Native interests to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by opening legislation and any associated regulations that would by promulgated for a leasing program. Lastly, the Native interests may be compelled to join an operating unit with lessees to assure maximum consolidation of production and transportation facilities and efficient recovery of the petroleum resource.

Question: How much of the potential oil reserves are

contained in the proposed transfer?

Answer: We estimate that approximately 15% of the ́estimated recoverable oil reserves would be impacted by the proposed exchanges.

Question: Would the transferred lands be administered in the same fashion environmentally as the rest of the coastal plain if the Natives allowed development of oil resources?

Answer: As was indicated by our previous answer, the current proposal calls for the same environmental standard, terms, and conditions to apply to both lessees and Native interests on the refuge coastal plain.

Question: Why does the exchange not include mineral rights on the other lands proposed to be traded to the Department?

Answer: Of the other lands proposed to be traded to the Department, the title to the subsurface estate is currently held by the Federal government on approximately 45% (e.g., all Native-owned inholdings on Kodiak Refuge) of the inholdings offered in exchange. The majority of the remaining 55% of the subsurface to be traded to the Department was not offered in exchange by the Native corporations owning it. In cases where the subsurface was available for exchange, the value ascribed to it by the Native corporations was higher than the Department was willing to negotiate given our assessment of potential risks to the surface estate. This experience is consistent with our attempts at acquisition of subsurface elsewhere. Generally, if there is little mineral potential, then there is little risk or value associated with it. On the other hand, if the mineral potential is high, then the risk is high, and the asking price is often prohibitive. In the case of the Native subsurface offered in exchange, we did not view the potential risk from mineral development to be significant.

Question: How would those lands be protected from mineral

development?

Answer: In the unlikely event that mineral development were to occur, the subsurface owner would be required to coordinate his or her activities with the surface owner (1.e., refuge manager). The level of protection provided would be dictated in large part by the

type of mineral development that might occur and the alternatives available for development. The total potential for mineral development of the 891,000 acres proposed for exchange is judged to be very, very small.

Question: At what stage in the process are the land

exchanges?

Answer: Agreement in principle for an exchange has been reached with 6 Native groups representing 13 Native corporations. The exchanges will be the subject of a legislative environmental impact statement that will be released in draft this summer. statement will provide the basis for the Secretary's recommendation, if any, to Congress on the exchange proposals.

This

Question: To what extent have these exchanges gone through any open public process?

Answer: With the exception of the actual exchange

negotiations, the entire process has been open to public review and scrutiny. Participants in the exchange have appeared in numerous public and legislative forums to discuss the proposals and newspaper coverage has been extensive. In addition, a series of public hearings will be conducted later this year to solicit comment on the draft environmental impact statement.

Question: Do you believe the Department has existing authority to consummate the exchanges? If so, what is that authority?

Answer: Since it has always been our intention to submit any exchange proposals to Congress for approval, a legal opinion has not been sought or rendered on this question. Section 22(f) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Section 1302(h) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act are the authorities applicable to Alaska exchanges generally. However, as indicated above, their application to the current exchanges is not being relied upon by the Department.

Question: Would the exchanges negate Federal bonuses and royalties from the refuge, if it were to become a successful oil field?

Answer: Since the exchanges are premised on the exchange of fee interests, the Federal government would not be entitled to bonuses or royalties associated with any oil and gas tracts that might be conveyed to Native corporations. However, the tracts tentatively identified as subject to exchange do not preclude the prospect of Federal bonuses and royalties on the 85% of the tracts remaining for disposal through a lease sale. Indeed only a portion

of each of the 26 mapped, closed structures described by the "1002(h) Report" would be allocated through the exchange process. The remainder of each structure would be available for leasing and the collection of associated bonuses and royalties.

Question: Is the estimate of $3.4 billion in bonuses for the lease of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consistent with the assumption of land exchanges at the Arctic NWR?

Answer: The estimate of $3.4 billion in bonuses ($2.1 billion in 1990 and $1.3 billion in 1992) that was included in thể President's 1989 budget did not assume land exchanges at the Arctic Refuge. The land exchange option was kept separate from the receipt estimates.

Law Enforcement Pay

Question: The National Park Service budget request includes $4,088,000 for pay equalization for the U.S. Park Police. With whom is Park Police pay being equalized?

Answer: Park police pay rates were compared to those of other police departments in the D.C. metropolitan area, which is where most park police officers work. Specifically, the park police pay was compared to pay of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department, and pay in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties.

Question: Can this be accomplished administratively?

Answer: The pay increase has been granted by the Office of Personnel Management under special general authority provided under the Treasury, Postal Service section of the 1988 Continuing Appropriations Act.

Question: Is similar consideration being given to the salaries of Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers?

Answer: The Park Police are paid under a special pay provision similar to that which covers the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service, and have not received a general pay increase in over a decade. Other law enforcement personnel in the Department are paid under the authority of a different pay system and have received general pay increases.

Naval Petroleum Reserve (Elk Hills)

Question: The State of California has sued the Federal Government over revenues from the Naval Petroleum Reserve at Elk Hills in California. What is the basis for the suit?

Answer: California has made two requests in its complaint. First, it claims title to two school sections that did not transfer to the State because they were withdrawn for the Naval Petroleum Reserve prior to becoming eligible for transfer to the State. The State claims the withdrawal has been effectively terminated by certain actions taken by the Federal government, and asks the court to quiet title in the State, and to order the United States to return revenues collected from the two sections since 1975. Secondly, the State requests an equal value in-lieu selection of other public lands in the event its claim of ownership is denied.

Question: How is this being coordinated with the Department

of Energy?

Answer: The Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior have cooperated with the Department of Justice to prepare an answer to the State's complaint.

Question:

Answer:

How long has this dispute existed?

The dispute has its roots in the Teapot Dome controversy. California has shown a renewed interest since the Utah v. Andrus Supreme Court decision in 1981. In that decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Department's discretionary classification authority to determine lands available for State in-lieu selections. In that particular case, the Secretary had the discretion to refuse state indemnity selection for lands with grossly disparate values.

suit?

Question: What was the Department's position prior to the

Answer:

The Department's position was, and remains, that the two sections are entirely within the control of the United States, no money is owed to the State, and the withdrawal for the naval petroleum reserve remains in effect. The law requires in-lieu selection on an acre for acre basis. The debt for an additional two sections of land still remains, but the Department's position is that California must select from available land.

Computer Initiatives

Question: What monitoring, if any, of major computer initiatives and enhancement occurs in the Office of the Secretary?

Answer: The Office of Information Resources Management (PIR) within the Office of the Secretary monitors major computer initiatives through several management mechanisms: the Information Resources Management (IRM) Review Council, budget reviews, acquisition reviews, and direct monitoring of projects. Projects having projected costs exceeding $5 million are reviewed by the Department's IRM Review Council which is composed of the Assistant Secretaries and chaired by the Under Secretary. ADP and telecommunications initiatives are required to be identified by bureaus and offices in their annual budget requests (Exhibit 43B, per OMB Circular A-11) and are reviewed during the formulation of the Department's budget request each year. Also, proposed major ADP and telecommunications acquisition projects must be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary prior to initiation of a procurement. The Office of Financial Management is continually monitoring the implementation of the Department's new financial management system and PIR is providing oversight. The Office of the Secretary has created a task force to evaluate, select, and implement a new payroll system and is establishing an administrative service center to run the system. Departmental management has been closely monitoring the development of the largest Interior information system, the Automated Land and Mineral Record System.

Question: What efforts have you made to strengthen

Departmental review and coordination of systems?

Answer: The Department has issued a new policy requiring bureaus to develop a Five-Year Strategic IRM plan and to update it each year. The policy requires bureau management to coordinate information system and technology initiatives within their bureau. Assistant Secretaries are directed to coordinate initiatives across their bureaus. The Office of the Secretary with the advice of the IRM Review Council will provide ultimate Departmentwide coordination. Also, the Department is now developing an IRM strategic framework. The framework will be issued in the spring of 1988 with the Secretary's approval and will provide Departmental leadership and direction to the bureaus in areas such as mainframe computing, administrative systems, data communications and data sharing.

Question: How is the Department seeking to eliminate past problems with the acquisition and development of major computer systems such as the Minerals Management Service royalty computer system?