[Senate Hearing 109-20]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-20
SELL AND SCARLETT NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF JEFFREY CLAY SELL TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND PATRICIA LYNN SCARLETT TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
MARCH 9, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
20-961 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Texas....................... 1
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas.............. 2
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 18
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 16
Scarlett, Patricia Lynn, Nominated to Be Deputy Secretary of the
Interior....................................................... 8
Sell, Jeffrey Clay, Nominated to Be Deputy Secretary of Energy... 5
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 15
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 11
APPENDIXES
Responses to additional questions................................ 27
SELL AND SCARLETT NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 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. We are
here this morning to consider the nominations of Clay Sell to
be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy and Lynn
Scarlett to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of the
Interior. Before we begin, our colleague Senator Hutchison has
asked to make a few remarks with reference to one of the
nominees. We welcome you to the committee and would you please
proceed because we know you have a busy schedule, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator From Texas
Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman, and committee members,
it is a privilege to join Senator Hutchison today in supporting Clay
Sell's nomination as Deputy Secretary of Energy. I believe that
President Bush has made strong choice for this nomination. As many of
the members of this committee are well aware, Clay possesses a number
of personal and professional attributes that make him an ideal
candidate for this critical position.
From his education in Texas, to working on national energy policy
issues on Capitol Hill, to helping guide the Administration's formation
and implementation of energy initiatives, Clay has demonstrated an
intelligence and ability to negotiate complex policy matters.
There are few greater skills in Washington than the ability to
perceive overreaching national needs, formulate a vision for moving
forward to address those needs, then working tirelessly to attain that
vision for the greater good. I believe that Clay has demonstrated these
abilities.
There are many challenges that lie ahead to meet our energy needs.
Our country has gone too long without a strategic, comprehensive energy
policy. There are few things that have such a direct and pervasive
affect on both our economy and our environment than ensuring our
nation's energy security. Also, our good stewardship of our nuclear
material and continuation of aggressive policies that assure
nonproliferation have, perhaps, a greater importance now than in any
other time in our history.
I am confident that Clay's leadership, breadth of knowledge and
vision will help guide the Department of Energy through these many
challenges. For your part and for mine, I also know that Clay will be
an effective partner with Congressional members and leadership in
working to enact beneficial policies.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for this
nominee. I look forward to continuing to work alongside you, Secretary
Bodman, and Clay on these important issues.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am so proud to be here for my fellow Texan, Clay Sell. Mr.
Chairman, I have to say that I know if you were not chairing
this committee you would be sitting right here next to me also
introducing him, because you and I have both worked with him,
and especially you have.
I cannot think of anyone more qualified for the office of
Deputy Secretary of Energy than Clay Sell. I want to say that
Senator Cornyn particularly wanted me to mention what a great
supporter he is as well. He could not be here this morning, but
he is 100 percent supportive of Clay Sell for this position.
Clay graduated from Texas Tech University and the
University of Texas School of Law. He served his country for
the past decade, gaining all of the experience he needs for
this type of job. Especially his experience with energy policy,
coupled with his vision for the Department of Energy, I know he
will be a valuable asset for Secretary Bodman.
For the last 19 months, Clay has served President Bush as
Special Assistant on Energy Policy and Legislative Affairs.
Prior to joining the White House, he served in the office of
Congressman Mack Thornberry for 5 years and then in the Senate
as Majority Clerk for the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee for 3\1/2\ years. As the Majority
Clerk for you, Mr. Chairman, Clay always worked well with me
and all the members of the Senate, and I know that he will
continue in this spirit of cooperation.
His qualification, his experience, and especially his
integrity make him the right person for this job. On a personal
note, I want to say that I have had such a great impression of
Clay and his integrity. As we all know, in the Senate there are
rough times and there are times when it is hard to get
something done. Energy issues particularly seem to be divisive
sometimes. But Clay Sell is always honest, always doing the
right thing, and always trying to help everyone understand the
issues and work to make a win for all of the people concerned.
So on a personal note, I recommend him so highly.
I am very pleased that he has wonderful support with him,
who I know he will introduce today. But I have also known his
wife Alisa and worked with her. They brought their son Jack,
who even has on a tie and a coat--I am very impressed--and two
proud Texas parents, George and Judy Sell from Amarillo, Texas.
So I am very pleased to be here in support of this
nomination, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Bingaman, did you have any comments with reference
to the Senator, her remarks?
Senator Bingaman. No, I did not, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
her coming.
The Chairman. We will get to you in a moment.
Thank you very much, Senator. Obviously, you are excused
and thank you for being here.
I think you all know that, as Senator Hutchison noted, Clay
Sell worked for me as clerk of the Appropriations Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee. During his tenure I was
impressed by his combination of critical thinking skills and a
wide range of knowledge of the numerous Department of Energy
programs. Everyone on this committee and in this town that
works in this area knows of the importance of the No. 2 job in
the Department of Energy.
As DOE moves forward this year in submitting a license
application for NRC for Yucca Mountain and working on the next
generation of cool nuclear power plants and continuing to work
on environmental cleanup from our old wartime legacy, these are
just a handful of issues that need to be tackled in the
Department and I do not think there is anybody that, based on
training, education, and experience, that is better than Clay
to do that now.
No less daunting is the task that you have, Secretary Lynn
Scarlett. Your job as No. 2 person in the Department is a very
difficult one. In your current position as Assistant for Policy
and Management and Budget, which you have held since July 2001,
you developed a grasp of the breadth of issues facing the
Department, and I am hopeful that the increased authority that
you will receive by virtue of this appointment will give you
more opportunity to do things in the Department that are needed
during the remainder of this President's term.
So I welcome both of the nominees and I want to thank both
of you for your willingness to undertake this responsibility.
It is of serious magnitude and we hope you will do well.
Now, I would now ask Senator Bingaman if he would like to
comment and then we'll introduce your families.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First let me just welcome both nominees. I have met with
both of them and indicated to them that I support their
nominations and wish them well in these new jobs and feel they
are both highly qualified. I did want to just refer to two
broader issues. I will have a specific question or two of the
nominees after their statement. But the two broader issues, one
relates to science. These are issues related to the Department
of the Interior.
One relates to science. There is a recent survey that I
think is troubling, a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
scientists that was conducted by the Union of Concerned
Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility. They found what they saw as widespread
political interference with the scientific work there in the
Fish and Wildlife Service. I would be, obviously, concerned if
that is the case.
Nearly half the scientists who responded in that poll, who
worked on endangered species-related issues, said that they had
been directed for non-scientific reasons to refrain from making
findings that were protective of environmental species. I think
we need to run that down. Obviously, public trust in our
institutions of government I think is eroded to the extent that
people feel like all decisions are politically driven.
The second concern relates to the Department's
responsiveness to the committee. I think 4 years ago the
previous Deputy Secretary at his confirmation hearing pledged
to work in a forthright, bipartisan and cooperative manner with
the committee. Many of us have felt that that did not happen,
as it should have. We have had difficulty getting technical and
factual information without long delays, and career employees
have apparently been forbidden to answer questions without
first getting clearance from political appointees.
Those are issues that have obviously caused consternation
among myself and others in the committee and they are issues--I
thought this was an appropriate issue to raise with these two
nominees since they will be in a position to correct that in
their new positions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Now, we would like to permit each of you, starting with
you, Mr. Sell, to introduce family members that you would like
to be introduced so they can stand up and we can see who they
are and know who is supporting you.
Mr. Sell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very proud today to have my wife here with me, Alisa
Sell, as Senator Hutchison introduced; my oldest son Jack. I
have two other children, Robert, who is 2, and Mary Margaret,
who is 1, and I was tempted to bring them here today with the
hopes that it might shorten the hearing. But I left them at
home.
[Laughter.]
And my parents, George and Judy Sell from Amarillo, Texas,
are here as well.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you very much.
Ms. Scarlett.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator. I have with me my mother
Virginia Scarlett that I would like to introduce today. I
regret that my husband is unable to be here. He is enjoying the
warm weather of southern California in Santa Barbara.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Scarlett.
Now, I think we have to do some things that we have to ask
every nominee to do. The rules require that you be sworn in in
connection with your testimony. So would each of you rise and
raise your right hands.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
Mr. Sell. I do.
Ms. Scarlett. I do.
The Chairman. Be seated.
Before you begin your statements, I ask you three
questions. One: Will you be available to appear before this
committee and other Congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to
Congress? First, Mr. Sell?
Mr. Sell. I will.
The Chairman. Ms. Scarlett?
Ms. Scarlett. I will.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create the appearance of such a conflict should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Mr. Sell. Senator, my investments, personal holdings, and
other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the
appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government.
I've taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances
thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Ms. Scarlett?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, my investments, personal
holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or
appearances thereof to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Are you involved or do you have any assets
held in blind trust?
Mr. Sell. I do not.
Ms. Scarlett. No, Senator.
The Chairman. All right. Now we're going to proceed to have
each of you give your statements, and I hope they will be as
brief as possible, and then we'll proceed to questions.
Mr. Sell.
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY CLAY SELL, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF ENERGY
Mr. Sell. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of
the committee, I'm honored to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. I earlier
introduced my family, but I would like to say particularly
about my wife, one of my greatest assets is being married to a
tough, strong, Texas woman. I want to publicly thank Alisa for
not just permitting me to continue to serve in the Government,
but for being a great source of encouragement in my
continuation.
My educational background, as Senator Hutchison said, is in
business and law. But for the last 10 years I've had the
wonderful honor of serving my country and government. As such,
I'm a product of my experiences in the House, Senate, and White
House and of the outstanding individuals for whom I worked.
For 5 years I served Congressman Mack Thornberry of Texas.
His interest in national security missions of the Department of
Energy and his vision for the National Nuclear Security
Administration allowed me great involvement with the Department
early in my career. Thereafter, I was proud to serve Senator
Ted Stevens and you, Mr. Chairman, as your lead staffer on the
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for 3\1/2\ years.
That experience allowed me to get to know and understand the
programs of the Department in a way few people are permitted to
know them, and the experience allowed me to work under one of
the Nation's foremost leaders of energy, science, and
nonproliferation policy.
For the last 19 months, as Senator Hutchison said, I've
served President Bush as a Special Assistant on matters of
energy policy and legislative affairs, a broadening experience
that I believe further prepared me to help implement the
President's vision for energy and national security.
The experiences in these three jobs will assist me in
serving the Department and I hope complement the impressive
qualifications of the new Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman.
I have long thought that the Department's missions flow
from two broad overarching themes, what can be and what must
never be. The first mission theme allows us to lay out a vision
of what can be: policies resulting in secure, reliable, and
affordable sources of energy; new energy technologies that
embrace the future and flow from the research occurring today
in our laboratories and universities; world leadership in the
management of resources in a way that increases and secures our
Nation's wealth, but also allows us to share with the world our
prosperity and the peace that follows prosperity. These are the
Department's missions of energy policy, energy research and
development, and science.
The second mission theme is one that requires a commitment
to what must never be. For 48 years this Department and its
predecessors going back to the Manhattan Project combined human
ingenuity with the physical sciences to end World War II and
then win the cold war, protecting us from what must never be.
Today this Department and its scientists, its technicians, its
civil servants, are again called to build upon this historic
mission by protecting the American people from the threat of
nuclear terrorism in a rapidly changing world. These are the
missions of the Department's nonproliferation activities around
the globe, of its national security programs, and of the
requirements to be true to the environmental obligations
resulting from this work.
These missions are among the most important to our Nation
and to our world. The Department cannot succeed, however,
without full management focus from the top on the safety and
security of the Department's people and facilities. The
Secretary has made this a top priority and if I am confirmed I
intend to join him in making the management decisions and
leading the operations of the Department in a manner that is
true to the Secretary's commitment.
Finally, regarding the management of the Department, I
should say that I have the greatest respect and regard for
former Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow and I thank him for the
course that he has set.
In closing, I want to once again thank the President for
the trust he has placed in me and thank the committee for the
consideration of my nomination. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement and at the appropriate time I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Clay Sell,
Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be
Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Before I proceed further, I would like to introduce and recognize
my wife of 12 years, Alisa Sell. Like many Texas men, my greatest asset
is being married to a tough, strong Texas woman. I want to publicly
thank Alisa for not just permitting me to continue to serve, but for
being my greatest source of encouragement.
My oldest son, Jack, is here with me today, as well as my parents
George and Judy Sell, from my home town of Amarillo, Texas. My two
youngest children, Robert, age two, and Mary Margaret, age one, are not
here today, but I believe I have their support as well.
My educational background is in business and law. But for the last
10 years, I have had the wonderful honor of serving my country in
government. As such, I am a product of my experiences in the House,
Senate, and White House; and of the outstanding individuals for whom I
worked.
For five years I served Congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas. His
interest in the national security missions of the Department of Energy,
and his vision for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
allowed me great involvement with the Department early in my career.
Thereafter, I was very proud to serve Senator Ted Stevens and you,
Mr. Chairman, as your lead staffer on the Energy & Water Appropriations
Subcommittee. For three and one-half years, that experience allowed me
to get to know and understand the programs of the Department in a way
few people are permitted to know them. And, the experience allowed me
to work in the background of one of our Nation's foremost leaders of
energy, science, and nonproliferation policy.
For the last 19 months, I have served President Bush as a Special
Assistant on matters of energy policy and legislative affairs--a
broadening experience that I believe further prepared me to help
implement the President's vision for energy and national security.
The experiences in these three jobs will assist me in serving the
Department and, I hope, complement the impressive qualifications of the
new Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman.
I have long thought that the Department's missions flow from two
broad overarching themes: what can be, and what must never be.
The first mission theme allows us to lay out a vision of what can
be:
Policies resulting in secure, reliable and affordable
sources of energy;
New energy technologies that embrace the future and flow
from the research occurring today in our laboratories and
universities.
World leadership in the management of resources in a way
that increases and secures our nation's wealth, but also allows
us to share with the world our prosperity and the peace that
follows prosperity.
These are the Department's missions of energy policy, energy
R&D, and Science.
The second mission theme is one that requires a commitment to what
must never be:
For 48 years, this Department, and its predecessors going
back to the Manhattan Project, combined human ingenuity with
the physical sciences to end World War II, and then win the
Cold War--protecting us from what must never be.
Today, this Department and its scientists, technicians, and
civil servants are again called to build upon this historic
mission by protecting the American people from the threat of
nuclear terrorism in a rapidly changing world.
These are the missions of the Department's nonproliferation
activities around the globe, of its national security programs,
and of the requirement to be true to the environmental
obligations resulting from this work.
These missions are among the most important to our nation and to
our world. The Department cannot succeed, however, without full
management focus from the top on the safety and security of the
Department's people and facilities. The Secretary has made this a top
priority, and if I am confirmed, I intend to join him in making the
management decisions and leading the operations of the Department in a
manner that is true to the Secretary's commitment. Finally, regarding
the management of the Department, I should say that I have the greatest
respect and regard for former Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow and I
thank him for the course that he has set.
In closing, I want to once again thank the President for the trust
he has placed in me and thank the Committee for considering my
nomination.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
First, I want to apologize for misstating your name. I say
``Scar-LETT,'' but it's ``SCAR-lett.'' I hope I won't do that
again.
Ms. Scarlett. That's okay. Anything will do.
The Chairman. No, I used to cringe when everybody said
``DOMM-inn-EE-chee'' and it took them a long time to learn, and
they still insist that I say it wrong and they say it right.
Would you please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA LYNN SCARLETT, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Bingaman and all members of the committee. I am honored to be
here today as the President's nominee for Deputy Secretary of
the Department of the Interior. I've been privileged these past
4 years to serve as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management,
and Budget at Interior, a position with responsibilities that
span the scope of the entire Department and its eight bureaus.
I've experienced both the challenges and opportunities in
helping the Secretary of the Interior set priorities at a
Department that manages one in every five acres of the United
States with a work force of 70,000 people who operate at 2,400
locations and manage over 40,000 facilities.
As manager of over 500 million acres, Interior has a
mission that lies at the confluence of people, land, and water.
What is our compass in tackling those responsibilities? Three
themes underpin our efforts. First is an emphasis on partnered
problem-solving and cooperative conservation so that our
decisions sustain healthy lands, thriving communities, and
dynamic economies. That focus has set the stage, for example,
for our multi-state partnerships to protect sage grouse. It
underpins the President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the
bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act. It lies behind our
budget emphasis on cooperative conservation grant programs.
A second theme is our emphasis on balance. Americans want
outdoor recreation opportunities. They want reliable and
affordable energy and water. They want to ensure stewardship of
this Nation's phenomenal natural, cultural, and historic
resources.
Our third theme is management excellence. 4 years ago
Congress gave us an ``F'' for our information technology
security. Today 98 percent of our systems have been certified
and accredited for their security measures. In 2002 it took us
4 months to close our financial books. This year it took us 45
days.
Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Department
of the Interior, I would anticipate maintaining the trajectory
set by Secretary Norton to enhance cooperative decisionmaking,
achieve balance among multiple goals and responsibilities, and
modernize our administrative and management practices. My
experiences over the past 4 years have deepened my familiarity
with Interior's responsibilities. Those experiences have
required diplomacy, openness to many voices and perspectives
both within the agency and with the public, an ability to
grapple with highly diverse and complex issues, and an
attention to setting targets and time lines to achieve results.
I have tried to bring those qualities to the position of
Assistant Secretary. Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary,
I will strive to apply those same qualities to the job.
Thank you and I would be very happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Lynn Scarlett, Nominee for the position of
Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee for
Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I have been
privileged, these past four years, to serve as Assistant Secretary of
Policy, Management and Budget at the Department--a position with
responsibilities that span the entire Department and its eight bureaus.
I have experienced both the challenges and opportunities of helping the
Secretary of the Interior set priorities at a Department that manages
one in every five acres of the United States, with a workforce of
70,000 employees who operate at 2,400 locations and maintain some
40,000 facilities.
As manager of over 500 million acres, Interior has a mission that
lies at the confluence of people, land, and water. How well we do our
job at Interior affects whether:
people have water in their homes;
farmers can irrigate their fields;
families can warm and cool their homes with affordable,
reliable energy;
Indian children enjoy educational opportunities;
communities avoid risks from catastrophic fires and natural
hazards;
our children and grandchildren can enjoy the grand vistas of
the Grand Canyon, or the geologic rainbows of Arches National
Park; and
habitats flourish for this Nation's diverse flora and fauna
As this Nation's premier land manager, our mission inevitably
places us amid conflict as different people have diverse aspirations
for these public lands. As guardian of thousands of buildings, roads,
trails, research facilities, and scientific systems, our mission also
triggers many basic management challenges.
What is our compass in tackling these responsibilities? Three
themes have underpinned our efforts over the past four years.
First is an emphasis on partnered problem solving and cooperative
conservation so that our decisions sustain healthy lands, thriving
communities, and dynamic economies. That focus has set the stage for
multi-state partnerships to protect sage grouse. It underlies the
President's Healthy Forests Initiative and the bipartisan Healthy
Forests Restoration Act through which reduction of hazardous fuels in
forests and on rangelands occurs through collaboration with
communities. It lies behind our budget emphasis on cooperative
conservation grant programs.
A second theme is our emphasis on balance. Americans want access to
outdoor recreation opportunities; they want reliable and affordable
energy; they want reliable supplies of clean water; they want to ensure
the stewardship of this Nation's phenomenal natural, cultural and
historic resources.
Our third theme is management excellence. Though unglamorous and
often outside the public eye, how well we manage facilities, financial
reporting, information technology, and other basic administrative
functions significantly affects our ability to serve the public
effectively and efficiently. Four years ago, Congress gave us an ``F''
for our information technology security. Today, 98 percent of our
systems have been certified and accredited for their security
practices. Four years ago, it took us four months to close our
financial books. This year is took us 45 days after the close of the
fiscal year. Four years ago, we had no idea what condition our
facilities were in. Today, almost all of our bureaus have completed
condition assessments on their thousands of facilities.
Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, I would anticipate maintaining the trajectory set by
Secretary Norton over the past four years to enhance cooperative
decision making, achieve balance among multiple goals and
responsibilities, and modernize our administrative and management
practices.
These three themes--cooperation, balance, and management
excellence--will inform our decisions to ensure the Nation has access
to energy; enjoys clean and sufficient water supplies; and maintains
healthy forests. These themes will also continue to underpin our
approach to protecting at-risk and endangered species. And, finally,
the theme of management excellence is the benchmark against which we
are striving to tackle our Indian Trust responsibilities.
My experiences over the past four years as Assistant Secretary of
Policy, Management and Budget have deepened my familiarity with
Interior's responsibilities. Those experiences have required diplomacy,
openness to many voices and perspectives--both within the agency and
with the public, ability to grapple with highly diverse and complex
issues, and an attention to setting targets and timelines to achieve
results. I have tried to bring those qualities to that position. Should
I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will strive to apply those
qualities to the job.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Bingaman, do you have any questions?
Senator Bingaman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me just ask about one issue that we raised during our
budget hearing with Ms. Scarlett and raised with Secretary
Norton at that time. It's one that concerns me still. I know it
concerns you, Mr. Chairman. It's one that you've worked hard
on. This relates to the funding for the Middle Rio Grande Area
and how we get the resources to comply with this 2003
biological opinion there.
It strikes me, as I understand it, we have a reasonable and
prudent alternative in this 2003 biological opinion, and the
estimate that I've seen from the Department is that it's going
to cost $230 million over 10 years to essentially do what's
necessary in that alternative. The administration has asked in
each of the last 3 years for a little over $6 million to
implement this rather than the $23 million that would be
necessary if you were to do a tenth of it each year, and I'm
not sure that's the right speed with which to do it.
Mr. Chairman, you've added funds in the appropriations
process to try to get the funding up so that we could go ahead
and get this done. It's very important to our State. I'm just
concerned about what the level of commitment is in the
Department to actually seeing this 2003 biological opinion
followed through on, and I thought maybe this was a good time
to ask Ms. Scarlett to give us any additional thoughts she has
on this or how we can get this moved up on the priority list in
the Department of the Interior. It seems to fall low on that
priority list, or at least it has in recent years.
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Senator, and of course first I'd
like to say we applaud and thank you for your strong leadership
and Senator Domenici in the Rio Grande, and with the
challenging issues we have there.
Our overall Middle Grande Budget for 2006 is proposed at
$19 million. That is somewhat less than what the Congress
appropriated in 2005, but nonetheless an increase over past
years in what we had proposed. That effort is a composite of
efforts, very collaborative, and we certainly place a high
priority on it. I know we had some success last year with the
silvery minnow in protecting them during low water flows and
being able to move them and save some 12,000 silvery minnows
that would have been adversely affected. Our Bureau of
Reclamation continues to work on the design and planning for a
possible sanctuary, which I know you've expressed interest in.
So I look forward to working with you on continuing to
focus on the Middle Grande, Middle Rio Grande, and the
biological opinion there, and if we need to enhance our efforts
we'll explore how we can do that.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you. I think that's important and
it's an issue that's not going to go away in our State. It's
been a good wet winter in New Mexico for a change and we're
very pleased about that, but this is an issue that is long term
and will continue to require funding. I think any help you can
get us in getting more administration support for that would be
much appreciated.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support both
nominees, and I do not have any other questions at this time.
The Chairman. If any members have questions, we want them
submitted, what do you think, by the close of business today.
Since there is no objection that we're aware of, no serious
objection, we're going to proceed with dispatch. We need both
of you confirmed as quickly as possible. So, Senators, if
you've got questions get them in. Equally important that you
get the answers in, so don't take 4 or 5 days if you can do it
in 1 because it just delays your confirmation.
I have a number of questions, but I'm not so sure I'm going
to ask them. I have maybe six or eight. I'm going to submit
them to you and ask you to answer them.
Perhaps I could ask you, Mr. Sell, would you just discuss a
little bit your views on nuclear power?
Mr. Sell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak to that. As you have said and as the President has said
on many occasions, beginning with the National Energy Policy
from June 2001, nuclear power is critical to our energy
security. It produces 20 percent of our electricity today and
it is important, both for reasons of domestic energy security
as well as due to environmental concerns, that nuclear power
continues to be a large and in fact growing part of the United
States energy mix.
The Department has taken a number of efforts and started
new initiatives in order to support nuclear power. The country
has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970's, and
the President has stated clearly his desire for that to change.
The nuclear budget in the Department of Energy has
increased substantially in fiscal year 2006 and if I'm
confirmed I look forward to the opportunity to work closely
with you and other Members of the Congress to continue to
promote nuclear power as a safe, clean energy alternative.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Again, I want to move things along, so I don't have any
additional questions. I'll submit them.
I note the presence of--Senator, do you have some
questions, observations? Are you for them, against them?
Senator Burr. I'm for them.
The Chairman. Well, that's good.
I understand there's a Senator who wants to be heard. Would
you please call him up and tell him I'll be open here for 10
minutes. If he's not here we close the hearing down.
We stand in recess for 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my
apologies to you. This was a crazy morning even by Senate
standards, and I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness and
appreciate all the courtesies that you always extend to me.
I also want to note how extraordinarily helpful you've been
to the people of our part of the country with respect to this
administration proposal to privatize our power system, the
Bonneville Power Administration. There's no question in my mind
that the reason that we are well positioned legislatively to
block it is we've had the good fortune of your support, and I
want to thank you for that as well.
The Chairman. You're welcome, Senator.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I want to explore with Mr.
Sell, the nominee, both his position with respect to
privatization, but also the way in which he's dealt with me and
my office with respect to this whole topic, because I regret to
say that I don't think in his dealings with our office that he
has been completely forthright and I want to discuss my
concerns and give him a chance to respond.
Mr. Sell came----
The Chairman. Senator, let me just say from the offset, I
have found him to be nothing but forthright always. And I
respect the prerogative of every Senator to do what, ask what
they like, but I do remind you that we all have feelings about
this man, many of us. So I would caution you to be sure you
know what you're talking about with reference to him. That is
enough.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, he came to my office, and I
want to go through with some specifics exactly what happened.
Frankly, I would have blocked the Sell nomination formally with
a public hold, which has been my practice, other than the fact
that he is well thought of by you. I said that when I went to
the floor, and the fact that you think favorably about him
carries enormous weight with me. And as I announced on the
floor, I would put a formal hold on the Sell nomination already
because of my dealings if it were not for my friendship and
respect for you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your bringing
that up.
I want to go through with you, Mr. Sell, the events as I
understand them and get your reaction to them so that the
committee is aware of my concerns. You came to my office on
January 17, when Secretary Bodman came to discuss his
appointment as Secretary, and you were in the meeting when I
asked Dr. Bodman on January 17 about privatization of
Bonneville and he told me he opposed privatization, and you did
not say that day that the White House had a privatization
proposal.
Now, the next day you worked with my staff where we
extended a courtesy to the Bush administration to say we would
like to make sure that the administration understands our
concerns about privatization, and my staff, after extending the
courtesy to the Bush administration, worked with you on the
questions that I would ask the Secretary. And again you didn't
say that the White House had a privatization proposal, and then
the Secretary came and testified to that effect on January 19.
Now, you came next to my office on February 16, to meet
about your own nomination, and I asked if you knew about the
administration's budget proposal affecting Bonneville when you
accompanied Energy Secretary Bodman to my office on January 17.
And you admitted to me that day that you knew about the
administration's proposal at that January 17 meeting.
Is that still correct? Is that still your understanding?
Mr. Sell. Senator Wyden, if I could, I would like to--your
recitation of the facts is consistent with my recollection,
with two points. I now understand, because you've been kind
enough to meet with me three times, including the meetings that
you've just outlined, I now have a much greater appreciation
for your perspective and the perspective of your constituents
on this matter.
Had I known at the time that you viewed privatization and a
change in the law to charge market-based rates as the same
thing, perhaps I could have handled the situation differently.
I'm sure with the knowledge I have today, had I had it then I
would have handled it in a different way.
But the administration does not view privatization, that is
selling the Federal asset which is Bonneville Power to a
private entity, as the same thing as our proposal. You asked
Secretary Bodman that day if he was--then-nominee Bodman that
day, if he was opposed to privatization of BPA, and he
responded that he was personally opposed to privatization and
he believed that was the position of the administration. And I
will tell you today, Senator Wyden, that I am personally
opposed to privatization and I believe that continues to be the
position of the administration.
At that time in January, I did not perceive privatization,
as I've just described it, as the same thing that was at that
point under consideration in the White House. But as you said
in your statement, I was aware that that proposal and other
general proposals related to the power marketing
administrations were under consideration inside the White House
when I was in your office on January 16th.
Senator Wyden. Do you think that at the time you should
have told me that there was a proposal under consideration to
move to market rates?
Mr. Sell. Once again, Senator Wyden, I do want to thank you
for the courtesy that you've extended me in offering me, giving
me a number of opportunities to visit with you about this. And
once again, I'll say, if I fully appreciated your concerns then
as I do today I believe I could have handled the matter and
handled your questions in a better way.
Senator Wyden. Well, I intend to talk to the chairman about
this some more. As I say, because of my enormous respect and
affection for Chairman Domenici, which goes, as he knows,
beyond the question of energy to our families and our families'
history, I'm going to talk to the chairman about it some more.
I would just make two points, Mr. Sell. First, if it looks
like a pig and acts like a pig, it's a pig. And certainly, in
our part of the world this approach with respect to market
rates, this is seen as code for privatization, and I think that
I should have been told at the time that there was an approach
being advocated at the White House as it relates to market-
based rates.
You've given your response today that, had you understood
my concerns, you would have indicated that, and I think that's
a step in the right direction. I want to have a chance to talk
about this further with the chairman and ask--I would only ask
you one other substantive question, and the chairman has been
helpful on this point as well. Do you believe that it would be
wrong to try to go to a market-based rate structure system for
Bonneville and the other PMA's administratively? Because there
is great concern that, while Congress may block this
legislatively--certainly there is support in this committee for
doing it--that there could be an end run by the administration
to do this administratively, and I hope to work with the
chairman and other colleagues as we try to address that
tomorrow.
But I would like to know your position substantively as to
whether you would be opposed to an effort to administratively
put in place this market-based approach to setting rates.
The Chairman. Before you answer, Mr. Sell, might I just say
to you, Senator Wyden, I think I'm fully aware of the issue.
However, to ask a nominee for a position that is not going to
be able to make the decision as to whether they go
administratively or not--that's not his decision. It's not even
the Secretary's decision. The President of the United States
would have to say we're going to do it administratively.
So I would think it's not relevant what he thinks
personally. If you want to ask him--if you want to answer
personally, I hope it's understood that whatever you say
doesn't make any difference. The President of the United States
will or won't.
I'm hoping that we're finished with this issue. I've made
it very clear I don't think we ought to keep sending that issue
up here. You know that.
I hope you're not part, Secretary Bodman said he's not
going to be part, of--he's been telling the administration,
don't send it up again. It's just getting to the point where
it's finished.
So, having said that, is that fair enough, that we
understand the prerogative of his answer?
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I think your comment is a very
fair one. I just am interested in getting a sense from Mr. Sell
with respect to how he would approach it, because he clearly is
involved at the White House in these energy discussions. And
while I think your point, Mr. Chairman, is very fair, I would
be, with your leave, interested in having Mr. Sell's thoughts
on the subject.
Mr. Sell. I'm happy to respond to your question, Senator
Wyden. It is my understanding that the underlying statutes
governing the power marketing administrations and Bonneville
require that the rates be based on a cost recovery methodology.
That is why the administration in seeking to propose, pursue a
different policy, proposed a change in the law. If that change
is not made--and that is a change that would have to first
begin in this committee. And if that change is not made, then
we will continue to comply with the requirements of the
existing law.
Senator Wyden. I will take that as an answer that you will
not go the administrative route. That's constructive as well.
Mr. Chairman, you've been kind both in giving me this extra
time and I just want to come back to what I have tried to say
to the administration on this point, that I'm going to do
everything in my power to make sure that there is a bipartisan
coalition in this Senate to not inflict on our part of the
world what amounts to economic poison. We have huge
unemployment. Our whole economic underbelly is hard-hit, and
this would cause enormous harm right now.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you both for your support in
terms of the substance of this effort and your thoughtfulness
with respect to my concerns about this appointment. And it's my
inclination, before taking a position on this appointment, to
have further discussions with you.
The Chairman. I do want to say for the record before I call
on the two remaining Senators--in fact, I want to thank you,
Mr. Sell, as the current nominee, for the work you did with
reference to helping when the BPA had to increase its borrowing
authority in 2003. That was very helpful to the same area that
Senator Wyden is talking about, and you were very helpful in
seeing to it that the additional borrowing authority was
granted, which became--was a very important, positive step in
the direction of assuring that power that he is commenting upon
as being vital to the area.
I think the record should know that you helped then and we
thank you for that. Those in the area ought to be thankful for
it, too, including Senator Wyden.
Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my fourth
committee meeting this morning, so I did want to stop by for a
moment and welcome both of our folks here today and thank them
for being here, certainly have done a great job. Ms. Scarlett,
Lynn Scarlett, has really worked so hard over at Interior and
we appreciate that very much.
Just a couple of general philosophical kinds of things, I
guess. In our bill in 1998 for parks, we set up a situation
where we asked for a commission to specifically report about
the rules and regulations with regard to concessions. Could you
tell me where we are with that and what you expect?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator. I am pleased that we have made
significant progress on the concession issue. The advisory
board has met and come to agreement on certain principles with
respect to how to implement the new concession contracts. We
have some 300 contracts that actually have been reissued and we
are working on refining in particular some of the challenging
issues, such as the possessory interest issue and how to
translate into the new leasehold surrender calculations. I
think we have agreement on that. We now look forward to moving
ahead with the implementing details on that.
Senator Thomas. Good.
One of the problems we're having, of course, is the
endangered species thing, and working with the various
agencies, whether it be Forest Service or whether it be Park
Service or so on. It just seems to me that maybe we could
resolve some of those problems a little more easily if there
was more cooperative, apparently more cooperative work done
prior to the listing and prior to the development of recovery,
so that more of these agencies could work together. Does that
sound reasonable to you?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, that exactly expresses the
philosophy that Secretary Norton has tried to advance these
past 4 years. She uses her phrase ``Four C's--conservation
through cooperation, communication, consultation.'' We have
worked with the Congress on a number of grant programs that
enable us to work with ranchers, other landowners, and
citizens, States, tribes, and so forth to get ahead of the
game.
I think one very good example of that in fact is beginning
to occur on the Middle Rio Grande with the silvery minnow; also
our recent sage grouse decision in which we'll be working
cooperatively across multiple States to try to protect that
habitat and the sage grouse itself, so that listing is not
necessary.
Senator Thomas. Good, I hope not. I hope you'll give some
thought to wolves and grizzly bears. That seems to be a little
bit of a problem.
Mr. Sell, glad to have you here, sir. I am pleased to have
someone in this position with the kind of background that you
have and energy, and I think that's very important. The
Senator's gone from Oregon, but I also think when we talk about
regional transmission organizations and other kinds of things
that are going to be necessary to have a good national
transportation system for electricity that places like
Bonneville are going to have to be a little more cooperative
and not be isolated quite as much as some would like to have
them.
At any rate, congratulations, both of you, and we look
forward to working with you.
The Chairman. Don't you even nod as he says that. Stay
still.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Domenici.
Congratulations to both of you, Lynn Scarlett and Jeff Sell,
for your appointments. I have just a couple of questions.
First to you, Mr. Sell, as the Deputy Secretary for Energy.
I'm interested in hearing your views as we try to move our
Nation more toward energy independence. All of us on this
committee and with your background know what has happened to
our country over the last 3 decades, where we've gone from a
point where we were importing 30 percent of our oil to the
point now where projections are it's going to be up to 70
percent.
I think that under the leadership of this committee and
Chairman Domenici and his bipartisan approach to coming up with
an energy bill, we hope to be able to get something for the
President to be able to sign and create an energy framework for
the future.
As part of that framework, for me one of the matters that
is of great interest is the interest that I have in renewable
energy. I've always felt that renewable energy was important
from the perspective of helping rural communities economically,
developing energy in a way that is environmentally friendly,
and also to help us lessen our overdependence on foreign oil.
So I would like your views as Deputy Secretary on the
renewable energy portfolio in terms of the components of that
portfolio, as well as your views concerning a national standard
with respect to renewable energy.
Mr. Sell. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
respond to that. The President's view and Secretary Bodman's
view--and it's mine as well--is that energy security must
involve a diversity of many energy sources and that renewable
power will continue to play a key and it must play a growing
role as part of our energy mix.
When this administration's energy policy was developed, I
understand a very hard look was taken at how to incentivize an
increase in renewable production of electricity, and the method
that this administration arrived upon was to choose to do that
through the tax code, and the President has proposed a number
of tax incentives, production tax credits, to incentivize the
development of more renewable resources.
As you're well aware because you represent the National
Renewable Energy Lab, we have also made a significant R&D
effort and continue to do so, and if I'm confirmed as Deputy
Secretary I look forward to returning to your lab out there and
learning more about that.
But to get back to your question on the renewable portfolio
standard, the administration has chosen to support and grow
this sector through incentives in the tax code and we have not
at this point chosen to support the other alternative, which is
to mandate a certain percentage of power to come from renewable
sources.
I understand from the hearing that this committee had
yesterday, as well as Senator Domenici's statement and others,
that the committee is considering that, and if I'm confirmed I
would look forward to working closely with this committee and
others in the Congress, because the one thing we all have in
common, even though we may not agree on every point or
initiative, is that we must get a comprehensive energy bill
passed. And I look forward to working with you and the chairman
in doing that.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Sell.
Ms. Scarlett, I recognize that this may be the first time
in history that we have a woman who is Secretary of the
Interior and a woman who is Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
So, given the fact that I have only two daughters and no sons,
I think Interior is headed in the right direction in terms of
gender balance. So I congratulate you.
Let me just ask you a question about a specific issue in
Colorado, and that's with respect to the Roan Plateau. There
has been a plan on the part of the BLM which would allow for
drilling on the top of the Roan Plateau, but to be phased in
over a period of years commencing probably 10 or 15 years from
now. There are a number of communities around the Roan Creek
Plateau that are very concerned about the drilling on the top
of the plateau. Garfield County and all of the cities within
Garfield County have passed resolutions expressing their
concern.
Looking at that specific issue, how is it that you as
Deputy Secretary of the Interior would take into account the
feelings of those local elected officials who represent the
county and the communities that are going to be affected by
this drilling on the top of the Roan Creek Plateau in terms of
how you move forward with those decisions? I know we have a
development program on developing our fossil fuels, but how
would you go about making sure that the most immediately
impacted communities are in fact heard, and use the Roan Creek
Plateau as your real hypothetical to explain that approach to
us?
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Senator. You touch upon an issue
that really confronts the Department of the Interior in the
many places where we must make management decisions and juggle
and balance multiple interests, multiple concerns and needs. We
put a priority on collaborating with relevant communities, the
tribes, States, counties, local governments, as well as the
citizenry, and indeed, in the particular instance of the Roan
Plateau had many open forums and extended comment periods in
order to try and achieve an outcome which on the one hand,
speaking to your desire for energy security in the United
States, would allow us to access those energy resources, and
yet at the same time lighten our environmental footprint.
The particular proposal in question is one that has the
primary focus actually below the plateau and it is a
performance-based plan, that is one that would require certain
environmental performance to be achieved, and then over time
through looking at that performance make determinations on any
further extension of activity before actual oil activity would
occur on the plateau itself.
I might point out that there already is some preexisting
activity on the plateau on some State lands. But this is one of
the balancing acts that we have in play, and very much welcome
ongoing public input on that process.
Senator Salazar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I note that Senator Murkowski's here. I'm glad that you've
arrived from Alaska and you didn't freeze up there, 48 degrees
below or however cold it was. Was that the coldest, or 58, when
we were there?
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. It was 48. We don't want to exaggerate.
The Chairman. Or 58. I was up there also with her and
others, Senator. We invited you and you couldn't make it. But
needless to say, it's rather exhilarating.
[Laughter.]
Senator Salazar. I look forward to going there some time.
The Chairman. You can't stay outside very long.
Senator Salazar. I want to go in the summer, though.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, I tell you, if you go in the summer the
environmentalists will tell you you didn't go in winter when
all the activity's going to take place. If you go in the winter
and not the summer, they'll say you should have gone in the
summer because that's when there's marshes around and you can
have more damage. So I guess you have to go two times. I won't
do that, however. I've had my share of ANWR. If we win, if we
win I'll never have to go back, send somebody else. If we lose,
that's the end for me. Somebody else can take up this cause.
Senator, we've got a few more minutes. You can proceed. If
you want to go on very long, I'll leave the committee to you.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple quick
questions, and I apologize that I wasn't here earlier. I was at
Environment and Public Works. We're trying to get Clear Skies,
and unfortunately we were not successful in that effort.
But thank you, and I hear very clearly that you won't be
joining me on my next trip to ANWR. We don't have spring and
fall, so I can't offer you those seasons. But I do appreciate
you leading the delegation up north this weekend. It was very
important.
A couple questions to both of you. First, thank you for
being here this morning and congratulations to you as you move
up and on.
First, Ms. Scarlett, if I can ask you just a couple
questions about the U.S. minerals industry. The National Mining
Association frequently observes that many areas in the U.S. are
regarded as the least attractive for new mineral investment due
to permitting and other public policy considerations. Countries
like Chile are often cited as most favorable for mineral
development.
What can the Interior Department do to improve the
investment climate for mineral exploration here in the United
States?
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. We have worked
hard these past 4 years at the Department of the Interior,
whether it's with respect to energy development or minerals
access, to ensure access to public lands where those resources
are, doing so while balancing the environmental and other
considerations.
To that effect, we have tried to improve our permitting
processes where that is relevant. For example, particularly in
energy development, we project to reduce our backlog of
applications for permits to drill to virtually nothing by 2006.
In the minerals realm as well, we have undertaken certain
decisions that try to provide greater security to those who are
investing in minerals resource development on public lands.
If you have particular issues that appear to be barriers,
we would be happy to discuss those with you and determine how
we might address them.
Senator Murkowski. I'd look forward to that conversation
because I know that some in Alaska feel that there are
significant barriers. So we'd like to talk with you about that.
The U.S. Geological Survey has a robust program to help
identify promising areas for mineral exploration, including
some areas in Alaska under the NRAP and some other programs. Do
you believe that USGS has a legitimate role in encouraging
mineral exploration in the United States and, if so, what about
the funding component?
Ms. Scarlett. The U.S. Geological Survey has played a very
significant role in this Nation's history, in exploring its
geology and including the minerals assessments. We have
coverage of minerals assessments data bases in the U.S.
Geological Survey of virtually the entire United States. Our
2006 budget does propose to concentrate that effort on further
assessments on Federal lands. We are making some very difficult
balancing choices as we develop our budget and try to maintain
fiscal discipline.
In that context, we have determined to focus the USGS
effort on the Federal lands, also understanding that the
private sector, industry and others, do undertake some mineral
assessments on the non-Federal private lands. So we feel that
this is a good and effective utilization of the resources that
we have at Interior.
Senator Murkowski. So you're suggesting then that there
needs to be more of a private investment focus, rather than our
involvement on the Federal lands?
Ms. Scarlett. No, let me clarify. We are continuing on the
Federal lands the minerals assessment program for the U.S.
Geological Survey, believing that that focus on Federal lands
is appropriate and is indeed a high priority. Our 2006 proposal
calls for focusing that assessment on Federal lands while
leaving the assessment of non-Federal lands to other entities
such as the private sector.
Having said that, I want to note that we already do have
and will continue to maintain the existing data bases that have
coverage of mineral assessments on both Federal and non-Federal
lands.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Very briefly on the fires that we
suffered in Alaska last summer. It was the worst fire season in
Alaska's history and, as you know, the wildfires in Alaska are
attacked on an inter-agency basis, and the State took the lead
in the southern part of the State and BLM's Alaska Fire Service
took the lead in the northern part of the State.
There was a lot of concern last year as the fires kind of
stepped up about whether Canadian air tankers that were under
contract to the State could be used to fight the fires in the
BLM-protected areas. I was up there at that time and there was
a great deal of uncertainty, and the uncertainty was made even
worse because you couldn't see. The smoke in Fairbanks was so
dense that you got up in the air and you couldn't tell what was
State land, what was Federal land. In fact, we couldn't even
fly the aircraft.
But in terms of fighting the fires, it really is that
initial attack, requiring an aggressive initial attack in our
wildfires, sending all the heavy smoke into the urban
communities like Anchorage and Fairbanks--and we recognize that
we've got to do what we can to make these conditions so that
you can actually breathe in the interior there. So I would like
your assurance that you're going to work with me and the State
of Alaska to ensure that the State's contracted air tankers can
be deployed where they will be most needed to protect the
health and safety of Alaskans.
We anticipate again another tough fire year up north.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. And I
actually have looked into this specific issue because it is a
high priority to ensure that interoperability. As you will
recall, last year we had an issue of having to ground the
Federal large air tankers because of some safety concerns. I am
pleased to note that we now have gone through a safety
assessment process and have eight large air tankers that were
approved toward the end of last year and several more being
approved going forward.
As we do that, we will have more of the large air tankers
in the Federal force that we will be able to utilize on an
inter-agency basis. What I am told is that the State assets,
until we go through this process of safety assessment, the
State assets will be utilized on the State lands, and in an
emergency basis--that is, if there's a determination of threat
to life or other significant emergency--that the State assets
can be deployed on an inter-agency basis on Federal locations
as well.
But we will work hard to strengthen that interoperability
and to ensure that we have seamless firefighting in Alaska and
throughout the Nation.
Senator Murkowski. Well, that's going to be important to
us. When you say you will have the ability if there is threat
to life, as you know, in many of these areas it's pretty wide
open spaces. We don't have a lot of human life that is at risk,
but it's the health safety factor with the intensity of the
smoke that's coming in that causes real respiratory issues. So
I'm not quite sure how we're defining that emergency when we
can say we've got this seamless interoperability.
But I'd like to think that we can work with you on that so
that it works when we're in the midst of these very terrible
fires.
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, we very much look forward to working
with you on that. We are getting through some hurdles on the
large air tanker safety issues, but as we move forward through
that certainly interoperability is a key goal.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple
questions for Mr. Sell, but if Senator Salazar still has more I
don't want to monopolize more time right now.
The Chairman. Can we do it this way? Senator Salazar had
some water questions, right?
Senator Salazar. Yes.
The Chairman. That's fine with me. Can you stay and if you
want to ask a couple would you follow him, and then close the
hearing?
Senator Murkowski. I'd be happy to do that.
The Chairman. I thank you.
I wanted to say in closing, Mr. Sell, I didn't raise any
issues about the pending RFP for management of the Los Alamos
National Laboratory. I did not do that because I think you're
familiar with the issues. But I think it would be only unfair
when we--only fair when we're talking about your confirmation,
that we spread on the record here and that you hear from me
that I am very concerned at the RFP, the request for proposals,
and what we ask of the bidders after 6 years of the same
management is a very, very important issue for those thousands
of employees who are there and ready to retire and those who
are people we're looking at to try to recruit to come there.
I am not at all sure that in an effort to assure bidders,
which seems to be a part of the religion of the Department--I
don't mind it, but they seem to want more people bidding than
they seemed to get an idea about 6 months ago--they thought
maybe there weren't going to be enough, so changes are made.
I think that's a balancing act, and I'm very concerned that
as you change it, like they have now to have a free-standing
corporate entity be the management instrumentality--it sounds
nice as a way of getting around the old University of
California trust fund for pensioners and employment
arrangements. But I think it cuts two ways. It may invite some
more people, but it also may cause Los Alamos employees to say
they don't want to work there under those conditions or they're
fearful or they don't know what's going to happen.
I thank the Department for at least considering a 180-day
moratorium, so as to speak, meaning the new bidder if
successful and it's not California, that the people up there
will have 6 months to look and see what the new one is, so that
they will know the reality of their decision.
But I'm not sure that's enough to kind of calm down the
notion that maybe people want to leave before this change. I
don't know that you want to comment, but I do think it's
important that you hear that from me. I think Senator Bingaman
would say it, and perhaps more eloquently, because there's no
question it's a very, very serious issue. It's a serious issue
for America. If that personnel capacity is diminished
substantially, we can't stand that for 8 or 10 years. It's got
to continue in a rather, to borrow your word, seamless manner.
Mr. Sell. Senator Domenici, I'm happy to briefly comment. I
do know how important Los Alamos National Lab is to you. But
more importantly, it is very important to this country. We must
have it and they must be very successful. So the issues
underlying this competition and the request for proposals are
very serious, and I look forward to getting to the Department
if I'm confirmed and involving myself in a way that can allow
the Department to have a successful competition which will
result in the continuation of excellence, which is the legacy
of Los Alamos National Lab.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator, you're chairing and now we ask Senator Salazar if
he'd like to ask some questions. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Dr. Scarlett--I guess we should call you
``Doctor,'' right?
Ms. Scarlett. Well, actually you've just elevated me. I'm
what's called ``ABD,'' All But Dissertation.
Senator Salazar. All But Dissertation. We'll call you
Assistant Secretary.
Let me ask you two questions about water. The first has to
do with the Colorado River system and what is happening with
the continued decline of water levels at Lake Powell and the
conflict that currently is under way between the lower basin
and the upper basin with respect to the allocation issues under
the Colorado River Compact.
My question to you is, what is the status of the Department
of the Interior's involvement on the allocation issues of water
on the Colorado River? And second, from a personnel point of
view, where is the Department in terms of appointing the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science to replace Bennett
Raley in that position?
Ms. Scarlett. Thank you, Senator. As you rightly note in
alluding to the water issues, water shortages in the West are a
very significant issue, one in which we have--to which we've
paid a lot of attention. Indeed, in portions of the West we are
experiencing drought that is as severe as has occurred in some
500 years.
With respect to the appointment of the Assistant Secretary,
that decision is in process. No individual has been announced.
But I can assure you that that is a very high priority for the
Secretary to get that position filled. It is a critical
position in the Department.
With respect to the Colorado River and the water
allocation, let me step back more broadly and say that we have
been very committed both with Assistant Secretary Bennett Raley
and certainly going forward to working within the context of
State water law; and also a second principle is to work in very
close collaboration with the relevant States and the relevant
water users. That is the approach that we have been utilizing
as we move forward.
I would have to go back to the office and look at any
specific details in terms of where we are in discussions on the
Colorado River water allocation challenges and will be happy to
do that.
I would add one more thing. As part of the larger water
issues, Secretary Norton advanced our Water 2025 program. That
is an attempt to try and get ahead of some of these water
issues by improved water conservation, by water marketing where
appropriate, and also by new technologies that ensure that the
water that is there is delivered efficiently rather than
evaporating or dispersing. And we look forward to working with
communities on a competitive process through our grant programs
to help address individual community water issues through that
program.
Senator Salazar. I think for all of the seven States that
share the water from the Colorado River and are subject to both
compacts on that river, I would ask that the Department of the
Interior keep us informed as to what happens relative to the
current discussions on the sharing of water from the Colorado
River and how the surplus criteria are determined and enforced.
Let me ask you a broader question, relative to process on
Indian reserved rights claims. I've had the opportunity in my
life to work on both successful negotiations that have resolved
Indian reserved rights claims and I also have been a part of
and watched massive expenditures of time and resources being
spent on Indian reserved rights cases which really have led to
nothing. And it's not a Republican deal, it's not a Democrat
deal; it's not a Secretary Norton initiative or a Secretary
Babbitt initiative. It's just I think the nature of the beast
whenever you are dealing with these very complicated cases
where there is so much at stake.
I think it would be useful for the Department of the
Interior to consider having a special position that is not a
political appointed position, but where someone can have
continuity with respect to some of these major cases that go on
year after year. In my own experiences, what I have found is
about the time that you get somebody up to speed on an Indian
reserved rights claim that person moves on and somebody else
comes in.
I think that the Department of the Interior can play a
major role in helping us resolve some of these issues that
consume so many resources all across the Western United States
at least. I just suggest that you take a look at the processes
that have been used historically by the Department of the
Interior to try to bring those cases to some resolution.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes, Senator, we certainly concur that these
are very complex, challenging issues and they take very many
years. We remain committed to a focus on settlement rather than
litigation. I believe the Secretary announced at our budget
hearings last week that we have appointed Jennifer Gimbell
within the Department to have as her portfolio a complete focus
on the Indian water rights settlement issues. We think that
should help to bring us some continuity over time and also some
significant attention as we move forward.
Senator Salazar. She's a very good choice.
With that, Senator Murkowski, I'm finished and I wish you
very well. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Salazar.
Mr. Sell, welcome again. Nice to see you here in this
capacity. As you know, we achieved some success in the last
Congress as it related to moving forward at the Federal level
with certain incentives for an Alaska natural gas pipeline,
helping to address what we recognize in this country is an
ever-increasing shortage of natural gas, and up in my State
we've got the ability to supply vast quantities. We've just got
to figure out how to get it from there to here.
That process is moving forward at the State level. Now
there are several applications that are pending. We don't know
yet who the project sponsor will be, but there is going to be a
lot of coordination that will be required at the Federal level.
The DOE is going the play a vital role as this project moves
forward regardless of who the project sponsor will be.
DOE's responsibilities will include granting the necessary
authorizations, establishing an Office of Federal Coordinator,
conducting environmental reviews, and really just a lot of
coordination amongst various Federal agencies. We learned at
the budget hearing last week that DOE does not have funding in
its fiscal year 2005 budget to carry out its responsibilities
under the Alaska gas pipeline legislation and that DOE would
need reprogramming authority to fund the responsibilities; and
also, looking at the 2006 budget, doesn't include any funding
as well.
So I am looking for your assurance that you will work with
us as we are moving forward to make this very important
national project a reality as we determine what funding is
required, certainly for instance with the Office of Federal
Coordinator. These are things that we need to get in the
pipeline, so to speak, as soon as possible. So just looking for
your assistance on this very important issue.
Mr. Sell. Senator, if I'm confirmed and make my way over to
the Department of Energy, you will absolutely have my
assistance in doing that. Your leadership in the last Congress
in getting the relevant authorizations passed was critical. The
lower 48 desperately needs the natural gas of Alaska and we
need to build the pipeline to get it to the marketplace. It's a
very important issue for the President and for this country and
for the Department, and I look forward to the opportunity of
getting over there and resolving these initial--or working with
you to try to resolve these initial funding issues, and then as
the project proceeds.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Well, I appreciate that. I'm sure
we will have a great deal of contact as we're moving forward to
make this very important project a reality.
We had an opportunity, I guess it was about a month and a
half, 6 weeks or so ago, when this committee took up the issue
of natural gas and the supply, and we, the committee, heard
testimony from a gentleman from Alaska, they have the director
of the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, Dr. Mark Meyers, talking
about the potential not only in Alaska but in the country for
an unconventional gas source, natural gas hydrates, with the
recognition that in my State we've got about 590 trillion cubic
feet of onshore hydrate reserves, potentially 32,000 trillion
cubic feet of potential offshore hydrate reserves--really,
enough gas out there to supply the Nation for generations.
And it's not just, these hydrates are not just located in
Alaska, but down in the Gulf of Mexico, and truly a huge
potential for us. Dr. Meyers was actually here in Washington
yesterday and gave a presentation to some of us after lunch to
just kind of educate a little bit more about the potential for
this.
Now, in 2000 the Congress passed the Methane Hydrate
Research and Development Act and this had authorized
appropriations through fiscal year 2005 for the methane hydrate
research and development. Those appropriations and
authorizations are set to expire this year. I'm working with
Senator Akaka to renew this, to make sure that we will continue
the funding for what I feel is incredibly important research in
the hydrate area.
We've been working with the Department of Energy. We've
been working with the National Academies. We've read the
National Research Council review of the act and view this again
as something that has the potential to really make a
difference. It's not something that has been focused on because
we're either looking at our conventional reserves here
domestically or we're looking to foreign sources of LNG.
This is not so pie in the sky that we should not be
focusing our attention and our funding in this area. Again, the
fiscal year 2006 DOE budget does not include any funding to
continue the research that was done--that was begun under the
2006 act. So again I want to point this out to you as an
incredible opportunity for the Department. I've had the
opportunity to speak with Secretary Bodman about this and just
let him know of the great potential, and I would ask for your
enthusiastic support as we move forward in good research on
this as well.
Mr. Sell. Senator Murkowski, I appreciate you bringing this
very important issue to my attention. I was aware, although not
involved in the development of, I was aware of our proposal or
the Department's proposal in the fiscal year 2006 budget, and
you will have my enthusiasm in working with you. And I would
like perhaps also to have the opportunity to meet with your
expert from Alaska as I myself pursue an education on this
important opportunity. So I look forward to doing that.
Senator Murkowski. We'll make sure that you have an
opportunity to meet with him. He's got some great, great
information.
Ms. Scarlett.
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, might I add something on that? Our
Minerals Management Service and our U.S. Geological Survey have
also done some methane hydrate research work and perhaps we
ought to work together with the Department of Energy to
coordinate those efforts and ensure that we have a good
program.
Senator Murkowski. Absolutely.
And I would feel remiss in not taking the opportunity with
both of you under the spotlight today to extend an invitation
to you both to come up to Alaska's North Slope, visit ANWR,
visit the operations that we have. We feel that we have really
taken the technology to its highest level and beyond as we have
figured out a way to provide for exploration and production in
an Arctic climate and do it in balance with the environment.
I think that I can speak for the others that joined me on
this trip this weekend that they were beyond just impressed,
but really quite amazed at how well we have been able to
balance what we do up North. The greatest example was the trip
out to an exploration well from a facility, a production
facility that is not connected by road. It is its own little
island out on the northern plain, and it's connected to the
exploration rig by an ice road that was built last month, and
the rig was hauled out there on the ice road. The pad is built
out of ice.
They're exploring right now. They'll be done in another 10
days or so. When they're done, they haul it out on the ice
road. In another couple months, spring is going to come. Spring
will be brief. But that ice road will melt. That ice pad will
melt. There will be nothing out on that tundra except a plug
that's about as tall as probably you, Mr. Sell, and about this
big around [indicating], and if there was nothing found it will
be capped so you won't even be able to view it from the tundra.
But again, it's our recognition that we're dealing with a
fragile ecosystem up there during the summer. So we only do our
operations in the winter, operations of the exploration. It's
fascinating. I could go all day long, but we've got votes
beginning right now.
I want to thank you for your time here this morning. I
thank you for your willingness to serve the President, the
administration, and the country. So thank you for joining us.
And with that, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mr. Sell to Questions From Senator Domenici
oil prices
Question 1. When President Bush introduced his National Energy
Policy in May 2001, oil was $27 a barrel. Today it is well over $50.
What, if anything, do you think the Department of Energy should do
to address the continuing rise in oil prices?
Answer. Senator, the Department will continue to seek to work with
Congress to pass comprehensive energy legislation, support efforts to
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to environmentally responsible
exploration and production, and continue to move forward in our efforts
to develop new, sustainable sources of alternative energy like ethanol
and hydrogen.
Almost seven out of every ten barrels of oil we use are for
transportation fuel, so our efforts to promote more efficient cars and
trucks in the near term, and alternatives to petroleum such as hydrogen
in the long term, are likely to be the most effective in reducing
petroleum demand.
nuclear power
Question 2. Last week Secretary Bodman testified before this
committee on the DOE's FY 06 budget request. During that hearing I
asked him if he would look into a delay occurring in the Office of
Nuclear Power 2010 (NP2010) regarding disbursing the awards made by the
DOE to two energy consortia last November.
We have real momentum for the first time in three decades on the
course for new plants, I would hate to think our own Department of
Energy is the major impediment at the beginning of this historic
process. The Secretary gave me his word that he would look into the
delay and get things rolling.
If you are confirmed, will you make that same commitment?
Answer. Senator, I am aware of the exchange between you and
Secretary Bodman and I will commit to reviewing the circumstances
should I be confirmed.
yucca mountain license application
Question 3. The Department now plans to submit a license
application to NRC late in 2005 for the construction of the repository,
a year later than the schedule the department provided to us last year.
Last week I asked Secretary Bodman to provide this committee with a
status update on the Yucca Mountain project.
When you get to the DOE in your new role, will you commit to this
committee that you will work to expedite getting a completed license
application submitted to the NRC?
Answer. Yes.
yucca mountain licensing support network
Question 4. The NRC has indicated they will not docket a license
application until six months after certification of the License Support
Network, a web-based data collection of all relevant documents for the
application.
Will you provide me with a status of the work being done at the
department to address the shortcomings the NRC identified in the
earlier license support network submission?
Answer. Although I am not personally familiar with the details of
the Yucca Mountain Licensing Support Network, I have been informed that
the Department is currently working through the schedule with its
contractor and about half of the documents have been reviewed. I
understand the Department anticipates certifying the LSN by mid-year.
Completing the licensing support network has evidently proven to be a
more difficult challenge than the Department initially projected.
Nevertheless, it is necessary that the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management provide a document collection that is accurate and as
open as possible to the participants in the licensing process.
Responses of Mr. Sell to Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1. For the last several years, the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration has reported directly to the Deputy
Secretary of Energy. I believe this has been beneficial for the
Administration and for the ratepayers of the Northwest. Will this
direct line of reporting continue when you are confirmed as Deputy
Secretary?
Answer. Senator, I appreciate your experience and knowledge on the
issue and place great weight on your recommendation. If confirmed, I
plan to review all the operations relating to the activities and
responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary and will take your sentiments
into consideration. If I ultimately conclude that a change in the
reporting relationship is needed, I will discuss that matter with you
before any change is finalized.
Question 2. As you may know, BPA has invested a great deal of
effort over the past year to develop a Strategic Direction document to
provide guidance for Bonneville and the region as we seek to clarify
load obligations and assess infrastructure needs in the Northwest. The
development of this plan is the result of many discussions between the
congressional delegation, Bonneville, the Department of Energy
leadership and BPA's customers and stakeholders in the Northwest. In
fact, the Administration recently offered support for BPA's Strategic
Direction. In the even that the legislative proposals discussed in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal are not acted upon, is it
reasonable to assume that you and the Department of Energy would
continue to be supportive of Bonneville's Strategic Direction?
Answer. Senator, at this time I am not familiar with the status of
the development of the Strategic Direction for Bonneville Power.
However, if I am confirmed, I will become familiar with the actions to
date and work with you on this issue.
Question 3. It has been my observation that most Administrations,
regardless of party, do not want Administration officials discussing
agenda items that may be in the President's budget proposal prior to
the actual release of the budget. Has this Administration requested
that officials not discuss budget provisions prior to the submittal of
the budget to the Congress? Did you feel obligated not to discuss
budget proposals prior to the transmittal of the budget to the
Congress?
Answer. Senator, as you are aware, the development of the
President's Budget is an important process. The confidentiality of
internal deliberations is important to a thorough exploration and
consideration of issues. As such, staff are not authorized to release
details or discuss potential budget proposals with individuals outside
of the executive branch prior to the time the President authorizes the
release of the budget or specific details therein. As you note,
confidentiality considerations are not unprecedented and are, in fact,
necessary to a well-functioning policy development process in all
branches of the government.
Response of Mr. Sell to Question From Senator Bunning
Question 1. Mr. Sell, the Department of Energy has reduced spending
for cleanup at the Paducah plant. Why was the funding for cleanup
reduced? Was the funding reduction expected as part of the accelerated
cleanup agreement for Paducah? Is the Paducah Plant on target to meet
its completion date for accelerated cleanup that was agreed upon with
the state of Kentucky?
Answer. Senator, I am aware of your great interest in Paducah and
your concerns about the proposed reduction in the FY 2006 Budget
request. If confirmed, I will ask the Office of Environmental
Management to provide me with a full explanation for the proposed
reduction as well as a briefing on the status of the clean up.
Responses of Mr. Sell to Questions From Senator Bingaman
northern new mexico math and science academy
Question 1. I am concerned about the projected shortfall in the
development of our 21st century math and science workforce. New Mexico,
in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory, has a very
successful professional development program called the Northern New
Mexico Math and Science Academy. We would like to export this model
program throughout DOE's national laboratory complex, which has a vast
untapped potential for addressing needs in math and science education.
We are in the process of putting together a planning meeting in New
Mexico to try to figure out how to do this.
Do you share my concerns about math and science education?'
Answer. Senator, I share your concern and I appreciate your support
for the Department's effort to strengthen America's place as a world
leader in math and science education. If I am confirmed, I look forward
to working with you and with Secretary Bodman in this effort.
Would you be willing to lend your support--and the
Department's resources--to the putting together the planning
meeting?
Answer. Senator, I am not in a position today to commit the
Department's resources. Should I be confirmed, I will look forward to
working with you to determine the most appropriate avenues for moving
forward and to determine how best to utilize the tremendous assets we
have in the Nation's laboratories.
pajarito homesteaders
Question 2. Section 3147 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act established a fund in the Treasury to compensate the
Pajarito Plateau homesteaders whose homesteads were taken by the Army
for the Manhattan Project more than sixty years ago. The Act directed
DOE to deposit $10 million into the fund. The Act was signed into law
last October, more than four months ago, but the Department has yet to
deposit the necessary funds.
Are you familiar with this situation?
What is causing the delay?
Will you take whatever action is needed to see that the
funds are deposited promptly, to correct this longstanding
injustice?
Answer. Senator, I am not personally familiar with the legislation,
but should I be confirmed, I will look into the issue and take whatever
actions are necessary to meet the requirements of the statute.
Responses of Mr. Sell to Questions From Senator Salazar
renewable energy economic model
Question 1. Mr. Sell, I am concerned that the current estimates
used by the Department of Energy to determine the costs and benefits of
a Renewable Portfolio Standard are not realistic. For example, the
Energy Information Administration's economic model has oil prices at
about $35 dollars per barrel for the year 2005, even though actual
prices are currently $53 dollars per barrel. The projected costs of
renewable energy would compare much more favorably than current
estimates allow if a credible model for oil and natural gas prices were
used in the baseline assumptions. Secondly, that same model does not
account for a modest reduction in the price of wind power over time.
I do not expect that you are intricately familiar with these models
or the numbers used. But what I would like from you, Mr. Sell, is your
assurance that if confirmed, you will provide me with cost and benefit
estimates of an RPS using a better set of input numbers. Specifically,
I would like to see a model that starts oil above $50 per barrel in
2004 dollars, steadying out at a new price floor of $40 per barrel by
2025. I would like to see the results of this model for two different
approaches: one with wind power prices held constant and one with a
modest reduction in those prices over time. I am positive that using
this more realistic approach will show renewable energy compares much
more favorably than it does under current EIA analysis.
Mr. Sell, can I have your assurance that if confirmed, you will
provide me with that analysis?
Answer. Senator, I am not familiar with the modeling associated
with the analysis you reference. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) is an independent statistical and analytical agency within the
U.S. Department of Energy. If I am confirmed, I would be happy to work
with you and EIA to develop analysis that you will find helpful to
better understanding the impacts of a renewable portfolio standard.
rural areas
Question 2. Mr. Sell, I am also interested in the development of
rural America. As Deputy Secretary, what approaches would you recommend
to make sure that rural America will benefit from the Department of
Energy's policies?
Answer. Senator, I appreciate your raising the issue during my
confirmation hearing. Rural America, as well as all other parts of the
country, need abundant, affordable and reliable sources of energy. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this issue. I
appreciate the importance you place on the development of renewable
sources of energy and the importance these resources could play in
rural communities. Certainly, the Administration's policies to
encourage greater use of ethanol, biodiesel, and wind energy have had a
very positive impact on rural areas. Furthermore, rural communities,
particularly in the West, have enjoyed a long and beneficial
relationship with the Power Marketing Administrations. I look forward
to working with you on other approaches we may be able to develop
together that will be good for rural America.
Responses of Mr. Sell to Questions From Senator Cantwell
hanford--high level waste reclassification
Question 1. The President's 2006 budget proposes to cut funds for
the Environmental Management program by $548 million--the on-going
cleanup at Hanford would be required to bear more than half of all the
proposed reduction. Hanford clean-up is not optional. It is disturbing
to me that these cuts at Hanford, in addition to being poor cleanup
policy, are also at odds with the Secretary's commitment to the
Department's ongoing financial obligations under the TriParty
Agreement.
Secretary Bodman and I have talked about my ongoing concern about
waste reclassification. In response to my requests, he stated for the
record, that DOE-authored language in FY '05 Defense Reauthorization
bill applies exclusively to Idaho and South Carolina AND NOT
WASHINGTON. Despite the commitment of the Department for the record,
the President's budget cites ``uncertainties'' regarding the
classification of waste that is scheduled to be removed from the 177
underground tanks at the Hanford Site. Your experience in working on
the Hill--your potential new role as Deputy Secretary--combined with
this ``uncertainty,'' and deep budget cuts raises a red flag to me.
Will you give me your assurance that you and those you will
supervise in your new position, if confirmed, will not pursue the same
type of legislative end run--previously supported by the Department of
Energy--that we saw during the Defense Reauthorization bill last year--
a policy that would have compromised DOE's commitment to cleaning up
``everything that is technically feasible but no less than 99 percent''
of the waste in Hanford's tanks?
Answer. Senator, I agree with you on the importance of cleaning up
the Hanford site in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. The remediation of waste in Washington, Idaho and South
Carolina is by far the greatest environmental challenge facing the
Department of Energy. If confirmed, I will seek to work with you on
these very important issues in a direct and open manner. I will assure
you that the Department will consult with you and the State of
Washington on the cleanup of tank waste.
Question 2. I also want to ask you some questions about the
Department's efforts to implement Section 3116 of the fiscal year 2005
Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report, which became law
last October. Section 3116 establishes new procedures for the disposal
of high-level radioactive waste in South Carolina and Idaho that
resulted from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at DOE facilities.
Forty-eight members of the Senate supported my efforts voted to
remove these provisions during Senate floor consideration of the fiscal
year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill. I remain concerned
that the provisions in the Senate-passed bill allow DOE to leave
millions of gallons of high level nuclear waste next to drinking water
supplies in South Carolina, and that this same approach will be
proposed for Hanford. While this section was modified in Conference, I
feel loopholes still remain that cast serious doubt about whether the
environment near these facilities will be protected. I want to ask you
about the actions the Department is taking to implement this new law.
The opening lines of Section 3116 specifically eliminates the
ability of the federal government to regulate these tanks under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974
or any other laws that define classes of radioactive waste. This
language is silent on states' authority, delegated to them by the
federal government under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts,
to issue permits protecting surface water and drinking water.
Do you agree that conferees did not exempt the Savannah River and
Idaho sites in Section 3116 from the requirements of the federal Clean
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts, and that those laws and the
regulations that implement them, which do contain lists of radioactive
pollutants, are not overridden?
Answer. Senator, I am aware that this legislation was enacted in
the last Congress but I am not familiar with last year's conference
proceedings or the resulting statute at a level of detail to provide an
answer to the question you have posed. If confirmed, I intend to
familiarize myself with the tank waste issue and this new law.
Question 3. The National Academy of Sciences issued its report on
DOE's on-site nuclear waste disposal program, a report mandated fiscal
year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. The
report also urged stronger and more comprehensive risk-based planning
to govern DOE decisions about on-site disposal. I want to ask you about
these findings, and how the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget will help
DOE address the National Academy's recommendations.
As I understand it, cleanup of DOE's nuclear complex over the next
several decades will cost at least over $140 billion, but you are
seeking to reduce costs. The proposed fiscal year 2006 environmental
cleanup budget is about $6.5 billion, a steep cut from the fiscal 2005
appropriation.
I understand that the report says that recovery of ``every last
gram'' of the nuclear waste at these sites is ``technically impractical
and unnecessary,'' but it also finds that DOE cannot credibly make
decisions about exempting wastes from deep burial.
The report also calls for outside technical review of risk
assessments and, crucially, said final decisions should be in the hands
of another federal agency, U.S. EPA or the NRC. Specifically, the
report says that ``a separate federal entity is needed as the
regulatory decision maker'' with respect to reclassification.
Another NAS panel this week took major issue with the plan to
reclassify High Level Waste criticizing DOE for trying to reclassify
material by mixing it with cement and also seconded the notion for the
need for some review of DOE's reclassification of tanks.
The Secretary did not have a chance to review the report when he
testified before the Committee on March 1, 2005. I assume that you have
had a chance to review its findings. Do you agree with the report's
findings, and if so, are you willing to work with this Committee to
implement the findings?
Answer. Senator, I appreciate the question. I have not had the
chance to review the report but will do so and will commit to working
with you and the committee on this issue if confirmed.
Question 4. I am also concerned that nuclear waste greater than
Class C, and generally not suitable for near surface disposal, will
remain on-site with limited oversight. Section 3116 allows these wastes
to stay on-site at Savannah River and Idaho pursuant to a plan
developed by the DOE in consultation with the NRC. I would have
preferred that NRC be explicitly required to follow existing
regulations regarding disposal of greater than Class C waste.
As I read it, Section 3116 instead requires a new ``plan'' to be
developed that as no particular requirements. Have you examined this
issue and do you concur with that interpretation?
Answer. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to review the
language but, if confirmed, I will do so in order to more fully
understand what is required in the new law.
Question 4a. Can you detail for me the resources that will be
allocated to be doing to make sure that DOE and NRC develop clear
guidelines and a plan for disposal of this waste?
Answer. Senator, I am not familiar at this time with the
requirements of the legislation, but if confirmed, will commit to you
that I will review the law and the Department's plans for
implementation.
Question 5. The National Academy report is effectively calling for
far more oversight than currently exists in the program and questions
DOE's ability to make judgments on waste management in calling for
final decisions by another agency. It states ``The credibility of DOE's
planning and decision making is reduced by the apparent conflict of
interest created by DOE's authority to both propose and approve of
disposition plans for radioactive wastes.''
Ultimately, I think we may need additional legislation on this
matter, but I want to know whether, should you be confirmed, you plan
to conduct another internal review of this issue this year?
Answer. Senator, I have not been associated with this issue in
great detail so I cannot comment at this time on the need for another
formal internal review. But, if I am confirmed, I will personally
review the issue as part of assuming my new duties. I will look forward
to working with you on these very important matters.
Question 6. Your budget also sites some seismic issues as reasons
for the budget cut backs for the construction of the Waste Treatment
Plant. This seems a little counter intuitive to me--that is to cut
budgets when you find more problems instead of addressing the issue
head on.
Can explain how these seismic issues come to the fore and how your
cut to the budget helps move us through these problems?
Answer. Senator, I am only generally aware of the seismic issues
and cannot comment at this time on how the issue has affected both the
construction of the Waste Treatment Plant and the budget. Should I be
confirmed, I intend to learn more about the challenges that exist for
the Hanford cleanup and I would look forward to working with you on
your concerns.
Question 7. As you're probably know by now, it's been estimated
that this proposal would raise Northwest power rates by $1.7 billion,
and reduce the incomes of Northwest residents by another $1.3 billion.
I agree with some of my colleagues on this committee that this plan
represents an effort to privatize BPA--which is deeply disturbing.
Further, this proposal truly represents a one-two punch to our regional
economy.
The reason I keep raising the issue of the BPA rate hike proposal
is because of the devastating economic impact it would have on the
Northwest economy and my constituents. Are you aware that the West as a
whole has lost about $35 billion and an estimated 589,000 jobs because
of the energy crisis of 2000-2001 (according to an article in the
journal, Competition & Trade)?
Setting aside all of the economic devastation this plan would cause
in my region, I've read in the press that the administration has said
that this Northwest rate hike plan would somehow ``level the playing
field'' because our region has been blessed with affordable, cost-based
electricity. I'm a little bit confused by that statement, however. Are
you under the impression that, somehow, if you jack up power rates in
the Northwest that-magically-power rates in other parts of the country,
say Texas or the Southeast or even the Northeast, will actually go
down?
Answer. Senator, I am not under that impression and appreciate the
opportunity to clarify this aspect of the President's proposal. It is
my understanding that this proposal addresses price anomalies within a
region, not across regions.
Question 7a. If raising Northwest power rates doesn't lower power
rates anywhere else, how do consumers anywhere in this country benefit
from your proposal?
Answer. Senator, it is my understanding that the President's
proposal would benefit consumers in the Northwest by removing the price
disadvantage that some customers of other energy suppliers in the
region have.
Question 8. As I think you know, a 1996 federal law requires BPA to
pay higher interest rates on its debt due to an agreement with their
ratepayers to pay $100 million immediately. The customers received
assurances that rates would remain cost-based and reserved the right to
sue the federal government if that plan was amended.
Is it your view that BPA power is a subsidy to the Northwest?
Answer. Senator, it is my understanding that GAO, CBO, and DOE's
Energy Information Administration have each concluded that the
taxpayers do not recover the full cost of the power produced by
hydroelectric facilities they financed. I recognize that there is a
difference of opinion on this issue, and I would welcome the
opportunity to review credible analysis to the contrary.
______
Responses of Ms. Scarlett to Questions From Senator Domenici
indian water rights settlements
Question. I have repeatedly expressed my frustration over the
Department's failure to seriously engage in the ongoing Indian water
rights settlement negotiations in New Mexico. In responses to questions
at last week's hearing on the President's Budget, Secretary Norton
committed to address this issue.
Will you commit to meaningful participation by a high-level
Department official in all future New Mexico water settlement
negotiations?
Answer. I share your concerns regarding Indian water right
settlement negotiations in New Mexico. These negotiations are of great
importance to the Secretary. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will
commit to ensure that a high-level Departmental employee is assigned to
work with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department's bureaus
to resolve future water settlement negotiations.
Question. Can you also assure me that you will work to ensure that
the Department seeks enough funding to implement these settlements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department's Bureaus,
the Office of Management and Budget, and other appropriate agencies to
seek adequate funding to implement the water settlements.
oil and gas
Question. In spite of a commitment by this administration to expand
oil and gas development on public lands, recent reports indicate that
fewer acres have been leased during the past four years than were made
available during the preceding four years under the Clinton
Administration.
What are the primary reasons for this?
Answer. The law requires BLM to hold quarterly sales. The majority
of parcels offered at these sales are requested by industry. The BLM
only leases lands pursuant to land use plans that designate certain
areas as suitable for leasing. The BLM deferred leasing on 2.7 million
acres bureau-wide in 2004 so that we could update land use plans or
complete Endangered Species Act or National Historic Preservation Act
consultations.
In addition, the number of protests of parcels being offered for
oil and gas leasing in the last two years has dramatically increased.
For example, during the period 1997 to 2000, the BLM received 666
protests (the first level of appeal) on leases the BLM offered for
sale, and 366 appeals of leases the BLM offered for sale. During the
period 2001 to 2004, the BLM received 4,425 protests and 925 appeals.
Most of the protests and appeals concerned environmental issues. These
protests slow the issuance of new oil and gas leases. Even after
protests have been dismissed, some parties are challenging the leases
at the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) and Federal Court to
prevent new leases from being issued. The IBLA and court decisions have
often imposed more land-use management requirements before oil and gas
leases can be issued, resulting in further delays.
Question. What steps do you believe should be taken to improve
access to development of our nation's oil and gas resources?
Answer. The BLM has taken a number of steps to improve 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 submission of complete applications. Between 2001
and 2004, we approved over 17,000 APDS, an 88 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 the public 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.
Question. It has now been nearly four years since President Bush
unveiled the report of his National Energy Policy. At that time, oil
was $27 a barrel, now it is well over $50. Natural gas has seen a
similar rise in prices.
What, if anything, do you think the Department of the Interior
should be doing to address this situation?
Answer. The Administration's efforts to increase production of oil
and gas from Federal lands and waters will serve to sustain and promote
domestic supply and help moderate prices. Oil and gas production from
onshore and offshore Federal lands currently accounts for about 35% of
the U.S. domestic production. The Department is actively working to
increase the opportunities for development of oil and gas resources on
the Federal lands it manages and on the Outer Continental Shelf while
maintaining and enhancing environmental protections.
In support of the Administration proposal, the Department is also
working to promote exploration and development of the area within the
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), where the U.S. Geological
Survey estimates a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil if Congress acts to lift the ban on
development. The President's FY 2006 budget assumes enactment of
legislation to open ANWR to exploration and development, with the first
lease sale held in 2007 expected to generate an estimated $2.4 billion
for bonus bid revenues. The Department is also working with other
Federal agencies on the approval and permitting processes for the
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Question. The Nation's land management agencies have a long history
of continually creating new processes and procedures that, in total,
have nearly paralyzed their ability to accomplish their missions.
What do you propose to do to improve streamlining of procedures by
agencies within the Department?
Answer. The Department is committed to encouraging and facilitating
increased access to oil and gas resources, in a manner that is
consistent with land use plans and the BLM multiple-use mandate. To
this end, the BLM has made significant progress in expediting and
facilitating access to energy resources. Recent funding increases and
management improvements instituted by the BLM have greatly increased
the capacity to process applications for permits to drill, resulting in
an 88 percent increase in APDs approved between 2001 and 2004 compared
with APD approvals from 1997-2000. The BLM has established quality
assurance teams to review field office processes for applications
permits to drill (APDs) in order to identify opportunities for
employing best practices. Utilizing cost and demand data, the BLM has
shifted resources to field offices where they will have the greatest
impact. The BLM is currently evaluating additional ideas, including
streamlining the NEPA process, pursuing e-Permitting, and sharing
personnel across field office boundaries and program.
Similarly, the MMS is implementing a number of directives under the
National Energy Policy designed to improve and, where appropriate,
streamline procedures to ensure safe and efficient operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf and promote OCS oil and gas leasing and
approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules.
MMS completed the 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2002-2007
in July 2002. The Program proposed up to 20 lease sales in the Gulf of
Mexico and offshore Alaska. All sales have been held on schedule. MMS
also continues to process exploration and development plans in a timely
manner. MMS regulations require that all exploration plans must be
processed and final action taken within 30 days, and Development and
Production Plans must be processed and final action taken within
approximately 120 days. For the last two years, all plans for the Gulf
of Mexico OCS met these goals. In addition, MMS works closely with a
number of other Federal agencies and State and local governments to
streamline many of its activities. MMS works closely with the Coast
Guard to promote consistency and improve coordination on joint
regulatory oversight responsibilities for OCS operations and on
coordinating reviews for permitting deepwater ports (e.g., for
Liquefied Natural Gas imports). To further streamline its procedures,
MMS's ongoing e-Government Transformation project will re-engineer
business processes, using technology to receive and process data and
information, resulting in more efficient and effective work processes.
I would be pleased to keep you informed of our progress as we
continue to develop improvements to the process.
land acquisition
The Department continues to put in large requests for land
acquisition each year, and at the same time bemoans the maintenance
backlog that continues to grow.
Question. Why should Congress provide money for land acquisition
when it seems we cannot afford to manage the lands for which the
Department is already responsible?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, I agree that taking care of what we already
manage is a top priority. The Department of the Interior manages one in
every five acres of the United States. We believe significant
conservation results are possible by work in partnership and
cooperatively with landowners, Tribes, states, local agencies, and
other organizations. Such partnerships leverage Federal funds sometimes
at a ratio of more than 4 to 1. They enable us to achieve conservation
goals while maintaining productive economic activity and thriving
communities. They also enable us to achieve significant conservation
goals without taking on long-term operating expenses that accompany
land acquisition projects.
Consistent with this perspective, over the past four years, the
Department's budget has emphasized: 1) taking care of the lands and
facilities currently managed by the Department; and 2) addressing
conservation goals through partnerships with private landowners,
Tribes, States, and local communities. Our budget over the past four
years has proposed significant funding increases for these activities.
Consistent with that focus, we have, in turn, significantly decreased
proposed funding for land acquisition since 2001.
Nonetheless, the Department continues to propose some funding for
land acquisition, including purchase of easements in which the base
property remains in private ownership. Under this Administration, these
acquisitions have focused on transactions: 1) within existing park and
refuge boundaries; 2) national priorities such as enhancing
commemoration of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the site of the
Flight 93 plane crash; and 3) lands through which acquisition can
resolve conflicts and help solve land use and water problems, such as
the proposed acquisition of the Barnes property in the Klamath Basin.
The Department proposes $107 million in FY 2006, which contrasts to
an enacted level of Interior federal land acquisition funding in 2001
of $303 million. In making decisions about each proposed acquisition,
the Department looks at the cost of operation and maintenance
associated with the purchase of the interest in land to be sure that it
is affordable and appropriate--and that alternatives to land
acquisition do not exist.
western water
Question. How does the Department plan to deal with water storage
needs in the West?
Answer. First, the Department intends to maintain and preserve the
existing storage infrastructure that has been developed over the past
103 years. This includes continuing to maintain and operate projects
such as Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell. These storage projects have
been critical to the West in coping with drought and ensuring water
supplies to maintain community well being and economic progress.
Second, we are looking at new storage capacity in key locations.
For example, the CALFED legislation that Congress passed late last year
includes studies of four storage sites that would benefit farms, fish
and wildlife, and municipal and industrial uses.
At the same time, we must ensure that any new storage projects are
economically and environmentally justified. The Department intends to
maintain its standards for thorough review of project justifications.
Ensuring adequate water supplies requires storage; it also requires
enhancing the efficiency of water usage through better technologies
that reduce evaporation, provide water flows in more targeted ways, and
enable water trading, where appropriate. The Department's Water 2025
Initiative focuses on enhancing water availability through these means.
Question. Is Water 2025 the Department's primary mechanism for
addressing future western water needs? Please describe the program's
achievements to date.
Answer. As beneficial as Water 2025 is, the Department recognizes
that addressing future water needs in the West requires a mix of
different strategies. These include vigilance in the efficient
operation and maintenance of existing facilities, particularly the
array of storage projects installed over the last century. We also look
for additional storage opportunities that are justified from economic
and environmental perspectives. The Department is collaborating with
the Western states to address Western water needs.
The Challenge Grant Program, a key feature of Water 2025, elicited
an overwhelming response in FY 2004 and 2005. We received over 100
proposals in both years, enabling the Department to select an
impressive array of water conservation and water management projects
for Federal cost-sharing.
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, Springville Irrigation District in
Utah, was completed just six months from the date of the award and 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. This represents a 10% investment from the
Federal side. 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 the installation of measuring devices; several also involve
the 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 to
facilitate the voluntary transfer of water among water users.
In addition, under the 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 which 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 has been
allocated to the grant program. Reclamation has received 117 proposals
requesting $35.5 million in Federal assistance, $10 million more than
was requested in FY 2004. The combined Federal and partner funding
totals $115 million in water delivery system improvements across the
West, of which $79.5 million would come from non-Federal matching
funds. Reclamation will select the projects by July 2005.
The FY 2005 funding for Water 2025 also included $1.75 million 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. Why isn't there a construction component to the Water
2025 program?
Answer. Larger Reclamation construction projects have traditionally
been authorized by Congress individually, while Water 2025 work in the
field has focused on competitive, cost-share grants for projects such
as conservation improvements and installing technology for measuring
and accurately delivering water. Although some conservation
improvements aimed at preventing leakage in canals involve significant
capital investment (headgates, canal lining, pipe replacement, water
measurement flumes), these improvements are not regarded by Reclamation
as part of its construction program.
title xvi recycling and reuse
Question. 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.
What role do you believe the Department should play in the area of
water recycling and reuse?
Answer. Since 1992, the Department has actively supported water
recycling and reuse through its Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse
program. The program has provided significant financial assistance to
local water agencies and has helped to demonstrate that water recycling
is an excellent water management tool to extend water supplies. The
Department is committed to continuing to fund those projects that have
been supported in the President's budget request in prior years but
questions the need for more Federal dollars through Reclamation to fund
additional projects, given other potential funding sources throughout
the West. However, the Department is committed to focusing Federal
funding on research to lower the cost of desalination and recycling. By
advancing the science of water treatment technologies, we believe the
cost of implementing water recycling and desalination projects can be
reduced to a level that makes these types of new water supplies more
affordable to a greater number of local communities.
The Secretary's Water 2025 initiative currently focuses on projects
and awards matching challenge grants on a competitive basis to help
finance these projects. One of the components of the initiative is to
reduce the cost of new water treatment technology, such as
desalination, through research and development efforts funded by
competitive cost shared grants.
Question. What criteria does the Department use for either
supporting or not supporting projects authorized to receive federal
assistance?
Answer. The Department is frequently asked to testify on proposed
new authorizations for Title XVI projects. While we understand the
importance of many of these efforts, we have focused our budget
proposals on completing projects already started rather than funding
additional Title XVI projects. Our budget has proposed focusing on
improving existing water projects and water availability by addressing
aging Federal water infrastructure and the safety and security of these
facilities and by helping to prevent conflict over water in the West
through Water 2025 competitive grants.
Question. 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?
Answer. In January and February of this year, the Bureau of
Reclamation wrote to more than 160 water and wastewater agencies and
organizations associated with the two comprehensive water reclamation
and reuse studies in northern and southern California seeking
information on any water recycling projects that the agencies may have
sponsored as part of the studies. Reclamation requested that the
agencies provide copies of existing planning and environmental studies
and other supporting documentation that may have been produced for each
potential project. When the reports and supporting documentation have
been transmitted to Reclamation, a review of each project will
commence. I would be pleased to keep you informed of our progress.
drought
Question. 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
well below average. In anticipation of our upcoming water conference,
this Committee has asked for proposals to address the drought
situation.
What is the status of the voluntary protocol that the Department is
working on with the basin states to deal with water shortages on the
Colorado River?
Answer. The Department has asked the seven Colorado River Basin
States for consensus recommendations by April 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
1999, the Department anticipates initiating a public process to develop
Lower Basin shortage guidelines later this year. The Department
anticipates that this process will follow a development protocol
similar to that utilized by the Department 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
adopted by the Department and now relied upon by the Secretary in the
preparation of each year's Annual Operating Plan.
Question. What other measures is the Department using or proposing
to deal with the drought situation?
Answer. The Department is currently using Reclamation's existing
drought authority to provide some water management tools, on an
emergency basis, such as moving non-project water through Federal
project facilities, allowing temporary water transfers, encouraging
water banking and markets, and providing small grants to affected
communities for drought emergencies. On a larger scale, we have found
that the best time to prepare for drought conditions is not during the
drought but during times of plenty. Reclamation has been working over
the past decade to assist our water contractors in upgrading their
facilities, installing new water management technologies, and generally
improving their ability to manage water much more efficiently,
especially during times of shortages. Water 2025 helps promote these
activities and projects through the competitive challenge grant
program, especially in areas of the West where we can predict conflict
over water is likely. Drought occurs somewhere in the West almost every
year, but other pressures on western water supplies exist, such as
population growth and environmental needs. The tools we are currently
implementing through Reclamation programs will work for both drought
and other water-shortage situations.
All of the foregoing efforts are in addition to continued operation
and maintenance of our storage infrastructure, which has made an
impressive contribution to the efforts throughout the West to meet
water requirements in the face of sustained drought.
Question. Is Interior coordinating with any other federal agencies
to address the drought situation?
Answer. USGS hydrology programs relate to predicting and monitoring
droughts. The US Water Monitor website has been developed in
cooperation with NOAA, NRCS and the National Drought Mitigation Center.
In addition, the Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, is
coordinating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource
Conservation Service, both at the headquarters level and, more
importantly, at the watershed level. The USDA-NRCS provides runoff
predictions on a bimonthly basis for most of our Western watersheds. We
work closely with them in analyzing and disseminating this important
water management information to affected water users. Also, through
Water 2025 and other Memoranda of Understanding, we work with USDA to
identify where Federal programs and projects can be coordinated more
effectively, communicating and contributing our resources where
practicable.
Responses of Ms. Scarlett to Questions From Senator Smith
Question. 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. 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 the Reclamation to increase the storage on Agency Lake Ranch.
Question. 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. 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. Next year, the power rates in the Klamath Basin could go
up ten-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.
Responses of Ms. Scarlett to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question. Ms. Scarlett, has the Department of Interior examined how
to fix the expected funding shortage for the Combined Benefit Fund
which receives funding from the AML program?
Answer. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act requires
that OSM transfer an amount equivalent to the amount of interest earned
on the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Fund to cover the health benefits of
unassigned beneficiaries of the Combined Benefits Fund (CBF). We are
required to transfer annually up to $70 million or the actual needs of
the CBF, whichever is less.
In recent years, the amount of interest earned has not been
sufficient to meet the needs of the unassigned beneficiaries. The
Administration has taken several steps to improve this situation:
We have implemented and extended a prescription drug program
which lowers the cost of prescription drugs to the CBF members
saving an estimated $190 million thus far.
We have changed our investment strategy to generate more
funds for CBF.
We have proposed making available to the unassigned
beneficiaries more than $100 million in funds equivalent to the
amount of interest that was credited to the account or
otherwise not available for use in prior years.
We have proposed removing the $70 million cap so that all
interest earned in a year, up to an amount equal to the needs
of CBF for unassigned beneficiaries, could be utilized to
transfer funds to the CBF.
In order to help defray the costs of health benefits for
coal miners even if Congress allows the Abandoned Mine Land
(AML) fee to expire, the Department has taken steps to honor
its responsibility to continue to transfer funds to the CBF.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 amended SMCRA with an additional
requirement providing that even if the AML fee expires,
operators must continue to pay fees to fund annual transfers to
the CBF. That is, although AML fees for use in reclamation
would no longer be collected, the fee will be established at a
rate sufficient to continue to provide for transfers to the
Combined Benefit Fund with respect to unassigned beneficiaries.
The Department is currently reviewing public comments provided
in response to its published, proposed rule that will implement
this provision.
As proposed, the new fee rates will be based upon estimates
of the CBF's needs for unassigned beneficiaries, the AML fund's
estimated interest earnings, and projected coal production for
which there is a reclamation fee payment obligation. The rates
will be adjusted as necessary to reflect any differences
between estimated and actual CBF expenditures, AML fund
interest earnings, and fee collections in prior years.
Responses of Ms. Scarlett to Questions From Senator Bingaman
1. scientific integrity
Question. A recent poll of scientists at the Fish and Wildlife
Service conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility found a very disturbing
level of political interference with the agency's scientific work. It
also found that many USFWS scientists feel unable to express their
concerns without fear of retaliation.
Will you commit to looking into this problem in a way that avoids
further intimidation?
Answer. The Department places great importance on the integrity of
science and the role which it plays in the decision-making process. The
Department has over the past four years taken a number of actions to
enhance both the integrity of our science and the role which it plays
in the decision-making process. We take seriously any concerns
employees or others might have about scientific integrity. To that end,
our Inspector General has investigated several allegations of
interference.
In two recent cases cited by critics as instances in which
Department leadership interfered with flows of scientific information,
neutral observers have closely examined the accusations and found them
unsubstantiated. For example, regarding the Missouri River, in a letter
to former Senator Daschle dated May 14, 2004, the Inspector General
stated that he ``found no evidence to suggest the Assistant Secretary's
decision to remove scientists was made for any reason other than to
resolve the stalemate between the Corps and FWS; no evidence that the
Assistant Secretary attempted to influence the team members in any way;
and no evidence that the team co-chairs and members perceived any undue
influence or political pressure.'' Also, regarding the Klamath Basin,
in a letter to Senator Kerry dated March 1, 2004, the Inspector General
stated that his office ``found no evidence of political influence
affecting the decisions pertaining to the water in the Klamath
Project'' and that ``the administrative process followed in this matter
did not deviate from the norm.''
The Inspector General also noted that his ``review of the available
documents and the rulings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California support the conclusion that the Department had
compiled the necessary information to support its various decisions
related to the Klamath Project'' and that ``none of the individuals
interviewed--including the Whistleblower--was able to provide any
competent evidence that the Department utilized suspect scientific data
or suppressed information that was contained in economic and scientific
reports related to the Klamath Project.'' Rather, the Inspector General
noted that, to the contrary, the National Academy of Sciences
specifically disagreed with the criticism that had been directed
against the Department for using ``junk science''.
Notwithstanding these particular findings, upon receipt of the
recent PEER statements regarding concerns among employees about science
integrity, Assistant Secretary Craig Manson is evaluating options for
improved communication and procedures for ensuring high scientific
standards and information flows throughout the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
I have a personal commitment to scientific integrity and look
forward to working throughout the Department and with the Secretary to
meet our goals for scientific integrity.
Question. Will you further commit to looking into ways to prevent
further political interference with science at the Department?
Answer. The Department of the Interior has over the past four years
taken a number of actions to enhance both the integrity of our science
and the role which it plays in the decision-making process. Responsible
for managing approximately 1 in every 5 acres of land in the United
States, the Department of the Interior frequently faces challenging
ecosystem and resource management issues. Interior has addressed such
challenges by significantly enhancing the use of science in its
decision-making processes.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), our primary scientific agency,
seeks through its Science Impact Program to replace conflict with a
solutions-oriented focus underpinned by a spirit of cooperation and
consensus seeking. To further these research activities, the Science
Impact Program has established external partnerships with universities,
including one with the University of New Mexico, to focus external
innovation in the use of USGS science information and to provide
specialized skills beyond those traditional to the USGS. The Department
has also taken significant steps to ensure the quality of the science
we use. We have, for example, (i) crafted Information Quality
Guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility,
and integrity of information disseminated to the public; and (ii) are
developing a draft Code of Scientific Conduct that has been
independently reviewed by a panel of leading scientists and ethicists
to help ensure the integrity of all scientific work done by both our
employees and our contractors.
2. responsiveness
Question. Our experience over the last several years has been that
it is oftentimes difficult to get factual information and technical and
legal support from the Department without long delays and clearances.
We also believe that career employees have been forbidden to provide
such information and support to us without clearance from political
appointees.
Will you pledge to work in a bipartisan manner with us on the
energy bill and the many other legislative matters relating to the
Interior Department? In committing to address our concerns, will you
review, and modify as necessary, any guidance or instructions that have
gone out to career employees to ensure that they understand that they
are free to take our calls and to be responsive to our requests? I have
particular concerns about employees in the Solicitor's office feeling
constrained in their interactions with us.
Answer. I pledge to work with you in a bipartisan manner on
comprehensive energy legislation and any other legislation before the
Committee. During my four years working as Assistant Secretary of
Policy, Management and Budget, I have tried always to work in a
bipartisan, fair, and open fashion with members of Congress and their
staff.
The Department has a process for responding to requests from
Committee staff. We ask that Committee staff call our Office of
Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Housed within that office are
the Legislative Counsel and her staff of legislative attorney advisors.
I believe that office has been responsive to all calls or letters
received by Committee staff and has made staff available from the
Solicitor's Office when legal questions are asked. This process of
interoffice coordination is a longstanding policy set forth in the
Departmental Manual.
Our policy of coordination helps to ensure that relevant offices
are aware of any Congressional concerns or issues so that they can
provide complete, accurate information. Notwithstanding this
Departmental policy of coordinating responses to Committee staff
requests, I want to ensure that the Department is fully responsive to
requests for meetings or information at all times.
3. hydroelectric relicensing
Question. Last month, I sent Secretary Norton a letter co-signed by
several other Senators of both parties expressing serious concern about
a rulemaking pending before the Department relating to hydroelectric
relicensing. The rulemaking proposes a new appeals process at the
Interior Department that would give a license applicant the right to an
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. I am strongly opposed to this provision.
When can we expect to see the final rule issued?
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. Do I have your commitment that you will look carefully at
this provision, which I believe raises serious issues of procedure and
fundamental fairness?
Answer. I can assure you I will look closely at this issue and the
procedural and fairness elements associated with it.
4. national park management
Question. The National Park Service Organic Act states that the
purpose of the National Park System is ``to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' The National Park Service management policies address
the potential conflict between the two directives protecting park
resources and providing for their enjoyment. Specifically, section
1.4.3 of the management policies states ``when there is a conflict
between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of
them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have
consistently interpreted the Organic Act. . . .''
At the confirmation hearing of Fran Mainella to be the Director of
the National Park Service, I asked her whether she agreed with those
management policies, that the conservation of park resources is the
primary mission of the National Park Service. Her answer was ``I am
advised that the courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act
this way. Therefore, I would agree that the resource is always the
primary focus.''
Can you tell me whether you agree with this policy, that
conservation of park resources is the primary mission of the National
Park Service, and can you assure me that the Department will not seek
to modify or overturn the Park Service management policies to that
effect?
Answer. The National Park Service Organic Act makes it clear that
the National Park Service mission is to conserve park resources
unimpaired so that each generation of Americans may fully enjoy them.
The Park Service views this as a combined mandate to: (1) conserve park
resources in an unimpaired condition; and (2) provide the public with
opportunities to enjoy those unimpaired resources. I am totally
committed to meeting both these responsibilities. These goals can be
achieved in tandem, as the Organic Act envisions. As Director Mainella
has noted, visitor enjoyment depends upon conserving park resources in
an unimpaired condition. Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I
will work closely with the National Park Service to fulfill the vision
set forth in the Organic Act.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that NPS Management Policies
continue to conserve park resources as set forth in the Organic Act and
as required by the courts.
5. teshekpuk lake leasing
Question. A 1998 Record of Decision for the Northeast Planning area
of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska opened 87 percent of the area
for oil and gas leasing, but kept much of the area around Teshekpuk
Lake closed to leasing because of its importance to wildlife. The
Department is now considering opening the Teshekpuk Lake area to
leasing. The Bureau of Land Management claims that ``new information
since the 1998 ROD'' and ``various scientific studies on the biological
resources of the area'' support opening the area to leasing. Many
ornithologists and wildlife professionals have said that they are ``not
aware of any new studies'' that would lead to that conclusion.
Please provide copies of the ``various scientific studies completed
on the biological resources of the area'' since completion of the 1998
ROD.
Specifically, what biological studies were conducted and what new
information did they provide, regardless of whether that new
information does or does not justify opening the area to leasing?
Answer. At the time the 1998 plan was crafted, we had very little
sub-surface information. During the past seven years, however, 18 wells
have been drilled which have provided real data that demonstrates the
ability to drill in the sub-surface. We are providing copies of all of
the reports, with the exception of one that will be provided as soon as
the BLM receives it from the BLM Alaska State Office.
Biological studies completed since 1998
Influence of oil/gas development on nest success of shorebirds. A
statistical consultant was hired to analyze pilot data comparing nest
success of shorebirds in the oil fields with undisturbed areas of the
Arctic Coastal Plain, such as the NPR-A and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The report of that analysis has been completed and
additional fieldwork has begun based on the results. (Report included.)
Effects of oil field development on population and distribution of
tundra swans. This study and its report are complete. The objectives
were to determine whether swans have shifted their nesting distribution
in response to facility development and whether swan population trends
in the oil fields differ significantly from trends for the North Slope
population as a whole. (Report included.)
Workshop to review studies of impacts to vegetation from winter
oil/gas activities. This workshop has been completed. The current
Research Monitoring Team has chosen not to include impacts to
vegetation among the highest priority issues for a monitoring plan for
the NPR-A currently in development. (Report included.)
Workshop to discuss a cooperative monitoring program to document
subsistence concerns. This workshop has been completed, but follow-up
actions are ongoing. The goal is to provide a means by which
subsistence hunters and other local residents can express concerns to
the appropriate agency about industrial impacts to subsistence
activities and resources, and be assured they will receive some type of
resolution to their concerns. (Report included.)
Workshop to standardize aerial bird surveys on the North Slope.
Agencies and private industry have conducted low-level aerial surveys
using various methods to monitor populations of large waterbirds on the
North Slope of Alaska. This workshop has been completed and will result
in more consistent and comparable survey results, increasing the
utility of these data sets for the management of migratory birds.
(Report included.)
On-going studies
Summarize subsistence harvest and seasonal land use data for four
villages. The analysis and summary of these data are near completion.
The objectives are to describe the current subsistence land and
resource use by residents of Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Wainwright and Barrow;
document the annual harvest of wildlife and fish resources within the
NPR-A; identify areas within the NPR-A that are of particular
importance to subsistence users; document hunter/industry interactions
and determine whether those interactions have led to changes in
hunters' behaviors; and identify and minimize potential impacts to
subsistence hunters from industry actions.
Impacts of Seismic Trails, Camp Trails and Ice Roads on Tundra
Vegetation in the Northeast NPR-A. This study is similar to one that
has been ongoing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) since
1985. It will give us a better idea of how impacts to the tundra and
recovery by tundra vegetation compare to that in ANWR.
Overlapping vs. off-setting ice-roads year-to-year. A stipulation
in the 1998 ROD requires offsetting ice roads from one year to the
next. This would impact a greater area, but presumably with less
intensity of impact per acre and thus provide a benefit through less
severe impacts and quicker recovery. This study is meant to suggest
which alternative is environmentally preferable.
Caribou demography, distribution and movements in relation to oil
field infrastructure. This study is ongoing. It is intended to model,
using real data from caribou ranging through oil fields, the effects of
oil field infrastructure on caribou productivity. This is the most
critical issue in the caribou vs. oil fields debate, and one which has
never been directly addressed.
Determine relative importance of avian nest predators. This study
is ongoing, with the final year of data collection in 2005. The
objectives are to identify predators responsible for nest failure of
selected species of waterfowl and shorebirds; compare the relative
impact of various predator species within the oil fields and away from
development; and develop better methods to identify predators
responsible for nest failure.
Distribution, density and productivity of yellow-billed loons in
the NPR-A. The fieldwork for this study was completed in 2004; data
analysis and report preparation are ongoing. The primary objective is
to design and implement yellow-billed loon breeding and production
surveys in the NPR-A. This research will also assess the feasibility
and justification for a long term study to address potential impacts of
climate variation on abundance, breeding biology, distribution and
productivity.
Population size and productivity of raptors along the Colville
River. This is a long-term monitoring effort, and is ongoing. The
objectives are to provide managers with current raptor nest site
information; monitor population size and productivity trends for arctic
raptors; and identify factors contributing to recent poor productivity
for peregrine falcons.
Effects of noise from vibroseis equipment on arctic fish. The
fieldwork for this study is complete and report preparation is ongoing.
The objective was to measure sound energy levels of vibroseis equipment
at various distances from the sound source; use underwater video to
record the reactions of fish from the noise generated by the vibroseis
equipment; and use caged fish for both treatment and controls to
determine the physical and physiological effects of sound exposure.
Population distribution of molting geese near Teshekpuk Lake. The
fieldwork for this study was completed in 2003. Data analysis using a
Geographical Information System and report preparation are ongoing. The
objective is to monitor and assess potential changes in the populations
and distribution of molting brant and other geese and to document
habitat selection of specific shoreline habitats.
Document local knowledge of subsistence fish life histories. This
study is ongoing. Its objectives are to conduct detailed interviews
with ``key informants'' in Nuiqsut, Barrow, Atqasuk and Wainwright;
collect spatial and temporal data on fish; focus on life histories of
key subsistence fish species; identify fish bearing lakes and rivers;
and digitize data in Geographical Information System format.
Literature review of effects of pipeline height on crossing success
by caribou. This review is ongoing. The objectives are to review all
published and unpublished information regarding potential effects of
pipelines on caribou movements, and to prepare and publish a synthesis
and annotated bibliography of the information. This will summarize a
wide body of knowledge in a single document.
Literature review of rare plant distribution on Alaska's North
Slope. This review is ongoing. The objective is to detail in a single,
comprehensive report all known information on rare plant distribution
and habitat types in the NPR-A. This information will better suggest to
managers where unrecorded populations of rare plants may occur.
We would be happy to provide a briefing for you or your staff if
you need further information.
Responses of Ms. Scarlett to Questions From Senator Salazar
blm/oil & gas
Question 1. As you are aware, Ms. Scarlett, 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 oversight to enforce the stipulations and
conditions under which those APDs are approved.
The President's budget calls for maintaining funding for Oil & Gas
Management programs at 2005 levels by increasing user fees for
processing APDs, will this fee be implemented? If the fee is not
implemented, what effects will that have on BLM oversight of oil &
natural gas exploration and production?
Answer. The BLM will publish a proposed 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 by processing additional leases and APDs. The BLM expects to
collect $9.7 million through cost recovery in the oil and gas program
primarily from a new fee for APD processing. With these additional
funds, the BLM will be able to process virtually all of the remaining
backlogged APDs, except for those few that are delayed through
litigation or complex environmental review. In FY 2006, BLM plans to
process 500 more APDs and 250 more oil and gas leases than in FY 2005.
If the regulation is not implemented, BLM will not process as many
leases and APDs.
Question 2. 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 its I&E program as the number of APDs approved
and drilled increased. The BLM has been successful through its budget
justifications to document 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.
Question 3. Would the Department be amenable to an increase in Oil
& Gas Management funding for increased oversight of oil and gas
operations on Federal Lands as well as ``split-estate'' lands?
Answer. Senator, the Department very much appreciates your interest
in and concern about these issues. We believe the funding level 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.
Question 4. How does the BLM view the ``split estate'' issue in the
west and what is their position on retaining mineral rights when they
sell or trade BLM property?
Answer. Many of the split estate lands in the West were patented
under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916. This Act allows surface
owners to be compensated for damages to crops and stock raising values
of the land as a result of mineral development. The BLM's policy is to
include the surface owner at the earliest possible time to assure that
his or her desires are included in the use authorization. The BLM
cannot force the surface owner to respond when the mineral estate owner
files an application to drill a well. However, the BLM will make a good
faith effort to involve the surface owner and will accommodate their
requests if at all possible without significantly reducing the mineral
developer's right to enjoy the minerals. The BLM requires that the
mineral operator make a good faith effort to reach an agreement with
the surface owner prior to entering upon the lands. The BLM allows the
mineral developer to post a bond for the benefit of the surface owner
in lieu of an agreement, but only if a good faith effort fails to
achieve an agreement. The BLM then makes an effort to contact the
surface owner to assure that he or she understands their rights. The
BLM is committed to working with mineral operators and surface owners
to assure that fair and equitable treatment is afforded to all. For the
sale of lands, the BLM must retain the mineral estate, as required by
section 209 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. For exchanges of
lands, the BLM can determine whether to dispose of the mineral estate,
based on an evaluation of the public interest, which includes
consideration of the mineral potential and the mineral value.
Question 5. Is the Department willing to let the BLM get involved
in disputes between landowners and energy companies when there is
unmitigated damage to the surface rights of the landowner?
Answer. Many of the split-estate lands in the West were patented
under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916. This Act allows surface
owners to be compensated for damages to crops and stock raising values
of the land due to mineral development.
The Act, and its implementing regulations, provides a mechanism for
surface owner involvement and compensation while the mineral estate
owner retains the right to develop the mineral estate. The BLM
encourages all parties to work together under principles of
accommodation. Absent any agreement, the law provides a remedy through
the posting of a bond for the benefit of the surface owner. It is our
experience that surface owners will fare better if they negotiate an
agreement for compensation. Mineral operators also fare better with a
negotiated agreement because they do not suffer lengthy delays that
will result from bond filing and appeal even if the bond is deemed
adequate. The agreement is a private contract between the surface owner
and mineral developer. The BLM is generally not privy to the contents
of the agreements because often the parties to the agreements prefer to
keep confidential the terms of their agreement. The BLM will advise
either party about their legal rights and recommend appropriate terms
for the protection of resources.
department operations
Question 1. 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, or will be, 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.
GovWorks has not awarded or administered public relations contracts
using paid media figures.
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.
GovWorks does not enter into ``personal service contracts''.
We have worked closely with our Inspector General over the past
several years to review GovWorks and its practices. As a result of the
IG's 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.
Question 2. As we work to reduce the federal deficit the Department
of Interior has had to make tough choices, choices that not all of us
agree with. Cuts to PILT and the LWCF stateside grants are examples of
these cuts. While there have been cuts to these important programs can
you please walk me through the reasoning behind increasing the funding
for Departmental Management?
Answer. The increased funding in the 2006 budget request for
Departmental Management is primarily for investments in Department-wide
systems that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of business
practices throughout the Department's programs and covers fixed costs,
including the January 2006 pay raise and health benefits and other
costs that are not discretionary. The Department Management budget also
includes budget-neutral shifting of funding of the appraisal function
to Department Management. While this shift appears to increase the DM
budget, it is simply a result of relocating existing functions from one
set accounts to another.
Specifically, the 2006 request for Departmental Management is
$120.2 million, a net program increase of increase of $10.8 million
above 2005. Almost all of this program increase--$9.4 million of the
total is for deployment of the second phase of the Financial and
Business Management System. This increase provides Department-wide
benefits and involves all 8 bureaus under the Department. The new
system will replace the financial and business systems now used by the
Department's bureaus and offices with a single system that provides
improved access to information and results and will facilitate more
productive operations.
As with the proposals for the Department's bureaus, the
Departmental Management proposal includes the full amount needed to
cover pay and other fixed cost increases for 2006. The fixed cost
increase for DM is $6.1 million.
Finally, the request for Departmental Management includes the
transfer of $7.4 million to support integration of the real property
appraisal services. These costs were previously included on a
decentralized basis in bureau budgets. The transfer is one of a number
of efforts implemented by the Department to address longstanding
concerns related to the integrity and transparency of appraisal work.
Question 3. As you know, Colorado has over 8 million surface acres
and over 25 million sub-surface acres in Colorado managed by the
Department of the Interior. It is very important for my office, as well
as the offices of my fellow Senators, to be able to rely on the
Department and its agencies for timely and accurate information
regarding those federal lands in our state. Will you assure me that
your office will do everything possible to respond in a timely manner
to requests from my office and from my colleagues for information from
the Department?''
Answer. You have my assurance that I will work to ensure that
requests from your office and all members of Congress receive timely
and accurate responses.
roan plateau
Question. In the West, many people feel that oil and gas leasing
and drilling decisions are often being made with little public input or
review. Other times, the BLM approves oil and gas drilling or leasing
against the strong objections of citizens and local governments, who
might want to limit drilling, or who favor stronger protections or
other public uses.
How will you work with the BLM to ensure that public land use
decisions are honoring local communities, involving the broad public,
and considering updated science and current public uses regarding these
national lands?
Answer. Involving the public in decisions that affect them is a
central principle of the Department under Secretary Norton's vision of
cooperative conservation. Public lands issues have a direct affect on
the health of a community and the community issues have a direct affect
on the health of the public lands. The Department of the Interior is
strongly committed to engaging the public and giving them that voice.
Over the past 4 years, Interior has enhanced the public's role by: 1)
strengthening the role of Resource Advisory Councils; 2) establishing
NEPA guidance to enhance consensus-based decision-making and adaptive
management; and 3) establishing a cooperative conservation interagency
team to enhance training and other measures that build agency capacity
to work closely with the public. On August 26, 2004, the President
issued an Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation. Under the
umbrella of that Order, we continue to invest significant effort in
making cooperative conservation and strong public input into our
decision making a keystone of the Department. We will continue to work
with local communities, involve the public, and at all times ensure
that citizen input and science inform important land use decisions.
These issues are complex, interrelated, and defy easy answers. I am
committed to ensuring that the BLM and all Interior agencies work
cooperatively with our Federal, state, tribal and local government
partners and all interested parties.
Specifically in the case of the Roan Plateau, since 1997 when Naval
Oil Shale Reserves 1 and 3 were transferred to BLM, the Bureau has
worked diligently in an open public process to develop a balanced
resource strategy for the Roan Plateau planning area. The Draft Roan
Plateau RMP/EIS is the result of an extensive cooperative effort with
state, local and federal government agencies, private partners and the
public. The State of Colorado, Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, and
the communities of Rifle and Parachute are official cooperating
agencies for the planning process. Numerous public meetings have been
hosted by the BLM and cooperating agencies. Public input is being
carefully considered by the BLM and its cooperators in developing a
final plan which will guide the management of a wide range of multiple
uses on these very important public lands.
The Roan Plateau Draft EIS also utilizes science and updated
methodologies to analyze effects of current and projected resource use
as noted in your question. Examples include comprehensive sensitive
plant and wildlife inventories, state-of-the art air quality modeling,
and thorough natural gas reserve assessments.