[Senate Hearing 112-534]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-534
BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-853 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Bowers, Carla, National WH&B Legislative Team, Volcano, CA....... 47
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Department of the Interior......... 4
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 55
BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK. Why don't we get started.
This morning, the committee is reviewing the President's
proposed budget for the Department of the Interior for fiscal
year 2013. We are very pleased to have Secretary Salazar back
with us in his old committee room. The Department's proposed
budget of $11.7 billion in appropriated funds represents a
slight increase over current funding levels. In my view, it's a
reasonable proposal. It reflects the difficult choices the
President's required to make, given the current fiscal
environment that a number of programs, such as the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, that I wish were funded at higher
levels, but I understand the budgetary constraints the
administration is facing.
I want to take a minute to just express my support for the
Secretary's determination to adequately fund and carry out the
Interior Department's responsibilities for safe and
environmentally sound oil and gas production in Federal lands,
and particularly in the Outer Continental Shelf. We were
commenting in the hall before coming in here that at least it's
not 2 years ago, when we had the BP oil spill as a very real
issue before our committee. I believe, especially given the
challenges of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Department
has acted properly in continuing to focus on safety issues.
Obviously, there's a lot of concern about gas prices abroad
in the land. I do believe that domestic production is
important, robust domestic production is important. It needs to
be pursued in a responsible way. That clearly is happening.
Domestic production of both oil and natural gas are up since
2008. They're projected to continue increasing over the next 10
years to nearly historic levels. Our oil imports continue to
decline, and they were down to 49 percent of consumption in
2010, which is an impressive improvement over where we were
even 4 or 5 years ago.
I'm pleased that the budget includes increased funding for
renewable energy development on public lands as part of the
Department's new energy frontier initiative. I understand the
Department has approved 29 commercial-scale renewable energy
projects and associated transmissions since 2009. I believe
these efforts hold great promise, and that renewable projects
can yield important energy for our economy in an
environmentally responsible way.
I'm also glad to see that the budget proposes enactment of
a hardrock abandoned mine land fund for the reclamation of mine
sites that threaten human health and safety, and cause
environmental degradation. I'm particularly concerned with the
legacy of unreclaimed uranium mine sites on Indian lands in
States such as mine, in New Mexico. Mr. Secretary, I hope you
can work with me and others here on the committee to seek
funding to address this very serious issue.
Finally, I'm pleased to see that the Department's budget
request demonstrates a strong commitment to implementing the
Indian water rights settlements around the country, including
funding for a number of settlements in my State of New Mexico.
With that, let me defer to Senator Murkowski for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
good morning. Good to see you. Ms. Haze, Mr. Hayes, welcome to
you as well. Thank you for the work that you've been doing on
behalf of so many. These are areas that are contentious, most
certainly, and with a budget, it even makes them more
contentious.
I was raised to recognize those that have tried to work
with us and make good things happen, even if it's not as much
as I would like, and so I start off my comments this morning by
thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your personal involvement in
trying to advance some issues that are critically important to
my State, and I think to the country, when it comes to domestic
oil and gas production.
The last time we were all together was when you came up to
the State to visit, to look at some of the issues that we had
before us, specifically CD5, at that time, stalled out, because
we couldn't get a bridge, permit for a bridge across the area.
I had, also, an opportunity to look at the OCS projects and
what Shell is pursuing.
Mr. Hayes, I truly appreciate that you have committed as
much of your time to help address not only these issues, but
some of the other Alaska-specific issues. We've made some
progress, and I think it is important to recognize that, but I
also appreciate, as you do, that we've got a ways to go. We
will continue to work with you, but I appreciate that you are
working with us, and I thank you for that.
I would like to address just a couple very Alaska-specific
issues, and Mr. Secretary, you and I have had a chance to
discuss them. I'm more than a little bit disappointed about
within the budget on the Alaska conveyance program, there's an
enormous reduction to that program. As you know, we've been
working for well over 40 years to try to get the conveyances to
our Alaska natives, to try to get the land conveyances that
were made upon statehood, which is now 53 years ago. We're
continuing with that, but we can't make these conveyances
unless we have that budget.
I addressed our State legislature last week, and one of the
early questions that came up was the issue of the Federal
Government's role with regards to our Legacy Wells, the 137
wells that were drilled by the Federal Government decades ago,
and sit, without attention, literally falling into the
landscape. It's an environmental scar. We in Alaska kind of
feel that that this is a double standard. The private sector is
held to the highest environmental standard, and yet, the
Government is saying, well, we can maybe get to 1 or 2 of them
a year, and I understand that these are budget priority issues,
but, I think we need to figure out how we make them a priority.
One of your priorities is full funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. The chairman has indicated his support
of that. But it's difficult for me to say, well, we need to
work to expand and bring even more Federal lands under the
Federal purview, when we're not taking care of the commitments
and the responsibilities, the promises that have been made with
other lands. So, we need to resolve that.
I also want to bring up the very strange relationship that
many Alaskans feel, where the Federal Land Management Agencies
and the perceived overreach of the Federal Government into
their lives, whether it's the ranger activity on the Yukon
River, or the lack of cooperation and coordination by refuge
managers. I think these are legitimate grievances. We need to
work with you on this. So, I hope that you'll make it a
priority to improve that relationship.
Next, is an issue that affects not only Alaska, but many
others, and these are the new and the higher fees and royalties
from Interior within this budget. I know that the philosophy is
that the Federal royalty rate is lower than many State royalty
rates, but you've got to admit that this isn't exactly a one-
sided bargain. Those States easily trump the Federal Government
in terms of regulatory stability. So, when we ask them to pay
more, well, providing less, it really doesn't work.
I note that the chairman has mentioned the statistics that
the President also has repeated, that oil and gas production is
up. That is true. But, when you look to the oil and gas
production on Federal lands, we've also seen an 11 percent
decrease on the Federal side. So, I think it's important to put
that into context.
I am hoping that we will get a little clarity about the
disclosure requirements that the Department is working on for
hydraulic fracking. The question that I would have is whether
it is just that, whether it's a disclosure requirement, as many
of the States have advanced, or actually a new set of
regulations. I think all of us are looking very critically at
this. We want to make sure that this boom that we are seeing
across the country, when it relates to our opportunities for
hydraulic fracking, combined with horizontal drilling, we
recognize that it has vastly increased our natural gas supply,
and it's reviving communities, bringing about jobs, but those
could all be lost if the Federal Government decides to place
onerous and redundant requirements on the technology.
Again, I appreciate your efforts in a very difficult area.
Folks back home in Alaska are talking about nothing but energy
right now, and it's not just the price at the pump, but it's
all energy. So you are here at a particularly opportune time
for us. I thank you, and look forward to questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, why don't take whatever time
you need to describe the administration's proposed budget, and
then we will, obviously, have questions.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman
and Ranking Member Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Wyden, and
Senator Barrasso, Senator Lee, and Senator Shaheen, and Senator
Franken for all the issues that we work on. Many we agree on,
and sometimes we disagree, but I do think that we're making
progress on a whole host of fronts on the energy agenda for the
United States.
Let me also just say that at the table with me today is
Deputy Secretary David Hayes. As Senator Murkowski pointed out,
he has done a Herculean effort, in terms of moving forward on
Alaska issues, including the coordination of permitting issues
in Alaska. Pam Haze, who has been the Budget Director for the
Department of the Interior for many years now. I also wanted to
say thank you to the staff on both sides, democrat and
republican, on this committee that work with us on so many
issues.
Let me start out by just characterizing the way that I see
this budget. Senator Bingaman and distinguished Senators, I see
it as a squeeze budget, with some tough choices and some very
painful cuts. It's a budget that cuts government, and requires
government to do more with less. It supports job creation. Job
creation, I know, is a focus of this committee, a focus of the
President. It's job creation and energy, both in the
conventional energy, as well as renewable energy.
It supports job creation through conservation and tourism.
It supports job creation through the water supplies that we
manage on behalf of the people of this country. Last, it honors
our important responsibilities to the 566 tribes and Alaskan
natives of the United States of America.
Overall, this budget is 3 percent below the budget which
was enacted by this Congress in 2011. That's 3 percent below
2011. It's about even with the budget that was enacted in 2012.
Now, let me review each of these pieces in a little more
detail. First, in terms of cuts and efficiencies in government,
which I know many of you have been focused on, wanting to make
sure that the government is run more efficiently. It's a high
priority for the President. It's been a high priority for us at
the Department of the Interior. This budget foresees that there
will be a downsizing of an additional 591 FTE within the
Department of the Interior. So, we are asking our employees to
do a lot more. This is, in fact, even in the climate where we
have asked them to take pay freezes for many years, at this
point in time, but we're continuing to figure out a way of
doing more with less.
We also have a number of program terminations that are set
forth in this budget, and downsizing $517 million of downsizing
and reorganization that's included in this budget. Some of
these are painful cuts. The national heritage area programs,
which many of you on this committee, have supported, those are
cut some $8 million. That's a painful cut. CUPCA, and some of
the central Utah project, which I know Senator Lee and the Utah
delegation have been very interested in, which we have
supported and continue to work on, we have a cut in there of
$18 million for the central Utah project. Not cuts that I would
like to see, frankly, but given the tough budget times, these
are things that we've had to do.
Administrative efficiencies, which include revisions to how
we take a look at procurement, and information technology, and
a whole host of other administrative functions with the
Department, there's budget for 2013 forecasts that we will be
able to save $207 million just from administrative
efficiencies. So, we're doing everything we can, given the
fiscal times that we face here in this country.
I want to spend a few minutes speaking about jobs, and
energy, and the other components of the budget that I made some
comments at the beginning about.
First, with respect to energy, you will note in the budget
there's $662 million for conventional energy. There is $86
million for renewable energy. This is all part of the
President's program to move with an all-of-the-above energy
strategy. So when we look at the $662 million for conventional
oil and gas, it foresees our robust move into moving forward
with development of oil and gas resources in the Gulf of
Mexico, and all of you, including Senator Landrieu, who was a
the point of the sphere on dealing with the Deepwater Horizon
Macondo oil spill, know how important it is that we do the job,
and that we do it right. So, we appreciate the appropriations
from the Congress last year, relative to helping us do our job
in the oceans of America. We have a lot more work to do, but
we're moving forward, not only in the Gulf of Mexico, and
decisions still have to be made on how we will move forward in
the Arctic, but preliminary decisions have been made there on
additional opportunities there.
On the renewable energy front, which I know Senator Shaheen
and others have been so strongly supportive of, along with the
chairman, we're doing a lot of different things, but the 29
projects, which Chairman Bingaman mentioned at the beginning,
that really has created a renewable energy revolution on public
lands. It's not just in California, and Arizona, and New
Mexico, but also places Senator Lee, and Milford, Utah, where
we see wind energy, and Senator Barrasso, where we're now
contemplating and reviewing the potential for a 3,000-megawatt
project on the eastern part of Wyoming. There are huge things
that are happening in renewable energy. It's something that
we're very proud of in the Department, and we couldn't have
done it without you.
There are differences in each one of the States. So, for
example, Senator Murkowski, small renewable energy projects
that would serve some of the Alaskan native villages is
something that we are very focused on, and, again, here Deputy
Secretary Hayes has been leading an effort to try to bring down
the costs of energy for native villages by looking at
opportunities with renewable energy, and actually working with
some members of industry to see how we can get that done. So
jobs and energy are a big part of this budget.
Second, jobs and outdoor recreation, and conservation and
preservation, I think, without a doubt, in each one of your
States, there is a huge cornerstone of your economies that is
dependent on our outdoor recreation activities. It's the
boaters, the hikers, the hunters, the anglers, who bring so
much to the economy of the States, from Utah, to New Hampshire,
Minnesota, to Virginia. Everywhere around this country, outdoor
recreation is a huge addition to our economy.
When we look at job prospects for the next 10 years, we
believe that tourism is one of the top 2 areas where we can
create additional jobs in the United States of America. I'm
proud to say the President has asked me and Secretary Bryson to
implement a new tourism strategy that will also focus in on
some of the outdoor recreation activities and opportunities
that we have as a Nation.
Independent sources, independent reports, outside groups
contemplate that there's approximately 8 million jobs a year
that are created through outdoor recreation. McKenzie
International has predicted that we can create an additional
2.1 to 3.3 million jobs just through outdoor recreation. So,
much of what you see in this budget is in support of the job
creation that comes through our conservation efforts.
In addition, the Department is moving forward with
supporting water supply issues, which are so important to all
of you who share the Colorado River Basin, for example. It's an
area where the 31 million people who depend on Bureau of
Reclamation projects, including the production of much of the
food of the United States and the agricultural communities of
the Southwest. We continue to push on that agenda. So, there is
a $20 million increase for 2012.
It will result in an increase of water supply of some
730,000 acre feet. Now, you think about 730,000 acre feet,
that's a very significant amount of water through the
WaterSMART program. It's included in this budget, and working
with local communities, and with the water users, we expect
that we will achieve that goal.
Finally, let me just say that the budget honors the
commitment that the United States of America does have to the
tribal Nations of the United States. President Obama vowed from
day one, when he became President of the United States, that we
would change the relationship with Native Americans in this
country. As we have implemented that agenda over the last 3
years, we have much to be proud of, from the major Indian water
rights settlements, which this committee has helped lead and
helped define, to the settlement of Cobell, and so many other
efforts.
Law enforcement, we have a number of high-performing
priority areas, where we have been able to reduce violent crime
on reservations by as high as 36 percent. We intend to continue
those law enforcement efforts, and they are set forth in this
budget as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and all of you, because I
consider you to be friends, on this committee, let me just say,
this is a good budget, but it is a squeeze budget, and there
are tough and painful decisions that are included in this
budget. It invests in job creation through energy,
conservation, water, science, and in the honoring of our
commitment to the tribes of America.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, Secretary, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to present the details of the 2013 budget request for the
Department of the Interior. Interior's 2013 budget totals $11.5
billion, essential level with 2012 funding. The request includes
reductions and savings of $516.8 million. We made difficult choices in
this budget, sacrificing in many areas, deferring projects, and
programming savings for efficiencies in order to maintain funding for
key priorities and investments that will contribute to strengthening
the economic vitality and well-being of the Nation.
As the President has detailed in his Blueprint for an America Built
to Last, the budget proposes investments in an economy that works for
everyone. Our budget request supports responsible domestic energy
development, advances an America's Great Outdoors strategy to maintain
our legacy and stimulate new opportunities, applies science to address
the most formidable natural resource challenges, and invests in self-
determination and economic development to strengthen tribal Nations.
introduction
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and
manage the responsible use of America's natural resources, support our
cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Interior's people and programs impact all Americans. According to a
Department study, in 2010, Interior programs and activities supported
over two million jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic
activity. The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's
lands. Interior manages the resources of the national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and public lands and assists States, Tribes, and
others in the management of natural and cultural resources.
Interior manages many of the Nation's natural resources, including
those that are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and
minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf, Interior provides access for renewable and
conventional energy development and manages the protection and
restoration of surface mined lands. The Department of the Interior
oversees the responsible development of 24 percent of America's
domestic oil and gas supplies, while striving to ensure safety and
environmental protection and the effective collection of revenue from
this development. We estimate that energy and minerals development on
Federal lands supported 1.3 million jobs and $246 billion in economic
activity in 2010.
The Department is also the largest supplier and manager of water in
the 17 Western States, promotes and assists others to conserve water
and extend water supplies, and provides hydropower resources used to
power much of the Country. The Department estimates that the use of
water, timber, and other resources produced from Federal lands
supported about 370,000 jobs and $48 billion in economic activity.
Interior works to ensure that America's spectacular landscapes,
unique natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future
generations, tells and preserves the American story, and maintains the
special places that enable the shared American experience. In 2012,
visitors made 476 million visits to Interior-managed lands and
supported an estimated $47 billion in economic activity.
Interior manages and delivers water, arbitrates long-standing
conflicts in water allocation and use, and actively promotes water
conservation. As one of the Nation's primary natural and cultural
resource stewards, the Department makes decisions regarding potential
development on the public lands and offshore coastal areas that can
greatly impact the Nation's energy future and economic strength.
Factored into this balance is the Department's unique responsibility to
American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Department supports cutting
edge research in the earth sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--
to inform resource management decisions at Interior and organizations
across the world and in earthquake, volcano, and other hazards to
protect communities across the Nation. Maintaining and building the
capacity to carry out these responsibilities on behalf of the American
people is Interior's primary focus.
powering america's economy
Stewardship of America's lands and natural resources is at the
heart of the national spirit and the economy--from the responsible
management and development of natural resources and increasingly, the
economic power of outdoor recreation.
In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
billion in receipts benefitting the U.S. Treasury--from a combination
of fees, royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral, timber, and other
natural resource development. The Department estimates that
conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year. In 2011,
of the total receipts generated by Interior, $11.3 billion was
collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands, and
Federal offshore areas--a $2.0 billion increase over the previous
year--with receipts disbursed and revenues shared among Federal, State,
and tribal governments.
Since 2008, oil production from the Federal OCS has increased by 30
percent, from 450 million barrels to more than 589 million barrels in
2010. Balancing the need for safety and environmental enforcement,
Interior currently manages over 35 million acres of the OCS under
active lease. A recently proposed five-year oil and gas leasing program
would make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable
oil and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.
Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management held 32 onshore oil and gas
lease sales in 2011. The BLM offered 1,755 parcels of land covering
nearly 4.4 million acres. Nearly three-quarters or 1,296 of those
parcels of land offered were leased, generating about $256 million in
revenue for American taxpayers. This was a 20 percent increase in lease
sale revenue over 2010, following a strong year in which leasing reform
helped to lower protests and increase revenue from onshore oil and gas
lease sales on public lands. The BLM recently has seen a 50 percent
jump in industry proposals to lease for oil and gas exploration. Oil
and gas companies nominated nearly 4.5 million acres of public minerals
for leasing in 2011, up from just under 3 million acres the year
before. Industry nominations are the first step in the BLM leasing
process. After evaluating the parcels, BLM may offer them at auction.
Successful bidders can then apply to drill for oil and gas.
Interior is moving aggressively to put the President's energy
strategy, Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, into action and expand
secure energy supplies for the Nation--a strategy that includes the
responsible development of renewable energy sources on the public
lands. At the start of this Administration, there were no solar energy
facilities sited on the public lands, and wind energy development was
relatively limited compared to development on private lands. Since
March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved capacity for
production and transmission of power have been approved including the
first ever utility scale solar project, five wind projects, and eight
geothermal projects. The Cape Wind Energy Project, approved for
construction and operation, is the first ever offshore commercial wind
operation. The 2013 budget reflects an expansion of these
accomplishments with the goal of permitting 11,000 megawatts by the end
of 2013.
The President's Blueprint recognizes the economic potential of
renewable energy development. The economic benefits could be
particularly significant in America's remote and rural places near
public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates identified nearly $5.5
billion in economic impacts associated with renewable energy
activities, a growing economic sector that supports high paying jobs.
growing the economy outdoors
Interior is at the forefront of the Administration's comprehensive
effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
International travel to the U.S. is the Nation's largest service export
industry, with seven percent of total exports and 24 percent of service
exports. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that every
additional 65 international visitors to the United States can generate
enough exports to support an additional travel and tourism-related job.
According to the travel industry and Bureau of Economic Analysis,
international travel is particularly important as overseas or ``long-
haul'' travelers spend on average $4,000 on each visit.
President Obama has asked me to co-chair an interagency task force
with Commerce Secretary Bryson to develop a National Travel and Tourism
Strategy to expand job creation by promoting domestic and international
travel opportunities throughout the United States. A particular focus
of the Task Force will be on strategies for increasing tourism and
recreation jobs by promoting visits to the Nation's national treasures.
The Department of the Interior manages iconic destinations in the
national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural and historic sites,
monuments, and other public lands that attract travelers from around
the country and the globe. According to a Departmental study, in 2010,
437 million visits were made by American and international travelers to
these lands, contributing $47.9 billion in economic activity and
388,000 jobs. Eco-tourism and outdoor recreation also have an impact on
rural economies, particularly in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
Interior is working to maximize the benefit of the outdoors for the
millions of Americans at home. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
contribute an estimated $730 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
More than 12 million Americans hunt; more than 30 million Americans
fish; and three out of four Americans engage in some kind of healthy
outdoor activity. One in twenty U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
Through the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the Administration
continues to expand opportunities for recreation--through partnerships
with States and others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges,
and public lands. The 2013 budget requests $5.1 billion in support of
this initiative, a $145.6 million increase compared to 2012. Funding is
focused on programs supported through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, land management operations, and other grant and technical
assistance programs that promote conservation and improve recreational
access.
By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across the
Nation, the Administration is expanding access to rivers and trails,
creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while working
to protect historic uses of the land including ranching, farming, and
forestry. As part of America's Great Outdoors, Interior is supporting
101 signature projects in all States across the Country to make parks
accessible for children, create great urban parks and community green
spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational blueways to power
economic revitalization. Projects were selected in concert with
governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other stakeholders,
and were evaluated based on the level of local support, the ability of
states and communities to leverage resources, and the potential to
conserve important lands and promote recreation.
The America's Great Outdoors initiative is being implemented in
partnership with communities and stakeholders across the Country. In
January of this year, I accepted the first donation of land in south-
central Florida to officially establish the Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area--conserving one of the
last remaining grassland and longleaf pine savannah landscapes in
eastern North America. The new refuge and conservation area--the 556th
unit of the national wildlife refuge system--was established with the
support of local ranchers, farmers, and landowners who are working
cooperatively with Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service to
conserve the wildlife values on their lands while retaining their right
to raise livestock or crops, an approach championed by the Obama
Administration.
The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area is one example of the new parks and refuges Interior has recently
established to protect key natural and cultural resources for future
generations. In addition to 650 miles of new national trails,
designation of several national natural and historic landmarks,
Interior welcomes the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington,
D.C.; the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in New Jersey;
the Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia; the Dakota Grassland
Conservation Area in North and South Dakota; New Mexico's first urban
national wildlife refuge, the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife
Refuge in Albuquerque; and a signature America's Great Outdoors project
in the Crown of the Continent Conservation Area in Montana. Interior
launched significant efforts to protect America's enduring icons
including upgrading the Statue of Liberty, initiating repairs to
earthquake damage at the Washington Monument, and withdrawal of over
one million acres in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon from additional
uranium and hardrock mining, to protect and preserve the natural beauty
of the Grand Canyon.
Interior's 2013 budget request for appropriations from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund includes a total of $450 million for Interior
and Forest Service Program. The budget requests $212.0 million for
Federal land acquisition within national parks, national wildlife
refuges, and BLM public land boundaries, including $83.6 million for a
collaborative program to support landscape-scale conservation projects
developed in a collaborative process conducted by the Forest Service
and Interior land management bureaus. Investments in ecologically
important landscapes will be coordinated with State and local efforts
to maximize ecosystem benefits, support at-risk species, and create
wildlife corridors. The request includes $128.4 million for acquisition
to facilitate protection of parks, refuges, and BLM designated areas
based on bureau mission-specific priorities.
The 2013 Federal land acquisition budget for BLM includes funding
to will improve access for hunters and anglers to the public lands.
Often these sportsmen and women are frustrated by complicated
``checkerboard'' land ownership and are unable to access BLM lands that
provide recreation opportunities. The budget includes $2.5 million that
will be used to purchase easements to alleviate these challenges and
provide improved access for public recreation.
An additional $120 million is proposed for key grant programs
supported by the LWCF, including $60 million each for the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund program and State LWCF grants.
spurring growth and innovation through science
Investments in research and development promote economic growth and
innovation, ensure American competitiveness in a global market, and are
critical to achieving the mission of the Department of the Interior.
Investments in Interior's research and development will improve
management of U.S. strategic energy and mineral supplies, water use and
availability, and natural hazard preparedness. Sustainable stewardship
of natural resources requires strong investments in research and
development in the natural sciences.
Research and development funding is increased by nearly $60 million
in the 2013 budget, with R&D funding increases among all of the DOI
bureaus, and particularly USGS, FWS, BSEE, BLM and BOR. With these
investments, Interior will support research that addresses critical
challenges in energy production and the management of ecosystems,
invasive species, public lands, and water.
Recent technology and operational improvements have led to
increased use of hydraulic fracturing in developing natural gas
resources. To ensure the prudent and sustainable development of this
important source of domestic energy, economic development, and job
creation, the 2013 budget invests in research and development that
proactively addresses concerns about the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on air, water, ecosystems, and earthquakes. The 2013 budget
supports a $45 million interagency research and development initiative
by the USGS, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection
Agency aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental,
health, and safety impacts of shale gas development and production
through hydraulic fracturing.
The BOEM is working with the University of Texas and a team of
arctic researchers on a five year comprehensive study of the Hanna
Shoal ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast. Past
studies have identified this area as an important biological ecosystem,
which supports a high concentration of marine life. Valuable data on
physical and biological processes in the area obtained from this
research effort will be combined with the results of previously
conducted studies. The resulting information will be used by industry,
as well as by BOEM in decisions regarding energy development in this
region, and will be included in future National Environmental Policy
Act analyses.
In 2011, USGS used cutting edge technology to complete the genome
sequencing of the fungus that causes the skin infection that is a
hallmark of the white-nose syndrome, which is decimating bat
populations across the country. This sequencing will support further
research that is necessary to develop management strategies to mitigate
the spread of the syndrome among bats. Recognizing the impact of this
is not limited to wildlife health, USGS and university partners
produced a study which determined that bats contribute $3.7 billion to
the agricultural economy by eating pests that are harmful to
agricultural and forest commodities. The 2013 budget provides $1.8
million for USGS to conduct further research and development to address
this critical issue.
In 2013, the Budget requests a $2 million increase in the BLM Wild
Horse and Burro program to fund research on contraception/ population
control. Research may include topics such as studies on herd genetics,
animal behavior and overall rangeland use as it relates to
sterilization and other population growth suppression techniques. The
goal of the research will be to develop additional methods to minimize
wild horse population growth and maintain herd health.
delivering sustainable growth through water
Although the Bureau of Reclamation is within the jurisdiction of
the Energy and Water Subcommittee, it plays a critical role in
addressing the Nation's water challenges which are of interest the
Subcommittee. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 348 reservoirs with
the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water. The bureau
manages water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use, and
provides flood control and recreation for millions of people.
Reclamation's activities, including recreation, generate estimated
economic benefits of over $55 billion and support nearly 416,000 jobs.
These facilities deliver water to one in every five western farmers
to irrigate about ten million acres of land, and provide water to over
31 million people for municipal and industrial uses and other
nonagricultural uses. The water managed by Interior irrigates an
estimated 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables each year. Reclamation
facilities also reduce flood damages in communities where they are
located and thereby create an economic benefit by sparing these
communities the cost of rebuilding or replacing property damaged or
destroyed by flood events.
WaterSMART, established in 2010, has assisted communities in
improving conservation, increasing water availability, restoring
watersheds, resolving long-standing water conflicts, addressing the
challenges of climate change, and implementing water rights
settlements. The program has provided more than $85 million in funding
to non-Federal partners, including Tribes, water districts, and
universities, including $33 million in 2011 for 82 WaterSMART grant
projects. In December, Interior released a report on the effectiveness
of the WaterSMART program, which demonstrates the importance of this
work to the sustainability of resources in the Colorado River Basin.
Another example of Interior's efforts to stretch water resources is
the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona. Reclamation recently completed a
year-long pilot operation of the Plant in collaboration with
California, Arizona, and Nevada water agencies. The pilot demonstrated
the capability of the Plant to augment Lower Colorado River supplies
and produced sufficient water for use by about 116,000 people in a
year. Reclamation and the regional water agencies are reviewing the
results of this effort to evaluate the potential for long-term and
sustained operation of the desalting plant.
encouraging economic development in indian country and honoring trust
responsibilities
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments. The Department and
the President hosted the third White House Tribal Nations Conference in
December 2011, bringing together tribal leaders from across the United
States and enabling tribal leaders to interact directly with
Administration representatives and identify priority actions for
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In 2011, Interior began planning to implement the landmark $3.4
billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
implementation of the Settlement agreement. The Commission is
undertaking a forward looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian and tribal trust
funds--with the goal of making trust administration more transparent,
responsive, customer focused, and accountable.
The Department held regional consultations across the Country to
set the framework for the Cobell land consolidation program. The
Settlement establishes a $1.9 billion fund for the voluntary buyback
and consolidation of fractionated land interests to provide individual
American Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for
divided land interests and consolidate holdings for economic and other
uses, a significant benefit for tribal communities. Almost four million
individually owned interests involving nearly nine million acres have
been identified as part of this effort.
To further encourage and speed up economic development in Indian
Country, the Department took a significant step forward announcing the
sweeping reform of antiquated, ``one-size-fits-all'' Federal leasing
regulations for the 56 million surface acres the Federal government
holds in trust for Tribes and individual Indians. The proposed rule
identifies specific processes--with enforceable timelines--through
which the Bureau of Indian Affairs must review leases. The regulation
establishes separate, simplified processes for residential, business,
and renewable energy development, so that, for example, a lease for a
single family home is distinguished from a large solar energy project.
The proposed regulation incorporates many changes requested by tribal
leaders during extensive consultations this past year to better meet
the goals of facilitating and expediting the leasing process for trust
lands. During the initial consultation period more than 2,300 comments
were received from more than 70 Tribes as well as several Federal
agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development,
Agriculture, and the Internal Revenue Service. The BIA regulatory
drafting workgroup is expected to review the comments and publish the
final rule in 2012.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
economic security for the five New Mexico Pueblos of Taos, the Crow
Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The
agreements will enable construction and improvement of reservation
water systems, irrigation projects, a regional multipueblo water
system, and codify water-sharing arrangements between Indian and
neighboring communities. The primary responsibility for constructing
water systems associated with the settlements was given to the Bureau
of Reclamation and BIA is responsible for the majority of the trust
funds.
Reclamation is requesting $21.5 million in 2013 for the continued
implementation of these four settlements and $25.0 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In total, the Indian Affairs budget
includes $36.3 million for ongoing Indian land and water settlements,
which includes $9.5 million for the seventh and final payment for the
Nez Perce/Snake River Water Rights Settlement.
A key responsibility for Indian Affairs is ensuring and improving
the safety of Indian communities. Some Indian reservations experience
violent crime rates that are twice the national average. The high crime
rates are a key issue for tribal leaders as they degrade the quality of
life for residents, attract organized crime, and are a real
disincentive for businesses to consider these communities for economic
development. FY 2011 was the second year of a two-year pilot at four
reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and train
the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities to organize
youth groups and after school programs, and closely monitor results.
The results exceeded expectations with a 35 percent overall decrease in
violent crime in the four communities. Information about the four
reservations is being analyzed and the program will be expanded in 2013
to an additional two communities. The 2013 budget includes $353.9
million for Public Safety and Justice programs, a program increase of
$8.5 million to support this expansion and other public safety
activities.
interior's budget in context
President Obama has challenged agencies to encourage American
innovation, employ and educate young people, rebuild America, and
promote economic development. Interior's 2013 budget invests in areas
that are responsive to these challenges and more. This budget continues
funding for important programs that will protect the Nation's
significant natural resources and cultural heritage, makes strategic
investments in energy development, advances partnerships to leverage
resources, and seeks improved outcomes for Indian communities. At the
same time, this budget recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility.
The priority programs that are level funded with 2012 and limited
strategic investments proposed in 2013 are balanced by reductions in
lower priority programs, deferrals and planning efficiencies.
Taking Fiscal Responsibility--Interior made its 2013 budget
decisions in the context of the challenging fiscal environment. The
2013 budget of $11.5 billion, including Reclamation, eliminates and
reduces lower priority programs, defers project start-ups, reduces
duplication, streamlines operations, and captures savings. The 2013
request is $97.9 million, essentially level with 2012 enacted and
$280.4 million below 2011.
The 2013 budget contains $516.8 million in program terminations,
reductions, and savings from administrative efficiencies. Staffing
reductions of 591 FTEs are planned for 2013, a reduction of 741 FTEs
from 2011 levels. These personnel reductions are focused on areas where
there are funding reductions. Staffing reductions will be achieved
through attrition, and buy-outs in order to minimize the need to
conduct reductions in force to the greatest extent possible.
This budget is responsible, with strategic investments in a few,
targeted areas, and maintains the core functions that are vital to
uphold stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The
budget also continues efforts to shift program costs to industry where
appropriate. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress results in
an additional $6.0 billion, for $17.5 billion in total budget authority
for Interior in 2013.
Administrative Savings--As part of the Administration's Campaign to
Cut Waste, the Department will achieve additional administrative
efficiencies that result in cumulative savings of $207.0 million from
2010 to 2013. These reductions are being implemented throughout
Interior and result from changes in how the Department manages travel,
employee relocation, acquisition of supplies and printing services, and
the use of advisory services. The proposed savings in administrative
functions will not have an impact on programmatic performance, and to
the greatest extent possible savings will be redirected into priority
programmatic areas.
The Department's 2013 budget reflects a freeze on Federal salaries
for 2012 and a 0.5 percent pay increase in 2013. The budget fully funds
fixed costs for the civilian pay increase, anticipated changes in the
Federal contributions to health benefits, rent increases, changes in
workers and unemployment compensation costs, programs financed through
the Working Capital Fund, and specific contract requirements for P.L.
93-638 agreements with Tribes.
Cost Recovery--Significant portions of Interior's budget are funded
by cost recovery, offsetting collections, and discrete fees linked to
uses of lands and resources. The budget proposes to increase cost
recovery to offset the cost of some resource development activities
that provide clear benefits to customers. The proposed fees on oil and
gas inspections are consistent with the recommendations of the National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
The Commission's report stated the oil and gas industry should be
``required to pay for its regulators'' so that the costs of regulation
``would no longer be funded by taxpayers but instead by the industry
that is permitted to have access to a publicly owned resource.''
The budget includes $48.0 million from new inspection fees to be
paid by onshore oil and gas producers. Instituting these fees will
allow for a $10.0 million program increase to be used to strengthen the
BLM inspection program, along with a $38.0 million decrease in current
appropriations for BLM as a whole. Similar fees were proposed in 2012
but not adopted due to concerns about impacts on the producers. The
fees would be on average, 0.2 percent of the annual income collected by
the producers. In addition to the proposed onshore inspection fees,
estimated fee collections from the offshore oil and gas inspections
instituted in 2012 are slightly increased in 2013 to $65.0 million.
This fee-based funding is critical to maintaining the Administration's
aggressive implementation of a robust offshore safety program.
The 2013 budget proposes a new grazing administrative fee of $1.00
per animal unit month on a three-year pilot basis. The fee is estimated
to generate $6.5 million in 2013 and will be used to assist BLM in
processing grazing permits. During the period of the pilot, BLM would
work through the process of promulgating regulations for the
continuation of the grazing fee as a cost recovery fee after the pilot
expires. The 2013 budget continues an offsetting collection initiated
in 2012, allowing the Office of Surface Mining to retain coal mine
permit application and renewal fees for the work performed as a service
to the coal industry. An estimated $3.4 million will be collected in
2013.
major changes in the 2013 request
The Department's 2013 budget request totals $11.5 billion in
current authority including $10.5 billion for programs funded by the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This is
$140.3 million, or 1.4 percent, above the 2012 level. The 2013 request
for the Bureau of Reclamation including the Central Utah Project
Completion Act, funded in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, is $1.0 billion in current appropriations, $42.4
million or 3.9 percent below the 2012 level.
Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury
than its annual appropriation. In 2013, Interior will generate receipts
of approximately $13.9 billion and propose mandatory legislation with a
total net savings of roughly $2.5 billion over ten years.
Bureau of Land Management--The 2013 request is $1.1 billion,
essentially level with the 2012 enacted budget. This includes a
decrease of $8.2 million for BLM's two operating accounts, an increase
of $11.2 million for Land Acquisition, and a reduction of $3.6 million
that eliminates the Construction account.
To advance the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the request
includes $6.3 million in programmatic increases for recreation,
cultural resources, and the National Landscape Conservation System for
BLM to expand and improve opportunities for recreation, education, and
scientific activities while enhancing the conservation and protection
of BLM managed lands and resources.
The BLM will continue to promote and facilitate the development of
renewable energy on public lands, as part of the New Energy Frontier
initiative. The 2013 budget includes a program increase of $7.0 million
for renewable energy to support wind, solar, and geothermal energy. An
additional $13.0 million in program increases are requested to maintain
and strengthen management of the oil and gas program, along with a
requested $10 million increase in mandatory funding specifically
focused on strengthening BLM's oil and gas inspection program. These
increases would be more than offset by $48.0 million in proposed
inspection fees to shift the cost of the oil and gas inspection and
enforcement activity from taxpayers to the oil and gas industry.
The other major program increase is $15.0 million to implement sage
grouse conservation and restoration measures to help prevent the future
listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
The BLM will use $10.0 million of the requested increase to incorporate
the necessary protections into BLM's land use plans to address
conservation of the sage grouse. These plans will guide energy
development, transportation, and other uses and ensure conservation of
sage grouse habitat. The remaining $5.0 million funds on-the-ground
projects to restore and improve sage grouse habitat and additional
inventory, monitoring, and mapping efforts to delineate areas of
highest priority habitat in the range of the sage grouse. Other program
increases in the BLM budget include $1.5 million for the Secretary's
Western Oregon Strategy, $2.0 million for research and development on
population control in the Wild Horse and Burro Management program, and
$4.4 million in the Resource Management Planning program to support
high priority planning efforts.
A $15.8 million program decrease is proposed in the Rangeland
Management program, however, the impact of this funding decrease will
be mitigated by a new grazing administrative processing fee of $1.00
per animal unit month that BLM proposes to implement on a pilot basis
through appropriations language, estimated to raise $6.5 million in
2013. The 2013 budget reduces programmatic funding for the Alaska
Conveyance program by $12.4 million from the 2012 level. Interior will
explore opportunities to further streamline the program. A $3.5 million
program reduction is proposed in the Public Domain Forest Management
program.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--The 2013 operating request is
$164.1 million, including $62.7 million in current appropriations and
$101.4 million in offsetting collections. This is an increase of $3.3
million above the 2012 enacted level.
The 2013 budget includes program increases of $2.0 million from the
2012 enacted level for activities to promote offshore conventional and
renewable energy development that is safe and environmentally
responsible. Increased funding will be used to develop baseline
characterization and monitoring capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico that
are required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident, as well as
to support renewable energy lease auctions.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement--The 2013 operating
request is $222.2 million, including $96.3 million in current
appropriations and $125.9 million in offsetting collections. This is an
increase of $24.8 million above the 2012 enacted level. The $4.8
million increase for offsetting collections includes an estimated $3.0
million increase in inspection fee collections.
The 2013 budget includes funds to increase operational safety
capabilities, develop the National Offshore Training and Learning
Center for inspectors, and conduct research and development activities
on critical safety systems associated with offshore oil and gas
development.
Office of Surface Mining--The 2013 budget request is $140.7
million, a decrease of $9.5 million from the 2012 enacted level. The
reduction reflects decreases in grants to States and Tribes to
encourage regulatory programs to recover costs from fees charged to the
coal industry and finalize the transition of abandoned mine land
reclamation from discretionary to mandatory funding.
I signed a Secretarial Order on October 26, 2011, to review certain
functions of OSM and BLM for potential consolidation. As part of this
effort, I asked the Directors of OSM and BLM and other Interior
officials to report by February 15, 2012 on the results of discussions
with the bureaus' employees, congressional committees, and interested
parties, such as Tribes, State regulatory officials, industry
representatives, and representatives of communities affected by coal
mining. Our efforts in consolidation will respect existing law and
identify actions that will strengthen these two bureaus.
Bureau of Reclamation--The 2013 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation totals $1.0 billion, including the Central Utah Project
Completion Act program. Interior's 2013 budget proposes to consolidate
the CUPCA program with the Bureau of Reclamation. This will allow the
Department to evaluate the priority of the CUPCA program in the context
of other water programs. The 2013 CUPCA request is $21.0 million, a
decrease of $7.7 million from the 2012 enacted level. The Bureau of
Reclamation total adjusted in 2012 to include CUPCA funding, is a
decrease of $42.4 million below the 2012 enacted level.
Reclamation's 2013 request reflects reductions due to the
completion of the construction of Animas-La Plata and the Central
Valley Project Red Bluff pumping plant and fish screen, discontinues
the Geographically Defined Investigation Programs and Rural Water
Program, Title I, and does not continue the following congressional
additions in the 2012 enacted budget: fish passage and fish screens;
water conservation and delivery studies, projects and activities; and
environmental restoration and compliance.
The 2013 budget includes $7.1 million to begin implementation of
actions under the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement that are
currently authorized under existing law, and some increases in programs
such as: rural water projects, which includes a $9.2 million increase
to complete the construction of the Mni Wiconi Project in South Dakota
by the 2013 sunset date; the WaterSMART program; and the Safety of Dams
program.
Funding for Native American programs in Water and Related Resources
shows a reduction of $52.1 million, reflecting the shift of $46.5
million to the requested new Indian Water Rights Settlements account
and smaller decreases. Reclamation is requesting the establishment of
an Indian Water Rights Settlements account in 2013 to assure continuity
in the construction of the authorized projects and to highlight and
enhance transparency in handling these funds. The total for
Reclamation's implementation of Indian water rights settlements in 2013
is $106.5 million, $46.5 million in current funding and $60.0 million
in permanent authority.
U.S. Geological Survey--The USGS budget request is $1.1 billion,
$34.5 million above the 2012 enacted level. The President's budget
supports science, monitoring, and assessment activities that are
critical to understanding and managing the ecological, mineral, and
energy resources that underlie the prosperity and well-being of the
Nation. The 2013 budget includes a program increase of $51.0 million to
fund research and development priorities in disaster response,
hydraulic fracturing, coastal and ocean stewardship, and ecosystem
restoration. The budget also supports the Secretary's initiatives in
responsible energy development and further resolution of water
challenges with funding above the 2012 enacted level.
The USGS budget also includes investments in important science
programs to help meet societal needs. A program increase of $13.0
million above 2012 for the WaterSMART Program will be used to conduct
research on predictive models on regional water availability, explore
methods of integrating and disseminating data through science
platforms, and establish a National Groundwater Monitoring Network.
A program increase of $8.6 million is requested to improve rapid
disaster response to natural disasters. Funding will be used to improve
capacity to provide timely and effective science and information
products to decision makers, in order to minimize the risks hazards
pose to human and natural systems. Funding will be invested in
capability improvements to the USGS monitoring networks for rapid
response to earthquakes, volcanoes, volcanic ash, debris flow,
tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, and other potential threats to
populations and infrastructure.
The budget includes a program increase of $13.0 million to support
the hydraulic fracturing research and development effort with the
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency to understand
and minimize potential adverse environmental, health, and safety
impacts of shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing. New work
will build on existing efforts and address issues such as water quality
and quantity, ecosystem impacts, and induced seismicity.
With a program increase of $16.2 million, USGS will conduct science
in support of ecosystem management for priority ecosystems such as the
Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, Puget
Sound, Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and the Klamath Basin.
With an increase of $2.0 million, the USGS will address overarching
ecosystem issues related to the invasive brown tree snake, white-nose
syndrome in bats, and coral reef health. These increases will provide
information management and synthesis and land change science support
for these ecosystem activities. Included in the total above is $500,000
identified for research efforts through the DOI Climate Science Centers
to enhance work with Tribes to understand the impacts of climate change
on tribal lands. Funding increases will also support priorities in
sustaining our National environmental capital, including development of
the first coordinated multi-departmental effort of its kind to develop
a standardized ecosystem services framework.
The 2013 budget also provides a program increase of $6.8 million to
sustain and enhance existing activities and for a new initiative on
Science for Coastal and Ocean Stewardship that supports priority
objectives of the National Ocean Policy in the areas of marine and
coastal science, resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem
based management, and providing science based tools to inform policy
and management. The USGS will work with partners to provide access to
comprehensive maps and assessments of seabed and coastal conditions and
vulnerability. The increase will improve the integrated science needed
to inform development of resources while conserving the Nation's
coastal and marine ecosystems.
Fish and Wildlife Service--The 2013 budget includes $1.5 billion,
an increase of $72.0 million above the 2012 enacted level. In addition,
the budget includes a $200.0 million cancellation of prior year
unobligated balances in the Coastal Impact Assistance program. The
budget includes America's Great Outdoors increases of $20.9 million in
the Resource Management account and $52.3 million for land acquisition.
There is a $3.9 million increase in the North American Wetlands grants
program, a component of the AGO initiative. State and Tribal Grants are
funded at $61.3 million, level with 2012. Funding for the Construction
account is reduced by $3.9 million.
The budget proposes a program increase of $4.0 million for
activities associated with energy development. This enables FWS to
participate fully in priority landscape level planning and assist
industry and State fish and wildlife agencies as they plan for
renewable energy projects and transmission corridor infrastructure. The
2013 budget continues the commitment to ecosystem restoration by
including $13.5 million for the Everglades, an increase of $3.0
million; $4.9 million for California's Bay-Delta, level with 2012;
$10.2 million for the Gulf Coast, level with 2012; $10.3 million for
the Chesapeake Bay, a program increase of $145,000; and $47.8 million
for the Great Lakes, a program increase of $2.9 million. Funding for
the Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science activity is
$33.1 million, an increase of $856,000. This funding supports the
operation of 14 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
The budget includes $994.7 million available under permanent
appropriations, most of which will be provided in grants to States for
fish and wildlife restoration and conservation.
The 2013 budget proposes a reduction of $14.0 million to eliminate
the discretionary contribution to the National Wildlife Refuge Fund
payments to counties to offset local tax loss due to Federal land
ownership. An estimated $8 million in mandatory receipts collected and
allocated under the program would remain. Payments collected by
counties can be used for non-conservation purposes and as such, this
Fund does not provide the high priority conservation benefits delivered
by other FWS programs. The budget also proposes the cancellation of
$200 million in prior year balances within the Coastal Impact
Assistance Program.
National Park Service--The 2013 budget includes $2.6 billion, $1.0
million below the 2012 enacted level. Within the total available for
NPS in 2013, $2.4 billion is for programs that support the goals of the
America's Great Outdoors initiative. The budget proposes strategic
increases to advance the goals of the initiative, including increases
of $13.5 million for park operations and $17.5 million for Land
Acquisition and State Assistance. The budget proposes reductions of
$7.8 million in the National Recreation and Preservation account from
the National Heritage Areas program, and $24.2 million from
Construction. The request for the Historic Preservation Fund is level
with 2012--grants to States and Tribes are continued at the 2012 level
of $55.9 million.
Select programmatic increases in the park operations account
include $5.0 million for Climate Change Adaptive Management tools, $2.0
million for U.S. Park Police operations including $1.4 million in
support of the Presidential Inauguration, $1.2 million for National
Capital Area parks in support of the Presidential Inauguration, and
$610,000 for the Challenge Cost Share program. These increases are
offset with strategic reductions of $24.8 million to park operations
and service-wide programs.
Funding for Land Acquisition and State Assistance totals $119.4
million and includes a programmatic increase of $2.5 million for
Federal land acquisition. The Land Acquisition proposal includes $9.0
million for matching grants to States and local entities to preserve
and protect Civil War battlefield sites outside the national park
system. The budget also requests a programmatic increase of $15.1
million for the State Assistance grant program. The $60.0 million
request for State grants includes $20.0 million for competitive grants
that support urban parks and green spaces, blueways, and landscape
level conservation projects in communities that need them the most.
Funding for Construction includes a programmatic reduction of $25.3
million for line-item construction projects, however, the budget
proposes funding for the most critical health and safety projects in
the national park system. It also includes programmatic reductions of
$1.5 million from construction program management and planning,
$760,000 from the housing improvement program, $443,000 from
construction planning, $450,000 from management planning, and $228,000
from equipment replacement.
Indian Affairs--The 2013 budget includes $2.5 billion for Indian
Affairs programs, a decrease of $4.6 million from the 2012 enacted
level. This includes an increase of $11.7 million for Operation of
Indian Programs and a decrease of $17.7 million in the Construction
account. The budget includes an increase of $3.5 million in Indian Land
and Water Claim Settlements and a decrease of $2.1 million in the
Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
In 2013, the largest increase, $8.8 million, is in Contract Support
Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, both high priorities for
Tribes. Public Safety and Justice activities receive a program increase
of $8.5 million to support additional police officers and detention
corrections staff.
The budget proposes program increases of $7.8 million for the Trust
Natural Resources programs and $7.0 million for Trust Real Estate
Services programs. Funding increases for Trust Land Management programs
are proposed to assist Tribes in the management, development, and
protection of Indian trust land and natural resources. The budget
proposes a $2.5 million program increase to support increasing
enrollment at tribal colleges.
The 2013 request reflects a reduction of $19.7 million as the
bureau will undergo a consolidation in 2013 to streamline and improve
oversight operations. The BIA will engage in extensive consultation
with Tribes to identify strategies that will ensure tribal needs and
priorities are addressed. Following consultation, Indian Affairs will
construct an implementation plan for a streamlined, cost-effective
organization. The budget also includes $13.9 million in administrative
savings from reductions to fleet, travel, contractors, and awards.
Departmental Offices and Department-wide Programs--The 2013 request
for the Office of the Secretary is $261.6 million, a reduction of
$266,000 from the 2012 enacted level. Of this, $119.6 million is for
Office of Natural Resources Revenue including a program increase of
$1.2 million to complete termination of the Royalty-in-Kind program and
a program decrease of $2.3 million for completed information management
system upgrades. The budget for OS includes a program increase of $1.6
million for minerals receipts modeling development to improve revenue
estimation and reporting capabilities and a program increase of $2.0
million for facilities rent necessitated by the delay in the Main
Interior Building modernization project. Other changes include a
general program reduction of $3.7 million and the transfer of the
Indian Arts and Crafts Board from OS to BIA resulting in a reduction of
$1.3 million.
The Department's 2013 request for the Working Capital Fund
appropriation is $70.6 million, an increase of $8.7 million from the
2012 enacted level. Within this request is $62.1 million to continue
deployment of the Financial and Business Management System including
implementation of the acquisition and financial assistance
functionality as recommended by an independent assessment of the
program. The budget proposes an increase of $3.5 million to improve
Interior's stewardship of its cultural and scientific collections and
an increase of $2.5 million to expand collaboration similar to the
Service First to improve delivery and operating costs. Proposed
reductions include $5.0 million to reflect the shift of the
Department's Information Technology Transformation initiative from
appropriated funds to the Departmental Working Capital fund and $2.5
million for completion of the Department's Acquisition Improvement
initiative.
Major changes in other Departmental programs include an increase of
$243.0 million in the Wildland Fire Management program. The net
increase is comprised of a program increase of $195.8 million that
fully funds the 10-year suppression average and a program reduction of
$39.0 million in the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program reflecting a
refocusing of the program toward treatments in the wildland-urban
interface.
The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $88.0
million, a decrease of $16.4 million from the 2012 enacted level. The
budget includes $5.0 million to mitigate the impacts and costs of
Compact migration and $3.0 million to implement energy projects
identified by the Territories' sustainable energy strategies. Funding
of $13.1 million for the Palau Compact is not requested for 2013 as it
is expected the Compact will be authorized in 2012.
The Office of the Special Trustee request is $146.0 million, $6.1
million below the 2012 enacted level. The 2013 request includes a
program increase of $3.0 million for the Office of Trust Review and
Audit to conduct compliance audit reviews for Interior bureaus. The
budget includes program decreases of $9.9 million for streamlining,
administrative savings, and the completion of certain trust reform
activities.
mandatory proposals
In 2013, Interior will collect $13.9 billion in receipts and
distribute $6.0 billion in permanent funding without further
appropriation for a variety of purposes, under current law. The budget
includes 13 legislative proposals that will be submitted to the
Congress to collect a fair return to the American taxpayer for the sale
of Federal resources, to reduce unnecessary spending, and to extend
beneficial authorities of law. Together these proposals will save a net
total of approximately $2.5 billion over the next decade.
Reform Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation--The Administration
proposes to reform the coal Abandoned Mine Lands program to reduce
unnecessary spending and ensure the Nation's highest priority sites are
reclaimed. First, the budget proposes to terminate the unrestricted
payments to States and Tribes that have been certified for completing
their coal reclamation work because these payments do not contribute to
abandoned coal mine lands reclamation. Second, the budget proposes to
reform the distribution process for the remaining funding to
competitively allocate available resources to the highest priority coal
abandoned mine lands sites. Through a competitive grant program, a new
Abandoned Mine Lands Advisory Council will review and rank the
abandoned coal mine lands sites, so OSM can distribute grants to
reclaim the highest priority coal sites each year. These reforms will
focus available coal fees to better address the Nation's most dangerous
abandoned coal mines while saving taxpayers $1.1 billion over the next
ten years.
Create a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund--To address the
legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the U.S., the Administration
will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands
program for abandoned hardrock sites. Hardrock reclamation would be
financed by a new abandoned mine lands fee on the production of
hardrock minerals on both public and private lands. The BLM would
distribute the funds through a competitive grant program to reclaim the
highest priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal, State, tribal,
and private lands. This proposal will hold hardrock mining companies
accountable for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors
while generating $500 million in savings over 10 years.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands--The Administration will
submit a legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer
from hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal
would institute a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
for certain hardrock minerals including gold, silver, lead, zinc,
copper, uranium, and molybdenum, currently covered by the General
Mining Law of 1872. After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal
lands would be governed by the new leasing process and subject to
annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than five percent of
gross proceeds. Half of the receipts would be distributed to the States
in which the leases are located and the remaining half would be
deposited in the Treasury. Existing mining claims would be exempt from
the change to a leasing system but would be subject to increases in the
annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872. Holders
of existing mining claims for these minerals could, however,
voluntarily convert claims to leases. The Office of Natural Resources
Revenue will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty
receipts. The proposal is projected to generate Treasury revenues of
$80.0 million over ten years.
Fee on Non-producing Oil and Gas Leases--The Administration will
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on lands
and waters leased for development. A $4.00 per acre fee on non-
producing Federal leases on lands and waters would provide a financial
incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into
production or relinquish them so the tracts can be leased to and
developed by new parties. The proposed $4.00 per acre fee would apply
to all new leases and would be indexed annually. In October 2008, the
Government Accountability Office issued a report critical of past
efforts by Interior to ensure companies diligently develop their
Federal leases. Although the report focused on administrative actions
the Department could undertake, this proposal requires legislative
action. This proposal is similar to other non-producing fee proposals
considered by the Congress in the last several years. The fee is
projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13.0 million in
2013 and $783.0 million over ten years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals--The Administration
proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing the cost
to administer energy and minerals receipts, beginning in 2014. Under
current law, States receiving significant payments from mineral revenue
development on Federal lands also share in the costs of administering
the Federal mineral leases from which the revenue is generated. In
2013, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral revenue payments
to States would be implemented as an offset to the Interior
Appropriations Act, consistent with identical provisions included in
the Act since 2008. Permanent implementation of net receipts sharing is
expected to result in savings of $44.0 million in 2014 and $449.0
million over ten years.
Repeal Oil and Gas Fee Prohibition and Mandatory Permit Funds--The
Administration proposes to repeal portions of Section 365 of the Energy
Policy Act, beginning in 2014. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing
receipts from the U.S. Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement
Fund and also prohibited BLM from establishing cost recovery fees for
processing applications for oil and gas permits to drill. Congress has
implemented permit fees through appropriations language for the last
several years and the 2013 budget proposes to continue this practice.
Upon elimination of the fee prohibition, BLM will promulgate
regulations to establish fees for applications for permits to drill
administratively, with fees starting in 2014. In combination with
normal discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will then
replace the applications for permits to drill fees currently set
annually through appropriations language and the mandatory permit fund,
which would also be repealed starting in 2014. Savings from terminating
this mandatory funding are estimated at $18.0 million in 2014 and $36.0
million over two years.
Geothermal Energy Receipts--The Administration proposes to repeal
Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to passage of
this legislation, geothermal revenues were split between the Federal
government and States with 50 percent directed to States, and 50
percent to the Treasury. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed this
distribution beginning in 2006 to direct 50 percent to States, 25
percent to counties, and for a period of five years, 25 percent to a
new BLM Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund. The allocations to
the new BLM geothermal fund were discontinued a year early through a
provision in the 2010 Interior Appropriations Act. The repeal of
Section 224(b) will permanently discontinue payments to counties and
restore the disposition of Federal geothermal leasing revenues to the
historical formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the
Treasury. This results in savings of $4.0 million in 2013 and $50.0
million over ten years.
Deep Gas and Deepwater Incentives--The Administration proposes to
repeal Section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 344
mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas'' production on the
OCS. This change will help ensure Americans receive fair value for
Federally owned mineral resources. Based on current oil and gas price
projections, the budget does not assume savings from this change;
however, the proposal could generate savings to the Treasury if future
natural gas prices drop below current projections.
Repeal of Authorities to Accept Royalty Payments In Kind--The
Administration proposes to solidify a recent Departmental reform
terminating the Royalty-in-Kind program by repealing all Interior
authorities to accept future royalties through this program. This
change will help increase confidence that royalty payments will be
properly accounted for in the future. The budget does not assume
savings from this change because the Administration does not anticipate
restarting the program; however, if enacted, this proposal would
provide additional certainty that a new Royalty-in-Kind program could
not be initiated at some point in the future.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act--The Administration
proposes to reauthorize this Act that expired July 25, 2011 and allow
lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to
be sold using the Act's authority. The sales revenues would continue to
be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and
to cover the administrative costs associated with conducting sales.
Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps--Federal
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as Duck
Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the annual Federal license
required for hunting migratory waterfowl. Today, 98 percent of the
receipts generated from the sale of these $15.00 stamps are used to
acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and
wintering. The price of the Duck Stamp has not increased since 1991,
while the cost of land and water has increased significantly. The
Administration proposes to increase these fees to $25.00 per stamp per
year, beginning in 2013. Increasing the cost of Duck Stamps will bring
the estimate for the Migratory Bird Conservation account to
approximately $58.0 million. With these increased receipts, the
Department anticipates additional acquisition of approximately 7,000
acres in fee and approximately 10,000 acres in conservation easement in
2013. Total acres acquired for 2013 would then be approximately 28,000
acres in fee title and 47,000 acres in perpetual conservation
easements.
Compact of Free Association--On September 3, 2010, the U.S. and the
Republic of Palau successfully concluded the review of the Compact of
Free Association and signed a 15-year agreement that includes a package
of assistance through 2024. Under the agreement, Palau committed to
undertake economic, legislative, financial, and management reforms. The
conclusion of the agreement reaffirms the close partnership between the
U.S. and the Republic of Palau. Permanent and indefinite funding for
the Compact expired at the end of 2009. The 2013 budget seeks to
authorize permanent funding for the Compact as it strengthens the
foundations for economic development by developing public
infrastructure and improving health care and education. Compact funding
will also support one or more infrastructure projects designed to
support Palau's economic development efforts. The Republic of Palau has
a strong track record of supporting the U.S. and its location is
strategically linked to Guam and U.S. operations in Kwajalein Atoll.
The cost for this proposal for 2013-2022 is $184.0 million.
Extension of Payments in Lieu of Taxes--PILT payments are currently
authorized only through 2012. The budget proposes a one-year extension
of mandatory PILT payments at the current authorization levels in 2013.
These payments support local government services in counties that have
significant Federal lands within their boundaries. The Administration
looks forward to working with Congress to develop a longer-term
strategy for providing sustainable levels of funding for PILT payments,
in light of overall constrained budgets and the need for appropriate
offsets for new mandatory spending. This extension utilizes the current
PILT payment formula that is prescribed by law and based on population,
certain receipt sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within
an affected county. The cost for this proposal in 2013 is estimated at
$398.0 million.
offsetting collections and fees
The budget includes several proposals to increase cost recovery
fees, so that industries share some of the cost of regulation.
Fee Increase for Offshore Oil and Gas Inspections--Through
appropriations language, the Administration proposes to continue the
current offshore inspection fee levels authorized by Congress in 2012.
These fees are estimated to generate $65.0 million in 2013, up from
$62.0 million in 2012, from operators with offshore oil and gas
drilling facilities that are subject to inspection by BSEE. The
increased fees will fund an expanded inspection program, and as enacted
for 2012, operators will now be charged for the inspection of drilling
rigs in addition to production platforms. These inspections are
intended to increase production accountability, human safety, and
environmental protection.
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections--Through appropriations
language, the Administration proposes to implement an inspection fee in
2013 for onshore oil and gas drilling activities that are subject to
inspection by BLM. The proposed inspection fee is expected to generate
an estimated $48.0 million in 2013, $10.0 million more than the
corresponding $38.0 million reduction in requested BLM appropriations,
thereby expanding the capacity of BLM's oil and gas inspection program.
The fee would support Federal efforts to increase production
accountability, human safety, and environmental protection.
Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee--The 2013 budget proposes
to continue a fee for processing drilling permits through
appropriations language, an approach taken by Congress in the Interior
Appropriations Acts. A fee of $6,500 per drilling permit was authorized
in 2010, and if continued, would generate an estimated $32.5 million in
offsetting collections in 2013.
Grazing Administrative Fee--The 2013 budget includes a new grazing
administrative fee of $1.00 per animal unit month. The BLM proposes to
implement the fee through appropriations language on a three-year pilot
basis. The budget estimates the fee will generate $6.5 million in funds
that will assist the BLM in processing grazing permits. During the
period of the pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating
regulations for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost recovery
fee after the pilot expires.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Fee--The 2013 budget
continues an offsetting collection initiated in 2012, allowing OSM to
retain coal mine permit application and renewal fees for the work
performed as a service to the coal industry. The fee will help ensure
the efficient processing, review, and enforcement of the permits
issued, while recovering some of the regulatory operations costs from
the industry that benefits from this service. The fee, authorized by
section 507 of SMCRA, would apply to mining permits on lands where
regulatory jurisdiction has not been delegated to the States. The
permit fee will generate an estimated $3.4 million in offsetting
collections in 2013.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2013
budget request for the Department of the Interior. We have a tremendous
opportunity to invest in America's energy independence and economic
growth. This budget balances forward looking investments with fiscal
restraint. For America to be at its best, we need lands that are
healthy, waters that are clean, and an expanded range of energy options
to power our economy. This concludes my written statement. I am happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me start with a few questions related to the oil and
gas industry. I think, Senator Murkowski, you said that that
there has been a reduction in oil and gas production on Federal
lands, although, the oil and gas production in the country,
overall, has increased. That's not my understanding, but I
wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, if you have those figures
available, and if you could inform us as to what has happened
with regard to production of oil and natural gas on Federal
lands, both on shore and offshore.
Secretary Salazar. Chairman Bingaman, I appreciate the
question. I think the bottom line that we should all be very
proud of is the fact that we have been able to develop our
domestic resources in a very robust way. When you look at the
crude oil production in the United States in 2011, it's the
highest level since it's been in 2003. When you look at oil
imports into this country, they've dropped below 50 percent.
I remember being on that side of the table when we were
speaking about import levels that were above 60 percent, and
not so long ago, at 70 percent. So, we're moving in the right
direction, and it's coming about as a result of multiple
approaches, including what's happened with development of
private lands, and the domestic gas industry, which is so
abundant and so important to the future of this country. But,
it's also happening with respect to our efforts in the onshore,
as well as in the offshore, and so let me just say something
about the public lands onshore.
On public lands, the natural gas production just on the
public lands alone, Senator Murkowski, was the second highest
since 2004, and oil produced on public lands, highest in 2010,
since 1997. So, the amount that is being produced is very huge.
I would also say that contrary to some of the reports that
you see from some of the trade associations in the press, we've
continued to provide permits and to lease out vast amounts of
acreage. Right now, on the onshore, for example, 7,000 permits
are out there that companies hold in their hands, and they
ought to be moving forward on those 7,000 permits.
Offshore, this committee knows very well, because of the
number of hearings that you held with respect to the Deepwater
Horizon and the Gulf oil spill, we have stood up the industry
again. Today, we have more rigs working out there in the Gulf
of Mexico than there were right before the oil spill, and we've
continued to do leases in the Outer Continental Shelf,
including the first lease in the Gulf, which we held back in
December.
I attended that hearing in New Orleans, and it was one
which attracted more than $338 million in bids in the Gulf of
Mexico. We expect to have a combined lease sale from 2 areas in
June or July of this year. In addition to that, Secretary
Clinton, at the direction of President Obama and President
Calderon, and I just signed a major transboundary agreement in
the Gulf of Mexico that will allow development to move forward
with both our resources on the transboundary area as well as
with the resources on the Mexican side. So, we continue to be
very bullish about the opportunity to develop our oil and gas
resources on the public lands, both onshore as well as
offshore.
The Chairman. Let me ask on a different issue, the Park
Service has been working for some time to put in place a final
rule with regard to over-flights in the Grand Canyon. The
reason I'm asking about this is we have a transportation bill
on the Senate floor, and one of the amendments that has been
offered is an amendment we've seen before, which would
essentially override what the Park Service would propose in
that regard.
Could you tell me when the Park Service would expect to
have a final rule in place on this issue? Do we have a date
certain that we could say that this will be established by a
certain date?
Secretary Salazar. Chairman Bingaman, I do not. I know it's
been a tough issue to work through, and I will be happy to
speak with Director Jarvis, and get that information to you.
The Chairman. OK. That will be helpful.
Let me ask about another somewhat parochial issue. In 2006,
we passed the United States Mexico Transboundary Aquifer
Assessment Act. This was directing the Geological Survey to
work with States and universities, both in the U.S. and in
Mexico, to do an assessment of underground water aquifers on
the 2 sides of the border.
It's my understanding that we don't have any funds being
allocated to continue with this work at the current time. I
don't know if this is something you focused on, but to me, it's
important. We have large population centers in El Paso and
Wattis, that you're very familiar with, that there's great
disagreement between officials in the 2 countries as to what
the groundwater situation is, and the thought behind this
legislation was to try to correct that.
Is this an issue you could give us any information on
today? Or maybe you need to get back to me on the record for
this
Secretary Salazar. Let me get back to you. On the record,
let me just say that I have been to El Paso and have worked on
issues regarding both the Rio Grande and the Colorado River
systems, and under the great leadership of the Bureau of
Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor, we have made huge
progress on the surface water issues between the United States
and Mexico. We have developed a series of agreements with the
States on the Colorado River. We are working on some on the Rio
Grande as well.
The underground issues, with respect to the transboundary
aquifers, I believe that we were not able to fund those
studies, because the money just was not in the budget. But I
recognize the importance of the issue. Let me get back to you,
Chairman Bingaman, with more specific information on what, if
anything, we were able to do with the money that we have, or
has or has not been requested.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the discussion that you were having with Senator
Bingaman, it sounds like there's going to be some debate back
and forth in terms of what the real numbers are, where the
activity is. But, I'm looking at a map here of the lower 48
States that indicate that 93 percent of shale oil and gas wells
are on private and State land, and that's where we're seeing
this uptick.
You know, I think it is important for us to understand
where we're seeing the increased activity, and I would like to
see more on the Federal side, not only in the lower 48, but, of
course, up north. So I think this is a pretty telling map. So
we'll share that with you.
I wanted to ask you about this royalty study that came out.
Apparently, last week, the Department of the Interior had
commissioned it last year to compare the Federal royalty rates
with other regimes. The report says when comparing
jurisdictions, based on average government take among the cases
generated for this study, all 3 Federal jurisdictions are
levering a higher government take than other jurisdictions,
relative to their remaining recoverable reserve ranking.
It also found that the bonus bids, which, of course, are
pretty significant, can top $3 billion in a single lease sale,
aren't being counted when the government assesses whether the
taxpayers are getting a fair return on their resources, which
is a pretty large factor to leave out.
So, as it relates to the onshore piece, the question that I
would ask is whether we're really ready to call for an increase
in royalties on Federal onshore areas. The report said, and
this was just one piece pulled out of it, ``Any of the
suggested alternative rates for Wyoming Federal lands, however,
will deteriorate their competitive position in the market,
which is rather weak, as it is.'' Now, that's coming from your
report, indicates that onshore, it really questions whether or
not we should be increasing those royalty rates, because it
will make the lands less competitive. Then as it relates to
offshore royalty, the study says, ``Any increase of the already
high royalty rate levied in the Gulf of Mexico will increase
the risk of system instability. Any potential gains from the
higher royalty rate are likely to be offset by reduced revenue
from signature bonuses and its lower pace of leasing.''
So, what I'm trying to understand is, given what your own
report has said, why are we proposing within this budget to
raise the royalty rates both onshore and offshore?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, I'm going to have
David Hayes respond to the specific question. But, let me just
say that the principle that we have followed, and we will
follow in looking at these royalty rates, including the onshore
royalty rates, is the principle of the fair return to the
taxpayers. I think, as I've not reviewed the whole of the
study, but what I remember from the pieces that I did read, is
that when you look at the onshore royalty rates, Texas,
Alabama, and many other States have a royalty rate that is
significantly higher than what the United States has. So the
question is whether the United States citizen and the taxpayer
is getting a fair return on these lines, and so that's what we
will look at.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Secretary Salazar. I need to take a look at the whole of
the report. But, let me have David, because I think he may have
more on the timeline.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Hayes, if you can also address the
issue of whether or not the bonus bids then are being counted
when the government assesses whether the taxpayers are getting
a fair deal, because it's my understanding that they're not. I
would further add that the difference that you might have in
North Dakota or Texas is you've got a level of stability and
predictability there that we're not seeing, certainly, with the
Federal leases. So, Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, there are a variety of studies that are
under way to help address the question of whether the taxpayer
is getting an appropriate royalty rate or not. Of course, this
started with a GAO study, which very strongly suggested that
the Federal leases were not getting an equivalent rate to many
State leases, with Texas being a prime example.
This study, as you know, primarily looks at the global
question, and there are very few U.S. jurisdictions in this
particular study. We're looking at that analysis, and we'll
address it. I don't know the answer to your specific question
about the bonus issue or not. It's a very important study, and
it's part of it. We have another significant study under way as
well, and it's the cumulative impact of all of these studies
that we will utilize to determine if and what an appropriate
proposal would be for a royalty rate.
Senator Murkowski. It was my understanding that the GAO
study was the one that left out the bonus bids, and, again,
extraordinarily significant when you factor in what the Federal
Government receives. $3 billion is pretty significant.
My time is up, but I'll come back for a second round. What
I would leave you with is this is the Department of the
Interior's study. This is what you had requested, in terms of
the comparative royalty study. So, the fact that you're saying
that it was more of a global study, as opposed to one
domestically, I obviously need to understand a little bit more
about what was requested. But what came out, I think, is pretty
telling, in saying that efforts to increase the royalty rates
onshore or offshore will make us less competitive and I don't
think that that's a position that we would like to be in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. I think the study has to be read as a
whole, and we obviously will do that. But, it was the GAO's
finding back in 2008 that said that the American taxpayer was
not getting its fair return, and so these studies have been put
together to do that. My understanding is that it has a very
different conclusion than the one that you articulated, but
we'll take a look at it, and we'll work with you, because at
the end of the day, we ought to be getting a fair return to the
taxpayer.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to welcome
Secretary Salazar as well. Today, as a former member of this
committee, he always reaches out to us, and did again with me
last night. Mr. Secretary, it's very much appreciated, and I
know other colleagues feel the same way.
Let me ask you a question about gasoline prices, if I
might, to start with. The argument is being made that the
reason gasoline prices are so high is that you haven't opened
up enough public land. You've heard that argument, and it's
been made by a variety of groups and individuals. Your
testimony, of course, today counters that, and describes that
you disagree with that position.
So, I think it would be helpful if you could lay out on the
record, particularly because trends are so important, what
areas in the last year, offshore and onshore, have you opened
up for energy development?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for that
question. You know, we have moved aggressively in opening up
and putting on the market new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The
conclusion of the treaty that Secretary Clinton and I signed
last week, or the agreement, which still has to be ratified by
the Congress, is part of that effort in the Gulf of Mexico.
We're moving forward to look at the potential for oil and
gas exploration in the Arctic Seas. Onshore Alaska, Senator
Murkowski well knows, the 22-million acre national petroleum
reserve area, through the construction of the bridge into CD5,
it may open that up in a very significant way. Onshore, I
believe the numbers are close to 40 million acres of land has
been leased to oil and gas companies.
As I indicated in my earlier testimony, there are 7,000
permits out there that have been given onshore, and just
waiting for companies to drill, and the Gulf is back, and the
Gulf is working. So I think we are doing everything that we
can.
In terms of the gas price question, I think the realty of
it is that it's easy to play politics with gas prices, and
everybody has their bumper sticker solution to what we can do
with it. The reality of it is that gas prices are set on the
global market. You know, the instability in the Middle East is
part of what has created the most recent gas price hike. We've
seen these kinds of spikes over a long period of time, dating
back, according to a report that I have at Interior, to 1857.
So these kinds of issues are issues that we've confronted in
the past.
Senator Wyden. There's no question that there are a variety
of factors with respect to gasoline prices. You didn't mention
Iran, for example. I sit on the Intelligence Committee. We
can't get into classified matters, obviously, but there are a
whole host of issues. I think the only other point on gasoline
prices is, I think it would be very helpful for the record, and
I think you have this information Mr. Hayes.
The Secretary went through, I think, 3 major areas that he
felt would constitute significant additions and supply, a
couple of comments with respect to onshore. I think, for the
record, if you could tell us your projections of what that
would mean in terms of additional supply, I think that would be
helpful.
Let me move on to one other quick question. It involves the
matter you and I talk about often, Secretary Salazar, and
that's the forestry situation in my home State. As you know,
we're particularly concerned, because the cut level doesn't
seem to be going up at the rate we need, particularly in
southern Oregon and in Medford.
Now, to your credit, you-all are proposing 5 new pilot, you
know, projects. You're dealing with a host of protests of sales
from, you know, previous years. So the question is going to be:
How are you going to balance all of these multiple tasks, get
out the timber sales, and get the volume up, which means that
you've got to essentially perform on a number of fronts, in
order to try to strike the kind of balanced multiple-use
approach we want for forestry in our part of the world.
How are you going to juggle those things, so that we can
get more timber to the mills, particularly in southern Oregon,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Wyden, thank you for your
leadership on the issue. It is a difficult issue, and I will
say that what we have done in developing the ecological
forestry principles has followed the lead of Dr. Franklin and
Dr. Johnson. They are the ones who are probably most respected,
in terms of how you can do ecological forestry. I was in
Medford, at the Pilot Joe project, and saw timbering that was
going on in that place. Timber is being cut, and not just
thinning out of the forest, but also timber that is
substantial, that will provide timber to the mills.
There are some few hundred timber sales that are forecast
by the BLM to go on the market in the year ahead. We hope that
we are able to move forward with the sustainable forestry
principles developed by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Franklin, to be
able to provide timber to the mills, and at the same time be
able to move forward with a healthy forest initiative that will
restore the habitat, and also address other issues that have
been very difficult, such as the issues relating to the Barred
Owl and the invasive species, which is creating significant
problems for the Spotted Owl.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
The Chairman. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. I appreciate your
willingness to discuss your budget proposals and other matters
of importance and concern to Americans.
BLM is currently operating under an interim plan that
outlines certain procedures for maintaining the habitat of the
sage grouse. I wanted to ask, just off the bat, if there's any
possibility that a State plan could be approved as a substitute
to that interim habitat management plan.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Lee, I think you have your
finger on what is one of the most important issues for us in 11
States in the West. In that vein, Governor Mead, from Wyoming,
and Governor Hickenlooper, from Colorado are working with Bob
Abbey, the Director of the BLM, to see how we can move forward
with a template that was developed in Wyoming, so that we can
allow development to move forward, and at the same time, have a
Western States strategy that is protective of the habitat and
that is protective of the sage grouse.
It seems to me that in dealing with all of these ESA
issues, that being proactive, as we are now doing in southern
New Mexico and in Texas, with the dunes lizard, working with
oil and gas industry to set up conservation programs that will
allow oil and gas development, but that's the way to go. My
hope is that we're going to be able to do that with respect to
the sage grouse.
Senator Lee. OK.
Secretary Salazar. Utah and your Governor obviously are
very involved with us.
Senator Lee. So you could potentially be supportive of such
a plan in Utah, especially given that the State would bear, you
know, the primary burden of the regulations, and enforcing
them, implementing them, and so forth. That's a possibility.
Secretary Salazar. It is.
Senator Lee. Great.
I next wanted to talk to you a little bit about the Central
Utah water project, which you mentioned in your opening
remarks. As you know, of course, in your proposed budget, you
proposed authorizing language that would place management
supervision, the oversight of this project back within the
Bureau of Reclamation. Of course, it came out of the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation after
Congress passed the Central Utah Water Project Completion Act
of 1992.
Now, there were reasons for that. While this project was
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, prior to
the 1992 act's passage, there were often significant cost
overruns. Sometimes the overhead costs exceeded 50 percent of
the total project cost. But, since 1992, since that act took
effect, and since the Central Utah water project was placed
under the jurisdiction of the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District, the overhead costs have been reduced rather
substantially.
In fact, I believe the Department of the Interior, not too
long ago, recognized this good management by giving it a
secretarial award. So, I just wanted to ask, given how well
it's been managed under the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District, and given the problems that we had when it was
previously under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation,
why is it a good idea to change that, to offset that balance
that Congress imposed this fix for back in 1992?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Lee, first, let me say that the
Central Utah project has been a priority for President Obama
and for me, as Interior. We have invested literally hundreds of
millions of dollars during my time, including significant
allocations from the stimulus program, the American Recovery
Act, to get that project moving on a timeline that's a good
timeline.
We're not abandoning the project. It's an important
project. The consolidation issue of the agency into the Bureau
of Reclamation, it seems to me that it makes no sense to have
another government agency out there doing one of our Bureau of
Reclamation projects, when we have hundreds of other Bureau of
Reclamation projects within the Bureau of Reclamation. So by
having the Central Utah project office come within the Bureau
of Reclamation, I believe that it will allow us to do a better
job. So, it's an efficiency measure on our part.
Senator Lee. But given the data prior to the 1992 act
taking effect, suggesting that just the opposite was true, how
do you respond to that point? Is there something that's
different now about the way the Bureau of Reclamation is run?
Secretary Salazar. I think, Senator Lee, if you look at the
leadership that we have been able to bring into the Department
at the highest levels, the Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, Anne Castle, Mike Connor, the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation, we are doing tremendous things on the
water supply through the Bureau of Reclamation. I have no doubt
that the same commitment and the same level of support for the
Central Utah project, in terms of our staff, will absolutely
continue with the new configuration.
Senator Lee. OK. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
As you well know, oil and gas companies are making record
profits. In fact, the big 5 oil companies combined made a
record $137 billion in profits in 2011. So, I am pleased that
you have proposed a $-per-acre fee on leases that are not being
used. There's a lot of leases that the oil companies have been
granted by the Federal Government that they're not using, and
it creates an incentive for them to drill on these leases. I'm
also pleased that some of the permitting expenses have been
transferred to the companies.
In light of that, I would like to ask you whether the $45
million USGS fund that you intend to use to study shale gas
development through hydro-fracking, will that also be paid by
companies engaged in this activity? We had testimony from the
commission, and I think that under Interior that was studied,
and I wondered whether the companies that benefit from this
would pay for that study.
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that, Senator Franken, is
the President is strongly supportive of research and
development, and developing the science. In fact, much of the
great boom and promise that we now have, with respect to shale
gas in the United States, is a direct result of investments
that this Congress has made, both in the United States
Geological Survey and in the Department of Energy. The Bakken
formation is an example where the USGS has been very involved
in developing the numbers there, and helping industry develop
the technologies.
So, this money, in response to your question, is part of
our investment in understanding shale gas. Within the
Department of the Interior, I believe the number is $18 million
that would be appropriated in the 2013 budget for USGS to
continue to do these studies. We will work closely with the
Department of Energy, as well as EPA, to make sure that there's
a coordinated effort in the study and the studies that are set
forth in the budget.
Senator Franken. You say $18 million, but the testimony is
$45 million.
Secretary Salazar. You're correct. It's $45 million
overall.
Senator Franken. My point here is that this just seems
like, in a time when we have these tight, tight, tight budgets,
here is something where the top 5 oil and gas companies are
making $137 billion profit, $45 million, it seems like it could
be funded by the oil and gas companies themselves, or the gas
companies that benefit from that.
Let's move on, because I've got a project where I could see
that $45 million going, and you may know what I'm talking
about. It's the Lewis and Clark water project, which we've
talked about, the regional water system in Minnesota, Iowa, and
South Dakota. Your budget requests include $4.5 million for
this project, which is much more than the $493,000 that you
requested for it last year, and we talked about at this hearing
last year, and I thank you for that increase.
Unfortunately, this number still barely dents the remaining
Federal cost share of more than $190 million, and we've
discussed before the local partners have prepaid 99.7 percent
of their share. So they're just waiting for the Federal
portion, and the delay is holding up economic development in
the region.
So, my question really is: What is your plan to make sure
this project gets completed in a timely way, or that it even
ever gets completed?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Franken, let me, first all, just
say thank you for being such a great advocate for a great
project that is very deserving of additional money. Frankly,
because of the fact that your water users, local communities,
have stepped up to the plate, have put up their cost share, we
were able to prioritize this project, and have put in as much
money as we possibly can in these very tough budget times.
As I said in the outset, it's a squeeze budget, with some
painful decisions. If we didn't have the constraints we were
facing, frankly, we would put in a lot more money, and we would
get the Lewis and Clark project done, because it is a top
priority project. But I will say as well, this committee knows
better than probably any other committee in this Congress that
the needs that we have with respect to water supply, especially
rural water supply, are huge. Frankly, even the requests that
we put in this budget in 2013 barely makes a dent on the need
that we have there.
Senator Franken. I really appreciate that, and I appreciate
your response. My time is done. But I would just note that
there is $45 million to study fracking, where the industry that
benefits from it is doing really well. They're not hurting.
They could pay for that, and there's $45 million that could go
to a water project, or several water projects. I'd just give
some thought to that.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Franken.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here.
Last week, President Obama went to Miami to give another
speech on energy. He stated that, quote, I will do whatever I
can to develop every source of American energy so our future
isn't controlled by events on the other side of the world. Nice
words. The President too often says one thing and then does, in
my opinion, something very different. To me, that's nowhere
more evident than what we're seeing in the Interior Department,
because the President says he supports an all-out, all-of-the-
above energy strategy, but the Department has repeatedly taken
steps to limit American energy production. A couple of
examples.
In November, the Department proposed a 5-year plan for
offshore oil and gas development, which excludes both Pacific
and the Atlantic Oceans. The plan excludes the development off
the coast of Virginia, even though both Senators, both democrat
Senators and the Governor of Virginia, republican, supported
such development.
In January, the Department withdrew approximately a million
acres in Northern Arizona from uranium production. The
Department withdrew this land, even though both Senators and
the Governor of Arizona opposed the withdrawal, and the
Department continues to pursue new stream protection
regulations, which will limit American coal production. The
Department is taking this step, even though Members of Congress
and officials from coal-producing States oppose the new
regulations.
Now, we get to the specific pain at the pump. On Friday,
the front page of the ``USA Today'' read, ``Most ever could get
hit by $5 gasoline.'' The President said he's focused on
production. But the Department policies seem to speak
otherwise, as does the fiscal 2013 budget, which includes tens-
of-billions of dollars in new taxes and fees on American
energy. The President can't have it both ways. He can't pursue
quote, An all-out, all-of-the-above energy strategy, and at the
same time, block or tax new energy production.
A couple of questions, and following up specifically with
the release the President did last year from the strategic
petroleum reserve. Has this administration begun any planning
to tap the strategic petroleum reserve again this year?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Barrasso, all options are on the
table.
Senator Barrasso. So that is something that then you are
considering tapping. So, could you explain what happened to gas
prices last year following the President's decision to tap the
strategic reserve?
Secretary Salazar. What I would say, Senator Barrasso, is,
you know, all options are on the table, and I would disagree,
as you expect that I would, with you, in terms of your
characterization of the President's agenda. From day one, in
the Department of the Interior, we have worked to develop our
oil and gas resources in a safe and responsible way, and we
have done so both on the onshore as well as on the offshore.
We also have moved forward to develop other energy
resources, including renewable energy, and for the first time
since Three Mile Island, we've opened up the door to the
possibility of nuclear energy as well. So, when the President
says an all-of-the-above energy strategy for the United States,
he's serious about getting us moving beyond the gridlock that
has basically kept this energy program in the United States in
a failing paradigm for the last 30 years.
Senator Barrasso. So when the ``Washington Post,'' last
year said the release of the 30 million barrels from the
strategic petroleum reserve, quote, Whatever the rationale,
it's a bad idea, you're going to continue with that bad idea on
the table this year, was what I just heard. So, could you
explain to me then what your assessment is of the purpose of
the strategic petroleum reserve?
Secretary Salazar. First, the strategic petroleum reserve,
the SPRO, is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, Secretary
Chu, and the President of the United States. I will just say
the President is very cognizant of the pain at the pump that
people are feeling. We have an energy strategy and a policy
that we've been working on from day one, and we believe it
continues to show good results. We'll move America to a new
energy future. We're committed to doing that. In terms of
dealing with the immediate issue of the high gas prices, all
options are on the table.
Senator Barrasso. Are you familiar with Senator Schumer's
insistence that the State Department press the Saudis to
increase oil production? Yet, Senator Schumer opposes the
Keystone XL pipeline, as you know, as the President has refused
to move forward in granting the pipeline from Canada.
My question is: Do you agree with Senator Schumer that we
should be pressing for more Middle East capacity, rather than
North American production, such as can be brought in from
Canada via the Keystone pipeline?
Secretary Salazar. First, on the international effort,
that's obviously something that is a focus of the
administration, along with dealing with what we can produce
here domestically in the United States. That's part of all the
options on the table. On the Keystone issue, yes, we just
remarked that the pipeline that was proposed by TransCanada
yesterday, that will take the segment from Cushing to the Gulf,
is a step absolutely in the right direction. That has to be
processed, and frankly, no judgment was ever reached, Senator
Barrasso, on the Keystone Pipeline XL project, because of
actions that were taken by the Congress, insufficient time to
move forward with the processing of the alternative that is
required.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, my time is gone. It's
interesting, because the Keystone pipeline was actually
proposed 7 years ago, and it's still not enough time.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Barrasso, I was with the
Governor from Nebraska yesterday. There were serious concerns
raised by both the republican Governor as well as our
republican colleagues here in the Senate, with respect to that
proposed pipeline. So, the alternative to that pipeline is
still to come from TransCanada, and then it will be evaluated.
So, if we play by the facts, it will be a process, and then a
judgment will be reached on the facts, just as a judgment will
be reached on the segment from Cushing down to the Gulf.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
and Deputy Secretary Hayes, and Ms. Haze, we're pleased that
you're here today.
Mr. Secretary, you talked about your new role to help
develop a tourism strategy for the country, and the importance
of protecting our outdoors and our beautiful environment and
special places as being critical to that tourism strategy. As
you know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been one of
the Federal programs that has been most successful at
protecting our special places, and wildlife habitats, and
public recreation. In New Hampshire, we've got all kinds of
examples from the LWCF. Our Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge,
parts of the Appalachian Trail that are in New Hampshire have
all been protected through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
I was pleased to see additional funding in the proposed
budget for that program, and I know that you've said you're
committed to getting full funding for LWCF by 2014. I wonder if
you could talk about your plans for how we should get to full
funding, and whether you think there is a dedicated funding
stream, an additional dedicated funding stream that we can add
to what's been proposed by Congress, but has only been fully
funded, I believe, twice since the program started.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Shaheen, let me first say, thank
you for your leadership on this issue, and I thank the Chairman
of the committee, Senator Bingaman, and others who worked hard
on trying to get full funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. I do agree with you. It is part of our
tourism and job creation strategy that comes through
conservation, as we see through L.L. Bean and so many other
wonderful stores that have a presence in your State, the
hunting community, the angling community, boaters. It's a big
part of the future of these United States.
As I've said often in front of this committee, both when I
was on that side of the dais and on this side, the reality of
it is that's been a broken promise to America. You know, in the
1960s, it was authorized to take a portion of the proceeds that
come from offshore oil and gas production, and yet, if you look
at the books of the Treasury, it is now north of $17 billion
that are owed to the conservation programs of this country.
So, even in these tough fiscal times, I think it's
important for us to continue to look for the possibility of
that funding. You know, it pains me, frankly, when I look at
the list of land and water conservation projects which we are
not able to fund. You know, Senator Barrasso just left, but
we're putting a significant amount of money into buying some of
the in-holdings in the Grand Teton National Park. You know, in
every one of your States, there are huge needs, and the needs
are probably in the $5-billion-a-year range for the foreseeable
future. So, from my point of view, the $450 million set forth
in the 2013 budget is a fraction of what is needed.
But, as I said at the outset, this is very tough budget,
and it's a very painful budget for me personally, but if we
could find ways of doing more with LWCF, I think we should be
open to that.
I'll note, Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander, in the
passage of the GOMESA Act, actually were able to set aside a
permanent conservation royalty, and maybe there's more of that
that can be done.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I was pleased to work with some
members of your staff after the oil spill in the Gulf to try
and address the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2011.
Deputy Secretary Hayes, we worked on that. I was pleased to get
a model for an Ocean Energy Safety Institute that was modeled
on a partnership that NOAA has had with the University of New
Hampshire, called the Coastal Research Response Center, and was
very disappointed that that legislation has not gone forward.
But, as we think about the research that we still need to
do to address cleanup to oil spills, are there additional
opportunities for partnerships like the one we have at the
University of New Hampshire, with NOAA, to do some of that
research that is not going to be done at least right now, as
the result of the legislation that's not gone forward?
Secretary Salazar. Deputy Secretary.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, first of all, thank you so much for
your assistance on the Ocean Energy Safety Institute. We
continue to believe it's very important that we have in the law
the authority for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to have
a safety institute that will, as a primary mission, have the
ability to partner with universities, and industry, and others
to be on the cutting edge of research.
We do have ongoing research through the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management. This budget has pretty robust investment in
continuing to raise the bar of safety, but I think until we
have a dedicated institute, we're not taking full advantage of
where we should be as a Nation.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. My time is up, but I think it's
important to point out that it's not just safety we need to
protect. We need to figure out how to deal with the problems
after they occur, because as much as we want to protect safety
and prevent spills, the reality is we're probably going to see
some in the future, and so having the best technology to
address those and research to do that is very important.
Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Secretary Salazar. I think it's a useful conversation with
all members of this committee, April 20, 2010, was really not
that long ago, and this committee, like the rest of the Nation,
was laser focused on what was happening as 50,000 barrels of
oil were spewing out into the Gulf of Mexico every day. It was
a national crisis, and something that we all have lived
through. We ought not to ever have amnesia, as a Nation, and
the President nor I have amnesia about what happened, in the
Gulf of Mexico, nor the Members of Congress should not have
amnesia either. But, to your point, Senator Shaheen, there's a
lot of work that has been done, but a lot more work that has to
be done.
Today, Tom Hunter, well known in the State of New Mexico,
leads up a committee for us on offshore safety, looking at a
whole host of things, from the technology on blowout
preventers, to a number of other things that need to be done to
ensure that we have the safest production.
We will move forward in the development of oil and gas in
the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, it's something that has
bipartisan support to do that, but we need to make sure that we
do it in the safest possible way. Frankly, having the
additional resources to be able to develop the kinds of
technologies that will keep us at the cutting edge is very
important to the United States. I'm mindful as well, Senator
Shaheen, with respect to your question here, that this goes way
beyond the United States of America. When we talk to any of the
oil and gas companies, which I do on a regular basis, we know
that they are a global industry. So what's happening off the
coasts of Nigeria and Algeria, or off the coast of Brazil, or
off the coasts of Norway and Russia, those are all important
matters. So how we elevate the technology, in terms of dealing
with all aspects of ocean drilling is a really important
opportunity for the United States, and we have to do it from
the safety side, the prevention side, the response side, all
aspects of ocean energy development.
The Chairman. Senator Heller.
Senator Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here.
Nevada is 110,000 square miles, so you've got a lot of work
to do. 85 percent of it, as you know, is owned by the Federal
Government. So that, I think, in itself, presents a lot of
unique challenges.
The economic activity on the public lands in Nevada is
important, and obviously comes in a lot of forms, mining,
renewable energy development, the ranging, and recreation, some
of those things. So, I'm concerned about the President's
budget, as it concerns your office. Obviously, there's concerns
to my constituents, also. They include smaller budgets for
hazardous fuel reduction, I believe misguided prioritization of
land acquisition, the 74 percent fee increase on public land
grazers, and, in my opinion, an ill-conceived proposal to tax
mining out of competitiveness.
Unfortunately, all those take a backseat to rising gas
prices in my State today. I've seen the bumper stickers you
talk about back in 2006, during those interim elections, coming
from the left. So, both sides, I think, have issues and
concerns, and certainly, like the bumper sticker politics. But
I want to talk a little bit about verbiage versus reality.
I think Ms. Murkowski made comment to the production of
natural gas on public lands and waters that in fiscal year 2011
have actually dropped 11 percent from the previous year,
according to the Interior data. Also, oil production on public
lands has dipped nearly 14 percent. So as the administration
talks about all this new production, none of it's being done on
public lands. It's all being done on private land.
In 2008, when you were a Senator, you refused to vote for
any new offshore drilling. In fact, you had a conversation with
leader Mitch McConnell at that time, where you objected to
allow any new drilling on America's Outer Continental Shelf,
even if gas prices reached $10 a gallon. You're halfway there,
halfway there.
The question, I guess, we need to ask ourselves: Is this
the direction that this department is going, and are we, at
some point, believing, under your leadership, that gasoline
prices will get to $10 a gallon?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Heller, let me first say that I
think that exchange on the floor of the U.S. Senate, like the
exchange that you're engaged in, is part of the phony debate
with bumper sticker solutions to what is one of the most
fundamental issues facing the United States of America.
Senator Heller. So are you saying that conversation
didn't----
Secretary Salazar. Let me finish. So, when you speak to the
statistic of what happened in 2011, in terms of production, you
have to look at what was happening in the Gulf of Mexico. It's
about 30 percent, roughly, of all our domestic energy comes
from the Gulf of Mexico, which Senator Landrieu knows so full
well.
We went through a crisis in 2010, and we're back, and the
rigs are back at work. In fact, there are more rigs working
now, both offshore and onshore, in the United States of America
than at any time in recent history, maybe in all of history. So
whatever dip there was in production is because of the dip that
happened in the Gulf of Mexico, in the wake of the 2011 Macondo
oil well blowout.
Senator Heller. I guess the question, just to follow-up,
did that exchange occur on the Senate floor, and is it
accurate?
Secretary Salazar. You know, Senator Heller, I know you
will appreciate this, that there are lots of conversation that
take place on the floor of the Senate, which are made for a
political statement, and at that point in time, there was a
political statement. I think the facts are that we moved
forward with----
Senator Heller. So it's a bumper sticker. It was a bumper
sticker.
Secretary Salazar. It's a bumper sticker. We move forward,
Senator Heller, with a very robust Outer Continental Shelf
production. I think there were many people who thought that
after the Deepwater Horizon that there would not be any more
deepwater production in the United States of America. I think
we're going to continue to lead the world, in terms of both the
technology, as well as the production that we're doing there.
The $300 million lease sale that occurred just in December in
New Orleans I think is telling that we're moving forward in
that direction.
So, in terms of my credentials, and the President's
credentials, and support for offshore drilling, I have absolute
confidence that we've moved in the right direction, and that
we're moving forward in a balanced direction that's making sure
that we have safety, and that we're protecting the environment
as well.
Senator Heller. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and Mr.
Secretary, thank you for your, you know, focus and interest in
the Gulf Coast, and your many visits down, and your commitment
to the restoration of our region, and the investments in our
national parks and State parks. I know that you have a passion
for conservation, and we appreciate that.
But, I want to add my voice to try to clarify that, in
fact, the oil and gas production in our country, as you've just
tried to explain, is lower than it has ever been on Federal
lands, both offshore and onshore, and the increase has come
from production on private land.
Now, those are the facts. I'm not arguing about the price
of gas, and I would say to my republican colleagues that they
should know that we can't drill our way out of this problem. We
cannot drill our way back to $2 or $3 gasoline. I don't want to
engage in bumper sticker politics, but I do want to engage in
good policy for this country. Speaking from Louisiana's
perspective, we need to get a more aggressive drilling policy
in this country. We can't drill our way out, but we most
certainly can create jobs. We most certainly can strengthen the
U.S. independence. We most certainly can reduce our reliance on
foreign oil. The facts are that drilling on public lands are
down, and they need to be increased.
The other fact is contrary to the inference that we are
drilling everywhere we can in the Outer Continental Shelf, you
know, Mr. Secretary, the facts are these: We are drilling on
less than 2 percent of the OCS, 2 percent. Now only a small
portion is leasable, and of that leasable portion, we're
drilling on 2 percent. The OCS is 200 miles wide, and it goes
from Oregon to Maine, and we're drilling on less than 2
percent. So, I just think that it's important for us to be
clear about what our situation is.
In addition, I want to say that despite the
administration's arguments that are laid out that you-all are
all guns blaring and green lights for drilling, the facts that
I checked, and if you disagree, tell me, only 21 permits for
offshore drilling have been issued by the second half of
February. In 2010, there were 32 permits. I just left the
annual conference of LOGA, which is Louisiana Oil and Gas
Association, Mr. Secretary, yesterday. They are beside
themselves with not being able to get their permits processed.
To answer you, Mr. Franken, let me just say that Exxon and
Shell may be making record profits, but according to a study
recently done by the Greater New Orleans, Inc., 41 percent of
our oil and gas independent operators and service companies,
I'm not talking about Exxon and Shell, that have operations all
over the world, I'm talking about companies in the Gulf Coast,
in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Let me tell you
what the studies show about their profits. Fourty-one percent
of them are not making a profit at all. Seventy percent have
lost significant cash reserves. Fourty-six have moved
operations away from the Gulf. Eighty-two percent of business
owners have lost personal savings as a result of this slowdown.
Now, part of it is the accident, and part of it is the
permitoreum.
I have to continue to express this to you privately and
publically. I know what you're trying to do, and you're making
statements about increasing production, but I can tell you the
reality in the Gulf Coast is not there. So that is one point
that I wanted to make.
Second, and I'll get to a question in a minute, this 4
percent of an acre is being proposed for non-producing leases,
can you explain how much money that would raise, where it would
be going, because we're already experiencing an increase of
fees, a decrease in permits. We don't know if that money is
coming from us and going elsewhere to promote what, we don't
know. But we need more inspectors to get our permits and our
drilling under way in places that the people support drilling,
and the country needs the jobs. Where's the 4 cents going to
go, and how much is it going to raise?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Landrieu, let me first say, I
disagree with your conclusions. The fact is when you've lived
through a national crisis, I think it's very responsible that
we have moved forward. Now, with the approval, in just the last
year over 100 shallow water permits, 60 deepwater permits, and
the rigs are back and working, is very much public knowledge.
We feel very comfortable, in terms of the production that is
coming off of our public lands, both onshore and offshore. I'm
going to have the Deputy Secretary make just a quick comment on
that as well.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Very quickly, on the
onshore, we have 38 million acres available for leasing right
now. Only 16 million are, in fact, being leased. Last year, we
had 32 onshore lease sales.
Senator Landrieu. I realize that, but Mr. Hayes, not to
interrupt him, Mr. Chairman, it's not about what percentage you
have under production that are leased. If you said how much
land you have in the United States on public lands, and then
took your percentage of what is leasable, and then took your
percentage of what is drilled, you'd give the people of this
country a better picture.
Again, and I'm not an expert on onshore, but I am on
offshore, 2 percent of the OCS is being drilled, do you agree
with that or not, because those are the facts, 2 percent of the
entire land of the OCS. Yes or no?
Mr. Hayes. We've made available 75 percent of the reserve.
Senator Landrieu. That is not what I'm asking.
Mr. Hayes. We are not leasing areas where there is no oil
in the offshore.
Senator Landrieu. OK. What percent of the entire OCS of
this country is being drilled on right now? What is the
percentage?
Secretary Salazar. Let me take that, David.
Senator Landrieu, the fact of the matter is that there are
over 40 million acres that we just did in the one lease sale.
There's more that will be leased. The lease sale that I did in
New Orleans in December, I think was 38 million acres. About 2
million acres of it was leased.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. So when you make available in one lease
sale tens of millions of acres, and you have some of it that's
bid on, the companies are going where they know the oil and gas
is.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. So, the fact is, we are moving forward
with a very robust gas leasing program.
Senator Landrieu. In my view, Mr. Chairman, we're never
going to get clear, as long as we continue to talk around and
throw statistics out that try to make both sides look good. I'm
not trying to make you look any worse. I'm just trying to get
the facts out to the public. When you speak, you get people
thinking that we're drilling everywhere, onshore and offshore.
The facts don't justify that. You know that 98 percent of our
offshore is limited to drilling. We can't even explore there.
We're talking about what we're drilling within that 2 percent.
My final point, and I'll say this, Mr. Chairman, you've
been very good to me. I, as a Senator from Louisiana, have to
come to this meeting every year, and I've now looked at my
notes to find out that Wyoming, last year, got $1.7 billion in
royalties. The Senator is not here. But, I want my colleagues
to know. The State of Wyoming has 500,000 people. They got $971
million that they kept. I don't know what they're doing with
that money. I don't know if they're preserving land or
conservation. Louisiana, which produces more oil and gas than
they have off of our shore has more infrastructure, got $38
million, and we have 4.5 million people.
Mr. Chairman, this is the greatest injustice to the Gulf
Coast of this United States, and I hope nobody puts a revenue-
sharing bill anywhere around this committee, because this
Senator will fight to the end. No State is going to be treated
like our State, and we've been treated like this since 1920.
The Chairman. Do we have Senators that haven't had the
first round? I don't think so. So, let me start with the second
round.
Mr. Secretary, let me pass out and give to you a few charts
that are from previous hearings we've had, and some that we've
developed ourselves. I'll go through the 3 charts, and then ask
for any comment. Is someone passing those out?
Voice: Yes. Yes, they have.
The Chairman. OK. The first of these charts is the one that
Mr. Burkhart, from Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
provided to us at our hearing about a month ago, and he
entitled it, ``The Great Revival of U.S. Oil Production.'' It
says, ``The great revival of U.S. oil production has made the
United States a leader in global oil production growth,'' and
pointed out that there's substantially more growth in oil
production in this country, and that's both private and public
land, obviously, but it's a useful document.
Another chart that I've passed out relates to weekly retail
price for premium unleaded gasoline, from 1996 to October 2011.
It's not this chart, but it's a different one that's been
passed out, showing the price of gasoline in the United States,
at the retail, tracks pretty closely the price worldwide for
gasoline, with the exception, of course, we don't have the
taxes that the rest of the world has, and that's the big
difference.
Then the third is the chart that we put up here on the
board that shows U.S. oil production and gasoline prices, the
percentage change year over year for the last 2 decades. I
think it's clear from this chart, at least it's clear to me,
that there is no relationship between the amount of oil we're
producing in any particular year in the United States and the
price of gasoline.
The price of gasoline is determined by the price of oil on
the world market. What we are producing here in the U.S. has
been relatively constant. It has gone up somewhat in the last
several years, but the price of gasoline has fluctuated
dramatically during that period of time, as shown on that
previous chart. It has done so because of the changes in the
world price of oil.
So, I bring these charts out and distribute them here in
order to make the point that, you know, there's an underlying
argument on this gas price issue that the high price of gas at
the pump is a result of some failure to allow production to
occur in this country. The truth is, production in the U.S. is
up, is up substantially. Production on Federal lands is up. But
in spite of that, the price of oil on the world market is also
up. It's up, because of Iran, and it's up, because of all kinds
of factors, increased demand from China, and all kinds of
factors that are causing the world price of oil to rise.
Unfortunately, it is impacting consumers in this country. I
wish it weren't. I wish we had some way, in the near term, of
disassociating ourselves from the world price of oil, but we
don't. That's what's hurting us.
Anyway, Mr. Secretary, I give you those charts for what
they're worth, and ask for any comments you have in the last
few moments of my time.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
I would say 2 things with respect to the presentation that you
just made. First, oil and gas production in the United States
is higher than it's been in a very, very long time. As your
chart indicates, it's moving in the right direction, and I
think there probably is no figure in my mind that says it
better than the fact that we're importing less oil today than
we have for a very, very long time. So, we are producing more
here in the United States.
I think the second point you make is one that economists
have recognized for a long time, that we don't control the
price of gasoline here in the United States, based on the
amount of production that happens here in this country. It's a
global marketplace that sets the price of oil, and it is the
global factors that we see, both in terms of Iran, as well as
the growing demand that we see from countries, such as India
and China, which are part of what we're seeing in terms of the
global economics which we face today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we
would all agree, as Senator Landrieu has mentioned it, you
know, the answer is not just drilling. Coming from an oil-
producing State, the answer is not just drilling. But it is
part of the solution. So, I think it is something that we would
agree we are subject to the vagaries of the market. We are
certainly subject to the volatility on the global scene, but I
think that the fundamental problem that we have here is that
we're too dependent on our oil imports from the OPEC countries,
and we're too vulnerable to the price instability in the global
market. So, I'm not sure how we can argue that producing more
oil here at home and lessening our dependence on OPEC oil
wouldn't make a difference. It just seems, to me, it makes
sense to have as much as cushion as we can, because I think we
recognize that the cushion that is available within the world
markets is one that we're not entirely sure.
Senator Schumer has asked that Saudi Arabia crank it up a
bit, so that we can get more from Saudi Arabia. How much spare
capacity they have? I think this is one of those things that
causes the volatility that we see.
I want to move off that subject for a moment and bring up
the issue that I raised in my opening comments, and this
relates to the Legacy Wells that were drilled, again, from 1944
to 1981, when the government drilled more than 100 wells. They
have only plugged and properly abandoned about 10 out of 137
wells.
When I was in the legislature, giving my address, a
representative from the House asked me, ``Well, Senator, what
can we do? What's our action plan on this?'' I said, ``We need
to raise a little hell. We need to point out that there cannot
be a double standard here.'' There's a resolution* that was
passed by the State house of representatives, and I'd ask that
it be included as part of the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. We'll include that, of course.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It points out
that the Federal Government has received over $9 billion from
leased sales within the petroleum reserve, where these
exploratory wells were drilled. The State can't impose fines on
the Federal Government, but if it could, the fines would exceed
over $8 billion. If the statute of limitations were
disregarded, the fines would exceed over $40 billion. So,
again, what I'd like to do, Mr. Secretary, is work within the
department to figure out how we can do a better job of this.
Right now, DOI has suggested to the State of Alaska that we
can do one well a year. If that's the rate that we're going,
we're sitting here with over a hundred years to remediate and
repair. I need to have an action plan for the people of the
State of Alaska on this, and I need you-all to be working with
me a little more aggressively.
In that same vein, I will also bring up the Alaska Land
Conveyance Act, and, again, asking you to assign to me--I know
that Secretary Hayes has been tasked with the double duty of
taking on so many of Alaska's issues, we appreciate that, but
we need to have a better path forward as to how we're going to
complete these conveyances.
Again, if we keep on the track that we have been on, it's
going to be an additional 70, 80 years for Alaska to get our
lands conveyed, those lands that were promised on statehood,
that lands that were promised to Alaska natives under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. That's too long for the
Federal Government to keep its promise. I need to be able to go
back and report that, in fact, we are making progress, and
better than just a couple conveyances a year, or a couple
Legacy Wells a year. So, I would ask for your commitment to be
working with me, with your folks, and the people in Alaska.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we know the
priorities for both of these issues, and we agree with you that
both of them need to get done. As I said at the outset of the
budget, it's a painful budget, because I wish that we could do
more, including on the Legacy Wells, and on the conveyance
issues for Alaska.
The priority that I've placed on the Legacy Wells, I think
you can see evident, in terms of the investments that we made
from the American Recovery Act, the stimulus package, which
helped us move forward with the plugging and abandonment of
some of these wells.
Senator Murkowski. We got 3.
Secretary Salazar. Yes. No, we did then, in the Recovery
Act, and we proposed an additional 3 in the 2013 budget. But I
recognize there's more to go. Close to 40 more that we have to
get done, and I hope that we can find a way of getting it done.
The same thing is true with Alaska conveyance. I mean if we
could put more money into Alaska conveyance and get it done a
lot faster, we would be happy to do that. We'd be happy to work
with you, to tell you what the plans are, given the fiscal
constraints that we face. If there are other ways in which we
can get to the same end, which we both agree on, we both agree
that we need to get both of these things done, we'd be happy to
work with you on that.
Senator Murkowski. We need an action plan that works. It's
not just this administration, I will tell you. I had to push
the previous administration on this as well. I don't think that
any other State would sit and wait for 50 years to get the
lands that were promised at their statehood.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to make sure I understood what you
said a moment ago in response to the chairman's questions.
Surely, you're not suggesting, are you, that there is no
relationship, to use the verbiage of this chart, that there is
no relationship between U.S. oil production and U.S. gasoline
prices. Would you agree with that statement, that there is no
relationship between U.S. oil production and U.S. gasoline
prices?
Secretary Salazar. What I said, Senator Lee, is that gas
prices are set as a matter of the global marketplace, in terms
of oil.
Senator Lee. As a result of the complex interaction between
supply and demand, and all the factors, domestically and
internationally, that affect supply and demand.
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Senator Lee. OK. U.S. oil production is one of those
factors.
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Senator Lee. OK. Mr. Secretary, your office recently issued
a programmatic environmental impact statement dealing with oil
shale production, basically, se of Federal lands for oil shale
production. This PEIS proposes to replace a previous PEIS
issued by your department in 2008, I believe. The 2008 PEIS
identified about 2 million acres of Federal public land that
could be potentially suitable for leasing for the development
of oil shale and tar sands. Your new PEIS proposes to limit
that amount by more than 75 percent, bringing it down to about
450,000 acres.
Meanwhile, in 2007, the Bureau of Land Management issued
several R&D leases for purposes of oil shale development. One
of those R&D leases was in Utah. Can you assure me that your
recent PEIS won't affect those previous leases that were issued
in 2007? In other words, will those be taken off the map now as
a result of this reduction?
Secretary Salazar. You know, with respect to your specific
question, let me get back to you.
Senator Lee. OK.
Secretary Salazar. With respect to the specific lease. With
respect to your more general question on the oil shale
potential in your State of Utah, and Wyoming, and my State of
Colorado, the fact is that there's still a lot of research and
development that needs to take place. Senator Domenici and I,
actually, when he was chairman of this committee, went to visit
a couple of those places. There are huge unanswered questions,
in terms of water supply, unanswered questions in terms of
technology. The companies themselves admit that they need to
have answers to those questions. So, my approach to oil shale
and what is set forth in the PEIS is a conclusion that I have
reached, that we ought not to engage in a wholesale giveaway of
the public domain until we have some of these questions that
are answered, but at the same time, moving forward in full
support of the research and development programs that are under
way both in my State, as well as your State.
Senator Lee. But you're aware, of course, Mr. Secretary,
that this technology, or variations of it, has been in place
and use in Europe for about a hundred years, and it's been used
in some circumstances to produce oil, to produce electricity,
and is still in use, to some extent, in Europe. I believe they
produce about a million barrels a year from oil shale in
Europe, currently, and they do all of this, meeting European
environmental standards. It has not been used extensively in
this country on a commercial scale, but it has been in Europe.
So, is that really what we need? Is it what, another
hundred years of research? What is it that we're waiting for?
What's the magic bullet?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Lee, we're waiting for the
technology to be developed to be able to honestly assess the
potential here. The fact is, I think you were born by then, but
you might remember the 1980s, and what happened in Colorado and
other places with the oil shale bust. That was after the
investment of billions and billions of dollars, because the
technology wasn't there. So the research and development that's
taking place now, with respect to the development of kerogen
from these rocks, which is very different from shale gas, and
very different from shale oil, is something that is very
important. We're very supportive of moving forward with those
research and development efforts to get the right answer.
Senator Lee. There was a bust in the 1980s. Of course, we
both know, there were a lot of reasons for that. A lot of those
reasons have to do with kinks in the technology that have since
been worked out, kinks in the technology that have been worked
out, in terms of the amount of processed water, the amount of
input energy that's required, the carbon footprint, the
physical footprint that's required for these retoured systems.
A lot of that has been worked out.
But, I do think that it's important to remember, I don't
think it's your job to mitigate and to protect against all risk
from the oil companies. In other words, if they want to make
that investment, they are placing their own investment at risk.
But, should they not be given the opportunity to make the
investment, and to lease these Federal public lands for that
purpose, knowing that they could develop oil there? An
estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of proven recoverable oil locked
up in oil shale in just a small segment of 3 Western Rocky
Mountain States, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming alone. 1.2
trillion barrels. More than the combined petroleum reserves of
the top 10 oil-producing countries of the world, combined.
Secretary Salazar. You know, Senator Lee, it's my job to
protect the public lands and public resources of the United
States, as the custodian of America's natural resources. When I
look at the oil shale potential of your State, Wyoming, and
Colorado, I think there is potential there, but we need to move
forward with answers to some very tough questions, including
one of the key questions. You know, if it's going to take
upwards of 1 million of acre feet of water to develop oil shale
on the western slope of Colorado, where is that water supply
going to come from? What's it going to do to agriculture?
What's it going to do to municipalities? Those questions have
not yet been answered. That's why the research and development
efforts that are under way, which we are fully supportive of,
are important. We will get answers to those questions. It's
part of what we are undertaking right now.
Senator Lee. OK. I see my time has expired. But let me just
close with the thought, this is one of the reasons why I hope
you'll allow these research and development leases to move
forward. This is one way that I think you really can get some
of the answers that you're looking for. Allow those R&D leases
to move forward. Don't cancel them. Let them do their thing,
because they'll prove their ability to make it happen in an
environmentally responsible and a commercially feasible way.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. I have 2 points that I want to talk
about. The AML, the Abandoned Mine Land Fund, from OSM, Office
of Surface Mining, I see that where you-all have made some
recommendations there and changing the process of the grant
funds, which I applaud. I think it's the right direction,
picking the most hazardous sites or the worst environmental
sites that we have in the States that are most affected.
The money had been distributed before a little differently,
as you know, by tonnage. You know, how much mining was done,
how much per ton. Then it was coming back in that same, where
it was kind of not really addressing the environmental needs. I
think you're taking that step in the right direction, from what
I can see here.
You estimated there will be some great savings on that, I
would like to hear. The savings, I guess, would come, and it
might be, Mr. Secretary, that, if you want Mr. Hayes, if he's
worked on that end, or whatever you would think about that, how
the savings are calculated.
Secretary Salazar. Let me just say I appreciate that
comment, Senator Manchin. What we're trying to do is to focus
on the high-risk areas.
Senator Manchin. Our State has a lot of old mining and
Kentucky has a lot of old mining. Pennsylvania has a lot of
old, old mining that really helped build the country. I think
it's a step in the right direction to clean that up and put it
back into production, so we can do something with the land.
Secretary Salazar. I think that was part of the intention
of SMCRA, when it was passed, so we'd go after those old mines
and get them cleaned up, and that's happening. I'm going to
have either David or Pam--I don't know whether you know enough
about the process and how it's changed.
Senator Manchin. If not, you can get back to me on that.
Mr. Hayes. I think the savings, Senator, is gained from
focusing on the intent of SMCRA, which are the coal mine issues
themselves, as opposed to other deeds.
Senator Manchin. I interpreted it by looking at the now
targeting the return on the AML money, the abandoned mine land
money.
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Senator Manchin. Even though it was received from the
tonnage that was produced, it's going to where the need is.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Manchin. Where we've always said----
Mr. Hayes. That's the primary intent. That's right.
Senator Manchin. That the savings would be that basically
we were able to clean up and put land in production. I would
assume that's the effect you-all have.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Senator Manchin. Does everyone agree to that?
Secretary Salazar. That's correct.
Senator Manchin. Now, where I disagree. You were afraid of
that, right?
Secretary Salazar. I'm not afraid of it.
Senator Manchin. Concerning the OSM and the Bureau of Land
Mines, the merger, I can't find anybody that seems to be in
favor and think that this would be a good thing. I don't see
the generation of savings for the disruption of the operation.
The OSM, you know, it's been kind of a long-term relationship,
learning how to work as a partnership, working, making sure
that there's a balance between the environment and the economy.
Going into the BLM, or recommending that merger, and I know
you're doing it on from cost-effectiveness, and I can
understand that, but, sir, on this one, I don't see the savings
for what could be the downturn of having more regulations to
the point we can't do anything. We're having a hard time now.
Maybe somebody will want to talk to that. Are you-all serious
about the OSM, BLM merger, or is it something maybe we can
forget about?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Manchin, let me first say that I
think it's important for us in government to always take a look
at our----
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. Agencies and see how we can
do a better job, and it's in that vein that we move forward
with my effort, which I authorized, approved, and supported
then, and still support today, to take a look at how we could
do a better job between BLM and OSM.
Based on the review that we've gotten, and a report, which
is currently on my desk, I think there will be efficiencies
that we can find between BLM and OSM. I have not yet read the
final report. The deputy secretary has been leading it. But my
since is that the guidance from this committee and your staff,
especially Sam Fowler, who knows a lot about this, means that
there's not going to be the wholesale consolidation----
Senator Manchin. Right
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. That was once planned for
OSM and BLM. But there will be changes, and there will be more
efficient ways of doing some of our work.
Senator Manchin. I understand that. That's not a problem.
The bottom line is, I think we were expecting a report by
February the 15th . Do you happen to have your report?
Secretary Salazar. I actually received it last night.
Senator Manchin. OK.
Secretary Salazar. It's in my briefcase.
Senator Manchin. You'll be sharing it with us.
Secretary Salazar. I am reviewing it.
Senator Manchin. It will not go the direction that we
thought that it might have been going before.
Secretary Salazar. I think we should have a separate
conversation, as soon as we get it.
Senator Manchin. Be happy to do it.
Secretary Salazar. To the point where we release it, but I
think it will improve both the functions of OSM and BLM.
Senator Manchin. Yes.
Secretary Salazar. I think we will find some efficiencies
there. I hope you will be positive in your response to it.
Senator Manchin. It's a stream buffer, sir, and I know it's
been talked about briefly. I think it's been brought up by
Senator Barrasso. I know my time's running short.
I'm concerned about the definition. I mean I want people to
know in West Virginia, our streams are very valuable, our water
sources are very valuable. But our topography, it is what it
is. A stream that carries water 12 months a year, a stream that
provides recreation, provides life-giving water and sources
that have not have been touched, nor never intended to be
touched, and I think there's a misnomer. We're talking about
what some people have identified as a stream which is basically
a drainage ditch, or a drainage area that might, if you had a
piece of property, and you're putting the property, you want to
make it more useful, and you change the ditch from here to
here, so when they have heavy rains, and it runs off, it goes
in an area that still keeps your property more useful, and
that's a discussion I'd love to have with whoever in your
office that we could have that with.
I know my time's up, but if you would accommodate me with
that, I would really appreciate it, sir.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Manchin, let me just say, we
know the importance of a stream buffer protection rule to you.
Senator Manchin. Right.
Secretary Salazar. To your State. As we move forward in
addressing how we can both support coal development, at the
same time making sure that we're protecting the streams, we
will make sure that we are including you in our conversation.
Senator Manchin. In West Virginia, we believe very
strongly, there's a balance between the environment and the
economy, and we are more than glad to lead the way, if you
will. But we want a partnership.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Heller.
Senator Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll get off my
$10-a-gallon bush, and talk about another issue that's
important for Nevada. It's something that you've already
touched on, Mr. Secretary, a little bit. That is the listing of
the sage grouse. I know Senator Lee brought that up a little
bit.
I have a letter here that you responded to a request for
some information. First of all, I want to tell you, thank you.
I'm not used to the administration responding to requests for
information, so to have this here means a lot. In fact, I share
a concern that we have for that listing, was an important part
of that.
If the sage grouse were to be listed, I think it would have
a devastating impact on the economic activities on public
lands, including one of, I think, our shared priorities, and
that's renewable energy. I have many concerns with the land
management controls proposed by BLM and the sage grouse, and
for that reason, I'm putting together a sage grouse working
group.
You have an interim plan, without the listing, an interim
plan, and it was, I believe, called an instructional memoranda.
That was to maintain and enhance sage grouse habitat, which I
think is an appropriate goal. A concern I have is that
mitigation is not part of the restrictions. So this is my
question.
I am concerned if the proposed actions of themselves would
not be more restrictive, perhaps even more harmful than an
actual listing. Can you respond to that?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Heller, you are focused on a
very important issue for all the Western States, including
Nevada, at least the 11 Western States where we know that there
is sage grouse habitat. Director Abbey is moving forward with
new resource management plans that deal with sage grouse, I
think in 62 areas. But important to that effort, we are working
very closely with the States, including your Governor, Governor
Sandoval.
Senator Heller. Correct.
Secretary Salazar. Governor Hickenlooper, from Colorado,
Governor Mead, Governor Otter, and trying to move forward in
the program, where, hopefully, we'll be able to develop a
Western States habitat conservation program that will protect
the species, and at the same time allow development to go
forward. Based on successes that we've had with other species
in other parts of the country, I am very hopeful, and I do
believe that we'll get it done.
Senator Heller. Here's the concern. Here's the concern.
With this new memorandum that, as I just mentioned, was
mitigation, if you have an application for a new mining site,
without mitigation, do you think you can maintain or enhance
sage grouse habitat? If you had an application for a solar
farm, do you think you could produce and put up a solar farm
without mitigation that would maintain and enhance the sage
grouse habitat? The same thing with agriculture, can you do the
same thing with agriculture, if you have some kind of an
application to push agriculture, can you do that without
mitigation? That's the concern that I'm hearing from my
constituents back home.
They have no problems with moving forward, and to your
goal, a healthy goal of maintaining the sage grouse, but the
question is: Can you meet those goals without some possibility
or ability to mitigate mining issues, agricultural issues, and
renewable energy issues?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Heller, I think with respect to
all of our permitting programs, including many in your State,
both on mining and renewable energy, and transmission, and so
many other things, mitigation is part of the package. We have
done a good job on that, from my point in view, in terms of
requiring mitigation when you have impacts in the development
of renewable energy, where there are other projects. It would
be better, frankly, if we did have a complete cohesive plan for
sage grouse strategy across the 11 States than trying to do it
project by project, and hopefully, the effort that we have
under way, with the leadership of Director Abbey and Director
Ash, and the involvement of the Governors of the States, we'll
get us to that point.
Senator Heller. OK. Thank you. You answered my question.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, did you have additional
questions?
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I do have a whole bunch of
additional questions, but in the interest of time, and
recognizing that the Secretary has given us a great deal of
time this morning, I will submit them in writing.
I will ask, though, it's my understanding that last year,
after a similar budget hearing, it took almost 6 months to get
some responses to our questions, and by that time, of course,
they're stale. I understand you have an awful lot on your
plate, but if I could ask that we have more prompt replies.
I'm going to have the pleasure of having you before the
Appropriations Committee tomorrow, so we'll be able to spare
you some of the written responses in those questions tomorrow.
But if we could have a little more expediency with the
responses, I would certainly appreciate it. I know that all the
staffs would. So, thank you. But, thank you for being here
today.
Secretary Salazar. We will do our best.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you've been very generous with
your time, as Senator Murkowski said. We appreciate it, and we
look forward to continuing to work with you to solve these
problems. Thank you for coming.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. That will end our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Prepared Statement of Carla Bowers, National WH&B Legislative Team,
Volcano, CA
This is an urgent call to the Appropriations & Natural Resources
Committees and Congress delegates to redirect funding from
unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible roundups/removals/ warehousing of
America's threatened wild horses and burros to on-the-range management
through the FY13 appropriations process. The appropriation powers
vested in Congress must be used immediately to stop the waste of
millions of tax dollars and to save America's fast-disappearing
national treasures, our valued wild horses and burros of the West.
Independent research using BLM numbers and methodology has uncovered
the following:
Fiscally Irresponsible Management--Millions of Tax Dollars Wasted
The BLM is creating the out-of-control costs of the Program
by taking wild horses and burros off the range, including non-
excess animals, and by not allocating reasonable resources to
them on their legal Western public lands. The herds are better
managed on the range at very little cost using limited
fertility control & scientifically based, reformed management
protocols.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on the
unnecessary, inhumane roundups and removals of herds, $11.4M in
FY11, and the warehousing of animals, $48M in FY11.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent to support the BLM
Grazing Program for less than 0.5% of the total U.S. livestock
inventory (on HAs/HMAs) at a loss of up to $1B per year.
The 2008 GAO report stated the Program lacks accountability,
science and fiscal sustainability.
Dangerously Low Numbers On The Range--BLM Removing Non-Excess WH&B
26,600 WH&B is the BLM's targeted national HIGH AML
(appropriate management level). Research shows BLM appears to
be using taxpayer dollars to unnecessarily round up non-excess
animals below 26,600 in violation of the l971 Act. They are
actually targeting LOW AML, ca. 18,000 total WH&B nationally.
18-26,600 are dangerously low numbers for long-term health &
survival of the protected herds. Of that number, burros are in
grave danger at only about 2-3,000 left in the wild. The
majority of herds on the range consist of numbers well below
the 150 animals per herd considered necessary for
sustainability over time by expert equine geneticists.
Compare the exorbitant numbers of livestock (up to 3M on BLM
lands & 1.5M on USFS lands) & other wildlife (20+M deer; 1M
elk; 780K pronghorns; 70K bighorns, considered a `species of
concern', to the miniscule numbers of WH&B.
Minimal Land / Forage / Water Allocated For Sustainability Over Time--
Constant Downward Trend
The herds are not overpopulated. They are under-allocated
land, forage and water.
They are being squeezed off their legal public lands. The
original 53M acres where they were found in 1971 have been
reduced to 27M BLM acres. Continued reductions are planned.
These actions are in direct defiance of the 1971 Act.
The herds are restricted to these 27M BLM acres or 4% out of
650M total Federal public land acres (which includes 245M BLM
acres).
Livestock graze over 238M USFS and BLM acres, which includes
the 27M acres to which iconic herds are restricted in their
HMAs (Herd Management Areas). On the HMAs, livestock are given
preference and are allocated the majority of forage (3-15 times
more) compared to the legally protected WH&B.
339 Herd Areas, or HAs, in l971 have been reduced down to
BLM's count of 179 HAs and HMAs. Needless to say, hundreds of
unique herds have been zeroed out and lost forever over the
last 40 years, again counter to the intent of the 1971 Act.
BLM claims to be managing the land for `thriving natural
ecological balance'. This mandate is impossible to achieve
without `natural predation' because of extreme predator control
to benefit the livestock & hunting industries and the grazing
of `unnatural' livestock on public lands. WH&B are `an integral
part of the natural system of the public lands' per the 1971
Act.
BLM also claims to be managing the land `in balance with
other multiple uses'. The numbers of livestock & other wildlife
compared to WH&B in no way demonstrates any semblance of
`balance'. BLM `zeroing out' 160 herds from their legal lands
defies the `multiple use' mandate as well.
Lack of Science, Consistency, Accuracy, Credibility, Transparency
BLM's published data over the Program life is inaccurate,
inconsistent, non-credible and non-transparent.
No state-of-the-art, scientific census of actual WH&B
numbers on the range has ever been undertaken to substantiate
the Program goals. BLM cannot prove their estimated numbers.
Current on-the-range management practices lack science and
long-term efficacy studies on fertility treatment, sex ratio
adjustments, herd/band behavior/dynamics/health and on the BLMs
haphazard roundup protocols that have most probably caused the
destruction of the social fabric of the herds & compensatory
reproduction. Also, current roundup methods are inhumane as
demonstrated by ample documentary evidence.
Program lacks true independent peer review and
accountability.
Forced to acknowledge the lack of a science based Program,
BLM has engaged the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the
whole Program and make recommendations. However, this 2-year
Study is flawed from the start because it's based on the false
assumption made by BLM that the herds are overpopulated & are
ruining the rangelands. The Study is not based on the whole
Program. Plus, it is not an `independent scientific study'
because the BLM has `directed' it, from creating the `scope' of
the Study, to influencing who is on the Study Panel to who
presents information to the Study Panel at the meetings. Two
years time, $2M more taxpayer dollars and 15K more WH&B rounded
up in the meantime will render this Study biased & useless,
with very few WH&B even left on the range to manage.
America asks Congress to redirect funding through the FY13
appropriations process from the wasteful, destructive roundups/
removals/warehousing of wild horses and burros to humane, science
based, on-the-range management protocols. These protocols can be
implemented right now as indicated on pages 3 & 4 of this submission.
what congress can do immediately to save taxpayer dollars and save
america's threatened wild horses and burros
Vote for Fiscal Responsibility in the Program
Utilize the current FY13 budget process to redirect funding
away from all roundups/removals of WH&B, with the exception of
independently verified emergency situations.
Redirect Program funds for humane, on-the-range WH&B
management and stop additional stockpiling of animals in
government holding facilities.
Redirect Program funds for an immediate independent,
accurate, state-of-the-art census of animals on the range & in
holding.
Redirect Program funds to repatriate as many animals as
possible in holding back to their legal Western public lands.
(Potential to save up to $48M in FY13)
Ensure continued funding for all horses in holding until
they can be repatriated back to their legal Western public
lands.
Ensure no funds are allocated for euthanasia or slaughter of
wild horses & burros.
Acknowledge & encourage revenue-producing ecotourism
centered around the cultural, historic & heritage assets of
America's living legends. Wildlife viewing is a $45B a year
national industry as reported by USFWS, 2006.
Demand Science, Credibility, Accuracy, Consistency & Transparency in
the Program
Question the validity & credibility of the NAS Study. If the
following parameters are not additionally considered, the Study
& Recommendations will be biased & useless:
1) Detailed accounting of current AUM allocations between
livestock, WH&B & other wildlife, how they are established &
the best course of action to raise the AUMs/AMLs for WH&B to
maintain healthy, genetically diverse herds long-term in all
WH&B management areas, i.e. amend all Land Use Plans & Range
Management Plans.
2) Detailed analysis of current uses of over 20M acres
removed from WH&B usage by the BLM & scientific assessment of
these lands for the repatriation of some animals in holding.
3) Analysis & determination if compensatory reproduction has
been caused by BLMs roundup/removal protocols, i.e.,
fragmenting the harem family bands, selective removals &
selective returns to the range, as opposed to natural selection
& keeping family bands intact.
4) Analysis & determination if less compensatory reproduction
would occur if family bands, including the lead stallions, lead
mares & older family members were returned to the range intact
minus a couple of younger adoptable members.
5) Analysis & determination of the effects of 60/40 sex
ratios, PZP & other fertility control methods on long-term herd
behavior, dynamics, structure & health.
6) Analysis & determination of best management protocols for
truly humane treatment of WH&B through all phases of
management.
7) Analysis & determination of the best live stream tracking
system to follow all animals during helicopter roundups &
during removals from the range through & to their final
destinations.
8) Analysis & designation of non-traumatized, non-manipulated
herds still on the range to be used as control groups for pilot
research projects (very few left in this category).
9) Independent, state-of-the-art census of all populations on
the range & in holding facilities to obtain an accurate
baseline utilizing FLIR (forward-looking infrared), satellite
imagery &/or drones.
Develop and pass legislation to re-protect America's WH&B.
Develop and pass legislation to ensure the highest humane
treatment and management practices on the range, which includes
improved WH&B handling, tracking, accountability and real
consequences for inappropriate management.
Consider alternatives to remove entire Program from BLM's
jurisdiction and create another entity that will truly preserve
and protect America's herds as the original 1971 Act intended.
Create More Equitable Land/Forage/Water Reallocation Legislation to
Protect and Preserve Viable Herds on the Range Long-Term
Acknowledge that reducing the original HAs of 53M acres down
to 27M acres and zeroing out over 150 herds has violated the
multiple-use mandate of the 1971 Act.
Acknowledge WH&B are not being allocated equitable resources
on their restricted, legal Western public lands to sustain
their health and longevity as Federally-protected species
mandated by the 1971 Act.
Utilize powers already vested in the 1971 Act to return all
original HA acreage to WH&B and designate WH&B as the
``principle'' user on all HMAs and HAs. This will entail
passing legislation requiring BLM to amend the Land Use and
Range Management Plans of all the HMAs and HAs in order to:
1) reinstate migratory routes and lands lost to WH&B,
2) designate the lands as `ranges' for WH&B,
3) reflect marked increases in forage and water allocations
to WH&B, as the ``principle'' user of those resources, and
4) reflect marked increases in appropriate management levels
of WH&B to ensure their continued survival for generations to
come on public lands.
Stand up for Increased Appropriate Management Level Numbers of Wild
Horses and Burros on the Range for their True Preservation Well
into the Future
Acknowledge that 18-26,600 WH&B on the range in the 10
Western states are far below a `species of concern' population
level as compared to other large wild land species. Wild burros
numbering from 2-3,000 are in the endangered category right
now.
Support the increase of appropriate management levels of
WH&B so their numbers will be sustainable for long-term
survival on all HMAs & HAs.
Support repatriation of WH&B currently in expensive holding
facilities back to their legal lands in the West, thus saving
millions of taxpayer dollars and preserving and protecting
America's living legends as was originally intended by the 1971
Act.
WILD HORSES & BURROS (WH&B)--THE NATIONAL PICTURE
some perspective, numbers, questions & solutions
America's `legally protected' WH&B are not `overpopulated'.
They are being squeezed off their legal lands and are not
getting a fair share of forage & water.
The national AML range of 16,000-26,600 for WH&B is too low
& threatens the genetic diversity & survival of healthy, self-
sustaining herds over the long-term.
--38,500: BLM reported total of WH&B population (as of 2/28/11, not
validated) [1]
--26,600: BLM High AML (appropriate management level) for WH&B
population [1]
--16,000-18,000 actual current targeted Low AML for WH&B population
by BLM [2]
--21,354: WH&B population as of 2/28/11 using BLM's own data & 20%
growth model (independent analysis) [3]
120,000-480,000: Approximate head of livestock on WH&B
management areas [4]
--720,000-2.9M head of livestock on BLM lands [5]
--Up to 1.5M livestock on USFS lands [6]
--20 million deer, 1 million elk, 700,000+ pronghorns, 70,000
bighorns (considered a ``species of concern'') on Federal,
state & private lands [7]
--245 million: Number of acres BLM currently manages [8]
--157 million: Number of BLM acres allocated to livestock use [8]
--53.8 million: Number of BLM & private acres originally designated
for WH&B in 1971 [1]
--31.6 million: Number of BLM & private acres currently managed for
WH&B [1]
--22.2 million: Number of acres WH&B have lost since 1971 [1]
--27 million: Number of BLM acres currently allocated to WH&B use
(with livestock) [1]
11%: Amount of BLM land currently designated for WH&B use [9]
--83%: Average estimated forage allocated to livestock in BLM WH&B
areas [10]
--17%: Average estimated forage allocated to WH&B in BLM WH&B areas
[10]
--339: Number of BLM original Herd Areas designated for WH&B in
1971 [1]
--179: Number of BLM reduced-size Herd Management Areas currently
designated for WH&B [1]
--160: Number of WH&B Herd Areas BLM has zeroed-out [1]
--191 million: Number of acres USFS currently manages [11]
--81 million: Number of USFS acres allocated to livestock use [12]
--million: Number of USFS acres allocated to WH&B use (with
livestock) [13]
--1.05%: Amount of USFS land currently designated for WH&B use [14]
--650 million: Number of Federal land acres [15]
--4.5%: Amount of Federal land acres (BLM/USFS) designated for WH&B
use (with livestock) [16]
Costs to Taxpayers:
--$75.7 million: FY2011 total cost of BLM's WH&B Program [17]
--$11.4 million: FY2011 cost of roundups, including fertility
control [17]
--$48.2 million: FY2011 cost of BLM warehousing WH&B [17]
--$766,164: FY2010 cost of BLM WH&B census & range monitoring (3.3%
of budget) [17]
--$144-500 million: FY2011 cost of livestock grazing program [18]
--$13 million: FY2011 cost of predator control program to benefit
livestock [19]
questions
--Considering the above numbers, is it fair to claim WH&B are
overpopulated in America?
--Why is livestock allocated the majority of forage on WH&B legal
areas?
--How does BLM arrive at AML for WH&B versus livestock on WH&B
legal areas?
--Is WH&B genetic diversity & survival of healthy, self-sustaining
herds considered at all in AML establishment?
--Shouldn't the above requirement be the first consideration in
WH&B AML establishment before forage allocations are set on
WH&B legal areas?
--What is the best mechanism to correct the insufficient & unfair
allocations between livestock & WH&B on WH&B legal areas?
--Shouldn't the original Herd Areas legally designated by the 1971
Act be restored for WH&B use?
--How is damage to the range studied exactly & how much time is
dedicated to monitoring?
--How is it determined unequivocally what animals did any range
damage, i.e., WH&B, livestock or other wildlife?
solutions
--Suspend helicopter roundups, in all but verifiable emergency
situations, while the entire BLM WH&B Program undergoes
objective & scientific review & reform.
--Increase Appropriate Management Levels (AML) & Animal Unit Months
(AUM) for WH&B.
--Implement in-the-wild management that would keep WH&B on the
range in their family bands & save taxpayers millions
annually by avoiding the mass removal & stockpiling of them
in government holding facilities.
--Restore lost acreage designated for WH&B by law in 1971.
--Create WH&B corridors for herd connectivity & to support summer/
winter migration patterns.
--Protect predators in & around the WH&B management areas.
--Use only bait/water trapping to manage the herds, no helicopters.
--Apply only 1-year dartable PZP fertility control between the
months of Nov-Feb.
--Increase budget for accurate censusing, range monitoring & range
improvements.
--Return short-term holding WH&B to zeroed-out HAs/HMAs (Herd Areas
& Herd Management Areas).
--Obtain an independent, state-of-the-art census of all management
areas.
--Develop safari-style tourism around the WH&B for job creation &
added value to this iconic natural & cultural asset.
References:
[1] http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/herd_management/
Data.html
[2] Estimated two-thirds of High AML
[3] Chart 2 by C.R. MacDonald, updated by Carla Bowers 11/4/11,
originally Table 1 from Report to Congress, 11/10, http://tinyurl.com/
46pppfx
[4] Calculated as 1/6 of [5] based on 27M BLM WH&B acres being 1/6 of
157M total BLM lands grazed
[5] 8.6M AUMs allocated to livestock in FY10 per BLM feeds this range
of cattle/calves depending on usage months
[6] http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/docs/
GrazingStatisticalSummaryFY2009.pdf
[7] http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/pages/deerpopulationfacts.aspx
http://www.rmef.org/AllAboutElk/FastFacts/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronghorn_antelope
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/
bighorn_sheep.php
[8] http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
[9] 27M acres/245M acres = 11%
[10] Calculation based on 1/6 of 8.6M AUMs allocated to livestock on
WHB HMAs, or an estimated 1,433,333 AUMs, compared to 301,000 AUMs
allocated to WH&B at High AML 1,433,333 + 301,000 = 1,734,333; 301,000/
1,743,333 = 17.3% (most probably high)
[11] http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/whoweare/index.shtml
[12] http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/docs/
GrazingStatisticalSummaryFY2009.pdf
[13] Estimate by Barry Imler, National Program Manager, Rangeland
Products, USDA Forest Service, email communication with Carla Bowers
dated 3/8/10
[14] 2M acres/191M acres = 1.05%
[15] http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html
[16] 29M acres/650M acres = 4.5%
[17] http://www.doi.gov/budget/2011/data/greenbook/
FY2011_BLM_Greenbook.pdf, pgs. 1-34 to I-35 & IV-71 to IV-82
[18] http://sagebrushsea.org/pdf/factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_Costs.pdf
[19] http://greenscissors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/
Green_Scissors_2011.pdf, pg. 21
2009 forage allocation--animal unit months (aums) chart
References
AUM--The estimated amount of forage that one horse, one cow & calf, 5
sheep, 1.7 elk, 5 pronghorn & 5 bighorn consume in one month at: http:/
/projects.ecr.gov/tushar/pdf/Carter_AUM_paper.pdf
Ten Western states include CA, OR, NV, ID, UT, CO, AZ, AR, MT, WY
Wildlife AUMs do not include over 20 MILLION deer nationally
Additional references from WWW.AMERICANHERDS.BLOGSPOT.COM:
(1) 8.6M AUMs--BLM Grazing Fact Sheet downloaded 9/13/10 at:
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html
(2) 301K AUMs--At High AML (Appropriate Management Level)
that support only 23K WH & 3K Burros. BLM Wild Horse & Burro
Program Quick Facts, Updated 8/25/10, downloaded 9/11/10, at:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/
wh_b_information_center/Fact_Sheet.html
(3) 1,031,000 Elk--Elk Population Reflects Success of RMEF's
First 25 Years, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Press Release,
April 27, 2009, at: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/
NewsReleases/2009/ElkPopulations.htm
(4) 780,800 Pronghorn--
(a) 2002 Pronghorn Antelope populations obtained from
Pronghorn Population Totals as of 2002, Nevada's
Pronghorn Antelope: Ecology, Management and
Conservation, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2003,
Table 2, at: http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/pdf/
reports/pronghorn.pdf
(b) 2006 Pronghorn antelope population estimates for
MT, WY obtained from Conservation of the Northern
Yellowstone Pronghorn: A Report and Possible Approach
for NPCA's Involvement, Blank, Intern, Stevens, July
2006, National Parks Conservation Association, pg. 1,
MT/WY average
(c) 2009 NM pronghorn antelope population obtained
from NM Fish & Game at: http://
www.wildlife.state.nm.us/commission/presentations/
documents/PronghornManagement.pdf
(d) 2009 NV pronghorn antelope population estimates
obtained from Nevada Department of Wildlife at: http://
www.ndow.org/
(5) 70,000 Bighorn--2008 National bighorn sheep population
estimates found at: ``Bighorn Facing Smaller Habitat, Federal
agency wants to reduce protected area by more than 50%'', Mike
Lee, Union-Tribune [San Diego], March 23, 2008, at: http://
www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080323/news_1n23sheep.html
Busting a Hole in the Budget
us taxpayer costs for blm wh&b program and blm/usfs grazing programs
References
$21M in the black--http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/
factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_
Costs.pdf (ca. 2007)
About one-half of that $21M goes back into the Range Betterment Fund
for range improvements, so the income is really only about $10.5M from
grazing permit fees--
http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_Costs.pdf
(ca. 2007)
and http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/
assessing_the_full_
cost.pdf (2002)
$75M in the red--FY11 Proposed & Granted WH&B Program Budget
$144M in the red--http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/
factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_
Costs.pdf (ca. 2007)
Up to $1B in the red--http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/
papers/assessing_the_full_cost.pdf (2002)
American taxpayers are in the hole in a major way to support livestock
grazing on public lands (which produces less than 3% of the total
cattle inventory of the U.S.--Managing For Extinction booklet, Animal
Welfare Institute, pg. 15)
America's wild horses & burros should be kept on their legal Western
public lands basically free to the taxpayer, not rounded up, removed
and warehoused to benefit livestock & other commercial uses of public
lands, all at huge taxpayer expense.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Bingaman
national oceanographic and atmospheric administration
Question 1. The President has requested that Congress provide him
with reorganization authority to streamline government, and the
transfer of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior was
one example that was mentioned in that context. I am very interested in
learning more about the Administration's ideas on this proposal, and
would like to have more details. I understand that this proposal was
not initiated by your Department, but I would appreciate it if you
would coordinate with other appropriate offices in the Administration
to provide me with the Administration's views on what such a transfer
would entail.
Answer. On February 12, 2012, the President submitted to Congress
the proposal the ``Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of
2012,'' which would reinstate reorganization authority similar to that
afforded to Presidents for almost 50 years.
In general, the authority would allow the President to present, for
expedited review by Congress, proposals to reorganize and consolidate
Executive Branch agencies to streamline the government and improve
operations. A coordinated planning effort will begin once Congress
provides authority to the President to reorganize.
price's dairy (middle rio grande national wildlife refuge)
Question 2. I'd like to thank you again for visiting Albuquerque
last September to announce the creation of the Middle Rio Grande
National Wildlife Refuge in the city's South Valley. I am concerned,
however, that the Administration has not requested sufficient funding
to complete the purchase in a timely manner. Can you tell me what the
Department's timeline is for acquiring these lands?
Answer. As proposed, the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge
outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, will become the first urban
National Wildlife Refuge in the southwestern United States, and would
serve as host to thousands of visitors each year as a cornerstone for
recreation and restoration along this reach of the Rio Grande. This
proposal is one of the key projects of the America's Great Outdoors
Initiative. The Office of Valuation Services recently completed an
appraisal of the property and we have identified adequate funds
necessary to complete a Phase 1 acquisition closing by July 29, 2012.
This is consistent with the landowner's current agreement with the
Trust for Public Land to keep the Price's Dairy property off the
market. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) plans to
incorporate Bernalillo County's financial contribution into this
acquisition phase in advance of the expiration of those funds. Due to
the cost of these lands, the timing of project approval in relation to
the appropriations cycle, and the limited amount of funds available
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Service is also
exploring potential funding resources from an array of local, State and
Federal partners.
Notably, execution of a first phase acquisition will formally
establish the Refuge, which will enable the Service to pursue
additional federal funding to complete acquisition of the property.
Furthermore, Service staff continues to identify partners and
additional sources of funding for future acquisition, habitat
restoration, and infrastructure development.
transboundary aquifer assessment act
Question 3. In 2006, Congress passed the United States-Mexico
Trans-boundary Aquifer Assessment Act which directed USGS to work with
states and universities on both sides of the border to perform a
comprehensive assessment of aquifers that extend to both sides of the
border. Since 2008, approximately $1.5 million has been spent on this
program.
I understand that significant progress has been made in
implementing this Act by research universities in New Mexico, Texas,
and Arizona along with USGS and their counterparts in Mexico. I also
understand that Mexico has provided funding for the next phase of
research and is waiting for matching funds from the US.
Under those circumstances, why hasn't the Department of the
Interior allocated any funding for this effort so that we can continue
to try to better understand the aquifer characteristics and foster
better bi-national relationships like we are doing on energy issues and
within the Colorado River Basin?
Answer. The U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program
has been a successful partnership between Mexico and the USGS, and the
Water Resources Research Institutes from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Progress has been made in developing and implementing bi-national
workplans. As a result of this partnership, a five-year interim report
on the United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment is in
development. Despite the success of this initiative, direct funding for
this effort has not been continued as a result of other priorities.
However, the USGS Groundwater Resources Program has provided funding to
the USGS Arizona and Texas Water Science Centers to complete activities
already in progress, and the USGS' NAWQA program is contributing
funding to ongoing work in Texas.
federal oil & gas
Question 4. Critics of the Department's management of the Outer
Continental Shelf often state that only 2-3% of the OCS is available
for leasing or development. This apparently refers to the percentage of
the 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf that are currently
under lease, and not to a percentage of the available oil and gas
resources. Do you believe that this is a valid measure of the extent to
which the oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf
are available to industry? If not, why not?
In your response, please provide information on the percentage of
federally owned oil and gas resources that are currently available for
lease both onshore and offshore; the percentage of those resources that
are currently in the pre-leasing planning process; the percentage of
the acres onshore and offshore available for lease that actually have
been leased by industry; and the percentage of those acres available
for lease that have been put into production by industry.
Answer. Regarding development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management published the Proposed Five-Year
Program for 2012-2017 in November 2011, and on June 28, 2012, the
Secretary announced the Proposed Final Program. The Proposed Final
Program would make available offshore areas that contain more than 75
percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources
that the OCS is estimated to hold. As the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act requires, this represents a proper balance among the potential for
environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas,
and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone.
Two primary guiding principles underlie this Proposed Final
Program. First, the program is designed to promote the diligent
development of the Nation's offshore oil and gas resources, which are
and will remain central to the Nation's energy strategy, economy, and
security. The program is in alignment with the Administration's
Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, which aims to promote the
Nation's energy security and reduce oil imports by a third by 2025
through a comprehensive national energy policy that includes a focus on
expanding safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production.
Second, this Proposed Final Program is grounded in the lessons
learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Since the
Deepwater Horizon incident, DOI has raised standards for offshore
drilling safety and environmental protection in order to reduce the
risk of another loss of well control in our oceans and improve our
collective ability to respond to a blowout and spill. While offshore
oil and gas exploration and development will never be risk-free, the
risk from these activities can be minimized and operations can be
conducted safely and responsibly, with appropriate measures to protect
human safety and the environment.
The Department recently released a report that shows that,
offshore, industry had leased nearly 36 million acres, but only about
10 million acres were active. Moreover, in the lower 48 states, an
additional 20.8 million acres remain idle, and 7,000 approved but
unused permits to drill on public lands continue to be held by
companies.
bureau of ocean energy management
Question 5. How many acres of the OCS are under lease but not
producing oil and gas?
Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, the recently
released report shows that offshore, industry had leased nearly 36
million acres, but only about 10 million acres were active.
office of surface mining reclamation and enforcement
Question 6. The Budget proposes to eliminate payments to certified
states and tribes. This will hit the Navajo Nation, which I understand
uses the funds for public facilities and the reclamation of
contaminated uranium mine sites, particularly hard. Have you engaged in
a government-to-government consultation regarding the elimination of
this funding with the Navajo Nation consistent with the trust
responsibility?
Answer. Consultation with the Tribe has taken place on several
occasions over the past several years. For the FY 2013 Budget Request,
the Director of the Office of Surface Mining led a call on February 14,
2012, with all interested groups and briefly touched on the proposal,
which is the same proposal as that put forward last year. Most
recently, on May 18, 2012, OSM sent a letter to the Tribe to determine
the Tribe's interest in consulting on the proposal this year. That
letter noted that the legislative proposal contained in the FY 2013
budget is identical to that proposed for the current fiscal year and
that consultation took place on last year's proposal, which was not
enacted by Congress.
Question 7. OSM is in the process of revising permanent program
regulations relating to excess spoil and stream buffer zones. Please
provide your time table for this rulemaking.
Answer. OSM will take the time necessary to make informed decisions
on the rulemaking, and plans to publish a Proposed Rule and associated
Draft Environmental Impact Statement later this year.
Question 8. New Mexico and the Navajo Nation have serious needs
with respect to the reclamation of abandoned uranium mines, many of
which were developed initially to provide uranium for our Nation's
weapons program. Please provide for the record by state and tribe the
funds included in the President's Budget proposal for the reclamation
of abandoned uranium mines. Please include this information for all the
Bureaus within the Department of the Interior and for all Federal
agencies which fund abandoned uranium mine reclamation.
Answer. There are no funds included in the FY 2013 budget proposal
for the Department of the Interior bureaus to cleanup abandoned mines
on tribal lands.
The BLM's appropriated funds for abandoned mine cleanup, $19.5
million in FY2012, will be used to mitigate public safety and
environmental hazards associated with abandoned mines on public lands,
and projects are undertaken based on a priority ranking irrespective of
the mineral once mined at the site.
bureau of land management
Question 9. How many fulltime I&E inspectors are currently employed
in the Farmington Field office?
Answer. There are 45 fulltime I&E inspectors currently employed in
the Farmington Field Office.
Question 10. How much Federal onshore acreage is under oil and gas
lease but not producing?
Answer. As of December 31, 2011, approximately 56 percent of total
acres of public land under lease in the Lower 48 States--totaling
approximately 20.7 million acres--are undergoing neither production nor
exploration activities. As of September 30, 2011, there are over 7,000
approved permits to drill on public and Indian lands that have not yet
been acted on by companies. In the lower 48 states, 20.8 million acres
remain idle, and 7,000 approved but unused permits to drill on public
lands continue to be held by companies.
Question 11. What is the current level of funding and what level is
proposed for fiscal year 2011 for the administration of renewable
energy development on public lands? Please provide allocation by energy
type.
Answer. In the current year, FY 2012, wind and solar activities are
funded at $19.7 million through the BLM's Renewable Energy Management
program. The BLM does not break out funding by energy type for wind and
solar energy development activities. The BLM does have a breakout for
geothermal energy because the program has been historically managed
within the BLM's oil and gas appropriation. In FY 2012, funding for
geothermal activities comes from two sources: $1.3 million from the Oil
and Gas Management program; and $3.9 million from the Geothermal Steam
Act Implementation Fund under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. New
deposits into the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund ceased in
2010, and current year expenditures are expected to exhaust the
remaining balance.
For FY 2013, the budget request for the BLM's Renewable Energy
Management program is $26.8 million, and incorporates geothermal
activities. This request includes a transfer of $2.0 million from Oil
and Gas Management for geothermal activities, and an increase of $5.0
million for a combination of geothermal activities and other high-
priority renewable energy studies.
Question 12. Please describe all geothermal leasing activity,
including date and state for all lease sales, subsequent to the
Geothermal Steam Act amendments contained in the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Please provide a table of lands showing acres under geothermal
lease (and whether production is occurring) by state.
Answer. BLM geothermal sales since passage of Energy Policy Act of
2005 are contained in the following chart:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BLM geothermal leases by state and producing status are contained
in the following chart:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 13. How many applications for solar rights-of-way are
pending? How many applications for wind rights-of-way are pending?
Please provide listings by state and location.
Answer. The following chart contains the requested information:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Information related to pending solar energy right-of-way
applications is contained in the following charts:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 14. How many acres administered by the Forest Service and
the BLM have been leased for oil and gas development during each of the
past ten fiscal years? Please display this on a state-by-state basis
and by agency.
Answer. The BLM administers all acres of federal oil and gas
mineral estate. The following link provides data for the total acres of
federal land leased for the last 10 years by state. The attached table
breaks out the acres of the Forest Service leased each of the past ten
fiscal years for each state.http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/
MINERALS--_REALTY--_AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_gas_statistics/
data_sets.Par.80157.File.dat/table05.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 15. How many acres of lands administered by the Forest
Service and the BLM in states west of the hundredth meridian have been
under oil and gas lease in each of the past ten fiscal years? Please
display by state and agency.
Answer. The BLM administers all acres of federal oil and gas
mineral estate. The following table and link provides data for the
total acres of BLM and Forest Service land leased for the 12 western
states and those states through which the 100th meridian passes. The
attached table breaks out the acres by agency of BLM and Forest Service
land leased for the 12 western states and those states through which
the 100th meridian passes. http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/
MINERALS_REALTY_AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_gas_statistics/
data_sets.Par.67327.File.dat/table-03.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 16. How many wells were started on federal lands (BLM and
Forest Service) in each of the past 10 fiscal years? Please provide by
state. Please also provide the number of completions per state per year
on federal lands.
Answer. The number of wells started (spud) on all federal mineral
estate in each of the past ten years is shown on the table below. The
following data table and link provides the data on total well
starts.http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/
MINERALS_REALTY_AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_gas_statistics/
data_sets.Par.36209.File.dat/table09.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 17. Please list the total number of new federal oil and
gas leases by state by year.
Answer. The following table and link provides the total number of
new federal oil and gas leases by state by year for the last ten
years.http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/
MINERALS_REALTY_AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_gas_statistics/
data_sets.Par.62098.File.dat/table04.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
bureau of reclamation
Question 18. What is the status of Reclamation's efforts to develop
rules or criteria for the Rural Water program? If criteria have been
finalized, please provide a copy.
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation released its Rural Water
Assessment Report on July 9, 2012, which reviews the status of the
Bureau's rural potable water projects and includes a description of the
proposed prioritization criteria. This comprehensive set of draft
criteria for ranking projects will enable the Bureau to direct its
limited construction dollars to the completion of the most meritorious
projects. The draft assessment report reflects Reclamation's revisions
to the interim criteria used to allocate the additional appropriations
received in FY 2012. The interim criteria were also used to formulate
the President's FY 2013 budget request for rural water construction.
Reclamation modified the interim criteria to account for the collection
of data on regional economic impacts and the use of renewable energy to
meet project power demands. The revised criteria are available for
public review and comment for 60 days, ending at 5:00 p.m. (MDT) on
September 10, 2012. It is important to note that the prioritization
criteria will not be finalized until Reclamation has considered and
reviewed comments submitted during the 60 day review period.
Reclamation will continue to work closely with members of Congress,
project partners, and stakeholders to finalize the criteria.
The revised criteria include factors that account for project
completion, urgent and compelling needs for water supply, economic
impacts in areas with low employment, Native American populations
served, available non-Federal cost-share, and energy efficiency and
renewable energy use. A copy of the Report and funding prioritization
criteria can be found at: http://www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-
Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf.
Pursuant to Section 9505 of the Act, the Department of Energy (DOE)
is in the process of conducting an assessment on the effect of, and
risk resulting from, climate change with respect to water supplies that
are required for the generation of hydropower. In consultation with
Reclamation and USGS, along with the Power Marketing Administrations,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Army Corps
of Engineers, DOE is preparing a report to Congress on climate change
effects at Federal hydropower facilities, and recommendations on how to
change operating and contracting practices to address identified
climate change risks.
Question 19. What is the status of Reclamation's efforts to develop
rules or criteria for the Title XVI program?
Answer. In October 2010, after receipt of public comments,
Reclamation finalized funding criteria to identify Title XVI projects
that most effectively stretch water supplies and contribute to water
supply sustainability; address water quality concerns or benefit
endangered species; incorporate the use of renewable energy or address
energy efficiency; deliver water at a reasonable cost relative to other
water supply options; and that meet other important program goals.
Those criteria were incorporated into funding opportunity announcements
in FY 2011 and FY 2012 to prioritize projects that most closely meet
program goals for available funding.
Question 20. Please summarize the work being done to implement the
SECURE Water Act, authorized by Section 9501 et seq. of P.L. 111-11?
Answer. The Department of the Interior is addressing the
authorities within the SECURE Water Act (Act) through a broad set of
activities. These activities, in conjunction with Secretarial Order
3289 establishing the Department's integrated approach to addressing
climate change and Secretarial Order 3297 establishing the WaterSMART
Program, are implementing the Act's intent to assess risks to the water
resources of the Western United States and develop strategies to
mitigate risks to help ensure that the long-term water resources
management of the United States is sustainable. The Act requires
identified Federal agencies to assess climate change implications for
water supplies, water deliveries, hydropower generation, fish and
wildlife, water quality, flood control, ecological resiliency, and
recreation. The following summarizes the work being done by the
Department to implement the Act.
Secretarial Order 3297 established the WaterSMART Program
(WaterSMART), calling for coordination across agencies to integrate
energy and water policies, and to ensure the availability of sound
science and information to support decisions on sustainable water
supplies. WaterSMART addresses current and future water shortages,
degraded water quality, increased demands for water from growing
populations and energy needs, amplified recognition of environmental
water requirements, and the potential for decreased water supply
availability due to drought and climate change. WaterSMART includes
funding for cost-shared grants for water and energy management
improvement projects, basin-wide efforts to evaluate current and future
water supplies and demands, Title XVI water reclamation and reuse
projects, the establishment and expansion of collaborative watershed
groups, and smaller-scale water conservation activities through the
Water Conservation Field Services Program. Together, these programs
form an important part of Reclamation and the USGS's implementation of
the Act.
The Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, is addressing
climate change impacts and water supply and demand imbalances through
the Basin Study Program, which implements Section 9503 of the Act
through three activities: (1) Basin Studies, through which Reclamation
works with State and local partners to comprehensively identify
strategies to meet future water demands within a river basin; (2) West-
Wide Climate Risk Assessments (WWCRAs), which provide consistent
projections of risks to water supplies and demands and impacts to
Reclamation operations due to the potential impacts of climate change
across the eight major Reclamation river basins identified within the
Act; and (3) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which are focused on
working with partners to identify shared science needs and meeting
those needs through the development of applied science tools,
collaboration, and information sharing to support resource management
at the landscape scale.
WaterSMART grants, under WaterSMART, implement Section 9504 of the
Act by providing cost-shared assistance on a competitive basis for the
following types of projects: (1) water and energy efficiency
improvements that save water, increase energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy in water management, address endangered species and
other environmental issues, and facilitate transfers to new uses; (2)
pilot and demonstration projects that address the technical and
economic viability of treating and using brackish groundwater,
seawater, impaired waters, or otherwise creating new water supplies
within a specific locale; (3) system optimization reviews that assess
the potential for water management improvements and identify specific
ways to implement those improvements; and (4) projects to develop
climate analysis tools to more efficiently manage water resources in a
changing climate.
In FY 2013, Reclamation anticipates funding approximately 50 new
WaterSMART grant projects, including approximately 35 projects.
Additionally, to ensure that the most effective approaches to
sustainable water conservation and water recycling are being employed,
Reclamation will continue to develop the WaterSMART Clearinghouse
website as a resource to provide leadership and assistance in
coordinating and integrating water conservation and sustainable water
strategies. On May 2, 2012, Reclamation announced $11 million in
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, which will allow 34
projects sponsored by States, Indian tribes, irrigation districts,
water districts and other organizations to partner with Reclamation on
projects that increase water conservation or result in other
improvements that address water supply sustainability in the West.
Eight congressionally authorized Title XVI water recycling and reuse
projects will receive $20.3 million in funding as well.
Pursuant to Section 9505 of the Act, the Department of Energy (DOE)
is in the process of conducting an assessment on the effect of, and
risk resulting from, climate change with respect to water supplies that
are required for the generation of hydropower. In consultation with
Reclamation and USGS, along with the Power Marketing Administrations,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Army Corps
of Engineers, DOE is preparing a report to Congress on climate change
effects at Federal hydropower facilities, and recommendations on how to
change operating and contracting practices to address identified
climate change risks.
In 2011, USGS issued a report pursuant to Section 9506 of the Act
which documents actions that can be taken to help manage and prepare
for the changes that may occur to our Nation's water supply systems as
a result of climate change with a particular focus on observational
data and measuring and monitoring systems. In addition, USGS has begun
its work on implementing the WaterSMART availability and use assessment
program pursuant to Sections 9507 and 9508 of the Act and has completed
an initial pilot study in the Great Lakes system. Additional pilot
studies are underway in the Colorado River Basin, Delaware River Basin
and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.
A National Groundwater Monitoring Network (NGWMN) was authorized
under Section 9507 of the Act, which is being implemented by USGS. In
2013, the USGS will transition from the pilot-scale NGWMN data portal
to a production-scale portal. Using hydrologic understanding and
modeling tools currently available and being developed for selected
major aquifers, as part of groundwater availability studies, USGS
scientists will identify monitoring locations to enhance the national
monitoring network. In consultation with State and local agencies, the
USGS will incorporate qualified wells and springs from State and local
agencies into the NGWMN. The USGS will begin expansion of the
groundwater climate response network to improve the understanding of
the effects of climate change on groundwater recharge and availability.
The proposed NGWMN will bring comparable monitoring data together from
disparate sources in order to close spatial data gaps and evaluate
national-scale groundwater levels, quality, and rates of change.
A Brackish Aquifer Assessment is also authorized under Section 9507
of the Act. Hydrologic understanding for selected major aquifers gained
through the regional groundwater availability studies will be used to
assist in identification of brackish groundwater resources. In
addition, the USGS, in consultation with State and local water resource
agencies, will begin assembling available data and other relevant
information in order to identify significant brackish groundwater
resources located in the United States and develop a work plan for the
national Brackish Aquifer Assessment.
Over the next 10 years, the USGS plans to conduct a new assessment
of water availability and use pursuant to Section 9508 of the Act,
which calls for the establishment of a national water assessment
program. The USGS Science Strategy identifies a water census as one of
six USGS science priorities, and the Water Resources activity is able
to provide scientific underpinnings for a coordinated assessment of
water availability and use through its Hydrologic Networks and Analysis
Program.
Question 21. The WaterSmart grant program supports innovative
efforts to improve water and energy efficiency among other things. Of
the projects that have been funded in the program's two-year history,
are there any that you would like to highlight as demonstrable
successes?
Answer. In 2011, Reclamation awarded more than $25 million for 58
Water and Energy Efficiency Grants. These projects were estimated to
save about 100,000 acre-feet of water, enough to supply water for about
400,000 people for one full year. In addition, over 25 of the projects
were expected save more than 15 million kilowatt hours of electricity
per year, enough electricity for about 1,300 households.
The Three Sisters Irrigation District in Oregon, for example, will
use its WaterSMART award to conserve water for environmental needs in
the Upper Deschutes Basin. The district will use $859,149 to replace
20,000 feet of open canal with pipe expected to result in 750 acre-feet
of water savings annually. The water conserved will then be marketed
through the Deschutes River Conservancy for a protected instream right
to support critical habitat for bull trout, red band trout, summer
steelhead and chinook salmon. The District also will install a 950-
kilowatt capacity turbine generator as part of the project. This
renewable energy source is expected to supply 3.1 million kilowatt-
hours of electricity annually.
Another project of note is the Vadose Zone Recharge Wells Capital
Improvement Project being carried out by the City of Surprise, Arizona.
Reclamation announced a $1 million WaterSMART Water and Energy
Efficiency Grant for the City of Surprise in May 2011. Through this
grant, the City intends to construct and operate 15 additional vadose
zone wells, increasing the amount of reclaimed water that can be
recharged annually by about 6,049 acre-feet annually (AFA). This
$4,517,600 project would enable the City to recharge up to a total
maximum of 8,049 AFA of reclaimed water that would be stored
underground for later City use.
Question 22. How are grant applications for WaterSmart evaluated
and prioritized for funding?
Answer. Each year, Reclamation posts funding opportunity
announcements that describe eligibility requirements and funding
criteria for the public. For example, water and energy efficiency
projects should seek to conserve and use water more efficiently,
increase the use of renewable energy and improve energy efficiency,
protect endangered and threatened species, facilitate water markets, or
carry out other activities to address climate-related impacts on water
or prevent any water-related crisis or conflict. These projects
include, but are not limited to: canal lining/piping, municipal
metering, irrigation flow measurement, and groundwater recharge.
Applications received in response to Reclamation's funding opportunity
announcements are scored against evaluation criteria by a review
committee composed of experts in relevant disciplines selected from
across Reclamation. Reclamation then prioritizes projects for funding
based on those results and additional steps conducted to ensure the
total amount of all awards does not exceed available funding levels.
This is to ensure that the projects meet the scope and priorities of
the WaterSMART program.
Question 23. WaterSmart grants support projects focused on water
and energy efficiency, pilot and demonstration projects, system
optimization reviews, and climate analysis tools. Will the same
WaterSmart thematic areas be supported by increased funding in 2013 or
are there new priorities that the Bureau of Reclamation are considering
supporting with additional funds?
Answer. Yes, the same WaterSmart thematic areas will be supported
by increased funding in 2013. In FY 2013, Reclamation proposes to fund
WaterSMART at $53.9 million, $6.8 million above the 2012 enacted level.
This request includes $21.5 million for WaterSMART grants, a $3 million
increase in funding from the FY 2012 budget request. With that
additional funding, Reclamation plans to provide cost-shared assistance
on a competitive basis for the four existing categories of projects:
(1) water and energy efficiency improvements that save water, increase
energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in water management,
address endangered species and other environmental issues, and
facilitate transfers to new uses; (2) pilot and demonstration projects
that address the technical and economic viability of treating and using
brackish groundwater, seawater, impaired waters, or otherwise creating
new water supplies within a specific locale; (3) system optimization
reviews that assess the potential for water management improvements and
identify specific ways to implement those improvements; and (4)
projects to develop climate analysis tools to more efficiently manage
water resources in a changing climate. Interest from eligible
applicants is strong. For example, Reclamation has received 167
proposals for new FY 2012 water and energy efficiency grants, together
representing a request for approximately $100 million in Federal
funding. Significant interest is also expected for all grant categories
in FY 2013.
Question 24. Please provide by agency the funds to be expended by
the Department on restoration of the Klamath River Basin restoration
during FY 2013. If possible, please also provide this information for
other Federal agencies working on Klamath Basin restoration.
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for Klamath River Basin
restoration activities includes: $7.1 million for the Bureau of
Reclamation to support implementation of a number of the restoration
and water supply actions that are authorized under existing law; $7
million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be provided to the Klamath
Tribes to implement economic activities that support the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement; $1.6 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service
to fund the Arcata, Yreka, and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Offices to support critically needed fisheries and fish
habitat monitoring and modeling, fish and watershed habitat planning
and restoration projects, and projects to improve instream flows for
fish; and $901,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey to determine
relationships between water availability, fish habitats, and water
quality on sucker growth, condition, and survival in the Upper Klamath
and Clear lakes, investigate aquatic productivity with special
attention to intensity, magnitude, and composition of plankton blooms,
investigate production of blue green algae and transfer of cyanotoxins
through food webs to endangered suckers, and assess the biological
effects of exposures of cyanotoxins in leading to a possible bottleneck
in population recovery.
united states geological survey
Question 25. I have a longstanding concern about depletions in the
southern High Plains Aquifer. This is especially important in New
Mexico because communities in eastern New Mexico rely on the Aquifer
for their water supplies. Will you undertake more analysis necessary to
address this serious problem?
Answer. We understand how important the High Plains aquifer is to
New Mexico and many other states, and the USGS has been monitoring and
studying this aquifer for many years. Since 2009, the USGS, through the
Groundwater Resources Program, has been conducting a High Plains
aquifer groundwater availability study to quantify groundwater
resources, evaluate changes in those resources over time, and provide
tools to forecast how those resources will respond to stresses from
future human and environmental uses. This work already has resulted in
several publications, and we expect more. A recent noteworthy product
(2011) is a water budget analysis for the entire aquifer (USGS
Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5183), including the Southern
High Plains aquifer (NM, TX, and OK). Additionally, in 1987 Congress
directed the USGS, in collaboration with numerous Federal, State, and
local water resources entities, to assess and track water level changes
in the High Plains aquifer. The most recent product (2011) summarizes
changes in water levels and drainable water in storage in the High
Plains aquifer from predevelopment to 2009 (FS 2011-3069). Groundwater
quality of the High Plains aquifer also was evaluated by the USGS
(1999-2006) as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program.
For more information:
High Plains Groundwater Availability Study web page (http://
txpub.usgs.gov/HPWA/index.html)
High Plains Water-Level Monitoring Study web page (http://
txpub.usgs.gov/HPWA/index.html)
High Plains Groundwater Quality Study web page (http://
co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/HPGW_home.html)
office of insular affairs
Question 26. The proposed FY13 OIA budget again assumes enactment
of legislation approving the Agreement with Palau to extend financial
assistance under the Compact through 2024. However, the Committee has
been unable to report the necessary legislation because no viable
offset has been identified to pay for the mandatory spending provided
by the Agreement.
One option being considered is based on the proposal of Delegate
Donna Christensen as set forth in H.R. 2220. This bill would authorize
a ``Pilot Program for Public-Private Territorial Investment'' and would
allow taxpayers a one-time transfer of existing IRA, 401k, and other
tax-deferred investments into a special fund with no tax or penalties
at the time of the initial transfer. 1/3rd of the collected 1.5%
transfer fee would be made available for critical infrastructure
construction in the USVI.
Is the Administration willing to consider support for the concept
in H.R. 2220--to provide a portion of collections from such a pension
fund transfer fee to be used by the territories to meet essential
infrastructure needs, and at the same time, support Congressional use
of a portion of the U.S. Treasury collections of the transfer fees as
an offset for the legislation to approve the Palau Agreement?
Answer. The Administration proposes the following offsets to the
legislation approving the Agreement with Palau to extend financial
assistance under the Compact through 2024: Net Receipt Sharing, which
takes into account the costs of managing Federal oil and gas leases
before revenues are shared with the States; terminating payments for
reclaiming abandoned coal mines to states that are already certified as
having cleaned up all of their priority sites; and production incentive
fees on non-producing Federal oil and gas leases. The Department has
not developed a position on the bill. The Department looks forward to
working with you and the Committee to find an appropriate offset for
the Palau legislation.
Question 27. What is OIA's rough estimate of unfunded critical
infrastructure need in each of the territories?
Answer. Covenant Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds address a
variety of infrastructure needs in the U.S. territories including
critical infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, wastewater and
solid waste systems. Improvements to critical infrastructure not only
benefit the current population and businesses, but lay the groundwork
to attract new investment to the territories thereby promoting economic
development. The territorial governments, individually, compile and
budget for anticipated actual infrastructure investment. Thus, there is
no grand total for unfunded needs. The insular areas would certainly
require billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure to mainland
standards.
Question 28. Would you please work with OMB to provide the
Committee with a list of non-pension, and non-healthcare mandatory
spending programs/authorizations, with spending in excess of $200
million annually, within the budgets of the State and Defense
Departments, a portion of which could be considered as offsets for the
Palau Agreement.
Answer. The Administration has proposed the following offsets to
the legislation approving the Agreement with Palau to extend financial
assistance under the Compact through 2024: Net Receipt Sharing, which
takes into account the costs of managing Federal oil and gas leases
before revenues are shared with the States; terminating payments for
reclaiming abandoned coal mines to states that are already certified as
having cleaned up all of their priority sites; and production incentive
fees on non-producing Federal oil and gas leases. The Department will
forward to OMB your suggestions for proposing additional offsets from
the budgets of the Departments of State and Defense. The Department
looks forward to working with you and the Committee to find an
appropriate offset for the Palau legislation.
Question 29. I am concerned that the corpus remaining in the
Rongelap Resettlement Fund may be insufficient to provide annual income
sufficient to provide for future food importation and radiological
remediation requirements.
a. What is the current balance in the Fund?
Answer. The balance of the Rongelap Resettlement Fund as of Friday,
March 2, 2012, was $11,033,272.
b. What is the OIA/DOE estimate for the future annual cost
for importing food and remediating radiation that would be
expected to be funded by the Resettlement Fund?
Answer. The Office of Insular Affairs has not been involved with
the importation of food to or the remediation of radiation at Rongelap
Island. Representatives of the Departments of Energy and Agriculture
would develop such an estimate; however, funding would be required for
such an undertaking.
c. What size corpus would be needed to meet these future
needs?
Answer. The size of the corpus would have to be determined by the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture after estimating annual need.
d. What steps will OIA take to ensure that a sufficient
corpus remains in the Fund to meet these and other long-term
resettlement needs?
Answer. Working in consultation with the Committee, OIA has
forbidden in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 the use of Rongelap
Resettlement Trust Fund proceeds for activities other than those
directly connected with the resettlement of Rongelap Island. OIA will
continue this policy indefinitely.
e. An initial ``target date'' for initial resettlement was
set for last October 1st. What is the current timeline for
people to return to Rongelap?
Answer. The Mayor of Rongelap Atoll Local Government has informed
OIA that he anticipates that by September 2012 all Rongelap
schoolchildren from Mejatto Island will be enrolled in the public
school on Rongelap Island. This will of necessity mean the return to
Rongelap Island of many adults, who will accompany the returning
schoolchildren. In addition the Mayor foresees that many Rongelap
schoolchildren enrolled in the 2011-2012 academic year on Ebeye Island
will return to Rongelap Island during the 2012-2013 academic year with
a concomitant return of adult family members as well.
Question 30. I commend the Department for requesting $5 million to
supplement the $30 million provided under P.L. 108-188 to mitigate
compact impact, and for indicating its intent to hire a full-time
employee in Hawaii to focus on this issue.
a. Please outline of the tasks you anticipate OIA, the
Affected Areas, and the FAS governments will be jointly
undertaking to reduce Compact Impacts.
b. How does OIA intend to enhance the education of migrants
and prospective migrants regarding their rights and
responsibilities under the Compact?
c. How does OIA intend to reduce the high cost of providing
dialysis and cancer treatment in the Affected Areas?
d. What will be the performance indicator to determine
progress in reducing compact impacts?
Answer. The Department will be establishing an OIA Compact Impact
Initiative, which will focus on bolstering the Department's bilateral
relationships and communication opportunities, while ensuring there is
an annual forum to discuss issues of concern, make recommendations, and
implement agreed upon policies. As part of the initiative, OIA will
seek to facilitate travel by freely associated state (FAS) presidents
to the affected jurisdictions to enhance relationships and coordination
among territorial or State, Federal, and FAS leadership and
communities. This provides opportunities for coordinated messaging and
information distribution from FAS and U.S. senior officials to FAS
migrant communities. Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular
Areas, Anthony Babauta convened the inaugural Pacific Island Leaders
Addressing Compact Impact (PILACI) a bilateral meeting of officials
from the FAS and U.S. in March 2012. The PILACI meeting provided a
forum where stakeholders including the FAS Presidents, Governors of the
Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), as well as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, Guam
Congresswoman, and participants from the CNMI Congressman and State
Department raised concerns and discussed solutions. Future PILACI
meetings will be held to advance joint undertakings and develop
performance indicators. Utilizing existing resources, OIA will review
and evaluate its ability to dedicate a member of the OIA staff to lead
the OIA Compact Impact Initiative while working closely with PILACI
stakeholders. OIA is also working with a number of Federal agencies and
the appropriate regional bureaus to use existing authority under the
Compacts of Free Association and other relevant Federal statutes.
As a result of the PILACI meeting, joint undertakings identified
were:
To better facilitate meaningful outreach meetings in the
affected jurisdictions, OIA will convene regularly scheduled
meetings with FAS and affected jurisdiction leadership to
provide advance notice of travel, structure and format of
outreach meetings in a way that maximize distribution of joint
messaging and engages stakeholders from the affected
jurisdictions.
OIA will work directly with the affected jurisdictions about
the feasibility of developing uniform reporting guidelines
detailing impact of the Compacts of Free Association. The
Abercrombie Administration announced they are pursuing efforts
to acquire better data and would be providing input about how
report guidelines may be developed. Upon receiving input from
the Abercrombie Administration, OIA will distribute to other
affected jurisdictions for their comments. Emphasis will be
placed on evaluating the impact of qualified nonimmigrants, ``.
. .a person, or their children under the age of 18, admitted
pursuant to the COFA who is a resident of an affected
jurisdiction.''
Given the finite resources available to PILACI participants,
the value in leveraging existing relationships, funding, and
expertise is a shared priority to address needs in the FAS and
affected jurisdictions. To date there has been limited
investment by private foundations in Micronesia. This is an
area the Micronesian Chief Executives seek to explore further
to secure additional resources for the region. OIA will develop
a network of private and non-profit sector stakeholders
conducting health and education work in the Micronesia region
with the assistance of PILACI participants. Once the network is
established, OIA will work to provide a forum to facilitate
discussion with PILACI participants and the network to
strengthen existing partnerships and develop new joint
initiatives.
The Department has supported and funded efforts by the FAS
governments to provide educational materials to orient their citizens,
prior to departing their country, about the challenges and
responsibilities associated with residing in the United States. OIA is
supportive of awarding additional technical assistance to fund FAS
government grant proposals that create, update, or enhance education
and orientation materials for their citizens.
In addition to the joint undertakings previously mentioned, there
are three ongoing OIA initiatives intended to reduce the effects of
Micronesian migration on United States jurisdictions. First, in order
to better educate and prepare citizens from the RMI traveling to the
United States, OIA has awarded a technical assistance grant to develop
an orientation pamphlet and video. These materials identify important
documents that are necessary to live and work in the U.S., information
about housing, employment, health care, education, U.S. law, and
additional resources that can contribute to a better understanding of
their rights and responsibilities while in the United States. The RMI
has expressed interest in producing radio broadcasts of the orientation
content to enhance the dissemination of such information.
Second, OIA has engaged in discussions with the FAS Governments to
establish a health screening process. The goal of this initiative is to
ensure that FAS citizens receive medical attention they need prior to
traveling and limit the spread of communicable diseases, such as drug
resistant tuberculosis. This targeted effort will assist in reducing
the burden of providing expensive medical care and may prevent
unnecessary loss of life. Areas of continued discussion with FAS
officials, OIA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services as
well as Homeland Security include how to develop and implement such a
health screening process how to ensure consistency with FAS statutes,
and how to handle the associated costs.
Third, OIA awarded the FSM Government a technical assistance grant
to conduct a Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HEIS) that will
provide data on the distribution of income, compile its national
accounts, provide nutritional information and food consumption patterns
for families, and conduct a poverty hardship assessment.
The OIA has participated in discussions with HHS, health officials
from Hawaii and Guam, and FSM and RMI leadership about the
establishment of dialysis facilities. There remains a substantial cost
involved with establishing, operating, and maintaining dialysis
facilities. Challenges such as water quality, power reliability,
limited presence of specialized medical professionals, and
comprehensive projections for needs of existing and future patients
were factors that would affect the size and cost of each facility. OIA
is in the process of contracting for a feasibility and cost assessment
for constructing dialysis facilities and necessary operation, resource,
and staff requirements to support such facilities in the FSM and RMI.
Question 31. The budget request proposes a large (70 percent)
reduction in funding for the Maintenance Assistance Program. Does this
reflect a decrease in the need for maintenance assistance in the
territories?
Answer. In 2012 and 2013, the Maintenance Assistance Program plans
to continue funding immediate needs for maintenance in the insular
areas. Although the maintenance assistance program has proven to be an
effective method of institutionalizing better maintenance practices
throughout the U.S.-affiliated islands, the Department was faced with
difficult budgetary decisions in a challenging fiscal environment. The
increase to Empowering Insular Communities to support the
implementation of sustainable energy strategies offsets the decrease to
the Maintenance Assistance Program.
Question 32. The budget proposes $2.971 million for Empowering
Insular Communities and identifies the two critical areas of focus as
being lessening the impact of the Guam military buildup, and
implementing sustainable energy strategies. Given that plans and
priorities have been developed in these two critical areas, what is the
purpose of the ``call letter'' and selection process as described on
page 82 of the Green Book?
Answer. The Department believes that consultation with the
territories via a call letter is an important part of determining
priorities. OIA plans to use the call letter process in future years.
The Department believes that proposals for Empowering Insular
Communities funding need to be reviewed through open and transparent
criteria.
Question 33. GAO and the DOI/OIG have reported on the need for OIA
to improve grant monitoring. What is the current level of OIA's effort
in this area and how would this proposed budget enhance that effort?
Answer. OIA currently has 15 financial assistance managers to
manage a budget of $561 million in 2012. In order to respond to the
findings of GAO and the OIG, OIA has moved two policy employees in to
the Budget and Grants Management Division to provide additional
financial assistance oversight. By the end of 2012, the Office plans to
have hired two more financial assistance managers to manage FSM and
compact impact issues.
Question 34. The OIA ``Green Book'' has a limited description
regarding the CNMI Labor Ombudsman's Office. Accordingly, please have
the CNMI Labor Ombudsman submit a brief report to the Committee
describing:
a. The type and number of cases being handled by the Office,
b. The changes in the Office workload anticipated for the
coming year,
c. A description of the issues that the Office has been
involved in related to implementation of P.L. 110-229, and the
status/outlook on resolution of these issues.
(If there are questions regarding this request,
please have the Ombudsman and other appropriate
officials contact the Committee staff at 224-7865 for
clarification).
Answer a. Since its inception in May of 1999, the Ombudsman's
office has assisted nearly 11,000 aliens in over 9,000 cases or
complaints, the results of which have been awards of over $7 million
during the thirteen-year period. Over the past three years since the
position was filled in May of 2009 with the hiring of Pamela Brown
Blackburn, the office has assisted nearly 4,000 aliens in close to
3,000 cases or complaints. Neither of these numbers includes telephone
or walk-in inquiries not requiring a full in-take into the Ombudsman
data system.
The office has handled much of the same types of cases over the
past nearly 13 years of its existence. The law enforcement agencies to
which aliens are referred for resolution of their cases/complaints have
changed to include the various offices of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, which only recently arrived in the CNMI. Referrals
are still being made to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI),
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, Equal Employment
Commission, and CNMI Department of Labor, and when appropriate, CNMI
Department of Public Safety.
The vast majority of alien cases and complaints involve the
assistance of this office with aliens' labor complaints, such as
failure to pay wages for hours worked, improper termination, failure to
provide repatriation benefits as required by CNMI law, failure to
provide payment of medical expenses as required by CNMI law, and other
similar complaints of failure of employers to honor contractual
obligations or CNMI labor law requirements.
Several labor complaints involved large numbers of workers
complaining of an employer's failure to properly pay overtime wages for
hours worked. These cases as always are referred to the U.S. Department
of Labor, Wage & Hour Division. There has not been a marked increase in
discrimination complaints but the steady flow of such complaints
continues with the Ombudsman office working closely with the Equal
Employment Commission to resolve these complaints expeditiously.
In 2009, the Ombudsman's office experienced a drastic increase in
the number of aliens reporting to the office complaining of trafficking
and labor fraud. From May 2009 to present, the office has directly
assisted 243 aliens with trafficking and labor fraud complaints. While
the majority of those aliens seeking help were Chinese nationals, 15
Indian nationals were also assisted.
Many aliens reported having been brought to the CNMI in mid-2008;
however, most arrived during 2009 with increasing numbers coming just
prior to the effective date of P.L. 110-229. Regardless of when or from
where they came, all told similar stories detailing the promises and
benefits they would receive in the CNMI. Promises ranged from high-
paying jobs in resorts, construction companies or elegant restaurants
once they completed a few months of English language classes. They were
told that not only were these jobs waiting for them in the CNMI but
that employers in Guam were also ready to hire them as soon as they
completed such English training. The vast majority also reported the
promise of Federal immigration status once they arrived in the CNMI and
P.L. 110-229 became effective. All of these aliens were interviewed,
questioned as to documentary evidence which could corroborate their
claims, and whether any fee was paid either here or in their respective
countries of origin. They all paid recruitment fees ranging from
US$4,000 to US$50,000. Finally, the vast majority of the aliens had the
return portion of their air-ticket cancelled upon arrival in the CNMI,
effectively stranding them here.
All were referred to the FBI since there were no DHS investigators
on island at that time and operational during this period. It was later
learned, however, that some of these victims were part of a DHS,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation. Since ICE (now
known as Homeland Security Investigations or HSI) became operational
here in the CNMI, many of the victims are being referred to their
agency for investigation and enforcement.
Service providers are limited but the U.S. Department of Justice
and Office of Insular Affairs have provided funds to the only shelter
in the CNMI, Guma Esperansa, to assist these victims with food and
shelter. Also, Micronesian Legal Services working in conjunction with
this office and Guma Esperansa is filing for T and U visas for the
victims on a case by case basis. All of the victims have agreed to
cooperate with law enforcement investigations and have done so when
asked.
The number of aliens per year reporting to the Ombudsman office
with trafficking and labor fraud complaints is: in 2009--153; in 2010--
71; in 2011--17, in the first 3 months of 2012--3. The above numbers
include both severe forms of trafficking as well as trafficking and
labor fraud. The same recruitment scheme is being reported by the vast
majority.
The other major addition to the caseload of the Ombudsman office
since 2009 has been the increasing number of aliens and employers
seeking assistance and clarification of P.L. 110-229.
Answer b. Based on the number and types of complaint and cases
encountered by the Office during the first quarter of 2012, it is not
anticipated that the Office's workload will change from workloads of
2010 and 2011. During these respective years, the number of aliens
assisted was 1,748 and 901 respectively. The complaints did not change
from those experienced by the Office during the 13 years of operation.
The Office does, however, expect an increase in labor related
complaints once aliens' Federal statuses are finally determined. It is
suspected that a number of employers are paying aliens improperly or
not at all during the past two years as well as not providing them with
the benefits required under CNMI law, such as medical benefits. Years
of experience working with aliens in the CNMI suggests that these
matters are going unreported due to aliens' concerns for their Federal
statuses.
The office continues to see more aliens and employers seeking
assistance with how to navigate the complex Federal immigration system
under which the CNMI now operates. Many of these simply require having
procedures explained. Those with more complicated situations are either
referred to the fledgling CNMI immigration bar for assistance or
assisted in filling out and submitting an appropriate form to the DHS
agency tasked with handling such matters. Demand for translation and
interpretation numbers are expected to increase as a result of the
continuing transition to Federal immigration procedures. Currently, the
major area of concern is the uncertainty surrounding the Federal
immigration statuses available under P.L. 110-229 for aliens who were
lawfully present in the CNMI on November 28, 2009. Once the system is
fully functioning, the Office may see a decline in the number of aliens
seeking clarification of this process. It is not expected that demand
for other immigration matters will decline, however.
Additionally, there will be an increase in the workload due to the
expansion of the geographical region of responsibilities not only to
the territory of Guam but also in correlation with the interagency
focus on a Pacific regional approach to anti-trafficking in persons.
The Ombudsman was recently named a member of the Advisory Board for a
regional project funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of
State to the National Association of District Attorneys. The project is
a joint effort involving State, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of the Interior to establish anti-trafficking operations
within the freely associated states (FAS) of the Republic of Palau,
Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia. The project is also in consultation and coordination with
the governments of the FAS.
The election of the Ombudsman as the co-chair of the CNMI Human
Trafficking Intervention Coalition along with the U.S. Attorney for the
Districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands is also expected to
increase workload within the Office. The HTIC focus for 2012 is
community outreach and education as well as expanding the pool of
service providers within the CNMI. The Ombudsman is expecting to be
involved in such an effort as part of her expanded duties in Guam.
Answer c. The number one issue involving the implementation of P.L.
110-229 was the late date of October 2011 for the publication of the
final CW visa regulation. The implementation of P.L. 110-229 created a
great deal of anxiety, uncertainty and associated rumors. The Office
has been seeing a large number of aliens and employers seeking
clarification of the immigration procedures, which appear to the lay
person as a shifting set of rules and expectations. The numbers were
more than 40 to 50 a day during 2009 and 2010 but began to dwindle
until the final deadline of November 28, 2011. With the delayed
publication of the final rule, the Office's workload greatly increased
due to calls and appointments with employers seeking to understand what
needed to be submitted to support the petition for CW workers and where
it should all be sent in order to meet the deadline for submission.
Further, after the filing of the CW petitions and the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) decision to issue
humanitarian parole status to certain classes of aliens, the Saipan
Application Service Center was inundated with aliens and employers
requesting status on their respective petitions and applications. Also,
the increase in the number of biometric examinations required for the
granting of each and every request for some type of status or benefit
simply overwhelmed the operation. Walk-in aliens were suddenly being
turned away and the info-pass system was unavailable for many months.
During this period, the Office, again, provided clarification and
assistance to aliens and employers alike in seeking updates to their
status questions and answers to other immigration related matters.
Most employers were unaware of which employment status could be or
should be requested for alien employees. Therefore, despite several
being qualified to begin seeking H1B or L1 federal employment status
for their alien workers during the umbrella permit period from November
28, 2009 to November 28, 2011, most waited to see the final CW rule to
begin a process for an H1 or L1 visa that usually takes up to 7 days to
get a labor condition application (LCA) from USDOL for an H-1B, and
another 60 days to simply get the proper clearance from USCIS for an H-
1B or an L-1 visa petition. Most of these workers were, therefore,
required to acquire a parole status and employment authorization (EAD)
to continue employment in the CNMI. Many of these H and L petitions are
still awaiting final adjudication from USCIS almost six months later.
This translates into an alien needing to renew both the parole and EAD
in order to remain in lawful status prior to final adjudication on the
petition.
The second major area of concern involved the employment status of
aliens for whom an employer submitted a petition. Many parolees were
only given parole status until January 31, 2012 due to USCIS'
expectation that CW petitions would be expeditiously processed and
granted by that date. Out of 11,000 petitions, very few CW visas were
issued by early April 2012. Petitioners seeking CW, H, and L visas
suffer severe anxiety as they strive to maintain a lawful presence in
the CNMI during an elongated petition period, which was unanticipated.
The Office discusses these issues regularly with the appropriate
USCIS officials and disseminates the appropriate response within the
community but each time an EAD must be renewed, it costs the alien or
the employer $380. This is placing a heavy fiscal burden on alien
workers who typically earn $5.15 per hour.
The Ombudsman is told that more adjudicators are being temporarily
assigned to the California Service Center where all CW petitions are
processed. She further successfully resolved the issue of having all
parole requests and EADs for pending petitions adjudicated in Guam and
not through the normal procedures of sending such requests to Chicago.
USCIS expects to see most of the back log cleared within the next few
months.
The third issue regarding implementation of P.L. 110-229 that
required the Ombudsman's attention was the lack of regulations for
issuance of visas for CW and E2C investors once they received their
respective Federal immigration status. In response to my inquiry
regarding two of the first aliens issued E-2C status who had been
awaiting visa issuance in Seoul, Korea for over 6 months, State sent
the following explanation:
While the publishing of guidance for consular
officers adjudicating E-2C and CW visa initially
delayed by the interagency clearance process, the
guidance was published in 9 FAM 41.34 on December 27th.
On January 10, the ALDAC announcing the established
reciprocity arrangement for these visa classifications
was distributed worldwide. With those publications,
posts have the resources necessary to begin issuing E-
2C and CW visas (and our embassies in Malaysia and
Japan have already begun doing so). Please advise
individuals who require an E-2C or CW visa to contact
the U.S. Embassy or consulate where they intend to
apply for their visa. While this message was
encouraging, many aliens possessing CW status were
still experiencing delays in the issuance of visas and
being told by embassy and consulate staff that they
were awaiting guidance in order to adjudicate such
requests.
Finally, with the implementation of P.L. 110-229 came the
application of other Federal laws such as the Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits national origin discrimination in
all aspects of employment, such as hiring, firing, promotion, wages,
and retaliation. It covers employers with 15 or more employees, and is
enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In
addition, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes
it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a person because of
that person's citizenship or immigration status when it comes to
hiring, firing, or referral. It also supplements Title VII prohibitions
against national origin discrimination, covering employers with four to
14 employees. The IRCA also prohibits retaliation. At present, the
Ombudsman is in discussions with the Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ), which enforces the IRCA's
nondiscrimination requirements, regarding establishment of the
Ombudsman's office as the outreach and educational office for its
mission. Such a relationship already exists between the Ombudsman
office and the EEOC, and has since 1999.
When and if such an arrangement is implemented, then it is expected
that additional workload will result. There is, however, DOJ grant
money available to fund such an operation by the Ombudsman.
Question 35. I understand that the responsibilities of the CNMI
Labor Ombudsman have been expanded to include Guam. If this is correct,
would you please describe these new responsibilities and how they will
affect the Ombudsman Office budget?
Answer. In light of the relocation of several thousand military
personnel to Guam and anticipated need for an increase of H-2B workers
to accommodate the associated infrastructure development, the Office of
Insular Affairs (OIA) recognized the potential for an increase of the
types of abuse of alien workers experienced in the CNMI. As such, the
Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas expanded the geographic area of
responsibility for the Ombudsman to Guam. OIA determined that having
the Ombudsman operational prior to the introduction of a large number
of H-2B workers would be advantageous. During the course of the last
ten months, the Ombudsman has travelled to Guam to develop
relationships with Federal and local government officials as well as
with the alien communities in an effort to understand the community and
the unique issues facing Guam. She has already formed strong ties with
the U.S. Attorney, FBI, USCIS, Guam Attorney General, Guam Department
of Public Safety, Guam Department of Labor, and many in the faith-based
community as well as with consulates located on the island.
Temporary office space was secured in the U.S. Attorney's office in
Hagatna, Guam, with the Ombudsman having full access to the building
once she received the appropriate security clearance. The majority of
these trips have been day trips with only occasional overnight travel.
So far, costs have been kept to a minimum. Once the office is fully
established and operational with its own office space, it is
anticipated that the Ombudsman will make weekly trips to Guam to
provide assistance to aliens as she does in the CNMI at present. This
includes assistance with labor abuses, immigration abuses, trafficking
and other criminal matters.
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Wyden
western oregon timber sales
Question 1. I appreciate the leadership that you personally have
taken in advancing pilot projects on the BLM forestlands in western
Oregon and am glad you recently had a chance to tour these projects. I
similarly appreciate the proposed increase in the budget of $1.5
million towards western Oregon forest management programs. Following up
on my question and your answer at the hearing, you highlighted the
pilot projects and I appreciate that these are moving forward and five
more projects are being planned. However, I continue to have concerns
about the overall lack of timber volume coming from the BLM lands in
western Oregon, particularly in southwest Oregon. While in 2010 the
agency came close to meeting the target of 230 million board feet laid
out in your 2009 announcement, it fell well short in 2011. In fact, in
Fiscal Year 2011 the BLM only awarded 137 mmbf in western Oregon and
6.3 mmbf in the Medford District. While the pilot projects are moving
forward, my understanding is that part of the shortfall is because
other timber sale projects have been protested. As a result, they
simply have not moved forward and the expected timber volume never gets
to the mills that desperately need the timber. Mr. Secretary, what is
the BLM doing to resolve the protests on these projects and this year's
program so this timber can be made available to local mills? Is the
proposed budget increase intended in any way to help with this issue
and juggling the other forestry tasks the agency is undertaking, such
as the new pilots and revised plans?
Answer. The BLM is working to make timber sales available and has
prioritized resolving protest and appeals in the Medford district. In
FY 2012, the BLM plans to offer the program target volume of 193 mmbf
of timber for sale; the Roseburg target is 28 mmbf and the Medford
target is 19 mmbf. The BLM also plans to reoffer additional volume from
eight more contracts that were mutually cancelled. The increase in the
program volume target from 190 mmbf to 193 mmbf corresponds with a
budget increase of $527,000 in the O&C forest management program in the
FY2012 Budget.
The proposed increase of $1.5 million towards western Oregon forest
management programs in the Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal is intended
to increase western Oregon's offered volume from the Fiscal Year 2012
target of 193 MMBF, to a Fiscal Year 2013 target or 197 MMBF, or an
increase of 4 MMBF.
The BLM Districts in western Oregon, and the Medford District in
particular, are working diligently to resolve administrative protests.
This includes exploring protest resolution through informal agreement
with timber sale purchasers and conservation organizations, as well as
issuing protest decisions. Protesting organizations can subsequently
appeal BLM's protest decision to the Department of the Interior Board
of Land Appeals (IBLA), triggering a second phase in administrative
remedy and response. The BLM's Medford District has issued several
protest decisions since the BLM provided a briefing for your staff on
this topic in December of 2011. Some of the 2010 and 2011 protest
decisions have been appealed to the IBLA, creating a respective
workload. One 2010 timber sale decision was appealed to the IBLA and
has subsequently been challenged in court (pending decisions in IBLA
and District Court jurisdictions).
water resources/research
Question 2. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budget zeroes out
$6.5 million in Water Resources Research Act programs. In my state,
Oregon State University has fostered important water resources research
and understanding over the past 50 years. It, and other land grant
universities across the nation, use the funds primarily for important
student research opportunities. The USGS budget justification touts the
value of this research saying, ``[w]ater resources research,
information, and monitoring activities support the USGS Science
Strategy to provide scientific information on the water availability
and quality of the United States in order to inform the public and
decisionmakers about the status of freshwater resources and how they
are changing.'' I'm concerned that even though the USGS budget request
is a $ 34.5 million increase over the 2012 enacted level, federal
contributions to state water quality research is left by the wayside.
Q: Can you explain why the Department is turning away from its
partnership with the states after 27 years since the Water Resources
Research Act passed? What message does this send to the state water
resources research institutions and the students who are learning to
tackle the many water issues we face?
Answer. The Water Resources Research Institutes (WRRIs), located at
54 land-grant universities across the Nation, use their 2:1 (non-
Federal to Federal) matching grants to support over 250 research and
technology transfer projects annually. These projects are developed in
response to priorities set by the institutes' individual State Advisory
Committees and address a wide variety of water resources issue and
problems. The research projects provide support and training to over
700 students nationwide each year, contributing to the development of
the next generation of water resources scientists, engineers, and
technicians. The Water Institutes' program is described at http://
water.usgs.gov/wrri/.
Federal funding for WRRIs is often highly leveraged by multiple
sources of State and local funding. With diverse sources of funding and
stakeholder involvement in WRRI decision-making, the priorities of
individual Institutes are not solely driven by the Federal government.
As a result, their priorities have not always been aligned with the
national priorities of the USGS water programs. This is not a comment
on the overall excellence or quality of the Institutes, which produce
research products and students that can directly benefit the USGS
mission. The USGS is currently evaluating different ways in which the
work of the Institutes can become more aligned with National
priorities, while retaining a local focus.
Though the USGS recognizes and appreciates the contributions of the
Institutes, in a time of severe fiscal constraints, tough decisions
were made in the formulation of the 2013 budget to meet the science
needs of the Nation as a whole. The 2013 budget reflects efforts to
balance USGS research, assessment, and monitoring activities to ensure
the USGS's continued ability to address a broad array of natural
resources and natural science issues that face the Nation. The budget
supports a continued legacy of world-class science to support decision-
making.
county payments proposal--o&c lands funding
Question 3. I am pleased that the President's budget includes a
funding proposal to reauthorize the county payments program and that it
specifically funds it as mandatory spending. But, I am again
disappointed that--like in last year's proposal--the Bureau of Land
Management provides no funding for its portion of this critical program
and that steep cuts to the program are again being proposed. Under the
recently expired county payments program, the BLM payments are a
significant portion of what the O&C counties receive from the county
payments program. However, in this budget request, there is no
recognition that this portion of the program for the BLM's lands is
BLM's responsibility. Rather, BLM's role in providing county payments
to the O&C counties has been handed over to the Forest Service. I asked
you about this issue last year, and raised it in subsequent discussions
with the Agency, but was never able to get an explanation as to why it
makes any sense for the BLM to hand over responsibility for these
payments to another agency. Mr. Secretary why is the BLM handing over
responsibility for providing funding to these counties to another
agency? Can you explain to me what portion of the proposed county
payments program funding will consist of the O&C payments, how the
allocation of funding for Forest Service and BLM lands will be made and
whether the Interior Department will be providing any funding for the
program?
Answer. Sec. 601 of P.L. 110-343, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Program, authorized an extension and
ramping down of payments to the counties through fiscal year 2011. The
final, mandatory payments by Sec. 601 were previously authorized, and
final Secure Rural Schools program payments were made in October 2011.
The Budget reflects a five-year reauthorization, starting in
FY2012, of the Secure Rural Schools Act with funding through mandatory
U.S. Forest Service appropriations. This includes Secure Rural Schools
payments to western Oregon counties. This SRS proposal revises the
allocation split between the three portions of the program from the
current authority emphasizing enhancement of forest ecosystems,
restoration and improvement of land health and water quality and the
increase of economic activity. The FY 2013 payment is proposed for $294
million.
Upon expiration of PL 110-343, the BLM's authority to make payments
for FY 2012 to the O&C grant lands and CBWR counties is limited to the
Oregon and California Grant Lands Act of 1937 and the Act of May 24,
1939. For any of the 18 counties in Western Oregon choosing not to
receive payments for 2012 (in 2013) under the reauthorization proposal
discussed above, the payments would revert back to payments under the
1937 O&C Act and subsequent amendments. The 1937 statute authorizes
payments of 50 percent of Federal receipts from activities on O&C grant
lands. In the case of Coos and Douglas Counties, if they were to choose
not to receive payments for 2012 (in 2013) under the proposal, the 1939
statute authorizes payments for lost tax revenue not to exceed 75
percent of the receipts from activities on Coos Bay Wagon Road grant
lands. For payments for 2011 (received in 2012), this totaled
approximately $40 million.
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Cantwell
``fundamental transformation'' of the oil and gas industry
Mr. Secretary, in addition to calling for sorely-needed
improvements in government oversight and regulation, the National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
report focused a great deal on the need for a transformation within the
oil and gas industry itself. The report stated:
Government oversight must be accompanied by the oil
and gas industry's internal reinvention: sweeping
reforms that accomplish no less than a fundamental
transformation of its safety culture.
Question 1a. What are the top three big, tangible steps the
industry needs to take to show the American public that they mean
business about achieving the `sweeping reforms' the Commission is
calling for?
Answer. It is in our country's interest to have a robust offshore
oil and gas industry, one that carries out both safe and responsible
operations on the OCS. The Department has been working hard since the
Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill to bring this to fruition.
In this regard, it is important that a new culture of safety
emerges throughout the industry, strong enough to overcome ingrained
practices. This new safety culture should reflect the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement's credo of ``Safety at all levels, at all
times.'' Additionally, industry must establish a record of safety for
offshore oil and gas operations under today's more stringent regulatory
regime by demonstrating compliance with all offshore safety rules and
regulations. And finally, it is important that industry demonstrate a
record of commitment to continuous improvement and innovation regarding
operational and workplace safety.
Question 1b. If the oil and gas industry falls short of the
fundamental transformation you are calling for today, do you believe
the industry has the right to ask for the trust of the American people
in the future?
Answer. It is important that industry demonstrate a commitment to
this culture of safety and compliance following the Deepwater Horizon
explosion and spill, and falling short of these expectations will
likely jeopardize the public's trust.
Question 1c. What reform has been implemented at DOI to ensure
better oversight of the industry? Please give specific examples of
changes made to programs, staff changes, expertise, and permitting.
Answer. In the time since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico, the Department has launched the most aggressive and
comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight
in U.S. history, including:
Implementation of strong new safety rules that raise
standards for everything from drilling equipment and well
design to casing and cementing; a requirement that companies
establish comprehensive risk management programs; a requirement
that operators demonstrate the capability to deal with a
catastrophic blowout; limiting the use of categorical
exclusions so that proposed lease sales and drilling projects
go through rigorous environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and requiring companies
certify that their rigs comply with safety and environmental
laws and regulations;
Dissolution of the Minerals Management Service, with the
transfer of minerals revenue management to a newly-established
Office of Natural Resources Revenue in the Office of the
Secretary and the creation of two separate bureaus--the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement--to handle the leasing and safety
oversight functions of the former MMS;
Development and implementation of regulations and guidance
to operators responsive to the recommendations of the DOI
Safety Oversight Board, the National Academy of Engineering,
and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill;
Completion of a review of ethics issues related to the
Department's management of the OCS program, and creation of the
Investigations and Review Unit;
Implementation of a recruitment strategy to expand the field
of inspectors and engineers in the offshore program; and
Establishment of the Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee
to advise the Department on issues related to offshore energy
safety, including drilling and workplace safety, well
intervention and containment, and oil spill response.
Within BSEE, which is tasked with providing safety and
environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations on the OCS,
we have increased the number of inspectors by 50 percent since April
2010, and the number of engineers, who also perform critical safety
functions, by nearly 10 percent. With regard to permitting, BSEE has
held permit processing workshops for industry, which has improved the
quality and thoroughness of applications; published a permit
application completeness checklist to make it clear to industry what
information is required and to reduce the frequency of incomplete
applications; established priorities for reviewing permit applications;
and allowed authorized users of our online permit application system to
track the status of their applications, answering the call for greater
transparency in our permitting process. As a result of these steps, and
the industry's increasing familiarity with the process, permit review
times have decreased significantly in the past year.
Question 1d. What legislative action, if any, does DOI need to
oversee the industry better?
Answer. In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on May 17, 2011, the Secretary announced a series of
legislative principles intended provide a framework for the efficient
and responsible development of our domestic resources. In the realm of
enhanced oversight, these principles include:
Codifying new safety and environmental standards for
offshore oil and gas development that have been established
through administrative procedures by the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
Statutorily extending exploration plan approval time under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to allow for appropriate
environmental review.
Formalizing existing research collaboration by authorizing
an Ocean Energy Safety Institute to connect government,
industry, academia, and outside experts devoted to developing
cutting-edge safety, containment, and response capabilities.
Formalizing the reorganization of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement by adopting organic
legislation for: (1) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; (2)
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; and (3) the
Office of Natural Resource Revenue.
Provide special hiring authorities for BOEM and BSEE that
allow those bureaus to hire personnel for critical positions
during times of need at competitive salaries.
In addition, the Department proposed the following legislative
proposals in its FY 2013 Budget Request that will improve oversight or
ensure a fair return to the public for development of their resources:
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the Administration proposes to
implement an inspection fee in 2013 for onshore oil and gas
drilling activities that are subject to inspection by BLM. The
proposed inspection fee is expected to generate an estimated
$48.0 million in 2013, $10.0 million more than the
corresponding $38.0 million reduction in requested BLM
appropriations, thereby expanding the capacity of BLM's oil and
gas inspection program. The fee would support Federal efforts
to increase production accountability, human safety, and
environmental protection.
Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee.--The 2013 budget
proposes to continue a fee for processing drilling permits
through appropriations language, an approach taken by Congress
in the Interior Apppropriations Acts. A fee of $6,500 per
drilling permit was authorized in 2010, and if continued, would
generate an estimated $32.5 million in offsetting collections
in 2013.
Repeal of Deep Gas Incentives.--The Administration proposes
to repeal Section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section
344 mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas''
production on the OCS. This change will help ensure that
Americans receive fair value for federally owned mineral
resources. Based on current oil and gas price projections, the
budget does not assume savings from this change; however, the
proposal could generate savings to the Treasury if future
natural gas prices end up below current projections.
Fee on Non-Producing Oil and Gas Leases.--The Administration
proposes to encourage energy production on lands and waters
leased for development. A $4.00 per acre fee on non-producing
Federal leases would provide a financial incentive for oil and
gas companies to either get their leases into production or
relinquish them so that the tracts can be leased to and
developed by other parties. The proposed fee would apply to all
new leases onshore and offshore and would be indexed annually.
In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report critical of past efforts by Interior to ensure that
companies diligently develop their Federal leases. Although the
report focused on administrative actions that the Department
could undertake, this proposal requires legislative action.
This proposal is similar to other non-producing fee proposals
considered by the Congress in the last several years. The fee
is projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13.0
million in 2013 and $783.0 million over ten years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals.--The Administration
proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing
the cost to administer energy and minerals receipts, beginning
in 2014. Under current law, States receiving significant
payments from mineral revenue development on Federal lands also
share in the costs of administering the Federal mineral leases
from which the revenue is generated. In 2013, this net receipts
sharing deduction from mineral revenue payments to States would
be implemented as an offset to the Interior Appropriations Act,
consistent with identical provisions included in the Act since
2008. Permanent implementation of net receipts sharing is
expected to result in savings of $44.0 million in 2014 and
$449.0 million over ten years.
arctic oil spill recovery plans
Mr. Secretary, the United States plans to open the North Slope to
exploratory drilling during the Summer of 2012. The Coast Guard and
others have testified to Congress that we do not have the technology
required to clean up oil in ice conditions.
Question 2a. Has DOI identified methods to clean up oil in ice
conditions? If not, what clean up procedures have been submitted by the
proposed resource users, and why does DOI think that they are or are
not sufficient?
Answer. The Department is aware of a large amount of research that
has been done on the cleanup of oil in ice conditions. Research has
been ongoing for decades, most recently through the Joint Industry
Program on Oil Spill Response for Arctic and Ice-covered Waters (``JIP
Oil in Ice'') launched in 2006 by the independent Scandinavian research
organization SINTEF in conjunction with industry and academic partners.
Field tests with oil released into icy Arctic waters were conducted in
2008 and 2009, with experiments conducted on mechanical recovery
equipment, in-situ burning, dispersants, remote sensing, oil
weathering, and more. These experiments showed that a number of
response strategies could be employed in icy waters. In January of this
year, the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers announced
that it is launching a new JIP Oil in Ice program, which will consist
of additional field tests of oil removal in ice conditions. A summary
of the current state of knowledge in this field is available in Chapter
5 of the USGS' An Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions
on Outer Continental Shelf Energy Development in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas, Alaska.
Question 2b. The Arctic is lacking coastal infrastructure that was
essential in the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill cleanup. For example,
cleanup efforts relied on local fishing boats, docks, hotels,
outfitters and other services to fuel the cleanup effort. What is the
plan for the Arctic? Is there a plan? Are there response plans
currently in place that are inaccurate and have unrealistic
assumptions?
Answer. BSEE conducted a thorough and critical review of the oil
spill response plans submitted by Shell in conjunction with its planned
exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the
summer of 2012. Shell was required to make clear how they would
mobilize and sustain a massive response over an extended period of
time. Shell plans to stage a full suite of response assets near the
offshore drill site for immediate response, while also having
additional equipment available for quick delivery in the event that
sustained spill response is necessary.
BSEE's approval followed months of comprehensive internal, public,
and interagency review, including involvement of the Interagency
Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and
Permitting in Alaska, chaired by Department of the Interior Deputy
Secretary David J. Hayes. More information on the federal government's
preparedness and response coordination efforts is available at: http://
www.bsee.gov/BSEE-Newsroom/BSEE-Fact-Sheet/Arctic-Fact-Sheet.aspx.
independent certification of drilling systems
Mr. Secretary, the U.S. Coast Guard has a fairly good model for a
regulatory working relationship between vessel owners and independent
classification societies like the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS).
ABS and other classification societies use their technical and
engineering expertise to help the government ensure that ships meet the
stringent requirements to be considered safe and seaworthy.
Question 3a. What is BOEM doing to ensure that regular third-party
audits occur at three-to five-year intervals and certification of
drilling systems?
Answer. Safety certification of drilling systems is part of an
operator's Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS). 30 CFR
250, subpart S, defines the regulations regarding SEMS. Specifically,
30 CFR 250.1920(a) states:
(a) You must have your SEMS program audited by either an
independent third-party or your designated and qualified
personnel according to the requirements of this subpart and API
RP 75, Section 12 (as incorporated by reference in 30 CFR
250.198) within 2 years of the initial implementation of the
SEMS program and at least once every 3 years thereafter. The
audit must be a comprehensive audit of all thirteen elements of
your SEMS program to evaluate compliance with the requirements
of this subpart and API RP 75 to identify areas in which safety
and environmental performance needs to be improved.
If non-compliance resulting from an inspection or BSEE-directed
audit poses actual harm or threat to the human and marine environment,
BSEE will proceed with a civil penalty review of that violation(s)
subject to 30 CFR part 250, subpart N--Outer Continental Shelf Civil
Penalties. Should non-compliance with subpart S display serious and
pervasive safety management concerns, BSEE may restrict or revoke the
operator's privilege to operate on the OCS as a designated operator or
lessee operator through probationary or disqualification actions as
detailed in 30 CFR 250.135.
While BSEE currently allows the audit to be performed by an
operator's designated and qualified personnel as set forth in 30 CFR
250.1926, the agency proposes to remove this option from the existing
regulation. The new requirement would instruct the operator to use an
approved independent third party auditor to perform the audit.
Question 3b. What effect does the current lack of independent
third-party certification have on the overall safety culture?
Answer. As outlined in the response above, BSEE does not feel there
is an overall lack of independent third-party certification. Subpart S
requires the operator (a lessee, the owner or holder of operating
rights, or the designated operator) to integrate a comprehensive SEMS
program into the management of their OCS operations.
Question 3c. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and other
classification societies have the expertise to ``class'' sub-sea
drilling systems, and already do so when companies opt to do this
voluntarily in the U.S. Is there a possible role for classification
societies to act as an independent third-party certifier as recommended
in the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling report?
Answer. As BSEE continues to improve, enhance, and enforce offshore
oil and gas safety requirements, it is identifying best-practices,
standards, and third-party organizations which may be used where
appropriate.
r.s. 2477 claims
Mr. Secretary, Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477) was enacted by
Congress in the 1866 Mining Law to provide ``the right of way for the
construction of highways across public lands, not reserved for public
uses.'' While Congress repealed the law in 1976 as part of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), existing R.S. 2477 rights were
grandfathered. The state of Utah has recently filed a notice of intent
to sue the DOI to gain title to over 18,000 rights of way. The vast
quantity of these claims causes me to question whether all of them are
valid. I understand that thousands of these claims may have never even
been constructed or maintained. I urge you and the DOI to evaluate
these claims carefully and vigorously defend against any invalid claims
in Utah--and across the country.
Question 4a. How will DOI determine how these R.S. 2477 claims
would impact existing and proposed conservation designations? How would
they affect your conservation goals and achievements?
Answer. The Department is still in the early stages of this matter,
and we are beginning to gather the kind of information that will inform
questions such as this. In general, once a suit to quiet title on an
R.S. 2477 claim is filed BLM will, among other things, carry out an
analysis of the resources that could potentially be impacted by
designation of such a right-of-way. If an alternative resolution cannot
be found, all parties agree that adjudication of these lawsuits will be
time consuming and costly. Depending on the nature and scope of the
right-of-way and the designation or resources at issue, if a county
successfully proves R.S. 2477 claims in or near existing and proposed
conservation designations, historic sites, or other areas managed by
BLM to protect sensitive resources, BLM's ability to implement
protective management could be impacted.
Question 4b. How would the recognition of these claims affect DOI's
ability to manage federal public lands? Would they affect the
effectiveness of law enforcement or the protection of archaeological
sites?
Answer. The BLM will take any RS 2477 claims traversing the public
lands that are recognized by a court into account when it manages the
public lands. The BLM retains the power to reasonably regulate such
rights-of-way. The BLM reviews travel impacts to archeological
resources on a case-by-case basis. As appropriate, the BLM protects
archeological resources from damage by exercising its statutory and
legal authorities, and by entering into agreements with neighboring
land managers.
Question 4c. Some of the state of Utah's claims lie in BLM
wilderness areas as designated in the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Act
and the Washington County Wilderness Act. How will you manage
congressionally designated wilderness areas in relation to R.S. 2477
claims?
Answer. The BLM will comply with Wilderness Act and Congressional
direction regarding the management of designated Wilderness Areas. The
BLM's ability to manage areas to preserve wilderness character could be
impacted if the county and state are successful in proving R.S. 2477
claims in wilderness. Validity of an R.S. 2477 claim is ultimately left
to the determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. Holders of
valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way may complete some maintenance and
improvement activities on recognized rights-of-ways after consultation
with the BLM, but are not entitled to engage in new road construction
without obtaining a Title V permit under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act from the BLM. The BLM will not issue such a permit in a
Wilderness Area.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Mr. Secretary, LWCF not only helps families get outdoors and lead
healthier lives, it also protects watersheds and drinking water for our
communities and boosts our local and state economies. Each year over
2.7 million people enjoy hunting, fishing and wildlife watching in
Washington State, and according to the Outdoor Industry Foundation, the
outdoor recreation economy contributes more than $11.7 billion and
supports 115,000 jobs annually. Cuts to LWCF undermine the real
economic asset that our federal, state and local public lands provide.
Since the program was created, LWCF has invested over $500 million
in Washington State. This year, we have nationally ranked, ready-to-go
LWCF projects, such as those for the Pacific Crest Trail, Nisqually
National Wildlife Refuge, and Mt. Rainier National Park. Funding cuts
to LWCF would mean that these and many other important recreation and
conservation projects cannot be completed.
Question 5a. Do believe that LWCF should be fully funded? Could you
please explain why the budget request is half of that amount?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to funding LWCF
programs, which helps preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor
recreation resources; provide clean water; preserve wildlife habitat;
enhance scenic vistas; protect archeological and historical sites; and
maintain the pristine nature of wilderness through Federal land
acquisition and grants.
Question 5b. Are you aware of any other avenues that could mitigate
this insufficient funding level of LWCF? Under this budget request, how
do propose to protect the jobs and economic opportunities associated
with LWCF projects?
Answer. Conserving large landscapes requires collaboration among
all stakeholders, including private landowners, conservation and
recreation groups, and local, State, tribal, and Federal governments.
In FY 2013, the budget proposes $60.0 million for grants to states, a
programmatic increase of $14.9 million over the FY 2012 enacted level.
This increase will provide an economic impact and support jobs in local
communities across the country.
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Murkowski
oil and gas
Pre-approval
Question 1. The leaked draft of BLM regulations on hydraulic
fracturing refers to a new requirement for ``pre-approval'' of well
stimulation operations. What is the technical basis on which such
approval will be given or withheld by the agency?
a. Is it common for operators to make adjustments to well
stimulation fluid during the process of drilling and completing
a well? As a practical matter, is this something that can be
done 30 days in advance with no changes?
b. Do you agree that because of the level of detail and
specificity required by BLM's proposed regulations, an operator
that changes its fluid formulation could be forced into a
situation where it must stop and resubmit a new proposal to the
agency?
Answer. Information collected by the BLM and used for pre-approval
of hydraulic fracturing operations is needed for a variety of reasons
so that the BLM may determine the parameters of the well stimulation
operation; verify that the operator has taken the necessary precautions
to prevent migration of fluids in to the usable water horizons; ensure
that the facilities needed to process or contain the estimated volume
of fluid will be available on location; and ensure the methods used
will adequately protect public health, safety and the environment.
It is common for operators to make adjustments to well stimulation
fluid during the process of drilling and completing a well, and this is
not something that, as a practical matter, can be done 30 days in
advance with no changes. Moreover, we do not agree that the level of
detail and specificity required by BLM's proposed regulations would
force an operator to stop activities and resubmit a new proposal to the
agency because, within 30 days after completion of well stimulation
operations, operators would submit a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice on
Form 3160-5 (Sundry Notices and Report on Wells). The information
included in such a report will allow BLM to:
1) Document and assure that stimulation fluids are going into
the formation for which they were designed;
2) Document and assure that stimulation fluids remain
confined to the petroleum-bearing rock layers;
3) Confirm that the disposal methods used are those that were
approved and conform to the regulations and;
4) Obtain reasonable assurance that other resources are
adequately protected.
Tribal Consultations
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, can you describe the process by which
you have consulted the Tribes on these draft regulations?
a. What feedback have you received from these consultations?
Answer. Tribal consultation is a critical part of this effort, and
the Department is committed to making sure tribal leaders play a
significant role as we work together to develop resources on public and
Indian lands in a safe and responsible way. The BLM has initiated
government-to-government consultation with tribes on this proposal and
has offered to hold follow-up consultation meetings with any tribe that
desires to have an individual meeting. The BLM held four tribal
consultation meetings, to which over 175 tribal entities were invited.
These initial consultations were held in Tulsa, Oklahoma on January 10,
2012; in Billings, Montana on January 12, 2012; in Salt Lake City, Utah
on January 17, 2012; and in Farmington, New Mexico on January 19, 2012.
Eighty-four tribal members representing 24 tribes attended the
meetings. Attending for the BLM were both senior policy makers from the
Washington Office as well as the local line officers that have built
relationships with the tribes in the field.In these sessions tribal
representatives were given a draft of the hydraulic fracturing rule to
serve as a basis for discussion and substantive dialogue about the
hydraulic fracturing rulemaking process. The BLM asked the tribal
leaders for their views on how a hydraulic fracturing rule proposal
might affect Indian activities, practices, or beliefs if it were to be
applied to particular locations on Indian and public lands. A variety
of issues were discussed, including applicability of tribal laws,
validating water sources, inspection and enforcement, wellbore
integrity, and water management, among others.
At the request of various tribes, the BLM subsequently has met with
several tribal representatives, including the United South and Eastern
Tribes, the Coalition of Large Tribes, and the Mandan, Hidatsa and
Arikara Nation to discuss hydraulic fracturing and the impacts it may
pose to their lands. The development of this hydraulic fracturing rule
will continue to include proactive Tribal consultation under the
Department's newly-formalized Tribal Consultation Policy. This policy,
announced on December 1, 2011, emphasizes trust, respect and shared
responsibility in providing Tribal governments an expanded role in
informing Federal policy that impacts Indian lands. Under this policy,
consultation is an open, transparent, and deliberative process.
The agency will continue to consult with Tribal leaders throughout
the rulemaking process and has offered continued government-to-
government consultation on this proposal through follow-up meetings as
part of the consultation process with any tribe that desires to have an
individual meeting. On May 11, 2012, the BLM sent over 180 invitations
for continued government-to-government consultation to exchange
information on the development of the hydraulic fracturing rule.
Regional meetings were held in June in Salt Lake City, Utah;
Farmington, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Billings, Montana. The BLM
has initiated follow-up calls with many of the Tribal leaders or their
representatives and will continue to keep multiple lines of
communication open during the Tribal consultation process. Responses
from Tribal representatives will inform the agency's actions in
defining the scope of acceptable hydraulic fracturing rule options.
Info Sharing
Question 3. In the course of developing the draft BLM regulations,
please describe the efforts BLM has made to consult with the state
agencies that are now regulating drilling and completion activities
within their borders.
a. Did any of these conversations lead you or others within
the Department or BLM to determine that the state regulatory
programs were insufficient in such a way that a new set of BLM
regulations was required?
Answer. At the President's direction, the Secretary of Energy's
Advisory Board convened a Natural Gas Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to
evaluate hydraulic fracturing issues. The Subcommittee met with
industry, service providers, state and Federal regulators, academics,
environmental groups, and many others stakeholders. Recommendations
were issued by the subcommittee. Among other things, the report
recommended that more information be provided to the public, including
disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing fluids. The Subcommittee
also recommended the adoption of progressive standards for wellbore
construction and testing. The report recommended that operators
engaging in hydraulic fracturing prepare cement bond logs and undertake
pressure testing to ensure the integrity of all casings.
The BLM recognizes the efforts of states to regulate hydraulic
fracturing and is focused on coordinating closely with individual state
governments to avoid duplicative regulatory requirements. The agency
has a long history of working cooperatively with state regulators and
the BLM often enters into memorandums of understanding or establishes
working groups to coordinate state and Federal activities, such as the
oil and gas working groups that currently exist in many of our oil and
gas states. The BLM is applying the same approach to this effort and
will work closely with individual states on the implementation of the
proposed regulation. The BLM's intent is to encourage efficiency in the
collection of data and the reporting of information. The BLM routinely
shares information on oil and gas operations with state regulatory
authorities and the BLM will continue to work with individual states to
ensure that duplication of efforts is avoided to the extent possible.
Some states already have in place rules and regulations that address
hydraulic fracturing. The BLM found that these rules may be either more
or less stringent than the provisions in the BLM regulation proposal.
Domestic Production
Question 4. During his State of the Union, the President called for
an all-of-the-above energy policy. This is a phrase many of us are
familiar with, having advocated for such an approach over the last
several years. We understand it as the development of all energy
resources, without supporting one at the expense of another. But the
President's record and much of the Interior Department's budget request
tell a decidedly different story.
First we saw the President sign into law a Stimulus bill whose only
direct beneficiaries were renewable and transmission projects, with
nuclear power, clean coal, and other promising technologies cut out.
Then we saw the delay or outright cancellation of oil and gas lease
sales in Utah, Alaska, and throughout the Outer Continental Shelf.
Recently, you approved the withdrawal of over 1 million acres--outside
the boundaries of a park--from production of high-grade uranium, which
is needed to fuel clean nuclear power. And now we are confronted with a
budget request that seeks to raise taxes and fees on energy sources
that Americans rely upon to keep the economy growing, keep their homes
heated, and keep their vehicles on the road. Those tax hikes would show
up in electric bills, at gas pumps, and home heating prices for every
family in the country. Needless to say, this has created some confusion
for those of us trying to square the President's rhetoric with the
reality of his Administration's actions. The Administration appears to
be saying no to domestic energy production more than it's saying yes.
So I'd ask if you can you shed some light on how these actions
represent an all-of-the-above strategy?
Answer. The Obama Administration and the Department of the Interior
are working to secure our energy future by ensuring that our domestic
oil and gas resources are safely and responsibly developed and that the
potential for clean energy development on our public lands and waters
is realized. We have taken a balanced approach, and it is an approach
that works. Interior is moving aggressively to put the President's
energy strategy, Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, into action and
expand secure energy supplies for the Nation--a strategy that includes
an all-of-the-above approach, including the responsible development of
both conventional and renewable energy sources on the public lands.
To encourage energy production, the Administration is taking a
series of common sense steps as part of the Blueprint, a broad effort
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil and
natural gas at home and using cleaner, alternative fuels and improving
our energy efficiency. Specifically with regard to domestic hydrocarbon
production, the President has made clear that he wants us to continue
to produce more oil and natural gas here at home.
While production levels fluctuate from year-to-year based on market
conditions and industry decisions, a recently published Energy
Information Administration report confirms that this Administration has
overseen an overall expansion of production on federal lands and waters
as part of the nationwide rise in production levels even when taking
into account the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf
of Mexico in 2010.
At the Department we are expanding development of cleaner sources
of energy, including renewables like wind, solar, and geothermal, as
well as natural gas on public lands. The Administration is also working
to facilitate the development of advanced coal technologies. But
domestic oil and gas production remain critical to our energy supply
and to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We are also taking steps
both onshore and offshore to encourage industry to develop the
thousands of leases and permits it already has but that are currently
sitting idle.
During calendar year 2011, the BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas
lease sales, offering 1,755 parcels of land covering nearly 4.4 million
acres. Nearly three-quarters (1,296) of those parcels were leased,
generating about $256 million in revenue. Onshore mineral leasing
revenues are estimated to be $4.4 billion in 2013. The 2011 lease sale
revenues are 20 percent higher than those in calendar year 2010,
following a strong year in which leasing reform helped to lower
protests and increase revenue from onshore oil and gas lease sales on
public lands. This strong record is expected to continue in 2012 with
over 30 planned lease sales.
Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, the
Administration has been implementing the most aggressive and
comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation in U.S.
history. Production from leases on the OCS generates billions of
dollars in revenue for the federal treasury and state governments while
supporting thousands of jobs. In calendar year 2010, OCS leases
produced 589.5 million barrels of oil and 2,300 billion cubic feet of
natural gas, accounting for about 30 percent of domestic oil production
and 10 percent of domestic natural gas production.
Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 218, held on December 14, 2011,
was the last Western Gulf sale scheduled under the current Five-Year
Program, and the first sale conducted after completion of a
supplemental environmental impact statement that considered the effects
of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That sale attracted $337,688,341 in
high bids on 191 tracts comprising over a million acres. The sum of all
bids received was over $700 million, and the total area made available
for leasing was more than 21 million acres. BOEM conducted Consolidated
Central GOM Sale 216/222, the final sale in the current Program, on
June 20, 2012. That sale made available 39 million acres in an area of
the Gulf estimated to contain close to 31 billion barrels of oil and
134 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that are undiscovered and
technically recoverable, and attracted $1,704,500,995 in high bids for
tracts on the U.S. outer continental shelf offshore Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama. A total of 56 offshore energy companies
submitted 593 bids on 454 tracts covering more than 2,402,918 acres.
The sum of all bids received totaled $2,602,563,726.
BOEM also recently finalized the next Five-Year Program for 2012-
2017, which will be in effect later this year. The proposed Program
includes substantial acreage for lease in regions with known potential
for oil and gas development, making areas containing more than 75
percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources
estimated in federal OCS available for exploration and development. It
also advances an innovative, regionally-tailored approach to offshore
oil and gas leasing that will take into account the particular resource
potential, environmental and social concerns, and infrastructure
condition of each planning area. In sum, this Proposed Program both
promotes responsible and expanded OCS development and is informed by
lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy and the reforms that
we have implemented to make offshore drilling safer and more
environmentally responsible.
Moreover, while we continue to offer additional new acreage for oil
and gas development, industry now has more leased acreage than it is
putting to productive use. While the Department can, and does, offer
significant acreage in its lease sales, it is industry that makes the
final decision whether or not to purchase a lease on any particular
tract and, subsequently, whether and when to develop the resources on
such lease. The Department is also providing greater incentives for its
lessees to make production from their leases a priority.
This balanced approach will secure our energy future by ensuring
that our domestic oil and gas resources are safely and responsibly
developed and that the potential for clean energy development on our
public lands and waters is realized.
us fish and wildlife service
Unimak Island
Question 1. Secretary Salazar, as you know, the caribou herd on
Unimak Island is nearing a critically low point--subsistence users have
even been banned from harvesting caribous--but USFWS and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game have been unable to reach an agreement on
how to proceed with managing the herd numbers. Can you please address
if and when the EIS will be revisited?
a. Currently, is it legally possible for the State ADFG to
conduct any predator management on Unimak Island?
b. Can you explain what will be done by the Department of the
Interior to ensure that this herd is not wiped out?
Answer. The most recent Environmental Assessment (EA) on this
matter was completed in December 2011, with a decision document issued
shortly thereafter that supported a ``no action'' alternative regarding
predator management on Unimak Island. As such, the FWS has not
authorized a management program to conduct predator control on Unimak
Island. The analyses in the EA/FONSI pointed to effects on refuge
purposes related to natural diversity, biological integrity, and the
stewardship of wilderness resources. This, along with the need for more
scientific information, precluded the implementation of management
actions such as predator control.
Regarding herd management, caribou numbers have fluctuated widely
on Unimak Island. There are likely multiple factors contributing to
this, including variable habitat conditions, predation by bears and
wolves, and harvest by humans. Current and expanded efforts are needed
to improve the science surrounding these issues, and the FWS believes
the best path forward is to carry out a joint State-FWS effort to
identify those scientific needs, set biological objectives, and define
management actions needed to achieve those objectives.
We have committed significant levels of staffing and funding to
address the caribou decline on Unimak Island. This includes an ongoing
cooperative study with the University of Alaska, Anchorage, in
collaboration with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on habitat
and nutritional ecology of island caribou entitled: Habitat and
Nutritional Ecology of Unimak Island Caribou: Does Habitat Play a
Critical Role in Caribou Population Dynamics and Health? This study is
a component part of a larger National Science Foundation study
conducted on the Alaska Peninsula and southwestern Alaska investigating
caribou-vegetation relationships entitled, Nutrient Cycling in Tundra
Soil-Plant-Caribou System. The FWS is also sponsoring a floristic
community classification focused on composition and structure. We
continue to cooperate with the State on routine herd monitoring; radio-
collaring of caribou, and spring calving, mid-winter total herd counts
and mid-summer cow-calf and fall composition counts, and the FWS has
offered the State the opportunity to transplant caribou bulls to
augment the population and address the low bull to cow ratio on the
island while we work to identify the cause of the overall decline.
Continuing these efforts, and initiating needed studies, will allow us
to make the appropriate management decisions.
The FWS believes the best approach is to work with our partners to
develop a more comprehensive management plan for Unimak Island that
balances and meets the requirements of relevant statutes, including the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which directs the FWS
to conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity,
and to provide, in a manner consistent with this purpose, the
opportunity for continued subsistence uses by rural residents; the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which requires the FWS
to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of each refuge; and the Wilderness Act, which requires the FWS
to preserve the wilderness character of refuge lands. Development of
such a plan would prompt an accompanying NEPA document, likely another
EA.
Wood Bison
Question 2. As you know, the State of Alaska is currently working
towards reintroducing a non-essential experimental population of Alaska
Wood Bison. The herd is being housed at the Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Center at a cost of over $250,000 per year. What is the
current status of the Alaska Wood Bison reintroduction efforts? Can you
please explain to me why the USFWS has decided that this non-essential
and experimental species would need such a high threshold number before
any harvest would be permitted?
Answer. The FWS has been working closely with the State to support
wood bison reintroduction efforts. Last year we contributed $250,000
toward the cost of maintaining wood bison at the Alaska Conservation
Center. We have jointly prepared a proposed rule that would designate a
nonessential experimental population of wood bison and enable the State
to be the lead agency in the reintroduction and subsequent management
of wood bison in Alaska. The proposed rule is currently undergoing
final review; it does not contain a specific threshold number that
would need to be reached before harvest would be permitted. We have
worked closely with the State agreed upon language in the rule over six
months ago that would allow hunting based on sustained yield principles
established by the State and the FWS.
america's great outdoors and land and water conservation fund
Question 1. The Land and Water Conservation Fund budget request is
for a funding level of $450 million, which represents $105 million
increase above the current level for DOI agencies and the Forest
Service. Can you please explain to me why, with such an enormous
maintenance backlog, DOI is focusing such a large amount of money on
acquiring more federal land? Shouldn't these funds be used to pay down
our maintenance backlog?
Answer. The Department of the Interior takes seriously our
responsibilities to maintain facilities and infrastructure. The FY 2013
Budget proposes focusing funding on the most critical health and safety
issues through line-item construction accounts and facility maintenance
subactivities within operation accounts. Construction of new facilities
has been restricted to replacement of facilities in poor condition for
the fiscal year 2013. This will focus our resources on correcting the
most critical repairs on our highest priority assets.
Through the America's Great Outdoors listening sessions and public
input process, we learned that there is a powerful consensus across
America that outdoor spaces--public and private, large and small, urban
and rural--remain essential to our quality of life, our economy, and
our national identity. Americans communicated clearly that they care
deeply about our outdoor heritage, want to enjoy and protect it, and
are willing to take collective responsibility to protect it for their
children and grandchildren.
Americans support concrete investments in conservation. In November
of 2010, voters across the country overwhelmingly approved a variety of
measures for land conservation, generating a total of $2 billion in new
land protection funds according to the Trust for Public Land. Of 36
proposals on State and local ballots for conservation funding, 30
passed--an approval rate of 83 percent. This is the highest rate during
the past decade and the third highest since 1988.
Consistent with these results at the State and local levels, the
feedback received during the AGO listening sessions indicated that
funding LWCF program is a high priority for the American people.
Respondents also suggested that LWCF funding could be more effectively
used if it was strategically focused on specific project types and/or
locations. With this in mind, an investment in the Crown of the
Continent ecosystem was developed in the Rocky Mountain Front where
Interior proposes to invest $28.6 million to protect threatened and
endangered plants, fish, and wildlife; ensure terrestrial ecosystem and
watershed health; ensure resiliency, connectivity, and climate change
adaptation; support working farms, ranches and forests; enhance
recreational access; and protect rivers and waterways. This land comes
with minimal operations and maintenance costs. This proposal includes
the outstanding landscapes of Glacier National Park; four units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System; famous western rivers and lakes; and
vast high deserts and high mountain valleys administered by the three
DOI bureaus. The lands proposed for acquisition, both conservation
easements and fee, will protect crucial wildlife migration corridors,
endangered biological and geological systems, and special status
species. Conserving these properties enhances cultural and natural
landscapes while allowing for traditional working ranches and forests
in many cases. Outdoor recreational opportunities will be enhanced by
increasing access, maintaining the integrity of the scenic vistas and
the primitive qualities of the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Once
these lands are developed, there is no going back to how they currently
exist.
Interior's 2013 request, together with the Forest Service's
request, funds the LWCF at $450 million, half of the legal limit that
could be appropriated for this fund. Interiors' Federal land
acquisition request of $212 million includes $84 million for line-item
projects resulting from a collaborative effort. The collaborative
effort between the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture was in
response to directives from Congress in House Report 111-180 and
Conference Report 111-316. The remaining $58 million in Interior's
line-item projects support bureau specific, mission related priorities.
Smart investments in strategic conservation through both the
interagency collaborative process and the bureau specific, mission
related process will prevent further ecosystem decline or collapse,
which is expected to preclude the need for future investments in
restoration.
Activities funded under LWCF ensure public access to the outdoors
for hunting, fishing and recreation; preserve watersheds, viewsheds,
natural resources and landscapes; provide corridors for wildlife to
migrate within; and protect irreplaceable cultural and historic sites
for current and future generations. LWCF funds are also used to protect
historical uses of working lands, such as grazing and farming.
Interior's acquisition programs work in cooperation with local
communities, rely on willing sellers, and maximize opportunities for
easement acquisitions. Proposed acquisition projects are developed with
the support of local landowners, elected officials, and community
groups. LWCF funds for Federal acquisition will support simpler, more
efficient land management; create access for hunters and anglers;
create long-term cost savings; address urgent threats to some of
America's most special places; and support conservation priorities that
are established at the State and local levels.
coastal impact assistance program rescission (ciap)
The Coastal Impact Assistance Program was created by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to provide funding to six OCS oil and gas producing
states to conserve and protect the coastal environment. These states
include four on the Gulf coast and Alaska and California.
The Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposes to rescind $200 million--
almost 40 percent--of the remaining $550 million allocated for this
program. I realize this is a large amount of unobligated funding
waiting to be spent by the states, but there is a good reason for this.
Just last year, your budget recommended--and Congress agreed--that the
program administration should be moved from the former MMS to the Fish
and Wildlife Service, who administers many similar grant programs with
states. It's my understanding states had complained about the
timeliness of federal approval for project plans.
Question 2a. Can you explain the Administration's thinking behind
this rescission? It seems to me that you're penalizing these states
because of past failures of the federal government. Of course, it did
give you an extra $200 million to spend on your other priorities in the
bill, so maybe I already know your answer. I worry that with flat
budgets, we're using gimmicks that ultimately we have to pay for and we
are also giving unrealistic expectations of inflated budget numbers for
other programs.
Question 2b. How would you respond to states that have been
critical of the burdensome administrative regulations that have, in
their view, delayed the timely distribution of funds which has resulted
in the large carryover balances?
Answer. Of the $1 billion provided during FY 2007--2010, $540
million remains available under the Coastal Impact Assistance Program
(CIAP). CIAP gives states broad flexibility to use the funds, so there
is little accountability for achieving specific results. The
Administration plans on using this reduction in CIAP balances to fund
higher priorities elsewhere.
The Department (through the former Minerals Management Service)
approved State CIAP Plans for each of the six States for FY 2007--2010
funds, with the exception of Texas that has an approved Plan for 2007-
08 funds, and a proposed Plan for 2009-10 funds. Additionally, there
have been subsequent amendments to approved plans submitted by States,
for example, Louisiana submitted a fourth revision to their plan in
November 2011.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the
relatively slow obligation rates for CIAP. A primary factor is that
CIAP requires a substantive public planning process that is coordinated
through a designated State lead agency with a great degree of
information and planning provided by local Coastal Political
Subdivisions (CPS). In addition to the 6 eligible states, there are 70
CPSs, which are the County, Parish and Borough governments eligible to
receive CIAP funds directly. A multi-level CIAP Plan review process at
the federal level also contributed to the delayed Plan implementation
and slow obligation rates. Further, the proposed projects are all
located in sensitive coastal habitats that often involve a high degree
of time-consuming activities, such as permitting and appraisals, prior
to the full obligation of funds as part of the grant review process.
The complexity of the administrative process was also a recognized
factor in the slow obligations. In FY 2012, the Secretary re-delegated
CIAP administration authority to the FWS under its Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Program, and the FWS is in the process of awarding the
balance of CIAP funds, with the goal of completing all obligations by
December 2013 for projects to be completed by December 31, 2016.
alaska specific questions
Alaska Water Resources
Question 1. Your budget is proposing to cut funding for hydrologic
networks and analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey by $2.6 million.
Back in 2008 I won passage of the Alaska Water Resources Act (S. 200)
which required USGS to do what it has done in every other state,
conduct a survey of aquifers in urban parts of Alaska to see how much
drinking water the state has underground. The USGS has never done any
of the work, even though USGS wrote a great briefing paper in 2008
supporting the approved law saying that the law was needed since ``the
understanding of the connectivity of small aquifers across the
(Anchorage) area is poor.'' It is hard for me to support an increase of
$51 million for USGS nationwide, partially to fund the new WaterSMART
Program, when you ignore laws and authorizations that actually are
about to expire without ever having been implemented by the Department.
Is there any assistance that the USGS can provide to assess potable
water reserves for Fairbanks, the Mat-Su Valley, Anchorage and the
Kenai Peninsula should we fund your WaterSMART initiative?
Answer. Through the Cooperative Water Program, the USGS Alaska
Science Center has worked with the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR) on a groundwater assessment in the Mat-Su Valley
(2009-present). A similar groundwater assessment of the Anchorage Bowl
has been proposed by the Alaska Science Center to ADNR. Through USGS'
WaterSMART Initiative, the USGS Groundwater Resources Program is
supporting (FY11-12) an assessment of the glacial aquifer system from
Maine to Alaska. In the initial phase of this work, the USGS compiled a
bibliography of hydrogeology-related studies in Alaska, and performed a
GIS analysis to delineate the approximate extent of glacial aquifers
across the state. The USGS is evaluating this initial information,
performing a gap analysis, and formulating plans for subsequent
groundwater-related activities in this and other areas of the glacial
aquifer system. Under the proposed FY13 budget, the WaterSMART
Initiative will fund implementation of these plans by the Groundwater
Resources Program.
Local Hire
Question 2. Can you please provide me with an update of the ANILCA
Local Hire Program that was included in the last Interior
Appropriations bill? Will this program be implemented for the summer
hiring season of 2012? If not, can you explain what the holdup is and
when Alaskans can expect to be able to rely on the Local Hire program?
Answer. The Department (and USDA/FS) successfully carried out a
local hire program for nearly 30 years following passage of ANILCA. The
program has been of great benefit in securing experienced and
knowledgeable personnel for the management of our federal lands in
Alaska as well as providing economic and social benefits to communities
and residents located near federal lands. We believe your amendment
clarifying that the Alaska local hire program was an ``excepted
service'' overcame an OPM opinion that advised that the program ran
counter to Civil Service provisions.
While re-starting the local hire program subsequent to enactment of
your amendment last December has taken longer than expected, the
Department has recently issued policy guidance to all bureaus and
offices that provides direction for consistent application of the new
statutory provisions. In the past many local hires were seasonal hires,
primarily for the summer. Unfortunately, seasonal hiring for the 2012
season began early in 2012, with some employees entering on duty as
early as late March and early April. While some seasonal hiring is
still taking place that can benefit from the implementation of the
local hire program, the benefits of the legislative change will be felt
most fully in 2013. Additionally, the local hire program is also used
to fill permanent positions and will be used as vacancies and positions
occur in the future. The Department expects future local hires for our
land managing agencies (NPS, FWS, BLM) to return at least to historic
levels of several hundred people annually. The US Forest Service is
also expected to hire significant numbers of people under the local
hire authority.
Yukon-Charley
Question 3. Can you please provide me with an update of how law
enforcement efforts are going within Yukon-Charley National Preserve,
notably on the Yukon River? Has the new law that bans the National Park
Service from conducting boater safety checks negatively impacted the
Park's management efforts in any way?
Answer. Because the rivers remain frozen until the ice goes out in
May, no boating has occurred in Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve
since the FY 2012 appropriations language prohibiting NPS from
conducting boater safety checks went into effect. In 2011, park rangers
did not make boating safety contacts on the water, but did contact more
than 140 visitors on land to check hunting and fishing licenses and to
discuss boating safety, among other reasons. Preserve managers continue
their work with the State of Alaska's safe boating program,
distributing free life jackets at kiosks in Eagle and Circle.
Hunting Closures
Question 4. Recently, when the National Park Service has closed
preserves in Alaska to hunting (Wolf hunting in Yukon-Charley and Lake
Clark, Bear Denning in Denali and Gates of the Arctic) it has cited
``Park Values'' in those closures. Can you provide me with a definition
of the ``Park Values''?
a. What hunting closures does the National Park Service
anticipate for 2012? Can you provide my staff with a list all
current closures or anticipated closures for this calendar
year?
Answer. The term ``Park Values'' is derived from NPS laws and
policy. In the provision commonly known as the Redwood Amendment to the
National Park System General Authorities Act, Congress directed that
the protection, management, and administration of areas within the
National Park System shall be conducted ``in light of the high public
value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be
exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these
various areas have been established. . . .''.
National Park Service Management Policies (What Constitutes Park
Resources and Values--1.4.6) provides a list of park resources and
values that are subject to the no-impairment standard of the National
Park Service Organic Act and the General Authorities Act. This list
includes, among others, ``the park's scenery, natural and historical
objects, and wildlife, and the processes and conditions that sustain
them, including to the extent present in the park: the ecological,
biological, and physical processes that created the park and continue
to act upon it.''
Specifically, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
states that the purpose for establishing the units is to ``preserve for
the benefit, use, education and inspiration of present and future
generations certain lands and waters . . . that contain nationally
significant natural, scenic, historic, archeological, geological,
scientific, wilderness, cultural, recreational, and wildlife values. .
. .''.
On March 15, 2012, after the consideration of public comments, the
NPS published the 2012 Compendiums for units of the national park
system in Alaska. The 2012 Compendiums for Aniakchak, Katmai, and Lake
Clark National Preserves include a prohibition on killing wolves under
state hunting and trapping regulations within those units during the
time wolves are denning and raising pups. The shortened season aligns
with the federal subsistence season, but remains roughly eight months
long. The NPS action protects wolves at their most vulnerable period, a
time in which pelts are also of poor quality and typically not in
demand. The 2012 Compendiums for Gates of the Arctic and Denali
National Preserves renew the prohibition of killing bear cubs and sows
at den sites and the prohibition on the use of artificial light to
assist in killing black bears at den sites within those units.
Alaska NPS Town Hall Meetings
Question 5. Can you provide me with a schedule of the National Park
Service Town Hall meetings that the NPS plans to hold around the State
of Alaska this calendar year? I would like to commend and thank the
Park Service for this outreach to Alaskans and I look forward to
attending the events myself.
Answer. The NPS held town hall meetings in Fairbanks on April 17
and Palmer on May 22 and participated as a guest or as a sponsor in
other public forums through the spring and summer. The NPS is planning
an open house in Anchorage and an event in Juneau in the fall, along
with offering input opportunities at the Alaska Federation of Natives
conference in October, and other public events.
oil and gas
Question 1. Interior has proposed raising onshore royalty rates
from 12 and a half percent to 18 and a half percent--this is a 50
percent increase in royalty rates. To clarify, this is both for oil and
natural gas, correct?
a. Last Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that ``Profits for the
biggest U.S. energy producers including Exxon Mobil are poised
to decline the most since the financial meltdown of 2008-09 as
the drilling technique known as fracking collapses natural gas
prices.'' In other words natural gas producers have basically
stopped drilling because natural gas is so cheap (around
$3.00)--could a higher royalty on natural gas mean higher gas
prices? Could it mean even more gas wells become uneconomical
and are shut down?
--If more gas wells do become uneconomic, will you
seek to make royalty relief available to any of them?
--Moving to gasoline prices, if the royalty payment
is 50% higher on a barrel of oil, will there be a
corresponding increase in the cost of that barrel for
refiners, and could the price of gasoline and other
fuels rise with this increase as well?
Answer. The Administration believes that American taxpayers should
get a fair return on the development of energy resources on their
public lands. Following on a 2008 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report that suggests that taxpayers could be getting a better
return from federal oil and gas resources in some areas, the
Administration has been looking at ways to address this issue. When
determining value and fair return, the government has multiple, diverse
objectives that must be balanced, including collecting a fair return
for the use of shared resources, promoting responsible resource and
energy development, private investment and employment, energy security,
and environmental protection, among other goals. The Department is
continuing to gather and review relevant information as it determines a
path forward.
Question 2. The Interior Department states that charging more money
for oil and gas producers to bring these resources to market will bring
the federal percentage closer in line with the percentages which some
states charge for development of their lands. But I question whether
this tells the whole story. More specifically, how does the federal
government compare with the states in terms of legal and regulatory
certainty, and in terms of the length of time it takes from lease sale
to drilling?
Answer. Although we have not completed a comprehensive survey, we
believe that Federal leases compare favorably to those of other
jurisdictions in terms of the legal and regulatory certainty they
provide leaseholders. The government has multiple, diverse objectives
that must be balanced, including collecting a fair return for the use
of shared resources, promoting responsible resource and energy
development, private investment and employment, energy security, and
environmental protection, among other goals. These factors must all be
weighed when determining value and fair return.
Question 3. If the federal government wants to obtain more revenue
and return to the taxpayer, will a corresponding 50 percent increase in
acreage of oil and gas leases be made available?
Answer. While the Department can, and does, offer significant
acreage in its lease sales, it is industry that makes the final
decision whether or not to purchase a lease on any particular tract
and, subsequently, whether and when to develop the resources on such
lease. Currently industry has more leased acreage than it is putting to
productive use.
Last year BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales, offering
1,755 parcels of land covering almost 4.4 million acres. Of those,
1,296 parcels, or nearly three-quarters of those offered, were
purchased, generating about $256 million in revenue for the public. In
2010, the Department offered nearly 37 million acres on the OCS for
lease, but industry leased just 2.4 million acres. And in 2011, a lease
sale for the Western Gulf of Mexico made available more than 21 million
acres, equal to an area the size of South Carolina, and just over 1
million acres received bids from industry.
The Department recently released a report that shows that,
offshore, industry had leased nearly 36 million acres, but only about
10 million acres were active. Moreover, in the lower 48 states, an
additional 20.8 million acres remain idle, and 7,000 approved but
unused permits to drill on public lands continue to be held by
companies.
Question 4. Will the states in which these increased federal
royalties are assessed be entitled to their 48 percent revenue share
under the Mineral Leasing Act?
a. Why does the Mineral Leasing Act call for onshore states
to receive this share of revenue? (ANSWER: Sec. 35 of the
Mineral Leasing Act reads that the revenue should be disbursed
to give ``priority to those subdivisions of the State socially
or economically impacted by development of minerals leased
under this act, for planning, construction and maintenance of
public facilities, and provision of public service.''
--Are coastal states ever impacted socially or
economically from the development of offshore
resources? Should they be entitled to similar revenue
shares as onshore states?
Answer. The Department is aware of the applicable statutory
provisions and any administrative changes would comply with the
applicable laws.
tax increases
Question 5. I think it would be a huge mistake to raise taxes on
our nation's energy producers by $40 billion over the next ten years,
as this budget proposes. I think my general concerns are well known on
this, so today I want to ask a more specific question. Why has the
administration continued to target natural gas producers for a tax
hike? With prices at historical lows, we have seen reports that some
producers are already considering shutting in their wells because they
simply cannot make any money off of them. Did the administration give
any consideration to the impacts that its proposed tax increases could
have on natural gas production--and therefore prices, jobs, and
investments--in the longer term?
Answer. As noted in response to previous questions, the
Administration believes in encouraging sustainable domestic oil and gas
production while ensuring a fair return to taxpayers. The President's
budget includes assumptions in the Interior budget for new fees that
will encourage production, proposals to eliminate tax preferences
within the Treasury budget that are specific to oil and gas companies.
Collectively, these proposals increase the return on Federal mineral
resources. The Administration carefully considered the impacts of
various revenue proposals in cooperation with the Departments of the
Interior, Treasury, Energy, and others.
chem disclosure
Question 6. Mr. Secretary, the states with the most stringent
disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing require that operators
provide disclosure of the chemicals they used via the FracFocus
website. The leaked draft BLM regulations on hydraulic fracturing that
we have seen make no reference to FracFocus. Does BLM intend to create
an entirely new database of fracture stimulation chemicals at taxpayer
expense?
a. Who would be responsible for administering it?
b. Given that state regulators already require operators to
provide information on maximum concentrations of fracking
chemicals, I wonder if you could explain what added benefit
your new system will provide?
c. How do you envision operators of valid leases issued by
BLM establishing and assuring compliance with these draft
regulations?
Answer. FracFocus is a voluntary hydraulic fracturing chemical
registry website that is a joint project of the Ground Water Protection
Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. The site was
created to provide public access to reported information on the
chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing activities. BLM is working
closely with the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil
and Gas Commission in an effort to integrate the disclosure of non-
proprietary information called for in the proposed rule with the
existing FracFocus program.As stewards of the public lands, and as the
Secretary's regulator for oil and gas leases on Indian lands, the BLM
has evaluated the increased use of these practices over the last decade
and determined that the existing rules needed to be updated to reflect
significant technological advances in hydraulic fracturing in recent
years and the tremendous increase in its use. The BLM recognizes that
some, but not all, states have recently taken action to address
hydraulic fracturing in their own regulations. The BLM's proposed
rulemaking ensures consistent protection of the important federal and
Indian resource values that may be affected by the use of hydraulic
fracturing. The proposed rule is also designed to complement ongoing
state efforts to regulate fracturing activities by providing a
consistent standard across all public and tribal lands. The BLM is
actively working to minimize duplication between reporting required by
state regulations and reporting required for this rule.
The proposed rule would require oil and gas operators using
hydraulic fracturing techniques to identify the chemicals used in
fracturing fluids by trade name, purpose, Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Number, and the percent mass of each ingredient used. This
information is needed in order for the BLM to maintain a record of the
stimulation operation as performed. The information would be required
in a format that does not link additives to the chemical composition of
fluids, which will allow operators to provide information to the public
while still protecting information that may be considered proprietary.
And the disclosure of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing would
only be required after the fracturing operation has taken place.
double permits
Question 7. The leaked draft of BLM regulations on hydraulic
fracturing refers to a proposal for well stimulation operations that an
operator must submit on a separate notice application form--a process
entirely separate from the review and approval process for the
application for permit to drill. To me, this seems like it could create
a situation where an operator could be approved to drill, but not to
complete its well--is that a fair estimation?
a. How does BLM intend to reconcile this potential permitting
dilemma?
Answer. Overall, the proposed rule favors flexibility over
prescriptive standards--something that became more pronounced during
the drafting and development process. For example, the proposed rule
would allow operators to apply for approval for well stimulation
activities when they submit an application for a drilling permit for a
new well, or seek approval later, through a simple sundry notice. For
wells permitted prior to the effective date of this section or for
wells permitted after the effective date of this section, the operator
would submit a sundry notice and Report on Wells for the stimulation
proposal for approval before the operator begins the stimulation
activity. Under the proposal, an operator must also submit a sundry
notice prior to stimulation if the BLM's previous approval is more than
five years old or if the operator becomes aware of significant new
information about the geology, the stimulation operation or technology,
or the anticipated impacts to any resource.
However, as noted in the analysis accompanying the proposal, BLM
does not anticipate that the submittal of additional well stimulation-
related information with APD applications will impact the timing of the
approval of drilling permits. The bureau believes that the additional
incremental information that would be required by this rule would be
reviewed in conjunction with the APD and within the normal APD
processing time frame, and anticipates that requests to conduct well
stimulation activities on existing wells that have been in service more
than five years will be reviewed promptly. However, as with any
operational activity, there may be unforeseen circumstances that may on
rare occasions delay approval of APDs.
coordination
Question 8. Does BLM plan to consult with the state agencies that
will also be enforcing regulations that pertain to well drilling or
completion?
a. How will BLM archive the data it receives?
b. How will this data be compiled, reported and analyzed?
Answer. BLM has participated in several public meetings on this
topic, including with representatives from states, and is also seeking
public comment on this proposed regulation. BLM recognizes that some,
but not all, states have taken action to address hydraulic fracturing
in their own regulations. The BLM's proposed rulemaking ensures
consistent protection of the important federal and Indian resource
values that may be affected by the use of hydraulic fracturing. The
proposed rule is designed to complement ongoing state efforts to
regulate fracturing activities by providing a consistent standard
across all public and tribal lands. The BLM is actively working to
minimize duplication between reporting required by state regulations
and reporting required for this rule. Regardless of any action taken by
the BLM, operators still would need to comply with any state-specific
hydraulic fracturing requirements in the states where they operate.
As noted in response to a previous question, the disclosure of the
fluids used in hydraulic fracturing would only be required after the
fracturing operation has taken place. The BLM intends to place non-
proprietary information on a public web site and is working with the
Ground Water Protection Council in an effort to integrate this
information into the existing disclosure website known as
FracFocus.org.
water
Question 9. Can you please describe the basis of BLM's interest in
requiring operators to provide volumes of flowback fluid?
a. How do you expect this to be accomplished, and over how
long a period?
b. How will this data be archived, reported and analyzed?
Answer. Estimates and information related to the handling of
recovered fluids are required under the proposed regulations in order
to provide BLM the information necessary to ensure that facilities
needed to process or contain the estimated volume of fluid will be
available on location, to help protect human health and safety, and
prevent the contamination of the environment. As noted in the draft,
BLM also needs to confirm that the disposal methods used are those that
were approved and conform to the regulations, and such information will
assist the bureau in making that determination.
pavillion, wyoming study
Question 10. In early December you stated that the ``jury's still
out'' on the validity of EPA's study of potential groundwater
contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. You also stated that ``it's
important that the real facts finally get to the table with respect to
peer review'' on that study. Based on what we have all learned in the
last two months about the real facts of that case and the questions
that have emerged about EPA's procedures and peer review process, can
you characterize your current thoughts on the Pavillion study?
a. Do you think the Administration should gather all of the
necessary facts before making public conclusions about the impact of
hydraulic fracturing on groundwater?
Answer. Collaboration and use of the best available science are
critical in meeting the needs of area residents and resolving
longstanding issues surrounding the safety of drinking water and
groundwater. The Administration is committed to ensuring the peer
review process is conducted with maximum transparency and the highest
level of scientific integrity.
We are aware that the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of
Wyoming, and the Tribes all recognize that further sampling of the deep
monitoring wells is important to clarify questions about the initial
monitoring results. The EPA is partnering with the State and the United
States Geological Survey, in collaboration with the Tribes, to complete
this sampling as soon as possible and will also collaborate with the
State and other stakeholders in designing the sampling methodology, the
quality assurance plan, and other features of the next phase of
testing.
Question 11. Fracture Length and Height: The draft regulations that
we have seen would require operators to provide BLM with ``actual,
estimated or calculated fracture length and fracture height''. From a
practical standpoint, how difficult is this for operators to do and how
will the agency use this information?
a. Please describe the situations that BLM may have
encountered in the past concerning the extent of subsurface
fractures from well stimulation that this requirement is
supposed to address.
Answer. The proposed regulation would require the operator to
submit to the BLM the estimated or calculated fracture length and
height anticipated as a result of the stimulation. This information
will be determined as a matter of well stimulation engineering design.
The operator will determine this so they can estimate appropriate
fracture locations, pressures, and fluid volumes for the stimulation
operation. The BLM will use this information to verify that the
intended effects of the well stimulation operation will remain confined
to the petroleum-bearing rock layers and will not have unintended
consequences on other rock layers, such as aquifers.
While the BLM is not aware of any conclusive evidence of negative
impacts to groundwater as a result of hydraulic fracturing on federal
wells, we recognize the need to be diligent, and it is for this reason
that the new and strengthened regulations on hydraulic fracturing on
Indian and public lands are being developed. The BLM is committed to
ensuring that development activities occurring on the public lands are
being conducted in a safe and responsible manner that protects human
health and the environment.
new regulations on drilling
Question 12. The President has proclaimed that he wants to see more
leasing. As a practical matter, how do you propose to accomplish this?
a. In the State of the Union, the President emphatically
stated that he was directing your department to increase
offshore leasing by 70%. Are you confident that you can
accomplish that with the constraints imposed with your 5-year
leasing plan?
Answer. Consistent with the President's statement, BOEM published
the Proposed Five-Year Program for 2012-2017 in November 2011 and, on
June 28, 2012, the Proposed Final Program. The program will make
available offshore areas that contain more than 75 percent of
undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources that the OCS
is estimated to hold. It will, as the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
requires, represent a proper balance among the potential for
environmental damage, the potential for the discovery of oil and gas,
and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone.
The Proposed Final Program is designed to promote the diligent
development of the Nation's offshore oil and gas resources, which are
and will remain central to the Nation's energy strategy, economy, and
security. The program is in alignment with the Administration's
Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, which aims to promote the
Nation's energy security and reduce oil imports by a third by 2025
through a comprehensive national energy policy that includes a focus on
expanding safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production.
The Proposed Final Program is also grounded in the lessons learned
from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Since that event,
DOI has raised standards for offshore drilling safety and environmental
protection in order to reduce the risk of another loss of well control
in our oceans and improve our collective ability to respond to a
blowout and spill. While offshore oil and gas exploration and
development will never be risk-free, the risk from these activities can
be minimized and operations can be conducted safely and responsibly,
with appropriate measures to protect human safety and the environment.
Based on these principles, the Proposed Final Program provides for
lease sales in six offshore areas where there are currently active
leases and exploration and where there is known or anticipated
hydrocarbon potential. This represents a regionally targeted approach
that is tailored to the specific needs and environmental conditions of
different areas in order to best achieve the dual goals of promoting
prompt development of the Nation's oil and gas resources and ensuring
that this development occurs safely and with the necessary protections
for the marine, coastal and human environments. This approach accounts
for the differences between different areas--including differences in
current knowledge of resource potential, adequacy of infrastructure to
support oil and gas activity, accommodation of regional interests and
concerns, and the need for a balanced approach to our use of natural
resources.
The Proposed Final Program is designed to be commensurate with the
maturity of the infrastructure necessary to support offshore oil and
gas activity, including infrastructure for spill containment and
response. It also places an emphasis on the idea that OCS leasing
should not be ``one size fits all,'' and consideration of lease sales
in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas will also be specifically tailored to
those regions. The traditional area-wide leasing model that has been
used in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is not appropriate
for the Arctic, and BOEM is working to develop alternative leasing
strategies specifically for the Arctic in order to focus potential
leasing on areas that have significant resource potential while also
mitigating the impact of offshore oil and gas activity on the unique
Arctic environment and its subsistence resources.
While the Department can, and does, offer significant acreage in
its lease sales, it is industry that makes the final decision whether
or not to purchase a lease on any particular tract and, subsequently,
whether and when to develop the resources on such lease. The Department
recently issued an update on unused leased federal acreage and,
according to the report, more than 70 percent of the tens of millions
of offshore acres currently under lease are inactive, neither producing
nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development
plans.
In addition to offering significant acreage from which to lease the
Department is also providing greater incentives for its lessees to make
production from their leases a priority. These resources are important
in creating jobs and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and oil
imports, and ensuring the diligent development of lands under lease
should be a priority for Congress as well.
doi budget
Question 13. The President's proposed budget includes $32.5 million
for the ``processing of applications for permit to drill and related
use authorizations'' and $47.95 million for ``conducting oil and gas
inspection activities.'' Can you tell us how many new Federal employees
your Department envisions adding to conduct these activities in a
timely manner?
a. The budget also notes that this funding will be reduced by
a $6,500 application fee to be charged to permit applicants.
Based on the number of applications filed in previous years for
drilling permits on Federal land, can you estimate for us what
the anticipated total is that you expect to collect in permit
application fees?
Answer. The 2013 budget proposes to expand and strengthen the BLM's
oil and gas inspection capability through new fee collections from
industry, similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections.
Collection of these fees is consistent with the principle that users of
the public lands should pay for the costs of use authorizations and the
costs associated with the oversight of authorized activities. The
inspection fee schedule included in the budget is estimated to generate
$48.0 million in collections, which would offset a proposed reduction
of $38.0 million in BLM's appropriated funds, while providing for a net
increase of $10.0 million in funds available for this management
responsibility.
The increased funding is aimed at correcting deficiencies
identified by the Government Accountability Office in its February 2011
report, which designated Federal management of oil and gas resources
including production and revenue collection as high risk. The $10.0
million increase will help BLM achieve the high priority goal of
increasing the completion of inspections of Federal and Indian high
risk oil and gas cases by nine percent over 2011 levels.
The proposal includes shifting 162 FTE and $37,950,000 from Oil and
Gas Mgmt requested appropriations, which will be fully offset by the
collected fees. The proposal also includes collecting an additional $10
million and funding an additional 46 FTE. The proposed inspection fee
will total $47,950,000 and fund a total of 208 FTE. As noted in this
question, the budget request also contemplates continuation of the fee
for processing onshore drilling permits currently enabled by
appropriations language in 2010. If continued, it would generate an
estimated $32.5 million in offsetting collections in 2013.
Question 14. Virginia leasing: Will you reconsider leasing off the
Virginia coast as the Governor, legislature and Virginia delegation has
requested?
Answer. The Proposed Final Program for 2012-2017 does not include
lease sales in the North-Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and South-Atlantic
planning areas based on, and in alignment with, the principles that
underlie the entire Program. Many Atlantic states expressed concerns
about oil and gas development off their coasts. While an OCS
development strategy announced in 2010 included the Mid-and South-
Atlantic under consideration for potential inclusion, a number of
specific considerations supported the decision not to schedule lease
sales in these areas under this Proposed Final Program. Rather, BOEM is
proceeding with a specific strategy to address these considerations and
support decision-making on whether potential lease sales in the Mid-and
South-Atlantic would be appropriate in the future.
First, the oil and gas resource potential in the Mid-and South-
Atlantic is not well understood and surveys of these areas are
incomplete and out of date. Prior to scheduling lease sales in these
planning areas, it is prudent to develop information evaluating the oil
and gas resource potential of these regions. BOEM is moving forward
expeditiously to facilitate resource evaluation in these areas,
including conducting a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) relating to seismic surveys in the Mid-and South-Atlantic. BOEM
announced in March 2012 the publication of the draft EIS and has just
concluded a series of public hearings across the Mid-and South-Atlantic
states.
Second, there are complex issues relating to potentially
conflicting uses, including those of the Department of Defense, which
should be addressed so that any potential future leasing activity in
these areas is designed appropriately. Finally, while evaluation of the
resource potential of the Mid-and South Atlantic regions moves forward,
analysis and planning regarding the additional infrastructure necessary
to support potential oil and gas activities, including spill response
resources, should as well.
epa questions
Question 1. The hydraulic fracturing studies announced in the
Administration budget involve multiple agencies addressing the same
issues. What are the specific roles and responsibilities of each
agency?
a. What management structure will exist?
b. What Agency will be the controlling agency?
Answer. While the Department defers to the Environmental Protection
Agency for information related to that agency, the research activities
that the U.S. Geological Survey will conduct will be carefully
coordinated with the Department of Energy (DOE), EPA, other federal
agencies, including the BLM, FWS, and NPS in the Department, tribal and
state entities, academia, and non-governmental organizations. The
Department, DOE, and EPA will soon release a joint Memorandum of
Agreement that will guide this interagency effort. This agreement will
emphasize the fundamental core competencies of each agency in
synergistic ways that lead to complementary and non-duplicative work.
Working collaboratively, the agencies will develop a comprehensive
federal research plan to address the highest-priority challenges to
safe and prudent development of unconventional natural gas resources
through hydrofracturing. The agencies have already begun to work
cooperatively on studies of environmental impacts through EPA case
studies at prospective drill sites, in areas of potential induced
seismicity, in technology enhancements, and in the development of a
comprehensive plan to assess the potential effects of Marcellus Shale
gas production on the environment.
Question 2. EPA is planning a study on air emissions from oil and
natural gas production related to hydraulic fracturing. The Agency has
proposed a new source performance standard (NSPS) for oil and natural
gas production. Based on comments submitted to the docket on this
proposal, it appears that EPA overestimated emissions from
hydraulically fractured natural gas wells by as much as 1,400 percent.
Is EPA taking steps to correct this overestimation by re-testing wells?
Answer. While this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA
and the Department defers to that agency for a complete response, on
April 17, 2012, EPA issued cost-effective regulations to reduce harmful
air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing
continued, responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production.
The final rules include, for the first time, federal air standards for
gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. These rules rely on proven
cost-effective technology and practices that industry leaders are using
today at about half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United
States. Extensive public comment was sought on the proposed rules,
which the agency was required to review under the Clean Air Act, and a
number of changes were made in response to comments received.
Question 3. In the same NSPS proposal EPA uses emissions factors
for vapor from oil storage tanks that is refuted in its own docket
support materials. Does the Agency have a process in place to ensure
that its regulatory proposals make sense?
Answer. As indicated in the response to the previous question,
while this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and the
Department defers to EPA for a complete response, extensive public
comment was sought on the proposed rules, which the agency was required
to review under the Clean Air Act, including two public meetings as it
was developing the rules and three public hearings on the proposal. The
agency received more than 156,000 comments on the proposal, and a
number of changes were made in response to comments received.
Question 4. EPA has issued requirements for the reporting of
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for oil and natural gas production under
Subpart W. In this Subpart it creates a definition of facility that at
times includes entire states, and in one case includes the area from
the Rio Grande to the Mississippi River and from the Gulf of Mexico to
a line running through Austin, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. EPA
even acknowledges that its purpose is to require data that it would not
get using any normal definition of a facility. These costs appear to be
imposed solely to create an inventory. What is the Agency's
justification for its actions?
Answer. While this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA,
and the Department defers to EPA for a complete response, this issue
was addressed in EPA's responses to the comments received after
publication of the proposal, which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_RTC_part2.pdf.
Question 5. EPA announced that it plans to continue its Effluent
Limitation Guideline (ELG) development for coal bed methane-produced
waters. Its current efforts are based on information that appears to be
fairly grossly out of date. Its economic information is based on
natural gas prices three times current prices and its production
information does not reflect the dramatic drop in coal bed methane
production. Since CBM-produced water comes at the beginning of the
production process, what benefit is it to continue this ELG action?
What will it cost?
Answer. This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and
the Department defers to EPA for a complete response. The Department
understands that EPA continues to evaluate significant amounts of
information collected during the study of this issue, in addition to
continuing to obtain additional pollutant?related data; and to meet
with stakeholders to review regulatory approaches and solicit input.
Question 6. EPA announced its intent to create an ELG for shale gas
extraction produced water. Its ``trigger'' for this announcement was
the discharge of shale gas extraction produced water in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania has prohibited the discharge of this water to surface
waters. What will it cost to develop this ELG for what would seem to be
a nonexistent discharge category?
Answer. This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and
the Department defers to EPA for a complete response. EPA conducts an
annual review of existing industrial wastewater discharge regulations.
Comments submitted to EPA in early 2010 as part of the annual review
prompted EPA to carefully review wastewater discharges from shale gas
extraction, which generally contain elevated salt content many times
higher than that contained in sea water, conventional pollutants,
organics, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material.
Additional data show that flowback waters contain concentrations of
some of the fracturing fluid additives. Some shale gas wastewater is
transported to public and private treatment plants, many of which are
not properly equipped to treat this type of wastewater. As a result,
pollutants are discharged into surface waters such as rivers, lakes or
streams where they can directly impact aquatic life and drinking water
sources. EPA plans to reach out to affected stakeholders and to collect
information to better characterize shale gas wastewaters and the
efficiency of various treatment, re?use, and disposal technologies that
will reduce shale gas wastewater pollutant discharges, including those
technologies currently in use in public and private treatment plants.
EPA also plans to collect financial data on the shale gas industry to
determine the affordability of treatment.
Question 7. States do not regulate fracturing under Underground
Injection Control (UIC) programs, but EPA is stating that permits are
required under the UIC program for fracturing. This calls into question
whether states that have UIC primacy are meeting the requirements of
the delegation process. How will EPA assure that it can withstand
challenges to the primacy delegation of the UIC program now that it has
created this inherent conflict?
Answer. This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and
the Department defers to EPA for a complete response, but the
Department understands that the SDWA specifically excludes hydraulic
fracturing from UIC regulation under SDWA ' 1421 (d)(1), the use of
diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing is still regulated by the UIC
program. Any service company that performs hydraulic fracturing using
diesel fuel must receive prior authorization through the applicable UIC
program. Just this month EPA published and is receiving public comments
on draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II permitting
guidance for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing activities using diesel
fuels that outlines for EPA permit writers, where EPA is the permitting
authority, requirements for diesel fuels used for hydraulic fracturing
wells, technical recommendations for permitting those wells, and a
description of diesel fuels for EPA underground injection control
permitting.
usgs
Question 1. Can you provide my staff with existing data by fiscal
year showing USGS work to inventory or survey the mineral estate of US
Public Lands?
Answer. The USGS does not track our assessments by fiscal year nor
by land classification [public versus private]; our assessments in
general take 5-10 years and, particularly oil and gas assessments,
cover geologically defined areas such as petroleum basins. Below, we
provide information about funding levels for the Mineral Resources and
Energy Resources Program from FY2002, as well as major resource
assessments for the past decade or more. An attached table (see
Attachment 1) shows USGS mean estimates of undiscovered, technically
recoverable oil and gas resources. The table includes different
commodities on different tabs, including conventional resources and
continuous (unconventional). The numbers given represent the most
recent USGS assessment of each basin from 1995 through 2011.
MINERAL RESOURCE PROGRAM INFORMATION
MRP Enacted Budgets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Minerals
Assessments Information Total $1,000s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY02 $39,295 $16,400 $55,695
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 $39,490 $16,283 $55,773
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 $39,926 $15,884 $55,810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY05 $38,255 $15,509 $53,764
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY06 $36,997 $15,787 $52,784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY07 $36,028 $15,608 $51,636
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY08 $35,470 $15,360 $50,830
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY09 $36,900 $15,527 $52,427
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY10 $37,900 $15,880 $53,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY11 $36,800 $15,600 $52,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12 $34,462 $14,769 $49,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listed below are selected major Mineral Resource Program bodies of
work that ended in the year noted (and scheduled to end in FY12).
Projects followed by an asterisk include a combination of (1)
inventories of known mineral resources (e.g. FY10 REE resource
inventory), (2) qualitative mineral resource assessments outlining
areas permissive for undiscovered mineral resources (e.g. FY02 Humboldt
River assessment), and (3) quantitative mineral resource assessments
providing a probabilistic estimate of the amount of undiscovered
mineral resource in a permissive area (e.g. FY07 Bay Resource Area
assessment). All other projects were research efforts to help decrease
uncertainty in our mineral resource and mineral environmental
assessments.
Hyperlinks point to summary Fact Sheets, Circulars, project web
pages with product lists, or to a representative example of one of many
products that came from the effort. All listed efforts were funded from
Research and Assessment dollars, and most had a lifespan of 5-10 years,
though some were shorter-term efforts (e.g. the 2010 REE domestic
inventory). So it is important to note that the FY funding should not
be correlated with the work that ended in the corresponding FY. For
example, GMRAP will end in FY12 but was funded from Research and
Assessment dollars for the past 10 years.
FY02
Rare-earth element resources: A basis for high technology *
Aeromagnetic surveys of south-central Alaska
Resource Potential and Geology of the Grand Mesa,
Umcompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests and Vicinity,
Colorado *
Assessment of Metallic Resources in the Humboldt River Basin
(BLM Humboldt Resource Area), Northern Nevada *
FY03
Geology, geochemistry, and geophysics for mineral
exploration across the central Alaska Range (Talkeetna
Transect)
Integrated geologic, geochemical, and geophysical studies of
Yellowstone National Park
Availability and environmental effects of phosphate deposits
in southeastern Idaho and surrounding area
Geochemical processes occurring in mineral deposits in the
eastern US
FY04
Investigations of earth science methods to help interpret
the geologic links between mineral dusts (including asbestiform
minerals) and human health problems
Investigation of the Headwaters Province, Idaho and Montana,
to provide geoscience data and interpretations to the Federal
Land Management Agencies that are basic to sound policy and
land-stewardship practices *
Advanced resource assessment methods
Research on the relationship between plate tectonics and the
occurrence of a wide variety of geologic features in the
northwestern U.S. and Canada
Investigations of the geological and mineral resources of
Nevada
FY05
Geology and nonfuel mineral deposits of the United States *
Metals in Basinal Brines and Petroleum
Large Igneous Provinces, Alaska
FY06
Regional fluid flow, northern Alaska
Crustal evolution and fluid flow, northern Nevada
Industrial mineral studies
Complex systems modeling for mineral resources
Hydrothermal systems in Cascade volcanoes
Aqueous geochemistry research
FY07
Tintina metallogenic province: Integrated studies on
geologic framework, mineral resources, and environmental
signatures
Process studies of contaminants associated with mineral
deposits
Geochemical characterization of black shale (Mancos Shale)
Integrated geologic, geochemical, and geophysical studies of
Big Bend National Park, Texas
Pathways of metal transfer from mineralized sources to
bioreceptors
Undiscovered Locatable Mineral Resources in the Bay Resource
Management Plan Area, Southwestern Alaska: A Probabilistic
Assessment *
FY08
Central Colorado Assessment Project *
Geochemical and isotope studies of the evolution of ore
deposits
FY09
Regional geologic, geochemical, geophysical, and mineral
deposit data for economic development in Alaska in the 21st
century
Uncertainty and risk analysis in mineral resources
Tracers of surficial processes affecting mineral deposits in
humid environments
Mineral Resource Assessment of Northern Nye County, Nevada *
FY10
North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes Project
Federal Lands in Alaska--Geologic Studies (FLAG)
Geology, hydrothermal systems, and resources of the Cascades
arcs and central California Coast Ranges
Inventory of Rare Earth Resources of the United States *
FY11
Mineral Resources Data System *
Minerals at Risk and for Emerging Technologies
FY12
Global mineral resource assessment project (GMRAP) *
Updated National Mineral Resource Assessment--Planning Phase
*
Assessment Techniques for Concealed Mineral Resources
Development of Mineral Environmental Assessment
Methodologies
The Integrated Methods Development Project
Critical Zone Processes Across Landscapes
energy resources program information
Energy Resources Program Enacted amounts for FY2002 to FY2012:
2002--$24,107,000
2003--$23,705,000
2004--$25,068,000
2005--$23,250,000
2006--$23,760,000
2007--$25,150,000
2008--$26,381,000
2009--$26,749,000
2010--$27,237,000
2011--$27,750,000
2012--$27,292,000
Listed below are major domestic Energy Resource Assessments
organized by commodity. This list does not include: (1) the research
leading up to and resulting from the assessment activities, which are
additional publications; (2) international assessments, which are a
large part of the Energy Resources Program; (3) research on
environmental aspects of energy occurrence and use.
In a companion attachment is an excel spreadsheet showing USGS mean
estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas
resources. The spreadsheet includes different commodities on different
tabs, including conventional resources and continuous (unconventional).
The numbers given represent the most recent USGS assessment of each
basin through 2011. Two additional assessments, published in 2012, have
not yet been added to the table:
Alaska North Slope shale gas and shale oil: 0--2 billion
barrels of oil; 0--80 trillion cubic feet of gas
Eagle Ford Group, U.S. Gulf Coast Region, conventional and
continuous oil and gas [mean]: 994 million barrels of oil, 54
trillion cubic feet of gas, 2,028 million barrels natural gas
liquids
Other major assessments of the Energy Resources Program include:
National Geothermal Assessment--2008
Assessment results indicate electric power generation
potential from:
identified geothermal systems is 9,057
Megawatts-electric (MWe), distributed over 13 states
mean estimated power production potential
from undiscovered geothermal resources is 30,033 MWe
another estimated 517,800 MWe could be
generated through implementation of technology for
creating geothermal reservoirs in regions characterized
by high temperature, but low permeability, rock
formations.
National Coal Resource Assessments
(no numbers are given, as resources are reported out in a number of
ways, and tables can be found in each of the links)
Team, USGS Fort Union Assessment, 1999 Resource Assessment of
Selected Tertiary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains
and Great Plains Region by Fort Union Assessment Team: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1625-A, Version 1.2, Discs 1 and 2. [CD-ROM].
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/
Group, USGS Colorado Plateau Coal Assessment, 2000, Geologic
Assessment of Coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah, compiled by Colorado Plateau Coal Assessment Group:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-B, Version 1.0,
Appendix. [CD-ROM]. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625b/
Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions Assessment
Team, USGS Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions
Assessment, 2001, 2000 Resource Assessment of Selected Coal Beds and
Zones in the Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions, by
Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions Assessment Team:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-C. [CD-ROM]. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1625c/
Hatch, J.R., and Affolter, R.H., 2002, Resource Assessment of the
Springfield, Herrin, Danville and Baker Coals in the Illinois Basin:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-D. [CD-ROM]. http://
greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/coal/PP1625D/
Osmonson, L. M., Scott, D.C., Haacke, J.E., Luppens, J.A., and
Pierce, P.E., 2011, Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves
in the Southwestern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 2011--1134, 135 p.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1134/
Oil Shale Resources:Piceance Basin:
Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., Brownfield, M.E., Pantea, M.P., and
Self, J.G., 2009, Assessment of in-place oil shale resources of the
Green River Formation, Piceance Basin, western Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009--3012, 6 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/
2009/3012/
Estimated in-place oil is about 1.5 trillion barrels, based
on Fischer assay results from boreholes drilled to evaluate oil
shale, making it the largest oil shale deposit in the world.
Uinta Basin
Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., Brownfield, M.E., and Self, J.G.,
2010, Assessment of in-place oil shale resources of the Green River
Formation, Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet 2010-3010, 4 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3010/
The total in-place resource for the Uinta Basin is estimated
at 1.32 trillion barrels.
Green River Basin
Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., and Brownfield, M.E., 2011,
Assessment of In-Place Oil Shale Resources of the Green River
Formation, Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011-3063, 4 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/
fs/2011/3063/
Total in-place resources are estimated at 1.44 trillion
barrels of oil.
blm/livestock
Question 1. Why has the BLM proposed an administrative fee on
grazing which will raise the cost of grazing on BLM administered lands
by 74%? Is it this Administration's intent to balance the budget on the
backs of rural America and small businesses? We adamantly oppose this
arbitrary fee and encourage a stop this misguided action.
Answer. The permit administration fee is proposed to recover some
of the costs for processing grazing permits/leases for the permittees
who are economically benefitting from use of the public lands. This is
the same concept as used in the Oil and Gas program and Rights-of-Way
program, where the users of the public lands pay a fee for the
processing of their permits and related work. The budget includes
appropriations language for a three-year pilot program, beginning in
2013, which would allow BLM to recover some of the costs of issuing
grazing permits/leases on BLM lands. During the period of the pilot,
BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations for the
continuation of the grazing administrative fee as a cost recovery fee
after the pilot expires.
Question 2. Why, after Congress having just last year decided to
increase the range budget, would the administration propose to cut that
budget by nearly $16 million? How do you propose to keep pace with
permit renewals given the NEPA backlog, or deal with ever-increasing
litigation costs, while cutting the range budget? Won't more missed
deadlines, due to lack of resources, lead to more litigation--thereby
creating a self-feeding, vicious cycle?
Answer. The FY 2013 budget requests a program decrease of $15.8
million from 2012. The BLM is using the increase over FY 2011 in FY
2012 to address numerous challenges, including completion of grazing
permit renewals; monitoring of grazing allotments; and strengthening
the BLM's environmental documents. The decrease will be partially
offset by the proposed pilot project for an administrative processing
fee of $1 per animal unit month that is estimated to generate $6.5
million in 2013, which will be returned to the BLM to use for the same
purposes.In addition, section 415 in the FY 2012 Appropriations Act
assists BLM in meeting several challenges with grazing activities. That
section specifies that the transfer of a grazing permit, during the
term of the permit, is not subject to additional NEPA if there is no
change in the mandatory terms and conditions required. This provision
will significantly streamline the work process on approximately 10 to
15 percent of BLM's annual permit workload, and allow BLM to process
permits originally scheduled to expire. It allows the BLM more
opportunity to focus on analysis of environmentally-significant
permits. Focusing on the most environmentally sensitive allotments will
increase attention on land health assessments and quantitative data
collection; improve the usefulness of both the RMP/EIS and site-
specific NEPA analyses; and result in grazing management decisions
guiding land health solutions for the future. This strategy will assist
in ensuring that unprocessed permits consist of the least
environmentally-sensitive allotments that are more custodial in nature
and/or are already meeting land health standards. Section 415 also
extends, through 2013, the BLM's ability to renew expiring grazing
permits without additional NEPA analysis. This provision will allow the
BLM to focus on the grazing permit renewals in high-priority areas.
Question 3. Research shows that most public lands ranchers already
pay more than market price for their federal permits, considering
factors such as added regulatory costs, ownership of water rights,
maintenance of improvements, and the difficulties of managing livestock
in rough, arid rangelands. Have you analyzed how many ranching
operations would go out of business in light of this 74% increase in
the cost of grazing fees? Or what the cost would be to BLM if ranchers
were not there to provide land management services, such as fuels
reduction and fire prevention, open space, noxious weed control, and
water improvements for wildlife?
Answer. As noted in response to a previous question, the permit
administration fee is proposed to recover some of the costs for
processing grazing permits or leases for the permittees who are
economically benefitting from use of the public lands, and it is the
same concept used in the Oil and Gas program and Rights-of-Way program,
where the users of the public lands pay a fee for the processing of
their permits and related work. The three-year pilot program proposed
in the budget would allow BLM to recover some of the costs of issuing
grazing permits or leases on BLM lands and, during that period, the
bureau would work through the process of promulgating regulations for
the continuation of the grazing administrative fee as a cost recovery
fee after the pilot expires.
Question 4. Why does the Department continually back down from
gathering excess wild horses and burros and buckle to special interest
groups on implementing management options to reduce wild horses on the
range, while continuing to come back to Congress and ask for more funds
for the program?
Answer. The BLM conducts gathers in the areas of highest priority
and as compatible with funding levels and available holding space.
While some gathers have been delayed due to litigation, the BLM has
continued to pursue other options to reduce population growth on the
range. The BLM is finalizing a wild horse and burro management strategy
as part of its ongoing effort to reform the Wild Horse and Burro
Program and put it on a cost-effective, sustainable track. The strategy
emphasizes population control techniques, including fertility control;
promotes public-private ecosanctuaries to hold excess wild horses
removed from Western public rangelands; seeks to boost adoptions by
making more trained wild horses available to the public; and
establishes a comprehensive animal welfare program.
Question 5. Preventing the listing of the Sage Grouse under the ESA
is a goal we can all rally behind. In fact, many ranchers have been
making great efforts to improve the bird's habitat. Ranching and
grazing is critical to Sage Grouse habitat. How will you use funds
allocated in 2013 to ensure that your Sage Grouse planning efforts
reward ranchers for their efforts and help them stay in business so
that they may continue preserving Sage Grouse habitat?
Answer. The BLM is committed to working with public land users to
discuss their concerns throughout our sage-grouse planning process.
Although the BLM does not have resources to provide financial
incentives to ranchers as part of our sage-grouse planning process, our
efforts to improve sage grouse conservation through better planning
will help to improve certainty for ranchers that they will be able to
continue to graze on Federal lands in the future. The Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service does provide
incentives for ranchers to complete habitat improvement projects on
private lands through their Sage-Grouse Initiative. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service can also provide assurances for activities on private
lands through Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances.
Question 6. The President has proposed millions of dollars in
decreases to programs that provide economic benefit to the country,
while simultaneously proposing a $70 million increase to a fund (the
Land and Water Conservation Fund) to grow the federal estate. How do
you juxtapose managing more land while dealing with an even smaller
budget? How would you rate your ability to keep up with current land
management duties, such as catastrophic wildfire control, grazing
permit renewals, and wild horse management? Common sense tells us that
the agency will have difficulty managing all these responsibilities on
more land, with fewer dollars.
Answer. The FY 2013 budget request ensures that Departmental
agencies will be able to maintain their core responsibilities on
federal lands while providing for strategic increases to conserve land
for current and future generations. The lands identified for
acquisition in the FY 2013 budget request address the most urgent needs
for recreation; species and habitat conservation; and the preservation
of landscapes, and historic and cultural resources. Such acquisition
may also assist the government to achieve greater efficiencies that
resolve management issues. In addition, increased federal land
acquisition funding would provide more opportunities for landowners, if
they wish, to sell their property yet ensure that it will be protected
in perpetuity rather than developed in a way that threatens resources
in national parts, wildlife refuges, forests, and other public lands.
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Soda ash is a great American export. It reduces our
nation's trade deficit and creates good-paying jobs. However, it is in
competition with heavily subsidized synthetic soda ash from China. In
the House, you testified that you do not have the authority to extend
the 2 percent royalty rate to America's soda ash producers under
current law. What other steps can you take to assist America's soda ash
producers?
Answer. As noted in recent testimony before the Committee, the BLM
reported to Congress in fall 2011 in its report titled U.S. Department
of the Interior Report to Congress: The Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act
of 2006 that the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 resulted in a
substantial loss of royalty revenues to the Federal Government and the
states which exceeded Congressional estimates at the time of enactment.
The royalty rate reduction does not appear to have contributed in a
significant way to the creation of new jobs within the industry, to
increased exports, or to a notable increase in capital expenditures to
enhance production. In addition, the royalty rate reduction appears to
have influenced a shift of production away from state leases and
private lands and onto Federal leases.
Regarding global competitiveness, the report found that U.S.
production has remained stable at around 11 million tons since 2002,
with exports stable at around 5 million tons since 2005. U.S. exports
continue to account for over 40 percent of total world exports. In
contrast, China's production has doubled since 2002, from approximately
10 million to approximately 20 million tons, while Chinese exports
remain far below U.S. exports. Since 2002, world-wide production has
risen from 37 million tons to 48 million tons in 2010.
Finally, the report found that overall domestic employment has not
increased since passage of the Act. However, it is not readily apparent
from the available data whether jobs have been maintained due to the
royalty rate reduction in the face of the global economic downturn. Any
analysis of the number of jobs maintained during the royalty reduction
period is highly uncertain; employment levels in the industry depend on
a number of factors, such as soda ash market conditions and employee
productivity.
Question 2. The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is rewriting the
2008 stream buffer rule. I understand that OSM's 2008 rule took about
five years to complete. I understand that this process involved two
proposed rules, approximately 5,000 pages of environmental analysis,
and took into account about 40,000 public comments.
a. How much is the rewrite of the 2008 rule costing
taxpayers?
b. How many coal mining jobs would be impacted if the new
rule were implemented today?
c. What steps are you taking to ensure that OSM complies with
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act?
d. What steps are you taking to ensure that OSM provides
cooperating state agencies and the public sufficient time to
comment on the new rule and participate in the rulemaking
process?
Answer. OSM has been developing improvements of its regulations to
more completely implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act by better protecting streams from the adverse impacts of coal
mining while helping meet the nation's energy needs. Since 2009, OSM
has spent about $7.7 million to develop this rulemaking, with the
majority of the expenditures representing obligations for contract
support to develop portions of an Environmental Impact Statement and
the regulatory impact analysis. OSM is developing this rule in response
to litigation as well as in consideration of the more than 50,000
comments the bureau has received from the public on the Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), stakeholder outreach meetings and public
scoping meetings, and also based on OSM's statutory obligation to
balance protection of the environment against production of the coal
necessary to meet the Nation's energy requirements. The proposed rule
and Draft EIS, when published, will contain a detailed economic
analysis, including any anticipated impacts on jobs in the coal mining
industry.
OSM published an ANPR on which the bureau received over 32,000
public comments, and conducted nine scoping sessions pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act, receiving over 20,000 comments. The
Proposed Rule and Draft EIS will be made available for public notice
and comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA,
and other applicable federal laws. Prior to publishing a Final Rule and
EIS, the bureau will consider public comments received on the proposal.
Fourteen state agencies, acting as cooperating agencies on the OSM's
Draft EIS, reviewed and provided extensive comments on early working
versions of the Draft EIS. OSM has taken those comments into
consideration as it develops both its Proposed Rule and Draft EIS. When
OSM publishes its Proposed Rule and makes available its Draft EIS in
the Federal Register, the states, along with the public, will have the
opportunity to review and provide comments on those documents in
accordance with applicable laws.
Question 3. It is my understanding that OSM is rewriting the 2008
stream buffer rule to address an issue specific to the Appalachian
region. However, the rule will affect every coal mine throughout the
country.
a. Has OSM provided any documentation or evidence that there
is a nationwide problem that requires a new rulemaking?
b. If so, when did OSM provide this documentation and will
you share it with the Committee?
Answer. As noted in response to the previous question, OSM is still
in the process of developing its Proposed Rule and Draft EIS. Those
documents, when published and made available for public notice and
comment, will provide a full explanation of the scope of the Proposed
Rule, including reasons for the geographic application of various
provisions of the Proposed Rule, as appropriate and in accordance with
applicable law. When OSM completes its development of these documents,
they will be published and made available to the public, and they will
detail the basis for provisions of the proposal.
Question 4. I understand that the Department is working with other
Federal agencies to expedite the permitting process for a number of
large renewable energy projects.
Is the Department taking any steps to reduce the delays in the
permitting process for traditional energy projects (including oil and
gas and coal projects)? If so, please describe the steps your
Department is taking. If not, please explain why the Department is not
addressing these delays.
Answer. On April 3, 2012, Secretary Salazar unveiled new
initiatives to expedite safe and responsible leasing and development of
domestic energy resources on U.S. public and Indian trust lands. As
part of the BLM's ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of oil
and gas permit applications on both Tribal trust and public lands, the
agency will implement new automated tracking systems that could reduce
the review period for drilling permits by two-thirds. The new system
will track permit applications through the entire review process and
quickly flag any missing or incomplete information--greatly reducing
the back-and-forth between BLM and industry applicants. The new
drilling permit system will automate the process that tracks APDs,
providing greater online accessibility and transparency. It will
improve communication between the BLM and industry, resulting in more
consistent APD processing standards and timeframes and a significantly
reduced review period. The new system will allow the public and
operators to view the BLM processing status of APDs, enabling operators
to more promptly address deficiencies in their applications. By
upgrading and improving our oil and gas drilling permit processing
systems and technologies we believe we can improve efficiencies while
ensuring thorough reviews for safety and compliance.
Question 5. The BLM is proposing a 3-year pilot program to charge a
$1.00 per Animal Unit Month administrative fee to assist processing of
grazing permits. This proposal would represent a 75% increase for
ranchers who have grazing permits. The grazing fee formula is set by
law in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and in an
Executive Order signed by President Reagan.
Under what authority are you raising by 75% the amount paid per AUM
by grazing permit holders?
Answer. The BLM is not raising the current grazing fee. The goal of
the administrative fee proposed in the Budget Request is to recover
some of the cost of processing grazing permits or leases for the
parties (permittees) who are economically benefitting from use of the
public lands. This fee mirrors the concept used in the Oil and Gas and
Rights-of-Way programs where the users of the public lands pay a fee
for the processing of their permits and related work. The budget
includes appropriations language for a three-year pilot program,
beginning in 2013, which would allow BLM to recover some of the costs
of issuing grazing permits/leases on BLM lands. During the period of
the pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating
regulations through the traditional notice and public comment process
for the continuation of the grazing administrative fee as a cost
recovery fee after the pilot expires.
Question 6. During the pilot period, the BLM will be working to
promulgate regulations for the continuation of this $1/AUM grazing fee
as a ``cost recovery fee'' after the pilot expires.
a. Does it cost the BLM more time and resources to process
grazing permit applications, or fight anti-grazing litigation
lawsuits?
b. How much does your department spend processing grazing
permits? defending anti-grazing litigation?
c. If there needs to be a cost recovery fee for processing
grazing applications, shouldn't the BLM also explore ways to
recover cost associated with frivolous litigation?
Answer. Processing grazing permit applications costs the BLM more
than addressing litigation lawsuits. The average annual cost to process
grazing permit applications is approximately $35 million to $40
million. The BLM does not have detailed expenditures related to anti-
grazing litigation, but the costs associated with range management-
related litigation in FY 2011 were approximately $850,000, and for FY
2012 the costs to date are $456,000. These costs do not include EAJA
fee payments or costs associated with work of the Department of the
Interior Solicitor's Office. The Department is open to working on
opportunities to address costs associated with frivolous litigation.
Responses of Secretary Ken Salazar to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, please detail your reasoning behind the
proposed administrative fee on grazing on BLM-administered lands. In
percentage terms, how much will this raise the cost of grazing? Please
explain how you analyzed the impact that such percentage increase would
have on ranchers and other small businesses that rely on BLM lands for
grazing. Please include in your explanation any stakeholder input that
you received from ranchers and local small businesses.
Answer. The goal of the administrative fee is to recover some of
the cost of processing grazing permits or leases for the parties
(permittees) who are economically benefitting from use of the public
lands. This fee mirrors the concept used in the Oil and Gas and Rights-
of-Way programs where the users of the public lands pay a fee for the
processing of their permits and related work. The budget includes
appropriations language for a three-year pilot program, beginning in
2013, which would allow BLM to recover some of the costs of issuing
grazing permits/leases on BLM lands. During the period of the pilot,
BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations through
the traditional notice and public comment process for the continuation
of the grazing administrative fee as a cost recovery fee after the
pilot expires.
Question 2. Mr. Secretary, please explain in more detail your
proposal to reduce wild horse and burro populations on public lands.
Please describe the various options considered and why your chosen
option is the most cost-effective and efficient method.
Answer. The BLM proposed a long-term strategy in February 2011 for
accelerating reforms on how wild horses and burros are managed on
public lands. The bureau is working to finalize this strategy, which
will guide BLM activities through FY 2014 while the National Academy of
Sciences completes a two-year independent study of wild horse
management practices and research needs.
The strategy will put the program on a cost-effective, sustainable
track by emphasizing population control techniques, including fertility
control; promoting public-private ecosanctuaries to hold excess wild
horses removed from Western public rangelands; seeking to boost
adoptions by making more trained wild horses available to the public;
and establishing a comprehensive animal welfare program. The FY 2013
budget proposes a $2 million increase to further the research and
development of fertility control techniques.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, in 2009, Congress passed the Utah
Recreational Land Exchange Act that was widely supported by the State
of Utah, local governments, the environmental community and the
Department of Interior. This exchange benefits the school children of
Utah and it gives the BLM some of the most sensitive conservation lands
in Utah--including lands within your designated ``Crown Jewels''. Yet,
the reason this exchange has not progressed is that the BLM refuses to
pay for its half of the appraisal costs for the transaction. When will
the BLM pay its half of these transaction costs and carry out the will
of Congress?
Answer. The BLM in Utah is working cooperatively with the State of
Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to
move forward on the appraisal process required by Public Law 111-53. In
August, 2011, the State and BLM signed the exchange agreement that
documents the responsibilities of both the State and BLM to complete
the exchange. Because this is a complex exchange including lands with
potentially high mineral values, the process is complicated. BLM is
working to prioritize its funding for high-priority land exchanges,
including its commitments under P.L 111-53.
Question 4. In 2007, the BLM issued several RD&D leases, one of
which is in Utah. Can you confirm for the record that the current PEIS
effort will not impact these previous leases and that these leases will
be considered prior existing rights?
Answer. The scope of the analysis for this PEIS does not include
review of the decisions by the Secretary to issue the 2007 RD&D leases,
including the lease in Utah's Uintah Basin. As noted in the PEIS, those
RD&D leases are prior existing rights and are not the subject of
decisions within the PEIS, with the exception that all alternatives
address the subsequent availability of the lands contained in the
leases should the initial leaseholder relinquish the existing leases.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]