states of perhaps Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, wherever, they
benefit more from the offshore energy revenues than the state
of Louisiana. I don't understand that. And while the Obama
administration in the last 2 years proposed to cut the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act revenue-sharing funds, I was shocked
to see that it was also in the budget that this administration
put forth.
I am curious if you can give us some type of explanation as
to why you think other states should benefit from our offshore
energy production more so than the state of Louisiana.
Secretary Zinke. Thank you. And it is not a surprise you
would ask that question. Senator Cassidy also asked that
question in the last couple days. But here, as the argument
lies, is that all states share in the OCS revenue.
The argument is the increase in activity will benefit the
great state of Louisiana in ways of jobs, et cetera----
Mr. Graves. OK. Mr. Secretary, can I actually interrupt you
right there? Because I want to go back and point to your
budget, where you talk about the recreational fee program,
where it says that the recreational fee program, $290 million
annually, is an important social revenue for land management
operations, maintenance, and improvements to recreational
facilities on public lands.
What I am concerned about is the disparity in treatment in
Federal lands. Right now, under the Mineral Leasing Act, states
share 50 percent of the revenues or, in the case of Alaska, 90
percent of the revenues go back to their states. In the case of
national parks and other fees, the dollars go back into those
states. Right now, we are investing more of the OCS revenues
into conservation in other states than in Louisiana, that has
lost 1,900 square miles of our coast.
Mr. Secretary, I just want to ask you. I would like for our
delegation to have the opportunity to sit with you and talk
through this and explain this. I know you have been to the
coast of Louisiana, and I know you share our concerns with the
erosion and what it is doing to our ecosystem and vulnerability
to our communities. I just want to ask for a commitment that
you give us an opportunity to sit and discuss this, and explain
why we think it is an important reinvestment in revenues into
the productivity of our ecosystem and the resilience of our
communities, rather than, again, allowing other states to
benefit.
Secretary Zinke. I look forward to working with you on it.
And I think you would be a magnificent governor in the great
state of Louisiana. No one represents Louisiana better than
you. I look forward to your future, but I would be glad to sit
down with you and work on it.
Again, this is what a balanced budget would look like. And
it is a great line of discussion back and forth, and I get the
GOMESA.
Mr. Graves. That flattery will get you everywhere. Thank
you. No, seriously, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
this with you, and I know our delegation will, as well.
A quick question, Mr. Secretary. When you look at the
portfolio of the Department of the Interior, and you compare it
to other agencies like Department of Commerce, it is somewhat
of a head-scratcher sometimes, why fisheries management is in
Department of Commerce, with other missions that appear
inconsistent. Do you believe that that would perhaps be better
aligned with Interior?
Secretary Zinke. Well, certainly our reorganization looks
at the problem set before us. And you correctly point out, and
I gave the example of a salmon and a trout in the same stream,
and the two departments sometimes are not reconcilable.
Certainly, a path forward would be to make things more
joint at the region so the government is on one page, so
industry can have some clarity and certainty on either
investment or the activities, as well as the public. The public
should know that we are efficient. But I think organization and
a change is necessary.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Graves, from now on I am referring
to you as Governor.
Mr. Graves. I am not saying that is a step up, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It is definitely a step down.
Mr. Graves. He just wants me out of here.
The Chairman. If you had said Senator, that would have been
depths of stepping down.
Mr. Panetta, you are recognized.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good afternoon by now, and welcome. I
appreciate you being here, appreciate your testimony, your
preparation as well. I also appreciate the fact that you did
come here and speak with the Minority staff. Unfortunately,
there were some votes that were going on, our Minority Members
didn't get a good chance to talk to you. And thank you for your
willingness to come again. And also, thank you for your
willingness to have individual conversations with Members.
As a freshman Member, I appreciate that. The last thing I
would want to do is bother you with a phone call. And know that
if I do call you, it is only because there is an emergency, or
because our letters didn't get responded to. But once again,
thank you very much.
I come from the central coast of California. We have the
Pinnacles National Park there, Fort Ord National Monument, the
coastal monuments there, as well. I was fortunate enough to
meet with BLM employees last month, a very dedicated group out
there. But obviously, they are worried about the lack of
funding and a lack of resources that they are getting.
On that note, the Federal hiring freeze, how did that
affect the DOI?
Secretary Zinke. The hiring freeze was relaxed, with the
exception of Washington, DC and Denver, with the exception of
GS-12 and above, which just requires an exception on there.
Our priority was to make sure that we shore up the front
line, first, if there is a qualified candidate within
Washington, DC or Denver, we were going to fill from that
first, and then make sure that the hiring itself, we are
looking at the process of allowing superintendents and those on
the ground more flexibility to hire locally, which we think is
an important aspect on that. Some of it is coordination with
the Office of Personnel.
You would be surprised or not surprised, how much latitude
a Secretary has in such matters, but we are looking at
providing the superintendent more hiring authority to hire
local, and then shoring up, again, the front line by looking at
qualified individuals from Washington and Denver, and some of
our larger regions first, before we go out.
Mr. Panetta. OK. Great, thanks. You mentioned earlier with
Representative Hanabusa, you started to talk about public-
private partnerships. You started to get to Yosemite National
Park. Can you give us some examples of how that could help the
facilities that you oversee?
Secretary Zinke. Well, in the case of Yosemite, clearly we
all want to protect the experience of a park, because the
culture and experience of going to a park should be a wow,
right? It should be a five-star. That means that when you get
there, we should be in the right uniform, the bathrooms are
clean, and the experience should be the five.
Part of that is looking at public-private partnership on
transportation. I don't want to say a bus. I like to say a
transport. But developing and looking at what that
transportation means, should look like, it should be an
enriching experience. People should want to get on the
transport. If they don't get on the transport and do the park,
something is going to be missing.
An example would be the red buses in Glacier Park. Those
were made in the 1930s, but it has become an iconic feature of
visiting our park. Zion has a pretty good transportation
system. But that is where we are looking at public-private
partnerships. I don't want to run a bus system, but I want to
get the greatest talent of people in this country that care
about our parks to design a transport system that, for lack of
a better term, is the coolest system around so it enriches the
experience.
WiFi is another example. In parks, we are the old
generation. The younger generation appreciates WiFi, and we
should embrace that to make sure that the park experience going
down a trail is available on your cell phone: the geology, the
wildlife, what you are going to see. And, oh, by the way, if
you see a bear, I mean, there is an app that says ``bear'' that
goes down to the local superintendent, so he can notate it.
Mr. Panetta. OK. Got it. Throughout your testimony today,
you have consistently said this is what a balanced budget looks
like, in regards to the President's budget. Is this budget, in
your position--I mean is this the budget you are willing to go
out there and look your employees in the eye and say, ``This is
one I support, and this is one that I want for you'' ?
Secretary Zinke. I support the budget, but I also support
and realize this is a starting point. And what is important, I
think, is if nothing else, it has highlighted the Members'
priorities, which is important to go back to.
It also highlights our revenue problem, is that we need to
work together for our revenue. If you have money, then the
decisions are really easy. But if we keep having to borrow,
then the decisions became more difficult.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think Grijalva and I both agree
we are not crazy about your WiFi idea there.
Mrs. Radewagen.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the Ranking Member. Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing
before the Committee this morning, a Committee that you were
serving on just last year. You are missed, and it is great to
see you leading the Interior.
I want to express my personal appreciation to you for
inviting me to participate in some of the events surrounding
the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Virgin Islands Transfer Day.
I very much appreciate the interest you have shown in the U.S.
territories, not only as a colleague on this Committee, but
also since you were confirmed as Secretary.
Being the most economically challenged state or territory
in the Nation due to our economic and geographic isolation,
American Samoa has been the grateful recipient of funding from
the Department of the Interior to supplement funding for local
government operations, including the local and only community
college on the island, the judiciary, the Department of
Education, and last, but certainly not least, the only hospital
in the territory, which our veterans cannot even use due to the
lack of adequate resources.
Beginning in 1974, the Department of the Interior created
the American Samoa operations grants account, at which time the
allocation was $17 million. In 1986, that amount was raised for
the first and only time to $22.75 million, where it has
remained since. If you were to use the CPI and adjust for that
over time, that amount would be approximately $50 million
today.
In the Department's budget proposal, it states the
reasoning behind the lack of any increase is to promote self-
sufficiency on the island, which is all fine and well, except
for the fact that the Federal Government has imposed unfunded
mandates and regulations that extremely hamper that effort,
including the mandatory raising of the minimum wage in American
Samoa until it meets the Federal minimum standard, a perfect
example of the Federal Government placing the territory on the
same economic playing field as the states, which is a somewhat
irresponsible policy, to say the least, which has done
tremendous harm to the local economy, and contributed greatly
to two tuna canneries, which are the lifeblood of our economy,
leaving the island since 2009.
Couple that with the closing off of large swaths of the
Pacific Ocean, which our people have utilized as their
traditional fishing grounds for centuries, and you can see how
frustrating it can be to hear that we must become more self-
sufficient.
This year, that critical funding was reduced by $1.2
million, which is not much money if you are a state. But it is
a tremendous amount for our local government to absorb.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to having you visit the
territories. In February, a congressional delegation visited
the territories led by our Chairman Bishop. While there, the
CODEL received an eye-opening firsthand account of just how
many issues we are facing, particularly our hospital which is
over 50 years old and in such disrepair that our military
veterans are not able to use it; they, therefore, must be flown
to Hawaii and put up in a hotel for at least a few days, all on
the U.S. taxpayer's dime, even for the most minor procedures,
as flights to and from American Samoa are very limited, which
happens to be another issue we are trying to fix.
This does not even take into account the time that our
veterans must be away from their families for medical
treatment, any medical treatment whatsoever, treatment they
have rightfully earned.
While I understand the need for austerity measures, they
simply cannot come on the backs of the most economically
challenged people in our Nation, the people who love this
Nation so much, as demonstrated by our record rate of
enlistment into the armed forces.
Mr. Secretary, we as Republicans are always talking about
providing a safety net for the less fortunate. This $1.2
million is part of our safety net. I have been working with
Chairman Calvert and Senator Murkowski, and should we be
successful in rescinding the proposed cut, I humbly hope that
the Department will pose no objections.
Thank you again, Mr. Secretary. As always, it is a pleasure
to see you, my friend, and I look forward to continuing to work
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me too welcome
the Secretary back to this Committee.
I noticed that on your first full day of work you chose an
interesting mode of transportation to go to work. Have you
ridden your horse to work lately?
Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, I have.
Mr. Clay. Oh, you have?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Zinke. At least around the mall a couple times.
Mr. Clay. Very good. I think that for lack of a better
term, I thought that was cool.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Clay. Mr. Secretary, are Federal agencies required to
consult with tribal nations before they recommend a course of
action that has the potential to affect their tribal rights and
interests?
Secretary Zinke. They are required, it is interesting on
consultation, talking to tribes. Some of the consultation has
been a website, rather than personal. Some of the consultation
has been more notification, rather than consultation. I think
we need to do a lot of work on what consultation really means,
and a lot of it is trust, quite frankly, taking the interest.
And I find myself, as the Department of the Interior, to be
the champion of all things Indian, and I take that
responsibility very seriously.
Mr. Clay. All right. Several tribes, including the Navajo,
Osage, Oglala, Sioux, Crow, Piikani, and Hopi have indicated
that the Federal Government, in particular, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, has abandoned that responsibility in its
proposed rule to remove ESA protection for grizzly bears in the
greater Yellowstone ecosystem.
In a treaty, letters, and resolutions, tribal nations have
raised concerns over the science being presented by the
Service, and the irreparable harm of tribal sovereignty, sacred
site protections, treaty rights, consultation mandates, and
spiritual and religious freedoms. Can you discuss your plan to
honor the mandatory pre-decision and meaningful government-to-
government consultation with tribes in this matter?
Secretary Zinke. I will continue to live up to my
obligation to do that, I look forward to it. I try to have a
great relationship with the tribes. Me in Montana with the
grizzly bears has been an interesting thing to watch. It
extends beyond the grizzly bear. The buffalo, as well, within
Yellowstone, making sure we honor cultural and historic rites
of hunt with that.
But I look forward to working with the tribes. As a
Congressman, I represented seven tribes in Montana, and now I
have a lot more. I know that the tribes in Montana are not
monolithic. Wait until you get to the tribes across our Nation,
they are anything but monolithic. Each of the tribes has their
own expectations, culture, opportunities, and challenges.
And what I really would like is the Senate to push along my
BIA Director, I think the tribes are going to be thrilled with
that. But we need some help on leadership.
And also the restructure of BIA. I don't think we are doing
a very good job, and certainly entertaining how to do it
better, working with Congress, I think is a frank discussion.
Mr. Clay. Will you commit to consult with affected tribes
prior to any de-listing announcement?
Secretary Zinke. I will commit to that. I think it is not
only a right, it is the law. And it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your answers. I
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Zinke, I
know that you said you had a 12:30 drop dead date, but you
committed to stay a few more minutes to see if we can get all
the questions in.
Secretary Zinke. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Is that news to you?
Secretary Zinke. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. OK. We will try to do that. General, you are
up next.
Mr. Bergman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, first, thanks for your leadership style
and approach to organizational development. It is already
showing. Also, thank you for your proactive approach in all the
work you have done in husbanding our Nation's natural
resources, as both a Member of Congress and now as the
Secretary.
My question today deals with an ongoing issue facing my
district in northern Michigan and the Great Lakes region in
general: the double-crested cormorant. For those of you who
don't know, or might not be aware of what a double-crested
cormorant is, it is a large bird that spends most of its day
either resting or eating. It will fly low to the water's
surface, and then dive straight into the water to feed on
foraged fish, stock trout, salmon, small-mouthed bass, yellow
perch, and even catfish in some areas.
By 2009, the cormorant population in Michigan waters alone
was estimated at 326,000. Cormorants are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and are currently managed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. While states have been given the
authority to control cormorant populations through a
depredation order for over a decade, a May 2016 court order
stopped my state of Michigan, among others, from being able to
effectively manage this bird population until a new
environmental assessment can be issued by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
That decision has ultimately led to a degraded situation
for our fish populations in the Great Lakes. Without a new EA
to re-establish these depredation orders, the livelihood of our
recreational and commercial fishing industries is at risk and
it is directly affecting our local economies.
Can you share with us where your Department is on this?
And, more specifically, where the Fish and Wildlife Service is
on issuing its revised environmental assessment?
Secretary Zinke. I will look into this. This is the first I
have heard of this particular issue. And this is why I think,
quite frankly, a reorganization is important. When it comes to
the Asian carp, or things that are sensitive to the Great Lakes
and in that region, sometimes they get lost when they get to
DC. So, a reorganization based on more watersheds gives more
authority to the states, gives more authority to the regions
outside of DC that would be able to, I think, better highlight
these areas.
Because I haven't heard of the double-crested before is an
indicator that it hasn't been followed in DC, which is
absolutely an indicator on why we should reorganize and push
more authority to these different ecosystems or JMAs, so they
can be addressed. We should be working with the states, rather
than against.
And, by the way, I think Asian carp should be renamed the
Asian trout, or the Asian bass.
Mr. Bergman. Fair enough. And given your answer, I look
forward to working with you, your staff, at whatever level
necessary to get quick resolution on this because the problem
is increasing.
And last, I would like to say you have indicated that, as a
Representative from Montana, you represented seven tribes. In
the 1st district of Michigan, I represent eight. And not that
we are playing the numbers game here, but the bottom line is we
know there are a lot of folks who are affected by those
decisions. I look forward to working with you and your team to
ensure that all our tribes are recognized and included in the
decision making at all levels.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. But you have done a good
job on the single-crested.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, for the last 50 years, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, also known as the LWCF, has been
instrumental in ensuring that Americans across the country,
especially those living in underserved urban areas, have access
to public parks, playgrounds, and green spaces.
In fact, I have been working with the Urban and Community
Park Coalition on a bipartisan bill that I introduced a few
days ago with Congressman Mike Turner. It is H.R. 2943, the
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program, which I
invite all of my colleagues here to co-sponsor. It creates a
dedicated source of funding for projects that expand outdoor
recreational opportunities in cities across the country.
Urban parks are not only safe and beautiful, but they also
serve as green engines to help address nearly every critical
urban need, from health to housing to education and
environmental justice, and countering sprawl to combat crime. I
was quite disappointed to see that this budget cuts the LWCF by
more than 80 percent, and eliminates the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Grant Program.
The LWCF stateside assistance grants have created parks,
playgrounds, and outdoor recreational facilities such as
basketball courts and skate parks in over 42,000 communities
across the country. As 80 percent of Americans live in urban
areas, more funding, not less, is needed to provide these much-
needed outdoor outlets for city residents.
In your testimony, you noted your goal for the Department
of the Interior is to continue delivering access and services
critical to Americans. My question is, would you be able to
tell me how cutting the LWCF by 80 percent helps you in
accomplishing this goal, especially when those living in urban
areas already face barriers in accessing public lands?
Secretary Zinke. The cuts in the LWCF were for new land
acquisition. As I am sure you are aware, in the Park Service
itself we are $11.5 billion behind in maintenance and repair,
$11.5 billion behind. So, the position is, let's fix what we
have before we encumber ourselves with more assets.
On the LWCF, as you know, I have been a strong champion
over time, and I think it has done some great things. I think
on the funding side, we need a steady source of funding. In
review, over the course of time there has been about $20
billion that have been unused in appropriation.
And I think that having the LWCF program funds used for
programs would be beneficial, and also giving the states more
say. Some states are more urban or more rural than others, but
giving the latitude of the states to direct those funds to
issues that they feel important themselves. At one time it was
60 percent went to the states. It is much less today.
So, I think Congress has a role to play in making sure that
the states have more latitude. You, as a Representative, should
have a say, I think, in where those funds should go in your
district.
Ms. Barragan. But if we are cutting funding, how does that
help the states? Doesn't it just cut the funding? Or are we
directing the money to the states for them to decide?
Secretary Zinke. The cut in the funding is for new
acquisitions, new land acquisitions. It does not cut funding
for operations, for maintenance. It does not cut funding for
conservation easements and those type of things.
Your colleague, Ms. Dingell, had a lot to do, her husband
had a lot to do with building that structure. If it changes for
more of a rural or more of an urban taste, then that is the
legislative decision that Congress will have to make on how to
direct it.
But the budget right now simply has a reduction in land
acquisition because, again, the tact is, let's take care of
property that we have, rather than buying more property that we
also have a maintenance liability on.
Ms. Barragan. So, are you suggesting you believe there are
already enough green spaces, that we shouldn't invest in more?
Secretary Zinke. No, I am suggesting the budget reflects
this. The budget reflects that we should not encumber more
liability until we maintain what we have. If you want to look
at maintenance-wise, if you haven't been to Arlington, I would
suggest taking a look at Arlington. I am also going to do a
tour on Friday of our regional parks in Washington, DC. Most of
our parks in DC, which I am responsible for, are not
maintained.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very much, Secretary Zinke. First of all,
thank you for sticking around past the time, those of us who
are on the bottom row here very much appreciate it.
I also want to thank you for efforts that you have already
made and steps you have already taken for Wyoming in
particular. Lifting the moratorium on coal leasing on public
lands is crucial, and we are very grateful for that.
I was also very pleased to hear your comments earlier about
the reform at the BIA. I represent, as you know, two tribes in
Wyoming, and it is crucially important. So, we are looking
forward to that.
I wanted to ask you a bit more about what you are doing in
terms of the energy permitting. I appreciate the increased
revenues that are going in, in terms of BLM, for oil and gas
management and for the coal management program. But I hear just
about every single day from folks across Wyoming who say,
``Look, in some instances it has taken years, from getting an
application for a permit to drill, from submitting that,
getting the permit, until the project can begin, as long as 8
or 9 years.'' And you can imagine the economic impact of that
is just tremendous.
So, could you talk a little bit more, in addition to the
energy council you have mentioned, how you are going to go
about streamlining that process so that we are not facing just
this unbearable, really, burden of regulation from the BLM?
Secretary Zinke. I have a couple of approaches. One, in the
budget, we added more money for permitting on it, because
again, permitting is related to revenues. And one of my
principal objectives is to raise revenues so we can afford to
pay for the programs that this Committee and others and
Americans support. So, revenue is important.
The other thing is the process. I have appointed and have
in position my principal advisor for energy affairs, who is
specifically looking at the permitting process. The permitting
process has been very lineal and in sequence. In a permit
process you can have sequential processes that go forward,
rather than having 6 months and then it goes to someone else's
desk for 6 months, and 6 months, and 6 months. We can do it
simultaneously on the permit process.
The other thing is if it is in our approved basin, then you
don't have to view a permit as if it has never been done
before. If it is in the same geologic structure, and as long as
there are provisions to make sure the casing is whole, that the
reclamation plan is there, and best practices are used, you
don't need to take every permit as if this is the first well we
have ever drilled.
So, some of it has been the process has been in place, and
some of it has been arbitrary. An individual, either willingly
or not, can hold a permit for, in some cases, one would say
nefarious reasons. We want to make sure we have the right
leadership in place, that it is fair. And when you invest in a
holding of the U.S. Government, at least the process should be
fair, it should be straightforward. You have a good feeling in
the first 6 months or 30 days on some of the easier ones,
whether it is going to be approved to give an investment point
of view some degree of certainty, and at least a confidence
that your investment, if it is not going to be improved, maybe
you should make another investment somewhere.
But to kick the can down the road on a permit in the same
basin surrounded by like activities, this is the problem we
face. And we are going to get to the bottom of the solution.
Ms. Cheney. Well, I appreciate that very much. I know you
know how important it is, economically.
And then just one more question with respect to the BLM. As
you know, in so many of these areas, the law is management for
multiple use and sustained yield. And we have seen too often,
particularly in the last 8 years, that the law has really been
ignored. And there has been management, really, to preclude all
human use of these lands.
How are you going to go about changing the approach,
changing the philosophy? Obviously, getting a BLM Director is
going to be crucial, and we are very anxious to see that
happen. But could you talk a little bit about how you are going
to go back to ensuring that congressional intent, as indicated
in the law, is followed?
Secretary Zinke. Some of it is leadership. And some of it
is, you are right, adhering not to the law but a philosophy
that parks and public lands should be for the use, benefit, and
enjoyment of the people.
And I think, to a degree, the reorganization has
opportunity for both sides of the aisle, because connection to
corridors, wildlife corridors, and watersheds is important. So,
a holistic approach, to make sure we manage better, is where we
should go.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
willingness to stay to the end of this. Gohmert left some M&Ms,
if you need lunch.
Secretary Zinke. I will sacrifice lunch for the convenience
of----
The Chairman. The last few questions, he has 10 minutes.
You have a legal right for five. Be brief.
Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Mr. Secretary, when you were testifying before
the House Appropriations Committee a few weeks ago you stated,
``I don't favor oil and gas over coal, over wind, over nuclear.
I am just all of the above.'' Do you stand by that?
Secretary Zinke. I absolutely do. I stand by that, the
President's position is an all-of-the-above energy policy, and
I support that.
Mr. Gallego. Excellent. And for the sake of a time limit,
let me just continue.
Your budget, however, does not reflect that. Only two
agencies in your Department have seen an increase, and both
deal with only offshore oil and gas. One of them, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, also issues offshore renewable energy
leases, but while the overall funding for that agency would go
up, the renewable energy program would be cut by more than 10
percent.
We are just starting to see some windmills in the water,
and you are proposing a stop to that momentum, when it comes,
in its tracks. And it is not just me saying this. The agency's
budget justification admits that these cuts would have a
significantly harmful impact. The agency itself states that
these cuts would, ``Slow the advancement of offshore renewable
energy commercial leasing activities on both the Pacific and
Atlantic coasts. This reduction will result in the loss of
opportunity to add millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury
annually, to the collection of additional bonuses, bids, and
future rents.''
So, do you understand why we see this dichotomy, when you
are saying that you have an all-of-the-above approach to energy
production, but it is not necessarily reflective in the budget?
Secretary Zinke. Well, in regards to when the budget
matches the anticipated demand, and also, a group of people
whose voices have not been heard, in my judgment, are the
fishermen. I just got back from the great state of
Massachusetts, and their concern is that some of the design of
these systems would preclude fishing. And the President
believes that jobs are important, and certainly the fishing
industry is important, the vitality and the future of this
country.
I think to look at some of these projects, to make sure
they do not interfere with fishing, and the fishermen have
their voice is important.
Mr. Gallego. Well, I thank you, Secretary. I think one of
our concerns, again, is to keep true to at least the words of
President Trump, as well as yours, an all-of-the-above approach
to energy production should be continued and should be
reflected in the budget, whether or not fishermen or any other
concerns are involved. Thank you.
The Chairman. Do you yield back?
Mr. Gallego. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I will be very brief.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your long record of
service to our country, for accepting this challenging new
position. I will cut this short.
I heard you say earlier that you were more than willing to
meet with this Committee's members quarterly, and even in
person to talk about their concerns. Isn't that right?
Secretary Zinke. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. I also understand that you inherited, from the
previous administration, numerous unanswered Committee
requests.
So, just to be clear, will you commit that your Department
will provide written responses to this Committee's official
request for documents and information, in addition to the
meetings you have already offered?
Secretary Zinke. Where appropriate. But it is interesting.
When I assumed the job, I found a piece of correspondence from
me, as a Congressman, that was there for months and months and
months. I felt not to answer it, I didn't have to.
But my commitment is that on some issues it is better to go
face to face, rather than having staff-to-staff discussions.
The intent is to be transparent, be responsive, and to respect
that you are a Congressman and you represent your great
district, and I want to be responsive to not only you, but your
constituents.
Mr. Johnson. Thanks for clarifying that again. I am
particularly grateful for your emphasis on streamlining and
reorganizing your vast Department, and I just had a quick
question about an idea that you raised recently about
consolidating two departments within your immediate control.
You expressed a desire to consolidate the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, to merge those two agencies back together,
reorganize them in some fashion, so that we can maximize
efficiencies. Can you just briefly explain why you think that
would be important?
Secretary Zinke. Well, it was the result of, of course, the
tragic oil spill out in the Gulf. And we are looking at it. A
decision has not been made.
Whenever you do a reorganization of that size, you want to
make sure you look at unintended consequences. From the
industry side, the two agencies have gotten further and further
apart. Relationships have gotten less and less than there was
historically, when they were together. So, we are looking at
how to do it, and unintended consequences, to make sure we hold
accountable the industry, but also do it in a way that we are a
partner.
Some of it is, quite frankly, innovation. The government is
behind on its ability to look at innovation and regulate
innovation. In some cases, we are the problem. So, we have to
have some flexibility and best practices in order to make sure
that we are in a best position not to inhibit some of the
technology that is better, safer, more environmentally
responsive. That is the challenge.
Mr. Johnson. Out of respect to my colleagues, I will waive
the rest of my time.
The Chairman. This is unfair, I know, but Miss Gonzalez,
Mr. Hice, 2 minutes each, if you can do that, just for the
Secretary. Jenniffer, go. Two minutes.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary, for being here, for your time. I want to thank you
also for the numerous contributions the Department of the
Interior is making in Puerto Rico. And, actually, one of them
is the preservation of the territory's iconic national parks,
and the protection of our endangered species like the Puerto
Rican parrot.
I just have one question, and it is relative to the
National Institute for Water Resources. I know the current
budget has a proposal to eliminate the program. How can we
continue the initiative of managing the water quality, soil
erosion control, and flooding in the Department of the Interior
with relation to other universities, if we are eliminating that
program?
Do we have any other options? Are we looking to have any
kind of a partnership or other initiatives that we can work on?
Secretary Zinke. Yes. And I think by bringing it up, it is
important. And I promise to work with you on it, because Puerto
Rico is important to the Department of the Interior, and you
have some magnificent holdings. We will work with you on it.
The USGS has some parallel programs, but I will work with you
on it, and be glad to.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Great to have you back, Secretary. We miss you, but we are
glad you are where you are.
As you know, the President has asked for an all-hands-on-
deck approach to offshore research and development. And, of
course, you signed an order in May directing the Interior to
look at the Gulf of Mexico region for potential drilling sites.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter that I
would ask unanimous consent to be added to the record here, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has
written a letter stating, in essence, that military training
and related exercise in the Gulf necessitates a continuation of
Congress' ban.
[The information follows:]
Rep. Hice Submission
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
4000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-4000
April 26, 2017
The Honorable Matt Gaetz
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Gaetz:
Thank you for your letter dated March 24, 2017, regarding
maintaining the moratorium on oil and gas activities in the Gulf of
Mexico beyond 2022. Since military readiness falls under my purview, I
have been asked to respond to your letter on behalf of the Secretary of
Defense. The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot overstate the vital
importance of maintaining this moratorium.
National security and energy security are inextricably linked and
the DoD fully supports the development of our nation's domestic energy
resources in a manner that is compatible with military testing,
training, and operations. As mentioned in your letter, the complex of
eastern Gulf of Mexico operating areas and warning areas provides
critical opportunities for advanced weapons testing and joint training
exercises. The moratorium on oil and gas ``leasing, pre-leasing, and
other related activities'' ensures that these vital military readiness
activities may be conducted without interference and is critical to
their continuation. Emerging technologies such as hypersonics,
autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems will require
enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act's moratorium beyond 2022. The
moratorium is essential for developing and sustaining our nation's
future combat capabilities.
Since signing the 1983 ``Memorandum of Agreement Between the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior on Mutual
Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf,'' the two departments have
worked cooperatively to ensure offshore resource development is
compatible with military readiness activities. During recent
discussions between the DoD and the Department of the Interior' s
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a question arose concerning whether
Congress intended the moratorium to prohibit even geological and
geophysical survey activities in the eastern Gulf. We would welcome
clarification from Congress concerning this matter.
On behalf of the Secretary, I appreciate your interest in
sustaining our testing and training activities in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico.
Sincerely,
A.M. Kurta,
Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness
______
Dr. Hice. So, my question, and no one knows this any better
than you, as a Navy SEAL commander. You have a great
understanding, both of the military and of the Interior. The
question is, how do you reconcile these two? Can the two co-
exist?
Secretary Zinke. Well, you are right. As a veteran, I am
extraordinarily sensitive to the responsibility of the
Department of Defense, in making sure the Interior, that came
from the Department of War, does not do anything to jeopardize
our military.
I think some of it, too, is the advance of technology, the
ability to horizontal drill, and to look at the specific
requirements that are involved with the military, and seeing if
there is a path forward or not. But I think it involves, from
us, getting the leading experts on how we drill. Some of it is
subsurface now. As you know, the technology is moving forward.
So, I think looking at what is out there. What we think the
technology will be today, in 5 years, in 10 years, is it
compatible with military operations or not? I think that is an
ongoing discussion. But, certainly, we are going to honor the
Department of Defense position, but work together with them if,
in fact, that is the right choice.
Dr. Hice. My time is gone, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva, do you have a UC?
Mr. Grijalva. A unanimous consent request, a legal opinion
by the legal counsel of the Justice Department relative to
Members of Congress to conduct oversight of the executive
branch, with no objection.
The Chairman. It is in the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being
here.
To our Members who sat here a long time and at the very end
we had to cut you short, I apologize for that.
I appreciate you spending more time than you should have
with us.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. We will make it up some time with you. I have
no idea how, but----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I appreciate your candor, I appreciate you
being back with us again. Thank you for spending your time.
Secretary Zinke. It is a pleasure to be with you, sir. It
is a pleasure to be with your august Committee.
The Chairman. Take care. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Grijalva Submission
--Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct
Oversight of the Executive Branch, by Curtis E.
Gannon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Legal Counsel, from the Opinions of the Office
of Legal Counsel in Volume 41.
Rep. Pearce Submission
--List of Organization and Government Endorsements who
opposed the designation of the Organ Mountains-
Desert Peaks National Monument.