U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–109 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–157

ALBRIGHT, EPIFANI, CASWELL, AND WAHLQUIST

NOMINATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATIONS OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY; LISA E. EPIFANI, OF TEXAS, 

TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR CONGRESSIONAL 

AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS; AND, JAMES L. CASWELL, OF 

IDAHO, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. 

ADDING TO THIS AGENDA IS THE NOMINATION OF BRENT T. 

WAHLQUIST, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

JULY 12, 2007

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Albright, Clarence H. Jr., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Energy ................ 7

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 13

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 1

Caswell, James L., Nominee to be Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 10

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 3

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho ......................................................... 2

DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from South Carolina ......................................... 3

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1

Epifani, Lisa E., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs ........................................................................................... 8

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 20

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 29

Wahlquist, Brent T., Nominee to be Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior ................................... 14

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 25

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 33

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 61

(1)

EPIFANI, CASWELL, AND WAHLQUIST 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD–

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. If everybody will find a chair, the committee 

meets this morning to consider four pending nominations: Clarence 

‘‘Bud’’ Albright, Jr., to be the Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa 

Epifani to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional 

and Intergovernmental Affairs; James Caswell to be the Director of 

the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior; and Brent Wahlquist to be the Director of the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in the Department of Interior. 

We’re very glad to welcome all four nominees to the Committee. 

Lisa Epifani was a valued member of Senator Domenici’s staff on 

this committee for several years. We’re especially pleased to see her 

here. Many of us became acquainted with Bud Albright in his capacity as the Staff Director of the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee during the energy conference 2 years ago and we’re glad 

to see him here. Indeed, all four of the nominees appear well qualified for the positions to which they’ve been nominated based on 

their previous work experience. We appreciate the willingness of all 

four of these nominees to serve in these important positions and 

welcome the opportunity to consider their nominations. 

Let me defer to Senator Domenici for any statement or comment 

he has.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I believe I’ll wait for comments on each one if you don’t mind, and let us proceed in the 

manner that you listed them. I’m pleased to be here. They seem to 

be very qualified people that the President sent up. Some relatives 

are here. We’re glad to see them, particularly glad to see Lisa’s father and stepmother here. Thank you very much for coming. 
2

I have nothing further at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I know that Senator Crapo is here to do an introduction of one 

of the nominees. I know there may be other Senators also arriving 

to participate in introductions. Why don’t we first recognize Senator Crapo for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking member Domenici. I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today to introduce Jim Caswell as the nominee for the Director of 

the Bureau of Land Management. I’ve known Jim both personally 

and professionally for over a decade now, since the days when I 

served in the House of Representatives. Over that time I found him 

to be intelligent, dedicated, and of the highest moral character. 

Jim has been a respected authority on natural resource management issues in Idaho for over 2 decades. Over the years he has 

served as Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Boise National Forest, 

Forest Supervisor of the Tardee National Forest, and Supervisor of 

the Clearwater National Forest. Most recently, I’ve had the opportunity to work very closely with Jim in his role as the Administrator for the Office of Species Conservation in Idaho. 

I’ve been especially impressed by his strong and successful programs in the State for ecosystem management that take into account the diverse needs of those who live, work, and play on our 

public lands. His efforts for wolf, salmon, and grizzly recovery have 

been widely successful, and I fully expect his innovative style to 

work well on a national level as well. 

He’s initiated candidate conservation agreements between landowners, the State, and the Federal agencies to facilitate the recovery of declining species, such as slickspot peppergrass, and has 

gone above and beyond to encourage private property owners to 

work with Federal agencies in this regard. Doing so has restored 

and forged great relationships that have not previously been attainable. In fact, his approach to cooperative conservation was one 

of the models I used in developing the Endangered Species Reform 

Act—Recovery Act, that I introduced earlier in this Congress and 

that I think can benefit the entire Nation. 

He’s been an outstanding advocate for issues important to Idaho. 

I have no doubt that he will continue to successfully serve the Department of Interior and the BLM with the passion, commitment, 

and dedication he has shown in the past. I can’t think of anybody 

who would be a more effective Administrator for the Bureau. As 

someone who’s dedicated his life to public service as a soldier in 

Vietnam and as a diligent employee of three Federal agencies, I’m 

certain Jim will work tirelessly following confirmation to implement our Nation’s public land policies to the benefit of all. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I wholly support Jim Caswell’s nomination to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. He’s 

a committed individual who will do his very best to serve the 

United States and further our commitment to our public lands. I 

urge you and this committee to forward his nomination favorably 

to the full Senate for confirmation. 
3

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement. We appreciate it very much. 

I see Senator DeMint is here. I understand he would like to 

make a statement of introduction for Mr. Albright. You’re welcome 

to do that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow colleagues. I appreciate you holding the hearing today. I’m encouraged 

by the President’s appointment of Mr. Charles ‘‘Bud’’ Albright to be 

Under Secretary of Energy. More importantly, I’m proud to see the 

President nominate one of South Carolina’s native sons. 

Bud Albright grew up running around the streets of Rock Hill, 

South Carolina, and received his bachelor’s degree from Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina. Soon after he came to 

Washington and started his career with our good friend the late 

Strom Thurmond. At the same time, Bud was working his way 

through George Mason Law School. Since then he has been no 

stranger to government. He has seen how government works well 

and how it doesn’t. He has served as counsel on numerous committees in Congress, performing investigations, oversight, as well as 

working in the Justice Department and the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. 

More importantly, he will also bring private sector experience to 

this new position. He has been a private attorney, counsel to a 

trade association, and a vice president of an energy company. Our 

Nation faces tough challenges to stay competitive and supply our 

energy needs. Bud’s distinguished career has provided a wealth of 

knowledge and diversity of experience that I believe will serve the 

Department of Energy and our Nation well. 

I also want to welcome his family and give a special thank you 

to his lovely wife Ginger. ‘‘Ginger’’ is my daughter’s name, by the 

way, too, so I appreciate her being here. Government service is not 

easy and it is the support of our spouses that really helps us to be 

successful. 

I hope my colleagues will quickly nominate or confirm the nomination here of Bud Albright. He’ll be a great addition to the Energy 

Department. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I know Senator Craig also wished to make introduction of Mr. 

Caswell. So why don’t you go right ahead with any statement you’d 

like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. I will be brief. Let’s get our nominees before us, 

and let me join with my colleague Senator Crapo in speaking on 

behalf of Jim Caswell, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t hear all of my colleague’s statement, but I find it interesting that High Country 

News, not necessarily known to be a pro-extractive industry mouthpiece, has said that ‘‘Mr. Caswell has no obvious connections with 

the extractive industry and is scandal-free.’’ So that’s rather high 
4

praise for somebody who’s been involved in all of the activities that 

he has throughout his professional career, both at the State level, 

working for Governor Kempthorne at the time, and certainly in his 

role as a Forest Service employee, a Forest Service supervisor. 

That’s really where I got to know Jim, when we worked together 

on the Clearwater in Idaho in a variety of very difficult situations 

and times. A very calm, thoughtful, methodical person who worked 

his way through problems with certainly quality skills and great 

experience. 

So I was one who was very excited when the Secretary, the 

White House, asked Jim Caswell to become the new Director of the 

BLM. He brings all that Mike Crapo has said with him to that office. He will serve us with credibility and honor. 

Mr. Chairman, let’s get him heard and confirmed. The skies of 

Idaho and the West are very smoky at this moment and the territory and property that he will have dominion over is burning. 

Therefore, let’s get him out on the ground, get a wet sack in his 

hand, and get him to fighting fire. We’re glad he’s here. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, thank you very much for your 

statement. 

At this point, why don’t we call the four nominees to the witness 

stand. We will then swear them in and I have some standard questions that I’m required to ask of each nominee. While you’re standing, let me just ask you to 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? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I do. 

Ms. EPIFANI. I do. 

Mr. CASWELL. I do. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please be seated. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, could I 

have a brief opening remark? 

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, any opening statement you’d like. Go 

right ahead. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. I want to welcome all the nominees and their 

families to the committee today. I also thank Senator Bingaman for 

scheduling this hearing this morning to consider the President’s 

nominees for these important decisions. 

Before we go any further, I want to especially welcome and introduce to those who are now on the committee Lisa Epifani, the 

nominee for Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Energy. Prior to her current 

position on the President’s National Economic Council, Lisa was 

counsel here on our committee for 3 years. She was the lead staff 

on all the electricity and oil and gas issues during our work on the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Her prior experience at DOE as Senior 

Legislative Adviser made her an invaluable asset to the committee 

as we crafted the legislation. 

She’s extremely intelligent and tireless in her professional activities, which result in her successes in almost everything she undertakes. She will be an outstanding addition to Secretary Bodman’s 
5

management team and to Lee Rawls—I note his presence, Mr. 

Chairman. He comes to all these hearings, a rather exceptional situation for an Under Secretary. We welcome you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Clay. 

Senator DOMENICI. Clay. What did I say? 

The CHAIRMAN. Lee Rawls. 

Senator DOMENICI. I said ‘‘Lee Rawls.’’ He took the place of Lee 

Rawls. Clay Sells. 

The other nominees we’re considering today will, if they’re confirmed, all hold positions requiring decisions on matters of great 

national importance, but also decisions that will be crucial to each 

of our home States, and certainly to yours and mine, Senator 

Bingaman. I hope we have a few questions regarding the latter in 

this hearing. 

For now, I thank all of the nominees for their willingness to devote a part of their careers to public service. I look forward to their 

testimony and thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Before we call on each of the nominees to make their statement, 

the rules of the committee that apply to all nominees require they 

be sworn. We’ve gone through that. I would ask also, I’m required 

to ask, three questions of each nominee that appears before this 

committee. I’ll ask that question and then ask each of you in turn 

to respond. 

The first question is: Will you be available to appear before this 

committee and other congressional committees to represent departmental positions and to respond to issues of concern to the Congress? Mr. Albright? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Epifani? 

Ms. EPIFANI. I will. 

Mr. CASWELL. I will. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second question is: 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 have 

been nominated by the President? Mr. Albright? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Senator, my investments, personal holdings, and 

other interests have been reviewed both by me and the appropriate 

ethics counsels within the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Epifani. 

Ms. EPIFANI. My investments, personal holdings, and other interests have been reviewed by both myself and the appropriate ethics 

counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken the appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Caswell. 

Mr. CASWELL. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings, 

and other interests have been reviewed by both myself and the ap-
6

propriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government and I 

have taken the appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest 

and there are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my 

knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wahlquist. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings, and other interests have been reviewed by both myself and 

the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. 

I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. 

There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my 

knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. 

Let me ask the third question that we’re required to ask. Are you 

involved or do you have any assets that are held in a blind trust? 

Mr. Albright? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. No, I do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Epifani? 

Ms. EPIFANI. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Caswell? 

Mr. CASWELL. No, sir, I do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wahlquist? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Our practice here in the committee is 

to at this point invite nominees to introduce any family members 

that they have here with them. Mr. Albright, do you have anyone 

you would like to introduce at this point? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I have, as we say back in South Carolina, a slew 

of family here. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I would just like to introduce my wife Ginger, my 

son Trip, daughter Carolina, my brother Ned, my two sisters-in-law 

Cathy and Beth. If I may mention one other person, I have a good 

friend who has twice been confirmed by the Senate, Ronny 

Rosenfeld, who is currently the chairman of the Federal Housing 

Finance Board. He’s here with his wife Patty, back there somewhere. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, we welcome all of you to this 

hearing. 

Ms. Epifani, did you have family members you’d like to introduce? 

Ms. EPIFANI. I’d like to introduce my father, Achille Epifani, his 

wife Rhonda, my sister Antonietta Epifani, and my niece 

Alazondrea. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we welcome them very much. Thank you 

for being here. 

Mr. Caswell, did you have any family you wanted to introduce? 

Mr. CASWELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have my wife with me today, 

Susan. We’ve been married for 42 years, in fact 42 years a month 

ago today. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. CASWELL. Then on line I have some of my other—some of my 

children are watching on line, so that’s exciting for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, we don’t want to start introducing everyone who’s on line. 
7

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll be here a long time. 

Mr. Wahlquist, go ahead. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I have with me my wife Diana. We’ve been married for 41 years. We also have six children and ten grandchildren 

and they’re not here. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, thank you all for being here, and 

all of your guests are of course welcome. 

Let me at this point recognize the nominees to make whatever 

statements they would like to make before we go to questions. Mr. 

Albright, why don’t you go first. 

TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, Jr., NOMINEE TO BE 

UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Thank you, Senator, members of the committee. 

I’m very much pleased to be here today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I won’t go through reading my statement. I’d ask 

that it be made part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will include everyone’s full statement in the 

record, and we will appreciate it if you could summarize. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Yes, sir, thank you. I just want to make two or 

three points. I want to comment on what a privilege it was to work 

with you, Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, on EPACT 

2005. We fought hard on matters and fought fair, and we won some 

things, we lost some things. But I think working together produced 

a good piece of legislation that’s helped us. It was really a privilege 

to work with you and to work with Congressman Dingell and my 

current boss, Joe Barton, in that effort. I think it was a good bipartisan effort that speaks well of what the institution can do. 

Turning to the Under Secretary position, I’m honored to be nominated and I hope you will confirm me. I think I can summarize my 

view of the job as having three important responsibilities. One is 

a responsibility to the past, to help remediate and clean up the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. Two, 

a responsibility to the present, to pursue development of solutions 

to our current energy challenges, keeping in mind the realities of 

our current technology and of our economy. Three, a responsibility 

to the future, to ensure that we spur innovation in research and 

development of energy technology so that we and our children can 

enjoy an economically strong America with its energy sources secure, efficient, and clean. 

I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Albright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., NOMINEE TO BE UNDER

SECRETARY OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, and Members of the Committee, I am honored 

to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be Under Secretary of Energy. I appreciate the confidence of President Bush, Secretary Bodman, and Deputy 

Secretary Sell in me and in my ability to assist in achieving our Nation’s energy 

goals. 

I was born and reared in Rock Hill, South Carolina, studied history and political 

science at Presbyterian College and later received a law degree from George Mason 

University School of Law. 

I have devoted nearly twenty years of my career to public service; in fact, except 

for brief periods in the private sector, I have devoted my entire career to public serv-
8

ice. I have worked in both the legislative and the executive branches of the Federal 

Government, and through these experiences, I have gained a broad understanding 

and deep respect for the law, our government, and the important work of developing 

and implementing energy policy. 

I have been privileged to serve in two pervious Presidential Administrations. In 

the Reagan Administration at the Department of Justice, I worked both as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, known affectionately as the ‘‘Rocket Docket,’’ and later at main Justice as Deputy Associate Attorney General. At that time the Associate Attorney General’s office was responsible 

for criminal matters, with the U.S. Attorneys, FBI, DEA and other DOJ criminal 

enforcement organizations reporting through that office. 

I continued my work in the executive branch under President George H.W. Bush 

at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There, as Principal Deputy 

General Counsel for Secretary Jack Kemp, I had a broad range of legal and administrative responsibilities, and supervised several hundred capable attorneys in the 

General Counsel’s operation. 

This service in both the Reagan and Bush Administrations yielded insight into the 

operation and management of large executive branch organizations not unlike that 

of the Department of Energy. 

In the legislative branch, I have served as General Counsel to the House of Representatives District of Columbia Committee and Chief Oversight Counsel to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce. I earned valuable experience in the 

private sector as Vice President and Legislative Counsel of the Mortgage Bankers 

Association of America and as Vice President of Federal Relations at Reliant Energy. 

Currently, I serve as Republican Staff Director for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where I work for Ranking Member Joe Barton of Texas. I want 

to take this opportunity to say how much I admire Congressman Barton for his 

service to the American people in the U.S. Congress and how much I appreciate him 

inviting me to help craft energy legislation for the Committee and the U.S. House 

of Representatives. 

I’m particularly proud of the bipartisan success that I was involved in as the Senate and the House worked together to craft the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The giveand-take during those long hours helped develop a solid piece of legislation. Those 

long hours, too, allowed me to see the best and brightest people hard and honestly 

at work, debating policy priorities and legislating in a manner that I think would 

make the Founding Fathers proud. Senators Bingaman and Domenici, and Congressmen Dingell and Barton worked hard and well to advance good energy policy. 

I count myself lucky to have had a small role in helping that process succeed. 

I believe the Under Secretary of Energy has three important responsibilities to 

the Nation. First, the Under Secretary has a responsibility to the past, to help remediate and cleanup the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. The Under Secretary’s responsibility to the present requires the pursuit and 

development of solutions to our current energy challenges, recognizing the importance of fossil fuels as the primary current source of the Nation’s energy supply. Finally, the Under Secretary’s responsibility to the future requires innovative research 

and development of energy efficient technologies and renewable sources of energy 

that will lead the United States toward energy independence. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee and the Congress as 

a whole to fulfill these responsibilities. 

In closing, I again want to thank the President, Secretary Bodman, and Deputy 

Secretary Sell for the confidence they have placed in me and thank the Committee 

for considering my nomination. I hope the Senate will confirm me so that I can role 

up my sleeves soon and get about the job of addressing America’s energy issues. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Lisa, go right ahead with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA E. EPIFANI, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. EPIFANI. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, members of the 

committee: I’m very honored to appear before you as the President’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Congressional Af-
9

fairs and Intergovernmental at the Department of Energy. I’m 

grateful to the President for his confidence in me and I appreciate 

the committee holding this hearing and considering my nomination. I thank Secretary Bodman and Deputy Secretary Clay Sell for 

their support. 

I’ve introduced my family and I thank each of them for their love 

and support. I owe the deepest appreciation and most respect to my 

father. He taught me always to work hard, do my best, and to be 

a good person. Growing up with him, I worked at his restaurant 

and saw how much people loved him. He’s an excellent chef, but 

his greatest gift is his personality. He has a great attitude about 

life and he shows his family and friends every day how much he 

loves them. I’m very lucky to have a father like him. Any success 

that I may achieve in this life will be because he made it possible, 

and I thank him very much. 

If confirmed, it would be my privilege to work with this committee and the Congress, as well as with my colleagues in the Administration, in pursuit of policies that will best serve our country. 

Serving on this committee from 2003 to 2005 was an excellent lesson in the value of bipartisan cooperation. I’m very proud to have 

been part of the team that worked on the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. I believe enactment of that legislation is a true testament to 

the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman and Congressmen Barton and Dingell. 

Senator Domenici knows that he has a very special place in my 

heart and that I thank him very much for taking care of me while 

I was here on the committee. I really enjoyed working on the committee staff and I’m looking forward to working closely again with 

this committee and the staff which I so admire. 

I also want to acknowledge Alex Flint, who was the Staff Director when I was here on committee. Alex sets the example in my 

mind for excellence and professionalism and I try to follow that example. 

In closing, I want to again thank President Bush and Secretary 

Bodman for the trust they’ve placed in me. I also thank the committee for holding this hearing and considering my nomination. It 

would be an honor and privilege for me to serve the American people in this position. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my personal statement. I’d be glad 

to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Epifani follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA E. EPIFANI, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici, and Members of the Committee, I am honored 

to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Energy. 

I am grateful to President Bush for his confidence in me and I appreciate the 

Committee holding this hearing and considering my nomination. I thank Secretary 

Bodman and Deputy Secretary Sell for their support. 

I would like to introduce my family. My father, Achille Epifani, my stepmother, 

Rhonda Epifani, my sister, Antonietta Epifani, and my niece, Alazondrea Epifani. 

I thank them each for their love and support, and I owe the deepest appreciation 

and the most respect to my father. He taught me to work hard, to always do my 

best and to be a good person. Growing up, I worked with him at his restaurant and 
10

saw how much people love him. He is an excellent chef, but his real gift is his personality. He has a great attitude about life and shows his love to his family and 

friends everyday. I am very lucky to have a father like him. Any success that I may 

achieve in this life will be because he has made it possible. 

If confirmed, it would be my privilege to work with this Committee and the Congress, as well as with my colleagues in the Administration, in pursuit of policies 

that will best serve our Nation. 

Serving as Committee Counsel from 2003 through 2005 was an excellent lesson 

on the importance of working in a bipartisan manner. I am very proud to have been 

part of the team that worked on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Enactment of that 

legislation was a testament to the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, 

and Congressmen Dingell and Barton. Senator Domenici knows that he has a very 

special place in my heart, and I thank him for taking good care of me when I was 

on staff. I really enjoyed working on the Committee staff, and I am looking forward 

to again working closely with this Committee and its staff, which I so admire. I also 

want to acknowledge Alex Flint, who was the Staff Director when I served on the 

Committee staff. In my mind, Alex has set an example of excellence and professionalism that I will do my best to follow. 

In closing, I want to again thank President Bush and Secretary Bodman for the 

trust they have placed in me. I also want to thank the Committee for holding this 

hearing and considering my nomination. It would be an honor and privilege for me 

to serve the American people in this position. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be glad to answer 

any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement. 

Mr. Caswell, why don’t you go right ahead. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. CASWELL, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CASWELL. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and the other members of this committee. I’m both humbled 

and honored to appear before you today as President Bush’s nominee for the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. I’m also 

grateful for the support and encouragement of Secretary Kempthorne and Secretary Allred. I appreciate this opportunity to 

present my views and qualifications for this office and ask your 

consent of the President’s nomination. 

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, I’m a family man. You met 

my wife a few minutes ago. We have three grown children, Rebecca, Cari, and Kurt, and four grandchildren. Our eldest grandson, Tyler, was recently overheard by his mother telling several of 

his friends: ‘‘If confirmed, my grandpa will be the director of the 

BLT.’’ I could not be more pleased or honored by my family. 

Susan and I were raised in a small rural community in west central Michigan and our families were small business owners in the 

agriculture community. It was in this environment that I learned 

the importance of service to others, the value of hard work and taking responsibility for one’s actions. My interest in the outdoors was 

nurtured by my father and extended family. By the time I reached 

my teens, it was clear to me that my life’s work would be to care 

for our Nation’s public lands. 

Upon graduation from high school, I attended Michigan State 

University and earned a bachelor’s degree in science in forestry. 

Upon graduation I was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 

United States Army and I served 3 years on active duty, including 

a tour in Vietnam. 
11

During my 40 years as a resource manager, which began with 

the BLM and ended with the Forest Service, I have had an enviable opportunity to live and work in both large and small communities across the West. With the Forest Service I had the opportunity to problem-solve, influence accountability, monitor and 

evaluate issues, programs, and people. I have aggressively implemented ecosystem management principles at the watershed scale 

in all projects and programs. All projects were planned at a landscape scale in collaboration with local interests, State agencies, 

tribal interests, and other Federal agencies. This is a major change 

from traditional project-level planning processes and resulted in integrated decisions that were better for the resource and the communities. 

In 2000 I left the Forest Service to undertake a new challenge. 

For over 6 years I’ve served in the Idaho Governor’s office as administrator for the Office of Species Conservation. The office was 

created by the Idaho State legislature in 1999 to bring a policy 

focus to endangered species issues and to foster collaboration and 

coordination among the relevant State and Federal agencies. ThenGovernor Kempthorne told me that he specifically recruited me to 

serve as an administrator because of my reputation as a leader. It 

was with the support of the Governor, his office, and the hardworking folks in OSC that the office has gained a great deal of 

credibility as both a can-do and a go-to organization. 

We worked on both the wolf management plan in the State and 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear management plans. Both of those 

issues were politically and emotionally charged and generated a 

great amount of public scrutiny and debate. I’m proud that we successfully worked with both committees of the House and Senate in 

the State legislature to get those plans approved and make changes 

to four separate statutes over three different legislative sessions. 

These experiences have given me a set of bedrock principles that 

I hold very close and that I would like to highlight briefly. I passionately believe in multiple use management and conservation of 

our public resources, with a commitment to balance, cooperation, 

collaboration, and sharing. In my view, achievement of this commitment requires scientific information, listening to, learning 

about, and collaborating with the owners of our public lands, the 

American people. 

I believe the achievement of the multiple use mission is critically 

dependent upon enhanced community relations and being a good 

neighbor and a citizen of the community. I believe resource plans 

must be adaptive, dynamic, and rely on place-based ecosystem 

principles and landscape assessments. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the dedicated men and women of the 

BLM. I guide my interactions, decisions, and interpersonal relationships based on the philosophy that people are our most important asset and their experience and judgment must be valued. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for considering my qualifications and providing the opportunity to appear. If 

confirmed, I will do my absolute best to serve the public interest, 

manage the public’s resources for the benefit of all the Nation’s citizens. Thank you and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Caswell follows:]
12

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES L. CASWELL, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you Chairman Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and other distinguished 

members of this committee. I am both humbled and honored to appear before you 

today as President Bush’s nominee for the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. I am also grateful for the support and encouragement of Secretary Dirk 

Kempthorne and Assistant Secretary Stephen Allred. I appreciate this opportunity 

to briefly present my views and qualifications for this office and ask your consent 

of the President’s nomination. 

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, I am a family man and would like to introduce 

my wife, Susan, who is here with me today. We have three grown children, Rebecca, 

Cari, and Kurt, and four grandchildren. Our eldest grandson, Tyler, was recently 

overheard by his mother telling several of his friends: ‘‘If confirmed, my grandpa 

will be the Director of the BLT.’’ I could not be more blessed or proud of my family. 

Susan and I were raised in small rural communities in west-central Michigan. 

Our families were small business owners serving the agricultural community. It was 

in this environment that I learned the importance of service to others, the value of 

hard work, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. My interest in the outdoors 

was nurtured by my father and extended family. By the time I reached my teen 

years, it was clear to me that my life’s work would be to care for our Nation’s public 

lands. 

After graduation from Edmore High School in 1963, I attended Michigan State 

University and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in forestry. Upon graduation 

from college, I was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States 

Army. I served three years on active duty and three years in the ready reserves, 

including a tour in Vietnam. 

During my 40-year career as a Federal resource manager, which began with the 

BLM and concluded with the US Forest Service, I have had the enviable opportunity to work and live in communities large and small across the West. 

In the Forest Service, I had opportunity to problem solve, influence accountability, 

monitor and evaluate issues, programs and people. I aggressively implemented ecosystem management principles at the watershed scale in all projects and programs. 

All projects were planned on a landscape level incorporating ecosystem management 

principles in collaboration with local interests, state agencies, tribal interests, and 

other Federal agencies. This change from a traditional project-level planning process 

resulted in integrated decisions that were better for the resources and better for the 

communities. I am particularly proud of my work in development of best management practice audits and the assessment of the 1995/1996 flood and landslide damage on the Clearwater National Forest. 

In 2000, I left Federal service to undertake a new challenge. For over 6 years, 

I have served in the Idaho Governor’s office as Administrator for the Office of Species Conservation. The Office was created by the Idaho State Legislature in the 

1999 to bring a policy focus to endangered species issues and to foster collaboration 

and coordination among the relevant state and Federal agencies. As Administrator, 

I have been engaged in all aspects of creating a new organization including recruiting experienced and effective personnel, and building a constituency at the local, 

state, and regional level. 

Then-Governor Kempthorne told me that he specifically recruited me to serve as 

Administrator because of my reputation as a leader. It is with the support of the 

Governor’s office and the hard work of a dedicated staff that the Office of Species 

Conservation has gained a great deal of credibility as a ‘‘can do’’ and ‘‘go to’’ organization. The Office of Species Conservation worked on a Wolf Management Plan and 

a Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Management Plan—both involving issues that were politically and emotionally charged and that generated a significant amount of public 

scrutiny and debate. I am proud that the Office of Species Conservation successfully 

worked with both Committees of the Idaho House and Senate and on the floor to 

achieve passage of both plans and four separate statutes revisions over three sessions of the state legislation. 

These experiences as a Federal land manager and as a state government official 

have enriched my life and have made me a more enlightened citizen and thoughtful 

resource management professional. Through these experiences, I have developed a 

set of bedrock principles that guide how I lead and manage, how I make decisions, 

and how I communicate with those I work with under my leadership, and especially, 

those who I serve. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight some of these principles 

that guide my actions:

• I believe passionately in multiple-use management and conservation of our precious public resources with a commitment to balance, cooperation, collaboration, 
13

and sharing. In my view, achievement of this commitment requires scientific information, and listening to, learning about, and collaborating with the owners 

of our public lands—the American people. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I pledge 

to do my utmost to achieve this multiple-use mandate and commitment. • I believe achievement of the BLM multiple-use mission is critically dependent 

upon enhanced community relationships and being a good neighbor and citizen 

of those communities. It is essential we communicate with an ever expanding 

diverse community of interests if we are to make sound decisions and achieve 

shared goals. Striking a balance between the needs and desires of local communities and national goals and objectives hinges upon strong and effective community relationships. I commit to work diligently with local communities to enhance and improve long-term relationships and public confidence. • I believe Resource Management Plans must be adaptive, dynamic, and rely 

upon ‘‘place based’’ ecosystem management principles and landscape-scale assessments. This approach is the most effective and efficient way to engage the 

public, develop durable agreements, collaborate with others, while meeting legal 

requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the dedicated men and women of the BLM. I guide 

my interactions, decisions, and interpersonal relationships based on the philosophy 

that: People are our most important asset and their experience and judgment is a 

valuable resource. I pledge to foster a work environment that supports decentralized 

decision making and relies heavily upon individuals close to the ground, the issues, 

and the resources to make the right choices. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for considering my 

qualifications and providing the opportunity to appear at this hearing. If confirmed, 

I will do my absolute best to serve the public interest and manage the publics’ resources for the benefit of all the Nation’s citizens. 

Thank you, I welcome your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wahlquist, before you give your statement let me just interrupt the proceedings for a moment to welcome our newest committee member, Senator Barrasso. We are very pleased to have him 

on this committee. I’ve already had the chance to welcome him personally, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge how glad we are to 

see him here. He carries on a fine tradition of representation of his 

State and takes over where Craig Thomas left off. We’re glad to 

have you here and look forward to working with you. 

I know Senator Domenici wanted to make a comment as well. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. 

Senator Barrasso, I look forward to knowing you better. Looking 

at what you have accomplished in your life, it’s obvious that you 

have what it takes to be an eminently successful United States 

Senator. I want you to know that as ranking member I’m very 

pleased that you chose this committee, and that was your choice as 

I understand it. We will have a lot of work to do during your time 

here and you’ll find that we do our work very bipartisan, but when 

we have to have a partisan issue we are not loath to do that. We 

probably accomplish more than any other committee because we do 

a lot of things bipartisan. We hope you’re prepared to join us in 

making that even a better process. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to make any statement before we 

proceeded? Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Domenici, for your kind welcome. I’m excited at this opportunity to serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
14

and to carry on a tradition which has long been there for Wyoming, 

actually for more than 100 years. Many don’t know that Wyoming 

has been represented on this committee since 1899; one Senator 

from our State has been on this committee. My predecessors recognized long ago the major issues of this committee are very critical 

to the future of not just our State, but also the Nation. 

We are blessed in Wyoming with incredible energy and natural 

resources. We are the largest net exporter of energy in the country. 

We have the first national park, first national forest, first national 

monument. This is a major part of our economy, a major part of 

the traditions of our State, and I’m looking forward to working 

hard for our State and for our Nation. 

So thank you very much for the kind welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Why don’t we go right ahead then with your statement, Mr. 

Wahlquist, and then we’ll have some questions for each of you. 

TESTIMONY OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND 

ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Members of the committee. It’s a great honor to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

I was raised on a family farm near Idaho Falls, Idaho. During 

my childhood I learned two important lessons relevant to the position for which I have been nominated. First, I learned an appreciation of the natural order of things: planting and harvesting, the 

cycle of life, and mankind’s dependency upon natural systems. 

Along with that I developed an intense curiosity about those natural systems, which led to my eventual college degrees. 

Second, my childhood taught me the value of coal. For much of 

my childhood, a coal-burning kitchen range cooked our food, canned 

our harvest, baked our bread, and warmed the kitchen in the winter. In short, a full coal bin was an integral and essential part of 

daily life. 

While coal’s importance today is not as readily apparent as it 

was when I was a child, it is no less important. More than half the 

Nation’s electricity comes from the burning of coal and our daily 

lives are bathed in the glow of electricity. 

I’ve been involved in the environmental issues related to coal 

mining for the past 35 years. That experience has taken me to all 

types of coal mines and related facilities across all 26 States where 

coal is being mined. My experience over the years has enabled me 

to look at the environmental and public safety issues related to coal 

mining from a wide range of perspectives. 

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement exists to ensure that America gets the coal it needs as the essential 

source of energy in a manner that protects both the land and the 

people, while addressing problems from past mining. However, 

OSM cannot and does not do this alone. Of the almost 2400 Government employees directly involved on a daily basis in implementing the regulatory and restoration programs of the Act, less 

than 25 percent work for OSM. The rest are State and tribal em-
15

ployees who permit and regulate 97 percent of the Nation’s coal 

production and utilize 90 percent of the AML project funds. 

With the passage of the 2006 amendments, which authorized 

tribal regulatory primacy and increased the flow of AML funds to 

States and tribes, those percentages are only going to go up. Therefore, the major task for OSM is to help the States and tribes succeed by providing them with the funding, regulatory and policy 

framework, oversight, assistance, training, and technical tools to 

maintain a stable regulatory and AML programs of high quality. If 

confirmed, I will certainly work towards that end as Director. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

and express my deep interest in OSM and its mission. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wahlquist follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT WAHLQUIST, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is a great honor to be appear 

before you today as the President’s nominee as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

I would also like to introduce my wife Diana, who is here with me today. We have 

been married for over 41 years, and have six children and 10 grandchildren scattered from Vermont to Louisiana to Utah. 

I am the youngest of seven sons. My family lived in an isolated farming community in Utah’s Uintah Basin until we moved to a smaller farm near Idaho Falls, 

Idaho when I was five. From that family farm upbringing, I learned two important 

lessons relevant to the position for which I have been nominated. 

First, I learned an appreciation of the natural order of things: planting and harvesting, the cycle of life, and mankind’s dependency on natural systems. Along with 

that, I developed an intense curiosity about natural systems, which led to my eventual college degrees. In obtaining those degrees, I not only learned a great deal 

about biological systems, I also learned how to frame questions and seek objective 

answers to those questions. 

Second, my childhood taught me the value of coal. For much of my childhood a 

coal burning kitchen range cooked our food, canned our harvest, baked our bread, 

and warmed the kitchen in winter. We also used that kitchen stove to heat the 

water with which we washed our dishes, our clothes, and ourselves. After we got 

an electric range when I was in the fourth grade, the coal burning space heater in 

the living room remained our sole source of heat for the house during those cold 

Idaho winters. In short, a full coal bin, with its sledge hammer to breakup large 

chunks of coal to a size that would fit in the fire boxes of the stoves, was an integral 

and essential part of daily life until I graduated from high school and left home for 

college. 

Yet, while coal was absolutely essential to our daily life, I never really thought 

about the environmental or human cost of providing it. I just knew it came from 

mines. For 200 years coal fueled the development of this Nation’s industrial 

strength, turned its iron into steel, helped enable victory in two world wars, provided heat for the homes of its citizens, and transported people and goods across 

the Nation. However, that mining also left the Nation with an extensive legacy of 

hazards and environmental degradation. 

The way in which we use coal has changed over the years. While its importance 

to daily life is not as readily apparent as it was when I was a child, today it remains 

just as essential to each and every American. More than half of the Nation’s electricity comes from the burning of coal and our daily lives are bathed in the glow 

of electricity. The Department of Energy expects coal to remain the primary fuel for 

electricity generation for the next 20 years and forecasts an increase in coal production to match that demand. As ways are developed to capture carbon, coal’s use to 

produce gas and liquid fuels may also increase. 

I saw my first surface coal mine in 1972. It was a dragline operation near 

Braidwood, Illinois that was about to close. I was working for Westinghouse at the 

time, and we were evaluating the mine as a potential site for a nuclear power plant. 

In the course of doing so, we also evaluated the surrounding farmland and nearby 

areas that had been surface mined some 30 years before. 
16

I have been involved in the environmental issues related to coal mining throughout the 35 years since studying that first mine. That experience has taken me to 

all types of coal mines and related facilities across all 26 states where coal is being 

mined. I also have experience with the mines on tribal lands of the three Indian 

tribes with active coal mining operations. 

My experience over the years has enabled me to look at the environmental and 

public safety issues related to coal mining from a wide range of perspectives. Initially, it was as an expert consultant, primarily on Western surface mines, while I 

was with Westinghouse. My work with Rocky Mountain Energy (a subsidiary of 

Union Pacific) was from the perspective of a large landowner seeking maximum return for its land and mineral resources. Being responsible for obtaining permits and 

maintaining daily environmental compliance at active surface and underground 

mines and related facilities for an Appalachian coal company (Carbon fuel) brought 

an entirely different perspective. I have also been in charge of regulatory programs 

responsible for permitting and inspecting mines at both the State and Federal level 

(the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources and the Federal programs in 

Washington and Tennessee and on Indian lands). Also, in my Regional Director positions, I have been responsible for evaluating all 24 state programs with active coal 

production. Finally, as Assistant Director, I was responsible for regulatory and 

abandoned mine lands (AML) policy formulation. 

The impacts of coal mining, particularly the growth of surface mining in the postwar era, resulted in passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (the Act), which created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). The Act was passed to address the hazards and degradation from past 

mining through an AML program. The Act was also passed to create a Nationwide 

regulatory program to assure such hazards and degradation were not created by the 

future coal mining that would be needed to meet the Nation’s continuing need for 

energy. Thus, the OSM exists to ensure that America gets the coal it needs as an 

essential source of energy in a manner that protects both land and people while addressing problems from past mining. 

In order to strike the proper balance between environmental protection and the 

Nation’s need for coal, the OSM strives to maintain a stable regulatory environment 

consistent with the Act that is administered through state programs. That regulatory stability should enable all parties, including producers, regulators and citizens, to have a common understanding of applicable requirements and rights so that 

each can make informed decisions affecting their economic and personal interests 

with a minimum of controversy. 

The OSM also promotes the development and use of the best technologies in coal 

mining and reclamation to effectively: a) prevent catastrophic mining related events 

impacting off-site public safety, property, or the natural environment, b) assure restoration of the land to productive long-term uses after mining, and c) minimize offsite environmental degradation; all while fostering the coal mining activity needed 

for the Nation’s energy supply. 

However, the OSM, cannot and does not do this alone. Of the almost 2400 government employees directly involved on a daily basis in implementing the regulatory 

and restoration programs of the Act, less than 25% work for OSM. The rest are 

State and Tribal employees who permit and regulate 97% of the Nation’s coal production and utilize 90% of the AML project funds. With the passage of the 2006 

Amendments, which authorize Tribal regulatory primacy and increase the flow of 

AML funds to States and Tribes, those percentages are only going to go up. 

Therefore, the major task for the OSM is to help States and Tribes succeed by 

providing States and Tribes the funding, regulatory and policy framework, assistance, training, and technical tools to have stable regulatory and AML programs of 

high quality. If confirmed, I will certainly work toward that end as Director. 

Over the past several years, the OSM has made substantial progress in achieving 

regulatory stability. Increased cooperation with States through such initiatives as 

our training programs, providing technical tools, and promoting technology transfer 

has largely eliminated the highly contentious relationship of two decades ago. Such 

efforts have proven highly cost effective in lifting the quality of State programs and 

promoting stability. 

However, in certain areas, such as mountaintop mining, there still remains considerable uncertainty and controversy that makes it difficult for coal companies to 

make informed business decisions about future mining operations, for citizens to realize the protections afforded by the Act, and for regulatory authorities to apply 

mining and reclamation requirements consistently. If confirmed, I will work with 

this committee and affected parties toward increased regulatory stability in Appalachia. 
17

Finally, I would like to highlight one recent success. In 2003, as I toured surface 

coal mines in Appalachia in my new position as Regional Director, I was struck by 

the forest fragmentation that was occurring and by the quality research of several 

academic experts demonstrating that it did not need to be that way. In December 

2003, in cooperation with each of the States in the region, we launched the Appalachian Region Reforestation Initiative (ARRI). That effort was targeted at overcoming the technical, regulatory and cultural barriers to getting more trees planted 

and increasing the survival and growth rates of planted trees. This initiative has 

gained wide ranging support from all sectors. It has also made a very practical difference. While some trees were being planted in previous years, by over 9 million 

were planted in 2005, and over 14 million in 2006. Further, these plantings have 

a much higher likelihood of survival and vigorous growth. Numerous tree planting 

events involving school children have been held in the last three years where thousands of trees were planted. An academic team has been formed that includes 23 

researchers from 10 universities and the U.S. Forest Service. That team is now developing ‘‘reclamation advisories’’ written at the high school science level for use by 

operators and regulators right down to the inspector and dozer operator in how to 

promote tree survival and growth and jump-start natural succession. 

Efforts such as this highlight the importance of training, promoting scientific understanding, and encouraging the development and use of emerging technologies. If 

confirmed, I will continue to emphasis the importance of building bridges with academic institutions across the coal fields and will promote technical training and 

technology transfer among the State and Tribal regulatory and AML programs. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and express my 

express my deep concern and interest in the OSM and its mission.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for your statements. Let me just 

ask a couple of questions and then defer to Senator Domenici. 

Mr. Albright, let me just ask one. When you look in the relative 

short term, meaning the next couple of years, one of the greatest 

opportunities we have for actually meeting our energy challenges 

is through increased efficiency and increased conservation. What do 

you see in your new position, in this position you’ve been nominated for—what responsibility would you see yourself having for 

promoting energy conservation or efficiency? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I think they’re in the budget that has been approved by both Houses. I believe there’s—I don’t know the number—a good bit of money for R and D toward both of those goals. 

I think one of the things we have to do with particularly conservation of energy is educate the public to ways to do that and make 

available means to save electricity and save energy. 

Certainly the Government role is important. I think we have an 

office or two in the Department that is charged with ensuring that 

we do the best and most efficient job we can on that. I will work 

very, very hard to see that we do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Mr. Caswell a question about an 

issue that we visited about in my office just very briefly, related 

to the BLM Administration of the potash leasing area in New Mexico. This is an issue that has been the subject of controversy because of the competing demands. We have two resources there. We 

have potash; we also have some oil and gas. There has been a 

patchwork of development involving both resources. This is something that we’re anxious to try to rationalize in some way, so that 

we are sure that we are maximizing the preservation of the resources and the utilization of the resources. 

I mentioned that to you when we visited before. It’s something 

I believe we are planning to visit with the Secretary about as well. 

I didn’t know if you had any comments you could give us today 

about the issue. If so, I would welcome those. 
18

Mr. CASWELL. Mr. Chairman, I’m learning about this issue this 

week. I think as we talked the other day briefly when I met with 

you—and I want to thank you for the opportunity to do that—that 

I still believe passionately that if we can get these folks together, 

the various interests together, I think we can find solutions in that 

sort of an approach. So if I’m confirmed I would be happy to work 

with you and your staff, Senator Domenici’s staff and himself, the 

Department, obviously the Bureau employees, and we’ll see what 

we can do to bring the parties together to try to resolve this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Wahlquist, let me ask you also. I believe this is an issue you 

and I visited on briefly. There’s a section of the Surface Mining 

Reclamation Enforcement Act, section 409, that allows the use of 

abandoned mine land funds for both coal and non-coal reclamation 

work. I understand that the Office of Surface Mining may be interpreting recent amendments by the Congress to preclude the use of 

some of these funds for non-coal sites. This is obviously important 

in a State like ours, in New Mexico, and in other western States. 

We’ve written to Secretary Kempthorne expressing our concern 

about any inability to use these funds for non-coal reclamation activities. 

Is this an issue that you could give us any insight on as to what 

could be done here? Is this something you could look into for us? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. Certainly the 2006 amendments are a very complex piece of legislation, with lots of internal references. Over the 

past 6 months we’ve been involved in an extensive effort to outreach to all parties in terms of getting their views as to how the 

statute and these amendments should be applied, including the 

issue that we discussed yesterday on non-coal use. We’re currently 

involved with the solicitor’s office in having them look at, OK, what 

do these amendments really mean, and if confirmed we’ll certainly 

work with them to make sure that we are implementing the statute in the way that it has been given to us and will not unduly 

try to restrict that intent. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we do find that there’s some disagreement between your solicitor and the Congress or some of us here in the 

Congress on that, we may have to revisit that issue. 

Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. I’m going to take just a minute and follow 

right on where you were on the issue that Senator Bingaman, the 

chairman, had just raised with reference to land reclamation, abandoned mine land reclamation. If interpreted in a way that does not 

permit you to use that money for non-coal mines, New Mexico will 

lose enormously. We want you to know that we didn’t think that 

was the way the law was intended and we’d like to be kept apprised of any thoughts or actions that are moving in that direction 

so we could act accordingly, although we don’t think we need new 

legislation. 

You understand our position and know how serious it is. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I am very aware of your position and understand the serious nature of your view on that, and we will certainly 

work with the solicitor’s office to come with what we feel would be 

an appropriate interpretation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
19

Let me just say to Mr. Albright it was a pleasure working with 

you when you were in your position in the House. I would like to 

ask you a question. I won’t hold you to anything, but just think 

with me for a minute. What issue do you think is the most important one in the Energy Act that we’ve adopted that has not been 

totally implemented or implemented as you might have thought? 

I will just lead you on that a little bit by telling you that some 

of us don’t think that the loan guarantee sections and those areas 

where we were going to have money for new technology have been 

used to the fullest extent. Do you have any views on that? Maybe 

a more straight question like that might be more fair to you. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Senator, I share your concerns as a staffer currently on the House side and just as a citizen. There does seem to 

be an awful lot of delay. There seems to be some questions as to 

interpretation of that program. As you know, we worked very hard 

to get it in, and I think there is some, give and take, argument if 

you will, inside the Government between the branches as to exactly 

what was meant by Congress. 

I will try and wrap my arms around that, sit down and learn 

what the problems are. I was at the table with the Members when 

we put that in. I think I know what was intended and I think it 

is a very important part of the legislation that needs to be—and 

we need to get the regulations down and get them out quickly. 

Let me, if I may, just add that I think the concern of the Administration, and particularly Secretary Bodman, is that we not allow 

a situation where the private sector or anyone misuses the public 

fisc. I think he has legitimate concerns in ensuring that the financial integrity of whatever loans are made are intact, and that’s certainly something that we should all be concerned with. 

Senator DOMENICI. Let me just say to you we’re well beyond interpretation, those who wrote the Act. We believe we know what 

it said and we do believe the Administration has gone awful slow. 

We think they finally have come to a realization that we must have 

money in that fund and that we must do it. You’ll find that when 

you get up there, and I just hope you will be an activist for getting 

some projects started, which will end up accruing to the future of 

the United States without any question. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Caswell, let me talk with you a minute. Senator Bingaman 

raised a question that in each instance is very important to this 

Senator also, and that’s the question of the conflict that’s growing 

in New Mexico on BLM land with reference to the production or 

possible production of oil and gas and the existence in the area of 

potash. 

You will find out that the only potash the United States has is 

potash down in Eddy County, all the potash America produces is 

there, and that it has become an extremely valuable agricultural 

product. You will find that, by coincidence, the same thing has happened on one side of it—oil and gas are very important and they’re 

being found on some property that is close at hand. 

The issue must be resolved so that potash does not lose its future, and that’s their issue. They are not interested in today; 

they’re interested in the long-term viability of potash. Obviously, 

those who want to drill are interested in finding more petroleum 
20

products now. That issue has to be resolved by you or by us, and 

we believe it should be resolved by you. 

I understand that you are going to see to it that every effort is 

exercised to get the parties together to understand and try to agree 

on a solution. Is that correct? 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, as I indicated, I will be happy if I am confirmed to work diligently and to work with you on this. 

Senator DOMENICI. All right. We want you to understand that we 

think it’s big enough that we have taken it to the Secretary. He’ll 

probably have you there. We will have a meeting with him, the two 

Senators, to tell him how important these two products are to our 

State. Where could you have a bigger conflict, except that potash 

probably from the standpoint of being the sole source of potash in 

the country at this particular moment takes on a new light that it 

did not have in the past. We will expect you to understand that 

thoroughly and work with us. Thank you for your comments. 

I only have one left and it has to do with Ms. Epifani. I have a 

long one about the job you will have here and what you will do. 

I prefer just to ask you, what do you consider to be the most important aspect of your job? It has a long title. What do you think you 

will be doing to help the Department of Energy? 

Ms. EPIFANI. I think the most important thing I can do for the 

Department of Energy is to serve as a liaison between Congress 

and the Department and to really carry the message back to the 

Agency and to the Administration as to what the political dynamics 

are on the Hill and what the priorities are that we need to really 

focus on and to make sure that we complete implementation. 

Senator DOMENICI. You represent the President, is that right? 

Ms. EPIFANI. Correct. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Senator Bingaman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Salazar? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman. 

Let me first say to the nominees here today, congratulations to 

each of you for being nominated for these very important positions 

for our Nation. Congratulations as well to your families who are 

here today. 

Let me also say that I’ve served on this committee with both 

Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici both in their capacities 

as chairman and ranking member, and I’ve been very proud of the 

work of this committee because I think this committee really is at 

the forefront on working on what is one of the signature issues of 

the 21st century for America, and that’s energy and how we make 

sure that we deal with all of its implications from national security 

to the economic security and environmental security of our country. 

Each of you will have a significant role as we move forward on that 

agenda. 

I have an opening statement, but I will submit that for the 

record if that is OK, Senator Bingaman. I would ask, since it refers 

to at least three of you, that you review that. 
21

Let me just make a quick comment to you, Mr. Albright, and to 

Lisa. Thank you for the work that you did with us on 2005 EPAct. 

I know there are other people who are in the room who worked 

very hard on that as well, so thank you. I think it’s a big bill. We 

have another big bill that we’re moving through now and we hope 

that we get that to the President’s desk also some time this year. 

I have a couple of questions, first of all to you, Mr. Albright. 

With respect to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, 

Colorado, I have worked closely with Secretary Bodman and President Bush and others to make sure that it has the resources to 

move us forward in that direction. What is your view of NREL? 

What do you know about NREL and what would you expect to see 

at NREL in the future? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Senator, I have to confess I don’t know enough to 

discuss it with you in any detail here today. I will pledge to you, 

though, I will learn everything I can about it. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me just ask you if you would put that as 

a high priority on your list, because they truly are at the forefront 

in terms of looking at all of our new energies, from solar to wind 

to biomass to hydrogen, and really are the crown jewel within the 

system in terms of what we’re doing on energy. Secretary Bodman 

has visited with me there several times, as has the President. I 

also would encourage you to do the same. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. I pledge that I will do that. I do know the importance of the work that goes on there. I just don’t know the details 

at this juncture. 

Senator SALAZAR. One of the big issues always is funding, and 

frankly, if we’re going to put our shoulder behind the wheel of renewable energies and new technologies, we’re going to need the 

Secretary of Energy and the Under Secretary of Energy to do that. 

Ms. Epifani, I just want to tell you that I look very much forward 

to working with you and having my office working closely with you 

as you take on your role as Congressional liaison. 

Mr. Wahlquist, to you, and then I’m going to come back to Mr. 

Caswell. Let me just ask you this question. Abandoned mines. In 

my State of Colorado, there are some tens of thousands of abandoned mines, nothing being done about those abandoned mines. 

What would you think we can do to deal with the abandoned mine 

problem that we see throughout the West? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. Well, certainly in terms of the 2006 amendments, they focus very much on the use of that fund and will increase the flow of money in a fairly prescribed way to the States 

and certainly will increase the flow of money to Colorado and other 

western States. Right now that’s a very prescribed process and 

there’s not a lot of leeway or flexibility in just how that money is 

going to flow. 

Senator SALAZAR. Are you supportive of that approach? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I’m certainly supportive of implementing the 

statutes that the Congress has passed, the President has 

signed——

Senator SALAZAR. Do you think there are additional things that 

we might be able to do in that area? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. What again, sir? 
22

Senator SALAZAR. Do you think there are additional things we 

ought to be doing with the AML issues? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. If confirmed, I would not advocate any further 

changes at this point. I think that we need to move forward in implementing the amendments that we have been given this past 

year. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Caswell, let me just say that you and I 

had a good 45-minute meeting in my office. I intend to place a hold 

on your confirmation until I’m able to sort out some things with 

Secretary Kempthorne relative to how we will dialog from the Federal level to the State level. For the record, Chairman Bingaman, 

I will submit letters written to Secretary Kempthorne on May 14 

of 2007 and April 17 of 2007 from Governor Ritter of Colorado 

where he requested what I thought was a very reasonable delay of 

120 days on the record of decision with respect to drilling on top 

of the Roan Plateau, which is a very special place, not dissimilar 

to the Via Vidal which you, Senator Bingaman and Senator 

Domenici, protected last year. 

That request was, frankly, met with silence and actually the action that was taken was I thought inappropriate, given what the 

Governor had requested would seem to me to be a reasonable request. 

Senator Bingaman, I know my time is up. May I have another 

few minutes to try to finish? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please, go ahead. 

Senator SALAZAR. For me, as I said in my office, I am not against 

the development of our natural resources in Colorado or throughout 

the West. I think the development of those resources is essential 

as we try to meet the energy needs of our country. I’m also concerned about the sustainability of our way of life in Colorado. In 

just a part of my State, in the five counties of northwestern Colorado, today we have about 5,000 oil and gas wells that are in operation. Within 15 years we’re going to go from 5,000 wells to 60,000 

wells. I think about the impact that’s going to have on the landscape of western Colorado, which is very much dependent on tourism and the recreational industries to essentially fuel that economy. 

What I want to do as we look at the development of oil and gas 

on the western slope of Colorado, where the BLM has about 8.4 

million acres or so under its jurisdiction, is to make sure that we’re 

able to move forward in a collaborative way. Senator Domenici and 

I visited one of the oil shale demonstration projects last year, which 

Shell has invested significant amounts of money in. There are 

other demonstration projects. Oil shale is a big thing for our country. It’s a big thing for my State, and about 80 percent of the oil 

shale deposits are located in my State. 

One of the things that we did in the 2005 Act is required collaboration to take place between the Department of Interior and our 

States with respect to oil shale development. I want to make sure 

that we’re going to have that kind of collaboration, so that if my 

Governor or that if I request some opportunity to review a decision 

or a set of documents or planning agendas of the BLM that we’re 

going to have the right kind of communication and collaboration, 
23

because that’s the only way that we’re going to be able to move forward and develop those resources in the appropriate way. 

So you and I had a long conversation and until I get these issues 

resolved with Secretary Kempthorne I am going to place a hold on 

your nomination. If you would wish to respond relative to how 

you’re going to balance the protection of our natural resources in 

the West, as you have in Idaho, against what happens with respect 

to development in a general way, I would invite you to do that. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. I understand the situation. 

My whole philosophy is based on collaboration. That’s what I do 

now for the Governor. It’s what I’ve been doing in my current capacity. We’ve been quite successful. I’m committed to that. 

I am as concerned about development and its long-term impacts 

as you are. We have to be thoughtful. I believe, again, in multiple 

use, but we have to be thoughtful about how we do it. We have to 

think it through and think about long-term consequences before we 

make decisions. That demands the kind of integrated—it’s a kind 

of an overused word, but—collaboration with people on all sides of 

the issue to come to some resolution. 

At the same time, we do need to make decisions. We do need to 

be efficient at that. We do need to move forward. So I mean, that’s 

part of my fabric. That’s how I function. 

Senator SALAZAR. Well, I’m sitting down with Secretary Kempthorne here in the next week or 2 and he and I will have another 

conversation. But I appreciate your long history of involvement on 

public lands and hope and wish that you do get the confirmation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s interesting that the native Idahoan, Dr. Wahlquist, is the one 

gentleman I know least of all who is before us. So doctor, we’re 

going to have to get to know each other. Probably the absence of 

our knowledge of each other is because we don’t mine any coal in 

Idaho. You may have stocked your family’s cook stove with coal, 

but I doubt that it had been produced in Idaho. That coal was probably coming out of Utah at the time, was it not? 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. I would expect that it was. I have no idea where 

it came from. All I know is it was in the coal bin. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, anyway we welcome you. The role you play 

I think has been well defined, or the role you will play has been 

well defined by your statement and questions that have been asked 

of you, and we’re anxious to have you in that position. Obviously, 

the role of coal in future energy needs is going to be a large one. 

We’re trying to sort out now how we approach that as a country. 

Obviously, it will have to be cleaner than it currently is, and we’re 

all rushing toward that with as much effort and technology as we 

possibly can. 

Thank you for accepting the position. It’s an important one. 

Let me, of course, turn to Jim Caswell. I am frustrated always 

when at the very beginning of a process you are warned that you’ve 

been put on hold. The fires of the West are not on hold. The need 

to balance and get busy on our public lands is not on hold, and I 

hope we can work out our differences with my friend from Colorado 

as quickly as possible. 
24

I know that decisions are made, and I sometimes know that 

when Administrations change after decisions are made there’s 

some frustration as to what might have gone on prior to an Administration coming into place. So Ken, any way I can work with you 

and with our I hope new Director to resolve the issues that you’ve 

expressed, I’m certainly available to do that. Jim Caswell will become one of the largest land managers of the United States and it 

is critical that we have him working in our behalf on all of these 

fronts as quickly as possible. 

A question of you, Jim. What do you mean—and you said it in 

your statement; it may fit the Roan Plateau issue to some extent—

of ‘‘place-based ecosystem management principles’’? 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, what I meant by that was as you plan, 

as you develop either projects or programmatic planning, for that 

matter, you need to consider the resources, the scientific information, the background, the material, that’s germane to the location 

of the project. As a part of that, it’s not only the physical resources 

and the scientific information, the survey information, the monitoring information that you bring into the solution. It’s also the effects on communities, it’s the effects on the values in those communities, it’s the effects on the social aspects. 

So you bring those pieces together as you analyze and develop 

the decisions that flow from whatever the project or programmatic 

effort is under way. That’s what I mean by ‘‘place-based,’’ at the 

local scale, at the local level, and at the proper scale. If it’s a programmatic decision, it needs to be at a broader scale. If it’s a sitespecific project on a specific area, it needs to be at a finer scale. 

That’s what I mean by that. 

Senator CRAIG. I thank you for that. Certainly the role you’ll play 

in energy development in the West, in the Overthrust country, in 

the Powder River Basin down through Colorado, are going to be as 

critical to those States as sage ground and slickspot peppergrass 

has been to Idaho. Different resources affected, different impacts, 

but very important for all of us. 

Lisa, I’ve had the great opportunity of working with you when 

you were staffing this committee, and already both the chairman 

and the ranking member have spoke of the role you played in the 

shaping of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. So I look forward to your 

new role. It’s always fun to be working with someone you know and 

that you understand has some of the same knowledge that you 

have, and obviously helped shape some of the policy that will ultimately be implemented. So we thank you for that. Thank you for 

being willing to accept the position that you will hold. 

In that same role, I had the opportunity to get to know you, Bud, 

very well in working, as you did, with the House and with Chairman Barton. I have a very simple request of you, not unlike what 

the Senator from Colorado requested. As you either go to Colorado 

or come from Idaho to Colorado, it’s important that you come to our 

laboratory and get to know all of the things that are going on out 

there at the INL. 

It is a premier laboratory, as many of our energy labs are that 

you will have substantial jurisdiction over. The R and D work that 

goes on there is preeminent and will continue to be as we expand 

the horizon of nuclear energy in this country. So we look forward 
25

to your role there and to the implementation of the Energy Policy 

Act. Senator Domenici expressed and I share his expression of frustration as to some of the slowness that occurred following the passage of the Act. 

I believe our country is in an energy crisis and, while I know we 

must proceed with proper due diligence and proper environmental 

concerns, to deny our country, our economy, our consumers, adequate energy, to have failed in establishing a secure energy source 

and sources for our country, is negligence and, tragically enough, 

it plays in politics. That is something that we’ll debate long and 

loud in this committee and before the Senate and the House over 

the years ahead. 

I suspect our consuming public grows weary of the political debates when they are now paying the price they’re paying for the 

political debates and decisions of several decades ago as it relates 

to our energy supply. We are at risk today. I believe we are in crisis today as it relates to energy. So the role you’ll play, the role 

that Dr. Wahlquist will play and others, as it relates to working 

cooperatively to secure that future is going to be important. 

Obviously, Jim, the role you’ll play as steward over potential 

large energy reserves out there to be developed are going to be increasingly important, and I thank you all for being willing to do 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all. Mr. Albright, let me begin with you. You’re going 

to be managing the energy portfolio, of course, and it just seems 

to me to be very much out of whack, out of balance. I was in Klamath Falls, Oregon, last week and very excited about the potential 

for geothermal in Klamath Falls. They were very excited about the 

fact that the Department had paid for the study, the MIT study 

that showed that the potential energy available from geothermal in 

the United States is thousands of times our total energy consumption. 

So then I looked at the Department of Energy budget and no 

funds are requested in this area for the second year in a row. I 

looked at the nuclear energy development budget proposal. It goes 

from $120 million to $568 million. So that’s the kind of thing that 

I’m concerned about, because it reflects an extraordinary imbalance 

in the portfolio which you will be running, and I’d like to know 

what you’re going to do to try to put a little bit of balance back in 

the portfolio. 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Senator, yesterday when we met you mentioned 

this and mentioned the MIT study. It was the first I had heard of 

that study. I did get a copy of it. I can’t say that I read all four 

or five inches of it last night, but I did look through it, and I saw 

some pretty interesting things in there myself. I think the number 

was, as you say, thousands, I think it was 2,000 times the need. 
26

I believe there was a reference to cost competitive electricity within 

I forget the number of years. 

It seemed to me, looking at that report and I understand that reports sometimes are more—

Senator WYDEN. On the question of balance, sir, how is it balanced that there’s no money there and a huge increase in the budget for nuclear energy development? How specifically is that balanced? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Well, until I get there and look at it, it’s awfully 

hard to say. 

Senator WYDEN. It’s also true that no funds were requested for 

wave energy, tidal energy, hydro technology. I mean, I think this 

is something we ought to have on the record today, whether you 

think that that’s balanced. I’m giving you the numbers: zero in 

these other categories, huge increase in nuclear energy research. Is 

that balanced in your view? 

Mr. ALBRIGHT. Senator, not having been a part of the discussion 

to why those numbers are where they are, it’s very hard for me to 

say. I can say that I do think nuclear is very important and does 

need to ensure that the nuclear power we have is sustained and 

that the power that we don’t have is, particularly in nuclear, is enhanced. 

I do share, as I was saying, I share some of your concerns as I 

look at this report and I do have some questions that I will be asking of the people in the Department of Energy as to why something 

like geothermal is zeroed out. I don’t know the answer to that. In 

looking at the report I have some concerns as well. 

Senator WYDEN. I appreciate your looking at the report last 

night. You’re going to have to have a better answer on the balance 

question to get my vote in this committee. I mean, this is a defining part of the energy debate. I’m prepared to support the research 

in the nuclear development, but when that’s here [indicating] and 

everything else is here [indicating], I think it’s a straightforward 

issue as to whether or not you think it’s balanced. We’ll have some 

more conversations about it. 

Mr. Caswell, if I can turn to you. You and I talked about yesterday the inspector general report with respect to the Department 

ought to set off alarm bells for everybody who’s thinking about 

service at the Department of the Interior. The inspector general 

says that the Department’s been an ethical quagmire, and he specifically talks about Mr. Abramoff, Mr. Griles, Julie MacDonald, 

the most recent individual who resigned after it was revealed that 

she bullied scientists at Fish and Wildlife—a consistent pattern at 

the agency of, in effect, putting politics over science and sensible 

policy. 

You’ve got a reputation as a straight shooter. We did some checking and people really do think that you’ve been fair and looked at 

the merits of the questions. What are you going to do if you’re confirmed to stop these very troubling ethical lapses at the Department? 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, the only thing that a person has is their 

reputation and their integrity. I will continue to be sure that I operate in that vein. 
27

I think the other thing that impressed me, having read the report earlier, and I mean some time back actually, the thing that 

impressed me was I arrived in Washington on Sunday night; Monday morning when I arrived at the Department, the first place, the 

first appointment, the first people that I sat down with, was the 

new ethics staff that the Secretary has assembled at the Department. We spent about an hour and a half going through expectations, rules, all of those things. 

I’ve had contact with those same folks over a successive—phone 

conversations, email, all that kind of thing, in the past month or 

month and a half prior to this week on all of the paperwork. On 

Tuesday morning I had a conversation with the Secretary. The first 

thing we did was review the letter he sent to all employees, his ten 

points, the review that was done on the ethical standards and what 

the Department had been doing in the past to meet the intent of 

those. 

Yesterday we had another meeting with the ethics people. I find 

them to be very forthcoming, very willing to help, available. 

So I think in my mind it is, this whole question, is being dealt 

with. It will take some more time. I intend to reinforce the Secretary’s commitment to this. In fact, I can go back as far as 2000 

when I first went to work for then-Governor Kempthorne and he 

had a similar activity going on with his directors, not spawned by 

any huge issue, but he was concerned about ethics and how we operate in State government as well. So I will continue that. I will 

make this a priority with the people in the BLM and we will do 

everything we can to be sure that people operate ethically, honestly, and treat the treasure and the resources of this country in 

a fair and equitable way. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is up. I’m planning to support your 

nomination, Mr. Caswell. We need you to go down there and drain 

the swamp. One of the concerns I had about the Julie MacDonald 

issue—and of course I did put a hold on Mr. Laverty and that remains there until I’m convinced we’re going to get some changes—

is that some of what she seems to have done with respect to these 

abuses, these ethical abuses, seems to have taken place after Secretary Kempthorne got there. 

I like Secretary Kempthorne. Like you, I served with him. We’ve 

got to turn this around. So I plan to support your nomination and 

it is on the basis of your reputation and your answers today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I’d like to congratulate each of you on the nomination, congratulate your families. They have a reason to be very 

proud. 

If I could, Mr. Albright, visiting with you—Wyoming is a coal 

State. Coal is America’s most abundant fossil fuel. More than half 

of our electricity comes from coal. I believe our electricity transmission system is inadequate. What I’d like to know is, in places 

like Wyoming where we lack adequate transmission capacity to get 

electricity to market, what role can your office play in addressing 

this problem? 
28

Mr. ALBRIGHT. One of the things, as you know, Senator, that was 

in the EPAct 2005 was the provision that would allow the Federal 

Government at the end of the day, if the States couldn’t make decisions on where to site the transmission lines, the Federal Government could step in. That’s through FERC, which is not controlled 

by the Department of Energy. It’s an independent agency. I think 

that will go a long way to helping. Most of the problems with these 

lines seem to be with siting, and communities don’t particularly 

want new transmission lines going through their back yards, and 

most of us can understand that. 

The fact of the matter is you can’t get the electricity there without the transmission. The Department is working on ways to improve efficiency of transmission through various nanotechnology 

provisions and other technological advances. So we hope we can do 

more with the transmission we have. We clearly need more transmission. I recognize that. I come from an electricity background. 

We’ll do certainly everything we can to try and get those lines 

strung. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Epifani, you have a great reputation. I understand you’re 

terrific from visiting with all of the people who’ve had an opportunity and privilege to work with you, and I look forward to working with you as well. Thank you. 

Ms. EPIFANI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Caswell, my time is limited. I’m looking 

forward to an opportunity to sit and visit with you. Clearly the 

BLM has a major role in Wyoming. Currently in terms of leases in 

the lower 48 States, Wyoming is No. 1; the most acres for oil and 

gas leasing, over 13 million acres. So I’m hoping that we have a 

chance in the days ahead to sit and visit and then have some substantive discussions on these very important issues, if that would 

be fine with you. 

Mr. CASWELL. I’m looking forward to it, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wahlquist, one of the issues that I’d like to bring up is the 

abandoned mine lands program. Wyoming approaches AML from a 

somewhat different perspective. In Wyoming we are the largest financial contributor to the program, have been for years. We certainly support reclamation, protecting our environment for future 

generations. I’ve looked at the sites. I think they’re doing a fine, 

fine job in Wyoming. 

As I read the statement—I don’t think you read all of it—you 

talked about being the youngest of seven sons and you learned the 

natural order of things, which to me, with my brothers the natural 

order of things was fighting for food, fighting for clothing, and 

hand-me-downs. 

I have to tell you, in the Wyoming State legislature and in the 

State Senate I think all of us were extremely frustrated. We always 

felt like that youngest of seven sons, fighting with the Federal Government because of their failure to honor the commitment to the 

State and to Indian tribes to return half of the fee to them. That 

frustration grew every year as Wyoming paid more and more and 

didn’t get the money back. 
29

In December of this year, Congress changed the law mandating 

that certified States and Indian tribes are going to receive their 

portion of AML funds. The intention of Congress was to mandate 

those payments and currently Wyoming is owed over $500 million. 

What I’m asking you is, will you and can you make sure that 

happens for Wyoming and the other States and tribes involved? It’s 

a very important issue for our State and many of the States who 

have been paying in and have not yet received their money. 

Mr. WAHLQUIST. Again, Senator—and I appreciate the question—

the amendments, the 2006 amendments, have some very specific 

provisions in them that go toward that end, and we’re working 

with the solicitor’s office as we determine, and if I’m confirmed we 

will proceed to see that those moneys flow in accordance with the 

statute that was passed. 

Senator BARRASSO. I know time has not been on our side, and 

your office has been in touch with my office, so we could visit and 

meet on these things. Hopefully we can do that very soon because 

this is a critical issue to our State and our future. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to express to Senator Barrasso I’m looking forward to 

serving with him on this committee. I appreciate you being on 

board on this. This is the first committee I’ve been, beside the committee as a whole, the first committee I’ve been able to serve with 

you on this, and I look forward to it. 

For the members of the panel, I appreciate you being here today. 

I’m sorry I wasn’t here for your opening statements. I do appreciate 

the fact that you’re willing to serve. I don’t have a lot of questions 

for all of you. I do have a couple for Mr. Caswell. Thank you, Jim. 

I appreciate you stopping by the office and visiting. Some of these 

are going to be repetitive. I just want to get them on the record. 

Mr. Albright, I will just say, kind of dovetailing on what Mr. 

Wyden said, I think what I look for in an energy policy is one that 

is balanced and one that every opportunity we have out there is 

taken advantage of in a way that meets the needs of this country 

and the world, now that we’ve got global warming the way it is. 

So I respect your answers, but in some part of the aspect I do 

think that it is a bit troubling to me that parts of the budget are 

expanded on and why others are not, I personally can’t figure out 

either. You may be able to once you get delving into it. 

Mr. Caswell, once again I want to thank you for being here. A 

couple questions that deal—most of these questions are going to 

deal with communication for BLM. We talked about some of this 

yesterday, like I said. Right now it is my understanding that surface owners are not, on the split estates, are not finding out about 

the leases that BLM are doing until after the fact, if at all. So the 

question I have is do you intend on notifying the owners before 

those leases to out, to let them know, the landowners, to let them 
30

know that those lands are potentially going to be leased? How will 

you do that? 

Mr. CASWELL. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the time we did 

spend together. I enjoyed that meeting a great deal. 

As we discussed, this is something that goes kind of back to my 

core. I mean, we have to work with people, and people need to 

know what’s going on. So if that in fact is happening, we’re not 

communicating properly with the surface wonders, then we need to 

rectify that. The Bureau in my view needs to be the facilitator of 

this effort. I will definitely, if confirmed, look into this. I just think 

it’s really important. 

Senator TESTER. I would assume that your intention would be to 

directly notify these folks, not just put it on a web site or on an 

office door? 

Mr. CASWELL. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. Before the fact. 

A couple other questions. We talked about multiple use yesterday, whether it’s the traditional sheep and livestock industry or as 

it relates to oil and gas production or whether it’s fish and wildlife 

issues as it relates to that ecology and our hunters’ ability to go 

out and hunt. I guess, how is BLM going to ensure that public 

lands proposed for leasing will be managed for that kind of balance 

of traditional and multiple use, both from a hunter standpoint, a 

traditional agriculture standpoint, and an oil and gas standpoint? 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, that’s a weighty question and it begs for 

local decisionmaking in my view. I can’t sit here and answer it for 

you. What I can tell you is that I’m committed to balanced use. We 

have to find solutions. We have to problem solve on these issues. 

We have to work hard at that. We have to create an atmosphere 

that brings people together and that accommodates to the best of 

our ability the balance that’s necessary between those competing 

uses. 

I know that’s not a really crystal clear answer, but this whole 

thing is very messy. It’s very messy and it’s very difficult to do. It 

has to be done that way. Otherwise all you have are winners and 

losers. 

Senator TESTER. Are you personally weighted to one or another? 

Are you weighted toward traditional agriculture or weighted to oil 

and gas exploration or weighted toward wildlife? Traditionally 

hunting is the way I perceive that. 

Mr. CASWELL. Personally, Senator, I say no. I believe again that 

we need to manage our resources. I don’t believe that every acre 

is a resource or has resources on it is something that has to be developed. I believe in wilderness, all those things. It has to be done, 

and you have to make decisions. You can’t just fight over this until 

you’re at a stalemate and nothing occurs. 

Senator TESTER. Your reputation is very, very good, as has been 

pointed out earlier on this panel, as a straight shooter and somebody who’s straight up on issues and willing to fight for what’s 

right. You may be in this position for a long, long time. You may 

be in it for a year and a half. You may be in it for less than that. 

I hope not. I guess the question is, and this is looking out a little 

further, and that is does BLM have a plan or are they thinking 

about plans whereby if one of these industries is negatively im-
31

pacted—I’m talking about traditional agriculture specifically or 

wildlife, so that hunting opportunities are diminished, or anything 

else that you might think of out there; those are the ones that come 

to my mind—if those opportunities are diminished because of the 

oil and gas drilling, does BLM have a plan to help compensate? 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, I honestly do not know if that’s being 

thought about, talked about. I would assume not, but I have no 

idea. 

Senator TESTER. Would you encourage conversation on those 

kind of issues? Is that something that you’d have time to put some 

time into, to move forward? I know we’re talking about 

hypotheticals, but it depends how intense the drilling is and it depends on where it’s being done. As we talked about yesterday, I 

know sage grouse is not on the endangered species list. I don’t 

want to see it go on. The impacts of a potential 307,000 acre lease 

south of the CMR Range on wildlife could be, depending on how extensive the drilling is, either devastating or, if it’s managed correctly, it could have little or no impact. 

Mr. CASWELL. The direct answer to your question, Senator, my 

knee jerk to that is that’s a very slippery slope. I would be hopeful 

that if we work together we can find the latter course. 

Senator TESTER. The last question, and I know I’m out of time, 

so I appreciate the chair’s perseverance here. As we talk about private property rights and split estates, what we’re dealing with with 

BLM land is public lands. Would you make an effort in your position to let the public know that these leases are being offered long 

before, at least a reasonable time before, that they are being offered? Because right now the public is finding out after the lease 

has been granted. So that they have the opportunity for input. 

Mr. CASWELL. Senator, absolutely. I think that’s the law, actually. I mean, we’re obligated to let the public know what’s going on. 

I would make sure that that occurs. 

Senator TESTER. It’s my understanding—and you can check into 

this, because I could be wrong. It’s my understanding that they’re 

being notified after the sale, not before. That’s a critical component. 

Thank you very much. I just want to express the fact that you 

people come out here, you lay your hearts and souls on the line, 

and I really, really appreciate your public service. Thank you very 

much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for being here and testifying. We 

will make provision that if any member of the committee has another question they would like to submit in writing we would require that that be done, submitted to the committee staff by 5:00 

this evening. We would then ask that you respond to those questions, if any are submitted, in writing. 

With that, we will conclude the hearing and we will adjourn. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(33)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF LISA EPIFANI TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 1. One of the missions of the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs is to promote the Department’s programs and initiatives with the 

general public. As our country looks to promote greater use of renewable energies, 

and greater energy efficiency, there are many challenges to educating the general 

public about energy and the opportunities they have to be smarter about their energy use. Can you describe what role you see the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs playing in promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy 

opportunities to the general public? 

Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of 

Public Affairs have the primary responsibility at the Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

for promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy directly to the general public. 

However, the Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office (‘‘CI’’) also plays 

an important role advancing DOE’s efforts to increase public awareness of the value 

of efficiency and the importance of fuel diversification. 

Through its contact with members and their staffs, CI is in a unique position to 

learn about different state and regional efforts to address energy challenges and 

promote renewables and efficiency. CI can share this information with other DOE 

program offices and suggest venues and opportunities to highlight the good work of 

states and coalitions and related Federal efforts in order to increase general public 

knowledge. 

CI can be instrumental in informing members about upcoming Administration activities or DOE events that can be useful venues to help increase public awareness 

on issues like renewables and energy efficiency. 

CI can take advantage of its working relationship with the national laboratories, 

like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, to find opportunities to highlight the value of fuel diversity and efficiency to the general public. 

Although CI’s work is mainly to serve as a liaison between DOE on the one hand 

and Congress, State governments, and Tribal governments on the other, there are 

certainly opportunities where CI’s relationships and knowledge can be harnessed to 

serve the general public. Improving energy education, especially regarding renewable energy and efficiency, is an important mission for DOE overall and one to 

which CI can certainly contribute. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Oil and Gas Inspection and Enforcement.—The previous BLM Director worked with me to add inspectors to the Farmington Field Office. Several have 

been added to that office. What steps do you plan to take to ensure that the oil and 

gas inspection and enforcement program will be strong during your tenure and into 

the future? 

Answer. Although I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the oil and 

gas inspection and enforcement program, I do appreciate the complexity of the issue. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the inspection and enforcement program is robust, 

and that the BLM provides an appropriate level and appropriate timing of inspection and enforcement activities. 

Question 2. Split Estate.—In the past, many issues have arisen with respect to 

conflicts between surface uses and oil and gas development where split estates exist. 
34

New Mexico recently passed a law requiring oil and gas operators to work with surface owners and to post bonds. What steps will you take to ensure that conflicts between surface uses and oil and gas development will be minimized? Do you think 

an approach such as that of New Mexico should be adopted at the Federal level? 

Answer. I am a strong believer and committed practitioner in working together 

with all affected constituencies when trying to solve a problem. While I have not 

been briefed on all of the intricacies of split estate issues, you have my commitment 

that, if confirmed, I will be engaged on this issue. 

I am not familiar with the law in New Mexico addressing split estate issues, 

which was adopted just a few months ago, so I am not able to comment on the advisability of adopting a similar approach at the Federal level at this time. If confirmed, I will review this law, as well as the split estate report the Department of 

the Interior sent to Congress on this issue. 

Question 3a. Teshekpuk Lake.—Last summer, 18 Senators joined me in writing 

to Secretary Kempthorne to ask that the Department reconsider the decision to 

issue leases for oil and gas land in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake in the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Secretary Watt withdrew this area due to its importance 

to wildlife. The lease sale was subsequently enjoined by a Federal court. I am advised that the Department is working on a supplemental EIS. I understand that recent scientific work indicates that warming climate trends may be impacting coastal 

erosion north of Teshekpuk Lake. Is BLM considering the impact of warming climate trends in its Supplemental EIS for the Northeast Planning Area or modifying 

its proposed actions to address these trends and minimize adverse impacts? If so, 

please specifically describe. If not, will you commit considering this new information 

before making any leasing decision? 

What is the current time line for the environmental analysis and the lease sale 

in the Northeast Planning Area? 

Answer. I understand that BLM considered the impact of warming climate trends 

in its original supplemental EIS for the Northeast Planning Area. BLM has recently 

started the analysis on a current draft revision and is nearing completion. If confirmed, I will more thoroughly review the pertinent information concerning the 

Northeast Planning Area. 

Question 3b. More generally, do I have your commitment that you will personally 

review the question of leasing in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake prior to any decision regarding a lease sale? Of the 3.8 million acres of the NPRA that are already 

under lease, how many wells are in production? Why is there not more production 

from the acreage already leased in the NPRA? Do you believe that Congress should 

revisit the rules relating to diligent development of leases in the NPRA? 

Answer. While I am generally familiar with the issue of leasing in the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, I have not had detailed briefings on the issue. If confirmed, you have my commitment to become well-versed on these issues and to ensure that any decisions during my tenure are balanced and based on all available 

relevant information. 

Question 4a. Oil Shale.—The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained provisions to 

promote the development of oil shale resources. BLM is moving forward with a research and development leasing program and a programmatic environmental analysis for commercial leasing. However, I believe that commercial leasing should not 

take place until the technology is proven. Industry informs us that this is several 

years away. What is the time line for conducting a commercial lease sale? Do I have 

your commitment that a commercial lease sale will not be conducted until the technology is proven? I understand that some states have requested additional time to 

comment on the environmental analysis. Will you provide additional time to the 

states? What is the timeline for conducting a commercial lease? 

Answer. I have been advised that commercial leasing will not occur prior to completion of the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Oil Shale regulations and consultation with affected States and local governments. The BLM currently estimates completing the PEIS in late 2008 and the 

regulations in mid-2009. Following this process, I am told that the earliest a lease 

sale could occur would be 2010. 

Question 4b. Do I have your commitment that a commercial lease sale will not 

be conducted until the technology is proven? 

Answer: If confirmed, you have my commitment that a commercial lease sale will 

not be conducted until the BLM has worked with the Governors of the affected 

states and complied with all of the other prerequisites to commercial leasing set 

forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Question 5. Application of NEPA in Oil and Gas Leasing.—I have written to the 

Secretary expressing concern about BLM’s implementation of section 390 of EPAct 

relating to NEPA review in the oil and gas leasing program. The provision has been 
35

implemented by BLM in a manner inconsistent with CEQ regulations. Will you personally review this matter and work with us to ensure that BLM’s implementation 

is consistent with the CEQ regulations? 

Answer. While I am familiar with the use of categorical exclusions, I have not 

been briefed fully on this section of the Energy Policy Act. If confirmed, I will review 

this matter. 

Question 6. According to the BLM’s Law Enforcement Year-End Review for FY 

2005, there were more than 5,400 law enforcement incidents involving off road vehicles. And recently a group of former public lands officials, including the BLM, recently cited reckless off-road vehicle riding as the top threat to America’s public 

lands. Under your direction what will the BLM do to address the damage to public 

land resources resulting from inappropriate off-road vehicle use? 

Answer. Coming from the West, I am familiar with the complex challenges in 

managing off-highway vehicles—especially when western populations and the use of 

off-highway vehicles are increasing at a corresponding rate. It has been my experience that, in general, managing off-highway vehicle travel through the designation 

of routes and trails, with appropriate enforcement strategies, is the best way to conserve natural resources. If confirmed, I intend to promote that approach towards 

managing motorized activities on the public lands, while fully involving the public 

and local communities in the decision-making process. 

Question 7. The Forest Service will complete travel management plans for all of 

its land by 2009. How soon would you have similar travel management planning 

efforts completed for BLM lands? 

Answer. I am not familiar with the BLM’s current travel management planning 

activities nor its schedule. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this 

issue. 

Question 8. The Department’s policy concerning R.S. 2477 rights-of-way allows the 

BLM to make so-called ‘‘non-binding determinations’’ as to the validity of a highway 

claim. In actuality, these determinations appear to ‘‘bind’’ the agency by allowing 

counties to perform road maintenance and perhaps to open a closed route to motorized vehicle use. As Director, how will you work to clarify this discrepancy, so that 

land managers retain their authority to prevent highway maintenance or use, regardless of the determination? 

Answer. I have not had an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of the R.S. 

2477 rights-of-way issues in great detail, but if confirmed, I will work to provide 

clarification if needed. 

Question 9. Generally, under the Norton policy, how does your agency plan to 

work with other agencies like the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of Defense, and the Forest Service to address R.S. 2477 claims that 

cross agency boundaries? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that BLM coordinates with other agencies. 

Question 10. Will BLM process an application even if the Park Service or other 

agency objects? If other agencies disagree with the BLM’s conclusions, will the BLM 

nonetheless make an affirmative non-binding determination? 

Answer. Again, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the R.S. 2477 in great 

detail, so it is difficult at this time to know what steps BLM would take under these 

scenarios. If confirmed, I will ensure our policies facilitate internal coordination on 

these matters. 

Question 11. Recently the committee reported legislation (S. 1139) which would 

codify the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System, which the Department 

supported. However, the BLM’s budget to manage the national monuments, conservation areas and other environmentally significant areas that are included within the NLCS has failed to keep up with management needs. Likewise, the BLM’s 

funding to protect these areas with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars has 

also decreased, leaving many important areas unprotected. If confirmed will you 

work to ensure that the funding for BLM national monuments and Land and Water 

Conservation Fund is at a sufficient level to begin to address these unmet needs? 

Answer. I support the National Landscape Conservation System. If confirmed, be 

assured that I will work with the Department to further the management and conservation of NLCS lands. While I am not familiar with the specific funding levels 

and land acquisition needs of the NLCS, if confirmed, I look forward to working 

with you on this important issue. 

Question 12. Rio Puerco.—Please provide a breakdown of FY07 and planned FY08 

funding for Rio Puerco Watershed Management and separately for the Rio Puerco 

Watershed Management Committee by category including resource protection and 

administrative costs. Since inception of the Rio Puerco Watershed Management 

Committee, in total, how much funding has been used for resource protection and 

restoration? How much additional funding would be required to fully restore the Rio 
36

Puerco watershed? Can you assure me that this will be a high priority for you in 

the agency’s future funding requests? 

Answer. Since the inception of the Committee, BLM has informed me that the 

committee has obtained $3.9 million in Federal, State, and partnership funding for 

restoration projects. I am not aware of how much funding would be required to fully 

restore the Rio Puerco watershed. However, I understand that the future of the Rio 

Puerco watershed is a vitally important issue for New Mexico, and I appreciated 

having the opportunity to discuss this with you. I have been advised that the BLM 

has worked to leverage resources in order to bring more funds to the watershed. If 

confirmed as Director, I will support cooperative conservation efforts. 

Question 13. Otero Mesa.—It is my understanding from a letter sent to me by 

former Acting BLM Director James M. Hughes that deferment of oil and gas leasing 

on Otero Mesa is unnecessary because BLM has no plans to proceed with new leases 

within the time frame that the USGS Salt Basin Aquifer study should be completed. 

Does this continue to be the case? Can you assure me that BLM will notify the committee immediately if BLM begins consideration of offering leases or approving any 

development on Otero Mesa? 

Answer. I am advised that the BLM has no current plans to offer any new leases 

in the Otero Mesa area. Since the Resource Management Plan was approved, there 

has only been one lease offered. If confirmed, I assure you that we will notify the 

committee of any future leases or development on Otero Mesa. 

Question 14. Please provide the committee with any documents that BLM has produced or otherwise used which analyze the size, distribution, and vulnerability of 

the Salt Basin Aquifer. If no such documents are available, please describe what scientific information regarding the Salt Basin Aquifer has been reviewed or will be 

reviewed as the basis for BLM’s drilling plan in Otero Mesa. 

Answer. With regard to your document request, I am not familiar with the documents BLM produced or used concerning the Salt Basin Aquifer. However, I have 

passed on your request to BLM staff, who are committed to meeting your request 

and will be contacting you for further clarification. 

Question 15. Prehistoric Trackways.—It is my understanding that due to recent 

reports of vandalism of archeological resources within the proposed boundary of the 

Prehistoric Trackways National Monument in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, BLM 

State Director Linda Rundell has reprogrammed some of her limited funds to place 

a full-time BLM law enforcement agent in the area. Will you commit to assisting 

New Mexico BLM find sufficient resources to protect these irreplaceable treasures 

now and into the future? 

Answer. I am pleased to hear that the New Mexico BLM has taken proactive 

steps to conserve the irreplaceable resources of this area. While I am not familiar 

with the needs in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, I am committed to learning more 

about them and conserving our special places. If confirmed, I will work to further 

that goal. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 16. County Payments.—County Payments provide critical funding in my 

home state of Oregon, and especially to Oregon’s unique O&C lands. As incoming 

Director of BLM, can I get your assurance that you will work with me to ensure 

county payments funding is found? Will you advocate for the necessity of this program? 

Answer. I am aware of the many benefits my home state of Idaho has received 

from the Secure Rural Schools Act, and, having previously worked in Oregon, I understand the importance of the Act to western Oregon counties. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working with you on this very important issue. 

Question 17. State and Local Fire Assistance/County Payments.—The 2008 budget 

continues a downward trend in funding for community fire protection programs. 

Programs such as State and Volunteer Fire Assistance are critical in helping communities prepare for wildland fire—through firefighter training, hazardous fuels reduction on non-federal lands and Community Wildfire Protection Planning. Likewise, programs such as county payments have provided counties in my home state 

funds to help build up their firefighting capacity or do projects to protect their communities by reducing fuel loads in the forest. These proactive steps are also key in 

preparing for the fire season and reducing federal suppression costs. However, these 

programs continue to struggle to obtain funding. How will the BLM help ensure 

that at-risk communities are adequately prepared for the inevitable wildland fire 

when community assistance programs are underfunded and funding for them continues to decline? 
37

Answer. This is an issue of great interest to me and, in the past, I have worked 

with the Western Governors’ Association on these matters. If confirmed, I will make 

it a priority to learn more about BLM’s technical assistance and funding plans for 

Community Wildland Fire Protection Plans. 

Question 18. Thinning/Forest Health.—Years after the passage of the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act, we still see dangerously overstocked forests in the West, 

and, as a result, increasingly severe fires with the accompanying out of control 

costs. We have also seen a number of the reports discussing the skyrocketing wildfire costs have noted how essential it is to vastly expand the agencies’ fuels reduction efforts. A Report by the Brookings Institution’s Independent Large Wildfire 

Cost Panel in discussing hazardous fuels reduction found that ‘‘all forests interviewed were failing to meet their goals’’ citing a range of reasons including increasing costs of a fuels reduction over funding available. It goes on to find ‘‘even those 

forests with aggressive fuels programs were essentially treating between five to ten 

percent of the total forest acreage.’’ At that pace, we have little hope of getting 

ahead of the problem. Big chunks of the West are burning at this very moment, and 

feeding the skyrocketing fire-fighting costs, yet the Administration continues to drag 

its feet on completing the critical thinning that needs to be performed to prevent 

fire in our Nation’s forests. It seems to me, this is the best form of preparation for 

the fire season, I keep hearing from folks on the ground who don’t understand why 

we don’t make the comparatively smaller commitment upfront to avoid the hazardous conditions that lead to these out-of-control fires. Isn’t some of the skyrocketing cost of fire suppression the result of inadequate fuel reduction budgets? 

Isn’t this a case of if you don’t pay to prevent fires, you’ll end up paying more later 

to fight them? How do you justify this policy? Why do you think we aren’t able to 

make more of that upfront commitment to treat our forests—at a pace that actually 

stands a chance to make a difference? What will you do to ensure that happens and 

make thinning more of a priority? 

Answer. While I am not familiar with the BLM’s fuels budget, I do support an 

aggressive fuels treatment program. I agree that fuels treatments can, in many 

cases, lower firefighting costs. If confirmed, I will look into the status of the program to find creative solutions to improving BLM’s accomplishments within available resources. 

I believe the land management agencies in cooperation with state and local governments are committed to treating our Nation’s hazardous fuels. Great strides 

have been achieved since passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. This is 

a very complicated issue with a huge backlog of acres in need of treatment. If confirmed, forest and rangeland health, wildland fire costs, and hazardous fuels will be 

some of my priorities. I look forward to working with the Congress on this critical 

issue. 

Question 19. BLM no longer obeys its multiple-use mandate.—BLM is facing an 

explosion in demand for natural gas drilling on public land in Western states. Applications for Permits to Drill more than tripled in just five years, up to 6,400 in 2004, 

and that’s going to double before too long. All of this drilling puts an incredible 

strain on the other purposes for BLM land under the multiple-use mandate, such 

as natural resource conservation, recreation and grazing. Critics including the Government Accountability Office, state officials, local residents and BLM staffers warn 

that BLM is so busy processing APDs that it no longer has time for any other duty, 

such as sending staff biologists into the field. The damage to Western habitat 

threatens to put animals like the Sage Grouse on the Endangered Species List, 

which would cripple gas drilling much like the Northern Spotted Owl’s endangered 

status has crippled timber harvesting in the Pacific Northwest. Do you agree with 

the critics outside and inside BLM who say it no longer obeys its multiple-use mandate? Specifically, what would you do to restore the balance? Would you reverse the 

steady flow of Information Memos from Washington to state field offices that have 

placed processing APDs above all other duties, demanding a quick turnaround time 

and limiting Best Management Practices, which would mitigate environmental damage, to the status of ‘‘voluntary recommendations?’’ What additional should Congress provide BLM either financially or as statutory authority to cope with the unprecedented gas drilling on Western lands? While the new Healthy Lands Initiative 

announced in this year’s budget request would attempt to repair drilling damage 

done to some BLM lands, wouldn’t it be wiser for BLM to establish more territory 

as a no-drilling zone before the damage was done? 

Answer. I am a firm believer in the multiple-use mission of the BLM. The very 

nature of the multiple-use mandate means that we must balance the conservation 

of our Federal lands with the environmentally-sound development of our Nation’s 

energy resources underlying these lands. I believe that, in many instances, it is possible to achieve this balance. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to address 
38

wildlife habitat management, environmental Best Management Practices, restoration of damaged lands, and inspection and enforcement of oil and gas development 

activities. 

Question 20a. Attitudes on protecting natural resources.—Over the years, while 

supervising national forests and state policy on endangered species, you sometimes 

showed impatience with environmental law and with environmentalists’ demands to 

preserve natural resources. In a 2002 letter to the National Environmental Policy 

Act Task Force, on behalf of the state of Idaho, you complained about ‘‘regulatory 

obstacles involv(ing) NEPA’’ that ‘‘we believe. . . partly reflect shortcomings in 

NEPA, a decision-making policy that precludes timely decision-making, and partly 

reflect abuses of NEPA, interest groups whose interests are served by gridlock.’’ Can 

you identify which ‘‘interest groups’’ you think are ‘‘served by gridlock’’ and tell me 

what you think their interests are? Or do you now disavow that 2002 statement? 

Answer. In my view decision making ‘‘gridlock’’ can, at times, serve many organizations across the political spectrum. Any organization or individual that believes 

its interests are not served by a specific decision or program can use the law or regulations to address its grievances before their government. One of the objectives of 

NEPA was to level the playing field, and it has been successful in this regard. However, this opportunity can be abused. If confirmed, I will work to implement NEPA 

within the BLM as Congress intended. 

Question 20b. Can you see legitimate reasons for citizens sometimes to oppose development on public lands? 

Answer. Absolutely, yes. 

Question 20c. If you’re a critic of NEPA, how you would change it? 

Answer. I believe in the NEPA process and that it has made Federal agencies 

more accountable to the public, improved decision-making, increased environmental 

protection, and improved public trust. If confirmed, I will implement the BLM’s 

NEPA program to the letter of the law, regulation, and policy. 

Question 20d. And given that it’s your current area of expertise in Idaho, how 

would you change the Endangered Species Act? 

Answer. I do not believe a statutory change to the ESA is possible nor is it necessary at this time. I do believe however there are administrative and procedural 

changes that if implemented and institutionalized would improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the ESA to emphasize the recovery of listed species. If confirmed, 

I will implement ESA procedures in all BLM decisions where required. 

Question 21. National Landscape Conservation System and Steens Management.—You have been supportive of the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation 

System, protecting some of the BLM’s crown jewels—however, you have heard some 

concerns about how the act codifying this system would impact the management of 

the Steens. You want a confirmation from the BLM that the Steens Act will still 

govern management of the Steens Area, consistent with the language in the legislation. Can you confirm that the Steens Act will still govern management of the 

Steens Area, consistent with the language in the legislation codifying the National 

Landscape Conservation System? What are your thoughts on the National Landscape Conservation System and what benefits can it bring to the BLM? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the intent of the bill is not to alter the management of the units of the NLCS, but that the Department has identified some 

areas of ambiguity in the language of the bill. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the BLM, partners and Congress to clarify the bill while continuing BLM’s 

support of the NLCS. 

Question 22. Protecting Cultural Resources on BLM Lands.—Working with partners and governments including tribal governments should be a priority for the 

BLM and other land management agencies. In a recent court case out of the l0th 

Circuit in New Mexico, the court found the Forest Service did not make a ‘‘reasonable and good faith effort’’ to identify historic properties and, therefore, could not 

make a proper determination as to whether the area—where it wanted to conduct 

road development—contained traditional cultural properties. The Pueblo of Sandia 

alleged that the United States Forest Service failed to comply with the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when the Forest Service approved a road project 

and related improvements in the Las Huertas Canyon in the Cibola National Forest 

without first evaluating the canyon as a traditional cultural property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Can you assure the Committee that under your direction, the BLM will not make 

the same mistake especially during travel planning? Can you assure us that the 

agency will conduct archeological site inventories and consultation with tribes before 

determining whether motorized recreational activities and road development should 

occur in an area? 
39

Answer. I am not familiar with the details of BLM’s current travel management 

planning. However, I am told that BLM has developed clear guidance for consulting 

with Tribes, including evaluating traditional cultural properties. If confirmed, I am 

committed to carrying out that guidance. 

Question 23. Travel Management on BLM Lands.—Immediately after the April 

11, 2003 agreement between DOI and the State of Utah precluding BLM’s consideration of additional wilderness study area designations, Secretary Norton assured the 

Committee that BLM would use other tools to protect wilderness quality lands.

(http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy03/im2003-275chl.htm). Meanwhile, BLM’s Draft 

Travel Plans/ORV Route Designation Plans released for public review in eastern 

Utah propose ORV routes in these lands BLM itself has determined to have wilderness character. What specifically is the BLM doing to protect the wilderness character of BLM lands during the development of these Travel Management Plans? 

Doesn’t designating thousands of miles of vehicle routes destroy the wildernessquality of these roadless areas? 

Answer. I have not been briefed in detail regarding the settlement agreement between the Department of the Interior and the State of Utah regarding wilderness 

authorities and the issues pertinent to it. If confirmed, I will review this issue, taking into consideration your concerns. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 24. Readiness for Position.—You have had a distinguished career in the 

U.S. Forest Service having served as the forest supervisor, deputy forest supervisor, 

and acting deputy of regional foresters. Can you describe what professional experiences you have had that prepared you to manage the Bureau of Land Management’s 

annual budget of about $1.2 billion and almost 8,000 employees? 

Answer. I have consistently led people and organizations for over 40 years to 

achieve exceptional results during difficult times. As a leader and a manager, I have 

experience with small groups and teams as well as large complex organizations of 

hundreds of employees. I have served in a regional capacity in the Forest Service 

and, if confirmed, will bring this perspective to a national leadership position. I believe I understand the art of motivating people to perform at their best while ensuring that that they are accountable to those they serve. I remain a student of leadership and management theory, and you can rest assured that if confirmed I will work 

tirelessly to make the BLM one of the most respected, responsive, and competent 

agencies in government. 

Question 25. Energy Development on Public Lands.—You were quoted in the Associated Press on June 2, 2007, as saying ‘‘We just have to develop the resources 

that we have. You can’t just write this stuff off. It’s a terribly important activity 

for the good of the country.’’ While I believe securing America’s energy independence 

is critical for our Nation, and I support efforts to develop Colorado’s energy resources, I am concerned about the Administration’s rush to lease as much acreage 

as possible for oil and gas exploration and development. It is this rush to lease that 

leads me to believe that there is a fundamental problem with how the BLM is doing 

business in Colorado and the West. There has been rapid growth in energy production occurring on BLM lands. In northwest Colorado alone, there are currently, 

4,000 to 5,000 drills extracting oil and gas. Over the next 15 years, Federal leases 

already have been sold that will expand the number of drills to 60,000. I am concerned that the Administration is making oil and gas exploration and development 

the number one priority on all BLM land, over all other uses, and that this will permanently and irrevocably affect the natural heritage of the Rocky Mountain West. 

I am also concerned that the priority to extract our domestic oil and gas resources 

on public lands may come at the expense of energy conservation and the development of renewable, clean energies. 

Can you describe the considerations you think are important in balancing the protection of our Federal lands with the development of our Nation’s energy resources 

underlying these Federal lands? Will you commit to work with local communities 

and to listen to their legitimate concerns regarding the primacy of energy development over other uses of public lands? 

Answer. I believe a balance can only be achieved with proper analysis, documentation, and disclosure of the environmental, social, and economic information 

and data that is germane to the decision being made. Further, this analysis must 

be completed at the appropriate scale and must be in collaboration with the community of interest. I have always been a strong practitioner of listening to those impacted by Federal land management policies. If confirmed, you have my commitment to place the proper emphasis on working with and listening to local communities. 
40

Question 26. You were also quoted in the Associated Press as saying ‘‘But I also 

don’t believe that every tree ought to go to the mill. So much of it becomes site specific. But if the objective is to develop a resource, most of the time I think we can 

find a way to solve the problems surrounding it.’’ Can you describe the circumstances or problems that you believe would lead to a decision to protect a Federal resource rather than develop it? 

Answer. Over the course of my career I have made hundreds of decisions that resulted in the protection of Federal lands and resources. Some of these decisions have 

been large like the management plan for the Lewis and Clark Trail covering thousands of acres while others have been smaller in scale like protection of riparian 

habitat on a specific stream. If confirmed, I will support policies and provide direction that strives to balance the various uses BLM is charged with providing to the 

American people. 

Question 27. In recent years, there has been a rapid growth in energy production 

occurring on BLM lands. While BLM has increased the budget for inspection and 

monitoring of this energy production, I do not believe the increase in the budget is 

commensurate with the increase in energy production. If you are confirmed to be 

director of the BLM, can you describe what efforts you will take to ensure there is 

adequate inspection and monitoring of the energy production occurring on BLM 

lands? Can you also tell me whether you would consider unannounced visits to drilling pads as one method of strengthening inspection and monitoring? 

Answer. It is my understanding that the BLM does not typically announce inspection and enforcement visits, and I support this practice. I will review the inspection 

and enforcement budget, if confirmed. 

Question 28. Roan Plateau.—Current BLM oil and gas leasing and development 

policies have resulted in the BLM opening to leasing millions of acres of sensitive 

lands, including lands that many members of Congress have proposed for wilderness, or that have previously been protected for their wildlife or cultural values. In 

Colorado, the Roan Plateau is an example of one of those special places. Tens of 

thousands of acres of public lands administered by the BLM are prime wildlife habitat for elk and mule deer, home to rare species of plants and animals, and a refuge 

for Colorado citizens who seek solitude and renewal through hiking, hunting, fishing 

and camping. I have publicly stated that the Roan Plateau is a unique resource that 

should be preserved for future generations. In November 2004, the BLM’s draft environmental impact statement of the results of leasing Federal lands on the Roan 

Plateau for oil and gas exploration and development studied four alternatives for 

energy development, in addition to a no action alternative. The public submitted 

74,000 comments in response to the draft EIS, overwhelmingly opposed to the leasing of these lands. BLM has issued a Resource Management Plan that will pursue 

a leasing program fundamentally different from the four alternatives included in the 

draft EIS. Governor Ritter has requested, and I strongly support his request, for a 

120-day extension to review the Resource Management Plan. We must ensure that 

the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan does not rush to develop this natural 

gas resource, and that it ensures the protection of elk and mule deer habitats, the 

protection of recreational resources, and the protection of the Roan’s unique features 

that make it a popular destination site. 

Do you agree that Governor Ritter’s request for a 120-day extension should be 

granted? Can you commit that BLM will work with the State of Colorado to ensure 

the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan ensures the protection of wildlife 

habitat, and the protection of this unique resource? 

Answer. I have not been fully briefed on this matter nor the decisions made. Over 

the last forty years, I have worked with local and State governments, including 

working directly for three governors over the past 6 years. I can commit that I will 

work with the State of Colorado and the counties on this and other matters within 

your state. 

Question 29. An important section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (section 369) 

deals with the potential development of oil shale in the western United States. A 

bipartisan effort laid out a deliberate, thoughtful process for the potential development of oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. We are pleased with the BLM’s 

diligence in issuing the research and development leases. 

Will you commit to adhering to the deliberate and thoughtful process that Congress set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding oil shale development in 

the West-including the completion of the programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement as required by Section 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act prior to moving 

forward with a commercial leasing program? Will you agree to work with the State 

and affected local communities in a way that considers their input, experience, and 

concerns with potential oil shale development? 
41

Answer. Although I have yet to be briefed in detail about the implementation of 

the oil shale program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), my general understanding is that the process you outline in your question is how the process is 

designed in the recently enacted law. If I am confirmed, you have my commitment 

that implementation will be consistent with the statute and that state and local 

communities will be integral participants in the process. 

Question 30. Federal Land Sales to Offset Federal Deficit.—Secretary Kempthorne 

and I are on record discussing the sale of Federal lands, and the use of the proceeds 

to reduce the Federal deficit. If you are confirmed as Director of BLM, what guarantees do we have that the sales of Federal lands will be in the best interest of protecting our country’s natural resources, and that sales of valuable lands won’t be 

accelerated in an effort to reduce the Federal deficit? 

Answer. I know that Secretary Kempthorne has indicated that he would oppose 

proposals that advocated the sale of lands strictly for deficit reduction. At the same 

time, he indicated that there are instances when it makes sense to dispose of public 

lands and would not want to preclude those instances. I support Secretary 

Kempthorne’s position. 

Question 31. National Landscape Conservation System.—In 2005, The National 

Trust for Historic Preservation listed the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation 

System as one of America’s eleven ‘‘most endangered historic places.’’ Yet, the BLM 

continues to provide an average of only one ranger for every 200,000 acres within 

the System, which contains thousands of important cultural resources reflecting our 

national heritage that are being irreparably looted and vandalized. As one example, 

the Conservation System’s Canyons of the Ancients National Monument contains 

the largest known concentration of archaeological sites in the nation, yet the BLM 

does not have the staff to adequately protect these resources. There are not even 

full-time rangers in places such as Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and 

the Sonoran Desert National Monument. Will you work with the Department of Interior to ensure that these outstanding landscapes, and the vast cultural and natural resources within them, are more adequately protected? 

Answer. I support the National Landscape Conservation System. If confirmed, be 

assured that I will work with the Department to continue to manage and conserve 

NLCS lands. It is my understanding that public visitation to NLCS units is growing 

and issues such as those you pointed out must be addressed. 

Question 32. The National Landscape Conservation System Act, S. 1139, was introduced in May to congressionally authorize this extraordinary system of BLM 

lands. These landscapes are the crown jewels of BLM lands and waters that have 

been congressionally and presidentially designated for conservation, including their 

National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

The bill is straightforward legislation that would codify this unique System that was 

administratively designated in 2000. We were pleased that Acting Director Jim 

Hughes testified in support of the bill at a legislative hearing before this committee 

on May 3. The bill will highlight the importance of these landscapes to the American public and the Department of Interior. Will you also support this historic legislation? 

Answer. I support the National Landscape Conservation System. If confirmed, be 

assured that I will work with the Department to continue to manage and conserve 

NLCS lands. It is my understanding that the intent of the legislation is not to alter 

the management direction for the units of the NLCS, but to codify the existing system. I look forward to working with the BLM, partners and Congress to continue 

to support it. 

Question 33. Unfortunately the BLM has chosen not to provide detailed budgets 

for the NLCS in recent years. Transparency and accountability are vitally important 

to BLM’s credibility. We’re told by BLM staff that the President’s budget is not a 

true depiction of how NLCS funds are spent. Indeed, the BLM doesn’t even track 

NLCS funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee recently directed BLM to provide a budget table that includes major subactivity allocations for each unit of the 

NLCS, and inclusion of such budget tables in future budget justifications. The committee further directed BLM to produce a NLCS expenditure and outcomes report 

which breaks out expenditures by NLCS unit and subactivity. 

Should you be confirmed by the Senate, will you make increasing the transparency and accountability of the NLCS a high priority? Will you commit to ensuring that these budget tables and expenditure reports are completed in a timely manner and reported to Congress and the public? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make sure that we provide transparency to the budget 

for the National Landscape Conservation System and that we are responsive to the 

requests of Congress. I also will ensure the public and Congress have a complete 

picture of all BLM’s programs. 
42

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 34. The Bureau of Land Management controls more acres in the State 

of Alaska than it does in any other State. How acquainted are you with the key 

issues facing the BLM in administering these lands? Given that you have not 

worked on Alaska issues in the course of your 30 year career with the Federal government, what will you do to get up to speed on the Bureau’s responsibilities with 

respect to Alaska lands if confirmed to head the BLM? 

Answer. Having lived in Alaska for a period of time, I can appreciate the importance of the BLM’s role in Alaska and the significant number and magnitude of the 

resource management issues that Alaska faces. If confirmed, I will be briefed on 

BLM programs and issues, with significant time focused on Alaska. Further, I intend to meet with all the State Directors, including the Alaska State Director, to 

better understand the issues they face in their respective states. In addition, I will 

make it a priority to again visit the great State of Alaska as quickly as possible, 

if confirmed. 

Question 35. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires that 

employees of Federal land management agencies who are assigned to posts in Alaska sit for a class on the requirements of that act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. If you are confirmed to direct the BLM will you sit for the class? 

Answer. Yes, at the first opportunity. 

Question 36a. The availability of fire aviation assets has been a persistent problem for the State of Alaska. Alaska is slated to lose dedicated fire aviation assets 

in 2008 (water scooper tankers, utility aircraft). I understand that this is budget 

driven. Are you concerned that the fire preparedness budget is being cut too deeply 

to provide the fire protection that communities adjacent to public lands deserve? 

Answer. Fire management is of great concern and interest to me, including aviation assets. On behalf of then-Governor Kempthorne, I worked with Western Governors’ Association on these matters with the Federal agencies. If confirmed, you 

can be assured I will look into this specific matter. 

Question 36b. Our Nation is still relying on a limited supply of fire retardant 

tankers that have been deemed safe to fly. Would it be one of your priorities to lead 

our Nation into production of the next generation of fire retardant tankers during 

your watch or will we continue to rely on a fleet being held together with scotch 

tape and paper clips? 

Answer. I am advised that the interagency fire community, which includes the 

BLM, is working to determine the most effective mix of types and numbers of aircraft necessary to meet Federal fire response needs well into the future. If confirmed 

as Director, I will be glad to work with you to ensure this important effort is implemented. 

Question 37. The State of Alaska contracts with a Canadian firm for retardant 

tankers that the Canadian government says are safe to fly but the US Federal land 

management agencies say are not safe enough to fight fires in the Federal protection zone. The State has been flying these tankers for some four years in the State 

protection zone without incident. If you are confirmed, would you confer with the 

Canadian aviation regulators and determine whether the Federal land management 

agencies have taken an unduly restrictive posture—a posture that in my view 

threatens life and property in the State of Alaska. 

Answer. I am advised that the BLM has a long and productive relationship with 

the Canadian fire community. If confirmed, I would be glad to learn more about the 

Canadian government’s aviation policies and explore areas of mutual interest. I understand that all firefighting aircraft must meet Federal aviation certification requirements, which are designed to protect pilots, firefighters and the public. As a 

result of firefighting aircraft accidents several years ago, certificate requirements 

have been heightened. It is my understanding that specific Canadian aircraft, contracted by the State of Alaska, can be used on Federal lands when life or property 

is threatened. 

Question 38. On May 3, the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee took testimony on legislation to establish the National Landscape Conservation System and 

the BLM testified in favor of the legislation. I submitted questions for the record 

following the hearing. I don’t believe that those questions have been answered. 

Would you check and see where those answers might be and whether I can expect 

them in the near future? 

Answer. I am not familiar with the questions you have sent, but the Department 

has indicated that it will send those answers to Congress this week. 
43

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 39. Mr. Caswell, as you have been made aware at your hearing, Senator 

Bingaman and I, as well as other Senators, are extremely frustrated over BLM’s 

failure to resolve the situation with respect to dual development of both potash and 

oil and gas in the Known Potash Leasing Area in Southeast New Mexico. We recently requested a meeting with Secretary Kempthorne to discuss the issues surrounding this problem and to ascertain when the Department expects to announce 

a plan for resolving these issues. Will you commit to me that you will make this 

your highest priority if you are confirmed? 

Answer. Although I am not yet familiar with the intricacies of the conflict between potash and oil and gas development in the Known Potash Leasing Area in 

Southeast New Mexico, you have my commitment that I will learn all that I can 

about the issue, and that I will make it a high priority if I am confirmed. 

Question 40. All of your professional experience has been with Forest Service, and 

you have an excellent record in land management. While that will serve you well 

at BLM if you are confirmed, as evidenced by your testimony, BLM’s multiple-use 

mission is different in some respects from the Forest Service. How do you intend 

to promote the energy production side of the BLM mission? 

Answer. If confirmed, you have my full commitment to continue the progress that 

has been made in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As I stated during 

my confirmation hearing, I fully embrace the multiple-use mission of BLM as mandated by FLPMA. I recognize the need for increased domestic production on Federal 

lands and, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to seek an appropriate balance in that 

regard. 

RESPONSES OF JAMES L. CASWELL TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 41. Proposed Mine Near Mt. St. Helens.—On April 18, I sent a letter 

to Acting Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Jim Hughes regarding the 

BLM’s recent announcement of a hardrock minerals lease in the ‘‘Margaret Deposit’’ 

area near Mount St. Helens. I am concerned that the BLM’s Environmental Assessment did not adequately address potential environmental impacts. Mr. Hughes 

states in his response to my letter that ‘‘implementation of the preferred alternative 

would not result in authorization of on-the-ground activities or disturbances, thus, 

at this point in time, there are no impacts to analyze for this action.’’ Yet, without 

a hardrock minerals lease, no mining company could conduct mining activities that 

post serious environmental consequences. 

Do you agree with the position that ‘‘there are no impacts to analyze for this action’’? 

Do you believe an Environmental Assessment should accurately evaluate all potential environmental impacts that could result from a mining lease? 

Answer. I have very limited knowledge about this issue. I am advised that no decision regarding the lease application has been made. However, I am aware of its 

importance to you and, if I am confirmed, you have my commitment that I will review this issue and be fully briefed on the concerns you raise. 

Question 42. In response to my April 18 letter, Mr. Hughes stated that, ‘‘The U.S. 

Forest Service consent letter indicated . . . that issuance of a . . . lease . . . is 

compatible with both the purposes of the acquisition, and the Forest Plan.’’ It is my 

understanding that the BLM can only issue a lease for acquired land if it is compatible with the purposes for which the government obtained the land. The land in 

question was purchased by the government from the Trust for Public Land under 

the authority of the Weeks Act. Land acquisition under the Weeks Act is for limited 

purposes. Specifically, only lands ‘‘necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber’’ are to be recommended for purchase. 

Such acquisition is authorized only if it ‘‘will promote or protect the navigation of 

streams on whose watersheds they lie.’’ Furthermore, the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest Supervisor sent a letter to the Congressional Delegation in February 1986 

stating that the Federal government’s acquisition of this property ‘‘will aid in the 

preservation of the integrity of the Green River prior to its entering the National 

Volcanic Monument, and will also aid in the preservation of the scenic beauty of 

this area which is to become an important Monument portal.’’

Please explain how is leasing this land to a mining company compatible with the 

‘‘preservation of the integrity of the Green River’’ or ‘‘aid[s] in the preservation of 

the scenic beauty of this area.’’

Answer. I have not been fully briefed on this issue. I am advised that no decision 

regarding the lease application has been made. However, I am aware of its importance to you and, if confirmed, I will review this issue and the concerns you raise 

in your question. 
44

Question 43. In response to my April 18 letter, Mr. Hughes stated that ‘‘With regard to questions related to public interest... the preferred alternative would be 

responsive to the request from a legitimate applicant with... property rights.’’ 

The same paragraph concludes ‘‘ultimately, the issuance of a lease . . . is fully discretionary to the Government.’’ Before issuing a lease for the acquired lands, the 

BLM must determine whether doing so is in the public interest. The Department 

of the Interior has stated in Federal Regulations that ‘‘We intend for the phrase ‘in 

the public interest’ to imply a consideration of the potential environmental costs of 

mineral development. It is our duty to balance the potential benefits of mineral development against the potential environmental consequences of that development 

when we decide that the approval of an application is in the public interest.’’ There 

are a number of issues that, at a minimum, must be considered in determining 

whether leasing is in the public interest. These include, but are not limited to, scenic values, biological values, archeological, historic and cultural values, recreational 

uses, among others. Despite over 20,000 comments received during the public comment period opposing the granting of the lease and the potential for significant environmental, human health and recreation impacts associated with mine development 

in Mount St. Helen’s Green River valley, the BLM determined this project could be 

in the pubic interest. 

Do you agree with this assessment? 

In this case, do you believe that BLM balanced the potential benefits of mineral 

development against the potential environmental consequences of that development? 

In this case, do you believe that BLM fully assessed potential impacts on public 

health, the environment and these other values in determining whether issuing a 

lease is in the public interest? 

Answer. I have not been briefed on this issue and therefore, my knowledge about 

this issue is very limited. I am advised that no decision regarding the lease application has been made. However, I am aware of its importance to you and, if confirmed, 

you have my commitment that I will thoroughly review this issue and the questions 

you raise. 

Question 44. In response to my April 18 letter, Mr. Hughes stated that ‘‘the BLM 

and U.S. Forest Service are committed to ensuring that all laws and processes regulating mining on public lands are followed.’’ Yet, BLM made no effort in the Environmental Assessment to determine whether modern mine development in the 

Green River valley is capable of complying with all laws regulating mining and protecting the environment. 

How will you remedy this issue? 

Answer. I have not been briefed on this issue and therefore, my knowledge about 

this issue is very limited. I am advised that no decision regarding the lease application has been made. However, I am aware of its importance to you and, if I am confirmed, you have my commitment that I will thoroughly review this issue and the 

concerns you raise in your question. 

Question 45. According to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA): ‘‘The BLM 

has a statutory responsibility under NEPA to analyze and document the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting from federally authorized fluid minerals activities. By law, these impacts must be analyzed before the agency makes an irreversible commitment. In the 

fluid minerals program, this commitment occurs at the point of lease issuance.’’

As Director of BLM, will you commit to ensuring that BLM does not ignore this 

directive from the IBLA by conducting a full impacts analysis in consideration of 

all hardrock mineral leases? 

Given that the same NEPA requirements would apply, do you agree that the same 

standard of analysis should apply for hardrock mineral leasing as applies to fluid 

mineral leasing? 

If no, please explain why in detail. 

Answer. I have not been briefed on this issue and therefore, my knowledge about 

this issue is very limited. However, you have my commitment to comply fully with 

NEPA and any IBLA rulings interpreting NEPA, as applied to the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning process and leasing decisions regarding fluid minerals and leaseable solid 

minerals. 

Question 46. On May 10, 2007, the 135th birthday of the 1872 Mining Law, House 

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, introduced a comprehensive 

mining reform bill, H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007. 

I am very concerned about the environmental impacts of mining in my state. In 

Washington state, new mine proposals are under review, and the state has a legacy 

of pollution problems and safety hazards from abandoned hardrock mines. According 

to a report by the Environmental Working Group, there are 51,000 acres of existing 

mining claims on Washington’s public land which could be immediately sold for pri-
45

vate development. The 1872 Mining Law has long been interpreted as mandating 

hardrock mining as the ‘‘highest and best’’ use of public lands. I hear from my constituents that the BLM takes the position that it cannot deny mining on Federal 

lands, even if there are significant impacts on important water resources, recreation 

areas, or fish and wildlife. 

How should BLM determine the appropriate use of Federal lands when conflicts 

in environmental impacts exist, such as mining activities proposed in a municipality’s drinking water supply watershed? 

Answer. I believe the BLM should use the provisions of the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act and other applicable laws, including the land use planning process, to determine whether lands should remain open to location and mining under 

the 1872 Mining Law. I am informed that if lands are open to location under the 

Mining Law, BLM regulations are designed to minimize environmental conflicts by 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. I also have been 

told that BLM reclamation and operations regulations require proposed mining operations to comply with applicable Federal and State water quality laws (including 

the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act), and to take reasonable measures to prevent or control on-site and off-site damage from hard rock mining operations. 

When do you think conflicts between mining and other uses of the land are so 

significant that mining should be denied? 

Answer. The land use planning process is the appropriate means to determine 

whether conflicts with other uses of the public lands are so significant as to preclude 

mining and close the lands involved to the operation of the Mining Law. If lands 

remain open to mining under the Mining Law, however, then my understanding of 

current law is that where conflicts with other uses exist, mining should be denied 

when the mining operations would cause unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

public lands. 

What is BLM’s position on H.R. 2262? 

Answer. I am told that the Administration does not yet have a position. 

How will BLM work with Congress to implement needed reform to the 1872 Mining Law? 

Answer. I am well aware of the importance of this issue to Congress, the BLM, 

the states, industry, and the environmental community, and if confirmed, you have 

my commitment to work with you and stakeholders and interested parties on this 

issue. 

Question 47. As you know, the 1872 Mining Law was enacted 135 years ago with 

the intent to help settle the west. Although times and values have changed, it continues to allow for the patenting, or outright sale, of Federal public lands. A moratorium against new patents has been put in place by Congress since 1994 as part of 

the appropriations bills, but we have to come back year after year to stop the sale 

of public lands. 

Would you support a permanent solution to this dilemma by placing a statutory 

end to patenting? 

Answer: I am not familiar enough with the intricacies of the patenting system to 

comment on this issue at this time. However, I am well aware of the importance 

of mining law reform. If confirmed, I will work with you, the stakeholders, and interested parties on this issue. 

Question 48. As I’m sure you know, in her days as Secretary of the Interior, Gale 

Norton developed a new process for reviewing and recognizing right-of-way claims 

for highways on Federal lands across the West, under an 1866 Mining Act statute 

known as R.S. 2477. The new policy makes it easier for states and counties to turn 

existing two-tracks, trails, and old dirt roads on Federal lands into roads or highways. The Norton policy allows the BLM to make so-called ‘‘non-binding determinations’’ as to the validity of a highway claim. In actuality, these determinations appear to ‘‘bind’’ the agency by allowing the counties to perform road maintenance and 

perhaps to open a now-closed route to motorized vehicle use. 

As Director, would you work to clarify this discrepancy and ensure land managers 

retain their authority over maintenance decommissioning? 

As Director, when would you report back to this Committee the cost of performing 

non-binding determinations on R.S.2477 claims for the entire agency? 

Will the agency seek cost-recovery from an applicant? 

Answer. I have not had an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of the R.S. 

2477 rights-of-way issues in great detail, but if confirmed, I will work to provide 

clarification if needed. 

Question 49. The Norton policy lacks detail about notifying the public, private 

property owners, Native Americans, local and state officials about R.S. 2477 claims 
46

under review at the agency. I believe it is critical to actively engage the public in 

important land management decisions. 

Can you provide me with an assurance and more details about how you would 

engage the public and stake holders about these pending decisions? 

Answer. I have not had an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of the R.S. 

2477 rights-of-way issues in great detail, but believe strongly in public participation. 

Generally, under the Norton policy, how do you plan to work with other agencies 

like the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, 

and the Forest Service to address R.S.2477 claims that transverse agency boundaries? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that BLM coordinates with other agencies. 

As Director, will you ensure that BLM will not process a mining application if the 

Park Service or other agency objects? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that BLM coordinates with other Federal 

agencies, including the National Park Service, as required under applicable law. 

Question 50. Abandoned Mine Cleanup.—There are over a half million abandoned 

hardrock mines across the west, including thousands of mines in my state of Washington. Local communities and Native American tribes have to deal with the pollution created by these mines, but there is no dedicated Federal funding source for 

cleaning up these mines. 

What suggestions would you put forward, as Director of the BLM, to fund cleanup 

of the mining industry’s legacy of abandoned hardrock mines? 

Answer. I appreciate the magnitude and complexity of abandoned mine cleanup 

in your state and across the West. However, I have not been briefed on the status 

of this program or the available funding. If confirmed, I will become informed on 

the issue. 

What is your position on charging a royalty or rental fee for mining on public 

lands to pay for cleaning up these old sites? 

Answer. Because I have no specific background or knowledge on the issue of 

charging a royalty or rental fee as a matter of law, regulation, or policy, I believe 

it would be inappropriate for me to take a position on this without a substantive 

briefing on the matter. If confirmed, I would be pleased to involve myself in this 

issue and give it my utmost attention. 

Question 51. Regarding interagency wildland fire cooperation, specifically with the 

Appropriate Management Response, very few if any of the BLM Resource Areas permit Wildland Fire Use. Yet, this is an important tool to reduce the risks, costs, and 

impacts of fire suppression. 

Will you direct the BLM to begin authorizing Wildland Fire Use on some of its 

areas? 

Answer. I agree that Wildland Fire Use (WFU) is an important tool for fire agencies to help achieve an ecological balance on public land. I am advised that BLM 

already authorizes WFU on the public lands: land-use plans have identified about 

12 million acres of land where WFU would be the appropriate response. I understand that, to date in 2007, WFU has been the BLM’s response to wildfire on nearly 

26,000 acres. If confirmed, I would encourage further WFU when it is the appropriate response. 

How will BLM coordinate with the Forest Service when a Forest Service Wildland 

Fire Use crosses over to BLM land? 

Answer. I am advised that the BLM, in its fire planning process, consults with 

neighboring managers and landowners in an attempt to mirror their plans should 

a fire cross ownership boundaries or approach a mutual boundary. I know that fire 

does not respect agency or private land boundaries and that a coordinated, cohesive 

response is needed. 

Question 52. The anticipated impacts of climate change and invasive weed spread 

will hit BLM rangelands hard. We are observing serious wildland fire conditions 

such as an increasing number of large and severe wildfires, lengthened wildfire seasons, increased areas burned, and increasing numbers of large wildfires in fire-sensitive ecosystems. The annual number of acres burned on public lands has been increasing over the last couple of decades. Recent research suggests that these trends 

are, in part, related to shifts in climate. For example, a warming climate is contributing to longer wildland fire seasons with more extreme wildland fire events, which 

greatly increase the risk to human lives and infrastructures. Las November, the Association for Fire Ecology in the ‘‘San Diego Declaration on Climate Change and 

Fire Management’’ issued specific actions that Federal land managers can take to 

better prepare for and mitigate future impacts of climate change on wildland fire 

management. 
47

Are you familiar with the ‘‘San Diego Declaration on Climate Change and Fire 

Management’’? Will you commit to support the policy principles laid out in the Declaration? 

What is your plan to implement the recommendations in the Declaration to ensure that the Federal government is prepared to address the impacts of climate 

change on wildland fire management? 

What is your plan to mitigate the effects of climate change on BLM lands? 

Answer. I am not familiar with the ‘‘San Diego Declaration on Climate Change 

and Fire Management.’’ I do have a varied background in fire and intend to make 

it one of my focus priorities if confirmed as Director. In my present position, I cochaired the WGA panel on ‘‘Fire Costs’’ which also made recommendations to the 

Federal agencies and concluded that climate change is one of the drivers of continued severe wildfire activity. I served as a member of the Wildland Fire Leadership 

Council on behalf of WGA through May of 2006. I also serve on the Governor’s task 

force which has developed an invasive species management plan. Invasive species 

are a significant issue in some ecosystems and contribute to an increase in wildland 

fire occurrences. In addition, wildland fire can result in an increase in invasive species. If confirmed, be assured that I will fully consider the recommendations in the 

Declaration and other important issues related to BLM’s wildland fire management 

program. 

Question 53. BLM is currently withdrawing support from the Rural Fire Assistance program. In fact, the Department of Interior eliminated Rural Fire Assistance 

from the FY 2007 budget, even though applications were solicited from fire Departments. 

a. What is your plan to support volunteer firefighters with the wildfire equipment 

and training needed to support the BLM mission? 

Answer. I believe local fire departments are an integral component of the Nation’s 

wildland fire community. Their first-response capabilities are crucial to the success 

of land management agencies in protecting lives and values at risk. Their services 

also result in tremendous cost savings to taxpayers. I am advised that although the 

Rural Fire Assistance program has been phased out, the Federal firefighting agencies are planning to provide wildland fire training to these departments to enhance 

their safety, effectiveness, and capabilities in responding to and managing wildland 

fires. If confirmed, I will work with you to ensure that rural fire departments receive support to enhance their safety, effectiveness, and capabilities. 

Question 54. One result of successful collaboration between citizen groups and 

various Federal forest managers in the Pacific Northwest is a broad agreement on 

the need to avoid controversial logging projects and focus instead on thinning dense 

young forests in order to restore forests and create jobs. 

Do you agree with this priority? 

Answer. I agree that restoration of forest ecosystems that includes thinning is a 

priority and focuses on the wildland urban interface. You have my commitment to 

support policies and provide direction that will make planning adaptive, dynamic, 

and rely upon ‘‘placed based’’ ecosystem management principles and landscape-scale 

assessments, if I am confirmed as Director. 

What is your plan to work to conserve the last remaining old growth forests and 

consider shifting BLM’s efforts toward restoration? 

Answer. I am very familiar with the old growth forest issue and understand fully 

the important role old growth forests play in a properly functioning ecosystem. What 

I have yet to learn is what current direction exists in BLM resource plans regarding 

old growth management. If confirmed, I will learn about the old growth situation 

on BLM managed lands and take appropriate steps to implement proper guidelines. 

Question 55. The BLM is currently developing new management plans for several 

heavily forested districts in the Northwest that provide habitat for threatened spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and Pacific salmon. These forests were included in the 

interagency Northwest Forest Plan that requires BLM to conserve old growth forests and help provide habitat corridors between the Cascades and Coast Ranges of 

Oregon. Scientists have long said that the Northwest Forest Plan will simply not 

work unless BLM fully participates in the conservation and restoration of these forests. 

What will you do to ensure that the scientific integrity and credibility of the 

Northwest Forest Plan is not undermined? 

Answer. I am not as familiar with the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

as I moved to Idaho in 1986 prior to its development. I do understand and support 

integrated planning and the importance of conserving habitats particularly across 

broad landscapes with multiple intermingled ownership patterns. If confirmed, you 

have my commitment to become well-informed on the current planning effort under 

way in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.
48

RESPONSES OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Tribal Primacy.—The amendments to the Surface Mining Act passed 

last year provide for a long overdue change that allows tribes to apply for and receive primacy to regulate coal mining on reservation lands.

• What is the status of implementation of this provision?

Answer. Since the 2006 amendments contain some provisions that differ for 

Tribes when compared to States, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is considering rulemaking to clarify the scope and procedures for 

Tribal primacy. OSM has consulted with the Tribes on this issue and expects to 

make a decision in coordination with the Solicitor’s office on whether to pursue rulemaking in the near future.

• I know that the Navajo Nation has had a long-time interest in assuming primacy over this program. What work are you undertaking to facilitate this?

Answer. Prior to the passage of the 2006 amendments, OSM had worked with the 

Navajo Nation to develop the Tribal code and regulations needed for a regulatory 

program. Since passage of the 2006 amendments authorizing Tribal primacy, OSM 

has continued to work informally with the Nation to refine their draft program for 

presentation to the Tribal Council so that it can be finalized and submitted to the 

Secretary for consideration. 

Question 2. Mountain Top Removal.—There has been ongoing controversy regarding mountain top removal mining and the related use of valley fills. This has become a fairly widely-used technique in some areas of the eastern United States.

• What is OSM’s role in regulating this practice? 

• What is OSM doing to address concerns that have been raised?

Answer. OSM’s regulations serve as the Federal model for State rules under the 

Surface Mining Act, based on the concept of primacy. States play the primary role 

in regulating coal mining and reclamation under the provisions of the Act. The concerns about mountaintop mining have included topographic changes, post-mining 

land use issues, forest fragmentation, stability of fills and the impacts of excess spoil 

fills on streams. OSM is addressing concerns about mountaintop mining both 

through cooperative efforts with state and Federal regulators as well as through development of national regulations. Cooperative efforts with the Appalachian States 

to address concerns include the following:

—Guidance was developed on approximate original contour (AOC) to ensure the 

maximum amount of spoil is returned to the mined area. 

—Guidance was developed for allowable post-mining land uses to ensure that 

variances from AOC authorized by the Surface Mining Act are properly applied. 

—Inspection techniques for valley fill construction requirements have been developed to ensure stability of fills. 

—An initiative has been established that encourages returning mine land to 

productive hardwood forests to address forest fragmentation. Proper forest 

reclamation also reduces peak flows that contribute to flooding. 

—Work is ongoing with the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to share data and coordinate reviews required by the 

Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and SMCRA to establish coordinated permitting, make better permit decisions, and minimize environmental impacts.

OSM also has determined that two issues warrant Federal rulemaking. OSM’s 

proposed rule, which is accompanied by a draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

is now in final review. It seeks to minimize the scope and environmental impacts 

of valley fills and other activities in proximity to streams. The proposal also intends 

to eliminate confusion about the meaning of existing rules that has been highlighted 

by the controversy over mountaintop mining. If adopted, the rule should provide improved environmental protection as well as greater clarity and regulatory stability. 

Question 3. State Regulatory Funding.—Recently, several states have raised concerns that the Administration has not requested the funding needed to ensure that 

the state regulatory programs can be administered adequately.

• What steps do you plan to take to ensure that adequate funds are requested 

and allocated to the states for this important use?

Answer. The President’s FY 2007 budget included an increase of $2 million for 

state regulatory grants, an increase of 3.5%. However, as a result of the FY 2007 
49

continuing resolution, the States and Tribes did not receive an increase in funding. 

In the President’s FY 2008 budget request to Congress, a $4.2 million increase was 

requested over the FY 2007 continuing resolution in regulatory program grants, 

which amounts to a 7.5% increase. If confirmed, I will continue to promote adequate 

funding for the States and Tribes. 

Question 4. What is the time frame for the rulemaking to implement amendments 

to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act contained in the Tax Relief and 

Health Care Act of 2006? 

Answer. By September 30, 2007, OSM plans to promulgate an interim final rule 

to implement those provisions that must be in effect before FY 2008 distributions 

to States and Tribes can occur. At the same time, OSM intends to issue a proposed 

rule that will include an opportunity to comment on both the interim final rule and 

additional provisions contained in the proposed rule. OSM anticipates promulgating 

a final rule addressing the comments received by the beginning of FY 2009. If confirmed, I will work with OSM to meet these commitments. 

Question 5. There are additional rulemakings pending before OSM. Please provide 

us with an update on the status and timelines for:

• the procedural rules on ownership and control that underlie the Applicant/Violator System; 

• the stream buffer zone proposed rule and accompanying draft EIS; 

• the anticipated rulemaking on mine placement of coal combustion by-products.

Answer. The final ownership and control rulemaking is anticipated to be published before the end of calendar year 2007. The proposed excess spoil minimization/

stream buffer zone rule and draft EIS are in final review, and publication is expected in the near future. OSM published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

related to mine placement of coal combustion by-products in March 2007 and is currently reviewing the comments received. OSM anticipates publication of a proposed 

rule before the end of calendar year 2007. 

RESPONSE OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 6. Mr. Wahlquist, the most destructive form of surface mining at present 

is mountaintop removal mining. An Environmental Impact Statement from the EPA 

in 2003 estimated that up to 1.3 million acres of land—mountain ridges, forests and 

waterways—could be destroyed by mountaintop mining by the end of the next decade, approximately the size of the State of Delaware. During your OSM career to 

date, you’ve advocated a hands-off policy on Federal regulation of mountaintop removal. You rejected a plea last year from Tennessee’s governor when he asked OSM 

to develop an Environmental Impact Statement on the destruction caused by mountaintop removal in his state. In the 1990’s, you wrote one policy memo that ended 

West Virginia’s ‘‘50-foot rule’’ on restoring the contours of mountains after mountaintop removal, and you wrote another essentially throwing the reclamation issue 

back at the state governments. Are there any new restrictions on mountaintop removal or any new environmental safeguards on surface mining which you would 

agree for OSM to enact should you be confirmed as director? Or are do you believe 

the status quo is acceptable? 

Answer. I do believe that additional changes are needed. I have concerns about 

mountaintop mining that include topographic changes, post-mining land use issues, 

forest fragmentation, stability of fills and the impacts of excess spoil fills on 

streams. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) has addressed some of these concerns through cooperative efforts with state and Federal 

regulators. Cooperative efforts with the Appalachian States to address concerns include the following:

• Guidance was developed on approximate original contour (AOC) to ensure the 

maximum amount of spoil is returned to the mined area. 

• Guidance was developed for allowable post-mining land uses to ensure that 

variances from AOC authorized by the Surface Mining Act are properly applied. 

• Inspection techniques for valley fill construction requirements have been developed to ensure stability of fills. 

• An initiative has been established that encourages returning mine land to productive hardwood forests to address forest fragmentation. Proper forest reclamation also reduces peak flows that contribute to flooding. 

• Work is ongoing with the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to share data and coordinate reviews required by the Clean 

Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and SMCRA to establish coordinated 

permitting, make better permit decisions, and minimize environmental impacts.
50

I believe that OSM needs to strengthen requirements for excess spoil disposal, 

which is primarily related to mountaintop mining, and for coal refuse disposal, 

which is related to both surface and underground mining, particularly as these activities contribute to stream loss. 

OSM has prepared a proposed rule that is in the final stages of review and is supported by a draft Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed rule seeks to minimize the scope and environmental impacts of valley fills and other activities in 

proximity to streams. The proposal also intends to eliminate confusion about the 

meaning of existing rules that has been highlighted by the controversy over mountaintop mining. If adopted, the rule should provide improved environmental protection as well as greater clarity and regulatory stability. If confirmed, I look forward 

to working with you on this very important issue. 

RESPONSE OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 7. As our country seeks to produce more of its energy domestically, and 

knowing that coal is our country’s most abundant fossil energy resource, please describe the greatest challenges you see facing the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in the coming years. 

Answer. In accordance with State primacy provisions in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) directly regulates less than 3% of the Nation’s coal mining. Therefore, one of OSMRE’s greatest challenges will be to make sure States and Tribes 

have the tools and resources they need to be able to timely issue permits and maintain quality regulatory programs that protect people, land, and water in the face of 

substantial staff turnover through retirements, at OSMRE and the States and 

Tribes. 

Thus, OSMRE will need to provide adequate regulatory funding, a stable regulatory framework that will accommodate technological advances, technical training, 

consistent oversight, and the technical tools needed to promote and maintain high 

quality regulatory programs. If confirmed as Director, I will certainly work toward 

that end. 

Question 8. Can you explain how OSMRE selects mine reclamation projects to be 

cleaned up under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, and how many projects 

were cleaned up last year? 

Answer. The Abandoned Mine Land Program is implemented through States and 

Tribes who conduct reclamation in accordance with a reclamation plan approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior. Projects are selected by the States and Tribes consistent with their reclamation plans. OSMRE conducts high priority reclamation in 

States that do not have an approved plan. Of the 299 sites completed in FY 2006, 

only 15 were conducted by OSMRE. 

RESPONSES OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 9. Congress directed last year that states with small abandoned mine 

programs should receive a minimum grant of $3 million annually, with no phasein period for that minimum amount. Will you comply with this directive if confirmed? 

Answer. The language of section 402(g)(8)(A) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act authorizes a minimum grant of $3 million to states with an approved abandoned mine reclamation program. However, Section 401(f), which actually provides for the distribution of Section 402(g)(8)(A) funds, contains a phase in 

provision. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) has 

been working with the Solicitor’s Office to make sure the Act is appropriately implemented concerning this issue. If confirmed, I will work with the Solicitor’s Office on 

moving forward to implement the amendments. 

RESPONSES OF BRENT T. WAHLQUIST TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 10. Do you share my view that the newly amended Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) mandates payments to certified states 

as it relates to both past and future revenues? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 11. Do you believe the certified states’ distributions are to be considered 

payments or grants? 

Answer. In discussions with the Office of the Solicitor, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is analyzing whether the use of the term 

‘‘payment’’ in Section 411(h) contained in the 2006 amendments to the Surface Min-
51

ing Control and Reclamation Act mandates or authorizes a distribution mechanism 

other than grants. 

Question 12. I am committed to making sure that Wyoming and every other state 

and Indian tribe receive their Abandoned Mine Land funds, both past and future. 

Can I count on your support to make this happen and what steps will you take to 

help in this effort? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that all States and Tribes receive the 

funding in compliance with Title IV of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA. I will consult with the Solicitor’s Office in this effort. 

Question 13. During your testimony today, you mentioned on several occasions 

that you will be relying on the solicitor to provide guidance on how funds under 

SMCRA will be distributed to certified states. When do you anticipate you will receive that guidance and will you or your office provide that information to me? 

Answer. The Solicitor’s Office is diligently working with OSM to provide the necessary guidance in time for OSM to publish an interim final and a proposed rule 

by the end of the fiscal year. If confirmed, I will promptly notify you of the decisions. 

Question 14. What role, if any, does the Office of Management and Budget have 

in the rule making process you have undertaken to implement the provisions of the 

December 2006 amendments to SMCRA? 

Answer. Over the last few months, OSM has been working with OMB regarding 

this particular rulemaking. 

Question 15. Has OMB stated their position to your office on how distribution of 

certified state and Indian tribe funds should be treated (payments versus grants)? 

Answer. OSM has discussed this issue with OMB; however, OMB has not stated 

a position. 

Question 16. Have you or the Office of Surface Mining evaluated alternatives to 

the Federal grant process for the distribution and payment of funds as called for 

in the Amendments? 

Answer. OSM, in coordination with the Office of the Solicitor, currently is evaluating the different mechanisms for distributing the AML and Treasury funds under 

the 2006 amendments. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

BINGAMAN

Question 1. Technology Commercialization Fund.—Section 1001(e) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretary of Energy to place 0.9 percent of the amount 

made available to the Department of Energy for applied energy research, development, demonstration, and commercialization application each fiscal year into a 

Technology Commercialization Fund, to be used to provide matching funds to promote promising energy technologies for commercial purposes. If confirmed, will you 

ensure that the Technology Commercialization Fund is implemented? 

Answer. I was glad to see that last month the Secretary of Energy took the important step of appointing a Technology Transfer Coordinator (Ray Orbach, Under Secretary for Science), as well as a Technology Transfer Policy Board. If confirmed I 

would look forward to working closely with Under Secretary Orbach in this important endeavor. I do not know the current status of DOE’s implementation of the 

Technology Commercialization Fund, but I would look forward to hearing the recommendations of others in the Department with respect to the Technology Commercialization Fund. 

Question 2. FutureGen.—The cost of the FutureGen has reportedly doubled. How 

do you plan to contain the cost of this program? Can you provide the Committee 

an estimate of total costs to completion for the record? 

Answer. I understand that the Department recently announced a significant cost 

escalation in this important program which is the result of a number of factors. I 

am strongly committed to the construction of the FutureGen facility and would 

make advancement of this project as well as proper management of the project a 

high priority. The Department and the FutureGen Alliance must work together and 

consider options for containing costs. 

Question 3. Technology Readiness Levels.—If confirmed, would you support the 

inclusion of technology readiness levels, such as those used by the Department of 

Defense and NASA, in DOE’s Order 413, ‘‘Program and Project Management for the 

Acquisition of Capital Assets’’? 

Answer. I would be pleased to review the practices of NASA and the Defense Department, if confirmed, and to consult with DOE’s Office of Management and project 

management officials regarding whether these practices could or should be applied 

at DOE. 
52

Question 4. Integrating Basic and Applied Science—If confirmed, how will you 

make the best use of frontier science conducted by the Office of Science to accelerate 

applied energy R&D? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with Ray Orbach, 

DOE’s Under Secretary for Science, to identify ways to integrate the work of the 

basic science research activities of the Department with those of the applied science 

programs through cooperation between the various programs. Close coordination 

and communication between these program offices can lead to greater integration 

of basic and applied science activities. 

Question 5. Portfolio Budgeting.—If confirmed, will you support an integrated 

portfolio budget approach to integrating programs between the applied energy research programs which you will be responsible for and frontier science program with 

the Office of Science? 

Answer. I would need to study such a proposal further, and consult with the Office of Science, the Department’s Chief Financial Officer and others before determining whether an integrated budget approach would be advisable. 

Question 6. Nuclear Waste Management.—What is your view of the status of the 

nuclear waste program? Is the Yucca Mountain program in trouble? What is your 

opinion on the need for DOE to provide interim storage services to commercial nuclear power plants? 

Answer. I am a proponent of the Yucca Mountain program and believe that our 

country must address the issue of nuclear waste disposal. While the schedule for 

construction of the repository has been delayed, I understand that the Department 

is expected to file a License Application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

by June of 2008, and this will be a major step forward for the program. I do not 

currently have a view about whether there is a need for DOE to provide interim 

storage services, but I look forward to learning more about this issue. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 7. A Balanced Energy Portfolio.—As discussed during the hearing and 

during our meeting, as Under Secretary of Energy, you will be responsible for managing the Department’s energy technology portfolio—energy efficiency, renewable 

energy, fossil energy, nuclear energy, etc. In the Administration’s current budget request—for the second year in a row—no funds were requested for geothermal energy. No funds were requested for wave energy, tidal energy, or new hydroelectric 

turbine technologies. Last January, the President called for replacing 20% of our 

gasoline with alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles. But funding for biofuels 

in the Renewable Energy budget, which is critical to achieving the President’s goal 

of reducing our need for gasoline by increasing the production of biofuels and developing new vehicle technologies, increased by less than $30 million. Research into 

new vehicle technologies increased by less than $10 million. On the other hand, 

funding for nuclear energy development increased by $120 million to $568 million. 

If you are confirmed, what are you going to do to ensure that there is more balance 

in Department’s energy technology portfolio? What actions will you take to reassess 

the Department’s decision to terminate funding for geothermal and hydroelectric 

and ocean energy technologies? 

Answer. I understand your strong interest in pursuing a balanced energy portfolio, as we discussed in our meeting prior to my confirmation hearing as well as 

in the hearing itself. As you requested, I have obtained a copy of the recent MIT 

study on geothermal technology and, while I am still studying it, I believe it raises 

some very interesting points about this technology which are worthy of further discussion and review. I do believe that to address our Nation’s energy needs we must 

pursue a wide variety of new energy supplies. If confirmed I would look forward to 

discussing the funding priorities for various programs with other Administration officials. 

Question 8. Industrial Efficiency.—According to EIA, about one third of total U.S. 

energy consumption is consumed by the industrial sector. These U.S. companies, as 

we all know, must now compete in the global economy and for many industries—

such as the pulp and paper industry in my state—energy costs are major factor in 

their ability to compete. DOE’s budget request cut funding for every single industryspecific energy efficiency program. Funding for the forest and paper products industry would be cut to $1.7 million. DOE proposed to cut funding for the aluminum 

industry to $1.7 million. The Senate just adopted, as part of the Energy Bill, a provision that would require DOE to enter into cooperative agreements with energy intensive industries to help them save energy and compete in the world market. Similarly, the Senate Energy & Water Appropriations bill for FY 2008 also directs the 

Department to fund these industry-specific programs. If you are confirmed, what 
53

will you do to ensure that the Department does not continue to short change industrial efficiency? And what assurance can you give me that if the Senate authorization and appropriations provisions become law, you will fully implement the industrial efficiency partnership program? 

Answer. To answer the second part of your question, I am a firm believer in implementing the laws as passed by Congress, and if confirmed you can be assured 

that I will carry that message into the Department. With respect to the specific programs you mentioned, I would need to learn more about why the Department chose 

its proposed spending levels for the each specific program. In general, I believe the 

Department has placed a strong emphasis on promoting energy efficiency and I support that. 

Question 9. Strategic Petroleum Reserve—Expansion.—If you are confirmed, you 

will be responsible for fossil energy programs, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Administration has proposed to increase the size to 1.5 billion barrels. 

EIA says that thanks to OPEC oil prices are going to be between $50 and $60 a 

barrel. At $55 a barrel (which is far less than it is today), the price of another 800 

million barrels of oil is $44 billion. At today’s prices of almost $73 a barrel, that’s 

almost $59 billion, just for the oil. DOE estimates the cost of building the additional 

storage capacity to reach 1.5 billion barrel capacity will cost around $10 billion. So 

that’s between $54 billion to $69 billion of taxpayers’ money which will not actually 

reduce our dependence on oil, but will simply put crude oil back in the ground at 

a time when the market indicates there is a world shortage of oil. We can improve 

our energy security by reducing our dependence on oil by increasing our investments in efficiency and new fuels, or we can literally spend billions of dollars removing crude oil from the market and putting it back in the ground. Why does that 

make sense and will you, if confirmed, reexamine the Administration’s plans for expanding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? 

Answer. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established to protect our nation 

from major disruptions in oil supply resulting from catastrophic natural disasters 

or international developments out of our control. Over the years the period of time 

which the volume of oil in the Reserve could replace (or at least compensate for) 

the loss of supply has decreased because our demand has increased. The expansion 

proposal would strengthen our protection against major disruption supplies and enhance our national security. The proposal to expand the Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels would take place over many years. I do however understand and appreciate 

your concern about Federal purchases of oil at a time when prices are high, and 

if confirmed I will examine how to accomplish this goal in an economically sensible 

manner. Question 10. Hanford Clean-up—Schedule and Management.—Over some 45 

years, Hanford produced some 74 tons of plutonium, first to make nuclear weapons 

and later as part of its continued operation of the N-Reactor despite the fact that 

it was no longer needed. The results are well known to all. Some 1,600 identified 

waste sites. Some 53 million gallons of high-level waste stored in 177 underground 

storage tanks. Sixty-seven of those 177 tanks are suspected to have leaked that 

waste into the soil. The list goes on. 

We are now coming up on the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Tri-Party 

Agreement between DOE, the State of Washington, and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency that was supposed to set specific, enforceable milestones for the 

clean-up. DOE has now been trying to clean up the nuclear waste and environmental contamination for half as long as the site was actually in operation—more 

than 20 years—with no end in sight. In fact, we are going backwards. 

The high-level waste vitrification plant was supposed to be completed and in operation by 2011 according to the Tri-Party Agreement. It is now being delayed another 

eight years and it won’t be completed until 2019. And at a cost that has more than 

doubled—from $5.8 billion estimated in 2003 to this year’s estimate of $12.3 billion. 

And, DOE’s plan still leaves no solution for more than half of the so-called low-activity waste that is supposed to be removed from the tanks which also requires vitrification and disposal. There’s still no real plan for dealing with the contamination 

that has leaked out of the tanks. And just this year, DOE was fined $1 million by 

EPA for failing to properly manage even the low-level waste burial sites. 

If you are confirmed, what will you do to fix the management problems at Hanford an get the clean-up program back on track? 

Answer. Cleaning up the waste left over from the Nation’s Cold War nuclear 

weapons production is one of the most critical responsibilities of the Department of 

Energy. If confirmed, this mission would be one of my highest priorities. I would 

look forward to working closely with the Office of Environmental Management to 

improve the management of the cleanup program. I understand that there have 

been significant cost increases and delays in the cleanup effort at Hanford and I be-
54

lieve it must be a top priority for the Department to get these costs under control 

and move on with the cleanup. If confirmed, I would look forward to traveling to 

Hanford to meet with officials and learn more about what we can do to address 

these problems. I would look forward to partnering with you in this effort. 

Question 11. Hanford Clean-up—GNEP.—DOE has not fulfilled its obligation to 

clean-up Hanford. It’s not clear when it will. But now, DOE is proposing to bring 

more waste to Hanford—this time in the form of spent nuclear fuel from commercial 

nuclear power plants, as part of its GNEP program. The DOE proposal also calls 

for building more reprocessing facilities to separate plutonium and uranium from 

this fuel and generate more high-level waste, more transuranic waste, and more 

low-level waste. And more radioactively contaminated buildings that will need to be 

decommissioned. 

Hanford does not need more nuclear waste. It needs less. If you are confirmed as 

Under Secretary, what assurance can you give me that DOE will not be bringing 

more spent fuel and nuclear waste to Hanford and that we will see the wastes that 

are there cleaned up? 

Answer. As discussed above, I believe one of the highest priorities of DOE must 

be the cleanup of the nuclear waste left over from Cold War nuclear weapons production, and I would make the cleanup at Hanford a top priority during my tenure 

at DOE, should I be confirmed by the Senate. As for the proposals to take waste 

to Hanford described in your question, I do not know the specifics of any such plans. 

I would need to study this further and ask questions of DOE officials about those 

plans. I look forward to hearing your input on how DOE could more effectively manage its cleanup efforts at Hanford, and throughout the country. 

Question 12. Reliant Energy—Market Abuses.—You represented Reliant Energy 

from 1997 to 2004. During this time, Reliant—a Houston-based energy company—

contributed directly to the California/Western energy crisis in 2000 and 2001. Federal regulators ultimately entered into five different settlements related to Reliant’s 

conduct. In January 2003, FERC approved a settlement with Reliant for withholding power in the California market obligating Reliant to pay $13.8 million. In 

October 2003, FERC entered into a second settlement with Reliant, this one for $50 

million to settle claims for market manipulation. In November 2003, the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission issued an $18 million civil penalty against Reliant for 

false reporting and attempted manipulation of natural gas prices as well as engaging in was sales and false reporting of electricity prices. In March, 2004, FERC entered into yet another settlement with Reliant for $860,000 for gaming—using a 

gaming practice known as ‘‘Double Selling.’’ And then in December 2005, FERC entered into yet another settlement with Reliant, this one for refunds to California 

customers for $460 million. My question for you is simple—what do you know about 

Reliant’s marketing and trading practices during the Western energy crisis, and 

when did you know it? What action, if any, did you take to halt or to advise against 

such abuses by Reliant? 

Answer. I was the head Reliant legislative lobbyist in Washington, D.C. I was not 

in a policy making position in the company, nor did I function in an operational capacity. I had no knowledge that some of Reliant’s employees were engaged in unlawful practices until near or about the time that the public learned of it. 

Once there were accusations from various fronts that Reliant’s practices in California were questionable, I approached the CEO and several other senior officials 

in the company and asked directly if they had ‘‘done anything wrong.’’ I was assured 

that they had not. 

I urged that when dealing with allegations of wrongdoing, it is always the best 

for government relations for the company to investigate accusations of wrongdoing 

thoroughly, find out the truth, correct anything that could be corrected and let the 

public know that the right thing is being done. Basically, I believe that transparency 

is a good thing. I urged that such a course be followed. 

Question 13. Reliant Energy—Lobbying Positions and Views.—According to 

Reliant’s lobby disclosure forms you lobbied on a range of energy issues. For example in 2004 you lobbied on the S. 509, the Energy Market Oversight Act introduced 

by Sen. Feinstein with 8 co-sponsors including myself to give FERC more authority 

to conduct investigations and increase penalties for violations of the Federal Power 

Act and the Natural Gas Act. And you also lobbied on Sen. Cantwell’s bill S. 681, 

the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act. And you lobbied on Congressman Dingell’s bill, the Energy Markets Fraud Prevention and Consumer Protection 

Act. Just to name a few of the legislative proposals that were aimed at addressing 

the abuses that companies like Reliant and Enron perpetrated in the energy markets. What position did you personally take with regard to these reforms, and what 

position did you advocate on behalf of Reliant with regard to these reforms? What 
55

is your view on what reforms are needed to ensure that energy markets are not subject to the abuses that occurred in the 2000-2001 timeframe? 

Answer. As a lobbyist for Reliant I tried not to take personal positions, but rather 

to represent the company’s position as best I could. The company opposed the matters you reference in your question and, accordingly, I lobbied against them. 

Regarding reforms needed, I believe that the EPACT 2005 statute contains a Market Manipulation provision that is aimed at just the type of behavior referenced in 

your question. Also, the imposition of both criminal and civil sanctions against those 

engaged in inappropriate activity would suggest that there were measures in place 

during the 2000-2001 time-frame that provided government authorities with the 

ability to levy sanctions against the behavior in question. 

Question 14. Reliant Energy—Failure to File Lobby Report Forms.—You appear 

to have been the senior official in Reliant’s Washington DC office between 1997 and 

2004. (According to your resume, you were Vice President for Federal Relations during that period.) During your tenure at Reliant, in the 2002-2004 timeframe, Reliant 

failed to file lobby disclosure forms as required by law. Specifically, Reliant did not 

file its 2002 end of year report on time. In fact, it was not filed until April 2004. 

And the 2003 end-of-year report was not filed in February 2004 as required, but also 

not filed until April, 2004. When the forms were finally filed, they were filed by a 

Federal relations manager who apparently reported to you—Holly Lass. As a senior 

corporate official for Federal relations, what responsibility did you have for ensuring 

these reports were filed? Who was responsible for filing these reports and why 

weren’t they filed as required? 

Answer. The responsibility for filing the Lobbying Report Forms rested in Houston for the time that I was with Reliant. Apparently that was clear with both the 

House and the Senate as correspondence concerning the filings was directed to 

Houston. 

At some point after August 26, 2002, the individual, who worked outside my operation and who was responsible for filing the reports, left the company in a reorganization. It appears that the responsibility for filing the reports was not reassigned. 

As best I can tell at this point, at least two notices were sent to Houston regarding 

the ‘‘timeliness’’ of the several filings in question. It is unclear to me what action 

was taken in Houston regarding these notices. It does appear that Ms. Lass, who 

did work for me, forwarded several of the reports in early 2004. I do not know why 

she forwarded or filed the reports in question. To the best of my recollection she 

neither had the responsibility nor the authority to file the documents. I understand 

that entities charged with accepting the filings consider that the requirements applicable to making these filings were fully complied with by early April of 2004. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR SALAZAR

Question 15. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.—The National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, is the Department of Energy’s premier national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and 

development. I want to stress my desire to see that the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory continues to be a high priority for the Department of Energy. I am very 

proud of this laboratory and know it holds great promise for our country. We were 

successful this year in securing $100 million in funding for much needed facilities 

and infrastructure support that is critical to NREL being able to carry out its mission. Unfortunately, the President’s budget request for NREL in FY 08 was $181.5 

million which was a 3% decrease from the FY 07 budget. We are at a critical juncture in our efforts to develop a sustainable plan to achieve energy independence in 

the 21st Century. If we are going to be leading our nation to achieve greater energy 

independence and security, we must substantially increase our investment in our 

Nation’s premier renewable energy laboratory. 

Do you agree with my assessment that we must substantially increase our investment in renewable energy and clean energy technologies to reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil? I would like your commitment to work to fully fund NREL each budget year, and support the important work it does. 

Answer. I do agree that providing substantial investments in clean energy technologies is a critical element of the effort to reduce America’s dependence on foreign 

oil. I am aware of the important role that NREL plays in this effort, as we discussed 

at my confirmation hearing. If confirmed, I would look forward to visiting NREL as 

soon as possible and learning more about the specific research underway at this important national laboratory. You have my commitment to work to do my best to provide appropriate funds for NREL within the broader context of the DOE and Administration budget. 
56

Question 16. Carbon Sequestration.—The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships fall under the purview of the Under Secretary of Energy. Carbon sequestration is a proven technology that has been around for a long time, and one of the 

most promising areas for addressing global warming while allowing our country to 

continue to use our vast coal reserves. In the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 that passed the Senate on June 21, 2007, 

Title 3 of the bill includes a carbon capture and storage research, development and 

demonstration program that seeks to speed the development of large-scale carbon 

capture and storage. 

In April, this committee heard testimony from Tom Shope, the Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Fossil Energy and George Guthrie, Program Director for Fossil Energy 

and the Environment, Los Alamos National Laboratory that indicated commercialscale deployment of carbon sequestration wouldn’t happen until 2045. I raised concerns in that hearing about the timing of large-scale commercial carbon sequestration deployment given that it is a proven technology, and the importance of addressing the global warming. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure the Department of Energy places a high priority on ensuring the carbon sequestration program 

moves ahead with more timely deployment of commercial-scale carbon sequestration 

projects? 

Answer. I am a strong supporter of carbon sequestration research and development and believe that these efforts will be critically important to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I am impressed with the emphasis that DOE is placing on this 

effort through its Carbon Sequestration Program and its Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. If confirmed I anticipate that I will be an active advocate for 

these research and development efforts, including efficient deployment of demonstration projects. I look forward to partnering with you and other members of 

Congress in this effort. 

Question 17. Oil Shale.—Colorado experienced significant social and economic turmoil due to the rapid boom and bust cycle of oil shale development in the 1980’s. 

As DOE considers the various oil shale proposals, it is absolutely necessary for DOE 

and other Federal agencies to work closely with Colorado’s Department of Natural 

Resources and representatives of local governments, as well as the environmental 

community, on any plans to develop oil shale. How will you do that? 

Answer. DOE activities related to development of oil shale resources are carried 

out under the Fossil Energy program. In overseeing that program, if confirmed, I 

would certainly emphasize the importance of cooperating with state and local governments in Colorado and elsewhere. Throughout my career in government I have 

made it a top priority to consult with other affected units of government in developing national policies, and I have always sought to develop consensus policies. 

Question 18. Electricity Transmission.—Reducing electrical transmission losses 

over long distances would mean an increase in energy efficiency, and could result 

in significant energy savings. Could you comment on how combining renewable energy sources with a distributed generation system would positively benefit rural 

areas? 

Answer. Renewable sources of energy, wind and solar power in particular, constitute a small percentage of this Nation’s electric generation mix. They are, however, the most rapidly growing segment of that mix and for good reason: they 

produce electricity with no emissions. 

Incorporating a variety of different generating technologies into the Nation’s grids 

enhances electric system resiliency and reliability. The Department engages in a 

broad range or research and development and demonstration for this reason. In addition, DOE invests in the pursuit of greater efficiency in generation sources and 

transmission and distribution, and assists the States in the design and implementation of demand response programs; all of which seek to decrease the level of demand 

placed upon our electric grid. 

Question 19. Legacy Management.—There are 18 legacy management sites in Colorado, and I am proud that the Office of Legacy Management has a legacy management and an environmental management office in Grand Junction, Colorado. Over 

the last several years, the Department of Energy has made decisions not to backfill 

positions in Grand Junction when they have been vacated, and has in some cases, 

moved functions to other offices across the country. Given the large number of legacy management sites in Colorado, it makes sense to keep these positions in Colorado. If appointed, can you commit to reexamine the staffing needs of the functions 

being performed in Grand Junction with the goal of retaining these important functions close to the legacy management sites? 

Answer. You make a compelling case for retaining legacy management activities 

within the greatest areas of legacy management sites, such as Colorado. Should I 

be confirmed, I would be willing to reexamine the staffing needs in Grand Junction. 
57

Of course, I would seek the advice and counsel of that site as well as that of the 

Office of Legacy Management leadership at DOE. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 20. Mr. Albright, if you are confirmed, you will be in a unique position 

to ensure implementation of many of the provisions of that legislation (EPACT 

2005). Some of that is well underway at DOE, but much remains to be done. 

In addition to the Title XVII implementation that we discussed at your hearing, 

what provisions of that Act do you feel should be priorities for implementation at 

this point? 

Answer. Let me say that one of my highest priorities should I be confirmed will 

be implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, legislation in which I am proud 

to have played a role as staff in crafting along with you, Senator Bingaman, and 

Congressmen Barton and Dingell. I believe that we must move ahead expeditiously 

in implementing as much of EPACT as possible. As we discussed at my confirmation 

hearing, implementing the loan guarantee provisions of EPACT will be high on my 

agenda. If confirmed I would make it one of my first orders of business to conduct 

a thorough review of DOE’s implementation of the Act to identify those areas where 

the Department is behind schedule and has the resources available to move forward. 

If confirmed, I expect to provide strong leadership in implementing EPACT 2005. 

Question 21. National Electric Transmission Corridors.—In an effort to alleviate 

transmission congestion, strengthen the grid’s reliability, and counter NIMBY opposition to siting power lines, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed DOE to study 

the Nation’s congestion areas and then designate National Corridors. EPAct also 

provided FERC with backstop siting authority for any proposed transmission line 

that falls within a National Corridor. 

Recently, DOE issue two draft National Corridor designations in accordance with 

EPAct—one in the Mid-Atlantic Area and the other in the Southwest. 

It is my understanding that final National Corridor designations will not be made 

until the public comment period is completed. How is DOE handling public outreach 

efforts? How is DOE interacting with the states on these designations? When do you 

anticipate final designations? 

Answer. As I am not currently working inside the Department, I do not know 

whether or when DOE will issue final Corridor designations. I am aware, however, 

that the Department has had a period of public comment (which has recently 

closed), has conducted several public meetings to receive input, and has otherwise 

sought to solicit input on the proposed designations. DOE seems to have made a 

strong effort to solicit input from the public. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SANDERS

Question 22. You served as the Washington Representative for Reliant Energy 

during the time of the California energy crisis of 2000. Although Enron was held 

up as the major bad actor in this artificial crisis, Reliant was similarly accused and 

subsequently paid California $13.8 million to settle the allegation of market manipulation. What role, if any, did you play in advising Reliant regarding the issues of 

market manipulation prior to and during the California 2000 energy crisis and what 

was your position, if any, on this issue during that time period? 

Answer. I was the head Reliant legislative lobbyist in Washington, D.C. I was not 

in a policy making position in the company, nor did I function in an operational capacity. I had no knowledge that some of Reliant’s employees were engaged in unlawful practices until near or about the time that the public learned of it. 

Once there were accusations from various fronts that Reliant’s practices in California were questionable, I approached the CEO and several other senior officials 

in the company and asked directly if they had ‘‘done anything wrong.’’ I was assured 

that they had not. 

I urged that when dealing with allegations of wrongdoing, it is always the best 

for government relations for the company to investigate accusations of wrongdoing 

thoroughly, find out the truth, correct anything that could be corrected and let the 

public know that the right thing is being done. Basically, I believe that transparency 

is a good thing. I urged that such a course be followed. 

Question 23. Weatherization, energy efficiency and renewable energies are key 

issues which for too long have not enjoyed the sort of emphasis at the Department 

as coal and nuclear have. This is true in spite of the evidence presented by the scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their several reports about the growing certainty that carbon emissions threaten our world. What 

do you intend, to do, if confirmed, to rectify this imbalance at the Department? 
58

Answer. I understand your strong interest in pursuing a balanced energy portfolio. I believe that to address our Nation’s energy needs we must pursue a wide 

variety of new energy supplies. If confirmed I would look forward to discussing the 

funding priorities for various programs with other Administration officials, members 

of Congress, and the private sector. I would certainly appreciate having the input 

and assessments of energy issues from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change as we work to promote a balanced energy portfolio. 

RESPONSES OF CLARENCE H. ALBRIGHT, JR., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR

CANTWELL

Question 24. PNNL Use Permit.—In February of 2006, the Department of Energy 

announced it would compete the contract for management and operation of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Since that time there has been no visible progress on the RFP process, not even a draft proposal released for public comment. Of particular concern is the still unresolved matter of PNNL’s ‘‘Use Permit.’’ 

I understand the Use Permit concept is unique among Department of Energy laboratories, yet it has been a part of the contractual arrangement between the Federal 

government and the operator of PNNL since its inception in 1964. The Use Permit 

is based on existing statutory authority of the Department and has created substantial synergism among the staff performing research for various sponsors, including 

the Federal government, state governments, industrial research organizations, and 

international organizations. The Use Permit creates innovation, economic development, jobs, and fosters energy technology research and development. In addition, 

there does not appear to be any legal or practical reason why the Department would 

preclude the continuation of the Use Permit as part of any RFP. Will you commit 

to supporting the inclusion of PNNL’s Use Permit in the RFP process? 

Answer. I believe PNNL is within the responsibility of the Under Secretary for 

Science and so if confirmed as Under Secretary of Energy, I believe I would not be 

making any final decisions concerning the use permit at PNNL. Nonetheless, I understand your interest in the preservation of the Use Permit provision at PNNL. 

While I have not had the opportunity to study this issue in detail, if confirmed I 

would certainly be willing to listen to the views of those at the PNNL site, the contractor involved, and DOE’s program management and procurement officials. If confirmed, and if I am involved in considering this issue, I would certainly keep in 

mind the strong views that you have expressed. 

Question 25. Electricity Grid.—I am concerned that our Nation’s electricity grid 

is based on outmoded technology that makes it less reliable and requires greater 

generation resources than it should. I have been working with a broad group of 

stakeholders to develop comprehensive legislation that will streamline and create 

greater efficiencies to our electricity grid. What is your plan to support robust energy technology research and development at the Department of Energy? 

Answer. If confirmed to the position of Under Secretary, one of the offices I will 

oversee is the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Working with 

this office we will aggressively pursue the President’s plans for improving and upgrading the Nation’s transmission system and I will work to see that we provide 

the resources necessary to support that effort. As you may know, President Bush 

has nominated a new Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, which demonstrates his commitment to placing greater emphasis on modernizing and upgrading the electricity grid. If confirmed, I expect to play a major role 

in this effort. 
(59)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATE OF ARIZONA, 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

Phoenix, AZ, July 11, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: I am writing you to offer my support of the nomination 

of James L. Caswell for the position of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

The State of Arizona has worked with Mr. Caswell over the past several years 

on forest health and wildfire issues. In his capacity as a member of the subcommittee of the Western Governors’ Association, Mr. Caswell has provided great 

leadership on a number of contentious issues that are so important to our Western 

states. 

Mr. Caswell has a strong track record of being able to work across party lines 

and with diverse groups and organizations. 

The Bureau of Land Management faces many challenges and I believe Mr. 

Caswell will be a great asset as Director, and I ask for your prompt action to confirm him. 

Yours very truly, 

JANET NAPOLITANO, 

Governor. 

STATE OF IDAHO

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ketchum, ID, June 10, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: I am delighted to support the appointment of James 

L. Caswell to the position of Director, United States Bureau of Land Management. 

I have known Mr. Caswell since 2000 when he was appointed to the position of 

Administrator, Office of Species Conservation, Boise—The position was housed in 

the office of the Governor to deal with natural resource issues in the state. Initially 

I believed that the work on species conservation could be performed in the Fish and 

Game Department, but I began to see that the issues transcended one state agency 

and an independent agency with political appointees might not be the way to get 

the job done. 

Mr. Caswell came to the position from the position of Forest Supervisor, Clearwater National Forest in northern Idaho. This was a contentious position that he 

left with the approval as well as regret from all stakeholders in the region. 

What I have learned to appreciate from Mr. Caswell is his fairness. When he presents an issue to legislators, he provides all sides, fairly. He recognizes the minefields that a situation can present to us in our districts, he identifies the options. 

He has the knack to lift us up, above our constituents, to realize what will be good 

state public policy. He doesn’t threaten or cajole. He calmly accepts the response 

from the legislator and moves on. I remember visiting with him over a salmon issue 

in the National Recreation Area. He helped me understand where we could and 

could not go for the constituent. On road less issues, on Craig-Wyden problems for 

our communities, he has been there to help. 

I know that Jim is eminently qualified to assume this position. He is a good leader and is able to attract very good people to work for him. He will be a credit to 
60

our state and to our country should you appoint him to this position. I respectfully 

ask for your approval. 

Sincerely, 

WENDY JAQUET, 

House Democratic Leader. 

IDAHO STATE SENATE, 

Ketchum, ID June 15th, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: I am writing to call your attention to Mr. James 

Caswell of Emmett, Idaho. As you likely know, Mr. Caswell has been appointed by 

the President to fill the position of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

It is my understanding that you will soon be responsible for the confirmation of that 

appointment, and I would like to take this opportunity to share a few comments on 

the character of Mr. Caswell. 

As the Idaho Senate Minority Leader and as a member of the Senate Resources 

and Environment Committee, I have worked numerous times over the years with 

Mr. Caswell on an array of issues through out the variety of positions he has held 

in the State of Idaho. Mr. Caswell has always performed his duties fairly and professionally. 

Most recently as the Administrator for the Office of Species Conservation, Mr. 

Caswell has done an exemplary job enforcing the Endangered Species Act here in 

Idaho. As you may imagine in an ultra conservative state, such as ours, it is not 

always easy to implement and enforce conservation policies or programs. Yet, Mr. 

Caswell has over twenty years of experience implementing regulations and enforcing 

them with the general public. With finesse, he finds resolutions and calms the passions of the public, without compromising the law, our resources or our heritage. 

Mr. Caswell has a genuine concern for conservation and an understanding of human 

nature. He is successful with maintaining a fragile balance between the two. 

Mr. Caswell has an impressive resume. It reflects over two decades of on-theground experience with land management and public Administration. He has a history of continual education, which is reflective of his desire to learn and seek new 

approaches to the tasks he encounters in his field. In his resume, you will also fund 

a considerable list of awards and accomplishments contributed to him. 

I would encourage you to schedule sometime to talk with Mr. Caswell. I think you 

will find as I have, an intelligent, fair and hard-working individual, one worthy of 

a Senate confirmation. If needed, I would be happy to provide further comment. My 

contact information is above. Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

CLINT STENNETT

STATE OF IDAHO, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Rogerson, ID, July 8, 2007. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN: I am writing in support of Jim Caswell and his nomination to be the next Bureau of Land Management Director. 

I became acquainted with Jim when he was named administrator of the Office 

of Species Conservation for the State of Idaho. He was instrumental, in crafting the 

Slickspot Pepper Grass candidate conservation agreement. This agreement brought 

all the stakeholders, State and Federal agencies, military and affected BLM permittees together in a proactive approach to conserve the plant and make listing under 

the Endangered Species Act unneccessary. I have also witznessed his work on 

delisting wolves in Idaho, helping with the Sage Grouse working groups to hopefully 

make listing unnecessary, and work on the road less rule. 

As you can see from his resume, Jim has a life time of experience working with 

land management issues and natural resources and people on those lands. 

Jim is uniquely qualified because of his experience in working with the bureaucracy of the land management agencies, BLM and Forest Service. He has vast experience working with the Endangered Species Act and dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
61

I urge you to approve Jim Caswell for the next BLM director. 

Thank you, 

BERT BRACKETT, 

Representative. 

STATE OF COLORADO, 

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, 

Denver, CO, April 17, 2007. 

Hon. Dirk Kempthorne 

Secretary, of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY KEMPTHORNE: On behalf of the State of Colorado I am formally 

requesting that the state review period for the draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) be revised from May 

15—29, 2007 to May 15—September 11, 2007. 

Your staff has indicated to us that this 2000 page document will be the cornerstone of your decisions for a Commercial Oil Shale Program in northwest Colorado. 

As a Cooperating Agency, with a fiduciary and stewardship responsibility to our citizens, the state needs a reasonable timeframe for meaningful input on the scope of 

your analysis and the development alternatives considered in the PEIS. Your Colorado staff has also indicated that the Bureau of Land Management does not want 

any surprises from Cooperating Agencies during the public comment period—further 

underscoring the importance of a thorough review by the Cooperating Agencies. It 

is unrealistic, unnecessary and simply wrong to limit Cooperating Agencies to 15 

days of substantive review and comment for a program of this magnitude. 

Our analysis during this review period will help us to determine whether the document, when finalized, will provide adequate information on the technologies contemplated; the environmental impacts to surface and ground water, air quality and 

wildlife; the identification of lands suitable for this type of development given other 

resource development and economic development activities in northwest Colorado; 

the availability and related impacts to supply the power and water needs to sustain 

a commercial industry; and the timing of commercial development since we are 

years away from the first production from the current Research Development and 

Demonstration (RD&D) leases. 

It would be better to first identify deficiencies in the analysis prior to the public 

comment period, rather than face wholesale revisions to be embodied solely in the 

final PEIS. Addressing these issues adequately in the PEIS is critical to an informed recommendation by the state as part of the Governor’s Consistency Review 

on the Commercial Oil Shale Program. 

I respectfully request that you revise the timeframe. 

Sincerely, 

BILL RITTER, JR. 

Governor.

STATE OF COLORADO, 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

Denver, CO, May 14 2007. 

Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, 

Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY KEMPTHORNE: I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate 

a request that Harris Sherman, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of 

Natural Resources made to Jim Hughes, Acting Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management, last week. Our urgent request is that you give us an extension of time 

to provide Colorado’s comments on the Roan Plateau. As I am sure you are aware, 

the BLM has recently completed its analysis of the protests received on the Roan 

Plateau Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Record of Decision (ROD) could 

be issued in the near future. 

Colorado has been an active participant in the development of the Roan RMP and 

it is imperative that my Administration be given the opportunity to weigh in on the 

proposal before the ROD is issued. As a recently elected governor, I believe that the 

citizens of Colorado expect me to evaluate and comment on the plan which will 

chart the future for one of Colorado’s special places. I am aware of the extensive 

work that has brought the BLM to this place in the process. Nevertheless, it is imperative that these plans transcend election cycles and result in management proposals that achieve durability and broad public acceptance. Failure to grant this request for additional time will seriously undermine the credibility of the plan. 
62

I respectfully request an additional 120 days to evaluate and provide comments 

on the Roan RMP. Thank you for consideration of this request. I look forward to 

hearing from you. 

Sincerely, 

BILL RITTER, JR. 

Governor.

Æ