[Senate Hearing 113-162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-162
SCHNEIDER, KORNZE, KASTNER, AND
WILLIAMS NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MS. JANICE M. SCHNEIDER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT), DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR; MR. NEIL G. KORNZE, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DR. MARC A. KASTNER, DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DR. ELLEN D. WILLIAMS,
DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-425 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator From Nevada...................... 4
Kastner, Marc A., Nominee To Be Director of the Office of
Science, Department of Energy.................................. 14
Kornze, Neil, Nominee To Be Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 11
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada....................... 3
Schneider, Janice M., Nominee To Be Assistant Secretary of the
Interior (Land and Minerals Management), Department of the
Interior....................................................... 7
Williams, Ellen D., Nominee To Be Director of the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy.......... 16
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 43
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 71
SCHNEIDER, KORNZE, KASTNER, AND
WILLIAMS NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:42 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Chairman. The committee now moves to consider 4 very
well-qualified nominees.
Janice Schneider has been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management.
Ms. Schneider is currently a partner with the law firm of
Latham and Watkins where she chairs the firm's Environment,
Land and Water Resources Committee. She co-chairs the Energy
and Infrastructure Project Siting practice. She was a counselor
to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Hayes, from 2000
to 2001 and was a trial attorney in the Environment and Natural
Resources division of the Justice Department from 1998 through
1999.
Neil Kornze has been nominated to be the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management.
He's been the Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Land
Management since January 2011, its Acting Deputy Director for
Policy and Programs since October 2011 and its Principle Deputy
since March 1st of this year.
Before joining the Department of the Interior, Mr. Kornze
held a succession of increasingly senior positions in the
Office of Majority Leader Reid from 2003 to 2011. We're pleased
that the Majority Leader is joining us here this morning.
Marc Kastner has been nominated to be the Director of the
Office of Science at the Department of Energy.
The Doctor is a physicist who has been on the faculty for
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the past 40
years. He became a full professor in 1989, the head of the
Physics Department in 1998, and has been the Dean of the School
of Science since 2007.
Dr. Ellen Williams has been nominated to be the Director of
the Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy, at the
Department of Energy.
She is currently on leave from the University of Maryland
where she's been a Professor of Physics since 1991. Since 2010
she has been the Chief Scientist for BP.
My view is is that all 4 of the nominees are highly
qualified for the positions they've been nominated for. I look
forward to hearing more about their thoughts on key issues.
Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for her statement at
this point. Then I want to call on the Majority Leader and
Senator Heller to introduce Mr. Kornze. Then we have some
formalities to take care of with respect to the nominees.
But let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we here in this Energy Committee have been spending
a lot of time, probably an extraordinary amount of time, on
nominations lately. I think what we're seeing this morning
moving forward 3 nominees after a thorough and good vetting
process. This is important.
The opportunity to take up an additional 4 this morning
from the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior,
is good. It's important.
A lot of discussion on the Floor of late about nominations,
but I think our committee, most certainly has taken the issue
of those nominees in front of us, given them, a fair
consideration and really worked it through the process, as I
believe is so important. So I thank you for that.
I'd like to welcome each of our distinguished nominees to
the committee. Thank you for your willingness to serve.
Dr. Kastner, Dr. Williams, we didn't get an opportunity to
visit personally. But your credentials are certainly
impressive. As I noted at last week's confirmation hearing, I
think that Dr. Moniz is assembling a pretty top notch team to
assist him with the important work being done by the Energy
Department. So I'm pleased with what I'm seeing coming forward
out of DOE.
Mr. Kornze, I enjoyed our meeting last week. I'm very
encouraged by your willingness to go up, be on the ground, see
what the issues are in my State. As I've mentioned it's
probably going to consume a lot more of your time than you
might want. But you'll have fun.
I can guarantee you that. They'll be some good trips there.
But it's a lot of hard work. So I appreciate your willingness
to learn and give the kind of commitment that I'm looking for
in a Federal land manager for this country.
Ms. Schneider, I appreciate the opportunity that you and I
had to visit. As I mentioned, I don't know you as well as Mr.
Beaudreau, who is currently acting in the position for which
you are now nominated. I think that Mr. Beaudreau was doing a
good job there. But he's now slated to move over to Policy,
Management and Budget.
But because the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals
Management has such a significant role in Alaska and in,
really, in energy resource development nationwide, I want to
make sure that I really do know the direction that you will
take in this position and understand better your qualities,
your qualifications and priorities for the position.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony
and the responses to our questions from the nominees this
morning.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Let me now call on Senator Reid and Senator Heller to
introduce Mr. Kornze.
We're glad to have the Majority Leader here. He has a long
record of involvement in Western resource issues and Mr.
Leader, proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Chairman Wyden, thank you very much.
Ranking Member Murkowski and wow, this is great to have so
many members here. This is nice.
Mr. Chairman, it was good for me to sit and listen to the
quality of these 4 people. It's really astounding that we have,
with all the things going on in our country today, we have
these good people who are willing to take these jobs. I think
that's remarkably important for us.
The Bureau of Land Management, to most people, doesn't mean
a thing because it is an agency that is focused on, mostly, the
West. The State of Nevada, 87 percent of the land in the State
of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government, more than any
other State and the vast majority of that 87 percent is Bureau
of Land Management land. Having been involved in government for
a number of years, the Bureau of Land Management is looked upon
as a remarkably sound agency compared to what it was 20 years
ago.
Twenty years ago the Bureau of Land Management had a lower
approval rating than the Internal Revenue Service. But they've
done a good job of becoming more modern.
Now Neil Kornze is somebody that is just perfect for the
job, raised in rural Nevada, Elko County.
Nevada has 17 counties. But in the northeastern part of the
State is a large county that is really a remarkably beautiful
place. It now has more mining in it than any place in America.
The State of Nevada produced about 6 million ounces of gold
last year and much of it came from Elko County.
But in addition to that we have beautiful ranches. Some of
them are quite famous. Bing Crosby had a big ranch there and a
lot of movie actors. But these ranches, even though they were
owned by some of these celebrities, were always working
ranches.
Elko County has beautiful wilderness area. The first
wilderness we had in the State of Nevada was a long time ago in
a place called Jarbridge which is a wonderfully beautiful,
pristine area.
The State of Nevada is a very mountainous State, more
mountainous than any State in the Union expect for Alaska. We
have more than 300 mountain ranges in Nevada.
We have a wide range of animals. Elko County has it all. We
have mountain goat and mountain sheep there and all kinds of
things. But the only place that I know of in the Western part
of the United States, other than South Dakota, there could be
other places, but we in Nevada are very proud that in Elko
County we have mountain goats in addition to all the other
animals we have.
So it's a beautiful State and a beautiful county.
Neil was born and raised in Elko County. He really does
understand the role of rural America.
He has a master's degree in International Relations from
London School of Economics. He has, as indicated here, spent a
lot of time in my office. The staff cared a great deal about
him and you can always tell what kind of a staffer you have by
how other members of the staff feel about him or her.
So he understands to develop policy in the Western part of
the United States you have to have consensus. There's a lot of
competing interest there. He understands that.
Frankly, he and I have learned a lot of that together. You
just can't charge forward and do what you know is right because
you may be wrong. He understands that.
He's been with the Bureau for some time now. His expertise
is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management.
Senator Heller has represented, as a Member of Congress,
rural Nevada, the northern part of the State which is the
Congressional District that he was a Member of Congress. I can
speak for Dean, but he'll speak for himself, this is, again, an
unusually qualified person for the Bureau of Land Management.
He has his Nevada roots but he understands the West remarkably
well.
As Senator Murkowski has said, he is a person who will be
on the ground trying to figure out the best thing to do.
So, I have every bit of confidence in Neil Kornze that he
will be the best Director we've ever had at the Bureau of Land
Management.
The Chairman. I thank the Majority Leader. You and I have
talked about Elko in the past. Now I can tell my children about
the goats.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Because now somehow I had missed that part of
the account.
But thank you very much. I very much share your view, Mr.
Leader, with respect to Neil Kornze. As you know he was
invaluable to us to the various challenges dealing with Secure
Rural Schools. We'll be talking about that.
Mr. Leader, I know you've got your hands full today. We
welcome you to stay for as long as you wish.
Senator Reid. I'm going to stay and listen to my colleague,
Dean.
The Chairman. Very good.
Very good.
Senator Heller.
Thank you for your cooperation on this as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Chairman Wyden, thank you and Ranking
Member Murkowski.
It's also a pleasure to join Senator Reid in introducing
Neil Kornze.
It would be my preference if I had been at the witness
table. Unfortunately the mobility of my foot, it wouldn't be
fair to this committee to have you endure me moving back and
forth in crutches. So please abide with me as I make my
statements from up here.
But again, I appreciate the comments that Senator Reid has
made and his comments about Neil.
Neil is a Nevadan. Neil was born and raised in Elko, as the
Leader said. I also echo that Elko is one of Nevada's most
vibrant rural communities which I believe gives Neil a
firsthand perspective of the challenges that Nevada and other
Western States face regarding our vast public lands because, as
mentioned, BLM controls roughly 67 percent of Nevada's land.
Our ability to access and use these public lands is vital to
our State and has an enormous impact on Nevada's economy.
As a Nevadan Neil understands that good public land
management, economic development are not mutually exclusive and
has taken this sensibility throughout his career.
Senator Reid and I have worked closely to find solutions to
issues facing Nevada, particularly when it comes to the
appropriate use of Nevada's public lands and natural resources.
My staff and I have enjoyed a good relationship with Neil
during his tenure in Senator Reid's office. We collaborated to
do what is best for the people of Nevada on a variety of public
lands issues including renewable energy development, mining,
water, outdoor recreation, rural development and wildlife.
Our working relationship has continued during his tenure at
BLM. Neil understands the importance of working together, has
displayed maturity and wisdom beyond his years which he will
need as he officially takes the helm of the Bureau of Land
Management.
While I've not always agreed with him on policy, he has
proven to be a good partner on public land management issues.
His pragmatic nature, his background, provides him with a fresh
perspective as the head of the BLM which allows him to think
outside the box to find ways to maximize resources, produce
good outcomes. These attributes will be especially important as
we wade into many difficult issues such as wildfires, resource
development and conservation and especially management
decisions impacting sage grouse and their habitat.
As it relates to sage grouse it bears to mention that an
ESA listing for the bird would have a devastating impact on
Nevada's fragile economy statewide. Given this it's imperative
that Nevada has the cooperation of the BLM Director as well as
other relevant Federal agencies. Neil has committed to me that
he'll continue to work together on this issue. I'm depending on
that commitment as I know my fellow Nevadans are.
The stakes are too high. We have a lot of work to do. So
I'm confident that if confirmed by the Senate, Neil will
continue to successfully manage the BLM, bring a much needed
fresh perspective to an agency facing many challenges that
directly impact Nevada and many of my colleagues on this
committee.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all those
that are with us today. I want to thank Senator Reid also for
his testimony.
By the Neil, it's good to have your wife here with you
also.
So, thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Heller, thank you.
Senator Reid, thank you as well for attending.
The rules of the committee apply to all nominees require
that they be sworn in connection with their testimony. Could
each of you rise and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give to
the Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
[Witnesses respond, I do.]
The Chairman. Before you begin your statements there are 3
questions that each of you will have to address.
The first question is, and we need a response from each of
you, 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?
[Witnesses respond, I will.]
The Chairman. 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?
[Witnesses respond, no.]
The Chairman. Are you involved or do you have assets held
in a blind trust?
[Witnesses respond, no.]
The Chairman. Alright.
We'd like to ask each of you to introduce your family
members.
Dr. Williams, go ahead.
Ms. Williams. I'm very pleased to have here today my
mother, Lois Williams and my husband, Neil Gehrels, also quite
a few people I believe from my family are watching these
proceedings online.
The Chairman. Very good.
Dr. Kastner.
Mr. Kastner. With me today is my wife of 46 years, Marcia
Kastner, who had a job as supervising all the standardized
mathematics tests for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts school
children.
Also with me are my two daughters, one from California and
one from New York, and my two sisters and their partners, one
from Maryland and one from North Carolina.
The Chairman. Very good.
You, Ms. Schneider.
Ms. Schneider. Thank you, Senator.
With me is my mother, my sister, Lisa, my partner, Cynthia
Johnson of 23 years. I'd also like to acknowledge my Latham
family which is way in the back, a large contingent. You spend
a lot of hours at a law firm and they're like family.
The Chairman. We saw the room was full. You brought them
out.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Schneider. Yes.
I'd also like to acknowledge my extended family watching on
the web in Colorado and Texas.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Kornze.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Chairman.
I'm so pleased to introduce my wife, Mara Gassmann, who is
with me today. We also online have family watching from Nevada,
Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Georgia.
The Chairman. Very good.
In order of seniority I think we probably should start with
you, Ms. Schneider. You've been nominated to be the Assistant
Secretary of Interior for Land and Minerals Management.
We'll recognize you for your statement. If you could keep
it to around 5 minutes, we'll make your prepared statement a
part of the record in its entirety.
STATEMENT OF JANICE M. SCHNEIDER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT),
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Senator
Murkowski and members of the committee, it's an honor to be
considered for the position of Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior. I
don't typically sound like this. I came down with a bug over
the weekend, so I ask for your indulgence as I work through
this brief summary.
First, I'd like to thank Secretary Jewell and President
Obama for giving the opportunity, with your consent, to serve
the American people in this position.
I second would like to thank David J. Hayes. David has been
an enormous influence on me. I always try to conduct myself
with the same levels of integrity, candor and hard work as he
does.
Distinguished members of the committee allow me to
summarize my background for you briefly and its relevance to
this position.
Although I spent my childhood in New York City, my career
has had a constant focus on natural resource use, development
and conservation issues across the country. In over 30 years
I've worked successfully with States, tribes, industry,
conservation groups and other stakeholders on a broad range of
projects. Balance, attention to stakeholder needs, strong
science, open and transparent communication, the ability to
listen and a willingness to collaborate are the elements to
being successful and to minimizing litigation.
My undergraduate education as a double science major and
work for 6 years as a marine biologist in South Florida formed
the foundation for a strongly analytical and science based
approach to my work. Working on coastal issues I was
increasingly faced with laws and regulations I wanted to
understand better. So I loaded everything I had into my
hatchback, moved out to Oregon for law school.
There, working in law school.
Excuse me?
The Chairman. Good decision.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Schneider. Go Ducks! Ha Ha.
Working in law school for the Oregon Department of Justice
on natural resource issues I was hooked. I also learned
important lessons on State's rights and that State's
perspectives may differ from Federal and tribal perspectives.
As a young attorney I practically grew up in the hallways
of Interior.
Graduating from law school I was honored to be selected
during President George H.W. Bush's Administration for the
Interior Solicitor's Office Honors Program. In my 8 and a half
years in Federal service, which included a detail to the Deputy
Secretary's office and as a litigator with the Justice
Department, I worked on with all of the department's agencies
and many of the agencies outside of the Department. I
understand their diverse missions and their broad ranging
responsibilities.
After about 8 and a half years of Federal service I went
into private practice. I'm now an equity partner at Latham and
Watkins. For the last 12 years I've focused on energy issues.
I've worked closely with those who generate and transmit
energy, those who provide important resources for this Nation's
growth and security and those who finance these projects.
I strongly believe that energy independence is vital to
this Nation's security. I understand that if confirmed the
agencies I would oversee play a critical role, not only in
getting us there, but in also creating jobs and providing
economic security across the country.
Nonetheless resource development must and can be conducted
in a balanced, environmentally sound and sustainable way. All
Federal decisions need to be science based and take diverse
views into consideration.
I strongly support the President's all of the above energy
strategy and the need for a renewable and conventional
resources both onshore and offshore. I've personally worked on
coal projects, upstream and midstream oil and gas projects,
wind, solar, geothermal projects, LNG development, hard rock
and leasable mineral development, refinery issues and extensive
transmission and pipeline work on public and private lands.
These projects are not easy. They are high stake, billion
dollar projects. They're multifaceted. They raise complex
issues and have significant stakeholder components.
I understand the business need for efficiency and
predictability for both project developers and financial
institutions. I also understand that these needs must be
balanced with environmental protection and with community
engagement.
These are not mutually exclusive goals. I am proudest when
we are able to work issues out with a broad range of
stakeholders and avoid litigation.
I've also worked on many conservation projects as detailed
in my written statement. I have over 20 years of experience
with American Indian issues. So I understand the Federal
Government's responsibility to honor tribal views, protect
trust and treaty resources. If confirmed I will bring this
balanced and experienced approach to this office.
Finally, I appreciate that public lands are also critically
important recreation areas. I love being outdoors. I've
detailed some of my exploits in my written statement.
Many have asked why I would consider leaving a strong and
successful law practice. The answer is simple. I believe in
public service. I believe that I can contribute to these issues
in a balanced and transparent way.
If confirmed I look forward to working with each of you on
this committee with Congress and stakeholders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee. I'm happy to take any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schneider follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janice M. Schneider, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of the Interior (Land and Minerals Management), Department of
the Interior
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Senator Murkowski, and
members of the committee. It is an honor to be considered for
the position of Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and an honor
to appear before you today.
First, I want to thank Secretary Jewell and President Obama
for giving me the opportunity, with your consent, to serve the
American people in this position.
Second, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends
in the audience, including my mother; my partner Cynthia
Johnson; my sister; and my dad and the rest of my extended
family watching from Colorado and Texas for all of their love
and support. I would not be here today without you.
Third, I want to thank David J. Hayes. David has been an
enormous influence. I always try to conduct myself with the
same levels of integrity, candor and hard work as he does. I
would also like to thank my many other friends, including my
colleagues and partners at Latham & Watkins LLP and my clients,
for the opportunities we have shared together.
Distinguished Members of the Committee, allow me to
summarize my background for you and its relevance to this
position:
Although I spent my childhood in New York City, my career
has had a consistent focus on natural resource use,
development, and conservation issues across the country.
In over 30 years, I have worked successfully with states,
tribes, industry, conservation groups and other stakeholders on
a wide variety of projects. Balance, attention to stakeholder
needs, strong science, open and transparent communication, the
ability to listen, and a willingness to collaborate, are the
elements to being successful and minimizing litigation.
I have always been drawn to the sciences and the natural
environment. My undergraduate education as a double science
major, and work for six years as a marine biologist in south
Florida, formed the foundation for a strongly analytical and
science based approach to my work.
I began my professional career as a research biologist in
south Florida investigating population and abundance of
commercially and recreationally important fish species--such as
stone crab, swordfish, sardines in the Gulf of Mexico, and
shrimp--to support sustainable use strategies. At the
University of Miami's experimental fish hatchery, I worked to
develop techniques to support viable fish stocking of snook, a
popular game fish, which was then in decline. I also worked on
oceanographic cruises in the Straits of Florida, mapping the
location of ocean density layers, and for the National Park
Service down at Everglades National Park.
As a professional, I transitioned to managing teams
assessing the environmental impacts of proposed projects--such
as new or widened roads, highways and causeways--at the Florida
Department of Transportation, and worked extensively on coastal
development issues as a private environmental consultant.
Working on these projects (such as large marinas and other
coastal development) raised a host of environmental review and
mitigation issues, including wetlands, endangered species, and
cultural resources.
I was increasingly faced with laws and regulations that I
wanted to understand better. It piqued my interest in the law.
So, after over six years of working as a biologist, I loaded
everything I had into my hatchback and moved to Portland,
Oregon for law school, to expand my horizons and my experience.
The rest of my career has been spent focusing on western
resource issues.
During law school, I worked for two years for the Oregon
Department of Justice on a very broad range of natural resource
issues. These included: mining in eastern Oregon; tribal
treaty, recreational, and commercial fishing rights, licensing
and regulation; western water law; public access, hunting and
law enforcement; timber, and sensitive species issues; other
Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act
issues; and evaluating new oil spill legislation. Working for
Oregon, I learned the importance of state perspectives on
issues, and that they may differ from federal and tribal
perspectives.
As a young attorney, I practically grew up in the hallways
of Interior. Upon graduation, I was selected by Tom Sansonetti,
during President George H. W. Bush's Administration for the
Interior Solicitor's Honors Program. In my six and a half years
there--including a detail to the Deputy Secretary's Office--I
worked with all of the Department's agencies, including the
Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining, the
former Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological
Survey.
As a litigator with the Justice Department--where I
specialized in Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and Marine Mammal Protection
Act litigation--I worked closely with other agencies outside
Interior, such as NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Forest Service. I understand each agency's
diverse missions and broad ranging responsibilities.
After eight and a half years in public service, I went into
private practice. I am now an equity partner with Latham &
Watkins LLP; the Local Chair of the Environmental Department
here in Washington, DC; and a co-chair of the Energy and
Infrastructure, Siting and Defense practice.
For the last 12 years, I have focused on energy issues, and
worked closely with industry, including those who generate and
transmit energy, those who provide important resources for this
Nation's growth and security, and those who finance these
projects.
I strongly believe that energy independence is vital to
this Nation's security and a priority for the Administration. I
understand that, if confirmed, the agencies I would oversee
play a critical role not only in getting us there, but also
creating jobs and providing economic security across the
country, while adapting and responding to climate change.
Nonetheless, resource development must--and can--be conducted
in a balanced, environmentally sound, and sustainable way. All
Federal decisions must be science-based and must take diverse
views into consideration.
I strongly support the President's ``All of the Above''
energy strategy, and the need to increase our renewable and
conventional resources, both onshore and offshore. Among other
things, I personally have worked on coal projects across the
country; oil and gas projects, including in the Bakken; wind,
solar and geothermal projects in West Virginia, Hawai'i,
Washington, California and Nevada, respectively; LNG
development in Louisiana; hardrock and leaseable mineral
development in Oregon, Idaho and Minnesota, respectively;
refinery issues in Alaska; and extensive high voltage
transmission and pipeline work on public and private lands.
For example, I recently led the legal strategy for
development and successful defense of a $2 billion transmission
line, one of the first specifically built to deliver renewable
energy, and also successfully handled the environmental review
for a new mineral rights development. These projects are not
easy; they are multi-faceted and raise complex issues. One
project I am working on right now involves seven different
federal agencies, along with needed state and tribal approvals.
These projects also have significant stakeholder components. I
understand the business need for efficiency and predictability
for both project developers and financial institutions. I also
understand those needs must be balanced with environmental
protection and community engagement. These are not mutually
exclusive goals. I am proudest when we are able to work issues
out with a range of stakeholders and avoid litigation.
I have also worked on many conservation and mitigation
efforts during my career. This includes: helping to create two
national parks (the Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado,
and Paterson National Historical Park in New Jersey); helping
to restore river flows in the Trinity, the Flathead and the
Missouri; working to improve the Everglades and California Bay
Delta ecosystems; land acquisition for conservation; and, I
have first-hand experience implementing a broad range of
protective and mitigation measures to address impacts from
development projects. I also have over twenty years of
experience with American Indian issues and understand the
federal government's responsibility to honor tribal views, and
protect trust and treaty resources.
If confirmed, I will bring this experience and a balanced
approach to the office.
Finally, I appreciate that the public lands are also
critically important recreational areas. I love being outside.
I will never forget my first backpacking trip on Mount Hood in
Oregon and the raw beauty of the Pacific Northwest, hiking
Aravaipa Canyon on BLM lands in Arizona, rafting the Arkansas
River in Colorado, duck hunting on a magical morning in the
Everglades, or the pleasure of surf-fishing on a lot of beaches
on the east coast. While I like to ski in the winter, and to
sea kayak when it is not quite so cold, I also understand and
respect that people like to recreate in different ways, which
should--and can--be accommodated.
Many have asked me why I would consider leaving an
interesting and successful law practice. The answer is simple.
I believe in public service, and I believe that I can
contribute to the dialogue on energy policy and conservation in
a balanced, transparent and positive way. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with each of you on this Committee, Congress
and stakeholders, in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, distinguished
Members of the Committee. I am happy to take any questions you
may have.
The Chairman. Ms. Schneider, thank you.
Why don't we go to you next, Mr. Kornze?
STATEMENT OF NEIL KORNZE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member
Murkowski and members of the committee. It's an honor to be
here today as the President's nominee for the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management.
I'd also like to thank Senator Heller and Senator Reid for
their kind comments.
My family's connection to the land goes back generations.
My great grandparents homesteaded on the Great Plains. My
grandparents grew and packed apples in the Pacific Northwest.
My father explored for gold in States like Nevada and all
around the West. Through this, the bounty of the land has
always been central to my understanding of our Nation and our
potential.
As an individual I'm a hunter, an angler, a hiker, a
recreational shooter and a white water enthusiast when I can
find the time. I'm also a consumer of fossil fuels and
renewable energy.
Growing up in Northeastern Nevada I came to know the
importance of natural resources through hometown industries
like gold mining and cattle ranching. In fact my first job out
of high school was working at one of the Nation's largest hard
rock mines.
Life in Elko also introduced me to the recreational
opportunities that public lands afford. Many weekends were
spend hunting the local hills or exploring remote areas by 4
wheeler or on foot. Through these pursuits and practices and
through my work both in the U.S. Senate and at the BLM I've
come to understand our Nation's natural heritage from a wide
range of perspectives.
During my time working here in the U.S. Senate I had the
great privilege of working with many of you to craft critical
national legislation like the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009
and to work on a long term reauthorization of the Secure Rural
Schools Act and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program.
As Majority Leader Reid's advisor on public lands I worked
with members on both sides of the aisle and with this committee
to promote responsible development and smart conservation in
places where they make sense.
Over the last 3 years I worked at the BLM in a number of
leadership positions including my current role as Principle
Deputy Director. Through this position which I have held for
the past year, I've been the functioning head of the agency. In
this role I have strived both to bring a continuity of
leadership to the organization as well as a willingness to
approach issues with fresh eyes.
While at the BLM I've worked with my colleagues to find new
ways to connect and collaborate with the public, our
stakeholders and even with our own internal team to further our
core mission of multiple use and sustained yield. We've made
some strides in this area. But much more needs to be done to
provide clear, more user friendly information for the public to
understand the resources that are on the public lands and our
short and long term plans for management.
The issue of communication is a particular challenge for
the agency because unlike some of our sister agencies the
resources we manage are scattered across all 50 States and
there is rarely a clear demarcation of where public lands start
and stop.
We're proud, however, of the way that this pattern places
us as an integral partner of communities, both rural and urban.
But it also gives us an added responsibility to be very clear
about where we are and what we do.
Right now at the Bureau we are in the process of using
technology to break down barriers. In the oil and gas realm
we've made improvements, important improvements, in the last
few years in our processing and drilling permits. We will
continue that progress with the use of an online APD system
that will be tested and rolled out in the year ahead.
Similarly we have a unique responsibility in the State of
Alaska to native corporations and to the State itself. That
responsibility is conveying millions of acres of land. By
looking at this particular challenge over the last months in
the last year, we have found ways to use technology to
literally take decades off of our current schedule for those
land conveyances, to do it at a fraction of the cost and to do
it while delivering an even better product than what we have
today.
So we're very proud of some of these innovations.
Through these efforts and through greater use of science
and our decisionmaking processes and by moving to a more nimble
landscape level planning approach, we will have incredible
opportunities in the years ahead.
As you know the challenges we face are also substantial.
Fire, drought and the decline of species like sage grouse are
all situations we must adapt to and we must help address.
We also have to do more to understand the most durable ways
to mitigate the development impacts on public lands and to
restore the public lands so that we can truly live up to our
agency's mandate of public use and sustained yield.
If confirmed I will work with my partners and my hard
working BLM colleagues to tackle these issues directly. It's a
great honor to be here with you today. I look forward to taking
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neil Kornze, Nominee to be Director, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
Members of the Committee. I am deeply honored to be here today
as President Obama and Secretary Jewell's nominee to be the
next Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Before we
begin, I would like to take a moment to introduce my wife, Mara
Gassmann, who is here with me. I am grateful for her support
and that of our extended family who are watching today from
Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Georgia.
My family's connection to the land goes back generations.
From my great grandparents who homesteaded on the Great Plains,
to my grandparents who grew, picked and packed apples in the
Pacific Northwest, to my father who spent his career exploring
Nevada and other states for gold and copper deposits, the
bounty of the land has always been central to my understanding
of our nation's greatness and its potential. As an individual,
I am a hunter, an angler, a hiker, a recreational shooter, and
a mountain bike rider. I am also a consumer of fossil fuels and
renewable energy. Through these pursuits and practices and
through my work both here in the U.S. Senate and at the Bureau
of Land Management, I have come to appreciate our nation's
natural heritage from a wide range of perspectives.
During my time working here in the U.S. Senate, I had the
privilege of helping to craft critical national legislation
like the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 and a long-term
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Payment-In-
Lieu-of-Taxes programs. As Majority Leader Harry Reid's advisor
on public land and natural resource issues, I worked closely
with Members from both parties and this committee to move
forward statutory improvements that recognized both the need
for responsible development of our natural resources and smart
conservation in places where it makes sense.
Over the last three years I have worked at the Bureau of
Land Management in a number of leadership positions, including
my current role of Principal Deputy Director. Through this
position--which I have held for the past year--I have been the
functioning head of the Bureau of Land Management. In this
role, I have strived to bring both a continuity of leadership
and vision to the organization as well as a willingness to
innovate and to approach our many responsibilities with fresh
eyes.
Many of the accomplishments of the first-term, including
oil and gas leasing reforms and the Western Solar Plan, are
still a work in progress. Limited budgets coupled with the
long-term nature of the work we do means that successful
implementation of programs often takes years. This reality
makes long-term stability in the organization's leadership and
philosophy a critical component of achieving our shared goals.
While at the Bureau of Land Management, I have worked with
my colleagues to find new ways of connecting with the public,
our partners, and our own internal team. We have made some
strides in this area, but much more needs to be done to provide
clearer, more user-friendly information about the resources
that exist on the public lands and the both long and short-term
plans for management.
The issue of communication is a particular challenge for
the Bureau because, unlike some of our sister agencies, the
resources that we manage are scattered across all 50 states,
and there is rarely a clear demarcation of where the public
lands stop and start. We are proud of the way that this land
pattern places us as a key partner to so many communities, both
rural and urban, but it also gives us an added responsibility
to harness available tools to better inform the public about
where we are and what we do.
Right now at the Bureau we are in the process of using
technology to break down barriers. In the oil and gas realm, we
have made strong improvements in our reviews of drilling
permits in recent years, but we can and will do better through
the use of an online permitting system that will be tested and
rolled out over the next several months.
Similarly, we have a unique responsibility for surveying
and conveying millions of acres of land to native corporations
and to the State of Alaska. This work has historically been
done through a relatively slow and expensive process. By
looking at this particular challenge with a new perspective, we
have found ways to fulfill our commitment to the State of
Alaska literally decades ahead of the current schedule, at a
fraction of the cost, and with a greatly improved product.
In the face of declining budgetary resources and increasing
demands on our nation's public lands and minerals, I am
committed to exploring new approaches with the public, our
stakeholders, and Congress so that the Bureau of Land
Management can become a more effective and more responsive
organization. Through these efforts and through greater use of
science in our decision-making processes and by moving to a
more nimble, landscape-level planning approach, we have
incredible opportunities in the years ahead.
As you know, the challenges we face are also substantial.
Fire, drought, and the decline of critical species like sage
grouse are all situations that we must adapt to and help
address. We must also do more to understand the most durable
ways to mitigate development impacts and to restore the public
lands so that we can truly live up to the agency's dual mission
of multiple use and sustained yield.
If confirmed, I will work with my dedicated colleagues,
Congress and the public to tackle these issues directly and to
ensure that the Bureau of Land Management continues to play a
vital role in the American economy and in sustaining public
lands for this and all future generations to use and to enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share these
thoughts with you and your distinguished colleagues. I consider
it a great privilege to be here with you today. I look forward
to answering any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kornze.
We're glad to have you back. As you and I have talked about
Western resources issues are not for the faint-hearted. You
have been through a lot of those challenges and we're glad to
have you here.
Mr. Kastner.
STATEMENT OF MARC A. KASTNER, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Kastner. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be
Director of the Office of Science.
I'm honored and indeed, humbled by being nominated by
President Obama and supported by Secretary Moniz to lead the
organization that is the largest supporter of physical sciences
research in the United States. If confirmed I look forward to
working with this committee to address the challenges of
maintaining the Nation's leadership in fundamental science
which is so important to our security and economic health.
I was born in Canada and moved to Cleveland, Ohio with my
parents at the age of 7 and then went to the University of
Chicago for both undergraduate and graduate education. I
majored in chemistry as an undergraduate and then switched to
physics as a graduate student. After a short post-doctoral
research experience I moved to MIT and I've been there for over
40 years on the faculty of the Physics Department.
I feel today as though I've come full circle because my
first research experience took place at Argonne National
Laboratory, one of the great national laboratories run by the
Office of Science for the benefit of the country.
I've been doing research for nearly 50 years. I've been
privileged to have some exciting discoveries, primarily because
I've had brilliant colleagues at MIT and brilliant students and
brilliant post-doctoral researchers to work with. I won't bore
you with any of the details of my research.
Twenty years ago I began taking on administrative
responsibilities which, I think, are relevant to the position
of the Director of the Office of Science.
The first was as Director of an NSF funded materials
research center where I coordinated the research of 50 faculty
members in science departments and engineering departments.
After that I became Head of the Department of Physics where
I was responsible for faculty that did research in high energy
physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics as well as solid state
physics and astrophysics, many of the primary responsibilities
of the Office of Science to support these areas.
In 2007 I became Dean of the School of Science and my
portfolio broadened further to include the life sciences, the
earth sciences and chemistry as well as mathematics.
So over the years I've had supervisory responsibility for
people working in almost all of the areas that are supported by
the Office of Science.
I chaired two different committees of the National Research
Council of the National Academies that explored issues asked
for by the Office of Science. I therefore got some insight into
policy and other challenges and opportunities faced by the
Department.
Over the years I've had the privilege of having my own
research funded by the Federal Government, by the National
Science Foundation, by the Department of Defense and of course,
by the Department of Energy. At this stage in my life I really
look forward to helping younger people keep the United States
at the forefront of research.
Let me close by reiterating that our quality of life, the
health of our economy, the strength of our national defense and
the security of our energy future all stem from discoveries in
basic science. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with
members of this committee to ensure that basic science
continues to thrive at DOE and that its discoveries are turned
sufficiently into technologies that serve the American people.
I thank you again for considering my nomination and will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kastner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc A. Kastner, Nominee to be Director of the
Office of Science, Department of Energy
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today as you consider my nomination for the position of
Director of the Office of Science at the Department of Energy
(DOE). I am honored and humbled to be nominated by President
Obama and supported by Secretary Moniz to lead this enterprise,
which is the largest supporter of physical sciences in the
United States. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
this Committee to address the challenges of maintaining the
Nation's leadership in fundamental science, which is so
critical to our security and economic health.
I am pleased that some members of my family are here today:
My spouse of more than 46 years, Marcia Kastner, has a Ph. D.
in applied mathematics. Although most of her career was in the
private sector, her last job was supervising all of the
standardized mathematics tests for the children of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Our two daughters are here, who
are both business women; one has worked at startups in
California, the other is starting a company of her own in
Brooklyn, New York. Finally my two sisters are here with their
partners, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.
I was born in Canada, but moved with my family at the age
of 7 to Cleveland, Ohio. In college, at the University of
Chicago, I studied Chemistry as an undergraduate and then
switched to Physics in graduate school. In a sense, I have come
full circle, because my first scientific publication, of which
there are now about 270, was based on research done as an
undergraduate, at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, one
of the great National Labs supported by the Office of Science.
In nearly 50 years of research, I have worked on
fundamental questions related to how electrons move inside
solids, a field that has provided the science underpinning the
electronics and computer industries. Since joining the faculty
of MIT just over 40 years ago, I have led extremely talented
graduate students and postdoctoral scientists in experiments
that have contributed to the understanding of novel
semiconductors and superconductors. Our early research was on
amorphous semiconductors, some of which are now used for solar
energy conversion and others as the active memory material in
DVDs. When high-temperature superconductivity was discovered in
1986, I began a 15-year collaboration with Robert Birgeneau,
who recently stepped down as Chancellor of the University of
California at Berkeley, and the late great Brookhaven National
Laboratory scientist Gen Shirane. We used the High Flux Beam
Reactor at Brookhaven to study the magnetic properties of the
fascinating materials, whose ability to transmit electricity
without loss has the potential for increasing the efficiency of
the electricity grid. The research at the reactor gave me a
deep appreciation of the value of the large facilities than can
only be built and maintained by the Office of Science. The work
for which I am perhaps best known, was the discovery of a
transistor that turns on and off again every time one electron
is added to it; this should be compared with the transistors in
your cell phone, which take several hundred electrons and can
turn on only once before they are turned off. This single-
electron transistor, may someday help to make computers with
greater computing power and lower energy consumption.
Twenty years ago, I began to take on administrative
responsibilities at MIT, which gave me an appreciation of ever
expanding areas of science. As Director of the Materials
Research Science and Engineering Center, funded by NSF, I
organized the research of about 50 faculty members from the
Schools of Science and Engineering working on interdisciplinary
projects. When I became Head of the Department of Physics, I
was responsible for a faculty carrying out research in high
energy, nuclear, atomic, condensed matter and astrophysics.
Finally, for the past six years, I have been Dean of the School
of Science, which has given me oversight of the life sciences,
chemistry, earth sciences and mathematics, including some
computer science. Thus, I have had administrative
responsibility for research in almost all the fields supported
by the Office of Science.
MIT has an outstanding record of turning scientific
discoveries into technology and bringing the latter to the
market place by starting new companies. I am enthusiastic about
working with the Undersecretary for Science and the Director of
ARPA-E and others at the Department, to explore new ways of
increasing the speed with which technology transfer happens at
DOE.
In the past decade, I was privileged to serve as the chair
of two committees of the National Research Council, which
oversaw numerous studies requested by the Office of Science. I
also served on several committees of the Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee. These have given me a view of some of the
policy challenges and opportunities that I will face if I am
confirmed.
I have been privileged to have had my own research
supported by government agencies, including the NSF and
Department of Defense, as well as DOE, for nearly half a
century. I look forward, if confirmed, to helping younger
scientists make progress at the frontiers of knowledge.
Let me close by reiterating that our quality of life, the
health of our economy, the strength of our national defense and
the security of our energy future all stem from discoveries in
basic science. I look forward to working with members of this
Committee to ensure that basic science continues to thrive at
DOE and that its discoveries are turned efficiently into
technologies that serve the American people.
I thank you again for considering my nomination, and I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Doctor, thank you, a very helpful statement.
I'm particularly pleased that you want to focus on young people
and making sure that they understand the possibilities for
science.
I've begun something at home called listening to Oregon's
future where I get out to the high schools and just listen to
the students about their hopes and aspirations. Science comes
up again and again and again.
So we'll want to ask you about that.
Mr. Kastner. Thank you.
The Chairman. Dr. Ellen Williams, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden, Ranking
Member Murkowski and members of the committee. I truly
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as President
Obama's nominee for the Director of ARPA-E.
I also would like to express my thanks to President Obama
and to Secretary Moniz for trusting me and giving me this
opportunity. If confirmed I would do everything in my power to
validate that trust.
As you know, ARPA-E's mission is to accelerate the creation
of transformative technologies at the very earliest stages of
development. I'd like to give you a little bit of information
about my background in the context of ARPA-E's mission.
As you know I grew up in Michigan. I attended Michigan
State University for my bachelor's degree studying chemistry.
Then I went on to California Institute of Technology, also in
chemistry.
But there I was introduced to the power of
interdisciplinary research, the special opportunities to
advance technology that occur at the boundaries between
disciplines. So in my subsequent research career I've worked at
the boundaries of chemistry, chemical engineering, physics and
materials science.
I became a professor at the University of Maryland, was
there for nearly 30 years. I did teaching and research, ran a
large research laboratory and a research center.
In parallel with my academic career I had the opportunity
to work in government service as a member of a consulting group
that worked upon request for agencies of the U.S. Government
providing technical assessments of various applications of
technology. In that role I've worked on studies for many
agencies including DARPA, the Department of Defense, NNSA and
the Department of Energy.
Over the decades of my research and consulting career I've
had multiple opportunities to observe firsthand the
transformation of early stage research, fundamental studies of
what might seem to be very obscure and esoteric types, very
difficult to carry forward, that have moved forward, step by
step, over a ten or twenty year time scale to become
commercialized products which are truly changing the way that
we run our lives. As a result I have a lot of optimism about
the long term power of transformative technology.
Four years ago I had the opportunity to become involved
directly in the commercial energy world when I was given the
opportunity to become BP's Chief Scientist. At BP I've had a
number of responsibilities, but among those that I found the
most satisfying have been those that involved innovation and
emerging technologies. I worked internally with BP's creative
and innovative technologists to provide them with the tools and
opportunities for them to look at emerging technologies and
bring them into the company and discover new ways of delivering
value.
I've also worked externally appraising what's available in
emerging technologies worldwide and trying to understand their
strategic impacts for the energy industry overall.
In both of these roles one of my key criteria and drivers
has been really using strong, rigor in technical assessments
and being able to develop a sound understanding of what's both
technically and economically feasible and with that rigor of
assessment also developing a rigor of communication because as
a technologist I have a responsibility to bring to the
decisionmakers the information that they need to make good
policy decisions moving forward.
So in summary what I would bring to the role as the
Director of ARPA-E, if confirmed, are my many years of
experience in basic research and understanding the applications
of research through to technology and commercial development,
my optimism and my enthusiasm for the power of transformative
technology and my strong commitment to rigor and technical
assessment and communication.
As you all know the United States faces a lot of challenges
and a lot of opportunities in developing and delivering the
secure, clean and affordable energy that we need to maintain
our quality of lives. I believe that ARPA-E's programs are
essential to these challenges and I'm very honored to have the
opportunity to work with ARPA-E in continuing to deliver value.
If I'm confirmed I would look forward to working with every
member of this committee to deliver that value.
So I thank you for your attention. I'll be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellen D. Williams, Nominee to be Director of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), Department of
Energy
Chairman Wyden, Ranking member Murkowski, members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today as President Obama's nominee for Director of the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) at the United States
Department of Energy (DOE). It is an honor to be here.
I would like to thank President Obama for nominating me for
this position. If confirmed, I would do my utmost to justify
the confidence he has placed in me. I also would like to
express my gratitude to Secretary Moniz for his support. If
confirmed, it will be a privilege to join his team.
I also would like to thank my family, my parents Lois and
Richard Williams, my husband, Neil Gehrels and his parents Tom
and Aleida Gehrels, my brothers and sisters, my children Thomas
and Emily, and my friends and colleagues. Their guidance, love
and support are the foundation for all my efforts.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, ARPA-E is a young agency that is
applying to energy technology the approaches to innovation and
value development that have been demonstrated with long term
success by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
for military technology. If confirmed, I will bring to the role
my lifetime of experience in scientific research and in
supporting the application of cutting-edge technology to meet
pressing social needs.
I grew up in Michigan, in the Detroit suburbs, and
experienced first-hand the benefits to local communities of a
thriving manufacturing base. I went to college at Michigan
State University, where I studied chemistry. The excellent
program there made it possible for me to go on to advanced
studies at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena,
California. There I was introduced to a broad perspective of
interdisciplinary research, and as a result my subsequent
career in science has spanned the disciplines of chemistry,
chemical engineering and materials science.
After my doctoral and post-doctoral work, I became a
professor at the University of Maryland in College Park. As a
professor, teaching and running a research laboratory and later
a research center, I saw over a decade's time amazing
transformations in which difficult and esoteric experiments led
to new technologies that shifted the baseline of the possible.
This has left me with optimism about the potential of science
and innovation. If confirmed I would bring this vision--
optimism, and my enthusiasm to the work of ARPA-E.
In parallel with my academic career, I had the opportunity
to be involved in government service as a member of a
technology group that provides advice upon request to the U.S.
government. In this role I participated in technical
assessments for DARPA and the Department of Defense, and for
other government agencies including the National Nuclear
Security Administration and DOE. The DOE studies included
stockpile stewardship, site remediation, and science
activities. If confirmed, I would bring this external
perspective to further developing the complementary
relationship between ARPA-E and other DOE programs.
In the midst of this satisfying and productive academic and
service career, four years ago I had the opportunity to become
directly involved in energy technology as BP's Chief Scientist.
In this role I have been involved in both internally-facing and
externally-facing activities. One of my greatest sources of
pride in the inward-facing role has been giving our technology
teams the space and resource to apply their talent and
creativity to generate new technical value through innovation.
In my externally-facing role, I've been responsible for
assessing technology that may have strategic implications for
the world energy industries. In doing so I've applied a
stringent criterion of testing the technical basis for all
assertions--this is essential to provide decision makers with
the information they need to make sound choices for the future.
If confirmed, I will bring the same rigor in supporting the
members of this Committee with the information you need about
ARPA-E and innovation in energy technology.
Mr. Chairman, we as a nation face great challenges and
great opportunities in proving the secure, clean and affordable
energy essential to our quality of life both now and for
generations to come. ARPA-E is playing an important role in
establishing new, transformational opportunities for the
future. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with the
members of this Committee to help ARPA-E deliver the greatest
value and impact.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before
this Committee. I look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
The Chairman. Doctor, thank you. We will.
Let me begin, if I might, for Ms. Schneider and Mr. Kornze,
on the whole issue with respect to financial stewardship and
financial stewardship on our public lands. I think it's quite
clear that our public lands can and should be used for many
valuable purposes; recreation, mining, oil and gas development,
routes for oil and gas pipelines, electric transmission lines,
and forestry would be a few of them.
There remains an obligation to the American taxpayer to
make sure that our taxpayers are getting a fair return for
commercial use of their public lands. A major share of onshore
royalties also go to State and Indian tribes so shortcomings in
royalty collections also short our States and our tribes.
Shortly, a General Accounting Office report will be released
that raises questions about how well the Department has been
doing to ensure that taxpayers are getting a fair return for
oil and gas development on both offshore and onshore public
lands.
Now I think it would be fair to say it's not clear that the
Interior Department, and especially the Bureau of Land
Management, has always kept up with the times.
In addition, according to recent work done by the General
Accounting Office in the Department's Office of the Inspector
General, policies could also be improved with regard to the
Federal coal program. For example, earlier this year the
Inspector General reported that only one of BLM's offices takes
the value of coal exports into account when setting the fair
market value for coal leases.
So let me begin with a question for you, Ms. Schneider, a
question for you, Mr. Kornze. If you two are confirmed, will
you commit this morning to working with the committee to update
Interior's approach to managing public lands to ensure that
taxpayers receive a fair return for the use of their lands?
Ms. Schneider, let's start with you.
Ms. Schneider. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Yes, I agree that the U.S. taxpayer should be getting a
fair return for the use of public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf and that those benefits can also flow to the
States and tribes as appropriately.
I look forward, if confirmed, to reviewing this new GAO
report and working with the members of the committee on this
issue.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Kornze.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Securing a fair return is part of our mandate at the Bureau
of Land Management, making sure that we're looking out for the
public. So we're making some progress on the coal issue, in
particular. We do have some recommendations from GAO and IG
that we are implementing.
So I think we're making progress on some fronts. If
confirmed, you can be certain that we will continue to take
fair return for the taxpayer very seriously.
The Chairman. Very good.
Let me move now to a major Oregon issue. That is, and Mr.
Kornze you're familiar with it, the Oregon and California
legislation that is so important to Oregon's rural counties.
I have spent a great deal of time trying to find a way.
This is a hugely important issue to Oregonians--to double the
timber harvest because these communities have been hit so hard
economically--on average double those timber harvests, each
year for the next 20 years. I believe that we found a way to do
it. In effect, you all have validated that estimate that's been
done by our scientists and at the same time protect our
treasures.
Now my question to you is--and your folks have been very
helpful, both in Oregon and here in Washington, DC--if
confirmed, will you continue to work with me to develop ways to
implement the part of the issue that's so critical, the
National Environmental Policy Act, early in the process on a
large landscape scale basis, to ensure that NEPA fulfills its
twin goals of considering the environmental impact of a
proposed action and informing the public without contributing
to unnecessary delay?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, we are moving to a landscape level
approach in much of the work that we do at the BLM. So we look
forward to working with you on your forestry effort in Oregon.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think it's very clear that NEPA
is right at the heart of the debate. What we're going to have
to do is find a way to make sure that all of the stakeholders,
all of them, up front in Oregon, get a chance to participate in
that discussion. That's what we do for both the moist forests
and the dry forests.
But then we have a certain predictability and certainty for
the days ahead. We want to work closely with you on it. Of
course, you've already indicated to me that you want to come up
with a long-term solution for county funding as well. I will
just note that for the record.
I'm going to have some additional questions for you on the
second round, particularly with respect to helium and methane
leakage. But my time is expired.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to ask a couple questions about critical minerals
and hard rock mining directed to both you, Ms. Schneider and
Mr. Kornze.
On the critical minerals the Chairman and I, along with 16
of our colleagues, have recently reintroduced my Critical
Minerals Policy Act directing the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a list of minerals that are critical to the American
economy. Very, very--30 thousand foot.
If you can both inform me whether or not you think there is
value to updating our mineral policies. If so, if you will
agree to assist us with this, what I think is a very important
measure, to move this legislation forward in the next year.
Mr. Kornze, you want to start?
Mr. Kornze. Yes, thank you.
I've not looked at the details of that legislation. But I
do think that identifying our critical minerals in this Nation
is important. Certainly many other nations have been aggressive
about securing mineral stocks for themselves. I think that's
something that we need to pay close attention to.
I look forward to working with you on that in addition to
bringing in cooperators like USGS and other agencies.
Senator Murkowski. I thank you for that. I think all we
need to do is look to yesterday's news when China imposes a
quota on critical minerals recognizing that everything that Dr.
Williams and Dr. Kastner are going to need to do their job is
dependent on a supply of critical minerals.
Ms. Schneider.
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you.
I agree completely. I've done a lot of mineral development
work in my career. I think it's important for the United States
to be producing critical minerals that are important for
defense purposes and other purposes as part of our overall
national security.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
One of the issues that I think both of you are going to
confront as they relate to accessing hard rock minerals is the
EPA's decision to involve itself in the financial assurance
requirement for hard rock mining operations. I think this is
over reach by the EPA. You have the BLM. You've got the Forest
Service and really every relevant State that already have
programs in place.
Based on the correspondence that I have had with DOI and
the Forest Service these programs all seem to be working at the
Federal level. So I'm just--I'm not certain why EPA needs to
inject itself, add additional requirements there.
So the question, and again, this is to both of you, is
whether or not you think that there are any deficiencies that
we have within existing programs that would require EPA's
involvement? Just basically, flat out, do you think that EPA
needs to be involved in this process?
Certainly you, Mr. Kornze, will you defend BLM's statutory
role, particularly in the interagency process?
Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
The BLM has, I believe, an impressive record in modern hard
rock mining since our 3809 regs have been put in place. We had
a very successful run in making sure that operations are in
environmental compliance and our net benefit to the communities
that they serve and to our general Nation.
So related to EPA we've had many discussions with them in
recent years about projects all up and down the Western United
States. We have had--we've shared thoughts at times about the
appropriateness of various roles. We're continuing to work on
that relationship with EPA.
Senator Murkowski. I'd ask you to look very, very
critically at it. It sounds like you've had some conversations.
But I think it needs to be visited very seriously.
Ms. Schneider.
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you.
I can also add that EPA has, based on my experience, also
injected itself into the leasable minerals area as well on the
bonding issue. I think it's a dialog that we need to have with
EPA, if confirmed. Based on my review of BLM regulations I
think the regulations are strong and adequate to support
necessary reclamation for mineral development.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Dr. Williams, just very briefly, I appreciated your
background and clearly your level of interest, what you will be
able to provide at ARPA-E. I'm reminded of a gentleman that the
Chairman met with on his visit to Alaska last year, a guy who
doesn't know the meaning of the word no, particularly when it
comes to advancing new ideas in energy. He says we don't need
more engineers, we need imagineers. I view this as the role of
ARPA-E in so many different ways.
I note that you have recently co-authored a publication
titled, Water in Energy Industry. It's something that I have a
particular interest in, this energy/water nexus. I would hope
that in this area you could bring a fresh perspective. You
could be that imagineer.
As we think of those issues that hold us back in our energy
development or that cause complications as we process our
energy. So much of it is tied to water. So at ARPA-E you have
the opportunity to truly be that imagineer that can change the
direction that we can take and particularly as it relates to
the water/energy nexus.
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much, Senator. I'm very
excited about the opportunities at ARPA-E of taking the
imaginative early stage ideas and moving them forward to a
point where they can be commercialized.
I also agree with you that the issue of water along with
energy is a very cogent and important one. It's well matched to
ARPA-E's mission of energy efficiency.
So if confirmed these would be areas that I'd be very
excited in working on.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. A number of colleagues have been very
patient. Next in order of appearance is Senator Manchin to be
followed by Senator Scott.
Well it will not be the first time we've made that mistake.
So let us recognize Senator----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Let us recognize--oh I mistook my numbers. I
thought it was a 7 rather than a one. I apologize to my
colleagues. It is Senator Heinrich followed by Senator Scott.
Senator Heinrich. For the record I just wanted to say I'm
all for imagineers, but as the only engineer in the Senate, we
could use a few more engineers.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. OK.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Kornze, welcome, first of all.
As somebody who is a do it yourself public lands hunter and
I know you embrace that activity as well, I'm really interested
right now on in the issue of making sure that our public lands
remain accessible to the public. That doesn't mean you get to
drive off road or across country, but a lot of us, a lot of
hunters and anglers, have seen some of the best recreational
spots closed off by locked gates and privatized roads in the
last 25 years.
You know, one example that still sticks in my mind is that
back in 2009 Congress created the Sabinoso wilderness, one of
the few BLM wilderness areas in the State of New Mexico. But
they're still literally no legal way for the public to get
there.
In the Southern part of the State Cedar Mountain's Cowboy
Spring Wilderness Study Area, parts of the Sierra de la Sulvus
would be incredible places to visit if there were any way to
get there without breaking the law.
If you're confirmed as Director of the BLM would you commit
to working with the committee to ensure that our public lands
are accessible to the public?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, I appreciate the question.
I saw a report just in the last few weeks that suggested
that as many as 6 million acres of BLM public lands might be
inaccessible to the public. So this is an issue that is
important to us. If confirmed you absolutely have my commitment
to work with you and other Members of Congress to see what we
can do to make sure we are securing appropriate access to
places that are important to Americans.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
I do want to say we've seen some great leadership out of
the New Mexico BLM office in the last several years. We've seen
some places opened up that have been off limits for many, many
years. So I want to commend our State Director, Jessie Juen and
his staff there for that work because it's an example that I'd
like to see taken West wide.
I hear from sportsmen, not only in my home State, but if
you follow the periodicals from all over the Intermountain west
who face similar issues.
As you know our public lands play an incredibly
indispensible role in energy production including transitioning
our Nation to a cleaner energy economy. My home State of New
Mexico certainly has a lot to offer in that regard. We're 12th
in wind potential in the Nation. We're second in solar
potential. We already produce an enormous number of traditional
energy sources as well including the natural gas that we were
talking about earlier in the hearing.
But I think we need to make sure that we're smart about
developing these energy sources, conserving our natural and
cultural, our historical resources while encouraging energy
development in the many places where it's appropriate. We need
to ensure that a portion of the revenues, in my view, that the
Federal Government receives from these new sources like wind
and solar are used for conservation efforts that help to
compensate for the impact of those projects.
I'm a co-sponsor of Senator Tester's bill, Public Lands
Renewable Energy Development Act, as are a number of the folks
on this committee. I just wanted to ask as Director would you
commit to working with the committee and with the Congress to
develop a renewable energy development framework that balances
that development of these important resources with the
conservation efforts that are needed in the West?
Mr. Kornze. Senator Heinrich, I appreciate that question
and balance, when it comes to energy development, is at the
core of what we do and that our mission. So we very much
appreciate the challenge.
As and I think solar development is a great example of
where we've been moving to areas where development has not been
the status quo. So there have been very important, critical
questions about where the conservation piece of those actions
is. I think we can certainly do more on that front. I look
forward to working with you on a framework and moving those
efforts forward.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
I think last I'll just say, you know, one of the places
that we could see a substantial amount of solar development
would be in Southern New Mexico. In addition there are--last
week Senator Udall and I introduced legislation to designate
the Oregon Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument in Southern
New Mexico. Should you have the opportunity to spend some time
in New Mexico we would love to get you out to see some of those
resources first hand.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you. I welcome the opportunity.
Senator Heinrich. Thanks.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
Senator Scott, you've been very patient.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My congratulations to the panel on your nominations.
Ms. Schneider, I'd love to chat with you for a few minutes.
I'll have about 6 or 7 questions for you and only 5 minutes to
get it through. I can filibuster by myself. So if we can work
together just to get through this that would be fantastic.
My focus will be on the Atlantic. From my perspective the
offshore opportunity with the Atlantic is incredible. In South
Carolina alone by the year 2035 we could see as many as 35,000
new jobs, $2.7 billion added to our State's economy and perhaps
nearly $4 billion added to our State's revenues. That would be
fantastic.
One of the things that we have to see happen for us to get
there is, of course, the PEIS, that allows for us to see if in
fact the Atlantic will be permitted for seismic activity.
The Obama Administration has banned, it seems to me, energy
production in over 85 percent of America's offshore. My first
question to you is would you continue to support the moratorium
or open new areas of offshore for energy production?
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you for the question.
I'm very familiar with the, getting more familiar, with the
programmatic EIS that you referenced.
Senator Scott. Yes.
Ms. Schneider. For geological and geophysical work on the
Atlantic. I think that's an effort that we need to complete
expeditiously so that we can move forward with environmentally
responsible, scientific information gathering to further
support our decisionmaking for the next 5-year plan.
Senator Scott. OK.
How involved do you plan to be with the drafting of the
next 5-year offshore leasing plan? Were you ever involved in
drafting a 5-year plan in your previous capacity at Interior?
Ms. Schneider. I have not been involved in drafting any of
the prior 5-year plans in my prior capacity.
I suspect that I will be heavily involved, if confirmed.
Senator Scott. That's good.
Ms. Schneider. In the next plan.
Senator Scott. It seems like by your previous answer that
you are relatively supportive of working an offshore production
in the Atlantic after we get the seismic information.
Ms. Schneider. Yes, I think we need to see what the
information brings to bear. Then, you know, work with the
States to identify those areas that may be, make the most
amount of sense.
Senator Scott. That was my attempt at a leading question
that you didn't really follow very well. So I'm not an
attorney. You are.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. I'll have to work on that next time.
In your opinion----
Ms. Schneider. You have to say, isn't that true?
Senator Scott. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, I'm a rookie so I'll keep
getting better at this, I assure you.
In your opinion will the National Ocean Policy hinder the
development of offshore energy and what role do you see it
playing in the development of the next Department of the
Interior?
Ms. Schneider. You know, I need to get more up to speed on
the new ocean policy. I think that we're going to need to bring
the ocean policy and the positions that it's proposing along
with and kind of merge the need for looking at new areas that
can support both offshore renewable and conventional
development.
Senator Scott. If you are confirmed, my office would look
forward to having an open relationship, an open dialog, with
your office in helping us a, achieve my goal at least, of
having the Atlantic, have the seismic information gathered as
quickly as or as expeditiously as possible and then hopefully
with that determination, allowing for some type of offshore
energy production that will benefit the country as well as
those jobs in South Carolina.
Ms. Schneider. Senator, if I'm confirmed I look forward to
working closely with you.
Senator Scott. Thank you very much, Ma'am.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To Ms. Schneider, as Assistant Secretary of the Land and
Minerals Management you're going to have oversight of AML, I
understand.
In West Virginia last year our little State received 66, I
think, and a half million dollars. It's a very important
program for us to clean up the former mining sites and promote
environmental conservation, community health.
How do you intend to continue this program or how do you
intend to fund it?
Ms. Schneider. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to
think a great deal about Federal fiscal issues in terms of
where we are on the funding side of things. It's not something
I've focused on in my private practice.
I do agree that full funding for the Abandoned Mine Lands
program is critically important. Similarly, Senator Murkowski,
you know, this is the legacy wells.
Senator Manchin. Yes, this is all paid for basically by the
mining of the mineral.
Ms. Schneider. Right.
Senator Manchin. OK. So from it's not supported by the
public tax dollars.
Ms. Schneider. Right. No, I understand that, sir.
Senator Manchin. The distribution, what I'd like to know,
if from a lot of our western lands who produce great quantities
because of the seam height don't really have the problems that
we out in the east have in Appalachia that really built the
industrial revolution, if you will and would really, most of
the money is needed to cure a lot of the problems of the past.
It's like a war going on back and forth. We're trying to
find that balance. I just want to make sure you're up to the
task jumping in this thing and trying to get the money where
it's needed.
Ms. Schneider. I'm absolutely looking to, if confirmed, to
working with you to understand that balance better to make sure
that meet all of the appropriate needs.
Senator Manchin. I know you've also done all the work with
renewables and also about the grid system. You know with the
basic base load fuels that we have right now which is coal, gas
and nuclear. They're the only ones that run 24/7.
There's going to be a need for that and a blend and a
balance to be had. How do you intend to work to find that
balance especially with the grid system and bringing on
renewables, but also making sure that the base load is able to
deliver electricity that is needed?
Ms. Schneider. Alright.
Well I certainly agree that we need to have diversity in
our fuel mix. I do a lot of work with utilities at present and
that's a critically important part of what we're working on. As
intermittent sources come online there needs to be
modernization of the grid so that there can be facilities that
are quicker starting and more efficient to help deliver the
energy more efficiently and more cost effectively for
consumers.
Senator Manchin. Do you agree that coal plays a vital part
in delivering the energy this country is dependent upon?
Ms. Schneider. I do, sir.
Senator Manchin. Mr. Kornze, if I may, as an avid
outdoorsman myself and I understand you are too, you're going
to be asked to work to maximize access to public lands for
hunting, fishing and recreational purposes. Are you an advocate
of rehabilitation is basically is habitat.
You know, in a lot of places we can't do any habitat
enhancements, along the national forest and in our fish and
wildlife. What's your position on that?
Mr. Kornze. I'm not sure I understand the----
Senator Manchin. Basically, you know, a lot of the hunting
and fishing that might be, we can't do habitat enhancement that
food----
Mr. Kornze. OK.
Senator Manchin. Type of trees we plant, type of shelters
we put in waters for fish habitat. Are you in support of maybe
enhancing that a little bit and talking to your colleagues
throughout this process? We have a heck of a time right now.
Mr. Kornze. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator.
You know, actually we had a leadership meeting at the BLM a
few weeks ago and one of my requests of our full leadership
team was that we were better integrated with the State Fish and
Wildlife agencies and that we're keen off of State wildlife
action plans.
Senator Manchin. How about access to public lands and that?
Mr. Kornze. Access?
Senator Manchin. Do you favor opening up public lands to
fishing and hunting?
Mr. Kornze. Absolutely. When it comes to hunting one of the
things we're very proud of at the Bureau of Land Management is
that 99 percent of the lands that we manage are open to
hunting.
Senator Manchin. I think, Dr. Kastner, I have one here.
Almost 5 billion dollars the Office of Science's research
budget greater than fossil energy, renewable energy and nuclear
energy combined. If confirmed, what is your vision for how
research performed by your office will work in concert with the
directed energy research in the other areas of fossil, nukes
and renewables?
Mr. Kastner. Thank you for the question, Senator.
The reorganization that the Secretary has undertaken
creating an Under Secretary for Science and Energy, I think, is
a great step toward bringing the Office of Science closer to
the technology areas. After all, there's basic science
underlying all of these areas. I think it's really important
that I work, if confirmed, work carefully and aggressively with
my colleagues in the technology areas to make sure that we can
do the best to take the discoveries of basic science and get
them into technology for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Manchin. Dr. Williams, my time has expired. So I'm
going to submit my question to you. But just about coal. I know
you haven't had much work in that. I know also that you're
looking at carbon capture, sequestration. So I would like to
meet with you and talk further about that, Ma'am.
Mr. Kastner. I look forward to it.
Senator Manchin. Thank you both.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Manchin, just before we leave. I'm
very pleased that you brought up the importance of the hunters
and anglers on these public lands. One of the things that we're
very proud of in our part of the world is on the O&C bill for
the rural counties in Oregon. The hunters and anglers are very
much in support of the legislation.
This is part of the recreation economy. What we learned
when Sally Jewell was here is that's a $646 billion American
industry. So I really appreciate your bringing that up.
Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all of you.
Dr. Kastner, it's great to have someone with your
background in this Office of Science which is, I hope you know,
I feel is awfully important.
I have one parochial question. I don't need much of an
answer. Oak Ridge is tearing down a museum site for atomic
energy and putting it in another place. I would like to ask you
if you would be willing to come talk to me about what you
propose to do with the museum site before you do it.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do anything with it. I just
want to know what you're going to do before you do it.
Mr. Kastner. Thank you for the question. Of course, I'd be
happy to come and talk to you about it.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Now let me get to a more global concern.
Dr. Moniz, who we all respect, says he can't make decisions
about fusion energy because he used to work on it at MIT. I
guess, so did you. What I'm concerned about, who is going to
make the decisions if you don't.
I'm quite serious. This is not funny. This is a serious
matter because you've got a $4.8 billion budget, $400 million,
I mean 10 percent of that goes to fusion. Over the next few
years it might be 50 percent.
If you don't make any decisions about fusion then you're
not making any decisions about priorities within your budget.
My question is will you make decisions about fusion, at
least in so far, that it permits you to make good decisions
about priorities within your budget because to date fusion has
been pretty far down the line of Department of Energy
priorities.
Mr. Kastner. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I agree with you that fusion is very important. I am
recused from participating in any discussions about fusion or
other issues that directly affect MIT. If confirmed I will work
with the General Counsel in the Department of Energy to
explore, to understand, what broader fusion issues I might be--
--
Senator Alexander. I'm not trying to get you to spend more
money for fusion. I'm saying it's already a low priority within
your Department. If you and Dr. Moniz, neither one, can make
any decision about fusion, you're turning over priority setting
to somebody else. So----
Mr. Kastner. So let me say a couple of things.
First of all it's not clear that I will be excluded from
making--
Senator Alexander. Good. I don't want you to be excluded.
I'd like for you to be included.
Mr. Kastner. To the extent that I am, the Under Secretary
for Science and Energy would fill that gap.
Senator Alexander. Who's that?
Mr. Kastner. That, hopefully, if confirmed it will be Lynn-
Orr.
Senator Alexander. Don't you think the Director of the
Office of Science should set priorities for forms of energy
within the Office of Science, particularly if the Secretary
can't?
Mr. Kastner. As I said, at the moment it's not clear that I
will be excluded from making those kinds of broad decisions.
Senator Alexander. OK. I hope you're not.
Let me ask Dr. Williams.
Dr. Williams, I'd like to encourage you to do missionary
work, at least on the Republican side of the aisle here,
because I like ARPA-E a lot and I think not enough of us know
what you're doing. I'd like for you to address specifically,
for example, we have coal Senators here for people who care
about coal on both sides of the aisle.
I'm not sure enough of them know that one of the ARPA-E
companies in which you invest is trying to take carbon dioxide
and coal plants, feed it to microbes and turn the
CO2 into a commercially viable product which if you
could, then that would certainly make coal a much more easily--
easy to use.
So I'd like to encourage you to do that. Answer this
question. Do you see your job as picking winners and losers and
leave me 20 seconds to ask one last question.
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Senator.
ARPA-E's mission is to accelerate potentially
transformative technologies in their most earliest stages of
development. We know that we have in this country a great----
Senator Alexander. Yes, I know. But you're not there to
pick winners and losers are you?
Ms. Williams. That's correct.
So our job is to make it possible for those very early
stage developments to move forward to the next stage of
development so, without picking winners and losers, allowing
the winners and losers--
Senator Alexander. So the answer is no. Is that right?
Ms. Williams. The answer is no.
The answer is no.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Now to the last question I would go to Ms. Schneider and
Mr. Kornze.
Senator Heinrich talked about the beautiful views of the
mountains in New Mexico and the importance of reconciling that
with energy development.
Senator Manchin talked about that his abandoned land mines
and there's a big--a lot of money that needs to be spent on
abandoned land mines.
According to the American Bird Conservancy by 2030 there
will be 100 thousand wind turbines that you can see for 20
miles. So have either of you thought about one, the effect that
has on the beautiful mountains of New Mexico, these Cuisinarts
in the sky which a bird----
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Or have you, Ms. Schneider, thought
about how you're going to pay for taking those down after 20
years when they don't operate any more so you don't have a
problem like we do with abandoned land mines. Do you--will
there be a bond and a bond sufficiently to require the wind
developer if that's not being used to take it down and take it
away?
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you for the question.
I have done wind development work myself. I think with all
large industrial facilities siting is key and that's the
critically important component of that. In part of that you
have to take, not only the resources into consideration, but
also the environmental impacts including impacts to avian
resources as well as to the view shed.
In my experience the BLM rights of ways that are issued for
those projects do require the developer to remove those
facilities if the right of way is not removed, excuse me, not
renewed.
Mr. Kornze. Senator, I would echo many of those comments.
It is my understanding that with all projects that we
permitting today that they do have bonds to make sure that we
can do proper reclamation. So it's very important to us, in
addition to making sure that we have an open and public process
when we discuss siting of those places to make sure they're
done in the right places.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
In order of appearance Senator Barrasso is next and then
we'll have Senator Lee.
Senator Barrasso. I'm happy to defer to Senator Lee.
The Chairman. So much collegiality.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. What's the pleasure of my colleague?
Senator Lee. Wyoming has always been such a good neighbor
to Utah. They've never tried to invade us or anything like
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lee. I appreciate the generous thought.
The Chairman. I've heard of that Good Neighbor Policy.
Senator Lee. Yes.
The Chairman. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you for
being here.
I'd like to start with Mr. Kornze.
So recently the BLM withdrew a fairly significant amount of
land from multiple use designation and set it aside to create a
highly touted solar energy zones. You know this and other
policies show that BLM is a strong supporter of renewable
energy. Renewable energy, I think, all would agree is a good
thing.
At the same time there are a lot of people concerned that
oil and gas companies are seeing these changing policies with
regard to Federal land. Seeing that 1 day they might be able to
consider exploring or developing oil and gas production
projects on Federal land and then the next day there's a
regulatory or a policy change within the Bureau or within the
Department that makes that impossible.
Another example of this is that recently in Utah where
there were 100,000 acres of land that had previously been
designated as eligible for leasing for oil and gas production
on Federal land under the RMP. It was taken out of its
eligibility for leasing 3 days before a scheduled auction. This
constituted the vast majority of the land that was to be
auctioned 3 days after the announcement was made.
Again, this is causing a problem because a lot of the
companies that engage in these activities that want to develop
our energy resources here in the United States so as to
contribute to our energy independence are choosing to shy away
from Federal public land understanding that these regulatory
changes create a lot of uncertainty for them.
This is more than an abstract problem. It's far more than a
problem for just the energy companies. This is a problem,
especially for our rural communities in public land States like
mine where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land.
These communities rely on these kinds of projects in order
to fund basic things like the development of their
infrastructure to fund their public school systems, their fire
and police departments. Because in many of these counties where
this is the case, the Federal Government owns 80, 85, 90,
sometimes 95 percent of the land. They can't tax that land. The
PILT program in most cases provides only pennies on the dollar
of what they would otherwise receive for property taxes.
So they're strapped.
So my question is, do you see this trend as a problem? If
so, what might you do, if confirmed, to address this problem?
What might you do to address the problem?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, I appreciate the question.
There's a lot in there that we can discuss, but it's
important the Bureau of Land Management is--provides clarity.
What our policies are, what direction we're headed into. That's
one of the reasons why in my opening statement I focused on,
you know, clear communication and making sure that people
understand the resources that are available and also our
intentions.
So I certainly understand some of the frustrations you've
expressed. If confirmed, you have my commitment that I focus on
making sure that we are a consistent partner that people can
rely on.
Senator Lee. Transparency is an issue that Secretary Jewell
explained to us and she embraces, when she was before our
committee going through her confirmation process. Do you share
that commitment to transparency?
Mr. Kornze. Absolutely.
Senator Lee. Ms. Schneider, do you also share that same
commitment to transparency that Secretary Jewell has
articulated?
Ms. Schneider. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lee. During your tenure in the Clinton
Administration were you involved in the process of designating
any national monuments?
Ms. Schneider. I was not.
Senator Lee. OK.
One of the reasons why I'm focusing on this issue of
transparency today and why it's concerning to me is that we had
a very significant monument designation that was made in Utah,
the Grand Staircase National Monument and the decision to
designate that as a monument, a very, very large one at that.
One that took in a vast swath of land with enormous energy
potential.
It was not made in view of the public. There is no
opportunity for public comment. In fact the announcement of it
was made without any advance warning and was made not in Utah,
but in a neighboring State.
So, this kind of lack of transparency is concerting to me
and particularly with regard to the exercise of the vast
discretion granted to the President in the Antiquities Act I
would hope and expect that any future exercises of that
authority would be made to the greatest extent possible with
transparency and input from the public, especially from those
who will be affected most directly by it.
Thank you. I see my time's expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Senator Barrasso.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Kornze for taking the time to visit with me
in my office. You know, as we discussed yesterday I do remain
concerned that you lack the experience required for the
position of BLM Director specifically because the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act states that the BLM Director shall
have a ``broad background and substantial experience in public
land and natural resource management.''
The President's last nominee, Bob Abbey, had over 30 years
of experience in land and natural resource management prior to
his nomination. His predecessor, Jim Caswell, also had over 30
years of experience in land and natural resource management
prior to his nomination.
In contrast, as we've discussed, you spent less than 3
years at BLM and no time at any other land management agency.
With all due respect to the Majority Leader, who was here to
introduce you, I think this is not the resume of the perfect
nominee. To me it doesn't suggest that you will be the ``best
Director we've ever had'' is how Senator Reid stated it.
So now that the Majority Leader has, who happens to have
been your former employer, has eliminated the rights of the
minority in the confirmation process, I think it's more
important than ever that this committee carefully weigh the
qualifications of all nominees. It's imperative that this
committee makes it clear that the lower threshold for
confirmation does not mean a lower standard for nominees and
that the President cannot ignore the requirements of the
Federal law.
There is a reason that the law requires the BLM Director to
have ``a broad background and substantial experience in public
land and natural resource management.'' BLM manages about 245
million surface acres and 700 million mineral acres. The agency
has about 10,000 employees. It's not a position for on the job
training.
It's a position that has an extraordinary impact on the
lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans.
So I believe the burden remains on you, Mr. Kornze, to show
us why you should be confirmed.
So I'd like to turn to the BLM's pending hydraulic
fracturing rule. Secretary Jewell has said that we need minimum
Federal standards for hydraulic fracturing. That may be the
case with respect to States that do not regulate hydraulic
fracturing. But there is no reason why BLM's rule should apply
to States that currently regulate hydraulic fracturing.
In June, Secretary Jewell was unable to tell this committee
that the States currently regulating hydraulic fracturing
aren't doing a sufficient job. Rather the Secretary applauded
the States that currently regulate hydraulic fracturing.
The Secretary testified that Wyoming is a good example of a
State that is doing an effective job regulating hydraulic
fracturing. She testified in the House that Wyoming has
``great,'' sophisticated fracturing rules. The Secretary made
these comments before Wyoming adopted additional rules
requiring baseline ground water testing. Nevertheless BLM still
seems to believe that States like Wyoming just can't be
trusted.
So my question to you is, is there any evidence suggesting
that States like Wyoming will weaken or roll back their
hydraulic fracturing regulations? If so, you know, which States
do you have in mind?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, thank you for the question. Thank you
for the time to meet yesterday. I enjoyed our conversation.
Related to the hydraulic fracturing rule there are some
States that have certainly stepped out and appear to be doing a
very good job. Wyoming is one of those States. Colorado,
California, Texas, have all taken the task seriously. We
appreciate that very much.
I think the task that we face at the Bureau of Land
Management is that we have somewhere around 33 States where
there are oil and gas revenues being produced on public lands.
But there are just over half of those States have stepped
forward to establish some sort of base line regulation when it
comes to hydraulic fracturing. So our goal is to establish
something that can be coordinated with States to the greatest
degree possible.
In August I was very happy to visit in Denver with the oil
and gas regulators from many States, including Wyoming, to talk
about how State regulations and Federal regulations can fit
better together. Also looking forward how our Inspection
Enforcement Teams can be better coordinated so we can maximize
our activities on the ground and make sure they're doing the
best job in the oil and gas realm.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if that's alright?
The Chairman. Of course. Of course.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
This is to Ms. Schneider.
In June you published a commentary on BLM's pending
hydraulic fracturing rule. In that commentary you wrote that
BLM's revised rule, ``would add another layer of regulation to
oil and gas operators on Federal and tribal lands and if
adopted could impose significant new regulatory requirements
and associated costs.''
If confirmed, you would oversee BLM. So what steps, if any,
would you take to reduce the regulatory burden and the cost
associated with BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule?
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you for the question.
I think we need to try to find ways to maximize our
efficiencies where we can including to work together with the
States in order to accomplish that goal. You know, I know that
the BLM has just closed the public comment period a number of
months ago on the rule. They're taking those comments into
consideration.
If confirmed, I would certainly become more involved in the
process to learn and understand what the comments say so that
we can develop a final rule that makes sense.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank my colleague.
I think my colleague from Wyoming knows how much I enjoy
working with him. I think what we were able to do in a
bipartisan way--I think we were visiting about it this
morning--on the grazing issue, where you and Senator Heinrich
with Senator Murkowski and I worked together, was really an
example of how policy ought to be made.
I think Neil Kornze is going to bring that to us in this
whole effort. I would just put into the record a letter from
John Laird, Secretary of Natural Resources for the State of
California.
He states and I quote here. ``Mr. Kornze's collaborative
style approach to Western States and experience within the
Department of the Interior will serve him well as he addresses
the many resource management issues the Bureau of Land
Management,'' you know, ``oversees.''
I mean so the record is clear. This is an individual with
extensive experience with public land issues in addition to
having run BLM for the better part of the year, he's got more
than a decade of experience both at the Department of the
Interior and in the Congress working on these issues. So this
is an individual who is steeped in public lands questions.
I just wanted to make Mr. Laird's letter a part of the
record and let my colleague from Wyoming know that we are going
to continue to work very closely with him on these issues
because the need for collaboration is so critical.
Senator Hoeven, we're glad you're here.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin with first of all, thanks to all of you for
being here. I want to begin with a question for Ms. Schneider.
Really picking up where you left off following the Senator
from Wyoming's question. That is hydraulic fracturing.
States like North Dakota, Wyoming, Texas and others have
very sophisticated protocols for overseeing hydraulic
fracturing. So as you work on your rule you need to work with
the States. I really believe in that States' first approach.
It's been used in other types of energy regulation.
I want to hear your views on really working with the States
to empower the States on hydraulic fracturing.
Ms. Schneider. Senator, thank you for the question.
I want to also thank you for the time that we spend last
week when we met together.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Ms. Schneider. As I mentioned, I think it's critically
important to work with the States. I mean, the States are
obviously on the ground there and they know what's going on. So
we want to make sure that we take all of the information that
they've developed and integrate that as best we can into the
Federal decisionmaking process.
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to work in a way with the
States that really gives them that States' first approach in
terms of the regulatory authority?
Ms. Schneider. I think what we want to do is, if I'm
confirmed, I want to, you know, sit down and meet with the
folks at the BLM to get an understanding of what their
perspectives are, get an understanding of what the States'
perspectives are and then move forward in that direction.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Kornze, I want to thank you for coming
out to North Dakota. We appreciate it very much with Secretary
Jewell. Of course, appreciate Secretary Jewell being there as
well as we've had our Chairman and Ranking Member from this
Energy Committee both have been out too. For all of you, that's
the way to do your homework. And thank you so much.
So the first question that I'd have for you, Mr. Kornze, is
we have 525 applications pending on BLM land in North Dakota.
I've talked to you about this before. We need to find ways to
address that backlog.
You have a tremendous regional manager out of Billings,
Jamie Conley, who we love working with, who is trying to find
creative solutions.
Will you commit to continue to work with her and us to find
creative solutions to address that backlog?
Mr. Kornze. Absolutely, Senator. I appreciate the question.
North Dakota presents a unique challenge in terms of the
resource in the Bakken and the growth of the access into the
Bakken over the last few years. So we have moved strike teams
into our Dickinson office when possible. I certainly commit to
you to keep working on that, if confirmed to make that a
priority and get the resources to the right places.
Senator Hoeven. We have legislation pending right now which
I think will pass very soon. It's the BLM Flexibility Act. It
would allow offices to work across State lines.
So for example, your Mile City, Montana office could work
in North Dakota. This will also help Wyoming. I see that the
good Senator from Wyoming has left, but will you help us with
that legislation and then also work to implement it once
passed?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, that kind of flexibility would be a
great gift to the agency. We have moving pieces, you know, a
few years ago Mile City was in high demand, now it's Dickinson.
A few years ago it was Buffalo, Wyoming, now it's Casper.
So increased flexibility would be something we would
welcome with open arms.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to make
sure that's implemented appropriately.
Senator Hoeven. OK. Again, I want to thank all of you for
being here, but I particularly again, want to thank Mr. Kornze
for coming out to our State, seeing what's going on, spending
time, meeting the people. I appreciate that very much.
Thanks to both you and Ms. Schneider for coming by to see
me and talk about these issues, so my thanks and appreciation
for that.
Thanks to all of you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
We're going to have another round. I have some additional
questions. I think Senator Murkowski does.
Let me start with you, if I might, Mr. Kornze.
We covered a lot of ground on the first round. You're going
to be working with us on the question of fair return on public
lands, especially with the GAO reports that are coming out.
You'll work with me on an issue of enormous importance to
my constituents which is really looking at NEPA in the context
of these rural Oregon counties where we can build on some of
your experience. I think, very welcome, again, with large
landscape scale work in the forests.
I want to address the two goals of NEPA. We've got to look
at the environmental impacts of proposed action. We've got to
inform the public and find a way to not have unnecessary delay.
You've indicated that you would work with us on that.
You'll work with us on a long-term solution for county
funding because as you know, ever since 2000 when that law was
written here in this committee, that has been a challenge.
So we have essentially addressed those 3 issues to recap.
I want to talk to you now about helium and then I want to
talk to you about methane leakage on this round.
The Congress, as you know, recently passed legislation
allowing BLM to continue to operate the Federal Helium Reserve.
But in doing so the Congress made a number of very important
changes in the way BLM is supposed to operate including the use
of open auctions.
The helium program is certainly not the largest that is
operated at the BLM. But certainly, as Senator Murkowski and I
and a lot of Senators learned, helium is enormously important
to the American economy. For example, it was well-documented
what the implications were for MRIs, but for example, INTEL, a
huge private sector employer in my home State, cares
tremendously about this issue, as do many other technology
companies.
If you're confirmed, will you make sure that implementation
of the helium legislation is a top BLM priority, including
upgrades to equipment to keep the reserve operating or
completed as quickly as possible and that you will work with
the committee to meet the requirements of the legislation?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, I appreciate the question. I also
appreciate the work of this committee, in particular, the
Chairman and the Ranking Member, in making the Helium
Stewardship Act possible. Not only is the continuation of the
program important, but also what you were able to do with the
funds, notably, legacy wells is much appreciated.
You have my, if confirmed, you have my absolute commitment
to make sure that we are at the table and working swiftly to
implement that law. I got an update as recently as yesterday
and we're making good progress in implementing different pieces
of the act and look forward to continuing to be at the table
throughout and to make sure that that's done well and done
successfully.
The Chairman. Let's do this, because I think that's very
constructive. Can we just say that you will give us regular
updates on the implementation of the helium legislation?
I'm going to work with the staff because we call audibles
here from time to time and want to have some time to consult
with you. But let's set up a regular update system where
Senator Murkowski and I would get, on an ongoing basis,
information about the implementation of that program.
It is so important, and suffice it to say, I think
something like 3 presidents and 5 Congresses have tried to get
this right. I think we finally struck a balance with the
auctions, trying to address the needs of American industry and
we were able to generate more revenue than we thought which has
been of great help to a number of the public purposes that this
committee has to address.
So I think we're off to a strong start. But it would be
very helpful to have regular updates. Is that something that is
acceptable to you?
Mr. Kornze. Senator, we would be happy to provide regular
updates to you.
The Chairman. Very good.
Let's talk now about methane leakage.
As you and I talked about my view is this is one of the
premier environmental challenges of our time. It is many times
more potent even than carbon dioxide. So this is a matter of
enormous environmental and public health concern.
Recently the Department of the Interior released their
statement on regulatory priorities for 2014. In the release the
Department prioritized the reduction of wasted oil and gas from
production on Federal onshore lands. That would mean reductions
in flaring of associated gas and reductions in fugitive and
vented methane emissions.
It would also mean greater royalty payments for oil and gas
produced on Federal lands and an increase in sources of
American energy.
The Department has announced an August 2014 deadline for
this proposal which is a slight delay from the previous
commitment of May.
Discuss if you would the issue of wasted oil and gas
resources on Federal land and your commitment to making sure
that there is a strong and effective rule, a strong and
effective final rule, to prevent wasted oil and gas resources.
Mr. Kornze. Senator, I appreciate the question. This is a
very important issue.
We intend to develop a rule around methane capture. It
would be onshore order No. 9. The onshore orders are how we
regulate oil and gas.
Right now we have a notice to leasees in place which is 20
to 30 years old. So there's a lot of updating to do.
One of the key steps we're going to be taking is looking at
the recent study that came out from the Environmental Defense
Fund and the University of Texas which pointed out some
weaknesses in the general system.
Also we'll be talking closely with the State of Colorado
which has stepped out in recent weeks with a State-level
regulation for methane capture.
Also working closely with States like North Dakota where
there is quite a bit of venting and flaring comparatively. I
know one of the main challenges in that State is midstream,
making sure those pipelines to get that gas out of there.
So there's many challenges associated with this. It's a
high priority for us. We look forward to working with you and
this committee with that challenge.
The Chairman. Thank you for that.
I share your view. This is an issue with great
implications.
For example, the House passed a pipeline bill here
recently. One of the issues that I've been exploring and will
be anxious to talk to colleagues about is saying for the future
we're going to need more pipelines because we've got to get the
gas to market. But they ought to be better pipelines and in
particular, if we can reduce methane leakage by having smarter
pipelines for the future, this is an opportunity to do
something that could be very good for the American economy and
also very good for the planet.
So I'm going to want to explore that with you. I, of
course, want to talk to colleagues here in the committee about
it first. But your involvement on the methane leakage issue is
very important.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kornze, I appreciate you bringing up the issue of the
Alaska land conveyances and where we are, the fact that our
technologies will allow us to move more quickly when it comes
to the completion of these surveys. I don't think most people
can appreciate, nor would they tolerate that a promise made at
statehood, now some 54 years after statehood, in terms of
promises made in terms of conveyances, that those conveyances
have not yet been complete because much of the preliminary
survey work has not been done. It's just incomprehensible to a
lot of people.
But it comes down to priorities within a budget.
Unfortunately we have not seen the priority placed on this.
It's not just this Administration. It goes back quite a ways.
So I appreciate your commitment to help us with seeing that
this promise made to the State at statehood and to Alaska
natives with the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act, that
these promises are kept.
So I do think that in terms of making sure that we place
priorities in those areas where we have legislative mandates.
We're 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, that those priorities
would come before some priorities whether it's climate change
monitoring or adaptation. Things that are brand new on the
ground. In the meantime you've got promises that are pretty
dated.
We need to address them. It's not just the land conveyance.
It's the legacy wells that you have mentioned.
A couple times now we were successful in getting $50
million from helium sales which helped. But the reality is is
the necessary moneys were not included in the budget. It was
through the efforts of the Chairman and myself as well as
colleagues in the other body to help advance that.
We also have further issues as they relate to contaminated
lands that have been conveyed to Alaska natives. The No. 1
priority at the Alaska Native Village CEOs is to deal with this
issue of the cleanup of these contaminated lands. Kind of a raw
deal when you're told OK, here's your land conveyance, your
promise. But it's fouled or contaminated land.
So we have much to do in this area. I appreciate your
attention to it. You certainly know about the issues. We need
to make sure that the priorities in terms of addressing them
and keeping that commitment and promise are made.
So, appreciate the opportunity we had to discuss it. We
will be looking forward to more conversation and more action on
that.
Ms. Schneider, I just, as I was sitting here in midway
through this hearing, received a letter from my Governor, who
is writing on behalf of the Outer Continental Shelf Governor's
Coalition. He is the Chair of that.
He has stated in this letter that he hopes that the OCS
Governor's Coalition can cultivate a substantive ongoing dialog
with you, if you are confirmed, on the opportunities and
challenges facing offshore energy development and the roles the
coastal States play.
He goes on to outline a number of concerns, a number of
questions, much of which relate to the concern that there is
not much dialog, perhaps no dialog between the States and the
agencies as it relates to the planning for much of what goes on
in the offshore and asks specifically to discuss the legal and
otherwise appropriate role for the input of State governments
and what actions would you take to ensure sufficient and
ongoing input from the States.
Other issues that he raises are, again, the timeliness of
permits for OCS oil and natural gas operators, further issues
on revenue sharing, following up on the question of Senator
Scott, leasing plans in the Atlantic and additional leasing
opportunities going forward.
Recognizing that we're pretty much out of time here, I
would submit the Governor's letter for the record and would ask
that you respond to these questions as you respond to the
additional questions for the record that I will be submitting
to you.
I do think that these are very important questions that
have been raised.
I guess I would ask you to speak just briefly here to what
role you do believe, in terms of input from the States and
State governments. What role is there? Do you think that you
have sufficient input right now from the States because
apparently the States or this coalition does not think that we
do have that sufficient input that that dialog is strong and
robust as it needs to be.
The Chairman. I don't want my friend and colleague to be
short-changed on this. I plead guilty to having one additional
question by the way.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
The Chairman. But I do not want Senator Murkowski short
changed-since she's raising an important point and I think that
direct question was directed at you, Ms. Schneider.
So please proceed.
Ms. Schneider. Yes.
Thank you, Senator.
I can't speak to the level of dialog ongoing currently
between the States and the Administration as I'm not part of
the Administration. But I am committed to improving dialog
between the States.
I worked for the State of Oregon for a couple of years. I
worked for the State of Florida. I understand that States have
perspectives and they have voices and they need to be heard.
I think, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to make
sure that States are heard, that I go out, I meet with the
States, that I go to the various States to understand what
their perspectives are because obviously things are different
in the different jurisdictions and that the States have an
ample opportunity to voice their opinions on development
opportunities both onshore and offshore.
Senator Murkowski. I might suggest that this OCS Governor's
Coalition might be a great place for you to start.
Ms. Schneider. I agree.
Senator Murkowski. That dialog.
So I'm sure that they will look forward to hearing from you
on many of these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I do have additional questions that I will
submit for the record.
Probably one that I would like you to, both Ms. Schneider
and Mr. Kornze to focus on a little more intently is the
question that relates to ANILCA and the, basically, the history
and the premise behind the ANILCA provisions and the no more
clause.
We are daily concerning in Alaska that this Administration
will move forward in announcing new wilderness in our State,
new wilderness most particularly up in the coastal plain and in
direct violation and contravention of the ANILCA Act.
So I would ask that you look critically at that, that you
look to the history of ANILCA as you understand how, not only
the issue of wilderness plays out, but so many other aspects of
management of our lands in the State tie into the provisions of
ANILCA and most specifically the no more clause contained
within that act.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for an extra few
minutes there.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Schneider, I very much share Senator Murkowski's point
about listening to the States. Since you were in the State, you
probably know that I've had something like 660 town hall
meetings. Folks always say ``When's the next one?'' because I
think there is, as Senator Murkowski pointed out, such a hunger
in the West simply because we are so far from Washington, DC,
for people to have a chance to weigh in on these issues.
So let me just underscore what my colleague has said about
the importance of listening to folks and particularly in the
West.
Last question that I wanted to ask is about technology
transfer for you, Dr. Kastner and Dr. Williams.
We've had all kinds of ideas floated up here on the Hill to
make the national labs better at tech transfer, to make it
easier for businesses to partner with them, and to tap into the
unique capabilities and expertise that we have at the national
labs.
I don't want you to feel short-changed for purposes of this
discussion. You can give us an expanded answer. But why don't
you each highlight, if you could do a couple of things to
improve the tech transfer process, what would you do?
Start with you, Dr. Kastner.
Mr. Kastner. Thank you for the question, Senator.
The Chairman. Then we can liberate you four. It's been a
long morning.
Mr. Kastner. Thank you, Senator.
I think tech transfer is really very important. At MIT we
have a very strong record in this taking scientific discovery
to the stage of technology and then into creating small
companies so that these things come to the marketplace.
I believe that a lot more could be done. But I really need
still to understand what is being done better before I would
make specific recommendations. But let me say that this is
really important to me, if confirmed, I would work really hard
on it because I think it's extremely important that the
investments in basic science pay off for the American people in
ways that improve their lives.
The Chairman. Dr. Williams.
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much for that question.
I believe there is a special area where there's a gap we
can help to bridge in bringing the creativity of basic science
through to the next stage of development where the market can
take over and make choices.
So, if confirmed, I would be very excited to work with
ARPA-E on that mission of identifying the very early stage,
basic science results that have the potential to become
transformative. Many of those will come from our national
laboratory system and work to get those over that gap of basic
to demonstration so that they can later move on into technology
transfer to commercial sector.
The Chairman. Thank you all.
I think at this point you all have been very patient and
have taken the time to answer a great number of questions. You
could see the Senators' interest.
It's my intention to support all of you very strongly. I
believe Senator Murkowski, perhaps we ought to leave the record
open until tomorrow night?
Is that acceptable? Do you wish for a longer period? What's
your pleasure?
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly ready with
all of my questions. I think we had pretty good participation
here amongst the committee members.
But I will put out the word to all the other members to get
their questions in promptly then----
The Chairman. Very----
Senator Murkowski. Would ask that the nominees respond in
kind.
The Chairman. Very, very good.
I think we've had a lot of Senate participation. Senators
may have additional questions. So, as Senator Murkowski has
urged, we're going to need quick responses.
With that, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Marc A. Kastner to Question From Senator Wyden
fusion energy
Question 1. As you have experienced firsthand at MIT, sacrifices
are being made in the funding of our domestic fusion programs to
satisfy the US contribution to ITER, the international fusion project.
Do you feel that the right balance is currently being struck
between domestic programs and ITER?
Are there other options that would not require sacrificing
our domestic programs, but also would not expand the budget of
the total fusion program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be recused from any particular matters
that would have a direct and predictable effect on MIT, including any
decisions on the future of the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility. I will
follow guidance from DOE's Designated Agency Ethics Official on whether
that recusal should include other matters in the fusion program.
That said, I certainly agree with you that finding the right
balance between ITER and the domestic fusion program is very important.
We have an international commitment to ITER, but we also have to
maintain an impactful domestic program and domestic facilities. I am
not yet part of the Department of Energy, so I cannot comment yet on
what options might exist for fusion funding that don't entail expanding
the fusion budget overall. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about the Fusion Energy Sciences program and how the domestic and
international components are balanced.
Responses of Marc A. Kastner to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Recently, there have been concerns raised about the
evolving missions of the national labs and the need to ensure that they
support our national energy and security needs in the most efficient
and cost-effective way. Do you believe the national labs need reform?
If so, and if you are confirmed, what would you do to reform the
national labs system?
Answer. The national labs are a great strength of DOE and of the
Office of Science. At the beginning of my career I worked at Argonne
National Lab, and more recently at Brookhaven National Lab, and I saw
firsthand the great science that emerges from the research of the
national lab system. I am aware of the recent reports on the labs. I
understand that the Department is in the process of constituting the
National Lab Policy Council and National Lab Operations Board to look
at lab issues, including those raised in various reports. Both of these
groups contain representatives from the labs and DOE, working
collaboratively together to find ways to improve our labs. If
confirmed, I will work with Secretary Moniz and my counterparts across
the Department on these important issues. I also look forward to
working with you on this and other issues involving our national labs.
Question 2. We now know that the Undersecretary for Science will
not only oversee science-related offices but also all of the energy
offices at DOE. If confirmed, how would you anticipate working together
with a much wider array of offices with a range of different missions?
Answer. I believe the new responsibilities of the Undersecretary
for Science will enhance collaboration between the Office of Science
and other programs by regularly bringing the leaderships of these
programs together in order to foster collaboration and coordination.
The Office of Science has a long history of working well with the
applied and technology offices to make sure the basic science portfolio
is aligned well with needs of the technology offices. I have learned
that there are multiple ``tech teams'' and working groups that bring
people from across the Department together on various topics. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Undersecretary for
Science and Energy and my colleagues across energy program offices to
help turn discoveries in basic science into advancements in clean
energy technologies that reach the marketplace.
Question 3. I think we would all like to see fusion energy happen
by the middle of this century or sooner but I've been advised that
there are plenty of science and materials issues to be resolved before
we can even think of fusion power. Could you tell me your thoughts on
what are the priorities in fusion research for this country? Could you
also address DOE's ever increasing commitment to the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, which some say has a negative
impact on our future domestic research and development capabilities?
Answer. I want to preface this answer by noting that, if confirmed,
I will be recused from any particular matters that would have a direct
and predictable effect on MIT, including any decisions on the future of
the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility. I will follow guidance from DOE's
Designated Agency Ethics Official whether that recusal should include
other issues in the Fusion program.
That said, I agree that fusion energy holds great promise, but that
there are still many technical, engineering, and scientific challenges
before it becomes a viable and affordable source of energy. The Fusion
Energy Sciences program funds research in order to find solutions to
overcoming the materials and other challenges you mentioned. I believe
that ITER and our domestic facilities and programs will all play a role
in understanding how to control burning plasma leading toward a real
fusion energy source. I recognize that ITER is a large and complex
undertaking, both in terms of the size of the budget element and as an
international scientific collaboration.
Responses of Marc A. Kastner to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. Dr. Kastner, as I understand it, Secretary Moniz has
had to recuse himself from involvement in the Fusion Energy Sciences
program because of MIT's involvement in the fusion program and the fact
that he was from MIT. Do you face a similar need to recuse yourself
from involvement in fusion?
Answer. While I do not have the information to comment on Secretary
Moniz's recusal, if confirmed, I will be recused from any particular
matters that would have a direct and predictable effect on MIT,
including any decision on the future of the Alcator C-Mod fusion
facility. I will follow guidance from DOE's Designated Agency Ethics
Official on whether that recusal should include other matters in the
fusion program.
Question 2. Dr. Kastner, what is your opinion about the U.S.
maintaining its commitment to the ITER fusion project?
Answer. ITER is the largest and most complex international
scientific project in fusion ever attempted. If successful, it would be
the first realization of a ``burning plasma'' that would generate net
energy for the first time. I think we must take our international
commitments seriously, while ensuring a balanced fusion portfolio.
Question 3. Dr. Kastner, I believe that it's very important for the
U.S. to maintain a healthy domestic fusion research program. But, it's
clear that for the past few years, many of our university fusion
programs, including MIT, have suffered serious cuts and have lost
students and professors. In addition, our major fusion experiments have
only historically operated a handful of weeks a year because of
inadequate budgets. What will you try to do about this if you are
confirmed? Do you think that the necessary increased funding for the
ITER project should come at the expense of the domestic fusion budget?
Answer. I want to preface this answer by noting that, if confirmed,
I will be recused from any particular matters that would have a direct
and predictable effect on MIT, including any decisions on the future of
the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility located at MIT. I will follow
guidance from DOE's Designated Agency Ethics Official whether that
recusal should include other issues in the fusion program.
I agree that it's important we must strike the right balance
between our domestic fusion program and ITER. It is my understanding
that the Office of Science supports many students and scientists at
fusion program and facilities across the country.
In this time of lean budgets, it is important we take a hard look
at how to best balance the fusion portfolio. We have an international
commitment to ITER, but we also must maintain an impactful domestic
program and domestic facilities. If confirmed, I look forward to
learning more about the Fusion Energy Sciences program and how the
domestic and international components are balanced.
______
Responses of Ellen D. Williams to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In a recent interview as the Chief Scientist for BP,
you stated that BP Solar has pulled out of the solar energy business
because of its inability to compete with inexpensive ``made in China''
solar panels. If confirmed as the head of ARPA-E, how would you address
development of highly reliable and innovative energy production
technologies while facing fierce competition from much cheaper
solutions overseas?
Answer. I believe it is important that any project receiving
federal funds is equipped to compete in a global marketplace. While
ARPA-E seeks to develop transformational energy technologies that do
not exist today, I understand that the ARPA-E technology-to-market
program provides awardees with practical training and critical business
information to equip projects with a clear understanding of market
needs to guide technical development and awareness of evolving markets
to help technologies succeed.
Further, I understand that ARPA-E requires small businesses to
manufacture substantially in the United States any products used or
sold in the United States that embody inventions that were first
conceived of under an ARPA-E award. I also understand that ARPA-E
requires large businesses to manufacture substantially in the United
States any products that embody subject inventions, whether they are
used and sold in the United States or overseas.
If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about what ARPA-E can
do to help U.S. businesses remain competitive in a global marketplace
and advancing those opportunities.
Question 2. By some estimates, the energy sector currently accounts
for 14 percent of the nation's freshwater consumption, but it is
projected to account for 85 percent of the growth in freshwater
consumption by 2030. I think we would all agree that water is vital in
sustaining affordable, efficient and clean energy solutions, whether it
is to cool power plants, produce and extract oil and gas, or grow
feedstock for various biofuels. ARPA-E has invested some resources in
examining these applications. What unique opportunities do you see that
could make a substantial difference in water use and consumption in the
energy production sector?
Answer. As you may know, Secretary Moniz noted the importance of
the energy-water nexus in his confirmation hearing and I agree with his
assessment of the significance of this topic. One of ARPA-E's missions,
improving energy efficiency in any economic sector, is closely aligned
with improving water efficiency in the energy sector. This is because
the major energy-related consumption of water in the United States is
due to use of water for cooling to remove waste heat. Improved energy
efficiency reduces waste heat and will directly reduce the related
consumption of water.
Opportunities to improve energy efficiency, with related decreases
in water consumption, will include more efficient manufacturing
processes, more efficient carbon capture processes, more efficient
separations processes and more effective use of low grade heat. If
confirmed, I would be interested in working within ARPA-E and with
other federal agencies with direct responsibility for US water issues
to assess potential opportunities in the energy-water nexus and in
improved energy efficiency in reducing freshwater consumption.
Question 3. I think a key to ARPA-E's success is its ability to
entice industry to pick up future technologies that solve specific
energy problems. What is your understanding of the process by which
technologies under research and development at ARPA-E are transferred
from conceptual idea to market deployment? Please provide some previous
statistics regarding the success in achieving market deployment.
Answer. In my view, a key component of the ARPA-E model is the
technology-to-market program. The ARPA-E technology-to-market program
provides awardees with practical training and critical business
information to equip projects with a clear understanding of market
needs to guide technical development and help projects succeed.
Awardees are required to provide a technology-to-market plan prior to
receiving an award and work closely with ARPA-E's technology-to-market
advisors throughout the project, developing custom strategies to move
projects toward the marketplace. In addition, ARPA-E facilitates
relationships with investors, government agencies, small and large
companies, and other organizations that are necessary to move awardees
to the next stage of their project development.
I am told that, as of March 2013, ARPA-E funding has led to the
formation of 12 new companies and 17 projects have attracted over $450
million in private sector funding after ARPA-E's initial investment of
approximately $70 million. Several ARPA-E projects have begun
demonstration testing with various public and private corporations to
further develop their technologies. If confirmed, I look forward to
continuing this important trajectory.
Question 4. Do you think that ARPA-E is working in a synergetic way
with other DOE offices, especially the Office of Science where one sees
some overlap in research activities? I want to ensure that we don't
have too many duplicative and unnecessary efforts across the Department
and that we optimize those activities that do overlap. One area of such
potential duplication is energy storage R&D, with multiple programs,
for example, at ARPA-E, the Office of Science and its national labs,
and at Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Please
comment.
Answer. It is my understanding that programs throughout the
Department address multiple stages of research, development and
deployment across integrated topics. For example, ARPA-E plays a unique
role in the Department's broader research and development portfolio,
focusing on transformational energy technologies that are too early for
other DOE applied R&D programs. The Office of Science focuses on basic
research with the goal of providing scientific understanding to
accelerate solutions to energy challenges. Although I am not yet at the
Department, I understand ARPA-E coordinates closely across the
Department's applied energy programs and the Office of Science. If
confirmed, I will continue that work to ensure that ARPA-E's efforts
are coordinated with all relevant programs across the Department.
Question 5. Should you be confirmed, how would you prioritize the
work of ARPA-E in an increasingly budget constrained environment?
Answer. As the nominee for Director of ARPA-E, I believe funding
the work of ARPA-E should be a high priority. If confirmed, I would
continue ARPA-E's rigorous program design process and hands-on-
engagement to ensure thoughtful expenditures that leverage funding and
deliver value in this environment of limited resources.
Question 6. Can you please comment on how success is measured at
ARPA-E? Is it by the number of successful technology deployments, the
number of projects picked up for further maturation by industry, or
other parameters? In your opinion, is ARPA-E meeting the success goals
that it laid for itself?
Answer. I believe the success of ARPA-E programs and projects will
ultimately be measured by impact in the marketplace. However, as the
projects ARPA-E funds seek to generate transformational energy
technologies that do not exist today, it is my understanding that ARPA-
E looks at various metrics to measure ongoing progress towards eventual
market adoption. For example, early technical achievements are measured
by indicators such as patents and publications, and success is also
gauged success by the formation of new companies and fostering public
and private partnerships to ensure projects continue to move towards
the market.
I am told that, as of March 2013, ARPA-E funding has led to the
formation of 12 new companies and 17 projects have attracted over $450
million in private sector funding after ARPA-E's initial investment of
approximately $70 million. Several ARPA-E projects have begun
demonstration testing with various public and private corporations to
further develop their technologies. I view this as success, and if
confirmed, I look forward to working toward the success of more
projects and companies.
Question 7. Does ARPA-E have the ability to partner with similarly
directed foreign governmental entities to get more ``bang for the
buck'' when it comes to research and development? Please explain.
Answer. It is my understanding that ARPA-E does have the ability to
partner with foreign governmental entities, however, such an agreement
would be expected to comply with ARPA-E's existing intellectual
property and domestic manufacturing requirements. While I understand
that ARPA-E does not currently have any partnerships with foreign
governments, if confirmed I look forward to exploring this area with
great interest.
Responses of Ellen D. Williams to Questions From Senator Manchin
Question 1. Arpa-e, the organization you've been nominated to lead,
has projects that look at carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from
coal power plants. It also has projects that try to figure out how we
can use that carbon dioxide (CO2) to make something useful. These areas
are extremely important to my state, as well as the nation, if we're
serious about improving how we use fossil fuels. Can I get a commitment
from you that you'll continue to look for solutions for CCS and CCUS
(carbon capture, utilization, and storage) if you are confirmed as the
Director of Arpa-e?
As a follow up, would you agree that developing these technologies
is critical given the continued projected use of coal and natural gas,
both here in the U.S. and overseas?
Answer. As part of the Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' energy
approach, I support funding energy technologies needed to create a more
secure and affordable American future. ARPA-E's role in this mission is
advancing high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too
early for private sector investment. I am pleased that this has
included and may continue to include Carbon Capture and Utilization
technologies, which complement ARPA-E's portfolio of investments in
this technical area. I agree that investment these technologies are
critical for use of both coal and natural gas resources in the U.S. and
globally, and if confirmed I look forward to working with you on these
important issues.
Question 2. You understand that solving our energy challenges
requires more than just understanding the science: it takes working
with people in the real world to figure out how to develop successful
solutions. You said as much in an interview a year ago with Energy
Quarterly, and that's a breath of fresh air to hear from a nominee. Can
you discuss how you'll establish partnerships with both the private
sector and national laboratories to make sure we're developing the
right technologies?
Answer. I believe that partnerships with private industry,
academia, national laboratories, and other government agencies are
critical for both the development of new programs and to help existing
projects continue to move towards the market. It is my understanding
that the concept for any new ARPA-E program is developed through
engagement with diverse science and technology communities from all
sectors, including some that may not have traditionally been involved
in the topic area, to bridge basic science to early stage technology
with improved potential for commercialization.
In addition, in my view ARPA-E encourages interdisciplinary
thinking in applications by recommending that projects use a diverse
combination of skills and partners that can approach challenges in new
ways. As part of ARPA-E's technology-to-market program, relationships
are facilitated with investors, government agencies, small and large
companies, and other organizations that are necessary to move awardees
to the next stage of their project development. I understand that ARPA-
E also has MOUs with private companies, governmental entities and non-
profit organizations to identify opportunities to test and accelerate
the commercialization of ARPA-E funded technologies. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with you in this important area.
______
Responses of Janice M. Schneider to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Are you familiar with the ``No More'' clause contained
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? ANILCA
transferred 124 million acres of lands in Alaska--a size almost equal
to the entire east coast--into federally protected acreage like parks,
refuges, monuments and wild and scenic rivers. In enacting ANILCA,
Congress found that the law ``provides sufficient protection for the
national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental
values on public lands in Alaska.and thus Congress believes that the
need for future legislation designating new conservation system units,
new national conservation areas, or new national recreation areas, has
been obviated thereby.'' Additionally, Section 1326 of ANILCA specifies
that there can be no ``future executive branch action which withdraws
more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate of public lands in the State of
Alaska.''
a. How do you interpret ANILCA's ``No More'' clause?
b. Given ANILCA's ``No More'' clause, what authority did the
Administration use to reclassify nearly 13 million acres in the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA) as ``Special Areas,''
thereby preventing further energy development?
c. I understand the Administration is also about to unveil a
new land management plan for the 19 million acre Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge that may seek additional wilderness
designation beyond the 8.5 million acres already designated as
wilderness. How does this move square with ANILCA's ``No More''
clause?
Answer. Because I am not currently part of the Administration, I
cannot address the reasons for the specific actions referenced in your
question. However, if confirmed, I commit to ensuring that actions
taken by the bureaus under the purview of the Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management are consistent with all applicable laws.
Question 2. The federal government's conveyance program of land
owed to Alaska and Alaska Natives is mandated under the over 42-year-
old Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM has repeatedly
proposed to cut the funding and personnel for the Alaska Conveyance
Program and perhaps more egregiously, BLM proposes to take the State of
Alaska's 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity
in the NPR-A to pay for the land conveyance program and the Legacy Well
Cleanup. I believe the Department should fund conveyance and surveying
closer to the $29 million that was provided in FY 12--without making
Alaska foot the bill. The Alaska Land Conveyance Program is very
important both to the State of Alaska and to the Alaska Native
Corporations who are eagerly awaiting their long promised lands to
which they are entitled.
a. If confirmed, can you commit to me that you will ensure
that the Alaska Land Conveyance Program receives the necessary
funding to complete the conveyances as expeditiously as
possible?
Answer. I understand the importance of completing the Alaska
Conveyance work and support efforts to complete this work as
expeditiously as possible. If confirmed, I will be cognizant of the
Department's outstanding commitment to complete the Alaska Conveyance
work in reviewing program activities and in discussions on the budget.
b. Do you believe that it is proper for the Administration to
reduce the funding of a legislatively mandated program, and one
which it is 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, while spending
funds on non-legislatively mandated programs, like climate
change monitoring and adaptation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the BLM Director and
Departmental leaders to develop balanced funding recommendations for
the Secretary's consideration. Factored into this balance would be
statutory and contractual requirements, mission-directed requirements,
investments needed to perform Departmental missions more effectively,
and deficit reduction considerations.
Question 3. The federal government both directly and under contract
drilled some 136 oil and gas and exploratory wells in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the 1940s and again in the early 1980s.
Many of those wells have not been properly capped and were instead
abandoned. The State of Alaska has been seeking for years for Interior
to do a better job of cleaning up its messes, just as the government
would fine private developers who had not properly secured exploratory
wells. Earlier this year the Administration proposed to use Alaska's
share of mineral leasing revenues to pay to remedy the federal messes--
something I found totally unacceptable and unjust.
a. While we approved $50 million in the recent helium
legislation that may fund 16 more well cleanups over the next
five years, do you believe it is the federal government's
responsibility to clean up all remaining wells at its own
expense--not Alaska's--in the future?
b. With the $50 million in funding for well remediation and
clean-up in the Helium Stewardship Act, can you please provide
me an update on the status of the planning for well cleanup in
2014?
c. When will you be able to share with me a written cleanup
plan for 2014? Which wells will be remediated?
d. If confirmed, will you make funding for well remediation
in the NPRA a priority?
Answer. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to
clean up these wells. Because I am not currently part of the
Administration, I cannot speak to the current planning efforts
regarding remediation of NPRA Legacy Wells. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with the BLM Director and others in the
Department's leadership to ensure the agency has the resources it needs
to complete this important work.
Question 4. The Federal Government participated in armed field
visits during August 22-27, 2013 near the community of Chicken, Alaska.
I have conveyed my frustration and the frustration of Alaskans at the
manner in which these raids were undertaken, which have come to
symbolize continued Federal Government overreach in Alaska. Will you
commit to working with me to ensure such an overzealous law enforcement
approach does not occur again?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the specifics of this operation.
If confirmed I will make every effort to ensure the BLM enforcement
actions are done in a professional manner and in full compliance with
all applicable laws.
Question 5. Do you believe energy production on federal lands,
including oil and gas, should be increased in principle? If so, what
are steps you will take to ensure this happens?
Answer. I am committed to the President's all-of-the-above energy
strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on
foreign sources of energy. If confirmed, I will work with the directors
of the bureaus under my purview, including the Bureau of Land
Management, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, to ensure permitting and review processes are
efficient and effective.
Question 6. Do you believe that federal lands offshore should, with
deference to environmental safeguards, as well as the rights and
interests of the states, be developed in an ``expeditious and orderly''
manner, as stated by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act? Please
explain.
Answer. Offshore energy resources are important parts of the United
States' domestic energy production portfolio. As I noted at my
confirmation hearing, I believe it is important to engage with states
in this regard. If confirmed, I will support the Department's programs
to promote the safe, responsible and efficient development of the
Nation's offshore conventional and renewable energy resources and will
ensure states have opportunities to provide input on these decisions.
Question 7. As you know, seismic studies have not been conducted in
the Atlantic OCS for several decades now. It is my understanding that
planning for the 2017-2022 period will begin next year, even as the
environmental impact statement for seismic activity has been delayed.
Can you commit to including Atlantic areas in the five year plan?
Answer. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, if confirmed, I
will be committed to expeditiously providing the Secretary with the
information necessary to inform a decision regarding the potential
inclusion of the Mid and South Atlantic Planning Areas for leasing in
the 2017-2022 Five Year Program.
Question 8. Does present-day technology allow Americans to develop
energy resources on federal lands while protecting the environment? Do
we have sufficient knowledge about hydraulic fracturing, horizontal
drilling, and other unconventional technologies to use them for
production in an environmentally-safe manner?
Answer. I understand that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling methods can be used safely and effectively if best management
practices are utilized. If confirmed, I will make it a priority for the
BLM to remain current with emerging technologies and best practices to
ensure safe and responsible development of oil and gas on federal
lands.
Question 9. As you know, there is an effort underway to build a
pipeline to transport gas from Alaska's North Slope to southern Alaska
for LNG export. When the line's commercial considerations are reached,
it is going to require timely approval of a host of environmental and
land use permits to allow the $45 to $60 billion project to proceed.
Any delays in federal permitting will add substantially to the
project's costs. As Assistant Secretary will the Department be willing
and able to allocate resources to have sufficient staff available to
consider and process required permits in an expedited manner so that a
pipeline can be built?
Answer. I recognize the importance of oil and gas resources to the
State of Alaska. If confirmed, I plan to work with the Department's
bureaus and partners to identify where the Department's budget and
staff resources can most effectively be used to keep pace with demand
for energy exploration and development.
Question 10. Your official biography from Latham & Watkins notes
that you have ``extensive experience'' in a number of areas, including
hydropower project licensing. Can you tell us about your experience in
that area? Please describe your views on hydropower more generally.
Answer. I have worked extensively on issues related to operation of
the Federal Columbia River Power System located in the Pacific
Northwest. Additionally, I have worked on many Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing proceedings under Part I of
the Federal Power Act, counseling both federal and private industry
clients, including in proceedings before the FERC and in the federal
courts of appeal. Hydropower is an important part of this Nation's
energy mix.
Question 11. I understand that in your work as a partner at Latham
& Watkins, one of your main roles was to help companies resolve
difficulties or delays that arose when seeking project approval from
various government agencies.
a. Would you agree that winning approval from the government
for an energy project can be a laborious, difficult endeavor
for private companies?
b. Based on your experiences in this area, have you
identified any reforms that could make project development
easier, or at least less cumbersome than it currently is?
Answer. I am aware that the Administration has put in place a
number of important reforms to improve and help expedite the permitting
process for infrastructure and energy projects generally. These include
the Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Federal Infrastructure
Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures (2013),
Executive Order 13604 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and
Review of Infrastructure Projects) (2012), and the Presidential
Memorandum on Speeding Infrastructure Development through More
Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review (2011).
These efforts created a Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review
Process Improvement Steering Committee, established the Federal
Infrastructure Projects Dashboard, improved collaboration through
information technology tools, and assisted in developing government-
wide best practices.
If I am confirmed, I will prioritize additional permit process
improvements to help make project development more efficient and more
transparent, while ensuring that projects are developed in an
environmentally responsible way. I agree that improving permit
efficiencies across the board is very important for this Nation's
economic and energy security.
Question 12. Please describe how you see the relationship between
the State Department's international activities and the agencies that
would fall under your domain at the Department of the Interior.
Answer. Because I am not currently part of the Administration, I
cannot speak to the specific existing relationships between the
international activities of the Department's bureaus and State
Department. However, I am aware that there is collaboration with
relevant agencies, such as the State Department, when, for example,
development may take place in areas that implicate foreign policy
interests. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the
interactions between the Department and its bureaus and the State
Department.
Question 13. Many of us noted, as you likely did, some trade press
coverage of your nomination. One of the headlines was, ``Industry sour
on Obama pick for minerals post.'' The general concerns that were
expressed seem to hint at a lack of relevant experience. If confirmed,
you will be in charge of four agencies with a combined budget in excess
of $1.5 billion. Is there anything you'd like to say to set those of us
on this Committee--and those who you will be regulating, if confirmed--
at greater ease about your qualifications for the job?
Answer. I have over 20 years of experience working in natural
resource, environmental, and American Indian law with the Department of
the Interior and other federal and state agencies and American Indian
tribes. For the past 12 years, I represented industry and the regulated
community interfacing with the federal government, successfully and
efficiently navigating the federal review process, securing large-scale
energy and other infrastructure project approvals, and, when necessary,
successfully defending those approvals in federal district and
appellate courts.
I have broad-ranging, on-the-ground experience getting projects
permitted across the West. Among other issues, I have personally worked
on coal projects across the country; oil and gas projects, including in
the Bakken formation; wind, solar and geothermal projects in West
Virginia, Hawai'i, Washington, California and Nevada, respectively;
liquified natural gas development in Louisiana; hardrock and leaseable
mineral development in Oregon, Idaho and Minnesota, respectively;
refinery issues in Alaska; hydropower projects across the Pacific
Northwest and in California; and extensive high-voltage transmission
and pipeline work on public and private lands. I understand the need
for efficiency and predictability for both project developers and
financial institutions, the need to work in an environmentally
responsible manner, respecting state and tribal perspectives, and to
balance conservation with energy needs.
I currently serve as the Local Department Chair for the
Environment, Land and Resources Department at the law firm at which I
am currently employed, as a Global Co-Chair of the Energy and
Infrastructure Project Siting and Defense Practice, and on the firm's
Knowledge Management Committee. I also served four years on the firm's
Finance Committee. In addition to being topical, these positions have
provided me with significant management experience.
Question 14. If you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for
Lands and Minerals Management, you will be fortunate to have Tommy
Beaudreau, who currently holds the job in an Acting capacity, still
within the Department. Do you have any plans to coordinate with him on
the issues you will face, particularly after he is confirmed to his new
position as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to build on Mr. Beaudreau's
leadership. I plan to work collaboratively and cooperatively with him
on policy issues, including those in Alaska and the Arctic, if I am
confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management.
Question 15. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. One of the
core missions of the OCS Governors Coalition is to promote a
constructive dialogue with federal policy makers on decisions affecting
offshore development. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the
governors have been concerned with the lack of communication between
state and federal officials, particularly in regard to the development
of offshore leasing plans. Of note, President Obama canceled Lease Sale
220 off Virginia in December 2010 without sufficient consultation with
the Commonwealth of Virginia. The bipartisan leadership in Virginia has
clearly indicated multiple times that it supports a leasing program in
the Atlantic, and Governor McDonnell has addressed the Administration's
concerns about safety and spill containment infrastructure and
coordination with military operations in the area.
Similarly, prior to release of the proposed Final Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017, the State of
Alaska was not consulted on the Department of the Interior's decision
to postpone lease sales off Alaska one year from the initial timeframe.
a. Understanding the multiple stakeholder conversations that
go into planning a leasing program, can you discuss the legal
and otherwise appropriate role for the input of state
governments?
b. What actions would you take to ensure sufficient and
ongoing input from the states?
Answer. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, I believe that
consultation and coordination with coastal states, including Alaska, is
an important part of the OCS Five Year Program process. I understand
that the statutory responsibility for coordinating and consulting with
the state governments during development of a Five Year Program is
described in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If confirmed, I
look forward to having an active dialogue with coastal states regarding
offshore oil and gas leasing and the OCS Five Year Program. I am
committed to ensuring that the views of coastal states inform, along
with other relevant factors, the decision-making process with respect
to offshore oil and gas leasing.
Question 16. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. A second
priority for the OCS Governors Coalition is the pace of permitting for
OCS oil and natural gas operators. Following the temporary deepwater-
drilling moratorium in 2010, operators experienced significant delays
in plan and permitting approval. Even though operators in the Gulf of
Mexico are starting to return to pre-Macondo operation levels, several
concerns with the inefficient and inconsistent regulatory regime for
offshore operators remain. What measures can be taken by the Department
of the Interior to ensure a more timely and consistent regulatory
framework for all operators without sacrificing environmental safety?
Answer. I am committed to the President's all-of-the-above energy
strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on
foreign sources of energy. I appreciate that the pace of permitting and
the ability of companies to pursue development of their Outer
Continental Shelf leases is important to you and your constituents. If
confirmed, I will look forward to working with the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement and Director Salerno to ensure continued
engagement with industry and all stakeholders to promote the safe and
environmentally responsible development of our Nation's energy
resources on the OCS, as well as to provide clarity and certainty for
operators seeking to develop those resources. Let me also underscore my
commitment to efficiency within the permitting process. It is my
understanding that the processing time for permits has been reduced
significantly, and I pledge to seek continual improvement in this
important process.
Question 17. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. In a
previous meeting of the governors, we each agreed that revenue-sharing
of royalties generated from offshore leasing and energy production
should be shared equally with all coastal states that produce energy--
either traditional or renewable--off their respective shores. These
revenues are critical for funding state coastal restoration and
conservation efforts as well as other state programs. While Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (all OCS Governor member states)
benefit from revenue-sharing that is capped and can only be used for
limited purposes, Alaska and states along the Atlantic coast are not
eligible for revenue sharing. Do you believe there should be
consistency on revenue sharing for all coastal states?
Answer. I know this is an issue that is important to you, and it is
complex. I am aware that the Administration has outlined its position
on this issue at a July 23, 2013 hearing before the Committee. If I am
confirmed as Assistant Secretary I commit to working with the
Committee, states, and other stakeholders to find what common ground
may exist on this issue.
Question 18. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. Virginia
Governor McDonnell, North Carolina Governor McCrory, and South Carolina
Governor Haley--all of whom are members of the Coalition--support the
opening of the Atlantic for oil and natural gas exploration. The Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management is working on a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (PEIS) for geological and geophysical activity in the
Atlantic in order to allow seismic surveyors to uncover the true
potential of the resources in that region. The PEIS review has already
lasted nearly four years and the Coalition has continuing concerns that
further delays could ultimately forestall Atlantic leasing. At the same
time, we are pleased that Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
Director Tommy Beaudreau recently acknowledged that the Interior
Department can proceed with including Atlantic leasing in the next five
year plan, even if new seismic data has not yet been collected. Can you
please discuss your thoughts on including additional leasing
opportunities in the Department's 2017-2022 leasing plan?
Answer. I believe that when developing the next Five Year Program,
the Department should continue to strike an appropriate balance in
promoting the responsible development of domestic offshore oil and gas
resources. This includes thorough consideration of whether areas not
currently available for leasing should be made available in the next
Five Year Program.
Question 19. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. A recent
report released by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
recommends that lease terms in the Arctic OCS be lengthened to ensure
that operators have sufficient time to recoup the large capital
investment required to extract resources in this region. Currently,
lease terms are 10 years in the Arctic. Greenland allows for 16 year
extensions of leases and Canada permits companies to retain leases
indefinitely if oil or gas is found within the initial nine year lease
timeframe. The report suggests that a combination of the Greenland and
Canadian lease frameworks would be appropriate in the American Arctic.
Could you please discuss your thoughts on the possibility of
expanding the lease timeframe with respect to the Arctic OCS to ensure
that operators are able to operate efficiently in a frontier region?
Answer. I believe that offshore leasing and lease terms should be
tailored to the conditions and challenges of a particular region,
including frontier areas such as the Alaskan Arctic. If confirmed, I
will explore the appropriate leasing and lease terms that should apply
in these areas.
______
Responses of Ellen D. Williams to Questions From Senator Murkowski (for
Senator Hatch)
Question 20. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary
Salazar the following question:
``16. Do you agree that the Department's authority to
establish new Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of FLPMA
expired no later than October 21, 1993?''
Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009:
``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 that process are called
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Section 603 specified that the
Secretary's review and recommendations were to occur within
fifteen years of FLPMA's enactment in 1976. The President then
had two yeas 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. We do not expect our position on
this question to change.''
Is this still your position?
Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot
speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to
looking into this matter in more detail and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with you.
Question 21. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary
Salazar the following question:
``17. Do you agree that the Department currently has no
authority to establish new WSAs (post-603 WSAs) under any
provision of federal law, such as the Wilderness Act of Section
202 of FLPMA?''
Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009:
``Answer: Yes. Section 603 created a unique multi-step
process that resulted in the establishment of WSAs and imposed
certain management requirements on WSAs. No other provision of
federal law creates a similar process or authorizes the
creation of WSAs. Section 603 required the Secretary over a 15
year period to determine whether certain lands were suitable
for preservation as wilderness and to report those findings to
the President. The lands so reported are known as WSAs. The
President was then required within two years to recommend to
Congress which of these lands should be designated as
wilderness. Pending action by Congress either designating the
WSAs lands as wilderness or releasing them from their WSA
status, the Secretary is required by section 603 to manage WSA
lands so as not to impair their suitability for designation as
wilderness.
It should be noted, however, that the fact the Department can
no longer establish WSAs does not impair the BLM's ability to
protect areas with wilderness characteristics through FLPMA's
land use planning process under Section 202 of FLPMA. In their
2005 Settlement Agreement, both BLM and Utah acknowledged that
BLM has the discretion under Section 202 to manage lands to
protect their wilderness characteristics, consistent with the
multiple-use and sustained yield standard in FLPMA. We do not
expect our position on this question to change.''
Is this still your position?
Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot
speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to
looking into this matter in more detail and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with you.
Question 22. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary
Salazar the following question:
``18. Do you agree that the Department has not had the
authority to create any new WSAs since the expiration of FLPMA
Section 603 on October 21, 1993?''
Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009:
``Answer: Yes. See answers to Questions 16 and 17.''
Is this still your position?
Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot
speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to
looking into this matter in more detail and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with you.
Question 23. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary
Salazar the following question:
``19. Do you agree with federal Judge Dee Benson that the
settlement agreement between the state of Utah and the United
States is consistent with FLPMA?''
Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009:
``Answer: Yes. We believe that the settlement agreement and
Judge Benson's opinion in Utah v. Norton are consistent with
FLPMA. As Judge Benson concluded, the settlement agreement
recognizes that the plain language of FLPMA provides for the
establishment and management of WSAs exclusively under Section
603, which by its own terms expired no later than October 21,
1993. In addition, Judge Benson noted that under the settlement
agreement, both BLM and Utah acknowledged that BLM's authority
under section 202 of FLPMA remains intact and provides
authority to use the land use planning process to protect areas
with wilderness characteristics, consistent wih the guiding
multiple-use and sustained-yield policy of FLPMA. We do not
expect our position on this question to change.''
Is this still your position?
Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot
speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to
looking into this matter in more detail and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with you.
Question 24. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary
Salazar the following question:
``20. Does the BLM have authority to apply the non-impairment
standard, as enumerated in the Interim Management Plan for
wilderness study areas, to lands that are not designated as
WSAs under Section 603?''
Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009:
``Answer. No. Because the Department's authority to establish
WSAs, which are required to be managed under the non-impairment
standard, expired no later than October 21, 1993, the BLM does
not have authority to apply the no-impairment standard to non-
WSAs. However, as explained in the other answers, this does not
prevent the BLM from managing non-WSAs with wilderness
characteristics in a way that protects these characteristics.
As Utah acknowledged in the 2005 Settlement Agreement, FLPMA
Section 202 provides BLM with the discretion to manage lands to
protect their wilderness characteristics.'' We do not expect
our position on this question to change.''
Is this still your position?
Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot
speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to
looking into this matter in more detail and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss it with you.
Question 25. On May 24, 2012, you published a Latham & Watkins
Client Alert Commentary on BLM's pending hydraulic fracturing rule. In
the commentary, you discussed the impact that BLM's hydraulic
fracturing rule would have on Indian tribes. You discussed how BLM's
rule may put Indian lands at a competitive disadvantage with state and
private lands. You wrote:
``Indeed, where reservations are `checkerboarded,' oil and
gas operators would be able. . .to move just a few feet away
onto privately held or state lands where none of the new
regulations would apply, potentially depriving tribes of
critical sources of revenue.''
BLM's rule will also put Federal public lands at a competitive
disadvantage, and deprive public land states, like Wyoming, of critical
sources of revenue.
If confirmed, you would oversee BLM. What steps would you take to
ensure that BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule will not put Federal public
lands and Indian lands at a competitive disadvantage with state and
private lands?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM to make certain that
it continues to take appropriate steps to ensure that hydraulic
fracturing on federal and Indian lands is conducted in a manner that is
safe, environmentally responsible, and economically viable for
industry. In addition, I understand that the BLM is taking steps to
improve the processing of applications for drilling permits through
automation and other process improvements and I will work with states
and tribes to eliminate redundancies and maximize flexibility where
possible, and work to ensure that these steps will help federal and
Indian lands remain attractive for oil and gas producers.
Question 26. The BLM has a multiple use mission as set forth in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act to manage public land resources
for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing,
recreation, and timber harvesting.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure BLM meets this
statutory multiple use mandate?
Answer. I strongly support the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act's multiple use mandate to sustainably manage the public lands
through a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses for the
benefit of present and future generations. I support the efforts of the
Department of the Interior and the BLM to implement FLPMA and, if
confirmed, I will apply my varied career experiences and work
collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders and partners to ensure
multiple-use and sustained yield management on the public lands.
Question 27. If confirmed, how would you strive to improve the
relationship between the agency and stakeholders who hold grazing
permits on public lands?
Answer. I am committed to bringing people together to find common
ground and solutions to difficult issues. If confirmed, I will work
with stakeholders, including ranchers that hold grazing permits, to
ensure that public lands are managed for multiple uses and sustained
yield, including livestock grazing, where appropriate.
Question 28. The Department of the Interior (DOI) is running out of
options to deal with excessive wild horses on BLM land and feral horses
in Indian Country. The long-and short-term holding facilities are full,
fertility control is too extensive and ineffective, and horses are
overgrazing riparian areas and destroying wildlife habitat.
What BLM administrative or policy changes do you believe would
improve the implementation of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act to
reduce cost and improve compliance with Appropriate Management Levels
in the west to avoid severe overgrazing?
Answer. I am aware that the Wild Horse and Burro program at the BLM
poses unique and difficult challenges. I understand the BLM is
continuing to develop and implement policy changes, consistent with the
recommendations in a recently issued National Academy of Sciences
report and input from the Wild Horses and Burros Advisory Board, and is
working to find ways to make the program sustainable within the
existing statutory framework. If confirmed, I would look forward to
working with you to better understand the issues and complexities
surrounding the program.
Question 29. What role do you believe state and local governments
play in defining the appropriate multiple use and sustained yield
standard within their jurisdictions?
Answer. I recognize the importance of engaging with state and local
governments and value their input in the land use planning and National
Environmental Policy Act processes, as it promotes more sustainable
outcomes. FLPMA directs the BLM in developing land use plans to
coordinate its inventory, planning, and management activities with its
state and local government partners. If confirmed, I will work with the
BLM Director to ensure that state, tribal, and local governments
continue their important role in the Department's efforts to balance
environmentally responsible development with appropriate conservation
measures and recreation activities.
Question 30. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama
said that his ``administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding
up new oil and gas permits.'' If confirmed, what would you do to speed
up oil and gas permitting on Federal public lands?
Please address whether you would: (1) expedite the leasing process;
(2) expand the use of categorical exclusions under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); (3) eliminate the requirement for
Master Leasing Plans; and (4) deploy ``strike teams,'' such as those
used in North Dakota, to reduce permitting backlogs.
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues its
efforts to expedite its permitting processes. I understand that the BLM
has made improvements in its review of drilling permits and is
exploring ways to use technology to further improve the process. I also
understand that by identifying and addressing possible land-use
conflicts early in the leasing process, the BLM has seen a steady
decline in the percentage of BLM lease parcels protested. If confirmed,
I will support the BLM's work in this area, and will work to further
improve permit efficiencies.
Question 31. Over the last few years, DOI has expedited
environmental impact statements under NEPA for a number of large scale
renewable energy projects on Federal public lands. If confirmed, what
steps, if any, would you take to expedite environmental impact
statements for large scale coal, oil and gas, and uranium projects on
Federal public lands?
Answer. I both value and understand the necessity for providing
certainty when it comes to managing our Nation's public lands. I
support the BLM's ongoing efforts to ensure that environmental reviews
are conducted in an efficient manner, while also adhering to important
process requirements, including opportunities for public participation,
that result in well-reasoned and sustainable resource management
decisions. If confirmed, I will work within the parameters set by NEPA
to address the need for domestic production of the energy resources
needed to power our economy. In addition to involving cooperating
agencies during this process, I will fully engage elected officials,
industry, and all of the many and varied stakeholders of the public
lands.
Responses of Ellen D. Williams to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 32. The President considers you qualified for this
position due, at least in part, to your extensive previous experience
at the Department of the Interior, which largely took place during the
Clinton Administration. During the Clinton Administration, 21 national
monuments were either created or expanded, including during the time
you were at the department and serving as counselor to the Deputy
Secretary. As you know, these designations were of great concern to
western states and communities, including the manner in which they were
created.
During your tenure at the Department of the Interior, did you
attend or have involvement of any kind in any meetings or participate
in discussions where the designation or management of any national
monuments were considered or discussed? Did you review and/or approve
or surname any documents or other materials of any kind pertaining to
any designations or management of any national monuments? If so, please
describe your role further, including any specific national monument
designations in which you attended meetings or in which you
participated in discussions.
Answer. During my tenure at the Department of the Interior, I was
not involved in the decisions to designate or manage any of the 21
national monuments designated or expanded during the Clinton
Administration. Similarly, during my tenure at the Department I did not
review, approve, or surname any documents or other materials pertaining
to any of the 21 national monuments designated or expanded during the
Clinton Administration.
Question 33. Even if you were not personally involved in the
designation of national monuments during the Clinton administration,
you are of course aware of the controversial nature of some of those
designations. Is it your opinion that the process of designating the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was contrary to general
principles of cooperation, openness, and transparency, principles to
which Secretary Jewell and yourself have committed to as nominees
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee?
Answer. I was not involved in the designation of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument during the Clinton
Administration. I believe that any decisions regarding the responsible
use of the Antiquities Act by the President need to be fully informed
by public engagement and local stakeholder outreach. I support
President Obama's and Secretary Jewell's ``bottom up'' approach to any
use of the Antiquities Act by the President and with the perspective
that these decisions are best made with broad local support. I do not
view this as an ``either-or'' proposition. If confirmed, I am also
committed to working with Members of Congress to legislatively protect
important areas.
Response of Ellen D. Williams to Question From Senator Risch
Question 34. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to note that the
United States is becoming increasingly reliant upon imports for key
metals and minerals critical to US manufacturing and economic growth.
The United States, with a 7-10 year timeframe, is now considered one of
the worst nations in terms of the time it takes to obtain permits to
mine. Do you believe the Department of the Interior should look at this
situation and to make changes to make permitting more timely and
efficient, especially for the Bureau of Land Management which is
responsible for providing authorizations and permits for developing our
vast mineral resources on federal lands?
Answer. As I mentioned at my confirmation hearing, I share the
Committee's concerns regarding our dependence on foreign sources of
critical minerals. I understand that mining supports many jobs and
important products. I have worked on many mining projects, including
the recent successful permitting of a new phosphate mine in
southeastern Idaho on BLM lands, a project that was not challenged
before the Interior Board of Land Appeals or in federal court. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that mining permits are processed in
an efficient and environmentally responsible manner, consistent with
legal requirements and best management practices.
Responses of Ellen D. Williams to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 35. What plans do you have to further streamline the
process of offshore permitting, which while vastly improved compared to
the period immediately following the moratorium, still lags behind
where it should be?
Answer. I am committed to the President's all-of-the-above energy
strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on
foreign sources of energy. I appreciate that the pace of permitting and
the ability of companies to pursue development of their Outer
Continental Shelf leases is important to you and your constituents. If
confirmed, I will look forward to working with both the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement to ensure continued engagement with industry and all
stakeholders to promote the safe and environmentally responsible
development of our Nation's energy resources on the OCS, as well as to
provide clarity and certainty for operators seeking to develop those
resources. Let me also underscore my commitment to efficiency within
the permitting process. It is my understanding that the processing time
for permits has been reduced significantly, and I pledge to make this a
priority and seek continual improvement in this important process.
Question 36. What is your opinion on the possibility of future
lease sales in the Atlantic? Will you support states who express
interest in hosting offshore production in holding these lease sales?
Answer. I believe that when developing the next Five Year Program,
the Department should continue to strike an appropriate balance in
promoting the responsible development of domestic offshore oil and gas
resources. This includes thorough consideration of whether areas not
currently available for leasing should be made available in the next
Five Year Program. I am committed to ensuring that the views of coastal
states, along with other relevant factors, inform the decision-making
process with respect to offshore oil and gas leasing.
Question 37. Will you work with me and my staff to move forward
with the issue of revenue sharing to coastal states, to ensure that
these states remain able to support offshore oil and gas production?
Answer. If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary I will commit to
working with you, your staff, the Committee, states, and other
stakeholders to find what common ground may exist on this issue.
______
Response of Neil Kornze to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 1. In June the National Academy of Sciences released
findings and recommendations on improving the BLM's Wild Horse and
Burro Management Program. In response to the report, you replied,
``[t]he BLM looks forward to reviewing the report in detail and
building on the report's findings and recommendations. . . .'' Can you
please explain any steps the Agency has taken in light of the report,
and outline a schedule for me of any changes the Agency may take going
forward?
Answer. The BLM is currently evaluating the Wild Horse and Burro
program in light of the recent National Academies of Sciences report
and is adopting many of the recommendations outlined in the study. The
BLM continues to make reforms to the Wild Horse and Burro program to
ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability, and promote
ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM's effort to limit
population growth, the Bureau is working with the scientific and
veterinary communities to develop longer-lasting population control
tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several pilot efforts to
develop and evaluate potential tools, including more effective
immunocontraceptives. All pilot efforts supported by the BLM will be
peer reviewed by a group of well-qualified scientists. In addition to
facilitating the development of more effective population growth
suppression tools, the BLM plans to implement improved population
survey methods and to review its policy for establishing and adjusting
Appropriate Management Levels. The BLM is also evaluating several
options to reduce the numbers of animals in off-range holding
facilities, including reforming the adoption program, partnering with
new Federal, State, and non-profit partners to find good homes for
animals, and exploring options for lower-cost off-range holding
facilities. Each of these efforts will be grounded in the best
available science and incorporate the input of interested stakeholders.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to deal with the
unique challenges posed by management of wild horses and burros on
public rangelands.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 2. Are you familiar with the ``No More'' clause contained
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? ANILCA
transferred 124 million acres of lands in Alaska--a size almost equal
to the entire east coast--into federally protected acreage like parks,
refuges, monuments and wild and scenic rivers. In enacting ANILCA,
Congress found that the law ``provides sufficient protection for the
national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental
values on public lands in Alaska. and thus Congress believes that the
need for future legislation designating new conservation system units,
new national conservation areas, or new national recreation areas, has
been obviated thereby.'' Additionally, Section 1326 of ANILCA specifies
that there can be no ``future executive branch action which withdraws
more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate of public lands in the State of
Alaska.''
a. How do you interpret ANILCA's ``No More'' clause?
Answer. I understand that ANILCA's section 1326 prohibits the
Secretary of the Interior from studying federal lands in Alaska for the
single purpose of considering the establishment of a new conservation
system unit or for related or similar purposes, and that it requires
Congressional approval of a joint resolution for any withdrawal
exceeding 5000 acres.
b. Given ANILCA's ``No More'' clause, what authority did the
Administration use to reclassify nearly 13 million acres in the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA) as ``Special Areas,''
thereby preventing further energy development?
Answer. Special Areas are authorized by section 104(b) of the Naval
Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which requires the BLM, consistent
with providing for exploration of the NPRA, to assure maximum
protection of the surface values of areas having significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife or historical or scenic
value. The BLM's regulations call these areas ``Special Areas.'' The
Special Areas expanded and designated by the NPRA Integrated Activity
Plan, finalized in February 2013, are consistent with this direction. I
understand that ANILCA section 1326 is not implicated here because
Special Areas are not ``conservation system units'' and have not been
withdrawn.
c. I understand the Administration is also about to unveil a
new land management plan for the 19 million acre Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge that may seek additional wilderness
designation beyond the 8.5 million acres already designated as
wilderness. How does this move square with ANILCA's ``No More''
clause?
Answer. I have not been involved in the Fish and Wildlife Service's
planning effort.
d. If confirmed as BLM Director, you will be responsible for
87 million acres of public land just in Alaska alone. How will
you balance Alaska's need for economic development with the
Department's conservation efforts?
Answer. Both the Department of the Interior and the BLM are
committed to balancing the nation's need for economic development with
the Department's conservation efforts. If confirmed, I will continue to
work with you and interested stakeholders to find the appropriate
balance between development and conservation. The BLM's plan for the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA), which covers nearly 23
million acres of Alaska's North Slope, provides a useful recent
illustration. The plan authorizes access to nearly three-quarters of
the area's estimated oil resources while also protecting world-class
caribou herds, migratory bird habitat, uplands, and sensitive coastal
resources that are central to the subsistence culture of Alaska
Natives. This approach was developed through broad collaboration. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to strike an
appropriate balance among the many potential uses of our nation's
public lands and resources.
Question 3. The federal government's conveyance program of land
owed to Alaska and Alaska Natives is mandated under the over 42-year-
old Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM has repeatedly
proposed to cut the funding and personnel for the Alaska Conveyance
Program and perhaps more egregiously, BLM proposes to take the State of
Alaska's 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity
in the NPR-A to pay for the land conveyance program and the Legacy Well
Cleanup. I believe BLM should fund conveyance and surveying closer to
the $29 million that BLM provided in FY 12--without making Alaska foot
the bill. The Alaska Land Conveyance Program is very important both to
the State of Alaska and to the Alaska Native Corporations who are
eagerly awaiting their long promised lands to which they are entitled.
a. If confirmed, can you commit to me that you will ensure
that the Alaska Land Conveyance Program receives the necessary
funding to complete the conveyances as expeditiously as
possible?
b. Do you believe that it is proper for the BLM to reduce the
funding of a legislatively mandated program, and one which it
is 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, while spending funds on
non-legislatively mandated programs, like climate change
monitoring and adaptation?
Answer. I am aware of the importance of completing the Alaska
Conveyance work and of the BLM's obligations under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act and Alaska Statehood Act. The BLM recently
developed an innovative approach to surveying that will substantially
reduce costs, increase the speed of surveys, and provide a high-quality
product. I fully support efforts to complete this work more quickly and
to find ways to do so within the constrained budget environment. If
confirmed, I will work closely with my colleagues in the Department to
develop balanced funding recommendations for the Secretary's
consideration and presentation to the President.
Question 4. As you may know, the formation of the Lake Clark
National Park in Alaska during the Carter Administration forced Cook
Inlet Region Inc. and its villages to forfeit certain of their original
highest priority land selections within lands that became the Park--
lands which were promised to them under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). For the past 30 years, the Department of the
Interior has been on notice that Cook Inlet Region's ANSCA entitlement
would be under conveyed even after the completion of the 12(a) and
12(b) transfers to the CIRI villages. While the villages have now
received title to their respective 12(a) and 12(b) lands, approximately
43,000 acres of ANCSA entitlement lands are still due to the Cook Inlet
Region. On October 22, 2013, the Alaskan delegation sent a letter to
Secretary Jewell inquiring as to what federal lands in Alaska could
satisfy CIRI's ANCSA land entitlement and who in the Department should
CIRI and the delegation work with to expedite a conclusion of CIRI's
land selection process.
a. When will we receive a response to our delegation letter?
b. Can I get your assurances that you will work with me, the
delegation and CIRI to remedy the current shortfall in CIRI's
entitlement in an expeditious fashion?
Answer. I understand a response to the delegation's letter is being
finalized and will be delivered shortly. Because of land ownership
patterns in the Cook Inlet area, prior legislation specific to CIRI's
land selections, previous memoranda of understanding between CIRI and
the Department, and other issues, conveyance of lands to fulfill CIRI's
land entitlement is unique and complex. I am fully committed to seeking
the conveyance of CIRI's full entitlement in the most expeditious
manner, and will be working closely with you, the delegation, and CIRI
toward that end.
Question 5. The federal government both directly and under contract
drilled some 136 oil and gas and exploratory wells in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the 1940s and again in the early 1980s.
Many of those wells have not been properly capped and were instead
abandoned. The State of Alaska has been seeking for years for Interior
to do a better job of cleaning up its messes, just as the government
would fine private developers who had not properly secured exploratory
wells. Earlier this year the Administration proposed to use Alaska's
share of mineral leasing revenues to pay to remedy the federal messes--
something I found totally unacceptable and unjust.
a. While we approved $50 million in the recent helium
legislation that may fund 16 more well cleanups over the next
five years, do you believe it is the federal government's
responsibility to clean up all remaining wells at its own
expense--not Alaska's--in the future.
Answer. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to
remediate and clean-up the legacy NPRA wells, and the Department of the
Interior and the BLM are committed to that effort. If confirmed, I will
work with you and the Committee to ensure that BLM has the resources
necessary to continue the progress we have made in this area and to
complete this important effort. The BLM greatly appreciates the recent
inclusion of funding in the Helium Stewardship Act that will allow the
agency to significantly accelerate legacy well clean-up.
b. With the $50 million in funding for well remediation and
clean-up in the Helium Stewardship Act, can you please provide
me an update on the status of the planning for well cleanup in
2014?
Answer. Using the priorities established in the 2013 Legacy Wells
Strategic Plan published on our website (http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/
prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/legacywell.html), the BLM is currently
finalizing a spending plan addressing the sequence of work to be
completed on the Alaska legacy wells with funding from the Helium
Stewardship Act. The BLM is using existing agreements to move quickly
on priority work while also preparing new agreements to execute work
for 2014 and beyond.
c. When will you be able to share with me a written cleanup
plan for 2014? Which wells will be remediated?
Answer. In 2014, the BLM will complete work on the Umiat #3 well
and complete surface clean-up on three wells on the Simpson Peninsula
(Simpson Core Test #26, Simpson Core Test #30, and Simpson Core Test
#30A). Planning continues for work in 2015 and beyond. The BLM will be
happy to share with you and your staff the spending plan for 2014 once
it is finalized and to discuss any other aspect of the Alaska legacy
well cleanup effort that may be of interest.
d. If confirmed, will you make funding for well remediation
in the NPRA a priority for the BLM?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing working with you
and other Members of Congress to ensure that the BLM has the resources
necessary to complete this important effort. We greatly appreciate the
recent inclusion of funding in the Helium Stewardship Act that will
allow the BLM to accelerate progress on Alaska legacy well cleanup.
Question 6. As you know, the State of Alaska has long sought the
conveyance of about 50,000 acres along the Susitna River in
Southcentral Alaska under its 1959 Statehood Act land entitlement. This
acreage is now needed for a future reservoir. For the record, do you
have a firm timeline for when the state will receive title to those
lands?
Answer. The BLM shares your interest in resolving the State's
request. During this past summer, the BLM met with the Alaska Energy
Authority on a regular basis to better understand the details of the
request. In addition, regular contact between the Department of the
Interior Regional Solicitor's Office and its counterpart at the Alaska
Energy Authority has helped to keep lines of communication open. If
confirmed, I will continue to work closely with you and the State on
this issue.
Question 7. The Federal Government participated in armed field
visits during August 22-27, 2013 near the community of Chicken, Alaska.
I have conveyed my frustration and the frustration of Alaskans at the
manner in which these raids were undertaken, which have come to
symbolize continued Federal Government overreach in Alaska. Will you
commit to working with me to ensure an overzealous law enforcement
approach does not occur again?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make every effort to ensure that BLM
enforcement actions are done in a professional manner and in full
compliance with all applicable laws.
Question 8. On September 19, 2013 the Energy Committee held the
first subsistence oversight hearing since the creation of ANILCA and
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). One area where
everyone can agree is that the dual management framework in Alaska is
not working for our rural residents. We are taking a hard look at the
current structure of the Federal Subsistence Board, of which the BLM is
a member. We would like to add additional subsistence users to the
Board, in order to have an equal split between Alaska users and the FSB
which makes the decisions that impact their livelihood. Additionally,
we would like to reform the Rural Determination Process, which
currently reconsiders the rural status of Alaska's communities every
decade, leaving many Alaskans constantly worrying about their rural
preference or lack thereof. Will you commit to working on this pressing
reform effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this
effort. In Alaska, the Department of the Interior has a special
responsibility to ensure that fish and wildlife resources are available
now and in the future for rural Alaskans who rely on subsistence
harvest. I understand that the management of subsistence harvests of
natural resources is complicated. A number of laws provide many
mandates related to management; multiple entities, including the BLM,
have subsistence management responsibilities; and many different
subsistence users are affected by management of harvest. Opportunities
to streamline, clarify, and simplify these efforts should be pursued.
______
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Murkowski (for
Senator Hatch)
Question 9. The Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in Washington County,
Utah was established in February of 1996 with the issuance of the
Washington County Utah Habitat Conservation Plan and its permit. Under
the terms of the permit and its implementation agreement, the Bureau of
Land Management assumed the commitment to acquire all private land in
that Reserve through exchange or direct purchase from willing sellers
of property within the Reserve.
During the development of the HCP, the BLM and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prioritized those parcels that would
be essential for the `core' of the Reserve because that `core zone'
constituted the most biologically significant habitat for recovery of
the tortoise.
Currently, the BLM with Washington County and the USFWS are
preparing for the renewal of the HCP permit which expires in February
of 2016. Please provide a full accounting of whether the priority
``core zone'' has been acquired and if not, a full explanation as to
why the BLM's obligation under the agreement has not been met. Also,
please provide a full accounting of all acquisitions of private lands
within the Red Cliffs Reserve and the priority of those lands under the
USFWS criteria for conservation of the desert tortoise. Also, has the
BLM completed its Reserve Management Plan as mandated by Congress
within three years of the creation of the Red Cliffs NCA in 2009? Will
this plan contain a strategy for acquiring priority lands within the
Reserve?
Answer. The BLM remains strongly committed to completing
acquisition from willing sellers of the remaining approximately 1,200
acres of private lands within the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in
Washington County. The BLM is taking a three-prong approach to complete
these acquisitions in Utah, including purchases with appropriated
monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), land exchanges
consistent with FLPMA, and the use of land sale revenues provided for
under section 1978 of Public Law 111-11.
I understand that the BLM in Utah believes the ``core zone'' you
reference is equivalent to Zone 3 from the 1996 EIS Incidental Permit.
To date, the BLM has acquired nearly 6,400 acres of inholdings, the
majority of which have been within Zone 3. Nearly $18.7 million of LWCF
appropriated funds have been spent to date on these acquisitions.
I also understand that the single largest tract of private property
in the Reserve was tied up in bankruptcy proceedings from June 2004 to
October 2010. Since resolution of judicial proceedings, the BLM has
worked to acquire remaining lands as funds become available.
Section 1974 of Public Law 111-11 requires the BLM to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the Red Cliffs National Conservation
Area (NCA) designated by that law. Public scoping meetings were held in
2010, followed by public input and a report in 2011. The BLM expects to
release a draft plan for full public review and comment in mid-2014.
The plan will not specifically address private property within the
external boundary of the NCA because the scope of the plan is limited
to lands managed by the Federal government.
If confirmed, I will continue to direct the BLM in Utah to continue
to work diligently and collaboratively to complete these acquisitions
and the management plan.
Question 10. As a state bound by 63% federal lands, economic
development surrounding public lands requires close coordination
between the BLM and private enterprise. In the past 3 years, the
permitting process for right of way across public lands has been
greatly delayed with excessive Environmental Analysis required. Public
comment periods have been ordered, ``just to be safe'', rather than as
required by regulations. Furthermore, cultural resource inventories
have been ordered on right of way parcels affecting less than 1/8 of
mile of BLM land. How will you work with state field and district
managers to effect an equitable environmental assessment within
existing regulations and discourage the ordering of long EA and EIS as
a matter of course, rather than evaluating each situation?
Answer. Prior to approving any action on public lands the BLM must
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing
regulations. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM planning team to
ensure that the appropriate level of analysis is completed efficiently
and with appropriate public involvement.
Response of Neil Kornze to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 11. As the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, I work
closely with the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) and the outstanding work they do with
private landowners. Through conservation planning and assistance
programs, the NRCS helps landowners and agricultural producers increase
the productivity of the land while improving the health of the soil,
water, air, plants and animals. NRCS has done tremendous work in the
past few years, particularly on creative, outside-the-box, solutions to
our nation's pressing natural resource issues.
NRCS and BLM have an existing interagency agreement to address
habitat issues related to the sage-grouse. As we know, conservation
issues aren't limited to just public lands or private lands. If we are
really going to tackle big issues, we need to coordinate across the
agencies to set mutually agreeable priorities, share expertise and
talent, and effectively collaborate.
If confirmed, will you pledge to work collaboratively with Chief
Weller at NRCS? Can you please describe how your past experiences and
future plans for the BLM will foster better communication and
partnership between the two agencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work collaboratively with
Chief Weller at NRCS. The BLM values its working relationship with the
NRCS. For example, the BLM continues to collaborate nationally with
NRCS on the Landscape Monitoring Framework where a subset of the NRCS
National Resources Inventory data is collected on public lands. This
data collection helps the BLM to better understand resource conditions
and trends in priority habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, as well as
across all western rangelands. The BLM and the NRCS are also working
cooperatively to develop new plant materials needed to restore native
forbs and grasses in degraded sage-grouse habitats. The BLM looks
forward to continuing a cooperative working relationship with NRCS to
complete Ecological Site Descriptions for public lands. The BLM is also
proud to be a partner in the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) that NRCS is
leading. If confirmed, I will ensure a continued high level of
communication and coordination with NRCS at all levels of the Bureau.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Flake
Question 12. If Congress does not act by January 14, 2014, the BLM
stands to lose a critical land-management tool, stewardship contracting
authority. With that authority the BLM can enter agreements that, among
other things, allow for the reduction of hazardous fuels thereby
helping to prevent or mitigate the damage from catastrophic wildfires.
Do you support reauthorization of this authority?
Answer. I support the reauthorization of this authority and I know
the Department has testified in support of stewardship contracting
authority on several occasions. Stewardship contracting authority
allows the BLM to award and enter into contracts to accomplish
important forest health and restoration treatments, including hazardous
fuels reductions, and to use the value of timber or other forest
products removed as an offset against the cost of services received.
Question 13. Do you support improvements to stewardship authority,
such as cancellation ceiling flexibility that would allow the BLM to
treat larger areas of land, including the type of landscape-level
treatments that are proven to more effectively reduce wildfire risks?
Answer. If stewardship contracting authority is reauthorized, the
BLM's future strategy for these projects would include increasing their
scope and duration. I support the use of stewardship contracting
authority to treat both small and large areas of land. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with you to accomplish this shared goal, as
well as our shared goal of reducing wildland fire risks.
Question 14. Do you support S. 1300, which would reauthorize and
improve stewardship contracting authority for the BLM and the Forest
Service?
Answer. I support the reauthorization of stewardship contracting
authority for the BLM. I appreciate the work you and your staff have
done to address concerns raised in the BLM's testimony on S. 1300. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Question 15. I have heard from some counties and municipalities
trying to work with the BLM to authorize third-party concessionaires to
operate on Recreation and Public Purposes Act parcels. It is my
understanding that the Solicitor's Office continues to evaluate this
issue in its review of the August 2011 Instructional Memorandum for
Third Party Uses on Recreation and Public Purposes Act Patents and
Leases (2011-162). When does the Solicitor's Office expect to make a
decision about the ability for lease and patent holders to enter into
agreements with third-party concessionaires to operate on Recreation
and Public Purposes Act lands?
Answer. Lands leased or patented to local governments under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act, carry with them a number of
restrictions on commercial uses. It is my understanding that the BLM in
Arizona is pursuing a number of possible options with Maricopa County
and other Arizona local governments to address these proposed uses.
Among the solutions being discussed are commercial leasing and the
purchase of reversionary interests of existing R&PP conveyances by
these local governments. Additionally, the BLM is currently revising
its Recreation Permit and Fee Administration Handbook which will
provide general guidance on recreational commercial leases on BLM-
managed lands.
Question 16. I understand the City of Tucson and the BLM are
continuing discussions regarding the transfer of title for Udall Park
to the City of Tucson. I further understand this transfer would be
intended to fulfill a land exchange with BLM that originally commenced
in the 1980s, where the City conveyed title to a parcel known as the
Freeman Road property to the BLM. Can you provide an update on the
status of those discussions, including whether the issue can be
resolved administratively?
Answer. The BLM has been in discussions with the City of Tucson
regarding the Udall Park issue. When Udall Park was transferred to the
City of Tucson in 1989, the land was transferred under a Recreation &
Public Purposes Act (R&PP) patent that included a reversionary clause
prohibiting certain commercial uses of the property. The BLM in Arizona
is in discussions with the City regarding the possible conveyance of
that reversionary interest thus enabling the City to allow commercial
uses such as the installation of a cellular tower. The BLM has the
authority to sell reversionary interests at fair market value in
accordance with uniform appraisal standards. The value of that interest
for the parcel in question is not yet known. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the BLM continues to explore possible administrative
solutions with the City of Tucson.
Question 17. Maricopa County has been actively trying to work with
the BLM to renew its lease for the San Tan Mountain Regional Park. Can
you provide an update on the status of the BLM's efforts to confirm the
County's interim authority to operate the park, as well as BLM's
efforts to process the County's Recreation and Public Purposes Act
patent application?
Answer. The BLM is engaged in discussions with the Maricopa County
Parks and Recreation Department to allow the County to continue
operating the San Tan Mountain Regional Park, which includes public
lands managed by the BLM. When the Cooperative Recreation Management
Agreement with the County expired in September 2013, the BLM and the
County entered into a ``contribution of services'' agreement. This
agreement authorizes the Parks and Recreation Department to manage the
Park in accordance with the BLM-approved park plan while the BLM
processes the County's lease and patent application pursuant to the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The BLM is working cooperatively
with the County to complete this process as quickly as possible. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Maricopa County to ensure
that it may continue to operate the increasingly popular San Tan
Mountain Regional Park.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 18. In your questionnaire to the Committee, you state that
you held the following positions in the Office of U.S. Senator Harry
Reid between December 2004 and January 2011: Legislative Correspondent,
Legislative Aide, Legislative Assistant, Director of Nevada Operations,
and Senior Policy Advisor. Please provide the month(s) and year(s) you
served in each of the listed positions.
Answer. My positions in the Office of U.S. Senator Harry Reid were
as follows. I worked on public land and natural resource issues in each
of these roles.
Legislative Correspondent January 2003--September
2003
Legislative Aide October 2003--May 2005
Legislative Assistant June 2005--March 2006
Director of Nevada Operations April 2006--March 2008
Senior Policy Advisor April 2008--January 2011
Question 19. On January 14, 2013, Edward Shepard, President of the
Public Land Foundation (PLF) wrote a letter to Secretary Salazar,
encouraging him to nominate ``a career professional natural resource
manager'' as the next BLM Director.
The PLF is a national non-profit organization which advocates and
works for the professional management of the nation's public lands. The
PLF's members are predominately retired employees of BLM.
Mr. Shepard's January 14th letter cited section 301(a) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) which states that:
``[t]he Director of the Bureau shall have a broad background and
substantial experience in public land and natural resource
management.'' Mr. Shepard also stated that ``BLM has several current
and retired professionals that would serve well in the director
position and have demonstrated their competencies as Federal
executives.''
However, on November 21, 2013, Mr. Shepard wrote a letter to
members of the Committee urging your ``expedited confirmation.''
A. Did you contact the PLF between January 14, 2013 and
November 21, 2013? If so, when did you contact the PLF and what
was the nature of your exchange with the PLF?
B. Do you know or are you otherwise aware of any person
contacting the PLF on behalf or in support of you between
January 14, 2013 and November 21, 2013? If so, who contacted
the PLF and when did that person or persons contact the PLF?
Answer. In my role as Principal Deputy Director of the BLM, I meet
regularly with outside groups, including the Public Lands Foundation,
to gather input on issues important to the management of public lands.
As you note, the Public Lands Foundation is an organization comprised
primarily of retired BLM professionals. I am honored by the
organization's support for my nomination. I did not, however, request
its support. Similarly, I am not aware of anyone having contacted the
Public Lands Foundation on my behalf.
Question 20. You testified before the Committee that: ``we have
somewhere around 33 states where there are oil and gas revenues being
produced on public lands, but.just over half of those states have
stepped forward to establish some sort of baseline regulation when it
comes to hydraulic fracturing.''
Please provide a list of all states that have not established
``baseline regulation'' for hydraulic fracturing. For each of the
states that have not established baseline regulation for hydraulic
fracturing, please list: (a) the total amount of oil and gas produced
on public lands for each of the last five years; and (b) of these
amounts how much oil and gas was produced using hydraulic fracturing
for each of the last five years.
Answer. The BLM does not currently monitor hydraulic fracturing and
therefore cannot estimate how much oil and gas was produced using that
method. State regulation of hydraulic fracturing is changing rapidly,
and regulatory provisions vary between states. The BLM revised proposed
rule on hydraulic fracturing will establish baseline environmental
safeguards for hydraulic fracturing operations across all public and
Indian lands, while providing flexibility to oil and gas operators in
situations where a state's regulation meets or exceeds the BLM
standards.
Question 21. BLM proposes air quality management goals, objectives,
and actions in several proposed Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The
State of Wyoming, with oversight from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), has primacy over air quality issues in Wyoming. What
authority is BLM relying on to develop its own air quality management
goals, objectives, and actions?
Answer. The BLM acknowledges and respects the role of the states
that have primacy for Clean Air Act compliance. The BLM is required to
comply with the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act
for actions or authorizations on public lands. In addition, pursuant to
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM has responsibility
for land use planning and is required, among other things, ``to weigh
long-term benefits to the public and short-term benefits'' and
``provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws,
including state and federal air, water, noise, or other pollution
standards or implementation plans.'' FLPMA also states that it is the
policy of the United States that ``the public lands be managed in a
manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical,
ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and
archeological values,'' among others.
Question 22. I understand that several RMPs under revision in
Wyoming propose air resource management plans that are inconsistent
with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the Department of the
Interior (DOI) signed with EPA and the Department of Agriculture in
2011. Why is BLM not following the existing MOU and instead
establishing new air resource management plans?
Answer. The 2011 National Air Quality MOU outlined steps to analyze
and mitigate the potential impacts to air resources associated with oil
and gas decisions on Federal lands. The BLM in Wyoming worked closely
with the MOU signatories to develop the Air Resource Management Plans
included in the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) under revision, which
address how the BLM in Wyoming will manage air resource impacts from
development. In addition to the MOU signatories, the BLM ensured that
the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Governor's
office were involved in the development of the Air Resource Management
Plans. The RMPs are not yet final. The public review process will be
completed according to the timetable for each plan, with completion
dates ranging from early 2014 to mid 2016. If confirmed, I will
continue to ensure that the BLM undertakes appropriate and
collaborative resource management planning.
Question 23. BLM proposes timing restrictions, required design
features, and access restrictions that will impact valid existing oil
and gas leases. How does BLM plan to protect existing lease rights in
accordance with the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook?
Answer. The BLM's land use plan decisions are subject to valid
existing rights. If confirmed, I will ensure that valid existing rights
are protected pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act.
Question 24. BLM proposes making large areas of land unavailable to
oil and gas leasing in many of its RMPs currently under revision.
However, FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply
with special procedures before making a management decision that
removes a principal or major use, such as oil and gas leasing. For
example, section 204 requires the Secretary to notify Congress and
provide it with specific information about a withdrawal.
I understand that DOI, to date, has not complied with section 204
of FLPMA or BLM's implementing regulations in 43 C.F.R. part 2300. Why
is BLM removing a principal use or public lands without following the
procedures required by law?
Answer. Land use decisions regarding the availability of public
lands for oil and gas leasing are completed through the planning
process, which involves an open and public dialogue. A BLM decision
through the planning process to close an area to oil and gas leasing is
not a withdrawal and therefore is not subject to the requirements
outlined in Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA).
I am aware that FLPMA Section 204(c) requires the Secretary of the
Interior to notify Congress of Section 204 withdrawals of over 5,000
acres. The Department of the Interior complies with this notification
requirement whenever a Section 204 withdrawal of over 5,000 acres is
made. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to fulfill its
responsibilities for Congressional notification pursuant to FLPMA for
such withdrawals.
Question 25. The State of Wyoming, local governments, and many
stakeholders have spent considerable resources developing and
implementing greater sage grouse management strategies to protect the
species.
DOI has endorsed Wyoming's efforts. For example, in response to the
Wyoming Governor's renewal of a state executive order establishing a
sage grouse ``core areas'' conservation plan, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) stated:
``The Service believes the Executive Order can result in the
long term conservation of the greater sage grouse, and thus
reduce the need to list the species under the Endangered
Species Act.''
However, BLM does not seem to agree with FWS. Through its RMP
revisions, BLM is imposing management policies that are inconsistent
with the strategy implemented by Wyoming.
a. Prior to proposing its management policies for greater
sage grouse in Wyoming, did BLM conduct a review to determine
whether these polices were consistent with the Wyoming sage
grouse plan.
Answer. Yes. In support of the State's strategy, on December 29,
2009, the BLM Wyoming issued the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
Policy Instruction Memorandum (IM), WY IM 2010-012. This IM recognizes
the State's ``core areas'' for population management focus and
represents the BLM's substantial effort to actively manage those
habitats on public lands in support of the population management
objectives, as set by the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department.
b. Do you agree with the assessment from FWS on the Wyoming
sage grouse plan?
Answer. The BLM concurs with the Fish and Wildlife Service's
assessment that Wyoming's plan can result in long-term conservation of
the Greater Sage-Grouse.
c. If confirmed, would you direct BLM to incorporate
Wyoming's sage grouse plan into BLM planning processes without
further restrictions on top of those that exist within the
Wyoming sage grouse plan.
Answer. The BLM has incorporated Wyoming's sage grouse plan into
alternatives in each of the four National Environmental Policy Act
documents that the BLM is preparing in Wyoming as part of the National
Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort being undertaken with the U.S.
Forest Service, States and other key partners. The final planning
decisions will be made after consideration of input from the public.
Question 26. For more than a year, BLM has been engaged in a
systematic review of its management practices for conservation of the
greater sage grouse in western states. In some states, the new
conditions being considered would dramatically shrink the availability
of multiple use on and access to public lands.
a. What process did BLM use to determine the scientists on
which the agency would rely.
Answer. The BLM planning team for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning
effort is comprised of a wide range of natural resource specialists and
scientists. As part of its Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, the
BLM utilizes the best available science drawn from experts both inside
and outside the government. The planning effort is analyzing a wide
range of factors impacting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation as
identified in the National Technical Team (NTT) report, the Fish and
Wildlife Service's Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report, and the
U.S. Geological Survey's Baseline Environmental Report (BER). Each of
these reports was peer reviewed and based on the latest scientific
studies. The BLM also relies heavily on partnerships with experts from
state fish and wildlife agencies, particularly through the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Through the national
planning effort, the BLM utilizes the best available science alongside
input from state fish and wildlife agencies to ensure land managers and
biologists tailor land use decisions to local ecological conditions.
b. What peer review process does BLM follow for its sage
grouse management practices?
Answer. The development of the National Technical Team (NTT) report
followed the U.S. Department of the Interior's Data Quality Guidelines,
and sought a peer review commissioned through the Western Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).
In the planning process currently underway, the BLM will consider
the NTT report, the COT report, the BER report, and other best
available science before making final planning decisions.
Question 27. BLM currently has an excess of wild horses both in
long-and short-term holding facilities as well as on BLM lands.
a. If no changes are made to BLM policy and no legislative
action is taken, what are the long-term implications both
financially for BLM and ecologically for BLM lands?
Answer. The rapid rate of on-range population growth requires the
BLM to develop innovative long-term solutions that ensure Appropriate
Management Levels are maintained, while limiting the number of animals
placed in holding facilities. I remain committed to implementing
reforms that draw from a recent National Academy of Sciences report,
and, if confirmed, will continue to work with Congress and interested
stakeholders to put the Wild Horse and Burro program on sound financial
and ecological footing for the long term.
b. BLM is currently violating the law by failing to maintain
Appropriate Management Levels. What is BLM's plan for
population control?
Answer. The BLM continues to make reforms to the Wild Horse and
Burro program to ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability,
and promote ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM's
effort to limit population growth, the Bureau is working with the
scientific and veterinary communities to develop longer-lasting
population control tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several
pilot efforts to develop and evaluate potential tools, including more
effective immunocontraceptives. All pilot efforts supported by the BLM
will be peer reviewed by a group of well-qualified scientists. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to deal with the
unique challenges posed by the management of wild horses and burros on
public rangelands.
c. If confirmed, would you direct BLM to use sale authority
if the appropriation rider language was removed?
Answer. It is the policy of the BLM not to sell wild horses or
burros without limitation. I am committed to improving the Wild Horse
and Burro program, and if confirmed, will continue to expand
partnerships and support innovative ideas that help the BLM place
animals in well-qualified homes.
Question 28. I understand that BLM provides grants and similar
sources of Federal funding to entities outside the Federal government.
I find this troubling given recent budget constraints within DOI and
BLM.
Please provide the Committee with a detailed accounting of all
grants and similar sources of Federal funding that BLM made to outside
entities between October 2011 and the present. Please provide the name
of the recipient, the total amount awarded, and under what authority
BLM provided the funding.
Answer. Both the Department of the Interior and the BLM are
committed to using appropriated funds judiciously and in a way that
maximizes on-the-ground benefit. The Challenge Cost Share Program
demonstrates how the BLM partners with local organizations to meet
priorities for on-the-ground habitat, recreation, and cultural resource
work. For example, in some very recent projects, federal funds have
leveraged up to six times that amount in partner contributions. If
confirmed, I would ensure that the BLM continues to use funding wisely
to meet our multiple-use and sustained yield mission. We would be happy
to discuss this request with you or your staff so that the Bureau can
better understand the scope of the inquiry and provide the information
that you seek.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 29. Please identify any incident of groundwater
contamination that directly resulted from hydraulic fracturing that was
identified by BLM and served as the catalyst for interjecting a major
new rulemaking on top of what states are already doing?
Answer. It is a BLM responsibility to ensure that activities on
public lands are carried out in a manner that protects public health,
safety, and the environment. Existing BLM regulations governing
hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands are more than three
decades old and were not written to address modern hydraulic fracturing
activities. As with all of its programmatic areas, the BLM is committed
to maintaining regulations that keep pace with current conditions.
Question 30. Please identify any states and the appropriate
regulatory agency that has failed to regulate hydraulic fracturing
activity where that failure has resulted in actual environmental harm.
Please cite the specific incident, if any.
Answer. As this Administration has expanded opportunities for safe
and responsible domestic energy production on federal and tribal lands,
the Department of the Interior has proposed common sense regulatory
updates while also providing flexibility and facilitating coordination
with states and tribal nations. The BLM incorporated input from members
of the public, various stakeholders, states, tribal nations, industry,
and many others when preparing the revised proposed rule. If confirmed,
I will ensure that this input is fully considered in developing
appropriate safety and environmental protections.
Question 31. What do you anticipate to be the annual costs to the
BLM of being able to administer the proposed hydraulic fracturing rule?
Answer. The BLM would administer the hydraulic fracturing rule as
part of its ongoing responsibilities to manage the oil and gas program.
The BLM is reviewing more than 1.3 million comments received during the
public review of the revised proposed rule and will be able to provide
details on administrative requirements once the rule is finalized.
Question 32. Has BLM conducted any economic assessment of what
impact this new rule might have upon its ability to effectively and
efficiently process APDs, process renewable energy project
applications, or even how the increased burden might divert resources
from steadily increasing costs for the wild horse program?
Answer. As noted in the response to the previous question, the BLM
is currently reviewing more than 1.3 million comments received during
the public review of the revised proposed rule and will be able to
provide details on administrative requirements once the rule is
finalized. If confirmed, I will continue to work to ensure that the BLM
supports its obligations, including the processing of drilling permits,
renewable energy project applications, and the wild horse and burro
program, along with our regulatory efforts related to oil and gas
development on public lands.
Question 33. Has any direction of any kind, written or otherwise,
been given to any personnel within the agency to not conduct wild horse
gathers at this time? If so, might the promulgation of a new rule on
BLM hydraulic fracturing divert resources from activities such as being
able to conduct wild horse gathers?
Answer. The BLM is working closely with our individual BLM State
Directors to evaluate gathers on a case-by-case basis.
If confirmed, I will continue to work to ensure that the agency
meets its obligations, including our regulatory responsibilities
related to oil and gas development on public lands.
Question 34. While it is clear that there will be some impact to
other programs as BLM diverts its limited resources to duplicate state
regulatory efforts, why has BLM not conducted any analysis of how this
new regulatory effort might impact ongoing activities that BLM has
stated are a priority?
Answer. The BLM is responsible for instituting and enforcing
regulations that provide for safe and responsible development of oil
and gas resources on public lands. Like its work in other resource
areas, the agency takes seriously its responsibility for having
regulations that are up-to-date and responsive to current operating
realities.
Question 35. Does BLM plan to hire new personnel to administer this
new hydraulic fracturing rule? BLM has sometimes had a difficult
challenge in attracting people with highly technical capabilities to
come to the agency because they can be paid substantially more in
industry. Where will these new hires come from? Do you expect that the
agency will attempt to hire away personnel from state agencies since
those agencies have decades of experience already in regulating these
activities while BLM does not?
Answer. The BLM is already working to fulfill its responsibilities
related to oil and gas development at a time of increasing demand for
trained personnel by both industry and government. The BLM is working
to address challenges associated with recruitment and retention of
applicants for skilled positions by looking closely at ways to get
certified petroleum engineer technicians on the job more quickly and at
ways to increase base salaries for petroleum engineers and technicians,
which are significantly less than salaries that are paid by industry.
If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with you and other
Members of Congress to identify new approaches to this ongoing
challenge.
Question 36. Recently, the Utah BLM deferred nearly 100,000 acres
from an auction that was scheduled to take place on November 19, 2013.
The deferral occurred only days before the auction. Could you provide
the documents supporting the decision to defer the acreage, including
any emails referencing the decision to defer the acreage? What were the
exact reasons for the deferral? Did the BLM, in deciding to defer the
acreage, have any contact with outside groups prior to the deferral?
Answer. The BLM in Utah decided to defer certain parcels from the
November 19 lease sale in order to provide additional time to address
concerns about potential impacts to the Old Spanish National Historic
Trail, cultural resources, and sensitive species. It is my
understanding that the BLM Utah State Director met with a variety of
stakeholders prior to the decision, including industry, state and
county officials, conservation groups, and other federal agencies. I
would be happy to meet with you to define the scope of your request for
specific documents leading up to the decision to defer some of the
parcels from the November 19, 2013, lease sale.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Risch
Question 37. Myself, along with Senator Crapo, would like to know
more about your philosophy as it relates to collaborative problem-
solving at the Bureau of Land Management. If you are confirmed, will
you commit to fully implementing the Owyhee Initiative (Public Law 111-
11) which is based upon collaborative problem-solving?
Answer. I am committed to using collaborative approaches to solving
problems whenever possible. Bringing stakeholders together to address
public land management issues is beneficial for the BLM, the public
lands and their resources, and stakeholders. If confirmed, I will work
with the BLM's Idaho State Director to ensure that the BLM continues to
work collaboratively with the Owyhee Initiative and others to fully
implement Public Law 111-11 and other statutes that govern the BLM's
management of public lands.
Question 38. Myself, along with Senator Crapo, would like to know
if you will direct the BLM to honor its commitments during the
negotiations and legislative lead up to the law's passage in 2009,
including the outstanding memorandum of understanding between the BLM
and the Owyhee Initiative Board of Directors, inconsistent policies
related to motorized herding in wilderness and execution of agreements
associated with a ``science review'' process wherein range management
experts review scientific assertions in environmental analyses required
for National Environmental Policy Act compliance on any given allotment
and make specific science-based recommendations on the management
regime for that specific allotment?
Answer. The BLM values its partnership with the Owyhee Initiative
Board of Directors and is committed to implementing Public Law 111-11,
in addition to fulfilling its obligations under the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws.
If confirmed, I will work with the BLM Idaho State Director to ensure
that the BLM continues close collaboration with the Owyhee Initiative
Board, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and other stakeholders on wilderness
management, range management and the application of best available
science for public land management in Owyhee County.
Responses of Neil Kornze to Questions From Senator Landrieu
Question 39. Mr. Kornze--what do you see as the future role of the
BLM in the regulation of onshore oil and natural gas production--that
is, do you see BLM assuming a greater regulatory role, or do you
envision a balance between Federal and state regulation that allows
those states currently doing a good job of regulating their oil and gas
industries to continue to do so?
Answer. The BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandate gives
the agency a unique stewardship responsibility in the management of
public lands and resources. The BLM implements its mandate in a highly
collaborative manner, reaching out to all stakeholders and working
closely with our fellow regulators, including states and tribal
nations. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with states,
tribal nations, industry partners and others as we move forward with
the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Question 40. Do you agree that with the current delay in permitting
compared to private lands has reduced the ability of Federal lands to
contribute to the growth in domestic energy production? You mention a
new leasing system to be rolled out in the coming months, could you
detail the specifics of that plan and what effect you envision it will
have? Do you have other plans to streamline the permitting process?
Answer. The BLM has made important strides in oil and gas
permitting in recent years. Industry now has nearly 7,000 approved
drilling permits in-hand and available for use on public lands and
minerals. As I mentioned in my testimony, the BLM is also developing a
new electronic Application for Permit to Drill (APD) processing system
to increase efficiency, which will track drilling permits through the
entire process and provide greater transparency for the BLM, industry,
and the public. Our plan is to pilot this electronic system in parts of
Utah and New Mexico during the first half of 2014. Once the system is
ready for broader deployment, it will be rolled out nationwide. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to take advantage of
opportunities like this to improve our permitting efforts and to
provide greater certainty and predictability to industry.
Question 41. In response to the National Academy of Sciences
findings, what specific efforts is BLM making to employ the use of
immunecontraceptive technologies, reduce round-ups, and reform the
management strategies that have been found lacking?
Answer. The BLM is currently evaluating the Wild Horse and Burro
program in light of the recent National Academies of Sciences report
and is adopting many of the recommendations outlined in the study. The
BLM continues to make reforms to the Wild Horse and Burro program to
ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability, and promote
ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM's effort to limit
population growth, the Bureau is working with the scientific and
veterinary communities to develop longer-lasting population control
tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several pilot efforts to
develop and evaluate potential tools, including more effective
immunocontraceptives. Pilot efforts supported by the BLM will be peer
reviewed by a group of well-qualified scientists. In addition to
facilitating the development of more effective population growth
suppression tools, the BLM plans to implement improved population
survey methods and to review its policy for establishing and adjusting
Appropriate Management Levels. The BLM is also evaluating several
options to reduce the numbers of animals in off-range holding
facilities, including reforming the adoption program, partnering with
new Federal, State, and non-profit partners to find good homes for
animals, and exploring options for lower-cost off-range holding
facilities. Each of these efforts will be grounded in the best
available science and incorporate the input of interested stakeholders.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to deal with the
difficult challenges posed by management of wild horses and burros on
public rangelands.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the American Sportfishing Association American Fly
Fishing Trade Association Berkley Conservation Institute Boone &
Crockett The Conservation Fund Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited
Izaak Walton League of America Mule Deer Foundation National
Shooting Sports Foundation The Nature Conservancy North American
Grouse Partnership Pheasants Forever Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership Tread Lightly Trout Unlimited Quail
Forever Wild Sheep Foundation Wildlife Forever Wildlife
Management Institute
Our organizations represent hunters, anglers, and outdoor
enthusiasts throughout the United States. We write to you today to
express our support for the nomination of Neil Kornze to become the
next Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
In nominating Neil Kornze to lead the Bureau of Land Management,
the President has selected a voice for the West who has helped forge
solutions to some of the nation's most complex natural resource
challenges. For more than a decade, Neil has helped ensure that the
priorities of sportsmen and Western communities are heard in Washington
and reflected in the nation's energy and public lands policies.
As Principal Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Neil has applied an effective brand of listening and leadership
to help the organization modernize key functions for the benefit of the
public. In particular, Kornze has placed a focus on implementing the
Secretary's onshore oil and gas leasing reforms, including enhanced
public input, siting energy development in areas of minimal conflict,
driving landscape-level planning efforts, and dramatically expanding
the agency's use of technology for energy permitting and land surveys.
In doing so, Neil has shown that with smart policies and careful
planning the U.S. can balance energy development on public lands with
conservation and recreation.
In particular, sportsmen worked effectively with Kornze to
effectively launch and site solar development on public lands. He heard
our concerns, and worked with us and with industry to balance
conservation of critical wildlife habitat with utility-scale
development. Today, we are on track to meet the goal of having
sufficient renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than
6 million homes by 2020.
In conclusion, Neil has demonstrated the qualities that the hunting
and fishing communities expect in a BLM Director. We are very
encouraged that he has been nominated him to this crucial post and
encourage you to approve his nomination as soon as possible.
______
California Natural Resources Agency,
Sacramento, CA, December 10, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Wyden and Murkowski,
I write to offer my strong support of President Obama's appointment
of Neil Kornze as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
In his present role at BLM's principal deputy director, Mr. Kornze
has been an effective manager of the agency and its 245 million acres
of public lands. He is a leader who is open-minded and inclusive toward
the perspectives of states and stakeholders. His understanding of the
role of federal lands in the West, particularly for the potential for
renewable energy generation is of significant interest to California.
Of note, Neil has a demonstrated history in supporting Native American
consultation, especially as it relates to oil, gas and renewable energy
development.
Mr. Kornze's collaborative style, approach to western states and
experience within the Department of Interior will serve him well as he
addresses the many resource management issues that the Bureau of Land
Management oversees.
I strongly urge the committee to undertake his nomination and
support confirmation of Neil Kornze as the next Director of the Bureau
of Land Management.
Sincerely,
John Laird,
Secretary for Natural Resources,
State of California.
______
New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce,
Albuquerque, NM, November 8, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden and Senator Murkowski: The New Mexico Green
Chamber of Commerce (NMGCC) and its local chapters represent businesses
dedicated to building healthy economies in New Mexico's diverse
communities. We write to you today to support the confirmation of Neil
Kornze as the next Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
New Mexico is ranked 2nd in the nation for solar potential, 12th
for wind potential, and has vast untapped geothermal and biomass
resources. We believe Mr. Kornze's leadership and hands-on experience
launching responsible solar and wind energy projects on federal lands
will help create jobs and investment in New Mexico's local economies
through clean energy development.
Last year, Mr. Kornze listened to the NMGCC, our congressional
delegation and other local stakeholders seeking to protect the Rio
Grande del Norte National Monument near Taos. Already, the BLM reports
that the monument has seen a 40 percent increase in visitation--
bolstering the local economy and local employers. We look forward to
working with him to ensure our small business perspective is included
in the new monument's management planning.
We also look forward to the opportunity to educate Mr. Kornze about
our members' interests in seeing the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks BLM
lands protected in Southern New Mexico. An economic study we
commissioned shows that a monument designation could infuse the local
economy with $7.4 million, nearly double the number of tourism jobs
available to residents, and over $500,000 annually in local and state
tax revenue.
Mr. Kornze has shown he understands and appreciates that New
Mexico's economy is closely tied to its public lands. Should he be
confirmed, we look forward to the opportunity to continue working with
Mr. Kornze to ensure our perspective is considered in the BLM's
balanced public lands policies.
Sincerely,
Laura E. Sanchez, Esq., CEO.
______
November 8, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Wyden:
We wish to express our support for the nomination and swift
confirmation of Neil Kornze to serve as Director of the Bureau of Land
Management. BLM lands are extremely important to sportsmen across the
west but particularly in New Mexico where over 90 percent of our
residents hunt on public land. In nominating Mr. Kornze, the President
has chosen a voice for the west and common-sense conservation to lead
this vital agency.
Since March 1, 2013, Mr. Kornze has been leading the BLM as the
agency's Principal Deputy Director, and prior to serving in his current
role; Mr. Kornze was the BLM's Acting Deputy Director for Policy and
Programs starting in October 2011. Mr. Kornze joined the organization
in January 2011 as a Senior Advisor to the Director.
Before coming to the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Kornze worked
as a Senior Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of
Nevada, while in that role Mr. Kornze worked in cooperation with
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico to develop and pass the nation's
most significant public lands legislation in recent memory, The Omnibus
Public Lands Act of 2009.
As a leader in the BLM's move toward landscape-scale planning, and
as one of the architects of the largest land conservation legislation
in a generation, Neil has shown that--with smart policies and careful
planning--the U.S. can safely encourage energy development on public
lands while also expanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, and
outdoor recreation.
Mr. Kornze's reputation for working with all stakeholders for
common-sense solutions has been proven in New Mexico where he traveled
to the Northern New Mexico to hear directly from sportsmen and other
community members prior to the broadly supported Rio Grande del Norte
National Monument designation--which will protect hunting, fishing and
habitat for the future in one of the west's most spectacular
landscapes. We look forward to working with Mr. Kornze as we move
closer to permanent protection for the iconic Organ Mountains/Desert
Peaks area in Southern New Mexico.
As New Mexico sportsmen we wish to again express our strong support
for swift confirmation of Neil Kornze to Director of the BLM.
Sincerely,
Oscar Simpson, Chairman,
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, New Mexico Chapter,
John Cornell, President,
Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen,
Ray Trejo, President,
New Mexico Wildlife Federation,
Sanford Schemnitz, Chairman,
Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen,
Max Trujillo, President,
Sportsmen Concerned of Northern New Mexico,
Toner Mitchell, New Mexico Public Lands Coordinator,
Trout Unlimited.
______
Outer Continental Shelf Coalition,
December 16, 2013.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski,
I am writing on behalf of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Governors Coalition, which is a group of coastal state governors who
joined together in May 2011 to promote a constructive dialogue on OCS
energy-resource planning and development among coastal state governors
and federal policy makers. Currently, I serve as chair of the
Coalition. On behalf of the Coalition, I respectfully request that you
consider addressing the topics listed below with Assistant Secretary of
the Interior for Land and Minerals Management-Designate Janice
Schneider during her confirmation hearing before your committee on
December 17, 2013.
As you know, all federal decisions regarding energy exploration and
production on the OCS must be made in consultation with affected
states. However, in recent years, the federal government has had little
consultation with the states before taking significant actions
affecting OCS energy development. For this reason, the governors have
joined the Coalition to foster a more productive dialogue between the
federal government and the coastal states on energy-resource
evaluation, sustainable resource development, and other OCS policy
matters.
Should she be confirmed, the OCS Governors Coalition hopes to
cultivate a substantive, ongoing dialogue with Ms. Schneider on the
opportunities and challenges facing offshore energy development and the
roles that coastal states play in the development and execution of
federal OCS policy.
items of interest for discussion with ms. schneider
1. One of the core missions of the OCS Governors Coalition is
to promote a constructive dialogue with federal policy makers
on decisions affecting offshore development. Unfortunately,
over the past few years, the governors have been concerned with
the lack of communication between state and federal officials,
particularly in regard to the development of offshore leasing
plans.
a. Of note, President Obama canceled Lease Sale 220
off Virginia in December 2010 without sufficient
consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
bipartisan leadership in Virginia has clearly indicated
multiple times that it supports a leasing program in
the Atlantic, and Governor McDonnell has addressed the
Administration's concerns about safety and spill
containment infrastructure and coordination with
military operations in the area.
b. Similarly, prior to release of the proposed Final
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Natural Gas Leasing
Program for 2012-2017, the State of Alaska was not
consulted on the Department of the Interior's decision
to postpone lease sales off Alaska one year from the
initial timeframe.
c. Understanding the multiple stakeholder
conversations that go into planning a leasing program,
can you discuss the legal and otherwise appropriate
role for the input of state governments? What actions
would you take to ensure sufficient and ongoing input
from the states?
2. A second priority for the OCS Governors Coalition is the
pace of permitting for OCS oil and natural gas operators.
Following the temporary deepwater drilling moratorium in 2010,
operators experienced significant delays in plan and permitting
approval. Even though operators in the Gulf of Mexico are
starting to return to pre-Macondo operation levels, several
concerns with the inefficient and inconsistent regulatory
regime for offshore operators remain.
a. What measures can be taken by the Department of
the Interior to ensure a more timely and consistent
regulatory framework for all operators without
sacrificing environmental safety?
3. In a previous meeting of the governors, we each agreed
that revenue sharing of royalties generated from offshore
leasing and energy production should be shared equally with all
coastal states that produce energy--either traditional or
renewable--off their respective shores. These revenues are
critical for funding state coastal restoration and conservation
efforts as well as other state programs. While Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (all OCS Governor member
states) benefit from revenue sharing that is capped and can
only be used for limited purposes, Alaska and states along the
Atlantic coast are not eligible for revenue sharing.
a. Do you believe there should be consistency on
revenue sharing for all coastal states?
4. Virginia Governor McDonnell, North Carolina Governor
McCrory, and South Carolina Governor Haley--all of whom are
members of the Coalition--support the opening of the Atlantic
for oil and natural gas exploration. The Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management is working on a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) for geological and geophysical activity in the
Atlantic in order to allow seismic surveyors to uncover the
true potential of the resources in that region. The PETS review
has already lasted nearly four years and the coalition has
continuing concerns that further delays could ultimately
forestall Atlantic leasing. At the same time, we are pleased
that Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy
Beaudreau recently acknowledged that the Interior Department
can proceed with including Atlantic leasing in the next five
year plan, even if new seismic data has not yet been collected.
a. Can you please discuss your thoughts on including
additional leasing opportunities in the Department's
2017-2022 leasing plan?
5. A recent report released by the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars recommends that lease terms
in the Arctic OCS be lengthened to ensure that operators have
sufficient time to recoup the large capital investment required
to extract resources in this region. Currently, lease terms are
ten years in the Arctic. Greenland allows for 16 year
extensions of leases, and Canada permits companies to retain
leases indefinitely if oil or gas is found within the initial
nine year lease timeframe. The report suggests that a
combination of the Greenland and Canadian lease frameworks
would be appropriate in the American Arctic.
a. Could you please discuss your thoughts on the
possibility of expanding the lease timeframe with
respect to the Arctic OCS to ensure that operators are
able to operate efficiently in a frontier region?
Thank you for consideration of these important matters as you
prepare for the December 17th hearing.
For general information on the Coalition and its members, please
visit our website at http://www.ocsgovernors.org/. If you have any
questions, or if the OCS Governors Coalition can be of any further
assistance, please contact Kip Knudson, my Director of State and
Federal Relations for the State of Alaska, at 202-624-5858 or via email
at [email protected].
Best regards,
Sean Parnell, Governor of Alaska,
Chair.
______
Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development,
December 17, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski:
On behalf of the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development
(SFRED) coalition and its founding partners the National Wildlife
Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout
Unlimited, we write in support of the confirmation of Neil Kornze as
Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). SFRED is a coalition
of more than 1,000 businesses, organizations and individuals dedicated
to conserving irreplaceable habitats so future generations can hunt and
fish on public lands. The role of the BLM Director is an important one
to SFRED. The BLM's 248 million surface acres include valuable fish and
wildlife habitats and many popular places to fish and hunt. These lands
also provide timber, minerals, renewable energy, and other resources.
To be effective in leading the BLM, the Director must understand the
importance of balancing the multiple uses of public lands.
During his time on Capitol Hill and in recent years at the BLM, Mr.
Kornze has demonstrated a pragmatic, solutions-oriented approach to
public lands challenges. For example, Mr. Kornze played a key role in
creating a plan for the development of solar energy on public land in
the West which carefully considered the input of hunters and anglers in
order to better balance energy development with the conservation of
important fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, his leadership in
developing a large-scale mitigation strategy is a big step in the right
direction for engaging sportsmen in lessening the impacts to fish and
wildlife habitat from development on public lands.
Much work remains to be done on BLM lands to ensure that the
concerns of sportsmen/-women are fully considered in the management,
conservation and development of our public lands. Energy development on
our public lands provides great benefits but it must be done in a way
that sustains our invaluable fish and wildlife heritage.
SFRED supports the nomination of Neil Kornze and is looking forward
to working with him to ensure that energy is developed in a responsible
manner that accommodates true multiple use on our public lands. We urge
the committee to confirm him for the position of BLM Director.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger, President and CEO,
National Wildlife Federation,
Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO,
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership,
Chris Wood, President and CEO,
Trout Unlimited.