U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–391 PDF 2015

H.R. 4293, ‘‘NATURAL GAS 

GATHERING ENHANCEMENT 

ACT’’; AND H.R. 1587, ‘‘ENERGY 

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Friday, June 20, 2014 

Serial No. 113–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Vacancy 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, June 20, 2014 ................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Cramer, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Dakota ................................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Lund, Nicholas, Program Manager of Landscape Conservation, National 

Parks Conservation Association .................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Mall, Amy, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council ...... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Nedd, Michael, Assistant Director, Minerals and Realty Management, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Accompanied by Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Region, National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................... 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Santa, Donald F., President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association 

of America ...................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Soth, Jeffrey, Legislative and Political Director, International Union of 

Operating Engineers ..................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Questions submitted for the record by Chairman Lamborn .................. 17 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

Clean Air Task Force, CATF Fact Sheet: Bakken Flaring in Focus: A 

Close Look at Natural Gas Flaring in North Dakota ................................ 8 

Hulsey, Blu, Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Continental Resources, Prepared statement of ................................................... 48 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 51 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 

4293 ................................................................................................................ 49 

The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1587 ...... 6 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4293, TO AUTHORIZE THE APPROVAL OF NATURAL GAS 

PIPELINES AND ESTABLISH DEADLINES 

AND EXPEDITE PERMITS FOR CERTAIN 

NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINES ON FEDERAL LAND AND INDIAN LAND, ‘‘NATURAL 

GAS GATHERING ENHANCEMENT ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 1587, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY 

OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF 

AGRICULTURE TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR 

RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TEMPORARY EASEMENTS, 

OR OTHER NECESSARY AUTHORIZATIONS 

TO FACILITATE NATURAL GAS, OIL, AND 

PETROLEUM PRODUCT PIPELINES AND RELATED FACILITIES ON ELIGIBLE FEDERAL 

LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 

ACT’’ 

Friday, June 20, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Lummis, Mullin, Cramer; 

Holt, Costa, Lowenthal, and Garcia. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The committee will come to order. The Chairman 

notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule 3(e), 

is two Members. 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting 

today to hear testimony on a legislative hearing on two bills: 

H.R. 4293, introduced by my colleague, Representative Kevin 

Cramer of North Dakota, to authorize the approval of natural gas 

pipelines and establish deadlines and expedite permits for certain 

natural gas gathering lines on Federal land and Indian land, the 

‘‘Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act’’; and H.R. 1587, introduced by my colleague, Representative Marino, to authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue 

permits for rights-of-way, temporary easements, or other necessary 

authorizations to facilitate natural gas, oil, and petroleum product 

2 

pipelines and related facilities on eligible Federal lands and for 

other purposes, the ‘‘Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act.’’ 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee. However, 

I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening 

statements in the hearing record, if submitted to the clerk by close 

of business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objections? 

Dr. HOLT. No objection. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So ordered. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to thank our witnesses for being with 

us today. Today the Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources, is meeting for a legislative 

hearing on two bills: H.R. 4293, the ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering 

Enhancement Act’’; and H.R. 1587, the ‘‘Energy Infrastructure 

Improvement Act.’’ These bills aim to expedite the permitting process for pipelines, gathering lines, and field compression units. 

Clarifying this process will allow for increased amounts of natural 

gas to be produced in areas where huge quantities of this resource 

are flared, due to lack of infrastructure to transport the natural 

gas. 

It is no secret the energy boom has brought tremendous economic 

benefits to the United States. Unfortunately, massive quantities of 

natural gas are flared every year, due to a serious lack of infrastructure to transport it. 

For example, in North Dakota, companies are forced to flare approximately one-third of the natural gas produced each day. This 

equates to approximately $1.4 million in natural resources being 

wasted every day. Flaring this resource takes it off the market, 

therefore depriving Federal, State, and local governments of revenue, inhibiting job creation, and reducing energy security. 

H.R. 4293, the ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act,’’ was 

introduced by Congressman Cramer and seeks to streamline the 

permitting process for natural gas gathering lines and the associated field compression unit. It allows the Secretary of the Interior 

to utilize categorical exclusions to issue various notices of rightsof-way to ensure that this infrastructure can be permitted in a 

timely fashion, and that the project can move forward. New infrastructure will supply the transportation capacity that is needed to 

reduce the need for flaring, and allows for increased production of 

natural gas. 

H.R. 1587, the ‘‘Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act,’’ sponsored by Congressman Marino, will update the U.S. Code to reflect 

modern energy developments. Statutes enacted 100 years ago authorize the Secretary of the Interior to approve rights-of-way on 

lands managed by the National Park Service for electrical and telephone lines, water pipes and pipelines, and canals and ditches. 

However, it is interpreted to exclude natural gas pipelines. As a 

result, each time a company seeks to expand, modify, or construct 

a natural gas pipeline across lands managed by the National Park 

3 

system, Congress has to pass a separate piece of legislation for that 

particular project. In some cases this had added years to the 

project. 

This legislation would give the Department of the Interior explicit authority to permit natural gas pipelines over Federal lands. 

The bills we are discussing today will clarify and streamline the 

natural gas infrastructure permitting process. They will reduce the 

need for flaring and allow more natural gas to be brought to market. As a result of increased energy production, more jobs will be 

created, revenue will increase, and the United States can further 

distinguish itself as a global leader in energy production. 

Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming before our 

committee today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

I’d like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Today the Natural 

Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting 

for a legislative hearing on two bills—H.R. 4293, the ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering 

Enhancement Act’’ and H.R. 1587, the ‘‘Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act.’’ 

These bills aim to expedite the permitting process for pipelines, gathering lines, and 

field compression units. Clarifying this process will allow for increased amounts of 

natural gas to be produced in areas where huge quantities of this resource are 

flared due to lack of infrastructure to transport the natural gas. 

It is no secret the energy boom has brought tremendous economic benefits to the 

United States. Unfortunately, massive quantities of natural gas are flared every 

year due to a serious lack of infrastructure to transport it. For example, in North 

Dakota, companies are forced to flare approximately one-third of the natural gas 

produced each day—this equates to approximately $1.4 million dollars in natural resources being wasted daily. Flaring this resource takes if off the market, therefore 

depriving Federal, State and local governments of revenue, inhibiting job creation, 

and reducing energy security. H.R. 4293, the ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement 

Act’’ was introduced by Congressman Cramer and seeks to streamline the permitting process for natural gas gathering lines and the associated field compression 

unit. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to utilize categorical exclusions to issue 

sundry notices or right-of-ways to ensure this infrastructure can be permitted in a 

timely fashion and the project can move forward. New infrastructure will supply the 

transportation capacity that is needed to reduce the need for flaring and allow for 

increased production of natural gas. 

H.R. 1587, the ‘‘Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act,’’ sponsored by Congressman Marino, will update the U.S. Code to reflect modern energy developments. 

Statues enacted in the early 20th century authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to approve rights-of-ways on lands managed by the National Park Service for electrical and telephone lines, water pipes and pipelines, and canals and ditches— 

however it excludes natural gas pipelines. As a result, each time a company seeks 

to expand, modify or construct a natural gas pipeline across national park land, 

Congress has to pass a separate piece of legislation for the particular project. In 

some cases this has added years onto the project. This legislation would give the 

Department of the Interior explicit authority to permit natural gas pipelines over 

all Federal lands. 

The bills we are discussing today will clarify and streamline the natural gas infrastructure permitting process. They will reduce the need for flaring and allow more 

natural gas to be brought to market. As a result of increased energy production, 

more jobs will be created, revenue will increase, and the United States can further 

distinguish itself as a global leader in energy production. 

Again I’d like to thank the witnesses for coming before our committee today and 

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member, Representative Holt of New Jersey. 

4 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Dr. HOLT. I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being 

here today to discuss these two pieces of legislation. 

While I share the Administration’s concerns with these two bills, 

I would like to commend the sponsors for acknowledging the fact 

that we are in the middle of an unprecedented oil and gas boom 

in this country, and that with the boom come challenges that need 

to be addressed. 

As the BP Statistical Review of World Energy put it earlier this 

week, ‘‘The U.S. increase in 2013 was one of the biggest oil production increases the world has ever seen.’’ That kind of production increase is going to create problems, and there will be conflicts with 

land owners, increased truck traffic in rural areas, concerns about 

air and water quality, induced earthquakes from wastewater injections, questions about health and safety. This sort of production 

boom doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it happens in people’s towns, off 

their shores, sometimes right in the backyards. 

So, whether it is the fact that the natural gas is being flared at 

unacceptable rates in North Dakota, or companies are trying to expand pipelines to carry all their new supplies, there are problems 

that Congress should be debating and addressing. 

Now, of course, some of the legislation that we have had here in 

Congress ignores, really ignores the fact that we are producing at 

a near-record clip. Next week the House is scheduled to debate yet 

another bill that would force land sales off the coasts and do other 

such things, and is even more obsolete and unnecessary this year 

than it was last year, when House Republicans forced it through 

to no effect, or the year before, when they did the same thing. 

This kind of legislation exists in a fantasy land where President 

Obama is somehow shutting down U.S. energy production, not in 

the real world, where we are the Number-one producer of natural 

gas, and soon to be the Number-one producer of oil. But on the bills 

we are here to talk about today, as I said, I want to give credit to 

the sponsors for finding, or at least seeking, solutions to real problems. I do not believe that these bills would be the right solutions. 

H.R. 1587 would take the responsibility for approving oil and 

gas pipelines through the national parks away from Congress and 

hand it to the National Park Service. It is a responsibility they 

don’t want, and they have said so, and that they are not best suited 

to carry out. 

When Congress amended the Mineral Leasing Act of 1973 to 

allow land managers to site oil and gas pipelines on their lands, 

it specifically carved out the Outer Continental Shelf and Indian 

lands, which were both covered by their own laws. Congress retained the authority to site pipelines in the national parks. It 

wasn’t an oversight or a mistake; it was deliberate and, I believe, 

with good reason. 

Congress has repeatedly, and in a timely manner, passed laws to 

authorize oil and gas pipelines through national parks, and I believe our parks are too precious a resource for us simply to abandon our responsibility in that matter. 

The other bill we are discussing today, H.R. 4293, would create 

a new statutory categorical exclusion to accelerate the siting of natVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
5 

ural gas gathering lines in an attempt to cut down on flaring. Now, 

I appreciate the goal of the legislation, but I believe it is the wrong 

way to go about it. 

Congress enacted five categorical exclusions in the Republicanled Energy Policy Act of 2005, and those have created enormous 

problems, according to the Government Accountability Office. In 

particular, these exclusions don’t even allow land managers to look 

for special circumstances that may make them inappropriate in a 

given situation. Legislative categorical exclusions are really clumsy 

tools that create more harm than good, and I believe we should be 

repealing the ones from 2005, not creating new ones. 

Now, more fundamentally, I simply haven’t seen any evidence 

that the environmental review process for natural gas gathering 

lines is in any way responsible for the incredible amounts of flaring 

in North Dakota. Without that evidence, this bill appears to be a 

classic example of a solution in search of a problem or, perhaps, an 

attempt to accomplish something ideological and unrelated to the 

problem at hand. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today 

to discuss these two pieces of legislation. 

While I share the Administration’s concerns with these two bills, I would like to 

commend the sponsors for acknowledging the fact that we are, in fact, in the middle 

of an unprecedented oil and gas boom in this country, and that with this boom 

comes challenges that need to be addressed. 

After all, as the BP Statistical Review of World Energy put it earlier this week, 

‘‘the U.S. increase in 2013 was one of the biggest oil production increases the world 

has ever seen.’’ 

That kind of production increase is going to create problems. Conflicts with landowners. Increased truck traffic in rural areas. Concerns about air and water quality. 

Induced earthquakes from wastewater injection. Questions about health and safety. 

This sort of production boom doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens in people’s 

towns, off their shores, even right in their backyards. 

So whether it is the fact that natural gas is being flared at unacceptable rates 

in North Dakota, or companies are trying to expand pipelines to carry all their new 

supplies, there are problems that Congress should be debating and addressing. 

Of course, some legislation seems oblivious to the fact that we’re producing at a 

near-record clip. Next week the House is scheduled to debate a bill that is even 

more obsolete and unnecessary this year than it was last year, when the House 

Republicans forced it through to zero effect. Or the year before, when they did the 

exact same thing. 

That legislation exists in a fantasy land where President Obama is somehow shutting down U.S. energy production, not in the real world where we’re the #1 producer 

of natural gas, and soon to be the #1 producer of oil. 

But on the bills we are here to talk about today: as I said, I give their sponsors 

credit for trying to find solutions to real problems. I do not believe, however, that 

these bills would be the right solutions. 

H.R. 1587 would take the responsibility for approving oil and gas pipelines 

through National Parks away from Congress, and hand it to the National Park 

Service, a responsibility they have told us they do not want. 

When Congress amended the Mineral Leasing Act in 1973 to allow land managers 

to site oil and gas pipelines on their lands, it specifically carved out the Outer Continental Shelf and Indian lands, which were both covered by their own laws. And 

Congress retained the authority to site pipelines in National Parks. This was not 

an oversight or a mistake. It was deliberate, and I believe with good reason. 

Congress has repeatedly, and in a timely manner, passed laws to authorize oil 

and gas pipelines through National Parks, and I believe our parks are too precious 

a resource for us to simply abrogate our responsibility in this matter. 

6 

The other bill we are discussing today, H.R. 4293, would create a new statutory 

categorical exclusion to accelerate the siting of natural gas gathering lines in an attempt to cut down on flaring. I appreciate the goal of the legislation, but I believe 

this is the wrong way to go about it. 

Congress enacted five categorical exclusions in the Republican-led Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, and those have created enormous problems according to the Government Accountability Office. In particular, those exclusions don’t even allow land 

managers to look for special circumstances that may make them inappropriate in 

a given situation. Legislative categorical exclusions are a ham-fisted tool that create 

more harm than good, and I believe we should be repealing the ones from 2005, not 

creating new ones. 

But more fundamentally, I have simply not seen any evidence that the environmental review process for natural gas gathering lines is at all responsible for the 

incredible amounts of flaring in North Dakota. Without that evidence, this bill appears to be a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. 

With that, I would like to thank the witnesses again, and I yield back my time. 

Dr. HOLT. So, with that, I would like to thank the witnesses. And 

I would also like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to include two items in the record: a letter from the Wilderness Society 

stating their concerns about H.R. 1587, and a document from the 

Clean Air Task Force, entitled, ‘‘A Close Look at Natural Gas 

Flaring in North Dakota.’’ 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. With no objection, so ordered. 

[The information submitted by Dr. Holt for the record follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD ON H.R. 1587 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

JUNE 20, 2014. 

Hon. DOUG LAMBORN, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

1334 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RUSH HOLT, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

1334 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN LAMBORN AND RANKING MEMBER HOLT: 

The Wilderness Society appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement in 

regard to H.R. 1587, the Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act. We write to oppose the legislation based on serious concerns about several of its provisions and an 

overriding belief that this legislation is not needed. This bill could be harmful for 

some of our most important Federal lands, as well as needlessly overriding many 

important aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the benefits of meaningful public and local participation in developing new infrastructure. 

Section 2(d)(2) says the ‘‘Secretary shall renew any right-of-way issued under 

this section, in accordance with the provisions of this section, if the pipeline and 

its related facility is in commercial operation and operated and maintained in 

accordance with this section . . .’’ (emphasis added). This means that if changes 

are needed (e.g., better corrosion prevention to prevent leaks on an older pipeline or to require more advanced leak detection), it might be tougher for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to get them implemented. If BLM or FWS were delayed in rectifying potential safety or environmental concerns, that could greatly endanger Federal 

lands and waters and the habitat and recreation opportunities they support. 

7 

Section 2(e)(4) provides for judicial review for a pipeline operator (called 

‘‘permittee’’ in the bill) who does not like the Secretary’s decision on a pipeline 

right-of-way. What is not clear, however, is whether the public can bring suit 

against the pipeline operator if the operator is in non-compliance with its rightof-way authorization. There is also no provision allowing the public to get involved on the administrative level to challenge a Secretary’s decision. This goes 

counter to NEPA and the idea that public participation is crucial in administrative decisionmaking on project-level decisions. 

Section 2(f) further undermines NEPA by allowing Secretarial modification— 

regardless of the extent of changes in pipeline design or operation—without 

doing an Environmental Impact Study, which could result in major changes to 

a pipeline without public review. This is especially problematic since NEPA 

analyses are crucial for projects that cross State and international boundaries 

as well as public lands and waters. Environmental Impact Statements are essential for assessing routing, safety and land/water considerations. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for approving rights-of-way for interstate natural gas pipelines and States approve rightsof-way for interstate hazardous liquid (generally, oil) pipelines. This legislation 

would trump FERC’s process and State decisionmaking processes on pipeline 

projects. The legislation is unnecessary, would be harmful for public participation, and could endanger federal lands, waters, and habitats given the lack of 

appropriate public and local input and expertise. 

We look forward to working with the Chairman and the committee on any alternative measures needed to address concerns this legislation attempts to respond to. 

Sincerely, 

CHASE HUNTLEY, 

Senior Director of Government Relations, Energy. 

8 

REPORT BY CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE


88391.001.eps
9 


88391.002.eps
10 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would now recognize the author of H.R. 4293, 

Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, for a brief statement about his bill. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

Ranking Member as well for agreeing to allow this brief opening 

statement. 


88391.003.eps
11 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. CRAMER. It is no secret that in North Dakota crude oil production has significantly increased. In fact, just announced this 

week that we have gone over a million barrels per day, with, of 

course, the good fortune of geology that is beneath private and 

State land, largely, and very little under Federal land. Obviously, 

the advent of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and common-sense energy development policy in North Dakota has resulted 

in this spike in production. 

While natural gas in the Bakken is considered a secondary or a 

byproduct of North Dakota’s crude oil development, significant infrastructure investment and technological innovation is being done 

to ensure it is captured. Since 2006, approximately 9,600 miles of 

gas gathering line and 1.3 billion cubic feet per day of gas processing capacity has been installed with an investment of over $6 

billion. 

Several laws and agencies may come into play when permitting 

a natural gas pipeline. But when Federal resources are developed, 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to assess 

environmental impacts, if any. Environmental impact statements 

are required for proposed projects determined to have a significant 

impact on the environment. Environmental assessments are prepared when it is unclear whether a proposed project will have a 

significant impact, and a categorical exclusion is utilized if determined to have no significant environmental impact. 

Now, categorical exclusions alone save time and precious resources. But when applied to areas where a NEPA document has 

already been developed—this is an important distinction, a NEPA 

document has already been developed and scrutinized, it prevents 

duplicative efforts. And that is what this legislation does. 

Within a field or unit where an approved land use plan or an environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA has already 

been done, and transportation of natural gas from one or more oil 

wells was seen as a reasonably foreseeable activity, and the gathering line will be located adjacent to an existing disturbed area for 

the construction of a road or well pad, a natural gas gathering line 

shall be considered an action that is categorically excluded for purposes of NEPA. 

We can reduce the workload on already strained Federal workers 

and agencies, and I have to tell you they are strained, as I am sure 

we will hear in a little bit. And we can protect the environment, 

we can reduce the amount of flaring, we can increase royalty revenues to the government, and we can get more natural gas to market. To me, this is just common sense. 

With regard to evidence, as Mr. Holt referred to, the fact of the 

matter is that statewide in North Dakota, or Bakken-wide, if you 

want, we are flaring on non-Federal lands, we are flaring about 28 

percent, while we are trying to get the infrastructure caught up. 

On Federal and Indian lands it is 40 percent that is being flared. 

These are just facts. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible, 

of course, for approving rights-of-way across lands held in trust for 

an Indian tribe. And BLM is for other Federal lands. 

12 

So, with that, I look forward to the hearing and thank the witnesses again. Thank you for your indulgence. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cramer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

In North Dakota, crude oil production has significantly increased with the luck 

of geology beneath private and State land, the advent of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and common sense energy development policy. While natural gas 

is considered a byproduct to North Dakota’s crude oil development, significant infrastructure investment and technological innovation is being done to ensure it’s captured. Since 2006 approximately 9,600 miles of gas gathering pipe and 1.3 billion 

cubic feet per day of gas processing capacity has been installed at over $6 billion. 

Several laws and agencies may come into play when permitting a natural gas 

pipeline. When Federal resources are developed the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) applies to assess environmental impacts, if any. Environmental impact 

statements (EIS) are required for proposed projects determined to have a significant 

impact on the environment, environmental assessments (EA) are prepared when it’s 

unclear whether a proposed project will have a significant impact, and a categorical 

exclusion is utilized if determined to have no significant environmental impact. 

A categorical exclusion alone saves time and precious resources, but when applied 

to areas where a NEPA document has already been developed and scrutinized it 

prevents duplicative efforts, and that’s what this legislation does. Within a field or 

unit where an approved land use plan or an environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA has already been done, and transportation of natural gas from one 

or more oil wells was seen as a reasonably foreseeable activity, AND the gathering 

line will be located adjacent to an existing disturbed area for the construction of a 

road or well pad, a natural gas gathering line shall be considered an action that 

is categorically excluded for purposes of NEPA. 

We can reduce the work load on strained Federal workers, we can protect the environment, we can reduce the amount of flaring, we can increase royalty revenues, 

and we can get more natural gas to market. This is pure common sense. 

The fact is that statewide we are flaring about 28 percent on non-Federal land 

and on Federal and Indian lands it is 40 percent. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. We will now hear from our witnesses. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Jeffrey Soth, Legislative and Political 

Director for the International Union of Operating Engineers; Mr. 

Donald Santa, President and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas 

Association of America; Ms. Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst for 

the Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr. Nicholas Lund, 

Program Manager of Landscape Conservation for the National 

Parks Conservation Association; and Mr. Michael Nedd, Assistant 

Director for Minerals and Realty Management for the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in 

full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes. Our microphones are not automatic, so you 

need to turn them on when you are ready to begin. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer, and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear. And at that 

time you should begin to conclude your statement. At 5 minutes 

the red light will come on. You may finish your sentence, but at 

that time I ask that you stop your statement. 

Shortly I will be turning over the gavel to Representative Cramer 

of North Dakota. 

Mr. Soth, you may begin. 

13 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SOTH, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL 

DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING 

ENGINEERS 

Mr. SOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to join you 

and members of the subcommittee for what operating engineers believe is a critical conversation about the future of the natural gas 

industry, with a particular focus on the pipeline segment of it. My 

name is Jeffrey Soth. I am the Legislative and Political Director of 

the International Union of Operating Engineers. The union represents almost 400,000 men and women in the United States and 

Canada. 

I would like to touch on three things quickly this morning in my 

testimony. First, I will cover the role that operating engineers play 

in the pipeline industry. Second, I will share some economic analysis and data with you. And last, I will speak more directly to the 

legislation, the two bills before the subcommittee this morning. 

First, operating engineers are one of the key occupations directly 

employed in the construction of this Nation’s energy infrastructure. 

Every day across the United States, thousands of our members are 

building the Nation’s pipelines, power plants, and natural gas 

wellpads. The IUOE is one of four unions signatory to the National 

Pipeline Agreement. In 2013, operating engineers performed nearly 

14 million hours of work on all types of pipelines, from gathering 

lines to transmission lines. The pipeline industry is indeed at the 

heart of work opportunities for members of the IUOE. 

Now I would like to turn quickly to some broader industry 

dynamics and economics. The development of the natural gas resources in this country has really presented an amazing opportunity. It also has created a number of policy and regulatory 

challenges for decisionmakers. But in order to capitalize on this opportunity presented by the abundant American natural resource, 

operating engineers strongly believe that the permitting and regulatory framework for pipelines must be updated, ensuring that domestic oil and gas industry flourishes in a safe and productive way. 

I would like to share with you a quick look at employment in the 

pipeline industry. I have shared with you a couple of graphs that 

give you a visual look at some of the employment picture in the oil 

and gas pipeline industry group of the construction sector. As you 

can see, since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, 

the industry has grown over 26 percent, reaching an all-time high 

in April. 

And if I may, Chairman, let me repeat that. The United States 

today has seen an all-time high in oil and gas pipeline construction 

employment, and that is really critical. And what is particularly 

noteworthy is that, during the same time, and you will see in the 

next graph that during the same time construction employment 

has plummeted. We have lost about 20 percent of all construction 

workers; about 1 in 5 construction workers in the country over that 

same period have left the industry. That makes what is happening 

in natural gas particularly noteworthy, and has allowed that sector 

to counter some of the worst employment losses we have seen in 

construction since the Great Depression. 

As you know, dramatic growth is expected in the natural gas industry. Our friends at INGAA have made dramatic estimates about 

14 

potentially 61,000 miles of additional midstream natural gas pipeline necessary through 2030, with as much as $10 billion necessary 

annually. IHS Global finds that about $8 billion a year could be invested in oil and gas industry for just gathering pipelines, not including distribution and transmission. That is a lot of potential, 

obviously, and we would like to be able to capture that. 

And finally, I would like to turn more directly to the legislation 

before the subcommittee. Operating engineers believe that we must 

forge bipartisan agreements for the oil and gas permitting in this 

country. The bottom line is that anachronistic, out-of-date 

regulations prevent job growth, and it is essential that American 

energy policy keep pace with the innovations that are occurring in 

the industry. 

The Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act reflects the simple 

modernization of environmental permitting of gathering lines when 

there is clearly no significant environmental impact. Consistently 

issuing a finding of ‘‘no significant environmental impact’’ adds no 

environmental value to the permitting process. Clearly, time, energy, and money of regulatory authorities could be better spent 

elsewhere. H.R. 4293 is a common-sense step to modernize this 

Nation’s permitting process for natural gas pipelines. 

Similarly, the Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act simply 

clarifies the authority to issue easements and permits to build on 

Federal lands. It is a common-sense step that operating engineers 

are pleased to see this kind of technical correction made to the law. 

The United States should continue modernizing its regulatory 

approach to meet the needs of the growing domestic energy industry, and to encourage job growth. We believe the legislation before 

you will do just that, and we appreciate the committee’s leadership 

and your leadership, Representative Cramer, on these two bills. 

And we thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Soth follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SOTH, LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS ON H.R. 4293 AND H.R. 1587 

Thank you for the invitation to join you this morning, Chairman Lamborn. It is 

an honor to join you and members of the subcommittee for what the Operating 

Engineers believe is a critical conversation regarding the development of the natural 

gas industry in the United States, with particular focus on the regulatory framework for pipelines. 

My name is Jeffrey Soth. I am the Legislative and Political Director of the 

International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The International Union of 

Operating Engineers represents almost 400,000 men and women in the United 

States and Canada. Operating Engineers are one of the key occupations directly employed in the construction and maintenance of this Nation’s energy infrastructure, 

including natural gas infrastructure. 

Every day across the United States thousands of IUOE members are building the 

Nation’s natural gas pipelines, power plants, and natural gas well pads. Operating 

Engineers are also seeking other employment opportunities in the natural gas supply chain. For example, thousands of IUOE members in the Upper Mississippi Basin 

excavate the silica sand that is essential to the hydraulic fracturing process. In the 

coming years, members of the IUOE also expect to build liquefied natural gas export 

facilities along the United States and Canadian coasts. 

Most of the Operating Engineers engaged in the construction industry run bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, and excavators—the traditional heavy equipment operated 

by members of the union. To perform this work at the highest levels, members of 

the Operating Engineers union receive extensive craft training through on-the-job 

apprenticeship. Local unions of the IUOE, in partnership with their contractorVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
15 

employers, invest over $107 million annually in construction training. But the work 

opportunities around the natural gas industry also require specialization within the 

Operating Engineer craft. 

What I would like to focus on this morning is the role that members of the IUOE 

play in the pipeline industry. The IUOE is one of four unions signatory to the 

National Pipeline Agreement. In 2013, Operating Engineers performed nearly 14 

million hours of work on all manner of pipeline projects, from gathering lines to 

mainline transmission projects. The pipeline industry is a key sector to members of 

the Operating Engineers. It is at the heart of IUOE members’ opportunities for 

work. 

The pipeline industry has a unique set of skill requirements and Operating 

Engineers are perfectly suited to what the industry demands—the safest, most productive workforce available. That is why IUOE members develop their skills 

through a robust national training program in partnership with the Pipe Line Contractors Association to meet that specific part of the industry’s needs. 

After that summary of who we are and how we fit into the sector, let me turn 

to the broader industry dynamics. The development of American natural gas resources has presented the country an amazing opportunity; it has also created a 

number of policy and regulatory challenges for decisionmakers. 

In order to keep pace, in order to capitalize on the opportunity presented by this 

abundant American natural resource, the Operating Engineers strongly believe that 

Congress must ensure that there is an updated, streamlined permitting and regulatory framework, ensuring that the domestic oil and gas industry flourishes in a 

safe, predictable way. 

First, I wanted to share with you some numbers that help describe what has occurred in the pipeline industry as a result of the increase in domestic oil and gas 

production. In the first chart attached to my testimony, you can see employment in 

the oil and gas industry group within the construction industry. It shows dramatic 

growth since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. Since that time, 

the industry has grown over 26 percent. According to the most recent data available 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in the oil and gas industry hit an 

all-time high. That is especially noteworthy and important because of what has occurred in the broader construction sector during the same period. You can see that 

construction has lost over 1.5 million jobs over the same timeframe. Although a 

small part of the overall industry, the burgeoning natural gas industry has helped 

the broader construction sector counter some of the worst employment losses seen 

since the Great Depression. 

Family sustaining jobs in the oil and gas pipeline construction industry group are 

created at higher than average wages. Wage estimates for production and nonsupervisory workers in the oil and gas pipeline industry are over $26 an hour, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares 

to $19.75 an hour for production workers in all of the private sector. 

Please allow me to turn more directly to the legislation before the subcommittee. 

The Operating Engineers believe that Congress must work to forge bipartisan agreements around common-sense changes to oil and gas permitting processes. The bottom line is that an anachronistic regulatory structure inhibits the development of 

the industry and the jobs that go along with it. 

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) estimated in 2009 

that North America may need more than 61,000 miles of additional natural gas 

pipelines through 2030. INGAA estimates that investments in midstream natural 

gas pipelines could reach around $10 billion annually for the next 20 years. An IHS 

Global study finds that $8 billion a year could be invested in just gathering pipelines, not including distribution and transmission, for both the oil and gas industry. 

I also wanted to mention to the subcommittee that the IUOE is part of a newly 

formed industry group, the Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance (EEIA), 

the voice of the shale energy supply chain. The EEIA pulls together a number of 

key industry players beyond oil and natural gas companies themselves. It includes 

contractors, materials and equipment suppliers, and essential unions in the industry. EEIA has commissioned a new economic study that should provide keen new 

insights into the future of the industry, including a new, updated analysis of jobs, 

labor income, and dollar outputs by the sector. We look forward to sharing the study 

with the committee when it is formally released in July. 

It is essential that the American energy policy support the development of this 

domestic resource by keeping pace with the dramatic innovations that are occurring 

in the sector. In a number of cases, the growth in the industry has simply outpaced 

the Nation’s regulatory framework. That is how the Operating Engineers view the 

two pieces of legislation under consideration by the subcommittee. 

16 

Representative Cramer’s legislation, H.R. 4293, the Natural Gas Gathering 

Enhancement Act, reflects a straightforward modernization of the environmental 

permitting of gathering lines when there is clearly no significant environmental impact. The process of developing an Environmental Assessment and consistently 

issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) adds no environmental or economic value to the permitting process. It merely adds procedural impediments and 

associated cost for both developers and regulators without associated improvements 

in environmental quality. The time, energy, and money of regulatory authorities 

should be spent elsewhere in the permitting process. It is also my understanding 

that an agency could still conduct an Environmental Assessment and take a gathering line on Federal or tribal land through the process of determining whether, in 

fact, there is a significant environmental impact. Representative Cramer’s legislation is a common-sense step to modernize the Nation’s permit processes for natural 

gas pipelines. 

Similarly, Congressman Marino’s bill, the Energy Infrastructure Improvement 

Act, merely clarifies the authority of the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of 

Agriculture to issue easements and permits to construct pipelines on eligible Federal 

lands. The Operating Engineers are pleased to see this technical correction made 

to the law so that we may continue to responsibly develop this important American 

energy resource, and with it the jobs of Operating Engineers and other workers who 

depend on it for their livelihoods. 

The United States should continue updating and modernizing its regulatory approach to meet the needs of the growing domestic energy industry. We believe the 

legislation before you will do just that and we appreciate the committee’s leadership 

to advance these two bills. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, Chairman Lamborn. 


88391.004.eps
17 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHAIRMAN LAMBORN TO JEFFREY SOTH, 

LEGISLATIVE AND POLITICAL DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

Question 1. In your testimony you say these bills modernize the approach to pipeline regulation and meet the needs of the growing energy industry. What current 

impacts to production and job creation are we seeing from the hurdles imposed by 

the current process and what will we see if permitting process is modernized and 

improved? 

Answer. Literally, waiting for an Act of Congress to approve rights-of-way and 

easements through National Parks, for example, places unnecessary obstacles to the 

permitting of essential energy infrastructure. In some cases, there are existing utility corridors through parks that should be considered desirable, already-disturbed 

surfaces well suited for oil and gas pipelines. Updating and clarifying the authority 

of Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to approve easements would eliminate the 

need for statutory approval and place the authority where it should have been all 

along—with natural-resource agencies. 

Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management testified that they did not know of 

a situation where there was anything other than a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) issued for gathering lines under the conditions imposed by H.R. 4293. In 

that case it is hard to imagine what value the process of making a determination 

delivers in terms of environmental integrity; the process of issuing a determination 

(and, ultimately, a FONSI) merely presents an obstacle—averaging 3 months, according to BLM testimony—to securing the necessary permits to construct gathering 

lines. Clearly, the process stands in the way of building pipeline infrastructure and 

the jobs that go along with it. 

The Keystone XL is a high-profile example of the hurdles imposed by the anachronistic regulatory framework for trans-boundary oil and gas pipeline projects. The 

Presidential Permit process, which lives only by Executive Order and administrative 

fiat, is cumbersome, uncertain, and delivers important responsibilities for the environmental review of projects to a non-resource agency, the State Department. Although not necessarily in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources, 

the IUOE supports H.R. 1900 that restructures the process for permitting this type 

of trans-boundary infrastructure. The failure to permit Keystone XL has left thousands of Operating Engineers’ jobs on the drawing board, denying members of the 

union with concrete opportunities to go to work. 


88391.005.eps
18 

Much more pipeline infrastructure is necessary in order to realize America’s domestic energy future. While the oil and gas pipeline industry group of the construction sector is at an all-time high currently, reaching over 140,000 jobs for the first 

time in American history, more jobs opportunities await Operating Engineers and 

other construction craftworkers. The International Union of Operating Engineers 

appreciates the leadership of your committee and the sponsors of H.R. 15787 and 

H.R. 4293 on these vital issues. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Natural 

Resources. The International Union of Operating Engineers looks forward to working with you to enact this legislation into law. 

Mr. CRAMER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Soth. 

Mr. Santa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. SANTA. Good morning, Mr. Cramer, Ranking Member Holt, 

and members of the subcommittee. My name is Donald Santa, and 

I am President and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association 

of America, or INGAA. INGAA represents interstate natural gas 

transmission pipeline operators in the United States and Canada. 

Our 26 members account for virtually all of the major interstate 

natural gas transmission pipelines in North America, and operate 

about 200,000 miles of transmission pipe in the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share INGAA’s views on 

H.R. 1587, the Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act, introduced 

by Representative Tom Marino. This bill addresses a process problem rooted in statute that affects permitting for natural gas pipelines. Largely through a historical oversight, the current law 

governing lands administered by the National Park Service authorizes the administrative review and approval of rights-of-way for 

certain enumerated types of infrastructure, but not rights-of-way 

for natural gas pipelines. 

Natural gas pipelines were not common when these statutes 

were enacted in the early 20th century. Consequently, when 

Congress enumerated the types of rights-of-way that could be approved by the National Park Service or the Secretary of the 

Interior, natural gas pipelines were not listed. Electric facilities, 

communications facilities, mining facilities, and even telegraph 

lines and water flumes are listed in the existing statute, but not 

natural gas pipelines. The statute mentions pipelines only in the 

context of water transportation. 

The result is this: while the National Park Service has authority 

to approve certain types of rights-of-way, it cannot approve rightsof-way for natural gas pipelines absent enactment of projectspecific legislation by the Congress. In other words, the current law 

puts Congress in the role of being a permitting agency for pipelines 

seeking authority to traverse NPS lands. This cumbersome process 

creates unnecessary delays and, in some cases, illogical outcomes. 

This framework needlessly consumes the time and resources of the 

Congress, and compels the National Park Service or the Secretary, 

the operators of natural gas pipelines, and all affected stakeholders 

to engage in a duplicative process in which both congressional action and administrative approval are required to grant the same 

right-of-way. 

19 

1 16 U.S.C. Sec. 5 (1911) and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 79 (1901). 

The National Park Service or the Secretary should have the authority to review and approve pipeline rights-of-way, in the same 

manner as other types of rights-of-way, as long as such approval 

is not inconsistent or detrimental to the primary purposes of these 

lands. H.R. 1587 grants such authority, and represents a longoverdue amendment to the law. INGAA agrees with the intent behind Representative Marino’s efforts, and therefore endorses 

H.R. 1587. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing INGAA to share its 

views on this matter. Given the need to expand our natural gas infrastructure to keep pace with demand growth, we need to ensure 

that permitting questions are handled in an efficient and effective 

manner. The severe winter that we just experienced amply demonstrates the need and the importance of making these decisions 

to benefit American consumers. Natural gas pipeline companies do 

not look lightly on the question of placing energy infrastructure on 

lands administered by the National Park Service. Where there is 

a public need to locate pipelines across these areas, though, or to 

expand existing pipelines in these areas, we need a better and 

more efficient process. 

We thank Representative Marino for introducing his bill and 

starting Congress on the path toward creating a better process. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE INTERSTATE

NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA ON H.R. 1587 

Good morning Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Donald F. Santa, and I am President and CEO of the 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. INGAA represents interstate natural gas transmission pipeline operators in the United States and Canada. 

Our 26 members account for virtually all of the major interstate natural gas transmission pipelines in North America and operate about 200,000 miles of transmission 

pipe in the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share INGAA’s views on H.R. 1587, the ‘‘Energy 

Infrastructure Improvement Act’’ introduced by Rep. Tom Marino. This bill addresses a process problem rooted in statute that affects permitting for natural gas pipelines. Largely through a historical oversight, the current law governing lands 

administered by the National Park Service (NPS) authorizes the administrative review and approval of rights-of-way for certain enumerated types of infrastructure, 

but not rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines. Natural gas pipelines were not common when these statutes were enacted in the early 20th century. Consequently, 

when Congress enumerated the types of rights-of-way that could be approved by the 

NPS and/or the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), natural gas pipelines were 

not listed.1 Electric facilities, communications facilities, mining facilities, and even 

telegraph lines and water flumes are listed in the existing statute, but not natural 

gas pipelines. The statute mentions ‘‘pipelines’’ only in the context of water 

transportation. 

The result is this: While the NPS has the authority to approve certain types of 

rights-of-way, it cannot approve rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines absent the 

enactment of project-specific legislation by the Congress. In other words, current law 

puts Congress in the role of being a ‘‘permitting agency’’ for pipelines seeking authority to traverse NPS lands. This cumbersome process causes unnecessary delays, 

and in some cases, illogical outcomes. This framework needlessly consumes the time 

and resource of the Congress and compels the NPS and/or the Secretary, the operators of natural gas pipelines and all affected stakeholders to engage in duplicative 

processes in which both Congressional action and administrative approval are required to grant the same right-of-way. The NPS, and/or the Secretary, should have 

the authority to review and approve pipeline rights-of-way in the same manner as 

other types of rights-of-way, as long as such approval is not inconsistent or detriVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
20 

2The communications-related amendment is the only major amendment since original enactment. There have been some re-codification changes over the years, but nothing altering the 

substance of the statute in any major way. 3 30 U.S.C. Sec. 181 et seq. 

mental to the primary purposes of these lands. H.R. 1587 grants such authority, 

and represents a long-overdue amendment to the law. INGAA agrees with the intent behind Rep. Marino’s efforts, and therefore endorses H.R. 1587. 

Current Law 

As mentioned, the statutes governing Federal lands include sections authorizing 

the review and approval of rights-of-way across Federal lands. These provisions, 

originally enacted in 1901 and 1911, authorize the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

to approve rights-of-way associated with specific types of infrastructure. For example, Title 16, Section 5, authorizes the head of the department with jurisdiction over 

the lands to approve rights-of-way for: 

electrical poles and lines for the transmission and distribution of electrical 

power, and for poles and lines for communication purposes, and for radio, television, and other forms of communication transmitting, relay, and receiving 

structures and facilities, to the extent of 200 feet on each side of the center line 

of such lines and poles and not to exceed 400 feet by 400 feet for radio, television, 

and other forms of communication transmitting, relay, and receiving structures 

and facilities . . .. 

Also in Title 16, Section 79, the Secretary is authorized to approve rights-of-way 

across public lands for: 

electrical plants, poles, and lines for the generation and distribution of electrical 

power, and for telephone and telegraph purposes, and for canals, ditches, pipes 

and pipe lines, flumes, tunnels, or other water conduits, and for water plants, 

dams, and reservoirs used to promote irrigation or mining or quarrying, or the 

manufacturing or cutting of timber or lumber, or the supplying of water for domestic, public, or any other beneficial uses to the extent of the ground occupied 

by such canals, ditches, flumes, tunnels, reservoirs, or other water conduits or 

water plants, or electrical or other works permitted hereunder, and not to exceed 

50 feet on each side of the marginal limits thereof, or not to exceed 50 feet on 

each side of the center line of such pipes and pipe lines, electrical, telegraph, and 

telephone lines and poles, by any citizen, association, or corporation of the 

United States. 

Section 5 was amended in 1952 to add the references to radio, television and other 

communications facilities. Other than that, the law governing this area has remained largely unchanged for more than 100 years.2

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 3 (MLA) includes a provision granting either the 

Secretary or the appropriate agency head the authority to approve rights-of-way 

‘‘through any Federal lands’’ for ‘‘the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom . . ..’’ The MLA, 

however, defines ‘‘Federal lands’’ to mean ‘‘all lands owned by the United States except lands in the National Park System . . ..’’ For lands within the National Park 

System, the statute defers to the provisions in Title 16, which do not include natural 

gas pipelines among the enumerated forms of infrastructure. 

Practice for Many Years 

Even with this apparent oversight, DOI assumed for decades that it possessed the 

authority to approve natural gas pipeline rights-of-way across NPS lands. It made 

this assumption based on the general spirit of the law. And based on this assumption, DOI granted natural gas pipeline rights-of-across these lands during the major 

build-out of the Nation’s natural gas transmission system in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Pipelines were not sited on NPS lands haphazardly or carelessly. Instead, operators 

chose to seek such approvals from the NPS only when viable alternatives were unavailable, when the impact of the right-of-way was viewed as negligible, and/or 

when facilities within NPS lands (such as concessionaires) needed natural gas service. 

This process changed in the late 1980s after a DOI legal analysis in connection 

with an application for a pipeline right-of-way across NPS lands concluded that the 

statute did not authorize such action. In denying the application, DOI stated that 

it lacked the authority under Title 16 to approve pipeline rights-of-way, other than 

21 

4Since this decision, a number of bills have been enacted which allow the Secretary to authorize rights-of-way for existing natural gas pipelines on certain NPS lands. Examples include 

P.L. 107–223, P.L. 101–573, and P.L. 105–329. 5For example, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

those pipelines associated with water transportation.4 Since then, DOI has taken 

the position that any natural gas pipeline needing a right-of-way across NPS lands 

must first secure the enactment of specific authorizing legislation from Congress. 

Such legislation, however, does not grant the right-of-way sought by the pipeline operator. It only grants DOI the authority to approve the specific right-of-way if it so 

chooses. 

In practice, pipeline operators seeking a NPS right-of-way now first seek to negotiate the terms and conditions for constructing the proposed pipeline (or altering an 

existing pipeline) with the NPS. If agreement is reached, the pipeline operator seeks 

congressional authorization with the support of the NPS. Given the vagaries of the 

legislative process, this step can take several years. 

Recent Examples 

Mr. Chairman, this committee has dealt with several specific pipeline right-of-way 

bills in recent years. The most recent is the ‘‘Denali National Park Improvement 

Act’’ (P.L. 113–33). The President signed this legislation last September, after 4 

years of consideration in Congress. In brief, the legislation allows, among other 

things, the NPS to approve a right-of-way through the Denali National Park for a 

future natural gas transmission line to serve consumers in south-central Alaska. 

The pipeline, if approved, would largely share an existing right-of-way with a highway through the park. This project is supported by the NPS. 

Another example is the ‘‘New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act’’ 

(P.L. 112–197), which was reported by this committee, enacted by Congress and 

signed by the President in November 2012. This law addresses a proposed lateral 

pipeline from the existing Transco pipeline in New York Bay to serve increased natural gas demand in Queens and Brooklyn. The lateral pipeline will be only about 

3 miles long, but must cross under the Gateway National Recreation Area in order 

to come ashore in Brooklyn. The Gateway National Recreation Area includes Jacob 

Riis Park and Floyd Bennett Field, New York City’s first airport. Congress approved 

the legislation after about 18 months of consideration. Again, the legislation did not 

approve the right-of-way permit; instead, it allowed DOI to consider the construction 

permit for possible approval. After an additional 19 months of review by DOI, the 

permit was approved just 2 weeks ago, and pipeline construction is now underway. 

A final example is the ‘‘Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Natural 

Gas Pipeline Enlargement Act’’ (P.L. 109–156), enacted in 2005. This bill dealt with 

the expansion of the existing Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline. The pipeline had 

been built in 1948, and subsequently, in 1965, Congress created the Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area which was situated on top of about 3.5 miles of the 

pipeline right-of-way. Under pre-existing agreements, the NPS was empowered to 

approve future expansions of the pipeline, to meet customer needs, for all but two 

parcels of land that the pipeline traversed. These two parcels included about 850 

feet of the 3.5 miles of pipeline right-of-way in the park. When Columbia needed 

to repair and expand the pipeline in the early 2000s, it had to petition the Congress 

to enact a statute authorizing amendment of the right-of-way in those two parcels. 

Two years were needed to obtain the statutory authority needed to modify the terms 

of the right-of-way so that Columbia could replace 850 feet of 14-inch-diameter pipeline with a safe and more reliable 20-inch-diameter pipeline. 

Reason for Legislation 

This process begs the question: Why should Congress involve itself in a specific 

right-of-way permit application in the first place? This question is appropriate, because the current law does not reflect a decision by the Congress to establish this 

process for natural gas pipelines as matter of policy, but rather results from the fact 

that natural gas pipelines were not among common forms of infrastructure during 

the first decade of the last century. It would be more efficient to relieve the 

Congress of the obligation to review all applications for natural gas pipeline rightsof-way across NPS lands and to authorize the Secretary to fulfill this role without 

the need for case-specific statutory authority to grant a right-of-way if an application has merit. This is, in fact, how the myriad of other permits required for a new 

pipeline are processed now—by the agencies charged by Congress to be subjectmatter experts and decisionmakers.5

22 

One more point is worth mention. As ‘‘national park’’ status is extended to lands 

that were not previously so designated, especially in the eastern part of the country, 

we believe this problem will continue to arise, for both existing and proposed natural gas pipelines, until clear administrative authority is created. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing INGAA to share its views on this 

matter. Given the need to expand our natural gas infrastructure to keep pace with 

demand growth, we need to ensure that permitting questions are handled in an 

efficient and effective manner. The severe winter that we just experienced amply 

demonstrates the need, and the importance, of making these decisions to benefit 

American consumers. We do not look lightly on the question of placing energy infrastructure on lands administered by the NPS. Where there is a public need to locate 

pipelines across these areas, though, or to expand existing pipelines in these areas, 

we need a better and more efficient process. We thank Rep. Marino for introducing 

his bill and starting Congress on the path toward creating a better process. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Santa, for your testimony. 

Ms. Mall, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMY MALL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Ms. MALL. Thank you, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Holt, and members of 

the subcommittee, for inviting me to present NRDC’s views on 

H.R. 4293, the Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act. 

Flaring is a serious environmental problem that needs to be addressed, and we are pleased that the committee is discussing it. 

Flares have produced a significant amount of CO2 that contributes 

to global warming, NOx, an ozone precursor, volatile organic compounds, methane, and particulate matter. Flaring of gas associated 

with oil wells in 2012 released more CO2 than 1.5 million passenger vehicles. So flaring must be eliminated, except for safety 

cases, to reduce environmental impacts and also waste. 

Federal policy currently allows gas to be flared royalty free, 

robbing U.S. taxpayers of revenue. 

The genuine need to eliminate flaring, however, is not a reason 

to waive environmental review of new gathering lines and compressor stations. Gathering lines and compressor stations themselves pose serious safety and environmental risks, including risks 

of explosion, leaks, water contamination, dangerous air pollution, 

habitat destruction, and severe noise. 

Yet gathering lines and compressor stations currently have too 

little environmental oversight, not too much. Gathering lines in 

rural areas are not regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Material Safety Administration, and regulations in non-rural areas 

are much too weak. While historically gathering lines were small 

and thought to be low-risk, gathering lines today can be as big as 

or bigger than transmission pipelines, and may operate at the same 

extremely high pressures. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a recent report, 

found that there is not even basic information on where gathering 

lines are, or whether any safety procedures are being observed. 

GAO concluded that pipeline safety officials are unable to assess 

and manage safety risks from unregulated gathering lines. No regulation means that there are no requirements for pipe thickness, 

strength, welding, burial depth, inspections, corrosion resistance, 

23 

installation practices, periodic maintenance, or to record the location. 

The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, process is, 

therefore, crucial to maximize the benefits of a project and minimize its health and environmental costs. Excluding projects from 

NEPA review or imposing arbitrary deadlines for issuing permits 

would shortcut the essential work needed to reduce risk, improve 

safety, and ensure all health and environmental threats are considered. 

While a project located adjacent to an existing disturbed area 

such as a road or a wellpad may seem like an innocuous location 

for a gathering line or compressor station, there may be new or cumulative impacts of additional large-scale industrial development. 

If those impacts have already truly been considered and vetted in 

a prior NEPA analysis, then under current law new analysis is not 

needed, which makes legislation unnecessary. 

And the Interior Department already has discretion under NEPA 

to establish administrative categorical exclusions, or CEs, where 

environmental review is genuinely unnecessary, and to take other 

action. For example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

currently considering new rules to reduce waste, including flaring, 

under its current authorities. BLM has a duty under the law to 

minimize the waste of Federal oil and gas resources, and can and 

should use the full scope of its current authority to do so. 

Efforts to legislate CEs from NEPA are unnecessary, and have 

historically proven to be problematic. For example, after Section 

390 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act created CEs for oil and gas 

projects, GAO analyzed them and found that BLM had issued more 

than 6,000 oil and gas drilling exemptions between Fiscal Year 

2006 and 2008, but that the use of these exemptions often did not 

comply with either the law or BLM’s guidance. 

The Federal Government can and should take other actions to 

reduce flaring. For example, expand the green completion requirement of the Clean Air Act to cover oil-producing wells, limit production and new well drilling to areas with sufficient pipeline 

resources, mandate maximum on-site and nearby use of captured 

gas and natural gas liquids, charge royalties on all flared gas, and 

limit the cumulative duration of flaring. 

While dramatically reducing flaring is a very important goal that 

we should all work to achieve, ignoring other environmental 

impacts to achieve this goal is not appropriate. NRDC, therefore, 

opposes H.R. 4293. We would be happy to work with the subcommittee to develop the right solutions to directly reduce flaring, 

as well as to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and promote 

energy efficiency and clean energy. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMY MALL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL ON H.R. 4293 

Thank you Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to present NRDC’s views on H.R. 4293, the Natural Gas 

Gathering Enhancement Act. 

Flaring is a serious environmental problem that needs to be addressed. Flares 

produce significant amounts of CO2, contributing to global warming, as well as 

NOx, an ozone precursor, and volatile organic compounds, methane, and particulate 

matter. The genuine need to eliminate flaring, however, is not a reason to waive 

24 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. (2013). 

Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/ghg/customized.html. 2 North Dakota Industrial Commission power point, March 3, 2014, https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ 

oilgas/presentations/NDIC030314_100.pdf. 

environmental review of new gathering lines and compressor stations. Gathering 

lines and compressor stations come with their own serious environmental hazards 

and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ensures that these risks are understood, that the public has an opportunity for review and input, and that better 

alternatives are considered. Efforts to legislate categorical exclusions from NEPA 

have historically created confusion and resulted in administrative abuses and the 

Department of the Interior already has discretion under NEPA to establish administrative CEs where appropriate and to take other action. While dramatically 

reducing flaring is an important goal we should all work to achieve, ignoring other 

environmental impacts to achieve this goal is not appropriate and NRDC therefore 

opposes H.R. 4293. 

FLARING IS A SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED

Flares produce significant amounts of CO2, contributing to global warming. Flares 

also release NOx (an ozone precursor) as well as volatile organic compounds, methane, and particulate matter due to incomplete combustion. According to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program mandated by Congress, associated gas flaring 

released around 7 million metric tons of CO2 in 2012, which is equal to the annual 

greenhouse gas emissions from more than 1.5 million passenger vehicles.1 Flaring 

must absolutely be eliminated, except for cases of safety, to reduce the environmental impacts of oil and gas production. It is also a waste of resources. Federal 

policy currently allows gas to be flared royalty-free, robbing U.S. taxpayers. Therefore, to protect the health of Americans and the planet and to protect our valuable 

mineral resources, the Federal Government should impose restrictions on flaring. It 

can do this by expanding the green completion requirement of the Clean Air Act 

to cover oil producing wells. Green completion is a process whereby operators capture gas from the completion phase that would otherwise be vented or flared. There 

should also be requirements that: (a) limit production and new well drilling to areas 

with sufficient pipeline resources; (b) mandate maximum onsite and nearby use of 

captured gas and natural gas liquids; (c) charge royalties on all flared gas; and (d) 

limit the cumulative duration of flaring. For example, the State of North Dakota is 

currently considering rules to reduce flare volume, the number of wells flaring, and 

the duration of flaring by, among other things, restricting production at wells that 

continue to flare beyond initial allowances.2

The genuine need to eliminate flaring, however, is not a reason to waive environmental review of new gathering lines and compressor stations. This would be the 

equivalent of ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’’ Gathering lines and compressor stations 

themselves pose serious safety and environmental risks, including risks of explosion, 

leaks, water contamination, dangerous air pollution, and severe noise. Congress 

must not interfere with consideration and mitigation of those impacts when pursuing a solution to the problems of flaring. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that, where gathering lines and compressors could significantly affect the human environment, these impacts are understood and alternatives for reducing them are explained to the affected public and considered by officials; indeed, 

the very premise of NEPA is that a comprehensive review of significant environment-related impacts informs major Federal decisions. NEPA ensures that Federal 

officials understand the consequences of their choices and the public and local 

governments are given a voice in the development of projects on Federal lands that 

affect their well-being and interests. Stifling that process will not result in smart 

solutions to the problem of flaring. Neither our public lands nor nearby communities 

should be faced with the risks that would come with more gathering lines and compressors constructed without well-informed environmental review. 

GATHERING LINES AND COMPRESSOR STATIONS CURRENTLY HAVE TOO LITTLE

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT, NOT TOO MUCH

This is not the time to weaken environmental review of natural gas gathering 

lines or compressors. Gathering lines in areas defined as rural—with 10 or fewer 

homes within a quarter-mile of the pipeline in any mile-long stretch of pipe—are 

not regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), and regulations for gathering lines in non-rural areas are much too weak. 

While historically gathering lines were smaller and thought to be less risky, many 

gathering lines today are as big as, or bigger than, many transmission lines and 

25 

3 49 CFR § 192.8. See also: American Petroleum Institute, ‘‘Guidelines for the Definition of 

Onshore Gas Gathering Lines,’’ API Recommended Practice 80, Published April 2000, Reaffirmed March 2007 (incorporated by reference). 4 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety,’’ GAO–12– 

388: Published: Mar 22, 2012. 

may operate at the same extremely high pressures. New gathering lines can be 

more than 24 inches in diameter and operate at pressures upwards of 1400 pounds 

per square inch, comparable to some transmission lines. And the regulatory definition of ‘‘gathering line’’ 3 is so broad that it can include large compressor stations 

used to pressurize the gas for long-distance transport. 

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that there is not 

even basic information on where gathering lines are or whether any safety procedures are being observed. GAO concluded that ‘‘pipeline safety officials are unable 

to assess and manage safety risks’’ from unregulated gathering lines.4 No regulation 

means that there are no requirements for pipe thickness, strength, welding, burial 

depth, inspections, corrosion resistance, installation practices, periodic maintenance 

to prevent and identify leaks and ruptures, or a record of the location. Without 

NEPA those issues will remained buried. While we lack any information concerning 

incidents on unregulated gathering lines or compressor stations in rural areas, GAO 

found that, in 2010, the average incident on a regulated gas gathering pipeline 

caused $1.8 million in property damage. 

PHMSA has estimated that there are more than 200,000 miles of natural gas 

gathering lines in the country and an additional 30,000–40,000 miles of hazardous 

liquid gathering lines that carry mostly petroleum products. PHMSA estimates that 

only about 10 percent of these lines are regulated. These lines are generally not included in programs that require the marking of utility lines to prevent them from 

being damaged by excavation or demolition work because there are no requirements 

to mark or keep records of the locations of gathering lines. 

Unfortunately, few States have chosen to add their own rules in the absence of 

Federal rules, so they do not regulate these facilities to ensure safety. For example, 

after a 2012 compressor station explosion in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection asked the operator not to restart the 

compressor without permission, but within 2 days the company had restarted the 

compressor against the agency’s wishes. 

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT IS CRUCIAL TO ENSURE THE BEST

OUTCOME

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 372 to 15 and passed the Senate by voice vote with no recorded 

dissent during the Nixon administration. President Obama’s Proclamation on 

NEPA’s 40th anniversary noted NEPA’s role in promoting ‘‘. . . open, accountable, 

and responsible decisionmaking that involves the American public.’’ 

NEPA establishes a process to identify and consider the environmental impacts 

of a government proposal. NEPA requires the government to thoroughly consider 

the pros and cons for the human environment of proposed significant actions and 

to develop alternatives that reduce harms and increase benefits. NEPA does not dictate adoption of the least environmentally harmful alternative, but rather requires 

disclosure and consideration of alternatives that would reduce the harm. NEPA 

gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on any decisions. It is a tool 

that improves consensus, accountability and transparency surrounding government 

decisionmaking, and promotes buy-in by the public because it assures them an informed voice before final decisions are made. 

NEPA’s process, helping to maximize the benefits of a project and minimize its 

health and environmental costs, is exactly what is needed for any important decisions regarding gathering lines or compressor units. Excluding projects from NEPA 

review or imposing arbitrary deadlines for issuing permits would shortcut the essential work needed to reduce risk, improve safety, and ensure all health and environmental threats are considered. 

H.R. 4293 would categorically exclude from NEPA sundry notices or rights-of-way 

for natural gas gathering lines or compression units that are located within an area 

for which NEPA review has already occurred and adjacent to an existing disturbed 

area. While a project located adjacent to an existing disturbed area, such as a road 

or wellpad, may seem like an innocuous location for a gathering line or compressor 

station, this approach does not take into consideration new or cumulative impacts 

of additional large-scale industrial development in an area. Potential impacts include threats to surface waters such as streams, ponds, and rivers, destruction of 

26 

5 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Energy Policy Act of 2005: BLM’s Use of Section 390 

Categorical Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development,’’ GAO–11–941T: Published: Sep 9, 2011. 6Storrow, Benjamin, ‘‘BLM revives controversial fast-tracking of oil and gas permits,’’ Casper 

Star-Tribune, April 12, 2014. 

wildlife habitat, increased air pollution, severe noise, and potential impacts on historical and other important resources. Where those impacts have already been considered and vetted in a prior NEPA analysis, then under current law, new analysis 

is not needed and legislation is unnecessary. In addition, NEPA has built-in mechanisms by which projects with lesser impacts are subject to a less extensive review. 

Efforts to legislate categorical exclusions (CEs) from NEPA have historically proven to be an invitation to confusion and administrative abuses. For example, section 

390 of The 2005 Energy Policy Act created CEs for oil and gas projects. A 2011 GAO 

report found that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had issued more than 

6,000 oil and gas drilling exemptions from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal 

Year 2008 and that the use of these exemptions ‘‘often did not comply with either 

the law or BLM’s guidance.’’ GAO found ‘‘several types of violations of the law.’’ 5

According to a more recent investigation by the Casper Star-Tribune, the BLM’s 

Casper office issued exemptions 111 times in 2013, and only conducted environmental review seven times. In the first 4 months of 2014, the Casper office issued 

53 exemptions and only conducted two environmental assessments.6 Without any 

environmental review, the public is left in the dark, decisionmakers cannot understand the consequences of their actions, and industry gets a free pass on making 

others bear the environmental costs of their operations. We are therefore opposed 

to legislative CEs which undermine the NEPA process, in particular CEs that favor 

one industry, such as energy. 

The Interior Department already has discretion under NEPA to establish administrative CEs where environmental review is genuinely unnecessary, and to take 

other action. For example, BLM is currently considering new rules to reduce waste, 

including flaring, under its current authorities. BLM has a duty under the law to 

minimize the waste of Federal oil and gas resources and can and should use the 

full scope of its current authority to do so. 

CONCLUSION

Reducing flaring is a laudable goal. However, ignoring other environmental impacts to achieve this goal is short-sighted. NRDC therefore opposes H.R. 4293 and 

would be happy to work with the members of the subcommittee to develop the right 

solutions, including approaches to directly reduce flaring as well as reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and promoting energy efficiency and clean energy resources. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Ms. Mall. 

Mr. Lund, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS LUND, PROGRAM MANAGER OF

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION, NATIONAL PARKS 

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LUND. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Cramer, Ranking 

Member Holt, and members of the subcommittee. I am Nick Lund, 

Manager of the Landscape Conservation Campaign at the National 

Parks Conservation Association, or NPCA. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to express NPCA’s views on 

H.R. 1587 on behalf of NPCA’s 800,000 members and supporters 

nationwide. 

National parks serve and protect America’s most treasured landscapes, our history, and our culture, and are a vital resource to millions of Americans. The idea of parks owned by and maintained for 

all citizens was born in the United States, and the existence of 

these national parks, representing the crown jewels of the 

American landscape and the shared experiences of our past emVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
27 

bodies our democratic ideals, and has been called the best idea we 

ever had. 

However, the success of the national park idea depends upon 

careful stewardship of their resources. These lands are set aside 

with a mandate that they remain unimpaired for future generations, and impairment, however incremental, should be permitted 

only as a last resort. In certain situations where potential impacts 

by commercial activities are minor, the National Park Service 

rightly has the authority to manage for and allow impacts that are 

acceptable. However, that discretionary authority does not apply, 

nor should it, in a case where use could cause impairment or an 

unacceptable impact. 

Where impairment to a national park is attended by a continued 

threat of contamination or pollution, such as the establishment of 

new oil and gas pipelines across park lands, the decision to allow 

such a use should be made by the park’s owners, the public, 

through their representatives in Congress. The authors of the 

Mineral Leasing Act’s 1973 pipeline provision understood this 

when they specifically excluded lands in the National Park System 

from those through which the Secretary of the Interior can grant 

rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines. 

In fact, the 1973 provision passed the Senate with national 

parks, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas all being excluded from the Federal lands definition. After conference with the 

House of Representatives, only national park lands remained excluded, highlighting the fact that Congress specifically recognized 

the uniqueness and importance of national parks. 

Unlike other possible rights-of-way across national park lands, 

such as water pipelines or transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines 

carry the risk of leakage or contamination. The Wall Street Journal 

recently counted more than 1,400 pipeline accidents reported in the 

United States since 2010. More than 80 percent of the pipeline 

leaks and ruptures are discovered not by industrial leak detection 

monitors, but by human beings, either pipeline employees or local 

residents. 

The risk of not detecting a leak is greater across national park 

lands that may be less frequently visited. And the impact of a large 

oil spill inside a park could be catastrophic. In these situations, the 

decision to permit such an incompatible use of a national park 

should be left to the public, their representatives, not the Administration in power. 

However, there are situations where running a pipeline across 

park lands is preferable to some other option. In those cases, dictated by specific facts, NPCA has supported such proposals. The 

Congressional Research Service has found at least nine recent examples of Federal legislation authorizing oil and gas pipelines to be 

constructed across park lands around the country. I would like to 

highlight some of those examples. 

In July of last year, NPCA supported provisions in the Denali 

National Park Improvement Act that would allow for a new oil and 

gas pipeline to be constructed along a highway corridor in Denali 

National Park. The routing of the pipeline through that area of the 

park is likely more environmentally friendly than any other alternative, and that bill is now law. 

28 

In 2001, NPCA did not object to a pipeline proposal through 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park at the Gatlinburg Spur. 

The area, while technically part of the park, is not an area where 

the park’s central resources or visitor experience would be diminished by incursion. The bill became law, and the pipeline was built. 

In 2012, NPCA supported the New York City Natural Gas 

Supply Enhancement Act, which included provisions allowing for 

the construction of a natural gas pipeline through Gateway 

National Recreation Area. Studies of the proposal have found that 

the impacts on the recreation area were minor and temporary, and 

the bill is now law. 

The point of these examples is to highlight that the process 

works, as currently established. The drafters of the Mineral 

Leasing Act understood that the Federal Government should only 

encourage private companies to seek easements across national 

park lands for oil and gas pipelines when all other options are exhausted. In the few cases where this last resort is reached, 

Congress has been willing and able to pass legislation allowing the 

exception. 

H.R. 1587 seeks to fix a system that isn’t broken. The bill would, 

in its current state, increase the likelihood of injury and impairment to our national parks. 

Parks continue to occupy an important place in our Nation’s 

hearts, with 95 percent of Americans viewing national parks as 

something that the Federal Government should be protecting and 

supporting. There are a number of reasons that the increase in domestic production of oil and natural gas can be viewed as beneficial 

to our Nation, but the Federal Government should not encourage 

the use of sensitive national park lands for oil and gas pipelines. 

The Mineral Leasing Act provides a logical and effective path for 

oil and gas pipeline easements as it is currently written. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lund follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICK LUND, LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN

MANAGER, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 1587 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the subcommittee, I 

am Nick Lund, Manager of the Landscape Conservation Campaign at the National 

Parks Conservation Association, or NPCA. NPCA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization that has been the leading independent voice in support of protecting and enhancing the National Park System since it was founded in 1919. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to express our views on 

H.R. 1587 on behalf of NPCA’s 800,000 members and supporters nationwide. 

National parks conserve and protect America’s most treasured landscapes, our 

history, and our culture and are a vital resource to millions of Americans. The idea 

of parks owned by and maintained for all citizens was born in the United States, 

and the existence of these national parks—representing the crown jewels of the 

American landscape and the shared experiences of our past—embody our democratic 

ideals and has been called ‘‘the best idea we ever had.’’ 

The success of our national park system is undeniable. Our national parks protect 

our most incredible landscapes and most sacred places, from Denali to the Liberty 

Bell. The huge domestic and international interest in our national park system has 

created robust and stable economies in communities near national parks. More than 

279 million people made recreational visits to national parks in 2011, spending more 

than $12.95 billion in local gateway regions. 

However, the success of the national park idea depends upon careful stewardship 

of their resources. These lands are set aside with a mandate that they remain 

unimpaired for future generations, and impairment, however incremental, should be 

permitted only as a last resort. In certain situations, where potential impacts by 

commercial activities are minor, the National Park Service rightly has the authority 

29 

1Sider, A. (2014, January 20) High-Tech Monitors Often Miss Oil Pipeline Leaks. The Wall 

Street Journal. Online at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ 

SB10001424052702303754404579310920956322040. 

to manage for and allow impacts that are acceptable. However, that discretionary 

authority does not apply, nor should it, in case where a use could cause impairment 

or an unacceptable impact. 

Where impairment to a national park is attended by a continued threat of contamination or pollution, such as the establishment of new oil and gas pipelines 

across park lands, the decision to allow such a use should be made by the parks’ 

owners, the public, through their elected representatives in Congress. The authors 

of the Minerals Leasing Act’s 1973 pipeline provision understood this when they 

specifically excluded lands in the National Park System from those through which 

the Secretary of the Interior can grant rights-of-way for oil and gas pipelines. In 

fact, the 1973 provision passed the Senate with national parks, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas all being excluded from the ‘‘Federal lands’’ definition. 

After conference with the House of Representatives, only national park lands remained excluded, highlighting the fact that Congress specifically recognized the 

uniqueness and importance of national parks. 

Unlike other possible rights-of-way across national parks lands, such as water 

pipelines or transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines carry the risk of leakage or 

contamination. The Wall Street Journal recently counted more than 1,400 pipeline 

accidents reported in the United States since 2010. More than 80 percent of pipeline 

leaks and ruptures are discovered not by industrial leak-detection monitors but by 

human beings—either pipeline employees or local residents.1 The risk of not detecting a leak is greater across national park lands that might be less frequently visited, and the impact of a large oil spill inside a park could be catastrophic. In these 

situations, the decision to permit such an incompatible use of national park lands 

should be left to the public, through their representatives, not the administration 

in power. 

However, there are situations where running a pipeline across park lands is preferable to some other option, and in those cases, dictated by specific facts, NPCA has 

supported such proposals. The Congressional Research Service has found at least 

nine recent examples of Federal legislation authorizing oil and gas pipelines to be 

constructed across national park lands across the country. 

I’d like to highlight some of those examples. In July of last year, NPCA supported 

provisions in the Denali National Park Improvement Act that would allow for a new 

oil and gas pipeline to be constructed on a highway corridor in Denali National 

Park. The routing of the pipeline through that area of the park is likely more environmentally friendly than any other alternative. That bill is now law, and the pipeline will be constructed pending completion of the NEPA process. 

In 2001, NPCA did not object to a pipeline proposal through Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, at the Gatlinburg Spur. The area, while technically part 

of the park, is not an area where the park’s central resources or visitor experience 

would be diminished by incursion. The bill became law, and the pipeline was built. 

In 2012, NPCA supported the New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement 

Act, which included provisions allowing for the construction of a natural gas pipeline through Gateway National Recreation Area. Studies of the proposal have found 

that impacts on the recreation area would be minor and temporary, and the bill is 

now law. 

The point of these examples is to highlight that the process works as currently 

established. The drafters of the Mineral Leasing Act understood that the Federal 

Government should only encourage private companies to seek easements across national park lands for oil and gas pipelines when all other options are exhausted. In 

the few cases where this ‘‘last resort’’ is reached, Congress has been willing and able 

to pass legislation allowing the exception. H.R. 1587 seeks to fix a system that isn’t 

broken. The bill would, in its current state, increase the likelihood of injury and impairment to our national parks. 

Parks continue to occupy an important place in the Nation’s hearts, with 95 percent of Americans viewing national parks as something that the Federal 

Government should be protecting and supporting. There are a number of reasons 

that the increase in domestic production of oil and natural gas can be viewed as 

beneficial to our Nation, but the Federal Government should not encourage the use 

of sensitive national parks lands for oil and gas pipelines. The Mineral Leasing Act 

provides a logical and effective path for oil and gas pipeline easements as it is currently written. 

I would be happy to answer any questions members of the subcommittee might 

have. 

30 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Lund, for your testimony. 

Now, Mr. Nedd, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEDD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

MINERALS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY HERBERT FROST, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. NEDD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on two bills pertaining to the development of oil and gas pipeline infrastructure on Federal lands. 

With me today to answer any questions specifically related to 

National Park Service is Dr. Herbert Frost, Regional Director for 

the Alaska Region of the National Park Service. 

The Department of the Interior administers a wide range of 

lands and resources that includes wilderness areas, land held in 

trust for Native Americans, our national park system, our national 

wildlife refuge system, and the national system of public land. The 

Bureau of Land Management administers over 245 million surface 

acres on approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface 

mineral estate. 

Together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BLM also conducts energy permitting on approximately 56 million acres of land 

held in trust by the Federal Government on behalf of tribes and individual Indian owners. The Department of the Interior has made 

it a priority to ensure a clean energy future to environmentally responsible development of renewable and conventional energy on 

Federal and Indian lands. 

Oil and gas transmission is a critical component of these energy 

efforts, and the BLM plays a key role by issuing rights-of-way 

grants for oil and natural gas gathering, distribution, transmission, 

pipelines, and related facility. Notably, the BLM oil and gas pilot 

offices authority, that has been expanded to include our Dickinson 

office in North Dakota, are particularly effective for permitting 

these pipelines. 

Since 2009, the BLM has participated in the approval of seven 

major oil and gas projects, totaling nearly 1,750 miles, with nearly 

750 of those miles crossing Federal lands. In the next 18 months, 

the BLM is expected to complete review and disposition of three 

more major pipeline projects, totaling nearly 500 additional miles, 

with nearly 250 of those miles crossing Federal land. This work is 

in addition to the thousands of miles of smaller pipeline projects 

that are approved every year to transport oil and gas from the production site to the larger gathering pipelines and the major transport pipeline facilities. 

The activities called for in H.R. 4293, the Natural Gas Gathering 

Enhancement Act, are already within the scope of existing Department authorities, and consistent with our priorities and activities 

already underway. The Department strongly opposes the categorical exclusion from NEPA of pipelines activity, as proposed in 

H.R. 4293. The engagement of the public through the environmental review process under NEPA is a crucial component of the 

31 

BLM’s multiple use management of the public lands. H.R. 4293 

would prohibit the BLM from engaging in this important public 

participation and environmental analysis process, and prohibit the 

BLM from engaging in site-specific NEPA analysis, if needed, for 

particular natural gas pipelines. 

The Department strongly opposes the provision of H.R. 1587, the 

Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act, which would authorize 

the Secretary to issue a permit for oil and gas pipelines on 

National Park Service lands, reversing the long-standing prohibition on allowing such pipeline in our Nation’s national parks, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. The disturbance associated 

with the laying of pipelines, as well as the transportation of oil and 

gas products via pipeline is inconsistent with the conservation 

mandate in the National Park Service Organic Act, and would 

overturn long-standing and necessary protection of park system 

resources and value. 

The Department also opposes H.R. 1587 because it contains 

provisions which are redundant or conflict with existing BLM authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant right-of-ways for 

pipelines through Federal land. These new provisions would raise 

confusion for land management agencies, applicants, and public regarding what authority should be followed, what requirement must 

be met, and what new regulation would be required. The Department continues to work hard to increase the capacity to transport 

energy resources, where appropriate, across Federal lands, and has 

been successfully coordinating with our State and tribal partners. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on 

H.R. 4293 and H.R. 1587. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nedd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. NEDD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS AND

REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR ON H.R. 4293 AND H.R. 1587 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of the 

Interior (Department) on H.R. 4293 and H.R. 1587. H.R. 4293 would categorically 

exclude from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) the permitting of natural gas gathering lines, and would establish deadlines 

for such authorizations on Federal and Indian lands. The Department strongly opposes H.R. 4293, which would prohibit the BLM from engaging in valuable public 

participation and analysis under NEPA. The NEPA process is invaluable to sound 

public land management, providing a formal opportunity for public engagement, 

consideration of environmental impacts, and identification of unknown or unforeseen issues. Both the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture 

have capabilities to effectively and efficiently evaluate and process pipeline applications including the use of categorical exclusions where relevant criteria apply. Both 

Departments also appreciate the need to capture natural gas and are actively seeking means to be responsive while protecting public lands. 

The Department also opposes H.R. 1587 which contains provisions which are redundant or conflict with existing Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) authority regarding 

granting pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) through Federal lands, and strongly opposes 

the bill’s provisions that would authorize the Secretary to issue a permit for oil and 

gas pipelines on Department-administered lands, which would now include National 

Park Service (NPS) lands. 

Background 

The Department of the Interior administers a wide range of lands and resources 

that includes wilderness areas, lands held in trust for Native Americans, our 

National Park System, our National Wildlife Refuge System, and our National 

System of Public Lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for 

protecting the resources and managing the uses of our Nation’s public lands, which 

32 

are located primarily in 12 western States, including Alaska. The BLM administers 

over 245 million surface acres and approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. The BLM, together with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA), also provides permitting and oversight services under the 

Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 on approximately 56 million acres of land held 

in trust by the Federal Government on behalf of tribes and individual Indian 

owners. The BLM plays an important role in ensuring safe and effective management of 

mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands. The BLM works closely with surface 

management agencies, including the BIA and tribal governments, in the management of the subsurface mineral estate. While the BLM cooperates with its Federal 

partners to provide consistent and responsible oil and gas management, the BLM 

alone is delegated the responsibility of managing public and Indian Trust minerals. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 establishes the statutory framework to promote 

the exploration and development of oil and natural gas from the Federal onshore 

mineral estate. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has emphasized that, as the 

Nation moves toward the new energy frontier, the development of conventional 

energy resources from BLM-managed public lands will continue to play a critical 

role in meeting the Nation’s energy needs. Facilitating the safe, responsible, and efficient development of these domestic oil and gas resources is one of the BLM’s 

many responsibilities and part of the administration’s broad energy strategy, outlined in the President’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Environmentally responsible development of these resources will help protect consumers and reduce our 

Nation’s reliance on oil imports, while protecting our Federal lands and the environment. As part of this effort, the Department is working with various agencies in 

support of Executive Order 13604 to improve the performance of Federal permitting 

and review of infrastructure projects by increasing transparency, predictability, accountability, and continuous improvement of routine infrastructure permitting and 

reviews. 

Oil production from Federal onshore lands is at its highest level in over a decade, 

with onshore production about 35 percent above 2008 levels according to the most 

current available data. The amount of producing Federal acreage continues to increase, and grew by over 300,000 acres from 2011 to 2013. The total number of well 

bores on Federal lands has increased by over 3,400 wells during this same period 

to nearly 94,000 total wells. 

Well-paying jobs are often associated with oil and gas exploration and development, and provide crucial revenues and economic activity in many communities. 

Royalties from onshore public land oil and gas development were nearly $3 billion 

in Fiscal Year 2013. Approximately half of that total ($1.4 billion) was paid directly 

to the States in which the development occurred and is used to fund important 

State priorities. Over $930 million in mineral revenues was disbursed to American 

Indian tribes from production on Indian lands—an increase of more than $200 

million over Fiscal Year 2012 disbursements. 

Fundamental to all of the BLM’s management actions—including authorization of 

oil and gas exploration and development—is the agency’s land use planning and 

NEPA processes. These open, public processes are the vehicle by which proposals 

for managing particular resources are made known to the public in advance of taking action. The BLM is committed to providing the environmental review and public 

involvement opportunities required by NEPA for proposals to use BLM-managed 

lands. In addition, as required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), the BLM strives to achieve a balance between oil and gas production and 

development of other natural resources and protection of the environment and cultural resources. The land-use planning and NEPA processes are vital tools used to 

achieve this statutory mandate. 

Oil & Gas Pipelines 

As authorized by the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA, Section 28), the BLM issues 

ROW grants for oil and natural gas gathering, distribution, and transmission pipelines and related facilities. The BLM may grant MLA ROWs on any public land, or 

on land administered by two or more Federal agencies, except land in the National 

Park System or land held in trust for Indian tribes. Oil and gas production is now 

outpacing pipeline capacity and creating bottlenecks in some locations, putting a 

strain on America’s pipeline infrastructure. 

Since 2009, the BLM has participated in the approval of seven major pipeline expansion projects totaling nearly 1,750 miles of new oil and gas pipeline with nearly 

750 of those miles crossing Federal lands. In the next 18 months, the BLM is expected to complete review and disposition of three more major pipeline projects totaling nearly 500 hundred additional miles with nearly 250 of those miles across 

33 

Federal lands. Work on these major oil and gas pipeline projects is in addition to 

the thousands of miles of smaller pipeline projects that are approved every year to 

transport oil and gas from the production site to the larger gathering pipelines and 

the major transport pipeline facilities. 

H.R. 4293, ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act’’ 

H.R. 4293 amends several laws to provide additional authority for the Secretary 

of the Interior to approve natural gas pipelines and gathering lines on Federal and 

Indian land. Section 4 of the bill amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and adds 

a new provision (section 319) to categorically exclude from NEPA review certain gas 

gathering lines and associated field compression units. Under the bill, such lines 

would be categorically excluded from NEPA review if they are within an area that 

has a land use plan or environmental document that analyzed transportation of natural gas produced from oil wells as a reasonably foreseeable activity and also are 

located adjacent to an existing disturbed area for the construction of a road or oil 

and gas pad. The bill’s categorical exclusion (CX) is applicable to BLM-managed 

lands and other Federal lands with two exceptions: (1) if the Governor in which the 

lands are located requests that the CX not be applied; and (2) if an Indian tribe 

requests the CX be applied on tribal lands. 

Section 4 of the bill further amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and adds a 

new provision to require the Secretary to conduct a study to identify any actions 

that may be taken under Federal law or regulation, or changes to Federal law or 

regulation, to expedite permitting for gas gathering lines and associated field compression units that are located on Federal land or Indian land. This section requires 

the Secretary to prepare a report to Congress every 180 days on the progress made 

in expediting permits for gas gathering lines and associated field compression units 

that are located on Federal or Indian land and on any issues impeding that 

progress. 

Finally, Section 5 of H.R. 4293 amends the MLA to require the Secretary to issue 

a sundry notice or ROW for a gas gathering line and associated field compression 

unit not later than 30 days after receiving the request from the pipeline proponent 

if the request meets the criteria in section 4 of the bill, and not later than 60 days 

after receiving the request if it does not meet the section 4 criteria. The bill (section 

6) also amends FLPMA to require the same approval timeframes. 

Analysis 

The Department strongly opposes the categorical exclusion from NEPA review of 

pipeline activities as proposed in H.R. 4293. The engagement of the public through 

the environmental review process under NEPA is a crucial component of the BLM’s 

multiple-use management of the public lands and for the consideration and mitigation of impacts to adjacent resources and lands. These open, public processes facilitate the consideration of impacts to the affected environment and identify unknown 

or unforeseen issues, which is invaluable to sound public land management. The 

BLM is committed to providing the environmental review and public involvement 

opportunities required by NEPA for proposals for the use of BLM-managed lands. 

H.R. 4293 would prohibit the BLM from engaging in this important public participation and environmental analysis process, in addition to prohibiting the BLM from 

engaging in site-specific NEPA analysis if needed for particular natural gas pipelines. 

The activities called for in H.R. 4293 are already within the scope of existing 

Department authorities and consistent with our priorities and activities already underway. For example, for an area that has a land use plan or environmental document for transportation of natural gas as a reasonably foreseeable activity, the BLM 

could use its existing authorities to authorize the activity following a determination 

that the existing NEPA is adequate, provided the necessary site-specific analysis 

and the environmental document found the action would not cause a significant impact to other resources. 

The Department also strongly opposes the bill’s provisions in section (4) that 

would allow each State Governor to decide the appropriate level of NEPA analysis 

to be done by the BLM for pipeline projects on Federal lands within that State. In 

addition to the practical problems that this raises with pipelines that may cross 

State jurisdictional lines, giving State Governors the authority to determine planning activities on Federal lands would limit the BLM’s ability to comply with its 

obligations under Federal law. The bill contains a related provision which applies 

to tribal land and the Department has concerns that the provision may conflict with 

the agency’s legal responsibility for consultation, stewardship and oversight service 

under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938. 

34 

The Department also has concerns about the requirement to conduct a study to 

identify proposed changes to Federal law or regulations and to report every 180 

days on progress to expedite permitting for gas gathering lines and associated field 

compression units that are located on Federal land or Indian land and impediments 

to that progress. If enacted, these requirements would divert limited BLM resources 

from oil and gas permitting, inspection and enforcement activities and result in the 

further delay of environmentally responsible development of pipeline infrastructure. 

Sections 5 and 6 of H.R. 4293, which require the Secretary to issue a sundry 

notice or ROW not later than 30 or 60 days after receiving the request from the 

project proponent, are also very concerning. The provision does not contain any requirement for the proponent’s request to be fully complete prior to submission. This 

provision removes discretion from the Secretary to authorize the sundry notice or 

ROW. Furthermore, categorical exclusions still require consideration of extraordinary circumstances before they can be applied, even if NEPA analysis is not 

required, and this consideration may be challenging to complete within the 30- or 

60-day timeframes. 

Finally, the Department opposes the provision in section 6 amending section 504 

of FLPMA. This provision would allow the Secretary to authorize gas gathering 

lines via the authority of Title V of FLPMA, which sets out the requirements for 

many other types of ROWs. However, section 501(a)(2) of FLPMA prohibits the 

Secretary from using the Title V authority to authorize oil and gas pipelines, instead deferring to the MLA. The proposed amendment to section 504 of FLPMA 

would give contradictory direction to the BLM. In addition, it should be noted that 

under the MLA, 50 percent of the receipts from annual rents for oil and gas pipelines ROWs are provided to State governments in which the pipeline is located, in 

contrast to the treatment of receipts from FLPMA ROWs, none of which are provided to State governments. 

H.R. 1587, ‘‘Energy Infrastructure Improvement Act’’ 

H.R. 1587 provides new direction for the Department in granting ROWs through 

Federal lands for petroleum pipeline purposes—separate and apart from the existing authorization provided in the Mineral Leasing Act. The bill authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for 

ROWs, temporary easements, or other necessary authorizations to facilitate natural 

gas, oil and petroleum product pipelines and related facilities on eligible Federal 

lands—including lands managed by the NPS. 

The bill requires the Secretary to include terms and conditions for the ROW and 

states modifications to these terms and conditions must be agreed to by the permittee. Under the bill, the Secretary could recover costs of processing, issuing, and 

monitoring the permit and an annual rental fee of the fair market value of the use. 

The bill also authorizes the Secretary to determine the initial term for a ROW permit based on costs incurred, useful life of the pipeline and the public and economic 

purposes served and requires the Secretary to renew the ROW provided the project 

is in commercial operation and is operated and maintained in accordance with the 

terms and conditions. Finally, the bill provides authority for the Secretary to impose 

citations, fines, or revoke a permit for failure to comply with any terms and conditions of the permit and also provides that a permittee may file suit to challenge a 

final decision in the United States Court of Appeals. 

Analysis 

The Department strongly opposes H.R. 1587’s provisions that would authorize the 

Secretary to issue a permit for oil and gas pipelines on NPS lands—reversing the 

longstanding prohibition on allowing such pipelines in our Nation’s national parks 

unless explicitly authorized by Congress. In its 1973 amendments to the MLA, 

Congress determined that such lands would not be part of the general ROW provisions. This specific exemption in the MLA protects the integrity, resources, and values of the National Park System. The significant infrastructure associated with the 

clearing, grading, trenching, stringing, welding, coating and laying of pipeline as 

well as the transportation of oil and gas products via pipeline, which carries the risk 

of oil spillage and gas explosions, is inconsistent with the conservation mandate set 

forth in the NPS Organic Act. H.R. 1587 would overturn longstanding and necessary protection of park system resources and values, visitor experience, and 

human health and safety and would undermine the very purpose for which National 

Park System units were created. 

The Department is also concerned that H.R. 1587’s provisions could be interpreted to authorize the Secretary to issue a permit for oil and gas pipelines on lands 

that are a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, a concept the 

Department strongly opposes. 

35 

The Department also opposes H.R. 1587 because it contains provisions granting 

ROWs through Federal lands for pipeline purposes which are redundant or conflict 

with existing BLM authority under the MLA. These new provisions would raise confusion for land management agencies, applicants, and the public regarding which 

authority should be followed, which ‘‘sideboards’’ apply, what requirements must be 

met and what new regulations would be required. For example, the bill authorizes 

the Department to issue permits for pipeline ROWs, but remains silent on the width 

of any ROW that a permit might affect and does not provide a fixed term for the 

ROW as provided for under the MLA. In contrast, the MLA identifies a 50 foot maximum ROW and an initial term of no more than 30 years. The bill also fails to identify where an annual rental fee would be deposited. Also of concern are the bill’s 

provisions that require mandatory renewal of the ROW and that allow modifications 

to the permit only if they are agreed upon by the permittee. The Department believes that the bill’s new authority to issue citations or impose fines would be better 

suited for inclusion in the MLA. 

Finally, H.R. 1587 omits a number of important procedural and substantive safeguards Congress previously required with the issuance of ROWs, including: a right 

of public notice and comment; bonding requirements; pipeline safety and environmental protection provisions; technical and financial capability requirements; 

disclosure regarding entity ownership; and width limitations. 

Conclusion 

The Department has been successful and continues working hard to increase the 

capacity to transport energy resources where appropriate across Federal lands and 

in coordination with our State and tribal partners. The BLM plays an active role 

in providing suitable lands to modernize the Nation’s pipeline infrastructure in an 

environmentally responsible way to efficiently distribute the Nation’s energy 

resources. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 4293 and 

H.R. 1587. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Nedd, and thank all of you for your 

statements. We will now begin questioning. Members, as you were 

reminded, are limited to 5 minutes for their questions, but we may 

have additional rounds if there are more questions after the first 

round. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And I want to pursue, Mr. Nedd, with you the line of your testimony because you state that my bill eliminates the NEPA requirements, and thus, the NEPA process. But isn’t the use of categorical 

exclusions, as you have testified to, already part of the NEPA process? And, if so, can you tell me areas where the Administration 

does, in fact, use categorical exclusions to get around the NEPA 

process? 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, again, the Department recognizes the 

importance of public involvement. And categorical exclusion, the 

administrative categorical exclusion may be used within a right-ofway where site-specific NEPA has already been performed. 

Mr. CRAMER. But when developing a land use, don’t you assume 

or prepare or go through the NEPA, where you have already had 

public engagement of the plan, don’t you assume the possibility of 

things like a gathering line might be an important part of other oil 

and gas activity on that same land? And so doesn’t the public have 

its opportunity? 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, in a land use plan it is done for a higher level for allocation, resource allocation. That land use plan may 

contemplate transportation of oil or gas, but does not engage in a 

site-specific NEPA to understand the impacts on the ground on 

that site to any conservation values. 

Mr. CRAMER. So doesn’t it make sense, though, that we would, 

in that process, then, at least consolidate the NEPA process? In 

36 

other words, I am looking for a solution that doesn’t shortcut public 

participation and involvement, but rather, consolidates it. So we 

can do it more efficiently, without jeopardizing the environment. 

Can’t we do that in that process? 

Mr. NEDD. I believe, Congressman, the Department already has 

a process that would allow site-specific NEPA at a time an APD 

or any type of right-of-way is contemplated. And so, during that 

process, it would allow a site-specific and then a right-of-way within that right-of-way, that has already been analyzed, would be appropriate with the appropriate DNA, or something to that effect. 

So, again, looking for the site-specific while in the land use plan 

is more the resource allocation level. 

Mr. CRAMER. Let me ask you this. Didn’t the Department use 

categorical exclusion to expand the permitting for wind projects to 

kill birds from 5 years to 30 years without public comment, and 

without the NEPA public participation process? And now the 

Department believes a single decision to approve, say, 2 miles of 

gathering line in North Dakota for gas in a right-of-way that 

already exists requires years more environmental oversight than 

allowing a 30-year exclusion for killing birds with wind farms? I 

mean doesn’t that seem inconsistent? 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, I am not familiar with the reference to 

wind and the killing of birds, so I cannot comment on that. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. Let me say to you, as well, as not only 

a Member from North Dakota, but having served 10 years as an 

environmental regulator in the oil and gas and coal and the energy 

industry as a public service commissioner in North Dakota, your 

employees, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture employees out in the Forest Service really are some of the hardest working people I know. They do an incredible job with the resources 

they have. I get the sense sometimes, though, that they don’t have 

the full support back here that they ought to have. 

We have, as you know, tried to provide and have successfully 

provided you all some latitude in compensating them properly, 

given the fact that the rent in the Bakken is higher than 

Manhattan, and the standard of living is equal to many different 

places. We are trying to help them and help you keep people. But 

what I am trying to do with this bill, and I think what both bills 

try to do, is not shortcut anything, and try to reduce that workload 

in a way that is responsible for the environment. 

Now, you have testified, I think, in your testimony that the government has a problem, or the Administration has a problem with 

the 3 months, every 3 months of responding or reporting. Is there 

some way that you can see in this that we can work together to 

ease that a little bit, and maybe report every 6 months, 1 year, 

every other year? Is there some compromise we can find here that 

we can get the support of the Administration to consolidating this 

process, so that we can stop flaring this gas? 

Because, as Ms. Mall testified, this gas is not only a waste product, it is also a pollutant, it is an emission of CO2 gases without 

any value added to it. Do you see any room for compromise here? 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, I agree with you, BLM employees are 

certainly some of the hardest working employees I have known. 

37 

And spending time in Montana myself a few years ago, I can attest 

to that. 

And, you know, Congressman, we are always open for looking for 

ways to allow our employees to get the resources. But the Administration clearly wants to make certain the NEPA process allows 

public participation and be able to look at those site-specific impacts. So, Congressman, again, I believe finding ways to increase 

resources is a good thing, and finding ways to make certain we 

continue to have public involvement is a great way, and the Administration, I presume, would want to talk on that level. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. Thank you very much. My time has 

expired. I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Holt. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Mr. Nedd, if I may continue with you, is 

there any evidence that the NEPA review for gas gathering pipelines has been a significant contributor to excessive flaring, a 

contributor to that flaring? 

Mr. NEDD. No, Congressman, there has been no evidence I am 

aware of. 

Dr. HOLT. And do you have any evidence what is causing the 

flaring? 

Mr. NEDD. You know, Congressman, around the Nation certainly, 

but if I may go to North Dakota, where it seems to be one of the 

hot spots, it is a relatively new play, the Bakken. The infrastructure is not fully developed. And, frankly speaking, as operators look 

at how best to make their decision, they sometimes find that it is 

easier to flare than it is to go through the process of getting the 

gathering line. 

Dr. HOLT. How long does it typically take for the BLM to do a 

required environmental review for a gas gathering pipeline? Do you 

have a typical time or a median time? 

Mr. NEDD. Yes, Congressman. Less than 3 months. We have 

looked across a range and it is less than 3 months. 

Dr. HOLT. Less than 3 months. OK. 

Now, let me try to get this in perspective, too. Oil and gas production on Federal lands in North Dakota has gone up significantly 

in the last 4 or 5 years. According to the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue, since 2009 Federal land gas production is up 

33 percent. And Federal land oil production has gone up 85 percent. 

But I would like to get this in perspective. The Federal production is still a very small fraction of the total in North Dakota, less 

than 5 percent of the oil. So why is that fraction so small on 

Federal lands in North Dakota? 

Mr. NEDD. You know, Congressman, the majority of the development in that Bakken area is in either private or State and some 

tribal—— 

Dr. HOLT. But the Federal lands are a small fraction of—— 

Mr. NEDD. Very small fraction. 

Dr. HOLT. Is the flaring in North Dakota just a problem on 

Federal lands, or is it also occurring on private lands? 

Mr. NEDD. It is occurring on private lands, absolutely. 

Dr. HOLT. In fact, it appears, according to the data that I have 

here, that the rate of flaring is higher on private lands than it is 

38 

on Federal lands, and the Federal lands are a very small fraction 

of the total land. 

Ms. Mall, most people think about flaring in the Bakken in 

North Dakota. Are there other areas where flaring is a serious 

problem, other areas of the country? 

Ms. MALL. Yes, definitely. In particular, there have been a lot of 

reports lately of flaring in Texas, in what is called the Eagleford 

Shale Area. 

Dr. HOLT. And is that Federal land? 

Ms. MALL. There is not Federal land there, that is private land. 

Dr. HOLT. I see. Let me also ask you, Ms. Mall, in your testimony 

you said that flaring is an environmental problem, but there are 

other environmental problems to balance that must also be considered. What is the appropriate forum for balancing those various 

kinds of environmental risk? 

Ms. MALL. NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, sets 

out a process that is tried and true over many years for developing 

the best projects possible, including a large priority for public 

input, as Mr. Nedd referenced, and independent experts, such as 

scientists. Generally, with the public input, the agency can then 

consider what are the different alternatives to accomplish a goal, 

what alternative will offer the greatest benefits and the least 

harms. 

Now, the agency doesn’t have to select that alternative. But they 

have to consider—— 

Dr. HOLT. But the procedure shouldn’t be bypassed is what you 

are saying. 

Ms. MALL. It should not be, no. This is an essential way to 

develop this project—— 

Dr. HOLT. I have only a moment left, or less than a minute. Let 

me turn to Mr. Lund—excuse me for interrupting you. 

But, Mr. Lund, in Mr. Santa’s testimony he said that the process 

in the national parks is really an oversight, that the way it used 

to be is the way it should be. But is it not true that in 1973 

Congress deliberately amended Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing 

Act, specifically excluding national parks? 

Mr. LUND. Yes, it is true. 

Dr. HOLT. So this is not an oversight that needs to be corrected, 

do you think? 

Mr. LUND. No. This was considered in both the Senate and the 

House, and conferenced out, and national park lands were left as 

the one needing legislation. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, thank you. I wish we had more time. I 

appreciate your comments. 

Mr. SANTA. May I respond, Mr. Holt? 

Dr. HOLT. One witness wanted to say something. 

Mr. CRAMER. Oh, sure, continue. We’ve got a little time. 

Dr. HOLT. Yes, Mr. Santa. 

Mr. SANTA. Oh, Mr. Holt, thank you. 

Dr. HOLT. Yes. 

Mr. SANTA. I would note that in the 1970s the Department of the 

Interior still interpreted the law to imply that it had the authority 

to authorize natural gas pipelines on National Park Service land, 

but it did not change that interpretation until the mid to late 

39 

1980s. So I would question whether an interpretation of the 1973 

action by Congress to explicitly exclude that authority from 

National Park Service—— 

Dr. HOLT. Well, it may—— 

Mr. SANTA [continuing]. Some question on that. 

Dr. HOLT. It may be that the Park Service wasn’t clear on it, but 

Congress was. I think it is well recorded that this was a deliberate 

exclusion. That is the way it was intended. And the Park Service 

came to understand that. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. We may have time for a second round 

of questioning. We could pursue this further. At this time I would 

recognize Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, sir, and thank you for allowing me to 

bring my son in with me. There are never enough opportunities to 

have your kids with you. 

Mr. CRAMER. Just so you know, Mr. Mullin, you don’t get another 

5 minutes because he is with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MULLIN. Oh, he doesn’t get another 5 minutes? Well, maybe 

he could probably do a better job than I could. 

Either way, I appreciate the panel for being here. And I just 

have a few questions that I kind of want to get through. Being 

from Oklahoma, obviously we are a State that is very well known 

for natural resources. And it is vitally important to our economy. 

And, Mr. Nedd, I have heard you sit up here and you took a lot 

of credit for what this Administration supposedly has done since 

they have been in office. But I find it quite interesting that a lot 

of the stuff they are bragging about is stuff that has been done on 

the private land, not Federal land. But you guys are quick to take 

credit for it. In fact, if we start looking at the development of what 

has happened on private land versus Federal land, it is astonishing. 

I am Cherokee, and we have a lot of land, obviously, in 

Oklahoma that is owned by our nations. And you brought up that 

BLM has quite a bit of land, and with different tribes across there, 

and you started to talk just a second about the improvements that 

you guys have made on Indian territory. And I am kind of curious 

what you are meaning by that, because I hear from the tribes all 

the time, and we have so many natural resources underneath our 

feet, but yet we are always having to turn around and ask you 

guys for permission. If we were treated like private land, we would 

be so much farther along than we are today. But our biggest hindrance we have is your Department. 

So, how is it that you are sitting there just a second ago during 

your testimony, that you were referring to taking credit for something that we have been asking for? I will let you respond to that. 

Mr. NEDD. Well, Congressman, the BLM, certainly through the 

Secretary, works on tribal land for the authorizing of minerals. And 

the BLM works hand in hand to ensure, whether it is through BIA 

leases are issued, or whether it is through the permitting of oil and 

gas. And so, Congressman, I will stand by that, that the BLM 

works with those agencies to permit those activities—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Works with or is a hindrance? Because if we were 

treated like private land, we could get it a lot farther and a lot 

40 

faster. I mean it is private land, it is our land, but yet we are asking you for permission. ‘‘Working with,’’ you make it sound like you 

are trying to help us out. You are not. You are our biggest hindrance, by far. We have been trying to be treated like private land, 

because we are private land. But you guys, for some reason, you 

don’t want to let go. 

And I understand the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, that you 

never want to let go of anything. In fact, I understand that you oppose all these new bills that are coming out, because you guys want 

control of it. But you have to admit there are problems. There are 

problems with the permitting. There are problems when we have 

the tremendous amount of backlog. 

So what would you suggest we do to try speeding this process 

up? Look, we are right on the verge of being able to be completely 

independent of other countries and keeping our gas skyrocketing 

every time there is a little bit of uprising happening over in Iraq 

or other places. And we have to pay for it here in America, when 

we have it underneath our feet, but yet we are trying to develop 

it and we can’t. And we have some bills here that would help push 

that along, and yet you guys are opposed to it. 

So, tell me, what are your suggestions? Keep it the way that it 

is? 

Mr. NEDD. Again, Congressman, through the Indian Minerals 

Leasing Act, Congress granted the Secretary certain authority 

when it comes to Indian trust land. 

Mr. MULLIN. I asked you a question on what your suggestion is. 

If you oppose these bills, give me a better alternative. 

Mr. NEDD. Again, Congressman, I was attempting to respond to 

you. So through that Indian Minerals Act, the Bureau of Land 

Management, on behalf of the Secretary, works with tribes for the 

permitting of oil and gas. We believe, again, it takes about less 

than 3 months to approve a gathering line. And so we are willing 

to work with that process and continue to see how best we can 

move forward. 

Mr. MULLIN. Less than 3 months? There are projects that have 

been on there a lot longer than that we have been asking for. I 

would like to know where you came up with less than 3 months. 

Once again, I am asking you for suggestions. Give me some suggestions. I have quite a few employees that work for me. I don’t 

mind them coming to me with their problems, except come to me 

with your problems with suggestions. If the only thing you want to 

do is oppose, you are not helping the situation. You are hindering 

it. You are just sitting in the way of progress. And that is what I 

see your Administration doing right now, is sitting in the way of 

progress. 

We are trying to advance this country. And yet, you guys take 

credit for it every day. And you are not the one doing it, it is private sector doing it. 

Thank you, and I will yield back my time. 

Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Mullin. 

Just for the good of the order, just to remind people, we expect 

to be voting around 11:20 now, so the House is in recess until 

11:20. 

41 

At this time, Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I am kind of confused. I know in the opening statement that the author, the sponsor, mentioned that one of the problems with NEPA was that there 

were greater amounts of flaring. I would believe the understanding 

is because of the timing and what takes place because of NEPA on 

Federal lands, than there are on State or private lands where 

NEPA is not required. 

Yet, in testimony and questions that were raised by the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Holt, he identified that in 2013 the majority of flaring 

occurred at wells located on private or State lands, 72 percent, and 

the rate of flaring is no higher on Federal public lands than on private State lands. 

I want to ask Ms. Mall. Is there a higher rate of flaring on 

Federal lands? Or are there no real differences? Has NEPA been 

the impediment in this? 

Ms. MALL. I am not aware of any projects to reduce flaring that 

have been delayed by the NEPA process. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK. I guess Mr. Nedd, is that true also? Has 

NEPA been an impediment? And are there higher rates to, again, 

I think you addressed this a little bit earlier, are there higher rates 

of flaring on Federal lands versus private lands? And so, where 

there is no NEPA requirement, to your knowledge? 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, I can’t say there is a higher rate of flaring, especially in the Bakken. I have no knowledge of where NEPA 

has been an impediment that contributed to the flaring. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. The other question I have, Mr. Nedd, is that, 

are you concerned, is the Department concerned that the categorical exclusion in H.R. 4293 would be required to be carried out 

without any consideration of the extraordinary circumstances? And 

what would that mean, if it was done without taking into account 

extraordinary circumstances? 

Mr. NEDD. Again, Congressman, from our interpretation or understanding of the bill, that is true with no extraordinary circumstances. So, therefore, the BLM would not be able to determine 

the impact of a specific action on the resources. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So, therefore, you would not have an assessment by not having, when you are doing the assessment of extraordinary circumstances, I know you addressed this also. Does that 

have an impact in terms of the delay, in terms of getting permits? 

Mr. NEDD. There is no delay in terms of extraordinary 

circumstances in terms of getting a permit, Congressman. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. Mrs. Lummis, you are 

now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota. My 

first question is for Mr. Soth. I would like to ask about not only 

the environmental benefits of not flaring gas, which should be obvious, but what about the economic benefits of gathering and piping 

natural gas instead of flaring it? 

Mr. SOTH. Representative, I was able to show a chart that demonstrated that in the oil and gas pipelines subsector, the industry 

group of construction, according to the most recent data available 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrates that we are at 

42 

an all-time high in the country right now in that sort of employment. 

Those are great jobs. Those are jobs that pay, on average, for 

production and non-supervisory workers, over $26 an hour. These 

are private-sector jobs, and that compares to other jobs in the private sector of less than $20. So that is a substantial differential. 

Those are great jobs. We are at an all-time high in the USA right 

now, and there is substantial investment expected. 

It should be self-evident that having limited infrastructure and 

capacity to move natural gas away from extraction sites to processing facilities is a necessary component to reduce flaring. Those 

gathering lines and the construction thereof will create jobs for operating engineers and other pipeline craft workers, and we are anxious to make sure that Congress is updating and modernizing the 

structure about this regulatory framework in a whole number of 

arenas, especially around this concern with NEPA, to ensure that 

we realize that energy future that all of us have identified in natural gas for this country. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I am sorry I missed that chart, but I will grab it 

from an exhibit from the Chairman. 

You reference the existing pipeline permitting system on Federal 

lands. Could the pipeline infrastructure grow fast enough to catch 

up with the boom in oil production, if the process were more 

streamlined, which, as I understand it, is what the gentleman from 

North Dakota is attempting to accomplish with his bill? 

Mr. SOTH. Well, we really believe that a comprehensive review 

is necessary right now. What we have seen in natural gas has been 

unprecedented. There are a whole range of things that need to be 

done. 

We have been supportive, for example, of H.R. 1900 that has 

been in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction around 

FERC regulatory authority, as well. There are really a whole host 

of things that need to be done, particularly around pipeline regulatory framework, to ensure that we have the energy future that 

we want in this country, and to ensure that we have the kind of 

investment and job growth that will enable all of us to have a 

cleaner and better economy and environment. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Quick question, Mr. Nedd, for you. Is the BLM 

doing anything to speed up the approval of infrastructure necessary to reduce flaring? Certainly the BLM understands and appreciates the desire of taking an economically beneficial product 

from being vented or flared into the air, thereby exacerbating air 

quality problems, and getting it into a pipeline where it can provide economic and heating benefits around the country. 

Mr. NEDD. Congresswoman, certainly the BLM has taken a number of steps. For instance, in the Bakken area, they are a part of 

the Federal family that works with partners to see how to streamline the process. 

The BLM continues to maintain, as part of the APD process, operators can, in fact, include information for a gas line gathering, 

that it would be allowed to be analyzed at that time and approved. 

So we believe there are some vehicles that already exist within our 

authority that can help to expedite this. And in the Bakken, again, 

43 

I said because of the newly formed play or the infrastructure not 

fully developed, operators are making certain decisions. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, let me shift then to Wyoming instead of the 

Bakken. In the Pinedale Anticline, in the Jonah Field and the 

Jonah expansion, which are Federal lands, we have seen the talent, 

the people, the jobs, migrate up to the Bakken because permitting 

is going at a more expedited manner, and there seems to have been 

a slow-down of permitting, especially air quality-related permitting, 

that is slowing down the ability of us to produce oil and gas on 

Federal land in Wyoming. And, of course, Wyoming being half 

Federal lands, we are at the mercy of the Federal Government to 

extract oil and gas from Federal lands. 

North Dakota largely is not Federal lands, it is mostly private 

lands. And so, they are in a position to be more expeditious about 

protecting air quality because of their dealing with private lands 

and not the BLM. 

I just find it rather frustrating that, as the focus of this Administration seems to be on air quality, and now they are shifting over 

to water, trying to usurp a lot of State water rights, and under new 

Federal regulations, just the way they did under air quality regulations, that the result is to release more hydrocarbons into the air 

when it could be gathered and put to beneficial use. And so I just 

simply express that as a frustration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mrs. Lummis. Since we do have some 

time, and there are so few of us, I am going to have another round 

of questioning. It may not be long, but I do want to pursue a couple 

of things since we have you all, and we have the time. So I will 

recognize myself again for 5 minutes. 

And I want to help clarify, because Mr. Lowenthal asked a good 

question, and there is a distinction I think that we should clarify 

since we have the opportunity. Mr. Holt placed into the record this 

Clean Air Task Force report that was developed in the Bakken by 

I think the North Dakota Industrial Commissioner as part of the 

North Dakota Industrial Commission’s efforts. And I also will be 

placing into the record later, without objection, the North Dakota 

Industrial Commissioner’s Flaring Task Force report done by the 

North Dakota Petroleum Council, which has similar information. 

And here is, I think, why there is some conflict. The report that 

Mr. Holt placed into the record states that on private and State 

land in North Dakota, this says specifically, flaring is 29 percent. 

On other Federal land it is 27 percent. But specifically on the Fort 

Berthold Indian Reservation flaring is 46 percent. And it is this relationship, as I started to talk about earlier, with the BIA, the 

tribes, the BLM. Let’s face it, when you take the Federal bureaucracy and throw it into another Federal bureaucracy like the BIA, 

it seems it is hard to deny that it wouldn’t be more cumbersome 

than on private land or perhaps even other Federal land. 

So that is the distinction. It is the distinction between the Fort 

Berthold Indian Reservation, which, in North Dakota, by the way, 

is the heart of the Bakken. A fourth to a third of the Bakken is 

the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. So this distinction is really 

rather massive. 

44 

And I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I sat in a meeting 

with Chairman Tex Hall, the Chairman of the three affiliated 

tribes, and EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, where the Chairman was rather pointed about this reality, that the process for permitting anything, not just the drilling, but the infrastructure, is so 

onerous that there are at least, as he said, 10 permits required to 

do things on Indian lands that aren’t on other lands. 

And that brings me to, I think, Mr. Nedd, I want to pursue this 

a little bit more with you, because in your testimony you actually 

mentioned a provision that gives the Administration some concern 

regarding legal responsibility for consultation, stewardship, and 

oversight service for production on tribal lands. 

So, this provision that you are referring to says that the provisions in this bill, that the bill, my bill, shall be applied if and only 

if the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the Indian land submits 

to the Secretary of the Interior a written request that it apply. Can 

you tell me why the Administration is concerned about giving the 

tribe a choice of whether or not it wants a Federal agency to manage its land? 

I mean I was just with the President of the United States on a 

North Dakota Reservation a week ago, where he talked about honoring sovereignty. And here, the Administration seems to be going 

against that very concept of sovereignty for the tribe. 

Mr. NEDD. Congressman, what I can say, again, is the authority 

under the Indian Minerals Leasing Act certainly allows the BLM 

to work with the tribes in managing those trust lands, that 56 million acres. And in working with the tribes through consultation, the 

BLM certainly incorporates their input into that. 

And so, the Administration feels, again, they have enough authority to proceed to conduct the work under the authority 

Congress has given them, and this bill would just interdict confusion. And the Administration position is that we believe they have 

enough authority already to do that. 

Mr. CRAMER. With all due respect, I think this bill clarifies, it 

doesn’t further confuse. It simply states that it is up to the tribe 

and its administration, in its sovereignty, to determine whether the 

Secretary of the Interior has anything to say about it or not. So, 

I don’t find that confusing. 

It may be in conflict with the Administration’s position, but the 

Administration’s own position as stated in the last week seems to 

be in conflict. On the one hand they support sovereignty; on the 

other hand, they want to continue to have this authority, which is 

adding burden and making job creation on the Indian reservation 

that much more difficult. So, with all due respect, I don’t find that 

answer to be consistent with what I heard from the President a 

week ago. That concludes my questioning. 

Mr. Lowenthal, anything—I thought you might. So, Mr. 

Lowenthal, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think this is a 

fascinating discussion. 

Mr. CRAMER. I am sure you do. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Again, and I just want to be clear, in the Clean 

Air Task Force it talks about in 2013 the total amount of gas proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
45 

duced in the entire State of North Dakota, which was approximately, I am not sure what the unit was, but it was 335,665. 

Private or State lands was 262,100, which was approximately, 

the largest percentage of the total amount of gas produced in North 

Dakota came from private or State lands, 46,000, approximately, 

from the Indian reservation, and other Federal lands about 26,000. 

On private or State lands, of the amount that was flared, 74 percent—or 74,000, or 29 percent, was on private or State lands. Other 

Federal lands was the 27 percent. And so, when you just compare, 

even though the largest amount was on private or State, that is, 

the largest amount of total gas produced in North Dakota was on 

private or State lands, there really isn’t any significant difference 

between that and the other Federal lands. 

You are right that something is going on on the Indian reservation, that is true. And we should understand that. And I think 

what you pointed out is possibly it is the interaction of Federal 

agencies. But that really is not NEPA. 

That is another problem that we should address, why it becomes 

so difficult. Because if we just look at the State and private versus 

Federal, it is not NEPA that is doing it in North Dakota, in terms 

of producing the difficulties or that we are seeing that we need a 

solution to this problem. The solution looks at that interaction and 

the inability to coordinate Federal agencies, and to do that in a 

more succinct way. And I think that is something that we potentially might want to look at and work on. 

But I think that, as Mr. Holt, our Ranking Member, has said, if 

we go down this road, we may be solving a problem that doesn’t 

exist. And it may have some help, but it really might be solving 

the wrong problem. Not that there is not a problem, and especially 

on tribal lands. There is, something is going on, and that you have 

identified, and that is really true. 

My other question I would like to ask to Mr. Frost is, what 

makes oil and gas pipelines different than the other kinds of infrastructure that the National Park Service has now the authority to 

permit on park lands? Why is it different? 

Dr. FROST. Oil and gas has a lot of infrastructure associated with 

it. They have pump houses, there is a lot of maintenance, there are 

roads. And so, just the footprint of the oil and gas pipeline necessary to move the material has a huge footprint that could impact 

park resources. 

The other thing is, in the case of an oil spill, the potential to 

damage resources, both short-term and long-term, are inherently 

much larger than a transmission line. You know, if a transmission 

line tips over, it is going to maybe knock some trees down or something. 

But let’s look at an example. Back in 1996, at Chattanooga and 

Chickamauga National Battlefield, there was a 100,000-gallon oil 

spill that went into the park. Only 2,000 gallons were recovered. 

So that means 98,000 gallons of oil is still in the park somewhere. 

So there is a huge difference in terms of the potential impact and 

then the infrastructure impact needed to sort of support the facilities. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Ms. Mall, I have a question. Your 

organization pays a lot of attention to NEPA reviews, I would asVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:51 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\01 ENERGY & MIN\01JU20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88391.TXT DARLEN
46 

sume. Are you aware of any environmental impact statements on 

gas gathering pipelines that have been particularly contentious or 

challenged by environmental groups? 

Ms. MALL. I am not, no. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I wonder if Mr. Lund, if you are 

aware of any environmental impact statements on gas gathering 

pipelines that have been particularly contentious or challenged by 

environmental groups. 

Mr. LUND. I am not aware of any, either. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. And I would now recognize Mrs. 

Lummis for 5 minutes for a second round of questioning. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the Chairman. And I am delighted to hear 

Mr. Lowenthal say that we have problems on Indian lands with regard to multiple layers of bureaucracy. And it does transcend just 

oil and gas production. It goes to grazing and a whole variety of 

things. And it is recognized as a bipartisan issue. In other words, 

during Republican presidencies, heads of the BIA were extremely 

frustrated. During Democrat administrations the heads of the BIA 

were tremendously frustrated. 

I know when Larry Echo Hawk was the BIA Director under the 

Obama administration and came to Interior and Environment 

Appropriations Subcommittee, which I served on, he expressed a 

lot of frustration about the bureaucratic web that seems almost impossible to fix. And one would think a man of his stature and 

knowledge and legal skills and background and capabilities might 

have been able to cut through some of that. And even he, I believe, 

left frustrated. So, you think of the frustration at the top, think of 

the frustration of the people who are living under this web and layers of bureaucracy. 

I know that on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, in 

Indian County elsewhere in the country as well, you have to get 

permission from the Federal Government to turn your cattle into 

a specific pasture, and it can be delayed for weeks, if not months, 

after which the issue is moot. I mean you have to make hay while 

the sun shines, as they say. 

And so, we have a genuine, serious problem with multiple layers 

of bureaucracy with regard to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And it 

is just paralyzing progress in Indian country. And I appreciate that 

it is acknowledged as a issue by both parties that needs to be addressed. And you know, God help us do that at some point. 

Question now. I am pivoting to Mr. Marino’s bill. And, Mr. 

Santa, can you tell me if Mr. Marino’s bill will modify the amount 

of environmental analysis that the Park Service has to conduct for 

a pipeline project? 

Mr. SANTA. Mrs. Lummis, I do not believe that it will, because, 

under the current law, even though separate statutory authorization is required to authorize the Park Service to grant the rightof-way, the Park Service still needs to conduct that review. So the 

current law is duplicative, and I think in no way would add to the 

work that the Park Service would have to perform. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Following up, then, does it remove the ability of 

the Park Service to say no to a project? 

47 

Mr. SANTA. As with other forms of infrastructure, where it has 

the authority to grant rights-of-way, the Park Service would have 

the authority to deny or condition the grant of a right-of-way. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. What other safeguards are already built into the 

permitting process to make sure infrastructure like pipelines have 

only negligible impacts on a park? 

Mr. SANTA. Well, interstate pipelines have to be authorized by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That involves NEPA 

review. In addition to that, there are a host of other Federal environmental laws with which pipelines need to comply, and with 

which pipelines need to obtain permits from Federal agencies or, 

in many cases, State agencies acting pursuant to delegated authority. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you have an opinion about whether the Park 

Service has a good track record in managing infrastructure projects 

to protect the parks? 

Mr. SANTA. I have no reason to believe that they do not have a 

good record in doing so. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you expect anything less when it comes to gas 

pipelines? 

Mr. SANTA. No, I do not. I think they will fulfill their responsibilities. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You know, we have created a lot of new monuments and Federal designations while I have been here in 

Congress, and that means more and more lands are being subject 

to these extra layers of scrutiny. And so I think that, because of 

that, and because some of these areas are absolutely geographically 

massive, that we do have to come to terms with this issue. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back with appreciation for 

your fine work as a former regulator and a knowledgeable member 

of your State’s—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS [continuing]. Massive house delegation. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much. And thank all of you. This 

will end our questioning at this time. 

I might just mention that this committee and this House did, in 

fact, pass the Native American Energy Act some time ago, Mr. 

Young’s bill, you may recall, that did similar things, perhaps even 

on a grander scale, codifying without any doubt the tribe’s jurisdiction over its own land. That is yet to be taken up in the Senate. 

So, again, Members may have additional questions for the record, 

and I would encourage all of you to answer those if they provide 

them in writing. 

And then one final order of business. I ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record a letter from the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe in support of H.R. 4293; also some written testimony provided by Continental Resources; and also this report, the NDPC 

Flaring Task Force, North Dakota Industrial Commission, which 

has, I think, some of the same information that Ranking Member 

Holt offered up earlier. 

[No response.] 

Mr. CRAMER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information submitted by Mr. Cramer for the record 

follows:] 

48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BLU HULSEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AND

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. ON H.R. 4293 

Good morning Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Blu Hulsey and I am Vice President of Government and 

Regulatory Affairs for Continental Resources, Inc. Continental is an oil and gas company that explores and produces primarily in the Bakken play in North Dakota and 

Montana and the SCOOP play in Oklahoma. Continental is a top 10 independent 

oil and gas producer in America and currently produces approximately 155,000 barrels of oil per day. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of this committee 

today and specifically to comment on H.R. 4293, ‘‘The Natural Gas Gathering 

Enhancement Act’’ authored by Congressman Cramer. 

Continental Resources is currently the largest acreage holder in the Bakken formation with more than 1.2 million acres under lease. As a State relatively new to 

oil and gas production, North Dakota is rapidly expanding infrastructure and has 

recently adopted a program requiring that operators develop and adopt Gas Capture 

Plans (GCPs) to encourage the planning of gas gathering infrastructure and to encourage the use of current technology to capture produced gas, thereby curtailing 

flaring. The North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), in cooperation with the 

North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC), has explored many technologies and actions that could be included in these GCPs to facilitate the capture and usage of 

natural gas thereby setting a process to curtail flaring in North Dakota. While 

Continental continues to search for additional methods to effectively capture gas 

and thereby reduce flaring, we still face some challenges and one of those major 

challenges is securing right-of-ways for connection activities. Challenges with infrastructure development also include delays in zoning by counties and townships for 

midstream facilities, a short construction season due to weather, and a limited number of available construction crews in the State. All of these issues make timing reliability of right-of-way permits that much more critical. 

Continental understands and is committed to reducing flared natural gas volumes 

and has been successful in reducing the percentage of gas flared from Continental 

operated wells in the North Dakota Bakken to less than 11 percent of the total volume of gas produced from those wells. One of the impediments to capturing this gas 

and reducing flaring is the development of infrastructure in the form of natural gas 

gathering lines and pipelines required to deliver this gas to market. The ability to 

secure right-of-way for these gathering systems is at the root of this infrastructure 

issue. On private lands, in most cases, this right-of-way can be obtained through negotiation with the property owner. The process for obtaining access across Federal 

lands can take much longer and for National Park Service (NPS) lands, it requires 

an act of Congress. 

The current process of obtaining right-of-way through National Parks for gas 

gathering lines requires the National Parks Service to obtain approval from 

Congress, making this much more complicated than any other Federal right-of-way 

process. This antiquated approval system dates back to 1901 and should be brought 

up to modern standards. This bill would allow the Secretary of the Interior to grant 

that authority for natural gas pipelines provided the action is consistent with the 

primary purposes of the proposed area and the applicant fulfills all other legal requirements of the Department. For example all NEPA requirements would still have 

to be fulfilled. We support this effort to streamline the decisionmaking process and 

feel this is a common sense approach to what should be a simple process. 

H.R. 4293 also partially consolidates the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process by categorically excluding the issuance of right-of-way for natural 

gas gathering lines and compressor stations from NEPA in a field or unit where an 

environmental document has already been prepared under NEPA or which are adjacent to an existing disturbed area for the construction of a road or well pad. This 

change in statute will remove yet another impediment to the overall permitting 

process by consolidating regulatory requirements. The benefits of applying an existing NEPA review to a project in an area already subject to a NEPA document simply makes sense and eliminates costly duplicative studies on the same piece of land. 

By consolidating these regulatory steps, the NEPA requirement is maintained but 

the process is much less onerous on the developers of the infrastructure. 

The issuance of Federal permits may be held up for many different reasons. The 

proposed legislation establishes enforceable deadlines for the issuance of permits for 

natural gas gathering lines. Continental would even suggest this portion of the act 

be modified to establish a ‘‘date certain’’ after which a decision of some sort would 

be granted by default. It has been our experience that delays tend to be the rule 

rather than the exception and a ‘‘date certain’’ would allow for improved planning 

49 

to occur and a decision would be certain on the established deadline, 30 or 60 days 

from the date of receipt of a completed application. 

Finally, H.R. 4293 provides an assessment whereby this enhanced permitting 

process can be monitored for effectiveness and whereby mid-course corrections can 

be made. It is our feeling that any positive movement toward streamlining the permit to drill or right-of-way approval process is a move in the right direction. The 

Federal Government should always be reviewing its regulatory and permitting processes in such a way that it is constantly moving toward a more effective and efficient permitting process. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this very important 

legislation. Continental understands the need to conserve our valuable natural resources and is making every effort to deliver every molecule of the fossil fuels its 

wells produce to the markets where they needed most. We therefore support any 

action on behalf of this body and Congressman Cramer to streamline regulatory 

processes to assist our industry in more effectively building the infrastructure that 

delivers these valuable assets to market. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4293 

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE, 

IGNACIO, CO, 

JUNE 17, 2014. 

Hon. DOUG LAMBORN, Chairman, 

Hon. RUSH HOLT, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Energy & Minerals, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Tribe ’s Support for the Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act (H.R. 4293) 

DEAR CHAIRMAN LAMBORN AND RANKING MEMBER HOLT: 

I am writing in support of H.R. 4293, the ‘‘Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement 

Act,’’ introduced by Rep. Cramer in March 2014, and referred to this subcommittee 

thereafter. 

On behalf of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council (the Tribe), I appreciate the 

opportunity to express the Tribe’s support for this important natural gas-related 

legislation. Before commenting on the bill, some background is in order. 

For more than a decade, the Tribe has worked with its congressional delegation 

and the committees of jurisdiction to achieve positive changes to statutes, regulations and policies so that it can develop its energy resources in an effective way for 

the benefit of the Tribe’s members. In so doing, the Tribe has become a major producer of natural gas and the economic engine of southwest Colorado. 

Profile of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

Despite the challenging land ownership pattern on the Reservation, the Tribe has 

worked hard to establish solid working relationships with the State of Colorado and 

local governmental entities, which have minimized conflict and emphasized cooperation. 

Our Reservation is a part of the San Juan Basin, which has been a prolific source 

of oil and natural gas production since the 1940s. Commencing in 1949, the Tribe 

began issuing leases under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. For several decades, we remained the recipients of modest royalty revenue, but were not 

engaged in any active, comprehensive resource management planning. That changed 

in the 1970s as we and other energy resource tribes in the West recognized the potential importance of monitoring oil and gas companies for lease compliance and 

maintaining a watchful eye on the Federal agencies charged with managing our 

resources. 

A series of events in the 1980s laid the groundwork for our subsequent success 

in energy development. In 1980, the Tribal Council established an in-house Energy 

Department, which spent several years gathering historical information about our 

energy resources and lease records. In 1982, following a key U.S. Supreme Court 

decision, the Tribe enacted a severance tax, which has produced more than $500 

million in revenue over the last three decades. After Congress passed the Indian 

Mineral Development Act of 1982, we carefully negotiated mineral development 

agreements with oil and gas companies involving unleased lands and insisted upon 

flexible provisions that vested our tribe with business options and greater involvement in resource development. 

50 

In 1992, the Tribe launched its own gas operating company, Red Willow 

Production Company, which was initially capitalized through a secretariallyapproved plan for use of $8 million of tribal trust funds received by our tribe in 

settlement of reserved water right claims. Through conservative acquisition of onReservation leasehold interests, we began operating our own wells and received 

working interest income as well as royalty and severance tax revenue. In 1994, we 

participated with a partner to purchase one of the main pipeline gathering 

companies on the Reservation. 

Energy Development and Development of the Tribe’s Economy 

Today, the Tribe is the majority owner of Red Cedar Gathering Company, which 

provides gathering and treating services throughout the Reservation. Ownership of 

Red Cedar Gathering Company allowed us to put the infrastructure in place to 

develop and market coal bed methane gas from Reservation lands and gave us an 

additional source of revenue. Our Tribe’s leaders recognized that the peak level of 

on-Reservation gas development would be reached in approximately 2005, and, in 

order to continue our economic growth, we expanded operations off the Reservation. 

As a result of these decisions and developments, today, the Tribe, through its subsidiary energy companies, conducts sizable oil and gas activities in approximately 

10 States and in the Gulf of Mexico. We are the largest employer in the Four 

Corners Region, and there is no question that energy resource development has put 

the Tribe, our members, and the surrounding community on stable economic footing. 

The Southern Ute Indian Reservation consists of approximately 700,000 acres of 

land located in southwestern Colorado in the Four Corners Region of the United 

States. The land ownership pattern within our Reservation is complex and includes 

tribal trust lands, allotted lands, non-Indian patented lands, Federal lands, and 

State lands. Based in part upon the timing of issuance of homestead patents, sizable 

portions of the Reservation lands involve split estates in which non-Indians own the 

surface but the tribe is beneficial owner of oil and gas or coal estates. Despite the 

challenging land ownership pattern on the Reservation, the Tribe has worked hard 

to establish solid working relationships with the State of Colorado and local governmental entities, which have minimized conflict and emphasized cooperation. 

These energy-related economic successes have resulted in a higher standard of living for our tribal members. Our members have jobs and health care, and our educational programs provide meaningful opportunities at all levels. Our elders have 

stable retirement benefits. 

We have exceeded many of our financial goals, and we are well on the way to providing our children and their children the potential to maintain our tribe and its 

lands in perpetuity. 

The road to energy-related prosperity has not been easy and along the way, the 

Tribe has encountered and overcome numerous obstacles, many of which are institutional in nature. Nonetheless, our close collaboration with Congress over the decades has provided relief on a number of fronts to make easier our development 

goals, and those of other tribes as well. 

The Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act of 2014 

The legislation before this subcommittee recognizes the natural gas boom and the 

enormous economic benefits that boom is bringing to communities across the country. It also recognizes that the physical infrastructure necessary to fully take advantage of the natural gas bounty is not being developed quickly enough, often resulting 

in venting and flaring. Last, the bill acknowledges that the Federal permitting process can—and often does—hinder natural gas infrastructure development such as 

pipelines and gathering lines on Federal and Indian land. 

The centerpiece of H.R. 4293 is section 4(b), which provides that sundry notices 

or rights-of-way for gas gathering lines and related field compression units located 

on Federal or Indian land shall be considered an action that is categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if the lines or units 

are: 

(a) within a field or unit for which an approved land use plan or an environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed transportation of gas 

produced from one or more oil wells in that field or unit as a reasonably foreseeable activity; or 

(b) located adjacent to an existing disturbed area for the construction of a road 

or pad. 

Importantly, section 4 also includes a provision which provides that any Indian 

tribe interested in having the above provision apply to its lands must submit a written request that it so apply. The Tribe very much welcomes this demonstration of 

51 

respect for tribal decisionmaking and tribal sovereignty over its own lands and resources. 

Sections 5 (‘‘Deadlines for Permitting Natural Gas Gathering Lines Under the 

Mineral Leasing Act’’) and 6 (‘‘Deadlines for Permitting Natural Gas Gathering 

Lines under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976’’) provide discrete 

deadlines for the Department of the Interior to issue sundry notices or rights-of-way 

for gas gathering lines and related field compression units. 

Indian tribes are thoroughly familiar with lengthy and costly delays involved with 

the Federal approval and permitting process and, accordingly, suggest this legislation be amended to bring real discipline to the issuance of such notices and rightsof-way when it comes to natural gas infrastructure located on or near Indian lands. 

The Tribe is also very supportive of the study and report mandated by section 4(c) 

that would be carried out in consultation with Federal agencies, States and Indian 

tribes to both: 

(a) identify actions that can be taken immediately under current law to 

expedite permitting for gas gathering lines and related field compression 

units located on Federal and Indian land for purposes of transporting to a 

processing plant or a common carrier for distribution to the markets; and 

(b) identify changes to Federal law to expedite permitting for gas gathering lines and related field compression units located on Federal and Indian 

land for purposes of transporting to a processing plant or a common carrier 

for distribution to the markets. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Tribe’s views on H.R. 4293 and respectfully urge the subcommittee and full committee to expedite consideration of the 

bill with an eye toward having it enacted in this calendar year. 

Sincerely, 

CLEMENT J. FROST, CHAIRMAN, 

Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council. 

Mr. CRAMER. If there is no further business, without objection, 

the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—North Dakota Petroleum Council, North Dakota Industrial 

Commission: NPDC Flaring Task Force 

Æ