U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

26–075 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–315 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 20, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

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 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

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

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESS 

Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................... 5 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill: 

Chart entitled ‘‘Louisiana’s 2017 Draft Coastal Master Plan’’ ..................... 24 

Chart entitled ‘‘Predicted Land Change: Future Without Action/Year 50/ 

Medium Scenario’’ ......................................................................................... 26 

Chart entitled ‘‘Predicted Land Change: Future Without Action/Year 50/ 

High Scenario’’ .............................................................................................. 27 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin: 

Map entitled ‘‘Proposed Acquisition: Rimrock Rose Ranch’’ ......................... 53 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

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

San Miguel County (New Mexico) Board of County Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 42 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, et al.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 40 

Zinke, Hon. Ryan: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 8 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 59 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 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. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will 

come to order. 

We are here this morning to consider the President’s budget request for the Department of the Interior (DOI) for Fiscal Year 

2018. This is the second of three budget hearings before our Committee this year, following the Forest Service last week and the Department of Energy which is coming up on Thursday. 

Secretary Zinke, welcome back to the Committee for your first 

appearance since our bipartisan vote in favor of your confirmation 

on March 1st. It was nice to be able to give you the official tally 

sheet this morning, making it ‘‘officially’’ official. 

I want to start by noting that you have taken on some tough 

tasks at the Department, including some challenges that really 

have gone unaddressed for years. I think you are off to a good 

start, and I appreciate that. 

I have enjoyed working with you during the early months of your 

tenure as Secretary. I truly appreciated the opportunity to host you 

and some members here on the Committee in Alaska a couple 

weeks ago. We had meetings in Anchorage. We were up on the 

North Slope, looking at our considerable potential up there, and we 

attended a Memorial Day ceremony at the Veteran’s Memorial at 

Byers Lake. It was a very important and, I think, a very productive 

time while you were in the state. 

Our hearing today actually coincides with a big milestone for 

Alaska. Today is the 40th anniversary of the first oil moving 

through our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). It was on this 

day back in 1977 that our 800-mile-long pipeline carried the first 

of what is now more than 17 billion barrels of oil south to Valdez. 

We had an opportunity while you were in Alaska to be at the 

start of the pipeline—mile zero—along with Senator Barrasso and 
2 

Senator Daines of our Committee and a couple others. I believe you 

saw why Alaskans say that TAPS is not just a pipeline, it is truly 

our economic lifeline. You wasted no time signing a Secretarial 

Order that will help us begin to refill that important asset, and 

your Department’s budget request includes a number of proposals 

that will continue to help Alaska get back on track. The Administration has requested a total of $11.7 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of the Interior in 

FY18. Overall, that is a reduction of more than $1 billion from the 

current level and it is in line with the Administration’s effort to 

shift funding to defense needs. 

Know that we are going to be reviewing all of the cuts that this 

budget proposes very, very carefully. I do not expect many of them 

to become a reality, especially those that target popular programs, 

but I will also say that the positives, in my view, outweigh the negatives. For every item that many of us will not be able to support, 

there is another one that we can. I have not been able to make that 

statement for quite a while now, so it is good to be able to say it. 

A good example is in the Administration’s decision to seek to end 

offshore revenue sharing for the Gulf Coast states, something that 

my colleague at the end of the row here is clearly engaged on. Like 

most Alaskans, I want to expand revenue sharing rather than end 

it, so frankly, I do not see that proposal going anywhere. 

But it is also clear that the Administration understands that we 

need to strengthen our energy security because I see proposals for 

both a new five-year leasing program which will hopefully restore 

access to Alaska’s Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as well as 

a proposal to open the non-wilderness portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to responsible production. 

I have been asked a couple times in recent weeks, why is now 

the right time to open up the 1002 area? So I want to take a moment to explain why, I believe, this is so important for us to act 

on. 

First of all, it is critical to understand that we are talking about 

a part of ANWR that Congress explicitly set aside for oil and gas 

exploration. In 1987, 30 years ago this year, the Federal Government recommended it be opened for that purpose. Today we are at 

a place in Alaska where we have the highest unemployment rate 

in the country right now—we need more jobs, we have a dire state 

budget, we need more revenue, and with global oil discoveries falling but global demand projected to increase, we know that the 

world is going to need more oil. 

So what will opening the 1002 area deliver? By developing just 

about one-ten-thousandth of the refuge, just 2,000 surface acres in 

an area roughly the size of South Carolina, we can create those 

new jobs. We can generate tens of billions of dollars of new revenues. We can bring energy online, right when we need it, to 

strengthen our security, strengthen our competitiveness. This is 

something that most Alaskans, more than 70 percent, strongly support. 

I also appreciate the Administration taking a deliberative and a 

constructive approach on a potential royalty for hard rock minerals. 

I will be interested to see the results of the study that DOI is now 

conducting. But with our mineral security in a perilous state and 
3 

our nation importing at least 50 percent of 50 different minerals, 

our first goal must be to do no harm and that is exactly what I see 

here. 

The Administration’s proposal to extend Payment in Lieu of 

Taxes (PILT) is another good sign. I would note, however, that 

PILT should be mandatory and it should not be subject to an 

across-the-board cut, not unless the Federal Government is willing 

to divest some of its lands and allow local governments to find alternative means to recoup their lost property tax base. 

So again, while I do not agree with everything in this request, 

I think it is better than what we have seen in recent years. It does 

not rely on budget gimmicks; it asks us to look for areas where we 

can cut spending—which we will do; it focuses on taking care of the 

lands that the Federal Government already owns rather than continuing to buy more; and it will help Western states, particularly 

Alaska, to increase the responsible production of our natural resources. 

So again, Secretary Zinke, I thank you for being here. I thank 

you for the steps that you are taking to help restore Alaska’s trust 

in the Department. 

With that, Senator Cantwell, I turn to you for your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This morning we are reviewing the President’s proposed budget 

for the Department of the Interior. Overall, President Trump’s 

budget is proposing to cut funding at the Department of the Interior by $1.8 billion, a 13 percent decrease from current fiscal year 

funding. 

This budget would be devastating to our national parks, wildlife 

refuges and other public lands, and it betrays the Secretary’s trust 

responsibility to Native tribes. 

The budget gives us a very clear indication of President Trump’s 

and Secretary Zinke’s priorities. Unfortunately, these priorities put 

the interests of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the public interest 

by prioritizing onshore and offshore development and cutting funds 

for all other priorities. 

The budget also makes clear the Trump Administration’s intention to disregard science and undermine conservation. 

Let me run through a few of those low-lights. 

Just one year after our National Park Centennial, this budget 

would cut almost $400 million from the Park Service budget. It 

would result in cutting more than 1,000 full-time employees. And 

according to the Department’s own math, ‘‘nearly 90 percent of 

parks would reduce their current staffing levels, leading to a reduction of services to the public.’’ 

Secretary Zinke’s proposal also uses a budget gimmick to try to 

obscure the fact that it is cutting the Land and Water Conservation 

program by 85 percent, $61 million down from $400 million. This 

is our nation’s most successful land conservation program, which 

85 Senators voted to make permanent just last year. Suffice it to 

say, this budget would pump the brakes on a booming outdoor 
4 

recreation economy, all in favor of industries that have had trouble 

competing in today’s marketplace. 

Meanwhile, the Administration’s war on science is also on full 

display. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would be cut by 15 

percent, or $163 million. We are talking about water and climate 

science. We are also talking about USGS’ work on natural hazards, 

including earthquakes and volcano warning systems that are vital 

to public safety. 

Secretary Zinke’s proposal would also cut 11 percent, $371 million, from an already woefully underfunded Bureau of Indian Affairs. These cuts would significantly reduce funding for tribal education programs and social services. This is unacceptable, and it is 

a betrayal of our trust responsibilities to tribes. 

Finally, I suppose I should not be surprised the Administration 

is proposing to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil 

drilling. It has been attempted by every Republican President since 

the 1980s, but that does not mean that it is right. 

I know that this will be something that we will have continued 

discussion on, but I think it is also important, since this is the first 

time that Secretary Zinke has been back before the Committee 

since his confirmation, that we raise a few other issues. 

My colleague, Senator Murray, and I are particularly concerned 

about your national monument strategy, concerned about the Hanford Reach National Monument in the State of Washington. 

But it is also clear that there are many other areas. 

It took the Trump Administration less than 100 days to launch 

its unprecedented war on 111 years of bipartisan land conservation—which began with President Roosevelt’s leadership. The most 

glaring example is an ongoing attack on the Antiquities Act in general, and Bears Ears National Monument in particular. Trying to 

roll back Bears Ears is a taxpayer waste, especially at a time when 

the Administration is proposing significant staff cutbacks. In my 

opinion, Secretary Zinke’s recent decision to propose another management designation for Bears Ears is an affront to tribes and the 

Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. These tribes have spent years 

working to protect these lands. I believe that any action by this Administration to undermine the protection for Bears Ears or any 

other national monument is illegal, and I will strongly oppose any 

legislative attempt to weaken this monument status. 

Secretary Zinke and the Administration are also attempting to 

unilaterally suspend rules that have already gone into effect like 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Methane Rule. Last week, 

the Department announced its legally dubious decision to suspend 

the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule. This is a common-sense 

rule that implements a 97-year-old requirement to prevent waste 

of federal natural gas. Many people here understand that my colleagues in the Senate just voted on this recently. But instead of following what the United States Senate has said should be done, the 

Department is trying to abandon hundreds of pages of environmental analysis. 

I want to be clear. My colleague, Senator Udall, and I are sending you a letter today saying that you must follow the Administrative Procedure Act. You cannot just change this rule without notice 
5 

and without comment. You cannot just make up your own new regulation without a due process. 

So clearly, we have a lot to discuss today. I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s statements, but know that these important 

issues of our public lands will be defended and we will have an 

open discussion about our path forward. 

I thank the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

We are joined this morning, again, by the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Ryan Zinke. He is also joined at the table this 

morning by Ms. Olivia Barton Ferriter, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Budget, Finance, Performance and Acquisition and 

also Denise Flanagan, Director of Office and Budget. It is my understanding that only the Secretary will be offering remarks this 

morning. Is that correct? 

Secretary ZINKE. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary—— 

Secretary ZINKE. I have some great help though. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good help. We appreciate you being here. 

I will note to colleagues that we are scheduled to have two votes 

commencing at 11:00 am. It is my intention to try to just keep the 

Committee moving throughout that. So when the first vote is 

called, you might want to look around the dais and figure out when 

you are up next and plan your timing to go to the Floor around 

that. But I do intend to keep us moving because it is my understanding that we will have to conclude the hearing this morning at 

noon. 

Secretary Zinke, if you would like to present the President’s 

budget proposal? 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you, and I am honored to be before 

you today to testify in support of the President’s 2018 budget for 

the Department of the Interior. I do request permission to submit 

my entire statement for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included as part of the record. 

Secretary ZINKE. The President’s budget—this is what a balanced 

budget looks like. I want to repeat that. This is what a balanced 

budget looks like. There are tough decisions throughout, but if we 

want to balance the budget, this is a starting point of what a balanced budget would look like—there hasn’t been one around for a 

while. 

I fully understand my stewardship responsibilities because Interior touches the lives of more Americans than any other Department. I am the steward of our greatest treasures, and I take that 

responsibility very seriously. The President’s budget proposes $11.7 billion and it saves the taxpayer about $1.6 billion. We make strategic investments to ensure our nation’s energy and national security and to address the 

core responsibilities that lie within the Department. 

The President’s budget prioritizes an all-the-above energy strategy. It does not favor oil and gas or coal over any other strategy, 
6 

but we also think it’s necessary to have a prudent focus on boosting 

revenue through legislative proposals to raise about $5.8 billion. 

And speaking of revenue, in 2008 the Department of the Interior made about $18 billion a year in offshore alone. We were second 

only to our friends, the IRS. Last year our revenue was $2.6 billion—that’s a drop of $15.5 billion a year in revenue. So when we 

talk about infrastructure, the parks are about $11.5 billion behind, 

which represents 73 percent of our total gap in maintenance and 

repair. We would have made up that, in scale, in one year with the 

amount of revenue we dropped. So I will be looking at revenue. 

One of my first tasks was a Secretarial Order and, thanks to the 

Ranking Member, I did look at revenues across the board and 

looked at royalties, rents—all the above—giving no quarter to gas, 

oil, wind. If you are going to operate on public land, then the public 

should have a say because we are all stewards of our public lands 

and we want to make sure we have a fair return. That return 

should be transparent and it should be trust but verify. So I was 

pleased one of my first acts was to write a Secretarial Order to do 

just that, look at our revenues across the field on public land. 

When it comes to infrastructure, the LWCF, when it’s removed 

from the budget proposal, is acquisition of new land. Clearly, with 

an $11.5 billion deficit in maintenance repair, the priority must be 

to take care of what we have. And if you doubt that, look at our 

ability to maintain, I invite you to go up and look at Arlington. Arlington is a national disgrace, and I’m talking about the building 

up on top—Lee’s home. Through neglect the shutters are nearly 

falling off and the gardens are in disrepair. The building itself is 

a national disgrace. I invite you to go up and take a look at it, because we have to take care of what we own. 

The budget calls for a $35 million increase for a total of $766 million in national park infrastructure. This includes $18 million 

for the first phase of repairing the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Of note, of our $11.5 million backlog in the parks, about half are 

roads, and about a third of those roads are outside our parks. 

There is a $260 million bill on the Memorial Bridge and on parkways, access, and gateway roads that are outside of what most 

Americans would think would be a park responsibility. 

For the first time in many years, Payment in Lieu of Taxes is 

part of the discretionary budget. As you may remember last year, 

it was part of mandatory budget that did not pass and it was zero. 

This year it is $397 million and the reduction is about the same 

and the savings is as the other programs. But it’s in the budget. 

That’s different from last year. 

We fully fund fire suppression at a 10-year average. Fighting forest fires, particularly in the West, has become a billion-dollar problem. And growing up in the West, investing and making sure we 

remove dead and dying trees in our holdings is a prudent expense. 

We also support Indian trust responsibilities with a core focus on 

self-governments, self-determination and sovereignty. 

So we found savings by reducing federal land acquisition, eliminating redundant programs and allowing states, local communities 

and private partners to take the lead on some others. At the end 

of the day, this is what a balanced budget looks like. There are 

tough decisions. I fully understand the responsibility of the Execu-
7 

tive Branch, as well as the responsibility of Congress. Congress 

gets a say, and I am glad to be here with you today to go through 

that. 

I understand there are different priorities within each of your 

states, and I will always work with you to make sure we have a 

budget that represents a great nation. 

I can and will maintain our assets, offer a world class experience 

on public lands and deliver savings to the taxpayers, whether it is 

through public/private partnerships, encouraging responsible energy development or reorganizing my workforce. 

I am thrilled to be with you today, and I look forward to your 

questions and working together. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Zinke follows:] 
8 

STATEMENT OF RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON THE 

2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST 

June 20, 2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased 

to appear before you today to discuss the 20 18 President's Budget for the Department of the 

Interior, which provides $11.7 billion for Interior's programs, with an additional $123 9 million 

of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations requested to be transferred to the 

Department of the Interior to support enactment of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with 

Palau. 

Because of the timing between enactment of the FY 2017 Omnibus Appropriations Act and 

submission of the FY 2018 President's Budget, my statement compares requested funding to the 

FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution unless otherwise noted. 

2018 Budget Priorities 

The 2018 budget for the Department of the Interior features targeted investments to further the 

Administration's America First national energy goals. At the same time, this budget reflects the 

President's commitment to fiscal responsibility proposing sensible and rational reductions and 

making hard choices to reach a balanced budget by 2027. 

Across Interior's diverse mission, this budget emphasizes the Department's crucial role in 

promoting economic growth. America's lands hold tremendous job-creating assets. Visitors to 

our parks spend more than $18.4 billion in local gateway communities, supporting approximately 

318,000 jobs and contributing $34.9 billion into the national economy according to the 2016 

National Park Service Visitor Spending Effects Report. 

In 2016, the Department's energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry activities resulted in $8.8 billion 

in revenue to the American people, including direct revenue payments to states, tribes, and local 

communities. These same activities supported $136 billion in economic output. The Budget for 

the Bureau of Reclamation invests over $1 billion in safe, reliable, and efficient management of 

water resources throughout the western United States. In addition, direct grants and payments to 

states, tribes, and local communities provided an estimated $10 billion in economic output. 

The Department's 2018 budget reflects the Administration's commitment to strengthen 

America's economic and energy security, focus on the Nation's infrastructure, be responsible 

stewards of magnificent lands, encourage public access for outdoor recreation, and strengthen 

tribal sovereignty and support self-determination. 
9 

America's Energy 

The Department is the steward and manager of America's natural resources, including oil, gas, 

coal, hydropower, minerals, and renewable energy sources. The Department has a critical role to 

play in the future energy security of our Nation as well as our overall economic well-being. 

American energy resources create jobs and generate significant revenue both to the U.S. 

Treasury and states. This budget proposes $791.2 million in current and permanent funding for 

energy related programs across the Department, an increase of$16.3 million from 2017. The 

2018 budget supports an "all-of-the-above" energy development strategy, increasing funding for 

onshore and offshore oil and gas, strengthening coal management activities, and sustaining the 

current pace of renewable energy development. 

The budget reflects the importance of offshore energy production to America's economic and 

energy security. The 2018 budget shores up offshore oil and gas programs with appropriated 

funding to continue a strong offshore program. The request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management features a $10.2 million increase to update the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf 

Oil and Gas Leasing Program, consistent with the President's Executive Order implementing an 

America-First Offshore Energy Strategy to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and 

production. The 2018 budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement includes 

a $1.2 million increase to focus on workforce training, permitting, and information technologies 

to better permit exploration, development, and production operations. 

Onshore, the budget requests a $16.0 million increase for the Bureau of Land Management's oil 

and gas management program, providing a total of$75.9 million in appropriated funds focused 

on improving oil and gas permit application processing, streamlining leasing, and modernizing 

practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million for the BLM coal management program, an 

$8.0 million increase to reduce administrative processing times, simplify the lease application 

process, and improve the timeliness to complete lease sale fair market value determinations. 

The 2018 budget includes $78.1 million for Renewable Energy programs both on and offshore. 

Although a reduction from prior years, this funding level will sustain the current pace of 

development at a level consistent with anticipated project interest. 

To ensure the public continues to receive the full value of natural resources production on 

Federal lands, in April, I signed a charter establishing a Royalty Policy Committee of28 local, 

tribal, state, and other stakeholders to advise me on the fair market value of and revenue 

collection from Federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including renewable energy 

sources. 

The Nation's lnfrastrnctnre 

Interior plays an important role in maintaining and improving the Nation's infrastructure. 

Interior's national role includes managing significant real property assets as well as conducting 

reviews and processing permits to support national infrastructure development as part of a 

balanced multiple land use strategy. 

2 
10 

Interior's 2018 budget maintains the 20 l7level of $98.8 million for Fish and Wildlife Service 

planning and consultation activities. This level maintains the FWS capability to meet its legal 

consultation requirements and avoid logjams that could delay infrastructure projects and 

associated economic benefits. The BLM budget also directs base funding to address siting for 

energy transmission projects, and proposes an increase in the oil and gas management program 

to facilitate rights-of-way associated with energy development projects. 

Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio with a replacement value exceeding $300 

billion, ranging from elementary and secondary schools serving Indian children, to highways and 

bridges serving the daily commuting needs of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Interior 

owns approximately 43,000 buildings, 100,000 miles of road, and 80,000 structures including 

iconic landmarks, as well as dams, bridges, laboratories, employee housing, and irrigation and 

power infrastructure. Taking care of this significant asset portfolio is a persistent challenge. 

Interior's deferred maintenance backlog has grown to over $15 billion in 2016. Construction and 

maintenance funding across the Department totals $1.4 billion in 20 18, not including the Bureau 

of Reclamation. 

From my first day on the job, one of my top priorities has been to prioritize efforts to address the 

National Park Service maintenance backlog. Our National Parks have 73 percent oflnterior's 

deferred maintenance backlog while hosting 324 million visitors last year. The 2018 budget for 

NPS includes $236.3 million for construction and deferred maintenance projects, an increase of 

$21.0 million from 2017. Total estimated funding for NPS maintenance and construction needs 

including estimated recreation fee revenue is $765.7 million, an increase of $34.7 million from 

FY 2017. This increase will support targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS' 

highest priority assets, including the first phase of repairs to the Arlington Memorial Bridge 

project. 

America's Lands 

In my first days in office, I issued two Secretarial Orders to expand access to public lands and 

increase hunting, fishing, and recreation opportunities nationwide. The 2018 budget includes 

$4.4 billion for the Department's land management operations in the NPS, FWS, and the BLM. 

While a reduction of$354.3 million from 2017, this figure includes funding for operational 

programs as well as management and maintenance of the national parks, national wildlife 

refuges, and ELM's network of national conservation lands. Within land management 

operations, the budget prioritizes funding to protect and conserve America's public lands and 

natural resources, provide access to public lands for the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts, 

and ensure visitor safety. 

To support land management priorities, funding for lower priority activities, such as Federal land 

acquisition projects, is reduced. The 2018 budget emphasizes taking care of our current assets, 

rather than adding more by purchasing new land. Accordingly, the budget for land acquisition 

programs is $54.0 million, $129.1 million below 2017. A small amount of funding is maintained 

in each bureau for emergencies or acquisition of inholdings needed to improve management of 

established areas or to increase public access. 

3 
11 

To better manage and balance these responsibilities, the Department relies on its front-line land 

managers, field scientists, and partners to monitor, assess, and collect information about the 

status of resource conditions. Interior's U.S. Geological Survey is the Nation's leading source of 

expertise in earth and natural sciences and works closely with other Departmental bureaus and 

state, local, tribal and other Federal partners to help resource managers adapt to changing 

conditions on the ground. The 2018 budget includes $922.2 million for USGS programs, to 

focus on core science activities including land and water resources, energy and minerals, 

mapping, ecosystems, invasive species, natural hazards, and environmental health. 

The 2018 request budgets responsibly for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. The budget 

includes $397 million for these payments as part of the discretionary request, to ensure continued 

support to the communities neighboring the Department's and other Federal lands without 

assuming enactment of separate legislation. The 2018level for P!LT is reduced 12 percent 

below the 2017 CR level, consistent with the total reduction in the Interior budget. 

A key component of the Department's land stewardship is management of wildland fire. The 

2018 budget provides $389.4 million for wildfire suppression- the fulllO-year average of 

suppression expenditures. This level of funding is projected to be sufficient to meet fire 

suppression needs in an average fire season without the risk of needing emergency transfers from 

other departmental accounts. 

America's Waters 

The 2018 budget also continues efforts to address the challenges of water availability and 

drought conditions. 

The Department, primarily through the Bureau of Reclamation, works with States, tribes, local 

governments, and non-governmental organizations to pursue a sustainable water supply for the 

West by providing federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of water. The 2018 

budget continues these efforts to address the challenges of water availability. 

Interior's $1.1 billion budget request for Reclamation invests in our water and power 

infrastructure, facilitating the delivery of water to 31 million people across the West. It is the 

nation's largest renewable energy resource, and the Bureau of Reclamation plays an important 

role as the second largest producer of hydropower in the United States. 

This budget also continues to strengthen our Tribal Nations by implementing Indian water rights 

settlements, and focuses on the protection and restoration of aquatic and riparian environments to 

ensure we can continue to provide a reliable water supply and power to the West. 

America's Trust Responsibilities 

Interior maintains strong and important relationships with Native and insular communities, 

helping to promote efficient and effective governance and to support nation-building and selfdetermination. The Department provides services directly, or through contracts, grants or 

compacts, to 567 federally recognized tribes with a service population of nearly two million 

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The budget prioritizes support for programs serving the 

4 
12 

broadest service population and proposes reductions in initiatives that are more narrowly 

focused. The President's budget maintains the Administration's strong support for the principle 

of tribal self-determination, and efforts to strengthen tribal communities across Indian Country. 

The budget includes full funding for Contract Support Costs and Tribal Grant Support Costs that 

tribes incur from managing Federal Indian programs. 

The 2018 budget request includes $786.4 million to continue support for core Indian education 

programs, including formula funding and operation and maintenance funding for elementary and 

secondary schools, and support for post-secondary programs. The 2018 budget continues to 

meet Federal responsibilities outlined in enacted land and water rights claim settlements with 

Indian tribes, and includes $160.8 million for authorized settlements and technical and legal 

support involving tribal water rights, to maintain the Department's ability to complete these 

settlement requirements within the statutory timeframes. 

In recognition of the importance of the Nation's relationship with Palau and the Pacific national 

security strategy, the budget requests $123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense 

appropriations to be transferred to the Department of the Interior to support enactment of the 

2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau. 

Management and Reform 

As part of the President's March 2017, Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for 

Reorganizing the Executive Branch, the Administration launched a government-wide effort to 

create a leaner, more efficient, and more responsive government. The Order directs agencies to 

begin planning to operate at the funding levels in the 2018 budget and develop a broader Agency 

Reform Plan to address long-term workforce reductions. Interior is moving prudently with 

implementation and has put in place hiring controls to enable limited hiring, prioritizing filling 

field positions rather than office positions, and limiting hires in the Washington, D.C., and 

Denver, Colorado, areas. This process enables the Department to continue to fill important 

positions as work is underway to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful agency plan. 

The 2018 budget reduces lower priority programs $1.6 billion below 2017 and supports 59,968 

full time equivalents. This represents an estimated reduction of roughly 4,000 full time 

equivalent staff from 2017. To accomplish this, the Department will rely on a combination of 

attrition, reassignments, and separation incentives. Actual attrition rates and acceptance of 

separation incentives will determine the need for further action to reduce staffing. 

Reducing the Department's physical footprint and seeking ways to consolidate space and 

resources will continue to be management objectives going forward. Efforts will build on 

several multi-year actions to reduce [nterior's nationwide facilities footprint and improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of its information technology infrastructure and financial reporting 

capabilities. Ensuring the Department's cybersecurity strength continues to be a priority. The 

2018 budget maintains $10.0 million in the appropriated working capital fund to continue the 

Department's remediation of its cybersecurity systems and processes. 

5 
13 

Bureau Highlights 

Bureau of Land Management The 2018 request for the BLM is $1 .l billion, a decrease of 

$162.7 million below the 2017 CR level and $180.5 million below the 2017 enacted level. The 

budget proposes $963.2 million for Management of Lands and Resources and $89.8 million for 

Oregon and California Grant Lands, BLM's two primary operational appropriation accounts. 

The BLM request features increases in oil, gas and coal management programs reflecting 

national energy security priorities. The budget proposes $75.9 million for Oil and Gas 

Management to support permitting and rights-of-way processing, streamline leasing, and 

modernize practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million to strengthen BLM's Coal 

Management program, an increase of$8.0 million from 2017. 

To maintain the BLM's land stewardship responsibilities, the budget includes $67.8 million for 

Rangeland Management and $70.7 million for the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. 

As part of a broader effort to consider all necessary options to manage the unsustainable growth 

of this program, the budget proposes to eliminate current appropriations language restricting the 

BLM's ability to use the tools provided in the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and 

enable BLM to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. The budget also 

proposes $47.2 million for Recreation Resources Management and $27.7 million to continue 

support for the National Conservation Land areas. 

The budget includes $89.8 million for the Oregon and California Grant Lands programs. At this 

level, the budget prioritizes offering the allowable sale quantity in new resource management 

plans. 

Mineral development on Federal lands is important to the national economy. However, a longstanding challenge is to provide a fair return to taxpayers for the use of these natural resources 

without discouraging development To meet this challenge, the Department will conduct a study 

starting in 2017 to evaluate the production and development of hardrock minerals from Federal 

lands. The review will include an analysis of revenue recovered by other entities, including 

other countries, which permit mining on their land. The Department will also consult with other 

appropriate agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. The findings ·will be considered as 

part of ongoing efforts to improve agency management and streamline permitting related to 

natural resources produced from Federal lands. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management- The 2018 President's budget for BOEM is $171.0 

million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including $114.2 million in current appropriations and 

$56.8 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts and cost recoveries. The budget 

maintains a level program by increasing appropriated funding by $35.5 million to address a 

commensurate shortfall in estimated offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries. The 2018 

budget features a $10.2 million increase to support the development of a new Five-Year Plan for 

the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement- The 2018 President's budget request 

for BSEE is $204.9 million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including $112.0 million in 

6 
14 

current appropriations and $92.9 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts, cost 

recoveries, and inspection fees. The budget maintains a strong offshore safety and 

environmental enforcement program by increasing appropriations and estimated inspection fee 

revenue to address anticipated shortfalls in offsetting rental receipts and other cost recoveries. 

The 2018 budget includes a $1.2 million increase for technical training to expand staff 

development efforts for BSEE's inspector, engineer, and geoscientist workforce, and $12.7 

million for oil spill research, a reduction of$2.2 million from 2017. 

Bureau of Reclamation- The 2018 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation is $1.1 billion 

in discretionmy appropriations. This figure reflects a decrease of 13.1% from the 2017 CR level. 

Of the total, $960 million is for the Water and Related Resources account, Reclamation's largest 

account; $59 million is for the Policy and Administration account; $37 million is for the 

California Bay Delta Restoration account; and $41.4 million is for the Central Valley Project 

Restoration Fund. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement The 2018 budget request for 

OSMRE is $129.4 million in current appropriations, $110.7 million below the 2017 CR leveL 

The majority of this reduction reflects the elimination of$89 9 million for Abandoned Mine 

Lands Economic Development Grants. Although beneficial, funding for this pilot program 

overlaps with existing mandatory Abandoned Mine Lands grants which continue without any 

proposed changes. The budget includes $60.2 million for state and tribal regulatory grants, a 

level consistent with anticipated state and tribal program obligations. 

U.S. Geological Survey- The 2018 budget request for the USGS is $922.2 million, $137.8 

million below the 2017 CR leveL The budget includes $70.9 million for satellite operations, 

which supports continued development of the Landsat 9 ground systems, supporting a launch 

date in early fiscal year 2021 to replace the Landsat 7 satellite, which is reaching the end of its 

usable life. 

The request emphasizes energy and mineral development, supporting essential hazards 

monitoring, and providing scientific information to support decision making by resource 

managers and policy makers. The budget maintains support for nationwide networks of more 

than 8,000 streamgages and nearly 3,000 earthquake sensors. The request provides $17.3 million 

for nationwide efforts to counter invasive species and wildlife diseases such as white-nose 

syndrome and highly pathogenic avian influenza, and the budget maintains $17.3 million for 40 

cooperative research units that support state-specific needs, particularly related to fish and game 

species. It continues acquisition of modern elevation data for Alaska and the three-year cycle of 

topographic map updates for the contiguous United States. 

The 2018 request proposes to realign the 2018 budget structure to create a new Land Resources 

activity to reflect focused science related to on-the-ground land management and adaptive 

management challenges. As part of this request, the budget proposes $17.4 million for the 

National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers, reflecting the proposed 

consolidation of eight regional centers to four. 

7 
15 

Fish and Wildlife Service- The 2018 President's budget requests $1.3 billion for FWS 

programs, a decrease of $202.9 million from the 2017 CR level. The budget includes $1.2 

billion for FWS operations, a decrease of $85.3 million below 2017. Within Resource 

Management, the budget prioritizes funding to maintain operations and maintenance for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System ($470.1 million) and the National Fish Hatchery System ($51.9 

million). Funding will continue operations for all refuge areas and hatchery sites. 

The budget includes $225.2 million for Ecological Services programs with an emphasis on 

species recovery and planning consultation activities. Consistent with efforts to focus adaptive 

management related science within the USGS, the request proposes to eliminate funding for 

Science Support at $17.0 million and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives at $13.0 million. 

The budget is $118.6 million for FWS conservation grants including $52.8 million for State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants, $33.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, 

$19.3 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $9.0 million for the 

Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and $3.9 million forNeotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation. Consistent with decreases in other land acquisition programs across the 

Department, the request proposes to eliminate funding for Cooperative Endangered Species 

Conservation Fund land acquisition grants. 

National Park Service The 2018 President's budget request forNPS is $2.6 billion, $296.6 

million below the 2017 CR level. 

The budget proposes $2.2 billion for NPS operations. Within this account, funding is prioritized 

for the care and maintenance of existing resources. The budget includes $99.3 million for repair 

and rehabilitation projects, which addresses the deferred maintenance backlog, as well as $112.7 

million for cyclic maintenance projects, which ensures maintenance is conducted in a timely 

fashion to avoid increasing the deferred maintenance backlog. 

The budget proposes $226.5 million for Construction projects, an increase of$34.0 million to 

help address deferred maintenance and allow for targeted and measurable upgrades to a number 

of the NPS's highest priority assets. Within this request is $18.2 million for phase one 

construction requirements for the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Also included in the request is 

$15.0 million in appropriated funds for the Centennial Challenge program to provide the Federal 

match to leverage partner donations for signature projects and programs. An additional $15.0 

million from fee revenue is also anticipated for 2018 to support Centennial projects. 

The request provides $37.0 million for National Recreation and Preservation programs to support 

local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources. The budget assumes savings 

of $18.8 million from the proposed elimination of payments to National Heritage Areas. The 

2018 budget includes $51.1 million for the Historic Preservation Fund core grants-in-aid 

programs. The budget proposes to shift support for Land and Water Conservation Fund State 

Grants from appropriated to mandatory funding comparable to an estimated $90 million the 

program will receive from oil and gas activities from certain Gulf of Mexico offshore leases. 

8 
16 

Indian Affairs- The 2018 President's budget request for Indian Affairs is $2.5 billion, $303.3 

million below the 2017 CR level. Funding for Operation ofindian Programs totals $2.1 billion, 

a decrease of $181.1 million below 2017. In 2018, priority is given to programs serving the 

broadest audience rather than initiatives or pilots. Within this total is $786.4 million for Bureau 

of Indian Education programs where funding focuses on direct school operations and full 

funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs. The main operating account also includes $349.3 

million for Public Safety and Justice programs and $277.5 million for Trust Services programs, 

which includes the elimination of the Tribal Climate Resilience program. 

The budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $241.6 million, $35.4 million below 2017, 

which will cover all anticipated requirements at the requested program funding level. The 

budget requests $143.3 million for Construction programs. The 2018 budget prioritizes dams, 

irrigation projects, and irrigation systems which deliver water to aid economic development as 

well as protect lives, resources, and property. The budget prioritizes funding within education 

construction for operations and maintenance of existing facilities. The budget also includes 

$14.0 million to provide payments to ongoing Indian Land and Water settlements and $6.7 

million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program. 

Departmental Offices 

Office cif the Secretary- The 2018 budget request for Departmental Operations is $123.9 million, 

$596.5 million below the 2017 CR The majority of this reduction is $451.1 million associated 

with the shift of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program which was appropriated within 

Departmental Operations in 2017. In 2018, the budget proposes to fund PIL T as discretionary 

funding within Department-wide Programs. The budget also reflects the proposed transfer of 

$140.3 million associated with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue to a new appropriation 

within Department-wide Programs. The proposed transfer of ONRR funding will increase 

transparency in the budget for the Department's energy revenue programs. The 2018 request for 

remaining Office of Secretary programs reflects a reduction of $4.0 million from central program 

management activities across the Office of the Secretary organization. Of this, $2.6 million is 

associated with reductions to the Office of Valuation Services consistent with the proposed 

Department-wide decrease for new land acquisition. 

Qfjice t:<f Insular Ajjairs- The 2018 OIA budget request is $84.3 million, $19.0 million below 

the 2017 CR. In addition, the majority ofOIA's budget proposal reflects a request to fully fund 

the renegotiated Compact with Palau by transferring $123.9 million from the Department of 

Defense, rather than $13.1 million in extended incremental annual payments. The Compact is an 

important element of the Pacific national security strategy. 

Office of the Solicitor- The 2018 budget proposes $65.7 million for the Office of the Solicitor, 

the same as the 2017 CR level, to provide legal counsel, administer the Department's ethics 

program, and help resolve legal issues among bureaus and offices as they fulfill their duties. 

Office of Inspector General- The 2018 budget proposes $50.0 million for the Office oflnspector 

General, the same as the 2017 CR level, to continue support for audit and investigations across 

the Department. 

9 
17 

Qffice of the Special Trustee for American Indians- The 2018 budget requests $119.4 million 

for OST, $19.4 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget proposes a $3.7 million reduction 

below 2017 in Field Operations reflecting prioritization of services to continue operations at the 

beneficiary call center. A reduction of $3.1 million is proposed within Historical Trust 

Accounting in expectation of reduced requirements. Smaller additional reductions are taken 

across the organization. 

Department-wide Programs 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes The 2018 budget proposes $396.9 million in discretionary funding 

for PIL T, a decrease of$54.3 million from the comparable 2017 CR level of$451.1 million 

appropriated in Departmental Operations in 2016. This is a reduction of 12 percent, 

commensurate with the Department of the Interior's overall reduction from 2017 CR budget 

levels. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue The 2018 budget request includes $137.8 million for 

ONRR' s receipts management programs, a decrease of $2.5 million below the comparable 2017 

CR level of$140.3 million. The 2018 budget request proposes to transfer ONRR's receipts 

management program from the Office of the Secretary's Departmental Operations account to a 

separate appropriation within Department-wide Programs to increase transparency of the 

program. The request includes $3.5 million for anticipated contract cost increases for the 

Minerals Revenue Management Support System. 

Central Hazardous Material~ Fund- The 2018 budget requests $2.0 million for the Central 

Hazardous Materials Fund, $8.0 million below the 2017 CR. The budget request funds program 

management and legal staff. The program will fund the highest priority remediation projects 

based on the availability of recoveries and focus resources on remediation projects with 

potentially responsible parties. 

Wildland Fire Management- The 2018 budget request for the Wildland Fire Management 

Program is $873.5 million. The total request represents a decrease of$118.3 million from the 

2017 CR level for the Wildland Fire Management and FLAME accounts. At this level the 

request provides $389.4 million for Suppression Operations to fully fund the 1 0-year average. 

To streamline financial management processes and improve the efficiency in allocating 

suppression funding, the Department proposes to fund all suppression activities in the Wildland 

Fire Management account and eliminate the separate FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve 

Fund account once all current balances in the FLAME account are drawn down. The request 

also includes $322.2 million for Preparedness activities, essentially level with 2017, and $149.5 

million for Fuels Management, $20.2 million below 2017. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration- The 2018 request for NRDAR 

is $4.6 million, a decrease of $3.2 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget includes 

funding needed for ongoing damage assessments and restoration activities. 

Working Capital Fund- The 2018 budget proposes $59.5 million for the appropriated portion of 

the Department's Working Capital Fund, a decrease of$7.5 million from the 2017 CR level. 

The reduction is from funds requested for the Financial and Business Management System which 

10 
18 

is proposed at $46.3 million. The request maintains $10.0 million for Department-wide 

Cybersecurity needs. 

Legislative Proposals 

Bureau (!/Reclamation Title Transfer The Administration is developing a proposal to better 

facilitate title transfer of Reclamation facilities to non-Federal entities when such transfers are 

beneficial to all parties. This proposal will allow local water managers to make their own 

decisions to improve water management at the local level, while allowing Reclamation to focus 

management etiorts on projects with a greater Federal nexus. 

Cancel Southern Nevada Public Land lvfanagement Act Account Balances- The budget proposes 

legislation to cancel $230.0 million in unobligated balances from the Southern Nevada Public 

Land Management Act program over a three year period. This would redirect a poriion of the 

program balances to the Treasury for broader taxpayer use. The SN PLMA program is not 

proposed for elimination and viable conservation efforts will continue to be supported. 

Gu(f"r!fMexico F:nergy Security Act Payments- The Administration proposes to repeal revenue 

sharing payments to four coastal States- Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas- and their 

local govemments, which are currently set to expand substantially starting in 20 J 8. This 

proposal will ensure the sale of public resources from Federal waters owned by all Americans, 

benefits all Americans. Mandatory funding for LWCF State Grants would continue, but this 

legislative proposal would replace GOMESA's complicated allocation formula with a fixed 

annual appropriation of a comparable dollar amount, starting at $90.0 million in 2018 and 

increasing to $125.0 million in 2022 and remaining at $125.0 million each year thereafter. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund- The LWCF receipts authorization expires at the end of 

fiscal year 2018 and the Administration will review options for reauthorization, including 

consideration of a range of conservation-related investments that could be funded through the 

LWCF. 

Oil and Gas Leasinx in the Arctic National Wildlife Rejilge The Administration will propose 

legislation to allow oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

also known as the" !002 area." The budget assumes lease sales would begin in 2022 or 2023, 

allowing adequate time for the completion of appropriate environmental reviews and an updated 

assessment of the state of the oil and gas market and lease bidding potential prior to scheduling 

specific lease sales. An additional lease sale or sales would be held in 2026 or 2027. Lease sales 

in the ANWR are estimated to generate $3.5 billion in bonus bids to be split between the U.S. 

Treasury and the State of Alaska. The proposal is estimated to generate a net of $1.8 billion in 

new revenue to the Treasury over 10 years. 

Reauthorize the Federal rand Transaction Facilitation Act- The budget assumes permanent 

reauthorization of FL TF A's land sale authority, allowing Interior to dispose of lands with low 

conservation value and use the proceeds to acquire lands with higher conservation values, 

consistent with the original FLTF A mandate. 

II 
19 

Recreation Fee Program- The budget proposes to permanently reauthorize the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act, which currently expires in September 2018. As a precaution, 

appropriations language is also submitted with the budget proposing a one-year extension 

through September 2019. The revenues collected by Interior from these recreation fees nearly 

$290 million annually are an important source of funding for land management operations, 

maintenance, and improvements to recreation facilities on public lands. 

Terminal ion of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties The budget proposes to restore 

Federal geothermal leasing revenue allocations to the historical formula of 50 percent to the 

States and 50 percent to the U.S. Treasury by repealing Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act 

of2005. 

Offsetting Collections and Fees 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enjbrcement Oj(1·hore lnspection Fees The budget 

includes appropriations language to amend the current fee structure for BSEE inspection fees to 

better align with BSEE's inspection practices and program costs. The language structures fees 

charged for the inspection of offshore facilities to distinguish between those "without processing 

equipment" or "with processing equipment" and incorporate consideration of the number of 

wells and water depth. These changes to the fee structure are estimated to generate $65.0 million 

in2018. 

National Wildlife Rejitge Damage Cost Recove1y- The budget includes appropriations language 

to authorize the FWS to retain recoveries from responsible parties to restore or replace damages 

they cause. This is similar to authorities provided to the NPS for damages to national parks and 

monuments. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2018 budget request for the 

Department of the Interior. 

In closing, this is a responsible budget to help balance the Federal budget by 2027. It maintains 

core functions important to the American people, including providing the public the unique 

American experience that comes from visiting our parks, refuges, and public lands. It reflects 

tough choices to prioritize and focus limited resources where investments have the most impact, 

but continues to deliver access and services which are critical to Americans. I thank you again 

for your continued support of the Department's mission. llook forward to answering questions 

about this budget. This concludes my written statement. 

12 
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Zinke. 

Let me start off by bringing up an issue that we have had some 

discussion on both here in Committee and off Committee. And this 

is as it relates to transfer of federal lands to states. 

You have often said that you do not support transferring federal 

lands to states, but you have also acknowledged that Alaska is 

unique, that it has some distinctions, and I appreciate that. 

When we look to Alaska’s lands and what was granted at statehood—the right to acquire more than 104 million acres of land 

roughly equal to the size of the state of California—Alaska Natives 

were also granted lands to settle Aboriginal claims. Today, the Interior Department, through the BLM, effectively acts as a real estate agent to accomplish these land transfers. 

BLM still needs to finish deciding the fate of 38.4 million acres 

and still needs to survey more than 16 million of our state’s tentative selections before the patents can be issued; our Alaska Native Corporations have another 9.67 million acres under adjudication; and about 750,000 acres of tentative selections await surveys. 

To my colleagues, this is a lot of land that is yet to be conveyed. 

We have been a state now for over 50 years. The promises to our 

Alaska Native people were made over 40 years ago. 

It is something I have pushed through successive Administrations and just want to make sure that we are on the same page 

here when it comes to land transfers in Alaska. I would ask whether you agree that the Interior Department, according to federal 

law, has a role and an obligation to convey federal lands to Alaska 

and to our Alaska Native people? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you, Madam. 

And Alaska is different, I’m concerned about the surveying process—I don’t know how long we’ve been at the surveying process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Too long. 

Secretary ZINKE. But it’s too long. So we are working with the 

state to use technology and agree how to use the technology so we 

can get it done. There’s—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That still remains a little bit of a rub, but I appreciate that you were updated on that on your visit to Alaska. 

Secretary ZINKE. And I would like to work with you. There are 

surveys that are in the intermediate process. I don’t know why we 

can’t go forward and view those as final in the process and get that 

moving. 

You have a veteran issue, Vietnam Veterans. Native Alaskans 

served their country. They were either not informed or did not take 

action with that and how to provide their right on land. We’ve 

talked. There’s multiple ways forward, but we need to get it done. 

So I will work with you and commit to work with you and get it 

done. 

I think the best path forward is a conveyance to agree and put 

a timeframe on it and to sit down and look at the best technology 

in order to get it done. Sometimes the 98 solution—98 percent solution—today is better than the 100 percent solution 15 years from 

now. And if we both work together, I think we can get this done 

and quickly. Certainly, on the ones that have been done on the intermediate, I think we should both propose to move to final and get 

that section of it done. 
21 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, know this is something that we need to be 

working on, not only the state lands and the interim conveyances 

that are out there, but again, these allotments to our Alaska Native veterans—those lands to those who are termed the ‘‘landless 

Natives.’’ There is so much that is yet unfulfilled in terms of promises and commitments made to Alaska upon statehood and to our 

Native people, so we need to be working to advance them. 

Let me ask very quickly. The Secretarial Order that you signed 

when you were up in the state to help increase energy production, 

again, particularly relevant today in light of the 40th anniversary 

of TAPS. Do you have any update for me on the implementation 

of that order, including the revised Integrated Activity Plan for the 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and just where you 

are with implementation of that Secretarial Order? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will get the specifics on it, but I wanted just 

to point out on 1002, specifically. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Secretary ZINKE. That was set aside to assess, and my responsibility as the Secretary of the Interior is to do just that—assess. I 

don’t have the authority to authorize production in the ANWR or 

the 1002. That authority lies within Congress. My responsibility is 

to make sure I assess. 

And as the steward of our public’s lands, I think it’s important 

to know what our inventory is because decisions being made on 

production levels investment all should be made on the basis of 

science and fact. So my intent is to move forward rapidly and assess exactly what assets the taxpayers in this great nation have, 

in the 1002, as was set aside to do just that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We look forward to that. Again, I will 

work with you on getting some kind of an update on the other aspects of the plan within NPR-A and other areas. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you and thank you, Secretary Zinke, 

for being here. 

As you know, my state is home to two of the largest national 

parks, Mount Rainier and Olympic. Your proposal would cut both 

parks about seven percent—Mount Rainier would see a funding reduction of $881,000, and Olympic National Park a reduction of 

$909,000. So I am trying to understand. These parks were already 

underfunded, and these funding cuts will only make the problems 

worse. Can you explain why you think cutting these parks and support functions and park personnel, who are on the front lines, is 

the right strategy in balancing, as you say, a budget? 

Secretary ZINKE. The infrastructure increased $38 million—that’s 

not a cut. 

Secondly is our front lines at our parks. Since I’ve been Secretary 

I have been to, let me make the list—I think I’ve been to Maine, 

New Hampshire, let’s see, Utah, Montana, Alaska, Connecticut, 

I’ve toured monuments—and it’s clear the front line is too thin. So 

my assessment of it for Department of the Interior is we have too 

many middle management and above and too few in the parks. So 

we are looking at going through a process, in coordination with 

you, of how to push more assets to the front line. And we’ve seen 

it—every cost-cutting measure previous to this has always region-
22 

alized assets up and we find ourselves too short. Where they’re 

needed is in the parks. 

And yes, we need more scientists in the field and less lawyers, 

but also, you look at our stacked on the regions, we have to—we’re 

too heavy in the regions. And unfortunately, that has taken a toll 

at our parks. 

The best funds for the parks are through the door, tickets to the 

door. We had 330 million visitors through our parks last year. Half 

our parks didn’t charge. And we are divided in a tier system and 

many of our parks don’t even follow the tier system. So we have 

to look at revenue as well, and public/private partnerships. 

We’re looking at some of our parks on transportation. If you go 

to Yosemite, the Yosemite experience is now going up a freeway. 

Rainier has challenges in your park about the experience whether 

it’s on I–5, too much traffic. 

So public/private partnerships, how to move people and how to 

maintain the experience in the park, is important and we’re looking at everything. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, Mr. Secretary, I find the budget so focused on the oil and natural gas aspect of revenue that I think that 

you are neglecting the fact that the outdoor economy generates 

$887 billion a year—$65 billion in federal revenue, $59 billion in 

state and local revenue—that is $124 billion to the government. So 

that versus the $2 billion you are talking about or $18 billion, depending on price fluctuations for oil and gas. I want to make sure 

that we are putting pedal to the metal as it relates to the outdoor 

economy and the opportunities. That is what is going to generate 

a lot more revenue for us as a government. 

I wanted to ask you on this issue of the BLM Methane Rule that 

we voted on in the Senate to keep the existing rule. Do you believe 

that you are responsible for complying with the Administrative 

Procedure Act? 

Secretary ZINKE. I know that we entered into the record the notification, and we are following and complying with the law. 

Senator CANTWELL. Do you think that public notice and comment 

are an important part of reviewing public regulations? 

Secretary ZINKE. We are reviewing the methane. As you know, 

there was a CRA that came close to one vote on it. My position on 

the methane is I think it’s—— 

Senator CANTWELL. So does that mean you are free to do what 

you want just because you think it came close? 

Secretary ZINKE. No. 

Senator CANTWELL. The rule stands, right? 

Secretary ZINKE. That’s not what I said, ma’am. What I said was 

my position on the methane, I think it’s a waste. And we both 

agree that flaring is a waste. 

So we’re looking at the rule in order to make sure that we can 

provide incentives to capture it because as a steward of your public 

lands, and they are your public lands, I think just flaring it is 

waste. We have to make sure that we incentivize capture systems 

and make sure that our isolated assets can connect and we make 

sure that the taxpayer is getting a fair valuation on our public 

holdings. 
23 

Senator CANTWELL. So my question to you is, do you believe, 

since that is the law, and now you are proposing to change it, do 

you believe that you have to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act? And that you have to have public notice and comment 

as part of that rulemaking? 

Secretary ZINKE. We provided public notice and the public notice 

is now open as it sits right now. And we entered into the Register 

the procedure to begin to change the rule. That is within the law. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you are going to have a public notice and 

comment period as part of that? 

Secretary ZINKE. Absolutely, because I follow the law. 

Senator CANTWELL. We will look forward to following up on that 

with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Secretary Zinke, thank you for being with us, 

I appreciate it. In your comments, you mentioned the advantage 

you have growing up in the West and understanding the importance of appropriate measures for fire suppression, well worth, I 

think, the $1 billion or so that you are putting forward and I, kind 

of, compliment you for that. What I bring up now is my advantage 

of growing up on the Gulf Coast and kind of a lead-in into that. 

Obviously, the budget takes the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

Act (GOMESA) payments for the Gulf states for oil and gas leasing 

and the budget states the Administration proposes to repeal these 

revenue sharing payments to ensure that the sale of public resources from federal waters owned by all Americans benefit all 

Americans. 

Now, as you know, beginning in 2018, oil and gas revenues for 

Gulf states are set to increase to $375 million with an additional 

$125 million being distributed to the stateside Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. Now what you may not know, which of course 

I do being from Louisiana, in our state these revenues are constitutionally required to be put toward coastal restoration. 

Again, I was struck that you mentioned that it is a prudent approach to remove dead and dying trees and so it justifies, if you 

will, the money for fire suppression—I totally agree with that. 

I guess the point I would make is that it is a prudent approach 

to rebuild the Gulf Coast coastline, otherwise we are paying for 

more Katrina-type recoveries. Just a couple comments on this 

though, if you will. The federal role in this—our coastline began to 

erode when the Mississippi River was dammed, if you will, levied, 

for the benefit of inland commerce. All those ports up and down the 

Mississippi benefit because our land is levied and since the year 

those levies began, our coastline has begun to recede. 

So the benefit which is nationwide—and I agree it should be nationwide—the penalty for that is borne entirely environmentally by 

our state. 

Now, if you will, that is where I would see the federal obligation. 

Let me just show you since I mentioned that the land, the money 

that we receive has to be used for our Coastal Master Plan. Can 

we put the first poster up? 

[The information referred to follows:] 
HYDROlOGIC RESTORATION 

HYDROtOOIC RESTORATION 

MARSH CREATION 

A 1Mi'-"..,.,. 

RIDGE RESTORATION 

SHORELINE RESTORATION STRUCIIJRAL PROTECTION 

SEDIME!IIT DIIIERSION 

SEOIME!IIT DIVERSION 

SEDIMENT 011/ERSION 

BARRIER ISlAND RESTORATION 

NONSTI!UCJURAl PROJECT AREAS 
25 

This is our Coastal Master Plan—120 projects which would re- duce flood damage by $150 billion creating 802 miles of land. The 

green space is where the land will be reduced. 

When the hurricanes come toward New Orleans, every mile of 

wetlands lost allows that storm to be that much stronger—destroying, if you will, levy walls and flooding out homes—creating obligation for the American taxpayer for that as we saw with Katrina. 

So if we do not have these dollars, this cannot happen. When we 

met before your confirmation you had mentioned you had gone to 

Congressman Scalise’s offshore energy visits and saw how we used 

those funds for our restoration. 

We also know that our coastline has refineries and pipelines that 

are the energy coast, if you will, for our state so—can we put up 

charts two and three? 

[The information referred to follows:] 
26 
27 
28 

This is what is going to happen if we do not take action. If we 

do not have that revenue to rebuild our coastline, this is the highend scenario, 50 years from now, red is the land that is lost. 

This is a future medium scenario, that is the worst, this is medium. So, even at medium, we can see an incredible vulnerability 

for New Orleans sitting right here, as all these wetlands are lost 

and, therefore, the ability to buffer storms hitting our coast. 

By the way, this is all energy coastline so our nation depends 

upon the refineries and pipelines here. The price of gasoline rises 

in the Northeast when our pipelines are put out of business by a 

large storm. 

You have mentioned desiring to be energy secure. That, of 

course, depends upon our offshore revenue and development but it 

also depends upon those pipelines and refineries to take that oil 

and gas. So, my first question. How does removing those GOMESA 

funds away from Louisiana help fulfill that energy dominance? 

Secondly, I will say that you have mentioned the need to address 

the debt and deficit. I will point out that if we do expand revenue 

sharing and development off Alaska and the Atlantic Coast, which 

those states are, frankly, incentivized to participate in by sharing 

the revenue with them, we will increase revenues for the nation as 

well as for those states and increase the number of good-paying 

jobs with more people paying taxes out of good-paying jobs. So, the 

second question. Would you support legislation that expanded revenue sharing to the Atlantic states, Alaska and the rest of the Gulf 

of Mexico if lease sales were scheduled off their coast in the next 

five-year plan? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you for your questions. And you 

know, Montana and Louisiana are very similar in that the water 

starts in Montana and makes its way down the Missouri, or Mississippi. And I know more about red snapper than I ever cared to 

sitting next to Congressman Graves. 

But I understand exactly what you’re talking about on this. And 

the budget does take the tact, and again, this is the first step of 

what a balanced budget would look like. But the budget before you 

looks at a balanced budget in 10 years and where the revenues 

come from. The position of this budget is the revenue goes into 

Treasury. 

Clearly the position of Louisiana is that—that is inappropriate. 

And I understand exactly, well, you know, between the differences 

on it. What I can say is that I’ll work with you on it, certainly. I 

understand the importance to Louisiana. We think that taking 94 

percent of the offshore assets offline has had a significant detriment to revenue of Interior. And when you have a lot of money, 

you know, the choices become easier. 

But when you drop $15.5 billion a year in revenue, much of it 

from offshore, much of it from the Gulf, some of it from Alaska and 

other holdings, it has a significant, creates a significant issue on 

funding. So, I’ll work with you on it, and I’d be glad to. 

Senator CASSIDY. Sounds good. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just one note on climate and sea level rise—I think there is a 

relationship. 
29 

Secretary Zinke, welcome. During your confirmation hearing you 

assured members of this Committee that you took tribal consultation and sovereignty very seriously, but I have to say what I have 

heard from tribal nations so far is not promising. 

When it comes to the Department of the Interior’s status review 

of the Bears Ears National Monument you said that tribes are, 

‘‘very happy with your recommendation to reduce the boundaries of 

the monument.’’ But this really isn’t the case. 

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which represents the five 

local sovereign nations, has been clear in its unanimous position to 

keep Bears Ears National Monument as it is and has condemned 

your recent recommendation stating, ‘‘the radical idea of breaking 

up Bears Ears National Monument is a slap in the face to the 

members of our tribes and an affront to Indian people all across 

the nation.’’ That does not sound very happy to me. 

Mr. Secretary, you told this Committee that, ‘‘sovereignty should 

mean something.’’ You have also said you consulted with tribal nations about your recommendation regarding Bears Ears, but they 

all oppose your recommendation. So can you explain how your decision respects sovereignty and self-determination? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you. 

I would invite members to go to Bears Ears and look at what it 

is. It’s 1.5 million acres, roughly one and a half times the size of 

Glacier National Park. Within Bears Ears, the present monument, 

there’s already a monument, there’s national forest, there are wilderness study areas of 400,000 acres, there’s a U.S. National Forest, and there’s BLM land. 

My assessment after talking to tribes in Washington, DC, and 

tribes there, I met with the Inner Coalition. But also there is a distinct difference between the Utah Navajo and the Arizona Navajo 

which should be respected. There’s a Commissioner in Utah that 

represents the Utah Navajo which is by—she is an elected official 

that represents her district. So the monument itself is split on 

whether tribes agree, I talked to them all. 

Senator FRANKEN. Does she have official representation in the 

tribe? 

Secretary ZINKE. She’s mandated by Congress as a Commissioner 

and she’s elected in her district and represents that district which 

is Navajo, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. But does she have representation in the tribe 

or no? 

Secretary ZINKE. She is the only representation of that Utah 

Navajo in her district. That is actually where the monument is. So 

to say that Commissioner Benally does not have a say or the tribes 

that I talked to, the members of the tribes in Utah, all of them 

have a say. She is not part of the Inter-Tribal Coalition which I’m 

not sure why she’s not. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sure that, I mean, you said that the 

tribes are ‘‘very happy’’ and the Inter-Tribal Coalition has said that 

breaking up the monument is a ‘‘slap in the face.’’ Those seem at 

odds. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I did talk to the tribes. 

Senator FRANKEN. And you talked to the tribes but you said they 

were very happy—but we have the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coali-
30 

tion saying that the radical idea of breaking up Bears Ears National Monument is a ‘‘slap in the face to the members of our tribes 

and an affront to Indian people all across the country.’’ Those seem 

very at odds, those characterizations. 

Secretary ZINKE. I know you probably have talked to the Navajo, 

but I have too. 

Senator FRANKEN. No, I have. 

Secretary ZINKE. And the northern Utes. And what they really 

want is co-management, above all is co-management. 

But also, Bears Ears—there’s a little thing called the law and the 

law says smallest area compatible to protect the object. In the case 

of the 1.5 million acres of Bears Ears, those antiquities that are 

contained in, can be separated, identified and the borders can be 

revised. But I believe it should be co-managed and that’s what the 

tribes want. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am not sure that is what the tribes want. 

Madam Chair, I am out of time, but it seems that the Inter-Tribal 

Coalition speaks for what the tribes want more than you do and 

they say that this is a ‘‘slap in the face.’’ I am sure that the Senator 

from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, may have something to add 

here. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Cantwell. 

Secretary Zinke, thanks for being here today and congratulations 

on your first hearing before this Committee since your confirmation 

as Secretary of the Interior. Again, the significance of your leadership at the Department to our great State of Montana cannot be 

overstated. I know very well that you understand the importance 

of achieving the balanced melody of land use. As we say out in 

Montana, this blend of Merle Haggard and John Denver, that melody, that blend here, as we look at our public lands. 

I also understand the critical importance of setting priorities 

within spending constraints. I am happy to see your prioritization 

of energy development. That balance has been lacking the past 

eight years and we know that in Montana, how much of our state 

relies on federal oil, coal and gas for good paying jobs and tax revenue that keep many of our rural communities afloat that frankly 

are sinking as we speak. You are trying to keep their schools, their 

teachers, their infrastructure funded. However, I remain highly 

concerned regarding the budget’s proposed reductions in the PILT 

program and other revenue sharing programs like our wildlife refuges. 

I was just up in your part of the state, up there in Columbia 

Falls, recently. We had some county commissioners, Mineral County, Sanders County. We have counties in Montana that have over 

90 percent owned by the Federal Government. And of course, there 

is no tax base there because the Federal Government does not pay 

taxes. Trying to help these county commissioners who are struggling, literally, they are reducing their staffing on their road crews. 

And we have county commissioners jumping on graters, plowing 

snow in the wintertime to keep the school buses going because of 
31 

the lack of revenues because we have lost our timber industry on 

these federal lands. 

However, the PILT program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, because the Federal Government does not pay taxes, are a lifeblood 

for these counties out West. We need to improve the land management, but in the meantime we have to provide, I believe, full funding for these programs to create certainty for our local county 

budgets. 

Today I also want to ask you about some of these cuts to our national parks. I know you are a lifelong neighbor to Glacier National 

Park. I am one to Yellowstone National Park. We both know how 

critical our National Park System is. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for prioritizing the deferred and cyclical maintenance in construction accounts in your budget. However, 

the President’s budget request proposed cuts of $956,000 to Glacier 

and $2.5 million to Yellowstone in the operations accounts. 

I am concerned as we see these national parks receiving record 

levels of visitation. I know we are going to be proclaiming the 

month of June as the Great Outdoors month in current visitation. 

So I am guessing we are going to see Glacier Park and Yellowstone 

Park as having yet another record season. 

I believe we do share the goal of strengthening our National 

Park Service for the 21st century. I share your commitment to fully 

addressing maintenance needs on our public lands, as you so clearly articulated in your opening statement. 

My question is this: As the Park Service is likely to continue receiving high visitation again this year and as we share the goal of 

strengthening our National Park Service, how will these cuts in operations funding help ensure the public has the sort of experience 

we all expect from what has been called America’s best idea? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you for the question. It’s always a 

pleasure to work with you. 

First on PILT. PILT, this budget includes $397 million in PILT. 

That is a difference from the last budget, a plus $397 million to the 

discretionary side. And I can’t tell you what the exact amount is 

going to be because the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) still has not 

been authorized. And it’s going to be difficult to estimate until that 

does. But right now, it sits in this proposed budget as a 12 percent 

reduction. And as it sits right now, not knowing the certainty of 

what’s going to happen to SRS—but it is, unlike the last budget, 

there’s $397 million in it, I think, which is a good start. 

The parks. Again, I’ll go to when you lose $15.5 billion worth of 

revenue it makes a difference. When half our parks don’t charge, 

when even the tier system that—many of the parks don’t follow 

their own tier system—Interior gives away about $5.5 billion worth 

of grants and a lot of those grants are in programs outside of our 

assets. So I think we had to realign in this budget and make sure 

we fund our core responsibilities. 

The parks are our treasures. I think no one understands that 

more than you and I. But also we are, in my assessment on manpower, we are too heavy in middle and upper management. And so, 

to shift those assets forward, we intend to do that in working with 

you in a reorganization that strengthens our core parks. 
32 

Senator DAINES. Alright, thank you. I am out of time. We will 

see you again tomorrow, I think, at the Appropriations Committee. 

I look forward to exploring other parts of the budget request with 

you then. 

Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Secretary Zinke. As you well know we have had these 

conversations. I so appreciate you taking the time with me. 

In Nevada, with over 85 percent of public lands in the state, 

many of our rural communities are reliant upon these lands for 

revenue, local recreation economy, livestock grazing, and energy development. That is why our relationship with the Department of 

the Interior over the years has been so crucial and why it is important that we have a really good working relationship. So I appreciate the opportunities that you have had to speak with me and 

look forward to working with you in the future as well, including 

when you come out to take a look. 

I know you are looking at Gold Butte Basin and Range and we 

have had this conversation as well. You know my concerns and 

about the Executive Order and the letter that I have sent to you. 

I want to ask you just initially—I know we had discussions about 

you coming out in the fall and when you do come out, will you take 

into consideration the economic benefit and widespread support of 

Nevada’s monuments before making a decision? 

Secretary ZINKE. Thank you for the question. 

And right now, my schedule has me in July coming out to Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico. And the way that I’ve looked at the 

monuments—one is, does it follow the law? Is it settled? Is the 

community happy with it? 

That’s why I talk to local county commissioners and tribal leaders and business folks, because I think taking an all-of-the-above. 

This is the first time, as well, as regulations.com—that the public 

can have their say outside. 

As you know, a monument designation by the President is singular. It does not require NEPA, nor does it require public comment. But the President has in his Executive Order, he has emphasized public comment and economic development as part of that. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

And let me turn now to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Fiscal 

Year 2018 request for the Bureau was $1.1 billion, a cut of $209 

million. The request proposes cuts for WaterSMART grants for 

water recycling, for re-use projects, for drought response and rural 

water projects. 

The State of Nevada gets the least rainfall of any other state in 

the nation, so we have to be incredibly mindful of persistent 

drought conditions as well as infrastructure improvements. Why 

would the Administration propose cuts for successful programs that 

help Nevada and the West respond to drought conditions in innovative ways? I am curious how you are going to respond to this. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I’ll go back to this is what a balanced 

budget looks like. 
33 

I agree with you on water reclamation, in particular, from a kid who grew up in the West. As you know, there’s $18 billion in the 

water reclamation, yet we can’t appropriate money onto core infrastructure to support rural water. 

I would love to work with you on finding a way to not have to 

go through the stringent appropriation period/process and to 

streamline it and put money where it belongs—on the front line 

each time. 

So the account, you know, sits. I think there’s about $20 billion 

‘‘in the account’’ in the water reclamation, that’s for reclamation 

that has never been appropriated and the same for LWCF. I think 

there is $18 billion ‘‘in the LWCF fund’’ that was intended for a 

purpose that was never used for that purpose. 

I would love to work with you and I especially would love to work 

with you on rural water projects. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Then in the Administration’s budget there is a proposed 12 percent cut to the historically-troubled Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE) serving about 180 BIE schools and about 40,000 students. 

The budget also proposes cuts totaling $23.3 million for programs 

that provide social services, welfare assistance, and Indian Child 

Welfare Act protections. How is this budget proposal an example 

of honoring the federal trust obligation with the tribes, and can you 

explain how these cuts will endanger these communities, or the 

challenge that these communities will now have? 

Secretary ZINKE. Clearly when it comes to Bureau of Indian Education, I think we failed. We spend far more money per student 

and get far less in outcome. The statistics I have is we spend about 

$15,391 per student and the Bureau of Education compares a national average of under ten. 

So, more money may not produce a better solution, but I’m concerned as well as you are because something is not right. I am open 

to working together to figure out a better solution—how to do it. 

I am absolutely committed to making sure that every kid has a 

great education, in particular, to some of our Indian nations that 

are isolated. They’re already challenged with a multitude of social, 

economic pressures. I’m committed to working with you on it. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you for being here. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Zinke and others, for being here today. I 

appreciate your service. 

This past weekend I had an opportunity to visit the Junkins Fire 

out in Colorado. It is a fire that has not even been declared put 

out yet. This is a fire that was burning at its peak, I guess, last 

fall. Of course, there is really no active firefighting taking place, 

but you can still see smoke from it as the snow trickles into the 

stumps that are burning and other things. It is pretty amazing, the 

work that is taking place there. I thank you for the combined efforts of the BLM and the work they did with the Forest Service as 

well on this fire. 

We talked about the important role of USGS and some of the 

flow gauges that they are going to be working with local commu-
34 

nities on, just to encourage you to continue that kind of cooperation 

with locals as they address the tree flows from fires like the 

Junkins Fire and how they impact flooding and others in the way. 

I will just briefly mention to you the Executive Order regarding 

national monuments and the review—13792. We wrote a letter to 

you earlier this year talking about the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and in it we said, ‘‘Canyons is an example of 

what the Antiquities Act was intended to do, protect cultural treasures while incorporating the historic use of the land and the management of the monument so that communities support and promote the designation.’’ That is what has happened in Colorado with 

the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. So I would urge 

you to protect this designation in Colorado as it stands. Is there an 

update at all on Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in 

Colorado? 

Secretary ZINKE. There is—it’s currently not on our priority review list. 

Let me just say a word because I think Bears Ears is relevant 

in this case. What the recommendation on Bears Ears was this. 

There was a recommendation to resize the boundary in order to 

protect the antiquities that are found within it because it does say 

smallest area compatible with protection of the object. But there 

are certain authorities the President simply does not have that 

we’re going to request that Congress take a look at. There are 

lands within the Bears Ears that we think might be more appropriate as a national recreation area or a national conservation area 

because there is no object, per se, but that authority resides in 

Congress and not the Executive. 

We also looked at about 400,000 acres in the Bears Ears which 

is wilderness study area. So when you put a monument over the 

top of a wilderness and that monument has its proclamation, do 

you manage it as a wilderness or a proclamation because in some 

cases a wilderness is actually held to a stricter and higher standard of what you can and cannot do in a wilderness. So we’re asking 

Congress to take a look at that. 

In cases across the West, there might be some monuments that 

have a wilderness or wilderness study group. We’re asking what 

the intent of Congress was on those. Do you manage it as wilderness or a proclamation? Co-management was a part of it. We don’t 

have the authority to grant co-management. Above all, the tribes 

want co-management, but I don’t have the authority nor does the 

President have the authority to grant it. That was part of it too. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate 

the fact that the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is 

not on the priority list, and I hope that eventually you will clear 

up the fact that it is going to remain as is. 

During your confirmation hearing we discussed the possibility of 

moving the BLM Headquarters to the Western United States because it makes sense to do that with an agency that is 99.9 percent 

public lands that are under its management West of the Mississippi River. 

Since your confirmation I have introduced legislation that would 

do just that—direct the Department to submit to Congress a strategy involving certain metrics for moving the BLM West. The legis-
35 

lation has bipartisan support. Back home, Governor Hickenlooper 

and the Mayor of Denver support the effort; at least they have 

made public comments in support of it. 

Mr. Secretary, given your goal to move some of your Department 

to the front lines, out into the West, how can Congress best assist 

you in this goal to relocate the BLM Headquarters? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, we’re looking at doing a reorganization of 

Interior, and we’re going to need you, quite frankly, your help. 

The way we’re organized currently is all the different bureaus report to their different regions and we’re not very good at joint operations. So we’re looking at appropriately moving assets where they 

should be. 

When I say joint, if you have a stream that has a trout and a 

salmon in the same stream, you’re going to probably involve NOAA 

through NMFS, Fish and Wildlife, because we’re going to look at 

the trout and NOAA is going to look at the salmon. If you irrigate 

out of it, it’s probably the Bureau of Reclamation, and if you have 

a dam, it’s probably the Army Corps of Engineers. There are four 

different bureaus and if it crosses tribal land you’re probably going 

to have BIA in it. You could have actually four different bureaus 

that have different priorities. In order to come up with a plan, 

you’re not going to have—the plan won’t be reconciled between the 

bureaus. So we’re going to have to look at how to be more joint and 

a lot of that is putting the assets where the preponderance of, in 

the case of BLM, the preponderance of land and BLM is out West. 

We are looking at reorganizing to do just that, to push the assets 

where they should be. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know I am 

out of time here, but we will have questions to follow up on an Arkansas Valley Conduit issue as well as continued funding and support for Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, for being here. 

First of all, there are a couple things I want to go over. West Virginia is a little bit different from being out West, but we are still 

wild and wonderful. 

Secretary ZINKE. I consider you out West, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. First of all, you have covered the Payment in 

Lieu of Taxes program and that is very important for our state; 

some of our rural counties really depend on it. The reduction hits 

them very, very hard. 

First of all, on the coal, you all have been very supportive of the 

coal industry and the people that do this tremendous work for the 

people of this country. I am confused a little bit as to why the 

President’s Budget for 2018 proposed $134 million in payments to 

the United Mine Workers of America from the Health Benefit 

Plans from the Treasury. Those are coming from the money distributed from Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

That is a $45 million reduction from 2016. 
36 

We just passed a piece of legislation, put 22,000 miners in the 

1993 fund. We are going to be in serious problems here because 

that AML distribution for the Abandoned Mine Land monies and 

the Treasury—I don’t know if you all have looked at that, or what 

challenges it might cause for you. 

Secretary ZINKE. We did, sir, and I’ll go back. This is a starting 

point. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

Secretary ZINKE. Chairman Rogers of the House side, you know, 

also is—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Hal watches it very closely. 

Secretary ZINKE. ——very focused—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 

Secretary ZINKE. ——on this issue and when I say, I look forward to working with you on it, but I understand, certainly, the 

rub. 

Senator MANCHIN. You see the concern we have right now being 

able to meet the demands that we have. 

Secretary ZINKE. I do and I’ve long respected Chairman Rogers 

and I think he does a great job. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, if you will work with us on that and 

make sure that our miners do not get shortchanged, I would be 

very appreciative. We are going to be working together with you on 

that. 

Let me go over to something as far as our national forests. I am 

told that 50 percent of our nation’s forests are privately owned, but 

over 90 percent of the timber for our country comes from that 50 

percent. That means that the remainder of the properties that we 

have in national forests, public lands, about 10 percent comes from 

them. 

Why are we not able to harvest or look at harvesting, financially, 

especially, because we are losing a lot of the forests from maturing 

and falling and strike spikes by lightning and things of this sort. 

I think we could do a much better job of managing our forests, also 

protecting the forests, but also having the revenue that would come 

from it. Just the three percent comes from the national forest in 

West Virginia. That provides about 43,000 jobs. 

Secretary ZINKE. I could not agree with you more, sir. It has been 

an area of frustration before I was in Congress. The Forest Service, 

alone, has about 71 million acres of dead and dying timber that 

should be removed. We spend billions of dollars each year fighting 

forest fires and we can’t harvest trees. 

In our holdings, only a small percentage is actually available for 

timber harvest because it’s locked up in either habitat, the Spotted 

Owl, or a different species. And so, our ability to even go forward 

on a sustainable yield basis, we’re going to need some help legislatively to work through it. 

There’s a case that we’re watching closely in the Ninth Circuit 

that looks at the different balance between the legislative intent on 

sustainable yield vice habitat and other things. But we’re looking 

at it and my commitment is to make sure we have a healthy forest. 

And a healthy forest is making sure that we are at sustainable, or 

as close as we can, and remove the dead and dying timber and 

have a healthy industry. 
37 

Senator MANCHIN. Do people just defy the accuracy or the logic 

of this that do not want anything touched in these areas, and these 

are pristine areas, I understand. But still yet, if I am going to preserve a pristine area, I am going to make sure that we are able 

to allow it to flourish and grow and dying timber does absolutely 

the opposite. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, we live in a great nation of a lot of opinions. 

[Laughter.] 

And there are some that believe in the theory of natural regulation more than a mirror model where man is an observer and the 

lightest footprint. And they’re more than content of watching our 

forests burn down year after year. 

I sit on the Pinchot model of using science and multiple use for 

most of our holdings, which includes timber harvest. But you have 

to do it right and there have been mistakes in the past, but we 

have great people that know how to harvest timber. 

Senator MANCHIN. My final thing, real quick, my time is running 

out, is the AML, the Abandoned Mine Lands, again the funds— 

what we are using them for and the purpose. A lot of that was basically for revitalizing the Power Plus Plan. It was to revitalize 

some of these areas that lost so much and the President’s budget 

proposes eliminating the Abandoned Mine Lands Economic Development Pilot Program. I would hope you would look at that, sir, before you all make that step because these communities that gave 

so much to this great country need a little bit of assistance to get 

back up on their feet, and eliminating that would be very harmful 

to them. 

Secretary ZINKE. My commitment is to work with you on that, 

and Chairman Rogers also talked to me, point blank, on that one 

too and I respect him. 

But most of all it will affect jobs and I respect hard-working people, whether it’s coal or logging or just people putting things together and the manufacturing industry. I come from three generations of plumbers. I just like people that work and so does the 

President. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Zinke, it is great to be with you again, great to see you. 

I was singing your praises along with that of Senator Daines, as 

well as our friend Ryan Lance at both Boys State and Girls State 

in Wyoming in the past week because there you were—three young 

high school students from Montana sitting together at Boys State. 

That is the aspiration for young people at Boys State and Girls 

State all across the country can look to you, as well as Senator 

Daines, as well as Ryan as something to look up to and work for. 

Secretary ZINKE. I have to say, I was the slacker of the three. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, you and I have spoken in the past 

about the Bureau of Land Management and the backlog of applications for permits to drill for oil and gas on federal land. We discussed that permitting delays vary among field offices. Some of the 
38 

offices are having much more substantial backlogs than others. Oil 

and gas permitting delays directly threaten our energy security. 

They threaten American jobs and economic stability in small communities. 

The Department’s budget proposal includes a $16 million increase for the BLM program that is responsible for processing oil 

and gas drilling permits. The budget proposal states that this funding increase will ‘‘help ensure BLM has sufficient administrative 

staff capacity to quickly process applications for permits to drill.’’ 

I am encouraged by your proposal. 

BLM needs to have the necessary resources at its disposal to 

process the oil and gas permits in a timely manner yet we must 

ensure that it allocates its resources to field offices greatest in 

need, such as the field office that we certainly have in Casper, Wyoming. 

What steps are you going to take to ensure that the BLM field 

offices have the resources they need to relieve some of these significant backlogs of the permit applications? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well I would say the backlog is really twopronged. One is the resources, but also the process. We want to 

make sure the process is fair and not arbitrary and holds people 

accountable. I think we all agree with that. But if it can go into 

these loops where all of a sudden you can’t get an answer for 18 

months, two years, you don’t have any chance to actually talk to 

the individual that’s doing it or it can be pigeon-holed—there’s a 

problem. I would think in 45 days, given where some of the fields 

are, you should have a feeling whether that permit is going to be 

authorized or not or whether it can be mitigated. 

So a lot of it is restoring trust in our system, that we’re going 

to do what the public expects us to do, is do a review. The review 

should be straightforward, trust but verify, make sure their permit 

process is not arbitrary. And we should work with people and be 

more of a partner than, in some cases, an adversary. 

That’s a tall order given that a lot of the government or a lot of 

the folks out there, whether it’s industry or private landowners, 

don’t trust the Department of the Interior. And my number one job 

is to get back there and talk to communities and be an advocate 

and restore trust. 

Senator BARRASSO. You know, the Department is facing several 

billion-dollar issues which are going to require prioritization and 

management well into the future, beyond the upcoming fiscal 

years. Issues like wild horse and burro management, wildfire funding which you described in your opening statement as a billion-dollar problem, and deferred maintenance costs that cost the Department billions. And they are not going to be solved overnight. This 

is not just a budget problem proposal—this is a proposal for one 

year that you are talking about today, to what extent are you examining the long-term needs and the issues that are going to require multi-year planning, like the National Park Service’s deferred maintenance backlog? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, we’re looking at long-term funding. You know, obviously, when you drop $15.5 billion a year, we could have 

caught up on our maintenance, but we don’t want to go up and 

down. We want a steady stream. And there’s certainly opportuni-
39 

ties on onshore, new revenue to commit against a stable platform 

of maintenance repair in the out years. 

It was mentioned earlier that we had 330 million visitors 

through our park system last year. We think that’s going to increase, and so now we have to look at the public lands around our 

parks to make sure things like the trail systems connect, watersheds make sense, wildlife corridors connect. Those are going to 

take resources to do that and having a steady fund of resources 

come in to put against our infrastructure is part of it. So we are 

looking at long-term fixes and that will be part of, as I understand, 

the infrastructure bill. 

Senator BARRASSO. My final question refers to the Bureau of Indian Education. You made some comments about it earlier to one 

of the other questions—that we have failed, something is not right, 

committed to making sure that the education process is there. As 

we go forward, I hope that you continue to work closely with tribes, 

with the Bureau of Indian Education and Congress to make sure 

that the money is used most effectively because, as you say, there 

is a lot of room for improvement. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well and one comment about Indian education. 

It’s different. You have dorms. You have, in some cases, security. 

So just the funding mechanisms, so just to say that we’re—that it’s 

more expensive is a little bit deceiving in that it’s not the same as 

a public school in some cases. 

But it’s certainly a priority of mine to make sure that the education experience and the opportunity for a child is elevated and 

highlighted and prioritized but it’s going to take both of us working 

together and probably giving more flexibility up front to the tribes 

so that they can look at their issue and cater a more flexible approach. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Secretary Zinke, you and I recently talked 

about a plan that sportsmen in New Mexico have promoted to provide public access to the only legally inaccessible wilderness area 

in the entire nation. For the very first time this year we have the 

potential to have access to that area. 

Since 2009 when the Sabinoso Wilderness was designated, and 

long before then, actually, when it was a wilderness study area, 

this area has been closed to the public with no legal ingress. We 

have an opportunity to change that with a piece of an agreement 

that is literally sitting in your lap in time for this year’s hunting 

season. I have heard from local sportsmen’s groups as well as the 

San Miguel County Commission in support of this plan, and I am 

literally getting calls each and every day from folks wondering 

when a decision will be final. 

I have letters here from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, the local chapter of Sportsmen Concern, the Wild 

Turkey Sportsmen’s Association and the San Miguel County Commission—the list just, kind of, goes on and on. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
40 

MayS, 2017 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of the Interior 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington DC 20240 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

NEW MEXICO 

WILDLIFE 

FEDERATION 

Designated in 2009} the 16,030-acre Sabinoso Wilderness located near Las Vegas, New Mexico, is the 

only wilderness in the National Wilderness Preservation System that does not have any public access. 

Right now, the only way you can enjoy the Sabinoso is as a guest of a surrounding landowner. After 

more than four long years of intensive work by our organizations and other sportsmen in New Mexico, a 

private foundation now owns the 4,176-acre Rimrock Rose Ranch, the key to public access from a 

nearby county road. 

The private foundation dedicated to conservation and committed to public access has provided a 

donation of $3.15 million to acquire the ranch and donate it to the United States. This will create public 

access to Sabinoso through Canyon Largo, which contains the headwaters of the Canadian River. 

Spectacular Canyon largo stretches sixteen miles, with the upper elevations at 6,200 feet. The bottom 

of the canyon is a meandering riparian strip of green meadows and springs. The diverse flora and 

wildlife create a microenvironment where mountain lion, black bear~ mule deert Barbary sheep1 New 

Mexico dahl sheep, blue heron, Rio Grande turkey and migratory water fowl reside. It is home to the 

largest concentration of amphibians in northern New Mexico as well as rare perennial water in this arid 

landscape. 

Since 2009 New Mexico sportsmen and women, along with Senators Heinrich and Udall, have tried 

to find a solution for creating reasonable access into the Sabinoso. Through good fortune and 

tenacious work with a willing private seller, we now have that opportunity right in front of us. 

Sportsmen all across the west are applauding SO 3347 directing the Bureau of Land Management 

to identify, inventory and find all possible ways to provide access onto our public lands that are 

now land-locked and inaccessible. We have no better example of this than the Sabinoso, and a 

dear solution has been provided. 

The opportunity for hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, photography and horseback riding in the 

Sabinoso is immense and the demand for access is high. Access to the Sabinoso Wilderness is sought 

after by locals and visitors alike~ and opening up Sablnoso Wilderness to recreation is one step in the 

direction of generating a better quality of life for San Miguel citizens and jobs for the community. Newly 

1 
41 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

MayS, 2017 

Page 2 

created access to the Sabinoso Wilderness will be an integral part of economic growth locally and 

regionally. 

New Mexico's hunting draw results are in and fortunate sportsmen are getting ready for this fall's 

big game hunting seasons. We will be starting to scout as early as this summer. New Mexico 

sportsmen and women ask for your help to insure that another hunting season doesn't go by 

without the opportunity to enjoy fair-chase hunting and recreating in the Sabinoso Wilderness. 

With your help, New Mexico sportsmen and women will be able to enjoy the many recreational 

opportunities in this New Mexico treasure. 

Respectfully, 

John Cornel!J New Mexi-co Fieid Representative 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP 

100 Juh Trail, Hillsboro, New Mexico 88042 

5 75-895-5090 

575-740-1759 cell 

jcorneff@trcp.org 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP- Joel Webster, Director, Center for Western lands 

BACK COUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS -land Tawney, Executive Director 

NEW MEXICO W!lDUFE FEDERATION- Garrett VeneKiasen, Executive Director 

SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED SPORTSMEN -John Cornell and Jim Bates, Co-Chairmen 

DONA ANA COUNTY ASSOCIATED SPORTSMEN-Tony Popp, President 

NEW MEXICO SPORTSMEN- Oscar Simpson, State Chair 

WILD TURKEY SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION -C. J. Gain, President 

SPORTSMEN CONCERN/ lAS VEGAS, NM, AND MORA, NM, CHAPTERS- Max Trujillo, Interim President 

BACK COUNTRY HORSEMEN Of NEW MEXICO- Oscar Simpson, Public lands/legislative Chair 

2 
42 

the last opportunity to buy supplies before reaching the wilderness 

visitors to our local 

look forwn rd 
43 

We are finally at the finish line in an effort that has taken well 

over a decade. Can I go back and tell New Mexicans that they can 

look forward to hunting in the Sabinoso Wilderness this year? 

Secretary ZINKE. You and I talked about it, that the proposal 

was, and we both agree, public access—the Interior would strongly 

consider taking it under in public lands. It is—the status of the 

land—— 

Senator HEINRICH. It is a donation, not a—— 

Secretary ZINKE. It’s a donation, alright, but it doesn’t meet the 

standard of what a wilderness typically is, but if we can, and I’ll 

work with you because we both agree this is a unique opportunity, 

we both agree that we should have public access. I think where the 

rub is, is that we take it in as wilderness or do we take it in something that provides a little more access? As you know, wilderness 

doesn’t include a bike or a mountain bike or a vehicle or a disabled—— 

Senator HEINRICH. The challenge with that is there is no place 

to bike to because it is at the end of the road where it abuts the 

existing wilderness area. The donation was actually made contingent on the land being added to the existing wilderness, and I have 

spoken to the landowner and they are not willing to make the donation under separate terms from that. 

So let’s be clear: if you do not accept the donation, the reality is 

we are back to square one. We are where we were before with zero 

public access for hunting, zero public access for recreation. There 

is no Plan B for this. And I can tell you, as somebody who actually 

went out and tried to find easements that we could purchase into 

this area for over 10 years, there is no alternative. It is either we 

get access for the first time or we go back to the only landlocked 

wilderness in the United States. And that is, clearly, not what my 

constituents desire. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I don’t yield to pressure, only higher principle. When someone comes to the table and says we’re only going 

to give you this donation under these conditions and terms, that 

doesn’t sound to me like a negotiation. That sounds like they dictated terms. 

Senator HEINRICH. They did negotiate this with the BLM over 

the course of many years. At the time, the BLM was open to those 

terms. Now, there is a new Secretary. I understand that, but—— 

Secretary ZINKE. And we’re open to negotiating so we have public 

access. So if they’re willing to work with us on making sure that 

the public has access to it, then I’m sure we can come to an amenable solution on it. But to come to the table and say—— 

Senator HEINRICH. The irony of these terms is—— 

Secretary ZINKE. Under these terms and conditions only. 

Senator HEINRICH. ——right now we do not have public access. 

Zero. And so, by looking a gift horse in the mouth, we are turning 

back the clock to where we were before. 

I can tell you if this does not get done by this fall, there will be 

an awful lot of people disappointed in Northeastern New Mexico 

who thought this was a slam dunk. You had the county commission. You had the local groups on board. You had the delegation on 

board. This is one of those few cases where everybody lines up on 
44 

the same side and says, this is good for the community and we can 

grow our economy with this. Let’s do it. 

Secretary ZINKE. I’ll work with you on it but define public access. 

Is it your definition of public access? Is it only you can walk 

through the wilderness without—either walk or horseback—or is it 

public access where it provides amenities like a parking lot for people that are, maybe, disabled or can’t walk through—— 

Senator HEINRICH. It is easy enough to provide a parking lot 

under this arrangement, but you are not going to be able to provide 

mechanized access to the area that is designated as wilderness. 

I am all for additional access for mountain bikes, for other forms, 

but this is not the place. I mean, have you been there? The canyon 

walls go straight up on either side. There is no place to go to unless 

you are willing to put a pack on and it is worthwhile then because 

there are big mule deer, there are Barbary sheep, there are elk, 

there are turkey. It is some of the best habitat in northeastern 

New Mexico and right now, what I know is that there is zero, zero, 

zero public access. 

Secretary ZINKE. I think we both agree that we should move forward on public access. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you. Before the witness, a couple of comments. 

I want to invite Senator Cassidy to join the climate change caucus and I want to use his charts the next time I am on the Floor 

talking about climate change. Although, I know in Louisiana part 

of the problem is subsidence rather than necessarily sea level rise. 

But that is coming. 

Also, Senator Daines, we are going to have to change the name 

of that park to the park formerly known as Glacier because there 

were 150 glaciers when the park was founded and there are now 

26. They have retreated 39 percent in the last 50 years and that 

is accelerating. We just, kind of, take cognizance of what is happening. Our national parks are one of the, I guess, the canary in 

the coal mine and Glacier is probably the most prominent. 

Secretary Zinke, first I am not going to lobby you. I want to 

thank you for visiting our beautiful Katahdin Woods and Waters 

National Monument that is already having positive economic effects in our region. But I am not going to lobby you. I really want 

to thank you for going, sincerely. 

I once went on a Congressional trip and an old man in a foreign 

country said, ‘‘I know why you’re here.’’ I said, ‘‘Why is that?’’ And 

he said, ‘‘Because one day of seeing is better than 30 days of reading.’’ 

You went to see, and I deeply appreciate your committing. You 

met a commitment to me you made at the hearing to go to Maine, 

and I am just delighted that you did that. So I want to thank you 

for that. 

Secretary ZINKE. It was a wonderful experience, and I’m sure 

you’re going to be enthusiastic about the recommendation. 

Senator KING. Well, that is as much as I can ask. 

Secretary ZINKE. As well as the Governor, I’ve talked to the Governor, so I think we have a reasonable approach and a recommendation that all parties will be satisfied with. 
45 

Senator KING. I congratulate you on that and look forward to the 

recommendation. 

In terms of the cuts to the national parks, many people have 

talked about it. You mentioned that a substantial part of the cuts 

will take place in regional, in the bureaucracy if you will, as opposed to the individual parks. Are there cuts at individual parks 

that will hit the operating budgets? 

Secretary ZINKE. On the reorganization, again, what I see is the 

front line of the specific parks are too short. 

In the case of the monument in Maine, there’s only one superintendent there. You can add one superintendent plus, you know, 

a detailed person. And when you go up there, and clearly the infrastructure required there with bathrooms and signs and working together with the state—when you incorporate something under a 

public trust, in the Park Service or a monument, then there’s also 

an obligation on our side to make sure that it is done right. 

Bears Ears, in that conversation, there is no doubt some antiquities there that are well-deserving of federal protection. But what 

I didn’t see is, I didn’t see any signs, I didn’t see any bathrooms 

at the trailheads, I didn’t see any parking lots. 

In one case, in Escalante, I saw a German van with three Germans in it with kayaks looking for the Grand Staircase which— 

there’s no staircase by the way—this is not a kayak thing. 

But if we’re going to assume the primary responsibility of preserving something, then we have to also assume the responsibility 

to make sure we preserve it and that’s infrastructure, signage, 

monitoring and those things that are necessary to do that. 

Senator KING. And in the individual parks, as we are looking 

around the country, whether it is Yellowstone or Olympia or Acadia in Maine, do you anticipate operational budget cuts or are you 

talking about simply regional administration cuts? 

Secretary ZINKE. What I anticipate, I don’t, individually, very 

doubtful, parks, probably we’re—what I’ve done in the Headquarters is, as far as the hiring freeze, I maintained it in Washington and maintained it in Denver so we could push bodies to 

where they belong out in the front. And you’ll see a movement to 

make sure we shore up and expand the front line. 

The regional scientists, they’re all in the USGS, and that was a 

decision from a couple secretaries ago. What we’re looking at is 

how to return the scientists back out to the field to where they do 

more field work rather than headquarters work. 

But there are some minor adjustments in the budget, but I think 

as we go through the process and coordinate with you on reorganization, what our goal is, is to make the parks not only whole, but 

get more assets on the front line and reduce the middle and upper 

management side. 

Senator KING. In the Armed Services Committee we talk about 

tooth-to-tail. We are talking about more tooth and less tail, and I 

don’t necessarily object to that point of view. 

A final question or final comment. One of the items in the budget, or in the plan, is a suspension of the advisory commissions to 

the national parks and they are under review. I cannot speak for 

other parks, but I can tell you that the advisory commission at 

Acadia in Maine is very important. It makes a great contribution. 
46 

They are volunteer members. There are some administrative 

costs—I understand that is what we are talking about—but I think 

this is a case where the value to the Park System in terms of good 

relations with its neighbors outweighs the fairly minor savings 

from the administrative costs associated. So I commend to you, 

from personal experience, the value of the advisory commissions. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, and I have 220, which I was surprised at 

the number, and this is what I asked, you know, rather than going 

to individual advisory groups and say, well, I’m going to suspend 

this. I suspended them all with this caveat: tell me who is in your, 

on your board; tell me what you’ve done in the last year; tell me 

what you’ve done in the last five years; tell me what your budget 

is; and tell me what your goal is. And if you had an issue, they 

could ask for an exemption to meet. 

As far as Acadia they did not request an exemption yet, but it 

was really about two pages maximum because now I’m responsible 

for the 220 boards, to a degree, and I just want to know. And I 

would think the overwhelming number of boards do great things 

and it just was an opportunity to me to know who was on the 

board. I’ll look through what their goals are, which I think is important, and then if I had any questions I could ask. But I assume 

that we’ll have all the paperwork on those boards. 

If Acadia is meeting, which I understand they want to meet in 

the summer, all they have to do is put in a request for exemption 

and certainly I would understand that. 

Senator KING. It sounds like the national park version of trust 

but verify. 

Secretary ZINKE. Trust but verify. I just want to know, you 

know? 

We spend about $15 million which, on the scale of the overall budget is not much, but if you’re a plumber, $15 million is a lot 

of money. 

So as the steward of the taxpayers’ dollars, I just want to know 

the great things the boards are doing, who is on the board, what 

they’ve done in the last year, what they’ve done in the last five 

years, and then I’ll be glad to write them a card and say thank you 

for your service and then invite them to DC to talk to them. 

Senator KING. Good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. I appreciate you bringing up that question because I, too, have heard from a lot of folks 

back home. We have a couple advisory committees that are pretty 

important; one impacts the NPR-A in the 1002 area. There are two 

groups under the BLM, the NPR-A Working Group and the NPRA Subsistence Advisory Panel. So, obviously, very key to what we 

are trying to do up North. 

Hearing your explanation, Mr. Secretary, about what your intent 

was in just conducting this review and how, if there is work that 

is underway, there is an opportunity for, again, those groups to be 

up and running and doing the work that I think we all recognize 

is important. But oversight is always appreciated around here. 

Let me go back to another issue relating to land conveyances. 

The BLM conducted an inventory at Congress’ request last year 

looking into the contaminated lands that had been conveyed to 
47 

Alaska Native Corporations and additional contamination that had 

been on lands pending conveyance. They have identified over 600 

contaminated sites and the ownership is, kind of, a mixed bag here. 

But what we know is that these sites are contaminated and they 

need remediation. 

The Federal Government is moving very slowly and part of the 

problem is, we just do not have a single agency that is overseeing 

and coordinating the cleanup. So you have a situation where you 

have lands that are formally held by the Interior, Army Corps 

lands, you have FAA lands, you have DoD lands, and everybody is 

kind of pointing the finger saying, you be in charge. As a consequence, it is just not happening. 

Now BLM, we have had long discussions with them. They say 

that they cannot compel federal agencies to clean up these contaminated sites. But it seems to me that because of DOI’s trust responsibility to Alaska Natives, it seems that at a minimum we ought 

to be able to get Interior to coordinate a working group of these responsible agencies so that we can get the cleanup started on 600 

sites. 

Again, this is a different issue than the legacy well cleanups 

which you have already been briefed on up North. We are trying 

to cut through that backlog as well. But when you think about the 

situation right now, again, you have Alaska Natives that have not 

had the commitments under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act (ANCSA) fulfilled. You have not had the commitments to our 

Alaska Native Veterans fulfilled. And then on some of the lands 

where they did receive conveyances, they got contaminated lands. 

It is not a good deal. It is not right. 

So I would ask if you can have your team go back and see what 

they can do to work with us on how we can address this issue of 

contaminated lands. Maybe we need to look at whether Interior 

could allow ANCs to trade back contaminated lands for selections 

of new, clean lands. But I need to make some progress on this, and 

I am asking for your assistance on it. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, the good news, at least on the Alaska legacy wells, is I think we’re down to 31 now as opposed to 50. By 

the end of 2018, I think we’re going to be at 25 wells in the legacy. 

But I share your frustration. And this is why we’re looking at a 

reorganization based on a joint model of combatant commands because, you’re absolutely correct, is that the different bureaus within 

the government agency, whether it’s Ag or Interior or Army Corps 

of Engineers, don’t work very well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Secretary ZINKE. And you can’t task each other without going to 

the Secretary and we’ve created a bureaucracy that we can’t get 

anything done. 

So we’re looking at, quite frankly—and Alaska is going to be 

more of a joint model, joint management—rather than everybody 

reporting to their headquarters, reporting to a joint command. The 

same way we fight forest fires, similar to the way we fight combatant commanders, and then make sure we have a state liaison. We 

think that model is appropriate when we’re looking at wildlife corridors, watersheds, cleanup and these areas that transcend one isolated bureau but are multi-bureau, or would be joint in this case. 
48 

We think that that model is more appropriate and we’re going 

to need to work with you to make that happen. Most of the authority relies on the Secretary, but there’s some things that we go 

through, that will be required. No doubt we want to work with you 

anyway on it, but we’re going to need your help in order to bring 

the ball to the field. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just so much of this is interagency coordination 

and it gets very frustrating, again, when you have one agency 

pointing the finger at the other one saying, you do it first. So we 

need to work with you on that. 

Let me turn to Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, my first set of questions was about tribal affairs, 

and I have heard a great deal of concern from tribal leaders about 

the role that James Cason at the Department of the Interior is 

playing. Now during his time at the Department of the Interior 

during the Bush Administration he earned a reputation for his opposition to putting land into trust. And I am now hearing that land 

decisions that were previously made at the Assistant Secretary 

level will now be made by Mr. Cason. In fact, I have heard that 

Mr. Cason has been delegated a great deal of decision-making that 

normally is within the Secretary’s purview. 

What is the scope of Mr. Cason’s role at the Department? Does 

it include overseeing the Cobell Agreement and putting land into 

trust? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I share your, well perhaps not, but to date 

I don’t have my deputy. Of all the Senate-confirmed individuals, I 

didn’t even have my deputy. So I have about 70 appointments, 20 

or so Senate-confirmed. And to date, I have no Senate-confirmed 

deputy. I have magnificent candidates, BIA included, but they’re 

not in the office. Mr. Cason is my Acting Deputy at the moment, 

and he comes with a lot of experience from his previous tour in the 

Bush Administration. 

As you know, I think it was January 19th when I probably had 

an Interior eight or nine decisions based on trust coming in, I think 

I’m in court on two of them, on determinations of whether or not 

it’s appropriate to take a trust in. So I would love to get a stable 

platform of—leadership. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, I am hearing this across the whole Administration in terms of shortage of deputies, et cetera. 

I just want to ask you about your statements on the President’s 

budget and whether they reflect a commitment to strengthen tribal 

sovereignty and support self-determination. 

Budget cuts of $371 million from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Those of us who are on the Indian Affairs Committee, just know 

how woefully underfunded the tribes are in Indian Country and 

this, sort of, adds insult to injury. How exactly do these cuts support sovereignty and self-determination? And how can you build 

trust in Indian Country when you present a budget like this? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I’ll go back to the beginning: this is what 

a balanced budget looks like. We could ignore it. 

Senator FRANKEN. There are other ways to balance budgets—— 

Secretary ZINKE. And—— 
49 

Senator FRANKEN. ——and on the backs of the tribes, to me, is 

not the way to do it. 

Secretary ZINKE. And they were to a degree, not across the 

board, some of the cuts were 8 percent, 11 percent, but this is what 

a balanced budget looks like. 

The fortunate thing, or unfortunate depending on how you’re 

standing, is that you have a say on it. But in order to present a 

budget that balances, which was the President’s charge—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I hear you and I am not going to argue with 

you because I want to change quickly to climate change. 

At a House Appropriations hearing last week you had an exchange on climate change with my Minnesota colleague, Representative Betty McCollum. You talked about glacial retreating in Glacier National Park saying, ‘‘The glaciers started melting in Glacier 

Park right after the end of the last Ice Age.’’ That is true, but you 

continued, ‘‘It has been a consistent melt.’’ 

In fact, data released last month by the U.S. Geological Survey 

scientists, who work for you, show the glaciers in the park have 

shrunk by 40 percent in just the last 50 years. So we are not seeing 

a consistent melt. Melting is dramatically accelerating. 

I am concerned that our Secretary of the Interior, who is in 

charge of our nation’s public lands, is unclear—and we have this 

in your confirmation hearing—I am concerned about whether you 

are clear about the magnitude of warming that is occurring and the 

backing out of the Paris agreement. 

I know I am running out of time. 

Can you tell me how much warming government scientists predict for the end of this century under a business-as-usual scenario? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, the Paris accord, in the President’s and 

my judgment, it wasn’t about climate change, it was about a bad 

deal. We spent $3 billion, $1 billion in cash. 

Senator FRANKEN. Let me just—I know we are out of time, so 

can you just answer my question? Can you tell me how much 

warming government scientists predict for the end of this century 

under a business-as-usual scenario? 

Secretary ZINKE. I don’t think the government scientists can predict with certainty. There isn’t a model that exists today that can 

predict today’s weather given all the data. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, they predict a range and you said we 

have to go with the science—that is what you said during the early 

part of this hearing—you said, we have to go with the science. And 

there is agreement among climate scientists about the range of 

what we would have in warming by the end of the century. Do you 

know what that range is? 

Secretary ZINKE. If everyone adhered to the Paris climate accord, 

that change would be roughly 0.2 degrees which is insignificant. 

And yet, people ignore the fact that China—— 

Senator FRANKEN. No, no, no. 

No. No. No. 

Secretary ZINKE. That was an MIT study. We can give you—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That was what the change would be under the 

period covered by the agreement. That is not what the change 

would be in the end of the century if they continued it. So you’re 

really mixing apples and oranges. 
50 

I just want you to answer the question that I asked you. That 

is all I want you to do. Can you tell me how much warming government scientists, working for our government, predict for the end of 

the century under a business-as-usual scenario? 

Secretary ZINKE. Can you tell me, sir, whether or not China increased its CO2 between now and 2030 under the agreement and 

by what? But I will be glad to give you that answer. 

Senator FRANKEN. And that answer is? 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Secretary ZINKE. I will be glad to give you that answer. 

Senator FRANKEN. So you will give it in writing? 

Secretary ZINKE. In writing. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You said a number of times in response to our questions that this 

budget is what a balanced budget looks like. So does this budget 

balance resource extraction with conservation? 

Secretary ZINKE. The budget balances fiscally in a 10-year program. The budget does not favor one energy solution over another, 

nor does it favor extraction over non-extraction—it doesn’t favor. 

It’s a budget that produces a stewardship of our public lands. 

Senator HIRONO. On the other hand, you also talked about the 

need to raise revenues and that one of the ways that you would 

raise revenues is to increase what we get, what you get, from resource extraction. And so, it does appear as though, from a very 

pragmatic standpoint, that that is one of the ways that you are 

going to create additional funds to keep the Interior Department 

going. 

I would say that if we look at this budget it probably reflects 

more of a bend toward resource extraction over conservation. 

Let me give you an example. When you were here for your confirmation hearings you were a big supporter, and when I met with 

you also prior to that hearing, you were a big supporter of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). That fund is supposed to be a conservation program that is funded by oil drilling 

revenues and yet, this fund is cut by 84 percent. That is an example of how we are moving toward extraction as opposed to conservation. 

The reason that I am particularly interested in the strength of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund is that it is a very bipartisan-supported fund and Hawaii has submitted a proposal that obtains funding from the LWCF. Our proposal is called Island Forests 

at Risk and it protects water resources, improves ecosystems, et 

cetera. So, has your commitment to the LWCF changed?—because 

this fund is cut by 84 percent in the President’s budget, which you 

support now. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, it’s funny that the source of LWCF is offshore oil and gas. So when we drill offshore for oil and gas we put 

more into the fund. What is cut from the budget is more land acquisition in the LWCF. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. 
51 

Secretary ZINKE. But as you know the LWCF Fund itself has about $18 billion over a period of time that has not been appropriated. And so, I think we’re supportive of looking at LWCF expansion on onshore too. Some of that is to provide some infrastructure relief. 

It’s hard to fathom how you would take land in if you can’t afford 

to maintain it. I think we should look at ways to maintain when 

we have our conservation easements and all the good things the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided. We need to 

make sure we have a revenue stream to make sure that we can 

maintain those holdings. 

Senator HIRONO. Well, in the case of our proposal, Island Forests 

at Risk, it is for the acquisition of properties that the private landowners—because we do not have any national forests in Hawaii, we 

are one of ten states that do not. We rely on other kinds of resources from the Federal Government to support the privately- and 

state-owned forest areas. And so, there are private entities that 

have been waiting for years, and we finally got into the pipeline 

for support from the LWCF and suddenly that pipeline has been 

closed. 

Now, I would like to understand that. I conclude that you do support the President’s budget for Interior at this point with all of the 

cuts that many of my colleagues have pointed out. 

Secretary ZINKE. I do support the budget and I commend the 

President for actually having the focus on providing the first step 

of what a balanced budget would look like. That is a tremendous 

change from the proposition that having a budget that doesn’t balance really doesn’t matter. So at least, if nothing else, it provides 

a good conversation. 

Senator HIRONO. Excuse me, I am running out of time—because 

a balanced budget is in the eye of the beholder, I would say, because certain other things that are very important to many of us 

will be cut. Did you push back on any of the cuts that are reflected 

in the budget for Interior? 

Secretary ZINKE. There were certain areas in the budget that I 

think should be greater prioritized and not—— 

Senator HIRONO. Such as? 

Secretary ZINKE. I’ve always been a supporter of LWCF although, again, the source is offshore oil and gas for it. 

I think that our parks are a treasure, but what surprised me 

about when you become the Secretary and you open up the budget 

is how much revenue we lost. You know, that’s a concern to me because revenue can pay for a lot of things. If you have money in the 

bank, then a lot of these problems and programs and things and 

the hardship doesn’t have to occur. 

The other thing that is interesting is where we spend our money—$5.5 billion worth of grants. Most of the grants are absolutely appropriate and good, but looking at it, a lot of money was 

going outside of other things while our infrastructure was hurting. 

Personnel-wise, we have good people in the Department of the 

Interior, but we’re really heavy on our upper bureaucracy. We have 

about 6,500 people in DC. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes, you mentioned that. But I was particularly 

interested if there were any particular programs that you really 
52 

pushed back on cuts to, and it sounds as though the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, which was something that you very 

much supported, we need to get that back, I would say, on track. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CANTWELL [presiding]. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I am always struck with Senator King’s wisdom, 

not to mention his measured demeanor, and he said something that 

stuck with me when he was having a conversation with you today. 

He said, ‘‘One day of seeing is often better than 30 days of reading.’’ 

And so, I ran back to the office—and I will leave this map with 

you—but it gives a little bit of impression of the Sabinoso because 

it shows how the donation property is really just the gateway to 

the existing wilderness that, right now, is in a sea of public land— 

or private land I should say—which is why public access is not possible. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
53 
54 

It is my understanding that there is an outside-the-wilderness 

boundary location where the local BLM and some of the local advocates have hoped to grade and create a parking lot for access into 

the entire canyon system. 

But I thought, given that you said while I was off at a vote that 

you were coming out to New Mexico, what might really help for 

both of us is to see it on the ground. And so, I wanted to extend 

that invitation and see if you might be interested in seeing the location on the ground so that we can have, sort of, a common place 

to start in terms of where this goes. 

Secretary ZINKE. I would be honored to accept your invitation. 

And I will be out there in—one thing good about this job is you see 

a lot of beautiful country and you meet a lot of great, great people. 

I’ll commit to go out there, and I’ll commit to work with you on it. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. That is very much appreciated. The 

first time I went in there it was on horseback because that was the 

most effective way to get in and out. 

Secretary ZINKE. And you know I love horses. 

Senator HEINRICH. I understand you know something about that 

mode of transit. 

I wanted to go back just for a moment to Bears Ears. You said 

people should see it for themselves and I completely concur with 

that. I was actually in Bears Ears just a few weeks ago with my 

family over spring break. I used to have an outfitter guide permit 

in that area through the BLM when I was running educational outdoor expeditions. And you said we have to follow the law. I am curious if, as part of your process, you have mapped out the locations 

of the antiquities and the objects that were in that proclamation 

over the landscape of the current boundary so as to know how and 

where it might be adjusted? 

Secretary ZINKE. Yeah, we’re in the process of doing that. There 

are, obviously, high density ones that are easily recognizable, and 

there are ones that aren’t. So we’re working with all parties to go 

through it. 

But the recommendation was this—we think that the antiquities 

can be identified, segregated and the borders can be revised. But 

to your point, I know you’re very appreciative and supportive of our 

wilderness. What happens when you put a proclamation with those 

proclamations in management over the top of the wilderness? 

Senator HEINRICH. Sure. 

Secretary ZINKE. Because as you know, wilderness in some cases 

can be more stringent in its management than a proclamation. 

There are areas in there and within, there’s a Forest Service or 

there’s a U.S. Forest in there, there’s a monument—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Up around Elk Ridge in Bears Ears—literally 

Bears Ears—the Forest Service side. I am familiar with that country. 

Secretary ZINKE. There’s also areas that are probably better suited in the—and the request was this, the request from Congress, to 

examine a territory of the areas within it to see whether they’re 

more appropriate with a national recreation area or a national conservation area because there’s difficulty to identify an object in 

those areas. 
55 

Senator HEINRICH. I am not trying to cut you off, I am just a little short on time here. 

I would point to the example of Bandolier where we have both 

a monument and a wilderness within the monument that is consistent with the proclamation. It certainly can be done. 

One of the things I am concerned about is the importance of not 

looking at the Antiquities Act just for the antiquities as objects. 

Teddy Roosevelt was very clear when he created Mount Olympus, 

for example, where the object to be protected was a scientific object. 

It was the Roosevelt Elk. This proclamation is very clear in calling 

out the elk and the mule deer and the bighorn sheep as important 

objects within the cultural context of that monument as well. I 

hope we can make sure that we take a look at those as well as the 

cultural antiquities which are clearly important as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Secretary Zinke, I had a couple of questions for you. I wanted to 

go back to this issue of the Methane Rule, but I wanted to ask first 

about hiring for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in 

the Tri-Cities area. Are you holding up hiring on that position? Is 

that part of your—— 

Secretary ZINKE. No, overall what I’ve done is kept the hiring 

freeze in Washington in the metropolitan area and in Denver, our 

two largest areas, and tried to fill the gaps out in the field with 

that. 

On GS11, I’m sorry, GS12 and above, they just have to get a 

waiver. But I released the hiring freeze on GS11 or GS12 and 

below and with a waiver so we’re not holding anything up. But 

what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to fill some of the positions 

from Denver and Washington with qualified individuals first. 

Senator CANTWELL. So will you be moving forward on hiring for 

the Manhattan Project park? If you do not know today, you can get 

back to me on that. 

Secretary ZINKE. Yeah, I’ll get back. I don’t think we’re holding 

it up, but I’ll get back to you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, it is a new park and to your point, if 

you are saying you want the front line to be manned, then this is 

the front line, but it is a new joint DOE/Interior effort. So we—— 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, and we are also concerned about some of 

our other holdings when you only have one individual. Katahdin, 

it has one supervisor and a monument and then they have a detail. 

So it’s really about 1.5 FTXs, or FTEs, up there. 

I’m similarly concerned across-the-board on the front line. If it’s 

our holding then we need to have a responsibility to make sure 

that the front line, at least, is protected from—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, this is a new front line for sure. It definitely will add revenue, I guarantee you because it’s great, I mean, 

from a regional perspective, but you can get back to me on it because I know it might not be something you came prepared this 

morning to address. 

Okay, back to the Methane Rule. Here is the issue. Congress has 

said this is the law and we want to know how you are enforcing 

it. You were saying, ‘‘Oh, I’m suspending that rule.’’ Well, if you 

want to suspend that rule you have to go through the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act is about 
56 

proposing a change and then having public comment on it before 

it is finalized. Are you telling me that during this process you are 

going to make sure that the current law is implemented? 

Secretary ZINKE. We are looking at assessing how to implement 

it because, as you know, it’s a little problematic exactly on the law 

which was part of the issue on the methane law itself, why it was 

challenged. I’m going to challenge the court with it and we’re proceeding. 

My intention, so you know, is we’re going to rewrite the rule and 

go through the complete public process on it because both you and 

I agree on this issue that flaring is a waste. I think from a steward 

perspective, I think wasting a public asset—which is methane—is 

just wasteful. So we have to incentivize collection systems and 

make sure that our public asset is not wasted. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you are going to talk to technology people 

in the meantime about how you can stop the waste in the flaring 

in the ensuing—— 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes, ma’am. We’re talking to all sides on that, 

as well it’s part of the royalty issue too. The collection of royalties, 

you know, on that side, because that’s revenue in the door. You 

know, how to do it effectively, how to not incur undue costs, but 

how to make sure that we’re all on the same page about where 

we’re going to go to make sure the law is enforced and we do it 

by the numbers and by the book. 

Senator CANTWELL. But you are not going to spend your time for 

the next six months dragging your feet on implementation? 

Secretary ZINKE. Ma’am, I don’t drag my feet. I just, I don’t operate that way. As far as the law goes, I support the law, as we all 

should, that’s my obligation to do so. 

Senator CANTWELL. Alright, well I appreciate that, and we will 

definitely be following up. 

You know, I had this unusual experience when I got elected to 

the Senate. John Ashcroft, a nominee before the Judiciary Committee—I asked him this very question. I said, ‘‘You’re going to be 

the Attorney General. The last Administration just finished the 

roadless area rule. Are you going to implement it or are you going 

to fight it because you’re now going to have a new boss?’’ He said, 

‘‘If it’s the rule of law, I will enforce it.’’ And that is what he did. 

Now, I will admit there were times when I thought that he lagged 

in enforcing that as a law and we called him out on it. I just want 

you to know I will be doing the same here because we certainly feel 

that this waste should not be at the taxpayer expense, but I thank 

you for saying you will work to implement it. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Mr. Secretary, I do have some additional questions. One relates 

to mineral security, understanding what it is that we have. You 

mentioned that with the 1002 and up north in the North Slope, it 

is important to know what we have an inventory. I have a question 

relating to that as well as to USGS and surveying natural hazards 

and specifically to the earthquake monitors that are slated to be 

decommissioned as well as volcano monitors in the state. 

Unfortunately, we do not have consent to waive the two-hour 

rule, so now that the hour of 12 o’clock is upon us, I am not al-
57 

lowed to continue the hearing. You get off the hook that way, but 

I would certainly hope that you can provide me with some updates 

on not only these two areas, but some of the others. 

I would imagine that we will have other colleagues that will be 

submitting questions for the record who were not able to be here 

this morning. 

I thank you for, not only being here, but I thank you for your 

leadership. I hear very clearly your request to this Committee to 

send you help. We would like to get your deputy up to you. He has 

moved out of the Committee, but we need to get him moved 

through the Floor and we need to get the other members of your 

team through that process. You are working hard, but you need 

your team with you, and know that we are committed to making 

that happen just as rapidly as we possibly can. 

With that, we thank you for your leadership. Thank you for 

being here this morning. Have a great afternoon. 

The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(58) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
59 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Chairman Murkowski 

Question 1: The mineral security of our nation is something we need to look at closely. 

With our nation importing at least 50 percent of its supply of at least 50 different mineral 

commodities from other nations, I view this as a significant vulnerability. In the context of 

the budget, or an infrastructure package, or simply stand-alone minerals legislation, can 

you talk about whether the administration agrees that this is a threat, and, if so, what do 

you think we can do to address it? 

Response: Our Nation is increasingly reliant on foreign sources for raw processed mineral 

materials, and these mineral commodities are critical to the Nation's economic and national 

security. Interior is engaged in various activities to address supply concerns, including 

participating in the creation of a mineral criticality assessment and early warning system, 

researching the occurrence of rare earth element deposits in the United States, and undertaking 

geologic mapping to define areas favorable for exploration. 

Question 2: At Statehood, Alaska was granted the right to acquire more than 104 million 

acres of land (to include the subsurface mineral estate) to ensure our success as a state. 

Alaska Natives were also granted lands to settle aboriginal claims. In the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Alaska Natives were promised approximately 44 million 

acres of land. Some Alaska Natives were also granted allotments under the Alaska Native 

Allotment Act that pre-dates ANCSA. The State of Alaska and the Alaska Natives have uot 

yet received all of the land they are entitled to. Do you agree that the Interior Department, 

pursuant to federal law, has a role and obligation to convey federal lands to the state of 

Alaska and to Alaska Natives? Do you view these transfers as separate and distinct from 

your personal position against transfer of federal lands to states? 

Response: The Department has unfulfilled legal obligations to convey federal lands to the State 

of Alaska and to Alaska Natives pursuant to ANCSA, and l support meeting those obligations as 

expeditiously and efficiently as possible. 

Question 3: Alaska is the most seismically active state in the nation. We have a system of 

earthquake monitors, called the USArray, which is currently operated by the National 

Science Foundation. The monitors are slated to be decommissioned in 2018, but I know 

that USGS, the NSF, and NOAA have begun discussions on transferring the stations from 

NSF to USGS. Please provide an update on USGS's progress on the transfer of the 

stations. 
60 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Response: The USGS and NSF have been engaged in program-level conversations about the 

potential transfer of the stations. The talks are ongoing. Congress requested that the USGS 

provide, by November, an implementation plan for the long tem1 operation of the NSF seismic 

network in Alaska, and the USGS is developing that plan now. 

Question 4: In Alaska, USGS has been replacing volcano monitors that operate on an 

analog system with ones that operate on a digital system. What is the status of the 

upgrades? How many stations remain to be upgraded, and what would happen to that 

work under the proposed FY 2018 budget? 

2 

Response: The 2017 enacted level supports 15 conversions of analog seismic and telemetry 

stations to digital telemetry on Alaskan volcanoes, a substantial increase from the 3-6 

conversions per year previously perf01med opportunistically with routine network maintenance 

work out of base funding. After this summer field season in Alaska (ending in mid-Sept.) there 

will be !28 monitoring stations that are will not have been converted and upgraded. The 

proposed FY 2018 funding level would support 4-6 station upgrades. The 2018 budget request 

focuses on core capabilities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous volcanic activity 

with current monitoring networks; produce updated hazard assessments for high-threat volcanoes 

in the contiguous U.S. only; and to revise the national volcano threat level assessment. 

Question 5: Within the Arctic Council, the United States has taken over as Chair of the 

Conservation of Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group, with the chair being held by 

Cynthia Jacobson from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. What funding is in your budget 

for CAFF and other Arctic-related activities and programs? 

Response: The Administration's budget requests a total of$111,498,000 for Departmental 

Arctic-related activities. There is no specific funding requested for the CAFF. 

Question 6: Through the efforts of the Alaska Mapping Executive Committee, we have 

been able to collect elevation data for 84 percent of Alaska. What is the timeline to 

complete topographic mapping in Alaska? 

Response: To date, the USGS has produced 3,731 new Alaska topographic maps in 2016, and in 

2017 will produce approximately 3,000 more. The timeline for completing collection of data and 

converting data into topographic maps of the entire State of Alaska is dependent upon a number 

of variables. We continue to work with our partners to complete this topographic mapping in the 

most efficient and effective manner. 

Question 7: What is the status of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program? 
61 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Response: The USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program was mandated by 

Congress in the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 and the current authorization runs 

through fiscal year 2018. Through a cost-sharing partnership with state geological surveys, 

geologic map information is collected and distributed to the public via maps and a national 

database. The extent of geologic map data varies in terms of scale and coverage from state to 

state. Recent advances in geophysical techniques have made it possible to map the surface and 

subsurface at much greater detail, and in three dimensions, which lead to new insights into 

geologic processes, energy and mineral potential, natural hazards and water management. 

3 

Question 8: Under current Interior Department policy, every BLM notice associated with 

an Environmental Impact Statement must go through a review process in the Washington 

Office before publication in the Federal Register. Since publication of these notices is 

required before proceeding with the next step in the ETS process, the permitting process 

can be significantly delayed. Will you review this process and consider delegating authority 

for issuing Federal Register notices back to BLM State Directors? 

Response: Yes. As part of my review of the Department's organization, we are looking at how 

to better leverage and align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and allocate assets and 

personnel more effectively. 
62 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Ranking Member Cantwell 

Question 1: I would like to follow up on our discussion about hiring a site manager at the 

Hanford Unit of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

As I noted at the hearing, the National Park Service announced earlier this year that a site 

manager for the Hanford unit had been selected, but that her transfer from another park 

was being delayed during the Trump Administration's hiring freeze. 

I understand that the hiring freeze is no longer in place, but the appointment still has not 

been carried out-even though there are currently no Park Service staff on the ground in 

Hanford and the person selected for this position is simply transferring from one park to 

another. 

We were told that any transfer or new hire requires senior DOl approval, but at the 

hearing you indicated that you didn't think you were holding up this position. 

Can you please confirm that the appointment of a site manager for the Hanford unit is not 

being held up and provide me with a time frame for when the transfer will be approved? 

Response: As I stated at the hearing, I believe that we need to provide our front lines in the 

parks with the appropriate resources to get the job done. I appreciate you bringing this issue to 

my attention. I understand that the NPS has now named a new site manager who will report for 

duty at Hanford within the next month. 

Question2: On December 30,2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a 

notice of application for withdrawal and opportunity for public meeting in the Federal 

Register. The publication of this notice segregated 340,079 acres of National Forest System 

land in the Methow Valley in Washington, subject to valid existing rights, for up to 2 years 

from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws, location and entry 

under the mining laws, and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

Sections 2310.3-l(b)(2)(v) and 2310.3-2(c)(2) of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

specify that the BLM must schedule one or more public meetings on applications for 

withdrawals involving 5,000 or more acres of land. A meeting must be "held at a time and 

place convenient to the interested public, the applicant and the authorized [BLMJ officer." 

4 
63 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

The BLM gave notice at that time "that a minimum of at least one public meeting will be 

held in conjunction with the withdrawal application." The BLM also opened a 90-day 

public comment period through March 30, 2017. 

I understand that the Forest Service, the applicant for a twenty-year withdrawal of these 

lands, bas been in discussions with the BLM to schedule a public meeting. It bas been 

nearly six months since publication of the Federal Register notice and nearly three months 

since the close of the comment period. I am concerned that this meeting is being 

inappropriately delayed. 

For example, the BLM promptly scheduled a meeting in Livingston, Montana, concurrent 

with the notice of the proposed withdrawal in the Custer Gallatin National Forest that you 

supported as a congressman. 

A public meeting in the Methow Valley will provide the BLM and the Forest Service 

essential local community feedback on the withdrawal proposal. The views of the 

community are a primary reason I have sponsored S. 566, legislation that would 

permanently withdraw this same federal land, subject to valid existing rights. 

When will this required public meeting take place? 

5 

Response: The BLM is reviewing the comments on the application for withdrawal that were 

submitted during the comment period. The Federal Register notice is currently being processed, 

and the BLM will ensure the public receives at least 30 days advance notice of the scheduled 

meeting. 
64 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Wyden 

Question 1: Our country has seen the beginnings of a concerning movement to sell off our 

public lands to the highest bidder. Last year, armed occupants even took over a wildlife 

refuge in Eastern Oregon. When people can't harvest trees and manage forests, when 

they're blocked from traveling down a rural road or hiking trails in our national parks, it 

only serves to fuel the fire for the small number of voices who want to sell off public lands. 

But the president's budget either cuts, guts, or eliminates funding for programs that 

increase access to our public lands. Programs that support rural jobs, improve forest 

health, maintain our national parks, restore roads and trails and manage habitats. It's 

pretty clear to me this budget is an attempt to hamstring the Interior Department and 

other federal land agencies to the point where they can no longer manage their lands and 

allow for public access. 

The Department of the Interior and the new administration have a responsibility to ensure 

the public has access to our nation's treasures-- our public lands. How do the cuts to the 

Interior Department budget help the agency meet that responsibility? 

6 

Response: This Administration has committed to making the tough decisions that will lead to a 

balanced budget, and this is what a balanced budget looks like. At the same time, we are fully 

committed to maintaining our public lands and increasing access to them. We are prioritizing our 

assets and personnel in the field and are currently going through a process to determine how to 

shift resources from Washington, D.C. to the units in the field and how public private 

partnerships can best benefit our public lands. 

Question 2: : Farmers and ranchers in the West spent nearly a decade coming together in an 

unprecedented way with private landowners and stakeholders to create management plans that 

preserve sagebrush habitat and ensure the continued multiple-uses of western lands. The current 

sage-grouse plans are the reason the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't list the sage-grouse as an 

endangered species -- something all sides agree would be "lights out" for rural places. 

However, recent news reports have made me deeply concerned that you're trying to undo this 

hard work without talking to Congress or local stakeholders. These conservation programs are 

not only good for the species, but they also help rural ranchers. In addition to the general cuts to 

Interior's funding, the budget specifically calls for a cut to sage-grouse efforts by $11.5 million-

- a 15 percent cut to the program. 
65 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Can you lay out how farmers, ranchers and local voices will have certainty that you will 

continue to support funding for these land management efforts, in spite of these proposed 

budget cuts? 

How will you work with Congress to preserve conservation funding for sage-grouse and 

take into account local voices in your review of the current, widely supported management 

plans? Because the last thing my constituents want to see is your plan review backfire and 

Westerners end up with a listing of this bird. 

7 

Response: The Budget requests over $75 million in the Bureau's Wildlife Management 

program to continue work on the sage landscape, maintaining the Department's commitment to 

the sage-grouse and its habitat. Like you, my desire is to avoid listing the sage-grouse and I have 

made a commitment to work with states and other local partners to accomplish this goal. 

Question 3: The president's budget contains massive cuts to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

which could have profound negative impacts ou Tribal economic development and selfsufficiency. The proposed budget would cut millions from the Bureau's law enforcement, 

when tribes in Oregon are struggling to pay for even basic services. 

The budget slashes the Bureau's forestry program, which helps most tribes in Oregon 

manage their forests. That management in turn generates revenue for basic services for 

families, jobs in the woods and logs for local mills. The same is true across the country. 

The budget document itself admits that it would reduce Indian timber harvest by 54 

million board feet- a significant reduction when it comes to tribal lands. 

Can you please explain to what extent Interior consulted with Indian Tribes in Oregon and 

throughout the country to determine the impact of these cuts and the adequacy of the 

requested funding levels for the Bureau of Indian Affairs? 

Can you elaborate on which tribes you consulted? Tribes in Oregon rely on these 

programs, and the tribal members I have heard from do not feel like there has been 

adequate consultation. 

Response: This budget makes tough budget choices while focusing on the Department's 

funding of core service activities in Indian Country and makes support for tribal selfdetermination a priority. 
66 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Question 4: In a hearing last week before this committee to discuss the Forest Service budget, I 

asked Chief Tidwell what the cost of inaction on wildfire funding reforms has been on the 

nation's forests. 

What he told me confirmed what my colleagues and I have been saying all along- that if this 

broken, common-sense defying system of fighting fires had been fixed years ago, and we had 

controlled the growing cost of fighting fires, federal agencies could have easily treated millions 

more acres of forests, better preparing them for future fires and ultimately reducing the cost of 

fighting wildfires. 

My colleagues from Idaho and I have been working to fix this broken system of fire borrowing 

for more than four years. The gridlock continues, and in the face of inaction, the fires get bigger, 

and the fire seasons get longer, Washington, D.C. politics prevents any real change from 

happening. 

8 

And as we heard from the Chief, this gridlock is having real impacts in our forests and making 

the situation worse every year. But the bottom line is, we've got to get this done now. This has 

got to be the year. 

The FY2018 budget for the Department of the Interior funds 100% of the 10-year average, 

which as we've seen continues to go up and is no longer considered the best way of 

determining the true cost of fires. 

The budget also eliminates the FLAME suppression fund and decreases funding for fuels 

management, which goes toward making our forests more resistant to fires. 

Are you supportive of a wildfire budget fix that ends fire borrowing and controls the 10-

year average "creep"? 

Can you explain to me how underfunding wildfire suppression and underfunding fuels 

management will make our forests healthier and allow the agency to effectively fight 

wildfires without running out of funds and borrowing from other accounts? 

Response: I agree that we need to work together to find a long-term solution to this problem. 

This budget maintains preparedness levels and supports fuels management activities. But 

because catastrophic tires don't wait for the budget, we need to craft solutions that make our 

forests healthy and help prevent fires. We look forward to working with Congress to do that. 
67 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

Jnne 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Question 5: In recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, you lauded 

the Department's revenue generation from forestry activities, and the payments provided 

from these receipts to tribes. Yet the FY18 budget proposal recommends cutting BIA 

forestry by over $3 million. This, in the estimate of the budget itself, would reduce tribal 

timber harvest by 54 million board feet and tribal revenue by over $8 million. 

How is this consistent with this Administration's prioritization of job and revenue 

creation? 

Response: As I indicated at the hearing and in the previous response, this budget makes tough 

choices. It prioritizes self-governance and self-determination for Indian Country, fully funding 

the costs for tribes to administer programs for themselves, and maintains essential management 

functions for tribal resources, among other things. 

9 

Question 6: While the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to designate national 

monuments, there does not appear to be any authority within the Act to reduce the size of 

the monuments. Most legal scholars conclude that any ambiguity in the Antiquities Act 

was cleared up with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

whereby Congress made clear that only the legislature has the authority to diminish or 

rescind national monuments. 

Given this, does the Administration intend to ask Congress for legal authority should it 

want to proceed to implement the interim report's first recommendation? 

If the Administration is not planning to seek new authority from Congress, please provide 

a citation for the legal authority that would allow a President to rescind or diminish a 

national monument that was established by a previous President. 

Response: As provided in his Executive Order, our role in the review of monuments is to 

provide a recommendation to the President. Final action and authority rests with him. 

Question 7: Bears Ears National Monument was strongly supported by local tribes and the 

public, evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of public comments and signatures 

submitted. Despite that support, however, your interim recommendation to the President 

was to reduce the size of the monument. 

In Oregon, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is critical to the beauty and economic 
68 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

well-being of Oregon and highly supported by my constituents. I wrote to you about this 

last month to share with you the robust process and support that was behind this 

designation. 

I am greatly concerned about your analysis and recommendation for Bears Ears. Your 

decision runs entirely contrary to the flood of public comments your Department received 

reflecting that the vast majority of the public supports keeping the National Monument 

intact. I am concerned about the implications that decision has on your review of the 

remaining National Monuments. 

10 

Given your recommendation for Bears Ears, it seems clear that you are unconvinced by the 

public comments and the opinions of sovereign tribal nations which called for keeping the 

monument intact. Looking ahead to your review of the Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument, if public comments are not persuasive for you and are overshadowed by far 

fewer voices of special interests, then what role does the public comment process play in 

your analysis of Cascade-Siskiyou, or any other monument? And how do your actions help 

the department achieve your stated goal of regaining public trust? 

Response: Each monument is being reviewed in a holistic fashion. We heard from local 

communities including state, county and federally elected officials, tribes, local businesses, and 

trade associations. For all of the reviews, each group's input is weighed as we craft 

recommendations for the President. 

Question 8: In your confinnation hearings, you promised to work with Congress and western 

stakeholders before making any changes to the BLM and Forest Service Plans to conserve sagegrouse. 

In light of the recent Secretarial Order, who in Congress have you engaged regarding 

review of these plans? 

What steps are you taking to ensure BLM has the staff needed to manage American assets 

and heritage, while providing a transparent process for public engagement? 

Response: Like you, my desire is to avoid listing the sage-grouse. I am committed to 

cooperating with states and other local partners to accomplish this goal. The interagency team 

established by my Secretarial Order has carried out its initial review directly in conjunction with 

states. The recommendations detailed within the report provide a path forward for additional 

work to be carried out in consultation with states and local communities. 
69 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Question 9: The budget includes at 84 percent cut to LWCF. LWCF is essential to 

maintaining and increasing access to our public lands. Cuts this deep would mean LWCF 

could essentially only cover staff salaries, with possibly a little left over for emergency 

acquisitions. Willing sellers will be left in the lurch, and projects that could expand access 

by connecting previously inaccessible public lands could be lost to commercial 

development. 

Given these cuts, how does this budget reflect the need to improve recreation and other 

access to public lands? 

11 

Response: The President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 

2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of 

the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be 

deferred and many maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. Land acquisition is an 

area where the Department has flexibility to defer expenditures. 

Question 10: We both agree that Americans deserve a fair, market value return on the coal, oil, 

and natural gas extracted from publicly owned lands. During your nomination hearing before the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, with regard to natural gas extraction you 

stated that "we're wasting a lot, we're venting a lot, and we're wasting energy, and that is 

troubling me ... " Since then, your agency has halted the BLM's methane rule, which is meant to 

address the same issues that are troubling you. 

Will you explain how you plan to achieve a fair return to taxpayers, despite halting parts of 

a rule designed to help achieve those goals? 

Response: As I said at the hearing, as Secretary I am dedicated to managing our federal lands 

and resources as a good neighbor and steward. I believe conservation and energy development 

can occur simultaneously under effective multiple use management. The Department is 

committed to assessing the rule and its requirements and crafting pragmatic policies that will 

incentivize responsible energy development, including minimizing waste of valuable natural gas 

resources. 

Question 11: The budget cuts the Bureau of Land Management's budget by 15%, which 

includes conservation and environmental programs. Yet the Department of the Interior's oil and 

gas programs survive the overall 12% cut to Interior. Interior's offshore program gets an 

increase, and there's a $16 million plus-up in the BLM's oil and gas permitting office. The 
70 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

12 

budget intends to open up oil and gas drilling in ANWAR, and cuts renewable energy programs 

both on and off shore. 

In your nomination hearing, you stated your support for an all-of-the-above energy policy that 

can reduce our nation's dependence on energy imports and benefit the environment. 

Can you explain how Interior's budget accomplishes these goals? 

The President's budget cuts funding for renewable energy development on federal lands despite 

seeing exponential growth over the last few years, reducing that sector's growth and threatening 

the jobs it creates. But the budget for oil and gas is increased, despite a flat oil and gas market. 

Why does this administration care more about oil jobs than any other? 

Response: The Budget supports implementation of a comprehensive energy program that will 

put America on track to achieve the President's vision of an America First energy plan, freeing 

us from dependence on foreign energy. The FY 2018 budget takes the first steps toward energy 

dominance by implementing an all-of-the-above strategy. It not only increases funding for oil 

and gas development programs onshore and offshore, but also supports renewable energy and 

boosts coal development from public lands. This budget will improve the processing of energy 

permits and energy related rights-of-way, and will support the development of a new 5-year 

offshore leasing plan. 
71 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Lee 

13 

Question 1: BLM law enforcement has a poor reputation in Utah. Rather than fostering a 

cooperative relationship with local residents and authorities, BLM agents have created an 

atmosphere of distrust and fear. I'm concerned that DOl's budget request includes an 

increase of more than a quarter of a million dollars for BLM Law enforcement. What do you 

intend to use these additional funds for, and what are you doing to make BLM law 

enforcement more cooperative with and respectful of local residents? 

Response: Restoring trust between the Department's land management bureaus and the public 

they serve is one of my top priorities. Ensuring public safety on our public lands is an important 

law enforcement function, but l acknowledge the BLM has a great deal of work to do in order to 

be a better neighbor. This is why I am committed to leading the Department to move forward in a 

way that fosters a sense of cooperation with public land users and local communities. 

Question 2: I was encouraged by your recent secretarial order to review federal sage grouse 

conservation plans. The state of Utah had its own sage grouse management plan in place, 

which increased sage grouse populations in the state by 40 percent in a single year. But in 

2015, the previous administration inexplicably scrapped the state's successful, locally driven 

plan and imposed its own highly restrictive top-down strategy. You mentioned in your order 

a desire to "enhance the involvement" of the 11 western states impacted by federal sage 

grouse conservation policies. What are some of the specific opportunities you plan to give 

states to empowet· them with real authority in the management of sage grouse within their 

borders? 

Response: Our primary goal is to ensure that management of the sage-grouse is done in such a 

way that listing of the bird is avoided. The interagency review team has conducted an initial review 

of these plans, keeping a wide range of state-driven options and ideas on the table. Each affected 

state has different needs and issues. As the Department moves forward with the strategy for sagegrouse habitat conservation, we want to make sure that what we do is done in direct consultation 

with state and local governments. 
72 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natnral Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

Jnne 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Stabenow 

14 

Question 1: Secretary Zinke, the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and U.S. 

Geologic Survey partner with many of my constituents on projects that restore and protect 

the Great Lakes and contribute to our scientific understanding of them. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service helped remove Nashville Dam on the Thornapple River in 

southwest Michigan, which has improved fish habitat and water quality and provided more 

recreational opportunities. 

Researchers at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore have established a program to 

reduce botulism outbreaks that have killed thousands of shore birds there. 

The U.S. Geological Survey, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners, 

installed rocky reef in the St. Clair River, which created 40,000 square feet of spawning 

habitat for lake sturgeon. 

This work was made possible by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, funding which 

supplements the budgets of these agencies and enables them to expand their ability to 

partner with local communities and my state to protect and restore the drinking water for 

over 30 million people. 

These activities are not possible, however, without robust support for the base budgets of 

these agencies. Yet, the Interior Department's FY2018 budget would slash funding for 

each. Funding to USGS would be cut by $138 million, to the Fish and Wildlife Service by 

$200 million, and to the Park Service by $200 million. 

How will the Interior Department be able to maintain the level of work we have seen for 

the past few years in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes under the Administration's 

FY2018 budget request? 

Response: Geographic Programs fund a variety of ecosystem protection activities within 

specific watersheds, including the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and others. These 

activities are primarily local efforts and the responsibility for coordinating and funding these 

efforts generally belongs with states and local partnerships. Eliminating the Geographic 

programs refocuses agencies on core national work. These programs perform local ecosystem 

protection and restoration activities, which are best handled by local and state entities. The 

Geographic Programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, have received significant 
73 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Bndget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

federal funding, coordination, and oversight to date. State and local groups are engaged and 

capable of taking on management of clean-up and restoration of these water bodies. 

15 

Question 2: The MotorCities Heritage Area inspires and educates Michigan residents and 

visitors on how the automobile changed our state, the nation, and the world. This site 

exemplifies Michigan's pride in our automotive and labor history and has a positive 

influence on our region's future. In FY17, MotorCities received only $491,000 but the site 

generates $35.4 million in tax revenue, supports 4,560 jobs, and is estimated to have an 

overall economic impact in the region of $410.4 million. Your proposed budget eliminates 

all funding for this National Heritage area as well as the other 48 heritage areas across the 

country. 

When asked about eliminating funding for these important cultural areas during last 

week's House Appropriations Committee Hearing, you provided no further justification 

than "tough choices had to be made." I find this to be eye opening when you also propose 

to increase funding for fossil fuel production on public lands. Can you explain how you 

justify eliminating funding for some of our most important cultural and historical areas 

while shifting that funding to fossil fuel development? 

Response: The President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 

2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of 

the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be 

deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. The National Heritage Area 

Program can be supported through partnerships and community engagement. 

Question 3: Secretary Zinke, you have said the President's budget "saves taxpayers by 

focusing program spending, shrinking bureaucracy, and empowering the front lines." 

Could you specifically identify how the proposed budget empowers your agency's front 

lines? 

Response: This Administration has committed to making the tough decisions that will lead to a 

balanced budget, and this is what a balanced budget looks like. We are prioritizing our assets 

and personnel in the field and are currently going through a process to determine how to shift 

resources from Washington, D.C. to the units in the field and how public private partnerships can 

best benefit our public lands. 
74 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Question 4: On April12, 2017, you issued a memorandum that required DOl 

headquarters to approve all grant awards over $100,000. I am told that this action is 

significantly slowing down the expenditure of congressionally appropriated funds and is 

negatively impacting local science support and partner organizations. 

16 

Doesn't this order centralize decision making within D.C. instead of allowing local experts 

to efficiently carry out their work across the country? 

Response: Interior distributes about $5.5 billion in grants and cooperative agreements every 

year. In an effort to increase accountability so we know where our taxpayer money is being 

distributed, we initiated this review. It has been a good way for me to better understand this 

spending and how it relates to Interior's mission. We have an efficient process in place and the 

reviews are moving along quickly. 

Question 5: The National Parks Service has a well-known maintenance backlog across the 

country, including sites in Michigan like the Sleeping Bear Dunes and Isle Royale National 

Park. According to a 1·eport by the Pew Charitable Trusts, total deferred maintenance on 

Park Service lands in Michigan totaled nearly $50 million. 

It is my understanding that Interior's FY2018 budget cuts the Park Service's Operations 

account by $200 million compared to FY2017 levels. In addition, I understand the budget 

proposes to decrease Park Service staff by 1,200. 

While you have testified about your commitment to addressing the Park Service's 

maintenance backlogs, could you explain how the FY2018 budget would accomplish that 

objective? It strikes me as difficult to address these needs when you are cutting the 

resources and the personnel that are required to maintain ou1· National Parks. 

Response: Across the Department, 2018 funding for land management operations is reduced by 

approximately seven percent, which will impact staffing levels. However, the budget also 

prioritizes funding non-recurring infrastructure projects that will help address the deferred 

maintenance backlog. In the long run, this will create a better experience for visitors and staff by 

ensuring that facilities are safe, functional, and can be operated more efficiently. 

Additionally, the current estimate for the NPS deferred maintenance backlog is $11.3 billion 

which is difficult to address fully using only annual appropriations. NPS continues to pursue 

innovative public/private partnerships, such as the Centennial Challenge program, and uses the 

Recreation Fee program to reduce some of the backlog. We will continue to work with NPS and 
75 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Congress to develop innovative funding ideas to reduce the backlog. 

17 

Question 6: The BLM and USDA's Forest Service share responsibility for managing the bulk of 

the nation's wildfire suppression needs. Climate change, coupled with a century of aggressive 

suppression and increased development in the wildland urban interface, has resulted in larger and 

more complex fires. As you know, these fires are very expensive to suppress and drain other 

parts of land management agencies' non-fire budgets. This problem is particularly acute for the 

Forest Service. As we've tried to tackle this issue in the past, we've run into problems with 

OMB and other agencies that don't have expertise in natural resource management 

To avoid these problems in the future, will you commit to working with Secretary Perdue 

to meaningfully engage OMB Director Mulvaney and other relevant Administration 

officials in a dialog regarding a comprehensive solution to the fire budget problem? 

Response: I agree that we need to work together to find a long-term solution to this problem. 

This budget maintains preparedness levels and supports fuels management activities. But 

because catastrophic fires don't wait for the budget, we need to craft solutions that make our 

forests healthy and help prevent fires. We look forward to working with Congress to do that 
76 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Flake 

18 

Question 1: You and I have discussed the importance of tribal water rights settlements in 

Arizona and their potential to provide much needed water supplies on reservations. 

Settlements also create certainty and allow for partnerships with non-tribal water users. I 

am encouraged by your commitment to work with me on tribal settlements in Arizona. 

However, I am concerned about the unfilled positions in the Department that are related to 

tribal water rights and the impacts those vacancies have on ongoing negotiations. Can you 

give me an anticipated timeline for staffing of your tribal water rights team sufficient to 

evaluate the Hualapai Tribal water rights settlement? 

Response: Senator, my team is working as expeditiously as possible to fill important positions at 

the Department. With regard to the Hualapai Tribal water rights settlement, the Secretary's 

Indian Water Rights Office negotiation team continues to evaluate this settlement. I would be 

glad to keep you apprised as developments unfold. 

Question 2: In western Arizona the wild burro situation has grown out of control. The 

latest population estimates show Arizona's burro population as almost three times what the 

BLM has determined as the highest appropriate management level. Burros cause extensive 

damage to natural landscape, compete with native animals for food, and pose a public 

safety hazard. I have repeatedly asked the BLM for a path forward for the management of 

wild horses and burros. This year's budget request proposes a $10 million reduction for the 

wild horse and burro program while returning all the management tools provided by the 

1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act. 1 would like to emphasize that while BLM works to 

improve the wild horse and burro management it should not be focused predominately on 

hones and instead needs to address the burro issues facing western Arizona. What efforts 

will the BLM undertake this year to control the growing burro population and bring them 

down to acceptable management levels? 

Response: The current program is financially unsustainable, and I agree a new approach is 

needed. Rangelands are incapable of handling this overpopulation and these ecosystems are out 

of balance. In addition, program costs have more than doubled due to the cost attributable to 

care for excess horses and burros located off-range. To meet the Department's long-term goal of 

realigning program costs and animal populations to fulfil our statutory obligation to maintain 

appropriate herd management levels, BLM must have the necessary tools as provided in the Wild 

Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. 
77 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

19 

Question 3: On May 3rd, 2017, the Acting Special Agent In Charge of District III of the 

Bureau oflndian Affairs sent a letter to tribal chiefs of police in Arizona regarding 

detention contracts with counties. The Iette1· asked tribes to begin to adhere to a maximum 

bed limit for Navajo, Yavapai, and Kane Counties, as well as the Hualapai Tribe. It is my 

understanding that, at least for some tribes, these limits are below the typical daily 

population housed in county detention facilities. The letter went on to explain that if tribes 

were to exceed the daily maximums the contracts might be suspended. This would leave 

counties without the beds they need to keep dangerous criminals off the streets and without 

the time or resources to find enough beds elsewhere. The BIA has suggested that tribal 

police and courts implement "alternative sentencing" and commute sentences to meet the 

reduced bed limit. It is troubling to me that the BIA's shifting use of resources may 

manipulate outcomes in our criminal justice system by predetermining the type of 

punishment the courts may impose. Is the BIA currently imposing a daily population limit 

on contract detention in county facilities? If so, how does the BIA propose that counties 

and tribes will meet this daily limit? 

Response: The BTA is not currently imposing a daily population on contract detention in county 

facilities. BIA sent the May 3, 20171etter referenced in your question at a point in time when 

the bureau was contemplating a year-long Continuing Resolution and was looking to manage any 

potential limited funding. On June 22, 2017, the BIA sent a letter to the Tribes in Arizona 

rescinding the May 3, 2017, letter. 
78 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natuml Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Franken 

20 

Question 1: Secretary, following up on our conversation at the bearing, when I asked you 

to tell me bow much warming government scientists predict for the end of this century 

under a "business as usual" scenario, the 3rd National Climate Assessment predicts about 8 

degrees Fahrenheit, with the possibility of well ovet· 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you agree 

with this? 

Response: As I have stated, I do believe the climate is changing and man does have an 

influence, but 1 do not believe scientific models can predict global warming scenarios with much 

certainty. 

Question 2: Could you help me understand your response to my colleague Rep. McCollum 

at a House hearing last week? You said that when we consider the climate: "Man bas bad 

an influence. But man bas a negative influence not only on C02, but you look at arsenic, 

you look at the chemicals that we have from agriculture, so man has not been a particularly 

good influence on a lot of things." Was your intent to downplay the importance of 

addressing carbon dioxide? 

Response: My intent was to discuss the effects of human activity on our environment in a 

broader context. 

Question 3: When do you plan to start holding meetings of the White House Council on 

Native American Affairs? The council serves to break down barriers across agencies to 

ensure efficient programs for Indian Country. 

Response: The White House Council on Native American Affairs is operating under the 

management of the White House to ensure Tribes have a direct line of communication with our 

Executive Branch leadership. 

Question 4: It has been widely reported that earlier this year, the White Honse directed 

agencies to ignore oversight inquiries from Democrats. This is, frankly, unacceptable. And 

even Senator Grassley expressed his clear opposition in no uncertain terms. 

A. Do you agree with the White House's position? 

B. Is it the official position of the Department of the Interior to ignore Democrats' 

oversight inquiries? 
79 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

C. Will you commit to responding to Democrats' inquiries on this committee, as 

well as those of other relevant committees? 

21 

Response to A, B, and C: As I stated multiple times at the hearing, I believe in transparency 

and have encouraged members, no matter the party, to reach out to me when they have a request 

and we can discuss. I think it is important that we work together. 

Question 5: Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that you are shaking up the 

Department ofthe Interior-reassigning up to 50 senior career public servants. While, this 

is within your purview, but according to long-serving DOl officials, there's never been 

anything similar involving so many people. 

A. What is the purpose of this mass reassignment? 

B. Some have suggested that you are targeting career civil service employees who 

worked at a senior level during the Obama Administration for retribution. ls 

this the case? 

C. If not, why do this now? Why do this before the eventual heads of various 

agencies have a chance to assess the current leadership and suggest changes? 

D. Was this move your idea or did it originate from Acting Deputy Secretary James 

Cason, because the reassignment letters that the senior officials received came 

from him? 

E. Is this part of a larger DOl reorganization? And if so when will you present 

plans for Congress and the public to consider? 

Response to A, B, C, D, and E: The Senior Executive Service (SES) is intended to be a corps of 

versatile, senior Departmental staff. When Congress created theSES corps, the intent was to 

construct a mobile cadre of Executives. Rotation of SES provides an opportunity to improve 

talent development, mission delivery, and collaboration. It facilitates problem-solving and 

effective decision making. The purpose of these moves was to shift staff to areas where their 

skill set was better suited or to get staff out of Washington and into the field where they are 

needed most, which is a priority. 

Question 6: Secretary, during your confirmation hearing you spoke about the importance 

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to preserve special areas and improve public 

access to the outdoors. You also touted your support of the program while serving in the 

House. This is something that we really agree on-the LWCF has done great things in 

Minnesota, such as improving state and local parks and helping to protect some of the most 

beloved areas of the state. This is why I am so disappointed to see the proposed cuts in the 
80 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

22 

President's budget. Did the administration consult with you before releasing the budget 

proposal? Did you support their proposal to cut LWCF? If so, how do you justify this shift, 

do you still support the program? 

Response: In recent years, a large portion of the Department's LWCF portfolio has focused on 

projects to acquire new lands both on federal lands and through grants to states. The President's 

budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 2027, in order to do this 

priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently 

own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and many 

maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. Land acquisition is an area where the 

Department has flexibility to defer expenditures. 

Question 7: The Lewis and Clark regional water system reaches across three states 

connecting 20 communities and water systems with a much needed, reliable water source. 

However, current federal funding for Lewis & Clark has slowed to a point where the states, 

including Minnesota, have prefunded the federal government's share in order to maintain 

progress. Just last week, the State of Minnesota approved an additional $3.5 million in 

funding for Lewis & Clark in order to reach the town of Worthington, Minnesota which 

needs this connection in order to provide their citizens safe drinking wate1· and a reliable 

source of water to support the town. Do you see a project like Lewis & Clark as a priority 

for your agency and the Administration and what can yon do as Secretary to ensnre the 

federal government meets its commitments to the water system, as well as the states and 

communities relying on Lewis & Clark? 

Response: Rural water projects, such as the Lewis and Clark project, help build strong, secure 

communities and are important to supporting the livelihood of local economies. At the same 

time, they must compete with a number of Reclamation's priorities, including aging 

infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements and other priorities intended to address future 

water and energy related challenges, but I do appreciate the importance of this issue. 
81 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Manchin 

23 

Question 1: In West Virginia, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is the reason you 

and your agencies have incomparable public assets such as the Harpers Ferry and the 

Gauley and New Rivers National Recreation Area. In 2016, West Virginia received more 

than $400,000 in grants from the state side of the fund. These funds were used for all sot·ts 

of upgrades that will make the West Virginia outdoors even more wild and wonderful. I 

know it is just as important to your home state, where it protects the Greater Yellowstone 

area and Glacier and, I understand, key recreation access and drinking water supplies for 

your own hometown of Whitefish, Montana. I was surprised by your FY18 budget 

recommendation for LWCF, which would gut the program by 84 percent and stop many 

conservation and access projects dead in their track. Furthermore, your budget submission 

offers what I consider a false and dangerous choice between maintaining facilities in these 

parks and conserving public access and the actual resources people go to the parks to 

enjoy. Good management requires that you do both, just as I worked to do with West 

Virginia's state parks when they were under my care as governor. 

The FY2018 Budget in Brief document says, "The LWCF receipts authorization expires at 

the end of fiscal year 2018 and the Administration will review options for reauthorization, 

including consideration of a range of conservation-related investments that could be 

funded through the LWCF." 

Simple yes or no question, do you support permanent reauthorization of LWCF? 

Do you have any recommended policy proposals for permanent LWCF reauthorization 

that you would like to share with the Committee today? 

How do you intend to balance those commitments with a budget that essentially wipes out 

LWCF, and specifically endorses diverting those very revenues you previously sought to 

defend for their intended LWCF uses? 

Response: Yes, I continue to support the LWCF. In recent years, a large portion of the 

Department's LWCF portfolio has focused on projects to acquire new lands both on federal lands 

and through grants to states. The President's budget proposes to balance the federal 

government's budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget 

prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational 

requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. Land 
82 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

acquisition is an area where the Department has flexibility to defer expenditures. 

Question 2: The President's budget proposes eliminating the Heritage Partnership 

Programs Commissions and grants, a program of the National Park Service. National 

Heritage Areas (NHAs) are designated by Congress as places where natural, cultural, and 

historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape. There are 

currently 49- two of which are located in West Virginia. These are not land management 

programs- they are cultural and heritage programs that generate revenue. As an example 

of the positive economic impacts of a national heritage area designation, the National Coal 

Heritage Area in southern West Virginia generates $207 million in economic impact, 

supports 2,744 jobs and generates $16.8 million in tax revenue. National Heritage Areas 

leverage federal funds to create jobs, generate revenue for local governments, and sustain 

local communities. NHAs average $5.50 for every $1.00 of federal investment. According 

to the budget justification, this is a program that is better funded locally. The problem with 

that is there are 49 National Heritage Areas spread all over the country, the local hunger to 

contribute to these programs will vary depending on location, mission, etc. 

Do you believe the National Park Service has a role to play in ensuring that funds that have 

already been invested continue to yield as high of a return as possible? 

Are you concerned that the administration may be viewing opportunities for potential cuts 

from a high level, and not considering hearing the local support for these programs? 

Response: National Heritage Areas provide cultural benefits, and are an example of the benefits 

of partnerships. However, the President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's 

budget by 2027, in order to do this, priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes 

taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements 

cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. The National 

Heritage Area Pr01,>ram can be supported through partnerships and community engagement. 

Question 3: Secretary Zinke, during your confirmation hearing you said that we must find 

ways to get the younger generations -specifically millennials-into the outdoors. You said, 

specifically, "We have to motivate and incentivize outdoor activities to teach our 

millennials the importance of the great outdoors. If you look at the numbers, and the 

demographics are actually a little different. The people that are visiting the parks are the 

older generations. So we have to look at new ways of incentivizing younger millennials to 

experience the parks ... " 
83 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

25 

I couldn't agree more, and part of my motivation as a Senator is to conserve areas that are 

simply too special to not he preserved so that we can pass them off to our children and 

grandchildren. West Virginia is an outdoorsman's paradise, with some of the best hunting, 

fishing and other recreational opportunities you can find. Like you, I am a grandfather, 

and I have enjoyed taking my grandchildren hunting and fishing to teach them the joys, 

and serenity of the great outdoors. That is why I can't escape the irony of the President's 

budget request proposing to eliminate several programs that do exactly what you described 

in your confirmation hearing-getting millennials out to enjoy and conserve our public 

lands and quite possibly become the next Teddy Roosevelt. The President's budget 

proposes to eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Service Youth Conservation Corps Program, 

and reduce funds for the National Park Services Visitors Services Youth Projects and 

Interpretation and Education Projects as well as the Volunteers in Parks Program. 

Do you still stand by your statement in your confirmation hearing that we must find ways 

to get the younger generation into the outdoors? 

Do you believe this budget reflects that goal? 

Response: Yes, I believe that it is important to get our children and grandchildren out to our 

parks and public lands to experience our collective heritage. By focusing on priorities to ensure 

that we take care of the assets we currently own, as this budget does, we make sure that these 

lands will be maintained and available for future generations. 
84 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Heinrich 

Question 1: rn 2014, Congress made improvements to sec. 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to provide additional resources to seven of BLM's busiest field offices to hire and 

support sufficient staff to meet current demands. Subsection 365(e) requires BLM to 

report to Congress annually on the allocation of the additional funds among the seven 

Project offices and the accomplishments of each office. The first annual report, due 

February 2016, has never been submitted to Congress as required by law. The second 

report was due in February 2017. When will BLM provide the two overdue reports? 

Response: The BLM is now in the process of developing and finalizing the reports. 

26 

Question 2: I continue to hear about problems arising from the large number oflongstanding job vacancies in BLM's field offices in New Mexico. Of particular concern are 

significant vacancies in Farmington, the Federal Indian Minerals Office and Carlsbad. 

Currently there are 60 vacant positions in BLM offices in New Mexico, with as many as 21 

vacant positions in Carlsbad alone. Clearly the administration's hiring freeze contributed 

to the delay in filling these important federal jobs. What actions are you taking to address 

promptly the need to fill the large number of job vacancies in New Mexico's various BLM 

offices? 

Response: Overall, the BLM has faced challenges with recruitment, training, and retention of 

technical staff. That said, the BLM is working to boost recruitment and other hiring incentives to 

compete with agencies and industry for qualified staff. As part of my review of the 

Department's organization, we are looking at how to better leverage and align bureau resources 

in the field, cut duplication, and allocate assets and personnel more effectively. 
85 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Hirono 

27 

Question 1: The President's budget proposes cutting the USGS Natural Hazards Program 

by more than $20 million. This cut specifically removes $3.6 million from the Volcano 

Hazards Program. 

Right now in Hawaii we have lava actively flowing from Kilauea Volcano. In addition to 

monitoring Kilauea USGS personnel at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory are also 

actively monitoring earthquake activity from Mauna Loa, the world's largest volcano. 

Mauna Loa occupies over half of Hawaii Island and its eruptions produce lava at a much 

higher rate than those of any other volcano in Hawaii. The last time it erupted in 1984 the 

lava came within 7.2 km of Hilo, the largest population center on Hawaii Island. Hawaii 

County (comprised of Hawaii Island) is the fastest growing county in the State and the 

potential for an eruption from Mauna Loa to threaten lives and property in Hawaii is very 

high. 

How will the administration's proposed cut to the Volcano Hazards Program impact 

USGS's ability to detect, warn, and respond to an eruption at Mauna Loa? 

Response: At the FY 2018 proposed funding level, continuous situational awareness and 

capability for warnings and forecasts of volcanic activity on Mauna Loa (as well as Kilauea) will 

be maintained with the current monitoring networks. 

Question 2: The President's budget proposes to reduce the Operation of the National Park 

System account by $200 million, which would reduce base funding for parks throughout 

the country, impacting staffing, hours, and services. The budget proposes reducing staff by 

1,242 FTEs, causing 90 percent of national parks to t·educe current staffing levels. 

The National Parks subcommittee just held an oversight hearing on opportunities to 

improve the workplace environment within the National Park Service. It was mentioned 

how employees are currently overextended with increased park visitation and how that 

negatively impacts employee morale. 

Do you think this reduction in National Park Service staff funding will improve or worsen 

the workplace environment? 

Response: Across the Department, 2018 funding for land management operations is reduced by 

approximately seven percent. However, the budget aims to create a better experience for staff 
86 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

and visitors by prioritizing funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog and shifting 

more resources to the field rather than Washington. 

28 

Furthermore, morale is not solely related to the budget, but is affected by many different factors. 

One important factor is whether leadership is setting a positive example and addressing the 

inappropriate actions of employees. As Secretary, my expectations are clear. We are committed 

to addressing these issues. 

Question 3: You have also noted that one of your highest priorities as Secretary is to 

address the $11 billion deferred maintenance backlog within the National Park Service. 

If there was an influx of funding to address the backlog, whether it be as part of an 

infrastructure package or something else, bow do you expect projects to be completed if 

there aren't enough National Park Service staff to perform those duties? 

Response: l believe that we have to realign our employees to make sure that the focus is at the 

field level. This type of realignment will help to support the proposals contained in the 2018 

budget, particularly those prioritizing taking care of the assets we currently own. 

Question 4: Despite a theme of'climate change denial' within this administration, we in 

Hawaii are seeing first-hand the impacts of climate change. Since 2012 the University of 

Hawaii at Manoa bas hosted one of the Department of Interior's eight regional Climate 

Adaptation Centers, which were created to address challenges resulting from climate 

change and provide land use managers tools to plan and adapt to these changes. 

The President's budget proposes to eliminate four of the eight regional Climate Adaptation 

Science Centers to refocus "work on the highest priority needs of Interior bureaus and 

States." Will the Pacific Islands regional center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa be 

eliminated under this proposal? 

Response: No decision has been made about which centers may be consolidated, but such a 

decision would be based on competition to determine how to refocus work on the highest priority 

needs oflnterior bureaus and states. 

Question 5: The National Park Service is charged with not only protecting our nation's 

natural resources, but also the cultural and historic resources that tell the story of our 

country. An example of this is Honouliuli in Hawaii where the story of Japanese 

internment is told. 
87 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

What will you do as Secretary to ensure the telling of our nation's diverse history, as well 

as the preservation of historic and cultural resources, receives adequate funding and 

capable management given the dramatic cuts proposed in the current administration's 

budget? 

29 

Response: I am a strong supporter of the National Parks, including those parks that tell our 

Nation's story. The President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 

2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of 

the assets we currently own, including historic and cultural resources. 

Question 6: As noted before, climate change continues to be a major factor in landscape, 

infrastructure, and natural resource planning in Hawaii. 

How will you ensure that our national park sites in Hawaii and beyond are protected and 

adequately resources in the face of these changes and what appears to be inadequate 

funding in the administration's budget? 

Response: The President's budget supports actions to mitigate and adapt to extreme 

weather, drought, flood, wildfire, and other hazards that affect federal lands. These mitigation 

and adaptation strategies are fundamental to the Department's stewardship mission. 

Question 7: Roughly a third of the nation's listed species are from Hawaii. The proposed 

cuts to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's programs will disproportionately impact my state 

and almost certainly result in extinctions of the plants and animals of onr natural heritage 

and revered by the native Hawaiian culture. 

Land acquisition programs like the Conservation Grants programs, the Habitat 

Conservation Plan Land Acquisition, and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants are not 

funded in this budget. Acquisition is necessary to actively protect the native forests and 

wetland areas that are threatened by development, fire, and invasive species. Funds from 

these programs allow the state to set aside lands for conservation, which provide vital 

habitat for listed species. Knowing this, do you think Hawaii, which has one of the smallest 

budgets and most expensive land prices in the nation, should be solely responsible for the 

acquisition of land to protect one-third of the federally listed species the US government 

have been mandated to protect by the Endangered Species Act? 
88 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

30 

Response: The Administration's budget includes $101 million for invasive species work across 

the Department and I believe this work is important. Regarding land acquisition, our focus is on 

being good stewards of the lands we already own. Acquisition of new lands is not a priority for 

the Department in FY2018. 

Question 8: The Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance grants program bas been cut 

by 30%. Habitat Conservation Plans allow for permits to be issued to private entities ami 

businesses unde1·taking projects that might otherwise result in the destruction of 

endangered or threatened species. The development of an HCP is required by federal and 

state laws to obtain needed permits, without which the projects cannot move forward. 

However, developing au HCP can be cost prohibitive and this grant program pmvides 

crucial support for economic growth in the state by offsetting costs to small businesses who 

would otherwise not be able to afford the expense to develop an individual HCP. Hawaii 

bas a low population size and tax base. With reduced federal support, the state will not be 

not be able to carry the same workload and therefore will be forced to eliminate many 

economic opportunities for Hawaii. Furthermore, HCP planning assistance grants prevent 

delays in mitigation and conservation actions for our most imperiled species. 

Do you believe that cutting this program will slow development and have negative 

economic and conservation implications throughout the nation? 

Response: No. Due to the fluctuating demand for the development of regional, multi-species 

habitat conservation plans from year to year, the Department is requesting to reduce funding for 

HCP Planning Assistance to align with anticipated demand. 

Question 9: Hawaii is home to 37% of the nation's listed bird species. To support their 

protection, the "State of the Birds" program- a congressional earmark program that 

started in 2000 has provided USFWS with approximately $1.6 million for Hawaiian birds. 

This program provides vital support for some of the nation's most critically endangered 

bird species, bringing them back from the brink of extinction, like the Hawaiian Crow or 

alala, which only exists in captivity. By defunding "State of the Bit·ds," many of these birds 

that depend on the captive propagation facility to build their numbers in the wild will 

surely go extinct. Thus, all the millions of dollars already invested to recover these birds 

would be lost. 

Will this budget cut allow FWS to fulfill their mandate to prevent extinctions and 

safeguard America's unique natural resources? 
89 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

31 

Response: Yes. Preventing extinction and achieving recovery of listed species has always been, 

and will continue to be, one of the FWS' s highest priorities. 

Question 10: DOJ is in the consultation process regarding its reorganization. Thus far, 

what feedback have you received at these consultations? Additionally, can you expand on 

your reorganization plans and what you plan to do to continue to meet DOl's trust 

responsibility to Native communities? 

Response: Interior's bureaus are organized and report across regions, have their own priorities, 

and are not good at joint operations. We are looking at how to better leverage and align bureau 

resources in the field, cut duplication, and push assets and personnel where they should be. We 

are reviewing a number of comments on reform that we have received from the public and we 

expect to include some proposals with the FY 2019 budget request. 
90 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator King 

32 

Question 1: I wanted to follow up on your comment during the hearing about cuts to 

individual national parks. In the hearing after I asked if there are cuts at individual parks 

that will hit their operating budgets, you stated that those kind of cuts would be "very 

doubtful" to individual parks. Yet Acadia National Park is facing an 8% cut to its 

Operation and Maintenance budget from the National Park Service FY18 budget request, 

This cut is also in the context of a national park that has seen nearly 60% increase in 

visitation in ten years, and is facing a nearly $70 million backlog. 

How does the Department ofluterior specifically piau to make the National Park Units 

function more efficiently while visitation levels are at their highest and are projected to 

continue to grow, yet Operation and Maintenance funding is requested to be cut? 

Response: I am a strong supporter of the National Parks. The President's budget proposes to 

balance the federal government's budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. 

The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing 

operational requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too 

long. 

Question 2: Yon specified in the hearing that Advisory Commissions, though temporarily 

suspended during the review period, could apply for exemptions to meet formally for 

scheduled meetings. You also stated that if the Acadia National Park Advisory 

Commission had a scheduled meeting, "all they have to do is put in a request for 

exemption." If a request for au exemption is requested and filed for a scheduled September 

11th meeting of the Acadia Advisory Commission, will this request be granted, as you 

stated? 

Response: In order to make sure all commissions are giving local communities adequate 

opportunities to comment on park management decisions, the Department is reviewing the more 

than 200 boards, committees, and commissions under its responsibility. Throughout this review 

process, committees and commissions have been given the option to pursue waivers to meet, and 

the Acadia Advisory Commission was approved to meet on September 11, 2017. The review is 

scheduled to be completed later this year so that commissions can get back to work. 

Question 3: Back in January during your nomination hearing, you stated before the 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee that "I am on record supporting full funding of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a reason. r think it is an incredibly important 
91 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

33 

program that has done great work." Unfortunately the President's budget calls for an 

84% decrease to all LWCF non-outdoor recreational program funding. This hits home in 

Maine where LWCF grants have served the state well not only in acquisition but in 

development, planning or infrastructure investments inland conservation that helps 

generate outdoor recreation revenue. How does limiting LWCF funding in such a large 

way help protect the program? 

Response: In recent years, a large portion of the Department's LWCF portfolio has focused on 

projects to acquire new lands both on federal lands and through grants to states. The President's 

budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 2027, in order to do this 

priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently 

own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance 

needs have been postponed for too long. Land acquisition is an area where the Department has 

flexibility to defer expenditures. In addition, as I pointed out in the hearing, the LWCF program 

is funded by offshore royalties and revenues, which dropped significantly throughout the last 

administration. In order to support future funding for programs like LWCF, we must prioritize 

our revenue portfolio as well, which this budget does. 

Question 4: It is my understanding that LWCF State and Local Assistance Grants over 

$100,000 awarded by the National Park Service in2017 have been put on hold for "an 

additional layer of review." This is unfortunately putting a substantial burden on local 

organizations who have worked to line up project partners, funding sources and timetables 

to accomplish their conservation and park projects. 

One such project in Maine is in the town of Acton, for the purchase of 25 acres at Goat 

Hill, a valued destination for the year around and seasonal residents of the region. The 

current owners have allowed access over the years but have recently decided to sell the 25 

acres of hill top. The Town of Acton (pop. 6000) has voted in referendum to contribute 

more than half of the funds needed for this purchase. Acton's LWCF State and Local 

Assistance Grant award funding is needed to help with the purchase price and to begin 

infrastructure investments to be sure the public can access the trail and summit during 

Maine's peak outdoors season. 

What is the process for review of projects that have already been awarded, like the project 

in Acton, and when will the process be completed? Will these communities be given some 

guidance in the near term on whether and how their work to secure assistance through the 

NPS state grant program will be affected? 
92 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

3-1 

Response: After being confirmed, I made it a goal to be accountable for how the Department 

spends the taxpayer's dollar. As a part of that effort, I asked for a review of all grants that 

exceeded $100,000 so we could have a thorough accounting of what is being dispersed and how 

it is being used. This is a good governance effort as we look to spend taxpayer dollars in the most 

efficient and wise manner. 

Question 5: Can you relay the findings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's analysis 

(required by the FY 2016 omnibus that passed in December 2015) as to whether it would be 

appropriate to include Echinoderms in the Service's exemption to clearance requirements 

for import and export of fishery products? Additionally, I am still interested in receiving 

the data on inspection requests and executions, which were also provided for in that same 

legislation. Any comment on the reason for delay, which is now more than a year past due, 

would be appreciated. 

Response: In response to this directive in the FY 2016 Appropriations Conference Report, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service carried out an analysis of the history and context of the relevant 

re~:,>ulations and exemptions, the role of the Service's inspection processes in the trade, the current 

legal and illegal trade in echinoderms, and the risk to protected species due to a potential 

exemption. Based on this analysis, the Service concluded that the exemption granted to shellfish 

and fishery product imports and exports was not appropriate for echinoderms. We are happy to 

provide you with the data on inspections requests to you and your stati as well. 
93 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Duckworth 

35 

Question 1: On Aprill2, 2017, a memorandum directing Department oflnterior bureaus 

aud offices to submit all grant and cooperative agreements of$100,000 or greater, or 

modifications to awards which will result in a total award reaching $100,000 or greater for 

that award number, for review. This is already having impacts heritage areas. 

Given that this funding was appropriated by Congress, T am concerned by the action 

Interior is taldng and how it is impacting the communities these funds were intended for. 

Can you report provide details regarding who is managing this review process and how 

long it will take for the reviews to occur and gt·ants to be processed in a timely fashion? 

Response: Interior distributes about $5.5 billion in grants and cooperative agreements every 

year. In an effort to increase accountability so we know where our taxpayer money is being 

distributed, we initiated this review. lt has been a good way for me to better understand this 

spending and how it relates to Interior's mission. We have an n efficient process in place and the 

reviews are moving along quickly. 

Question 2: As you are aware, there is an $11 + billion National Park Service maintenance 

backlog. What specific plans does the Administration have on how this backlog will be 

addressed in the Administration's infrastructure proposal? 

Response: As demonstrated in the President's budget, it is important that we take care of the 

assets that we own. The Department continues to work with the Administration on the 

enactment of this budget and any infrastructure proposals moving forward. 

Question 3: Dnring your confirmation, you shared that the National Park Service deferred 

maintenance backlog is a priority, as is supporting front line park rangers. However, the 

Administration's budget cuts the park service operating budget by 8% and reduces staff 

levels by over 1,200 people. 

How can we reasonably expect the maintenance backlog to be addressed if we're cutting 

the staff that would do this work? 

How are you proposing to support front line rangers when you are seeking to cut more 

than 1,200 rangers? 
94 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Response: I believe that we have to realign our employees to make sure that the focus is at the 

field level, rather than in layers of bureaucracy. This type of realignment will support the 

proposals contained in the 2018 budget, particularly those prioritizing taking care of the assets 

we currently own. 

36 
95 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Portman 

37 

Question 1: I've been working on the implementation of my World War II Memorial 

Prayer Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on June 30,2014. This Act 

requires the Interior Department to install a plaque at the World War U Memorial in 

Washington, D.C. with the prayer that President Roosevelt gave to the nation on the 

morning of D-Day. I understand that the site for the plaque has been approved, but that 

the design of the plaque is still being reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts and the 

National Capital Planning Commission. J have written to the Park Service to encourage 

them to move as quickly as possible to complete this project. Can you make the completion 

of this project a priority for the National Park Service? 

Response: I support the placement of this plaque, and the sacrifices of all our men and women 

who defend our nation. I understand that the design concepts for the plaque were favorably 

presented to the National Capital Planning Commission in July. After approval of a final design, 

the NPS will work the Friends ofWWII to complete this commemoration as expeditiously as 

possible. 

Question 2: The Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, which includes the Hopewell Culture 

National Historical Park, has been on the National Park Service's Tentative List for 

consideration to become a World Heritage site since 2008. I understand that the next step is 

to issue a Federal Register notice to announce the nomination. Will you work with the Ohio 

partners to ensure that this nomination process continues to move forward? 

Response: I look forward to learning more about this nomination and reviewing it as the process 

moves forward. 

Question 3: As you know, my National Park Service Centennial Act was signed into law on 

December 16, 2017 (P.L. 114-289). The Act provides a reliable funding stream for the 

Centennial Challenge fund and the Park Foundation's endowment. I know you have been 

pushing for the change in the senior pass fee in a timely manner and I believe it will 

actually result in a leverage of greater than 2 to 1 over time. Can you please provide an 

update on when the Department will announce and implement that increase providing 

crucial funding to the parks? 

Response: The Senior Pass increase took effect across the country on August 28, 2017. The 

National Park Service issued a news release with this information on July 10, 2017. 
96 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

38 

Question 4: I've worked with Senator Mark Warner to introduce the National Park 

Service Legacy Act, which will provide funds from oil and gas leases for backlog projects. I 

was encouraged during your nomination hearing when you said you'd like to see NPS 

infrastructure projects included in the infrastructure reform plan, and hope that my 

National Park Service Legacy Act can help with this effort. As the infrastructure package 

hopefully begins to take shape do you believe that the Legacy Act could be an option to 

provide additional funding to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog? Can you help us 

in the Administration with these efforts? 

Response: Yes, I look forward to working with you, Congress, and the Administration on 

options to address and reduce the deferred maintenance backlog at the Department. 

Question 5:As you know, another program that is funded by oil and gas leases is the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. Like you, I support the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, and I support its permanent reauthorization. The LWCF is also of particular 

interest in my home state of Ohio, as two factory buildings at the Dayton Aviation Heritage 

site were included on the list ofLWCF priorities in the previous budget request. These 

factory buildings were where the Wright Brothers built the first airplane, and are the 

oldest surviving aviation-related buildings in the U.S. It is important to have these 

buildings acquired by the Park Service so that our aviation heritage is preserved and can 

be taught to future generations. I am aware that the President's budget proposes to 

severely cut LWCF and does not include any new laud acquisition projects. However, 

Congress appropriated $400 million for LWCF in the FY17 Omnibus bill. If Congress 

continues to appropriate money for LWCF, will you support the activities of the LWCF 

program? 

Response: The President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 

2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of 

the assets we currently own. In addition, as I pointed out in the hearing, the LWCF program is 

funded by offshore royalties and revenues, which dropped significantly throughout the last 

administration. In order to support future funding for programs like LWCF, we must prioritize 

our revenue portfolio as well, which this budget does. That said, I continue to support the LWCF 

and will work with Congress to ensure support for our federal lands. 

Question 6: Finally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey both 

play critical roles in protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species, such as Asian Carp, 

zebra mussels, and sea lamprey. In the FY17 Omnibus bill, Congress appropriated $16.6 

million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to combat invasive species and $5.6 million for 
97 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

39 

USGS to continue monitoring and track the movement of Asian Carp to ensure they do not 

enter the Great Lakes. The Fish and Wildlife Service and USGS have also been important 

partners in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in combating invasive species and 

restoring habitats and toxic areas. Will you make sure that the Interior Department 

continues its role in protecting the Great Lakes if Congress provides the necessary 

resources? 

Response: Interior continues to play a leadership role in addressing invasive species issues, 

including serving as Co-Chair to the National Invasive Species Council and as one of several 

federal agencies that directs funding toward programs and projects in the Great Lakes watershed, 

including those that address aquatic invasive species, toxics and contaminated sediments, 

nonpoint source pollution, and habitat protection and restoration. Interior will continue ongoing 

efforts in the Great Lakes watershed consistent with the funding directives provided by 

Congress. 
98 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Questions from Senator Cortez Masto 

40 

Question 1: : The Southern Nevada Public Management Act is an important program for 

Nevada that both my colleague Senator Heller and l support. Since its enactment, 

SNPLMA has funded over 1,200 projects, with notable investments across Southern 

Nevada, Lake Tahoe and Lake Mead. It is a critical program that represents a successful 

compromise by Nevadans to allow the Department to sell public land and invest that 

money in public works and conservation projects. The Administration's proposed budget 

cancels SNPLMA's account balances, which I believe is an affront to a state's ability to 

compromise and improve its economy. Secretary, you believe that states should be able to 

determine local issues and once they do that their compromises should be respected. So, do 

you support cancelling the funds for this account? 

Response: The budget makes tough choices that are necessary to achieve balance in ten years. 

The budget does not eliminate the SNPLMA program, which will continue, but proposes 

cancelling $230 million from the unobligated balances in the SNPLMA special account. This 

will not affect projects that are underway or have already been approved by the Bureau. 

Question 2: Why do you believe the Administration is undermining a successful 

compromise by Nevadans? 

Response: As indicated in the response to the previous question, the SNPLMA program is not 

being eliminated. It will continue. The budget proposes to realize $230 million in savings from 

unobligated balances in the SNPLMA special account 

Question 3: The 2018 budget will encourage the Department to be more innovative and 

look at creative ways to manage prog•·ams and increase revenues, which will have a longerterm positive impact on economic output. lntel"ior can and will maintain its assets, offer a 

world-class experience on public lands, and promote economic growth by developing 

public-private partnerships, encouraging responsible energy development, and 

reorganizing the workforce. In particular, as I said at my hearing, we need to provide our 

front lines with the appropriate resources to get the job done. 

Response: The 2018 budget will encourage the Department to be more innovative and look at 

creative ways to manage programs and increase revenues, which will have a longer-term positive 

impact on economic output Interior can and will maintain its assets, offer a world-class 

experience on public lands, and promote economic growth by developing public-private 

partnerships, encouraging responsible energy development, and reorganizing the workforce. In 
99 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20,2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

particular, as I said at my hearing, we need to provide our front lines with the appropriate 

resources to get the job done. 

41 

Question 4: The Administration's budget proposes $68 million in cuts to the PIL T 

Program. PILT funds are utilized in 49 states and nearly every Congressional district. 

Nevada is ranked tenth in the amount of PIL T funding received. In 2016, Nye County 

received $3.1 million through PILT, and a 10 percent cut would significantly affect their 

ability to provide critical services to their communities, like education, law enforcement, 

and healthcare systems. Do you believe these cuts are fair to rural areas? How would you 

address critical cuts to this program if the President's budget is implemented by Congress? 

Response: The FY 2018 request budgets responsibly for the PlL T program. The request for 

PIL T is about 12 percent below the 2016 enacted level, commensurate with the overall reduction 

for Interior programs in the FY 2018 Budget The $397 million in discretionary funding 

requested for PILT reflects this Administration's support to the communities neighboring our 

public lands without assuming enactment of separate authorizing legislation. 

Question 5: Your agency, like so many others within the federal government, have dealt 

with continued shortfalls in budgetary funding, which has hurt our government's ability to 

partner effectively with private industry and have inflicted negative impacts on our 

nation's parks, forests and wildlife conservation programs. Do you believe more funding 

would allow the Interior Department to be a better partner to industry and the taxpayer? 

Response: This Administration has committed to making the tough decisions that will lead to a 

balanced budget Most of the cuts in this budget reflect duplication, a shift in priority or they are 

activities where partners can step in. In addition, we are prioritizing our assets and personnel in 

the field and are currently going through a process to determine how to shift resources from 

Washington, D.C. to the units in the field and how public private partnerships can best benefit 

our public lands. 

Question 6: Do you believe budgetary and staff cuts have contributed to permitting delays 

that have caused concern for mining interests and other industries in Nevada? 

Response: As part of my review of the Department and its organization, we are looking at how 

to better leverage and align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and allocate assets and 

personnel more effectively, and as necessary to accomplish this important work. 
100 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Question 7: As you know, Secretary Zinke, I have voiced my concern about the executive 

order that requires a review of many national monuments across the country, including 

Gold Butte and Basin and Range in my state of Nevada. I submitted a comment letter to 

emphasize the economic and environmental benefits as well as the widespread support of 

both of these monuments. Will you take into consideration the economic benefit and 

widespread support of Nevada's monuments before making a decision? 

Response: Yes, public comment is an essential component of Interior's process to develop 

recommendations on monuments currently under review, and thank you for your letter stating 

your position on the monuments under review in Nevada. In this review, we have sought input 

on multiple levels, from locals on the ground and county commissioners to Governors, tribal 

leaders, and Members of Congress, and took all this information into consideration before 

making a recommendation. A draft report was submitted to the President on August 24, 2017. 

Question 8: If the Administration's proposed budget cuts wet·e implemented, how would 

they impact the review process moving forward? 

Response: The proposed budget would not impact the current review process. 

Question 9: Will the budget cuts affect the Department's partnership with the Resource 

Advisory Councils or other opportunities for the public to weigh in? 

42 

Response: As T have said before, it is important for local stakeholders to have a voice in the 

decision-making process. Public participation will remain a critical way to ensure local residents 

who actually live near the land and deal directly with the consequences of land use decisions are 

heard before those decisions are made. 

Question 10: How will we maintain visitation as sites like Gold Butte and Basin and Range 

when the Administration's budget aims to cut over 1200 staff positions? 

Response: Across the Department, 2018 funding for land management operations is reduced by 

approximately seven percent, which will impact staffing levels. However, the budget also 

prioritizes funding non-recurring infrastructure projects that will help address the deferred 

maintenance backlog. In the long run, this will create a better experience for visitors and staff by 

ensuring that facilities are safe, functional, and can be operated more efficiently. 

Question 11: As you know, Nevada's public lands are critical to the character and economy 

of my state. Outdoor recreation brings $14.9 billion in consumer spending to Nevada, with 
101 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

43 

well over half the population recreating outside each year. At Lake Mead alone, visitors 

spent over $312 million in 2016. Without question, parks are a boon to local economies with 

over 330 million visits and nearly $35 billion to the national economy last year. Despite this 

growth, and the need for federal support, I see that the administration's budget slashes 

funding for the National Park Service. Why cut funding when parks are so clearly 

beneficial to our national economy? 

Response: I am a strong supporter of the National Parks. The President's budget proposes to 

balance the federal government's budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. 

The 2018 budget prioritizes our maintenance backlog and focuses on taking care of the assets we 

currently own. 

Question 12: How long do you think the current infrastructure will last with an increased 

number of visitors? 

Response: National parks are a national treasure, and providing access to these federal lands for 

a range of activities is of critical importance to the Administration. I believe that it is important 

to get our children and grandchildren out to our parks and public lands to experience our 

collective heritage. By focusing on priorities to ensure that we take care of the assets we 

currently own, as this budget does, we make sure that these lands will be maintained and 

available for future generations. 

Question 13: Currently, 80% oft.-ail maintenance in Nevada is accomplished by 

volunteers through organizations such as Friends of Nevada Wilderness and Great Basin 

Institute. While these partnerships are crucial for maintenance and we appreciate their 

incredible work, there is widespread concerns that with further cuts, the responsibility of 

all maintenance will fall on the shoulders on these organizations. Can you address some of 

those concerns? 

Response: It is important that our parks and public lands continue to offer a world-class 

experience, and I intend to ensure that they are maintained to accomplish that. I believe we can 

be an efficient manager and a good neighbor at the same time. As mentioned before, we are 

prioritizing our assets and personnel in the field and are currently going through a process to 

determine how to shift resources from Washington, D.C. to the units in the field and how public 

private partnerships can best benefit our public lands. 

Question 14: For nearly 40 years, LWCF has funded land acquisition, conserved 

threatened and endangered species, and provided critical grants to states. Just in Clark 
102 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

44 

County, Nevada, there are 89 projects that received 13 million dollars of LWCF funding 

and have improved our natural areas and local economies, including conservation of 

recreation areas, local trails, and wildlife refuges. The Administration's budget proposes a 

cut from $400 million to $64 million- that's a decrease of more than 80 percent for a fund 

that has benefitted conservation and recreation in every state. Do you believe these cuts will 

destabilize conservation and our rural local economies? How would your agency be able to 

administer this program with these cuts? 

Response: In recent years, a large portion of the Department's LWCF portfolio has focused on 

projects to acquire new lands both on federal lands and through grants to states. The President's 

budget proposes to balance the federal government's budget by 2027, in order to do this 

priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently 

own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and many 

maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. Land acquisition is an area where the 

Department has flexibility to defer expenditures. In addition, as I pointed out in the hearing, the 

LWCF program is funded by offshore royalties and revenues, which dropped significantly 

throughout the last administration. In order to support future funding for programs like LWCF, 

we must prioritize our revenue portfolio as well, which this budget does. 

Question 15: Nevada is second in the nation in the amount of geothermal power produced 

and has the country's largest untapped geothermal resources. However, the 

Administration's budget repeals the 25 percent share of revenue distribution for 

geothermal royalties that is provided to counties. These royalties provide up to 10% of 

revenues to counties in Nevada, so the repeal would be harmful to our local economies. 

This is another example of how the President's budget hurts rural communities so why is 

the Administration repealing these payments? Can you address these concerns? 

Response: The budget proposal to eliminate the geothermal revenue payments to counties is 

intended to restore the historic formula for the disposition of federal geothermal leasing 

revenues, which is 50 percent to the states and 50 percent to the Treasury. 

Question 16: [Missing] 

Question 17: I understand that the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute Tribe has a strong 

relationship with the BLM regional office in Idaho where they meet monthly and 

collaborate effectively to protect cultural resources. However, the Tribe has mentioned to 

me that they do not have a similar relationship with the BLM office in Nevada. Will the 
103 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Administration's proposed budget cuts impact BLM's ability to engage with Tribes in a 

way that satisfies their obligation? 

45 

Response: I believe sovereignty must mean something and that self-determination is a priority. 

The review process that is underway will determine how we shift assets from Washington to the 

units in the field to ensure relationships with local communities and tribes improve. Our goal is 

to push assets and personnel where they are needed most so the Department, and its bureaus, can 

more effectively carry out its mission. 

Question 18: Can you please explain how these cuts will not endanger these communities? 

Response: The Administration's budget prioritizes self-governance and self-determination, and 

focuses funding in Indian country on core service activities, fully funding the costs for tribes to 

administer programs for themselves, and maintains essential management functions for tribal 

resources, among other things. 

Question 19: President Trump's proposed budget would eliminate the Interior's National 

Heritage Areas Program, cutting nearly $20 million from the program. National Heritage 

Areas are large lived-in landscapes with strong rooting in rural communities and towns. 

Since 2012, the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership in White Pine County, Nevada has 

provided substantial funding and support to the Ely Renaissance Society, the Ely Shoshone 

Tribe, the Nevada Northern Railway, the White Pine Public Museum, and others projects 

totaling $280,736. Those funds have been matched from local stakeholders with non-federal 

funding and labor valuing $1.9 million for White Pine County residents. Why has the 

Administration proposed to eliminate funding to this program? 

Response: National Heritage Areas provide cultural benefits, and are an example of the benefits 

of partnerships. However, the President's budget proposes to balance the federal government's 

budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes 

taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements 

cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. The National 

Heritage Area Program can be supported through partnerships and community engagement. 

Question 20: The budget proposes to eliminate appropriations language that prevents the 

sale and destruction of healthy, unadoptable wild horses, giving BLM the ability to conduct 

sales without limitation. 1 believe that we need to engage with all the key stakeholders in 

Nevada to address this issue before these actions are taken. Will you work with me to 
104 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resom·ces 

Hearing on the FY 2018 Interior Department Budget 

June 20, 2017 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Ryan Zinke 

explore a task force to effectively engage with stakeholders and come up with a 

comprehensive and humane solution to wild horse overpopulation concerns? 

46 

Response: The current program is not sustainable, and a new approach is needed. Rangelands 

are not capable of handling this overpopulation and as a consequence these ecosystems are out of 

balance. In addition, program costs have more than doubled due to the cost to care for excess 

horses and burros located off-range. To meet the Department's long-term goal of realigning 

program costs and animal populations to fulfil our statutory obligation to maintain appropriate 

herd management levels, BLM must have the necessary tools as provided in the Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros Act to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. 

Question 21: How will the proposed budget cuts impact the existing conservation measures 

set forward in the BLM and Forest Service plans for sage grouse? And, how will they 

impact efforts to replace those conservation measures? What will that process entail? 

Response: Like you, my desire is to avoid listing the sage-grouse and I have made a 

commitment to work with states and other local partners to accomplish this goal. The Budget 

requests over $75 million in the Bureau's Wildlife Management program to continue work on the 

sage landscape, maintaining the Department's commitment to the sage-grouse and its habitat 

The interagency team established by my Secretarial Order has carried out its initial review 

directly in conjunction with states. The recommendations detailed within the report provide a 

path forward for additional work to be carried out in consultation with states and local 

communities. 

0