<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:28225.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-436
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUDGET
__________
MARCH 2, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-225 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Abrams, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 7
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 2
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 3
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 4
Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Department of the Interior...... 9
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 5
Talent, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Missouri................ 6
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 107
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Good morning. Madam Secretary, good to have
you here, Senator Bingaman. There's many hearings going on on
the Hill, so we have--I'm sure Senator Bingaman's supposed to
be at two or three other ones.
Once again, we're going to hear from the Secretary
regarding the budget for 2007. I'm pleased to see again that
the administration supports legislation to open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. It seems like this goes on forever,
but I think we'll have to stay with it for a while longer. So,
the opening of ANWR along with measures like the bill that
Senator Bingaman and I introduced to open parts of the OCS and
the administration's activity to move in a significant way with
reference to some of the OCS off of Florida seemed to me to be
crucial in lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of
energy and serving as a bridge to new technologies, to new
fuels for our country and its economy, especially in the area
of transportation fuels.
I also want to note that while I recognize many areas in
your request to implement provisions of last year's Energy
Policy Act that we fought so hard to get enacted, I'm somewhat
disappointed that you've requested to repeal a few of the
provisions that related to oil and gas and geothermal
permitting and that the permitting and development that we felt
were necessary to give you the resources to expedite to these
programs. I'm sure that you are aware that the repeal of these
provisions probably won't take place up here because that's not
what we want to do. And we think you need the resources, but
what we want more than anything is that you move ahead as
quickly as possible in those areas.
As you know, one area we have not been discussing much
heretofore, but will become more and more a focus of attention
has to do with the gigantic oil reserves from shale. I know
that in the bill that we passed, the Energy Policy Act, there's
a number of provisions that move ahead, permit you to move
ahead and permit those who are interested in developing that
shale to move ahead in a more orderly manner consistent with
today's times. And I'm pleased to know that you've requested
funding for that program. And I suggest that there ought to be
more funding, but I understand that these are difficult times.
We will be moving ahead and seeing--informing ourselves more
about that resource. I have been briefed by you and hope that
we can have some more public discussions about the value of
those resources. They clearly are something that--because of
the price of crude oil, that resource is beginning to focus as
something truly potential rather than just a maybe situation. I
am going to move on now to Senator Bingaman, and then if any
other Senators come, they will have their opportunity.
Senator Bingaman.
[The prepared statements of Senators Akaka, Craig,
Landrieu, Menendez, Salazar and Talent follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator From Hawaii
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing on the Department
of Interior's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. I would also like to
take this opportunity to thank the men and women of the Department of
Interior for their hard work and dedication. I see several bright spots
in this year's budget. In particular, I am pleased to see funding for
further research on Gas Hydrates. I, along with my colleague Senator
Murkowski, have been strong advocates for the development of Gas
Hydrate technologies as a solution to our long-term energy needs. I am
also happy to see funds for the development of air tour management
plans in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration. At the
same time, I am troubled by a number of funding reductions reflected in
the Department's budget. I know that there are hard choices to be made,
but I am concerned that the President's spending priorities for the war
in Iraq, and tax cuts are forcing federal agencies to mortgage the
future of parks, wildlife, public lands, and partnership programs with
States. I am especially concerned with the reduction in overall funding
for the research, detection and control of invasive species. The spread
of invasive species is of great concern to the state of Hawaii and I
would urge you not to step back from out commitment to protecting our
environment from invasive species.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
We are clearly in a budget climate where all government must
operate efficiently and collaboratively in order to accomplish its core
missions. I appreciate the President working with the committee's
needs, in turn keeping federal spending down. The President's budget
noticeably reflects his commitment to leaner budgets, simultaneously
freeing the country from energy dependence.
I am very pleased the President has included funding for energy
development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This is an
endeavor I have long supported as a nation breaking free from energy
dependence. I appreciate not only support for ANWR, but also support
for additional domestic oil and gas programs across the West.
As I mentioned before, collaboration is key to efficient
government, including actively managing our public lands. I was
disappointed to see range improvement dollars left out of the budget
yet again. These dollars are vital as land managers and ranchers join
forces to improve range resources.
However, the area of the budget I am most disappointed in is PILT
funding. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) continues to be important to
America's rural counties, as they assist the federal government with
many public land needs from road maintenance to public land law
enforcement. Furthermore, PILT takes the heavy tax burden off of
residents who live in counties that may be 60%-95% federally owned. I
will continue to work with the committee and the administration toward
adequate funding for PILT.
I want to thank the Secretary for coming to our State to sign a
very important memorandum of agreement between the State of Idaho and
the United States on wolf management. Idaho has worked very hard for
many years to properly manage all of its wildlife. However, our hands
have become tied because of the Endangered Species Act and the federal
government's inability to de-list a species that quite frankly has done
better than anyone expected. My question is: how does a State like
Idaho move forward with de-listing the wolf after a significant amount
of time, money and effort has been spent on making our wolf populations
healthy and vibrant? Also, how does the federal government expect the
State of Idaho to properly manage its wildlife if it cannot manage one
of its largest predators?
I appreciate the Secretary's time today and look forward to her
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator From
Louisiana
I just wanted to take a few moments this morning to highlight some
significant concerns I have with the Interior Budget that has been
submitted for FY 2007. In addition, I am hoping the Secretary can bring
me up to speed on what the Department has done and is doing in the
aftermath of the Hurricanes last summer to address areas under its
jurisdiction, specifically with regard to some of the refuges in
Southwest Louisiana and parks in and around the New Orleans region.
However, I was very pleased to find the Administration agreed to
the request made by me and our state's Congressional delegation to
fully fund the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training
(NCPTT) after a two year hiatus.
This National Park Service (NPS) office located on the campus of
Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana is the only
preservation research and technology center of the NPS, and the only
one in the federal government. Now more than ever the work of the
Center will be vitally important to the whole nation, especially to the
rebuilding of communities which include thousands of historic
structures badly damaged by the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes. While the
funding included in the Administration's budget is equivalent to what
Congress appropriated last year, I am hopeful we can work together to
increase this funding so the Center can provide the cutting edge
research, technology and training opportunities to the NPS and its
partners in these most challenging times.
Unfortunately, much else of what I found was disappointing.
STATE SIDE LWCF
For the second year in a row, the Administration is proposing to
eliminate the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF). On the one hand, the program is recommended for termination
because, according to OMB, it does not adequately measure performance
or demonstrate results. They make this claim at exactly the same time
the Park Service, another branch of the Administration, publishes and
distributes a brochure that says ``the real impact of Land and Water
Conservation Fund projects . . . is more than acres, facilities and
dollars leveraged . . . [it] is the role of our projects in
strengthening community public health. Park and recreation directors
all over the country tell us that the physical activity these parks
provide are essential for the health of the community.''
Disingenuous? Perhaps. In any case, one has to wonder why the
Administration appears to be making arguments for and against the
program simultaneously.
In 2005, 88% of the states reported an unmet need exceeding 50%.
So, how does the Administration respond to this challenge? By zeroing
out the program altogether.
There are two dozen state parks, historic areas and preservation
areas in Louisiana that have a significant impact on our economy
through tourism and recreation. Each one of these facilities leverages
federal and state funds through the state side of the LWCF to generate
significant revenue for state and local government as well as private
businesses.
At full funding, Louisiana would receive approximately $7.5 million
in grants through the state side program. Not a tremendous amount of
money by any stretch given the enormous needs. However, in FY 2005,
when Louisiana received only $1.5 million, the unmet need was still
84%. Cutting the state side of the LWCF means preventing states from
building or developing parks and recreation facilities, providing
riding and hiking trails, enhancing recreation access, conserving open
space and preserving forests, estuaries, wildlife and natural
resources. Perhaps most importantly, not funding this program
eliminates the certainty that state and local governments rely on to
help them plan to meet the recreational needs of their citizens. An
administration that champions the power of partnerships to leverage
resources and achieve results, has turned its back on a partnership
program that can provide both for years to come.
OCS
I would be remiss if I did not comment on how much the
Administration's budget touts the role of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) in providing domestic energy production for the nation:
contributing more to the total U.S. oil and natural gas supply than any
single state or country in the world. Not only will OCS production
account for more than 40 percent of U.S. oil production and 23 percent
of U.S. natural gas production over the next five years alone, but the
OCS will continue to be a critical source of future supplies. It is
estimated that the OCS contains more than 60 percent of the Nation's
remaining undiscovered oil and as much as half of our country's
undiscovered recoverable natural gas.
Almost all of this production comes from the Gulf of Mexico off the
coasts of four states. This will continue to be the case for years to
come: over the next decade, oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is
expected to increase by 43 percent and natural gas production by 13
percent. Without the ports, fabrication facilities and tens of
thousands of miles of pipelines located in Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama it would be literally impossible to access
these vital mineral assets at all.
However, aside from merely including as part of its FY 2007
submission the good work of Congress last year which under the
leadership of Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman established an
important policy precedent by providing a significant stream of coastal
impact assistance funding to coastal producing states. Still, nothing
in this budget acknowledges the role these states play in supplying our
nation with its energy supply.
As we all know, other states receive significant revenues from
mineral production on federal lands within their boundaries. For
example, the State of Wyoming, with a population of just under 500,000,
is projected to receive almost $1.3 billion in 2006. But, there is no
similar provision in law for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama
to share federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS off their
shores. For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for
sharing with the state is the same: the state serves as the platform
which enables the federal government to support a basic element of our
daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our
commuter trains.
Instead of foot-dragging and excuse-making under the guise of
budgetary concerns, it is long past time for this Administration to
step up and show leadership on this issue. It is time for them to join
the Louisiana delegation and other Gulf Coast states to establish a
reliable revenue source over time to fund vitally coastal protection
and flood control systems.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita clearly demonstrated the extent to
which America depends upon the central and western portions of the Gulf
for our nation's energy supply and economic security. Ensuring that the
nation's energy hub, which centers on Louisiana and our neighboring
coastal states, can continue to be so is not just smart energy policy--
it is necessary to the nation's economic strength. It is truly a
national priority that requires a national commitment, and we urge this
Administration to join us in the proclamation of that commitment
through consistent budget policies and priorities that make sense for
all of America.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Menendez, U.S. Senator
From New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to more
closely examine the proposed Department of Interior (DOI) budget for
Fiscal Year 2007. I'd also like to thank Secretary Norton for taking
the time to discuss the details of the department's budget.
Unfortunately, I'm not very happy with many of these details. An
overall departmental decrease of $614 million. A $100 million cut in
park appropriations. Eighty-four million cut from National Park Service
construction projects, and another $10 million cut from repair and
rehabilitation projects. The proposed sell-off of vast swaths of public
land. A $12.4 million reduction of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for federal land acquisition, and the complete elimination of the
stateside LWCF grant program. These cuts make me wonder what kind of
parks we will be leaving for our children and grandchildren to visit in
the years to come.
I was pleased to see an important new program for New Jersey in the
budget, with $2 million included to implement the Highlands
Conservation Act. However, this is far short of the authorized level of
$10 million, and I hope we can get closer to that level to help fund
some crucial land conservation projects in all four states that share
the Highlands region.
The zeroing out of the stateside LWCF program is an even greater
threat to the landscape of New Jersey. This program is an invaluable
resource for all 50 states, providing funds for land acquisition and
rehabilitation as well as protection of natural resources such as open
space and clean water. Since 1966, when the LWCF program was
instituted, New Jersey has received over $110 million in LWCF stateside
grant funding, which has been used to preserve nearly 74,000 acres of
open space and fund 241 park and recreation projects statewide. These
projects span the state, from large acquisitions in the Highlands and
Pinelands to small acquisitions along New Jersey's Hudson River
waterfront. Liberty State Park in Jersey City has gone from a derelict
waterfront to being one of the premier urban waterfront parks in the
United States, thanks to $6.5 million in LWCF assistance. The State's
county and municipal parks also benefit through the addition of land
and new recreation facilities.
In addition to having one of the nation's strongest open space
preservation programs, New Jersey was the only state in the Park
Service's Northeast Region to completely obligate its entire LWCF
balance in FY05, and generated over $10 million in leveraged funding
from the State's local governments and conservation organizations. Yet
the state still has over $726 million in total land conservation
funding needs, the second highest total in the nation, meaning cuts to
the stateside LWCF program hit New Jersey particularly hard.
Land preservation is one of the most cost effective and efficient
methods of environmental protection. New Jersey has, over the years,
used its LWCF apportionments to protect water resources throughout the
state and along river corridors. These acquisitions help prevent the
loss of drinking wells and fight the intrusion of salt water intrusion
into aquifers, both of which are the result of New Jersey's ever-
growing population. The economic benefits of public conservation and
recreation projects are substantial, many of which accrue to the
federal government, and will help to offset the federal funding
necessary to solve these problems in the long term.
Our parks are not the only part of our heritage endangered by
downsizing at the Department of Interior. The budget proposes only $33
million for Preservation and Recreation Programs, down from $55 million
last year. This decrease will affect programs such as the National
Register of Historic Places, certifications for investment tax credits,
management planning of federally-owned historic properties as well as
government-wide archaeological programs, and documentation of historic
properties. Furthermore, the recommendation for State Historic
Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices is less
than $40,000,000, a decrease from last year's level for basic
administration of federal preservation policy, and a cut in half for
Save America's Treasures. If enacted, the proposed halving of Save
America's Treasures would hurt New Jersey preservation and
rehabilitation projects desperately in need of funding.
Our parks and our historic places are an important component of our
collective American heritage. Our children are raised on family trips
to places such as the Jersey Shore, school field trips to local
historic places such as Thomas Edison's laboratory, and afternoons with
their friends in our local parks. Will our children be able to share
such formative experiences with their children? Our love of the
outdoors is a shared value of the American people, and an important
part of our daily lives. In my opinion, this budget does not reflect
these values, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
ensure that we do not shortchange our commitment to our natural
resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Bingaman. I want to
welcome my fellow Coloradan, Secretary Norton. Secretary Norton served
as Colorado's Attorney General from 1991 to 1999, after which I was
honored to serve as Colorado's Attorney General for six years.
The Department of the Interior manages over eight million surface
acres and over five million subsurface acres in Colorado. These lands
include four National Parks, seven National Wildlife Refuges, vast
Bureau of Land Management holdings, and numerous National Monuments,
Recreation Areas, and Historic Trails.
Almost every Coloradan is in some way affected by the budget and
priorities of the Department of the Interior. Millions of Coloradans
visit the National Parks, hike the Historic Trails, hunt on BLM lands,
or heat their homes with natural gas extracted under a BLM lease.
But it is the people who live in Colorado's rural counties who are
most affected by this budget. People who live in counties like Rio
Blanco and San Miguel, Conejos and Saguache, Grand and Gunnison.
It is out of concern for these rural communities, in particular,
that I am troubled by this budget. These communities are a part of an
America that has long been forgotten by our government, and they are, I
fear, once again forgotten in the Administration's budget priorities.
Rural counties in Colorado will be hurt first and foremost by this
year's proposed cuts to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. PILT
provides money to communities that include federal lands (such as
National Forests and/or Bureau of Land Management lands) to compensate
for the fact that these federal lands do not pay taxes. In 2005, this
program helped pay teachers, police neighborhoods, and pave roads in 57
counties in Colorado. The President's budget would cut this program by
16% to $198 million. This is a body blow to Rural America.
Many of Colorado's rural counties are experiencing rapid growth in
energy production on BLM lands. These communities are often
enthusiastic about expanded BLM oil and gas leasing activities in their
area because they want to play a role in moving America toward energy
independence. But these rural communities also care deeply about their
land and water. They want to contribute to expanded domestic energy
production while still preserving their natural heritage and a quality
of life that attracts residents, visitors, and businesses. I want to
make sure that this budget provides the resources the BLM needs to
conduct vigorous oversight when producers are drilling in these
counties. This should include unannounced visits by BLM inspectors to
drilling pads. Our rural communities deserve high standards and
safeguards if they are to help carry us toward energy independence.
Recreation and tourism is a growing segment of the economic base in
Colorado's rural counties. The cuts to the National Park Service's
maintenance and construction budget--combined with the dangerous
proposed revisions to Park Service policies--could expand the deferred
maintenance backlog and erode the integrity of our National Parks.
Furthermore, the budget proposes to eliminate the Land and Water
Conservation Fund stateside grants program, which provides matching
funds for Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO)'s parks, recreation, and open
space projects. This cut of a broadly supported and highly effective
program will limit recreation options for all Coloradans and will hurt
rural communities that want to protect open spaces and parks for future
generations.
I am hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address these
issues today with Secretary Norton.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Talent, U.S. Senator From Missouri
As you know, natural gas prices set record highs this winter,
exceeding $15 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf). Natural gas still costs
two to three times traditional levels, due in part to increasing world
demands for energy.
Missouri farmers and manufacturers are big users of natural gas as
feedstock for fertilizer and chemical products. The Industrial Energy
Consumers of America reported that ``since 2001, natural gas prices
have significantly contributed to the loss of 3.0 million manufacturing
jobs and the shifting of future investment overseas.'' We can't
continue to export jobs and manufacturing capability overseas simply
because our energy costs are too high, and they are: in Europe, natural
gas sells for $7.00 per thousand cubic feet and in China, less than
$5.00.
As a result, we will soon be asked to vote on additional funding
for LIHEAP. This is a clear signal that home heating costs are too
high. It seems to me and I expect, based on the MMS's five-year leasing
plan, you'd agree that the only way we are going to bring prices down
is to responsibly produce our own clean burning natural gas.
I've joined with Senators Domenici, Bingaman and Dorgan to propose
a bill that opens the untapped portion of just one small, unexplored
area 100 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Lease Sale Area 181, as
it is known, has enough natural gas to heat 6 million homes for 15
years.
This is a good first step that is easily achievable. But we'll
likely have to do more exploration outside of the Gulf of Mexico. A
next step would be to allow States to opt out of the moratoria to allow
exploration for natural gas off of their own shores. I have co-
sponsored a bill with Sens. Pryor, Warner, and Allen to open up more of
the OCS to natural gas exploration by providing an incentive for States
to take advantage of the resources that lie off of their coasts.
I know that your 5-year leasing plan would take similar steps as
these. So, I expect it is the case that your budget has prepared with
increased offshore leasing in mind.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, thank you for coming again this year, and let me
just make a few observations about the administration's
proposed budget. First, on the proposal to sell off the BLM
lands, as I understand it, the administration's proposal is
they want to sell over $800 million worth of Forest Service
lands and nearly $200 million to be raised over the next 5
years from the sale of BLM lands, and the funds would be used
for deficit reduction and for BLM operational funding needs. I
have concerns with both of those provisions.
I supported Senator Domenici's provision that was attached
to the Valles Caldera legislation a few years ago which
permitted the BLM and Federal land management agencies, more
generally, to keep all of the money that was used that they
received from the sale of surplus lands in order to acquire
important in-holdings within federally designated areas. That
was the way the legislation was drafted as I understand it. And
the administration now wants to redirect 70 percent of the net
sale proceeds from land sales to the Federal Treasury. I think
selling public lands for deficit reduction or for operational
funding of the agency is very shortsighted. I don't think it's
wise to sell permanent assets to fund operational needs. In
this case, it appears that OMB has specific revenue targets
that they want to meet by the sale of permanent assets.
Let me also state my disappointment again with the
administration's budget on the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. Once again, you have proposed drastic cuts in that
funding, that $900 million is credited to the fund each year.
But as I read this budget, it proposes to spend only $91
million for Federal land acquisition; nothing for State open
space and recreational grants.
On PILT, Payment In Lieu of Taxes, again, the
administration is proposing to cut funding. The proposed cut
this year is about $35 million, recommended funding of $198
million. It's far below the authorized level, of course, of
$350 million. I hope that additional funding will be included
in the Interior Appropriation bill for this important function.
While I support the re-authorization of the County Payments
bill, I'm not sure I understand why the administration is
seeking full funding for that program while it continues to
propose cuts in the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Program. It
doesn't seem to me to be a good set of priorities.
Let me mention also water issues. Many of us, including
Senator Domenici, myself, and others on the committee here,
have struggled and continue to struggle with the water issues.
The President's Budget for all Federal water resource programs,
I think, is deficient. From my perspective, the Federal
Government needs to be partnering with the States and local
communities to help them to address infrastructure needs, to
identify new sources of water and the sustainability of
existing supplies, and to develop the new technologies that are
needed to increase available water supplies and resolve
environmental issues, as well as work on conservation projects.
As I read the administration budget, it is deficient in
virtually all of these areas. So, I know the budget situation
is tight. There are still a lot of priorities that get set in
the budgeting process, and I think the decision to cut away at
the water-related programs is out of step with the priorities
of the people I represent in New Mexico and I think out of step
with the priorities of many members of this committee. Thank
you again, Mr. Chairman, for letting me comment.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator From New Mexico
Good morning and welcome, Secretary Norton. I would like to take a
few minutes to highlight a few of my observations and concerns on the
Administration's budget proposal, both with respect to new legislative
initiatives and the funding levels proposed for key departmental
programs.
BLM LAND SALES
During the hearing on the Forest Service's budget earlier this week
there was a lot of discussion, and considerable opposition, to the
Administration's proposal to sell over $800 million worth of National
Forest lands. Likewise, the Department of the Interior's budget assumes
almost $200 million will be raised over the next five years from the
sale of Bureau of Land Management lands, which the Administration
proposes to use for deficit reduction and BLM operational funding
needs. I have strong concerns with both of these land sale proposals.
I supported the provision that Senator Domenici authored as part of
the Valles Caldera legislation which permitted the BLM and other
Federal land management agencies to keep all of the money used from the
sale of surplus lands to acquire important inholdings within Federally-
designated areas. As I understand the budget proposal, the
Administration now wants to redirect 70 percent of the net sale
proceeds from land sales to the Treasury.
Selling public land for deficit reduction or agency operational
funding needs is, my view, an extremely short-sighted policy. Not only
do I think it is unwise to sell permanent assets to fund operational
needs, in this case it appears that OMB has set specific revenue
targets of $180 million over the next five years and $350 million over
the next decade, without regard to which lands actually are suitable
for sale.
LWCF
I am disappointed that this budget continues this Administration's
tradition of slashing funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Although $900 million is credited into the fund each year, this budget
proposes to spend only $91 million for Federal land acquisition and
nothing for State open space and recreational grants. Although the
Department once again is trying to fund other programs out of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, its request for authorized funding
represents only 17 percent of the full authorization. I believe there
is still strong bipartisan support for both the Federal and State Land
and Water Conservation Fund programs and I hope this funding can be
significantly increased.
PILT
As has been the case in its previous budget proposals, the
Administration is again proposing to cut funding for the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes, or PILT program. The proposed cut this year is almost
$35 million, and the recommended funding of $198 million is far below
the authorized level of about $350 million. I hope that additional
funding will be included in the Interior Appropriations bill, but it's
too bad the Administration is not trying to help. While I support
reauthorization of the County Payments bill, I'm not sure I understand
why the Administration is seeking full funding for that program while
it continues to short change PILT.
WATER ISSUES
Finally, I'd like to discuss water issues and assess what role the
federal government should play in helping our country meet its future
water needs. The President's budget for all federal water resource
programs raises significant concerns from my perspective. Beyond its
obvious role in sustaining life, a stable and reliable water supply is
one of the core foundations for the economic activity that sustains our
communities.
With issues related to population growth, environmental needs,
protection of agricultural communities, and ongoing drought, the
challenges with respect to water resources in the 21st Century is
endless. From my perspective, the Federal government needs to be
partnering with States and local communities in helping them to (1)
address infrastructure needs; (2) identify new sources of water and the
sustainability of existing supplies; (3) develop new technologies to
increase the available water supply; (4) resolve environmental issues;
(5) implement water conservation projects; and (6) quantify federal
water rights claims to promote effective water management.
Unfortunately, the President's budget misses the mark in all these
areas and does not reflect the importance of water in this country. Nor
does it help deal with the challenges already facing many regions.
While I know the FY 2007 budget is tight, there are still a lot of
choices to be made, and the decision to go after water programs seems
to be out of step with the needs I hear from my constituents and others
across the country.
I look forward to discussing these issues in greater detail after
we hear from Secretary Norton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. Now, Madam
Secretary, your statement will be made a part of the record.
Please proceed. Once again, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you today
to discuss our fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of
the Interior.
Before we get into the substance, I would like to note two
transitions. First of all, I am joined today by Tom Weimer, who
is our new Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget. He takes the place of Lynn Scarlett, who has now moved
on to become Deputy Secretary of our Department. Although this
is Tom's first appearance here as Assistant Secretary, he is
certainly no stranger to the Department of the Interior. He was
Chief of Staff to Manuel Lujan when he was the Secretary, and
Tom has played a very key role as the principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. We've called on him
many times for some tough issues in the Department. I'm also
accompanied today by John Trezise, who is our Budget Director.
This will be John's last year of doing our budget hearings.
He's announced that he's going to be retiring at the end of the
year after 35 years with the Department. He has a truly
incredible knowledge of all aspects of the Department of the
Interior, so we are certainly going to miss him. I'm pleased to
say that we have selected Pam Haze to succeed John, and Pam has
been the Deputy Budget Director and is going to provide
continuity to our programs.
The President's government-wide 2007 budget reflects his
commitment to provide critical resources needed for our
Nation's highest priorities, fighting the War on Terror,
strengthening homeland defenses and sustaining a strong
economy. This budget maintains fiscal discipline through
improved management and by focusing on top priorities. Our
overall 2007 request is $10.5 billion. In addition to the funds
requested in the 2007 budget, the President's February 16, 2006
supplemental funding request for hurricane recovery includes
$216 million for Interior agencies. This funding will be used
to conduct significant cleanup, debris removal, repair and
reconstruction of facilities at park units, refuges and science
facilities. We'd certainly appreciate the members' support on
this legislation.
In formulating the 2007 budget, we had to set priorities
and make difficult choices. The budget includes reductions for
programs that are a lower priority, lack clearly defined goals
or duplicate activities of other agencies. In this priority-
setting process, our focus was to maintain core bureau-
operating programs. The budget maintains the increases provided
in the past several years for park operations and continues
refuge funding at the record-high levels of recent years. To
help maintain core operations, the 2007 budget includes $126
million for fixed cost increases. This request will cover 70
percent of the anticipated 2007 pay raise and will help all of
our bureaus. As President Bush noted in his State of the Union
speech, a dependable energy supply is vital for our Nation's
economy.
I thank this committee for your bipartisan efforts that
played a key role in shaping the Energy Policy Act of 2005. To
help implement the goals of the Act and of the President, our
budget includes $468 million for energy programs, a $44 million
increase over 2006. This investment will help us achieve our
goal of secure affordable energy in the context of strong
environmental protection.
Subsurface areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management
in the Rocky Mountain States represent one of the best
opportunities to augment domestic natural gas supplies in the
short term. The BLM estimates that basins in five Western
States contain 139 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough
to heat 55 million homes for almost 30 years. Together with
base funding and funding available from the Energy Policy Act,
an increase of $9 million will enable BLM to process a record
12,000 applications for permits to drill, more than twice the
number that we received in 2003 and increase inspections and
monitoring to ensure operations are conducted in compliance
with environmental standards and other permit requirements.
The Minerals Management Service manages over 8,200 Outer
Continental Shelf leases, covering more than 43 million acres.
Within the next 5 years, offshore production will likely
account for more than 40 percent of domestic oil and 20 percent
of domestic natural gas production. The 2007 budget includes a
$3.6 million increase that will allow the Minerals Management
Service to keep pace with permitting and inspections for
existing OCS leases and to conduct environmental studies in
support of the new 5-year plan. The 2007 budget includes an
increase of $12 million for Alaska north slope energy
activities. This increase will support preparation and
implementation of the ANWR leasing program. It will also enable
BLM to effectively manage anticipated increases in energy
development activities in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska. And very importantly, it will also enable BLM to
remediate old, abandoned energy-related infrastructure that has
become an environmental problem. There are several decades-old
wells that are very expensive to remediate.
Our budget also includes new funding for unconventional and
renewable energy resources. Under the Energy Policy Act, the
Minerals Management Service is given authority to permit and
regulate ocean energy resources for renewable energy. This will
include wind energy, and we have several applications that are
pending already. It can also include tidal, current and thermal
energy. The budget includes $7 million for MMS to carry out
this authority.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned oil shale, and I'd like to
share with the committee a chart that indicates the extent of
our oil shale resource in this country. The oil shale resources
that are in place in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah represent the
largest- known concentrations in the world, 1.2 to 2 trillion
barrels of oil. If you look at the chart in the light-blue area
at the bottom, we have a representation of all of the world's
traditional energy resources. That's the proven reserves, the
undiscovered resources, basically everything for traditional
oil. The maroon area is the Canadian Oil Sands. Those are a
very significant resource, and those currently are being tapped
and are expected to increase. The purple area at the top
represents our oil shale resource in place in the United
States. And clearly, it is very significant in comparison to
the other world oil resources. The recoverable portion of this
resource has been estimated as being at least four times the
proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Our 2007 budget includes a $3 million increase to
accelerate implementation of an oil shale development program.
We're currently finalizing research and development leases. The
Energy Policy Act requires that we have in place a commercial
leasing program by 2008. We are working on significant
environmental analysis and other work to get that project done.
The very big difference between this oil shale cycle and what
we've experienced in the past is that the companies this time
are investing their own money on these projects, and we've seen
very significant interest. We received about 20 applications
from companies for our research and development leases.
Another source of energy that is also unconventional is
gas-hydrates. The 2007 budget contains a $2 million increase
for a coordinated effort to accelerate gas-hydrates. This is
essentially frozen natural gas as a commercially viable energy
resource. The United States has vast amounts of gas-hydrates,
an estimated 200,000 trillion cubic feet of in-place gas-
hydrates. These are found both at the far north in Alaska as
well as at very deep levels of the ocean. There's significant
international research underway with promising indications that
production technology is not much different from current
technologies. It is something that is still at its very early
phases, and it's largely been government research by the United
States as well as Japan, India, Canada and other countries.
This chart shows a comparison between the existing known
natural gas resources of the United States and the natural gas
versus gas-hydrate resources.
A common theme throughout our budget is working with
partners. By working with local communities, Interior employees
benefit from local knowledge, ideas and assistance to achieve
conservation results that can transcend jurisdictional
boundaries. These partnerships benefit America's national
parks, wildlife refuges and other public lands. In August of
last year, we held the White House Conference on Cooperative
Conservation, and there were well over a thousand people from
all over the country who are involved in local conservation
efforts. They are very enthusiastic about their projects and
provided us with their insights about how the Federal
Government can improve our ability to work with and foster
those kinds of local conservation efforts.
The 2007 budget builds on the lessons we learned at that
conference. It includes $322 million for cooperative
conservation programs, an increase of $10 million over 2006.
From 2001 to 2006, we have achieved significant results from
our cooperative conservation programs. For example, our Private
Stewardship and Land Owner Incentive grants have funded over
900 projects with close to 1,500 partners. These are all
intended to improve habitat for endangered or at-risk species.
We work with people who are enthusiastic about protecting birds
and wildlife without the conflicts of our standard regulatory
program. The 2007 budget funds these programs at $34 million,
an increase of $5 million over the appropriated level. The
Challenge Cost Share Program gives resource managers greater
flexibility to address high-priority needs at individual sites
while promoting cooperative conservation with local partners.
In 2005, the program supported over 800 projects in 45 States
with over 1,300 partners. The 2007 budget includes $21 million
for Challenge Cost Share grants, a $2 million increase over
2006.
In addition to joining with citizen stewards to protect
wildlife and habitat, Interior is a steward for our Nation's
cultural legacy. The 2007 budget includes $32 million for
locally focused historic preservation and Heritage Tourism
programs. We propose combining Preserve America, Save America's
Treasures and the Heritage Partnership Program under a unifying
theme: the American Heritage and Preservation Partnership
Program. This coordination will give communities broader
options to link and pursue preservation opportunities. There
are many communities around the country that are working on
local efforts with Heritage Tourism as their focus. Obviously,
it would take a huge amount to fund all of their projects. Our
approach creates an appropriate Federal role through relatively
small grants that facilitate local and private efforts. As
another component of our historic preservation program, the
budget includes $4 million for grants to preserve Civil War
battlefields threatened by development and a $2.3 million
increase for cultural resources stewardship in the Park
Service.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, are you ready to close?
Secretary Norton. Yes.
The Chairman. If we run out of time, we won't have any time
left for questions.
Secretary Norton. Okay. I'll stop at that and let you all
go ahead.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Norton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gale A. Norton, Secretary,
Department of the Interior
Good morning. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the fiscal
year 2007 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals.
The Department's broad, multi-faceted mission and geographically
dispersed services and programs uniquely contribute to the fabric of
America by maintaining and improving the Nation's natural and cultural
resources, economic vitality, and community well being. Interior's
70,000 employees and 200,000 volunteers live and work in the
communities, large and small, that they serve. They deliver programs
through partnerships and cooperative relationships that engage and
invite citizens, groups, and businesses to participate.
The challenges of the Department's diverse responsibilities are
many, but they are made more manageable through an integrated approach
that defines common mission goals for all bureaus and offices. The
Department's integrated strategic plan is key to this approach. The
plan defines four mission categories, which include resource
protection, resource use, recreation, and serving communities.
Capabilities in partnerships, management, and science are at the
foundation of the plan and weave throughout the four mission goals.
Using the strategic plan as a road map, since 2001, the Department
has:
<bullet> Completed nearly 6,000 national park facility improvements
and maintained high park visitor satisfaction rates, according
to surveys;
<bullet> Helped meet the Nation's energy needs by nearly doubling
annual energy permit processing on Federal lands;
<bullet> Advanced cooperative conservation through Private
Stewardship and Landowner Incentive grants that have funded 943
projects with 1,466 partners;
<bullet> Protected habitat on 8.8 million acres managed through
partnerships; and
<bullet> Improved forest health on 5.6 million acres of Interior-
managed lands through the Healthy Forests Initiative, a 108
percent increase over the previous five years.
The 2007 budget seeks to maintain performance across the
Department's strategic plan goals and improve performance in areas that
are high priority Administration initiatives, within the context of the
President's commitment to reduce the deficit by more than half by 2009.
The 2007 budget incorporates Program Assessment Rating Tool reviews and
program evaluations and a broad analysis of base programs considering
cost and performance information, financial information, staffing, and
the budgetary benefits of more effective and efficient utilization of
resources. These efforts shaped the budget by highlighting the effect
of allocation decisions on strategic goals and identifying
opportunities to realign priorities and improve efficiency.
Although the details of the respective missions of Interior's
bureaus and offices differ, the central focus is the same. A focus on
excellent performance requires mission clarity, good metrics, and
management excellence. Management excellence requires a focused
approach to maintain and enhance program results, making wise
management choices, routinely examining the effectiveness and
efficiency of programs, finding effective means to coordinate and
leverage resources, and the continuous introduction and evaluation of
process and technology improvements.
The 2007 budget reflects the Department's commitment to these
management strategies and management excellence.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
The 2007 budget request for current appropriations is $10.5
billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $5.6 billion, for a total 2007 Interior budget of
$16.1 billion.
The 2007 current appropriations request is a decrease of $392.2
million or 3.6 percent below the 2006 funding level. If emergency
hurricane supplemental funding is not counted, the 2007 request is a
decrease of $321.9 million or 2.9 percent below the 2006 level.
The 2007 request includes $9.6 billion for programs funded in the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, a
decrease of $190.9 million or 1.9 percent from the 2006, excluding the
emergency hurricane supplemental.
The request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
Project, funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
is $923.7 million. This request includes a net programmatic reduction
of $43.1 million, or 4.1 percent, from the 2006 funding level. It also
includes the proposed cancellation of $88.0 million in prior year
balances of appropriations for the Desert Terminal Lakes program.
Receipts collected by the Department in 2007 are projected to be
$17 billion, an increase of $99.4 million over 2006. That is $6.5
billion more than Interior's current appropriations request and nearly
$1 billion more than the total 2007 Interior budget.
MAINTAINING CORE PROGRAMS
With these resources the Department manages over 500 million acres
and some 40,000 facilities at 2,400 operating locations. These
responsibilities engage Interior as a principal manager of real
property and other assets that require ongoing maintenance, direct
services to public lands visitors, and ongoing activities to ensure
public access, use, and enjoyment.
In order to deliver these services, the 2007 budget includes
funding for pay and health benefits and other nondiscretionary cost
increases for workers and unemployment compensation payments, rental
payments for leased space, and operation of centralized administrative
and business systems. Providing for these costs will allow the
Department to maintain performance across strategic goals, improve
performance in priority areas, and effectively serve the public.
The budget includes $125.9 million for nondiscretionary, fixed cost
increases. Of this total, two-thirds, or $82.5 million, will cover 70
percent of anticipated 2007 pay raises. The budget assumes a January
2007 pay increase of 2.2 percent.
In addition to paying for nondiscretionary fixed costs, the budget
includes focused investments for tools to enable the department's
employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate long-term cost
savings including implementation of standardized systems and
streamlined business practices. One of the Department's enterprise
investments is the Financial and Business Management System. The 2007
budget includes $22.2 million to continue deployment of this integrated
financial and business management system that will facilitate the
retirement of duplicative, outdated legacy systems.
PROGRAMMATIC HIGHLIGHTS
The 2007 budget maintains and improves performance across the
Department's strategic goals to achieve healthy lands and water,
thriving communities, and dynamic economies throughout the Nation. Key
goals for 2007 include:
<bullet> Enhancing America's energy supplies through responsible
energy development and continued implementation of the Energy
Policy Act;
<bullet> Building on successful partnerships across the country and
expanding opportunities for conservation that leverage Federal
investments;
<bullet> Continuing to advance trust reform;
<bullet> Coordinating existing efforts under a unified program that
focuses on high-priority historic and cultural protection under
the Preserve America umbrella;
<bullet> Preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West
through Water 2025;
<bullet> Continuing to reduce risks to communities and the
environment from wildland fires; and
<bullet> Providing scientific information to advance knowledge of our
surroundings.
As part of the President's effort to reduce the budget deficit by
half over five years, the 2007 budget for the Department makes
difficult choices to terminate or reduce funding for programs that are
less central to the Department's core missions, have ambiguous goals,
duplicate activities of other agencies, or require a lower level of
effort because key goals have been achieved. Terminations and
reductions include lower priority and earmarks enacted in 2006. For
example, the 2007 budget reduces funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund State Assistance Grant program. These grants support
State and local parks that have alternative sources of funding through
State revenue and bonds. In addition, a PART review found the current
program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate
results.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
The Department's energy programs play a critical role in providing
access to domestic oil, gas, and other energy resources. To enhance
domestic production, the 2007 budget proposes a $43.2 million
initiative to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and continue
progress on the President's National Energy Policy. In total, the
budget includes $467.5 million for the Department's energy programs.
APD Processing--In 2003, the Department released an Energy Policy
and Conservation Act-mandated report identifying five basins in
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as containing the
largest onshore reserves of natural gas in the country and the second
largest domestic resource base after the Outer Continental Shelf. These
onshore basins contain an estimated 139 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas, enough to heat 55 million homes for almost 30 years. These
resources offer the best opportunity to augment domestic energy
supplies in the short term.
Before any leasing for oil and gas production can occur on the
public lands in these areas, the Bureau of Land Management must have a
land-use plan in place. Beginning in 2001, with the support of
Congress, BLM initiated the largest effort in its history to revise or
amend all of its 162 resource management plans. Within areas designated
in plans as appropriate for mineral development, BLM has made a
concerted effort to help bring additional oil and gas supplies to
market. In 2002, 2.1 Tcf were produced from Federal, non-Indian lands.
In 2003 and 2004, 2.2 Tcf and 3.1 Tcf, respectively, were produced from
these lands.
The BLM is experiencing a steady increase in the demand for
drilling permits. In 2000, BLM received 3,977 applications for permits
to drill. In 2005, BLM received 8,351 APDs. The bureau estimates that
the number it will receive in 2006 will exceed 9,300, more than double
the number processed five years ago. To address this demand, BLM has
taken steps to ensure that drilling permit applications are processed
promptly, while at the same time ensuring that environmental
protections are fully addressed. These measures, along with increased
funding, have allowed BLM to make significant progress in acting on
permit applications. In 2005, BLM processed 7,736 applications, nearly
4,000 more than it was able to process in 2000.
Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act established a pilot program at
seven BLM field offices that currently handle 70 percent of the
drilling permit application workload. The pilot program is testing new
management strategies designed to further improve the efficiency of
processing permit applications. The Energy Policy Act provides enhanced
funding for the pilot offices from oil and gas rental receipts. During
2006, with more efficient processes and authorities and funding
provided through Section 365, BLM anticipates processing over 10,000
permits.
The efforts of BLM have achieved significant results. Almost 4,700
new onshore wells were started in 2005. This level of activity is 56
percent higher than in 2002.
For 2007, the budget proposes an increase of $9.2 million to focus
on the oil and gas workload in BLM's non-pilot offices, which are also
experiencing a sharp and sustained increase in the demand for APDs.
This increase will provide $4.3 million for drilling permit processing
and $2.8 million for inspection and enforcement activities. It will
also provide $2.1 million for monitoring activities. The budget also
includes $471,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase
consultation work with the non-pilot offices.
With the funding proposed for 2007, we expect that BLM pilot and
non-pilot offices will collectively be capable of processing nearly
12,000 APDs and conducting over 26,000 inspections in 2007.
The budget assumes continuation through 2007 of the enhanced
funding for pilot offices from oil and gas receipts to facilitate a
smooth transition to funding from drilling permit processing fees,
effective September 30, 2007. Legislation to be proposed by the
Administration will allow a rulemaking to phase in full cost recovery
for APDs, beginning with a fee amount that will generate an estimated
$20 million in 2008, fully replacing the amount provided by the Energy
Policy Act.
Alaska North Slope--The most promising area for significant long-
term oil discoveries and dramatic gains in domestic production in the
United States is the Alaska North Slope. The U.S. Geological Survey
estimates a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion barrels of
technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR coastal plain
and five percent probability of at least 16 billion barrels. USGS
estimates the mean or expected value is 10.36 billion barrels of
technically recoverable undiscovered oil. At $55 a barrel, more than 90
percent of the assessed technically recoverable resource estimate is
thought to be economically viable. At peak production, ANWR could
produce about one billion barrels of oil a day, about 20 percent of our
domestic daily production and more oil than any State, including Texas
and Louisiana.
The 2007 budget assumes the Congress will enact legislation in 2006
to open ANWR to energy exploration and development with a first lease
sale held in 2008 and a second in 2010. The budget estimates that these
two lease sales will generate a combined $8.0 billion bonus revenues,
including $7.0 billion from the 2008 lease sale.
The 2007 budget includes an increase of $12.4 million for BLM
energy management activities on the Alaska North Slope. The additional
funds will support the required environmental analyses and other
preparatory work in advance of a first ANWR lease sale in 2008. The
requested increase will also support BLM's leasing, inspection, and
monitoring program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and BLM's
participation in the North Slope Science Initiative authorized by the
Energy Policy Act. In addition, a significant share of the $12.4
million increase will be used by BLM to respond to the environmental
threat posed by abandoned legacy wells and related infrastructure on
the North Slope.
Outer Continental Shelf Development--Deepwater areas of the Gulf of
Mexico currently account for 17 percent of domestic oil and six percent
of domestic gas production. However, over the next decade, oil
production in the Gulf is expected to increase by 43 percent and
natural gas by 13 percent. The increase will come from deepwater and
greater depths below the ocean floor. The 2007 budget includes an
increase of $2.1 million for OCS development, to allow MMS to keep pace
with the surge in exploration and development in the deepwater areas of
the Gulf and $1.5 million for OCS environmental impact statements on
future lease sales.
New Innovations in Energy Development--The 2007 budget includes an
increase of $6.5 million for MMS's new responsibilities under the
Energy Policy Act for offshore renewable energy development. MMS will
establish a comprehensive program for regulatory oversight of new and
innovative renewable energy projects on the OCS, including four
alternative energy projects for which permit applications were
previously under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Oil shale resources represent an abundant energy source that could
contribute significantly to the Nation's domestic energy supply. Oil
shale underlying a total area of 16,000 square miles in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming represents the largest known concentration of oil shale in
the world. This area may contain in place the equivalent of 1.2 to 2
trillion barrels of oil, several times the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. The budget proposes a $3.3 million increase, for a total
program of $4.3 million, to enable BLM to accelerate implementation of
an oil shale development program leading to a commercial leasing
program by the end of 2008, in compliance with section 369 of the
Energy Policy Act. This request is accompanied by $500,000 budgeted for
USGS to determine the size, quality, and quantity of oil shale deposits
in the United States.
Gas hydrates, found in some of the world's most remote regions such
as the Arctic and deepwater oceans, could dramatically alter the global
balance of world energy supply. The estimated volume of natural gas
occurring in hydrate form is immense, possibly exceeding the combined
value of all other fossil fuels.
The 2007 budget includes a $1.9 million package of increases for
gas hydrate research and development by MMS, BLM, and USGS. This will
fund a coordinated effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of
Alaska to accelerate research, resource modeling, assessment, and
characterization of hydrates as a commercially viable source of energy.
PARTNERSHIPS IN CONSERVATION
The 2007 budget proposes $2.6 billion for resource protection
activities that improve the health of natural landscapes, sustain
biological communities, and protect cultural and heritage resources.
Key initiatives in resource protection include:
Cooperative Conservation Programs--At field locations throughout
the country, bureau employees and volunteers are learning by doing,
working side-by-side with neighbors, and tapping into best practices
from others working on similar issues. By working with local
communities, Interior employees benefit from local knowledge, ideas,
and assistance to achieve conservation results that can transcend
jurisdictional boundaries. At the national level, conservation
partnerships leverage resources, broaden our knowledge base, and help
coordinate actions to achieve strategic goals.
Under the broad framework of Executive Order 13352, the Chairman of
the White House Council on Environmental Quality convened a White House
Conference on Cooperative Conservation. The Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, and the Environmental
Protection Agency co-hosted the event. On August 29-31, 2005,
representatives from the public and private sectors convened in St.
Louis, Missouri to discuss the advancement of this cooperative
conservation vision. The conference emphasized the need to create a
culture of responsibility to enhance opportunities for citizen stewards
to work together. To improve its partnering efforts in cooperative
conservation, the Department is developing and utilizing government
tools that inspire and complement citizen stewardship and environmental
entrepreneurship.
From 2002 through 2006, Interior's conservation partnership
programs have provided $2.1 billion. These programs leverage Federal
funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50 percent or more.
The 2007 budget includes $322.3 million to support continued
partnership success through a suite of grant and technical assistance
programs.
The FWS administers natural resource grants to governmental,
public, and private organizations, groups, and individuals that focus
on at-risk species and their habitats. The Landowner Incentive and
Private Stewardship programs are funded at a total of $33.8 million, an
increase of $4.9 million from 2006. Through these programs, Interior
employees work with States, Tribes, communities, and landowners to
provide incentives to conserve sensitive habitats, while maintaining
the fabric of the local communities and continuing traditional land
management practices such as farming and ranching.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, and State and Tribal Wildlife
grants program are funded at a total of $196.3 million, an increase of
$9.4 million over 2006. This includes a $7.2 million increase for State
and Tribal Wildlife Grants, which contains $5 million for a new
competitive component of the program.
Challenge cost share programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are funded at
$20.3 million. These cost share programs give the land management
agencies opportunities to work together and with adjacent communities,
landowners, and other citizens to achieve common conservation goals.
The 2007 proposal represents an increase of $1.6 million.
The Fish and Wildlife Service budget also includes $11.8 million,
an increase of $1.0 million, for joint ventures. The increase will
result in a 1.1 million acre increase in the number of acres of
landscapes and watersheds managed through partnerships and networked
lands. The budget includes $13.0 million for the Coastal program,
providing an increase of $604,000 for general program activities to
address the growing demand for habitat conservation activities for FWS
trust species. In 2007, coastal program activities will also expand to
address the decline of aquatic habitat in areas such as the Gulf Coast,
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Sustaining Biological Communities--The Department's 2007 budget
request includes $60.0 million for invasive species and continues the
government-wide, performance-based crosscut budget effort that began in
2004. The budget provides an increase of $994,000 for work in three
priority geo-regional areas: South Florida, the Northern Great Plains,
and the Rio Grande River Basin. The 2007 budget will focus on invasive
species that present significant threats to ecosystem health, including
lygodium, leafy spurge, and tamarisk.
National Fish Habitat Initiative--The Fish and Wildlife Service has
brought together States, Tribes, and others to develop a coordinated
plan to implement a geographically-focused, partnership effort to
protect, restore, and enhance aquatic habitats and reverse the decline
of fish and aquatic species. The 2007 budget includes $3.0 million for
the National Fish Habitat Initiative, an increase of $2.0 million. This
effort is modeled on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Joint
Ventures and will harness the energies and expertise of existing
partnerships to improve aquatic habitat health.
INDIAN PROGRAMS
Trust Responsibilities--The budget provides $536.0 million to
continue the Department's ongoing efforts to reform management of its
fiduciary obligations to Tribes and individual Indians, to continue
historical accounting efforts for trust funds, and to reduce the
exponentially growing costs of maintaining fractionated interests of
Indian lands.
The 2007 budget continues funding for efforts initiated in 2002 to
re-engineer trust business processes. The comprehensive changes
underway are intended to bring about dramatic improvements in the
management of fiduciary trust assets and better meet the needs of
individual Indians and Tribes. A comprehensive and systematic plan
known as the Fiduciary Trust Model is guiding reform efforts, including
reorganization of Interior's fiduciary trust offices to improve service
delivery and enhance accountability of trust operations. Working in
partnership with beneficiaries to implement the FTM, Interior has
implemented changes in operations and staffing at agencies and many
other changes to ensure fulfillment of fiduciary trust goals and
objectives. Implementation of integrated systems to support the FTM was
completed at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Anadarko and Concho agencies
in Oklahoma. These agencies now use the re-engineered trust processes
and interfaced systems; trust data have been reconciled and validated,
and numerous backlog cleanup projects have been completed.
The greatest challenge facing successful fiduciary trust management
is the fractionation, or continuing subdivision, of individual Indian
interests in the land held in trust by the Federal government. Because
individual Indian trust lands are subject to a permanent restriction
against alienation, they are primarily transferred through inheritance.
With each successive generation, individual interests in the land
become further subdivided among heirs, each of whom holds a smaller and
smaller interest in the land. The ownership of many disparate, small
interests generates significant management costs, benefits no one in
Indian Country and creates an administrative burden that drains
resources away from other Indian programs.
The Department currently administers and manages more than 3.2
million undivided interests in these lands owned by 223,245 individual
Indian owners. In many cases, the cost to account for and probate
highly fractionated tracts far exceeds either the revenue or the value
of the underlying property. Interior has demonstrated success over the
past several years acquiring these highly fractionated interests
through the Indian Land Consolidation Program. Through December 31,
2005, the Department has acquired 202,775 fractional interests in
individual Indian allotted lands, 100 percent ownership in 166 tracts
with over 1,142 owners, and 100 percent ownership of interests held by
5,253 individuals.
The 2007 budget includes $59.5 million, an increase of $25.4
million, to acquire additional selected highly fractioned individual
Indian land interests. The $59.5 million will fund an acquisition
program of about 80,000 additional fractionated interests. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of the program, the Department is
transitioning to a new long-term strategy for acquisition of individual
Indian interests. The strategy will use a tiered process to select
which interests to acquire. As of March 2005, there are 2,173 highly
fractionated tracts owned by 98,905 individuals. A focus on these
tracts will begin in 2006 and target 1,557 of these tracts.
Other trust increases include $6.5 million that would streamline
and strengthen efforts to provide cadastral surveys for Indian land
transactions, $3.0 million to continue efforts to address the backlog
of unresolved probate cases, and $2.0 million to provide for BIA
technical assistance and grants to Tribes for Indian energy resource
development.
The 2007 budget funds historical trust accounting at $59.4 million,
including $39.0 million for Individual Indian Money accounting and
$17.4 million for tribal accounting.
Strengthening Indian Self-Determination--A key factor in
strengthening Indian self-determination and fostering strong and stable
tribal governments is the Tribes' ability to contract or compact for
BIA operated programs. The Indian Self Determination Act requires BIA
to provide tribal contractors with contract support costs, which
include payment of indirect costs, as determined through negotiation
between tribal representatives and Interior's National Business Center.
Contract support funds pay a wide range of administrative and
management costs, including finance, personnel, maintenance, insurance,
utilities, audits, communications, and vehicle costs. Full funding of
contract support costs encourages tribal contracting and promotes
progress in achieving Indian self-determination. The 2007 budget
proposes a $19.0 million increase for BIA to fully fund indirect costs
for contracting Tribes, a total funding level of $151.6 million.
Improving Indian Education--Rigorous educational programs help
ensure a viable and prosperous future for tribal communities. Providing
Indian students with a quality education prepares American Indian
children to compete in a dynamic economy. The BIA school system
accommodates almost 48,000 Indian children in 184 elementary and
secondary schools and dormitories, includes two schools of higher
education, and administers operating grants for 24 tribal colleges. The
BIA school system has experienced significant change in recent years
with implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Act
established an Adequate Yearly Progress accountability system that
measures student proficiency in math, reading, and language arts. BIA
is accountable for helping schools achieve AYP targets and achieving
AYP in all BIA funded schools is a top objective of the BIA. Student
performance at BIA schools, while improving, remains lower than
national averages and in the school year 2004-2005, 30 percent of BIA
schools met the AYP measure.
Working with Tribes, BIA developed a Program Improvement and
Accountability Plan to improve the effectiveness of the education
services provided in the Bureau school system. The Plan identifies six
major objectives such as achieving AYP and the tasks to achieve the
objectives, including hiring, training, and retaining highly qualified
staff. The 2007 budget includes an increase of $2.5 million to realign
education offices and meet the staffing requirements identified in the
Plan.
The Indian education program also includes a new initiative to
address the needs of juveniles detained in BIA funded detention
centers, a segment of youth that has been underserved in the
educational system. The request of $630,000 will be used to provide
education services to students temporarily detained in the 20 BIA
funded juvenile detention centers.
From 2001 through 2006, BIA received $1.6 billion for the Indian
education program to replace 37 schools and undertake major facility
improvement and repair projects at 45 schools. The funding has resulted
in significant improvements, increasing the number of schools in good
condition. In 2001, 35 percent of the BIA schools were in good or fair
condition. After completion of work funded through 2007, approximately
65 percent of the schools will be in good or fair condition. To
continue improvement of facility conditions at BIA schools, the budget
includes $157.4 million for education construction. In order to focus
on the 27 school replacement projects funded in previous years that are
in the design phase or under construction, the education construction
budget reflects a reduction of $49.3 million from 2006.
Johnson-O'Malley--The budget proposes to eliminate the $16.4
million Johnson-O'Malley grant program. These grants, identified in the
Tribal Priority Allocations of some Tribes, are distributed by the
Tribes to address Indian student needs in local public schools. The
grants duplicate similar funding made available by other Federal and
State assistance programs. The Department of Education, for example,
provided $115.9 million in 2006 to public schools on or near Indian
reservations. In addition, JOM grants do not address a focused goal for
academic achievement, and lack a means to measure and report on its
impact to student performance. Eliminating JOM grants allows BIA to
strengthen its commitment to the BIA school system and avoid redundant
Federal programs.
Law Enforcement--Indian Country comprises 56 million acres of land
and 1.6 million people. Indian Country has less than two law
enforcement officers per thousand people served, as compared to more
than four officers per thousand people in comparable rural communities.
One of the largest challenges facing the BIA law enforcement program is
violent crime. The violent crime rate in Indian Country is twice the
national average. The 2007 budget proposes an increase of $1.8 million
for law enforcement in Indian Country. An additional $2.7 million is
requested to staff newly constructed tribal detention centers that will
be operational in 2007.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The 2007 budget supports the leading role of the National Park
Service's in the preservation of nationally significant natural and
historical resources. Through complementary historic preservation
programs, NPS helps to protect heritage resources through initiatives
to inventory, manage, and preserve artifacts and monuments and
encourages community efforts to preserve local and regional cultural
landscapes. The BLM is also a caretaker of significant cultural
resources, managing what is perhaps the largest and most diverse
collection of cultural properties in North America.
American Heritage and Preservation Partnership--Through its
Preserve America initiative, the Administration is encouraging
community efforts to preserve our cultural and natural heritage. The
goals of the initiative include a greater shared knowledge about the
Nation's past, strengthened regional identities and local pride,
increased local participation in preserving the country's cultural and
natural heritage assets, and support for the economic vitality of our
communities.
The 2007 budget request for NPS includes $32.2 million for locally
focused historic preservation and heritage tourism programs, as part of
Preserve America initiative. This budget presents a more seamless
approach to these programs by combining Preserve America grants, Save
America's Treasures, and the Heritage Partnership program, and
operating these programs under a unifying theme.
Preserve America grants help States and communities preserve their
historic resources by incorporating them into their local economies.
The 2007 budget includes $10.0 million, an increase of $5.1 million
above the 2006 level, for grants to help communities develop resource
management strategies and business practices for continued preservation
of heritage assets.
NPS Asset Management--The NPS is responsible for maintaining over
7,500 facilities for more than 273 million visitors annually. Over
previous decades, a backlog of maintenance accumulated in the parks.
Starting with the 2002 budget, the Administration has invested $4.7
billion and undertaken nearly 6,000 facility improvements within the
parks, resulting in improved roads and trails, rehabilitated visitor
centers, more accessible campgrounds, stabilized historic structures,
and visitor satisfaction rates that are high.
Ensuring the state of disrepair experienced in the past does not
recur requires an asset management plan that addresses all phases of an
asset's lifecycle and encompasses the total cost of ownership for each
asset. Effective facility management requires a comprehensive inventory
of needs, assessment, and a facility condition assessment survey
process, which provides the necessary information for determining
resources that are necessary to maintain facilities and infrastructure
in acceptable condition. At the end of 2005, NPS had performed
comprehensive condition assessments on 57 percent of its asset
inventory and is on track to meet its goal of completing the first
cycle of assessments by the end of 2006. The 2007 budget continues to
support implementation of the NPS asset management program. Total
construction and maintenance funding is $622.8 million, a decrease of
$80.6 million from 2006, but still above the funding levels during any
prior Administration. This reflects a return to sustainable funding
levels after the completion last year of a five-year surge in funding.
The budget request focuses on protecting and maintaining existing
assets rather than funding new construction projects.
Cultural Resource Protection--Thousands upon thousands of cultural
properties have been reported in surveys of BLM public lands, including
cliff dwellings, mines, ground figures, rock art renderings, military
outposts and homesteads, and others. These resources represent the
tangible remains of at least 13,000 years of human adaptation to the
lands, and span the spectrum of human experiences since people first
set foot on the North American continent. Many of these valuable and
irreplaceable properties and artifacts are threatened by unauthorized
use, theft, and vandalism. The 2007 budget proposes a $3.0 million
initiative to improve the protection, preservation, access to, and
interpretation of these cultural resources to enhance their economic,
scientific, cultural, and educational value to all Americans.
RESOURCE USE
The Department's strategic goal for Resource Use includes programs
that manage natural resources to promote responsible use and sustain a
dynamic economy. Included in the $1.5 billion supporting this goal are
programs focused on enhancing the Nation's energy security and
availability, increasing timber production and improving forest health,
and maximizing water availability through improved delivery and
efficiency of water use. In addition to the energy initiatives
discussed above, the following are the areas of emphasis in the 2007
budget.
Water 2025--As water supply challenges increase in the West, the
Bureau of Reclamation is positioning itself over the long term to help
prevent crises and conflict. Water 2025 affirms this goal by focusing
resources on increasing certainty and flexibility in water supplies,
diversifying water supplies, and preventing crises through added
environmental benefits in many watersheds, rivers, and streams. The
2007 budget request includes an increase of $9.6 million for Water
2025, for a total funding level of $14.5 million. The additional
funding will allow the Bureau to promote the use of effective, low cost
approaches to increase water supplies, including improvements to
existing irrigation facilities, installation of computerized water
measurement and canal control devices, increasing water marketing
opportunities, and making water purification more affordable. In many
basins in the West, where water demands for people, cities, farms, and
the environment exceed the available supply even in normal, non-drought
years these changes will significantly help to prevent crises and
conflicts.
CALFED--Critical to California's economy, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta serves as the hub of the State's water management system.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers provide potable water for two-
thirds of California's homes and businesses, and irrigate lands on
which 45 percent of the Nation's fruits and vegetables are grown. The
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta provides habitat for 750 plant and animal
species. Established in May 1995, CALFED is a comprehensive, long-term
program to address the complex and interrelated problems in the Bay-
Delta, the watersheds that feed it, and the areas served by the waters
diverted out of it. A consortium of Federal and State agencies fund and
participate in the program.
The Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act of 2004 provides a six-year
Federal authorization to implement the CALFED collaborative plan for
restoration and enhancement of the Delta estuary. The CALFED plan
provides a long-term solution to the complex and interrelated problems
in the Bay-Delta and is the foundation for the actions taken by the
Federal and State consortium, which is focused on goals to improve
water management and supplies and the health of the ecosystem. The 2007
budget includes $38.6 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to
implement CALFED activities, nearly $2 million more than the 2006
enacted level.
Increasing Timber Products--Working in conjunction with the U.S.
Forest Service, Interior manages timber tracts on public lands and
follows the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan and forest management
plans. The 2007 BLM budget will generate increased timber production
with a $3.0 million increase in the Oregon and California Forest
Management program that supports the commitments of the settlement
agreement in the lawsuit American Forest Resource Council v. Clarke.
The additional funding will focus on implementing the Northwest Forest
Plan under commitments of the settlement agreement, which directs BLM
to produce the allowable sale quantity of 203 million board feet and an
additional 100 MMBF through the thinning of late-succession reserves.
The increase will allow BLM to ramp up to meet the commitment level of
303 MMBF by 2009. It will result in an additional 20 MMBF of timber
offered in 2008 and 2009, which are projected to generate $6.5 million
in additional timber receipts.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes--The 2007 budget proposes $198.0 million
for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program. PILT payments are made to
local governments in counties, townships, and other jurisdictions where
certain Federal land is located within their boundaries based on the
concept that local governments incur costs related to maintaining
infrastructure on Federal lands but are unable to collect taxes on
these lands. The budget funds $197.6 million for PILT payments and
$400,000 for program administration. Although this is $34.5 million
below the 2006 record high level, it is comparable to historical
funding levels.
WILDLAND FIRE
The Department's 2007 budget for the Wildland Fire Management
program continues implementation of the National Fire Plan and the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative. Interior's fire bureaus,
working collaboratively with the Forest Service, will continue meeting
the Department's Strategic Plan goal of reducing risks to communities
and the environment from wildland fire. Since adoption of the National
Fire Plan, significant investments in preparedness resources have
strengthened initial attack capability and combined with improvements
in management and operation, have led to improved firefighting
capability. The Department's success rate for containing wildfires at
initial attack was 92 percent in 2000. Interior anticipates that it
will maintain at least a 95 percent success rate in 2007. The
Department has also made substantial progress in addressing the threat
posed by heavy fuels buildup and over the last five years, 2001-2005,
has treated nearly 5.6 million acres. By contrast in the five years
preceding the National Fire Plan, Interior treated few than 2.7 million
acres. The management and effectiveness of the hazardous fuels
reduction program have also improved. Treatments in the wildland-urban
interface have grown from 22 percent of acres in 2001 to nearly 44
percent in 2006.
In 2007, Interior will maintain its high success rate for
containing wildfires at initial attack through more effective and
efficient use of preparedness and suppression resources. The Department
will also continue to strategically implement hazardous fuels reduction
projects to reduce risks to communities and improve forest and
rangeland health. The 2007 budget proposes $769.6 million for the
Wildland Fire management program. This includes an increase of $26.3
million for fire suppression operations, to reflect the ten-year
average cost of fire suppression.
Rural Fire Assistance--The 2007 budget for Wildland Fire continues
partnerships with local fire departments. Interior fire agencies will
continue efforts begun in 2006 to use $1.9 million in preparedness
funding to provide training and personal equipment to local
firefighters to help build a ready-reserve of local firefighters that
can support initial and extended attack on large forest and thereby
improve the effectiveness of Federal cooperation with local
firefighting agencies. The $9.9 million rural fire assistance program
is proposed for elimination as a separate funding source because the
types of equipment and basic training needs it provides will be met
through the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Homeland
Security.
SCIENCE PRIORITIES
Science forms the foundation of Interior's land management
decisions and strengthens the ability of land managers to address a
range of issues. The U.S. Geological Survey serves as the Department's
primary source of scientific research, earth and biological sciences
data, and geospatial information. The 2007 budget includes $944.8
million for USGS science related initiatives to protect lives and
resources and provide scientific leadership through improved hazards
detection and warning, improved energy research, streamgaging, and
participation in the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.
Multi-Hazards Pilot--The USGS is responsible for the assessment,
monitoring, and prediction of geologic hazards. The 2007 budget
proposes a multi-hazards initiative aimed at merging information about
different hazards into integrated products to support land-use
planning, hazards mitigation, and emergency response. The pilot will be
funded by a redirection of base resources and, in addition, the budget
calls for an increase of $2.2 million to enhance these resources.
Landsat Data Continuity Mission--Landsat satellites collect data
about the Earth's land surfaces for use in wildland fire management,
detecting and monitoring invasive plant species in remote regions,
assessing water volume in snow pack and large western aquifers,
assessing the stewardship of Federal grazing lands, monitoring the
land-use and land change in remote regions, global crop monitoring, and
global mapping. USGS and NASA are partnering to build a new landsat
satellite set to launch in 2010. The budget requests an increase of
$16.0 million for USGS to finish designing and begin building a ground
system to acquire, process, archive, and distribute data from the new
satellite.
Streamgages--The USGS operates and maintains approximately 7,000
streamgages that provide long-term, accurate, and objective streamflow
and water quality information that meets the needs of many diverse
users. The 2007 budget includes an increase of $2.3 million to allow
USGS to continue operations at high priority Federal interest sites as
well as increase the number of streamgages reporting real-time data on
the Internet.
CONCLUSION
The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy
lands, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these
numbers lie people, places, and partnerships. Our goals become reality
through the energy and creativity efforts of our employees, volunteers,
and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving the goals
highlighted in our 2007 budget. This concludes my overview of the 2007
budget proposal for the Department of the Interior and my written
statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Bingaman, do you
want to go first, and then I'll follow.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for
being here, and let me raise a few specific issues that concern
me in the budget. Is there an explanation--I mentioned in the
opening comments I had there that it seems the administration
supports full funding for the County Payments Program, and
proposes to cut the PILT Program. Is there a reason why the
PILT program is a lower priority than the County Payments
Program?
Secretary Norton. The Secure Rural Schools program is a
proposal that has been put forward by the Forest Service. The
Department of the Interior benefits from that in that they
assume some of the payments that we would otherwise be taking
care of ourselves. PILT is something that we have supported. It
is one of those things that we simply did not feel that we had
the resources to fund at as high a level as I know people would
like to see.
Senator Bingaman. I think I'm right. This is the third year
in a row you have proposed cuts in the PILT Program, fairly
significant cuts, so it's a concern which I wanted to raise.
Let me ask about--there's a National Park Service rule that's
been proposed to allow National Park Service employees to
solicit funds. That strikes me as contrary to my view of what a
park employee ought to be doing.
Secretary Norton. Senator, we have had a long-standing
cooperative approach of working with friends organizations in
our Park Service. We have 150 friends organizations that are
great partners for us in our parks. We have the National Park
Foundation that is the only national organization that is the
charitable arm of the National Park Service.
Senator Bingaman. They've traditionally done the fund
raising, right?
Secretary Norton. The idea that a park superintendent would
never even ask those groups to do any activities for them and
would have no involvement at all in fund raising is really not
consistent with reality. What we have tried to do is put in
place something that is consistent with reality that has
guidelines that try to differentiate between work being done by
a Girl Scout or Boy Scout troop on a new trail compared to some
things that really ought to have some significant oversight to
avoid conflicts of interest.
Senator Bingaman. You're not contemplating that national
park employees actually solicit funds, or you are?
Secretary Norton. I know some people have expressed a
concern that we might, in essence, be having performance
standards that would say park employees have to raise funding
or things like that. That is not at all what is contemplated.
What we contemplate is what we think is an appropriate role
that recognizes that you can't say no Park Service employee can
ever tell somebody, ``Gee, it would be nice to have this kind
of an improvement at the park,'' or ``We'd like to see this
kind of funding.'' It recognizes that there ought to be an
appropriate role and ought to be guidelines that are based on
reality.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about fire assistance. We've
had a series of grass fires in my State, in Oklahoma, in a lot
of different States, but in my State, a lot of it's on BLM
land, and your proposal is to terminate the $10 million Rural
Fire Assistance Program. The explanation in the budget is that
it's in order to avoid potential overlap with the Department of
Agriculture or the Department of Homeland Security fire
assistance programs. I can't figure out what that overlap would
be. It doesn't seem to me that any of those departments are
meeting the need for rural fire assistance. And since a lot of
this is BLM land, it seems to me we ought to be putting money
into it.
Secretary Norton. Both of those organizations have funding
that is available for fire departments, including rural fire
departments, and the Forest Service is specifically targeted in
that way. We recently updated an agreement with the Department
of Homeland Security that will ensure a greater role for
wildland fire agencies in reviewing and issuing grants to
States through the programs that they administer. We have
provided considerable funding to local fire departments through
time to purchase fire engines and other equipment and,
certainly, those remain available.
Senator Bingaman. Well, my information is that the Forest
Service is proposing to cut their support for fire assistance
programs by 30 percent. The Department of Homeland Security is
proposing to cut theirs by 55 percent, and you folks have
proposed to eliminate yours, so it just strikes me that there
must be a high-level decision in the administration that this
is not something that the Federal Government needs to worry
about. It can be a local problem or a local concern. I just
wanted to register my strong disagreement with that. Let me ask
about the water funding. I guess my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
The Chairman. All right, I'm going to ask three or four
questions and then submit a number of them for the record.
First, in the Energy Policy Act, we established seven pilot
centers where you were to consolidate the agencies and
activities that had to do with granting permits for drilling.
As I recall, two were in New Mexico, five in other States. I
understand you are moving along with that?
Secretary Norton. Yes, we have instructed the Bureau of
Land Management to move quickly on staffing those offices, and
they have been doing so. And so, I think they've done a very
good job in getting people in place. We've reached agreements
with the other affected agencies so that we're moving together
in a coordinated way.
The Chairman. All right. Now, those are the ones that we
expect to eliminate the delay that would occur because you have
to move from office to office, starting over again with each
office bringing them together. Who will be in charge of seeing
that we don't just set it up, but that it works? Are you going
to have some way of, say in a year, being able to tell us that
there was some effectiveness to these consolidated permitting
centers?
Secretary Norton. We're working to very closely monitor the
applications for permits to drill and how those are being
handled by the agencies. We have also requested funding for the
non-pilot offices because some of our significant processing
requests are also in those offices. So, in both the pilot
offices and the non-pilot offices, we are working to see that
we don't have a backlog and also very importantly, that we're
doing the inspections and monitoring that will make sure those
are done in a responsible way.
The Chairman. Now, the funding for that is the one we have
a disagreement with. You have the money in the law now the way
we wrote it. And if we don't change it, money flows and you
don't have any new permit fees that have to be started to set
this in motion. Is that correct?
Secretary Norton. Yes.
The Chairman. I think that's correct.
Secretary Norton Our proposal is to change that.
The Chairman. On OCS Area 181, I really don't think we want
to get into an argument over who's doing what best, but it
seems like we don't understand your proposal the way some are
interpreting it. Our bill, the Domenici-Bingaman bill, it
appears to me has a different piece of property involved than
yours. We have a larger part of 181 involved. Is that not
correct?
Secretary Norton. That is correct. That is proposed under
our 5-year plan is 2 million acres in the Lease Sale 181 area.
My understanding is that yours is 3.6 million acres. We've also
proposed to at least consider opening the 6 million acres that
are south of Lease Sale 181.
The Chairman. I understand. Now, you would have to start 1
year sooner under ours than yours as we understand it, from
what our interpretation of your rules versus our mandate and
our law. Is that not correct?
Secretary Norton. Let me say, Senator, it depends on when
your legislation is passed.
The Chairman. Gotcha.
Secretary Norton. If your legislation were passed today, we
would have 1 year from today to get that lease sale done, and
we would make sure that happened. If your legislation is passed
in the fall, then we would all be on the same time track
because our proposal is to have a lease sale in that area in
the fall of 2007.
The Chairman. All right. Senator, I am going to turn it
over to you to chair if you would for me.
Senator Thomas. All right.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We'll be working
together closely.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Thomas [presiding]. Thank you. That being the case,
I'll ask the next questions. Some discussion on the reduction
in the number of audits they conducted on oils and gas leases,
and relation, the amount of spending on audits, how much is
generally recovered from underpayments?
Secretary Norton. We go through a cycle of doing audits. It
used to be that within 5 years after the production occurred,
that the audits would be completed and companies would be asked
to pay any additional revenues. We now are working on a 3-year
cycle so that any additional amounts would be paid sooner.
Since 1982, our audits have caused collection of an additional
$2.6 billion in royalties.
Senator Thomas. Right.
Secretary Norton. We are working to see that our audits are
done in a targeted way. We're also, through usage of royalty in
kind, able to simplify the kinds of auditing that needs to be
done.
Senator Thomas. That was my next question. How effective
has that been in reducing the need for audits?
Secretary Norton. Extremely effective. Royalty in kind
essentially requires us to just verify whether the volume of
oil or natural gas that has been provided to us is the
appropriate share, as opposed to having to determine volume and
price and imputed deductions and so on and so forth that has to
be done. It's essentially the equivalent between a complex
income tax system and a flat tax. It's a very different
approach.
Senator Thomas. Well, I certainly agree with your comment
about having to hold down the expenditures, but we also need to
look at increasing efficiency in some of these kinds of things,
and I think that can be done. You mentioned increase for the
parks. As a matter of fact, we're told that there's a reduction
in the budget for the Park Service.
Secretary Norton. We have focused on the things that matter
most to the visitors. First of all, in park operations, we have
increased our park operations by 25 percent since 2001, and we
have a chart that indicates our visitor service funding.* We
have been looking at ways that we can keep our spending under
control across the Department, and one of those ways that we've
looked at is in capital construction. We are not initiating
very much anywhere in the Department in the way of new capital
construction. There is a decrease in the construction program
for the National Park Service. Despite this decrease, we are
still proposing $933 million for park construction maintenance.
This is the third highest funding level ever and more than
twice the level of just 10 years ago. There are some reductions
in the parks that show up in the Park Service budget that are
pass-through funds that go to States or the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Thomas. But I guess the conflict in the information
is you said it's going up, and the fact is the overall park
budget is down.
Secretary Norton. That's correct, yes.
Senator Thomas. I guess I misunderstood when you said
increase. A couple of things are kind of interesting, the sale
of BLM land, some of that identified for disposal, but 70
percent of the receipts would go to the Treasury. As these are
done, why aren't they maintained to be used to manage the lands
that are remaining?
Secretary Norton. The legislation that exists right now is
one that allows for the sale of BLM lands. BLM has had that
authority since the passage of FLPMA in 1976, but the current
process essentially allows BLM to sell lands that then go to
pay for in-holdings in Park Service or Forest Service
properties. That, frankly, just has not operated very well. I
think it's very important for us to have a land management tool
that lets people at a local level look at the excess property
that has been identified in our land use planning process as
appropriate for disposal, the isolated tracts and so forth, and
to be able to use those for local projects and local
operations. The proposal that we have would also provide
funding for the Federal Treasury from that. One thing I do want
to clarify from a comment or question that Senator Bingaman
had, and that is that we do not have a target that we are
intending to raise, to identify acres and sell those off as a
target. That was simply an estimate that was done of what the
effect of this proposal might be.
Senator Thomas. But the overall Federal program has set
aside certain numbers--specifically, a number of acres that are
to be sold.
Secretary Norton. That is----
Senator Thomas. 300,000.
Secretary Norton. That is not the reality of the way in
which we see this operating. There are acres that are
identified routinely in our land use plans that would be
available for disposal or appropriate for disposal and an
estimate of about what might be expected to arise from local
BLM applicants to do that.
Senator Thomas. Okay. A little different view within the
administration apparently on how that's going to be handled,
and we've heard it just a little differently than that.
Secretary Norton. Oh, I'm sorry. I think you're thinking of
the Forest Service proposal that does have a target amount.
Senator Thomas. And when they talked about BLM lands as
well.
Secretary Norton. And that is not accurate.
Senator Thomas. Okay.
Secretary Norton. To the extent that is the way our budget
documents appear, that's not an accurate reflection of the way
in which this would work.
Senator Thomas. One quick, final question. What about
funding for de-listing of endangered species and so on? That
seems to drag on and on, and often, we hear we don't have the
administrative time to do it. Is there funding to get this job
done on wolves and on grizzly bears?
Secretary Norton. We do have robust levels of funding for
our Fish and Wildlife Service. I know that we have, I believe,
a million for grizzlies in the Yellowstone area that are a part
of our budget proposal and have been working with your State,
as well as Montana and Idaho on the de-listing of wolves. That
has been not so much a budgetary issue as a----
Senator Thomas. I realize that. I wish--just an
observation, I wish we could just sit down and say all right,
we want to finish this job instead of holding out for this or
holding out for that and say how do we get this done. It's been
going on far too long and needs to be done. Okay. Let's see. We
switch over to the other side.
Ms. Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Madam Secretary, let me begin
with a positive comment and thank you all for including the
National Technology Preservation Center, which had been zeroed
out the last couple of years. Your Department has worked very
closely with Congressman McCreary, whose district that center
is in, but the center takes on even more significance because
of the tremendous loss of historic properties all along the
gulf coast in this hurricane. It's the only center, as you
know, in the Nation that focuses on technology regarding the
preservation of historic buildings. And so, to have lost that
center, particularly at this time, would have been devastating
for the Nation, but particularly for the gulf coast. So, I want
to just commend you all for funding it. Although we have a
level funding, I'd like to work with you to see if we can at
least keep up with the expansion of the research that's going
on there that's been extremely helpful, located at one of our
fine colleges there in Louisiana. On a positive note, I wanted
to say that for the record.
Also, thank you for your focus and interest on restoring
the many miles of devastation of refuges that occurred along
the gulf coast of Louisiana. Let me ask you to comment about
what your department is doing, particularly in the parks--Jean
Lafitte, Bayou Segnette. There's a tremendous amount of debris,
as you know, a huge amount of debris that is scattered from
Pascagoula to Beaumont. And of the refuges there--of course,
the Nation's first refuge was established on the coast of
Louisiana. Can you or anyone from your Department just briefly
give an update on the focus and extra resources you all are
bringing to bear on clearing some of that out and how you're
working with FEMA to get these parks stood up again and
operating, because I understand that visitation is somewhat
limited?
Secretary Norton. We have been working in our parks and our
refuges to try to remove debris and to restore those areas. As
I mentioned earlier, and I'm not sure if it was before you came
in, that we have a $216 million supplemental request as part of
the overall Administration supplemental request that would be
for Interior agencies, and we do anticipate that a significant
amount of that would be for our parks and refuges.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. And is there a process for
application for those moneys that you could talk about just
briefly, or is it a competitive process or a grant process
that's being established?
Secretary Norton. These are all for funds to be used within
the Department of the Interior for our activities, for our
parks and our refuges. And so, we would try to prioritize those
needs as we see them, from park to park and refuge to refuge.
Senator Landrieu. Okay, because I'd like to compare at
least what we know the needs are with the amount of money to
see how short we are, or if we are short, we need to know that
amount, so that we can try to fix that in the budget, because
getting these refuges stood up is a big part of the
environmental restoration that's going to take place on the
gulf. And I realize that money is short, but these are very
significant areas that we need to focus on and they have been a
little bit lost in the discussion of levees and housing, but
these environmental areas of wetlands restoration and refuges
are critical for the redevelopment of the gulf coast. Did you
want to add anything, Tom?
Mr. Weimer. Well, the Secretary has correctly stated that
the $216 million we feel is adequate for handling our lands,
the refuges and the parks.
Senator Landrieu. Do you know how much of that has been
spent already or allocated already?
Mr. Weimer. I don't. John, do you have that number?
Mr. Trezise. Senator Landrieu, the Congress, in the
supplemental passed in December, provided $70 million to the
Department, and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park
Service are actively spending those funds today. For example,
at Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, we've
removed 14,000 cubic yards of debris and were able to reopen
that refuge. The President's supplemental request, which was
submitted about 3 weeks ago, includes an additional $216
million for the Department, which, as Tom Weimer said, we
believe is adequate to do everything that we need to do and can
do over the next year.
Senator Landrieu. All right. I want to move on, but just
for the purposes of the record, as we talk about rebuilding New
Orleans and the region--I'm going to submit this, Mr. Chairman,
for the record, but to my knowledge, no city in America has
donated more of its land to create a refuge than has New
Orleans, that refuge being Bayou Sauvage, which is about half
of New Orleans East. So, when we talk about making the city
greener, it's about as green as any city in America could be,
with the largest urban park, Audubon Park, which is another
large park. A great portion of the city's property was donated
back in the 1970's to create this great refuge. It's within 5
minutes of downtown. I'm not sure there's any other city in
America that can boast of that kind of set aside of Federal
lands that need to be, of course, managed and maintained.
Let me ask again, on the Energy Policy issue, about a
Coastal Impact Assistance program that was established by
Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman last year, the $1 billion
to coastal States, which establishes, for the first time, a
real partnership with the five States that allow for offshore
oil and gas drilling, which, for the record, as this committee
knows, is going to be estimated to be, in 2007, $8.8 billion,
up from $2 billion 10 years ago. That is contrasted with
onshore receipts of the same year being only about $2 billion.
So, Outer Continental Shelf revenues are rising significantly
as onshore revenues have been either level or decreasing, which
brings me to the reason that that's happening, which is because
you've got four States in America that are basically serving as
hosts for this offshore industry. What is the Department doing
to develop the program and guidelines that we began in 2006 to
apply this formula and disburse the money to these coastal
States, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Norton. We have begun the analysis for those
guidelines, and the Minerals Management Service has redirected
$600,000 to begin implementing that program. We'll be happy to
work with you as we are going through the process of getting
those guidelines in place.
Senator Landrieu. Because as we establish that this year,
it really lays a precedent down what I think makes a great deal
of sense. We're hoping that as we move forward with additional
legislation, that that can become a model of what we can build
on as we seek to open up other areas of exploration in the Gulf
of Mexico, that this program can really lay down a marker for
the kind of partnership that is mutually beneficial, respectful
of what States do that host it and protect the billions of
dollars of infrastructure that exist that are threatened by
hurricanes and natural disasters. We saw that happen in the
recent barrages of wind and rain that came from Katrina and
Rita. I know my time is up.
Senator Thomas. Your time has expired.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Just two, not questions, but
markers for the record. The cuts to historically black colleges
is very concerning, particularly the two that we have, Xavier
and Dillard, that received tremendous flooding. I'm going to
work with you to try to restore that. And the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which, if our country's going to focus on
obesity, the Federal Government had better be a partner in
helping States to set up bike trails, walking trails, parks
throughout urban and rural areas, or we're not going to
accomplish that goal. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Thomas. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam
Secretary. Appreciate you being here. I, too, will start out
with a compliment to you. Thank you for your personal efforts,
that of your Department, as we worked to advance ANWR last
year. We'll go at it again certainly. And given the revised
estimates, the updated estimates of the economically
recoverable oil, released last fall, I again am assuming that
within the Department of the Interior, you will continue to be
supportive and aggressive as we try to impress upon the rest of
the country the need to open up ANWR. So, I'll just throw you
the first softball.
Secretary Norton. Well, we certainly will. We recognize
that this is our largest onshore source of oil for the country
that is a traditional source of oil. We will be working very
hard again to explain to people how you can have that oil
supply for the country's needs and protect the environment
there. I certainly believe that can be done.
Senator Murkowski. We will continue to work with you on it
and appreciate your assistance. I also want to thank you for
your enthusiasm.
Speaking to the gas-hydrates issue, this is something that
Senator Akaka and I have been working on in advancing our
legislation on this. I'm pleased to see that you have increased
by a $2 million increase from last year for this gas-hydrate
research. We just think that the potential there is so huge.
And it is something that, quite honestly, most people do not
recognize that potential, but we've got to have the research,
we've got to have the stuff on the ground to understand what it
is that we have before we get moving forward. I would ask for
your assistance in working with your colleague, the Secretary
of Energy. As you know, the Energy Department has not been as
aggressive in the funding for the gas-hydrates research on
their side. I think we're going to need the support from both
departments in order to make this happen.
I need to ask you about the support for the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act. As you know, we passed this in 2004
with the Department's help in an effort to get the lands that
have been conveyed to the State of Alaska at statehood, get
them conveyed before our 50th anniversary of statehood coming
up in 2009. We've had some setbacks last year in the 2005
budget that was proposed, but we were fortunate that Congress
didn't follow the administration's recommendation. We moved
forward with it, but now we've got within the 2007 budget a
proposal which is a $4.9 million reduction over what was
appropriated in 2006. That concerns me. This is supposed to be
a lands acceleration act, not a lands deceleration act. And
given the reduction in funding, we believe that's where it
goes.
In your comments, you mentioned that it is tough budget
times, and we have to make a determination, and you look to
lower priorities, or you look to perhaps those programs that
don't have clearly defined goals, and I would just suggest that
the goals in this are about as clearly defined as we could
possibly have. Now, recognizing that a report on the progress
of this is due by the end of 2007, can you give me the
assurance that we in fact are on track, that we will be able to
conclude with the conveyances within the time period prescribed
by the act given the funding decreases that the Department is
suggesting?
Secretary Norton. We've been working to operate more
efficiently and to be sure that we have the staff to be able to
do the work. We are on track in 2007 to patent or close
selections to 500,000 acres of Native corporation lands and
about 500,000 acres for the State of Alaska with the funding
that is proposed under this budget.
Senator Murkowski. I am going to be asking the chairman of
the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee to conduct an
oversight hearing, convene a hearing on this particular issue
just to kind of determine the status, so it'll be important to
hear from the Department's perspective where you think you are,
where we think you are in an effort to get this very important
land issue advanced in a timely manner.
One more question for you, and Senator Bingaman raised this
as an issue, and that is the Payment In Lieu of Taxes. I just
attended a Forest Service budget committee, and we discussed
the Secure Rural Schools Act and the reduction to the local
governments and the school districts by 50 percent over the
next 5 years. This is a huge kick in the stomach to so many of
our small communities, particularly in southeast that were
timber-reliant communities. Ninety-one percent of their land is
owned by the Federal Government. They've got economies with no
place else to turn. So, on the one hand, they're hit with that,
and now, we're looking to the reductions in the PILT money.
This is just the one-two punch that we don't think many of our
communities will be able to sustain. Again, I hear what you
have said in response to Senator Bingaman, but we've got to
look at this very critically. This is going to be huge to so
many of our communities.
Madam Secretary, we have 64 percent of our lands in Alaska
that are owned by the Federal Government. It is a situation
where, when we look to the lands that we are not able to
collect taxes on because of the Federal ownership status, we're
in a real bind. And so, this is certainly one area where we
need you to understand our situation in the State of Alaska.
And we've got to do something because otherwise, we're going to
be shutting down a fair number of our communities.
Secretary Norton. If I can point out, the Department of the
Interior, through its revenue sharing on minerals and through
other programs, pays about $4 billion to States and to
counties. And so, PILT is only a part of that. The Rural
Schools Program was set to end after a 5-year transition. The
administration has proposed to continue that with the funding
from land sales to the Forest Service, so we are working to try
to address those issues for local communities.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Thomas, and welcome,
Secretary Norton. It's always good to see a fellow Coloradan in
front of this committee and I enjoy our work together. I have a
series of questions. The first one relates to the Payment In
Lieu of Taxes Program, and I will just tell you my concerns
with respect to the proposed budget from the Department of the
Interior. It has a 16 percent cut in that program, which seems
to continue this effort to put another spear in the back of
rural America. When you look at the $308 million cuts and the
Department of Agriculture budget for rural economic
revitalization, 25 percent of the budget cuts are going on the
back of agriculture. It just seems to me that for the sparsely
populated parts of rural America, many of them in the Western
States, that this is just one of those other spears in the
back, and let me be specific.
Secretary Norton. Senator Salazar, I have to object very
strongly to that characterization.
Senator Salazar. Hold on, Secretary Norton.
Secretary Norton. We have considerably stronger funding
levels--
Senator Salazar. I'm the Senator.
Secretary Norton [continuing]. Than we've had in the past.
Senator Salazar. You just--you answer my question, Okay?
Here is the deal: If you look at my State, your State, 57
counties of our State today receive Payment In Lieu of Taxes.
We have counties like San Juan and Hinsdale, you know the
counties just like I do, and you go to my very Republican
county, Hinsdale County, that's probably 95-97 percent owned by
the Federal Government, how do you explain to those county
commissioners that they are going to see a 16 percent decrease
in the Payment In Lieu of Taxes going into that county?
Secretary Norton. We have a stronger funding level than
existed for PILT throughout the 1990's. We have made
significant efforts to fund that program even though I have to
make a choice between paying for employees of the Department of
the Interior and paying for those funds that go outside the
Department. Colorado is receiving $146 million in mineral-
leasing payments, which I believe makes it third among the
States in the level of mineral-leasing payments. The PILT money
for Colorado is about $17 million in 2006, and the decrease
would be about $3 million. It is very, very small in comparison
with the other funds that are coming from the Department of the
Interior and going to local governments and to the State
government.
Senator Salazar. You know, perhaps for large counties with
huge revenues, that kind of a cut may not be a huge problem for
them, but I will tell you for many of the rural counties which
are mostly in Federal ownership, that kind of cut starts
affecting their ability to hire law enforcement officers to do
the work on the roads, and it creates a very major problem for
those counties that are mostly in Federal land ownership when
they don't receive some of the other revenues that go through
the other counties through oil and gas leasing.
Let me move to another set of questions, and that's with
respect to the BLM oil and gas inspection and enforcement. We
in this Nation somehow are all contributing to the energy
engine that we require to keep our economy and our country
strong. I sometimes look at our own State of Colorado, and I
see Colorado being the Saudi Arabia, if you will, of the West
because we have so much oil and gas drilling activity that is
taking place throughout the western slope, and now even out on
the eastern plains. And my question to you has to do with
respect to the inspections from the Department of the Interior
and BLM with respect to oil and gas activities and the
functioning of the consolidated office in Glenwood Springs. How
is that going, and do you feel like we're doing what we can to
address the issues of concern to local land use impacts that I
keep hearing about in my office and I'm sure you hear about in
yours as well?
Secretary Norton. I visited our areas in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, looking at our oil and gas programs, making sure that
we had enough in the way of inspections and monitoring. We
anticipate that with the funding that we're requesting now,
that BLM will be able to conduct nearly 50 percent more
inspections than the 17,000 inspections that were conducted in
2005. We are going to be spending more than six times the level
spent on monitoring in 2005, so we are very significantly
ramping up this program to make sure that we do have adequate
monitoring and that that continues for the long run.
Senator Salazar. Okay. May I ask you, Madam Secretary, if
you would provide me a response also in writing in terms of
just the functioning of the Glenwood Springs office and the
activity in Colorado with respect to monitoring?
Secretary Norton. Okay. I would be happy to, Senator.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Senator Salazar. Chairman Thomas, I have some other
questions, but I will wait. Will there be another round?
Senator Thomas. There will be another round.
Senator Salazar. Okay.
Senator Thomas. Madam Secretary, a couple of more details.
Seven BLM offices have received about $20 million for the NACT
Pilot Program to speed up permitting. Can you provide where do
you stand on that in the Department and what's happening to
implement those provisions?
Secretary Norton. We have more people who are now being
hired for those pilot offices. I believe there are about 130
people that are to be hired for those pilot offices, and we are
well on track for getting that hiring done very quickly.
Senator Thomas. Well, I hope so. All this delay is not all
money. We need to get a little more cooperation among the
agencies so that you don't have one agency making the decision
and then have another agency come in and have to go over the
whole thing again. And I know you're familiar with that, and I
hope we can do something. Money you propose is to zero out the
BLM Range Improvement Fund and to amend FLIPMA so that grazing
receipts are deposited rather than going to improvements. That
approach was defeated last year. Why are you bringing it up
again?
Secretary Norton. That is an approach of having funds not
to be earmarked for particular purposes, but instead, have that
be done through the regular appropriations process. We have
provided funding that is not specifically targeted funding or
mandatory spending for that.
Senator Thomas. Well, as you know, there is a feeling that
if you pay the leased lands, you kind of like to have some go
back into the Range Improvement from those fees. And as I said,
it didn't pass last year, so I guess it's a question again.
Does the Historic Preservation Act allow use of those funds for
national heritage areas?
Secretary Norton. I'm not sure I follow your question.
Senator Thomas. The National Historic Preservation Act,
does that allow you to use historic preservation funds to pay
for heritage areas?
Secretary Norton. Let me ask John Trezise to respond to
that question.
Mr. Trezise. Senator, as you know, we have a proposal to
group together the three historic preservation-related outreach
programs that we have: The Save America's Treasures Program,
the Heritage Area Program and the Preserve America Program,
which provides funding for heritage tourism. So that we have
synergy between the programs, we've grouped them together under
the Historic Preservation Account. This is a proposal, as part
of the appropriations process, to provide authority to use
Historic Preservations funds to fund the heritage areas.
However, the key purpose is not the funding mechanism, but the
programmatic benefits that we think will come from linking the
three programs together.
Senator Thomas. Well, that's good. I guess that was sort of
the follow-up to that, what changes should we make in the
heritage areas to benefit this management issue. And we've
proposed some kinds of changes, some kind of criteria for
managed heritage areas so that they do reflect some national
need and national benefit.
Secretary Norton. We think it's beneficial to have the
criteria for the heritage areas and do appreciate the move
toward legislation that would clarify what we mean by a
heritage area. The Preserve America funding and the grants
under that are somewhat different. Instead of creating an
ongoing Federal involvement in particular areas, we would be
providing essentially year-by-year competitive grants that
might be smaller amounts for particular areas.
Senator Thomas. Good. Well, I hope we can work together to
make that program be a little bit more efficient. One of the
things that over the years has been a high priority for the
parks, of course, has been maintenance backlog. For 5 years
we've been addressing the backlog and having funding there;
where are we on terms of doing something with backlog?
Secretary Norton. We have a chart that shows our
maintenance backlog funding over time.* We have been working to
see that our facilities are in improving condition. The
condition of our facilities is the best measure, and we have
been working to see that all of them are in an improved
condition from the visitor perspective. Our proposal this year
will move some funding from the repair and rehabilitation
category over to the cyclic maintenance category, and that is
to further make sure that we're focusing on preventing little
problems from becoming big problems. One of the things we've
learned over time is that by addressing problems early, we can
avoid some of the bigger expenses that come up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Thomas. Where would you say in general terms are we
compared to 5 years ago in terms of the backlog?
Secretary Norton. Let's see.
Mr. Trezise. Senator Thomas, 5 years ago, we didn't really
know what the backlog was. There was much anecdotal evidence
about large backlogs of $5, $10, $15 billion, but none of that
was based on any kind of systematic evaluation of the condition
of the parks. We have put in place a systematic and state-of-
the-art system for monitoring and evaluating the condition of
parks. The Park Service is in the process and will finish this
year a set of comprehensive condition assessments.
Senator Thomas. So, you aren't prepared to measure the
procedure, how much you've advanced over the last several
years?
Mr. Trezise. The baseline is a problem because we don't
know where we started, but we believe, based on the work that
the Park Service has done, that the condition of its assets
overall has improved significantly, particularly with respect
to visitor centers and other facilities.
Senator Thomas. We really need some numbers sometime.
Instead of just asking for more money all the time, we need to
know what kind of progress we are making.
Secretary Norton. Senator, we can now tell you that today,
our facility condition index for non-road assets is .17 and for
paved roads, it is .45.
Senator Thomas. Compared to?
Secretary Norton. That's the problem, it's ``compared to
what,'' because we didn't use to have those kinds of measures.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Secretary Norton. We also have a significant advancement
that we anticipate over the next few years because of funding
from the highway bill. One of the significant aspects of the
backlog is roads.
Senator Thomas. That's great. I guess my point is that as
we look at spending and look at budgets, we also have to look
at performance and have to look at what's happening. So, we
need to have some reports of what's been accomplished in
addition to just requests for more money.
Secretary Norton. We have undertaken and have completed
almost 6,000 facility improvements over the last 5 years. We
have many, many projects that have been completed across the
country.
Senator Thomas. Let's try and stay in touch on that.
Senator Landrieu, are you going to do it again?
Senator Landrieu. I am. I have a few more questions. If I
could just hand you this map, Madam Secretary, I have some
questions. I'm sorry I don't have one for all the members of
the committee. One of the most important things this
committee's going to decide is whether to open up additional
areas in the Gulf of Mexico and under what terms and conditions
that will be opened. And this committee is contemplating a
markup on a piece of legislation that the chairman has put
forward, and that debate will take place next week. If you'll
look at the map that I've shaded under Lease Sale 181, which
I'm factually referring to as 182 because it has no number, do
you have any estimates of the resources that might be available
in that section there?
Secretary Norton. Yes, we do, and we will----
Senator Landrieu. Directly south of 181?
Secretary Norton. We will try to locate that. I know we do
have an estimate for that. It's an area that has not had quite
the extensive work that the other parts of Lease Sale 181 area
have.
Senator Landrieu. But do you have a rough estimate for the
record this morning about--first of all, we confirmed minerals
exist there. We do have an estimate. Do we know what it is?
Secretary Norton. We do have that. We will provide it for
the record, because I know somewhere in these documents, we
have that number.
Senator Landrieu. Okay, and if we could get that in the
next few days, prior to this debate, because this committee is
going to do a lot of work in this area trying to identify new
possibilities in the gulf for oil and gas leasing and under
what terms and conditions.
Secretary Norton. This is, I believe, from Johnnie Burton's
testimony on this legislation. The area south of the original
Lease Sale 181--and these are based on the lines that we drew
in our 5 year plan, but they're similar resource amounts--is
estimated to have 700 million barrels of oil and 3.68 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas.
Senator Landrieu. So, almost 4 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas is in an area just south of the proposed Lease Sale
181?
Secretary Norton. That's correct.
Senator Landrieu. For the record, could you just restate
what dollar amounts the interior States, I think starting with
the highest State, which is New Mexico, is going to receive
this year in terms of the revenue sharing that's on the books?
Secretary Norton. The highest State is actually Wyoming,
which in 2006 is estimated to receive almost $1.3 billion.
Senator Landrieu. So, the State of Wyoming, under their
revenue sharing plan that's been on the books for a while, is
going to receive $1.3 billion next year?
Secretary Norton. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And what about New Mexico?
Secretary Norton. New Mexico is $655 million.
Senator Landrieu. And what about Colorado?
Secretary Norton. Colorado is $157 million.
Senator Landrieu. And then in addition to those States,
there are also some PILT payments. Although they're being
decreased, there are PILT payments that come from the resource
of timber, correct?
Secretary Norton. The PILT payments are actually from
general tax revenues, and they are appropriated based on a very
complex formula.
Senator Landrieu. Because of Federal land taken out of
commerce, correct?
Secretary Norton. That's correct, yes.
Senator Landrieu. But the principle of sharing revenues
that would otherwise be lost with States is a similar principle
to minerals found.
Secretary Norton. This is in essence because the local
governments cannot levy property taxes against the Federal
Government as they would against any other property owner.
These are payments in lieu of those property taxes.
Senator Landrieu. And are there any payments being received
today by Texas or Louisiana or Mississippi or Alabama outside
of their State waters?
Secretary Norton. They are receiving funds for the 8(g)
area, which would be the first three miles of Federal waters in
which there's revenue sharing.
Senator Landrieu. And do you have a record of how much that
is per State?
Secretary Norton. Louisiana received approximately $2.3
million for 2006. Texas, almost $8 million.
Senator Landrieu. Say that again. Two what?
Secretary Norton. $2.3 million.
Senator Landrieu. $2.3 million is what Louisiana would
receive relative to the numbers that you just spoke about, the
Western States, the $1.3 billion for Wyoming? Okay. And what is
the volume of either a trillion cubic feet of gas or oil
produced off the coast of--like off of the two planning
regions? Do we have those totals for 2006, the resources
themselves, from the central planning and the western planning?
What are we estimating in that way?
Secretary Norton. I don't believe we have those broken down
at this point right now. We could provide those for the record.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, as you know,
because we've worked together on this issue, this discrepancy
between the interior States and the coastal States, basically
doing the same thing, offering themselves as platforms for an
industry to produce the oil and gas necessary to keep this
economy going, really needs to be fixed, and it's long past the
time. And so, I'm hoping as we move my colleagues to this
debate next week, we will come up with a fairer way to allocate
these resources based on the contributions that our interior
States and our coastal States are making to the economic
security of the Nation, and I'll submit a further statement to
the record on that. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
Madam Secretary, this committee heard some testimony, I guess
it was a couple weeks ago, about the fire situation and talking
about the Federal plan to restore the fleet of retardant
tankers, looking to retrofit the retired military aircraft. And
certainly, this proposal is better than having none. We want to
make sure that they're safe and working with you in that. We
also learned about the Department's plan, in conjunction with
the USDA, to procure the new tankers, and I understand that
this is a process that could take us potentially 10 to 15
years. And in that hearing, we took a look at the fire
prediction or the fire threat for this next year. And from the
lower 48 perspective, it doesn't look good. Certainly, from
Alaska's perspective, that swath that they're predicting is
worse than ever. So, of course we want to know that we are on
top of it. Why is it that it takes us--or why is it that we are
looking at a 10- to 15-year period in order to have a new
tanker fleet?
Secretary Norton. Our tankers--and especially the smaller
tankers that we are talking about as the new, more mobile
approach for our system--are ones that are owned by the private
sector. This is purchasing that would take place by private
companies, and then they would become available for the Federal
Government to utilize. We've been working with the companies on
these newer generation models.
Senator Murkowski. Is there any way to speed it up?
Secretary Norton. We believe we have adequate resources
that are available this year for addressing our fire situation.
We are doing a better job in deploying our aircraft and making
sure that we have strategized where the best places are to have
our aircraft, other facilities, and other resources located at
any particular point in time. The results that we've seen by
using these newer aircraft have been very good. We have a
minimum of 782 fire aircraft available this season, and 223 of
those are exclusive-use contracts including 16 large air
tankers.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a question about--and
this is not necessarily a budget issue so much as a management
issue, and this relates to the Indian Reservation Roads Program
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribes in Alaska have
been complaining for years that in an effort to get an
inventory, an accurate inventory upon which the funds are
released, you basically--it's based on the inventory system. We
haven't been able to get an accurate inventory for our Indian
Reservation Roads, and so, as a consequence, we don't see the
dollars there. I understand that submissions have been made to
look at the Alaska roads, but they've been rejected. And I
understand that this is not just an Alaska issue, but that
other tribes in the lower 48 have also submitted their requests
for a new inventory, and those have been rejected. I guess I
would just ask you to be aware of this, look into the
situation, and let me know what is being done to deal with this
situation. It's going to be important to us, and we just can't
seem to get that traction that we need to get an updated
inventory.
Secretary Norton. Okay. And thank you for bringing that to
my attention. I will look into that.
Senator Murkowski. Just one last thing to put on your list
of things to be following, at the Indian Affairs budget hearing
a couple weeks ago, I brought up my objections at that time to
the proposed elimination of the Johnson-O'Malley Program. I get
so many constituents--I met with some this morning--who have
expressed great concern about elimination of this program
that's been around since 1934. What we've been told is that
really the only reason that the Department is suggesting
eliminating the program is that you've been unable to collect
the data to find out whether or not it's been working. So, I
guess I would suggest that perhaps a better approach to it is
to get the data before just eliminating the program. Again,
just leaving you with the concerns that we have about
elimination of that program.
Secretary Norton. That may be one aspect of the evaluation
of the program, but it primarily is a question of duplication
with Department of Education funding. Their Impact Aid Program
for Federal and Indian land is expected to provide payments to
districts of about $548 million. They have a very significant
program that is similar to our Johnson-O'Malley Program.
Senator Murkowski. Well, what we've been told by the
Department of Education is that they don't have a duplicate
program. We've got a difference in an approach there, but it's
important that you know how important this program is to so
many in my State.
Senator Salazar, and then we'll go to Senator Alexander.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Secretary
Norton, I want to spend a few minutes with you on the Land and
Conservation Fund stateside program. Last year, when the
administration suggested that the program be zeroed out, there
was a finding by DOI that the results had not been
demonstrated. I think that was the language in the report. This
year, the Park Service has acknowledged that the stateside
grants program indeed delivers excellent results. We went
through a battle on the Land and Water Conservation stateside
program last year and ultimately were able to restore funding
into that program. I will just tell you that I expect we'll go
through that same fight again because I think this is a high
priority to our Nation as we continue to try to protect and
preserve important lands. And I would ask you why it was that
given the findings that this was a program that delivered
excellent results, that you've come forward with a
recommendation that the program be zeroed out.
Secretary Norton. This is a program that, you know, I
personally think is a good program. It is one that is much more
capable of being scaled depending on how much funding is
available, and it is not something that has significant amounts
of full-time employees. It is largely a land acquisition
program, so it's something that can be adjusted upward and
downward, depending on funding availability much more so than
most of our other programs.
Senator Salazar. It's a funding priority issue.
Secretary Norton. It was evaluated by OMB through its PART
program. That evaluation has not changed, and so I'm not sure
exactly what you're talking about in terms of a change between
this year and last year.
Senator Salazar. It's actually an acknowledgment that was
made by the Park Service of the efficiency of the stateside
Land and Water Conservation Program. But let me just say that
for me, that's a very important program and, I know, for
Senator Alexander, who's been a great leader and defender of
the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and
we're going to continue to work on that issue with you.
Let me move on to another question. Sometimes I disagree
with the administration, sometimes I agree with the
administration. As I told the President last week, I agreed
with his statement that we need to get rid of our addiction on
foreign oil, in his State of the Union, and I look forward very
much to working with him and Secretary Bodman and others to get
us to that end. I have a question with respect to Lease Sale
181 and the legislation that this committee will be dealing
with in a markup next week. And I know it's a controversial
issue, not exactly sure how it's going to come out. My question
to you is this: I understand from my colleagues that there will
be Federal revenue somewhere in excess of $4 billion that could
come from the leasing of Lease Sale 181 and the royalties from
that area; would it be, in your mind, worthy of consideration
to designate perhaps half of those revenues or a percentage of
those revenues into a renewable energy and technology fund? It
seems to me that that would be very consistent with what we
collectively believe, Republicans and Democrats, we need to do
that to get our way to energy independence by investing more in
technology and more in renewable energy.
Secretary Norton. The offshore revenues are ones that,
first of all, need to have new areas of development in order to
maintain a constant level. The decline in natural gas
production, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, is very steep.
When we have a new well that comes online, it produces a lot
for a fairly short amount of time and then declines. Just to
maintain the current levels of natural gas production we have
from the Gulf of Mexico, we need to have new areas. The revenue
projections from this area, from which we do anticipate
significant amounts from a lease sale, would be within about
the same budget amounts that we would anticipate, essentially
what the Federal Government is already projecting.
Senator Salazar. And I'm certain before we get to our
hearing next week that we'll have more information on what
those projections are. I would appreciate you sharing those
revenue projections with me, but also with the committee,
because I think that's one of the things that we're going to be
grappling with in terms of how we ultimately decide to vote on
Senator Domenici's and Senator Bingaman's proposal.
Secretary Norton. Well, I do know that there are a lot of
discussions taking place about those revenues and certainly,
revenue sharing with the States has been a very significant
aspect of those discussions as well. We'd be happy to provide
the revenue projections for you.
Senator Salazar. I'll just conclude with this comment. The
President visited the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado
10 days ago or so, and I think he was very impressed with the
technology development that's going on at NREL and how we end
up deploying that research and technology out into the private
market. And creating incentives is, I think, one of the
challenges that we face in our Nation and that we are going to
face as an energy committee, that you face as the Secretary of
the Interior. So, I hope to be able to work with you on that
agenda in the future, and I appreciate your participation in
the committee hearing this morning.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Salazar. Madam
Secretary, I'm all that's standing between you and lunch, so I
welcome the opportunity to ask you a few questions, but I'll
try to keep them brief. Do you have further questions, Senator
Salazar, that you'd like to ask?
Senator Salazar. I do have one or two more questions.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well, let me go ahead with these,
and then we'll go back to Senator Salazar. Let me make sure I
understand what you said about the revenues from Lease 181. Say
that again. How much money is there going to be, or did you say
that you were going to--what did you say? I didn't quite
understand it.
Secretary Norton. There would be two sources of revenue
from that. One would be bonus bids from a lease sale. I don't
know if we have a projection for those amounts, but they would
probably be fairly significant amounts. The second is the
ongoing revenue from royalties that----
Senator Alexander. Which would be on down the road a little
bit.
Secretary Norton. On down the road, yes.
Senator Alexander. But you would expect significant new
revenues from bonus bids?
Secretary Norton. Yes, we leased an area that--it was a
smaller part of the original Lease Sale 181 and received, I
believe, about $340 million in bonus bids from that area, so I
know there is significant interest. We would anticipate
similarly high bonus bids in this area.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I have three or four areas
that I want to touch briefly. And if I don't get finished, I'll
go to Senator Salazar, then come back for the last of it. Let
me go to the first one, which is the difficult issue of the so-
called Road to Nowhere in the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park. And the reason I'm going to bring it up is not because I
think you can resolve it today or tomorrow, but just to remind
us all that the Federal Government does have a commitment to
Swain County, North Carolina. But since 1946, the Supreme Court
has said that the Federal Government doesn't have to build a
road to fulfill that commitment, and the Supreme Court said in
a lawsuit on that very question that a common-sense adjustment
would be appropriate. And that's been the case for 40 years
now, and no common-sense adjustment has been made. I think it's
time that we go ahead and come to some conclusion about this.
The National Park Service is in the middle of collecting
comments about it.
I know there's disagreement from elected officials, but I
just wanted to emphasize that the Great Smokies are different
than any other park in several ways, but one way is that it's
the only park that was given to the United States by the people
of Tennessee and North Carolina in the two States. And the
Governors of both States that gave the land for the park have
said they endorse the idea of a cash settlement to Swain
County, and they're opposed to the idea of a $600 million road
through the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The Swain
County elected officials have said they endorse the idea of a
settlement. Senator Frist and I both are for a settlement and
opposed to the road. It seems to me it's entirely impractical
to even imagine that there could possibly be a $600 million
road through the Great Smoky Mountain National Park for, among
other reasons, that it is 75 times the annual roads budget for
the Great Smoky Mountain Park and three times the amount of the
roads budget for the entire National Park Service.
So, it would be my hope that we could recognize that it
would be a waste of money, and unnecessary because there's a
good road right on the other side of the water connecting the
same points, and an environmental disaster if we did it. I
would hope that over the next few months that maybe you could
become a Henry Kissinger-type diplomat and bring this to some
sort of conclusion. And I think the conclusion should not be to
build any road. Even a short road costs $100 million, which is
half the entire budget of the National Park Service for roads.
So, I think a settlement with Swain County, which the elected
officials say they want, the Governors of both States say they
want--those are the parties to the agreement. The Federal
Government really has less of an interest in this than the
States and the local governments do in this unique situation. I
wondered if you had any comment on that.
Secretary Norton. I recognize there are strongly-held views
on both sides of this issue. The Park Service is expecting to
close its comment periods this month on its environmental
analysis. I would hope that the delegations of Tennessee and
North Carolina could find a unified position on this issue.
Senator Alexander. Well, I'm sure you would hope that, but
I just want to emphasis that in this case, the States that gave
the park to the country, the Governors of those States and the
elected officials of the county to which the obligations is
owed say that the settlement is the better conclusion.
Senator Salazar, do you have additional questions you'd
like to ask?
Senator Salazar. I do. Senator Alexander, thank you very
much.
Secretary Norton, this is a question related to the
proposed changes and policies for the management of the
National Park Service. It seems that for a hundred years the
National Park Service has abided by the principle of do no
harm, and the protection of the park resources has been
essentially the value that has superceded all other values with
respect to the national treasures of our country. The proposed
revisions, which are now out for comment, I believe, by the
National Park Service, from the point of many of us, from our
perspective, it would take a retreat from that long-standing
doctrine of protecting our national parks, and I would ask you
if you would want to comment on the justification for moving
forward with the proposed changes in the National Park
Service's management policies.
Secretary Norton. The policies that are currently being
considered are ones that were formulated with the involvement
of a hundred career employees of the National Park Service.
They are going through a continuing process, and we believe
reach the right point in saying we have the dual missions of
the Park Service, which have always been both preservation and
enjoyment, and we think those are goals that are achieved under
these policies. We look forward to having continuing input on
exactly the way in which those policies meet those goals.
Senator Salazar. Can you give the committee a sense of
timing with respect to how the Department of the Interior and
the National Park Service intend to move forward to conclusion
of the new proposed rule?
Secretary Norton. We've just recently concluded the comment
period, which was 120 days. The Park Service is going to be
analyzing those comments. And then, these policies will be
reviewed by the National Leadership Council, which are the
leaders, the regional directors and other senior officials
within the Park Service and also by the National Park Service
Advisory Board, and then there will be a service-wide review
before the release of a proposed final draft. There's a very
extensive process continuing of review of those policies.
Senator Salazar. Do you have a sense of how long it's going
to take to go through those various levels of review?
Secretary Norton. I'd say that's another 6 months or so
probably.
Senator Salazar. Okay. I would ask you, Madam Secretary, to
keep me informed, and I'm certain that members of this
committee, as well as the Subcommittee on National Parks, would
be very interested in getting information.
Secretary Norton. We've certainly planned a very open
process with a lot of input in that process, and we'd certainly
look forward to working with you all on that.
Senator Salazar. Okay. Well, I appreciate that very much
and also look forward to a summary of the comments that you've
received, I'm sure, from throughout the Nation on this very
important issue. I will tell you it is one issue that I will be
watching carefully and hopefully getting us as a Nation to
reach the right result in terms of the protection of our crown
jewels in America. Mr. Chairman, I think that's all the
questions I have.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Salazar.
While you're still here, let me pick up on two of the areas
that you talked about. One is the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. In Tennessee, we very strongly support the State side of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have a lot of rapidly
developing open space around the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park that the citizens of our State and the Governor and the
legislature would like to acquire to provide a buffer zone for
the park. That would be the view of virtually everybody in our
highly Republican area there. I'm a strong supporter of it and
was, as we've discussed before, Chairman of President Reagan's
Commission on the American Outdoors in 1986, which recommended
that we set aside a billion of offshore drilling in a mandatory
way so that we could fully fund the Federal and the State side
of Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Now, insofar as Lease 181--and I'll be working with Senator
Salazar to try to see if we can restore some of the funding for
the State side of Atlanta water, but as far as Lease 181,
before we get to spending all that money for other good
purposes, I think it's important to recognize that we already
have in the law provisions that say that the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is supposed to be funded from revenues from
leasing of the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, it's not
mandatory. It has to be appropriated every year, but it would
seem to me that before we start spending new revenues for other
purposes, that we ought to recognize the existence of a
conservation royalty and spend some of that money to properly
fund the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Now, the other area you mentioned, Senator, and I want to
ask the Secretary about this, the concern about the management
policy of the National Park Service is not just a concern on
the Democratic side. I wrote a letter with six other Republican
Senators in October to the Secretary expressing concern about
it. The whole process got off to a terrible beginning. If it'd
been at the Grand Ole Opry, it would have been a warm-up act,
it would have emptied the house. And Fran Mainella has worked
very hard, and the professional staff there has worked very
hard to explain the process to those of us who are concerned,
and I respect that, and I respect the efforts, and I appreciate
the time they've put into it, but because it got off to such a
bad start, it's making us more skeptical about it.
And Madam Secretary, you said something I want to make sure
you said, that there's the dual mission of conservation and
enjoyment. That's not what the Organic Law says. The Organic
Law says that when there's a conflict between conserving
resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them,
conservation is to be the predominant. That's been the law
since 1916.
Secretary Norton. No, sir. If I can--
Senator Alexander. You didn't mean to lower the status of
conservation in your statement, did you?
Secretary Norton. May I quote for you the exact language of
the statute? ``To conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
Senator Alexander. But don't you agree that since 1916,
that's always been interpreted to mean that where there is a
conflict between conservation and enjoyment, that conservation
has been the predominant value?
Secretary Norton. That is a much more recent interpretation
than 1916.
Senator Alexander. Well, then we have a big difference of
opinion about the management policies because it has been my--
maybe this is a subject that we ought to have another
discussion about. You don't agree with that?
Secretary Norton. Senator, perhaps I can clarify. What we
are talking about is making sure that we are preserving things
and not impairing for future generations, but not every
decision is going to be one that will always put preservation
as the only thing that really matters, because otherwise, we
would close our parks and not let people come in. We have to
make sure that we are both providing for current and future
enjoyment, as well as having conservation of those resources.
Now, on a practical level, I think that there is a great
deal of agreement, and we have managed our parks in a way that
has a huge amount of protection for our resources. Our park
policies are written by people who care so tremendously and so
deeply about their parks, and our park policies put in the
hands of the park superintendents the important decisions about
the management of resources. You can't find a group of people
that are more committed to protection of their parks than our
career park employees. That's the basis for our management
policies.
Senator Alexander. Well, I agree with you about the
personnel, and I agree with you about practicality and of the
hundreds of park areas, many are different and should be
treated differently. Some places are wilderness areas, and some
places have snowmobiles, and I understand that. That's all
practical. But it has been my view that since 1916 and the
Organic Act, that the management policies of the National Park
Service have unambiguously provided that the conservation of
park resources is the National Park Service's primary purpose.
That doesn't mean there's no other purpose to be served, but if
one had to say what is the primary purpose of the National Park
Service, the predominant purpose, I've always thought it was
conservation of park resources.
Secretary Norton. A key part of the mission is conserving
those resources and providing for their enjoyment to make sure
that those resources are conserved for the long term. I think
we're saying basically the same thing.
Senator Alexander. Well, I'm not sure that we are, with all
respect, because that's the fundamental issue in the management
policies. The first question is why we even need a review of
management policies this quickly, and the second--really,
almost all of the issues that have--almost all the concerns I
have have to do with the rewriting of the management policies,
and it come down to whether it's still true that conservation
is the predominant purpose of the National Park Service. And if
that's not true, then I imagine it would be very difficult for
park managers all throughout the country to have a clear
understanding of what their priorities ought to be.
Senator Salazar. Senator Alexander?
Senator Alexander. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. If I may, you know, I very much agree with
your perspective, and in my own reading of the 1916 Organic
Act, I think it's very clear that that was the mission that was
given to the Park Service, and I think that that's why we've
had this doctrine of do no harm, which has become a guiding
principle to all park employees. So, I agree with your
interpretation of what the doctrine is for our National Park
System.
And that's why I think you have heard, Secretary Norton,
with all due respect, such a great concern that has been raised
among Republicans and Democrats and everyone else about what we
believe is a diminution and change in the standard that applies
to the National Park Service. And so, that's why this, as you
move forward to the final rule, is something which I think a
lot of us have question marks about.
Secretary Norton. We believe very strongly in the
protection of our National Park system and in making sure that
that is an enduring system for the long-term future of this
country. Within that, some of the day-to-day decisions are
difficult ones that need to be weighed and balanced by local
park managers. And we've gone through an extensive process of
involving those park managers and the very experienced regional
directors that we have to try to provide guidance. We have,
within these new policies, taken into account things like
Homeland Security, things like my approach in believing that we
should involve local communities and work with cooperative
conservation, that we ought to be reaching out and having input
from a variety of different people as we make our decisions.
And those things are reflected in our policies, and we look
forward to input as we bring those policies into their final
stages.
Senator Alexander. Senator Thomas is planning another
hearing in his subcommittee on these policies, and I'm looking
forward to that hearing. For example, if--not to belabor this,
but if Homeland Security is equal to conservation, then you
could build a row of cell towers right across the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. If conservation is predominant, you'd
look for different ways to deal with that, or you'd disguise
the cell towers so they couldn't be seen. So, whether the
predominant goal is conservation is a very important decision
to me in any event, and that's a subject that we can discuss at
the hearing. And as I said, I do appreciate the work Fran
Mainella and her team have been doing. They've been diligent
about keeping us informed about the process they're going
through, and I'm hopeful that the result will be a good one.
Do you have other questions, Senator Salazar, before we
adjourn the hearing?
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Madam Secretary, thank you for coming,
and thank you for staying such a long time. We appreciate your
appearance very much.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Domenici
Bureau of Land Management
OIL SHALE
Question 1. You are aware of my interest in oil shale and making
sure we have programs in place that will give every opportunity for
developing this vast American resource. I appreciate that you have seen
fit to increase funding by $3.3 million in your request.
Can you discuss what the Department is doing with respect to oil
shale?
Answer. Prior to the EPAct 2005, the BLM initiated an Oil Shale
Research, Development and Demonstration (R,D&D) program. The R,D&D
program allows small tracts to be leased for oil shale research,
development and demonstration, pursuant to BLM's authority to lease
Federal lands for oil shale development under section 21 of the Mineral
Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. 241. Following announcement of the R,D&D program
in the Federal Register on June 9, 2005, the BLM received 20
nominations. On January 17, 2006, 8 nominations were selected for
further consideration and evaluation. On March 23, 2006, two
nominations were eliminated from further consideration. Following
further evaluation and NEPA analysis of the remaining nominations,
R,D&D lease issuance is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2006.
Congress directed that the Secretary complete a Programmatic EIS
(PEIS), the purpose of which is to analyze impacts of a commercial
leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands,
with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands in
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource
Leasing PEIS currently being developed meets this mandate. The BLM
published a notice of intent for a PEIS for commercial oil shale
leasing in the December 13, 2005 Federal Register. We have already
completed public scoping meetings, and established a PEIS website.
Upon completion of the PEIS, the Secretary has been directed to
publish final regulations establishing the commercial oil shale and tar
sands leasing programs. The Bureau of Land Management is in the
preliminary stages of development of the regulatory framework for
commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program.
Question 2. What kind of response have you received from industry?
Answer. The response from industry has been positive, indicating a
significant interest in obtaining commercial oil shale leases. As
discussed in the response to question 1, there were 20 proposals
submitted to the BLM's June 9, 2005, Federal Register Notice seeking
oil shale Research, Development, and Demonstration lease proposals.
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Question 3. I'm disappointed in the cut proposed in this year's
PILT request. Let's not forget that just as budgets are tight here in
Washington, they are also tight in rural America. As long as there are
federal lands in these counties, this nation has an obligation to
provide local governments funding for the important role they play in
providing public services on lands they do not own and over which they
cannot levy property taxes.
Why does the Department propose reductions in PILT, please tell me
what your thinking is here?
Answer. The 2007 budget proposes $198.0 million for the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program. Although this is $34.5 million below the 2006
record high level, it is well above historical funding levels. In FY
2000, PILT was funded at just under $134 million. Our proposed FY 2007
level represents about a 47% increase over that amount. As part of the
President's effort to reduce the budget deficit by half over five
years, the 2007 budget for the Department makes difficult choices, and
this was one of them.
Question 4. Does this represent a change in commitment to counties
that over time we can anticipate the administration to further reduce
PILT funding?
Answer. No. While I cannot commit the administration with regard to
future budgets, I can assure you that the administration continues to
be committed to the program, as evidenced by the funding level proposed
in the FY 2007 budget.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Question 5. Your budget request includes a number of legislative
proposals that would affect spending levels in future years. These
proposals to remove or change the mandatory funding for:
<bullet> the BLM project office program established in the Energy
Bill to address drilling permits;
<bullet> the range improvement program that has been funded from
grazing receipts for 30 years; and
<bullet> conservation programs provided through the sale of federal
land suitable for disposal.
Your Department has proposed to amend these laws to make treatment
of these funds a discretionary rather than mandatory matter. I believe
the availability of these funds is essential to maintaining a solid
foundation for management of public lands.
What is your thinking here?
Answer. With regard to the BLM project office program, the
administration's proposal is to replace the mandatory funding provided
by the Energy Policy Act with cost recovery from APD processing fees
effective at the end of 2007. The administration will be requesting
authority to conduct a rulemaking to phase in full cost recovery for
APDs, beginning with a fee amount that will generate an estimated $20
million, replacing the amount provided by the Energy Policy Act. This
proposed increased reliance on cost recovery is consistent with the
findings of previous Inspector General reports and the 2005 PART review
of this program, which found that the program does not adequately
charge identifiable users for costs incurred on their behalf.
With regard to the range improvement program, the budget for BLM
proposes to discontinue mandatory appropriations from the Range
Improvement Fund totaling $10.0 million annually. Instead, revenues
will be deposited to the U.S. Treasury. The BLM's new grazing rule will
allow permittees to share title to certain range improvements.
Therefore, this will encourage permittees to bear more of the cost of
these improvements in the future.
Finally, the proposed FY 2007 budget proposes changes to the
Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). The administration
will propose legislation to amend BLM's land sale authority under the
FLTFA. The legislation will both expand the public lands available for
disposal under FLTFA and change the distribution of the proceeds of
those sales. Under the Act, BLM is currently limited to selling lands
identified for disposal in land-use plans that were in effect prior to
the enactment of FLTFA, and makes the proceeds available for the
acquisition of other non-Federal lands within specially-designated
areas such as national parks, refuges, and monuments. The 2007 budget
proposes to amend FLTFA to: allow BLM to use updated management plans
to identify areas suitable for disposal; allow a portion of the
receipts to be used by BLM for restoration projects; return 70 percent
of the net proceeds from the sales to the Treasury; and cap receipt
retention by the Department at $60 million per year. This proposal will
minimize the amount of Federal spending not subject to regular
oversight through the appropriations process and will ensure that
taxpayers directly benefit from these land sales.
Question 6. My concern is the effect of eliminating the
availability of the funds during times of lean budgets. How would this
be good for the resource you are trying to manage?
Answer. As described above, with regard to the permit office
program, we expect appropriate user fees will take the place of
mandatory funding and result in no lessening of availability of funds
and, with regard to the Range Improvement Fund, that permitees will be
induced to invest in range improvement projects. With regard to FLTFA,
the proposed amendments would allow BLM to use a portion of the sale
proceeds to fund resource restoration projects, which FLTFA currently
does not allow.
Minerals Management Service
EPACT IMPLEMENTATION
Question 7. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we established a
Coastal Impact Assistance Program that provides $1 billion to coastal
states over a period of four years.
The Department's FY 2007 budget request states that MMS will
continue to develop program guidelines begun in 2006 to apply a formula
to disburse this money to coastal states.
Please comment on the status of these guidelines.
Answer. MMS recently sent draft guidelines for the Coastal Impact
Assistance Program (CIAP) to the States of Alaska, California, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. MMS will work with each State and
evaluate the written consolidated State responses before developing
final CIAP guidelines. We project that the final guidelines will be
made available by the fall of 2006. As directed under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, the Governors of each State will carry out a public
consultation process to elicit the view of their citizens. This input
will be critical to the development of priorities and the use of the
CIAP funds to be included in the State's Coastal Impact Assistance
Plan.
ROYALTY PAYMENTS
Question 8. What steps has the Department of the Interior taken to
ensure that the Federal Government is receiving all payments of
royalties due under all applicable federal laws?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), through its office
of Minerals Revenue Management, ensures that revenue from Federal and
Indian mineral leases is effectively, efficiently, and accurately
collected, accounted for, and disbursed to recipients by routinely
performing compliance reviews and audits. Compliance reviews are
designed to determine if the royalties received are in reasonable
compliance with the laws, lease terms, and regulations. For royalties
paid in-value, compliance reviews apply a series of tests to the
volume, royalty rate, value, and allowances to determine if the royalty
payment is reasonable on a property basis. For royalties received in-
kind, MMS applies a series of tests designed to assure that it has
received the proper royalty volume for the contract.
The MMS, States, and Tribes, also perform audits, in accordance
with the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Audits are
performed on specifically targeted companies or properties, many times
resulting from a compliance review. In addition, MMS randomly selects
companies targeted for audit. Audits can also include gas plants,
transportation systems, and issue-based audits.
The MMS will continue to aggressively pursue its mission of
providing for the timely and accurate collection, distribution,
accounting for, and auditing of revenues owed by holders of mineral
leases on Federal onshore, offshore, and Indian lands.
OCS AREA 181
Question 9. I am concerned about a news report from March 1, 2006
that suggested that the Department believed that the timetable for
leasing in 181 under S. 2253 would be the same as under the 5-year
plan.
Please clarify the difference in size of the area in 181 offered
under S. 2253 versus the area offered under the draft proposed plan.
Answer. S. 2253 would make 3.6 million acres available for lease.
Under the bill, leasing in the area east of the Military Mission Line,
an area of approximately 725,000 acres, would be subject to the
agreement and approval of the Secretary of Defense. Under the Draft
Proposed Program (DPP) for 2007-2012, the additional area that would be
available for leasing is approximately 2 million acres. The 1.5 million
acres of the original Sale 181 area that was already offered for
leasing under the current 2002-2007 5-year program would continue to be
available under both proposals. Both S. 2253 and the DPP proposal
maintain a 100 mile buffer zone along the Florida coast.
Question 10. Most importantly, please clarify whether the
Department intends to comply with a maximum one-year statutory deadline
to lease the 181 area when Congress passes S. 2253.
Answer. If enacted, MMS will move forward with implementation in
the time frames established under the bill.
Question 11. Finally, what is the earliest possible timeframe that
the Department could offer parts of 181 without this 1-year requirement
and what is the latest possible timeframe?
Answer. The Draft Proposed Program for 2007-2012 proposes a sale in
the 181 area in the fall of 2007.
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
Question 12. MMS requests $159.4 million in 2007 for OCS program
activities, a net increase of $10.6 million above the 2006 enacted
budget.
Please comment on the factors that necessitate this increase.
Answer. The net increase in OCS program activity funding includes
an increase of $7.6 million to implement the Energy Policy Act,
including $6.5 million to establish a comprehensive program to manage
new and innovative alternative energy projects on the OCS and $1.0
million towards a coordinated Departmental effort to accelerate
research, resource modeling, assessment, and characterization of gas
hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico and North Slope of Alaska. The budget
also includes $2.1 million to fund helicopter contract increases
associated with transporting inspectors to offshore oil and gas
facilities at greater distances. The increase will also allow MMS to
keep abreast of the innovative developments and environmental concerns
in deepwater technology. The MMS also proposes a $1.5 million OCS lease
sales initiative to prepare NEPA analyses necessary for the Gulf of
Mexico and Alaska.
Question 13. Please comment on what lessons the Department learned
in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with respect to
operations on the OCS.
Answer. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita confirmed that our offshore oil
and gas industry produces environmentally safe energy for America. Even
in the face of two back-to-back major hurricanes, there was no
significant spill from production wells.
In addition, the Katrina/Rita scenario confirmed that our domestic
offshore oil and gas resources are key components in the energy mix
which provide some of the basic necessities Americans have come to
expect gasoline for our cars, heating fuel for our homes, and natural
gas to cook our meals, power our factories, and generate the
electricity that is critical to our way of life and critical to
powering our advanced economy.
As a result of the hurricanes, damage reports post-Rita have
highlighted a problem with Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU).
Nineteen MODUs broke loose from their moorings and were set adrift,
some causing damage to pipelines as anchors dragged along the ocean
floor. Last November, the Department hosted a Conference on Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units with other Federal agencies and industry to
address MODUs and lessons learned. As a result of the conference, there
is a strong commitment from both industry and the Federal government to
continue to take short-term and long-term steps to improve the building
of MODUs.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Question 14. Un-adjudicated Indian water rights claims in the
western Untied States are a great source of uncertainty and are, in my
view, the greatest impediment to effective water management. I have
contacted you repeatedly regarding Indian water rights settlements and
their great importance to the Reclamation States. As you are aware,
there are three settlements that are near completion in New Mexico.
These include the Aamodt, Abeyta and Navajo settlements.
I am concerned that such a small amount of money was included in
the President's proposed budget to fund Indian participation in the
settlements. Many Indian nations rely heavily on Bureau and Indian
Affairs 340 and 344 monies to participate in settlement negotiations.
Acquiring water in the Rio Grande Basin is required for both the
Abeyta and Aamodt settlements. Have you made any progress in either
identifying or acquiring water to fulfill the terms these two
settlements? If not, why? What is the status of the money that has been
appropriated for water acquisition to date?
Answer. A number of possible sources for water have been explored
for fulfilling the needs of these two settlements. One option that is
under consideration would be using the unallocated water from the San
Juan Chama project for these settlements. The feasibility of this
option, and others, is still being explored. Appropriated funds
continue to be used to provide technical support for the settlement
negotiations.
Question 15. In general, what progress have you made with respect
to the Aamodt, Abeyta, and Navajo settlements?
Answer. Since the San Juan River settlement agreement was signed in
2005 by the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico, without Federal
agreement, Departmental staff has worked with the parties to identify
potential Federal issues with the settlement agreement and proposed
Federal legislation. The Pueblos and non-Federal parties for both the
Aamodt and the Abeyta settlements plan to have signed settlements in
the coming year. The administration believes that the Federal
contribution proposed by the parties to these settlements is excessive.
Question 16. How do you anticipate that the Indian nations will
represent their interests in settlement negotiations with the small
amount of money you have proposed for the 340 and 344 accounts?
Answer. Last year, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued guidance for
preparing water program funding requests and refined the process under
which it prioritizes the approximately 400 funding requests it receives
annually for water program money. Our goal is to continue to support
the highest priority activities while eliminating funding for duplicate
work that the Bureau or other agencies have already accomplished and
administrative overhead costs, which should not be a Federal
responsibility.
Question 17. How do you plan to secure a commitment from OMB that a
reasonable federal contribution will be made available for Indian water
rights settlements?
Answer. The administration remains committed to the longstanding
policy guidance on Indian water settlements, found at 55 Fed. Reg. 9223
(1990), Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal
Government in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights
Claims (``Criteria''). Since the Criteria were adopted, the Executive
Branch's policy has been, where possible, to support negotiated
settlements between Indian water rights claimants, the Federal
Government, and third-party claimants. The Federal Government also has
specific responsibilities to ensure that such settlements meet the
Government's responsibility to the tribe or tribes, and are fair to the
entire taxpaying public. To this end, the Criteria provide guidance on
the appropriate level of Federal contribution to settlements,
incorporating consideration of calculable legal exposure plus costs
related to Federal trust or programmatic responsibilities.
As contemplated by the Criteria, consultations among the Department
of the Interior, the Department of Justice and the Office of Management
and Budget are ongoing. The administration will continue to work with
affected parties and members of Congress to reach an appropriate
resolution of settlement claims. As in past settlements, once a
settlement has been agreed to and ratified by the Congress, the normal
practice is to propose funding in the next budget cycle.
ISLETA SETTLEMENT
Question 18. The administration has entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Pueblo of Isleta regarding the Department of the
Interior's alleged mismanagement of the Pueblo's lands and natural
resources. While the Settlement Agreement was signed by the Department
of Justice, your solicitor expressed your Department's support of the
settlement in a letter.
The Settlement Agreement calls for a payment to the Pueblo from the
Permanent and Indefinite Appropriations for Judgments as well as a
payment from Congressional appropriations through the Department of the
Interior. Despite agreeing to this division of funding, your FY2007
budget request includes no money to implement the Settlement Agreement.
How many Settlement Agreements has your solicitor supported that
require Congressional appropriations through the Department of the
Interior?
Answer. The Department does not maintain a database that enables us
to answer this question precisely. Frequently, in settlements of Indian
land or water rights cases, there is an understanding that the funding
for parts of those settlements will come through the Department of the
Interior's budget.
Question 19. Why have you allowed your solicitor to support a
settlement that you have not budgeted for?
Answer. The July 12, 2005 settlement states that it is ``contingent
upon ratification and approval by an Act of Congress and upon
subsequent appropriation and payment to the Pueblo of the funds
provided for in Section IV . . .''. It further states in Section IV
that it is the Pueblo that will seek both the legislation authorizing
the settlement and the legislation appropriating the necessary funds.
The settlement process, in addition to addressing litigation
settlement, also created an opportunity for the Pueblo and the Federal
government to address certain program goals. Recognizing that the
latter required the Pueblo's exploration of the normal budgeting
process, the agreement gave the Pueblo through 2005 to seek
Congressional ratification of their desired agreement. Congress has not
enacted any legislation ratifying the settlement. It is not the
practice of the Department to request funding for settlements that are
subject to Congressional ratification that have not received that
ratification.
Question 20. Do you have plans to budget for this settlement, or
any portion thereof, in FY2008?
Answer. Since Congress did not ratify the settlement proposed by
the Pueblo of Isleta, litigation has resumed in this issue and
negotiations are underway. At this point, although we continue to
evaluate possible program funding with the appropriate offices, it is
too early to tell whether we will even have a viable settlement to
budget for in FY 2008.
Question 21. What FY2006 monies, or FY2007 requested monies, could
be reprogrammed to support the settlement agreement your solicitor
agreed to?
Answer. Please see the answers to questions 19 and 20 above. Any
potential agreement does not contemplate FY 2006 or FY 2007 money.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT ON THE USBR
Question 22. As you are aware, the National Research Council, an
arm of the National Academy of Sciences recently issued a far-reaching
report on the USBR. The report contains assessments on human resources,
stakeholder relations, outsourcing, policies, and management. The role
of the USBR as a builder of large impoundments is largely over. We now
need to focus more on maintaining existing infrastructure and reaching
resolution among various stakeholders. I anticipate that we will
schedule a hearing on this report late this spring.
How do you plan to implement the recommendations contained in this
report? Is this something that you can believe can be done
administratively or do you need legislation to implement the findings
of the report?
Answer. Each of the recommendations contained in the NRC's report
is addressed in the Managing for Excellence Action Plan that
Reclamation published in February 2006. The Action Plan is available at
http://www.usbr.gov/report/merweb.pdf. The Action Plan was prepared on
the basis of crucial input from employees, customers, and other
stakeholders in Reclamation's program. It outlines a process and
timeframe for identifying and addressing the 21st century challenges
Reclamation faces. More extensive input will be sought and considered
during the course of implementing the 41 individual action items
contained in the Action Plan. Reclamation is in the process of putting
together internal and external teams to identify and implement needed
managerial and operational improvements that will enable each action
item to be accomplished. While Reclamation does not currently
contemplate the need for implementing legislation, it is possible that
such a need will be identified later by the teams or groups that are
assigned to accomplish the individual action items in the Action Plan.
We will keep the Committee informed of our progress towards meeting the
benchmarks identified in the Action Plan.
Question 23. What activities currently undertaken by the USBR do
you believed could be outsourced? Do you believe that greater
outsourcing by the USBR would result in cost savings to USBR customers?
Answer. The Action Plan includes, on page 15, eight action items
that specifically assess how an appropriate mix of in-house capability
versus competitive sourcing can be achieved. One of these action items
is to analyze the unit-to-unit costs of in-house performance of
commercial workload versus competitive sourcing. Competitive sourcing
would be appropriate where it would result in cost savings while also
being consistent with the significant Federal risk management
responsibility associated with Reclamation's large and complex
facilities. Nevertheless, the Action Plan recognizes the need for
Reclamation to maintain the appropriate level of core capability it
needs to fulfill its mission responsibilities and provide optimum value
to its customers.
Question 24. A common complaint I hear from my constituents is that
the USBR often charges far more than the private sector for comparable
services. Why do you believe that this is the case? What have you found
when benchmarking against the private sector?
Answer. It is difficult to benchmark against the private sector for
the full suite of services that Reclamation provides. One factor in
Reclamation's construction costs is the design standards the agency has
established. These standards were developed to address not only
physical engineering concerns, but also the significant federal risk
management responsibility associated with the management of critical
infrastructure. These high design standards have associated costs. An
analysis of whether these heightened costs are necessary in all of the
construction and O&M activities performed by Reclamation and its
customers will be part of the Managing for Excellence Action Plan.
Question 25. Do you believe that the report will result in
meaningful reforms within the USBR? If so, what changes?
Answer. Reclamation is committed to a thorough evaluation under the
Action Plan and the change that will come from it. The Department sees
this as a significant opportunity to position Reclamation for
excellence in managing its future as a citizen-centered agency that
delivers optimum value to its stakeholders. The benchmarks that the
Action Plan identifies to guide Reclamation's reform process include:
<bullet> Improvement of the management and leadership processes,
applications, responsibilities, and outcomes in all Reclamation
activities to effectively respond to future needs and
challenges;
<bullet> The attainment of a synergistic balance of centralized
policy development and decentralized operations;
<bullet> The definition of Reclamation's stewardship responsibility
as the owner of Federal facilities; and
<bullet> Application of Secretary Norton's 4 Cs philosophy
(conservation through communication, consultation, and
cooperation) to help multiple stakeholders combine perspectives
in problem-solving efforts.
2003 BIOLOGICAL OPINION FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Question 26. The water forecast for the Rio Grande Basin this year
is bleak. The snow packs in the basin are at 30 percent of average for
this time of year. The USBR is tasked with providing minimum flow
requirements in order to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Service 2003
Biological Opinion. Some have speculated that, if this drought
continues, the USBR may have difficulty meeting this obligation.
In light of potential water shortages, how will the USBR meet these
obligations with the deceased budget proposed by the administration,
particularly when the cost of water may increase significantly?
Answer. Reclamation will continue to meet the requirements of the
biological opinion with the funds provided. Reclamation will adjust
priorities and seek to reprogram money, if necessary, and where
practicable to meet the biological opinion requirements.
Question 27. San Juan Chama Project water cannot be used for
meeting the requirements of the ESA unless it is acquired by a
``willing sellor or lessor''. If water cannot be acquired from project
contractors, where do you anticipate you will get the water to meet the
requirements of the ESA?
Answer. We do not believe that this will be a problem as we
continue to acquire water from willing sellers. In addition, the City
of Albuquerque has offered to make additional water available to us
which will further the management of river flows to meet the needs of
all Middle Rio Grande water users, including endangered species.
Question 28. In general, what are you doing to address this
potential problem?
Answer. As noted above, we do not anticipate that water
availability will be a problem, but we will continue to monitor the
situation. For the long-term, we are engage in discussions with the
State and the Corps of Engineers to meet the needs of the users. Also,
we are working with the collaborative program in establishing a long-
term plan to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow.
COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT
Question 29. As you know, the seven basin states recently reached
agreement on a draft management plan for the Colorado River in order to
minimize shortages in the Lower Basin and reduce the risk of
curtailment in the Upper Basin. It is my understanding that this plan
will require further refinement but is a good step towards addressing
this often-contentious issue. I appreciate your leadership in the
matter.
When do you anticipate that the public comment period will be
completed and you will be able to sign-off on a final plan?
Answer. The Department is conducting a formal NEPA process,
including preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to
address these issues. The Basin States' proposal is being considered
along with other information collected during the public scoping
process in development of the alternatives in the EIS.
We anticipate publishing a scoping report by the end of March 2006,
a draft EIS in December 2006, and a Record of Decision by December
2007. The Bureau of Reclamation will continue to solicit and accept
public comments throughout the EIS process.
Question 30. What additions or refinements to this plan will be
necessary before the administration is able to implement the plan?
Answer. Since we will be continuing analysis of the alternatives
for the EIS in the upcoming months, we have not yet determined
necessary additions or refinements for proposals received during the
scoping process. We will continue to use a public process as details
are developed, and all refinements will be fully vetted with the
public.
Question 31. What is the status of the implementation of the
Colorado surplus plan developed several years ago?
Answer. In 2001, the Department adopted Interim Surplus Guidelines
(66 Fed. Reg. 7772) that are used by the Secretary in making annual
determinations regarding the delivery of water to the Lower Division
States based on conditions in Lake Mead. Since their adoption, these
Interim Surplus Guidelines have been utilized in the development of
Annual Operating Plans for the Colorado River. However, due to the
known drought conditions, the Lower Division States have not requested
surplus water in recent years.
Question 32. How do you plan to implement the recommendations of
the shortage plan, particularly the suggestions for increasing water
available in the Colorado River?
Answer. The States' recommendations will be included along with
other proposals in the alternatives analyzed in the EIS. Details
regarding implementation will be developed as we continue the EIS
process.
The EIS's Record of Decision will set final guidelines and
management strategies that will provide guidance for the Secretary's
decisions in developing Annual Operating Plans for the Colorado River
and afford water users greater certainty and flexibility in meeting
their future water demands.
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 33. The administration's budget request seems to scale
back significantly federal involvement in western water resources
needs. The President's budget proposes $971.6 million, a 13 percent cut
for the USBR for FY 2007. The average USBR project is over 50 years-old
and some projects are over 100 years-old. In many instances, projects
have exceeded their anticipated life. This has resulted in great
operations, maintenance and rehabilitation obligations.
This is particularly discouraging when one considers the current
state of affairs, particularly in the southwestern United States. Snow
pack in the middle Rio Grande Valley is currently at one third of
average for this time of year.
How does the administration anticipate that is will be able to meet
these increasingly large operations and maintenance obligations with
the budget you propose?
Answer. The administration's budget is sufficient to meet
Reclamation's operations and maintenance needs. The Department and the
Bureau of Reclamation are committed to working with the Bureau's
customers, States, Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to
balance and provide for the mix of water resource needs in 2006 and
beyond. Additionally, during the administration's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) review of Reclamation's Operations and Maintenance
Program, the long-term maintenance and rehabilitation of Reclamation's
aging facilities was highlighted as a major concern; one of the PART
follow-up actions is that the administration will ``[d]evelop a
comprehensive, long-term strategy to operate, maintain, and
rehabilitate Reclamation facilities''. Developing a comprehensive
solution to this long-term challenge will not happen overnight, but
proactively addressing these issues is a priority for the
administration.
Question 34. Noting the average age of USBR infrastructure, are you
concerned with the possibility of catastrophic dam failure?
Answer. Reclamation is committed to taking all actions necessary to
safeguard against the hazard of dam failure. Reclamation's Safety of
Dams (SOD) program works to ensure that all Reclamation dams are
operated and maintained in a safe manner. The program carries out
inspections for safety deficiencies, performs analyses utilizing
current technologies and designs, and requires corrective actions if
needed based on current engineering practices.
The SOD program focuses on evaluating and implementing actions to
resolve safety concerns at Reclamation dams. Under this program,
Reclamation identifies and accomplishes needed corrective action on
Reclamation dams. The selected course of action relies on assessments
of risks and liabilities with environmental and public involvement
input to the decision making process. The 2005 PART assessment of
Reclamation's SOD program rated it `Effective', and found that, ``[T]he
program is forward-thinking, well-managed, and is a leader in risk-
based dam safety''. Our program staff works closely with outside
experts to provide constructive feedback to help maintain the program's
status as a leader in the dam safety field.
Question 35. How is the Department dealing with the drought
situation in the Southwest? Is Interior coordinating with any other
federal agencies to address this problem?
Answer. As discussed in detail in the answers to questions 44 and
45, Reclamation is working with States and other stakeholders to update
management of the Colorado River. This will have long-term implications
in addressing water scarcity in the region.
The Department collaborates closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to meet
the water supply requirements of irrigators, municipalities, and others
while still taking necessary steps to meet the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act throughout the West. An example of this type of
collaboration (which also includes States and other entities) is the
Multi Species Conservation Program in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Reclamation is working with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service to assess the drought conditions across the West and coordinate
programs of both agencies to maximize benefits in those areas of the
West most in need. Additionally, Reclamation collaborates with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, most recently through an interagency
Memorandum of Understanding to enhance our historic partnership.
Recently, Reclamation and the Corps worked closely to manage flooding
in the Colorado River tributaries in Arizona, effectively minimizing
spill of any unregulated water to Mexico and maximizing storage in Lake
Mead.
At the policy level, Reclamation and the other Federal agencies
involved in water resources research and development are also working
under the guidance of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy to coordinate Federal R&D for water availability to ensure an
adequate water supply for the Nation's future.
MINNOW SANCTUARY
Question 36. The Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives specified in
the 2003 Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion on the Rio
Grande Silvery Minnow required the construction of two minnow refugia.
In order to comply with this mandate, I have been working with the USBR
Albuquerque Area Office to construct a minnow sanctuary. The Federal
government has provided money for this purpose.
What is the status of the pre-construction activities underway?
Answer. Design work on the silvery minnow sanctuary is in the final
stages. All environmental compliance and permits required for
construction are in hand. Construction of the sanctuary began February
1, 2006, and will be completed by October 31, 2006.
Question 37. Assuming appropriations are made available for the
project how long do you estimate it will take to complete the project?
Answer. Construction of the sanctuary began February 1, 2006, and
will be completed by October 31, 2006.
TITLE XVI
Question 38. As you are aware, Congress authorized numerous Title
XVI recycling and reuse projects, despite the administration's stated
objections to the program and a backlog of authorized but unfunded
process. In the past, Commissioner Keys appeared before this Committee
and testified that the program has a 15-year funding backlog. Several
days ago, Senator Murkowski held a hearing on these issues before the
Water and Power Subcommittee.
Despite Congressional authorization for some 30 Title XVI projects,
the administration has requested only $1 million for Title XVI
projects.
How does the administration determine which authorized projects to
fund?
Answer. The administration's 2007 budget proposes $10.1 million for
the Title XVI program, including funding for individual projects and
program management. Of the 32 specific projects authorized to date
under Title XVI, 21 have received funding. Of these, nine have been
included in the President's budget request. Including anticipated
expenditures during FY 2006, approximately $325 million will have been
expended by Reclamation on these authorized projects by the end of the
current fiscal year. Three of the projects have been funded to the full
extent of their authorization. Two more should be fully funded in 2006.
The administration has generally confined its funding requests to
previously budgeted projects. The principle exception to this occurred
in FY 2000, when Reclamation evaluated and ranked unfunded authorized
projects for the purpose of prioritizing available construction funding
for four new starts. Reclamation has not used a competitive process to
allocate funds since FY 2000.
Question 39. What additional criteria do you believe should be
imposed, on the program? Does the administration anticipate that it
will submit a bill for introduction?
Answer. The administration is currently developing a legislative
proposal to bring needed reforms to Title XVI. The proposal aims to
create a framework under which Title XVI projects will be screened to
ensure they complement Reclamation's mission, rather than diminishing
Reclamation's ongoing core programs. Among the ranking criteria that
the program will look at would be whether the project would alleviate
water conflict, add or diversify water supply in a ``hot spot'' area,
and be able to be brought on-line within a reasonable timeframe. The
administration is also interested in improving the transparency of
funded progress, increasing accountability for how funds are spent, and
improving criteria for project development and design.
Question 40. As you know, a number of Title XVI projects have been
authorized for federal assistance. What criteria does the Department
use for either supporting or not supporting projects authorized to
receive federal assistance?
Answer. As stated above, the administration has generally requested
funding only for projects that have already received Federal funding.
In FY 2000, Reclamation evaluated and ranked unfunded authorized
projects to prioritize available construction funding for four new
starts. We prioritized projects according to how much water would be
produced, the extent to which the project would prevent conflict over
water, whether the project could be completed within a reasonable
timeframe, and whether the project could be sustainably operated and
maintained by the project sponsor.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PUEBLO WATER DELIVERY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 41. Pursuant to a 1981 agreement, the USBR is responsible
for releasing water to meet the Pueblos ``prior and paramount'' rights.
In the 1981 agreement, the BIA was also required to ensure that these
obligations were met. The six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos rely on Federal
appropriations to the Middle Rio Grande Project to rehabilitate and
otherwise keep in working order infrastructure to provide their
statutorily-created water rights. The Pueblos have questioned if the
USBR is delivering water consistent with the 1981 agreement and has
questioned if the DOI is fulfilling its trust responsibility.
How does the DOI plan to resolve the conflict that has arisen
between the BIA, USBR and Pueblos?
Answer. The Department believes that such conflict no longer
exists, and we note that there is a continuing and ongoing dialogue
between the Department and its bureaus and the Pueblos.
Question 42. How does the USBR plan to upgrade and maintain the
Pueblo water delivery infrastructure? Is funding available for these
purposes through Water 2025 or other grants? How do you plan to meet
these trust responsibilities, particularly in light of a proposed
decrease in funding for the Middle Rio Grande Project?
Answer. Portions of the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos irrigation
infrastructure fall within the boundaries of the Middle Rio Grande
Project and can be served by Reclamation. Through fiscal year 2005, the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District received about $3 million under
Water 2025 for water conservation and infrastructure improvements. This
funding can be used throughout the District, including project
facilities serving six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos.
In addition, the Department entered into a new agreement with
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District with respect to project service
to the Pueblos. Through the development of annual work plans and annual
appropriations to pay the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for
specified charges, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District will
perform operations, maintenance, and betterment work on the facilities
serving Pueblo lands.
Through Reclamation's Native American Program, Reclamation has
funded a variety of small infrastructure improvement projects for
pueblos in New Mexico. Reclamation continues to look for opportunities
using existing authority and funding to upgrade Pueblo facilities.
As the trustee for American Indian lands and funds as well as water
rights, Interior is committed to protecting trust assets and fulfilling
our trust responsibilities to individual and tribal trust
beneficiaries.
Question 43. Do you believe that the MRGCD is showing partiality to
MRGCD lands as opposed to Pueblo lands when performing operation and
maintenance activities with funds made available for the Middle Rio
Grande Project?
Answer. To our knowledge, no assessment has been carried out that
provides information that would allow the Bureau to make such a
determination.
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT
Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning and
oversight, the A-LP project is now proceeding at an acceptable rate.
The President's budget calls for $57 million for the project in FY
2007. However, some of the project beneficiaries claim that the project
requires $75 million in FY 2007 to keep it on schedule. Additionally,
some of the non-Indian project beneficiaries claim the DOI may require
an increased non-Indian contribution over what was originally
contemplated.
This project is of great importance to the communities of northern
New Mexico and southern Colorado.
Question 44. Do you believe that the $57 million requested by the
administration is adequate to keep the project on schedule?
Answer. The Project schedule was revised in December 2005 based on
the current enacted amount of $56 million for FY 2006. The schedule
reflects revised estimated construction completion, including filling
of the reservoir, in the winter of 2012; Project closeout is estimated
for 2013. This revised schedule results in an estimated construction
completion schedule approximately 1 to 1\1/2\ years longer than was
anticipated when the revised Construction Cost Estimate was prepared in
2003. The amount requested by the administration will provide funding
to continue construction of two of the Project's major features, Ridges
Basin Dam and the Durango Pumping Plant, and to begin construction of a
third major feature, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit. This funding level
will also allow preconstruction activities on the Navajo Nation
Municipal Pipeline and County Road 211 Relocation to continue.
Question 45. What precautions are being taken to ensure that there
are not further cost overruns with the project?
Answer. We have refined and streamlined reporting within
Reclamation for the ALP. The ALP Construction Office is responsible for
all matters pertaining to the construction of the project. This office
is managed by a Project Construction Engineer who reports directly to
the Regional Director of the Upper Colorado Region in Salt Lake City,
Utah. The construction office continually evaluates ways to save costs
and still maintain the project features. Cost tracking procedures
implemented in 2004 now relate all project costs to the cost estimate
(indexed for inflation) for early detection of problems. This cost
information is shared with the Project Sponsors on a monthly basis.
Question 46. Is it true that the DOI may require additional funds
from the non-Indian participants above the amount required in the cost-
allocation contract? If so, how are you able to amend existing
contracts without agreement by the contractors?
Answer. Contracts would not be amended without agreement by the
Contractors. However, existing contracts allow for increases in
repayment amounts if certain triggering conditions are met. These
conditions include that a final cost allocation be made following
completion of construction and that additional repayment only be
warranted for reasonable and unforeseen costs as determined in
consultation with the repayment entities. Furthermore, the Secretary is
authorized to forgive the obligation of the non-Indian sponsors for the
increase in estimated total project costs that occurred in 2003.
Question 47. What approaches has the USBR taken its communications
with stakeholders regarding the A-LP project that may be applicable to
other projects?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation has adopted the following
measures to improve its working relationship with the Animas La Plata
Project stakeholders. These measures, which are consistent with the 4
Cs philosophy, may be applicable to other projects.
<bullet> Reclamation holds regularly scheduled meetings with the
Project stakeholders to improve communications and trust among
the involved parties.
<bullet> Reclamation has increased the level of coordination and
consultation with the project stakeholders and developed formal
consultation protocols to allow stakeholders to have input into
decisions affecting the overall cost of the Project.
<bullet> Reclamation has developed a system to allow for open and
complete cost accountability.
R&D IN WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Question 48. Drought and population growth in the western U.S.
requires that we make more efficient use of water and develop
technologies to make use of previously impaired or unusable water.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government funded extensive
research in water technology which resulted in reverse osmosis-the
desalination technique most widely used today.
I believe that the federal government should renew its investment
in water treatment technology. Toward this end, I have funded
construction of a Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development
Center in New Mexico. The President's budget requests only $25,000 for
the Desalination and Water Purification Research Program.
Does this significant cut proposed by the administration indicate
that, from your perspective, that desalination should not be undertaken
by the USBR?
Answer. The President's budget requests $5.2 million for
Reclamation's desalination research and development (R&D) programs. The
Secretary's Water 2025 program identifies advanced water treatment
technologies, including but not limited to desalination, as one of the
key tools to manage scarce water resources because of the potential it
offers to expand usable water supplies. The FY07 administration budget
includes funding for the Tularosa Basin facility, to be renamed the
Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility, in the
Water 2025 advanced water purification/desalination request. In
contrast, in FY06 Congress appropriated funds under the Desalination
and Water Purification Research Program. Full operations of the
Tularosa facility are expected to be initiated in FY07. Approximately
$1.9 million of the $2.7 million requested for desalination research
under the Water 2025 Program will support operations at the Tularosa
facility. The balance ($800k) is for Reclamation's external,
competitive Research and Development program, prioritizing research at
the Tularosa facility.
Question 49. As you are aware, the authority for the USBR's Water
Desalination Research and Development Act of 1996 was extended through
FY 2006. Does the administration support a greater extension of this
authority? If so, what changes to the authority do you believe are
necessary?
Answer. The administration's budget proposes extending this
authority by one year. We are considering whether it should be revised
and extended, in the context of broader water development issues.
Question 50. What is the status of the construction activities at
the Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development Center in New
Mexico? How will the President's request affect construction of the
facility?
Answer. As discussed in response to question 48, construction is
scheduled to be completed and full operation of the Tularosa facility
should begin in FY07.
Question 51. Assuming appropriations are made available for the
project, how long do you estimate it will take to complete the project?
Answer. Since construction is scheduled to be completed in FY07,
the FY07 request emphasizes start-up operations including hiring an
external organization to operate the facility under Reclamation
direction and starting initial Research and Development activities. The
facility is currently equipped to undertake research projects and in
2005 began with an experimental unit developed by the Office of Naval
Research.
ESA COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM
Question 52. In order to address endangered species issues in the
Middle Rio Grande Valley, I established the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program. As you are aware, this
provides a forum for all interested parties to discuss ways to address
endangered species issues in a cooperative way and has been largely
successful in reaching consensus on how to meet the requirements of the
2003 Biological Opinion. We recently shifted a fair amount of
responsibility from the Corps of Engineers to the USBR.
Do you believe that the USBR is capable of undertaking this reduced
work load?
Answer. Yes. The Bureau continues to work toward the transition
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps has asked
Reclamation to manage the request for proposal and award process for FY
2006. On October 1, 2005, Reclamation implemented a streamlined
contracting process which remains on schedule. The Corps is expected to
assume responsibility for the proposal and award process in FY 2007.
Question 53. How is compliance with the 2003 Biological Opinion
proceeding? Do you feel that adequate funds for this purpose are
included in the President's budget request?
Answer. Yes, funding for FY 2007 will enable Reclamation to meet
the water requirements of the BiOp, including acquisition and
management of supplemental water and low flow conveyance channel
pumping. This funding will also support the transfer of administrative
functions to the Corps, allow the Bureau to continue administration of
more than 90 contracts, grants, cooperative and interagency agreements,
including Indian Self Determination Act contracts, and to continue to
participate on the Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Program
Implementation Team, and various technical work groups.
Question 54. What construction activities required by the 2003
Biological Opinion do you anticipate will be completed in Fiscal Year
2006?
Answer. Design work on the silvery minnow sanctuary is in the final
stages. All environmental compliance and permits required for
construction are in hand, and construction of the sanctuary began
February 1, 2006. We expect construction to be completed by October 31,
2006. In addition, while they will not necessarily be completed in FY
2006, a number of habitat restoration projects, funded through the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, are also
underway and will make substantial progress toward completion during
this fiscal year.
WATER 2025
Question 55. One area in the USBR budget request where the
President is proposing and increase is in the Water 2025 program. The
budget requests $14.5 million for Water 2025, a $9.6 million increase
from the FY06 enacted level. This is nearly a 300 percent increase over
last year's enacted level. As you know, this program has not been
authorized.
After three years, what are some of the major accomplishments of
the Water 2025? Specifically, how have funds that have been
appropriated for the program reduced conflict among water users?
Answer. There was an overwhelming response to the Water 2025
Challenge Grant Program in FY 2004 and FY 2005, with Reclamation
receiving over 100 proposals each year. The projects funded by Water
2025 create new water banks, promote the use of advanced technology to
improve water management, and increase collaboration among Federal,
State, tribal and local organizations. In FY 2005, six Western States
(Idaho, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico) were awarded
Challenge Grants to address critical water management issues. The
projects funded under these challenge grants reduce conflict among
water users by encouraging cooperation among diverse stakeholders and
by increasing flexibility of water use and enabling local stakeholders
to more efficiently manage water resources. One particularly successful
project is a partnership between the Central Oregon Irrigation
District, seven irrigation districts, six cities, three tribes, and the
Deschutes Resource Conservancy to establish a basin-wide water market
and bank to help meet existing water needs in a water short basin.
Another project, managed by the Sevier River Water Users Association in
Utah, will expand a web-based, real-time flow monitoring system to
better manage water deliveries in a five-county area. This project
could ultimately save as much as 22,500 acre-feet of water per year.
The program is scheduled to be evaluated under the PART process in
2007. In anticipation of that effort, we are currently in the process
of clarifying program goals and developing performance measures to help
track achievement of those goals.
Question 56. The Science and Technology Program and the Title XVI
program have some similarities. Do you believe that activities
authorized by both programs should be combined into one authority? Is
there unnecessary duplication among the two programs?
Answer. The programs do not duplicate activities and should not be
combined. The Science and Technology Program is an internal, applied
Research and Development (R&D) program focused on the full range of
water resource challenges facing the Bureau of Reclamation. This
program allows Reclamation experts and resource managers to work
collaboratively with stakeholders in western water management issues.
The program is Reclamation-wide and uses a competitive, merit-based
process to select R&D that is conducted under four primary focus areas:
(1) Improving Water Delivery Reliability, (2) Improving Water and Power
Infrastructure Reliability, (3) Improving Water Operations Decision
Support, and (4) Advancing Water Supply and Efficiency Technologies.
A Reclamation program more closely tied to desalination is the
Desalination and Water Purification Research Program (DWPR). The DWPR
program is focused on funding external research in desalination
technologies through the award of competitive, merit-based, cooperative
agreements authorized under the Desalination Research and Development
Act of 1996, which expires at the end of 2006. R&D emphasis under the
DWPR program is on lowering desalination costs, reducing energy
consumption, and finding more effective ways to manage concentrate.
Like Title XVI, DWPR funds external R&D but does not fund internal R&D.
The authority for desalination research under Title XVI complements
the DWPR program by providing authority for research and demonstration
projects geared toward the development of appropriate treatment
technologies for the reclamation of municipal, industrial, domestic,
and agricultural wastewater, as well as naturally impaired ground and
surface water. These authorities are used in combination by Reclamation
in developing a research program that is in keeping with national
priorities and needs.
We note that both of these programs have undergone evaluation under
the PART process, and combining these programs was not one of the
resulting recommendations. However, the administration looks forward to
working with the Congress to make needed reforms to the Title XVI
program.
Question 57. As you know, Reclamation States are governed by the
prior appropriation doctrine. An effect of the doctrine is that it
inherently discourages conservation. How are you ensuring that the
grants made available under the program actually result in a net gain
of water?
Answer. As this question suggests, the prior appropriation doctrine
as it is applied in many States does not provide optimal incentives to
holders of appropriative rights to conserve water and make it available
for other users within a basin. This is one reason that a program like
Water 2025 can make a difference. Water 2025 provides incentives for
local stakeholders to overcome their differences and enter into
partnerships that will qualify them for Challenge Grants under the
program. One of the criteria that Reclamation looks at in awarding
grants is the amount of water conserved as a percent of average annual
supply.
Question 58. Do you plan to submit legislation to Congress that
would authorize the Water 2025 program?
Answer. The Department of the Interior transmitted the
administration's proposed permanent authorizing language for Water 2025
to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House on March 7,
2006.
RURAL WATER
Question 59. Staff from the Department of the Interior worked with
my staff very closely on a rural water bill which, in November of last
year, passed the full Senate. It is my understanding that the House
Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the bill this spring. The
President's budget proposes a $14 million, 17 percent decrease for
currently-authorized rural water projects.
What is the administration's position on the loan guarantee program
contained in S. 895? Do you think it would be of benefit to currently
authorized rural water programs and for existing USBR infrastructure?
Answer. The administration is still evaluating the value of a loan
guarantee program, in the context of Federal budget constraints as well
as the broader challenges facing Reclamation and other water users in
addressing the challenges posed by aging infrastructure. A loan
guarantee program is one mechanism that might be used to help address
the challenges posed by aging infrastructure. We want to proceed
deliberately on this important issue.
Question 60. When do you anticipate that you will have a review
prepared on the most recent design of the Eastern New Mexico pipeline?
Are additional appropriations necessary for this purpose?
Answer. Reclamation could prepare a review of the proposed
pipeline's engineering design by mid-April. However, this design and
the associated cost estimates submitted by the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water Authority's consultant are viewed as preliminary. Additional
appropriations will not be required to review the preliminary design,
but additional work would be needed to develop a complete feasibility
analysis and report.
U.S. Geological Survey
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Question 61. Once again, the administration proposes to terminate
funding for the 54 State Based Water Resources Research Institutes
(``WRRI'') for only a $6.4 million savings. This would eliminate a
critical program for my state of New Mexico.
How can the administration justify the elimination of the WRRI
institutes?
Answer. The State Water Resources Research Institutes have been
highly successful in leveraging the USGS grants under the Water
Resources Research Act Program with other Federal and non-Federal
funding. The Department considers this program a success, as the
initial grants from the Department were considered implementation
funding for the Institutes. Today, the Department anticipates that the
majority of these Institutes will be able to continue operations
without Federal grant funding, due to the successful partnerships that
the Institutes have been able to make with others.
WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS
Question 62. The administration's budget notes that the Cooperative
Water program will initiate approximately $6 million in new water
studies.
What is the focus of these studies?
Answer. The $6 million is for new studies beginning in FY 2007.
Specific new Cooperative projects for FY 2007 will not be negotiated
with cooperators until closer to the end of FY 2006. This is common
practice. Since the cooperators provide two-thirds of the funding for
the program, we do not unilaterally set program priorities, but rather
work with them to consider their needs for the coming year along with
our own.
In consultation with local and regional managers, external
cooperators, and the interagency Advisory Committee on Water
Information, the USGS has identified seven water-related issues for FY
2006 and 2007 that closely align with USGS mission goals that most
require USGS involvement at State and local levels. Issues emphasized
include: hydrologic hazards; water quality; hydrologic data networks;
water availability and use; wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries;
water resources issues in the coastal zone; and environmental effects
on human health. Studies in these areas will be conducted in FY 2007;
specific study locations and topics will be determined in consultation
with the program's 1,400 State, local, municipal, and tribal
cooperators.
Question 63. Will USGS be examining any western water issues?
Answer. As I mentioned above, we do not yet know what studies will
be initiated in FY 2007.
MINERALS RESOURCES PROGRAM
Question 64. The administration's FY 2007 budget seeks to reduce
the Mineral Resources Program by $22.9 million from FY 2006 levels in
order to refocus the program on activities that are inherently
governmental.
Why has the administration opted to reduce funding for this program
when numerous non-federal users rely on the critical information
produced by the USGS?
Answer. The administration believes the expertise exists at both
State and university levels to take on some of this work. Given this
fact, this work is less of a priority for USGS under current and
foreseeable budget constraints.
National Park Service
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET DECREASE
Question 65. The administration's FY 2007 budget for the National
Park Service is $100 million less than FY 2006. That represents a 5
percent decrease in funding.
What is the primary area or program affected most by the reduction
in NPS budget?
Answer. The proposed reduction in the line-item construction
funding account of approximately $85 million is the largest single
reduction to NPS funding in 2007. In FY 2007, NPS will focus on
deferred maintenance instead of new construction.
Question 66. Can we expect to see any reduction in park operations
or visitor services as a result of the budget cuts?
Answer. The 2007 budget request maintains the funding levels
provided in the 2006 appropriation, which included a net increase of
more than $24.6 million over 2005 park base funding. The 2007 budget
request is a net increase of $23.4 million above the 2006 enacted
level, which includes increases for salaries, benefits, and other fixed
costs.
The 2007 budget also proposes key investments in visitor services,
health and safety, and law enforcement programs that impact the visitor
experience. The budget includes an increase of $250,000 to strengthen
the Service's capability to understand opinions about parks by
expanding and refining the visitor services survey program. The budget
also includes $500,000 for park-based special agents that will provide
investigative support to park ranger staffs in parks. In addition,
$750,000 is included to centrally fund the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center. An increase of $441,000 is requested to allow NPS to
adequately respond to outbreaks and disease transmissions, as well as
conduct safety evaluations of park food, drinking water, wastewater and
vector-borne disease risks in the parks.
Funding these increases, in conjunction with the combined
implementation of ongoing management improvements, will ensure the
continuation of enhancements to visitors and other services provided in
2006
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
Question 67. Twenty-seven National Heritage Areas have been
designated by Congress since 1985. Each area is locally managed and
eligible to receive up to $1 million per year in federal funding
through the National Park Service budget. In the FY 2007 budget, DOI
has moved funding for National Heritage Areas from Recreation and
Preservation to the Historic Preservation Fund.
Does the National Historic Preservation Act allow you to use the
Historic Preservation Fund to pay for National Heritage Areas?
Answer. We believe that the appropriation language submitted with
the President's budget would provide sufficient authority.
Question 68. What changes should we make to National Heritage Areas
to benefit DOI management and oversight?
Answer. For many years, the Department has strongly supported
legislation to establish a much-needed framework for the national
heritage area program. We believe such program legislation should
ensure that national heritage areas preserve nationally important
natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources through the
creation of partnerships among Federal, State and local entities.
National heritage areas should be locally driven, initiated, and
managed by the people who live there and should not impose Federal
zoning, land use controls or require land acquisition. Program
legislation should require that a study be conducted for every proposed
national heritage area and that the study be evaluated against
legislatively established criteria prior to designation. We also should
evaluate mechanisms to assist communities in achieving self sufficiency
in funding after an initial Federal investment and effectively and
efficiently managing their national heritage areas.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question 69. The administration estimated the maintenance backlog
would require approximately $4.9 billion to correct.
What type of long range program have you implemented to track the
maintenance backlog and prioritize future maintenance requirements?
Answer. The NPS is transforming the agency's approach to managing
its facilities. During the past four years, NPS has been implementing
an innovative asset management program focused on developing, for the
first time, a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the
agency's asset base. Parks have completed, for the first time, a
prioritization of their asset inventory. Condition assessments on eight
industry-standard assets (such as buildings, water systems, roads and
trails) will be completed at all parks by the end of 2006. This shift
in emphasis for the agency is based on management reforms and
performance measures, and features a state-of-the-art software system.
These new tools will allow NPS to have a better understanding of the
true cost of ownership, including recurring operational costs of the
improvements found in parks. Once condition assessments are completed,
NPS will have a better understanding of the current deferred
maintenance needs.
Question 70. What progress has the National Park Service made in
the past five years to address the maintenance backlog and how much
funding do you estimate it will take to complete the remainder of the
effort?
Answer. During the past four years, the initial implementation
phase of the NPS asset management program focused on conducting a full
asset inventory; establishing a Service-wide baseline for facility
conditions; utilizing the facility condition index and the asset
priority index to target annual appropriations to improve the condition
of high priority facilities Service-wide. The National Park Service now
has information about its assets that it has never had before:
systematic information about its inventory, its value, its current
condition, and the level of investment required to sustain it over
time. All parks have completed preliminary condition assessments, and
NPS is on track to have comprehensive condition assessments completed
by the end of FY 2006. Since 2002, the administration has invested
nearly $4.7 billion and undertaken nearly 6,000 facility improvement
projects within the national parks. By the conclusion of FY 2006, NPS
will complete the initial round of comprehensive assessments
Servicewide and establish a comprehensive FCI for all eight industry-
standard assets.
The overall goal is not to completely eliminate all deferred
maintenance. Rather, using proven industry standards, the goal is to
get the overall inventory to a point where it's in acceptable
condition, using performance measures to prioritize investments. To do
that requires thoughtful investment strategies that are based on
realistic scenarios and outcomes.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SHARE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT
ACT FUNDS
Question 71. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
authorizes the sale of certain lands in Nevada and the use of revenue
from the sale for conservation projects in the state. The list of
approved projects for 2006 includes over $80 million for National parks
in Nevada, mostly at Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
How is money from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
accounted for in the budget and is any of the money being used to
correct the maintenance backlog in our national parks?
Answer. The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act requires
that land sale proceeds be deposited in an interest bearing account
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Prior to April 2005, the
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
U.S. Forest Service (FS) submitted Intergovernmental Orders and task
orders to BLM's National Business Center to obligate funds for
projects. Upon completion of the projects or on a quarterly basis,
these agencies submitted detailed documentation of expenditures
requesting approval for reimbursement.
In April 2005, the Office of Management and Budget approved the
establishment of an allocation account for the SNPLMA program. This
allocation account is a delegation, authorized in law, by one agency of
its authority to obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another
agency. When an agency makes such a delegation, the Department of the
Treasury establishes a subsidiary account called a ``transfer
appropriation account', and the receiving agency may obligate up to the
amount included in the account.
The transfer process consists of a series of five distinct steps,
following notification of availability of funds: Agency request;
Request for review and approval; Cash availability determination;
Transfer of Funds; and Treasury approval. When the BLM National
Business Center receives the treasury confirmation from the BLM
Washington Office Budget Group, the transfer is recorded in the Federal
Financial System (FFS) which is the bureau's official accounting
records.
As with any appropriated Federal funding, each agency is
responsible for detailed accounting of the SNPLMA funds.
SNPLMA candidate projects are prepared and submitted by eligible
entities, including the National Park Service, Lake Mead NRA. All
projects are posted on the internet for public review and comments.
Projects are ranked according to defined selection criteria, first by a
``Sub-Group'' for the funding category. Sub-Group recommendations and
public comment are submitted to a ``Working Group'' for additional
review. Working Group recommendations are submitted to an ``Executive
Committee'' for final review and recommendation to the Secretary. The
Secretary is the deciding official.
Round 6 SNPLMA Projects
Lake Mead National Recreation Area Round 6 SNPLMA approved capital
improvement projects included approximately:
<bullet> $41 million for deferred maintenance;
<bullet> $17.7 million to maintain visitor access during record low
water levels; and
<bullet> $4.5 million for visitor facility and resource enhancement
Lake Mead National Recreation SNPLMA projects have focused
primarily on existing facilities, deferred maintenance, and emergency
low water needs. Over $25 million of the above approved funding is
allocated for deferred maintenance needs directly associated with
deficient water and wastewater utility systems. Funding is also
addressing deteriorated launch ramps, restrooms, picnic facilities, and
campgrounds. Emergency low water projects include: relocation of water
intakes, positioning of navigational aids, extension of dirt roads to
ensure continued lake access, and the relocation of courtesy docks.
Finally, and to a much lesser degree, funding is supporting a few
facility enhancement projects.
Approximately $35 million was approved for interagency Conservation
Initiatives. Interagency Conservation Initiatives generally involve the
NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS. Interagency initiatives include: resource
protection, Take Pride litter and desert dumping, habitat restoration,
capacity building through volunteers and alternative work forces and
cultural site stewardship. In addition, Lake Mead National Recreation
Area received approximately $5 million for a three-year interagency
water quality monitoring and assessment program.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIA DRUNK DRIVING POLICY
Question 72. Madam Secretary, I am told by staff that the BIA has
been working on the development and release of a new policy related to
employees that are caught driving under the influence. I wrote you in
early February to urge the Department to finalize and release the new
policy as-soon-as possible.
My state has the unfortunate reputation of having the highest
fatality rate from DUI crashes in the nation. The BIA has had the
unfortunate reputation of having allowed employees with DUI's on their
driving records to continue to drive BIA vehicles. In fact, a number of
employees have been involved in crashes that killed private citizens. I
think the release of this new policy is long overdue and I don't
understand why it has take so long for the BIA and the Department to
respond to the fatalities that occurred nearly two years ago.
What is the status of the new policy?
Answer. On January 18, 2006, the Department issued a new
Departmental Manual Chapter on Discipline and Adverse Actions, which
included a new Table of Offenses and Penalties for the entire
Department. This new table includes a specific charge of ``Operating a
Government vehicle/aircraft while under the influence of alcohol'' with
a penalty that ranges from a 30 day suspension to removal for a first
offense and removal from service for a second offense.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is in the final stage of approving a
National Policy Memorandum that states mandatory requirements that must
be met before a BIA employee can operate a Government vehicle. These
requirements, among others, include:
<bullet> Having no pending citations for DWI/DUI, reckless driving,
or leaving the scene of an accident;
<bullet> Having no convictions for DWI/DUI, reckless driving, or
leaving the scene of an accident within a three-year period
immediately preceding their driving application; and
<bullet> Having no uncontested citations for DWI/DUI, reckless
driving, or leaving the scene of an accident within a three-
year period immediately preceding their driving application.
The BIA is in the final stage of incorporating management comments
into the draft memorandum. Once completed, the Indian Educators
Federation, American Federation of Teachers Union, Local 4524, will
have an opportunity to review and negotiate on the policy. The Union
will have 30 days to notify BIA as to whether they wish to bargain the
impact and implementation of the policy memorandum. Once this process
is completed, we will proceed to implement the terms of the policy
memorandum. We anticipate issuing the National Policy Memorandum within
the next 60 days.
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Question 73. Following the Committee's hearing on the Marshall
Islands nuclear compensation petition last year, your Department held a
meeting for Administration officials to hear in more detail from the
Marshall Islands. This meeting was an important first step in the
process. Since that meeting, there have been no additional follow-up
meetings with officials from the Marshall Islands and Department
officials.
Could you please describe what came out of that first meeting, and
what additional steps are being taken to address the concerns of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands?
Answer. Following up on the September 13, 2005, meeting which he
chaired Washington, D.C., Deputy Assistant Secretary David Cohen hosted
an interagency conference call on October 20, 2005,. The participants
represented the Departments of Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services
(HHS), the Interior and State. In order to move forward, Mr. Cohen
urged his colleagues to look at existing programs, e.g. HHS programs in
the Marshall Islands, DOE's work at Runit Dome and the division between
Energy's health and environmental components. Cost-out options and
analysis were requested for these issues and a renewal of the Section
177 health care program.
Question 74. On December 5, 2005, the President of the Republic of
the Marshall Islands sent a letter addressed to your office, and
forwarded a copy of that letter to our Committee.
Could you please provide me an overview of how the Department
intends to address the seven issues raised by President Note?
Answer. Of the seven points in President Note's December 5, 2005,
letter, the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) at Interior either is
handling or has handled three (items numbered 1, 3, and 7 of the
letter). Item number 2 is personal injury claims, which has not yet
been sufficiently developed. Item number 6 is the Department of Energy
program, which OIA does not handle. Item number 4 is not an OIA issue.
Item number 5 is the Section 177 health care program, which requires
close consultation among several Executive branch agencies and the
Congress. The three Interior items in President Note's letter are being
undertaken as follows:
<bullet> Health Care Needs. OIA has communicated to the proper
authorities in the Department of Health and Human Services
OIA's support for the short-term assignment of Stephen Ostroff,
M.D., of OIA's Honolulu office to explore an array of options
for the Marshall Islands to consider in addressing their health
care needs.
<bullet> Runit Dome. As Article VII, sentence one, of the Section 177
Subsidiary Agreement states, ``The Government of the United
States is relieved of and has no responsibility for, and the
Government of the Marshall Islands, . . . shall have and
exercise responsibility for, controlling the utilization of
areas in the Marshall Islands affected by the Nuclear Testing
Program.'' The administration interprets this language to
include Runit Dome.
<bullet> Land Claims. The OIA is arranging discussions among
appropriate Federal agencies and the mainland representatives
of the respective governments of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap,
and Utrik Atolls. To be reviewed are the land claims of the
governments of the atolls that are now before the Marshall
Islands' Nuclear Claims Tribunal.
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Talent
Question 1. I want to be certain that the proposed Interior budget
is sufficient to expeditiously carry out leasing Lease Sale Area 181
without any adverse impact on environmental oversight. Is it?
Answer. The FY 2007 budget request includes the necessary funding
for the MMS to conduct and complete the environmental analyses
necessary for the 2007 OCS lease sales and the 2007-2012 five-year
lease program, which includes a portion of the Sale 181 area.
Question 2. I also understand that there has been a recent press
report alleging that Bureau of Land Management has restricted the
ability of its own biologists to monitor wildlife damage caused by
surging energy drilling on federal land by keeping many wildlife
biologists out of the field doing paperwork on new drilling permits and
by diverting agency money intended for wildlife conservation to energy
programs. The story claims that the BLM has compromised its ability to
deal with the environmental consequences of the drilling boom it is
encouraging on public lands.
I also want to be certain that the proposed Interior budget is
sufficient to ensure that the BLM is adequately staffed to
expeditiously process lease requests without compromising the usual
environmental oversight. Is it?
Answer. The BLM takes an interdisciplinary approach to approving
Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs), which includes the work of
wildlife biologists, archaeologists, hydrologists, and botanists.
Wildlife biologists are required to review APDs as part of their
overall wildlife responsibilities. The BLM enlists its wildlife
biologists during the permitting process to help complete environmental
analyses, assess potential impacts to wildlife, and develop appropriate
mitigation and best management practices for minimizing impacts to
wildlife. The agency then places limits on when drilling can occur and
takes numerous other measures to minimize the energy ``footprint'' on
public lands. The wildlife biologists performing this work in support
of APD processing charge their costs to the Oil and Gas Management
Program. The proposed budget provides sufficient staffing to ensure
that lease processing does not compromise BLM's environmental oversight
responsibilities.
The 2007 budget request includes an increase of $9.2 million to
support increased oil and gas activity in non-pilot offices (those not
eligible to receive mandatory funding authorized by section 365 of the
Energy Policy Act). Approximately $5 million of this increase for non-
pilot offices will support increased inspection, enforcement, and
monitoring efforts to better ensure that energy development is
conducted in an environmentally sound manner.
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Smith
FUNDING FOR THE IN-LIEU AND TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES (TFAS) PROGRAM
Question 1. In 1995, the Corps and BIA agreed to an MOU which set
forth procedures and funding plans for effectuating the transfer of
facilities, lands, and operations and maintenance funds for these In-
Lieu and TFAS sites. These facilities and sites are intended to serve
as replacements for lands and fishing access sites that were flooded by
development of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
The Corps has fulfilled its commitment of funding for necessary
construction as well as long-term O&M. BIA has not kept its commitment
of providing a minimum of $250,000 annually for enforcement, O&M, and
tribal training.
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) assumed
O&M responsibilities for the sites in 2004. This commission needs the
BIA funds to provide site and facilities protection and law enforcement
as well as O&M.
The Corps has offered to increase their contribution to O&M funding
provided that additional funds have technical justification, that
unused funds earn interest, and that BIA makes its contributions.
Why doesn't the FY2007 DOI budget provide the funds promised by BIA
in 1995?
Answer. The budget request for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999
included $250,000 for enforcement, O&M, and tribal training. However,
the final enacted budgets for these fiscal years did not include the
requested funding. Since the program did not receive the requested
funding and due to competing budget priorities, no further requests
have been made since 1999.
Question 2. The Commission believes that $535,000 is needed to
provide appropriate 24/7 enforcement and protection of these In-Lieu
and TFAS properties. Can the Department identify a source for such
funds?
Answer. During the 2007 budget formulation process, Indian Affairs
leadership, in consultation with the tribes, evaluated the purpose and
performance of each BIA program. The budget incorporates the highest
priority needs of the tribes on a nationwide basis and the programs
that meet the outcome goals of the Department's strategic plan.
Unfortunately, $535,000 in funding is not available for the Columbia
River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. While there are no easy solutions
in meeting all natural resources development needs, we are continuing
to evaluate ways to extend our resources to address recognized
priorities.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Question 3. The Bureau of Reclamation claims that one of its main
goals is to identify future water supply needs ``for consumptive and
non-consumptive purposes in Reclamation states in the next 25 years
which are likely to be unmet with existing resources.''
In light of this goal, can you explain to me why the feasibility
studies for the Tualatin Project and for Phase III of the Umatilla
Enhancement project are zeroed out in the budget request?
Answer. Reclamation's work on the Oregon Tualatin Valley Water
Supply Feasibility Study has involved coordination with the local
stakeholders over the past several years as they have refined their
definition of water supply alternatives to be assessed in an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This coordination effort has been
supported with funds made available through other sources, such as
Technical Assistance to the States. In addition, the local stakeholders
have funded Reclamation's completion of engineering and other technical
studies. As of February 2006, the stakeholders have focused on specific
alternatives to be carried forward in the EIS. Accordingly, the role,
scope, and schedule for Reclamation's future work will be reassessed.
Reclamation work on the Oregon Umatilla Basin Project Phase III
Feasibility Study has been scaled back to a minimal coordination effort
while the stakeholders (including Reclamation and the Department of the
Interior) continue to work toward consensus on the goals and scope of
the study. During this process, Reclamation's coordination efforts will
be funded from other sources, such as Technical Assistance to the
States.
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Bingaman
Departmental Management
Question 1. What role did the Department take in the response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita?
Answer. The Department responded immediately following the
hurricanes to assist in the Federal response as well as to respond to
protect and rebuild assets that sustained damage during the storms. The
Department participated in the Federal government's response under the
National Response Plan (NRP), which organizes the capabilities of the
Federal government around 15 Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). The
Department provided support to nearly all of these support functions.
In the immediate wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Interior
employees mobilized to help in disaster recovery efforts at Interior
installations and in their communities, assisting in rescue and
evacuation efforts, giving out food and water, and providing temporary
shelter for displaced people. In the days that followed, the Department
and its bureaus mobilized its resources which were dispatched to the
Gulf area as part of interagency response teams, teams assigned to
mission assignments through FEMA taskings, or as part of teams to
assist other agencies as requested. Interior employees from all eight
of the bureaus and many offices participated in responding to the
disaster by rescuing people, removing fallen trees and debris, provided
mapping expertise to locate individuals trapped in flooded water where
street signs were not available, providing engineering expertise to
repair the levees, evaluating offshore energy infrastructure, managing
staging areas for the distribution of supplies, protecting natural and
cultural resources and historic properties, and beginning to plan for
long-term recovery.
The Department dispatched incident management and incident response
teams to assess damages and take immediate actions to protect Federal
facilities and provide access. In the subsequent months, Interior
bureaus have conducted inventories of damages, continued to clean-up
debris, undertaken repairs, and resumed operations and visitor use
where possible.
Question 2. What damage occurred to Departmental facilities and
lands?
Answer. The Department has extensive land holdings along the Gulf
Coast and the hurricanes of the 2005 season impacted the Department's
refuges, parks, and facilities along the Gulf coast. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) had over 60 National Wildlife Refuges and other
Service owned facilities, and the National Park Service (NPS) had 13
parks affected by the hurricanes. The Minerals Management Service's
(MMS's) Gulf of Mexico Regional Office was damaged and MMS implemented
their continuity of operations plan to ensure that production in the
Gulf of Mexico was re-established as soon as possible following each of
the storms. The U.S. Geological Survey lost coastal and stream gages
throughout the impacted area.
The damage sustained by the Department's land holdings in the Gulf
Coast region was extensive. The winds from the hurricanes created
debris fields of downed trees and windblown debris within the refuges
and parks. The coastal refuges received the brunt of storm surges from
the hurricanes and the storm surges resulted in tons of debris being
carried onto the refuges. The debris came from the remnants of beach
communities as well as oil and gas facilities. It contains a mixture of
natural vegetation, construction debris, household items and some
hazardous materials. Many refuges in coastal areas rely on water
control structures such as levees and dikes to maintain coastal
wetlands for public use as well as for migratory birds, and to protect
freshwater from saltwater intrusion. Levees and dikes in the refuges in
Louisiana and Florida were damaged and as a result water management
capabilities that provide important habitat and protect local
communities are affected.
An example of damages at Interior sites includes the following:
At Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the Maxent Levee
separates Bayou Sauvage NWR from New Orleans. When New Orleans flooded,
the Maxent Levee and the pumps that support it aided in the removal of
water from the New Orleans east area. It is imperative to repair
important levees and dikes on refuges to protect and provide habitat
for wildlife, and, in some cases, to protect local communities.
At the Sabine NWR, 32,000 acres have been impacted with an
estimated 1,700 acres of debris piles, seven million cubic meters of
debris and nearly 1,400 potential hazardous material items have been
positively identified. The facilities at Sabine NWR were devastated by
Hurricane Rita and five of the eight buildings were immediately
condemned and required demolition. The remaining buildings require
extensive repairs before they can be occupied. The Sabine NWR remains
closed until repairs can be made to facilities and debris can be
removed from the refuge.
The NPS's Chalmette National Battlefield and National Cemetery,
part of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, flooded
when the New Orleans levee systems failed. The facilities and lands at
the battlefield and cemetery sustained wind and flood damage and remain
closed due to damage sustained during the storm.
Question 2b. What supplemental appropriations has the Department
received? Is this sufficient?
Answer. In the fall of 2005, the administration requested $135.8
million to begin to address the damage sustained by the Department's
assets in the Gulf region. The Department received $70.3 million in
supplemental funding as part of the Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, which was enacted in December
2005. The funds provided in the December supplemental are allowing the
FWS, NPS, MMS and USGS to do immediate stabilization and repair of
facilities in the Gulf coast region and to re-establish operations at
affected facilities.
In February 2006, the administration requested an additional $216
million in supplemental funding for the Department to address damage to
NPS, MMS, FWS and USGS facilities in the Gulf coast region. The
supplemental funds requested will allow MMS, NPS, FWS and USGS to
address the critical needs at facilities in the Gulf coast region.
Funding for this work is critical, as it will be used to conduct
clean-up of hazardous materials and debris removal on public lands and
repair and reconstruction of facilities at park units and national
wildlife refuges. These actions are necessary to open roads and trails
to the public, repair visitor centers and exhibits, and reconstruct
water control structures and habitats that are important to migratory
bird populations and other wildlife. In the absence of these repairs,
public access will continue to be limited and there will continue to be
impacts to local communities that will not benefit from tourism. The
repair of levees on Interior lands is essential to provide flood
control to communities and to provide habitat that is essential to
support migratory birds and other wildlife.
The supplemental also includes funding for MMS to complete
restoration of its operations in New Orleans. In order to sustain
operations, MMS relocated staff and established a temporary office in
Houston. Funding is needed to fund the temporary office and reestablish
operations and relocate staff back in New Orleans. Without this funding
MMS will not be able to continue work that is essential to reestablish
offshore production of oil and gas. As of March 8, 2006, shut-in oil
production is equivalent to 23.22% of the daily oil production, and
shut-in gas production is equivalent to 14.03% of the daily gas
production in the Gulf of Mexico. Without these funds MMS will not be
able to reestablish its offices in New Orleans.
In addition, Interior's request includes $3 million to fund
increased capacity for State Historic Preservation Officers for
required clearances to allow repairs and reconstruction of buildings
and other facilities while ensuring consistency with historic
preservation requirements.
Question 3. Is the Department involved in ongoing efforts to
coordinate Federal actions and programs in rebuilding the Gulf Coast?
If so, please specifically describe.
Answer. The Department of the Interior is represented on ESF 14,
Long-Term Community Recovery, by USGS. Several Departmental personnel
have been deployed under ESF 14.
In addition to coordination of Federal actions, DOI is involved in
extensive efforts relevant to rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Protection of
the Gulf Coast ecosystem has been a Federal, state, local, and private
sector interest for many years. DOI is involved in many of the numerous
interagency, intergovernmental, and public-private efforts to deal with
Gulf Coast issues that pre-date Katrina, as well as those that could be
useful to address environmental damage from the 2005 hurricanes. Two of
these efforts, led by USACE, are described in the answer to question 4,
below.
MMS is working to restore offshore oil and gas energy production in
the Gulf Coast by:
<bullet> Expediting reviews of pipeline and production structure
repairs.
<bullet> Developing procedures for the next hurricane season and for
future years with industry to address Mobil Offshore Drilling
Units (MODU) issues and losses.
<bullet> Requesting research proposals in six areas related to
hurricanes: pipeline movement, offshore platform damage,
performance of jack-up rigs, startup after hurricanes,
hurricane hindcast data, and response of waves and currents.
<bullet> Granting Lease Term Extensions due to hurricane damage.
<bullet> Granting Suspensions of Operations due to rig delay, lack of
rig availability and long lead equipment.
<bullet> Granting limited flaring approvals related to hurricane
damage.
Through redirected funds and a requested supplemental, USGS is
providing data and information resources to help local, State, and
Federal decision-makers evaluate the effectiveness of recovery and
mitigation proposals, and to improve responsiveness to and assessment
and forecasting of future hurricane and severe storm impacts in the
Gulf of Mexico region and nationwide. Initiatives for FY06 include
environmental assessments, hazards monitoring, landscape change
monitoring, and provision of science for the coastal plan as directed
by Congress. USGS scientists use remote-sensing technology and GIS to
identify changes to wetlands and coastlines. Continuing efforts will
utilize satellite imagery, high resolution digital imagery from
aircraft, and field investigations. The National Wetlands Research
Center in Lafayette, LA, is a source and clearinghouse of science
information for government, academia, and the public. The Center
provides people with the knowledge, insight, and abilities that enable
them to make sound decisions about vital wetland resources. Other
Science Centers contribute to the post-Katrina science effort including
(1) Coastal and Marine team housed in St. Petersburg and Santa Cruz,
(2) the USGS Louisiana Water Science Center and (3) numerous scientists
from other centers
FWS is partnering with all relevant Federal and state agencies and
conservation groups to address hurricane impacts on trust resources
such as migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fishes, and imperiled
species and their habitats in a cooperative and collaborative manner.
More than $167 million in National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grants (1992-2006) has been awarded to carry out coastal wetlands
conservation projects in the U.S. FWS FY 06 National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Project Proposals (pre-hurricanes) include one in
Alabama and one in Texas. FWS is also a key player in implementation of
the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources Act established the
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), including undeveloped coastal
barriers along the Gulf coast. The Act limits Federal spending that
serves to encourage risky development in these designated areas,
including Federal flood insurance and support for new infrastructure.
FWS maintains the repository for maps that depict the CBRS. The Service
also advises Federal agencies, landowners, and Congress regarding
whether properties are in the CBRS and what kind of Federal
expenditures are allowed in the CBRS. The Service is working with
Congress to modernize the technologically outdated maps of the CBRS in
order to: increase the efficiency of the program; improve customer
service; better conserve natural resources by integrating digital CBRS
information into conservation planning efforts; and maintain the long-
term integrity of the CBRS by comprehensively addressing technical
mapping errors associated with the current outdated paper maps.
Question 4. What role does the Department or agencies within the
Department have in working with the Army Corps of Engineers in
rebuilding the infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region?
Answer. The Department has been responding to US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) requests for assistance. As part of the National
Response Plan, the USACE requested support of Emergency Support
Function-3, Public Works and Engineering. The Bureau of Reclamation
Coordination Center coordinates personnel from all Interior Bureaus to
meet the request of the USACE for Quality Assurance, Quality Control,
and Safety personnel to oversee Temporary Roofing, Housing and Debris
Removal, and to meet the request of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency for Public Assistance.
Additionally, at the request of the USACE, a Reclamation staff
member is assisting in guiding the risk analysis portion of New Orleans
Hurricane Protection System/Independent Performance Evaluation Team
(IPET) investigation. At the request of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, a Reclamation staff member is participating on the external
review panel for the products of the IPET investigation. The USACE is
using the results of the IPET investigations to make decisions
concerning the repair/restoration of infrastructure associated with the
hurricane protection system.
Reclamation will continue to provide technical assistance where
possible upon a USACE request.
The Department has worked with USACE for many years through the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Task
Force and in development of the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Ecosystem
Restoration Plan (FWS and GS). As a result of the working relationships
developed through these programs, FWS and GS are also working with
USACE on South Louisiana Hurricane Protection and Restoration under the
FY 2006 authorization and appropriation to conduct comprehensive
hurricane protection analysis and design and to develop and present a
full range of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane
protection measures for South Louisiana. The project is to be fully
coordinated with coastal ecosystem protection and restoration efforts
and authorities. FWS and GS are participating under the provision
requiring representatives of other Federal, State, and local agencies
to be invited to be members of the team, bringing their expertise,
programs, and projects together with the Corps. FWS and GS are also
involved in Mississippi Hurricane Protection and Restoration under the
FY 2006 appropriation to USACE to ``conduct an analysis and design for
comprehensive improvements or modifications to existing improvements in
the coastal area of Mississippi in the interest of hurricane and storm
damage reduction, preventions of saltwater intrusion, preservation of
fish and wildlife, prevention of erosion, and other related water
resource purposes as full Federal expense.''
The majority of FWS interactions with the USACE have occurred in
Louisiana. FWS field staff are working closely with other Federal,
State, and private entities in a wide variety of post-hurricane
recovery actions (both on and off of FWS facilities), and our
interactions with the New Orleans District (NOD) USACE have been good,
especially with regard to field-level technical coordination.
NOD staff has worked to help FWS move ahead with the South
Louisiana Comprehensive Coastal (hurricane) Protection and Restoration
Project (LACPR) scoping and alternative formulation, as well as
project-area-specific actions related to Task Force Guardian in
anticipation of the upcoming hurricane season. LACPR will investigate
measures needed to provide coastal Louisiana with additional flood
control features, Category 5 hurricane protection and coastal
restoration. Protection would be provided via typical hurricane
protection methods (e.g., levees, floodwalls) and modifications of such
existing features; coastal restoration measures examined would
complement hurricane protection.
In Mississippi, similar positive interactions are occurring between
the FWS and the Mobile District Corps of Engineers as it relates to
post hurricane recovery actions.
Due to competing priorities, there is still a need to enhance
coordination with the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (state agencies) to
understand the needs and direction that local/State officials will use
to guide/influence the direction of the Louisiana Coastal Protection
and Restoration project.
We are concerned, however, that the approved LACPR schedule and
related guidance to USACE may result in structural engineering and
authorization of Category 5 hurricane protection projects that do not
integrate sustainable ecosystem restoration as a co-equal objective. At
the field-level, we will continue to capitalize on existing
partnerships and work hard to develop and maintain the widespread and
strong support for the concept that healthy ecosystems and appropriate
land and water uses will be essential to developing and maintaining
sustainable structural and non-structural hurricane protection
projects.
Ultimately, the success of near-term hurricane recovery and
response efforts will largely depend upon the extent to which the
ecological interconnections between and among the Texas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi coastal ecosystems, the Mississippi River ecosystem, and
the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem can be sustainably protected and restored
at the landscape and smaller scales.
Question 5. What Solicitor's Opinions are currently under review?
What Solicitor's Opinions do you expect to review during the remainder
of FY06 and in FY07? Please provide a list.
Answer. There are no Solicitor's Opinions currently under review.
It is my understanding that there are no plans at this time to review
any particular Solicitor's Opinions.
Question 6. The Departmental Management request includes an
increase of $400,000 to implement the hearings requirement for the
hydropower licensing provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Please describe the assumptions used in developing this number.
How many hearings does the Department anticipate in each of the
upcoming five fiscal years? How many of these hearings are anticipated
to involve proceedings where the Department's conditions had been
developed on or before the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act?
How many hearings have been initiated to date under the new provisions?
Answer. The Department projects that it will receive eight to ten
hearing requests per year. While some of those could be consolidated
and others might be resolved without a full trial-type hearing (e.g.,
by the Department's agreeing to accept an alternative condition or
prescription), the Department expects that the hearings it will conduct
will require one administrative law judge (ALJ) and one staff attorney
in the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The $400,000 figure reflects
personnel costs for these employees, plus the expected costs for travel
and court reporters for the hearings. It currently appears that the
Department will hold three hearings in the second half of FY 2006 and
three to four hearings in the first half of FY 2007. Assuming this rate
continues, the Department anticipates holding six to eight hearings in
each of the next five fiscal years. One of the hearings to be held in
FY 2006 and two or three of the hearings to be held in FY 2007 will
relate to conditions or prescriptions developed before the date of
enactment. Finally, the Department has received six hearing requests to
date and expects to receive two more this fiscal year.
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Question 7. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides the Secretary of
the Interior with new authorities to develop non-oil and gas resources
on the outer Continental Shelf. Please provide for the record a time-
line for MMS's completion of any necessary programmatic environmental
impact statement, other environmental compliance documents, and
implementing regulations.
What is the current status of work on these documents?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to provide access to the OCS for renewable energy and
alternative use projects. The MMS has begun working on developing a new
program and regulations. In December 2005, the MMS published an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on five
major program areas: access to OCS lands and resources; environmental
information, management, and compliance; operational activities;
payments and revenues; and coordination and consultation. The comment
period closed at the end of February.
MMS will now prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
which will provide for public input concerning the scope of national
issues associated with offshore alternate energy-related use
activities; identify, define, and assess generic environmental, socio-
cultural, and economic impacts associated with offshore alternate
energy-related use activities; evaluate and establish effective
mitigation measures and best management practices to avoid, minimize,
or compensate for potential impacts; and facilitate future preparation
of site-specific environmental compliance documents.
In addition, throughout the process MMS will coordinate and consult
with stakeholders.
Question 8a. I understand that MMS is authorized to enter into
memoranda of understanding with States and Indian tribes to undertake
audit work for royalties generated on Federal lands. There has been
concern among some states that MMS is not adequately funding this work
by the states and tribes.
Can you please tell me what the level of funding is for this work
in the President's Budget? Can you provide the level of current and
anticipated funding for each state and tribe?
Answer. The President's FY 2007 budget request for the State &
Tribal Cooperative Audit Program is $8,983,000. Of this total,
$6,335,000 is requested to be allocated to States and $2,648,000 to
Tribes. Attached is a file that shows the FY 2005 and FY 2006
allocations by State and Tribe along with the total request in the
President's FY 2007 budget. Annual allocations to the States and Tribes
are determined in September after submission of individual work plans.
Question 8b. Will you work with me to ensure that adequate funding
is made available to states and tribes so that they can effectively
undertake this important work?
Answer. MMS continues to make every effort to consider state and
tribal needs and to ensure those needs are met in our budgeting
request. We will be happy to work with you as you consider this
request.
Question 9. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a provision
providing royalty incentives for natural gas production from deep wells
in shallow waters of the OCS.
How did this authority differ from administrative relief being
provided pursuant to regulation at the time of enactment of EPACT? What
budgetary impacts over the next 5 fiscal years are expected as a result
of this provision?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added royalty incentives for
deep gas leases in 200-400 meters (656-1,312 ft). The Act also provided
additional royalty relief for certain ultra-deep wells greater than
1500 meters (5000 ft). The budgetary impacts will depend on several
factors, including the success of exploration wells drilled in the
coming years and on the price threshold provided for in any final rule.
Question 10. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also contains a
provision relating to deep water royalty relief.
How does the provision differ from administrative relief being
provided pursuant to regulation at the time of enactment of EPACT? What
are the expected budgetary impacts of provision over the next five
fiscal year?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added a fourth tier of
royalty relief to the existing deepwater program. The volume of royalty
relief was increased from 12 to 16 million barrels of oil equivalent
for water depths 2000 meters or deeper in the central and western Gulf
of Mexico planning areas. The Act also requires that deep water royalty
relief continue for the next 5 years. We do not have an estimate of the
budgetary impacts.
Question 11. Along with many of my colleagues, I have requested
that GAO look into several aspects of the royalty management program at
the Department to ensure that the American public is getting a fair
return on its oil and gas resources.
Do I have your commitment that Departmental personnel will fully
cooperate with GAO in this effort?
Answer. Yes, the Department of the Interior's policy is to fully
honor all GAO inquiries and ensure that we provide accurate and timely
information. This message has been communicated to all levels and
organizations within the Department. With regard to the GAO
investigation into the Department's royalty management program, the
Minerals Management Service is fully cooperating and providing
information the GAO requests.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Question 12. Current authority to collect the Abandoned Mine Land
fee expires on June 30, 2006. I think it is extremely important that
Congress act to extend this authority. I note that the President's
Budget proposes an interim reauthorization of the fee collection at the
current rate until September 30, 2007.
Does the administration support lowering the fee at this time?
Answer. We do not support lowering the fee as part of a short-term
extension. However, we would consider a fee reduction as part of a
long-term solution within the context of legislation to amend and
extend the fee collection authority, provided such an extension is
consistent with the four goals for the program.
Question 13. What level of funding would be needed to undertake a
comprehensive inventory of abandoned hardrock mine sites?
Answer. Conducting such an inventory is beyond our current
authority. Moreover, there are many states with an extensive history of
hard rock mining, such as Idaho and Nevada, which have never been
included in our AML program. Therefore, we are unable to provide an
estimate of the funds that would be needed for such an inventory.
Question 14. The administration previously submitted legislation to
reform the AML program.
Does the administration continue to support that legislative
proposal as the best approach to AML reathorization?
Answer. The administration continues to support that legislative
proposal, but could support an alternative fiscally responsible and
fair proposal that would achieve our four goals for the program within
the President's mandatory and discretionary spending limits. Those
goals are to:
a. focus on the need to accelerate the clean up of dangerous
abandoned coal mines by directing funds to the highest priority
areas so that reclamation can occur at a faster rate;
b. honor the commitments made to States and Tribes under
current law;
c. address funding for the 16,500 unassigned beneficiaries of
the United Mine Worker's Combined Benefit Fund (CBF) while
protecting the integrity of the AML fund; and
d. provide sufficient funding to finish the job of reclaiming
high priority health and safety sites.
Question 15. Does the administration support allowing Tribes to
have primacy under the same standards as apply to States for purposes
of administering the regulatory program under Title V of SMCRA?
Answer. The administration continues to support the concept of
tribal primacy. We would be pleased to review any bill developed to
address this issue.
Bureau of Land Management
ENERGY AND MINERALS
Question 16a. I am pleased that section 365 of the Energy Policy
Act provides mandatory funding from lease rentals for the pilot project
to improve Federal oil and gas permit coordination. I understand that
the amount of mandatory funding is estimated to be approximately $20
million, and was disappointed to see that in future years the
administration proposes to replace it with a user fee. I have several
questions about BLM's implementation of this program.
How much of the funding under the program will be used to pay for
positions in BLM? Of these, how many positions will be dedicated to
inspection and enforcement?
Answer. In FY 2006 the BLM estimates it will spend $7,875,000 for
direct payroll costs for new BLM positions in the Pilot Offices. The
BLM is recruiting 36 new positions that will work in the Inspection and
Enforcement program at the seven Pilot offices.
Question 16b. I understand that lack of resources in other agencies
having a role in permitting has been a problem in the past. How many
positions are being paid for in the Fish and Wildlife Service with
these new funds? The Forest Service?
Answer. The BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund will fund ten
Fish and Wildlife Service positions and six Forest Service positions in
Fiscal Year 2006. The BLM intends to meet regularly with these agencies
to ensure the appropriate use of these positions and to assess any
additional needs that may develop.
Question 17. What assumptions does the FY07 Budget make with
respect to leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Please
provide the specific information and data supporting the assumptions
contained in the Budget with respect to revenues. What assumptions does
the Budget make regarding: (1) the price of oil; (2) the timing of
production; and (3) the magnitude and location of oil production? What
assumptions does the Budget make regarding bonus bids and what is the
basis for each assumption? Did you look at comparable lease sales? If
so, please provide the specific information as to the location, timing,
resource estimates, and bonus bids for each comparable sale. Please
specifically explain the reasons for the differences in the assumptions
in the FY06 Budget and the FY07 Budget with respect to revenues from
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Please provide your data and
analysis for the assumptions for both FY06 and FY07. What
infrastructure do you assume will be necessary for production from the
Arctic Refuge? How many miles of pipeline within the Refuge will be
required, given your assumptions regarding the magnitude and location
of production?
Answer. The estimate in the Budget was made by 1) analyzing geology
and geophysical information to determine geology parameters; 2)
conducting an engineering analysis of the exploration, development,
production, and reclamation phases for the potential range of sources;
and 3) running an economic analysis of 1) and 2) under projected market
conditions.
The most recent USGS estimates state that:
<bullet> There is a 95 percent probability that at least 5.7 billion
barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) coastal plain,
<bullet> There is a 5 percent probability that at least 16 billion
barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the
ANWR coastal plain, and
<bullet> The mean or expected value is 10.36 billion barrels of
technically recoverable undiscovered oil in the ANWR coastal
plain.
The primary area of the coastal plain is the 1002 Area of ANWR,
which was established when ANWR was created. Also included in the
Coastal Plain are State lands to the 3-mile offshore limit and Native
Inupiat land near the village of Kaktovik.
The unique combination of source rocks and reservoir traps is
similar to the geologic combination of events that caused the
productive reservoirs to the west including the Prudhoe Bay Field.
Therefore, similar results are anticipated. However, the geologic
interpretation has changed since BLM estimated ANWR leasing revenues in
1992. At that time most of the oil was expected in several large
structures. Now USGS expects that these structures are more likely gas
and that most of the oil will be found in stratigraphic traps over a
large area. The uncertainty of the location of these traps is an added
risk that affects the bidding of the oil companies. We have been able
to model the impact on bidding using comparable sales from NPRA and
price expectations from the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration's (DOE/EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2005. This
impact can now be applied using the updated price scenarios from the
AEO 2006.
We estimate that first production will not occur until after at
least 10 years from Congressional approval to open ANWR to leasing.
This includes all regulatory actions necessary to conduct the first
sale, exploration sufficient to proceed with development, and the
concurrent field development, facilities construction, and pipeline
design, approval, and construction. Thus production will not occur
until after 2016.
DOE/EIA has published the Reference Case for the AEO 2006. They
also provided BLM with sufficient information to conduct the revenue
estimate analysis with price scenarios consistent with the high and low
oil prices in the thus far unpublished cases from the AEO 2006.
Assumptions
The estimate of receipts and funding requirements is based on the
following assumptions:
1. Legislation authorizing ANWR development would be enacted
in time to allow a sale in FY2008.
2. Regulations would be completed in FY2007.
3. The Final Legislative EIS on the 1002 area dated April
1987 would satisfy the requirements of NEPA with respect to
pre-lease activities.
4. The EIS and related planning document would be final in
FY2008 with sufficient time for the sale in FY2008 (18 months
after enactment).
5. The BLM would serve as lead for the EIS in active
consultation and cooperation with FWS. BLM would have
responsibility for the sub-surface minerals resource input and
analysis with assistance from USGS.
6. Two lease sales would be conducted before October 1, 2010.
7. The estimates for bonus bids are based on expected values
given the best information we have on geologic probability
curves and risks, as well as probability functions for costs
and prices.
8. The geologic inputs were based on the joint analysis by
staff experts of the USGS and BLM regarding oil potential and
probabilities using the most recent USGS estimates of the oil
and gas resources of the 1002 area of ANWR (Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
Including Economic Analysis U.S. Geol. Open File Report 98-34,
1999) and the various updates including Undiscovered oil
resources in the Federal portion of the 1002 area of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: an economic update U.S. Geol. Survey
Report 2005-1217.
9. Economic inputs regarding oil pricing were based on the
EIA 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.
10. Production will not occur before 10 years after first
lease sale, i.e. no production volumes or royalties on this
chart. Does not include production or revenues from State or
Native lands.
11. The top tracts will go first so that the best prospects
are sold in the first sale, and most of the remainder in the
second.
12. Final adjustments were made based on bidding patterns in
nearby north slope oil and gas lease sales.
The model assumes a 50/50 split of revenues with the State of
Alaska, a royalty rate of 12\1/2\%, and that almost all tracts would be
available for nomination in each sale. The model used for the analysis
was a Monte Carlo Discounted Cash Flow model. With these
considerations, the model results in total bonus bid estimates of $7.0
billion for a 2008 lease sale and $1.0 billion in 2010. There are 35
mapped structural prospects. Each prospect is run 1,000 times in the
Monte Carlo model, with the condition that hydrocarbons exist,
considering a number of differing factors. Similarly, the same is done
for the one large stratigraphic play that covers approximately the
northwestern third of the 1002 area. As a result, the specific
infrastructure and transportation assumptions change thousands of times
based on the running of the model.
Question 18a. What is the total amount of funding for the oil and
gas I&E program included in the request for FY06? Please provide a
table showing the funding for this program (both requested and enacted)
for the previous 10 fiscal years.
Answer.
BLM INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT FUNDING ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Request Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996................................................ 14,850 14,850
1997................................................ 14,850 14,850
1998................................................ 14,850 14,850
1999................................................ 14,850 14,850
2000................................................ 15,365 15,365
2001................................................ 20,042 20,042
2002................................................ 22,673 22,673
2003................................................ 24,000 24,000
2004................................................ 26,000 26,000
2005................................................ 26,250 26,250
2006................................................ 27,890 27,890
2007................................................ \1\ 35,7
40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In FY 2007, BLM plans to spend $5.1 million in mandatory funding at
pilot offices for inspection and enforcement.
Question 18b. I had requested funding for additional inspectors in
the Farmington Field office. How many additional inspectors have been
added to this office in each of the past three fiscal years?
Answer. In FY 2002, the Farmington field office had 11 inspection
and enforcement (I&E) program staff. There were 10 petroleum
engineering inspectors and auditors and one technician. No additional
positions were hired with new funding.
In FY 2003, an additional seven I&E inspectors were brought on
board in the Farmington field office (four under the new funding
authority, three through filling vacancies and reassigning employees).
An additional I&E coordinator from the BLM State Office provides onsite
oversight and coaching, including a seven month detail as a supervisor.
In FY 2004, there were no new inspectors hired by the Farmington
filed office as the new hires completed their certification training.
In FY 2005, a total of 18 I&E inspectors, classified as Petroleum
Engineering Technicians (PET) were on staff at the Farmington Field
Office: 14 PETs, three PET leads, and one supervisory PET. One PET
working as a Natural Resource Specialist focusing on environmental
surface compliance, and one PET position which funds two SCEP students
to train as PETs are also on I&E staff for a total of 21 staff. The I&E
staff is also supported by three Production Accountability Technician
(PAT) auditors. In addition, the 21 Farmington Field Office (FFO)
inspectors and three PAT auditors are provided support by two PETs
assigned to the Federal Indian Mineral Office for trust
responsibilities on Navajo allotted leases and five Tribal I&E
inspectors working under cooperative agreements with the Navajo. Total
staff count contributing directly to I&E is 32 including the onsite
State Office coordinator. No new additional staff has been hired in FY
2005.
Also, in FY 2005, in addition to the 32 I&E staff in FFO, 2 I&E PET
inspectors, one supervisory PET, and three Tribal I&E inspectors were
reassigned by consolidation to the FFO from the BLM's Cuba, NM, office.
The Cuba office inspects and audits federal and Jicarilla Indian
reservation lease activities.
In FY 2006, the Farmington Field Office has hired an additional 4
(four) I&E inspectors, with mandatory funding provided under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.
Question 18c. Are you planning to hire additional inspectors in
offices where the workload is increasing due to coalbed methane
production? Please provide specifics.
Answer. Hiring additional inspectors is a major component within
BLM's 2007 budget. In addition to maintaining past increases in funding
for the I&E program, the 2007 budget requests an additional $2.9
million for inspections. In addition, in recognition of the important
role of inspections in ensuring production verification and
environmental compliance, BLM is proposing in its FY 2007 request to
redirect an additional $2.3 million within the oil and gas management
program from lower priority work into inspections. Finally, mandatory
funding provided under Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act will allow
the seven pilot project offices to fill an additional 36 positions for
I&E. These positions should be filled during FY 2006.
Question 19. What is the total amount of requested funding for oil
and gas NEPA compliance for FY07? Please provide a table showing the
funding for NEPA compliance (both requested and enacted) for the
previous 10 years.
Answer. The BLM's FY 2007 Budget Request does not specify a funding
amount for NEPA compliance within the Oil and Gas Management program
because the costs of NEPA compliance are not individually tracked
within the BLM's oil and gas financial management system. Rather, those
costs are aggregated across various portions of the BLM's oil and gas
budget, such as APD processing, processing of sundry notices, and
inspection and enforcement.
The following is a table that estimates the BLM's NEPA compliance
costs in the Oil and Gas program over the last seven years. NEPA
compliance costs have increased as the number of leases and permits
processed have increased.
ESTIMATED NEPA COMPLIANCE COSTS
(Oil and Gas Program)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999....................................................... $9,000,000
2000....................................................... $9,500,000
2001....................................................... $9,600,000
2002....................................................... $10,040,000
2003....................................................... $10,500,000
2004....................................................... $11,750,000
2005....................................................... $12,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 20. What is the total backlog of APD's? Please provide a
table showing the backlog over the last ten years and the number of
APD's received and processed during each of the last ten years. Please
display this information on a state-by-state basis.
Answer. The tables below include the requested data related to APD
processing.
APDs PENDING LONGER THAN 60 DAYS AT END OF FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. 0 0 1 1 6 15 0 0 0 0
CA.............................. 8 12 18 51 24 5 6 7 3 4
Colorado........................ 16 21 28 44 33 74 67 65 52 74
Eastern States.................. 1 3 6 26 10 7 10 23 12 21
Montana......................... 23 29 36 40 102 67 134 114 82 89
NV.............................. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 6
New Mexico...................... 259 295 318 255 368 503 740 692 501 546
Utah............................ 73 82 91 147 150 266 526 443 353 397
Wyoming......................... 305 347 387 349 1,060 1,059 1,597 1,436 1,204 1,324
Nationwide...................... 685 789 886 913 1,753 1,996 3,080 2,780 2,214 2,461
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APDs RECEIVED DURING FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. 0 1 2 14 11 23 12 6 18 8
CA.............................. 206 356 395 219 121 70 118 69 116 235
Colorado........................ 70 107 122 184 254 299 265 323 502 605
Eastern States.................. 4 29 28 37 39 23 14 73 70 136
Montana......................... 8 180 183 89 271 213 221 325 421 451
NV.............................. 0 2 7 0 0 1 7 4 15 9
New Mexico...................... 745 926 1,034 832 1,280 1,351 1,087 1,385 1,668 1,619
Utah............................ 228 388 389 271 394 680 496 639 792 1,245
Wyoming......................... 148 656 984 2,859 1,607 2,159 2,365 2,239 3,377 4,043
Nationwide...................... 1,409 2,645 3,144 4,505 3,977 4,819 4,585 5,063 6,979 8,351
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APDs APPROVED DURING FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. 1 1 3 6 8 11 12 8 14 8
CA.............................. 154 273 410 172 87 72 108 73 109 232
Colorado........................ 59 104 84 153 209 235 208 296 407 608
Eastern States.................. 8 17 34 13 22 27 13 44 63 110
Montana......................... 5 159 121 103 160 168 202 294 213 425
NV.............................. 0 0 6 1 0 0 6 3 10 10
New Mexico...................... 524 681 716 600 898 930 960 1,183 1,492 1,475
Utah............................ 178 299 292 157 316 505 463 437 677 770
Wyoming......................... 91 455 682 554 1,569 1,688 1,568 1,623 3,467 3,380
Nationwide...................... 1,020 1,989 2,348 1,759 3,269 3,636 3,540 3,961 6,452 7,018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APDs RETURNED DURING FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. 0 0 0 1 1 2 21 1 1 0
CA.............................. 43 27 22 21 56 24 12 4 5 3
Colorado........................ 7 1 10 16 29 20 51 29 17 30
Eastern States.................. 0 2 1 3 4 6 5 20 13 8
Montana......................... 0 0 6 21 26 18 59 64 79 29
NV.............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
New Mexico...................... 59 59 105 307 158 310 413 407 165 95
Utah............................ 29 60 65 47 51 34 84 120 178 16
Wyoming......................... 11 25 80 131 298 216 1,645 537 441 535
Nationwide...................... 149 174 289 547 623 630 2,290 1,182 899 718
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL APDs PROCESSED DURING FISCAL YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK.............................. 1 1 3 7 9 13 33 9 15 8
CA.............................. 197 300 432 193 143 96 120 77 114 235
Colorado........................ 66 105 94 169 238 255 259 325 424 638
Eastern States.................. 8 19 35 16 26 33 18 64 76 118
Montana......................... 5 159 127 124 186 186 261 358 292 454
NV.............................. 0 0 6 1 0 0 6 3 10 12
New Mexico...................... 583 740 821 907 1,056 1,240 1,373 1,590 1,657 1,570
Utah............................ 207 359 357 204 367 539 547 557 855 786
Wyoming......................... 102 480 762 685 1,867 1,904 3,213 2,160 3,908 3,915
Nationwide...................... 1,169 2,163 2,637 2,306 3,892 4,266 5,830 5,143 7,351 7,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 21. How many acres have you put under oil and gas lease
during each of the past ten fiscal years? Please display this on a
state-by-state basis.
DATA FOR FY 1996 THROUGH FY 2005 (DATA LAST UPDATED DECEMBER 8, 2005)
[Number of Acres Leased During the Year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic State FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................... ......... 684 80 ......... 7,855 4,486 4,185 8,990 5,077 80
Alaska.................................... ......... ......... ......... 861,318 ......... ......... 567,769 11,500 1,403,561
Arizona................................... ......... ......... 55,921 ......... ......... 35,584 6,983 3,040 1,224 22,659
Arkansas.................................. 928 39,602 48,011 74,442 21,573 178,785 71,247 95,792 182,158 172,858
California................................ ......... 27,120 39,638 38,430 34,811 25,290 29,079 60,520 34,343 5,629
Colorado.................................. 217,896 230,242 336,590 242,911 299,978 594,369 448,029 252,004 241,188 237,406
Connecticut............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Delaware.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Florida................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,018 ......... ......... 3,368 ......... .........
Georgia................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Hawaii.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Idaho..................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 40 ......... 5,798 671 ......... .........
Illinois.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 112 ......... ......... .........
Indiana................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Iowa...................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Kansas.................................... ......... 80 958 2,354 1,154 599 2,378 5,764 1,240 160
Kentucky.................................. ......... ......... 1,264 ......... 1,143 ......... 2,103 ......... 4,968 .........
Louisiana................................. 42,900 5,687 25,442 12,333 322 606 3,033 511 1,366 1,985
Maine..................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Maryland.................................. ......... ......... 320 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Massachusetts............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Michigan.................................. ......... 20,810 ......... 18,650 2,337 ......... 3,939 4,050 ......... 480
Minnesota................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Mississippi............................... 24,945 71,009 78,586 8,524 25,920 19,826 54,755 15,741 41,205 51,600
Missouri.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Montana................................... 299,376 241,346 363,402 289,719 380,273 551,660 293,461 172,874 221,740 313,016
Nebraska.................................. 320 ......... 760 80 503 7,126 ......... 1,880 ......... .........
Nevada.................................... 178,372 293,760 181,938 69,534 235,348 746,400 259,920 116,292 638,632 1,359,085
New Hampshire............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
New Jersey................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
New Mexico................................ 195,623 329,896 213,957 130,552 190,598 130,193 192,124 239,979 214,756 184,786
New York.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 172 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
North Carolina............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
North Dakota.............................. 38,139 188,650 67,110 28,705 21,944 52,858 39,354 6,099 82,527 149,814
Ohio...................................... 8,324 285 337 193 1,870 268 121 ......... 5,676 418
Oklahoma.................................. 56,163 11,815 13,155 12,432 8,732 8,619 6,018 12,389 3,827 12,428
Oregon.................................... 14,318 14,100 837 11,948 12,605 4,272 5,006 160 ......... .........
Pennsylvania.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 7 ......... 835 ......... ......... .........
Rhode Island.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
South Carolina............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
South Dakota.............................. 60,059 74,693 8,200 ......... 62,235 91,880 2,760 548 10,862 33,533
Tennessee................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Texas..................................... 38,384 35,576 5,784 31,781 13,396 60,972 38,156 43,877 19,509 2,625
Utah...................................... 316,989 444,385 278,702 217,934 247,126 284,928 222,070 240,527 118,878 1,001,681
Vermont................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Virginia.................................. ......... ......... ......... 870 5,805 ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Washington................................ 1,243 11,485 663 32,899 33,891 16,297 11,544 210,188 192,979 45,423
West Virginia............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 34,358 ......... ......... 9,830 8,974 12,307
Wisconsin................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Wyoming................................... 1,029,579 1,426,795 1,880,476 1,516,941 1,004,479 1,182,253 541,827 547,695 722,431 706,234
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 2,523,558 3,468,020 3,602,131 3,602,550 2,650,493 3,997,271 2,812,606 2,064,289 4,157,121 4,314,207
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 22a. How many acres of lands administered by the Forest
Service and the BLM in states west of the hundredth meridian are
currently under oil and gas lease? Please display by state and agency.
Answer. The following is a table listing the acreage under oil and
gas leases on BLM and FS-managed lands in states west of the hundredth
meridian at the end of FY 2004. (Note: These figures do not include
Federally-owned mineral estate under privately-owned surface lands.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Forest Service
----------------------------------------
State Number Number
of Number of of Number of
leases acres leases acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska......................... 339 2,757,762 0 0
Arizona........................ 47 97,353 0 0
California..................... 552 285,655 14 4,185
Colorado....................... 4,393 3,818,207 440 446,204
Idaho.......................... 3 2,465 0 0
Kansas......................... 45 13,555 291 63,452
Montana........................ 3,001 2,850,939 627 1,208,159
Nebraska....................... 2 240 0 0
Nevada......................... 1,702 3,521,078 14 45,710
New Mexico..................... 7,574 4,645,587 237 215,535
North Dakota................... 283 106,342 1,253 724,365
Oklahoma....................... 747 93,614 191 80,277
Oregon......................... 17 30,709 8 27,288
South Dakota................... 134 122,635 20 11,510
Texas.......................... 10 2,235 465 357,553
Utah........................... 2,949 3,356,886 337 648,376
Washington..................... 346 510,160 0 0
Wyoming........................ 16,476 12,462,729 628 416,268
----------------------------------------
Total........................ 38,620 34,678,151 4,525 4,248,882
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 22b. How much acreage is under lease but not producing?
Answer. Approximately 24 million acres.
Question 22c. What are the reasons for this?
Answer. Each oil and gas lease is effective for 10 years and
contemplates that production may not occur immediately, but must occur
within the lease period or any extension granted for good cause.
Exploration and production companies generally have significant
inventories of leased acreage that do not have oil or gas production.
These leased acreage inventories are normal and necessary for a
company's efficient exploration and production program. For example,
companies sometimes desire to lease as many parcels of land as possible
in a specific area before beginning exploration activities making it
more economical to move needed equipment into the area. Lead time on
getting a lease drilled may be many years depending on litigation and
time frames to complete NEPA documentation.
There are many other explanations for non-producing leases. Private
individuals, as well as companies, often hold leases for speculation.
Non-producing leases may be within a unit agreement or development
contract and not have been drilled. Some leases are suspended as a
result of litigation. Acquisitions and mergers within the industry
sometimes result in a company selling or dropping a lease. Changes in
corporate priorities resulting in management changes also sometimes
lead to a company not developing a lease.
Question 22d. How many of these acres are under lease with no
drilling activity occurring? What are the reasons for this?
Answer. The BLM tracks the number of leases and acres in
production. However, because drilling activity can be very short-term,
in some cases only two to three days, it is very difficult to track
current drilling activity. Consequently, the BLM does not track how
many acres under lease currently have drilling activity taking place.
Question 23. What is the status of BLM's work on the study required
under the EPCA? What areas are currently being evaluated? When will
this work be completed? Will your analysis provide information on both
the technically recoverable and economically recoverable resources?
Answer. Phase I of the EPCA inventory was completed in 2003. The
Phase II draft of the inventory required by the Energy Act of 2000, as
amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is currently undergoing
review by the Interagency Steering Committee.
Phase II includes and supersedes the areas in Phase I and includes
additional areas. The Phase II study areas stretch from Alaska to
Florida:
Northern Alaska (NPRA and ANWR 1002 only)
Montana Thrust Belt
Powder River Basin
Wyoming Thrust Belt
Green River Basin
Denver Basin
Uinta-Piceance Basin
Paradox/San Juan Basins
Appalachian Basin
Black Warrior Basin
Florida Peninsula
Phase II is scheduled for release later this year. It will provide
information on technically recoverable resources only.
Question 24. What is the current level of funding and what level is
proposed for fiscal year 2007 for the administration of renewable
energy development on public lands? Please provide allocation by energy
type.
Answer. The BLM manages numerous types of renewable energy
production on public lands, including geothermal, wind, solar,
hydropower, and biomass production. Proposed funding for 2007, as well
as funding since 2001, is summarized in the table below.
BLM RENEWABLE ENERGY--APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY AND 2007 BUDGET REQUESTS ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (post 2006 (post 2007
Program/issue request request request request rescission) rescission) request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geothermal..................... 300 350 1,300 1,250 1,233 1,214 1,214
Geothermal Steam Act 0 0 0 0 0 2,693 0
Implementation Fund (Energy
Policy Act mandatory funding).
Renewable ROW primarily wind & 0 0 250 400 644 635 635
solar energy..................
Hydropower relicensing......... ......... 0 300 300 296 291 291
Contribute to biomass energy 0 0 0 0 235 290 290
supply.*......................
Total Renewable Energy....... 300 350 1,850 1,950 2,408 5,123 2,430
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescissions.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1.40% 1.50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM IS ALSO COMPLETING A WIND ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
Wind Energy EIS....................... N/A 1,169 1,532 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These dollar figures represent project work only and don't account for BLM labor involved in facilitating the
use of biomass energy within BLM, the public, and industry.
Question 25. Please provide a table displaying the level of funding
requested and enacted for each of the past 10 fiscal years for the
Energy and Minerals program.
ENERGY AND MINERALS FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Funding
Fiscal year requested enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994........................................ $71,126,000 $70,876,000
1995........................................ $68,479,000 $68,121,000
1996........................................ $66,694,000 $67,049,000
1997........................................ $67,493,000 $67,493,000
1998........................................ $68,263,000 $70,363,000
1999........................................ $69,834,000 $69,944,000
2000........................................ $72,230,000 $74,010,000
2001........................................ $79,889,000 $79,419,000
2002........................................ $91,488,000 $95,393,000
2003........................................ $104,841,000 $105,898,000
2004........................................ $106,565,000 $108,519,000
2005........................................ $109,063,000 $108,181,000
2006........................................ $106,772,000 $108,157,000
2007........................................ $134,705,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 26. Please describe the status of implementation of the
EPACT provision requiring BLM to address the issue of abandoned,
orphaned and idled oil and gas wells on lands administered by BLM? How
many of each category of well (abandoned, orphaned, or idled) is
located on BLM administered lands? Please provide the information by
state.
Answer. The BLM and the Forest Service (FS) have been working on a
means of ranking orphaned, abandoned, and idled wells as required by
the Energy Policy Act. The BLM and FS, together with the Department of
Energy, met at the end of February and finalized a priority ranking
system for each of these three well categories. These ranking systems
will be tested by select BLM and FS offices to determine their
usefulness in the very near future. In addition, as also required by
the Energy Policy Act, a preliminary meeting was held with the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission in mid-March to discuss this
program.
IDLE, ABANDONED AND ORPHANED OIL AND GAS WELLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporarily
State Shut-in abandoned Abandoned Orphaned
wells wells wells wells
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................................... 79 6 31 0
California................................................. 1,075 769 1,069 1
Colorado................................................... 445 99 559 0
Eastern States............................................. 188 38 39 0
Montana.................................................... 223 195 538 0
Nevada..................................................... 11 18 170 0
New Mexico................................................. 1,521 1,009 4,224 14
Utah....................................................... 357 277 428 18
Wyoming.................................................... 2,289 1,059 3,685 0
Nationwide................................................. 6,188 3,470 10,743 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 27. Section 1811 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires
the Department to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to undertake a report relating to water and coalbed methane
production. Because water resources are so important in the West, I am
interested in seeing that the Department carry out this directive. The
NAS report is due back to the Secretary and the Administrator of EPA
within 12 months after the date of enactment of EPACT, and the
Secretary and the Administrator are to report to Congress within six
months after receipt of the NAS report. However, I understand that
there are issues regarding resources for this study.
Can you provide me a time-line for carrying out this provision of
the law?
Answer. As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act) contains a
number of Congressional mandates, many of which have specific deadlines
for completion or implementation. In fact, the Act directs the
completion of more than 80 tasks by the Department over a period that
spans from 45 days to 10 years. Additionally, the Department acts as a
cooperating agency on approximately 19 tasks for which other Federal
agencies have lead responsibility. The Energy Coordination Council,
which was established by the Secretary shortly after the Act's
enactment, is responsible for coordinating and tracking the various
tasks assigned to the Department under the Act in order to ensure their
timely completion. Regarding Sec. 1811, it is my understanding that the
Bureau of Land Management has contacted the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to discuss the report required under Section 1811 of the
Act and provided copies of previous studies and reports that have been
completed on coal-bed methane. We will continue our discussions with
NAS. Those discussions are focused on developing appropriate parameters
for a report and determining the extent to which available data may be
used in developing the report. While I cannot provide you with a time
line for entering into agreement with the NAS for completion of a
report, I will make certain that we continue to inform you of our
progress in fulfilling this and other requirements under the Act.
GEOTHERMAL
Question 28. The DOI budget shows income of $2.6 million in FY06
from the geothermal funds created for BLM under the Energy Policy Act
(Subtitle B, Section 234) Deposit and use of geothermal lease revenues
for 5 fiscal years). The law specifies that these funds are to be used
``to implement the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and this Act.''
However, your budget shows no specific expenditures in its budget for
the geothermal program of BLM or other efforts related to the
Geothermal Steam Act.
Can you provide an accounting of how these funds will be used by
the Department?
Answer. In 2006, BLM plans to spend the $2.6 million writing
geothermal leasing regulations to implement the Energy Policy Act, and
processing backlogged applications in Nevada, California and Oregon. In
the FY 2007 budget request, these geothermal revenues would be returned
to the Treasury if Congress enacts the administration's legislative
proposal.
Question 29. The Office of Management and Budget proposes to repeal
provisions of the law that created this fund. But, the fund was created
to address the substantial resource problems facing DOI in relation to
geothermal energy. The Bureau of Land Management has lease applications
that have been pending for over 30 years. BLM also needs resources to
administer the new law, write regulations, handle and process permits
and environmental reviews that are already backing up, and the USGS
needs secure funds to complete the three-year national geothermal
resource assessment mandated by the law the first resource assessment
in over 30 years.
BLM itself has developed a Strategic Plan for the Geothermal
Program, but we understand it lacks the funds to achieve its goals.
Without secure funding through the Section 234, how does DOI intend to
address these problems? What resource will be included in the budget
this year, in FY07 and over the next five years and how will the
program achieve excepted results?
Answer. BLM will use its annual appropriation of approximately $1.2
million in base funding within its Oil and Gas Management program to
continue managing active leases and perform inspections. BLM expects
that continued progress in the development of new geothermal energy
operations will require that proponents fund a larger share of needed
NEPA documentation and other requirements to issue leases and permits.
Question 30. EPAct also dedicated 25% of federal geothermal
royalties to the county in which they are generated. While expanding
geothermal production serves national needs, it also has local costs
that this royalty share sought to address. Counties need these
resources to address the impact of and infrastructure needs posed by
development and to help mitigate local impacts.
Could you provide the Committee with a review of the different
revenue sharing provisions in federal law, particularly those regarding
federal lands and minerals but not just those under the mineral leasing
act, and specify the percentages of revenues that are shared and with
what parties?
Answer. The chart attached as Exhibit A provides the various
revenue sharing provisions under Federal law.
U.S. Geological Survey
Question 31. The administration has placed a strong emphasis on the
use of sound science at the Department of the Interior. However, the
USGS budget request reflects an overall net decrease from 2006 enacted
levels. Please provide a listing of these funding reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All dollar amounts in
thousands
-----------------------------
Activity/subactivity Change
2006 2007 from
enacted request 2006
enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geologic Resource Assessments............. 76,534 56,916 -19,618
Hydrologic Monitoring, Assess, & Rsch..... 142,527 141,876 -651
Cooperative Water Program................. 62,833 62,171 -662
Water Resources Research Act Program...... 6,404 0 -6,404
Biological Research/Monitoring............ 140,086 135,692 -4,394
Biological Info Mgmt/Delivery............. 23,794 21,967 -1,827
Enterprise Information Resources.......... 16,900 16,636 -264
Science Support........................... 69,302 67,382 -1,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 32. I am pleased to see that the Budget includes funding
for an initiative to support the activities of the NatureServe system.
How does the Department make use of information from the
NatureServe system and the network of State natural heritage programs?
Does the Department support further partnership efforts with these
programs? How does this State-based network help ensure a strong
scientific foundation for natural resource decisions and help avoid
conflicts over resource use?
Answer. Funding is provided for NatureServe as part of a broader
strategy to improve delivery and access of information needed to
support Department of the Interior bureaus in the fulfillment of their
missions. The funding will support maintenance of the Natural Heritage
database, an available database of nationally consistent species and
ecosystem information needed for many forms of decision making. The
network maintains a continually updated computerized database of
information on rare and threatened species and natural communities,
tracking the locations of these species and communities. The network
databases identify species, natural communities, and ecosystems in need
of protection at the local, regional, national, and global levels. For
species, the network tracks the scientific name, distribution and
population trends, habitat requirements, and ecological relationships.
For natural communities, databases contain information on vegetation
structure and composition, succession patterns, natural disturbances,
and the distribution and rarity of specific community types throughout
their geographic range. In addition, the network tracks the quality and
condition of each occurrence of a community.
More broadly, program components of the Biological Resources
discipline within the U.S. Geological Survey (such as the National
Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), Gap Analysis (GAP), and
Status and Trends) will work with NatureServe and other partners to
make information on the distribution of rare and endangered species and
threatened ecosystems accessible by all Department of the Interior
employees in versions that allow field offices to input their own data
points and to analyze scenarios on the impacts of alternative
management plans. This includes supporting analyses that can be applied
to research and monitoring as well as natural resource management needs
so that they can incorporate information from a variety of sources to
understand the linkages between rare and endangered species and
threatened ecosystems and the impacts and (or) effects of invasive
species, diseases, climate change and natural hazards.
The Heritage Programs work with the Department of the Interior,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management,
conducting biological inventories and mapping species found on
federally owned lands. For example, The National Park Service
established a Yellowstone Conservation Data Center, merging data from
the Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana state Heritage Programs to form a
complete inventory of the rare species found in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. The ecosystem comprises Yellowstone National Park, Grand
Teton National Park, and seven adjacent national forests.
Question 33. The budget proposes a significant decrease of $22.9
million for the Mineral Resources program.
Please describe in detail the activities that are proposed to be
cut and the justification for these cuts.
Answer. The Mineral Resources Program conducts basic research in
ore deposits, geochemistry, and geophysics and applied research in
national and international mineral assessments that benefit States,
local governments, industry, and academia, in addition to many Federal
programs. Within the current budget priorities, the administration is
focusing its efforts in mineral resource assessments and research to
those efforts that support the needs of Federal land management
programs and expects that universities or other entities will undertake
assessments and research that support non-Federal needs. This funding
level will keep the core Federal program intact, providing the
information and analyses that address the Department's strategic plan
goals concerning Resource Use.
Under the proposed budget, MRP will conduct three site-specific
mineral resource projects and mineral resource assessments for Federal
land management agencies in the lower 48 States, provide regional-scale
geologic data and mineral resource assessments in three areas of
Alaska, complete collection of national-scale data characterizing earth
materials, collect data on domestic production and utilization of 100
mineral commodities, and manage four national-scale long term
databases.
The proposed reductions will be addressed with the following
specific actions:
<bullet> Termination of an international collaboration to provide a
global assessment of potential for undiscovered mineral
resources.
<bullet> Discontinuation of research on improving methods of mineral
resource assessment and on enhancing applications of GIS to
mineral resource assessments.
<bullet> Discontinuation of most research and data collection
projects, including:
<bullet> Research in the lower 48 States and Alaska on processes
that form ore deposits,
<bullet> Geo-environmental research aimed at understanding
processes through which metals are dispersed through the
environment (the basis for partnerships in watersheds
challenged with abandoned mine sites),
<bullet> Industrial minerals research,
<bullet> Application of remotely sensed data to meet the needs of
Interior bureaus, including remote characterization of
mineral products released at abandoned mine sites and
prioritization of specific remediation targets,
<bullet> Research on the human health consequences of mineral
materials, including dusts and toxins such as mercury and
arsenic, and
<bullet> A comprehensive soil geochemical survey of the United
States,
<bullet> Elimination of support for at least 8 USGS geochemical and
geophysical labs.
<bullet> Elimination of the collection of data on international
production and utilization of 100 mineral commodities.
<bullet> Termination of research and analysis of minerals and
materials life cycles, materials flows, and future uses of
minerals and materials.
<bullet> Elimination of the Mineral Resources External Research
Program (MRERP), which makes grants to non-Federal entities to
conduct research addressing goals of the Mineral Resources
Program.
Question 34. The budget includes an increase of $1 million for the
preservation of geologic and geophysical data. Section 351 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Department to implement a data
archive system and a national catalog for this data.
Can you please describe the status of your implementation efforts
and a time line for implementation?
Answer. Section 351 of the Energy Policy Act requires in subsection
(c) that the Secretary submit to Congress by August 8, 2006, a plan for
the implementation of the National Geological and Geophysical Data
Preservation Program. We have created a National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program FACA ad hoc subcommittee of data preservation experts
that will convene shortly to prepare that report. We already have
posted on the Worldwide Web a questionnaire asking Interior bureaus and
State surveys what their data needs are so that we can craft a program
responsive to their need. The time line for implementation of section
351 will be included in the plan submitted to the Congress.
Question 35. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the U.S.
Geological Survey to undertake a national assessment of oil shale
resources.
Please describe the work plan and time-line for this assessment.
Answer. The FY 2007 budget proposal requests $500,000 for FY 2007
to begin the assessment required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If
that money is appropriated, we expect to begin a two-year effort to
assess oil shale resources in the Greater Green River Formation, as
required by the Act.
Question 36. Section 348 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains
new provisions relating to the North Slope Science Initiative. That
provision requires the Secretary to appoint a science technical
advisory panel consisting of ``a representative group of not more than
15 scientists and technical experts from diverse professions and
interests, including the oil and gas industry, subsistence users,
Native Alaskan entities, conservation organizations, wildlife
management organizations, and academia, as determined by the
Secretary.''
Please provide a list of all members of this technical panel,
stating their organization, area of expertise and identifying what
organization or individual nominated them. Are conservation
organizations and wildlife management organizations represented on the
panel as required by the law? Does the composition of the panel comport
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act?
Answer. Only 2 of the 66 nominees we received were for people who
work for conservation organizations. None of the appointees work for a
conservation organization, but two who were appointed were recommended
by conservation organizations. There were no nominees from any wildlife
management organizations, nor were there any letters of recommendation
from any.
Section 248 of the Energy Policy Act states that the panel ``shall
consist of a representative group of not more than 15 scientists and
technical experts from diverse professions and interests, including the
oil and gas industry, subsistence users, Native Alaskan entities,
conservation organizations, wildlife management organizations, and
academia, as determined by the Secretary'' (emphasis added). We do not
read this provision as requiring that each of these interests be
represented on the panel, particularly since the section allows the
Secretary to make the determination of what the representative group
should look like. We believe this is a fairly balanced panel. It
includes individuals representing a balance of points of view and
functions to be performed. The panel is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Expertise Affiliation Nominated by Term
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Brower, Sr............ Traditional.... Retired; North Mayor George N. Ahmaogak Sr., 3 years
Ecological..... Slope Borough North Slope Borough.
Knowledge...... resident.
Dirk Derksen................. Ornithology.... U.S. Geological Dr. Tony DeGange, Chief, 3 years
Terrestrial.... Survey. Biology and Geography, U.S.
Ecology........ Geological Survey, Anchorage.
Douglas Kane................. Civil University of Dr. Larry D. Hinzman, 3 years
Engineering. Alaska Institute of Northern
Hydrology...... Fairbanks. Engineering, UAF, Fairbanks,
Climatology.... AK.
Robert Shuchman.............. Remote Sensing/ Altarum Dr. Kenneth R. Baker, 3 years
GIS. Institute. President and COE, Altarum,
Ann Arbor Michigan.
Matthew Sturm................ Landscape...... U.S. Army Cold James L. Wuebben, PE, Acting 3 years
Ecology........ Regions Director, Dept. of the Army,
Hydrology...... Research and CRREL, Hanover, NH.
Climatology.... Engineering
Laboratory.
Gary Kofinas................. Socio-cultural Institute of Dr. Brian M.Barnes, Director, 2 years
Anthropology. Arctic Institute of Arctic Biology,
Adaptive Biology, UAF, Fairbanks, AK.
Management. University of
Alaska
Fairbanks.
Sue Moore.................... Marine Ecology. National Marine Dr. Douglas DeMaster, Science 2 years
Oceanography... Fisheries & Research Director, Alaska
Service. Region, NMFS.
Alvin Ott.................... Habitat Biology Alaska Dr. Erich Follmann, Institute 2 years
Fisheries Department of of Arctic Biology, UAF.
Biology. Natural Mr. Ken Donajakowski, V.P.
Resources. Health, Safety and
Environment, ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc.
Dr. Craig George, Dept.
Wildlife Mgmt. North Slope
Borough.
Commissioner McKie Campbell,
Alaska Department of Fish &
Game.
Robert Suydam................ Wildlife North Slope Mayor George N. Ahmaogak Sr., 2 years
Biology. Borough. North Slope Borough.
Ornithology....
Marine Ecology.
Kimberly Titus............... Wildlife Alaska Commissioner McKie Campbell, 2 years
Biology. Department of Alaska Department of Fish &
Ornithology.... Fish and Game. Game.
Alison Cooke................. Petroleum British Mr. Steve Marshall, President, 1 year
Engineering. Petroleum BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc..
Geology........ Alaska. Ms. Barb McAllister, Former
Director of Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency, Seattle WA.
Mr. Tom Chapple, Director,
Div. Air Quality, Alaska
Dept. Environmental
Conservation.
Ms. Marilyn Crockett, Deputy
Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association.
John Kelley.................. Oceanography... Institute of Mayor George N. Ahmaogak Sr., 1 year
Environmental Marine North Slope Borough.
Monitoring. Science, Dr. Michael Castellini, School
Science Policy. University of of Fisheries and Ocean
Alaska Sciences, UAF, Fairbanks, AK.
Fairbanks. Dr.Craig Dorman, VP Academic
Affairs and Research,
University of Alaska
Statewide.
Dr. Glenn W. Sheehan,
Executive Director, Barrow
Arctic Science Consortium.
Caryn Rea.................... Wildlife ConocoPhillips Mr. Ken Donajakowski, V.P. 1 year
Biology. Alaska, Inc.. Health, Safety and
Habitat Biology Environment, ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc.
Ms. Marilyn Crockett, Deputy
Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association.
Dan Reed..................... Biometrics..... General Public. Dr. Lane G. Adams, U.S. 1 year
Geological Survey, Anchorage.
Dr. Alvin G. Ott, Office of
Habitat Management and
Permiting, Alaska Dept.
Natural Resources.
Dr. John W. Schoen, Senior
Scientist, Audubon, Alaska.
Bill Streever................ Restoration British Dr. John J. Kelley, School of 1 year
Ecology. Petroleum Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,
Alaska. UAF, Fairbanks.
Dr. Harry R. Bader, Iraq
Mesoptamian Wetland
Restoration Program, Baghdad/
New York.
Dr. John W. Day, Dept. of
Oceanography and Coastal
Sciences, Lousiana State
University.
Mr. David Banks, State
Director, The Nature
Conservancy, Alaska.
Ms. Gail Bingham, President,
Resolve, Portland, OR.
Mr. Steve Marshall, President,
BP Exploration (Alaska)inc..
Ms. Marilyn Crockett, Deputy
Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE
Question 37a. The NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service)
February report notes that snowpack in the entire Rio Grande basin is
34% of average. The Rio Grande streamflow at Otowi gage is projected at
28% of avg. Three years ago, New Mexico cut a deal with Texas so that
it could use Rio Grande Compact credits to provide water to meet the
flow requirements of the 2003 biological opinion which governs water
operations in the Middle Rio Grande. Because of the drought conditions,
that credit water will likely all be gone by the end of 2006. This
means we are headed for a possible train wreck in 2007, if not sooner,
because there will be no reserve supply of water to help satisfy the
ESA.
Last year I asked DOI to put together an initiative similar to the
high-level attention given to the Klamath basin in Oregon. As trumpeted
in the 2005 budget, the President called for a $105 million investment
in the Klamath basin to ensure ``an unprecedented level of habitat
restoration and water quality and quantity improvements.'' After
receiving assurances from the Deputy Secretary that the Department
would present a cross-cut budget almost a year ago, I was disappointed
to receive the Department's budget showing an overall 17% cut for the
Rio Grande budgets of Reclamation, Fish & Wildlife, USGS, and the BIA.
I'm concerned that we've been living on borrowed time in the Middle
Rio Grande but, quite frankly, don't sense a similar urgency on
Interior's behalf. The Programmatic EIS that is supposed to be done on
the long-term plan & overall recovery program is nowhere near complete
despite the fact that it was first announced in June 2003 with
projected completion by February 2004.
Why is the Department not working aggressively with others to put
together detailed elements of a short and long-term plan to address the
ESA issues in the Middle Rio Grande?
Answer. The Department is working aggressively. Since 2000, the
Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program has been
successful, bringing together various stakeholders including Federal
and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, farmers and
business interests in an effort to protect endangered ecosystems while
meeting the needs of those who are dependent on the waters of the Rio
Grande.
Question 37b. Do you believe there is a big potential problem
regarding compliance with the ESA in 2007? If so, isn't the situation
worthy of high-level attention at the Department? What will you do to
ensure that the Department is doing all it can to address this issue
before the train wreck occurs?
Answer. The Department is giving this project high-level attention.
Funding for FY 2007 will enable Reclamation to meet the water
requirements of the BiOp, including acquisition and management of
supplemental water and low flow conveyance channel pumping, as well as
to support the transfer of administrative functions to the Corps, to
continue administration of more than 90 contracts, grants, cooperative
and interagency agreements, including Indian Self Determination Act
contracts, and to continue to participate on the Executive Committee,
Steering Committee, Program Implementation Team, and various technical
work groups. Moreover, Jennifer Gimbel has been appointed the
Secretary's representative on Middle Rio Grande issues, and she will
ensure that these issues receive the Department's full attention.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Question 38. What is the status of the new contracts being
negotiated with water user entities associated with the Central Valley
Project? Have negotiations been completed? Have the contracts been
signed by all parties? Is there any environmental compliance activity
being undertaken? Please identify each specific contract that is
currently being negotiated, or each contract for which a negotiation
has recently been completed.
Answer. The following table contains a summary of the contract
renewal status:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley project renewal
contracts Number Expected execution date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total water service contracts........ 109
Executed........................... 83
Remaining:......................... 26
Awaiting contractor's signature.. 3 (imminent)
Negotiated; awaiting completion
of environmental documentation
and Contractor's signature
San Luis Unit................ 7
Cross Valley................. 8 July 2006
American River: Sac. Co. WA.. 1 September 2006 \1\
DMC Contract Assignments to 3 July 2006
Westlands.
Negotiation in progress: 4 August 2006
Sacramento Municipal Utility
District, City of Tracy, San
Benito WCD, Santa Clara VWD.
Total Sacramento River Settlement 141
Contracts.
Executed........................... 126
Remaining (All environmental 15
documentation received):.
Problem with contractors 1 March 2006
signature authority.
No response from contractor after 2
mailing contract.
Contractor in arrears on payments ....... March 2006
under current contract.
Contractor deceased; contract 1 March 2006
being divided.
Contractor not renewing.......... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Execution date is dependent upon completon of negotiations of
conveyance contract between California Department of Water Resources
and contractors.
Question 39. How do the terms for the new contracts differ from the
terms of the contracts that are expiring with respect to (1) the
quantity of water to be provided under the contract; (2) its term; (3)
compliance with environmental laws; (4) the federal government's
liability for non-delivery of project water; (5) acreage to be served;
and (6) the ability to sub-contract the right to receive project water?
Answer. (1) There has been no change between the expiring contracts
and the new contracts in the quantity of water to be provided under the
CVP water service contracts. However, the contract quantity was reduced
in two of the renewed Sacramento River Settlement contracts the
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District contract was reduced from
165,000 acre feet of base supply and 10,000 acre feet of Project water
(175,000 acre feet total) to 121,000 acre feet of base supply and 7,000
acre feet of Project water (128,000 acre feet total) in the renewal
contract, and the Sutter Mutual Water Company contract was reduced from
172,900 acre feet of base supply and 95,000 acre feet of Project water
(267,900 acre feet total) to 169,500 of base supply and 56,500 of
Project water (226,000 acre feet total) in the renewal contract.
(2) Although the expiring water service contracts had varying
terms, most were for terms of 40 years. The term of the renewal water
service contracts are as follows:
<bullet> Irrigation only and mixed irrigation/M&I contracts are 25
years with the right to renew for successive terms upon the
satisfaction of certain conditions;
<bullet> M&I-only contracts were renewed for a term of 40 years with
successive 40 year renewals. The term of both the old and
renewal Sacramento River Settlement Contracts is 40 years.
(3) Many of the original contracts were negotiated and executed
before the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those expiring contracts which were
negotiated and signed after passage of NEPA and ESA were subject to
those acts. NEPA and ESA have been/will be fully complied with for all
of the renewal water service and Sacramento River Settlement contracts.
(4) The expiring water service contracts contained a variety of
water shortage liability provisions depending upon when the contract
was negotiated and signed. The liability provision of the renewal water
service contracts is uniform throughout the new and proposed contracts
and is as follows:
``If there is a Condition of Shortage because of errors in
physical operations of the Project, drought, other physical
causes beyond the control of the Contracting Officer or actions
taken by the Contracting Officer to meet legal obligations
then, except as provided in subdivision (a) of Article 18
[arbitrary and capricious actions]of this Contract, no
liability shall accrue against the United States or any of its
officers, agents, or employees for any damage, direct or
indirect, arising therefrom.''
The liability provision in the renewal Sacrament River Settlement
Contract differs from that in the original contracts in that subarticle
3(h)(4)(i) has been added to the language that was used in the expiring
contracts:
``3. (h)The United States assumes no responsibility for and
neither it nor its officers, agents, or employees shall have
any liability for or on account of:
(1) The quality of water to be diverted by the
Contractor;
(2) The control, carriage, handling, use, disposal,
or distribution of water diverted by the Contractor
outside the facilities constructed and then being
operated and maintained by or on behalf of the United
States;
(3) Claims of damage of any nature whatsoever,
including but not limited to, property loss or damage,
personal injury, or death arising out of or connected
with the control, carriage, handling, use, disposal, or
distribution of said water outside of the hereinabove
referred to facilities; and
(4) Any damage whether direct or indirect arising out
of or in any manner caused by a shortage of water
whether such shortage be on account of errors in
operation, drought, or unavoidable causes.
(i) In addition to the provisions of
subdivision (h) of Article 3 of this Contract,
if there is a shortage of Project Water because
of actions taken by the Contracting Officer to
meet legal obligations then, except as provided
in subdivision (a) of Article 30 of this
Contract, no liability shall accrue against the
United States or any of its officers, agents,
or employees for any damage, direct or
indirect, arising therefrom.''
(5) There is almost no variation in the total
irrigable acreage of the Central Valley Project between
the expiring contracts and the renewal contracts. On
average approximately 3 million acres are irrigated
with CVP water. The precise figure will vary depending
upon inclusions and exclusions from districts.
(6) Base water supplied under the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts is appurtenant to the land and may
therefore not be subcontracted. Project water included
under the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts and the
renewed water service contracts may be sold or
transferred to or exchanged with others for reasonable
and beneficial use within the State of California if
consistent with applicable State or Federal law and
with the prior written approval of the Contracting
Officer. Generally, sub-contracts are not specifically
authorized or prohibited by the general contract
language. Article 39 of the County of Colusa contract
specifically allows the County to enter into
subcontracts.
Question 40. What are the terms related to a project contractor's
right to resell project water in the new contracts? Is the right to
receive water pursuant to the contracts conditioned on the ability of a
district to beneficially use such water? Has the Bureau of Reclamation
performed an analysis of each district's ability to beneficially use
the water identified for delivery under the contracts?
Answer. As discussed in the answer to the previous question, the
terms related to a project contractor's right to resell water varies
but generally subcontracts are not specifically authorized or
prohibited under general contract language. An exception to this is
that base water supplied under the Sacramento River Settlement
Contracts is appurtenant to the land and cannot be subcontracted.
Beneficial use is included as a condition of the contracts: Article
3(d) of the water service contracts provides that the Contractor shall
make reasonable and beneficial use of all water furnished pursuant to
the contract. A water needs assessment was performed for each
contractor prior to negotiation of the renewal contract.
WATER PROGRAM FUNDING--OVERALL & DOI-SPECIFIC
Question 41. I'm surprised at how the President's budget treats
water resource programs across the board. It proposes a 13% cut to
EPA's Clean & Safe Water Programs; an 11% cut to the Army Corps of
Engineers water resource budget and a 21% cut in USDA's water and waste
disposal grant program. Relative to the other programs, Interior did
not do as bad as the other agencies. Reclamation is proposed for a 5%
cut in FY 2007, the same as USGS's water research program.
I put water in the same category as energy a resource that is
absolutely essential to the economic stability of our communities. The
trend for water-related funding in the 2007 budget paints a very
troubling picture.
Does the administration view the importance of water differently
than I do? Is there an overriding philosophical view that water is a
state and local problem and therefore the federal government should
reduce its involvement in helping them to solve their water resource
issues?
Answer. Water is one of the scarcest resources in some of the
fastest growing areas of the Nation. It is the lifeblood and foundation
of the American West. The Bureau of Reclamation's core mission
continues to be to deliver water to its customers, but the
administration recognizes that as water supply-demand challenges
increase in the West, opportunities for crises and conflict are rife.
The prevention of crises and conflicts over water supplies is important
to ensure the continued economic vitality and social cohesiveness of
the nation. While the best solutions will be driven by local needs and
developed by State and local stakeholders who know the on-the-ground
situations, the Federal government can and should provide incentives
for cooperation and efficient management of water resources wherever
possible. Water 2025 affirms the importance of this Federal role by
focusing resources on increasing certainty and flexibility in water
supplies, diversifying water supplies, and preventing crises through
added environmental benefits in many watersheds, rivers and streams.
However, Federal resources are scarce, which is why the Water 2025
program focuses those resources identified as Hot Spot' areas. Although
other programs may not utilize the specific criteria that the Water
2025 program uses, we must target Federal resources on water
development where it can make the most impact.
Question 42. With respect to Interior's budget, I'm very concerned
about the some of the specific cuts to water programs. I mentioned that
Reclamation and USGS were proposed for 5% cuts. Unfortunately, some of
the accounts to assist Indian tribes with water resource issues were
cut substantially more. BIA's two primary accounts for water planning
and water rights negotiation are proposed for a 25% cut, and
Reclamation's Native American program is proposed for a 25% cut.
Why are Native American water programs singled out for
substantially higher cuts than other programs? Is the administration
trying to avoid having an active water rights negotiation program so
that it can avoid expensive Indian water rights settlements? Won't the
result of these cuts be to force more litigation and less cooperation
in resolving contentious water rights claims?
Answer. Native American water programs are not being singled out
for substantially higher cuts than other programs. The 2007 budget
provides $13.5 million for these programs. This funding will adequately
support litigation by the United States to determine title to Indian
water, which is the core trust responsibility and highest priority
among water related needs. The funding will also support tribal
consultation, tribal participation in litigation and negotiation, and
high priority tribal water resource management functions.
The administration is not trying to avoid having an active water
rights negotiation program nor are we interested in more litigation and
less cooperation in resolving contentious water rights claims. This
does not mean however that we will agree to an unacceptable level of
Federal financial contribution just to settle a case.
Additionally, the BIA has established a new system for ranking
water rights/resource funds. The new system ensures objective
application of criteria under which the highest priority for funding
goes to activities necessary to protect trust resources.
Question 43. I've been working closely with the New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission and local entities on two major water
supply projects the Navajo-Gallup Pipeline Project and the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water System. These projects are very critical to the
future of New Mexico, as demonstrated by the millions of dollars of
state funding provided by the State over the last 3 years. The staff at
the Department of the Interior have raised several issues concerning
each project and have indicated that they need to be involved in
planning and evaluating these projects if Reclamation is to support
project authorizations. Yet, the President's budget requests no funding
for either project.
With not even a minimal amount of funding to support the Bureau of
Reclamation's staff involvement, how do you expect to be an equal
partner with the State and local communities in resolving the issues
raised by Reclamation with regard to these projects? Are there carry-
over funds available to continue Reclamation's involvement? If so, how
much for each project?
With respect to the Navajo-Gallup pipeline project, it is my
understanding that Reclamation is supposed to complete an EIS and
Record of Decision. Has that been done? If not, how will Reclamation
complete that work with no funding?
Answer. With respect to the Eastern New Mexico pipeline,
Reclamation is preparing a review of the proposed pipeline's
engineering design to be completed by mid-April. However, this design
and the associated cost estimates submitted by the Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water Authority's consultant are viewed as preliminary.
Additional appropriations will not be required to review the
preliminary design, but additional work would be needed to develop a
complete feasibility analysis and report.
With respect to the Navajo-Gallup pipeline, a draft EIS is close to
completion and we are nearing the public comment period. Some carryover
funds are anticipated to be available after the comment period to
continue the required environmental analyses.
COLORADO RIVER
Question 44. What environmental compliance activities is
Reclamation currently undertaking related to proposed actions affecting
the water supply available from the Colorado River? For each of these
environmental compliance activities, please describe the purpose and
details related to the contemplated action, and the time frames
scheduled for completing the environmental review.
Answer. Aside from the EIS on Colorado River management mentioned
previously, Reclamation is pursuing two activities (Laguna Dam
Restoration and construction of the Drop 2 Storage Reservoir along the
All-American Canal) that would allow Colorado River water that would
have otherwise been released to Mexico in excess of treaty requirements
to be captured and used within the United States. Completion of design
and compliance activities for both projects is targeted for the fall of
2006.
Implementation of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Program
(MSCP) began in April 2005 with the signing of a Record of Decision by
the Secretary of the Interior. The MSCP is a coordinated,
comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work
towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain
wildlife habitat on the lower Colorado River. It provides coverage
under the Endangered Species Act for operations along the River.
Implementation activities are based on adaptive management principles,
which allow program conservation measures to be adjusted over time
based on monitoring and research.
Question 45. The 7 states in the Colorado River Basin recently sent
you a letter providing recommendations for the Department's proposed
EIS on Colorado River Reservoir Operations. In that letter they
identified a package of actions that they would move forward in
implementing in 2006 (e.g. a demonstration program for extraordinary
conservation in 2006, system efficiency projects, preparation of an
action plan for system augmentation through weather modification, etc.
. . .).
Will Reclamation be providing financial or technical assistance to
the States to help them implement their proposed set of actions?
Answer. Reclamation will continue to provide technical assistance
to the States to help evaluate and implement their proposed short-term
actions. To date, the States have not requested any financial
assistance. In late February, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California requested that Reclamation commence a demonstration
program in 2006 and 2007 for the creation of ``Intentionally Created
Surplus'' through extraordinary conservation measures. (The pilot
program was outlined in the letter from the Basin States). Reclamation
is currently working on appropriate consultation requirements and
compliance activities to start the demonstration program in 2006.
Additionally, the Southern Nevada Water Authority has put out a
request for proposal (RFP) for a consultant to assist the Basin States
in searching out ideas for solving water supply issues within the
Basin.
Question 46. What actions has the Department taken to implement the
Arizona Water Settlements Act? Please identify what resources in the
2007 budget the Department has proposed for implementation activity.
Answer. The Department has been devoting significant resources to
the tasks required for implementing the Arizona Water Settlements Act
(Act). Implementation teams have been established for each of the three
major titles in the Act. The teams have identified remaining
implementation tasks and the timeframes within which these tasks must
be accomplished to meet the Act's enforceability deadline of December
31, 2007. One of the biggest steps toward full implementation of the
Act occurred on December 21, 2005, when Secretary Norton executed the
Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement and the
New Mexico Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement. Prior to
execution, the Department's implementation team worked closely with the
parties to these two agreements to assure that they conformed to, and
did not conflict with, the Act. This process required repeated review
and refinement of more than 1,800 pages of agreements, attachments,
exhibits, stipulations and other documents. The Department recently has
completed its review of the Tohono O'odham Settlement Agreement and
expects that it will be executed within a matter of weeks.
Implementation activities will be carried out in 2007 by BIA,
Reclamation, the Solicitor's Office and the Secretary's Indian Water
Rights Office utilizing the basic operational funds for each of these
entities.
RECLAMATION--GENERAL
Question 47. In the recent National Research Council Report on the
Bureau of Reclamation's role in the 21st Century, there is much
discussion of sustaining Reclamation's water and power infrastructure
assets.
Has Reclamation performed a west-wide survey and inspection of its
infrastructure and developed a comprehensive O&M plan, particularly
with respect to major repair and modernization needs?
Answer. Reclamation law generally provides that project
beneficiaries are responsible for their allocated share of O&M costs on
the projects serving them. Reclamation is responsible for the share of
O&M costs that is allocated to public purposes, such as fish and
wildlife benefits and flood control. As part of our Managing for
Excellence Action Plan, Reclamation is in the process of creating a
database that will give us an understanding of the business status of
the facilities it owns. Needed information includes the construction
investment in the facility, the cost allocation, the repayment status,
the O&M allocation, the annual commitment of Reclamation funding to
O&M, the design life, the facility condition, and any known or planned
significant future investments for Safety of Dams work or major
rehabilitation needs. This Bureau-wide, project-by-project information
will be invaluable for future decision making regarding what actions
relating to those facilities make sense, and who should carry them out.
Furthermore, in line with the findings of the administration's PART
evaluation of Reclamation's Water Management-Operations and Maintenance
program, the administration is developing a comprehensive strategy for
proactively addressing the long-term challenges posed by aging
infrastructure.
Question 48. Reclamation's Managing for Excellence action plan
indicates that it will take approximately $10 million to carry-out the
tasks contemplated in the plan, and that the resources will be made
available by reprioritizing existing activities.
How will this impact ongoing operation, maintenance, or
environmental compliance activities associated with Reclamation
projects?
Answer. The Action Plan provides for full implementation of all
action items by December of 2007. Reclamation's reprioritization of
funds will be carried out consistent with an absolute commitment to
ensure that all activities vital to Reclamation's core mission,
including ongoing operation, maintenance, and environmental compliance
responsibilities, are unaffected. We anticipate that implementation of
the action items will result in significant improvements in the
efficiency of Reclamation's management. This would ultimately translate
into improved capacity to carry out all aspects of Reclamation's
mission, including operation, maintenance, and environmental
compliance.
INDIAN ENERGY
Question 49. Please outline all the activities being undertaken by
the Department of the Interior to implement Title V of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Please be specific as to time frames and the
resources being expended (or proposed for expenditure) to increase
federal support for Indian energy development and the electrification
of tribal lands pursuant to Sections 503/2602-2604.
Answer. The FY 2006 appropriations bill was signed prior to the
enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, for FY 2006 the
Department has provided $350,000 from other sources to promulgate
Tribal Energy Resource Agreement (TERA) regulations. With these funds,
the Department was able to conduct 10 consultation meetings throughout
Indian Country and, based on those meetings, is currently developing
draft regulations. We anticipate having the draft regulations out for
public review within the next few months. Additional consultation
meetings will follow. The President's FY 2007 budget request includes
$2 million to implement the TERA regulations and provide technical
assistance grants to Tribes wanting to develop their energy resources.
U.S. Geological Survey
Question 50. It is my understanding that USGS is participating in
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Could you please detail what
activities USGS is conducting under this program and how much was
expended for this effort in 2005; planned for 2006; and budgeted for
2007? What accounts is being used to fund these activities?
Answer. USGS Contributions to the Climate Change Science Program
CARBON CYCLE
USGS research is conducted in cooperation and partnership with
other agencies and academic collaborators in direct support of the
Carbon Cycle Science Program. USGS carbon cycle research includes the
following activities:
<bullet> Carbon sequestration in sediments--Redeposition of eroded
soils and sediments and their associated organic carbon is
sequestering large quantities of carbon, buried at the base of
slopes and in wetlands, riparian areas, reservoirs, etc.
<bullet> Landscape dynamics and vegetation change--Research examines
the long-term dynamics of vegetation change and the impact of
climate. A detailed history of vegetation change in the Western
U.S. is being constructed based on the paleobotanical record of
pollen and plant tissues preserved in packrat middens and
buried in sediments.
<bullet> Fate of Carbon in Alaskan Landscapes--Cold region forests
(boreal ecosystems) contain large carbon reserves that are
highly susceptible to changes in climate. Changes in fire and
seasonal temperatures may cause changes in ecosystem structure,
permafrost recovery, nutrient cycling, and carbon exchange.
Central to the fate of these C reserves is the interaction
between fire occurrence and permafrost changes in the surface
layers. Process studies and modeling are being expanded to
better understand the historic and modern interactions among
climate, surface temperature and moisture, fire, and
terrestrial carbon sequestration.
<bullet> Exchanges of Greenhouse Gases, Water Vapor, and Heat at the
Earth's Surface--Atmospheric turbulence transports greenhouse
gases (notably: CO<INF>2</INF>, methane, and nitrous oxide),
water vapor, and heat between Earth's land and water surfaces
and the overlying atmosphere. These exchanges influence
climate, viability of ecosystems, distribution of biomes, and
the quantity of both surface- and ground-water.
IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS, WETLANDS, FISH, AND
WILDLIFE
Biology and ecosystem-focused global-change related research in the
USGS encompasses the themes of:
<bullet> bird and habitat interactions;
<bullet> potential changes in arid and semiarid ecosystems with
changes in climate, management of resources, and uses;
<bullet> coastal and interior wetland ecosystems;
<bullet> sensitive species and island ecosystems;
<bullet> watershed biogeochemistry; and
<bullet> regional ecosystem responses to climatic change in and among
mountain systems.
USGS research focuses on multiple stresses to U.S. Department of
the Interior (USDOI) lands including climate change, human population
growth, land use change, air and water pollution, habitat
fragmentation, and invasive species.
Coastal wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the
world and are vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise associated
with global warming. Determining the potential for wetland submergence
is a critical first step for managing these valuable coastal habitats
into the next century. Research conducted by USGS has improved our
understanding of the natural processes controlling wetland elevation
and the potential for submergence of our coastal wetland habitats.
Wildland fire is a serious and growing hazard over much of the
United States, posing a great threat to life and property. The USGS
conducts fire related research to meet the varied needs of the fire
management community and to understand the role of fire in the
landscape; this research includes fire management support, studies of
post-fire effects, and a wide range of studies on fire history and
ecology.
HYDROCLIMATOLOGY
The Global Change Hydrology Program was begun in 1990 to develop
data, understanding, and predictive capabilities related to water and
associated aspects of carbon and greenhouse gases as they interact with
global systems. Global Change Hydrology has two broad components: 1)
investigations of hydroclimatic variability, and 2) studies of the
biogeochemistry of greenhouse gases. This includes identification of
seasonal variations in regional streamflow in relation to atmospheric
circulation (for regional streamflow prediction and flood/drought
hazard assessment); the linkage between atmospheric circulation and
snowpack accumulation (for forecasting spring and summer water supply
in the western United States and for flood forecasting) as well as
glacier mass balance; and the physical and chemical variability in
riverine and estuarine environments in relation to large-scale
atmospheric and oceanic conditions (to discriminate natural from human-
induced effects on such systems). It also includes documenting the
long-term behavior of hydrologic systems in response to past climatic
variations and changes (from decades to hundreds of thousands of years)
as well as more recent (decadal) hydrologic trends.
The U.S. Geological Survey initiated the Water, Energy, and
Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB) program in 1991 to understand the
processes controlling water, energy, and biogeochemical fluxes over a
range of temporal and spatial scales and to understand the interactions
of these processes, including the effects of atmospheric and climatic
variables. WEBB research watersheds form a geographically and
ecologically diverse set of environments for investigating the
interactive effects of changes in CO<INF>2</INF>, climate, and
biogeochemistry on the terrestrial carbon cycle; how global change will
affect biogeochemical interactions with the hydrologic cycle and
surface energy balance; and how global change will affect
biogeochemical controls over the transport of water, nutrients, and
materials from land to freshwater ecosystems.
CLIMATE HISTORY IN ALASKA
Sampling of deposits (bogs, lakes, and natural exposures) that
contain fossil pollen, plant macrofossils, and sometimes ostracodes and
diatoms allows reconstruction of the late Pleistocene and Holocene
history of environmental change in southern Alaska, focusing upon the
past 50,000 years. High-latitude ecosystems are highly sensitive to
climatic change, and therefore understanding their history of
environmental responses to past climate changes provides not only
information about those past responses but also provides a basis for
predicting future responses to a variety of possible climatic
scenarios. So far the project has focused upon the late Quaternary
history of Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska, Chugach
National Forest, and adjacent areas of south-central Alaska, and
Western Alaska.
GLACIER STUDIES
Glaciers are particularly sensitive to changes in regional and
global climate. Seasonal changes in sea ice and snow cover and decadal
changes in glacier area can be monitored regionally and globally with
image data from Earth-orbiting satellites. The U.S. Geological Survey
has played a leading national and international role in using satellite
image data to provide baseline data and other information about
glaciers from a global perspective. NASA and USGS scientists are also
carrying out experimental geodetic airborne, satellite laser altimetry,
radar interferometric, and other remote-sensing surveys of glaciers.
The 11-volume Satellite Image Atlas of the World (USGS Professional
Paper 1386 A-K) is being compiled by more than 80 scientists
representing 45 institutions and 25 nations, and includes a compilation
of accurate maps (in both printed and digital formats) which show
coastal changes in floating (ice fronts) and grounded (ice walls)
glacier ice during the past 30 years.
The world's glaciers react to and interact with changes in global
and regional climates. Most mountain glaciers have been retreating
since the latter part of the 19th century.
Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by
Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly
since the early 1900's. The arrows point to the former extent of the
glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent
monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain
glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature
increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the
19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
USGS scientists are closely monitoring glaciers in Alaska to
document if climate change is impacting Alaska's temperate glaciers.
The USGS assessment shows that throughout the state, more than 98% of
valley glaciers that terminate at an elevation below 1,000 m are
retreating, thinning, or stagnating. Since 1986, Hubbard Glacier, one
of the few advancing glaciers, has twice temporarily blocked the
entrance to Russell Fiord. Glaciers and ice sheets are sensitive
indicators of changing climate. On a global basis, the USGS is
combining field observations with satellite- and aerial-remote-sensing
to compile a baseline inventory of the health of Earth's glaciers
during the first decade of Landsat, 1972-1981. This compilation serves
as a benchmark for documenting cryosphere change on a global scale.
Additionally, the USGS has produced the longest glacier mass balance
record in North America. This forty-year-long record has provided a
unique record of glacier response to climate variations in the latter
half of the 20th century. The South Cascade Glacier in Washington, one
of the USGS monitoring sites, has dramatically retreated, losing 20 m
of water equivalent averaged over the entire surface of the glacier
since the mid 1970's.
CLIMATE-VEGETATION MODELING
Vegetation changes caused by climatic variations and/or land use
may have large impacts on forests, agriculture, rangelands, natural
ecosystems, and endangered species. Climate modeling studies indicate
that vegetation cover, in turn, has a strong influence on regional
climates, and this must be better understood before models can estimate
future environmental conditions. To address these issues, the USGS is
investigating vegetational response to climatic change, and vegetation-
land surface impacts on climate change. The project involves
calibration of the modern relations between the range limits of plant
species and climatic variables that are then used to:
<bullet> estimate past climatic fluctuations from paleobotanical data
for a number of time periods within the late Quaternary;
<bullet> `validate' climate model simulations of past climates;
<bullet> explore the potential influences of land cover changes on
climate change; and
<bullet> estimate the potential future ranges of plant species under
a number of future climate scenarios.
IMPACTS OF VOLCANIC EMISSIONS
Gases from volcanoes give rise to numerous impacts on climate, the
environment, and people. U.S. Geological Survey scientists are
inventorying gas emissions at many of the almost 70 active volcanoes in
the United States. This effort helps build a better understanding of
the dynamic processes at work on the Earth's surface and is
contributing important new information on how volcanic emissions affect
global change. A significant component of volcanic gas research
involves measuring the quantities of gas that volcanoes release into
the atmosphere. Huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash
are injected into the stratosphere during major explosive eruptions.
Some gases, such as carbon dioxide, are greenhouse gases that promote
global warming, while others, like sulfur dioxide, can cause global
cooling, ozone destruction, and polluted air known as volcanic smog or
``vog''. Studies of volcanic emissions allow scientists to compare
volcanic gas output to emissions from man-made sources and to assess
the effects of both past and future eruptions on the Earth's climate.
EOLIAN HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA
Eolian (wind-blown) deposits are both a blessing and a curse: they
contain a valuable record of past climate changes but are deposits that
could be reactivated in the future, with serious consequences for the
natural resources, food supply, infrastructure, and wildlife of the
country. This project researches the records of climate change in
eolian deposits of the U.S. and assesses the potential for renewed
activity of wind-blown sediments.
The objectives of this study are:
1. to test hypotheses about the role of dust in climate
change;
2. to investigate records of natural climate variability in
loess (dust) deposits;
3. to understand the processes responsible for sand dune
activity in the U.S.; and
4. to assess the potential for reactivation of stabilized
sand dunes in the U.S. under changing conditions of climate and
land use.
The approach used in this study of windblown sediments is to
examine stratigraphic sections where detailed records of past climate
change can be found. Sediments are analyzed for their age, composition
and source materials. In assessing the potential for future
reactivation of eolian sediments, study is made of (1) modern eolian
sands that are active now and the environmental factors that favor such
activation, and (2) study of past geologic periods when eolian sands
were active.
The areas of study for the project include the Central Lowlands
(Midwest), the Great Plains, the western United States, and Alaska.
Some cooperative work has also been done with the Geological Survey of
Canada in the Prairie Provinces of Canada.
Sand dunes and eolian sheet sands are widely distributed over the
southwestern United States, particularly in the southern Great Plains
and the southwestern deserts and high plateaus. In the driest parts of
the southwest, there are areas of active sand dunes, but most parts
have dunes that are stabilized by vegetation and the sand is not moving
at present.
The biggest impacts of active sand dunes in the Colorado Plateau
region would be on the Navajo and Hopi people, whose reservation land
is either on, or downwind of, the largest areas of sand dunes. Many
Navajo and Hopi homes are on or near sand dunes; reactivation of dunes
would obviously have a negative effect on living conditions. Sheep and
cattle are important to the economy of the Navajo and Hopi, and much of
the vegetation required for grazing is dune vegetation. In addition,
dry farming is practiced in much of the area, some of it on sand dunes.
Thus, reactivation of sand dunes in the area would have serious impacts
on living conditions, grazing, and farming.
PERMAFROST MONITORING
The Department of the Interior's permafrost network in Alaska is
part of a global network of permafrost monitoring stations (GTN-P)
designed to monitor for changes in the solid-earth component of the
earth's cryosphere. Changes in permafrost temperature and active-layer
thickness reflect changes in surface climate over time, and therefore
serve as useful indicators of climate change. GTN-P is one of several
global networks designed to monitor for changes in the terrestrial
component of the earth's climate system. The GTN-P network is able to
monitor the active layer (the surface layer that freezes and thaws
annually) and the thermal state of the underlying permafrost. Active
layer measurements are made using automated semi-permanent surface
instrument stations, whereas the deeper permafrost is monitored through
periodic downhole temperature measurements in boreholes. DOI's
contribution to GTN-P results from collaboration among USGS, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
INTERACTIONS OF CLIMATE WITH PHYSICAL, BIOGEOCHEMICAL, HYDROLOGIC, AND
HUMAN SYSTEMS, SOUTHWESTERN U.S.
USGS and collaborating scientists are seeking to understand how
climate and land use have influenced surficial geologic processes that
modify landscapes and ecosystems. Combined with monitoring of current
conditions, such understanding is then used to model the landscape's
response to future changes in climate and land use over time-scales of
seasons, years, and decades. The information and interpretations can be
used by federal, state, and local agencies, as well as by Native
American governments, for land-use planning, management of resources,
and remediation of human-health hazards. Project scientists work with
other geologists, biologists, hydrologists, geographers, cartographers,
educators, and archeologists to address questions about:
1. The interaction of physical and biologic processes
critical for ecosystem functions.
2. The role of eolian dust for soil fertility, invasion of
exotic species, hydrology, and surface stability in deserts.
3. The causes and timing of changes in alluvial environments
(rivers, streams, hillslopes), such as flooding, the cutting
and filling of arroyos, and sediment discharge.
4. The interrelations among climate, vegetation, and eolian
(wind-related) processes.
5. Landscape stability of the Navajo and Hopi Nations in
relation to climatic variability as well as historic and pre-
historic land use; here, we also assess causes of high levels
of arsenic and uranium in groundwater and springs, and we help
develop a culturally-based K-12 earth-science curriculum.
6. The soil-ecologic habitats of the fungal spore pathogen
that causes Valley Fever through airborne transmission;
potential hazards to human health related to land use, climate,
and dust generation.
7. How future climatic variations will affect the
Southwestern land surface (in terms of flooding, landslides,
erosion, sand-dune activity, dust-storm frequency).
8. How prehistoric cultures adjusted to past climatic changes
and environments.
Automated Remote Digital Imaging System (ARDIS) is a means of
automatically acquiring color digital images of dust storms. The images
are used to determine the directions from which dust particles become
airborne, the intensity and duration of the dust event, and the
meterological conditions at the time, in conjunction with nearby CLIM-
MET stations. The system is placed on top of a mountain to provide
views of dust events from 9-20 km away.
CLIM-MET stations are meterological/geological stations that are
designed to function in remote areas for long periods of time without
human intervention. These stations monitor weather variables including
temperature, wind, and precipitation; site variables including soil
moisture and temperature, and eolian particle movement; and collect
samples of dust for mineralogical and geochemical analyses. Data are
automatically recorded at regular intervals.
SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
Global sea level and the Earth's climate are closely linked. As the
climate has warmed following the ``Little Ice Age'' in the 19th
century, sea level has been rising about 1 to 2 millimeters per year
due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, and mountain
glaciers in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. If
present trends continue, including an increase in global temperatures
caused by increased greenhouse-gas emissions, many of the world's
mountain glaciers, will disappear. For example, at the current rate of
melting, all glaciers will be gone from Glacier National Park, Montana,
by the middle of the 21st century. During cold-climate intervals, sea
level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is
evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice
sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global
sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last
glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. Sea levels during several
previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than
current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but
complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old
shoreline features. Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions
as distinct as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest
higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of
evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland
and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the
sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced
from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in
the recent geologic past. The USGS role in sea-level research is
national in scope and ranges from remote sensing and geologic mapping
of wetlands to studies of coastal erosion and evidence of older
shorelines in the geologic record.
Question 51. I am very disappointed to see the proposal to cut $2
million from USGS's cooperative water program, which I view as very
important in helping states and local communities manage water
resources and plan for times of shortage. The USGS recently entered
into a Joint Funding Agreement with the New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission to perform a hydrologic study of the Salt Basin aquifer. I
believe the State is prepared to invest more money into this agreement.
Will additional matching federal funds be available for this effort
in 2006? If implemented, will the $2.0 million proposed cut to the
program affect the Salt Basin study?
Answer. The USGS has signed a joint funding agreement with the New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission for FY 2006, for $25,000 in USGS
funding and $25,000 in funding from the Commission. In FY 2006, the
USGS is writing a study plan, and there is a possibility that work
would be expanded in July-August-September 2006, based on whatever
additional matching funds the Commission is able to obtain for the
State's next fiscal year (which begins in July). If the Commission is
able to obtain the matching funds, the USGS may dedicate an additional
$15,000-25,000 (on top of the current agreement) for further work in
the last quarter of FY 2006.
Work is planned to continue in FY 2007, ramping up to a level of
about $200,000. However, some of the resources to ramp up the study in
FY 2007 would come from projects that are ending in FY 2006. Since the
FY 2007 proposed reduction for the Cooperative Water Program is
targeted at studies that are ending, the USGS may have to reduce the
scope of work planned in FY 2007 for the Salt Basin aquifer. But it is
likely that the study will continue in FY 2007 at some funding level,
because the USGS considers this to be a high-priority area.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Question 52. I understand that all road construction projects on
the Navajo Nation have stopped because of a long-standing disagreement
between the BIA's Navajo Regional Office (NRO) and the Navajo Nation
Archeology Department. As I understand it, at issue is the
administrative fee allowed under the 638 contract with NRO for cultural
resource studies associated with road construction projects.
In light of the continuing impact on all of Navajo's road projects,
what specific actions is your office or the BIA taking to help resolve
this issue in a timely fashion.
Answer. Although a disagreement with the Public Law 93-638
contractor, the Navajo Nation Historical Preservation Department,
exists, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Navajo Regional Office
reports that road construction projects on the Navajo Nation have not
stopped. On March 10, 2006, the Navajo Nation representatives and the
BIA met to further discuss and resolve the Navajo Nation Archeology
Department fee issue. The meeting has led to an accord for a procedure
to reach a final settlement.
Question 53. Once again, the Department's budget seeks to limit
funding for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) ($12.6 million
for construction). In response to questions about the 2006 budget, the
Department indicated that the BIA was negotiating an MOU with the
Navajo Nation to ``turnover'' NIIP facilities, and that this MOU was a
prerequisite to the construction of additional facilities authorized
for NIIP.
What is the status of the negotiations on the MOU. Is the
Department pursuing these discussions in good-faith basis with the
Navajo Nation? What will happen if an MOU is not completed in the near
future?
Answer. The BIA was negotiating with the Navajo Nation to establish
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) identifying activities and
addressing responsibilities to initiate the turnover of completed
Blocks to the Navajo Nation. These negotiations are on hold pending the
review of the turnover language listed in the Act (P.L. 87-483, as
amended). We are in the process of collecting all relevant Navajo
Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) documents, including legislative and
appropriations history and Department, Bureau of Reclamation, Indian
Affairs, Navajo Nation, and State of New Mexico memos, letters, and
directives. Construction of additional facilities is being deferred
until the MOU is finalized and signed.
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Akaka
LAND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Question 1. According to the Department of the Interior's budget
briefing, the 2007 budget proposes to terminate the funding for Land
and Water Conservation Fund State Grants. I believe that State agencies
need these funds. Without them, our states and counties will have to
cut back on programs and services for critically endangered species,
hunters, and park management.
What is your justification for eliminating such an important
program?
Answer. The FY 2007 budget request does not include funding for
Land and Water Conservation Fund State grants. As the administration
strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core Federal agency
responsibilities is imperative.
Nearly $3.9 billion has been appropriated through 2006 for the Land
and Water Conservation State Grant program, including $312 million in
the last four years. Many of these grants support State and local parks
that have alternative sources of funding through State revenues or
bonds. In addition, a 2003 PART review found the current program could
not adequately measure performance or demonstrate results.
INVASIVE SPECIES FUNDING
Question 2. This year's total funding for invasive species
represents an approximately 5 percent decrease from the amount funded
in Fiscal Year 2006. Combined with a 15.9 percent cut in the Forest
Service invasive species program, this represents a significant decline
in government wide funds allocated to protecting our natural resources
from invasive species.
In what ways will this reduction of funding affect the Department
of the Interior's efforts to combat the introduction and spreading of
invasive species?
Answer. By focusing on priorities, the Department's efforts to
combat the introduction and spread of invasive species should be
strengthened. The FY 2007 budget request includes $60 million for
invasive species work, and continues the government-wide, performance-
based cross cut budget effort that began in 2004. The budget provides
an increase of $994,000 for work in three priority geo-regional areas:
South Florida, the Northern Great Plains, and the Rio Grande River
Basin. The 2007 program will focus on invasive species that present
significant threats to ecosystem health, including lygodium leafy
spurge and tamarisk, in particular.
NATIONAL RECREATION AND PRESERVATION
Question 3. Secretary Norton, the 2007 budget proposes to focus
resources for historic preservation and heritage tourism programs
within the Park Service. At the same time, the budget eliminates the
funding for a number of preservation and heritage programs including
the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program which has been
instrumental in preserving and sharing information about Native
Hawaiian history and culture in my home State.
Will existing programs like the Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts
program be folded into the Preserve America grant program or will they
need to compete for grant funds in order to continue their valuable
efforts?
Answer. The Preserve America program is a competitive grant program
that helps States and communities preserve their historic resources by
incorporating them into their local economies. The FY 2007 budget
includes $10.0 million, an increase of $5.1 million above the 2006
level, for grants to help communities develop resource management
strategies and business practices for continued preservation of
heritage assets. Such activities include planning and feasibility
studies, heritage education materials, heritage tourism business cases,
and feasibility initiatives.
The FY 2007 budget includes $14.8 million for Save America's
Treasures grants. These grants are available for preservation and
conservation work on nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and nationally significant historic structures and sites.
The Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts program could potentially
compete for either of these grant programs.
INSULAR AREAS-REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS (RMI)
Question 4. I want to thank you for your initiative following this
Committee's hearing on the RMI's nuclear claims and for the meeting you
organized to continue the process of addressing some of the issues that
were raised. I understand that the RMI responded to your request for a
definition of the issues for further discussion.
Do you have a schedule for these follow-up meetings, and can you
assure the Committee that the administration will meet on each of these
issues to either come to a resolution or develop alternates that the
Committee can consider? Will you provide us with a written update on
each issue by May 15th?
Answer. The Office of Insular Affairs has not received the Marshall
Islands Government's response to the administration's request for a
definition of the issues. Once the response is received,
representatives of the Office of Insular Affairs will work
cooperatively with other Administration departments, for example the
Departments of Energy and State, to arrange the necessary meetings. The
Committee will be kept informed of developments.
INSULAR AREAS-COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI)
Question 5. Would you support government-to-government talks with
the CNMI under section 902 of the Covenant with the objective of moving
the CNMI toward an economic model that would place reasonable limits on
the use of guest workers and provide opportunities for U.S. citizens?
Answer. The Department of the Interior would support Covenant
section 902 discussions on guest workers and employment opportunities
for U.S. citizens in the CNMI, as long as the topic is proposed by the
representatives of the Governor of the CNMI. We believe that the agenda
for discussion of economic issues should be set by those closest to
these economic issues, i.e., representatives from the Commonwealth
Government, and not by officials in Washington, D.C.
INSULAR AREAS-AMERICAN SAMOA, LOSS OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT INCENTIVES.
Question 6. I understand that well over half of the government
revenue of American Samoa is attributable to the Possessions Tax
Credit, a federal tax credit designed to promote private investment in
the territories. However, the credit has expired as of December 2005.
What steps has the Department taken to either avoid or anticipate
this loss of revenue? If an alternate investment incentive is not
recommended by the administration and enacted by Congress this year, is
the Department prepared to increase American Samoa's Operations subsidy
to help offset the very substantial revenue loss? If not, what
assistance is the Department prepared to offer American Samoa?
Answer. IRC section 936 provided a Federal tax credit for private
sector companies to locate operations in the territories. In 1995, the
Congress repealed this provision, but allowed a ten-year phase-out for
the canneries in American Samoa. The Congress did not provide an
alternative incentive or replacement revenue.
The Department of the Interior has worked intensively within the
administration on this issue of over-riding importance to the economy
of American Samoa and the fiscal well-being of its residents. The
result was a series of four letters sent by the Secretary to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Ways
and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, urging a five-year
extension of IRC section 939 for cannery eligibility in American Samoa.
The administration has no plans to compensate for any loss of
revenue by the American Samoa Government. Rather, we stand ready to
work with the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress to develop an
acceptable alternative incentives program.
COMPACT IMPACT AID
Question 7. Since 1997, when Hawaii began reporting its impact
costs, the state has identified more than $140 million in costs
associated with FAS citizens. In 2002, the State of Hawaii expended
more than $32 million in assistance to FAS citizens. In 2003 alone, the
state spent approximately $9.77 million to provide Medicaid services
without receiving any federal matching funds. This represents a
dramatic increase from $6.75 million in the state FY 2002.
P.L. 108-188, the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of
2003, provides $30 million in annual funding for Compact impact
assistance to be shared between the State of Hawaii, Guam, the CNMI,
and American Samoa. While this funding is a positive step forward, it
does not begin to reimburse the affected jurisdictions for the costs
associated with FAS citizens.
How does the Department plan to move forward to reimburse affected
jurisdictions, as FAS citizens continue to place a hardship on the
social services in Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI?
Answer. Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) all have substantial costs relating to the legal
migration of citizens from the freely associated states (FAS).
In Public Law 108-188, the Congress established a $30 million
annual appropriation, to be divided (based on the proportion of
migrants) among migration-affected United States jurisdictions. The
payments of the $30 million are a contribution toward the migrant-
related costs borne by Hawaii, Guam and the CNMI. The Congress, in
authorizing Public Law 108-188, expressed no intent for full
reimbursement of FAS migration costs.
COMPACT IMPACT AID
Question 8a. Since 2004, all federal agencies are required to
report to the DOI regarding their services in the RMI and FSM in order
to avoid the duplication of benefits.
What consideration does the Department give to these reports in
determining the division of Compact Impact aid, and, if the Department
currently does not use the reports as a factor in its determination,
would you consider developing a way to incorporate these reports into
your calculation of the distributed funds?
Answer. Public Law 108-188, establishes a program to pay $30
million annually to the United States jurisdictions that bear costs
associated with the legal migration of citizens from the FAS. The
jurisdictions with the greatest concentration of such persons are in
Hawaii, Guam, and the CNMI. The Congress, in Public Law 108-188,
provided that the $30 million would be divided based on the proportion
of FAS migrants in each of the U.S. jurisdictions. The Department of
the Interior commissioned a census of such migrants in 2003 and plans
to complete such a census every five years. The Congress did not
express an intent that any other criterion, such as impact of the
Compact reports, be used to modify the division of funds based on
population.
The 2003 Amendments contain several new measures that need to be
implemented, and this task will fall largely to the OIA staff based in
Hawaii that monitor grant assistance, trust funds, and administer
``Compact Impact'' funds.
Question 8b. How will the Department ensure accountability with
respect to the implementation of provisions in the new Compact,
particularly with regard to the administration of grants?
Answer. Through its Hawaii-based staff, the Department ensures to
(1) analyze compliance with the terms of current grants, (2) review
annual sector grant proposals for the next fiscal year, and (3)
recommend an allocation of funding for the next fiscal year that
reflects changes in relative need and priorities. The joint economic
committees, including both United States and Micronesian
representatives, consider the above analyses and recommendations and
set grant amounts.
The Hawaii office provides on-site oversight of Compact programs,
requires the timely submission and review of required financial and
program reports, and works with the inspector general and GAO to
identify and resolve problems.
Public Law 108-188 provided that independent corporations be
established in Washington, D.C. to house the respective trust funds for
the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia. Membership on the respective governing trust fund
committees includes representatives from both the United States
Government and the two freely associated states. The Hawaii office has
no duties with respect to the trust funds.
The Hawaii office administers the Compact impact grant to the State
of Hawaii. Impact grants to Guam and the CNMI are administered from
Washington.
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Salazar
PILT
Question 1. With so much of Colorado's land owned by the Federal
Government, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program is important to
our local communities. I am amazed that the administration is cutting
these funds by 16% to $198 million when Congress has again and again
demonstrated a strong bi-partisan support for this program.
Why is this Administration intent on making the counties fight
these poorly reasoned cuts every year?
Answer. The 2007 budget proposes $198.0 million for the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program. The budget funds $197.6 million for PILT
payments and $400,000 for program administration. Although this is
$34.5 million below the 2006 record high level, it is well above
historical funding levels. In FY 2000, PILT was funded at just under
$134 million. Our proposed FY 2007 level represents about a 47%
increase over that amount. As part of the President's effort to reduce
the budget deficit by half over five years, the 2007 budget for the
Department makes difficult choices, and this was one of them.
BLM OIL & GAS INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
Question 2. Will you, in writing, provide for me the number of oil
and gas inspectors you will have working in Colorado offices in 2007,
the number of inspections they will be tasked with, the number of
unannounced inspections that will occur, as well as the number of
inspections prompted by local landowners?
Answer. The BLM plans to have fifteen (15) oil and gas inspectors
working in Colorado offices in 2007. The BLM Colorado has not yet
prepared the Inspection and Enforcement Matrix and Strategy for FY
2007, consequently a planned number of inspections has yet to be
developed for FY 2007. The Inspection and Enforcement Matrix and
Strategy for FY 2006 includes 1300 planned inspections. We would expect
an increase in the number of inspections that will be planned for FY
2007.
The majority of inspections performed pertain to ongoing
operations, and would be categorized as unannounced. Some inspections,
such as those for monitoring conditions of approval on drilling and pad
construction, require prior scheduling because the activities to be
inspected take place at a date and time certain.
The BLM's tracking systems do not contain a category for
inspections prompted by local landowners. The BLM does not separately
track the number of inspections likely to be prompted by local
landowners, as these will vary based on conditions.
BLM LAND SALES
Question 3. The President's budget establishes an aggressive
schedule of needed revenues to the tune of $182 million over the first
5 years and $351 over the ten year budget window.
Do these figures amount to some type of quota our BLM state
directors will be required to meet every fiscal year? Are we, in
effect, turning our land managers into real estate brokers?
Answer. I assume you are referring to the proposal to amend the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA). The FLTFA
proposal is a modest proposal that does not depart appreciably from
current law, but has features that will help improve protection of
valuable Federal resources. I can assure you that the schedule of
revenues contemplated is not a quota. In fact, the FLTFA revenue
estimates included in the FY 2007 budget are really quite modest.
Moreover, the BLM does not have a list of lands to be sold or state-by-
state sales targets. Decisions on land to be sold will be made at the
local level based on land use plans that have been developed through a
public process, including compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)
Question 4. Last year, the administration proposed to eliminate the
LWCF stateside grants program, arguing that the ``results are not
demonstrated.'' In its own assessment of the program this year,
however, the Park Service acknowledges that the stateside grants
program indeed delivers excellent results. The National Park Service's
2005 State Land and Water Conservation Fund Annual Report says:
``nearly 55 million visits at 44 state parks represents only a small
sampling of visitor use at the estimated 40,000 state and local park
sites assisted by the program. Year in and year out, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund works in partnership with states and communities to
deliver and protect opportunities for outdoor recreation.''
Given this ringing endorsement of the efficiency and effectiveness
of the LWCF stateside grant program from the National Park Service, can
you explain why it is being eliminated in this year's budget?
Answer. The FY 2007 budget request does not include funding for
Land and Water Conservation Fund State grants. As the administration
strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core Federal agency
responsibilities is imperative. Many of these grants support State and
local parks that have alternative sources of funding through State
revenues or bonds. In addition, a 2003 PART review found the current
program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate
results. While the report you referenced includes some worthwhile
information as to how the grants were used, the administration remains
committed to utilizing performance measures consistent with the
Government Performance and Results Act.''
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question 5. In 2000, the President promised to provide enough
funding over five years to eliminate Park Service's maintenance
backlog, which was estimated at the time to be $4.9 billion. It is now
five years since that commitment and I am hearing estimates that place
the NPS maintenance backlog somewhere between $4.5 billion to $9.69
billion. That is to say that the maintenance backlog at the Parks seems
to have increased over the past five years.
Is that right?
Answer. The estimated $4.9 billion maintenance backlog figure was
identified in a 1998 General Accounting Office report (``Efforts to
Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog'' GAO/RCED-98-143). That
figure represented a compilation of desired projects in parks that had
not been validated by systematic, comprehensive assessments of the true
asset conditions or prioritized by NPS.
We now know that the deferred maintenance backlog cannot be stated
as a single, static dollar figure. What is important is the improved
condition over time and knowing that the dollars spent made a
difference in improving the condition of the asset. Our approach is to
focus on what it will take to bring our assets to acceptable condition
as measured by the facility condition index. For this reason, NPS is
transforming the agency's approach to managing its facilities. Parks
have completed, for the first time, a comprehensive inventory and
prioritization of its asset base. NPS is also on track to complete
comprehensive condition assessments on eight industry-standard assets
(such as buildings, water systems, roads, and trails) by the end of
2006. Once these condition assessments are completed, NPS will have a
better understanding of its current deferred maintenance needs. Our
goal is to bring the portfolio of assets up to acceptable condition,
with performance measures used to prioritize investments.
Question 6. What is the Department of the Interior's most recent
estimate of the maintenance backlog at the Parks?
Answer. Please see the answer to Question 5.
Question 7. How will this year's budget for National Parks affect
the total maintenance backlog, considering it will cut the construction
and maintenance budget by $84.6 million, 27 percent?
Answer. The administration remains committed to reducing the
maintenance backlog within the National Park Service, and the NPS
continues to make significant progress in completing the numerous
projects necessary to improve the condition of park infrastructure.
Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken and
approximately $4.7 billion have been invested using line-item
construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway
dollars. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the administration's past
investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management
program to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these
resources from slipping to poor condition.
The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly
scheduled preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques
into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular
asset. The proposed increase in cyclic project funding would assist in
preventing the continued deterioration of NPS assets. Increasing the
project funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets on a
predictive cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and
ultimately adding to the backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic
maintenance program would target those assets that are mission critical
and still in maintainable condition, but could fall into poor condition
without the proper application of life cycle maintenance. With the
proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance program now
totals $71.5 million.
The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and
Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been
allocated for this program. In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize
projects that address critical health and safety, resource protection,
compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues.
The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional
recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, the
Department estimates that $100 million in recreation fees will be used
for deferred maintenance projects.
Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction
projects are funded at $121.9 million. The budget request focuses on
protecting and maintaining existing assets rather than funding new
construction projects. Assuming the President's budget request is
funded, NPS intends to sustain the progress made in the asset
management program, as measured by the facility condition index.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REVISIONS TO POLICIES
Question 8. Secretary, I and many of my colleagues have repeatedly
expressed our opposition to the proposed changes to the National Park
Service's policies. We feel that they undermine the core mission of the
Park Service and are, quite frankly, unnecessary.
Visitor satisfaction at our parks is over 95%, and the public seems
quite satisfied with the existing policies, which were updated just
five years ago. So, with the strain that is already being placed on the
NPS' budget, what is the cost (in staff time, resources, etc.) of this
exercise?
Answer. Periodic review and development of all types of management
and policy documents are included within the duties of NPS employees
and are not calculated separately.
The NPS has a special web site programmed to efficiently process
the large volume of comments it sometimes receives on documents that
are released for public review. A contractor has been retained at a
cost of approximately $39,000 to help sort and organize the Management
Policies comments that have been submitted through this web site.
Question 9. Considering that these policies were revised just five
years ago, and given all the other needs in the Parks, is this really
the best use of the Park Service's energy and resources at this time?
Answer. We believe that revised and improved policies are needed
because managers face continuing challenges in preserving park
resources while striving to serve our visitors and partner with our
local communities. Every day, without fail, we are tested when we make
decisions on what to do or what not to do; what to build or what not to
build; what to allow or what not to allow. From these challenges, we
learn and improve our practices.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Tennessee Valley Authority,
March 10, 2006.
Hon. Gale A. Norton,
Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Norton: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a
cooperating agency in the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the North Snore Road Project in Swain County, North
Carolina. In that capacity, we are currently reviewing the Draft EIS
and anticipate submitting comments as a cooperating agency at a later
date. TVA is also a party to the 1943 agreement under which
construction of the North Shore Road is contemplated. I am writing you
today to apprise you of TVA's position on this proposal.
TVA agrees with the National Park Service's (NPS) determination
that the alternative with the least environmental impact is the one
that does not involve construction; namely, the Monetary Settlement
Alternative. Accordingly, we concur in the identification of this
alternative as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative for the
purposes of National Environmental Policy Act review.
The Draft EIS did not identify NPS's preferred alternative to allow
consideration of public comments on the completed environmental
analyses and revised cost estimates for the build alternatives. These
public comments and environmental analyses will also help inform the
decisions TVA may have to make about this. Based upon our preliminary
review, TVA believes the range of identified alternatives is
appropriate and that any of the action alternatives could potentially
form the basis for an agreement discharging the Department of the
Interior from any remaining obligations under the 1943 agreement.
TVA has already fulfilled its obligations under the 1943 agreement
by acquiring and transferring to the U.S. Department of the Interior
approximately 44,000 acres of land on the north shore of Fontana
Reservoir. Should the other parties to the 1943 agreement reach
consensus on the North Shore Road issue and decide to enter into a new
agreement, TVA would be pleased to review the proposal and determine if
we should become a party to the new agreement.
Sincerely,
Bill Baxter,
Chairman.
______
The Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: I wanted to follow up on our conversation
that occurred during the recent March 2, hearing on the Department of
the Interior 2007 budget and to assure you that our disagreement with
regard to the draft 2005 Management Policies was more a question of
semantics than substance.
I believe that current and future enjoyment of the parks depends
upon maintaining unimpaired park resources. That is our statutory
obligation. At the hearing, I quoted to you the relevant portion of the
1961 Organic Act that describes the mission of the NPS. That section
states:
``[the] purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
The quote you cited in the hearing was from the 2001 Management
Policies, not the 1916 Organic Act. Management of parks presents
complex challenges, since park managers have to address use and impacts
consistent with the overarching mission of the parks, which is to
protect park resources and values to ensure that these resources and
values are maintained unimpaired. This statutory directive inherently
required careful evaluation of uses, scientific study, monitoring, and
other factors.
Both Director Fran Mainella and Deputy Director Steve Martin, in
public statements, including February 2006 testimony presented to the
Congress, have stated, and I agree, that when there is a conflict
between the protection of resources and use, conservation will be
predominant. This recognizes that while we welcome public use and
enjoyment in our parks, we will not allow uses that cause unacceptable
impact, are inconsistent with park purposes or values, unreasonably
interfere with park programs or activities, disrupt the operation of
park concessions or contractors, create an unsafe or unhealthful
environment for visitors or employees, result in significant conflict
with other appropriate uses, or diminish opportunities for current or
future generations to enjoy park resources and values. We recognize
that the conservation of park natural, cultural, and historic resources
provides the foundation for public enjoyment of our national parks.
Parks serve a very important function in our society. They are not
wilderness areas, unless specifically designated as such. If
``conservation'' is viewed as a wilderness standard requiring that all
resources remain in their pristine state, we would have no visitor
centers, no ranger housing, no hotels, and no roads in parks. While a
few of us would be able to enjoy these areas in their pristine state,
the classic American family vacation of loading the kids in the care
and driving through Yellowstone or the Great Smokies would not exist.
Parks fulfill an important visitor service function. They provide
education and enjoyment and an introduction to the great outdoors for
many who would otherwise miss an inspiring experience.
Over the years, since adoption of the Organic Act, our
understanding of caring for parks has evolved. In the past, park
managers erroneously allowed eradication of predators, feeding of wild
animals, and building of visitor centers in sensitive area that damaged
resources. All of these today would be considered inconsistent with the
Organic Act and the conservation of the parks. To make proper decisions
we need policies that stress sustainable cooperative conservation that
works for managing the birthplace of Dr. Martin Luther King as well as
managing the bison herd at Yellowstone, not a simple litmus test or
bumper sticker phrase that lacks practical efficacy.
The 2005 proposed Management Policies are in draft form. This is
why we have put them out for public comment and are now evaluating
those comments. I am confident that our policies, when completed by the
Director and her career staff, will accomplish this difficult task.
I believe both you and I have the same goals for our national
parks. I want Americans to love our national parks, and that love
arises when people are encouraged to visit. I want their experiences to
be thoroughly enjoyable because they see spectacular scenery, encounter
abundant wildlife, and use clean and comfortable facilities. I am
confident that our park managers will be able to achieve this in a
manner consistent with the Organic Act of 1916.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you would like to talk further
about this manner.
Sincerely,
Gale A. Norton.
<all>