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

94–046 2015

S. HRG. 114–35 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(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 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTOPHER KEARNEY, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(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 

WITNESSES 

Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................... 7 

Connor, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior ...... 37 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria 

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

Cassidy, Hon. Bill 

Map: Historic Land Change in Coastal Louisiana .............................. 44 

Chart: Hurricane Isaac Flooding—Tidal Surge ................................... 46 

Jewell, Hon. Sally 

Opening Statement ................................................................................ 7 

Written Testimony ................................................................................. 10 

Responses to Questions for the Record ................................................ 126 

For the record: Response to questions from Chairman Murkowski .. 188 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

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

Map: Alaskan Lands and Waters Withdrawn from Development ..... 2 

Wyden, Hon. Ron 

A Research Paper by Headwaters Economics entitled ‘‘An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties’’ dated January 2015 ......... 68 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 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. I call the hearing to order. 

We are here this morning with Secretary Jewell and Mr. Connor. 

Thank you both for being here to review the President’s budget request for the Department of the Interior for Fiscal Year 2016. 

I am going to spend a little bit of my time in opening comments 

to talk about the many ways in which this Administration’s actions 

are having a negative impact on my state. 

Secretary Jewell, you and I have had many opportunities to visit, 

one on one, as well as during your trip to Alaska which I appreciate you making last week. I don’t want to make this personal, but 

the decisions from Interior have lacked balance and, instead of recognizing the many opportunities that Alaska has with regard to resource production, you have enabled an unprecedented attack on 

our ability to responsibly bring these resources to market. 

The President has withdrawn over 22 million more acres of Alaska from energy production just in recent weeks. That has occurred 

on top of many other restrictions and regulations being imposed on 

us. It has occurred despite the tremendous energy opportunity and 

potential in those areas, despite our ‘‘no more’’ clause, despite the 

pressing need to refill our pipeline and despite strong opposition 

from most Alaskans. 

The map that I have behind us is one that my colleagues are 

going to become familiar with because I am going to be pointing 

it out quite frequently. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 94046A.001
3 

The CHAIRMAN. The colors on the map represent those areas that 

are withdrawn from any development opportunity, whatsoever. 

Some are, in fact, proposed critical habitat areas and so they are 

not fully withdrawn at this point in time. 

We have the ANWR New Wilderness proposal, the Presidential 

withdrawal offshore, the NPRA withdrawal onshore, the North 

Aleutian Basin offshore, then the critical habitat, the wilderness 

that is already in place, the National Parks areas as well as the 

federal lands. 

I would like to remind my colleagues, this is one fifth the size 

of the United States of America. So when you take off all of these 

areas for any development at all, how do your states operate? What 

do you do? 

I have expressed my frustration, privately and in public. I will 

continue to express my frustration and try to achieve some positive 

results for the people of Alaska, which is really for the good of the 

country because as an energy producing state, this is what we do. 

We share these resources with the rest of the country. 

I want to be very clear today that it is not just me banging the 

table. I do not think that I am overreacting. I think I am speaking 

clearly and articulating concerns expressed by most Alaskans. 

We had an opportunity last week to be in a northwestern community of Kotzebue and the Secretary joined us, the entire Alaska 

delegation, all three of us, the governor, the lieutenant governor, 

the leadership of the House and of the Senate, and numerous native leaders. It was very clear that there is no daylight amongst the 

elected leaders in terms of how they are viewing these decisions 

coming out of the Administration. 

Again I just want to make it very clear that I oppose this Administration’s decision on ANWR. I oppose its decision offshore. I oppose its costly restrictions and endless delays within the NPRA. I 

oppose what it is doing to our placer miners, to our timber industry 

and to many other resource producers who are ready to provide 

good jobs to hard working Alaskans. 

The state of Alaska was actively ignored, the North Slope borough, the community of Kaktovik, Alaska native corporations and 

many Alaskans, all of whom asked for an oil and gas alternative 

in Interior’s ANWR plan by claiming that it requires an act of Congress, even though an act of wilderness requires the very same. 

The actions from this Administration seem destined to shut down 

our Trans-Alaska pipeline, weakening our economy, forcing our 

state to make steep budget cuts, and violating the promises that 

were made to us at statehood and since then. 

Now, Madam Secretary, I had hoped that Interior’s budget would 

not make this situation any worse, but it fails to clear even that 

low bar. It violates the Budget Control Act ignoring the statutory 

caps and proposing new spending as if we had already lifted sequestration. I think that it amounts to wishful thinking and not responsible governance. 

It would impose billions of dollars worth of new fees and higher 

taxes on oil, gas, coal and mineral production regardless of the consequences. It would eliminate offshore revenue sharing which 

many of us believe should be expanded. The Department did not 

identify realistic offsets for its spending requests such as the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:12 Jul 08, 2015 Jkt 094046 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A046.XXX A046

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

tional Park Centennial, and it has proposed no serious reforms for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

I, personally, was stunned to see Interior’s request increase by almost $1 billion on a net basis with no funding dedicated to cleaning up abandoned legacy wells which were drilled by the Federal 

Government. They walked away from it. They walked away from 

the mess and the responsibility, and we have been trying now for 

decades to get them cleaned up. 

Beyond energy there is King Cove, still totally unresolved. Yesterday marked 14 months since this road was rejected. Yet again, 

we have seen nothing in this request to help those whose lives are 

in danger. I see a request for about $40 million for adaptation projects for 

tribal communities, but by my calculation that is about 12 times 

less funding than was requested for international adaptation 

projects, just this year alone. So what I can’t figure out is why the 

needs of Americans are coming second. 

Interior’s decisions are hurting Alaskans. You are depriving us of 

jobs, revenues, security and prosperity. Alaskans are not alone in 

this. 

I want my colleagues to understand that I think what we are 

seeing in Alaska is a warning for those in the West. The fact is almost every other Western state already has multiple, legitimate 

complaints against Interior. In Wyoming and Idaho, it is the sage 

grouse. In Utah and Colorado, it is Interior’s refusal to facilitate oil 

shale development. In Arizona, it is the permitting of new copper 

mines. Across our states, except for Alaska, where there is no production on Federal lands, it is the significant decline in APDs and 

oil wells that are drilled on our Federal lands. 

This Administration is actively impeding many of the best economic opportunities in the West. It is depriving thousands who live 

in our states of the ability to find a good job, earn a good wage, 

and live a good life. 

As Chairman of this Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee with control over the Interior budget, I do want to work 

with you, Secretary Jewell. I do. I also want to work with others 

in the Administration, but my complaint here is that you hear from 

us, but you do not actually hear us. 

In looking at the request I do not see a substantive effort to work 

with Congress. Instead what I am seeing is a disregard for enacted 

law, and I think that has to change and the challenge is to find 

common ground working together. What we have seen is very, very 

discouraging. 

With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member. 

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

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I am pleased to see Secretary Jewell here and to be able to have 

conversations with Mr. Connor as well on the President’s proposed 

budget for the Department of the Interior. 

In my view this budget represents a balanced and forward leaning proposal. It creates jobs and long term economic opportunity. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

It builds strong partnerships with states and tribes and local communities when it comes to managing our infrastructure and ecosystem resources. It invests in public lands for the next generation 

of Americans to enjoy. 

It is probably no surprise that the Chairwoman and I do have 

different views on a variety of the issues that are being discussed 

here this morning, and many of those do relate to the Administration’s energy and conservation proposals in the Arctic. 

Secretary Jewell, I know you have a very tough job. One of the 

reasons I think the President appointed you is because you have 

a background as an executive in the oil industry as an engineer, 

so it does involve striking an appropriate balance between increasing energy production, both onshore and offshore in the United 

States, as well as being sensitive to environmental areas. 

I have long supported the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and especially in the coastal plain. The Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

released a comprehensive conservation plan that takes an important step of recommending that a significant portion of the refuge 

be designated as wilderness. This conservation plan is required by 

law and had not been updated for a quarter of a century. I believe 

the new plan is a more accurate reflection of the values for which 

the wildlife refuge was designated. 

Similarly there has been criticism in the new five year leasing 

plan for the Outer Continental Shelf for excluding too many areas 

from potential development. Others have opposed the Secretary’s 

decision to open up areas that have been, up until now, off limits 

from oil and gas development where the environmental damage 

would be extreme. So the Secretary has done her best to balance 

these competing interests. 

Likewise, the Department’s recent decision to approve oil and gas 

development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska was 

criticized on the one hand for approving development near an area 

that the NPRA proposed for protection and criticized on the other 

hand for requiring ConocoPhillips to incorporate mitigation measures because of those sensitive areas. So, yes, you have a very 

tough day job. 

Protection of these ecological treasures such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an issue of national importance, and I 

thank you and the Administration for making these important decisions. 

As a whole the President’s proposed $13 billion investment represents roughly a six percent increase over current funding levels. 

It proposes significant funding increases for many of the important 

conservation programs including the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and the National Park Centennial initiative, both very important. I know there are many on this Committee who believe that 

protecting these public lands and increasing recreational opportunities are greatly important. 

America’s public lands generate over $40 billion of recreation use 

every year, so whether you are visiting a national park or hunting 

or fishing, the opportunities on these federal lands are important. 

We also enjoy the protection of our national special places while 

still maintaining a high level of energy production on federal lands. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

The President’s budget reflects a strong commitment to increasing energy development, and I’m especially pleased to see the Department is also increasing production of renewable energy resources on public lands. 

I want to bring up something, though, that is missing in the 

budget. Secretary Jewell is taking an important step in proposing 

reforms on how royalties are collected on federal resources, but I 

am concerned that the discussion ends there. 

You can typically lease a ton of coal off of federal land for $1.00 or less. The taxpayers get $1.00. Years later we have to deal with 

almost two tons of carbon dioxide from that one ton of coal, and 

the government’s current best guess is that two tons of carbon pollution will cost the American public over $70 in damages. 

Our fossil fuel leasing laws were passed long ago, before we knew 

how bad these impacts were, and I intend to follow up on this 

issue. I know my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Murkowski, the 

GAO, and the Interior Inspector General have concerns. Many 

press articles have been raised about this issue, and I plan to raise 

my own concerns about this as well. 

Similarly, I am concerned that we adequately consider the real 

impacts of climate change on our public lands. This is an issue 

that’s important to places like Washington and Alaska, to many 

places in our country. The Tacoma News Tribune recently pointed 

out many of the related climate impacts at Mount Rainier National 

Park—in the past decades about glaciers melting and snow pack 

decreasing as much as 18 percent between 2003 and 2009. 

These are real issues, everything from mud slurries to floods to 

repairing park infrastructure. We all know historic drought conditions in California and the West have now demonstrated climate 

related changes are present challenges to businesses, to the government, and to families. Because of this I am pleased that the budget 

includes a 15 percent increase for climate related research. I hope 

that this will help us bring better understandings about how to 

prepare for these issues. 

Similarly, the issue of wildfire impacts throughout the community, last year our state experienced one of our worst wildfires, the 

Carlton Complex, which the destruction there represents, I think, 

seven percent of all wildfire destruction last year in just this one 

fire. 156,000 acres burned in 24 hours—that’s approximately five 

acres a second. 

Again, the micro climates and the changes—we are really starting to understand the grave impacts of all of these things. My 

Western colleagues have, in recent hearings, brought up various 

stories. I hope we can get to some of these issues. 

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

Land and Water Conservation Fund and provide a permanent mandatory funding stream beginning next year. This is something, as 

I said, many of our colleagues here on the Committee agree with 

but every year Congress appropriates only a fraction of the authorized funding. Right now the unappropriated balance is almost $20 

billion. 

I hope that, since this fund expires in September—we had a pretty good vote on the Senate Floor about this—we’ll work together 

in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

When I get to the Q and A, I’m definitely going to ask you about 

the Yakima River Basin watershed and the area to protect it. After 

years of negotiation, users of irrigated water such as farmers and 

ranchers, along with tribes and conservation groups, planned to develop and utilize, in a better fashion, the resources of the Yakima 

River watershed in a time of increased demand and growing scarcity. The reason I bring this up is because I believe this effort will 

be successful. I also believe that it is a model for how other watersheds in the West are experiencing these challenges and how, if 

they work together and we work with them, we can have better 

resolution of these issues. 

I look forward to discussing these and many other issues when 

we get to the questions. Again, I appreciate your commitment and 

the President’s to creating jobs and building partnerships, and investing in our public lands for future generations. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

With that, let’s turn to the Secretary for your comments. Thank 

you and good morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. MIKE 

CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Secretary JEWELL. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on the Department of the Interior’s Fiscal ’16 budget request. Joining me is Deputy Secretary 

Mike Connor, who is certainly no stranger to this chamber or the 

Senate. 

I’ve submitted a detailed statement for the record that discusses 

a number of important investments we’re proposing, so I’ll be relatively brief in these opening remarks. 

This is a forward looking budget that provides targeted investments to grow our domestic energy portfolio, creating jobs here at 

home, to build climate resilience and revitalize our national parks 

as they approach their 100th anniversary. 

It invests in science to help us understand natural resources on 

a landscape level and to apply that understanding to better manage America’s assets for the long term. 

Importantly the budget also helps fulfill our nation’s commitments to American Indians and Alaska natives including a much 

needed and historic investment to help improve education for Indian children. 

I want to first talk about our investments in the lands and historic places that make our nation proud and serve as economic engines for local communities. 

On the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act, the budget proposes full funding of $900 million annually for LWCF programs. This is, dollar for dollar, one of the most 

effective government programs we have. 

Next year we mark another important milestone in our nation’s 

history. The National Park Service will celebrate its 100th anniverVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:12 Jul 08, 2015 Jkt 094046 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A046.XXX A046

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

sary, and this budget makes investments to launch a historic effort 

to celebrate and revitalize national parks and public lands. 

The discretionary and mandatory portions of the budget include 

a $150 million matching fund to leverage private donations to 

parks and $859 million to provide critical maintenance investments 

in high priority assets. 

Additional funding of $43 million will provide staff to improve 

the visitor experience and support the expected influx of visitors 

during and after the centennial. 

A third milestone we commemorate this year is the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. The budget proposes $50 million to 

restore and highlight key sites across the country that tell the 

story of the struggle for civil rights such as the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail and the Martin Luther King Junior 

National Historic Site. 

One of my top priorities is connecting young people to the great 

outdoors and our rich history and culture. We need to inspire and 

engage the next generation to be scientists, engineers and stewards 

of our nation’s most prized assets, particularly as 40 percent of the 

Department’s work force is soon to be eligible to retire. 

This budget proposes over $107 million for Interior’s youth programs to provide opportunities for our nation’s youth to play, to 

learn, to serve and to work on public lands. We will accomplish this 

through cooperative work with youth conservation corps, schools, 

organizations like the YMCA and the National League of Cities, 

and enlightened private businesses that are supporting our efforts. 

Next I want to talk about the Administration’s continued commitment to tribal self-determination and strengthening tribal communities. I recently visited Arizona to launch the Administration’s 

Native American Youth Listening Tour, to give young people in Indian Country the opportunity to engage with Cabinet members directly about the challenges they face. My recent trip to the Arctic 

also included a meeting with youth leaders in Kotzebue who are 

helping their classmates cope with personal challenges. 

Across the federal family agencies are committed to working together to better coordinate our services to more effectively serve 

American Indians and Alaska natives. This budget holds the promise for a brighter future for Indian youth through education for Native American communities through economic growth and social 

services and for improving the stewardship of trust resources. 

We’re requesting $2.6 billion for Indian Affairs, an increase of 12 

percent which includes full funding of contract support costs that 

tribes incur as they deliver direct services to tribal members. 

When it comes to powering our nation, the budget continues to 

invest in both renewable and conventional energy so that we can 

diversify our domestic energy portfolio, cut carbon pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The budget includes $94.8 million for renewable energy activities and a total of $658 million for 

conventional energy programs. 

This budget also invests in science and technology initiatives 

that will support energy development, create economic opportunities and help communities build resilience. The budget includes 

$1.1 billion for research and development activities that range from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

scientific observations of the Earth to applied research to better understand problems such as invasive species and coastal erosion. The budget also includes a total of $147 million to fund programs 

that help coastal communities such as Kivalina, Alaska where I 

visited recently and heard directly from residents about how 

they’re concerned for their personal safety as encroaching storms 

threaten to wash away their village. Tribes, insular areas, communities and land management agencies use this science and technology to strengthen climate resilience. 

Finally I want to touch on two other specific areas that are impacted by a change in climate, water and fire. First, as part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s $1.1 billion proposed budget to fund Indian water rights settlements, ecosystem 

restoration, healthy watersheds and sustainable secure water supplies, the Water Smart grant program would receive $58.1 million 

to address drought and other water supply issues across the West. 

And second, this budget renews the call for a new funding framework for wild land fire suppression similar to how the cost for other 

natural disasters is met. This is a common sense proposal that 

would help ensure that USDA and Interior don’t have to rob our 

budgets for fire prevention in order to fight the nation’s most catastrophic fires. 

So in closing this is a smart and balanced budget that enables 

the Department to carry out these important missions. I look forward to discussing these issues and many other important investment proposals in this budget with you during your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Jewell follows:] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 94046A.002
11 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 94046A.003
12 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 94046A.004
13 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 94046A.005
14 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 94046A.006
15 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 94046A.007
16 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 94046A.008
17 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 94046A.009
18 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 94046A.010
19 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 94046A.011
20 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 94046A.012
21 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 94046A.013
22 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 94046A.014
23 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 94046A.015
24 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 94046A.016
25 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 94046A.017
26 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 94046A.018
27 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 94046A.019
28 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 94046A.020
29 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 94046A.021
30 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 94046A.022
31 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 94046A.023
32 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 94046A.024
33 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 94046A.025
34 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 94046A.026
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary. We will now go to a round 

of questions. 

My first question, Madam Secretary, relates to production on 

Alaska lands. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am frustrated. I am very frustrated with the delays, the denials, and the 

restrictions that we continue to see from the Department of the Interior. 

When you came before us as a nominee back in March of 2013 

you made a specific commitment to me. You said, and I am going 

to quote you here, that ‘‘we are supporting the desire that we discussed to continue to keep the Alaska pipeline full.’’ Do you know 

where we are in terms of the maximum capacity of the Trans-Alaska pipeline versus what we are seeing go through the line on a 

daily basis? Are you aware of that? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, Senator, I am. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are aware that we are less than half 

full? 

Secretary JEWELL. I am aware of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess the question is pretty direct. Do you believe the actions we have seen out of the Department of the Interior of late are helping to keep the Alaska pipeline full when NPRA 

withdrawals have moved forward, when the direction at the end of 

January to put ANWR into the 10–02 area and 98 percent of 

ANWR into wilderness area, with indefinite withdrawals in the 

OCS? Do you think that is consistent with trying to keep the Trans 

Alaska oil pipeline full? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I am fully committed to supporting 

the efforts in the North Slope of Alaska to keep the Trans Alaska 

pipeline full. As you know, I worked on that pipeline as a college 

student. As a petroleum engineer I understand how fields peak and 

Prudhoe Bay oil field and related oil fields have been past their 

peak production for some time. I’m aware of that. 

We have, as you know, supported development in the National 

Petroleum Reserve. 72 percent of what is estimated to be the recoverable oil is in areas that are open for leasing. We’ve doubled the 

frequency of leasing in the NPRA lands under this Administration, 

and we have recently approved ConocoPhillips’ preferred proposal 

for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve. 

Offshore, 90 percent of the estimated recoverable oil and gas will 

be available for leasing in the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas. We 

took 25 miles off the table because of whale migration based on a 

request from native communities. The Hanna Shoal area, which 

has a handful of validated, existing leases, will remain. 

The balance of it we took off the table because it is very, very 

sensitive ecologically. We took other areas in the Barrows Canyon 

and off Kaktovik because of village concerns about subsistence, 

largely whaling. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you would recognize—— 

Secretary JEWELL. So 90 percent is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary, particularly as it related to the Hanna 

Shoal, in terms of consultation, most specifically with the whalers 

who use that area, they saw no consultation, that is part of their 

frustration, that areas that are then put into indefinite withdrawal 

are done so without consultation. It is more than just making 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

leases, available. If access is denied to those leases, it doesn’t make 

any difference whether or not you have sold those leases, it’s all 

about being able to access them. 

Let me move to a second question here. This relates to my ongoing frustration on behalf of the people of King Cove. You made the 

decision to abandon the opportunity for a roughly three hundred to 

one exchange to facilitate a ten mile, one lane, gravel, non-commercial use road so that that isolated community could gain access to 

an all weather airport. You made that decision December 23, 2013. 

Do you know when King Cove saw its most recent Medevac? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m not aware of their most recent Medevac. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was Sunday night. Do you know how many 

Medevacs have been carried out so far in 2015? 

Secretary JEWELL. I do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. There have been 5 already this year. Do you 

know how many Medevacs were carried out last year? 

Secretary JEWELL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. There were 16, 6 were Coast Guard, and 10 were 

non-Coast Guard. Do you know how many Medevacs have been carried out since you rejected the road? 

Secretary JEWELL. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. 21 Medevacs, 7 Coast Guard, 14 non-Coast 

Guard. 

Now as you and I know it is not the Coast Guard’s mission to 

provide Medevac services, but they do it because they are the only 

ones available to get in. The easiest, most direct way to help save 

these lives would be this one lane, gravel, non-commercial use, ten 

mile road that you continue to just ignore. 

The question to you is what have you included within this budget 

to help the people of King Cove? What have you actually done over 

these past 14 months to fulfill the promise that you made because 

you said that you’ve concluded that other methods of transport remain that could be improved to meet community needs. What has 

been done to help the people? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m over time. May I have a few minutes to 

answer? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Secretary JEWELL. As we’ve talked, Senator, we have engaged 

conversations with the Corps of Engineers about alternatives, negotiating a MOU with them. It is, I think, approximately 40 miles between King Cove and Cold Bay if you drive there. It’s ten miles 

through the refuge. The balance is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We already have most of that road built. 

Secretary JEWELL. And as I have spoken with people in the community, when you and I were both there, it is very difficult in 

harsh weather conditions to move around that territory, period. 

So I have worked with the Corps of Engineers. We’re continuing 

to do that, to look at alternatives such as helicopter services between Cold Bay and the end of the road that is built, as you referenced, because the topography is quite different from the King 

Cove airport. 

We are willing to work with the community on other water-based 

transportation methods to cover that six miles from the end of that 

road to Cold Bay. But Senator, to suggest that the Izembek Refuge 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

is the same as other lands, acre for acre, is inaccurate. It is a very 

unique—— 

The CHAIRMAN. 300 to 1. Madam Secretary, in all respect, to suggest that you are going to be able to count on the Coast Guard to 

establish some kind of a base there in Cold Bay to provide for 

Medevac service is not realistic. It is not rational. The Coast Guard 

knows that, and you know that. 

Fourteen months have now gone by, and we do not have anything in the budget to address it, as you have promised you would 

do. In the meantime, 21 Medevacs have taken place. 21 Medevacs 

to pluck people out of harms way. A ten mile, one lane, gravel, noncommercial use road could help save these lives without endangering lives and diverting resources. 

We have got to keep working on this, Madam Secretary. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I recognize this issue and also having 

visited Kivalina, I recognize that this is not a unique situation, 

that there are many villages that struggle in the case of medical 

evacuations. I appreciate that it is part of our job to work on that, 

and I will continue to work with you on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is true that there are many villages, but 

there are none, none, have ready access to an all weather airport 

right there. 

Senator CANTWELL. I think we should talk to the Senator who 

heads up the Appropriations Interior Committee about what we 

could do. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think so. 

Senator CANTWELL. I am just pointing out that in 1998 we appropriated $37 million to provide a hovercraft to link King Cove and 

Cold Bay, so I think that was something that Senator Stevens and 

the Clinton Administration worked on. Maybe we need to look at 

something in that area for the future. 

I want to turn to this issue that we are seeing in so many Western states. Maybe Deputy Secretary Connor wants to address this 

issue because I am pretty sure you visited with Congressman Hastings and myself and the then Interior Secretary at the Yakima 

Basin project. But it does reflect so much of what we are asking 

people to do. I mean the integrated plan is part of an ongoing 

water enhancement program through the Bureau of Reclamation. 

So my question is what do we need to do to, not only using the 

resources to implement this plan through the Department of the 

Interior, but providing adequate levels of funding, not just for 

projects like the Yakima Basin, but for other areas as well. You 

could say the same of Klamath. You could say the same of, I’m assuming, California has more than the San Joaquin issue, that 

there’s many of these issues. What do we need to do knowing that 

we are facing serious drought in these areas? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

You’re absolutely right. Yakima is a great model of what we need 

to be doing from a strategic standpoint of the federal government 

working closely with the state and all the different constituencies 

in developing a plan of action to deal with the long term imbalance 

between water supply and demand in the Yakima Basin. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

I think the Bureau of Reclamation’s Basin Studies Program 

which helped fund a lot of the planning activity with respect to 

Yakima has developed an overall strategy that, when implemented, 

will benefit the environment, the tribes as well as the large scale 

agriculture that exists in the basin itself. 

As you highlight and hint at it, it’s a very expensive plan. I think overall it’s $3 to $5 billion over a 30 year period, but over that 

timeframe, hopefully, and we know the state has stepped up to the 

plate very significantly in the Yakima Basin with over $100 million 

that it’s appropriated to the effort. Reclamation is increasingly, incrementally, investing more of its resources in addition to, I think, 

a couple of years ago its long standing Yakima Enhancement Program. It’s now funding studies and activity related to a couple of 

the storage and fish passage projects. 

But the bottom line is it’s hard to see where the whole sum of 

the resources are going to come from with respect to Yakima or 

California or the Colorado River Basin, Middle Rio Grande, all 

these areas that need a large number of investments. I think it’s 

going to be a combination of states increasing their support for 

water resources infrastructure. The State of California just recently 

passed an $8 plus billion bond to invest in water resources infrastructure. 

Reclamation has gotten very good support in its budget to increasingly invest in the strategic planning as well as some of the 

activity that comes out of that plan in the infrastructure investments that need to be occurring, but it’s pretty daunting overall. 

I think Reclamation gets about $1 to $1.1 billion per year. It’s got 

probably a $6 billion plus backlog in its various programs whether 

it be river restoration activities, new infrastructure, dam repair 

and rehabilitation that needs to be done, as well as the conservation initiatives that are yielding and leveraging a substantial 

amount of non-federal dollars. We’re making steady progress, but 

we’re not making progress by leaps and bounds. 

Senator CANTWELL. Do you think that some of the solutions that 

are being talked about are positive solutions? 

Mr. CONNOR. Oh, absolutely. I think some of the solutions, more 

and more it’s a balanced approach. 

Take the Yakima Basin, we’re looking at water supply projects. 

I think the Yakima integrated plan came out of the Black Rock 

Dam proposal. And looking at it and evaluating the feasibility of 

whether people could pay for that, it was questionable from a feasibility standpoint. And so the parties went back to the table and 

have developed a collective set of actions that deal with environmental issues, that deal with fish passage issues, that deal with 

storage and deal with water delivery. And it’s that mix of projects 

in the Yakima Basin, the Colorado River Basin and California, that 

are going to be the key to moving forward. You know you’re never 

going to get 100 percent consensus on water issues, but you’re 

going to be able to make progress by bringing a number of people 

to the table. 

Senator CANTWELL. I guess my point is this, what we’ve seen is 

a lot of legal cases that people have decided didn’t turn out the way 

they wanted, but a lot of the parties haven’t walked away from the 

table. So I applaud Native Americans in Oregon for saying even 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

though they won in court about their water rights, they’re still willing to agree to work together as a community. That’s the most positive thing. 

Tribal leaders, farmers, everybody is working together. And at 

the same time we’ve seen these drastic changes in climate and 

more drought. I don’t think these solutions are the yesterday’s solutions. I guess that’s the key. Why I asked you about that is because 

I think some of the ideas that people are putting on the table that 

farmers and tribal members can agree to are the types of projects 

we should be supporting. 

I know many of my colleagues on this Committee have similar 

issues in their states, so I hope that we can look at this further. 

I know my time is expired, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being with us. 

In 2013 you testified that Wyoming is ‘‘a good example of a state 

that is doing an effective job regulating hydraulic fracturing.’’ You 

testified that Wyoming has ‘‘great, sophisticated hydraulic fracturing regulations.’’ Since then Wyoming has only strengthened its 

hydraulic fracturing regulations. For example, we now require 

baseline ground water testing before and after hydraulic fracturing 

takes place. It also requires additional disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

Now BLM is soon going to issue a final rule for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. I question the need for BLM’s role in states 

like Wyoming which already regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal land. 

So my question. Will BLM allow Wyoming and other states to 

apply for and obtain a variance from its rule so it can avoid duplicating state regulations? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I stand by my 

comments. Wyoming has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward thinking, and we’ve learned from Wyoming 

as well as some other states. 

Our proposed regulations say that if a state’s rule is stronger 

than the proposed federal rule the state’s rule will govern. That is, 

in fact, the case in some elements that you just referenced in Wyoming. 

I don’t know that there is anything in our proposed rule that is 

more stringent than Wyoming’s rule, so I’ll have to look into 

whether a variance would be even on the table as it relates to Wyoming. I think that we want to provide certainty to industry. We 

don’t want to make the regulations complicated. So if that’s something that the state would want us to consider, it’s certainly something that I’d ask BLM to look at. 

The goal, however, is to provide minimum baseline standards, 

and many states are not sophisticated like Wyoming. These activities are relatively new. Their regulations have not kept up, if they 

have them at all. And so for federal and tribal lands we’re really 

looking at baseline standards, learning from folks like you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me move to the Endangered Species Act. 

The Endangered Species Act states that you, the Secretary of Interior, shall by regulation determine whether any species is an enVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:12 Jul 08, 2015 Jkt 094046 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A046.XXX A046

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

dangered species or a threatened species. Last year Congress 

passed the Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations bill. The bill states 

that you may not use any funds to write or issue a proposed rule 

for Greater Sage Grouse. That’s what it says. 

Last month in a letter to Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, you 

wrote that the Appropriations bill, ‘‘does not affect Fish and Wildlife Service’s court-ordered obligation to make a determination by 

September 30th of 2015 as to whether the Greater Sage Grouse 

does or doesn’t warrant protection under the Endangered Species 

Act.’’ 

So with all due respect I can’t make sense of your letter, and I 

find your plans to ignore federal law troubling. So the question is 

please explain how you can list the sage grouse without first 

issuing a rule? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

I know these are legal nuances that I am learning myself. We 

are required under court order to make a determination of whether 

a listing is warranted or not, through the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We would not have any funding to prepare a rule so we have to 

make a determination by court order, but we cannot, if we make 

a determination that is threatened or endangered and believe me, 

I hope we won’t get there because of the great work that’s going 

on with the states involved in the sage grouse. 

But if a listing were warranted the Fish and Wildlife Service 

could say a listing is warranted, but they could not write a rule 

that indicates what that means. So we certainly fully intend to 

comply with the law but it doesn’t stop them from making the determination, just writing a rule that says then what? 

Senator BARRASSO. So is it your view then that this so called determination would be legally binding? 

Secretary JEWELL. You know, I’d have to defer to the solicitors. 

It’s a determination, but the rule is what would determine what 

happens next. And we are bound by court to make a determination 

and bound by law to not write a rule. 

So I am working very hard to support the state’s efforts and the 

federal government efforts so that a listing is not warranted. So we 

don’t have to call the question on this issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. I have a final question on President Obama’s 

so called strategy to reduce methane emissions. 

As part of that strategy the BLM plans to issue new regulations 

for venting and flaring of natural gas on federal land. Absent in the 

strategy is any effort to actually make it easier to get permits of 

natural gas gathering lines. Gathering lines are the pipelines 

which collect and then transport that natural gas from wells to 

processing plants. They are necessary to reduce the venting and 

the flaring of natural gas. We’ve introduced legislation in the past 

to make it easier to do those sorts of things. 

A principle reason why natural gas is vented and flared in the 

West is the BLM is failing to permit gathering lines in a timely 

manner. So if just BLM gave the permits for the lines that would 

reduce the flaring on and off of federal lands, do you know if BLM 

is trying and doing all it can to expedite the permitting of natural 

gas gathering lines and what specific steps BLM is taking? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, Senator. We are very committed to gathering the gas and not to resorting to venting and flaring as is happening. 

I am not aware of circumstances where permits have been slowed 

down by the BLM, but I will say our resources are constrained. 

We’re asked to inspect wells. We’re asked to approve permits to 

drill, and we’ve had a real challenge in our budget with sufficient 

resources to do what’s expected of us. So I would appreciate any 

support that you could provide in making the case for why it’s important that we resource BLM appropriately because we completely 

agree that the best thing to do with this natural gas is to gather 

it and sell it in the market. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, I want to thank you for your extraordinary 

commitment to protecting, in particular, I do represent Hawaii, Hawaii’s natural and cultural treasures in the President’s budget 

using the Land and Water Conservation Fund which you highlighted in your testimony and saying that the fund supports 105 

projects in 39 states including in Alaska and Hawaii. 

Particularly for Hawaii, the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and 

the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge are the number one 

land acquisition projects for the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in Fiscal Year 2016. This effort has taken 

us a long time to get to the point where these projects are the top 

priority ranking, so I want to commend you for working with us 

over a period of time to get to where we need to get to. I realize 

that the President’s budget calls for full funding of this fund. 

I wanted to ask you how important is Congressional action in 

making sure that the LWCF funds are more consistent because you 

keep asking for full funding. We keep not giving you full funding. 

Full funding is about, what is it, about $900 million? And we give 

you maybe $300 million, $400 million. How important is it for us 

to provide you with more consistent and better funding over a 

longer period of time to allow the Department to plan and execute 

these projects effectively? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Senator Hirono. 

There’s no question that 50 years ago Congress was very visionary when they passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 

They recognized that as we drill for oil and gas in federal waters 

offshore, that there is some impact. And they believed that that impact should go to benefit all states through the LWCF. 

Not only does every dollar invested in LWCF provide a very 

strong return on investment, but we have many willing sellers of 

land, in holdings within National Parks, access areas so hunters 

and fishermen can get to the waters or the hunting lines that they 

have, important areas for conductivity and ecosystems that you referenced like those that you talked about in Hawaii. 

This has been used successfully over 40,000 times. It has benefitted 98 percent of the counties in this country, and we think it’s 

a brilliant piece of legislation that has worked well. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

So I want to complement many members of the U.S. Senate for 

their support for reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I appreciate the President including full funding, not 

just in this budget request, but in the last two. I would hope that 

given what we know about the impact of oil and gas activities, 

based on the revenues that we get from the Gulf of Mexico, $14.7 

billion in revenues that this Department collected, largely from offshore oil and gas that we could have that permanently go into this 

fund so that those willing sellers know that they’ll have an opportunity to sell that land. 

Senator HIRONO. I’m glad that you noted that there are willing 

sellers, but they’re not going to wait forever. So the sooner we move 

ahead with funding this fund, the better off we will be. 

I want to get to the issue of compact migrants and our compact 

agreements. Hawaii is the state that is most impacted by the three 

compacts of free association that the United States has entered 

into with Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of 

Micronesia. Our state is tremendously impacted by the compact migrants in terms of our health care, education and housing needs. 

With regard to Palau, however, I am aware that we are to provide some $17 million to Palau over the next ten years to effect, 

keep our part of the bargain with Palau. I know that the Interior 

Department has come up with some $8 million on a yearly basis, 

but how are you doing in getting the other Departments, who have 

been part of the compact, particularly with Palau, in coming up 

with the full $17 million over the next ten years? And I’m talking 

about the Department of Defense and State Department. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator Hirono. 

Compact impacts are very significant, as you point out. Hawaii 

and Guam have the biggest hits. We’re limited to $30 million, and 

we’d like to see that cap raised. 

The President’s budget requests mandatory funding for the compact impact and requests that you consider raising that cap because it is a huge impact on Hawaii, Guam and FSM, Federated 

States of Micronesia, to deal with this. 

As far as Palau is concerned, yes, we want to work collectively 

with the Department of Defense and the State Department. We 

need your support for a solution from a funding standpoint to the 

Palau compact. I know that there have been various funding 

sources considered by this body. Helium was one of them. We sent 

that to other places including legacy well clean up. 

We request your support in getting funding to address our government’s obligations to Palau. I don’t have a lot of influence with 

the Department of Defense and the State Department, but it’s certainly on their radar and on mine and we would appreciate your 

help in moving that forward. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I just want to say that for a nation like ours to 

not meet our obligations to a small entity such as Palau that 

amounts to only $17 million a year is really, in my view, 

unconsciousable and we should move forward with that funding. 

Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. We agree. Thank you. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono, thank you for bringing that up. 

This is something that we do need to find a resolution for, and it 

has been somewhat discouraging to me that State Department and 

the Defense Department have been very uncreative in trying to 

find some solutions. So we’ll work on that. 

Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Secretary Jewell, I’ll begin with a statement. I am incredibly, I 

cannot put enough hyperbole in front of this, opposed to the Department’s budget proposal to deprive the Gulf Coast states of the 

revenue promised under the Gulf of Mexico Security Act. Monies by 

our state constitution we receive go to mitigate damage caused by 

federal mismanagement of our wetlands. 

Now in Louisiana we are experiencing unparalleled loss of land. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 94046A.027
45 

Senator CASSIDY. This red area is what we are losing. Down 

here, this results from channeling, levying the lower Mississippi for 

the benefit of commerce for the rest of the country. 

Now this has taken a once growing, delta plain and it’s caused 

the greatest source of wetlands lost in the history of our country. 

We were told ten years ago, bipartisan, that we could count on a 

portion of oil revenue to restore this coastline. 

Can I see the next chart, please? 

[The information referred to follows:] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 94046A.028
47 

Senator CASSIDY. And what is at stake? This is a result of that 

coastal loss. Placquemines Parish where, I’ll hold this up now, 

Placquemines Parish, which has lost this much land, now can no 

longer protect itself with wetlands from that surge. In the upper 

corner is the FEMA director looking at the flooded area in St. Tammany Parish. This all is Placquemines Parish. 

Those are working families. Working in industry that literally 

fuels the rest of our country. They’re relying upon this revenue to 

rebuild this land so that they can continue to live there. 

Now over the last three years, I’m going to point out, the Federal 

Government has taken in $22.3 billion from leases in this area, and 

the four Gulf Coast states most affected by this have received $4 

million, 0.2 percent. Now frankly, I don’t know how the Administration has gotten at this goal. 

I will point out that the Gulf Coast states and the offshore 

waters have over the last few decades produced billions of barrels 

of oil, trillions of cubic feet, but with that there is a cost associated, 

and for us to support this infrastructure we need to rebuild our 

coastline. 

To speak of the infrastructure ignores the individual family that 

just lost everything. The Obama Administration’s goal to take this 

away reminds me of a quote from Joseph Heller, ‘‘Mankind is resilient. The atrocities that horrified us a week ago become acceptable 

tomorrow.’’ 

Hmmm. If way back when, when this was channeled we had 

known that these homes would be destroyed because of that land 

loss maybe we wouldn’t have done it. Now it becomes acceptable 

to take that money away and to allow these families to continue 

to be adversely affected. 

By the way, it’s not just an irate Senator. Let me read a quote 

put out jointly from the Environmental Defense Fund, National 

Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society and the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, ‘‘They are disappointed by the budget’s proposed version of critically needed and currently dedicated 

funding for coastal Louisiana in the Mississippi River delta. This 

proposed budget undercuts the Administration’s previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in 

the Mississippi River delta where we are losing 16 square miles of 

critical wetlands every year, a preventable coastal erosion crisis.’’ 

These are the environmentalists. 

When I go back to Louisiana, in fact there’s a headline recently 

I read, ‘‘Does President Obama hate Louisiana?’’ If you are this 

person in that home, that is a question you are asking when the 

money we were going to use to build back the wetlands is being 

taken away. 

Now, in that is a question. Don’t you care about these families? 

It doesn’t appear that you do. Your thoughts? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. Of course I care about 

those families, as I do about many families in coastal communities 

that are experiencing dramatic impacts. 

The President’s proposed budget says we should revisit the revenues from federal waters, offshore, beyond state waters for the benefit of all American people. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

Senator CASSIDY. Revisit means take it away from the coastline 

that will be rebuilt. Let me go back to the other quote. ‘‘Mankind 

is resilient. An atrocity a week ago is acceptable now.’’ This is an 

environmental atrocity, and now you’re saying let’s revisit. 

I can tell you these families don’t think he cares. And why should 

they? Maybe that should be my question? Why should these families think he cares about them? 

Secretary JEWELL. Madam Chairman, may I respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Secretary JEWELL. Sir, we are balancing the assets of all Americans, and they can be for the benefit of Americans that are greatly 

impacted. We do have billions of dollars going into Gulf Coast restoration, as you know, in large measure because of the very unfortunate oil spill. 

Senator CASSIDY. That is an unrelated incident. That was 

Macondo which also goes to Florida. That is unrelated from this 40, 

no 80-year process. Totally unrelated. 

Secretary JEWELL. And if I may, sir, I’ve seen where MR–GO, 

which stands for Mississippi River Gulf, something or other, when 

it was closed by the Corps of Engineers the beaches began to accrete. And I saw that when I was down there with the Chandeleur 

Islands and so on. 

Senator CASSIDY. So here is that green. And this is MR–GO. 

That is not at all adequate for that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Understand that, sir. My point is that what 

has happened there has taken many years and it has been the result, largely, of how we have channelized the Mississippi River as 

you brought out in your comments. 

We certainly support Gulf Coast restoration. We’re working on 

Gulf Coast restoration. This is a proposal by the Administration for 

consideration about whether the revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf that are national assets should be focused on four 

states or should be broader applied. And certainly—— 

Senator CASSIDY. We are over time, so let me just conclude with 

this. Thank you for your indulgence. 

I will point out that the last three years all the states have received $22 billion and the four Gulf Coast states, $4 million. Now 

we are talking about $375 million out of $22 billion. It doesn’t seem 

much to ask. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

To the Senator from Louisiana, I can assure you that this is very 

important to all of us in the country. I have good friends, environmental friends and family in Louisiana, I know that the loss of 

coast down there is an extremely serious problem, and I appreciate 

your raising that issue. 

Madam Secretary, just to get back to the budget for a minute. 

How does this budget line up with the sequester and with the 2011 

budget caps? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m actually going to ask Mike to take that as 

we’ve gone back and forth on who answers what. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Mike. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, yes, the budget would reverse the sequester. It would undo the sequester, and I think that’s the fundamental aspect of what the President is looking for. 

We certainly have, since the 2013 agreement on the budget, this 

economy has started to rebuild, restore and grow very significantly. 

We do not want to go back to sequester. We think that the assuredness of the budget and the investments, strategically, that we can 

make will keep the economy growing very strong. From that standpoint the President has proposed a budget that would eliminate sequester and help us move forward. 

Senator KING. So it would meet the original 2011 budget caps, 

but not the sequester budget cap. Is that correct? 

There were budget caps and then there was a sequester that 

brought it below. Do you know if it meets—— 

Mr. CONNOR. So it undoes the sequester. I’m not sure with respect to the budget caps. Yeah, nominally the budget caps will be 

lower than 2011 still. 

Senator KING. Okay. Thank you. To go from the broad to the specific. 

Madam Secretary, we had an experience a year or so ago at Acadia National Park in Maine, one of the gems of the National Park 

system, which in fact is also 100 years old next year. There was 

a concession which had been held by a local company for 80 years 

that was put out to bid under Congressional action. What was surprising to me was that apparently the bid result was strictly a matter of lower price and past performance and record of performance 

and local impact and those kinds of things didn’t count. 

We had a meeting with your staff and discussed this, and to my 

surprise they said, ‘‘yes, that’s right. That’s the way we read it.’’ 

Are there plans to revisit that process because it worries me that 

a small company is always going to be at a disadvantage to a large 

national company who has full time bid design people as opposed 

to people with local knowledge and again, with a high level of performance. Shouldn’t that be a factor in deciding? 

When I go to buy a car I just don’t look at the price. I look at 

the quality and the past performance of that automobile. Should 

not that be part of the process in awarding these contracts? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I’m not intimately familiar with the 

contracting there. I know you’ve talked to the Park Service about 

it, and I will say that, as I’ve looked into the concession contracts, 

there have been requirements placed on the Park Service on what 

they can and can’t do with concessioners that are quite frustrating 

in terms of what they owe the concessioners over time to change 

out the contracts. 

It does not work the way it might if one was running a business, 

and part of that has to do with the restrictions that are placed on 

the Park Service in that regard. 

Senator KING. Restrictions placed by Congress? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, I believe so. 

Senator KING. If there are such restrictions that you find frustrating, please let us know and we’ll try to fix them. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator KING. I think this is a place where we can, perhaps, 

work together. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Secretary JEWELL. Will do. 

Senator KING. A second point about parks and I don’t know how 

many I’ve visited, but a great number. I note in your opening statement that your Department is essentially self-funded. You collect 

$13.8 billion in fees and you’re proposing a budget of $13.2 billion, 

I think. 

I believe there’s a lot of money left on the table in terms of collection of fees at parks. For example, at Acadia it’s very difficult for 

local merchants to sell park passes. I may be wrong, but I believe 

it’s impossible to buy park passes online. We’ve actually had visitors say we’d like to pay but we don’t know where or how. 

I would hope and urge you to have the Park Service visit the 

whole question of fees, how they’re collected, bring it into the 21st 

century in terms of online sales, swipe cards at access points, because it would be a shame to be cutting park service and not doing 

maintenance if in fact you’ve got customers, if you will, who aren’t 

paying and perhaps would even like to be paying. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, I’ll just quickly say that the Director of 

the Park Service has revisited the fees charged in a number of 

parks. They’ve been static for quite a number of years, and he has 

proposed some fee increases that are being considered right now. 

Senator KING. Well, let the record show I’m not necessarily recommending fee increases. 

Secretary JEWELL. I understand. 

Senator KING. I’m brave, but I’m not stupid. [Laughter.] 

I am suggesting methodology for collecting fees, because my impression from working with these issues is there are a lot of fees 

that are already in place that aren’t being collected. 

Secretary JEWELL. Hmmm. 

Senator KING. I’ve had merchants and we’ve had visitors staying 

at our inn who say I want to pay to visit Acadia, but I don’t know 

how or where. So I’m talking about the mechanics of collection. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator KING. Rather than the level. If you’re leaving 20 percent 

of the money on the table, it may be that the level isn’t as relevant 

as how it’s collected. I’ve got several other questions. 

Secretary JEWELL. Please. 

Senator KING. Which I’ll submit for the record. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I’ll continue on this parks discussion. I appreciate what Senator 

King from Maine was talking about in terms of enhancing some of 

the opportunities to get some more money into the parks to help 

with some of the clear issues you’ve identified in your budget. 

I want to back up though and talk a little about the Centennial 

Challenge and some of the initiatives there. 

As you know, Madam Secretary, I have been working with you 

on this. We have talked a lot about how, in 2016, the 100th anniversary of the park, we could do some exciting things to try to generate more interest in the parks and also to deal with some of the 

budget challenges. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

In 2007 when I was at the Office of Management and Budget we 

launched this Centennial Challenge, we called it, where you get the 

private sector more engaged with the parks. I think your former 

company was part of that. It seems to make so much sense to me. 

Basically you provide a federal match to be able to leverage private 

sector dollars. 

We had hoped to raise $100 million per year over a ten year period. Substantial funding that would go toward some of these maintenance backlogs and other issues. That was never realized, never 

passed Congress. I’m pleased to see in your budget that you all are 

again proposing something like this. 

I guess my question to you is if you could explain briefly to the 

group here why you think this mandatory federal funding is important to incentivize non-federal partners. Maybe you could include 

some of your experience in the private sector? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks, Senator Portman, and thanks for 

your commitment to the National Parks. 

I did actually work with my predecessor, Secretary Kempthorne, 

on this trying to encourage Congress to pass the Centennial Act. 

The National Park Service is arguably the most recognized and valued brand within the Federal Government, and certainly a place 

where people are very, very interested in providing support. Research has shown that there is a tremendous interest in private 

philanthropy. 

We also know, and I’ve done a lot of fundraising myself, that a 

match is a great incentive to get people to give, sometimes two, 

three, four, five times the amount, showing that we’re putting our 

money up and the individuals will do so too. The budget has in the 

Discretionary part, $50 million for a match and an additional $100 

million in the Mandatory proposal. We are confident that with a 

match we can multiply that to several times over. 

I think that there are parts of the Park Service where people will 

want to give private philanthropy and other areas like some of the 

deferred maintenance which are probably going to be less conducive to that. So our budget focuses our resources on those that are 

less accessible to fundraising like the deferred maintenance and 

would concentrate those matching funds on areas like Gettysburg 

would be a good example where private philanthropists have 

stepped up to help. And we’ve seen that here in Washington, DC 

as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. It’s a real exciting opportunity. I think, on a 

bipartisan basis, this Committee would be very interested in working with you on that. 

I am very concerned about the backlog and some of the deferred 

maintenance you talk about. It’s a real problem that many of the 

parks, including Cuyahoga National Park and Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park in Ohio. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. Which is, by the way, one of the top ten visited parks in the country and we’re very proud of that. 

My question to you is how do you square this backlog and the 

problems we have with just funding what we have with the fact 

that you all continue to promote more workload for the National 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Park Service by expanding the areas of responsibility and proposing more stewardship? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. Well, this budget proposes, really has 

a proposal, that over ten years would clear up the maintenance 

backlog on the facilities on our highest priority assets, those that 

are going to see the most visitors, those that are in the most difficult condition. For example, the Many Glaciers Hotel which is a 

very popular attraction in Glacier National Park still has knob and 

tube wiring which is actually not safe. 

So, we have in this budget a proposal to make progress over ten 

years on cleaning all that up. About half of our backlog is in roads. 

We require Department of Transportation funding for that. The 

other half, this will address the highest priority assets and give us 

a good shot in that centennial year of the highest of the high priorities and dealing with them. 

So it is a path forward because we recognize that we have not 

kept up, the budget has not kept up with the need. 

Senator PORTMAN. I would say also your transportation budget 

does not provide adequate funding for the roads and the bridges 

and the other infrastructure you all need because a lot of it is 

transportation infrastructure. I hope you pushed for that. 

Secretary JEWELL. We do. 

Senator PORTMAN. Those efficiency people at OMB who told you 

no. You’ve got to continue to push for that, and I’m very disappointed in the Transportation budget not having more. 

Let me just ask you a question. Let’s say that somebody in Cleveland, Ohio wants to make a contribution to the Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park to improve a facility. Let’s say to add a new roof to 

a building. There are situations like that right now at all of our 

parks. 

How can they do that? Under the current Centennial Challenge 

can they assure that the money that they give to the park is going 

to go to fix that roof? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, we can do that, and we do it through the 

National Park Foundation or if the Cuyahoga Valley has its own 

friends group, they can go through that mechanism as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. They do have a great friends group, one of the 

best in the country. In fact the woman in charge that is head of 

the national group and has been. But how can they do it through 

the Park Service? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m not exactly sure of the mechanics. 

Senator PORTMAN. I don’t think they can. 

Secretary JEWELL. You don’t think so? Okay, I’ll look into that. 

Senator PORTMAN. I think that’s something that we should work 

on as part of the Centennial. 

I’m already over time, but I would like to issue, if I could, some 

questions for the record with regard to the permitting process. I 

think this is an area where we have a great opportunity to do some 

work on a bipartisan basis. 

Again, Senator King and I and others have introduced legislation 

on this, and let me just put a concern on the table and that is how 

we are dealing with this issue of the Northern Long-Eared Bat. In 

particular your folks at U.S. Fish and Wildlife, who are proposing 

to list the bat as endangered and what that would mean for comVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:12 Jul 08, 2015 Jkt 094046 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A046.XXX A046

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

mercial activity. It has nothing to do with the issues with the bat. 

So we’d like to work with you on that. I’m very concerned about 

it. 

Secretary JEWELL. May I answer that, just very briefly? 

It looks like the likelihood of the threatened listing and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service has proposed a very broad sweeping 4(d) rule 

which would enable a lot of the same kind of economic activities 

to go forward if that’s the case. So that’s where we are with it. We 

recognize white nose syndrome is the biggest issue. 

Senator PORTMAN. White nose syndrome is the issue. It’s not development or commercial activity. 

Secretary JEWELL. Right. 

Senator PORTMAN. And by the way it’s not broad enough to encompass what people care about a lot in Eastern Ohio which is oil 

and gas development as well as some other commercial activity. So 

we need to broaden that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank you, Secretary Jewell, for your leadership 

around the issue here at the beginning around the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge. In my view there are many places in our federal 

estate where oil and gas development are the highest and best use 

of our federal lands. I believe wildlife refuges are not among them. 

I want to thank you for recognizing that unique wilderness resource that, frankly, belongs to every American. 

We’ve got two new National Park Service units in my home state 

of New Mexico that passed in the last public lands bill, and the 

local communities that host these new units are incredibly excited 

to see these places finally come to fruition after, literally, decades 

of advocacy. 

At one of those, the Valles Caldera National Preserve, management is moving from an unsuccessful, experimental model to a 

more traditional national preserve model under Park Service management. What drove that was really a lack of adequate public access and recreational opportunities under the previous arrangement. But the preserve has a very strong, scientifically driven, resource management program that the delegation, certainly myself, 

feel must continue under the new management model. In particular, the preserve has been a key partner in a collaborative forest landscape restoration project in the Jemez Mountains designed 

to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and to restore forest health 

after many years of relatively irresponsible high grade logging that 

occurred years ago when this land was actually private. 

Adjacent land managers, including several tribes and the Department of Energy, have a big stake in making sure that the preserve 

doesn’t present a fire threat to its neighbors. As management transitions to the Park Service I want to know that we can count on 

this critical restoration work continuing and wanted to ask the 

Park Service, in particular, if the Park Service can continue to 

work with the preserve’s existing partners, including neighboring 

tribes, to finish this important forest health project. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

Secretary JEWELL. I’ll certainly ask the team to take that into 

consideration. I think when there’s really good restoration work 

going on the ground we have a lot to learn from it. I do know budget wise it’s a bit squeezed as a lot of things are so we need to make 

sure we’ve got a source of funding. 

Senator HEINRICH. Absolutely. There is a source of funding. We 

saw this transition coming, so there is legislative authority. It is 

largely an administrative issue of making sure that this moves forward. 

There is funding there, and there is legislative authority that 

Senator Udall led the effort on last year in the budget. So we look 

forward to working with you on this project. It’s absolutely critical. 

It’s unusual in the fact that you have a comingling of management between the Department of Agriculture and Interior as this 

transition occurs. 

Secretary JEWELL. They’ve been working closely with us on this 

transition, so we look forward to working with you on that. 

Senator HEINRICH. I want to go back to the backlog that Senator 

Portman mentioned. 

We hear a lot about the backlog of maintenance on our public 

lands and especially our national parks. Some even claim that we 

shouldn’t protect new places like the Valles Caldera or the Manhattan Project National Historic Park because of the backlog. 

One of the things I wanted to point out was that oftentimes that 

deferred maintenance doesn’t come out or shouldn’t come out of the 

Interior Department budget or even the Forest Service budget, but 

is actually related to the Department of Transportation backlog 

and transportation backlog that is shared between the Department 

of Transportation at the federal level and then state and local responsibilities for transportation ways that just happen to be on 

Park Service real estate. 

Can you talk a little bit about what proportion of the Park Service backlog is actually a transportation issue that needs funding 

through the Highway bill and other responsibilities other than your 

budget? 

Secretary JEWELL. We have, in the Park Service, an $11.2 billion 

backlog, that’s billion with a B. $5.9 billion is the deferred maintenance of the facilities that we’re responsible for and $5.6 billion is 

transportation. So just slightly less than 50 percent. 

Senator HEINRICH. So just under half of that is actually not the 

responsibility of the Department of the Interior? 

Secretary JEWELL. That’s correct. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay, thank you. 

I am going to leave you with one last issue and that is in recent 

years I have seen sort of a troubling dynamic where Congress refuses to provide your agencies with the resources they need to 

manage our public lands. And then when those lands deteriorate 

because of lack of funding and management, Congress accuses the 

agency’s mismanagement and claims that the states could then do 

a better job. In fact, I believe that we, in Congress, need to do a 

much better job of providing the resources necessary to manage 

these lands so that they are healthy and can make a positive and 

sustainable contribution to the entire American economy. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

Would the President’s budget provide the Department with the 

resources it needs to begin to address the broader maintenance 

backlog? 

Secretary JEWELL. Do I have time to answer? 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Secretary JEWELL. Certainly with the National Park Centennial 

we have focused a lot of our energy around the National Parks and 

addressing that maintenance backlog. There is a small amount in 

the mandatory portion of the Centennial budget that proposes support for the backlog on other public lands, BLM, for example and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These public assets, as you point out, are in many cases the opportunity that people have to breathe and to experience the best 

of the best of what this country is known for in the natural world 

and also our history and our culture. So it’s not a budget that fixes 

all the problems. It’s a budget that is a step in that direction, and 

I really appreciate your support on that. 

I will say that it is frustrating. I know many, many hard working 

people that are dedicated public servants who are working on our 

maintenance, who are working in interpretation and science and 

law enforcement. 

I met somebody out at Catoctin Mountain Parks which is where 

Camp David is, who was a law enforcement ranger, who was cleaning the toilets and actually repairing part of the visitor center. And 

that’s where we find ourselves. I won’t say this budget helps—addresses that completely, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your time 

today. 

As we talk about the National Park Service’s Centennial next 

year I’m excited too, about the centennial celebration this year of 

Rocky Mountain National Park. I’ll be introducing a resolution to 

celebrate and commemorate the incredible, incredible grandeur of 

Rocky Mountain National Park. Certainly we would invite you and 

hope that we’ll be able to work together over the coming months 

to celebrate the centennial of Rocky Mountain National Park together and we look forward to that. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about the Arkansas Valley conduits, 

a project in Southeastern Colorado first authorized in 1962 under 

President Kennedy. The project will serve more than 40 rural, economically depressed communities in my state. Congress passed legislation in 2009 to provide a funding mechanism to fully repay the 

cost of the project, and an extensive NEPA process has already 

been completed. 

Early stages of mapping, design and other reconstruction activities are underway as well, and local negotiations have led to a significant amount of savings by optimizing existing treatment facilities as the project moves forward. But this year the Administration’s budget request was only $500,000 and in 2012 President 

Obama actually went to Southeastern Colorado in Pueblo, Colorado 

where the project originates and stated that the Arkansas Valley 

conduit would be built. He said it will be built. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

Can you help me understand why is the request only $500,000? 

What has happened? And is this project receiving the kind of priority that it should in order to be completed? 

Secretary JEWELL. On issues like this I turn to the expert for the 

Department. That’s Mike Connor, Deputy Secretary. Mike. 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator Gardner, I’ve had the opportunity to work 

very closely with your constituents as a staff member on this Committee when we passed the legislation as well as running the Bureau of Reclamation and getting the record of decision and the 

NEPA work done associated with that. 

It’s a very important project. I understand the water supply and 

water quality concerns that your constituents have. The bottom 

line is right now we’re trying to plan for a phased in development 

of this project, and it’s tough given the constrained resources that 

we have. 

Overall, after getting the NEPA and the record of decision down 

we focused on completing the feasibility work that needs to be accomplished. I think overall we’re looking at this in bite sized pieces. 

I think that work is going to take about $5 to $6 million. We managed to, last year, transfer an additional $2 million on top of our 

$500,000 budget request to try and accelerate work along those 

lines. But the bottom line is we are in a constrained resource environment. Given the importance of that project we will look continually to—within the budget and when we can move funds over 

there, given the priority. I think this is the second time we did it 

now in 2014, we’ll move those resources over. 

Try and develop then the strategy that I think we’ve been talking about with the stakeholders there which is we’re going to have 

a hard time funding the construction. We need to get them to the 

point where we can evaluate all the options and that’s completing 

the feasibility work. The State of Colorado, I think, has offered a 

loan which we’re thinking may be sufficient to initiate construction 

activity. We’re in a dialogue now within the Administration and 

with your stakeholders looking at other federal programs, quite 

frankly, and see if we can’t, particularly given the water quality 

concerns, if we can’t make use of some EPA resources, Department 

of Commerce resources that can go for water infrastructure. 

We will continue to work along those lines and try and put a 

patchwork of funding opportunities together with local resources 

that we can move forward. 

Senator GARDNER. We’d love to continue our conversation on 

this. As you know it’s a Reclamation project and so I know there’s 

been talk about cobbling funding together from Commerce and EPA 

and others, but I mean, again, this is and has been for 50 years 

a Reclamation project. And we’d like to continue our work together 

on this. 

Shifting now to the sage grouse. The potential sage grouse listing 

in December would have significant effects on agriculture, energy, 

and recreation in Colorado, if it were to move forward. We need to 

balance the needs of our economy, the needs of our environment. 

The State Conservation and Management plans, if given the 

chance to succeed, I believe, will be best to protect the species. 

We’ve seen in Wyoming where they have stabilized, if not grown 

populations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

What do you believe needs to be achieved in order to allow states 

to implement their plans for a period of time in order for them to 

determine that they are best at protecting the wildlife within their 

borders? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, thank you, Senator. 

What’s happening with the Greater Sage Grouse across 11 Western states, particularly the core six or seven states is unprecedented in the history, really of, the landscape management, states 

working alongside federal partners. The reality is it’s different 

state by state, and so no one size fits all which is what makes it 

complicated. 

The State of Wyoming has been doing this for ten years, and 

they have shown a path forward that has been very helpful for 

other states. 

In the State of Nevada, 87 percent of their land is in federal/public ownership so it’s our plans that are going to dictate the health 

of the sage grouse there and rangeland fire is the most important 

thing there. 

We are trying to strike the right balance every place we are with 

the federal plans, the state plans and the science to make sure that 

we’re doing everything we can so that a listing of the species is not 

warranted. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service will need to have something they 

can rely on. In many states we have executive actions that the governors have taken that provides that assurance. I’ve had a secretarial order on rangeland fire that provides additional assurance to 

the Fish and Wildlife Service for those areas in the Great Basin 

where fire is an issue. 

Our goal is to provide a clear path forward so that grazing and 

ranching and oil and gas activities can continue but continue in a 

really smart way where we know where the most critical habitat 

is and we know how to protect it. So unprecedented effort that’s 

happening and Governors Hickenlooper and Mead co-chair the 

Sage Grouse Task Force of Governors. We are at work doing everything we can with them to reassure the Fish and Wildlife Service 

that the bird will be protected. 

Senator GARDNER. Obviously we have a number of questions on 

this. If I could indulge just one more question then I have a number of others. Is that alright, Madam Chair? 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. 

Senator GARDNER. No, okay? 

The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly. 

Senator GARDNER. No problem. We’ll just—I’ll just pass. I have 

some other questions we’ll follow up with you on. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. Sounds good. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, thank you for visiting the Bug-O–Nay-Ge-Shig 

School up at Leech Lake. As you know from before the time you 

were nominated, I’ve been raising the alarm about this school. I 

talk to you about it pretty much every chance I get. Thank you for 

going up there. What did you see at the Bug School? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

Secretary JEWELL. I saw a facility that should not be a school. 

I saw a facility that was converted from other uses with inadequate 

sanitation, small hallways, inadequate heating systems and a 

school that did not convey a sense of support to the students who 

were there. 

I also saw committed teachers. I saw a school that wants to retain the cultural identity of the tribe and nurture that. I saw their 

use of the great outdoors, frankly, to do that because I was there 

when the weather was good. 

But this is not a school that I’m proud of or you’re proud of. It’s 

indicative of the one-third of all schools overseen by the Bureau of 

Indian Education that are in poor condition. I want to fix it over 

the long term. I want to fix the Bug School and the rest of them, 

and we’ve got a strong commitment in our budget to get on that 

to—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well you have a $59 billion increase for Indian school production in the FY’16 budget. That’s improvement. 

It’s just that it’s not enough. I’m glad you went there, and I thank 

you again for doing that. This is just unacceptable. 

Our native children have so many challenges that face them. If 

anything we should be giving them better schools than—well, we 

certainly should be giving them better schools than that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator FRANKEN. I want to ask you——it will take about $25 

million to rebuild the Bug School. What does the increase in the 

Indian School Construction Funding mean for the Bug School? 

Secretary JEWELL. So, the short answer is we have several 

schools remaining on the 2004, so that’s now by the time we get 

to this budget, going to be 12 years old, that are prioritized. After 

that we are completely redoing the priority. I am confident the Bug 

School will be on the list of priority schools for addressing. 

We’re working on a set of objective criteria that is being refined 

right now. I don’t have that list, but we expect to have it sometime 

along the middle of the year which will prioritize those and put in 

place a plan to really begin to address these over time. It’s going 

to take a long term commitment on the part of Congress and a long 

term commitment on our part to address these challenges. 

But having seen the Bug School, you know, it’s in bad shape. It 

needs to be replaced. I will tell you that I’ve seen other schools that 

are in equally bad shape. It just breaks my heart that around the 

country this is what we do in supporting an Indian education. 

The prioritized list will be coming out in the middle of the year. 

We’ll make sure that you know where that particular school is on 

the list, and there is a good chance in this budget that there will 

be planning and design dollars for a number of those schools that 

are on the highest priority list so that we can move them forward 

very quickly. 

We’re learning from the Department of Defense, Education, Organization or DoDEA because they had a similar situation. They 

have a pathway forward that over a decade or so their schools will 

be brought up to speed, and we’ve hired the person that did that 

on our team here to do the same kind of long term game plan for 

Indian schools. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. One of the other things I’ve talked to you 

about is Lewis and Clark. The funding levels for rural water 

projects in the Bureau of Reclamation has been a frustration also 

for me, specifically, this project. 

In your budget last year, you suggested that if local governments 

want these projects built faster they should just put in more money 

on top of the legally required local share. The State of Minnesota 

has done that giving the Lewis and Clark project $22 million last 

year which was almost ten times the amount of funding that you 

included in the last year’s budget. 

Yet this year you still came back and only requested $2.7 million 

for the project. Congress has already demonstrated that we can responsibly fund these projects at a higher level routinely increasing 

funding and appropriation bills beyond your budget request. These 

local communities and the state have done everything that has 

been asked of them and more, putting more funding than they 

were supposed to. 

What will it take to get Interior to prioritize these projects? 

Secretary JEWELL. I’m going to talk very—may I, Madam Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please go ahead. 

Secretary JEWELL. I’ll make my part very brief and turn it to 

Mike for the specifics here. 

We have way more demands than we have funding. Indian water 

rights settlements have taken priority for us, and making sure that 

communities that do not have access to water are prioritized and 

I know you appreciate that. We’ve talked about that before. 

There is some money in the budget for Lewis and Clark to continue to make progress, but there’s not enough money to go around 

and we have to prioritize. 

Mike, do you want to talk specific to Lewis and Clark? 

Mr. CONNOR. Specific to Lewis and Clark, yes, we greatly appreciate the additional resources that Congress has put into the last 

two budget cycles. We have allocated that funding to substantial, 

I think, three times as much as we had in our budget to allocate 

to Lewis and Clark. So I think in this year’s cycle, 2015, they’ve 

got about $9 million that can be coupled up with the local resources 

and we can make progress overall. 

Senator FRANKEN. I don’t think that’s right. 

Mr. CONNOR. We had $3 million in our budget and then Congress 

appropriated an additional $30 million, I think, which Lewis and 

Clark got about $6 to $6 1⁄2 million. So that’s where I get the $9 

million figure. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, well—— 

Mr. CONNOR. And that was just announced about two weeks ago, 

the additional resources that were provided. 

But you’re right about the 2016 budget. This has been one where 

just competing priorities within the Bureau of Reclamation we 

have not been able to allocate funding to the rural water program 

in the way that we would like. These are good projects. We certainly invested a lot of Recovery Act dollars in them and made 

some significant progress at that point in time. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

But it’s one of those that’s strained under the budget even in a 

very robust budget with good investments here for the Interior Department this particular program is strained, Quite frankly, if we 

end up with sequestration it will get a lot worse. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Thank you and thank you for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, good to see you again here today. I was back 

home in Montana last week where it was a whole lot warmer than 

Washington, DC. I had a chance to spend some time with the Crow 

Tribe back there in Montana. 

As you know, unemployment on the Crow Reservation would be 

more than 80 percent if we did not have the mining jobs at the 

Absaloka Mine. In fact, their tribal unemployment is already at 50 

percent. They’re very, very concerned at what’s going on directly 

right now as it relates to coal development where their unemployment, again, would go to 80 percent without these jobs. 

It is a significant part of the funding for the tribe and the well 

being and future hope for the tribe. They need access to more foreign markets. They need rail import infrastructure. I know we’re 

working on the Gateway Pacific terminal approval which would 

allow the Crow Tribe to access some of these international markets 

with their coal. 

So as the Gateway Pacific terminal is going through the permitting process, I believe it’s important that the Department works 

with all the impacted tribes. There are tribes on the West Coast 

engaged in this process, but I want to make sure the Crow Tribe 

is also having their voice heard in this process. 

So really the question is would you agree that it’s important that 

we get all the tribes’ views on this issue of approval of the Gateway 

Pacific terminal? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Senator, I’m not familiar with the Gateway Pacific terminal, but I will tell you that I’m very committed 

to consulting with tribes on anything that we do that impacts 

them. 

Senator DAINES. Okay. Great. I just want to flag that it’s really 

important right now as we’re looking at the ability to grow and 

take this 50 percent unemployment rate not turn to 80 percent 

which is a very real possibility. I hope you will take a look at all 

the treaty rights, not only the West coast tribes, but also the treaty 

rights of impacted tribes including the Crow. 

And by the way, next time you come out to Montana we may 

want to take you out to the Eastern side of the state as well. I 

know you had a chance to experience Glacier Park. We love the 

Flathead in Glacier, but it would be good for you to see also the 

challenges out in Eastern Montana related to economic despair in 

many ways in some of these small communities. 

In line of that we are working in Montana on the all the above 

energy strategy as part of our national security and energy strategy. Montana is one of the unique states that really has the ability 

to play in the all of the above of virtually every energy resource we 

have in this country. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

Over a third of our hydropower in Montana or a third of our 

power comes from hydropower. More than 50 percent comes from 

coal. We also have significant capacity certainly for wind and for 

solar. 

I’m concerned though this all of the above energy portfolio that’s 

described, sometimes we hear a message from the Administration 

it’s all of the above except for coal and oil and even sometimes natural gas. We’re very concerned that the Administration does not 

share the same all of the above vision that we share back home. 

As we look at approval of drilling permits back home, the BLM 

approved just 26 drilling permits on federal land. The State of 

Montana last year approved 269. So an order of magnitude of more 

permits approved on state and private land than on our federal 

lands. Yet Montana is comprised of a third of federal lands. 

I was encouraged by your comment about the sage grouse that 

Senator Gardner was talking about. The fact that a one size fits 

all policy is not going to be the best policy to allow the states to 

have primacy as well. 

In Montana we have a lot of checkerboarding where we have 

BLM. We’ve got state sections, and we’ve got federal sections in the 

middle of private land as well. I really hope you will allow the 

states to take the lead on that, work with the States of Montana, 

Colorado, Wyoming, as you alluded to, and not have a one size fits 

all edict coming out of the federal government. 

My question is does the Department of the Interior have a plan 

to increase oil and gas development on federal lands? And if so, is 

there a specific goal? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. I’m going to quickly respond on a couple of the other things you mentioned as well. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. First, I’ve been to Fort Peck, been to the 

Crow, been to Eastern Montana, so not just Western Montana. I 

very much appreciate the challenges that many of those tribes face. 

We are working on a hydro project as well with the Crow. They 

have some frustrations with the Bureau of Reclamation. I’ve got 

both sides of that, and we’ll work on that. 

Senator DAINES. Great, thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. And the treaty rights are—I’m very, very committed to upholding those, as I’m sure the tribes would tell you. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. As it relates to energy development we don’t 

have a specific goal on what the energy development is, but we do 

want to facilitate the development on public lands. We have continued to process APDs, authorizations for permits to drill, in a number of states. And of course, what would be very helpful to us is 

the ability to match supply and demand. Where is the drilling activity and can we have the resources so that we can not only write 

those permits, but also do the needed inspections? 

We were written up by the GAO for not doing appropriate inspections on the 100,000 wells that the BLM is responsible for overseeing, so there is a request in the budget to be able to charge a 

modest fee to industry to cover that, as they do already offshore. 

I don’t think we’d have significant objections. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

That’s just something I would ask of you because that will help 

us move the drilling permits through, move the inspections forward 

so that we can make sure there’s a fair return for the tribes, for 

the taxpayers and so on. We have some pilot offices that have been 

funded by Congress. I think that we did get the ability—— 

Senator DAINES. Mile City—we’ve got one going there. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, you do. 

Senator DAINES. You betcha. 

Secretary JEWELL. And a lot of where the permits get done has 

to do with where the demand is from the companies which they 

aren’t as much concerned about state lines. We certainly are committed to moving forward with due speed on that if we have adequate resources. We can spew statistics at you on what the BLM 

has approved, but they are reducing the amount of time for permitting. There’s a small amount of money in the budget to automate 

the permitting process because right now it’s all paper based which 

doesn’t serve anyone’s interest. We think that that will help us 

speed things up. 

I will also say that coal is an important resource for the country. 

Much of the coal that produces the energy in this country comes 

from your region, more Wyoming than Montana, but certainly you 

both have those assets. 

We do want to make sure there’s a fair return for the taxpayer, 

and we’ve been asked by the GAO to look at this. And we’re looking 

at this as well. But certainly all the above from my perspective and 

I think our budget reflects that, means all of the above. It means 

conventional energy as well as renewable energy, and we’re working on both. 

Senator DAINES. Hydro is not a renewable energy source. Is that 

right? 

Secretary JEWELL. Hydro is a renewable energy source. 

Senator DAINES. By federal definition is it? 

Mr. CONNOR. It is. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah, I think so. 

Senator DAINES. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. We have testified several times that hydro is 

a renewable energy resource. We’ve cleared it through everybody. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s a good thing. 

Senator DAINES. Not by law though is the point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Not by law. 

Senator DAINES. Not by law it’s not renewable which if we 

scratch our heads out in Montana that we look at this incredible 

renewable resource called hydro. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, you guys write the laws, so—— 

Senator DAINES. By law it’s not, but anyway it’s something we 

have to take a look at. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Alright. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thanks much. 

Senator Daines, I was shocked to learn when I came here that 

Congress overrules the laws of nature, and that falling water is not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

a renewable resource. We speak a different language in Idaho, I 

guess. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Madam Secretary, thank you so much. I want to 

talk about sage grouse, of course. You remember the first meeting 

we had you weren’t familiar with the sage grouse. Now you are a 

lot more familiar, I’m sure, than you want to be. 

You will recall the criticism I had at that time, and that was that 

we had two agencies under the Department of the Interior, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM. We were perplexed in 

Idaho that you could have two federal agencies at odds with each 

other within the same department, under the same head and we 

just were not making progress, as you recall. 

Your leadership has changed that dramatically, and I am happy 

about that. You remember the analogy I used that when you headed REI you would not have allowed your marketing department 

and your accounting department to be at each other’s throats without the head knocking some heads together and saying look guys, 

resolve this? 

Unfortunately we are drifting again back in that direction. Before I get into that let me say thank you for coming to Idaho last 

October. Since the federal government owns two-thirds of the state 

it’s only appropriate that you visit us once in a while, and we appreciate that. 

We do things differently. I want to commend your predecessor 

Secretary, at that time, Secretary Salazar, for inviting states to collaborate on the sage grouse issue. Collaboration is a wonderful 

thing. It works, but it only works if people work at it. 

Idaho accepted that invitation, and the governor wisely put together a great collaborative group who sat at a table, worked on 

a plan and your Fish and Wildlife Service had a seat at that table 

as we developed that plan. When you came into office that was 

right at the point where, even though our plan had been developed 

and even though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had signed off 

on it, the BLM said, not so fast. I can’t explain to you how incredibly frustrating that is for us trying to save the sage grouse. 

I mean, that’s our objective. It is a magnificent bird. It deserves 

the attention of government agencies, and it needs to be protected. 

Well, here we go again. On October 27, 2014, Dan Ashe, the Director of the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, wrote a letter to the BLM. Now I don’t understand 

why they communicate in such formal fashion. It would seem to me 

a phone call would be good. 

In any event this is how the letter starts: ‘‘Pursuant to our October 1st, 2014 leadership discussion regarding the federal land management planning process for Greater Sage Grouse, etcetera.’’ We 

are ready to go in Idaho. We have got a plan. We want to work 

with the Federal Government on this plan. 

I understand that the Federal Government and the state work at 

different paces, but this letter raises a new issue for us. It says, 

‘‘This memorandum and associated maps respond to a request from 

the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, to identify a subset of priority habitat most vital to the species persistence within which we 

recommend the strongest levels of protection.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

Where did this come from? We have been at this for years and 

all of a sudden here we go. They now identify a focal area. We need 

to get this done. Focal areas, if there was such a thing, should have 

been identified years ago, and they should have been incorporated 

in the plan so we could move forward. 

We want to move forward but this, again, moves the goal post. 

We were down on the one yard line with the ball and first down. 

All of sudden we look and the goal post is way down the line. 

We have got to stop this stuff. We need to move forward with a 

finalization for a plan. I know you and I have said, the head of the 

BLM has said, the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service has said, 

oh, yes, but then we’re going to get sued. 

Of course we are going to get sued, but we want everybody on 

one side of the table who are pragmatic, who have the goal of saving the sage grouse, who have put together a plan that will do that 

on one side of the table and the nutcases on the other side of the 

table who just want to fight. 

This is not helping. Please, use your leadership. Bring this thing 

together and get our plan finalized where we can move forward 

with actual work on the ground to save the sage grouse. 

I apologize for the passion with this, but I am telling you we are 

incredibly frustrated when the goal posts keep moving on us. We 

need to get this done, and we need to move forward. 

My time is up, but I would like to get a brief response from you 

about what your plans are to try to help us move forward. 

I understand the states are all in a different position, and this 

addressed all states. I wish it would have been state by state, and 

I wish instead at this meeting on October 1st, they had invited the 

Idaho people there to get their hands in on this and maybe we 

would not have wound up where we are. 

Madam Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. Madam Chairman, may I? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. That was October, and now we’re 

in February. I will say that incredible cooperation is going on between the various agencies. One of the things that’s very difficult 

in this job, and Mike experienced it when he ran the Bureau of 

Reclamation, is you’ve got distinct acts under which you operate. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service about long term protection of fish 

and wildlife species and their health within the country. The Bureau of Land Management, multiple use and sustained yield of the 

landscapes and sometimes those do conflict. 

We’ve moved a long way since the letter you referenced. The 

BLM has finalized its plans. They’ve been working closely with the 

states. They’ve been working closely with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Those plans are being finalized right now. I think there were 98 

of them. Lots and lots of environmental impact statements and 

work that’s been done. 

The Secretarial Order on Rangeland Fire, which your Governor 

was very kind at saying some nice words about, is a very key element for Idaho. 

Senator RISCH. It is. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Secretary JEWELL. For parts of Oregon and certainly Nevada as 

well. 

Those are things the Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to 

write on. So I have encouraged people to stay at the table, to not 

engage at letter writing to the extent that they can pick up the 

phone and call each other. I think that you will find that we are 

on the cusp of something that’s pretty incredible here because this 

coalition has come together and the states have come together. 

We’re very close to the goal line, and the goal line is not moving. 

The goal line is scientific information agreed upon between the 

states and the Fish and Wildlife Service, some call it the COT report. We are going to soon have to turn it over to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to make their determination. 

I feel good about where we are, where the states are. It’s been 

a rocky road to get there, but people are at the table working hard. 

And so, I appreciate your passion. I know it has not been an easy 

journey. 

Senator RISCH. First of all I appreciate your leadership on this. 

I really appreciate the fact that you understand that you have got 

two agencies that we really need to bring together. I can tell you 

the message you just gave me I will take back home to the states. 

If indeed that is the case, they do not understand it yet. Hopefully 

we will get to some progress where they will understand it. Again, 

I appreciate your leadership on it. Please appreciate our problems 

with this also. 

Secretary JEWELL. I do. 

Senator RISCH. As we try to move this forward and all of sudden 

we get new terms and new focal areas that nobody has ever heard 

of before, and it is put on the table as we think we are at the goal 

lines. 

So, thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Obviously a great deal of passion about the sage 

grouse. 

Let’s go to Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Jewell, thank you for being with us. There is plenty to 

say that is supportive of your agenda. 

I just had town meetings across Oregon over the last week and 

there is so much support, for example, for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, making it permanent, fully funded. Your leadership on that has been especially helpful. 

I want to talk about a couple of issues that are especially important to Oregon right now because it would be helpful for the public 

to get a sense of your leadership and what’s ahead. 

We finally have a bipartisan bill on Secure Rural School which, 

of course, was written in this room. It was written in this room in 

2000. Senator Larry Craig, I, and a whole host of others were involved, a real life line to resource dependent communities for funding schools and roads and police and basic, basic services. 

It is particularly important that we get mandatory funding for 

PILT back because, as you know, at the end of the year there was 

this one year arrangement for PILT. A lot of rural counties are 

finding that as a result of the complicated PILT formula they’re acVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:12 Jul 08, 2015 Jkt 094046 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A046.XXX A046

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

tually getting less money. It is my understanding that you’re supportive of that. 

Is getting PILT back to being mandatory, linking it to Secure 

Rural Schools the way we did a number of years ago, is that correct? 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. 

A second area that is important to my constituents is the Klamath. We were thrilled that you came out for our launch, and we 

think not only will this be helpful to Oregon, but we think this is 

a model for people coming together to deal with tough water issues 

in the days ahead. 

Can you all commit that this will continue to be an Administration priority? As you know there have been some recent developments with respect to the Mazama Forest in the Basin. We’re going 

to have to figure out how to ensure fair treatment for the tribes. 

The tribes have really stepped up on this issue. Can we count on 

your support and continued interest in this? 

Secretary JEWELL. You certainly can, and I want to complement 

you and members of the Oregon delegation as well as unprecedented cooperation between the tribes and the ranchers and interest that had been on different sides of the table, coming together 

on the Klamath agreement. It would be a real shame if this does 

not get approved through and done. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, it’s my highest priority for that rural area. 

I mean, they have been so hard hit, and to have the farmers come 

together and the ranchers and the fishing families and environmental folks. I think it can, not just help Oregon, but be a national 

model. So we appreciate your leadership. 

Secretary JEWELL. I just want to say Mike was very instrumental 

in that. 

Senator WYDEN. Mike was. 

Secretary JEWELL. And will stay very much at the table on that. 

Senator WYDEN. Mike made many treks to the Klamath, and we 

thank you for it. 

Let’s talk about wildfire funding for a moment. As you know the 

system of funding how we fight wildfires is just broken. What happens is prevention gets short changed, and then as a result of the 

prevention being short changed is it’s gotten drier and hotter. You 

might have a lightning strike. 

What happens is all of a sudden you’ve got an inferno on your 

hands, and then government borrows from the Prevention fund to 

put the fire out. Then the problem gets worse because we’re not 

giving adequate attention to the Prevention fund as we know we 

need to do. 

There is a bipartisan effort that I, Senator Crapo, and a big 

group of Westerners are part of, a big bipartisan group in the 

House is part of it. Tell us how you feel the increased budget certainty provided by this restructuring would help you. 

As you know we’ve got a favorable score from the Budget Office 

because it really shows how valuable it is to preserve the Prevention fund because it means you’re going to have fewer disasters. 

But how would this increased budget certainty be of value to your 

agency, Madam Secretary? 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, thank you for your leadership. The 

bill that you put out there with Senator Crapo and the companion 

bill with Representatives Simpson and Schrader have been enormously helpful. We are fully supportive of those efforts. 

We have, in this budget, about $200 million of the total $13.2 billion amount that is part of the Wildfire funding cap. It would take 

the top one percent of catastrophic wildfires and put them off as 

the disasters that they really are, coming out of the Disaster Funding cap. That would enable us to work with tribes, work with land 

management agencies, to do the important fire prevention and restoration work to prevent wildfires from getting out of control. 

By not doing that, as has been the case for a number of years, 

we’ve spent more and more on suppression and yes, less and less 

on hazardous fuel removal. A great example is the Funny River 

Fire actually in Alaska. Prevention efforts which were not federal, 

I think they were state in that case, but prevention efforts protected a community so that we didn’t have to spend as much on 

suppression to protect those homes or to risk those homes going up 

in smoke. 

We see this all over the place. In the case of the sage grouse, 

being able to proactively reduce the risk of rangeland fire is critical 

to habitat protection. And so, there’s no question we will put the 

money to good use which would ultimately reduce our cost of fighting wildfires. 

Senator WYDEN. Madam Chair, can I get one last question in 

very quickly? 

The CHAIRMAN. Very quickly. 

Senator WYDEN. On the question of coal and coal royalties. 

As you know I’ve been concerned for some time that taxpayers 

aren’t getting their fair share of royalties from coal mined on public 

lands. And we began, when I was Chair of this Committee, an investigation into it. Senator Murkowski and I co-authored a letter 

to you all that the issue be researched. 

I’m encouraged by the rule that you all have put out to stop companies from using subsidiaries to dodge the royalty payments. I 

think we may need to go further. We’re getting additional information, and I think it would be very helpful if you could review a recent report by Headwaters Economics on this. 

Madam Chair, if we could put that report in the record that 

would be good. 

The CHAIRMAN. So moved. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 94046A.029
69 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 94046A.030
70 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 94046A.031
71 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 94046A.032
72 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 94046A.033
73 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 94046A.034
74 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 94046A.035
75 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 94046A.036
76 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 94046A.037
77 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 94046A.038
78 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 94046A.039
79 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 94046A.040
80 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 94046A.041
81 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 94046A.042
82 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 94046A.043
83 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 94046A.044
84 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 94046A.045
85 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 94046A.046
86 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 94046A.047
87 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 94046A.048
88 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 94046A.049
89 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 94046A.050
90 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 94046A.051
91 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 94046A.052
92 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 94046A.053
93 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 94046A.054
94 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 94046A.055
95 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 94046A.056
96 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 94046A.057
97 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 94046A.058
98 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 94046A.059
99 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 94046A.060
100 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 94046A.061
101 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 94046A.062
102 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 94046A.063
103 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 94046A.064
104 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 94046A.065
105 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 94046A.066
106 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 94046A.067
107 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 94046A.068
108 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 94046A.069
109 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 94046A.070
110 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 94046A.071
111 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 94046A.072
112 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 94046A.073
113 

Senator WYDEN. I’ll just wrap up with that request. 

Madam Secretary, if you and I could have further conversation 

on this I’d appreciate it. 

Secretary JEWELL. I’d be delighted. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Secretary Jewell, for joining us today and for all you do. 

I want to talk to you about the PILT program for a minute, Payment In Lieu of Taxes. On the Department of the Interior website 

there’s an explanation that the PILT program involves, ‘‘payments 

to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due 

to non taxable, federal lands within their boundaries.’’ 

Based on this explanation, I assume you agree with that definition, with that description of the program? 

Secretary JEWELL. (Nods.) 

Senator LEE. Based on that you would identify this, not as a 

handout. It’s not a special interest, carve out or something like 

that. This is a payment we make to local governments in order to 

help make them whole or at least in some way offset the burden 

of having non taxable, federal land within their jurisdiction. Is that 

right? 

Secretary JEWELL. That’s correct. I agree with that. 

Senator LEE. Now the 2016 budget proposes a yearlong extension 

of the PILT program. Then there’s a statement in there to the effect that while we’re doing this we also need to look at a sustainable, long term funding solution and that a sustainable, long term 

funding solution needs to be developed. 

Can you talk to us about your policy priorities or how you framed 

this issue as you look to make this a sustainable program over the 

long haul and tell me whether you would consider tying some federal resource to this whether it’s perhaps revenue from timber harvested on federal lands or selling excess federal land to make it 

sustainable or something like that? How do you do that? 

Secretary JEWELL. Well thank you for the question and for highlighting the importance of PILT. As Senator Wyden did with Secure Rural Schools, we know this is really important. 

We know that many of these communities rely on this money for 

the public services that they provide to the rural residents but also 

to the visitors to those communities. 

This budget, as I said in the front end, is a forward looking budget. It assumes that we move beyond sequestration. It assumes that 

we make investments in the future of this country. 

I think as you’ve seen over the last year with continued economic 

growth in the country, when we invest in this country, we see a 

brighter future and people appreciate that. 

Finding a long term, mandatory funding source for PILT is very 

important, just as I believe in support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has been talked about at this session. We 

have lots of revenues that are collected on federal waters, for example. The funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund was 

intended to come from offshore oil and gas revenues. We collect 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

something like $14.7 billion, a lion’s share of that from offshore oil 

and gas revenues. 

It is possible that that funding source could be dedicated to PILT 

and Secure Rural Schools as well as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We believe it should be mandatory. We’d like to work 

with you on solutions to make PILT mandatory so it’s not a worry 

every single year or not subject to sequestration as we felt in 2013. 

Senator LEE. That’s great. Thank you, I appreciate that, and I 

appreciate your willingness to put a high priority on this. 

My personal view is that it’s got to be a high priority, and while 

you’ve got a lot of priorities to manage it’s a difficult thing. I do 

think that PILT funding and making sure that it’s fully funded, 

that it’s adequately funded, that we’re making adequate PILT payments, certainly ought to be of a greater priority than say other 

priorities like acquiring more federal land. 

At a time when the federal government owns nearly one-third of 

the landmass in the United States, more than two-thirds of the 

land in my state and where disproportionately the land owned by 

the federal government that is bringing about these economic burdens on states and local taxing jurisdictions or disproportionately 

in the Western United States, it makes it a high priority. 

On February 10th of this year Utah Governor Gary Herbert 

issued an executive order to further facilitate the protection of the 

Greater Sage Grouse. Now, as you know, the State of Utah has already developed a conservation plan for the sage grouse, one that, 

I think, addresses a lot of the competing interests and certainly addresses the most significant threats to the population of this bird. 

Can you tell me whether the Fish and Wildlife Service has endorsed this plan and what the Department is doing to coordinate 

with the State of Utah? Can you also give me your commitment 

that you’ll work with Governor Herbert in giving this a chance to 

succeed? 

Secretary JEWELL. Certainly. I have been working with Governor 

Herbert, and I’ll continue working with him. I’m aware of his executive order, and I very much appreciate it. 

I saw him just a couple days ago at the National Governor’s Association and asked if he could remove the 2017 expiration date because the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to look over the long 

term to make sure that they can rely on the executive order in 

order to make their determination. He said he wasn’t aware of that 

and would certainly look into it. 

So I appreciate—that’s the kind of cooperation I have, not just 

with Governor Herbert, but with all the Western Governors and 

the states as we have been very much at the table multiple times 

a year to address what’s unique to Utah, what’s unique to Wyoming, what’s unique to Colorado and Nevada and Oregon and Montana and the other states. 

So you certainly have my word I’ll stay at the table. I’m keeping 

my teams at the table. The BLM plans are being finalized right 

now. I think it will be in the spring that those final records of decision come out. And then the Fish and Wildlife Service will have all 

of that, the state plans, the BLM plans, to take into account as 

they make their final listing determination. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

But they’ve been at the table all along, so no surprises, no secrets. We are finally getting information shared with us from the 

states which is very useful including Utah because they’ll need all 

hands on deck to make the right decision and we are very, very 

hopeful that the kinds of efforts made by Utah and other states 

will give them the confidence they need to not feel a listing is warranted. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate that, 

and I have great respect for Governor Herbert and his efforts in 

this area. 

Secretary JEWELL. I do too. 

Senator LEE. I appreciate your willingness to work with him and 

give that a chance to succeed. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will do a quick second round of 

questions. I appreciate the time that you’ve given us this morning, 

Secretary Jewell. 

Because so many members have mentioned the sage grouse and 

this is fortunately an issue that we’re not dealing with up north 

and want to keep it that way, in response to Senator Barrasso’s 

question about the listing, you had said, Madam Secretary, that 

you were bound by the court to render a determination even 

though Congress had banned the issuance of the rule. But isn’t it 

true that the settlement provides that such determinations are subject to appropriations? Because that was the language that we had 

included in the appropriations last year as part of a rider. So it’s 

still subject to appropriations. 

Secretary JEWELL. We’ll look into the specific language, Senator. 

My understanding is that Fish and Wildlife Service can say we believe a listing is warranted or not warranted, but they have no appropriations to write a rule about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Correct. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s subject to the appropriations. Anyway, I 

wanted to make sure that we had cleared that up because I 

thought as long as it is subject to appropriations and those have 

not been made, you are not able to move forward with it. 

I wanted to ask you about the cleanup of environmental contamination on lands that have been transferred to Alaska Native corporations under the Native Land Claims Settlement Act. 

Back in 2013 I asked the Department what they were doing to 

speed up the cleanup. This had been in response to a study that 

had been done way back in 1998. It proposed a six point effort to 

speed up the cleaning of contaminated land. In January of last year 

you sent me a letter that proposed that the Department was going 

to update its contaminated lands survey and then address the 

other recommendations coming out of that 1998 letter. 

I am trying to understand where we are in this timeline. I have 

been led to believe that the updated list would be finalized this fall. 

There were more than 650 sites on the old list. We haven’t received 

that yet. 

The question to you this morning is when might we expect an 

updated, comprehensive list of the contaminated sites? Further to 

that point, what is the proposal or what is the plan within DOI to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

really facilitate and move forward with speeding up and funding 

the contamination for the cleanup on these native lands? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I’ll have to get back to you on the 

timing. I’m not exactly sure. I had brought up date from the BLM 

that they are assessing the sites. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Secretary JEWELL. And I know they have been prioritizing those. 

Some are native conveyances and some are not. So we’re sorting 

that out first. 

And they’re also in the process of identifying potentially responsible parties that could be responsible for the cleanup, if there is 

a responsible party, clearly that’s where we go first as opposed to 

the federal Treasury. So I will need to get back to you on when the 

list is going to be updated and we’ll get to you with some specifics 

on their plans, if that’s okay? 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be appreciated. 

We did have language within the current spending authorization 

that requires the Department to report by June of this year about 

the comprehensive inventory and what the plan is. But again, I 

think you sensed the priority when you were up in Alaska in addition to the legacy wells which we have had plenty of opportunity 

to discuss what that plan is and how we’re going to be able to clean 

up that mess caused by the federal government. 

We have these native lands that have been conveyed pursuant to 

ANSCA. And again, just a frustration with a decades-long delay in 

addressing this. 

Please know that this is a priority for me. It’s a priority for, I 

believe, the entire delegation, and it’s clearly a priority for our native people. 

One final question for you and this is a question that I am posing 

at every budget hearing this year, and that relates to the Administration’s proposal for an Arctic strategy. The implementation plan 

for the Administration under the National Strategy for the Arctic 

region has the Department of the Interior designated as the lead 

agency in five different project areas. You are also designated as 

a supporting agency for numerous other projects. 

So the question is, what funding is included in the President’s 

budget for the five projects that DOI is the lead agency as well as 

for any other projects that the Department may be involved with 

with the Arctic region? 

Secretary JEWELL. Mike and I are scrambling for our notes on 

this. So, yes, as we take over chairmanship of the Arctic Council 

which is largely driven by the Department of State we certainly intend to be at the table on that. I don’t think this—let me see if I’ve 

got the numbers here. [Laughter.] 

Okay. No, Senator, rather than trying to run through this because this is very broad. Let me get back to you, specifically on the 

Arctic Council work, because this—oh, here we go. 

I don’t know if this addresses your question. Arctic funding only pretty large numbers. $145 million in total. That’s about a $3 million increase, but that includes everything that we’re doing up 

there, the offshore oil and gas activity, the research activity, the 

USGS, even Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. I don’t 

think that’s specific to your question. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

The CHAIRMAN. Offset—— 

Secretary JEWELL. So let me get back specifically on the Arctic 

Council work and those committees. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate a further breakdown. I had 

my folks scrub it pretty carefully. To be honest with you, we 

weren’t able to find much that acknowledges that we do have this 

increased role. It is not just, as we assume the Chair of the Council, it is leading in the Arctic going forward and recognizing that 

DOI, again, is the lead agency in several of these different areas, 

five of these areas. 

We are trying to figure out are we doing anything or is it just 

window dressing? So if you can help me identify that, that would 

be greatly appreciated. 

Secretary JEWELL. We’re happy to do that. And I will say that 

it’s very much on our radar, the USGS’ radar. And so some of what 

we may be doing is steering existing resources to focus on the Arctic so that we can be prepared when the Arctic Council happens. 

We’ll get back to you with more specifics. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will go to Senator Cantwell and then Senator 

Hoeven and Senator King. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

I will say in general I am very impressed, Secretary Jewell, by 

the level of specificity you are giving to all our questions because 

we are covering a broad range of subjects. And so I’m going to 

throw three other ones at you. [Laughter.] 

First of all the Columbia River Treaty is hugely important to the 

Pacific Northwest. Again, I don’t know whether Mr. Connor wants 

to take this or not, but what can we get from the Department of 

the Interior about clarifying these interests so we can move forward on a proposal through the Administration? Obviously, Interior has to weigh in with the White House and the State Department and we want to make sure that that’s happening so that we 

can elevate the discussions with Canada. 

Secondly I want to get your thoughts on working with the Department of Energy on the finalization of the Manhattan Project 

implementation. You mentioned other park projects and their significance, but we want to ensure that the Park Service works closely with the local community in planning that park. And so we want 

to see if you can commit to finalizing that by the end of the year. 

And then lastly, my colleague, Senator Wyden, brought up, 

again, this process of BLM coal valuation and wanted to get a 

sense whether you could commit to your process by the end of the 

year on that, on the royalty issue. So? 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. Great. Let me turn to Mike on the Columbia River Treaty, and then I’ll address the other two. 

Mr. CONNOR. Just very quickly on the Columbia River Treaty. 

The Secretary endorsed the regional recommendation that we move 

forward with modernizing the treaty, and we’ve informed the State 

Department. So that’s—when that process and notification to Canada—when that’s going to occur, I’m not quite sure. 

But with respect to the regional group we have a framework for 

modernizing the treaty that we’d like to proceed with dealing with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

the services they provide with respect to flood control, with respect 

to the ecosystem services and the fisheries’ issues that we would 

like to include in those discussions. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you’ve sent that to State? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, we have. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay, quickly on the Manhattan Project. This 

came under the NDAA. There wasn’t money in the current budget. 

We are pushing DOE for its support on this, and I know that the 

National Park Service will be very, very interested engaging local 

communities. And that will be part of the effort. 

So, I can’t answer whether we’ll have it finalized by the end of 

the year because we’ve got to cobble together some resources from 

somewhere to look at it because it’s not currently in the budget request because the budget was done before it came up. So we are 

working with DOE. We’re going to need their financial support to 

do this. 

Senator CANTWELL. I just talked to Secretary Moniz at last 

week’s hearing about this. So—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Great. Did he commit? [Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, he did. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. So the Park Service does engage with local 

communities. I’ll make sure this is on their radar, and we’ll do our 

best to get it done by the end of the year and get it in the next 

budget cycle so that we can move forward. It’s an important opportunity. 

On coal valuation we just released the draft, I think, on January 

6th. We just extended the comment period to May 8th because 

there are—it’s complicated and we’re going to have a lot of comments. So whether we can get it across the finish line by the end 

of the year is questionable just because it depends on how many 

comments we get because we have to respond to all of those comments. 

We certainly are focused on getting it done while I’m in this 

chair and while the President is in his chair. It’s been very important and we’ve heard about it from the GAO and our own IG, as 

you point out. We want to make sure that the American taxpayer 

is getting a fair return. 

We’ve also had extensive consultations with industry, and the 

proposal that we’ve put out there actually streamlines and makes 

the process more efficient and provides more certainty on that end 

while also providing, you know, more certainty that will get the return that we should be getting as American people. 

So, it’s going to depend on the comments, but we are certainly 

focused to getting this done. I think just conversing with my colleague here, end of the year may be tight given the time frame on 

the comment period. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

I appreciate both you and the Ranking Member holding this 

hearing today, and I want to thank both the Secretary and Deputy 

Secretary for being here. 

First, I want to thank Secretary Connor for work that you’re 

doing to try to help and facilitate the Dakota Access Pipeline. So, 

that’s just to thank you. I want to acknowledge you right up front. 

It is very important, and we appreciate it. 

I’d like to ask Secretary Jewell about BLM in regard to coal leasing. I was just out in the coal fields and they’re actually moving 

one of these big drag lines. It’s a ten million pound drag line and 

they’re going to put it on carts and move it. If you can imagine 

that, it’s just unbelievable. 

While I was out there they showed me a tract of land that 

they’re in the process of leasing and it includes 350 mineral acres 

owned by BLM. BLM does not own the surface acres and it’s only 

350 mineral acres, but BLM has indicated to the mining company 

there that it’s going to take seven to ten years to get an approval. 

For heaven’s sake, that’s just totally unrealistic. If in fact that’s 

the case, the company will mine right around it. Again, BLM 

doesn’t even own the surface acres. And they’ll just mine right 

around it because the private leaseholders, you know, they’ll have 

that squared away probably in a year or less. And that’s typically 

what BLM has done too. 

So I’m absolutely flabbergasted as to what possibly could be 

going on here. Do you have any idea? 

Secretary JEWELL. I don’t know that circumstance at all. Is the 

surface acre owner supportive of the mining activity? 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator HOEVEN. And there’s mined land all around there and 

reclaimed land all around there. In fact the reason that it’s coming 

into place is because they’re moving this huge drag line. And 

they’ve reclaimed the land all around it and you know, you, of 

course you’ve been to North Dakota. Thank you so much. We’d welcome you out anytime to see it. 

But the reclaimed land is beautiful. It’s being hayed and grazed 

and there’s geese all over. So now they’re moving to this new track, 

and here’s 350 acres and BLM doesn’t even own the surface acres. 

The private owners, of course, want it mined. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator HOEVEN. Because it’s a lot of revenue and it’s revenue 

to the federal government. But seven to ten years and then they 

wanted something like $230,000 or $250,000 to go through the 

study to determine if they could even lease it out. That’s never 

going to happen. All they’re going to do is mine around you, and 

then the Federal Government is just out the revenue. It doesn’t 

make any sense at all. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Senator, it’s not necessarily easy to do 

business on Federal/public land because of the requirements that 

we have as a Federal land management agency. It triggers NEPA. 

It triggers and environmental impact assessment. 

And so, I will talk to the BLM about this specific project and talk 

about the time frame they’re talking about, the seven to ten years 

that you referenced, and see if there is anything they can do to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

speed that up. But I will say the rules are different. Doing business 

on federal lands based on the laws that we have to abide by. 

Senator HOEVEN. And we know Neil Kornze. We have a good relationship with him. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator HOEVEN. But you’ve been doing it in a year and now 

seven to ten years? 

Secretary JEWELL. On coal we have been doing it on new sites? 

Senator HOEVEN. Yes. You’ve been doing it in a year, bigger 

tracts. I think they just did a tract out there that was over one 

thousand acres and it took less than nine months to a year to do. 

Secretary JEWELL. We’ll take a look at it. 

Senator HOEVEN. Yeah. So something is going on. 

Secretary JEWELL. Okay. 

Senator HOEVEN And again, we know Neil and we work with him 

but something needs to be checked on here. 

Oil lease. We’re still working to expedite that process. You’re still 

running 180 to 270 days for an approval on BLM land verses a few 

weeks on private. 

And Jamie Connolly out there is fantastic. Anything you can do 

to help her, help us, please do. 

Secretary JEWELL. Let me just say, I said this earlier, but there 

is money in this ’16 budget to automate our BLM applications for 

permits to drill. It’s paper-based, and it’s more custom than we 

would like it to be. 

We’ve got a pilot going in Carlsbad, New Mexico that I went and 

took a look at. We’ve got a pilot going in Vernal, Utah. We’d like 

to take the learnings from that and apply it, and that will help our 

folks expedite their process. 

I’ll also say that oftentimes in that 180 to 270 days is time that 

the permit is back with the company providing information we 

need. But if there’s a way we could work on getting that dealt with 

up front so there isn’t the to-ing and fro-ing, I think that that will 

help. 

And there is money in the budget to do that along with a request 

that we are able to charge fees to industry, not only for APDs but 

also for inspections because we can’t get out and inspect 100,000 

wells that we have. So that’s part of this budget request as well. 

Senator HOEVEN. Great. Those are exactly the kinds of things 

that Jamie has been working with us and our industry on. So anything you can let her do as a pilot project, I would recommend it 

because she’s got a good relationship out there. 

Secretary JEWELL. Right. 

Senator HOEVEN. With industry and she is creative and she does 

try to do things. So I hope some of these dollars and/or programs 

could be moved her way to try and help us improve the process. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well this budget lets us roll it out everywhere. 

And so—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Good. I think she’d be a great one to help you 

do it. 

Secretary JEWELL. She would. 

Senator HOEVEN. And we would like to work with you on that. 

Secretary JEWELL. Great. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Senator HOEVEN. The last thing, if I can beg the indulgence of 

the Chairman for one more question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Quickly. 

Senator HOEVEN. Hydraulic. When are you coming out with your 

hydraulic fracturing rules? 

Secretary JEWELL. Soon. A specific date I can’t give you, but we 

have gone through our extensive process. We’ve revised the rules, 

and we’re just waiting for final clearance. So it will be soon. 

Senator HOEVEN. Where you can work with the states I strongly 

encourage it. We have done that with the tribes, and it is working 

well. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator HOEVEN. And so I just would ask for your willingness to 

work with the states. 

Secretary JEWELL. We will do that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Secretary, I just want to associate my comments with 

that of Senator Portman on the long eared bat issue. I think this 

is real opportunity for the service to really link closely the remedy 

with the science. The results of an overly broad structure of regulation as a result of any kind of listing would be just, I believe, catastrophic across the country because the habitat is so broad. 

I believe in the Endangered Species Act, but we have to be careful how we administer it that we don’t undermine public support 

for it. I think this is a good test case. So I urge you, again, associate my comments with Senator Portman. 

Secondly, you may have noticed out of the corner of your eye I 

was playing with this. I wasn’t texting or tweeting. I was sadly trying to find an app to buy a park pass, and when you put in National Park pass, to my dismay you get Australia National Park 

pass. You don’t get USA park pass. 

So then I went to the website and found that I can buy a park 

pass I didn’t go all the way through it, but just below are the most 

dreaded words on any website, ‘‘If you need your pass within ten 

days or less, it is recommended that you either purchase your pass 

at the first site you visit or request expedited shipping service for 

your order.’’ 

Come on. You have to mail the pass out in 2015? I hope I am 

wrong about that, and if I am I will be delighted to be corrected. 

If you have got to go online, buy the park pass and then somebody 

has to mail it to you and you are not able to print it yourself, make 

it printable. Again, I hope I am wrong. 

The point is, let’s say by June 1st, let’s have a National Park 

app, like Starbucks has an app. Everybody has an app. You wave 

your phone at the kiosk on the way into the National Park, and 

you get the fees and everybody is happy, and it is a good customer 

experience. 

So how about giving me a commitment that you will get us a National Park app within a couple of months remembering that Eisenhower retook Europe in 11 months? [Laughter.] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

Secretary JEWELL. Point well taken, Senator King. 

As a person that did a lot of business in electronic commerce I 

can tell you that it actually requires investments to be able to do 

what you’re suggesting. The Park Service budget for this year requests significant amount of money, overall, to improve our technological support. 

We are in the process as the President announced a few days 

ago, of something called Every Kid in a Park, and that is automating a pass for fourth graders and their families to use parks 

for free. We are working with some wizards in the White House 

that have come from private industry, Google, specifically, and 

other similar firms to help us pull that together. 

If there is an opportunity to automate what you’re talking about 

for others we’ll look at it, but I will also tell you that it’s very expensive. Of having worked at REI, it’s very expensive to actually 

do automated and cross checks and tying into credit cards and all 

of those things. I think perhaps an appropriate way forward is to 

work with private industry to facilitate the sale of those park 

passes so we can lean into that technology that’s there. 

We’re behind in every department of the Interior and perhaps a 

lot of parts of the federal government in the use of technology from 

automating our oil and gas permits to facilitating visits to the National Parks. I do have National Park apps on my phone. They 

aren’t provided by the National Park Service even though—— 

Senator KING. Individual. 

Secretary JEWELL. The information is—— 

Senator KING. Individual parks. 

Secretary JEWELL. Ah, no, actually NPCA has an app that I use 

that’s got lots of information. 

Senator KING. Oh, that’s the one I just downloaded. That’s for all 

the parks, but it’s a private site. 

Secretary JEWELL. It’s private, yeah. That’s right. It’s a non-profit organization. 

Senator KING. Well, you get the point. 

Secretary JEWELL. I do get the point. 

Senator KING. And if you need more money to do it. This is basic 

customer service. 

Secretary JEWELL. Yeah. 

Senator KING. If you need more money to do it, tell us. And if 

what’s in the budget isn’t sufficient because I just think, as I said 

before, there’s money left on the table here. This would pay for 

itself, probably, in a year in terms of increased revenues to the Department based upon easier access to park passes. 

Secretary JEWELL. This is certainly something we’ll look into, 

and I appreciate your point. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. We are not nearly as automated as we would 

aspire to be. 

Senator KING. Good. Thank you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Good hearing. There have been a lot of different questions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

I appreciate what you are saying though, Senator King, about 

making it easier to access the parks. Given that we have got this 

centennial coming next year, I have had long conversations already 

with John Jarvis about the goal of getting more people into the 

parks. My response back is well we’ve got to figure out then how 

we are going to deal with the maintenance issues, because I do not 

want families coming to one of their national parks for the very 

first time and seeing that it looks shoddy. 

We’ve got some work to do here in terms of how we are going to be dealing with this $13 billion backlog that is out there. I happen to think we might be able to get a little bit more creative with 

our LWCF fund instead of purchasing more federal land. I think 

we might want to look to that as perhaps a funding opportunity. 

Madam Secretary, I will be submitting a host of other questions 

for the record as I think other members will. 

I just want to put you on alert. I have been to a couple different 

events in the past several weeks where large gatherings of hunters 

come together, and the most talked about issue was the filming on 

public lands, whether it is our Park Service lands, our Forest Service lands, and being able to film. 

It is clear to me that there is an inconsistency that doesn’t help 

and real frustration with those who want to be able to show our 

amazing public lands through capturing videos and photographs 

and filming and the requirements that are being placed on them. 

I will conclude my remarks here today with a statement that you 

just used in response to a comment from Senator Hoeven. You stated, ‘‘it’s not easy to do development on federal lands.’’ I think this 

is where you hear the greatest frustration from those of us who 

have such great percentages of our states that are federally held. 

I appreciate that there are differences, but it ought not be next 

to impossible. In many instances that’s seemingly what our issue 

is. So how we make it easier and better and more fair to do development on federal land is what, I think, we need to get to because 

as Senator Hoeven says, you’re just going to go around your Federal lands and then we get no revenue to the Treasury. It just does 

not make sense, so we need to work in that regard. 

With that, I appreciate you have given the Committee a lot of 

time. Senator Cantwell, if you want to have the final word? 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I would just say thank you, Madam 

Chair, for this hearing. I think a lot of members showed up and 

we had a lot of input and a lot of questions across the board. 

I get your point about Federal lands. And yes, I am sure that 

there is a higher percentage in Alaska than in Washington State. 

But in Washington State we get a lot of revenue from those public 

lands and so that’s been a big benefit to us. 

I definitely want to work with you as we move forward on trying 

to think about an energy package and what we can do together to 

bolster our economies and to work together on policies that can 

move us forward. 

I feel like we had a broad range of things brought forward here 

today. And I certainly appreciate the witnesses and this particular 

budget proposal. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(125) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 94046A.074
127 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 94046A.075
128 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 94046A.076
129 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 94046A.077
130 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 94046A.078
131 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 94046A.079
132 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 94046A.080
133 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 94046A.081
134 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 94046A.082
135 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 94046A.083
136 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 94046A.084
137 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 94046A.085
138 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 94046A.086
139 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 94046A.087
140 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 94046A.088
141 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 94046A.089
142 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 94046A.090
143 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 94046A.091
144 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 94046A.092
145 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 94046A.093
146 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 94046A.094
147 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 94046A.095
148 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 94046A.096
149 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 94046A.097
150 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 94046A.098
151 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 94046A.099
152 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 94046A.100
153 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 94046A.101
154 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 94046A.102
155 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 94046A.103
156 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 94046A.104
157 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 94046A.105
158 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 94046A.106
159 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 94046A.107
160 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 94046A.108
161 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 94046A.109
162 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 94046A.110
163 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 94046A.111
164 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 94046A.112
165 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 94046A.113
166 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 94046A.114
167 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 94046A.115
168 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 94046A.116
169 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 94046A.117
170 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 94046A.118
171 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 94046A.119
172 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 94046A.120
173 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 94046A.121
174 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 94046A.122
175 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 94046A.123
176 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 94046A.124
177 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 94046A.125
178 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 94046A.126
179 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 94046A.127
180 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 94046A.128
181 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 94046A.129
182 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 94046A.130
183 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 94046A.131
184 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 94046A.132
185 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 94046A.133
186 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 94046A.134
187 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 94046A.135
188 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 94046A.136
189 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 94046A.137
190 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 94046A.138
191 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 94046A.139