not. >> there's been five. 23rd of february now there's been five. do you know how many medevacs were carried out last year? >> no. >> there were 16. six were coast guard ten were noncoast guard. do you know how many medevacs have been carried out since you rejected the road? >> no. >> 21 medevacs. seven coast guard, 14 noncoast guard. now, you and i know it's not the coast guard's mission to provide medevac services. but they do it because they are the only ones that are available to get in. and the easiest, most direct way to help save these lives would be this one-lane gravel noncommercial use ten-mile road that you continue to just ignore. so the question to you is what have you included within this

budget to help the people of king cove? what have you actually done over these past 14 months to fulfill the promise that you made, because you said that you have concluded that other methods of transport remain that could be improved to meet community needs. what has been done to help the people? >> can i have a few minutes? >> please. >> as we talked, senator, we have engaged conversations with corps of engineers about alternatives. negotiating an mlu with them. it is i think approximately 40 miles between king cove and cold bay, if you drive there. it's ten miles through the refuge. >> you already have most of that road built. >> and as i have spoken with people in the community when you and i were both there it is very difficult in harsh weather conditions to move around that territory, period. so i have worked with the corps of engineers.

we're continuing to do that to look at alternatives, such as helicopter services between cold bay and the end of the road that is built as you referenced, because the topography is quite different from the king cove airport. we are willing to work with the community on other water-based transportation methods to cover that six miles from the end of that road to cold bay. but senator, to suggest that the refuge is the same as other lands acre for acre is inaccurate. >> 300 to 1. and madam secretary, in all respect, to suggest that you're going to be able to count on the coast guard to establish some kind of a base there in cold bay, to provide for medevac service is not realistic, it's not rational. the coast guard knows that, and you know that.

and to suggest that 14 months now have gone by we don't have anything in the budget to address it as you promised that you would do. and in the meantime 21 medevacs, 21 medevacs to pluck people out to get them to some level of safety when a ten-mile one-lane noncommercial use road to rep save these lives. >> senator i recognize this issue. i also recognize this is not a unique situation, that there are many villages that struggle in the case of medical evacuations. and i appreciate that it is part of our job to work on that and i will continue to work with you on that. >> that is true, there are many villages. but there are none none that have ready access to an all-weather airport right there. >> i think we should talk to the senator who has the appropriations interior

committee and talk to her, what we could do. but i'm just pointing out in 1998, we appropriated $37 million to provide a hover craft to link king cove and cold bay. i think that was something that senator stephens and the clinton administration worked on. so maybe we need to look at something in that area. i want to turn to this issue that we're seeing in so many western states this issue of -- and i don't know maybe undersecretary connor wants to address this issue. i'm sure you talked to congressman hastings and myself. and interior secretary to this yakima basin project. but it does reflect so much of what we are asking people to do. i mean, integrated plan is part of an ongoing water enhancement program through the bureau of reclamation. and so my question is what do

we need to do to not only use the resources to implement this plan through the department of interior, but providing adequate levels of funding not just for projects like the yakima basin but for other areas since this is -- you know, you could say the same of ka lamb after the, i'm assuming california has more in the san joaquin valley. knowing we are facing serious drought in these areas. >> thank you, senator cantwell. you're absolutely right. yakima is a great model of what we need to be doing from a strategic standpoint. the federal government working closely with the state and all the different constituencies in developing a plan of action to deal with the long-term imbalance between water supply and demand in the yakima basin. i think the bureau of reclamation helped fund a lot of the planning activity with respect to yakima's developing

an overall strategy that when implemented, i think will benefit the environment, the tribes, as well as the large-scale agriculture that exists in the basin itself. as you highlight and added, it's a very expensive plan. i think overall it's $3 billion to $5 billion over a 30-year period. but over that time frame, hopefully -- and we know the state has stepped up to the plate very significantly in the yakima basin with over $100 million that it's appropriated to the effort. reclamation is increasingly incrementally investing more of its resources, in addition to, i think a couple of years ago its long-standing yakima enhancement program is now funding studies and activity related to the fish storage project. but the bottom line is it's hard to see where the whole sum of the resources are going to

come from with respect to yakima, or california, or the colorado river basin the rio grande, all these areas that need large number of investments. i think it's going to be a combination of states increasing their support for water resources infrastructure. the state of california just recently passed an $8 billion-plus bond to invest in water resources infrastructure. reclamation has gotten very good support in its budget to increasingly invest in the strategic planning as well as some of the activity that comes out of that plan in the infrastructure investments that need to be occurring. but it's pretty daunting overall. i think reclamation gets about $1 billion to $1.1 billion per year. it's probably got a $6 billion-plus backlog in its various programs whether it be river restoration activities new infrastructure, dam repair

and rehabilitation that needs to be doing, as well as the conservation initiatives that are yielding and leveraging substantial nonfederal dollars. we're making steady progress but we're not making progress by leaps and bounds. >> do you think that some of the solutions that are being talked about are positive solutions? >> oh absolutely. i think more and more it's a balance approach. like the yakima basin, we're looking at water supply projects. i think the yakima integrative plan came out of the black rock dam proposal. and looking at it and evaluating the feasibility and who would pay for that, it was questionable from a feasibility standpoint. so the parties went back to the table and have developed a collective set of actions that deal with environmental issues that deal with fish passage issues, that deal with storage, and deal with water delivery. it's that mix of projects in the yakima basin the colorado river basin in california that are

going to be the key to moving forward on a -- you're never going to get 100% consensus in water issues, but you'll ma progress in bringing people to the table. >> what we've seen is a lot of legal cases that people have decided didn't turn out the way they wanted, but a lot of the parties haven't walked away from the table. so i applaud native americans in oregon for saying, even though we -- you know they won in court about their water rights, they're still willing to agree to work together as a community. that's the most positive thing. tribal leaders, farmers, everybody is working together. at the same time we've seen the drastic changes in climate and more drought. and i don't think these solutions are the yesterday's solutions. i guess that's the key, why i asked you about that. because i think some of the ideas that people are putting on the table, that farmers and tribal members can agree to are the types of projects we should

be supporting. i know many of my colleagues on this committee have issues in their states. so i hope that we can look at this further. i know my time's expired madam chair. >> madam secretary, thank you for being with us. in 2013 you testified that wyoming is quote a good example of a state that is doing an effective job of regulating hydraulic fracturing. but you testified that wyoming has, quote, great sophisticated hydraulic fracturing regulations. since then wyoming has only strengthened its regulations. we require groundwater testing before fracturing takes place. it requires additional disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids. now, blm assumed an issue of final rule for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. now, i question the need for blm's role in states like wyoming which already regulates hydraulic fracturing on federal land.

so my question, will blm allow wyoming and other states to apply for and obtain a variance from its rule so it can avoid duplicating state regulations? >> thank you senator barrasso. and i stand by my comments. wyoming has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward thinking. and we've learned from wyoming as well as some other states. our proposed regulations say that if a state's rule is stronger than a proposed federal rule, that the state's rule will govern. and that is in fact the case in some elements that you just referenced in wyoming. i don't know that there is anything in our proposed rule that is more stringent than wyoming's rule. so i'll have to look into whether a variance would be even on the table as it relates to wyoming. but i think we want to provide certainty to industry. we don't want to make the regulations complicated. so if that's something that the state would want us to consider, it's certainly something that

i'd ask blm to look at. the goal however is to provide minimum baseline standards. many states are not sophisticated like wyoming. these activities are relatively new. their regulations have not kept up, if they have them at all. so we're learning from folks like you. >> the endangered species act it states that you, the secretary of interior shall by regulation determine whether any species is an endangered species or threatened species. last year congress passed the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill, the bill states that you may not use any funds to write or issue a proposed rule for greater sage grouse. that's what it says. but last month in a letter to wyoming governor matt meade, you wrote that the appropriations

bill, quote does not affect fish and wildlife services court-ordered obligation to make a determination by september 30th of 2015. as to whether the greater sage grouse does or doesn't warrant protection under the endangered species act. so with all due respect i can't make sense of your letter and i find your plans to ignore federal law troubling. so the question is please explain how you can list a sage grouse without first issuing a rule. >> thank you, senator. i know these are -- there are legal nuances i'm learning myself. we are required under court order to make a determination of whether a listing is warranted or not through the fish and wildlife service. we would not have any funding to prepare a rule so we have to make a determination by court order, but question cannot if we make a determination that is threatened or endangered, and believe me i hope we don't get there, because of the great work

going on with respect to the sage grouse, but the fish and wildlife service could say a listing is warranted but could not write a rule that indicates what that means. so we certainly fully intend to comply with the law. but it doesn't stop them from making a determination just writing a rule that says then what. >> is it your view then that this so-called determination would be legally binding? >> you know, i'd have to defer to the solicitors. it's a determination, but the rule is what would determine what happens next. and we are bound by court to make a determination, and bound by law to not write a rule. so i'm working very hard to support the states' efforts and federal government efforts so a listing is not warranted so we don't have to call a question on this issue. >> final question on your -- president obama's so-called strategy to reduce methane emissions. as part of that strategy that

the blm will regulate flaring on national land. is there any effort to actually make it easier to get permits of natural gas gathering lines. the pipelines that can collect and then transport that natural gas from wells to processing plants. necessary to reduce the venting in the flaring of national gas. we've introduced legislation in the past to make it easier to do those sorts of things. a principal reason why natural gas is vented and flared in the west is that blm is failing to permit gathering lines in a timely manner. so if blm gave the permits for the lines, that would reduce the flaring on and off of federal lands. do you know if blm is trying and doing all it can to expedite the permitting of natural gas gathering lines, and what specific steps blm has taken? >> yes, senator we are very committed to gathering the gas and not resorting to venting and

flaring as is happening. i am not aware of circumstances where permits have been slowed down by the blm, but i'll say our resources are constrained. we're asked to inspect wells we're asked to approve permits to drill and we've had a real challenge in our budget with sufficient resources to do what's expected of us. so i would appreciate any support that you could provide in making a case for why it's important that we resource blm appropriately, because we completely agree that the best thing to do with natural gas is to sell it in the market. >> thank you. >> secretary jewel i want to thank you for your extraordinary commitment to protecting, in particular i do represent hawaii, hawaii's natural and cultural treasures in the president's budget using the land and water conservation fund, which you highlighted in your testimony, and saying that

the funds supports 105 projects in 39 states, including in alaska and hawaii. particularly for hawaii the hawaii volcanoes national park and the forest, national wildlife refuge, are the number one land acquisition projects for the national park service and the u.s. fish and wildlife service in fiscal year 2016. this effort has taken us a long time to get to the point where the projects are the top priority ranking. so i want to commend you for working with us over a period of time to get to where we need to get to. and i realize that the president's budget calls for full funding of this fund. i wanted to ask you, how important is congressional action, in making sure that the lwcf funds are more consistent. because you keep asking for full funding. we keep not giving you full funding. full funding is about what is it, $900 million and we give

you maybe $300 million $400 million. how important is it for us to provide you with more consistent and better funding over a longer period of time to allow the department to plan and execute these projects effectively? >> thank you very much, senator. there's no question 50 years ago congress was visionary when they passed the water conservation fund act. they recognized as we drill for oil and gas in federal waters offshore, there is some impact. they believe that impact should go to benefit all states through the lwcf. not only does every dollar invested in lwcf provide a very strong return on investment but we have many willing sellers of land in holdings within national parks, access areas to hunters and fishermen, they can get to the waters or hunting lands that they have. important areas for connectivity and ecosystems like those you

talked about in hawaii. this has been used successfully over 40,000 times. has benefited 98% of the country's -- of the counties in this country. and we think it's a brilliant piece of legislation that has worked well. i want to compliment many members of the u.s. senate for their support for reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. i appreciate the president including full funding, not just in this budget request, but in the last two. and i would hope that given what we know about the impacts of oil and gas activities, based on the revenues that we get from the gulf of mexico $14.7 billion in revenues that this department collected, largely from offshore oil and gas that we could have that permanently go into this fund so those willing sellers will know they'll have the opportunity to sell that land. >> but they're not going to wait forever. so the sooner we move forward

with the funding this fund, the better off we'll be. i want to get to the issue of compact migrants, and compact agreements. hawaii is a state that is most impacted by the three compacts of free association that the united states has entered into with the marshall islands and federated states of micronesia. our state is impacted in terms of our health care education, and housing needs. with regard to palau however, i am aware that we are to provide some $17 million to palau over the next ten years to effect -- keep our part of the bargain with palau. and i know that the interior department has come up with some $8 million on a yearly basis. how are you doing in getting the other departments who have been part of the compact, particularly with palau, and coming up with the full $17

million over the next ten years, and i'm talking about the department of defense and state department? >> yeah. thank you, senator hirono. compact impacts are very significant as you point out. hawaii and guam have the biggest hits. we're limited to $30 million. we'd like to see that cap raised. the president's budget requests mandatory funding for the compact impact and requests that you consider raising that cap. because it is a huge impact on hawaii guam and fsm, federated states of micronesia to deal with this. as far as palau is concerned yes, we want to work collectively with the department of defense and state department. we need your support for a solution from a funding standpoint to the palau compact. i know there have been various funding sources considered by this body. helium was one of them. we sent that to other places, including legacy well cleanup.

we request your support in getting funding to address, you know, our government's obligations to palau. i don't have a lot of influence with the department of defense and the state department, but it's certainly on their radar and on mine and we would appreciate your help in moving that forward. >> thank you very much. madam chair, i just want to say for a nation like ours to not meet our obligations to a small entity such as palau, that $17 million a year is unconscionable and we should move forward with that funding. >> i agree. >> thank you for bringing that up. and this is something that we do need to find a resolve for and it has been somewhat discouraging to me that state department and the defense department have been very uncreative, i think in trying to find a solution. so we'll work on that. senator cassidy.

>> thank you. secretary jewell i'll begin with a statement. i will incredibly -- i cannot put enough hyperbole in front of this -- opposed to the department's budget proposal to deprive the gulf coast states under the gulf of mexico security act. moneys by our state constitution, when we receive, go to mitigate damage caused by federal mismanagement of our wetlands. in louisiana, we are experiencing unparalleled loss of land. this red area is what we are losing. down here, this results from channeling leveeing the lower mississippi for the benefit of commerce for the rest of the country. now, this has taken a once-growing delta plain and caused the greatest source of westlands lost in the u.s. history. we were told ten years ago bipartisan we could count on a

portion of oil revenue to restore this coastline. and what is at stake. this is a result of that coastal loss. black plaquemines's parrish, which lost this much land can no longer protect itself with wetlands from that surge. in the upper corner is the fema director looking at the flooded area this all is plaquemine's parrish. those are working families. working in an industry that literally fuels the rest of our country. and they rely upon this revenue to rebuild this land so that they can continue to live there. now, over the last three years i'm going to point out the federal government has taken in $22.3 billion from leases in this area.

an the four gulf coast states most affected by this have received $4 million .2%. now, frankly, i don't know how the administration has gotten at this goal. and i will point out that the gulf coast states and the offshore waters and over the last few decades produced billions of barrels of oil trillions of cubic feet but with that, there is a cost associated. and for us to support this infrastructure, we need to rebuild our coastline. now, to speak of the infrastructure ignores the individual family that just lost everything. now, the obama administration's goal to take this away reminds me of a quote from joseph heller. mankind is resilient. the atrocities that horrified us a week ago become acceptable tomorrow. hmm. if way back when when this was

channeled, we knew these homes would be destroyed because of that land loss, maybe we wouldn't have done it. but now it becomes acceptable to take that money away and to allow these families to continue to be adversely affected. by the way, it's not just an irate senator. let me read a quote from the environmental defense fund national wildlife federation national audubon society and the lake pontchartrain foundation they are disappointed by the budgets proposed version of critically needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal louisiana and the mississippi river delta. this proposed budget undercuts the administration's previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in the mississippi river delta where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year, a preventable coastal erosion crisis. these are the environmentalists. there was a headline recently

that i read, does president obama hate louisiana. if you're this person in that home, that's a question you're asking when the land -- the money we were going to use to build back that wetlands is being taken away. now, in that is a question. don't you care about these families? it doesn't appear that you do. your thoughts? >> thank you senator. of course i care about those families. as i do about many families in coastal communities that are experiencing dramatic impact. the president's proposed budget says we should revisit the revenues from federal waters offshore beyond state waters for the benefit of all american people. >> revisit means take it away from the coastline that will be rebuilt. let me go back to the heller quote. mankind's resilient, an atrocity a week ago is acceptable now. this is an environmental

atrocity, and now we're saying let's revisit. these families don't think he cares, and why should these families think he cares about them? >> madam chairman, may i respond? sir, we are balancing the assets of all americans, and they can be for the benefit of americans that are greatly impacted. we do have billions of dollars going into gulf coast restoration, as you know. in large measure, because of the very unfortunate oil spill. >> that is an unrelated incident. that was mccondo which goes to florida. that is unrelated to this. 80-year process, totally unrelated. >> and if i may sir i've seen where mr. goh, the mississippi river gulf something or other, when it was closed by the corps of engineers, the beaches began to decrease.

>> this is mr. green and that is mr. goh, that is not at all adequate for that. >> i understand that, sir. my point is that, what has happened there has taken many years. and it has been the result largely of how we have channelized the mississippi river as you brought out in your comments. we certainly support gulf coast restoration. we're working on gulf coast restoration. this is a proposal by the administration for consideration whether the revenues from the outer continental shelf that are national assets should be focused on four states or should be broader applied and certainly -- >> we're over time. let me conclude by pointing out that the last three years, all the states have received $22 billion, and the four gulf coast $4 million. now we're talking about $375 million, out of $22 billion.

it doesn't seem much to ask. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, madam chair. senator from louisiana, i can assure you that this is very important to all of us in the country. i have good friends, environmental friends and family in louisiana, and i know that the loss of coast down there is an extremely serious problem. i appreciate your raising that issue. madam secretary, just to get back to the budget for a minute. how does this budget line up with the sequester, and with the 2011 budget caps? >> i'm going to ask mike to take that, as we've gone back and forth on that. >> thank you. >> mike? >> senator yes, the budget would reverse the sequester. would undo the sequester. i think that's the fundamental aspect of what the president is looking for. we certainly have since the 2013 agreement on the budget, this eeconomy has started to

rebuild, restore and grow very significantly. we do not want to go back to sequester. we think that the assuredness of the budget and the investments strategically that we can make will keep the economy growing very strongly from that standpoint. the president has proposed a budget that would eliminate sequester and help us move forward. >> so it would meet the original 2011 budget cap but not the sequester budget cap is that correct? there were budget caps and then the sequester that brought it below. do you know if it meets -- >> i'm not sure with respect to the budget caps. normally the budget caps would be lower. >> fine, thank you. to go from the broad to the specific. madam secretary, we had an experience a year or so ago in arcadia national park in maine one of the gems of the national park system which in fact is also 100 years old next year,

where there was the con shelgsdcession held by a local company for 80 years. what was surprising to me was apparently the bid result was strictly a matter of lower price, and past performance and record of performance and local impact and those kind of things didn't count. i had a meeting with your staff and discussed this, and to my surprise, they said, yes that's right, that's the way we read it. any plans to revisit that process? because it worries me that a small company is always going to be at a disadvantage to a large national company who has, you know full-time bid design people as opposed to people with local knowledge. and again, with a high level of performance. shouldn't that be a factor in deciding -- when i go to buy a car, i don't just look at the price, i look at the quality and past performance of that

automobile. should that not be part of the process in awarding these contracts? >> senator i'm not intimately familiar with the contracting there, as i know you've talked to the park service about. i will say that as i've looked into the concession contracts there have been requirements placed on the park service in what they can and cannot do with the concession airs that are quite frustrating, over what they owe the concessioners over time, to change out the contracts. it has not worked the way it might if one is running a business. part of that has to do with the restrictions on the park service. >> restrictions placed by congress? >> i believe so. >> in there are such restrictions that you find frustrating, please let us know and we'll try to fix them. i think this is a place we can perhaps work together. >> we'll do. >> the second part about parks, and i've visited a great number i note in your opening statement that your department is essentially self-funded. you collect 16-plus billion dollars in fees. you're proposing a budget of

$16.2 billion, i think. i think there's a lot of money left on the table in terms of collection of fees at parks. for example, at arcadia it's very difficult for local merchants to sell park passes. i may be wrong, but i believe it's impossible to buy park passes online so we've actually had visitors say, we'd like to pay but we don't know where or how. i would hope and urge you to have the park service visit the whole question of fees how they're collected, bring it into the 21st century in terms of online sales swipe cards at access points. because it would be a shame to be cutting park service and not doing maintenance if in fact you've got customers, if you will who aren't paying and perhaps would even like to be paying. >> i'll quickly say that the director of the park service has revis ted the fees charged in a number of parks.

they've been static for a number of years. >> well let the record show i'm not necessarily recommending a fee increase, i'm brave but i'm not stupid. but i am suggesting methodology for collecting fees, because i think -- my impression from working with these issues is, there are a lot of fees that are already in place that aren't being collected. and as i say, we've had people in bar harbor i've had merchants say we've had visitors staying at our inn who say i want to pay to visit arcadia but i don't know how or where. i'm talking about the mechanics of collection rather than the level. it may be that the level, if you're leaving 20% of the money on the table, it may be that the level isn't as relevant as how it's collected. >> okay. >> i've got several other questions which i'll submit for the record. thank you, madam chair. thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. i'll continue on this parks

discussion. i appreciate what senator king was talking about in terms of enhancing the opportunities to get more money to the parks to help with some of the issues you've identified in your budget. i want to back up though and talk about the centennial challenge. and some of the initiatives there. as you know madam secretary, i've been working with you on this, and we've talked a lot about how, in 2016 we could do some exciting things to try to generate more interest in the parks. and also to deal with some of the budget challenges. in 2007 when i was with budget, we launched this centennial challenge we called it to get the private sector more engaged in the parks. i think your former company was part of that. it seems to make so much sense to me, basically you provide a federal match to leverage private sector dollars. we had hoped to raise $100 million per year over a ten-year period, substantial funding that would go toward some of the

maintenance, back logs and other issues. that was never realized never passed congress. i'm pleased to see in your budget that you are again proposing something like this. i guess my question to you is if you could explain briefly to the group here why you think this mandatory federal funding is important to incentivize nongovernmental partners. maybe you could include some of your experience in the private sector. >> thanks, senator portman. and thanks to your commitment to the national parks. i actually did work with my predecessor on this, trying to encourage congress to pass the centennial act. the national park service is arguably the most recognized and valued brand within the federal government. certainly a place where people are very, very interested in providing support. and research has shown that there is a tremendous interest in private philanthropy. we also know and i've done a lot of fund-raising myself, that a match is a great incentive to get people to give, sometimes

two, three, four, five times the act, showing that we're putting our money up, and individuals will do so, too. the budget has in the discretionary part $50 million for a match, and additional $100 million in the mandatory proposal. we are confident that with a match, we can multiply that several times over. i think that there are parts of the park service where people will want to give private philanthropy. and other areas like some of the deferred maintenance, which are probably going to be less conducive to that. so our budget focuses our resources on those that are less accessible to funding like the deferred maintenance and would concentrate those matching funds on areas like gettysburg would be a good example where private philanthropists have stepped up to help. we've seen that here in washington, d.c., also. >> it's an exciting opportunity. on a partisan basis the committee would be willing to work with you on that. i'm very concerned about the backlog and some of the deferred maintenance you've talked about.

it's a real problem that many in the parks in ohio, one of the top ten visited parks in the country, we're very proud of that. my question to you is how do you square this backlog and the problems we have which is funding what we have with the fact that you all continue to promote more work load for the national park service by expanding the areas of responsibility in proposing more stewardship? >> yeah. well, this budget proposes -- really has a proposal that over ten years would clear up the maintenance backlog on the facilities, on our highest priority assets. those that are going to see the most visitors. those that are in the most difficult conditions. for example, the many glaciers hotel, which is in glacier national park, has copper tube wiring, which is not safe. we have in this budget a proposal to make progress over ten years on cleaning all that

up. about half of our backlog is in roads. we require department of transportation funding for that. the other half this will address the highest priority assets and give us a good shot in the centennial year of the highest of the high priorities in dealing with them. we recognize that we have not kept up. the budget has not kept up with the needs. >> i would say also the transportation budget which is not under your agency, but does not provide adequate funding for the roads and bridges. a lot of it is transportation infrastructure. i hope that you pushed for that. >> we do. >> and that it was -- those people told you at omb, i'm disappointed in the transportation budget not having more. let me ask you a question. let's say that somebody in cleveland, ohio wants to make a contribution to the cuyahoga national park to improve the facility let's say add a new roof to a building and there are situations like that right now at all of our parks how can they do that?

under the current centennial challenge, can they make sure that the money they give to the park goes to fix that roof? >> yes, we do that. we do it through the national park foundation or the cuyahoga can use that mechanism as well. >> they do have a friends group. but how can they do it through the park service? >> i'm not exactly sure of the mechanics. >> i think they can. >> you don't think so? okay. >> i think that's something we should work on as part of this centennial. i'm already over time. i would like to issue, if i could, some questions for the record with regard to the permitting process. i think this is an area where we have a great opportunity to do some work on a bipartisan basis. again, senator king and i have introduced legislation in this. let me put a concern on the table, and that is how we're dealing with the issue of the normal long-eared bat. in particular, your folks at u.s. fish and wildlife who are proposing to list the bat as endangered. what that would mean for commercial activity. it has nothing to do with the

issues with the bat. we'd like to work with you on that. i'm very concerned about it. >> may i answer that just very briefly? the -- it looks like the likelihood of the threatened listing, and the fish and wildlife service proposed a very broad sweeping 4-d rule which would enable a lot of the same economic activities to go forward if that's the case. so that's where we are. we recognize white nome syndrome. >> it's not development or commercial activity. it's not broad enough to encompass what people are concerned about a lot in eastern ohio. so we need to broaden that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, chair. i want to thank you secretary jewell, for your leadership around the issue just here at the beginning around the arctic national wildlife refuge. in my view, there are many places in our federal estate where oil and gas development are the highest and best use of our federal lands.

i believe wildlife refuges are not among them. i want to thank you for recognizing that unique wilderness resource that, frankly, belongs to every american. we've got two new national park service units in my home state of new mexico. that passed in the last public lands bill. and the local communities that host these new units are incredibly excited to see these places finally come to fruition after literally decades of advocacy. at one of those, management is moving from an unsuccessful experimental model to a more traditional national preserve model under park service management. and what drove that was really a lack of adequate public access, and recreational opportunities under the previous arrangement. but the preserve has a very strong scientifically driven

resource management program that the delegation certainly myself feel must continue under the new management model. and in particular the preserve has been a key partner in a collaborative landscape restoration project designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, and to restore forest health after many years of relatively irresponsible high-grade logging that occurred years ago under -- when this land was actually private. adjacent land managers, including several tribes and the department of energy, have a big stake in making sure that the preserve doesn't present a fire threat to its neighbors. and as management transitions to the park service, i want to know that we can count on this critical restoration work continuing, and wanted to ask the park service if -- in particular, if the park service can work with the existing partners, including neighboring tribes, to finish this important

forest health project? >> i'll certainly ask the team to take that into consideration. i think when there's really good restoration going on the ground, we have a lot to learn from it. i do know budget-wise, it's a bit squeezed, as a lot of things are, so we have to make sure we have a source of funding. >> there is a source of funding. we saw this transition coming, so there is legislative authority. it is largely an administrative issue to make sure this moves forward. there is funding there. and there is legislative authority that senator udall led the effort on last year in the budget. we look forward to working with you on this project. it's absolutely critical. and it's unusual in the fact that you have sort of a combing lane of management between agriculture -- department of agriculture and interior as this transition occurs. >> and they've been working closely with us on that. >> i want to go back to the

backlog that senator portman mentioned. we hear about the backlog of the maintenance on the public lands, especially our public parks. some say we shouldn't protect the new places because of the backlog. and one of the things i wanted to point out was that oftentimes that deferred maintenance doesn't come out, or shouldn't come out of the interior department budget. or even a forest service budget. but it's actually related to the department of transportation backlog. and a transportation backlog that is shared between the department of transportation at this -- at the federal level and then state and local responsibilities for transportation ways that just happen to be on park service real estate. can you talk a little bit about what proportion of the park service backlog is actually a transportation issue that needs funding through the highway

bill and other responsibilities? other than your budget. >> we have in the park service an $11.2 billion backlog. it's billion, with a "b." $9.5 billion is the deferred maintenance of the facilities that we're responsible for. and $5.6 billion is transportation. so just slightly less than 50%. >> just under half of that is actually not the responsibility of the department of interior? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. i'm going to leave you with one last issue and that's, in recent years i've seen sort of a troubling dynamic, where congress refuses to provide your agencies with the resources they need to manage our public lands. and then when those lands deteriorate, because of lack of funding and management, congress accuses the agencies of mismanagement and claims that the states could then do a better job. in fact, i believe that we in congress need to do a much better job of providing the resources necessary to manage these lands, so that they are

healthy, and can make a positive and sustainable contribution to the entire american economy. would the president's budget provide the department with the resources it needs to begin to address the broader maintenance backlog? >> do i have time to answer? certainly with the national park centennial, we have focused a lot of our energy around the national parks and addressing that maintenance backlog. there is a small amount in the mandatory portion of the centennial budget that proposes support for the backlog on other public lands. blm, for example, and the fish and wildlife service. these public assets as you point out are in many cases the opportunity that people have to breathe, and to experience the best of the best of what this country is known for in the natural world. and our history and our culture. it's not a budget that fixes all the problems it's a budget that's a step in that direction. and i really appreciate your support on that.

i will say that it is frustrating. i know many, many hard working people who are dedicated public servants that are working on our maintenance, working in interpretation and science and law enforcement, and i met somebody out at the park where camp david is who was a law enforcement ranger who was cleaning the toilets and actually repairing part of the visitor center. that's where we find ourselves. i won't say this budget help address that completely, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you madam secretary for your time today. as we talk about the national park service's centennial next year, i'm excited about the centennial celebration this year of rocky mountain national park. i'll be introducing a resolution to celebrate and commemorate the incredible grandeur of rocky mountain national park and would invite you and hope to work together over the coming months to celebrate the centennial of

rocky mountain national park together. i look forward to that. i wanted to talk a little bit about a project in southeastern colorado. first southeastern colorado first authorized in 1962 under president kennedy. the project will serve more than 40 rural economically depressed communities in my state. congress passed legislation in 2009 that provide aid funding mechanism to fully repay the cost of the project and an extensive nepa process has already been completed. early stages of mapping design, and other preconstruction activities are under way as well. local negotiations have led to a significant number of savings, amount of savings by optimizing existing treatment facilities as the project moves forward. but this year the administration's budget request was only $500,000. in 2012 president obama actually went to southeastern colorado. in pebo colorado where the project originates and state that the arkansas valley conduit would be built. he said it will be built.

why is the request only $500,000? what has happened? is this project receiving the kind of priority that it should in order to be completed? >> on issues like this i turned to experts for the department. that's my deputy secretary. mark? >> i've had the opportunity to work very closely with your constituents as a staff member on this committee when we passed the legislation as well as running the bureau of reclamation and getting the nipa work in association with that. i understand the water supply and water quality concerns that your constituents have and the bottom line is right now we're trying to plan for a phased in development of this project and it's tough given the constrained resources that we have. overall after getting the nepa and record decision done we've focused on the feasibility work

that needs to be plirkd.be accomplished. we're looking at this in bite size pieces. that work is going to take -- we managed to transfer $2 million on top of our $500,000 budget request to try to accelerate work along those lines. but the bottom line is we are in a constrained resource environment. but given the importance of that project we will continue within the budget and when we can move funds over there given the priority, and i think this is the second time we did it now in 2014 we'll move that resources over try to develop the strategy we've been talking about with the stakeholders there which is we're going to have a hard time funding the construction. we need to get them to the point where we can evaluate all the options and that's completing the faedability work. the state of colorado i think has offered a loan which we're thinking may be sufficient to initiate construction activity

and we're in a dialogue now within the administration and with your stakeholders, looking at other federal programs, quite frankly and see if we can't particularly given the water quality concerns if we can't make use of some epa resources, department of commerce resources that can go for water infrastructure. we will continue to work along those lines and try and put a patchwork of funding opportunities together with local resource that's we can move forward. >> we'd love to continue our conversation on this. it's a reclamation project. i know there's been talk of cobbling funding together from epa and commerce but again this has been and has been for 50 years a reclamation project and i'd like to continue our work together on this. shifting now to the sage grass. the potential sage grass listing in december would have significant effects on agriculture, energy, recreation in colorado if it were to move forward. and we need to balance the needs of our economy, the needs of our environment. state conversation and management plans if given the chance to succeed i believe will be best to protect the species. we've seen in wyoming where they have stabilized if not grown.

laigss. what do you believe needs to be achieved in order to allow states to implement their plans for a period of time in order for them to determine that they are best protecting -- they are best at protecting the wildlife within their borders? >> thank you, senator. what's happening with the greater sage grass in western states particularly the core six or seven states is unprecedented. in the history of landscape management. states working alongside federal partners, the reality is it's different state by state. no one size fits all, which makes it complicated. state of wyoming has been doing this for ten years and they have shown a path forward that has been very helpful for other states. state of nevada 87% of their land is in federal public ownership so, it's our plans that are going to help dictate the health of the sage grass there and rangeland fire is the most important thing there. we are trying to strike the right balance every place we are

with the federal plans the state plans and the science to make sure we're doing everything we can so that a listing of the species is not warranted. fish and wildlife service will need to have something they can rely on. in many states we have executive actions the governors have taken that provides that assurance. i've had a secretarial order on rangeland fire that provides additional assurance to the fish and wildlife service to those areas in the great basin where fire's an issue. our goal is to provide a clear path forward so that grazing and ranching and oil and gas activities can continue but continue in a really smart way where we know what the most critical habitat is and how to protect it. unprecedented effort that's happening and governors hicken looper and mead co-chair the sage grass task force. governors. we are doing everything we can with them to reassure the fish and wildlife service that the bird will be protected.

>> and obviously a number of questions on this. if i could indulge one more question and then i have a nuv others spp that all right, madam chair? no problem. i have some other questions i'll follow up with you on. >> okay. sounds good. >> thank you madam chair. secretary jewell, thank you for visiting the buggo ganesha school at leach lake. as you know, from before the time you were nominated i've been raising the alarm about this school. i talked to you about it pretty much every chance i get. thank you for going up there. what did you see at the bug school? >> i saw a facility that should not be a school. i was a facility that was converted from other uses with inadequate sanitation, small hallways inadequate heating

systems and a school that did not convey a support to the sthunts were there. i also saw committed taepers. i saw a school that wants to retain the cultural identity of the tribe and nurture that. and i saw their use of the great outdoors frankly to do that because i was there when the weather was good. but this is not a school that i'm proud of or you're proud of. it's indicative of the 1/3 of all schools in -- overseen by the bureau of indian education that are in poor condition, and i want to fix it over the long term. i want to fix thebug school and the rest of them and we've got a strong commitment in our budget to get on that. >> well, you have $59 billion increase for indian school production in the fy16 budget. and that's an improvement.

it's not enough. and i'm glad you went there. and i thank you again for doing that. this is just unacceptable. you know our native children have so many challenges that face them. and if anything we should be giving them better schools than -- we certainly should be giving them better schools than that. >> yeah. >> i want to ask you it will take about 25 billion -- i'm sorry. $25 million to rebuild the bugg school. what does the increase in indian school construction mean for the bugg school? >> so the short answer is we have several schools remaining on the 2004, so that's now -- by the time we get to this budget going to be 12 years old. that are prioritized. after that we are completely redoing the priorities. so i'm confident the bugg school

will be on the list for priority schools for addressing. we're working on a set of objective criteria that is being refined right now. i don't have that list, but we expect to have it sometime along the middle of the year which will prioritize those and put in place a plan to really begin to address these over time. it's going to take a long-term commitment on the part of congress and a long-term commitment on our part to address these challenges. but having seen the bugg school, it's in bad shape. it needs to be replaced. i will tell you i've seen other schools that are in equally bad shape and it just breaks my heart that around the country this is what we do in supporting indian education. the prioritized list will be coming out in the middle of the year. we'll make sure you know where that particular school is on the list. and there is a good chance in this budget that there will be planning and design dollars for a number of the schools on the

highest priority list so we can move them forward very quickly. we're learning from the department of defense education organization, or d.o.d.e.o. because they have a similar situation and they have a pathway forward that over a decade or so their schools will be brought up to speed, and we've hired the person that did that on our team here to dot same kind of long-term game plan for indian schools. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> one of the other things i've talked to you about is lewis & clark. the funding levels for rural water projects in the bureau of reclamation has been a frustration also for me. specifically this project -- in your budget last year you suggested if local governments want these projects built faster they should just put in more money on top of the legally