[Senate Hearing 117-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-462

                         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
                      GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                             NATIONAL PARKS

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 9, 2022
                               __________
                               
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               


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

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
46-848                     WASHINGTON : 2024           


               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
                                 ------                                

                     Subcommittee on National Parks

                      ANGUS S. KING, JR., Chairman

BERNARD SANDERS                      STEVE DAINES
MARTIN HEINRICH                      MIKE LEE
MAZIE K. HIRONO                      LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY                           JOHN HOEVEN
                                     JAMES LANKFORD

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                     David Brooks, General Counsel
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
        John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. 
  Senator from Maine.............................................     1
Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. 
  Senator from Montana...........................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Estenoz, Hon. Shannon, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 
  and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior.....................     5
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest 
  Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................    16

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Coalition to Protect America's National Parks:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   100
Daines, Hon. Steve:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
    Chart entitled ``Cumulative Wolf Hunting & Trapping Harvest 
      by Date''..................................................    42
    Integrated patch occupancy modeling chart of estimated number 
      of wolves in Montana.......................................    43
Estenoz, Hon. Shannon:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     9
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    47
French, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................    16
    Written Testimony............................................    18
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    83
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Montana Conservation Corps:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   103
National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison 
  Officers:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   105
National Park Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   108
National Park Hospitality Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   110
National Parks Second Century Action Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................   113
Outdoor Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   116
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable:
    Letter for the Record........................................   123
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   127
Property and Environment Research Center:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   132
Sgamma, Kathleen:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   138
Society for American Archaeology:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   141

 
                         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
                      GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
                    Subcommittee on National Parks,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. 
King, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING JR., 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

    Senator King [presiding]. I will open this hearing of the 
National Parks Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources on the issue of the administration and 
execution of the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA).
    America's public lands connect our people. They give them 
common gathering places for some of life's most wonderful 
moments--from sunrises over Acadia National Park in Maine, to 
sunsets bouncing off the light of the canyons in Zion. From the 
overwhelming expanses of Yellowstone, to everyday joys found in 
local nature preserves. These lands are a uniquely American 
inheritance that have been passed on by those who came before 
us, and now, it is our job on this Subcommittee and in this 
Congress to ensure that we are doing our part to steward these 
treasures for the next generation. In 2020, Congress took a 
massive bipartisan step to accomplish that goal. I was proud to 
work with my colleague, the Vice Chair of this Subcommittee, on 
that work--the Great American Outdoors Act, which was the most 
important land conservation legislation in a generation.
    This bipartisan effort enacted two major provisions to 
strengthen our public lands. First, it created the National 
Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, which will 
provide $9.5 billion over five years to address deferred 
maintenance needs in our national parks and other public lands. 
Second, the Great American Outdoors Act guaranteed $900 million 
per year in perpetuity for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF), making good on a promise made to the American people in 
1965. This LWCF investment strengthens our communities, 
preserves our history, and protects our national endowment of 
lands and waters through grants to state and local governments 
and federal land acquisitions. Perhaps most importantly, it 
removes the political consideration from the equation and 
guarantees support over the long term for vital LWCF programs.
    This legislation is an incredible accomplishment, but the 
words on paper will not make a difference without the proper 
follow-through. One of my mottos in life is, ``Execution is as 
important as vision.'' And that is what we are talking about 
today. That is why our Subcommittee is meeting for the first 
Congressional hearing on the implementation of the Great 
American Outdoors Act. It has been about 18 months since this 
landmark legislation was passed, and I know that the U.S. 
Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service have been 
hard at work implementing the Act and getting funding out the 
door. I look forward to using today's hearing to better 
understand the agency's distribution of Great American Outdoors 
Act funding, and to learn about the initial impacts of this 
project. I am particularly interested to learn more about the 
agency's process for selecting deferred maintenance projects. 
It is important to me that the prioritization process is 
transparent, that dollars are being distributed in an equitable 
way, and that projects are being prioritized to have the 
greatest impact. I am also interested to learn about the early 
impacts of the Great American Outdoors Act funding. As we 
developed and passed this legislation, we were focused upon 
improving accessibility to public lands, driving economic 
activity, and better accommodating the increasing number of 
visitors. I want to make sure we are on the right track toward 
those goals.
    Finally, I see this hearing as an opportunity to begin 
conversations around potential future funding for the National 
Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. In 2019, 2025 
seemed a long way away. Today, it doesn't seem that far away. I 
know that $9.5 billion is a large sum, but it represents only a 
portion of the funding needed to eliminate the more than $25 
billion of current estimate in deferred maintenance needs 
plaguing our public lands. Clearly, there is more to do. 
Deferred maintenance isn't responsible. It is putting off until 
tomorrow what you already know that you owe today. It is debt, 
just the same as debt on the balance sheet of a corporation or 
an individual. Ask anybody who has done the minimum payment on 
a credit card, and you know how that works out in the long run. 
The need for this conversation is even more pressing because 
the Park Service annual maintenance budget is not keeping up 
with the annual need, meaning that even as we pay down the 
backlog, the list of projects, regrettably, continues to grow.
    We have made great strides, but more will have to be done 
to ensure that we keep America's best idea alive and well for 
the next generation. That is why I am looking forward to 
today's discussion and the valuable insights of our witnesses 
and our Committee members.
    Senator Daines.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman King, thank you.
    I am very pleased to be joining the Chairman here today and 
thank him for his leadership to examine implementation of the 
Great American Outdoors Act. Many believe, and I would agree, 
that this was the greatest conservation victory perhaps in the 
last 50 years. Republicans and Democrats came together to pass 
a historic bill that would invest in our parks, our public 
lands, outdoor recreation economies, and permanently fund the 
Land and Water Conservation program. As a fifth generation 
Montanan and avid sportsman, I truly and profoundly understand 
the importance of protecting our public lands. That is why I 
was grateful to be able to work hard with Chairman Manchin and 
Chairman King to get the Great American Outdoors Act signed 
into law. In fact, I see Senator Heinrich here. Chairman 
Manchin is not in the Subcommittee hearing, but I want to 
recognize Chairman Manchin, but I also want to recognize 
Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich, I remember the back and 
forth, the text messages, the real-time working to get this 
thing done.
    Senator King. Bringing people back from the airport.
    Senator Daines. Literally dispatching people back from the 
airport on the late nights to get this passed in the U.S. 
Senate, and there is a reason that Senator Heinrich is here--I 
am sure for many reasons--but one, I know, is that we all 
worked very well together to get this passed. I remember going 
to the White House early on because Leader McConnell said we 
are not going to put this on the floor unless we can be 
guaranteed the President would sign it if it got to his desk, 
and none of us wanted to go through this exercise without being 
assured that we had an outcome that we could be sure it was a 
bill that would get signed into law. And I remember that 
meeting distinctly, talking about showing beautiful pictures of 
what is at stake here in terms of conservation and protecting 
our public lands and our national parks and investing. And we 
got the assurance from the President--President Trump--that he 
would sign it, and that was all we needed to hear, and off to 
work we went and we are grateful for the outcome.
    As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 
Senator King and I have long pushed to ensure that our national 
parks and public lands can be enjoyed for generations to come. 
The Great American Outdoors Act created a permanent funding 
stream for an important conservation program, the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, or what we call the LWCF, which 
continues to provide benefits to Montanans, increased fishing 
and recreation access, and we see it right now with a major 
influx of population coming into our great state, and very 
understandable. But the parking lots are full. There are a lot 
of folks using the trails. We need to continue to invest here 
to provide more access, frankly, to work on some of the issues 
of crowding that we are seeing at the moment, and fraying 
infrastructure. This is how we protect our wonderful landscapes 
for years to come. And when you have complex checkerboard land 
patterns like we have in Montana, with federal holdings, state 
holdings, private holdings, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund becomes a very important tool that we use here to provide 
better access to our public lands.
    It also created the National Parks and Public Land Legacy 
Restoration Fund, with the goal of addressing the maintenance 
backlog faced on public lands. The maintenance backlog is 
housing for park employees that has fallen into disrepair--a 
really important part of what is needed in our national parks 
to boost morale, to make sure they have good housing. It is 
wastewater systems that are broken. Again, these are items that 
you do not necessarily see as the public when you come into our 
national parks, but it is essential and critical to be able to 
get these fixed if we are going to continue to provide the 
right experience for the public when they come to the national 
parks. It is campsites. It is trailheads that are inaccessible. 
Congress worked together to get this bill passed. Now we must 
ensure the program is being implemented as Congress intended. 
Angus said it well when he talked about it not just being about 
a vision, it is also about execution, and that is why we are 
here today.
    And we are already starting to see some really good 
results. Yellowstone National Park is leading the way in how 
this money should be spent. By the way, Yellowstone National 
Park had a record level of visitation last year--nearly four 
million visitors. Superintendent Cam Sholly was laser-focused 
on improving employee housing to ensure that people working at 
Yellowstone--those employees--have a safe and a comfortable 
place to live. This is extremely important for the park and a 
community who are suffering from a lack of affordable housing. 
I look forward to continuing to work with our national parks 
and Chairman King to find more solutions to the housing issues 
faced in parks as well as in gateway communities, which is why 
I just recently introduced the Gateway Community and Recreation 
Enhancement Act with Senator King, to build upon the good work 
that we have already done and find real solutions to the 
challenges employees and the communities are facing due to 
increased visitation to our national parks. All you have to do 
is go visit one of our gateway communities, sit down with the 
local leaders there and the community members, and you will 
hear firsthand exactly that this is becoming a critical issue 
in our gateway communities, and I am glad we are starting to 
work to address that problem.
    The Great American Outdoors Act funding has also gone to 
restoring roads, improving fishing access and recreation access 
on BLM and Forest Service lands in Montana, and our Montana 
Conservation Corps have worked alongside the Forest Service to 
do this important work. As the program continues, it is 
important that we are funding projects that improve visitor 
experience, create a safe environment for employees, and 
protect the natural and the cultural assets that we have. It is 
important that local input drives this process of identifying 
and prioritizing these important projects. It is also important 
that federal agencies are maximizing the return on this 
investment by streamlining processes, leveraging contracting 
authorities and external partners, and taking a hard look at 
existing processes to see if we can make them better to make 
sure we have an efficient way to move forward. This is why we 
need transparency and clear metrics to measure the success.
    Before I turn this back to Chairman King, I want to address 
a major concern I do have that I believe threatens the good 
work we have accomplished. The Legacy Restoration Fund and LWCF 
are funded almost entirely from oil and gas revenues on public 
lands. The Great American Outdoors Act was successful because 
it took the revenue generated on public lands and waters from 
oil and gas development and reinvested them back into 
conserving and restoring these same public lands. I am very 
concerned that the Administration is threatening the funding 
for this important program. It has a longer fuse on it, but as 
Angus pointed out, it doesn't take long before we think it is a 
long time in the future and it suddenly becomes the present 
reality. In fact, just yesterday, the Administration could not 
commit to holding a lease sale in Montana despite a federal 
judge requiring them to do so over seven months ago. Lease 
sales alone generate millions of dollars in bonus bids and 
rentals each year. That money is split between local 
communities and the Treasury. It is having a real meaningful 
impact on states like Montana, and the money is available for 
conservation. I am concerned and disappointed with the 
Administration's anti-energy policies, and urge the Department 
of the Interior to resume leasing so these programs can 
continue long into the future.
    I look forward to today's questions and plan to dig deep 
into implementation of this important bill. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I turn it back to you and look forward to hearing 
from the witnesses.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    I would observe that Yellowstone had four million visitors 
this year. Acadia had three million. But if you measure it on a 
per-square-foot basis, Acadia won.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. Our guests and our witnesses today are 
Shannon Estenoz, who is the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior. Ms. 
Estenoz provides policy guidance and direction for the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service and has 
the direct responsibility for programs associated with the 
management and conservation of our natural resources.
    Chris French is the Deputy Chief of the National Forest 
System. Mr. French is responsible for policy, oversight, and 
direction for the natural resource and public service delivery 
programs across the 193 million acres of national forest and 
grasslands in 44 states and territories that make up the 
National Forest System.
    And while he will not be testifying, I want to recognize 
Mr. Brian Bloodsworth, the Director of the Great American 
Outdoors Act Program Management Office. Mr. Bloodsworth will be 
available to answer the Committee's questions.
    Ms. Estenoz.

STATEMENT OF HON. SHANNON ESTENOZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH 
   AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; 
    ACCOMPANIED BY BRIAN BLOODSWORTH, DIRECTOR OF THE GREAT 
        AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE

    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
views of the Department of the Interior on the implementation 
of the Great American Outdoors Act. I would like to submit our 
full statement for the record and then summarize the 
Department's views in a brief opening statement.
    I want to start by thanking you and your colleagues for all 
you do to connect people to the outdoors. The Great American 
Outdoors Act was a historic legislative achievement--it has 
been said already this morning, and it bears repeating. Demand 
for outdoor recreation continues to grow, and the Great 
American Outdoors Act recognized that when it combined a 
historic financial commitment to conservation and recreation 
with a significant investment in the facilities needed to carry 
out the Department's important mission, including the care and 
maintenance of America's national treasures. GAOA authorized 
full permanent funding of the $900 million annually for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund and established the National 
Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, providing up to 
$1.9 billion annually to address deferred maintenance in 
national parks, national wildlife refuges, recreation lands, 
and at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools.
    First, let me touch for a moment on the LWCF. The 
investment made through LWCF to expand outdoor recreation and 
conservation of America's lands and waters is integral to 
President Biden's call to action that we work together to 
conserve, connect, and restore our lands and waters for the 
sake of our economy, our health, and our well-being. On the 
Federal Side of LWCF--land acquisition programs at the National 
Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of 
Land Management--Interior is working with willing sellers to 
promote the protection of at-risk resources, the expansion of 
recreation opportunities, and the support of local partners. 
Each bureau has established processes and criteria to select 
projects to advance these priorities consistent with each 
bureau's mission. On the State Side of LWCF, Interior funding 
totaled $101.2 million for grants to states and other partners 
in FY21. In addition to apportionments for outdoor recreation 
and conservation to all 50 states, five U.S. territories, and 
the District of Columbia, competitive grants and conservation 
programs include: the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership 
Program, the American Battlefield Protection Program, the 
Highlands Conservation Act Program, and the Cooperative 
Endangered Species Conservation Fund for habitat conservation. 
At the end of FY21, Interior held listening sessions with 
stakeholders and tribal nations to check in with valued 
partners and to engage new audiences and potential partners 
about Interior's LWCF programs and how to best leverage the 
benefits of GAOA.
    Our testimony shares many successes of LWCF--acquisitions, 
grants, and support for recreation in underserved communities. 
We are in the process of right-sizing our State Side LWCF 
program and evaluating and overhauling our processes to address 
the significant increase in applications for grant funding 
since the full funding of LWCF. We have increased our outward 
reach and training programs and are listening to feedback from 
our partners to improve these efforts. We have also heard 
concerns about our ability to increase the pace of all of our 
processes across both sides of LWCF, from the timely issuance 
of State Side apportionment letters to the lengthy federal land 
acquisition process itself. We are taking a hard look at these 
concerns and we look forward to working through these issues 
with you and with our partners in the months and years ahead.
    Next, let me touch on the National Parks and Public Land 
Legacy Restoration Fund--a game-changing investment program 
that is helping us make meaningful progress on protecting high-
priority assets, improving the financial health of the 
Department, and setting the course for a sustainable future for 
asset management in our bureaus. In FY21, the Department 
prioritized 165 projects to address critical deferred 
maintenance needs and improve transportation and recreation 
infrastructure in national parks, national wildlife refuges and 
recreation areas, and at Bureau of Indian Education schools. To 
facilitate a consistent approach to delivering on the LRF 
requirements in GAOA, the Department provided four parameters 
to guide project selection across all bureaus. First, to focus 
on projects that improve the overall financial health of the 
Department by achieving significant deferred maintenance 
reductions. Second, to maximize the number of people served by 
these investments. Third, to safeguard those we serve, 
including our visitors, our partners, volunteers, and workforce 
by focusing on public health and safety and critical-asset 
stability. And finally, prioritizing the rehabilitation of 
assets to support conservation and recreational opportunities, 
and in the case of BIE, education for years to come.
    These four department-wide parameters are the basis for 
step-down project selection processes and criteria in each 
bureau. Project selection criteria reflect the mission of each 
bureau, and the project selection process reflects the 
organizational structure of each bureau. All four bureaus have 
also leveraged existing programs and methodologies. For 
example, facilities assessment protocols, capital improvement 
plans, and repair and replacement plans. They have used these 
existing programs to build their list of candidate projects. 
Also common to all four bureaus is that the project selection 
process is built from the ground up, with input and leadership 
of superintendents, refuge managers, state directors, and 
facilities managers, who identify condition deficiencies in 
their assets and then develop projects to address those 
deficiencies. Those projects are then reviewed and prioritized 
horizontally by multidisciplinary teams and vertically by 
management teams and through the departmental budget 
development review and approval process. I look forward to 
discussing these processes and criteria in greater detail with 
the Subcommittee today.
    I refer to the Legacy Restoration Fund as game-changing not 
only because of the historic investment it represents, but also 
because it provides our bureaus greater flexibility to free up 
funding across multiple discretionary, mandatory, and 
supplemental appropriations, and right-sizing projects to 
funding programs to meet the most critical large and small 
maintenance needs across the system. We are focusing on making 
strategic investments across all funding streams to maximize 
benefits to the American public. Across all bureaus, Interior 
has obligated more than $780 million, with 70 percent of the 
funding awarded to small businesses to date. While the first 
two years of LRF implementation have been very successful, we 
want to be nimble in our implementation and adapt to feedback 
we receive from partners, Members of Congress, and the public, 
and to adapt to the lessons that we ourselves learn as we go. 
We are adaptively responding to concerns and ideas that we have 
heard about our selection processes and criteria, and we 
continue to refine and optimize the selection criteria used by 
bureaus. For FY22, the Department prioritized 63 projects with 
an average project size of $20.5 million and an estimated $1.2 
billion to be addressed in deferred maintenance. We await 
Congress's guidance on those selections, and look forward to 
putting the next tranche of GAOA funding dollars to work when a 
full-year funding bill is passed.
    Through the significant investments of GAOA and the 
bipartisan infrastructure law and a commitment to the public-
private collaborations and outreach to diverse new audiences, 
we will enhance conservation and recreation opportunities in 
local communities and on public lands across America. We look 
forward to working together to ensure our country's national 
parks and public lands remain relevant, inclusive, and 
accessible to everyone, and that our Bureau of Indian Education 
schools provide environments and facilities conducive to 
learning. Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to 
answer questions that you and other members of the Subcommittee 
have today, and when the question-and-answer period begins, I 
will ask Mr. Bloodsworth, who is the head of our program 
management office, to join us at the table. Thank you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Estenoz follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. French.

   STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST 
  SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. French. Good morning Chairman King, Ranking Member 
Daines, and members of the Subcommittee. It is a great 
opportunity to be here today to discuss the USDA Forest 
Service's implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act.
    The Great American Outdoors Act has been a game changer. I 
want to share a deep appreciation to you, Congress, for 
recognizing how critical it is to fix our infrastructure, 
create more access to our public lands, and further 
conservation by ensuring that America's forests remain forests 
through our Forest Legacy Program. Our goal is to have every 
visitor and every Forest Service community feel the positive 
impacts from the implementation of the Great American Outdoors 
Act--from jobs, access, improved facilities, and sound road 
systems, the Great American Outdoors Act is making incredible 
impacts across our National Forest System. Today, I will 
discuss our decision-making process and results about projects 
funded through the Great American Outdoors Act.
    First, we are committed to equitable outdoor access, 
providing clean air and water to all communities, especially 
our most vulnerable ones, and securing abundance, resilience, 
and accessibility of the natural resources within our national 
forests. To support that, the national forests and grasslands 
include more than 370,000 miles of roads, almost 14,000 
bridges, 160,000 miles of trails, and nearly 70,000 recreation 
and administrative facilities across the system, all of which 
require ongoing maintenance to continue to meet growing public 
demand. Public use of national forests is continually 
increasing. In 2020, we saw an unprecedented number of 
visitors--168 million--an increase of nearly 18 million from 
just a year ago. And each year, as has been noted, our backlog 
of deferred maintenance grows. Currently, it is estimated at 
$6.3 billion. The National Parks and Public Land Legacy 
Restoration Fund is helping us to stabilize and reduce this 
backlog. From the onset, we decided to ask the public and 
tribes how to prioritize our implementation of the Great 
American Outdoors Act, discussing what was most important, what 
was most meaningful. We held listening sessions with 
stakeholders at the national, state, and local level so we 
would be responsive, and to help our communities and our 
stakeholders develop good project proposals.
    From this came our first set of ranking criteria. First and 
foremost, we needed to reduce deferred maintenance. Second, 
improve visitor experience, improve visitor access, contribute 
to local economies, address health and safety issues, promote 
forest restoration, and importantly, leverage partnership 
funding. In Fiscal Year 2021, we reviewed more than 900 
proposed projects, and Congress authorized 556 projects in 43 
states and Puerto Rico. We prioritized 60 percent of those 
projects through a national competition and 40 percent through 
local and regional priorities. In that first year, we committed 
$285 million, leveraged more than $42 million in partner 
contributions, and reduced deferred maintenance by $426 
million. Ninety-six percent of the contracts that we let 
associated with those projects went to local and community-
based small businesses and partners, contributing almost $420 
million to our gross domestic product. We learned a lot in that 
first year, and for 2022 we went a step further. We 
incorporated an all-agency, all-infrastructure approach to our 
decision-making, building a more robust process that considers 
all of our agency infrastructure assets and other 
infrastructure funding streams. We continue our approach to 
listen, develop our work collaboratively and transparently, and 
we strive to have the greatest impact in the widest fashion. In 
2022, we reviewed more than 2,000 proposed projects and we 
proposed 456 for funding.
    Fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund means 
the Forest Service can provide more services through our land 
acquisition program and the Forest Legacy program. These 
programs are key to long-term forest conservation and meeting 
the goals of the Administration's ``America the Beautiful'' 
plan. The land acquisition program allows the Forest Service to 
expand public lands to improve public access and protect 
natural heritage. In the last ten years, nearly 280,000 acres 
have been acquired to assure access to hiking, fishing, 
firewood gathering, and the multitude of other ways that people 
use and access our national forests and grasslands. The Forest 
Legacy Program is administered by the Forest Service in 
partnership with state agencies to encourage the protection of 
privately owned forest lands through conservation easements and 
land purchases. Today, this program has enabled private 
landowners to keep nearly 2.9 million acres of forest as forest 
across the United States.
    Both of these programs have a merit-based, two-stage, 
longstanding competitive process. These programs help secure 
the abundance, resilience, and accessibility of the natural 
resources across our nation. I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you very much. Welcome back to the 
Committee, Mr. French.
    I am going to defer my questions and call upon Senator 
Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you both 
for the hearing today. I think this is really important.
    Assistant Secretary Estenoz, realizing the full potential 
of this landmark legislation requires that we get LWCF funds 
out the door in a timely manner that works for both the 
agencies and also the private landowners involved. I am really 
concerned about some of the bottlenecks in that process, and 
you mentioned some of them, but they are really testing the 
patience of very well-meaning, willing sellers with a 
conservation ethic, and ultimately may lead them to sell their 
properties to be developed, as opposed to being conserved. In 
particular, I am told that the property valuation process has 
really become an increasingly and often unreasonably time-
consuming part of the overall acquisition process. In fact, I 
have heard that appraisals that literally used to be completed 
in a few months are now under the Department's Appraisal and 
Valuation Services Office, taking as much as two years or more. 
How do we fix that?
    Ms. Estenoz. Senator, thank you so much for the question. 
It is such an important one, and it is one that, internal to 
Interior, we are having a number of conversations about and 
focus very closely on. Let me agree in the strongest possible 
terms with your statement that in order for us to maximize the 
benefits, we have to get this money out the door and working on 
the landscape. I could not agree more with that statement. And 
you know, making sure that the federal land acquisition process 
is formulated in a way that does that is critically important. 
You have pointed out one specific step in that process that has 
become quite lengthy. And you know, what you are touching on 
here is the tension between trying to create a valuation and 
appraisal process that is transparent, that is accountable, and 
that injects integrity into the process, which is very 
important, and certainly the taxpayers deserve that kind of 
accountability. But we have to find a way to balance that with 
the mission.
    Senator Heinrich. And Secretary, I don't think anyone is 
asking for an appraisal process that is not transparent.
    Ms. Estenoz. That's right.
    Senator Heinrich. We do this all the time in the real 
estate industry. Appraisals are our thing. They don't take two 
years. And everyone wants a good deal for the taxpayer. I mean, 
I don't think anyone up here would--you know, we want these 
dollars to go as far as they can, we just want them to be 
effectuated efficiently, and it used to get done in a few 
months when it was done regionally. And when it got pulled back 
to DC, it became a multi-year process. And I will tell you, 
there is a project I am working on right now in New Mexico 
where we decided to go with the state--even though many of the 
funds are coming from the Federal Government--we decided to go 
with the state as the agency to run the project, to manage the 
project, simply to avoid that step in the process.
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, and you are absolutely right, you know, 
this is sort of the point that I was trying to make, which is, 
you know, we cannot separate our valuation and appraisal 
process from the mission, essentially. And I think that finding 
the right balance is where we are now. I think we are kind of 
swinging in between extremes of how to approach that. And I 
could not agree more with you that we have to get that right.
    The numbers I have seen are that acquisitions can take 
anywhere from 6 months to 36 months, which, you are absolutely 
right, 36 months doesn't work for most willing sellers.
    Senator Heinrich. Three years is really hard on people.
    Ms. Estenoz. That's right.
    Senator Heinrich. So I would just urge your attention to 
this issue.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. I am going to run out of time, so I want 
to switch over to Mr. French real quick, and I appreciate your 
focus on the role of some of these funds in public access. And 
you and I have talked extensively about the need to defend the 
public's legal access rights, whether that is in New Mexico or 
Alaska or Michigan or Montana. And we have talked a lot in 
recent years about the Crazy Mountains and the Gallatin, and I 
continue to be concerned with what I think are inconsistencies 
in the Forest Service's approach to public access. We had an 
exchange a few months ago, and I want to follow up on that 
because in a 2015 letter, the Custer Gallatin National Forest 
Supervisor wrote in a letter that the Forest Service maintains 
and holds unperfected prescriptive rights, in particular, up 
Sweet Grass Creek to the North, based on a history of 
maintenance with public funds and historic and continued public 
and administrative use. But in current litigation, the Forest 
Service and the Department of Justice are claiming that now 
there is not a prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Trail. 
These decisions affect access in every state in the nation. Why 
are the Forest Service and DOJ changing their position on 
public rights of access on that trail in particular, and what 
does that mean for trails everywhere in the U.S.?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    Let me start off first by saying our approach is to defend 
access in all the places we can as a stated policy. In that 
particular case--and I would love to follow up with you more 
directly afterwards and maybe bring in some other members of 
our team. In that particular case, based on the actions of the 
landowners there and others, our ability to defend that 
doesn't--we are not able to, according to state law. My 
understanding is that they have fulfilled many of the 
obligations that have changed our ability to defend those 
access rights. But it is very complicated. I know this is a 
concern of yours. It is not a broad policy. We handle these 
things on a site-by-site approach, and I absolutely commit to 
sit down with you and your staff and go through all the details 
afterwards.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member.
    Senator King. Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman King.
    Ms. Estenoz and Mr. French, could you explain in more 
detail how geographical location and visitation trends are 
accounted for in your methodology for choosing a Legacy 
Restoration Fund project? Senator Heinrich, I completely 
agree--the appraisal process is so broken. I am so glad you 
brought that up. I guess we will prepare you--forewarn you--I 
have great concerns about this too. We will talk about that in 
a moment here.
    But the first question is on geographic location and 
visitation trends. Ms. Estenoz, I'll let you go first on that.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator.
    It is a great question. Let's take the Park Service, for 
example. So the number one criteria that has been set by the 
Department has been the reduction of deferred maintenance, and 
our deferred maintenance is very unevenly distributed across 
the country. And so some 80 percent of our deferred maintenance 
is accounted for in something like 56 of our more than 420 park 
units. So right off the bat, we are starting with a sort of 
skewed distribution of needed investments.
    Now, having said that, another big departmental criteria is 
to maximize the number of people who are served by that 
investment. There is a pretty strong correlation between the 
most heavily visited parks and those that have the highest 
deferred maintenance. And so when it comes to those two 
criteria, those are closely correlated and we can pursue those 
in tandem together. But those two together are not going to 
give you the geographic distribution that I think many of us 
would like to see--a broader geographic distribution. So let me 
say we are doing two things. We are trying to stay nimble. So 
in this current tranche of project evaluations we are looking 
at different ways to slice the data. We are looking, for 
example, at what is a state's share of the deferred maintenance 
backlog, and are investments keeping up on par with those, for 
example, with that distribution of percentage of deferred 
maintenance. And then second, the Park Service has innovated 
these maintenance action teams, which are making use of wage-
earning internal staff to work on smaller deferred maintenance 
projects. It is efficient to do so. We get a good return on 
investment, and that also helps to distribute some of the 
benefits geographically as well.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. That's a very informed answer. I 
appreciate that.
    Mr. French.
    Mr. French. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator 
Daines.
    We looked at it in a couple different ways. Primarily, we 
looked first at how much deferred maintenance would be reduced, 
but then, right up there with it, we were focused on does it 
improve visitor experience? And then from there, how much 
partner and local collaboration could occur to help do this? 
Our process used both a national process and a local process, 
where 40 percent of our projects were actually geared toward 
local priorities and regional priorities because we knew that 
on some of these issues, we may not pick those up. The end 
results, when we look at what we are doing, have actually been 
quite astounding, and what I mean by that is, if you look at 
the State of Montana--your state--eight percent of the National 
Forest System, nine percent of the National Forest System 
occurs in Montana and actually, you received about nine percent 
of the funds through the Great American Outdoors Act. And we 
are seeing that sort of equitable distribution based on our 
criteria occurring almost throughout the entire system.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    A follow-up on that is, we look at the cost of doing 
business in terms of getting these projects executed in the 
field. Do you have an estimate on the percentage of total 
Legacy Restoration Funds that are used for administrative or 
environmental review costs?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, sir. The administrative costs are--we are 
running at about three percent for LRF and interestingly, we 
are running at about the same administrative costs for LWCF as 
well, State Side. Now, environmental reviews, planning and 
design, all of that, Senator, is folded into project cost. 
Those are considered project development costs, and so those 
are not counted as part of the administrative costs. So the 
three percent includes cost to administer the program.
    Senator Daines. So would there be a way--that may be the 
way you want to define it in terms of the environmental review 
costs, to lump it into the overall--but is there a way you 
could break that out just so we could have transparency and 
understanding of what additional costs are associated with the 
environmental review?
    Ms. Estenoz. Senator, can we come back to you with the 
feasibility of that and follow-up? A question for the record?
    Senator Daines. I would like to see that, yes, and I think 
that's the helpful dialogue here today----
    Ms. Estenoz. Absolutely.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. Is you are kind of getting a 
sense of how is it going, and the overall cost burden here to 
achieve the--what we ultimately want to see here is the 
infrastructure.
    Mr. French, how about you?
    Mr. French. Yes, a little bit different, but part of this 
is probably accounting. All the projects that we review have 
already gone through environmental review and compliance. They 
are basically shovel-ready. And so we do not look at those 
costs directly associated with these projects.
    Senator Daines. And again, I would like as a follow-up to 
that, just to take like--I assume you could break that out?
    Mr. French. We could.
    Senator Daines. In fact, you have already done it, but 
let's just kind of get a sense, so we know what the costs are. 
I mean, we have three percent in the administrative. Let's just 
get a percentage on the environmental review lump as well.
    Mr. French. We can certainly follow up with you.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    I am already over my time here.
    Senator King. Go ahead.
    Senator Daines. All right, I will do one more question here 
and then we will go back.
    The question is about LWCF. We have benefited greatly from 
this, certainly, in Montana. About 70 percent of our fishing 
access sites were funded through this program. I could tell 
you, when I get in airplanes, I fly back and forth to Montana, 
you can always tell when you are at one of the Montana gates at 
the airport because everybody's carrying a fly rod. Whether 
it's Bad Rock Canyon or the Kootenai Forest Lands project, this 
past year was no different. It is successful because it is 
bottoms-up driven. And I heard both of you mention that as well 
in your remarks. It is locally led conservation.
    Could you elaborate on the steps your agencies respectfully 
are taking to ensure we keep that strong, local support of 
bottoms-up recommendations on a project for funding?
    Ms. Estenoz, we will start with you.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, and local support--partner support--has been built in, 
sort of baked into the LWCF criteria for a long time now. It is 
one of the primary department-wide criteria for project 
selection, right up there with willing sellers. And so, you 
know, at the refuge and park level, we work really hard to be 
good neighbors, and at that level our engagement with local 
communities is paramount for the success of those units. So 
public support and partner support is an important criteria in 
our project selection.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Mr. French.
    Mr. French. You know, our projects originate from local 
recommendations. I mean, all of the projects that are coming up 
into those, they do go through a two-stage process where they 
go through a national set of criteria, but they are derived 
from local collaborations with local support within those 
criteria, Senator.
    Senator Daines. Yes, thank you. And I will turn this back 
over to the Chairman, but that was one of my strong selling 
points to my colleagues when we went to this big debate here, 
was on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I just watched 
this operate over many years. It truly is as much grassroots-
driven as any program that I have seen. And I hope we continue 
to keep it that way.
    Chairman King.
    Senator King. Ms. Estenoz, I should have mentioned at the 
outset that you are one of those fortunate people who did see 
the sun rise over Acadia and not only that, heard Yo-Yo Ma play 
music at that moment. It was an extraordinary moment I am sure 
none of us will ever forget.
    We have talked a lot about bureaus and processes and sort 
of the abstract. Walk me through a specific project. How does 
it start? You have a broken sewer system at Zion. What happens? 
It starts with the superintendent and goes, and you just--in a 
very nuts-and-bolts kind of way.
    Ms. Estenoz. Sure. So yes, the short answer is yes. That's 
where it begins. And so it begins at the park level, or the 
park unit level, and where you have a superintendent and then 
that superintendent's multidisciplinary team. It might be their 
facilities manager, depending on the size of the park. It might 
be that their program staff identifies a facility or a 
maintenance deficiency. And then a project is developed to 
address that deficiency.
    Senator King. At the park?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, sir.
    Senator King. They come to you and they nominate a project, 
and say ``here's what we need to do, and it will cost $1.2 
million'' and then what happens?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, and so then a project is developed. And 
then, within the context of LRF, that project then is lifted up 
through the Park Service's regional system and then it is 
evaluated against LRF and Departmental-wide criteria by the 
investment review board.
    Senator King. In the region? This is before it gets to 
Washington?
    Ms. Estenoz. Well, Brian--if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman?
    Senator King. Please.
    Ms. Estenoz. If we can have Brian talk a little bit about 
the IRB, the investment review board.
    Senator King. Please.
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Sure, thank you for the question, Senator.
    Yes, there is a regional process by which Legacy 
Restoration Fund projects are first evaluated at the regional 
level before they make their way to a headquarters national 
level investment review board.
    Senator King. So there is a board that looks at the 
projects. You have eight or ten projects from a region. They 
look at them. They apply those criteria that were demonstrated 
at the beginning of the hearing and then they forward 
recommendations to Washington. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Yes, and for additional clarity, when the 
call goes out for project formulation it is not only just 
Legacy Restoration Fund. It also includes projects that could 
be considered across all maintenance and facility-related fund 
sources that the Park Service has at its disposal.
    Senator King. I think that is important. We are going to 
want to get to that later. I think that there isn't just one 
source of funds here. And if we are smart, we are going to work 
and have them be coordinated.
    Okay, so then it goes to Washington. There is a similar 
kind of review that takes place, I take it?
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Yes. The investment review board--
multidisciplinary investment review board--takes a hard look at 
the projects that have been identified. They look at what is 
the best fund source for those projects, whether it be Legacy 
Restoration Fund, line-item construction, federal lands 
transportation, and they also make sure that the projects that 
are considered for Legacy Restoration Fund are also meeting the 
criteria that the National Park Service has identified as 
objectives.
    Senator King. And then you have a completed list?
    Mr. Bloodsworth. That then comes to my office, Senator, the 
program management office at the department level, where we 
look at it for just department-wide consistency as well. That 
is really just making sure that it is in line with the 
strategic criteria that have been set out for all four bureaus 
at Interior to follow.
    Senator King. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think it is 
helpful to us to understand how it works.
    Ms. Estenoz. And Mr. Chairman, may I add? Our other bureaus 
have very similar processes. They differ in organizational, in 
small----
    Senator King. When you say bureau, is this Park Service?
    Ms. Estenoz. For Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Bureau of Indian Education, and those processes differ somewhat 
based on the organization itself and based on existing 
processes and programs that are designed to identify 
maintenance deficiencies. But they follow a very similar path, 
ultimately ending up at the Program Management Office and then 
working their way through that approval process.
    Senator King. I want to follow up, and this is a slightly 
different point. This is more of a suggestion. As we are 
thinking about reauthorization, which we will think more and 
more seriously about over the next year or so, we have to apply 
one of my favorite maxims about government, which is, ``does it 
work, and how do you know?'' So I hope that you will be 
thinking about evaluation of the definition of success and how 
you have demonstrated the achievement of success in order to 
help us in our consideration, and frankly, to help us in the 
persuasion of our colleagues that renewing this program is a 
sensible investment of the taxpayers' money. So be thinking 
about that as you are working through these projects, defining 
success and how we measure it.
    Thank you.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Chairman King, thank you.
    I want to go back to a point that Senator Heinrich made on 
appraisals, because I think this is a really important part of 
the point that Senator King made earlier about the execution of 
these programs and doing it well. The Department has a 
responsibility to ensure that the private landowner is being 
fairly and justly compensated for any acquisition when we think 
about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, past 
projects in Montana have fallen through because the process and 
the appraisal does not reflect market realities. And the 
reality is, at the moment, we have a dynamic land market at the 
moment in Montana and across the country.
    I will give you an example. We had a project in Montana. 
The Department took a year to complete the appraisal. It is 
what Senator Heinrich was talking about as well. While a 
standard appraisal of this nature is typically about two 
months, why is it taking a year or more from these federal 
agencies? Markets can change dramatically during this waiting 
period. It is unfair to ask landowners to take a gamble and 
wait so long for an unnecessarily lengthy appraisal process. 
Here is an example: the BLM appraised a land deal in Montana 
for about half--and half was $6 million below what the 
landowner's own appraisal came to, and by the way, ultimately 
sold for. And usually when it sells, the selling price is 
usually a pretty good indication of the appraisal and whether 
it was accurate or not. The landowner's appraisal and other 
appraisals came in at $12 million. The BLM said $6 million. And 
guess what? We lost an opportunity because it sold to a private 
entity versus being a chance to be acquired here for Land and 
Water Conservation Fund purposes. And I can give you many, many 
more examples of that.
    Ms. Estenoz, we do have a few outlying Forest Service 
examples of that happening, but as we have looked at it, I 
think the largest issue here is in Interior. It is something 
you have inherited. It has been there for a long time. We have 
a chance to fix it. Is there anything in statute or regulation 
in the framework of the Appraisal and Valuation Services Office 
that constrains the Department from doing and completing 
appraisals in a way that better reflects the reality of the 
market and ensures fair compensation for landowners who are 
willing to make a transaction with Land and Water Conservation 
Funds?
    Ms. Estenoz. Senator Daines, we are in the process of doing 
that very evaluation because we are hearing this feedback 
directly, both to find out, you know, why this process is 
taking so long and then why the outcome often does not meet 
expectations. And so, you know, we have had some process 
changes over the last several years with our valuation and 
appraisal process. We are evaluating those. It is a matter of 
loosening up the jams, taking up the slack, certainly, in the 
process, but then also doing sort of what you are suggesting, 
which is really digging into our statutory and regulatory 
requirements, or even our policy documents, to figure out if 
there is anything in there that is hanging things up.
    We are accustomed to doing complex land valuation. We have 
been doing that for decades and decades. And so we know how to 
do them. The question is, why have things slowed down so much? 
And then, the other thing I just want to say--I want to 
acknowledge--is that the nature of LWCF, and you touched on it, 
is that sometimes what we are buying are these singular 
parcels, right? Some of them are little Hope Diamonds, where it 
is one parcel that can protect, you know, an adjacent Civil War 
battlefield, or it is a very important missing link in a big 
game corridor. And so the question is, is that importance 
complicating the valuation process? So we are looking at all 
aspects of it and trying to be very responsive to----
    Senator Daines. Thank you. And it is not a new problem to 
have complex appraisals on land that's been around for a long, 
long time. It is just--there is that song on Sesame Street, 
Senator King, that says one of these things is not like the 
other.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Daines. And so when you look at the agencies, I am 
just telling you, the BLM is not like the others. And so we are 
looking. We have had some challenge with the Forest Service, 
but I think the biggest problem, frankly, is there, and let's 
look at that process and, as we know the definition of insanity 
is continue the same thing and expect a different outcome. And 
what's at stake is, we are losing opportunities that come up 
sometimes once in a generation to have an acquisition. And if 
you miss it, you miss it for generations.
    And so anyway, you are saying the right things and I would 
like, if we could--if we could work together, let's take a hard 
look at that and see how we can make it more transparent, 
ensure we get faster, more transparent, accurate valuations to 
reflect these changing markets.
    Senator King. I don't want to beat this too much, but where 
are the people who do these evaluations physically sitting? Are 
they here in Washington? These appraisals?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, well, we have an Office of Valuation and 
Appraisal that----
    Senator King. And they do appraisals?
    Ms. Estenoz. Most of it is, a lot of it is contracted out 
to----
    Senator King. I was just going to say, I don't understand 
why you cannot hire local appraisers who know the local market 
and, say you have three months to get in your appraisal, I 
mean, that seems to me a fairly straightforward process.
    Ms. Estenoz. Well, and I do think that our contract 
appraisers are local and know the market. I think there are a 
number of factors, though, Senator, that may by at play here. 
In the short run, there is, I think, a backlog, and as Senator 
Daines mentioned, the real estate market in many of these 
places is tight. And so the availability of appraisers--you 
know, there is a pipeline issue that we have. I think what we 
are going to find is that it is a multidimensional challenge 
and that we have to address it on multiple dimensions.
    Senator King. Thank you. I am sure you have gotten the 
point that this is something of concern.
    I am concerned about the definition of deferred maintenance 
and the change in the number. I can remember when we were 
working on this bill, everybody talked about $12.5 billion, and 
now we are talking about $25 billion. And I just wondered, does 
everybody--all the bureaus and the Forest Service--use the same 
definition of deferred maintenance, and where are we in terms 
of that analysis?
    Ms. Estenoz. I won't remark on the Forest Service's 
definitions, but the short answer for Interior is ``no.'' There 
are some differences among the bureaus and how we account for 
and define deferred maintenance. And I think the increase in 
the number is in large part due to--since the passage of GAOA, 
the Park Service, in particular--doing what it can to 
standardize its method to come closer to the way our other 
bureaus count deferred maintenance. In addition to that, the 
passage of GAOA, as you can imagine, Senator, inspired the Park 
Service and land managers and facilities managers to begin, in 
earnest, updating what had probably been a lack of updated 
records on deferred maintenance prior to there being dollars 
available to really, you know, take a significant chunk of the 
deferred maintenance out.
    I think that the Park Service is getting really close to 
what it feels is a consistent and comfortable number, but it 
really has been that multi-year process of largely the Park 
Service trying to standardize and make their method more 
consistent with their sister bureaus.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    The other piece of bipartisan historic legislation that has 
passed around here in the last couple of years is the 
bipartisan infrastructure bill, and I want to be sure that both 
departments are using that resource as well because, 
particularly when we are talking about roads and we are talking 
about transportation networks, that seems to be a fruitful area 
of complementary funding sources. In addition, the possibility 
for other kinds of projects, not necessarily roads, perhaps is 
philanthropic support. Our parks are well-loved, and many--I 
know in Maine, we have Friends of Acadia, and it is a very 
dedicated group of people. So are we maximizing--I will ask 
you, Mr. Bloodsworth--are we maximizing the opportunities for 
complementary and matching funds and those kinds of things? And 
matching is a very effective way to generate philanthropic 
support, for example.
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    We are certainly working to have many types of leveraging 
across all of our investments that we are making. In some 
cases, those investments are easier to fundraise for than 
others. The maintenance action teams that are being deployed by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are 
great opportunities to do that. They are the types of 
investments that are being made that lend themselves to more 
local, smaller efforts, as juxtaposed against the massive 
wastewater and water treatment systems that are not quite as 
easy to fundraise for. So yes, that is something that we are 
very focused on. Have we maximized it? I would say no, there is 
definitely room for opportunity to do better there. But it is 
something that we are certainly working toward.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Mr. French, are you able to generate additional funds?
    Mr. French. Yes, so on the two questions, one is that we 
are looking at all the funding streams right now so that we are 
looking at the complete asset management. One of our primary 
criteria is leveraging partner funds as we select projects, 
both locally and nationally, and later this month, we will have 
a dashboard open to the public that shows all our projects 
across the nation on a map and you can dive in to see exactly 
how much funding is coming in from each of the funding sources 
and our partners on those. So I think that is another step of 
just showing that broader approach that we are trying to take 
there.
    Senator King. I think that is a brilliant approach.
    Ms. Estenoz, can you do a dashboard with that kind of 
information?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes. I mean, I think the short answer is yes. 
I know our program management office has a significant amount 
of data and is working on developing communication tools that 
can give the public a simple, easy, accessible way of 
understanding this program and its many dimensions. And with 
regard to leveraging dollars, I really appreciate that 
question, Senator, and I want you to know that at Interior we 
are trying to think as expansively as we can about leveraging. 
So there is certainly the philanthropic arm. Friends of Acadia 
is a tremendous example of that capacity. And we know we have 
it and need to maximize tapping into it.
    And there are many other ways. You mentioned other 
infrastructure legislation. There are opportunities for cost 
recovery built into our planning and design. There are, for 
example, when we are building a utility or rebuilding a utility 
there might be an opportunity to tap into a municipal utility 
that can provide a cost recovery mechanism or a better economic 
return on that investment. So we are trying to think 
expansively about this concept of leveraging our dollars.
    Senator King. Thank you very much.
    Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
holding this hearing and thank you, everyone, for being here 
today.
    Ms. Estenoz, my first question is for you. I would like to 
discuss the declining water levels in Lake Powell in the Glen 
Canyon National Recreation Area. In October, I spoke to 
Director Sams about this and I know he is taking a look at this 
and tracking it closely. Lake Powell, as you know, is one of 
the most popular boating locations in the West. It receives 
somewhere around three million annual visitors. Drought has 
reduced the levels in Lake Powell like 22 feet over the last 
six months. And we are down to one boat ramp. This is a 180-
mile-long reservoir. One boat ramp. And this is crushing the 
tourism economy and industry in Northern Arizona. The other ten 
boat ramps at Lake Powell are currently, you know, they are 
essentially beached. And many were on standby already, to be 
replaced because they were just old.
    Can we look into using Great American Outdoors Act funding 
to replace and extend those boat ramps?
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator Kelly, for raising a really 
profound issue of this--the second and third order effects of 
the prolonged drought that we are experiencing. And Lake 
Powell, you are right, has dropped 22 feet. Projections are it 
may continue to drop. The park is going to be receiving about 
$31 million in supplemental disaster funding to address, I am 
pleased to report, to address some of these boat ramp and 
attendant utility issues as well. So it is not just extending a 
boat ramp, but it is also extending, perhaps, water wells and 
the like that go with the boat ramp.
    In terms of eligibility for deferred maintenance, that 
evaluation will be done to the extent that these projects 
qualify for deferred maintenance. The $31 million, I think, is 
going to give us a really good start on alleviating some of the 
pressure there for a situation that we know is creating 
significant economic hardship.
    Senator Kelly. What is the timeline for, with this money, 
to get the extensions done for these boat ramps?
    Ms. Estenoz. Senator, can I get back to you with the answer 
to that question?
    Senator Kelly. Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Ms. Estenoz. Absolutely.
    Senator Kelly. Mr. French, good to see you again. I want to 
discuss the Forest Service Road 516 on the Coconino National 
Forest. Many Arizonans call this the Snow Bowl Road. It is the 
main access road used by visitors to the San Francisco Peaks, 
one of the most visited and cherished mountains in Arizona. At 
12,000 feet, it is the tallest mountain in our state. An 
estimated 500,000 people visit the Peaks every year. 
Unfortunately, the six-mile road is in disrepair, and it needs 
some significant upgrades. The last time it was repaved was in 
1990. It has been a while. Only minor improvements have been 
made over the last 30 years.
    So Mr. French, does the Forest Service plan to allocate 
resources improving Snow Bowl Road? Is that part of the plan 
for the funding under the Great American Outdoors Act?
    Mr. French. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question. I 
know this road well. Total costs for that road are somewhere 
between $9 million and $13 million to do the full repairs. It 
did not meet the first year's Great American Outdoors Act work 
where the average project was about $1 million. But given the 
broader streams of funding we have right now for roads, we are 
confident that we should be able to put together a package that 
will address that road here in pretty short order.
    Senator Kelly. When you say broader streams of funding, do 
you mean additional funding from the bipartisan infrastructure 
bill?
    Mr. French. Yes, and there is multiple beyond that. I mean, 
specifically, like the federal highways funds and some of those 
others, that is correct.
    Senator Kelly. Was consideration given for the federal 
lands transportation program in the bid?
    Mr. French. Yes.
    Senator Kelly. Okay.
    Mr. French. And I think we are, you know, we are still 
looking at exactly what those percentages will be, that working 
with the Department of Transportation of what portion of that 
we will get, but we are prioritizing, you know, a number of 
those large paved roads that are very expensive under that 
program.
    Senator Kelly. As the plan comes together for the repair of 
this road, if you could, please just keep my office informed.
    Mr. French. Okay.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Do we have Senator Hoeven? Not yet? Okay.
    One additional question, and that is ongoing maintenance 
budgets. I am worried that the Great American Outdoors Act can 
create a moral hazard that sort of relaxes everyone about 
maintenance and that we are not adequately budgeting. I mean, 
we got into this hole in the first place because of inadequate 
maintenance budgets. Maintenance should be done every year.
    Ms. Estenoz, where are we on adequately assessing the 
annual need and making that part of the President's budget?
    Ms. Estenoz. It is an absolutely essential question, 
Senator and you know, we are looking ultimately to use LRF as a 
catalyst for really switching to what we call proactive life-
cycle asset management. And this concept that you do not take 
an asset and drive it to failure, that rather you keep up with 
annual maintenance, and by doing that, every dollar that you 
spend keeping that asset functional longer, it can save $6 to 
$12 if your maintenance plan is to drive it to failure.
    So that means that even as we buy down the deferred 
maintenance backlog, that it is very important that we maintain 
our operations and maintenance--annual maintenance budgets. 
That is going to be a really important part of--if our hope, if 
one of the things we hope for as an outcome of LRF is stronger 
departmental financial health, that is going to be a big part 
of it.
    Senator King. Well, I hope you will pursue that and I will 
commit to you on my own behalf to argue strenuously in the 
budget process for adequate maintenance funds as well as 
adequate staffing. This is not the subject of this hearing but, 
as you know, visitation is exploding and staffing is about 
where it was in 2013, and we are not serving the public or 
these parks and recreation areas adequately if we are not 
either maintaining them or staffing them adequately. So you 
make the request, and I will certainly do whatever I can in my 
modest way to try to assist you on both maintenance and 
staffing. Same for you, Mr. French.
    Senator Hoeven is with us via WebEx.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Estenoz, of course, in the Great American Outdoors Act 
there is funding for maintenance as we are talking about, very 
important for all of our national parks across the country and 
certainly very important for the Theodore Roosevelt National 
Park in my State of North Dakota. The absolute number one 
priority in terms of deferred maintenance that we have been 
working on, as you know, is the Scenic Loop in the South Unit 
of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and that is just a 
fabulous, beautiful park with, you know, buffalo and mountain 
lions and elk and all kinds of animals that people love to see 
as well as incredible scenery there in the Badlands. And so 
one, I would very much like to have you come out and see it, if 
you haven't already. Also, you know, we need you to commit to 
work with us. We have secured the funding through the Great 
American Outdoors Act to fix the Scenic Loop, but we need to do 
it as soon as possible so that people can get out and enjoy the 
park as they historically have. So I would like you to address 
both coming and joining me there and your commitment to get 
this done as soon as possible.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator, and I very much appreciate 
the invitation and look forward to taking you up on it. The 
Scenic Loop was an FY21 LRF project, as you have mentioned, and 
our goal is to get those dollars obligated on all FY21 projects 
as quickly as possible. And so we have obligated 48 percent of 
our FY21 dollars thus far. All the rest are in the pipeline 
either in planning and design or in procurement, in other 
words, they are out to bid.
    And Brian, I don't know if we have a status on Theodore 
Roosevelt, but if we don't, Senator, we will get back to you 
with that very specific answer.
    Senator Hoeven. Well, the status that we have now is that 
there is an additional six miles that has to be fixed because 
of slumping in the ravines there and so forth. And so as a 
result, this is now taking longer. We had hoped to have this 
done by the end of 2022, certainly in 2023. Now it looks like 
maybe 2024 because of the additional work based on the latest 
information that we have been getting from you. So I guess I 
would really like your commitment to work with your staff as 
well as the Federal Highway Administration to see if we cannot 
expedite that because it makes it very difficult to get out and 
enjoy the park if you do not have this full loop because cars 
can drive up certain ways and then turn around and come back. 
They cannot get all the way out and around the park, at least 
with, you know, on the road piece. Obviously, they can hike and 
do those kinds of things.
    So it really is a priority and needs to be expedited to the 
extent possible.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator, and I commit to working 
with you to find ways to expedite that project.
    Senator Hoeven. All right.
    And then also, we will want to work closely with you on 
your other prioritization of additional funding for our parks 
in North Dakota as well. You will commit to work with us on 
that?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, absolutely, sir. Thank you.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    And then, Deputy Chief French, I would like you to come out 
and join me in the grasslands. Are you willing to do that and 
meet with our grazers and ranchers and all the people that live 
and work out in the grasslands?
    Mr. French. Yes, Senator. I very much look forward to 
coming out and meeting with the associations and communities at 
some point later this year.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, I think you will enjoy it and get good 
information and insight from it. I think it is very important.
    You know, in this legislation, we also included funding 
that goes to the grasslands. We get about $10 million a year in 
North Dakota for the grasslands out there, and what we have 
done to leverage that is set up a steering committee between 
the National Forest Service, USDA, as well as the Governor's 
office out there, the Ag commissioner, and then the counties 
and the grazing associations. And so we are also bringing state 
dollars to join with the $10 million we have and then we are 
working with the counties as well because we think if we kind 
of divide up the deferred maintenance tax between what is on 
the land and what is on the roads, you know, what affects the 
grazers, what affects the energy industry, what affects the 
tourism industry, all those different things, we can be much 
more effective in a coordinated way.
    Will you commit to work with our task force to do that?
    Mr. French. Yes, I think that is exactly the type of 
approach that we are asking our local leaders to take, and we 
can commit to that.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chief. We will look forward to 
getting you out there and continuing to work on this. I 
appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Chairman, last question, on Cottonwood. 
This investment that we made in the Great American Outdoors Act 
on the National Forest System could easily be undermined by 
litigation. It could create burdensome procedural requirements 
resulting from the Cottonwood decision.
    Mr. French, you previously testified to the impact the 
agency will feel beginning in 2023. In Montana, we have seen 
the full range of projects delayed or obstructed by Cottonwood. 
Mr. French, will you elaborate on these lawsuits that have shut 
down entire forests and could undermine this investment in 
Forest Service deferred maintenance?
    Mr. French. Okay. Senator Daines, thank you for the 
question, and I think, you know, since we last talked, we are 
progressing well with our conversations with Interior on 
solutions here, and I know we are going to follow up with you 
on that. The issue, broadly, when it comes to infrastructure, 
is that with a Cottonwood-like lawsuit, essentially activities 
associated with a forest plan will cease. And so if they were 
authorized through decisions associated with that forest plan, 
with a lawsuit like that, we would not be able to move forward 
with projects until we have done further consultation with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service on a species. And the interesting 
piece of that is, is that project would have gone through 
consultation that we have authorized that is going forward to 
be funded in an infrastructure project. We will have gone 
through consultation, if necessary, on that project with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries, but under the 
Cottonwood situation, essentially, anything tiered to the 
forest plan would be halted. And so it would be a secondary 
consultation where we have already had a consultation.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. That's a very clear answer on 
it. I am going to turn it back to the Chairman, but my follow-
up, though, is that we have requested a briefing to understand 
the concerns the Administration may have on my legislation, 
some four months ago.
    Would you both commit to following up with a briefing, 
perhaps, within the next week? That would be most helpful.
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, Senator. We will work with your team to 
get that on the schedule.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Chairman.
    Senator King. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Estenoz, I would like to start with you, if that is all 
right.
    In 2021, I joined my colleagues from Utah's Congressional 
delegation in sending a letter to the Department of the 
Interior asking about our maintenance backlog. Utah received 
only $7.3 million that year to address its federal maintenance 
backlog, and the backlog at the time was $225 million as I 
recall. The Department responded by saying that it is directing 
the funding only to projects that are shovel-ready, and I think 
this was the explanation as to why it got only $7 million, 
notwithstanding the $225 million total backlog.
    Now, I understand wanting to catch the spotlight by 
building the actual infrastructure that Americans have been 
waiting on for far too long, but what would it take for the 
Department to make deferred maintenance projects in Utah 
shovel-ready?
    Ms. Estenoz. Well, Senator, I am not sure I am able to 
address specific projects in Utah and how close they are to 
shovel readiness or not, but let me go back to the FY21 
question. And you are right, one of the criteria for selection 
of those projects was shovel readiness. I think the Park 
Service continues to try to choose projects where dollars can 
be allocated in the year that the appropriations are made. And 
I think what is key here, and I will ask Brian to clean up 
anything that I get wrong here, but I think what is key is to 
make sure that, on the ground, at parks in Utah and in other 
states, that we are giving the superintendents and the 
facilities managers there what they need to bring a project to 
the point where it can be proposed for selection.
    Senator Lee. I also understand housing constitutes a 
significant portion of the National Park Service deferred 
maintenance. And I am thankful for the dedicated individuals 
who work for our National Park Service, you know, our National 
Parks depend on that. I can imagine housing issues inevitably 
impact what you do there. What projects is the Department 
focusing on right now that can help address this issue?
    Ms. Estenoz. I am going to ask Brian to talk a little bit 
about specific projects with regard to housing, but before I do 
that, let me first of all thank you for acknowledging our Park 
Service staff. You are absolutely right, they are really at the 
heart of our national park system, and I want to acknowledge 
that all three of the Senators present have mentioned housing 
and how it is an increasing problem for the Park Service--not 
particularly in parks--where affordable housing in gateway 
communities is such a tremendous problem.
    Senator Lee. Right. And before we hear from Brian on that, 
I also want to tie it out more broadly because on the housing 
front, it occurs to me, just like we are experiencing with the 
National Park Service--many communities in my state are 
experiencing similar issues with the affordability of housing. 
And you see a lot of this, especially in some of the gateway 
communities adjacent to national parks. You have people who are 
struggling to address the rising demand for housing, lack of 
available land in order to build that housing that is 
compounded by the fact that two-thirds of the land is owned by 
the Federal Government, and especially with these gateway 
communities, there tends to be a lot of federal land, and not a 
lot of land available overall for housing. And so this land has 
become especially finite. And that is affecting not only 
National Park Service personnel, but local residents as well, 
as well as the people who serve those who are visiting the 
national parks.
    So one of the things I was hoping to find out is whether 
you think that some federal land parcels could be dedicated to 
housing needs? Should Congress and the Department of the 
Interior work together on continued protection of the land 
while serving the constituency, meaning are there some lands, 
particularly those adjacent to or right outside city 
boundaries, that might be owned by the Federal Government but 
suitable for eventual disposal so they could be purchased by 
local communities who could then develop this into housing 
opportunities? And to be clear, I am not talking about land 
within national parks, dedicated wilderness areas, or national 
monuments or anything like this, just garden variety land owned 
by the Federal Government.
    Ms. Estenoz. Senator, I appreciate the question so much and 
I want you to know that, you know, the Park Service is, I 
think, being as expansive and as creative as it can in this 
question about housing. I just happened to be back home in 
Florida, at Big Cypress National Preserve last week, and they 
are looking at a combination of housing on federal land that 
already exists, they are looking at portable housing, they are 
looking at partnerships in the community for rental housing. So 
I think that really all options are on the table in terms of 
finding solutions that work for specific parks and for specific 
workforces for specific parks.
    Senator Lee. Great. So it sounds like you would be willing 
to work with me on that kind of funding.
    Ms. Estenoz. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you.
    Senator King. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. I think I am closing----
    Senator King. This hearing is going to go on for two days, 
by the way, just so you know.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. Get comfortable.
    Senator Daines. We will take a break for four hours for 
sleep tonight, Mr. Chairman, we will--no, but thank you. I have 
a closing comment I want to make, and by the way, Senator Lee, 
the Chairman and I see the same problem in terms of gateway 
communities and housing issues and we look forward to working 
with you on that. We have some ideas on that as well. So thank 
you.
    Before closing, I just want to express a disappointment 
that when I read Secretary Haaland's opinion piece on gray 
wolves, just one week--in fact, less than one week after the 
Fish and Wildlife Service solicited scientific data from states 
and stakeholders on the Agency's 12-month review. That the 
Secretary would author such an editorial, devoid of facts, but 
frankly, flushed with alarmist rhetoric, is predecisional, I 
would argue, and bordering on Administrative Procedure Act 
violations. And wielding a never-before used emergency ESA 
authority as a means to circumvent state wildlife authority 
speaks volumes as to how far the ESA has diverted from original 
Congressional intent. Sadly, it appears that Secretary Haaland 
is determined to further politicize wildlife management. I 
quote what she wrote--Secretary Haaland wrote--and it says she 
is ``committed to ensuring that wolves have the conservation 
they need to survive and thrive in the wild based on science 
and the law.''
    Ms. Estenoz, the science says that the ESA recovery 
criteria of 150 Montana gray wolves and 30 breeding pairs was 
achieved 20 years ago, in 2002. The science says that the wolf 
population has been consistently above 1,000 wolves in Montana 
for the past ten years, year after year, even during years of 
higher wolf harvest. I have the data here using the integrated 
patch occupancy modeling that provides a confidence level of 95 
percent. The law states that the Secretary must present 
substantial scientific and commercial justification for any 
determination that a listing is warranted, but this has not 
happened, and no such data exists.
    The law also states that the Secretary may only issue an 
emergency listing if there is a significant and immediate risk 
to the well-being of any species. These numbers clearly 
demonstrate that that is absolutely not the case. Furthermore, 
in the State of Montana, we have regulatory mechanisms in place 
to regulate and limit take to ensure the population stays well 
above recovery levels. And even if an emergency should arise, 
the plan in Montana is flexible, and it is adjustable, and the 
state is very well-positioned to respond. In fact, just two 
weeks ago, the Fish and Wildlife Commission in Montana met to 
evaluate wolf populations. I wonder if the Secretary has read 
Montana's laws and policies.
    Ms. Estenoz, both the science and the law confirm that gray 
wolf management belongs with the states. Secretary Haaland 
writes that she is, and I quote, ``closely monitoring data'' 
and is, and I quote, ``alarmed by recent reports from 
Montana.'' What reports might that be? The most recent report 
shows that the wolf harvest--you can call it up online here, I 
did it when I walked in this morning. I check it frequently. 
The most recent wolf harvest report from the State of Montana 
is on par with prior seasons. We have harvested 205 wolves, 
season to date. The season closes March 15th. In fact, we are 
actually 90 wolves below where we were at this time last year--
90.
    Again, the science and the data show that this level of 
harvest is compatible with sustaining current gray wolf 
populations. Secretary Haaland writes that she will issue an 
emergency rulemaking, and I quote her, ``If the science 
indicates that there is an emergency posing a significant risk 
to the well-being of a species.''
    Even if the statewide quota of 450--we are at 205 today--
were taken, the gray wolf population in Montana would be nearly 
five times the recovery threshold. Remember, the recovery 
threshold is 150. I can show you the charts. We are 
consistently, over the last ten years, over a thousand wolves 
every year. We are some 90-plus wolves below the harvest levels 
from last year at the same point in time a year ago.
    [The charts referred to by Senator Daines follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. If you are currently and truly monitoring 
the data, you would know that Montana is not even half way to 
even meeting that quota, and our wolf season is coming to a 
close. The gray wolf is a case study in how the Endangered 
Species Act can help in a species recovery. We celebrate the 
recovery of the species, like we do the grizzly bear, but it 
also is a case study on how the law should work and could work 
better. Don't toss out this opportunity, Ms. Estenoz. The 
recovery of the gray wolf is a success story, but the difficult 
and politicized transition to state management has not been. If 
you are serious in recognizing quote ``decades of hard work by 
states and others,'' you will promote rather than disparage the 
state authority now that its time has come. To respect 
Montana's demonstrated ability to sustain a healthy wolf 
population for over a decade consistently is the true mark of 
success.
    So thank you for allowing me to share these comments at the 
close. I urge you not to allow this Administration to undermine 
that legacy for political or for partisan gain.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator King. Ms. Estenoz, did you have any comment?
    Ms. Estenoz. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Senator King. There may have been a question buried in 
there somewhere.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Estenoz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Senator Daines. And let me, too, quote the Secretary's op-ed, 
and I will use the same quote. I think the Secretary made it 
clear that when it comes to implementing the Endangered Species 
Act, we will follow the science and the law. I just perceived, 
really, you know--I want to mark that in the summer we were 
petitioned to begin a 12-month process. We are in that 12-month 
process. Senator, you correctly noted that our standard 
operating procedure--just last week, we invited interested 
parties, including states, to share with us science and 
information that they think would inform that process, and in 
Montana, I am sure, will provide us all of that data.
    With respect to the reports from Montana that are causing 
some concern, those are related specifically to two wolf 
management units that border Yellowstone National Park. The 
number of wolves that had been taken that are national park 
wolves that spend less than five percent of their time outside 
the park were now near 20 of those wolves. The concern there 
was that longstanding quotas for those two youth wolf 
management units had been removed. And so therefore, the impact 
has been a greater number of Yellowstone wolves taken. The good 
news is that the National Park Service is in constant 
communication with the State of Montana. There, we have 
suggested a pretty quick fix to that problem, which is to 
reinstitute those management measures in those two wolf units 
to address Yellowstone wolves.
    And then also, it is important to note too that in her 
piece this week, the Secretary pointed out that the Department 
of the Interior has other responsibilities relative to wolves, 
for example, in Wisconsin, where the Ojibwe Tribes have 
reserved treaty rights to either take or conserve wolves, it is 
the Department's responsibility to remind states that it is 
their responsibility to uphold those treaty rights. So the 
Secretary, I think, was very clear in explaining what 
Interior's current role in wolf management is. And the last 
thing I will say, Senator, is that--the Secretary says it in 
her piece, you said it, and I will say it again, which is that 
wolves are a conservation success story, and it is really just 
incredibly important that we all work together to secure and 
maintain that success into the future.
    Senator Daines. Thank you for that comment. I would note, 
the piece though, I think, given that the request for the 12-
month review just occurred, and for the Secretary to weigh-in 
with such an opinion piece, I am very concerned that it becomes 
entering in territory predecisional, and wielding an authority 
that--we do know the Secretary holds a 240-day moratorium 
invoking the Endangered Species Act. The science is not even 
close on this. I mean, 150 is the number. We have had ten years 
of over a thousand wolves in the State of Montana. It is a 
great success story. I am just concerned that this becomes a 
very partisan kind of issue.
    And let's stay focused, as you stated--I have great respect 
for your comments today and working with you. If we stay 
focused on the science and the facts and not knee-jerk 
reactions here, we will sort this out, but the science, I 
think, is very, very compelling here.
    Ms. Estenoz. Thank you, Senator, and we could not agree 
more, and the Secretary, I think, you know, makes that point in 
her piece a couple of times. So thank you. Thank you so much 
for surfacing this issue, and I look forward to continuing----
    Senator Daines. And I just wish the Secretary would have 
told the whole story of a tremendous--to have over a thousand 
wolves in Montana. If you read that piece, you would think in 
the moment here that the wolves are on the borderline of having 
to be relisted, and it is absolutely false. Thank you.
    Senator King. If there are no further questions, I want to 
thank our witnesses for your testimony today. It has been 
illuminating and very, very helpful.
    Some members of the Committee may wish to submit additional 
questions in writing. If so, we will ask you to submit answers 
for the record. Committee members will have until 6:00 p.m. 
tomorrow, Thursday, to submit additional questions for the 
record. We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks to 
receive any additional comments. Thanks again to our witnesses. 
The Subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]