U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–968 2017

S. HRG. 114–465 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Professional General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria. Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 4 

WITNESS 

Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................... 6 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Cribley, Bud: 

Letter dated December 15, 2015 from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to Mr. Brent Goodrum, State of 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources .................................................. 48 

Goodrum, Brent: 

Letter dated July 1, 2015 from the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office ............................................................................................... 40 

Letter dated January 13, 2016 from the State of Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau of Land Management, 

Alaska State Office ....................................................................................... 53 

Jennings, Mr. Gerald: 

Letter dated October 16, 2015 from the State of Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources to Mr. Michael Schoder, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office ............................................................................ 46 

Jewell, Hon. Sally: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 9 

Letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski dated July 15, 2015 ................................ 207 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 214 

Myers, Dr. Mark: 

Letter dated September 18, 2015 from the State of Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources to Mr. Bud Cribley, Bureau of Land Management, 

Alaska State Office ....................................................................................... 38 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 276 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District: 

King Cove-Cold Bay: Assessment of Non-Road Alternatives dated June 

18, 2015 .......................................................................................................... 89 

(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

Tuesday, February 23, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

Welcome, Secretary Jewell, as well as other members of the Department of the Interior (DOI). It is good to have you with us 

today. We are meeting this morning to review the budget request 

for the Department of the Interior for Fiscal Year 2017. 

Secretary Jewell, welcome back to the Committee. You and I 

have had many discussions over the years since your tenure at Interior, and you know that I have expressed my concerns about how 

Interior has approached some of the issues in Alaska as well as the 

rest of the nation over the past eight years. But as you and I have 

discussed, we need to figure out how we can find those opportunities to work together. I think there is agreement that there are 

plenty of areas where it should be possible to find that agreement, 

but I have to be very frank with where we are this morning when 

we look at the budget in front of us. It looks like, again, a rocky 

start to the final year of this Administration. 

Some of the things, and I will include this as part of my questions to you this morning, but the first one that strikes me is Interior’s proposal to assist Alaskans impacted by climate change 

through this new resiliency fund. It appears to be modeled after a 

provision of a bill that I wrote, the Opens Act, that our Committee 

reported out last July. They say imitation is the greatest form of 

flattery, but unfortunately you did not carry my ideas all the way 

in terms of the pay for. 

You did pick up the idea, and I appreciate the President doing 

that. But depriving the Gulf states of revenue sharing from offshore production is just a nonstarter. It would up end a deal that 

71 Senators supported and take money away from states that are 

counting on it to protect their coastlines. The effort to repeal revenue sharing is not going to go anywhere. 

In terms of paying for this new fund, I have suggested that a 

much better option is to increase domestic energy production and 

2 

use those revenues to help communities in need. That would allow 

us to create jobs and reduce our foreign dependence instead of simply re-dividing the pie. 

The Administration also claims that this budget, ‘‘invests in 

Alaska’s long-term economic and environmental well-being.’’ Again, 

I have looked through this budget proposal and what I see, unfortunately, is a continuation of the efforts that block our ability to 

safely develop our resources and really take away so many of the 

best opportunities that I think my state has to grow and prosper. 

One of the areas I am going to be asking you about this morning, 

Madam Secretary, is the Alaska land conveyances. We are sitting 

here 57 years after statehood, 45 years after passage of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act, and we are still dealing with our 

land conveyances, as you well know. I think it is fair to note that 

BLM did make some progress in 2015, but what we are seeing 

within this proposal is more than a 20 percent decrease from last 

year’s levels. 

We still have about 5.3 million acres left to convey. In our questioning we will have an opportunity to talk about how the methodologies are being used to provide for the surveys. This has been 

something that has, again, lingered so long. When you think about 

any state’s ability to develop their lands, you cannot do it unless 

you have had that title conveyed. 

Other areas that we look at as being restrictive in terms of the 

Federal Government limiting opportunities for a state are the proposed regulations coming out of National Park Service and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife, controversial within the state, certainly, but also 

nationwide. It just seems that the Department is intent on overriding state management authority over Fish and Game resources 

within their borders inconsistent with ANILCA. But again, we will 

have an opportunity to discuss that in Q and A. 

But it is not just Alaska. On top of all the regulations and restrictions we have seen, this budget would repeal a number of tax 

provisions that help maintain domestic energy production. It would 

impose an ambiguous new $10.25 per barrel tax on oil that will 

hurt families and businesses. 

We were out in Bethel just last week with five members of this 

Committee and myself. If you were to ask the people in Bethel if 

they think that it is a smart thing to do anything that would increase the price of oil to them, they are paying about $5.65, so they 

are having a tough time reconciling how this could possibly be a 

good thing. 

The budget also seeks to impose new fees on energy producers 

and a new royalty on hard rock miners. At a time when energy and 

commodity prices are low, I would expect that Interior would be 

looking for practical ways to make our energy and mining industries more competitive. Based on this budget it looks like the goal 

is to drive them away from our Federal lands and waters. 

With regards to the miners out in the Fortymile District, you ask 

them if these RMPs that they are looking at make it any easier for 

them to basically pursue what they have spent a lifetime trying to 

pursue as small, small operators out there. It is very tough to make 

that argument. 

3 

Then at a time when we are recognizing that when we talk about 

energy insecurity, that also includes the insecurity that comes 

when we rely on others for our sources of minerals. When we look 

at new fees and new taxes on top of already slow permitting within 

the industry, it does make me question how does this help us when 

it comes to mineral security which, in turn, leads to economic security and national security? 

Legacy wells. This is an issue that you and I have discussed at 

great length over the years. We have suggested that it is the height 

of double standards that the Government would be allowed to basically take a pass in terms of clean-up when the private sector 

would be sued until the sun sets if they had done the same thing 

that the Federal Government has done. It is on ongoing environmental insult that the Government should never tolerate. I think 

we recognize the budget here is far short of what is needed where 

at $2.8 million, if I understand what it is costing us on a per well 

basis, it is pretty much close to $3 million a well because we have 

gotten beyond the easy ones, if you will. 

There has been a lot of news just this past week back home about the $50 million that I was able to secure through the Helium 

Stewardship Act which BLM is now using to clean up about 40 percent of the legacy wells which, I think you and I would agree, gets 

us on that track. But making sure that we are on a path after that 

is, I think, critically important, particularly recognizing that we are 

looking at perhaps 29 more wells to be cleaned up. If you estimate 

maybe $2 to $3 million per well, do the math and we are going to 

be sitting here for a long time cleaning this up. 

Of course beyond energy there is King Cove. It was 26 months 

ago today, today, that you rejected the lifesaving road for this remote community. At that time you promised that you were going 

to find some way to help the local residents, but I do not see anything in this request to protect those people whose lives remain in 

needless danger. 

More broadly, the Administration continues to ignore budget realities and propose billions in mandatory spending including for 

proposals that have been rejected in the past for very valid reasons. 

We have had a lot of consensus in this Committee about support 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). We have actually moved through this measure as part of our energy bill, a provision that would address some reforms. But you are advancing full 

funding for LWCF without any offset and without reforms. 

Yet again, we will have an opportunity to speak more to this in 

question and answer. But when we recognize the substantial backlog that we have within the Federal agencies, the National Park 

Service at close to $12 billion backlog, it kind of begs the question, 

why are we pushing to acquire more land when it is obvious that 

we have a great need, a great demand, to care for the lands that 

we have. 

Now having said all that, I think that there are some important 

issues where I hope that we would be able to forge this common 

ground despite the budget proposals that we have here. 

We talk a lot about wildfire and the problem that we face in 

terms of budgeting and actual forest management. I noted that in 

the news yesterday in Alaska, we have our first wildfire out in the 

4 

BLM area, outside of Delta, that has been contained. But it is a 

reminder that the season is coming a lot earlier. We just do not 

have the snow cover that we would hope up there. Our Committee 

is going to dedicate much of March to finding a solution to the challenges of budgeting and forest management. 

A second area where, I think, collaboration is possible is the National Park Service Centennial. I know that this is a priority of 

yours. I have said the Administration’s proposal is unrealistic at 

$1.5 billion in mandatory spending, but I do think this is an opportunity for us to put the Park Service on a long-term path toward 

viability with its 100th birthday here. This is an opportunity for us 

to figure out how we can work through the maintenance backlog 

so that we have a park system that we can all be proud of. That 

would be a legacy for us all. 

With that, Madam Secretary, again, thank you for being here before us this morning. We look forward to your comments and that 

of your colleagues as well. 

Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for scheduling this hearing. It is good to be here 

to discuss the President’s budget proposal for the Department of 

the Interior. I welcome all the witnesses here this morning. Certainly welcome to Secretary Jewell. This will be your final budget 

presentation before the Committee, so thank you for your work on 

this. 

Many of the priorities in this budget, such as the full funding of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the development of 

funding for the National Park Centennial initiative, reflect tireless 

efforts by those in the agency to work on these issues. One of the 

signature issues here involves finding new ways to get young people to the outdoors and experience and enjoy our national parks 

and public lands. 

This budget includes funding for the Secretary’s Every Kid in a 

Park initiative, which provides a free one-year admission pass for 

every fourth grader in the country to visit our national parks and 

other public lands. So thank you, Secretary Jewell, for your leadership on that initiative. It is greatly appreciated. I commend you for 

that and look forward to discussing many of these proposals. 

The proposed budget of $13.4 billion for the Department of the 

Interior reflects a very modest increase totaling half of one percent 

over current level funding. In my view this is a very responsible 

proposal that balances the funding for the Department of the Interior’s often conflicting conservation and development mandates. 

More importantly, I’m pleased that the budget and the recent secretarial directives are taking a long term and forward looking approach to responsible energy development on public lands to address the impacts of climate change into the future. 

At the budget hearing last year I expressed my concern that the 

Department’s efforts to reform the coal program were not going far 

enough and fast enough. What a difference a year makes. I want 

to thank Secretary Jewell for her bold action to modernize the FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
5 

eral coal program. She has been a deliberate and thoughtful person 

when it comes to this issue. Thank you for the open and honest 

conversation. 

What we have now is the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rulemaking. The Bureau of Land Management held five listening sessions on this last August. The Secretarial Order that Secretary Jewell issued this January requires the Bureau of Land 

Management to undertake a programmatic EIS, or I should say 

programmatic environmental impact statement, to update the coal 

leasing program and ensure that taxpayers get a fair return. While 

the programmatic EIS is being prepared, no new Federal coal leasing will be issued, with limited exceptions. This programmatic EIS 

is long overdue. It has been 37 years since the current EIS was 

written. I think 37 years is long enough, so I’m thankful that this 

process is underway. 

This pause on new leasing activities is consistent with the actions of five previous administrations, four Republican and one 

Democrat, as well as a leasing moratorium approved by the Republican-controlled Senate in the 80s. So we cannot continue with business as usual. The cost to the taxpayers and the public do not 

match. We cannot continue to lease coal for $1.00 a ton and collect 

another $1.00 in royalties while the cost to society is about $70 per 

ton. That enormous gap between public revenue and ultimate cost 

to the public is simply not defensible. 

There is much more to do in reforming coal leasing. So I plan to 

ask you about this, finishing the Stream Protection Rule and fixing 

reclamation self-bonding requirements, which are hugely important 

to addressing the legacy and impacts of coal to society. I want to 

thank you for taking action on these. 

The past year has also been a busy one for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. Working with Senator Murkowski and other 

members of this Committee we were able to pass out of Committee 

bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation and 

make it permanent and dedicated to address the National Park 

Service maintenance needs. So this legislation, which is still in the 

energy bill that we are trying to move forward on, is a critical 

agreement. Hopefully we will be able to get this ultimately enacted. 

The Omnibus Appropriations bill that was passed last December 

extended Land and Water Conservation Fund authority for three 

years and increased the funding by almost 50 percent to $450 million. While this is certainly a step in the right direction and was 

a hard fought achievement, I want to make sure that we continue 

to get permanent reauthorization of LWCF and full dedicated funding. 

I strongly support the President’s budget proposal to fully fund 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized level of 

$900 million. The President’s Administration proposal to transition 

to a mandatory funding stream for the program in future years is 

also something I fully support. 

I would like to mention a couple of other issues. 

In addition to conservation proposals, I am pleased to see that 

the President’s budget is focused on science and landscape and watershed management. I am particularly pleased to see the proposals throughout the budget to foster climate change resilience in 

6 

these areas, and I believe we must invest in science and smart solutions. 

In this vein I am particularly pleased to see the Administration’s continued commitment to the Yakima Basin project. This $3 million increase in the proposed budget for the Yakima Basin is critical to completing fish passage and continuing to provide the stewardship that’s needed. This project will restore fish runs that have 

been blocked for more than a century and one of what is the largest sockeye salmon runs in the lower 48. 

Secretary Jewell, as a fellow Washingtonian, I know you understand the importance of salmon issues to the entire economy. I 

want to thank the Bureau of Reclamation for being such great 

partners on a plan that, I think, is a model for the rest of the nation in watershed management. 

I will save the rest of the comments for the record on the Yakima 

Basin project but turn to the National Park Service Centennial. It 

is our 100th anniversary since the founding of the National Park 

Service. Along those lines, I want to say that I support our efforts 

to get legislation in and was happy to introduce the initiative by 

the Administration. 

But having said that, we need to work together, Senators Murkowski and Portman and others, on a National Park Service bipartisan effort to help make sure that the National Park is well positioned for it’s next 100 years. I know this is a big challenge here 

in supporting new dollars and coming up with how we upgrade our 

park system, but I am sure that if there’s anyone here that can 

meet that task it is Secretary Jewell because of her great love of 

the National Park system, her great utilization of it, and her great 

promotion of it. 

I hope that a number of the issues that have been detailed by 

both Chairman Murkowski and myself, as we talk about this proposal, actually come to fruition with some legislation that we can 

get passed because clearly the next 100 years of our parks deserves 

the investment that was made at the first 100 years. 

With that, Madam Chair, thank you for holding this important 

hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

With that we will turn to Secretary Jewell. Welcome before the 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY THE HONORABLE MICHAEL CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND KRISTEN SARRI, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SECRETARY OF POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski, 

Senator Cantwell and members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss the Department’s Fiscal Year ’17 budget request. 

I’d like to take a moment to mention the incident at the Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon. Through tremendous patience and professionalism, the FBI with support from 

state and local law enforcement ended the occupation on February 

7 

11th as quickly and safely as possible, after more than 40 days. It 

was an incredibly disruptive and distressing time for our employees, their families and the Harney County community. 

I’m proud of our DOI law enforcement personnel who supported 

the response and helped keep our employees safe. We continue to 

cooperate with the Department of Justice, the FBI and others as 

the investigations move forward, and we remain committed to 

working with local communities on the management of public 

lands. 

Interior’s Fiscal ’17 budget request is $13.4 billion, half a billion 

above the 2016, excuse me, half a percent above the 2016 enacted 

level. It builds on the successes we’re achieving through partnerships, the application of science and innovation and balanced stewardship. It gives us the tools to help communities strengthen resilience in the face of climate change, conserve natural and cultural 

resources, secure clean and sustainable water, engage the next generation with the great outdoors, promote a balanced approach to 

safe and responsible energy development and expand opportunities 

for Native American communities. These areas are core to our mission and play a vital role in job creation and economic growth. 

The budget invests in our public lands providing $5 billion to 

support operations at our National Parks, historic and cultural 

sites, wildlife refuges and habitats and managing multiple use and 

sustained yield on our nation’s public lands. 

It focuses investments on important working landscapes like the 

Western Sage Steppe and the Arctic and proposes a ten-year, $2 

billion coastal climate resilience program to support at risk coastal 

states and local governments, including funding for communities in 

Alaska, to prepare for and adapt to climate change. 

As the National Park Service begins its second century, the 

budget provides $3 billion and includes a proposal that dedicates 

significant funding to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. 

It calls for full and permanent funding of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and extends the expired authority for the Historic Preservation Fund. 

It reflects the Administration’s strategy to more effectively budget for catastrophic fires. And I’d like to thank you for your leadership on this and look forward to working with you, particularly, 

next month. 

And in response to drought challenges across the West, it continues to safeguard sustainable and secure water supplies. 

We continue to engage the next generation of Americans to play, 

learn, serve and work outdoors with $103 million for youth engagement. This includes mentoring and research opportunities at the 

USGS, urban community partnerships, scholarships and job corps 

training for tribal, rural and urban youth and work opportunities 

in our bureaus. 

There’s $20 million for the Every Kid in a Park Initiative which 

introduces America’s fourth graders to their public lands providing 

education programs across the country and transportation support 

for low income students. 

We continue to promote a balanced approach to safe and responsible energy development that maximizes the fair return for taxVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
8 

payers with $800 million for renewable and conventional energy 

development, a $42 million increase. 

We’re on track to meet the President’s goal of permitting 20,000 

megawatts of renewable energy capacity on public lands by 2020 

and nearly $100 million for renewable energy development and infrastructure. 

Offshore this budget supports the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

with funding to reform and strengthen responsiveness, oversight 

and safety for oil and gas development. Onshore, $20 million supports BLM’s efforts to develop a landscape level approach to oil and gas development, modernize and 

streamline permitting and strengthen inspection capacity. 

We’re expanding educational job opportunities for Native commu- nities with $3 billion for Indian Affairs, a five-percent increase, to 

support Native youth education, American Indian and Alaska Native families, public safety and building resilience to climate 

change. The President’s budget calls for a $1 billion investment in Indian education as part of Generation Indigenous and $278 million to 

fully fund contract support costs, a cornerstone of tribal self-determination. 

The budget supports our commitment to resolve Indian water 

rights settlements and support sustainable water management in 

Indian Country with $215 million, a $5 million increase. 

The budget includes funding to strengthen cyber security controls 

across all agencies. It also invests in science and innovation with 

$150 million for natural hazards in the USGS, an $11 million increase, and a $5 million increase for 3D elevation mapping in Alaska and nationwide. 

Funding will continue development for Landsat 9, a critical new 

satellite, expected to launch in 2021. 

This is a smart budget that builds on our previous successes and 

strengthens partnerships to ensure we balance the needs of today 

with opportunity for future generations. So thank you, Chairman 

and Senators, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Jewell follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98968.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98968.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98968.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98968.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98968.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98968.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98968.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98968.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98968.009
18 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98968.010
19 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98968.011
20 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98968.012
21 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98968.013
22 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98968.014
23 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98968.015
24 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98968.016
25 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98968.017
26 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98968.018
27 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98968.019
28 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98968.020
29 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98968.021
30 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98968.022
31 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98968.023
32 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98968.024
33 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98968.025
34 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98968.026
35 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98968.027
36 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Jewell. 

I understand that Ms. Sarri and Mr. Connor are available for 

specific questions but are not providing comments this morning. 

Great. 

Let me start with some of the things that I raised in my opening. 

I will begin first with the Alaska land conveyances. As you know 

this has long, long been a priority of mine. I mentioned that your 

budget reflects more than a 20 percent decrease from last year’s 

level. 

I know that there’s been back and forth about the potential for 

change in Federal survey requirements. I have a full pack of correspondence that has gone back and forth between the State of 

Alaska and the Department of the Interior, but it is very clear that 

the state is asking that there be engagement. 

I am reading directly from a letter dated February 9th from the 

Commissioner of Natural Resources saying that, ‘‘We need BLM to 

engage in an open and transparent manner to ensure that we come 

to agreement that advances both the state and Federal interest in 

terms of survey methodologies.’’ 

My question to you, first off, is why you felt you needed to advance a 20 percent decrease when we still have 21 million acres of 

survey work to complete between the state and the Native Corporations. We have got nearly 300 pending Native allotment parcels to 

convey which have been pending since 1906 and then about 80 of 

the Village Corporation conveyances. It does not make sense to me 

that we would take the foot off the gas, if you will, when we have 

such a line up in front of us. 

Then if you can also speak to the commitment from Interior to 

engage with the state to ensure that the peer review which is underway and which, I understand, is due to be complete probably by 

the end of this fiscal year, that there is that discussion going on 

and that commitment to work with the state to ensure that the 

method, survey methodologies, are not going to get the State of 

Alaska in trouble. We do not need to be told that conveyances are 

complete only to find out that the methodologies do not hold up. 

So if you could speak both to the cut in the budget and to working with the state on this. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well thank you, Senator. 

The BLM believes that new tools, largely the accuracy of GPS 

measurements, enable us to do conveyances in a much more efficient and faster way than we have before which is why we took 

some money out of this budget and actually put some of that into 

the legacy well clean-up. 

We believe that with these tools we can accelerate the timeframe 

to complete the conveyances for both Native lands as well as state 

lands which we think can be done within 15 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you will acknowledge that the state has not 

accepted the methodology that BLM is effectively pushing on them 

at this point in time, that there has not been acceptance of that, 

that the process that has been handled, historically, and has been 

outlined in terms of the requirements, that there has not been 

agreement between the state and the Federal agencies? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, we will continue to work with the state 

on that to reach agreement. 

37 

I know that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I do want to hear that commitment that that will 

be ongoing. 

My concern is that while these discussions are ongoing that we 

are, again, taking the imperative off of the funding to allow for 

these conveyances to proceed. So this is something that, I think, 

the state has been very clear in terms of its need, its demand, for 

this peer review because we do not have the monuments and the 

technologies in place in the State of Alaska for you to be able to 

measure to the same degree that you can in the lower 48 where 

you do not have as much space as you are dealing with. 

My last question to you, real quickly, is and this has been communicated very, very clearly. It stated that the most significant obstacle, and again I am reading from correspondence from the state, 

and I will submit this for the record, ‘‘the most significant obstacle 

to accelerating the completion of the state’s remaining land entitlement is the revocation of long standing PLOs, the public land orders, that prevent the state from accurately prioritizing these lands 

most economically beneficial.’’ 

[The information referred to follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98968.039
39 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98968.040
40 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98968.041
41 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98968.042
42 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98968.043
43 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98968.044
44 


Insert offset folio 45 here 98968.045
45 


Insert offset folio 46 here 98968.046
46 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98968.037
47 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98968.038
48 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98968.032
49 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98968.033
50 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98968.034
51 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98968.035
52 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98968.036
53 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98968.028
54 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98968.029
55 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98968.030
56 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98968.031
57 

Again, I put that out in front of you as a direct request from the 

state that we can move on lifting these PLOs and the Federal withdrawals that unnecessarily delay. That is something that we would 

like to attempt to work with you to advance that aspect. 

Secretary JEWELL. We’re happy to take that question for the 

record and provide you with a written response on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Secretary JEWELL.: Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Since Senator Cantwell is not here, I will turn 

to Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, first of all, before I get to two issues that you 

have heard from me about for the last several years, I would like 

to thank you for providing full funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. Thank you for that. 

Secretary Jewell, ever since I first came to the Senate I have 

been raising the issue about the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School on 

Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota. I have been pushing very 

hard to get construction money for the school, since I have been 

here. 

I am pleased that you had the opportunity to visit the school, 

thank you for doing that, and you got to see the deplorable conditions for yourself. You saw first-hand what the students and teachers of the school have to deal with every day. Children in Indian 

schools must be able to learn in a safe environment with modern 

facilities. I am very disappointed that the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig 

School has still not been rebuilt. 

Secretary Jewell, what is the status of rebuilding the school and 

why is it taking so long? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks for the question and more importantly, Senator, thank you for your advocacy in raising awareness 

of the issues that we face across Indian Country with the condition 

of tribal schools. It’s really deplorable in many locations with nearly a third of our schools in poor condition. 

I did visit the Bug School. It is in bad condition, the high school 

is. I appreciate the support that you put in the budget for 2016 

with regard to replacement facilities. 

We are undertaking a process of prioritizing schools that need 

full campus replacement. We have, just now, identified the final 

two schools on the 2004 list because funding has been made available for their replacement. We’re going through a process that’s 

dictated by the No Child Left Behind Act on creating that next priority list, but that is for whole campus replacement. 

So we will, this spring, come out with the prioritized list for 

whole campus replacement. The replacement school construction 

for a building like the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School is separate from 

that. I would anticipate that in the coming months you will see 

clarity on that facility and replacement school facilities facilitated 

by the support that you provided in the budget for 2016. So, thank 

you. 

Senator FRANKEN. I understand. Thank you. 

I continue to be frustrated with the slow pace of funding for rural 

water projects. Local communities in Minnesota have prepaid 100 

percent and throughout the project in South Dakota and Iowa, paid 

58 

100 percent of their share of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water 

System. State and local partners are doing their part, but the Administration has routinely underfunded the project and unfortunately your Fiscal Year ’17 budget request is no exception. I raised 

this issue, as you know, year after year because it continues to be 

a source of frustration for Minnesota communities. 

What is your recommendation for addressing this funding shortage? How can we work together to complete the Lewis and Clark 

Regional Water System and deliver water to these rural communities that have paid in full their fair share and still have not gotten water? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator Franken, I appreciate your ongoing 

advocacy for Lewis and Clark and rural water in general and working toward a budget set in the budget agreement negotiated. We 

did have to make some hard decisions but with your indulgence I’m 

going to turn to my colleague, Mike Connor, who is really our expert on water issues. 

Mike? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you. 

Senator, we’ve lived through this frustration with the funding for 

rural water projects, and I’ve talked to you many times. Since we 

invested about $240 million in rural water projects through the Recovery Act funding, our budgets have been constrained given other 

priorities, legal obligations, that Reclamation has. 

We’re trying to maintain a level of funding to keep the project moving forward. I think we had $3 million in ’16, $3 million in the 

’17 budget. We are very pleased with the additional money that 

Congress wrote in, the additional $47 million for construction activity, and I think we allocated an additional $7 million to Lewis and 

Clark specifically from those resources. 

I think we will continue to invest those funds that are written. 

I know it’s a priority for many members here and work with the 

communities to make incremental progress and meaningful completion of segments of each of these projects. 

We’ve got about a $1.3–$1.4 billion backlog in these projects. 

They’re good projects. They just don’t compete at the level of some 

other legal obligations that we have within Reclamation’s budget. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am out of time. So thank you for those. I 

have some other questions I would like to submit for the record. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Secretary Jewell, for being with us today to talk about the budget. 

First, I would like to highlight the condition, I think we have 

talked about this, the Canaan Valley National Refuge Headquarters in, sort of, the center of West Virginia. I visited there several times and have talked with the director and regional director 

at Fish and Wildlife regarding the undesirable condition of the 

Canaan Valley National Refuge Headquarters and Visitors Center. 

We have been working with them and with you all to try to 

bump them up on the list. I understand they are not on the list 

for this present year, but I am putting a plug in for that and hoping that maybe if some construction funding becomes available for 

59 

planning that we can move forward on that. I do not know if you 

have a comment on that or if you are aware of that project? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am certainly aware of the project. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. Appreciate your advocacy. It didn’t make it on 

the priority list. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Secretary JEWELL. Because of the long list of demands, but we’d 

be very happy to continue to look at that as construction money 

comes available. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you for that, I appreciate that. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the impact the Stream Protection Rule is having on mining, particularly on the underground 

mining. I know the rule is not completely finished. We just had Mr. 

Pizarchik at, I said his name wrong, Pizarchik, at EPW to talk 

about the effect not only on surface mining but on the underground 

mining. As you know, there is a definite difference of opinion as to 

whether this actually will impact our underground mines. What 

comment would you have on that and where is the status of the 

rule? 

I was looking through your budget and I do not see any kind of 

implementation dollars that you have allotted for to implement this 

thousands of pages rule which, I think, is very complicated. What 

is the status of that? 

Secretary JEWELL. Let me talk briefly about the status of on the 

rule, and then I’m going to turn to Kris Sarri for specifics around 

budget amounts. 

The Stream Protection Rule is really updating a rule that says 

we need to know what the baseline water situation is in watersheds so that we know if they’ve been impacted, can put them back 

to the way that they were. We believe this is very important given 

the water quality impacts that have happened across, particularly 

Appalachian regions, with mining practices in the past and the impact on water quality. 

Kris, the timing on the rule? 

Ms. SARRI. I am sorry. We just have one mic up here. 

The rule is still under development. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. Right. 

Ms. SARRI. So there’s no specific time yet. 

Senator CAPITO. I would just say here that I have had some serious reservations about the far reaching nature of it. If we are going 

to be going after a balanced energy policy, this will have great impacts on my state, as many of the other regulations that have 

moved through. 

I want to ask a final question. I noticed in your budget you have 

the money for the miner health and pension fix with the UMW 

miners, who are basically up against the wall in terms of their ability to realize a benefit that was promised to them and had been 

promised to them through their service as our nation’s coal miners 

and their families. Obviously this heavily impacts both Senator 

Manchin and I, from West Virginia, heavily impacts our state. I noticed that you have a $4.2 billion allotment for this, that you are 

60 

going to go through the PBGC. Where are you going to get this 

money? 

I want to see this fix come forward. I do not know if you figured 

out how we are going to get this done because we have been trying 

to work very deeply, thought we might have it on the Omnibus. 

What is the Department of the Interior’s solution to this problem? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m going to take a crack at a high level then 

turn to my colleagues to add a bit more detail. 

The Power Plus recommendation in the President’s budget for 

last year and again in the 2017 budget begins to address this. It’s 

by no means a full fix, but it begins to say let us accelerate challenges we have with mining families and their coverage as well as 

let’s accelerate money from the Abandoned Mine Land funds to put 

miners to work in Reclamation projects. 

So Power Plus is our step in that direction. It’s by no means a 

full fix but within the context of the budget restraints that we’re 

operating on, it’s a step in that direction. 

We would welcome an opportunity to work on a longer term fix 

with you because we understand the devastating situation that you 

face as many of these coal mines are closing down and people are 

losing their jobs. 

Kris, do you want to add anything? 

Ms. SARRI. I think the only thing to add is, as you mentioned, 

we also have mandatory money in our budget for United Mine 

Workers. And I’m happy to get back to you more on the record. 

Senator CAPITO. When you say you have mandatory money in 

your budget, it has not been authorized, no? 

Ms. SARRI. There’s, kind of, there’s the Power Plus Initiative and 

then there’s some additional funding. 

Senator CAPITO. But we are a long way, to get to where you are 

saying we need to be and to where, in reality, we are going to end 

up with there is just too much gap there to have any kind of satisfaction that we are actually going to help these coal miners and 

their families as they retire with their health and pension benefits. 

But we will work together, hopefully, and be able to find a more 

satisfactory solution that is actually going to turn into the reality 

of the promises that were made that will be kept. 

Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Just following up on what Senator Capito has been speaking 

about because we are very much concerned. First of all, on the 

building up in Canaan Valley. When the Fish and Wildlife gave up 

the new building that we had on top of the mountain and they gave 

that to the STEM, to the academy, 4H youth academy. That was 

going to go for STEM research. That was a high priority, and Fish 

and Wildlife, you all, were very, very gracious in doing that for the 

highly needed STEM education. 

With that we were promised that that would be a high priority 

on getting them the new Fish and Wildlife building that they so 

desperately need. I think that is where Senator Capito and I are 

both committed to helping on. But that was the whole crux of the 

meetings that we had had up there, Secretary Jewell. I would hope 

61 

that maybe you could follow up of the importance of getting that 

accomplished because you all were very gracious. 

It was for a tremendous cause for STEM, for all the STEM education for children around the country, not just West Virginia. This 

is around the country bringing it to this setting. But we left them 

in a dilapidated situation because they were gracious enough to put 

the kids first. 

We are pleading with you on that one to please move them up. I think it is a $5 or $6 million project which is a lot of money in 

West Virginia but here in DC it is just unnoticed. 

Secretary JEWELL. Excuse me, it’s a really challenging situation 

with the number of buildings that we have in dilapidated conditions from Indian schools to National Parks and wildlife refuges 

and not enough money to actually address it long-term. But I appreciate your advocacy for this project—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes, well I am just saying that was part of the 

dialog that went on and the commitments were made. 

In a report dated December 2015, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill language, language was included noting concern 

that the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is not working with important state partners in an effective manner. The language goes on 

to state OSM should reengage state partners before finalizing the 

stream buffer zone rule in order to achieve the best outcome possible. 

OSM was directed to provide state with extensive data analysis 

relative to the environmental reviews as well as draft and final environmental impact statements. The only thing I would ask, Secretary, is why is the requested information on environmental reviews and impact statements relating to the stream buffer zone 

rule not yet been released? 

Secretary JEWELL. We will have to get into the detail. My understanding is the rule has been released for comment and there are 

a number of states that are going through the details. If there’s 

particular elements of that rule that you don’t have access to or the 

states don’t have access to, we will follow up on that, but we are 

now in a process where we look forward to input from the states 

and welcome that input as we finalize this rule. 

Senator MANCHIN. My staff, if you do not mind, will get in contact with you and we will work with you very closely on that. But 

we need your attention on this. That is very important for us to 

be able to continue to do any business whatsoever. 

Secretary JEWELL. Do you want to add to that? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, I think you were referring to the language 

in the Omnibus that directed us to provide additional materials. 

Senator MANCHIN. Correct. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOR. And I think that material is being pulled together. 

And I do think it’s by, within, a few weeks where we anticipate fulfilling that commitment under the Omnibus. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOR. We’ll work with your staff—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay, I appreciate that. 

Mr. CONNOR. They understand that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Also to reiterate the UMW, the Miners Protection Plan is a commitment made in 1946 because of the need of fosVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
62 

sil energy that made this country as great. Everybody has forgotten 

about what fossil has done. All we have been doing is demonizing 

it, and demonizing it since I have been here is ridiculous from the 

standpoint we want to move forward with technology but we cannot get this Administration to even take a good look at what technology is needed to use a resource that has made the country what 

we are today, the greatest power on Earth. 

With that being said, there was a promise made in 1946 as far 

as the pension and their health benefits. That is about to go completely bankrupt, as we have talked about. The Miners Protection 

Plan has the excess AML monies going towards strengthening that 

so they will be able to get the commitment that was made to them. 

That is what we are asking for. 

I do not know if that is in your evaluation but your support 

would be desperately needed because it is not taking away from the 

projects that are needed to be reclaimed. Most of the Appalachian, 

who have done the heavy lifting over all these years, is where it 

really is needed. We are not taking away from that, we are basically saying excess funds should be used to fulfill the commitment 

promises made. I would desperately ask you to maybe get up to 

speed on that and help us. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah, we’re happy to continue to work on that 

particularly through OSM. Also I will say the Department of Energy does continue to have research into carbon capture and sequestration for coal but I’m not familiar with their numbers—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I can tell you, trust me, we do not want to get 

down this road. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator MANCHIN. Because they talk a good game, but have not 

done a darn thing. The bottom line is, as you know, the standards 

that they are wanting us to set are unattainable because the technology has not been developed to where it is under commercial 

load. 

You know, we can do scrubbers, and we can do low Nox boilers, 

we can bag houses, and we have proven all that. 

We do not even mandate there are other countries that are polluting the world, even use that, China, India or any of them. But 

yet we are pushing the cart of CO2, capture of CO2, which we have 

not even commercialized yet. And we won’t go that extra step. So 

that is a whole other meeting to be had. 

Secretary JEWELL. Fair enough. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cassidy, apparently I skipped over you 

in an effort to get down to Senator Capito. I apologize. 

Senator CASSIDY. Senator Murkowski—— 

Senator CAPITO. That’s because I went to Alaska with her, see, 

so I got to go ahead. [Laughter.] 

Senator CASSIDY. No harm done, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator CASSIDY. And I got to hear my colleague speak, so that 

was worth it. 

I gather at the outset, Senator Murkowski, you said the changes 

in revenue sharing were off the table, so I appreciate that. 

63 

I will begin, Madam Secretary with, kind of, that discussion. 

Craziest thing in the world. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it appears sometimes the left hand does not know what the left hand 

is doing. 

On the tenth anniversary of Katrina I was in the Lower Ninth 

Ward, and of course the whole area had been devastated. You can 

still see, kind of, marks where the water was this high, all as a result of Katrina. Yes/No. 

Louisiana began to lose its wetlands in 1928 when the Federal 

Government began to levy the Mississippi River primarily for the 

benefit of commerce inland. A commitment was made by a unanimous, almost unanimous, group of Senators, and House of Representatives, in order to begin to dedicate some of that offshore oil 

revenue to rebuild our wetlands. 

I am sitting in the midst of this devastation and now the rebirth 

and the President is there to celebrate. And I said to the President, 

‘‘Mr. President, do you know that your budget is trying to take 

away the money that Louisiana is constitutionally directed to use 

to rebuild our wetlands?’’ He looked over to Mr. McDonough sitting 

there and I said, ‘‘Mr. President, I do not expect you to know this 

level of detail, but this is what your budget is doing.’’ He looked 

over at Mr. McDonough and said, ‘‘Is this true? It can’t be true.’’ 

He gave a little, kind of, well, we didn’t know the state was going 

to use the money appropriately. I said, ‘‘Well, constitutionally we 

have to use it to rebuild our wetlands.’’ And the President said, 

‘‘We’ll change that. I don’t want this to happen again.’’ Implicit in 

that is his understanding the only way to keep that from happening again is if we rebuild our wetlands. Low and behold, your 

budget takes away those dollars. 

I appreciate the Chair’s defense of it, but I would really like to 

know the kind of thought process associated with that because it 

seems to be, kind of, a recurring theme in your budgets. They, sort 

of, neglect Louisiana’s needs and you will dispute that characterization, but it is clear it is a neglect of Louisiana’s needs. 

So let me just lay out some points. 

In our state’s master plan to restore and protect coastal Louisiana, there is about $1.8 billion anticipated in offshore revenue 

sharing for this coastal restoration over the next ten years, $3.5 

billion over the next 20. The whole project will take $50 billion. 

Louisiana is committing its own significant resources. But this, as 

you might guess, is a part of that. 

The Coastal Climate Resilience Program referenced on page five 

of your testimony basically deprives those Gulf Coast communities 

of the resources and predictability that is currently given, so the 

contracts will not be left with the same sort of understanding. So 

again, I am not sure how your Department arrived at this. 

By the way, it is not just me representing the State of Louisiana. 

The Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 

Foundation stated, as a group, they are ‘‘Disappointed by the budget’s proposed aversion of critically needed and currently dedicated 

funding for coastal Louisiana and the Mississippi River Delta.’’ 

By the way, Oxfam America, a group dedicated to fighting poverty, stated that, ‘‘America’s Gulf Coast is home to some of our naVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
64 

tion’s highest rates of poverty, greatest risk of natural hazards, like 

sea level rise, hurricanes, flooding and coastal land loss. Oxfam recognizes and appreciates efforts to promote more equitable sharing 

of offshore energy revenues and support new investments in the resilience of our coastal community.’’ 

All this, let me ask, the Federal Government’s decision, let me 

just ask. Do you dispute that the Federal Government’s effort to 

channel the Mississippi River for the benefit of the rest of the country’s economy has had a negative impact upon our coastline? You 

might just dispute the facts, so I guess I would like to start there. 

Secretary JEWELL. Let me start by saying that there’s no question that Louisiana’s wetlands have been impacted over the years 

by the channelization. I’ve been out and I’ve seen MR–GO and 

what’s happened when that has been blocked off and the rebuilding 

of the Barrier’s Islands, seen that personally. 

I’ve been out to a lot of these coastal wetlands that are diminishing. I acknowledge that Louisiana has a significant problem 

with coastal erosion that is exacerbated by sea level rise, climate 

change and, of course, that was very much brought home to the 

world in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on that region. 

We believe that coastal communities like Louisiana do warrant 

additional support. We have recommended in this budget that the 

GOMESA program which distributes revenue sharing for four Gulf 

Coast states go to coastal Reclamation projects across the country 

including the Gulf Coast because—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Of course that would subtract substantially 

from what the area most vulnerable will receive. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well I think it would, it’s fair to say, having 

been also to the Arctic, that they are having significant problems 

with coastal erosion as well. And this was an effort on our part to 

say these are Federal waters in the Gulf Coast as well as, you 

know, offshore and other areas that belong to all Americans and 

the benefit of the revenue from that supports the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. But also, we believe should support coastal resilience projects as opposed to just being limited to those four Gulf 

Coast states. 

Senator CASSIDY. Except seeing that those areas are the ones 

most impacted, I mean, is there, if it affects their Federal lands. 

I will always point out that onshore, we get 37.5 but onshore Federal lands 50 percent of the revenue returns to the state. So there 

is already a decrease in the amount that the coastal states receive. 

By the way, the way I would address that is to expand revenue 

sharing to the Atlantic and Arctic coast. If you did that then again 

you would have an increased amount of money to share with those 

coastal communities as well as the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. It seems the better way to go. 

I am over my time. I apologize. I went too long setting the context. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, I appreciate the expansion of the pie. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. I’ll pass to my colleague. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heinrich? 

65 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

Ranking Member Cantwell. 

Secretary Jewell, welcome. 

I want to start out on the Valles Caldera National Preserve. In 

December 2014 Congress transferred management of the preserve 

to the National Park Service. One of the reasons that I fought so 

hard for that legislation was the opportunity that it presented for 

increased public access to what was a very limited situation before 

at the preserve for things like hunting, fishing, hiking, camping 

and other visitation. 

Can you talk a little bit about whether any changes have been 

made since the Park Service took over management of that site and 

what we can look forward to in the future? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you for the question and more importantly for your advocacy, not only of that monument designation, 

but also Organ Mountains Desert Peaks. 

We have seen a substantial increase in visitation in the Rio 

Grande del Norte National Monument. I’m going to turn to my colleague, Kris, to see if you have specifics on the numbers and what 

might be in the budget for this coming year. But we will continue 

to do the master planning and determine what is appropriate with 

the anticipated visitation. 

Kris, do you have a number? 

Senator HEINRICH. Actually Secretary, that is something I want 

to ask about, the budgeting for the two landscape level BLM National Monuments. But specifically, in this case, I was hoping to 

get a sense for changes in management posture at Valles Caldera. 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m sorry, you said Valles Caldera. 

Senator HEINRICH. Under the Park Service. 

Secretary JEWELL. And I—yes, yes, yes. 

So I have been out to Valles Caldera, incredible resource. We did 

the handover to the National Park Service. Jorge, who was working 

in Interior and then running that, is now the Superintendent. 

Many of the staff members have been picked up by the Park Service and are working on a plan overall to determine what kind of 

visitor use facilities are appropriate there. 

I will say that there’s been incredible research in archeology, in 

the impact of climate change and wildfire in that region that I 

think will continue to tell a really important story, as well as, engaging with local pueblos, tribes that are interested in playing 

some role in bringing their history with this area to bear. 

But specifically a dollar amount, Kris, do you know? 

Ms. SARRI. We’re continuing the investment made in 2016, so it’s 

$3.4 million overall in 2017. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay, great. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Sorry for my miscue on location. 

Senator HEINRICH. No, that’s alright. 

I want to move to Carlsbad Caverns. Last year both of the passenger elevators broke down at Carlsbad Caverns National Park 

and have now been inoperable for a number of months. This really 

puts a crimp in visitation to, sort of, the main attraction there. 

That means the visitors have to take a fairly substantial hike 

back out of the caverns on foot, and it limits accessibility, in particular, for people with physical disabilities, and for small children. 

66 

Needless to say that is a major portion of Eddy County’s economy 

with visitors buying gas, staying at local hotels and motels oftentimes when they visit both Carlsbad Caverns and White Sands National Monument which is not far away. 

With spring break season coming up I think it is critical that we 

get these elevators back up and running so that Carlsbad, as an 

area, does not lose out on that critical recreational and visitation 

spending. 

Can you tell us a little bit about what happened to the elevators, 

what the Park Service is doing to fix them, and when we might see 

at least one of them available for visitor use again? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well in a nutshell this is a good indication of 

what we’re struggling with, with deferred maintenance across the 

National Parks with $12 billion of backlog in both transportation 

and non-transportation assets. 

In the case of Carlsbad, which I have been to, those elevators are 

over 40 years old and they’ve been working hard to keep them 

going. But ultimately they break down. The estimated cost to replace the works there is over a half a million dollars. So right now 

the National Park Service is looking to retrofit the existing freight 

elevators to make them safe for passengers to use, and the goal is 

to have this work around in place sometime early to the middle of 

next month for the reasons you expressed. But it’s another indication of the challenges we have when we’ve got this deferred maintenance. 

Thank you. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great, I appreciate that. 

I want to say a couple of other things, just quickly, before we go. 

I want to thank you for the Administration’s proposal to create 

a hard rock royalty fee. 

You know, we have obviously experienced incredible challenges 

with the Gold King Mines bill but there are literally thousands of 

abandoned mines all across the West that are leaking acid, water 

and heavy metals into our streams and rivers. That is a direct 

threat to the Western economy. It hampers downstream users, be 

that industry, be that recreation, irrigated agriculture, etcetera. 

I also want to thank you for the efforts in this budget to facilitate 

access to the Sabinoso wilderness, a BLM wilderness area in New 

Mexico, that I believe is the only unit in the United States that you 

cannot currently legally access because there is no easement, no fee 

simple land, no ability to get into it by the public. The folks up in 

the Las Vegas area are incredibly excited at the prospect of that, 

and I want to thank Interior for its work there. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, over the last year you have repeatedly questioned whether American taxpayers are receiving a fair return on 

coal leased by the Federal Government. Your agency is now in the 

process of considering whether to increase royalty rates on coal. I 

am having a difficult time understanding why the agency is taking 

this step because over the last three years the demand for Federal 

coal has collapsed. 

67 

Since 2012, the amount of coal that the Federal Government has 

leased is down 95 percent, so that amount is down 95 percent. 

Prior to coming to the Department of the Interior you served as the 

Chief Executive Officer of REI, a retailer of sporting goods. I know 

you are familiar with basic economics. Economics 101 says you 

should not raise prices on a product when demand for that product 

is collapsing. So given the demand for Federal coal is down by 95 

percent do you really believe it is reasonable to increase the royalty 

rates on coal? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well Senator, the Government Accountability 

Office and our own Inspector General questioned whether we were 

getting an adequate return for taxpayers on the Federal coal program. This launch of a programmatic EIS broadly will take a look 

at some of those issues. 

Our Office of Natural Resources Revenue has done some work regarding royalties. The rates that the taxpayers receive for coal is 

very low and I recognize that the industry is struggling right now 

for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the conversion to 

natural gas for electricity generation. But we have been criticized 

roundly for not generating a fair return for taxpayers, not having 

any competition in the leasing process for coal and that has resulted in relatively small cost paid by coal producers for the coal 

in the ground that belongs to all Americans. So this really has been 

in response to criticism that we have received over multiple years. 

Senator BARRASSO. But doesn’t it seem to you that if the demand 

goes to zero that the revenue coming in is going to go to zero as 

well for the Government? So in fact, you are actually going to get 

less revenue, higher royalty rates and you are going to reduce demand. The revenue generated from coal is going to continue to go 

down. 

This is why the environmental extremists have aggressively lobbied you to raise royalty rates on coal, to kill coal. They know it 

will kill coal production. So I think if you are really willing to be 

honest with Congress, you would admit that here today. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well Senator, I think that the, you know, as 

a business person you recognize that there is a cost to your business and you factor all of those costs in and that determines 

whether or not you go forward. 

There’s no question that the cost that coal companies have been 

paying for coal is extremely low, less than a dollar a ton. We’ve had 

many coal leases that have been offered for sale that have had no 

bidders on them whatsoever. So I think that to conflate the two is 

not necessarily accurate. 

There are phenomenal differences going on in the energy sector 

across this country. Switching to natural gas, switching to renewables, the cost of coal royalty is only one component in the overall 

cost that if I was a mining company I would be looking at. 

So, I think, we are responding to criticism that we’ve had that’s 

been very fair with regard to the coal program. And as Senator 

Cantwell said in her remarks, we will be looking at this thoroughly 

over the coming three years or so. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am delighted that the Administration will 

be ending in a lot less than three years. 

68 

I would like to turn to the BLM’s proposed rule of natural gas 

flaring and venting. According to the BLM’s rule, the primary 

means to avoid flaring gas from oil wells is to capture, transport 

and process the gas for sale using the same technologies that are 

used for natural gas wells. 

The rule goes on to explain in areas where the rate of gas production is outpacing the infrastructure capacity that is existing. In 

areas where capture and processing infrastructure has not yet been 

built, the rule notes that the cost to install natural gas gathering 

lines is not cheap. It costs us, according to the rule, the cost of installing equipment and pipelines to capture and transport can be 

up to $400,000 to $1 million per mile for the pipeline. I think 

BLM’s proposed rule does, actually, a very good job describing the 

problem that oil and gas producers face. 

Then BLM’s solution completely misses the mark. Rather than 

taking steps to expedite the permitting of these natural gas gathering lines on Federal land, the rule simply raises cost to producers 

and does so at a time when natural gas sells at bargain basement 

prices. BLM’s goal seems to be to reduce flaring by eliminating oil 

and gas production on Federal lands. So if the BLM is sincere 

about helping producers reduce flaring, which is the goal that the 

BLM states, why doesn’t the proposed rule expedite the permitting 

of these gas gathering lines on Federal lands? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, may I answer? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, please go ahead. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

First, thank you for acknowledging that we’re trying to work 

very hard and we’re also paying attention to states that have venting and flaring rules and that are doing work along this line, including your home state of Wyoming. 

I think it’s a very fair question to say, as we look at addressing 

the venting and flaring, can we expedite permitting? And we will 

look into that with the BLM providing it runs along state lands. 

Oftentimes, as you know in the West, we’ve got a checkerboard pattern which complicates rights of way over long distances. But I 

think that is fair. 

I also will say that the practice of venting and flaring the gas associated with oil production is something that, I think, your state 

and we do not feel is acceptable over the long run that should be 

captured. 

So we are in a comment period on this. We look forward to taking those kinds of comments and to the extent that expediting permitting can be done to address that, I think that’s a very fair point. 

Senator BARRASSO. Madam Chairman, my time has expired. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN.. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, it is good to have you here. Last week I was 

getting all out and about through rural Oregon, and what I saw 

was an awful lot of economic hurt people just walking on a tightrope balancing the food bill against the shelter bill and they are 

working two or three jobs and are just trying to catch up. 

So what I want to talk to you a little bit about is rural economics 

and ways in which we can pump some more economic opportunity 

69 

in those communities for good paying jobs in Ag and Forestry and 

a variety of areas. 

One that I have been particularly struck by is getting people to 

work together so they do not end up in Federal Court. I think the 

best recent example is the sage grouse where we were looking at 

having another major Endangered Species Act listing. Under your 

leadership a lot of Democrats and Republicans got together and we 

avoided that listing. 

We are doing that same kind of work in forestry, as you know, 

the militants at one point were headed from the Malheur Refuge 

up to John Day. And one of the county commissioners said, you 

know, we’ve got a pretty good partnership here. We’ve got a collaboration with stewardship contracting and we have tripled the 

harvest here. These are not my words. These are words of a county 

commissioner. So getting people to work together is key. 

Secure Rural Schools has been a lifeline, and that is a bill that 

was written in this room on a bipartisan basis. 

Recreation is a third area. I saw that with our tour of the seven 

wonders and we are working on a backpack full of fresh ideas 

Democrats and Republicans can support to build the outdoor recreation economy. 

The list just keeps going. Tapping our green energy resources, 

biomass, a huge opportunity in my state that is both good forestry 

policy and helping to create jobs as well. 

Finally right at the top of this year’s priority list should be to 

eliminate this text book example of government inefficiency that we 

call fire borrowing which is this absurd process of shorting prevention, having lots of fires and then raiding the prevention fund in 

order to put it out. 

So those are some on my list of things that we can work on in 

rural economies and to a great extent, build on what we are already doing. 

Tell the Committee while we have colleagues of both parties 

here, what do you think are the next steps, in your view, for building on this progress? Next steps for getting people to work together, for example, collaboratives, this kind of thing. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well thank you, Senator Wyden. 

You know, as you point out, there’s lots of opportunities to work 

together. And I think it’s also fair to say that the work around the 

greater sage grouse, the support of the National Resources Conservation Service at USDA, the incredible work that took place in 

Harney County which actually had a significant impact, I think, on 

the reasons why people in the county generally did not support the 

rhetoric of those that illegally took over the refuge, is an example 

of how we can work more cooperatively together. 

I do think that there are opportunities with a wildland fire fix 

which Senator Murkowski talked about addressing particularly 

next month. You have, all three of you, actually have worked very 

hard on this. That is essential because if we could stop borrowing 

against the burned area rehab money and the prevention of fire 

money, we could put more money into those local communities for 

thinning whether it goes to biomass or whether it goes to sawmills. 

And I think that is also very important to rural economies. 

70 

But as you point out embracing outdoor recreation and tourism 

is also a great opportunity to drive additional revenue into these 

communities as Senator Heinrich was referencing in the monument 

designations within his state and the investments there. 

So I think working closer together than we ever have before, 

learning the lessons we did from the greater sage grouse effort that 

we had collaboratively and providing our folks on the ground with 

the kinds of tools and support to work locally with communities is 

a great way to move forward. 

The USDA’s National Resources Conservation Service, our own 

efforts in the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state efforts, the collaboration that we’ve seen, particularly over the last 

two, three years is something that we can learn from in the future. 

Senator WYDEN.. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lee? 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. 

I would like to ask you just a few questions about the Antiquities 

Act. Based on conversations I have had with you in the past and 

based on other statements you have made elsewhere in the past, 

I know you placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of local engagement during the process leading up to any monument designation under the Antiquities Act, and I appreciate that. 

For instance, after designating the Berryessa Snow Mountains in 

California as a national monument you said, ‘‘Today’s action honors 

more than a decade of work by the local community to protect this 

beautiful landscape.’’ After designating the Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado you repeated the same sentiment 

saying, ‘‘Today’s designation follows more than a decade of work by 

the local community to protect this spectacular area.’’ 

Now it is widely reported, Secretary Jewell, that President 

Obama is considering designating a nearly two-million-acre national monument in San Juan County, Utah that is in the Southeastern corner of my state, the so called Bears Ears National 

Monument. Much of this land, as you know, is owned by the Federal Government and managed by the Department of the Interior. 

So since we both believe in local consultation or we believe that 

that ought to be a prerequisite to anything that culminates in a 

monument designation under the Antiquities Act, I was just wanted to point out that there is not one elected official, not a single 

one, representing San Juan County, Utah, who supports the creation of a national monument under the Antiquities Act. 

Specifically I want to point out that on September 1st of last year 

the San Juan County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution 

stating, ‘‘Be it resolved the San Juan County Commissioners 

strongly oppose the unilateral use of the Antiquities Act to designate a national monument within San Juan County and instead 

supports locally driven land use planning.’’ 

On February 10th of this year the entire Utah Federal delegation 

wrote a letter to President Obama plainly stating, ‘‘We do not support the use of the Antiquities Act within our community and ask 

that the Administration withdraw any plans to do so.’’ 

Then just yesterday Utah Governor Gary Herbert wrote a letter 

to the President in which he said, ‘‘As evidenced by opposition from 

71 

virtually every elected county, State and Federal official, the State 

of Utah strongly opposes any unilateral monument designation 

within our state.’’ 

Now this of course does not mean that the people of Utah or the 

people in San Juan County, in particular, do not care about the 

land or about protecting it. Quite the contrary, elected officials 

throughout Utah, including and especially those in San Juan County, have been very supportive of a three-year intensive effort involving the Public Lands Initiative. And there is a lot of support 

for protecting the land in this way. 

So let me just start by asking you, do you still believe that collaboration and local support is a necessary condition precedent that 

ought to precede any designation of a monument under the Antiquities Act? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well Senator, the Antiquities Act is a very important tool that Presidents have had since Theodore Roosevelt. It’s 

been used, I would argue, sparingly and carefully. And so, I have 

no ability to change the President’s capacities to act in his own way 

as it relates to that. 

I will say that he’s used it 22 times in his Administration. In 

every case we have had engagement on the ground in the communities to understand everybody’s opinions. I’ve been to many of 

those meetings. They have never been unanimous, but they have 

also always provided a good balance. 

And so—— 

Senator LEE. You have at least had widespread public participation. You have at least had widespread, a lot of support, even if it 

is not unanimous. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well we’ve had public participation. I don’t 

know how one defines widespread, but I will say this—— 

Senator LEE. You have had some. You had some. There has been 

some widespread participation. 

Secretary JEWELL. We have had some participation in the case 

of Utah. We have been invited by the tribes to go out there. There’s 

a number of tribes that are very interested in protecting an area 

that you reference that has tremendous archeological, anthropological and cultural significance to them. 

They have met with me in my office. I have actually asked that 

they come over and meet with the Utah delegation, particularly 

Congressman Bishop, because of his public lands initiatives work. 

I’ve met with Congressman Bishop and Chaffetz on that. We had 

two meetings scheduled over the last couple of weeks, both of 

which they canceled because of votes which I understand. 

I will also say that what started off as an effort that seemed to 

be very collaborative is now fracturing somewhat so there is a lot 

of interest in protecting lands that people thought in the Public 

Lands Initiative would have greater protections than how that initial language is coming out. 

So I’ll continue to meet with the delegation on this. And as we 

have interest to move additional protections in places like San 

Juan County, we will be engaging with people in those communities. 

Senator LEE. Okay, so I am out of time but before I stop I just 

want to make sure. Will you commit to consulting with Utah’s local 

72 

communities, Governor and our congressional delegation before 

anyone makes a final decision? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well to be clear, I can’t commit to anything 

with regard to the Antiquities Act because that is a tool of the 

President of the United States. 

I will commit that we will go out and spend time within the community and take input from the community. That is something 

that we have done every time, and we will continue to do that. 

Senator LEE. Okay. I appreciate that and I appreciate knowing 

that everywhere else the President has used this he has had some 

local buy in and we don’t have that here. So I appreciate your commitment on that. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono? 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the 

extraordinary commitment in protecting Hawaii’s natural and cultural treasures in the President’s budget using the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

The Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park are the number one and number two land acquisition projects for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

National Park Service, respectively, in Fiscal Year 2017. This effort 

builds upon last year’s commitment to fund certain land acquisitions highlighted in Hawaii’s Island Forests at Risk proposal which 

is very important to Hawaii. 

Additionally the funding your budget provides for Honouliuli National Monument which, by the way, was a monument that was 

very much supported by Hawaii, our communities and the political 

leadership there, including the delegation. It is critical in getting 

things up and running so that the unique stories of our nation’s 

past, and Honouliuli was a place of interment, can be told. 

Your attention to the unique needs in Hawaii is appreciated. 

Thank you for coming to Hawaii for that dedication of Honouliuli, 

and I want to continue working with you and your Department in 

amassing these initiatives. 

Finally, as you know, Hawaii is the state most impacted by our 

nation’s compact of free association. I look forward to working with 

the Department in the coming year to ensure the compact impact 

is adequately addressed which currently it is not. Our country has 

a responsibility to meet our obligations under the compact with 

Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. 

I want to turn to the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia 

and Hawaii. I recently led a letter with my colleagues from the Hawaii delegation as well as Congresswoman Bordallo of Guam and 

Congressman Sablan to the National Invasive Species Council 

(NISC), Co-Chairs of which you are one. This letter requested information on NISC’s plan to implement recommendations made within the Regional Biosecurity Plan, RBP, for Micronesia and Hawaii 

and was published in March 2015. The Office of Insular Affairs’ 

budget justification includes support for proposed action within the 

RBP and mentions increasing the Coral Reef and Natural Resources budget by $1 million over Fiscal Year ’16 levels to augment 

73 

control and eradication efforts for the Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle 

and the Little Fire Ant. 

This is a positive step. However, can you speak a bit on any additional resources the Department of the Interior intends to commit 

to implement the RBP’s recommendation to manage and mitigate 

invasive species across the Pacific, an issue that is of such concern 

to Hawaii since we are very much impacted by invasive species? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

I’m going to talk at a high level and then turn it to Kris to give 

you specifics on numbers. 

Invasive species are a huge problem across the landscape, and 

it’s particularly acute in the Islands. I was working with young 

people on eradication of the Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle, obviously 

the Brown Tree Snake is a big issue. Hawaii is kind of ground zero 

for invasive species. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. So we are committed to chipping away at it. 

There’s not nearly enough money to do it but we are continuing to 

prioritize including, what’s the acronym rapid response? 

Ms. SARRI. Early—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) 

process so that we can nip these things in the bud before they become a problem. 

But Kris, do you have specifics on the budget number? 

Ms. SARRI. Senator, thank you for the question. And earlier this 

week we actually announced a framework for early detection and 

rapid response. The President’s budget has a request of $1.5 million to help with EDRR projects and that could go to the Regional 

Biosecurity Effort. 

Senator HIRONO. While that is a positive step, that $1.5 million 

does not go far enough, that is for sure. 

Turning to the rapid Ohia death. Native forests on Hawaii Island 

are losing a keystone species at an alarming rate and that is the 

Native Ohia tree. Of course when the Native Ohia trees disappear 

then it really negatively impacts our watershed. 

A pathogen which causes these trees to wilt and die within days 

of showing symptoms has affected approximately 34,000 of our 

total 810,000 acres of Ohia Forest across Hawaii Island. That is 

four percent of our Native Ohia Forest, slightly smaller than the 

size of Washington, DC, and it is more than twice the impacted 

area observed in 2014. This problem is rapidly escalating, and right 

now the pathogen is contained to Hawaii Island, but the potential 

to impact our Native Ohia Forests across the state is there. 

I know that in the USGS Fiscal Year 2017 budget there is mention of rapid Ohia death and the agency’s plan to develop models 

and genetic essays to address the pathogen. I also know that the 

USGS invasive species research budget is, as you mentioned, receiving additional sums. 

I am sorry, Madam Chair, may I continue? I am over my time. 

I think I need, maybe, another ten seconds, 15 seconds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Senator HIRONO. The addition of your Department-wide budget provides $2.4 million over Fiscal Year ’16 levels for early detection 

and rapid response. Given the emerging threat that the rapid Ohia 

74 

death is posing to our native forests on Hawaii Island and the potential to spread to the remaining islands, could these additional 

research and EDRR funds be used to help address the rapid Ohia 

death in Hawaii, in particular? 

Secretary JEWELL. And I’ll have to get back to you with that 

question. As we pointed out earlier there’s just nowhere near 

enough money to address the invasive species challenge. So whether we could take a limited amount more and put it over there I 

don’t know. But thanks for putting it on the radar, and we’ll get 

back to you. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, and we will continue our dialog. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, Secretary Jewell, I want to commend you and your 

Department for recognizing the value of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, both to our country as well as to Montana. Some 

of these importantly locally supported projects are ranked high in 

your budget proposal, and I will do all I can to support robust funding through LWCF throughout this process. 

I also want to commend your Department for recommending a 

slightly, slightly higher level of funding for the Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water projects. Senator Franken earlier, I think, requested that we re-look at that. I still think the recommended level 

is too low. It is well below the enacted level. As we chat with 

tribes, particularly, as well as rural communities across Montana, 

it is very, very important and it would certainly help Congress in 

the appropriations process, speaking as a member of the Appropriations Committee, if a department prioritized this funding better in its budget. 

But I want to transition to the issue, I think, Senator Barrasso 

brought up on coal leasing. In Montana we do see the moratorium 

on coal leasing as a direct assault on our state. Our state relies on 

production of coal, including Federal coal, to support our state’s essential services. Montana tribes like the Crow Tribe rely on coal 

production to fund its tribal essential services. Coal creates good 

paying Union and Tribal jobs and also, very importantly, affordable 

electricity prices. 

Yet this Administration seems committed to taking that lifeline 

away combined with the EPA power plan. Now with this moratorium on the coal leasing program, it is creating a significant problem for a Montanan factor crisis at 7,000 jobs, $500 million of economic activity and $140 million in tax revenues that go to our 

schools, our teachers, our infrastructure. In fact, the University of 

Montana put out a study that suggests this would be the most significant economic impact to hit Montana in over 30 years. 

Now I support ensuring the taxpayers receive their fair share of 

the revenues. I am not here to argue or make that point. However, 

we must be careful to not make producing Federal coal completely 

uneconomical, a reality that is dangerously close under this Administration’s halt on coal leasing and if not inevitable if our states 

and our tribes are left out of the process. 

75 

So the question is without discussing the merits of the environmental review and the moratorium itself, having done some due 

diligence I have been told that up to two years is very generous. 

It is realistic, and it is a well-placed timeline to complete a programmatic review. So given that why do we think three years is 

necessary for this programmatic review? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well thank you very much for the question. 

If we could do a programmatic environmental impact statement 

in two years that would be terrific. The pause on new leases on 

coal, with certain exceptions, only applies until the programmatic 

EIS is completed. So if it can be done faster we will certainly do 

it faster, but based on our experience for programmatic EISs, they 

do take, typically, around three years. 

Can I also say that we did have, we do have, about 20 years of 

supply already under lease based on current production levels. And 

as production level comes down those may last longer. And we did 

put exceptions in place so that no mine should close, no plant 

should close. There’s emergency exceptions to do that as well as 

grandfathering in projects that had a signed record of decision that 

were close to the end. 

So in terms of the reference to coal jobs and ongoing coal production, we do not believe there will be an impact. And we’ve made 

provisions for those individual circumstances where there might be. 

Senator DAINES. On the three-year question, could you commit to 

us though that the review will not take any longer than three 

years? 

Without some kind of accountability or commitment here, who is 

to say it is not going to take even longer than three years? I mean 

it looks like you have got a commitment saying it will not exceed 

three years, and I think arguably it could be two years. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well sir, my position will end here in 11 

months, so I can’t commit to my successor on a timeframe. But I 

can reassure you that we will complete this as quickly as we possibly can. My goal is to have an interim report out that clearly defines the scope and gets us on a clear path forward with a timeline 

by the time I’m out of this job. 

Senator DAINES. Let me ask, and I recognize there is a time domain here on the limits about what happens after January 2017, 

but what are the consequences? Who is held accountable if it goes 

three years and one day? What happens if you go past the 

timeline? 

I came from being the private sector 20 years. If you miss your 

timelines, there is a big issue with that. What happens if they go 

beyond three years? 

Secretary JEWELL. The pause is tied to getting the PEIS done. 

If it’s done quicker, the pause ends. If it goes longer, the pause continues. 

And if you look at the times that this has been done before and 

we modeled our pause on the, what had happened in prior administrations. In some cases, it took something like six or seven years. 

In other cases, it may have been shorter. 

So three years is not a fixed timeline. It’s tied to the programmatic EIS. So the more cooperation we get, the quicker we’ll 

76 

get it done. And my intent is to get a clear timeline done before 

I’m finished. 

Senator DAINES. My last question is are you seeking the advice 

and analysis of impacted states and the tribes, like Montana, like 

Wyoming, like the Crow, like the Navajo, like the Hopi and other 

interested stakeholders regarding Federal mineral policies that are 

related to royalties and leasing? My concern is to shorten the 

timeline and we talked about it, but are we getting the input? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. From those who will be affected the most, the 

tribes and the states? 

Secretary JEWELL. May I answer quickly, Madam Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Quickly. 

Secretary JEWELL. We held six listening sessions which included 

input from states, from tribes, from individuals, coal producers, 

stakeholders on the ground, before we even decided to do a PEIS. 

So we did those, mostly in coal company—country, one in Washington, DC, one in Billings, Denver, Farmington, New Mexico and 

Gillette, Wyoming, to get input which really advised this process. 

So we will continue that openness. This is a very open process. 

We’ll make sure that all of those voices are heard in this process. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. 

Thank you, Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair and I want to thank 

you again for inviting me to Alaska last weekend. It was a wonderful trip. I note that we have Alaskan glacial water today, and my 

only concern is with the retreat of the glaciers I do not know 

whether to drink it or send it to the Smithsonian. But it is wonderful water. Thank you for that. We had a great trip. I have enjoyed 

telling people in Maine about driving on a river. That was a new 

experience for me. 

Secretary Jewell, a quick question on the budget. The budget figures that are in this budget that you have submitted correspond 

to the budget caps that were negotiated two years ago? 

Secretary JEWELL. They do. 

Senator KING. So it is all within that. There’s no additional 

spending that assumes a new revenue or anything? It is within 

those caps that were negotiated, the President and the leadership? 

Ms. SARRI. The discretionary number is within the budget deal. 

Senator KING. Okay. 

Second, Secretary Jewell, I want to really thank you and thank 

the National Park Service for the work on the online park pass. If 

you will remember I made myself obnoxious at a meeting about a 

year ago which my friends tell me is a skill that I have, and your 

Department reacted. There is a pilot program being announced in 

the next week or so for online National Park passes. I think it is 

going to work. Interestingly enough, one of the first pilots is at 

Acadia in Maine. I thank you for that. Hopefully that will increase 

revenues and access to the park, so I really appreciate the quick 

response and very thoughtful one on that issue. 

On the backlog issue, this is important because it has become a, 

kind of, political lightning rod. How is the backlog built? Who deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
77 

termined? Where did the numbers come from park by park? First 

question. 

Secretary JEWELL. Kris, do you want to answer that? 

Ms. SARRI. Our Bureaus all—both, whether it’s Parks or Fish 

and Wildlife Service, do surveys across the parks and their properties and develop a prioritized list in terms of backlogs and deferred maintenance that they have. 

Senator KING. Is there any third party validation or is this—I’m 

not trying to use pejorative terms but where does backlog end and 

wish list start? In other words, how do you define what the elements are and is there anybody else that looks at it and says, oh 

yes, that really is a maintenance backlog as opposed to something 

a park manager might like to have? Do you see my question? 

Ms. SARRI. Yes, I do. 

I think I’d probably want to get a little bit back to you more on 

the record after having a chance to talk with the Bureaus. 

But they go through a pretty thorough vetting process that is 

ranked against criteria so they can understand, kind of, what their 

needs are with parks. 

I mean, unfortunately we have buildings that we have to maintain to certain health and safety standards, and so they’re always 

looking at those type of measures. 

Senator KING. Would the backlog, if I looked at it, be prioritized 

by seriousness and health and safety versus other criteria? 

Ms. SARRI. Yes, they develop a prioritized list. And like I said, 

I think with the Bureaus, they look at them somewhat differently. 

So I’d like to get back to you more on the record to make sure I’m 

providing accurate information. 

Senator KING. And what percentage of the backlog is roads as opposed to buildings, sewer systems, those kinds of things? 

Secretary JEWELL. It’s about half. 

Senator KING. About half is roads. 

Secretary JEWELL. About half of it is roads, right, which typically 

is largely taken care of through transportation. 

Senator KING. Well that was what I was going to ask, is there 

any help on the way from the Highway bill that was passed this 

past winter? 

Secretary JEWELL. There is help on the way. The passage of the 

Highway bill is enormously important to roads, not only in National Parks, but Indian reservations and so on, as well. 

What that bill does not do is specific large projects, like for example, the Memorial Bridge which in and of itself is $250 million. 

There is not money earmarked for the National Park Service which 

has that bridge and is responsible for its maintenance through that 

so that would require separate supporter legislation to address. 

Senator KING. Okay. 

But there is a significance so the backlog is roughly 50 percent 

roads and there will be significant assistance coming so it is not 

quite as daunting as it originally—— 

Secretary JEWELL. No, that’s correct. It’s still a $6 billion number, roughly $6 billion is daunting in terms of the facilities relative 

to the Park Service budget, but the roads are helped through this. 

78 

Senator KING. Just for the record, this is not a case of the Park 

Service not asking for this money, it is a case of it not being appropriated by an organization which will remain nameless. 

Secretary JEWELL. That’s correct. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

I just want to end by thanking you for the work with the National Parks and particularly as we enter this 100th year. I understand that part of the President’s budget talks about or focuses on 

the Centennial and the ability to raise private funds. Could you 

end my time on that part of this budget? 

Secretary JEWELL. Madam Chairman, do you mind if I just do 

this quickly? 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Secretary JEWELL. So we have in the discretionary part of the budget, a significant increase. I think it’s a $20 million increase in 

the matching fund program to $30 or $35 million. And then in addition to that, we have $100 million in a mandatory fund which 

would require a congressional action to be a match with private 

philanthropy. The National Park Foundation just announced a, I think $350 million capital campaign. They are well on their way, over $200 

million raised as we announced another generous grant from David 

Rubenstein to fix up the Lincoln Memorial. He has been extraordinarily generous. But there’s a lot of individuals out there that 

would like to provide support but they also would like to see the 

Federal Government have skin in the game. 

So there is an increase on the discretionary side of the budget 

and recommended in the mandatory portion that would increase 

that Centennial match and drive additional philanthropy that is 

very helpful to the National Park Service. 

Senator KING. Thank you very much. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, 

Secretary Jewell, for your time and testimony today. 

I want to thank you as well for your participation in making the 

celebration of Rocky Mountain National Park’s Centennial a very 

great year. Last year, 2015, we set record attendance again at 

Rocky Mountain. I think had a 21 percent increase in attendance 

in 2015 over the prior year. So people continue to enjoy Rocky 

Mountain National Park and all that it has to offer in year 2016 

and beyond. Thank you for making that special. 

I also want to thank you for your work at the Colowyo Mine this 

past year. It is a significant challenge, as you know. You held a 

meeting in Northwestern Colorado, meeting with local participants 

to understand the unfortunate outcome of the court decision out 

there. It is too bad that it went to that point, but the fact is I appreciate you working with local communities and others to make 

that mine continuing to be a part of the future of Northwestern 

Colorado and also your diligence, continued diligence, on Trapper 

Mine. I thank you. I know there is some work still to be cut out 

there but, you know Western Colorado when we have coal layoffs 

and natural gas cutbacks, and the last thing it needs is another 

79 

double whammy of Federally-induced setbacks. So thank you very 

much for your work with the Colowyo and Trapper Mines. 

I also want to, again, commend you for your work on the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. I have been part of an effort to 

make sure that it is permanently authorized. There were a couple 

of projects in Colorado, like the Cascade Cottages project, Rocky 

Mountain National Park, within Rocky Mountain National Park 

and the Sanberg acquisition near the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park that did not get funded in the Department’s 

budget this year. 

I would just like to know what we can do to try to make sure 

that that is funded somehow, if you will consider LWCF that is 

unspent or how you will consider these projects in the future. I certainly would just advocate that those projects be considered. I do 

not know if you would like to comment on those at all or? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well I’ll just say that we know they’re very 

important projects. We’ve had several others referenced today that 

people would like support for. 

I want to thank you for your support for LWCF. It’s bipartisan 

support. The Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee have 

recognized that. We would like to see full funding and then a lot 

of these items, the list is very long, would get done. And certainly 

we can pass along your interest in those two projects to the Park 

Service as it evaluates any money that might become available, but 

it’s very tough each year because there’s never enough money for 

the really, very important projects that are out there. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Returning to the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Mr. Connor and I 

have had many conversations about the Arkansas Valley Conduit. 

I just want to talk about its importance. 

This was first authorized in the 1960s under President Kennedy. Over the past several years we have put $1 million or $2 million 

behind it. I believe the commitment now is $3 million, $2 million 

for Fiscal Year 2016, $3 million for Fiscal Year 2017. I thank you 

for your commitment to this project. Will the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation continue to make the funding commitments necessary to get construction on this critical project underway? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you 

for your support for moving forward with the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It’s been very helpful as we’ve tried to provide a base level 

of funding at slightly higher levels than we had previously. And 

you’ve seen that now with our ’17 budget and the additional resources we put in ’16 through this Reclamation spending plan. 

I think we want to maintain a certain level of funding to complete the preconstruction work that needs to be done, and then I 

think we need to work with the sponsors, the community, local 

communities, on how we will continue to support moving forward 

with construction but look for other resources that exist. 

I know they have reached out to the state and secured a loan to 

begin funding. We have a Natural Resource Investment Center 

that we created last year that we’ve just hired a new Executive Director for. This is a high priority for us to put together a comprehensive plan to look for, not just the next couple of years, but 

80 

more long-term, how we can work with the communities and get 

this project funded. 

Senator GARDNER. Thanks, Mr. Connor. 

I know my office has been in communication with the Bureau of 

Reclamation regarding potential revisions to the current funding 

mechanism for the project so that we can maximize the use of miscellaneous revenues when funding the project. Will you commit to 

continue working with us for the long-term funding mechanism in 

the project so that we can make sure we are using the optimum 

use of the miscellaneous revenues? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. That’s a very good plan that creates 

more budget space, so it’s going to be a number of ideas like that. 

But we’ll continue to work with you. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

A couple of quick questions. 

I know Senator Barrasso touched briefly on the question of the 

BLM venting and flaring rule. Do you know if you will be perhaps 

extending the public comment period on that rule, on the venting 

and flaring rule at BLM? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well I think at this point we intend to stick 

with the schedule the way it is. 

Senator GARDNER. You have given, excuse me, you have given it. 

That is correct, I believe, right? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator GARDNER. Okay. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, I’m not sure. Do you know if we, did we 

extend the period? 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m not sure—— 

Secretary JEWELL. On the venting and flaring? 

Yes, we’ll have to get back to you. I’m sorry. 

Senator GARDNER. Okay. 

Secretary JEWELL. It’s probably in my notebook here. I can find 

it, yes. 

Senator GARDNER. I think it is 60 days to comment. Of course 

it is a very complex rule, and we hope that you would consider extending it if that is something that you could get back to us. That 

would be great. 

Senator GARDNER. Just a final question here. Are you aware of 

any considerations for land acquisitions or land designations 

through the Antiquity Act or other acts that are currently being 

discussed? If so, what and when, particularly as it relates to Colorado? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t have a list of items that, you know, are 

lined up to be Antiquities Act. That’s obviously something that 

rests with the President. 

There are a number of groups and individuals and elected officials that bring things to our attention where they would like to 

see a designation. 

Senator GARDNER. But you are unaware of any consideration 

being made on specific locations in Colorado? 

Secretary JEWELL. I can’t think of any. We did the Browns Canyon, obviously. 

Senator GARDNER. Right. 

81 

Secretary JEWELL. That was important. I can’t think of any others off the top of my head. 

Senator GARDNER. Well if you would just, perhaps, go back and 

talk to staff and relay to us if there are considerations that are underway and designations in Colorado, that would be great. 

Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to go back to the coal issue. I have listened with interest to my colleagues’ questions, and certainly I do not think there 

is anything in Federal statute that mandates that the Federal Government lease a certain amount of coal off of Federal lands. I do 

not think there is any mandate there. 

I definitely think that there is a mandate that we make sure that 

we do an environmental impact statement, and the fact that we 

have not done one in 37 years is quite astounding to me. But I 

think I learned a lot about our Minerals Management Agency after 

the Deepwater Horizon program and a lot of holes in our process. 

The fact that we have not done something here in 37 years, I think, 

is another issue of the bright light of day being shown on the agency and making sure we do things in an orderly fashion. So as I said 

in my opening statement, I applaud you for taking this action here. 

I think it is critically important. 

Another related issue is the same scrutiny that I think that we 

need in the state reclamation programs and the issue of their acceptance of self-bonding. You know, we have had our own impacts 

in Washington State and backyards in Tacoma, Washington, after 

they had been dug up or left when somebody went bankrupt and 

literally walked off the job. I am very concerned with how states 

are applying these self-bonding issues. How do we know they even 

have the resources? So now we are having these bankruptcy court 

issues and the law does not say we must accept self-bonds, and 

these self-bondings are not working. How are we making sure that 

the taxpayer is not left on the hook? Do you think these self-bondings are working or do they present a problem and a risk to the 

taxpayer? 

Secretary JEWELL. I think there’s a very significant potential 

problem and risk to the taxpayer with the pretty high profile bankruptcies that have taken place recently with coal companies. 

I’ll say that there’s different ways that states handle bonding. 

Largely in the Appalachian states they have companies pay into a 

bond fund, like an insurance policy. And so they have the capacity 

to cover when some companies go bankrupt. In other states, like 

Wyoming, for example, they allow self-bonding. And with some of 

these recent bankruptcies we have seen a negotiation between the 

state and the company that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement find of concern with regard to what, we believe, 

the liability is to clean up the mines relative to the amount that’s 

been accepted by the state. 

So we have issued ten-day notices which is a tool that we have 

to put the state on notice that we believe that what they have accepted, in terms of self-bonding, is inadequate relative to the cleanup liability. And that has been done now, not just in Wyoming, but 

82 

in multiple states as we’ve seen an acceleration of bankruptcies 

with some of the large companies, Arch, Alpha and Peabody, or not 

Peabody, but Arch and Alpha so far. I will say even in Appalachia 

where they have more of an insurance plan, there is no question 

that there’s very significant reclamation liability that we are concerned with there. So this is a very topical issue and something 

that is getting a lot of our attention. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I hope so. I mean because they would 

not have even gotten a permit in the first place. They are getting 

it based on a reclamation bond that is not worth anything. They 

would not even have gotten the permit, right, if you knew up front 

that the value was zero? 

Secretary JEWELL. They wouldn’t have been self-bonded. They 

would have been required to come up with an outside bond in order 

to cover their liability. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well the more I learn about this, the more 

I think representing the taxpayer here—and actually I did not hear 

my colleague say that they did not want the taxpayer represented. 

So I think these are key issues, making sure that the public is not 

left with a cleanup of pollution as coal companies go bankrupt and 

making sure that the taxpayer also gets a fair share is part of our 

responsibility of leasing on Federal lands. There is nothing that 

says in the law that we have to lease this amount? 

Secretary JEWELL. Correct. 

Senator CANTWELL. Right. But it certainly says we need to pay 

for and make sure that the environment is protected as we do so, 

so I think it is astounding to find out that 40 percent of our coal 

comes off of these Federal lands and yet we do not even have an 

updated system to make sure the taxpayer is protected. I appreciate your leadership on that. Is there something we should be 

doing right now in clarifying about the self-bonds and making sure 

that there are real resources behind protecting the taxpayer? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well I think that your scrutiny, transparency 

of the situation and increased visibility is very important for taxpayers to understand. 

I’ll also say that we are taking action through the tools that we 

have with the Office of Surface Mining. There are surety bonding 

companies that are willing to sign up and provide bonds for these 

companies that are in bankruptcy. These are things that certainly 

it changes the economics because you do pay for these bonds but 

we believe that those alternatives should absolutely be considered. 

And we’d like to have good cooperation with the states as we go 

through this so that neither the states nor the Federal Government 

and the taxpayers get to end up holding the bag, as we do, with 

abandoned mine lands on hard rock mining where we don’t have 

this capacity. Hence, huge problems in the hard rock area that the 

taxpayer right now is the only place to go to clean up. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. 

Secretary Jewell, thanks for being before us again. I want to talk 

to you about a couple of topics quickly. 

83 

First, of course, is the National Parks. This is the Centennial 

year, as my colleague from Maine talked about. In fact, on August 

25th we celebrate the 100th year anniversary of our National 

Parks. We are working on Centennial legislation, as you know, 

with you and with others. Ranking Member Cantwell, Chairman 

Murkowski and I introduced an amendment to the energy bill that 

talks about how we can properly celebrate the centennial, including 

providing additional resources for the National Parks going forward. I appreciate working with Senator Cantwell on that legislation. 

There has been discussion about whether or not there really is 

enough interest out there in the private sector to have a centennial 

match. As you know this is something that I have been working on 

since my days at OMB, going back a decade. I strongly believe that 

this is a way for us to not only incentivize the private sector to do 

more but specifically to get them more engaged and involved with 

the parks and to really leverage that private sector help. 

So I would ask you this question. Over the last couple years Congress has appropriated a little bit of money into the Centennial 

Challenge. We do not have an authorization for it, but the appropriators have gone ahead and made some commitments, which I 

appreciate. In FY’15 it was $10 million. In FY’16 it was $15 million. So that is $25 million. What was the match from the private 

entities over the past two years with these appropriations for the 

Centennial Challenge? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’ll have to look up the exact number. 

Secretary JEWELL. We don’t have it but the fact is that the National Park Foundation has just announced its Centennial Capital 

Campaign at $350 million, and they have already raised well over 

$250 million. Certainly, that has been inspired by support from 

Congress and the Federal Government willing to put skin in the 

game. 

We can look specifically at which of those projects were matched, 

but I can guarantee you they were more than a dollar for dollar 

match on multiple. 

Senator PORTMAN. They were more than a dollar for dollar. They 

were more like two to one or more. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. In the private sector. So the answer is an unequivocal, yes. They were matched. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. In fact, they were overmatched. Also, as you 

say, you took away my thunder there, the National Parks Foundation has just started their $350 million campaign which is non-Federal, private donations. So I think there is a tremendous appetite 

out there. 

I know you agree with me on that having been from the private 

sector yourself and probably your former company would be one of 

those companies interested in being involved and engaged in helping our parks. 

Secretary JEWELL. They’ve already committed $5 million. 

Senator PORTMAN. I like that. I am sure they would be doing 

even more if you were still at the head. 

84 

I just think this is a great opportunity for us, and I think if we 

take too long to get this out there and get this moving, we are 

going to miss this opportunity. 

So I encourage you to continue to work with us. The Administra- tion has a proposal out there that is very expensive, well over $1 

billion, but not paid for. We are going to have to pay for it here. 

We want to have something that is practical, that can get done, but 

really help the parks and can leverage that private sector money. 

I know you are, again, personally committed to that and I look forward to working with you on that going forward. 

The second topic I have for you is about the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation Enforcement’s Stream Protection Rule. This is 

one you might want to talk about less eagerly than the national 

parks, but it is one that concerns me a lot. It concerns me because 

my sense is you are not working with the local stakeholders. I hear 

this from my State of Ohio where, as you know, we have a considerable interest in this potential change in terms of the Stream Protection Rules and what impacts it is going to have on jobs. 

The Office of Surface Mining themselves talk about this having a cost of over $15 million annual compliance cost, coal production 

being reduced dramatically, 1.9 million tons a year, 41 to 590 jobs 

annually. These numbers are a lot lower, as you know, than those 

by independent sources which were even worse for Ohio. According 

to the communication I am getting from my folks in the State of 

Ohio, there has not been the kind of communication you would expect with state and operating agencies regarding the rule. 

Given so many states have publicly expressed disappointment 

with the lack of engagement so far, I would ask you will OSM, the 

Office of Surface Mining, re-engage with the states, such as Ohio, 

in the rulemaking process to ensure any final rule is practical and 

reasonable? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, the OSM is engaging the states at 

this point, and now that the rule is out there and the states are 

reviewing it we’d welcome that input. And we absolutely would 

welcome specific input from the State of Ohio. I know that it was 

very important to get a rule out and across the finish line. States 

were engaged early, that input was taken, a rule was put on the 

table, and we’d welcome that input and you certainly have my commitment to do that. 

Senator PORTMAN. Okay. 

We were told OSM has not reached out proactively to the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources. I do believe you are going to see 

a formal request coming from them very soon for you to engage 

with them as you are required to do under the Omnibus. As you 

know in December, there was a law passed that says you have to 

re-engage with states in a ‘‘meaningful manner prior to the final 

rulemaking if requested by the states.’’ You are going to get that 

request from Ohio, I will tell you. If states request more information, how are you going to carry out in a meaningful manner providing the documents and data in a timely fashion? So I assume 

that you are going to comply with that legislation. 

Secretary JEWELL. Certainly we will comply with the legislation. 

I also want to say that on December 2, 2015 the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources did have a telephone conference with Joe 

85 

Pizarchik, who heads the Office of Surface Mining. That was with 

the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources Management Chief, Lanny 

Erdos. So we have had those meetings and we will continue to have 

those meetings and certainly comply with all legislation. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well they are going to request additional 

meetings at even a higher level, as I understand it. They are in 

town this week, and I appreciate your commitment to do so. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Flake? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As you know, Secretary Jewell, water is never far from the mind 

of anybody in Arizona. I want to thank the Bureau of Reclamation, 

particularly Commissioner Lopez and his staff, for the efforts to 

support the Colorado River Basin Contingency Drought Plan. 

Additionally, I have been pleased to see efforts throughout the 

basin to implement the Colorado River System Conservation Pilot 

Program. This is a priority, obviously, for Arizona. I commend the 

Bureau of Reclamation also for dedicating $5 million of their Fiscal 

Year 2016 appropriation to expand the program. 

Can you give us an update, you or Mr. Connor, of the status of 

the system conservation program including the number of projects 

funded and the effect on the reservoir levels? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Senator. 

Thank you for the question and thanks to the State of Arizona. 

I think they’d be, Reclamation would be, equally complementary. 

This has been a very productive partnership, particularly with the 

lower basin states. 

So far of the $11 million that was allocated for the System Con- servation Pilot in ’15, $8.25 million was allocated for lower basin 

projects. I think they’ve selected six projects, and those are projected to save about 64,000 acre feet of water when they’re completed. The balance of that funding will go for upper basin projects 

and then, as you stated, based on the success and the quality of 

the project so far, reclamation allocated another $5 million toward 

that effort. 

Overall, you know, this is in context to an MOU where the states 

are looking at, you know, close to a million acre feet over the next 

five plus years. And given the projections in the Colorado River 

Basin, that’s something that they need to be pursuing. The challenges keep increasing in the basin. The projections that were developed in 2008 are already no longer valid. The challenges are 

greatly increasing as far as reservoir levels in Lake Mead. So we’re 

going to have to build upon this System Conservation Pilot. 

Senator FLAKE. Well thanks, Mr. Connor. 

You will recollect that on June 1st, I asked you to follow-up on 

several issues surrounding the ability to withdraw and transport 

stored groundwater in Arizona having these arrangements in place, 

obviously we will be able to access millions of acre feet of water 

that we have stored underground. It is critical to our long-term 

planning. I again want to thank the Bureau for their recent work 

with the Central Arizona project on these wheeling arrangements. 

Can you give us some kind of update on the status of other discussions with tribal governments that are required to complete 

these arrangements? 

86 

Mr. CONNOR. I’m not up to speed on those recent discussions, so 

I’ll be happy to get back to you on the record for that. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay, thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Secretary Jewell, I am told that Senator Lee 

talked about national monuments and designation and the importance of consultations with local and state governments. In this regard I just want to add my voice to his that when these measures 

are taken that these consultations are made prior to. 

It is extremely important for states like Arizona, Utah and others where the impacts on the economic viability of these local communities is really impacted. 

Secretary JEWELL. As I said to Senator Lee, in all the monument 

designations that the President has done there has been outreach 

within local communities and meetings held on the ground in local 

communities, and we’re committed to continuing to do that. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven? 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, for appearing before our Committee here 

today. 

The first question I would like to ask is in regard to the Stream 

Protection Rule or the Stream Buffer Rule. 

Assistant Secretary Janice Schneider has agreed to come to 

North Dakota to actually get input and to see on the ground what 

our industry is doing and how they are managing water and why 

the Stream Buffer Rule is problematic. We would like for her to 

come, she originally wanted to come in the winter, in January or 

February, where you would not be able to see, really, the ramifications of the rule. I just want to make sure that we get her to come 

in say, May or June, when she will actually be able to assess the 

impact, and we would like your commitment that you would agree 

to that. 

Secretary JEWELL. She’s very happy to travel. So let us know 

when the best time of the year is, and we’ll work that into her 

schedule. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

The other thing is keeping the comment period open so that the 

input that she gets from the industry, I mean, being there, seeing 

it and then getting good on the ground input is important. And it 

is important that the comment period is open to accommodate that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well Senator, we’re really committed to getting this rule done during the time we’re here. And so we would 

love to have people work within the comment deadlines that are 

out there to the extent possible. We certainly consider increases to 

the comment period but I will say that I would encourage people 

that have comments to get those comments in early. 

Senator HOEVEN. Certainly. But she is going to get input while 

she is out there and that just makes sense. If you truly want good 

input, she will have an opportunity to do that. We would try to accommodate getting her out there in May so we are not talking 

about dragging this out, but it is important that we are able to 

comment based on her experience out there. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well I think she’d get out there as soon as 

possible within the comment period. If her visit doesn’t coincide 

87 

within the context of the comment period I can’t commit to an extension, but I will certainly make her aware of that concern. 

And we do take input into account after comment periods close. 

I mean, it certainly continues to influence us in any of these rules 

before we come out with a final. 

Senator HOEVEN. We will try to make that work so she can be 

there on the ground within the comment period. 

Secretary JEWELL. That would be great. 

Senator HOEVEN. If you would make the same effort for us. Are 

you willing to do that? 

Secretary JEWELL. If I can work it into my schedule. Mine is a 

little tougher than Janice’s but I will—— 

Senator HOEVEN. No, no, I mean in terms of getting her—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Oh yes, absolutely, yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. The time frame open. We will try to work so 

that we can match the two. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay, thanks. 

The second thing I wanted to ask about is there are two coal 

leases. One that is pending back to 2011, that is with BNI Coal, 

and then there is another one that has been pending since 2013. 

Two coal leases, and the second one is with North American Coal. 

Now BLM has considered both these grandfathered relative to 

the three-year moratorium. So I just want your assurances that 

you will work with BLM to continue to see if we can get agreement 

on those coal leases as they have said that they would work to do 

and not make them subject to the three-year moratorium. 

Secretary JEWELL. If they were on the BLM’s list which we published on the website as being grandfathered, then the BLM has 

every intention of going through with that and so do I. 

Senator HOEVEN. Good, Okay, good. 

My final question relates to the BLM permitting pilot project. 

Now this is legislation I think Senator Barrasso was a prime sponsor, I think the Chairman, myself, a number of us were on this bill, 

and it passed. 

It is the BLM Permitting Pilot Project. Essentially what it allowed, and you may recall, but just in case, it allowed that applications for permits to drill were backed up and taking a long time 

to get approval. So essentially what this pilot project allowed is 

that BLM could increase the fee that they charge for an APD from 

$6,500 per APD to $9,500. And the idea was that additional $3,000 

per permit was to go to getting the permit done more quickly. But 

instead the BLM in DC has decreased general fund appropriation 

out to the BLM Office. So they have offset the funding that comes 

from these drilling permit applications. 

That money was supposed to go to expedite the process, and instead it has been offset so that the permittee is getting charged but 

they are not getting the benefit that they were supposed to get 

from the higher fee, from the $9,500 instead of $6,500. This is important because that was not the intent of the legislation. I would 

ask that you would look into this and make sure that the intent 

of that legislation is honored. 

88 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, the characterization you’re giving is different than my understanding. So let us get back and maybe drill 

into specifically what you’re asking and get you a solid response. 

I know that we are very committed to streamlining the way we 

do our permitting, to doing increased automation which is part of 

the budget request. 

We’ve also requested fees from the industry on shore to help offset the cost that we actually incur in both permitting and in inspections. 

So if we can get back to you with a little more detail on that I 

think that would be better than me trying to respond right now. 

Senator HOEVEN. That would be fine. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. And I appreciate your looking into it. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Secretary, I mentioned in my opening my concern about the King 

Cove road and the fact that today is 26 months to the day that you 

have rejected this ten mile, one lane, graveled, non-commercial use 

road. We keep count of that because it is important to the people 

of that region.The other thing that we keep count of is how many 

Medevacs have occurred from King Cove since the rejection of the 

road. 

Last year I asked you if you were aware how many Medevacs 

had been required since the time you rejected the road. I would ask 

you the question again this morning, if you are aware as to how 

many Medevacs, both Coast Guard and non-Coast Guard, have actually gone into King Cove since December 23rd of 2013? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t have the number, Senator, but I am 

sure that it is dozens of them. 

The CHAIRMAN. The number is 39 total, 14 by the Coast Guard 

which is unacceptable by anyone’s standards. 

I understand that Interior commissioned a study that was completed last year by the Army Corps. You again looked at the use 

of marine vessel helicopter or perhaps building a new airport, alternatives, all of which have been reviewed in the past. They have 

been deemed impractical, unaffordable, particularly when you put 

it up against, again, a one lane, gravel, non-commercial use road. 

So the question to you this morning is whether or not you have 

publicly released that report and whether the people of King Cove 

were actually consulted as that core report was developed? 

Secretary JEWELL. The team is telling me we have not released 

the report publicly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t see any reason why not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. We would look forward to the release of 

that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

89 


Insert offset folio 47 here 98968.047
90 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98968.048
91 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98968.049
92 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98968.050
93 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98968.051
94 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98968.052
95 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98968.053
96 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98968.054
97 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98968.055
98 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98968.056
99 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98968.057
100 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98968.058
101 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98968.059
102 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98968.060
103 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98968.061
104 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98968.062
105 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98968.063
106 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98968.064
107 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98968.065
108 


Insert offset folio 66 here 98968.066
109 


Insert offset folio 67 here 98968.067
110 


Insert offset folio 68 here 98968.068
111 


Insert offset folio 69 here 98968.069
112 


Insert offset folio 70 here 98968.070
113 


Insert offset folio 71 here 98968.071
114 


Insert offset folio 72 here 98968.072
115 


Insert offset folio 73 here 98968.073
116 


Insert offset folio 74 here 98968.074
117 


Insert offset folio 75 here 98968.075
118 


Insert offset folio 76 here 98968.076
119 


Insert offset folio 77 here 98968.077
120 


Insert offset folio 78 here 98968.078
121 


Insert offset folio 79 here 98968.079
122 


Insert offset folio 80 here 98968.080
123 


Insert offset folio 81 here 98968.081
124 


Insert offset folio 82 here 98968.082
125 


Insert offset folio 83 here 98968.083
126 


Insert offset folio 84 here 98968.084
127 


Insert offset folio 85 here 98968.085
128 


Insert offset folio 86 here 98968.086
129 


Insert offset folio 87 here 98968.087
130 


Insert offset folio 88 here 98968.088
131 


Insert offset folio 89 here 98968.089
132 


Insert offset folio 90 here 98968.090
133 


Insert offset folio 91 here 98968.091
134 


Insert offset folio 92 here 98968.092
135 


Insert offset folio 93 here 98968.093
136 


Insert offset folio 94 here 98968.094
137 


Insert offset folio 95 here 98968.095
138 


Insert offset folio 96 here 98968.096
139 


Insert offset folio 97 here 98968.097
140 


Insert offset folio 98 here 98968.098
141 


Insert offset folio 99 here 98968.099
142 


Insert offset folio 100 here 98968.100
143 


Insert offset folio 101 here 98968.101
144 


Insert offset folio 102 here 98968.102
145 


Insert offset folio 103 here 98968.103
146 


Insert offset folio 104 here 98968.104
147 


Insert offset folio 105 here 98968.105
148 


Insert offset folio 106 here 98968.106
149 


Insert offset folio 107 here 98968.107
150 


Insert offset folio 108 here 98968.108
151 


Insert offset folio 109 here 98968.109
152 


Insert offset folio 110 here 98968.110
153 


Insert offset folio 111 here 98968.111
154 


Insert offset folio 112 here 98968.112
155 


Insert offset folio 113 here 98968.113
156 


Insert offset folio 114 here 98968.114
157 


Insert offset folio 115 here 98968.115
158 


Insert offset folio 116 here 98968.116
159 


Insert offset folio 117 here 98968.117
160 


Insert offset folio 118 here 98968.118
161 


Insert offset folio 119 here 98968.119
162 


Insert offset folio 120 here 98968.120
163 


Insert offset folio 121 here 98968.121
164 


Insert offset folio 122 here 98968.122
165 


Insert offset folio 123 here 98968.123
166 


Insert offset folio 124 here 98968.124
167 


Insert offset folio 125 here 98968.125
168 


Insert offset folio 126 here 98968.126
169 


Insert offset folio 127 here 98968.127
170 


Insert offset folio 128 here 98968.128
171 


Insert offset folio 129 here 98968.129
172 


Insert offset folio 130 here 98968.130
173 


Insert offset folio 131 here 98968.131
174 


Insert offset folio 132 here 98968.132
175 


Insert offset folio 133 here 98968.133
176 


Insert offset folio 134 here 98968.134
177 


Insert offset folio 135 here 98968.135
178 


Insert offset folio 136 here 98968.136
179 


Insert offset folio 137 here 98968.137
180 


Insert offset folio 138 here 98968.138
181 


Insert offset folio 139 here 98968.139
182 


Insert offset folio 140 here 98968.140
183 


Insert offset folio 141 here 98968.141
184 


Insert offset folio 142 here 98968.142
185 


Insert offset folio 143 here 98968.143
186 


Insert offset folio 144 here 98968.144
187 


Insert offset folio 145 here 98968.145
188 


Insert offset folio 146 here 98968.146
189 


Insert offset folio 147 here 98968.147
190 


Insert offset folio 148 here 98968.148
191 


Insert offset folio 149 here 98968.149
192 


Insert offset folio 150 here 98968.150
193 


Insert offset folio 151 here 98968.151
194 


Insert offset folio 152 here 98968.152
195 


Insert offset folio 153 here 98968.153
196 


Insert offset folio 154 here 98968.154
197 


Insert offset folio 155 here 98968.155
198 


Insert offset folio 156 here 98968.156
199 


Insert offset folio 157 here 98968.157
200 


Insert offset folio 158 here 98968.158
201 


Insert offset folio 159 here 98968.159
202 


Insert offset folio 160 here 98968.160
203 


Insert offset folio 161 here 98968.161
204 


Insert offset folio 162 here 98968.162
205 


Insert offset folio 163 here 98968.163
206 

And were the people of King Cove consulted as that report was 

being prepared? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’d have to go back and check with the Army 

Corps. I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, if you can get us an answer to that as 

well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

207 


Insert offset folio 165 here 98968.165
208 

The CHAIRMAN. And then, as I mentioned, you promised that you 

would work to address the situation of the people in King Cove. I 

do not see anything in this FY’17 budget to actually implement any 

of the ideas that were contained in the study of these alternatives. 

So the question this morning is whether or not you are planning 

on doing anything in this year or is this a situation where you basically just run the clock and you leave the people of King Cove 

hanging? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I have no intention of leaving the 

people of King Cove hanging, and I would be delighted to work 

with you on a marine-based solution that was identified in the 

Army Corps report. 

As you and I have talked and I know it is unlikely we’re going 

to agree on this point, I do not believe it is appropriate to run a 

road through this very sensitive wilderness area and wildlife refuge 

that is a very narrow isthmus that was set aside, originally in the 

40s, and made wilderness in the 80s and is an area of international 

environmental concern that the wildlife biologists agree would be 

really severely damaged by a single lane, gravel road. 

And so—— 

The CHAIRMAN. A ten mile, one lane, gravel, non-commercial use 

road. 

Secretary JEWELL. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. In an area that has seen road traffic since World 

War II. What we are asking for the people of King Cove is a lifesaving access to an all-weather airport that is an affordable solution as opposed to the alternatives that have been considered over 

the years and rejected as either unsustainable, unaffordable or just 

completely impractical. 

Let me ask a question about the Fortymile area. This is actually 

the draft Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan and its designation of about 700,000 acres of the Fortymile River Mining District being designated as or identified as areas of critical environmental concern where the Department is considering closing the 

area to mining. 

This was an area that was specifically kept open to mining by 

Congress under ANILCA when it was not included in the Yukon 

Charlie National Preserve. There are a host of concerns about 

these new regs that we are seeing coming out. I mentioned that 

these are the Reclamation cost estimates, Reclamation standards, 

new bonding processes and the turnover in our compliance staff 

making consistency with enforcement really challenging. 

The budget notes that resource management plans provide the 

basis and this is a quote here, ‘‘Provide the basis for every BLM 

management action and are necessitated by changes in resource 

use and demands.’’ 

So the question for this area in the Interior is what changes in 

resources and the demands then in this Fortymile region necessitate this nearly 700,000 acre of Environmental Concern Management Plan? It is not just the Fortymile. It is the resource management plans for the Central Yukon. Again, where we are seeing 

these resource, these changes in resource use and demands that 

have somehow necessitated these actions within both the Interior, 

209 

the Eastern Interior resource management plan and the Central 

Yukon and the Bering Sea Western Interior. 

We have had these conversations where you have folks out in the 

region, they have said we have been working as a small placer 

miner operating for decades. Tell me where the changes are that 

all of a sudden make this, ‘‘an area of critical environmental concern,’’ that are not only limiting access and opportunity but potentially just shutting it all down. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well Senator, with regards to the, specifically 

the Fortymile area Resource Management Plan, I’ve not reviewed 

it, nor had any input with the Alaska State Office for the BLM. So, 

I will—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I would ask you if you could, Madam Secretary, 

because again, 700,000 acres. It pretty much takes your breath 

away. 

Secretary JEWELL. So I certainly will follow-up. But I will say 

this, that we are, we change our knowledge over time. We get better science. We understand the landscapes better. We understand 

the impact on the environment from historic uses and activities. 

And so, they are intended to be documents that are updated with 

current information. 

I will look specifically into that and will get back to you with 

what changed on the landscape, how our knowledge changed, that 

resulted in the recommendations they have in that R and D. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then if you could also look to what specific 

efforts BLM is making to ensure that the miners are apprised of 

what their obligations may be under your new enforcement procedures because it is not right. It is not appropriate that there is 

now, kind of, the waving of the wand, there is a new designation. 

And all of a sudden a small operator, who has been out there with 

his family for the past 25 years, you have regulators coming in saying you are in violation of all of this and we are going to slap you 

with a fine. So I would like to know what kind of outreach, what 

kind of communication is going on between BLM and those that 

are working out in the region. So if you can back to me on that 

one as well. 

Secretary JEWELL. We will. 

The CHAIRMAN. My last question for you this morning relates to 

the five-year OCS plan. You released the draft five-year plan over 

a year ago. That was actually last January. 

We are sitting here with 2017 just now ten months away, so the 

question to you is when does Interior plan to release the final fiveyear plan? 

Secretary JEWELL. So there’s another bite at the apple. The draft 

proposed plan, as you pointed out, was released about a year ago. 

The proposed plan will be released in the coming weeks. I don’t 

have a specific date for you, but it will be coming out relatively 

soon. We will take comments on that proposed plan. 

The final plan, you know, our intent is to get it finished before 

the Administration’s time ends here. So sometime around the end 

of the year you should see the final plan. But between the draft 

proposed plan and the proposed plan we’ve taken a tremendous 

amount of input including from industry. That will be reflected in 

210 

this plan. And then the final plan will be sometime around the end 

of the year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that. 

So then when the final plan is released and we are able to take 

a look at it I would hope that you will be able to commit to coming 

back before the Committee to testify about what it includes, if we 

decide that we will hold an oversight hearing on it. But obviously 

we need to receive it from you first. 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m very happy to respond to your Committee 

in whatever way you like. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Good. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to go back to the self-bonding thing because you said 

something at the end of your testimony that I thought was important. Again, having experienced this myself where I mentioned 

Sarco left people high and dry in Tacoma. In that case I think we 

actually had to go through DOJ to make sure that we got the assets that we needed for the cleanup. 

BLM has ended the practice of, you were mentioning, you said 

it and it really rang with me, of corporate guarantees for hard rock 

mining, the BLM rule that it could not do corporate guarantees unless they were secured forums for financing guarantees. 

I think in 2003 CBO laid out the problem and said, ‘‘Unlike surety bonds, corporate guarantees do not allow the regulator to lay 

claim to specific financial assets in the event that an operator becomes insolvent and cannot meet its Reclamation obligations.’’ 

My understanding is that we, with these coal companies that are 

facing bankruptcy, that there is something like $3 billion in liabilities. Is that a number that you or your team knows? 

Secretary JEWELL. I haven’t heard that number but we can check 

with the team and get back to you. 

Mike, have you heard anything? 

Mr. CONNOR. It sounds familiar, but we need to check the number. 

Secretary JEWELL. We’ll check. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. It is a big number. 

I certainly would like a follow-up from you on what we plan to 

do to end this kind of self-bonding approach, because I just think 

it is putting too much at risk for the taxpayers. And you have 

taken similar steps in hard rock mining, so I think we should do 

the same thing here. 

Senator CANTWELL. This is not about leaving us with the deep 

pockets. As I have said, I have had my own experience where we 

literally had to go to DOJ and get them in an agreement about a 

bankruptcy to protect and make sure the cleanup was going to 

move forward and happen. 

If I could, Mr. Connor, just one of the things that I keep becoming increasingly aware of is how much cooperation in our water 

agreements making traction. Do you think we should be doing 

more to incent from the Federal level this kind of integrated planning? I like the integrated planning because first of all, it is colVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 14, 2017 Jkt 098968 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98968\D98968.TXT D98968
211 

laborative, and so it is more likely to succeed as opposed to lawsuits that take forever. 

Oftentimes the approach is integrated so you are not really 

choosing one over another. You are basically saying here are the 

ways in which we can have a holistic approach to try to solve our 

problems with water and drought. So do you think we should be 

doing more to incentivize that? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thanks for the question. 

Absolutely. I think the Yakima Integrated Plan, that process, is 

a model not just for working through watershed challenges, but for 

any natural resource management whether it’s public land management issues. It’s the right process to bring folks together in a 

holistic and realistic manner and decide on a path forward that addresses, in that particular situation, both water supply, environmental needs, tribal responsibilities, etcetera. 

The plan is realistic. It’s expensive. And—but we are increasing 

our budget over time in just a three or 4 year period I think we 

have close to doubled the budget for Yakima enhancement activities. And we’ve put in additional resources in the 2016 spending 

plan with the additional resources that Congress wrote into Reclamation’s budget to support that effort. 

So we’re moving forward with the state, who has put in a lot of 

resources into this whole process to implement the plan. And I 

think from that standpoint the stakeholders see the progress being 

made and it incents them to do more. And so, after our basin studies program we continue to invest in those. We’d like to take that 

Yakima model to other basins. 

We’ve expanded in this budget our cooperative watershed program, doubled it to try and help fund local watershed groups that 

can build the relationships that can then enter into the planning 

process, the model. 

Senator CANTWELL. So those funds could be used for that kind 

of integrated planning? 

Mr. CONNOR. For the planning aspect, absolutely. 

That’s the goal, to help bring the different interests within a watershed together to help them start a planning process that we can 

take into basin studies or other means to develop a comprehensive 

approach. And then we can start to look at implementation strategies. 

Senator CANTWELL. I wouldn’t say that it is not a panacea. Your 

problems are not solved once you incent them, but I do think that 

everybody gets to the table and I think all the issues get on the 

table and then I think the management of the problem is based on 

science and facts and information. I think people buy into that 

process and then we get cooperation. 

It’s got to be, obviously, more cost effective than the lawsuits 

that we are seeing which are getting us nowhere on trying to either 

recharge aquifers or save water or save fish. 

So anyway, I hope we can look at ways to continue to enhance 

the incentives to these various Western states and communities to 

work in a collaborative fashion on something that is integrated. 

So thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

212 

We have a lot of work to do on some basic things, fire and water 

and others. 

I know that colleagues will have additional questions for the 

record. I certainly do. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would just direct your attention, Secretary, 

to one specifically as it relates to earthquakes. As you had mentioned, just last week, I think, your earthquake initiative, and 

Alaska was not included as part of that. And it was, coincidentally, 

days after a 7.1 earthquake in South Central Alaska. 

We are about to get some earth scope seismographs that will 

help us in the state. This is through a grant through the NSF, and 

I think that is going to help us as we look to improve our seismic 

and just get better understanding. But NSF funding runs out in 

two years, so we are going to be in a situation where these monitors are then moved from the state. I am trying to figure out some 

kind of collaborative way that we can work to provide for a level 

of continuation. So I would like to visit with some of your folks 

about that as a possibility and a prospect. We are, maybe because 

we are one fifth the size of the country, but we are more active 

from a seismic perspective than other states out there. So enlisting 

your support in that would be helpful as well. 

Secretary JEWELL. Can I just respond quickly? 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. I completely agree. There’s no question. I’ve 

visited Earthquake Park. I remember the earthquake in the 60s 

very clearly because we could feel it in my home community of Seattle, that nine plus magnitude earthquake. And, as I think you 

know, I did ask the USGS in this earthquake early warning system 

that we were addressing, where is Alaska? So it’s a pilot project. 

The prototype is about to come out. We would love to include Alaska. It needs appropriate sensors. So we’re very much of like mind 

there. 

We’ll be happy to work with the state. It’s a prototype so if, you 

know, it may be a little less expensive to wait until it’s to the next 

level, but whatever you need to do on the infrastructure. I know 

that’s something that I support, the USGS supports, and we would 

welcome a joint effort to make that happen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. I will look forward to working with you on 

that, and we have got some volcanoes that we have got to monitor 

as well. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. All kinds of fun challenges. 

With that, we thank you for the time that you have given the 

Committee and we look forward to working with you. 

Thank you. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(213) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

214 


Insert offset folio 166 here 98968.166
215 


Insert offset folio 167 here 98968.167
216 


Insert offset folio 168 here 98968.168
217 


Insert offset folio 169 here 98968.169
218 


Insert offset folio 170 here 98968.170
219 


Insert offset folio 171 here 98968.171
220 


Insert offset folio 172 here 98968.172
221 


Insert offset folio 173 here 98968.173
222 


Insert offset folio 174 here 98968.174
223 


Insert offset folio 175 here 98968.175
224 


Insert offset folio 176 here 98968.176
225 


Insert offset folio 177 here 98968.177
226 


Insert offset folio 178 here 98968.178
227 


Insert offset folio 179 here 98968.179
228 


Insert offset folio 180 here 98968.180
229 


Insert offset folio 181 here 98968.181
230 


Insert offset folio 182 here 98968.182
231 


Insert offset folio 183 here 98968.183
232 


Insert offset folio 184 here 98968.184
233 


Insert offset folio 185 here 98968.185
234 


Insert offset folio 186 here 98968.186
235 


Insert offset folio 187 here 98968.187
236 


Insert offset folio 188 here 98968.188
237 


Insert offset folio 189 here 98968.189
238 


Insert offset folio 190 here 98968.190
239 


Insert offset folio 191 here 98968.191
240 


Insert offset folio 192 here 98968.192
241 


Insert offset folio 193 here 98968.193
242 


Insert offset folio 194 here 98968.194
243 


Insert offset folio 195 here 98968.195
244 


Insert offset folio 196 here 98968.196
245 


Insert offset folio 197 here 98968.197
246 


Insert offset folio 198 here 98968.198
247 


Insert offset folio 199 here 98968.199
248 


Insert offset folio 200 here 98968.200
249 


Insert offset folio 201 here 98968.201
250 


Insert offset folio 202 here 98968.202
251 


Insert offset folio 203 here 98968.203
252 


Insert offset folio 204 here 98968.204
253 


Insert offset folio 205 here 98968.205
254 


Insert offset folio 206 here 98968.206
255 


Insert offset folio 207 here 98968.207
256 


Insert offset folio 208 here 98968.208
257 


Insert offset folio 209 here 98968.209
258 


Insert offset folio 210 here 98968.210
259 


Insert offset folio 211 here 98968.211
260 


Insert offset folio 212 here 98968.212
261 


Insert offset folio 213 here 98968.213
262 


Insert offset folio 214 here 98968.214
263 


Insert offset folio 215 here 98968.215
264 


Insert offset folio 216 here 98968.216
265 


Insert offset folio 217 here 98968.217
266 


Insert offset folio 218 here 98968.218
267 


Insert offset folio 219 here 98968.219
268 


Insert offset folio 220 here 98968.220
269 


Insert offset folio 221 here 98968.221
270 


Insert offset folio 222 here 98968.222
271 


Insert offset folio 223 here 98968.223
272 


Insert offset folio 224 here 98968.224
273 


Insert offset folio 225 here 98968.225
274 


Insert offset folio 226 here 98968.226
275 


Insert offset folio 227 here 98968.227
276 


Insert offset folio 228 here 98968.228
277 


Insert offset folio 229 here 98968.229
278 


Insert offset folio 230 here 98968.230
279 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 231 here 98968.231