[Senate Hearing 109-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-17
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FY 2006 BUDGET FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
MARCH 1, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-826 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Carole McGuire, Deputy Staff Director
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
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia................... 44
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.................... 2
Burr, Hon. Richard M., U.S. Senator from North Carolina.......... 43
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 29
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 32
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 37
Norton, Hon. Gale, Secretary, Department of the Interior......... 5
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 4
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 40
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order. First,
thank you all for coming. We will try, although there are an
awful lot of questions about the proposals that were made for
your budget, we will try to be brief this morning.
First, I welcome you, Madam Secretary, and I also welcome
Lynn Scarlett. You are already in the Department, but hopefully
you will be the Deputy Secretary soon. We hope that your
nomination can move through here quickly. We are also pleased
to have the chief budget officer. We welcome you here to the
hearing.
Senator Bingaman, this is another one of those kind of we
have to have hearings, and I thank you for making time today.
Madam Secretary, I must say that the budget presents a real
challenge. We sometimes think it is a challenge to this
committee, and clearly it is, because we are supposed to know
how the legislation that has been passed is being treated both
in the budget and in appropriations. Many of the complaints and
concerns, ideas, that we have here we will not be able to do
much about unless we move in the Appropriations Committee
because they are not--the budget is not part of our authorizing
bailiwick.
Nonetheless, with non-defense and non-homeland security
programs held at about 1 percent below current funding levels,
there are some very major challenges for Federal agencies.
That's at large. $389 billion are for these appropriated
programs, and it sounds like a lot of money, but these programs
are all the rest of the Federal Government's programs except
the two categories which I just mentioned. These programs
provide a very wide range of services that many rely upon and
that you will have to administer.
The Department of the Interior under the President's budget
has a total of $10.8 billion. Excluding the emergency fire
funding of almost $99 million provided for this year, your
budget is about a freeze. Is that about the way you see it?
Secretary Norton. Yes.
The Chairman. But not all programs are frozen, which means
some are cut very much, some are eliminated, and some are
increased. The administration proposes to terminate four
programs. That will save approximately $117 million. 75 percent
of these savings, about $90 million, would come from the
termination of a State-wide grant program for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. I know that a number of our members on
both sides of the aisle would have some serious questions about
that, and I am not sure that that will not face some challenge
as this budget moves down the line.
If Congress does not adopt the proposed savings, some of
the proposed increases for park operations, facilities repair,
which you have indicated you need, BLM hazardous fuels
reduction, which a lot of people think is very important, and
Water 2025--just examples--they would be very hard to achieve
if you don't achieve the terminations that are contemplated by
the President.
The administration's significant savings in mandatory
programs under this committee's jurisdiction, some $267 million
for 2006 and $4.1 billion over 5 years, these proposals will be
discussed during the consideration of the budget resolution. Of
course, if anyone wants to bring them up it would be good to do
so today, and I might.
So I am going to summarize and conclude my remarks. There
is much more to be said, but we did not come here to hear my
analysis. We came here to hear what you think about it. With
that, I am going to yield to Senator Bingaman, and I thank the
other members for coming.
Senator Bingaman.
[The prepared statements of Senators Akaka and Bunning
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 the Interior's FY 2006 budget proposal. While there are some bright
spots in the budget, for the most part there are decreases in too many
programs that are important for my State of Hawaii and the nation. I
know there are hard choices to be made, but I am concerned that the
President's spending priorities for the war on terrorism, 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 have some general concerns, which I will note here, and some
specific questions on other aspects of the proposed budget. I am
referring to the elimination of the Stateside grants for the Land Water
Conservation Fund and reductions in the
Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes, or PILT program. State wildlife agencies need
these funds. My State Department of Land and Natural Resources and our
Counties in Hawaii need the resources from both of these Funds. Without
them, Hawaii will have to cut back on programs and services for
critically endangered species, hunters, and park management. These
programs are part of the on going partnership with States and State
wildlife agencies that are the bedrock of sharing revenues. We cannot
step back from our commitment to States.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator From Kentucky
Today's hearing on the fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department
Interior is important for the protection of our country's natural
resources. I believe that funding conservation and management of those
resources will help benefit communities today and preserve our cultural
heritage for future generations.
One particularly important program for the State of Kentucky is the
Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program. Coal mining has been important to
Kentucky's economy and has helped keep Kentucky's electricity rates the
lowest in the Nation. AML has helped restore lands and waters impacted
by mining but were left inadequately restored. Last year we passed a
temporary reauthorization of the AML program with the hope of
addressing the details and goals of the program more thoroughly this
year. I will be interested to hear what your thoughts are for the AML
program.
I know that Congress will have the tough job of practicing some
fiscal restraint. Although fiscal year 2006 will be a challenging one,
I am confident that we can practice restraint while protecting our
Nation's resources.
I thank Secretary Norton and her staff for their hard work and her
willingness to appear before us today to explain the Department of the
Interior's budget in detail.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
thank the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for being here,
soon to be Deputy Secretary.
Let me mention four or five issues that I am concerned
about and I am sure we will hear testimony on. One is this Land
and Water Conservation Fund. We have had an ongoing
disagreement about that. It is clear to me the budget that has
been presented contradicts the purpose of Congress in setting
up the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The law establishing
the Land and Water Conservation Fund provides only for two
types of expenditures within that fund. One is Federal land
acquisition and the other is grants to the States for open
space and outdoor recreational purposes. The law also says that
the Federal land acquisition portion should not be less than 40
percent of the total Land and Water Conservation Fund
appropriation.
This year, instead of asking for full funding, the
administration has asked for $680 million. Only $154 million
represents authorized expenditures from that fund, the way I
read the law. That is one of the smallest proposals in the
history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As the
chairman mentioned, you do propose to zero out the State grant
program in that fund, which of course is a serious concern to
many of our States and I hope is something that the Congress
will not agree to.
On PILT funding, I am concerned that the budget you have
presented proposes cuts in funding for Payment in Lieu of
Taxes. This again is a very important program for my State and
for many Western States.
The Chairman. Senator, which one was that?
Senator Bingaman. Payment in Lieu of Taxes, the PILT
program. The budget would roll back hard-fought funding
increases over the last few years and I think that goes in the
wrong direction.
On BLM oil and gas, the chairman convened a conference
related to natural gas recently and every witness at that
conference who spoke on the subject, both from industry and
environmental groups, testified that the BLM needs to be given
adequate resources to do its job with regard to leasing
activities. I was disappointed that the budget requests cuts in
that area.
On abandoned mine land fees, I notice that your budget
assumes the continuation of the abandoned mine land fee at the
current rate. That fee is scheduled to expire June 30 of this
year. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can move ahead and pass
legislation to extend that fee. It is an extremely important
program.
On water issues, let me just express my concern there about
proposed cuts in the Bureau of Reclamation water resources
budget. These cuts have very serious implications for many of
our communities, particularly in the arid West. As I read the
budget, the President is proposing a 6.7 percent cut in
Reclamation's overall budget, a 6 percent cut in the water and
related resources accounts of Reclamation, a 3.3 percent cut in
Geological Survey's budget for water resource investigations.
I realize the Department has this Water 2025 Program. The
reality of the budget, though, is that the $13 million increase
that the President is seeking for the Water 2025 Program does
not come close to offsetting the $19 million that are proposed
for cuts from various studies, from water conservation and
endangered species activities, the $29 million cut in rural
water projects, the $16 million cut in water reuse projects,
and the $5.3 million cut in desalination and water purification
funding.
I know the committee, Mr. Chairman, has scheduled a
conference dedicated to water issues on April 5 and at that
time I hope we can solicit some testimony from stakeholders
about their views as to the proper level of funding for some of
these activities.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Does any other Senator want to make some observations early
on or would you prefer to have the Secretary testify? Senator,
would you like to proceed in the normal manner, let them go and
then we ask our questions, or do you want to comment now?
Senator Salazar. I have an opening statement.
The Chairman. Of course.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you for appearing here today and
when we get to the question and answer period I will have
questions for you on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the
cut in PILT payments, and also the lack of investment from my
point of view in the oversight of oil and gas exploration
activities on BLM lands.
I have an opening statement and I would just submit that
for the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to members of the committee
and welcome Secretary Norton. Secretary Norton hails from Colorado and
served as Colorado's Attorney General from 1991 to 1999, after which I
was honored with the opportunity to serve as Colorado's Attorney
General for six years.
The Department of Interior manages over eight million surface acres
and over twenty-five million subsurface acres in Colorado. These lands
include our Bureau of Land Management holdings, our seven National
Wildlife Refuges, our four National Parks, and numerous National
Monuments, Recreation Areas and Historic Trails. So, as you can see,
the proper funding and priorities of the Department of the Interior is
critical to Colorado.
Last week, I was home in Colorado. I traveled over 2,000 miles and
conducted 17 meetings with local leaders, elected officials, and
citizens from Colorado's 64 counties. During the week, I repeatedly
heard from Coloradans about priorities related to public lands, natural
resources, and the environment. These Coloradans told me loud and clear
about their concerns with the President's budget and what it
potentially means for Colorado. Specifically the people of Colorado are
concerned with the President's retreat from funding major priorities
such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), the Land & Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF), and oversight of oil & gas development.
If the President's budget is enacted without changes, these poor
choices in prioritizing funding in the Department of the Interior's
budget will hurt Colorado.
The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program provides money to our
communities that include Federal lands (such as National Forests and/or
Bureau of Land Management lands) to offset losses in property taxes.
This program provided over $17 million in 2004 to 36 rural and mountain
counties in Colorado. Yet, the President's budget would cut this
program by 12%, a move that was opposed by 57 Senators (including 22
Republicans) in 2004.
At the same time, the President is eliminating state grants in the
Land & Water Conservation Fund. These grants are what Great Outdoors
Colorado (GOCO) partners with to provide Colorado with outstanding open
space and recreation opportunities such as Roxborough State Park, the
Great Sand Dunes National Park, and projects in almost every Colorado
County. This failure to fund the LWCF is a betrayal to a shared
commitment to invest in the preservation and protection of our public
lands.
Colorado is also experiencing rapid growth in energy production
with a significant amount of BLM lands currently leased for oil and gas
exploration and production. This growth has created challenges for our
local communities. Colorado is striving to play an important part in
our domestic energy production, while maintaining our natural heritage
and quality of life that attracts our residents, visitors, and
businesses. However, the current Administration seems intent on issuing
more oil & gas well permits, without providing the needed funds for
inspectors and inspections to insure our public lands and public
resources are developed in a safe and responsible manner.
I am hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address these
issues today with Secretary Norton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let us proceed. Madam Secretary, we will make your
statement a part of the record and we would very much
appreciate it if you would summarize it perhaps in 10 minutes
if you could.
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY LYNN SCAR-
LETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET;
AND JOHN TRESIZE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
Secretary Norton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. I am pleased to be here with Lynn Scarlett and
John Tresize to present our budget for 2006. Before I get into
the regular discuss of our budget, I would like to highlight a
very significant development that has impacts potentially on
our budget. This is a ruling that we received from the district
court, Judge Lamberth, in the Cobell litigation last Wednesday.
This litigation, as you will recall, is dealing with our
handling of individual accounts managed for Native Americans
deriving from lands held in trust by the United States for
individual Indians.
Judge Lamberth reinstituted an injunction that was
previously issued on September 23, 2003. It orders the
Department of the Interior to perform a very expansive
accounting of individual Indian trust accounts and assets. This
accounting requires us to go back to 1887 and verify every
single transaction that has taken place since then. This
undertaking involves finding and indexing millions of records,
canceled checks, invoices, leases, ledgers, documents like
that. Many are currently housed in Federal facilities in
Albuquerque and in Lee Summit, Missouri, but other records will
have to be obtained from those who have leased Indian lands,
like oil and gas companies, timber companies, farmers, and
ranchers. The judge has ordered us to develop a plan for
subpoenaing documents from those entities.
Other records are held by Indian tribes or by individual
Indians. These records will presumably also need to be
acquired. We will need to index and electronically image these
documents so that they can be effectively utilized by
accountants.
The Department estimates that the cost for completing this
accounting, just the cost for the indexing, the imaging, and
the work by accountants, would be $10 to $12 billion. To put
that into perspective, the entire budget for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs is $2.2 billion. Though our budget contains an
increase to carry out our plan for historical accounting, our
budget was clearly not designed to include the billions of
dollars envisioned by the judge.
As you may recall, in September 2003 the judge's order was
stayed by the court of appeals and also by an appropriations
rider adopted by Congress. The court of appeals later held that
the appropriations rider, the way that it was structured, took
away the jurisdiction for Judge Lamberth's original order. So
the court of appeals essentially just blessed the congressional
action, but did not look at the underlying merits of Judge
Lamberth's order.
There was a deadline of December 31, 2004, on the
congressional action and when that expired the judge
reinstituted his order.
We are continuing discussions with the Justice Department
on the courses of action that are available to us. Our efforts
to improve the trust management system and to perform
historical accounting have been a high priority for us. The
Department's combined appropriations for Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have increased by 8
percent during our term compared with 2 percent in the
Department's overall programs. The programs that are directly
related to trusts have increased by 97 percent.
We have a chart here showing that trend. The upper pink
level of the chart is the unified trust budget, its
expenditures in Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Special
Trustee, and other agencies that deal with trusts. It shows
that in comparison to the blue, which is the overall Bureau of
Indian Affairs budget. This amount has increased from 9 percent
in 1996 to 25 percent of the Indian Affairs budget, the BIA
budget.
Interior is aggressively pursuing historical accounting
activities. Results to date indicate that there are differences
involving both overpayments and underpayments, but they tend to
be infrequent and small. A net of about $1.5 million in
differences has been found after analyzing a throughput of $15
billion, which includes both tribal and individual funds.
We have engaged in mediation of this litigation, but the
vast gap between what we are finding as we actually look at
historical accounting of very few discrepancies compared to the
plaintiff's allegations that we owe $176 billion has made
settlement very difficult.
The litigation focuses to a large extent on what
instructions Congress gave Interior through the 1994 Indian
Trust Fund Management Reform Act and earlier statutes. Congress
has the ability to clarify these instructions.
As we look at the possibility of settling this litigation,
we have a historic opportunity to fix some longstanding
problems in Indian country, like fractionated land ownership
that hampers economic development. We can modernize antiquated
arrangements that cause us to spend over $100 a year to manage
an account with 50 cents, or to spend an average of $5,000 in
probate costs to distribute estates worth as little as 11
cents.
I am pleased that Chairman McCain and Chairman Pombo are
making this a high priority and I hope that appropriators will
also continue their interest so that we can reach a bipartisan
solution. I sincerely hope Congress will take this opportunity
to resolve this dispute.
We have been working to improve our trust processes and
they have been reengineered to provide more efficient,
consistent, and integrated service to beneficiaries. The 2006
budget continues to strengthen Indian trust management by
investing $591 million in the program, an increase of $80
million over the 2005 appropriation. But again, this is far
different than the amounts that are contemplated in the judge's
order.
Beyond our Indian trust responsibilities, Interior's
mission is multi-faceted and complex. Our overall 2006 request
for programs funded by this subcommittee is--our overall
request is $10.8 billion or about 1 percent below the 2005
level. The lands managed by Interior provide unparalleled
outdoor recreational opportunities for individuals.
Approximately 477 million people from all over the world
visited Interior lands to hike, bike, canoe, camp, fish, and
learn about the Nation's history, culture, and natural places.
Our budget includes an increase of $33 million to respond
to growing demands for recreational activities on public lands.
In December of last year, the President signed the Federal
Lands Enhancement Recreation Act into law. This law builds upon
the recreation fee demonstration program. It provides for a 10-
year extension of the recreation fee, which will improve
recreation visitor amenities on public land.
The new act also provides safeguards. It mandates that fees
be charged only at appropriate locations and that they be spent
on infrastructure and services that directly benefit the
public.
In addition to enjoying outdoor recreation on public lands,
more and more Americans are visiting historic and cultural
sites. Currently 26 States have some form of heritage tourism
program. The National Park Service offers several programs that
focus on historic preservation. The 2006 budget contains $66
million for historic preservation and heritage tourism,
including $12.5 million for Preserve America. Initiated by the
President and First Lady, Preserve America recognizes community
efforts to develop sustainable uses for their sites and to
develop economic and educational opportunities related to
heritage tourism. To date over 200 communities in 34 States
have been designated as Preserve America communities.
Interior is one of the few Federal agencies that takes in
more money than it spends. The key generator of revenues is
responsible energy development. In 2006 Interior will help meet
America's energy needs by providing appropriate access for
exploration and development on Federal lands and portions of
the outer continental shelf, expediting permitting and right of
way processing, and encouraging development of clean renewable
energy.
Our 2006 budget provides $530 million for energy programs
through appropriations and user fees, an increase of $22
million. The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open
the 1002 area of the coastal plain in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. The
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the entire ANWR
assessment area contains a mean of 10.4 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil. We have a chart that compares the
estimated ANWR resources with that of other areas. On the
chart, ANWR is the furthest left column. It is certainly our
largest potential untapped source of oil onshore, and it has an
estimated potential that at peak it could produce more than
Texas, more than Louisiana, more than any other single State
outside Alaska.
The current estimates project $2.4 billion in revenues from
the first bonus bid lease sale in 2007. The Congressional
Budget Office recently did its own estimate that sales would
produce bonus bids of $5 billion between 2007 and 2010.
Consistent with the Government's policy to charge for
government services where the direct beneficiary can be
identified, the 2006 budget for the Minerals Management Service
includes $19 million in new fees charged to offshore energy
producers. Approximately $13.5 million of this would fund costs
associated with processing permits.
The Bureau of Land Management will also increase its fees
to energy companies for onshore permitting, from $2 million in
2005 to $11 million in 2006. The proposed BLM energy budget
would enable them to reduce the backlog of applications for
permits to drill pending over 60 days from nearly 1,700 to 120
by the end of 2006. We anticipate that funding increases in the
BLM energy and minerals program will result in production of an
additional 47.6 million cubic feet of gas and 804,000 barrels
of oil over 5 years.
Protecting wildlife and habitat is one of Interior's most
important functions. Over the past 4 years Interior has
promoted cooperative conservation by joining with citizen
stewards to conserve open space, restore habitat for wildlife,
and protect endangered and at-risk species. From 2002 to 2005,
our conservation partnership programs have provided $1.7
billion for conservation investments, as shown by this chart.
In the first 3 years of President Bush's administration,
for example, we have restored, protected, or enhanced over 1.4
million acres of prairie and upland habitat through two of
these conservation programs, Partners for Fish and Wildlife and
the Coastal program.
The 2006 budget includes $379 million for cooperative
conservation grant and challenge cost share programs. These
programs also help us address concerns with endangered species.
One of the best successes over the past few years was in
working with sage grouse, where we were able to join with
conservation groups, farmers and ranchers, States, local
governments in vigorous efforts to prevent the decline in sage
grouse population and sage grass habitat. The 2006 budget
includes a $7 million increase in BLM to strengthen and expand
partnership efforts to conserve and restore sage grouse
habitat. We want to make sure that the voluntary sage grouse
conservation efforts continue for the long term.
Interior also does restoration work to reclaim abandoned
mine lands. Today more than 3 million Americans still live less
than 1 mile from dangerous abandoned coal mines. We want to
work with Congress to update the Surface Mining Act. Our 2006
budget facilitates congressional action by providing $148
million for cleanup of high priority sites and $58 million to
fairly address longstanding commitments to States and tribes
that have already achieved their reclamation goals. The
administration's approach would remove risk to 140,000 people
annually.
Interior is also reducing risks to communities adjacent to
public forests and range lands that face risks of catastrophic
wildfire. The fire season is always a difficult time, as we see
people's homes threatened and we fight against nature to
protect lives and save property. In recent years the buildup of
unnaturally dense tree stands and underbrush, coupled with
extended drought in many areas, has increased risk of
catastrophic fire.
Through the President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the
bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act, we have been working
to reduce hazardous fuels. Over the past 4 years, together with
the Forest Service, we have thinned over 12 million acres of
public lands, as much in 4 years as had been accomplished in
the previous 8 years. The 2006 budget includes an increase of
$10 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects. Working with
the Forest Service, we expect to complete more than 4 million
acres of projects in 2006. We are also engaged in stewardship
contracting to have public-private partnerships to help us with
this effort.
The U.S. Geological Survey plays a significant role in
providing hazards monitoring. We all were greatly distressed to
see the tsunami that hit in the Indian Ocean area. Our 2006
budget proposes $5 million for the USGS to work in partnership
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
enhance our early tsunami warning system, to protect U.S.
coastal residents in the States and the territories.
I want to conclude by briefly discussing our efforts to
manage Interior more efficiently and effectively. As public
demands for our services increase, Interior must continually
find ways to enhance service and spend dollars wisely. Behind
all of our programs, out of the limelight, rests a management
foundation through which we strive to improve program
efficiency and effectiveness. For example, the financial
business management system will integrate financial management,
procurement, property management, and other systems. Today we
have over 120 different property data bases and 26 different
financial management systems. Our managers often operate with
dozens of different information management systems, each
needing different passwords and different training.
Our 2006 budget includes $24 million for an improved
system. Ultimately, we anticipate being able to eliminate some
80 different information systems, ultimately saving us time and
money. Through this and other innovations, our bureaus work
hard to achieve management excellence.
Our 2006 budget supports our vision of healthy lands and
water, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. We look
forward to working with Congress to advance these goals. Thank
you.
[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 to discuss the fiscal year
2006 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals.
The mission of the Department of the Interior is complex and
diverse. Our 70,000 employees contribute to the Nation's environmental
quality, economic vitality, and the well being of communities. Our
mission encompasses resource protection, resource use, recreation, and
scientific, educational, and other services to communities.
The Department's geographically dispersed responsibilities are
inspiring and sometimes challenging. Through our programs, we have
close connections to America's lands and people. We protect some of the
Nation's most significant cultural, historic, and natural places. We
provide access to resources to help meet the Nation's energy and water
needs, while protecting natural and cultural resources. We provide
recreation opportunities to over 477 million people annually at our
parks, refuges, and other public lands. We serve communities through
science, wildland firefighting, and law enforcement. We fulfill trust
and other responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska natives, and the
Nation's affiliated island communities.
Four principles shape our 2006 budget. First is the power of
partnerships to leverage resources and achieve results. Second is the
imperative of fiscal constraint to maintain a dynamic economic context.
Third is an emphasis on investments that will help Interior work
smarter, more efficiently, and more effectively. Fourth is the
importance of funding activities and programs linked to core
Departmental responsibilities.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Performance lies at the center of the President's 2006 budget
request. The President's proposal also demonstrates the fiscal
restraint necessary to cut the deficit in half by 2009 and maintain the
Nation's dynamic economy.
Our 2006 budget request for current appropriations is $10.8
billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $4.2 billion, for a total 2006 Interior budget of
$15 billion.
The 2006 current appropriations request is a decrease of $101.2
million or 0.9 percent below the 2005 funding level. If contingent
emergency fire funding provided in 2005 is not counted, the 2006
request is a decrease of $2.6 million or 0.02 percent from 2005.
The 2006 request includes $9.8 billion for programs funded in the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, a decrease of $69.7
million or 0.7 percent from the 2005 level.
The request for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Central
Utah Project, funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, is $981.1 million, which is $31.5 million or three percent below
the 2005 funding level. The Budget also assumes $30 million in direct
funding from the Power Marketing Administrations for BOR hydropower
Operations and Maintenance.
The budget projects receipts collected by the Department in 2006 to
be $13.8 billion, an increase of $914 million and equivalent to 141
percent of the Department's current appropriations request to this
Subcommittee.
The Department manages over 500 million acres and some 40,000
facilities at 2,400 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. A key
goal of the Department's 2006 budget is to fund pay increases and other
nondiscretionary cost increases for health benefits, 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 basic
services while continuing to improve efficiency and effectiveness to
better serve the public.
The budget includes $158.6 million for nondiscretionary, fixed-cost
increases. Of this total, nearly three-quarters, or $115.7 million,
funds higher pay costs. The budget assumes a January 2006 pay increase
of 2.3 percent.
Our budget also includes a number of key initiatives that will help
us achieve our goals. Key activities include our efforts to:
Pursue responsible energy development;
Expand opportunities for cooperative conservation;
Enhance recreation opportunities on Interior lands;
Increase forest and rangeland health;
Continue the clean up of abandoned mine lands;
Advance trust reform; and
Reduce risks resulting from natural disasters.
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms in the
budget are important components of achieving the President's goal of
cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the Congress to
support these reforms. The 2006 budget includes more than 150
reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense discretionary
programs, of which four involve Interior programs. The Department wants
to work with the Congress to achieve these savings.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
ANWR Exploration and Development--Our 2006 budget continues our
quest to achieve healthy lands and water, thriving communities, and a
dynamic economy. Predictable, readily available supplies of energy at
reasonable costs underlie both community well-being and economic
action.
In 2006, Interior, with Congress' assistance, will help meet energy
needs by providing appropriate and environmentally sound access for
exploration and development of the coastal plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and portions of the Outer Continental Shelf;
expediting permitting and rights-of-way processing; and encouraging
development and use of clean, renewable energy.
Interior's 2006 budget provides $530 million for energy programs
through annual appropriations and user fees, an increase of $22
million.
The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open a portion of
the coastal plain in the ANWR to oil and gas exploration and
development, with the first lease sale planned for 2007. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion
barrels of technically recoverable oil if Congress lifts the ban on
development. At peak production, daily production from this area could
be larger than the current daily onshore oil production of Texas.
The budget assumes the first ANWR lease sale would produce an
estimated $2.4 billion in bonus bids in 2007, the same estimate we have
used for several years. It is based on conservative assumptions. The
Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the first lease sale
would produce bonus bids of $4 billion.
ANWR exploration and development would occur within a 1.5 million-
acre area of the 19 million-acre refuge. The maximum amount of surface
acreage covered by production and support facilities would occur on no
more than 2,000 acres, or one-hundredth of one percent of the refuge.
Through increased knowledge, experience, and technological advances,
the footprint of energy development will be dramatically reduced from
older development sites on the North Slope. For example, use of
seasonal ice pads for exploration will limit site disturbance, and
extended-reach drilling will reduce the number of sites by allowing
development of over 50 square miles of subsurface resources from one
single point on the surface.
The budget includes $1.6 billion for resource use to better meet
the increasing demands for water resources, to carry out the National
Energy Policy, and to maintain appropriate access to other resources on
public lands. Key initiatives include:
Minerals Management Service (MMS)--The 2006 budget proposes $290
million for MMS, a $12.6 million increase over 2005. This total
includes a request for $167.4 million in annual appropriations and
$122.7 million in offsetting collections. The proposed budget will
enhance services and programs that protect the environment and offshore
workers. It will also enhance methods to collect, account for, and
disburse revenue from Federal and American Indian lands. The $12.6
million net increase compared to 2005 includes a $19.0 million increase
in offsetting collections and a $6.4 million decrease in annual
appropriations.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oil and Gas Processing--The 2006
budget will increase the BLM energy and minerals program from an
estimated 2005 funding level of $108.5 million in appropriations and
user fees to a 2006 funding level of approximately $117.6 million. This
net increase will enable BLM to accelerate the processing time for
applications-for-permits-to-drill and reduce the permit application
backlog pending for over 60 days from 1,681 to 120 by the end of 2006.
WATER PROGRAMS
Water 2025--Preventing Crises and Conflicts in the West--The 2006
budget request includes an increase of $10.5 million for Water 2025,
for a total funding level of $30.0 million. In many basins in the West,
water demands for people, cities, farms, and the environment exceed the
available supply even in normal, non-drought years. The goal of Water
2025 is to prevent crises and conflicts over water in the West.
CALFED--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.
These Rivers also provide water for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
which provides habitat for 750 plant and animal species. 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 a
consortium of Federal and State agencies that are focused on goals to
improve water management and supplies and the health of the ecosystem.
The 2006 budget includes $35.0 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to
implement CALFED activities.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
The 2006 budget calls for $2.6 billion for resource protection
programs that improve the health of landscapes and watersheds, sustain
biological communities, and protect cultural and natural heritage
resources. In August 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order on
Cooperative Conservation requesting that agencies strengthen efforts to
work cooperatively with States, Tribes, local governments, and others
to achieve conservation goals.
Over the past four years, the Department has encouraged cooperative
conservation through various grant programs, administrative actions,
and policies. These efforts emphasize innovation, local action, and
private stewardship. They achieve conservation goals while maintaining
private and local land ownership. They foster species protection
through land management and cooperative, on-the-ground habitat
improvements, complementing traditional funding of ESA regulatory
programs.
Key initiatives in resource protection include:
Cooperative Conservation Programs--Through partnerships, Interior
works with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across
the Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges,
and other public lands. The 2006 budget includes $381.3 million for the
Department's cooperative conservation programs. These programs leverage
limited Federal funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50
percent or more. They provide a foundation for cooperative efforts to
protect endangered and at-risk species; engage local communities,
organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster innovation; and
achieve conservation goals while maintaining working landscapes.
Our budget proposes funding for the Landowner Incentive and Private
Stewardship programs at a total of $50.0 million, an increase of $21.4
million from 2005. Through these programs, our agencies work with
States, Tribes, communities, and landowners to provide incentives to
conserve sensitive habitats in concert with traditional land management
practices such as farming and ranching, thus maintaining the social and
economic fabric of local communities.
Our budget proposes to fund challenge cost-share programs in the
BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NPS at $44.8 million.
These cost-share programs better enable Interior's land management
agencies to work together and with adjacent communities, landowners,
and other citizens to achieve common conservation goals. The 2006
proposal represents an increase of $25.7 million.
The challenge cost-share program includes $21.5 million for
projects that are targeted to natural resource conservation. In 2004,
the Congress provided $21.2 million for these cost-share grants.
Leveraged with matching funds, this provided a total of $52 million for
on-the-ground projects including more than $19 million for projects to
eradicate and control invasives and weeds.
For example, in New Mexico, the Bosque del Apache refuge is working
with the local community to restore riparian habitat along the Rio
Grande River by eliminating tamarisk on over 1,100 acres.
We also propose level or increased funding for a suite of other FWS
cooperative programs: the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, the
Coastal program, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the State and Tribal Wildlife
grants program, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund. These programs support a cooperative approach to conservation
that emphasizes voluntary partnerships with private landowners, local
governments, Tribes, and community organizations.
Sustaining Biological Communities--Targeted increases in the FWS
and BLM will focus new resources on the recovery of endangered,
threatened, and at-risk species and increase interagency efforts to
curtail harmful invasive species. We propose a programmatic increase of
$1.9 million for general activities in the Fish and Wildlife Service
ESA recovery program and $7.0 million in BLM to strengthen and expand
efforts to conserve and restore sagebrush habitat to maintain sage-
grouse populations. An increase of $2.3 million in the FWS, BLM, and
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will support invasive species work on a
regional basis.
Klamath River Basin--The 2006 budget commits $62.9 million toward
finding long-term solutions to water issues in the Klamath Basin and
proposes an 8.4 percent increase for Interior Department programs in
the basin. In the short-term, water-supply shortages will continue to
present challenges. As of mid-February, the snow pack in the upper
Klamath River basin was 47 percent below average. With depleted
groundwater supplies and expected continued drought conditions, the
risks to endangered and threatened fish in the basin persist. We also
anticipate impacts to the people and communities dependent on the
river, including upper basin irrigators and downstream Indian and
commercial fishermen.
The BOR is currently putting together a water bank of over 100,000
acre-feet to help meet water needs this calendar year for coho salmon.
Efforts are also underway to recover listed species and improve
conditions by restoring the water-retention capability of the riparian
and adjacent habitat. The budget request includes $7.5 million for the
FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife program for these efforts; $6.0
million for land acquisition to acquire the Barnes Tract, which will
provide nursery and other habitat for the endangered fish and increase
water storage in Upper Klamath Lake in most years; and $1.2 million to
fund pumping necessitated by the removal of Chiloquin Dam to improve
fish migration and spawning.
Finally, the budget request includes $500,000 for a FWS prototype
program to acquire and transfer water rights to the wetlands in the
Klamath Basin refuges. These key wetlands on the Pacific Flyway depend
entirely on return flows from the Klamath Irrigation Project. The
wetlands need a reliable source of clean water as a hedge against
droughts and to provide a base amount of water to which the return
flows can be added.
Everglades Restoration--Within the 2006 request for National Park
Service (NPS) construction is $25 million for the Modified Water
Deliveries Project, a key to restoring natural flows in the Everglades.
Under a new agreement between the Department and the Corps of
Engineers, the cost to complete the project will be shared by NPS and
the Corps. The 2006 budget for the Corps includes $35.0 million for
this project. Over the period 2007 to 2009, the Corps will contribute
an estimated additional $88.0 million and the NPS an additional $41.0
million. The 2006 NPS contribution consists of $8.0 million in new
funding and $17.0 million redirected from unobligated balances for
Everglades land acquisition not currently needed for high-priority
acquisitions.
Abandoned Mine Lands (AML)--Today, more than 3 million Americans
live less than one mile from dangerous abandoned coal mines. Consistent
with the Administration's 2005 reauthorization proposal for the 1977
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the 2006 budget supports
the Administration's vision to reauthorize the AML program. The
Administration's approach would remove risk to 140,000 people annually.
Our budget provides $147.5 million in AML grants to expedite clean
up of high-priority sites and another $58.0 million in AML grants to
address in a fair manner long-standing commitments to States and Tribes
that have already achieved their reclamation goals. Under the funding
formulas in the 1977 Act, AML funding is increasingly directed to
States with significant coal production, but few, if any, abandoned
mines. The Administration's approach would direct new AML funding to
reclaim unhealthy and unsafe abandoned mines and provide to States that
have already completed mine reclamation repayment of their statutory
share of AML fees collected under the 1977 law.
RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Lands and waters managed by Interior offer unparalleled outdoor
recreational opportunities. The BLM, BOR, FWS, and the NPS manage an
inspiring and diverse collection of natural wonders. For example, in
2003 our National Wildlife Refuges attracted 2.2 million hunting visits
and 6.6 million fishing visits. The FWS looks for opportunities to add
new or expand existing public hunting and fishing programs. There are
currently 308 national wildlife refuges that are open to hunting and
270 refuges that are open to sport fishing.
Overall, the budget includes $1.3 billion in investments for
recreation programs that will improve visitor services and access to
recreation opportunities.
This total includes an increase of $33 million to respond to
growing demands for recreational activities on public lands, provide a
safer environment for refuge visitors, and ensure continuous
enhancements to visitor services at parks. In addition, the budget
provides $82 million in the operating accounts of the BLM, FWS, and NPS
to cover increased pay and other fixed costs and maintain existing
performance and service levels to the public.
The Federal Lands Enhancement Recreation Act--Passed by the 108th
Congress and signed into law by the President on December 8, 2004, the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act will enable Interior land
management agencies to improve recreation and visitor amenities on
public lands. The Act provides a 10-year extension of the recreation
fee program piloted with the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. The
Act establishes important parameters for the program to ensure that
fees are charged only in appropriate locations and revenues are
appropriately spent on infrastructure and services that directly
benefit the public.
The Department is working closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture on key implementation issues, such as development of long-
term, multi-agency fee guidance, and the creation of the new ``America
the Beautiful Pass'', which will cover entrance and standard amenity
fees for the five agencies authorized under the Act. The Departments
are committed to creating a dynamic program responsive to the public
and Congress during the implementation process.
In 2006, the Department will continue to transition from the
Recreational Demonstration Program to the provisions of the new Act.
Working with the Congress, the Department has established a set of
principles to guide the program during the transition period.
Specifically:
No new fee areas will be created.
Agencies will conduct an interim evaluation of existing fee
sites based on the new criteria and prohibitions.
The Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access Passes, and
the National Park Pass will continue to be sold until the
America the Beautiful Pass is available.
Existing Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access passes
and National Park passes will be ``grandfathered in'' under
their existing benefits and will remain valid until expired.
Specific site, forest and regional passes, such as southern
California's Forest Service Adventure Pass, will continue to be
available.
The Act includes criteria and directions that address issues raised
by the public and members of Congress regarding recreation fees. For
example, the Act prohibits fees for BLM and the Forest Service for
general access to national forests and grasslands, access to overlooks
and scenic pullouts, and areas with low or no expenditures for
facilities or services. The use of Recreation Resource Advisory
Committees required by the Act will ensure public input on decisions
about expanding the fee program by providing the public and local
communities an opportunity to make recommendations to the BLM or the
Forest Service on specific recreation fee sites and fees. Public notice
and participation provisions will guide the Department's efforts to
conduct a program that is accountable and transparent. Under the Act,
the vast majority of recreation sites will continue to be free.
Park Maintenance Backlog--Through President Bush's commitment to
address the maintenance backlog in parks, over the past four years more
than 4,000 projects were undertaken to maintain, repair or replace park
facilities. The 2006 budget includes $716.6 million for construction
and park facility maintenance, an increase of $29.0 million. Included
within the increase are an additional $22.2 million for NPS
construction and $3.4 million in the repair and rehabilitation program
to repair high-priority historic buildings. Including funds in the
President's proposal for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, total NPS deferred maintenance funding will
exceed $1.1 billion in 2006. The 2006 request will bring funding for
park maintenance over five years to $4.9 billion, as pledged by then-
Governor Bush in 2000.
Preserving Cultural Landscapes--More and more Americans are
visiting historic and cultural sites across the nation. In 2002, 81
percent of adults in the United States included at least one cultural,
historic, or heritage activity in their vacation plans. Linking
historic preservation to educational and economic opportunities ensures
sustained commitment to those places that bring alive our nation's
cultures and history.
Through its Preserve America initiative, the Administration is
recognizing and encouraging heritage tourism as a significant economic
development and educational activity. Over 220 localities have been
designated Preserve America Communities, serving as a focus for civic
pride and a catalyst for preservation. The Administration proposes
$12.5 million in competitive grants to encourage community preservation
of our cultural, historic, and natural heritage through education and
heritage tourism.
Overall, the budget proposes $66.2 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund, which includes funding for Preserve America, as well
as $15.0 million for Save America's Treasures, and $38.7 million for
grants to States and Tribes. The budget includes an additional $5.0
million for National Heritage Areas.
SERVING COMMUNITIES
With its broad-ranging responsibilities, Interior's activities
touch the lives of all Americans. For example:
Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, the nation's premier
earth sciences agency, generates scientific information that
helps inform decisions about land and water management. Its
hazards monitoring helps reduce risks to communities associated
with earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, mudslides, and volcanoes.
Through performing its responsibilities to Native Americans,
Alaska natives, and other communities, Interior helps educate
children and enhance the economic well being of these
communities.
Interior's implementation of the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is enhancing
forest and rangeland health and reducing risks to communities
from catastrophic fires.
Interior's budget includes $5.1 billion to serve communities by
improving Indian trust management and services to Tribes and individual
Indians; providing resources for Indian education and other social
services, advancing the Healthy Forests Initiative and related wildland
fire activities; strengthening law enforcement; and enhancing
scientific and hazards warning information for our agencies and the
public. Key initiatives include:
Trust Programs--The budget provides $591.4 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.
Within this total, the President's budget proposes to increase funding
for historical accounting from $57.2 million to $135.0 million. An
increase of $9.6 million would strengthen efforts to address the
current backlog of unresolved probate cases.
In the ongoing Cobell lawsuit, last Wednesday, February 23rd, the
court issued an order reinstating the historic accounting structural
injunction previously issued on September 23, 2003, directing the
Department to conduct a far more expansive accounting and requiring
that it be completed under even more constrained time lines than the
Department had planned. Preliminary estimates developed by the
Department estimate the costs to comply with the order at between $10
to $12 billion. The new injunction requires extensive work beyond what
is currently budgeted in 2005 or proposed in 2006 to be completed by
January 6, 2006. In addition to the completion of accounting for all
judgment and per capita accounts back to 1887 and the completion of the
accounting for all transactions in land-based accounts back to 1985,
the court order directs the indexing of all trust-related records
located at federal facilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Lee's
Summit, Missouri, the collection of all relevant trust records held by
third parties, the systems tests related to electronic data gaps, and
the systems conversion from the Integrated Records Management System to
the Trust Funds Accounting System. The Department's budget for 2005 or
2006 is not constructed to address these requirements. The Department
is in continuing discussion with the Department of Justice on the
course of action available to the Department.
Healthy Forests--The 2006 budget supports the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative with a $211.2 million budget for hazardous fuels
reduction in the wildland fire program, a net increase of $9.8 million
over the 2005 enacted level. The hazardous fuels budget includes a
program increase of $10.3 million for fuels projects, partially offset
by a scheduled $2.5 million reduction in funding for development of the
LANDFIRE vegetative mapping and imaging system.
Funding in the wildland fire program, together with funds for
forest and range improvement in the land management agencies and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, will provide approximately $313.0 million in
2006 to reduce the build-up of hazardous fuels in the Nation's forests
and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities,
protect threatened and endangered species, and support other activities
under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
Wildland Fire--In addition to funding additional hazardous fuels
reduction projects, the 2006 wildland fire budget includes increases of
$15.7 million to fund suppression operations at the 10-year average and
$5.0 million to maintain the 2004 aviation fleet reconfiguration. In
total, the 2006 budget for wildland fire management is $756.6 million,
a net increase of $23.9 million over 2005, not including $98.6 million
in 2005 contingent emergency funding.
Rural Fire Assistance--The 2006 budget for Wildland Fire continues
partnerships with local fire departments, proposing an increase in the
Preparedness program to provide advance training to local fire fighters
to help build a ready reserve of local firefighters that can support
extended attack and thereby improve the effectiveness of Federal
cooperation with local firefighting agencies. Rural fire assistance
grants, which provided funds to local fire departments for equipment
and basic training, are eliminated as a separate funding source in
anticipation that equipment and training needs of local fire
departments will be met through the much larger Forest Service and FEMA
fire assistance programs.
Tsunami Warning System--As part of a $37.5 million, two-year
commitment by the Administration to expand U.S. tsunami detection and
monitoring capabilities, the 2006 budget includes $5.4 million for USGS
facilities and operations to provide more robust detection and
notification of earthquakes that could trigger tsunamis. The President
has submitted a 2005 budget supplemental request proposing $8.1 million
for USGS to begin work on these enhancements. The balance of the
funding for the tsunami warning system is in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's budget.
Landsat--The 2006 budget requests $7.5 million for USGS to begin
work on an upgraded ground-processing system to acquire, process,
archive, and distribute data from a new generation of satellite-based
land image sensors. The first of two Landsat Data Continuity Mission
sensors will be flown on a NOAA polar orbiting satellite scheduled for
operation in 2009. To continue the 30-year unbroken record of data on
the Earth's continental surface collected by the Landsat program, the
budget also contains a $12 million increase to support continued
operation of the Landsat 7 satellite in 2006 and to repay a planned
reprogramming for 2005 Landsat 7 operations. Although Landsat 7 data
remain valuable and usable, revenue from commercial sale of the data
that normally supports the Landsat program has sharply decreased as a
result of the failure of the satellite's scan line corrector.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)--PILT payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their
boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with
local governments. The 2006 budget proposes $200.0 million for these
payments. The 2006 request is 60 to 97 percent higher than the PILT
payments during the 1990s, but is a reduction of $26.8 million from the
record high 2005 payment level.
PROGRAM TERMINATIONS AND REDUCTIONS
As part of the President's effort to cut the budget deficit in half
by 2009, the 2006 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 one-time earmarks enacted in 2005. Other terminations and
reductions include:
LWCF State Grants--The 2006 budget terminates funding for Land and
Water Conservation Fund State grants, a reduction of $89.6 million from
the 2005 level. LWCF State grants support State and local parks that
have alternate sources of funding through State revenues and bonds. As
the nation strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core
Federal agency responsibilities is imperative. A 2003 Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review found the program could not
adequately measure performance. The 2006 budget continues funding for
the administrative portion of the grant program at $1.6 million, which
will be used to review the accountability and performance of grants
provided in previous years.
Jobs-in-the-Woods--The budget proposes to discontinue the Jobs-in-
the-Woods program, which was created in the early 1990s as a temporary
program to assist displaced timber workers in the Pacific Northwest by
offering resource-based job opportunities to improve water quality and
restore Oregon's coastal salmon populations. As most workers have
transitioned and timber sales are increasing, the budget proposes to
focus resources on programmatic priorities, including offering the full
allowable sale quantity under the Northwest Forest Plan and supporting
the Plan's requirement that late-succession reserves be managed to
stimulate old growth characteristics.
USGS Minerals Resources Program--The budget reduces funding for the
USGS Minerals Resources program by $28.5 million. The budget continues
funding for minerals surveys and studies relevant to ongoing Federal
energy, land management, regulatory, and remediation activities.
Funding is reduced for studies and information gathering for regional
and local activities more oriented to the interests of States, local
governments, and universities, all of whom are significant users of
information generated by the Minerals Resources program.
NPS Statutory and Contractual Aid--The budget does not continue
funding for $11.2 million in Statutory and Contractual Aid activities
that are secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.
MANDATORY PROPOSALS
Accompanying the 2006 budget are several legislative proposals that
affect receipt or spending levels in 2006 or in future years. These
proposals, which will be transmitted separately from the budget for
consideration by the Congress, include:
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act--The budget proposes to
amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 to return
70 percent of the receipts from land sales under the Act to the
Treasury, where receipts from land sales have historically been
deposited. The Act, as amended by P.L. 107-282, authorizes the disposal
through sale of approximately 49,000 acres of Federal land in Clark
County, Nevada. Five percent of the proceeds are provided to the State
of Nevada for use in the State's general education program and 10
percent are provided to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for water
treatment and transmission facility infrastructure in Clark County. The
remaining 85 percent of funds are deposited in a special account to
acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada; make capital
improvements to areas administered by the NPS, FWS and BLM in Clark
County; develop a multi-species habitat plan for Clark County; develop
parks, trails and natural areas and implement other conservation
initiatives in the county; and reimburse the BLM for costs incurred in
arranging sales and exchanges under the Act.
The receipts generated by these land sales thus far have been
nearly eight times higher than anticipated, with future revenue
projections of almost $1 billion per year. When SNPLMA was originally
passed, proceeds from land sales under the bill were estimated at
roughly $70 million per year. Sale proceeds were $530.5 million in
2004. In 2005, they are estimated to be $1.2 billion, or seventeen
times the level anticipated in 1998.
When the law was enacted, there was general agreement that a
substantial portion of the revenues generated would be spent to acquire
and conserve other lands around Nevada. However, as land sale receipts
under the Act have increased in the last few years, the available
funding has outpaced land acquisition needs. These funds are
increasingly being dedicated to local projects--and many more projects
than originally anticipated are being formulated without the
accountability of further consideration by the Congress.
The budget proposes that, beginning in 2006, 70 percent of all
revenues from these lands sales would be returned to the Treasury, with
the percent of receipts deposited in the special account set at 15
percent. The amount of revenue currently provided to the State and to
the water and airport authorities would not change. Total combined
revenues retained in the State would total 30 percent, with revenues
for 2006 for these purposes projected at $292.3 million, an amount four
times larger than original projections in 1998 at time of enactment of
the legislation.
BLM Range Improvement--The budget for the BLM proposes to
discontinue mandatory appropriations from the Range Improvement Fund
totaling $10.0 million annually. Instead, revenues will be deposited to
the Treasury. To address rangeland improvement needs, the discretionary
budget request for BLM includes $6.0 million to focus on projects to
improve rangeland health conditions, such as weed control, essentially
replacing funding provided through the Fund. These projects are part of
the Department's cooperative conservation request and will be matched
by partners. Other operational increases for the BLM, including $7.0
million for sagebrush habitat and sage grouse protection and $1.3
million for invasive weed control, will also support rangeland
improvement goals.
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM
The Administration proposes to re-allocate repayment of capital
costs of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, which is a series of
hydropower dams, levees, and canals serving several purposes. Power
customers would be responsible for repayment of all construction from
which they benefit, whereas to date they have only been responsible for
a majority but not all of it. Most of the remaining costs are those
that were originally allocated to irrigation, which was ultimately not
developed. This change would increase reimbursements from power
customers by $33 million in 2006, and declining amounts in the
outyears. Rate increases could be phased in over time.
MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE
As public demands for Interior services increase--from Indian
children who need schools to visitors who seek more outdoor
recreational opportunities on our public lands--Interior must continue
to enhance service and spend dollars wisely. Behind all our programs,
out of the limelight, rests a management foundation through which we
strive to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. The Department
and its bureaus continue to implement performance improvements.
Our 2006 budget includes investments in tools to enable our
employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate cost savings
by implementing standardized systems.
The Department currently uses 26 different financial management
systems and over 100 different property systems. Employees must enter
procurement transactions multiple times in different systems so that
the data are captured in real property inventories, financial systems,
and acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and
burdensome to manage. We have underway an integration of our financial
and business management systems to streamline and modernize basic
administrative activities.
Our budget proposes an increase of $9.5 million to support
continued implementation of the Financial and Business Management
System that will integrate financial management, procurement, property
management and other systems. Through this effort, we will reengineer
administrative processes throughout the Department. As the new system
becomes fully operational, we will retire over 80 legacy systems and
replace their functions with standardized business processes within the
new, integrated system. In 2006, the NPS and FWS are scheduled to
transition to the new system.
The 2006 budget includes a $7.0 million increase for continued
implementation of the Enterprise Services Network. The network
leverages the existing BIA Trustnet, expanding it Department-wide, to
provide secure, state-of-the-art internet and intranet connections and
a fully functional operational center for data communications. In
addition to providing better services for many Interior offices, the
system will provide a uniformly secure environment, standardized and
efficient 24-hour/7-day operations, and improved technical support.
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 2006 budget.
This concludes my overview of the 2006 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. Well, in spite of your
early remarks, which took about 5 minutes on the Indian trusts,
I let you proceed well beyond the 10 minutes.
I think it is a rather startling explanation of what is
going on. I personally urge that you do everything possible to
try to resolve that litigation.
I remember once in this committee we were talking about the
costs of Yucca Mountain before we could ever begin to build
anything and this Senator right here, Senator Craig, said:
Well, why do we not try something different. Why do we not
build it and then see if it works, and if it does not work we
close it up, because we are going to spend more than it costs
to build it.
You know, you have just told us that. I think you said over
time your estimate of doing what the judge ordered might cost
$10 billion. Well, we cannot pay that out of this budget. You
are going to have to seek emergency funding or something,
because we will not have any Bureau of Indian Affairs left.
But you know, that analogy kind of works. It might be
better if you could resolve the issue some other way. Maybe the
Indian people would come out better than getting little or
nothing but spending $10 billion to study things from 1886--is
that the date--which you have indicated might be very
difficult, but might be inconclusive, too. The study might not
tell us what everybody thinks you are going to get. Is that not
right? It may not yield what the Indian people think we are
going to get out of that evaluation. Is that right?
Secretary Norton. We may find out that the accounting was
good and there is very little that was owed.
The Chairman. Well, I cannot imagine----
Secretary Norton. We had proposed a $335 million accounting
project that would rely a lot on statistical sampling, and the
judge said no statistical sampling.
The Chairman. I cannot imagine going back to those records.
I cannot imagine going back to records that long ago. Many of
the records after you look and look and subpoena will not be
determinative. I mean, many of them will not be there. Who
knows? But anyway, my suggestion remains.
I am not going to ask any questions. I am going to start
with Senator Bingaman and get to the rest of you, and I will
try to either intervene or wait until the end.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask, begin by asking about a report that came out
last week, I believe. This was a report the Inspector General
issued last October, a very scathing report about the
Department's handling of a settlement agreement involving
Harvey Frank Robbins. The Inspector General in that report
speaks about a senior BLM official having conducted himself
without concern for the implications of the settlement
agreement on the range land program, having failed to act
impartially, having given preferential treatment, and on and
on. There are various statements in that report.
We had a problem a year or so ago, as you recall, involving
the San Rafael Swell land exchange and you got very concerned
about that, I know, and made a statement that you were going to
put in place extensive procedural safeguards to ensure that
decisions are made in a manner that protects the environment
and the public interest. Obviously, those types of extensive
procedural safeguards proved inadequate in this circumstance,
at least according to the Inspector General. I wondered if you
have taken any action in light of this report that was issued
by the Inspector General in October to further prevent or
further ensure that this kind of thing does not happen?
Secretary Norton. First of all, as to the San Rafael Swell,
we consolidated our whole appraisal process and so that is
operated in a centralized way through the Department. That, I
think, takes away some of the concerns that had existed in the
past. We put in place a lot of requirements as to the overall
way in which land exchanges are conducted.
We have moved to strengthen our Department's ethics office.
We have moved that to the Solicitor's Office and are operating
with greater resources in that area as well as reminding people
on a constant basis that they do need to coordinate with and
work with the ethics office to make sure their activities are
appropriate.
Senator Bingaman. Has any of that been in response to this
report I am referring to in October? Because in that report the
Solicitor General said that the attorney in the Solicitor's
Office ``capitulated to the pressure and intimidation of a
senior political appointee.''
Secretary Norton. What I would like to suggest is that we
provide an individual briefing for you on that, because there
are some personnel aspects of that that are not appropriate for
me to discuss in an open session.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I do not want you to get into
personnel matters, but I would be interested in anything you
could tell us about whether you have instituted any new
procedures since or in response to this report that was issued
in October?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we have been trying to enhance
overall our ethics efforts. We have increased the staffing in
the ethics office, as Secretary Norton mentioned, moved the
ethics office into the Solicitor's Office, and, once doing
that, further increased ethics office resources. They have done
individualized training on an annual basis for all the
political appointees as well as others.
Senator Bingaman. Now, this is in response to the IG report
in October?
Ms. Scarlett. This is an ongoing set of responses. We began
these initial improvements several years ago, but as the IG
continues to raise concerns, we continue to seek ways to
further enhance the ethics office operation.
Senator Bingaman. All right, let me go to another subject.
On Indian water rights settlements, we have a couple of those
that are quite important in New Mexico, the Navajo San Juan
settlement and the Amant settlement that we are trying to get
some closure on. I have been critical in a letter to you fairly
recently about the Department's lack of serious participation
in these negotiations. I am advised that one of the problems is
you do not have a senior policy person who can negotiate on
behalf of the Department in these Amant cases. The person who
was doing that has now gone up to be your Solicitor. She is not
able to hold down two jobs at once and there is nobody who
really has the time and mission in their job description to get
out and actually constructively participate in these
negotiations.
Is there a way to fix that? I think it is important that
the Department be constructively engaged in these negotiations.
Secretary Norton. We are moving to get a new person into
that position who will be functioning as counselor to me. This
individual, I think we have announced her. It is someone that
is well known to Senator Salazar, I believe. It is Jennifer
Gimbel, who is an attorney, who is a very well-respected water
lawyer. She is someone that we have worked with from the
Colorado Attorney General's Office and will be coming in as
counselor to me and working closely with the Solicitor's
Office, and so will be able to provide that senior-level policy
guidance.
We also have been working within the administration to look
at how we handle the financial aspects of the settlements. So
there are ongoing discussions.
Senator Bingaman. Well, any speed you can add to the
process would be appreciated. We are moving ahead rapidly to
get these negotiations completed in New Mexico, we hope, and
the involvement of the Department of the Interior would be most
helpful.
Let me ask on another issue. The Reclamation budget this
year proposes a 35 percent cut in funding for the Middle Rio
Grande Project, which Senator Domenici has been very involved
in. I have as well. It includes a $4 million cut proposed for
funding for the ESA compliance. This is in fairly sharp
contrast to the proposal with regard to Klamath Basin. I notice
that in your testimony you say that the 2006 budget commits
$62.9 million toward funding long-term solutions to the water
issues in the Klamath Basin and proposes an 8.4 percent
increase for Interior Department programs in the basin.
It strikes me as unfortunate that you are proposing an 8.4
percent increase there and a 35 percent cut with regard to the
Middle Rio Grande Project and I would be interested in any
response you could give us on that.
Secretary Norton. The cuts in funding for the Middle Rio
Grande were primarily removing earmarks that had been put into
the budget, and it is the consistent policy of the Office of
Management and Budget that earmarks are removed when we do our
new budget requests.
Senator Bingaman. I will ask some additional questions in
the next round, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, I told you all that I was going to let
you go first, before I did, but I cannot do that. First of all,
those earmarks you are talking about, Madam Secretary, were put
in by this Senator. So you can rest assured they will be back
there. So you might as well figure out how you are going to
accomplish those projects.
I want to tell you about Indian water settlements because I
am very worried. First of all, there is something going on that
does not seem right. We have gone along here for a number of
years and whether or not we have been correct, the U.S.
Government has gotten involved in these water settlements
involving the Indian people versus surrounding communities,
districts, private property owners and the like.
All of a sudden in New Mexico we have a case that has been
going on for 38 years. It centers around Indian pueblos, and we
have the Federal Government involved for 38 years--it is not
your fault; everybody has been on notice. We come up to the end
and you act like you have never been involved. All of a sudden
you offer something, an amount of money that will not solve
one-fifth of the resolution.
You might be right, but, you know, we do not have anybody
that is really discussing with any authority or apparent
knowledge of what is going on. I am here to tell you that I
respect the President's budget. I am not sure that everything
in it is what I want, but I do not have any sympathy for the
Department and the Justice Department for the way they have
conducted themselves lately on water settlements in our State.
We helped Arizona get a big settlement. Compared to ours,
it dwarfs all of them. And we passed it here. No complaints
from the administration. I assume they are going to find the
money, $5, $6 billion, a huge amount. Does anybody remember
what the Arizona settlement is going to cost? $160 million we
did for Idaho.
So I just tell you we have got to do something about it.
The Navajo problem is a major one. We need your people to
analyze clearly what the significance of the Navajo claim is to
all the rest of the properties, the States, the cities, because
their claim is a valid claim, and they say if we do not settle
they will enforce it. We need to know whether you all
understand the significance of that claim, because leverage is
the only way we can settle the case. What is the probability of
success of that case that permits us to decide, and you, to
decide what you are going to do?
So I truly believe this is a terribly important issue and,
while it is not as much as what you are going to have to spend
for the 1886 inventory of the trust documentation as to what
the Government has done, it will be a very large amount of
money.
Might I at least ask you to contribute some comment to the
record, please?
Secretary Norton. I do concur that Indian water right
settlements are a very significant issue. We have 19 settlement
negotiations that Interior is currently participating in. We
have a process right now that causes us to engage in the
settlements. Because our Federal process does not provide us
the opportunity to decide up front how much is allocated to
individual settlements, that usually comes in as Congress
considers a settlement. So we do not have the ability
ordinarily as we are doing settlement discussions for the
individual who is working on behalf of the Federal Government
to be able to commit the Federal Government to spending a
certain amount of money.
Within that, we have worked to try to resolve issues, to
work past the many complex issues. But it is usually when you
get to the final stage of congressional consideration that the
financial issues are identified. It is a looming issue for the
West. It has a tremendous impact on many States. We recognize
that, and we want to continue Interior's longstanding
commitment to try to resolve those issues.
The Chairman. Well, Madam Secretary, I am not sure that
what I hear you saying is reasonable, because if you are out
there in a 38 year old lawsuit and you have attempted to arrive
at some conclusions, there may be a number of options. There
may be some things that the Federal Government would say they
do not want or cannot do or offer alternatives.
Now, if we introduce the legislation that comports to be in
compliance with a major agreement that has been entered into,
the way you are looking at it the first time we are going to
hear substantively what you think about it is after the people
and entities have made commitments and an agreement. I don't
think that's a very good way to do it. I think there has to be
more involvement early on so that we have a better idea of
where we are.
End of my statement in that regard. Let me move to oil and
gas production and leasing. We have a problem that we have told
you about where those who drill and have permits on public land
for either oil or gas, you and others are saying, let us hurry
up the permits, let us get out and produce. You do not have any
problem with this Senator. What you are saying about getting
rid of the backlog, that is fine.
But we have some legitimate complaints, some not so
appropriate, about the permittees, those who are drilling, the
oil and gas companies, not taking care of their surface
responsibilities--roads and making sure the area is properly
attended to. This is not good, because we have had a
relationship with ranchers and surface owners that has been
very good and now it seems to be rather clouded on one hand and
on the other very filled with anguish and anxiety.
Are you aware of that?
Secretary Norton. Yes, Senator, I am aware that there have
been difficulties, especially where we have a split estate
situation. We have been working first of all with the Western
Governors Association. We have identified best management
practices that are to apply as we are making final decisions on
individual wells that help minimize the impacts from those
wells.
We also have been requiring the companies to work with the
landowners more consistently, with the surface owners, so that
we have discussions taking place, so that the companies will
work with the surface owner to try to avoid problems. That has
proceeded with great success with some companies, but not with
others.
We are requiring the posting of a bond by companies that
are not getting agreements with surface owners. It is still a
point of difficulty.
The Chairman. Well, Madam Secretary, let me say, we do not
yet have a report to our Senators about a site visit by one of
our staffers. One of our staffers went out there because the
property owner said: This company does it right, come and see
it; this company does not do it right, come and see it. I am
thinking there is going to be a conclusion that they were
right, and you are suggesting that, some companies are doing it
right, some are not.
I submit to you that there ought to be an on the field
response to some of the complaints, so that you can get, your
Department can get, a real feel of what is going on. Just do
not take the complaints, but have somebody go and see, so those
property owners feel like somebody is listening. Maybe you are
doing that, but I really suggest that you do it on a random
basis so people really know that they are going to get looked
at by a field person of your Department. Otherwise, in all
deference to those who do the drilling, and we try to help and
get it done, but they might not do their job right. Thank you.
Now, I guess next on this is Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. No, Senator Thomas was here before me.
The Chairman. Were you here, Senator?
Senator Thomas. I was here. Thank you.
The Chairman. I made a mistake.
Senator Thomas. Thank you for being here. It is very
difficult. We all talk about reducing the deficit and yet we
have a hard time reducing any of our spending, and I understand
that.
Let me ask you several things very quickly and perhaps you
can respond fairly quickly. As you know, the President had a
proposal for a number of years to deal with the maintenance
backlog in the parks, and I wonder how we are doing on that. I
do not think we have kept up with doing what was promised.
Secretary Norton. Senator, we have been working toward the
$4.9 billion backlog commitment that the President made. This
year's funding should allow us to meet that commitment. A
portion of the originally identified backlog, a very
significant portion, was in the highway system. We have
requested, it is almost a doubling of highway funding for the
parks as part of the overall highway bill. That of course is in
limbo until that legislation is passed.
Senator Thomas. So we need to continue to work on this
because the Park Service has done a pretty good job of getting
an inventory of the backlog and now we need to get the work
done.
Heritage areas. We are trying to do something with that,
but it is going on and you have some obligations there. How do
you expect to provide only $5 million for Heritage Areas when
the requests and demands are beyond that?
Secretary Norton. We do know that is a very popular program
and we have been looking at how we best to foster the kind of
local heritage tourism efforts that are behind the heritage
program. The Preserve America program is another way of doing
that and that works with local communities.
Senator Thomas. The Department has agreed to usually put in
$10 million to each one of those areas, which we do not
necessarily agree with, but that has been the position. And
this is not enough money to do that, of course.
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, my understanding is that we have had
$14 million in total for heritage areas appropriated by the
Congress. Our $5 million for heritage areas, coupled with the
$12.5 million for Preserve America, we think would go a long
way toward advancing heritage goals.
Senator Thomas. You talk some about AML funds here and so
on, but you never mention the State share. As you know, the
States are not getting their share of the 50 percent. Now, I
guess that is our responsibility, but you seem to have made
plans for most of the money when in fact half of it belongs to
the States.
Secretary Norton. Senator, the $58 million that is in our
budget for this time is to deal with exactly that. It would
take the--that number was derived from looking at the promises
that were made to States and that right now I think is a $580
million figure, and to basically pay that off over 10 years.
We recognize that we proposed legislation and a specific
approach. We want to work with Congress to try to address that
issue and to be flexible in the way we address that.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Secretary Norton. The $58 million was put into our budget
specifically to show our commitment to address that issue.
Senator Thomas. The States have about a billion dollars
coming to them. I do not suppose we will ever get that, but
that has happened because they have not gotten their share as
it went along, which is as much our fault as it is anyone
else's.
PILT, all of us are concerned about PILT. This is a pretty
legitimate program. I was in the House and helped raise the
authorization. These are offsetting taxes that the county would
otherwise have if it was not Federal land. So reducing that
seems to be a pretty difficult thing when you talk about
working cooperatively with local governments.
Secretary Norton. We had to make some tough decisions this
year in order to start bringing down the deficit, and that was
one of the tough decisions that we had to make. We certainly
recognize the appropriateness of that program.
Senator Thomas. You basically took it away from the
counties, as opposed to taking it away from the Department,
however.
Secretary Norton. We have made some changes in other
programs as well. But one thing that I would suggest you might
want to--I was surprised when I looked at the allocation of
PILT funding to Colorado counties. It was not what I expected.
The fact that many counties get funding from our revenue-
producing activities means that a lot of the counties--that in
many areas the counties that have the most public land also
share in some of the benefits from our revenue-producing
activities, and so they should be seeing some additional
revenues because of that.
Senator Thomas. It is a concern for most of us.
Wild horses. Again, we have a problem here. We began to
solve a little of it, but it certainly is not solved. This
year's request is substantially below last year's. How do you
plan to continue to solve the problem?
Secretary Norton. We have been working to enhance our
adoption program. We have also been working with Indian tribes,
with groups that are concerned about wild horses, to find some
people that might be interested in having, in acquiring, wild
horses for the long term. So we have got some transfers that
are taking place or currently being negotiated that would help
with that.
So our goal is to reduce the number of horses that are in
the long-term group.
Senator Thomas. The problem really, as you know, is the
numbers, in that we are always spending money gathering the
horses and then we do not know what to do with them after they
are gathered. Now we are paying $1,800 each to a rancher to
hold them the rest of their lives and those kinds of things, so
it gets pretty expensive.
At any rate, how about homeland security? I have visited
Oregon Pipes and I have gotten a notion of how much they are
spending, for example, on that kind of thing. How much do we
spend on homeland security out of this budget?
Secretary Norton. We will find that number for you.
Overall, we have done a very substantial increase in homeland
security over the past few years. This year's budget does not
ramp up in the way that our previous budgets did in order to
meet the emerging areas.
Senator Thomas. Do you get anything from the homeland
security budget for this or does this come out of your budget
entirely?
Secretary Norton. The border security, for example, really
is a responsibility of Department of Homeland Security. We have
the responsibility for protecting our lands and cooperating
with the Border Patrol.
Senator Thomas. Sure, I understand.
Secretary Norton. So while it is largely their
responsibility, we do cooperate with that and have increased
the funding for areas along the border.
Senator Thomas. Finally, just as a comment on oil and gas
production, of course the Federal lands get a good percentage
of that money from the leases and then the percentage on the
production itself. So it seems a little strange to charge the
producers now for the administrative costs that you have to put
in there when you are already getting two sources of revenue
from that production.
Secretary Norton. This is a way of recovering the costs
that are incurred by----
Senator Thomas. You more than recover your costs, Madam
Secretary, out of that. It is hard to think that, because the
consumers pay, you know, of course.
At any rate, thank you very much and we will be working
with you on the budget.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. First of all, Secretary Norton, let me
welcome you here officially as your successor as Attorney
General in Colorado. I again congratulate you in your position
of Secretary of Interior. It is good to see you this morning.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. A couple of quick comments before I ask
you a question. One on the Indian issues that we have been
talking about. I very much agree with Senator Domenici that if
there is something that we can do to try to bring to resolution
the trust fund litigation it would be helpful to our Nation,
helpful to Interior, and helpful to the tribes, and if there is
anything that I can personally do on that let me know.
Second, on the Indian water rights settlements, I
congratulate you on bringing Jennifer Gimbel on board. She is
outstanding and will do a fabulous job. I do think there is a
structural problem relative to how we deal with Indian water
rights cases in Interior in that we do not have people who are
assigned to work in those cases for the duration of the period
of time that it takes to bring those cases to resolution.
I speak from having worked with you and with Secretary
Babbitt on cases that have taken multiple years and when you
have faces that change every couple of years it is hard to have
the right kind of leadership to bring those cases to
conclusion.
So those are the comments that I would make just on the
tribal trust and water rights issues. Let me ask you a question
on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let me just say that
the Land and Water Conservation Fund when it was envisioned by
John Kennedy back in the 1960's I think was intended to create
the kind of land preservation effort for America that we would
be proud of for generations and centuries to come. As you know,
Secretary Norton, in our own State of Colorado I helped draft
and led the effort to create the Great Outdoors Colorado
program, and we have been able to protect and to preserve
hundreds of thousands of acres of land and sensitive biological
and ecological habitats within our State.
When I saw the President's budget, which I know that you
support, and the huge cuts in the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, I was frankly dismayed, because it seems to me that as we
move forward with the preservation of our lands with these
grants that are given to the States to be able to do what they
can to protect sensitive places, that the budget itself is a
betrayal to the concept that we had for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund when it was first created.
I very much disagree with the President's budget in terms
of the cutbacks for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Over
the years since the 1960's, in your home State and mine we have
had over 1,000 projects that have been funded through the
State-side part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So I
would hope that you would revisit and that you, frankly, would
disagree with the proposal to cut back on the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Can you please just explain to me the rationale for the
cutback on LWCF to the States?
Secretary Norton. This administration came into office very
enthusiastic about the State-side Land and Water Conservation
funding and proposed funding of that at $450 million. That was
not adopted by Congress. We have since that time worked on a
number of other conservation-type programs, including those
that go through the States. We have endangered species
programs, wetlands programs, other wildlife programs that go
through the State governments as well as those that go directly
to grant programs with the private sector.
We recently had a study that was done by the Office of
Management and Budget to analyze the State-side Land and Water
Conservation program and to determine whether it was a program
that had clearly defined goals and was meeting those goals.
Their conclusion was that it was not. As we looked at the
allocation of funding across our grant programs, the decision
was made that it was not as effective as many of our other
programs. So we have shifted our focus from that program and
into our other conservation grant programs.
Senator Salazar. So what you would say, Secretary Norton,
then is that your decision and recommendation to OMB and to the
President to do away with the Land and Water Conservation Fund
State-side programs is something that was determined based on
what you consider to be the ineffectiveness of that program
based on the OMB study?
Secretary Norton. That is correct, yes. That program did
not fare well as it was analyzed. Some of our other programs
have very direct and demonstrable benefits and clear goals that
justified increasing the funding.
Senator Salazar. I would like to request of you that I get
a copy of the OMB report that reached those conclusions, and
also your analysis as to why it is that there was the cutback
on these State-side programs for the LWCF. I will tell you that
in my own days of putting together the Great Outdoors Colorado
program that it was a coalition of the business community along
with the environmental community that came up with that program
and the incentives that have been created by Great Outdoors
Colorado have probably done more for conservation within the
State of Colorado than almost anywhere else in the country, and
the creation of these funds on LWCF or State-side grants I
think acts as an incentive to try to avoid many of the problems
that historically we faced across the West and across the
country, where oftentimes we have ended up in litigation over
takings and regulation when we can avoid that if we can put
together the right kinds of partnerships that are incentivized
by money that then leads to conservation with private
landowners.
So I would like you to take a look at that again.
Secretary Norton. We will be happy to provide the
materials.
Senator Salazar. Let me move on to another quick area of
questioning, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes cutbacks. When I look
at the cutbacks of 12 percent to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
program, I am very concerned. Last week I spent time with
county officials and mayors and city council persons from all
64 counties of my State that we brought together in regional
meetings. Without exception, each one of them is gravely
concerned about what is going to happen to Payment in Lieu of
Taxes.
You know, for us, especially in the West, the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes is I think the keystone to the functioning of
many of these local governments, where so much of our landscape
is owned by the Federal Government. You know these counties,
whether they are the small counties of 600 people in Hinsdale
or San Juan County or the larger counties like Mesa County that
have a larger population, there is a huge increment of the
functioning of those governments to serve their citizens that
comes from Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
So my question to you is, I would ask you to provide an
explanation to all of us with respect to how you decided to
come up with the kinds of cuts in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
program for our States?
Secretary Norton. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes funding is
higher than its historical levels by a significant amount. Our
2006 budget amount is 60 to 97 percent higher than funding
levels in the 1990's. So we have been increasing that program
through time and we----
Senator Salazar. Let me interrupt you. It may be higher
than it was in the 1990's, but the Payment in Lieu of Taxes,
Madam Secretary, the program itself has never been fully funded
to 100 percent. In fact, we have only funded historically a
very small portion of PILT. What you have done in your proposed
budget for 2006 is you have proposed a 12 percent cut from what
was authorized in the previous fiscal year.
So that the comparison that we are doing more now than we
were back in the 1990's does not satisfy me with respect to the
concerns that I keep hearing from many of our colleagues back
home, from Mesa County and other counties. So I know there is
going to be a lot more conversation on PILT before we end up
with the President's budget or with the congressional budget in
response to the President's budget.
Secretary Norton. We are all looking for ways to deal with
the deficit.
The Chairman. As I understand it now, the next Republican
is Senator Craig, then Senator Landrieu.
Senator Craig. Were you here first?
Senator Murkowski. No.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Let me add a couple of observations. Let me pick up on
where Senator Salazar left off. While PILT is not fully funded,
what we have attempted to do over the last several years is
accelerate its funding to keep pace with the cost of doing
business in the counties. If it were static, then all property
taxes would be static. Property taxes are not static in any of
these counties and the reason is obvious: the costs of doing
business are greater.
But these are very small fee simple counties. They are very
large public counties. And much of that money, as you know,
goes to doing what maybe the Government ought to do but we
would prefer it not do: maintain some roads into those public
lands, do a variety of other things, including law enforcement
and in some instances a little fire protection.
So we will work hard with you, but at the same time, that
is a program that has worked. If there is some reasonable
understanding that those dollars may not be flowing, we need to
know about it. I understand the frustration between counties
that have oil and still get Payment in Lieu of Taxes funding
based on property, and counties who have no oil. That is an
entirely different story and I understand that.
Also, sometimes we ought to step back and look at programs
that were passed years ago that maybe do not make sense today.
How can we in a straight-faced way turn to the American public
and say we are going to house thousands of head of horses at
$1,800 a head until death do us part? That was never the intent
of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Yet we know that if we let
them multiply at the rate they do now, they are more destroying
and damaging to the public lands and to habitat than are proper
grazing of other domestic livestock.
We cannot adopt them out any more. People have found out
that those neat little animals kick the hell out of them. That
is being blunt about it. Some have been able to be transformed
into domestic horses. Others have not. The adoption program is
not the hot topic it used to be.
So why do you not work with us and get bold about changing
the public policy? We should not be boarding thousands of head
of horses for $1,800 a year each. I should quit Congress--not a
year?
Senator Thomas. No.
Senator Craig. Their lifetime, until death do us part, I
guess. You know, at a ton of hay, a ton and a half of hay, dry-
lotting an animal--I have not fed horses in a good number of
years, but I know that somebody is making an awful lot of money
right now off the taxpayers of this country. I am quite sure
Wild Horse Annie might roll over in her grave if she understood
that we were now warehousing horses. That was not her intent
either.
I came to Congress just after the great episode of the wild
horses and, frankly, it has not worked.
Also, on the Cobell lawsuit, this country is not going to
pay out that kind of money, so why do you not come to us to see
if there is not some way to solve this legislatively for all
the parties involved?
Secretary Norton. We are very happy to work with Congress
to try to address that. I think it is important.
Senator Craig. A few of us are willing to be openly and
publicly bold about issues like this when it costs tens of
billions of dollars. So we drill ANWR and pay out all the money
in this kind of a settlement? I think not. That really does not
make a lot of sense for us.
But oftentimes those are political hot stones that nobody
wants to touch, when in fact 40 years after the fact the
meaning has been lost or the intent is no longer there. It is
time that we probably ought to revisit some of those issues.
Let me touch briefly: rural fire assistance grants. We have
got a problem there. The Forest Service and FEMA are reducing
rural fire assistance grants by 30 percent. What effect do you
foresee these reductions having on your partnership with local
fire departments?
Secretary Norton. We do have $1.9 million that is for
training of local firefighters to make sure they are trained to
do the wildland firefighting, which makes for a more efficient
division of responsibility. We have an agreement that we have
negotiated with FEMA and are working to expand to make sure
that their $500 million in funding is available to work with
local firefighters.
We were in the process--we had our own little program doing
the grants to local fire departments. It really makes more
sense for the Forest Service to operate its grant program, for
FEMA to operate its grant program, than to have us also
duplicating efforts and operating our own smaller program. So
we want to work with FEMA--and they are willing to work with
us--through their program to provide some assistance in ways
that will be beneficial for the wildland firefighting.
Senator Craig. While I do not disagree with the idea of
making sure that all agencies involved are working in a
cooperative manner so there is no duplication, at the same time
I think we have to appreciate the reality of well-trained
people on the ground at the point of the spear when fires
begin. All of those kinds of things are critical, and the
protection of these small rural communities that have become
encased within our less than healthy public lands that are
producing these wildfires today with such magnitude depend on
the Federal response.
Let me touch on another issue. I know that in the struggle
to find resources we oftentimes need to do or you need to do
things that some of us disagree with. One of those programs
that I have disagreed with you on is the amenities fee program,
but over my objection it is now law. That is okay, I guess. I
do plan to hold oversight hearings later this year, and I want
the Department on notice that my constituents have not changed
their mind about being taxed again and again, even though it
might be called a fee for services rendered.
So I guess I would ask of you and the agencies involved
what you plan to do. Let us look at the programs involved and
how you plan to charge the fees, the point of contact, all of
those kinds of things. My experience in the past has been very
clear: The Federal Government has an awfully hard job acting
like a business, and telling the public that they are getting
something for the fee charged--and if you are going to charge
our public for access for a variety of reasons, we have got to
get pretty good at convincing them that what they get is a good
deal. And if we do not, I think the idea of objection or
reaction will continue.
Secretary Norton. Senator, I look forward to discussing
that with you further. The successful fee demonstration places
have been the ones where the public can see very concretely,
very directly, what the fees are paying for. We have learned
from some not-so-successful places that it does not make sense
to charge fees where you are not providing services, you are
not providing things that the public can see that they benefit
from.
The legislation has some requirements to help prevent that
and we will be establishing recreation advisory councils so
that the public has some very direct input into the places in
which fees will be charged. So we look forward to working with
you to make this a program that is successful and that does
give the public something that they can see as a benefit.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you.
My time is up. I will close in making a couple of comments.
Thank you for mentioning sage grouse conservation. Your effort
there has been fantastic. We are working hard now in the Great
Basin West to make sure that cooperative program continues for
the benefit of all. That is greatly appreciated.
Last, a former Secretary of the Interior introduced wolves
into my State, foreign animals known as Canadian grey wolves,
and now we have 420 of them by last count, 27 breeding pairs,
destroying our wildlife, killing our elk and our deer, in many
instances ravaging our domestic herds. I would hope that you
and I can gain the political will to delist this species and
move on with a reasonable approach toward managing them, now
that they are there. We Idahoans, though, have not yet
collectively decided to invite those foreigners into our
presence.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I want you to know that when
the committee works so hard at grilling you it does not mean
that we do not think you are doing a good job. You understand.
These are difficult times and we understand they are tough for
you, but you must understand they are tough for us, and I think
you do.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Did I not smile while I was asking?
The Chairman. Only a little bit.
Senator Craig. Oh, I am sorry. Sorry, Gale.
Secretary Norton. You smiled. It is okay.
The Chairman. You do about the same as I do. You know, I
watch myself and I say, what is the matter with you? Why are
you not happy? At least I am chairman.
Senator Craig. I heard a wolf howling in the background.
The Chairman. Let us see. We are going to have the
distinguished Senator, Senator Landrieu. Nice to have you this
morning. Thanks for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is one of the meetings I look forward to every year,
talking with our Secretary about so many important issues that
affect all of our country, not just the interior, but of course
our coastal communities and our oil and gas-producing
communities.
I would like to just thank you for your visits to
Louisiana, Ms. Secretary, and thank you for your interest in so
many of the things that we are trying to get done in our State,
which is not one of the western States that we spend a lot of
time talking about here, but nonetheless an extremely important
State to making contributions to energy self-sufficiency and
independence, or at least getting us closer to the goal of
independence.
But I would like to begin just a couple of comments and one
or two questions. I want to associate myself strongly with the
remarks of our new Senator from Colorado, Senator Salazar, and
just thank him for raising the subject and for being so
articulate in his defense of the State side of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, as you know, a program that has been
supported by Republican and Democratic presidents, Republican
and Democratic Congresses, since the mid-60's, the program that
has been responsible for an unprecedented number of parks in
almost every community in every State, where children and
families and the businesses, and the business community that
many times leads these small and medium and large-sized towns
advocates so strenuously for, because it is all about the
bottom line of their quality of life.
Whether it is a ball field or whether it is a fishing pond
or whether it is a city park or just an area for people to get
out of the hustle and bustle and bike or trail, these things
are cherished by Americans, all Americans. There is a majority
for conservation in this country that defies party lines or
ideology.
Senator Lamar Alexander has been of course a tremendous
advocate. So I am going to be joining and continuing to help
lead the efforts for restoration of this State side after
reviewing the document that you will send us from OMB, letting
us look at it. We do not want to fund programs that are
unpopular or inefficient, but literally in my life of public
service I have come across fewer programs that are more widely
and deeply supported by the breadth of constituents than the
State side of Land and Water Conservation.
The Federal side has its advocates and critics based on the
notion, as you know, of who should own private property. But
the State side virtually has no enemies and all advocates from
every different walk of life.
So I appreciate this administration's initial interest, but
even when pushback occurs sometimes in public life we just have
to push on and press on. I think funding for the State side of
land and water is one of those. So I am going to be joining
Senator Salazar and look forward to that. But we have expressed
our strong disapproval of the zeroing out of that extremely
important program.
But I would like to ask you about an elimination of another
small but nowhere near the reach or the money involved, but
very important I think to another aspect of what people cherish
in this country. While Americans always look forward and want
new things and are about building, there is an important effort
underway for historic preservation in our Nation.
We have a national center that was created several years
ago that operates on literally a shoestring of a budget, a few
million dollars, and the work that it turns out, not just for
big cities and medium sized cities but small towns, as they try
to make good decisions about what to raze and what to preserve
and how best to spend the public dollars so they are not wasted
and what new technologies can be used, was totally eliminated
from the budget.
So I wanted to just ask you if you could explain this
either lack of awareness on the part of your Department or what
prompted you all to totally eliminate the only national center
for historic preservation in terms of technology development
and transfer?
Secretary Norton. The Department of the Interior has
provided in the past for restoration and renovation of the
building in which that center is funded, and has provided some
funding for that center in the past.
Senator Landrieu. Well, would you look into that?
Secretary Norton. I will look into that and find out some
more information.
Senator Landrieu. Would you look into that for me, because
this center is located in probably one of the most cost-
effective rent districts in the country. This is not in
Manhattan or in the upper side of Chicago. This is in a rural
community where the taxpayers of this Nation get a great
benefit, because the technology that is developed there is able
then to be spread out to all sorts of public, quasi-public-
private, and private associations that are looking for the
newest technologies relative to preservation, all about saving
taxpayers' and individuals' money as we make good decisions
about what to preserve and what to raze.
So I would like to ask you to look at that. It was a very
important program to a former chairman of this committee,
Senator Bennett Johnston, and continues to be a very important
program to me and to many of us. I would like to ask you to
look at that.
Finally, Madam Secretary, I have to call again to your
attention the ever-increasing money being generated for the
operation of all the programs that we are talking about. I
would ask the staff to maybe give me the page in the budget
where this is, but I have a pullout that the estimates of the
offshore oil and gas projections--Mr. Chairman, you will be
very interested in knowing this--1991, the Federal revenues
generated from offshore, primarily off the shores of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama and Texas, which is the only place
where there is aggressive current and ongoing offshore drilling
in the entire continental United States, generated for our
Nation almost $3 billion, which has gone into many of the
programs that we support on this committee.
But in the year 2015 it is projected that that number is
going to grow from $3 billion to $8.5 billion in rents and
royalties. So the Nation is benefiting in a direct way. Not
only is the Nation receiving the oil and the gas to keep our
industries competitive, but the Nation, your Department in
particular, which funds about, takes about 50 percent of this
money to fund all of your operations, from all of the wildfire
efforts to the preservation of land in the West to the saving
of the redwood forest in the Northwest to the preservation of
desert lands to the restoration of the Everglades to the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay to the restoration of the
Great Lakes--all of this money, which represents a half of the
Department of the Interior's $14 billion budget, is being
generated off of a piece of land the size, this big
[indicating] on a map.
But as you know, Madam Secretary, because you visited and
you have flown over the lands, the counties that host this huge
stream of revenue have received less than one-seventh of 1
percent, one-seventh of 1 percent, of $140 billion since 1950.
Madam Secretary, this cannot stand. This cannot continue.
We have tried now in many different ways to be reasonable,
to be team players, to be supportive. Our Governor has,
Governors, Republican Governors, Democratic Governors,
Republican Senators, Democratic Senators, we have supported and
continue to support so many programs. But Madam Secretary, we
cannot allow this stream of revenue to continue to come
directly without supporting the host counties that make it
possible.
So we are going to continue to file our bills, continue to
put forth our amendments. But I ask you to please, as a person
who understands what we are facing--since President Bush has
come to office, we have lost, we have lost, 125 square miles of
America's last remaining coastal wetland, largest last
remaining coastal wetland, 125 square miles. We lose 25 square
miles a year.
So I would just end by saying that this is just not going
to be able to continue. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, what our
nuclear option is. I have considered it. I will not talk about
that in public, but maybe a nuclear option for the States of
Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi that we may have to come
up with if we cannot get some obvious relief to this grave
injustice. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, a nuclear option; we look forward to
seeing what it is.
Senator Landrieu. We actually have a nuclear option in more
nuclear power plants, which I suggest. But there was a little
different approach that I was thinking about.
But could you just comment briefly and then I am going to
relinquish the mike.
Secretary Norton. We are aware of the coastal erosion
problems that you have raised. We are working through both the
U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
as well as through other Federal agencies, to study and to
address those issues.
The offshore programs are ones that are growing
significantly. Right now the Federal lands and waters account
for about a third of our domestic production, but as other
areas are tapped out there is going to be more and more focus
on those. Today, about half of our resource estimates for the
future, about half of our resources, are on Federal lands or in
our offshore areas.
Senator Landrieu. How does the Department continue to
justify the distribution of revenues for onshore Federal lands
to States like our chairman's, New Mexico, and Wyoming, but not
to advocate strongly, seeing the benefits of those programs
over the years to the State of New Mexico and to Wyoming and to
Utah, observing the benefits of those programs to the States?
How is it not--how does the Department not feel compelled
to go to bat for, in a more aggressive way, the coastal States
of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama?
Secretary Norton. There certainly are things other than
direct revenue-sharing that do benefit those communities.
Certainly the funding goes into the overall Federal treasury
that benefits everyone. The employment benefits are those that
are available in the communities that are closest to the
production areas.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I am going to send some
information. You have been very lenient, Mr. Chairman, but I am
going to send some information about that, because the indirect
benefits of either income taxes, payroll taxes, or employment
do not anywhere come close to compensating the communities for
the infrastructure, the pull on the infrastructure needs to
support this huge industry out in the Gulf. I am going to
provide some data about that, because it really is, Ms.
Secretary, a misnomer.
In fact, I ran across a man the last time I was home who
lived in Maine, who came, flew down to Louisiana to go offshore
because they work 14 on and 14 off. He had done this for 25
years, flying down to Louisiana, working offshore, and taking
his paycheck back to Maine. We are thrilled to help the Maine
economy, but it is a misnomer that the people of Louisiana
benefit from all of those tax dollars because it is an industry
where suppliers from all over the 50 States get a direct impact
of the work that is done.
So I am going to leave it there, but we will continue our
work on an energy bill and one that respects the contributions
being made by all of our States.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
We are going to proceed, but I have asked Senator Thomas if
he would take over for me shortly and he has indicated he will.
So if you would just let me do a couple of things as I wrap up
and then I will turn the hearing over to him. He will take care
of the remaining two Senators, and if you want an additional
round, he will be here.
I ask consent that a letter from Senator Alexander
regarding ANWR and his thoughts, which have been conveyed to
OMB Director Bolten, be put in the record.
[The letter referred to follows:]
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2005.
The Honorable Joshua B. Bolten,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bolten: We are writing to urge you to make it possible in
the Budget Resolution for 2006 for some of the revenues from ANWR, in
the event it is opened up for energy development, to go to a reserve
fund for the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
Specifically, we believe the Budget Resolution should instruct that
$450 million of revenues be reserved each year for three years for the
stateside LWCF grant program, beginning in the year in which ANWR
receipts are first received by the U.S. Treasury. (The stateside LWCF
state grant program is also known as the National Park Service
Conservation Grant Account.) In 2003, the Budget Committee created such
a reserve fund from ANWR receipts for $250 million for five years, but
the Senate failed to approve ANWR.
Many of our colleagues are concerned that drilling in ANWR would
have an environmental impact. This provision would ensure such
drilling, if it were to occur, would have a significant environmental
benefit by fully funding the state grant program of the LWCF. These
funds would be utilized to create state parks and open spaces across
the country for the use and enjoyment of millions of Americans. This is
balanced environmental policy--if you impact the environment in one
place, you should conserve in another. ANWR is owned by the American
people, and the conservation benefits would be dispersed all over the
country.
We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on this
issue and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander,
Richard Burr,
John Sununu,
U.S. Senators.
The Chairman. And questions that members have--and I have
many--will be submitted to the Secretary for response as soon
as possible.
I have just one issue that is very imminent in my State
that I want to put before you and then I will have to leave for
a while. You are aware in the Middle Rio Grande--which you have
probably had to learn more about than you ever wished, but you
will have to keep learning, I am sorry to say we have a problem
there that we have been involved in for a long time. It has to
do with the bosque that is up and down the Rio Grande, kind of
our greenbelt.
The Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
Albuquerque, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District,
they have all been victim to decades of undermanagement,
invasive species that have come into that area, and two fires,
which you are aware of, that have been terrible. Much of this
area is now included within the habitat of the Southwest Willow
Flycatcher. I think you have been aware of that.
Moving forward on that proposal would make it very
difficult to restore the bosque. There is a bit of a habitat
restoration inconsistency.
First, would you support the establishment of a
conservation program that allows us to continue restoring that
bosque along the river, which could result in more water in the
river and would allow the Southwest Willow Flycatcher to nest
in its native habitat of willow and cottonwood trees?
Secretary Norton. Senator, I have visited in New Mexico and
seen one of our projects under way to eradicate the salt cedar
and the Russian olive as invasive plants and to restore some of
the native habitat. That is something that we support. We are
funding through several different parts of the Department of
the Interior, and we are also working to address some of the
southwest willow flycatcher issues through some of our
cooperative conservation funding.
The Chairman. We are talking now about a conservation area
that involves what you are talking about, but it also involves
the bosque and the flycatcher habitat. You indicate you will
support that, and work on trying to get it done.
Secretary Norton. Let me find out some more about the
specific proposal that you are discussing.
The Chairman. We need to ask you if you would encourage the
Fish and Wildlife Services to seek an extension of time to
publish its final rule regarding the flycatcher so that we can
create this conservation program that is built on a
collaborative approach to the management of that area.
Secretary Norton. We would be happy to work with you to
study that issue some more and to learn some more about that.
The Chairman. All right. I understand now we will proceed.
Senator Murkowski is next, Senator Wyden, and then I think
Senator Burr, is that correct? Oh, then we have the
distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to you, Madam Secretary. Now, the chairman has
suggested that we need to be smiling as we grill you this
morning, and I have to tell you that I can give you a genuine
smile because I am pleased that the President has included in
his budget again this year the estimates for the oil and gas
leasing up in ANWR, the Arctic coastal plain. I know that there
has been some discussion in the media and apparently on the
House side as far as the estimates that you have included in
that budget.
In my opening statement, which I will ask to be included in
the record, I guess I am backing you up in the sense that we
too believe that these numbers are reasonable. In fact, we
figure that they are probably a bit conservative, given the
current prices of oil, given what we conclude is the amount of
economically recoverable oil in the North Slope when we are
finally able to move forward with that program, and also
recognizing that the comparison needs to be made to Federal
leases as opposed to some of the more current State leases.
So I am pleased to see you discuss that in your opening
statement this morning and to again address that and include
that in the budget. We will have an opportunity to go up to
ANWR at the end of this week. I was just up north yesterday and
it is cold up there. It is 35 below. Yes, surprise. They say
it is supposed to get warmer, but I was talking to the Slope
workers as they were going up on the flight yesterday morning
and they guarantee me that it is going to be colder. So we will
make sure that we have gotten your bunny boots ordered and that
you will be taken care of.
A couple questions for you, and I wanted to reiterate some
of the concerns expressed by my colleagues here about PILT and
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I had to step outside for
just a few minutes to meet some constituents from the community
of Ketchikan and they had no idea what we were taking up in
here. They said: You need to make sure that we are okay on
PILT; we rely so heavily on this. I said: I will convey the
concerns of Alaskans to you.
I think it was Senator Salazar that had requested this OMB
report that did address some of the concerns. I too would be
curious in looking at that. I guess it was Senator Thomas, you
had mentioned that. But we would like to take a look at that.
A little bit about ANWR. There was a somewhat interesting
article in The New York Times about a week ago and they were
questioning the interest of some of the larger oil companies in
bidding on ANWR leases. I found the article interesting or
bemusing, I guess, because I thought that we were proposing to
open ANWR to promote America's energy independence and not
necessarily to enhance the operation of the oil companies.
I guess I would ask your opinion or your feelings about
whether you feel the industry will show up to bid on the leases
when we are successful in opening up ANWR to exploration and
development?
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
Secretary Norton, it is a pleasure to see you again before this
committee. While I will have a number of questions for you concerning
the future of funding for several Alaska programs in the President's
proposed FY '06 budget, let me start on a brighter note.
I want to congratulate the President and you for again including
revenues to be gained from oil and gas leasing in the Arctic coastal
plain in Alaska in your budget for next year.
I know that some recently questioned the Administration's estimate
that initial oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge will bring in a total of $2.4 billion in FY
'07, and more revenue two years later. That is solely from leasing
bonus bids, not from royalties or taxes from actual oil or gas
production, which will come on line more than five years after leasing
begins. I noted, in your prepared testimony, that you defended the
estimates, noting that the Congressional Budget Office is predicting
leasing revenues of about $4 billion.
I would like to say that I also believe the revenue estimates from
the Office of Management and Budget are conservative, and that I expect
the CBO estimates may also prove conservative given the advantages that
ANWR offers to find, economically produce and market oil and gas.
First, we both know, that according to the U.S. Geological Survey
that ANWR offers the best chance onshore for a major oil discovery in
America.
Given current world oil prices, well above $25 per barrel, your
agencies have predicted that roughly 90% of the technically recoverable
oil will be economic to produce. And the estimates for technically
recoverable oil range from a low of 5.7 billion barrels to a high of 16
billion, with a 50-50 chance of finding 10.4 billion barrels on the
Arctic coastal plain.
And those estimates are based on ANWR allowing recovery of only 35%
of the oil. At the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil field we likely will be able
to recover about 65% of the oil. If a similar level of recovery occurs
at ANWR, we will be looking at a range of from 10 to 27 billion barrels
of oil recovered, with a mean recovery of 18 billion barrels.
There is no place on land in America that is anywhere close to as
prospective. Even with the conservative estimates, the Energy
Information Agency predicts there is from $125 billion to $350 billion
of oil likely to be produced from the Arctic coastal plain. Given that
rate of return, common sense would say that bidding $2.4 billion to
earn a gross return of 50 to 150 times that amount would be good
business.
Secondly, some of my colleagues on the House side last week cited
statistics that implied that companies generally bid only a few hundred
dollars per acre for oil leases in Alaska. They looked only at state
lease sales, generally for less prospective step-out leases, not at the
federal experience.
The last time there was even remotely close to as prospective a
tract up for oil leasing in Northern Alaska was in October 1982 when
tracts in the Beaufort Sea were on the federal auction block. Companies
23 years ago, when oil was selling for less than half of its current
price, bid $2.055 billion for 121 blocks of federal leases during Lease
Sale 71--ten times what companies bid for a state sale in 1996.
Given that experience, and the experience the federal government
had in leasing tracts in 1988 in the highly speculative Chukchi Sea
frontier area, where bids reached nearly a half billion dollars for
leases a thousand miles from the nearest means to get any oil to
market, I have no concerns about the government realizing its current
estimates for leases on shore, where all the technology is already
perfected and where a transportation system--the trans-Alaska oil
pipeline--is literally eight dozen miles away.
I'm looking forward to traveling with you, Secretary Bodman and a
number of Senators this weekend to visit ANWR, to inspect the newest
technology in use at fields in NPRA and to view the original Prudhoe
Bay field and to meet with residents at Kaktovik, the only village in
ANWR. It was a bit chilly on the North Slope over the weekend with lows
hitting minus 35, but the forecast calls for a considerable warming
trend by this weekend, so hopefully it will be a bit more pleasant than
during your last winter trip to ANWR four years ago.
Thank you for being here and I will have a number of questions for
you during the question rounds.
Secretary Norton. Well, first of all, Senator, I agree with
you that it is the American government and the American public
that needs to be concerned about America's domestic production
and our reliance on foreign oil. The multinational oil
companies can look wherever they want to around the world for
their sources. So having our own domestic supply is a uniquely
American concern.
I think one thing people need to understand about our
leasing process is that at the time we actually do leasing,
first of all, this area would be open and so the legal
situation would be clear. Second, we would have some additional
seismic information on which the bidding would take place. So
the companies would presumably evaluate that information. If
there are large resources appearing to be present from
additional work, then I certainly anticipate the companies will
have tremendous interest. If the seismic work shows there is
nothing there, then the concerns people have about the effects
on the area will clearly fade away.
Senator Murkowski. Until we get in there to explore, we are
not going to know for certain. So that is why it is so
important that we move forward. I appreciate your willingness
to work with us on this, the President's support on this issue,
and your willingness to come up North next week.
Moving to some legislation that I had introduced last year
and the President has signed into law, this is the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act. This legislation was designed to
facilitate the transfer of lands that the Federal Government
owes to the State, to our native corporations, and to native
allotment applicants by the fiftieth anniversary of Alaska's
statehood, which will be in 2009.
As we were working through this legislation last year, we
all recognized that in order to accomplish this goal of
transferring these lands it was going to take a very focused
effort. It was my understanding that the Department was
prepared to commit the resources necessary to achieve this
objective. But in looking at the budget, there is a proposal to
cut the appropriation for BLM's Alaska conveyance program by $9
million. In looking at your briefing book, you state that the
rationale is to return the pace of the program to the more
sustainable level, which confuses me.
It does not make sense because we passed the Land
Conveyance Act prior to the formulation of the 2005 budget. So
I guess what I need to know is that you are still committed to
achieving the goals set forth in the Land Transfer Conveyance
Act and whether we can do it if we are going to cut the budget
in this area?
Secretary Norton. We are still committed to moving forward
with transfers and do still support the act. Our funding level
is getting us to the same level that the administration
requested last year, as our current funding. We have through
the act that was passed some tools that now make the process
more efficient, and so we should be able to function in a more
efficient way.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we do recognize that we did put in
place those tools to create efficiencies. But we also recognize
that we have got about 89 million acres that have yet to be
conveyed. We have some considerable survey issues, as you know.
The complicated land ownership makes this process more
cumbersome. If it takes additional people, if it takes
additional funding for surveys, we need to do what it takes.
The promise to us at statehood was that we were going to
get these lands. We figure 50 years is plenty of time to make
these conveyances and we want to know that we will have that
assistance from the Department to make that happen.
Secretary Norton. We will work with you on that, and we
will work to see that things like the ability for our
Department and native corporations to establish a boundary
without need for a survey, that that sort of tool will be
utilized so that we can move forward.
Senator Thomas [presiding]. Can we move on?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. Let me start by saying that, with
southern California under water and Oregon bone dry, this is
the year that the West has defied the Farmer's Almanac. I think
what I would like to start with is your sense of what to do,
particularly in parts of the West like the Klamath, where I
think we are just headed for very, very difficult days?
I read your testimony with respect to the Klamath and you
want to have a water bank, which I am in favor of, but you
cannot bank water you do not have. So I think what I would like
to do is start by seeing if you would be willing to commit
today to starting to put in place emergency measures for our
part of the country for what is coming in terms of water.
Everything you have got here I certainly think is sensible
and I have no quarrel with any of it. But I think we are going
to need some emergency measures, given the situation. It may
not just be on the Klamath; it may be in eastern Washington as
well. But would you commit to start working with us now on
emergency measures, given what looks to be a very, very dire
situation coming up?
Secretary Norton. Senator, I just talked yesterday with the
head of the Bureau of Reclamation about the overall picture in
the West, where the rainfall is and where it is not. Klamath is
certainly one of the areas that is a very dry area this year.
His feeling was that a water bank allows us to provide water
for endangered species and so we are, from the irrigator's
perspective, in a regular shortage-type situation, a regular
dry year, but not the same kind of conflict we had with the
endangered species situation in the past.
So we have moved past the huge crisis we had in 2001
through some of the steps we have been able to take, if the
current projections hold out. We do have increased funding in
the 2006 budget for some of the projects in the Klamath area.
We are working on things like the removal of the Chiliquin Dam
that would open up some additional areas of habitat and help
relieve some of the pressure. So I think we have been working
toward an overall strengthening of the ecosystem within the
Klamath Basin that hopefully means we will not be in an
emergency crisis situation for this year.
We certainly are happy to work with you to review the
measures that we have planned and to look at the situation as
the year develops.
Senator Wyden. I would just urge you to do that, because I
think, as I say, what you have listed here in a number of the
initiatives that you mentioned are useful, but every way I look
at it there is too little water, too little snowpack, a very
dry summer ahead. I just want to make it clear today, given
where we are the beginning of March, I would hope that you
would start looking at planning for an emergency situation.
If we do not need it, hallelujah and everybody will go away
happy. I have a feeling we are looking at a very difficult
summer.
Let me ask you about another area that I have been
interested in getting into and I want to start with your
appraisal on. That would be your sense of the state of
America's parks at this point. You guys are 4 years into it now
and have had a chance to look at initiatives to deal with our
parks. I understand my colleague from Wyoming asked some
questions about this.
Give me your sense, Madam Secretary, of what you think the
state of America's parks is 4 years into your service?
Secretary Norton. We feel very good about the state of our
parks. We have been working, first of all through increased
funding. The chart here shows the increase in park funding
compared to the increase in overall Department of the Interior
funding and I believe overall domestic discretionary Federal
funding. So park funding has increased considerably more than
funding for our other programs.
We are also working smarter. We have a better system within
our parks today for being able to assess what needs to be done
on maintenance needs and to see that funds are actually put
into those projects that need to be done. We are doing the
highest priority ones first. So it moves us away from some of
the problems we had in the past of not really being able to
compare what one superintendent was telling us a problem was
with what another superintendent was. We have now got a much
more businesslike approach.
We are also looking at how we can be better and more
efficient managers within the Park Service. The regional
directors have been looking at some ways to improve
efficiencies between parks. For example, if you have two nearby
parks that each need an archaeologist, the practice in the past
was always for each park to look only within itself at its own
needs. So each park would hire an archaeologist.
Today we are trying to look at whether one archaeologist
might be shared between two parks. I think there are a lot of
possibilities by having a more flexible management focus to be
able to manage the park resources better.
So I feel very good about what the park employees through
their own enthusiasm have done in trying to improve management
as well as some of the efforts we have made from the national
level.
Senator Wyden. You mentioned that you have designated
priorities in terms of the parks. Can you make that information
available to us? In other words, if you have a list of priority
park improvements that is something that I think I and other
members of this committee would be very interested in. Can you
get that up to us?
Secretary Norton. Yes, we have an Oregon-specific report
that we have put out in the past that lists the projects that
are completed and under way and the ones that are coming up for
the current fiscal year.
Senator Wyden. Maybe I am confused. Do you have a list of
priorities for parks all across the country?
Secretary Norton. Yes, we do. It is a list--we have about
4,000 projects that are in the current timeframe.
Senator Wyden. I thought you had priorities, for example,
like these are the first ten priorities for America's parks. Is
that something you have?
Secretary Norton. It is a much larger list than that. But
we can provide you with some information.
Senator Wyden. I think it sounds very useful. I would just
be interested in seeing the Department's priorities for the
parks in this country, in other words the ones that you think
are the most important, because that is obviously something
important for the Department, and then obviously I would be
interested in what kind of work you are looking at in terms of
Crater Lake and Oregon.
Secretary Norton. Let me clarify one thing----
Senator Thomas. Could we--the red light is on here.
Secretary Norton. All right. There are some things that--it
is not necessarily a nationwide highest priority, because just
painting a historic building to prevent future degradation may
be very, very important. So it's not just a pure single
priority list.
Senator Wyden. Well, let us see what you have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Senator Allen, I believe. Were you next?
Senator Allen. Senator Burr.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I am sorry. Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia--the Commonwealth of Virginia, excuse me.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. If I could I am going to focus
very briefly on OMB's decision to zero out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and specifically talk about their program
rating assessment tool process that they went through. As we
know, they reviewed the period 2003-05. They asked questions
like is the program's purpose clear? Yes. Does the program
address specific and existing problems, interests or needs?
Yes. Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or
duplicative with any other Federal, State, local or private
effort? Explanation: The program is well designed to assist
State and local governments. The gap in non-Federal services is
large enough to warrant a Federal program. Evidence: NPS argues
the gap in non-Federal efforts is best shown through surveys,
various capital investment plans, the large number of
applicants willing to meet the 50 percent matching
requirements.
It goes on: Do all partners, including grantees,
subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, other
government partners, commit to and work toward annual or long-
term goals of the program? Evidence: No evidence available. No
answer.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its
strategic planning deficiencies? No relevant evidence
available. No answer.
Question: Did you challenge the OMB report?
Secretary Norton. Let me ask Lynn Scarlett, who has been
working directly with OMB on the overall program assessment
rating tool program.
Senator Burr. First question first: Did we challenge it?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, the process for doing the program
assessment rating is a back and forth process, a lot of
discussion, and indeed initial assessments we ask questions
about. In the end, the key issue raised with respect to the
Land and Water Conservation State side was the lack of
performance measures, and we were not able to demonstrate that
in fact they did have those clear measures.
Senator Burr. It is my understanding that each State and
territorial director consult with DOI about the performance of
their State's Land and Water Conservation Fund side grant
programs. Was their survey compared to the results of OMB's
study?
Ms. Scarlett. We worked closely with the States as we went
through this back and forth process. Indeed, through the dialog
we convened a number of States together to try and come up with
clearer performance goals, but that was not able to be
accomplished before this process was completed, and in the end
we had to acknowledge and agree with the Office of Management
and Budget that the goals were not clear.
Senator Burr. Would you allow me to ask you to be specific.
Were there gross management problems, the redirection of money,
no tangible results? How did it manage to receive a performance
standard that zeroed it out?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, as Secretary Norton has noted, we
had to make some very tough decisions and obviously have funded
the Land and Water Conservation Fund over recent years with the
support and help of Congress. But as we made this tough
decision we compared this program to other programs with
similar goals and purposes and found that other programs with
similar goals and purposes were generating more leveraging of
funding and clearer priority-setting and goals of how that
funding would be expended.
Senator Burr. I would only surmise from what I have been
able to read out of the OMB rating tool that ``no relevant
evidence available'' is not necessarily adequate to make a
decision to take a 50-50 cost share program and zero it out. I
will pose the question, I will not ask for an answer. That is,
is this something that the Department of the Interior
wholeheartedly endorses or is this a budget action by the
Office of Management and Budget?
I look forward to your next 4 years. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Senator Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here with us. I want
to focus on battlefields, battlefield preservation, protection,
and the value they have, and their interpretation and saving
them for future generations. These are hallowed grounds. I
think they are important to be saved and protected, first out
of respect for those who fell on those fields; second and
importantly, for the education about our history and our
heritage for present and future generations about our history
and our heritage; and third, heritage tourism, very good for
jobs. A lot of small businesses rely on that, and they can be
everything from small motels to small shops and others.
According to the Civil War Preservation Trust, they have
identified the ten most endangered battlefields, some of which
are in Virginia. Just to let everyone know and be clear, the
protected sites are in many, many States in the country. But
one of the areas is Spotsylvania County that is considered most
endangered, and that is the site of four of the Civil War's
bloodiest battles: Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville,
Spotsylvania Courthouse, and the Wilderness battles.
It is estimated that the acquisition of 2,000 acres there
will cost about $18.5 million. Now, the land values are
escalating around the Richmond area, the Chancellorsville-
Spotsylvania County area, and in the Shenandoah Valley. I am
not one who likes to take property without compensation. The
localities will try to down-zone or restrict. The best thing to
do is with a willing seller find a price and protect that
hallowed ground, as opposed to condemnation or diminished use
without compensation.
As you may know, in 1990 the Congress created the Civil War
Sites Advisory Commission. These sites are not just ad hoc
sites. The purpose of that commission was to determine the
preservation status of the Nation's most historically
significant Civil War battlefields and offer alternatives for
saving them. They reviewed all 10,000 engagements of the War
between the States, or the Civil War, and eventually settled on
383 as historically significant and worthy of preservation.
These are in States from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, of
course all the southern States, and including Missouri and New
Mexico, where there are historically significant sites worthy
of preservation. They then said we would have to spend $10
million a year in emergency matching grants, and these are
matching grants where the Federal funds are matched by
charitable donations of others, to acquire these significant
battlefields, this land for them.
It was not until 1999 that Congress appropriated funds for
this purpose. It was not until 2002 that the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program would be officially authorized
as part of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002.
Since 1999, Congress has appropriated $26 million for the Civil
War Battlefield Preservation Program, including $7 million that
was requested in a 2-year period in the fiscal year 2004 and
2005 budgets from the Bush Administration.
Of that amount, $20 million has been awarded in matching
grants. $5 million was just approved as part of the
Consolidated Appropriation Act of Fiscal year 2005, although $1
million was reprogrammed for Federal wildfire fighting.
Understood, but that should be paid back. This funding, though,
has been used and allowed us to save more than 13,600 acres of
hallowed ground in 15 different States.
Now, the President's 2006 budget includes a request of only
$2 million for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program.
Also, while the administration previously last year requested
$4.5 million in last year's budget for Manassas, Petersburg,
and Shenandoah Valley National Battlefield Parks, they were all
zeroed out in this year's budget proposal.
So as we are making preparations for the 150th anniversary
of various battles of the Civil War, and with so many of these
historic and I believe hallowed grounds in danger of being
developed and lost for that interpretation, that understanding
of what happened on that ground and everything surrounding it,
how does this budget reflect that we are keeping our commitment
to protect and preserve and maintain these national treasures
for education, for tourism, and for jobs, as well as the
heritage they represent?
Secretary Norton. Senator, as you pointed out, we were able
to provide some funding and to propose funding in our last
year's budget that would specifically address battlefields.
This year, because of both our need to meet Indian trust
responsibilities as well as the need to handle the deficit, we
have not been able to provide that same level of funding. It is
simply one of the difficult decisions we have had to make as we
are trying to address and balance all the needs.
Senator Allen. Would you recognize, though, that the
longer--one, that without these funds to be matched by the
private sector and others, that property values will increase
and therefore in the event that they are not lost, which some
will; some will be lost, simply cannot be purchased nor should
they be condemned without compensation--but that the cost to
actually preserve these historic grounds that have been
designated--it is not just an ad hoc question that, gosh, some
troops walked across there or someone slept here or someone
rode their horse across here--these are battlefields that are
significant; that the cost ultimately would be greater?
Secretary Norton. We have to deal with the situation in
which we find ourselves today. We certainly--last year we were
able to provide some additional funding, recognized that issue
of battlefields and provided funding. We were able through that
to purchase some lands and easements and to work on those
partnerships. We are focusing on trying to work with local
communities on heritage tourism overall as one of the
approaches to try to balance our less expansive resources than
we have had in the past.
Senator Allen. Well, do you consider Civil War battlefield
preservation an important function and purpose?
Secretary Norton. Yes. That is one of the reasons that in
our National Park Service land acquisition program, which is a
list of about ten projects that we would propose funding, that
one of those is specifically for Civil War battlefields multi-
state acquisitions.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar is committed for 2 minutes.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Thomas.
Madam Secretary, once again back to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. This crack staff that we have back here did
get some of the answers to the questions that were examined by
OMB. I will not go through Senator Burr's repetition of the
questions and answers, but it seemed like the questions were--
many of the questions that were answered were about the
effectiveness of the program and many of them were answered yes
in a positive way, and there was also some criticism relative
to long-range planning for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Assistance Program.
So as I look at the National Park Service's own response to
the OMB report, it is I think an initiative on the part of the
National Park Service and your Department to address the issues
that were set forth in that OMB report. As I walk through that
report, first of all, when I see the picture of the President
and a whole number of Senators signing off on the Land and
Water Conservation Fund 40 years ago and saying ``Happy
fortieth birthday to the Land and Water Conservation Fund,'' I
think it is an important statement of achievement about how we
as a Nation, Democrats and Republicans, have come together to
make sure that as we develop our natural resources we are also
investing in the preservation and protection of our lands.
As you go through the continuation of this report--and I
will just read you the following, and it is from the Park
Service. It says: ``During 2003, the Office of Management and
Budget evaluated the performance of the LWCF State Assistance
Program as part of a government-wide review of all Federal
programs over a 5-year period. In its assessment of the
program's purpose, national relevance, and delivery, the review
was generally positive. However, OMB found room for
improvement.''
Then it continues: ``In response to the OMB
recommendations, National Park Service program managers worked
with a team of State partners to develop three national program
goals and seven performance goals to define the core purposes
and fundamental mission of the LWCF State Assistance Program.
Next the team established 13 performance measures that
summarize key program accomplishments.''
So I would say that what we have here in the conclusion of
the Park Service is that the implementing of the new
performance framework is an ongoing effort that will extend
into 2005 and beyond. My comment to you is that I think that
the initiative of the Park Service to address management issues
that were described in that OMB report were in fact laudable
management initiatives. My hope is that as we move forward in
this Congress and working with you through the year that we can
find ways of restoring the Land and Water Conservation Fund
State Assistance Program.
I think that one of the key issues of debate for us in this
Congress and in this administration is going to be how we
balance development of our energy and natural resources and at
the same time find the right balance in the preservation and
protection of our natural resources. At least from what I have
heard and known about this program over many, many years, I can
think of no better testament to our effort to try to find
balance between development and protection. So I would hope
that we can move forward in a manner that carries out the
recommendations of the National Park Service and at the same
time restores funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Secretary Norton. If I can make two quick points. One is
that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a budget item that
has expanded and contracted as funding has been available.
There were several years during the Clinton administration when
both the administration and Congress decided to basically zero
funds to the Land and Water Conservation State-side program as
well.
We are working--part of the problem in terms of the goals
was that the goals were not really performance goals. They did
not deal with the recreation and conservation goals as much as
just with numbers of acres acquired. So the thinking was that
the true goals of the program were not adequately addressed.
Senator Salazar. If I may, just one more question.
Senator Thomas. Sure.
Senator Salazar. I take it, though, that since there is
still funding for the State side program for LWCF, that the
National Park Service is in fact moving forward in implementing
the recommendations that came out of its 2004 report?
Secretary Norton. Let me ask Lynn to address that.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, during 2005 there is current
funding and the Park Service is trying to work with the States
to implement a number of the issues that they identified in
that report that you have. Again, I think the issue has been
both, as Secretary Norton noted, one of balancing and making
some difficult choices and focusing on core activities; and the
other was for several years in succession an inability to show
clear goals and outcomes of the program.
Senator Salazar. Thank you. I have no further comment other
than again, Secretary Norton, it is good to see you here.
Senator Thomas. All right, thank you, sir.
Thank you, Secretaries, for being here. I just cannot
resist one comment. I know we do not have jurisdiction over the
Fish and Wildlife Service in this committee, but I do suggest
to you that we need to take a long look at our endangered
species activities in the West. We have 1,500 species listed
and we have recovered about 12. So we need to change some of
the emphasis there and I hope we can do that.
Secretary Norton. Thank you. That is an important issue,
and I will note that a lot of the conservation programs we
shifted money to are ones that deal in a cooperative way with
endangered species issues.
Senator Thomas. We will be looking at it.
Well, thank you very much, all three of you, for being
here.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock
tomorrow, when we will receive testimony from the
administration witness for the fiscal year 2006 budget for the
U.S. Forest Service. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Questions From Senator Domenici
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Madam Secretary, unadjudicated Indian water rights claims in New
Mexico have reached a critical juncture and must be resolved. Despite
their substantial Federal commitment and cost share, the President
signed into law the Arizona Water Settlement Act of 2004 and the Snake
River Water Rights Act of 2004 at a total cost of $2.3 billion. Based
on this fact, I find it unacceptable that the administration is willing
to contribute so little money and effort towards the New Mexico
settlements.
The settlement negotiations are not new developments. The Aamodt,
Taos, and Navajo settlement negotiations have all been going on for
well over four years. Despite making numerous requests that your office
become more involved in the New Mexico settlements, the Department's
involvement has been minimal. Not only has the Department acted
contrary to stated administration policy and contrary to Indian
interests in this matter, but it has acted with a lack of
professionalism and courtesy.
Question 1. Do I have your assurance that you will work with OMB to
ensure that these settlements are adequately funded?
Answer. Resolution of the issues in the negotiations is very
important to the Department. We are committed to working with the
parties and the Office of Management and Budget to reach and fund fair
and appropriate settlements.
Question 2. Do you feel that sufficient resources are available in
this budget to ensure that the administration and Indians are
adequately represented in settlement negotiations?
Answer. The budget will enable us to continue to meet all
Departmental responsibilities.
Question 3. Will a high-level DOI official be present at future New
Mexico water settlement negotiations?
Answer. Jennifer Gimbel has been appointed counselor to the
Secretary and will be the official responsible for policy matters
relating to Indian water rights settlements, including those in New
Mexico. She will be available, as needed, to participate in the New
Mexico negotiations.
Question 4. Why has the administration not been consistently
involved in these negotiations over the past 5 years?
Answer. Federal negotiation teams have been consistently involved
in the water allocation and other aspects of settlement negotiations.
The Federal financial contribution is a difficult issue that remains
unresolved in these settlements.
Question 5. Is the lack of involvement by the administration an
indication of a policy change with respect to Indian water rights
settlements?
Answer. No. The Administration still supports settlement of Indian
water claims through negotiation rather than through litigation
wherever possible.
Question 6. Do you feel that the Department's budgetary interests
prohibit it from being an effective trustee of Indian tribes?
Answer. No. The Congress has placed major responsibility for Indian
matters in the Department of the Interior. 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.
MINNOW SANCTUARIES
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 BOR Albuquerque
Area Office to construct a minnow sanctuary. While the BOR has
undertaken some pre-construction activities, there has been some
question if the BOR had adequate authority to undertake construction of
the sanctuary. I am pursuing legislation in Congress that would provide
the authority necessary to construct the project.
Question 1. What is the status of the pre-construction activities
underway?
Answer. Reclamation is working, together with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Army Corps of Engineers and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, on the design and environmental compliance now. Reclamation
has issued a contract to design a plan for the sanctuary.
A contractor has been hired to assist with site-specific design
work. Studies needed to complete the conceptual design of the facility
have been initiated, and site investigations to determine the location
for the sanctuary are continuing, including groundwater and soil
testing as well as toxicological assessment of the source water. The
sanctuary is being designed for research and possible future expansion
for meeting additional life stage requirements (e.g., spawning) of the
silvery minnow. A technical team composed of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, university affiliated researchers, and the City of Albuquerque
has been convened to provide regular input into the planning process.
The preliminary work is scheduled to be completed in early fall
2005, assuming BOR obtains the necessary legislative authority by then.
We are working closely with partners to bring the sanctuary online by
the summer of 2006.
Question 2. Assuming authorizing legislation is passed by congress,
how long following passage will it take to begin construction and
ultimately complete the project?
Answer. If construction begins in fall 2005, the facility is
expected to be operational by summer 2006.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT FUNDING
Despite encouraging run-off forecasts, there remains a paucity of
water in storage in the Rio Grande Basin. The BOR is tasked with
meeting compact deliveries and complying with the Fish and Wildlife
Service 2003 Biological Opinion. Meeting the Biological Opinion
requires providing water to meet minimum flow requirements.
Over the past 4 years, Congress has provided funding to assure that
BOR can meet these obligations. It concerns me that the President's
budget proposes an $8 million cut in funding for Middle Rio Grande
projects.
Question 1. How will the BOR meet its statutory and court-ordered
obligations with such a greatly decreased budget?
Answer. Reclamation will continue to meet the requirements of the
biological opinion with the funds provided. Reclamation will adjust
priorities and reprogram money if necessary and where practicable to
meet the biological opinion requirements. The fiscal 2006 budget
request closely matches the fiscal 2005 request.
Question 2. Where does the BOR anticipate it will get water from
this year in order to meet the regulatory requirements?
Answer. The water remaining from 2004 can be used this year.
Reclamation continues to lease water from willing San Juan-Chama
contractors, will store some water under the Emergency Drought Water
Agreement, and cooperate with other Federal and non-Federal agencies in
managing the river flows to meet the needs of all Middle Rio Grande
water users, including endangered species.
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PUEBLO WATER DELIVERY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Pursuant to the 1982 agreement between the MRGCD and the 6 Middle
Rio Grande Pueblos, the BOR is responsible for delivering water to meet
the Pueblos ``prior and paramount'' rights. The BIA was also given
authority to ensure that these obligations were met. The signatory
Pueblos rely upon the BOR to deliver the water that they hold rights to
in order to irrigate over 8,000 acres of land. The Pueblos question if
the BOR is delivering water consistent with the 1982 agreement and has
questioned if the BIA is fulfilling its trust responsibility.
Furthermore, the Pueblos rely on the BOR for irrigation
infrastructure which has fallen into a state of disrepair and needs to
be upgraded.
Question 1. How does your department plan to resolve the conflict
that has arisen between the BIA, BOR and Pueblos? Does the department
have any plans to quantify Indian rights?
Answer. The Department of the Interior established a technical team
consisting of representatives from Reclamation, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to evaluate potential
differences regarding the interpretation of the 1981 Agreements in
``prior and paramount'' storage calculation procedures and to provide
recommendations. This review, as well as further discussions with the
Pueblos and others should help resolve any remaining issues regarding
``prior and paramount'' storage. No adjudication of water rights,
including Pueblo water rights, has been instituted on the Middle Rio
Grande.
Question 2. How does the BOR 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?
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. The Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District has 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.
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT
Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning and
oversight, the ALP project is now proceeding at an acceptable rate. The
President's budget calls for $52 million for the project in FY 2006.
However, some of the project beneficiaries claim that the project
requires $75 million in FY 2006 to keep it on schedule.
This project is of great importance to the communities of northern
New Mexico and southern Colorado.
Question 1. Do you believe that the $52 million requested by the
administration is adequate to keep the project on schedule?
Answer. The amount requested by the Administration is adequate to
maintain the current schedule, which contemplates construction
finishing in calendar year 2011.
Question 2. 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 3. How is the BOR addressing recent environmental
challenges?
Answer. Funding for the completion of the cultural and
environmental mitigation features of the project has been given a high
priority within the ALP project budget. Although there have been may
environmental challenges associated with construction of project
facilities, ranging from controlling extreme flood events to protecting
nesting Golden eagles, these challenges have been resolved in a timely
fashion. All environmental compliance and mitigation obligations are
either currently being met or are on schedule to be completed
concurrent with project facility construction
WATER TECHNOLOGY R&D
Recent 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 1960's,
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. Also, I plan to introduce legislation this year
that would create a program to develop the next generation of water
treatment technologies.
Question 1. What do you believe is the federal government's role in
water technology research?
Answer. Reclamation and the other Federal agencies involved in
water resources R&D are currently working through the President's
Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a coordinated,
multi-year Federal R&D plan for water availability to ensure an
adequate water supply for the Nation's future. The President's
Management agenda also directs agencies to use the Administration's
Research and Development criteria for guiding federal research efforts.
The following criteria to improve investment decisions for and
management of their R&D programs are part of the Administration's R&D
criteria:
Relevance to agency missions and national needs--ensure that
Federal R&D investments are relevant to national needs, agency
mission-driven needs, and target potential public benefits that
are beyond those of any similar efforts that have been funded
or are being funded by the government or others.
Industry relevance--ensure that Federal R&D investments
avoid duplicating research that industry is capable of doing
and would otherwise conduct in lieu of the federal investment.
In accordance with the Administration's investment criteria, where
industry R&D investment is not optimal, the Federal Government's role
in water technology research is to speed the development of new
technologies, reduce costs, and speed the implementation of solutions
in order to meet the water supply challenges of the future. This can be
done effectively through better communication and coordination of
existing research efforts, facilitation of technology development and
transfer, evaluation of product capabilities and the assessment of
research gaps and new technologies.
Question 2. As you are aware, the authority for the BOR's Water
Desalination Research and Development Act of 1996 expires this year. Do
you believe that this program should be reauthorizes and with what
changes?
Answer. The Water Desalination Act of 1996 expired at the end of
fiscal year 2004. The Administration is currently considering its long-
range desalination research and development policy in the context of
the interagency efforts being coordinated by the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Question 3. How is construction of the Tularosa facility
proceeding?
Answer. Construction is 66% complete on the 40 acre site. Work on
the research center component will begin when funds are available.
Reclamation will begin demonstration testing of the military's
Expeditionary Unit for Water Purification in early April, 2005. The
facility plan is being written and will be in draft form by the end of
the fiscal year.
RURAL WATER LEGISLATION
As you are aware, my staff has been working with the BOR and the
minority staff to develop legislation to aid small and rural
communities to meet their often extensive water needs. Many western
communities rely on aquifers for water that will be depleted within the
next decade. This fact makes the situation especially desperate.
There are also rural water programs within several other agencies.
However, they are not as broad in scope and not of the scale that would
allow many communities to make use of them. Furthermore, it is my
belief that the BOR has the technical expertise to undertake such a
project.
Question 1. Is a rural water program a new authority that you feel
would be appropriate for the BOR to undertake?
Answer. We believe it is appropriate for the BOR to undertake a
rural water program with appropriate scope and requirements. Since the
early 1980s, Congress has directed Reclamation to develop 13
independently authorized, single-purpose municipal and industrial water
supply projects for rural communities throughout the West. In the
course of developing the 2004 budget, Reclamation participated in two
performance assessments--the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and
a review to develop a set of common performance measures for all
Federal agencies that play a role in delivering water to rural areas.
Both assessments found shortcomings in Reclamation's involvement in
rural water projects, mainly due to the lack of a formal rural water
program. Consistent with the assessments' recommendations, the
Administration submitted a legislative proposal, and legislation was
introduced in the 108th Congress, that would allow the Department and
Administration to set priorities and establish a Reclamation rural
water program with adequate controls and clear guidelines for project
development. While it is expected that the legislation will be
reintroduced in the new Congress, we will continue to work with
Committee staff on this effort
Question 2. What form do you see this program taking? Do you feel
that a loan guarantee program is a viable mechanism to aid rural
communities?
Answer. The program would likely be similar to the proposal the
Administration sent up during the 108th Congress. We are currently
examining whether a loan guarantee program would be a viable mechanism
for providing assistance to communities to develop rural water
projects.
ENDANGERED SPECIES--MIDDLE RIO GRANDE
Secretary Norton, as you know, New Mexico faces many endangered
species issues. One current issue my state faces involves a migratory
bird known as the Southwest Willow Flycatcher.
I have been actively involved in restoring New Mexico's bosques for
almost fifteen years. Together with the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau
of Reclamation, and the City of Albuquerque, I have been rehabilitating
this land along the Middle Rio Grande, which has been victim to decades
of under-management: invasive species have replaced natural vegetation;
litter has accumulated, and two fires have burned more than 250 acres
of land within Albuquerque's city limits.
Much of this area is included within the Southwest Willow
Flycatchers' proposed critical habitat, and moving forward with the
proposal would impede our efforts to restore the bosque.
Question 1. Would you support the establishment of a conservation
program that allows us to continue restoring the bosque along the
Middle Rio Grande, which could result in more water in the river and
would allow the Southwest Willow Flycatcher to nest in its native
habitat of willow and cottonwood trees?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service fully supports opportunities
to engage in collaborative conservation efforts for the benefit of both
endangered species and overall bosque habitat. The Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program (Collaborative Program),
in which the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service
are participants, is working toward the establishment of that very kind
of collaborative conservation program. The Fish and Wildlife Service
supports restoration activities that will result in improved habitat
for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If the framework of the
Collaborative Program allows for assurances that identified restoration
activities will be implemented, then we believe that establishment of
another, separate, conservation program is not necessary at this time.
Question 2. Will you encourage Fish and Wildlife Service to seek an
extension of time in which to publish its final rule regarding
Southwest Willow Flycatcher critical habitat so that we can create a
conservation program for the Middle Rio Grande that is built on a
collaborative approach to management and benefits the Southwest Willow
Flycatcher and other endangered species in the area?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not expect to seek an
extension of time in which to publish the final rule for the
designation of critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher.
However, we expect to further extend the current comment period to May
of 2005, allowing it to be open for over 7 months. Currently, the Fish
and Wildlife Service plans to meet the court-ordered deadline of
September 30, 2005.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is aware of ongoing efforts by the
Collaborative Program to develop a plan designed to manage and restore
habitat along the Middle Rio Grande. The plan focuses on habitat
restoration along the Middle Rio Grande to benefit the Rio Grande
silvery minnow and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. We understand
the plan emphasizes projects that reduce fire danger, riparian
vegetation loss, and exotic vegetation encroachment--all of which may
be beneficial to the flycatcher. In previous critical habitat
designations, the Fish and Wildlife Service found that similar plans
may preclude the need for designating lands as critical habitat if the
plan meets specific criteria associated with conservation benefits,
assurances, and effectiveness.
We look forward to reviewing any management plans submitted during
the comment period. To be legally sufficient, we must be certain that
the plans will be implemented, and when implemented, the measures will
be effective in conserving the flycatcher and its habitat. Ideally, the
Fish and Wildlife Service will receive a plan early enough for any
issues to be resolved while the comment period is still open.
ENERGY PRODUCTION
The Department's budgets during your tenure have emphasized
responsible development of energy resources on Federal lands. Senator
Bingaman and I hope to complement that effort will with a comprehensive
energy package very soon.
The Presidents proposals and your Department have provided the kind
of forward thinking and long term vision needed in a national energy
policy that will dramatically reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We
all see the need to develop new technology, but we also need to address
the short term problem on all fronts.
We will need to do more to reduce energy consumption through
conservation; we will look to new opportunities for renewable energy
sources such as wind , solar, geothermal and biomass; and we will need
to increase production from our own domestic resources--oil, natural
gas, coal--that will be critically needed for the short-term.
Your Department plays a central role to ensure that America will be
able to reach our own resources--while protecting the environment--from
our own public lands.
Question 1. Can you tell us what progress the Department has made
in implementing the President's Energy proposal of nearly four years
ago?
Answer. DOI has implemented a number of National Energy Policy
(NEP) directives to increase domestic energy supplies and enhance
national energy security by ensuring continued access to Federal lands
for domestic energy development, and by expediting permits and
undertaking other Federal actions necessary for energy-related project
approvals.
Over 20 of the recommendations within the NEP were identified as
specifically affecting one or more of the Bureau of Land Management's
energy-related responsibilities. The BLM identified 54 short-and long-
term action items needed to achieve results on the recommendations
applicable to the Bureau. In implementing these action items, the
Bureau has been working closely with other Federal agencies, state and
tribal governments, local communities, industry and the public to
develop dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy
resources from the public lands.
The BLM has completed a majority of the 54 short-and long-term
action items, including several related to expediting the approval of
Applications for Permits to Drill, such as issuing new policies and
procedures to streamline the permitting process. Working with other
Federal agencies and the State of Alaska, the BLM played a key role in
the renewal of the Federal right-of-way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
The Secretary approved the 30-year renewal of the right-of-way,
effective January 23, 2004.
In addition, in evaluating and increasing access to renewable
energy resources, the BLM issued a Wind Energy Policy to expedite the
development of those resources on public lands and a Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze wind energy
opportunities on public lands in the 11 Western states. The BLM will
publish a Final EIS in the near future. Together with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the BLM prepared a joint report,
``Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands,'' to
help Federal land managers make decisions on prioritizing land-use
activities that will increase development of renewable resources on
BLM, Tribal and Forest Service lands in the in the western United
States.
The BLM has also issued more than 200 new geothermal leases since
2001, a 1000 percent increase over the previous four years. Together
with the Department of Energy, the BLM completed a collaborative
resource assessment and prepared a report, ``Opportunities for Near-
Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United
States,'' issued in April, 2003. The report identifies 35 BLM sites in
18 planning units in 6 states with high potential for near-term
geothermal development.
As directed in the NEP, DOI is continuing Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development
plans on predictable schedules. Since May 2001, DOI has held 13 OCS oil
and natural gas lease sales on schedule while undertaking a
comprehensive consultation process with other Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and the public. These sales resulted in the
leasing of almost 18 million acres of OCS lands to industry for oil and
gas exploration and development, and generated about $2.4 billion
dollars in bonus bid revenue (not counting future royalties and
rentals) for the American taxpayer. Production from leases issued as a
result of these sales will contribute substantially to future domestic
oil and gas production. DOI is on schedule for completing the next 5-
Year Program by July 2007, which will establish the schedule for future
OCS lease sales during the 2007-2012 timeframe.
The NEP also recommended that the Department consider economic
incentives for environmentally sound offshore oil and gas development
where warranted by specific circumstances. In response, the Department
has established a suite of economic incentives to promote discovery of
new sources of energy for the Nation and stimulate domestic oil and
natural gas production. For 2001-2005 OCS lease sales, DOI continued
the royalty incentive program--first established by the Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act of 1995--to promote continued interest in deepwater
leases, and expanded the incentive program to promote development of
new natural gas from deep horizons in the Gulf's shallow waters. A new
regulation in January 2004 extended the deep gas incentive to existing
leases, issued before the incentives were first provided in 2001, to
promote additional deep drilling for natural gas on the shelf. MMS has
also developed policies for extending lease terms to aid in planning
wells to be drilled to sub-salt and ultra-deep prospects, accounting
for the additional complexity and cost of planning and drilling such
wells. Within the next 5 years, offshore production will likely account
for more than 40% of oil and 26% of natural gas domestic production,
owing primarily to deepwater discoveries. DOI has also provided
economic incentives for all Alaska OCS lease sales to promote leasing
interest and encourage oil and gas exploration development in this area
of high cost and little infrastructure.
To help streamline its permitting procedures, MMS's ongoing e-
Government Transformation project is re-engineering OCS business
processes, using technology to receive and process data and
information, to improve the quality of the information exchanged
between MMS and the private sector, thus helping ensure timely
approvals of plans and permits. MMS has developed an online public
commenting system and is implementing an online well permitting system
that will streamline the permitting and approval process for OCS oil
and gas well drilling operations. As the primary regulatory and
permitting agency for OCS activities, MMS has been working closely with
other agencies to develop a more efficient means of issuing permits and
has been working closely with NOAA to achieve prompt and efficient
consultations under the Endangered Species Act and rulemakings under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and on revisions to their Coastal Zone
Management Act consistency regulations (final regulations pending).
While the vast majority of OCS leasing activity is in the Gulf of
Mexico, the Department is working with other Federal, state and local
government agencies to streamline the permitting process for OCS
exploration and development projects in Alaska. This includes
implementing provisions of a MOU for the proposed Liberty project off
Alaska, in the Beaufort Sea, to ensure timely completion of the
exploration and development plan review and approval process. This
project will be the first proposed development entirely on the Federal
OCS off Alaska. The NEP directed that the Administration determine
whether or not to resume deliveries of oil for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR), the world's largest supply of emergency crude oil, with
the Federally-owned oil stocks stored in huge underground salt caverns
along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico in south Louisiana and Texas.
Responding to a Presidential directive issued in November 2001, the
DOI, in partnership with the Department of Energy, launched the SPR
Fill Initiative to complete filling the remaining capacity of the SPR
(700-million-barrel total capacity) using oil produced from OCS Gulf of
Mexico leases. The MMS Royalty in Kind program provides an efficient
and cost-effective means to fill the Nation's Strategic Petroleum
Reserve using the Federal royalty share of oil produced from some OCS
leases. As of early February 2005, the SPR held a total of 681 million
barrels. When completed this summer, the fill initiative will have
involved MMS delivering approximately 120 million barrels of royalty
oil to DOE for use in exchanges for approximately 108 million barrels
of crude oil of suitable quality delivered to the SPR.
Question 2. Your budget request assumes more than $20 million in
new fees from both onshore and offshore energy producers to augment
funding appropriated by Congress. What authority does the Department
have to recover costs in this way? What kinds of things will the BLM
and MMS charge new fees for?
Answer. Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA)
of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701) is a Government-wide authority that permits
cost recovery. The terms of the IOAA require implementation by
rulemaking. Additional implementing guidance includes OMB Circular No.
A-25 (User Charges); and Chapter 6.4 of the Department of the
Interior's Accounting Handbook (Cost Recovery/User Charges).
New fees will be proposed for services that MMS currently provides
at no charge. Fees may include costs associated with the submittal of
permitting and plan requests, such as well permits, facility permits,
structure permits, geological and geophysical permits, sand and gravel
permits, deepwater operation plans, exploration plans, etc. Additional
revenue will also be generated through upward adjustments in rental
rates for new leases, unchanged for Gulf of Mexico sales since 1996,
and increased revenue from cost recovery fees proposed in 2005. As
required by the IOAA, most of these fees will require rulemaking
action.
In addition to IOAA, BLM's authority to recover costs is found in
the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA). The language of
section 304 of FLPMA states that (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may establish reasonable filing and
service fees and reasonable charges, and commissions with respect to
applications and other documents relating to the public lands and may
change and abolish such fees, charges, and commissions; (b) The
Secretary is authorized to require a deposit of any payments intended
to reimburse the United States for reasonable costs with respect to
applications and other documents relating to such lands. The moneys
received for reasonable costs under this subsection shall be deposited
with the Treasury in a special account and are hereby authorized to be
appropriated and made available until expended. As used in this section
``reasonable costs'' include, but are not limited to, the costs of
special studies; environmental impact statements; monitoring
construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of any authorized
facility; or other special activities. In determining whether costs are
reasonable under this section, the Secretary may take into
consideration actual costs (exclusive of management overhead), the
monetary value of the rights or privileges sought by the applicant, the
efficiency to the government processing involved, that portion of the
cost incurred for the benefit of the general public interest rather
than for the exclusive benefit of the applicant, the public service
provided, and other factors relevant to determining the reasonableness
of the costs.
Question 3. We expect an improvement in service before the
Department implements any new fees? Where does the Department stand on
reducing its backlog on drilling permit applications.
Answer. The BLM has taken a number of steps to improve the
processing of Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) and to improve
the process for leasing lands for oil and gas development. For example,
the BLM tracks the processing of APDs on a weekly basis so that
managers can make necessary adjustments in workloads. The BLM has
implemented a computerized tracking system to better identify
bottlenecks in the process for approving APDs. The BLM is providing
technical assistance to industry to ensure the submission of complete
applications. Between 2001 and 2004, we approved over 17,000 APDs, a 74
percent increase over the numbers of APDs approved between 1997 and
2000.
The BLM has formed Quality Assurance Teams to identify tasks that
Field Offices are successfully implementing so that these successes can
be duplicated in other offices. These Quality Assurance Teams also
identify areas for improvement. The BLM has worked with State Historic
Preservation Officers to streamline cultural resource clearances.
The BLM has implemented Best Management Practices, which provide
guidance for companies to use in developing their operating plans. This
should allow the BLM and the energy industry to minimize the amount of
surface disturbance to public and private lands while maintaining
access to energy resources. We continue to look for ways to improve the
permitting process to allow increased access to oil and gas development
on the public lands. For example, we are nearing completion of revised
guidance for oil and gas companies that will assist them in developing
complete APD packages. Complete application packages will allow the BLM
to process the applications while minimizing delays to obtain
additional information.
As a result of these improvements, the APD backlog has
substantially decreased, as indicated in the table below, at the end of
2004, 2,214 applications for permits to drill had been pending for more
than 60 days, down from 2,780 at the end of 2003. Through management
improvements, BLM plans to reduce this backlog to 1,681 by the end of
2005. The new cost recovery fees proposed for 2006, together with a
continued emphasis on management improvements, will allow BLM to
essentially eliminate the backlog. BLM estimates that by September 30,
2006, only 120 pending APDs will have been pending for more than 60
days.
BLM's goal is to process all APDs on BLM-managed surface as
expeditiously as possible, if the application is complete and there are
no unforeseen circumstances. Processing time increases are primarily
due to NEPA reviews, compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act, compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the submission of
incomplete applications, and legal challenges that delay approval. The
BLM efforts in APD streamlining and improvements in its NEPA review
process have been designed to decrease this processing time and improve
the defensibility of the final decisions.
The 2006 BLM budget request will effectively increase funds
available for managing energy and minerals development by an estimated
$9.0 million over the 2005 level by assessment of additional user fees.
Of the projected $9.0 million in additional cost recoveries in the
Energy and Minerals Management program, $8.15 million would be
generated in the Oil and Gas Management program, all from processing
APDs. The significantly higher funding resources will enable BLM to
process more APDs, process them more quickly, and significantly reduce
the number of pending APDs greater than 60 days old. BLM plans to
process 500 more APDs in 2006 than it will in 2005 (approximately 7,900
versus 7,400).
OIL AND GAS APDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
Actual Actual Estimate Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending APDs less than 60 days old at start of year............. 240 460 654 787
Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at start of year.......... 3,080 2,780 2,214 1,681
Total Pending APDs at start of year............................. 3,320 3,240 2,868 2,468
New APDs Received............................................... 5,063 6,979 7,000 6,700
[APDs Approved]................................................. [3,961] [6,452] [6,550] [6,800]
Total APDs Processed............................................ 5,143 7,351 7,400 7,900
Pending APDs less than 60 days old at end of year............... 460 654 787 1,148
Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at end of year............ 2,780 2,214 1,681 120
Total Pending APDs at end of year............................... 3,240 2,868 2,468 1,268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
I've been pleased, that in recent years, the Department has
recognized the importance of PILT payments to counties by requesting
funding at a level consistent with what Congress has funded. But I'm
disappointed in the cut proposed in this year's request.
Let's not forget, that just as budgets are tight here in
Washington, they are also tight in rural America. Most counties have
placed estimated PILT receipts in their operating budgets. They assume
they can depend on regular PILT payments for the public lands in their
counties. 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 implementing in the administration of uses
of the public lands and by providing public services on lands they do
not own and over which they cannot levy property taxes.
Question 1. Why does the Department propose reductions in PILT,
please tell me what your thinking is here?
Answer. The 2006 budget for the Department makes difficult choices
as part of the President's efforts to reduce the budget deficit by half
over five years. The budget includes funding to compensate counties for
lost revenue, providing a total of $200 million for the Payment In Lieu
of Taxes program. Although a reduction from the funding level
appropriated by Congress, the 2006 budget is 76 percent above the
funding level ten years ago. By comparison the Department's
discretionary budget is 52 percent above the 1996 funding level.
Question 2. Does this represent a change in commitment to counties
that over time we can anticipate the administration to further reduce
PILT funding?
Answer. The 2006 budget request does not represent a change in
commitment to counties. Our support for counties encompasses more than
the annual PILT payments provided to counties. Our budget promotes the
importance of local communities in helping to shape the future of
public land management and supports their role with funding provided
many cooperative conservation programs. Over the past four years
Interior has allocated a total of $1.7 billion to partners for
conservation activities.
GRAZING
Grazing on public lands continues to be a priority for this
Committee and I personally want to applaud the efforts by BLM in
improving administration of this program. They have made real progress
in reducing the backlog in issuing new permits, implementing new
grazing regulations, improving monitoring programs and other efforts to
protect grazing on public lands such as the Sage Grouse Habitat
Improvement Initiative.
But I am concerned with a new proposal made in this year's budget
request. As you know current law requires a certain percent of grazing
fees to be deposited into an account to help pay the federal share of
range improvements. Your Department has proposed to amend the law by
making deposition of these funds a discretionary rather than mandatory
matter. This change could have the effect of eliminating the
availability of the funds during times of lean budgets as is expected
to be the case next fiscal year.
I believe the availability of range improvement funds is essential
to maintaining a solid infrastructure for public land ranching.
Question 1. If I understand the proposal correctly, you would now
de-couple grazing fees from range improvements, but continue, at least
for this year, to provide those improvements with discretionary
funding. What is your thinking here?
Answer. Part of the Administration's strategy for reducing the
Federal deficit is to rein in mandatory spending, such as the Range
Improvement Fund, and where possible and merited, to continue to
perform this work with discretionary funding. This provides greater
flexibility to adjust funding levels to actual needs from year to year,
including adjustments between various types of projects that benefit
range health.
Question 2. It appears to me this change could have 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. The BLM will continue to fund these range improvement
projects in 2006, but will do so through its Deferred Maintenance
program and Cooperative Conservation Initiative programs in the
Management of Land and Resources account. Specifically, an estimated
$7.0 million in base Deferred Maintenance program funding as well as
$3.0 million of the $6.0 million increase requested for CCI will be
targeted to high priority range improvement projects.
Other aspects of the 2006 BLM budget request also emphasize the
importance of rangeland health and productivity. For the second year in
a row, BLM is proposing a significant increase in funding to support an
aggressive plan of sagebrush conservation and restoration. The 2006
budget includes an increase of $7.0 million, which builds on a $2.7
million increase provided in 2005. Of the requested $7.0 million
increase, $3.4 million will be matched by partner contributions under
the Challenge Cost Share program. Maintaining and improving the health
of the sagebrush habitat to ensure viable sage-grouse populations are
critical to the continued multiple use management of these lands,
including grazing.
Invasive weeds also damage the health and productivity of
rangelands. The 2006 BLM budget includes increases of at least $1.3
million to address weed management on BLM-administered lands. Of this
$1.3 million, $1.0 million is in the Challenge Cost Share program, and
will therefore be leveraged with non-Interior funds to treat additional
acres.
Question 3. Will the Administration be submitting a legislative
proposal?
Answer. The Administration is developing a legislative proposal to
amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to eliminate the Range
Improvement Fund and to direct that all grazing fees currently
deposited in the Range Improvement Fund be deposited in the General
Fund of the Treasury.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--VANISHING TREASURES
Madam Secretary, I am very supportive of the Park Service vanishing
treasures initiative to protect, stabilize, and preserve some of our
historical sites and ruins in our national parks. I have pressed our
Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for the program in each
of the past several years, and we have made some progress.
Madam Secretary, the vanishing treasures program is very important
to New Mexico park units. Seven of the 25 national park units receiving
vanishing treasure funding are in my State.
Could you give a few specific examples of the work that is
being done in our national parks with vanishing treasures
funding?
Answer. Three examples of the many valuable projects the Vanishing
Treasures (VT) program is funding include:
Bandelier National Monument: The Cavate Project preserves and
protects the architectural remnants of the ancestors of modern Pueblo
people. This project consists of mapping and documenting 700-year-old
cave dwellings, then providing treatment for the long-term preservation
of these extremely fragile historic places. The VT funds serve as seed
money to attract public and private partners through grants and
cooperative agreements.
El Morro National Monument: The VT funds are saving the ruins of
the mesa top Atsina Pueblo which dates to circa 1300. They enabled the
NPS to hire native Zuni masons, descendants of the Atsina peoples, who
are applying culturally-appropriate technical solutions to conservation
problems. As a result of this work, the National Park Service is better
prepared to treat other historic sites using culturally-appropriate
techniques throughout the arid southwest.
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park: The VT funds were
used to preserve the historic Mission San Jose grist mill, an actively
working flour mill that tells the story of 18th century mission life.
The VT work effectively stabilized and conserved the water basins and
historic remains of lime kilns through the use of plasters and mortars
based on historic formulas.
Would you please provide for the record additional
information on the work being done at various park units with
vanishing treasures funds?
Answer. The Vanishing Treasures program continues to address the
needs of 44 parks using Vanishing Treasures resources as follows: 9
parks in New Mexico, 15 in Arizona, 8 in Utah, 5 in Texas, 3 in
Colorado, 3 in California, and 1 in Wyoming.
Over the last 10 years, more than $11 million has been spent on
emergency and high priority projects and the training of a highly
skilled preservation workforce. About $7 million was used to complete
thirty-one projects requiring the very specialized work needed to
preserve these rare historic resources. These projects spanned the full
historic preservation spectrum from initial condition assessments
documentation to full structural stabilization and site reburial.
Project funding allowed parks to hire temporary and seasonal personnel
to address identified preservation needs and to provide needed
supplies, materials, and equipment. Parks also used funding to contract
with the private sector, local universities and colleges, and Tribes
and local communities, and to establish local and regional
partnerships.
About $4 million was used to recruit and train 66 preservation
specialists in 24 parks. We actively recruit, hire, and train a highly
professional and culturally diverse workforce that includes a cadre of
professionals consisting of craft-specialists, historical architects,
archaeologists, architectural conservators, and structural engineers.
The FY 2006 budget includes just over $5.2 million for the
vanishing treasures program, which is essentially a freeze at
the current funding level. Is this the amount that our park
units can realistically spend?
Answer. Yes. The funding requested in the FY 2006 budget would
cover the costs of existing staff positions and provides for an
allocation of funds that would allow the completion of approximately 13
to 15 projects.
Are there additional projects that could be undertaken if
Congress again provides additional vanishing treasures funding?
Answer. The needs of the Vanishing Treasures program must be
balanced with the other funding needs for the National Park Service. In
that context, the $5.3 million proposed for FY 2006 is an appropriate
amount.
BACKGROUND
The seven national parks in New Mexico receiving vanishing
treasures funding are:
Aztec Ruins National Monument (NM)
Bandelier NM
Chaco Culture National Historical Park (NHP)
El Malpais NM
El Morro NM
Fort Union NM
Salinas Pueblo Missions
CHACO CULTURE AND HIBBEN INSTITUTE
Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for including funding in the
FY 2006 budget to help preserve the incredibly rich history of the
Chaco Culture National Historical Park.
The President's request of $4.24 million in Park Service
construction funding will allow implementation of the Hibben Center Act
that was passed in the last Congress. This Act authorizes the
Department to collaborate with the University of New Mexico and the
Hibben Archaeology Research Center to research and manage the extensive
collection of Chaco artifacts.
Madam Secretary, is this a unique collaboration for the Park
Service and for the Department?
Answer. Although NPS partners with many universities, the
collaboration between the University of New Mexico and the National
Park Service is unique because of its longevity. When Chaco Culture
National Historical Park was created as a national monument in 1907,
the University of New Mexico owned four sections of land within the
monument's boundaries. The University used its land for archaeological
field schools in the 1930s and 1940s. Since 1949, when the University
deeded its land to the Federal government, NPS and the University have
had a continuous series of agreements focused on archaeological
research. From 1970-1985, NPS and the University cooperatively managed
the Chaco Project, an archaeological survey and excavation project that
collected many of the artifacts that will be housed in the Hibben
Center. The collaboration's strength lies in the joint emphasis on
research, based on the mission of both entities, and its success lies
in the ability of the two institutions to allow the nature of the
partnership to evolve over time, based on mutual interests, needs, and
benefits.
If so, could this partnership possibly serve as a model for
future collaborations?
Answer. Yes, this partnership is an excellent example of where the
NPS and a university work together to accomplish mutual goals. While
the creation of this partnership may be unique because of its
longevity, we are exploring other opportunities for similar
collaborations. The ongoing development of CESU's (Cooperative
Ecosystem Studies Units) between Federal land management,
environmental, and research agencies and universities also provides
examples of partnership successes.
RIO PUERCO WATERSHED REHABILITATION
Madam Secretary, I have been working for several years to provide
funding to rehabilitate earthen dams in the Rio Puerco Watershed. This
work is designed to improve the overall health of the watershed and to
prevent siltation of areas such as the reservoir at Elephant Butte in
New Mexico.
I am pleased to see the Administration continue this initiative
with about $600,000 in the BLM budget.
Would you please provide the Committee with a progress
report on the BLM work in the Rio Puerco watershed?
Answer. Of the $600,000 appropriation for Rio Puerco restoration,
$400,000 has been used for BLM projects on public land and $200,000 for
projects recommended by the Rio Puerco Management Committee (RPMC), a
partnership of stakeholders established by P.L. 104-333.
Using a nine-person labor crew of local hires from rural Sandoval
County, the BLM has been repairing on the average of three large
sediment retention dams per year. These are generally structures that
have breached or are in danger to losing their stored sediment
downstream. In addition, the crew has been performing needed
maintenance on approximately 12 to 15 dam structures per year.
The RPMC approves projects averaging $25,000 that benefit ranchers,
tribal land users, and local communities. A key multi-year effort has
been RPMC's support of a Navajo summer youth program that provides
summer employment to high school students to construct low tech erosion
control structures using available materials. The project is in its
fifth year and now includes eight Navajo Chapters.
This year the RPMC is also funding a motivational video aimed at
land users about erosion control techniques, the reshaping and seeding
of eroded gullies that fill up livestock waters, the planting of
cottonwood and willows for riparian restoration, and chemical control
of sagebrush for local ranchers.
I understand that there has there been additional federal
funding for this project through the Environmental Protection
Agency. Could you tell the Committee how this collaboration is
working, and what specific projects have been completed with
BLM funding?
Answer. Because of the RPMC's demonstrated ability to complete
projects with Congressional funding, the committee has been able to
leverage several EPA grants including a three-year targeted watershed
grant.
This year, BLM's labor crew is completing the structures needed to
return the Rio Puerco to its original channel at La Ventana. The river
had been channelized in the mid 1960s by the NM Highway Department,
which resulted in accelerated erosion and the loss of 14.1 million
cubic feet of sediment.
EPA funding this year will help train a Youth Conservation Corps
crew from Cuba High School to control erosion and fund a demonstration
of noxious weed control using goats. In addition, funding is being used
to sponsor roads maintenance workshops, and train ranchers and county
road maintenance workers in better road drainage methods.
The main thrust of the EPA targeted watershed project is to train
land users in better stewardship practices that will result in improved
water quality and watershed health. The committee hopes to build
thousands of low tech erosion control structures.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Homeland Security requirements have imposed a burden on several of
your bureaus including the National Park Service.
How much did the National Park Service spend on Homeland
Security in 2003 and 2004?
Answer. The NPS did not track the total amount spent on homeland
security in 2003 and 2004. However, the total icon park base operations
funding totaled $70.6 million in 2003 and $76.3 million in 2004. The
icon parks include, Boston NHP, Fort Point NHS, Independence NHP,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, Mount Rushmore, Statue of
Liberty NM and Ellis island, and the National Mall (excluding National
Capital Parks-Central).
How much of that was in excess to the amount that you
expected to spend?
Answer. In 2003 there were three Orange Alerts by the Department of
Homeland Security, increased costs for security at the icon parks July
4th celebrations, and other law and order transfers primarily related
to the Orange alerts. The NPS spent an additional $8.6 million, mostly
from receipts, for heightened levels of security, infrastructure, and
equipment needs. In 2004 there was one Orange Alert in late December
through early January that cost the icon parks an additional $1.4
million. These amounts do not include the budget of the U.S. Park
Police. Emergency supplemental funding for the Park Police in 2002,
with significant carryover into 2003, allowed it to stay within
budgeted amounts.
What changes have you made in National Park Service
operations to improve response and cost efficiency for
requirements associated with homeland security?
Answer. NPS has made permanent enhancements to icon park security.
For example, at the Statue of liberty, NPS made a series of safety and
security improvements, which allowed it to reopen the Statue to
visitors in August 2004. During 2003 and in early 2004 there were
significant daily costs when the Nation was at Orange Alert. During
2004, the NPS made adjustments because of additional funding provided
to those icon parks and NPS became more efficient at making the
transition from Yellow Alert to Orange Alert. Should a nation-wide
Orange Alert be issued today, these adjustments allow NPS to
immediately go from Yellow to Orange with little cost, depending on the
staffing level at the icon park. It is also noted that there have been
no national Orange alerts since early 2004 and that future Orange
alerts are likely to be area specific and not nation-wide.
Should the Administration initiate a budget system similar
to wildfire funding to reimburse bureaus for homeland security
requirements?
Answer. The Department does not believe a budget system similar to
wildfire is necessary at this time. Should future icon park assessments
show specific vulnerabilities, they can be addressed through the normal
budget process.
The National Park Service issued a permit for the National Football
League to kick off the season with an event on the National Mall. Large
advertising banners were erected to acknowledge sponsor participation.
Many people including members of the Senate thought the advertising was
excessive and inappropriate for the National Mall.
Did the National Park Service incur any expenses outside of
normal operating costs for supports this event?
Answer. Yes. However, those expenses were reimbursed. The National
Football League paid the NPS $430,000 to cover all event monitoring
costs and to repair damage to the resource, primarily to turf and sod.
Are any events of such magnitude scheduled for 2005?
Answer. There are no planned special events of that magnitude.
Applications have been received for two large-scale First Amendment
demonstrations, the Million Man March 10th Anniversary and the Luis
Palau evangelistic crusade. Those are expected to involve large numbers
of participants, but not the logistical setup for a televised event or
the sponsorship that was associated with the NFL activities.
What changes have you implemented to prevent a repeat of
such misuse of the National Mall?
Answer. We have implemented the provision included in the Fiscal
Year 2004 appropriations for the Department of the Interior (P.L. 108-
108) which addresses commercial sponsorship and advertising. We have
revised the Special Events Guidelines for applicants to require any
special event involving signage to submit, a minimum of 30 days in
advance, a comprehensive plan showing the overall size, number, and
design of any signs or banners recognizing all event sponsors. We have
also amended our Special Events Guidelines for large-scale events by
requiring permittees to use newly developed materials to reduce impacts
to turf.
The Administration has proposed an increase of $50.5 million for
park operations in 2006 when compared with the 2005 budget.
What do you anticipate using this additional money to fund?
Answer. The net increase of $50.5 million will allow the NPS to
cover fully the anticipated pay cost increases and other fixed costs
expected in 2006. Most of the uncontrollable cost funding is provided
to park units. In addition, there are a series of increases which
selectively target high-performing areas such as natural resources
management, fee management, and cultural resource preservation. A
number of other increases will focus on management improvements in
areas such as information technology and partnership program oversight,
where small investments in funding can yield impressive productivity
gains and leverage additional financial resources.
Will this be used to fund any shortfalls in visitor
services?
Answer. When combined with the healthy increase for park units
enacted in 2005, the inclusion of full pay cost in the 2006 budget
request and the continued implementation of management reforms will
allow NPS to manage and operate the parks effectively and to sustain
visitor services. The additional funding will assist in ensuring that
the visitor satisfaction rating in the National Park Service remains
above 95 percent, as well.
The Administration has been developing systems and procedures to
assess and track the National Park Service maintenance backlog.
What progress has been made in reducing the backlog?
Answer. Significant progress has been made in both addressing known
maintenance projects through the park system as well as in establishing
and implementing the management framework that will guide the Service's
21st century approach to asset management. The President's 2006 budget
fulfills the pledge to devote $4.9 billion towards the NPS maintenance
backlog. With these funds, NPS has undertaken over 4,000 projects since
2002, ranging from road repairs, to historic building stabilizations,
to restroom rehabilitations. In addition, NPS has completed the first
ever systematic inventory of its assets and conducted initial condition
assessments at all parks. Comprehensive condition assessments are
scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2006.
How much do you anticipate spending in 2005 and 2006 to
address the backlog?
Answer. The estimated FY 2005 amount is $1.001 billion; the FY 2006
requested amount is $1.145 billion. Both of these amounts are
predicated on enactment of the funding levels assumed in the
President's request for the transportation reauthorization bill.
What is your schedule for completing the backlog and
transitioning to a preventative maintenance program?
Answer. The comprehensive condition assessments will be completed
by the end of FY 2006. This will provide a more accurate picture of the
condition of the NPS asset inventory and the funding levels needed to
improve the overall condition of NPS assets to acceptable condition.
Just as with one's home, it is not assumed that a backlog is ever
completely eliminated. Conditions are not static; they change daily. A
simple dollar amount also assumes that every asset is of equal priority
and deserves to be restored to excellent condition. The goal of NPS is
to manage its vast asset inventory systematically so that investment
decisions are prioritized and tiered to the known condition of an asset
and its priority to fulfilling the park mission. The backlog can be
viewed as the funding needed to improve the condition of the asset
inventory from poor to acceptable. NPS will not be in a position to
determine that amount until after the comprehensive condition
assessments are completed at the end of FY 2006. Understanding the
preventative maintenance requirements of our asset inventory is a
crucial component of the comprehensive condition assessments. NPS is
already shifting to requiring the use of asset condition and priority
information in its funding determinations regarding the allocation of
cyclic maintenance dollars.
2006 is the last year for the Natural Resources Challenge in the
National Park Service.
What are the most significant achievements of the Natural
Resources Challenge since its inception?
Answer. The Natural Resource Challenge funding increases provided
from FY 2000-2004 enabled the National Park Service to systematically
inventory its resources at the park level and to establish a vital
signs monitoring program to understand and track the health of those
resources. Over 1,637 park-inventory data sets have been compiled for
parks and placed on a geospatial platform, including documentation of
264,948 species, providing important operational, planning and
compliance information. The monitoring program, based on networks of
parks sharing resources, represents a performance management framework
that is crucial to the long-term protection of the nation's natural
heritage. In addition to vital signs monitoring, key water and air
monitoring has been strengthened in parks.
The Challenge also provides park managers important tools to ensure
success in managing resources to the standard of ``unimpaired.'' The
Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit network (17 competitively selected
university-based units) provides the resources of 180 university
partners directly to parks. Over 1,800 research, technical assistance,
and education cooperative projects have been initiated by parks--vastly
increasing technical expertise and resources available to parks without
increased Federal staffing or infrastructure.
Sixteen mobile Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs) have been
established to stem the tide of invasive plant destruction of park
habitats. In 2003-04, over $4 million in outside support was leveraged
by these teams. In 2003-04, almost 621,000 acres in 209 parks were
treated to control invasive plants. Other agencies are adopting this
approach.
The Challenge also provided increased project funds to restore
habitats and key species. Over 195 projects--peer reviewed and
competitively awarded--have been supported in parks as a result of the
Challenge.
Twelve Research Learning Centers have been established in parks,
often adaptively re-using historic structures and leveraging private
funding, to attract independent researchers to parks and provide their
science directly to park visitors as well as managers. Over 500
projects have been supported so far.
What do you see as the future of this program?
Answer. The Challenge was seen as the necessary long-range
investment needed for park managers to be successful in the 21st
Century. Adaptive management of each element of the Natural Resource
Challenge is underway. Constant improvements and adjustments will be
required. A missing element is the institutional memory needed to
synthesize vast amounts of information to achieve a usable
understanding of the complex natural systems in many national parks.
Projects and partners suffice for much of the information generation
needed in parks but long-term site-fidelity and synthesis is needed to
comprehend the natural variability, vulnerability, and strengths within
these systems. This element does not presently exist and should be part
of a future organizational commitment to generating and retaining the
expertise necessary to manage national parks wisely.
National Heritage Areas were first designated in 1986. Since then,
27 National Heritage Areas have been designated. I noticed in your
budget request for 2006 that $5 million is included for National
Heritage Areas. In 2004, you asked for $2.5 million and Congress
enacted $14.5 million.
Why do you ask for only $5 million when you know it will
take more than 3 times that amount to fund the program?
Answer. We recognize that the Congressional heritage area
designation is an effective tool to bring together local communities'
interests for the preservation of local heritage resources. With
designation, local communities are able to coalesce support for
important regional needs that conserve cultural and natural resources,
improve the quality of life, and help to develop sustainable self-
supporting economies.
The 2006 budget reduces pass-through funding for the national
heritage areas reflecting an emphasis on encouraging them to become
self-sufficient. However, the 2006 budget expands opportunities and
resources that the heritage area partners can competitively apply for,
including: $15 million for Save America's Treasures, $38.7 million for
historical preservation grants to States and Tribes, and $12.5 million
through the new Preserve America grants program.
How do you intend to manage 27 National Heritage Areas (and
growing) with such little funding?
Answer. The NPS does not manage the national heritage areas but
provides technical assistance. The heritage areas are managed by
private nonprofit groups or States and they secure funding for projects
from a variety of sources including local fund raising, States, other
Federal agencies, and Interior grant programs. Since the inception of
the national heritage areas concept, the focus has always been that the
entities would become self-sufficient and no longer need pass-through
funding.
The National Park Service will celebrate its centennial in 2016.
The Administration began planning and implementing several activities
well in advance of the 50th anniversary in 1966.
What have you begun to do to plan for the centennial?
Answer. The National Park Service is just beginning to consider
ideas for commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Service. The NPS
Director has asked the chief of policy to take the lead on this
project. The NPS is soliciting ideas among its employees through a
forum that has been set up on the agency's internal website. The
approaching centennial will be a subject of discussion at each of the
regional leadership conferences this year. We anticipate that a year
from now we will have a better idea of the direction we will be
pursuing for commemorating the centennial.
What type of support do you need from Congress to begin
preparing for this important milestone in the history of the
National Park Service?
Answer. At the moment, we are not far enough along to know what
support we will need from Congress. We plan to keep in close touch with
Congress as we move forward on this project.
WATER 2025
The Administration's FY 2006 budget requests $946.7 million for the
Bureau of Reclamation, compared to the $964 million enacted for the
Bureau in FY 2005. However, the budget calls for a nearly 50% increase
from FY 2005 levels for the Bureau's Water 2025 program, for a total
funding level of $30 million.
Question 1. The budget tells a story of no growth, particularly in
the area of desalination. I note that one area where growth is
occurring is in Water 2025. Please explain how this program will meet
the needs of desalination research given the fact that the
Administration has decided to effectively eliminate funding of
desalination research programs. Also, how will Water 2025 address basic
research?
Answer. The Water 2025 program is currently funding desalination
research. The FY 2006 request would continue this funding for
activities that are undertaken consistent with the Administration's
Research and Development criteria. Desalination research within Water
2025 is focused on laboratory-scale, pilot-scale, and demonstration-
scale research. Because the laboratory-scale research will take many
years to impact the marketplace, it is viewed as basic research. Both
the pilot-scale and demonstration-scale are applied research that will
reach the marketplace more rapidly.
The Administration is currently considering its long-range
desalination research and development policy in the context of the
interagency efforts being coordinated by the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
Question 2. Congress has provided two years of funding for Water
2025. Please provide a summary of the accomplishments of the program. I
am particularly interested in learning how Water 2025 has provided
advances in the development of policies and activities to address
drought-related needs.
Answer. The Challenge Grant Program, a key feature of Water 2025,
elicited an overwhelming response in FY 2004 and 2005. Over 100
proposals both years enabled the Department to select an impressive
array of water conservation projects for Federal cost-sharing. Many of
these activities will help mitigate the impacts of droughts. However,
Water 2025 is not intended to focus on drought-related water shortages.
Rather, Water 2025 focuses on addressing and avoiding the water
conflicts that will occur even in normal water years.
With the $4 million available for the FY 2004 Challenge Grant
Program, 19 projects were selected in 10 different states throughout
the West. Those projects broke ground in 2004 and will be completed
during 2006. One of the 19 projects, in the Springville Irrigation
District in Utah, was completed just six months after the date of the
award; the rest are progressing according to schedule.
The 19 selected projects represent a total of almost $40 million in
on-the-ground water delivery system improvements, including
Reclamation's contribution of $4 million and a non-Federal contribution
of approximately $36 million. These projects improve water delivery
systems, and involve a combination of different measures to improve
water management and conserve water.
Ten projects will collectively convert almost 20 miles of leaky
dirt canals to pipeline, eliminating water losses due to seepage and
evaporation, resulting in substantial water savings. Five projects
focus on installation of measuring devices; several also involve
installation of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
systems. Both greatly improve water delivery control and reduce
spillage. Three projects involve installation of automation technology
allowing precise, remote control of water diversions and/or deliveries.
Two projects involve water marketing, including one project to
establish a pilot water bank in the Deschutes River Basin in Oregon,
aimed at facilitating the voluntary transfer of water among water
users.
In addition to the Challenge Grant program, Reclamation was
appropriated $1 million for the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to
address water quality and environmental issues. Reclamation entered
into a cooperative agreement with DRI for three projects: (1)
Investigation into the human health and environmental safety of using
polyacrylamide (PAM) to reduce canal seepage in unlined canals; (2)
evaluation of sediment transport in the downstream reach of the Las
Vegas Wash, including analysis of water quantity and quality impacts on
Lake Mead; and (3) evaluation of system optimization alternatives for
automation of check and diversion structures along the Truckee River.
Work on these projects is proceeding according to schedule and should
be completed by the fall of 2006.
In addition, using Water 2025 funding, Reclamation is entering into
a strategic alliance with a consortium of universities including the
International Center for Water Resources management at Central State
University in Ohio, the Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado State
University in Colorado (collectively, ``Alliance Universities'' or AU).
Reclamation and the AU will develop remote sensing technologies to aid
in making water management decisions.
In October 2004, Reclamation entered into a Water 2025 cooperative
agreement with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD)
awarding the District $1.3 million for delivery system improvements.
The award was a 50/50 cost share between Reclamation and MRGCD, for a
total of $2.6 million for the project. This project will improve and
modernize irrigation surface water conveyance facilities through the
replacement of turnouts and old gates, concrete lining of canals,
installation of telemetry, measurement devices, and automation. The
project also involves the development of a computer system able to
manage hundreds of gates, with information being published on the
internet and will be made available to other water agencies to aid in
managing flows of the Rio Grande. MRGCD expects to begin construction
and implementation of the improvements in the spring of 2005, and will
complete the project in the fall of 2007.
Of the $19.5 million appropriated in FY 2005, $10 million was
allocated to the grant program. Reclamation received 117 proposals
requesting $35.5 million in Federal assistance--$10 million more than
was requested in FY 2004--for a total of $115 million in water delivery
system improvements across the West. $79.5 million is proposed to come
from non-Federal matching funds. Reclamation will select the projects
by July 2005.
The FY 2005 funding for Water 2025 also included $1,750,000 for
continued water conservation and efficiency improvements related to the
MRGCD. Reclamation and MRGCD are working together to develop a plan for
application of this additional funding.
Taken together, these projects advance the purpose of making water
delivery and use more efficient
Question 3. Water 2025 envisions collaboration as a key to future
successes in mitigating drought impacts. What has the Department done
to improve collaboration among the various federal agencies and
departments to leverage available resources to support improved
responses to water shortages?
Answer. 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.
Meanwhile, the Department's day-to-day collaboration among sister
Federal agencies on response to water shortage has several facets.
First, the Bureau of Reclamation collaborates closely with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration of the Department of Commerce 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
Multispecies Conservation Program in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Reclamation is currently working with the U.S.D.A. 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. The Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project, a
joint operation of the Corps and Reclamation which serves some of the
most drought stricken areas of the Nation is an example of this
historic relationship. The Department also partners with the U.S.
Department of the Navy on desalination project development at the
Tularosa Desalination Research and Development Center in New Mexico.
Recently, Reclamation and the Corps worked closely to manage flooding
in the Colorado River Tributaries in Arizona, effectively minimizing
spill of unregulated water to Mexico and maximizing storage in Lake
Mead.
Question 4. Why is there no construction element to Water 2025?
Answer. Larger Reclamation construction projects have traditionally
been authorized by Congress individually, while Water 2025 work in the
field has focused on competitive, cost-shared grants for conservation
improvements, installing technology for measuring and accurately
delivering water, and similar projects. Although some conservation
improvements aimed at preventing leakage in canals involve significant
capital improvements (i.e. headgates, canal lining, pipe replacement,
and water measurement flumes), they are not regarded by Reclamation as
part of its construction program.
WESTERN WATER
The Administration's decreased budget request seems to scale back
significantly federal involvement in western water resources needs.
Question 1. How will the Administration's FY 2006 budget proposal
impact the need for increased water storage in the West?
Answer. First, the Department's budget provides for full
maintenance and retention of the existing storage infrastructure that
has been developed over the past 103 years. It is this existing set of
storage projects that have made it possible for the West to cope with
drought as well as it has to date.
Second, we are looking at new storage capacity in key locations.
For example, in carrying out the recently enacted CALFED legislation,
the Department has budgeted $10 million in FY 2006 to study four
potential storage projects: Shasta Dam Enlargement, San Joaquin River
Basin storage, Sites Reservoir, and Los Vaqueros. As we study any new
storage options, we focus on ensuring that any new projects are
economically and environmentally justified. All of these projects are
subject to rigorous evaluation relative to the Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land
Resources Implementation Studies. These evaluations help determine
whether the proposed project is in the best interests of the Nation.
For example, the initial evaluation of the proposed Black Rock
Reservoir in Washington State calls for a rigorous examination of its
benefits and financial viability, and of other possible alternatives.
Question 2. Please provide a brief statement on how the Department
envisions addressing the ever-increasing western water needs over the
next five to ten years.
Answer. The Department has three groups of options in dealing with
the various growing demands on Western water in coming years. The first
is maintaining and studying the expansion of storage; the second is
improving efficiency, water conservation, and water markets through
programs such as Water 2025; and the third is water treatment
technologies such as desalination.
Question 3. Has the Department considered alternative financing
mechanisms such as a loan guarantee program?
Answer. While the Department has engaged in preliminary internal
discussions regarding loan guarantee concepts, as of this writing, it
has not recommended legislation to Congress.
TITLE XVI RECYCLING AND REUSE
Every year Congress supports the authorization of new Title XVI
recycling and reuse projects, despite the Administration's stated
objections to the program. Last Congress, Commissioner Keys appeared
before this Committee and testified that the program has a 15-year
funding backlog.
The Administration's FY 2006 budget requests approximately $10
million to support a handful of projects. As you know, this Committee
will hold a Water Conference in April to examine numerous water issues,
including the Title XVI program.
Question 1. The FY 2006 budget request suggests that the
Administration does not envision a substantial federal role in the area
of water recycling and reuse. Please respond.
Answer. The Department has undertaken water recycling and reuse
through its Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program since 1992.
The program has provided financial assistance to local water agencies
to demonstrate water recycling technology to extend water supplies.
That technology demonstration phase has largely been accomplished.
Funds requested will help complete previously initiated projects.
Question 2. 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. Because the recycling and reuse technology demonstration
purpose of Title XVI has largely been accomplished, as noted above, the
Administration focuses its budget requests in this area on completing
projects already under construction.
Question 3. Why is the Department so seemingly reluctant to engage
in M&I water projects?
Answer. While Reclamation has been involved in municipal and
industrial water supplies since 1906, few recent project sponsors have
proposed M&I water projects under traditional Reclamation law, perhaps
because Reclamation law requires repayment of the construction costs
allocable to M&I purposes. The interest rate for repayment is
determined each fiscal year by the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant
to Section 301(b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958. The interest rate
for Fiscal Year 2005 is currently set at 8.077 percent. Unless there is
a significant portion of proposed M&I water projects that can be
allocated to non-reimbursable benefits, such as flood control, or
environmental purposes, there is little incentive for M&I entities to
propose water projects under Reclamation Law. The current non-Federal
interest rate in most cases is less than the Federal rate.
Moreover, most urban areas requesting municipal and industrial
water supply projects are better able to raise funds for their projects
than the more rural areas of the West, where Reclamation has a larger
presence.
CALFED
Last year, Congress enacted the long-awaited CALFED authorization.
The Bureau's FY 2006 Budget requests $35 million to support the CALFED-
related activities.
Question 1. The Bureau's FY 2006 Budget requests $35 million to
support the CALFED program. What is the total amount that the
Administration as a whole is proposing for the CALFED program?
Answer. The total amount that the Administration is requesting for
CALFED-related activities is $207 million. This amount consists of $77
million for Category A programs and $130 million for Category B
programs. Category A includes programs and funding that are consistent
with the CALFED Program goals and objectives and priorities and are
submitted to the California Bay-Delta Authority for review and
recommendations. Category B includes programs and funding that have
related and overlapping program objectives within the geographic area
of the CALFED solution area and are shared with the California Bay-
Delta Authority for review and comment.
Question 2. In the recently enacted CALFED legislation, Congress
directed the Department to review, within 180 days of enactment, the
feasibility of proceeding to construction of a number of projects
studied as part of the Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study and the Bay Area Water Plan. What is the
status of this effort and when can the Committee expect to receive the
Administration's evaluations and recommendations consistent with the
statutory provisions of the law?
Answer. Reclamation has coordinated with local agencies requesting
existing planning studies for water recycling projects identified in
both the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
Study (SCCWRRS) and the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
(BARWRP). On January 21, 2005, the Mid-Pacific Region sent a letter to
36 local BARWRP agencies requesting planning reports for water
recycling projects identified in the BARWRP Master Plan. The Mid-
Pacific Region received planning reports for about 24 projects from 18
different local BARWRP agencies.
The Lower Colorado Region sent letters to about 140 local agencies
requesting planning reports for water recycling projects identified in
SCCWRRS. The deadline for submitting the reports by local agencies was
March 11, 2005.
Reclamation is establishing a review team to review the local
planning reports to make a determination of feasibility. Reclamation is
currently looking into how to fund this review in order to complete the
determination of feasibility for a large number of locally completed
water recycling planning studies.
Question 3. Is the CALFED program a useful model for resolving
other water conflicts throughout the West? Please explain.
Answer. Yes, there are many policy and structural aspects of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program that would have application to other
intensifying environmental/water supply conflicts in the Western
States. The collaborative, coordinated effort among stakeholders and
Federal, state and local agencies in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has
been instrumental in identifying problems and uniting the various
entities behind a common goal and program to resolve environmental,
water supply reliability, natural disasters and water quality resource
conflicts.
TRINITY RIVER
As you know, the Federal Court of Appeals recently upheld the
Trinity Record of Decision. As a result, Trinity River flows will now
vary between 369,000 and 815,000 acre-feet per year (excluding safety
of dam releases). This represents an average flow increase of
approximately 260,000 acre-feet per year.
Water diverted from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River flows
through three different power plants, generating 1100 kWh for every
acre foot of water. With this water no longer being diverted to the
Sacramento River, the output of the Central Valley Project power system
will be reduced by almost 10 percent.
Question 1. According to the public power customers in Northern
California, they will incur $15--$22 million in costs per year to
replace that power. Does the Department agree with that assessment?
Answer. Yes, in general. The Environmental Impact Statement/Report
and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement provided detailed
analysis of the potential impacts associated with increased flows in
the Trinity River and resulting associated decease in Central Valley
Project generation. The amount of foregone generation (kilowatt-hours)
is generally agreed upon, but the value of that generation is where
differences often occur. The Department's power value estimate was
based on a consultant's forecast of energy prices and these are
comparably lower than that claimed by some Northern California power
customers. For instance, based on the Record of Decision flows, the
value of foregone CVP generation forecast by the Department's
consultants is $7.2 million to $21.2 million depending on the water
year type.
Question 2. As a result of the Trinity decision, power output from
the Central Valley Project has been significantly reduced. Since the
allocation of costs is supposed to track the distribution of benefits,
does the Bureau intend to reallocate costs associated with the Trinity
Project to reflect this operational change? If so, when do you expect
to have this change in place?
Answer. Reclamation is currently developing a formal response to
the request that has been received from CVP water and power customers.
A forecast schedule for performing the cost allocation process as well
as a budget estimate of its cost is being prepared and will be reviewed
with these customers within the next few weeks. Preliminary results
indicate the cost allocation process may take as long as 36 months and
could cost as much as $5 million. These estimates will be modified as
more refined cost estimates are received from the entities that will be
assisting in the cost allocation process (for instance, the Corps of
Engineers will be preparing the flood protection benefits portion of a
cost allocation).
O&M COSTS FOR SECURITY
The Administration has requested $50 million for site security
efforts, an increase of $6.8 million from FY 2005 levels. The budget
further proposes that the O&M related security costs will be
reimbursable from project beneficiaries.
Question 1. Can the Department make such a change administratively
or does legislation need to be enacted?
Answer. Reclamation has the administrative discretion to determine
the circumstances in which additional security measures are
reimbursable, and proposes that annual costs associated with activities
for guarding our facilities be treated as project O&M costs subject to
reimbursability based upon project cost allocations while funding for
capital improvements, including physical security upgrades, remain non-
project cost and non-reimbursable. The proposal to make security costs
reimbursable is consistent with existing law.
The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) which
authorizes Reclamation to enter into contracts to furnish water from
its projects provides at Section 9(e): ``Each such contract shall be .
. . at such rates as in the Secretary's judgment will produce revenues
at least sufficient to cover an appropriate share of the annual O&M
cost and an appropriate share of such fixed charges as the Secretary
deems proper.''
Question 2. How does the Department plan to deal with any O&M costs
that are related to meeting its Trust responsibilities for Indian
Tribes?
Answer. Reclamation will allocate O&M costs based on project cost
allocations pursuant to individual project authorizations. Where those
allocations are reimbursable, the costs will be reimbursed from other
sources, including Indian Tribes. Where those allocations are non
reimbursable, the cost will not be reimbursed from other sources.
Question 3. The proposal notes that the ``project beneficiaries''
will be responsible for these O&M related security costs. Does this
include M&I users or will the Department only target power customers?
Will the Department consider only the primary purposes of the project
or will it consider secondary purposes as well?
Answer. Reclamation will allocate costs to all authorized project
functions which could include in any one project the following types of
functions: irrigation, M&I, power, recreation, flood control, fish and
wildlife. Unauthorized secondary functions have no allocations and
therefore, will not be reimbursable to those functions.
Question 4. What has been the power customers' reaction to this
proposal?
Answer. Without disputing the increased security need at critical
Reclamation facilities, power customers have expressed concern with the
prospect of being allocated a portion of costs that they see as new,
unforeseen, and beyond their control. They believe that protecting
these facilities is in the national interest and the costs should be
borne by all taxpayers through non-reimbursable appropriations.
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM
The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to re-allocate
repayment of capital costs of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program.
According to the proposal, power customers would be responsible for
repayment of all construction from which they benefit, whereas to date
they have only been responsible for a portion of these costs. The
proposal further notes that the increase in reimbursements from power
customers is estimated to be approximately $33 million in FY 2006.
Question 1. How much of an increase will the project customers be
expected to bear in the next 5-10 fiscal years?
Answer. Depending on the reallocation option chosen, the increase
could be as much as 20 percent. Additionally, because of drought
conditions, power customers will be receiving a 20 percent increase
next year on top of 15 percent incurred the past year. With the
increase due to the reallocation, rates could go up 40 percent next
year. Over the next 5 years, rates were projected to go up 16 percent
under normal circumstances. The total increase could approach 56
percent unless circumstances related to drought make a dramatic change.
Question 2. What is the basis for this proposed reallocation?
Answer. The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program is a comprehensive
program to manage the water and power resources of the Missouri River
Basin. While much of the originally planned project development has
occurred, including reservoir storage and power generation facilities,
only about 11% of the irrigation anticipated in the Pick-Sloan plan has
been Federally-developed. Originally, about $500 million of the
program's hydropower and water storage capital costs were allocated to
irrigators, and because the irrigation was never developed, the capital
and O&M costs on this portion of the project are not being repaid to
the Federal government. Under current economic and financial
conditions, further irrigation development is not expected. The
proposed reallocation would therefore make power customers responsible
for repayment of all the construction costs from which they benefit.
This would change current law, under which Reclamation is bound by the
cost allocation developed under the assumption that irrigation projects
would be developed and costs associated with irrigation-related pumping
power and reservoir storage continue to be allocated to future
irrigation development.
Question 3. Will any other project beneficiaries be assigned
repayment costs? Please explain.
Answer. Of the facilities affected, there are only two reimbursable
functions that can repay costs, irrigation and power. If irrigation is
not developed, power is left as the only reimbursable function with the
exception of some minor municipal and industrial water. The other
functions such as flood control, navigation, recreation, fish and
wildlife are not reimbursable. Different methods for accomplishing the
reallocation would result in different allocations among these
functions. Regardless of the method by which reallocation is
accomplished, however, the only beneficiaries that could bear any
increased repayment costs are the firm power customers.
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
The FY 2006 budget request for the Central Utah Project is $34.4
million, a decrease of $13.3 million below the FY 2005 enacted level.
Question 1. According to the budget request, the $13.3 million
decrease is ``primarily due to the transfer of budget authority from
Interior to the Western Area Power Administration.'' Please explain
this transfer. Under the Administration's proposal, how much money will
WAPA provide for the Central Utah Project in FY 2006?
Answer. In Fiscal Year 2005, the Administration proposed that
funding for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
(Mitigation Commission) pursuant to Title IV of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act be included in Interior's budget request rather
than that of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). The Congress
rejected this proposal, and funded the Mitigation Commission in both
Interior and WAPA's FY 2005 appropriations. The Administration's Fiscal
Year 2006 request is consistent with Congress's evident preference that
funding responsibility for the Mitigation Commission remain with WAPA.
WAPA's 2006 request includes $6.65 million for the Mitigation
Commission to be derived from Colorado River Storage Project receipts
on a reimbursable basis. The remaining decrease in the request reflects
the significant carryover balances of the Mitigation Commission, which
will allow the Commission's work to proceed even with the reduced
request.
Question 2. What is the schedule for completion of this project?
Answer. At the present time, the Central Utah Project is projected
to be complete in approximately 2016.
DROUGHT
As you are well aware, the Southwestern U.S. has been experiencing
drought conditions since 2000. The Pacific Northwest is also
experiencing water supply shortages and the current snow pack is almost
50% below average. In anticipation of our upcoming water conference,
this Committee has asked for proposals to address the drought
situation. Given the importance of the drought conditions, we plan on
examining the proposals received at a separate hearing.
Question 1. It is my understanding that in your role as Water
Master for the Colorado River, you are working with the basin states to
develop a voluntary protocol to deal with water shortages. What is the
status of that protocol? When will it be completed? Are the states
willingly engaged in this effort?
Answer. Representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
have been actively meeting and engaged in discussions regarding
prospective actions to address the drought in the Colorado River Basin.
In late 2004 the Department asked the Colorado River Basin States for
recommendations regarding the development of ``shortage guidelines''
for the Lower Basin of the Colorado River. In light of the significant
drought in the Colorado River Basin since the fall of 1999, the
Department anticipates initiating a public process to develop Lower
Basin shortage guidelines later this year. It is likely that such a
public review process would take approximately two years to complete.
This process is anticipated to follow a similar development protocol as
that the one the Department utilized for the development and adoption
of Lower Basin Interim Surplus Guidelines in 2001. In that process, the
seven Colorado River Basin States submitted a consensus-based
recommendation that formed the basis of the Surplus Guidelines that
were adopted by the Department and are relied upon by the Secretary in
the preparation of each year's Annual Operating Plan.
Question 2. How is the Department dealing with the drought
situation? What funding is the Administration proposing that deals
specifically with the drought? Are the Administration's funding
proposals limited to the Department of the Interior's Water 2025
program? If not, what agencies are also attempting to address this
situation? If there are multi-agencies engaged in this effort, how are
you coordinating them?
Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991
(P.L. 102-250), as amended, (Drought Act) authorizes the Bureau of
Reclamation to undertake drought relief measures through emergency
assistance (Title I) and planning activities (Title II). Title I is
temporary authority.
Title I provides authority for construction, management, and
conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought,
including the mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. Only temporary
construction activities are authorized, except for the construction of
permanent wells. Title I also authorizes temporary contracts to make
available project and non-project water and to allow for the use of
Reclamation facilities for the storage and conveyance of water. The 17
Reclamation States and Hawaii, as well as tribes within those states,
are eligible for this assistance.
In Fiscal Year 2006, the request is for $500,000.
Over the years, much of the funding appropriated under RSEDRA has
been used for water acquisitions for fish and wildlife mitigation, as
seen on the Rio Grande and Pecos River. Although that trend has
continued on an availability basis, significant funding has been used
to construct wells on tribal lands and for smaller towns and counties.
Reclamation has constructed many wells for drinking water for smaller,
financially-strapped entities (towns, counties, tribes) that do not
have the financial capability to deal with the impacts of drought.
In many cases, Reclamation is the ``last resort'' for these
communities. While the current drought has caused many problems in many
areas of the West, there are more pervasive realities across the West
that cause conflict and crises over water, dividing communities and
pitting neighbor against neighbor, people against fish, and farmers
against cities. These realities include increasing population growth,
strains on existing water supplies, even in normal years, current water
delivery infrastructure is aging, crisis management is ineffective, and
new technology can help stretch water supplies further. Water 2025 was
created to help the West deal with these realities, as well as with the
current drought conditions, through Challenge Grants that provide cost-
shared funding for on-the-ground water conservation and management
projects that address conflict over water before it happens. The Fiscal
Year 2006 request for Water 2025 is $30 million.
KLAMATH RIVER BASIN
In a time when many programs are experiencing significant cuts, the
Administration's FY 2006 Budget requests $62.9 million for the Klamath
River Basin. This represents an 8.4% increase from the FY 2005 funding
levels.
Question 1. Why did the Administration prioritize funding for the
Klamath River basin?
Answer. The reason for the high priority is that the Klamath basin
is currently experiencing drought conditions that have triggered a
cycle of disruptions in water supplies. In 2001, drought conditions
required water diversions from the Klamath Project, a Bureau of
Reclamation irrigation project, to be curtailed to meet a) upstream
lake level requirements as specified in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service biological opinion designed to avoid jeopardizing two species
of endangered suckers and b) downstream water flow requirements as
specified in a NOAA Fisheries biological opinion designed to avoid
jeopardizing threatened coho salmon. The restrictions on the water
diversions in response to the drought lead to economic disruption among
project irrigators with varying degrees of financial loss though some
of that was ameliorated from emergency farm bill assistance. In light
of scientific conclusions of the National Academy of Science's National
Research Council (NRC), those biological opinions were revised in 2002.
Meeting all of the needs in this Basin, including those of water users
and the requirements of the ESA, creates extreme challenges in
allocating water in the basin among competing uses. The lake level and
downstream flow levels specified in the 2002 biological opinions were
supported by the NRC final report. Low downstream flows were cited by
the FWS' report on the major fish die-off in the Klamath River that
occurred in September, 2002, as one of several contributing factors to
the die-off of over 30,000 salmon, although most of them were not
listed species. Still, all of the salmon are important economically
from the standpoint of commercial fishermen and tourism based on sports
fishing (and escapement goals for Chinook salmon determine the
commercial and sports catch levels from southern Oregon to well south
along the California coast) and economically and from a subsistence
standpoint for Indian fishermen with fishing rights in the Klamath
River. The die-off created substantial disruption downstream. The large
suckers in Upper Klamath lake have traditionally been a subsistence
resource for the Klamath Tribes, but fishing has been halted since the
1980s due to their endangered status. Both the 2001 and 2002 events
also spawned multiple, extensive lawsuits, which are still wending
their way through various courts.
The Department is using the best information available to wisely
manage the lake levels, diversions and downstream flows, but can
provide no assurances on a year-to-year basis that substantial further
disruptions will not occur.
Given the five major concerns, protecting the endangered fish in
Upper Klamath Lake, protecting the threatened fish downstream, meeting
trust responsibilities to tribes in both the upper and lower basins,
helping maintain a predictable water supply for project irrigators, and
meeting water needs for key National Wildlife Refuges, the Department
and the Administration are taking many steps to address the underlying
issues. Many of those steps can be taken within current funding levels,
such as the use of a large water bank. Some require additional funding,
however. Two cases in point are the 2006 request for increasing
restoration work on spawning and nursery habitat for upstream suckers
and acquisition of a property at the northern edge of Upper Klamath
Lake to provide nursery habitat, both of which are intended to help
stabilize the fish populations and begin their recovery. The property
acquisition will also expand substantially the amount of water that can
be stored in the lake during most years, which will have benefits for
both downstream flows and project irrigation diversions during low-flow
periods in those years. Among other things the high rate of funding for
the water bank may not be sustainable in the long-term, and solutions
such as increasing storage through restoring some of Upper Klamath
Lake's natural capacity will help ameliorate those high annual funding
requirements and also the annual uncertainty of water supply. It should
be noted that the property acquisition funding of $6,000,000 is a one-
time item with minimal subsequent annual operation and maintenance
costs.
The Department strongly supports the increased request to help get
beyond the year-to-year crisis management that has prevailed over the
past four years and which can only be resolved by continuing to focus
on long-term resolutions to the Klamath Basin's many challenges.
Question 2. The Budget notes that Interior is in the process of
putting together a water bank of approximately 100,000 acre-feet to
help meet the water needs for coho salmon. Please explain this effort.
Is this supported by the Klamath River stakeholders, including the
environmentalists?
Answer. In 2001, Reclamation conducted a one-year pilot demand
reduction program which provided a payment to irrigators in lieu of
applying Project water to land previously irrigated. In 2002, 2003, and
2004, a pilot water bank program was implemented to assist in meeting
NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion (BO) requirements for threatened
salmon in the Klamath River. The pilot water bank consists of
compensating agricultural water users to either forebear use of water,
substitute groundwater for surface water, or pump ground water to
increase the supply. The results of the pilot water bank program for
the various years have been or are being reviewed by Cal Poly-San Luis
Obispo and the U.S. Geological Survey. Reclamation refines the water
bank program each year, changing its selection process, contracting
process, and program rules based on what was learned in previous years
to meet its increasing obligations. For example, in 2002 Reclamation
paid a flat fee per acre foot of water. Since then they have instituted
a new process where landowners offer to enroll their lands in the water
bank by bid. The least expensive, highest yield lands receive priority.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office has recently
completed a Report to Congressional Requesters on the 2002, 2003, and
2004 water banks. These reviews have identified several important
points: (1) the use of land idling or downsizing the Klamath Project
will not meet the high spring flows desired by NOAA-Fisheries because
water from areas temporarily idled or permanently removed from
irrigation accrues gradually to the water bank throughout the
irrigation season in the same pattern and rate as it would normally be
diverted for irrigation. Therefore, it is not available at the time of
the high river flow requirements envisioned in the BO, (2) pumping
large volumes of groundwater is not sustainable on a long-term basis
during drought periods, (3) a water bank comprised primarily of idled
project land and groundwater pumping is only an interim solution to the
water supply problems in the Basin, and (4) storage to carryover
surplus water from one year to the next is the best long-term solution,
particularly during drier years.
The water bank has been successful in that it has allowed
Reclamation to meet the requirements the NOAA Fisheries and Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinions and provide sufficient water to
meet the need of the contracts for irrigation. However, the high annual
cost of the water bank is not sustainable, and the water bank is viewed
as a temporary solution while long term solutions are developed. The
water users are seeking assurance of water supply which the water bank
does not provide, and are concerned that idling land will negatively
affect agribusiness of the basin. The environmental community supports
the concept of a water bank, however, they believe 100,000 acre feet
annually is insufficient and that lands should be permanently retired.
Indian Tribes in the lower basin claim that even with the 50,000 acre
foot water bank in 2002, low flows resulted in a fish kill.
Question 3. I would also like to know more about the $500,000
requested for a Fish and Wildlife Service prototype program to acquire
and transfer water rights to the wetlands in the Klamath Basin refuges.
Will the Department buy or lease these water rights? Have you
identified people who would be willing to let the Department acquire
their water rights?
Answer. The Department proposes to buy the water rights. The
prototype or test acquisition is being taken because of the uncertainty
of water supply to the Klamath basin refuges and the severe water
shortages they have faced in recent years. The refuges are primarily
dependent on return flows from irrigated land through the larger part
of the irrigation season and excess water during the spring and fall to
sustain their wetland habitat. That habitat is one of the premier
migratory waterfowl areas on the west coast. To adequately maintain the
productivity of the area, a more assured water supply is needed.
The 2006 budget initiative is described as a prototype program
because of uncertainties in the acquisition and transfer of water
rights in the Klamath River basin. Portions of the water put to use in
the basin are from adjudicated water rights; other portions use water
rights currently undergoing adjudication as to their quantity and
priority. There are a substantial number of willing sellers in the
basin, but little past work has been done on actually acquiring and
transferring water rights from willing sellers to other lands in the
basin. The initial funding is a one-time step to realistically test
varying aspects of the market and the transfer mechanisms to determine
the extent to which a more expansive subsequent program would be
beneficial and cost-effective.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Secretary Norton, the Department of Interior budget request
includes $60.5 million for six agencies and the Office of Insular
Affairs to combat invasive species. The requested funding is about
$350,000 above the current level. This is a high priority issue for our
Western states. In New Mexico, we have a serious problem with tamarisk,
or salt cedar.
I appreciate that the Administration is focused on the
invasive species problem. Would you please tell the Committee
what is the most urgent need for these funds?
Answer. The best approach to reducing impacts to Department of the
Interior trust resources is, generally, preventing the introduction of
invasive species. Once introduced, early detection and rapid response
can minimize or mitigate impacts to our lands and waters and, when
established, control and management must be carried out to reduce
impacts.
Of the $60.5 million requested, nearly one-third of the
funding will go to control and management activities. Please
tell the Committee what specific types of projects will be
undertaken with the nearly $28 million for invasive species
control and management?
Answer. Since 2004, the Department has presented a unified invasive
species performance-based crosscut budget, in conjunction with other
Federal agencies, through the National Invasive Species Council (NISC).
In coordination with NISC, the Department has focused its past budget
increases on species-specific government-wide priorities, such as
tamarisk, the brown tree snake, and aquatic invasives.
In 2006, the Department will coordinate invasive species activities
based on geo-regional areas in response to bureau concerns that the
species-specific focus areas do not always accurately portray the
invasives work done on any given piece of land. For example, when BLM
is controlling and managing weeds on public lands in the West, BLM will
identify the target species, such as tamarisk or leafy spurge, while
also taking into consideration the other associated weed species in the
area. The goal is to treat the target species as well as the other
invasive and noxious weeds in the same area.
The Department will also focus invasives work on three priority
geo-regional areas that also contain an abundance of invasives targeted
by NISC priorities. The bureaus submitted coordinated, joint budget
requests for each of these areas, developed in each case by an inter-
bureau team. Increases totaling $2.3 million are proposed for the three
areas. Base funding will also be redirected to the coordinated efforts.
Examples of specific projects include, in the Rio-Grande River
Basin, 4,915 acres of tamarisk and other invasives will be treated and
controlled, 1,000 acres will be inventoried for weeds, research will be
conducted on re-vegetation, and one decision support system will be
developed. With a $200,000 proposed budget increase, USGS will conduct
research on re-vegetation and will provide technical and scientific
support in the development of the BLM decision support system.
In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service budget proposes $1.0
million for tamarisk eradication through the endangered species
recovery program. This exotic plant is considered a threat to some
endangered and threatened species, such as the southwestern willow
flycatcher. Tamarisk removal is identified as a key recovery action
that is needed for many listed species that occur in wetland areas
throughout the arid southwest. For example, the recovery plan for the
Pecos sunflower requires the management and control of Tamarisk. These
funds will be spent in cooperation with non-federal partners consistent
with the Team Tamarisk Guiding Principles.
The Team Tamarisk initiative, begun in April 2004, relies upon USGS
mapping and modeling of tamarisk occurrences and potential areas of
spread to target multi-agency action. The Albuquerque, New Mexico, Team
Tamarisk conference brought together Federal, state and local
officials, tribal representatives, water and land managers, and plant
and water scientists. The goal was to establish a framework for forging
close working partnerships, leading to on-the-ground projects that make
the most efficient and effective uses of our collective resources.
Those partnerships include a comprehensive web-based live
cooperative mapping initiative led by the USGS and involving geospatial
data from hundreds of partners (www.tamariskmap.org/cwis438/tmap/
index.asp). Team Tamarisk is also pursuing an in-depth economic
analysis of tamarisk control and effects coordinated by NISC and led by
the U.S. Forest Service and Erika Zavaleta, Assistant Professor,
Environmental Studies Department, University of California.
In South Florida, a $1.0 million increase for the Fish and Wildlife
Service would focus on invasives efforts at the Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR). This funding will be used to treat 2,500 acres
of dense lygodium on tree islands and allow re-treatment of 14,000
acres infested with melaleuca, lygodium, Brazilian pepper, and
Australian pine on other lands. A $100,000 increase in the U.S.
Geological Survey will provide research to assist in the detection,
control, and eventual eradication of the Brazilian pepper tree.
On the Northern Great Plains, BLM, with a $500,000 budget increase,
will treat and control 7,500 acres of leafy spurge and other invasives,
inventory and monitor 209,000 acres for weeds, and map 20,000 acres for
invasive species. Much of the invasive species and noxious weed control
and management efforts on BLM and other DOI lands are conducted in
cooperative weed management areas (CWMAs) through partnerships.
The Department requests $11.6 million for invasive species
research. How would the proposed funding support the ongoing
research program? Which invasive species are receiving the
highest priority for research dollars distributed?
Answer. The proposed funding, which includes a $300,000 increase
for U.S. Geological Survey work ($200,000 on Rio Grande River basin and
$100,000 for South Florida) on invasive species, funds the invasive
species research program whose goals focus on research related to
prevention, early detection and rapid assessment, monitoring, control
and management, information management, and effects of invasive
species. These activities support the resource management agencies in
the Department of the Interior to address critical research needs. At
the present time, research is focusing on high priority invasive
species such as tamarisk, nutria, brown tree snake, leafy spurge,
yellow star thistle, Asian carp, and cheatgrass.
How would you describe the Department's efforts at early
detection and response? Is the $8.1 million requested
sufficient to carry out a successful program?
Answer. The Department has begun an integrated approach in
collaboration with other agencies and the public to build a network of
trained professionals and volunteers to detect and treat new outbreaks
of noxious weeds. They are working to develop and implement new methods
of detection and identification of invasive species, and to develop
early detection pilot projects for particular geographic areas and
taxonomic groups. They also are developing rapid response strategies to
detect and control invasive species for both aquatic and terrestrial
species. The group has a goal of training over 2,000 volunteers,
resulting in over 50,000 hours of volunteer service, to work on these
efforts.
Participating agencies in this integrated effort include the
Department's Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation,
and the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
The funding included in the President's budget is sufficient to
carry out a successful program.
FOREST HEALTH
Madam Secretary, I am pleased to see that the Administration has
requested an increase in funding for implementation of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act. As I read the budget, $211.2 million is
proposed, which is $9.8 million above the current level. The Forest
Service will also receive funding for this program.
I will also pursue this line of questioning with the Forest
Service when they appear before the Committee tomorrow. Would
you please provide for the Committee, in detail, information on
the expenditure of the hazardous fuels reduction funding over
the past two years?
Answer. The attached chart responds to this question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 FY 2004
State FY 2003 Acres Expenditures FY 2004 Acres Expenditures
Treated ($000) Treated ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... 1,230 120 1,010 111
Alaska.......................................... 11,676 4,397 59,089 5,290
Arizona......................................... 108,578 14,865 100,788 15,160
Arkansas........................................ 5,718 654 23,720 792
California...................................... 77,226 28,882 61,725 20,842
Colorado........................................ 23,791 12,508 32,659 11,471
Connecticut..................................... 10 0 0 0
Delaware........................................ 3,605 307 6,935 205
Florida......................................... 137,853 4,328 91,370 2,689
Georgia......................................... 12,539 3,264 30,720 2,462
Hawaii.......................................... 1,071 479 1,010 208
Idaho........................................... 202,596 28,620 117,310 22,518
Illinois........................................ 428 87 325 45
Indiana......................................... 10,713 333 10,187 330
Iowa............................................ 3,568 338 7,769 349
Kansas.......................................... 23,190 512 26,860 703
Kentucky........................................ 498 303 2,228 333
Louisiana....................................... 2,642 477 15,204 282
Maine........................................... 876 389 646 396
Maryland........................................ 6,513 142 11,862 513
Massachusetts................................... 361 783 869 390
Michigan........................................ 1,409 202 2,584 465
Minnesota....................................... 64,068 3,977 52,002 3,727
Mississippi..................................... 13,085 1,836 9,359 1,424
Missouri........................................ 3,066 417 4,378 337
Montana......................................... 23,461 11,731 31,405 10,105
Nebraska........................................ 6,911 903 11,575 1,437
Nevada.......................................... 53,908 9,431 30,131 6,695
New Hampshire................................... 80 2 0 0
New Jersey...................................... 1,080 163 1,008 97
New Mexico...................................... 111,641 14,257 87,411 13,332
New York........................................ 606 71 685 33
North Carolina.................................. 11,307 735 19,802 680
North Dakota.................................... 17,906 1,390 21,202 2,060
Ohio............................................ 50 3 59 1
Oklahoma........................................ 8,809 2,443 23,087 1,242
Oregon.......................................... 114,386 38,787 134,316 29,577
Pennsylvania.................................... 862 38 90 222
Rhode Island.................................... 167 2 3 1
South Carolina.................................. 21,520 565 16,252 509
South Dakota.................................... 16,100 3,583 17,103 2,066
Tennessee....................................... 1,586 1,248 480 935
Texas........................................... 37,544 4,067 77,261 2,902
Utah............................................ 56,884 11,695 51,960 10,257
Vermont......................................... 129 2 24 2
Virginia........................................ 351 591 2,660 1,407
Washington...................................... 18,424 6,434 27,982 5,049
West Virginia................................... 219 61 0 1
Wisconsin....................................... 7,533 1,235 6,909 1,090
Wyoming......................................... 31,063 4,222 28,669 4,136
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,258,837 221,879 1,260,907 184,878
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of the appropriated funding has been spent on
planning projects?
Answer. In FY 2004 and FY 2005, approximately $63 million per year
was spent on planning projects. The planning process includes
collaboration, coordination, identification, prioritization and
selection of projects, NEPA, project planning and layout, and
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and
Wildlife Service. These processes are critical for ensuring that
projects are effective in meeting their desired goals and in ensuring
the safe implementation of prescribed burns. The funds are also used to
design projects that will be completed in subsequent years.
How much of the funding has been spent on actual thinning
projects? How many acres have been treated, and in what states?
Please refer to the chart on page 46 for the response to this
question.
What are the Department's projections for the work to be
done in FY 2006 under the budget request?
Answer. For FY 2006, the Department is requesting an increase of
$10.3 million for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program, of which $6.7
million is for treatments in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and
$3.6 million is for non-WUI treatments. The increase will be focused on
expanding and improving the program to meet the identified highest
priority treatments to protect communities and the environment. With
the completion of risk assessments, mitigation plans, Community
Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) and interagency Fire Management Plans,
the bureaus and collaborative partners are able to identify an annual
program that prioritizes mitigation activities that will make the
greatest impact in reducing risks and restoring priority landscapes.
Priority acres will be treated. This means that the final project list
will increasingly include projects identified in CWPPs which may
include higher cost acres. The Department will continue to emphasize
involvement of the local communities through contracting, stewardship
and biomass utilization.
How would you describe the collaboration with local
communities under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act?
Answer. The HFRA builds on community and resource protection
activities carried out under the National Fire Plan and the 10-year
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy. The HRFA encourages local
communities to work collaboratively with wildland fire protection
agencies to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP's).
CWPP's assist local communities, as well as State, Federal, and Tribal
cooperators to clarify and refine hazardous fuels treatment priorities,
identify roles and responsibilities in the protection of life and
property, and assist in identifying critical infrastructure in the WUI.
The interagency wildland fire agencies have developed guidance and
conducted workshops to assist communities in the development of CWPP's.
Risk reduction projects identified in CWPP's are given priority for
Federal funding in the collaborative planning process.
The Department has assisted over 1,000 communities to develop
CWPP's. Many of these plans, previously called Community Risk
Assessment and Mitigation Plans, were begun prior to enactment of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Those earlier plans meeting the spirit
of the CWPP's are included in the above number. Thus far in FY 2005
alone, the Department has assisted 140 communities in completing their
CWPP's.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
I am pleased that the Congress and Administration worked together
last year to provide approximately $500 million in additional FY 2005
funding for the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to
prepare for the anticipated fire season.
For some states, such as New Mexico, there has been some relief
from the serious drought we have experienced over the past several
years. However, we know we have a long way to go before the drought is
over.
What is the Department's current status of its firefighting
funds?
Answer. For FY 2005, the Department has a regular annual
appropriation of $218.4 million based on the 10-year average actual
costs. In addition, we have $35 million in carryover funds from FY
2004, and $98.6 million Title IV funds for emergency firefighting
costs.
Have agency borrowings been repaid?
Answer. In 2003, $189 million of the previously borrowed $240
million was repaid.
What is your preliminary assessment of the upcoming fire
season? Is there sufficient funding in the President's budget
to be initially prepared to meet the anticipated requirements
for fire funding in the upcoming season?
Answer. The preliminary outlook for this year's fire season
indicates above normal fire potential in the Pacific Northwest,
Northern Rockies, the lower elevations of the Great Basin, and over
much of Florida.
Mountain snowpacks are at or near record low levels in portions of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and northwest Wyoming. These low
snowpacks, combined with long-term drought and vegetation mortality
from insect damage, will increase fire potential in portions of the
West.
Winter storms have brought heavy rain and snow in California,
Colorado and the Southwest. This will help moderate the fire season in
the mountains, but will increase fire potential in the lower elevations
of Nevada, Utah and the California deserts, due to heavier
concentrations of fine fuels such as the grasses found on much of the
land managed by this Department.
Florida has been drier than normal so far this winter. The dry
winter, combined with downed trees from the 2004 hurricanes, will lead
to the potential for an active fire season.
Predicting the Alaska fire season is very difficult this early in
the year. However, preliminary indications point to a less active
season compared to last year's record breaking fire season.
This map of the United States shows the areas where above normal
and below normal fire activity are anticipated through August.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All graphics have been retained in the committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readiness for wildland fire response will be maintained at a level
sufficient to meet or exceed a 95 percent initial attack success rate.
Strategic pre-positioning of resources, combined with advanced fire
weather forecasting capabilities will ensure a high level of readiness.
ANWR
The President's FY 2006 Budget assumes the first ANWR lease sale
would produce an estimated $2.4 billion in bonus bids in 2007. I
support the Administration's inclusion of ANWR receipts in the Budget.
I plan to work with the Budget Committee and Senate leadership to
include ANWR instructions in the budget resolution and fight for
passage of that resolution on the Senate floor.
As many of you know, I am leading a CODEL to ANWR beginning this
Friday, March 4th, so Senators and Cabinet Secretaries can see for
themselves how sensitive today's oil development is on the environment
and wildlife. I am delighted that Secretary Norton will accompany me on
this trip.
Question 1. In your testimony, you explain that the $2.4 billion in
2007 bonus bids is the same estimate that has been used for several
years and is based on ``conservative assumptions.''
Please explain the basis for the Administration's calculation. What
budget assumptions were used to derive the $2.4 billion leasing figure?
Answer. The calculation 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. As we have stated a number of times, this estimate has been
used for several years and does not reflect the recent sharp increases
in the price of oil. The estimate included an assumption regarding oil
prices in the year 2001 of $30. It assumed 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. In
addition, natural gas was assumed at the time of the analysis to be
uneconomic and was thus ignored in the valuation.
USGS WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES
The President's FY 2006 Budget requests $933.5 million for the U.S.
Geological Survey, a $1.9 million decrease from FY 2005 funding levels.
The USGS provides critical data collection and analysis on water
resources to agencies throughout the federal government and through
collaborative programs with the States.
Like last year, 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.
Question 1. 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.
USGS MINERALS RESOURCES PROGRAM
The Administration's FY 2006 budget requests a total of $208.1
million for Geologic Assessments, a $21.1 million of 9.2% decrease from
FY 2005 funding levels. Within that account, the Administration
proposes to reduce the Mineral Resources Program by $28.5 million from
FY 2005 levels.
The Administration explains that the budget continues funding for
minerals surveys and studies for Federal activities. However, funding
is reduced for regional and local activities.
Question 1. In your testimony, you note that ``funding is reduced
for studies and information gathering for regional and local activities
more oriented to the interests of States, local governments, and
universities, all of whom are significant users of information
generated by the Minerals Resources Program.''
Why has the Administration opted to reduce funding for this program
when it acknowledges that numerous non-federal users rely on the
critical information produced by the USGS?
Answer. This reduction was a difficult decision based on funding
priorities and budget constraints. The Administration chose the
Minerals Resources Program for reduction because the research is lower
priority as compared to other USGS programs and because the expertise
to continue this work exists with State geological surveys and in
universities. The Administration believes that if the work being
eliminated is of high importance to private industry or States, they
will pick up the work, in partnership arrangements.
Question 2. Does the Interior Department intend to continue
decreasing the involvement of USGS on non-federal lands? Please
explain.
Answer. As the science bureau of the Department of the Interior, a
basic priority of USGS science is to provide information and
technologies that are critical to achieving the missions of the
Department's land and resource management bureaus. Nevertheless, the
USGS will, as always, continue to work in close cooperation with more
than two thousand Federal, State, and local government entities,
educational institutions, private sector firms, and non-profit
organizations across the country.
MAPPING PROGRAM
The President's FY 2006 Budget proposes a total of $139.5 million
for USGS mapping, land remote sensing, and geographic research, an
increase of $20.7 million or 17.4% above FY 2005 funding levels.
The budget proposes an increase of $250,000 for a science impact
program designed to improve and expand the use of USGS scientific data,
with a particular emphasis on western water issues.
Question 1. As you know, this Committee is holding a Water
Conference in April. One of the topics we want to discuss is our
knowledge of water resources, in particular, whether or not we have the
level of scientific understanding needed to assess accurately the
sustainability of the surface and groundwater resources upon which we
depend.
Do we have the necessary scientific understanding of our water
resources? How will the expansion of the Department's science program
assist us in our knowledge of water resources?
Answer. At the request of the Directors of OMB and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality, Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council is currently
developing a Federal strategic plan for water science and technology.
The USGS is a co-chair of the Subcommittee. The National Research
Council's reports, ``Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role
of Research,'' and a preceding report, ``Envisioning the Agenda for
Water Resources Research in the Twenty-First Century,'' are important
source materials for this planning effort. Some of the key issues
across the country are impacts of ongoing ground water depletion on
stream flow and on supplies of water for future generations, assessment
of the amount and timing of water needed to sustain aquatic habitats,
development and evaluation of the long term viability of a variety of
supply-enhancing technologies, impacts of ongoing climate variations
and changes on water supplies (especially where snow pack is a crucial
part of the regional water supply), and a need for accurate estimates
of current consumptive use of water and accurate forecasts of future
consumptive use across all sectors of the economy and all regions of
the Nation. The USGS Water Availability and Use Program, which began in
a pilot phase in FY 2005, is designed to help improve the science base
related to these issues. This program will provide citizens,
communities, and natural-resource managers with:
A clearer knowledge of the status of the Nation's water
resources (how much water we have now),
Evaluation of trends over recent decades in water
availability and use (how water availability is changing), and
An improved ability to forecast the availability of water
for future economic and environmental uses (how much water will
we have in the future).
insular affair--the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands (cnmi)
Secretary Norton, does the Department agree that the federal
government owes the CNMI some amount of funds under section
703(b) of the Covenant for amounts collected by the US prior to
2002 and not covered over?
Answer. Section 703(b) of the Covenant requires that ``the proceeds
of all customs duties and Federal income taxes derived from the
Northern Mariana Islands '' and ``the proceeds of any other taxes which
may be levied by the Congress on the inhabitants of the Northern
Mariana Islands'' be paid to the CNMI treasury. Section 7654 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, applicable with respect to the CNMI
pursuant to section 601 of the Covenant, provides detailed rules
regarding the cover over of income taxes. Section 7654 generally
requires both the U.S. Treasury and CNMI treasury to cover over to one
another the taxes they collect with respect to income from the other
jurisdiction.
It appears that some amount of money is owed by the Federal
Government to the CNMI, and potentially some amount could be owed by
the CNMI to the Federal Government. The exact amount, however, is
difficult to determine because records are available only for certain
years for certain categories of taxes to be covered over.
In 1990, the IRS suspended payments to the CNMI due to concerns
about whether taxpayer information provided to the CNMI as a necessary
part of the cover over process was adequately protected from disclosure
as required by Federal law. This problem was resolved in 2003, and the
Department of the Treasury is working with the CNMI to determine what
is owed.
Secretary Norton, the Department was provided a partial
accounting and methodology by the CNMI on amounts owed to them
under section 703(b) last year. That accounting included only
the major categories, but totaled over $100 million. Does the
Department agree that it is possible that the US could owe the
CNMI as much as $100 million, taking into account the
categories included in the accounting as well as other
collections, such as certain excise taxes, that were not
included?
Answer. In 2004, the CNMI submitted the figure of $110,505,859 as
the amount owed by the Federal government to the CNMI under the cover
over provision of section 703(b) of Public Law 94-241 for principal and
interest relating to years 1978 through 2002.
The Department of the Interior has been consulting with the
Department of the Treasury on the amounts that may be owed. Because a
great deal of time has elapsed since the implementation of the U.S.-
CNMI Covenant in 1978, many of the records from the early years are
difficult to locate and hence it is difficult to confirm the CNMI's
figure of $110,505,859. The Department of the Treasury is continuing to
investigate the matter.
Secretary Norton, is it an US obligation to comply with
federal law requiring a cover over. Given the number of years
and the quality of record keeping, is a complete accurate
accounting possible? In addition, in order to provide such an
accounting, would it not be both very expensive and possibly
not completely accurate?
Answer. The Department of the Interior believes that the United
States has a statutory obligation to pay the CNMI the funds required to
be covered over under the Covenant and the Internal Revenue Code.
Given the passage of time and possible loss of data and records
that may have occurred in the intervening years, the Department
believes that it may not be possible to fully reconstruct the record of
duties and taxes that may be due the CNMI. The Department of the
Treasury would be better able to make that assessment.
Secretary Norton, would the Department support a settlement
of all past due sums rather than litigation?
Answer. The CNMI Covenant in section 902 calls for periodic
discussions of issues that may affect the CNMI-Federal relationship.
The Department of the Interior would be amenable to placing this cover
over issue on the agenda for section 902 discussions.
MINERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE QUESTIONS
Secretary Norton, with respect to the $290 million MMS
budget proposal, please comment on specific examples of
enhancements to the services and programs that protect the
environment and offshore workers.
Answer. MMS is an international leader in offshore safety, with a
regulatory program that sets standards for the design of facilities and
the conduct of operations. As a leader in scientific inquiry in the
oceans, MMS is currently conducting far ranging research on a variety
of topics, including the effects of noise on marine mammals, the nature
of deepwater ocean currents in the Gulf of Mexico and ocean currents on
the Arctic shelf, and deepwater corals and chemosynthetic communities.
All of this research is focused to provide information for management
of offshore oil and gas and sand and gravel activities. Enhanced
understanding of ecosystem processes enables development of effective
mitigating measures and enhanced environmental protection. MMS works in
partnership with State and local governments, academia, industry, and
other Federal agencies to carry out this research and conduct its
resource management activities. Some specific examples include:
Since the early 1970s, MMS has supported a comprehensive
program of mapping, monitoring and protection for coral reefs
of the East and West Flower Garden Banks, a National Marine
Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico. MMS has used this information
to develop lease stipulations for gas and oil exploration,
development and production near the Sanctuary that have been
effective in preventing environmental impacts.
The OCS Lands Act amendments mandate that annual inspections
be performed on each permanent structure and drilling rig which
conducts drilling, completion, or workover operations. Safety
is a priority for MMS staff, and onsite facility inspections
and enforcement actions are important components of MMS's
safety program. MMS inspectors visit offshore oil and gas
facilities in order to conduct mandatory inspections and ensure
compliance with MMS regulations. The Gulf of Mexico Region
currently leases single-engine helicopters that have been
adequate to reach the approximately 8,000 leases, 4,000
producing facilities, and 900 drilling sites in the GOMR
annually. However, MMS is reviewing helicopter needs based upon
the significantly greater distances and flight times to reach
newer offshore facilities.
Secretary Norton, please comment on how the TAR program
(Technology Assessment and Research) will continue to
effectively address important issues with a 55% requested
reduction from FY 2005. More specifically, comment on steps
that MMS is taking to manage offshore infrastructure such as
protecting and maintaining wells, platforms and pipelines.
Answer. The TAR Program performs applied research in regulatory
technologies to ensure safe, pollution-free operations and conducts
applied research in the prevention of oil pollution and the improvement
of oil spill response and clean-up. The Department leverages available
funds for TAR through joint projects with other Federal and State
agencies, academia, international regulatory organizations, and
industry. In the FY 2005 enacted budget, $600,000 was earmarked for the
Offshore Technology Research Center and $500,000 was earmarked for the
Minerals Management Service to conduct Hurricane Ivan studies. These
two earmarks were unrequested and are not proposed for funding in the
FY 2006 request. They account for the $1.1 million reduction from FY
2005.
Secretary Norton, as I urged in a letter in December 2004,
while I recognize that many OCS areas are under administrative
withdrawal and/or congressional moratoria, as the Department of
Interior prepares to issue a Request for Comments for the
development of its new 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program
for 2007-2012, please comment on whether the Department will
solicit comments from all interested parties on the
appropriateness of leasing in both moratoria and non-moratoria
areas on the OCS.
Answer. The Department is reviewing this issue and will shortly
publish the initial solicitation for comments regarding the 5-year OCS
Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012.
Questions From Senator Thomas
PARKS AND OPERATIONS
The Administration has proposed an increase of $50.5 million for
park operations in 2006 when compared with the 2005 budget.
Question 1. What do you anticipate using this additional money to
fund?
Answer. The net increase of $50.5 million will allow the NPS to
cover fully the anticipated pay cost increases and other fixed costs
expected in 2006. Most of the uncontrollable cost funding is provided
to park units. In addition, there are a series of increases which
selectively target high-performing areas such as natural resources
management, fee management, and cultural resource preservation. A
number of other increases will focus on management improvements in
areas such as information technology and partnership program oversight,
where small investments in funding can yield impressive productivity
gains and leverage additional financial resources.
Question 2. Will this be used to fund any shortfalls in visitor
services?
Answer. When combined with the healthy increase for park units
enacted in 2005, the inclusion of full pay cost in the 2006 budget
request and the continued implementation of management reforms which
will allow NPS to manage and operate the parks effectively and to
sustain visitor services. The additional funding will assist in
ensuring that the visitor satisfaction rating in the National Park
Service remains above 95 percent, as well.
The Administration has been developing systems and procedures to
asses and track the National Park Service maintenance backlog.
Question 3. What progress has been made in reducing the backlog?
Answer. Significant progress has been made in both addressing known
maintenance projects through the park system as well as in establishing
and implementing the management framework that will guide the Service's
21st century approach to asset management. The President's 2006 budget
fulfills the pledge to devote $4.9 billion towards the NPS maintenance
backlog. With these funds, NPS has undertaken over 4,000 projects since
2002, ranging from road repairs, to historic building stabilizations,
to restroom rehabilitations. In addition, NPS has completed the first
ever systematic inventory of its assets and conducted initial condition
assessments at all parks. Comprehensive condition assessments are
scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2006.
Question 4. How much do you anticipate spending in 2005 and 2006 to
address the backlog?
Answer. The estimated FY 2005 amount is $1.001 billion; the FY 2006
requested amount is $1.145 billion. Both of these amounts are
predicated on enactment of the funding levels assumed in the
President's request for the transportation reauthorization bill.
Question 5. What is your schedule for completing the backlog and
transitioning to a preventative maintenance program?
Answer. The comprehensive condition assessments will be completed
by the end of FY 2006. This will provide a more accurate picture of the
condition of the NPS asset inventory and the funding levels needed to
improve the overall condition of NPS assets to acceptable condition.
Just as with one's home, it is not assumed that a backlog is ever
completely eliminated. Conditions are not static; they change daily. A
simple dollar amount also assumes that every asset is of equal priority
and deserves to be restored to excellent condition. The goal of NPS is
to manage its vast asset inventory systematically so that investment
decisions are prioritized and tiered to the known condition of an asset
and its priority to fulfilling the park mission. The backlog can be
viewed as the funding needed to improve the condition of the asset
inventory from poor to acceptable. NPS will not be in a position to
determine that amount until after the comprehensive condition
assessments are completed at the end of FY 2006. Understanding the
preventative maintenance requirements of our asset inventory is a
crucial component of the comprehensive condition assessments. NPS is
already shifting to requiring the use of asset condition and priority
information in its funding determinations regarding the allocation of
cyclic maintenance dollars.
HERITAGE AREAS
National Heritage Areas were first designated in 1986. Since then,
27 National Heritage Areas have been designated. I noticed in your
budget request for 2006 that $5 million is included for National
Heritage Areas. In 2004, you asked for $2.5 million and Congress
enacted $14.5 million.
Question 1. Why do you ask for only $5 million when you know it
will take more than 3 times that amount to fund the program?
Answer. We recognize that the Congressional heritage area
designation is an effective tool to bring together local communities'
interests for the preservation of local heritage resources. With
designation, local communities are able to coalesce support for
important regional needs that conserve cultural and natural resources,
improve the quality of life, and help to develop sustainable self-
supporting economies.
The 2006 budget reduces pass-through funding for the national
heritage areas reflecting an emphasis on encouraging them to become
self-sufficient. However, the 2006 budget expands opportunities and
resources that the heritage area partners can competitively apply for,
including: $15 million for Save America's Treasures, $38.7 million for
historical preservation grants to States and Tribes, and $12.5 million
through the new Preserve America grants program.
Question 2. How do you intend to manage 27 National Heritage Areas
(and growing) with such little funding?
Answer. The NPS does not manage the national heritage areas but
provides technical assistance. The heritage areas are managed by
private nonprofit groups or States and they secure funding for projects
from a variety of sources including local fund raising, States, other
Federal agencies, and Interior grant programs. Since the inception of
the national heritage areas concept the focus has always been that the
entities would become self-sufficient and no longer need pass-through
funding.
LAND ACQUISITION
The budget proposes funding for land acquisition and State
assistance at $54.5 million in current appropriations. The request
includes $52.5 million in for the NPS portion of the Federal land
acquisition program.
Question 1. Are any of these funds designated for settling the
Teton Land Exchange that was authorized in the 108th Congress?
Answer. None of the funds requested in the 2006 President's Budget
Request are designated for the Teton Land Exchange.
Question 2. Are any designated for other park inholdings? (such as
the Halpin property in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming)
Answer. None of the funds requested as line-item projects in the
2006 President's Budget Request are for work at Grand Teton National
Park. While the ongoing inholding projects are a priority for the
National Park Service, in determining the national priority list they
did not rank high enough for funding. If an emergency situation
develops, funds could be made available from the general line-item
``Inholdings, Donations, and Exchanges'' for projects at Grand Teton
National Park. This general line-item is available for such cases.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Homeland Security requirements have imposed a burden on several of
your bureaus including the National Park Service.
Question 1. How much did the National Park Service spend on
Homeland Security in 2003 and 2004?
Answer. The NPS did not track the total amount spent on homeland
security in 2003 and 2004. However, the total icon park base operations
funding totaled $70.6 million in 2003 and $76.3 million in 2004. The
icon parks include, Boston NHP, Fort Point NHS, Independence NHP,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, Mount Rushmore, Statue of
Liberty NM and Ellis island, and the National Mall (excluding National
Capital Parks-Central).
Question 2. How much of that was in excess to the amount that you
expected to spend?
Answer. In 2003 there were three Orange Alerts by the Department of
Homeland Security, increased costs for security at the icon parks July
4th celebrations, and other law and order transfers primarily related
to the Orange alerts. The NPS spent an additional $8.6 million, mostly
from receipts, for heightened levels of security, infrastructure, and
equipment needs. In 2004 there was one Orange Alert in late December
through early January that cost the icon parks an additional $1.4
million. These amounts do not include the budget of the U.S. Park
Police. Emergency supplemental funding for the Park Police in 2002,
with significant carryover into 2003, allowed it to stay within
budgeted amounts.
Question 3. What changes have you made in National Park Service
operations to improve response and cost efficiency for requirements
associated with homeland security?
Answer. NPS has made permanent enhancements to icon park security.
For example, at the Statue of liberty, NPS made a series of safety and
security improvements, which allowed it to reopen the Statue to
visitors in August 2004. During 2003 and in early 2004 there were
significant daily costs when the Nation was at Orange Alert. During
2004, the NPS made adjustments because of additional funding provided
to those icon parks and NPS became more efficient at making the
transition from Yellow Alert to Orange Alert. Should a nation-wide
Orange Alert be issued today, these adjustments allow NPS to
immediately go from Yellow to Orange with little cost, depending on the
staffing level at the icon park. It is also noted that there have been
no national Orange alerts since early 2004 and that future Orange
alerts are likely to be area specific and not nation-wide.
BLM--OIL AND GAS
The proposed budget for the BLM's oil and natural gas program
contains language calling for oil and gas operators on public lands to
pay for the administrative costs of the federal government's oil and
gas program. This proposed ``cost recovery'' initiative would cost
producers approximately $9 million dollars.
As you know, many of the oil and gas producers that work in Wyoming
are small operators who do not have ``deep pockets'' and work on thin
financial margins. Because of the extensive regulatory requirements
operators currently face on public lands, the costs associated with
producing oil and natural gas on federal lands are already
significantly higher than those for private lands.
What is the rationale for further increasing the costs to operate
on federal lands in the West?
Answer. The BLM currently charges various types of fees for various
programs, including special recreation permits and right-of-way grants.
The Administration has been systematically reviewing the program
efficiency of approximately 20 percent of its programs each year
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Energy and
Minerals programs were reviewed in 2004. One of the major
recommendations from that review was to implement energy and minerals
cost recovery in order to improve program efficiencies. Past Inspector
General (IG) reviews have made similar recommendations.
The BLM believes that cost recovery will allow the BLM offices to
respond to demand more efficiently in an environment where both
appropriations and industry demand are subject to fluctuations. Funds
collected through cost recovery will be spent by the offices processing
the documents and only within the energy and minerals programs in those
offices.
The BLM expects to publish a proposed cost recovery regulation
shortly. We will request comments from the public and then publish a
final regulation by fall 2005. The regulation, to be implemented in FY
2006, will provide funding to allow the BLM to more effectively meet
increased customer demand.
AML
Question 1. Can you tell me if your budget proposal includes giving
the states back what they are owed from the AML fund and providing
future funding for the 50% state share to all states? (Currently,
Wyoming is owed around $450 million and the number continues to climb.)
Answer. Consistent with the Administration's 2004 reauthorization
proposal for the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Fee under Title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the 2006 budget
request supports the Administration's vision for reauthorizing the AML
program. It provides $147.5 million in AML grants to non-certified
States and $58 million in AML grants to certified States and Tribes.
The Administration's approach would direct new AML funding to the
reclamation of unhealthy and unsafe abandoned mines and provide for
repayment to certified States and Tribes of their share of AML fees
collected under SMCRA. That is, of the increased appropriations
requested, which are contingent upon enactment of appropriate AML
reauthorization legislation, non-certified States and Tribes would
receive an increase of $37 million over current normal grant levels and
the certified States and Tribes would receive an increase of $21
million over current normal grant levels. This payment to the certified
States would serve as the first installment on a multi-year payment of
their unappropriated State Share balances.
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT)
Question 1. The budget proposal calls for a 12% ($27 million)
decreasing for PILT funding. Even at last year's funding level, PILT is
well below its authorized amount. As you know, the PILT program
compensates local communities for tax-exempt federal land within their
counties. Counties cannot collect taxes for the federal lands, but must
provide services to those lands, including search and rescue, law
enforcement, garbage collection, and road maintenance. Not fully
funding PILT unfairly places this burden on the backs of local
governments.
Answer. [Answer not received.]
Question 2. Your proposed cut to PILT is described as a deficit
reduction measure, yet the overall budget request for the Department of
the Interior is only 1% lower than last year. How can you say that this
budget request reflects a core departmental mission of ``serving
communities'' when you are asking public lands counties to ``partner''
with you more and more, yet you simultaneously propose cutting off
their means to do so?
Answer. Our support for counties encompasses more than the annual
PILT payments provided to counties. Our budget promotes the importance
of local communities in helping to shape the future of public land
management and supports their role with funding provided many
cooperative conservation programs. Over the past four years Interior
has allocated a total of $1.7 billion to partners for conservation
activities.
Question 3. Funding the PILT program fills a promise made by the
federal government to local governments. Why is the administration
resistant to properly funding PILT?
Answer. The 2006 budget for the Department makes difficult choices
as part of the President's efforts to reduce the budget deficit by half
over five years. The budget includes funding to compensate counties for
lost revenue, providing a total of $200 million for the Payment In Lieu
of Taxes program. Although a reduction from the funding level
appropriated by Congress, the 2006 budget is 76 percent above the
funding level ten years ago. By comparison the Department's
discretionary budget is 52 percent above the 1996 funding level.
Question 4. Last year your budget request at long last equaled the
amount that Congress appropriated the year before. At the same time you
proposed--and Congress agreed--to move PILT from the BLM to the Office
of the Secretary. Why is it that you are reversing the positive trend
towards full funding now that PILT is under your direct supervision?
Answer. The PILT program is now under the direct supervision of the
Office of the Secretary. The 2006 budget is 76 percent above the
funding level ten years ago. By comparison the Department's
discretionary budget is 52 percent above the 1996 funding level.
GRAZING
Question 1. Your legislative proposal would deposit receipts from
grazing fees in the Treasury instead of going directly to fund range
improvements. What is the rationale and need for this change?
Answer. Part of the Administration's strategy for reducing the
Federal deficit is to rein in mandatory spending, such as the Range
Improvement Fund, and where possible and merited, to continue to
perform this work with discretionary funding. The budget recognizes the
importance of continued investments in projects to improve the health
and productivity of rangelands, and proposes to continue this work with
discretionary funding through other BLM programs. This provides greater
flexibility to adjust funding levels to actual needs from year to year,
including adjustments between various types of projects that benefit
range health.
Question 2. Won't this necessarily mean less funding for range
improvements in the future?
Answer. The BLM will continue to fund these range improvement
projects in 2006, but will do so through its Deferred Maintenance
program and Cooperative Conservation Initiative programs in the
Management of Land and Resources account. Specifically, an estimated
$7.0 million in base Deferred Maintenance program funding as well as
$3.0 million of the $6.0 million increase requested for CCI will be
targeted to high priority range improvement projects.
Other aspects of the 2006 BLM budget request also emphasize the
importance of rangeland health and productivity. For the second year in
a row, BLM is proposing a significant increase in funding to support an
aggressive plan of sagebrush conservation and restoration. The 2006
budget includes an increase of $7.0 million, which builds on a $2.7
million increase provided in 2005. Of the requested $7.0 million
increase, $3.4 million will be matched by partner contributions under
the Challenge Cost Share program. Maintaining and improving the health
of the sagebrush habitat to ensure viable sage-grouse populations are
critical to the continued multiple use management of these lands,
including grazing.
Invasive weeds also damage the health and productivity of
rangelands. The 2006 BLM budget includes increases of at least $1.3
million to address weed management on BLM-administered lands. Of this
$1.3 million, $1.0 million is in the Challenge Cost Share program, and
will therefore be leveraged with non-Interior funds to treat additional
acres.
WILD HORSES
Question 1. Last year, the administration requested a more than $10
million increase in funding for the wild horse and burrow program. This
year's request is $2.4 million below last year's spending on the
program. How was the increased funding spent last year, and why is it
not all needed again this year?
Answer. With funds appropriated in 2005 the BLM plans to remove
9,810 animals; provide 8,419,000 days of care and feeding of animals;
adopt 7,100 animals; conduct 4,150 compliance inspections; conduct
census on 62 herd management areas; monitor 121 herd management areas;
complete necessary analysis and established the appropriate management
level on 30 herd management areas; and achieve appropriate management
level on 79% of 201 herd management areas. Appropriate management level
was achieved on 51% of the herd management areas in 2004.
Efficiencies and improvements in the program will allow us to
reduce costs by $2.5 million in 2006. The BLM has taken a number of
steps to improve its ability to place animals in good homes and will
continue to work toward program efficiencies. These include hiring a
national marketing director; working with the National Wild Horse and
Burro Foundation to identify additional markets and to promote new ways
to market the image of wild horses and burros; and increasing the
number of trained animals through contracting.
The BLM has already reduced the unit costs for gathers and
adoptions. The BLM believes it can bring about cost reductions in the
overall program by placing more animals in good homes, reducing the
number of animals in long term holding facilities, and gaining more
program efficiencies.
Each animal in the BLM's long term holding facilities costs
approximately $500 per year. Between 2003 and 2004, BLM reduced its
adoption unit cost from an average of $1,451 per animal to $1,209 per
animal while adopting 336 more animals. BLM believes that some
additional reductions in unit costs may still be realized and adoption
numbers should increase. The BLM expects to reduce the number of
animals in long term holding facilities in FY2005. If BLM can reduce
that number by 5000 head, this, together with anticipated program
efficiencies, should result in a budget need in FY2006 that is
approximately $2.5 million less than the FY2005 figure
Question 2. Describe any changes in management of the wild horse
and burrow program from last year?
Answer. The BLM is working hard to reach appropriate management
levels of horses on the range by the end of fiscal year 2007. We have
been taking a number of steps to improve our ability to place animals
in good homes and will continue to work toward program efficiencies,
including hiring a national marketing director to coordinate national
activities for the adoption program; working with the National Wild
Horse and Burro Foundation to identify additional markets and to
promote new ways to market the image of wild horses and burros; and
working through partnerships to train certain wild horses to enhance
adoption demand. In addition, we are increasing the use of volunteers
and increasing partnerships with external groups to gain knowledge and
expertise within domestic equine industry to aid in adoption promotion.
Finally, the BLM is complying with the Congressional mandate in the
new Wild Horse and Burro Sale Authority Law (Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations Act--P.L. 108-447). This law directs the BLM to sell
without limitation animals that are more than 10 years old or have been
unsuccessfully put up for adoption at least three times. The BLM is
engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to advocacy groups, Indian
tribes, and humane organizations that may be interested in acquiring
these wild horses and burros and providing for their long-term care.
Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1. I would like to be supportive of the Administration's
request in the Fish and
Wildlife Service Budget for the acquisition of the Barnes Property.
However, in order for me to be supportive of this $6 million request, I
need to know how any water created by the inundation of the Barnes
Property and the adjacent Agency Ranch property will be managed within
the federal project (i.e. will this water be available for irrigation,
will it be water bank water, etc.?). Please let me know how this water
will be used by the federal project and how it will be credited against
the Endangered Species Act obligations of the federal project.
Answer. The Barnes tract would be passively managed in conjunction
with Agency Lake Ranch to accomplish three goals. These include:
1. Helping protect and recover the endangered suckers at Upper
Klamath Lake by providing additional habitat for the suckers,
especially juvenile-rearing habitat. A major problem in recovering the
fish is that there is little recruitment from the juvenile stage to the
adult population. Providing additional juvenile-rearing habitat in most
years is a key step in recovering the suckers.
2. Storing additional water in Upper Klamath Lake to provide water
that can be counted as part of the water bank. Storing water on Agency
Lake Ranch alone adds approximately 12,000-15,000 acre feet of water in
most years to Upper Klamath Lake (when Upper Klamath Lake fills). This
water is counted as part of the water bank and is managed to meet coho
salmon flows under the NOAA biological opinion. Any additional storage
at currently managed sites would flood the adjacent Barnes Ranch, a
private holding. With Barnes acquired by the FWS as part of Upper
Klamath Lake National Wildlife Refuge and managed conjunctively with
Agency Lake Ranch, between 34,000 and 42,000 acre feet of additional
water would be stored in Upper Klamath Lake. This water would be
counted as part of the water bank. By increasing this component of the
water bank, Reclamation will be able to reduce the amount of land idled
and/or ground water pumped to provide the water needed for the water
bank. Additionally, the consumptive use portion of water rights that go
with the Barnes property (roughly estimated at 2,700 acre feet) can be
counted as part of the water bank, further offsetting the need for land
idling and groundwater pumping to meet the water bank requirement.
3. Contributing, over the long term, to improving water quality in
Upper Klamath Lake and downstream in the Klamath River. Typical
operations for Barnes Ranch involve using the Barnes' water rights to
irrigate their land for forage, and then pump the tail water into
drainage canals connecting with the lake. This water has a high
phosphorous and nitrogen content and adds to the nutrient loading of
Upper Klamath Lake. This contributes to the severe algae problem in the
lake, a serious water-quality problem for fish in Upper Klamath Lake
and also a significant source of water-quality problems downstream. The
additional wetlands habitat will also add substantially to the prime
waterfowl and wetland habitat contained in Upper Klamath National
Wildlife Refuge.
Question 2. How much money will be needed to stabilize the levies
at the back of the Barnes Ranch property?
Answer. A preliminary estimate from the Bureau of Reclamation is
approximately $2 million, a portion of which can be met through account
work by Reclamation to increase the storage on Agency Lake Ranch.
Question 3. If Barnes Ranch is acquired by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, it will be adjacent to the Agency Ranch property
owned by Reclamation and near another federal parcel managed by the
Bureau of Land Management. How does the Department of the Interior
intend to coordinate the management of these three parcels? Is the
Department considering consolidating these three parcels under the
management of one Interior agency?
Answer. Answer. Our intention is to develop an efficient,
effective, and coordinated approach to managing these parcels. The area
actually includes four parcels, counting Upper Klamath Lake National
Wildlife Refuge. Agencies have had preliminary discussions about
combining the other three parcels with Upper Klamath Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, since one option would be to manage them efficiently
and at modest cost by FWS.
Question 4. Next year, the power rates in the Klamath Basin could
go up twenty-fold from the current rate. What is the Department doing
now to prepare for these increased power rates? Is the Department
studying ways to reduce power use by the Fish and Wildlife Service, by
Reclamation and by the BLM in the Upper Basin? How much of
Reclamation's annual reimbursable operations and maintenance costs are
attributable to power? What does the Department anticipate that cost to
be once power rates increase?
Answer. The Department is negotiating with PacifiCorp and the power
users. Key issues include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re-
licensing of the PacifiCorp's power project, provisions of the
Interstate Compact, falling water charges, and rate equity for all
users. It appears that the FERC re-licensing process will not be
completed by 2006 and an extension will be requested. The Department
believes the provisions of the 1956 contract between CopCo (now
PacifiCorp) and Reclamation should similarly be extended. Energy
efficiency has been an ongoing concern of the Department, and the
operation of Bureau facilities is continually being reviewed to ensure
cost savings where ever possible.
The specific amount of Reclamation's annual reimbursable operations
and maintenance costs attributable to power is difficult to determine
because the data currently on hand do not separate maintenance costs
from power costs. Reclamation estimates that operation and maintenance
costs for electrical power to operate numerous pumps within the Klamath
Project currently range between $100,000 and $175,000 each year. These
costs represent between 25% and 50% of all O&M reimbursable costs. If
power costs to the Project were to increase 10 times, as some have
predicted, reimbursable costs to the irrigation Districts would range
between $1,000,000 and $1,750,000 each year and become the single
largest reimbursable O&M expense. I would be pleased to keep you
informed as we proceed through this process.
The BLM's Klamath Falls Resource Area uses minimal electricity in
the Upper Klamath Basin, to operate the fish screens at the Wood River
Wetlands; in 2004, this cost was $10.45. The BLM does not use
electricity to bring water onto the property, as it is all done through
a gravity system. Due to minimal consumption, the Resource Area has not
done an energy analysis and currently has no plans to do so.
Question 5. When does the Department intend to implement an
inholder access policy for the Steens Mountain that conforms with
clearly stated congressional intent?
Answer. The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-399) (the Steens Act) established both a 500,000-
acre Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) and, wholly
contained within the boundaries of the CMPA, an approximately 170,000-
acre Wilderness Area.
The Steens Act required the BLM to provide ``reasonable access to
private lands within the boundary of the Wilderness Area.'' The BLM has
been working through the Steens Mountain Advisory Committee (SMAC) to
address the issue of inholder motorized access in the Wilderness Area.
Based on recommendations of the SMAC, the BLM prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) and in June 2004 issued a decision to
permit motorized access from May through November to the Ankle Creek
Route. The decision was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA), which issued a stay preventing the BLM from implementing its
decision. The BLM interprets the stay as return to management practices
and policy that precede the EA. Allowable uses prior to the EA included
motorized access to the inholdings along the Ankle Creek Route at
historically established levels.
The BLM is currently considering additional access requests to the
inholdings in a second EA which is under development. This EA is
anticipated to be available for public comment in the near future.
The BLM will continue to work with the SMAC and the inholders to
implement reasonable access to their inholdings.
Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. After trying to move forward with a new plan for AML
last year, Congress was only able to pass a temporary reauthorization
of the AML program. That temporary fix was made with the hopes of this
year achieving an overhaul of the AML program. While I am still hopeful
that we can address this important issue, what will the Department of
the Interior do if Congress does not act again this year? Will the
Department begin to explore its own changes to the AML program?
Answer. Early in 2004, the Administration set the stage for the AML
debate by advancing a proposal, paid for exclusively from AML fee
collections, that achieved three simple objectives; 1) extending the
AML fee collection authority to allow us to collect sufficient funds to
finish the job of reclaiming the high priority health and safety
abandoned coal sites remaining in this country; 2) directing more
resources from annual appropriations to States that have the greatest
need, i.e., high priority coal related problems; and, 3) expediting
payments to certified States and Tribes from current unappropriated
balances. The Administration's proposal, along with the myriad of other
AML proposals advanced, did not achieve consensus on many issues.
Recognizing the importance of this program, Congress extended the
authority to collect the abandoned mine land fee until June 30, 2005.
The Administration is continuing to work with Congress to achieve
the three objectives advanced in the legislative proposal. While we
remain hopeful that Congress will address this important issue, even if
AML fee collection authority is not extended further, other provisions
of SMCRA, both in Title IV (Abandoned Mine Reclamation) and in Title V
(Regulatory control of active mining) remain in full effect.
Furthermore, even without an extension of fee collection authority,
current unappropriated balances in the AML fund are available for
appropriation pursuant to the allocation formula prescribed by law. As
the AML program is a statutorily driven program, only Congress can make
necessary changes to it.
Question 2. Last year, Congress extended the authority of the
Recreation Fee Program for another 10 years. During the pilot program,
we saw several problems with these new fees such as jurisdictional
issues and public confusion. You said in your statement that you will
make the transition carefully and no new fees will be created during
fiscal year 2006. When and how do you envision expanding this program?
Answer. The new Act provides for a nationally consistent
interagency program with clear criteria regarding sites eligible for
using recreation fees, additional on-the-ground improvements to visitor
services at recreation sites across the nation, a new national pass for
use across interagency federal recreation sites and services, and more
public involvement in the program. The Act specifically addresses
public concerns about the Fee Demo Program by limiting fees to sites
that have a certain level of development and meet specific criteria.
The Act includes additional safeguards against unwarranted expansion of
the program on Forest Service and BLM public lands by creating
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees and providing other public
participation opportunities.
We have indicated that no significant changes are anticipated
during the transition period, such as creating new fee areas. In fact,
the agencies are currently reviewing all existing fees and where the
existing fee program is inconsistent with the Act, we are making
appropriate changes. This review, as we mentioned in our testimony, has
resulted in some fees dropping out of the program or being limited in
scale or scope.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Question 1. Your testimony highlighted the Federal Land Enhancement
Recreation Act. I understand that the Administration strongly supported
this authority, which was included in last year's Omnibus
Appropriations Act. One of the concerns I have with the new authority
is that appears to me that visitors to the National Park System will
likely have to pay significantly more for an annual pass under the new
fee program than they do using an existing National Park Pass. I am
assuming you will not set the price of the new ``America the
Beautiful'' pass below the $65 currently charged for a Golden Eagle
Passport, since the two passes provide the same benefits. Is that
assumption correct? If so, how will you justify to the 400,000 people
who purchased a National Park Pass last year that they must now pay 30
percent more, and perhaps more than that, for the privilege of visiting
their National Parks?
By almost everyone's account, the National Park Pass has been one
of the Park Service's success stories in recent years, with sales about
double of what they were when the Pass was created. Visitors who wanted
the option to access other Federal lands had the option of upgrading to
a Golden Eagle Passport and those who were content with visiting only
units of the National Park System could stay with the National Park
Pass. Why is it such a good idea to take away a visitor's choice in
this matter and force them to pay a higher fee?
Answer. The America the Beautiful Pass expands the National Parks
Pass to cover other agencies, while retaining the successful elements
of the National Parks Pass program, such as the image competition and
active marketing. With recreation demand growing at federal lands
managed by agencies other than the National Park Service, one of the
important benefits of the America the Beautiful Pass is to improve
visitor service by streamlining recreational opportunities on our
federal lands. Our experience has shown that the existence of multiple
national passes has led to visitor confusion and frustration. We have
found many visitors do not distinguish between lands managed by
different federal agencies and sometimes expect that the National Parks
Pass will be accepted at National Forests, BLM Recreation Areas, and
National Wildlife Refuges. Creation of the America the Beautiful pass
will address this confusion.
We have not yet decided on the price of the America the Beautiful
pass. The National Pass Working Group plans to conduct a market
analysis on the price of the America the Beautiful Pass, as needed. The
National Pass Working Group also will take into consideration past
studies and surveys, data related to pricing of other national passes,
and the relationship of the pass to other recreation fees and site-
specific passes. Other surveys, studies, and market analyses may be
conducted as necessary.
A key goal is to ensure that the America the Beautiful pass remains
a good value for frequent visitors to our federal lands. We recognize
that setting the price of the pass is not just an exercise to raise the
maximum amount of revenue possible. Price setting needs to take into
account the use patterns, other existing fees, and the extent to which
the pass could be used as a tool to educate and broaden the American
public's knowledge and experience about our federal recreational lands.
Question 2. Your written testimony discusses the National Park
maintenance backlog, and then notes that the FY 2006 budget request
``will bring funding for park maintenance over five years to $4.9
billion, as pledged by then-Governor Bush in 2000.'' As I remember, the
President's original proposal was to eliminate the backlog, not just
provide a certain amount of funding, as stated in the Interior Budget
in Brief for FY 2002: ``It is estimated that the current deferred
maintenance backlog is roughly $4.9 billion . . . . In order to meet
President Bush's commitment to eliminate the NPS backlog over five
years the NPS budget request includes . . .'' I recognize that the
Administration is no longer claiming that the backlog has been, or will
in the near future be eliminated, but to date I have not seen any
estimate as to the progress that has been made toward this goal. What
is your estimate of the current status of the backlog?
Answer. NPS has made significant progress in addressing known
maintenance projects through the park system as well as in establishing
and implementing the management framework that will guide the Service's
21st century approach to asset management. The President's 2006 budget
fulfills the pledge to devote $4.9 billion towards the NPS maintenance
backlog. With these funds, NPS has undertaken over 4,000 projects since
2002, ranging from road repairs, to historic building stabilizations,
to restroom rehabilitations. In addition, NPS has completed the first
ever systematic inventory of its assets and conducted initial condition
assessments at all parks. Comprehensive condition assessments are
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2006.
Based on the inventory, NPS was able to establish a baseline
Facility Condition Index to use for measuring performance
accomplishments in improving the condition of our assets. Last year,
the overall FCI for the eight industry standard assets of NPS was 0.25.
As of the end of 2004, the FCI was 0.24. This number will continue to
fluctuate as more comprehensive information is gathered from all of the
parks, as well as the improvements resulting from the significant
project investments of the last several years are realized. This
performance metric will allow NPS, the Department, OMB, and the
Congress to evaluate the change in condition of NPS assets over time.
The power of the FCI tool is at the individual asset level. Managers
will be able to evaluate the condition of their assets, and prioritize
the expenditure of funds towards those assets that are most important
to fulfilling the park's mission as well as in the poorest condition.
Question 4. Your FY 2006 budget proposes $324.3 million in the NPS
Construction and Major Maintenance Account, which is about 2.8 percent
higher than the $315.3 million appropriated for the same account in FY
2001. Of the $4.9 billion in funding over the past 5 years (including
this year's proposed budget) how much accounts for new spending above
and beyond baseline funding levels?
Answer. The $4.9 billion maintenance backlog commitment consists of
four distinct funding sources. As you have stated, the Construction
funding level has increased by $14.3 million since 2001. Facility
Maintenance has increased by $113.7 million. Fee funding directed to
deferred maintenance activities has increased by $47 million and
Federal Highway funding has increased by $155 million, assuming
enactment of the new Highway bill. While the increase to the ``base''
of these components totals only $330 million over 2001, it is more
legitimate to speak of the entirety of funding for each project program
over the five-year period. The majority of the funding from these
components is comprised of project funds and is redistributed annually
to complete new projects. Therefore, nearly $4.9 billion can be counted
against the reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog.
WATER/BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Question 5. Many parts of the West are experiencing a record
drought. What is the Department doing to anticipate and address the
effects of the drought? Are there any specific programs that are
available to mitigate the impacts of drought on Indian reservations?
Answer. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991
(P.L. 102-250) as amended (Drought Act) authorizes the Bureau of
Reclamation to undertake drought relief measures through emergency
assistance (Title I) and planning activities (Title II). Title I is
temporary authority.
Title I provides authority for construction, management, and
conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought,
including the mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. Only temporary
construction activities are authorized, except for the construction of
permanent wells. Title I also authorizes temporary contracts to make
available project and nonproject water and to allow for the use of
Reclamation facilities for the storage and conveyance of water. The 17
Reclamation States and Hawaii, as well as tribes within those states,
are eligible for this assistance.
For example, in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, Reclamation funded
Title I emergency assistance projects for the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo
Nation, and the Hualapai Nation consisting primarily of well drilling
and one mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts projects, and Title II
planning assistance to the Hualapai Nation and the White Mountain
Apache Tribe.
Question 6. I see that the budget request includes a small increase
for site security. Do you have the funding you need to provide for site
security at the dams, monuments and other critical infrastructure
administered by the Department?
Answer. Yes, the increase allows Reclamation to maintain the
necessary guards and surveillance activities and to focus on completing
the physical improvements on National Critical Infrastructure
facilities, completing security risk assessments at all its key
facilities, and conducting research on identifying potential
vulnerabilities and measures to deal with them.
Please provide a description of accomplishments relating to
site security during each of the three past fiscal years.
Answer. In the past three fiscal years, Reclamation has initiated
an integrated long-term security response plan under which
vulnerability risk assessments have been completed for the most
critical water and power facilities, emergency security upgrades have
been implemented at numerous facilities, and physical fortification
measures have been installed at Grand Coulee Dam and Powerplant and are
being implemented at the other four National Critical Infrastructure
facilities. Necessary guards and surveillance activities have been
maintained at all key facilities, and research has been conducted in
cooperation with other Federal agencies to identify potential threats
and vulnerabilities and develop response measures.
Question 7. The budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation cuts
the request for Title XVI programs by more than half, by some $15.7
million. Why is this program not a budget priority? Doesn't this
program provide important water resources for the water-short West?
Answer. The Administration's FY 2006 request for Title XVI programs
is only $1.3 million below the FY 2005 request. The Title XVI water
reclamation and reuse program has proven to be a successful and popular
program, especially in the urban areas of the West. The Department
believes that the program has met its primary mission of demonstrating
that recycling and reuse can expand and augment existing water
supplies. Reclamation intends to continue to support the completion of
those ongoing projects included in the President's budget request in
prior years.
Question 8. The budget proposes direct funding of certain
hydropower operation and maintenance activities. Can you please provide
for the record detail regarding which activities are proposed to
receive direct funding?
Answer. The $30 million proposed would authorize the direct funding
for the base operation and maintenance of Reclamation hydropower
facilities not currently covered by direct funding agreements or
revolving funds. Base operation and maintenance includes activities
such as repairs, replacements, testing, and exercising of any or all
portions of the power equipment.
The projects included in this proposed authorization are: Pick
Sloan Project and Fryingpan-Arkansas Project in the Great Plains
Region; Central Valley Project in Mid-Pacific Region; and Collbran
Project, Rio Grande Project, and Provo River Project in Upper Colorado
Region.
Question 9. The Budget in Brief states that the 2006 budget
includes ``spending reductions in activities that, while important, are
less central to the Department's core mission, have ambiguous goals,
duplicate activities of other agencies or require less effort because
key goals have been achieved.'' In the area of water, the President is
proposing a 6.7% cut ($68 million) in Reclamation's overall budget,
including a 6% reduction ($51 million) in the Water & Related Resources
account. The USGS budget for Water Resources Investigations is cut
another 3.3% ($7 million). In areas outside Interior, the Corps of
Engineers budget is cut by 6% ($280 million); the Clean Water Act State
Revolving Fund is cut by 33% ($361 million); and the USDA Rural Water &
Wastewater grant program is cut by 17% ($77 million). All these
percentages do not take into account inflation.
Of the reasons quoted in the Budget in Brief, which applies to the
budget cuts in DOI's water programs? Given the water challenges facing
communities in the West, it can't be that less effort is needed. Do you
believe that addressing the nation's future water needs is no longer
central to the Department's core mission?
Answer. The Department certainly believes that finding solutions to
the Nation's water needs is an important function and a central part of
our goals. While it is true that the budget is $68 million below the
2005 Enacted level, the reductions are offset by receipts in the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund and by a proposal to offset
$30.0 million through direct funding of certain hydropower operations
and maintenance activities. Additionally, an undistributed
underfinancing reduction of $30.2 million is included in the Water and
Related Resources account is due to anticipated delays in construction
schedules and other planned activities and $20.7 million of the
reduction was due to a technical adjustment in the permanent
appropriations, closing out the loan program subsidy estimate. 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. In this vein, the budget also includes important increases
to help address the Nation's water needs, such as a $6.4 million
increase to increase the safety at our dams, $10.5 million to increase
the grants made to States, tribes and local governments for Water 2025
projects, and $35 million for the California Bay-Delta Restoration
program (which includes some activities that have previously been
funded under the Water & Related Resources account).
Question 10. In 2003, the Department developed a 10-year biological
opinion for water operations in the Middle Rio Grande. Compliance with
that opinion requires compliance with a reasonable and prudent
alternative (RPA). The Department estimates that implementation of the
RPA will cost $230 million--an average of $23 million per year. Yet,
over the last three years, the Department has proposed investing a
total of only $19.4 million to address ESA activities in the Middle Rio
Grande. This year, Reclamation's budget proposes a 35% cut in funding
for the Middle Rio Grande project--including at least a $4 million cut
in the funding available for ESA compliance.
How does the Department justify this minimal level of funding when,
by its own estimates, it knows such funding will be insufficient to
comply with the biological opinion? Water 2025 designates the Middle
Rio Grande as a ``hot spot.'' Shouldn't it receive more of a priority
given this designation? Why does the Department actively work to put
together a cross-cut budget ($62.9 million) to address similar issues
in the Klamath basin but decide to cut the budget for the Middle Rio
Grande?
Answer. We feel that the fiscal 2006 budget request is adequate to
meet the 2006 requirements of the biological opinion for water
operations in the Middle Rio Grande. The total estimated cost of $230
million is not expected to be spent in equal amounts during each of ten
years. In future years we anticipate some larger capital expenditures
such as relocating a bridge. If for any reason we find that the budget
request for 2006 is not adequate to meet the 2006 requirements we will
seek a re-programming of funds to compensate for the difference.
Question 11. The Bureau of Reclamation has over $1.8 billion in
authorized rural water projects. Rather than focusing on the completion
of those projects, the budget cuts overall rural water funding by $29.5
million, asserting that such reduction is appropriate until the
establishment of a formal rural water program.
How does this delay affect the status of those projects which are
already receiving FY 2005 funding, in particular Perkins County, Ft.
Peck/Dry Prairie, and North-Central Montana? Why should these
authorized projects be delayed until a new program to address new
projects is authorized?
Answer. Reclamation has growing funding needs associated with
operating and maintaining those ``traditional'' facilities that are
critical to accomplishing our core mission of delivering water and
generating power throughout the western United States. Funding emphasis
has been placed on those ongoing projects which are nearest completion
or for which sunset dates have been legislated (e.g., Mni Wiconi).
During the FY 2004 budget formulation process, OMB conducted a PART
analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses of Reclamation's rural
water activities in order to make informed budget, management, and
policy recommendations. It was determined through the PART analysis
that Reclamation's rural water program needed stronger controls and
that a lack of agency involvement during project development may be
resulting in funding for projects that are not in the best interest of
the United States. To address their findings, OMB suggested that
legislation be introduced to formalize a Reclamation rural water
program with adequate controls.
The Administration submitted legislation to the 108th Congress that
would have established a formal rural water program within Reclamation,
thereby addressing many of the problems identified in the PART.
Additionally, individual projects must compete for limited resources on
their merits.
Question 12. When will the Department submit legislation to
reallocate repayment of capital costs of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
program? Has a NEPA analysis been completed on the legislation to be
proposed? What is the exact basis for reallocating construction costs?
Answer. Reclamation has been analyzing options for the legislation.
No NEPA analysis has been completed.
The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program is a comprehensive program to
manage the water and power resources of the Missouri River Basin. While
much of the originally planned project development has occurred,
including reservoir storage and power generation facilities, only about
11% of the irrigation anticipated in the Pick-Sloan plan has been
Federally-developed. Originally, about $500 million of the program's
hydropower and water storage capital costs were allocated to
irrigators, and because the irrigation was never developed, the capital
and O&M costs on this portion of the project are not being repaid to
the Federal government. Under current economic and financial
conditions, further irrigation development is not expected. The
proposed reallocation would therefore make power customers responsible
for repayment of all the construction costs from which they benefit.
This would change current law, under which Reclamation is bound by the
cost allocation developed under the assumption that irrigation projects
would be developed and costs associated with irrigation-related pumping
power and reservoir storage continue to be allocated to future
irrigation development.
Question 13. The Bureau of Reclamation's budget calls for an
overall investment of $4.0 million in desalination and water
purification research ($2 million-Water 2025; $1 million-Science &
Technology; and $1 million-Title XVI). This would represent a 57% cut
in the resources made available in the FY 2005.
Does the Administration have a long-term commitment to developing
new technologies in the area of desalination and water purification? If
so, will the Bureau of Reclamation be expected to have a lead role in
that effort? How can it perform that role at such low levels of
funding? Does the budget include any funding for the Tularosa Basin
desalination facility? Does the Administration view this research
facility as an integral part of its efforts to develop new technologies
to address increasing demands for water in the West?
Answer. Under the leadership of the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Reclamation and the Department are currently
working with an array of Federal agencies to develop an integrated
interagency strategy for advancing the technology of water
purification, including desalination. Pending the outcome of that work,
the ultimate role for Reclamation among several Federal agencies
(including the role of the Tularosa facility) and the resulting
appropriate level of Reclamation funding for such a long-term mission
(including funding for the Tularosa facility) are not yet resolved.
Pending that resolution, no funds were included in the President's
budget request for the Tularosa facility for FY 2006. However, should a
leading role for Tularosa (and funding to carry it out) be featured in
the integrated interagency strategy under current development, it will
likely be in treatment of brackish ground water as a complement to
projects elsewhere that focus on treating sea water.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Question 14. I would like to follow up on our discussion at the
hearing on the Inspector General's report on the Robbins settlement
agreement. I respect your concern about the sensitivity of personnel
matters and I look forward to a private briefing on this matter, as you
offered. I have a general question, however, about the impact of this
matter on the morale of career employees at the Department of the
Interior. According to the Inspector General's report, ``the conduct
chronicled in this report cries out for administrative action. It is
also the very kind of conduct that DOI employees perceive is either
taken lightly or goes wholly unaddressed . . .'' A staff attorney in
the Office of the Solicitor was criticized in the report for
capitulating to the ``pressure and intimidation'' of a political
employee and because he ``passively conceded to the ill-advised will of
his superiors.''
First of all, without going into specific personnel matters,
what actions have you taken specifically in response to the
Inspector General's report?
Answer. I take the report very seriously. The Inspector General
issued his report to the Solicitor and the Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, and I have discussed the issues raised in the
report with them. The Solicitor is developing measures to assure
employees that they may raise concerns about alleged improper pressure
or intimidation by superiors without fear of reprisal. I am assured
that the Solicitor has thoroughly considered and is pursuing
appropriate responses to address the facts and issues raised, at both
the individual employee and organizational levels.
I am further assured that the Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management has consulted with and thoroughly considered the
report of the Inspector General. She has discussed the conclusions and
recommendations of the report, their implications for the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) as an organization, and appropriate actions with
the Director of the BLM.
What is the message that career employees should take from
this incident? How are they supposed to react when being
``pressured and intimidated'' by politically-appointed
superiors, without fearing reprisals?
Answer. I believe the Department's attention to this matter will
help assure employees that if they believe they are being or have been
improperly pressured or intimidated by any superior, political or
otherwise, they should feel free to discuss their concerns with their
appropriate managers or other Departmental officials, including the
Office of the Inspector General, without any fear or reprisal.
Question 15. What rulemakings is the Department anticipating during
the remainder of FY05 and FY06? Please list these rulemakings
(including draft and final rules) by subject matter and Bureau with
expected date of publication?
Answer. Enclosed for your review (as Attachment A) is the
Department's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda published in the Federal
Register on December 13, 2004, which provides notice of the rules
scheduled for review or development between the fall of 2004 and the
spring of 2005.
Will you commit to consulting with us prior to the issuance
of draft and final rules?
Answer. In 1995 and 1996, Congress enacted several statutes that
changed the way agencies plan, develop and issue rules. In enacting the
Congressional Review Act of 1996, Congress established procedures by
which agencies must consult with Congress in the course of promulgating
rules. Recognizing the broad scope of the definition of ``rules'' under
the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress limited the consultation
requirement to rules meeting the definition of ``major'' rules. The
Department will continue to comply with applicable requirements, along
with ex parte limitations that adhere during the rule-making process.
As noted above, the regulatory agenda is published in the Federal
Register and provides Congress with a semi-annual update concerning the
Department's regulatory priorities. The Department will promptly
respond to any Committee requests for information and will be available
to discuss particular regulatory initiatives.
Question 16. What Solicitor's Opinions are currently under review?
What Solicitor's Opinions do you expect to review during the remainder
of FY05 and FY06? Please provide a list.
Answer. The Solicitor's Office is currently reviewing an opinion
written by former Solicitor John Leshy entitled, Use of Mining Claims
for Purposes Ancillary to Mineral Extraction, M-37004 (January 18,
2001).
We will review other opinions as requested by the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary and Assistant Secretaries.
Question 17. The budget request includes an increase for the
Solicitor's Office.
What is the justification for this increase?
Answer. The request includes $1,930,000 for fixed cost increases
and $2,166,000 for program changes. The program changes include: (a) IT
increases in support of the Departmental IT initiatives, two additional
IT staff, on-going capital improvement costs, and a Legal Knowledge
Management System; (b) four additional attorney positions to support
the Department's strategic plan of more focused partnership initiatives
and expanded grants programs, to address the need for electronic
discovery, and to support the growing need for legal support by the
Department's bureaus; (c) through a Secretarial Order, the FOIA appeals
function, which included one FTE, was transferred to the Office of the
Solicitor to more effectively and efficiently manage the Department's
FOIA appeals. This transfer is presented in the 2006 Congressional
Budget Justification as a technical change; (d) two new support
positions to fully staff the FOIA appeals function. The additional
staff will help to reduce the current backlog and support the on-going
work in the FOIA appeals branch; (e) additional funding requested to
support employees in training, travel, promotions, and awards.
How many additional FTEs will be funded with this increase?
Answer. Nine additional FTEs will be funded with the increase.
In what offices or divisions will these FTEs be placed?
Answer. Two Attorneys will be placed in the Division of General
Law; one attorney in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver
Colorado; one attorney in the Northeast Region, Twin Cities Field
Office, Minnesota; two IT Specialists in the Division of
Administration; one FOIA appeals officer in the Division of
Administration; and two FOIA appeals support staff in the Division of
Administration.
Question 18. Page DH-83 of the Interior Budget in Brief lists
activities and programs that were subject to the Program Assessment
Rating Tool analysis. Several of these programs were rated ``results
not demonstrated'' or ``moderately effective.'' Please explain the
results for each activity and program. What are the criteria and other
information upon which these ratings are based? Are stakeholders
consulted as part of the ratings process?
Answer. The final summary discussion of the PART findings and
results for each activity and program reviewed for the FY 2006
President's Budget is provided as Attachment B.
Each PART includes 25 basic questions and some additional questions
tailored to the program type, divided into four sections. The first
section of questions gauges whether a program's design and purpose are
clear and defensible. The second section involves strategic planning,
and weighs whether the agency establishes valid annual and long-term
goals for its programs. The third section rates the management of an
agency's program, including financial oversight and program improvement
efforts. The fourth section of the questions focus on results that
programs can report with accuracy and consistency.
The answers to questions in each of the four sections result in a
numerical score for each section from 0 to 100 (100 being the best
score.) Numerical scores are translated into qualitative ratings. The
bands and associated ratings follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective...................................................... 85-100
Moderately Effective........................................... 70-84
Adequate....................................................... 50-69
Ineffective.................................................... 0-49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of overall score, programs that do not have acceptable
performance measures or have not yet collected performance data and
overall cannot demonstrate results generally receive a rating of
Results Not Demonstrated.
Although the PART assessment process is internal to the Federal
Government, and is accomplished through the efforts of managers and
staff who work on the programs together with OMB, the criteria and
scoring include consideration of stakeholder's point of view.
Question 19. How does the Department make use of information from
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?
Answer. The Department has built a cooperative, collaborative
effort with the network of State natural heritage programs through
partnerships with NatureServe and the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). NatureServe is a non-profit organization
that focuses on providing scientific information from the State natural
heritage programs on the status and distribution of rare and endangered
species and ecosystems of conservation concern. The IAFWA represents
the government agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources in
North America. By collaborating among and between these and other
partners, the Department strengthens the collective information base on
flora and fauna in the United States. For example, NatureServe and the
USGS's National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) are
working together to make information about at-risk species and
ecosystems more broadly available. NatureServe is also a primary
partner in the joint USGS and National Park Service effort to classify,
describe and map ecological communities in more than 250 National Park
units across the United States. The species at-risk information
provided by the State natural heritage programs provides the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with historic and current range information about
species under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species
Act. Current NBII activities also include working with IAFWA to help
design a data and information management template that States may opt
to follow to help streamline that portion of the wildlife conservation
management plans they currently are writing. These plans must be
completed by October 2005. The Department strongly supports partnership
efforts and will continue to pursue opportunities to make natural
resource data and information more accessible and more usable for
everyone.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS)
Question 20. The FY 2006 Budget request contains a proposal to
collect $19 million in new user fees. Please provide details regarding
this proposal.
Answer. For 2006, the Minerals Management Service anticipates
additional revenue from a combination of new fees, existing fees, and
increased rental rates. This revenue will be used to offset MMS's
operating costs and supports the Administration's policy to charge for
government services where the direct beneficiary can be identified.
New fees will be proposed for services that MMS currently provides
at no charge. Fees may include costs associated with the submittal of
permitting and plan requests, such as well permits, facility permits,
structure permits, geological and geophysical permits, sand and gravel
permits, deepwater operation plans, exploration plans, etc. MMS
believes that in FY 2006 it can recover approximately $13.5 million in
revenue by charging for these services. This amount would compensate
MMS for costs associated with providing these services, including
overhead charges. Implementation of these fees will require rulemaking
action. Additionally, upward adjustments in rental rates, unchanged for
Gulf of Mexico sales since 1996, would generate an additional $4.5
million, and increased revenue from cost recovery fees proposed in 2005
would generate an increase of an additional $1 million, for a total
increase of $19 million.
These fees represent a fraction of the total private investment in
offshore energy development. The additional revenue will allow for a
corresponding $19 million reduction in appropriated funds in FY 2006.
Question 21. The Budget highlights book indicates that increased
funding will be used to provide inspections in frontier areas of the
OCS. What areas specifically will be subject to increased inspections?
Answer. Periodic inspections of all drilling, exploration, and
production activities are mandated by the OCSLA. Additional funds are
needed to ensure that MMS can safely meet its regulatory inspection
requirements in FY 2006. The requested funds will not be used to
increase the number of inspections currently being conducted, but are
needed to cover the increased cost of fuel and increased flight time
required to reach drilling and production activities in the ultra-deep
water frontier. Typically, ultra-deep water areas are 100 to 200 miles
offshore. In the last three years, companies have made seven new major
discoveries in ultra-deepwater areas. The new discoveries will result
in the drilling of appraisal, delineation, and development wells in
proximity to each discovery, all of which require MMS inspections. MMS
believes this trend will continue, as the industry is employing an all-
time record number of drilling rigs in these water depths, and new
leasing activity remains strong.
The number of inspections in ultra-deep water will increase as the
number of major discoveries increase.
Question 22. With respect to legislation to grant the Secretary
authority to authorize non-oil and gas energy projects on the OCS, how
can the Secretary ensure that the public receives fair market value for
the use of the OCS? What type of consultation do you think should occur
between the federal government and the states with respect to non-oil
and gas energy projects on the OCS? What consultation should take place
among federal agencies?
Answer. The Department has extensive experience with developing
criteria for fair market value for oil and gas leases, as well as
offshore LNG terminals. This same experience will be applied to
establish specific and transparent methodologies for other energy
projects. The Secretary would have authority to develop a competitive
leasing program appropriate for such activities. The existing authority
of any other state or Federal agency will not be superseded or modified
the with respect to the permitting of energy projects on the OCS. MMS
would continue to develop and leverage the valuable cooperative
relationships with other Federal agencies and coastal states it has
developed over the past several decades.
Question 23. Has MMS or the Department undertaken any analysis of
or provided comments on the report of the National Commission on Ocean
Policy? If so, please provide them to us.
Answer. On December 17, 2004, the President sent his U.S. Ocean
Action Plan to Congress in response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
and Budget is coordinating all DOI Bureau Activities to implement the
new Ocean Governance Structure as outlined in the Action Plan. The
Action Plan calls for enactment of the Administration's proposed
legislation on Outer Continental Shelf Alternative Energy, and supports
MMS's activities in support of the Integrated Ocean Observation System
(IOOS), and the Bureau's efforts in science such as its deep water
coral assessment in the Gulf of Mexico.
Question 24. The MMS recently completed a rulemaking relating to
natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters of the OCS.
Are additional statutory authorities necessary? What budgetary impacts
are expected as a result of this initiative?
Answer. The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA) provides broad
authority to the Secretary to establish incentives to encourage
domestic investments. In 2001, under this authority, MMS began offering
deep gas royalty relief for new shallow water leases in Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales. This relief was designed to promote
increased deep drilling for natural gas. In 2004, MMS issued a final
rule that provided royalty relief for deep gas drilling on leases
issued prior to 2001. It is too early to evaluate the budgetary impacts
of the program, but MMS is beginning to collect data to do so. In any
event, MMS is encouraged by industry's new emphasis to explore at deep
depths in the shallow water area.
Question 25. MMS has completed a rulemaking relating to deep water
royalty relief. Do you believe that additional statutory authorities
are necessary? What are the expected budgetary impacts of continued
deep water royalty relief?
Answer. MMS believes it has adequate statutory authorities with
respect to royalty relief for deepwater areas to effectively lease and
regulate offshore properties. The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA)
expanded the Department's authority to offer royalty relief to promote
increased production in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and
provided various levels of relief by water depth categories for a
period of 5 years (1996-2000). In 2001, MMS issued regulations for both
a new deepwater leasing program and for a discretionary royalty relief
program in continued recognition of the greater costs and economic
risks involved in operating at these depths. This new deepwater program
replaced the one implemented under the DWRRA.
The FY 2006 Budget assumes that of total production, about 10% of
oil and 9.4% of gas will be subject to deep water royalty relief with
the actual amounts dependent on whether oil and/or gas price thresholds
are exceeded. MMS currently has a study under way to examine what
impacts deep water royalty relief has had on exploration and
development of our oil and gas resources on the OCS as well as revenue
production (bonuses, rents and royalty) to the American public for
those resources. Once the study is completed, MMS will provide the
information to the Committee.
Question 26. Please describe the types of royalty relief already
available on the OCS. Are additional statutory authorities necessary?
Answer. The Department has broad existing authority under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act to offer certain categories of royalty
relief to promote increased production through reduction or elimination
of any royalty set forth in the lease. In 1995, those authorities were
expanded for areas of the Gulf of Mexico with the passage of The Deep
Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 (DWRRA). The Department believes these
authorities should be expanded to cover existing leases in Alaska.
Following the 2000 sunset on the DWRRA mandatory relief, the
Department set discretionary royalty suspension volumes starting in
March 2001 for oil production from leases in water depths of at least
200 meters. We have continued to offer these deep water suspension
volumes for subsequent lease sales in the Gulf, adding the 400-800
meter water depth category to the set in 2002. This post-DWRRA program,
which is governed in part by oil and gas price thresholds above which
royalty relief is suspended, has provided the appropriate balance
between the financial incentive for lessees and the national benefits
of promoting development in deep water. In 2004, for example, both oil
and gas price thresholds were exceeded by actual market prices of those
products. Thus, in the case of deepwater leases issued in all but 2
years since 1996, no deepwater royalty relief was provided in 2004,
when the market prices for oil and gas were high by historical
standards.
In addition, in 2001, under existing authority, MMS began offering
deep gas royalty relief for new shallow water leases in Central and
Western Gulf GOM Lease Sales. This relief was designed to promote
increased drilling for natural gas. The lease terms encouraged industry
interest by suspending royalties for deep gas production in reservoirs
15,000 feet or greater, subsea, and providing a ``royalty suspension
supplement'' for certain unsuccessful deep wells. In 2004, the deep gas
program in a somewhat modified form was extended to active leases
issued prior to 2001.
MMS also has an end of life royalty relief program and special
royalty relief program. A lessee may submit an application on a case-
by-case basis under either of those programs if their lease is eligible
for consideration. Most leases not covered by the deep gas or deepwater
programs are eligible for these other programs.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Question 27. Current authority to collect the Abandoned Mine Land
fee expires on June 30, 2005. I think it is extremely important that
Congress act to extend this authority. I note that the President's
Budget proposes reauthorization of the fee collection at the current
rate.
Does it make sense to lower the fee at this time?
Answer. Any cut in the fee would be tied to reauthorization of the
collection authority under SMCRA. We estimate that an extension of the
fee at the current rate,
without any other changes, would mean that we would need to collect AML
fees for another 23 years just to address the existing high priority
health and safety related coal problems. Such a reauthorization would
not even consider the billions of dollars of lower priority work
outstanding. The rate of the AML fee has little, if any, consequence on
the competition among coal producers so long as the fee is applied in a
uniform manner across the Nation. In most cases, coal producers embed
the AML fee in the contract price for coal and therefore any savings
realized from manipulation of the AML fee are passed on to the consumer
of the coal produced. As annual collections have historically exceeded
appropriations, any reduction in the AML fee would only serve to extend
the period of time collections need to be continued in order to collect
sufficient funds to finish the job of reclaiming AML sites.
The President's budget supports the Administration's vision of
reauthorizing the AML fee collection authority and bringing reform to
the AML program that expedites the elimination of high priority health
and safety abandoned coal mines as well as providing for the expedited
payment of unappropriated balances to certified States and Tribes,
within the President's mandatory and discretionary spending limits.
Question 28. I understand that the President's fiscal year 2006
Budget proposes that the AML program be reformed to expedite
reclamation of high priority sites and payment of unappropriated
balances to the states and tribes. Can you please elaborate?
Does this mean that you think more of the funding should be
directed to eastern states where more the abandoned sites are
located?
Answer. We believe that the primary focus of the AML program is to
address the health and safety hazards attributable to past coal mining
practices wherever they exist. To that end, we support legislation that
would focus efforts on reclaiming the high priority sites faster,
getting more people out of danger from those sites sooner, regardless
of where those problems are located.
Am I correct in understanding that the Budget does not
assume any spending that is not subject to appropriation for
purposes of paying unappropriated balances to states and
tribes?
The budget does not assume any spending that is not subject to
appropriation.
Question 29. The OSM 2006 budget request includes $58 million in
the Abandoned Mine Land grants to certified states and tribes.
Please provide a list of which states and tribes are certified and
will receive payment and how much will be paid to each.
Answer. As previously stated, we have requested an additional $58
million in FY 2006 for grants to support legislation to accomplish our
goals of extending the AML fee collection authority, increasing the
percentage of appropriations used for reclamation of high priority coal
problems and returning the unappropriated balance of State Share
collections to the States and Tribes. Of this additional $58 million,
$37 million would be granted to non-certified States to address high
priority coal problems and $21 million would go to certified States.
This $21 million is in addition to the $37 million that certified
States would receive under the normal grant distribution--an amount
which also totals $58 million. Should appropriate legislation be
enacted, the $58 million for certified states would serve as the first
installment on a multi-year payment of their unappropriated State Share
balances. The following are the multi-year payments that would result
from such a proposal:
[Figures in millions of dollars.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Estimated Estimated
Unappropriated 2005 Grant Annual Grant
State State/Tribal (Current Law) Under
Share Balances Administration's
Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana................................................. 1.5 .1 .1
Montana................................................... 47.7 3.3 4.8
Texas..................................................... 20.5 1.4 2.1
Wyoming................................................... 45.8 29.9 46.0
Hopi...................................................... 5.5 .4 .6
Navajo.................................................... 32.0 2.1 3.3
Crow\1\................................................... 8.1 .5 .8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based upon the AML inventory and the level of grants going to the Tribe annually, the Crow Tribe could be
expected to certify within the next five years.
Question 30. Will the Administration transmit a legislative
proposal to extend the AML fee collection authority and to make other
changes in the AML program, as described in the Budget documents? If
so, when?
Answer. The President's 2006 budget supports the Administration's
vision of reauthorizing the AML fee collection authority. The
Administration continues to work and deliberate with Congress and other
stakeholders on developing a mutually acceptable bill that implements
the Administration's vision without polarizing individual stakeholders.
This vision includes:
A fee extension for a period sufficient to collect funds to
address the current inventory of health and safety coal-related
problems.
Expedited payment of the current unappropriated balances to
certified states and tribes.
Change in the allocation of future collections to focus on
reclamation of high priority coal-related health and safety
problems.
Question 31. Please provide greater detail regarding the proposed
downsizing of the OSM workforce, as generally described in the budget
documents.
Answer. OSM is not proposing to downsize its workforce. OSM's
budget document requests 580 FTE which is the same as that for FY 2005.
OSM has developed a workforce plan that analyzes, identifies and
determines the human capital competencies required to meet its mission.
Through that process, we are scrutinizing every vacancy that occurs
within OSM to make sure that we only backfill those positions that we
need, that we transfer those vacancies to the locations where we need
them, and that we fill vacancies with individuals who have the skills
necessary to meet the emerging challenges of our mission goals.
Question 32. 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. Section 710 of SMCRA directed the Secretary to study the
regulation of surface coal mining operations on Indian lands and
develop legislation designed to allow Tribes to assume full regulatory
authority over the administration and enforcement of the regulation of
surface coal mining on Indian lands. The Secretary completed and
submitted the required report to Congress in 1984. In 1987, Congress
granted authority to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi and Crow tribes to
obtain approval of AML reclamation plans, but it took no action on
authority for regulatory programs. The Energy Policy Act of 1992
required that OSM make grants to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi, Crow,
and Northern Cheyenne tribes to assist the tribes in developing
regulatory programs.
In 1995, OSM initiated an effort with the Tribes to develop a
consensus legislative package. While the effort has resulted in the
development of several draft legislative proposals, the Tribes have not
been able to achieve consensus. Therefore, no proposal has been
forwarded to Congress. We continue to work with the Tribes to resolve
the outstanding issues, and with Congress should any legislation be
introduced.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Question 33. The Bureau of Land Management has published
information concerning the sale of BLM lands in and around Las Vegas,
Nevada, under the authority of the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act. Under that law, lands are sold at public auction, which
by definition, is market value. According to the BLM, approximately 80
percent of the lands have been sold for a price that exceeded the
Department's appraised value, with the average sale price almost double
the appraised value. Are you concerned that the reforms in appraisal
procedures you instituted following the failed land exchange with the
State of Utah are not achieving their desired results since it appears
that departmental appraisals are still substantially undervaluing
public lands?
Answer. You are correct in pointing out that the auction prices
resulting from the SNPLMA sales have been considerably higher than the
appraised values of the lands offered for sale. However, we do not
believe that this discrepancy indicates a failure in the appraisal
reform procedures instituted by the Department. Appraised values are
based on historic data and have effective dates many months prior to
the auction date. In rapidly expanding markets, this may cause a
significant difference in appraised value and sale price at the time of
auction. The Las Vegas real estate market is unique in that there is a
very strong demand for, and limited supply of, developable land which
has put upward pressure on lands prices. The adjustment for market
conditions used in some of the appraisals of Las Vegas properties
auctioned at the February 2, 2005, sale ranged from roughly 20% to 90%
appreciation compounded annually. In this light, it is not surprising
that knowledgeable buyers would be willing to pay a price higher than
the appraised value on the day of the auction.
As you know, land parcels offered for sale at the SNPLMA auctions
are nominated by local government agencies on behalf of individuals.
The nominated parcels typically have been targeted by developers or
entrepreneurs as desirable acquisitions. Potential buyers often own
adjacent lands, or have a specific use in mind for a site, and are not
willing to accept substitute properties. In this situation, sale prices
can be influenced by the buyer's need for a particular piece of land
incorporating not only the perceived economic value of the property for
its intended use, but also the value of that property in the buyer's
larger enterprise.
ENERGY AND MINERALS
Question 34. Why did the White House Task Force on Energy Project
Streamlining stop operations as of January 20, 2005? Is there a need to
continue the Task Force?
Answer. The White House Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining
was established by Executive Order 13212, signed by President Bush in
May 2001. The Executive Order has no sunset date, and is still in
effect. The Task Force is chaired by the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and comprises policy-level representatives
of the Cabinet agencies involved in federal energy-related projects
across the U.S. On January 20, 2005, the Charter that established an
interagency staff supporting the efforts of the Task Force did sunset
and the career staff returned to their respective agencies. The
continuing responsibilities of the Task Force are currently being
managed at CEQ.
Question 35. At the Committee's recent Conference on Natural Gas
several witnesses suggested that adequate resources are essential to
the timely processing of oil and gas leases and applications for
permits to drill. I have long supported efforts to ensure that BLM is
funding adequately. In addition, the witnesses suggested that both the
Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service need additional
funding to support timely action on oil and gas applications. Do you
agree?
Answer. The funding level for the BLM in the FY 2006 President's
Budget Request, when combined with the amounts we expect to collect
through cost recovery, provides adequate funding to accomplish
oversight of oil and gas operations on Federal lands as well as for
oversight of oil and gas operations on split estate lands. The Fish and
Wildlife Service manages oil and gas operations occurring in the
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) through its general
appropriation. As a consequence, funding for these activities competes
with many other priorities, including law enforcement and invasive
species management. Issues relating to oil and gas operations in the
NWRS, including availability of resources and lack of guidance or
consistent training, were addressed by the Government Accountability
Office in its 2003 report, National Wildlife Refuges: Opportunities to
Improve the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on
Federal Lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service is working to address
these issues, and is in the final stages of developing a comprehensive
handbook to provide personnel with the technical, administrative, and
legal information needed to consistently manage oil and gas activities
throughout the Refuge System and ensure protection of trust resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is also in the process of developing a
training course that will mirror the handbook and provide an
opportunity for staff to receive instruction in properly managing oil
and gas activities in the NWRS.
Question 36. On January 11, 2005, several of my colleagues on the
Committee and I sent a letter to Director Bolten seeking increased
funding for BLM oil and gas activities. Unfortunately, I am
disappointed by the President's FY 2006 Budget in this regard. The
Budget proposes a $2.1 million decrease in funding for energy and
minerals with a proposal for new user fees.
Please describe these proposed user fees. Will they be enacted
through a formal rulemaking with an opportunity for public comment?
What is the time frame for putting these user fees in place?
Answer. The Administration has been systematically reviewing for
program efficiency approximately 20 percent of its programs each year,
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Energy and
Minerals programs were reviewed in 2004. One of the major
recommendations was to implement energy and minerals cost recovery in
order to improve program efficiencies. Past Inspector General (IG)
reviews have made similar recommendations.
BLM believes that cost recovery will allow the BLM offices to
respond to demand more efficiently, in an environment where both
appropriations and industry demand are subject to fluctuations. Funds
collected through cost recovery will be spent by the offices processing
the documents and only within the energy and minerals programs in those
offices.
The BLM expects to publish a proposed cost recovery regulation
shortly. We will request comments from the public and then publish a
final regulation by Fall 2005. The regulation, to be implemented in FY
2006, will provide funding to allow the BLM to more effectively meet
increased customer demand.
Below is a detailed listing of existing fees. We have not yet
determined the specific fee levels for various activities for the new
regulation.
EXISTING FEE
[Paperwork Processing]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIL AND GAS (3100)
Competitive lease offer................................ $75
Competitive Lease high bid............................. 75
Assignment and transfer................................ 25
Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production. 25
Lease renewals and exchanges........................... 75
Lease reinstatement, Class 1........................... 25
Leasing under right-of-way............................. 75
GEOTHERMAL (3200)
Noncompetitive Lease................................... 75
Application Assignment and transfer.................... 50
COAL (3400)
Exploration license application........................ 250
Lease or least interest transfer....................... 50
Non-energy Leasable (3500)
Lease renewals......................................... 25
Propsecting Permit application......................... 25
Mining Law Administration (3800)
Notice of Location..................................... 10
Amendment to location.................................. 5
Transfer of Interest................................... 5
Affidavit of Assessment Work........................... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 37. What assumptions does the FY06 Budget make with
respect to leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Please
provide the specific information and data supporting the assumption
contained in the Budget that the first lease sale to be held in 2007
and will generate an estimated $2.4 billion in bonus bid revenues. Did
you look at comparable lease sales? If so, please provide that specific
information. What assumptions does the Budget make regarding the timing
and magnitude of oil production?
Answer. The calculation 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. As we have stated a number of times, this estimate has been
used for several years and does not reflect the recent sharp increases
in the price of oil. The estimate included an assumption regarding oil
prices in the year 2001 of $30. It assumed 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. In
addition, natural gas was assumed at the time of the analysis to be
uneconomic and was thus ignored in the valuation.
The budget assumes a lease sale in 2007 and in 2009. Because
production is not expected during the five year period covered by the
budget, specific production assumptions were not directly made.
Question 38. If the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
is opened to oil and gas exploration and development as proposed by the
Administration, what will be the effect on the 92,000 acres of
subsurface lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations? Does the
Administration intend that those lands be available for oil and gas
exploration and development? If development is limited to a 2,000-acre
footprint, as has been proposed previously, would the Native-owned
lands be included within that limitation?
Answer. It is up to Congress how the Native-owned acreage is
treated. The legislative provisions passed by the House in 2001 and
2003 define the term ``Coastal Plain'' in such a way as to lead one to
assume the Native-owned subsurface is included in that definition.
Since the 2000 acre limitation applies to the Coastal Plain, it appears
it would apply to the Native lands. The Administration has always
supported including a repeal of section 1003 in any legislation opening
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thus clearing the way for the
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to explore and develop its holdings
on the Coastal Plain.
Question 39. 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. Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) are integral and key
components of BLM's management of onshore oil and gas operations. BLM
has committed considerable resources in recent years to ensure that we
have an effective I&E program. Over the past four years, the BLM
recognized the need to strengthen its I&E program as the number of APDs
approved and drilled increased. The BLM has documented its need for
additional inspectors and funding increases were enacted in FY2002,
2003 and 2004. Those funds have been used to hire additional inspectors
in priority locations and are retained in the 2006 request.
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............................................ 26,000 26,000
2006............................................ 26,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (FFO) had 11 I&E
program staff. There were 10 petroleum engineering (I&E) 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 FFO (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 FFO as the new
hires completed their certification training.
At the start of FY 2005, a total of 18 I&E FFO inspectors (PET)
were on staff at the FFO: 14 PETs, three PET leads, and one supervisory
PET. One PET working as an Natural Resource Specialist focusing on
environmental surface compliance, and one PET position which actually
funds two SCEP students to train as PETs are also on I&E staff
(totaling 21 staff). The I&E staff is also supported by three
Production Accountability Technician (PAT) auditors. In addition, the
21 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 (includes 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.
Are you planning to hire additional inspectors in offices
where the workload is increasing due to coalbed methane
production? Please provide specifics.
Answer. Due to sustained record global prices, BLM is faced with
unprecedented demand for leases and permits to develop oil and gas. BLM
approved 6,452 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) in FY 2004, a
record number. This will lead to an increase in the number of
inspections BLM needs to conduct in FY 2005 and FY 2006. The FY 2006
President's Budget Request maintains past increases in funding for the
I&E program. These increases, together with adjustments that may be
needed within the oil and gas program, will ensure that BLM meets its
commitment to ensure that higher priority inspections are completed in
FY 2006.
In preparation for the FY 2007 budget request, BLM is updating its
estimated long-term requirement for certified inspectors to reflect
this recent increase in oil and gas activity. This state-by-state
analysis will include estimates of inspections needed for coalbed
methane activities.
Question 40. What is the total amount of requested funding for oil
and gas NEPA compliance for FY06? Please provide a table showing the
funding for NEPA compliance (both requested and enacted) for the
previous 10 years.
Answer. The BLM's FY 2006 Budget Request does not specify a funding
amount for NEPA compliance within the Oil and Gas Management program.
The costs of NEPA compliance are not individually tracked within the
BLM's oil and gas financial management system. They are aggregated
across various portions of the BLM's oil and gas budget, such as APD
processing and inspection and enforcement. Because of changes in the
BLM's cost management system, the BLM does not have the ability to
accurately estimate NEPA costs prior to 1999.
The following is a table which estimates the BLM's NEPA compliance
costs in the Oil and Gas program over the last six 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 Requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999................................................. $9,000,000
2000................................................. 9,500,000
2001................................................. 9,600,000
2002................................................. 10,040,000
2003................................................. 10,500,000
2004................................................. 11,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 41. Is the BLM capable of completing NEPA compliance in
all cases within 10 days of the receipt of a complete application for
permit to drill?
Answer. No. In all but exceptional cases, it would be impractical
for the BLM to complete NEPA compliance within 10 days of receipt of a
complete APD. In many cases, an onsite inspection is necessary and
would require more time to arrange and conduct. There are often
internal technical reviews that need to take place, and it is not
realistic to expect that these could be finished within this timeframe.
Question 42. I understand that according to BLM, ``parcel pre-lease
protests'' have increased from 666 being filed during the period 1997-
2000 to 4425 being filed during the period 2001-2004. What do you think
are the reasons for this?
Answer. In the past few years, oil and gas--and specifically,
coalbed methane--leasing activity has markedly increased and, with it,
there has been an increase in interest by the public in the BLM's oil
and gas leasing program and other programs. During the same time frame,
the population in the West has grown at an accelerated rate, a trend
which is continuing. Population growth has led to an increase in the
demand for competing uses of the public lands. Increased demand from
competing user groups has resulted in the marked increase in protests
filed.
Please provide this data by State.
The information below is for calendar years 1997 through 2000. The
information was collected from the information in the BLM's
computerized database, the Case Recordation System. The database
indicates that parcels were protested in three states, Colorado,
Montana and Wyoming. The remaining states have only a minimal number of
protests. This is the best data available for 1997 through 2000.
NUMBER OF PARCELS PROTESTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado............................... 0 28 20 3
Montana................................ 0 1 0 0
Wyoming................................ 0 2 0 612
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM gathered the information concerning FY 2001 to 2004 by
requesting that each State Office review paper files and the
computerized record keeping system. Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming have the most oil and gas activity as shown in the charts
below. The remaining states have a minimal number of protests.
OIL AND GAS LEASE PROTESTS FROM FY 2001 TO 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado
Offered................. 721 345 280 344
Protested............... 29 43 68 291
% Protested............. 4 12 24 85
Montana
Offered................. 632 326 407 546
Protested............... 0 27 2 408
% Protested............. 0 8 0 75
New Mexico
Offered................. 312 361 460 291
Protested............... 0 27 157 200
% Protested............. 0 7 34 69
Utah
Offered................. 216 149 242 481
Protested............... 145 104 100 405
% Protested............. 67 70 41 84
Wyoming
Offered................. 1,023 804 615 670
Protested............... 778 464 216 286
% Protested............. 76 58 35 43
Total BLM, including states
not listed above
Offered................. 4,453 2,684 2,697 3,814
Protested............... 952 856 544 2,073
% Protested............. 21 32 20 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of these protests involved lands that were formerly
in wilderness inventory areas or citizen proposed wilderness
areas?
Answer. This information is not readily available. However, the BLM
has deferred leasing on numerous acres nominated by industry, due to
concerns with endangered species and historic and cultural sites, to
conduct additional environmental analysis, and to revise or amend land
use plans. For example, in FY 2004, the BLM deferred leasing on 2.7
million acres nominated by industry.
In how many instances were the protested tracts not offered
for lease?
Answer. As described more fully below, when a protest is filed on a
lease parcel, the BLM has the choice of not offering the parcel for
sale until after the protest is resolved, or offering the parcel for
sale, but delaying any issuance of the lease until the protest is
resolved in favor of the lease issuance.
The BLM does not have readily available data, by State, on the
number of protests that resulted in leases not being offered for sale.
For parcels that are offered for lease, on which protests have been
filed, the vast majority of protests are eventually denied and the
leases are then issued.
Please describe the ``parcel pre-lease protest'' process.
Answer. The BLM holds lease sales at least quarterly if lands are
available for competitive leasing. A Notice of Competitive Lease
(Notice) sale, which lists lease parcels to be offered at the auction,
is posted at each BLM State Office for at least 45 days before the
auction is held. A protest of inclusion in the Notice of a sale for a
specific parcel may be filed with the BLM up until the lease sale. The
BLM may offer the parcel, notifying potential bidders that the parcel
is subject to a protest, and that the lease will be conveyed only upon
successful resolution of the protest. Alternatively, the BLM may
suspend the offering of a specific parcel while considering a protest.
How many of these pre-lease protests have resulted in
appeals or litigation?
Answer. From calendar year 1997 to 2000, the BLM received 366
appeals, and from FY 2001 to 2004, the BLM received 925 appeals. The
BLM does not track the relationship between protests and court cases
because one court case could cover multiple protests. The Government
Accountability Office recently recommended that the BLM implement a
system to track public challenge data for oil and gas leasing decisions
and other decisions. The BLM is implementing that recommendation.
Question 43. 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. At the end of FY 2004, BLM had 2,868 APDs pending, of which
2,214 were pending for more than 60 days. The tables below show APDs
pending at the end of each fiscal year.
BUREAU-WIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 4,033 1,171 2,216 -1,045 2,988
1995.............................................. 2,988 1,172 1,964 -792 2,196
1996.............................................. 2,196 1,409 2,129 -720 1,476
1997.............................................. 1,476 2,645 2,867 -222 1,254
1998.............................................. 1,254 3,144 2,670 474 1,728
1999.............................................. 1,728 4,505 2,306 2,199 3,927
2000.............................................. 3,927 3,977 3,892 85 4,012
2001.............................................. 4,012 4,819 4,266 553 4,565
2002.............................................. 4,565 4,585 5,830 -1,245 3,320
2003.............................................. 3,320 5,063 5,143 -80 3,240
2004.............................................. 3,240 6,979 7,351 -372 2,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 14 0 1 -1 13
1995.............................................. 13 1 3 -2 11
1996.............................................. 11 0 5 -5 6
1997.............................................. 6 1 1 0 6
1998.............................................. 6 2 3 -1 5
1999.............................................. 5 14 7 7 12
2000.............................................. 12 11 9 2 14
2001.............................................. 14 23 13 10 24
2002.............................................. 24 12 33 -21 3
2003.............................................. 3 6 9 -3 0
2004.............................................. 0 18 15 3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 90 148 174 -26 64
1995.............................................. 64 146 137 9 73
1996.............................................. 73 206 218 -12 61
1997.............................................. 61 356 347 9 70
1998.............................................. 70 395 430 -35 35
1999.............................................. 35 219 193 26 61
2000.............................................. 61 121 143 -22 39
2001.............................................. 39 70 96 -26 13
2002.............................................. 13 118 120 -2 11
2003.............................................. 11 69 77 -8 3
2004.............................................. 3 116 114 2 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLORADO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 113 82 184 -102 11
1995.............................................. 11 75 54 21 32
1996.............................................. 32 70 86 -16 16
1997.............................................. 16 107 109 -2 14
1998.............................................. 14 122 106 16 30
1999.............................................. 30 184 169 15 45
2000.............................................. 45 254 238 16 61
2001.............................................. 61 299 255 44 105
2002.............................................. 105 265 259 6 111
2003.............................................. 111 323 325 -2 109
2004.............................................. 109 502 424 78 187
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASTERN STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 153 13 44 -31 122
1995.............................................. 122 25 62 -37 85
1996.............................................. 85 4 46 -42 43
1997.............................................. 43 29 54 -25 18
1998.............................................. 18 28 43 -15 3
1999.............................................. 3 37 16 21 24
2000.............................................. 24 39 26 13 37
2001.............................................. 37 23 33 -10 27
2002.............................................. 27 14 18 -4 23
2003.............................................. 23 73 64 9 32
2004.............................................. 32 70 76 -6 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTANA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 278 4 71 -67 211
1995.............................................. 211 8 88 -80 131
1996.............................................. 131 8 95 -87 44
1997.............................................. 44 180 191 -11 33
1998.............................................. 33 183 110 73 106
1999.............................................. 106 89 124 -35 71
2000.............................................. 71 271 186 85 156
2001.............................................. 156 213 186 27 183
2002.............................................. 183 221 261 -40 143
2003.............................................. 143 325 358 -33 110
2004.............................................. 110 421 292 129 239
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEVADA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 110 0 25 -25 85
1995.............................................. 85 1 29 -28 57
1996.............................................. 57 0 23 -23 34
1997.............................................. 34 2 34 -32 2
1998.............................................. 2 7 8 -1 1
1999.............................................. 1 0 1 -1 0
2000.............................................. 0 0 0 0 0
2001.............................................. 0 1 0 1 1
2002.............................................. 1 7 6 1 2
2003.............................................. 2 4 3 1 3
2004.............................................. 3 15 10 5 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 1485 709 1031 -322 1163
1995.............................................. 1163 606 871 -265 898
1996.............................................. 898 745 949 -204 694
1997.............................................. 694 926 980 -54 640
1998.............................................. 640 1034 845 189 829
1999.............................................. 829 832 907 -75 754
2000.............................................. 754 1,280 1,056 224 978
2001.............................................. 978 1,351 1,240 111 1,089
2002.............................................. 1,089 1,087 1,373 -286 803
2003.............................................. 803 1,385 1,590 -205 598
2004.............................................. 598 1,668 1,657 11 609
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 123 157 135 22 145
1995.............................................. 145 219 237 -18 127
1996.............................................. 127 228 203 25 152
1997.............................................. 152 388 359 29 181
1998.............................................. 181 389 302 87 268
1999.............................................. 268 271 204 67 335
2000.............................................. 335 394 367 27 362
2001.............................................. 362 680 539 141 503
2002.............................................. 503 496 547 -51 452
2003.............................................. 452 639 557 82 534
2004.............................................. 534 792 855 -63 471
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WYOMING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase or
Total APDs APDs Total APDs Decrease in Total APDs
Pending at Received Processed Number of Pending at
Fiscal Year Beginning During During Pending APDs End of
of Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal at End of Fiscal
Year Year Year Fiscal Year Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.............................................. 1667 58 551 -493 1174
1995.............................................. 1174 91 483 -392 782
1996.............................................. 782 148 504 -356 426
1997.............................................. 426 656 792 -136 290
1998.............................................. 290 984 823 161 451
1999.............................................. 451 2,859 685 2,174 2,625
2000.............................................. 2,625 1,607 1,867 -260 2,365
2001.............................................. 2,365 2,159 1,904 255 2,620
2002.............................................. 2,620 2,365 3,213 -848 1,772
2003.............................................. 1,772 2,239 2,160 79 1,851
2004.............................................. 1,851 3,377 3,908 -531 1,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 44. 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.
Answer. The following table provides this information on a state-
by-state basis.
NUMBER OF ACRES LEASED DURING THE YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic State FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. 9,135 6,319 0 684 80 0
Alaska.................................. 0 0 0 0 0 861,318
Arizona................................. 51,578 3,420 0 0 55,921 0
Arkansas................................ 22,610 9,784 928 39,602 48,011 74,442
California.............................. 301 10,338 0 27,120 39,638 38,430
Colorado................................ 255,328 373,799 217,896 230,242 336,590 242,911
Florida................................. 3,851 0 0 0 0 0
Idaho................................... 3,753 0 0 0 0 0
Illinois................................ 19,566 0 0 0 0 0
Indiana.................................
Kansas.................................. 2,436 2,252 0 80 958 2,354
Kentucky................................ 1,482 1,606 0 0 1,264 0
Louisiana............................... 5,709 50,399 42,900 5,687 25,442 12,333
Maryland................................ 0 0 0 0 320 0
Massachusetts...........................
Michigan................................ 380 987 0 20,810 0 18,650
Minnesota............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mississippi............................. 20,985 55,049 24,945 71,009 78,586 8,524
Montana................................. 156,123 256,581 299,376 241,346 363,402 289,719
Nebraska................................ 640 0 320 0 760 80
Nevada.................................. 606,755 244,376 178,372 293,760 181,938 69,534
New Mexico.............................. 256,619 207,811 195,623 329,896 213,957 130,552
New York................................
North Dakota............................ 35,074 80,469 38,139 188,650 67,110 28,705
Ohio.................................... 1,092 5,693 8,324 285 337 193
Oklahoma................................ 5,106 37,231 56,163 11,815 13,155 12,432
Oregon.................................. 8,553 14,318 14,100 837 11,948
Pennsylvania............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Dakota............................ 2,921 61,091 60,059 74,693 8,200 0
Tennessee............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Texas................................... 16,439 22,396 38,384 35,576 5,784 31,781
Utah.................................... 485,119 393,573 316,989 444,385 278,702 217,934
Virginia................................ 0 4 0 0 0 870
Washington.............................. 0 11,218 1,243 11,485 663 32,899
West Virginia........................... 4,657 2,528 0 0 0 0
Wisconsin............................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wyoming................................. 1,837,810 2,030,090 1,029,579 1,426,795 1,880,476 1,516,941
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 3,805,469 3,875,567 2,523,558 3,468,020 3,602,131 3,602,550
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF ACRES LEASED DURING THE YEAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic State FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 7,855 4,486 4,185 8,990 5,077
Alaska.............................................. 0 0 567,769 11,500 1,403,561
Arizona............................................. 0 35,584 6,983 3,040 1,224
Arkansas............................................ 21,573 178,785 71,247 95,792 182,158
California.......................................... 34,811 25,290 29,079 60,520 34,343
Colorado............................................ 299,978 594,369 448,029 252,004 241,188
Florida............................................. 2,018 0 0 3,368
Idaho............................................... 40 0 5,798 671
Illinois............................................ 0 0 112 0
Indiana.............................................
Kansas.............................................. 1,154 599 2,378 5,764 1,240
Kentucky............................................ 1,143 0 2,103 0 4,968
Louisiana........................................... 322 606 3,033 511 1,366
Maryland............................................ 0 0 0 0
Massachusetts.......................................
Michigan............................................ 2,337 0 3,939 4,050
Minnesota........................................... 0 0 0 0
Mississippi......................................... 25,920 19,826 54,755 15,741 41,205
Montana............................................. 380,273 551,660 293,461 172,874 221,740
Nebraska............................................ 503 7,126 0 1,880
Nevada.............................................. 235,348 746,400 259,920 116,292 638,632
New Mexico.......................................... 190,598 130,193 192,124 239,979 214,756
New York............................................ 172
North Dakota........................................ 21,944 52,858 39,354 6,099 82,527
Ohio................................................ 1,870 268 121 0 5,676
Oklahoma............................................ 8,732 8,619 6,018 12,389 3,827
Oregon.............................................. 12,605 4,272 5,006 160
Pennsylvania........................................ 7 0 835 0
South Dakota........................................ 62,235 91,880 2,760 548 10,862
Tennessee........................................... 0 0 0 0
Texas............................................... 13,396 60,972 38,156 43,877 19,509
Utah................................................ 247,126 284,928 222,070 240,527 118,878
Virginia............................................ 5,805 0 0 0
Washington.......................................... 33,891 16,297 11,544 210,188 192,979
West Virginia....................................... 34,358 0 0 9,830 8,974
Wisconsin........................................... 0 0 0 0
Wyoming............................................. 1,004,479 1,182,253 541,827 547,695 722,431
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 2,650,493 3,997,271 2,812,606 2,064,289 4,157,121
===========================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 45. How many acres of lands administered by the Forest
Service and the BLM in States west of the one 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. (Note: These figures do not include Federally-owned mineral
estate under privately-owned surface lands.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------
State Number of Number of Number of Number of
Leases Acres Leases Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.......................................................... 193 1,446,990 0 0
Arizona......................................................... 62 105,020 0 0
California...................................................... 654 304,876 22 6,403
Colorado........................................................ 4,867 3,897,708 513 498,077
Idaho........................................................... 7 8,768 1 1,495
Kansas.......................................................... 67 23,913 298 65,281
Montana......................................................... 3,420 2,968,337 689 1,324,975
Nebraska........................................................ 3 560 0 0
Nevada.......................................................... 1,112 1,940,371 8 18,950
New Mexico...................................................... 8,833 5,199,557 287 235,309
North Dakota.................................................... 303 107,350 1,201 643,745
Oklahoma........................................................ 829 100,138 223 97,708
Oregon.......................................................... 19 29,355 10 32,480
South Dakota.................................................... 143 121,913 44 30,396
Texas........................................................... 10 2,528 494 388,986
Utah............................................................ 3,252 3,211,172 307 576,225
Washington...................................................... 227 347,325 0 0
Wyoming......................................................... 20,869 14,904,462 854 574,360
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 44,870 34,720,343 4,951 4,494,390
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much acreage is under lease but not producing?
Answer. Approximately 23.8 million acres
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. 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 46. 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 inventory required by the Energy Policy &
Conservation Act (EPCA) was released in January 2003 and covered five
major basins within the Interior West: the San Juan/Paradox, Uinta-
Piceance, Greater Green River, and Powder River Basins, and the Montana
Thrust Belt. Collectively these basins contain 50 percent of the oil
and 78 percent of the natural gas underlying the onshore Federal lands
of the United States outside of Alaska. The inventory found that of the
59.4 million Federal acres, 39 percent were available for leasing under
standard lease terms, 25 percent were available for leasing with
constraints beyond standard lease terms, and 36 percent were not
available for leasing.
The BLM, as lead agency, is working closely with the Department of
Energy (DOE), U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Geological Service to
continue the inventory required by EPCA. The Phase II inventory for six
more basins was begun in 2004. The basins covered in the Phase II
inventory include Northern Alaska (NPRA and ANWR 1002 only), the
Wyoming Thrust Belt, the Denver, Black Warrior and Appalachian Basins,
and the Florida Peninsula. The Phase II inventory is scheduled for
release in the third quarter of FY 2005.
In FY 2005, BLM plans to continue EPCA inventories beyond the
basins that were analyzed in the first two EPCA phases. This
continuation of the EPCA studies will cover the remaining basins that
have not been covered in previous reports and will include an analysis
of conditions of approvals of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs).
The Phase I basins will be updated as a part of this effort as several
Resource Management Plans and Forest Plans have been amended or revised
since the initial inventory was released.
Question 47. The budget document indicates that BLM proposes to
offset the reduction in the oil and gas leasing program request with a
cost recovery offset from lessees.
Please describe the time frame for implementing these user fees, as
well as providing a detailed listing of the amount of the fees and the
proposed payors.
Answer. The Administration has been systematically reviewing for
program efficiency approximately 20 percent of its programs each year,
through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Energy and
Minerals programs were reviewed in 2004. One of the major
recommendations was to implement energy and minerals cost recovery in
order to improve program efficiencies. Past Inspector General (IG)
reviews have made similar recommendations.
BLM believes that cost recovery will allow the BLM offices to
respond to demand more efficiently, in an environment where both
appropriations and industry demand are subject to fluctuations. Funds
collected through cost recovery will be spent by the offices processing
the documents and only within the energy and minerals programs in those
offices.
The BLM expects to publish a proposed cost recovery regulation
shortly. We will request comments from the public and aim to publish a
final regulation by Fall 2005. The regulation, to be implemented in FY
2006, will provide funding to allow the BLM to more effectively meet
increased customer demand.
Below is a detailed listing of existing fees. We have not yet
determined the specific fee levels for various activities for the new
regulation.
EXISTING FEE
[Paperwork Processing]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIL AND GAS (3100)
Noncompetitive Lease offer............................. $75
Competitive Lease high bid............................. 75
Assignment and transfer................................ 25
Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production. 25
Lease renewals and exchanges........................... 75
Lease reinstatement, Class 1........................... 25
Leasing under right-of-way............................. 75
GEOTHERMAL (3200)
Noncompetitive Lease................................... 75
Application Assignment and transfer.................... 50
COAL (3400)
Exploration license application........................ 250
Lease or least interest transfer....................... 50
Non-energy Leasable (3500)
Lease renewals......................................... 25
Propsecting Permit application......................... 25
Mining Law Administration (3800)
Notice of Location..................................... 10
Amendment to location.................................. 5
Transfer of Interest................................... 5
Affidavit of Assessment Work........................... 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 48. What is the current level of funding and what level is
proposed for fiscal year 2006 for the administration of renewable
energy development on public lands? Please provide allocation by energy
type.
Answer. Renewable energy projects involving wind and solar energy
are authorized through the granting of rights-of-way, which are
administered by the Land and Realty Management program. In FY 2005, the
Land and Realty Management program received an increase in funding of
$250,000 for renewable energy development on the public lands. Total
funding for rights-of-way for renewable energy projects in FY 2005 is
approximately $815,000.
In FY 2006, the appropriated funding for rights-of-way for
renewable energy development will be similar. Additional funding will
be available through cost recovery. We anticipate publishing a final
regulation in the Spring of 2005 that will update the cost recovery
regulations for the rights-of-way program. As a result, we anticipate
recovering additional costs, which will be used to process additional
rights-of-way applications.
In addition to the funding for rights-of-way for renewable energy
projects, the BLM will spend approximately $600,000 to complete a Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzing wind
energy development in the Western United States. This FEIS will
expedite the approval of rights-of-way applications for wind energy
projects.
In addition to funding for rights-of-way and the FEIS for wind
energy, the BLM funds geothermal development on the public lands
through the Energy and Minerals program budget. In FY 2005, the BLM
will spend approximately $1.2 million in the geothermal energy program.
Please see the answer to question number 60 for a description of that
program.
Question 49. 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.
Answer.
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.................................... 117,572,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding in 2004 to 2006 includes fees retained to fund agency processing
costs.
Question 50. I am interested in learning more about the type of
NEPA compliance undertaken with respect to the issuance of APD's. In
what percentage of the cases are APD's issued based on: (1) categorical
exclusion; (2) environmental assessment/finding of no significant
impact; and (3) environmental impact statements relating to the
specific APD? Typically, how long does it take to prepare each of the
above, how is the NEPA compliance handled (in-house or using a
consultant), and what are the expenses incurred to the applicant in
completing the NEPA compliance work?
Answer. Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) are authorized
after an environmental assessment (EA) and/or an environmental impact
statement (EIS). APDs rarely qualify for categorical exclusions to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Typically, a large-scale EIS is done for land use plans that
addresses, among other things, the cumulative impact of oil and gas
leasing and development. EISs for land use plans are paid for by
Congressionally-appropriated funds and may be completed solely by the
BLM or with the assistance of contractors or consultants.
Frequently, the BLM prepares additional EISs analyzing oil and gas
development in many of the new and expanding oil and gas fields in the
western states. The costs for these development EISs are generally
borne by the operators who will benefit from the anticipated
development. The time frame for preparation of these EISs varies; 24
months for completion is typical.
Individual APDs would then be authorized after analysis in a
subsequent EA. These are usually prepared by the BLM staff in the field
offices. However, at times companies pay for cultural or biological
surveys and sometimes hire contractors to prepare EAs, as a means to
facilitate the NEPA process. The timeframes for completion of EAs vary
from less than 30 days to several months, depending upon the complexity
of the project.
Approximately three-fourths of the APDs authorized in FY 2004 were
covered by an EIS that tiered to a land use plan EIS and analyzed
development of an oil and gas field. Most of these APDs, and all other
APDs authorized in FY 2004, were further analyzed by an EA that
analyzed individual wells or small groups of wells.
The cost for operator-supplied NEPA documents varies widely. A
relatively simple EA for a single well could cost under $3,000, while a
typical EIS analyzing oil and gas development for a field may cost from
$750,000 to $1.5 million.
I understand that BLM is reviewing NEPA compliance
requirements and may institute the additional use of
categorical exclusions. What changes are you considering in
general? What proposals are you considering for extending the
use of categorical exclusions? Will the proposals be subject to
public review and comment?
Answer. The BLM is tentatively looking at options for instituting
additional categorical exclusions. If the BLM does propose additional
categorical exclusions, they will be published in the Federal Register
and will be open for full public review and comment.
Question 51. What is the current status of BLM's implementation of
best management practices under the onshore oil and gas leasing
program? Please describe the best management practices. Does BLM
require these BMPs to be used by lessees?
Answer. It is BLM policy that all Field Offices incorporate
environmental best management practices (BMPs) into proposed
Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and associated rights-of-way
after appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation.
BLM Field Offices are encouraged to work with affected oil and gas
operators early, to explain how BMPs may fit into their development
proposals. The operator may voluntarily incorporate BMPs into their
APD. BMPs not incorporated into the APD by the operator may be
incorporated into the approved APD by the BLM after appropriate
environmental review.
BMPs are innovative, dynamic, and economically feasible mitigation
measures applied on a site-specific basis to reduce, prevent, or avoid
adverse environmental or social impacts. BMPs that are to be considered
for use in nearly all oil and gas development circumstances include:
interim reclamation of well locations and access roads soon after the
well is put into production; painting all facilities a color which best
allows the facility to blend into the background; designing and
constructing new roads to a safe and appropriate standard ``no higher
than necessary'' to accommodate their intended use; and, final
reclamation recontouring of all disturbed areas, including access
roads, to the original contour and revegetating the areas to
reestablish native vegetation and wildlife habitat. A menu of potential
BMPs for consideration in energy development can be found at:
www.blm.gov/bmp.
Question 52. What is the current statewide acreage limitation for
the onshore oil and gas leasing program? In how many instances are
lessees approaching this limit? Does BLM support modification of this
statewide acreage limitation?
Answer. The maximum amount of acreage that may be held or
controlled by an individual or entity is 246,080 acres in any one
state, other than Alaska. The acreage that can be held in Alaska is
limited to 300,000 acres in the northern district and 300,000 acres in
the southern district. In recent years six companies have exceeded
their acreage limitations, largely as the result of mergers and
acquisitions. They subsequently divested the excess acreage. BLM is
looking at the issue of whether modifying these acreage limitations
might benefit production of the resource and protection of surface
natural resources.
Question 53. Has BLM conducted an inventory of abandoned, orphaned
and idled oil and gas wells on lands administered by BLM? If so, please
describe. How many of each category of well (abandoned, orphaned, or
idled) is located on BLM administered lands? Please provide the
information by state.
Answer. An abandoned well is a well whose well bore is secured and
is no longer in use. An idle well is a well that has been inactive for
over one year. An orphaned well is a well for which there is no
responsible party to assume the liability for the well. Idle and orphan
well inventories are conducted semiannually. Data listed below were
queried from BLM's Automated Fluid Mineral Support System database on
March 11, 2005:
The current inventory of abandoned wells is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................................... 76
Arizona.................................................... 17
Arkansas................................................... 13
California................................................. 2,217
Colorado................................................... 616
Kansas..................................................... 26
Kentucky................................................... 1
Louisiana.................................................. 76
Mississippi................................................ 15
Montana.................................................... 570
Nebraska................................................... 3
Nevada..................................................... 32
New Mexico................................................. 2,654
North Dakota............................................... 105
Ohio....................................................... 72
Oklahoma................................................... 693
Pennsylvania............................................... 16
South Dakota............................................... 14
Tennessee.................................................. 6
Texas...................................................... 37
Virginia................................................... 1
West Virginia.............................................. 4
Wyoming.................................................... 3,594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current inventory of orphaned wells administered by the BLM is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California................................................. 23
Utah....................................................... 16
New Mexico................................................. 1
Oklahoma................................................... 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current inventory of idle wells is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................................... 67
Arkansas................................................... 11
Arizona.................................................... 14
California................................................. 1,940
Colorado................................................... 595
Kansas..................................................... 25
Kentucky................................................... 1
Louisiana.................................................. 57
Mississippi................................................ 13
Montana.................................................... 438
Nebraska................................................... 2
Nevada..................................................... 29
New Mexico................................................. 2,326
North Dakota............................................... 94
Ohio....................................................... 53
Oklahoma................................................... 681
Pennsylvania............................................... 16
South Dakota............................................... 12
Tennessee.................................................. 6
Texas...................................................... 33
Virginia................................................... 1
West Virginia.............................................. 4
Wyoming.................................................... 2,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 54. Does the Department support legislation to permit the
Secretary to issue separate leases for the extraction of tar sand and
the exploration and development of oil and gas where an area contains a
combination of tar sand and oil or gas? If so, why is such legislation
necessary? Would this have revenue implications?
Answer. The Department of the Interior supports legislation that
would permit the Secretary to issue separate leases for the extraction
of tar sand and the exploration and development of oil and gas where an
area contains a combination of tar sand and oil/gas.
Such legislation would enable an operator to obtain only an oil and
gas lease when the operator has no interest in extracting tar sands.
This change should stimulate additional leasing for oil and gas in the
Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act areas and ultimately result in
increased Federal revenue.
Question 55. Do you think the royalty rates for geothermal leases
need to be revised? If so, please describe and provide the analytical
basis for your conclusions. How can we ensure a fair return to the
public for the use of geothermal resources? What budget impacts would
you anticipate from such a modification?
Answer. The President's National Energy Policy did not call for a
revision of the royalty rates for geothermal leases. See the answer to
the following question, number 56, for a discussion of the process the
Department is currently conducting in an effort to simplify the
methodology for calculating geothermal royalties.
Question 56. Has the Department considered simplifying the
methodology for calculating geothermal royalties? Has the Department
considered a gross proceeds methodology? If so, please provide the
analysis and conclusions reached by the Department. Could a gross
proceeds methodology be imposed in a way that would be revenue neutral?
Answer. The Department believes it would be beneficial to both the
government and industry to simplify the methodology for calculating
geothermal royalties. To that end, the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC),
an advisory council to the Secretary, formed a Geothermal Subcommittee
in October 2004 to address the Minerals Management Service's geothermal
royalty valuation regulations in an effort to simplify the language and
reduce the administrative costs to the geothermal industry. The
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management recommended that
the Subcommittee complete a report that recommends changes that can be
accomplished immediately within the current regulatory and legislative
framework as well as those that will require regulatory and legislative
changes. The Subcommittee is looking at recommending changes to
geothermal royalty valuation methods to make royalty valuations more
efficient and effective for the government while ensuring that the
government receives fair market value and not discouraging geothermal
development, including direct use, on Federal lands. The members of the
Subcommittee include representatives from the Geothermal Energy
Association, industry, states, public and local governments. The
Subcommittee is expected to finish their work and forward a report on
their recommendations to the full RPC in May 2005.
Question 57. What role do you see BLM-administered lands playing in
providing geothermal energy over the next five years?
Answer. Fully 90 percent of the geothermal resources in the United
States occur on Federal lands. In addition, many states are enacting
energy portfolios that require a greater share of their energy needs to
be met with renewable resources such as geothermal. BLM-administered
lands can be expected to play a major role in geothermal energy
production over the next 5 years and beyond. Industry has expressed
great interest in Glass Mountain and Truckhaven in California, Fish
Lake and Salt Wells in Nevada, Lightning Dock and Radium Springs in New
Mexico, Klamath Falls and Clump in Oregon, Roosevelt Hot Springs and
Thermo Hot Springs in Utah and the Mt. Adams and Mt. Baker areas of
Washington State, among others.
Question 58. Has BLM compared its current geothermal leasing system
with that of the states or local governments? If so, what are the
similarities and differences regarding how lands are selected for
leasing and how royalties or other payments for the use of the resource
are assessed? Please provide a copy of any such analysis.
Answer. The BLM has been bound to the same leasing system since
enactment of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. While we have followed
State activities with great interest, we have never conducted a formal
review or comparison of State leasing procedures.
Question 59. Do you think there need to be other changes to the
geothermal leasing program? If so, please describe. Should the KGRA
determination be eliminated? If so, how should existing applications be
treated? Will there be revenue impacts?
Answer. The Department supports an all-competitive leasing system
and the elimination of Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs). An all-
competitive leasing system, properly designed and administered, would
better reflect true competitive interest and insure that the public
receives fair market value for the resources. This will lead to more
timely and efficient development of the resources. We believe that the
revenue impacts will be positive.
Question 60. Does BLM have adequate resources to administer the
geothermal leasing program? Please provide a chart indicating the level
of funding for this program for the last 10 fiscal years.
Answer. BLM has a 30-year history of managing geothermal resources
on Federal lands. During this time, the resources devoted to the
geothermal program have varied widely depending on the cost and
availability of conventional energy as well as administration
priorities. In the mid-1980s, BLM had a budget of more than $4 million
to manage nearly 2000 competitive and noncompetitive leases with the
equivalent of nearly 50 full time employees. During the 1990s,
conventional energy was cheap and interest in geothermal energy waned.
The geothermal budget was nearly zeroed-out as emphasis was placed on
oil and gas and coal resources. In FY 2002, the budget was increased to
$300,000 and increased to $700,000 in FY 2003. In FY 2004, the funding
level was $1.2 million, and the BLM managed more than 400 geothermal
leases, with approximately 9 full-time positions. Since FY 2001, the
BLM issued 200 geothermal permits, compared to 20 in the previous four
years. The FY 2005 funding is adequate for current leasing levels.
Question 61. What are the total revenues resulting from the Federal
geothermal leasing program administered by BLM to the Federal, State
and local governments during each of the past 10 years? Please list
this information by State and local government entity.
Answer. MMS distributes geothermal leasing revenues directly to the
States and the States are responsible for any further distributions.
The following chart provides Federal geothermal reported royalty
revenue for Calendar Years 1994-2003. The State receives 50 percent of
this amount:
FEDERAL GEOTHERMAL REPORTED ROYALTY REVENUE FOR CYS 1994-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California...................... $19,451,423 $16,853,748 $19,828,959 $20,359,360 $13,828,169
Nevada.......................... 4,455,959 4,766,017 5,381,015 5,295,883 4,247,267
New Mexico...................... 1,555 1,103 787 759 578
Utah............................ 167,257 163,848 228,786 182,453 175,169
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... $24,076,194 $21,784,716 $25,439,547 $25,838,455 $18,251,183
===============================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California...................... $8,932,594 $14,373,308 $13,405,680 $9,387,093 $6,632,374
Nevada.......................... 889,052 1,493,879 1,767,858 4,267,832 3,220,344
New Mexico...................... 1,049 1,273 129 893 374
Utah............................ 192,432 206,909 198,807 236,390 174,546
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... $10,015,127 $16,075,369 $15,372,474 $13,892,208 $10,027,638
===============================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: 1994-2000, Minerals Revenue 2001-2003, Interim Solution tool
Question 62. In July of last year, the Government Accountability
Office completed a report that I had requested relating to the venting
and flaring of natural gas (GAO-04-809). I am concerned about this
issue from an energy perspective and also due to the environmental
impact of flaring and venting. The GAO recommended that you direct BLM
and MMS to consider the cost and benefit of certain actions and also
work with DOE regarding information collection.
What is the status of these efforts?
Answer. Work is underway to complete the cost and benefit analysis
of GAO's recommendations regarding: 1) flaring of natural gas, whenever
possible, when flaring or venting is necessary; and, 2) the use of
flaring and venting meters to improve oversight. The BLM and MMS expect
to have completed this analysis by September 30, 2005.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Question 63. 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 2005 enacted
levels. Please provide a listing of these funding reductions.
Answer. Due to the constraints of funding limitations and high
priority objectives, the Administration had to choose among many
programs to fund the objectives that are most important. In the case of
USGS, the 2006 budget maintains and adds funding for the highest
priority programs, while reducing 2005 increases not requested by the
Administration and lower priority programs such as the Minerals
Resources Program.
USGS reductions include $28.5 million in mineral resource
assessments, $6.4 million to eliminate the water resource research
institutes as they should generally be able to support themselves
through outside contributions; $500,000 in carbon sequestration
studies; $1.3 million in the National coastal program; and $100,000 in
lower priority general decreases. The budget also includes $11.8
million in reductions of unrequested Congressional earmarks; a table
listing the earmarks is attached. The budget also proposes $3.7 million
in administrative savings, which focus on better management of travel,
space and motor vehicle fleet costs.
The following is a compilation of proposed earmark reductions for
the USGS.
2006 PROPOSED EARMARK REDUCTION FOR USGS
[Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Flood Mapping.............................. -986
Global Dust Monitoring Study.............................. -247
Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Program................ -1,134
Geological Minerals Center in Alaska...................... -99
Collaborative Study with the University of Oklahoma....... -1,460
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program........................ -227
Study of extremophillic life in Berkeley Pit, w/ MT Tech.. -195
Potomac River Ground Water Study.......................... -296
Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Study............. -493
Chesapeake Bay Program.................................... -247
Hood Canal Fish Mortality Research........................ -345
Requirements of the San Pedro Partnership................. -247
Lake Champlain Basin Toxic Materials...................... -291
Monitoring Water Resources in Hawaii...................... -437
Coalbed Methane Study of Tongue River Watershed........... -877
Mark Twain National Forest Mining Study................... -731
Molecular Biology at Leetown Science Center............... -779
Pallid Sturgeon Research.................................. -296
Diamondback Terrapins Study............................... -195
DNA Bear Sampling Study in Montana........................ -974
Multidisciplinary Water Resources Study at Leetown Science -292
Center...................................................
Manatee Research in support of FWS........................ -493
Delaware River Basin Ecologically Sustainable Water -247
Management Project.......................................
CRU at the University of Nebraska......................... -395
-------------
Total, 2006 Proposed Earmark Reductions............... -11,983
=============
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 64. The budget proposes a substantial cut ($28 million) in
geologic resource assessments relating to basic geologic, geochemical,
geophysical and mineral deposit data, mineral resource assessments of
critical minerals, data collection on mineral commodities outside the
United States, and the Mineral Resources External Research Grant
Program. Please provide the specific justification for cutting each of
these activities. How will this information be provided in the future?
How do you expect the research to be undertaken in the absence of
funding?
Answer. As explained in the answer to the prior questions, the
Administration had to choose among many programs to fund the objectives
that are most important. In the case of USGS, the 2006 budget maintains
and adds funding for the highest priority programs, while reducing 2005
increases not requested by the Administration and lower priority
programs such as the Minerals Resources Program.
The main beneficiaries of the work being eliminated are States and
private industry. If there is a true need for the work to be continued,
the Administration believes that this work will continue in partnership
in the non-Federal sector, as there is expertise to conduct this work
in various State geological surveys and universities throughout the
Nation.
The budget documents state that ``funding is reduced for
studies and information gathering for regional and local
activities that are more oriented to the interests of State,
local governments, and universities . . .'' Why does the Budget
target these users of information?
Answer. This change in program is designed to focus USGS on those
areas that are most critical to Federal government needs, which
involves Federal land management agencies. The expertise to take on
this work exists at various universities and State geological surveys
across the Nation, and they might be willing to perform or fund some
functions that the USGS currently performs. The National Science
Foundation also supports some work in this area.
Question 65. Why is funding being cut for USGS research on carbon
sequestration?
Answer. Although the USGS provides important contributions to
carbon sequestration research, this research does not address the
highest priority science needs of the USGS and the Administration. The
Administration has had to make very difficult choices among all Federal
programs to reduce Federal spending to ensure the Nation meets the
objective of reducing the Federal deficit by 50 percent by 2009. The
President's FY 2006 Budget does preserve significant carbon
sequestration research related to wetlands in the USGS budget.
Question 66. What is the time frame for enhancing the tsunami
warning system in the Pacific and adding new tsunami warning systems in
the Atlantic, Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico?
Answer. The primary responsibility for tsunami warning lies with
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
Department of Commerce. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) passes to
NOAA the seismic monitoring data that underlie NOAA tsunami warnings.
As proposed by the President, the Department of the Interior will
contribute to improved tsunami warning by making needed enhancements to
the seismic monitoring and earthquake reporting capabilities of the
USGS. The USGS is currently in the process of upgrading satellite
telemetry systems in the Pacific region to more modern equipment. USGS
plans to continue this process elsewhere in its seismic network as
lower cost, more efficient telemetry systems become available.
Please describe these enhanced and new systems.
Answer. The proposed enhancements to USGS seismic monitoring
efforts include: expanding of real-time communications to the stations
of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN) and improving station
maintenance; adding up to nine new stations to the GSN in the Caribbean
basin and upgrading up to four existing GSN stations in Central America
and northern South America; and upgrading the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC), which will be staffed by NEIC scientists 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
The proposed enhancements to the GSN involve adding real-time data
communication to the remaining 20 percent of the stations in the
network that do not have real-time communications to the USGS National
Earthquake Information Center and the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers.
Under the Administration's proposal, satellite Internet communications
will be added to all remaining USGS-operated stations where it would be
practical to do so.
What is the current capability in each of these areas?
Answer. The Global Seismographic Network is funded and managed as a
partnership between the USGS and the National Science Foundation. USGS
operates about two-thirds of the current 137 stations in the GSN.
Currently about 80 percent of stations of the network have real-time
telemetry. Data availability from those stations is about 90 percent
for the USGS-operated portion of the network. In the Caribbean, there
is currently one station in Puerto Rico, two in South America, and two
in Central America.
Question 67. The USGS budget proposes a $400,000 initiative to
begin a broad, multi-state assessment of groundwater depletion. I view
this as potentially a very important initiative.
In what region or specific aquifer(s) will the resources for this
program be focused? How will State water resource agencies be
integrated into the assessment process?
Answer. The proposed new funding would allow the USGS to extend the
Great Lakes Basin groundwater assessment pilot effort to part of the
western United States by developing a web-based system to display and
analyze existing information on long-term changes in ground water
reserves. The exact basin or area in the West has not been determined
yet. The USGS will work closely with the State water resource agencies
to conduct this assessment, just as we do in our periodic analysis of
depletion of ground water in the High Plains Aquifer. The USGS and the
States all have very substantial holdings of long-term water level
records from the major aquifers of the West. We will utilize all of
this information and seek collaboration and review from the water
agencies in these States. The USGS regularly attends the meetings of
the Western States Water Council and will use that group as a forum to
share work plans and obtain State input to the process.
Question 68. The USGS budget cuts over $28 million from geologic
resource assessments, including a $500,000 cut to USGS carbon
sequestration studies. The budget states that ``[t]he proposed funding
reduction in FY 2006 will stop research associated with the geologic
sequestration of CO2 project, and will preclude the
development of a consistent, scientifically robust CO2
sequestration assessment methodology and the efforts to test this
assessment methodology on geologic sites.''
This is important research. Why is the Administration proposing to
eliminate it? The USGS is uniquely qualified to add to the nation's
scientific knowledge of geologic carbon sequestration potential. Does
the Administration not view this research as important? If it does,
shouldn't USGS have a role in the Administration's overall approach to
addressing carbon sequestration potential?
Answer. As we stated above, although the USGS provides important
contributions to carbon sequestration research, the Administration has
had to make very difficult choices among all Federal programs to
reduced Federal spending to ensure the Nation meets the objective of
reducing the Federal deficit by 50 percent by 2009. The USGS Energy and
Environment Program will sustain efforts in carbon sequestration by
serving in an advisory role to other Federal, State, and international
groups. The President's FY 2006 Budget also preserves significant
carbon sequestration research related to wetlands in the USGS budget.
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Question 69. The Department has been reticent to participate in the
Navajo-San Juan and the Aamodt water rights settlements. Now, the
budget proposes cutting $4.4 million (20%-25%) from the two BIA
accounts that help Indian tribes develop their water rights claims and
negotiating positions (water planning & pre-development and water
rights negotiation and litigation).
Given the increasing need to address water needs on Indian
reservations where many of the residents still haul water, and the
desire of the States to resolve these claims so that water resources
can be better managed, what is the Department's rationale for proposing
these cuts? If the programs have been deemed non-effective, what is the
criteria for making that assessment? Has that criteria been reviewed by
the stakeholders (i.e. Indian tribes) who benefit from the programs
through a consultation process?
Answer. The BIA has for many years assisted tribes in defining and
establishing water rights and settling claims through litigation and/or
negotiations. Program dollars support both the BIA and tribal work
associated with this effort. At the requested level of funding for
2006, the BIA will continue to conduct technical research and studies
related to the preparation and defense of tribal water rights claims.
BIA will fund an estimated 100 projects related to establish water
rights associated with some 40 tribes.
The BIA will also continue to provide grants to tribes to conduct
water management and planning projects for the purpose of managing and
conserving Indian water resources. The requested level of funding for
2006 maintains funding levels for grants at the 2005 level. Tribes
typically use these grants to determine the quantity and quality of
ground and surface water or to work with partners at the Federal, state
and local governments to manage water resources. The reduced 2006
funding level reflects the elimination of the water resource technical
training program, which will serve 45 tribal youth in 2005.
In formulating its budget request, the Administration focused on
programs that are a higher priority on a nationwide basis.
Question 70. Are there any resources in the budget to assist Indian
tribes in developing renewable energy resources on their lands? If so,
how much, and where are those resources being focused?
Answer. The Department is committed to carrying out the President's
energy development goals and encouraging sustainable energy production
and economic self-sufficiency in Indian Country. The BIA budget
includes a total of $8.3 million for the minerals and mining program.
Approximately $5.7 million of this amount is available for grants to
Tribes to support energy development projects. In addition, there is
approximately $135,000 in the 2006 budget for an energy grants program
managed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs-Policy and
Economic Development's office. The Energy Grants are available directly
to Tribes for funding of feasibility studies, economic analyses, and
business plans for energy projects that will help foster economic
development on tribal lands.
Much of this funding is directed towards non-renewable energy
resources, since these resources are historically underdeveloped on
Indian lands. However, BIA staff has been working with tribal wind
advocates to develop an Environmental Impact Statement ``template''
that will hasten NEPA approvals for tribal wind energy projects in the
Plains States.
Question 71. The BIA budget requests only $12.8 million dollars of
construction money for the Navajo Indian Irrigation project (NIIP).
Is this enough money to do any new construction on NIIP--i.e.
blocks 9-11? If not, please explain in detail how is this money being
expended? Is there any plan to rehabilitate blocks 1-8 of the project?
If so, is that plan being implemented? How much money would it take to
complete construction of the project (i.e. the remaining blocks)? Over
what time period? How much does OM&R on the project currently cost on
an annual basis? Is it completely covered by the $3.75 million request
made in the budget? What are the projections for annual OM&R costs for
the full project (blocks 1-11)?
Answer. The FY 2006 request provides funding for activities in the
following areas:
Continue rehabilitation of the main canal system and the
correction of other transfer facilities.
Continue construction of Block 9 pumping plants and
laterals.
Continue construction of 34.5kV and 13.8kV overhead power
lines to serve project-pumping plants along with associated
supervisory control equipment.
Ongoing Endangered Species Act work as required by a U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) biological opinion. This work
must continue to meet BIA's commitments to FWS and the
Secretary in the Recovery Implementation Program with other
Federal, State, and Tribal entities. Also other environmental
research studies.
Office of Inspector General mandated deficiency correction
work must be continued to ensure the stable delivery of water
to the crops. (Cost is related to Facilities Transfer
Correction.)
Payment for miscellaneous minor contracts and for contract
modifications.
Payment for claim settlement cost related to the Gallegos
Pumping Plant completion contract.
Payment to Western Area Power Administration for project
power cost.
Payment to Reclamation for providing construction management
and designs for future work.
In addition to the activities listed above, funds may be used for
the relocation of Navajo Indian families from project lands and for
compensation for grazing rights and structures; to continue
environment-related studies on the project; and to provide technical
assistance to the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI). These
funds may also be used to perform maintenance on completed segments of
the facilities as necessary to ensure reliable and efficient delivery
of available water.
The BIA is still 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 and identify the date of project completion. Construction
of additional facilities is being deferred until the MOU is finalized
and signed. At the end of FY 2005, NIIP will remain at 67 percent
complete. Completion of NIIP is projected in the year 2040 or beyond at
the current funding level.
The latest estimate for the current annual OM&R costs is over $5
million. At the current funding level of $3.75 million, the backlog of
maintenance on constructed facilities and infrastructure is increasing
and will be factored into the total cost to complete the project. The
latest estimate for OM&R costs for the full project is approximately
$7.4 million.
Question 72. The BIA budget requests $1.9 million to ``fulfill
requirements associated with water management within the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD).'' Presumably, this funding would
be used to address OM&R costs associated with the irrigation works of
the 6 Middle Rio Grande Pueblos.
What requirements are currently in place with respect to
water management within the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District?
Answer. The State of New Mexico's 1927 Conservancy Act authorized
conservation, irrigation, drainage, and flood control works in the
State, including the operation and maintenance of an irrigation system
to deliver water to lands within the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Because
of the interspersed nature of Pueblo and non-Indian lands in the
Valley, Congress passed legislation in 1928 that authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) to incorporate and serve the
Pueblos' lands within MRGCD's boundaries as part of its irrigation and
drainage system, (Act of March 13, 1928; 45 Stat. 312) (1928 Act). The
1928 Act specified that the agreement would recognize and protect the
Pueblos' ``prior and paramount''(senior) water rights for lands then
being irrigated; provide for the future irrigation of the ``newly
reclaimed lands''; and exempt the Pueblos' prior and paramount lands
from being subject to a pro rata share of MRGCD's operation,
maintenance and betterment costs. Subsequent legislation in 1935 both
authorized the Secretary to enter into an agreement with MRGCD in order
to pay MRGCD for operation and maintenance charges assessable against
the Pueblos' irrigable newly reclaimed lands and established a formula
to determine appropriate charges, (Act of August 27, 1935; 49 Stat.
887) (1935 Act). The Secretary has entered into agreements with MRGCD
pursuant to these statutes. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the Pueblos entered into a 1981
Agreement specifically regarding Pueblo water requirements. The 1981
Agreement defined roles for BOR, BIA, the Pueblos, and MRGCD regarding
storage and release of water for the Pueblos and established ``Annual
Computation Procedures'' to calculate the estimated storage required to
satisfy the Pueblos' prior and paramount water needs each year. No
formal adjudication of water rights has ever been initiated or
completed for the Middle Rio Grande.
Is there a current contract in place between the BIA and
MRGCD to ensure that adequate OM&R is being performed on the
facilities delivering water to Pueblo lands?
Answer. In accordance with the provisions of the 1928 and 1935
Acts, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and MRGCD executed a new agreement in September 2004
regarding the payment of operation, maintenance and betterment charges
for the newly reclaimed lands of the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos
(Pueblos). The agreement also addresses Annual Work Plans which are
developed by the parties in coordination with the Pueblos and identify,
for each year, the necessary operation, maintenance and betterment work
and other projects to be performed by MRGCD in order to receive payment
under the agreement.
How will the $1.9 million be expended?
Answer. The BIA's budget request stems primarily from calculations
made under section X of the new agreement, which follows the operation
and maintenance payment formula prescribed in the 1935 Act. The Annual
Work Plan will prioritize and determine specific operation, maintenance
and betterment work projects each year, and annual funding will be used
to pay for those projects. Funding will also be used in part to cover
BIA program needs, including salaries and administrative costs, system
operators and water masters, and the functions of the Secretary's
Designated Engineer (established pursuant to the 1928 Act).
Will there be any significant rehabilitation of the water
supply infrastructure on Pueblo lands? (BIA)
Answer. The new agreement specifies that operation, maintenance,
and betterment include actions involving the rehabilitation of existing
irrigation structures and facilities. The extent to which calculations
made under the 1935 Act's payment formula, incorporated in section X of
the agreement, and available appropriations to make these payments will
allow for ``significant rehabilitation'' of the infrastructure
supplying Pueblo lands remains unclear. The new agreement provides a
vehicle by which any additional funds could be provided to MRGCD to
perform ``Special Projects'' that exceeded the general operation,
maintenance and betterment work to be performed annually. MRGCD also
received approximately $3 million under the Department's Water 2025
initiative for water conservation and infrastructure improvements,
which could be used to the benefit of the structures serving Pueblo
lands.
ISLAND ISSUES
Question 73a. Compact accountability: Improving accountability in
the use of U.S. funding was a guiding principle in the negotiations and
enactment of P.L. 108-188, the law which approved a 20-year extension
of the Compacts of Free Association with the Marshall Islands and
Micronesia.
Would you please generally describe how the new accountability
mechanisms are working?
Answer. The amended Compact's new accountability mechanisms are in
place. While all problems have not been immediately eliminated, we have
a much greater ability to identify and correct problems. Compact grants
are managed with new tools: (1) prior approval of the use of grant
funds by joint management committees, (2) required quarterly financial
and performance reports, (3) increased oversight by Department of the
Interior personnel, and (4) the ability to withhold grant funds.
Aided by a new financial management system and its unitary
government, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has made the
transition to the new system without much difficulty. The Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM), partially because it has four diverse
states, has had more difficulty in coordinating budgeting, performance,
and financial reporting. The Department is engaging the FSM national
government on a variety of fronts to provide more oversight of the
sector grants. In this regard, Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) is
working cooperatively with the governments to define additional tools
and reports needed to monitor sectoral performance and the appropriate
use of grant funds. For example, in order to emphasize the purpose
behind the capacity building grant, we are working with the FSM
government to remove recurring costs from that grant. OIA also
withholds funds to guarantee compliance with grant terms and
conditions. We have already had to withhold grant funds from the FSM on
two occasions to address compliance issues. For example, we recently
suspended funds to Chuuk State's school feeding program when OIA was
unable to verify that food purchases actually reached students.
OIA is now in the process of applying special mid-year grant
conditions to two of FSM's sector grants. With regard to the health
sector, we are requiring the FSM national government and Chuuk State to
develop a plan with OIA to promptly address deficiencies found in the
Chuuk health dispensary program. At a minimum, quick progress is
expected to address (1) drug restocking issues, (2) the continued
payment of wages to health assistants who have abandoned their jobs,
and (3) the closure of non-functioning dispensaries. Similarly, we are
imposing similar conditions to improve the delivery of educational
programs to the children of Chuuk. The list of areas identified as
needing immediate improvement includes, but is not limited to,
eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse in payroll and
procurement practices; ensuring classrooms are equipped with textbooks
and other basic instructional materials; and addressing administrative,
teacher, and student attendance issues. These actions have come as a
result of a series of consultations with the FSM national government
and Chuuk State. If adequate progress is not achieved by August 2005,
Joint Economic Management Committee is poised to consider withholding,
suspension, or redirection of funds in its allocation of fiscal year
2006 sector grants.
Question 73b. One of the new accountability requirements, section
104(h), is that the President shall report annually to Congress
regarding conditions in the Freely Associated States (FAS) and on the
use of U.S. assistance. The first such report was due last December
31st. When do you expect the report will be transmitted to the
Congress?
Answer. We apologize for the delay. The report is in the review
process, and we expect that it will be sent to the Congress in two to
four weeks.
Question 73c. One issue during approval of the Compact was whether
U.S. oversight should be provided by DOI officials resident in the FAS,
or by officials sent from an oversight office in Hawaii--the approach
favored by the Administration and agreed to by Congress. Would you
generally describe how this arrangement has worked and provide specific
information on the number of trips, and ``employee-days'' spent on the
ground conducting oversight, in: Majuro, Kwajalein/Ebeye, Kosrea,
Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap, during FY04?
Answer. The Department of the Interior's (DOI) oversight of the
Compact also includes in-country personnel stationed in Pohnpei and
Majuro. This allows for constant coverage of Pohnpei State and the FSM
National Government, as well as the government of the RMI.
The Hawaii-based approach has worked well. Hawaii's position midway
between the FAS and the United States' mainland has allowed for easy
communication and coordination in either direction. DOI has been able
to recruit, and expects to retain, qualified personnel with experience
in the FAS in relevant professional fields. Basing personnel in Hawaii
allows for efficient use of personnel and has created a consistent team
approach that we expected in dealing with Compact issues.
In Fiscal Year 2004, DOI employees spent many days in the field.
The days reported on the following page do not include travel days to
and from Honolulu, only days on site. The location designated as
``Regional'' includes grant-related meetings held in Guam or the CNMI.
Question 74a. Compact Trust Funds: One essential element of the new
Compacts is the establishment of Trust Funds for each of the two FAS.
The U.S. and other nations' contributions to these funds are to be
invested so that compounded earnings over the next 20 years will
provide an alternate source of revenue after the term of U.S. annual
assistance expires in 2023.
Although the law was signed in December of 2003, I understand that
the investment accounts have not yet been established. Why has the
Department taken so long to implement a policy that could have been
easily anticipated?
Answer. The governments of the United States, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Federate State of Micronesia (FSM) have
acted expeditiously with regard to the trust funds.
While the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 became
public law in December of 2003, the U.S. Congress added requirements
that then had to be ratified by both the RMI and FSM. The Department of
the Interior initiated the incorporation process through draft articles
of incorporation to the respective presidents of the RMI and FSM on
April 9, 2004.
RMI Trust Fund
The Trust Fund for the People of the Republic of the Marshall
Islands (RMI Trust Fund) was incorporated in the District of Columbia
on April 28, 2004. Both the drafting of articles and incorporation
occurred before the exchange of diplomatic notes establishing May 1,
2004 as the date of implementation of the Compact amendments relating
to the RMI.
The diplomatic notes stated that the RMI would deposit its $25
million on May 14, 2004, and that the United States would deposit its
$7 million two days later.
Records show that the RMI deposit of $25 million arrived at the RMI
Trust Fund's bank on June 1, 2004, and the Department of the Interior
deposited the United States' contribution $7 million on time on June 3,
2004. Additionally, the United States made its Fiscal Year 2005
contribution of $7,588,500 on October 5, 2004. This last contribution
was actually made early.
FSM Trust Fund
The FSM considered the changes in the Compact amendments imposed by
the United States Congress and ratified the Compact amendments on May
26, 2004. The FSM and the United States established June 25, 2004 as
the effective date for implementation of the Compact of Free
Association Amendments for the FSM. Compact language, agreed to by both
parties, called for the FSM to make its first contribution to the FSM
Trust Fund by September 30, 2004.
The FSM Trust Fund was incorporated on August 17, 2004. The FSM
contributed its $30 million on schedule on September 30, 2004. The
Department of the Interior, on behalf of the United States deposited
its Fiscal Year 2004 contribution of $16 million on October 5, 2004,
and its Fiscal Year 2005 contribution of $16,188,000 also on October 5,
2004.
Investment Advisor and Trustee
It is expected that the Trust Fund Committee will rely to a great
extent on the advice of its Investment Advisor in allocating of assets
among a range of investment vehicles. Intending to speed the selection
process for the trust funds, the Department of the Interior, prior to
incorporation of the trusts, issued a request for information to
determine the range of possible candidates for the positions of
Investment Advisor and Trustee.
Once incorporated, the RMI Trust Fund Committee embarked on a full
competitive process for selecting an Investment Advisor and Trustee.
The Trust Fund Committee determined that a full competitive process,
although time consuming, was appropriate to ensure that the right
choices be made for these very important functions. In order to
conserve trust fund assets, the Department of the Interior gave a grant
to the RMI to hire a law firm to issue requests for proposals and
receive responses on behalf of the RMI Trust Fund. Sixteen responses
were received for Investment Advisor and seven responses were received
for Trustee. The responses were analyzed by a financial advisory firm
from New York. A subcommittee of the RMI Trust Fund Committee then
spent a day interviewing the top four candidates for Investment
Advisor. Based on advice and interviews, the RMI Trust Fund Committee
has selected its Investment Advisor and Trustee. The RMI Trust Fund
Committee expects to begin shifting assets to investments that pay a
higher rate of return within the next two months.
The FSM Trust Fund is embarking on its selection process for
Investment Advisor and Trustee, which, it is anticipated, will be as
thorough as that for the RMI Trust Fund. OIA has again offered a
technical assistance grant to help fund this process.
Question 74b. Would you please estimate the lost value to these
Trust Funds which has resulted, so far, from these delays?
Answer. The Department of the Interior views the incorporation
process and initial deposits as being on time.
Question 75a. Impact of American Job Creation Act of 2004 on the
Insular Areas: Would you please provide the Administration's best
estimate of the impact of the American Jobs Creation Act provisions
regarding residency and income sourcing on the government revenues of
the USVI, American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI?
Answer. Because the territories administer their own internal
revenue departments, the Treasury Department does not have access to
the tax data necessary to determine the revenue impact of AJCA on the
territories. To the extent that the tax base of each territory depends
upon the definition of ``bona fide residency,'' the Act may result in a
net transfer of tax revenue from the territories to the Federal
government. Lacking in-depth studies, it is difficult to estimate the
effect of the legislation on the territories, although the USVI is
likely to experience the greatest impact because of its proximity to
the United States.
Question 75b. Would you tell me what steps the Department believes
are appropriate to respond to this impact, and what steps are being
taken, if any, by the Administration.
Answer. We are concerned that delays in issuing implementing
regulations might cause some businesses to leave the territories. We
therefore support the Department of the Treasury's efforts to issue
proposed implementing regulations expeditiously. The Department of the
Interior is working with Treasury so that the regulations attempt to
avoid unintended consequences for the territories As for any long-term
impacts, the Department is making a sustained commitment to assist the
islands to market their competitive advantages to private sector
investors. We believe that such a sustained effort is crucial to the
long-term wellbeing of the territories.
Question 76a. Impact of the phase-out of garment quotas on the
CNMI: Would you please provide the Administration's best estimate of
the impact of the phase-out of garment import quotas on the revenues of
the government of the CNMI economy?
Answer. The World Trade Organization (WTO) garment quotas were
phased out as of Jan. 1, 2005. The world-wide impact is still uncertain
but large. In the CNMI, smaller factories are expected to close. No
estimate of the impact on government revenues has been made.
It is important to note that from the beginning of this
Administration, we focused efforts on private-sector led economic
development. Part of this effort was focused on increasing interest in
the islands within the business community of the 50 states. To this
end, we hosted two conferences. We hosted the Secretary's Investment
Development Conference in Washington, D.C. in 2003 with 550
participants from 50 states and the islands, and the Secretary's
Business Opportunities Conference in Los Angeles in 2004 with over
1,000 participants.
In May, we will launch the first-ever DOI-led Business
Opportunities Mission to Guam, Saipan, and Palau. Many of the companies
interested in the Mission are pursuing business opportunities that they
first learned about at the conferences. Other missions to our other
insular areas are also being planned. Additionally, we have provided
technical assistance to territorial economic development agencies and
other local business, trade, and tourism development organizations.
The Administration's commitment to encourage private sector
development on the islands is unprecedented, and we plan to continue
our efforts to grow business opportunities for the islands.
Question 76b. Does the Department support the proposal of the
Government of the CNMI to reduce the local content requirement of
General Note 3(a) of the Tariff Schedules from 50 percent to 30
percent?
Answer. We are not aware of any legislative proposal to reduce the
local content requirement of General Note 3(a)(iv), and as such, the
Administration has not taken a position on this issue.
Question 77a. CNMI Cover over: The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands maintains that the U.S. owes the Commonwealth proceeds
of taxes, fees, and other collections derived from the Commonwealth--
the so-called ``cover over''--as required by Section 703(b) of the
Covenant.
Do you agree that the U.S. currently owes some cover over, and if
so, what is your best estimate, or your best estimate for a range, of
the amount owed by the U.S.?
Answer. It appears that funds are owed by the United States to the
CNMI. Section 703(b) of the Covenant requires that ``the proceeds of
all customs duties and Federal income taxes derived from the Northern
Mariana Islands '' and ``the proceeds of any other taxes which may be
levied by the Congress on the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana
Islands'' be paid to the CNMI treasury. Section 7654 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, applicable with respect to the CNMI pursuant to
section 601 of the Covenant, provides detailed rules regarding the
cover over of income taxes. Section 7654 generally requires both the
U.S. Treasury and CNMI treasury to cover over to one another the taxes
they collect with respect to income from the other jurisdiction.
In 1990, the IRS suspended payments to the CNMI due to concerns
about whether taxpayer information provided to the CNMI as a necessary
part of the cover over process was adequately protected from disclosure
as required by Federal law. This problem was resolved in 2003, and the
Department of the Treasury is working with the CNMI to determine what
is owed.
Question 77b. Is there disagreement between the U.S. and the CNMI
on what the amount owed is, and generally, what are the reasons for the
disagreement on the amount?
Answer. The Department of the Treasury has not yet completed its
review of what is owed. The CNMI asserts that the amount owed by the
United States under Covenant section 703(b) is $110,505,859. The United
States Department of the Treasury has not been able to confirm this
amount because of the difficulty in locating records.
Question 77c. Conceptually, do you have any objection to the
enactment of legislation that would require clarify congressional
intent regarding any questions regarding the interpretation of the
Covenant, and calling for negotiations between the U.S. and the CNMI
with the object of reaching a settlement within a reasonable period of
time on a cover over amount that would fulfill the United States'
obligations under Section 703(b)?
Answer. We have no objection to the concept of Congress clarifying
its intent on this matter and calling for reasonable steps to implement
that intention.
Questions From Senator Akaka
IMPACT ON AMERICAN SAMOA OF THE LOSS OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
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 is scheduled to phase out at the end of this year.
Question 1a. What steps has the Department taken to either avoid or
anticipate this loss of revenue?
Answer. The credit will terminate at the end of calendar year 2005.
However, the American Samoa Delegate has introduced legislation that
would extend its applicability to American Samoa. The Department is
studying the impact of the credit and possible alternatives to it. In
addition, we have provided a technical assistance grant to the American
Samoa Government to study alternative ways of preserving the canning
industry in American Samoa.
Ultimately, American Samoa has no alternative but to promote more
aggressively private sector investment and to diversify its economy.
The Department recognizes that this is the most important priority
facing American Samoa and the other insular areas and is making a
sustained commitment to help the islands market themselves to private
sector investors. The Department sponsored major conferences in 2003
and 2004 to allow island leaders to market the insular areas to U.S.
businesses. We are following up with business opportunities missions to
the islands. We believe that a sustained commitment to private sector
development will pay off and recognize that the alternative is
perpetual dependence on the Federal government.
Question 1b. 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 are you prepared to offer Samoa?
Answer. As noted, the Department is studying the possible impact
and alternatives. We are not contemplating any changes in the operating
subsidy.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET
Question 2a. I am pleased that you have included a small increase
for Park Operations, although most of the increase is targeted for
repair and rehabilitation of historic buildings. With such a small and
targeted increase on one hand, and growing visitorship and almost
annual increases in the number of Park Service Units on the other, how
do you intend to maintain the Park Service's long-standing excellence
in conserving natural resources, historic and cultural sites, and
public education?
Answer. As noted, the National Park Service 2006 request includes
an increase of over $50 million in its operating account. Included
within this increase are funds to fully cover a 2.3 percent pay
increase for government employees and a series of targeted increases in
selected areas such as preservation of cultural resources, natural
resource inventory and monitoring, information technology, and
partnership program oversight. These critical increases, taken in
conjunction with the significant boost provided for park operations in
2005, will allow the NPS to sustain visitor services and provide
effective stewardship of resources. The NPS is concurrently undergoing
a series of management improvements and reforms which will also better
enable them to deliver the kind of service to the public that it
expects. By using innovative approaches to management and budgeting,
the NPS will be able to continue its long tradition of excellence.
Question 2b. As you know, I remain concerned about the ability of
the Park Service to implement the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act, enacted in 2000, under current funding scenarios. Comments by
witnesses at the oversight hearing in July 2004 indicate that the Park
Service is underfunding the soundscape program and related activities
to work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In FY 2006, it
appears that there is a nearly $4 million decrease in the ``Reduce
Natural Resources Preservation Program'' (NRPP), which includes the
soundscape program. However, the proposed budget does not include a
line item or indicate exactly the funding and staff for the program
activities that contribute to the NPS work with the Federal Aviation
Administration in developing the management plans for air tours over
National Parks.
Please provide for the record the funding and staff levels for the
proposed budget for FY 2006, and enacted levels for FY 2000 through
2005.
Answer. The reduction to NRPP project funding will not affect the
Natural Sounds Program. The Natural Sounds Program is listed separately
under ``Other Servicewide Programs'' in the Park and Program Summary at
the end of the Operation of the National Park System appropriation
section in the NPS Budget Justifications; prior to 2004 it was listed
as the Overflight Management Program. In 2004, project funding has been
supplemented for the program by Recreational Fee Demonstration (20%)
funding. Decisions are pending on whether the projects are still
eligible to receive such funding under the changes outlined in the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA).
[$000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sounds Program funding (ONPS)................... 1,000 1,003 949 931 921 909 920
Project funding......................................... 960 0 0 0 683 *300 *749
FTE..................................................... 2 2 4 6 5 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pending decision whether project scope is eligible under FLREA
Question 2c. I want to compliment the Park Service for their fine
research on Japanese Americans in World War II, the theme study, and
particularly the overview of WWII Japanese-American relocation sites,
entitled ``Confinement and Ethnicity.'' I appreciate the work that the
Park Service is doing on individual sites, and look forward to working
with you to improve and expand this program.
For the record, please provide detailed funding information, by
site, for the period of FY 2000 to 2006. Please include staff levels
for the sites and related Park Service efforts that support the
initiative such as historical, archaeological, or other studies
underway. Thank you.
Answer. The National Park Service administers two sites that
commemorate the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II:
Manzanar National Historic Site, in California, and Minedoka Internment
National Monument, in Idaho. Funding levels and staff (expressed in
terms of full-time-equivalent positions, or FTEs) for the two sites are
as follows. FTEs are not available beyond FY 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minedoka
Fiscal Year Manzanar National Internment
Historical Site National Monument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................ $483,000--2 FTE... 0
2001............................ $486,000--3 FTE... 0
2002............................ $642,000--6 FTE... $180,000--1 FTE
2003............................ $925,000--8 FTE... $180,000--3 FTE
2004............................ $916,000--11 FTE.. $178,000--3 FTE
2005 (est.)..................... $943,000.......... $183,000
2006 (request).................. $965,000.......... $187,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the National Park Service does not have an official
program devoted to the Japanese-American experience during World War
II, the NPS in engaged in several activities that relate to that
experience:
The NPS is preparing for transmittal to Congress a National
Historic Landmark theme study that identifies more than 40
sites significant to the Japanese-American experience during
World War II. Two of the sites, the internment camps of Tule
Lake in California and Grenada in Colorado, are scheduled to be
considered for recommendation for National Historic Landmark
designation by the Landmarks Committee of the National Park
Service Advisory Board in April.
The NPS is also near completion of a special resource study
of Bainbridge Island, Washington, the first location from which
Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes to be
sent to internment camps during World War II.
One of the NPS's web-based ``Teaching with Historic Places''
lesson plans is on the War Relocation Camps of World War II.
Each of these activities has drawn from information compiled in the
1999 publication entitled ``Confinement and Ethnicity, An Overview of
World War II Japanese American Relocation Sites,'' which was prepared
by the NPS's Western Archeological and Conservation Center.
Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. The President's Budget proposes to eliminate the
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, a National
Park Service office located on the campus of Northwestern State
University in Natchitoches, Louisiana. While the National Parks Service
Budget Justifications for 2006 calls for its elimination ``in order to
support higher priorities that are a federal responsibility,'' the
Center was actually created within the Department of Interior by the
1992 Amendments to National Historic Preservation Act and has
functioned since as an Interior program since its founding in 1994. How
do you explain an apparent lack of awareness of your own Department's
programs, particularly one that has been providing cutting edge
research, technology and training opportunities to the NPS and its
partners for over a decade?
Answer. The proposal is not to eliminate the center but to
eliminate direct Federal funding for the center. NPS recognizes that
the NCPTT has provided a valuable service. However, the NCPTT could
become self sufficient by charging user fees to the entities that
directly benefit from the services. In an effort to ensure that NPS
resources are aimed at the programs that most directly serve the parks,
the NPS proposes to eliminate funding for the NCPTT. In the past, none
of these grants have been used to directly benefit NPS park units. The
NPS will continue to rely on the Historic Preservation Center in
Frederick, Maryland, for training park staff on preservation work on
historic buildings, which does provide direct assistance to parks.
Question 2. During President Bush's first term in office, the
Administration's management agenda emphasized technology transfer as a
way to improve productivity, reduce government and increase public-
private partnerships. Given this emphasis, why would you seek to
eliminate a program which has proven to be a low cost, highly popular,
cost effective model of public-private partnership and technology
transfer?
Answer. The proposal is not to eliminate the center but to
capitalize on the popularity of the NCPTT to operate through user-based
fees.
Question 3. In November of 2004, the Department of Interior
released its 2004 LWCF report on the state assistance program. In the
introduction, the report states, ``we have much to celebrate--40 years
and 40,000 projects--an unparalleled national portfolio of state and
local parks and recreation areas, safe and accessible places of health
and inspiration for all Americans.'' What changed between November of
last year and February of this year to lead the Administration to zero
out a program it apparently considered to be successful just three
months ago?
Answer. Nearly 40,000 grants, valued at approximately $3.6 billion,
have been awarded since the program was established. The LWCF State
assistance grants support State and local parks that have alternative
sources of funding through State revenues and bonds.
The Administration is systematically assessing every government
program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). As the
Administration strives to reduce the Federal deficit, focusing on high-
priority direct Federal responsibilities is imperative. The reduction
in State Conservation grants funding will allow NPS to focus on park
activities that align with agency priorities.
A PART review in 2003 found that the program could not adequately
measure performance or demonstrate results.
Questions From Senator Feinstein
DON EDWARDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Question 1. In 2002, I worked to bring together a group of State
and private parties to acquire the former Cargill Salt Flat Ponds--
potentially spectacular wildlife habitat right on San Francisco Bay.
It is my understanding that in order to restore and manage the
approximately 9,600 newly acquired acres for the Don Edwards National
Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service will require an increase
of $540,000 in its operations and maintenance funding.
I am very concerned that the President's budget proposes to remove
the $532,000 FY 2005 appropriation for conservation work on the refuge.
Given that over 90% of San Francisco Bay's wetlands have been lost, do
you believe that is important to restore these lands in Don Edwards
Refuge? How much funding will you allocate to the Fish and Wildlife
Service for this effort in the FY 2006 budget?
Answer. The Department of the Interior greatly appreciates your
efforts in securing protection for the former Cargill Salt Ponds in San
Francisco Bay. As you are aware, this property is now part of the Don
Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the first urban
National Wildlife Refuge established in the United States, which is
dedicated to preserving and enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting
migratory birds, protecting threatened and endangered species, and
providing opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation and nature
study for the surrounding communities. We concur that the Cargill Salt
Ponds property has the potential to become spectacular wildlife habitat
and it is important to restore this area to tidal marsh.
Habitat restoration funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System
is allocated on a priority basis using the Refuge Operating Needs
System (RONS). RONS is a database used to identify funding and staffing
needs for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The projects contained
in RONS are used in budget justifications presented to the Department,
OMB, and Congress. Several RONS projects for Don Edwards SF Bay
National Wildlife Refuge to maintain and operate 9,650 acres of salt
ponds for wildlife habitat were funded in the 2004 President's Budget
Request.
Currently, there are 35 other projects in RONS at Don Edwards
National Wildlife Refuge, but because they are not currently the top
priorities in the System, they received no funding in the proposed FY
2006 budget. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages
the National Wildlife Refuge System, has been active in forming public/
private partnerships to continue its work restoring the Cargill Salt
Pond property. For example, approximately $5 million in private funding
was used to begin interim management and restoration of the ponds. We
are happy to report that wildlife populations are responding favorably.
The Service also continues to work with many Federal, State, and local
agencies as well as private organizations and individuals to develop a
long-term restoration plan for the salt ponds.
Finally, in FY 2004, $460,000 was appropriated to assist with
operation and maintenance of the salt ponds. That funding was included
in the Refuge's base allocation, was continued in FY 2005, and will
continue in FY 2006.
Question 2. I also understand that two important sources of FY 2005
funding for the United States Geological Service (USGS) assistance to
the refuge totaling approximately $900,000 will no longer be available
in Fiscal Year 2006. Do you agree with me that Geological Service
studies regarding refuge restoration are important, and how you propose
to fund them?
Answer. The USGS has been conducting salt pond studies at Don
Edwards NWR over the last three years, in a partnership effort with the
California Coastal Conservancy.
Over the last two years, the California Coastal Conservancy has
been able to fund a total of $1.5 million for USGS to conduct research
at Don Edwards NWR. We understand that the Coastal Conservancy funds
are not anticipated to be available beginning in 2006.
The USGS contribution to this partnership has been $545,000 a year
for the past three years, including:
$195,000 from the USGS Priority Ecosystems Program. This
program is funded at $12.0 million in 2005 and 2006. In 2006,
the project may be eligible for funding if the allocation
criteria are met and weighed against other Survey-wide
priorities.
$350,000 as part of a three-year award from the USGS Quick
Response Program. While the Quick Response Program is funded in
total at $350,000 in 2006, this particular project would have
to meet the Quick Response Program criteria and weighed against
other Survey-wide priorities.
CALFED
Question 3. I know the Committee has scheduled a water symposium
this coming April. As we think about solutions for drought and water
shortages in the West, I believe that the CALFED legislation that the
Chairman and ranking member helped to pass last year is a model for
solving Western water problems. We brought all the stakeholders
together and found a way to improve our water supply while restoring
water quality and the environment. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you
for your help on this bill, and I would be interested to know: do you
agree that CALFED is a model for solving Western water problems?
Answer. CALFED is a comprehensive long-term solution to the complex
and interrelated problems in the Bay-Delta, the watersheds that feed
it, and the areas served by waters diverted out of it. A consortium of
Federal and State agencies fund and participate in the CALFED program,
focusing on the health of the ecosystem and improving water management
and supplies. In addition, CALFED addresses the issues of water supply
reliability, aging levees, and threatened water quality.
On October 25, 2004, the President signed the CALFED Bay-Delta
Authorization Act (the Act), providing federal authorization from FY
2005 through FY 2010 for implementation of the CALFED Program. The
newly authorized activities include the Environmental Water Account,
Conveyance, and Levee Stability programs, as well as for CALFED Program
oversight and coordination. The Act authorized up to $389 million to be
appropriated for these activities, and it has a number of reporting
requirements.
The 2006 budget request includes $35 million for Reclamation
including:
$10 million for the Environmental Water Account;
$10 million for the Storage Program;
$3 million for Conveyance;
$4 million for Water Use Efficiency;
$4 million for Ecosystem Restoration; and
$4 million for Planning and Management activities.
COLORADO RIVER
All seven Colorado River Basin states--Colorado, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California--have written you with an
urgent request to fund Lower Colorado River regulatory storage
projects. Specifically, the seven states are interested in an up to
10,000 acre-foot reservoir near the All-American Canal, and dredging
sediments that have accumulated behind Laguna Dam.
Question 4a. The seven states say that these proposals, and I
quote, ``would be of great benefit to the Colorado River Basin states,
. . . providing opportunities for water conservation, storage, and
conjunctive use programs, and setting the stage for new cooperative
water supply and water quality management endeavors with Mexico.'' Do
you agree?
Answer. The Department evaluates the merits of such proposals on an
individual basis for their benefits to the nation, in accordance with
the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.
Question 4b. How much funding could the Bureau of Reclamation
productively put to use for these projects in fiscal year 2006?
Answer. In the President's 2006 Budget, there are two proposals:
$700,000 for preliminary All-American Canal regulating storage
reservoir work and $2.6 million for sediment dredging above Imperial
Dam.
RECYCLING
Question 5. The President's budget provides less and less funding
for Title XVI recycling projects every year, even though these projects
reduce dependence on the Colorado River in an environmentally sensitive
manner. Do you believe there is a need for federal assistance to
recycling projects, and if so, what form should the federal assistance
take?
Answer. Over the past 11 years, more than $289 million has been
provided to local water agencies to plan, design and construct 19
authorized Title XVI projects. Several projects have been completed;
however, most projects are still under construction. Nevertheless, many
of these ongoing projects are partially complete and also delivering
reclaimed water. The Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program has
proven to be a successful and popular program, especially in the urban
areas of the West. The Department believes that the program has met its
primary mission of demonstrating that recycling and reuse can expand
and augment existing water supplies. Reclamation intends to continue to
support the completion of those ongoing projects included in the
President's budget request in prior years. The President's request for
Title XVI funding has been in the $11.5 million to $12.5 million range
for the past 3 years. Although there is interest in Federal funding to
promote water recycling, relative to the other needs and priorities
associated with Reclamation's core mission to deliver water and power,
the optimal level of funding for FY 2006 is the $10,229,000 requested
in the President's budget to continue work on ongoing projects.
JAY MOON
Last year's omnibus appropriations bill required that the Mojave
National Preserve grant a temporary grazing permit to the permittee for
Clark Mountain allotment lands, Jay Moon.
Question 6a. Given that the vast majority of the Preserve has
already been set aside for conservation and recreation purposes, I
strongly believe that the National Park Service should make every
effort to allow any remaining ranchers who wish to do so to continue to
graze within the Preserve consistent with applicable laws and
regulations. Do you agree?
Answer. Continued grazing in the Preserve is consistent with the
General Management Plan for the area.
Question 6b. Given the aridity of the Preserve, offering a grazing
permit but withholding water facilities is largely an empty gesture.
Will you commit to allow the return of the previous water facilities
under this temporary grazing permit?
Answer. The remaining ranchers within the Preserve will have access
to a supply of water.
HEADWATERS
Question 7. I understand that the Bureau of Land Management's
California Office believes about $1 million annually for the next five
years is needed to implement the Headwaters Forest Reserve Resource
Management Plan. Do you agree that full implementation of the
Headwaters plan is important? How much is in the FY 2006 budget on this
issue?
Answer. The Department believes that full implementation of the
Headwaters plan is important, just as we believe full implementation of
all National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and other resource
management plans is an important goal, given available funding. We
anticipate that it will take 5 years to meet the BLM's implementation
goals for the Headwaters Plan, pending the outcome of future
appropriations. For FY 2006, BLM has targeted $1.2 million for
implementation of the Headwaters plan.
HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION
Question 8. The Bureau of Land Management's hazardous fuel
reduction program is important for California. In particular, we rely
on the approximately $2 million in annual grants for local FireSafe
Councils to implement community protection measures. Do you plan to
continue these grants, which are needed to protect the hundreds of
thousands of people at risk in Southern California?
Answer. The Department supports the excellent work of the
California FireSafe Councils in protecting their communities from the
damage of catastrophic wildfires. We have enjoyed very positive
collaboration with them and will continue to cooperate with them and
support their efforts in the future with financial support.
LAKE BERRYESSA
Question 9. I understand that Napa County is having problems with
the recreational facilities at Lake Berryessa, which is currently
managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. What is the time frame to get a
final Environmental Impact Statement completed on a new Visitors
Services Plan?
Answer. Reclamation has reopened the public review and comment
period for the draft EIS for the Visitor Service Plan for Lake
Berryessa for 45 days from February 16, 2005 through April 4, 2005. The
purpose of reopening the comment period is to consider additional
economic information needed to determine the preferred alternative.
REPROGRAMMING OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS
Question 10. Last year's Omnibus included a provision which
required the BLM to reclaim $10 million in unobligated Land and Water
Conservation Funds (LWCF) in order to finance current year projects. It
is my understanding that the Department of Interior has been evaluating
land acquisition projects nationwide which have yet to expend
previously appropriated dollars in order to determine from which it
will collect this $10 million, including the roughly $13 million in
unobligated funds for California projects.
Rep. Bono and I wrote to you about this issue several weeks ago to
ask that the approximately $2.9 million in unobligated funding for a
Riverside County project (Portero Canyon) be reprogrammed for an
adjacent project (the Cathton Property), which is contiguous with a BLM
fringe-toed lizard preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. This
reprogramming had the support of both the original sponsor, Rep.
Calvert and California BLM Director Mike Pool several months before the
Omnibus even passed, and consequently, this funding is potentially in
jeopardy only because no action was taken on their request within the
Department in these intervening months. Can you tell me what the status
of this issue is?
Answer. In the 2005 Interior Appropriation Act, Congress earmarked
$16.85 million for specific, itemized land purchases and directed that
$10 million worth of land acquisitions be carried out using BLM's
unobligated land acquisition balances. We undertook a lengthy review of
all BLM currently funded projects and worked closely with the House and
Senate Appropriations Committee to identify the specific balances to be
redirected. The $2.9 million in unobligated funds for the Potrero Creek
project has been identified for this purpose. The Potrero Creek project
was identified because there were no willing sellers.
NATIONAL PARKS BUDGET
Question 11. The National Parks Operations budget currently
operates at a substantial annual deficit.
The $50.5 million increase in the President's budget request for
Park Operations is almost entirely for fixed costs including pay and
benefit costs to cover current Park Service employees. While I'm
pleased these fixed costs have now been budgeted for, when they have
not been in the past, the President's request includes no programmatic
increases for Operations. These programmatic increases are necessary to
meet the visitor service and resource projection needs of the parks.
How is the President's request addressing the programmatic needs
associated with the estimated annual operational deficit?
Answer. The Department and the National Park Service do not
anticipate an operational deficit in 2006 and fully expect that, by
sustaining the robust programmatic base increases provided in the 2005
appropriation, visitor services and resource protection needs of parks
will adequately be addressed and there will not be an operational
deficit. The Fiscal Year 2006 President's request boosts operational
funding for the National Park Service bringing total funding for this
account to a record level of $1.734 billion.
Within the Operation of the National Park System account, base
funding for the National Park System is also at an all-time high. In
2005, $1.047 billion in base funding was appropriated and every park in
the National Park System received a base increase. The 2006 base
funding request builds off of the record funding in 2005 and provides
an additional $21.9 million for a total of $1.069 billion. This would
provide an increase in base funding for every park in the National Park
System for a second year in a row and would sustain the enhancements to
visitor and other services provided in 2005.
Question 12. The Kings Canyon-Sequoia National Park in California
has been struggling with the problem of illegal marijuana cultivation
within the park grounds. I understand that other National Parks are
facing this issue as well. How is the National Park Service working to
address this problem?
Answer. A special agent has been assigned to Sequoia-Kings Canyon
devoted exclusively to combating marijuana cultivation in the park. Two
seasonal rangers have also been assigned to address this problem. In
addition, almost all law enforcement rangers in the park have received
tactical military training, including detailed instruction on
conducting covert operations, reconnaissance/surveillance missions, and
tactical raids to assist with this problem.
Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP is partnering with the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) to eliminate marijuana cultivation in the park, and is
also collaboratively working with the County Sheriff's Office and the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which has provided
helicopter support and reconnaissance to the park. The park also
anticipates that it will receive High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDA) funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy for
reimbursement for travel and overtime to combat marijuana cultivation,
as this area has recently been designated a HIDA for marijuana.
Across the National Park System park managers are increasing the
efforts to counteract illegal drug trafficking by enhancing law
enforcement cooperation and coordination with Federal, State and local
law enforcement authorities; engaging in proactive patrols; and
employing the use of surveillance systems. Rangers also participate in
drug education programs and are active in Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) programs in schools across the country.
Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. In order to address recurring drought conditions,
accommodate agricultural expansions, promote water and fish and
wildlife conservation, and provide water for over half a million new
residents in the Yakima River basin, Congress passed legislation in
1994 authorizing the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program.
Despite these efforts, the Yakima River Basin suffers acute water
supply problems in drought years. A dry winter in 2000-2001 and a lack
of storage capacity led to catastrophic drought in the summer of 2001.
That year, holders of junior water rights received as little as 40
percent of their allocations and farmers lost an estimated $250 million
in crops, which had a $750 million negative impact on the regional
economy. The drought also put a severe strain on the hydropower system
and contributed to the western energy crisis. Unfortunately, my State
seems to be headed towards another abnormally dry year with snow packs
in the Cascade Mountain Range forecasted at levels far below average.
For these reasons, the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project is a high
priority for Central Washington. That is why I was very disappointed to
see that funding for the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project was
reduced.
Please explain why the Department of Interior chose to reduce
funding in fiscal year 2006 for this critical program?
Answer. Although funding has been reduced slightly from the FY 2005
enacted level, the funding requested in the Fiscal Year 2006
appropriations request is adequate to continue all aspects of this
important program. The funds requested will allow funding for two
irrigation districts to continue studies to determine the feasibility
of specific measures identified in the districts' water conservation
plans, as well as funding to two districts for continued implementation
of conservation measures provided by their respective feasibility
studies and to monitor the effects on river diversions of those
specific conservation measures. The funding will also allow for other
activities to continue on this important project.
Question 2. The Yakima Basin Storage Study has received $4 million
in federal funds over the last three fiscal years. These funds matched
dollar for dollar $4 million in contributions from the State of
Washington. Again, given the low water forecast for Washington state,
finding long term solutions to water storage is critical. The federal
government should engage the residents of the Yakima Basin in its study
of potential solutions to water storage problems.
Will you describe the public process you will use to engage Yakima
Basin residents and also detail which criteria will be considered as
you assess whether or not to complete all aspects of the Yakima Basin
Storage Study.
Answer. Throughout the spring and summer of 2005, Reclamation along
with the State of Washington will host public involvement meetings to
explain and answer questions about the Black Rock Alternative report.
Public meetings will also be conducted throughout the Yakima Basin and
elsewhere to further engage the public in the Storage Study and seek
their input into alternative development, refinement, and screening.
The format of the public involvement sessions will be both facilitated
(information sharing, question and answer) and open house. We also
provide opportunities for public involvement via our Internet site,
where the public can submit questions, suggestions, and subscribe to
our mailing list. Periodic status updates and fact sheets will be
disseminated both through the Internet site and via the mail.
Public involvement will continue for the duration of the study,
however once we move into the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
phase of the study, the public involvement process will become more
formal and public scoping meetings (recorded and transcribed) will be
conducted. General public involvement meetings will also continue
during the EIS phase of the study.
Reclamation expects to complete all aspects of the Yakima Basin
Storage Study; however some alternatives may be dropped from further
consideration for technical, economic, environmental, or other reasons.
Consultation with cost-sharing study partners and public acceptability
of alternatives also may influence which alternatives will be carried
forward into the next phase of the study. As authorized by Congress,
Reclamation will compare alternatives based on their capability to
provide benefits to endangered and threatened fish, irrigated
agriculture, and municipal water supply. As part of this process, all
the project alternatives are compared against the criteria established
by the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.
Question 3. On February 16, 2005, I joined nine other Senators,
including a number of members of this Committee, in writing you to
express our concerns about proposed rulemaking relating to the
hydrorelicensing process. This proposed policy is set out in a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking entitled ``Procedures for Review of Mandatory
Conditions and Prescriptions in FERC Hydropower Licenses'' published in
the Federal Register on September 9, 2004. Prominent among our concerns
is the proposed appeals process. As you know, the Department of the
Interior has the statutory duty under sections 4(e) and 18 of the
Federal Power Act to issue mandatory conditions and fishway
prescriptions to protect fish, wildlife, and Federal and tribal lands,
impacted by hydroelectric facilities. The regulation would give a
license applicant the right to appeal a license condition or fishway
prescription if the applicant is not in agreement with the Department's
actions. However, the proposed rule grants no such right of appeal to
Tribes, States, or other interested parties.
These issues are critical to my state and I would like to know when
I can expect your response?
Answer. The Department received numerous comments reflecting
various perspectives on this issue during the 60-day comment period on
the proposed rule. Those comments are now being reviewed. The
Department expects to publish a final rule in late spring.
Question 4. I want to thank you for supporting our successful
establishment of the Lewis and Clark National and State Historical
Park. I was very pleased to see the President's FY 2006 budget request
included $1.6 million for land acquisition for this effort.
Can you please detail for me how these funds, if appropriated,
would be used? How does this funding fit into the total funding needs
and timeline to complete establishment of this park? Will these areas
be ready in time for Pacific Northwest celebrations of the Lewis and
Clark bicentennial in November of 2005?
Answer. The NPS projects that $3.75 million is needed to complete
the land acquisition for the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park
in Oregon and Washington. The President's request of $1.6 million would
be used to purchase approximately 180 acres from the Cathlamet Timber
Company, a willing seller. This would complete the new Dismal Nitch
Unit in Washington. The remaining $2.15 million is the estimate for the
acquisition of land at other park sites in Oregon and Washington,
including the new Station Camp Unit in Washington.
Question 5. I remain concerned about competitive sourcing plans
within the National Park Service.
Can you provide me an update on this Administration priority?
Please detail specifically all jobs that have been considered, or
future plans, for outsourcing for National Parks within Washington
state. How much has the Department spent on competitive outsourcing
studies to date? How do these numbers compare with competitive
outsourcing in other National Parks?
Answer. The Department has successfully completed the third full
year of competitive reviews under the competitive sourcing initiative.
We believe that competitive sourcing reviews improve the quality,
efficiency and effectiveness of the services we deliver to the American
people. We have learned a lot about this initiative since we began in
March 2002. One of the most significant lessons learned has been the
importance of adequate planning prior to formal announcement of a
review. We have completed reviews on approximately 3,000 Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) under formal studies and currently have approximately
2,000 FTE undergoing preliminary planning efforts. To date, only one
permanent Interior employee has been involuntarily separated as a
result of the competitive sourcing initiative.
With regard to competitive sourcing for NPS in the state of
Washington, a total of 4 FTE were converted from government positions
to contractor positions during 2002 and 2003. These conversions
occurred prior to the policy established in May 2003 that requires
agencies to first conduct a competitive sourcing study. In FY 2008, NPS
plans to begin a preliminary planning effort to determine if 83.5 FTE
at Mount Rainier National Park should be the subject of a competitive
sourcing review. In comparison, a competitive sourcing study of
Southeast Archeological Center in Florida had at a one time cost of
$129,000 with projected savings over 5 years of $4.2 million. Forty-
three FTE were studied with the government bid prevailing. A
competitive sourcing study of Natchez Trace Parkway maintenance cost of
$192,000 with projected savings over 5 years of $1.105 million.
Seventy-four FTE were studied with the government bid prevailing.
Question 6. I understand that a number of Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) applications in Washington state have been delayed due lack of
available Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. This has resulted in
increased costs for applicants who are forced to hire outside
consultants to navigate through the complicated application process. In
addition, current HCPs are not being properly monitored to ensure
compliance.
Please explain what you plan to do to ensure that HCPs are
permitted within an acceptable time frame and to ensure quality
monitoring of HCPs.
Answer. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) workload in the state
of Washington remains large. Statewide, approximately 24 HCPs currently
are being developed, and 11 HCPs have been approved and are being
implemented and monitored. Many of these HCPs are complex, involving
multiple stakeholders, multiple species, and multiple land and water
uses. Larger scale HCPs (covering hundreds of thousands to millions of
acres) require extensive staffing and can take several years or longer
to complete, depending on funding, scope, complexity, and level of
public interest.
Staffing levels to support HCP work in the state of Washington have
been reduced by approximately 2 FTEs since 2001. The Fish and Wildlife
Service uses workforce planning and prioritization to focus our efforts
on (1) completion of regional HCPs that provide the greatest
conservation benefit for our efforts, such as the statewide Forests and
Fish HCP under preparation by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources, and (2) implementation and monitoring of completed HCPs.
In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to
streamline the HCP application process based on ideas generated at a
November 2004 national streamlining workshop. Streamlining solutions
under consideration include: (1) eliminating layers of review by
delegation of permit authority to Field Supervisors for permits having
minimal effects to the human environment; (2) combining decision
documents and eliminating duplicative text; (3) providing template or
standard language for certain documents; (4) providing additional
training to staff in collaboration, negotiation, and problem solving
skills; and (5) increasing the use of project management tools that
clearly define roles, responsibilities, schedules, and processes for
issue resolution. National and regional teams are working to implement
streamlining actions.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also provides Endangered Species Act
section 6 planning assistance grants to states to develop HCPs. This
funding can be used by states, or can be passed by states to third
parties, to hire consultants to prepare documents, conduct outreach,
and complete biological surveys and inventories. These activities can
expedite the HCP approval process while facilitating economic
development and species conservation. Approximately $6.8 million in HCP
planning assistance grants have been awarded to the State of Washington
since 2001:
2004--5 HCPs, $2.3 million
2003--5 HCPs, $1.7 million
2002--1 HCP, $1 million
2001--7 HCPs, $1.8 million
Nationwide, the Fish and Wildlife Service receives $2 million
annually for HCP implementation and monitoring, a portion of which is
allocated to the state of Washington. The Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA-Fisheries currently are joint parties to several large HCPs on
over 2 million acres in western Washington and expect more HCPs to be
completed statewide in the coming year. Our field offices in Washington
currently are able to dedicate 1.5 FTEs statewide to HCP compliance
monitoring. We coordinate with NOAA-Fisheries, permittees, Tribes, and
others to monitor HCP compliance and effectiveness, and properly
implement completed HCPs in the state. For example, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries review periodic and annual reports
prepared by permittees and respond to compliance issues raised by third
party monitors. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service also
operates under a joint compliance monitoring program with NOAA-
Fisheries for HCPs in the state of Washington. Collectively, we
selectively monitor a small portion of HCP implementation activities
each year by conducting site-level assessments. We focus on aspects of
HCPs not monitored by our partners, targeted at resources and issues
where there is scientific uncertainty. Results to date indicate a
strong desire by permittees to excel in performance under their HCPs.
Question 7. The Department's FY 2006 detailed budget justifications
were delivered to Congress only intermittently over a period of three
weeks after the Presidents released his full budget. This contrasts to
the Department of Energy which was able to deliver its entire budget to
the Senate, with accompanying electronic versions, in a complete
package within a few days of the President's budget request.
What accounts for these unacceptable delays? Should the Senate
assume that the Department of Interior does not believe Congress needs
these materials to conduct its Congressional oversight
responsibilities? Will you commit to improving this issue in future
years?
Answer. To answer this question it is important to note the
distinction between the Department of the Interior's budget and the
Department of Energy's budget. The Department of the Interior's budget
is comprised of 16 volumes and 6,001 pages. The budget for the
Department of Energy is comprised of 7 volumes and 3,910 pages.
The Department delivered its detailed summary of the 2006 budget on
January 7, the day the President's budget was released. This document
was followed by the delivery of the detailed budget justifications,
most (70%) within the week following the release of the President's
budget. These budget justifications were delivered on the dates listed
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Justification Delivery Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Reclamation..................... February 7
Central Utah Project Completion Act....... February 7
Minerals Management Service............... February 7
Office of Surface Mining.................. February 7
Office of the Special Trustee............. February 14
U.S. Geological Survey.................... February 14
National Park Service..................... February 14
Office of Inspector General............... February 14
Office of Insular Affairs................. February 16
Fish and Wildlife Service................. February 18
Bureau of Indian Affairs--Book 1.......... February 18
Bureau of Land Management................. February 23
Bureau of Indian Affairs--Book 2.......... February 23
Natural Resource Damage Assessment........ February 23
Departmental Management................... February 28
Office of the Solicitor................... March 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also important to note that the Department has one of the
most complex budgets, with over 180 separate treasury accounts. This
compares to the Department of Energy's 50 treasury accounts. The
Department will continue to try to expedite the delivery of the budget
justifications.
Question 8. I was very disappointed to see a 12 percent cut back to
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, a critical program throughout the
Western United States.
Does the Department of Interior not agree with Congress that this
is a vital program for counties with large portions of federal land?
Please detail specifically what these cuts will mean for each county
within Washington state.
Answer. The most recent payments to counties were the 2004 payment,
in which the counties in Washington received a total of $5.9 million.
PILT's payment formula requires the Secretary to base annual payments
on a number of variable factors, including revenues paid to States,
acreage, and population so it is not possible to predict with accuracy
what the payment level will be to counties in Washington in 2006.
Question 9. Secretary Norton, on January 31, 2005 I introduced the
bipartisan Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of
2005. As you may know, this bill would empower the National Park
Service to create a national geologic interpretive trail from western
Montana, through Northern Idaho and Eastern Washington, and terminating
on the Oregon Coast and is based on the recommendation of a February
2001 the National Park Service special resources study.
Could you please state for the record that the Department supports
this bill and will work with Congress to ensure its timely passage?
Answer. We recognize the importance of interpreting resources
related to the story of the Ice Age Floods. However, since no hearings
have been held, the Department has not yet taken a formal position on
this bill.
Question 10. Secretary Norton, the Department's budget requests
assumes that oil drilling and production in Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge would generate $2.4 billion in bonus bid revenues for
the federal treasury. I realize oil prices have increased recently, but
I am concerned that this estimates may be unrealistic. The Department
of Interior has indicated that 400,000 to 600,000 acres within the
refuge would be leased in a first lease sale. Thus, to generate $4
billion, companies would have to lease the area at $6,667 to $10,000 an
acre--even though recent lease bonus payments in northern Alaska
average $50 an acre and drilling advocates insist the industry will
only develop a 2000 acre ``footprint'' within the refuge. Please
explain this discrepancy.
Answer. Bonus bids received for recent lease sales in Alaska have
been lower because of lower expectations regarding the potential size
of resources on the lands being offered. As the U.S. Geological Survey
notes in its 2002 assessment of the petroleum resources of the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), most oil accumulations in NPR-A are
expected to be of moderate size, on the order of 30 to 250 million
barrels each, but large accumulations like Prudhoe Bay are not expected
to occur.
Similarly, the amount of oil as compared to the area of land in
which it is contained can be a factor. The U.S. Geological Survey's
2002 assessment for the NPR-A showed the mean of technically
recoverable oil resources contained in the 24.2 million acre NPR-A
assessment area to be 10.6 billion barrels, while the mean value of
technically recoverable, oil resources for the 1.9 million acres of
ANWR's assessment Area is 7.7 billion barrels of oil.
Finally, if the $50 an acre figure refers to the information
contained in the report prepared by Richard Fineberg, it is important
to note that Mr. Fineberg's information on bonus payments is presented
in nominal dollars and has not been updated to 2005 dollars.
Question 11. In addition, the costs of operations for oil
development in Alaska are the highest in the world.
How has the Department factored the higher costs associated with
the construction of air strips, housing, food, waste disposal
facilities, drilling facilities, pipelines, and pump stations in its
estimates of how attractive oil drilling and production in this remote
area will be to oil companies?
Answer. The model used by the Bureau of Land Management as a part
of its development of revenue estimates considered the costs of
operating on the North Slope of Alaska as compared to operations in the
Lower 48.
Question 12. Moreover, the recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,
which was commissioned by the Arctic Council, reports that global
warming will result in a shorter oil drilling season in Alaska. A
shorter drilling season would affect the amount and costs of oil
recovery in the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain.
How has the Department accounted for the likelihood of a shorter
drilling season in its budget revenue estimate?
Answer. The Department's analysis was completed prior to the
issuance of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. As such, the
Department's analysis does not take the assessment findings into
account.
Question 13. Finally, you may be aware that British Petroleum and
ConocoPhillips have announced that they are cutting back their plans to
explore for oil in Alaska. British Petroleum, for example, recently
shut down its oil well, which is the closest oil well to the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. British Petroleum has also stated that it
will not conduct any more ``frontier'' development in Alaska but
instead will focus on getting more oil from already developed fields in
Alaska. The company is focusing on new exploration in Venezuela and
China, where the price of production is much lower. ConocoPhillips
joined British Petroleum in pulling out of Arctic Power, a lobbying
group that advocates drilling in the Refuge, and has stated that
drilling in the Arctic Refuge is no longer a priority for the company.
ConocoPhillips has stated that it will instead focus investments on
getting more oil out of Prudhoe Bay and other developed fields and on
exploring and developing the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
How do these recent developments impact the Department's estimation
of revenue generation from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge?
Answer. The Department does not believe these actions impact the
revenue estimate.
Question 14. Secretary Norton, I was pleased that my legislation to
authorize a much needed expansion of Mount Rainier National Park was
signed by the President on October 10, 2004. I am very disappointed,
however, that the Department's FY 2006 request failed to include any
funding to continue acquisition of these expansion lands.
Does the Department not agree with the Mount Rainier General
Management Plan that this is a priority need? Please detail how much
funding will be needed to complete this expansion. What is the status
of the Carbon River Road and how did recent flooding impact visitor
access to the Northwest portion of the Park?
Answer. The Department agrees that acquiring the land for Mount
Rainier National Park that is needed for replacement recreational
facilities for the area that has been regularly flooded by the Carbon
River is an important goal. However, budget limitations prevented the
Department from including in the FY 2006 budget proposal funds for
every project that we believe is important.
Land acquisition costs for the approximately 800 acres that were
authorized for the expansion are estimated at about $6 million. $1
million was appropriation for FY 2005. In addition to land expansion
costs, the construction of site development (campground, picnic sites,
ranger contact station, utilities, roads, and minimal seasonal housing)
is estimated to cost $5.2 million.
The Carbon River Road was closed due to flooding on January 17,
2005. The flooding damaged about half a mile of the six and a half mile
road. Repairs were made by the Mount Rainier road crew and were
completed on March 5. The road reopened on March 14.
Question 15. Secretary Norton, I understand that Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Veterans Administration signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to better coordinate services to Indian veterans.
Could you please provide me with a description of that MOU and
update me on the progress towards meeting the stated goals and
objectives outlined in this document? I would appreciate specific
examples of progress within Washington state.
Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Veterans Administration. In a discussion with
the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human
Services, we understand that they are working with the Veterans
Administration to better coordinate services to Indian veterans. You
may wish to contact the Director of the Indian Health Service, Dr.
Charles Grimm, at 301-443-1083, for the information.
Question 16. Secretary Norton, the Upper Columbia United Tribes
(UCUT) organization was formed in the early 1980's as a voluntary
consortium of the Coeur d'Alene, Kalispel, Kootenai, and Spokane
Tribes. In now includes the Colville Tribe. Through UCUT, these Tribes
build on shared histories and cultural ties and collaboratively address
challenges in management of natural resources. In the late 1980's, the
Tribes obtained a small grant and eventually persuaded Congress to
establish a BIA line item appropriation. Unfortunately, despite a clear
record of success at managing reservation and aboriginal territory
wildlife habitats, and the proven ability to leverage multiple funding
sources for the benefit of numerous tribal and public lands, the
President has consistently refused to allocate funding for the UCUT
program in his annual appropriations request.
Does the BIA not support the efforts of UCUT? Please explain why
funding is allocated to similar tribal fisheries management programs
like CRITFC and NWIFC, but not to UCUT. If competing funding priorities
were not an issue, what is the ideal amount of funding BIA would
request for UCUT efforts?
Answer. The BIA supports all efforts that contribute to the goal of
improving the quality of life and economic vitality in Indian
communities. We agree that UCUT provides high quality services to its
member tribes. However, BIA funding for CRITFC and NWIFC stems from two
landmark court cases within the tribes' respective treaty area. See
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D.Wash. 1974),
affirmed sub nom., Washington v. Washington Passenger Vessel
Association, 443 U.S. 658 (1979), and subsequent decisions; United
States v. Oregon, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D.Or. 1969), affirmed, 529 F.2d 570
(9th Cir. 1976), and subsequent decisions. There is no similar
requirement to provide BIA funding to UCUT. As a result, continued
funding for UCUT is not being sought in the 2006 Budget in order to
focus BIA resources on higher priorities to tribes on a nationwide
basis.
Question 17. Lake Roosevelt Management funds enable both the
Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe to carry out their governmental
responsibilities under a five party Cooperative Management Agreement
executed in 1990 between the two tribes, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
National Park Service, and the BIA. The Agreement divides Lake
Roosevelt into management zones and charges the five governmental
parties to the Agreement with management responsibility for a given
zone. Congress has appropriated Lake Roosevelt Management funds to the
BIA every year since 1990, and it has remained $630,000 for the past
five year. Unfortunately I understand that the President's request does
include funding for this successful program.
Is the Department not supportive of this effort? Please explain why
the President's budget request does not provide funding for this long-
term, successful program.
Answer. The Department believes that the Colville Tribes' and the
Spokane Tribe's participation in the efforts associated with the
Cooperative Management Agreement for Lake Roosevelt is important and
agree that those efforts have been successful. The funds were
eliminated in 2006 because we believe it is the general procedure
across the Administration to discontinue earmarked funding for
unrequested projects.
Question 18. Secretary Norton, the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe has
applied for initial reservation for gaming on a 56-acre parcel of land
located within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Snoqualmie in
the State of Washington. As you may know, this application is widely
supported by the local community and the Tribe has taken extraordinary
steps to accommodate the process and to involve the local community in
the planning for the eventuality of Casino Snoqualmie and of the
Tribe's rightful presence in its historic homeland. In February of
2004, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) that was signed and issued by Regional Director Stan
Speaks.
Based on this widespread support, including from the Department,
why has there been such a frustratingly long delay in publishing the
Determination to Place Land Into Trust since all of the regulatory
requirements have been met? Please provide me with an update on this
situation and a specific timeline for when the Snoqualmie Tribe will be
able to complete this vital step towards tribal self-sufficiency. If
there are specific barriers to resolving this issue, please explain
them and how Congress can best resolve these issues.
Answer. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Director, Northwest Region.
However, upon review by the Director of the Office of Indian Gaming, it
was determined that the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this proposed
project should have had substantial revisions before a FONSI was
issued. Therefore, it was resubmitted to the Regional Director on
November 23, 2004. The Department is waiting for the Snoqualmie Tribe
to modify the EA as requested before continuing its review of the
Tribe's application. We realize that the proposed project has the
support of the local community, but we believe that it is essential
that a FONSI not be issued for an EA unless we are satisfied that the
EA will withstand scrutiny.
Questions From Senator Corzine
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATESIDE GRANTS
Question 1. Madam Secretary, as you are well aware, this year's
budget eliminates funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's
(LWCF) Stateside grant program.
According to Interior's budget request, this program has been
targeted for elimination because it duplicates state and local
programs, and because it was unable to demonstrate results. Let me make
it clear--this program is a partnership, it is not redundant and it has
certainly produced results.
Many eastern states--New Jersey in particular--do not enjoy the
benefits of the large inventory of federal lands that the western
states enjoy. From its beginning, the LWCF has been a vital part of the
partnership to address this inequity. For the last 44 years, our State
government has been willing to step up and fill this void, but we would
not have had the success without the financial and technical assistance
provided by the stateside program according to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
Since the program's inception, the partnership between the LWCF and
the State of New Jersey's Green Acres program has protected more than
72,500 acres of open space and precious water sources in my State.
In one instance, New Jersey utilized LWCF funding to preserve a
sole source aquifer from imminent development. There is a lengthy list
of other New Jersey natural treasures and crucial resources that have
benefited from the LWCF-State partnership--among them are the Delaware
and Raritan Canal, an important water source for Central New Jersey,
and large tracts of the New Jersey Pinelands, a unique and precious
ecosystem.
It is truly a partnership--the State has used the seed money from
the LWCF to leverage nearly $6 million in additional funding from local
governments and conservation organizations over the last four years
alone.
Madam Secretary, with shrinking federal support for states'
conservation efforts, how does the Department suggest that states like
New Jersey--which are densely populated and lose precious open space
and water resources to sprawl daily--secure funding to protect these
treasures?
Answer. As the Administration strives to reduce the Federal
deficit, focusing on high-priority direct Federal responsibilities is
imperative. The President's FY 2006 operating budget includes $50.3
million for National Park units wholly or partly in the state of New
Jersey. All of these Federal sites in New Jersey rely on Federal
funding, whereas State and local parks have alternative sources of
funding through State revenues or bonds.
The budget includes over $380 million for our cooperative
conservation programs, including $44.8 million for the traditional and
conservation Challenge Cost Share programs; $80.0 million for the FWS
Coastal Program, Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, and Partners for Fish
and Wildlife; and $50.0 million for Landowner Incentive and Private
Stewardship grants.
CONSERVATION OF THE NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS
Question 2. On November 30, 2004, President Bush signed the
Highlands Conservation Act into law. I sponsored the Senate version of
this legislation, which requires the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to submit to Congress a
list of the land conservation partnership projects submitted by the
Governors of the four Highlands States that are eligible to receive
financial assistance--New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Connecticut.
What steps has the Department of Interior taken to prepare the
required list of projects to Congress? Has the Department contacted
appropriate officials in the Highlands States? Has the Department
established a procedure for the submission of requests? Have
representatives of the Department met with officials from all of the
Highlands states? If no meetings have occurred, why not? Are there any
remaining questions from the Highlands States that need to be answered?
Are you aware of reasons why the Highlands was not mentioned in the
President's FY 06 budget? Does the Department expect to submit FY 06
requests in a supplement to Congress? If so, when can this be expected?
If not, why not?
Answer. The new Act (P.L. 108-421) calls upon the governors of the
four states, after input from local governments and the public, to
compile annually the list of land conservation partnership projects for
submission to the Secretary of the Interior. We have not, to date,
received any submissions from the states. We would not expect to
receive submissions from Connecticut or Pennsylvania until after the
U.S. Forest Service completes the updated study to identify eligible
lands of high conservation value as required by the Act.
The Department is in the process of contacting and meeting with
representatives of the states. For example, on February 4, 2005,
Congresswoman Sue Kelly hosted a forum in Highland Falls, NY to discuss
implementation of the Highlands Conservation Act. National Park Service
and U.S. Forest Service staff participated in the meeting. We are also
developing efficient procedures for administering the land conservation
partnership projects in a manner that does not depart from previous
state experience with applications for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. While we have not yet had the opportunity to meet with all of the
states, we will be doing so in the near future. We believe the meetings
will be most productive when we are able to discuss the procedures that
will be employed.
We are not aware of any remaining questions from the states, but
are prepared to respond to any that may be asked as the implementation
of the Act unfolds.
OFFSHORE DRILLING
Madam Secretary, as you are aware, I am an active opponent of
drilling off the mid-Atlantic coast. A few years ago, we corresponded
regarding the Minerals Management Service's request for proposals (RFP)
to conduct a study of the impact of drilling off the coast of New
Jersey, and elsewhere along the Atlantic seaboard. I was pleased with
our conversation, and glad to see that our discussions resulted in
Interior's rescission of the RFP.
As you are well aware, Congress has ritually debated this matter in
the context of an inventory of oil and gas reserves on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Today, drilling comes before this committee in
the form of the Administration's proposal to allow drilling inside the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Madam Secretary, what worries me is that over the past year it has
been reported by Roll Call that several policymakers believe that the
importance of opening up the Arctic Refuge to drilling lies in the
precedent that it will set about drilling in sensitive areas, such off
the New Jersey shore. Other policymakers argue that we should open up
the Arctic Refuge to increase domestic oil supply.
Yet, despite these varying arguments, proponents of drilling in the
Refuge are now using a parliamentary process designed to protect in
order to force open the Arctic Refuge to drilling.
By doing so, is the Department arguing that we must open up the
Arctic Refuge to drilling simply for the revenue? If that is not the
case--and I assume it is not--why is the budget process being used in
order to legislate on this matter?
Answer. The Budget estimates that revenues from the first lease
sale in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be
approximately $2.4 billion, with half of that expected to go to the
State of Alaska. CBO estimates this total to be $4 billion. Either way,
this is a significant amount of revenue. The purpose of the budget
reconciliation process is to allow Congress to enact legislation to
support the budget in an expeditious and coordinated manner. Given that
the President's budget assumes these revenues, it is reasonable to
include them in the budget resolution.
Question 4. Furthermore, what kind of precedent do you believe
drilling in the Arctic Refuge sets when it comes to oil and gas
exploration in other environmentally or economically sensitive areas?
Answer. Drilling in the 1002 Area of ANWR is a unique situation. In
1980, Congress, in section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Land
Conservation Act set aside the Coastal Plain of ANWR for study for its
potential for oil and gas development. The 1002 Area is not designated
as wilderness. In addition, the people of the State of Alaska strongly
favor development of the area. Finally, the legislative provisions
under consideration for authorizing an oil and gas program are among
the most environmentally protective ever considered by the Congress.
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. As I traveled the state last week, I heard time
and time again how important PILT funds are and how concerned people
are over their reduction in the 2006 budget. Our association of
Colorado counties (Colorado Counties Incorporated) has written me about
the important role PILT plays in our rural and mountain counties. I am
amazed that the Administration is cutting these funds by 12% to $200
million when there is strong bipartisan support for funding this
program at a minimum of $255 million. Would you please explain the
reasons for these cuts?
Answer. The 2006 budget for the Department makes difficult choices
as part of the President's efforts to reduce the budget deficit by half
over five years. The budget includes funding to compensate counties for
lost revenue, providing a total of $200 million for the Payment In Lieu
of Taxes program. Although a reduction from the funding level
appropriated by Congress, the 2006 budget is 76 percent above the
funding level ten years ago. By comparison the Department's
discretionary budget is 52 percent above the 1996 funding level.
LWCF
Question 2. Secretary, as you know, in 1992 Colorado voters
established Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). GOCO permanently provides
Colorado's matching funds for LWCF stateside grants. From 1965-2004,
LWCF funded 1,000 projects in Colorado in 59 of 64 counties for a total
of $56 million. These projects have included preserving open space,
wildlife habitat, and in establishing the Great Sand Dunes National
Park. Many of these types of projects do not have funding streams other
than the statewide grants, and that stateside grant money is used
effectively and efficiently. This issue is very important to Colorado
and our quality of life. Can you explain the decision to cut the
stateside grant program?
Answer. As the Administration strives to reduce the Federal
deficit, focusing on high-priority direct Federal responsibilities is
imperative. The reduction in State Conservation grants funding will
allow NPS to focus on park activities that align with agency
priorities. The President's FY 2006 operating budget includes $39.5
million for National Park units in the state of Colorado. All of these
Federal sites in Colorado rely on Federal funding, whereas State and
local parks have alternative sources of funding through State revenues
or bonds.
The Administration is systematically assessing every government
program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). A PART review
in 2003 found that the program could not adequately measure performance
or demonstrate results.
Question 3. Would you please identify the programs that the
Department considers more effective than the LWCF stateside grants?
Answer. The President's FY 2006 Budget identifies two factors
underlying a shift in strategies for achieving the goals of the LWCF.
First, Federal and State managers are balancing the workload and
funding requirements for operation and maintenance of lands already
under their management with the effects of adding more lands to their
land management portfolios. Second, tools other than land acquisition
continue to demonstrate significant recreation and conservation
benefits. Specifically, partnerships and cooperative conservation
leverage funding, help build a Nation of citizen stewards, and improve
results for the American public by addressing cross-jurisdictional
issues and needs.
BLM/OIL & GAS
As you are aware, Secretary Norton, Colorado and the BLM is
experiencing a boom in the number of drilling permits (APDs) applied
for and the resulting boom in wells actually being drilled on our
public lands. I am concerned that while the BLM is emphasizing and
funding the personnel needed to process APDs in a timely fashion, it is
not funding the needed inspectors to enforce the stipulations and
conditions under which those APDs are approved. We need to increase,
the number of inspectors and inspections taking place in our growing
production areas, and this budget does not appear to provide for that.
Question 4. The President's budget calls for maintaining funding
for Oil & Gas Management programs at 2005 levels by increasing user
fees for processing APDs, what is the outlook for this fee being
implemented?
Answer. The BLM expects to publish a proposed cost recovery
regulation shortly. We will request comments from the public and then
anticipates publishing a final regulation by fall 2005. The regulation,
to be implemented in FY 2006, will provide funding to allow the BLM to
more effectively meet increased customer demand.
Question 5. The increase in drilling activity in Colorado demands
an increase in the number of inspectors and inspections in Colorado to
insure it is done properly. Can you please tell us what the
Department's priorities are in regards to Oil & Gas Management in terms
of inspectors and inspections and how those priorities are reflected in
the BLM budget justification? Will more funds be provided to the BLM in
the Rocky Mountain West for more inspectors?
Answer. Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) are integral and key
components of Departmental management of both onshore and offshore oil
and gas operations. In fact, I&E activities are identified as a high
priority in the Department's Strategic Plan. The Department has
committed considerable resources in recent years to ensure that we have
an effective I&E program. Over the past four years, the BLM recognized
the need to strengthen it's I&E program as the number of APDs approved
and wells drilled increased. The BLM has been successful in
documenting, through its budget justifications, its need for additional
inspectors and obtain additional funding. Those funds have been used to
hire additional inspectors in priority Rocky Mountain locations,
including in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.
The FY 2006 President's Budget Request maintains the past level of
funding for the I&E program for oil and gas, coal, and other minerals.
The BLM is committed to ensuring that priority inspections are
completed even if adjustments within the oil and gas program are needed
to keep pace with industry demand.
R.S. 2477
Question 6a. Secretary Norton, as you know, R.S. 2477 is a
controversial issue in Colorado.
Can you update me and my fellow committee members on any upcoming
plans to implement the disclaimer rule?
Answer. Sections 315 and 316 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes the BLM to issue recordable
disclaimers of interest in land, to remove errors and inconsistencies
in land records, and help remove clouds on the titles of lands or
interests in lands that are the subject of disclaimer applications.
Regulations to implement this authority were issued in September 1984.
The disclaimer regulations allow a party who is an owner of land,
or claims an interest in land managed by the Federal government, to
petition the BLM to issue a determination that the United States does
not have any property interests in conflict with the claimed lands or
interests in lands, or that the Federal government's purported interest
in the land managed by the Federal government has terminated by
operation of law or is otherwise invalid. For example, a party may
request a disclaimer to clear up uncertainty as to whether the United
States retained a mineral interest before transferring a certain parcel
of land to a private party. The disclaimer regulations are content-
neutral in that they do not specifically address R.S. 2477 right-of-way
disputes, boundary disputes, or any other type of dispute over Federal
ownership interests.
On January 6, 2003, the BLM issued final regulations which amended
the 1984 regulations. The amended regulations broaden the class of
applicants who can use the regulations, by allowing any party who has
any interest in a parcel of land, not only record owners of land as
under the 1984 regulations, to petition the BLM for a disclaimer. The
amended regulations also eliminate the application deadline as it
applies to States, in light of changes in the Quiet Title Act (which
had been amended by Congress after the BLM issued its 1984
regulations). The amended regulations allow non-BLM Federal land
managers to object to the issuance of a disclaimer by BLM, and also
define the term ``State.''
Question 6b. Secretary Norton, would you support legislation
concerning R.S. 2477, potentially setting a deadline for states and
counties to assert R.S. 2477 highway claims?
Answer. In the Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of
Utah and the Department of the Interior on State and County Road
Acknowledgment (MOU) of April 9, 2003, we set up a process for
resolving R.S. 2477 claims in Utah. The MOU set out several key
principles, for example, that the State would apply for a disclaimer of
interest only for roads that were and continue to be public and capable
of accommodating automobiles or trucks with four wheels; and that
neither the State nor any Utah counties would seek a disclaimer for any
roads that lie within a unit of the National Park System or a unit of
the National Wildlife Refuge System, or within Congressionally-
designated Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas designated on or
before October 21, 1993, under Section 603 of FLPMA. We believe this is
a practical, collaborative approach to resolving a long-disputed issue.
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
Question 7. Recent media reports have uncovered that the Department
of Education was paying media figures to promote the No Child Left
Behind law. Can you assure us that no contracts of a similar nature
have been provided by DOI? Will you direct your IG to conduct a full
review in order to prove a full accounting of the contracts, especially
to so-called ``personal service contracts,'' entered into by your
office? Will you submit those findings to this committee?
Answer. GovWorks is a Federal acquisition center within the
Department of the Interior created pursuant to franchise fund authority
provided by Congress in the Government Management Reform Act of 1994.
GovWorks provides a variety of procurement, cooperative agreement, and
grant agreement services to other Federal agencies on a service-for-fee
basis.
While GovWorks has entered into four public relations contracts, it
has not awarded or administered such contracts using paid media figures
and does not enter into ``personal service contracts''. We are
developing procedures for future public relations contracts to include
language prohibiting the use of paid media figures unless explicitly
authorized by public law.
We have worked closely with our Inspector General over the past
several years to review GovWorks and its practices. As a result of the
Inspector General's (IG) reviews, we have made numerous changes to how
GovWorks operates. Our IG is continuing to review GovWorks fee-for-
service activities. We would be happy to share the results of that
review with you.