[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR SPENDING AND THE
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2013
BUDGET PROPOSAL

=======================================================================

OVERSIGHT HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-93

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-938 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
PJon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV

Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel

------

CONTENTS

----------
Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012..................... 1

Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Rivera, Hon. David, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, Prepared statement of................ 80

Statement of Witnesses:
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 22

Additional materials supplied:
Hastings, Rep. Alcee L., Senator Bill Nelson, Rep. Frederica
Wilson, Rep. Ted Deutch, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Rep. Allen West, Rep. C.W. Bill Young, Rep. Kathy Castor,
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Rep. David Rivera, Rep. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, Letter to The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior, submitted for the record
by The Honorable David Rivera.............................. 82
Independent Petroleum Association of America, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 84
Map submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill Flores.... 85
``OSM Statement of Work Authorizing Contact with Coal
Companies on Proposed Rule'' submitted for the record by
The Honorable Bill Johnson................................. 86
``Tamiami Trail Modification project limits,'' Map submitted
for the record by The Honorable David Rivera............... 81

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SPENDING AND THE
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET PROPOSAL.''

----------

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, D.C.

----------

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Gohmert, Bishop,
Lamborn, Broun, Fleming, Thompson, Denham, Rivera, Duncan of
South Carolina, Tipton, Gosar, Labrador, Flores, Harris,
Landry, Runyan, Johnson, Amodei; Markey, Kildee, Faleomavaega,
Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Lujan,
Sarbanes, and Garamendi.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Rule 3(e)
is two Members, and we vastly exceed that.
The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear
testimony on Department of the Interior spending and the
President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal. Under Committee
Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and
the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I ask unanimous
consent that any Member who would like to submit an opening
statement have it to the Clerk prior to the close of business
today.
[No response.]
The Chairman. And without objection, so ordered. I will now
recognize myself for my opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being
here today to discuss the Interior Department's proposed budget
for Fiscal Year 2013. I note that the President's budget
includes a one percent increase for funding for the Interior
Department. But it also contains more tax-and-spend policies in
the overall budget that, in my view, are detrimental to job
creation and economic growth.
Fiscal Year 2013 will mark the fourth straight year of
over-trillion-dollar budget deficits. Increasing taxes on
American families and businesses is not the solution, and
simply freezing and holding the line on spending is not enough.
We must set priorities and make tough choices on how to cut
spending, and where to best direct scarce tax dollars.
For instance, like last year, I must again question the
need to increase funding for the Federal Government to purchase
more Federal land. While the request for land acquisition was
cut in half from last year, it still represents a $160 million
spending increase compared to when President Obama took office.
The Interior Department continues to have a maintenance backlog
on Federal lands that measures into the billions of dollars.
The bottom line is that we should not be increasing
spending for land acquisition when the government cannot
maintain the land that it already owns.
I also have serious concerns about the tax and fee
increases on American energy production. We all know that
energy production is one of the best job creators and economic
boosters in our country. That is why it is baffling to me that
the President's budget would include over $45 billion in tax
and fee increases on American energy. Increasing taxes on
energy production is misguided policy that, obviously, will
just increase energy costs. And now gasoline prices are once
again on the rise.
Just to go back, the national average of the gasoline price
at the pump has gone up nearly $1.70 since President Obama took
office. The last thing that families and small businesses need
is to pay even higher prices due to this Administration's tax
and fee policies.
At today's hearing we will also examine a number of other
important Interior Department policies that directly impact
American jobs.
The Interior Department continues to pursue sweeping
changes to coal regulations that could potentially cost
thousands of jobs and have significant economic impacts
throughout the country. But what is frustrating is the
Department's lack of fully cooperating with this committee's
document requests regarding their document rewrite of this
regulatory process. I hope that this frustration can be eased.
The Department is also pursuing new regulations on
hydraulic fracturing on public lands. Based on a draft document
that was made public, it appears these new regulations will add
significant barriers and delays to natural gas production and
job creation on Federal lands. The Department also is in the
process of finalizing the new five-year offshore leasing plan.
There is bipartisan concern over the President's plan to close
the majority of the Outer Continental Shelf to new energy
production.
The Administration's plan effectively reinstates the
drilling moratoria that were lifted in 2008 by Congress and the
President when gasoline prices soared to over $4 a gallon. We
might be getting to that same area again. And by locking-up the
Atlantic, Pacific and parts of the Arctic, this Administration
is forfeiting the production of new American energy, the
creation of over a million new American jobs, and generation of
new revenue for the Federal Government.
So, these are just a couple of the issues that I wanted to
highlight. I know Members on both sides of the aisle will have
concerns that are wider than what I have talked about. But that
is the reason for this hearing.
So, Mr. Secretary, once again thank you very much for being
here. And I will recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources

Thank you Secretary Salazar for being here today to discuss the
Interior Department's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2013.
I note, the President's budget includes a one percent increase in
funding for the Interior Department. But it also contains more tax and
spend policies that are detrimental to job creation and economic
growth.
FY 2013 will mark the fourth straight year of over trillion dollar
budget deficits. Increasing taxes on American families and businesses
is not the solution, and simply freezing and holding the line on
spending is not enough. We must set priorities and make tough choices
on how to cut spending and where to best direct scarce taxpayer
dollars.
For instance, like last year, I must again question the need to
increase funding for the federal government to purchase more federal
land. While the request for land acquisition was cut in half from last
year, it still represents a $160 million spending increase compared to
when President Obama took office. The Interior Department continues to
have a maintenance backlog on federal lands that measures into the
billions. The bottom line is that we should not be increasing spending
for land acquisition when the government cannot maintain the land it
already owns.
I also have serious concerns about the tax and fee increases on
American energy production. We all know that energy production is one
of America's best job-creators and economic boosters. That's why it's
baffling that the President's budget would include over $45 billion in
tax and fee increases on American energy. Increasing taxes on energy
production is misguided policy that will increase energy costs.
Gasoline prices are once again on the rise. The national average has
gone up $1.68 since President Obama took office. The last thing
families and small businesses need is to pay even higher prices due to
this administration tax increases.
At today's hearing we will also examine a number of other important
Interior Department policies that directly impact American jobs.
The Interior Department continues to pursue sweeping changes to
coal regulations that could cost thousands of jobs and have significant
economic impacts throughout the country. But what's frustrating is the
Department's lack of fully cooperating with this Committee's' document
requests regarding their conduct of this regulatory rewrite.
The Department is also pursuing new regulations on hydraulic
fracturing on public land. Based on a draft document that was made
public, it appears these new regulations will add significant barriers
and delays to natural gas production and job creation on federal lands.
The Department is in the process of finalizing the new five-year
offshore leasing plan. There is bipartisan concern over the President's
plan to close the majority of the Outer Continental Shelf to new energy
production. The Administration's plan effectively reinstates the
drilling moratoria that were lifted in 2008 by Congress and the
President when gasoline prices soared to over $4 a gallon. By locking-
up the Atlantic, Pacific and parts of the Arctic, the Obama
Administration is forfeiting the production of new American energy, the
creation of over a million new American jobs and the generation of new
revenue.
I look forward to hearing from the Secretary today and further
discussing these important issues.
______

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Earlier this week the Obama Administration released a
budget proposal for the Department of the Interior that lays
out a balanced approach to energy production on public lands.
Despite the claims of critics, the Obama Administration has
been fostering both traditional oil and gas development, while
moving us forward to a clean energy future. Across the United
States, oil production is at its highest level in nearly a
decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have never
seen before. Oil production on public lands offshore is higher
than it was during each of the last three years of the Bush
Administration.
According to industry analysts, by this summer there will
be nearly 30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf
than there were prior to the BP spill. And despite claims from
the oil industry that companies need access to more areas
offshore, the Interior Department's 5-year plan makes more than
75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available for
development.
It is not the Obama Administration holding back more
domestic production. It is the oil companies that are currently
warehousing roughly 26 million acres offshore that hold
billions of barrels of oil. Onshore, the Department of the
Interior has approved more permits to drill, and industry has
begun drilling more wells in the first three years of the Obama
Administration than in the first three years of the Bush
Administration. And the oil and gas industry still has more
than 7,000 approved permits to drill onshore that they are not
using.
But the Obama Administration is also developing renewable
energy on public lands, with the goal of permitting 11,000
megawatts by the end of 2013. This would be more than five
times the amount of renewable energy permitted by all previous
Administrations combined. Yet, the Republican Majority is
threatening to raise taxes on the wind industry, which would
jeopardize these projects and could kill 37,000 permanent and
existing clean energy jobs at the same time they say that the
Keystone pipeline would create 6,000 temporary jobs in
construction.
Meanwhile, today the Majority is bringing a bill to the
House Floor that amounts to nothing more than a giveaway to Big
Oil under the guise of funding our nation's transportation
projects. The Majority said their drilling bills were necessary
to pay for transportation funding. Yet, the three bills
reported out of this committee would generate less than 10
percent of the revenue shortfall for our transportation
projects over the next five years. It turns out simply creating
more drill holes won't eliminate our nation's potholes.
But, more than that, we know that there will be no drilling
in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, because the votes aren't there
in the Senate. We know that there will be no oil shale in
Colorado and Utah and in Wyoming, because the Department of
Energy has determined that there is no commercially available
technology in order to accomplish that goal. And we know that
there is not going to be any oil drilling off the coast of
Florida and California, because Republicans from those states
are lining up to lead the charge to make sure there is no
drilling off of those coastlines.
So, these are phantom revenues from phantom drilling that
are being proposed by the Republicans in order to pay for a
transportation bill. And that is the bottom line, in terms of
their proposals on this big debate that we are going to have on
paying for the transportation bill.
In contrast to the all-of-the-above energy plan laid out by
Secretary Salazar and the Obama Administration, the Majority's
plan is nothing more than oil above all. These drilling bills
may be good for the members of the American Petroleum
Institute, but they are not good for the American people. And
ultimately, they are not going to provide the revenues we need
for a transportation bill.
The Majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that
American resources would stay here in America to help our
consumers. The Majority rejected my amendments in this
committee to ensure that natural gas produced from public lands
cannot be exported. We should keep that here for our own
industries, our own farmers, our own consumers. Low U.S.
natural gas prices provide a competitive advantage for American
businesses, and relief for American families, and exporting our
natural gas would eliminate our economic edge. The Majority
should not be imposing a de facto natural gas tax on American
agriculture, manufacturing in chemical, steel, and plastics by
allowing our natural gas to be exported, as all of these
Republican bills would do.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this important hearing
today.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources

Thank you.
Earlier this week, the Obama Administration released a budget
proposal for the Department of the Interior that lays out a balanced
approach to energy production on public lands. Despite the claims of
critics, the Obama Administration has been fostering both traditional
oil and gas development while moving us forward to a clean energy
future.
Across the United States, oil production is at its highest level in
nearly a decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have
never seen before. Oil production on public lands offshore is higher
than it was during each of the last three years of the Bush
Administration. According to industry analysts, by this summer there
will be nearly 30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf than
there were prior to the BP spill.
And despite claims from the oil industry that companies need access
to more areas offshore, the Interior Department's five year plan makes
more than 75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available
for development. It's not the Obama administration holding back more
domestic production, it's the oil companies that are currently
warehousing roughly 26 million acres offshore that hold billions of
barrels of oil.
Onshore, the Department of the Interior has approved more permits
to drill and industry has begun drilling more wells in the first three
years of the Obama Administration than in the first three years of the
Bush Administration. And the oil and gas industry still has more than
7,000 approved permits to drill onshore that they are not using.
But the Obama Administration is also developing renewable energy on
public lands, with the goal of permitting 11,000 megawatts by the end
of 2013. This would be more than 5 times the amount of renewable energy
permitted by all previous administrations combined. Yet the Republican
Majority is threatening to raise taxes on the wind industry, which
would jeopardize those projects and could kill 37,000 permanent and
existing clean energy jobs.
Meanwhile, today the Majority is bringing a bill to the House Floor
that amounts to nothing more than a giveaway to Big Oil under the guise
of funding our nation's transportation projects. The Majority said
their drilling bills were necessary to pay for transportation funding.
Yet the three bills reported out of this committee would generate less
than 10 percent of the revenue shortfall for our transportation
projects over the next 5 years. It turns out simply creating more drill
holes won't eliminate our nation's pot holes.
In contrast to the ``all of the above'' energy plan laid out by
Secretary Salazar and the Obama Administration, the Majority's plan is
nothing more than ``oil above all.'' These drilling bills may be good
for the members of the American Petroleum Institute, but they are not
good for the American people.
The Majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that American
resources stay here in America to help our consumers. The Majority
rejected my amendments in this Committee to ensure that natural gas
produced from public lands cannot be exported.
Low U.S. natural gas prices provide a competitive advantage for
American businesses and a relief for American families, and exporting
our natural gas would eliminate our economic edge. The Majority should
not be imposing a de facto natural gas tax on American agriculture,
manufacturing, chemicals, steel and plastics by allowing our gas to be
exported as these Republican bills would do.
If the Republicans vote to allow the exportation of America's
natural gas in their transportation bill, all they will be constructing
is an expressway to higher prices for American families and businesses.
For years, the Majority has said we need to ``drill here, drill
now, pay less.'' But it appears the real Republican energy plan is to
``drill here, sell there, and pay more.''
I look forward to hearing Secretary Salazar's testimony and thank
him for coming to this committee.
______

The Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member. And once again,
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. And you have
been here before, and know how our process works. Your full
statement will appear in the record, and the timing lights are
such that when the green light goes on, the full five minutes
is what you have allocated. When the yellow light goes on, it
means you have a minute. And then, when the red light goes on,
if you could watch it as closely as possible, we would very
much appreciate it.
And I might add to the Committee that the Chairman--or the
Secretary is here until approximately 12:15. There may be some
flexibility on that, but if we can adhere as closely to the 5-
minute rule, we will get as many questions in as possible.
So with that, Mr. Secretary, I recognize you for five
minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND PAMELA K. HAZE,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE, PERFORMANCE AND
ACQUISITION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Hastings,
and Ranking Member Markey, and all the members of the
Committee, as well as your staff. It is an honor for me to
appear before you today on behalf of President Obama, and to
represent the budget proposed by the President for the
Department of the Interior.
Today with me at the hearing table is the Deputy Secretary
of the Interior, David J. Hayes, who works with me on a panoply
of issues, including all of the issues that this committee
addresses, and Pam Haze, who is the Budget Director for the
Department of the Interior, who has been in the position for
multiple Administrations.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Markey, that this budget for the Fiscal Year 2013 is a squeeze
budget. It is a squeeze budget with tough choices and with
painful cuts included in this budget. We have cuts in
government, so that we will be doing more with less.
We have a proposed budget here that supports job creation,
job creation through energy, including conventional energy as
well as renewable energy. We have job creation in this budget
through support for conservation and America's great outdoors,
job creation in this budget through investment in water
infrastructure, especially through all the Bureau of
Reclamation facilities and working with our partners throughout
the West, and job creation on tribal homelands, where we honor
our trust responsibilities in standing up the future of the 566
tribes of America.
I want to review each of those areas in brief here in my
opening comment. First of all, with respect to cuts and
efficiency in government, working closely with Pam Haze, our
Budget Director, and others, we have put forward a budget that
will cut the Federal workforce by 591 FTE in the Department of
the Interior in the year 2013. Those are real positions with
real dollars associated with them.
We will also conduct a program termination and downsizing
of a number of programs that will total $517 million. Now, I
know some of you may not like the fact, for example, that with
the Central Utah Project we are cutting that by $8 million, and
we also are consolidating that within the Bureau of
Reclamation.
A painful cut for me and for many members of this committee
is the National Heritage Areas, because those are important
programs for our country. And yet we are taking an $8 million
cut in the National Heritage Area program. So there are many
program terminations and downsizings that are set forth in this
budget.
And third, administrative efficiencies, matters that relate
to travel and contracting and procurement. We will save $207
million in this budget that is being proposed in 2013.
Now, let me move quickly from those cuts and downsizing
over to jobs and energy, which I know is a primary focus of
this committee. We have included in this budget an increase of
$76 million from 2012 to move forward with an all-of-the-above
strategy for energy--the energy program of the United States of
America. Now, that additional money, $76 million over 2012,
will support the development of our conventional energy,
including oil and gas, as well as support the major renewable
energy revolution, which we are leading in America today.
It is important to note that on the conventional side,
which goes into most of the oil and gas production and other
energy resources that we produce, $662 million is allocated for
those conventional energies. In contrast, only $86 million is
allocated to renewable energy. But with those $86 million, the
Department of the Interior is dedicated to surpass the goals
that President Obama set out in the State of the Union to have
this authorized by the end of 2012, over 10 megawatts of
renewable energy power on our public lands.
So, we feel good about where we are, in terms of the energy
program for the United States, and the reflection on this
budget.
Jobs again, in outdoor recreation and conservation. Funding
here is level with 2012. Independent reports show that over
eight million jobs come from outdoor recreation and tourism and
preservation. We have reports from independent consultants, as
well, that this is one of the cornerstones of the future jobs
for America. And that is true for Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and
in fact, all of your states and territories.
Jobs and water. The Bureau of Reclamation today supports
416,000 jobs. We provide water to 31 million people, and
provide water for much of the agriculture for the United States
of America. This budget keeps us on track so that between 2009
and 2013 we will have been able to increase water supply in
Bureau of Reclamation facilities by 730,000 acre-feet. That is
a very significant amount of water.
And finally, jobs on tribal homelands. It is an important
part of our responsibilities of the Department of the Interior.
And this budget honors those responsibilities.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this budget is a squeeze
budget with tough choices and painful cuts. We do more with
less. We invest in job creation through energy, conservation,
water, tribal homelands, and the science that is required to
support all of those initiatives.
Thank you very much for the opportunity for the opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary,
U.S. 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.
This Committee has been an active partner in advancing these
priorities. I look forward to our continued collaboration during the
2013 appropriations process.

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 non-
agricultural 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 buy-back
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 multi-pueblo 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.
______

Response to questions submitted for the record by the
U.S. Department of the Interior

Chairman Hastings

1. Has the Department of Interior expended any federal resources in
connection with the removal of Condit Dam on the White Salmon
River in southwest Washington? If so, please identify any and
all sources, including any grants that the Department of
Interior has awarded to non-governmental entities in connection
with this matter.
Response: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has expended
federal resources in connection with the removal of Condit Dam on the
White Salmon River in southwest Washington. The FWS used resource
management funds to assist in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) relicensing and negotiation of the Settlement Agreement for
Condit Dam, and provided technical assistance, outreach and education,
and conducted Section 7 consultations to evaluate impacts of dam
removal on bull trout, a species listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act.

2. Has the Department of Interior studied, or does the Deparment plan
to study in the future the impact of the silt from the removal
of Condit Dam on endangered species, including salmon spawning
grounds below the dam on the White Salmon River? Has the
Department communicated with PacifiCorp regarding plans to
repair or mitigate the impact to the spawning grounds?
Response: Bull trout is the only federally listed species under the
jurisdiction of the FWS that could be affected by removal of the Condit
Dam. The FWS prepared a biological opinion evaluating expected impacts
of dam removal on bull trout and their critical habitat and concluded
that long term benefits of dam removal outweighed short term impacts
from release of sediments. No bull trout spawning grounds exist below
the dam. Consequently, the FWS has not communicated with PacifiCorp
regarding repair or mitigation plans related to salmon spawning
grounds.

3. Has your office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs received any
proposals or requests from federally-recognized Indian tribes
in Washington State for the Department to hold land in trust on
their behalf? If so, please identify the details of all such
proposals, including the tribe requesting, the location of such
property and under what authority such proposals or requests
are being made or considered.
Response: Attached is a list, as of March 15, 2012, of land into
trust applications pending in the Bureau of Indian Affairs from
federally-recognized Indian tribes in Washington State. The list sets
forth the tribe applying to have land placed in trust, the name of the
property, the number of acres of the property, what the land will
generally be used for, and the statutory authority for the proposed
trust acquisition.

4. On February 16, 2012, you held a town hall event in Anacortes,
Washington regarding the San Juan Islands. In 2010, the San
Juan Islands was included amongst 13 other locations in
documents as a potential national monument. Has the President
communicated with you about plans to include the San Juan
Islands for designation under the Antiquities Act? Is the
Administration considering any other federal designations
there?
Response: The local support for a conservation designation of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed lands within the San Juan
Islands is strong. Legislation to designate the San Juan Islands in
Washington State as a National Conservation Area has been introduced in
both the Senate by Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray and
in the House by Representative Rick Larsen. On March 22, 2012 the
Department of the Interior testified in support of S. 1559, the San
Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act, before the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee.

5. On January 13, 2012, the President announced the merger of several
agencies, including a proposal to move the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration into the Department of Interior.
However, in the FY 2013 Interior budget proposal just released,
it is unclear how this proposal is factored. Please provide a
full summary of all activities in the FY 2013 budget request,
including FTEs, associated with the President's proposal
relating to NOAA and the Department of Interior.
Response: The 2013 budget request does not propose any funding or
FTEs relating to a consolidation of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior. The
President has requested that Congress reinstate the reorganization
authority afforded to Presidents for almost 50 years. 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 planning effort
will begin once Congress provides authority to the President to
reorganize.

6. On September 21, 2011, you announced the ``Partners in Conservation
Awards'' to 17 recipients, including one featuring federal and
state entities that worked with the National Wildlife
Federation, a frequent plaintiff against the Department and
other federal agencies, to develop a guidebook titled,
``Scanning the Conservation Horizon.'' The Award notice states
the guidebook is being used by Department of Interior bureaus
and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ``to guide standardized
vulnerability assessment of the resources it manages'' and
``allow comparison of risk across DOI bureaus for a common
understanding of the impacts of climate change.'' Please
provide a summary of each Department of Interior bureau's total
expenditure of federal resources, including FTEs, used directly
or indirectly to support the National Wildlife Federation in
publishing this guidebook.
Response: In FY 2010, through a cooperative agreement with the
National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the FWS, National Park Service and
U.S. Geological Survey each provided $50,000 to support the development
of the Scanning the Conservation Horizon guidebook and associated
training for natural resource specialists and managers. Additionally,
the Department contributed an estimated 0.5 FTE, estimated at a total
of $72,800, for the FWS, NPS and USGS staff who participated in the
technical review of the document during its development. A breakdown of
the estimated FTE and associated expenditures by bureau follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.010

Rep. Fleming
1. Could you please provide the acreage, maps and the revenues
received from natural gas production on federal lands within
the following:
a) The state of Louisiana?
b) The 4th Congressional District?
c) The boundaries of Barksdale Air Force Base and if
applicable, Ft. Polk?
d) Kistatchie National Forest?
Response: In Fiscal Year 2011, there were 198,960 under lease
within the State of Louisiana, and total production revenues were
approximately $21 million. The electronic systems used to manage lease
acreage and revenue data cannot readily report data for the 4th
Congressional District of Louisiana, the Barksdale Air Force Base or
Ft. Polk, or the Kitsatchie National Forest. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is conducting a manual records review in order to
generate responses to the remainder of this question. BLM anticipates
completing the manual review by June 15, 2012. The additional data will
be provided separately.

Rep. Bordallo
1. The OIA budget requests $3 million for the continuation of brown
tree snake (BTS) control. The interdiction program on Guam is
staffed by personnel from the Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), however is
primarily funded through DOI and the DOD. As you may recall,
toward the end of FY 11, there was some uncertainty at the USDA
as to whether it would continue the BTS program in FY 12.
Ultimately an interagency agreement was reached and the USDA
decided not to continue this important program into FY 12 and
review it for efficiencies. I am hoping you could offer more
details as to the agreement that was reached, and whether there
is any uncertainty regarding the future of the program in FY
13.
Response: After working closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) last summer to ensure the continuation of the USDA
operated Guam BTS Interdiction Program beyond FY 2011, the Department
of the Interior and the Department of Defense (DOD), in close
cooperation with the USDA, conducted a first quarter FY 2012 review of
the Program to identify potential cost-saving efficiencies that would
enable the Program to be fully operational moving forward. The review
was completed in February 2012 and a funding agreement was reached
between the USDA, the DOD and the DOI to ensure the continuation of
this important Program through the end of the fiscal year. While it is
unclear how Congress may decide to prioritize funding available for BTS
control and management efforts beyond FY 2012, the continuation of the
Guam BTS Interdiction Program, from the perspective of DOI, will remain
a high priority.

Rep. Grijalva
I would like to get some more information about an ongoing dynamic
between your department and the State of Utah. Please provide the
Committee with answers to following questions:
1. The state of Utah has been largely unsuccessful to date in its
quest for thousands of R.S. 2477 claims, yet it has recently
filed a notice of intent to sue the department to gain title to
over 18,000 rights of way, and this leads me to look with
skepticism on their claims, thousands of which have never been
constructed or maintained, just created by random travelers,
off-road vehicle users, long-forgotten prospectors and
infrequent livestock herders. I hope that you and the
department vigorously defend against this attack on federal
public lands in Utah. What will you do to ensure that federal
public lands are fully protected from this threat?
Response: The Department of the Interior, through the Department of
Justice, does plan a vigorous defense of United States' interests and,
as the July 29, 2010, Secretarial Memorandum on R.S. 2477 makes clear,
the Department must be able to make all appropriate arguments under the
law to defend these interests. The Department itself does not
adjudicate or specifically reserve R.S. 2477 rights. These legal
determinations must ultimately be made by the courts. In this instance,
we understand that plaintiffs believe themselves obligated to file so
as to avoid a potential statute of limitations issue, and all parties
recognize that adjudication of the lawsuits, if an alternative
resolution cannot be found, will demand a significant amount of time
and resources. The Department has also been working with the State of
Utah in an attempt to build a constructive, inclusive solution to the
issue of RS 2477 rights-of-way. The Department has joined with State
and county officials and other stakeholders in a pilot negotiation
project in Iron County, Utah, to try to resolve non-controversial
claims through consensus building. This approach to addressing the
issue, with openness on all sides, may help us establish a model for
consensus-based problem solving that we can carry into the future.

2. How will Interior determine how these R.S. 2477 claims would impact
existing and proposed conservation designations? How would they
affect your conservation goals and achievements?
Response: 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 the Department 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 the Department to protect sensitive resources,
the Department's ability to implement protective management could be
impacted.

3. How would the recognition of these claims affect DOI's ability to
manage federal public lands. Would it affect the effectiveness
of law enforcement and ORV monitoring? How about the
effectiveness of archaeological site protection efforts?
Response: The Department will take any RS 2477 claims traversing
the federal lands that are recognized by a court of competent
jurisdiction into account when it manages the federal lands. The
Department retains the power to reasonably regulate such rights-of-way.
The Bureau of Land Management reviews travel impacts to archeological
resources on a case-by-case basis. As appropriate, the Department
protects archeological resources from damage by exercising its
statutory and legal authorities, and by entering into agreements with
neighboring land managers.

4. Some of the state's claims lie in BLM wilderness areas designated
in the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Act and the Washington County
Wilderness Act. Frankly, this casts doubt in my mind as to the
state and counties' good faith and seriousness when it comes to
enacting federal public lands designations. How will you manage
designated wilderness areas, places Congress itself has
determined to be essentially roadless in the face of R.S. 2477
claims?
Response: The Department will comply with Wilderness Act and
Congressional direction regarding the management of designated
Wilderness Areas. The Department 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 are
not entitled to make improvements or engage in new road construction
without consulting the Department and adhering to the federal
permitting requirements such as under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. The Department will not issue such a permit in a
Wilderness Area.

Rep. Lamborn
1. States with disclosure requirements--including two with some of the
more stringent requirements, Wyoming and Colorado--provide
detailed approaches to protection of trade secrets relating to
the fracture stimulation fluid formulations. The states do so
in a way that achieves a balance between the public interest in
information about what has been discharged into subsurface
strata, and the valid interest of business entities in a
process or formulation that presents them with a legitimate
competitive advantage. The draft BLM regulations do not provide
equivalent assurances to suppliers that have a commercial
interest in formulations that is of the sort given protection
in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act that has been ratified by 46
states. Please describe how BLM would plan to recognize the
property interest in trade secrets that has been acknowledged
by the states that are regulating hydraulic fracturing.
Response: In addition to the water and sand that are the major
constituents of fracturing fluids, chemical additives are also
frequently used. These chemicals can serve many functions, including
limiting the growth of bacteria and preventing corrosion of the well
casing. The exact formulation of the chemicals used in fracturing fluid
varies depending on the rock formations, the well, and the requirements
of the operator.
In order to protect proprietary formulations, 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. 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.
This design of the disclosure mechanism in the proposed rule will
inhibit reverse-engineering of specific additives. The information is
needed in order for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to maintain a
record of the stimulation operation as performed. The proposed rule,
would allow an operator to identify specific information that it
believes is protected from disclosure by federal law, and to
substantiate those claims of exemption. This approach is similar to the
one that the State of Colorado adopted in 2011 (Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission Rule 205.A.b2.ix-xii).

2. In looking at the BLM draft regulations--it seems that in general
they go significantly above and beyond what any state has in
place right now. Why did BLM make such drastic changes when the
states have been doing a sufficient job of regulating fracking
for years?
Response: 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 is designed to complement
ongoing state efforts by providing a consistent standard across all
public and tribal lands and ensuring consistent protection of the
important federal and Indian resource values that may be affected by
the use of hydraulic fracturing. Moreover, BLM's regulations are now 30
years old and need to be updated to keep pace with the many changes in
technology and current best management practices.
The BLM is also actively working to minimize duplication between
reporting required by state regulations and reporting required for this
rule. The BLM has a long history of working cooperatively with state
regulators and is applying the same approach to this effort.

3. In your testimony you stated to the Committee that you have often
heard industry say that they would rather have one blanket set
of regulations to comply with, rather than a state by state
``patchwork'' of differing regulations. The Natural Resources
Committee received a letter signed by multiple associations
representing the natural gas industry stating that their
companies support the current state process for regulation of
hydraulic fracturing. Please explain the instances when you
have been told by the natural gas industry that they do
specifically support federal regulations for hydraulic
fracturing?
Response: At the President's direction, we are taking steps--in
coordination with our federal partners and informed by the input of
industry experts--to ensure that we continue to develop this abundant
domestic resource on public lands safely and responsibly. Based on
preliminary input we have received from industry, the public, and
stakeholders, the Secretary has clearly outlined three common-sense
measures. Those measures are straightforward:
Requiring public disclosure of chemicals used in
fracking, with appropriate protections for trade secrets;
Improving assurances on well-bore integrity so we
know fluids going into the well aren't escaping into the usable
aquifer; and
Making sure companies have a water management plan in
place for fluids that flow back to the surface.

4. In your testimony you told the Committee that the regulations were
crafted with input from the natural gas industry. Aside from
their support of Frac Focus, please tell us what other specific
provisions in the regulations were either suggested by the
natural gas industry or crafted with input from the natural gas
industry?
Response: In developing the proposed rule, the BLM sought feedback
from a wide range of sources, including tribal representatives,
industry, members of the public and other interested stakeholders. The
BLM developed the proposed well stimulation rule to provide common-
sense measures that will enhance public confidence in hydraulic
fracturing on public lands, while also encouraging continued safe and
responsible exploration and production. The BLM's proposed rule is
consistent with the American Petroleum Institute's (API) guidelines for
well construction and well integrity (see API Guidance Document HF 1,
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations--Well Construction and Integrity
Guidelines, First Edition, October 2009).
In November 2010, Secretary Salazar hosted a forum, including major
stakeholders, on hydraulic fracturing on public and Indian lands to
examine best practices to ensure that natural gas on public and Indian
lands is developed in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
Subsequently, in April 2011, the BLM hosted a series of regional public
meetings in North Dakota, Arkansas, and Colorado--states that have
experienced significant increases in oil and natural gas development on
federal and Indian lands--to discuss the use of hydraulic fracturing on
the Nation's public lands.
During the Secretary's forum and the BLM's public meetings, members
of the public expressed a strong interest in obtaining more information
about hydraulic fracturing operations being conducted on public and
Indian lands.

5. In the BLM regulations there are a variety of pre-disclosure
requirements. Oil and gas development is a constantly evolving
process and many engineering decisions are made on a day to day
basis. To what extent has BLM discussed with industry as to
whether or not these 30 day disclosure requirements are even
possible? And what assurance does industry have that BLM will
approve their submissions in a timely fashion that will not
completely stop the drilling operation while they wait for BLM
to approve their plans?
Response: The proposed rule requires public disclosure of chemicals
used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have been
completed. The BLM understands the time sensitive nature of oil and gas
drilling and well completion activities and does not anticipate that
the submittal of well stimulation-related information will impact the
timing of the approval of drilling permits.

6. The proposed BLM regulations will greatly impact the states that
already regulated hydraulic fracturing. It will impact the
state's economies, and their ability to create jobs and foster
energy development in within their states. There will also have
to be significant coordination between state and federal
regulations. When in the process have you met with the states
to make them aware of your plans?
Response: The BLM recognizes that in recent years, with the
increase in well stimulation activities, 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.
In keeping with longstanding practice and consistent with relevant
statutory authorities, it is the intention of the BLM to implement on
public lands whichever rules, state or federal, are most protective of
federal lands and resources and the environment. And regardless of any
action taken by the BLM, operators still would need to comply with any
state-specific hydraulic fracturing requirements on private lands in
the states where they operate.

7. Please describe the process by which you have taken to consult with
the Tribes on these draft regulations? Please describe the
number of meetings held, the Tribes in attendance at these
meetings, the number of representatives from each Tribe and any
comments or supporting documents you may have received from the
Tribes during these discussions.
Response: Tribal consultation is a critical part of this effort,
and Secretary Salazar is committed to making sure tribal leaders play a
significant role as we work together to develop resources on public and
Indian lands in safe and responsible way. The BLM has been involved in
active tribal consultation efforts on this topic, and is continuing to
consult with tribes on the proposed rule. As part of the consultation
process, the BLM conducted outreach to tribal representatives through
four regional meetings in January 2012. Nearly 180 tribal
representatives from all tribes that are currently receiving oil and
gas royalties and all tribes that may have had ancestral surface use
were invited. Eighty-four tribal members representing 24 tribes
attended the meetings. These meetings were held in Tulsa, Oklahoma;
Billings, Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Farmington, New Mexico.
In these sessions, tribal representatives were given a discussion
draft of the hydraulic fracturing rule to serve as a basis for
substantive dialogue about the hydraulic fracturing rulemaking process.
The BLM asked the tribal representatives 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. Additional individual meetings with tribal
representatives have taken place since that time.
BLM has activity engaged tribes and will proactively continue
tribal consultation under the Department's recently implemented Tribal
Consultation Policy, which emphasizes trust, respect and shared
responsibility in providing tribal governments an expanded role in
informing federal policy that impacts Indian tribes, including their
lands.
The agency will continue to consult with tribal leaders throughout
the rulemaking process. Responses from tribal representatives will
inform the agency's actions in defining the scope of acceptable
hydraulic fracturing rule options.

8. Unlike the more stringent state disclosure requirements, the draft
BLM regulations require pre-approval of fracture stimulation
formulations. What is the technical basis on which such
approval will be given or withheld by the agency? What is the
staff expertise that will be required to make such
determinations, and does BLM currently have the staff resources
to administer this pre-approval
Response: The proposed rule requires public disclosure of chemicals
used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have been
completed.

9. Please describe the Department's or BLM's familiarity with the
operational practice in the drilling industry of making
adjustments to well stimulation fluid formulations on a
relatively continuous manner during the process of drilling and
completing a well--including making adjustments to such
formulations while hydraulic fracturing operations are underway
as a result of many factors including the pH levels of the
water used and the temperature of the air during the job?
Please describe how BLM would expect to administer these
regulations if adopted in light of that practice, given the 30
day pre-approval submittal requirement?
Response: The proposed rule requires public disclosure of chemicals
used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have been
completed.

10. The states with the most stringent disclosure requirements for
hydraulic fracturing fluid formulations require that operators
provide disclosure of the chemicals used via the FracFocus
website. The draft BLM regulations make no reference to
FracFocus. Do the draft regulations as worded indicate that BLM
intends to set up an entirely new data base of fracture
stimulation chemicals? How would this data base be administered
if BLM should establish it?
Response: The BLM is working closely with the Ground Water
Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission in an
effort to determine whether the disclosure called for in the proposed
rule can be integrated into the existing website known as FracFocus.
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.

11. What economic factors do you intend to take into consideration
when issuing the final regulations?
Response: The hydraulic fracturing rulemaking process includes an
estimate of economic benefits and costs that considers a number of
factors, including employment impacts, discounted present value,
uncertainty, and a number of rule alternatives.

Rep. Denham
Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Your testimony states that the Administration proposes to increase
duck stamp fees to $25.00 per stamp per year, beginning in
2013; and this is due to the cost to purchase land increasing.
Does the government need to buy more land? How many acres was
Interior able to purchase through this fund over the past 3
years? Has there been any effort to reduce the amount of
hunting and use of guns on federal lands under this
administration? If so, it would seem that this tax on hunters
is simply for a land grab policy and not to further their
commitment to the environment and their sport.
Response: This Administration is committed to promoting outdoor
recreational activities on public lands. The Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) is one source of funds for the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (Fund). The Fund provides the
Department of the Interior with financing for the acquisition of
migratory bird habitat. These protected lands are critically important
for sustaining waterfowl and other species population levels. Such
opportunities to acquire and conserve land through Duck Stamp dollars
provide Americans with opportunities to enjoy the outdoors by engaging
in activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking and wildlife watching,
key components of the Administration's America's Great Outdoors
Initiative. The following charts show the total acreage the Department
of the Interior has purchased in 2009, 2010 and 2011:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.012

Bureau of Land Management
2. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land
Management lands have historically received a percentage of
agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. With the
declining revenue from timber sales, mostly due to restrictive
Administration policies, do you have a plan to revive these
timber sales so that local communities can continue to support
the education of their children that reside in rural areas and
needed emergency personnel? Is it an option to loosen up
environmental regulations to allow the timber industry to begin
to produce higher receipts; even if the industry is mainly
allowed to harvest annual yield to maintain the current acreage
of forests?
Response: Although timber purchases as well as harvest levels are
driven by market forces, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continues
to offer a predictable, sustainable supply of timber sales in western
Oregon of approximately 200 million board feet (MMBF) per year. In
recent years the BLM's timber volumes offered for sale have ranged from
highs of 236 MMBF in 2008 and 233 MMBF in 2010, to 198 MMBF in 2007.
The BLM offered 198 million board feet of timber for sale in FY
2011, and in addition, re-offered 12 million board feet from previous
contracts that had been mutually cancelled. In FY 2012, the BLM plans
to offer the program target volume of 193 MMBF of timber for sale. The
BLM also plans to reoffer additional volume from eight more contracts
that were mutually cancelled. For FY 2013, the BLM budget proposal also
includes an increase of $1.5 million in the O&C Forest Management
program to increase the volume of timber offered for sale.

Bureau of Reclamation
3. Secretary Salazar, you have previously stated that you could waive
the Endangered Species Act when it came to unemployment caused
by the delta smelt regulation but indicated that by doing so,
it would be ``admitting failure.'' You did not wave the
Endangered Species Act when it contributed to 40% unemployment
in 2009. I want to ensure that people in my district are able
to work. Will you wave the Endangered Species Act if it puts
people out of work this year? Will you wave it if it puts
people out of work next year? (Salazar will not directly answer
this question, he will say that the California water situation
is complex and numerous factors need to be considered.)
Response: Addressing the dual challenges of providing more reliable
water supplies for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing
the overall quality of the Bay-Delta environment requires action to
address a myriad of issues. California depends upon a highly-engineered
system built generations ago, a system which was designed to serve a
state population less than half of what it is today. The system remains
vulnerable to catastrophic failure in the event of an earthquake, levee
breeches, or natural disaster. The withdrawal of large quantities of
freshwater from the Delta, increased discharges of pollutants from
human activities, increases in non-native species, and numerous other
factors have all threaten the reliability of California's water system
and the Bay-Delta's biologically diverse ecosystem.
Section 7(g) of the Endangered Species Act sets forth the process
by which an Endangered Species Act exemption can be obtained. The
Endangered Species Act does not authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to unilaterally waive the Act's application. Rather, the exemption
process involves convening a cabinet-level Endangered Species
Committee. There have only been six instances to date in which the
exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was
partially granted, one was denied, and three were dropped. This rarely
used process, which could lead to the extinction of one or more
species, is costly and time-consuming. In passing Section 7(a),
Congress intended the exemption process to serve as a last resort
measure and expressed particular concern that it not undermine the
Section 7 consultation process, which Congress believed could resolve
most problems. A waiver of the Endangered Species Act would override
protections on California's watersheds, on which 25 million people
depend for clean drinking water, and circumvent the locally-driven,
solution-oriented, collaborative approach that is reflected in the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Exempting the Central Valley Project
from the Endangered Species Act is not an appropriate mechanism for
solving California's water crisis.
For the past three years, the Department has committed a vast
amount of energy to advancing a collaborative planning process that
will provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species
while improving water system reliability. The BDCP is intended to
address the three major components of the Endangered Species Act as it
relates to State Water Project and Central Valley Project operations:
the Section 7 requirement that federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the federal fish and wildlife agencies, that their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species or result in
modification or destruction of critical habitat; the Section 9
prohibition against the ``taking'' of listed species; and the Section
10 provisions that provide for the permitting of non-federal entities
for the incidental take of listed species.
As further evidence of the Department of the Interior's commitment
to addressing California's water supply issues, the Bureau of
Reclamation's 2013 budget allocates well over $250 million for
California water issues. This amount includes funding for the BDCP,
science and monitoring activities to improve existing biological
opinions governing Central Valley Project operations, fisheries and
restoration actions, water deliveries to refuges, and continued
maintenance of CVP water delivery and power generation facilities.

Follow up:
4. How high does unemployment have to be before you wave the
Endangered Species Act? (He will not directly answer and say
that a number of factors must be considered.)
Response: Section 7(g) of the Endangered Species Act sets forth the
process by which an Endangered Species Act exemption can be obtained.
The Endangered Species Act does not authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to unilaterally waive the Act's application. Rather, the
exemption process involves convening a cabinet-level Endangered Species
Committee. There have only been six instances to date in which the
exemption process was initiated. Of these six, one was granted, one was
partially granted, one was denied, and three were dropped. This rarely
used process, which could lead to the extinction of one or more
species, is costly and time-consuming. In passing Section 7(a),
Congress intended the exemption process to serve as a last resort
measure and expressed particular concern that it not undermine the
Section 7 consultation process, which Congress believed could resolve
most problems. A waiver of the Endangered Species Act would override
protections on California's watersheds, on which 25 million people
depend for clean drinking water, and circumvent the locally-driven,
solution-oriented, collaborative approach that is reflected in the
BDCP. Exempting the Central Valley Project from the Endangered Species
Act is not an appropriate mechanism for solving California's water
crisis.

5. A part of the SJRRP calls for Reclamation to reintroduce salmon
back into the San Joaquin River system above Mendota pool by
utilizing eggs from other Central Valley salmon runs that are
listed as threaten or endangered under the Federal Endangered
Species Act. How much will this program cost in fiscal year
2013 and every year thereafter? Not the amount requested (12
million), but the actual projected costs.
Response: Funding needs for San Joaquin River Restoration Program
(Restoration Program) fisheries reintroduction activities for FY 2013
are estimated at $3,270, 000. Future reintroduction activities are
estimated to range from $4,900,000 to $5,700,000 annually through FY
2018, depending on the specific activities planned for the year.
Given the harmful impacts of the interim flows from
Friant, has the Bureau of Reclamation already built the
necessary infrastructure to mitigate any further seepage and
ensured that the river is absolutely ready for sustained
increased flows?
Response: The FY 2013 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation
includes funding to continue seepage monitoring and management efforts,
including the evaluation and construction of seepage management
projects. These projects include the construction or installation of
interceptor lines, drainage ditches, shallow groundwater pumping, and
channel conveyance improvements. Funding will also be directed toward
non-physical actions such as property acquisitions. Reclamation will
continue to hold interim flows to levels that do not cause material
adverse seepage impacts until the seepage management projects have been
completed.
Public Law 111-11 and the Stipulation of Settlement entered in NRDC
et al. v. Rodgers et al. (``Settlement'') provide for the release of
interim flows in order to collect relevant data concerning flows,
temperatures, fish needs, seepage losses, recirculation, recapture, and
reuse. As Reclamation has obtained data regarding seepage, and
consistent with Public Law 111-11, Reclamation has held interim flows
to levels that avoid potential material adverse seepage impacts.
Reclamation completed updates to the Restoration Program's Seepage
Management Plan and posted an updated plan on the Program's web site in
March 2011. The plan has been developed with input from landowners and
district managers to address landowner concerns related to potential
changes in groundwater elevations that may be a result of the
Restoration Program. The approaches to monitor and set groundwater
thresholds, as well as responses to address seepage before it impacts
adjacent lands, are described in the plan. Reclamation installed and
monitors more than 160 groundwater monitoring wells, many on private
property in locations chosen or agreed to by landowners.
In coordination with the Seepage and Conveyance Technical Feedback
Group, Reclamation established thresholds for all monitoring wells and
uses data from the wells to inform interim flow releases such that
potential material adverse seepage impacts are avoided. As a result of
the Seepage Management Plan and groundwater thresholds, Reclamation has
limited flows below Sack Dam. Reclamation also established a Seepage
Hotline for landowners to call if they see or anticipate seepage on
their property.
Reclamation is preparing a Seepage Projects Handbook, which is
being developed in coordination with local irrigation districts and
landowners through the public Seepage and Conveyance Technical Feedback
Group. The handbook sets expectations, timelines and processes for
implementing seepage projects. Reclamation recently held meetings with
Reach 3, 4A, and 4B landowners and specifically invited landowners
whose properties are the highest priority for seepage management
actions. As a result of this meeting, six different landowners are
beginning to work with Reclamation to evaluate their properties for
seepage projects. Reclamation will limit interim flows to levels that
do not cause material adverse seepage impacts until these projects are
in place.
All Central Valley salmon runs are struggling to
regain their historic numbers. Why would Reclamation propose to
fill one river with salmon from another and purposely reduce
the numbers of available salmon in other streams to plant them
into the San Joaquin system and further threaten and/or
endangered current runs?
Response: Public Law 111-11 and the Settlement direct the Secretary
of the Interior to reintroduce California Central Valley spring and
fall run Chinook salmon into the San Joaquin River, with priority given
to restoring self-sustaining populations of wild spring run.
Historically, spring run Chinook salmon were abundant in the San
Joaquin River system. Extirpation of these and other runs has led to
the threatened status of this species. Since spring run Chinook salmon
have been extirpated from the San Joaquin, reintroduction will require
the use of eggs and fish from other streams. To ensure the collection
of spring run eggs and fish from other streams will not jeopardize
populations in those streams, all collections will be conducted under
an Endangered Species Act permit issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. In addition, the planned construction of a
conservation hatchery will allow a broodstock to be developed and
managed to provide a source of fish for the San Joaquin River without
needing significant numbers of salmon from other streams. Reintroducing
spring run Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River will result in the
establishment of a new, additional population, which will be an overall
benefit to Central Valley salmon runs.
Has Reclamation determined when it would stop
reintroducing salmon into the San Joaquin river system if these
efforts fail? In other words, has the Administration set a goal
that everyone is working to achieve for success in the San
Joaquin River Restoration Program?
Response: Reclamation will stop reintroducing salmon into the San
Joaquin River once the population has been determined to be naturally
reproducing and self sustaining. Public Law 111-11 requires the
Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress, no later than December 31,
2024, on the progress made on reintroducing spring run Chinook salmon
and future reintroduction plans. We anticipate continuing reintroducing
salmon into the river until 2024, and including reintroduction plans
beyond 2024 in the report to Congress.

6. What has Reclamation done to date to replace the water supply lost
due to the implementation of the SJRRP?
Response: Reclamation is pursuing several actions to reduce or
avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-
term contractors. The actions include the following: continued
development of operational guidelines for releasing interim and
restoration flows and the framework for a Recovered Water Account;
allocation of 680,000 acre-feet of Recovered Water Account water to
Friant Division long-term contractors to take advantage of wet year
water supplies and the delivery of 356,203 acre-feet of this amount
based on the contractors request; recaptured flows at Mendota Pool and
recirculated 66,000 acre-feet to the Friant Division long-term
contractors to date; continued planning on downstream recapture and
long-term recirculation with other water users; drafted guidelines for
financial assistance for local groundwater banking projects; released a
Draft Environmental Assessment and Feasibility Report for the Friant-
Kern Canal Capacity Restoration Project and continued progress on the
project to achieve a late 2012 construction start date; continued
progress on the Madera Canal Capacity Restoration Feasibility Study and
the Friant-Kern Canal Pump-back Feasibility Study; and negotiated and
executed 27 repayment contracts with Friant Division and Hidden and
Buchannan Units contractors.

7. How will Reclamation deal with seepage impacts to private
landowners from increased flows down the San Joaquin River?
Please provide the details of this program.
Response: Reclamation will not increase flows above thresholds
described in the next paragraph until seepage management projects are
in place to protect private landowners from seepage impacts. Consistent
with Public Law 111-11, Reclamation will hold interim flows to levels
that avoid potential material adverse seepage impacts. Reclamation
completed updates to the Restoration Program's Seepage Management Plan
and posted an updated plan on the Program's web site in March 2011. The
plan has been developed with input from landowners and district
managers to address landowner concerns related to potential changes in
groundwater elevations that may be a result of the Restoration Program.
The approaches to monitor and set groundwater thresholds, as well as
responses to address seepage before it impacts adjacent lands, are
described in the plan. Reclamation installed and monitors more than 160
groundwater monitoring wells, many on private property in locations
chosen or agreed to by landowners.
In coordination with the Seepage and Conveyance Technical Feedback
Group, Reclamation has established thresholds for all monitoring wells
and use data from the wells to inform interim flow releases such that
potential material adverse seepage impacts are avoided. As a result of
the Seepage Management Plan and groundwater thresholds, Reclamation has
limited flows below Sack Dam. In addition to monitoring and
establishing thresholds, Reclamation has also established a Seepage
Hotline for landowners to call if they see or anticipate seepage on
their property.
Reclamation is preparing a Seepage Projects Handbook, which is
being developed in coordination with local irrigation districts and
landowners through the public Seepage and Conveyance Technical Feedback
Group. The handbook sets expectations, timelines and processes for
implementing seepage projects. Reclamation recently held meetings with
Reach 3, 4A, and 4B landowners and specifically invited landowners
whose properties are the highest priority for seepage management
actions. As a result of this meeting, six different landowners are
beginning to work with Reclamation to evaluate their properties for
seepage projects. Reclamation will limit interim flows to levels that
do not cause material adverse seepage impacts until these projects are
in place.
Reclamation is committed to managing flows in a way that does not
exceed groundwater thresholds. Implementation of focused projects and
actions to address seepage will allow Reclamation to incrementally
increase flows as improvements are made. Data gathered from eight key
monitoring wells is being reported in real-time to the California Data
Exchange Center website. Data from 19 wells are reported weekly to the
Program's website (http://www.restoresjr.net/flows/Groundwater/
index.html). Data from all of the wells are reported every few months
in the Program's Well Atlas available online (http://
www.restoresjr.net/flows/Groundwater/index.html).

8. What regulatory impediments does Reclamation identify as inhibiting
its ability to provide 100% of South-of-Delta contractor's
allocation of contract supplies?
Response: As noted above, the CVP is operated to meet multiple
purposes under a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements and
constraints that affect operation of the CVP pumps, and therefore the
South-of-Delta allocation. Operating criteria and restrictions included
in the California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Right
Decision 1641, the 2008 Fish and Wildlife Service Smelt Biological
Opinion, and the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service Salmon
Biological Opinion can reduce the amount of water exports allowed at
Jones Pumping Plant and therefore limit the amount of water that can be
moved south. This year the South-of-Delta allocation is being primarily
driven by dry hydrological conditions caused in part by low
precipitation and snowpack in the Sierra Nevada.

Rep. Hanabusa
1. Mr. Secretary, Following the 2009 Supreme Court decision in
Carcieri v. Salazar, little to no legislative action has been
taken to remedy the uncertainty among tribes and the BIA
regarding our country's trust obligations. Can you provide any
details on possible administrative actions that the DOI is
taking in order to resolve this uncertainty?
Response: Generally, since the Carcieri decision, the Department
must examine whether each tribe seeking to have land acquired in trust
under the Indian Reorganization Act was ``under federal jurisdiction''
in 1934. Under the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) makes the
determination as to whether to acquire land in trust on behalf of an
applicant tribe in most instances. BIA staff work closely with the
Solicitor's Office to ensure that all legal criteria are satisfied
prior to the approval of a fee-to-trust acquisition. The Department's
attorneys, in turn, work closely with the Assistant Secretary's Office
to undertake the analysis, which involves mixed questions of law and
fact, as to whether an applicant tribe was under federal jurisdiction
on June 18, 1934 and provide legal counsel to the Assistant Secretary
and BIA staff.
Whether a tribe was under federal jurisdiction on that date
requires a fact-intensive analysis of the history of interactions
between that tribe and the United States. This analysis ordinarily
requires the Department to examine: (1) whether there was an action or
series of actions before 1934 that established or reflected federal
obligations, duties, or authority over the tribe; and, (2) whether the
tribe's jurisdictional status remained intact in 1934. The analysis is
done on a tribe-by-tribe basis; it is time-consuming and costly for
tribes, even for those tribes whose jurisdictional status is
unquestioned. It requires extensive legal and historical research and
analysis and has engendered new litigation about tribal status and
Secretarial authority. Overall, it has made the Department's
consideration of fee-to-trust applications more complex.
The Department continues to believe that legislation is the best
means to address the issues arising from the Carcieri decision, and to
reaffirm the Secretary's authority to secure tribal homelands for all
federally recognized tribes under the Indian Reorganization Act. A
clear congressional reaffirmation will prevent costly litigation and
lengthy delays for both the Department and the tribes to which the
United States owes a trust responsibility.

Rep. Noem
1. What are your plans to ensure funding for water projects, like
Lewis & Clark, is realized in a timely way?
Response: Faced with limited funding and multiple worthy projects,
the Bureau of Reclamation has had to set priorities and make tough
choices, with the goal of making meaningful progress on the projects
receiving funding. The capability of the rural water project sponsors
to accomplish construction projects far exceeds the available funding.
Reclamation allocated funding in a manner that would allow construction
to continue with the goal of accomplishing discrete phases of projects
that will provide water to project beneficiaries upon completion of
that phase of the project. Our funding request will enable multiple
projects to achieve this goal in the next fiscal year.

2. Lewis & Clark has already been underway for more than 20 years.
What are your plans to Lewis & Clark is completed in a timely
way?
Response: The Bureau of Reclamation has been working diligently to
advance the completion of all of its authorized rural water projects
consistent with current fiscal and resource constraints with the goal
of delivering potable water to tribal and non-tribal residents within
the rural water project areas. Completion of the Lewis & Clark project
is a priority project for the Department of the Interior. Recently,
$5.487 million was awarded to the Lewis and Clark project pursuant to
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 and the FY 2013 President's
budget request includes an additional $4.5 million in funding. The
Bureau of Reclamation has been conducting studies to modify the
existing criteria and develop more comprehensive criteria for ranking
the authorized rural water projects so that Reclamation can assign its
limited construction dollars in the most effective manner. As part of
the process of developing final revised criteria, Reclamation will work
closely with members of Congress, project partners, and stakeholders to
develop a set of measures to rank authorized rural water projects for
allocating rural water construction funds in the future.

3. Could you provide and explain to me the criteria and methodology
Department of Interior use in determining how to prioritize the
water projects within the Water and Related Resources account?
Is weight given to criteria--such as population served, local
commitment as determined by prepayment of the local members,
and potential for economic impact? How do these criteria fare
in relation to whether there is a tribal component? Are there
other criteria considered? How much weight is given to
additional criteria?
Response: The Bureau of Reclamation administers the Water and
Related Resources account, which provides funding for five major
program areas--Water and Energy Management and Development, Land
Management and Development, Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development, Facility Operations, and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation. The criteria and methodology that is used to determine
water project priorities varies depending on the program. As it relates
specifically to rural water projects authorized by Congress, the Bureau
of Reclamation is evaluating new criteria for allocating rural water
project funding. The Bureau of Reclamation developed and used revised
interim criteria to allocate additional funding provided in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. Reclamation also used the
revised interim criteria in fiscal year 2013 to prioritize funding for
the authorized rural water project construction funding. The revised
interim criteria give consideration to the time and financial resources
already committed by project beneficiaries, the urgent and compelling
need for water, the financial need and regional impacts, the regional
and watershed benefits, the water and energy benefits and service to
Native American Tribes.

4. How does the Bureau reallocate funding in the Water & Related
Resources account for projects completed or nearing completion?
Will this funding remain in the Water & Related Resources
account with respect to future budget requests?
Response: The Bureau of Reclamation administers the Water and
Related Resources account, which provides funding for five major
program areas--Water and Energy Management and Development, Land
Management and Development, Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development, Facility Operations, and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation. The criteria and methodology that is used to determine
water project priorities varies depending on the program. The Bureau of
Reclamation does not anticipate the need to reallocate funding in the
Water & Related Resources account for projects completed or nearing
completion; however, in the event this unforeseen event occurs,
Reclamation will take action consistent with Congressional guidance.

Rep. Young
1. In what appears to be an annual occurrence, the President's Budget
proposes cutting the Alaska Land Conveyance Program. Last year,
the program was halved. As you know, Congress was able to
restore most of the funding, but again, this budget proposes a
near 50% cut. Today, BLM has only surveyed and patented near
60% of the original 150 million acres owed to the State of
Alaska and the Native community. On millions of acres, the
conveyance process has not even yet begun. This amounts to
little more than 1% more than the BLM had completed last year,
and at twice the funding than has been requested this year. At
this rate, it would take roughly 41 more years to see a full
100%. In your view, is this an acceptable amount of time for
the State and the Native Corporations to wait before the land
entitlement is 100% conveyed? It's been over 50 years since
Statehood, and 40 years since the passing of ANCSA. How long do
we have to wait for this process to be complete?
Why can the Interior Department find all kinds of money to fund
Wilderness studies in ANWR and other refuges, America's Great
Outdoors, and other nonsense, but cannot find the money to
fully fund the Alaska Conveyance Program?
Response: The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the
Nation's lands, including national parks, national wildlife refuges,
and the public lands. Interior manages public lands onshore and on the
Outer Continental Shelf, providing access for and management of
renewable and conventional energy development and overseeing the
protection and restoration of surface-mined lands. The Department is
also the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 western states
and provides hydropower resources used to power much of the country.
Interior is responsible for migratory wildlife and endangered species
conservation as well as the preservation of the Nation's historic and
cultural resources. The Department supports cutting edge research in
the earth sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--to inform resource
management decisions at Interior and improve scientific understanding
worldwide. The Department also fulfills the Nation's unique trust
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, and provides
financial and technical assistance for the insular areas. In short,
these many and varied mission areas required us to make difficult
choices; the Department's budget includes significant reductions and
savings.
At the same time, however, we are working closely at the local
level to determine priorities so that either we can convey by patent
(if surveyed) or by interim basis (if unsurveyed) working title to the
lands the clients need. The Bureau of Land Management will prioritize
survey work on a geographic basis, maximize the use of contract
surveyors, and use available technology to ensure this work is done in
the most cost efficient manner. And we will continue to evaluate
options for additional program reforms and efficiencies to complete
final transfers in a timely manner.

2. Early February 2012, Congressman Boren and I wrote you a letter
regarding the BLM's draft hydraulic fracturing rules, which
would affect lands held in trust for Indian tribes and their
members. I have not received a response to the requests in that
letter. As a result, what tribes have the Department approached
during the current tribal consultation process as it relates to
this draft rule? What is your time frame, and how to do you
plan to accommodate tribal concerns in this rule?
Response: In its March 29, 2012 reply to your letter, the
Department indicated that the BLM places a high priority on tribal
consultation and in January 2012 held consultation sessions on the
proposed hydraulic fracturing rule in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Billings,
Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Farmington, New Mexico. During these
sessions, the Department received a clear message from tribal
representatives that they would like the BLM to update its regulations
on well stimulation and that more information about post-drilling
stimulation operations on tribal lands should be provided. The BLM is
committed to working closely with the tribes throughout the development
of this rule. Tribal governments will have essentially until the rule
is final to consult on the effect of the rule.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.015

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for your
statement.
Let me start by saying that one of the initiatives that we
are going to take up in this committee next year and we--in
fact, we have had hearings on that, is the issue of the
Endangered Species Act. And I say that because the Endangered
Species Act was last reauthorized in 1988. And I think it
expired some nearly 20 years ago, and it hasn't been
reauthorized. And I think it needs to be brought up to date.
So, what I would like to ask you is--and knowing that you,
your Department, along with NOAA, are actively involved in some
200 lawsuits and legal actions concerning the ESA--and that
focuses on candidate listings, on habitat, on recovery plans,
and other parts of that process. All Department resources spent
defending those suits and resources are not going to--recover,
but rather to lawyers and special interest groups. And that is
what concerns me, and this is the basis for my question.
Last year, the Interior Department entered into settlements
with certain plaintiffs that would result in requiring the
Department to make decisions affecting petitions to list over
700 species under ESA. I am concerned that this would very
likely undermine transparency and science-based ESA decisions,
particularly when lawyers are being paid attorney fees in these
settlements, and deadlines are being set by the Federal courts.
Congress and the public should be allowed to know how these
settlements came about, and the requirements that they will
impose.
So, my question to you is pretty straightforward. Do you
know, or does the Department keep track of, how much money in
spent by the Department on litigation, including payments made
to settle lawsuits? Do you know--have that figure?
Secretary Salazar. Doc Hastings, I have asked for that
information, in terms of how much is being paid out in
settlements, but I would offer to you, Mr. Chairman, with all
due respect, that I do think it is important that we move
forward with ESA reform, and that we find ways of dealing with
these conflicts in a manner that is not as litigation-driven
and conflict-ridden as it has been.
And just an example that I know Congressman Flores and some
of you here are very interested in, the sand dunes lizard in
Texas and in southern New Mexico, and our hope is that, working
with the oil and gas industry and other communities that are of
great interest, that we will be able to come up with what will
be a 1.1 million-acre conservation area that has the assurance
that may prevent the listing of that lizard. We are still
working on it and trying to bring it across the finish line.
But I do think there are ways in which we can work more
constructively with ESA than has been done in the past.
The Chairman. Well, what I would like is that if you--
certainly would continue to work with us. Because those costs
are big. And I mean it has been well said, the ESA has been
around a while. Nobody wants to see species eliminated. But as
my friend from Utah says, using an analogy to baseball, if your
recovery--you know, if your batting average is a recovery of
ESA, you wouldn't last in Class D baseball. I mean that is just
how low it is. And we need to understand all of that.
Final question. As you know--and I referred to this in my
opening remarks, about trying to obtain documents as it relates
to the surface mining and also the Gulf of Mexico, one of the
issues that does trouble me is on the moratorium and trying to
get documents from your agency where there appears to be--and I
say ``appears,'' because we don't know--there is interference
on behalf of the Department of the Interior with the Inspector
General in getting documents.
I just think that we should be open and transparent on
that. And I would like to ask for your assurance that those
documents that we ask--that we know we have gotten from IG
could be supplemented by what we could get from your agency. It
would be very, very helpful. And I just want to ask if you will
continue to work with us to see that we can get those documents
so we can make whatever determination those documents reveal to
us. And if you would do that, I would be very appreciative.
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work
with you. We provided thousands of pages on both issues on the
stream protection rule, as well as the moratorium issues. And
we will continue to work with you to provide everything that we
possibly can.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I look forward to working with you
in the future.
If you talk more closely in the microphone, I think it
would be easier for others to hear. I should probably go back
and say, ``Let's start this all over again, so everybody can
hear,'' but I won't do that.
With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for his
questions.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House begins today
consideration of a five-year transportation bill. The
Majority's bill would seek to fund our transportation projects
by drilling off of our beaches on the East and West Coast, by
drilling off of Florida in an area extensively used by the
military, by drilling in rich fisheries like Bristol Bay in
Alaska, and in our most pristine wildlife refuge.
Even Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, someone with whom I
rarely agree, said there is no money in expanded energy
production. CBO agrees with him.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe it is a good idea to try to
fund our nation's transportation projects with the massive
expansion of drilling in pristine wildlife areas or off of the
beaches of Florida and California that ultimately would only
produce phantom revenues, because ultimately it will never
happen? Could you give us your view on that--those proposals?
Secretary Salazar. Chairman Markey, first, let me say that
the 5-year plan that we have put out at the Department of the
Interior and the development of the Outer Continental Shelf
will make available 75 percent of available resources that we
know. And we will move forward with the development of those
resources, as we have, and the Gulf of Mexico and exploration
and development in other areas, as well.
Second, let me also say that my view on having reviewed the
summaries of the proposed transportation bill is that it will
not fund the transportation needs of the United States of
America. And I do think that many of those areas that are being
put out there at this point in time essentially do create a
phantom revenue, because we know that those places are not
going to be developed in the near term at all. And even if they
were developed, as I understand it under the projections that
have been made, it would only provide less than 10 percent of
the revenues that are needed for surface transportation. And
that is on the assumption that you would develop areas where
the oil and gas industry does not have any information with
respect to what the oil and gas resources are underneath those
parts of the ocean.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I agree with you.
Phantom revenues from phantom drilling will not pay for a
single off-ramp, will not pay for a single pothole being filled
in our country. We have to be more real about where the money
is going to come from.
Last week Mr. Holt and I sent you a report, Mr. Secretary,
that the Committee staff prepared documenting the oil and gas
drilling violations and enforcement actions that have occurred
on Federal lands over the last three Administrations. I
understand that you are still reviewing that report. But I
wanted to raise a few specific findings with you.
In the Department's 2013 budget you make it a priority to
further increase inspections of high-risk onshore oil and gas
operations by 9 percent. I fully support you in your efforts,
but our report found that only a very small percentage of
violations result in fines, that there were many
inconsistencies in the way that fines were issued by
inspectors, and that some chronic violators were never fined at
all.
In fact, the Department can only impose fines of $500 per
day for major drilling violations. And over the entire decade
covered by the report, the total fines issued were just
$273,000. And this is for hundreds and hundreds of violations.
That is pocket change to some of these oil companies.
Can you commit to taking a look at our report to determine
whether the agency needs to change the enforcement strategy to
better deter violations, and ensure that drilling operations
are safe?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Markey, I have received your
letter and I have asked the Deputy Secretary to look at the
information that we have from the BLM. And so I would ask him
to respond briefly to your question.
Mr. Markey. I appreciate that. And finally, on the question
of the production tax credit, we know that that expires at the
end of this year. And so far, the Republicans have taken a
position that they are going to support the ending of the
production tax credit for wind in our country. The industry is
saying that that could lead to upwards of 30,000 to 40,000
people losing their jobs, a huge number compared to the number
of jobs created by the Keystone pipeline.
How important is it for us to have the production tax
credit extended? What would it mean for wind development on
public lands in our country?
Secretary Salazar. I think the importance of it cannot be
understated [sic]. We have made huge progress, Herculean
progress, in the last three years on wind energy in America.
And I think without the extension is essentially will be a
killer for the wind industry in America.
Mr. Markey. A killer, meaning?
Secretary Salazar. It will--it could bring it to a close.
Mr. Markey. Could end the wind industry in the United
States. That is absolutely, I think, frightening for the next
generation of Americans who really do believe there is a wind
and solar revolution unfolding in our country, and the United
States should be the leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. And the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if there is truly
a wind and solar revolution going on in the country, then the
market will take care of that, and people will come rushing
into it. But so far it seems that the real revolution is in
those who are cronies who get hundreds of millions of dollars,
only to go bankrupt. That is not what I would call a
revolution.
But with regard to massive amounts of wind, of course you
cannot beat Washington, the capital area, for that. But let me
go directly to the budget for Fiscal Year 2011/2012. It went
from 88 million to 132 million for the BSEE operation, safety,
and regulations. In other words, 44 million extra dollars,
Secretary.
We have a report that shows there have been 30 additional
inspectors hired with that money. Are there any other
additional inspectors that are anticipated to be hired with
that money? Or is that going to be the extent of the new
inspectors with the new money?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Gohmert, that is a very good
question. We are, in fact, hiring inspectors. We have combed
the universities of this country and are hiring people and are
moving forward with a major effort to make sure that the Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is one that has the
resources that it needs. And we are looking at ways of doing
things more efficiently, including looking at the possibility
of remote monitoring of what is happening in oil and gas wells.
So, it is, at the end of the day, simply an effort to try
to make sure that the environment and safety regulation of
offshore drilling, which is so important to the United States
of America, is done safely and responsibly.
Mr. Gohmert. And I appreciate your acknowledgment of how
important offshore drilling is. We know from the Deepwater
Horizon fiasco that there were--we had testimony from a former
employee, was head of the BLM at the time, that the only real
check and balance with regard to offshore inspectors was to
send them out in pairs so that there would be no chance of
bribery or anything like that, because they would self-report
if they were sent out in pairs. And we never got a response
back on whether or not that worked out very well with the last
pair that were sent to the Deepwater Horizon before the
blowout, since that was a father and son pair. Some think
father and son may not be as likely to self-report.
But I would ask in the days that come if we could get
information on what improvement there has been, if any, with
regard to safeguards and the offshore inspectors.
But let me go quickly to ANWR. There has been an analogy
that if the entire ANWR area were considered the size of a
football field, that the area proposed for drilling is around
the size of a postage stamp. And we know there is no foliage,
no fish, no wildlife that we have detected in the area where
the drilling is proposed. So let me just ask you, Secretary.
Are you aware of any living creatures that exist in a living
condition in the area proposed for drilling in ANWR?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Gohmert, I have been there
several times. And the answer to that is yes, absolutely. It is
one of the richest wildlife areas in the country and in Alaska.
Mr. Gohmert. We are talking about the area to be drilled.
Secretary Salazar. Yes, and----
Mr. Gohmert. OK. Well, my time is running out. We will have
to get you pictures of exactly where the area is proposed to be
drilled.
With regard to hydraulic fracking, I was shocked that there
had been a draft proposal of rules for hydraulic fracking while
a study is being done on hydraulic fracking. Would it have made
more sense, in your estimation, to propose rules after you got
the study on exactly what effect hydraulic fracking was having?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Gohmert, we oversee 700
million acres of mineral estate in the United States of
America. The common sense concepts that will be embedded in the
rules that we are moving forward with, I think, are supported
by the responsible oil and gas companies in this country. And
they include wellbore integrity, they include disclosure of
chemicals that are being injected into the earth, and they
include----
Mr. Gohmert. OK. We will have to get you some of those
reports that obviously do not support what you say that they
do. But I would suggest to you if you are going to spend money
and effort on rules that you are going to enforce, you really
ought to wait for the study. And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Secretary Salazar. Can I make just a comment on that?
The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
Secretary Salazar. I think one of the things that you will
find, Congressman Gohmert and members of the Committee, in this
budget is a recognition that natural gas is a very significant
part of our energy portfolio for the United States of America.
Mr. Gohmert. We agree on that.
Secretary Salazar. And so, there is a lot of hysteria that
takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see
that happening in many of the states. So part of what you will
see in this budget is the continuing study of hydraulic
fracking.
My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic
fracking, is that it can be done safely, and has been done
safely in hundreds of thousands of times. And so what we need
to do is to make sure that the science supports the confidence
that the American people are entitled to as we move forward in
the exploration and development of this very abundant natural
gas resource.
Mr. Gohmert. Really appreciate that response. And hopefully
we can get the EPA to stop the hysteria until they have some
science to support them.
Thank you, Secretary. I do appreciate.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman recognizes the--or the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from northern--or from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for taking the time to testify before this committee.
And we do appreciate very much your service to our nation.
Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware, ever since the oil
spill caused by British Petroleum off the coast of Louisiana,
the largest oil disaster, in my opinion--and I think in
history--where are we with the office that is responsible for
monitoring and conducting safety inspections in terms of
preventing another oil spill like what British Petroleum had
caused in this incident?
I understand that one of the suboffices under your
Administration is responsible for this. Have we pretty much
gotten that straightened out?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman, it is a very good question.
And because of the importance of the oil and gas resource from
America's oceans, what we have done is we have led the most
significant overhaul of the oversight of oil and gas
exploration and development in America's oceans. We have blown
up what was the former MMS and put together a program that has
been very well thought out.
And we are now in a position where we believe that, with
Congress giving the resources that we have asked for, the
organizations that oversee oil and gas production in America's
oceans, that we have created the leading agency for oversight
not only in the United States but around the world. And given
the fact that oil and gas in the earth's oceans really is a
global industry, we are creating the template for other
countries as well to follow what we are doing here in the
United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary, has British Petroleum made
good its promise to the people to compensate individuals and
many small businesses that were affected severely and caused by
the oil spill? I am curious about that.
Secretary Salazar. I think, Congressman, it is still an
ongoing matter. There are still the funds that have been set up
which are being paid out by Mr. Feinberg, who is in charge of
paying out the claims that are being submitted there. There is
still active litigation with the trial to begin against BP on
February the 27th.
And so, the whole set of issues that will make the Gulf and
its people whole are still very much in a dynamic position at
this point in time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I notice with
interest that the proposed budget for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is set at about $2.5 billion. Where are we with the
settlement on the Cobell case? And, you know, God bless her
heart, you know she passed away. And I just wanted to know if
your office has taken any measures--I know there are
negotiations that are taking place, but have we come to some
better conclusion, what has been now for the last 15 years? I
can remember this issue, it has been dragged on now forever, it
seems like.
Secretary Salazar. The Deputy Secretary was a great leader
in bringing about the Cobell settlement, and has been
overseeing its implementation. And so I will have him respond
to the question.
Mr. Hayes. Congressman, as you know, the settlement was
passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. It
does not go into effect until all judicial proceedings have
been completed. There are appeals now in the D.C. Circuit Court
that we hope will be completed within the coming months. As
soon as all litigation ends, we will be implementing the $1.9
billion land consolidation program, and the class action funds
will be distributed to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And are we assured that from now on the
Department of the Interior is not going to fail again, you
know, in providing the proper royalties to the Indian tribes?
We have simply just forsaken that responsibility for the last
100 years or so. Have we taken measures to make sure that----
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega [continuing]. The Indian tribes are no
longer going to have to file suit for another 10, 15 years to
properly gain what they should have been given all these years?
Mr. Hayes. It is a very good point, Congressman. The
Secretary established a trust reform commission specifically to
look top to bottom about whether we needed to do additional
reforms. That was anticipated to start with the settlement. We
are not waiting for the final judicial resolution of the
matter. And the first meeting, public meeting of the trust
reform commission, will be held on March 1st.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman has yielded back his time. And
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And welcome, Secretary. The last
time you were here, I complimented you on something you did. I
don't think that is going to happen again. Although the answer
you gave to----
Secretary Salazar. Well, I was hopeful.
Mr. Bishop. The answer you gave to Representative Gohmert
came awfully close to it on that last response. So thank you
for being here.
Look, I have nine questions I want to ask. I will try to
phrase them in ways that can be given short answers. We will
see how many we can get through, if at all possible.
Mr. Secretary, on January the 26th your Department
published a notice in the Federal Registry that the BLM would
start charging $10 for overnight camping fees in the North
Fruita Desert Special Recreation Management Area in your home
state of Colorado. Obviously, the campers objected to that and
there were concerns.
However, Mr. Secretary, if the campers were to object to
the fee and, let's say, occupy the campground under their First
Amendment rights, would they be able to stay there for months
without paying that fee?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Salazar. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Second question. I understand that your
budget has taken $15.8 million out of the rangeland management
fund. I understand that. What worries me is I understand the
President also plans to collect a $1 per AUM administrative fee
in addition to that. That would be in addition to the grazing
fee that is already set at $1.35. That is a 75 percent
increase.
If indeed this goes through, will you come to Congress to
seek the authority to make that proposal for that
administrative fee, or is this one of the things the President
wants to do just because?
Secretary Salazar. The proposal is in the budget, so we
don't need congressional authorization to do it. It would bring
up the AUM to what would be, I think, $2.35 for that. And those
of you who know what the private sector pays for grazing rights
on----
Mr. Bishop. Even though the AUM is set statutorily, you are
going to change the Executive Order of the President and add an
administrative fee, just by fiat of the Administration?
Secretary Salazar. It is $1 that will bring it up to $2.35
for AUM.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I would ask you to rethink that, and
actually try to work with Congress on those, especially when
you are raising the AUM by 75 percent per unit. That is
significant.
Let me go on to the third one. It has been said by some
here that--even though Estonia has been doing oil shale for 100
years, last year they produced 1.3 million barrels and met the
European Union's environmental standards, some here have still
said that there is not an oil shale technology that is
available. Does your office believe that we don't have the
technology to do oil shale?
Secretary Salazar. We don't have the technology to do oil
shale in a way that will protect the water resources of
Colorado, Utah, and the West.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So you--and does the fact that
Estonia has been able to do that for 100 years, does that have
an impact on that decision?
Secretary Salazar. I think closer to home is the failure of
the 1970s and the total failure of oil shale to be developed
after the investment of billions of dollars in Western
Colorado.
Mr. Bishop. It was a BLM effort. And you are right, that
one did happen to fail. But the world is moving forward in
developing oil shale. We should not have our head in the sands.
One of the chances--one of the reactions of the draft PEIS
includes a swath of land that stops private companies--one in
my state--who has preferential lease lands to make them off-
limits to commercial leases. The fact that the Department of
the Interior is making it more difficult to comply with the
terms of the R&D leases does have an impact on commercial
property, and I find that disturbing.
Let me try number four, quickly. The NLCS, wonderful
organization, has been upgraded to, I believe, a directorate,
if that is the correct name. Does that new position include
additional supervisions of the area--supervisionary power of
the area that is under control of the NLCS?
Secretary Salazar. I don't think that it does, Congressman
Bishop, but the NLCS is a very important part of the--America's
public estate.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That is a good--I like that answer.
Once again, it was promised that would not be the case, so I
appreciate that very much.
Let me say--because I have only got to five, there are four
others here, I am sorry about that, I don't have enough time--I
am concerned somewhat with wilderness and wild lands. We have
done a good deed in solving the wild land issues. I appreciate
your efforts in that.
But as you were talking about some of the oil shale
productions and looking at the land management plans, et
cetera, you once again put wilderness characteristics as one of
the things you are looking at. That was one of the problems we
had with wild lands. I would actually urge you to be very
careful in that respect.
I apologize for not getting to the other four. But the
first one about the campers was actually the most important
one. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congressman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome again to
Secretary Salazar.
As you are very well aware, I am heavily interested in
water, and hydrofracking is something that is very near and
dear to the area that I am in. And--because it is in an
earthquake-prone area, it is even more concerning. So any
information that would help us be able to know whether there is
new technology, as was being discussed, that would be very
helpful to some of us who are facing that.
The water challenges--one of your 7 initiatives for 2013--
how were those proposed reductions in spending for basic data-
gathering and talking about USGS stream-gauging, another dear
subject, and groundwater monitoring specifically impact your
ability to fulfill statutory mandates and affect the decision
support and the impact on states and other non-Federal programs
or partners? That is real critical to us.
Secretary Salazar. Congresswoman Napolitano, thank you for
the very good question. I will have David Hayes answer the
water issue, because he has been the ring leader of everything
that we have been doing in California specifically on water. On
hydraulic fracking, it is part of the reason that this budget
has the $15 million for USGS to study hydraulic fracking, is so
we can make sure we fully understand all of the dimensions of
hydraulic fracking, including water use and what that all
means.
We support natural gas. We want it to move forward. But we
also need to anticipate that with a 100-year supply of natural
gas, that we need to be leaning forward and having some of
these questions that people are answering--or asking, answered.
So----
Mrs. Napolitano. And hydrofracking, Mr. Secretary, also as
it relates to oil.
Secretary Salazar. We are on the hydraulic fracking issue
with all that we can, because we know the importance of natural
gas.
Mr. Hayes. And, Congresswoman, on your question about the
stream gauges, it is important to note that net-net, we are not
reducing the amount of money for stream gauges. There is a
decrease in the budget, but it is being offset by some
increases from the use of stream gauges from another account,
the rapid disaster response effort.
So, we are fully committed to maintaining that stream gauge
network, which is so important to so many members of this
committee.
Mrs. Napolitano. Especially the agricultural area.
Congratulations on your WaterSMART. That is great to see that
increase. And I am hoping you are going to incorporate more of
Title XVI into that and, of course, begin to prepare our areas
for the eventual drought cycles that have been plaguing the
United States, and how we can begin to see that the USGS budget
request is including to be able to check out where our aquifers
standing is, so that we can begin to store water in aquifers,
whether it is recycled or captured water, or any kind of water.
We need to be ensuring that not just the West but other states
begin to look at where they are at with it, since they are not
being spared some of those--Mother Nature's power balls. Any
comment?
Mr. Hayes. We agree very much, and we thank you for your
constant support of Title XVI dollars. We are continuing to
push forward with Title XVI and with WaterSMART in general,
because it stretches water supplies, which helps everybody.
Mrs. Napolitano. But we----
Mr. Hayes. So we appreciate your continued support.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we have a--over $500 million backlog
throughout. So we need to ensure that we don't wait another 50
years to be able to get these projects going that have already
been approved by Congress.
Mr. Hayes. Right. And as you know, that program relies on
partnering with municipalities that are coming forward with
applications. And we are working closely with them, and will
continue to do so.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. The other issue is the creation
of the National Groundwater Monitoring Network, and 13 million
toward the assessment of the groundwater availability--again,
going to aquifers. And, of course, you are well aware that we
have San Gabriel that has been in the clean-up mode for the
last 20-some-odd years, which has no further funding to be able
to move forward to continue that. We just got another maybe 10
years left.
Any way we can be able to focus on being able to take care
of these contaminated sites to make water available for use?
Mr. Hayes. Congresswoman, the San Gabriel situation is a
unique situation. It is obviously a Superfund site. It is
unusual the Department of the Interior has been funding a part
of the clean-up. We are certainly willing to work with you as
we move forward to see what can be done.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much. And I will have
other questions for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back her time. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good to see you
again, Mr. Secretary.
Recently our committee received a copy of a BLM proposal to
regulate hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, on top of what
the states are already doing well. This is an issue the
Resources Committee has been closely monitoring in the past
year.
You appeared before our committee in November and testified
about BLM's plans to regulate fracking on Federal lands. In
your testimony you stated that you have worked ``closely with
industry, other Federal agencies, and the public'' regarding
oil and gas development. Based on your reference to open
government, can you tell the committee, yes or no, do you plan
to issue these fracking regulations through a formal rulemaking
process under the Administrative Procedures Act, which would
allow for an open process and time for public comment, or not?
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. That is a great answer, I
appreciate that. I will move, shifting gears, because of the
sake of time.
Mr. Secretary, President Obama has often expressed his
support for new technology and developing our natural
resources. One emerging technology is oil shale, an industry
which flourishes in countries like Jordan and Estonia, as
Representative Bishop referred to, but has repeatedly been
stifled by inconsistent and restrictive Federal regulations
regarding its development here in the U.S., despite the fact
that we have more oil shale resources in the lower 48 states
than any other country in the world.
Recently, your Department removed thousands of acres from
leasing for oil shale development. Can you tell the Committee
why your Department does not encourage the development of this
resource that holds such tremendous potential, and why your
Department continuously takes steps to stifle its development,
which prevents the creation of American jobs and American
energy?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congressman Lamborn, for that
very good question. The reality of it is that oil shale
development is a matter that affects three states: the western
part of Colorado, part of Utah, and a part of Wyoming. The
kerogen that is locked up in that shale is kerogen that people
have been trying to unlock for over 100 years. And that
technology has not yet been developed. And the oil and gas
industry, when they give you their honest answers, will tell
you that they still don't have the technology to be able to
develop it in a commercially feasible way. And that is why the
research and development that is underway so much in the State
of Colorado and in the State of Utah are all so important.
In addition to that, there are questions that need to be
answered. How much water is it going to take? From Colorado
Springs--Congressman Lamborn, you would know well the
importance of water to your community and the importance of
water to the State of Colorado. When I look at what is
happening with the declining water supplies and the over-
subscription of water on the Colorado River Basin, the reality
of it is that if millions of acre feet of water are required to
move forward with the development of oil shale on a commercial
basis, the question is, is the water there? And what will the
impact be to agriculture and other municipal uses?
So, I raise that issue of water, just as one example of the
kinds of questions that need to be answered before anybody
engages in a whole scale giveaway of the public lands to oil
companies that want to develop oil----
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Secretary, it sounds like you
predetermined the answer when the R&D leases haven't even
really been fully developed. I mean the technology that the
country of Estonia uses, for instance, is mining and retort.
There is really no water involved in that process. So if you
raise water as an issue, that doesn't even apply to one of the
potential technologies.
Secretary Salazar. Well, Congressman Lamborn, with all due
respect, I would remind you that mining and retort was what was
used with billions of dollars of investment in the early--in
the 1980s in the State of Colorado, and it went bust.
And so, there is still a lot of research and development
that has to take place to answer all of these questions. And we
are fully supportive of the research and development, and have
continued to move forward with the granting of leases, so that
research and development on this potential energy----
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Secretary, your Department just withdrew
all kinds of acres--how is that helping, if you say you believe
in we should at least research it?
Secretary Salazar. Well, Congressman, the leases for
research and development are still out there, and acreage is
still very available for research and development, both on our
public lands as well as private lands. If it was withdrawn,
where the lands related to commercial leasing--because,
frankly, the United States of America is not ready to move
forward with commercial leasing of hundreds of thousands of
acres of oil shale lands when the technology is not there yet
to develop it.
Mr. Lamborn. You say the technology is not there. You are
not letting them go forward. You are predetermining the
results.
Secretary Salazar. We are letting it go forward with all
the research and development, and we are very supportive of
them moving forward with those research and development
projects.
Mr. Lamborn. But the----
Secretary Salazar. I have personally visited them. And some
day you might want to do the same.
Mr. Lamborn. I have, too.
Secretary Salazar. OK.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Four quick questions, if I may, sir. On the issue of
fracking, hydraulic fracking, the public's right to know and
the taxpayer's right to know. As we move forward, the
compounds, chemicals in this process, do you believe that that
needs to be transparent and publicly available, and that there
shouldn't--and that the public should know what the content of
that process is going to be, and what potential effect it can
or cannot have?
Secretary Salazar. Yes. And it is important that we do it
in the right way. There may be proprietary trade secrets That
need to be addressed within the content of the rule, and we are
looking at that. But at the end of the day--and I have said
this a year ago, when I brought most of the oil and gas
industry--invited them to a meeting that we had at Interior to
talk about the issue of hydraulic fracking, because I do see
the hidden nature of what is being injected into the
underground as essentially being the Achilles heel that can
essentially kill the potential for America to develop this very
abundant natural gas resource.
And so, it is interesting to note that over the last year
many of the most responsible and largest companies in the
United States are in full agreement on the disclosure of
wellbore integrity requirements. And many of the states have
moved forward in that direction, as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Secretary, National Park Service. Some
have suggested that the constraining Federal budgets will lead
to a discussion of the Park Service mission. And if it makes
sense--and in the future it would make sense to take units out
of the system. Could you discuss the role of the Park Service
units play in local economies, regardless of whether they are
the Grand Canyon or a national seashore?
And the other issue, let me applaud you on your decision to
withdraw acreage from the Grand Canyon for its protection.
Sometime this week we are going to have another effort to
overturn that decision. And so, I know it is a rhetorical
question, but do you oppose that effort to overturn that
decision?
And with that, let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, to respond to
those two questions.
Secretary Salazar. I do oppose efforts to overturn the
decision, Congressman Grijalva, on the Grand Canyon. With
respect to investments in National Parks, I think it is always
important for everyone on this committee, everyone in Congress,
Democrat and Republican alike, to recognize that outdoor
recreation and tourism is a huge part of our economies.
We know, for example, in the Grand Canyon or in Mount
Rainier, or any of our other National Parks, that those parks
are a huge economic engine for those states and for those
communities. And so when the Outdoor Recreation Foundation puts
forward a study based on economic science that says there are
eight million jobs being created through tourism and outdoor
recreation, we know it is important for hunters, for anglers,
for bikers and hikers. And so it is something that obviously
merits tremendous support. And it is the underpinning of the
budget requests that we have here.
Is it what we would, frankly, like to have and need to have
to be able to do more to deal with the backlog and the
maintenance and the need to establish National Parks like the
Cesar Chavez Park that we have been working on for many years?
The fact of the matter? No. The resources are--that is why this
is such a painful budget, because it doesn't go as far as we
would like it to go in those areas.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, national landscape conservation system.
Last year the Majority attempted to zero out the funding for
this project. Can you discuss what choking off funds would mean
to that, the management of 27 million acres, and the importance
of this initiative?
Secretary Salazar. The National Landscape Conservation
System, which was created into law by this Congress and by the
last Congress, signed by the President of the United States, I
think, in February of 2009 is a very important part of our
public domain. These are the most special places within the 250
million acres that are overseen by the Bureau of Land
Management. And I believe that they need continued support and
funding to be able to have them provide the kind of economic
activity that they do to the people of this country.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit to
the Secretary some questions regarding an issue in Utah,
relative to RS2477, the claims, the potential litigation. And I
will submit those questions to the Secretary for dissemination
of the answers to the entire Committee. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. I thank--and that is a good entre into
saying--and I will repeat this at the end--if Members don't
have questions that were asked, they will have an opportunity
afterwards. And if the Secretary and his staff would try to
respond in a timely manner, I know we appreciate it. I know
that Mr. Bishop will be counting the days of getting answers to
his four questions before the time comes.
Recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for--you know, we have discussed this issue and
offshore drilling many times here, and I appreciate your
willingness to come and commiserate with us on this.
Would you agree, sir, that the technical expertise with
hydrofracking mainly lies with the industry itself? That is,
those who are doing this day after day, the engineers, people
who have been doing this for even 60 years? Would you agree,
sir, that the main knowledge base exists with this group today,
as opposed to Federal agencies and, you know, people who are
not in this business?
Secretary Salazar. I would say that industry has a
tremendous, tremendous expertise on fracking, and it obviously
has been going on for a very long time.
I would also say that the huge change in what we are now
predicting to be the natural gas resource of the United States
that gives us a 100-year supply was brought about, frankly, by
the scientists at the United States Geological Survey and the
Department of Energy, working closely with industry. And so
there is expertise in both government, as well as in industry,
on the issue of hydraulic fracking.
Mr. Fleming. Right. And I think you have really answered my
question even more, and we agree even more than perhaps I would
have suspected, and that is this has been a very collaborative
effort. That is to say that scientists, both in the pure
science community and also in the industry itself, have come
together. And I agree with you, sir, I think that the natural
gas future is very bright for the United States.
So, here is my question. The main players, ExxonMobil,
Chesapeake, and others, to what extent, before these rules were
brought out--and I know they are not finalized, but they are
preliminary--before doing that, to what extent have you had
input from the industry?
Secretary Salazar. We have had, Congressman Fleming, very
significant input, including--I think it has been more than a
year ago where I invited all those companies to come to have a
discussion on hydraulic fracking at the Department of the
Interior. There has been major outreach by the Bureau of Land
Management to all of these companies. And that will continue to
be the case, as we move forward with the formal rulemaking
process.
Mr. Fleming. Sir, can you point to any measures in your
proposed regulations that you adopted from their
recommendations?
Secretary Salazar. I remember well the--one of the panels a
year ago at the Department of the Interior by industry
representatives where they were of the belief that it was
appropriate to have disclosure of what was being injected into
the underground. Certainly that was one of the considerations
that took place with respect to one of the cornerstones of this
new rule.
Mr. Fleming. OK, thank you. The--in reading through these
rules, one thing that is really coming out, I think very
clearly, is there are a lot of predisclosures: water sources,
the formulation of the fluids, the engineering, and so forth.
But the problem is the folks who do this day to day tell me
that every day is a new day. They have to formulate,
reformulate every day. Even water sources. They have to do a
lot of things on the fly.
And the other thing that businessmen tell me, and women,
even in other industries, tell me that the biggest impediment
to hiring jobs and improving the economy is the fact that
regulations restrict them in their day-to-day decision-making.
So what I am seeing here, sir, is a lot of new regulations
that handcuffs those who are on the front line doing this. It
will take longer, be more expensive, and be more restrictive.
It will be less ability to make moment-to-moment decisions. So
I would love to hear your comments on that.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Fleming, our view is that
natural gas and hydraulic fracking are very appropriate for the
United States of America, but we need to make sure that we
provide confidence to the American people that public health
and safety and the environment are being protected. And the
measures that we have put in place, in my view, Congressman
Fleming, are very appropriate, common-sense measures.
If I had the time, and we weren't restricted here, I would
tell you the story of Mac Trailer, which now is employing 900
people in Ohio, where I was yesterday, and the man is also a
farmer who started the company in his garage. He is very
supportive of moving forward with these common-sense rules
because of the fact that he believes that it is essential to
the natural gas future and his company.
Mr. Fleming. Yes. But since I am running out of time, let
me ask one more quick question. What has happened recently, or
even in the last few years, that we have to now rush to come
out with all of these Federal rules that we never had before?
What is the sentinel event that has caused this?
Secretary Salazar. The fact of the matter is we are doing a
tremendous amount of hydraulic fracking. Over 90 percent, maybe
99 percent of all the wells on public lands are using hydraulic
fracking. And it is part of what has caused this natural gas
revolution and great potential for America. And we need to make
sure that we are doing it right, so that we can capture the
future American energy--domestic-grown energy that will power
our economy.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms.
Bordallo, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Salazar, I
have some very important questions for my jurisdiction. The
budget request for OIA includes discretionary compact impact
funding for 5 million to fund grants to jurisdictions affected
by the compact migration, and to implement a plan to mitigate
the impacts and the costs of the compact migration.
I am very supportive of this, as a first step to address
the inadequacies of the compacts. Can you elaborate on the
rationale for this increase, and how this funding will be used
in the affected jurisdictions?
Secretary Salazar. We--Congresswoman, I just want to say my
Assistant Secretary, Tony Babauta, has spent a lot of time
working out in the territories, and knows that the compact
issue is one of the most important issues. And this is not the
only one of the compact issues that we are working on.
Deputy Secretary works with him closely, and so I will have
him quickly respond to your question.
Mr. Hayes. Congresswoman, as I think you know, our plan is
to work collaboratively with you and with others in the
territories to decide how best to implement this program. Our
Assistant Secretary Babauta is going to be convening the first
meeting of the Pacific leaders in March, coinciding with the
Summit of the Micronesian Chief Executives. So we want to do
this right, in full collaboration with you and with the
leadership of the territories.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. What will the plan include? Last
May I joined Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, and Inouye and
several of my House colleagues in a letter to you and Secretary
Clinton outlining policy proposals which we believe could
reduce the costs of compact migration, including better
educating FAS migrants and those who entered the U.S. under the
compact, and targeted investments in the health infrastructure
in the FAS.
Will these proposals be incorporated into the mitigation
plan? And has the Administration acted on any of the proposals
outlined in our letter? This letter was sent almost a year ago,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that, Congresswoman, is
that there has been a huge focus of--for me, for the Deputy
Secretary, as well as for Tony Babauta, and there have been
meetings with the Governors of the various territories, and we
are doing everything we can to try to make sure that the
consequences of migration from the compacts are, in fact,
addressed. And it is the first time ever, really, that you have
had an Assistant Secretary that pulls together the Governors
from each of those places to look at these issues.
Ms. Bordallo. So will we be expecting some kind of a answer
to this?
Secretary Salazar. We have action underway, and we would be
pleased to brief you further on the specifics of what----
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. We are doing.
Ms. Bordallo. Now, in the 111th Congress, DoD and DoI
expressed the Administration's support for H.R. 44, the Guam
World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. Assistant Secretary
Babauta has also affirmed the Administration's support in the
112th Congress. Can you reaffirm the Obama Administration's
support for H.R. 44? And if you could, just give me a yes or no
answer.
Secretary Salazar. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. And Mr. Secretary, at the end of
January, Present Obama called the United States the world's top
traveling tourist destination. He signed an executive order
directing the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to lead an
interagency task force to develop a national travel and tourism
strategy. Tourism is very critical to the economy on Guam and
each of the territories. Will you ensure that the task force
includes members who will address the needs of the territories
in the national strategy?
Secretary Salazar. Congresswoman, I am the co-chair of the
task force with my colleague, Secretary of Commerce Bryson. And
we are working on the report. It is quick action. And we
recognize the importance of tourism and the overall economy for
the United States, and obviously for the territories as well.
And I would be very delighted, actually, to get information
from your office that we can incorporate into the report that
we will be presenting to the President.
Ms. Bordallo. I guess what I am saying, Mr. Secretary, is
would we see representatives from the territories included in
this plan, as they meet?
Secretary Salazar. We are moving to quickly on this that we
expect to have the short-term plan out in probably 10 days. And
then the longer-term plan in--several weeks after that.
But what I will do is I will make sure that we are
consulting with Tony Babauta, and have him involved in giving
us recommendations. And he will be reaching out to your staff
as well, to make sure that those recommendations are included
in the task force report.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I
have other very important questions, but--that I wish to be
answered, but I will include them, if you would, into the
record.
The Chairman. Yes. Well, as I mentioned previously, you
will have the opportunity to send them to the Secretary. And
hopefully you will get a very quick response on that. I
appreciate that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Duncan from South Carolina is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Salazar, thanks for being here today. And just to set
the stage, gasoline prices have risen approximately 89 percent
during the past 3 years. Diesel fuel, in my state, was $3.86 a
gallon when I filled up over the weekend, and it is approaching
$4 in a lot of areas in the country. That input cost is driving
food prices up, and I am afraid we are going to see, I guess,
north of $4 a gallon of gasoline unless we do something.
I think America is looking for us here in Congress, and
also the Administration, to take the measures to reduce what
they pay at the pump. And I understand that is an all-
encompassing energy policy, and I get all that. But when I look
at your budget, and the budget request that was provided us,
the budget includes over 900 million for research and
development and increases investments. And this kind of goes
along with what the gentleman from Colorado was asking you
earlier.
But I see on here that there is an investment--using your
words, ``increases investments''--in hydraulic fracturing,
drilling safely on the OCS. And 13 million for hydraulic
fracturing and the Department of Energy and EPA are also
involved in the regulation and promotion of that, if you will,
totally somewhere around $45 million.
And when I look further down in your budget request under
``water availability,'' there is an additional $5 million. And
here is what it says. First off, this is research and
development and increases investments in energy production. And
you have a bullet point, ``Hydraulic Fracturing, $13 million.''
Then, two steps down, it says, ``Water Availability, $5
million,'' of which, proactively--not passively, but
proactively--addresses concerns about potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on air, water, and ecosystems. So you
invest 13 million and in promoting hydraulic fracturing, you
are going to turn around and invest or spend $5 million
proactively addressing concerns.
And I just want to make note of the fact that hydraulic
fracturing is not a new phenomenon. It has been around for,
well, almost 100 years, from some of the knowledge that I have
been able to read. James Lankford, from--a congressman from
Oklahoma says it has been going on in Oklahoma for over 50
years. He says, ``Come drink our water in Oklahoma.''
So, I guess the question I have for you is why are we
investing $13 million of taxpayer money promoting hydraulic
fracturing, but then turning around and spending $5 million to
prove that it is--or try to prove that it may be detrimental?
So I would like for you to address hydraulic fracturing.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Duncan, we are supportive of
natural gas development in this country. You know, from day
one, the Administration has included that as a high priority.
And our program--the President, even in 2009, was asking me to
work on the Alaska natural gas pipeline. We have been
supportive of leasing and development of natural gas on the
public estate of the United States of America. So we are moving
forward with that.
We also want to make sure that we address the concerns that
have been raised by the American public, and that--and we do
believe that hydraulic fracking can be done safely. And so, the
issues that we are dealing with, wellbore integrity, disclosure
of fluids that are put--injected into our earth, and dealing
with what we call the flowback water, are all the common sense
kinds of rules, Congressman Duncan, that, at the end of the
day, will be supportive of the natural gas industry which has
become so robust in the United States, and which has a great
and wonderful future.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Are you or are you not going
to increase the public lands available for hydraulic
fracturing?
Secretary Salazar. We--it may be that as many as 99 percent
of the wells that are currently being drilled on public lands,
where we have made available more than 40 million acres of
public lands for oil and gas development, that 99 percent of
the wells that are being drilled for natural gas are, in fact--
--
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Drilling or fracking?
Secretary Salazar. Well, they are using hydraulic fracking
for those wells, to be able to develop natural gas. Enhanced
oil recovery is--technique has been around for a very long
time, as well. So it is an ongoing activity that has been there
for a very long time.
But what has happened is that because of the technological
findings that have allowed the major breakthroughs that have
now given us the 100-year supply of natural gas, what we need
to do is to make sure that the American public is confident
that their health and the environment are being protected as
hydraulic fracking proceeds. And that is what we are trying to
do with the efforts of the Department of the Interior,
including our rules, and including the science.
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. Mr. Secretary, it is proven
technology, Marcellus and Barnett. It is being used. And I
would say we open up more public lands. I look at the energy
economy in North Dakota, and unemployment there is three
percent or less, because we are allowing the development of
energy on private and state-owned property. They get it. Right
across the state line in Montana is Federal land, and it is off
the table.
What I would like to see the Department of the Interior do
is say, ``We are going to open up the Bakken oil field in
Montana on Federal lands, and allow more energy development.''
I am out of time, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Northern Marianas, Mr. Sablan, is recognized.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. And good morning,
Secretary Salazar, and thank you for your service to our
nation, and your advocacy of and for the--support for the
Northern Marianas and the rest of the U.S. insular areas.
Like I was mentioning to you earlier, we have an issue--and
we will work with you on this, but we have an issue in the
Northern Marianas where we have one hospital, it is out of
money, and it may not pay its doctors and nurses next week. It
didn't pay most of its employees this past month. And we will
work with you. As a matter of fact, we are already reaching out
to your Assistant Secretary Babauta, trying to set up a meeting
with him as soon as we can.
But Mr. Secretary, let me also commend your--the
Administration for working with local ranchers and other
private land owners to establish the Everglades Headwaters
National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area in South
Florida.
But could you please explain how the new Everglades refuge
designation fits into protections for water quantity and
quality in Florida and the Everglades ecosystem as a whole, and
how will the new Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge
and Conservation Area support a comprehensive Everglades
restoration plan?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congressman Sablan.
First of all, on the hospital issue, I am aware of the
hospital issue, and have received a report from the Assistant
Secretary on the issue, and he is working to see whether there
is a solution there that can be found.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. On your question on the Everglades, the
Everglades is a World Heritage Site, and it is one of the most
significant conservation initiatives that I have worked on as
Secretary of the Interior, as the Chairman of the Everglades
Task Force.
The comprehensive plan that is being implemented is
restoring the river of grass, and there are a number of
different reasons for doing it. One is the economy in Florida,
and South Florida, is very dependent on having good water and
quality water to continue the job creation that is important to
southern Florida.
Second, the tourism that comes with the Everglades and the
Everglades area is also a very important job creator in that
area. So we look at the Everglades as being a template for
conservation. We worked with the ranchers in the Everglades
Headwaters Area and the Department of Agriculture to start
moving forward with an Everglades Headwaters National
Conservation Area.
So there is tremendous excitement. And it is not just from
the Department of the Interior. We also have the Army Corps of
Engineers and many of the other agencies--EPA, as well as
USDA--who have been very involved as we have moved forward and
made Herculean progress in the last three years on the
restoration of the Everglades.
Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you. Thank you for your response,
Mr. Secretary. And I am really happy that you also are aware of
the situations we have in the Northern Marianas.
But I am also excited and I support the almost $9 million
increase in funding for refuges for Fiscal Year 2012. This
would allow management programs to continue to operate. Since
this Administration came into office, 15 million acres of land
designated by the Bush Administration has been put into the
refuge system, including the Mariana Trench and Mariana Arc of
Fire National Wildlife Refuge. The request does not reflect
this land increase with a comparable increase for refuge
funding.
When the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument was
established, there were plans and promises. And I brought this
up at the last--promises for a visitor center. What will the
Service do to fulfill commitments to the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands in regards to the visitor's center, a promise
made by the White House?
Secretary Salazar. Let me ask the Deputy Secretary if he
has any information, because I don't on that specific question.
Mr. Hayes. Congressman, we are looking to find planning
monies to help figure out how to fund a visitor's center at the
Trench. As I think you know, we are using existing staff in
Honolulu to do that. We do not have funding right now for a
visitor's center, but we are committed to move forward with the
planning of one, and we will look forward to working with you
on that.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And then this may not require
funding, Mr. Secretary, but the nominee for the final position
on the Mariana Trench Advisory Council was selected in August
of last year. Will your Department be able to clear this
nominee so Advisory Council members will be able to attend the
inaugural meeting slated for the end of this month? Please--we
have one more nominee that has not been cleared by the
Department.
Secretary Salazar. Let me just say this is the first time
that I hear it, unless David has heard something about that.
But, Congressman, we would be happy to take it up.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Secretary Salazar. Important that we have these advisory
boards----
Mr. Sablan. Well, thank you.
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. Fully operational. So we
will----
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Mr. Hayes. And I will--my additional questions, Mr. Chairman, I
will submit for--thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today.
I would actually like to go back to a little bit of some of
the earlier questioning that was going on when you made
reference that the Geological Survey and others have had
outreach by the BLM to companies. Question that I would like to
explore with you is several states have rules in place
regulating hydraulic fracking. These regulations have been
carefully crafted in stakeholder conversations with major
parties and industry. And I would like to know, did the
Department of the Interior consult with states and with tribes
in regards to BLM regulations?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Tipton, we have had a
massive outreach effort that has included input from tribes and
states and industry and environmental community, and everybody
else. And so that is being reflected, and there will be other
opportunities to do that as we move forward with the formal
rulemaking process.
Mr. Tipton. OK. And in terms of it being reflected, I do
have a letter from the Governor of North Dakota expressing his
concerns with the new regulations. And I am curious. What
response did you receive from Governor Hickenlooper and the
State of Colorado in regards to new BLM regulations?
Secretary Salazar. You know, I was with the Governor of
Colorado, John Hickenlooper, on Saturday night. We did not
discuss these issues, we discussed other issues related to
potential resolution of conflicts between the Federal
Government and the State of Colorado.
But this is--at the end of the day your question goes to
outreach to states that already have developed regulations in
the way that Colorado and North Dakota have done. I think that
is important. And I admire what they have done in Texas and in
other places. I do think that it is important for us, as the
steward of the public estate and the 700 million acres of
mineral estate that we oversee on behalf of the American
people, that we have a set of rules that govern those lands.
And that is what we intend to do through the efforts of the
Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Tipton. And I understand your position on this. But I
would like to know. Why do you believe that the Department of
the Interior should usurp state authority to regulate hydraulic
fracking? The well construction in Western states like Colorado
have been doing it safely for decades, as we have had heard
through numerous Western states, as well.
In fact, we had testimony just a few weeks ago with
Director Abbey, Harris Sherman, former Secretary Babbitt,
noting that over a million fracking operations had taken place
with no incident dealing with state regulations that had been
in place. So what flaws in state regulations were reached
through consensus with industry, local governments, and
environmental--did the Department really lead you to try and
enact different regulations, as opposed to having state
involvement?
Secretary Salazar. Scott, the outreach that we did to the
states included meetings in Bismark, North Dakota, in Golden,
Colorado. And those were led by the BLM to get input from those
respective states.
Now, I think your question really goes to the fact that if
you have states now coming on board and saying that they are
going to develop their own regulatory regime, why is it
necessary for the United States to develop its regulatory
regime on public lands? My answer to that is I think we have a
responsibility--I believe we have a responsibility, under the
laws of this country, to make sure that these 700 million acres
of the American citizen-owned public estate, that we have
taking care of those lands in a way that any land manager, any
land owner, would do.
In addition to that, Congressman Tipton, I would also add
that I think there are many in the industry who have spoken to
me who have said that they would rather have a standard that
they can follow from state to state, so they are not
subjected--you know, almost--most of the companies that are
involved in hydraulic fracking and natural gas production
operate across many state lines. And what I always hear from
industry is that they don't like to deal with the patchwork of
regulation. It makes it difficult for them to address different
sets of regulations.
So, our regulations will deal only with the public estate.
But it also seems to me that it may create the template for
what ought to be happening across the country, as well.
Mr. Tipton. You know, we have in some of the states with
the most stringent requirements for disclosure, in particular,
websites called FracFocus. But yet the BLM makes no reference
to it in terms of their proposals. So, in the draft
legislation, where it indicates that the BLM intends to set up,
at the cost to taxpayers, a whole new database, I think that
something--a concern that we are seeing reflected at multiple
levels--that we are having stealth tax increases, as Mr. Duncan
noted, at the pump, that ultimately the American taxpayer is
having to pay for bureaucratic regulations tiered from the
state to the Federal Government, and duplication going on.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
have our Deputy Secretary just to describe FracFocus for a
minute and how we are using it as well, because I think it is
of interest to members of the Committee.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to respond very
quickly, the Congressman is referring to a draft proposal that
is not a proposed rule. We are working on a proposed rule that
will be fully referencing--will be fully available for comment.
We are very interested in making sure that disclosed
information is available to everybody. We will explicitly be
asking for comment on how we can interact with FracFocus and
other state-based disclosure issues, because we have no
interest in creating any conflict with state regulation. In
fact, as the Secretary said, we want to conform and help work
together with the leading states who are engaged in this
exercise.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Secretary.
Many questions, little time.
There are two main resources issues that will affect
America's well-being, its economy, and, therefore, its national
security in this century. We had quite a bit of conversation on
energy. Let me segue over to water, specifically water in
California.
We went over seven billion people on the planet last year,
and by the middle of this century, over nine billion.
Production of food is going to be a critical issue to not only
our nation, but the world. Water is essential to make that
happen.
Mr. Secretary, let me commend you for your efforts on the
project, it was backlogged for 20 years. Last month it went
into operation, 35,000 more acre-feet to the San Joaquin
Valley. Last week you announced $1.5 million for the first
phase of the Madera Water Bank, 100,000 acre-feet of additional
water. We need to continue to work on those kinds of projects
and your efforts with the Bay Delta Conservation Plan that is
critical to addressing California's long-term water security.
For a state that will have 50 million people in the next 20
years, to maintain our agriculture economy is essential.
But let me talk about lessons learned. We went through a
horrific hydrological drought in 2009 and 2010. And the
regulatory constraints made it even worse, in my opinion. What
are the lessons that have been learned? We had 174 percent of
snowpack last year. This year we had one of the driest
Decembers on record, and January hasn't been much better. We
are at 18 percent of our normal snowpack. What lessons, in
terms of our water supply for this year, have we learned from
2009 and 2010?
Secretary Salazar. We have many lessons, and we have
improved on a lot of things that we are doing, including how we
are letting users know the timing as to how much water will be
available. But my Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, has probably
spent more time on your issue in California on water than on
any single other issue in the United States. So I would like
him to respond very briefly, if we may.
Mr. Costa. Very quickly, because I have some other
questions I want to get----
Mr. Hayes. Regretfully, that may be true. Congressman, as
you know, we have hardwired in a number of the reforms to--that
we developed with your help, with Senator Feinstein's help and
others during that drought, including transfer authority, ways
to move water around from willing buyer to willing seller.
Those are all in place. They were not temporary. We have
institutionalized them, and they are available for us if we
have another dry year. And we are committed to using them to
the hilt----
Mr. Costa. Are we going to have greater operational
flexibility on the projects this year, if----
Mr. Hayes. As you know, we negotiated a settlement with all
parties last year to provide operational flexibility under the
biological opinions. We have confidence we can continue to
operate with the consent of all the parties in a sensible way.
Mr. Costa. Mr. Secretary, you have been meeting with the
Governor on the Bay Delta Conservation plan. What are your time
lines this summer, and what do you hope to announce on the
long-term aspects of our water needs?
Secretary Salazar. We met with the Governor in Sacramento,
the Deputy Secretary and I, and Mike Connor, the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation. We agreed that we would put the
pedal to the metal, and try to get to a point where we can
announce the broad outlines of a Bay Delta Conservation plan
with the coequal goals of water supply and ecosystem
restoration and protection, so we are on a----
Mr. Costa. Equal goals of water supply and restoration?
Secretary Salazar. Yes, and our plan is to----
Mr. Costa. The water supply and restoration are equal
goals?
Secretary Salazar. Co-equal goals.
Mr. Costa. Correct.
Secretary Salazar. And we will have that--our plan is--my
plan is to travel to California in July and help make that
announcement.
Mr. Costa. OK. Storage studies are part of the Bureau's
efforts, and there are four areas that are critical: Shasta,
Los Vaqueros, Sites, and Temperance Flats. The time lines that
have been reported for Shasta that shows a lot of promise. Is
there a way that we can expedite that? Because we have to
increase our water supply for our growing state. There is--it
is one of the critical tools that we need to follow.
Secretary Salazar. Deputy Secretary?
Mr. Hayes. As you know, Commissioner Connor just made an
announcement on that last week, where he indicated that we are
moving forward with Shasta evaluation, and----
Mr. Costa. I think you have a 2017 deadline. I think we
need to look at moving that up, especially coinciding with the
Bay Delta Conservation----
Mr. Hayes. I think the key point is that he intends to get
a draft out by 2013, hopefully, and that is the key point. We--
--
Mr. Costa. In addition to that, on Temperance Flats, I
think it has a multitude of benefits I think you need, both
because it is south of the Delta, restoration of the San
Joaquin River and other factors. You need to look at that.
Let me close on that question. You have limited amount of
money in this budget for the restoration of the settlement
agreement. If you get no more money, how are you going to make
that happen?
Secretary Salazar. It is a painful budget. Tough choices.
And so we are trying to do everything that we can to figure out
how we keep moving forward in many of these programs that are
so essential to California and to all the states.
Mr. Costa. I know, but--my time has expired, Mr. Chairman,
but this is a critical issue. We are going to be hearing a bill
on it tomorrow, I believe.
The fact is that there is about $300 million-plus that you
have been given for restoration. Some are estimating costs to
be $1.2 billion for the entire restoration project over the
next 10 years. If you get no more than the $300 million-plus,
how are you going to do it?
Secretary Salazar. Well, you know, we face tough choices
every day. And sometimes we have to extend the time frame for
completing projects. But we are working on it. It is a high
priority, and we are not going to go--let the investment go--
that the American taxpayer has already made in that restoration
simply disappear.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Secretary Salazar, I find your testimony today
very interesting. The Administration claims to commit to
powering the American economy. You tout the Bureau of
Reclamation's facilities that deliver cheap, affordable water
to millions of Americans, and allow Western farmers to thrive.
You claim the Administration is encouraging economic
development in Indian country, and honoring trust
responsibilities.
Yet this Administration is taking actions or considering
actions that compromise each of these goals in my state, alone.
The Administration opposes my jobs legislation, H.R. 1904, the
Southeast Land Exchange and Conservation Act. While this budget
proposes essentially a $45 billion tax increase on American job
producers, it stands in the way of a project that would have an
estimated total economic impact of over $61 billion, and
providing over 3,700 high-paying Arizona jobs, and generating
19 billion in Federal, state, county, and local tax revenue.
The Administration is requesting millions of dollars to
purchase lands across the West under the guise of better
management, yet it opposes legislation that would allow BLM
alone to acquire over 4,000 acres of pristine and highly
desired conservation land in Arizona that will, in fact, lead
to better--that will lead to better land management at zero
cost to the taxpayer. In fact, I will quote. The Nature
Conservancy called one of these the last vestiges, and is
priceless in----
Secretary Salazar. Excuse me. You are speaking about
Resolution Copper?
Mr. Gosar. I am talking about the Southeast Land Exchange.
Secretary Salazar. So that is a Resolution Copper----
Mr. Gosar. Yes. Yes, I am.
Secretary Salazar. OK. Just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Gosar. The 14 billion in tax revenue, the 4,100 of
pristine land coming into the BLM stewardship, 3,700 jobs,
increased domestic mineral independence, all these benefits are
supposed to be central to your agency's mission. Did the
Administration take any of this into account when taking an
opposition to my bill?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is we believe there is a way
forward. With respect to Resolution Copper, it was approved
last year in the Senate Energy Committee, and unfortunately did
not get through the Congress before the time of the Congress
expired. We had the right balance, in terms of moving forward
and doing the compliance with environmental issues. We don't
believe that you ought to take a shortcut in dealing----
Mr. Gosar. How would the pre-NEPA actually benefit anything
going forward? All those interchanges are exactly the same.
They get no stewardship difference of any of those, the
Antiquities Act, the environmental impacts, they have to do it
all the same.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Gosar, I personally have
visited the site with Senator McCain, and know that it is an
important opportunity for both jobs, as well as an important
opportunity for conservation. It also is a place where there
are very significant tribal interests that need to be
addressed, and also a place where the water issues in that area
are very important to also address.
So, it is important that the legislation that was
proposed--I believe it came out of the Senate Energy Committee
on the Senate side, and actually had made it to the Floor, that
that kind of legislation move forward so that we can make sure
that we get----
Mr. Gosar. I actually find it kind of unusual that we
consider legislation from the previous Congress when--having a
bill that passed the House directly, and we should be
considering that accordingly. So I find a lot of excuses here,
and particularly when you look at how much studies have been
done around this area. I find it very excuse-ridden as to why
we are standing in the way. I think we ought to be looking at
this very constructively, and moving forward with it.
I got a little short time, and I want to hit something
else. I would like to briefly touch on the Administration's
potential mandates that would shut down the Navajo Generating
Station. As I am sure you are well aware, because the Interior
is a 25 percent owner of the NGS, the plant is critical to
Arizona's water supply because it provides 95 percent of the
power for the Central Arizona Project. CAP delivers more than
500 billion gallons of the Colorado River to 80 percent of
Arizona's populations. Without it, Arizona's farmers would be--
have to use groundwater, surely drying up our precious water
resources.
The plant employs over 500 people; 80 percent are Native
American. The revenues from the excess power is critical to the
Federal Government's obligation to uphold previously enacted
water settlements. I would like to thank the Assistant
Secretary Hayes, in your understanding of those effects of BART
and the rulemaking process.
Can you please tell me, Secretary, what the Interior has
done to articulate to the EPA the importance of the issues
related to the tribes, Arizona's water and state economy? And,
although the Interior does not control the regulatory process,
the agency could be hit hard due to this action.
Secretary Salazar. I understand, and I have had the Deputy
Secretary lead the effort for the Department of the Interior.
David?
Mr. Hayes. Congressman, we have been in very close
partnership with EPA. Obviously, EPA has an important decision
to make, and we do not step in their shoes. They have been very
cooperative. They have been also reaching out to the tribes,
engaging in consultations. And, as you know, we helped sponsor
a third-party independent analysis through the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory that provides a lot of useful
information that we think provides a basis for good decision-
making. And we continue--we will continue to work
collaboratively across the affected agencies, and with the
tribes and the water users.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi, is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Secretary and Deputy Secretary, thank
you very much. It seems as though we have a lot of instructions
for you, having listened to the last hour and almost two hours
now of us telling you how to run a Department. You have a very
complex Department. I want to thank you for the comprehensive
approach that you have made to address the multiple issues that
confront us.
Energy--apparently, if we drill enough, we will solve our
energy problems. That is not ever going to happen. We need more
comprehensive--not from you, but from us--energy policy.
Perhaps some day we will actually get to that.
I note in all of your responses here that you have
initiated, engaged in a two-prong approach to energy. One, do
it safely; and two, do it. Is that correct, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Garamendi. And I just ask my colleagues to pay
attention to your responses. When it is not done safely, we get
big problems, such as the BP blowout. So we have to move
carefully. And nonetheless, we have to move.
I want to take this in a different direction. Water policy,
we will be debating that tomorrow with a very, very important
bill that is brought before this committee. And we will save
that for tomorrow. I want to raise the issue of the National
Parks. It has not been discussed here. Could you tell us your
plan for the National Parks?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Garamendi, the National Park
System of the United States of America is the envy of the
world. It also is a place where we host over 250 million--I
guess the number is about--close to 300 million visitors a
year. And they are great economic generators from Yosemite to
the Statue of Liberty, the Everglades, to Glacier, to all of
our units around the country.
We have challenges because of the fact that we are having
these places as icons of America, they are the attractants that
bring people from all over the world to make the United States
what we hope will be the top travel and tourism destination.
And so we need to continue to work with the Congress to find
the right resources to be able to support both the operations
side, as well as the continued perfection of the National Park
System, because there is a long way to go.
The Director Jarvis for the National Park System put
together a group that included former Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor and Senator Bennett Johnson and Howard Baker and
others. And as a result of that, they put forward a call to
action to prepare our National Parks for their centennial year
on 2016.
But we have some very significant challenges that are
facing us, and we are doing the best that we can, including
looking for resources from places in the private sector, as we
did in the reparation or repairs of the Washington Monument.
But it is an issue which we spent a lot of time worrying about
and working on.
Mr. Garamendi. Is it not a fact that we are hundreds of
millions of dollars behind in maintenance at the National
Parks?
Secretary Salazar. The fact is we are probably somewhere
between $9 billion and $14 billion in backlog in maintenance in
our National Park System.
Mr. Garamendi. I guess I slipped three zeroes there, didn't
I?
This is a challenge for the Congress. I know over the
years--and certainly during your Administration--you have made
every effort to squeeze from the budget the necessary funds for
the National Parks. The American people are short-changing
their heritage and some of the great gifts that have been given
to us on the natural side, by not maintaining these and
providing for the maintenance of these parks. It ought to be in
all of our interests to find the money to do that. But I
appreciate your efforts on that.
I am just going to wrap this up with what is tomorrow's
agenda in this room. It is basically a rewrite of the entire
California Federal water and state water programs. I would hope
that we have your testimony, as best that can be made available
in two days--or one day--that the legislation has been made
available to us. But it is a remarkable rewrite, and an
enormous change in long-standing Federal and state policy.
So your attention to this issue tomorrow is of great
importance. And whatever you can do, given that you have had
less than a day to review the legislation.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi. And
there are few people who understand the water issues of
California as well as you do. And we are very involved and
engaged in all those water issues, and we will review the
proposed legislation and provide our comment based on the
expertise of the Deputy Secretary and Bureau of Reclamation
Connor.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr.
Flores from Texas.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for joining us today. And thank you for your service
to our country. I am going to start out by listing several
concerns. And then, at the end, I will repeat the questions
that I gave you during the concerns. Alternatively, if we don't
have enough time, I would ask you to separately respond to the
questions.
The first one has to do with the budget, and this doesn't
pertain to you as much as it does to the President's budget
overall. But the President's budget fails to address the fiscal
crisis. It ignores his competitiveness council recommendations,
ignores the deficit commission recommendations, it fails to
address the loaning and solvency of Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid. That is truly a shame.
The President's budget spends $47 trillion over the next 10
years. That is 1.5 trillion more than he proposed to spend last
year. The President's budget adds $1.9 trillion in new taxes
and fees, none of which will create new jobs.
With respect to the Department of the Interior budget, I
believe Americans deserve to know how the Interior Department's
tax and fee increases will create more American jobs and
cheaper energy for the--and cheaper gasoline prices for their
hard-earned dollars.
In the preamble of the DoI budget, Interior takes credit
for increased energy production. The fact of the matter is this
increased energy production is the result of decisions that
were made years ago, prior to this Administration. Moreover,
most reputable economists are predicting that production of
energy from public lands--or oil and gas production of energy
from public lands will soon decline.
The second thing--the next thing I want to talk about is I
sent a bipartisan letter--there are 182 Members of Congress
that signed this letter, and we sent it to you last week,
requesting that you relook at the latest OCS lease sale plan.
There are claims, not only in the budget materials that have
been published, but also in the President's conversations with
the American people, and also with other administrative--other
folks--spokespersons for the Administration, they claim that 75
percent of the United States is available--or offshore areas
are available for oil and gas production.
If we can go back one map to the map that predates the
Obama Administration--not the one that had the green on the
sides. Well, we are short one map. Anyway, let me put it up to
you. This map right here shows what areas were available for
offshore production. Not the one on the screen, it is the one
in my hand. The top map shows the area that--those areas that
were available for offshore lease sales prior to the latest
lease sale.
The map that was on the screen and the map at the lower
part of this page shows the areas that are not available to
leasing now, which represent the red areas. And the purple area
has been placed off limits until sometime after 2022. That is a
question that we will come back to in a minute.
Now, let me tell you what the question is. What I would
like you to do is to send me a response, or send the 182
Members of Congress a response as to, A, will you revise this
proposed lease sale to include more offshore access, instead of
less? And second, if you will not, will you tell me--tell this
committee what the expected impact is on American jobs, the
American deficit, the American economy, and also on energy and
gasoline prices?
The next area that is discussed in the budget has to do
with fracking. I am going to try to get through these quickly,
since I am running out of time. One is, why are we doing this?
There is--the EPA administrators have said there is no evidence
of groundwater contamination from fracking.
The second thing is, in the proposed rules we are not
following any state models. There is no emphasis on using
something that has been proven, like FracFocus, or the Wyoming
model for fluid disclosures, or the Colorado model for the
protection of operators' intellectual property. One of my
questions--requests will be that you respond to those issues.
And then the last and the worst one is probably--is the one
that says there is a 30-day requirement for a frack permit
prior to commencement of any operations. You don't know exactly
how you are going to frack a well until you have it down to
total depth, to your total target depth, and you have gotten
your cuttings back that you can analyze, you have gotten your
logs back. And then you can make an exact determination. The
way the preliminary rules have come out, you know, you would be
subject to waiting time for up to 30 days, paying potentially
tens of thousands of dollars a day, if not millions of dollars
a day, while you wait to get approval to frack.
Next thing I need to know is how much money are we going to
spend on the ocean and marine spacial planning, and how many
full-time equivalents will we be spending on that?
And then last--and this--let me clarify at the very
beginning, this has not been a problem with the Department of
the Interior. But I call this the Solyndra question, and I ask
anybody that is going to testify regarding the President's
budget. We need to--a commitment from the Department of the
Interior that there is going to be program integrity, that
there will be no attempts to pick winners and losers, no
attempts to target funds for the projects that you propose to
spend money, taxpayer money, on in here to the President's
contributors or any sort of manipulation, other than using a
fair and transparent system.
So again, if you can get back to me on leasing schedule,
fracking regs, ocean zoning, job creation metrics from the
higher DoI fees and taxes and program integrity, that would be
helpful.
And again, on the last point, I am not saying that DoI has
a problem with Solyndra. Thank you.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, but
there is your first public list of questions that are requested
by the members of the Committee.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Salazar, for being here and being patient with us.
I am from Maryland, as you know, and very focused on the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and the Bay watershed. And I look
at a lot of these questions, particularly the hydraulic
fracturing question, through that lense. The Chesapeake Bay
watershed includes six states and the District of Columbia: New
York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The footprint of the
Marcellus shale deposit includes New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, parts of Western Maryland, at least.
So, you have this coincidence of the Bay watershed with the
Marcellus shale deposit. And so there is a lot of activity
going on, as you know, much of it on private lands. But what
you offer us is the opportunity to get a clearer picture of how
these practices can be implemented in a safe fashion, because
of what is happening on public lands.
So, I applaud you and the President for focusing in on
these issues of safety. I think that the rules that you are
proposing are absolutely common sense. And I am hard pressed to
understand why anyone would object to them, because they are
very basic things that you are trying to ascertain.
I did want to get a little more understanding of this issue
of the content of the fracking fluid, and specifically what it
is you are going to be looking for because, you know, we have
had the industry sit before this committee in the past, and
kind of hide the ball when it comes to what the contents are,
the specific chemicals that are being used, the percentage of
the composition represented by one chemical versus another.
Because you can put a list out and say, ``Well, these are the
chemicals that are being used,'' but if you don't indicate what
amounts, relative amounts of those chemicals are being used,
you may not get the full picture in terms of whether it is safe
or not safe.
So, could you just speak, take a little time to speak a
little more, explicitly or in detail, about what you are trying
to ascertain in terms of the content of these chemicals being
used? And if you could, also touch on the sort of proprietary
information, trade secret, and dimension of this which I
understand, but I am also worried that that is going to be
thrown up as a smoke screen, potentially, in terms of our being
able to get this information.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Congressman Sarbanes. And let
me first say thank you for your leadership in Maryland on so
many conservation issues, including getting children outside
and to the outdoors and into conservation. And I will note that
on the Chesapeake Bay, which covers the areas that you so
eloquently described, we do have a major effort underway from
many of our agencies, as well as other agencies, where there is
significant investment going on in trying to clean up the
Chesapeake Bay, and trying to move forward with a number of
restoration efforts.
On the issue of hydraulic fracking, and the content of the
rule, our objective here is to have a rule where there is
disclosure that brings about the confidence of the American
public that chemicals that are being injected into our earth
are not going to be harmful to people or to the environment.
And how exactly the rule will be finalized, with respect to the
trade secrets issue is still a component to the rule that is in
process.
And at the end of the day, if the ball is hidden and nobody
knows, then that is not going to fulfill the objective of
making sure that the public has knowledge about what is being
injected into our earth.
So those are still things that we are working on. And as
the Deputy Secretary said earlier, we will be continuing the
outreach effort and the comment effort as we move forward to
the final rule.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. I am running out of time,
but I just want to make an observation for the Committee,
because we are going to keep having this issue of hydraulic
fracturing presented to us over time.
There is a lot of discussion about how this has been a safe
practice. But many of those lessons are drawn from the
experience in the West. And safe in the West doesn't
necessarily translate to safe in the East. I mean we are--when
you talk about where the Marcellus shale deposit is, you are
talking about a density of population that is different, you
are talking about different topography, geology. There are many
factors at work.
And so, I encourage you, as you are looking at this on
public lands--and obviously, that is more so in the West than
the East--to be careful about--and I caution my colleagues,
too, we need to be careful about drawing lessons in one
circumstance or environment, and applying those someplace else.
I think we need to take a fresh look at the potential safety
issues with respect to this Marcellus shale deposit opportunity
that we have in the East, and make sure that that is being done
properly.
Thank you, and I yield back----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for appearing before the Committee today. Let me
just ask, first, a couple simple questions.
Your testimony says that the budget is essentially level.
But in fact, it is an increase, is that right? I mean it is
over a one percent increase.
[No response.]
Dr. Harris. Because we are having huge debates about
whether, you know, a half percent increase for government
employees, or a one percent increase--and no one would call
them level. So to be accurate, I mean, it includes an increase.
Because the sentence after that says it includes reductions and
savings of 500 million. But in fact, it includes an increase in
spending.
Secretary Salazar. It is a one percent increase.
Dr. Harris. OK, thank you. Now, I know you were--a question
was asked about the credits associated with offshore wind. And
I know you were in Maryland recently about the offshore wind
project. Do you agree that offshore wind is going to be an
absolute--absolutely cost our ratepayers more than natural gas,
electricity generation? Would you stipulate to that?
Secretary Salazar. I think that is true for today, with
respect to what is happening on wind off of the Atlantic. But I
will also say that what we have seen with renewable energy--
solar, geothermal, and wind--is that the costs have been
significantly dropping. And when you get to the right critical
mass, the renewable energy efforts ought to be competitive with
other----
Dr. Harris. Well, I am talking about the project in
Maryland, because it is not in the future. It is to be built
next year, capitalized next year, with this year--with next
year's technology. The project in Maryland. Our ratepayers will
pay more than if we generated the electricity from natural gas.
That is all I am saying. Will you stipulate to that?
Secretary Salazar. I am not familiar with the specifics of
the project in Maryland. Perhaps my Deputy Secretary----
Dr. Harris. Well, Mr. Secretary, you were there to announce
the approval of the permits for the project to go forward.
Secretary Salazar. No, that is--no, let me--that is not
true. What we went to Maryland to announce is that we have
identified the wind energy area places where wind energy farms
can be stood up. There is no lease that has been issued in
Maryland. And so it will be several years before a wind farm is
actually stood up.
What we have done is work closely with the Republicans and
Democratic Governors across all of the states of the Atlantic
to look at the potential of this great energy resource off the
Atlantic. And we have made significant progress, and we feel
very good about the renewable energy potential----
Dr. Harris. Well, thank you. I just don't feel good about
the fact that, you know, the estimate is that it will cost
three times as much to our ratepayers for that energy as it
would to--at least three times; some estimates are even higher
than that.
Let me just talk a little bit, because my colleague has
said, you know, we shouldn't draw lessons from one circumstance
to another.
Now, Mr. Secretary, you have certainly heard of Pavilion,
Wyoming, I take it, because there was a great controversy. We
held a hearing in the science--one of the Science Committee
subcommittees about the fact that numerous areas throughout the
country are attempting to do exactly that with the Pavilion
results. And you know, because the U.S. Geologic Survey, for
instance, was not consulted very intensively about that, about
what the EPA was doing, the depths of their monitoring wells,
for instance, in a known geologic formation that is very
different from geologic formations across the country.
In fact, I will tell you what is safe in the West might not
be safe in the East. But I will tell you with hydrofracturing
Marcellus shale, what is not safe in the West, if that study
were true--and I don't think it is very different than the
Marcellus shale formation.
You said that there is going to be $50 million in a
hydrofracturing study included in this budget. Is that right?
Secretary Salazar. Fifteen.
Dr. Harris. $15 million. Let me ask you. Given the fact
that you haven't been--that the EPA has not been working with
the USGS on this, the EPA is asking for funding, why should we
fund two different agencies that aren't obviously communicating
with each other on an issue of this importance? I mean this is
what people get upset about with Washington. We have
duplication of efforts, agencies not talking to each other.
And, on this circumstance, that resulted in a faulty study from
the EPA.
In my opinion--now, my understanding is it might be the
opinion of some people in your Department, as well. So why
should we fund the USGS and EPA to do this study?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Harris, let me say, first of
all, you raise a very important issue overall, and that is that
we need to make sure that we have integrity, in terms of the
results. As I said in Wyoming in a meeting in a press
conference with Governor Mead, I think the jury is still out on
the EPA study----
Dr. Harris. And I appreciate your honesty----
Secretary Salazar. And also----
Dr. Harris [continuing]. Earlier in the hearing, and on
that.
Secretary Salazar. And also because of that, the United
States Geological Survey and the EPA are working together to
make sure that the results of the final study are ones that are
peer-reviewed and ones that we can have some conclusive
evidence of. Maybe it is a wellbore integrity issue in that
particular place. Maybe there is some other issue. But we need
to make sure that when these kinds of studies get to the final
conclusion, that they are the kinds of conclusions that we can
have total confidence in.
And so, the effort that we have between the U.S. Geological
Survey and the EPA and the funding requests and the Department
of Energy, the three agencies and moving forward are being
coordinated so that we are able to make sure, number one, that
we can move forward with natural gas production in a very
robust way here, in the United States; and number two, that the
science and issues around hydraulic fracking are ones that are
well understood by the American public.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Mr.
Secretary, welcome. Bienvenido. It is good to have you here
with us, sir.
First off, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your
sensitivity to protecting sacred sites when we talk about
sovereignty in our tribes across the country. Many times we
have conversations about this, but the reality of your
responsibilities are wide. But your attention to the tribes,
not only in the budget but also in your responses to questions
today is certainly important. And I am happy to see the
Administration taking protecting sacred sits seriously. So I
want to commend you and your staff for that.
Mr. Secretary, there is going to be an important discussion
on Friday in this committee pertaining to abandoned mine land
funding with the OSM budget pertaining to Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA. We are hoping to be able to
get support for an effort to use the AML funds to clean up
abandoned uranium mines in New Mexico. And so, just to put it
on your radar, I am thankful to the Chairman for bringing this
important discussion to this committee, because it has been a
long time coming. And we look forward to working with your
office on the implementation of that piece.
Mr. Secretary, I also want to acknowledge the work that you
have been doing--and I think we touched on this a little bit
ago--pertaining to solar energy zones. My only concern with the
solar energy zones, Mr. Secretary, is that we have not had one
designated in New Mexico just yet. And so we want to make sure
that we are on your radar as well, with the amount of solar
production that we have in our great state. And I know that you
have had a chance to go down there and visit quite a bit, and
really respect the opportunity that we have down there.
And so my question, Mr. Secretary, is as we talk about
smart from the start, and the identification of these solar
zones, is there a way for new solar zones to be created in the
future, say in Northern New Mexico or other places across New
Mexico?
Secretary Salazar. The answer to that is absolutely yes.
And I would just comment, Congressman Lujan, that the best
places for solar energy are in New Mexico and Arizona and
Southern California and Nevada. And so, we do have a focus,
including Arizona. And when the solar energy programmatic
environmental impact statement is completed, there also will be
a piece there that will--we will identify the best places for
solar energy, where we have the least conflicts. But we also
will have a process in there to be able to add additional solar
energy zones.
In your State of New Mexico, we are working as well on
transmission, because right now that is the single biggest
issue, in terms of being able to get the solar energy from
where it is being produced to the place where it will be
consumed. But New Mexico is very much a high priority because
of its solar energy potential.
Mr. Lujan. And, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that transition
to transmission. As we talk about, you know, the reality of not
being able to move solar power from where we can generate it if
we don't have access to transmission lines with all of the
conversations about energy here, and this is something that we
have brought up in conversations throughout the Committee, and
we were very supportive of the White House's initiative with
the rapid response transmission team last September to
acknowledge that there are important transmission projects
across the West and the East to be able to move power.
And so, I am curious, Mr. Secretary, if you are working
with the rapid response team. There is a specific line in New
Mexico, the SunZia line in the southern part of the state that
would move power up into Albuquerque. And with the convergence
of another project called Tres Amigas, which we were hoping to
be built in New Mexico, which would open up opportunities to
working with Texas.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Lujan, from the beginning of
the Administration, we have tried to bring the entire Federal
Government together to be helpful in standing up of
transmission. And so, meetings in my office have included
Chairman Wellinghoff and Secretary Chu, as well as Tom Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture. And what we have done is to move
forward and identify those projects that we think are
absolutely needed and can be built. And so, the President and
the White House have been directing us to do everything we can
to deal with the transmission challenges that we have.
Mr. Lujan. On that note, Mr. Secretary, one concern that I
have is, as you know, the Western Area Power Administration is
also working with SunZia developers and other transmission
projects, and they are a candidate for low-cost financing
support. Unfortunately, there was a piece of legislation that
was passed out of this committee with much support from the
Republican Majority that would repeal Western's borrowing
authority to projects like SunZia. Do you believe that
eliminating Western's borrowing authority would increase or
decrease the likelihood of these kinds of transmission
projects?
Secretary Salazar. You know, I am not familiar with the
legislation. But at the end of the day, renewable energy
projects need to have the right power purchase agreements and
the right financing to be able to be economical and to be
built. And so we will take a look at the legislation that you
speak about.
Mr. Lujan. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. Yield back the balance----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. And
with any luck we can get all Members in if we just adhere to
the five-minute rule. We will go to Mr. Johnson of Ohio.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, do you
support Federal officials threatening hard-working businesses
and individuals for following the compliance mandates of
legally binding government contracts?
Secretary Salazar. No.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I assume that it is also safe to say that
you don't support lying or asking someone to lie for you, as
well. Is that true?
Secretary Salazar. It is absolutely true.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I didn't think you did. Please take a
look at slide one. This is a statement of work that the Office
of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement agreed to
with the original contractors in your Department's efforts to
rewrite the 2008 string buffer zone rule. The highlighted
portion shows that the contractors had authorization to ask the
coal industry what effect your rewrite of the string buffer
zone rule would have on future coal production.
In fact, I draw your attention to the very word in
paragraph seven--I am sorry, R, ``the contractor shall.'' So it
wasn't just an authorization, it was a mandate, a contractual
mandate.
Slide two, Mr. Secretary, is an email exchange in which
John Cranyon, a career OSM employee, authorizes a contact on
November 22nd by the contractors with the coal industry to see
how the proposed rule would affect future coal production.
Finally, in slide three, the contractors ask on December
15th to verify this contact with the coal industry. As you can
see in pink, the Presidential appointee, an employee of yours,
Joe Pizarchik, violates the agreed-upon statement of work, and
says that no contact is allowed and, furthermore, threatens
extreme consequences if the contractors ask for input from the
coal industry.
Now, Mr. Secretary, you just confirmed for me a minute ago
that you don't support Federal officials threatening hard-
working businesses for complying with mandates of legally
binding contracts. So, in your view, is this the way you
instruct your employees to run rulemaking procedures, by
threatening extreme consequences for following the contract by
consultants hired by the government?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Johnson, I had not seen
these emails before this time. But I will say this, that the
SBR and this contract have been controversial. And my Deputy
Secretary has been involved in overseeing it, and I would like
him to respond----
Mr. Johnson. OK, so--yes. I don't want a filibuster here,
Mr. Secretary, because we got a lot to cover.
You see from this documentation that Mr. Pizarchik
threatened extreme consequences to the contractor for following
the mandates of the agreed-upon statement of work. Does this
mean that you, in turn, disapprove of Director Pizarchik's
handling of this rulemaking process?
Secretary Salazar. You know, I don't know enough about this
email and the context of everything else that happened to be
able to respond to your question today.
Mr. Johnson. OK. So when can I expect you to get back to me
with your assessment? Because this is an egregious situation
here. It has tremendous impacts, not only on my district, but
the coal industry across this nation.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Johnson, I will take a look
at the emails, and we will provide a response.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it is clear to me that the extreme
consequences that Mr. Pizarchik referred to were the
termination of the contract when he didn't like the answers
that he was getting, and forcing the American taxpayers to pay
the contractors in full for simply doing their job. This cost
the American taxpayers millions of dollars. And this, to me and
the American taxpayer, is simply unacceptable.
Mr. Secretary, you already said that you don't think it is
OK to lie or have someone lie for you. Now, either you weren't
being totally honest with me when you said that, or you don't
enforce these principles within your own Department. Because in
November, this committee heard testimony from OSM's contractors
that they were asked to lie to soften the blow of the job
losses that your new string buffer zone rule will have on the
nation.
So, let me ask you this. Did you, anyone from your office,
the White House, or anyone else in a position of authority at
the Department, direct OSM employees to ask the contractors to
change assumptions on the economic analysis to address the job
numbers in the draft economic analysis?
Secretary Salazar. No.
Mr. Johnson. They did not? That is your testimony? You know
that for certain?
Secretary Salazar. I know that I did not, and I have no
knowledge that the White House or anybody else would have.
Mr. Johnson. OK. So that means that Director Pizarchik or
someone else at OSM asked the contractors to lie and change the
baseline coal production level to show fewer job losses, and
that you or no one else was involved. Is that your testimony
here today?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Johnson, I know there were
problems with the contract, and----
Mr. Johnson. No, I am asking you a very specific question.
Mr. Pizarchik said there would be extreme consequences. So he
issued that direction to the contractor. And you are saying
that you or no one else in your Department was involved--or at
the White House--was involved in that. Is that your testimony
here today?
Secretary Salazar. I know that I was not----
Mr. Johnson. Yes or no, Mr. Secretary. I am out of time.
Secretary Salazar. Your answer--your question requires me
to say I had no knowledge of this, and I do not believe that
anybody in the White House did, nor do I believe that anybody
in my senior management did.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Secretary Salazar. So we will get back to you with a
response to your question in the context of other information
that may be associated----
Mr. Johnson. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired, and
this is--certainly is an issue that should be followed up on.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, is recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask my friend,
Mr. Johnson, if he could provide to the Minority the documents
which he had on his screen and the questions that went with
that, and also any other related material. It would be helpful
for the Minority to have that, and I would ask that you provide
that----
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely, I will be glad to.
Mr. Kildee [continuing]. To the Minority as quickly as
possible. Thank you very much.
First of all, I welcome the Secretary here. I see he has
brought with him my former chief of staff, Christopher Mansour,
and I hope he is doing as good a job for you as he did for me,
Mr. Secretary. And I am encouraged to see that $47.8 million
provided for the ecosystem restoration in the Great Lakes--that
is a $2.9 million increase.
And, as you know, my district borders on the Great Lakes
there, and it is a very important thing. While there is a 2.9
increase--actually, to break down you have a 2.9 million
increase for the Asian carp--the efforts to keep the Asian carp
out of the Mississippi Basin into the Great Lakes. If they were
to get into the Great Lakes, we know that that would have a
probably permanent devastating effect upon the biodiversity
that exists in the Great Lakes.
You also have lessened the amount of money for the zebra
mussels, which have devastated much in the Great Lakes,
including the water intakes. Has that been based upon the
relative dangers posed by these two species? And have the
biologists felt that this is the best priority for the money
available?
Secretary Salazar. The answer, Congressman Kildee--and I
appreciate the question and your focus on the Great Lakes and
the Asian carp--we have many invasive species throughout the
country, but I would say that the species of most significant
concern that is invasive right now, or close to the very top of
the list, is the Asian carp. And so we are not only investing
additional money into trying to figure out how we can deal with
that issue through the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also
through other agencies.
And part of the $47.9 million being invested into the Great
Lakes in Interior's budget is that we recognize that it is one
of the huge water landscapes of national significance for the
country.
Mr. Kildee. You know, the Great Lakes and Lake Baikal in
the Russian Federation are the two largest bodies of fresh
water in the world. And Russia now is beginning to protect its
Lake Baikal. And we really have--we have shared, between the
United States and Canada, probably the first largest body of
fresh water. So I really appreciate the efforts of your
Department.
Are you working with other agencies, like the Corps of
Engineers, to help you on that? Or are you cooperating--or
various other agencies cooperating with the Department of the
Interior?
Secretary Salazar. Yes, I would--Congressman Kildee, the
effort on the Great Lakes is a very high priority for President
Obama, just as the Everglades in Florida are. We have spent a
good amount of time. It is a whole of government effort that
goes beyond the Department of the Interior and includes
multiple agencies that have a significant equity in the
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.
Mr. Kildee. Well, I appreciate that very much. The Great
Lakes are not just a treasure for the Midwest, but actually for
our country, and actually for the globe. They are a significant
part of the total environment of our globe. And I appreciate
your personal interest in this, and your personal
prioritization. And I would urge you to continue that. And I
thank you very much for what you are doing.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Congressman Kildee.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we have two more Members. I
know you had a hard 12:30. If we adhere to it, it might be a
minute or so. If we could do that, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Thompson is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, when I was on my four-hour drive yesterday
back to Washington, I always look for the best place to stop
and fill up the car. And yesterday it was $3.65 a gallon. It
has been going up in a frightening way, as--and as you can
imagine, we do a lot of miles and pull a lot of gas.
And long-term prospects for gas prices I don't think are
good, just because of the utilization from--that is projected
in China and India, as they consume much of the oil. And I know
we have other energies that we are working on, but it is going
to take a long time for anybody to fill that--fill what oil
provides us in this country.
And so, as I was reading--thank you for the hand-out, too.
When I was going through the mandatory proposals page on page
11, one of them stood out to me to ``repeal the authority to
accept royalty payments in kind, rescinds the authority to
accept oil in lieu of royalty payments.'' And with gas prices
where they are today, and probably soon to go over $4 it
sounds, and what the future may hold as China and India consume
so much more, it seems like our strategic oil reserves are
incredibly important.
And does this compromise that, where we are not--this
proposed change within the President's budget is--what is your
knowledge, thoughts of impact with this specific proposal and
our strategic oil reserves, which I know aren't meant to
maintain prices, but you know, with the hurricanes and all the
things that we have seen in the past, you know, terrorist
attacks, whatever, where that strategic oil reserves is
really--would be a lifeline for this country. Energy is--just
fuels everything that we do.
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Thompson, first let me say
thank you for your thoughtful observation on the economics of
oil and gas and the world supply and the demand from China and
India and so many other places. It is the fact, that we have a
diminished oil and gas supply, given the nature of how
competition has grown worldwide.
On your specific question on the strategic petroleum
reserves----
Mr. Thompson. The impact of that provision on the
President's budget on----
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. And the royalty--and the
answer is no. The elimination of the royalty-in-kind program
will not have any impact whatsoever on the strategic petroleum
reserve. The elimination of the royalty-in-kind program is
something that I instituted a couple years ago, because of the
fact that it was a program that had huge problems, including
ethical problems within the former MMS.
Mr. Thompson. OK. The--we had a director from BLM sitting
in the Deputy Secretary's seat there for a joint Energy
Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Agriculture I chair,
Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, and he had acknowledged
that--we have been hydrofracking for six years in this country,
there has been a million wells hydrofracked in the United
States. And he actually noted that there has been no problems
with--when hydrofracking is performed correctly, according to
standards, no--when it has been--in terms of no issues on
public lands with hydrofracking.
And so, I take exception to my colleague from Maryland, who
seems to want to blame a lot of problems that the Chesapeake
Bay may have because of the Marcellus, specifically--and I can
speak to Pennsylvania, and I certainly invite him and would
invite you to come on up to the Pennsylvania Fifth District. We
will go out and visit those sites. The Chesapeake Bay has no
threats from hydrofracking, the work that is going on there.
My--I do have questions regarding--this will be my final
question. The President's budget calls for 30 million to be
divided among EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Geological
Survey for management activities for the Chesapeake--that is a
$6.5 million plus-up--and $73 million for restoration, a $15
million plus-up. I just wanted to see how--just quick thoughts
on how those will be used. Is this going to contribute to
implementing the EPA's total maximum daily load proposal that
is out there?
Secretary Salazar. The overall effort with respect to the
Chesapeake is that it is being coordinated among the Federal
family, in the same way that we are doing it in the Great Lakes
or in the Everglades and so many of these other ecosystems that
have been damaged, and which we are doing everything we can to
restore them. And so the money will be invested in a way that
creates jobs and protects the resource for the long term.
Mr. Thompson. Do we have a number? Do we know what the
total investment has been, specifically, that we put in the
Chesapeake Bay over the years, and since these----
Secretary Salazar. I don't have that with me today,
Congressman Thompson, but I would be happy to try to get you
that number.
Mr. Thompson. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. And our final question
comes from the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Landry.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, during
the President's State of the Union speech, he said--and I am
going to quote--that ``I am directing my Administration to
allow the development of clean energy projects on enough public
lands to power three million homes.'' Do you all consider
natural gas a clean energy?
Secretary Salazar. I think the President was referring
there to our efforts on----
Mr. Landry. That is not what I asked. Is natural gas a
clean energy? It is just a yes or no.
Secretary Salazar. I think we--natural gas is a clean
energy----
Mr. Landry. OK, OK.
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. In the sense that it is the
kind of energy that we believe has a huge future for American
power----
Mr. Landry. OK. I mean I would love to let you go on. They
only give me 5 minutes. But if you want to give me 10 or 15, I
will let you keep going.
There has been a lot of talk about wind energy and the
amount of money that you all are trying to budget for the
proliferation of wind energy. And in light of the President's
comments--in August of 2009, ExxonMobil was fined about
$600,000 for violating the Migratory Bird Act, for killing 85
bald eagles over a 5-year period. That is the Act that, down in
Louisiana, if hunters shoot over the limit of ducks, they
prosecute them for.
There was a wind farm in California that killed 80 golden
eagles and over 7,500 species of other protected birds. But yet
no violations were given to that farm because there is an
exclusion under the Migratory Bird Act for wind farms. Do you
agree that that exclusion should continue?
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Landry, I am not familiar
with that exclusion.
Mr. Landry. OK. Well, I will be more than happy--we will
send that. If that is--if that fact pattern is the case, if the
wind industry does enjoy an exemption under the Migratory Bird
Act, is that something that you think should continue for the
wind industry, while other industries are being--don't enjoy
those exemptions?
Mr. Hayes. I would be happy to--there is no exemption for
the wind industry under the Migratory Bird Act.
Mr. Landry. OK. Well I will be sure to--well, great, then.
Mr. Hayes. Happy to follow up.
Mr. Landry. And maybe we should send that wind farm--we
should send some agents over to the wind farm.
Do you--going back to the President's comments under the
State of the Union, do you know the footprint, the amount of
acreage that would be needed for a wind farm to power three
million homes?
Secretary Salazar. I don't have that specifically off the
top of my head, but we can get you that information.
Mr. Landry. Do you know the amount of acreage for a solar
farm, I guess, to power three million homes?
Secretary Salazar. I can do the calculation. I can tell you
that solar energy farms that are producing 300 megawatts of
power may take a section or two of land.
Mr. Landry. And----
Secretary Salazar. I can also just tell you, Congressman
Landry, that for every one acre of land that we have leased out
for renewable energy projects, there have probably been a
million acres of land that have been leased out for oil and gas
development.
Mr. Landry. Well, I wouldn't disagree with that. But the
question is how much power--how many more homes are they
powering per acre? In other words, is the value that the
American taxpayer is getting versus the acreage that you are
leasing, is it equitable?
In other words, it is my understanding, based on the
calculations that I have done, that the amount of land needed
to power three million homes is vastly greater if you use solar
or wind industry than it is to just drill for, say, natural
gas.
I will give you an example. Independence Hub, off the coast
of the Gulf--off the coast of Louisiana, in the Gulf of Mexico,
right now currently produces enough natural gas to power five
million homes. And I would venture to say that the acreage that
it is utilizing is much smaller, so the footprint is much
smaller.
And of course, there is another clean energy out there that
has a much smaller footprint, that being nuclear. The amount of
acreage needed to put up a nuclear plant to power three million
homes, I think, is again greatly reduced.
And so, my question to you all is that--does that come into
the calculation? I mean the amount of land that you are going
to--that is needed to power three million homes, do you look at
it and say, ``Well, are we getting the best bang for the buck
per acre?''
Secretary Salazar. Congressman Landry, the President has
been very clear from day one to me, as Secretary of the
Interior: We have an all-of-the-above energy strategy. And we
believe in a very bright future for natural gas in America. We
also believe in a very bright future for solar and wind and
geothermal and alternative biofuels. And so we are moving
forward with an all-of-the-above strategy. And I think when one
is honest in looking at the last three years, we have made very
significant progress on all fronts.
Mr. Landry. You didn't mention nuclear. Is that not a
clean----
Secretary Salazar. Nuclear is also part of that energy
portfolio.
Mr. Landry. I am out of time.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman is expired.
Mr. Landry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And I do think that the gentleman brings up a
very interesting point. As there is discussion about energy in
this country, there are a variety of factors that should go
into that, very certainly.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here and
giving us a little bit more of the time than what you wanted. I
know, as I mentioned earlier, Members will have questions and
we would like to have as quickly as possible a response. I know
that several Members have questions on the Antiquities Act, and
we will do that, and also on the wild lands initiative, which
started earlier on. And so we will have some questions on that.
But once again, thank you very, very much for taking your
time to be here. And if there is no further business for the
Committee, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera follows:]

Statement of The Honorable David Rivera, a U.S. Representative
in Congress from the State of Florida

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome again Mr. Secretary.
First, let me thank you for listing the 4 species of large
constrictor snakes as prohibited injurious species under the Lacey Act.
As you know, these snakes have invaded South Florida, disturbing our
fragile ecosystem, threatening our native species and even causing
human deaths. These are not harmless pets as some have suggested.
I am disappointed however, that the other 5 species of snakes were
not included in your announcement. Those other snakes, I would argue,
pose a greater threat to our ecosystem due to their larger populations.
Furthermore, your announcement was not broad enough to address the
large snakes already living out in the wild. Conservative estimates say
they may run into the thousands. Several of my Florida colleagues and I
have recently sent you a letter requesting the Department to develop a
plan to address this problem. I am not going to ask for a response
right now but would ask for unanimous consent to include that letter
into the record (insert).
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My staff also recently met with Captain
Jeff Fobb of the Miami-Dade Fire Department's Anti-Venom Unit. I
believe you are familiar with Captain Fobb; he was the gentleman that
supplied the Burmese python for your announcement last month. My
colleagues may know him from the Swamp Wars TV-series.
The unit is comprised of a highly specialized team of paramedic
firefighters who are trained in response, management, and treatment of
envenomations. The unit maintains the ONLY anti-venom bank for public
use in the United States.
Among their ``normal'' duties, they are also the first-responders
whenever invasive species, such as the Burmese python, threaten our
neighborhoods. Moving forward, I would ask the Department and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service to consider plans to develop and support
programs that can help these local agencies, who are on the front-lines
combating invasive species, carry out our shared mission of protecting
our natural resources.
Next item, Mr. Secretary, Everglades restoration is important to
Florida and to the United States. I know it's important to you. Thank
you for your leadership in water and lands issues.
The Tamiami Trail bridge, which is expected to be finished soon,
and the other public works being built to restore more natural flows to
the Everglades need the seven and a half mile swath of FPL land that
runs through the middle of the Everglades National Park. The Park
Service and Congress both know this and in 2009, Congress passed bi-
partisan legislation that enabled a land exchange between the Park and
FPL. The net gain to the Park was an additional 60 acres of land and
FPL would have a corridor to put their power lines outside of the Park.
I'm sure you share my concern about all the taxpayer dollars spent
on Mod Waters, and it not working simply because of a holdup with this
land exchange. The schedule the Park Service itself publicly posted for
the project shows the agency publishing a draft Enviromental Impact
Study (EIS) last month. That didn't happen. When can we expect it?
FPL is working with the State of Florida on transmission lines and
running the line within its holdings in the Park is one of the options.
The more we delay on this land exchange, the more likely it seems that
option gets. From the perspective of wanting to protect the natural
integrity of the Park, I think it's much more preferable to have power
lines on the outside edge of the Park than running right through the
middle of the Park. I would ask you to please expedite the EIS.
[A map titled ``Tamiami Trail Modification project limits''
submitted for the record by The Honorable David Rivera
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.004

------

[A letter submitted for the record by the Independent
Petroleum Association of America follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.009

------

[A map submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill
Flores follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.001

------

[``OSM Statement of Work Authorizing Contact with Coal
Companies on Proposed Rule'' submitted for the record
by The Honorable Bill Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2938.007