INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

HEARINGS

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID LESSTRANG, DARREN BENJAMIN, JASON GRAY,

ERICA RHOAD, and COLIN VICKERY,

Staff Assistants 

PART 7 

Page

National Park Service FY 2014 Budget Oversight 

Hearing ................................................................................... 1

Fish and Wildlife Service FY 2014 Budget Oversight 

Hearing ................................................................................... 51

U.S. Forest Service FY 2014 Budget Oversight Hearing 115 

Bureau of Land Management FY 2014 Budget 

Oversight Hearing ............................................................... 155

Environmental Protection Agency FY 2014 Budget 

Oversight Hearing ............................................................... 223

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

81–691 WASHINGTON : 2013 
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

—————

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESSES

JONATHAN JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. 

Welcome to the Committee, Director Jarvis. I want to thank you 

and your colleagues for being with us today to discuss the important work of the National Park Service and your priorities for the 

coming year. It is nice to see our friends, Bruce Sheaffer, and a 

former member of our subcommittee staff, Grace Stephens. You are 

sitting on the wrong side of the table, Grace. You are supposed to 

be over on this side. 

We received the fiscal year 2014 budget request just two days 

ago and look forward to you providing us with some of the details 

this morning. At the outset, I want to make several observations. 

Like many agencies under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, the 

Park Service is feeling the effects of lean budgets. I commend you 

and your staff for efforts to prioritize spending in this austere 

budgetary environment. It is no secret that sequestration is having 

a detrimental effect on a number of Park Service functions. It is 

for this reason that the House actually proposed in its version of 

the fiscal year 2013 Continuing Resolution freezing the Park Service operating accounts at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level—in 

other words, not making additional cuts beyond sequestration. We 

felt that this was the best we could do in this tough budgetary environment.

Unfortunately, things did not turn out as the House would have 

liked with regard to your budget, which is one of the reasons I took 

the extraordinary step of voting no on final passage of the fiscal 

year 2014 Continuing Resolution, even though it was my chairman’s appropriation bill. 

On another issue, we understand that the authority the Park 

Service uses to levy entrance fees expires at the end of the calendar 

year. This authority, which is also important to the Forest Service 

and DOI land management bureaus, is critical to providing revenue 
2

for our national parks. We hope you will shed some light today on 

the importance of this authority to your overall mission. Also, the Park Service was the beneficiary of $348 million in construction funding through the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental 

funding bill. The subcommittee looks forward to learning more 

today about how these funds are being spent. I know this will be 

of particular interest to our full Committee ranking member, Mrs. 

Lowey.

Lastly, I understand there was a gathering recently of people interested in the future of the National Park System sharing ideas 

on how to supplement the annual appropriations Congress provides 

to our national parks. We look forward to hearing about some of 

these ideas and whether you think they have merit. 

I look forward to focusing on these and other issues this morning 

but first I want to yield to Mr. Moran for any opening statement 

that he might want to make. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I too 

want to welcome Director Jarvis. He is doing a hell of a job. I think 

he has been really dedicated and he has devoted really his life, his 

career to the Park Service. 

Now, with the weather here in Washington, D.C., this week and 

all the cherry blossoms around the tidal basin in full bloom, it is 

certainly a reminder that the National Park Service is about to 

enter its busy summer visitor season, and I know Park Service Police and other employees that are directing the traffic and assisting 

tourists, and we appreciate all that you have done, but it is an 

enormous strain on your operations. 

But we are going to enter this very busy season hobbled by the 

sequester that has been imposed on the Park Service because these 

budget cuts are truly adversely affecting your National Park operations. I fear that the public will very soon see the impact of these 

cuts. It is a $139 million reduction from last year due to the sequester, and you have only a few months in which to impose those 

cuts. I know it is going to hurt the morale and the ability of many 

of your employees to go about their mission, but also millions of 

Americans who want to enjoy the beauty and history of our national parks and relax and appreciate what they were intended to 

provide all Americans. Many of them are going to be adversely affected as well by these budget cuts. Sometimes you do not appreciate things until you start to lose them. 

Now, I really do this so that our chairman can have his morning 

moment of Zen. I would like to quote—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. And I appreciate it. 

Mr. MORAN. He does appreciate it. I want to quote John Muir, 

who I think we all know and certainly one of the greatest friends 

of national parks. He said: ‘‘Climb the mountains and get their 

good tidings. Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows 

into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and 

the storms their energy while cares will drop off like autumn 

leaves.’’ John Muir had a great way of expressing things, and I 

know that it applies to so many places in Idaho as well as other 

states throughout the country. 
3

We like to be able to reflect upon the beauty of the national 

parks, but as I say, these budget cuts over the remainder of the 

fiscal year may very well diminish that very experience. There 

seems to be little that can be done to correct the budgetary shortfalls that the Park Service finds itself facing before the end of this 

summer. But I do think this new fiscal year 2014 budget request 

turns the page on the sequester and begins to move the National 

Park Service forward again. I hope that we can reach a negotiated 

agreement, some reconciliation between those who refuse to provide new revenue to the government and those who refuse to look 

at the major areas of spending. There is going to have to be some 

compromise because until there is, discretionary programs like the 

Interior Department, the Park Service in particular, are going to 

suffer until we can reach that kind of accommodation. That is not 

your responsibility but you and your organization are having to pay 

the price for our not being able to reach the kind of compromise 

that is reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget. 

Now, the budget for the Park Service is by no means extravagant. The pressures on funding over the past several years have 

taken their toll on park operations, and this budget is just a start 

on getting the park system on a firmer financial ground. 

I can and I do support the increases in funding that are being 

requested. Some of the decreases being proposed such as offsets in 

operations, maintenance and construction accounts I think will give 

us pause because they could further fray the fabric of the national 

park system, but we do very much appreciate the good work that 

you do, Mr. Director. You are doing a terrific job, and your people 

like Bruce Sheaffer and all the folks behind you, we have great 

confidence in. They work very hard and very effectively day in and 

day out. We look forward to hearing from you this morning on how 

the Park Service will, under this budget request, continue to carry 

out its proud mission as guardians of our national parks. 

I thank you, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Moran. I do not know if you have 

got a book on those quotes but if you can get me a copy, I would 

like that. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I think Rick Healey back here, he has—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. He comes up with them somewhere, does he not? 

Mr. MORAN. He comes up with them, they are around, and you 

know, maybe this summer we can both sit down and just read John 

Muir for a while. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Director Jarvis, welcome to the Committee today. 

Tell us about America’s best idea. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR JARVIS

Mr. JARVIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. If you want to read Muir, I can arrange a great location for that: Yosemite Valley. 

Well, thank you for this opportunity to come before you today to 

talk about the 2014 President’s budget request for the National 

Park Service. I want to summarize my testimony and submit the 

entire statement for the record. 

We really do appreciate this Committee’s support. It has been 

very strong over the years for the work that we do in the National 
4

Park Service as the stewards of our Nation’s most cherished cultural and natural resources, and we look forward to working with 

you as we prepare for our second century of stewardship and public 

engagement in 2016. 

As you know, the National Park Service, like all the federal bureaus, began formulating our 2014 budget well before sequestration 

became inevitable. We formulated our request based on fiscal 2012 

levels, unaware that by the end of fiscal 2013, we would have to 

cut our operating budget by six percent. The six percent cut is the 

result of the five percent reduction required by sequestration followed by an additional one percent reduction imposed by the full 

year C.R. So although the 2014 budget represents incremental 

changes from the 2012 funding level, it still remains a very good 

representation of our agency’s priorities and reflects some of the 

difficult decisions we knew we would have to make in this austere 

budget climate. The 2014 budget request proposes $3.1 billion in NPS budget au- thority. Discretionary appropriations total $2.6 billion, a net increase of $56.6 million above 2012 levels. The budget increased 

funding for essential programs and emerging operational needs 

while ensuring fiscal discipline by reducing some park and program 

operations, construction activities, heritage partnership programs 

and State Conservation Grants. The request also includes an estimated $479.1 million in mandatory appropriations, with increases 

above the prior year primarily resulting from a proposal to fund 

land acquisition and state and local recreation grants from mandatory authority. 

The 2014 budget supports continued stewardship of the Nation’s 

most cherished resources through the Administration’s America’s 

Great Outdoors initiative. Through partnerships with states and 

others, AGO is a landmark investment in engaging people in the 

outdoors and expanding opportunities for recreation and conservation of our Nation’s cultural and natural heritage. Sustaining funding for NPS operations is an absolute key component of this initiative. In these tough economic times, we recognize the value the 401 

national parks provide to all Americans as places of introspection 

and recreation, and as economic engines that create jobs and help 

our gateway communities. A new economic impact report recently 

shows that visitor spending in the national parks in 2011 generated more than $30 billion in sales which supported 252,000 jobs 

in the U.S. economy. 

In addition to this initiative, the NPS has begun a strategic approach to prepare ourselves for our Centennial Year in 2016. The 

Park Service’s ‘‘A Call to Action’’ is a recommitment to the exemplary stewardship and public enjoyment of our national parks. The 

2014 budget supports ‘‘A Call to Action’’ as the guiding strategy for 

creating a more relevant service for the next Century. 

Operation of the National Park System, which funds the operations of our 401 parks and related programs, is proposed to be 

funded at $2.3 billion, $48.4 million over 2012 enacted. The ONPS 

request includes fixed costs of $28.9 million and $40 million in targeted program increases. These increases are partially offset by a 

$20.6 million reduction to parks and programs. Of the reductions, 

park base operations are reduced by $18.4 million. 
5

A number of the strategic increases included in the request will 

help parks fund critical resource programs. For example, we propose $5.2 million to control invasive species such as zebra and 

quagga mussels, and $3 million to combat white-nose syndrome in 

bats. Increased ONPS funds will also enhance visitor experiences, 

increase accessibility, encourage youth engagement, provide support for the U.S. Park Police, and cover increases in centralized 

billing such as the D.C. water and sewer service. In 2014, the budget proposes $100.4 million in discretionary Federal Land Acquisition and State Conservation Grants, a net decrease of $1.5 million from the 2012 enacted level. Of the total, 

$60.4 million is proposed to be available for Federal land acquisition projects and administration, including $9 million to preserve 

and protect threatened Civil War battlefield sites outside of the national park system through the American Battlefield Protection 

Program. The budget also proposes $36.4 million for State Conservation Grants, to be apportioned to the states in accordance 

with the long-standing formula. 

Additionally, a proposal to fund a portion of the National Park 

Service land acquisition and recreation grants from LWCF as a 

mandatory appropriation would provide $30.2 million to the NPS 

for Federal land acquisition projects and $20 million for the State 

Conservation Grants program. The 2014 budget also requests $10 million to reinvigorate the 

Urban Parks and Recreation Fund. This fund will be used to make 

matching grants to improve existing recreational opportunities in 

urban communities. The mandatory proposal will provide an additional $5 million to UPARR grants. 

The National Recreation and Preservation appropriation funds 

programs that support local and community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources. The 2014 budget includes $52 million 

for this appropriation, a net change of $7.8 million below 2012. The 

proposed reduction supports the directive in the 2010 Interior Appropriations Act for the newly established National Heritage Areas 

to work toward becoming more self-sufficient, yet still promotes the 

long-term sustainability of the heritage areas and the continued 

importance of federal seed money for the less mature areas. The budget requests $58.9 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, an increase of $3 million compared to 2012. The $3 million 

increase will fund a new competitive grant program targeted towards communities that are currently underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places. 

The budget also proposes $160 million for Construction, $4.6 million above 2012 levels. Eighty-three point one million of this request is for our line item construction program. 
6

In formulating the 2014 budget request, the NPS used a variety 

of tools to evaluate spending and incorporate performance results 

into decision making. We continue to exercise strict controls on discretionary costs like travel and supplies as we improve oversight 

over our limited budgetary resources. We remain committed to 

strategically focusing our efforts and resources on those functions 

critical to the protection of resources, visitors and employees. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and I will be glad to 

take questions. 

[The statement of Jonathan Jarvis follows:] 
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Director Jarvis. I appreciate it. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

A couple questions. What is the backlog maintenance of the 

parks right now? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is a little bit over $11 billion. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is going up or down. 

Mr. JARVIS. It is going up. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And we have proposed how much in construction 

this year? 

Mr. JARVIS. Let’s see. Construction was $160 million. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, it will only take us 122 years. So what would 

it take in appropriations to address the backlog maintenance that 

is headed in the right direction instead of the wrong direction? Any 

ideas?

Mr. JARVIS. About $700 million annually would begin to turn 

that curve. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And when we talk about backlog maintenance, 

what exactly are we saying? What is the backlog maintenance in? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, the National Park Service has an inventory of 

assets that is second only to the Department of Defense. We have 

roads, trails, buildings. An interesting overlay of that is, many of 

those buildings are historic and incredibly important to the history 

of this country. Many of our utility systems, wastewater, water, 

electrical, were installed 60 years ago. Many of them are old, antiquated, sort of being kept alive but many of them need to be upgraded, if not replaced. About half of the backlog is roads. The National Park Service has an extraordinary inventory of critical road 

infrastructure that provides access to the public, whether it is the 

Loop Road in Yellowstone or the Going to Sun Highway at Glacier, 

and so we have a very large backlog in the road maintenance. 

NEW PARK UNITS

Mr. SIMPSON. The reason I ask this question, it seems like everybody wants to add new units to the parks. Over the last couple of 

years, we have added seven new units to the park when we have 

got a growing backlog maintenance with parks that currently exist, 

and I am not suggesting that these additions are not appropriate 

but what pressure is it putting on you as we add new units to the 

Park Service, and some of them, you have got to wonder if they are 

appropriate, and some of them probably are. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, in any new proposed unit to the National Park 

Service, we carefully assess what the liabilities would be for us. I 

will give you an appropriate example of one that was recently 

added, and that is the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument in Maryland. The property where Harriet Tubman was a slave was purchased privately through an NGO and donated to us, so it cost us nothing. The property sits inside of the 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, so there is already an operation there by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the visitors center 

that will tell the story of Harriet Tubman is being built by the 

State of Maryland. We will have minimal infrastructure and our 

responsibilities will be for interpretation at the site. So we are now 

looking at each of these additions to the National Park Service 
23

through sort of a screen. I do believe that, history does not stop 

just because we have a budgetary problem. We in the Park Service 

have a responsibility to tell the complete story of America, and 

there is a constant desire to add to the system. We do resist a number of them. Probably over 50 percent of the studies that come 

through, we actually recommend they not be added to the National 

Park Service because in part we do have a very large maintenance 

backlog.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the Senate when they had to find an extra $20 million 

in the C.R., they took it out of Park Service operations just because 

it was the easiest thing to do. So I am glad the chairman raised 

that, an $11 billion backlog and we are only able to put—what is 

the percentage? I will leave it to the dentist to figure out the percentage. But, I mean, it is miniscule. 

SEQUESTRATION

Let me ask some other things. The sequester includes cuts to the 

Park Police budget, and as a result of those cuts, there is going to 

be a furloughing of Park Police Officers over the next 6 months. 

This is going to be a tough time to be furloughing Park Police, so 

I would like to know how you are dealing with it and still ensure 

the safety and security of our park visitors. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. So with the sequestration, since it was applied line by line in the National Park Service’s budget, each of our 

operating accounts took a 5 percent cut. The U.S. Park Police is an 

approximately $100 million operation annually. It is a program 

that is essentially all salary and operations, helicopter fleet vehicles, and emergency response. We had to take a $5 million hit halfway through the year. Of course, the Park Police have been operating. We had a major role in the Inauguration, and a number of 

other events. The U.S. Park Police, for those of you who are not 

familiar, they are our elite urban law enforcement. They operate 

here in Washington, D.C., in San Francisco, and in New York. 

They protect the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, the 

Presidio and then of course here in Washington the monuments 

and memorials, the G.W. Parkway. We are working very closely 

with the U.S. Park Police. At current expectations, we will have to 

furlough every employee in the U.S. Park Police, all 767, 14 days 

each, literally a full pay period. We are looking to see how we can 

balance our responsibilities for icon security and emergency response across the U.S. Park Police; we are looking at every major 

event that we have scheduled for the rest of the year. There is the 

Fourth of July and Rolling Thunder and, you know, the Cherry 

Blossom Festival. All of those require extraordinary responsibilities 

on our part, so we are analyzing data at this point. We have not 

found a solution that will not require furloughs. 

Mr. MORAN. So every one of the more than 700 Park Police will 

be furloughed for an entire pay period over the next 6 months? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct. 
24

U.S. PARK POLICE HELICOPTER

Mr. MORAN. You mentioned the Park Police helicopter. We have 

three of them. Some are as old as 30 years old. While they have 

certainly exceeded their recommended flight-hour levels, is there 

any timeline for the replacement of at least the 30-year-old helicopter?

Mr. JARVIS. We think that the current fleet is still fully operational. Having three, one is a backup, and two are prime. 

CONSTRUCTION

Mr. MORAN. I understand. You have got a one-time payment of $30 million for construction of the Tamiami Trail within the Everglades. I do support that but it is going to cost hundreds of millions 

of dollars, and there are no commitments from the federal and 

state partners to share in the cost. So what have you worked out 

in terms of getting some matching for that major commitment? As 

important as it is, we cannot start the trail and then stop it. It has 

got to be completed, and it probably ought not have to be funded 

entirely with federal money. 

Mr. JARVIS. The Tamiami Trail bridging is really an extraordinary project, and I want to thank the Committee for the support 

up to this point. We have gotten the 1 mile bridge in and it really 

allows passive flow from the north into the Everglades, and we do 

want to go with the next stretch. The $30 million request that is 

in this budget I think is stimulating some excellent conversations. 

We do not have commitment yet but we are in very close conversations with the State of Florida to see if they have a willingness to 

put up some funding for this in support of extending the Tamiami 

Trail because that is a highway that serves the residents of the 

State of Florida as well. 

Mr. MORAN. We will have another round, I imagine, Mr. Chairman, so I will not hold the others. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Calvert. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Jarvis, for your service. We appreciate it. 

One of the issues that is obviously big in the West is invasive 

species. You brought it up in your testimony. The zebra mussel is 

literally attacking the entire water delivery system that we have, 

and it is extremely costly and difficult to deal with. And then you 

mentioned the white-nose syndrome with bats, and obviously I 

know people do not think of bats every day but they are highly effective in limiting insect populations and especially in the farming 

communities. Are you having any progress with these invasive species or anything good to say as far as handling this? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, we are very concerned, particularly with the 

spread of the quagga mussel in the Colorado River system. As you 

know, it is in Lake Meade, full invasion in Lake Meade. We are 

beginning to be concerned about Glen Canyon and a few other of 

these systems. I think containment is key. Lake Meade and Glen 

Canyon have boat inspections coming and going as well as boat 

washing stations. We have put a significant amount of our fee dol-
25

lars into this. We are working very closely with the states for inspection and our concessioners. Every boat that parks and perhaps 

is moored in one of these lakes that has contamination has to be 

inspected before it is moved. The challenge, of course, is in these 

big lakes like Lake Meade or Glen Canyon, there are hundreds of 

places that you could come in with a four-wheel drive and drop a 

boat in and fish and leave and we would never see you. That is a 

big problem, so it is really important that we get the funding that 

we have requested and then work very closely with the state, particularly the fish and game agencies, for some kind of licensing, 

working with the boating community, because it is not to their advantage either that these things spread. 

Mr. CALVERT. You are not getting any beneficial animal that can 

attack the mussel? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, we have not found anything. 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

Mr. CALVERT. And any comment on the white-nose syndrome 

with bats? 

Mr. JARVIS. The white-nose syndrome, it is wiping out bat populations. We have curtailed a lot of public use in the bat caves because there is potential for spreading white-nose syndrome. You 

are spot on about the importance of the bat community to agriculture. I think we underestimate what value they bring in terms 

of their eating insects. We are working with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and state agencies to see 

if we can find something that will resolve this. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. CALVERT. Another issue, energy development. You have a 

permitting process. You are asking for $1.2 million to ensure a 

science-based proposal to move ahead on that, and tell me, tell the 

Committee what are some of the type of energy development proposals that you are looking into. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, these are predominantly working with adjacent 

land management agencies such as the BLM and the U.S. Forest 

Service for large renewable energy systems, for instance, the large 

arrays that are being developed in the California desert have potential to affect the desert tortoise. We also are working to avoid 

conflicts with the Endangered Species Act. It is not so much that 

we are developing these facilities on our lands but we are working 

cooperatively with the other agencies as they are developed on adjacent lands to make sure that they are not impactful to either the 

park or the local environment. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just out of curiosity, do Asian carp like quagga 

mussels? We might have a deal there. 

Ms. McCollum. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I was thinking if we could train them 

to eat them and then the mussels would kill them, it could be a 

win-win. Maybe we can get the USGS on top of that. 
26

I want to follow up on invasive species a little more. I mean, 

there are plants too. You know, we are battling common buckthorn. 

We have got to worry about emerald ash bore, and zebra mussels 

in Minnesota for over 20 years, and as the chairman pointed out, 

the growing concern of Asian carp. There are several of us working 

bipartisanly on an Asian carp bill but we are kind of looking at it 

as a model of collaboration between federal agencies, state government, local units of government, and getting citizen involvement. 

I know there is good cooperation but everybody has gotten their 

budget cut. You got your budget cut so that means you have fewer 

people doing boater education on zebra mussels. One problem that 

we have incurred in some of our national forests is that people fish 

along streams and people used to dump their earthworms, thinking 

this is good, they are going to help the forest. I remember doing 

that as a kid because there was not any education, there was no 

discussion about it. There had not been research about what it 

meant when everybody was dumping their earthworms around 

trees.

Mr. MORAN. What is wrong with dumping earthworms? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. He will tell you. 

Mr. MORAN. I still do that. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Do not. 

Maybe we need invasive-species legislation. Maybe we need to be 

talking about how we put all hands on deck both at the national, 

federal, local and community level on dealing with this, so if you 

could maybe reflect on that a little bit for me, and then be very 

careful as you build the trail in Florida because the invasive species there, I do not ever want to see a boa. 

Mr. JARVIS. We can arrange that if you like. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And then I will just put these together. So, the 

sequester impacts the scenic St. Croix, the Mississippi national 

river recreation, all the national parks, the ability of families to 

enjoy them and to have an opportunity for young people to be introduced to the great outdoors. This is an example of where the national parks are present and we do not do a very good job of promoting that these are national parks. Hats off to my two park people, both in St. Croix on the Mississippi, for getting the word out, 

working with the Department of Transportation in Minnesota to let 

people know that these are federal treasures. Families that drive 

by it often do not even realize what is going in some of the urban 

cores.

So this goes back to the vacant positions, and I totally understand the security that the Park Police provide. There are park enforcement officers that are out there interacting, doing education 

and making the experience a safe one. You are going to be cutting, 

at least in my neck of the woods, at a time of great and high-level 

use. Has there been any discussion about coming to the Congress? 

With the way we do C.R.’s and everything, we are not doing our 

job in a timely fashion. It is not the Chair’s fault here; it is this 

Congress’s entire fault. So I am not picking on the Chair here, but, 

maybe we should have been talking about public safety. You are 

talking about public safety. You are part of public safety and safe 

enjoyment. And can you just kind of give us some ideas on what 

you would suggest for us to be looking at. 
27

Mr. JARVIS. Sure. I would be glad to do that. Well, let me start 

out with the invasive question. The National Park Service has been 

basically since our beginning working very hard on dealing with 

invasive species, and one of the more successful programs we have 

are invasive strike teams, and these are particularly for plants. If 

you get it early, you can pretty much prevent it, but if you wait 

too long, then it is generally too late, same thing with animal 

invasives as well. So our strike teams are available to move around 

the country and attack these species right when they are first detected, and that is incredibly important. 

I think the other key component on dealing with invasives is engagement with the sporting community. I think that the fishermen—you know, I am a fly fisherman and I know now that there 

is an incentive to not wear felt soles on your boots because you will 

be moving invasives from stream to stream so the fishing community has moved away completely from those kinds of boots. We 

have really got to engage the sporting community on this, the boating community, the fishing community, the hunting community, all 

that, we are all in this together, so that we can have sustainable 

recreational opportunities that we can predict because invasives 

can change that completely, so I think public-private partnership 

is really the key to that. 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

In terms of getting the word out, I want to just comment about 

this because I think this is a story that you may not know. So with 

2016 coming, our Centennial, we recognize that we need to build 

a new constituency among the American people about our national 

parks, about all of the units of the national park system, not just 

the classic ones as well. So through our foundation, the National 

Park Foundation, we have hired a top-flight Madison Avenue marketing firm, Gray Advertising. They do the eTrade baby, if you are 

familiar with that. They had a Super Bowl ad. So these guys are 

great, and we have hired them, not with appropriated monies, it 

is all philanthropic support, to basically build a campaign for the 

national parks for 2016: To raise awareness, to connect kids, to 

reach communities that are unaware, to increase visitation, all of 

those things that are sort of part and parcel as to who we are, and 

we are right in the research phase right now. We hope to have the 

creative content developed by this fall and then the campaign will 

build towards 2016. The Mississippi Rivers, the G.W. Parkways 

and the Hagerman Fossil Beds and, the parks that people do not 

really know are these national assets can benefit from this overall 

campaign.

SEQUESTRATION

So to the point of sequestration, absolutely every park in the system took a hit because they are line items in the budget, so every 

park had to find a 5 percent reduction, and I set the bar that the 

last thing we wanted to do was to furlough permanent employees. 

Now, we are having to do it within the U.S. Park Police. Across the 

system, Bruce and I at the beginning of the year, predicting it 

might be a troubled year from a budgetary standpoint, we put in 

a lot of controls on parks. We imposed hiring restrictions, travel re-
28

strictions. I ultimately put in a hiring freeze. And so as a result, 

we have about 1,200 to 1,300 positions, permanent positions in the 

Park Service that are unfilled right now. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Would you say that again? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thirteen hundred permanent positions that are unfilled, and we are not going to let them fill 900 right now, plus 

1,000 seasonals. We have said that they will not be able to hire 

1,000 seasonals, and that has a net effect that ripples across the 

system from, reduced plowing—you certainly saw some at Yellowstone and Yosemite—reduced maintenance, shorter hours and facilities, fewer interpreters, fewer programs. In some cases, visitor 

contact stations will be closed, restrooms may be closed, fewer law 

enforcement rangers which result in longer lead times and response. All of those kinds of things are happening absolutely this 

summer in every park in the system. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jarvis, always good to see you. 

Mr. JARVIS. Good to see you. 

CHICKASAW NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Mr. COLE. I think on a bipartisan basis, we just appreciate the 

career and the professionalism and the way you do your job, and 

I know a long time ago I had the opportunity to work with you, 

I think when you were regional director on the Pacific west area 

on the U.S.S. Oklahoma Memorial, and you guys did an unbelievable job helping us get that up and operational. 

Mr. JARVIS. It is a great memorial. 

Mr. COLE. Well, thank you for your efforts. You were a big part 

of making that happen. 

I want to ask a parochial question and then turn it into a little 

bit larger question. I want to thank you. I know you are in serious 

negotiations right now with the Chickasaw Nation about the operation of the Chickasaw National Recreation Area, the core of 

which, as my colleagues know, was actually originally given to the 

United States by the tribe itself to protect the unique set of sulfur 

springs that has been added to over the years, and they have been 

developing quite a complex. They have their cultural center on the 

edge of it. It actually sits on land that a land swap was arranged 

with the Park Service years ago. They have got a new hotel downtown. They have got their own crafts center going up. They are 

working on their version of a visitors center. So, they are anxious 

to operate the park themselves. They actually do now operate a 

state park, Boggy Depot, which is a historic park. It is actually one 

of the areas in Oklahoma where Indians were brought to during 

the removal process, and they operate for our state the largest visitors center that we have on the Texas border, which they took over 

and they fund. Actually, these have been situations where the state 

has saved considerable money. 

So what I wanted to ask is, number one, insofar as you can, can 

you give us sort of the status of the negotiations and discussions 

and concerns you might have, because I think there is money to be 

saved here for the federal government. I think it will actually put 

more resources into the facility than we could ever get in the fed-
29

eral system. The community is very anxious because they have 

seen tribal investments that have really benefited the non-Native 

population. I think the attitude would have been very different a 

decade ago than it is today because of the commitment that they 

have seen. 

And then finally, after you answer that specifically, if you could 

talk more largely about other joint management arrangements between tribes and the federal government in areas that are obviously very important to the tribes that they have a long-time association and history with. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question. This is something that 

strikes very close to home for me. I have had in my career some 

of the most extraordinary opportunities of working with tribes—I 

lived in a Native village for 5 years in Alaska. Native tribes obviously have a deep association with these lands, great cultural connections, incredible stories that need to be shared with the American people, and it is far better to have the tribes share those stories than us share the stories for the tribe, in my view. We are currently working in the Badlands with the Oglala Nation to look at 

returning the south unit to the tribe and to be operated as a tribal 

national park. We have been working through the management 

planning process for that. Again, those were lands that were original tribal lands. They were taken away. They were used as a bombing range during practice in World War II. And then instead of giving the land back to the tribe the land was given to the Park Service. We believe the land should be returned to the tribe but managed as a national park. We have been working very closely with 

the tribe and ultimately though that is going to have to come here 

for legislation for that to actually work. We cannot exchange the 

land administratively. In other places across the country, we are 

working on co-management agreements where the tribe is returning to these lands and providing interpretation and cultural assessment. They are working side by side with us on archaeological 

sites, and we are really elevating their story in places like Lewis 

and Clark and others. 

So specifically, the Chickasaw Nation and Chickasaw National 

Recreation Area, we have been, as you probably know, in close conversations with the former governor and with Tom Johns there at 

the tribe for a funding agreement. I think it is a very good start. 

Also, we think that working together in the new visitor center that 

they have just developed, makes a whole lot more sense than us 

building another visitor center. 

Mr. COLE. Oh, I know. I know we still have a little bit of money 

I think set back, so we would love to find a way to free that money 

so you can use it for some of the other pressing needs that you 

have.

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mr. COLE. Again, they really want to do this. 

Mr. JARVIS. And that is our impression, and I have instructed 

the staff there at the local and the regional level to sit down and 

hammer out this funding agreement and go from there. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I again just want to commend you. I appreciate 

the effort obviously in this particular case because it is near and 

dear to my heart. It is my district, but beyond that, I just appre-
30

ciate the whole attitude in looking for these kind of opportunities 

because I think they are out there, and more and more tribes have 

a little bit more wherewithal and certainly your attitude is exceptionally helpful, and it is much, much appreciated. I yield back. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

SEQUESTRATION

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you very much. It is nice to see you here today. I appreciate your visit to Maine and some of the national park issues that 

we have been looking at there and particularly your strong support 

of Acadia. So I guess I just need you to say some of the same things 

again that you have been previously talking about given the sequester and some of the previous cuts. I know there is a lot of concern in the Acadia National Park, which literally sees millions of 

visitors. It is a huge economic engine for the surrounding area. 

They are delaying the opening for a month. There will be fewer 

staff, reduced hours at the visitors center. I missed a little bit of 

the beginning of your testimony, but I am just interested to hear 

if it is going to get back to the normal level, or are we going to be 

able to have the staffing that we anticipated or have had in the 

past to run it at a level that we can handle the number of visitors. 

As you know, they have to come across a tiny little causeway and 

then there is a huge island and it is difficult population moving. 

It goes from relatively quiet winter fishing towns to more people 

than most people would see in a day in New York City. So just go 

give them a little hope. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, that is why I am here. The budget at Acadia took a hit as part of the sequestration, about a $400,000 hit, and 

you know, one important component about this challenge is that 

most of our parks operate somewhere between 85 to 95 percent in 

fixed costs on an annual basis, and that means that is your permanent salaries, your supplies, materials, your utilities, your fleet, 

and then that, 15 to 5 percent is your discretionary summer operation. That is where you hire your seasonals. That is where you 

bring back your subject of furloughs. That is where you really operate for the summer, and Acadia is obviously a primarily seasonal 

operation. It provides extraordinary economic benefit to that area 

and is very, very important to the local businesses who thrive off 

of the tourism trade that comes to Acadia. We know that very well. 

The challenge, of course, is that park had, as every park had to, 

is to figure out how to take a $400,000 cut halfway through the 

year, and so everything from reduced hours, reduced maintenance, 

reduced visitor center hours and reduced programs are having to 

be absorbed, and I guess that is why in many ways we are here. 

As you look to the 2014 budget, restoring operations is really the 

critical component. It is what provides the direct front visitor access.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

I want to make a really important point: the appropriations for 

the National Park Service is an investment. In my view, and not 

to be too parochial here, but it puts that investment at the local 

community level directly into those communities, and for every dol-
31

lar you put into that community, there is $10 returned. And so it 

supports their jobs, and many of these places, you know, they live 

and breathe on the shoulder seasons. During the core season, they 

sort of break even. If they are going to make any profit, it is on 

the shoulders, and that is what we are having to cut back on. The 

shoulder season extends a little later into October, a little earlier 

in the spring. We are having to delay openings, delay hiring, and 

still provide the best possible service in the core of the season but 

those cuts on the edges are really significant. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Ms. PINGREE. Well, I have some other questions, and I can wait 

for the second round, but since everyone is adding to the invasive 

species list, I am kind of interested in how you are doing with the 

lionfish in the more tropical waters. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, we have teams out. The lionfish have really, 

really invaded our warm water systems and are moving certainly 

up the coast. We basically have a kill-on-sight policy for both our 

own staff and our recreational divers. They are an incredibly voracious feeder. I think we are going to be living with them forever 

but we are really trying to protect some of our most critical areas 

like marine reserves from the lionfish. 

Ms. PINGREE. Good luck. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

FORT VANCOUVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too absolutely love our national parks. This is a fun hearing just because 

everybody is interested in the same issue, and it is something that 

most of our constituents care greatly about. 

I feel like it is important to bring up the issue that we have been 

working on in my neck of the woods to demonstrate that there are 

areas of improvement that need to be worked through. You came 

in and met with me yesterday, and we have talked a few times 

over the last year about Fort Vancouver National Park, and I think 

it is important for the Committee to be aware of this issue. Fort 

Vancouver National Park is an urban park. I remember going there 

as a child to visit the different Park Service activities. It is a huge 

part of our community. It is the Hudson’s Bay Company. It sits 

right on the Columbia River across from Portland, and it is in 

downtown Vancouver along I–5, which is like 95 over here. The 

Portland International Airport is across the river. It has its own 

runway on the park, and then there is BNSF. There are rail lines 

that go right by it. So it is kind of a planes, trains and automobiles 

urban park. It is not Yosemite, but we love it for what it is. The 

way that it has worked so far, some of the buildings are owned, I 

believe it is all owned, and some of it is managed by the city. Officers Row, which actually until recently the Army had a barracks 

there that was then turned over to the parks as part of the BRAC 

process. But the Officers Row, which is where my district office 

sits, is managed by the city, and it is beautiful, it is open, it is historic. It is all under guidelines from the Secretary, so you cannot 

change anything, which is fine. But then there are sections that 

are run by the actual Park Service, and we have had some real 
32

challenges, I think, on the local level with personalities. There is 

a cooperative agreement. We have, as you and Secretary Salazar 

have talked about, a public-private partnership that, especially at 

this time when money is scarce, we value. You value it, I value it. 

It is an opportunity for the public to invest money in a community 

and be a part of this treasure. It is not just a Park Service separate 

thing, it is very intertwined. This is an agreement that has been 

going for about 15, 20 years. The land that the trust manages, was 

originally part of the city, was given to the Park Service. Then this 

cooperative deal came about, and it has been working beautifully. 

They have been raising money to keep this museum open. They 

have worked with the Park Service. It has been an ideal that I 

would like to see duplicated. I got involved when we started having 

some challenges about three months ago. The day before it happened, my office got hand-delivered a letter from the Park Service 

that said we are terminating the contract and evicting the trust, 

and we have this controversy, which has led me to introduce a bill 

to transfer that little piece of land that was originally owned by the 

city back to the city so that we can continue to have the museum 

open. I guess this is the one thing that we talked about a lot. Your 

goal is to have it back opened and operating, my goal is too, so we 

are on the same page. 

I know that you got involved immediately and had talked to the 

folks on the ground and said you will have a limited amount of 

time—I believe the time frame was 30 days—to work this out. I 

guess what I am curious about is, did they ever report back to you 

on that. Because I feel like there has been a disconnect between 

what they are doing on the ground and what you, their boss, is telling them to do. And I am not sure how to prevent that in the future, if that makes sense. I guess I am curious, did they get permission from you to terminate that cooperative agreement or was 

that not something that they ran up the flagpole, so to speak? 

Mr. JARVIS. Bruce would tell you that all the superintendents do 

exactly what I tell them to do. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But then there is reality. 

Mr. JARVIS. Then there is the reality. The reality of the situation 

is, we have been directly involved. The challenge is, we are one 

party to a three-party agreement, and so the museum is back open 

but it is not being run by the trust and it does not have the exhibits. The exhibits were removed by the trust and put in storage, and 

even though they belong to the city, the trust has not been willing 

to give them back, so we are stuck with essentially a relatively 

empty building that open and it is available for special uses under 

the Park Service’s management but it is missing the exhibits. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is missing the guts. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, it is missing the guts. I think, you know, as you 

all know, winning teams sometimes have a bad season and that is 

sort of what we have right now, we have got some differences of 

opinion about how the museum should operate and I think that we 

can find common ground. As we mentioned yesterday, we are 

bringing in a mediator to get this worked out. 

I think you are absolutely right that these kinds of public-public—because you have two publics, you have the federal and the 

city partnerships, which are absolutely the wave of the future. I 
33

think we have got some great examples, and the Park Service is 

actually pretty good at this. When you look across the system at 

Golden Gate, in New York, other places that we have—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Here on the National Mall, as we talked 

about.

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, and we have done this well, but sometimes 

these relationships go a little south because there are differences 

of opinion, and in this case, the difference of opinion is around 

large events, and I think we can work that out and that is what 

I have instructed. I think I have got the right team on the ground 

now to make that work. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Serrano. 

HURRICANE SANDY

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. I do not feel totally lost talking about worms and things like that, but we have the beaver, Jose ́

the beaver, but it is, as was said before by a colleague, a very exciting hearing as always. We thank you for the work you do and we 

thank you for what you provide for our community, and these 

parks are treasures. It has been said millions of times before, but 

we should do whatever we can to maintain them and to keep them 

going.

Let me ask you a question. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy 

has left many people repairing what is there, and we know you are 

doing that and everybody is participating in it. The question that 

I have been asked by a lot of local officials is, are there plans that 

you can share with us about not only repairs at some of the places 

like Fort Tilden, but also to begin to prepare for the possibility of 

another Hurricane Sandy, you know, strengthening the environment, if you will, to deal with this in the future. 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely, sir. I think this is sort of the core of our 

response and recovery to Hurricane Sandy. I serve as the Secretary 

of Interior’s representative on the HUD task force under the direction of Secretary Donovan, and so building what could be called resilience into these systems is going to be absolutely the cornerstone, and all of the federal agencies are committing to that as we 

apply our funds. Now, the National Park Service in particular has 

two sources of funds that were provided from the supplemental 

from the Congress. The first is the recovery side, which is going 

back to reopening the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, rebuilding 

our docks and access, our boardwalks at Gateway and our bike 

paths and restrooms and utility systems and all of those things 

that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy. As we redevelop every one 

of those, we are going through a screening process to ensure that 

they would persist, shall we say, in the next storm event because 

we obviously will have another of these sometime in our lifetime 

as well as the climate change predictions show sea-level rise. So 

there are new base flood elevation maps out from FEMA, and we 

are recommending those flood maps plus a foot be applied to all of 

our infrastructure, and for critical infrastructure, we are going for 

2 feet. So if you talk about a utility system or a security system 

at the Statue of Liberty, we want to build that at enough of a 

height that a future Hurricane Sandy, it would persist and we 
34

could get it back open because, as you know, we have had the statue closed now since Hurricane Sandy. We do plan to open it on the 

Fourth of July and have the security back up and running again. 

On Ellis Island, all of the utility systems, the boilers, the HVAC, 

the electrical systems, were in the basement of the immigration 

building. They all went under water, I mean, and under saltwater. 

The water line is basically at the ceiling of the basement. All of 

that has to be moved up. It all has to be brought out of the basement and put at higher levels in the buildings in anticipation of 

these future events. 

So the second tranche of money we have is in the mitigation side, 

and I think this is an area where we can really invest in some 

green infrastructure. There is always the gray infrastructure. The 

green infrastructure are the dune fields and the wetlands that really can provide great protection to the communities along the coastlines, and we are working with the states, with the other federal 

agencies, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

state parks and all those to do a really good job of investing in the 

right place and the right kind of sort green infrastructure that can 

really protect these communities. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, we thank you for that answer. We in New 

York were used to understanding that we were a target for terrorists, and September 11th unfortunately proved that, and after that, 

all that we have done to make sure it did not happen again. But 

we see these kinds of situations, Katrina and so on, happening in 

other places and we expect a snowstorm maybe here or there, but 

this was totally different and it has made us open our eyes to understanding what other colleagues go through in their districts, and 

so we appreciate that. 

NEW PARK UNITS

Let me very briefly just touch on another subject and then I will 

stop. You mentioned the importance of dealing with the history of 

our country, and I know that you have done a lot, and we certainly 

recently did something that was a successful monument to Chavez 

in California. But then the budget cuts come in. Are any of these 

new additions in danger of not being dealt with properly because 

of the budget cuts? 

In other words, we will get an addition and we celebrate that, 

and then is there a problem later on in terms of the upkeep and 

so on? 

Mr. JARVIS. There is a request in the 2014 budget for operations 

at each of these sites including Harriet Tubman, and Charles 

Young and First State. They do not have appropriations right now. 

So basically we are supporting them through partnerships or 

through philanthropy, and it would be our hope that upon your 

consideration of this 2014 package that these new units would be 

funded at some base level. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. 

RECREATION FEES

Let me ask you just a general question, because as I sit and listen to all this, and the impact that sequestration and the addi-
35

tional cuts that the Senate put on top of that, the additional 1 percent that actually went after operating budgets which caused some 

of the problems here, I do not see this changing real quickly. What 

are we going to do in the long-term interest of trying to fund the 

national parks with what I think everybody believes is an appropriate level to take care of, as I said, America’s best idea? I understand that there is a group of interested stakeholders that has met 

recently that has looked at additional outside ways to raise money. 

And I said in my opening statement, I understand the authority to 

charge fees expires this year and needs to be reauthorized. Are we 

charging the appropriate level of fees? And this gets into the whole 

question of how much of a park’s budget is supported by entrance 

fees, and you have some parts that they cannot charge to entrance 

fees, and how much of the fees generated by a particular park stay 

at that park, and so forth. I guess the question is, are we looking 

outside the box when trying to address this in the future? Because 

I just do not see this budget situation changing really rapidly. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I agree 

with you 100 percent. Let me take the fee question first. The fee 

authority does expire in 2014 and we really need that reauthorized. 

I think if we had the opportunity, we would make some adjustments to the fee legislation, but at a minimum, it needs to be extended.

Mr. SIMPSON. How much revenue do we get from all that? 

Mr. JARVIS. About $170 million, $180 million in collection of fees. 

Our operating budget is $2.1 billion and we collect $170 million out 

of that. The money, under the fee legislation, is restricted to certain activities and we have focused that mostly on projects. It has 

been a great assistance with the maintenance backlog. We have 

put a lot of emphasis on the maintenance backlog, improving accessibility to parks, and improving facilities. We really have not substituted that for operations except in a very few areas. Fee legislation does need to be extended. I think we are reevaluating increase 

of some fees. When I first came in as the director in 2009, I put 

a moratorium on fee increases because I think we pushed the 

American public about as far as we could get them. We were starting to get some pushback on our fee increases and layering of fees 

and the like. The public does know that their tax dollars support 

these incredible places and still they are willing to pay. The Park 

Service has been collecting fees for almost 100 years and the public, as long as you show them that there is net benefit from their 

fees, they do not object. But I think we can revaluate some of that. 

I did create an active-duty military pass this last year, handed out 

130,000 passes to active-duty military and their families to get into 

parks for free, and we thought that that might have a fee impact. 

Actually, our fees have gone up. It is actually net growth, which 

is actually quite cool, plus it is a great gift to our active duty. 

Yes, a couple weeks ago there was a gathering of the Bipartisan 

Policy Council, a large array park supporters; our hospitality association, our tourism sectors, our friends groups, our philanthropic 

support, our foundation, and they produced 17 white papers on different funding scenarios of how we could approach bringing in nonappropriated dollars in different ways, different partnerships. We 

saw those papers for the first time basically at that event, and I 
36

have tasked Bruce and his team to evaluate all of them and look 

at which ones really could produce an additional source of revenue 

or leverage existing revenues. Another major investment that we 

are making is in our own National Park Foundation. The National 

Park Foundation is our legislatively created philanthropic partner. 

They right now raise about $20 million a year, though they did a 

pretty strong lift for Flight 93 and raised more than that for that 

one project. I think the potential for them to be raising is probably 

an order of magnitude over that, and that is part of our overall 

campaign for 2016. I think they should be raising well over $100 

million a year from philanthropic support, and I think some of that 

is going to come through corporate sponsorships, some individual 

philanthropy and foundations, but we need to elevate their profile, 

and that is going to be a part of it. 

So all of these ideas I think we have to look at very, very closely 

and very strongly, and be willing to consider them because I agree 

with you that I do believe that there is an inherent federal taxpayer responsibility to these places to basically operate them but 

then as some of our supporters in the past, it is that bright line 

of excellence, that next phase, that next piece where we can expand, not expand the system but to take care of things like education and climate change and invasive species, that there may be 

other ways to achieve that. The 2014 budget does have a line in 

the request to extend the fee program for another year. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. I share your pessimism, Mr. Chairman. We will find 

out in a few months whether there is any possibility of what they 

call a big deal, but if the past is any prologue to the future, it is 

not going to happen, and so we are going to have to find other 

means of paying for the upkeep and the preservation of our national parks and heritage areas. I do hope that we will reevaluate 

fees, and I think we ought to look at concessions. Now, what is 

going to happen is, we are going to get bombarded just raising the 

possibility but that is human nature. People want everything they 

can for free, most people. They do not mind cutting programs as 

long as they are programs that do not affect their lives. They do 

not mind raising taxes as long as it is not their taxes. And that 

continued attitude has brought us to where we are today. 

So I do think we need a re-evaluation of fees. I think we ought 

to look at whether the use of natural resources on publicly owned 

lands is appropriately compensated to the government, whether it 

be drilling or mining. We know mining is a fraction. There are foreign firms that pay virtually nothing for the minerals they extract. 

That is not necessarily national park land but some of it is. Grazing fees are unbelievable—the subsidy that we offer people who 

graze on public lands versus what it would be in the private sector. 

I think we need to take a close look at concessions because they 

are monopolies within the parks. So I hope we will do that. I know 

we are not going to get support for that, but it is the only thing 

we can do. Otherwise we are going to see a continued deterioration 

of some of America’s most precious assets. 

And while I am on this criticizing the human species, which is 

basically the problem, I see all my colleagues on the other side 

have left here. I appreciate your hanging in, Ken. 
37

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

Mr. Calvert mentioned the white-nose bat syndrome. Was that 

not largely spelunkers in caves that introduced that to the bat population? How did it get there in the first place? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not think we really know how it got into the 

population. We do believe that cavers have the potential for spreading it. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Mr. MORAN. Okay. So they are at least spreading it but did not 

necessarily introduce it. 

We have a serious problem. I do not know whether it has affected the National Park Service but I know it is a serious problem 

in places like Maine, I suspect Minnesota, this vegetation that gets 

into our ponds and relatively placid lakes. I do not know that it 

survives in rivers. And it is introduced by motorboats. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Are you talking about milfoil? 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, milfoil, and we have serious problems in Maine, 

and you know, it just takes over the ponds, and largely it is just 

carelessness. I think primarily people with motorboats, they go into 

relatively small, contained bodies of water and they zoom around 

and they cut up the milfoil and then get out and go to the next 

pond and spread it, and it is a serious problem. Do you see that 

much on Park Service property? 

Mr. JARVIS. We do see the extension of milfoil as well as other 

aquatic invasives, and it is a constant vigil that we have to maintain about protecting these systems. One of the best hedges we 

have in protecting these systems and keeping them intact is to 

fight back the spread of these exotics. 

BISON

Mr. MORAN. Let me just ask one other, well, two things quickly, 

on the wild bison program, you have the Yellowstone bison management plan that is 13 years old. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service needs to have a policy that works in terms of 

brucellosis regulation. But the plan envisions 3,000 wild bison. It 

was developed more than a dozen years ago. Is it still appropriate 

and relevant today? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is, sir. I think we are on the verge of actually kind 

of a breakthrough in many ways with our bison by recognizing that 

there are tribes in the West that would like to have bison. It is the 

core of their culture. They need some support to improve their facilities and structure and training to manage bison herds. Basically 

we have excess bison coming out of Yellowstone every year. We 

want to maintain a heard in the 3,000 population class but, some 

years they can be up to 5,000 and so we need to be able to move 

those. The concept of bison coming out of the park, being quarantined, and those tested positive for brucellosis would go to the 

slaughterhouse. Those that are tested without brucellosis would be 

quarantined for a period, tested in partnership with the states and 

APHIS and then ultimately transferred out to the tribes. We have 

done some of that already with Fort Peck Reservation and it has 

been very successful, and I think the concept is to line up all the 
38

agencies and the states to support that in terms of their transport. 

Everybody agrees that after the bison have gone through their 

quarantine and their testing, the brucellosis-free bison belong on 

the reservations or on the bison range. 

Mr. MORAN. That is wonderful that you are doing that. We 

strongly support it, and we recognize it is tough to transport bison. 

I mean, you cannot exactly put them in your backseat and—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ride them. 

Mr. MORAN. Or you could ride them. You could ride them, Mr. 

Chairman. They are not really particularly friendly animals. They 

are wonderful, a great species, but not particularly friendly to humans, and I do not blame them since we wiped them out virtually. 

If I were a bison, I would mow down every human species I could 

find.

URBAN PARKS

But anyway, let me just move to the final thing I wanted to ask 

you about, and that is urban parks. We have talked about this. It 

is more so with Bureau of Land Management but Interior’s focus 

has largely been in the western area where there are large parks 

and public lands. But we want more presence in urban areas from 

a political standpoint, not just the economic standpoint. You finally 

put some money in for urban parks, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program, to revitalize urban park facilities. I want 

to keep Mr. Serrano interested. He is trying to keep this beaver he 

has got in the sanitary sewer system and he is trying to survive. 

What is his name? What do you call him? 

Mr. SERRANO. It is not a sewer system, Mr. Ranking Member. It 

is the Bronx River, and we cleaned it up, and a beaver came back 

for the first time in 200 years. 

Mr. MORAN. That is wonderful. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just a beaver? 

Mr. SERRANO. A beaver, then a second beaver came. 

Mr. MORAN. You need the second beaver to maintain the population.

Mr. SERRANO. On a serious note, the New York City seal has a 

beaver on it because that is what New York City started out to be, 

a beaver pelt colony. So the beaver came back and it became a 

whole in the community where the cleaning up of this river and the 

beaver coming back has given just a whole new life. There are festivals. There are all kind of things that are going on. And the beaver is named Jose ́. A hundred years ago, he would have been 

named, Victor or something like that. 

Mr. MORAN. Or Patrick or something. Jose ́ is good. 

Mr. SERRANO. It is a sign of the times. 

Mr. MORAN. So you get the point that getting that one beaver 

back is a big deal for the Bronx River. Can you just say a word 

about what we are doing in urban areas to spread some of our natural resources’ wealth around the country? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. Well, one thing, and I know Mr. Serrano 

knows this, is that the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails, and 

Conservation Assistance program was very, very involved for the 

last two decades in the restoration of the Bronx River. I have created a center for innovation around urban parks at Marsh-Millings- 
39

Rockefeller, and they are specifically looking at the role we play in 

urban parks. I mean, that is where the people are. We are now 

over 80 percent urban as American people. There are concerns 

about that in terms of our responsibilities because we are losing 

the connection to the outdoors. We have got this great experiment 

going on right now, Prince William Forest Park, which is just about 

30 minutes south of here. You know, that was built by the CCC. 

They used to bring urban kids to the outdoors in the 1930s. We 

have got a group down there this month bringing kids from the 

area, urban kids, to spend overnight in those cabin camps, and it 

can be transformative experiences. Urban parks are the essential 

threshold experience for urban communities to get them back into 

the outdoors as well as to form connections with history. 

The Park Service roots, as you indicated, were in the big, wild 

areas, and that is really where innovation started in the Park Service about conservation and historic preservation. We are now bringing that to the urban environment, and the UPARR investment, 

which we think is really, really important, is to help all of the 

urban park families really use those assets not only reconnect to 

the outdoors but to have a great life. Parks are essential to that. 

We know that. And you can certainly see it across the country. Examples include even here in the District, restoration of the Anacostia River, restoring access to the Potomac and in New York, the 

work at Gateway to create the largest urban campground in America at Gateway National Recreation Area. is a great—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Can you camp there? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, but you can—it is a great urban park. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You probably could. 

Mr. JARVIS. You could, in the fort. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate your comment on that. It is something 

I agree with entirely. If you are going to reconnect younger generations to outdoors, you need these urban parks, and we have a tendency sometimes in the West to forget that because we kind of live 

in an urban park out there. Mr. Calvert. 

EARLY RETIREMENT

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, I respect the challenges you have in trying to manage 

in a difficult budget environment. One of the things I have noticed 

over the years is the growth of the phenomena of utilization of 

overtime, and I understand as you are bringing down your employee levels, you probably want to utilize less employees more effectively. But on the other hand, as you know, per-unit of employee 

that brings that cost up substantially, and I do not know how it 

is really in your responsibility but I have seen this throughout, for 

instance, in Department of Defense and federal government which 

increases that cost substantially. And also the issue of senior employees. Would it be helpful to have a program to encourage early 

retirement for folks that have already qualified for retirement in 

order to effectively bring down the costs of operation, bringing on 

newer employees to obviously a lower number, programs like that 

where you can have tools to manage the number of employees you 
40

have, the amount of money you are paying to those employees. I 

suspect it is the largest percentage of cost in your operation. 

Mr. JARVIS. It is. The Park Service is a unique organization in 

that most of the employees, like me, stay a full career. I am 37 

years in the Park Service. I am well past my retirement eligibility. 

And that is true throughout the organization. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, for those who want to voluntarily retire. I am 

not talking about a mandatory push-out. We have been using that 

in the private sector for some time. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that if this budget climate continues, then 

getting the authority for basically VSIP and VERA, which are the 

buyout or early-out authorities, is a good idea. 

Mr. CALVERT. And how about the utilization of overtime? 

Mr. JARVIS. I really do not have an idea. I do not know if you, 

Bruce, have an idea in terms of OT utilization. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Historically, we have not been a high overtime 

user until an emergency occurs, and then you will find—— 

Mr. CALVERT. And I understand. 

Mr. SHEAFFER [continuing]. Fire emergency, law and order—— 

Mr. CALVERT. There are other federal agencies that use overtime 

as a matter of course. It is almost an expected benefit, you know. 

That is not the case in your agency? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It is not. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am going to take this in a little different direction for a few minutes here, and especially with as tight as the 

budget is and with you having to make decisions, I can see where 

this is going to be at the bottom of the decision level, and that is 

some of the interpretive work that you have done and that you 

have lent support to with some of the international exchanges that 

have taken place in the past, and I will give two examples of two 

wonderful things that I saw. 

I was in Arusha National Park in Tanzania, and the park superintendent there, maybe there was one other employee, a big vast 

area, but he had the experience of coming over here and working 

with our Park Service and was very proud of that and was taking 

the best of practices in what I think was a very difficult situation 

both with the amount of support he had from his government and 

dealing with poachers and all kinds of things. And this exchange 

was a win-win. It was a win-win for conservation around the world, 

and it was a win-win for soft power in the United States because 

when people asked him where he got his training and he was in 

the village and what he had displayed when you walked into his 

office was the best that the United States has to offer in reaching 

out and building long, sustainable relationships and friendships on 

a person-to-person level. 

Another place where I saw the Park Service, and this was actually our government learning from the Park Service, was at Normandy when the Normandy Interpretation Center was opened up. 

A beautiful facility but how do you tell the story. So when our 

International Battlefields Commission looked at how do we tell the 
41

story of what the greatest generation did, it was the Park Service 

that they turned to. 

Now, these would be programs after you do life, health and safety, after you do your backlog, after you do so many things that we 

have asked you to do and you are trying to do with a short amount 

of dollars that I can see would be taken off the table. I know part 

of a fund that the chairman and this Committee has been very, 

very instrumental in keeping intact has been the international conservation forest group, which you work hand and glove with. Could 

you kind of tell me maybe what we are about to lose, and once it 

is gone, sometimes you can never get it back? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you for that question. You know, the National 

Park Service’s Office of International Affairs has three employees 

total, and so our international assistance program is funded predominantly by USAID, State Department or the interested country. 

We do not have much of an international program, which is unfortunate, in my view, because I think it is incredibly important soft 

diplomacy and the State Department has always turned to us to 

provide assistance when they can fund it to send our employees to 

assist particularly developing countries that are looking to diversify 

their economies. You look at Costa Rica and their incredibly successful national park program. The Park Service built that, the 

U.S. Park Service. That was our effort to train them on how to 

manage and protect their systems, do tourism, do interpretation 

and now it is an integral part of their economy. We are assisting 

South Korea, Colombia, a number of African countries, and we 

work in partnership but it is all through basically no Park Service 

funding other than paying our staff. There has been a Park Service 

employee at Normandy probably since the beginning. We have one 

there right now that is helping with the interpretation at Normandy.

The U.S. Park Service is viewed internationally as the leader in 

this field. But, for instance, I have had to curtail essentially all 

international travel for the rest of this year except for a very, very 

few instances where they were being paid and we had already committed to provide that assistance for the rest of this fiscal year because of sequestration. So I do worry about it because the international parks community really does want to see us there. They 

really enjoy our participation. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

LEGISLATION AND AUTHORITIES

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In thinking about the dollar issue, that is the number one thing 

we are hearing about as all the different directors or secretaries 

are coming before the Committee. It is actually the one thing that 

I have heard about ever since I came to Congress, partially because 

most of my region is not heavy government, it is not heavy military, it is small and medium sized business, and we have had double-digit unemployment almost since the whole thing crashed. We 

are creeping up now, barely creeping up, and not everywhere is 

double digits, so making do with less is not just a theme here. As 

I think about them sitting in these chairs, I wonder how they 
42

would respond to some of these conversations. But as I am sitting 

here, I am wondering what can we do, what would you, if you 

could, eliminate from your responsibility that we are requiring you 

to do that would allow you to—I am talking about flexibility. What 

would allow you to better do the job? So, for example, I have educators who come in and they say well, if you are not going to fully 

fund this program or this program or this program, take some of 

these mandates off so that we can best hit the mission. Are there 

areas within national parks that would allow you to better fulfill 

the mission in this time? Do you get what I am asking? 

Mr. JARVIS. I get what you are asking. In the 2014 budget, there 

are some things that we have asked to be eliminated but of course, 

everything has a constituency, and, you know, in these tight times, 

we do have to have sort of a triage effect on what we do. You know, 

it is hard for me to pinpoint any one thing that would make a significant difference in our budget. Most of these are small items. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And maybe not even on a programmatic 

level but like on operating, I do not know, processes or requirements or—— 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, we do have, as a part of our 2016 on the authorizing side, some proposals that we would love the Congress to 

entertain. One is sort of more liberal, shall we say, authority to 

enter into agreements that can allow better public-private partnerships than we have had in the past. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Would that be an example where you are 

talking about trying to get that land back to the nation which is 

going to take an act of Congress? 

Mr. JARVIS. I do not know whether this would apply to tribes but 

it is more about being able to move money more easily to other organizations and to make it simple sort of mixed funding to be able 

to complete projects. We are tightly controlled in the way that federal dollars can be used and so sometimes we have a project we 

want to do and we have got a partner. We almost have to literally 

say well, you build that half of the building and we will build this 

half of the building, and it makes it complicated, and it is not the 

most efficient leverage. We have a lot of organizations that come 

to us and say they can raise a certain amount of money philanthropically and if you could put up a match. We came in under Secretary Kempthorne, if you remember, in 2007 for a proposal for 

matching funds for our Centennial, and we had over $200 million 

worth of pledges out there from organizations that would put up 

a match if we had a matching capacity in the organization, and we 

were not able to achieve that. This Committee gave us $25 million. 

That kind of opportunity could leverage a lot of outside dollars, 

more than we have been able to today. 

The other thing I would suggest since you are giving that opening is that we are a perpetuity organization on an annual appropriation and so we go up and down with these vagaries of the appropriations process and that has a direct impact on the public. It 

would be great to have that leveled out in some way, and everything from the concept of a 2-year appropriation has been put on 

the table. One of our problems, of course, is that we spend most 

of our money in the last 3 months of the year because that is when 

summer is operating, and if we had a 2-year appropriation, that 
43

might work. The second is an endowment. We do not have an endowment. And you look at any other major institution that has a 

long-term responsibility like a university, they have an endowment, 

and we would love to be able to work with you to figure out a way 

to begin building a long-term endowment for the National Park 

Service.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Ebbs and flows. 

Mr. JARVIS. Right. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. I did want to talk about something 

slightly different, but I really appreciate everything I have been 

hearing and learning this morning. 

We had a chance to talk a little bit today with our now-former 

Secretary Salazar and had a nice meeting with him, but a little bit 

about the overall department but the opportunities and interest in 

some of the things that you are doing around climate change and 

the way those things affect all of us. And so I am just asking you 

a couple things about it but then I am really just interested in 

hearing what you see fits in and what you think is going on. I 

know there is an increase in the climate change adaptive management tools in this budget, and so I think that is useful, given some 

of the concerns that many of us have in coastal communities. So 

I would like to know a little bit more about what you have been 

doing, what your timetable is around that and what you see as 

those needs. And somewhat related are the ocean and coastal programs, the stewardship there. That was initiated 3 years ago. 

There is some added funding in there that might cover coastal resource specialists in the Northwest and Midwest regions, and I 

know you already have some in the Pacific and Southeast. So 

again, as you know, my district has a lot of coastal area, and there 

is nothing that is not attached to something else, and I went on 

a tear yesterday about what is going on in our lobster population 

because of ocean warming, and lobster is a significant resource in 

our state but it is also significant to the culture of our state and 

economically. I am sure that many of the visitors who come to Acadia National Park come because they want to eat a lobster or they 

want to see a fishing boat or they want to get on a boat. It is such 

a tight identity with our state. 

So the problems that we are experiencing now with dramatic 

changes in water temperature, ocean acidification, the damage it is 

already doing to our shellfish population, and then in other regions 

of the world. I mentioned lionfish earlier. I am interested in some 

of the more southern parks where already tremendous damage has 

happened to the coral population. You open your eyes and you see 

these changes happening much more rapidly than we thought and 

you have park areas in the ocean, you come close to the ocean and 

a lot of other things. So without taking up too much time because 

I am happy to learn much more about it in the future. I would just 

like to touch on a little, where is the money going, what else could 

you be doing, how big do you see the impact on your operations of 

things that we actually just do not understand that well? 
44

Mr. JARVIS. Well, thank you for the question. I think climate 

change is an extraordinary challenge to the National Park Service 

in a variety of areas, coastal environment particularly in terms of 

sea-level rise, storm surge, the kinds of events we saw with Hurricane Sandy, and we have a great number of coastal parks, barrier 

islands, places like Acadia, Assateague. We have marine environments like Biscayne. We have Padre Island and Gulf islands and 

obviously our costal environments in the Pacific, and there are cultural resources there as well as natural resources. Fort Jefferson 

on the tip end of the Dry Tortugas and the Florida Keys are getting 

hammered by sea-level rise and storm surge. 

I have tasked our parks with sort of four categories of focus for 

climate change. One is science. Parks are great laboratories to see 

what is happening, and we have long-term monitoring programs in 

place that are monitoring the changes that we are seeing from climate change. The second is mitigation, so that is our own carbon 

footprint. The Park Service needs to be an exemplar. Biofuels, use 

of solar, LEED certification in building design, reducing our fleet, 

all of those kinds of things, we are all over that. I have a detailed 

green parks plan and we are actually not only achieving the federal 

goals, we are actually exceeding them in most categories. I am 

going to flip these just for a second. The third is communication. 

The Park Service has a unique role in the American public and the 

world about the way we talk about things. The way we talk about 

geology and history, we can talk about climate change. Without 

pointing fingers and blame, just clinically, this is what the science 

shows, it is why the glaciers are melting. 

And the fourth is adaptation, and I think that is what you are 

getting to—how do we adapt to the changes that we are seeing 

from climate change? In very simple terms, as I have told my 

coastal parks is, learn what is uphill because, you know, that could 

be the next wetland. Can you get to it, is it protected, will it convert, what is the next salt marsh, what is the next sea grass bed 

that is going to be important for fisheries and, when the ocean 

rises, is it protected? That is the way we have got to be thinking 

about all of these. Assateague Island National Seashore has been 

one of the leaders on this. For instance, they have a parking lot 

that is used by the public to get out to the beach, and we think 

that is great. It was heavily impacted by Hurricane Sandy. As we 

are replacing it, the bed will be ground-up seashells rather than asphalt and so as it washes out to sea, which it will, you are just putting natural items back into the environment. So fighting exotics, 

building resilience, looking for alternatives, co-management 

amongst adjacent lands because we are beginning to understand 

that maybe the best places for the next habitat is not on NPS land 

but it is adjacent to us. Cooperative land management is really 

key.

There are some requests in the 2014 budget for climate change, 

for participation in Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which 

were created by this Administration. There is an ocean and coastal 

stewardship component in the budget as well, and there is also a 

piece that we are working with USGS on carbon sequestration. 

What role we play when we do renovation, restoration, and how 
45

that can play into overall carbon sequestration. It is a big challenge.

Mr. MORAN. That was an extraordinarily reflective response, and 

I am glad you brought that out onto the record, Ms. Pingree. Excellent.

Ms. PINGREE. And let me say, the only positive use of the sequestration word that ever happens around here. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my last 

question, let me do something I can only do in this Committee, and 

that is to praise the chairman and the ranking member for the fact 

that I always, very profoundly or in a kidding form, remind people 

that I have two districts that I represent, one in the Bronx and one 

in Puerto Rico where I was born because they are a territory and 

as such do not have a voting member in Congress, and this Committee was the first one that the chairman especially and the ranking member went out to listen to that message and try to ask agencies to be fair to the territories and inclusive. Now, your agency has 

always been fair but always keep an eye out for the castle. It is 

not a castle. It is called a castle. Because you have been good in 

the past, and we appreciate that. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, sir. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Mr. SERRANO. Now, my last question has to do with the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, which I support, and I was troubled 

to see that the President’s budget cuts it by 11 percent but I did 

see that you have $10 million going into urban parks and recreation, which is good. But as appropriators, we also see, at least I 

speak for myself, that there are some changes there in the approach, and that always makes us a little nervous. Could you 

spend a few moments to explain the thinking on the funding and 

activities for the fund for the coming year and explain any changes 

in your list of priorities, especially with regard to the legislative 

proposal you have included. 

Mr. JARVIS. Okay. Thank you for that question. 

Mr. SERRANO. And before you leave today, the chairman wants 

to know where we could get a uniform like yours. I want a badge. 

Mr. JARVIS. We will wait and see what you provide in the 2014 

budget.

Mr. SERRANO. There is temptation to tell you, you don’t need no 

stinking badges. 

Mr. JARVIS. You are absolutely right that the LWCF proposal in 

the 2014 budget is a little different than what you have seen in the 

past, and let me try to explain. There are, as I see it, three or four 

components. One is that I think for the very first time in my career, the four federal land management agencies that benefit from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, U.S. Forest Service, the 

BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service, are working 

collaboratively at the ecosystem scale. We have all pitched in a 

component of our LWCF allocation and said what ecosystems can 

we really invest in that will make them sustainable in the long 

term. Probably the best example we have is Crown of the Continent, which is the glacier Rocky Mountain front system, and we 
46

actually believe within fiscal 2014 and 2015, the Crown of the Continent will be ecologically sustainable forever through conservation 

easements on ranches, through key acquisitions in terms of sustainable forestry, through protection of river systems and corridors 

for wolves and bears and other species. We want to be able to do 

that in others, and that is new and that is different and it is requiring all of us to give some of our core LWCF which for us is 

inholdings, and that is hard because we have a lot of needs to acquire our park inholdings because it is usually the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service that have the authorities to buy 

lands outside of park boundaries. We do not have that authority. 

We can only buy lands inside parks. 

The second piece is, focused on acquisition of inholdings and 

hardships from individuals or willing sellers inside the boundaries 

of national parks. We always have a long laundry list of that. 

The third is UPARR, and that is different. We have not had an 

urban component in a long time. It has been predominantly the 

state side of the conservation grants program, so we had to carve 

that out, unfortunately. And then the last piece is the proposal 

from the Administration to have a mandatory account, and that is 

seeking through the authorizing side. Keep in mind that LWCF is 

the revenue from the Outer Continental Shelf oil leasing, and the 

request of the Administration is to begin to develop, ultimately to 

reach full funding of LWCF through mandatory accounts. 

Mr. SERRANO. That is a great explanation also, but we still do 

not know if we are going to get the badge or not. Thank you so 

much, and thank you for your service. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank you for being here today. 

Thank you for the job that you do. You have got one of the significant responsibilities in government, taking care of the crown jewels 

that I think the American people really support. We are in a, as 

you well know, difficult budget situation, and given the allocations, 

the budgets that were passed in both the House and the Senate, 

we have got some challenges, and frankly, what our Committee is 

going to have some discussions about is, are we going to continue 

to try and do everything that we do and do it in a less than optimal 

way, or are we going to say what we are going to do, we are going 

to do well, but there are some things we are just not going to do 

anymore, and that is not only within an agency. I am not suggesting that we are not going to come out and say well, let’s not 

have national parks anymore or BLM anymore or Fish and Wildlife 

Service anymore, but when you look through our budget, there are 

a ton of smaller agencies that do important things but you are 

going to have to ask yourself, or at least we are, whether we are 

going to try and do everything. 

The thing that makes it really hard is when you watch on the 

news at night some report of GSA holding a convention in Las 

Vegas and then everybody will call you on the phone and say see, 

you are not really getting at the waste in government and all that 

kind of stuff, so we need to cut further. I do not want to see any 

agencies under the jurisdiction of this budget on the news at night 

facing those situations because it makes it almost impossible for us 

to do our job then. It is going to be some difficult decisions ahead 

and we are going to have to have, as I asked in the last question 
47

I asked, we are going to have to have some thoughts outside the 

box of how are we going to do this in the future, but you have got 

a committee here that is very supportive of what you do, and we 

appreciate the work that you and your fine staff here today do also, 

plus all the park employees across the country. Thank you. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 
48
49

(51)

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

WITNESSES

DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

CHRIS NOLIN, BUDGET OFFICER, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning, and welcome to the subcommittee’s 

hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. I am pleased to welcome Dan Ashe, Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Chris Nolin, the Service’s budget officer. I look forward to your testimony today and to working with 

you in the days ahead to enact a responsible, though likely smaller, 

budget that better balances what appears to be competing Administration and congressional priorities. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for the Fish and Wildlife Service is roughly $1.5 billion, which is $168 million, or 12 

percent above the fiscal year 2013 post-sequestration level. While 

I am not a proponent of balancing the federal budget solely on the 

backs of nondefense discretionary programs, I do not see this subcommittee’s allocation headed in the same upward direction as the 

proposed budget at any time soon. It seems reasonable to assume 

that the House will write a fiscal year 2014 appropriation bill consistent with its budget resolution if the House and Senate cannot 

reconcile their differences soon. While we do not yet know what 

that may mean for this subcommittee’s allocation, in all likelihood 

it would mean further cuts below fiscal year 2013. 

As I have said in recent hearings, I believe these continued cuts 

have driven us to the point where we need to get serious about letting go of the things that we might all like to do, even things we 

should do, in order to shore up those programs that we absolutely 

have to do, so that we can do them well. No doubt, these are tough 

choices to be made, and frankly, I am not convinced this Congress 

truly has the stomach for it, but it is through this lens that the 

subcommittee will have to start viewing these future budgets. 

So what are the Fish and Wildlife’s have-to-dos? Are they still 

have-to-dos when compared to this subcommittee’s other responsibilities, such as educating and ensuring the health and safety of 

some of the Nation’s most impoverished people, helping to build 

and maintain our Nation’s drinking water infrastructure, or predicting, mitigating, and responding to natural disasters, and of 

those have-to-dos with expired authorizations, should we continue 

to fund them? 

These are values questions that will generate a variety of answers around this table, and I look forward to those discussions 

today and in the days ahead as the subcommittee attempts to work 
52

together to craft a bill in spite of the somewhat partisan gridlock 

happening all around us. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Before turning to Director Ashe for his testimony, 

let me first turn to my colleague, Mr. Moran, for his opening statement.

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with a fair 

amount of that, not all of it, because I think if we would stop trying 

to run government on the cheap and if we would stop these selfcreated crises, such as the sequester, we would be a lot better off 

and great programs such as those the Fish and Wildlife Service operates, which is a very small share of the budget, wind up having 

to absorb an awfully large share of their individual budget. 

But I particularly like the Fish and Wildlife Service. Do you 

know why, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because they deal with those fish that are—— 

Mr. MORAN. No, it is an interest—that was an interesting try, 

but no, that is not why. I don’t think I want to know why you think 

I do, Ken, but no. It is because while much of the Interior Department’s jurisdiction lies in the Western United States, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is one of those Interior agencies that really has a 

substantial presence in the East Coast as well. 

Mr. SIMPSON. There are fish and wildlife out here? 

Mr. MORAN. You bet. And when Hurricane Sandy—a lot of wildlife, particularly, but when Hurricane Sandy bore down on the East 

Coast last fall, it was the Fish and Wildlife Service’s barrier islands and coastal lands that bore the brunt of the first wave of the 

storm. Our East Coast wildlife refuges form an important link in 

the Atlantic Flyway for migratory birds, and they are an important 

economic and conservation asset to our local communities. But 

wildlife refuges are, of course, only part of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s fascinating mix of core functions, which includes administering the Endangered Species Act and operating any number of 

partnership programs for the conservation of fish and wildlife. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service is also on the front lines of climate 

change, dealing with the impacts of sea level rise, drought, and of 

invasive species. 

We heard Tuesday from outside witnesses about your important 

work preventing the illegal trade of plants and animals. We were 

taken aback by the fact that we lost about 30,000 African elephants 

last year alone. In the last decade, there has been a drop of 62 percent in their population. That is just not acceptable. That great Republican President and conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt, summed 

it up well. Are you ready for this? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I am. 

Mr. MORAN. When he said ‘‘When I hear of the destruction of a 

species, I feel just as if all the works of some great writer has perished.’’ So good for Teddy, but not good for us if we sit back and 

allow this kind of devastation of such an important species. 

So it is an enormous loss, and we appreciate the Fish and Wildlife Service’s efforts to prevent its destruction, but much more 

needs to be done. 
53

So Director Ashe, we look forward to your testimony this morning and learning more about how you carry out your many responsibilities with a substantially diminished amount of funding. Let’s 

hear how you plan to use what is included in the President’s budget, and let’s hope someday we can more adequately fund the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. Mr. Ashe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR ASHE

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start off by saying thank you for your support. 

I know these are difficult times for the American economy, but we 

appreciate the support that this subcommittee has provided to us, 

and I think we are giving the American people, for their investment.

When I think about the Fish and Wildlife Service, I think about 

an organization that is skin and muscle and bone. Our people get 

more done, I think, than any other government agency with the resources that they have available to them. We have a stellar record 

in building partnerships and working with the American people to 

accomplish conservation. 

Our mission is global. I know our sister agencies are challenged 

to do their work, just as the Fish and Wildlife Service is, but the 

Service’s mission is everywhere. Coast to coast, shore to shore, sea 

to sea, it is a national and an international mission. Your support 

has been fundamental to our ability to achieve that kind of conservation.

Mr. Moran, you bring up the international wildlife trafficking crisis, which we are seeing. This is a new emergence related to the 

expanding population in Asia and Africa, and their expanding affluence. As we see growing middle classes in places like China and 

Vietnam and Thailand, we are seeing a growing demand for wildlife products. We are seeing a whole new generation of wildlife 

poaching and trafficking that is driven by large scale economies 

and by syndicated crime. It is not the old poaching of the ’40s, ’50s 

and ’60s, it really is trafficking. It is organized, it is systematic, 

and it takes an equivalent capacity to deal with it. 

This year, our law enforcement program broke an international 

rhino horn smuggling ring in Operation Crash, resulting in two 

dozen arrests, and at this point, seven convictions. We have seized 

over $2 million worth of rhino horns, cash, and gold. These are organized, large-scale trafficking operations. We need to have the capacity to match those operations and our budget requests increases 

for law enforcement and for our international programs to help 

deal with that. 

I think we have also distinguished ourselves in our cooperative 

conservation work with partners. I think about the work we are 

doing in the prairies of the United States to address land conversion that we have not seen since the ’60s and ’70s, right in the 

heart of the most important waterfowl breeding habitat in North 

America. That development is driven by $8 a bushel corn. It is 

driven by ethanol subsidies. It is driven by crop insurance that is 

fueling a boom in the American agricultural economy. That is a 
54

good thing, but we need to be able to respond to the result of that 

if we want to ensure that waterfowl populations are going to be vibrant and strong into the future. I am an avid waterfowler. If I 

want my children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same 

pastime, we have to make those investments today. We need the 

capacity to do that. We need the scientific capacity to understand 

how those conversions are going to affect waterfowl breeding and 

waterfowl populations, and we need the ability to drive conservation into those landscapes. I think we have shown that we are 

working with private landowners to do that. Yesterday or the day 

before, you had Jim Faulstich sitting here, a rancher from South 

Dakota, who is an avid partner with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

He actively goes out and recruits other landowners to work with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service because we know how to work with 

private landowners. We know how to make the economies of ranching work with the ecology of waterfowl and migratory bird conservation.

Within the Endangered Species Act, we are showing we can work 

cooperatively with industry, and with landowners. Last year when 

I testified before you, we were considering the listing of the dunes 

sagebrush lizard on the boundary between New Mexico and Texas, 

overlying the Permian Basin, which produces 20 percent of the domestic oil and gas in the United States. Working with those two 

states and the oil and gas industry, we were able to avoid that listing because of voluntary cooperative conservation. When I met with 

them in my office last year, I told them, ‘‘I was going to be frank 

with you. I do not see how we are going to be able to not list the 

lizard as endangered,’’ but I told them we would try and we would 

call it as we saw it. We were able through their perseverance, their 

cooperation, and our good faith effort to avoid listing. 

What is required to do that is good science. We have to have 

science that is responsive to the decision that we have to make, 

and that is available when we have to make a decision. We also 

have to have people on the ground in order to develop those candidate conservation agreements and to work with the BLM, which 

is a huge partner in eastern New Mexico on the dunes sagebrush 

lizard.

The same thing is happening with sage grouse and lesser prairie 

chicken. We are building a cooperative, structured approach to look 

at those listings. Our emerging system of landscape conservation 

cooperatives has been a key element with the lesser prairie chicken. They have provided key support to developing a five state 

range-wide assessment of lesser prairie chicken through their funding and their technical know-how. That is going to be a key instrument in our listing decision. 

I hope you will ask questions about the Land and Water Conservation Fund proposal. I think that represents one of the greatest 

opportunities we have to drive cooperative approaches to conservation in these landscapes. In places like the Rocky Mountain Front 

of Montana, the Swan Valley in Montana, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters of Florida, we can conserve wildlife. We can conserve a way of life, like ranching, and we can have 

land that continues to be economically productive, yet produces 

wildlife where we don’t have to manage it. We don’t have to worry 
55

about a maintenance backlog. We can support the economy and 

achieve environmental conservation. I think our budget reflects everything I have been talking about. It reflects a great opportunity. 

I know these are difficult times for the country, and that you have 

many difficult balancing decisions to make, but we stand ready to 

work with you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Dan Ashe follows:] 
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate it. Thank you. I am not throwing blame 

around or anything, but because of the lateness of the President’s 

budget, the Appropriations Committee Subcommittees are having 

multiple hearings during this restrictive time, so members are at 

all sorts of different meetings, and Mr. Calvert has to go to one relatively quickly, so I am going to call on him first to ask questions. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

You mentioned, Dan, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

and I know that has done significant work throughout the country. 

You also note that there is a significant number of species that are 

endangered in southern California, specifically in my area down in 

Riverside, San Bernardino, and certainly, San Diego, Orange County area. And we have obviously an urbanized interface. We have a 

shrinking habitat in that region. Riverside was one of the first to 

enter into a significant multi-species habitat conservation plan. 

Somewhat controversial, very costly. We are moving ahead with 

that, and of course, we are attempting to acquire a land to meet 

that obligation and to have land set aside for mitigation for endangered species, with the intent, of course, that is not to add additional species to the list and to be more flexible, and that is the 

whole intent around this issue. 

And as you know, money is tight and we are talking about the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. What is your opinion about a 

TIFIA-type program, TIFIA meaning, you know, in the Department 

of Transportation, we leverage a small number of dollars into large 

dollars using federal ability to borrow money and to—in the TIFIA 

case, to build freeways, but in another kind of case—I am working 

with Senator Feinstein to expand dollars where we can go out and 

acquire land while the economy is still soft, and buy it and meet 

our obligation, especially down in the South. It would be very helpful to have that kind of financing mechanism to do that. Are you 

aware of such a program out there? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not aware of that kind of program right now, but 

I agree that would be the kind of thing to look at. I will come back 

to southern California, but I will make an analogy to the prairie 

potholes that I just spoke about. 

One of the ways we are proceeding in the prairie potholes is by 

signing a letter of intent with Ducks Unlimited, and saying to them 

if we get the request we have sought from Congress, they go out 

and buy the lands we have already identified as the priority conservation lands, and then we will pay you back. They are using 

that letter of intent to go out and borrow money. Then they are getting it matched by donors so we end up—— 

Mr. CALVERT. This—— 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Multiplying that. 

SANTA ANA SUCKER

Mr. CALVERT. This would be similar, except, as the economy improves, property tax revenues improve, we have mitigation fees for 

development in southern California which help offset that cost. But 

it is important that we—as I bring up endangered species, we have 
65

this issue with the Santa Ana sucker fish, which affects millions 

of southern Californians in San Bernardino County, Riverside 

County, and Orange County. The Santa Ana River is a large part 

of our water supply in that region, and we are very concerned 

about how we move ahead to rationally deal with this species. 

Mr. ASHE. The county has made a commitment in that Habitat 

Conservation Plan, and I believe that commitment is working for 

them. I think when the Critical Habitat was established, we proposed and designated Critical Habitat within that HCP. We have 

told them this designation is not going to affect our biological opinions on the water research development project. It has not, to my 

knowledge. I think we are square with the people of Riverside 

County. We are living up to our commitments under the HCP, and 

we will continue to do that. I believe the kind of thing you are talking about we could do under the President’s request for the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. A significant portion of our request 

is for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 

where we do HCP land acquisition. That would be a way for us to 

bring capital to the table that could be matched with private investment to accomplish some of the acquisitions that need to occur 

in places like the Riverside County HCP. Those HCPs are driving 

large scale economies. California has been a wonderful partner. We 

have 15 regional Habitat Conservation Plans that were established 

over the last 10 years. Over the next 30 to 75 years, those permits 

under those HCPs are going to drive investment over $1.6 trillion. 

That is how we can make the Endangered Species Act work with 

economies. And again, I think we are doing that in places like—— 

BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN

Mr. CALVERT. Just one last comment. As we move ahead on the 

Delta Plan, whether it is a diversion around the Delta or through 

the Delta, or on top of the Delta, whatever the hell they are going 

to do to the Delta, but I am hoping we can have a workable relationship, because this is a big deal for future water development 

throughout the central part of the State of California and the 

South.

Mr. ASHE. Thinking about our budget in that context, to make 

those things work, like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, these regional HCPs, we have to have people in our field stations. If we do 

not have those people, we cannot get the HCPs done and the Bay 

Delta Conservation Plan is a huge HCP, the scale of which we have 

never done before. It is our people in our field stations that make 

those things happen. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Moran has the same hearing with Defense Appropriations 

Committee, is that right? 

Mr. MORAN. That is correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So Mr. Moran. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask you, Director Ashe, about environmental contaminants. You have an additional million dollars, a small amount 
66

of money, but with pesticide consultations with the EPA, when we 

think of the damage that DDT did to so many species, you wonder, 

should we just be limiting to threatened and endangered species, 

or should we not have some ongoing consultation with the EPA in 

terms of what pesticides might have the potential of seriously 

harming other fish and wildlife species? 

Mr. ASHE. The $1 million we have asked for, is for specific obligations with regard to EPA and pesticide consultations that we need 

to have the funds to address. Our contaminants program in general 

is the way we have traditionally looked at a broad range of toxic 

contaminants. For instance, we have contaminant specialists in the 

southeastern United States who are examining the effects of mercury and other contaminants on mussel populations. We have that 

capacity internally. We are trying to deploy that capacity to get 

better results despite a constrained budget. While we have an increase in our budget for our contaminants program, we need to do 

more. I think your observation is exactly right. We need to do 

more.

Mr. MORAN. But you put environmental contaminants under—in 

this reorganization that you just did, under budget and technical 

assistance Rick Healy noticed that there does not seem to be any 

diminution of funding, but I would like some assurance that you 

are not just burying it, that reorganization does not mean that it 

is going to receive any less emphasis. 

Mr. ASHE. Not at all, and it is not really a reorganization. We 

have just aligned our Washington office program structure so it 

matches up with our field structure. 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, well that is fine, just as long as it is not being 

wholly ignored. 

SEQUESTRATION

And the last thing I wanted to ask you about, the sequestration. 

Can you just give us some sense of what effect that is having on 

the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Mr. ASHE. We were talking about the international trafficking 

crisis, and I guess I would say that is the area where it comes 

home most starkly. Due to sequestration, we had to cancel the hiring of an entire class of 24 law enforcement agents. Our current 

law enforcement capacity is the lowest it has been since 1978, right 

when we are struggling to deal with this wildlife trafficking crisis. 

We need those agents who are the most trained wildlife law enforcement professionals in the world. We need them now. We need 

to be able to deploy them to the places where this trafficking is 

centered. That, to me, brings it right home. We have 29 refuge 

hunting programs that we may have to cancel this year, again, because we do not have the people to drive the regulatory process. So, 

if you are a hunter in Florida and you were counting on taking 

your young son or daughter turkey hunting at St. Mark’s National 

Wildlife Refuge south of Tallahassee, you may not to be able to do 

that. We have 28 other refuges where we have had to delay similar 

opportunities to bring young people out into the environment and 

teach them the great traditions of wildlife conservation. 
67

Mr. MORAN. Apparently including the one refuge in my whole 

district. You are eliminating the position. That shows how much 

clout I have, right? 

Mr. SIMPSON. We will change that. 

Mr. MORAN. That is all right. 

Yes, the Senate further cut your operating budget. It did in the 

Sierra, which we were upset about. Both Mr. Simpson and I were 

very much upset about what the Senate did, and we know you are 

laboring under very difficult, challenging fiscal circumstances. But 

you do great work, very important work, and we thank you. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

DIFFICULT FUNDING CHOICES

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate your opening statement, 

Dan. I agree with you. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service does 

great work, and they have great employees out in the field and 

here in Washington. But those out in the field that our landowners 

and others have to work with, it is oftentimes various criticism because everybody can manage wildlife better than the Fish and 

Wildlife Service does, just like we can all play a better quarterback 

on Monday morning than the guy did. But as a whole, I think most 

people appreciate what the Fish and Wildlife Service does, and the 

oftentimes difficult job they have. 

But as we have talked about these budgets, you know, I do not 

see us getting out of this hole we are in until we get something 

that solves this overall debt crisis that we have. We keep managing 

from crisis to crisis to crisis, and all we keep doing is cutting discretionary spending and not addressing the real issues that are 

causing our debt Until Congress has the courage to stand up and 

make some really tough decisions, we are going to be in this downward spiral in a lot of these areas. I do not know if it is going to 

be resolved this year or not. We are going to come up against, well, 

the House and Senate passed different budgets. Obviously, being 

able to reconcile those is very, very difficult to do, and the only way 

they might be able to reconcile it is if they can also come up with 

a grand bargain that kind of solves it in the long run so we can 

get a common number. Otherwise, I am afraid that we might end 

up in another C.R. and just continue C.R.s at reduced levels on and 

on and on. That is not the way to go, and that is why I have said 

that we are getting to a point in this Interior budget, and I suspect 

in all the other budgets, also, where we are going to have to ask 

ourselves, are we going to try to do everything in a, for a less articulate term, in a haphazard manner, or are we going to decide 

some things we are just not going to do anymore, even though we 

might like to do them, and concentrate on what we have to do and 

try to do them well? And those are decisions that we are going to 

have to make. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject for a moment? 

You are absolutely right. Interior, though, has been cut more deeply——

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN [continuing]. Than any of the other budgets, but as 

is oftentimes the case, I could not agree with you more. 
68

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, it is going to be a challenge for us, obviously, 

and it is going to impact the Interior budget, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and all of the budgets across here unless we can solve this. 

Mr. ASHE. In that same vein, Mr. Chairman, I explained to our 

people that we are skin and muscle and bone, there is no excess. 

When we are making decisions, we are actively deciding what are 

we not going to do? And the analogy I give to them is a hand. I 

say okay, I have a hand and if I am asked to give up one of these 

digits, I am not going to want to do that because I have grown attached to all of them. But if I have to do it, I will make a choice. 

I really need them. You know, I do like this one, but it is probably 

the one that is going to go. 

I think if we continue in this environment, we have to make hard 

decisions, and we are preparing the organization to do that. It is 

uncomfortable and I did not sign up for that when I accepted the 

job to be director, but it is what it is. I am where I am. People come 

to me and say mitigation hatcheries are important, and contaminants are important, and national wetlands inventory is important. 

Absolutely they are. They are vital to the work that we do, but I 

cannot just snip pieces off of all of them. I am not doing anybody 

any good by doing that. We are preparing the organization to make 

difficult choices if we have to. I hope the subcommittee can find a 

way to consider the reasonable proposals contained in our budget. 

I think our budget is good for the economy. 

For example, there has been a lot of controversy around the Keystone pipeline. Last year, TransCanada came to us because the 

southern part of that pipeline, which goes from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Texas coast, needs to be built, regardless of what happens with the northern part of the pipeline. TransCanada needed 

a Habitat Conservation Plan by the first week of November. They 

said if we cannot get it, 5,000 people are not going to have a job 

come the beginning of the year. Well, we moved two people full 

time to work on that. We got a Habitat Conservation Plan done in 

record time in a little over 4 months from beginning to end. We 

had great cooperation from TransCanada, and great cooperation 

from the states involved, and we got it done. Today there are more 

than 5,000 people working on that pipeline because we had the capacity to get that done. 

The budget we are asking you for, the increases we are asking 

for in energy and endangered species, are for people that get that 

kind of work done. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE. And they actually make jobs happen. If we could not 

have gotten that HCP done, TransCanada would not have been 

able to move forward. 

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. SIMPSON. I found it interesting the other day that Director 

Jarvis from the National Parks was kind of taken to task by one 

of the committees in Congress. The assumption was that he was 

overstating the impact of sequestration and trying to throw out 

scare stories, and I don’t think he was. I mean, it is a real impact. 

There are going to be later openings for some National Parks. They 

cannot plow the road to open Yellowstone. It so happens that the 
69

local chamber of commerce in Jackson Hole decided it was vitally 

important to their businesses, and they got together and they 

raised the money to do the plowing of the road. 

But there are real impacts. You cannot just go in and start slashing and burning stuff. Unfortunately, any time you get a government as big as the U.S. Government and you get a budget as big 

as the U.S. budget, there are going to be some things that people 

look at and go, ‘‘wow, why are we doing that?’’ And those are the 

ones you always see on the news. Should we get after those? Certainly we should, but it is having real impacts on the important 

programs that are being done, and sequestration was a non-discretionary impacter. It went across the board to every line item. That 

was another one of my problems is that we could not go in and say 

what are the priorities versus what are the lower priorities, and 

make some decisions. It went across the board. 

Mr. ASHE. I am proud of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

We saw this coming and our mantra was hope and work for the 

best, but prepare for the worst. We now have 400 fewer positions 

filled, in the Fish and Wildlife Service than we had a year ago. 

That is our furlough. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What does that mean, exactly, when you say 400 

fewer people? What impact is that? 

Mr. ASHE. Some positions are being left open to save money. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What did they do? 

Mr. ASHE. Mr. Moran mentioned Mason Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge. A recreation planner took a job somewhere else, and we 

left that job vacant. That person was coordinating volunteers. 

When you bring a group of volunteers out, they need to have things 

to do or they will not come the next time. That job was doing environmental education, working with the schools in Arlington and 

Fairfax Counties, and that person is not there now because we essentially had a hiring freeze and we held that position vacant. So 

400-plus positions, that is the equivalent of furloughing 4,000 people for 22 days. But we planned for that. 

Now does it have an impact in the organization? Absolutely, for 

example, I have three desert tortoise biologists in the southwestern 

United States. If I lose one of those, we are in a heap of hurt. We 

permitted the world’s largest solar facility, the BrightSource Solar 

Facility in the Ivanpah Valley last year in prime desert tortoise 

critical habitat. I have got to have biologists to work with the company to figure out how to make it work. If I lose one of those people, we will be in a critical situation. Thankfully none of those biologists have gone elsewhere, but if they did, if that was one of 

those vacant positions, we would see devastating effects. 

But what we are losing is our ability to perform timely work. We 

were talking about the Cushing, Oklahoma, to Texas pipeline, we 

had to move people into there that knew the issues surrounding 

the American burying beetle. It would not do us any good to take 

a fisheries biologist from Arcadia and move them into Cushing, 

Oklahoma, for a couple of weeks. I have to have people that know 

the issues. Those positions are vacant, work will not get done, and 

5,000 people would not be working today. 

By holding positions vacant, these are the casualties we are 

going to start seeing. Work will not get done in the time that is 
70

necessary for people who have made a significant investment and 

significant capital will be at risk. We have got to have those positions.

This year we are managing through that. We are going to start 

reviewing those 400 vacant positions. They happened randomly. 

Somebody retired, somebody got a promotion, somebody left to take 

another job. We are going to start to make some strategic hires to 

backfill so we have a little bit of a chance to make a recovery. But 

if we get hit again with another sequester, next year we are going 

to be in the same position of having to hold any vacancy open. It 

puts us all in a difficult spot. 

MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the maintenance backlog of your wildlife 

refuges and other facilities? 

Mr. ASHE. We have about a $2.6 billion backlog. I am proud of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, our refuge chief, Jim Kurth, is 

sitting behind me. Since 2010, we have reduced our maintenance 

backlog by over $300 million, 10 percent reduction in our maintenance backlog. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What does this budget do to the maintenance backlog, if it were to be adopted? Does it decrease it? 

Mr. ASHE. We will continue to decrease our backlog. We are looking critically at our condition assessments and removing things 

from the maintenance backlog that are never going to be repaired, 

that never should have been on the list there in the first place. We 

are going through and aggressively managing our maintenance 

backlog and we are making strategic investments. We will be able 

to continue that this year, so I expect to see the backlog continue 

to go down. 

SAGE GROUSE

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Let’s talk a little bit about sage grouse—— 

Mr. ASHE. Okay. 

Mr. SIMPSON [continuing]. And what is happening in Idaho. 

There is a state management plan that they have kind of put together, the group has kind of put together. BLM is a little resistant 

to adopt the state management plan. I understand that. There are 

the 68 permitees, they have had their AUMs reduced by anywhere 

up to 50 percent, which is a 50 percent reduction in the 50 percent 

that has been reduced over the last 20 years. So it is having some 

significant impact. And you have to list or you have to make a determination on sage grouse by the end of fiscal year 2015. Where 

are we with that? What is the status of it? What is the likelihood 

or unlikelihood that BLM will look at the state management plan 

and those types of things? Because the Fish and Wildife Service 

makes the determination of the listing. BLM does the management 

of the habitats, right? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. I would start off by saying we had a meeting in 

Secretary Salazar’s office a couple of weeks ago on this subject, and 

I will tell you what I told him. BLM rocks on sage grouse. They 

have really stepped up under former Director Bob Abbey and the 

current acting Director, Neil Kornze. They control 54 percent of the 
71

habitat. If we are going to avoid a listing of the sage grouse, then 

BLM is the key to that. The Forest Service controls about 12 percent of the habitat, so the Forest Service is important, too, and 

both of them have stepped up. The BLM is modifying 98 resource 

management plans, and the Forest Service is modifying about two 

dozen forest management plans. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Can they do all that by the end of 2015? 

Mr. ASHE. They are on schedule to do it by 2014. They are working with us, because we have to have that information ahead of 

time. And they are working with the states. 

Are we going to have rocky moments? We are. I think with Idaho 

we have gotten to a very good place. BLM has other issues they 

need to consider in grazing management in addition to sage grouse. 

We have written a letter to Idaho with the BLM’s concurrence that 

the state’s grazing management provisions are good for sage 

grouse.

We have done the same thing in Wyoming. We are working with 

Utah and Nevada. So 10 of the 11 range states are working on 

comprehensive sage grouse plans. I think this is really how the Endangered Species Act should work and can work. We have a decision to make, but we have enough time to make that decision, so 

we can get people focused. We have governors like Matt Mead of 

Wyoming and John Hickenlooper from Colorado that are leading 

the effort. The Western Governors Association is engaged, and we 

have great partners like the Natural Resource Conservation Service. They have put over $140 million on the ground to conserve 

sage grouse. I think that has been matched by $70 million in partner money. We have got a good momentum on sage grouse. We 

have a lot of work to do, but I think we are in a good place. We 

have everybody talking to one another, and I think that nothing 

but good can come out of it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, the concern I hear, what people tell me is 

that the state management plan, grazing plan, that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has bought off on it, if you will, but BLM is reluctant to do so. I understand that they have concerns about some 

issues in it and that kind of stuff, but—— 

Mr. ASHE. I think there are other issues than sage grouse involved there. From a sage grouse standpoint, we are in lock step 

with BLM and the State of Idaho on grazing management. We do 

not see grazing management as a significant threat for sage grouse. 

A well-managed range is good for sage grouse, and I think that is 

why NRCS help has been critical, because they are delivering technical assistance and support to producers to implement best management practices, and if we can get good range management in 

place throughout the habitat, then grazing is good for sage grouse. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you agree that wildfire is the biggest threat to 

sage grouse habitat? 

Mr. ASHE. The biggest threat to sage grouse habitat is habitat 

disturbance, but in certain parts of the range, fire is a very significant factor, maybe the most significant factor. In the Great Basin 

Range, Nevada, Utah, which includes parts of California, and 

southern Oregon, fire may well be the most significant factor now, 

but historically it has been habitat fragmentation and disturbance. 
72

Mr. SIMPSON. Well frankly, we had put some extra money in the 

C.R. for wildfire, both in the Forest Service and Department of Interior, which the Senate deemed unnecessary for whatever reason. 

Mr. ASHE. Fire is going to be key for us. The fire community has 

stepped up, so now all the sage grouse leks are mapped and protecting those leks is a priority for the suppression response. The 

fire management community has acknowledged the problem. BLM 

is doing great post fire rehabilitation work but we need the resources——

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. To make all that happen. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The fear of most people, and the comparison I have 

heard time to time again is that sage grouse are potentially the 

spotted owl of the grazing area. And I do not know if that is true, 

but it is potentially a listing of sage grouse which could have huge 

impacts.

Mr. ASHE. I think I would have a much more optimistic message. 

I think we may list the sage grouse, but I think we have great momentum going so I think ‘‘not warranted’’ is clearly a possible outcome. We may have to list it. I think if we do we could go to a 

threatened listing. The law gives us the regulatory authority to put 

in place a special rule for a threatened species and that would acknowledge where we have good work—for example in Idaho, Wyoming—conservation strategy that would allow us to exempt potentially those good conservation mechanisms from the requirements 

of the law. I do not think it will be a huge impact, even if we have 

to list it, because there is too much good work going on right now. 

MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. I cannot remember exactly the decision that was 

made or the agreement that was made about the warranted-butprecluded listing with some environmental groups and a lawsuit 

that was going on. What was that all about? 

Mr. ASHE. The Endangered Species Act has very strict deadlines 

in it. If a petition is submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

list a species, then the law tells us that we have 90 days to make 

a preliminary determination, and if we miss that deadline, then 

somebody can take us to court. There is no defense. The law gives 

us no defense. A judge looks at it and says you either did it or you 

did not, and if we did not, then they tell us to do it. Once we make 

that preliminary finding, we have one year to make a proposal. 

Same thing. If we miss that deadline, somebody can take us to 

court, and we have no defense. Over the last decade we had a history of this deadline-driven litigation. Because of the workload we 

were making warranted-but-precluded determinations, which 

means we think that it should be listed but we do not have the resources to make a listing determination. So we were piling all of 

those species into our candidate list. We wanted to get out of that. 

We had 85 cases nationwide, we threw a lasso around them, and 

dragged them all into this multidistrict litigation. We asked the 

judge to look at them all together since they are all deadline cases. 

We essentially pulled those litigants to the negotiating table and 

said all right, let’s settle this. All we did in the settlement was say 

we are going to make decisions on these species that we piled onto 
73

the candidate list. In return for that, stop suing us and stop driving 

these deadline cases into courts. It has worked. Our deadline-driven litigation has dropped 98 percent since then. So we are out of 

court.

Mr. SIMPSON. But it is going to require you to make determinations, right? 

Mr. ASHE. To make a decision. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Does your budget reflect the amount necessary to 

do that? Because obviously it is going to take additional resources 

to do it. 

Mr. ASHE. The budget that we have presented to you for 2014 

gives us the resources to get that job done. The beauty of it is, like 

sage grouse, we were able to push the hard ones out a few years 

which gives us time to work on them. With sage grouse, lesser 

prairie chicken, these large landscape proposals, we have been able 

to push those out to give us time, to give partners time to do the 

voluntary conservation work that could alleviate the potential for 

a listing. So I think it is working for us. We are out of court. We 

are making the decisions that the law asks us to make. It does not 

mean that we are going to list everything. I think we showed that 

with the dune sagebrush lizard. If we can get the conservation 

done, we will not have to make hard decisions. A lot of my friends 

in the environmental community are not too happy about that but 

I told them our job is not to put things on a list; our job is to get 

conservation done. And we are getting conservation done. If we list 

a species, the same things being done voluntarily today are what 

we would be doing under the law. So why do we need to list it? 

There are things that require the protection of the Endangered 

Species Act. The dune sagebrush lizard is not one of them. We are 

willing to make the hard decisions. We will do that. If the same 

conditions apply to lesser prairie chicken and sage grouse, we will 

make the same decision. We will do that based on the best science 

that we have available. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Mr. Director. I am excited to be here. And I want to say first, 

thank you for your staff’s efforts. I am southwest Washington State 

and we have a road on a dike and it has been a challenge, and Fish 

and Wildlife has worked very closely with my district staff to accommodate our local community, and I really appreciate that. 

Mr. ASHE. The Columbia whitetail deer. 

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. That is part of it, yes, and we have had 

to move the deer, and it is working, so we appreciate your responsiveness on that. 

I would like to bring up another issue that is central to just 

about every county in my region. In fact, the whole Northwest, my 

district specifically, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mt. St. Helens, and 20 years ago, it was used as a byword, the spotted owl. 

I have a few points I want to make and then ask you about it. It 

has been 20 years since the Critical Habitat Plan for the spotted 

owl has been in place, and just last year, your agency decided to 

effectively double-down on this policy and add to the Critical Habi-
74

tat Plan. Since the beginning, all 20 years, the spotted owl population has actually declined, right, and on top of that, we are now 

seeing harm to other species in the forests. Early sorrel forest habitat and the species that live on them are disappearing. Deer and 

elk habitat is disappearing as a result. We have starving elk herds 

that my constituents ask me about frequently. Flora species, the 

little plants that depend on openings in the canopy and the sunlight are disappearing. As a result, the little critters who feed on 

the flora are dying, which is part of why the more than 40 species 

of birds that rely on those varmints—or I do not know, mammals, 

I know there is a more appropriate word. The 40 species of bird including the endangered northern spotted owl rely on them for food. 

So they do not have a food source. Basically it is all disappearing 

and now your agency is discussing walking into the forest with 

shotguns and killing the barred owl, right? To me, this is a mess, 

to say nothing of the fact that now our forests, our Doug fir stands 

and others are dying. So we have more trees that are dying in 

these forests per year than are being removed, and so it is creating 

negative feedback? It is creating a cycle that is just roaring. 

When I say roaring, that also brings me to fire, right? We are 

having more catastrophic fires that are killing old growth that are 

supposed to be set aside for the spotted owl habitat. That is where 

we were as of last summer, and then your agency said this is working so well, let’s add more land, private lands to set aside for Critical Habitat. Can you help me understand what the plan is, not 

just for the single species? And I feel like we had some wildlife defenders yesterday talk about the need to move to an ecosystem approach versus a single species management approach, and I agree. 

Let me also add, the one species that I am actually considering trying to have listed, the endangered American wage earner to say 

nothing of the economies that depend on this habitat working. Why 

is the agency so focused on a single species when it is actually 

proving that what we are doing is hurting that single species? 

Mr. ASHE. We are not focused on a single species. First of all, you 

could probably run a Fish and Wildlife Service field station. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I feel like I am almost there. 

Mr. ASHE. I think spotted owl is an indicator of a larger kind of 

ecosystem that is a mess. To be frank, the mess was created by 

decades of unsustainable timber harvest and—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I have got to stop you on that. 

Mr. ASHE. All right. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Because it has been 20 years. We harvested out of that forest 3 million board feet last year. Under the 

Clinton forest plan that your agency is supposed to support, we are 

supposed to get 65 million board feet. In our heyday, we were getting 300 to 400 million board feet. 

Mr. ASHE. I am not talking about today, I am talking about what 

transpired decades before, which is what got us to this place. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. When I was probably about 5 years old, 

I remember this. I grew up in this community. 

Mr. ASHE. We did almost double the amount of designated Critical Habitat, from a little more than 5 million acres to over 9 million acres, but that is all federal and state land. We designated no 

private land. 
75

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Did you guys carve out some private 

landowners? Because I have been working with them since last 

summer that fall under the Critical Habitat. 

Mr. ASHE. Not that I am aware of. We designated no private land 

as Critical Habitat. 

Mr. HERRERA BEUTLER. So the owl circles then do not touch any 

of the private land? Because we have very little private land in the 

area that we can still log. 

Mr. ASHE. Owl circles might touch private land but our Critical 

Habitat designation excluded all private lands. A private landowner still has an obligation not to take a spotted owl. The law 

prohibits take. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Absolutely. They know that. I am talking 

about as you double-down on—this is the land that was set aside, 

we are going to add roughly half. 

Mr. ASHE. No private land. None. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay, that is good. 

Mr. ASHE. I think we should have a longer conversation about 

what our recovery plan reflects, and now our Critical Habitat reflects. We have a commitment to the idea of ecological forestry. We 

can go into the forest, we can harvest timber, we can create 

healthy forests, and healthy forests are good for spotted owl. I am 

going to be in the Northwest next week with Tom Tidwell from the 

Forest Service and Neil Kornze from the BLM. We are bringing our 

collective people together to talk about this, as the land management and regulatory agencies for these federal lands that have 

been designated as Critical Habitat. We have an opportunity to get 

behind this concept of ecological forestry. We have been implementing pilot projects up there, which are demonstrating that you 

can cut big trees. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Where? Gifford Pinchot? 

Mr. ASHE. I do not think we had one in Pinchot but we have five 

pilot projects throughout the Northwest. We are working with the 

Forest Service, and the BLM to look at how we can implement 

these pilot projects. I was with Secretary Salazar last year on one 

of those projects where they are taking out big-diameter trees. 

They are thinning the forest. We are trying to demonstrate how we 

can do that in an economical way and how we can support it with 

a regulatory structure that says even though the project is going 

to take a spotted owl, it is making a healthy forest in the long 

term. It will abate the fire risk, and it will make better habitat. 

We can allow that take in the short run because we are going to 

get a big payoff in the long run. Again, it depends on having good 

science, being able to show that we are monitoring that, and if our 

plans do not meet expectations, we are going to adapt and we are 

going to improve as we go through time. I think we have an opportunity today to develop an alignment that we have not had for a 

long time. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Can I ask, because what you are saying, 

I agree with that. I think you are going to get better species management if you look at it as a forest community, right? We have 

got this mess and we have been living with this, or not living. I 

mean, I have moms and dads who cannot make their mortgages. 

The timber resources of Skamania County, 85 percent federal 
76

lands. They gave some of that land to the federal government 50, 

75 years ago, wish they would not have. They cannot pay for their 

schools. They cannot raise taxes. They cannot generate revenue. 

Yet they are watching the owls be pushed out by predator owls. 

They are watching the forest burn. They are worried about beetle 

or bark disease or infestation, and then you say hey, we have a 

plan, we can really do this now, we are going to add double the 

land to the Critical Habitat and they are going, you are not harvesting under current law what you should be harvesting now. 

Why?

Mr. ASHE. But Critical Habitat does not mean that those forests 

cannot be managed. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We know. By law, you are supposed to 

be taking, but we have not seen any of that. 

Mr. ASHE. We have a recovery plan that is now supported by a 

Critical Habitat designation that adopts this principle and this perspective of ecological forestry, and our commitment is that we will 

make that work. Skepticism is understandable, and that is partly 

why Tom and Neil and I are going up there next week to talk to 

our people and say all right, we have to make this work. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. When are you guys going to be there, by 

the way? 

Mr. ASHE. I am flying out Monday. I will be there next week. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So will you there be on Tuesday maybe? 

Mr. ASHE. I will. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. You know, this is important enough to 

my region. 

Mr. ASHE. Let’s talk. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Having the three of you in one place. I 

apologize. Secretary Salazar has already been here and heard my 

spiel on this. So has Tom Tidwell. We have not had BLM yet. They 

will be next. 

Mr. ASHE. I think we have an opportunity. Again, I will underscore that the budget that we provided to the subcommittee provides key resources for us to be able to do this. For instance, on 

our science funding, we are providing some key support for barred 

owl control because one of the other things that we have to do is, 

we have to go out there and we have to—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I have got people who will do this for 

you.

Mr. ASHE. I think there are a lot of people that would. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE. But we have to begin the science to underpin that to 

make sure. The people on the other side are skeptical about that, 

so we have to have the good science to underpin that. We are committed to making this work. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I have seen in your bio, you know, 

science is a big part of what has driven you into the place that you 

are now. I will take you at your word and the commitment that we 

will ‘‘make this work’’ but I am going to need significant updates 

on it and I am going to want to see the science because the science 

thus far has hurt the spotted owl and the endangered American 

wage earner. It certainly has not helped. We could have had a decline on its own with what we were doing, right? 
77

Mr. ASHE. When we listed the spotted owl back in the 1990s, we 

knew the owl was going to continue to decline. It had been on a 

long-term decline and we knew the owl was going to continue to 

decline. What we have been doing is trying to do things to arrest 

that decline and hopefully plateau the population at some level. We 

have had some unexpected things happen like barred owl invasion. 

You have to be able to deal with that and roll with those punches 

and make it work. I think this concept of ecological forestry and 

the general mindset that we believe that healthy forests, fire-resistant forests, are good for the spotted owl and we are willing to make 

some risk-based decisions to try to make that work. Will we be 

sued? Yes, we will be sued, but if we are standing shoulder to 

shoulder with the Forest Service and the BLM and the States of 

Washington and Oregon and California, then I believe we are usually pretty good at winning on the merits. We get hung up a lot 

of times on process, but we are pretty good on the merits. I think 

if we are shoulder to shoulder and moving forward together, I 

think we will be successful. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Valadao. 

BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan addresses problems that are vitally important to the State of California and the Nation. With the 

change in leadership at Interior, do you see the Administration and 

Fish and Wildlife Service maintaining its high value, a high-priority initiative? If not, why? 

Mr. ASHE. I absolutely do see that commitment being maintained.

Mr. VALADAO. Short answer. I am looking forward to that. 

The Administration has also been pretty ardent about science 

leading decision making but on many issues science has failed obviously, as Ms. Herrera Beutler just pointed out. Well, we are going 

through the same issue in our district as well. How would you propose to make decisions that face scientific uncertainty when maintaining the status quos is simply untenable, such as the California 

Bay Delta? What do you see as potential for problem solving 

through scientific collaboration between federal agencies, state 

agencies and other regional and other local interests with appropriate expertise? We are having some issues there obviously. A couple of the biological opinions have been thrown out of court for different reasons. 

Mr. ASHE. There is no more complicated environment in the Nation than what we are trying to deal with in the San Francisco Bay 

Delta area, but again, I think we are building a relationship where 

we are doing everything we can possibly do to support the states’ 

development of the bay delta conservation plan. That is going to be 

a Habitat Conservation Plan under the Endangered Species Act. 

Our job is to lay the groundwork to be able to permit that, but the 

project has not even been formulated yet. We are building that 

plane as it is being flown because we have a project that is operating. We have to do biological opinions to support the project that 

is operating. In the meantime, we are trying to design a new 
78

project and to put in place the permitting framework for a new 

project that has not even been designed yet. I think we have made 

a tremendous commitment. We are working with NOAA Fisheries, 

with the state water agency, the state fish and wildlife agency, 

NGOs across the board, and I think we have been making progress. 

Now, whether we are going to be able to make enough progress fast 

enough is the question. I will use as an opportunity to underscore 

that requires people and it requires scientific capacity to invest in 

that effort. 

Mr. VALADAO. Well, we have got communities in my district obviously farmland and communities. Some of that the farmland is 

about 20 percent of their water allocation when a normal rain year 

like we have had this past year, which has been a little bit dry, 

we will probably get 70 percent but we are at 20 and there is 

rumor it might even go lower. I have got communities that are supposed to get—it shows on paper they are getting 70 percent of their 

water but if you actually look, they are actually getting more like 

50 percent because it is 70 percent of their historical use, not 70 

percent of their contracted amount. And so when you have got communities that cannot afford because of the high unemployment, because of the lack of water for the farmers that created their jobs, 

now they cannot afford to actually have water for their homes. This 

has had a pretty dramatic effect on my constituents, and when you 

have a biological opinion that has been thrown out of court and you 

are still using it, it sounds like we could go back and maybe use 

the old biological opinion that has not been thrown out of court 

that I think has a little more credibility. Why have we not gone in 

that direction to actually help people? 

Mr. ASHE. We are operating under a biological opinion that we 

have been operating under for quite some time. The courts have 

been telling us to do a new biological opinion, and that is what we 

have been struggling with. This approach is build the airplane as 

you are flying it. The project is operating under a standing biological opinion. 

Mr. VALADAO. The one that has had trouble in court? 

Mr. ASHE. They have all had trouble in court but it is standing 

and we are operating, so we make two decisions. We are helping 

the state manage water, and avoid take of delta smelt. I think we 

are being as facile as we can be. At the same time, the courts are 

telling us to do a new biological opinion, which means we have to 

divert people to that task because the courts are not giving us an 

option; they are telling us what to do. 

Mr. VALADAO. And on taking the delta smelt, I think the pumps 

are allowed to take 305 or 300 something. 

Mr. ASHE. Something like that, 325. 

Mr. VALADAO. When they do the actual testing, they kill thousands of them. 

Mr. ASHE. They do not kill thousands of them, but they do— 

Mr. VALADAO. It is in the four-digit numbers and so there is 

quite a few killed just to test and you have got 305 that are taken 

to create jobs, feed the world, allow people the decency of having 

a job and feeding their families, putting their kids through college. 

It sounds like we do not have our priorities straight and we need 
79

to get that really looked into and see if we can figure out a way 

to make sure that we allow both. 

When you look at the smelt, there are a lot of issues with communities around the delta dumping 380 million gallons of sewage 

into the delta. I am pretty sure that is going to have an impact on 

the smelt. I am pretty sure that invasive species like the bass or 

whatever is in there that we are not allowed to fish because it is 

protected, I guess, that eats smelt. I mean, there are a lot of things 

going on there and it is not just the pumping. I would ask that you 

put a little emphasis on that and let’s see if we can help these people.

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that, and I tell the members that I 

have found over the years that Dan has been very willing to come 

up to your offices and sit down and talk to you about the issues 

and stuff and try to have a reasonable conversation about those. I 

am sure you can make that availability any time that you might 

have.

Let me ask you a couple other things. The fish mitigation hatcheries or mitigation fish hatcheries budget, is there enough money 

in the energy and water appropriation to the Army Corps to fully 

reimburse Fish and Wildlife Service? That has been a pet peeve of 

mine for some time. 

MITIGATION HATCHERIES

Mr. ASHE. We have the funding in fiscal 2013 to meet our obligations to produce fish and we are working with the Corps to get an 

increase. The Corps has been very cooperative in this endeavor. 

This past week we signed an agreement with the Tennessee Valley 

Authority to provide 3 years of funding for those mitigation hatcheries and in the meantime work on a longer-term solution. So our 

mitigation hatcheries are actually in pretty good shape. With TVA 

and Corps funding we can meet our obligations. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The requested amount by the Army Corps in their 

budget request would be sufficient. 

Mr. ASHE. The Corps is requesting $4.7 million, and that is what 

we have asked for. We will look for increases in the next year’s 

budget. I think we would like them to get up to something like $5.0 

million. But again, they have gone from $3.8 to $4.7 million this 

year, so the Corps has been excellent. 

WOLF LIVESTOCK LOSS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Mr. SIMPSON. Another issue that is kind of—I actually did not 

know that this was an issue until I met with some county commissioners a couple weeks ago when I was out in Idaho, and that is 

the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration program, a program that 

was authorized under Public Law 111–11, and while we can agree 

or disagree about whether this program is a high enough priority 

in the fiscal year 2014 and whether the Service has the authority 

to terminate the program in fiscal year 2013, which might be a discussion between us because it was actually in report language and 

does the report language continue on through a C.R., that is an interesting debate. The report language might not continue on but 
80

the need to come back to this committee for funding does continue 

on, so that is an issue. But I take issue with the fact that the Service still has not spent the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2012, 

and with the rumors that the Service intends to reprogram those 

fiscal year 2012 funds without seeking approval from this appropriations committee as is required under the fiscal year 2012 reprogramming guidelines. Talk to me about that. 

Mr. ASHE. Well, first I will say with regard to the program overall, I think as you and I have been talking about here today, we 

have had to make some very difficult decisions because of where we 

are with sequestration and other matters. Our priority with wolves 

has been to support the delisting of the wolves. Two weeks ago, I 

was with all the state directors—Idaho, Montana and Wyoming— 

and depredations are down since the delisting. We have been controlling wolves. The wolf population is fine, it is healthy. This year, 

though, we saw the first overall decline in the northern Rocky 

Mountain population. It went down by about 6 percent overall, 11 

percent in Idaho, and that has shown up in depredations. So I 

think the best thing that we can do for depredation control is make 

sure that that delisting sticks and that we are meeting our commitments for monitoring. The States are effectively managing the 

wolves and we are demonstrating that population continues to be 

healthy. That is our highest priority, to make sure the delisting 

holds and that we are living up to all of our commitments on that. 

I will come up and speak to you about the wolf livestock loss 

demonstration program. Our feeling was, it was under the reprogramming limits within the House report language, but let me 

come up and we will talk to you specifically about that. 

SCIENCE

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. I appreciate it. You mentioned today several 

times science and the need for sound science, and as you recall, 

back in the Babbitt Administration, they had this idea of taking all 

the science from all the different agencies, consolidating it and putting it with USGS, and with that went all the money, and now we 

are trying to rebuild the science programs in the agencies that we 

took it from. What is this going to cost us and should some of the 

funds not come out of the USGS to re-fund those science programs 

if we are going to put them back in the agencies? I do not know 

what the thought process was when they decided to take it all and 

put it in the USGS to start with. I am a fan of the USGS but I 

am not sure that they do fish and wildlife stuff real well. 

Mr. ASHE. I am a fan of the USGS as well. Let me back up. That 

is a very good question. It is a complicated question. I think Bruce 

Babbitt is a great man. He was a great Secretary of the Interior. 

The decision to move science out of the resource bureaus was one 

that I did not support, but his original vision was to create a National Biological Survey, a separate entity within the Department 

of Interior whose principal client was going to be the management 

bureaus—the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service, the 

BLM. His promise was that the Fish and Wildlife Service was giving $120 million and 1,600 people but would get more science and 

better science from this National Biological Survey. That vision 

never materialized and what happened in the intervening 18 
81

months was that the capacity that we donated to the NBS was diminished, the budget was cut, so the USGS got a bad hand. They 

got less capacity than we originally donated but the same expectation. It was never fair for the U.S. Geological Survey to be expected 

to live up to that commitment. We have had a 20-year discussion 

about this. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So would we be better off trying to live up to that 

commitment or trying to rebuild the science back in the agencies? 

Mr. ASHE. I think what you see before you in the budget today 

is a maturation of that discussion. I think USGS is an exceptional 

partner. They do very good work. I think the USGS can provide 

long-term, deep-dive, fundamental, ecological scientific support, 

and they are excellent at that. 

What the bureaus need is nimble, application-driven science, I 

have to make a decision today, I need to know what to do on 

barred owl, I cannot wait 5 years or even a year for that to materialize, I have to make a decision today. The management bureaus, 

whether it is me or it is Mike Connor at Bureau of Reclamation 

or Jon Jarvis at the Park Service, we need that kind of very tactical, applied scientific capacity. It needs to be portable. It needs 

to be nimble. I need to be able to move it where today’s problem 

and biggest decision is so I can deal with sage grouse, I can deal 

with northern spotted owl, I can deal with delta smelt, I can deal 

with manatee; deal with things as they come up and I have to 

make decisions. 

I think the President’s budget reflects a maturation from 1993 

toward developing a very good relationship between the USGS and 

the management bureaus in general. I think we are going to see 

a new generation of science. I think right now with the Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives and the USGS Climate Science Centers, 

we are seeing that integration where the USGS is doing what they 

do very, very well. There is an integration of that kind of applied, 

driven science, we have to make a decision for the longer term, 

what is a changing climate going to mean for the sage grouse and 

fire-driven ecosystems like in the Pacific Northwest? We can look 

out farther and we can make today’s decisions with a context for 

what the future is going to look like. I think the budget represents 

a very important kind of maturation of really a good relationship 

between the management bureaus and a science bureau. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I guess I could understand where Secretary 

Babbitt was coming from to some degree in that I have been frustrated by and looking at the same issue with all the money we 

spend on climate change. While I am not a denier of climate 

change or anything else, and I do think we need to do research and 

so forth, almost every federal agency gets money for climate change 

study. We give it to the Park Service, we give it to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, we give it to BLM, we give it to the Forest Service. Everybody has money to do climate change studies, and I do 

not know that there is any coordination or enough coordination between all those, and I have actually thought maybe we ought to 

gather up all this money in our budget and put it in one place, and 

the place I have looked at is USGS because that is kind of what 

they do. I have had resistance from a variety of people, but I guess 

that same type of thing is maybe what drove Secretary Babbitt to 
82

say maybe we need to consolidate our science and do it in a more 

holistic manner, if you will. But nobody can actually tell you how 

much money we spent in our federal budget studying climate 

change. I mean, the Department of Defense gets climate change 

money. Everybody gets climate change money. 

After 9/11, everybody that came in to my office to lobby for something attached the word ‘‘homeland security.’’ If you wanted to 

grow corn in Iowa, we were going to do it because of homeland security, and now the key word is ‘‘climate change,’’ and so it is almost like all the agencies say well, if we want to get in on this and 

get our share of this, we better do some climate change study, and 

I just do not see the coordination. 

NATIONAL FISH, WILDLIFE AND PLANTS CLIMATE ADAPTATION

STRATEGY

Mr. ASHE. You are asking the right question, as you usually do, 

but I do think I see the coordination. Three weeks ago, the Service 

in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the State Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, published a National Fish, Wildlife and 

Plant Climate Adaptation Strategy. When we started that endeavor 

several years ago, the states were insistent that we develop not a 

federal strategy but a national strategy that was done hand in 

glove with them, and I think that is exactly the reason for that 

strategy, to pull everybody together. 

Everybody has equity in the subject of climate change because it 

affects all of us. Today in the Albemarle Peninsula of North Carolina, we have 500,000 acres of refuge land. It is the only place in 

the wild where we have the endangered red wolf, endangered red 

cockaded woodpecker, and millions of migratory birds that depend 

on that as wintering habitat. Much of it is already below sea level, 

and in 50 to 100 years it is all going to be underwater. Right in 

the middle of that is something called the Dare County Bombing 

Range, which is a vital asset for the Department of Defense. Duke 

Energy sees that as important because is it all pocosin-based soil 

that is sequestering millions of metric tons of carbon. We have a 

partnership emerging between Duke Energy, the North Carolina 

Nature Conservancy, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of 

North Carolina and the Department of Defense to figure out how 

can we make an orderly transition in this ecosystem. We are all 

bringing assets to the table, and I think that if people are going 

to tackle this issue of climate change, that is what we have to do 

more of. We all have to bring some capacity to the table, but I realize what you are saying that we need to see more of that kind of 

cooperation and coordination, and you have to have some way to 

account for that. That is in fact why we are putting such a premium on the development of Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

network. We are bringing all these partners to the table and saying 

what do we need to know, what are the priority things that we 

need to know in these large landscapes and who has the capacity 

so that we are not just building stovepipes and going on our merry 

way. All of the sudden the Forest Service would say well, you know 

what, we can do that, we have got exactly the right person at one 

of our experimental forest stations or the NRCS or NOAA or the 

Fish and Wildlife Service can say, you know, we can bring that ca-
83

pacity, we do not have to go make it new, we already have it, and 

I think we are seeing that LCC network do the same thing for us 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Over the next decade, we are going to collectively put $10 billion or more of restoration funding into the Gulf 

of Mexico. How are we going to coordinate that? That is what we 

are trying to do. I think it is responsive to your concern, but you 

are asking exactly the right questions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate that, and I am certain that it is 

going on. I am just not smart enough to see it yet. If I get it explained to me enough times, I will. Other questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I just wanted to follow up on your comments about the budget and requirement authority, and it just 

stuck, one thing you said when you were assuring me that we are 

going to try. I wrote it down and put it in little quotes. I have 

heard this a few times. You know, being on this committee, it is 

budget time so all the different directors and secretaries are coming to the different committees that I sit on and talking about the 

budget. I am going to hold you to this expectation regardless of 

what the final budget looks like. So I can guarantee you—because 

last year the Democratic-controlled Senate did not pass the President’s budget. I am going to guarantee you, you are not going to 

get the President’s budget hook, line and sinker. I believe in compromise. I believe in governing. I think we are going to work something out. We are going to have a budget, right? But I can guarantee you it is not going to be line upon line anybody’s proposal 

and so irrespective of how that all comes out, I am still going to 

hold you to this. Because we have had some different secretaries 

say well, we will do all this if we get the budget we want. Nobody 

can say that in these times we will do this if we get our budget. 

It is the nature of compromise. 

Mr. ASHE. We are committed to making that work in the Pacific 

Northwest and we are going to do everything within our ability to 

make it work. I have two key field stations up there. I have the 

Portland Ecological Services Office and the Lacey, Washington office, and I would bet today we are carrying between 20 and 30 percent vacancies in those offices. I can only do what I can do, and 

if there is another sequester and I have to hold further vacancies, 

is that going to affect our ability to deliver? Absolutely, it will. But 

it is a priority, and we are going to continue to make it a priority. 

We are going to do everything possible to make it work. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Director Ashe. We appreciate you being 

here today and working with us and working with members of the 

subcommittee as we try to put together a budget for next year, and 

as I said in the beginning, we have no idea what it is going to look 

like. I am optimistically hopeful that the House and Senate can 

come to some resolution and get a budget out that will serve the 

needs of the American people. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113

(115)

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST

WITNESSES

TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE 

BARBARA COOPER, ACTING DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

BUDGET AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning, Chief Tidwell and Ms. Cooper, 

members of the subcommittee and those of you in the audience in 

attendance, I would like to start by again pointing out the beautiful 

pictures behind me of the Sawtooth National Forest and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in my district, while we all pause 

and take a look. These were taken by my good friend and a Forest 

Service employee, Ed Cannady. 

This past August, I had the pleasure of camping with the Chief 

in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area up in the 

Boulders in the White Clouds. While we were there, a fire ban was 

imposed, and I must let everyone know in the audience that even 

though this was the Chief of the Forest Service, he complied with 

the campfire ban, so we had no fires after the first night when the 

ban went into effect. Unfortunately, that meant that the mosquitoes had a good meal and we all went to bed relatively early, but 

it was a fun time and thanks for coming out, Chief. 

Chief, I normally try to start with something positive, but the 

President’s fiscal year 2014 budget for the Forest Service makes 

that a little difficult. I will say that new Restoration Partnership 

programs appears to be a positive step toward Forest Service working closely with municipalities and utilities to protect vital water 

infrastructure and utility corridors from catastrophic fire. I do believe this program should require a cost share and would like to 

work with you on this. 

Regarding the rest of the budget, one thing is clear: As the costs 

of the fires continue to grow, it consumes funding available to manage the national forests. Every time I am in Idaho, I hear from Forest Service supervisors, district rangers and other Forest Service 

employees that they cannot manage their forests with the shrinking amount of funding they receive. Their concerns are echoed 

throughout the West. The bipartisan Western Governors Association has written Secretary Vilsack pointing out that in the mid1980s, roughly 70 percent of the Forest Service funding was dedicated to managing the national forests. In 2010, that number was 

a pathetic 30 percent. Fire is devouring the Forest Service’s budget. 

Those of us on this subcommittee recognize the challenges you 

face. As you know, the House of Representatives included an addi-
116

tional $513 million in the second fiscal year 2013 Continuing Resolution to help pay for wildfire costs and reimburse the Forest Service for fire borrowing in fiscal year 2012. Unfortunately, our friends 

in the Senate stripped out this funding, leaving you with a hole to 

fill in fiscal year 2014. The Senate’s decision not to fund fires in 

the C.R. did not do you any favors, but this budget proposal does 

not seem to help matters either. 

I realize some of the budget decisions were not yours and are 

probably directed by OMB. In fact, I suspect a lot of those budget 

decisions are directed by OMB. I am guessing that is what explains 

these puzzling cuts. Generally, we know that projects reducing the 

threats of catastrophic fire also create jobs, generate revenue for 

the Treasury and reduce future fire suppression expenditures so I 

am extremely disheartened by the dramatic cuts in Hazardous 

Fuels funding and the targets associated with timber and hazardous fuels, and I am utterly baffled that while the Administration is cutting almost every item under the National Forest System, they have somehow found funding to increase research and 

land acquisition. These cuts have real consequences and they will 

be felt acutely in communities that depend on the public lands for 

their economic vitality and way of life. 

In many counties in my district and across the country, public 

lands make up the vast majority of the land base and is one of the 

only sources of income for residents. The budget justification makes 

a point of noting the economic values of the forests with the pie 

graph depicting the contributions to the Forest Service by program 

to jobs and gross domestic product. But then that same budget proposes to cut nearly all of those programs including recreation, livestock grazing, minerals and energy and forest products. Essentially, the Administration is cutting the programs that have the 

most positive impact on the economy. 

I understand that this is a challenging budgetary environment 

with difficult choices that must be made and that we must cut 

spending, and over the past 2 years this subcommittee has actually 

done that, but this budget, which sacrifices forest management for 

fire research and land acquisition, tells me the operation of the national forests is no longer a priority for the Forest Service. I have 

to disagree. To me, the management of the national forests should 

be the top priority of the Forest Service. 

I want to raise a couple of other issues regarding the budget. Let 

me start with IRR. Two years ago, we authorized a pilot for the Integrated Resource Restoration line item. The full-blown proposal is 

again in the budget. I have to be honest: Although I support the 

theory, I also have concerns. I so far have not been impressed with 

either the results of the IRR program or the difficulty our staff has 

had in getting timely and thorough reports from the agency. Unfortunately, the IRR now appears to be somewhat of a gimmick to 

hide additional cuts in the National Forest System and Hazardous 

Fuels.

Next, let me talk briefly about the grazing management. For the 

past 2 years, we have worked very hard to increase funding for 

grazing management for both the Forest Service and the Department of Interior to eliminate longstanding backlogs that is getting 

in the way of effective land management. I am dismayed that after 
117

all of that work, the budget proposes to reduce funding for grazing 

by a whopping 36 percent. The Forest Service only plans to complete NEPA on 50 grazing allotments for fiscal year 2014. How will 

the Forest Service catch up on permit backlogs, complete required 

NEPA work, respond to appeals and litigation, and do other muchneeded work? How will the Forest Service grazing staff complete 

the work needed on sage grouse consideration as we approach a 

listing decision in fiscal year 2015? 

Also, concerning the decision for minerals and geology, the dollars appropriated to this line item have the biggest financial return 

to the taxpayers of any of the Forest Service budget. In 2011 and 

2012, the receipts to the Treasury for this program were $647 million and $629 million, respectively. These receipts offset the national debt yet the budget proposes cutting the programs, which 

will likely reduce the revenue to the Treasury in the future. 

Finally, Chief, we continue to be very concerned about the future 

of the heavy air tanker fleet. I know you need to replace the current aging air tankers now. We expect that you will keep us updated and work with us on potential solutions to ensure we have 

sufficient and safe firefighting aircraft. I know that is not just my 

concern, it is your concern also, and something that we need to address.

This Committee had to make very difficult choices last year, and 

this year will be even more challenging. We do our best to be 

thoughtful with the funding allocations we have but we must focus 

on the highest priorities. Chief, I ask that you and all of the Forest 

Service employees work with me on ways to do more with less. 

Again, thanks for being here today and thanks for the job that 

you are doing. 

Mr. Moran. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you 

again, Chief. You and the other employees of Forest Service do 

carry out very important work in managing one of the great conservation systems of the United States. 

While the Forest Service is viewed as a multi-use agency, its 

foundation lies in its conservation heritage. In fact, our Nation’s 

first forest reserves were established to protect our national 

forestlands from the timber barons of the era to conserve the watersheds of many communities in the West. The first Chief of the 

Forest Service who, as you know, was Gifford Pinchot, remarked on 

his conservation legacy when he described the national forests, and 

here is the quote: ‘‘The purpose of conservation is to provide the 

greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time.’’ The 

work of Pinchot, who would later serve two terms as the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, and that of his good friend, the Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the efforts of Republican Congressman John Weeks, author of the Weeks Act, laid 

the foundation for our National Forest System. So I thought that 

was a point worth making. Gifford Pinchot was somebody that is 

really iconic in terms of preserving our national forests. 

Of course, when he created it, it was not without controversy. It 

was established in 1905 when the existing forest reserves were re-
118

moved from the Interior Department and placed in the Agriculture 

Department because it was thought then that the Interior Department was too cozy with the commercial interests. There is also a 

story about how in 1907 a rider was attached to an appropriations 

bill that would strip the President of the power to create forest reserves. Now, President Roosevelt believed he needed to sign the appropriations bill, but before he did, Chief Pinchot prepared and 

President Roosevelt signed proclamations establishing 17 new or 

combined forest reserves covering 60 million acres. So the President acted before the Congress could and of course we are really 

better off for it. 

Today we have nothing as exciting as that going on but the Forest Service still faces challenges in modernizing its forest management plans dealing with insects and fire and disease and maintaining its national leadership role in forestry management. So I especially appreciate the challenges the Forest Service faces in dealing 

with the sequester, and later I will ask the Chief more about the 

sequester’s impacts on the Forest Service. But this 2014 budget request for the Forest Service which we are going to be discussing 

today, is by no means extravagant. In fact, it only begins to partially reverse the downtown in funding. There has been $400 million in cuts since fiscal year 2010 that the agency has faced over 

the past several years and includes several proposed cuts that 

some of us on the subcommittee I suspect are going to take issue 

with.

So Chief Tidwell, I appreciate your taking the time to again sit 

down with the subcommittee and discuss the important work that 

the Forest Service does, and I know we all look forward to your testimony this morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thanks. Just as an aside, if you really want to 

learn about the early relationship between the Forest Service when 

they were getting established, Timothy Egan’s book, The Big Burn, 

about the 1910 fires that happened out West, had some really interesting history of the Forest Service at that time and the communities that it affected, and you are right, it was not easy. Not everybody got up and said yea, let’s have a Forest Service. 

Mr. MORAN. Not all the members of the Congress, probably the 

majority of the Congress was not all that helpful. But Teddy Roosevelt got it done. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHIEF TIDWELL

Mr. SIMPSON. Yeah. Chief Tidwell, again thanks for being here 

today. We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Once again, it is a privilege to be here to be able to 

discuss the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2014 for the 

Forest Service. 

Once again, I cannot express my appreciation for the work you 

do, the support that you provide us and especially the efforts to 

repay the funds we had to transfer last year to cover the costs of 

fire suppression, so thank you for that. 
119

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION

The President’s budget request reflects our commitment to a 

strategic investment that we believe is needed to help grow the 

economy, especially in rural America. It makes some really tough 

tradeoffs between programs. We feel that overall this is a good mix. 

The other thing is, it helps us to really focus on being able to support the 450,000 jobs that come from activities on the national forests and grasslands. 

RESTORATION

The reason I think this is a good investment is based on three 

key objectives. The first one is that this budget request will help 

us to be able to get back on track with our restoration strategy to 

restore the resiliency of our national forests, and with that, we recognize there are 65 to 83 million acres that need some form of restoration including over 12 million that will require some form of 

mechanical timber harvest to be able to restore these forests. We 

are going to do that by our request to continue full funding for the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We also want 

to request permanent authorization for stewardship contracting, 

which has proven to be a very successful tool to help provide certainty so that private corporations can make the investments to be 

able to maintain the wood products industry. 

We also want to continue our use of looking at landscape-scale 

EISs where we are now doing analysis for hundreds of thousands 

of acres with one EIS that allows us then to have the NEPA analysis completed so we can go forward and do the work we need to 

do on these large landscapes for a period up to 10 years without 

any additional analysis. Part of that comes from our collaborative 

efforts, and we have a couple of them there in Idaho that you are 

familiar with that are really making a difference to bring people together so that we are able to move forward to get more work done 

with more support than we have had throughout the entire length 

of my 35-year career. 

RESEARCH

We also have a request for additional research funding, and I 

know that is a tough ask in a budget climate like this but it is essential that we maintain our research programs and especially our 

Green Building Initiative, our Wood Energy program and also our 

Nanotechnology. These are the programs that we focus on to expand the current markets for timber and biomass and also to create new markets so that the removal of this biomass that needs to 

occur on our national forests is economically viable so that we continue to be able to do the work that is essential. 

FIRE

Now, the second part of our budget, the key objective is of course 

fire. This request does provide for a level of preparedness that will 

continue our success at 98 percent of suppressing wildland fires 

during initial attack. It also requests a 10-year average for suppression, which includes an increase of $138 million more in suppression from where we were in fiscal year 2012. $138 million has 
120

to come out of our other programs. The budget also will continue 

our efforts to reduce the threat of wildfire to homes and communities by reducing hazardous fuels on 685,000 acres of the highest 

priority acres that we have, which is going to be focused on the 

wildland-urban interface. Over 32 percent of the housing units in 

America are in the wildland-urban interface, and that is not all on 

national forests but we have 65 million acres of wildland-urban 

interface on our national forests today, and that is why we are 

going to focus our hazardous fuels work in those areas. It also requests an additional $50 million to help modernize our large air 

tanker fleet. 

COMMUNITIES

The next objective is our focus to help Americans reconnect to 

the outdoors and provide more economic opportunities, and we are 

going to do that through maintaining our recreation facilities, increasing opportunities for the 166 million people that visit the national forests every year, and that support over 200,000 jobs. We 

also want to expand our Youth Employment programs. We feel it 

is essential to use our limited funding to be able to work with partners to be able to expand more opportunities for our youth to be 

out in the woods doing good work but also learning about the importance of conservation. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The budget request does ask for a small increase in LWCF fund- ing. For acquisition, it is a little over $5 million. In legacy, it is 

about 6 million. This is to respond to what we hear from our public 

about the need to acquire these key parcels of land, relatively small 

acres, that provide recreational access and also allows us to reduce 

our administrative costs because it eliminates the costs we have to 

deal with boundaries. It also facilitates the work that needs to be 

done restoring these forests. If we can eliminate many of these 

small inholdings, it allows us to be able to do more work across a 

larger landscape without having to then be able to make sure we 

stop the project at this boundary that is often around 40 or maybe 

a 400-acre parcel. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

We also do have a request in our budget to reauthorize Secure 

Rural Schools, and we think it is essential, especially in the economic climate that we are in. We need to be able to continue to 

provide that bridge to provide the support for our counties. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES

The other thing I want to stress with our budget is that we are 

going to continue our focus on operational efficiencies, so between 

fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, we are going to reduce our 

overhead costs by $100 million, and I can tell you that we have already made good progress on reaching that goal. 

We are also going to continue our efficiencies like with NEPA 

and sale preparation for timber sales. Since 1998, the funding for 

these types of programs has been reduced by $185 million when it 
121

has been adjusted for inflation. Staffing has been reduced by 49 

percent. But during the same time, we have actually reduced our 

costs to be able to do the NEPA analysis, the sale prep for timber 

sales by 23 percent. 

The other thing I want to stress is with fire suppression. We will 

respond to fires when we need to, but I also want you to know that 

we are working very hard to use the science we have, the expertise, 

the technology we have today to identify those times when our actions will be ineffective and unnecessary, and by doing that last 

year with that record fire season, we can show you that we reduced 

costs by about $377 million because of the techniques that we are 

using today versus what we were doing even 5 years ago. 

So our overall goal is to continue to work with our communities 

to be able to manage the national forests the way they want their 

national forests managed, and we need to have healthy landscapes 

but we also need to have healthy communities. We need to have 

vibrant economic activities that are occurring to continue to be able 

to support these 450,000 jobs, especially in rural America. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The statement of Tom Tidwell follows:] 
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chief, and I agree with an awful lot 

of what you said. It is surprising to me that we are somehow in 

this fix where I do not know of anybody in Congress that does not 

support stewardship contracting. It has been a great program in 

managing some forests and so forth, but we seem to have this problem with the Budget Committee and the rules that we create that 

make it hard to reauthorize it, and you cannot do it for a single 

year because contracts extend beyond that, and so consequently we 

are assessed the costs for multiple years in one year, and when you 

have got reducing budgets, that is pretty hard to accept. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

Let me ask you, you are proposing the reauthorization of Secure 

Rural Schools for, what a 5-year period? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How are we going to fund that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We recognize there needs to be mandatory funding 

so it is just part of the overall federal budget with an understanding that the receipts that come off the national forests need 

to be part of that. It is one of the ways that we do not manage the 

national forests to generate revenue but there is no question, if we 

can move forward with accelerating restoration, then it is going to 

create not only more jobs but it is going to create more revenues. 

Because you have got to remember, right now—last year our base 

rates, our stumpage value was about the same as it was in 1973. 

There is just—I think any time you have a program like Secure 

Rural Schools, it is based on just pure revenues, you are going to 

hit times like we are in right now when there is not a lot of revenue being created. There is not a lot of market for saw timber. 

Luckily, that is starting to turn around. But that is how we are 

planning to fund it—it is just part of the mandatory budget. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is going to be difficult in that—not difficult, but 

it is an issue that we reauthorize it for 5 years. That is kind of 

Craig Widen started to start with was that they established it for 

a certain period of time to allow these communities to transition 

to something else. Well, it is 94 percent federal land. There is not 

a lot to transition to. And consequently, we are still in this mix and 

somehow we have got to find a way to fund this that is ongoing 

instead of just for a 5-year period. But I appreciate you suggesting 

that we reauthorize that for a 5-year period in your budget. 

FIRE

Let me ask you just in general, as I said in my opening statement, I am becoming more and more concerned that more and 

more of the Forest Service budget is being used to fight fires and 

less and less to be used to manage forests. As a general overview 

of this budget, as you know—I am not telling you anything you do 

not know—when you exceed the fire costs that we have appropriated on a 10-year average because when we have a high fire 

year, you have to strip funds out of the other budgets, the other 

operating budgets within your department, which reduces them. It 

seems to me that in this budget proposal, what we have done is 
135

anticipated that beforehand, put a lot more money into firefighting 

and stripped that money out of those operating budgets to start 

with. That concerns me because the operating budgets, which we 

try to fund in our appropriations bill, are what keeps the Forest 

Service going. Is that an accurate assessment of what we have 

done?

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How do we get ahead of this fire issue? You are 

essentially the Fire Service now instead of the Forest Service, becoming that more and more. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Our fire program is very important not only for the 

ecological benefits but also we need to respond. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me ask you as part of that question, OMB 

told the staff when they were in discussions with them that hazardous fuels reduction, they cannot see any results or an imperative results on doing fuels reduction. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. No. In fact, since 2006 we have done over 2,000 

case studies on individual fires, and out of those, 94 percent 

showed that our fuel treatments have been effective to reduce the 

fire behavior, reduce the impacts, and reduce the costs of that fire. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Good. Has OMB ever seen any of those studies? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, OMB has never shared their concerns with me on this. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Well, we will make sure that they get the 

information because apparently they are operating on a different 

wavelength than we are. 

AIRTANKERS

Along those same lines, air tankers is a huge issue and getting 

the resources necessary with Forest Service. What are we doing 

about air tankers? I know you got $50 million in here for tanker 

support or whatever. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is to recognize the increased costs with moving 

forward to modernize our air fleet, and even with the legacy contracts that we just issued, the costs for those eight older planes 

have gone up. We anticipate when we release or award the contract 

for the next-generation aircraft, we should be able to do that in the 

next few weeks. We realize the costs of those modern, faster aircraft is going to be more. 

The other part of the $50 million is to be able to use some of that 

to basically do modification of our Modular Airborne Firefighting 

System (MAFFS) units that we use with the military aircraft so 

that we can get more retardant in a better unit and then also to 

have a unit that would be flexible to be able to use in the C–27s 

if those become available from the Air Force. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I will yield to Mr. Moran. 

SEQUESTER IMPACTS

Mr. MORAN. I share your concerns, Mr. Chairman, for what it is 

worth.
136

Let me start out by the way we started out with our other witnesses. We asked Jon Jarvis and then the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Director Dan Ashe what the impacts of the sequester is having on 

their agencies. I think it is only fair to ask you, Chief, how the sequester is impacting Forest Service operations. How many permanent positions are being left unfilled? How many fewer seasonal 

workers will be hired this year, for example? What is the impact? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congressman, I first of all want to just stress that 

sequester does not have an impact on the Forest Service. It has an 

impact on the communities, the people that rely on these places, 

where they recreate. We will reduce staff. We have reduced staff, 

and for instance, with firefighters, we are going to hire 500 less 

firefighters this year than what we normally bring on. 

Mr. MORAN. Five hundred fewer firefighters. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will have probably 50 to 70 less fire engines, 

and at least at the start of the year, probably a couple less aircraft. 

We also need to close or at least shorten the season on over 600 

recreational facilities. 

Mr. MORAN. I just want to repeat these. We are going to be having this debate for some time pretty intensely. It is obviously on 

this broader context on the Floor today. So you are going to shorten 

600?

Mr. TIDWELL. We are going to either close or shorten the season 

on over 600 of our recreation facilities, and that is out of the 19,000 

that is we manage. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Can I say something? 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because I have the same concerns that Jim does. 

What does that mean on the ground? What does that mean to forest restoration and those types of things? What will not get done 

that we would be doing normally if sequestration was not in effect? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With our forest restoration, we are going to have 

less crews out there to be able to prep the sales of projects for next 

year and so we recognize there may be an impact on this year’s 

programs so we adjusted our expectations of how much work will 

get done. It is going to reduce the work we will do on about 200,000 

acres. It will also impact next year because the way we do our sale 

preparation, we do the planning, we do a lot of prep this year, and 

then those are the projects we implement the following year. So I 

am optimistic our folks are going to continue to find more efficiencies and do everything they can to do the work this year but 

there are going to be impacts this year and they are going to go 

into next year. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, now, those of us on the left side of the panel 

here tend to have fewer national forests in our district, I think it 

is fair to say, than on the right side. The majority tends to represent somewhat more rural areas generally. But, that is not to 

suggest that we are not very supportive of the Forest Service, and 

even if we do not have forests in our district, it still is a great asset 

to our constituents. 

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

But with regard to this perception, which is an accurate one, that 

much of the Forestry Service is focused on western states, we do 
137

have an Urban and Community Forestry program, and yet when 

that suffers a $6 million cut, that is a big deal versus some of the 

larger programs. Eighty-three percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas with urban trees and community forests that are nevertheless very important to their environmental and social fabric. 

So, it is troubling to see. Even though it is a small amount of 

money, it is a big deal for a program we have been trying to nurture and get started so people in the East can appreciate some of 

the wonderful assets that are more easily accessible to folks in the 

western states. Can you address why we had to take such a deep 

cut in urban and community forestry? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Congressman, I think Mr. Chairman ran through 

the whole list of reductions in the majority of our programs, and 

part of that is driven, a majority of it is driven by the need to meet 

our agreement on the 10-year average, put more funding into fire 

suppression and then also the additional money that we need for 

air tankers. These are hard, difficult choices. At the same time, we 

are expanding our partnerships, especially in the urban and community forestry program, to be able to find more people that want 

to be part of that and bring their time, their resources, their financial resources into those programs. They are essential, and I can 

make a strong argument that we need to put a lot more funding 

in that program but I can also do it with every program that we 

have. They are just hard, tough choices that we have to make in 

this economic time. 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION

Mr. MORAN. One program that I think we have got particularly 

broad bipartisan support for is this Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration program. It really seems to be working. It is maximizing our resources, bringing in partners’ resources. You have 

been funding 20 projects, but I understand that you could do a 

whole lot more if you had any more to work with, and you have 

got an authorization cap apparently. You did fund three additional 

projects out of regular Forest Service appropriations but how much 

more could you do if you had the resources for a program that is 

really working well? 

Mr. TIDWELL. There is definitely more interest. You already identified those three additional projects that we are trying to move forward with under a similar scenario but we just do not have the 

same authorities. So I would be interested in working with you to 

be able to expand that authority so that we are not limited by just 

the number of 20 of those projects. 

STATE AND PRIVATE REDESIGN

Mr. MORAN. Okay. The last thing I wanted to ask, you suggest 

you want to redesign the State and Private Forestry program. How 

are you going to do that with fewer funds? I mean, you have got 

less money to work with than you did in fiscal year 2012, so how 

are you going to redesign it? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are going to continue the work we have been 

doing, and we have our proposal to basically take a portion of the 

funds and put it into one fund, similar to the IRR concept, so that 

the state foresters then have a pool of these mixed funds so that 
138

when they look at the work they need to do in their states, they 

do not have to be lining up to do this acre of forest health, this acre 

of stewardship, but be able to work with a broad group of landowners to be able to address all the programs. We would like to 

have that authority so we can move forward, work with our state 

foresters and then once again set up a system so that we can track 

the results of that and be able to share those with you. We feel this 

is a better way to be able to increase the efficiency of their state 

programs, just like we are doing with our National Forest System 

programs.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Calvert. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I find it hard to believe that OMB 

would actually say that the Hazardous Fuel Reduction program is 

not working. From my own experience in the San Bernardino National Forest, Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear and the rest, I mean, 

it basically saved those communities if it were not for that program. I just wanted to make that comment. 

But also as a comment, over the years serving both on the Resources Committee and this Committee, I think there is somewhat 

of a recognition that maybe we went too far on the reduction of 

timber harvesting in the West, and that timber harvesting had a 

place in replacing what God would have normally done and is 

doing now in reducing the amount of forested acres in the United 

States because we are just basically overgrown the forest, and 

those of us who live in the West, you look at old photographs from 

well over 100 years ago at national forest growth versus what we 

had, we are doing a great job of putting out fires, as you point out, 

and because of that job, we have overgrown those forests, and then 

when we do get a fire, it is devastating, and we just basically sterilize the earth, as you know, and it is very difficult at that point 

to restore that forest to where it should be. But that is where we 

are at today, and I think you are going to find it is going to be very 

difficult to go into Oregon and Washington State, probably Idaho 

and California, because most of those are gone. They are out of 

business. People who worked in those mills dispersed and are doing 

something else. And we bring more and more of our timber products in from Canada and other places, and that is too bad because 

that was revenue that was coming into the forestry that we used 

for restoration programs. I know it was somewhat controversial but 

I think hindsight being 20/20, that we overreacted, and that is just 

a point I want to make. 

AIRTANKERS

But now we are here and now we have these fires, and we need 

tankers and we need to spend money to fight these fires. I am 

hopeful. I am working on the C–27 with Mr. McCain to get those 

planes transferred over. These are newer aircraft, smaller than the 

C–130 but they are very capable. But beyond that, there is new 

technologies out there called PCAD technology. I do not know if 

you are familiar with that. That is utilizing containers that can be 

filled up with chemical resources and dropped out of any kind of 
139

aircraft and inventory for the United States Air Force or Army or 

whatever including large aircraft like the C–130 but also C–17s, 

and anything you can have a roll-off on, and you can attach a GPS 

device to them, you can use it at higher altitudes where it is a 

safer environment to fly in. As you know, it is very hazardous flying conditions sometimes going into these fires, smoke and air 

drafts, the rest, and I think you should take a serious look at that. 

Spending $50 million modernizing a fleet of old airplanes which 

you may get marginal utilization out of over time versus having 

some kind of an agreement with the military to use that aircraft 

may be a better way to go. I do not know if you ever looked into 

this technology. It seems to me, it is becoming very mature and capable technology. Have you ever seen it? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I have not, but I will talk to my staff about it, and 

I can tell you, if there is a better way, another tool that we can 

use to address fire suppression, we are very interested in doing 

that.

Mr. CALVERT. It would seem to me it would give you a lot more 

flexibility because right now, how many aircraft do you have right 

now?

Mr. TIDWELL. This year between the military and contracted aircraft, we will probably be using about 24, 25, large air tankers. 

Mr. CALVERT. And see, the problem with the military, as you 

know, they have to outfit these C–130s for that purpose. So they 

sit on the tarmac for 9 months out of the year, 8 months out of the 

year, so we are not utilizing an expensive piece of equipment, 

whereas if this PCAD technology works as they say it will work, 

you are using an existing aircraft so any aircraft within the inventory, as long as it has roll-off capability—of course, the C–27 has 

roll-off capability, the C–130 has roll-off capability, the C–17s have 

roll-off capability, that you can take that aircraft and use it, and 

we have those throughout the United States. A C–17 can carry one 

heck of a lot of chemicals or water or whatever we are going to use. 

So I would encourage you to look at that because I think that is 

a realistic way of doing it. I think it saves money at the same time. 

I am not sure of that, but it would certainly be worth looking into. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Mr. TIDWELL. We will look into that just like we are always trying to improve our effectiveness and the safety of the pilots at the 

same time, so we will look into that. 

I did want to just go back to your comment about the effectiveness of our fuel treatments. We have thousands of assessments 

that show they are effective. I think maybe the concern might be 

from OMB is economically is it the right thing to do. That is a little 

different question, but we are actually moving forward with it and 

additional research to be able to do that level of analysis too because we have been focused on, is this the right place, the right 

type of treatment to be able to stop the fire. That has been our 

focus.

Mr. CALVERT. In some of these areas that you had to go into now, 

there are no roads and so you are using helicopters. They are an 

expensive way to get fuel modification. And then because we let it 

go so long that you have got the bark beetle so much of that wood 
140

has no economic value so it becomes a cost of disposal rather than 

a sale opportunity. We have got too many trees and not enough 

water. It is putting the trees under a lot of stress. You are the expert, but I have other experts that tell me that is the case, and 

that is going on all over the West. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are in agreement that we need to be doing 

more work. That is why we put out our strategy last year and recognized they are 65 to 83 million acres that we need to do some 

restoration work on, so we are in agreement without any question 

that we need to get more work done out there to reduce the hazard 

but also to restore these forests. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

TRIBES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was interesting that 

you had mentioned about moving a lot of what Forestry does into 

the Agriculture Committee to protect it. I live in St. Paul. I am four 

blocks from J.J. Hill’s mansion, and we just finished up 2 days of 

testimony, public testimony from our brothers and sisters in Indian 

Country, and the Nelson Act, which is something that we just kind 

of finished distribution of funding for last Congress and we all 

voted on it, was enacted in 1889 and it became United States federal law and it was intended to relocate the Anishinaabe people— 

Ojibwe, Chippewa, they are known by many times but their preferred name is Anishinaabe—in Minnesota to the White Earth reservation so that their land could be up for sale and for allotment, 

and it was not necessarily for farming, it was for timber, and it created this whole patchwork of individual—they gave title to individual Native Americans. They did not want that. They did not 

want to have individual title, they wanted to keep their lands in 

whole but people knew that if it was individual they could try to 

pick people off one at a time to sell, especially when the United 

States government was slow in getting its food and its promised 

medicine and help to the Ojibwe people in Minnesota. And so that 

is why we have such checkerboard reservations. 

And Mr. Chair, the treasurer of Red Lake was here, one of two 

closed reservations in the United States. They refused to sign to 

allow for the land allotment, and Darrell shared with me yesterday. I said, well, just kind of tell me from your perspective why 

your people were so successful in doing that, and he said, Betty, 

he said, our community elders, our chief had a hatchet and he always kept it on the table and he said any hands that start picking 

up pens and start signing for an allotment, and he demonstrated 

that they would lose their hand. And that is why Red Lake is intact. So all things go around, and in this Committee, they all come 

in together. 

AIRTANKERS

I want to follow up on part of the discussion that we have had 

about doing the work on military aircraft. I have had conversations 

with our National Guard, and our National Guard is on the ready. 

They are involved in working with the Forest Service when appropriate. So what about some of this equipment that we are talking 
141

about, you know, buying surplus from the Army, transferring over 

to you folks, what if the National Guard was outfitted, given opportunities to work with the Forest Service but they retain the asset 

and then the asset is fitted as needed. Then they are doing the 

flight hours, they are doing the mechanical repairs on it, they are 

close by. You have more planes in different places but you work to 

coordinate them. So there are several of us, as we found out the 

past 2 days, that are both on the Defense Committee and on this 

Committee, and I think to look at another tool in the toolbox as to 

where the National Guard can be part of a role in firefighting because they are called up at times to do it, and they are looking at 

having some of these assets that well might work, and it looks like 

the gentleman from California—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. The Guard has a lot of C–130s. They can practically park one in every garage, they have so many of them around 

the country, that this technology, without having to fix the airplane 

for that permanent use because a lot of these C–130s, for instance, 

we have parked in Oxnard is only for that purpose, and that seems 

silly to me when the Guard can be using these not only for fighting 

fires but for whatever else they are doing, and that is a great idea, 

and the Guard should be a big part of this. 

TRIBES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. The problem I see is, we do not talk to each 

other. As Members of Congress, sometimes, you know, we really do 

not sit down and discuss things and talk to each other, but as federal agencies, as we found out with sequestration, not caring for 

the health care of Native Americans and Native American schoolchildren, we do not talk to each other very well. So we need to 

come up with better plans to do that. So I think there is a group 

of us who would be interested in talking to the Forest Service and 

figuring how we sit around the table and talk about these issues. 

INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY

The two points that I would like to bring up, and you have heard 

me talk about this before, and I think, you know, Congress has 

shown its commitment to the International Forestry Program. Reduced funding is now at $4 million and sometimes you cut something and you make it ineffective, and the way that this program 

leverages dollars through USAID, State relies on it to go in and 

help through soft power in places that cannot do it the way that 

we do that, to protect migration of species, just a lot of things, watersheds, and indigenous people in other parts of the world benefit 

from our past mistakes how we treated our first Americans in negotiating trade agreements and making sure there are protections 

there. So I would like you to comment, are we cutting this to the 

point where it is not going to be as effective? What do we get for 

$4 million for State Department, non-governmental organizations 

with what is going on currently with poaching around the world, 

poaching that appears it is not an inside criminal activity, it is an 

international criminal activity, and I know you brought this up in 

the Defense hearing—I was not there but my staff told me—where 
142

it is being used to find terroristic activities. So that is one thing 

I would like you to touch on. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

And then I would like to kind of circle back to the urban forestry. 

I do not have a national forest in my district but I will tell you, 

the critters do not know the boundary, whether it is an international forest or an urban forest. So if you could elaborate more 

about what you are doing about invasive species, whether it be emerald ash borer or gypsy moth or whatever, to work in conjunction, 

to make sure that you have all the tools in your toolbox, and there 

again, part of that is working with Ag. Your budget, like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you have got a two-step dance you need to 

do, and if we are not moving both feet where they are supposed to 

be at the right time and the right direction, we are going to trip 

over and it is not going to work successfully. 

The President cut the Healthy Management program, which 

works on these invasive species. The cuts to urban communities 

who sometimes are some of the watchdogs about what is going on, 

what are we doing with that? 

And then Mr. Chair, if I was to have another chance if we go 

around before there are votes, we heard many of our tribal leaders 

talk to us about tribal climate change, and I would be interested 

in your role in that. 

INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY

Mr. TIDWELL. First of all, with our International Programs, you 

know how successful those have been and the work that we do also 

has the direct benefit to this country as far as dealing with illegal 

logging, dealing with the impact of migratory species that have 

made a huge difference in our programs directly here plus helping 

other countries develop sustainable forestry and programs in various countries. It is a significant reduction, and it will force us to 

set just the minimum number of priorities in places that we can 

work, but I can tell you, it is an essential program for us to maintain. I wish I could find a better way to quantify the benefits of 

this program, and that is something I will continue to look to do 

to be able to find some ways to provide the benefits and economic 

hard data that would help folks to understand just how important 

this is. And then also the work that we do with the State Department, and we have excellent results, but the thing is, this is a 

tough budget climate, and once again, I cannot stress enough that 

having to respond to emergency fire situations in a constrained 

budget, it has impacts on all of our programs, and to maintain our 

commitment to the 10-year average, that money has to come from 

other programs, and so this is just another example. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

On urban forestry, I especially wanted to talk about the 

invasives part of it. A lot of our problems, the invasives, they come 

up on the national forest, they start in the urban communities. 

They come through our ports. And by doing a better job with urban 

community forestry, we not only can benefit the cities but we can 
143

also do a better job to stop those invasives before they get up onto 

the national forests. And so that is a key part of our Urban and 

Community Forestry program, and yes, we do have a reduction and 

request from past years, but I want to point out that it is an increase over what we are receiving this year, and I think that is essential for us to be able to move forward with that. I think you are 

very familiar with emerald ash borer, that it is a species that if we 

do not continue our research and our work together with APHIS 

to be able to first of all detect that and be able to take steps and 

then continuing our research on a parasitic wasp that we are hoping will be the biological control, without that research, we will no 

longer have ash trees in the eastern United States. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And Minnesota is not the eastern United States. 

We found out through mapping that they come in, that the emerald 

ash borer hitched rides on the railroad, because wherever there is 

a railroad stop now that they have been able to do the mapping, 

that is where you see the outbreaks. So now we kind of know 

where to look for it to stop it and do it, but I do not want to lose 

the ability working with USGS, Forest Service, and everyone else 

to do that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Actually as always, it is very interesting to me these things, coming from the Bronx, all these subjects, and in my frustrated attempt a long time ago at being a 

stand-up comic, I am wondering if there is a meeting in the forest 

right now with critters talking about how we infringe on their territory over time. 

URBAN WATERS FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP

But we thank you for your service, and I want to ask you a question about the Urban Waters Federal Partnership. As you mentioned in your written statement, your agency is taking part in the 

Urban Waters Federal Partnership, which then-Secretary Salazar 

kicked off in my district along the Harlem River in the Bronx. We 

spent years cleaning and restoring the Bronx River in a collaborative and community-oriented fashion. This federal partnership 

was designed to build on this model and bring the sort of success 

that we have had to other urban waterways. I am particularly interested in hearing what the Forest Service has done in support of 

this great initiative and what you plan to do in the coming year. 

Please tell us about the successes you have had and the challenges 

that you face. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The Urban Waters program was an initiative to 

bring all the federal agencies together that have different resources 

and knowledge to be able to address issues with water quality, especially in our urban settings. We have the lead on two of these 

projects around the country. The Department of Interior has the 

lead on, I think, the rest of them. What we bring to the table was 

not an additional request for funding. It was to be able to use our 

existing resources but do it in a way that we could increase our effectiveness because we are all working together. The programs that 

we bring to it are the science that we have about forest health, the 

importance of being able to demonstrate maintaining forest environments in our communities. Forests help cleanse that water be-
144

fore it makes it into the river. So those are the things that we are 

helping to work with the communities to be able to show hard economic data that you can save money by planting trees in your city. 

Not only do you reduce energy consumption but you can also reduce stormwater runoff and reduce the infrastructure costs of 

stormwater by planting more trees. So this is the thing that we 

bring. We bring the science and our research and the importance 

about urban forestry as our level of science and expertise, and what 

we are doing not only in your community but also in Baltimore and 

then outside of Denver, we are making a difference by just increasing the ability to work together. 

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you a question. It seems to me over 

the years I have been in public office that I have seen a change, 

a dramatic change in the Bronx, in New York City, is that 

unique—I cannot believe it is—or is there more of a desire nationwide for folks who live in urban areas to do more about the waterways, to be more closer to them, to plant more trees? I mean, New 

York City did a great job of planting trees just about everywhere, 

and there seems to be more activism that I have seen ever before 

in the last, I would say 10 years. Is that true everywhere? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I believe it is true not only in our urban areas but 

also our rural areas, that there is a greater recognition about the 

importance of forests, the importance of green spaces, and what 

that means not only to our quality of life but to the clean air and 

clean water, and I think you see it in your city. We have been 

proud to be part of the effort there with the million trees planting. 

In fact, I was just up in New York City a couple weeks ago and 

toured some of the areas where we have been working together, not 

only to expand using the right trees but also a great jobs program 

there where we are taking youth right there from the inner city, 

teaching them how to care for these trees, because urban trees do 

need maintenance, they need care, and because of that, these folks 

have been able to move on and be able to get jobs in this field. 

Mr. SERRANO. And one thing I noticed too, Mr. Chairman, and 

this could get me in trouble for saying it out loud, that you are always asking folks in certain communities to take care of certain 

things but there seems to be an understanding about trees. People 

seem to want to take care of them once they are planted in the city. 

I think some of it, interestingly enough, has to do with so many 

of the immigrants coming into the country now who come not from 

urban areas but come from rural areas back home, and so they had 

water near them, they had trees near them, and now they come 

and they are planting those trees and they take care of them, and 

I commend you for the work you are doing, and I hope we can do 

more.

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me just ask one quick question. What is the 

status of the Urban Fuel Station in New York City? The Urban 

Fuel Station enables science about trees and urban forests to improve people’s lives in my district and those like it around the Nation. What does the proposed budget for the Forest Service include 

for urban forestry science research? Does the proposed budget sus-
145

tain the current emphasis of the fuel station and its work? I know 

you have partly answered some of those questions but I just want 

to get you on the record. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will have reductions overall in that program 

but we will maintain that station. I was so impressed with the 

work not only that the foresters are doing but also our social scientists are doing to really make a difference there by working with 

that great city. So you have my guarantee, we are going to continue that effort. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. One last personal question. If I get a palm 

tree from Puerto Rico, my other district, and bring it to the Bronx, 

do we have to protect it in a special way? And I am serious about 

this. In the winter, will it die eventually? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. An invasive species, really? 

Mr. SERRANO. A palm tree? 

Mr. SIMPSON. There are not a lot of palm trees in Idaho so I 

would suspect it is going to die. 

Mr. MORAN. I would not worry about it being an invasive species 

because it will be dead as a doornail in the winter. 

Mr. SERRANO. But in Virginia Beach they have some and they 

cover them up and they survive the winter. 

Mr. MORAN. The Bronx is not Virginia Beach, I do not think. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. You could put one in your apartment. 

Mr. SERRANO. I know you guys do not take me seriously, but 

some day I will invite you to the palm trees in the Bronx. I cleaned 

up a river and you did not think—— 

Mr. MORAN. But they never change because they are plastic. 

Mr. SERRANO. No, they are not. 

Mr. MORAN. I have seen those palm trees in the Bronx. 

Mr. SERRANO. Do not listen to him. Unlike me, he has never had 

any success in stand-up comedy, which is evident today. But anyway, can some trees survive in urban environments? 

Mr. TIDWELL. They can with extra care, but I would probably encourage you to look at more of the native species. That would work 

out better. 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. We will call it the Big Mango and not 

the Big Apple from now on. Thank you so much. 

COLLABORATION WITH STATES

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Let me ask you, Chief, recently the Western 

Governors wrote Secretary Vilsack stating their frustration with 

the Forest Service regarding reducing fire threats and improving 

forest health. They recommended that the Forest Service work with 

them on ways the agency can become more efficient and rely on the 

private sector to accomplish forest health goals. I think they recognize that a vast amount of the work that needs to be done cannot 

be accomplished through the current Forest Service process, and 

the reason I ask this, Governor Otter was here and testified about, 

is there some way to use the states and their abilities, because they 

have forestland also, and we have state foresters and they have 

about 400 land managers that work on Idaho lands and they drive 

through Forest Service land to get to the state land and stuff. Is 

there some way or can we improve the relationship with those 
146

states that wish to participate in helping manage Forest Service 

lands to allow them to do some of this? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We work closely with all the States. One authority 

that we have had in Utah and Colorado, the Good Neighbor authority, is something that I think would have some benefit to be able 

to use that. It would allow us to have when we have a project that 

is on both national forest and state lands, especially when they are 

adjacent, we can do it under one contract and the state can actually then administer that contract. That is one way that if we had 

that authority that we could make some better use of the resources 

that they have and be able to just work across these larger landscapes. You know, that is one thing that definitely would be helpful.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, it is strange that, you know, whether it is forest health or forest fires or whatever, they do not seem to recognize 

that boundary between state land and federal land for some reason. I just do not understand that. It would be nice to be able to 

manage these altogether. And like I say, there is great resources 

out in the state. Now, there are some people who want—I think 

Idaho passed a resolution last year to send to Congress to transfer 

all of the federal lands in Idaho over to the state. I do not see that 

happening real soon, if at all. It is not something that I would actually support. But with the management and using the states to 

help manage, I think we could stretch scarce resources further 

using them. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is why the Good Neighbor authority is one 

tool that we would like to be able to have to be able to expand that 

and use it in more states instead of just Utah and Colorado. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I would like to see some proposals on how 

you respond to the Western Governors’ letter and if there are ideas 

out there about how to do some of these things. Some people think 

that if the states took over the management of the forests, all of 

a sudden they would not have to do NEPA and that kind of stuff. 

That is not the case. I am just saying that we could use resources 

that are out there that they are currently managing adjacent lands 

to do a better job. 

GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Another question. I am concerned, as I said in my opening statement, about the 36 percent cut in the grazing program. The Forest 

Service will only be able to complete NEPA on about 50 allotments. 

As you know, we have a real problem in the West in that there are 

groups that want essentially to get cows off public lands altogether 

and they are going to sue just about everything, and it seems like 

reducing by a third the amount of money we are putting in to renewing these grazing permits, we are going to open ourselves up 

to more lawsuits, not fewer. Do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It is essential that we complete the analysis on the 

allotments to be able to understand the mitigation, the actions we 

need to take to maintain those grazing operations and restore those 

systems too. But once again, making tough choices. The money in 

our budget, we are going to focus more on the administration and 

monitoring, which I think is the most important work. It will slow 

down the number of allotments we complete NEPA on and we are 
147

going to have to come back and request a readjustment on the rescission schedule again. We do have a proposal, a legislative proposal, that by charging an extra dollar per head month, that those 

funds then would be available for us for administration but also to 

be able to move forward and get some additional NEPA done. I 

know that is another burden on the livestock industry and I know 

that is a tough thing on them, but it is one of the things that we 

have looked at. We have kept our grazing fees at the minimum 

level now for quite a few years but it is just one option to look at 

how to be able to get some additional resources. 

FIRE

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that, and I will tell you and I will tell 

the rest of the members of this Committee, what is going to be fascinating to watch is, we see the allotted forest fire cuts this year 

and they end up having to transfer funds out of their operational 

budgets. We will probably do a supplemental as we have done in 

the past. But unlike with major disasters like Hurricane Sandy, we 

did $60 billion there in appropriations, did not offset it. I am one 

who does not believe we have to offset emergencies. They are by 

definition an emergency. And you watch, they will come down with 

a supplemental for $500 million for additional forest firefighting 

costs, someone will say where is your offset, and we will be required to offset it, and what that generally means is that we have 

to go in and cut the Forest Service’s budget in other areas to offset 

those funds and stuff. So it is something that we need to address. 

Either emergencies need to be offset or not offset, one of the two. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I agree. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Anyway, Jim? 

Mr. MORAN. I think you have unanimous consent here to try to 

stop that offset and to fully pay for emergencies, but the problem 

is further compounded by the fact that what they are going to offset are the very programs that are designed to prevent the fires in 

the first place. Many of us, and I think Betty is going to address 

this issue of climate change, but we know that a lot of these forest 

fires are as a result of the conditions that are creating more and 

more extreme weather that induces fires, very large fires for longer 

fire seasons. Ten states have had their largest fires on record over 

the last decade. Some had those records broken more than once. 

You said that in your testimony, Chief. You know, 9 million acres 

burned in 2012, and yet it is these efforts to try to address the climate change that we are going to be eliminating from the budget 

and, you know, it is like putting all of our efforts into sewing up 

wounds instead of trying to prevent the damage in the first place. 

We are very bad at that, but I guess that is part of human nature. 

RESEARCH

The other thing that we really need more of, not less of, but that 

is going to be seen as expendable is research. Now, you talked 

about the fact, we are going to lose the ash tree. We lost the chestnut. We have basically lost the elm in many ways to Dutch elm disease. And in your testimony, it was pretty compelling. You talked 

about how much of the forests we are losing to invasive species and 

insect infestation that we cannot seem to stop, and that is where 
148

we need the research. You used to be able to do a whole lot of very 

good research. You are still doing some, but we are not giving you 

the tools that you need because the problems are even more complex and pervasive. Could you talk about some of the preventive efforts that if you had your druthers we would be putting more 

money into instead of funding fires after the fact? 

Mr. TIDWELL. In our research, it would probably help to accelerate invasives research. I feel that we are working on the issues 

we need to be working on today, but at the same time because of 

the amount of work that can be done each year, it is taking longer 

to maybe find some of the solutions to these invasives, and so that 

is one of the areas that we could probably accelerate. 

The other thing that is important is, in this country we used to 

have a lot of research that was done by the industrial forest landowners, the large timber companies, and they basically have moved 

on and have had to focus in other ways, and so the research now 

falls back on the Forest Service working with the universities and 

so that is another thing that has really slowed down. The other 

part is to be able to move forward with new markets, to be able 

to make biomass more economically viable, to be able to find a use 

of that small-diameter material. We are just moving forward with 

the research to be able to show builders, architects, contractors 

that you can use wood to go much higher than four stories, and we 

are doing a couple pilot projects in the country to be able to demonstrate that. The reason for that is we did the research, we did 

the studies, we did the tests on these new wood products out of our 

Forest Products Lab so that they passed all the safety tests as far 

as being able to withstand high heat and have the strength that 

is necessary. So it would help to be able to accelerate the pace of 

our research. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Also, so much of this is driven by this changing climate. I cannot 

stress that enough. It is not just the fire seasons that we see now. 

We are having fire seasons that are 50 to 70 days longer. This is 

part of having a change in our fire season but also this warmer climate in a lot of areas creates a much more favorable environment 

for invasives and so we are seeing the rate of these invasives 

spread at a much faster rate than what we saw just a few years 

ago. Emerald ash borer has been in the country for decades but it 

is just really in the last 10 or 15 years when it has really taken 

off and moved north and it is actually now all the way into Canada.

Mr. MORAN. Well, the other members want to ask questions, Mr. 

Chairman, so I will not take up any more time. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. Oddly enough, I have two nieces 

who are graduates in forestry from the University of Minnesota, 

which no longer considers itself a forestry school. So I have to believe that is happening in other parts of the country. One of them 

is working now doing urban. In Chicago, you would be very happy 

to know that she is taking care of urban trees and working on 

things like that, but she did some research on the emerald ash 

borer through the University of Minnesota. What is happening 
149

with people going into forestry as a career, and how does that affect you being able to do some of the research that you want to do? 

And then the other question I have to follow up a little more on 

climate change; we are watching the prairie creep. We are watching our prairie come east. We are watching the different types of— 

we have three different forest zones and they are all changing, and 

we are now having drought and you start wondering if that is 

going to start affecting bogs and wetlands and just the whole thing. 

We are seeing it happen, and our DNR started talking about it and 

tracking this well over 20 years ago through legacy funds. So we 

are trying to work with the tribes on that. So if you do not have 

the R&D to provide the research opportunities, we are watching 

our universities in part because the demand is changing, what does 

it look like for foresters out 10, 15, 20 years from now for job opportunities, places to graduate and having research opportunities to 

have the best and brightest? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Our challenges, I believe, 10, 20, 30 years from 

now, there is going to be a much greater demand for that level of 

expertise with forests because there is going to be more impacts, 

more stresses to deal with, and we are going to actually need more 

people in the field in the future than we have today. We are working with the universities to be able to maintain their programs. 

They have tough decisions they make so that we are getting the 

programs that can stay in place and the graduate programs that 

we need to be able to make sure that we are basically training and 

providing for our future foresters that we are going to need. So we 

spent a lot of time working closely with our universities and then 

through our programs to be able to provide internships and so we 

can get folks that are interested in this type of work. So in the future, there is going to be a greater need. The challenge we have 

right now is to be able to maintain these programs and then to 

make sure that we continue this strong interest. That being said, 

the last few jobs that we have been flying recently, we get hundreds and hundreds of applicants, so there is a very strong interest 

to be able to be part of this overall conservation mission that we 

are so lucky to be part of. 

TRIBES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And working with tribes? 

Mr. TIDWELL. With tribes, you are familiar with the work that 

we have been doing the last couple of years. We spent a lot of time 

to look at our tribal programs to see how we can improve that, and 

we sat down with tribes throughout the country and basically put 

out a report about the things that we need to change to be able to 

do a better job, not just through formal consultation with the tribes 

but actually to be able to have our programs be better aligned with 

the needs of our tribes and at the same time to take advantage of 

the tribal resources. We have some of the best foresters in the 

country that work for the tribes and work on the reservations, and 

we need to do a better job to make sure we are sharing our information with them and vice versa. 

So we released that report, I think it was late last year, that laid 

out a few steps that we are going to be taking to increase our cooperation with our tribes and also to take advantage of authorities 
150

like the Tribal Forest Protection Act where it is an authority we 

have now that we can do a better job to be able to work with our 

tribes, be able to use their expertise, their resources to be able to 

help us to restore these national forests. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Concerning your question about the changing ecosystems, once 

again, a lot of this is driven by, you know, the climate change. We 

want to make sure that we are working together so that the 

changes that we see that are coming their way, that we are sharing 

that information so they too can take the steps that they need to 

to be able to restore their systems, and it is not just to be able to 

restore it to the way it used to be. The challenge that we have 

today is, we have to understand what we need to restore it to, to 

make sure that these systems, these forests can deal with the 

stresses they are going to deal with 20 years from now. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Serrano. 

U.S. TERRITORIES

Mr. SERRANO. Just very briefly, my participation at these hearings always ends with the same request: do not forget the territories—Guam, Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American citizens, and in this particular 

area, there is a lot of work for you, a lot of involvement because 

as you know, they are not large in size but there are a lot of trees, 

a lot of plants, a lot of forests. So while our legislation never speaks 

to directing special attention to this, this Committee, and I will 

keep saying this out loud to the leadership of our chairman and our 

ranking member but the chairman has been great with my mantra 

that the territories are part of the folks who live under the American flag and they should get the same attention. That is my request.

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you for your recognition, and we are going 

to continue the work that we are doing through our state and private forestry programs in the territories, and those are essential 

areas, the ecosystems. We know that we still have opportunities to 

be able to deal with some of the problems they are facing and do 

it right now on a smaller scale before these things become a much 

larger problem. So we are going to of course be able to continue 

that work. 

Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

RESTORATION

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. 

I just came from that briefing, so I am happy to be here, and I 

wanted to say first, thank you, Chief Tidwell. I know our staffs are 

working on you coming out to see firsthand Gifford Pinchot. I am 

very excited to have you, so thank you for that. 

And as you know, my biggest concern is with our forests and the 

health of our forests and the health of our communities, and I am 

very encouraged by the conversations we have had recently and 
151

with Director Ashe a few weeks ago. I still have some really major 

concerns, especially with this proposal, and I wanted to make sure 

you were aware of them. As you mentioned in your testimony, the 

request calls for almost 10 percent increase in land purchases. 

However, management funds are being cut by about 10 percent, 

and you predict the output will drop from 3 billion board feet, 

which is already very, very low, to 2.3 billion board feet. So in my 

view, forests already being severely undermanaged, this is going to 

add to that. The budget calls for shifting $62 million from several 

programs for fire suppression but I am not seeing the thinning efforts we need to see for the fire prevention. You talked about job 

creation. On Monday, I just found out that the last mill in southern 

Oregon is closing its doors. 

And finally, and I think most importantly because this is something that a lot of folks are very concerned with, as we talk with 

the Native American communities, as we talk with Fish and Wildlife, we are worried about the species and the health of the forest. 

Gifford Pinchot has roughly 50 species dying, dying because of our 

single-species approach, and we are not even doing so good there. 

That is the species we are supposed to be managing is declining. 

And I know there are reasons, people will say there are reasons, 

this, that and the other, but those are the facts of where we are 

at and so I wanted to make you aware that those issues in this 

budget I am tracking very carefully and am going to want to see 

progress if I am going to be asked to support it. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

Let me quickly switch over to another issue having to do with Secure Rural Schools, also a timber health and community health 

issue. I joined several Members of Congress. We sent a letter to 

Secretary Vilsack at USDA and Jeffrey Zients at OMB, and as you 

know, SRS was authorized in fiscal year 2012 in the highway bill, 

one of the few bills we have actually gotten signed into law, right? 

And on March 20th of this year, the Administration contacted the 

states who got the money for fiscal year 2012, not fiscal year 2013, 

and said we want it back, and so now those counties are being ordered to pay back funds that have already been expended, which 

I think is just ridiculous, and it is not just me. You know, Democratic Senators from both states in our region have sent letters, 

Western governors have sent letters and Members of Congress, all 

bipartisan, and none of us have had a response to date. So I was 

hoping that you could share with me specifically the legal basis 

that the Administration has to do this, or maybe, I do not know, 

share with me good news that the Administration is not trying to 

recall funds from last year pre-sequestration and using sequestration as the reason. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I will start with your last issue. We looked at every 

avenue possible not to have the sequester affect Secure Rural 

Schools. I agree with you. When I first saw it, I thought well, this 

is fiscal year 2012, it does not have an effect; I was wrong. I sat 

down with many of our attorneys. I sat down with the Secretary 

twice on this. He brought his attorney staff in there to be able to 

explain it to me why this is legal. You know, I am not an attorney, 

but after the second time, I did agree with them. We looked at if 
152

there was a possibility to use other funds from other appropriations 

so that this would not have an impact, and I was told once again 

that because sequester applies to every appropriation, we did not 

have that flexibility. 

In hindsight, I have to admit, when we sent the payments and 

we were doing our work last December, I did not think it was going 

to happen. I was wrong on that too. So I tell you, I regret having 

to do this. We offered to the states to be able to take the reduction 

out of the Title II monies that actually just go to work which reduces jobs, reduces work but it would not have an impact on the 

counties’ schools programs, but I mean, that is the only flexibility 

I have been able to find, and I tell you, I am continuing to keep 

asking the questions but I will tell you, the attorneys have convinced me that—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Would you encourage them to respond to 

the Senators, the western governors and the Members of Congress 

who would like to see the legal language for taking money, pre-sequestration money that was signed into law before and then saying 

it is sequestration? Because we are all very curious as to how this 

is legal. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I think the letter is in the final steps of clearance 

and we should be able to get out in the very near future, next few 

days, hopefully. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And with the previous, I just want you 

to be aware of those issues and those budget items. 

RESTORATION

Mr. TIDWELL. We were making very good progress to accelerate 

the restoration on the national forests and to be able to work with 

our communities, and our numbers that we put out as far as the 

impacts of sequester on the reduction in timber harvest and how 

that is going to carry over in 2014 are based on our very conservative estimates but I do want to point out that when we started 

this focus to accelerate restoration, it was with an understanding 

that our budget would not go up. I did not anticipate that it would 

go down, especially after we were making such good progress. So 

we are going to continue to work on our efficiencies. We have opportunities in your part of the country to be able to move forward 

and to actually use our restoration efforts to make a difference to 

benefit the spotted owl. We need to make sure that we are going 

to move forward and be able to show how good forestry is not only 

good for our communities, good for the forests, but it is also good 

for the spotted owl, and I am looking very forward to working with 

the new Critical Habitat designation that gives us an additional 

flexibility that we have not had in the past. 

So things look good to be able to move forward. We just have to 

somehow be able to find the capacity to be able to expand the work 

that needs to be done. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chief, for being here today and thank 

you for your answers. This Committee, as you know, is committed 

to making sure the Forest Service works and that we have the resources to do it in really, really ugly budgetary times, but we want 

to work with you to make sure that we can address the concerns 

of the members of this subcommittee as we put the budget together 
153

and also to allow you to be able to go forward with the job you do. 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. Thank you for your time and thank 

you for the work you folks are doing. I do appreciate it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you for the work you are doing. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record for the Forest Service 

were not returned to the Subcommittee in time for inclusion into 

the public record.] 

(155)

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST

WITNESSES

NEIL KORNZE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

LINDA SMITH, BUDGET OFFICER 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. 

Principal Deputy Director Kornze—Principal Deputy Director? 

Mr. MORAN. He is Acting Director. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is kind of what I thought. I was going to say, 

that is too many words. 

Mr. KORNZE. It is a mouthful. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I would like to welcome you to today’s subcommittee hearing addressing the fiscal year 2014 budget priorities 

for the Bureau of Land Management. I would like to begin by making several points on a few specific issues before we receive your 

testimony.

As I stated last year, I am disappointed with the proposed de- crease in range management and especially the new fee of $1 per 

animal unit month. For several years, starting in 2009, I have been 

working with the BLM to permanently reduce the backlog of grazing permits. Nonetheless, the BLM is still losing ground. In fiscal 

year 2014, the BLM’s goal is to complete 33 percent of grazing permit renewals. While I understand the workload of permit renewals 

fluctuates from year to year, this level of completion is not acceptable, particularly given this subcommittee’s focus on this issue. Further, as I pointed out last year, the $1 fee per AUM is a 74 

percent increase, which is totally unreasonable. I am not opposed 

to discussing the AUM fee—we all know that it is low—however, 

a 74 percent increase is a huge shock to livestock producers. Just 

like other small businesses, livestock producers need certainty. 

They need to know their grazing permits will be renewed in a timely fashion and that fees will not dramatically increase from year 

to year. The fiscal year 2014 President’s budget is an improvement 

from the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget, but more needs to be 

done to deal with all of the challenges facing range management 

and livestock grazing. A $1 increase in the AUM fee is not the solution.

As I say nearly every year now, I am disappointed with the budget gimmicks that are a mainstay of the BLM budget. From grazing 

fees to numerous oil and gas fees, this makes our job more difficult 

as we have to find the funds to offset those proposals, many of 

which are simply non-starters in the House of Representatives. 

Particularly confusing is the fee for non-producing leases. Last year 
156

the President’s budget proposed a $4-per-acre fee for non-producing 

leases. This year that proposal is $6 per acre. Non-producing oil 

and gas leases already pay rental fees, and I do not understand 

how this proposal is not duplicative of the rental fee. Instead of 

playing these games, I prefer to work in a constructive way with 

the Bureau to solve the problems. I suspect these games come from 

OMB and not from the BLM itself. 

I commend the BLM for taking a proactive approach on the conservation of the sage grouse, and this priority is rightly reflected 

in the proposed budget. That said, I want to make sure this investment will actually improve sage grouse habitat and prevent the 

species from being listed in 2015, which would be devastating 

across the West. Now more than ever, we need to see a return on 

this investment, not just wasting this funding on planning exercises that do not help us reach our goal. I want to make sure that 

the agency has the time and resources to meet the court-imposed 

listing deadline, and I will need your help to do that. 

As we all know after the last fire season, the greatest threat to 

sage grouse is wildfire. Two million acres of priority sage grouse 

habitat burned in wildfires. Related to wildfire are invasive species, 

especially cheat grass. While the BLM is focusing on sage grouse, 

it seems the agency is looking mostly at limiting existing uses rather than controlling cheat grass and preventing wildfires. I mentioned to former Secretary Salazar that I am very concerned by the 

cut in the Hazardous Fuels funding for the Department. 

Mr. Kornze, I hope the BLM will start looking at being more 

proactive rather than reactive. Last year’s fire season shows us 

that no matter how much we limit existing uses of public lands, 

wildfires could easily be the nail in the coffin for sage grouse listing. This is a top priority for me, and we need to work together on 

a real solution. 

Finally, I could not hold a BLM hearing without mentioning litigation. When I raised this issue with outgoing Secretary Salazar a 

couple of months ago, he responded that he was at that time the 

defendant in over 3,000 lawsuits. Three thousand. That number 

alone tells you we have a problem with frivolous lawsuits, and I 

continue to be very concerned about the cost of litigation to the Bureau and the taxpayers. The Department is finally starting to track 

Equal Access to Justice Act payments, but we still need much more 

sunlight on this issue. We need to know the true cost of litigation 

to the Bureau, and this should be part of the budget justification 

submitted every year. Americans deserve to know these costs and 

how their tax dollars are being spent. 

In closing, I look forward to working with you on many of these 

issues, and thank you and your staff for their hard work and their 

assistance.

With that, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Moran, for any opening statement he might have. 

OPENING REMARKS OF RANKING MEMBER MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Kornze, it 

is good to see you again, and Ms. Smith. 

While some federal land management agencies administer more 

money, the Bureau of Land Management administers the most 
157

land, 248 million acres, almost a quarter of a billion acres. Most 

of these public lands are in the western United States but the BLM 

does have a presence in the East as well where it makes several 

hundred million acres of subsurface mineral estate along with scattered land holdings. I was amazed that it is as much subsurface 

area, but if Mr. Healy tells me it is so, it is so. 

While we consider our public lands an asset today, there was a 

time when we practically gave them away. In fact, because of the 

continued existence of the 1872 mining law, that era does still live 

on. In fact, it is only because of language carried in this appropriations bill each year that multinational mining companies, most of 

whose profit really goes out of this country, but they are prevented 

from acquiring outright title to public lands that would be worth 

billions of dollars but they would only have to pay $2.50 an acre 

because of this law that is egregiously outdated. 

With 83 percent of Americans living in urban areas today, we 

desperately need the open space that public lands offer. In fact, 

even someone like President Richard Nixon understood this when 

he stated in an environmental message to Congress in 1971—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Richard Nixon? 

Mr. MORAN. Well, if it is not Richard Nixon, it is Teddy Roosevelt. You know, once in a while we find something Abe Lincoln 

said, but I think the point is gotten. 

So Republican President Richard Nixon said: ‘‘Our public lands 

represent in a very real sense the breathing space of the Nation.’’ 

Terrific quote. We will use it again. 

The BLM faces significant challenges in managing our public 

lands, and of course, the mindless sequester that is now underway 

also adds to those challenges. Instead of saving money, the sequester is in fact costing American taxpayers money and job opportunities as the BLM is forced to slow down approval of oil and gas drilling permits and cancel lease sales to meet the spending reductions 

required by the sequester. That means less revenue to the federal 

government and fewer jobs in the oil and gas industry. 

I am happy to see in the BLM’s budget request a package of legislative and administrative reforms of the agency’s oil and gas programs with a focus on improving the return to the taxpayer for the 

use of these public resources which were so far removed from the 

market. If the market was to dictate the price, it would be a whole 

lot higher than what the Administration is asking for. So I understand. I do not have a whole lot of oil and gas leases in my district 

and I do not do a lot of grazing, but when looking out for the taxpayer, I think the point needs to be made that this is an enormous 

subsidy that is going to some industries, and the Administration’s 

budget would marginally improve that disparity from the real 

value versus what we are charging. 

So it is only fitting that those who profit so handsomely from the 

use of public lands should provide a more fair return to the owners 

of those lands, in other words, the American people, and should 

help shoulder the cost of their management, which they are not 

doing in an adequate manner right now. 

So Mr. Kornze, I recognize the challenges that BLM faces in 

managing the diverse resources of our public lands, and I look forward to your testimony this morning on how the agency is attempt-
158

ing to meet those challenges with the smaller resources that it has 

available and will continue to have available in the future. Each 

year, it does seem that this bill gets cut disproportionately. I also 

want to note, though, with appreciation the work of the BLM Eastern Lands office staff. John Lyons and Robert Gilcash of the 

Meadowood facility did a terrific job in working with the community. I know it is just a small area, but I know it is indicative of 

what the BLM does in so many ways in so many areas around the 

country, and I wanted to give that shout-out to Mr. Lyons and Mr. 

Gilcash.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to the hearing. 

OPENING REMARKS OF NEIL KORNZE

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Kornze, the floor is yours. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here, and I have 

enjoyed the opportunity to visit with both of you in recent weeks 

to hear about the priorities that are important to you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to testify on the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Bureau of Land Management. Within the Department 

of the Interior, the BLM manages 248 million surface acres and 

700 million acres of federal onshore mineral estate and has responsibilities on 56 million acres of Indian trust lands for mineral operations and cadastral surveys. The BLM works with a broad array 

of land users, contributes to the vitality of state and local economies and delivers benefits to all Americans through outdoor recreation, natural and cultural resource conservation, livestock grazing, 

mineral development and energy production. This breadth of responsibility defines the BLM mission under FLPMA, a multiple-use 

mandate to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of our 

public lands for this and future generations. 

The BLM is an excellent investment for America. We are proud 

to note that for every $1 invested in this organization, we bring 

more than $4 back to the U.S. Treasury. That totals about $4.6 billion in 2012. 

The 2014 BLM discretionary budget request is $1.2 billion, which 

translates to a cost of less than $4.50 per acre, and ensures that 

the BLM can continue to generate and support jobs through the extractive and non-extractive uses of public lands. In 2011, it is estimated that the BLM supported over 750,000 American jobs and 

more than $151 billion in economic output, and this is an amazing 

figure. That is slightly more than 1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic 

Product.

Timber activities on BLM lands support an estimated $670 million in economic activity. The BLM’s grazing program supports an 

estimated $1.4 billion in economic activity with the greatest impacts in Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Oregon. 

Livestock-based economic opportunities on public lands contribute to and help preserve the social fabric and identity of the 

American West. 

Public lands also offer a myriad of recreational opportunities. Nationwide, recreation on BLM lands is estimated to support over 
159

58,000 jobs and bring more than $7 billion to the American economy.

The BLM 2014 budget is designed to support the critical work 

that keeps the American economy moving and fulfills BLM’s core 

functions. I will take a few minutes to share some of the highlights 

of our budget request this year. Of special interest is that we have asked for an increase of $6 

million for transmission. The American West has seen, for the first 

time in a generation, major upgrades in our need and our backbone 

for our transmission grid, and we are excited to be part of that 

process but we do need to increase our capacity. 

The budget request continues strong support for renewable energy options for the Nation, advancing the Administration’s energy 

goals and strengthening management of onshore oil and gas development. The budget requests an increase of roughly 20 percent to 

bolster BLM’s oil and gas programs and will expand BLM’s inspection and enforcement capabilities, enhance general oversight, and 

support implementation of BLM’s leasing reforms from 2010. 

The BLM is charged with managing 27 million acres of National Conservation lands. The 2014 budget includes an increase of $6 

million for the National Landscape Conservation System and $2 

million for Recreation Resource Management to support increased 

use of science and better planning for those areas. 

Public land consolidation through land acquisition increases the 

efficiency of pursuing land management goals, allowing the BLM to 

improvide access to public lands and resources. Leveraged funds 

spent on the landscape provide recreation opportunities, preserve 

national and cultural heritage resources and protect sensitive and 

at-risk habitats. 

The 2014 budget includes a number of legislative proposals including oil and gas program reforms, hardrock mining reform, reauthorization of the BLM’s federal helium program, and the continued reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act.

The BLM 2014 request provides funding for the Bureau’s highest 

priorities and supports critical work that keeps America moving. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will 

be pleased to respond to any questions you have. 

[The statement of Neil Kornze follows:] 
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170

EFFECTS OF SEQUESTER

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank you for being here today. 

We look forward to working with you to solve some of the problems 

facing the BLM and other federal agencies as Mr. Moran said with 

the sequester that has been put in place. 

How has sequester affected your agency’s budget? 

Mr. KORNZE. So the sequester, well, there are two pieces of it. 

One, the sequester was a 5 percent across-the-board cut, as you 

know, in every activity and subactivity, and additionally, we took 

a cut with the continuing resolution this year. So in total, about 

$70 million was cut in our discretionary budget, which is a big hit 

for a $1.2 billion budget. So it is the equivalent of eliminating almost an entire State. 

But specifically speaking, we expect that this year we will issue 

probably 300 fewer drilling permits, we will have a handful of 

fewer lease sales and those combined will probably lead to potentially up to $200 million in reduced revenue, part of that coming 

to the Treasury, part of that going to States. A number of recreational sites have either had limited hours or have been shut 

down completely. In recreation-heavy states like Oregon, we are 

seeing that particularly. Also, we are having a delay in being able 

to implement monitoring and other activities so that hits programs 

like timber and grazing. Our timber program should be able to 

stand tall this year. However, because we are not able to get the 

same amount of people into the field to do the monitoring and assessments, we will likely see major impacts next year and the year 

after because we do have a 1- to 2-year delay on those programs. 

We are also likely to see delays in at least two coal sales, which 

could mean $50 to $60 million in revenue. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the things that this Committee has been focusing on, as I said in my opening statement, is trying to address 

the backlog of grazing permits, trying to get those up to current 

speed so that we do not have these backlogs that exist, and we 

have put additional resources into it over the last few years to do 

that. Is this going to have an impact on addressing the backlog of 

grazing permits? 

Mr. KORNZE. It will, but you know what has a bigger impact are 

the drought conditions and fires that we have been facing the last 

few years. Drought conditions continue, as you know. Idaho has a 

bad forecast for this year for fire and for drought and we are trying 

to get our arms around this problem. As you highlighted in your 

opening statement, we have a backlog of about 5,000 grazing permits. We need to do better, and we are looking for ways to do that. 

You have been very helpful in trying to provide additional funding 

in the past, but unfortunately, for some of that work, as I was noting, like in timber and grazing, you do the monitoring and that allows you to have more impacts going forward. So we are hopeful 

that we will be able to issue a higher number of grazing permits 

in the next few years, but I do think that we also need to look at 

greater efficiencies. 

One of the ways we approach this right now is that we reauthorize permit by permit instead of allotment by allotment, and so one 

of the inefficiencies that comes from that is that you could have a 
171

permittee with five or ten allotments and those could be spread 

over winter range, summer range, and that could be over a large 

geographic area. 

So we are looking at whether it makes sense to follow a model 

similar to the Forest Service where they look on a geographic basis 

where we might be able to move into a valley or watershed and do 

the assessments across the board and potentially move faster that 

way.

LITIGATION COSTS

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the cost of litigation, and is that driving 

up our inability to catch up this backlog? Because I look at the 

amount of money that we as a federal government and the land 

management agencies spend in litigation in trying to defend decisions we make and it is an enormous amount of money, and in fact, 

it has been one of our concerns that we have not kept track very 

well as a Department. Who is getting those funds, what rate the 

attorneys are getting paid, etc., etc., etc. EAJA was a very good 

idea in that people ought to have a say in how their public lands 

are managed, and if you are an individual that cannot afford to 

take the federal government to court when you disagree with a decision they make, you ought to have the ability to do that, and that 

was kind of the basis behind EAJA. Now we have created kind of 

a cottage industry where there are a lot of organizations that actually are pretty well off that make money from suing the federal 

government over every decision we make. Are the amount of lawsuits and the costs of those lawsuits affecting our ability to address 

this backlog? 

Mr. KORNZE. We do have a substantial impact from litigation in 

this agency more than others because we are a ground of contestation. You know, multiple use means a lot of different things to different people. We face more litigation than any other agency in the 

Department. It has an impact on everything we do. So my quick 

answer is yes. I cannot give you finer detail on what impact it has 

on the grazing programs but, as you know, our Idaho program in 

particular, has a great challenge when it comes to litigation and 

some of the issues that you raised. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the Department starting to keep track? I mean, 

we have required language that required the Department of Interior to report to us on EAJA fees and how much was being paid 

and to whom and etc., etc. Are you keeping track of how much 

EAJA fees are being paid and who is getting them? Because the 

first thing we need to know if we are going to make some changes 

is where it is going currently and how much is being paid currently, and I do not believe we have got a report on that yet. Is 

someone in the Department looking at that? 

Mr. KORNZE. I inquired with my team just last week as to what 

we had spent on litigation, and we had a back-of-the-envelope answer but we did not have a formal answer, and so I have redirected 

my team to make sure we have a system in place to track litigation 

costs. So the next time we sit in front of you, we will have a much 

better answer, and I will also check with the Department. 
172

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay, because that is important to us because we 

make broad statements based on what we think we know. We actually need the facts on what we are spending on those. 

GRAZING FEES

Let me ask you about the proposed $1 fee for AUM that is, as 

I said in the opening statement, 74 percent increase in grazing permittees for grazing permittees. The BLM states it would like the 

authority to collect an additional $1 AUM for 3 years until it can 

complete the cost recovery regulations. Do you have a current estimate of what those cost recovery fees might be, and have you started drafting cost recovery regulations, and why does the BLM propose grazing fee charge per AUM rather than per permit when the 

fee is supposed to offset the cost of permits? 

Mr. KORNZE. So the cost recovery discussion is an important one. 

I think, as the Ranking Member raised, we are in a situation 

where with increasing responsibilities but declining budgets. We 

simply have to find ways to keep going with our core functions. So 

we have programs like renewable energy, some oil and gas efforts, 

some coal efforts, which run on a cost recovery basis. I think we 

are seeing a trend where this is where we are going to have to go. 

So related to the grazing program, the concept of the $1 fee per 

AUM is an administrative fee separate from the grazing fee. So the 

grazing fee, as you know, this year is $1.35. This administrative fee 

would help us deal with some of the backlog that you mentioned 

earlier but it is not a complete answer. I think it is taking a step 

towards cost recovery but it certainly would not be full cost recovery for our range program. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you think a 74 percent increase in one year is 

okay?

Mr. KORNZE. I think we would like to have a conversation about 

ways to work on the grazing program. We have got work to do on 

our end, as I highlighted earlier. I think we need to think harder 

about how we approach some of these permitting issues but also we 

certainly have budget issues as well. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY COST RECOVERY

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have some comparison on what we charge 

for BLM land to put up wind towers or whatever as opposed to 

what the private sector gets out of them when they put them on 

private lands? 

Mr. KORNZE. What we charge in terms of cost recovery? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. I mean, if you put them up on private lands, 

generally you get a monthly check from the company that put them 

on your land. Is it more expensive to put them on private lands 

than it is on BLM lands on less expensive to put them on BLM 

lands, and why is there a difference, if there is a difference? 

Mr. KORNZE. So our rental and production fees? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. KORNZE. We can get back to you with a specific comparison 

but the calculations we put together are based largely on land 

value and highest and best use. So, we are doing our best to make 

sure that we are competitive with private offerings. 
173

Mr. SIMPSON. I would like to see that comparison, because I hear 

all the time—again, I do not know if it is true or not but I hear 

that we would make substantial revenue if we charged what the 

private sector charged on private lands. I do not know if that is 

true or not but I hear that all the time. 

Anyway, we will get into sage grouse in a minute. Mr. Moran? 

Mr. MORAN. I wait for the sage grouse discussion. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is a very important issue. 

GRAZING FEES

Mr. MORAN. I know it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You raised 

some interesting issues that I was not going to get into but since 

you brought them up, I will do so. 

I am told by Mr. Healy that we are required to charge fair market value when you put, for example, cell towers on public lands 

and so on, but there does seem to be at least the impression, probably the reality, that there is an underpricing compared to the 

market, but I do not know, but obviously we need to recover as 

much revenue as we can, given the appropriations situation. So I 

understand that difficulty. But with regard to grazing and in that context, is the $1.35 fee 

not the same fee that was established by Executive Order by President Reagan about, what, 30 years ago? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, let me start with fair market value. Rick is 

right, that we are required to get fair market value for all of our 

uses unless it is specified otherwise. The grazing fee was laid down 

in the 1980s and it is based on a number of factors including production costs for cattle. 

Mr. MORAN. Is it the same rate of 30 years ago? 

Mr. KORNZE. It is the same calculation, so it sets up a formula 

and then you put the numbers in. 

Mr. MORAN. But has it followed, for example, the increase in 

land value? 

Mr. KORNZE. I do not believe that land value is part of the equa- tion, so it is $1.35 this year and it has been $1.35 in a number of 

recent years. 

Mr. MORAN. As long as I can remember, and I have been around 

here for a little while. I know it has been a consistent issue. I guess 

one was of measuring comparable value would be to compare the 

federal grazing fee to what states charge. What do some of the 

states charge for grazing per animal unit? 

Mr. KORNZE. So there is a wide variety of fees but I will say as 

a rough average that States usually charge about $4. In Utah, I 

think they have two categories. If it is high-value, high-quality 

land, it is $7. If it low value, it is $4. And, you know, it becomes 

a tough side-by-side comparison because a lot of the lands that private parties and States secured back over the last 150 years were 

the higher-value lands that had better water sources. 

Mr. MORAN. That is the feds with the lower value, but looking 

of comparability, it would appear that there is some subsidy going 

to those that use federally owned lands, given the price that some 

states are charging. Texas is a place which, although they are private, charges as much as $65 per unit, but I know some states 

charge $12 to $15, but I am sure there is some difference in quality 
174

of land but it does seem, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, that 

there may be some significant underpricing when we are looking 

for ways to balance the budget and to protect the taxpayer. But 

again, I do not have a lot of grazing lands in my district. The largest is probably on a windowsill. 

Mr. SIMPSON. If the gentleman would yield, I am actually not opposed to looking at the grazing fees and what needs to happen 

there over the long haul, but we need to plan over the long haul 

instead of a 74 percent increase in one year. And as I understand 

from Erica, it was set at $1.35 by Executive Order, but if you use 

the formula that was established, at this time it would be about 

27 cents. 

Mr. MORAN. Really? 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes, $1.35 is the floor, and in some years, there are negative values that would come out, so it sits at $1.35 when it 

would be lower. It is all based on the formula. 

Mr. MORAN. I mean, if we went to market value, I would not 

have a problem with that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And I do not have a problem with that concept either. The problem is finding what comparable market value is 

when you look at lands that might be in the Midwest or something 

that actually have grass on them as opposed to Nevada and Idaho. 

Mr. MORAN. We do that in terms of leasing or making land available for cell towers and so on, so it is conceivable we could do fair 

market value, but I do want to make the point that if I was in the 

position that Mr. Kornze is in having, for example, to take $70 million out of my budget knowing that that is going to reduce revenue 

by $300 million because there are fewer permits, I would look for 

any way to generate revenues so that I could apply to those revenue-generating activities. 

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Kornze, could you share with us what impact climate change 

is having on invasive species and wildland fires and public lands? 

Mr. KORNZE. I would be happy to. Climate change does come in 

a few varieties for us. One is invasive species, and we are seeing 

a huge spread of cheat grass and leafy spurge and red broom and 

other unwanted plants throughout our system and also fire, and 

that relates back to the invasive species. So in northern Nevada 

and southern Idaho, for instance, once you lose the sagebrush, if 

you cannot get in there and replant efficiently and get back to the 

ecosystem that you lost in that fire, very likely cheat grass is going 

to move in, and instead of being on a 10- to 20-year or similar fire 

cycle, you are going to be on a much faster fire cycle. So there are 

huge impacts for us in terms of our fire program and overall management issues, and it gets back to sage grouse as well, which I 

know we are going to talk about. 

Mr. MORAN. And no real prospects for improvement in the future. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I am going to run over 

to the Navy/Marine Corps hearing but Ms. Pingree will represent 

the minority for the rest of the hearing, if that is acceptable. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kornze, and 

to all of your staff. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 
175

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree? 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member. 

As you already know, I am brand new on this committee so everything is a tutorial and kind of a learning experience for me. 

GRAZING FEES

I have a couple of questions. But I am just a little curious about 

the issue that was being discussed, so I too would be interested to 

understand a little bit better how those formulas work on grazing 

lands. As you know, I represent Maine and New England, so this 

is so far from our, you know, realm of understanding. We have tiny 

little bright green fields that are walled by stone walls and have 

been in a certain family since the 1600s. So to us, it is a lot of foreign turf. On the other hand, we have a lot of farmers, and I understand a little bit about competitive pricing. So at some point I 

would be interested in understanding the formula that was just 

being discussed, when it was last updated, just to kind of understand how far we are in anything related to market pricing, and 

I understand there is very little grass that grows, particularly in 

a drought condition, but the price of a finished product has gone 

up considerably since the Reagan era and so maybe there are other 

factors. It would just be interesting to see how it compares to market pricing, again, given that this is the taxpayers’ resource, and 

as the chair has said, there is probably some thoughtful way to 

look out into the future as some of these conditions continue that 

does not catch the people who are ultimately using the resource totally off guard in this time of diminishing resources. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

In that light, one thing I am also interested in—because my state 

is very interested in renewable energy. We put a considerable investment into offshore wind development and been the recipient of 

a lot of the Department of Energy grants and so we are very interested in how renewable resources play into our future energy mix, 

and you talked a little bit about that, but I would like to hear more 

about how those decisions are made, how the Department is leasing for renewable energy, geothermal, wind power, what the impact 

is right now. I would just be interested in hearing more about it. 

Mr. KORNZE. You bet. Well, I will start and then you tell me 

what you want to hear more about. 

Ms. PINGREE. Okay. 

Mr. KORNZE. So we are very proud on the renewable energy front 

that in the last 4 years we have been able to authorize 41, I believe, renewable energy projects totaling about 12,000 megawatts, 

and that is through geothermal, wind, and solar. The notable point 

about solar is that before the Obama Administration came in, there 

were zero public land solar projects that had been approved. There 

were about 200 pending applications. We stood up, with the help 

of the Recovery Act and this Committee, a team of about 100 people, which put a system in place and allowed us to move forward 

and find places that would have the smallest impact to authorize 

some of these projects. So we have been moving forward aggressively. We put together a strike team within the Department of the 

Interior where we had deputy agency directors, that level or high-
176

er, pull together on a weekly basis to track field progress and make 

sure we were moving forward. So we have 5,000 or 6,000 

megawatts that we are looking at over the next 2 years, and it has 

been a huge success. 

Ms. PINGREE. When you say looking at, are there solar projects 

in place and you have 5,000 to 6,000 more coming online? 

Mr. KORNZE. We have 5,000 to 6,000 megawatts of potential 

projects, geothermal, wind and solar, in the pipeline over the next 

few years, so we are going through the EIS process and we do not 

know if we will ultimately authorize them or not, but they are our 

focus right now. 

Ms. PINGREE. Do you still at this point have a lot of pending applications for all these areas? 

Mr. KORNZE. We do. We have much fewer on the solar side. That 

has shaken out a lot so initially it was a bit of a gold rush. Folks 

were filing on top of each other, so you might have three or four 

applications for the same spot. Some of the companies turned out 

not to be real, so to speak, so they have washed away. Through 

asking for diligence on these applications, we have been able to get 

down to the serious players and move forward that way. 

Ms. PINGREE. And how about wind? 

Mr. KORNZE. Wind has been a big part of our portfolio. The biggest project we have that we have been working on and continue 

to work on is the Chokecherry-Sierra Madre project, which is south 

of Rollins, Wyoming, and I believe it would be the largest wind 

project in the world, at least on land. It is 3,000 megawatts, about 

1,000 turbines, half private, half public lands, and would potentially serve as part of the baseload for some of the new major 

transmission lines that are being built in the West. So we have got 

that. There are some projects, such as Ocotillo Wind near the Mexican border in California that has been built. Spring Valley Wind 

in eastern Nevada, I went out for the groundbreaking on that one, 

and it is a phenomenal facility that sits right below Great Basin 

National Park. It is quite a scene. 

Ms. PINGREE. So I am not going to learn everything about this 

today, but two things I would be curious to know. The chair asked 

about competitive pricing. Do people have a significantly different 

cost by doing it on public land than they would if they were using 

private lands? You may not know the answer right away but it 

seems like it would be interesting to understand the comparison. 

Just sort of ballpark, is this 10 percent of what could be done ultimately on public lands, 40 percent? How far have we gone in terms 

of what you think will eventually be reasonable and likely to be 

done? And I know that is just a wild guess probably. 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, on the last question, it relates to the technology more than anything. So when we developed a western solar 

plan, we were looking at a certain solar insulation rate, which is 

sort of how much sun are you getting. It stopped, say, a third of 

the way up Nevada and California. So Arizona was hot, New Mexico was hot, but once you got up into southern Idaho and Oregon 

it did not hit the standards that we wanted to be analyzing. But 

I do think that in the coming years, in a decade or so, you could 

very much see large solar projects in some of those areas. I was out 

visiting a project south of Las Vegas, and they had built their su-
177

perstructures to put the solar panels in, and they had these empty 

racks. So I asked the project manager what those were, and he said 

from the time they designed the project last year to when they 

were building it this year, the production rate for the individual 

panel got so much higher that they actually did not need to fill in 

those last racks. So it is changing that fast. 

And, also, you see a country like Germany that is very heavily 

into solar. They have been subsidizing it but they are very heavy 

into solar, very productive, and they have a similar insulation rate 

to what you would see in Oregon and Washington in the rainy 

parts, so there is a lot of potential. 

Ms. PINGREE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. As I said, if you need wind for wind power, Wyoming is a great place to put it because that is why they call them 

the Wind River Mountains. Go ahead. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I want 

to talk a little bit about hydraulic fracturing, if we could. I know, 

or at least understand, that you all are currently in the process of 

re-proposing the regulations as I relates to hydraulic fracturing on 

public lands and the stated intent of the proposed rule is to require 

the public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing 

operations and to ensure well bore integrity and ensure safe water 

management practices. But recently, and I just want to get your 

opinion and see if you agree with this statement, the former director, Mr. Abbey, and former Administrator, Lisa Jackson, have both 

testified before Congress saying that hydraulic fracturing is a safe 

process and there has been no evidence of any invasiveness in 

water. Do you agree with that, their assessment? I am sort of trying to get to the reason for the process of re-proposing rules and 

where all that is going. 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, thank you for the question. It is a good one. 

So I think one of the reasons that the hydraulic fracturing rule is 

important, and many States have expressed similar feelings, is that 

we have such significant resources when it comes to groundwater 

that we need to make sure are protected, and the oil and gas industry is not just important in this country but through the discoveries we have made in recent years, we have a potentially 100-year 

energy base to work from, particularly in the gas realm. So in order 

to make sure that we can access and harvest those resources responsibly, at the Bureau of Land Management, we feel it is very 

important that we put rules in place to, one, on the technical side, 

give ourselves confidence that we are protecting groundwater and 

other resources; and on the other side, that we are giving the public confidence they know what is happening and the resources are 

being protected since they are public resources. So there are three 

pieces to the rule that we put forward previously, and that will 

largely remain the same when we re-propose, and that is requiring 

disclosure of the chemicals that are being put down hole, making 

sure that we have proper well bore integrity standards in place, 

and making sure that we have standards for the water that flows 

back. Once you push a million gallons of water down the hole, you 
178

get a bounce back, and we want to make sure that we are dealing 

with that water responsibly. 

Mr. GRAVES. I appreciate that response. It is a very clear answer. 

And with the former director and administrator saying there have 

been no proven cases where hydraulic fracturing itself has affected 

drinking water or groundwater, and have there been any since they 

made those statements that you are aware of? 

Mr. KORNZE. I do not think we are aware of any clear proven 

cases. But going back to my last answer, I do think this resource 

is so important we want to make sure it is accessed appropriately. 

Mr. GRAVES. And you referenced the states, their rules and regulations. Do you see a gap between what states are proposing and 

what the Bureau would like to see the federal government propose? 

Is there a large gap there, or what would be the differences? 

Mr. KORNZE. Part of the difficulty in this issue is that there are 

so many moving pieces. So when we started this effort over 2 years 

ago, people were saying we are not going to disclose. It was to disclose or not to disclose. And now you have got a number of States 

that are leading Wyoming, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado—they were 

the first tranche. There is a second tranche and so there are multiple proposals in multiple States and they are all changing. We 

are doing our best to be in touch with the governors’ offices and 

have discussions with them to make sure we are not duplicative. 

It is very important to us that we are not doing something that is 

unnecessary but at the same time, because we manage 30 percent 

of the Nation’s underground, it is important that we have a consistent standard. 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. And one more comment, if I could, Mr. Chairman. Just curious in trying to make that link, you had mentioned 

the confidence of the American people, and that would be one of 

the, I guess, silos or buckets or reasons for re-proposing the rules 

or regulations. But yet there are really no cases of where groundwater has ever been impacted. And so I guess what I am hearing, 

Mr. Chairman, is that in order to restore public confidence, the Bureau is proposing rules and regulations when there is no impact. 

Is that something we should expect more in the future if there is 

lack of confidence with the American people in an area or category 

but yet there has been no impact that we have to propose rules and 

regulations to restore confidence. I have actually sort of learned the 

opposite, that the American people generally do not like rules and 

regulations. They actually lose confidence when government interferes. So it is interesting you made that connection the other way. 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, I think hydraulic fracturing is kind of a question of two different issues. Hydraulic fracturing is one thing. Oil 

and gas development on the accelerated pace that we have seen is 

a very different thing. And so when you look at the literature from 

the industry themselves, they will tell you that a certain percentage of their bore holes they put down have problems that have to 

be remediated before they proceed. So part of what we are looking 

at is making sure that as part of the invigorated oil and gas world, 

we are playing a responsible role, and part of that is related to the 

fact that our regulations on hydraulic fracturing, where we already 

have regulations, date back to 1983 and they really do not track 
179

well with the increase in the technological abilities that have taken 

place over the last 10 years. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. I am just glad with our approval rating 

at 8 or 9 percent—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. We are all the way up to 13. 

Mr. GRAVES. Oh, we are up to 13 now? Okay. No rules and regulations on us, right? 

Mr. SIMPSON. We put money in our budget last year to the 

USGS, some to the EPA and others to study the impact of hydraulic fracturing because of all the controversy that exists out there. 

You know, you need to resolve some of these problems of whether 

it is really going to have an impact, and the problem with groundwater is, once you contaminate it, it is contaminated. It is hard to 

go back from that point of view, so we want to make sure that it 

does not happen, but I have not seen yet from either the EPA or 

the USGS what their studies might indicate, but I understand why 

we have to do some of that, and yes, some of it is, in my opinion, 

anyway, to at least create some public confidence or some standard 

by which we can judge that. I was watching a report the other day, 

the difference between New York and Pennsylvania, where New 

York does not allow or has much tougher standards or whatever, 

and so they do all the fracturing across the state line in Pennsylvania, and all the companies are over there making pretty good 

money. It is an issue that creates enough uncertainty in the 

public’s minds that we need to resolve it for them, which is why 

we put that funding in there to the USGS and the EPA. 

SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION

Let me ask you a couple of other questions about sage grouse. 

You knew that was coming up, did you not? Obviously one of the 

biggest or potentially biggest impacts, and I guess whether it is 

listed or not listed, it still has huge impacts, particularly for the 

West. Tell me where we are to try to prevent this listing, which I 

think both states and the federal government want to do, because 

to list the sage grouse would, I think, be devastating in the West 

to a lot of the public use of our public lands. 

I continue to hear concerns about overly restrictive sage grouse 

interim management guidelines, and as I said in my opening statement, it seems we are focusing on existing uses, namely grazing, 

when the major concern for the sage grouse habitat is invasive species and fire, and I look at your budget proposal, and the amount 

of money that we have put in there for wildfires is actually down. 

How does that square with where we are, and where are we with 

the sage grouse listing? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, thank you for the question. Sage grouse is a 

major priority for the Department and particularly for this agency. 

Where we are in the BLM’s treatment of the issue is that since we 

have half of the sage grouse habitat in the country, we are working 

very, very closely with the States, with the Fish and Wildlife Service, NRCS and others, and we are amending nearly 70 land-use 

plans across the West, and so a few of them have come out. We 

are doing 15 different tranches to incorporate all 70 of those, and 

I believe three of them are on the street and you will see the majority of the rest come out this summer and this fall. So we are mov-
180

ing aggressively and we are making sure that we have a cohesive 

answer and the plans speak to each other so we do not have different approaches. We are in active discussions with Fish and 

Wildlife Service about those since they are the ultimate decider 

when it comes to the listing of the species. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You just control the habitat. They make the decision of whether it is going to be listed or not, right? 

Mr. KORNZE. They do. And I do want to compliment the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. To my knowledge, they have never engaged in a 

process like this before where they have been so proactively involved in the planning efforts ahead of time. So that relates to your 

question, but also fire, you are spot on. Fire is a major, major issue, 

and so we do see different challenges. So in Wyoming, oil and gas 

is one of the primary threats to sage grouse, which is why Governor Mead and Governor Freudenthal have moved out with their 

Executive Order. But in Nevada and Idaho and eastern Utah, there 

is sort of a crescent of fire which runs from Reno up through Boise 

and down into eastern Utah, and fire is our number one threat. 

So one of the ways that we have—policy prescriptions are good 

but really, you need folks on the ground who know where the sage 

grouse habitat is and know how to responsibly protect those areas. 

So we have prepositioned a lot of our firefighting teams near sage 

grouse territories and we have made sure that every engine boss 

and other leaders within our fire teams are well briefed on habitat 

as part of our fire plans. 

LOCAL FIREFIGHTING

Mr. SIMPSON. I have been interested recently that there are landowners or lessees that have been leasing this land for years and 

years and years that have private lands sometimes mixed up with 

BLM land. They are pretty confident they know how to protect the 

land from fire and where it is going to burn because they have 

been there for generations, and yet sometimes when they go out, 

a wildfire starts out on the BLM ground and they go out—in fact, 

we had one guy that started a back fire against a bunch of BLM 

people that were out in the field trying to put the fire out and 

caught them in the middle of this fire. And from that in the Mountain Home area, they have created, I am not sure exactly what you 

call it but it is kind of a cooperative where they allow these people, 

they get some equipment and training, and once they have been 

trained, these local people can help with these fires because a lot 

of times they are the first ones there and the first ones to see it 

and everything else. But we need to give them some training. Is 

that being spread out in the West where we are trying to get more 

local—I cannot think of the term of what we call them—but local 

people involved in fighting those wildfires? 

Mr. KORNZE. I am glad you raised this. This is a success story 

for us in the Twin Falls-Mountain Home area, and you are right, 

I think a cooperative is the best way to describe it where we are 

providing training for ranchers and local residents, and that gives 

them the ability to be literally on the same frequency with us when 

fires are taking place and that we are responding in the same way 

in a cohesive manner. I want to get back to you on how far we have 

pushed this to other States but I have been getting up to speed on 
181

this in recent weeks and I do think it is something we need to be 

offering around the West, and I have actually talked to the public 

lands council of the cattlemen about making sure that that is happening.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, it seems to me in talking to the people that 

are involved in this, the local ranchers and stuff, they really believe 

this has been successful and they are excited about it, so I compliment you and the Department on working on that and trying to 

get local people involved in this. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

What about the preventive work that we do with hazardous fuels 

reduction, the dollars that we put into that? 

Mr. KORNZE. So that has gone down in our budget this year. Fire 

gets budgeted at the Department level. We are the largest recipient 

of fire funds within the Department but a lot of it relates to the 

fact that suppression costs continue to go up and up and up. It 

runs on a 10-year average and we had a very large fire year last 

year, which went well beyond the 10-year average. So we had to 

dip into this year’s funds a little bit. It is one of the more complicated budgeting pieces, as I am sure you and your team have 

had to face, but because suppression gets higher, activities like preparedness and hazardous fuels have shrunk, and the greatest 

threat I think that we see on this is when it comes to reseeding 

and rehabbing areas. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is there some way to improve the efficiency of 

doing the reseeding? Sometimes I am told that the rules are so 

cumbersome that they have difficulty getting the seed and putting 

it out there, and of course, when you have fires the way we have 

recently, it is sometimes difficult to find the seed, to get enough 

seed. But are the rules too cumbersome to allow the local BLM to 

get out and do the reseeding? 

Mr. KORNZE. It is a complicated system. The reseeding comes 

through a couple programs. One is emergency stabilization, and 

that can be up to 10 percent of your suppression account, but that 

does require quite a bit of coordination and can slow the process 

down because it is part of another pot. There are also explicit rehab 

funds, which we try to use aggressively. So the fire program overall 

is maybe in need of a hard look in terms of how funds are allocated 

and some different categories we have, but we want to make sure 

at the end of the day that whatever comes out we have the ability 

to move swiftly and get out on the ground, because if we do not 

get out in the first season, the productivity of reseeding goes way, 

way down. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, and then you have the invasive species issue, 

which is one of the ones that I am frankly very concerned about 

in that I have had a group of people from the West, university professors, local landowners, etc., etc., that have come in and they 

have talked to me about the potential of rewriting how we deal 

with invasive species. Their contention is—and I have no idea 

whether this is true or not—but they look through all this and they 

say that actually about 18 percent of the money—I think it was 18 

percent of the money that we spent on invasive species actually 

gets down to the ground in trying to address the invasive species 
182

issue, that most of it is used up in the bureaucracies that go from 

the federal government, state government to the local governments, 

you know. They have not introduced a bill yet, but they are trying 

to redesign how the money goes to invasive species that actually 

gets down to the local people so they say 90 percent of it would be 

used on the ground. I do not know if you have had a chance to look 

at our invasive species management issue and efficiency. I suspect 

they are going to be introducing a bill sometime this year, this 

group of individuals, but there are some from Colorado and Idaho 

and Wyoming and Nevada and some of the other states that have 

been looking at this that have been out for about a year and frankly, they would kind of like me to do it just through the appropriations process, and I keep telling them, you actually need to introduce a bill and have it considered by the appropriate committee 

and stuff. The Resources Committee might get a little fired up at 

us if we just tried to do it through our bill. 

But that is a huge issue, and your agency needs to look at it because you are going to have to respond to this, whether it is good 

or bad or whatever. So I appreciate that. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. I do not have any at this time. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would hate to be the only 

member of the Committee not to weigh in on fracking. 

Mr. KORNZE. Please. 

Ms. PINGREE. But I will not repeat everything that has already 

been said. I will just say that I, for one, am pleased that you are 

looking at this rule, updating it from 1983. It seems appropriate, 

given the incredible presence this has, and this is one of those 

things that is not just a western issue because of the Marcellus 

shale and what is going on in New York and Pennsylvania. Again, 

I do not represent those states but I certainly hear about it a lot, 

and I actually appreciate the thought that you are going after some 

of the concerns that are out there about public confidence. I hear 

my colleagues saying, you know, sometimes you raise some issues, 

sometimes if people knew the chemicals that went into the ground, 

maybe they would get unnecessarily concerned, but there is a pretty high level of concern as things stand right now, and I hear about 

it frequently from people who have no impact in their communities 

about the future potential of challenges with the drinking water, 

and people certainly have the perception that there has been an 

impact or could be a future impact on drinking water, and as we 

go through more and more drought conditions and drinking water 

becomes an increasingly precious resource just as fuel is, I am 

grateful that you are doing that. 

I also appreciated your comments on the well bore integrity, and 

from your account, you said that the industry itself says that about 

30 percent of the well bores turn out to be ineffective or inappropriate or have some other problems. Given some of the issues that 

we dealt with around the Deepwater Horizon and the challenges 

we know can be faced by not appropriate well bore integrity, I am 

glad that is part of your role. 
183

So I do not need you to answer any more questions. I will just 

say that, given the fact that there were changes to the Clean Water 

Act to enable us to do this, I think it is an appropriate revisiting 

of, are we doing everything we need to do to ensure the integrity 

of our groundwater, our communities that could be affected. People 

are already rewriting the future economy of the United States and 

are looking internationally at making investments in the United 

States who for a long time had written us off as, you know, they 

are just going down the tubes and their economy is done because 

of this enormous energy resource that we are going to have. So I 

think we need to protect the integrity of our environment while we 

are going through it because it could have an enormous ability to 

turn around some of the challenges we are looking at today that 

brought us to the sequester and everything else. So that is probably more of an editorial comment. 

Even though I made a long comment, just briefly, one thing I 

wanted you to discuss a little is the successful partnership you 

have had with National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and just say 

a little more about that. I know they play a big role in bringing 

money to the table and working on joint projects, and so many 

agencies are looking at public-private partnerships and how to expand it, and if you just want to talk briefly about what I think is 

a very positive way that you have been able to go after resources. 

Mr. KORNZE. You bet. On hydraulic fracturing, very quickly, you 

raised 30 percent. I am not sure what the percentage is, but I have 

seen some of the industry literature saying that there is remediation needed on a predictable basis. 

Ms. PINGREE. I just took that figure out of the air, but that does 

not have to be a figure for the record, just to say that even if the 

industry itself knows that there are issues with well bore integrity, 

it is an important thing to have some regulations, in my opinion. 

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Mr. KORNZE. On NFWF, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 

we have a great partnership with them. On an annual basis, we 

contribute some resources to them and they have a very efficient 

contracting and recruiting program for our youth hires. So we take 

great advantage of that. A lot of our summer monitoring and data 

collection comes from our youth and temporary hires. So we have 

got folks working in forests, we have got kids doing stream surveys, 

and we have got a lot of our future BLM and Department of the 

Interior employees out on the ground getting firsthand experience. 

So the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has been incredibly 

helpful in making that possible. And I will say that one of the biggest and most unfortunate, in my mind, impacts of the sequester 

is that we are going to be able to hire many, many fewer students 

and temporary employees this year, at least. And so as Secretary 

Salazar often said, by 2016, I believe it is 40 percent of the 70,000 

employees at the Department of the Interior will be eligible for retirement. So we have to look ahead and think about who we are 

bringing through the door, whether we have people entrusted and 

get them training on the ground so that they know the resource. 

And so these student summer programs are very, very important 

to us. 
184

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Graves. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. GRAVES. If I can just follow up a second, there is clearly a 

delicate balance between consumer protection and free market. I 

understand that, and one of America’s great heroes, Ronald 

Reagan, said the government’s view of the economy is, if it moves, 

tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize 

it. So I want to make sure that we are not getting into an area 

where something has been taxed, you regulate it, but it is still 

moving, so let’s regulate it some more, and if there has been no evidence of groundwater contamination or negative effect in groundwater, I would hope that you all would take that into consideration 

after years of regulations being in place that there is no need for 

new regulations to fix something that does not need fixing. 

But with that, the chairman mentioned that the EPA was in a 

multimillion-dollar, multiyear study to study this scientifically to 

see if there is any evidence of groundwater effects. When is that 

study due to be completed and when will your rules be proposed? 

Mr. KORNZE. So the EPA rule, they are doing a 4-year cradle-tograve study on water and how it interrelates with oil and gas development. I believe they are just past the 2-year mark, and they 

may—do not quote me on this but I think their schedule may have 

slipped a little bit. I saw some clip about that. So we could see a 

few more years before their study comes out. Our hope is to have 

our re-proposed draft rule out in the near future and so depending 

on timing and how many comments we get and other issues, we 

would very likely complete our process before that study comes out. 

But it is not a certainty. 

Mr. GRAVES. Why would you do that? I mean, the chairman mentioned that this Committee set aside money to study this issue, to 

find out what are the impacts, and would it not make sense, at 

least from a wide stewardship perspective of taxpayer dollars at 

least include that data in your rules? It seems out of order a little 

bit.

Mr. KORNZE. That is something we can certainly look at and consider. I will tell you, on the original draft we had, which was put 

out last May, we received 177,000 comments. One of the reasons 

that we ended up with a re-proposal, which is somewhat unusual, 

going from a draft to a new draft, is that we took the comments 

very, very seriously. We got a lot of comments from industry, and 

we are trying to use the best available science, the best available 

industry knowledge, and the input of others to make sure that we 

are doing something that is not a huge additional burden but is 

simply a responsible, commonsense step that will fit in with the existing oil and gas regulations that we have in place. 

Mr. GRAVES. Regardless of what the EPA study produces? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well, these things, it is a rolling process, so if there 

are important issues that the EPA raises in the interim or later on, 

we can work to address those. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Acting Director. I will go with that instead of Principal Deputy Director. I appreciate your being here. 
185

You have an enormous job. You have some great people actually 

that work out in the states. Steve Ellis, the State Director for BLM 

in Idaho, does a fantastic job in Idaho and tries to work with many 

groups that have different points of view on a variety of things. I 

have often said in Idaho that we actually love our public lands. 

Sixty-four percent of Idaho is public lands. I am not sure what Nevada is percentage-wise. 

Mr. KORNZE. I usually say 87. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Eighty-seven percent. Yes, 64 percent is public 

lands, and we always have some criticism. Our state legislature 

passed a resolution this year to turn over all the federal lands back 

to the states, and I tell people, you know, it is not that Idahoans 

do not like public lands. In fact, that is why we live there. We love 

our public lands. We are often PO’d at our landlords. But that is 

the case no matter what because everybody can do it better, frankly, and sometimes they do not understand the challenges that you 

face, and you have got a lot of challenges as evidenced by no matter what decision you make, you are going to get sued from somebody. So it is incumbent that we try to use the best science and 

the best strategy we can in trying to make some of these decisions. 

I appreciate the job the BLM does in Idaho and their work to try 

to make sure that we do not list sage grouse, which as you and 

both know would have a devastating impact on the West and the 

uses that we have out there. 

So I appreciate you being here today and look forward to working 

with you to try to help you solve some of these problems as we can 

with the budget. Thank you. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you. 
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
(223)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL 

YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESSES

BOB PERCIASEPE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 

MARYANN FROEHLICH, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. Good afternoon, 

and welcome to the fiscal year 2014 budget hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, we are joined by Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe and Acting Chief Financial Officer 

Maryann Froehlich to discuss the President’s budget proposal for 

EPA for the 2014 budget. Thank you both for being here today and 

all of your people that are here with us today. 

When this committee last met with the EPA to discuss the budget, I told Administrator Jackson that we appeared to be on the 

same page with regard to reducing overall spending as the 2013 

budget proposed a 1.3 percent decrease to the EPA’s top line. Nevertheless, the budget was not the one I would have written for the 

EPA as it proposed to shift funding away from state SRF programs 

and Superfund cleanup programs and diesel omission grants in 

order to increase EPA’s operating programs for enforcement and 

regulatory purposes. Ultimately, we passed a full-year CR that included some of these reductions and reduced EPA’s top line for the 

third year in a row. 

Now, for fiscal year 2014, a similar sentiment seems to apply. 

Mr. Perciasepe, it appears we agree on the continued need to reduce spending. Nevertheless, this is again not the budget that I 

would write for the EPA. 

Overall, the fiscal year 2014 budget proposes to reduce EPA’s funding to $8.1 5 billion, which is 190 billion or 2.3 percent below 

the fiscal year 2013 CR level. If enacted, the 2014 budget would reduce EPA’s top line for the fourth consecutive year. However, it 

matters what baseline we use for the sake of comparison, and I do 

not want us to lose sight of the bigger picture. Too often, Washington tends to focus on how much a program received last year 

and annual budgets can operate on the margins from one year to 

the next. 

Between 2009 and 2010, the Interior bill increased by $4.6 billion 

and the EPA’s budget increased by $2.65 billion. This was an unprecedented 35 percent increase in EPA’s budget in one year alone. 

So while EPA has not historically faced a declining budget for 4 

consecutive years, the Agency similarly has not received a historic 

$2.6 billion increase in one year alone either. With that in mind, 

the fiscal year 2014 budget proposal would still provide EPA with 
224

509 million above the fiscal year 2009 level, meaning this proposed 

budget would still provide EPA with a half-a-billion-dollar cushion. 

I highlight this point to provide context for the ongoing discussion about the continued need to reduce federal spending. It also 

exemplifies the degree to which unchecked spending was the norm 

in Washington just a few short years ago. And even with the targeted reductions in the Agency’s budget over the past 3 years, we 

still have yet to break even. 

In addition, the 2014 budget recycles many of the same proposals 

as it offers large increases in spending for regulatory and enforcement activities. These are offset by more cuts proposed for the 

State Revolving Fund and other state grants. I am not surprised 

to see many of the same proposals included in the fiscal year 2014 

request given that we passed a CR rather than a final bill. However, it means that I will have to again start this hearing by highlighting that this is not the budget that I would have written for 

the EPA. 

The fiscal year 2014 President’s request reduces the SRFs by $449 million below the fiscal year 2013 CR level in order to increase operating programs within the Environmental Programs 

and Management Accounts by $161 million and Categorical Grants 

for State Environmental Programs by 47 million. Many of these increases are targeted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and to 

increase compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. 

Further, the 2014 budget proposes to reduce the Diesel Emission grants, otherwise known as DERA grants, by $14 million. This is 

one of the few EPA programs that has been reauthorized in recent 

years. In addition, the budget also eliminates funding for the Rural 

Water Technical Assistance grants. It seems to me that the Administration is cutting successful, bipartisan programs knowing that 

Congress will restore this funding. In doing so, this allows the Administration to propose other new programs that we just do not 

have the funding to pay for in a constrained budget environment. 

These are the wrong priorities to cut. These are successful programs that achieve real results without the heavy hand of topdown regulation. Meanwhile, the budget proposes a new $60 million information 

technology initiative to increase electronic sharing of information 

between states and reduce reporting burdens. On the surface that 

sounds like a noble effort; however, please forgive me if I have 

some skepticism with respect to this new IT project. Last year, our 

committee was unable to receive routine reports on unobligated 

balances following the migration to the new COMPASS system. 

With respect to adequate funding for base programs, I remain 

concerned about the proposed levels for the Superfund program. 

Last year’s budget indicated that the requested level would not 

allow the program to fund new sites ready for cleanup, and the program would only be able to maintain funding at ongoing sites. This 

year’s proposal indicates that EPA may begin construction at new 

sites with the requested funding. But that does not sound very 

compelling given that the budget does not propose an increase for 

the Remedial Cleanup Program. 

At some point we need to ask ourselves whether we prefer to cut 

everything just a little bit in order to get the deficit under control, 
225

and in doing so, we fund all programs at a reduced rate, which may 

help no one. Or do we decide to eliminate a few programs that have 

run their course? To that end, I appreciate that you have targeted 

several programs for termination, including the Environmental 

Education Program and the Promoting a Greener Economy Program. The House bill for the past 2 years has similarly proposed 

to eliminate these programs. I hope we can work together to see 

those proposals across the finish line. 

Acting Administrator Perciasepe, I look forward to working with 

you on the details and look forward to keeping the lines of communication open. I also look forward to working with Gina McCarthy 

on these issues when she is confirmed, as I believe she probably 

will be. 

And with that, I know all members are interested in discussing 

various issues with you today, so I will save additional remarks for 

the period following your testimony. 

Also, we have a vote series planned probably about 3:00, 3:30, in 

that neighborhood, so we may have to break, but I hope we’ll be 

able to finish the hearing before then so that you do not have to 

wait around. 

I am pleased now to yield to our distinguished ranking member, 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And we have 

been joined by the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. Would you like to go ahead or—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. Oh, no, the ranking member should go first. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. All right. We are not going to fight about that right 

now, so we will move forward. But it is nice to be joined by Mrs. 

Lowey.

So the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported through what they 

call their Mass Layoff Statistics Program, which, incidentally, will 

stop during the sequester and so we will no longer know how many 

jobs may be lost. But in their latest report, they said of the 1.1 million jobs lost to mass layoffs, companies reported that government 

regulations caused .13 percent—not 13 percent—but .13 percent of 

those layoffs. I just thought I would like to put that on the table 

because EPA has been subject to a lot of, I think, undue criticism 

suggesting that they are the cause of job loss when the statistics 

do not bear that out. 

The fact is that we can grow jobs in this country in ways that 

do not endanger our environment or diminish the health of anyone 

else in ways that do not exacerbate unhealthy conditions for children with chronic respiratory issues, poison Native American fisheries with mercury, or contaminate drinking water with hydrochemicals and heavy metals from unregulated coal ash. 

Now, EPA tells people in corporations what they can and cannot 

do on their land and what their companies, but we believe in the 

good neighbor concept. If what you do on your land impacts your 

neighbors, EPA and the states operating under authorities granted 

by the Congress should intervene to protect the public’s health and 

minimize adverse impacts. The fact is that some businesses have 

not been good neighbors. 
226

Take the Chesapeake Bay for example. We started trying to improve the quality of the Bay 30 years ago through voluntary programs but with very limited success. And because of the results of 

the lack of progress, we had miles of dead zones in the Chesapeake 

Bay where nothing could live because the nitrates and fertilizers 

that had washed down, particularly from farms but also from 

lawns. It grew the vegetation on the bottom and of course when the 

vegetation decomposed, it just sucks all the oxygen out of the water 

and now we do not have fish or crustaceans or anything else. 

It was a situation that had to be addressed, and so EPA, in a 

historic agreement with the states, put the Bay on a pollution diet. 

The agreement says that those states that have water that flows 

into the Bay agreed to limit their stormwater runoff, to improve 

their agricultural practices, and to deal with combined sewer overflow. Despite the overwhelming consensus that further nutrient 

and sediment reductions are absolutely necessary to restore the 

Chesapeake Bay, the American Farm Bureau, along with the National Homebuilders Association, filed suit to stop the cleanup of 

the Bay. Now, they suggest that their jobs are at stake but you 

have to ask, what about the jobs that depend upon a healthy 

Chesapeake Bay? 

The study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences estimated that recreational and commercial fishing contributed almost $1.5 

billion in sales, over $700 million in income, and generated more 

than 13,000 jobs in Virginia alone. Maryland, I suspect, is even 

more and the other states similarly. So environmental policy 

should not come down to who has the most influence and can afford the most lawyers. 

Now, this is what you have been waiting for, Mr. Chairman. A 

great champion of conservatism and conservation, Republican 

Barry Goldwater, once said, ‘‘while I am a great believer in the free 

enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right our people have to live in a clean and pollutionfree environment.’’ 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is why I love Barry. 

Mr. MORAN. I may not be quite as enthusiastic in your fondness 

of him, but I do think that he was very articulate in this particular 

quote.

The challenges of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay are repeated 

across the country at other great bodies of water: the Great Lakes, 

San Francisco Bay, and of course the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, this is the first EPA hearing without Norm Dicks in many 

years, so I also think we ought to mention the Puget Sound, particularly in honor of our former colleague. I am sure he would have 

taken issue with the proposed reductions to the program and defended its necessity with the zeal that only he could bring to the 

issue. So there is a shout-out for Norm. I trust it will get back to 

him somehow. But we were sorry to see that Puget Sound cleanup 

reduced.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to pivot to another 

issue. Inclusion of the word ‘‘acting’’ in both of our witnesses’ titles 

highlights a serious deficiency and a stumbling block for the Environmental Protection Agency. To some extent I am afraid on the 

part of some people it may even be deliberate. It is not right. Both 
227

people are terrific in their jobs. I think that Mr. Perciasepe actually 

earned the right to be director of the EPA. I am not going to challenge the choice and I am sure she is going to do a great job, but 

whoever it is, they ought to have the full title of director. 

And the fact is that EPA has vacancies in its most senior positions, not just the administrator of the EPA. The chief financial officer, the general counsel, the assistant administrator for the Office 

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the assistant administrator of the Office of Research, and the assistant administrator 

for the Office of Water. For some inexplicable reason, Mr. Chairman, the chief financial officer is a Senate-confirmed position. That 

does not make sense. This committee relies on professionals in that 

position and we cannot afford to have long periods of vacancy. 

Before I close, I want to recognize Ms. Froehlich for all the great 

work that you have done and I trust will continue to do. I do think 

it is appropriate, though, to register some disappointment in the 

Administration’s request for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking 

Water Revolving Funds. You addressed this, Mr. Chairman. The 

State Revolving Fund appropriations are a drop in the bucket in 

comparison to the need, but cutting with no alternative plan really 

is unacceptable. You know, to some extent people think out of 

sight, out of mind because our water systems are generally underground, but the fact is we are going to pay a price later and it is 

going to be an even more expensive price if we do not maintain our 

needed infrastructure. 

We had a hearing with EPA and various stakeholders earlier in 

the year, and I appreciate the fact that you had that hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. We heard about the need to upgrade what is effectively 

our Nation’s plumbing system. Our Nation’s water infrastructure 

scored a D. It was up from a D minus. This is from the American 

Society of Civil Engineers. We need to continue to work on this 

subcommittee with the EPA, the states and localities, and the various think tanks to figure out a more sustainable funding mechanism.

But at this point I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving 

us the time. We want to thank the witnesses and give Mrs. Lowey 

an opportunity to say something and proceed with the hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Moran. You and I could have a discussion on the Senate confirmation process, but I suspect we would 

agree on most of it. 

Mrs. Lowey, it is nice to have the ranking member of the full 

committee here. The time is yours. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MRS. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, thank you. And I want to apologize in advance. I thank you for the opportunity for me to make a statement, 

but then I have to run to another meeting. But thank you so much, 

and I want to thank you both, the chairman and the ranking member, for your leadership on these very important issues. 

And Mr. Administrator, I do wish you could have the other title. 

And Ms. Froehlich, thank you so much for appearing before us. 

I am first and foremost concerned about the recent decline in 

funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and what it 
228

means for the long-term effectiveness of the Agency. Since 2010, 

EPA’s funding has been cut by nearly 20 percent, and now because 

of sequester, they face another 5 percent cut on top of that. And 

I fear that this year’s bill will mean further drastic cuts. 

But more than the allocation, in this year’s bill I fear that Americans just do not get it. They do not see the importance of EPA’s 

work in their everyday lives. We have seen Gallup polls illustrate 

a trend that has been developing since 2000 in which the public is 

far less concerned about environmental issues today than they 

were in the ’80s and ’90s. While this is partly due to EPA’s success 

in improving the environment with the passage of the Clean Air 

Act amendments of 1990 and the laws in the 1980s establishing 

the Superfund program, nonetheless, I find the trend alarming. 

EPA must do a better job communicating to the public how it improves our quality of life. 

For instance, EPA’s Brownfield Program helps localities clean up 

properties to further commercial and real estate investment. And 

the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Funds helped 

maintain our country’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Cuts to programs like these will quickly prove false the 

misperceptions that EPA is committed only to regulatory outreach—unfortunately, too many people believe that—and stand 

squarely in the path of economic growth. In fact, our public health 

and environmental laws save lives, promote economic growth. People no longer have to worry about the destruction of their livelihoods because their schools, their homes, their businesses are built 

on top of toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. Failing to communicate these essential benefits risk the progress that we have made 

over the last 40 plus years and the future gains that are yet to 

come.

So I thank you again for your service. Thank you for your leadership to the chair and the ranking member. And I apologize. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Perciasepe, I look forward to your testimony. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. PERCIASEPE

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you all for those opening comments. And 

Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran and Ranking 

Member Lowey, thank you for your time and all the other committee members who are here today. I appreciate you taking the 

time to come and talk to us about our budget and our proposal for 

the fiscal year 2014 year. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it is 8.153 billion and some of 

the priorities and their reflect some of our efforts to modify the 

ways some of the work gets done at EPA and how we can transform that. I will outline some of that quickly in my opening comments, but certainly, we are looking to reduce cost and we are looking to be more efficient as we go forward. 

It also involves difficult choices, as you have already outlined in 

your opening comments. And I would just like to run through a 

couple of quick highlights for the record. 

One of the things I wanted to point out right away is that, despite the constraints that we are all trying to operate under, we 

have recommended again to the Committee that we increase the 
229

amount of funding that goes to states for their operating program. 

The environmental laws that Congress passed in the ’70s and the 

’80s really envisioned a partnership between the state and the Federal Government and how these laws get implemented. The contribution of the Federal Government to some of the state programs 

is a pretty important part of that partnership. We call it the State 

and Tribal Assistance Grant Program, or the STAG account, to the 

budget folks in the room. We are looking forward to some increase 

in that funding for this year for the states and the tribes. 

We have also requested—and I think you alluded to this earlier—a shift in some funding inside the budget toward a concept 

that we call e-enterprise, and it is something we are working on 

with our state partners. We have a broad governance agreement 

that we developed with these environmental councils, with states 

on how we would move forward, because some of the states are 

moving forward in this direction as well. 

When you think of all the environmental protection that is provided to the United States and the citizens of the country, it is a 

mix of what EPA does and what the states do and what, in many 

respects, the local governments do and businesses do when they 

implement their pollution control programs. So how that whole system works together and how it shares information and how people 

interact with it, whether they are the public, whether they are a 

regulated entity and they need to process their permits and our reporting requirements, all of that in the modern world, any of us 

who do business with the bank, do business with an airline, do 

business with almost anybody, we can do a substantial amount of 

that business online and through transfer of information online. 

And so what we want to do, together with the states, is move 

into the 21st century so we can reduce reporting requirements, we 

can reduce reporting burden, we can get rid of obsolete reporting 

requirements, and reduce error as the data is transferred and everything else. So this is not one big data system. I want to be really 

clear. It is not like a huge system that we are going to put in place. 

What it is is a business model. It is a business model that, as you 

develop the different parts of your program, you do it in concert 

with the states and local governments and you develop a way to 

implement it so that there is a more of an electronic transaction. 

And I will use one quick example. In the last Congress, Congress 

authorized what was called eManifest. We track hazardous waste 

in the United States through paper. You know, I like to say yellow, 

pink, and blue copies of each hazardous waste transport has to 

have that paperwork following it around, whereas if you buy something from anybody these days or have it shipped by FedEx, you 

will know what warehouse it is in and you will get an email telling 

you when it was delivered to your house. So what we want to be 

able to do is move the tracking of hazardous waste in the country 

into the same, era that the tracking of consumer products or other 

important equipment that is done routinely every day in the country, and we think that this will save over $100 million of reporting 

costs to the industry that does the shipping of the waste. 

So that is just an example of what we are talking about here. So 

I want you to be comfortable that we are not thinking that there 

be some big computer system that will somehow have to operate 
230

it. It will be a business model is the way to think about it. And 

we think it is pretty important because states are starting to do it, 

too, and we need to be able to do it together. 

We have 176 million for our ongoing work related to greenhouse 

gases and a substantial amount of that work also includes programs like ENERGY STAR and greenhouse gas reporting, 

SmartWay—which we do with the trucking industry in terms of 

looking at the reduction sometimes through aerodynamics of longhaul trucking and their impact—and $20 million toward research 

on climate change and ecosystem and human health. We have $15 million additional in the grants to the states for 

clean water to focus on nutrient pollution, which is one of the remaining big issues we have in water pollution in the United States. 

The ranking member talked about the Chesapeake Bay. That is a 

good example of where nutrient pollution is something we have to 

work on. 

State Revolving Fund, we are asking for $1.1 billion, and the clean water, $817 million in the drinking water. We are also looking at building upfront planning processes. We are working with 

the Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and 

National League of Cities to come up with what we called integrated planning so we can look at all the infrastructure needs, 

whether it is in stormwater, sewer systems, combined sewer overflows, all these different things that confront the mayors and the 

big cost that you hear about. How can we look at managing those 

together so that we do not have separate processes underway? And 

with the economy of scale, we look at the lifecycle and the different 

practices, including things like green infrastructure. Can we reduce 

the overall cost? So we have a big cost out there in the future, but 

part of the puzzle is how do we reduce that cost and look at new 

technologies that might work? We have $1.34 billion for cleanups, land cleanup. You have already mentioned this includes Superfund; it includes brownfields 

and some of the emergency response work that EPA does. We respond to most of the significant leaks and explosions around the 

country, along with some of the other federal agencies, but we are 

usually the ones involved with cleaning it up after it has been 

done.

And we are also asking, Mr. Chairman, for the Superfund tax to 

be reinstated so we have a consistent source of funding and revenue for that into the Trust Fund. We are looking at chemicals and 

commerce and managing the potential risk from new chemicals. 

I will mention a few other things in conclusion here. You mentioned a number of programs that we have eliminated. We also reduced by more than 10 percent a number of programs for about a 

$54 million savings and in some cases shifting. We are also looking 

at consolidating space. We are doing this in an ongoing way. We 

have some concentrated efforts, for instance, on labs and we are 

looking at advanced technology and energy sources at our different 

facilities, so we are already saving about $6 million annually. We 

have already reduced over the last, you know, half a decade almost 

400,000 square feet of space that EPA is in around the country. So 

we are continuing to look at those savings and we recognize all 

your support for that. 
231

So with that, I think I will stop with my summary. 

[The statement of Bob Perciasepe follows:] 
232
233
234
235
236
237
238

SUPERFUND TAX REINSTATEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And again, thank you for being here 

today. You mentioned just a minute ago the Superfund tax reinstatement. Are you going to bring up a proposal for that to the Authorizing Committee? Because that is really an authorizing issue 

rather than an appropriation issue. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Now, I just wanted to make sure you knew that 

we had that. In the President’s budget there is a suggestion that 

we do that, and so I just wanted to make sure that you—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is all. 

IRIS

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Let me ask you. I am encouraged that the 

EPA has expressed a commitment to improving the IRIS program 

and I am pleased that the EPA has embraced several of the National Academy of Science recommendations for the IRIS reform. 

And I look forward to the findings from the National Academy of 

Science ongoing review of how the EPA has been incorporating 

those recommendations. 

In the interim, I would like to know what the EPA is doing to 

improve the IRIS assessments currently under development and 

would like to know whether the EPA is making small adjustments 

on the margins that may or may not amount to much or whether 

the EPA is applying changes to current IRIS assessments in a uniform manner? And is the EPA currently revising the formaldehyde 

and arsenic risk assessment to address the NAS recommendations? 

How is the EPA applying the NAS reform recommendations to 

other chemicals that are in the IRIS bubble right now? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we are following the National Academy’s 

recommendations. We have done a number of assessments and we 

now have the National Academy relooking. I think you mentioned 

that in your question that they are in the process of looking at how 

we are following what they are doing. But we are also doing another review of the entire process and where we can continue to 

make improvements, and so we have a team of people working on 

that.

And I will just give you an example of the kind of thing that we 

are looking at. People often want to know—and I think appropriately so—is how does EPA decide which studies it might use to 

make the assessment? Because there are always many, many studies, some of them related directly to a chemical; sometimes they are 

related to another related chemical. But we have to make a decision on which ones we use in the actual IRIS assessment. So improving and increasing the amount of transparency there and involvement in understanding what the criteria are that we are using 

to make those decisions is one of the areas we are looking at very 

closely right now in line with some of the recommendations we got 

from the National Academy of Sciences. 

I am also personally hopeful that when the Academy finishes its 

review of some of the work we have done to date that we are either 

going in the right direction or aiming in the right direction, and 

here are more things you have to do. I am feeling pretty com-
239

fortable that we are adhering to the direction and the spirit and 

the letter of what their recommendations are. And it is pretty important that we do that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. In order to give credibility to what the EPA is 

going to do, I think it is very important that you look at the recommendations that they are making. And I am pleased, as I said, 

that you seem to be doing that. 

STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS

Let me ask you one other question, the discussion on the State 

Revolving Loan Funds. As I understand it, when those acts were 

enacted and those funds were put into place—and it is a good 

idea—the Federal Government would put money into it. Then, it 

would go out to local communities, and the states and the local 

communities would have matches of some level and that those 

funds, once they were paid back, would go back into the State Revolving Loan Fund, and eventually, you would build up a fund that 

was self-sustaining essentially to address the water and sewer 

needs in this country. I think together you said it was about close 

to $2 billion that you are requesting in those funds this year. 

How much does that leverage in the state and local match? And 

is there a point, 10 years, 100 years down the road where we will 

have built that fund up so that it will be self-sustaining so that we 

will not be putting $2 billion or whatever into that fund? Because 

I have A) that concern, and B) in the hearing that we had on this 

water infrastructure that we had, it was said that there were about 

a $700 billion backlog. In doing this at $2 billion a year, it only 

takes us to $350 billion. 

Now, I realize we get some local contribution also, but that back- log continues to grow. And the $2 billion that we put into this each 

year puts huge pressure on the rest of our budget in terms of reducing budgets and does not address the problem that we are trying to fix. And so I agree somewhat with what the ranking member 

said to begin with. We have got to find a way to fund this on an 

ongoing basis to make sure that we address the problem that everybody recognizes. Well, I should not say everybody recognizes, 

but as you said, it is an underground problem and most people do 

not recognize it until something goes wrong. So how do we get from 

point A to point B? If you would like to talk about that for a 

minute, Bob, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I appreciate that question. And I have actually had the opportunity to struggle with this issue being a city 

budgeter for the city of Baltimore for 11 years of my life and helping finance water and sewer systems there, and then as a state environmental commissioner trying to set up the revolving fund after 

the amendments of 1987 and now this. I maybe have an interesting 

point of view on all of this. And I have to say some of these issues 

are policy-driven on what amount of that $700 billion the Federal 

Government feels it should fund versus local or state level. 

But let me give you sort of a picture of how it is currently operating. We are putting out through this program through a combination of 4 different components. One is the annual amount that 

comes from the federal appropriation; the second is the repayments 

now that are coming in. So the clean water part of this was author-
240

ized in 1987 and the Safe Drinking Water Act part was authorized 

by Congress in 1996. Said they had been operating for a while so 

the banks are getting larger in the picture of this portfolio. 

So we have annual repayments, we have the annual capitalization grants from the Federal Government, which are before you in 

our budget, we have the state match of 20 percent to that, and 

then we have the leveraging of municipal and revenue bonds that 

goes on with that. That combination last year in 2012 funded $7.7 

billion worth of work. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So for the $2 billion we put in—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Last year, we put a little over $2 billion in. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, 2.1 or something? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. 2.3. 

Mr. SIMPSON. 2.3? And that funded $7 billion? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. $7.7 billion when you took into account the repayments that were then available to be used, the leveraging that 

states do when they have created these funds. They sell revenue 

bonds and then, you know, the simple model is you blend together 

for a low-interest loan. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So now, we got that backlog down to 100 years? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is tough on this one. No, but let me say 

the other side of that coin is what can we do on that $700 billion? 

I mentioned that earlier. We have been developing this process 

with the cities to look at more cost-effective approaches to dealing 

with some of the problems like green infrastructure. We have got 

a program going now with the District of Columbia. We have a program going with the city of Philadelphia. We signed a letter of an 

agreement in a number of our permits and compliance schedules 

that we have for people to get into compliance are now building 

green infrastructure into those things. And we are learning but we 

think that that can have a substantial beneficial effect in terms of 

the way cities go about fixing these problems. 

So I do not want to ignore the fact that there are possibilities to 

reduce that total need to different number because of the ability to 

look at more cost-effective ways to go, but that is something we are 

not deterring from. 

So the amount of money we put in each year here is actually now 

getting to the point where it is leveraging. And if I look at the 

banks overall since they have been created, we probably have funded somewhere around $120 billion in the 20 years that it is going 

on through these different approaches. 

So the second part of it, which I think is a much longer conversation, is, you know, how long does the federal commitment hold? 

And I think if we want to maintain this fund in a sustainable way 

and make sure that it has an inflation hedge in it so that it is buying the same amount of work because the construction cost index 

keeps going up, as you probably know. And the other part is that 

some of these funds, and particularly the drinking water one, has 

important set-asides in it for governors’ flexibility. And some of 

those set-asides are really important for small towns and places 

where the affordability is an issue. And it does have an effect of 

eroding the corpus because it is ‘‘loan forgiveness.’’ 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 
241

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So there is probably always going to be a need 

for some level of federal partnership with the states on this to deal 

with those types of issues, but at some point, we will have to make 

our big decision amongst all of us about when that revolving 

amount gets to a certain level that that is an appropriate annual 

amount. But I do not think we are there yet. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Has the Agency looked in a serious way at publicprivate partnerships in trying to address this? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have begun to look at that a little harder, 

particularly in the dialogue we are having with the mayors and 

county executives. We are really looking at how we can get more 

private funds into these programs. There has been a little more of 

it in the drinking water arena. Maybe half of the drinking water 

systems in the country have some private involvement or are 

owned by a private company. It is a little less so in the wastewater 

area.

But when you think about the bonds we are leveraging, the municipal bonds, the revenue bonds, that is sort of getting institutional and, you know, whoever else is investing in private, you 

know, tax-exempt bonds, so you are getting that kind of capital into 

the system. So we need to do more looking at innovative financing 

techniques here. And I think that any way we could work with you 

guys on that, I would welcome it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. Perciasepe, there was a recent article in the Energy and Environment Daily that highlighted the toll that sequestration has 

taken on criminal enforcement of environmental laws. A Mr. Doug 

Parker, the director of the Agency’s Criminal Investigation, was 

clear that his already understaffed division would continue to 

shrink under sequester leaving gaps in coverage for the Nation. I 

would like for you to put on the record some of the real costs of 

sequestering funds in such an irrational, irresponsible manner, for 

example, permit delays, delays in the cleanup of hazardous sites. 

Could you share with us some of the impact of this sequester? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. First, I have to start at the highest level here 

for just a minute if you bear with me. One of the issues—and when 

you hear folks like you quoted there talking about this—we have 

a situation where at the highest level when you are trying to manage a large institution like the Federal Government or a particular 

component of it like EPA, it is hard to be a manager in a situation 

where so much uncertainty is constantly thrown into the mix. So 

there is a certain amount of management disruption that is hard 

to quantify. And then you throw on top of that at a place like EPA 

we cannot deal with all of the reductions without reducing the payroll. And the way we are reducing the payroll is the way some 

other places are doing it as well, and we are looking at ways to reduce this, but we have to furlough employees. 

And I think that the current plan—although I told everybody I 

would look at it again in June—we are trying to save money in 

other places—is up to 10 days for all 16,000 employees. So what 
242

I think some of the managers are talking about when you hear 

from them is they are multiplying all of their employees by 10 days 

between now and October and are saying that is the disruption I 

will have in the permit processing, in the inspections in the field. 

We estimate maybe 1,000 fewer inspections across the different 

programs out in our field offices. 

And then the way this also lays out is it is not just in the personal side; it is also in the nonpersonnel side, which are things like 

the Superfund cleanups or the SRF or Super Storm Sandy, funding 

that we received from Congress was reduced. All of these other reductions result in fewer projects, fewer monitors, fewer startups, 

fewer water quality projects that might be funded. So we can provide some more detail—— 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I mean those are kind of abstract words. The 

person that is sitting at home that has a stake in EPA being able 

to conduct its responsibilities, what is the impact? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we were just talking about—and I think 

it was a very good discussion—about the drinking water and clean 

water SRFs. The reductions in these programs ripple through those 

leveraged funds and the state match and everything else, so once 

our amount is reduced then the states’ amount is reduced, and 

then the amount you leverage is reduced. The repayments will still 

be the same. We estimate about 40 water projects will not be able 

to get funded. That is an example. 

Brownfields, which is an oversubscribed program, we would expect there would be 10 fewer assessment and 5 fewer cleanups. So 

each program we can have this. 

And the state and local air quality grants, they are going to be 

reduced, and this is one of the areas that we are hoping to work 

with you guys to increase the amount for next year by even a small 

amount.

So 45 nonpoint source projects will probably not be funded under 

the 319 program under the Clean Water Act, and 5 fewer fellowships in our laboratories. It is the way we get new science talent 

into the Federal Government. 

Mr. MORAN. Of course, this is perspective at this point. You are 

just now in the process of implementing them, so the impact really 

will not be felt for at least several months, maybe not until next 

year. But I guess it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to put 

this in the record what they anticipate and to give us a regular update on what is happening as a result of the sequester. 

[The information follows:] 

SEQUESTER

Give us a regular update on what is happening as a result of the sequester. 

• We will work with your staff to provide needed updates. 

KEYSTONE PIPELINE

I have one other issue that I would like to raise. The EPA commented on the Department of State’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the EIS, for the TransCanada Keystone 

pipeline. And among the many issues raised by EPA, the issue of 

the difficulty in cleaning up the crude sands from the oil—I was 

discussing with the staff the best way of describing this—but the 
243

crude oil that comes from these sands is kind of unique and distinctive. And EPA mentioned in their comments to the Department of 

State that these spills have different impacts than the spills of conventional oil. One example used with the spill in 2010 in Michigan 

into the Kalamazoo River that is still not mitigated because of the 

nature of the crude oil that comes from these sands. 

Now, the planned route of Keystone and the alternative route 

have the pipeline going over the Ogallala aquifer, one of the world’s 

largest underground freshwater sources and a very important 

source of water for agriculture throughout the western states. If 

there was a spill from the Keystone pipeline that contaminated this 

aquifer, how could we effectively clean it and how many years 

would it take to clean it up? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I cannot answer how many years. But let 

me just say something general about our comments on the draft 

EIS. First, our comments on the draft EIS are designed to improve 

the analysis before the final EIS. This work that has been done by 

the State Department has improved from the last time they have 

analyzed this, and these are important issues that we need to have 

more analysis of and that they know they need to do more analysis 

of in the final. The grade that EPA does under the Clean Air Act 

was actually a passing grade for this draft EIS. If you want to 

make an analogy to school, it was like a C. And we think that 

there is ample time and ability for the analysis of these issues to 

be upgraded substantially. 

So the reason we bring that up, that the type of crude that comes 

from these sources may have to be handled differently is that we 

make sure that that is handled and how they would do it. I would 

point out that the EIS also said very clearly that the company and 

the other responsible parties are making all those appropriate commitments to do the cleanup. But depending on what would happen 

in any particular accident if it happened, it is difficult to predict 

how many years it would take to clean up that. I do not know how 

many years it is going to take to clean up the Gulf of Mexico, for 

instance, but we are working on it. 

So I want to balance our pointing out to the State Department 

important things that they need to further analyze and strengthened in their final EIS with any conclusion that we think that all 

of that is inevitable and that they have not figured out how to complete that analysis. So I want to make sure that you know where 

we are in that overall process. This is designed now to make sure 

that those analyses get done. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I am glad you are having input into this. It 

looks like Department of State may approve it but the threat to one 

of the largest water reservoirs seems to be a real one that needs 

to be considered. 

Mr. Chairman, I have other questions such as on the mountaintop mining court decision and all, but you have several members 

on your side that want to ask questions, so I think at this point 

I would defer to them. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And hopefully, we will get to another round because I have got several questions also. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 
244

WESTERN WASHINGTON STORMWATER MANUAL

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am going to talk a little bit more specifically about some 

questions I have in Washington State. And hopefully, what I would 

like from you is some clarification. I am actually very anxious to 

get it just because we have been asking this question of different 

folks for a while and have not been able to nail this down. Specifically, in Washington State our Department of Ecology is the EPA 

administrator for our region. And I think it was in ’06, ’05 or ’06 

they developed and put out what was called the Western Washington Stormwater Manual. 

Specifically, it has to do with water runoff from stormwater on 

the west side of the state. Interestingly, they exempted King County, which has the Puget Sound, and I would say when you talk 

about pollution, that is one of the areas we should be focusing. But 

they exempted it because it is a rather difficult rule but it does 

apply in my neck of the woods in southwest Washington. It basically says that water has to drain as slowly as it did prior to the 

Lewis and Clark exploration. We call it the Prior to Euro-American 

Settlement Rule. That is literally what it says in the manual. 

I mean aside from asking what in the world does that mean because none of us were here, we have asked the state several times 

where they get the authority to do this because no other state in 

the Nation is doing this. And every single time they pointed back 

at your agency and say it is EPA Clean Water Act directives that 

force our hand to do this, which we have not been able to find that 

that is accurate, and I was hoping maybe you could speak to that. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. All right. Well, I am not familiar with that 

manual but I will give you a response. But I will definitely follow 

up on this with our regional administrator and director of the department in the state, whoever the person is there. 

So under the Clean Water Act, there is a permit program, particularly the ’87 amendments establish the permit program for 

stormwater runoff because it picks up stuff, particularly in urban 

areas and whether it be drops of oil or fertilizer on lawns or whatever, and I think we all recognize that—or changes its temperature, which is really important for salmon spawning. So that 

stormwater fell under what is called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, which is the permitting program——

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. In the Clean Water Act from 1972. 

So that program is delegated to the State of Washington. The State 

of Washington has been delegated to run the NPDES program by 

EPA. Generally, they have flexibility and how they go about doing 

that and that there are guidelines that we will put out on a particular source of pollution, and we have undoubtedly put out guidelines on stormwater. But exactly how they got to that specific— 

does it actually—I want to ask does it—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes, pre-Lewis and Clark. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Okay. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. Yes, which—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So—— 
245

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [continuing]. I am pretty sure all states 

west of the Mississippi are under this same—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Okay. Well, I do not want to be unresponsive 

here because I am not familiar with that manual, but I am very 

familiar with the construct of how the law is working as I just outlined it to you and—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, and I understand where they claim 

it from, but they are basically—because we go to them and say, 

okay, what in the world does that mean? And also, if it is so important, why would you exempt the largest metropolitan area in the 

state, which I think is part of Superfund when you talk about the 

Puget Sound and the work that we need to do to clean up the 

sound? Why would you exempt that area? And then if it is in fact 

EPA-driven, would not every other western state be in the same— 

so you are saying that your agency here has not issued to them 

that they need to do—the pre-Lewis-and-Clark threshold or standard is not from your EPA office? It is their interpretation. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I have never seen a Lewis and Clark manual 

at EPA. However, I am certain that we have issued guidelines on 

how to do the stormwater programs for states that are delegating 

the program. And, you know, it would really be unfair I think for 

me to continue to speculate on exactly what this is, but it is important enough that I want to make sure I get the answer. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, because as you can imagine—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I will make sure you get—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We appreciate that because we have, you 

know, developers or even—I mean this impacts everybody and it is 

hard to even find out what that means. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You know, at some risk that this may not be 

exactly your issue that you are looking at now in Washington, the 

concept of holding water on the site or on a—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Property and letting it infiltrate 

into the groundwater and not runoff is a concept that is used in 

stormwater.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And it is used in other states very successfully.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right, here in the District of Columbia—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Their stormwater regulations, I 

think, require something like 90 or 95 percent of the first inch of 

rainfall——

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I found that in other states. What 

I found is that that is not uncommon. It is that such a high threshold that nobody totally understands what it means. And as we have 

tried numerous times to get clarification from them, they point at 

you and say we are doing what we were told. And you are going, 

okay, that makes not very much sense. 

NPDES, FOREST ROADS

The one last thing when you mentioned NPDES, forest roads, 

this has been a big issue also in the Northwest region. I just wanted to ask you. Obviously, there has been a court ruling. Your agency has put out guidance, but there are those who are going to be 
246

pushing for possibly a suit. I am not sure that we are done with 

this just yet, which is why I am still working on legislation to codify basically the rule that you put into place. But I wanted to ask, 

do you believe that forest roads should be permitted by the EPA 

over state best practices standards, kind of similar to what we just 

talked about in a different issue? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. You know, I know that we have gone 

around on this issue a couple of times. There have been court 

cases. I believe that we tried to issue a permit, a general permit 

that would allow states to do what they want to do but not interfere with it. That is my understanding of what we have done with 

the forest roads. And of course if you have legislation, you know, 

we would be—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But it sounds like we are in agreement 

that you think the states is probably where some of these decisions 

should be made versus an EPA rule about this issue? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. So I am going to read here to make sure 

I give you the right information. We have issued regulations to 

clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity 

and that the NPDES permits are not required for these stormwater 

discharges. So we have issued those regulations. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. And I welcome your clarification on that other issue. We would like help with that. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that was what the Supreme Court ruled essentially, that they are not required? But we are back in the 9th 

Circuit now with another suit, are we not? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We could be. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is why the legislation—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think we feel like we are in a situation now 

with what we have done administratively that it deals—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Substantially the issue that was at 

hand.

Mr. SIMPSON. The unusual thing is as we are in agreement here 

with what you have done. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SULFURYL FLUORIDE

Mr. Administrator, I just had a few quick questions but a little 

bit of background before the questions. And it was in January 2011 

that your agency proposed withdrawing the food tolerances for the 

fumigant sulfuryl fluoride. And it is a product that the Agency has 

promoted previously and I have been very supportive of as a substitute for another product that had some concerns. There have 

been a lot of objection to this proposed rule, including from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and a lot of industry groups. But there 

has been a tremendous amount of support for sulfuryl fluoride. 

And in fact, I went to read a portion of the letter from an expert 

on this, and it was submitted to the EPA during the second comment period, and it was by Dr. Lynn Goldman, who is the current 

dean of Public Health and Health Services at George Washington 

University. And, as you know, Dr. Goldman was an assistant ad-
247

ministrator of the EPA during the Clinton Administration. And 

part of her statement, she says the policies EPA put in place in response to FQPA amendments would clearly allow the exposure scenario involving sulfuryl fluoride to be considered negligible, and 

there is no requirement under FQPA for EPA to revoke the tolerances that support the food uses for SF. 

Second, the proposed order would provide no additional public 

health protection to the U.S. population as a whole or to any subpopulation, including children. Instead, this decision would increase risk to the public through increased use of more harmful 

pesticides and by miscommunication of the risk of fluoride use. So 

a question is: Is Dr. Goldman wrong? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I have not seen what she said about that. Lynn 

Goldman, right? 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I know her very well and I will actually talk to 

her after this meeting. But I want you to know that we are sympathetic to this problem and I think you have been working on 

some——

Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Legislative ideas. And I think I 

would want to say that if there is a way for us to provide some 

technical assistance if you need it, making sure what you needed 

to look at would be available. I am going by, you know, what the 

general counsel and everybody else looked at. It is a painful lesson. 

What has happened here in background, if I might, is that the use 

of fluoride has increased in a number of products across a spectrum, but back in the day when people like Able Wolman in the 

beginning of the last century found that fluoride improves dental 

health, people have been putting it into toothpaste, they have been 

putting it into sports drinks—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. And so smaller and smaller 

amounts are getting us closer and closer to whatever the risk level 

might be for fluorosis in children. So I think that that is what is 

driving this. I think listening to what you said and Lynn’s quote, 

she is looking at the broader spectrum of risk, which is not an inappropriate thing to do. I do not know legally whether we can dissect that here, although it certainly is a commonsense approach 

that she has said. 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. In the meantime, I want you to know that we 

have put a long process here in our proposal and we would certainly welcome any overtures and your help. 

Mr. GRAVES. Okay. Great. Well, I look forward to working with 

you on it. And maybe just for us as a committee, can you share 

with us what public health benefits that you see as an agency if 

any from the withdrawal of SF and what alternatives does EPA 

propose?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I mean we think sulfuryl fluoride is a pretty important fumigant. We are obviously in a phasing-down of methyl 

bromide——

Mr. GRAVES. Yes. 
248

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Because of its ozone depleting 

issues and sulfuryl fluoride is a good replacement for that although 

not in every instance. And so we think that in an agricultural 

arena it is an important tool. Our interpretation of the Food Quality Protection Act that has us moving on this is the fact that the 

increased exposure on average that people are starting to get from 

the fluoride. There may be a way to look at all the data that is involved with that, but that is the issue that is at play here. 

Mr. GRAVES. Okay. Well, thank you. And I encourage you to continue looking at the data. It is a product that you certainly promoted and felt was safe for the public in the past. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We did. 

Mr. GRAVES. And Mr. Chairman, if I might add that Mr. Valadao 

has been very helpful on this issue as well and he has similar interests for his state. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Valadao? 

316(B)

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Administrator. I wanted to ask you about a regulation EPA is currently working on related to once-through cooling at major industrial and power facilities. The more I learn about it, the more I am concerned about the 

implication depending on how this final rule is written. Last year, 

a bipartisan group of 100 of my colleagues sent the letter I have 

here to the EPA. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection. 
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. 

On this Rule 316(b), we already have a rule in place in my state 

on this topic, so it is an issue I am aware of from my time serving 

in the state legislature. And I have two brief questions for you. 

First, a simple yes or no will suffice. Do you plan on meeting the 

deadline of June 27 on this rule? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Mr. VALADAO. Okay. The different facilities EPA is looking to 

regulate under this rule are also different from each other, nuclear 

versus natural gas, et cetera. And I think one of the main problems 

I see and the one that was raised in a letter from my colleagues 

is that the EPA had originally considered a one-size-fits-all approach here. And can you tell me if that is still the case or if EPA 

is going to instead give the states the appropriate authority they 

have had for years to decide what makes sense at specific locations?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are working very hard on a more flexible 

rule.

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. Obviously, this is a concern of mine. 

In California, we have only got two nuclear plants running, but in 

my district, a quarter of the energy comes from nuclear. And when 

you look at trying to attract businesses or jobs or even some of the 

lowest income people in my district, affordable energy is something 

that they need to keep their families comfortable, to keep the lights 

on at school, to run computers. Those are all things that severely 

affect my constituents, and it is something I would like you to take 

some serious look into. So thank you. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, you know, just a little bit of context for 

you, Congressman, because I want you to—we are very aware of 

the issues that you have brought up. We have an ongoing process 

with stakeholders, including the Edison Electric Institute. We are 

looking across the spectrum of what the states are currently doing 

and how we have perhaps a really much smoother than was looked 

at in the proposal approach to dealing with these issues, providing 

the flexibility where there are issues with aquatic ecosystem that 

are important that the state would have the ability to work with 

the utility there to deal with, but it would not have to be the same 

thing in every location everywhere around the country. So I want 

you to know that we are very keenly focused on this issue. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVES ACTION PLAN

Good afternoon. Sir, I would like to ask you. How is the EPA responding to all of the Science Advisory Board’s recommendations, 

particularly with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiatives Action 

Plan?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. How would we respond to their— 

Mr. JOYCE. How are you responding to their recommendations? 

[The information follows:] 

Joyce:

Great Lakes: how is the EPA responding to the Science Advisory Board Recommendations on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan? 
257

The SAB had concluded that the Action Plan identifies most of the important actions to be undertaken first. It recommended that the Action Plan could be bolstered 

by the creation of an integrated science-based framework. 

In response to that recommendation, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force released a Draft Adaptive Science-Based Framework for Great Lakes Restoration. The 

draft Framework recommends two key enhancements for the GLRI: (i) the use of 

a science-based adaptive restoration approach that promotes a systematic and 

iterative process by which to apply lessons learned on a programmatic level to 

prioritization of decisions and identification of actions most likely to advance the effectiveness and collective success of restoration efforts and (ii) development and use 

of an enhanced information system that will further support GLRI decision-making. 

Both of these key recommendations are consistent with the findings of the SAB’s 

review of the Action Plan. 

The draft Framework (available at: http://greatlakesrestoration.us/pdfs/

20130521-glri-adaptive-sciencebased-framework.pdf) is out for public comment until 

July 12, 2013, after which the IATF will consider those comments and finalize the 

Framework.

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know I am sorry to say. I know that 

if the Science Advisory Board has given us recommendations on 

our Great Lakes Initiative, which we are in the third or fourth year 

of now, and I think with this budget proposal, we will obviously 

take that into account in the process going forward. We are actually redoing the action plan now for the—it was sort of a 4-year action plan and we are in the process of—you know, we will have 

some public meetings and we are going to work with the other federal agencies to redo the action plan for the next 4 years. So we 

will take into account—actually, since I said I do not know, I will 

tell you I will make sure we take into account whatever the SAB 

has given us is good advice. 

Mr. JOYCE. Great. Thank you. Are you engaging the region’s nonfederal scientists in producing and implementing a science plan so 

they are not just being asked to react to a federally generated 

adaptive management blueprint? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. This is in relationship to the Great Lakes? 

Mr. JOYCE. Yes, in coordinating the efforts. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Now, we have probably near 5,000 scientists at 

EPA and they are all in different categories of disciplines. And 

whatever we need for this really important program, we will apply 

to it. 

Mr. JOYCE. Are you working with the outside scientists as well? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. Yes, we are, including scientists and other 

agencies. Adaptive management is a pretty important component of 

any ecosystem type of a project because no one can be precisely 

sure and you have the best information available whether it is the 

Everglades or the Great Lakes or the Chesapeake Bay, and you 

proceed but you need to have feedback loops to make sure you are 

doing alright in that regard. 

Mr. JOYCE. Well, you may not know but the northern border of 

my district is Lake Erie obviously, and so it is very important to 

us, especially the fact that it has 20 percent of the world’s freshwater supply. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are in complete agreement on that, and it 

is remarkable that it is 20 percent of the freshwater on the—not 

in the atmosphere, in our—— 

Mr. JOYCE. On the planet, yes. Well, based on your first two answers, I guess it would render my last question moot, Mr. Chairman. So thank you. 
258

Mr. SIMPSON. All right. Thank you. I am glad to see you are picking up where Steve left off. A couple of questions. 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES

I understand that the EPA is starting to use more what you call 

public opinion surveys to do a cost-benefit analysis rather than traditional cost-benefit analyses, and we are asking people how much 

would you be willing to pay to do X, Y, or Z. And in the theoretical, 

oftentimes people are a lot more willing to say they are willing to 

pay for stuff than they actually are. Is this an appropriate direction 

to go in doing a true cost-benefit analysis? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first, we are not replacing our traditional 

cost-benefit analyses. In fact, we are continuing to improve on that, 

refining how we—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. How does this play into that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. You said instead of and I want to make 

sure——

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, you understand we 

are not doing that. One of the things we have always struggled 

with, and this relates perhaps to the questions we had on the 

closed loop cooling systems. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have a more difficult time of calculating the 

benefits. We are very good at calculating the costs and I think with 

a pretty good track record on that. But the benefits are harder. So 

there is a technique in economics called contingent valuation, and 

you may call it a public opinion survey, but it is an actual tool that 

is used by economists to determine benefits in some instances. So 

we do not want to not use that tool, but I think the key is to what 

extent do you use that tool? Do you use it for broad policy or do 

you use it for some site-specific decision? And if you are going to 

do a site-specific decision, you are likely to need—and the economists who work on these models will tell you—you are likely to 

need information that is much more tailored to that local decision. 

So your survey of people, whether it is focus groups or more traditional technical surveying, is focused on the issues at hand in the 

local area. But we will use and have used in the past—I remember 

when I was at EPA and the ’90s, we looked at contingent valuation 

types of analysis that were emerging back then on how people 

value visibility in the West in the national parks. 

Right now, we keep it as a different class of benefits. It is not 

as tightly wound as like the health benefits we might get in the 

cost-benefit analysis. But we do use it, have used it in the past. 

The key I think really is making sure the level of effort or the level 

that the survey addresses is used at the proper level in whatever 

decision-making you make. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because it is obviously subject to some subjectivity. 

Using that method of it became the primary method of trying to 

do public opinion surveys. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You know, I am not the expert on contingent 

valuation. I think my only thing as a policymaker is that we avail 

ourselves of all the technical tools that are out there that use it in 

the right way. 
259

LAS VEGAS LABS

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. A couple other things here. You have requested $12 million to design a new building in Las Vegas, correct? 

How much is the ultimate cost of that building going to be, do we 

know?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know yet and I do not know exactly 

how much stuff we would consolidate there, but if you remember 

when I did my opening statement I said we are looking at how to 

be more efficient at EPA. Are we in eight locations in Las Vegas? 

Three locations, eight different leases in the Las Vegas area with 

EPA activities, everything from training programs for air quality to 

financial work. So what we want to do is analyze how we could 

bring all that together. Our goal is to reduce our square footage actually in the area and we will probably look to see if there are 

other things we may want to consolidate there as we are looking 

at other issues around the country. But, you know, EPA needs to 

be out West and it is important that we have a place that is easy 

to get in and out of. But I think it is too early to tell how much 

would be consolidated there and what the final cost would be. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, if we are going to spend $12 million on a design, I would like to have some idea what I am buying. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is probably more than design. I think 

it is, you know, some engineering and analysis as well as to how 

we would do what I just said and meet the goal of having less 

space. And then obviously we will be able—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE [continuing]. To calculate the rate of return on 

that once we have that level of detail done. 

INTEGRATE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the other things I wanted to ask you about 

is the $5 million to integrate environmental outreach activities 

within various air, land, pesticide, and water activities through the 

EPA’s budget. Four million of this funding is targeted at establishing the interagency workgroup to create educational resources 

to give to the public. According to the budget, the budget indicates 

that this funding will support EPA’s core mission to expand the 

conversation on environmentalism. I thought EPA’s core mission 

was to protect human health and the environment? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is. There is no doubt about that, but we 

implement the laws that Congress has enacted in that regard. 

There are other laws that Congress has enacted like the environmental education laws as well. But in all those laws, it requires 

EPA to reach out and work with the public. And that has been uneven through the years. There are parts of the stakeholder community that we more readily interact with who are present in Washington and in our regional office cities, but there are other people 

that we have not interacted with as much as we could. 

And so one of the key things that we want to do is a very small 

amount of money in the scheme of things to be able to communicate with and reach out to constituencies that we have not 

worked as much with. It could be tribal, it could be rural, it could 
260

be lower income areas. I mean all of these areas are traditionally 

under-engaged by the typical EPA or state environmental work. 

RURAL TECHNICAL WATER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, as we said in both my opening statement and 

your opening statement, it is a tough budget year. We are reducing 

budgets across the board, so I assume that you reduced less priority things for the Administration and funded the higher priority 

items that you felt—so what you are saying is that $12 million to 

design a building in Las Vegas, $5 million to expand the conversation on environmentalism is more important than the $15 million 

for the Rural Technical Water Assistance Program that has bipartisan support that I think you supported instead of the water program, that it is more important than the funding for the DERA 

grants to reduce diesel emissions and so forth? I guess what I am 

questioning here is some of the priority is that we have set. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I mentioned in my opening comments that we 

have to make tough choices, and I am painfully aware of some of 

the tough choices that we have to make. We feel it is pretty important to look at our facilities. Now, it is always easy to put that off, 

say, well, you are in a place. Just renew the lease. Everything will 

be fine. And it is always hard to find and go get the funding to go 

ahead and be more efficient. And I would be the first to say as a 

chief operating officer I need to see what that rate of improvement 

would be. And it is also often easy to say, well, you know, we do 

not have to engage the people. 

So on the rural water issues, these are pretty important. There 

is no doubt about it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There is a 2 percent set-aside in the Drinking 

Water Revolving Fund to help fund some rural technical assistance. Many states have put together programs. I mentioned earlier 

the loan forgiveness issue that some governors have availed themselves to. But we would be happy to work with the Committee on 

seeing how we can continue to make sure that that issue—that is 

one of the constituencies. Rural America is one of the constituencies that EPA needs to spend energy to bring into our work and 

us understand the issues that are present there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I have seen it happen both when I was in the state 

legislature and here at the Federal Government that the Administration, when putting together—Republicans do this; Democrats do 

this. The Administration will cut or substantially reduce funding 

for programs that they know that the Congress likes that they are 

going to put funding into in the long run so that they can fund 

other programs in their budget. Our governor used to do that all 

the time and I suspect the same thing is true here because you 

know that we are going to put money into the rural Water Assistance Program and you know you are going to put money into 

DERA because it has broad bipartisan support. Where we are going 

to find that money is going to be a challenge, but we will find it. 

Anyway, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
261

CLEAN WATER ACT/SPRUCE MINE

I registered for whatever it is worth some of the questions about 

the Las Vegas investment and it may involve some politics that the 

EPA is acutely aware of and has made a calculation that is hard 

to criticize. 

I wanted to ask about the fact that last month a federal appeals 

court sided with the EPA on your use of Clean Water Act authority 

to stop a mountaintop mining project on Spruce mine in West Virginia. Now, this appeals court reversed the lower court decision 

that upheld EPA’s authority and said that it is unambiguous in the 

Clean Water Act that EPA can deny or restrict the use of any defined area whenever the Agency determines that the project will 

have a negative environmental effect, even if a permit has already 

been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

So, Mr. Perciasepe, the issue with Spruce mine, as you know, has 

led to many efforts to revoke your Clean Water Act Section 404 authority but the court answered that legal question. Now, perhaps 

the problem is that the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA 

were not working as closely and as a coordinated fashion as was 

necessary because the Army Corps should not be issuing permits 

without the EPA that they find inconsistent or in violation of their 

Clean Water Act responsibilities. So I would like for you to address 

that issue because it is quite a serious one in terms of coordination 

with the Army Corps and the fact that the court said that EPA 

trumps the Army Corps’ permit. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So contextually I think it is important to note 

since 1972, when that law was written, that there literally had 

been if not a million, hundreds of thousands of 404 permits issued 

by the Army Corps of Engineers coordinated with EPA and completed, worked on, underway, all of those things, literally hundreds 

of thousands if not—I do not have the exact number but it is a 

huge number, particularly when you look at the nationwide permits that the Corps uses. 

So in all that history, in all those hundreds of thousands of activities that were authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, 13 times since 1972 EPA has used this authority. And it has 

used that authority in a number of different circumstances. Sometimes it is a project that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to 

build. Sometimes it is a permit that they are issuing for somebody 

else to build. 

And the point I am trying to make about the huge volume of 

work that gets done and permits that get issued and the very small 

number of times where there had to be that type of intervention 

authorized under the law, it should be instructive about how careful that type of action is. Well, first of all, I have to say I still do 

not completely have my head around everything that was in that 

court decision, and we have to look at how it is going to affect operations, if at all, because we are still going to operate in the same 

way we always have and that this is something we very rarely do. 

On the relationship with the Corps of Engineers, that permit in 

particular that you are mentioning was issued in 2008, I believe. 

And it could have been ’07. And then it went into litigation. And 

then under an agreement in the litigation, some of the construction 
262

work started. And that construction work was allowed to continue 

since 2007. That is why Maryann is here. 

So I want to emphasize the care and caution that we take on this 

and the very good relationship we have with the Army Corps of Engineers 99.9 percent of the time. And the fact that this happens occasionally, there are many other ones where it was worked out and 

it did not happen. So I see this court case as probably keeping us 

where we have been for 40 years, but I think we have to analyze 

it a little more carefully before we finally conclude what impact it 

would have on how we operate. 

But I guess I will stop there, Congressman. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, you are stopping there but you did not really 

answer the question. What I am concerned about is—now, you are 

pointing out that it is very rare that you have a situation like this. 

But it does seem that the Corps ought not be issuing permits unless they have a pretty high level of coordination with EPA so that 

permit does not have to be then quashed by EPA because of the 

federal court has ruled that EPA has legal authority under the 

Clean Water Act to do just that. 

But I can understand why you are hesitant to go any further 

than you have. But I think it was a pretty important appeals court 

decision.

At this point, neither Ms. McCollum nor Mr. Serrano have asked 

any questions, so I will conclude at this point. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being with us today. 

HURRICANE SANDY RESTORATION

Let me just ask you a question about Hurricane Sandy restoration. The EPA has played a major role in the effort to prepare and 

restore damage in the Northeast in the wake of the hurricane. 

Could you give us an update as to where things stand where are 

we roughly 6 months out from the next hurricane season? What 

preparations if any are being made for that? Of course, as you 

know, the big concern in those areas and throughout that whole region is what happens with the next hurricane and what is happening with what we are doing now. So since we probably will see 

something maybe not to this level but something will come again, 

what can you tell us? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I think we have some unprecedented coordination with the states and the different federal agencies going 

on already. With the assistance of Congress and the funding that 

has been provided, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and FEMA have already moved several billions of dollars. We 

were just able last week—I think you may know—to be able to announce the allocation of the relatively small amount of Wastewater 

Improvement and Drinking Water Improvement Funds that were 

provided to EPA in that program. 

And I think the key point that I want to make sure I cover here 

is that we all know that that money that was in there for the SRF 

sewage treatment plant and drinking water resiliency improvements so that they can withstand another storm, or if they have 
263

to go offline, they go offline for a very short period of time is only 

a piece of the puzzle because FEMA funding is going to have to be 

used to do the basic repairs and some coordination with the Community Development Block Grant funding will have to be looked at 

to look at perhaps some of the other conveyance, the water coming 

through the pipes to the sewer treatment plant. And we are all 

very keen with the states on making sure all that gets coordinated. 

So I think we are making pretty tremendous progress, and I 

think we are better prepared if anything happens this year, as are 

the local governments. But all the work we need to do to get even 

better prepared is not done yet, and that is why we need to keep 

pushing pretty hard on that. But if it happens again this fall, I 

think we will be in a better situation to respond. 

I was up there the day after the storm. My house is in Brooklyn, 

New York, luckily not affected other than some roof leaking. But 

I was up there at the EPA Emergency Response Center in Edison, 

New Jersey, the day after the storm. We are working on getting 

fuel into the region. So it was a pretty substantial response that 

I felt very proud to be part of but it was a horrific event. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, we thank you for that. And, you know, the 

people are counting on all of us to deal with these issues. 

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION PRACTICES

Let me just ask. The whole issue of climate change mitigation 

practices, is that something that will be incorporated into a postSandy rebuilding effort? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. In fact, all the federal agencies have 

agreed on a revised elevation map of potential tidal surge. That 

also takes into account the potential sea level rise. So we are doing 

something there. And the states have voluntarily agreed to go 

along with that approach as they are looking at the rebuilding, 

which I think is an unprecedented federal-state agreement just on 

something that simple. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for another question?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, you do. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Thank you. 

NYC PUBLIC SCHOOLS—PCB

Another issue with the New York City public schools that EPA 

has been involved with, as you may know, along with local advocates and parent groups, I have been fighting to rid New York City 

public schools of PCB-laden fixtures and caulk for the several years 

since their discovery. Everyone, including the school system, agrees 

that children must not be exposed to these highly dangerous toxic 

chemicals. To the dismay of many of us, the school’s plan was to 

take nearly a decade to replace all leaking fixtures. 

Your region, too, Administrator, has been very helpful in prodding the schools to do better. Recently, a judge also agreed that the 

timeline was too long and called the city’s stance as deceptive, illogical, and absurd. Could you give us an idea what EPA can and 

will do to support the efforts to clean these horrible toxins from our 

classrooms and what you might be able to do to ensure other 

schools around the Nation are not ignoring the same problem? 
264

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, thank you for that question. Actually, we 

were pretty instrumental in working with the city to clarify and 

discover so to speak with the extent of this problem is. And we 

have done a number of things along the way, and I appreciate your 

thanking our regional administrator from New York and how much 

personal time and her staff that they have put into this. 

One of the things we have done is work with the city to show 

the extent that the problem is associated—and it is—with the fluorescent light fixtures in the old schools and the old ballasts that 

they have on the light, that actually replacing those light fixtures 

will save the school system money because these are light fixtures 

from the ’50s. There will be more efficient lights and they will save 

energy costs and the whole thing will pay for itself. So we think 

we have been helpful to the city and it is showing that they can 

actually save money as they implement it. And I think they have 

embraced that. 

Some of the other schools have some of the very old caulking still 

in the windows, and back in the early days of caulking, they were 

often made more malleable by using PCB oil. While you would 

think that you would have an issue of the PCBs coming out when 

the caulk crumbles, it is actually, once it is crumbled, the PCBs are 

gone. So what we have done in our laboratories, we have made little tiny schoolrooms and we have done all kinds of experiments on 

the kind of coatings that we can put on there as the city goes 

through this process to figure out which schools to do first and obviously get the capital for—I think there are almost 700 schools 

that they have to do something on. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. See you have got a path forward on the lighting 

fixtures and we have found some ways that they can do some coatings on some of the PCB while they schedule the work on the windows. So we can reduce the amount on it but it is not the longterm solution to do the coatings; you have to eventually remove 

the—so this is stuff that EPA has contributed both in our research 

labs and in our analysis in our regional office. And we will continue 

to work with the city to try to accelerate it as much as possible. 

We concur 100 percent. 

Mr. SERRANO. And Mr. Chairman, I for the record just want to 

say that EPA has been great in dealing with this issue. This is one 

of those issues that does not get much attention but it is a problem 

throughout the Nation of how these schoolrooms were set up. 

VIEQUES IN PUERTO RICO

And in closing, let me thank you also for the fact that, on an unrelated matter, EPA was present at a meeting dealing with the 

10th anniversary of the stopping the bombing of Vieques in Puerto 

Rico and they brought everybody up to date on what is going on, 

where we can turn to, and everybody there left satisfied that EPA’s 

role has been a very good one and they give us guidance on what 

the next steps are in cleaning up that site. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, thank you for that comment. I have actually 

vacationed on the island so—— 

Mr. MORAN. Before or after they stopped the bombing? 
265

Mr. SIMPSON. After. Ms. McCollum. 

SUPERFUND AND BROWNFIELDS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. Well, this bleeds into, you know, you 

have Superfund sites and brownfield developments when you have 

bombings, ammunition. We have a site that is going to be undertaken in my congressional district at an old army arsenal, and 

when I was in the state House, we were involved in doing a lot of 

great work with brownfields. And, you know, brownfields and 

Superfund for a long time enjoyed a lot of support. Brownfields are 

a problem in the metropolitan areas, but they are also problems in 

suburban areas and rural areas, too. And so we had Republicans, 

Democrats, urban, suburban, rural legislators working on this. But 

our partner in that was the EPA. And economic consequences are 

what I want to discuss by your decisions on what you are doing 

with the Superfund and brownfields programs. This directly impacts communities of ability, environmental health, public health, 

development, and so many things. 

So the Superfund in the budget request, the program levels are troubling for me. The Superfund is requested at $180 million, and 

that is an increase of $4 million, but it is a low from the ’12, ’13 

level. And if we approve your budget request and your budget documents state that the EPA will not begin any new Superfund 

projects and anticipates that 40 to 45 projects will potentially be 

underfunded by the fiscal year 2014. Brownfields, EPA would issue 

20 fewer assessment grants and nine fewer cleanups, yet none of 

these figures takes sequester into account. 

So what is going to be the impact to these programs of sequester 

in 2013 and 2014? I did not vote for sequester but I do not see it 

going away anytime real soon around here. How many fewer sites 

all around the country—not just my congressional district but all 

around the country—will be impacted because they will not be 

cleaned?

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the sequestration cuts the program arbitrarily you might say by a percentage that is assigned to EPA, and 

that is what has happened this year. So there is additional slowdown in the year we are currently in. And we are late starting because, you know, we did not know how much money we are going 

to have in the budget. 

But we anticipate, as you have already pointed out, getting those 

funds out there quickly here because it is oversubscribed. Many 

people want to capitalize on this program. It is a very important 

program. And it is one that has been greatly successful in helping 

communities be renewed by getting their older industrial properties 

back into some productive use, whether it be a park or whether it 

be a new commercial endeavor. 

In fact, we just got an innovation award as one of the 25 most 

innovative programs in the country looking for ways to get renewable energy projects on brownfield sites. There have actually 

been—I received an award for this. And I would like to point out 

that EPA was number three in innovation from the Partnership for 

Public Service surveys. 

So we are the last people that want to reduce these programs, 

but we also have to keep the rest of the Agency running, so we are 
266

trying to make these very difficult choices between different programs. We are trying to find new partners in things like 

brownfields—and I will get to Superfund in a second. We are having a brownfields conference with mayors coming up later this 

month where we are hoping to find other partners that can be involved financially. Just like we are looking at public-private partnerships in water and wastewater infrastructure, how can we leverage other developers and other people who may be involved with 

some of these properties after they are cleaned up? So we are really 

anxious to see if we can even maybe grow faster even though we 

cannot get the federal funds to grow very fast. 

On Superfund we are going to make sure we keep focusing on 

the potential exposure to humans. Anytime the site is not controlled, any potential exposure to citizens in the area is not under 

control, we will be focusing on those to make sure that happens. 

It is not that we are not working on the Superfund sites; we are 

working on them. It is just starting the new ones other than to stabilize them to make sure there is no exposure, which we will do, 

is difficult except where there is a responsible party. And I should 

say that the majority of Superfund sites there are responsible parties and so the federal Trust Fund is less used. 

And I guess the last thing I will mention which I mentioned in 

my opening comments is that it is a separate matter because it 

goes to the programmatic committees is we have asked for reinstatement of the Superfund tax that would fund a more sustainable 

funding source for the Superfund trust fund. So we will be trying 

to work on legislation in that regard. But I do not know what the 

prognosis of that is. 

So the short answer to yours is we want to make sure that we 

are focused on reducing any potential exposure where that may be 

appropriate. There are many sites that are fully underway because 

there are responsible parties, and on brownfields we are going to 

continue to look at innovative ways to involve the development 

communities and others to try to ramp that up. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Are you aware, does the EPA have access? Have 

they done studies? Has the Federal Reserve fund studied outside 

groups about the impact of cleaning up these sites and putting 

them back into productivity? Because especially a brownfield site, 

I mean once it goes back on—and I have several I could rattle off 

that I know for a fact, they are paying taxes back in local government. They are employing people. Plus, all the people that were 

employed in the cleanup, the economic benefit of that, are you 

aware of any of that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. Because that happens is why we think we 

may even be able to get more people involved with some of the upfront funding. But putting that aside, yes, there have been studies 

done on this. I do not have them line and verse in my head but 

definitely every one of them find exactly what you just outlined, 

that this is a program that enhances communities, build employment, and is something that is good for the communities that it is 

in.
267

DIESEL FUEL IN FRACKING

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, two quick other topics, the EPA has 

released draft guidelines for the use of diesel fuel in fracking, and 

so what is the status of this guidance? Because fracking and water 

and all those things are in the news and not all fracking is as potentially damaging to water supply, but we are seeing our aquifers 

being emptied at greater rates than we had anticipated. We are 

finding that even in Minnesota now, quite a shock to both our regional government as well as our DNR. So if you could touch on 

where you are with your draft guidelines on that. 

SILICA SAND MINING

And then the other thing that has come out, we are not fracking 

in Minnesota but we are the gold rush for silica sand mining, and 

so some of the questions that are starting to come up in my town 

hall meetings is does the EPA have plans or other studies available 

to talk about what the environmental effects of silica sand mining 

and also the transportation of it. This sand is very, very fine. It is 

going on railcars, and hence, the railcars are parked overnight in 

areas where there are schools nearby, housing nearby. And so, you 

know, is that something that somebody is looking into? I cannot 

tell anybody whether or not they should be concerned, but one 

would think it would not be very good for young children to be inhaling large quantities of this. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me go to the first one. The draft guidelines 

that we have put out, we are still looking at the comments we got 

on that. In many respects, innovations are occurring in the industry that we are trying to come up with and we have a dovetail with 

the larger study that Congress has helped fund that we are looking 

at the complete water cycle in fracking in a number of places. We 

are looking at it all over the country. We have prospective and retrospective sites that we are analyzing along with monitoring that 

we have done and well-boring information and well-development 

information we have got from tens of thousands of wells voluntarily 

from the industry as part of our overall water study that we are 

doing.

So we have got these things going on in parallel here, and so we 

are working on that pretty hard. And I do not want to predict exactly when we will be done, but we know that that has to get done. 

And the study itself, we have got the peer review panel impaneled 

now and they will be starting to look at this work in a peer review 

process so we can do the peer review quickly early next year. 

On the silica, to what I know, we do not have anything going on 

right now on that that has come to our attention. I know that 

OSHA looks at that kind of issue in a workplace, but right now, 

we do not have anything going on at EPA related to that. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And with all the budget cuts, that is probably 

nothing you are looking at adding? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I think if enough people have written to 

us and have brought it up, we will probably try to respond, but I 

do not think we have anything going on right now on it and it will 

be hard to start new things. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. 
268

2013 OPERATIONS PLAN

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And again, thank you for being here. 

Before I go, we have a number of questions that we will submit 

and would like written responses to in dealing with things like 

cooling towers and aquatic pesticides, and all those things we did 

not talk about today. But there is one other comment I want to 

make since it did not affect the ’14 budget request but I still wanted to comment on this. We received your fiscal year 2013 operating 

plan last night and the staff is analyzing the adjustments that you 

proposed. I know the budget is tight, as we have talked about, and 

I appreciate the tough choices that need to be made to meet the 

Agency’s need under the fiscal year 2013 sequestration. However, the operating plan proposes a $1.5 million policy decision reduction to the Rural Water Technical Assistance Grants. 

This is an 11 percent reduction before sequestration and before applying other across-the-board cuts. In total, the operating plan proposes 12.7 million for the rural water grants, which is 2.3 million 

below the fiscal year 2012. Again, I fear we are heading in the 

wrong direction. 

As I said when I asked previous questions about the decisions we 

were making, the final CR included a 1 percent reduction for the 

Environmental Programs and Management Accounts, the account 

in which the rural water grants reside. Why not simply apply 1 

percent across-the-board reduction to all the programs and treat 

the programs equally within that account rather than making such 

a huge reduction in a program that has bipartisan support and 

pretty good public support or pretty good support among Members 

of Congress? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. All I can say is I will look into that. I mean I 

recognize that we just got the operating plan in yesterday, so I am 

not versed enough on what percentage is in each account. But 

again, you are right. Trying to deal with an airdrop of $455 million 

of reduction into our budget was tough. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Nobody is suggesting that sequestration was the 

smart thing to do. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I did not hear that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. I appreciate you being here today. I look forward to working with you as we try to address the budget, as we 

put it together for the fiscal year 2014 in these extraordinarily difficult budget times. So thank you for being here. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, very good discussions. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Questions for the Record for the Environmental 

Protection Agency were not returned to the Subcommittee in time 

for inclusion into the public record.] 
(i)

W I T N E S S E S 

Page

Ashe, Dan ................................................................................................................. 51 

Cooper, Barbara ....................................................................................................... 115 

Froehlich, Maryann ................................................................................................. 223 

Jarvis, Jonathan ...................................................................................................... 1 

Kornze, Neil ............................................................................................................. 155 

Nolin, Chris .............................................................................................................. 51 

Perciasepe, Bob ........................................................................................................ 223 

Sheaffer, Bruce ........................................................................................................ 1 

Smith, Linda ............................................................................................................ 155 

Tidwell, Tom ............................................................................................................ 115 

(iii)

I N D E X 

National Park Service 2014 Budget Request 

April 12, 2013, B–308 Rayburn 

Page

Bison ......................................................................................................................... 37

Chickasaw National Recreation Area .................................................................... 28

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 43

Construction ............................................................................................................. 24

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ............................................................................... 22

Early Retirement ..................................................................................................... 39

Economic Impact ...................................................................................................... 30

Energy Development ............................................................................................... 25

Hurricane Sandy ...................................................................................................... 33

International Exchanges ......................................................................................... 40

Invasive Species........................................................................................... 24, 25, 31, 37 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 45

Legislation and Authorities .................................................................................... 41

Merced River ............................................................................................................ 48

National Park Foundation ...................................................................................... 27

New Park Units........................................................................................................ 22, 34 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 1

Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis ...................................................................... 3

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 2

Port Vancouver National Historic Site .................................................................. 31

Questions for the Record from Mr. Valadao .......................................................... 48

Recreation Fees ........................................................................................................ 34

Sequestration...................................................................................................... 23, 27, 30 

Sports Facilities in the National Capital Region .................................................. 49

U.S. Park Police Helicopter .................................................................................... 24

Urban Parks ............................................................................................................. 38

White-Nose Syndrome ............................................................................................. 25, 37 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014 Budget Request 

April 18, 2013, B–308 Rayburn 

Bay Delta Conservation Plan.......................................................................... 65, 77, 111 

Budget Reductions ................................................................................................... 106

Difficult Funding Choices ....................................................................................... 67

Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 89, 94, 108 

Environmental Contaminants ................................................................................ 65

International Program/Law Enforcement .............................................................. 105

Invasive Species ................................................................................................... 103, 109 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 64

Lesser Prairie Chicken ............................................................................................ 98
Page

iv

Maintenance Backlog............................................................................................... 70, 88 

Mitigation Hatcheries .............................................................................................. 79 

Multi-District Litigation Settlement ...................................................................... 72 

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy ....................... 82 

National Ocean Policy ............................................................................................. 112 

Northern Spotted Owl ............................................................................................. 73 

Oil and Gas Leasing ................................................................................................ 109 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 51 

Opening Remarks of Director Ashe ........................................................................ 53 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 52 

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 84

Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson .............................................. 84 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Calvert ........................................................... 94 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Cole ................................................................ 98 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Joyce .............................................................. 109 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Valadao .......................................................... 111 

Questions for the Record from Ms. Herrera Beutler ............................................ 108 

Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum ...................................................... 103 

Sage Grouse.............................................................................................................. 70, 86

Santa Ana Sucker .................................................................................................... 64 

Science....................................................................................................................... 80, 91 

Sequestration............................................................................................................ 66, 68

Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program ....................................................... 79 

Wolves ....................................................................................................................... 88

United States Forest Service 2014 Budget Request 

Friday, April 26, 2013, Rayburn B–308 

Air tankers ................................................................................................... 135, 138, 140 

Climate Change.................................................................................................... 148, 150 

Collaboration with States ....................................................................................... 145 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration ......................................................... 137 

Communities ............................................................................................................ 120 

Economic Contribution ............................................................................................ 118 

Fire................................................................................................................ 119, 134, 147

Grazing Management .............................................................................................. 146 

Hazardous Fuels .......................................................................................... 135, 138, 139 

International Forestry ......................................................................................... 141, 142 

Invasive Species ................................................................................................... 142, 142 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 120 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 115 

Opening Remarks of Chief Tidwell ........................................................................ 118 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 117 

Operational Efficiencies .......................................................................................... 120 

Research................................................................................................................ 119, 147

Restoration ................................................................................................... 119, 150, 152 

Secure Rural School..................................................................................... 120, 134, 151 

Sequester Impacts ................................................................................................... 135 

State and Private Redesign .................................................................................... 137 

Stewardship Contracting ........................................................................................ 134 

Tribes ............................................................................................................ 140, 141, 149

U.S. Territories ........................................................................................................ 150 

Urban and Community Forestry......................................................................... 136, 144 

Urban Waters Federal Partnership ....................................................................... 143 
Page

v

Bureau of Land Management 2014 Budget Request 

May 7, 2013, Rayburn B–308 

BLM Foundation ...................................................................................................... 202 

Effects of Sequester ................................................................................................. 170 

Equal Access to Justice Act .................................................................................... 218 

Grazing Fees ........................................................................................ 172, 173, 175, 218 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction .................................................................................. 181, 193 

Hydraulic Fracturing................................................................................... 177, 182, 184 

Impact of Climate Change on Public Lands .......................................................... 174 

Invasive Species ....................................................................................................... 201 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 221 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ................................................................... 194 

Litigation Costs .................................................................................................... 171, 202 

Local Firefighting .................................................................................................... 180 

Mining ....................................................................................................................... 199

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ................................................................. 183 

Oil and Gas .............................................................................................................. 196 

Oil and Gas Lease Sales in California ................................................................... 216 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 155 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 156 

Opening Remarks of Neil Kornze ........................................................................... 158 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson ......................................................... 186 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Valadao .......................................................... 216 

Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum ...................................................... 214 

Range Budget ........................................................................................................... 219 

Range Management ................................................................................................. 186 

Renewable Energy Cost Recovery .......................................................................... 172 

Renewable Energy Development ............................................................................ 175 

Sage Grouse Conservation .......................................................................... 179, 188, 216 

Tribal Youth Programs ............................................................................................ 214 

Western Oregon (O&C Lands) ................................................................................ 203 

Wild Horses and Burros .......................................................................................... 190 

J.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014 Budget Request 

May 8, 2013, Rayburn 2359 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 223 

Operations Plan ....................................................................................................... 268 

316(B) ........................................................................................................................ 248

Clean Water Act/Spruce Mine ................................................................................ 251 

Climate Change Mitigation Practices .................................................................... 263 

Cost-Benefit Analyses .............................................................................................. 258 

Diesel Fuel in Fracking ........................................................................................... 267 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiatives Action Plan .................................................. 256 

Hurricane Sandy Restoration ................................................................................. 262 

Integrate Environmental Outreach Activities ....................................................... 259 

IRIS ........................................................................................................................... 238 

Keystone Pipeline .................................................................................................... 242 

Las Vegas Labs ........................................................................................................ 259 

NPDES, Forest Roads ............................................................................................. 245 

NYC Public Schools—PCB ...................................................................................... 263 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 225 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Perciasepe ...................................................................... 228 
Page

vi

Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey ........................................................................... 227 

Rural Technical Water Assistance Program .......................................................... 260 

Sequestration ........................................................................................................... 241 

Silica Sand Mining .................................................................................................. 267 

State Revolving Loan Funds ................................................................................... 239 

Sulfuryl Fluoride ...................................................................................................... 246 

Superfund and Brownfields .................................................................................... 265 

Superfund Tax Reinstatement ................................................................................ 238 

Vieques in Puerto Rico ............................................................................................ 264 

Western Washington Stormwater Manual ............................................................ 244 

Æ