U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–536 PDF 2015

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SPENDING AND THE PRESIDENT’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Wednesday, April 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–65 

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 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 3, 2014 ........................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ....................................................................................................... 4 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Accompanied 

by Michael L. Connor, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior .... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 19 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

Executive Order dated May 9, 2013, ‘‘Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information’’, submitted for the 

record by Representative Lowenthal ........................................................... 55 

Letter from the Diocese of Fresno to President Obama, submitted for 

the record by Representative Costa ............................................................. 44 

Letter from the Members of Congress to BLM and DOE, submitted for 

the record by Representative Lowenthal .................................................... 51 

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

official files .................................................................................................... 92 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR SPENDING AND THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

Wednesday, April 3, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Gohmert, Bishop, 

Lamborn, Broun, Fleming, McClintock, Lummis, Duncan, Tipton, 

Gosar, Labrador, Flores, Smith, McAllister, DeFazio, Napolitano, 

Holt, Grijalva, Costa, Sablan, Tsongas, Pierluisi, Huffman, 

Lowenthal, Garcia, and Cartwright. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We are very 

pleased today to have the Secretary of the Interior, The Honorable 

Sally Jewell, as our witness today, talking about the Interior Department’s budget request and, I am sure, other matters that will 

come up. 

I do want to say that the Secretary has agreed to be here until 

noon today. We will not go by that clock, however. That clock is 55 

minutes or an hour slow. So that would give her an extra hour, and 

we will not do that to her. We don’t have special time here in 

this—and so, I would ask all Members, if they can, to keep their 

remarks within the 5-minute window, so that all Members will 

have an opportunity to ask whatever questions they have. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for my opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. I believe all of us here today understand and recognize the importance of natural resources to our lives and to our 

economy. Our natural resources support millions of American jobs 

throughout the country. They provide energy and power to our 

homes and our businesses. They deliver water to communities, and 

they enable the manufacturing of products that we enjoy. And they 

provide opportunities for recreation and for much more. Yet there 

is not always agreement on how best to manage and harness these 

natural resources. These differences and the priorities of both sides 

are perhaps most evident every year when examining this President’s budget proposals. The United States debt is currently $17 trillion. This places our 

economy and our livelihood for future generations at risk. For 

years, Republicans have stressed the need to do more with less. 

Given this budget crisis, we need to cut wasteful spending, make 

2 

tough choices, and prioritize. That should be the goal of the Interior Department and every other Federal department and agency. 

Unfortunately, with a budget proposal as—higher than last year’s 

enacted levels, I am afraid the Interior Department’s budget misses 

the mark, and doesn’t do enough to prioritize and reduce spending. 

There is no better example of misplaced priorities than with the 

proposed funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Once 

again, the Department’s budget emphasizes Federal land acquisition over the proper maintenance and care of land it already owns. 

The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

are facing billion-dollar maintenance backlogs. This is where the 

Department, in my view, should be focusing resources. 

Of course, prioritizing spending is not part of the solution. The 

Department should also actively look for ways to generate new revenue to grow our economy. Unfortunately, many of the policies 

outlined in this budget will have the opposite outcome. This budget 

relies on new taxes, fees, and red tape that will have the effect of 

slowing economic growth. 

American energy production bears the fruit—or bears the brunt 

of this regulatory assault. U.S. energy production is the secondhighest source of revenue to the U.S. Treasury, and that is the reason the administration is able to say that this budget would bring 

in more revenue than it spends. But that misses the point. The 

Obama administration, in this budget, is forfeiting billions of dollars in new revenue by continuing to stifle energy production on 

our Federal lands. 

Under this administration, total Federal oil production has 

declined 7.8 percent, and total Federal natural gas production has 

declined 21 percent. President Obama’s offshore leasing plan for 

2012–2017 offered the lowest number of lease sales in history, and 

keeps over 85 percent of offshore acreages offshore—off limits. 

Onshore, the administration has had the lowest years of Federal 

acres leased for energy production, going back to the 1980s. This 

is the Obama administration’s legacy, when it comes to Federal 

energy production. Now, I will acknowledge that the world has 

changed immensely over the last few years. The United States is 

becoming a global leader in energy production. But this is happening in spite of the administration’s best efforts to keep our 

energy resources under tight lock and key. The administration 

doesn’t seek to encourage new production in this budget. Instead, 

they seek to impose new taxes and fees that will have the opposite 

effect. 

Other policies being carried out by the Department will also negatively hurt jobs, including efforts to impose duplicative hydraulic 

fracturing regulations, the reckless and disaster rewrite of the 2008 

Stream Buffer Zone Rule, and new ESA listings resulting from the 

closed-door settlement agreement in 2011. I am sure all of these 

topics, among others, will be raised during the course of today’s 

hearing. 

And, finally, I want to remind the Secretary that this committee 

has and will continue to be ready to stand to work in a bipartisan 

fashion to responsibly manage our Federal lands. From issues like 

helium to Secure Rural Schools to more than 50 non-controversial 

bills awaiting action in the Senate, I believe that reasonable people 

3 

can disagree but, in the end, can reach reasonable conclusions. 

However, if the President continues to take a go-at-it-alone approach like he has been doing, our ability to collaborate and work 

with the Department, I think, will be sorely tested. 

So, once again, I want to thank Secretary Jewell for being here. 

And now I will recognize the distinguished Ranking Member. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

I believe all of us here today understand and recognize the importance of natural 

resources to our lives and economy. Our natural resources support millions of 

American jobs throughout the country, they provide energy to power our homes and 

businesses, they deliver water to communities, they enable the manufacturing of 

products, and they provide opportunities for recreation and much more. 

Yet there is not always agreement on how to best manage and harness these natural resources. These differences, and the priorities of both sides, are perhaps most 

evident every year when examining this President’s budget proposals. 

The United States’ debt is currently over $17 trillion. This places our economy 

and livelihood of future generations at risk. For years Republicans have stressed the 

need to do more with less. Given this budget crisis, we need to cut wasteful spending, make tough choices, and prioritize. That should be the goal of the Interior 

Department and every other Federal department and agency. Unfortunately, with 

a budget proposal that is higher than last year’s enacted levels, I’m afraid the 

Interior Department’s budget misses the mark and doesn’t do enough to prioritize 

and reduce spending. 

There is no better example of misplaced priorities than with the proposed full 

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Once again, the Department’s 

budget emphasizes Federal land acquisition over the proper maintenance and care 

of the land it already owns. The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service are facing billion dollar maintenance backlogs; this is where the Department 

should be focusing resources. 

Of course, prioritizing spending is just part of the solution. The Department 

should also actively look for ways to generate new revenue and grow the economy. 

Unfortunately, many of the policies outlined in this budget will have the opposite 

outcome. This budget relies on new taxes, fees, and red-tape that will have the 

effect of slowing economic growth. 

American energy production bears the brunt of this regulatory assault. U.S. 

energy production, is the second highest source of revenue to the U.S. treasury— 

and that’s the reason the administration is able to say that this budget would bring 

in more revenue than it spends. But that misses the point. The Obama administration in this budget is forfeiting billions of dollars in new revenue by continuing to 

stifle energy production on our Federal lands. 

Under this administration, total Federal oil production has declined 7,8 percent 

and total Federal natural gas production has declined 21 percent. President 

Obama’s offshore leasing plan for 2012–2017 offered the lowest number of lease 

sales in history and keeps over 85 percent of offshore acreage off limits. Onshore, 

the administration has had the lowest years of Federal acres leased for energy production going back to the 1980s. This is the Obama administration’s legacy when 

it comes to Federal energy production. 

I will acknowledge that the world has changed immensely over the last few years. 

The United States is becoming a global leader in energy production, but this is happening in spite of the administration’s best efforts to keep our energy resources 

under tight lock and key. The administration doesn’t seek to encourage new production in this budget, instead they seek to impose new taxes and fees that will have 

the opposite effect. 

Other policies being carried out by the Department will also negatively hurt 

jobs—including efforts to impose duplicative, hydraulic fracturing regulations, the 

reckless and disastrous rewrite of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, and new ESA 

listing decisions resulting from close-door settlement agreements. I’m sure all of 

these topics, among others, will be raised during the course of today’s hearing. 

Finally, I want to remind the Secretary that this committee has and will continue 

to stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to responsibly manage our Federal 

lands. From issues like helium and Secure Rural Schools, to the more than 50 noncontroversial bills currently awaiting action in the Senate, I believe that reasonable 

4 

people can disagree, but in the end can reach reasonable conclusions. However, if 

the President continues to take a go-at-it-alone approach, our ability to collaborate 

and work with the Department will be sorely tested. 

I’d like to thank Secretary Jewell for being here today and look forward to hearing 

from her. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Chairman. I would agree with the end 

of the Chairman’s remarks about there are many challenges before 

us where we should be able to put aside differences and work on 

a bipartisan basis. Dealing with fuel reduction, the President has 

a proposal. It has also been introduced in the House, so that both 

the Interior Department and the Forest Service won’t be forced, on 

an annual basis, to divert money from fuel reduction and other critical needs to fight current fires. And I would hope that the committee would take up that bill. 

The Chairman mentioned revenues. Of course we are the only 

Nation on earth, the only land owner on earth, that gives away its 

mineral resources for free. I am talking about the 1872 Ulysses S. 

Grant Mining Law. If we were really interested in revenues, we 

ought to act like a business, and like the States, and like the 

Tribes, and like the private land owners, and begin to assess a reasonable royalty, and then use that income to deal with some of 

these unmet needs. 

I do find it odd, the discussion about energy production. Actually, 

we have increased—the onshore oil production, you know, is up on 

Federal lands from a little over 100 million barrels the year President Obama was elected to over 134 million barrels now. So the 

war on fossil fuels, the war on coal, and all the other, you know, 

phantoms that this committee has spent endless hours pursuing 

are not real. And I would hope that we can turn more to common 

concerns. 

I share a concern about the deterioration of park infrastructure. 

I just brought up with the Secretary before the meeting from a recent visit to Grand Canyon, their water system, the most visited 

park in America, 4.4 million people a year, is failing frequently, is 

at the point of total failure. It needs to be replaced. They have a 

plan, but they don’t have the money. And that is repeated in park 

after park after park. 

The Chairman referenced Land Water Conservation Fund, as 

though that money could be spent on other purposes. Well, under 

current law it can’t, except for the fact that it is being underspent, 

and a massive amount of it is being diverted by the Appropriations 

Committee to who knows where or what. We don’t know. It just— 

the money—we are assessing this on offshore drilling, it is a tax, 

it is supposed to be used for conservation purposes, and a small 

fraction of it, given the resistance of the Republican Majority to 

purchase inholdings and other things, is being used in small part, 

but the greatest part of that revenue is being diverted to other 

parts of the government. 

And that Land Water Conservation Fund is up for reauthorization next year. And if the Majority would like to engage in a meanVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
5 

ingful discussion about reauthorization and whether or not some of 

those funds could be dedicated to our deteriorated park infrastructure, that is a discussion that I would be happy to engage in. 

So, in the interest of time, I will suspend at that point, and 

would love to hear from the Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I do 

want to welcome the distinguished Secretary of the Interior, Sally 

Jewell, who at times resided in my State, so I am very, very proud 

of that. 

You have a full statement that you have submitted. And I think 

the Members have that. If you could keep your oral remarks within 

5 minutes, that would very good, but I understand, you know, if 

you have more to say, you can take part of the Ranking Member’s 

time. He didn’t take all of his time, so we will allow that to happen. 

So, with that, Madam Secretary, you are recognized. And welcome to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL L. 

CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much—thanks very much, 

Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio. I have a couple 

of other fellow Northwesterners in the audience. My sister and 

brother-in-law back here from Portland, Oregon, came to see democracy at work. So they have been enjoying my new home—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we very much want to welcome you to the 

committee, and thank you very much for being here. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. Also want to recognize my brand 

new Deputy Secretary, after a laborious process of getting through 

the Senate, Mike Connor, and a budget team behind me with lots 

and lots of numbers, in the event we need help. 

The big picture on this budget, it is solid, it is responsible, it 

makes smart investments in Interior’s missions, and it is within 

the budget caps as agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act. Total 

of $11.9 billion. That is a $275 million increase, of which $240 million is specifically to address the top 1 percent of catastrophic 

wildfires, putting those within the Federal Emergency Management Disaster Relief Program, so that we can focus our firefighting 

budget on things like hazardous fuel removal and post-fire remediation, so we can bring rationality to how we manage wildfires, 

which are becoming hotter, drier, and more intense. 

I want to say that one of the most important areas of our budget 

is Indian programs, and there is a robust program for reimbursing 

Tribes for contract support costs. We also have a pilot program 

called the Tiwahe Initiative for $11.6 million. It addresses the 

inter-related problems of poverty, housing, violence, and substance 

abuse that are faced by many Indian communities. 

This is complemented by a proposal for education and economic 

development in Indian Country, as part of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. 

On the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we seek to fulfill the 

intent of Congress of 49 years ago to take revenues from offshore 

6 

oil and gas production to put into mitigating the impacts of that 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The President’s budget has $350 million in appropriated funds, and also seeks legislation that will bring the balance of $900 million to provide funding as intended for things like expanded access 

for hunting and fishing through conservation easements, through 

creating ball fields and other places for children to play and learn, 

to acquire land to reduce fragmentation and facilitate efficient land 

management, and to support things like protecting Civil War battlefields. 

The proposal also includes a full $900 million funding for the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund in 2016. 

In 2016 we celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service. 

There is a centennial initiative in this budget, a $40 million increase in current appropriations, of which 10 million is specifically 

a match for private philanthropy to the parks. And we know that 

there is a lot of interest in that. 

In addition, we are proposing $1.2 billion of permanent funding 

over 3 years to support high-priority projects, enhance the visitor 

experience, and stimulate private donations. And there are additional funds proposed in the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and 

Security Initiative. 

Next up, for the health of our economy and our public lands, it 

is critical we work now to establish meaningful and deep connections between young people from every background to nature and 

the outdoors, to bring the kind of experience needed to manage our 

landscapes in the future. That is another area of focus in our budget. 

On the energy front, contrary a bit to what you were suggesting, 

Chairman Hastings, we have a robust budget for energy programs: 

$753 million, a $41 million increase from last year. That is for conventional and renewable energy development. It is basic science 

and applied research to understand and better manage the impacts 

of development on water habitat, wildlife, and other natural resources. And we are taking a landscape level approach to development, working with industry, working with States and land 

managers to bring a really thoughtful approach that minimizes 

conflict. 

Next up is science. In our home State of Washington, Chairman 

Hastings, the U.S. Geological Survey has been working closely with 

the State on this horrific landslide, understanding what happened, 

learning from those experiences. Investments like that in science, 

like the $60 million increase proposed in the budget, will enable us 

to address those kinds of threats to the landscape, to understand 

things like the impacts of climate change or hydraulic fracturing or 

invasive species, like the Asian carp. 

Our climate science centers are developing regional drought impact scenarios, evaluating coastal flooding, and they are studying 

the impacts on our Nation’s wildlife, habitat, and the economy to 

inform land management decisions. 

And last up I want to talk about something I know is very important to many Members in this room, and that is around water. We 

recognize the challenges of water supplies, especially during this 

time of extended drought in the West. I can’t think of a better 

7 

Deputy Secretary than Mike Connor, who is deeply engaged in 

these issues, to have as my right arm as we work through these 

in the coming years. We have added in the 2015 budget an additional $9.5 million for 

a WaterSMART program, which helps local communities respond 

to droughts, and create resilient infrastructures, and conserve 

water. The Bureau of Reclamation, along with many partners, is 

working on long-term solutions to address future water supply 

needs. 

The President also announced a $1 billion Climate Resilience 

Fund, which would support research on the projected impacts of climate change, helping communities become more resilient, and 

funding break-through technologies. 

So, in closing, I look forward to working with you to accomplish 

our Department’s mission, and would be delighted to answer your 

questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jewell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to present the 2015 

President’s Budget for the Department of the Interior. 

This budget is balanced and responsible and supports Interior’s pivotal role as a 

driver of jobs and economic activity in communities across the country. It enables 

us to carry out core mission responsibilities and commitments. This budget allows 

Interior to uphold trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, 

provides a new approach for responsibly budgeting for wildland fire suppression 

needs, invests in climate resilience, continues smart and balanced all-of-the-above 

energy development on and offshore, and bolsters our national parks and public 

lands in advance of the National Park Service’s 100th anniversary in 2016. 

Interior’s programs and activities serve as economic engines in communities across the Nation, contributing an estimated $371 billion to the economy in 2012 

and supporting an estimated 2.3 million American jobs. Of this total, energy and 

mineral development on Interior-managed lands and offshore areas generated more 

than $255 billion of this economic activity and supported 1.3 million jobs. Recreation 

and tourism on Interior lands contributed $45 billion to the economies of local communities and supported nearly 372,000 jobs. Water supply, forage and timber activities, primarily on public lands in the West, contributed more than $50 billion and 

supported 365,000 jobs. The President’s 2015 budget for the Department of the Interior totals $11.9 billion, an increase of 2.4 percent from 2014, which includes a cap exemption for fire 

emergencies. Without this exemption, Interior’s budget totals $11.7 billion, a 0.3 

percent increase, or nearly level with this year’s funding. 

This budget features three key legislative proposals: a new framework to fund 

wildland fire suppression requirements; additional investment in the infrastructure 

and visitor experience at our National Parks and public lands; and full and permanent funding for the Land and Wildlife Conservation Fund. Each of these proposals 

will significantly enhance our ability to conserve and manage the Nation’s public 

lands. 

The budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to provide stable funding for fire suppression, while minimizing the 

adverse impacts of fire transfers on other Interior programs, and allowing Interior 

to reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the resiliency of public lands and the communities that border them. In this proposed new 

framework, $268.6 million, or 70 percent of the 10-year average for suppression response is funded within the discretionary spending limits and $240.4 million is 

available as an adjustment above those limits, if needed based on a challenging fire 

season. In addition, it does not increase overall discretionary spending, as it would 

reduce the ceiling for the existing disaster relief cap adjustment by an equivalent 

amount as is provided for wildfire suppression operations. 

In advance of the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016, the 

2015 budget proposes a comprehensive Centennial Initiative investment in the 

parks and public lands. The funding would provide targeted increases for a multiyear effort to recommit to the preservation of these special places, to invest wisely 

8 

in the park system’s most important assets, to use parks to enhance informal learning, engage volunteers, provide training opportunities to youth, and enhance the 

National Park Service’s ability to leverage partnerships to accomplish its mission. 

Finally, the President’s budget continues to support full, permanent funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, one of the Nation’s most effective tools for 

expanding access for hunting and fishing, creating ball fields and other places for 

children to play and learn, protecting traditional uses such as working ranches and 

farms, acquiring inholdings to manage contiguous landscapes, and protecting Civil 

War battlefields. The 2015 budget proposes total funding of $900.0 million for 

LWCF in Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. Within this total, $350.0 million is 

requested as current funding and $550.0 million as part of a permanent funding 

proposal. Starting in 2016, the proposal would provide $900.0 million annually in 

permanent funding. 

Complementing the 2015 budget request is $346.0 million identified for Interior 

programs as part of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to 

spur economic progress and promote opportunity. If approved, these investments 

will enable significant progress to address long-term needs in the areas of national 

parks and other public lands, research and development, infrastructure and permitting support, climate resiliency, and education and economic development in Indian 

Country. 

The drought in California and other Western States underscores the importance 

of improving the resilience of communities to the effects of climate change. The 

President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative includes a $1 billion governmentwide Climate Resilience Fund to invest in developing more resilient communities, and finding solutions to climate challenges through technology development 

and applied research. This Fund includes about $240 million for Interior programs 

that invest in research and development, assist Tribes and local communities in 

planning and preparing for extreme weather conditions and events, and support 

public land managers in landscape and watershed planning to increase resiliency 

and reduce risks. 

The 2015 request sustains support for essential requirements and allows for targeted increases above the 2014 enacted level. Within the overall increase for 2015, 

$54.4 million covers fixed cost increases for such things as Federal pay and rent. 

Reflecting the need to prioritize budget resources, this request includes $413.3 million in proposed program reductions to offset other programmatic requirements. 

Interior programs continue to generate more revenue for the American people 

than the Department’s annual current appropriation. In 2015, Interior will generate 

estimated receipts of nearly $14.9 billion, a portion of which is shared with State 

and local governments to meet a variety of needs, including school funding, infrastructure improvements, and water-conservation projects. Also included with this request are revenue and savings legislative proposals estimated to generate more than 

$2.6 billion over the next decade. 

Putting this budget in context, Interior’s complex mission affects the lives of all 

Americans. Nearly every American lives within an hour’s drive of lands or waters 

managed by the Interior Department. In 2012, there were 417 million visits to 

Interior-managed lands. The Department oversees the responsible development of 

over 20 percent of U.S. energy supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of 

water in the 17 Western States, maintains relationships with 566 federally recognized Tribes, and provides services to more than two million American Indian and 

Alaska Native peoples. 

CELEBRATING AND ENHANCING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS

Throughout American history, the great outdoors have shaped the Nation’s character and strengthened its economy. The 2015 budget requests the resources and 

authorities to care for our public lands and prepare for the future. The budget invests in efforts to upgrade and restore national parks and other public-lands areas, 

while engaging thousands of Americans, including youth, and veterans. The budget 

strengthens the President’s commitment to the America’s Great Outdoors initiative 

with a request of $5.1 billion in current funding for programs, including the operation of public land management units in BLM, NPS and FWS; the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund; and grants and technical assistance to States and others. This 

is an increase of $127.1 million compared to the 2014 enacted level. 

Coupled with these efforts is a historic commitment to America’s natural and cultural heritage through Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. The budget 

includes a 2015 combined request of $672.3 million ($246.0 million discretionary and 

$426.3 million mandatory) for Interior’s LWCF programs that conserve lands and 

support outdoor recreation. In current funding, the request for land acquisition is 

9 

$147.9 million, with $39.5 million identified for Collaborative Landscape Planning 

projects. A total of $98.1 million is requested in current funding for LWCF conservation grants, including $48.1 million for LWCF Stateside grants. 

I could not highlight our stewardship efforts without discussing the upcoming 

centennial of the National Park Service in 2016. Overall, the Centennial Initiative— 

including mandatory, discretionary, and Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative resources—will allow NPS to ensure that 1,700 (or 20 percent) of the highest 

priority park assets are restored to good condition. The effort creates thousands of 

jobs over 3 years, provides over 10,000 work and training opportunities to young 

people, and engages more than 265,000 volunteers in support of public lands. The request for the Centennial Initiative proposes a $40 million increase in cur- rent appropriations in 2015, plus an additional $400 million in permanent funding 

each year for 3 years. That funding includes $100 million for a Centennial 

Challenge to match private philanthropy, $200 million for National Park Service facilities improvements, and $100 million for a Centennial Land Management Investment Fund to competitively allocate funds to meet land conservation and deferred 

maintenance needs among Interior’s land-management agencies and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service. The President’s Opportunity, 

Growth, and Security Initiative identifies investments of $100 million for National 

Park Service deferred maintenance and an additional $100 million for the Centennial Land Management Investment Fund. 

STRENGTHENING TRIBAL NATIONS

Sustaining the President’s commitment to tribal sovereignty and self-determination and honoring Interior’s trust responsibilities to the 566 federally recognized 

American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and more than 2 million people served 

by these programs, the 2015 budget for Indian Affairs is $2.6 billion, an increase 

of $33.6 million above the 2014 enacted level. The budget invests in: advancing nation-to-nation relationships and tribal self-determination, supporting and protecting 

Indian families and communities, sustainable stewardship of energy and natural resources, and improving education in Indian Country. 

Recognizing this commitment to tribal self-governance and self-determination, the 

budget fully funds contract support costs Tribes incur as managers of the programs 

serving Native Americans. The budget requests $251 million, a $4.0 million increase 

over the 2014 enacted level, to fully fund estimated contract support needs in 2015. 

Supporting families and communities, the 2015 budget launches the Tiwahe 

Initiative, with an increase of $11.6 million in social services and job training programs to address the interrelated problems of child and family welfare, poverty, violence and substance abuse in tribal communities. Tiwahe is the Lakota word for 

‘‘family.’’ Through this initiative, social services and job training programs will be 

integrated and expanded to provide culturally appropriate programs to assist and 

empower families and individuals through economic opportunity, health promotion, 

family stability, and strengthened communities. 

Promoting public safety and tribal community resilience, the 2015 budget request 

includes resources to build on BIA Law Enforcement’s recent successes in reducing 

violent crime. A pilot program will be implemented to lower repeat incarceration 

rates in tribally operated jails on three reservations—Red Lake in Minnesota, Ute 

Mountain in Colorado, and Duck Valley in Nevada—with a goal to materially lower 

repeat incarcerations. Through an Alternatives to Incarceration Strategy, this pilot 

will seek to address underlying causes of repeat offenses, such as substance abuse 

and lack of adequate access to social service support, through intergovernmental 

and interagency partnerships. 

The 2015 budget request is complemented by a proposal in the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to further invest in economic development 

and education to promote strong, resilient tribal economies and improve educational 

opportunities in Indian Country. 

POWERING OUR FUTURE

As part of the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the 2015 budget provides $753.2 million for 

conventional and renewable energy programs, an increase of $40.7 million above the 

2014 enacted level. The budget includes measures to encourage responsible, diligent 

development and a fair return for American taxpayers. 

Funding for conventional energy and compliance activities totals $658.4 million, 

an increase of $37.5 million over the 2014 level. Spending from fees and permanent 

funding related to onshore oil and gas activities increase $49.1 million from the 

2014 level, primarily reflecting a proposal to expand onshore oil and gas inspection 

10 

activities and to offset the Bureau of Land Management’s inspection program costs 

to the taxpayer with fees from industry, similar to what the offshore industry now 

pays. The budget includes $169.8 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and $204.6 million for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to support domestic energy production, including new leasing, strong safety oversight of 

offshore operations, enhanced environmental enforcement functions, and expanded 

training and electronic inspection capabilities. The 2015 budget includes $94.8 million for renewable energy activities, a $3.2 million increase over the 2014 level. This funding maintains the Department’s emphasis on strategic investments to advance clean energy and meet the President’s goal 

to approve 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2020 (relative 

to 2009 levels). 

ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

The 2015 budget supports a vision to inspire millions of young people to play, 

learn, serve and work outdoors by expanding volunteer and work opportunities for 

youth and veterans. The budget proposes $50.6 million for Interior youth programs, 

a $13.6 million or 37 percent increase from 2014. 

A key component of the Department’s efforts will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps. The proposed funding 

includes an increase of $8.0 million to expand opportunities for youth education and 

employment across the National Park Service; an additional $2.5 million for the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Urban Wildlife Refuges Partnership; and a total of $4.2 

million in Indian Affairs for youth programs including $2.5 million to engage youth 

in natural sciences. Support for the National Park Service Centennial will create 

thousands of jobs, and engage more than 10,000 youth in service and training opportunities and more than 265,000 volunteers. 

ENSURING HEALTHY WATERSHEDS AND SUSTAINABLE, SECURE WATER SUPPLIES

The 2015 budget addresses the Nation’s water challenges through investments in 

water conservation, sustainability, and infrastructure critical to the arid Western 

United States and its fragile ecosystems. The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs in Reclamation and 

the U.S. Geological Survey, nearly a 17 percent increase from 2014, to assist communities in stretching water supplies and improving water management. In addition to $1 billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation, the budget also requests 

$210.4 million for the U.S. Geological Survey’s water programs to provide scientific 

monitoring, research, and tools to support water management across the Nation. 

This funding supports the Department’s goal to increase by 840,000 acre-feet, the 

available water supply for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental 

uses in the Western United States through water-conservation programs by the end 

of 2015. 

Interior extends this commitment to Indian Country, honoring Indian water set- tlements with investments totaling $171.9 million in Reclamation and Indian 

Affairs, for technical and legal support for water settlements. This includes $147.6 

million for implementation of authorized settlements to bring reliable and potable 

water to Indian communities, more than a 9 percent increase from 2014. Among the 

investments is $81 million for the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, 

which, when completed, will have the capacity to deliver clean running water to a 

potential future population of approximately 250,000 people. 

BUILDING A LANDSCAPE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESOURCES

The 2015 budget fosters the sustainable stewardship of the Nation’s lands and resources on a landscape level. Funding includes increases for scientific monitoring, 

research and tools to advance our understanding and ability to manage natural 

resources more effectively, while balancing important conservation goals and development objectives. Reflecting the President’s ongoing commitment to scientific discovery and innovation to support decisionmaking for critical societal needs and a 

robust economy, the budget proposes $888.7 million for research and development 

activities across the Department, an increase of $60.4 million over 2014. This funding will increase understanding of natural resources and the factors impacting 

water availability, ecosystem and species resiliency, sustainable energy and mineral 

development, climate resilience, and natural hazard mitigation, among others. 

Complementing this budget request are two components of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative: an investment of $140 million for Interior 

research and development as part of a governmentwide effort to jumpstart growth 

11 

spurred by scientific discovery; and investments to address climate resilience to 

better prepare communities and infrastructure, and enable them to build greater resilience in the face of a changing climate. 

In ecosystems across the Nation, Interior will continue to work with local communities to leverage its efforts to improve resiliency and achieve improved environmental and economic outcomes. 

MAJOR CHANGES IN THE 2015 REQUEST

Bureau of Land Management—The 2015 request is $1.1 billion, a decrease of 

$5.6 million from the 2014 enacted level. The 2015 request assumes the use of $54.5 

million in proposed offsetting fees, which when included provides an effective increase of $48.9 million above 2014. The 2015 request includes $954.1 million for the 

Management of Lands and Resources account, and $25.0 million in current appropriations for Land Acquisition, including $2.0 million to improve access to public 

lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. The budget proposes $104.0 million 

for Oregon and California Grant Lands, which includes a $4.2 million decrease in 

Western Oregon Resource Management Planning, reflecting expected completion of 

six revised plans in June 2015. 

To advance America’s Great Outdoors, the request includes $3.5 million in program increases for recreation, cultural resources, and the National Landscape 

Conservation System to address the needs of recently designated units, implement 

travel management plans, improve visitor services, and address a backlog in cultural resources inventory and stabilization needs. The budget request also includes 

$4.8 million for youth programs, an increase of $1.3 million from 2014, to put more 

young Americans to work protecting and restoring public lands and cultural and 

historical treasures. 

The BLM continues to support the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy on 

the public lands including an initiative to encourage smart renewable energy development. The 2015 budget includes $29.2 million, essentially level with 2014, for 

renewable energy to continue to aggressively support wind, solar, and geothermal 

energy development on BLM lands. Complementing this is a $5.0 million increase 

in the Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program for identification and designation of energy corridors in low conflict areas to site high voltage transmission 

lines, substations, and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner. 

The 2015 request for Oil and Gas Management, including both direct and feefunded appropriations, totals $133.7 million, an increase of $20.3 million in available program funding from 2014. In 2015, the budget proposes to shift the cost of 

oil and gas inspection and enforcement activity from current appropriations to inspection fees charged to industry. The proposed inspection fees will generate and estimated $48.0 million, providing for a $10.0 million increase in BLM’s inspection 

and enforcement capability and allowing for a net reduction of $38.0 million in requested BLM appropriations. The request for Oil and Gas programs includes increases of $5.2 million for ongoing rulemaking efforts and to strengthen operations 

at BLM units and $4.6 million for oversight and permitting to better keep pace with 

industry demand and fully implement leasing reforms. 

In 2015, BLM will release six rapid eco-regional assessments, in addition to four 

planned for 2014. The BLM will conduct training on the use of the data from these 

assessments and will work with a number of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

to begin development of regional conservation strategies. The budget includes an increase of $5.0 million for Resource Management Planning to implement BLM’s enterprise geographic information system and address high priority planning. The 

2015 budget maintains a $15.0 million increase to implement sage grouse conservation and restoration measures to help avoid the need for a future listing of the 

species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Other program increases include $2.8 million in the Wild Horse and Burro program to implement recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences regarding 

population control; and $2.8 million in Abandoned Mine Lands to implement remediation plan efforts at Red Devil Mine in Alaska. The request includes $19.0 million 

for the Alaska Conveyance program. Although a decrease of $3.1 million from 2014, 

this funding coupled with efficiencies from an improved cadastral method, plots a 

course to complete all surveys and land transfers in 10 years. 

A proposed grazing administration fee will enhance BLM’s capacity for processing 

grazing permits. A fee of $1.00 per animal unit month, estimated to provide $6.5 

million in 2015, is proposed on a pilot basis. This additional revenue more than offsets a decrease of $4.8 million in appropriated funds in Rangeland Management, 

12 

equating to a $1.7 million program increase to help address the grazing permit 

backlog. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management—The 2015 operating request is $169.8 million, including $72.4 million in current appropriations and $97.3 million in offsetting collections. This is a net increase of $3.4 million in current appropriations 

above the 2014 enacted level. 

The 2015 budget maintains a strong offshore renewable energy program at essen- tially the 2014 level of $23.1 million for the total program. In 2013, BOEM held the 

first competitive Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable energy lease sales, issued 

five other non-competitive commercial offshore wind energy leases, and approved 

the construction and operations plan for the Cape Wind project offshore 

Massachusetts. 

Offshore conventional energy programs also remain essentially level with 2014, with a total of $49.6 million in 2015. In 2013, BOEM held three sales generating 

over $1.4 billion in high bids, and three additional lease sales are scheduled during 

calendar year 2014. The request of $65.7 million for Environmental Programs includes an increase of $2.5 million for work on a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for the next 5-Year Program (2017–2022) for oil and gas leasing 

on the OCS. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement—The 2015 budget re- quest is $204.6 million, including $81.0 million in current appropriations and $123.6 

million in offsetting collections, an increase of $2.0 million from 2014. The request 

for offsetting collections assumes $65.0 million from offshore oil and gas inspection 

fees. The 2015 request allows BSEE to continue to strengthen regulatory and oversight capability on the OCS and maintain capacity in regulatory, safety management, structural and technical support, and oil spill response prevention. The budget includes $189.7 million for Offshore Safety and Environmental Enforcement, an increase of $2.4 million. The request includes a program increase 

of $0.9 million to evaluate and test new technologies and update regulations to reflect improved safety and oversight protocols. Funding for Oil Spill Research is 

maintained at the 2014 level of $14.9 million. 

Office of Surface Mining—The 2015 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining is $144.8 million, a decrease of $5.3 million from the 2014 enacted level. 

This includes a decrease of $13.4 million in grants to States and Tribes to encourage 

these regulatory programs to recover a larger portion of their costs from fees 

charged to the coal industry, and an increase of $4.0 million to provide additional 

technical support to State and tribal regulatory programs. The budget also includes 

an increase of $1.9 million for applied science to advance reclamation technologies. 

This request proposes $116.1 million for Regulation and Technology funding, $28.7 

million for Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund activities, and an additional $1.9 

million in offsetting collections from recovered costs for services. 

U.S. Geological Survey—The USGS budget request is $1.1 billion, $41.3 million 

above the 2014 enacted level. The President’s budget reflects the administration’s 

commitment to investing in research and development to support sound decisionmaking and sustainable stewardship of natural resources. This includes science, 

monitoring, and assessment activities critical to understanding and managing the 

ecological, mineral, energy, and water resources which underlie the prosperity and 

well-being of the Nation. The budget includes increases for priorities in ecosystem 

restoration, climate adaptation, invasive species, environmental health, and earth 

observations. Funding provides increased support to enhance sustainable energy development, address water resource challenges, increase landscape level understanding of the Nation’s natural resources, and the Scientists for Tomorrow youth 

initiative. 

To support sustainable management of water resources, the USGS budget 

includes increases totaling $6.4 million for WaterSMART programs. This includes 

increases for State water grants, regional water availability models, and the integration and dissemination of data through online science platforms. The budget 

includes increases of $2.4 million to support implementation of the National 

Groundwater Monitoring Network and $1.2 million for the National Streamflow 

Information Program for streamgages to strengthen the Federal backbone at high 

priority sites sensitive to drought, flooding, and potential climate change effects. 

To better understand and adapt to the potential impacts of a changing climate, 

the USGS budget invests in research, monitoring, and tools to support improved resilience of natural systems. The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science 

Center and DOI Climate Science Centers are funded at $35.3 million, an increase 

of $11.6 million from 2014. This includes an increase of $3.0 million for grants focused on applied science and information needed by resource managers for decisionmaking at regional levels. An increase of $2.3 million will enhance the leveraging 

13 

of these investments with other Federal climate science activities and make the scientific information and products developed through these programs available to the 

public in a centralized, web-accessed format. Program increases of $2.5 million will 

support applied science and capacity-building for tribal climate adaptation needs in 

the CSC regions, and $3.0 million will support additional research in drought impacts and adaptive management. 

The USGS budget invests in providing critical data and tools to promote understanding and managing resources on a landscape-scale. Program increases in the 

National Geospatial Program include $5.0 million for the 3-Dimensional Elevation 

Program to collect Lidar data to enhance science and emergency response activities, 

resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem based management, and tools to 

inform policy and management. An increase of $1.9 million is requested for modernization of The National Map, which provides critical data about the Earth, its 

complex processes, and natural resources. The 2015 budget includes a $2.0 million 

increase for the Big Earth Data initiative to improve access to and use of data from 

satellite, airborne, terrestrial, and ocean-based Earth observing systems. These investments will provide benefits in natural resource management and hazard mitigation, by improving access to critical information. 

To support the sustainable development of energy resources, the USGS budget includes $40.7 million for conventional and renewable energy programs, $8.1 million 

above the 2014 enacted level. A program increase of $1.3 million will be used to 

study geothermal resources and build on ongoing work on wind energy impacts. The 

request includes $18.6 million, $8.3 million over 2014, to support research and development to better understand potential impacts of energy development involving 

hydraulic fracturing. Conducted through an interagency collaboration with the 

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, this work addresses 

issues such as water quality and quantity, ecosystem, community, and human 

health impacts, and induced seismicity. Funding for other conventional energy programs, including oil, gas, and coal assessments, totals $15.6 million. 

Supporting the sustainable management and restoration of ecosystems, the 2015 budget includes $162.0 million for ecosystems science activities, $9.2 million above 

the 2014 enacted level. Program increases include $2.0 million for research on new 

methods to eradicate, control, and manage Asian carp in the Upper Mississippi 

River Basin and prevent entry into the Great Lakes. Increases of $2.5 million are 

provided for ecosystem restoration work in the Chesapeake Bay, California BayDelta, Columbia River, Everglades, and Puget Sound. Another $2.0 million will 

support the science and integration of ecosystems services frameworks into decisionmaking and efforts to assess and sustain the Nation’s environmental capital. Program increases totaling $1.8 million will address native pollinators, brown 

treesnakes, and new and emerging invasive species of national concern. 

Supporting understanding, preparedness, and mitigation of the impacts of natural 

hazards, the budget provides $128.3 million for Natural Hazards activities, which 

is essentially level with 2014. This activity provides scientific information and tools 

to reduce potential fatalities, injuries, and economic loss from volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides, among others. The 2015 budget includes an increase of $700,000 in Earthquake Hazards for induced seismicity studies related to 

hydraulic fracturing. 

Fish and Wildlife Service—The 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service budget includes 

$1.5 billion in current appropriations, an increase of $48.8 million above the 2014 

level. This includes America’s Great Outdoors related increases of $71.7 million in 

the Resource Management account. Among the increases proposed are: $6.6 million 

to address increased workload in planning and consultation for energy transmission 

and other projects, $7.7 million for cooperative efforts to recover imperiled species, 

$4.0 million to support conservation of the greater sage grouse across 11 Western 

States, $2.0 million to investigate crimes and enforce laws that govern the Nation’s 

wildlife trade, and $2.5 million to establish an Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership 

program. This effort will encourage city dwellers to enjoy the outdoors by creating 

stepping stones of engagement to connect them to the outdoors on refuges and partner lands, through experiences which build on one another. 

Funding for FWS grant programs, with the exception of State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants, remain level with 2014. In 2015, funding for State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants totals $50 million. The request also includes $55.0 million for Land Acquisition and $15.7 million for Construction. In addition to direct appropriations, an estimated $1.3 billion will be available under permanent appropriations, most of which 

will be provided directly to States for fish and wildlife restoration and conservation. 

The budget proposes $16.7 million, an increase of $2.5 million, for activities associated with energy development. Of this increase, $1.4 million supports scientific research into the impacts of energy transmission and development infrastructure on 

14 

wildlife and habitat. The research will identify potential impacts associated with the 

development of energy infrastructure and strategies to minimize the impacts on 

habitat and species. An increase of $1.1 million for the Ecological Services Planning 

and Consultation program supports assessments of renewable energy projects proposed for development. 

The budget request for the Resource Management account continues support for 

key programs with program increases of $65.8 million above 2014. The request provides $252.2 million in Ecological Services to conserve, protect, and enhance listed 

and at-risk species and their habitat, an increase of $30.3 million. Within this request are increases of $4.0 million to support conservation of the greater sage 

grouse across 11 Western States and $10.5 million to implement other species recovery actions. 

The request includes funding within Law Enforcement and International Affairs 

to combat wildlife trafficking. The budget provides $66.7 million for the law enforcement program to investigate wildlife crimes, enforce the laws governing the Nation’s 

wildlife trade, and expand technical forensic expertise, with program increases of 

$2.0 million over 2014. 

The budget includes $138.9 million for Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, a program increase of $8.2 million. Within this request is $48.6 million for operation of the National Fish Hatchery system to address top priorities, an increase 

of $1.9 million for fish hatchery maintenance, and $4.4 million to prevent the spread 

of Asian carp in the Missouri, Ohio, upper Mississippi Rivers, and other high priority watersheds. 

Funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation activity is $17.7 million, an increase of $3.2 million, and funding for Science Support is $31.6 million, an increase 

of $14.4 million. The budget supports applied science directed at high impact questions to mitigate threats to fish and wildlife resources, including $2.5 million to 

address white nose syndrome in bats, and an increase of $1.0 million to study biological carbon sequestration. 

The 2015 budget proposes to eliminate the current funding contribution to the 

National Wildlife Refuge fund, a reduction of $13.2 million below 2014. An estimated $8.0 million in permanent receipts collected and allocated under the program 

would remain available to counties. The budget also proposes cancellation of $1.4 

million in prior year balances from the Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grant programs, which have not received new budget authority in several 

years. 

National Park Service—The 2015 budget request for NPS of $2.6 billion is 

$55.1 million above the 2014 enacted level. 

In 2015, a total of $2.5 billion is requested for NPS as part of America’s Great 

Outdoors. This includes $2.3 billion for park operations, an increase of $47.1 million 

over 2014. Within this increase is $30.0 million to support the NPS Centennial 

Initiative. The Centennial increase includes $16.0 million for repair and rehabilitation projects to improve high priority projects throughout the parks, $8.0 million in 

competitively managed funds to support enhanced visitor services in the areas of interpretation and education, law enforcement and protection, and facility operations, 

$4.0 million for 21 CSC youth work opportunities to engage youth in service and 

conservation projects, and $2.0 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities 

at the parks. Across these Centennial increases, the budget provides an $8.0 million 

increase for youth engagement and employment opportunities, and continues the 

NPS’ efforts to attract qualified veteran candidates to fill Federal positions. The request for Park Operations also includes increases of $15.7 million for increased fixed 

costs and $2.0 million to support new park units. 

Also in preparation for the Centennial anniversary of the parks, the 2015 request 

includes $10.0 million in a separate account for Centennial Challenge projects. This 

funding will provide a Federal match to leverage partner donations for signature 

projects and programs at the parks. This program will be instrumental in garnering 

partner support to prepare park sites across the country for the centennial and 

through the second century of the NPS. 

The 2015 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is $56.4 million, level with 

2014. Of this total, $46.9 million is requested for grants-in-aid to States and Territories, $9.0 million for grants-in-aid to Tribes, and $500,000 to be awarded competitively to address communities currently underrepresented on the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

The budget includes $52.0 million within the National Recreation and Preservation account, which includes $10.0 million for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 

Assistance program, essentially level with 2014, and $1.2 million for American 

Battlefield Protection Program assistance grants, also level with 2014. The request 

15 

includes a program reduction of $9.1 million from Heritage Partnership programs 

to encourage self-sufficiency for these non-Federal organizations. 

Programs funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are a key compo- nent of America’s Great Outdoors. The budget requests $104.0 million for the Land 

Acquisition and State Assistance account, an increase of $5.9 million. This includes 

$48.1 million for the State Conservation Grants program, level with 2014, and $55.9 

million for NPS Federal land acquisition, a programmatic increase of $5.8 million. 

Of this amount, $13.2 million supports Collaborative Landscape projects in the 

California Southwest Desert and areas within the National Trails System. Funding for Construction totals $138.3 million, essentially level with 2014. Of this amount, the budget includes $61.7 million for line-item construction projects, a $1.1 

million program increase compared to 2014. The request includes $6.7 million to reconstruct the historic cave tour trails in Mammoth Cave National Park and $3.9 

million to stabilize and repair exterior walls of the historic Alcatraz prison cell 

house at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Indian Affairs—The 2015 budget includes $2.6 billion for Indian Affairs pro- grams, an increase of $33.6 million from the 2014 enacted level. This includes an 

increase of $33.8 million for Operation of Indian Programs; and level funding of 

$35.7 million for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements, $109.9 for Construction, and $6.7 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program. 

Within the Operation of Indian Programs, the budget includes full funding of $251.0 million for Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, 

an increase of $4.0 million from 2014. Consistent with the 2014 Operating Plan, the 

2015 request provides full funding based on the most current estimated need. The 

availability of contract support cost funding is a key factor in tribal decisions to assume responsibility for operating Federal programs important to the furtherance of 

self-governance and self-determination. To further facilitate Tribal 638 Contracting, 

the budget includes an additional $1.2 million to increase services from the Department’s Office of Indirect Cost Negotiations which negotiates indirect cost rates with 

non-Federal entities, including tribal governments. Consistent with Appropriations 

Committee direction and in collaboration with the Indian Health Service (IHS), the 

Department held its first formal consultation on March 11, 2014 with tribes to discuss long-term solutions to Contract Support Cost issues. The Department remains 

committed to working with IHS, tribes, and Congress to develop a long-term strategy for addressing this important issue. The 2015 budget for Indian Affairs includes an increase of $11.6 million for the 

Tiwahe or ‘‘family’’ Initiative. The initiative takes a comprehensive and integrated 

approach to address the inter-related problems of poverty, violence, and substance 

abuse in Indian communities. The initiative builds on and expands social service, 

Indian child and family welfare, and job training programs. In recognition that adequate housing is essential to building stronger families, the budget maintains the 

2014 level for the Housing Improvement Program. The goal of the Tiwahe Initiative 

is to empower American Indian individuals and families in health promotion and 

family stability, and to strengthen tribal communities as a whole. To better target 

funding and evaluate outcomes in meeting social service needs in Indian Country, 

the budget includes $1.0 million as part of the initiative. 

The budget provides strong support for the sustainable stewardship of land and 

resources in Indian Country, sustaining funding for trust land management and 

real estate services at 2014 levels and proposing program increases of $3.6 million 

for the stewardship of natural resources. Funding supports the development of natural resource science, information, and tools for application in the development and 

management of energy and minerals, water, forestry, oceans, climate resilience, and 

endangered and invasive species. Demonstrating the administration’s commitment 

to resolving tribal water rights and ensuring that tribes have access to meet their 

water needs, $171.9 million is provided across the Department for implementation 

of, and technical and legal support for, Indian water rights settlements, an increase 

of $13.8 million over 2014. A program increase of $1.0 million is also provided in 

Indian Affairs for deferred maintenance on Indian irrigation projects to help address 

drought issues in Indian Country. 

The budget supports improving educational outcomes in Indian Country, providing $794.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Education, an increase of $5.6 million 

from 2014. The request includes an increase of $500,000 for Johnson O’Malley 

Education Assistance Grants to support a new student count in 2015 and funding 

to address the projected increase in the number of eligible students. The budget includes $1.0 million to support ongoing evaluation of the BIE school system to improve educational outcomes. Within education construction, an increase of $2.3 

million supports site development at the Beatrice Rafferty School for which design 

funding was provided in 2014. The budget also includes $2.3 million in increases 

16 

for BIE funded post-secondary programs including $1.7 million for post-graduate opportunities in science fields, and $250,000 for summer pre-law preparatory scholarships. 

Departmental Offices and Department-wide Programs—The 2015 request for the Office of the Secretary is $265.3 million, an increase of $1.3 million from 

the 2014 enacted level. Of this, $122.9 million is for the Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue programs, an increase of $3.5 million, reflecting increases to strengthen 

production verification and meter inspections activities, including implementing an 

onshore production verification pilot and funding related data integration. Other 

changes include the proposed transfer of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board from the 

Office of the Secretary to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of $1.3 million, a decrease 

of $865,000 reflecting a shift from direct appropriations to fee for service for Indirect 

Cost Negotiations, and a program decrease of $266,000 in Valuation Services. The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $92.2 million, a decrease of $10.2 million from the 2014 enacted level. The budget includes an increase of $3.0 

million to address urgent, immediate needs in the insular areas, and $1.8 million 

to improve safety conditions in insular school facilities. A decrease of $500,000 reflects completion of an aerial bait system for brown treesnake control. Compact 

Impact is funded at $1.3 million, a decrease of $1.7 million from 2014, and is supplemented by $30.0 million annually in permanent Compact Impact funding. Funding 

of $13.1 million for the Palau Compact Extension is not requested for 2015 as it 

is expected the Compact will be authorized and funded from permanent appropriations in 2014. 

The Office of Inspector General request is $50.0 million, a decrease of $784,000 from 2014. The budget includes a decrease of $2.0 million reflecting completion of 

an effort to reduce OIG’s physical footprint. Increases of $423,000 and $355,000 are 

included to support the council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

and provide additional FTE for information security audits, respectively. The Office 

of the Solicitor request is $65.8 million, equal to the 2014 enacted level. The Office of the Special Trustee request is $139.0 million, $648,000 below the 

2014 enacted level. The 2015 budget decreases Business Management funding by 

$1.6 million reflecting $922,000 in efficiencies from the transfer of some mailing and 

printing services to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a reduction of $500,000 

in litigation support, and a decrease of $200,000 in funding for the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. 

The 2015 request for the Department-wide Wildland Fire Management program is $794.0 million without the proposed fire cap adjustment, and $1.0 billion including the adjustment. The request includes $268.6 million for Suppression within the 

current budget cap, which is 70 percent of the 10-year suppression average spending. This base level funding ensures the cap adjustment of $240.4 million would only 

be used for the most severe fires, since it is one percent of the fires that cause 30 

percent of the costs. The new budget framework for Wildland Fire Management 

eliminates the need for additional funds through the FLAME Act. The 2015 budget 

includes a program increase of $34.1 million for Preparedness activities to enhance 

readiness capabilities. The budget includes $146.3 million for Fuels Management activities, formerly known as Hazardous Fuels Management. This is equal to the 2014 

enacted level with an increase of $1.3 million for fixed costs. Complementing this 

request is $30.0 million for Resilient Landscapes, a new component of the Wildland 

Fire Management program, to support treatments that improve the integrity and resilience of forests and rangelands. Resilient landscape projects will be leveraged 

with bureau efforts to reduce fire risk and improve overall resiliency. The budget 

request also includes a $2.0 million increase for the Burned Area Rehabilitation program to address greater post-fire rehabilitation needs caused by the 2012 and 2013 

fire seasons. 

The 2015 request for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Fund is $7.8 million, a program increase of $1.5 million. The increase includes $1.0 

million for a Department-wide onshore Oil Spill Preparedness Program, and additional resources for Restoration support. The budget includes $10.0 million for the 

Central Hazardous Materials Fund, an increase of $412,000 from 2014 to support 

additional cleanup work. 

The Department’s 2015 request for the Working Capital Fund appropriation is 

$64.3 million, an increase of $7.3 million from the 2014 enacted level. Within this 

request is $53.9 million for the operation and maintenance of the Financial and 

Business Management System, an increase of $1.0 million to continue support of the 

Department’s Cultural and Scientific Collections Management initiative, a decrease 

of $1.0 million from the Department’s Service First initiative, and an increase of 

$8.4 million to support Interior’s Office Consolidation strategy in the DC metropolitan area. 

17 

MANDATORY PROPOSALS

The 2015 budget includes 15 legislative proposals affecting spending, revenue and 

available budget authority, which require action by the Congressional Authorizing 

Committees. Revenue and savings proposals will generate more than $2.6 billion 

over the next decade. The 2015 budget includes four spending proposals with an estimated $9.9 billion in outlays over the next decade. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund—The 2015 budget proposes $900.0 million in current and permanent funding in 2015, and proposes permanent authorization of $900.0 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments 

of the Interior and Agriculture beginning in 2016. During a transition to permanent 

funding in 2015, the budget proposes $900.0 million in total LWCF programs funding, comprised of $550.0 million permanent and $350.0 million current funding, 

shared by Interior and Agriculture. 

Centennial Initiative—The Centennial Initiative includes a legislative proposal 

to authorize $1.2 billion in permanent funding over 3 years beginning in 2015 in 

the following areas: $300.0 million ($100.0 million a year for 3 years) for a National 

Park Service Centennial Challenge fund to leverage private donations; $600.0 million ($200.0 million a year for 3 years) for NPS deferred maintenance; and $300.0 

million ($100.0 million a year for 3 years) for a multiagency Centennial Land 

Management Investment Fund to competitively award grants to Interior land management agencies and the U.S. Forest Service for deferred maintenance and conservation projects. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes—The Agricultural Act of 2014 included a 1-year 

extension of permanent PILT funding through 2014. The 2015 budget proposes to 

extend authorization of the program an additional year through 2015, while a sustainable long-term funding solution is developed for the PILT Program. The PILT 

payments help local governments carry out vital services, such as firefighting and 

police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search and rescue operations. The cost of a 1-year extension is estimated to be $442.0 million in 2015. 

The 2015 budget for the USDA Forest Service includes a proposal to reauthorize the 

Secure Rural Schools Program for a 5-year period, covering lands managed by the 

BLM. 

Palau Compact—On September 3, 2010, the United States and the Republic of 

Palau successfully concluded the review of the Compact of Free Association and 

signed a 15-year agreement that includes a package of assistance through 2024. The 

2015 budget assumes authorization of permanent funding for the Compact occurs 

in 2014. The cost for this proposal is estimated at $178.3 million for 2015 through 

2024. 

Federal Oil and Gas Reforms—The budget includes a package of legislative reforms to bolster and backstop administrative actions being taken to reform the management of Interior’s onshore and offshore oil and gas programs, with a key focus 

on improving the return to taxpayers from the sale of these Federal resources. Proposed statutory and administrative changes fall into three general categories: (1) advancing royalty reforms, (2) encouraging diligent development of oil and gas leases, 

and (3) improving revenue collection processes. Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in net revenue to the Treasury over 10 years, of which 

about $1.7 billion would result from statutory changes. Many States will also benefit 

from higher Federal revenue sharing payments. 

Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic 

Levels—The budget proposes legislation to modify the 2006 amendments to the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which lowered the per-ton coal fee 

companies pay into the AML Fund. The proposal would return the fee to 35 cents 

a ton, the same level companies paid prior to the 2006 fee reduction. The additional 

revenue, estimated at $362 million over 10 years, will be used to reclaim high priority abandoned coal mines and reduce a portion of the estimated $3.9 billion 

needed to address remaining dangerous coal AML sites nationwide. 

Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States—The budget proposes to discontinue unrestricted payments to States and Tribes certified for completing their 

coal reclamation work. This proposal terminates all such payments, with estimated 

savings of approximately $295 million over the next 10 years. 

Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines—To address the legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the United States and hold the hardrock mining industry accountable for past mining practices, the Department will propose legislation 

to create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands Program for abandoned hardrock sites. 

A new AML fee on hardrock production on both public and private lands would generate an estimated $1.8 billion to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned 

sites on Federal, State, tribal, and private lands. 

18 

Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands—Interior will submit a legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on 

Federal lands. The legislative proposal will institute a leasing program under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain hardrock minerals including gold, silver, 

lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum, currently covered by the General 

Mining Law of 1872. The proposal is projected to generate net revenues to the U.S. 

Treasury of $80 million over 10 years, with larger revenues estimated in following 

years. 

Geothermal Energy Receipts—The Department proposes to repeal Section 

224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The repeal of Section 224(b) will permanently discontinue payments to counties and restore the disposition of Federal geothermal leasing revenues to the historical formula of 50 percent to the States and 

50 percent to the Treasury. This results in estimated savings of $4 million in 2015 

and $42 million over 10 years. 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act—The Department proposes to reauthorize this Act to allow Federal lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent 

land use plans to be sold using this authority. The sales revenues would continue 

to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and administrative costs 

associated with conducting the sales. 

Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps—Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, or Duck Stamps, are the annual 

Federal license required for hunting migratory waterfowl. The receipts generated 

from the sale of these $15.00 stamps are used to acquire important migratory bird 

areas for migration, breeding, and wintering. The Department proposes legislation 

to increase these fees which have not increased since 1991, to $25.00 per stamp per 

year beginning in 2015. This increase will add an estimated $14 million for migratory bird conservation annually. 

Bureau of Land Management Foundation—The budget proposes legislation to 

establish a congressionally chartered National BLM Foundation. This Foundation 

will provide an opportunity to leverage private funding to support public lands, 

achieve shared outcomes, and focus public support on the BLM mission. 

Recreation Fee Program—The Department of the Interior proposes to permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which will expire 

in December 2015. The Department currently collects over $200 million in recreation fees annually under this authority and uses them to enhance the visitor 

experience at Interior facilities. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND THE DISCRETIONARY BUDGET CAP

The 2015 budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985, as amended, to establish a new framework for funding Fire 

Suppression Operations to provide stable funding for fire suppression while minimizing the adverse impacts of fire transfers on the budgets of other programs, as 

well as reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the 

resiliency of public lands and the communities that border them. Under this new 

framework, the 2015 budget request covers 70 percent of the 10-year suppression 

average within the domestic discretionary caps and a portion is funded in a budget 

cap adjustment. Extreme fires requiring emergency response, fires threatening 

urban areas, or requirements of an abnormally high fire season, would be permitted 

to be funded through the adjustment to discretionary spending limits. The cap adjustment does not increase overall current spending, as it reduces the ceiling for the 

existing disaster relief cap adjustment. 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES

The budget includes the following proposals to collect or increase various fees, so 

industry shares some of the cost of Federal permitting and regulatory oversight. 

New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections—Through appropriations language, the Department proposes to implement an inspection fee in 2015 for onshore 

oil and gas activities subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed fee is expected to 

generate $48.0 million in 2015, $10.0 million more than the corresponding $38.0 

million reduction in requested appropriations, thereby expanding the capacity of 

BLM’s oil and gas inspection program. The fee is similar to one already in place 

for offshore operations and will support Federal efforts to increase production 

accountability, human safety, and environmental protection. 

Grazing Administrative Fee—The 2015 budget proposes a new grazing administrative fee of $1 per animal unit month. The BLM proposes to implement this fee 

through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot basis. The provision will generate 

an estimated $6.5 million in 2015 to assist BLM in processing grazing permits. 

19 

National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery—The budget proposes appropriations language to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to pursue and retain recoveries from responsible parties, to be used to restore or replace damaged 

National Wildlife Refuge resources. 

Cost Recovery for Nontoxic Shot Approvals—The budget proposes appropriations language to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain and use fees collected 

for the review of nontoxic shot products. Nontoxic shot is a substitute for lead shot, 

banned for waterfowl hunting since 1991. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President’s 2015 budget request 

for the Department of the Interior. This budget is responsible, and proposes to 

maintain core capabilities with targeted investments to advance the stewardship of 

lands and resources, renewable energy, oil and gas development and reforms, water 

conservation, youth employment and engagement, and improvements in the quality 

of life in Indian communities. Thank for your continued interest in the Department’s 

budget. I look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes my 

written statement. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Chairman Hastings 

Question. What actions has the Department of Interior taken to address the ‘‘on 

the ground’’ problem of mussel-encrusted boats leaving federally managed infested 

water bodies? 

Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service co-chairs the intergovernmental 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF), which leads efforts to prevent the 

westward spread of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species in North 

America, and has developed guidelines on approaches to minimize the potential 

risks of mussel-encrusted recreational boats that the States and other partners use. 

Through the 100th Meridian Initiative, the FWS and partners focus on containing 

the spread of invasive mussels and other aquatic nuisance species throughout the 

West through the Quagga-Zebra Mussel Action Plan for Western U.S. Waters, 

watercraft inspection training and certification, prevention planning, and prohibition of interstate transport via its injurious wildlife listing of zebra mussels. The 

ANSTF and its partners manage the ‘‘Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!’’ campaign, a national outreach campaign. The campaign empowers recreational users with simple 

steps to help stop aquatic invasive species transport and spread. 

The FWS provided funding in 2012 for mandatory inspections and decontaminations and improvements to inspection and decontamination procedures in areas 

where the National Park Service has established mandatory inspection and cleaning 

of boats in marina at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, which includes Lakes 

Mead and Mohave. 

The Agency’s aquatic invasive species control and management funding for zebra 

and quagga mussels is $2 million as a line item, of which $1 million is used to fund 

42 existing State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans which encompass a wide variety of invasive species activities, with much of the western work 

being focused on zebra and quagga mussels and both voluntary and mandatory boat 

inspections by the States. The other $1 million is used to collaboratively work with 

the States, in order to increase effectiveness of control activities. The FWS provided 

funds to assist the NPS and State partners with their mandatory inspections and 

decontaminations, including improvements to their inspection and decontamination 

procedures. 

Question. How can the National Park System authorize boats to leave Lake Mead 

without mandatory inspection and decontamination when Executive Order 13112 

expressly prohibits a Federal agency from authorizing any activities that spread 

invasive species? 

Answer. With nearly 6.5 million annual visitors and, in fiscal year 2013, nearly 

40,000 vessel passes sold, inspecting every boat that leaves Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area is impracticable and cost prohibitive, and, even if possible, it would 

not guarantee that no mussel infested boats would leave Lake Mead. In fact, on 

busy summer weekends, visitation can reach 200,000–300,000, and there are dozens 

20 

of lake access points for Lakes Mead and Mohave, many of which do not have entrance stations or are unmanned. 

Lake Mead NRA is actively working to prevent the introduction and spread of 

invasive species. Current efforts include controlling and monitoring populations of 

quagga mussels and promoting public education. The quagga program is focused 

mainly on slipped and moored boats, which are the highest risk vector for transporting mussels from Lake Mead. The program provides that 72 hours prior to pulling a boat out of the water to leave the park, boat owners with slipped or moored 

boats must notify NRA personnel to schedule an inspection and hot-water wash to 

remove all visible quagga mussels. Boat wash facilities are located at all seven marinas within the park. Day use boaters are required to clean, drain and dry their vessels before leaving the area. 

While the NPS does not have the authority to stop vessels with quagga mussels 

that are departing Federal lands at Lake Mead NRA, all of the western States do 

have laws in place regarding the transport of invasive species, including quagga 

mussels. Lake Mead NRA has coordinated with the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

and Arizona Game and Fish Department to provide boat wash information to the 

other western States. The NPS continues to work with the concessioners, the States, 

boat owners, haulers, repossession companies, and contractors to ensure protocols 

are being followed and boats are being inspected and washed properly. 

Question. As you know, in fiscal year 2012, House Report 112–3 31 included appropriations of $1 million for ‘‘the implementation of mandatory operational inspection and decontamination stations at federally-managed or interjurisdictional water 

bodies considered to be of highest risk.’’ However, I understand that this funding 

was not applied to inspection and decontamination stations as required by the 

House Report language. Why wasn’t it, and when do you expect this requirement 

to be fulfilled? 

Answer. Zebra and quagga mussel spread in the West is a complex issue involving 

interjurisdictional waters where both State and Federal laws and policies apply. 

Many fouled vessels being intercepted in western States come from interjurisdictional and federally managed waters in the lower Colorado River. The NPS has established mandatory inspection and cleaning of moored boats at Lake Mead NRA, 

which includes Lakes Mead and Mohave. 

In 2012, in response to increasing pressure to make the program more effective, 

FWS, working collaboratively with the States, used these funds for mandatory 

inspections and decontaminations, and improvements to inspection and decontamination procedures. Discussions with Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, the Quagga/Zebra Mussel Action Plan Coordination Committee, and the 

Western Regional Panel of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force indicated support for this approach, in particular at the Lake Mead National Recreational Area. 

FWS also briefed Appropriations Committee staff about using FY 2012 funds to implement the priorities identified by the Task Force. 

Question. It has come to my attention that the Idaho State Department of Agriculture has been refused requests to the National Park Service (NPS) for copies of 

relevant departing boat notifications to the Idaho Invasive Species Program as they 

are filed throughout the year; copies of all 2007–2009 departure records of Idahoregistered boats and boats that listed ‘‘Idaho’’ as the destination. Why was this information refused, and under what authority? 

Answer. The National Park Service has worked with park concessioners to have 

them provide information on departing boats directly to the States of Arizona and 

Nevada. The State agencies have agreed to share this information with other western States, including Idaho, and have been providing this boater information for the 

last 2 years. Some of the data that Idaho has requested is not available as Lake 

Mead NRA first discovered mussels in 2007 and did not have wash stations at that 

time. 

Question. Your recent letter to Secretary of State Kerry regarding the Columbia 

River Treaty indicated an interest in studying flood risk standards in the Columbia 

River Basin. Does the administration support increasing flood risk in the area above 

current levels? 

Answer. The administration’s position on the U.S. Entity’s regional recommendations concerning the future of the Columbia River Treaty remains under consideration. 

Question. Should States and local governments affected by ESA settlements (such 

as the mega-settlements your Department signed in 2011) be allowed a say regardVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
21 

ing the issuance of ESA listing deadlines negotiated and set by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service with nongovernmental organizations in Federal court? 

Answer. The settlement agreements committed the FWS to make the listing determinations required by the ESA for 251 species on a workable and publicly available schedule. The settlements did not commit the FWS to add these species to the 

list; rather, they committed the FWS to make a determination by a date certain as 

to whether listing was still warranted and, if so, to publish a proposed rule to initiate the rulemaking process of adding a species to the list. 

Question Submitted by Representative Garcia 

Question. I’d first like to say how much I’ve enjoyed working with you over the 

past year. It’s great to see you again. As you know, I represent the Everglades— 

one of our country’s greatest natural treasures. Although the administration’s commitment to Everglades restoration has been strong, I worry that some of the larger 

projects undertaken in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan have been 

indefinitely delayed, effecting families and businesses that surround them. The 

farmers in my district have lost entire annual crop yields because of the high water 

tables and significant flooding that has taken place across the region. Finalizing 

Contract 8 and completing the C–111 Canal South Dade would protect our growers 

from facing significant financial risk, personal burden and a strong disadvantage in 

the international market. Madam Secretary, where are we on C–111 South Dade 

and how does the Department plan to move it forward? 

Answer. On April 30, 2014, Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo Ellen Darcy announced the resolution of issues associated with the C–111 Project so that the 

project could restart after a hiatus of 2 years. The issues that had delayed the 

project involved matters associated with the cost share and crediting to the local 

sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District. Now that the issues are resolved, the Army and the District may execute an amendment to the project cooperation agreement such that important work to complete the project, including 

Contract 8, may move forward. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan 

Question. Submerged Lands and Co-Management Agreement—The next step for 

the administration is to complete the co-management agreement between the Commonwealth government and the Fish and Wildlife Service, so that submerged lands 

in the Islands Unit of the Marianas Trench National Monument can be handed back 

to the Northern Marianas. I hope you will put some energy into getting that agreement, because it has been 5 years now since the Monument was created. Secretary 

Jewell, could you give me a status report on those negotiations between the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Commonwealth. When can we expect an agreement? 

Answer. The Department has committed to early discussions of provisions relating 

to development of a coordinated-management agreement for the submerged lands 

within the Marianas Trench National Monument among representatives of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the CNMI Governor. FWS and NOAA regional leaders met with the CNMI 

Governor and his staff on June 16th and agreed to work together toward this agreement and transfer. Actions to develop an Agreement for Coordinated Management 

are underway between the agencies and CNMI and continued discussions are scheduled. 

Question. ABC Initiative—I would like to know more about the President’s budget, which recommends moving $1.7 million from the Compact Impact Discretionary 

funds the Office of Insular Affairs gets and putting that money into the ABC Initiative. We lose $1.7 million of compact impact money that could go directly into education and instead we get ‘‘embedded teams.’’ Can you help me understand what 

you are trying to do here? 

Answer. The Department is making every effort to be more efficient and effective 

in responding to the needs of U.S. territories. Specifically, the ABCs initiative has 

assessed the conditions of every school building in the territories, which identified 

$177.4 million deferred maintenance, $16.7 million of which is considered health 

and safety risks that must be rectified to provide a safe learning environment. Additional funds for the ABC initiative will be used to begin addressing deferred maintenance items with priority given to health and safety maintenance issues. By 

conducting the ABCs as regional effort through the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

territories are realizing economies of scale that could not be obtained by doing it 

individually for each territory. 

22 

Question. Financial Management Software—About 15 years ago OIA provided financial management software to all of the insular areas. This was to improve financial management by the local governments and meant that OIA would be dealing 

with financial information in the same format from all areas. First, how has this 

project worked out? Did it achieve its goals? And, second, is that software ready for 

an update? If so, will OIA be assisting again? 

Answer. Prior to its dissolution, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) 

government maintained a centralized accounting system in Saipan for the governments of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States 

of Micronesia (and its states), Palau, and the Marshall Islands. In approximately 

1986, as the TTPI wound down its activities, it decentralized accounting and created 

computer centers and accounting systems in each of the islands. The accounting 

software was the same for each government and met government accountability 

standards to create financial reports that could be audited. The accounting system 

and associated software was effective in ensuring each government owned and was 

responsible for maintaining and upgrading its own accounting system. As noted in 

the question, technical assistance funding was requested and awarded to the FSM 

and RMI in the early 2000s to upgrade their accounting systems. This was accomplished under the auspices of the ‘‘Insular Management Controls’’ program, which 

was subsequently discontinued. Since that time, the office has not undertaken a 

general hardware and software upgrade on the scale of that previous effort. 

OIA also continues to provide financial management related support to the insular areas though the TAP Graduate School Contract. Each year, the insular areas 

identify financial management capacity building needs that they have and the Graduate School, funded through TAP, provides training and assistance. OIA has also 

supported financial management improvements in each area by working on providing support for Single Audits through OIA staff and the Graduate School 

Contract. 

Question. Palau Compact—When you were here last year, I asked you about the 

agreement to extend the financial terms of the Compact of Free Association between 

the United States and the Republic of Palau. I had hoped that with your assistance 

and support, we could figure out a way to secure passage of the agreement by Congress. Unfortunately, there has been little progress. The two committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the Senate 

have simply been unable to come up with a suitable offset. We are going to have 

to work harder. But we are also going to need more leadership and some sense of 

urgency from the administration. So, can you update us, Madam Secretary, on any 

administration efforts to secure passage of the Palau agreement? 

Answer. Approving the results of the Agreement is of critical importance to the 

national security of the United States, to our bilateral relationship with Palau, and 

to our broader strategic interests in the Asia Pacific region. As such, the administration transmitted legislation to Congress that would approve the Agreement and has 

worked with the committee to try to identify appropriate offsets for funding the 

Agreement. The administration stands ready to continue to work with Congress to 

approve this critically important piece of legislation. 

Question. ESA—We often hear from our Republican members that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service should concentrate more on recovering threatened and endangered 

species and less on listing them. However, complying with the majority’s endless 

document requests and subpoenas has cost your department $1.5 million and tied 

up 19,000 hours of staff time. Do you believe these resources would be better utilized to help reach species recovery goals? 

Answer. With limited resources it is critically important that FWS focus on 

species recovery. 

Question. Coastal Barrier Resources System—The Department’s budget shows a 

great deal of concern over the effects of climate change. I share those concerns. 

However, the budget does not dedicate any additional resources to remapping the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, a project that is long overdue. Given that coastal 

storms and sea level rise are an imminent threat to private property, public infrastructure, and the environment, doesn’t it make sense to include updating CBRS 

maps as part of your climate adaptation agenda? 

Answer. Through appropriated funding to the FWS and the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, along with funding provided under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, the FWS is well positioned to provide modernized maps for 

the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The FWS, through an interagency partnership with FEMA, is conducting a digital conversion of the CBRS maps that is anticiVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
23 

pated to be completed by 2016. Funding through the Disaster Relief Appropriations 

Act of 2013 provided $5 million to comprehensively modernize maps for eight northeastern States by 2017, which will correct errors affecting property owners and facilitate increased awareness of and compliance with CBRA among Federal partners 

and other stakeholders. 

Question. Law Enforcement—The Department is requesting only very modest increases to its law enforcement and international affairs budgets at a time when 

global wildlife poaching and trafficking is at an all-time high. Is this lack of dedication consistent with the recommendations in the recently released National Strategy 

for Combating Wildlife trafficking? 

Answer. The Department has requested funding at a level that will allow FWS 

to make a significant contribution to the fight against wildlife trafficking. The 

Department’s efforts represent the continuation and enhancement of work that has 

been underway for years. The request is also consistent with the National Strategy, 

which calls for marshaling and strategically using existing resources across executive branch agencies and departments and working in partnership with other nations, the nonprofit community, and the private sector. 

Question Submitted by Representative Duncan 

Question. You mentioned during the hearing that there were cases where chemicals used in fracking were found in ground water. Were you referring to proven 

cases where ground water was contaminated because of fracking, or were you referring to an instance where chemicals used in tracking happened to be found in water, 

with no clear correlation between the two? Do you have evidence you can share regarding what you have found? 

Answer. As indicated at the hearing, the Department is not aware of any studies 

that have suggested a direct link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater 

contamination, but there have been links with groundwater contamination from injected fluids and documented cases of fluid spills on the surface contaminating 

groundwater. These types of incidents are generally reported to States or the Environmental Protection Agency, and news of them are often reported in the press. 

With regard to hydraulic fracturing, however, of paramount importance to the process is the integrity of the well bore, the well bore casing, and the concrete seal, 

which play key roles in ensuring groundwater is protected and fluids going into the 

well do not escape. Additionally, it is important that companies have a water management plan in place for fluids that flow back to the surface. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Robert Wittman 

Atlantic Seismic PEIS 

Question. Do you believe that the Atlantic Seismic PEIS balances environmental 

protection, including mitigating marine mammal impact while promoting a better 

understanding of the available resources in the study area? 

Answer. Yes. The PEIS establishes multiple mitigation measures designed to protect the environment and minimize the impacts to marine life while setting a path 

forward for survey activities that will update nearly four-decade-old data on offshore 

energy resources in the region. 

Question. What date do you expect the Department to issue the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for Atlantic Seismic? 

Answer. Input from the public is an essential part of this process and the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management has experienced a high level of interest in the PEIS. 

Requests were received from several stakeholders, including Members of Congress, 

to extend the comment period on this document. Based on these requests, BOEM 

extended the comment period until May 7, 2014. BOEM issued its Record of Decision on July 18, 2014. 

5-Year Plan 

Question. As the Department of Interior begins the process to establish the 2017– 

2022 5-Year Plan, will you commit to taking into consideration the broad bipartisan 

support for offshore energy production offshore Virginia? 

Answer. As a part of the 5-Year Program planning process, BOEM will consider 

all 26 OCS planning areas, including offshore Virginia. Beginning this summer, 

BOEM will initiate the planning process for developing the next 5-Year Program for 

2017–2022. It is a detailed, carefully executed, and public process that is based on 

sound scientific analysis. A key part of safe and responsible development of our offVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
24 

shore oil and gas resources is tailoring consideration of leasing to specific regions 

and environments, engaging with States and local communities as well as industry, 

NGOs and other stakeholders, and addressing potential conflicts. 

National Fish Hatchery System 

Question. The Fish & Wildlife Service report release in 2013 valued its fisheries 

program at $3.6 billion and supporting 68,000 jobs. Do you view the fisheries program as an important component of the Presidents Great Outdoors Program? 

Answer. Yes, the FWS Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program is an important 

component of the President’s America’s Great Outdoor Initiative, which has a goal 

to achieve lasting conservation of the outdoor spaces that power our Nation’s economy, shape our culture, and build our outdoor traditions. In FY 2012, National Fish 

Hatchery System facilities distributed or held in refugia 113 species of fish. Many 

species that are produced to meet goals for the recovery of threatened and endangered species or for the restoration of imperiled species also have recreational value. 

In addition to culturing aquatic species, many of our hatcheries provide outdoor 

education programs and other opportunities such as recreational fishing, nature 

trails, bird watching, and camping. 

Consistent with the intent of the Initiative, volunteers are critical to the success 

of the hatchery system. Whether they are giving back to their communities, being 

good stewards of the land, setting examples for future generations, or sharing their 

wealth of knowledge, volunteers are critical to the operation of national fish hatcheries across the country. In FY 2013, National Fish Hatchery System facilities recorded 98,265 hours by adult volunteers valued at $2,215,876. The National Fish 

Hatchery System also recorded 12,618 hours by youth volunteers. 

Question. Has Interior considered the overall economic impacts that closing hatcheries would have on the recreational fishing community, small businesses and localities? 

Answer. In the fall of 2012, the FWS launched a comprehensive review of the 70 

fish and aquatic species propagation hatcheries to ensure the NFHS will be positioned to address high priority aquatic resource needs now and into the future while 

working within its budget limitations. The National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic 

Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report is the product of that comprehensive review. Although economic impacts were not among the criteria used to evaluate the 

propagation programs, FWS understands the potential impact of reductions in fish 

production programs on local communities. The FWS announced in November 2013 

that it does not intend to close any hatcheries in the current fiscal year. Operations 

throughout the Service’s National Fish Hatchery System have been greatly impacted by budget reductions including sequestration, as well as increasing operations costs. 

The Report is intended to inform the discussion on the future of the NFHS to 

chart a course for the system that is financially sustainable, addresses today’s most 

pressing conservation challenges, and continues to serve the public interest. 

Question. Do you believe Interior is complying with the mitigation hatchery responsibilities established by Congress and will you be requesting the full amount 

of funding from the water resource agencies for mitigation hatcheries? 

Answer. Over the past decade, FWS has been working to intensify efforts to obtain reimbursement for fish mitigation production from responsible parties. Mitigation for Federal water projects is still an important goal of the NFHS and the fish 

supplied by these hatcheries provide important economic opportunities to the States 

and the recreational community in general. We support the continuation of mitigation work on a reimbursable basis. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Napolitano 

Question. Water Challenges (water shortages and water use conflicts) is one of the 

Department’s initiatives. How will the proposed spending for basic data gathering 

(USGS streamgaging and ground water monitoring specifically) impact DOI ability’s 

to fulfill its statutory mandates, affect decision support, and impact States and 

other non-Federal partners? 

Answer. The FY 2015 budget request reflects a careful prioritization of science investments to support streamgages through the National Streamflow Information 

Program and enhance groundwater monitoring among other activities under the 

USGS Water Resources Mission Area. On the heels of the 125th anniversary of the 

installation of the first streamgage in Embudo, New Mexico, the Department recognizes that streamgages are critical to forecast floods and droughts, manage flood 

25 

flows, deliver water supplies, establish water rights, protect threatened aquatic 

habitats, and for recreation. More than 247 million daily observations from 26,000 

streamgages are currently available through the USGS National Water Information 

System. The USGS operates 4,461 stations with more than 30 years of record, and 

8,024 gages comprise the U.S. streamgage network today. 

Groundwater monitoring is similarly important. Groundwater is a critical component of our Nation’s drinking water, agriculture, industry, and aquatic ecosystems, 

yet as a Nation we have a poor handle on the quantity, quality, and location of 

groundwater. Funding in the FY 2015 budget request supports USGS activities 

associated with the SECURE Water Act (P.L. 111–11), which will allow USGS to 

continue the path forward to achieving a national water availability and use assessment and to advancing USGS efforts on groundwater availability, initiating a 

gradual implementation of the National Groundwater Monitoring Network, and advancing the national assessment of brackish aquifers. The budget also proposes $2.0 

million for a State water-use grant program. The grant program would provide the 

necessary framework, resources and incentives for States to provide water supply 

and use information in a consistent manner, which is essential for eventually providing a uniform, trustworthy national assessment of water availability and use. 

Question. Part of Reclamation’s core mission is to provide for sustainability and 

recycling. WaterSMART and Title XVI funding continues to fall short to be ahead 

of the backlog of authorized projects. 

a. Can you describe the constraints and reasoning why the $21.5 million budget 

does not meet the $350 million need when these projects have been successful? And 

produced thousands of AF of water. 

Answer. The Department recognizes that water reuse is an essential tool in 

stretching the limited water supplies in the West. The Department’s FY 2015 budget request for this program reflects the need to prioritize limited budget resources 

while enabling the significant non-Federal cost share that continues to make the 

Title XVI program successful. Water reuse projects continue to be a valuable tool 

to address current and future water resource challenges posed by drought and the 

competing demand for scarce water resources. 

Question. What is being done to address the costs of not having any water vs. 

water delivery with quagga mussels? How are you managing the research funding 

on invasive species? Who is leading the R/D? 

Answer. We recognize the threat posed by invasive mussels in the West, with impacts at Reclamation dams, powerplants, and facilities of other water providers, as 

well as at recreational sites. Operations and maintenance costs at facilities have reflected these impacts, but to date mussels have not prevented the delivery of 

Reclamation water or power. The FY 2015 budget request, under the Bureau of Reclamation’s Science and Technology program, prioritizes research and development 

aimed at mitigating the impacts of invasive zebra and quagga mussels on water and 

hydropower facilities. The S&T Program will continue to help develop and test technologies to manage zebra and quagga mussels with testing of pulse-pressure 

technologies, UV lamps and high-capacity filters, and coatings materials that will 

resist mussel colonization. 

Reclamation’s collaboration with industry recently led to the commercialization of 

a natural molluscicide that can eradicate mussel colonies within piped systems in 

dams and powerplants. The S&T Program will continue developing and testing new 

technologies in collaboration with other agencies, and partner with U.S. industry 

representatives by utilizing technology transfer authorities. Field tests of multiple 

promising technologies are underway. 

Question. The White House Council on Native American Affairs is advancing five 

priorities including ‘‘economic development, justice systems, education, natural resources and healthcare including health disparity.’’ Substance abuse is included but 

mental health is not defined in ‘‘social services.’’ There is a lack of services for adequate mental health care and suicide prevention. How is this being accounted for 

through the Council and the Department? Specifically, how are you addressing the 

serious mental health issues? Can you speak to the specifics of the program? 

Answer. At the Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ programs assist tribal 

communities in developing their natural and socio-economic infrastructures. The FY 

2015 Budget Request proposes the Tiwahe Initiative, which will expand BIA’s capacity in current programs that address Indian children and family issues and job 

training needs. It will provide culturally-appropriate services with a goal toward 

empowering individuals and families through health promotion, family stability, and 

strengthening tribal communities. 

26 

American Indian and Alaska Native youth suicide is a serious problem in Indian 

Country, and child abuse and neglect, persistent problems among Indian populations in the United States, has had devastating impacts. Children living in poverty are more likely to be exposed to violence and psychological trauma, and Indian 

communities are plagued by high rates of poverty, substance abuse, suicide, and violent crime. 

The Bureau of Indian Education provides the Department’s most direct action on 

youth suicide by providing technical assistance and monitoring though BIE regional 

School Safety Specialists to ensure schools are compliant with intervention strategies and reporting protocols to further ensure student safety. BIE also partners with 

other Federal agencies, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department 

of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, enabling it to address the unique needs of its students in the areas of behavioral health and suicide 

prevention. 

The BIE has in place a Suicide Prevention, Early Intervention, and Postvention 

Services Policy that promotes suicide prevention and early intervention in BIE 

schools. The policy applies to all BIE-operated elementary and secondary schools 

and residential facilities, and it mandates specific actions in all schools, dormitories 

and the two post-secondary institutions; and encourages tribally operated schools to 

develop similar policies. These actions create a safety net for students who are at 

risk of suicide, and promote proactive involvement of school personnel and communities in intervention, prevention and postvention activities. In addition, the Office 

of Justice Services (OJS) in BIA has partnered with a number of health and social 

service programs to assist in educating and presenting at schools, seminars, workshops, and community events on suicide prevention. 

Question. Reclamation’s budget for authorized Native American water settlements in 2015 is $112 million, an increase of $12.3 million over 2014 enacted. What is the 

status and number of current pending water settlements? And how is the President’s Opportunity and Security Initiative investing in finding solutions to climate 

challenges through technology development and R/D? 

Answer. As the Department has indicated, negotiating settlements of Indian 

water rights claims has been and remains a high priority for this administration. 

Such settlements help ensure that Indian people have safe, reliable water supplies 

and are also in keeping with the United States’ trust responsibility to tribes. The 

Department currently has 38 Federal Teams in the field working on Indian water 

settlements in 11 western States with 21 teams involved in implementation of enacted settlements and the remainder involved in negotiations or assessments of possible settlements. Of these, three settlements have Federal legislation pending at 

various stages in the legislative process, with several more expected in the next few 

years. 

The President’s Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative supports investing in 

research and unlocking data and information to better understand the projected impacts of climate change and how to better prepare our communities and infrastructure; helping communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change and 

encouraging local measures to reduce future risk; and funding breakthrough technologies that will make us more resilient in the face of a changing climate. 

Question. In 2009, not one commercial solar energy project was in development 

on Federal land. In the past 5 years, the Department has authorized 50 renewable 

energy projects in solar, wind and geothermal. Fully developed, these projects will 

provide nearly 14,000 megawatts of power—enough to power over 4.8 million homes 

and support over 20,000 construction and operations jobs. Can you discuss the development goals for 2015 on Federal land and Native American land? 

Answer. The BLM in 2015 will be well on its way toward achieving the President’s goal of authorizing 20 gigawatts (20,000 megawatts) of renewable energy 

from public lands by 2020. 

Question. On Employment and Training—Would like to thank the Secretary for supporting public-private partnerships with $1 million toward a goal of $20 million 

for education and employment for youth and veterans. It is a start but not enough 

and I would stress how important it is to continue to educate our youth including 

our university students in water technology, Ag. Can you discuss some of the training for employment? 

Answer. Engaging the American public, particularly young people, is a key priority. In 2009, the Department established a comprehensive youth program with 

strong performance goals to engage, educate and employ youth. Since then it has 

become one of the largest national youth programs in the country, providing employVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
27 

ment opportunities for over 93,000 young people and veterans through direct hires 

and partnerships on public lands. Secretary Jewell challenged the Department to 

expand these efforts in new ways including new applications and other technological 

tools, an emphasis on urban centers, and incorporating youth activities into the core 

operations of the Department’s bureaus. By September 30, 2015, the Department 

will provide 40,000 work and training opportunities over fiscal years 2014 and 2015 

to young people (ages 15–25) to support the Department’s mission. 

The Department has also been active in establishing long-term relationships with 

Federal agencies, schools, veteran’s organizations and military organizations that 

allow us to attract and retain our Nation’s veterans. The Department was the first 

Federal agency to sign an agreement with the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, 

that focused on connecting reserve service members to employment opportunities; 

connecting military youth and families to America’s great outdoors, history and culture; and expanding recreational opportunities for community-based wounded warrior programs. 

Question. Energy projects could be impacted by the permitting processes. As the 

debate on energy development and climate change continues, how would you weigh 

greater industrial safety, permitting, and proper oversight of environmental risks 

and potential irreversible long-term effects to our ecosystems? 

Answer. Facilitating efficient, responsible development of energy resources while 

reducing carbon pollution are integral parts of the administration’s broad energy 

strategy. 

Renewable energy development is an important component of that strategy. The 

President’s Climate Action Plan set an ambitious target of doubling renewable electricity generation by 2020. In support of that goal, since 2009, the BLM has approved 52 renewable energy projects on public lands including 29 utility-scale solar 

facilities, 11 wind farms, and 12 geothermal plants. If built as approved, these 

projects could provide more than 14,000 megawatts in energy capacity to power 4.8 

million homes. 

Development of conventional energy resources from public lands also continues to 

play a role in meeting our Nation’s growing energy needs, and the BLM is working 

to achieve a responsible balance between energy production and environmental protection. For example, the BLM has begun outreach with tribal and State governments to determine if additional regulations could be developed that would establish 

standards to further limit the waste of vented and flared gas. The Department also 

implements the President’s Climate Action Plan goals to reduce the Nation’s carbon 

footprint, and is taking actions such as exploring ways to reduce methane emissions 

from mining operations on public lands. The Department will continue working to 

ensure efficient and responsible development. 

Question. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is leading the Nation with active solar, wind and geothermal energy programs on BLM public lands. What challenges is the Department facing when implementing these programs? How many 

jobs have been produced in renewables? And how is enforcement of proper assessments and permitting in continuous land operations important to prevent irreversible deterioration? 

Answer. As part of its efforts to increase the production of renewable energy on 

public lands, the administration has been effective in managing development challenges by working closely with project applicants to ensure projects are designed to 

give proper consideration to resource and environmental concerns. This authorizing 

process also places a significant emphasis on early coordination among stakeholders. 

The administration’s consideration of each proposed project is informed by public 

participation and environmental analyses required under the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable Federal and State environmental laws. 

This inclusive and efficient authorization process has played an important role in 

developing renewable energy projects that help support thousands of jobs in local 

communities across the West. In fiscal year 2012, we estimate that geothermal, 

wind, and solar energy activities on BLM-managed public lands supported more 

than 11,000 jobs. 

The BLM participates in the interagency Rapid Response Team for Transmission 

(RRTT), which is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The 

RRTT works to improve transmission siting, permitting, and review processes, and 

is currently developing a pre-application process for high-voltage transmission line 

applications in order to improve interagency and intergovernmental coordination 

with a focus on helping project proponents and Federal agencies identify and avoid 

potential siting challenges and issues. BLM remains focused on approving critical 

28 

renewable energy projects, as well as transmission projects, on public lands in an 

accelerated and environmentally responsible manner. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Lowenthal 

Question. Last year I asked the Interior Department a question for the record 

about how the BLM would ensure that FracFocus fixed its data search, sort, and 

aggregation tools. Interior replied that ‘‘FracFocus has evolved into a standardized, 

easily accessible repository of public information.’’ Nothing could be further from the 

truth. 

Madam Secretary, Executive Order 13642 requires that ‘‘the default state of new 

and modernized Government information resources shall be open and machine readable’’ and that the Federal Government is ‘‘to ensure that data are released to the 

public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, and usable.’’ FracFocus 

contains error-prone data that can only be downloaded tediously, one well at a time, 

in PDF format. Not in aggregate or machine-readable format as the Executive Order 

calls for. 

Madam Secretary, do you agree that FracFocus currently does not comply with 

the Open Data Executive Order? 

Answer. The Bureau of Land Management is considering in its revised proposed 

regulation the use of FracFocus for disclosure of the additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Ground Water Protection Council, which is responsible for the 

development of FracFocus, has had a successful track record developing a similar 

risk-based data management system that is relied on by other regulatory agencies, 

including the Department of Energy, and others. BLM will be maintaining its own 

well records and will be working to comply with all statutes and executive orders 

concerning its records. 

Notably, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force recently issued its 

Report on FracFocus 2.0, which contains recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the disclosure of chemical additives and improve transparency for regulators, 

operating companies, and the public. The BLM is continuing its dialog with the 

GWPC and expects further progress to ensure the site meets key elements addressed by the Task Force report, which will enhance the transparency of chemical 

disclosure data. 

Question. Is the BLM working on an agreement with the Ground Water Protection 

Council to ensure that future versions of FracFocus are an appropriate regulatory 

tool for the BLM? 

Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, as the BLM moves forward 

with finalizing its revised proposed hydraulic fracturing rule it is continuing dialog 

with the GWPC and expects site improvements that will further enhance the transparency and use of hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure data. 

Question. Last year I asked Interior the following question for the record: How 

will BLM guarantee that all data submitted to FracFocus will exist in perpetuity 

if it is not a Federal Web site, and is partly funded by the oil and gas industry? 

Your answer was that in addition to data being housed in the FracFocus database, 

‘‘BLM would also maintain permanent possession of a set of this data.’’ 

Madam Secretary, can you confirm to us that BLM will keep a separate database 

of all the information that is submitted to FracFocus, so that the public will not 

have to worry about the loss of this information? 

Answer. While BLM continues to work out the details of the process, data submitted to FracFocus will be periodically transmitted to the BLM for archival purposes and potential hosting if it became necessary. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Daines 

Thank you for testifying before the House Natural Resources Committee on April 

3, 2014. After sitting in the hearing for a significant period of time, I am disappointed I did not get the opportunity to ask you a question as I was detained voting during consideration of a piece of legislation in the House Homeland Security 

Committee. I would appreciate a timely response to this issue as it is a very important issue to Montana. 

As you are aware, three school districts in Montana (Gardiner and West Yellowstone) near Yellowstone National Park were recently notified by the Department of 

the Interior that they are required to repay millions of dollars in Federal payments 

due to an oversight by current and past administrations. Now that this error has 

been discovered, the Department is attempting to have these three school districts 

repay all of the funds received since 1977, amounting to an estimated $8–10 million. 

29 

This hardly seems fair given that it took the Department 37 years to determine 

that these overpayments had occurred. 

Now, it goes without saying that accountability and oversight are lacking in the 

Federal Government—especially when it comes to managing our Nation’s budget. 

But what’s equally disconcerting, and more outrageous to the people of Montana, 

is that you have asked small rural school districts to pay for the Federal Government’s mistakes. Asking them to come up with millions of dollars that the Department of Interior has failed to account for is not only unfair, it demonstrates once 

again that the Federal Government is unwilling to take accountability for its mistakes. 

Question. Can you shed some light on the current state of play between the 

Department and the school districts? 

Answer. While the payments were made in error, Federal debt collection law requires the Federal Government to seek recovery of the overpayments from the 

school districts. As the Department has indicated to the delegation, we are committed to working with the school districts to bring about a reasonable resolution 

to this issue. Currently, the Department is reviewing its options for potential resolution of the matter, and the NPS is in the process of validating the repayment figure 

to ensure the accuracy of the final dollar amount, which is estimated at approximately $9 million. 

Question. It is my understanding that this debt could be waived. Additionally, 

there may be a legislative solution. If so, why is the Department of the Interior pursuing the debt repayment in the first place instead of working to find a solution? 

Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, Federal law requires that 

the Government seek recovery of these overpayments from the school districts. However, the Department is currently reviewing options which might be pursued to resolve this issue. The Department is committed to bringing about a resolution of this 

issue. 

Question. Do you have a precise number for the overpayment amount? Our school 

districts need some certainty. Can you provide those details to my office within the 

next 7 days? 

Answer. Because the Department is currently validating the repayment figure, 

there is not yet a final repayment amount. We expect to have more information 

available in the near future, but as indicated in a previous response the total 

amount is estimated at $9 million. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Mullin 

Question. As you know last Thursday your Fish and Wildlife Service decided to 

list the Lesser Prairie Chicken as a threatened Species under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

This decision was roundly met with enormous disappointment among the five 

State wildlife directors and the great number of entities in the private sector that 

joined together to create an unprecedented Range Wide Plan to conserve the Lesser 

Prairie Chicken and avoid such a listing. 

Indeed, the Range Wide Plan—when added to the several other Federal, State 

and private conservation programs—would have protected around 13 million acres 

of Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat throughout the five States, and amassed over $21 

million in funding from the private sector to pay for conservation activities for the 

Lesser Prairie Chicken. 

But instead of embracing the Range Wide Plan as the new and effective way to 

administer the Endangered Species Act in this era where the Service lacks the financial resources and the personnel to conduct any conservation for these species, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service effectively booted away that opportunity to do something bold and creative, and instead sent the signal to all who might listen that the 

Service will not recognize and reward such new thinking. 

I cannot imagine that anyone will invest the time and effort to craft a multi-State 

Range Wide conservation program now that they clearly see that FWS does not 

properly credit them by not listing the species while the conservation program is 

given a fair opportunity to demonstrate the positive conservation it can achieve. 

Secretary Jewell, do you have money in your current Fish and Wildlife Service 

budget to dedicate to conservation activities for the Lesser Prairie Chicken? 

a. Do you have Service personnel available to do the massive on the ground conservation activities that the State wildlife agencies and their private sector partners 

are prepared to dedicate themselves to in conserving this species? 

30 

Answer. While State conservation agencies have taken a primary role in implementing conservation actions for the lesser prairie-chicken, as discussed below several private conservation organizations and Federal agencies, including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, have played important roles in this effort. FWS has provided both 

technical and financial assistance through its programs and activities, such as the 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and through Habitat Conservation Planning and Candidate Conservation Agreements. FWS also works very closely with its 

partners and, in recognition of the significant and ongoing efforts of States and 

landowners to conserve the lesser prairie-chicken, the use of a special 4(d) rule will 

allow the five range States to continue to manage conservation efforts for the species and avoid further regulation of activities such as oil and gas development and 

utility line maintenance that are covered under the Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies’ (WAFWA) range-wide conservation plan. 

The FWS decision to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species was 

accompanied by a creative and unprecedented use of the authority conferred by Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the States would be able to 

continue to implement their range-wide plan even after a Federal listing. As a result, more land has been enrolled in the range-wide plan in the short period since 

the Federal listing than had been enrolled prior to the Federal listing. Earlier this 

summer the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies indicated that its 

focus is now to continue implementing the plan, recover the species, and facilitate 

the bird’s removal from the list of threatened species; FWS has that same focus and 

will continue to work with the States toward that objective. 

b. Since you have little to offer beyond what the States and others have already 

contributed, why didn’t you decide not to list this species while those unprecedented 

efforts of others had the chance to work? 

Answer. Threats to the lesser-prairie chicken, including drought and habitat fragmentation, continue to impact the species and are expected to continue into the future. Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, after reviewing the best available 

science and the on-the-ground conservation efforts, the Service determined that the 

lesser prairie-chicken is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and 

should therefore be listed as a threatened species. 

Over the last decade, a number of significant, on-the-ground conservation programs have been implemented across the birds’ five-State range (Texas, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado) to conserve and restore its habitat and 

improve the status of the lesser prairie-chicken. Key programs such as the WAFWA 

range-wide plan, USDA’s NRCS LPCI, USDA’s FSA Conservation Reserve Program, 

the Bureau of Land Management’s New Mexico Candidate Conservation Agreement, 

the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico, are engaging 

State and Federal agencies, landowners and industry in efforts to conserve the lesser prairie-chicken and restore its habitat. Collectively, these various efforts are quite 

similar to a recovery plan, something that the Service normally prepares years after 

a species’ listing. This early identification of a strategy to recover the lesser prairiechicken is likely to speed its eventual delisting. This special rule encourages managers and operators to implement protective practices on their land and recognizes 

landowners’ work to protect the species. 

Question. Secretary, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) 

provides that once a State develops procedures that are as effective as the Feds, the 

Interior Department may grant ‘‘primacy’’ to that State. This includes my State of 

Oklahoma. Once a State achieves primacy, it has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 

coal mining. 

In 2010, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) unilaterally countermanded Secretarial policy and regulation with a bureau-level policy, providing no analysis, rationale or basis for the change whatsoever. 

The new policy directs enforcement against a mine operator whenever OSM disagrees with a permitting decision made by a State, essentially rendering a State 

issued permit meaningless. 

Can you provide any rationale for OSM to issue a violation against an operator 

simply because it believes the State violated the law? Can you provide any legal or 

equitable basis for such a policy? 

Answer. SMCRA’s Federal regulations on inspection and monitoring and enforcement apply to all types of SMCRA violations, including violations of performance 

standards or permit conditions and violations of permitting requirements. 

SMCRA authorizes OSMRE to cite violations in a primacy State whenever the bureau finds a condition that presents an imminent danger to the health and safety 

31 

of the public or to the environment. SMCRA also authorizes OSMRE to cite nonimminent harm conditions if, after being notified of the existence of a violation, a 

State regulatory authority fails to take appropriate action to cause the violation to 

be abated and fails to give good cause for taking no abatement action. 

OSMRE does not take enforcement action against an operator unless the operator 

has violated a performance standard, permit condition, or permitting requirement 

under SMCRA. 

Question. To compound the problems, OSM is now applying this new policy retroactively. In my State of Oklahoma, there have been three separate violations recently issued on three permits, with a promise of more to come. 

These permits were issued years ago. They have been mined and reclaimed 

according to the approved plans in the permits. OSM now believes that the reclamation does not confirm to OSM’s ‘‘emerging’’ views of what constitutes land reclamation to approximate original contours, and is asking the operator to spend tens of 

millions of dollars to completely redo the reclamation. Madame Secretary as a 

former business owner, I’m sure you understand the critical importance of any business being able to rely on the terms and conditions of a permit once issued. 

How can you explain why this action is being applied retroactively to permits in 

Oklahoma that are already substantially reclaimed? 

Answer. Both SMCRA and its equivalent in Oklahoma law require that all land 

affected by surface coal mining operations be returned to its Approximate Original 

Contour (AOC) as it existed prior to mining. OSMRE cited an operator for 3 consecutive years, beginning in 2011, for violating Oklahoma’s performance standards 

under SMCRA pertaining to backfilling and grading. OSMRE cited this same mining operator for similar violations in 1994, which was upheld on appeal to the 

Interior Board of Land Appeals. OSMRE’s position on AOC has not changed since 

the initial 1994 violations. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva 

Wild Horse/Burro 

Question. Secretary Jewell, in your statement you mentioned that BLM is expected to receive more fees and revenues from oil and gas extraction as well as grazing permits. This means not just more expansion, but also exploitation on public 

lands. What role have you taken in balancing the impact those activities may have 

on public lands, particularly on endangered species and wild horses? 

Answer. Balancing multiple uses, including statutory obligations to protect specific resources, is at the core of the land use planning process, and ensuring balance 

was a central premise of the leasing reforms the Department implemented in 2010 

to establish orderly, open, and consistent environmental processes for oil and gas 

resource development on public lands. The oil and gas leasing reforms ensure needed balance with up-front natural resource analysis added to the development process. Potential lease sales are fully coordinated both internally and externally via 

public participation, and analyzed by incorporating an interdisciplinary review of 

available information and onsite visits as appropriate to supplement or validate existing data. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, thank you very much for your leadership and your 

support for enhancing our country’s sustainable great outdoor activities by finding 

a balance between greater public access to our parks and recreations, while also ensuring that those parks are not overused and managed in a sustainable way. Can 

you perhaps touch upon the idea of how the Department could foster eco-tourism 

while at the same time manages the impact on endangered species and wild horse 

herds? 

Answer. In 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13597 and announced 

a number of initiatives to significantly increase travel and tourism in the United 

States. This Executive Order charged the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior 

with co-leading an interagency task force to develop recommendations for a National 

Travel and Tourism Strategy to promote domestic and international travel opportunities throughout the United States. The strategy, finalized later that year, focuses 

on promoting regional tourism collaborations in ‘‘key strategic destination markets,’’ 

especially those with a combination of natural and cultural attractions, The Department recently joined with other Federal agencies and States to sign a Memorandum 

of Understanding intended to formalize an agreement through which the Western 

States Tourism Policy Council, a consortium of 13 western State tourism offices, and 

6 Federal agencies will continue to work together to advance tourism on our public 

lands. 

32 

A departmental interagency tourism team, working in concert with local community tourism partners and the National Geographic Society, is facilitating 

Geotourism projects which present authentic natural and cultural experiences to a 

growing ecotourism audience. Among other things, marketing communications for 

these projects often feature stories that capture travel travelers’ interest in protected species. 

Additionally, the National Park Service’s policies on tourism aim to support and 

promote appropriate visitor use through cooperation and coordination with the tourism industry. As part of this effort, the NPS collaborates with industry professionals 

to promote sustainable and informed tourism that incorporates socioeconomic and 

ecological concerns and supports long-term preservation of park resources and quality visitor experiences, and uses this collaboration as an opportunity to encourage 

and showcase environmental leadership by the NPS and by the tourism industry, 

including park concessioners. 

Wilderness/50th Anniversary 

Question. Secretary Jewel, while you are preparing for the centennial of the 

National Park Service in 2016, September 3, 2014 will mark the 50th anniversary 

of the Wilderness Act, a historic environmental law that protects some of the wildest 

places in our country, including significant portions of national parks like Yosemite, 

Grand Teton and Olympic. What is the Department doing in the 50th anniversary 

year to reaffirm its commitment to steward our wilderness areas for current and future generations? 

Answer. The 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act provides an important opportunity to celebrate the importance of its continued preservation of wilderness 

areas for future generations. Surveys indicate that 12 million Americans take between 16 and 35 million trips to wilderness each year, either on their own or with 

a guide. Parks, monuments, and wilderness areas are the infrastructure for the outdoor industry, which generates $646 billion annually to the economy, supports 6.1 

million jobs and generates nearly $80 billion in Federal, State and local taxes. 

Regarding the anniversary, the three Interior agencies that manage wilderness, 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the NPS, are 

participating in Wilderness50, a diverse and growing national coalition of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions that have come 

together to plan and conduct 50th Anniversary celebration events and activities. A 

wide variety of commemoration events are being planned throughout the country to 

raise public awareness of this historic year and the benefits of wilderness. One of 

our key goals is to engage youth and underserved communities; and foster wilderness stewardship by better connecting the broad wilderness network. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Question. Secretary Jewell, I am concerned that the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund authorizing legislation is expiring in September of 2015. So many important 

conservation projects in my State/district have been funded through LWCF over the 

years, and I know it has been an essential tool for your agency to purchase 

inholdings and conserve exceptional places not fit for development. From your perspective, what do we need to do to ensure that sufficient LWCF funding continues 

to be available? 

Answer. The President’s budget continues to support full, permanent funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2015 Budget proposes $900 million in 

combined discretionary ($350m) and mandatory ($550m) funds for 2015—the 50th 

anniversary of the LWCF Act—and to permanently authorize $900 million in annual 

mandatory funding for DOI and USDA programs. We look forward to working with 

the committee and Congress in this effort. 

Oil and Gas 

Question. Secretary Jewell, you are probably aware of the recently reported oil 

spill on the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument that lay undiscovered 

for years, can you comment on the need for the proposed increase in the BLM’s oil 

and gas inspection program? 

Answer. The Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas program has no greater 

priority than ensuring that development is done safely and responsibly. Since 2000, 

the BLM has permitted nearly 47,000 new wells to be drilled on public and tribal 

lands. Today, the BLM oversees approximately 100,000 wells across the country— 

the most ever—and we must meet inspection and enforcement responsibilities on 

each one. Keeping up with this rising demand is an ongoing challenge. 

The current funding system limits the BLM’s ability to effectively meet this responsibility and ensure protection of both environmental and economic resources. 

33 

Unlike with offshore oil and gas development, the BLM does not have the authority 

to charge industry fees to support its inspection and enforcement program. The 2015 

request for BLM’s Oil and Gas Management program would expand onshore oil and 

gas inspection activities and offset the cost of oil and gas inspection and enforcement activity with fees from industry, similar to what the offshore industry pays. 

The proposed inspection fees will generate an estimated $48 million, providing a $10 

million increase in program capacity while reducing the need for direct appropriations by $38 million. Enacting these fees will help the Bureau respond more quickly 

to increases in inspection workloads and reduce the cost to taxpayers of operating 

the program. 

The Department and the BLM are taking the spill on the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument very seriously. After an initial on-the-ground inspection the BLM suspects that the vast majority of the spill may be as much as three 

decades old. A small nearby pipeline appears to have leaked from time to time with 

perhaps as much as 10 barrels of oil having leaked fairly recently. The pipeline has 

been repaired and the leak has stopped. The BLM is currently reviewing best options for ensuring safe rehabilitation and restoration of both the recent small leak 

as well as the older spill. The BLM in Utah, including experts brought in from several of its field offices in the area, is conducting a complete inspection of the entire 

oil field. The company that operates the Upper Valley oil field has been very cooperative and immediately shut down the well down and is working with the BLM to 

determine best next steps. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, in your statement you mentioned that the budget increase in the Department’s oil and gas programs is driven from the expansion of 

onshore oil and gas activities, I would like to know what steps have you taken as 

Secretary to assure that oil and gas development on Federal lands is balanced with 

your obligations as Secretary to assure that our public lands are managed in a manner to protect their natural values for future generations of Americans? 

Answer. Balancing multiple uses is at the core of the land use planning process, 

and ensuring balance was a central premise of the leasing reforms the Department 

implemented in 2010 to establish orderly, open, and consistent environmental processes for oil and gas resource development on public lands. The oil and gas leasing 

reforms ensure needed balance with up-front natural resource analysis added to the 

development process. Potential lease sales are fully coordinated both internally and 

externally via public participation, and analyzed by incorporating an interdisciplinary review of available information and onsite visits as appropriate to supplement 

or validate existing data. 

Renewable Energy 

Question. Secretary Jewell, the expansion of renewable energy in the West will 

be dependent on transmission and modernization of the grid. This is in line with 

your Agency and President’s goal to approve 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy 

on public lands by 2020. I want to know what role is the Department taking to advance infrastructure needed for renewable energy and ensure transmission corridors 

are properly sighted and what kind of funds are needed in order to make certain 

we are avoiding areas of high conflict? 

Answer. Upgrading the country’s electric grid is critical to our efforts to make 

electricity more reliable, less expensive, and to promote clean energy sources. As renewable energy development grows, the Department is mindful of the need for 

transmission infrastructure to get the electricity from the places where the sun and 

wind can best be harnessed to the businesses and homes where the power is needed. 

The Department is a Participating Agency in the Interagency Rapid Response Team 

for Transmission (RRTT), which aims to improve the overall quality and timeliness 

of electric transmission infrastructure permitting, review, and consultation by the 

Federal Government on both Federal and non-Federal lands. As part of the President’s 2015 budget, the BLM is requesting $5 million to support the review of 

energy corridors established under section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

This review is critical to ensuring that these corridors are properly sited and fully 

coordinated with States, tribes, and other stakeholders. 

Climate Change 

Question. Thank you, Secretary Jewell, for your Department’s attention to the climate crisis. As you know, our public lands are already feeling the impacts of climate 

change, from wildfires, to droughts, to pine beetle infestations and extreme weather 

events. The President has proposed a $1 billion Climate Change Resiliency Fund to 

prepare for the impacts and consequences of climate change. What do you foresee 

34 

the Department doing with the funds in order to prepare our lands for climate 

change and mitigate the after effects of climate change? 

Answer. The President’s proposed Climate Resilience Fund is a governmentwide 

investment in developing more resilient communities and finding solutions to climate challenges through technology development and applied research. For the 

Department, this could include developing landscape level information, geographic 

information system data, models, and other tools to support resilient and adaptive 

land management. The Department is also positioned to help communities plan and 

prepare for the impacts of climate change through assistance to tribes and local governments for planning, protecting wetlands, and improving coastal resiliency during 

a time of severe weather conditions. The Fund would enable the Department to 

focus resources on technologies and infrastructure to reduce risks to public lands 

from drought, fire, and flooding, as well as more resilient approaches to managing 

water resources infrastructure. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, you may be well aware that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is currently publishing its fifth assessment 

of climate change science, particularly focusing on the impacts of climate change— 

ranging from the effects on endangered species to changes in agriculture. I want to 

know what the Department is planning to do or has been doing in addressing the 

impact of climate change, especially in terms of climate adaption and disaster prevention? 

Answer. The Department is taking action to prepare for anticipated climate 

change impacts and build the resilience of the resources it manages. The Department’s Climate Change Adaptation Policy was issued in December 2012 in response 

to the need to prepare for the impacts of climate change. The Policy articulates and 

formalizes the Departmental approach to climate change adaptation and provides 

guidance to bureaus and offices for addressing climate change impacts upon the 

Department’s mission, programs, operations, and personnel. The Department is currently finalizing its 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Plan, which will describe the 

Department’s overall strategy for addressing climate change adaptation including 

specific bureau strategies for identifying climate change related vulnerabilities and 

addressing those vulnerabilities. 

The Department is conducting a new Climate Change Adaptation Priority Performance Goal for FY 2014 and FY 2015, to measure bureau performance and 

achievements toward implementing five priority climate change adaptation strategies, which were established in the 2013 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

The Priority Goal will be used to target, track, and report progress on a quarterly 

basis over the next 2 years and will be instrumental in ensuring that the 

Department meets the requirements of Executive Order 13653. 

The Department’s approach to climate change is iterative and will be adjusted in 

the future as our understanding of impacts and vulnerabilities becomes clearer. 

Budget 

Question. Secretary Jewell, in your budget proposal, the National Park Service operations account would provide parks with additional seasonal staff to enhance 

visitor experiences during peak visitation. While this benefits the visitors in the 

short-term, the deteriorating park resources will not benefit substantially. For example, a low percentage of invasive plants and animals are currently being controlled in this year’s budget and in the proposed budget. Therefore, what is the Department’s long-term plan for dealing with the park operations shortfall to ensure 

the park resources continue to be enjoyed by park visitors and don’t continue to deteriorate? And how can Congress work with you to address these continuing operational needs? 

Answer. The NPS anticipates increased attention and visitation leading up to and 

during the Centennial in 2016, and the FY 2015 request includes an operations increase of $40 million to prepare for this opportunity. This funding would support 

an expected influx of visitors during the 2016 Centennial celebrations and provide 

a stronger foundation for visitor services and infrastructure investments in its second century of preserving the parks for on-going usage and the future enjoyment 

of visitors. The request also includes $15.7 million to fully fund fixed costs in the 

operations account, without requiring an offsetting reduction to park base operations. Full funding of fixed costs is critical to ensuring the stability of park 

operations on an annual basis, and in particular as parks prepare to welcome increased attention and visitation around the Centennial. Additionally, the request includes $10 million for Centennial Challenge projects and partnerships, a matching 

program that would leverage Federal funds with partner donations for signature 

projects and programs at national parks, which will provide benefits into the future. 

35 

Question. Secretary Jewel, I’m encouraged the proposed investments in operations 

will provide more opportunities for our youth, employ veterans, and provide for better park maintenance. However, I understand that parks have been losing rangers 

and other staff over the last decade. With the small scope of proposed operational 

budget increase, will park base budgets actually get an increase over pre-sequester 

levels and will it improve non-seasonal park staff levels? 

Answer. The proposed FY 2015 budget request for NPS operations includes funding for fixed costs and support for new responsibilities, youth employment opportunities, volunteer capacity, deferred maintenance projects, and seasonal staff to 

enhance the visitor experience in preparation for the 2016 Centennial. All told, the 

increases requested in the budget would fund operations at $47 million above the 

enacted FY 2014 level. 

The budget restores some of the seasonal employees who provide visitor services 

during peak periods of visitation that have been lost over recent years due to budget 

reductions and fixed costs absorptions. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, the proposed multi-year investment in the deferred 

maintenance backlog is reassuring to see given the unsustainable scope of the backlog. How can Congress ensure that the backlog is realistically dealt with over the 

long-term? 

Answer. Reducing the NPS deferred maintenance backlog is primarily dependent 

on funding levels. As of the end of FY 2013, NPS deferred maintenance needs stood 

at approximately $11.3 billion; $683 million annually is needed to keep this at a 

steady state, In FY 2014, the NPS will devote approximately $382 million to deferred maintenance from a variety of fund sources, including repair and rehabilitation, line-item construction, recreation fee revenue, and funding available through 

the Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. Nearly half 

of the deferred maintenance backlog is in roads, bridges, and tunnels. 

The NPS will continue to prioritize available funding to target the highest priority 

assets. This strategy will maintain a large number of important assets; however, deterioration of some assets that support park missions is expected. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, given that 90 percent of the FS’s Law Enforcement 

and Investigations (LE&I) budget would go toward fixed cost such as staff salaries 

and maintenance, ‘‘why did the FS cut its LE&I in FY15 ($126 million) which is 

below FY14, 13, and 12 ($140 million)? And how would this reduction impact the 

FS’s law enforcement operation? 

Answer. This question appears to refer to the U.S. Forest Service’s Law Enforcement and Investigations budget and we defer to the USFS for a response to this 

question. 

Question Submitted by Representative Fleming 

Question. During your answers to questions, you said, ‘‘I believe hydraulic fracturing can be done safely and responsibly. I can’t say that I’ve seen any studies that 

suggest a direct link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. 

But there have been links with groundwater contamination on injected fluids, and 

I think it depends on assuring you’ve got a good well bore integrity and good practices, and those are the kinds of things we’re looking at in our fracking regulations. . . There has been groundwater contamination from injected fluids, whether 

it’s injected wastewater fluids, or other means, so we want to make sure that in our 

fracking regulations that we have the kind of well bore integrity so the water is 

going to its intended location and the frack fluid and that’s exactly what our regulations are intended to do.’’ 

a. Please provide documentation of the aforementioned specific examples of 

groundwater contamination, including date, operator, how it was reported, and if 

there was an independent audit. 

Answer. As indicated at the hearing, the Department is not aware of any studies 

that have suggested a direct link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater 

contamination, but there have been links with groundwater contamination from injected fluids and documented cases of fluid spills on the surface contaminating 

groundwater. These types of incidents are generally reported to States or the Environmental Protection Agency, and news of them are often reported in the press. 

With regard to hydraulic fracturing, however, of paramount importance to the process is the integrity of the well bore, the well bore casing, and the concrete seal, 

which play key roles in ensuring groundwater is protected and fluids going into the 

well do not escape. Additionally, it is important that companies have a water management plan in place for fluids that flow back to the surface. 

36 

Question Submitted by Representative Flores 

Question. As part of the revision for the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for 

Oklahoma and Texas, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is evaluating opening up public lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River to actively manage 

for recreational purposes that could require significant new budgetary resources. 

The amount of Federal funds needed may depend on how large of an area the BLM 

believes is federally owned. As you know, the border between Oklahoma and Texas 

that would delineate where the BLM lands are located has been disputed for a number of years. On October 10, 2000, H.R. Res. 72 was signed into law that ratifies 

the Red River Boundary Compact agreed to by Texas and Oklahoma that sets the 

boundary at the Southern vegetative line. 

Does the Department of the Interior have a legal analysis of where it believes the 

boundary should be located, and what impact does the agency believe the Red River 

Boundary Compact has on this boundary and the location of federally owned lands? 

Additionally, is the BLM looking to open up the entire area along the 116-mile 

stretch or just isolated areas? 

Answer. The Bureau of Land Management is not expanding Federal holdings 

along the Red River. The BLM currently is in the initial stages of developing options 

for management of public lands and resources in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, 

and Kansas, an area that includes the Red River. As part of its planning process, 

BLM is seeking public input as to the best uses of the public lands in question. The 

Bureau’s goal and commitment is to work closely with local and State government 

officials, congressional delegation members, and the public to determine the best 

management options for the public lands in these three States for the next many 

years. 

The Department’s understanding is that the Red River Boundary Compact did not 

alter the location of federally managed lands in the Red River area. 

Questions Submitted by Representative McClintock 

Frogs and Toad 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s draft economic analysis of its proposal to designate 1,831,820 acres of critical habitat in California for the Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog, the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog, and the Yosemite toad. 

The economic impact analysis employed an ‘‘incremental’’ approach that limits the 

analysis primarily to the costs incurred to the Federal Government as a result of 

section 7 consultations. This methodology severely deemphasizes the most significant costs that accompany critical habitat designations—costs to the public as a result of lost mineral and timber production, tourism, and recreational opportunities. 

This ‘‘incremental’’ approach, rather than a thorough study of the cumulative economic impacts, was used because of revisions to 50 CFR Part 424 that became effective on October 30, 2013. However, the draft economic analysis produced for FWS 

by consultant Industrial Economics, Inc. was dated August 27, 2013. 

It appears that the draft economic analysis was complete and made available to 

the Service prior to the promulgation of the new rule adopting the ‘‘incremental’’ 

methodology. It also appears that the Service withheld the publication of the draft 

economic analysis until after the final rule took effect on October 30. 

Question. Please explain to the committee as to why the Service solicited an economic analysis from Industrial Economics that employed a narrow methodology that 

was not yet finalized and why it delayed the release of this analysis for over 2 

months. 

Question. I would also like to know if the Service plans to employ a broader methodology including baseline impacts and effects on local economies. 

Answer. The FWS is required, under section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species 

Act, to evaluate and consider the probable economic and other relevant impacts resulting from a designation of critical habitat. The prevailing methodology used to 

conduct economic analyses assesses the impacts that are likely to result solely from 

the designation itself, i.e., the incremental impacts. The FWS has consistently used 

this approach for economic analyses of critical habitat designations that occur on 

lands outside of the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2007. 

This approach is supported by Executive Order 12866, Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A–-4 (issued in 2003) and a 2008 Memorandum Opinion from the 

Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. In October 2013, this approach was codified in the revisions to the ESA implementing regulations and is now applicable nationwide. 

37 

The initial draft of the economic analysis was submitted to the FWS by contractors on August 27, 2013. As a result of the internal review and approval process, 

and coordination with other Federal agencies, it took several months before the 

draft was released to the public for review and comment. These steps are part of 

the standard quality control process and are independent of the revision to the ESA 

implementing regulations for impact analyses. 

Yosemite 

Question. The implementation of the MRP is estimated to cost $210 million, the draft Tuolumne River Plan (TRP) is estimated to cost $64.5 million, and the 

Mariposa Grove Plan is estimated to cost $36 million. Additionally, the Park has 

an estimated $500 million in deferred maintenance obligations. We would like to understand how the National Park Service (NPS) intends to prioritize and implement 

the elements of these plans and address Yosemite deferred maintenance needs in 

the event that additional congressional appropriations are not provided. Can you explain the National Park Service’s funding expectations and schedule to implement 

the changes proposals? 

Answer. Potential funding to implement the plan will be derived from three primary sources, the recreation fee program, including entrance and camping fees; 

concessions franchise fees; and other Federal sources such as the Federal lands 

highway program funds. 

Both recreation fee revenue and concession franchise fees are annual revenue 

sources collected by the park. Over the course of the next 20 years, assuming reauthorization of the recreation fee authority, the park anticipates that both of these 

fund sources (currently the park collects approximately $18 M in fees annually) will 

be available to implement the changes proposed. Based on projected revenues, the 

park is confident there will be financial resources to implement a number of projects 

within the next 15–20 years for all three plans mentioned. 

As for priorities, during the first 5–10 years of implementation the focus will be 

to improve the transportation system to alleviate traffic congestion and to conduct 

ecological restoration of high-use areas to better accommodate visitor use. Projects 

include adding and modifying parking, realigning failing intersections and restoring 

eroded riverbanks. Prerequisites for the most critical changes to the transportation 

system will require additional funding during the same time period to relocate facilities and increase the supply of parking. Concurrent to the improvements to transportation/parking, the park will direct financial resources toward creating additional 

camping opportunities and replacing tent cabins with hard-sided lodging. 

Question. The new location of some facilities was not identified in some of the 

Park’s proposals, such as the new bike racks, river rafting facilities and maintenance buildings. When and how will the location of the facilities be chosen and how 

will the public have an opportunity to engage in that process? 

Answer. The locations of minor facilities, such as bicycle rental stands and raft 

rental operations, will be located outside of the quarter-mile river corridor boundary, 

yet remain within the primary visitor services nodes. The park does not anticipate 

further environmental review and public involvement for these actions. The minor 

shift of the location of these facilities outside the corridor is an operational decision 

that will be determined after the 2016 concessions contract is awarded. The cost is 

expected to be minimal. 

Question. How do you intend to prioritize the needs identified in these plans? 

Answer. As noted above, the first priority for plan implementation will be to alleviate traffic congestion and also to restore riverbanks and meadows. Once these 

steps are accomplished, current levels of visitation can be managed more successfully. Concurrently, other priorities will be implemented to enhance the visitor 

experience by providing additional campsites and increasing the availability of yearround visitor accommodations. 

Priority projects seek to accomplish four major goals: 

• Correct identified impacts to river resources to ensure continued protection. 

• Alleviate crowding and congestion and provide for easy access to key park 

facilities and shuttles. 

• Enhance camping opportunities and winter lodging. 

• Replace temporary non-code compliant employee housing. 

Question. Can you explain what the cumulative impact of all these plans is 

expected to be on the current visitor experience? 

Answer. All of the plans address long-standing issues with visitor use and user 

capacity management in the most heavily visited destinations within the park, most 

38 

notably by calling for actions that will improve the efficiency of the transportation 

system. Key actions such as relocating and retrofitting day-use parking areas, adding campsites, and increasing the amount of year-round lodging in Yosemite Valley, 

will improve access and the overall quality of the visitor experience. In addition, the 

wide array of recreational opportunities available throughout the park will be maintained and boating opportunities will be expanded. Once implemented, the plans 

will provide for a higher-quality visitor experience by improving access to the most 

popular areas in Yosemite and by providing lasting protection for the natural features within those areas. Overall, the park expects implementation to improve the 

visitor experience. 

Question. The MRP notes that the TOP will reduce the overnight capacity at Glen 

Aulin High Sierra Camp and eliminate commercial horseback day-rides from the 

Tuolumne Meadows Stables. Does the NPS anticipate this will produce residual impact on other High Sierra Camps and increase visitation to Yosemite Valley due to 

the reduction in visitor services in the Tuolumne area? 

Answer. The NPS does not anticipate any residual visitation impacts on other 

High Sierra Camps or Yosemite Valley because of actions proposed in the Tuolumne 

River Plan; specifically, the elimination of day rides and reduced capacity at Glen 

Aulin High Sierra Camp. With regard to Glen Aulin, the overnight capacity at 

Tuolumne is currently 2,892 people at one time. Thus, the 4-bed reduction at Glen 

Aulin represents only a 0.1 percent of the existing capacity and is an insignificant 

change, 

With regard to day rides at Tuolumne Meadows, current operations serve a maximum of 62 riders per day. At peak periods, Yosemite Valley serves 18,710 people 

at one time and Tuolumne Meadows serves nearly 5,000. Therefore, an addition or 

subtraction of 62 people is not a significant change for either area. However, because day rides will continue to be available in Wawona and because other unique 

attributes of Tuolumne Meadows and Yosemite Valley are the primary attractions 

to these areas, the NPS does not believe there will be any effect on visitation from 

the changes made to day-riding opportunities. 

California Water 

Question. When the Bureau was releasing water from Northern California dams 

in 2013, did the Agency take in account water reliability, and the fact that those 

releases would leave our reservoirs empty in 2014? 

Answer. Yes, Reclamation accounts for water reliability—along with several other 

variables—when making releases from reservoirs. Drought—precipitation far below 

average—is the overwhelming influence on water supplies in California this year. 

Releases made during 2013 have not left reservoirs empty in 2014; inflows and outflows are managed daily at all Reclamation reservoirs in Northern California, and 

storage levels, while below average, are adequate for ongoing water deliveries and 

power generation, albeit at reduced levels. 

Question. Many water releases from California reservoirs serve multiple purposes, 

can you please specify how many acre feet of water releases by the Bureau were 

solely for environmental purposes in 2013? 

Answer. Many of Reclamation’s facilities, including the main Central Valley 

Project reservoirs in California, are specifically authorized for multiple purposes. 

Water is frequently stored or delivered for dual or simultaneous use for multiple 

project purposes including, but not limited to, irrigation, municipal, power, recreation, as well as non-ESA fish and wildlife enhancement, so it is very difficult to 

separate the amount of water that is exclusively dedicated to environmental compliance purposes. It is worth noting, however, that provision of water flow or storage 

for fish and wildlife purposes can sometimes be re-delivered for additional beneficial 

uses, and results in greater reliability of the water supply. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. We 

will start the questioning process. And I am just going to be very 

brief, but I want to touch on just two issues. 

One issue that our committee has been working on, at least from 

a hearing standpoint, has been the Endangered Species Act. That 

Act has not been reauthorized since 1989. And, in view of the 

mega-settlement, I think several questions come up. And I just 

want to get your thoughts on it. 

39 

From the standpoint of data, we have heard in hearings there 

has been a criticism on lack of data more than probably any—I 

won’t say more than anything else—but that has been a major part 

of it. And I can speak specifically in my county, Franklin County, 

regarding the bladderpod. My question to you is just very broad. 

Do you think that the data in the future, going prospectively in the 

future on it, whether it is listing or de-listing, should be publicly 

available before either of those actions, de-listing or listing of a species, just as a concept of a law that is responsive to the people? 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, I know that the ESA requires 

us to use the best available science. I know that there is data that 

comes in over time. I believe that when we do issue listing information, we do publish that, and then we ask for public comment before a listing is finalized. And that includes the science that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service uses to make its determinations. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Well, then let me just speak very briefly on 

the bladderpod. That simply wasn’t the case, at least in Franklin 

County, with that particular plant. So I will leave it go at that. 

The second issue is the Columbia River Treaty. And, as you 

know, Mr. DeFazio and I have engaged you on the issue of— 

environmental part of the treaty. The report that was sent to the 

Department of State now was changed dramatically from the 

standpoint of environmental emphasis. But after the report was 

sent, your Department sent a letter that was somewhat contrary 

to that. And I just want to say that this process is going to go forward, we know that. But I have very, very big concerns about any 

environmental issues being in the treaty. I think that they should 

be separate from the treaty, because the treaty was, as a matter 

of fact, signed prior to any environmental laws like ESA being implemented. 

So, if you wouldn’t mind, just respond to that observation. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, thanks for the question, and also for our 

prior conversations on this. 

I do know the Department of State is engaged with Canada on 

re-upping the treaty authorization, and it has many facets. I do believe that over the decade since the treaty has been put in place, 

we have additional information that helps us understand ecosystems and the impact of our actions on ecosystems. And I think 

that that is something that whenever we are re-upping or reauthorizing, we should take current information into account. 

But the specific details, Mike, do you have more information on 

that than I do? 

We are happy to take that into account, but I do believe we 

should pay attention to what we have learned over the course of 

time, and apply those to any reauthorizations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connor, if you want to respond? 

Mr. CONNOR. A couple of quick additions. We don’t know how the 

State Department is going to proceed now. That is under consideration, obviously, as a result of the dialog from the U.S. entity and 

the input that has been provided by the Interior Department and 

others. 

I think the structure, though, that was put forth by the U.S. entity focuses on the flood control aspects of it, the power production 

aspects, and I think, from the Secretary’s perspective, we are just 

40 

looking to ensure that there are environmental considerations, as 

we discuss those parameters that have always been part of the 

treaty. And I think that is the expectation, moving forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will probably have a follow-up question on that 

in writing. If you could respond, I would appreciate that. 

At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Sablan from the 

Northern Marianas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, for holding this hearing. Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is nice to see you again. Thank you very much for your 

service to our country. And Deputy Secretary, congratulations and 

thank you. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for signing 

over the mineral rights to the Northern Marianas government just 

last month. That was an important step. 

And as we proceed, we also would like to—now, the next step for 

Congress is to include the Northern Marianas and the other U.S. 

territories in the Outer Continental Shelf Act. Chairman Hastings’ 

bill, H.R. 2231, although we have some issues there, passed and 

accomplishes that itself. 

But the next step would be for the administration to complete 

the co-management agreement between the commonwealth government and your Fish and Wildlife Services, so that the submerged 

lands in the island units of the monument can be handed back to 

the Northern Marianas. I would appreciate that. 

I am just going to ask you if you could give me a status report 

on those negotiations ongoing. I would really like to put a timeframe to it, set a goal. You know, you come from the world of business. Could you, if you can’t do it now, get us a status of progress 

report and a set goal, if I may, please? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, thank you very much. We have directed 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fishery 

Service to work together with you. I don’t have a specific deadline, 

but we will ask them about that. 

Mr. SABLAN. Next month. They will all jump and get it done. 

Secretary JEWELL. I think that is probably unrealistic. But I will 

say that—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. Eileen Sobeck, who was our 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs is now head of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. She understands your issues 

well—— 

Mr. SABLAN. I understand that. I met her the other day. 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. And will play a critical role in 

this—— 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. And you know, we could get your assistant secretary on board soon so she would be a stronger advocate 

for us. 

Madam Secretary, on ABC initiatives, you know, this committee—I am also on the Education Committee, and that is why I 

support your Department’s ABC initiative for all the insular areas. 

The Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with identifying infrastructure needs in older schools in the insular areas. And that was 

good investment, I think. 

41 

But one thing I would like to know a little bit more about is the 

President’s budget recommends moving $1.7 million from compact 

impact discretionary funds from OIA that OIA gets and putting 

their money into the ABC initiative. I understand this money 

would pay for something called embedded maintenance themes, 

and the themes would help each school system with planning and 

technical support. But each of the insular areas in American 

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and U.S. Virgin Islands 

would be expected to come up with one million for the actual materials for the school improvements. This doesn’t sound like a very 

good tradeoff, as far as I am concerned. We lost $1.7 million of compact impact money that could go directly into education, and instead we get embedded themes. 

Could you please have someone either make me understand this 

or get back to me and make me fully understand this a little bit 

more? Maybe there is a rationale there that I don’t get. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, we are happy to provide a more detailed 

response. But, overall, we are trying to be more efficient and effective in our response by combining the efforts. The Army Corps is 

looking at a regional effort. 

Mr. SABLAN. I understand that. 

Secretary JEWELL. And they believe they can achieve better 

economies of scale by doing that than doing it piecemeal. So we are 

happy to get more detailed numbers back to you. 

Mr. SABLAN. And I know this is probably unfair to you, but we 

have until tomorrow, the close of business tomorrow, to get our recommendations to the Appropriations Committee. So I don’t know if 

we can get it this afternoon, but we appreciate that. 

Madam Secretary, technical assistance grants are truly important to the insular areas, to the Northern Marianas, in particular. 

Your office has kept our only hospital open, and please know that 

we are very grateful for that. Thank you. And the proposed funding 

for TA money in fiscal year enacted level. I know I may be going 

back—my staff said I am getting down in the weeds with this, 

but—oh, shoot, I don’t have much time—but 15 years ago your Department invested in financial management softwares for all the 

insular areas so we could get complete, uniform financial information. That was—don’t you think maybe—would you start thinking 

about maybe doing some upgrades to those softwares? I mean financial information is truly critical to the islands. 

And one last thing, Madam Secretary, is the Japanese American 

Confinement Sites Grant Program. I am supporting that, because 

my grandparents and my parents were interred during the war. 

And although there were different circumstances, they were not in 

the Japanese that were interred in the war, I have heard their stories. And we need to keep this in our history so that we don’t have 

to do it any more. I mean it is very important. 

And again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. Recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Secretary, for being here again. 

42 

Under Republican and Democrat administrations, Democrat and 

Republican majorities, the payment in lieu of taxes has been a 

struggle. National forests that were originally agreed by local, 

State, and Federal authorities to produce timber with revenue 

being shared by the local communities was embraced because the 

areas knew that that would be OK, the Federal Government would 

see to the timber being produced. Unlike what many people think, 

it is a renewable resource when it is used properly. 

But now it is such a problem, because timber is not being cut, 

the areas cannot tax the national parks or national forests, as you 

know. What work is the Department of the Interior doing to find 

a long-term solution to this problem? It really penalizes local counties and communities. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks, Congressman Gohmert. This administration is fully in support of PILT payments and Secure Rural 

Schools payments. In the President’s 2015 budget we do have a 1- 

year authorization proposed for support of PILT. We would like to 

work with you on a long-term solution. It is the kind of thing that 

perhaps we could couple with a long-term solution on the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, because they are related, in terms of 

land. But we agree that a permanent solution is very, very important to those rural counties that depend on that money. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I hope we can work together to get something done, because there are schools—I know the President talks 

about schools all the time, but these local schools in areas where 

there are national forests really get penalized because they are in 

areas where there are national forests. 

But in my district, out of 36 districts in Texas, more natural gas 

gets produced. In the southern part of my district we have a couple 

national forests. There is a lot of drilling going on in my district, 

especially with the new technology. Fracking is producing so much 

in the way of jobs and better economy in East Texas, and yet the 

last numbers I had seen, leases on Federal lands were down about 

40 percent from where they were under the Bush administration. 

And the last rig I was on out in my district, they said there were 

about 65 people that worked on that particular rig. I asked what 

was the least anybody was making. They said, ‘‘Oh, we think one 

of our guys is only making $80,000–$85,000 a year.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. These are good jobs. And they are producing 

energy for America that could—if we pursue mutual goals of helping get out liquified natural gas, we can help Eastern Europe get 

out of the push of Russia, we can help the world, and help ourselves. 

So, I am just wondering. Under your leadership, will there be 

any change to this continued, really, drastic reduction from where 

the Bush administration was in leasing of Federal lands for energy 

production? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks, Congressman Gohmert. Well, just to 

be clear, we have an all-of-the-above approach to energy production, and we have been moving with—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have read that, but—— 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. With full speed ahead. Well, let 

me give you a handful of facts. 

43 

In the Gulf of Mexico we have more rigs operating now than 

were operating before the Deepwater Horizon spill. Offshore in 

2013 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management offered just under 

60 million acres offshore in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore oil and 

gas production. As Ranking Member DeFazio mentioned, our oil 

production is up on Federal lands substantially from 2008, and it 

is up significantly from 2012. 

So, we have seen increases. There have been some decreases in 

natural gas, and that is largely due to the economics of natural 

gas. Most of the rigs have been put on oil because of the economics. 

And I am a former petroleum engineer. I worked in Oklahoma. I 

have been involved in the jobs that you reference, and I have seen 

nothing to suggest that my Department is doing anything other 

than continuing to support safe and responsible exploration onshore and offshore—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, we would sure love to see you get back to 

the Clinton numbers in leases. 

My time is about out, but I am just wondering. You mentioned 

Deepwater Horizon. When that blew out, the last team to check 

them had—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Very quickly, because there are a lot of 

Members—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. Father-son team that was unionized. Has 

there been any clean-up of the safety inspections on rigs like that? 

Secretary JEWELL. We have had a tremendous investment in the 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. I could get you 

specific budget numbers. We appreciate that the industry—in this 

case, offshore—reimburses us for the cost of inspections, which we 

don’t do onshore, but that is part of this budget. It helps us compete with the industry for the kinds of talented individuals we need 

to do the job right for the American people. 

And happy to provide you with more detail, Congressman 

Gohmert, if that is helpful. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would like more information, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. I want to confine my focus and efforts to the devastating drought that is impacting not only my district, but other 

San Joaquin Valley Members of Congress, as well as the entire 

State of California. 

Madam Secretary and Deputy Secretary, you can determine how 

you want to first respond to these following questions. 

But I would like to, for the record, read some excerpts from a letter that came this week from the Bishop of the Archdiocese of Fresno, Bishop Ochoa, to President Obama. ‘‘Dear Mr. President, the 

lack of water is impacting everyone: farmers, ranchers, dairymen, 

their employees, faith communities, the businesses that serve 

them. The situation is quickly deteriorating into a humanitarian 

crisis. Businesses are shutting their doors and others are laying off 

employees. Access for children and families to clean, drinkable 

water is uncertain. Legislators struggle to craft an equitable public 

policy ensuring the State’s present and future water needs. Lines 

at food banks and human service agencies have doubled due to this 

issue and, in fact, our Catholic Charities services went from 87,000 

44 

units of service in 2012 to 137,000 units in 2013. These numbers 

are expected to double this next year, if the water situation does 

not change. We are reminded in this time of drought of our dependence on the Creator. However, our human dignity relies on access 

to water.’’ 

With unanimous consent, I would like this to be submitted for 

the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will part of the record. 

[The letter submitted by Mr. Costa for the record follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM THE DIOCESE OF FRESNO TO PRESIDENT

OBAMA

DIOCESE OF FRESNO,

PASTORAL CENTER, 

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, 

MARCH 31, 2014. 

Hon. BARACK OBAMA, President, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear President Obama: 

On this day, marking the birthday of Caesar Chavez, as Bishop of the Catholic 

Diocese of Fresno, I join my brother bishops and other Californians of good will to 

exercise restraint in the use of water as an expression of solidarity with those whose 

livelihood and welfare are a risk due to extreme drought conditions. The lack of 

water is impacting everyone: farmers, ranchers, dairymen, their employees, faith 

communities and the businesses that serve them, The situation is quickly deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis. 

Businesses are shutting their doors and others are laying off employees. Access 

for children and families to clean, drinkable water is uncertain. Legislators struggle 

to craft an equitable public policy ensuring the State’s present and future water 

needs. Lines at food banks and human service agencies have doubled due to this 

issue and, in fact, our Catholic Charities services went from 87,000 units of service 

in 2012 to 137,000 units in 2013. These numbers will double in the next year if we 

don’t see a change with the water situation. 

We are reminded in this time of drought of our dependence on the Creator. Our 

human dignity relies on access to water, The creation entrusted to us is a common 

heritage and requires us to work together as responsible stewards for the common 

good, especially mindful of the vulnerable. As the economic and health impact of the 

drought grows, those with limited resources will be the first to suffer. 

May I respectfully ask that you read the attached letter from Senator Feinstein 

and our bipartisan Congressional delegations and take action on those 

recommendations. 

Sincerely, 

MOST REVEREND ARMANDO X. OCHOA, D.D., 

Bishop, Diocese of Fresno. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Secretary, you indicated that you are using 

the best science available. But yet, the biological opinions that are 

being the operational guidelines for the Federal and State projects 

were formulated in 2007 and 2008. They haven’t been updated. 

The National Academy of Sciences plan in May of 2012 recommended modifications and changes. They have not been added 

to the biological opinion. As a matter of fact, the plan that—under 

your agency for the smelt, which is one of the issues that we are 

having to address, has not been changed since 1996. How can you 

tell us that we are using the best science available? 

45 

Secretary JEWELL. Now, Congressman, I appreciate the very significant situation of the California drought, and recognize that it 

doesn’t just impact Californians, it impacts all Americans because 

of the food produced in that State. 

Mr. COSTA. Half the Nation’s fruits and vegetables, and I could 

go on and on and on, but I won’t. 

Secretary JEWELL. I understand. We are very committed to 

bringing all the resources we can to support the California drought 

situation, including additional investments in science. 

I am going to turn to my colleague, Mike Connor, to give you 

specifics related to the biological opinions, and so on. 

Mr. COSTA. Also, I would like—and Mr. Connor might want to respond—you described providing enough flexibility. What is enough 

flexibility? Because I think that is a very general description. 

Mr. CONNOR. Two things. The biological opinions, as we have discussed, have been litigated over, there have been issues found with 

them. But the biological opinion, particularly the delta smelt biological opinion, was recently upheld in the—— 

Mr. COSTA. On technical procedures. 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. By the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Mr. COSTA. On technical procedures. 

Mr. CONNOR. But I would agree with your premise. We use the 

best available science to develop the biological opinions, and then 

we continue to pursue new data, new information. And that is 

what we are doing right now, and we are doing it in a much more 

collaborative manner outside of the courtroom. 

With respect to the flexibility, what is enough flexibility is constantly evolving. This year, given the drought conditions, we have 

responded aggressively with an eye toward the needs of the communities. We absolutely agree with the concerns expressed by the 

Archbishop. We need to be aggressive, we need to look at water 

supply. We have adjusted the biological opinions, we have taken six 

separate actions since the beginning of this year to adjust the biological opinions. That has resulted of making use of precipitation 

events. 

Mr. COSTA. And you are to be commended for that—— 

Mr. CONNOR. But we also have to be concerned about the 

fisheries, too, because we are reliant on that—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, but let me just—on that point, excuse me—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Sure. 

Mr. COSTA [continuing]. Mr. Connor. And you have responded, 

and I want to acknowledge that. I do appreciate that. 

My question to you is I think we can still do more. The exports 

between February 1 and March 31 in the delta were 1.3 million 

total—1,389,000 acre-feet. The exports were 410,000 acre-feet, 

which means it has been a 3-to-1 ratio in the last 2 months. I think 

we can do better, especially when you take into account the other 

factors you are having to deal with, which is the fish count on 

those that are being taken. And the fish count are de minimis, I 

would argue, on all the key indicators, from juvenile salmon to 

steelhead to issues of—I mean there haven’t even been any smelt 

that have been taken at the pumps. 

So you have a de minimis level of take here. You have had 2 

months in this devastating drought, where you have had 3-to-1 outVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
46 

flows on the delta. And, while we have made progress—I will acknowledge that—we could do much more. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. But real 

briefly, Mr. Connor. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. I agree. We need to continue to look at opportunities to do more, given the situation. The take at the pumps has 

allowed us to adjust some actions. We are doing that in concert 

with an aggressive monitoring program to ensure that we can provide more water while maintaining protections for the fishery. 

The CHAIRMAN. And—— 

Secretary JEWELL. And we are also working alongside State partners, as required, for salinity levels and the other needs of the 

deltas. 

Mr. COSTA. No, and we understand that. That is appropriate. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, the 

issue of hydraulic fracturing may be on the ballot in Colorado this 

November. Obviously, the agencies you oversee, and any other Federal agencies, for that matter, would have stepped in long before 

now to prohibit fracking if it threatened human health by contaminating ground water. 

Does fracking, which has been done in nearly a million wells in 

this country over the last 65 years, and which is done thousands 

of feet underneath groundwater, contaminate groundwater in a 

properly drilled well? 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, I may be one of the few Secretaries of the Interior that has actually fracked wells before. I do 

understand the science behind this. It absolutely can be done safely 

and responsibly, and has been done safely and responsibly. 

I will also say that whether it is safe and responsible depends 

a lot on factors like wellbore integrity and whether you have a good 

cement job. If you do, and you can prove that, and the water goes 

where it is supposed to, it is not a problem. 

We have taken 1.3 million comments in on the BLM’s proposed 

fracking regulations. We have worked with the State of Colorado, 

other States throughout the country, to come up with what we believe is an appropriate upgrade to 30-year-old regulations. But I do 

believe it can be done safely and responsibly, and has been, in 

many cases. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Well, thank you. So, does fracking present 

any other health risk, in and of itself, in a properly drilled well, 

as you just described? 

Secretary JEWELL. The key is in a properly drilled well, and 

making sure that companies are abiding by that, and can demonstrate that. I believe it can be and is being done safely and responsibly by companies. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Now, switching subjects, prior to 

this hearing I attempted to find BLM’s 2013 oil and gas statistics. 

However, BLM has not yet made them publicly available. Now, the 

2012 statistics show a continual decrease in the total number of 

acres leased, total number of leases in effect, and number of new 

leases issued. These numbers have been steadily decreasing since 

2008. Can you tell us if the 2013 numbers will show another deVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
47 

crease in energy activity on Federal lands, and when will they be 

released to the public? 

Secretary JEWELL. I can give you a few facts right now, and am 

happy to follow up with some others. 

In fiscal year 2013, BLM processed 4,892 applications and approved 4,472 of them. In fiscal year 2012 we had 5,861 APDs processed, and 4,256 approved. So we are actually increased in the 

number of approvals in 2013. In fiscal year 2011 there were 5,200 

APDs, and 4,725 approved. 

I will say this, Congressman, that the number we are able to 

process is a function of the number of people we have. Part of our 

challenge there is budget, and the ability to dedicate resources to 

that. And we would appreciate your support in this budget for having some fees to industry for onshore oil and gas inspections, which 

we are also doing out of this budget, taken off budget and funded 

by industry, so we can put appropriate resources to the table in the 

BLM to address the demand. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, and thank you for that point. And also, I 

would like to point out we have passed legislation here in the 

House, in a bipartisan way, such as my bill, H.R. 1965, which dedicates some of the money that the Treasury receives from leasing 

and permitting to the hiring of more people to process these applications and permits faster. 

And I am disappointed to hear, like what you have just said, that 

we have decreased in the number of leases and permits for 2013, 

even compared to 2012, which wasn’t that great of a year, either. 

So I am sorry to hear that going down, still. 

And, changing subjects, I would like to ask you about the Helium 

Stewardship Act. Can you tell me what your departments are doing 

to implement that legislation, which was passed in Congress recently? 

Secretary JEWELL. I do know that—first, we appreciate very 

much the bipartisan cooperation, bicameral cooperation, to get that 

done. We continue to produce helium. It is very, very critical. And, 

over time, I believe our plan is to work toward getting out of the 

business of producing helium, and creating support for private industry to do that. 

Mike, do you have any more information on that? 

Mr. CONNOR. I don’t. 

Secretary JEWELL. If not, we could provide more for the record, 

if that is helpful. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would look for that. Thank you so much for 

being here. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for yielding back. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Jewell, for testifying here today. I commend you for submitting a budget that not only makes critical investments to promote 

economic growth and job creation, but also reduces our deficit. 

As you know, this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change issues one of their starkest reports yet on the many impacts of climate change. The report outlined the many impacts 

around the globe that we are already experiencing, and predicted 

48 

that the problems will grow significantly worse, unless greenhouse 

gas emissions are brought under control. 

I believe climate change is a critical generational issue that Congress can no longer ignore. But addressing it is also a way to spur 

economic growth and create new jobs. In the past 2 years, clean 

energy jobs in my home State of Massachusetts have grown by 24 

percent, and are projected to grow another 11 percent in 2014. 

So, Secretary Jewell, one of the many proposals included in the 

President’s Climate Action Plan is setting a goal of permitting 20 

gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2020. I agree that 

public lands must responsibly play their part in expanding the 

availability and use of renewable energy. Can you talk about how 

this budget helps us meet that goal? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Tsongas. The President charged us, as you mentioned, with doubling down on renewable energy permitting, and we are well on our 

way to achieving the goal of 20,000 megawatts by 2020. We are at 

14,000 megawatts today. We do have increases in the budget to 

continue to support that effort. One of the areas I think of greatest 

interest in the Eastern Seaboard is what the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management is doing with the States to deconflict areas to 

stand up offshore wind energy generation projects. And there is a 

lot of private industry interest in that, and also putting a transmission backbone to provide reliable, renewable energy offshore. 

So, we continue to put increases in the budget to support this effort, modest increases, but we do have greater levels of experience 

now, thanks to what the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has 

been able to do over the last year. And we will continue those efforts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I know that Massachusetts was very proud 

to participate in the Nation’s first-ever competitive lease sale for 

renewable energy in Federal waters, because we know that, if fully 

developed, production from these areas could power up to one million homes. 

I am curious as to whether or not you expect other lease sales 

to be made available in Massachusetts and along the Eastern 

Coast. 

Secretary JEWELL. We do have one more in Massachusetts, I believe, but up and down the Eastern Seaboard we are staging lease 

sales. And one of the things that is important to recognize is this 

landscape-level approach, which we are applying broadly, which is 

what are the areas of conflict, and what are the areas that are not 

conflicted, whether it is fishing, shipping, Department of Defense 

uses, Coast Guard, safety. All of those things are being taken into 

account, as well as where the wind is, so that we can be thoughtful 

about targeting leasing to an area that is less likely to be in conflict for the wind energy developer. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I agree that that is an important way 

forward. 

Did you want to comment, Mr. Connor? 

Mr. CONNOR. Just that we have three more lease sales planned 

this year. One of them is off the coast of Massachusetts, as well 

as Maryland and New Jersey. 

49 

Ms. TSONGAS. Great. Another issue here. Last month, at a Federal auction in New Orleans, BP won the right to drill for oil in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The auction came less than a week after the 

EPA lifted a ban on the company from bidding on Federal drilling 

contracts. 

Can you talk about—I mean we have great concern as to whether 

or not we have really addressed the many safety issues around 

drilling in our waters, and I am wondering if you can talk about 

how this budget seeks to increase offshore drilling safety, given 

that we have seen what can happen, the disasters, consequences of 

a spill, a major spill. 

Secretary JEWELL. I am going to ask my colleagues behind me to 

give me the numbers on BSEE while I talk about this. 

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement was created after the Deepwater Horizon spill, as was the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, split apart from what was the Minerals Management Service. There were a lot of lessons learned, 

certainly by industry. Nobody was a winner in that scenario. And 

certainly, by us—it has enabled us to use fees from offshore oil and 

gas activities to fund safety and environmental programs. Brian 

Salerno from the Coast Guard runs that program for us, and is 

very, very focused, personally, on ensuring the safety of our offshore oil and gas activities. And I think they do a terrific job. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I know we in Congress have not received a very good grade. So I am hopeful that all these changes 

will make a significant difference. But I still have my concerns. 

Secretary JEWELL. OK. The BSEE budget, $204.6 million, up about $2 million. And they did actually have a strong budget last 

year, and so we are continuing to round out a strong and qualified 

team. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, a comment. You spoke incorrectly a few minutes ago to the Chairman’s 

question about listing on the Endangered Species Act. A good example is the polar bear was listed without good scientific data and 

no public comment or other things, and I think it is absolutely 

wrong that that was done. 

But, Secretary Jewell, we probably see hundreds of bills come 

through this committee each year which would either designate 

new land as part of the National Park Service, or which would 

start the ball rolling in that direction through a feasibility study, 

or some kind of other investigatory action. At the same time, President Obama has been very active in using the Antiquities Act to 

add new units to the National Park Service, essentially working 

around Congress. 

I personally don’t support any expansion whatsoever of the 

National Park Service for many reasons. However, when many 

Members of Congress seem willing to add new land to the Park 

Service, can you speak as to why the President feels that he still 

must work around Congress to essentially achieve the same end? 

Please answer quickly, I have a bunch of questions. 

[Laughter.] 

50 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Congressman, the Antiquities Act has 

been a very, very important tool that Congress provided to presidents. It has been used by 16 presidents, both Republican and 

Democrat, to set aside very, very important properties like, for example, facility to Harriet Tubman last year, and Cesar Chavez. 

There are only—Congress can designate—— 

Dr. BROUN. Ma’am, I appreciate that. Will you just—— 

Secretary JEWELL. I—— 

Dr. BROUN. I have a lot of questions. And—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, why don’t you ask them all, and I will 

try to answer them all. 

Dr. BROUN. If you could, just give me a written answer to that. 

Are his priorities more important than those of Congress? 

Secretary JEWELL. The priorities of Congress are important, the 

priorities of the President are important. 

Dr. BROUN. Well, the President seems to not care about the priorities of Congress, and—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Congress provided the Antiquities Act to the 

President to make the designations. 

Dr. BROUN. Secretary Jewell, given the tremendous backlog of 

deferred maintenance facing the Park Service, as well as the nearconstant addition of new land to the Park Service’s already bloated 

rolls, is the President’s desire to add even more land indicative of 

a lack of prioritization? 

Secretary JEWELL. No, sir. There are a tremendous number of 

private land properties that are—that private land owners would 

like to put in Federal ownership or provide a conservation easement on which are very, very important to the American people. 

I visited ranchers in both the Everglades and in Montana, for example, that want to put conservation easements on their land. 

That is a great example of a use of Land and Water Conservation 

Fund that doesn’t put any land into Federal Government ownership, but actually enables these ranchers to keep these lands working for their families for years to come, while protecting critical 

habitat—— 

Dr. BROUN. And we talk about the Park Service here—ma’am, I 

apologize again for interrupting you, but we are talking about the 

Park Service here. Seems to me that the backlog has grown so 

large that, like the overall Federal debt, this administration has 

simply chosen to ignore it. 

Madam Secretary, this committee has considered legislation in 

the past which would use timber harvested on Federal lands to pay 

for other related Federal priorities. What are your thoughts on 

using these resources to help ease the current maintenance backlog? And what about selling some of this land to the farmers or 

other willing purchasers? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, the maintenance backlog has about $1.1 

billion to address it in the current budget. We also have recreation 

fees that help support our public lands. And there is money in the 

Department of Transportation—about $280 million—to address 

some roads issue. The sale of Federal lands is dictated by laws that 

we are required to uphold. 

There are things being considered right now, for example in 

Wyoming, to address some opportunities for inholdings within a 

51 

1Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, draft Task Force Report on FracFocus 2.0, U.S. DOE, 

February 24, 2014. 

national park, as being offset by some BLM land exchanges with 

the State. We remain very, very interested in working alongside 

our elected officials and States on things that make the most sense 

to them, as it relates to the management of Federal lands. 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am going to ask you 

to answer some questions for the record that I will present to you, 

and I have a whole bunch of other questions. And I apologize for 

being interruptive in your answers, but I have limited time. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. I will recognize the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam 

Secretary, for coming. I would like to ask you a couple of questions 

regarding hydraulic fracturing and the BLM’s current rulemaking. 

First, I would like to state for the record that I do not think that 

hydraulic fracturing is inherently bad. However, that being said, 

we need to be writing rules to make sure that it is done right. For 

example, the public needs to be certain that fracking is being performed in a manner that protects health and safety, and the health 

of our ecosystems. That is why I have been very concerned with the 

BLM’s draft rule, because it does not live up to those standards 

that we expect from our government. 

Contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle have 

said, it strikes me that the rule doesn’t do much at all, it simply 

requires companies to do what they are already doing under State 

regulations, and to rely on a seriously flawed method of public disclosure. 

Last week, on March 25, I and 14 of my colleagues sent a letter 

to the BLM and to the DOE on this issue of public disclosure. We 

believe that FracFocus, which the BLM is considering for use as 

the primary tool for public disclosure on fracturing operations on 

public lands, is seriously flawed. 

Mr. Chair, I would like to add that letter to the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be part of the record. 

[The letter submitted by Mr. Lowenthal for the record follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BLM AND

DOE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515, 

MARCH 25, 2014. 

Chairman John Deutch, 

Task Force on FracFocus 2.0, 

The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). 

Neil Kornze, 

Principle Deputy Director, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Dear Chairman Deutch, Task Force Members, and Mr. Kornze: 

We would like to thank you for your recent draft analysis of the hydraulic fracturing data repository FracFocus (FF).1 We believe that information about chemicals 

being injected underground should be as transparent and easily accessible as posVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
52 

2FracFocus, FracFocus Responds to Harvard Study, April 24, 2013. 3Scott Anderson, A Red Flag on Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals, EDF: Energy 

Exchange, Dec. 12, 2012. 4 Ibid. 2. 

5 Corrie Clark, Robert Horner, and Christopher Harto, Argonne National Laboratory, ‘‘Life 

Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas and Conventional Natural Gas,’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 

2013, 47, 11829–11836. On page 11832, the authors describe the shortcomings of FF, ‘‘FracFocus 

data are not available in an aggregated format. Data for each well are stored separately in a 

portable document format (PDF). This analysis relied upon a data set made available by 

Skytruth.’’ 6 Ibid. 1. 

7 Ibid. 1. 

8Kate Konschnik, Harvard Law School, ‘‘Legal Fractures in Chemical Disclosure Laws,’’ April 

23, 2013. 9FracFocus, Terms and Conditions of Use. 

sible in order to protect public health and safety and allow the American people to 

know what is going on beneath their feet. We share your conclusion that FF does 

not meet appropriate transparency, usability, accuracy, or permanence standards. If 

the States, the Federal Government, and the public hope to provide meaningful 

oversight and understand the health and safety risks of fracking, we must either 

require major changes to FF or choose another truly open disclosure tool. 

We strongly agree with your recommendations that changes must be made to 

address the fundamental flaw with FF that much of the uploaded data from hydraulically fractured wells is inaccurate, inaccessible, or Incomplete. Specifically: 

Accuracy: We support your recommendation that ‘‘FracFocus should improve the 

quality of the data entered into the system, especially the accuracy and completeness of reported CAS numbers.’’ A FF press release confirms that operator data submissions are not verified in any way, saying ‘‘. . . it is true the FracFocus staff does 

not review the forms for content’’.2 Because of the lack of quality control, well 

records are incomplete, contain numerous errors, and are in inconsistent formats. 

For example, a recent review of FF chemical disclosure data found that 29 percent 

of Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers reported from Texas wells in July 2012 

were wrong.3

Many government reporting programs have been able to establish procedures to 

review submissions and develop program specific software, with data quality checks 

built in, to help filers submit information more quickly and with fewer errors. There 

are many electronic tools that FF could use to streamline and even partially automate such data quality checks. 

Accessibility: We support your recommendation that the FracFocus system ‘‘include tools for searching and aggregating data by chemical, well, by company, and 

by geography.’’ FF states it is only a tool, and that the quality of information that 

it receives is out of its control.4 But even in that capacity it is severely inadequate, 

because FF data cannot be accessed for meaningful analysis. FF has refused to 

make well data publicly available for full download in aggregate spreadsheet format 

for research and make well data publicly available for full download in aggregate 

spreadsheet format for research and analysis. Instead, chemical information is only 

available to the public by downloading data about a single well at a time in pdf format. This fundamental shortcoming has made it nearly impossible to perform any 

comprehensive data analysis without resorting to difficult and imperfect third-party 

workarounds.5

Completeness: We support your recommendation that industry pursue ‘‘complete 

disclosure rather than protecting trade secrets of uncertain technical merit.’’ 

FracFocus does not play any role in verifying the trade secret chemical disclosure 

exemptions claimed by 84 percent of registered wells.6 Instead, FF points to regulators’ responsibility to enforce any trade secret limits; FF allows operators to provide no data and to claim the trade secret exemption on any chemical compound 

they wish. The result is that 16 percent of all chemicals in the database are not 

disclosed because of claimed trade secret exemptions.7

While State and Federal regulators obviously have an important role to play in 

evaluating trade secret claims, certain tasks can only be performed by FF, as the 

central repository of data. For instance, a Harvard Law School report on FF found 

that in many instances, chemicals claimed to be trade secret in one State had been 

disclosed elsewhere.8 FF can and should crosscheck trade secret claims to alert regulators and the public if trade secret claims are inconsistent with disclosures in 

other jurisdictions. 

In addition, FracFocus takes no responsibility for the quality of any of its data.9

Given this abrogation, regulators should have no confidence that FF will play any 

53 

10 Executive Order 13642 of May 9, 2013. 11OMB Memorandum: Open Data Policy—Managing Information as an Asset, May 9, 2013. 12 Ibid. 9. 13 Ibid. 1. 

role in data quality control. Therefore, the failure of FF to verify the data will force 

the States, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and any other health and safety officials to be entirely responsible for the accuracy, accessibility, and completeness of fracking operator chemical disclosures. While we are not implying that FF 

itself should play any direct regulatory role, the data submitted to and housed by 

FF is in fact what regulators rely on to perform their oversight roles. 

In sum, these three fundamental flaws will prevent the public and regulators 

from providing meaningful oversight and evaluating the health and safety risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. 

Finally, the BLM is considering using FracFocus as the data repository for disclosure of hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands. However, given FF’s significant limitations on downloading and aggregating data, using FF would violate 

President Obama’s executive order, signed on May 9, 2013, which requires government information be available to the public in open, machine-readable formats.10

Concurrently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released an Open Data 

Policy, which establishes that the policy applies ‘‘to all new information collection, 

creation, and system development efforts.’’ 11 The information reporting proposed in 

the BLM rule clearly qualifies as a ‘‘new collection’’ and therefore must comply with 

the Open Data Policy. 

We believe that the BLM should incorporate the Task Force’s applicable recommendations, leveraging all of the work that the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board has already completed. The BLM should require any repository database for 

public lands well disclosure to achieve the standards and recommendations that the 

Task Force lays out, and the BLM should not rely on FF until it meets those standards and recommendations. 

Furthermore, because FracFocus has made clear that it is not responsible for 

verifying or challenging trade secret exemption claims,12 the BLM must take responsibility for ensuring the trade secret exemption is not abused. Unfortunately, 

BLM’s draft rule ‘‘does not specify the process by which the BLM would assess or 

deny the protection, nor a procedure for public challenge of the claim.’’ 13 And therefore, the Task Force recommends ‘‘that any trade secret exemptions permitted by 

BLM in its regulations for hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands include a rigorous 

process of claiming trade secret exemptions and robust trade secret verification and 

challenge mechanisms.’’ We strongly concur with that recommendation. 

While we support all the recommendations in the draft report, we urge the Task 

Force to take a stronger look at the potential and feasibility of incorporating prefracking chemical disclosure, water quality data, or other important information into 

FF. The Task Force notes that adding these features would be challenging when 

submissions remain largely voluntary, However, with 14 States now requiring the 

use of FF, and BLM poised to make it a nationwide requirement for public lands, 

we believe that a more intensive exploration of the possibilities of expanding FF is 

warranted. 

Falling short in meeting the Task Force’s standards and recommendations is unacceptable: it will jeopardize the public trust, it will slow responsible operators who 

are following high standards, and most importantly, it will keep the public health 

54 

and safety officials from performing oversight and preventing harm to our communities when the unexpected does occur. 

Sincerely, 

ALAN LOWENTHAL, 

PETER DEFAZIO, 

MATTHEW CARTWRIGHT, 

KEITH ELLISON, 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, 

RUSH HOLT, 

MIKE HONDA, 

JARED HUFFMAN, 

BARBARA LEE, 

MARK POCAN, 

MIKE QUIGLEY, 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER

PAUL TONKO, 

NIKI TSONGAS, 

TIM RYAN, 

Members of Congress. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Our letter supports recent research and recommendations by the Department of Energy’s task force that was 

specifically tasked to review FracFocus. In our letter we document 

how FracFocus contains data that is inaccurate, inaccessible, and 

incomplete. In fact, the BLM rule would violate the administration’s own open data executive order dated May 9, 2013. 

Mr. Chair, I would like to add—put into the record the executive 

order. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be part of the record. 

[The executive order that Mr. Lowenthal submitted for the record 

follows:] 

55 

EXECUTIVE ORDER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


87536.001.eps
56 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Are you familiar, Madam Secretary, with the 

DOE’s specific recommendations on FracFocus—the BLM? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am aware at a high level. I am not aware 

on the details. But I will certainly follow up on that. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Let me read to you just a few of the 

DOE’s task force recommendations. The task force favors full disclosure of all—all—known constituents added to fracturing fluid 

with few, if any, exemptions. 


87536.002.eps
57 

Examination—next one, another—examination of a limited sample of records from FracFocus 2.0 indicates a variety of errors. 

FracFocus should improve the quality of the data entered into the 

system. 

Another recommendation, the task force has learned from 

FracFocus that 84 percent of the registered wells invoked a trade 

secret exemption. This data does not suggest the level of transparency and disclosure that is urged by the task force. 

And finally, I would like to say the BLM—they say the BLM disclosure regulations do not meet the high disclosure standards that 

the 2011 subcommittee recommended that BLM adopt. And the 

task force recommends that any trade secret exemptions permitted 

by BLM in its regulations for hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands 

include a rigorous process of claiming trade secret exemptions and 

robust trade secret verification and challenge mechanisms. 

Madam Secretary, I profoundly hope that the BLM take these 

recommendations seriously. And I would like to add the Department of Energy, the DOE task force report, into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be part of the record. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And then, finally, I would like to just follow up 

that I asked you the last time you were here, on July 17, and the 

answers I found were not really totally complete. 

For example, I asked how the BLM would ensure that FracFocus 

fixed its data search, its sort, and aggregation tools. The Interior 

replied in the letter that ‘‘FracFocus has evolved into a standardized, easily accessible repository of public information.’’ Well, 

Madam Secretary, nothing could be further from the truth. The Executive Order 13642 requires that the default state of government 

information resources shall be open, machine-readable, and that 

the Federal Government is there to ensure that data are released 

to the public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, 

and usable. FracFocus not only contains data that is error-prone, 

it is tedious to download, it can only be done one well at a time, 

in a pdf format, not in aggregate or machine-readable format. 

Do you agree? I just want to know that FracFocus does not comply with the Executive Order itself, to be open, easily accessible. 

We have found it very difficult—and so has the task force report— 

to access. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your comments. We are right in the thick of assessing FracFocus’s current 

capabilities of digesting the information that came from the DOE 

report, and absolutely will take all of that into consideration. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And, just in conclusion, I would just like to say 

we are not opposed. 

Secretary JEWELL. Understand. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. But this is not acceptable. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. 

Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, on 

February 5, 2014, former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar 

said—I quote—‘‘I believe hydraulic fracking is safe. We know that, 

from everything we have seen, there is not a single case where hyVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
58 

draulic fracturing has created an environmental problem for anyone. We need to make sure that story is told.’’ 

My question to you is, do you agree with your predecessor? 

Secretary JEWELL. I believe hydraulic fracturing can be done 

safely and responsibly. You know, I can’t say that I have seen any 

studies that suggest a direct link between hydraulic fracturing and 

groundwater contamination, but there have been links with 

groundwater contamination on injected fluids. And I think it depends on assuring that you have a good wellbore integrity and good 

practices, and those are the kinds of things we are looking at in 

our fracking regulation. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, to be sure, so you are saying there has been 

groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing? 

Secretary JEWELL. There has been groundwater contamination 

from injected fluids, whether it is injected wastewater fluids or 

other means. So we want to make sure that, in our fracking regulations, that we have the kind of wellbore integrity, so that water is 

going to its intended location, and the frack fluid and—that is exactly what our regulations are intended to do. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we request 

the Secretary provide to us the exact examples of that. I am totally 

unaware of those. Again, we have had many witnesses, none have 

indicated any problems with groundwater contamination. 

But let’s go back to wellbore integrity. Now, as you well know— 

and, as you say, you have actually fracked before—we are talking 

about 60 years of experience. And, again, I am unaware of a single 

human that has ever been harmed as a result of hydraulic fracturing. My question is, why do we need regulations for this on the 

Federal level, when we have been doing a sterling job—again, not 

one example of harm to humans—along the way? Why do we need 

Federal regulations at this point? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, we are charged with safe and responsible development on Federal and tribal lands. States, in some 

cases, are very sophisticated and have regulations in place, and our 

regulations say that if the State standard exceeds what we have in 

the Federal Government, the State standard will apply. There are 

many States that have robust regulations in place. There are other 

States, especially in some of these new formations, tight gas and 

so on, where they have not had any regulations, where it has not 

been a tradition, oil and gas exploration. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, but—— 

Secretary JEWELL. There, on—— 

Dr. FLEMING. But again, just—— 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. Federal lands, we must provide 

regulations to cover those. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I mean, again, if they are doing a fantastic 

job and we are not—we haven’t seen any bad results, isn’t this 

really the classic case of the hammer looking for a nail? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t believe so, sir. I believe that we are 

working alongside States to learn from their regulations. We are 

applying the best standards that we can. And our regulations have 

not been updated for 30 years—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, it just seems—it seems duplicative. You are 

learning from the States. If they are doing such a great job, and 

59 

you are having to learn from them, then why do we need a whole 

other layer, particularly at a time where we have such cost constraints? 

Secretary JEWELL. Our regulations will apply to Federal and 

tribal lands. We do have regulations now, they just haven’t been 

updated in 30 years, and technology has changed a lot. And it has 

been more than 30 years since I have been in the oil and gas industry. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK—— 

Secretary JEWELL. And things have changed dramatically. 

Dr. FLEMING. All right. In the time I have left, let me ask another question. 

When you became Secretary of the Interior, it is my understanding—I have a quote from you here that you said on August 

1, 2013, ‘‘I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of the Interior.’’ Is that a correct quote? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, in context, I said I have been on the 

lands and waters around the Department of the Interior, and it 

would be very difficult to see the lands that I have seen and deny 

that climate change is going on. That is, I believe, what I said. 

Dr. FLEMING. So is that a purity test, for someone to work for 

you in the Department of the Interior, which is a very large Department? That means that, in your opinion, that everyone should 

agree with you that there is such thing as manmade climate 

change? You know, there is controversy over that issue and disagreement, even among very excellent scientists. 

Secretary JEWELL. Absolutely not. There is no litmus test for people at the Department of the Interior, and I didn’t talk about 

causes of climate change. Every place I have gone on public lands 

I see droughts, I see wildfires, I see coastal erosion, I see the impact of storms. And that is the reality that we are facing in this 

country. And my comments simply were to say that, as a large land 

manager, it is important that we open our eyes to the challenges 

our lands are facing, and that we address those challenges head on. 

Mr. BISHOP [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Dr. FLEMING. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Chair recognizes Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I 

had the staff peruse the budget. And we can only find two programs that took significant cuts in your budget. And one was 

Alaska land conveyance, which I am not an expert on, and the gentleman from Alaska isn’t here. But the second was the Oregon 

California lands. 

Oregon California lands are an absolutely unique set of lands in 

the State of Oregon that have to do with the government taking 

back lands from a railroad that violated their agreement with the 

government. They were private lands at one point, and then they 

were taken back, and a unique law was passed to require the perpetual sustainable management of those lands for timber. And the 

beneficiaries were the impacted counties. 

As you are aware, the Oregon Delegation is working on legislation for the future management of those lands. But I find it odd 

that this program is taking a 10 percent reduction, and the only 

other program is in Alaska. There are many challenges on these 

60 

lands. One is the fact that they are trying to develop a new land 

management plan because the Obama administration pulled the 

plug on the Bush administration plan, the so-called Whopper. The 

Federal Government recently lost a case in court, and has been ordered to produce more timber on two of the larger districts covered 

by the O&C lands, the southern part. And this is going to require 

a substantial amount of work on the part of the O&C. 

And we have many, many ongoing challenges. And I just don’t 

see how that staff, and taking that kind of a cut, is going to meet 

these challenges and help us coordinate a future for these lands. 

Could you explain why that was singled out for a cut, out of all 

your programs? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, and it is complicated, as many of these 

things are: $4.2 million of a $4.4 million decrease is reflective of 

the fact that the Western Oregon Resource Management Planning 

Program will complete six revised resource management plans in 

June of 2015. So that reflects the completion of those resource 

management plans—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Madam Secretary, if I could—and I don’t want to 

be impolite, but I don’t have much time—if the past is any predictor of the future, those plans will not be completed by June of 

next year, you know. And so I think pulling back resources at the 

beginning of the year, in the anticipation that somehow those plans 

are magically going to get through the process, very complicated 

plans, is not good planning. 

Second, obviously, we are going to have the same challenges in 

Oregon that other States have with fires this year. Again, I just— 

I can’t find a way to justify those cuts, and would hope that Congress will see fit to rearrange the budget in those ways. 

Let’s go to Land Water Conservation Fund for just a minute. We 

had early discussion by the Chairman. There is $900 million, I believe, that flows in from fees on offshore oil and gas. Is that correct? 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. About 900? 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And how much of that was spent on conservation purposes last year? 

Secretary JEWELL. What was the current number for LWCF, 

Pam? She will be looking that up. Actually, we get way more than 

$900 million. That was the amount that was allocated for LWCF 

back in—49 years ago, when the law was enacted. We actually take 

in a lot more than that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So you have revenues in excess of $900 million, and only a portion of it is dedicated to the LWCF, and it is 

authorized to be spent on conservation purposes. 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct; $306 million for LWCF last 

year, and that was both Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So where did the other slightly less than $600 million go that was designated and authorized by law to be spent for 

conservation purposes? 

Secretary JEWELL. It was not appropriated, so it went to other 

portions of the budget, or other appropriations, or was not spent. 

61 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And yet you—as you said, you have willing 

sellers who have inholdings who are either looking to convey easements or perhaps convey their land-locked parcel to the Park 

Service? 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct. Far, far in excess of the 

money that would be appropriated now and for the future. Just a quick number, revenue deposits since 1965 of $35 billion, of which $19 billion has not been appropriated. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. $19 billion, OK. 

Secretary JEWELL. Correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, and then the other thing is the backlog in the 

parks, and we don’t have time to get into that now. But we have 

to find a way to begin to defray that capital backlog. I would love 

to discuss that at another time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. Recognize the 

gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Jewell, 

thank you for being here and being forthright with your answers 

today. I have enjoyed the testimony. 

I want to clear up one thing real quick. Dr. Fleming was asking 

about hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination and you 

said that there have been instances with the fracking fluid actually 

getting in groundwater. 

Secretary JEWELL. No, sir. I actually talked about injected fluids. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. So that was surface water runoff is the issue— 

the ones that I am aware of, where there has been any groundwater contamination that—have been able to point to, it has been 

where something, hydraulic fluids, have been stored onsite and 

maybe had an event where they ran off into a stream, or whatever. 

Is that what you are talking about, or are you talking about actually down in the earth, getting into the aquifer? 

Secretary JEWELL. No, sir. I mean there have been documented 

cases of fracking fluid on the surface contaminating groundwater, 

people dumping it illegally, those kinds of things. There has been 

evidence of groundwater contamination from injected fluids, but 

not specifically due to fracking. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK, thank you. I look forward to getting that information. So thank you for that. 

After 5 years of waiting, I am thankful that we can look at the 

final PEIS for seismic testing in the Atlantic. However, this week 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced that they will 

extend the comment period for the Atlantic seismic PEIS for another 30 days. This, of course, again, pushes back the data of the 

expected record of decision, so that we can get permitting for seismic movement in the Atlantic. 

Can you explain why this delay was necessary, especially for a 

process that started 5 years ago? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, sir, we have been involved in it for a 

number of years. We are fully committed to supporting seismic, 

geologic, and geophysical examination. We get requests to extend 

comment periods. A 30-day extension is not unusual for us on 

things like that. We don’t believe it will have a material impact on 

the interest or the timing of the interested G&G parties in doing 

seismic work in the Atlantic. 

62 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. You have previously stated that completion of 

the PEIS will inform future decisions about whether leasing in the 

Atlantic would be appropriate. And, if so, where such leasing 

should take place. You have also stated that collection of new seismic data is not prerequisite to developing the next 5-year program. 

So, if I take those statements one step further, can you pledge 

that the Mid- and South-Atlantic planning areas will remain an option for possible leasing in the next 5-year plan? 

Secretary JEWELL. We certainly expect that—I mean they certainly will be an option for possible leasing. Our expectation is we 

will have good data, and we will be looking very seriously at inclusion of the Atlantic based on the information that we know will be 

occurring over the coming years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. Well, let me just ask it a different way, then. 

In your words, can you pledge that your draft 2017–2022 5-year 

program will not close off the Atlantic leasing so long as we are 

still waiting on new seismic data being obtained and interpreted? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, we have no intention of closing off that 

area. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything further, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, and recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Madam Secretary, for being here. 

Many of the questions have been explored, Land Water Conservation Fund, and I will submit questions to that, some questions 

that I have specific to wild horses and burros, and what that process with BLM is going on. But I did want to point out a couple of 

things that I thought were important to point out in your—in the 

budget of the Department. 

The reform of the 1872 mining law, I think, is significant, to extend for hard rock and mineral extraction. The royalty requirements that we have on other extractions like gas and oil, I think, 

is an important step as a revenue generator, and as a return to the 

taxpayers. 

Tribal issues, the focus of that, the point of self-determination, 

looking at health care, infrastructure needs on native land, I think, 

is overdue and a very needed requirement. 

I note with some irony, as we are talking about self-determination, that the Sioux Nation and Dakota is planning to sue the Federal Government over treaty violations, sovereignty issues, sacred 

sites and graves, Antiquities Law, relative to the siting of the 

Keystone Pipeline, which I think is going to inject an interesting 

perspective and a whole other legal battle regarding that particular 

alignment. 

I want to associate myself with the points that Congressman 

Lowenthal made regarding fracking. I think, as we go forward— 

and in clarifying the questions that came up from colleagues—that 

the injection or the use of chemicals in that process is perhaps the 

contamination source. And for that reason, I think the disclosure 

point that my colleague made is critical to those rules and regulations. If we still have a protection over a trade secret issue, or anything could be declared proprietary, and, therefore, the public’s 

63 

right to know is not available, then I would suggest—and I join in 

the comments he made—that that is a critical point there. 

The initial step of dealing with issues of adaptation and disaster 

prevention on public lands relative climate change, I think, is very 

important. And it is an initial step. The U.N. is asking the United 

States for 200 billion as their contribution toward the worldwide 

attack on—and litigation of climate change. I think that is an important one. And I—should be more money, but I think that the 

public lands can be a wonderful incubator and example of how we 

can deal with this very, very important issue. And I want to thank 

you for not putting your head or the Department’s head in the sand 

relative to this issue that is very real and scientifically verified 

across the board. 

The budget. The increase, the scope of the increase I would consider small on the parks. But given that, do you feel like you are 

at a point that you are at least to pre-sequestration levels, or moving in that direction? Given maintenance backlog, the need to integrate youth and veterans and others into the park, promotion of 

ecotourism, just the budget alone, and I will leave you with that 

question or any other comment you want to make. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Congressman Grijalva. 

The Park Service budget in specific, we have the centennial coming 

up, we have worked hard to try and put a modest increase in the 

authorized budget: $40 million for operations and high-priority 

projects, of which $10 million is for a match with private philanthropy. We will be pursuing legislative action for an additional $1.2 

billion over 3 years that will address the most critical maintenance 

issues in the parks and that visitor experience. 

And then, the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security 

Initiative has an additional level of support. All still are not going 

to address the backlog issues we have in a huge way, but at least 

a—improve that visitor experience, and some of the things like 

Congressman DeFazio talked about. So—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. We are making a step in that direction. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. And I, for one, am glad that the President 

provides a check and balance sometimes to the priorities that are 

set by the majority of the House of Representatives. I am glad for 

that check and balance, and I hope that when things don’t appear 

to be correct, that it is used. Thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Jewell, for joining us today. I appreciate you following up with your 

answer regarding hydraulic fracturing to separate the injection of 

underground fluids versus the operation of hydraulic fracturing 

itself, which has not given any evidence of any groundwater pollution. So I appreciate you doing that. 

In the omnibus that we passed for this year, the omnibus appropriations, each of the CEQ, the EPA, and the Department of the 

Interior has been directed to submit a report identifying all expenditures in fiscal year 2012 and 2013 for the development, administration, and implementation of the National Ocean Policy, as 

64 

set forth in Executive Order 13547, and to clearly identify the 

funding proposed for the implementation of the National Ocean 

Policy in future budget submissions. 

This report was due 60 days after the enactment of the fiscal 

year 2014 omnibus, which occurred on January 17, 2014. Now, according to my calendar, the report was due to be submitted on 

March 18. Can you give me the status of that report? 

Secretary JEWELL. I do know we support the goals of the 

National Ocean Policy, and I am not familiar with the status of the 

timing of the report. 

You guys? 

Mr. FLORES. The—— 

Secretary JEWELL. OK, we are providing input, but I don’t have 

the date. I am sorry. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. I would ask you to follow up within 7 days of 

this hearing on that. 

The second part of that is, if it hasn’t been submitted—and it 

sounds like it probably has not—then I would like, within 7 days 

from this hearing, to know when it will be submitted to Congress, 

in accordance with the appropriations bill that was enacted on 

January 17. 

The next question has to do with NPS. Do you have any 

unencumbered funds from prior years’ appropriations for land acquisition? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, we do, and we don’t know the number. 

But I am happy to get that back—— 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Would you submit that within 7 days, too? A minute ago I think you said $1.1 billion is your number for budget—on deferred maintenance? But that is probably $1.1 million, isn’t it? Is it million or billion? 

Secretary JEWELL. OK, it is Department-wide, Park Service, refuges, BLM lands, and so on, not specific to the National Park 

Service. 

Mr. FLORES. OK—— 

Secretary JEWELL. And that is—— 

Mr. FLORES [continuing]. Department-wide, but—— 

Secretary JEWELL.—$1.1 billion, Department-wide, across—— 

Mr. FLORES. What was the number, again? Billion or million? 

Secretary JEWELL. Billion. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And then, what is the total deferred maintenance for land—for all Department of the Interior lands? 

Secretary JEWELL. I know that the Park Service is $11 billion. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, I think, is $4.7. Do you have a number 

for BLM? OK, she is getting the number for BLM. Do you want to 

keep going? 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, you can get that to me in a minute. In your 

budget you had proposed $25 million for land acquisition, and $954 

million for the management, lands, and resources account. Is there 

any way that you can use any of the $954 million for land acquisition, or are you keeping that totally separate and it is only for 

maintenance? 

Secretary JEWELL. Only for maintenance. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, good. So there will be no reprogramming from 

those accounts for land acquisition. 

65 

Secretary JEWELL. No. 

Mr. FLORES. OK, great. Let’s see. The next question is, going 

back to—these are follow-ups to questions—answers you gave to 

Congressman Lamborn and Congressman Fleming related to hydraulic fracturing of—the BLM rule on hydraulic fracturing. 

In response to Lamborn’s question you said you consulted with 

the States. And in response to Congressman Fleming’s question 

you said you worked along—when I say ‘‘you,’’ the Department of 

the Interior was working alongside the States. I have checked with 

the State of Texas, with the railroad commissioner, railroad commission, commissioners and staff, and they said they have had no 

direct conversations with the Department of the Interior regarding 

the BLM rule. 

So, if you are working alongside the States, and Texas is the 

largest energy producer in the country, can you tell me what States 

you worked—I mean why Texas was left out, since we have a regulation program that shows efficacy? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, I can tell you this, that we are concentrating our efforts predominantly where there are Federal and tribal lands with oil and gas development, so States like Wyoming, 

Colorado, North Dakota is where a lot of the action is going on. But 

I can’t specifically say why they haven’t consulted with Texas, and 

I will follow up with that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. That would be good. I mean—— 

Secretary JEWELL. And let me give you the maintenance backlog 

number, if I may. 

Mr. FLORES [continuing]. Sort of two parts of the question. Yes, 

where are the lands, I agree with that. But second, where are the 

best practices? And so, as a leading energy-producing State, I 

would think that we would be consulted with. 

Secretary JEWELL. I take that as an offer to consult, and we are 

happy to follow up. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Secretary JEWELL. Total deferred maintenance, $13 to $19 

billion; BLM, $700 million. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Secretary JEWELL. Just to answer that earlier question. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Appreciate your help. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the—— 

Mr. FLORES. And we will look for the answers within 7 days. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my thanks to the witnesses. Secretary Jewell, it is good to see you again. And I want 

to start by thanking you for the historic designation of our newest 

national monument in my district on the Mendocino County coast. 

I think this committee and this House did good work. 

I don’t know why we didn’t see progress in the Senate, but I am 

glad that you agreed with me, that the people of Mendocino and 

people all over that are going to benefit from this shouldn’t have 

to wait. I was on the Mendocino coast just this week, on Monday, 

and I can tell you that the folks in the Point Arena area are already seeing a tremendous uptick in tourism, and they are proVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
66 

jecting as much, perhaps, as a 25 percent increase in the tourism 

economy, which is so very important to the people I represent. So 

thank you, again, for that. 

Continuing on this issue of land conservation, I also want to 

thank you for the President’s commitment in the budget to the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. Like you, I believe that this 

is a fund that is already paid for, not with tax dollars, but with 

oil and gas revenues. And it is time to honor the bargain that was 

made when Congress put that fund into place. 

So, I wonder if you could just share your perspective on what 

makes the Land and Water Conservation Fund so different and 

worthy of dedicated funding, so that this funding that was essentially part of a bargain through oil and gas industry doesn’t continue to languish. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you so much for the question. And, 

also, it has been really fun to be out in the Point Arena public 

lands and see the incredible enthusiasm and dedicated volunteer 

service on the part of your constituents to really make that special. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund has been used in every 

county across the country to purchase lands or to lay down conservation easements that are important to people in local communities. The stateside program is matched with State monies, and it 

helps local communities say, ‘‘This is an area that is really special 

that we want to set aside. And will you help us, Federal Government?’’ And it has been used very, very successfully for almost 50 

years. 

We have inholdings where we have willing sellers of land, whether it is landlocked area within a national park, and the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund enables us to satisfy that willing seller 

and provide a contiguous landscape that is actually cheaper to 

manage, and not more expensive to manage. 

The Everglades Headwaters, the Crown of the Continent area, 

and many, many other areas where hunters and fishermen want 

access to their favorite fishing hole are facilitated through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, through conservation easements. 

And I have been with many ranchers across the country who want 

their ranches to stay in ranch land, that understand the benefit of 

how they use the land for conservation, and LWCF helps them 

maintain that future for their families, while also setting land 

aside for conservation. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, thank you very much. And, Deputy Secretary Connor, congratulations on your confirmation. It is good to 

see you. I appreciate your earlier answer to the question on the 

California drought, and I just want to follow up a bit on that. I 

want to commend you for being thoughtful about this, and recognizing, I trust, that the protections and the biological opinions for 

salmon and smelt also protect downstream people, farmers, who 

need good water quality, communities that depend on water that 

is not too salty to provide as drinking water to their residents, and 

the salmon economy, which has existed for a long, long time, and 

which is an important part of our heritage and our economy, especially in the district I represent. 

So, those protections are very important to us. And the truth is 

you have some tough balancing to do in this historic drought. And 

67 

Mother Nature has dealt us all quite a challenge. But I think we 

need to acknowledge that right now you are striking that balance 

in favor of waiving biological opinion protections and increased 

pumping and water deliveries in the delta. 

You mentioned that you have an aggressive monitoring program 

underway, and I would like to hear more about that, how your Department intends to make sure that these lifeline protections for 

the salmon that my residents, my constituents, depend on are not 

being put in jeopardy, that the species is not on the brink of extinction because of those decisions. 

And then, a related point. I represent the people of Humboldt 

County and the Hoopa Tribe, which has a 50,000 acre-foot statutory and contractual right from the Trinity Unit of the Central 

Valley Project. We have been asking for years, going back to my 

predecessor, Mike Thompson, whether the Bureau intends to honor 

that right. We have been asked to be patient, that answers are 

forthcoming. I just wanted to let you know that our patience does 

have limits, and I would like you to tell us where we stand on that, 

please. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. So, with respect to the first question, in monitoring of the fish species, early on, because of the nature of the 

drought—and you are absolutely right, we have a tough balancing 

act. We are looking at water supply, we are looking at fisheries 

protection, we are looking at controlling salinity in the delta, which 

is all important, and we are looking toward next year, if this 

drought continues. And those are the four areas that we are focused on. 

Because of the expectation that we would have to very closely 

look at the operational criteria with respect to the pumps, State 

water project, Central Valley project, we instituted—we had a fund 

transfer of about $120–$140,000 so we could increase monitoring in 

the delta of delta smelt. That has helped us find some new populations and given some comfort—some of the actions we are taking. 

Same thing with respect to the salmon species at issue. 

Overall, we have done some acoustic tag and particle tracking 

that has helped us monitor. We have increased that with on-theground surveys as we made operational changes early in the year. 

And we have to simply increase that. That is going to be the key 

for us understanding the nature of the adjustments that we make 

this year, and it will add value as we interpret the biological opinions and apply them in future years. So we are trying to continue 

to improve our data and monitoring, and we need to do more, quite 

frankly. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, is recognized. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

welcome to the committee. I want to follow up on Mr. Costa’s line 

of questioning. 

The massive diversions of water away from the Central Valley 

have caused catastrophic human suffering that has been well documented, all to meet what you call the best available science on 

delta smelt. And yet, the delta smelt population is the second lowest that has ever been recorded. So, it appears to me your best 

68 

available science doesn’t work, and yet you persist in pursuing 

these policies. Why? 

Secretary JEWELL. I will give a high-level answer. You know, we 

are abiding by the laws, and what is required of us to do. The delta 

smelt is one species. There are salmonids, also, that are impacted. 

I will say that I have seen tremendous flexibility on the part of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service in this time of profound drought to do everything it can to pump the water necessary to help address the 

profound drought situation, while also—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I am not speaking so much of the 

drought—— 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. Dealing with these issues—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am speaking about before the drought. In 

fact, a year ago we had nearly record inflows into the Sacramento 

Delta, and we had nearly record negligible levels of outflow. 

Mr. CONNOR. With respect to last year, we had extremely high 

take early on in the season of delta smelt that was a cause for concern. We had to ratchet back pumping, notwithstanding the outflows as one of the protections involved with the species. We have 

used the best available science. That science has been challenged, 

it has been upheld—- 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But the science is not working. Don’t you understand that? 

Mr. CONNOR. That science—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Can’t you see the—your Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s own numbers on delta smelt population? You had record 

inflows of water into the delta, the exports were minuscule. Everything else was lost to the ocean. You consider that to be responsible 

management of our resources? 

Mr. CONNOR. With the data that is available—and I would like 

to go back and provide this for you—when we had—2011, when we 

had record flows through the delta in the aftermath of that very 

high precipitation year, we had a spike in the delta smelt populations. And I would like to provide that information for the record. 

So, it is a species in crisis, and there are a lot of factors—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. They have the second lowest population—— 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. Beyond the pumps that are doing—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. Ever recorded. Your policies are 

not working. But they are devastating the human population of 

California. 

And I have to tell you I am also supremely frustrated now, moving into the drought year, with the Bureau’s management of our 

water supply in that drought year. 

For example, last fall we watched the Sacramento River at full 

flood, wondering what in the world were you people thinking? In 

January it was reported that 800,000 acre-feet had been drained 

out of Shasta, Oroville, and Folsom. Drained Folsom Lake to nearly 

empty. Released for environmental purposes, and ultimately ended 

up in Southern California dams. Meanwhile, Northern California, 

with senior water rights, has many communities that are under 

water rationing and are looking at near-empty dams. 

Despite repeated attempts, we have been unable to get an accounting of this water, who released it, under what authority, how 

69 

much was released, and when. And I will put these questions to 

you. How do you account for those water releases? 

Mr. CONNOR. I account for those water releases because the 

Bureau of Reclamation operates under State permits. And those 

permits require certain outflows. So, notwithstanding the lack of 

precipitation, we had outflow requirements which necessitated 

releases from our reservoirs. We worked with the State board, we 

have made adjustments in those releases over time, because of the 

crisis situation. But that is fundamental to the nature—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So your testimony is—— 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. Of those releases—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. It was the State of California that 

ordered those releases? 

Mr. CONNOR. We have an ongoing permit, D16–41, issued by the 

State Water Resources Control Board of California, which controlled our operations through the end of last summer through last 

fall. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And you are not responsible for the release of 

water from Bureau of Reclamation Dams, specifically Folsom and 

Shasta. 

Mr. CONNOR. Those releases fulfill a dual purpose of protecting 

the fisheries, but they also ensure that we meet the outflow needs 

that are required by our permit. So they serve a dual role. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. Just this morning I talked to a representative of Central Valley farmers. They are constantly lectured 

about the need to carefully stretch every drop of water. They use 

the latest computer-controlled underground drip irrigation systems. 

They are actually studied by the Israeli government. And yet, they 

watch the Department release hundreds of thousands of acre-feet 

for environmental flows with reckless abandon, with absolutely no 

attempt to look at what that is actually doing to meet the stated 

objectives. 

Do you understand how frustrating that is, as they look at that? 

As they stretch and ration every drop of water, while you are releasing hundreds of thousands of acre-feet with abandon? 

Mr. CONNOR. I understand their frustration. I think they do a 

terrific job of conservation, south of the delta. But I would just remind our releases serve a dual purpose of the fishery needs, as well 

as the water quality standards in the delta. Those water quality 

standards not only protect fish and wildlife, they protect the interests of other water users who divert from the delta. And that is 

very important. We have to control the salinity in the delta, and 

that is one of the purposes of those water quality permit standards. 

So, it is water users impacting other water users. But I would 

concede those folks do a great job south of the delta. We are working with them to get as much water as we can in this drought year. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

Mr. Deputy Secretary, it is great to see you this morning. I appreciate your forthcoming testimony. And I think an outside observer 

would be astounded at the vast range of the responsibilities and 

concerns that you have. And I am pleased to see this morning the 

70 

command you have of the material, not just the technology of drilling or the Bureau of Reclamation. It is good to see you here. 

Let me touch on a number of things that have already been 

touched on. First of all, with regard to fracking, I certainly would 

associate myself with the line of comments and questions from Mr. 

Lowenthal and Mr. Grijalva. We do need full disclosure of procedures and ingredients. I also think that we need to pay much more 

attention to fugitive release of methane from all drilling operations, 

and I hope you will see that. 

With regard to Mr. Grijalva’s comments about the Mining Act of 

1872, I would add to that it is as archaic as the name suggests. 

This is a relic of a different era, when the greater expansion of the 

West was part of our national destiny. And it was an era of exploitation of lands and minerals which is not where we should be 

today. 

I was pleased to hear your comments about offshore wind. In 

New Jersey this can be a huge resource. We need your help working with the State, because the State now has been dragging their 

feet—the State of New Jersey, that is. And, speaking of New Jersey, I invite you back to New Jersey. Again, we have appreciated 

your visits. The Crossroads of the American Revolution is really a 

fine Heritage Area that I think deserves further attention, along 

with the other Park Service sites and wildlife sites in New Jersey. 

In your budget, I want to commend you on bumping up the U.S. 

Geological Survey. We could do even better. We really get our money’s worth from their scientific work. And I would encourage you 

to find every possible way to improve that. 

And I wish you every success on the $1.2 billion proposal for the 

Park Service, as we go into the centennial. We really want to make 

the most of that. 

I would like to quickly turn to one question. You have talked 

about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I wanted to talk 

about the Historic Preservation Fund, which has not been discussed this morning, I believe. As you know, this money also—this 

fund can receive money from the OCS leases. And, as you pointed 

out, less than half of the $35 billion that has come in from OCS 

leases has been appropriated. 

I would like to know what your plans are for historic preservation, whether we can do better in protecting our natural heritage, 

our historic heritage, and—in addition to what you have already 

said about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, the preservation of historic structures is 

an important part of our mission, under the auspices of the 

National Park Service. But it is certainly something that I am in 

full support of. 

One of the things that we are doing across the Department of the 

Interior is engaging youth and volunteers and veterans in support 

of public lands, and part of that initiative will include training people to restore historic structures—— 

Dr. HOLT. And I might add on—you know, from the Preservation 

Fund there are grants available to the State and tribal historic 

offices. 

Secretary JEWELL. Right. 

71 

Dr. HOLT. Which are underfunded, generally, and very much 

benefit from what comes from the Preservation Fund. 

Secretary JEWELL. We have $56.4 million in the budget, which 

is roughly level with 2014, in the 2015 budget for the State and 

tribal grants for historic and cultural structures. So it is not an increase, but at least it maintains the commitment that we have. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, recognize the gentleman 

from Utah, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I feel remiss if I was 

not here for your public presentation and grilling. 

In a couple of weeks you will be visiting a Southeast Utah county 

which is not in my district, but with whom I have been working 

very closely. Slightly north of where you will be is a place called 

Sand Flats. This is a BLM area that did not have the personnel 

nor the resources to be properly maintained until a near riot broke 

out one spring vacation. Since that time, BLM has been contracting 

with the county to maintain it as a recreation area. And it has 

been a very effective recreation area for thousands of people since 

that time. 

As we go through many of the processes in Utah, I hope I can 

still count on your ability, willingness, to cooperate with State and 

local governments to provide and guarantee outdoor recreation opportunities for people in a way that I think in the past we have 

had somewhat cavalier attitude toward that. And I would appreciate your restatement of that support and moving in those areas. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, Congressman Bishop, I am fully supportive of working alongside State and local governments on recreation and thoughtful management of public lands. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. I also would just like to comment 

that when we rely on precedent to make decisions, we have had 

gridlock in the past, and will have gridlock in the future. So I also 

hope I can rely on you to work with us to, and I hate the cliche, 

but think outside the box to come up with more creative answers 

to the situations with which we are dealing. 

I want to go through a couple of other issues very quickly. When 

Jethro met his son-in-law Moses, and realized he was working himself into a frazzle, he suggested he divide the camp up into groups 

of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands, which gave the biblical 

evidence to the cliche that the government which governs best is 

that which is closest to the people, and you solve problems in local 

areas. 

BLM has an issue that strictly deals with the State of Nevada. 

Yesterday the Governor of my State sent a letter to Director 

Kornze—I hope you will work with him—asking him specifically to 

solve the BLM problem of Nevada in Nevada, and not export it to 

the State of Utah. I want you to know that I fully support that letter and reason and rationale for the letter, and do not want the situation in Nevada to be exacerbated by moving the adjudication 

issues over to the State of Utah. I have a copy of that letter, if you 

need it. I wish you would talk to them and fully—I just want to 

know that I think I and the rest of the delegation fully support 

72 

what the Governor is trying to say on this particular issue that 

should be satisfied in Nevada. 

I am going to give you five quick things. Answer them if you 

wish to, or ignore me, whatever they come up with. 

Number one. We spend very little time talking about invasive 

species. I still think in your budget we spend too much on administration and not enough getting the money to the ground. I hope to 

have a bipartisan bill that will come up with some projects we have 

done specifically in New Mexico that shows how we can better 

spend the money. We need to look at invasive species, I don’t think 

we spend enough time talking about that particular issue. 

Number two. When Mr. Gohmert was talking about the workforce that deals on the energy development offshore, one thing he 

did not mention is we have an aging workforce, and we do not have 

enough energy engineers coming through in America, so that the 

reality is our workforce in that area is becoming increasingly 

foreign. This is something that does not hit you directly, but it is 

tangential to our energy policy. And we need to look at that issue 

significantly. These are high-paying jobs, and we need to get 

Americans into these kind of jobs in the future. 

Number three, I appreciate what you have done with the 

Northern Marianas, as Mr. Sablan was talking to you, in giving 

them their mineral rights off the coast, treating them like other 

States. I would now ask that you also spin that process, and look 

at those of us who are onshore, and treat us the same way with 

our mineral rights at the same time. That is rhetorical; you know 

what I am talking about, you don’t need to answer it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Number four. The States gave a whole lot of money 

to the Park Service last year for Park purposes, which is now basically an unappropriated slush fund that is there. You do not have 

a legal responsibility of giving that money back to the States. I 

think there is a moral responsibility. And before we actually have 

to deal with legislation either from Mr. Daines or Mr. Gardner or 

Mr. Stewart, give the money back. I think it is a moral imperative 

of giving that back to the States. 

And, finally, I got on the very last end of Mr. Holt’s comments 

about an antiquated law passed a long time ago which no longer 

meets the needs. Gosh, I thought he was talking about Antiquities 

Act, but apparently it was a different antiquated law at the time. 

I thank you for being here. If you want to respond to any of 

those, feel free to. If you want to blow me off, feel free to, as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman Bishop, I would never blow you 

off. Let me—if I may have just a quick time to respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please do. 

Secretary JEWELL. Invasive species are a huge problem across 

our landscapes. They are exacerbated by some of the dramatic 

events we have seen: floods, fires, and droughts. So, I agree with 

you, and am certainly willing to work with you on additional investments there, or more efficient ways to spend the money. I am 

happy to listen to what you have to say. 

Aging workforce, huge problem across the Department of the 

Interior, huge problem in the Bureau of Reclamation, which Mike 

73 

ran until recently. Part of my youth initiative is engaging many, 

many more American young people in understanding what we need 

to have, what we have in our public lands, and how to manage 

them. And every Bureau of the Interior is focused on that next generation of young people. 

I’ll—I know what you are talking about in mineral rights, and 

you said don’t bother, so I won’t. 

NPS reimbursement. I can’t commit the Federal Treasury—and 

I did say that to Governor Herbert and everybody else. I am not 

opposed to reimbursement. It has to take congressional action. If 

you support reimbursement of the States for national parks, then 

you can do that. But I have been told by my solicitors it is not 

something that I can do. But I certainly don’t oppose it. 

And on the Antiquities Act, we will disagree on that. I think it 

has been a very, very important right given by Congress to the 

President. This President has used it very sparingly, with a lot of 

community input and support. I think it is a good Act, and we will 

continue to be very thoughtful in how this President exercises—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, and you have taught me not to yield 

back before I hear an answer. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I just 

wanted to make an announcement. The Secretary has graciously 

said that she would extend her time beyond noon to about 12:30. 

Now, the Members on the Minority side, I have four Members here, 

and then the Members on our side who have not had a chance to 

ask questions. Plus Mr. Mullin and Byrne, who have been in and 

out, and potentially Mr. Young. And at that point we will cut it off, 

and hopefully we can make your timeframe. 

With that, I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Ranking 

Member DeFazio, for your leadership in bringing this hearing before the committee. 

The Department of the Interior’s mission affects the lives of all 

Americans. In fact, nearly every American lives within an hour’s 

drive of lands or waters managed by the Interior Department. In 

2012, Interior’s programs contributed an estimated $371 billion to 

the U.S. economy, and supported 2.3 million jobs in activities including outdoor recreation and tourism, energy development, grazing, even timber harvesting. Simply put, Interior works every day 

to protect America’s great outdoors and power the future of this 

country. 

Secretary Jewell, thank you for coming here today and spending 

time with us. I know it is never an easy task, especially testifying 

on the budget in these particularly challenging fiscal times. 

In addition to serving on this committee, I am also a member of 

the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and I have, at 

this point, had ample experience with Congress’s efforts to investigate the administration, both productively and in a manner that 

can border on harassment, and waste precious time and resources. 

I have a particular concern for the volume of government resources that are devoted to responding to the numerous inquiries 

and subpoenas from the Majority of this Committee, and the possibility that overzealous actions by the Majority could inhibit effecVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
74 

tiveness of the Department. In fact, it is my understanding that 

the Department of the Interior has spent over 19,000 hours responding to the demands of this committee, alone. 

Could you please discuss the overall impact on Interior, as a result of this diversion of resources, and how this has affected 

Interior’s ability to carry out its work and missions, especially its 

ability to permit and oversee energy production on Federal lands? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much for the question. I 

recognize and appreciate this committee’s legitimate oversight responsibility. And, as I have said to the Chairman on numerous occasions, happy to sit down with him and other members of the 

committee. 

As there are concerns, as you carry out that legitimate responsibility, there have been 16 different document requests, oversight 

requests, from this committee. They have, in some cases, gone to 

subpoenas. We have testified, we have—I have asked my team to 

start keeping track of the amount of pages, the amount of hours: 

45,000 pages of documents have been carefully reviewed and provided to this committee. We have $2 million of taxpayer money expended in responding to requests from the committee. 

And probably the best and most frustrating example recently has 

to do with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the fact that 70 of our 

little over 200 law enforcement personnel from the Fish and Wildlife Service have been dedicated specifically to this task of producing records, and not dealing with some of the biggest challenges 

we have, in terms of oversight of our wildlife refuges, international 

wildlife trafficking, such as elephant ivory and other things, where 

we really need these folks back on that task. 

So, I appreciate this committee’s oversight, but there have 

been—there has been a tremendous impact on my Department in 

attempting to respond. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, thank you for that, Secretary. I would 

also like to emphasize to you how important it is that you promulgate a stringent rule for fracking on Federal lands. I believe you 

need to set a high bar that truly protects our environment and requires full disclosure about what is going into the ground, and potentially into our water supply. 

I hope that you will pledge to continue to work with Congress 

and listen to those on the ground, such as the people from where 

I live in Northeastern Pennsylvania, that have to live every day 

with the worry about and the consequences of nearby fracking, and 

know the potential costs of a loosely regulated industry. And I will 

ask you to comment on that, Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, I commit to continuing to work with this 

body, as well as my colleagues at the BLM who are in the process 

of analyzing the over 1.3 million comments that we have had on 

the fracking regulations. As they listen to those comments and 

adapt the regulations, we want to strike the right balance of safe 

and responsible development, and also economic development, and 

believe that we can come up with rules that are safe and responsible. But very happy to take your comments and those that have 

been raised today under consideration. Thank you. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you so much. I yield back—— 

75 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Good morning, or—Madam Secretary. Still morning. It is great to see you again. And thank you for coming out to 

Idaho and visiting with us. As you know, in the past—8 of the past 

10 years, the Forest Service has exceeded its budget for wildfire 

suppression, required the agency to borrow from other parts of its 

budget to cover wildfire suppression costs. And this ultimately undermines the core mission of the Forest Service. 

And I am grateful that we are working together, as Republicans 

and Democrats, as Congress and the administration, to work on 

these issues. So I would like to start out by congratulating you for 

what you are trying to do in that regard, and how important that 

is for the people of Idaho. But I do have other questions that may 

not be as friendly. But I just wanted to start out by thanking you. 

I am pleased that the President’s budget has included the mechanism that will more effectively manage wildfire suppression funds 

and help Idaho and allow for better forest management to prevent 

future wildfires without any spending increases. So thank you for 

your work on that. 

Now, I was intrigued by Mr. Costa a little bit earlier, by some 

of the questions. Mr. Costa highlighted the man-made drought in 

California, and how it is affecting the rest of the country’s economy, 

because of an ESA listing. In this case and in many others, it 

seems like we are willing to prioritize the conservation or an endangered species over the well-being of the people. You and I disagree on the science here. But let’s just assume for a second that 

you are right about the science, that the delta smelt is about to become extinct. 

I watched the movie, ‘‘Noah,’’ last night. And one of the things 

in the movie, ‘‘Noah,’’ was, you know, inside joke, but they—in the 

ark there were several species that went extinct. For example, the 

dodo bird was in the ark. The world didn’t change when the dodo 

bird went extinct. I agree that we need to protect the bald eagle, 

for example. You know, we have some national interest there, we 

have some issues that are important. But when you are talking 

about the delta smelt, you are pitting the people of California 

against saving one particular species. 

We are not even sure that the science is correct. But even assuming that the science is correct, should we be rethinking what the 

ESA is about and should be—should we be taking into consideration the effect and the impact that it has on the economy, on humans, on the environment, on all those things? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks for the question. The Endangered 

Species Act has brought back iconic species like the bald eagle. It 

has helped us recognize the threats to species like the manatee or 

the grizzly bear. We think about individual species. But what the 

Endangered Species Act has really done for us is help us understand how our ecosystems are linked together. So—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. But where is the science that—we know that 

other species have gone extinct, and society has continued to 

thrive. So at what point do we say enough is enough, we are not 

going to put the people of California in danger, we are not going 

to endanger the farmers, we are not going to endanger—I think 

76 

what Mr. Costa said was that it was half of the produce that are 

grown in the United States come from that area. And we are doing 

it for something that I think—that I personally think is shoddy 

science. 

But, second, even if we assume that it is not shoddy science, it 

is something that we have that is actually affecting all of society, 

just because of one particular species. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well—go ahead, Mike, yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. I would like to take a shot. First of all, with respect 

to California, it is not a man-made drought. Through January, it 

was the worst year on record. And it is only—maybe it is now the 

second or third worst year on record because of recent precipitation. But it is not one species, it is an overall—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you have made it worse. 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. Ecosystem—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. You have made what is clearly an environmental 

catastrophe, you have made it worse by making it more difficult for 

the farmers in the community to actually access their water. 

Mr. CONNOR. We have taken the—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is the problem that I am having. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, can I answer? We have taken aggressive actions to provide more water than we otherwise would under the biological opinions. But part of this—we are protecting a number of 

salmon species here. So when you say the Act is impacting people, 

we are trying—we are also protecting the species that people make 

their livelihoods on, and also feed this country with. They are important, too. So we are trying to—we are balancing a number of interests here. 

We have an obligation to continue—not just use the best science 

to form the biological opinions, you are exactly right, we need to 

keep improving the data, improving the analysis, using the 

tools—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. But my question is should we improve the ESA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Real quickly. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Is there something that we should do in Congress 

here? Because if you look at the opinion of the Ninth Circuit, they 

relied on the congressional—they said, ‘‘The Congress said let’s do 

X, so there is nothing we can do.’’ So, should we change the ESA 

to make sure that we actually take better care of the issues that 

are happening on the ground, like in California? 

Mr. CONNOR. The ESA allows a lot of tools for flexibility and regulatory certainty, and we need to use all of those tools these days. 

I am not sure—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. So your answer is we don’t need to change the 

ESA in any way. 

Mr. CONNOR. We—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is your answer? 

Mr. CONNOR. My answer is yes—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes, OK, thank you. 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. I think we have the tools within ESA. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I want 

to give every Member an opportunity to ask their questions in the 

time period we have. 

77 

I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Ranking 

Member DeFazio. 

Madam Secretary, first I would like to say how much I have enjoyed working with you over the past year, and it is wonderful to 

see you again. As you know, I represent the Florida Everglades, 

one of the Nation’s greatest natural treasures. And the administration’s commitment to restoration has been strong. 

There is one thing that I worry about, or part of the thing that 

I am worrying about is the larger projects taken for comprehensive 

Everglades restoration that have been indefinitely delayed, affecting families and businesses nearby. As you may be aware, farmers 

in my district have lost the entire yield of this year’s crops because 

of high water, and significant flooding that has taken place in the 

region. Finalizing Contract 8 and completing the C–111 canal 

south of South Dade would protect the growers facing significant 

financial risk and personal burden, and a strong disadvantage to 

them participating in the international market. So, I think it is important. 

So, Madam Secretary, where are you on the C–111 South Dade 

canal, and how does the Department plan to move forward? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks for the question. It has been very, 

very helpful to be in Florida a couple of times and meet with the 

Everglades Coalition. I believe the C–111 is an Army Corps of 

Engineers project, and so is not in my budget. But we are fully supportive of that project, and we will certainly do whatever we can 

to help move it forward, as we progress with Everglades restoration. And there are other important things that are in our budget 

to continue to make progress. 

Mr. GARCIA. Absolutely, and I appreciate that. Taking advantage 

of the fact I have a little bit more time, Chekika is a camping 

ground to the southeast part of the Everglades, which was, due to 

sequestration, closed down. It is widely used and, in particular, it 

is a very good southeast entry point of the Florida Everglades. And 

while we were able to get out of the sequestration mode, I would 

like you to see if you can consider reopening that, now that we are 

not in sequestration. It was closed down. It offers tremendous opportunity for usage, and is used, but is slated to be closed down. 

And, if you could, I would like you to look at that. 

And, finally, I appreciate you being here. And taking modern 

management tips from the Bible, as well as species management 

from Noah is always very important, but we hope that science is 

what you use. Thank you very much for being here. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 

back, Mr. Garcia. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, thank you very much. And I thank the gentleman, Mr. Garcia, for alluding to science. Thank you very, very 

much for coming out to Prescott last year. It was surely felt. And 

that is where I want to hit. I differ a little bit with Congressman 

Labrador. 

I have had two fires, two catastrophic fires in my first two terms. 

The Waldo Fire over on the eastern side of Arizona, the largest fire 

78 

in Arizona history, we spent over $200 million putting that single 

fire out. We lost $2.5 billion worth of assets, and 20 percent of the 

spotted owl actually was incinerated. That is hardly a success 

story. 

And then, last year what we did is we put firefighters in harm’s 

way with catastrophic amounts of vegetation; 19 died. We have to 

do something different. And when I look at this budget, I see that 

we have proposed $146.3 million for hazardous fuel management in 

fiscal year 2015. The Forest Service has requested almost $1.5 

billion for suppression, but only $350 million for hazardous fuel reduction. So almost $3 billion between those two agencies for 

suppression, but less than $500 million for up-front active management. We need to do something different. 

Fighting fires starts at managing the forest. Getting in there and 

starting to thin the forest makes sense, not only on management 

of healthy forests, because of blights, cankers, and bark beetle infestations, but also because of water management sub-surfacely. 

Because each one of those trees has an implication to the whole dynamics of water. 

So, when we start looking at Colorado and California and 

Arizona, these are dynamic. I am tired. My State is absolutely furious and tired of being victims. Not to—even to look at the mitigation costs of sterilized soil. We have it over in the Shultz Pass Fire, 

we have it over in the Wallow Fire, we have it over in Yarnell. And 

we can’t mitigate that for over 50 years. Something has to be done. 

And what I am asking for you is we need to start pushing these 

projects. 

4–FRY Initiative. We have—right now in my State we have 

30,000 acres on inventory. We need 100,000. We need 100,000 

acres by June 1 to make this thing work. This is active management, everybody agrees. The government agrees, the environmental 

groups agree, and the logging industry agrees. They are doing it in 

scientific methods. Can I get a validation from you that you will 

support looking at new types of EISs and NEPAs to try to get this 

off the ground? Because if we go through another forest fire season 

like this without changing our course, we are going to become victims once again. 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, thanks for your passion on this 

topic. And we share a concern. And I think that none of us feel that 

we have had the budget needed, whether from diversions for suppression or just from appropriations, to do the job that we would 

like to do, in terms of hazardous fuel removal, effective land management, prevention of invasive species, and so on. 

A lot of what you talk about is predominantly in the Forest 

Service budget. 

Dr. GOSAR. I understand. 

Secretary JEWELL. And so, the management of the forest specifically I am not as familiar with. There is $30 million in the budget 

for resilient landscapes. That will complement the hazardous fuels 

budget. That adds to the $146 million we’ve got for fuel. So there 

is a little bit more than appears in the budget, because we can direct that toward long-term management of those landscapes. 

But, still, I appreciate that there is a very large issue, and that 

is going to be very difficult to do, even in the—— 

79 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, and there is—— 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. Confines of what we are proposing. 

Dr. GOSAR. And it is not like we haven’t come to the table, you 

know? There are absolutely opportunities to look at some of the unmanned aerials, to look at infrared assertions on EISs and NEPAs. 

We need to be pushing this issue, and people engaged in this community, putting people back to work in an industry that is begging 

for it. 

So, I hope that you will really provide that push to Chief Tidwell 

and to the Forest Service. We would love to be that pilot project 

to show how everybody can work together, based on the science. 

The second question I want to go to is the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration, or MSHA, budget proposes to completely 

eliminate 8.5 million in funding for State grants under the Mine 

Safety and Health Act. Meanwhile, it proposes to increase MSHA’s 

budget by 2.8 million and 18 FTEs to expand training, delivery, 

and oversight. This essentially means less training and more enforcement. 

Do you have any suggestions regarding what we might do to 

avoid the loss of this important funding at reducing injury and 

death to the miners? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am sorry, but it is not part of the Interior’s 

budget. I was just looking at my team back here. 

Do you know whose budget that is? Labor, Department of Labor? 

Sorry. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, we will get to the next one, then. We also have 

some problems with some fish hatcheries over on the eastern—or 

the western side of the State, in Mohave County. We would certainly like to have some type of collaboration in regards to the 

economic empowerment of what fishing does along that Colorado. 

Some type of collaborative environment with State jurisdiction over 

that fish hatchery, along with some private partnerships, I think, 

would be a nice opportunity. But we really would like to see the 

economic empowerment of what the budget cuts will actually do, 

particularly on the fish hatcheries on the west side. 

Secretary JEWELL. May I take a minute to respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Real quickly, yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. Real quickly. 

Secretary JEWELL. The budget is essentially flat for fish hatcheries between the 2014 and 2015 budgets. We won’t be closing any 

in 2014. We are working alongside States and other stakeholders 

on finding a long-term solution to funding fish hatcheries. We know 

they are very important to the sport fishery. They are very important to local communities. But we also know our budgets are constrained. So we are very happy to work alongside you on long-term 

funding solutions for those. We know how important they are. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, and 

I can’t tell you how much we appreciate the work that your new 

80 

deputy has done in our area. He is very accessible, and we are very 

thankful for that. Thank you, Mr. Connor. 

I have several questions. I will probably submit some of them in 

writing. However, some of the ones that I am totally concerned 

with is your budget on WaterSMART and water—Title XVI 

recycling. I seem like an old song being replayed. To me, that is $21.5 million and $350 million in backlog of 

projects. Just recently, in the last episode of water, the last storm 

that hit Southern California, the Army Corps of Engineers were 

able to capture 22,000 acre-feet of water worth $22 million. And 

that is because they waived their ability to capture the water in 

the dams that are in our area. 

We need more of that, because of the fact that, as you well know, 

the events—call it climate change, call it weather change, whatever—is going to continue, and we are going to need all the water 

we can get for Northern and Southern California. And we have 

issues with Northern California and Southern California fighting 

over the last drop of water, so you understand how we feel and how 

we need to be able to ensure that Southern California is able to 

protect itself and protect its water sources. 

The other issue—and I will submit some questions for that for the record, because we would like to see that $135 million or $150 

million for recycling projects and produce more water to be recharged into the aquifers. 

The other issue, of course, is the invasive species. And Quagga 

mussels have cost some of the water agencies millions upon millions of dollars. And I know there is answer—there is some reference as to being able to determine where the sciences are. Do we 

have any answers? Can we provide any update on what has been 

found, what is working, what is not working? 

Some of the universities have the ability to have small funding 

to be able to do research. Are we projecting to them where we need 

to have them do the research on invasive species and other areas? 

And what are the results of some of the findings that they may 

have had in some of those research? That is another of my questions, and I am not asking—it is costing our taxpayers, essentially, 

millions of dollars, because it goes back to the ratepayers. 

And fire suppression is a very interesting subject for Southern 

California. As of the Colby Fire in February, there had been 400- 

some-odd fires in California alone. How are we going to be able to 

help the whole community of firefighters, of cities adjoining the 

foothills of the hills of the mountains, and being able to have them 

prepared? 

One of the suggestions one of my city councils came up with was 

purchasing the super scooper that is leased. Had it not been leased 

from Canada for an extra month, it would not have been able to 

be as successful in putting that Colby Fire out, and the fact that 

there was a dam nearby, so they could just scoop in and pick up 

the water and just dump it a couple miles away. We need to be 

able to help them be able to help themselves. 

And then there is the issue of the water creating mudslides in 

my area that—the county says, ‘‘Well, we are not responsible.’’ The 

OES says, ‘‘Well, you need to be able to secure long term.’’ And 

then, everybody else has their own opinion. We need to get all our 

81 

agencies together to protect the people that live below. It affected 

an avocado farm, it affected several residences. Others use K railing in other areas, and were very successful in avoiding any major 

damage to their properties. 

So, somehow we need to be able to connect the dots and be able 

to have the agencies work with each other on being able to address 

these issues. This is a new area for me, it is 85 percent new. So 

I am learning and dealing with some of the concerns that some of 

my elected officials and some of my water agencies have. So, those 

are the things I will be submitting to you. 

And tribal recognition, where are we with that? Are we having 

more assistance to the Tribes in dealing with mental health issues? 

Because you address that in your budget. I am the co-chairman of 

the caucus. How are we working to be able to help them deal with 

it, and job training in—dealing with alcoholism and dealing with 

all the things that the Tribes inherently have in their background? 

And those are the things that I would love to be able to sit and 

discuss with you and your staff. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. The time of the 

gentlelady has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 

Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Jewell, for staying after noon to take our questions. I am going to 

focus my questions on the sage grouse and on the Endangered 

Species Act, generally, just to orient you to my questions. 

The President’s budget includes a request for $4 million in increases to ecological services for sage grouse. They are calling it the 

Sage Grouse Initiative. It will fund 38.75 full-time employees. My 

first question is, what will these employees be doing? Will any of 

them be on the ground to implement on-the-ground conservation 

plans? 

Secretary JEWELL. So you are referring to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service budget. There is also $15 million in the BLM’s budget. And, 

as a land management agency, they will be doing a lot of work on 

the ground, working in concert with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the land owners, whether they are the land owner, or cooperatively with others, on the on-the-ground stuff for conservation of 

sage grouse habitat. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So the on-the-ground work will be done more by 

BLM than through this ecological services group. Is that correct? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, the Fish and Wildlife Service is working 

with whomever the land management agency is on what needs to 

be done, so that we hopefully can avoid the need for a listing. The 

BLM, as the largest land manager in the area—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. Will be doing a lot of that work 

on the ground, as will States and private land owners, and so on. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. Well, as you know, Wyoming has done a lot 

of work on this—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS [continuing]. To try to keep us off the list. And 

when do you expect the Department to sign a record of decision on 

82 

the BLM’s revision to the land use plan in the Lander field office? 

Including revisions for sage grouse conservation. 

Secretary JEWELL. I believe we expect all of the resource management plans to be signed by the end of this calendar year, and 

we are being held into account by the deadlines imposed by—court 

order deadlines. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, yes—— 

Secretary JEWELL. I know the Lander decision is in there now, 

there is—it is something that our team is looking very closely at. 

It knits together a larger picture over 11 States. And so, they are 

working to do them all, I think, at one time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, that is what I understand, too. And so, one 

of my next questions is, why wait? The Lander plan is ready to go. 

How does waiting for other land use amendments to catch up help 

the sage grouse, itself? 

Because we know that, through statements we have previously 

gotten from the Fish and Wildlife Service, that the Service believes 

the greater sage grouse core area protection provides an excellent 

model for meaningful conservation of sage grouse if fully supported 

and implemented. The Lander plan is ready to go. So why wait for 

other plans and doing them all at one fell swoop? We would love 

to just take it and run with it. 

Mr. CONNOR. The release of the Lander plan is being discussed 

right now. It is ahead of all other plans. And so we will have to 

get back to you. It will be some time this year, and it will probably 

precede the other ones, but we will have to—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. That would be great. 

Mr. CONNOR [continuing]. Find out for the record—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You know, I will get back to you on that, and I 

appreciate—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Sure. 

Mrs. LUMMIS [continuing]. Your willingness to discuss that. 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Now, let me read you what the Fish 

and Wildlife Service has said about other things in our plan. Again, 

if fully implemented, we believe the executive order—this is in 

Wyoming—can provide the conservation program necessary to 

achieve Wyoming’s goal of precluding listing for greater sage 

grouse in Wyoming. So we are very, very interested in seeing our 

opportunity in Wyoming to proceed. 

My question is, what more are you looking for? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, first, I want to compliment you, and I 

want to compliment Governor Mead for the State’s leadership 

around greater sage grouse conservation. Governor Mead co-chairs 

this with Governor Hickenlooper. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. All the States are involved. I have had multiple meetings with the States. We share a common goal of 

precluding the need of a listing of this species, and there is a tremendous amount of work going on to make that happen. 

Because it is an 11-State range, an individual State doing a great 

job isn’t enough to provide the habitat necessary, which is why we 

are keeping all the States together. And I would say it is an unVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
83 

precedented amount of cooperation that we are working very, very 

hard with to, hopefully, preclude the need of a listing. 

But if a listing does occur, to make sure that the kinds of activities and the people that have signed up through 4(d) rules and otherwise will be protected in their ongoing use of those lands for the 

activities they are engaged in. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And Madam Secretary, I can assure you the gentleman to my right and this gentleman to my left are as concerned 

as I am. So thank you. We will get back in touch with you on this. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, welcome you, 

Madam Secretary, and Mr. Deputy Secretary. And I encourage both 

of you to visit Puerto Rico as soon as possible. 

My district is home to five national wildlife refuges; one important National Park Service unit, the San Juan National Historic 

Site; and, although not under the direct purview of the Secretary, 

a gem in the U.S. forest system, El Yunque National Forest, where 

the Interior Department is helping advance cutting-edge climate 

science. 

I quickly want to emphasize a few parts of the Department’s 

budget and mission that I support and that have great relevance 

for Puerto Rico. 

First, the Department is supporting ecosystem-based resource 

management decisions in Puerto Rico in an integrated fashion with 

the local community through a landscape conservation cooperative, 

or LCC approach, that your predecessor launched nationally in 

2010. The Carribean LCC, the most recent one formed, is bringing 

the best available science to bear to preserve habitat and respond 

to climate change effects on land, water, ocean, fish, and wildlife, 

and cultural heritage resources in Puerto Rico. This is a great synergy of all the resource agencies and non-Federal partners, and I 

urge the Department to continue budgeting resources for the national network of LCCs. 

My second point relates to funding for the National Wildlife Refuge system. The three refuge units in particular in Puerto Rico— 

Cabo Rojo, Culebra, and Vieques—have a significant backlog of 

maintenance projects totaling roughly $50 million. The refuges on 

Culebra and Vieques are directly relevant to the economies of the 

two island municipalities in which they are located. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service currently controls over half of the island of 

Vieques, and about a quarter of Culebra. 

As a large land manager, it is important that the Service continue working with the Department of Defense and local authorities to expedite the clean-up of these former military training range 

lands. While clean-up progress has been made, much remains to be 

done. And as areas are cleaned up, according to the final remedy 

reached between DoD, Interior, EPA, and the local government, 

opportunities for transfer of the lands from Interior to the local 

government will become very important. 

Last year I raised these opportunities at a subcommittee hearing, 

and would like your commitment, Madam Secretary, to work on advancing the dialog inside the Department about ways to rescale the 

84 

national—the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge so that lands currently within its boundaries can be opened for local economic development and recreational purposes, including through the possibility 

of legislation to transfer title. 

I don’t want to burden you with more oversight, because I join 

my colleagues in commending your responsiveness, the Department’s responsiveness, to all the requests and subpoenas that you 

have received from this committee. But I tell you I respectfully 

urge you to take a look at the size of the wildlife refuge in Vieques. 

It is huge. And if there are opportunities to assist Puerto Rico and 

the government of Puerto Rico, in particular, which is going 

through an economic crisis right now, so that we can develop some 

of those lands, use them for valid economic development purposes, 

please have an open mind there. 

Last, as we approach the centennial of the National Park Service 

in 2016, I want to highlight the role that Old San Juan and the 

National Park Service unit on our island fulfills for the preservation and interpretation of our Hispanic heritage. The unit protects 

evidence of Spain’s history in what is now the United States, the 

forts of El Morro, San Cristobal, and San Geronimo. There is an 

incredible story to tell through interpretation of these structures, 

and preservation of these forts and the old city walls is key to our 

cultural identity and to our tourism sector. 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I urge you at some point to hold a 

hearing in Puerto Rico. I mean those forts are amazing, and they 

are treasures for our Nation. And the Department of the Interior 

is really the watchdog. It is really the one overseeing, acting in a 

way as the protector of those sites. 

There are ongoing projects, particularly trails surrounding El 

Morro Fort that I would urge you to oversee, as well as a study 

dealing with the San Geronimo Fort, which is not part of the Park 

System presently, but which is connected to them both, El Morro 

Fort and the San Cristobal Fort. So, please take a look at those 

matters. And if you would like to comment on—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, real quickly, because we have some time, 

and I know the Secretary is under a timeframe here. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I am sorry. So? 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, very briefly. 

Secretary JEWELL. I will give a very brief response. First, I would 

like nothing more than to go to Puerto Rico after this winter here. 

Very interested in working with you on Vieques and potential legislation. I do understand the importance of the economy and outdoor 

recreation as a very important part of that economy for Puerto 

Rico. And so we would be very happy to advance that dialog, as 

well as on the forts that you referenced. The Park Service has done 

work to really help tell the story of Latinos within, you know, the 

broad United States, and this is a good opportunity to do that. 

I would also say on the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, we have $17.7 million in the budget, and that is an increase over 

where we are for this year. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Recognize the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young. 

85 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, in 

your nearly $12 billion budget, how many dollars did you request 

to provide alternative access to King Cove or weather-related emergency medical evacuations? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t have specific money in the budget for 

that, but we are pursuing and have had conversations with the 

Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and will continue to do that, 

and happy to work with you, Congressman, on suggestions that you 

have to look at alternatives. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I will suggest respectfully during the Senate 

hearing you are going to look at other methods to have transportation for those that are medically incapacitated. And you had 2 

weeks. Have you come up with an answer in this 2 weeks about 

how we are going to move these people that are stricken? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, I certainly had follow-up discussions, 

Congressman Young. There is a road that has been put in recently 

all the way to the edge of the refuge that shortens the distance considerably for things like helicopter flights, perhaps boat transportation. And my colleague, Pat Pourchot, in Alaska, who represents 

the Secretary’s office up there, has been working actively with a 

number of parties. That has pre-dated my hearing with the Senate, 

and continues today. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, with all due respect, a helicopter costs about 

$200,000. We have had six since your hearing, this period of time, 

and they cost about $200,000 a piece. 

Should the Department of the Interior, who has trust responsibility to the native people of King Cove, be responsible for reimbursing the Coast Guard for these expenses? 

Secretary JEWELL. Sir, we have trust responsibility to consult 

with Tribes. We have done that in that region—— 

Mr. YOUNG. No, no, no, no. Answer the question. Should you be 

responsible, out of the Department of the Interior, with increasing 

your budget, especially with the Park Service—should you be responsible for those helicopter trips? 

Secretary JEWELL. The Indian Health Service is responsible for 

Medivac flights—— 

Mr. YOUNG. The Department of the Interior is over the Indian 

Health Service. 

Secretary JEWELL. No, the Department of Health and Human 

Services is over the Indian Health Service. 

Mr. YOUNG. Department of the Interior has the BIA, which has 

the authority of—the trust authority with the natives. 

Secretary JEWELL. The BIA does have trust authority with the 

natives—— 

Mr. YOUNG. That is right. 

Secretary JEWELL [continuing]. In consultation with the Tribes. 

Mr. YOUNG. So you should be held responsible. And if we do so— 

and this will happen, Madam Secretary, I think your decision 

stunk. This will happen. If we put it into the law, or into the appropriation bill, we will take it out of the Department of the 

Interior. Which one of those departments do you think we should 

take it out of? 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, I will continue to be—— 

86 

Mr. YOUNG. Which one of the departments should we take it out 

of? 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, I do not believe that money for 

a medical—— 

Mr. YOUNG. You don’t think it will happen, do you? 

Secretary JEWELL. Can I finish? Would you like me to answer the 

question? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I want to ask you which department. You answer. Which department would you take it out of? It is your responsibility. You won’t let a road be built. You have not allowed 

this. And I am losing lives. I just think that is very inappropriate. 

And, by the way, does a helicopter bother the birds on that refuge? 

Secretary JEWELL. Sir, I am sure when a helicopter is flying it 

bothers birds on the refuge. 

Mr. YOUNG. Just like the birds out here, on the George 

Washington Parkway. We have thousands of cars go by, and they 

are about 6 feet from the road. The birds get used to it. 

Secretary JEWELL. Congressman, the Izembek National Wildlife 

Refuge is unique. It has been recognized as wilderness by Congress 

back in 1980 as a wetland of critical international significance. The 

birds that are in that area are different than the birds in the 

Potomac River, and there is science—— 

Mr. YOUNG. They are no different, they are the same type of 

birds, same species, as far as genetically goes, and you and I know 

that. 

Secretary JEWELL. No, sir. The Pacific black—— 

Mr. YOUNG. There is exactly the same attitude. They get used to 

it, it is not new. They have traffic on that refuge, and you and I 

know it. The difference is I have a group of people over here, and 

I want—do you have grandkids? 

Secretary JEWELL. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. No. Do you have children? 

Secretary JEWELL. Two. 

Mr. YOUNG. Two. How old are they? 

Secretary JEWELL. Twenty-nine and twenty-eight. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. They are in Cold Bay now. They are not in Cold 

Bay. They are in King Cove. And they get sick. And there is no way 

to get across there, but you don’t have the road. And the winds are 

blowing 80 miles an hour. There is no way to go, because the Secretary of the Interior, this one and the last one, said we couldn’t 

build a road. This Congress passed the ability to build that road. 

And your son is dying. I hope you feel good about that. I really do. 

And, by the way, I want to congratulate both of you. If we had 

a show of dancing, like they have on television, both of you would 

be outstanding dancers on that show. I watch this program in my 

office. I love your answers. It is dancing. And yours is just as bad. 

This hearing accomplishes nothing, because you don’t take the time 

to communicate with us here, through our offices, picking up the 

phone. We have these hearings, and nothing occurs. 

So, Madam Secretary, I told you when you were sworn in, I 

would like you to get a little more involved and say, ‘‘What can we 

help you with in your district? How can we be of benefit to you,’’ 

87 

instead of saying, ‘‘We are the Secretary of the Interior, don’t question us.’’ I just suggest you ought to do it. 

And, by the way, if someone dies out of King Cove, I want you 

to really think about it and be ashamed of yourselves. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is 

great to have you with us. Last July, whenever you were before 

this committee, I was pleased to talk with you about the White 

River Watershed and the National Blueways issue that affected a 

big portion of my district, and appreciate you rescinding that program by the urging of this committee and the numerous outpouring 

of the grass roots within Missouri and Arkansas. So I do want to 

thank you for that. 

Also in that hearing I brought to you my concerns about the proposed general management plan that was going to affect the Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways. It is the national park that is encompassed solely in my congressional district, in the State of Missouri. 

And in that hearing there were four items that I told you that I 

did not want to see in the general management plan. And those 

four items were not to restrict the horsepower, or the use of boats 

on the Current and Jacks Fork River. Also, reducing horse trails 

and other trails, limiting access points, and creating a wilderness 

area. Those were four points that I said, back in July, before the 

general management plan was ever brought up, of concerns that I 

had in it. And the general management plan was filed in 

November. 

Are you aware—there were three alternatives that were proposed 

by the National Park Service during the comment process. Which 

of those three alternatives included the provisions that I just asked 

for? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, it is my understanding—and I don’t 

have a deep understanding of this—but the National Park Service 

is reviewing public comments based on what they submitted. I 

don’t think that they have completed that process, and intend to 

by the end of the year. 

I will also say that your Governor has spoken with me about 

this, and you have a little bit of a different point of view. I know 

that there are a lot of assessments that the National Park Service 

will be—a lot of input the National Park Service will be taking into 

account as they work on this management plan. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, the four proposals that I said that I did 

not want in the general management plan is because I am speaking for the 750,000 people that I represent. And plus Missourians. 

And you mentioned our Governor. And, unfortunately, our Governor has a different view of the individuals in Missouri. In fact, 

he has a different view from his own Department of Conservation 

for the State of Missouri. The Department of Conservation also 

submitted comments to you that I hope that you take very close attention to that disagrees with our Governor and agrees with myself, in saying that you need to have the no-action alternative. 

This plan has worked since 1984, and it has been adopted twice 

in the last 30 years. In 1964, when the Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways were established, it was established to preserve our natVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:30 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\00 FULL COMMITTEE\00AP03 2ND SESS. PRINTING\87536.TXT DARLEN
88 

ural resources—we have some of the most beautiful waterways in 

the country—but also balance that with our recreational use. And 

the alternatives that were submitted by the National Park Service, 

both A, B, and C, all three of them include all four provisions that 

I specifically asked to not be included. 

And I am asking that you strongly consider my comments, you 

strongly consider the 4,000 comments that were brought forward in 

all the public hearings, and that you strongly pay attention to the 

Department of Conservation for Missouri’s comments, and not so 

much of our Governor, who doesn’t have an understanding of this 

river. I grew up on this river. This is where my family has been 

for seven generations. And I sure hope that you continue to balance 

the preservation with the natural resources by keeping it a balanced approach. 

Mr. Knox was in here on February 26, and I asked him who was 

going to be involved in the decision process. And he gave me a few 

names. And we have been trying to set up personal meetings with 

every one of those individuals for about a month now, and haven’t 

had a meeting. He also mentioned that you would be part of the 

decisionmaking process. I am hoping that you can let us know exactly everyone who is going to be in, and see if they will meet with 

me. I would love to talk to them about the importance to our district. Can you help make sure those meetings occur? 

Secretary JEWELL. I will certainly make sure that your comments 

here get to the people in the Park Service that are going to be assessing this. This isn’t something that would come to me, from a 

decisionmaking standpoint. But I appreciate your input. And I also 

will say that when Congress sets aside land as a national park or 

a national scenic river, part of the objective is to manage it in perpetuity for all Americans. And so, the local residents, recreation, 

habitat conservation, long-term management, all these things are 

taken into account by the Park Service, as well—including the comments of you and your constituents. 

Mr. SMITH. And I totally agree. I mean these parks are the parks 

for all Americans. And all Americans should be able to access their 

own parks, instead of allowing them to limit their access on the 

riverways that has been happening for decades. 

Your Park Service restricted baptisms along our riverways, 

where they had to get special use permits, until they finally rescinded it. These kind of things are the attack that you are doing 

on rural America. And I will tell you, I will fight tooth and nail if 

you continue to implement these programs that eliminates access 

to all Americans, if I have to fight in the appropriations process or 

through the legislation process. 

So, I hope that you hear my concerns and you hear the concerns 

of the people of this great country. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The last 

individual to be recognized—and I thank you for your patience, 

Madam Secretary—is Mr. Tipton from Colorado. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Secretary Jewell and Secretary Connor, 

for taking the time to be able to be here. And I appreciate you extending your visit just a moment. I did want to be able to speak 

to some questions that are important for our district. 

89 

I was very pleased, in terms of your comment, that you want to 

be able to work with the locals in a thoughtful management process on public lands. But I did want to be able to get some clarity 

in regards to the RS 2477, in regards to closing of roads. Does the 

Bureau of Land Management have unilateral authority to make 

binding determinations on the validity of claims, rights of way, 

under this statute? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am not—could you repeat that one more 

time? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes. Do you have the authority, basically, to be able 

to go in, unilaterally, and make these decisions to shut down the 

roads? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am not familiar with the legal ramifications 

and what our authorities are and aren’t, so I will have to get back 

to you for the record on that. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. Well, we would appreciate that. When the BLM 

does close roads—I am sure you are aware we have had a lot of 

access points going into our public lands that have been shut off 

recently. I think you heard about it when you were in Colorado. 

When we were closing these county roads, citing land use and planning management purposes, is this done with any consultation 

with the counties? 

Mr. CONNOR. I am not sure, Congressman. I think the interpretation of the RS 2477 roads, and whether they are still valid, existing 

roads is probably an administrative decision by the BLM as part 

of their resource management plans. But I think, to be more accurate, I would probably want to expand on that for the record. 

Mr. TIPTON. And—— 

Mr. CONNOR. And I think the initial decisionmaking is probably 

a Bureau of Land Management decision. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. And going back to that comment that was 

made initially on willing to be able to work with the local communities, I would encourage you to talk to some of those local 

communities before some of those road closures actually take place. 

Are you aware, when a closure is being planned, are the counties 

notified? 

Mr. CONNOR. I am not aware of how that works. 

Mr. TIPTON. Not aware of—— 

Secretary JEWELL. I am not, either. We are going to have to research this with the BLM, and we are very happy to get back to 

you on that. 

Mr. TIPTON. In regards to some of the closures, is any consideration given—the nature of my State, my district, we have outdoor 

people—to the Americans with Disabilities Act? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think the decision on whether an RS 2477 road 

still exists is just whether it has had continual use. I think that 

is the issue before the administrative agency. 

Mr. TIPTON. Would you be willing to work with us in terms of 

getting some kind of a consistent policy when we look at ADA 

issues, when we look at impact on communities, to be able to make 

sure that those communities are included? 

We had Chief Tidwell, and he talked about a computer model in 

regards to being able to fight forest fires. I was on both of the incident command centers at the West Fork Complex Fire, Pagosa 

90 

Springs over in Monte Vista. First words out of the mouth were, 

‘‘Our computer models are out the window.’’ So this is a real concern, in terms of the road closures, access into our public lands, 

and we are seeing this accelerate, and we would love to be able to 

visit with you more on this issue, and to be able to get your cooperation for our local areas. 

Another area that is of interest for our particular district is the— 

and it goes back, actually, to Mrs. Napolitano’s comment in regards 

to clean water. We have the—Reclamation knows of the Arkansas 

Valley Conduit, and offers an effective regional answer to be able 

to deliver clean drinking water down into Southeastern Colorado. 

And will Reclamation commit to carry over the next fiscal year any 

unobligated funds for the project from prior appropriations to 

strengthen the fiscal year 2015 budget request to ensure that this 

vital project from my district does continue? 

Mr. CONNOR. Typically, Reclamation—that is a separate line 

item in Reclamation’s account, and we typically carry over those 

funds for that specific purpose. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. And in regards to the hydro development 

power, as you are aware, we passed the Small Hydro Electric and 

Jobs Act, signed into law. It has been law now for 8 months, and 

I think a very good opportunity to be able to create clean energy. 

Do you have any information on the number of projects that are 

currently under consideration, and what you are doing to be able 

to accelerate their development? 

Mr. CONNOR. We have—first of all, I would like to say thank you 

for your leadership in working with us on those provisions. We 

have revised our lease of power privilege process, in accordance 

with the legislation, as it has been enacted. Beforehand, we had 

also revised the regulatory structure so we would have clarity on 

how to move forward. So that has spurred a lot of interest. We 

have a lot of projects that are currently—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Just have one more, and I apologize, I am running 

out of time. If you will keep us updated on that, we would appreciate it. 

I would like to go on to the sage grouse issue. Is the Department 

going to be able to provide measurable species preservation goals, 

so our State and local officials can meet with them? I would love 

to have met with you, but when you came into my district we only 

found out 3 days in advance that you were coming. Otherwise, I 

would have been there. 

Secretary JEWELL. I am going to answer that one for the record. 

We will get back to you with specific numbers and how that all 

works. I know that the COT Report from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is what will govern the decisions made. I do believe that 

there are targets, but I need to get back to you with specifics. 

Mr. TIPTON. We would love to be able to know those numbers, 

so that we have something actually to shoot at. When we are looking—having 11 States encompassed, if we have full recovery in the 

State of Colorado, but we are still in that full recovery of 11 States, 

we have had remarkable progress at the State, the local, the community level to be able to achieve that, and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

91 

Madam Secretary, Mr. McAllister was tied up in another meeting, and he promised me that his remarks would be very, very 

short. Would you entertain Mr. McAllister? 

Mr. McAllister, you are recognized. From Louisiana. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, I appreciate it. It is a real quick—it is kind of a two-part question, but 

it is real simple, and nothing much to it, other than I need an answer. 

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the 

BSEE Administration, the administration of the post-Macondo 

drilling safety rule has resulted in drilling timelines that are more 

than double what we see elsewhere around the globe for comparable activities. This long timeline is estimated to add additional 

costs over $26 million per well. While I am sure that some of the 

larger companies are able to handle their increases, my concern is 

with the numerous small companies that this burden weighs heavier on. I don’t think we will have found an easy solution to these 

post-Macondo regulatory concerns, but the pending BOP rule could 

help or hurt the situation. 

So my question, Madam Secretary, is when does BSEE plan to 

introduce the BOP, the Blowout Preventer Rule? Because companies need to clarify certainty for operating in the Gulf of Mexico, 

and it is hard to plan for long-term operations without understanding where the regulatory regime will stand over the next 

couple of years. So what are the scope of changes, the BOP requirements being considered? And will this new rule require the 

retirement of the existing blowout preventers? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks for the question. I will check back on 

the exact date. I am not sure they have released a date. I do know 

they are working actively and taking comment on the blowout preventer rule. Some of the things that they are considering, for example, is the rule appropriate to require double-blind shear rams, or 

do you just need to make sure that the BOP can actually sheer the 

pipe that you have. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Right. 

Secretary JEWELL. Those are the kinds of things that they are 

taking into account, because new technologies are evolving. 

I will say that I recognize that, as the larger operators move off 

some of the more mature fields, and smaller operators come in, 

that it is still important those smaller operators operate safely and 

responsibly. And sometimes they don’t have the resources accessible to them to the larger players. But we have seen several 

shallow-water incidents that have provided some concern. And 

BSEE is working alongside the IPAA and industry, as well as the 

API, on thoughtful regulations that they believe are necessary to 

make sure that your resources in the Gulf are protected. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Well, I know the rule has been pending over 

a year. Do you think maybe summer 2014 we will get an answer, 

or—— 

Secretary JEWELL. I will have to check with them on where they 

are, in terms of a date. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. OK. 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t know of a specific date that they have. 

But I know they are working hard on it. 

92 

Mr. MCALLISTER. And then just the second part of that is, I am 

hearing the cost impacts from some of the post-Macondo regulations in the Gulf of Mexico appear to be much higher than the 

Department’s original estimates. And are you taking any steps to 

better account for the cost impacts for future administrative rules, 

such as the pending BOP rule, of what it is going to cost, compared 

to what the projections were? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Congressman, I—everybody learned a 

painful lesson with Macondo. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Right. 

Secretary JEWELL. And what we are trying to do is bring the best 

available technologies that are there. And I think, given the cost 

of these drilling operations, making sure that we have the best 

available technology on things like blowout preventers is a relatively small cost to the total that they are spending on the leases 

and the drilling activity and the production. So we certainly recognize it is expensive. We don’t want to add unnecessary burden, but 

we do want to make sure that we are doing our job. 

And so, we have very, very knowledgeable people working on 

this, alongside industry, to make sure that there is an appropriate 

balance. 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Well, I appreciate that. And that is the only 

thing, is just to make sure that we know we are projecting the 

right costs of what they are going to be by learning from our mistakes, and not assuming that it is going to be a lot less and—I 

mean you know some of the numbers that it came out to be. And 

so it is the reality of the world that we live in, but we just have 

to be honest with each other about what it is going to cost, so we 

can make proper adjustments to do it. 

So I thank you so much for taking—I had to beg Chairman 

Hastings to let me ask you those couple of questions, and he didn’t 

want to. So he was on your side. But thank you so much, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I noted that he 

asked his question in the right timeframe, and you took more time 

to answer his question so, therefore, that is the way it all worked. 

Madam Secretary, Mr. Connor, thank you very much for being 

here. Many times these hearings prompt newer questions that 

come up. That may happen. And in fact, I am sure it will happen. 

And if you could respond in a timely manner, I would appreciate 

it. I know Mr. Flores wanted his responses within 7 days. He said 

that three or four times, and if you could comply with that, we 

would appreciate that very much. 

If there is no further business to come before the committee, the 

committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

• DOE Task Force Report submitted by Mr. Lowenthal 

Æ