[Senate Hearing 111-79]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-79
LEWIS, NEWELL, AND ABBEY NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATIONS OF WILMA A. LEWIS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR; THE NOMINATION OF RICHARD G. NEWELL, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; AND THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT V.
ABBEY, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
__________
JULY 9, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-880 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Abbey, Robert V., Nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Land
Management..................................................... 8
de Jongh, Jr., Hon. John P., Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands,
Charlotte Amalie, VI........................................... 30
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Nevada...................... 1
Lewis, Wilma A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Interior....................................................... 5
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Newell, Richard G., Nominee to be Administrator, Energy
Information Administration..................................... 7
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 33
LEWIS, NEWELL, AND ABBEY NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources will come to order. I would like to inform those
gathered that the Senate is undertaking a vote. In order to
keep on track I'm going to ask Senator Ensign to begin the
committee hearing by providing an introduction for Mr. Abbey.
Senator Ensign, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
all. If ok with you I would submit my full statement for the
record.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Senator Ensign. Just kind of talk based on my experience
with Bob Abbey. Bob and I have worked together over the years
with over, you know, or close to 90 percent of the land in
Nevada owned or controlled by the Federal Government. A large
percentage of that is by the Bureau of Land Management.
Bob Abbey played a very significant role in my State. Over
the years, you know, we were kind of the home of the old
Sagebrush Rebellion and various other things like that. Bob
handled a lot of those kinds of different parties involved who
have very different ideas of what should happen with public
lands.
I thought Bob did a great job on bringing people together.
No better place than that than the public lands bills that we
worked on together with myself and Senator Reed and other
members of the delegation that, you know, brought everybody
from environmental groups and in our State we have very far
left environmental groups to kind of, you know, more on the
right type of environmental groups. We have, you know, hunters
and multi-use people and miners and you know, and developers,
local governments, state governments, Federal Governments, all
of those folks together.
Bob has been the representative there for the Federal
Government, I thought did a really super job on bringing people
together and showed great leadership at that time. I found him
to be a man of integrity and really a straight shooter. That's
obviously what we need as somebody at the head of the BLM.
So I, you know, highly recommend him. I'm glad to see him
getting this opportunity. I think it's something that he richly
deserves. I'm looking forward to working with him in the future
simply because there is no other State that this is a more
important position than my State.
Every Western State it's really important. But just on a
percentage basis it's a real critical position for my home
State of Nevada. So I appreciate this hearing. Hopefully we'll
be able to move his nomination process as quickly as possible
and to get him in there leading this vital agency.
So I thank you for allowing me to testify today. Bob, good
luck. I'm going to say it prematurely, I don't think you're
going to have any problems. So good luck in your new position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Ensign. I think that at
least there's two votes here to move this nomination forward
for Bob Abbey. But thank you again, Senator Ensign.
If I might because the Senate is voting at this point in
time and there are no other members of the committee here, I'm
going to provide for a short recess. I'll go to the floor and
vote and return as quickly as I can. So if the nominees will
hold their fire, we look forward to hearing from you in
probably 15 minutes. I'll be back. So the committee stands in
recess.
Senator Udall. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources will come to order. Thank you for your forbearance.
We had a vote on the floor on Senator McCain's amendment. We've
been joined by Senator McCain and by Ranking Member Murkowski.
We meet this afternoon to consider three nominations for
offices in the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Energy.
The three nominees are Wilma Lewis, to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management.
Richard Newell, to be the Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration within the Department of Energy.
Robert Abbey to be the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management at the Department of the Interior.
All three of these offices are of great interest to members
of this committee and are of critical importance to our
country. We're very fortunate to have three extremely well
qualified nominees for these positions.
The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management is
responsible for overseeing the management of public lands and
resources including the production of energy and mineral
resources and the collection of Federal oil and gas royalties.
The Department's Inspector General has uncovered serious
ethical problems in the royalty program in recent years. Ms.
Lewis will bring to the job many years of experience as a
former Inspector General and a United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, as well as an Associate Solicitor in the
Department of the Interior, the Comptroller for United States
territories. She partnered a major law firm and most recently
the General Counsel of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation.
This extraordinary combination of legal, law enforcement
and managerial experience along with her well earned reputation
for personal integrity and high ethical standards make Ms.
Lewis an outstanding choice for this critical post.
The Administrator of the Energy Information Administration
is responsible for collecting, evaluating and analyzing a broad
range of economic and statistical information about the
nation's energy needs and resources. We rely heavily on the
Administrator to provide us with accurate, reliable and
unbiased data and projections. Dr. Newell is a distinguished
energy economist, who has served as a Senior Fellow at
Resources for the Future, as a Senior Economist on the
President's Council of Economic Advisors during the previous
Administration and most recently as a professor of Energy and
Environmental Economics at Duke University.
He will bring to the EIA extensive experience in the
economics of energy, environmental markets, climate change,
energy efficiency and market based environmental policies.
Finally, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management is
responsible for managing over 250 million acres of public land
in the West and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate.
Mr. Abbey worked for the BLM for 25 years. The last 8 in which
he spent as the BLM's Nevada State Director. He has clearly
demonstrated his ability to manage BLM offices by having
already managed his Nevada State Office with distinction.
In short the President has nominated three outstanding
individuals for these important positions. I support all three
and am pleased to welcome them this afternoon. I would
actually--I got a little ahead of myself.
So I'd like the three nominees to come to the witness table
if you would. When you're seated and comfortable I will turn to
Senator Murkowski for her statement. I got excited about
hearing from you all and didn't give you a chance to join us at
the witness table.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all
three of you this afternoon as well as your families. There's a
lot going on at this point in time. I think you know. So I'm
not going to spend any time with an opening statement other
than to welcome you.
The chairman has outlined the qualifications of each of
you. You come to your respective positions with high
qualifications for the positions for which you are nominated.
There is no shortage of important issues that we have to talk
about and I look forward to posing some questions to you,
hearing your responses and continuing our discussion as we move
through the process.
So thank you all.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. At this time I
would like to make an announcement that the rules of the
committee, which apply to all nominees, require that you be
sworn in connection with your testimony. So would each of you
stand and raise your right hand?
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?
[All witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Senator Udall. You may be seated. Before you begin your
statements, I would ask three questions that I would address to
each nominee before the committee.
Will you be available to appear before this committee and
other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
[All witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Senator Udall. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments or interests that could constitute a conflict of
interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you
be confirmed and assume the office to which you've been
nominated by the President?
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, 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.
Senator Udall. Mr. Newell.
Mr. Newell. All of my personal assets have been reviewed
both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors within the
Federal Government and I've taken appropriate action to avoid
any conflicts of interest.
Senator Udall. Mr. Abbey.
Mr. Abbey. 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 interests or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
Senator Udall. Let me move to the third and the final
question. Are you involved or do you have any assets held in a
blind trust?
Ms. Lewis. No.
Mr. Newell. No.
Mr. Abbey. No.
Senator Udall. Thank you for participating in those
important preliminary steps. We'd like to now turn to Ms.
Lewis. If you'd like to introduce any family members that would
be more than appropriate and then we would welcome your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF WILMA A. LEWIS, NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would
like to introduce some family members. Over here to my left
first my far left is my nephew, Erin Lewis.
Sitting next to him is my mom, Juta Lewis, a retired
Assistant District Director of Customs for the Virgin Islands.
Sitting next to her is my brother, Warren Lewis and he is the
Executive Officer at Interpol here in DC. Sitting next to
Warren is a very good family friend, we consider a part of the
family, Arabela Lassford, who flew in from the Virgin Islands
for the hearing today. She is also with the Customs Service in
the Virgin Islands.
I thank them for being here and for their love and their
support. Mr. Chairman, if you would, I'd also like to thank
other friends for being here and certainly the wonderful team
at the Department of the Interior, who are always here to
support us.
Senator Udall. Thank you and welcome to your family
members. Ms. Lewis, if you'd like to deliver your statement,
please feel free to do so.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
Senator McCain, members of the committee, it is a special honor
to appear before you today as the President's nominee for the
position of Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management at the Department of the Interior. If confirmed by
the Senate this would be the third time that I've had the
privilege of serving the people of the United States in a
Presidentially appointed Senate confirmed position. The second
time that I've been afforded this opportunity at the Department
of the Interior.
If confirmed I would bring to the many challenges of the
Assistant Secretary position the fruits of my educational
background, the litany of skills and experiences amassed during
my 28 year professional career and a strong and unwavering
commitment to public service. I would request Mr. Chairman,
that my entire written statement be placed in the record of
these proceedings. In the interest of time, I will just read
portions of that statement.
Senator Udall. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you. I was born in Santurce, Puerto Rico,
and grew up in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. During my high
school years I decided that I would pursue a career as a
lawyer. During these formative years and thereafter I was
influenced greatly by strong, a very strong, family tradition
of public service.
My late father, Walter Lewis, with over 40 years of
government service. My mother, whom I just introduced, Juta
Lewis, with 30 years in government service. My brother, whom I
also introduced, Warren Lewis, still toiling away after over 35
years in government service.
I saw in the shining examples set by each of these loved
ones the kind of strong and positive work ethic, undying
dedication, distinguished service and uncompromising integrity
that public service demands and so richly deserves. From my
high school days, therefore, I looked forward to the
opportunity. Not only to become a lawyer, but also to devote a
portion of my career to public service and to emulate those
special qualities exhibited by those nearest and dearest to me.
Following graduation from All Saints Cathedral School in
St. Thomas with high honors and as valedictorian of my senior
class, graduation from Swarthmore College with a Bachelor of
Arts degree with distinction and election to Phi Beta Kappa and
from Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor degree, I embarked
on my legal career. During my 28 year professional career I
have worked in the private sector as both an Associate and a
partner in the corporate sector and for over 15 years with the
Federal Government. I've also served as an adjunct faculty
member in trial advocacy and on various boards, commissions and
committees.
I believe that the totality of my professional experience
renders me well equipped to handle the myriad responsibilities
and challenges of the Assistant Secretary position for which I
have been nominated.
First, I've had a broad range of legal experience. From my
various professional opportunities I developed the ability to
be a quick study, to exercise reasoned judgment, to analyze
complex issues and to engage in effective problem solving. I
also developed a pension for economy, efficiency, effectiveness
and integrity in government operations.
Second, as a former United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia and a former Inspector General for the Department
of the Interior, I developed a solid law enforcement background
and gained extensive experience in providing strong leadership
and effective management in major Federal agencies. While
serving in these capacities I was responsible, among other
things, for establishing and implementing the vision,
priorities and major initiatives for the organizations, high
level decisionmaking and problem solving, promoting excellence,
productivity, integrity and accountability within the
organization and also for fostering productive relationships
with diverse groups of individuals and entities on behalf of
the organizations. Undoubtedly these experiences would be
invaluable as an Assistant Secretary.
Finally, as the Associate Solicitor for General Law and
subsequently the Inspector General for the Department of the
Interior from 1993 to 1998, I became familiar with various
programs and operations of the Department. Of particular note,
while serving as Inspector General from 1995 to 1998, I
launched the Office's Affirmative Civil Enforcement program.
Among the proactive initiatives launched under that program
were ones involving the underpayment of royalties on Federal
mineral leases, the recovery of delinquent coal reclamation
fees owed by surface coal operators and an environmental
initiative that focused on violations of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act.
I believe that this prior experience would be of great
asset to me in the position of Assistant Secretary. I would
consider it an honor and welcome the opportunity to return to
public service as the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management at the Department of the Interior. If I'm confirmed
I would embark upon this next chapter of my professional career
with a clear understanding of the tremendous responsibility
that we shoulder as public servants with a keen appreciation
for the great privilege that it is to serve the public and with
an unwavering commitment to the high ethical and other
standards that should always be our guide.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Lewis. Mr. Newell, the floor
is yours. If you would like to introduce any family members, so
please feel free to do so.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. NEWELL, NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Newell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd
like to introduce my wife, Bonnie and our daughters, Rose and
Ella. Thank them for their love and support. Unexpectedly my
sister-in-law, Amy and my niece, Cora are also here and several
friends. So I very much appreciate them being here.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, distinguished
members of the committee it is an honor and a privilege to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration. I'm
grateful to the President and to Secretary Chu for their
confidence in trusting me with this important assignment.
As you know the mission of the EIA is to provide policy
neutral data, forecasts and analysis to promote sound
policymaking, efficient markets and public understanding
regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the
environment. Created by Congress in 1977, EIA is the
statistical and analytical agency of the Department of Energy.
As such as the Nation's premier source of unbiased energy data,
analysis and forecasting, EIA collects and disseminates a wide
range of energy information covering energy production, stocks,
demand, imports, exports, prices, technologies and emissions.
EIA also prepares short term forecasts, long term
projections and other analyses and special reports on topics of
current interest to Congress and to the executive branch. By
law EIA prepares products independently of policy positions
taken within the Federal Government. I feel strongly about this
independent role that independent, unbiased and open minded
information and analysis can and should play in helping guide
wise energy decisions both within the public and private
sectors.
My undergraduate study in engineering and philosophy showed
me the value of technically rigorous problem solving as well as
a reasoned approach to dissecting alternative viewpoints on
very complex issues. In graduate study and in my professional
career I turned upon economics, statistics modeling and other
tools of policy analysis to understanding the operation and
design of energy and environmental markets and policies. Along
the way I've worked in both the private and non-profit sectors,
for government and most recently in academia.
For many years I was a Senior Fellow at Resources for the
Future, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that conducts
independent research on energy and environmental issues. During
2005 to 2006, I served as Senior Economist for Energy and
Environment on the President's Council of Economic Advisors
which offers the President independent, economic advice based
on objective economic research and empirical evidence. I have
also been involved in a number of other efforts including the
bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and several
energy studies undertaken by the National Academies.
I am currently professor of Energy and Environmental
Economics at Duke University's Nicholas School of the
Environment and also Associate up there with the Fuqua School
of Business. By while I work at Duke I live in Chappel Hill.
Despite President Obama's position on the issue, I remain non-
aligned when it comes to Carolina/Duke basketball.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Newell. More seriously, if confirmed I intend to bring
an open mind and a fresh perspective to the challenges facing
EIA. EIA has many accomplishments and a proud history, but
improvement is always possible and necessary. I see a number of
opportunities for ensuring that EIA information analysis is
always outstanding, responsive and readily accessible.
One priority is continually updating EIA's short and long
term modeling platforms based on the best internal and external
data and methods available. The forecasts, projections and
policy analyses based on these models are very widely used in
the private and public sectors and must be held to the highest
standards.
Another priority is improving EIA's information base and
analytic capacity for understanding and assessing the
interrelated roles of fundamentals, financial market behavior
and other factors in energy price formation.
Also critical is reinforcing EIA's data collection efforts
including on energy demand and newly emerging technologies and
fuels.
There are other opportunities as well. If confirmed I look
forward to working with members of this committee and others
both inside and outside of government in order to improve the
information analytical base used for making sound energy
decisions.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
committee. I look forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Newell. Mr. Abbey, I want to
turn to you now. But before I ask you to introduce any family
members and give your statement, I did want to note for the
committee members who arrived after the vote that Senator
Ensign did provide a heartwarming and thoughtful and ringing
endorsement of your nomination to head the Bureau of Land
Management.
So the floor is yours. If you would like to introduce any
family members, it would be appropriate to do so.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate
Senator Ensign taking time out of his busy schedule to
introduce me to the committee. My wife had the option of
attending this session today or being with our 3 year old
grandson. She chose the higher priority. So I have to give her
credit for that.
But on the way over here, Wilma Lewis' family adopted me.
So I appreciate your support today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski and
members of the committee. I'm truly honored that President
Obama and Secretary Salazar have demonstrated their confidence
in me by nominating me to lead the Bureau of Land Management.
It would certainly be a great privilege to serve our country as
the next BLM Director. If confirmed I pledge to work closely
with the Secretary, with Members of Congress and most
importantly with public land stakeholders to manage the
public's land and mineral resources.
I have 32 years of experience working in State and the
Federal Government. I spent 25 years serving the public as an
employee with the BLM working in Wyoming, Arizona, Washington
DC, Mississippi, Colorado and Nevada. Our family moves so often
that my wife still thinks the BLM stands for Better Like
Moving.
I was fortunate to work with many dedicated employees at
each location. But I've also been blessed with the
opportunities to work with outstanding members of the public,
many of who are just as passionate about and dedicated to the
proper management of public lands as BLM employees. I
understand that my nomination has been supported by a diverse
group of public land stakeholders. I am proud of this fact.
Managing the national system of public lands for multiple
uses is not easy, by any means. Acknowledging that many
stakeholders have valid reasons for some of their differences,
I know from working in the field that we actually have much in
common. Most of us want public lands to be managed in a manner
that will provide for clean water and air and a healthy
environment for plants, animals and people.
We want productive and sustainable ecosystems. We want
available energy resources both renewable and non-renewable to
be developed responsibly and in a manner that will help us
achieve our national goals of reducing the impacts of climate
change, carbon emissions and a reliance on foreign oil. We
support opportunities to use public lands for recreational
pursuits and in a manner that helps sustain communities and
local economies. Most of us want the BLM to place as much value
on our nation's wilderness and cultural resources as we do on
mineral exploration and development.
I believe we can achieve our common goals and better serve
the public by working together while we continue our
discussions on issues where we might disagree. I know full well
that many challenges lie ahead. For example, of special
concerns today are wild fires, our changing water and land
base, impact to public lands caused by irresponsible users and
the spread of invasive species. While these issues are daunting
and significant in their own right I am just as concerned about
addressing internal issues within the BLM itself.
If confirmed I will be a hands-on director and will ensure
that BLM leaders lead and managers manage, helping to ensure
that important decisions are reached based upon the best
available information and in a timely manner. We will work
closely with local, State, tribal and other Federal agencies as
we do our very best to meet the management goals and the
public's expectations.
I take great pride in the work that we, as an agency,
accomplished during my 25 year period with the Bureau of Land
Management. For almost 4 years now I've worked as a Natural
Resource Consultant in the private sector. I've gained a
different perspective of our natural resource agencies and
their processes during this period. I believe this recent
experience in the private sector will help me be a better
agency administrator.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed it will be my goal to move
aggressively in managing BLM programs to help meet the energy,
mineral and recreational needs of our nation while at the same
time assuring the sustainability and ecological health of our
nation's most precious cultural and natural resources. I
appreciate the opportunity you've given me to testify today. I
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Abbey. We will now turn to a
round of questions. I would note that this is an impressive
turnout of Senators from the West, from the far West and from
the near West. As Senator Shaheen is of course from New
Hampshire.
I'm sitting in as a surrogate for Senator Bingaman. He had
a statement that he wanted me to direct to Ms. Lewis and a
short question to Dr. Newell. Then I had two short questions
and I will turn it over to the ranking member.
But as I've said, Ms. Lewis, I don't have any questions for
you. But I would like to mention several issues that Senator
Bingaman raised. I share his concern about several issues that
will be waiting on your desk once you are confirmed.
They are No. 1, addressing the problem of Mountain Top
Removal.
No. 2, making certain that the MMS gets back on the right
track.
No. 3, ensuring good inspection and enforcement and sound
environmental compliance for oil and gas development on Federal
lands.
No. 4, reforming the mining law of 1872.
No. 5, putting in place a program to reclaim abandoned hard
rock and uranium mine sites.
This is a daunting list. But as I said in my opening
remarks I believe you're up to the challenge. I look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to working
with you as well.
Senator Udall. Dr. Newell, I want to turn to the price
bubble that we saw last year. I think it's fair to say that
before that bubble emerged that EIA may have failed to
appreciate the connection between the financial and physical
oil markets and thus failed to anticipate the unprecedented run
up in crude oil and gasoline prices last summer. Would you
agree that the EIA needs to bolster its ability to understand
the connection between the physical oil market and the
financial oil market? I would also like to hear about the
connection between the financial oil market and oil price
formation.
Mr. Newell. I absolutely would agree that EIA has a very
important role to play in making the best information and
analysis of the very conflicts, interrelationships between
supply and demand fundamentals, other commodity markets and the
broader financial market system as it relates to energy prices.
I think that it's going to be important for EIA to both
increase analytic capacity in this area. Also do a better job
of explaining for policymakers and a broader public about the
dynamics of these energy market prices as it's unfolding.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I think this is a very, very
important topic. On this committee there's been robust debate
and discussion about what really happened last year and why oil
approached $150 a barrel when the underlying fundamentals
didn't seem to support that price.
We're really going to look to you for help in understanding
that and preventing that sort of run up in the future. Thank
you for that answer.
Mr. Abbey, I will turn to you. I have two questions,
particular my interests. I alluded to this in the comments I
directed at Ms. Lewis as well.
In the West we've got thousands of contaminated mine sites.
Colorado has almost innumerable sites, of course, as does
Nevada and the States that are represented here. We need to
clean them up. Can you tell me how many abandoned mines and
contaminated sites exist on BLM land? How much funding you're
allocating or would allocate to address these sites? What are
the obstacles in cleaning them up?
Mr. Abbey. There's several different figures going around.
I've seen several just in preparation for this hearing. I've
read this morning that there's approximately 20,000 abandoned
mines with contaminates on public lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management. That figure may be even higher.
It's also my understanding that in 2009 that the Department
of the Interior received in the neighborhood of $29 million to
help mitigate many of these abandoned mine land safety hazards.
I am familiar with the Bureau of Land Management and the
Department of Interior having a five strategy to move forward
aggressively in addressing the needs to clean up as many of
these mine sites as possible during that 5-year period. If
confirmed it's something that we will give one of the highest
priorities to because we certainly recognize and understand the
safety hazards associated with these mines and it's way past
time that the Bureau of Land Management addresses that issue.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Let me ask a follow up question
in that regard. I've taken a real interest in this through the
years in the Congress, first in the House and now here in the
Senate. I've drafted legislation that would authorize the EPA
and the States to issue so called Good Samaritan permits.
The law would come at the obstacle of the Clean Water Act
liability exposure to those who had no responsibility at a mine
in the beginning stages. But they could then come in and clean
it up without assuming that liability. Would the BLM benefit
from such an approach? Could you be supportive of this
legislative effort?
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, the BLM would not only benefit,
but it's my understanding that they have taken a formal
position of supporting such legislation as far as providing for
Good Samaritan permits. Again, if confirmed I'd be happy to
work with you and the many others to move forward with language
in any type of mining law reform that might come before the
Congress to incorporate such Good Samaritan language in that
bill.
Senator Udall. There's a lot of pent up demand in wanting
to do this work, volunteer groups all over my State. I'm sure
over in Senator Barrasso's State, Senator McCain, Senator
Murkowski. In the Northeast I'm sure there's sites as well. So
I look forward to working with you to make this a reality.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to the ranking member, the
Senator from Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Abbey,
we'll start with you.
Mr. Abbey. Ok.
Senator Murkowski. We, in the State of Alaska, are
celebrating our 50th anniversary of statehood. When we became
State back in 1959, we were promised 104 million acres of land.
Then when the Alaskan natives settled their land claims in
1971, they were additionally promised some 44 million acres of
land.
Thirty-four or 38 years later, for the natives, and 50
years later for the State, we're still waiting on these
conveyances. Fifty-four percent of the State's lands have been
fully transferred. Fifty-seven percent of the native land has
been transferred.
I figured back in 2004 when I came to the Senate that that
was plenty of time----
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. For the Federal Government
to deliver on its promise to our natives and to the State of
Alaska. So I introduced legislation and it was passed, so the
Alaska Land Conveyance Acceleration Act became law.
Unfortunately we haven't had as much support as I would
have liked over these past few years to get the conveyances
complete. We put a deadline of 2009 for completion. I would
like to hear whatever assurances you can give me as to the
administration's interest in pursuing these and finalizing
these conveyances and just give me the commitment that you will
be working with the State of Alaska and Alaska natives to
complete the promises.
Mr. Abbey. That's a great question, Senator Murkowski. I do
understand, due to your legislation that you introduced in 2004
and the Congress passed that is provided the Bureau of Land
Management with much needed additional tools to expedite that
conveyance process. It is also my understanding again, based
upon the information that's been provided to me in preparation
for this hearing, that the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska
has stated that they are on track to meet their commitments by
December 2009.
So if you know of something that's different than that, I
would certainly appreciate hearing about it. I will do
everything that I can, once confirmed, to work with you to make
sure that the Bureau of Land Management focuses the appropriate
attention to resolving these lands actions and move forward
aggressively to meet those commitments.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that statement. What has
happened is that there have been tentative conveyances. But as
you and I know if there remains a cloud, if it is not fully
conveyed you cannot utilize that land whether it's for resource
development or whatever the nature of the use may be.
So in fact if you look at the spreadsheet we have made,
we're still only at 54 percent of the State's lands, 57 percent
of the native lands actually conveyed. These are my statistics,
but I have every reason to believe that these are accurate and
up to date.
We have some issues. I'm sure that the Alaska BLM folks
will be further briefing you, but I would love the opportunity
to discuss with you and your staff here how we might further
encourage the complete conveyances of these lands. I think most
of us would agree that 50 years to complete land conveyance is
plenty of time. But we want to work with you on that.
Let me ask you, Ms. Lewis, within the Department of the
Interior your background as you relate to the committee is
quite extensive. You certainly have some very real management
skills. How do you envision the internal allocation of
resources within the DOI budget? Specifically how you might
prioritize Alaska interests?
You might think well, this is pretty parochial, but 61
percent of the total wilderness within this entire country is
located in Alaska. We've got nearly 40 percent of all the
National Park Service lands that are located in Alaska.
So you'd think that if you're looking at the percentages of
the pie, we would get a greater percentage of DOI budget. But
it turns out that there's just barely a couple percent of DOI
budget that's spent on managing Alaska holdings. The holdings
within DOI are about 210 million acres.
So I'd like to try to understand just a little bit about
what your philosophy might be in budget allocations in the
future?
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Budget and
resource allocation is always a tricky business. I think it
really takes a careful look at not only one piece of a puzzle,
but the entirety of the puzzle to be able to make informed
decisions about how resources should be allocated in terms of
dollars, in terms of people and manpower and so forth.
What I would like to do, if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary is to go in and take a look at our entire budget. How
it is currently allocated. Why it is currently allocated in the
way that it is. Try to come to my own judgment as to how I
think we should best proceed.
I think at this point I'm at a disadvantage to answer that
question in any detail. I wouldn't dare to try to do that
without the necessary factual information. I guess I'm the type
that I like to gather the facts. I like to hear the rationales
for what might be doing and go forward based on an assessment
in that way.
So I would commit, if I'm confirmed, to go into take a hard
look at that in light of what you have said here today. Make a
decision in terms of how the resources both from a budget
perspective and otherwise should be properly allocated.
Senator Murkowski. That's fair. I don't mean to try to set
you up at all. But there is a recognition that when it comes to
the number of people or when it comes to the number of staff
that we have, we just don't measure up.
When you appreciate the extent of the lands that DOI
manages within one State, it almost takes your breath away. So
I put that before you as you do this analysis to just have in
the back of your mind. If we can provide any assistance to you
we're certainly happy to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Let me now
recognize the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, in
two ways. I'm going to hand the gavel to her as I'm called upon
to go preside on the full Senate floor.
So Senator Shaheen will serve as chair as well. But she is
now recognized. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Udall.
However, I will take the gavel. I would actually like to
disclaim having New Hampshire being called the near West.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. Dr. Newell, my first question is for you.
As I'm sure you're aware the energy bill that this committee
passed recently expanded the EIA's role in overseeing the
energy futures market and created a Financial Market Analysis
Office within the EIA. As Administrator you would personally
participate in a working group on energy markets that assesses
the factors driving the price of oil and recommends regulatory
improvements for our energy markets.
I wonder if you have thought yet about the whole issue of
oil speculation and the role that this new office would play
within EIA and that expanded role. How you think that office
could best address concerns that I think many of us have had
about the kind of speculation that, I believe, we saw last year
with respect to oil markets?
Mr. Newell. Thank you, Senator, for that question. This is
an important question because, as you know, increasing energy
prices can have a profound impact on household budgets and can
also pose risks for the U.S. economy and broader global
economies. So this is an issue I think is being taken
seriously.
In terms of the specific legislation that was voted out of
this committee. I've looked at it briefly. I've been briefed
somewhat on it. I don't know all of the details.
In terms of the general issue of whether or not it makes
sense for EIA to have additional capacity to analyze these
issues and help yourselves and the broader public understand
energy price dynamics as it's unfolding. I think that's
absolutely something that EIA should be doing. In terms of the
organizational structure that would be most effective in
achieving that end? I'm not immersed yet in terms of where the
particular pockets of expertise are within the administration.
But I think the most important thing there is having the
right people and the right data to do it. So I would be looking
forward to figuring out exactly what the best way to increase
that capacity would be.
In terms of interagency working group and cooperation I had
a brief conversation with Chairman Gensler at the CFTC which is
another important agency.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Newell. Specifically one that has regulatory
responsibility in terms of overseeing these markets. We've
definitely agree that it's very important for EIA to continue
to work together at the analytical level, at the level of
sharing information to make sure everybody is well informed. So
again, whether or not that requires an official interagency
committee?
Whatever happens we will be working together on that
regardless of whether a bill is passed. So I welcome that.
There's other agencies as well that we'll have to be in close
coordination with.
Senator Shaheen. Do you have thoughts about how to make
that information as transparent as possible? It seems to me
that one of the most important things we can do to avoid the
kind of speculation that we saw last year is to make people
aware of what's going on.
Mr. Newell. Yes. So one of the things that I think I would
pay closer attention to, if confirmed at EIA, is playing a
greater role in interpreting the information that is provided
by EIA as those market dynamics are unfolding. EIA does some of
that. But I think could do more in terms of explaining what
those dynamics are, explaining the roles of, you know, market
fundamentals, supply and demand, changing geo-political
factors.
There's other changes in related commodity markets and
broader trends within financial markets. We were covering the
global economy uncertainty about the rate of United States
economic recovery and the broader global economic recovery. So
I think that EIA has an important role to play in explaining
and helping folks to understand what's happening in these
markets because without that proper understanding it's
difficult to formulate good policy, I would think.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Abbey, I appreciated what you said in your testimony
about the important and often difficult task of engaging
diverse stakeholders and how to deal and how to use public
lands. One of the things that is being looked at is a whole new
transmission system for the country. The designation of how
transmission lines are taken across public lands I think
highlights the challenge that you were talking about.
How would you envision working with other Federal agencies
and stakeholders in addressing transmission citing issues on
public lands?
Mr. Abbey. Senator I know nothing is easy. But it is a
matter of applying a little common sense. The way to do so in
my successes to date, as little as they may have been, has been
based upon bringing in all the stakeholders early into the
process, understanding what the potential conflicts may be, in
this case, along proposed transmission alignments.
Once you have a better understanding of what those
conflicts might be then you have a, at least a chance, of
success to move forward and address the proposals with the best
available information that exists and also with the assurance
that the public has had the benefit of offering their input.
Therefore they have bought into the process.
You know, in response to your direct question. Defining and
locating transmission lines across the public lands, the BLM is
the right organization or the agency to do that, the bureau to
do that. Under the rights of way authority the Bureau of Land
Management has everything that they need to do the proper
planning, the analysis to identify what the potential impacts
are of such transmission lines on the public lands and to come
up with appropriate mitigation to offset or at least somewhat
limit the impacts associated with the building of those
transmission lines.
But again, the fact of the matter is the BLM in concert
with the public and with the industry itself needs to go
forward as quickly as we can. Make some key decisions in the
very near future.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. We have a--ok, good. Great.
Thank you.
I'm going to ask Senator McCain to go next and then turn
the gavel over to Senator Wyden because I also have to leave.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Congratulations and thanks for your willingness to serve in
these very difficult and challenging times. Ms. Lewis, Mr.
Abbey, are you familiar with the Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act that's been before the Congress?
We had a hearing on it on June 17. Are you familiar?
Ms. Lewis. No, Senator. I'm not familiar with it.
Senator McCain. Mr. Abbey.
Mr. Abbey. I'm not familiar with the specifics. I
understand that legislation or at least the proposal has been
introduced.
Senator McCain. Thank you. We did have a hearing. In fact,
Senator Wyden was here. This legislation was first introduced
in 2005.
We've had four hearings in the Senate. Previously both the
BLM and the Forest Service had testified in favor of the
legislation. Then on June 17 they said they needed to study it
some more.
At that time Senator Wyden said he expected to hear from
them within 2 weeks. It's now been 3 weeks. So I think we have
a right to get a response from the administration on that
issue.
I will look forward to your response as quickly as
possible. Until such time then I will not approve of your
nomination moving forward through the committee. So I hope
you'll be able to get those answers to us as quickly as
possible.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden [presiding]. I thank my colleague. Senator
Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to all three of you and to your families.
Welcome to the families.
Ms. Lewis, Mr. Abbey, thank you very much for taking the
time to come and visit with me. I think we had very productive
discussions. I wanted to start by talking about multiple use of
the land because, as you know, the BLM was founded to manage
Federal lands under a multiple use mandate.
The statute requires the agency manage, and I'll quote, ``A
combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes
into account the long-term needs of future generations for
renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not
limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed,
wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and
historical values.'' I mean, that's a lot. But that's what
we've been tasked with.
Those are the challenges that we face. Many of us in the
West feel strongly about the erosion of multiple use over the
years. I'd like to know each of you intends to balance these
competing interests that we're facing when it comes to Federal
lands, if you could.
Ms. Lewis, if you want to go first, then Mr. Abbey, and we
can go back and forth.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Thank you for
taking the time to meet with me as well. You are correct. We
all recognize the great challenge of managing multiple uses of
the nature that you have described, uses that are not only
multiple in their nature, but conflicting in their nature in
many instances.
I think that in terms of managing these multiple uses some
of the most important things that we'll have to do is to
continue to try and continue to try to improve on our efforts
to gather as much information as possible. To listen very
carefully, because there are obviously are a lot of different
concerns that would be brought to the table in the attempt to
make the appropriate balance and strike the appropriate balance
and draw the right lines. So listening is very important.
Gathering the information is very important. I would, if
confirmed, be committed to trying to make those judgments on
the basis of as much information as possible that we can
achieve. These are the types of decisions that in many
instances you can never get full--that you cannot make everyone
happy is the bottom line.
I think as we sit in decisionmaking that we have to try to
make the best judgments we can based on the information we
have. I would pledge to do that, if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate your comment. I'll get to
you in a second, Mr. Abbey. Because I think you hit the key
word when you said, often these are conflicting.
There is some polarization, creating ideological beliefs on
a number of these issues. So it isn't always just getting all
of the information and trying to, you know, balance it. There
are really fundamental differences in the belief of how we
protect the land for future generations and how to best use
multiple use to manage all of these benefits that we've been
tasked with.
So I appreciate your recognition that there are actual
conflicts. That a lot of times it comes down to, you know,
commitment and belief and going back to the fundamental statute
that requires the agency to manage along the lines of balance
that we need.
Ms. Lewis. That's correct, Senator. Let me just add I think
that at the end of the day sometimes there are policy
influences that come into play in making the decisions. We have
to take those into account as well.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, if I could ask you.
Mr. Abbey. Senator, one of the reasons why I stayed with
the Bureau of Land Management for 25 years was because of its
multiple use mandate. I believe the Federal Land Policy
Management Act is one of the best pieces of legislation that's
ever been enacted by Congress. But I'm a little biased along
those lines.
Certainly not every acre managed by the Bureau of Land
Management is appropriate for oil and gas leasing. Not every
acre managed by the Bureau of Land Management is suitable for
wilderness designations. The best place to address multiple use
on public lands is through the very public land use planning
process. So that you can work through the potential conflicts
and come out with the best decisions and giving the opportunity
for the public to play a role in that decision process.
I am a proponent and a strong advocate for multiple use on
public lands. If confirmed, I will continue to be so.
Senator Barrasso. Great. I wanted to ask a little bit when
we visited in the office both of you with me on the
applications for permits to drill. As you know that there is a
huge backlog in getting through the paperwork.
The BLM offices in Wyoming have noticed it, in particular
the one in Buffalo, Wyoming. Applicants currently have to pay
$4,000 for each application, for each application. So it can
become very, very expensive.
Many of these are very small producers. They aren't big
energy companies. It is especially troubling to these
companies, these individuals who do this when they pay that fee
because one is the fee, but also they don't hear back. Often
they're hoping to either get a yes or a no. They just want a
timely response.
Now the administration is proposing raising that fee from
$4,000 to $6,500 without any assurance, any assurance, that
people paying these, even increased fees will receive timely
responses. As we all know the money isn't going to your agency
to help deal with the backlog. It's going into, you know, some
big Washington account. Someplace that's not helping you.
But it does seem that if we're asking these folks, small
business owners around the country, to pay these increasing
fees, that they ought to at least be able to get a timely
response. Then I know you want to both respond and then I'll
run out of time.
Ms. Lewis. Yes, Senator. I understand your concern about
this. I think one of the things that's most frustrating to
citizens is non-responsiveness of government, particularly when
payments are being made.
If I'm confirmed, that's certainly one of the issues that I
would seek to address, responsiveness, efficiency,
effectiveness in our operations are three of the things that I
think are very important. To the extent that we can search for
other ways to be more efficient, I think as an agency we should
always be trying to do that. I will seek to explore those new
avenues if I'm confirmed as Assistant Secretary.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Mr. Abbey.
Mr. Abbey. I certainly think and support what Wilma said.
Having worked in the private sector for the past 4 years as a
consultant, I too, have been frustrated with the lack of timely
responses to questions that have been asked or to applications
that are before the Bureau of Land Management. As I alluded to
in my opening remarks that is going to be one of the priorities
that I will take on, if I'm confirmed as the next BLM Director.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. I want to welcome our
nominees as well. I'm going to have a number of questions in
the forestry area and minerals management area that will take a
bit longer than 5 minutes. So I want to recognize my friend,
Senator Murkowski for her questions at this time.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate that. I just
have one more round for everybody and then I will wrap up.
Mr. Abbey, a question to you. You had a discussion here
with Senator Barrasso about multiple use of public lands, which
is obviously very, very important to us. You may know that this
committee has passed legislation that would allow the Secretary
to establish a competitive leasing program for wind and solar
projects. But the Secretary has to establish first that it is
in the interest.
So the question to you is whether or not you think that
competitive leasing of public lands for solar and wind is in
the public interest. Also, if you can just speak very quickly
to some of the challenges that we are facing in the siting of
what could be very large wind and solar projects or
installations. if they're next to recreational areas or
national parks. If you can just speak to that, please.
Mr. Abbey. I'll try. Senator Murkowski, I understand that
Secretary Salazar is open to further discussion regarding this
little range of options for dealing with the number of
applications for solar projects that are before the Bureau of
Land Management right now including the potential of looking at
some sort of leasing program or competitive program within the
right, under the existing rights of ways authority. So if
confirmed I'd be--I would look forward to working with the
Secretary to come out with at least some recommendations that
could be thoroughly reviewed to determine whether or not we can
become more efficient and receive a better return for the
American taxpayers for the use of their lands for these types
of projects.
As far as challenges that we all face in reviewing and
approving renewable energy projects like solar and wind, the
primary challenge that I see is the large footprints associated
with many of these projects. Whether you're talking about wind
projects or solar projects on public lands, many of the
applications that are before the Bureau today would include
quite a bit of public lands that would be dedicated for that
specific use. So it's important that we would take actions up
front to try and find the best locations on the public lands
that would not only serve the purpose of solar energy proposals
and our wind proposals, but would be on those areas where there
would be fewer conflicts.
If we're successful in dealing with the initial siting
issues then I do believe that we will be more successful in
coming up with appropriate mitigation for any projects that
would be approved.
Senator Murkowski. You have recognized the inherent
conflict in what we're trying to advance. It's certainly
important that we move forward with our renewable energy
projects. Our reality is is that some of the best places to
site these wind and solar installations are on our public
lands. So how you balance that will be a real challenge for
you.
Ms. Lewis, a question for you on royalty relief. When you
were the Inspector General of the Department President Clinton
signed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. In my opinion that
act has certainly been helpful to this country. Its passage led
to tremendous production of American oil and natural gas.
Yet in the FY 2010 budget the administration is seeking to
end royalty relie, even though, in my opinion, that works to
reduce domestic production at a time when I feel very strongly
we need to do all we can to enhance that. Can you tell me
whether or not you support the continuation of royalty relief
or whether you will seek to end the incentive if you confirmed
as Assistant Secretary?
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. At this point I
could not give you an answer on that question. Obviously the
administration has taken a position with respect to that
matter. As of now that is the position of the administration.
Certainly if this matter is one that involves further
discussion and if I'm confirmed and a part of those discussions
certainly I would be voicing my opinion after having been fully
informed as to the----
Senator Murkowski. Would you agree though that passage of
the Royalty Relief Act in 1995 did help to spur domestic
production?
Ms. Lewis. I believe that that is the case, Senator
Murkowski. But I believe we have to look for 1995, I believe is
when you said it was, to the present and make assessments based
on what is the best at this particular time. I am not
sufficiently familiar with all of the considerations that went
into play in making the determination. But if confirmed I
certainly would get up to speed on those issues and have a view
on it.
At this point the administration has taken its position. I
cannot comment further with respect to a personal view on that.
Senator Murkowski. I think many of us feel that it has been
exceptionally useful as a policy in spurring that production.
We would certainly encourage it.
Ms. Lewis. I would be interested, Senator, in certainly
having further conversations with you on it.
Senator Murkowski. Maybe we can do a follow up
conversation. That would be good. I would welcome that. Thank
you.
Then very quickly, one last question to you Mr. Newell. The
EIA has developed this computer model, the NEMS, the National
Energy Modeling System, to help with the forecast of energy
usage and prices. I think it's fair to say that this model is
important for a lot of different reasons.
But as we move forward in the debate over climate change
and energy policy it seems to me that this NEMS model in the
climate change debate could be very critical. I recognize that
as we discuss these issues we've got to make sure that we have
a real understanding in terms of the economic impact. We don't
want to use false assumptions or use models that perhaps are
just not as healthy as we would want when we're talking about
the health of the American economy relying on forecasts that
perhaps might not be entirely accurate.
How much confidence should we have in this model being
accurate? I know that puts you in a situation of trying to look
a little bit into a crystal ball because when it comes to
climate change we're predicting out over four decades. Do we
have the confidence levels in these models that we can
reasonably rely on the numbers that you generate?
Mr. Newell. Thank you. This is a very important question
because as you pointed out the results that come out of the
NEMS model are used widely within the public sector and also in
the private sector for understanding how different policies
will affect the energy markets and broader economy.
Specifically with regard to the role of NEMS and other similar
models and climate policy analysis there's a number of
different types of assumptions and variables that are important
determinates of the results of these models.
One is the assumptions that embody the structure of the
model.
The other are the assumptions that you're making about the
policy that you put into the model. So what is the amount of
offsets under a cap and trade system? A number of other
different policy design variables.
Finally there's different assumptions about how the future
is going to unfold in terms of what do you think natural gas
prices are going to be or what do you think the relative
competitiveness of coal based power relative to nuclear power
is going to be. There's a lot of uncertainties and assumptions
that need to be made. I think one of the most important things
in NEMS, in any model, is being very transparent in what those
assumptions are so everybody can see exactly what the
assumptions are. I think that's very important.
The other, in terms of these, I think these models are/can
be quite useful. I think the way that they're most useful is
understanding how changing the different assumptions both in
terms of policy design and other conditions and how those
influence the results, not necessarily the single estimate of a
core scenario that comes out of a particular modeling exercise.
But looking across the range of different modeling scenarios to
understand what are the key drivers of the results. That's
where I find the results most useful both for NEMS and for
other modeling results that I've looked at.
Senator Murkowski. I think it's going to be very, very
important as we move forward in this debate. Typically what
you'll do is you'll take that model that gives you the number,
the dollar amount, the cost that is most favorable to your
argument. If there is a greater degree of reliability with
whether it's the NEMS model or other models that are coming out
of EIA, again, I think that adds a little bit of truth in
advertising.
But we need to be able to rely to the best extent possible,
recognizing that we are trying to predict an unpredictable
future. Thank you for the indulgence. I thank the nominees for
their time this afternoon and for their willingness to serve.
Mr. Newell. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. Let me join Senator
Murkowski in thanking the three of you. I missed the
introduction of families. But it seems that there's a lot of
pride there in the first row. So we appreciate that.
Let me start with you, Ms. Lewis, if I could. I'm going to
go into the areas that we talked about in my office that I told
you I would get into here this afternoon. As you know the
Interior Department was just riddled with corruption I the last
few years. That was where Jack Abramoff was, Steven Griles,
Julie McDonald, the list just goes on and on.
Of course the Minerals, you know, Management, you know,
Service, was a particular problem. The head of the Minerals,
you know, Management Service, if you're confirmed is going to
be reporting to you. So what I'd like to do is start here with
a sense of what you plan to do to clean up the mess there.
Can you give us some insight into your plans to clean up
the Minerals Management Service which as you know was the
subject of just scathing, you know, audits. You know, audits
about problems with conflicts of employees and sex and money
and you name it, hiring and the like. The list just went on and
on. I mean documented problems.
So give me your sense of what your plans are to go in
there, Minerals Management, and clean it up.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator Wyden. During our
conversation I may have mentioned to you that integrity in
government operations has always been something that I have
been very, very focused on. I think that started not with being
the Inspector General or being the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia but from way back.
I explained in my opening statement that I come from a
family of public servants. The integrity of, you know, the
manner in which they exercised their responsibilities with
integrity was something that I was always very proud of. I
associated public service with integrity.
As Inspector General and as United States Attorney those
positions in particular gave me the opportunity to put into
play what I had long felt about what public service should be
all about and the high standards that public servants should be
held to. I would, if confirmed, come into this position with
those same, deeply held, views. I believe that and it is
certainly no question that there have been a number of issues
and a number of reports on problems over the last several years
at the Department.
I guess I would first want to look to see the extent to
which recommendations that have been made have in fact been
implemented. Examine that. Make sure that those recommendations
are in fact implemented to the fullest degree.
But I think beyond that it's important not only to fix
something on a temporary basis, but to make sure to have
permanent fixes. I think first leading by example is an
important thing.
Second, making sure everyone is clear about the important
responsibilities that we shoulder as public servants. The
awesome nature of the responsibility that it is, the public
trust that we hold. Make sure they understand what that means
in terms of their everyday responsibilities.
The fact that they are there as public servants to make
sure that our programs and operations work the way they should
with integrity, with accountability. Those are the kinds of
things that I would focus on. Making sure that that message is
clear to everyone within the jurisdiction that I am responsible
for.
So my example, making sure that we have clear
understandings of what public service really is about. Making
sure that we have constant training on these issues and making
sure, and I know that the team that would be in place there,
that I hope would be in place, would be people who would
believe these and act them in their everyday responsibilities.
Those are the kinds of things that I would want to do to make
sure that fulfilling the recommendations is not only something
that we do and then turn our backs on. But really keep moving
forward with a service that has integrity and that has
accountability and that we can all be proud of.
Senator Wyden. I very much appreciate your outstanding
background and long history of public service. What I'm trying
to do is get a little bit more in the way of specifics, in
terms of what's going to be done to turn this problem around.
For example, the former Inspector General, Earl Devaney, issued
some scathing reports with respect to what has gone on there.
I mean, for all practical purposes, he said on the royalty
issue that was asked about earlier. MMS adopted a policy
according to the Inspector General that pretty much abandoned
the need to audit oil and gas companies to make sure that they
actually pay royalties. So why don't--my way of trying to get a
bit more in the way of specifics. What was your reaction when
you read these audit reports put out by the former Inspector
General?
Ms. Lewis. Let me just say at the outset that I have not
read all of the reports. But I am aware that there are reports.
I'm aware that the reports clearly indicated that there were
significant problems.
As I stated at the outset, there is one issue in terms of
going in and ensuring that recommendations that were made to
correct those problems have in fact been worked on. You
mentioned policies or practices of the MMS. Certainly we have
to take a look at those policies and practices as we go forward
and make sure that those policies and practices are consistent
with appropriate policies for the government.
If you're asking me about specifics I think before giving
specifics, before identifying what the correction is to the
particular problem, one needs to make sure one understands,
one, what the problem is.
Two, exactly where the Department is or the Bureau is in
rectifying that problem.
Three, what else might need to be done to rectify it.
If I'm confirmed I would go in and do precisely those three
things.
One, make sure I've read all of the reports.
Two, look and see where it is that we are with respect to
addressing the recommendations.
Three, look at what else needs to be done.
Let me say, Senator, if I could. When I was in the running
for the United States Attorney position and I became United
States Attorney, because I have feelings as strongly as I do
about integrity and public service I had decided from before I
went into the office that public corruption would be one of the
highest priorities that I would have. But before I could decide
exactly what needed to be done in that area, I needed to get
into the position and see what the office was doing at the time
with respect to the public corruption issues.
At the end of the day when we looked at the record, we saw
that within the first 3 years convictions on public corruptions
had doubled over the preceding 2 years. That's what I'm saying.
I have a firm belief in what it is to be a public servant and
what we should be doing to ensure integrity. But before I can
sit and say to you that I want to take these three actions or
these four actions. I feel more comfortable getting a clear
indication of exactly where we are at this time.
Then looking to see where we need to go. That's what I
would want to do if I'm confirmed as Assistant Secretary.
Senator Wyden. You have a very fine record, Ms. Lewis, as I
noted in terms of past efforts. My last question simply dealt
with your reaction to the Devaney reports, the GAO reports.
These are very thorough documented case after case.
I think I will expect to ask you the same questions before
not too long again because I really do want to know at least
your reaction to those reports. These are reports that were
widely available. Your point about all the recommendations you
might pursue after you've seen the reports is one thing.
But I do want your reaction to the reports.
Ms. Lewis. Senator, I can say to you right now that based
on what you've read and based on what I have--I am made to
understand, not having read all of the reports. There were
significant problems that weren't covered. My reaction is that
I'm appalled by that. I'm always appalled whenever we have
problems in government service. We uncover that kind of
behavior or a lack of integrity. I'm appalled.
But I think we need to go beyond the fact that I'm
appalled. That what I was trying to respond to is what I would
given the fact that we all would agree that those are the kinds
of significant problems that we don't want to have among our
government employees.
Senator Wyden. Let's move on. I'm going to offer on MMS
issues, Ms. Lewis, some additional questions in writing.
Senator Barrasso and I introduced legislation to make the
MMS position a confirmable position. We'd like to hear your
thoughts again by way of just trying to get some inkling of how
you're going to approach this. I think part of what has
troubled me is that this has gone on for so long.
It's gone on really through two administrations that when
I'm trying to evaluate what's going to happen in the days
ahead. I say to myself, I'm sure impressed with Ms. Lewis'
record of fighting corruption in the past. But I still have an
obligation as a United States Senator to get some kind of sense
of what's going to be done to go in there and as I told
Secretary Salazar to drain the swamp.
So we'll have this conversation some more. I'm going to
want to have your reaction after you've had a chance to get
through those reports.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to chatting
with you more about it. My hope is that after I've had an
opportunity to review what's there that not only would I tell
you, but what you see in terms of the result will make you more
comfortable.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Let's move on to a bit of
forestry activity. We can get you a bit involved in this
discussion, Mr. Abbey.
As you know the Bureau of Land Management manages a lot of
our land in the State of Oregon. They're responsible for two
million acres of really extraordinary, you know, forests in the
western part of the State. Those are the lands known as O and C
lands.
They are important for old growth, clean water and of
course they're critically important for the sharing of revenue
with local county government. Now the agency under the last
administration underwent a large planning effort for what was
known as the Western Oregon Lands Program, the whopper program.
Suffice it to say this has generated a great deal of
controversy.
At this point there are legal challenges from both the
timber industry and from environmental groups and the
administration has already made it clear it's looking at
various options for dealing with this. Now I thought it was
very constructive that the Department sent officials out to
Oregon recently to look at the issue first hand. I spoke with
Secretary Strickland about it.
I was wary as I've indicated to both Secretary Salazar and
Secretary Strickland about meddling in the last administration,
really political meddling. I'm very much concerned that we now
have the future decisions based on sound science. But also a
decision that incorporates the importance of O and C lands
which have been so vital to Oregon's past and frankly our
opportunities for the future.
Fairly shortly I plan to introduce legislation to move
forest management on Federal lands in Oregon beyond a lot of
these old conflicts. This is of urgent priority given
unemployment in our State, a backlog of forests that need
management. The land management agencies, you know, tied in
knots. We've got to find a way to go forward.
So give me some insight about how you're going to promote
new management approaches that are going to give a chance to
break the gridlock and find this path forward for forest
management.
Mr. Abbey. Wow. Senator, that's an excellent question. I am
aware of the significance of those forest lands in Oregon. I
understand how important they are to the economies of that
State as well as the entire Pacific Northwest.
I have not had an opportunity to review those existing
plans that are in place or those proposed plans in place. So I
really don't know the quality of the decisions that came out of
those plans. I am aware of the litigation that has been filed
by really both sides of the issue. Those that would like to see
more timber harvested and those that would like to see less
timber harvested.
If we're to be successful in moving forward with new ideas
and maybe a different strategy in managing these lands we have
to use the land use planning process to do so. Now one of the
maybe deficiencies that we've had in the past is not
necessarily looking at the full range of alternatives as part
of the land use planning process. That we have limited the
number of alternatives to just a few so that we can work
through the land use planning process and reach conclusions or
decisions that we can then move forward and implement.
To address your issues to address the different ideas that
are starting to surface regarding how these lands should be
managed. It may behoove all of us to start looking outside of
the box and looking at a full range of options that could be
considered and should be considered as part of the land use
process, our land use planning process. So the only thing that
I would share with you today without the full range of
knowledge of what has been done in the past or the quality of
the plans that are currently in place is a commitment to you to
work with the various constituencies out there, with your
office and others to identify what are the true issues.
Then to work toward resolution of those issues through the
various management prescriptions that would come out of the
land use planning process.
Senator Wyden. Tell me if you have any thoughts about fresh
approaches to streamline the process for these forest health
projects. Let me tell you what I'm thinking about. Let's see
your reactions along the lines of what we talked about as well
in the office, you and Ms. Lewis.
I think the American people expect to have the legal right
to pursue through the court process a difference of opinion
with respect to forestry policy. I mean, I don't think that
should translate into a constitutional right for 5-year appeals
to just go on and on and on. So what we're going to be trying
to do is find a place in between.
In doing so I think it's a pretty sure bet we're going to
get beat up by both sides on that as well. Because there are
people who will think that that is too much, that people will
think it's not enough. But I think that is the kind of specific
thinking that's going to be needed to streamline the process on
some of these forest health projects.
What's your reaction to that? Do you have any ideas of your
own for streamlining the process?
Mr. Abbey. You know, first, I guess my philosophy is that
we should not be fearful of litigation. It is certainly
problematic as far as holding up final decisions and therefore
actions on these public lands. But my advice and counsel to the
BLM employees that if confirmed I will be working with, would
be to go forward taking the best available information. To make
decisions, make good decisions, based upon that information
without being fearful of who might sue the agency.
I think, you know, what I have seen occur over the past 10
years, if not longer, is this fear of being sued. Therefore
people are reluctant to take any action at all. Therefore some
of the decisions that could be made more timely are set aside
and it takes us or it takes the agency a heck of a lot longer
than maybe it should in order to issue those decisions.
So again, the only fresh idea I could bring to the table
and to present to you today is the fact is that we were hired
to do a job. We have the ability to do the job. We need to do
the job. Then we let the chips fall where they may.
Senator Wyden. With respect to going forward. I plan to
offer this legislation pretty soon. Can I have a pledge from
you today to get back to us quickly and to work in a
cooperative kind of fashion?
Mr. Abbey. Senator, you have my pledge to work with you if
I'm confirmed on all issues, but this is certainly an issue of
importance. I would be happy to give you my personal time on
this.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask you a timber contract question as
well. I noted the fact that we've just been clobbered in rural
areas with the economic decline. Unemployment rate at 12.4
percent. Construction market decline is devastated. Forest
products.
This is the case in a whole host of western States. You've
got family owned sawmills and logging, you know, contracts
being forced to make financial decisions that can result in
bankruptcies, defaults on BLM, timber sale contracts. In effect
they're no longer economically viable. People are just
defaulting.
So a number of weeks ago Senators Baucus and Tester and
Merkley and I along with a number of House members from Oregon
and Montana sent a letter to the Secretary requesting a 3-year
contract extension for the BLM timber sale purchasers they can
get through these kind of times until the economy gets better.
There's precedent for this. This is a matter that our
delegations from Oregon and Washington feel very strongly
about.
Now if it hasn't been resolved before your confirmation can
we have your assurance today that you'll help Senator Baucus
and I and the other members of the delegation get an answer
before, in effect, we lose these sawmills and loggers?
Mr. Abbey. Do you know the expiration dates of that, sir?
Senator Wyden. We sent, in terms of the expiration dates--
--
Mr. Abbey. Of the contracts?
Senator Wyden. I will get all of that to you.
Mr. Abbey. Ok.
Senator Wyden. But, I mean, they are at really the point
now if they don't get some relief, of going under. In other
words the conditions are so serious that when we wrote that
June 17 letter they conveyed to us they aren't going to make it
unless they get a quick response. There is precedent for this.
Unfortunately BLM timber sale purchasers, thus far, have
been discussions in the past about relief. So they are looking
at a whole host of defaults and 6 figure, you know, losses. I
think a lot of the, you know, timber sales are scheduled to
terminate later, you know, this year, early next year.
But the point is they need an answer, quickly. That's why
we asked for a fast response from the administration.
Mr. Abbey. Senator, again, I've not seen that letter. But I
assure you that if confirmed and if that decision has not
already been made by the Secretary that I will work with him
and many others within the Department to issue you a decision
and to work with your office on that.
Senator Wyden. Ok. One last one on forestry. Of course, Ms.
Lewis, if you want to add anything on forestry as well, you're
welcome to do that.
Biomass. We have had a great deal of difficulty getting
biomass treated as the extraordinary opportunity it presents
for the West. It's an opportunity to create good paying jobs
that take this wood waste and get it to the mills. It's
merchantable, you know, timber.
It's a clean source of energy. It will reduce the risk of
fire. Certainly it's a plus in terms of climate change.
We have been trying to, particularly get it treated as a
priority for this administration. It's going to mean we're
going to have to have some new policies in order to get it off
Federal land. You'll have a chance right now to speak to
Westerners about the importance of this issue, if you will, so
state.
Because this is what I get asked throughout rural Oregon,
is are we going to be able to get through to the new
administration about the priority to get biomass from Federal
lands, to make this a priority. It makes sense for jobs. It
makes sense for the environment. It makes sense for reducing
the risk of fire.
We're looking for some leadership that is going to push
through the red tape and bureaucracy. Make it possible for us
to get something that is of extraordinary benefit, I think, to
the rural West, but also to the country.
Mr. Abbey. Senator, I know oftentimes when we talk about
renewable energy and the need to increase renewable energy that
our statements fail to include biomass. I'm a proponent of
using biomass as part of our renewable energy portfolio and as
part of our national energy portfolio. I know the Forest
Service has been supportive of increasing biomass as a source
for renewable energy and the States of Washington as well as
Oregon.
I have read statements recently that were given by either
the regional forester or the Forest Service Supervisor in one
of the forests there in Oregon supporting such a concept. What
I would offer to you today, if confirmed, that I would be happy
to work with your office to ensure that the Bureau of Land
Management's renewable energy program consists of a component
of biomass as part of a viable source for renewable energy.
Senator Wyden. I just hope that this will be approached
with a real sense of urgency because it has not been in the
past. Westerners have been trying to get the attention of the
past administration, you know, on this. We've had a lot of
difficulty, particularly in terms of getting access to biomass
that comes from Federal lands.
I would just ask that you not miss this kind of opportunity
for a bold change in Federal forestry policy. It's going to pay
off the economy. It's going to pay off for the environment. I
can just assure you there will not be an appearance you make
before this committee that I won't be asking you about biomass.
Mr. Abbey. I appreciate that advice and warning. Senator, I
would just add one thing. The Bureau of Land Management does
have sufficient tools to move forward and make available
biomass under the stewardship contracting program.
If it's not being used than I will find out why it's not
being used. But there are existing authorities and tools
available to the agency to make such a source of renewable
energy accessible to the public.
Senator Wyden. If you were standing up in front of a town
hall meeting in rural Oregon and you said that. They'd say
better go out and use them quick because we're not seeing much
of it out our way. We will talk further about it.
Let me ask a few questions for you, Mr. Newell. The EIA has
long said that the skyrocketing energy prices could be
explained by market fundamentals. Now in the past year the
country has seen the price of oil go to $145 a barrel with no
significant increase in demand, no major supply disruption and
inventories at or above the normal levels.
Then when the markets crashed last fall, the price of oil
dropped to a low of $34 a barrel. Now in the middle of a very
painful set of economic times the price has started back up,
the physical inventories, oil that literally sits in the
storage tanks is at a record high. So you look at this and the
wild price swings and the inventory levels. Pretty hard to say
that this is just something explained by garden variety market
conditions.
So a number of experts, the new chairman of the CFTC says
that speculative investors are at least partly to blame for the
high prices and this increased market volatility. If you're
confirmed is there going to be a chance to get the agency's
head out from under the barrel and take a new look at the role
of energy speculators and commodity markets and the role they
play in energy prices?
Mr. Newell. Yes, Senator. I think as you've described
there's a very wide variety of factors that are impinging on
oil and related energy markets over the last year or so. It's
certainly not a simple set of dynamics that's unfolded. I would
definitely agree with that.
There's both--one issue is in terms of what some people
would classify as fundamentals verses, you know, the wide
variety of factors. There's clearly issues of uncertainty over
what consumers' response will be to prices. There's uncertainty
about what the near term availability of supply is.
There's uncertainty about the risk of global oil
disruptions around the world. There's changes in related
commodity market prices. There's the broader financial market
which has gone through some very dramatic swings over the last
year which itself showed significant excesses which have been
working their way out. There's the broader economy both in the
United States and abroad which has gone through dramatic swings
over the last year which we weren't even a year ago, seeing
what that would be.
So all of these factors in addition to the forward looking
nature of this because oil is a storable commodity, you can
store it in tanks and you can store it in the ground by never
taking it out of the ground. So there's a forward looking
element to this. I think there is again, there's uncertainty
about how fast the United States economy is going to come out
of the current economic downturn as well as how fast, fast
growing Asian economies are going to come out of it.
So all these dynamics are entering into the oil markets.
You know, CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, has
an important regulatory role to play in this in terms of
determining and ensuring that there is both market transparency
and that there's market efficiency there. EIA, which if
confirmed I would see that our important role which is
providing the best analysis and information in order to provide
the, you know, the best information for to inform these market
prices. I would ensure that we do that.
Senator Wyden. That wasn't the question, Mr. Newell. The
question is are you going to take a different approach than
your predecessors? That's really a yes or a no question.
Mr. Newell. Yes.
Senator Wyden. Are you going to look at speculators?
Mr. Newell. Yes. I think that the key way in which we would
take a different approach and which I think that EIA could do a
better job on is explaining more thoroughly what are the many
factors that are leading to these very significant energy price
changes. I think a much better job can be done on that.
Senator Wyden. Are you going to look at speculators?
Mr. Newell. Certainly EIA, if one wants to understand
what's driving these energy prices, one needs to look at a lot
of different factors. Speculators is one of them. I mean----
Senator Wyden. I couldn't really get your predecessors to
look at speculators. What I want to know because I think this
is an administration with huge opportunities in the energy
field whether they're going to take a different approach. I
believe you said, yes which I liked.
Now I hope that you'll say that that yes, by way of a
different approach will incorporate a look at speculators. Is
there a yes to that one too?
Mr. Newell. There's absolutely a yes in that one.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Let's quit while we're ahead.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Ms. Lewis, Mr. Newell, Mr. Abbey, we can
give you the last word. Would any of you three like to add
anything? Ms. Lewis?
Any? Any? You're not required to, this is just I always
like when witnesses come to give them the last word.
Ms. Lewis. Thank you, Senator.
I would just say that if I'm confirmed I would look forward
to working with you and your staff and the rest of the
committee on a variety of issues. There are lots of tough
issues that we'll be facing. But I look forward to the
challenge. I would look forward to the challenge, if confirmed
to tackling those tough issues and exercising the best judgment
that I can on those various issues.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Anything by way of wrap up from
you, Mr. Newell, Mr. Abbey?
Mr. Newell. I'll just quickly say thank you very much for
this opportunity. I appreciate all the questions. I look
forward, if confirmed, to increasing EIA's both information
base and analytic capacity on the wide range of issues that
have been brought up today.
Mr. Abbey. The only thing I would add, Senator is that
these Bureau of Land Management managed public lands are
national assets. It would be a privilege to serve our country
as the BLM Director.
Senator Wyden. A good note to end on. Thank you all for
your willingness to serve. With that the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
The United States Virgin Islands,
Office of the Governor, Government House,
Charlotte Amalie, V.I., July 27, 2009.
Hon. Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, I am writing
to give my strongest support for the nomination of Wilma A. Lewis to
the position of Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and
Minerals Management.
Ms. Lewis is an outstanding individual who has devoted much of her
professional legal career to leadership positions in public service. A
noted lawyer from a distinguished Virgin Islands family, Ms. Lewis was
valedictorian of her high school class on St. Thomas, a Phi Beta Kappa
graduate of Swarthmore College, and received her Juris Doctor degree
from Harvard Law School. Her professional career includes outstanding
service as Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of the Interior,
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and partner in a
distinguished law firm in the nation's capital. She has also served as
adjunct professor at the George Washington University National Law
Center. Ms. Lewis exemplifies the accomplishments that we hold up to
our young people as indicative of what a good education, a consistent
work ethic and contribution in public service can make possible.
Indeed, through her professional service in the public and private
sectors, Ms. Lewis has demonstrated the experience, dedication and
leadership necessary for success as Assistant Secretary of the
Interior.
I have personally known Ms. Lewis for many years. She has the
highest standards of ethics and moral character, and she has my
unqualified endorsement for this import position in the service of our
country.
Very truly yours,
John P. de Jongh, Jr.,
Governor.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Robert V. Abbey to Questions From Senator Murkowski
experience
Question 1. You spent a long time as Nevada State director of the
Bureau of Land Management. I would like you to tell us the three things
that you did to address each of the issues listed below; what worked
and what didn't work; and which of the lessons that you learned from
those experiences you will use to improve BLM land management
nationwide if confirmed:
a. wildland fire
Answer. Prior to the 1999 fire season in Nevada, the BLM had placed
primary emphasis on fire suppression strategies and implementation.
Equipment purchase, employee recruitment and training, and crew
deployment to wildfires were actions routinely managed by the BLM. This
all changed after the 1999 fire season when almost 1.7 million acres of
land in the Great Basin burned in less than two weeks. A series of
lightning storms, most of them with little or no moisture, ignited
hundreds of rangeland and forest fires in Nevada. Suppressing the fires
was one challenge. The other, and more formidable problem, was
preventing much of the burned land from being overwhelmed by annual
grasses and noxious weeds.
Before the fires were controlled, I requested that a team of
resource specialists be assembled to review the consequences of the
large number of fires and to provide me and others with recommendations
relating to the rehabilitation of burned areas as well as the actions
that might be needed to reduce the severity of future wildfires in
Nevada. This meeting of resource specialists in Boise was the beginning
of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI). The GBRI recognizes
that traditional means of fighting invasive species and restoring
native habitat are not enough to reverse the downward spiral of
ecological health in the Great Basin. In addition; we found that close
coordination with key individuals, local government and agencies, and
organizations is vital to successful restoration. The GBRI is intended
to restore some areas of high resource values, reduce impacts to other
areas from annual grasses and noxious weed invasion, and reverse the
destructive cycle of wildfire and weeds.
In both 1999 and 2000, I worked with the Governor of Nevada to plan
for and implement statewide fire conferences to discuss among many
topics, the role of individuals in helping to reduce the threat of
wildfire on private property. This discussion led to the creation of
Nevada fire safe councils which are now operating throughout the State.
These councils are made up of volunteers from homeowner associations
and other nonprofit groups who help communicate and demonstrate best
management practices for homeowners residing in rural-urban interface
areas.
Reducing the impact of wildfire on public land was a high priority
of mine as the BLM's Nevada State Director and many of the initiatives
we introduced in Nevada were adopted for western wide implementation.
While taking pride in this fact, I take greater pride in the emphasis
we consistently applied to firefighter safety, a program area where I
will continue to place high priority, if confirmed as the BLM Director.
b. ATVs and ORVs
Answer. The burgeoning use of off-road vehicles on public lands is
one of the greatest challenges facing land managers today. Such use is
increasing at a rapid rate and all land management agencies are
witnessing impacts to important wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and
cultural sites. These impacts are often times cited by certain interest
groups in petitioning the Fish and Wildlife Service for the listing of
specific plant and animal species as endangered.
To address this challenge, I routinely met with organized off-
highway vehicle (OHV) groups to solicit their input and assistance when
I was the BLM's Nevada State Director. I understand the importance of
routine communications with public land stakeholders and the need for
partnerships when managing this use. Officers from national and
regional OHV groups were invited to speak with BLM line management
personnel in Nevada at a special leadership team meeting I convened so
we could formulate a joint strategy for OHV management on public land
in Nevada. Since the BLM averages one recreation planner and one law
enforcement ranger for each million acres managed, I knew it was almost
impossible for the BLM to be effective in managing for this activity
without ``buy-in'' from recreationists.
As State Director, offices in Nevada were completing travel
management plans as an integral component of each land use plan.
Attention was given to providing appropriate protection to areas with
sensitive natural and cultural resources while allowing for continued
opportunities for OHV use on the public land. I worked with members of
the Nevada Congressional delegation to include language in the Lincoln
County Lands Act that designated an official OHV trail in that county
and which also designated funds from land sale revenues for the
planning and management of that trail.
As the BLM's Nevada State Director, it was my practice to work with
OHV user groups and to encourage responsible behavior. If confirmed as
the BLM Director, I would continue to be an advocate for increasing the
public's awareness about the impacts and consequences of irresponsible
use on public land. I know the BLM will never have sufficient funds to
rehabilitate for impacts which could be easily avoided in the first
place. The agency must complete travel management plans as quickly as
possible as part of its public planning process. Once completed and
decisions are made, the BLM must work in partnership with local and
State governmental entities to implement actions consistent with these
plans, including enforcement to ensure compliance with management
decisions.
While concerned about increasing OHV use on public lands and the
damage caused by some individuals, I am cognizant of the need to
provide for appropriate and adequate motorized access on public lands
so that people can continue to travel the back country as part of their
recreation experience.
c. wild horses and burros
Answer. Nevada is home to the largest wild horse population in the
United States. When I became the BLM State Director in Nevada,
populations exceeded 22,000 and nearly half of the appropriate
management levels had not been established. Working with diverse
interests in the State and with support from the BLM's Washington
Office, we established appropriate management levels on all but one
herd management area in Nevada. Before I retired in 2005, we had
reduced populations to about 14,700 animals, nearly achieving Nevada's
appropriate management levels at the time of about 14,000.
As State Director, I worked with the State of Nevada Commission on
Wild Horses and with volunteer groups to increase the number of
adoptions for wild horses that were being removed from public lands. I
entered into a cooperative agreement with the State of Nevada Prison
System that used prisoners to gentle and train mustangs which increased
the horses' chance of being adopted. The BLM hosted adoptions in
communities, bringing wild horses closer to the people who had an
interest in providing homes for these horses. Prior to my arrival as
State Director in Nevada, the BLM rarely, if ever, scheduled adoptions
within that State. While state director and at my suggestion, we used a
national cable television station to broadcast adoptions for wild
horses being held in a federal holding facility outside of Reno,
Nevada. Under this program, people from anywhere in the United States,
deemed qualified, could adopt wild horses from videos shown on the
network. Exposure on national television helped increase people's
understanding of the plight of wild horses and provided a convenient
way to adopt a living legend. Finally, as State Director, I supported
the passage of State legislation that created a State wild horse
foundation intended to help find good homes for wild horses in Nevada.
Once the foundation was established locally, I led the effort to expand
the scope of the foundation to provide national assistance.
During my 25-year career with the Bureau of Land Management, I
gained a great deal of experience from working in this program. There
are no easy answers given the likelihood that numbers of horses and
burros on the range will continue to exceed the ability of the range to
support them. If confirmed as Director of the BLM, I would work to take
aggressive steps to reduce the percent of annual population growth
within the wild horse herds. This is a critical first step as we
attempt to bring the populations in line with the ability to find good
homes for the excess horses and burros that are removed from public
lands.
If confirmed, I would work with others to identify alternatives for
addressing the large number of horses now being held in long-term
holding facilities at significant costs to the taxpayer. While willing
to review all options, it is possible this review could find that long-
term holding facilities are still needed. If true, I will work with
members of Congress to find ways to improve efficiencies within the
program to offset the costs of holding wild horses over the long term.
d. grazing
Answer. As the BLM's Nevada State director, I had an excellent
working relationship with the State's livestock industry. This
relationship withstood actions that I took to bring individuals into
full compliance with laws and policies governing livestock grazing on
public lands. My nomination for the BLM Director position has been
endorsed by the livestock industry in many of the western States.
As State Director, I made difficult decisions regarding enforcement
actions against ranchers who were operating on public lands without
authorization. Impoundments were used to remove livestock from public
lands but only after BLM officials communicated with those operating
illegally and after giving these individuals the opportunity to remove
their livestock first. I worked closely with the U.S. Attorney's office
in Nevada to ensure coordinated approaches for our enforcement action.
While controversial at times, we brought consistency to the grazing
program in Nevada and earned the respect of many of the ranchers who
were fully complying with all BLM grazing policies.
As State Director, I ensured that grazing interests were
represented on each of the three Resource Advisory Councils we had in
Nevada. I participated at annual livestock conferences and attended
numerous other meetings with grazing interests. The BLM worked
cooperatively with permittees to prepare grazing plans in Nevada and we
encouraged permittee's participation in the joint monitoring of
rangeland conditions.
If confirmed, I would work to maintain and improve working
relationships with public land stakeholders, including the BLM's
grazing permittees. I know that most ranchers are good stewards of
public land and many of the range improvements they construct on public
land also benefit wildlife and wild horses in the same area. I know
that ranchers often times serve as first responders to accidents on
public land and they provide assistance to recreationists who get lost
or whose vehicles break down.
As State Director, we developed and implemented a Wildfire Support
Group, consisting of ranchers living in remote locations who we trained
as initial attack crew members for wildland fire. In some cases, this
group helped keep wild fires from spreading until BLM fire crews could
respond. If confirmed as the BLM director, I will explore the
possibility and feasibility of expanding this program to other areas in
the west based on experiences the BLM has gained in Nevada.
e. mining
Answer. As the BLM's Nevada State Director, I had the
responsibility for providing direct oversight of the largest mining
program administered by the BLM. Nevada's gold production by itself
makes it the fourth largest producer of gold in the world. The BLM's
Nevada State office records almost half, if not more, of all the mining
claims filed on public lands in the United States. While these are
impressive statistics, I note that Nevada also leads the west in
abandoned mine lands requiring remediation. Through partnerships with
the State of Nevada, the Nevada Mining Association, and with a number
of citizen volunteers, progress was made during my tenure in mitigating
risks associated with many of these mine sites.
During my time as the BLM Nevada State Director, we witnessed an
increased number of mining proposals on public land requiring
environmental analysis and consultation with Native Americans. We
worked closely with tribal representatives, EPA, and the State of
Nevada on all permitting activities, including the requirement for
adequate reclamation bonding and mitigation. Many of our decisions
relating to these proposals were appealed or litigated. Since our BLM
offices had worked diligently to incorporate best management practices
and mitigation in all mining decisions, few, if any, of these decisions
were overturned.
I am a firm proponent for the BLM's multiple use mandate and I
believe that appropriate public land, but not all public lands, should
continue to be accessible for mineral extraction.
f. geothermal
Answer. During my tenure as the BLM State Director in Nevada, our
office led the BLM in issuing the largest number of geothermal leases
in the west. Our success was based on our knowledge of the importance
of the available resource and the likely role geothermal might play in
diversifying our energy portfolio. We developed a close working
relationship with industry as we attempted to better understand their
technology and resource needs. We worked closely with state officials
to create efficiencies in the permitting processes as we attempted to
avoid duplication and expense. Under my leadership, the BLM in Nevada
moved aggressively in offering suitable parcels for geothermal leases
and in reviewing applications for new rights of way for proposed new
transmission lines to support potential geothermal production. Once
parcels were leased, we gave high priority to reviewing applications
for permits to drill that we received from the lessee. If confirmed as
the BLM director, I would work with all BLM offices to expedite the
leasing and permitting activities, consistent with land use planning
decisions.
g. renewable energy including solar and wind
Answer. I served as the BLM Nevada state director from 1997 through
2005. During this time, there were few renewable energy proposals on
public land in Nevada. The exception was geothermal where we had an
active leasing program. We did have some interest from industry to
perform testing on public lands for possible wind projects. We reviewed
each of these proposals and we issued decisions based on the merit of
the proposed action and consistency with land use planning.
BLM has the legal authorities required to meet most of the public's
demands and expectations for increasing the use of renewable energy as
we protect the environment and reduce our nation's dependency on
foreign oil. I cannot think of a better gift to the American people or
to future generations than meeting these goals. If confirmed, I pledge
to work cooperatively with all parties in an effort to address the
current backlog in processing applications for renewable energy
proposals and related transmission corridors. I also pledge that we
will use the best available information in an attempt to reduce
potential conflicts and protect sensitive natural and cultural
resources.
establishment of wilderness areas
Question 2. In 1997 you testified at an oversight field hearing on
BLM and US Forest Service oil and gas regulations regarding access and
permitting issues in Colorado. In response to a question from Rep.
Barbara Cubin, you stated the following:
Mr. ABBEY. ``The CEC's recommendation is basically--and how
we're managing those is based upon guidance that was issued in
1994 by Assistant Secretary Bob Armstrong, which basically told
BLM offices to pay careful and particular attention to
development proposal that could limit Congress's ability to
designate certain BLM areas as wilderness, even though these
areas are not designated formally as wilderness study areas. So
you're absolutely correct. That is not addressed by law. That
is their own policy. Our inventory which we are conducting
right now provides for a second look to ensure that the
information regarding the presence or absence of wilderness
characteristics in Colorado is entirely current and accurate.
The inventory also will serve the public interest because the
results are going to be made public, and if any land management
recommendations or decisions are made in the future regarding
changing the way we're managing those CEC-proposed areas, then
such actions will be subject to full public participation, in
following the language of the planning process that we have in
place. So that is, in fact, an internal policy.''
On May 20th of this year, Secretary Salazar sent to Senator Bennett
of Utah a letter related to questions that Senator Bennett had asked
about Wilderness Study Areas, the establishment of new Wilderness Study
Areas, and the embargo on the BLM's ability to establish new Wilderness
Study areas since October 21, 1993. The following is one of the
questions and answers included Secretary Salazar's letter to Senator
Bennett:
Do you agree that the Department's authority to establish new
Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of the FLPMA expired
no later than October 21, 1993?
Answer. Yes. Section 603 of FLPMA required the Secretary to
conduct a review of roadless areas of public lands of at least
five thousand acres and report his recommendations about the
suitability or unsuitability of each area for preservation as
wilderness to the President, who in turn was to make
recommendations to Congress. Areas deemed suitable for
preservation as wilderness through the process are called
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Section 603 specified that the
Secretary's review and recommendation were to occur within
fifteen years of FLPMA's enactment in 1976. The President then
had two years to advise Congress of his recommendations for
areas to be designated as wilderness. This means that all of
the requirements of Section 603 were to be completed seventeen
years after FLPMA's enactment, or by October 21, 1993, at which
time the authority expired.
Do you agree with Secretary Salazar's answers to Senator Bennett's
question?
If Yes--
a. In 1997 you testified that the BLM and CEQ had an internal
policy that was in direct conflict with the May 20th letter from
Secretary Salazar's letter to Senator Bennett. Which controls your
policy now, Mr. Abbey, your testimony in 1997 or Secretary Salazar's
letter to Senator Bennett in May 2009?
Answer. I have read Secretary Salazar's response to Senator Bennett
and I agree with the Secretary's statement.
I am not entirely sure that my testimony in 1997 is in direct
conflict with Secretary Salazar's letter to Senator Bennett. It has
been a long time since I reviewed the materials associated with that
hearing. I agree with Secretary Salazar that the Department's authority
to establish new Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of FLPMA
expired no later than October 21, 1993.
b. If confirmed, are you willing to commit to carry out the
directorship of the BLM in strict adherence of Secretary Salazar's
answers to Senator Bennett in his May 20th letter to the Senator.
Answer. If confirmed I would follow the Secretary's policy on this
matter.
peer
Question 3. On the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) website you are listed under ``Rangers for
Responsible Recreation''. Further you are quoted as saying: ``The
irresponsible use of off-road vehicles on our public lands is one of
the greatest challenges facing land mangers today. There appears to be
a total disregard by many off-roaders of the impacts from their
actions. The public land mangers have no other option than to close
more of these lands to off-road vehicle use unless off-roaders begin
exercising responsibility and better judgment.''
a. What is your current and past relationship with PEER? Have you
ever served on its board or been an officer at either the local, State,
or national office of this organization?
Answer. I have no direct relationship with PEER nor have I ever
served on its board or as an officer at the local, state, or national
office of this organization.
In late 2005 or early 2006, I did agree to lend my name and to
contribute a statement as part of an organization calling itself
``Rangers for Responsible Recreation.'' When I agreed to this request I
was not aware that this new organization, made up of former land
management personnel, was being financed by PEER. If I had known this
fact, I still would have supported the Rangers' efforts to share common
concerns with the public about the increasing impacts from
irresponsible users on the public land. I believe it is important to
communicate accurate and relevant information with public land
stakeholders. We are experiencing problems on public lands at both the
State and Federal levels from irresponsible use of off-highway
vehicles. If such behavior continues, there will be management
consequences and there will likely be an increasing amount of public
land closed to off-highway vehicles as a result of administrative
actions or court orders.
b. If confirmed will you agree to recuse yourself from any meetings
with PEER or AFSEE or other sister group of PEER?
Answer. I do not see a need to recuse myself from any meetings with
PEER, AFSEE, or other sister groups of PEER. However, I will be happy
to consult with ethics officers in the Department of the Interior and I
will follow their recommendations pertaining to this matter.
limitations to federal court jurisdiction
Question 4. In 2003 during a House Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources you had an exchange with Representative Chris Cannon
concerning appeals and litigation and the exemption for NEPA--appeals
and litigation that Senator Daschle got inserted in an Omnibus
Emergency Supplemental bill in 2002. At that time you indicated that
you were aware of Senator Daschle's language and in fact gave the
following answer to a question from Representative Cannon:
Mr. Cannon. ``You're aware that Senator Daschle asserted in,
I guess it was last year's Omnibus Bill a few years ago, a
limitation on Federal court jurisdiction over appeals of
decisions made in the Black Hills Forest? Are you familiar with
that?
Mr. Abbey. ``Yes sir.''
Mr. Cannon. ``Is that something we need to do more broadly in
America?"
Mr. Abbey. ``I would certainly support--and I'm speaking for
myself--I could certainly support such an action by Congress.''
If confirmed, would you still support such an action by Congress?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Answer. I am aware that the BLM frequently faces litigation
challenges to its land and resource management decisions. I am also
aware that each branch of our government serves its respective purpose.
As I testified at the confirmation hearing, if confirmed, I would
encourage the BLM employees and managers to make decisions based on the
best science and on their professional experience and expertise. I
would strongly encourage them to not let fear of potential litigation
sway their decisions on difficult resource management issues. If
confirmed, I would reinforce the message to BLM employees and managers
that their application of the land use planning process, with its
formal role for public input, is the most effective way for the BLM to
ensure the decisions reached are defensible should litigation ensue.
land designations and water rights
Question 5. On July 30, 2002, you testified to this committee on S.
2612, the Clark County Conservation and Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002, and in response to a question from Senator Ron
Wyden said the following:
Senator Wyden: ``Mr. Abbey on S. 2612, let's go first to the
question of water rights. Previous laws designating wilderness
areas in Nevada have either expressly reserved the water right,
or in the case of Black Rock Desert Wilderness enacted last
Congress, were essentially silent on the issue. Why is it
appropriate to ignore the wishes of the Nevada delegation on
this and create yet another standard?
Mr. Abbey: ``Well, Senator Wyden, it is the position of the
Department that we believe that this legislation should not
construe or be construed to constitute either an expressed or
implied reservation of any water rights. And again we would,
you know, we would be the advocate for that position being
accepted by the members of this committee.''
If confirmed, will you continue to support the position you
articulated to Senator Wyden in 2002?
Answer. In general, I continue to support the position I took on S.
2612 in my response to Senator Wyden's question in 2002. However, I am
also aware that individual wilderness bills treat the question of water
rights in unique ways. If confirmed, my position on individual pieces
of legislation would reflect the specific circumstances involving each
bill.
wilderness designations
Question 6. At that same hearing, in response to the following
question from Senator Wyden, you gave the following response:
Senator Wyden. ``Now with respect to wilderness issues, here
we are talking about release language, and the release language
in S. 2612 differs from that used in previous BLM wilderness
bills. You recommend incorporating manage language that is
``widely understood and accepted.'' Do you all have any
concerns with the standard wilderness study area release
language?"
Mr. Abbey. ``We would not.''
If confirmed will you continue to support the standard wilderness
study area release language discussed in the 2002 hearing?
Answer. Only Congress has the express authority to designate
wilderness, and to release land indentified under FLPMA Section 603 as
Wilderness Study Areas. If confirmed, I pledge to work with Congress to
resolve wilderness and other land management issues throughout the
West.
Question 7. At that same hearing, you also testified:
``Title II (of S. 2612) moves the wilderness debate forward
in Clark County, Nevada by designating lands as wilderness and
releasing other lands from wilderness study area. Senator Reid
and Ensign have worked diligently with their local
constituencies to see consensus on these designations and
release. We hope that this approach can be a model and provide
an impetus for other State and regions to take similar
actions.''
a. Do you stand by that testimony?
Answer. Yes. I continue to support efforts by Congress to resolve
wilderness issues throughout the West. The Clark County Conservation of
Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Public Law 107-282, is
an excellent example of what can be achieved by Congress working with
local and national constituencies.
b. If confirmed will you continue to encourage these kinds of
wilderness deals?
Answer. I know that proposals for wilderness designation and the
disposition of Section 603 Wilderness Study Areas rest with Congress.
If confirmed, I would stand ready to provide support to Congress as
proposals are developed.
c. If so, will you commit to directing your BLM employees to
support similar proposals in the future?
Answer. If confirmed, my staff and I would work cooperatively with
Congress to resolve wilderness issues throughout the West. Each
proposal is unique, and my staff and I would give each one careful
review and consideration.
wild horses and burros
Question 8. On July 13, 1998 at a House Resources Committee Hearing
in Reno, Nevada related to the management of the Wild Horses and Burro
Act, in response to questions by then-Representative Ensign you
testified:
``In 1971 it was estimated that between 10,000 and 17,000
wild horses and burros roamed the west. Today there are
approximately 43,000 wild horses and burros on the public land
including an estimated 22,000 in Nevada.'' You went on to say:
``based upon our estimates we are projecting that the
populations in Nevada are increasing approximately 24 percent
per year.''
Further, responding to a question by then-Representative Ensign,
you said that:
``And therefore, unless there are continuing efforts to
reduce the populations of the horses and bring the numbers down
to appropriate management levels, I think you would see some
suffering on the part of animals themselves and certainly
degradation to the natural resources.''
a. How many wild horses and burros does the BLM estimate are on the
lands it is been charged to manage?
Answer. I am advised that as of February 2009, the BLM estimates
that there are approximately 36,900 wild horses and burros on the
public lands.
b. How many are there on BLM lands in Nevada?
Answer. I am advised that as of February 2009, the BLM estimates
that there are approximately 17,500 wild horses and burros on public
lands in Nevada.
c. If the numbers are not reduced down to realistic numbers, what
are the consequences to the range and other animals that utilize those
lands?
Answer. I understand that continued and increasing numbers of wild
horses and burros beyond the capacity of the land to sustain them would
result in ecological impairment including overpopulation of herds;
overgrazing of forage; damage to native vegetation and riparian areas;
damage to wildlife habitat; increased soil erosion; replacement of
native species by invasive species; and lower water quality. If
confirmed, I am committed to working with the Congress and stakeholders
to develop a practical, effective, and affordable strategy for managing
herd populations, both on the range and off-range.
administrative actions
Question 9. In an October 27, 2003 House Subcommittee Hearing on
Forest and Forest Health in Ely, Nevada, you submitted written
testimony that included the following section:
2002, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture have taken
several administrative actions to implement components of HFI,
which include the following:
Endangered Species Act Guidance--On December 11, 2002, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) issued
joint guidance that allows multiple projects to be grouped into
one consultation and provides direction on how to consider and
balance potential short-and long-term beneficial and adverse
impacts to endangered species when evaluating projects. The
goal is to recognize that project specific, short-term adverse
impacts on species need to be weighed against the longer-term
watershed level benefits to those and other species that such
projects will achieve.
CEQ Memorandum & Model Environmental Assessment Projects--
CEQ Chairman Connaughton issued guidance addressing the
preparation of model environmental assessments (Model EA) for
fuels treatment projects that improve administrative processes.
These guidelines are now being applied on both Forest Service
(FS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) agency model fuels-
treatment projects. The Mesquite Hazardous Fuels Project,
approved this past August after a public review period, is an
on-going Model EA Project that addresses tamarisk-infested
stretches of the Virgin River in southern Nevada near the towns
of Mesquite and Bunkerville. Under current conditions,
tamarisk, a highly flammable non-native species, is
establishing its dominance in burned areas and posing an
increased risk of wildfire. The BLM was able to initiate this
project this past September by removing five acres of tamarisk.
Through a combination of mechanical thinning, hand removal, and
revegetation, an additional 300 acres of tamarisk removal is
targeted for completion next year, with a total planned
treatment of 1,700 acres.
Appeals Process Reform--Both the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and DOI made rule changes designed to
encourage early and meaningful public participation in project
planning, while continuing to provide the public an opportunity
to seek review or to appeal project decisions. This enables
issues to be resolved earlier in the project planning process,
allowing for a more expedited application of hazardous fuels
reduction projects.
Categorical Exclusions (CE)--Both USDA and DOI have
established new categorical exclusions, as provided under the
National Environmental Policy Act, for certain hazardous fuel
reduction projects and for post-fire rehabilitation projects.
These new CEs shorten the time between identification of
hazardous fuels treatment and restoration projects and their
actual implementation on the ground.
Proposed Section 7 Counterpart Regulation--FWS and NOAA
Fisheries have proposed Section 7 join counterpart regulations
under the ESA to improve Section 7 consultation procedures for
projects that support the National Fire Plan. The proposed
regulations would provide, in some situations, an alternative
to the existing Section 7 consultation process by authorizing
the agencies to make certain determinations without project-
specific consultation and concurrence of the FWS and NOAA
Fisheries.
a. If confirmed will you continue to advocate for each of the
administrative actions you lauded at the 2003 hearing? If not, why not?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the current status of many of
the issues on which I testified six years ago, if confirmed I would
continue to support actions that expedite project planning while
providing a more complete understanding of short and long-term impacts
to species of concern. I would support a process that encourages
meaningful public participation in project planning and provides the
public with an opportunity to participate in the review of project
decisions.
Question 9b. What other actions should Congress undertake to
expedite implementation of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support expanding efforts to address
landscape-scale restoration needs outside the wildland urban interface
areas to benefit multiple resources. I understand that the five-year
review of HFRA was recently completed and, if confirmed, I would look
forward to the recommendations in the forthcoming report to Congress.
Question 9c. What other steps can the current Administration take
to expedite implementation of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to support the integration
of authorities and programs to meet hazardous fuels reduction as well
as forest and woodland restoration goals. I would also continue to
support a collaborative process and stewardship contracting on BLM
lands. Additionally, I would work with appropriate agencies to expand
efforts to address cross-jurisdictional landscape-scale restoration
needs. Finally, if confirmed, I would also support post-treatment
monitoring as a tool to improve the effectiveness of implementation
actions.
Question 9d. Since the legislation was signed into law how many
acres of forest land have been treated through the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act authority? (Just provide data for the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act authority, please.)
Answer. I am informed that through the end of fiscal year 2008,
approximately 487,000 acres of federal lands were treated through the
HFRA authority.
Question 9e. How many acres has the BLM treated through that
authority? (Just the Healthy Forest Restoration Act authority, please.)
Answer. I am informed that through the end of fiscal year 2008,
approximately 48,000 acres of BLM lands were treated through the HFRA
authority.
southern nevada land management act
Question 10. In response to questions at a House Subcommittee
Hearing on National Parks, Recreation and Public lands on December 3,
2003 in Las Vegas, Nevada, you testified that the Southern Nevada Land
Management Act:
`` . . . generated more than $690 million by selling a little
more than 5,600 acres of public land at 15 public actions.''
and that, ``The BLM is offering for sale 13,500 acres under the
Lincoln County Lands Act for 2000. Over the next several years,
we also plan to offer for sale approximately 21,000 acres of
land in 13 Nevada counties outside of Clark County.''
a. That was in 2003. How many acres and for how much money did the
BLM sell in Nevada since you testified at that hearing?
Answer. I have been provided information that, from 2004 through
2008, the BLM in Nevada sold 24,684 acres for approximately $2.4
billion.
b. During that same hearing [December 3, 2003], you told Mr.
Gibbons that the BLM expected to receive in excess of a billion dollars
for the Clark County land that it had yet to sell. Was that an accurate
estimate?
Answer. Yes. The information I have been provided shows that the
BLM has received approximately $2.3 billion since 2004 from the sale of
public lands in Clark County, Nevada.
earle dixon
Question 11. There have been a number of articles concerning the
role you played in the release of Mr. Earle Dixon. Can you provide the
committee with your side of that story?
Answer. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this question.
This case arose from a personnel action I took in 2004. I dismissed the
BLM project leader who was responsible for coordinating BLM activities
at the Yerington (NV) mine site and I moved the oversight
responsibility from the BLM's Carson City Field Office to the BLM's
Nevada State Office. The Yerington mine is located on 49% federal land
and 51% private land. The clean up activity at Yerington is a joint and
cooperative effort between the BLM, State of Nevada, and the EPA as
prescribed in a Memorandum of Agreement between the three parties.
I felt this personnel action was appropriate in 2004 and now, five
years later, I am convinced my decision was the right one. I base my
assessment on the fact that today, the BLM is working closely and
cooperatively with both the EPA and the State of Nevada to clean up the
Yerington mine site while further studies are being completed to
determine the scope of actions which might be required in the future.
This was not the case in 2004 when Mr. Dixon was the BLM project leader
assigned to this cooperative effort.
In 2004, Mr. Dixon was employed as a term employee (not to exceed
two years). Shortly after coming on board, Mr. Dixon made statements on
a conference call with other BLM employees raising questions about the
competency of state employees working at the mine site. He later
insinuated that some elected officials at the county level as well as
the Governor of Nevada were being paid by Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) to
oppose needed clean up activities at the Yerington mine site and that
money from ARCO had been used to buy their opposition to listing the
Yerington mine site as a Superfund project.
Earle Dixon filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that state and
BLM officials were working together to cover up critical information
regarding the environmental impacts at the Yerington mine site. Another
issue which surfaced is that I was the one who fired Mr. Dixon rather
than his direct supervisor who did not agree with my decision to
terminate Dixon. The Department of Labor investigated the Dixon
complaint and found that I had sufficient grounds to terminate Mr.
Dixon. After the investigators had issued their findings, Mr. Dixon and
a PEER attorney then filed a formal complaint with the Department of
Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judge. A year later, the
Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Mr. Dixon and ordered the
BLM to pay one year back pay and legal fees.
While acknowledging and respecting the Judge's decision, I am
comforted in knowing the progress that has occurred on the ground at
the Yerington mine site would probably not have occurred if I had not
made the decision to terminate Mr. Dixon in 2004. I also know the
cooperation between the BLM, Lyon County officials, and the State of
Nevada that exists today relating to clean up activities at Yerington
would not be there if I had not taken this personnel action. The formal
complaint filed by Mr. Dixon is the first and only formal complaint
ever filed against me by an employee in my 32 years of public service.
energy development on public lands
Question 12. You may know that this committee passed legislation
that would allow the Secretary to establish a competitive leasing
program for wind and solar projects, but he would not be required to do
so if he finds it is not in the public interest.
a. What are the shared and differing challenges for the siting of
large wind and solar installations near recreational areas or National
Parks relative to oil and gas installations?
Answer. I know that large scale wind and solar installations and
oil and gas installations both present challenges in siting. I am aware
that the BLM has undertaken a series of initiatives to more fully
understand the impacts of energy development on public lands and to
establish programs for developing renewable energy in an
environmentally responsible manner. For example, the BLM conducted a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for wind energy
development, signing the Record of Decision (ROD) in January, 2006. A
similar PEIS is currently underway for solar energy development.
Additional environmental analyses will also be conducted before any
specific projects are permitted. If confirmed, I would work
constructively with all public land users to understand and address the
challenges of siting energy development on public lands.
b. Do you think that National Parks or other protected areas have
or should have effective ``buffer zones'' surrounding them, effectively
expanding the protected area?
Answer. I know that the BLM follows a rigorous and open planning
process to implement its multiple-use mandate. One of the factors
considered during land use planning is the potential impact of a
proposed activity to adjacent property, whether the property is
Federal, State or privately held. If confirmed, I would work with other
Federal agencies, states, Tribes, local governments, industry and
public land users to consider conservation and development within each
landscape setting.
c. In your opinion, should large energy projects be kept, when
feasible, at as great a distance as possible from the most heavily
frequented vacation areas?
Answer. I know that the BLM planning process seeks to ensure that
the appropriate use takes place on the appropriate piece of public
land. The BLM's open planning process provides multiple opportunities
for public input in order to ensure that stakeholders interests are
fully considered in the final outcome. If confirmed, I would work with
governments, industry, public land users and other interested parties
to balance recreation use and energy development at the local and
regional levels.
d. Do you have concerns that your role is in danger of competing
with the interests of the Park Service in that both will want control
over energy projects that may be in the same general area as Parks?
Answer. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides the BLM
with its multiple-use mandate, and one of the Bureau's responsibilities
is to develop energy resources on the public lands for the benefit of
the nation. The BLM continues to fulfill that mandate, both through
lease sales and through the development of renewable energy. Congress
provided the National Park Service a different mission. If confirmed, I
would work cooperatively with all agencies of the Department of the
Interior, under the Secretary's guidance, to fulfill our respective
missions in a complementary manner that sustains ecosystem health while
meeting the diverse land use needs of the American people.
e. In your opinion, what specific criteria should be applied in
assessing a given activity's potential for disruption of a neighboring
area, specifically including when roads or other development already
exists closer to the protected area than some proposed project?
Answer. It is my view that the BLM's planning process provides for
full consideration of these various factors. In my experience, the
BLM's land use plans, and the extensive public involvement they
encourage, identify and assess the wide range of factors, including
visual resource management, recreation and travel management, and
appropriate mitigation measures, that must be considered in any
specific land management proposal or situation.
budgeting
Question 13. In your opinion, to what extent should the acreage and
percentage of a given state's BLM-managed lands affect the BLM's budget
for dealing with issues specific to that State?
Answer. From my experience with the BLM, I know that the BLM
assesses a variety of factors in allocating funds to the various
offices. The amount of BLM land in a State or region can certainly
affect workload and is a consideration in funding allocation. Other
factors are also important, such as the relative priority and
complexity of the work, and the desire and need to provide good
customer service. I am aware that developing the budgets for the BLM
requires balancing many different needs throughout the areas that BLM
manages. If confirmed, I will review the BLM's existing budgeting
process and assess the need for any changes to these processes.
raw materials needed for green technologies
Question 14. I am concerned that, in aggressively pursuing a
transition to alternative energy technologies, the United States risks
trading a reliance on foreign sources of oil for a reliance on foreign
sources of minerals. The demand for minerals is apparent in the use of
quartz crystal for photovoltaic panels (100% imported), indium for LED
lighting technologies (100% imported), and rare earths for advanced
batteries (100% imported).
a. Do you share this concern and, if so, how can the BLM more
effectively coordinate with DOE and the USGS to address the potential
for unintended consequences related to our energy policies?
Answer. I share this concern and I believe that it is vitally
important for the DOE, USGS, and the BLM to coordinate land-use and
energy policy decisions related to mineral development from public
lands. If confirmed, I would make it the BLM's practice to actively
seek out the input from these and other Federal agencies, as well as
from the industry, the State geological surveys, and individual members
of the public. Having sound and sufficient mineral resource information
is an important component in ensuring our nation's energy future.
b. How important do you believe it is that the raw materials for
clean energy technologies be produced here in the United States?
Answer. Our national energy security has been inextricably linked
to our dependence on foreign oil. As the nation transitions to a
greener energy future relying on renewable energy technology, we should
evaluate resources that affect our ability to independently implement
that technology. If confirmed, I would not lose sight of the economic
and strategic value of resources available through appropriate,
balanced use of the public lands.
c. Would you consider the jobs associated with providing the raw
materials for clean energy technologies to be ``green''?
Answer. Having managed the largest locatable mineral program in the
BLM while serving as the Nevada State Director, I am very familiar with
the relationship between the production of raw minerals and their
important application to ``green'' technologies. If confirmed, I would
support environmentally-responsible resource production necessary for
these green technologies.
resources within land withdrawals
Question 15. This committee regularly considers legislation to
designate certain federal lands for a particular purpose. Quite often,
those designations include lands with significant natural resource
potential that could be locked up if the proposal moves forward. I have
a standing request that the Interior Department provide very specific
information on the natural resources that may be rendered unavailable
by bills before this committee. It is my understanding that the
Interior Department may require some assistance from DOE to ascertain
what raw materials are used for which alternative energy technologies.
Will you commit to coordinating with DOE on my request so that this
committee has the most accurate information possible related to any
legislation that we may consider?
Answer. The United States Geological Survey document titled ``2008
U.S. Net Import Reliance for Selected Nonfuel Mineral Materials''
indicates which minerals the United States is more than 15 percent
reliant upon from foreign sources. If confirmed, the BLM will work with
the Department of Energy to find the intersect between those minerals
and minerals used in ``green'' or ``renewable'' energy.
mine veto authority
Question 16. In the coming months, this committee is preparing to
spend some time considering reforms to the 1872 Mining Law. The so
called `mine veto' issue is one that we must understand more clearly.
a. Can you discuss the existing authorities for deciding whether or
not to allow mining in a particular area and how changes to that
existing framework might impact domestic mining?
Answer. The BLM manages mining activities on the public lands under
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Under that authority, BLM
has promulgated regulations at 43 CFR subpart 3809 (the ``3809
regulations,'') which provide the requirements for obtaining approval
of a mining operation on BLM-administered public lands. These
regulations require compliance with all pertinent Federal and State
laws.
I am advised that Congress is currently considering reform of the
Mining Law, and the Department will work with Congress to assess how
particular changes might affect domestic mining.
b. Under what circumstances can an Interior Secretary say ``no'' to
mining?
Answer. I understand that the 3809 regulations provide at least
three reasons why the Secretary may disapprove a proposed plan of
operations:
1. The proposed plan does not meet the filing requirements
for a plan of operations outlined in the 3809 regulations.
2. The proposed mining operation is on lands withdrawn or
segregated from the operation of the Mining Law and the mining
claims are found to be invalid.
3. The proposed operations would result in unnecessary or
undue degredation of the public lands because the plan would
violate, among other things, the regulatory performance
standards in the 3809 regulations or other applicable Federal
and State laws.
There may be other applicable laws with which I am not familiar.
mining and environmental protection
Question 17. In the coming months, this committee is preparing to
spend some time considering reforms to the 1872 Mining Law. A 1999
National Research Council report to Congress concluded that, ``the
overall structure of the Federal and State laws and regulations that
provide mining-related environmental protection is complicated but
generally effective.'' Do you agree with this finding?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of the 1999 Report. I
am aware that there is great interest in pursuing reforms to the 1872
Mining Law. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department
and Congress on this important issue.
applying lease sale practices to hardrock mining
Question 18. In the coming months, this committee is preparing to
spend some time considering reforms to the 1872 Mining Law. Some have
continued to insist upon the applicability of leasing to the hardrock
mineral industry, as opposed to location and entry.
Can you share with us some of issues that may be encountered in
attempting to apply to hardrock minerals some of the resource
management practices that exist for oil, gas, and coal based the
similarities and differences that exist between those sectors?
Answer. I understand that the BLM already has experience with
managing hardrock mineral development under a leasing system. When
minerals that would be locatable under the 1872 Mining Law on public
domain lands in the West are found on acquired Federal lands (mainly in
the east), these same minerals are leased under regulations at 43 CFR
3500. These are the same regulations that currently apply to potash,
phosphate and sodium leasing and development. I am aware that there is
great interest in pursuing reforms to the 1872 Mining Law. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department and Congress
on this important issue.
sufficiency of existing environmental standards for mining
Question 19. Current BLM guidance, based on the so-called 3809
regulations, provide for the protection of BLM lands from ``unnecessary
or undue degradation''.
Do you believe that the existing legal and regulatory framework for
hardrock mining is sufficient to protect units of the National
Conservation System from unnecessary or undue degradation of the values
for which such units were established in the first place?
Answer. BLM manages the lands within these areas in accordance with
the principles and priorities established by the statute or the
Presidential proclamation creating the National Landscape Conservation
System (NLCS) unit. In addition, it is my understanding that any valid
existing right could be exercised in compliance with BLM's surface
management regulations.
differentiating between land use and environmental laws
Question 20. In considering changes to the Mining Law of 1872, it
is important to remember that we are talking about is a land use
statute.
Can you provide us with your views of the legal and practical
distinctions between federal property laws and federal environmental
laws?
Answer. The question is of a legal nature upon which I would defer
to the Department of the Interior Solicitor, if confirmed. However, in
general, I am advised that Federal property laws and Federal
environmental laws are distinguishable primarily because they stem from
different constitutional authorities and common law principles.
role of good samaritan provision in mining reform
Question 21. There is a willingness on the part of many to engage
in reclamation activities at abandoned mine sites, but often this does
not happen due to a fear of incurring certain liabilities.
a. What role do you believe ``Good Samaritan'' provisions can or
should play in the clean-up of abandoned mine sites?
Answer. I am advised that the BLM initiated a program to address
the abandoned mine issue in partnership with the U.S Forest Service,
the National Association of Abandoned Mine Lands Programs (NAAMLP), the
National Mining Association (NMA), and Bat Conservation International,
Inc. (BCI). The program is called ``FAST'' (Fix A Shaft Today) and
draws upon public-private partnerships to close abandoned mine physical
safety hazards. This type of voluntary effort is similar to voluntary
efforts proposed in ``Good Samaritan'' provisions. If confirmed, I
would work with Congress to encourage similar partnerships to help
resolve the critical problems associated with abandoned mines.
b. Is there a risk that eligibility requirements for a ``Good
Samaritan'' could be too stringent to allow those with actual mining
and reclamation expertise to qualify?
Answer. Although I am not aware of the details of the ``Good
Samaritan'' legislation, I do know that public-private partnerships are
vital to addressing this critical health and safety issue on the public
lands. Partners with expertise in mining and reclamation are
particularly important. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary
to ensure utilization of any ``Good Samaritan'' authority that Congress
might provide as a tool for abandoned mine reclamation.
land cleanups
Question 22. In Alaska, where the BLM still controls about 85
million acres, the BLM is the largest single landlord. But for cleanup
of federally paid for oil exploration efforts in the 1980s, there is
still the need for an estimated $100 million to cap abandoned federal
wells, not private wells. There is also the need for extensive
environmental study and science reviews, some being conducted by the
joint State-Federal North Slope Science Initiative. What can you say
about the Obama Administration's commitment toward providing the
funding needed for land management in Alaska in future budgets?
Answer. I am aware of the importance of the remediation of the
``legacy wells'' on Alaska's North Slope and the urgency associated
with this effort. I am informed that, since 2002, the BLM has plugged
14 wells and has remediated three wells adjacent to the coast and one
well adjacent to the largest fresh water lake on the North Slope,
Teshekpuk Lake. I am also informed that, this winter, the BLM will be
plugging the last high priority coastal erosion well, Drew Point,
funding for which comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act. If confirmed, I would work with BLM Alaska in its ongoing efforts
to evaluate and address the remaining abandoned wells to protect public
health and safety and the environment.
Finally, I am aware that the BLM values the added scientific
information provided by the North Slope Science Initiative. If
confirmed, I would commit to examine the funding opportunities for
Alaska land management, as well as for other western States, as we
develop our future budget.
land use
Question 23. In your mind, which use is causing the most damage to
the BLM lands in the Intermountain West: wild horses or ATVs?
Answer. It is difficult to state categorically that one particular
land us is more or less harmful than another as such assessments are
dependent upon a variety of factors, including site-specific conditions
and the intent and duration of a particular use. Every use of the BLM-
managed public lands has an impact that, if left unmanaged or conducted
irresponsibly, could result in harmful effects on the public lands. As
a strong proponent of multiple-use, if confirmed I would work to
achieve balance between the various multiple uses, including wild
horses and off-highway vehicle recreation, so that the public lands are
properly managed.
Question 24. Which causes more damage to the BLM lands in the
Intermountain West: your answer to my previous question, or range
fires?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that wildfire and the
various multiple-uses on the public land were managed appropriately so
as to reduce their potentially harmful impacts. Wildfire is a natural
and essential process throughout the Intermountain West, but the spread
of cheatgrass and other invasive species has led to large, frequent
wildfires that threaten communities and land health. While I was State
Director in Nevada, I initiated an effort to restore the Great Basin
following a series of large wildfires in the late 1990s. If confirmed,
I would hope to continue and expand the BLM's efforts to restore
landscape health and reduce harmful wildfire impacts.
suitability of lands for mining
Question 25. Some contend that Mining Law reform should include an
opportunity for local officials in towns, tribal leaders and others to
seek a withdrawal of Federal lands from mining. The Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 already contains withdrawal authority, as
does the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977. And any member of Congress can introduce
withdrawal legislation at any time.
Do you believe that these existing withdrawal authorities are
sufficient?
Answer. I understand that Congress is currently considering reform
of the Mining Law. The Department will work with Congress to assess
proposals to modify withdrawal authority, which exists with respect to
Federal lands and resources. If confirmed, I would assist with that
assessment.
approach to wilderness designations
Question 26. Given your testimony at the Senate Energy Committee
hearing on July 30, 2002, as well as the testimony you gave at the
December 3, 2003 hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada, can you tell me why the
BLM has resisted supporting other legislative proposals that were
similar to the Southern Nevada Land Management Act (for example the
Washington County Utah bill Senator Bennett introduced in 2007 or the
Owyhee bill that Senator Crapo offered in 2007)?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work cooperatively with Congress to
resolve wilderness and other land management issues throughout the
West. It is my understanding that the BLM worked supportively and
cooperatively with Congress on the Washington County and Owyhee County
bills.
If confirmed are you going to advocate for the Nevada approach or
the more recent BLM stance of opposing land for wilderness proposals?
Answer. It is my understanding that the BLM has worked
cooperatively with Congress on a number of wilderness proposals over
the last several years, and many of those were included in Public Law
111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. I support
resolving wilderness issues and if confirmed I pledge to work with
Congress in a spirit of cooperation on these and all other issues
concerning the BLM.
mine permitting
Question 27. BLM's FY2010 budget includes an additional $2 million
for the Mining Law Administration Program. As you know from your time
as head of the State of Nevada's BLM office, permit approvals for large
mining projects can take a great deal of time to complete, and as a
result, the U.S. is ranked as one of the worst countries from the
perspective of obtaining permits. According to Behre Dolbear's 2009
edition of ``Where Not to Invest'', it takes an average of 5 to 7 years
to obtain the approvals needed for mine development to commence. As
Director, how would you ensure that BLM utilizes its additional FY2010
budget resources to promote a more efficient permitting process?
Answer. As former BLM State Director of Nevada, I am aware of the
timeframes associated with approval of permits for mining operations. I
understand that over the past couple of years timeframes for the
approval of plans and notices have been reduced. But I also believe
there is still more work to be done in this area. If confirmed, I would
work to continue improving efficiencies in the permitting process.
Response of Robert V. Abbey to Question From Senator Bunning
Question 1. Wild Burro program and population control--Robert
Abbey--one of the challenges facing the national wild horse and burro
program is effective population control. I have met with veterinarians
that have discussed population control alternative outside of adoption
or sale. If implemented these alternatives, which largely focus on the
stallions as opposed to mares, could be more cost effective at
controlling herd populations. If confirmed, would you support
reexamining current population control methods?
Answer. I understand that reducing wild horse population growth
rates is one of the most significant challenges facing the BLM, and the
bureau is willing to consider any reasonable proposals to address this
issue. I am advised that to respond to this challenge, the BLM is
currently considering adjusting the sex ratios of wild horse herds to
favor males (stallions or geldings) in order to reduce breeding
populations. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the Congress
and stakeholders to examine population control strategies.
Response of Robert V. Abbey to Question From Senator Senator Cantwell
Mr. Abbey, over one million acres of prime wildlife and salmon
habitat adjacent to the proposed pebble mine site in Bristol Bay Alaska
could be opened to new mining claims. Closed to mining since 1971,
these wild Alaska lands are integral to Bristol Bay's salmon-supporting
habitat that is anchored by miles of untamed rivers and feeds a 360
million dollar commercial and sport fishery comprised of many fisherman
from Washington State.
Last year, the Bureau of Land Management finalized its first ever
Resource Management Plan (RMP) for this area. Despite the rich fish and
wildlife habitat that this area supports, including two of the world's
most productive salmon rivers, the BLM recommended that 99 percent of
its lands in the area be opened to hard rock mining. The RMP is
particularly problematic because the lands lie close to the proposed
Pebble Mine, a giant gold, copper and molybdenum deposit.
Would you, as Director of the BLM, consider a plan revision of the
Bay RMP that strikes a better balance between mineral development and
habitat conservation?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the details of the Bay
Resource Management Plan, I am advised that BLM-managed lands are
significantly west and downriver from the proposed Pebble project. If
confirmed, I would commit to reviewing the Bay Resource Management
Plan, including the existing withdrawal decisions in the Bristol Bay
area to ensure that habitat management objectives for public lands in
this region will be achieved.
Responses of Robert V. Abbey to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. I'm pleased that the President recently signed into law
legislation codifying the National Landscape Conservation System. This
extraordinary system of BLM lands, which will celebrate its tenth
anniversary next year, protects the crown jewels of BLM lands and
waters designated for conservation purposes, including National
Monuments, Wilderness, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild
and Scenic Rivers. If confirmed, will you commit to ensure that these
areas are managed to guarantee protection of the nationally significant
values they were designated to preserve?
Answer. I am fully aware that the BLM's National Landscape
Conservation System is a top priority of Secretary Salazar. Public Law
111-11, which expands the NLCS by 1.2 million acres, was one of the
first bills signed into law by President Obama. This historic piece of
legislation codified the National Landscape Conservation System and
designated many unique landscapes treasured by the American people. If
confirmed, I look forward to presiding over next year's tenth
anniversary celebration of the NLCS. I am strongly committed to the
conservation and protection of all of the values inherent in the NLCS.
Question 2. Throughout the West, and in my State, there are dozens
of towns that have small BLM parcels in the middle of towns and within
the towns' urban growth boundaries. This seems like both a problem for
the BLM and for these communities, which could often benefit from
having the land for city parks or other public uses. I currently have a
couple bills to transfer parcels of land to counties in Oregon, and
there are more pending issues in my State that will be coming up on
land use--including possible land conveyances, land exchanges and
Wilderness designations. But this is certainly a piecemeal and time
consuming approach, as is the Agency's Recreation and Public Purposes
(R&PP) process. I hope that I will be able to work on these issues with
you going forward. Would you be willing to explore more comprehensive
ways to address these kinds of land use issues?
Answer. I appreciate your desire to find a different approach, and
if confirmed I would be happy to work with you and your staff to
address the needs of Oregon's communities concerning BLM-managed lands
located in these communities, including issues related to land
conveyances, exchanges and wilderness designations.
Responses of Robert V. Abbey to Questions From Senator Barrasso
sage grouse
Question 1. There are extraordinary sage grouse conservation
efforts ongoing in Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management plays a big
role in the success of this statewide initiative.
Will you work with the State of Wyoming to find land management
options that decrease the possibility of listing the sage grouse as
endangered, while maintaining traditional multiple use?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed I look forward to working with the State
of Wyoming on this issue. I understand the State is currently taking
steps to conserve sage grouse. I am committed to working with Federal,
State and local agencies to help in this effort and to facilitate
appropriate resource development.
good neighbor authority
Question 2. Good Neighbor authority is a tool for Federal and State
land managers to work together to complete land management goals.
Bipartisan members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
advocate for its approval in all Western States.
Secretary Salazar was a strong advocate of this policy during his
time in the Senate. He committed during his confirmation hearing to see
that the BLM finalizes its legal opinion on the policy.
Will each of you commit to joining the Secretary in supporting this
authority?
Answer. If confirmed, I would join the Secretary in supporting the
Good Neighbor authority. I know that the BLM received Good Neighbor
authority for BLM managed lands in the State of Colorado in 2004. I am
advised that, to date, nine projects have been initiated under this
authority and it is generally viewed as an effective tool. I support
the use of the authority, where appropriate, to increase efficiency and
improve Federal and State coordination in the management of large-scale
wildfire mitigation, restoration and other land-health issues.
Question 3. When should we expect the agency to finalize an opinion
on the [Good Neighbor] policy?
Answer. I am not aware of any pending legal opinion within the
Department of the Interior regarding the current Good Neighbor
authority. Under current law, this authority applies only to the State
of Colorado for the BLM. I am advised that the BLM is developing policy
for implementation of the Good Neighbor authority in Colorado in
response to a recent GAO audit, and expects to have the policy
finalized by the end of the calendar year.
grazing permit renewals
Question 4. We have a significant problem at the BLM with grazing
permit renewals. This is a nationwide problem.
Completing NEPA paperwork takes months, even year, and threatens
ranchers' livelihood. Currently, we have legislative language in place
that allows permits to continue while NEPA paperwork is completed. This
is responsible stewardship and good business. However, there would be
no need for annual legislation if the agency reliable completed its job
on time.
How will you address this complicated management problem?
Answer. I understand that the congressional permit renewal language
has been helpful to the BLM in prioritizing the processing of over
18,000 permits and leases while meeting its NEPA obligations. I also
know that there remains a need to address this complex management issue
and examine the tools available to the BLM to more effectively process
grazing permit renewals. I understand that grazing management is
complicated by a number of factors, such as increased demands on public
lands, spread of invasive species, changing wildland fire patterns,
litigation, and the impacts of climate change. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with the Congress and stakeholders to implement
workable strategies to address grazing permit renewals.
Question 5. What specific policies will you support to make grazing
management more effective?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the existing policies
or any pending policy reform proposals to make specific recommendations
at this time. If confirmed, I would ensure that the BLM works closely
with stakeholders to implement effective policies to address the
complexities of the grazing issue.
Responses of Robert V. Abbey to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. At present, there are 22 thousand wild horses in BLM-
managed long-term facilities, 10 thousand horses in short-term
facilities, and an additional 36 thousand horses on the open range. BLM
suggests that the appropriate management level ``on the range'' is
approximately 27 thousand horses, thus indicating significant
overcrowding of the range in addition to the horses currently held in
short and long-term facilities. Given the rapid reproduction rates of
wild horses, the situation appears to be unsustainable.
What is your vision for this program? How would you improve the
current management regime to better protect America's wild horse
legacy, while also ensuring that taxpayer's dollars are wisely spent?
Answer. Having served as the BLM Nevada State Director where nearly
half of the Nation's wild horses and burros are found, I am very
familiar with the program and its significant challenges. I know that
it is a challenge for the BLM to maintain both appropriate populations
on the range and care for unadopted animals off the range. I fully
understand that the increasing cost of caring for unadopted animals is
also a growing concern. If confirmed, I would work to lower the numbers
of animals on our western rangelands to proper levels and slowing
population growth rates.
Question 2. In that same vein, Madeleine Pickens has outlined a
plan for a non-profit foundation to care for the horses now in holding
facilities, which she believes can be performed at a substantially
reduced cost to the United States. Under her plan, the foundation would
acquire a substantial ranch for the horses, allowing the horses to live
in a natural setting. Under this plan, Mrs. Pickens maintains that any
surplus funds accumulated by the foundation would be returned to the
United States. Mrs. Pickens has proposed that the BLM conduct open
bidding to select a contractor meeting these guidelines to handle the
horses. Do you favor this approach?
Answer. Mrs. Pickens' proposal provides creative and potentially
constructive ideas for addressing this issue. Mrs. Pickens' willingness
to put her considerable energy and resources toward this challenge is
something that I welcome and encourage. If confirmed, I would continue
to work with Mrs. Pickens and other interested parties to find ways to
care for these icons of the West and reduce the costs of caring for
unadopted animals.
Response of Robert V. Abbey to Question From Senator Sessions
Question 1. Mr. Abbey, Alabama is affected by several invasive
species. As Director of the BLM, what degree of priority do you plan to
place both policy and budget wise on eradication of invasive species?
Will you be open to considering a much more effective strategy than
operated under the EQIP Program?
Answer. The BLM manages scattered parcels of surface management
lands in the South and East; however, the vast majority of the 256
million acres of BLM-managed public land surface is in the Western
United States. I am not aware of any specific invasive species problems
on BLM-managed lands in Alabama. If confirmed, I would work with my
staff to better understand the current invasive species issues, and
ensure that the most effective strategies are implemented and
appropriate actions are taken on BLM-managed lands. I would also ensure
that the control and management of invasive species would be one of my
priorities.
______
Responses of Wilma A. Lewis to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. During the 1990s you were involved in management of the
U.S. Territories. In recent years there has been an inconsistent push
to solve territorial problems, from the economic problems in American
Samoa to the economic woes in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands. We have compact talks coming up with Palau, and continued
needs for aid to the Republic of the Marshall Islands stemming from our
past nuclear testing in the atolls. What can you tell us about the
Obama Administration's commitment to focus on the problems that exist
in the western territories, not counting the Caribbean?
Answer. While management of the U.S. Territories would not fall
under my jurisdiction if confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, I have been informed that the White House under
President Barack Obama has held several high level meetings regarding
important territorial issues, and has been represented at meetings of
the Intergovernmental Group on Insular Areas (IGIA). These efforts are
indicative of the priority attention the Administration is giving
territorial issues. In addition, President Obama has nominated Mr. Tony
Babauta to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Areas.
Heretofore, territorial issues have been handled by a deputy assistant
secretary. This elevation of island issues within to the assistant
secretary level will bring heightened priority for the territories and
freely associated States.
subsistence
Question 2. There is one complex issue involving the Department and
the State of Alaska, management of wildlife not just on federal lands,
but also on State lands, to protect the subsistence hunting and fishing
rights of Alaska Natives. Did you hear anything in your preparations
for this confirmation hearing as to whether the Administration is
planning any changes in federal subsistence policy or management
efforts in Alaska?
Answer. During preparations for my confirmation hearing, I was not
made aware, formally or otherwise, of any Administration plans to
change Federal subsistence policy or management efforts in Alaska.
oil and gas leasing
Question 3. Would you support any adjustments (including new or
higher costs and fees, increased rents, shorter (or longer) lease
terms, and/or increased royalty rates) for onshore and offshore oil and
gas leases?
Would you support or encourage a policy of ``use it or lose it'',
as proposed during the 110th Congress, when it comes to federally-
issued leases?
Answer. I believe that review of existing practices in the
Department's programs is important. Such reevaluations can lead to the
improvement of existing programs. I know that the Department announced,
as part of the fiscal year 2010 Budget Proposal, the initiation of a
comprehensive review of oil and gas leasing and royalty policies,
including consideration of reform options, such as encouraging the
diligent development of future leases, that would assure a fair return
to the American taxpayer. Although it would depend upon the details of
the changes, I could support adjustments of costs and fees, rents,
lease terms, or royalty rates if such adjustments would improve the
Department's oil and gas leasing programs, and are consistent with the
Department's resource management obligations. I also support President
Obama's and Secretary Salazar's position that domestic energy
production can help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy
and that we should encourage production on leased acreage.
litigation
Question 4. Every year, a significant number of federal leases are
delayed by litigation from environmental and other groups opposed to
development. As Assistant Secretary, do you anticipate these lawsuits
having a significant impact on the federal revenues associated with
onshore and offshore oil and gas development?
Answer. I am aware that there are several federal oil and gas
leases and resource management plans that have been challenged in the
courts. Litigation may slow the development of, and thus the revenues
from, federal oil and gas resources. If confirmed, I would seek to
ensure that the Department continues to make fully informed decisions
that comply with applicable legal requirements.
permitting
Question 5. Companies are often required to obtain or complete
dozens of permits and plans to develop a typical lease. This can add
months, if not years, to the length of time it takes to bring resources
to market. As Assistant Secretary, will you consider or support any
initiatives to streamline this process, including joint permitting
efforts and interagency memorandums of agreement?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the Department
continues to identify opportunities for improvement through interagency
agreements, joint efforts and other means. The efficiency of our
operations will be an important focus of my attention. I would
therefore support initiatives that would create efficiencies in the
permitting process. I fully support seeking greater efficiency and
coordination in the permitting process, consistent with the
environmentally responsible development of our important energy
resources.
domestic production
Question 6. No matter how quickly the use of alternative and
renewable resources increases, our nation will be heavily dependent on
oil, natural gas, and coal long into the future. In conjunction with
our efforts to increase the development of clean energy resources, do
you agree that it will also be critical to increase conventional
resource production, at least in the near-term?
Answer. Secretary Salazar supports increased domestic production of
conventional resources as part of a comprehensive energy plan. I agree
with the Secretary that the solution to our nation's energy needs
requires development of the full range of energy sources available,
including conventional fuels and renewable resources. If confirmed, I
would work to ensure that energy resources are identified and
appropriate access to them is made available consistent with
environmental safeguards.
coal leasing bonus bids
Question 7. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
provides for a bonus bid system allowing deferred payments to be paid
in installments and, in fact, requires no less than 50 percent of the
acreage offered for lease to be under a system of deferred bonus bids.
The system essentially requires 20 percent of the bid to be paid at the
time of acceptance and 20 percent on each anniversary for the following
4 years. Congress authorized this system to promote competition, to
ensure the public receives a fair return on federal coal leases, and to
assure diverse sources of coal supply for the nation's economic
wellbeing.
a) The elimination of the bonus bid system (as proposed in the
FY2009 budget request) would force successful bidders to pay hundreds
of millions of dollars upon the award of the lease, long before they
are able to realize any return on their investment. Do you believe this
would undermine congressional intent on the issue of bonus bid payment,
which was last affirmed in 2005?
Answer. I understand that the FY 2009 Budget included a proposal to
change the existing bonus bid system. However, I am not familiar with
the legislative history underlying the existing system. If confirmed, I
will learn more about this issue.
b) Can you explain what has occurred within the leasing program
since its last legislative review, in 2005, that would warrant the
abandonment of the system of deferred bonus bid payments?
Answer. I have been advised that there have been no recent, major
changes in the coal leasing program.
c) If the bonus bid program is eliminated and this, in turn, leads
to less competition, lower lease bids, and/or lower Federal and State
revenues, would you support its re-instatement?
Answer. If the bonus bid proposal that would require payment in one
lump sum is implemented, I would, if confirmed, ensure that the BLM and
MMS monitor and assess the impacts associated with bonus bid payments.
I would carefully review those impacts and any other relevant
information regarding the bonus bid program.
Responses of Wilma A. Lewis to Questions From Senator Bunning
state permitting rights
Question 1. If confirmed, you will oversee the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. As you know, under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act, most coal mining States, including
my home State of Kentucky, have been granted primacy, placing them as
the lead permitting and enforcement agency. Through the use of primacy,
States have the ability to carry out their own regulatory and
reclamation programs so long as they meet the law's standards. What
assurances can you give me that OSM will continue to respect States'
rights and not second-guess States' decisions where they are acting in
accordance with the law?
Answer. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM) has the responsibility in its oversight role to ensure States are
properly enforcing their regulatory programs. If confirmed, I will work
with OSM to ensure it is properly carrying out its oversight
responsibilities while appropriately recognizing state primacy.
stream buffer zone
Question 2. As you know, Secretary Salazar has asked the Department
of Justice to file a plea with the U.S. District Court requesting that
the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule be vacated. Aside from striking a
balance between environmental protections, this rule clarified a long-
standing dispute over how the Surface Mining Law should be applied. If
vacated, would you support implementing the previous stream buffer zone
regulations or initiating a new rulemaking process?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Justice's motion
requests that the 1983 rule be reinstated. Should the court grant that
motion, I am informed that the Department of the Interior plans to
issue interim guidance to clarify how the 1983 rule should be applied
while the Department determines whether a new stream buffer zone rule
is necessary. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that this review
occurs in an expeditious and inclusive manner.
permitting delays
Question 3. A continuing problem with obtaining permits under the
Surface Mining Act is the inability of the Fish and Wildlife Service at
the Department of the Interior to perform its consultations in a timely
manner. Coal miners as well as land developers end up with idled
capital waiting for the Service to conduct its consultations. The
previous Administration tried to address that problem through revised
regulations with tighter timelines for action. Unfortunately, this
Administration has placed those regulations on hold pending a review.
If confirmed, will you work with the Director of Fish and Wildlife
Services and the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks to
develop a plan to effect timely consultations under the E.S.A.?
Answer. I am not familiar with this issue. If confirmed, however, I
will appropriately coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks on this and other potentially overlapping matters
to help ensure that we carry out our respective responsibilities in a
timely manner.
Responses of Wilma A. Lewis to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. As I indicated to Mr. Abbey in the hearing, BLM manages
a lot of land in my State. I know you are aware that the BLM is
responsible for over 2 million acres of truly remarkable forests in the
western part of my State--known as the O&C Lands--with a unique Federal
mandate that includes sharing revenue for local county government.
These lands are also important for threatened and endangered species,
old growth forests, clean water, clean air and carbon sinks. BLM's
massive planning effort for its Western Oregon lands (WOPR) under the
last Administration has stirred up a great deal of controversy and
legal challenges from both sides of this issue--both timber and
environmental groups. I know the Administration is reviewing its
options. I was wary of political meddling in scientific decisions in
the last Administration and I hope that you will ensure that any
decision the Agency makes on this is based on sound science but also
considers the importance that O&C lands have played in Oregon's past
and the opportunity they have in our collective future. I have been
circulating a draft proposal of legislation I intend to introduce to
move forest management on Federal lands in Oregon beyond the old
conflicts so that the land management agencies cease to get tied up in
knots trying to advance controversial projects when there is a great
need for forest health projects that many parties can agree are
necessary.
Can you also tell me how you are going to encourage finding a path
forward for forest management and specifically whether you will work
with me to help identify new management approaches that help streamline
forest health projects?
Answer. Like you, the Department recognizes this is a time for bold
action and decisions that will resolve long-standing conflicts. If
confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I am committed to working with other
Federal agencies, State and local officials, tribes, the timber
industry, conservationists, and you and other members of the Oregon
delegation in a collaborative effort to effect meaningful progress.
Question 2. BLM is our biggest Federal landlord in Oregon. There is
enormous opportunity for renewable energy development--biomass,
geothermal, wind--in the State, but it can't be developed without the
help of Federal agencies that manage most of the land area. Last year,
BLM initiated a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for
development of solar energy projects on BLM land, but that PEIS did not
include Oregon. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that all
States with BLM-managed lands will be included in renewable energy
development plans, including the pending solar PEIS?
Answer. It is my understanding that BLM's Solar PEIS focuses on BLM
lands in the southwest because that area has the greatest potential for
utility-scale solar development during the document's 20 year planning
horizon and has received a high degree of interest from industry. I
have also been informed that any best management practices adopted by
the BLM as a result of the Solar PEIS will be applicable to all BLM-
administered lands, and that the NEPA analysis completed as part of the
PEIS will provide valuable information that could be used to assess the
impacts of possible solar projects in other areas. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that the full potential of renewable energy development
on public lands is understood and considered, and that opportunities
for environmentally-sensitive development are offered in appropriate
areas.
Question 3. As I discussed with Mr. Abbey during the hearing,
utilization of biomass offers unique opportunities to simultaneously
address forest health, hazardous fuels reduction, energy production,
and rural economic development issues. Yet, these opportunities have
not been adequately developed. If confirmed, what will you do to ensure
that biomass energy development is integrated into BLM land management
policies and what actions will you take to work with the Forest Service
to jointly develop resource plans that will support commercial
investment in biomass energy projects?
Answer. Biomass has important clean energy potential. I agree that
the prudent and sustainable use of biomass as a by-product of forest
health, hazardous fuels reduction, and other vegetation management
treatments offers valuable opportunities to support renewable energy
production as well as rural economic development. If confirmed, I will
promote BLM efforts to develop and improve biomass use. Also, I will
ensure that the BLM will continue to use available authorities such as
stewardship contracting and good neighbor authorities to increase
biomass utilization and reduce treatment costs. In addition, I will
work with the Forest Service to further the development of this
resource, and with partners to increase community awareness of project
goals, leverage funds for better results, and support local businesses.
Question 4. Royalty policy and royalty administration at Interior
has been an embarrassment. MMS has adopted a policy that simply
abandoned the need to audit oil and gas companies to make sure they pay
royalties. MMS administrators left out contract provisions in hundreds
of Gulf of Mexico leases for price thresholds. Oil and gas companies
have been allowed to unilaterally adjust the royalty amounts they owe,
even years after the payments are due and the statutory deadlines for
such adjustments have expired. Royalty-in-kind seems to be a charade
costing taxpayers more than the old system according to the GAO. What
are your plans to reform the royalty system?
Answer. I share Secretary Salazar's commitment to restoring the
public's trust in MMS and support the strong actions taken by the
Secretary to enact reform. If I am confirmed, royalty management and
reform will be among my highest priorities. I will work closely with
the Secretary and MMS to help ensure that taxpayers are getting fair
value from the resources they own; audit and enforcement activities for
the royalty program are robust and effective; operations are conducted
in accordance with the law; and Department of the Interior employees
perform their responsibilities with the highest degree of integrity.
Question 5. In the wake of the conflict of interest scandal at the
end of the last Congress, Sen. Barrasso and I introduced legislation to
begin to reform MMS by making the Director a Presidential appointee and
Senate confirmed. MMS is the only major agency within Interior that
doesn't have a Senate confirmed director or statutory framework
governing its responsibilities. A similar provision has now been
included in legislation approved by the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. If confirmed would you support enactment of this
provision?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support making the MMS Director
position a Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation.
Responses of Wilma A. Lewis to Questions From Senator Barrasso
sage grouse
Question 1. There are extraordinary sage grouse conservation
efforts ongoing in Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management plays a big
role in the success of this statewide initiative.
Will you work with the State of Wyoming to find land management
options that decrease the possibility of listing the sage grouse as
endangered, while maintaining traditional multiple use?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed I look forward to working with the State
of Wyoming on this issue. I understand the State is currently taking
steps to conserve sage grouse. I am committed to working with Federal,
State and local agencies to help in this effort and to facilitate
appropriate resource development.
good neighbor authority
Question 2. Good Neighbor authority is a tool for Federal and State
land managers to work together to complete land management goals.
Bipartisan members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
advocate for its approval in all Western States.
Secretary Salazar was a strong advocate of this policy during his
time in the Senate. He committed during his confirmation hearing to see
that the BLM finalizes its legal opinion on the policy.
Will each of you commit to joining the Secretary in supporting this
authority?
Answer. If confirmed, I would join the Secretary in supporting the
Good Neighbor authority. I understand that the BLM received Good
Neighbor authority in 2004 for BLM-managed lands in the state of
Colorado. I am advised that, to date, nine projects have been initiated
under this authority and it is generally viewed as an effective tool. I
support the use of the authority, where appropriate, to increase
efficiency and improve federal and State coordination in the management
of large-scale wildfire mitigation, restoration and other land
management issues.
Question 3. When should we expect the agency to finalize an opinion
on the policy?
Answer. I am not aware of any pending legal opinion within the
Department of the Interior regarding the current Good Neighbor
authority. However, I am advised that the BLM is developing policy for
implementation of the Good Neighbor authority in Colorado in response
to a recent GAO audit, and expects to have the policy finalized by the
end of the calendar year.
grazing permit renewals
Question 4. We have a significant problem at the BLM with grazing
permit renewals. This is a nationwide problem.
Completing NEPA paperwork takes months, even years, and threatens
ranchers' livelihood. Currently, we have legislative language in place
that allows permits to continue while NEPA paperwork is completed. This
is responsible stewardship and good business. However, there would be
no need for annual legislation if the agency reliably completed its job
on time.
How will you address this complicated management problem?
Answer. I understand that the congressional permit renewal language
has been helpful to the BLM in prioritizing the processing of over
18,000 permits and leases while meeting its NEPA obligations. I also
know that there remains a need to address this complex management issue
and examine the tools available to the BLM to process grazing permit
renewals more effectively. I understand that grazing management is
complicated by a number of factors, such as increased demands on public
lands, spread of invasive species, changing wildland fire patterns,
litigation, and the impacts of climate change. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with the Congress and stakeholders to implement
workable strategies to address grazing permit renewals.
Question 5. What specific policies will you support to make grazing
management more effective?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the existing policies
or any pending policy reform proposals to make specific recommendations
at this time. If confirmed, I would ensure that the BLM works closely
with stakeholders to develop and implement effective policies to
address the complexities of the grazing issue.
Question 6. Your resume is very impressive. You are impeccably
educated and your experience with the law, revenue and personnel
management is extensive. This experience and knowledge will be a
valuable asset in your new capacity.
However, it doesn't seem you've spend a lot of time kicking around
the sagebrush. On the ground land management experience is not a part
of your resume. I'd like to know how you will handle that weakness.
Working on land management issues is extremely difficult. Here in
Washington, resource issues are polarized, and the debate centers on
the ideological divide rather than common sense.
The health of our lands and our communities is ignored in these
debates. If we are to have effective management, it will be imperative
that you put aside politics, and do what's right.
How are you going to approach land management decisions?
Answer. As you correctly note, I do not have a background in land
management issues. If confirmed, I intend to become well versed in
matters with which I am not currently familiar by reviewing written
materials; receiving oral briefings; meeting and consulting with
others, including stakeholders; generally immersing myself in the
substantive areas; and, where appropriate, viewing and experiencing
first-hand the lands the Department manages and the challenges it
faces. As a general litigator for virtually my entire twenty-eight year
professional career, becoming familiar with new subject areas is
something that I have done regularly. In so doing, I have developed the
ability to be a quick study and to handle even the most complicated
matters successfully. If confirmed, I will approach land management
decisions in the same manner that I have approached other important
decisions during my over fifteen years in public service--with a
careful and objective analysis of the facts and other relevant
considerations; reasoned judgment, honesty, and integrity. I also
intend to consult with western Members of Congress and our western
staff while engaging in ongoing public dialogue on western public lands
issues.
Question 7. How will you ensure that the land comes first and
ideology comes last?
Answer. Throughout my career in public service, I have focused
steadfastly on performing the responsibilities with which I am
entrusted consistent with the letter and spirit of the mission of the
particular government agency with which I have been associated. If
confirmed, I will do likewise as the Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management.
Question 8. How do you intend to direct personnel to undertake
designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on BLM lands?
Answer. I am aware that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) and its implementing regulations emphasize the importance of
considering Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the
development and revision of land use plans. If confirmed, I would
ensure compliance with FLPMA's direction and applicable regulations.
Question 9. What management benefits and drawbacks do you see in
such designations?
Answer. I understand that designation of areas with important
values and resources, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs), results in the necessary special protection of environmentally
sensitive areas, which sometimes limits multiple-use opportunities.
Designating these areas, as appropriate, is an important part of BLM's
land planning responsibilities under the Federal Lands Policy and
Management Act. One benefit is that such designations enable the BLM to
protect sensitive biological, cultural and other resources. Another
benefit is that designation may enhance public appreciation of the
important areas that exist on public lands. ACEC designations can,
however, limit multiple-use opportunities, or require more focused or
intensive management to ensure that multiple-use activities, such as
recreation and grazing, are managed in a manner that is consistent with
maintaining an area's special values.
Question 10. How will you ensure that ACEC nominations are
evaluated consistently nationwide?
Answer. I understand that BLM land use plans, which include
potential ACEC designations, are subject to a rigorous internal
evaluation process before they are finalized. If confirmed, I would
seek to ensure that the criteria used to evaluate the nominations are
clear, consistent and were understood by BLM staff, and are fairly and
appropriately applied.
Question 11. How will you ensure that ACEC designations adhere to
the agency's specific statutory authority under FLPMA?
Answer. I understand the BLM ACEC guidance is derived directly from
the BLM's statutory responsibility under FLPMA. This guidance provides
direction to BLM Field Offices when considering designation of ACECs
during the BLM's planning process. If confirmed, I will support this
process.
Question 12. Congress recently authorized an existing program
within BLM to manage certain areas within the National Landscape
Conservation System.
What benefits and drawbacks to management of land health do you see
in this program?
Answer. Congress' recent enactment of the Omnibus Public Lands Act
represents a pivotal new direction for BLM management of some of
America's most treasured landscapes. The National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS) has an important role in promoting healthy
lands by conserving, protecting, and restoring designated lands and
assuring appropriate public access and recreational opportunities. It
is my understanding that the BLM does not perceive any drawbacks in the
program.
Question 13. How will you ensure that administrative designations
of lands to be managed under this program are handled uniformly and
appropriately nationwide?
Answer. Secretary Salazar and I consider the NLCS an important
addition to the Department's treasured lands portfolio, which is a high
priority for the Department. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that
the policy guidelines and management prescriptions for these lands are
clear, consistent, and well understood by BLM staff, and that ongoing
monitoring of their implementation occurs. I look forward to working
with the Secretary, Congress, BLM and local interests to conserve and
manage these valued lands, if confirmed.
Question 14. The NLCS program has been criticized as being heavily
influenced by outside interest groups. The program and outside groups
are alleged to regularly consult on pre-decisional matters, swap
personnel and conduct management under a biased regime.
How will you address these allegations?
Answer. I share Secretary Salazar's commitment to the highest
standards of ethical conduct and integrity throughout the Department. I
am not familiar with the details of this matter. However, if pursuant
to an investigation it is determined that inappropriate conduct has
occurred, I will take the necessary steps to correct the problem and
restore integrity to the program's operations.
Question 15. Do you see any weakness within the program making it
more susceptible to outside interest groups' influence?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the NLCS program to
assess any possible weaknesses that would make it more susceptible to
influence by outside interest groups. Working with stakeholders is an
important aspect of the Department's mission, provided that such
contact occurs in accordance with the law and consistent with the high
ethical standards that should guide all of our endeavors.
Question 16. How will you address the tendency for bias in all
management agencies under your direction?
Answer. I have had the privilege of serving in senior government
positions, including as Inspector General for the Department of the
Interior and United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, that
have required the exercise of independent, objective decision making.
If confirmed, I intend to bring those experiences to bear in my new
position--both personally and in the agencies within my purview. I will
seek, through a variety of efforts--including my leadership by example,
regular monitoring of our operations and activities, informed external
input, and communications with the bureau directors and career staff
regarding our role and responsibilities as public servants--to create
an environment that promotes responsible decision making in the public
interest.
Question 17. How will you direct personnel to handle interest
groups that might help DOI programs in one instance, but unduly
influence programs in other instances?
Answer. If confirmed, I will direct personnel to handle contacts
with all interest groups fairly and evenhandedly--never abdicating our
role to exercise our independent judgment consistent with our mission
and in the public interest, or our responsibility to act with honesty,
integrity and in accordance with the highest ethical and professional
standards, while remaining accessible and transparent.
Question 18. Last year, the Interior Department's IG released a
report detailing corruption and other misconduct by employees at MMS.
Secretary Salazar has taken steps to address the issue.
What is your plan to restore integrity and accountability at MMS
and to prevent this type of behavior in the future?
Answer. Secretary Salazar has already made good progress on this
challenge and, if confirmed, I would continue his efforts. Integrity in
government operations has been a central focus of mine during my
Federal career. I learned this core value at a young age, from the
example set by my parents, who were both long-serving public servants.
If confirmed, I would bring those deeply held views and values to my
efforts as Assistant Secretary. I would examine the extent to which
recommendations contained in the Inspector General's report have been
implemented, and ensure that those efforts continue. I would also
ascertain if there are other corrective measures that need to be
adopted. In addition, if confirmed I would lead by example, and ensure
that the expectations of excellence, service with integrity,
accountability, and transparency are clear to all of those who serve
under the supervision of the Office of the Assistant Secretary.
grazing
Question 19. There is more to public lands grazing issues than
meets the eye. Federal lands across the West are interspersed with
private lands. Most often, ranch families own the most fertile lands
for agriculture and wildlife. These families depend on access to
grazing in order to run their business and sustain their private lands.
When we consider policy for federal lands, we must consider the
health of the entire landscape--private and public alike.
Do you believe that grazing should continue on public lands?
Answer. Livestock grazing is an important and productive part of
western public lands management. Under BLM's multiple use mandate, it
is important to continue this use.
Question 20. Will you advocate reductions in grazing on public
lands?
Answer. Well managed grazing can benefit public rangelands. If
confirmed, I would ensure that the BLM continues to seek an appropriate
balance between stewardship and use of the public lands in all of the
BLM's multiple resource management programs. Until I have had an
opportunity to learn more about the specifics of the grazing issue, I
am unable to comment on changes to the policies.
Question 21. How will you address the issues of adjoining public
and private lands?
Answer. I understand that BLM has a long tradition of working
collaboratively with adjacent public and private landowners. I support
collaborative relations with adjacent landowners.
Question 22. In 1980, the Secretary of the Interior approved
Wyoming's program to administer the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) for surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on non-Federal and non-Indian land in the State.
Will you seek to insure that the Office of Surface Mining does not
second guess State decisions where they are acting under the primacy
provisions of the law?
Answer. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM) has the responsibility in its oversight role to ensure States are
properly enforcing their regulatory programs. If confirmed, I will work
with OSM to ensure it is properly carrying out its oversight
responsibilities while appropriately recognizing state primacy.
Question 23. In March 2006, the Wyoming Secretary of State
submitted an amendment to its Coal Regulatory Program (referred to
Wyoming Rule Package 1-U) proposing change to the rules governing self-
bonding requirements. The rule included important additions and
revisions designed to address Wyoming-specific circumstances taking
into account the substantially larger size of the surface coal mines in
the State. It is my understanding that three years later the proposal
is still awaiting approval by the Office of Surface Mining. What has
caused the delay?
Answer. I have not been briefed on this issue. If confirmed, I will
review the issue and would be pleased to discuss it further with you.
Question 24. What is the status of the Wyoming Rule Package 1-U?
Answer. As I indicated, I have not been briefed on this issue. If
confirmed, however, I will look into this matter and would be pleased
to discuss it further with you.
Question 25. What steps remain in order for the rule to be
finalized?
Answer. As noted in my previous responses, I have not been briefed
on this issue. If confirmed, I will review the matter and would be
pleased to discuss it further with you.
Question 26. Will you commit to ensuring this rule is finalized?
Answer. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing this matter and
ensuring that OSM makes a decision.
Question 27. The Mineral Leasing Act provides for the deferred
payment of bonus bids for coal leases in equal installments. Under
current regulations, federal coal lessees pay the bonus in five equal
installments.
The current system makes sense because cost is so significant--the
average bonus bid for a federal coal lease is $60 million. The Interior
Appropriations bill recently passed by the House requires full payment
up front.
Requiring payment of the bonus bid in one up front payment would
undermine domestic coal production, exclude smaller companies that lack
the financial resources, and likely reduce government revenues from
coal leasing in the long run.
Do you think the House passed provision puts smaller coal companies
at a disadvantage?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with all of the relevant
information to provide an informed response to this question. If
confirmed, I will learn more about this issue.
Question 28. Will you oppose this provision in the Interior
Appropriations bill?
Answer. I am not sufficiently informed in order to take a position.
If confirmed I will examine the bill.
______
Responses of Richard G. Newell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
eia budget
Question 1. The Administration's FY2010 budget request includes
$133 million for EIA, which represents an increase of 20 percent
compared to this year. The additional funding would be used to ``to
improve energy data and analysis programs.'' Can you describe in detail
how you would use this funding, if confirmed?
Answer. While I have not been privy to the decisions behind this
year's budget request, I do believe there are areas where the EIA could
effectively use additional resources to improve its work. In fact, I
think the availability of these additional resources could
significantly influence EIA's ability to effectively respond to the
important challenges it faces. As I understand it, of the $22.5 million
increase requested for EIA in the Administration's FY 2010 budget,
$17.2 million would provide funding for three new initiatives. First,
the budget provides for a new interdisciplinary team that would focus
on understanding the roles of futures markets' trading behavior and oil
market fundamentals in short-term oil price formation and on increasing
public understanding of price formation. Increasing EIA capacity in
this area is a priority for me, as I know it is for you and other
members of Congress. Second, the budget would expand and strengthen
EIA's Residential and Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys
for 2010 and beyond to provide better data for benchmarking and
performance measurement of weatherization and other energy efficiency
programs. Third, the budget provides for improved data collection in
oil and refined products markets to improve both short forecasting and
long-term projection capabilities. In addition, the increased resources
compared with the FY 2009 level would support the National Energy Model
Replacement Project, which focuses on comprehensively updating EIA's
long-run energy modeling capabilities. This multi-year effort will keep
EIA's modeling tools relevant in areas where the energy sector has
undergone significant structural change since the National Energy
Modeling System was originally launched in the early 1990's.
speculation and oil prices
Question 2. Given your previous work, what is your opinion on the
role that speculation in oil futures is playing on energy prices here
and globally?
a. What are the leading impacts on prices and how are global market
conditions changing the traditional price inputs for energy?
Answer. The oil market, as you know, has gone through a period of
increased volatility in the past 18 months. As I indicated at my
nomination hearing, I believe there are a wide variety of factors
involved in oil price movements, including financial market activity
and its interaction with energy markets. Speculation is one factor that
enters into the oil price equation along with other factors that can
affect energy markets at any one point in time including, in my view,
the underlying economic situation and outlook, both in the United
States and globally; traditional market fundamentals such as
inventories, demand, and spare production and refining capacity;
geopolitical events, such as unrest in Nigeria and Iran; and the value
of the U.S. dollar as it fluctuates vis-a-vis other currencies.
One of EIA's main roles is to bring transparency to the operation
of energy markets, in order to encourage market efficiency. If
confirmed, I would therefore intend to take a fresh look at the oil
market speculation issue, in conjunction with EIA's ongoing oil market
analysis. I also want to carefully assess EIA staff qualifications and
work aggressively to remedy any skills gaps in this important area.
b. In your opinion, should EIA play a role in regulating or more
intensively investigating commodity futures?
Answer. EIA is not a regulatory or enforcement agency, such as the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), but EIA has conducted energy market analyses in
recent years. In addition, it is my understanding that EIA has been
engaging with the CFTC on the interaction of energy and financial
markets, since CFTC has access to data that EIA does not have. If
confirmed, I would certainly want to enhance and expand that
interagency engagement, with the aim of strengthening EIA's oil market
analysis through improved use of financial data. I am also aware of the
additional data-gathering activity that EIA would undertake with the
CFTC pursuant to energy legislation recently adopted by the committee.
biofuels
Question 3. In the past, EIA has been skeptical that domestic
biofuel production will keep pace with congressionally-mandated levels.
The agency's Annual Energy Outlook, for example, projects that the
current target--36 billion gallons per year--will be exceeded by 2030
rather than 2022. Do you agree with this assessment? Please describe
your views on biofuels, particularly with regard to how quickly you
think their production can displace substantial amounts of petroleum.
Answer. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
established the Renewable Fuel Standard program, targeting an increase
in the volume of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline from 9
billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the 36
billion gallons, 21 billion gallons is targeted to come from advanced
biofuels (as opposed to corn starch), which depend on technologies that
are still developing. EISA also provides for waivers and modification
of required volumes under certain circumstances. As the question notes,
the reference case projections in EIA's 2009 Annual Energy Outlook do
not show the 36 billion gallon target being met until 2030, implicitly
assuming that waivers would be granted in the intervening period. While
the conditions underlying EIA's projection appear to be within the
range of plausible scenarios, I have not had the opportunity to closely
assess the relevant detailed assumptions. More generally, I would
expect the speed with which biofuels can displace petroleum to depend
on a number of factors, including: the technological readiness and cost
of necessary process technologies; the availability and cost of biomass
feedstocks; the availability and cost of investment funds and other
inputs (e.g., natural gas); the level of biofuels support policies
(e.g., tax credits, standards, tariffs); the presence of necessary
distribution networks; and the price of competing fuels, especially
oil.
climate change legislation
Question 4. You have written extensively about climate change
throughout the course of your career. Given your depth of knowledge on
the subject, can you share your thoughts on the Waxman-Markey bill that
recently passed the House of Representatives? With everything it
includes--all the concessions that have already been made--do you
believe Waxman-Markey would adequately reduce domestic emissions
without impairing our economy?
Answer. I am familiar with the basic structure of the Waxman-Markey
legislation. The bill has at its core a ``cap-and-trade'' system that
is designed to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the
next 40 years. The cap-and-trade system allows for domestic and
international offsets, includes cost-containment measures, and
allocates allowance value to a variety of purposes. The bill also
includes other policies and incentives designed to increase renewable
energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and to serve a
range of other purposes. Clearly, this is a complex piece of
legislation, one that should be evaluated in terms of its environmental
effectiveness, its impacts on the economy, and its achievement of other
energy goals. If confirmed as EIA Administrator, I would not view it as
my role to offer an opinion about the adequacy of the bill's emissions
targets, but I would certainly expect to offer analysis of the impacts
of the legislation on the energy sector and the economy. I understand
that the EIA is in the process of completing such an analysis at
present. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this work when it
becomes available, and to continue working with Congress and the
Administration to provide unbiased analysis to inform the ongoing
energy and climate change policy debate.
energy industry employment
Question 5. As the United States transitions to cleaner sources of
energy, how many new jobs can we realistically expect to create on a
net basis? Do you believe that Waxman-Markey, by adding a significant
price to carbon dioxide emissions and thereby increasing the price of
more than 80 percent of the United States' energy supply, will generate
millions of new jobs? Are those jobs desirable from the standpoint of
market and labor efficiency? If you are unable to provide answers to
these questions, would you be willing to work with the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to shed light on many of the ``green jobs'' claims being
made?
Answer. Analysis of the employment impacts of energy and
environmental policies has not been a specific focus of my past
research, and I have not analyzed this issue in the specific context of
the Waxman-Markey bill. Generally speaking, however, aggregate
employment in the economy tends to be determined more by overall
macroeconomic conditions than by specific energy or environmental
policies. As I mentioned above, the EIA is currently working on a
report on the House-passed bill. I look forward to reading that
analysis, including any employment impacts estimated therein. If
confirmed, I would also be happy to work with BLS to examine green jobs
data.
eia's role
Question 6. As stated on EIA's website, the agency is tasked with
providing ``policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote
sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding
regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the
environment.'' In recent years, however, lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle have expressed their unhappiness with the perceived
politicization of information released by EIA. As Administrator, will
you commit to ensuring that all materials produced by EIA are objective
and free of political influence?
Answer. Yes. I believe the production of independent, policy-
neutral, and unbiased forecasts and analyses is an essential tenet of
EIA's mission.
anwr methodology
Question 7. Those who oppose the development of the 1002 Area of
ANWR, including several members of this committee, regularly cite past
EIA analyses as evidence that supply from that area (at a mean estimate
of 1 million barrels of oil per day) would have little impact on the
price of oil. At a hearing held by this committee in March 2008,
however, Administrator Caruso testified that adding 100,000 barrels of
oil per day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could increase oil
prices by $2 per barrel. In a subsequent letter to Rep. Jack Kingston,
Administrator Caruso acknowledged that if the ``same methodology and
set of circumstances and assumptions'' underlying that response were
applied to the development of the 1002 Area, ``prices could be expected
to decline by up to $20 per barrel.''
This series of events brings about two important questions:
a. If confirmed, will you ensure that all EIA analyses are
conducted in a fair, consistent manner--that is, with standardized
methodologies--even if the proposal under consideration runs contrary
to the administration's preferences?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would ensure that all EIA analyses are
conducted in a fair and consistent manner, even if the proposal under
consideration runs contrary to Administration policies. In the case of
ANWR and other oil supply proposals, fair and consistent treatment of
timing issues, which affect the size of demand and supply responses, is
especially important.
b. Will you commit to re-evaluating the impact that the 1002 Area's
development would likely have on the price of oil, as well as the
economic and budgetary impacts likely to be associated with production,
under the same set of standards as EIA will use to examine oil price
impacts from increased supply from foreign sources or the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve?
Answer. Yes, I will commit to re-evaluating in a fair and
consistent manner the development of the 1002 Area. It is important to
note, however, that modeling oil market responses to short-term changes
in supply is different in some respects from modeling market responses
to long-term changes in supply. This holds regardless of the reasons
for such increases.
energy price forecasting
Question 8. While I have great respect for the difficult task that
the EIA and all energy-price forecasters have in forecasting energy
prices, I have to say that the agency's performance has been wildly off
in recent years. When prices were climbing, EIA's forecasts markedly
underestimated price hikes. When the economy collapsed last fall, EIA
somewhat underestimated the price drop. Do you foresee any changes in
your modeling process that you can make to make your forecasts
marginally more accurate? Can you talk about what, if anything, you
want to do differently at EIA to improve the reliability of your energy
forecasts?
Answer. I would consider the continued improvement in EIA's
modeling capabilities to be one of my most important activities, if I
am confirmed. Good modeling requires good data, so the two go hand in
hand. As I noted in my response to question #2, there are myriad
factors affecting the oil market at any given time. It is extremely
difficult to dissect the individual effects of these factors in the
past, and harder still to forecast how they might unfold in the future.
It is important, therefore, to provide a sense of the degree of
uncertainty surrounding these forecasts, along with one's best
estimate. Along these lines, I am advised that EIA is developing oil
price uncertainty ranges (i.e., confidence intervals) which will be
incorporated in the near future into EIA's short-term modeling and
monthly energy outlook. With regard to long-term modeling, EIA has
underway a multiyear effort, begun this fiscal year, to comprehensively
update its aging National Energy Modeling System. As I have mentioned
to several Senators, I believe that EIA should consider and communicate
the range of uncertainty surrounding price forecasts. If confirmed, I
would plan to examine these and other efforts, as well as the views of
outside experts, to ascertain how best to assure that the agency is
doing the best job it can.
hydro forecasting
Question 9. EIA's recent reports have forecast little to no growth
in the hydropower industry. Yet, as a result of new economic and other
incentives, hydro companies are developing new projects and pursuing
significant upgrades to existing facilities. We also know that there is
tremendous potential for ocean, tidal and in-stream hydrokinetic
projects. FERC currently has close to 34GW of potential projects under
investigation from all sectors of the hydropower industry, including
conventional, pumped storage and new waterpower applications. Can you
comment on this apparent discrepancy, and commit, if confirmed, that
EIA will reevaluate how it forecasts growth in the hydropower industry?
Answer. For conventional hydroelectricity, it is my understanding
that EIA relies on a site-by-site database of potential new capacity.
This database includes about 22 gigawatts of potential new capacity,
although much of this capacity is currently assumed not to be
economically viable because of high capital costs and environmental
concerns.
It is also my understanding that EIA does not estimate resources
for a variety of pre-commercial renewable technologies including tidal/
in-stream hydropower; wave, or ocean thermal technologies in early
stages of research and development. In most cases this is the result of
insufficient data on resource cost and availability and/or technology
cost and performance characteristics. With future research and
development and changing market and policy conditions, some of these
resources could become commercially viable. As technologies approach
this point of commercial introduction, improved data should be
available to allow their incorporation into EIA projections. My own
specialization in the economic issues related to the research,
development and deployment of advanced technologies, especially energy
technologies, is directly applicable to consideration of how advanced
hydroelectric technologies and other advanced technologies might be
incorporated into long-term energy projections. If confirmed, I plan to
delve into EIA's methodologies for a number of forecasts, including
hydropower capacity.
Response of Richard G. Newell to Question From Senator Bunning
iran
Question 1. Dr. Newell, the Energy Information Administration
reports on Iran's energy sector have been a valuable resource in
developing U.S. Iran foreign policy. The reports have identified
companies investing in Iran in violation of U.S. sanction laws as well
as exposing Iran's vulnerability to a cutoff of refined petroleum
imports. If confirmed, will you ensure the E.I.A continues to publish
timely, neutral, and in-depth analysis of Iran's energy sector?
Including the names of those companies investing in Iran's energy
sector?
Answer. I understand that EIA publishes periodic reports about the
energy sector in Iran and in a number of other countries. If confirmed,
I plan to continue this work and would have no plans to break with past
practices regarding inclusion of information about investment trends or
other contents of such reports.