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

78–372 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–351

KATHLEEN CLARKE NOMINATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOMINATION OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

NOVEMBER 14, 2001

(

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

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................ 5

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

Clarke, Kathleen, Nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................................................................... 7

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

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from Utah .................................................... 3

Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska ....................................... 4

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 2

APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 27

(1)

KATHLEEN CLARKE NOMINATION

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 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. The committee will come to order.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider the nomination of

Kathleen Clarke to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Without objection, Ms. Clarke’s prepared statement will be

entered into the record.

Senator Murkowski, I understand, is on his way and asked us

not to wait on him.

Let me ask if Senator Thomas has any opening statement he

would like to make.

[A prepared statement from Senator Domenici follows:]

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your calling this hearing today and your continuing

efforts to fill the ranks at the Interior Department. I am confident that Secretary

Norton is also appreciative to have vital positions filled and all qualified nominees

confirmed.

I believe that Ms. Clarke will prove to be an invaluable resource to the Department of the Interior, and I fully support her nomination. She has an excellent record

in natural resource conservation.

For example, Kathleen Clarke served as the executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources since 1998. During her tenure, she managed seven

divisions responsible for a broad range of natural resource issues. Prior to that, she

served as the department’s deputy director.

In Utah, Ms. Clarke worked on programs important to the protection of endangered species and water resources management. Both of these issues are crucial to

New Mexico’s future. I look forward to working with a director familiar with the

challenges Western states face in balancing resource conservation and their state’s

water needs.

Additionally, with so much land managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management in New Mexico, I look forward to working with Ms. Clarke on eliminating the

backlog on BLM grazing permit renewals, streamlining the BLM Oil and Gas permitting process in this time of foreign energy dependence, and furthering the use

of Recreation and Public Purpose lands for land-locked community use. I applaud

President Bush’s nomination of Kathleen Clarke, and support her as BLM Director

to address these and other land management issues important to our nation.

2

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want

to thank you, first of all, for having this hearing and welcome Ms.

Clarke here.

As you know, for those of us in the West, this is a very important

agency, a very important position. Roughly half of our State is

owned by the Federal Government. Much of it is managed by BLM.

So, it is very important. We are very interested, of course, in the

multiple use concept, the idea of access to these lands, and yet at

the same time, of course, protecting the environment and protecting the lands as well.

I just would also like to say that I visited with this lady and certainly appreciate her points of view, and I hope that those points

of view and the points of view of this administration can be put

down through the State and local BLM so that we are quite certain

on the ground it is being administered in the way that the Department here would like to have that done.

So, I will not take any longer, but I do welcome you. And thank

you for having the hearing.

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss Kathleen

Clarke’s nomination for the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Roughly 50 percent of Wyoming is owned by the federal government. Decisions

made by the BLM impact jobs, local communities and virtually every segment of

Wyoming’s economy. Unfortunately, many folks believe the Director Secretary of the

Interior has more impact on the economy of Wyoming than any citizen of the state.

I remain committed to the concept of multiple use of federal lands in Wyoming

and throughout the West. Clearly, we should work to protect public lands in the

West, but we must also strive to keep the majority of these areas open for multiple

use purposes. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the extremist groups, these two goals

do not run contrary to one another. We can develop reasonable solutions to land

management questions in the West so that it is a ‘‘win-win’’ strategy for everyone.

This agency is dire need of leadership. In recent years, the BLM has shown a blatant disregard for our public process laws and has lacked the leadership necessary

to ensure the enjoyment of our natural resources by many future generations. We

need a real commitment from BLM’s leadership to develop some real solutions to

address the problems that have seriously undermined our public lands.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for our nation to begin setting priorities regarding management of federal lands. The Department of the Interior must also begin to set priorities on where we should spend our limited budget dollars. The days of spending

money on every federal program are over. We must begin to establish priorities for

our federal land management agencies that will allow us to spend our funds where

they are truly needed. Until we are willing to make these tough choices, our budget

dollars will continue to be stretched further and further and our natural resources

and other important public land opportunities will continue to be under funded.

Thank you again for holding this hearing today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of Mrs. Clarke and the opportunity to review the Administration’s nominee

for the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure.

Senator Burns, did you have any opening statement?

Senator BURNS. I have no opening statement. Is that all right?

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine.

We have two of our distinguished members here to introduce the

nominee, Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett. Let us call on you

for any statement you would like to make.

Senator Hatch.

3

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM UTAH

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. We are

grateful to be here. I noticed my nameplate fell right off.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I noticed that.

Senator HATCH. I hope that is not a bad omen here.

[Laughter.]

Senator HATCH. But we are grateful that you have held this

hearing and you are holding it on behalf of a very fine human

being, somebody who is honest, who has worked in the highest way

in the service to our home State of Utah and, of course, in other

ways as well, and who we believe has as much ability and capacity

to head the BLM as anybody in the history of the BLM.

We also know that she will treat this job with dispassion—well,

passion in doing the job, but dispassion with regard to both sides

of the floor here in the U.S. Senate. She will truly be a bipartisan

person who will work in the best interests of public lands.

As you know, the BLM has an awful lot to do with the State of

Utah, as it does with your State and the other States that are represented here today. But, in particular, in Utah we have tremendous problems.

I can remember years gone by when I had to go to one section

of Utah and diffuse it because during the Carter years, BLM employees were having target practice with human-like sized targets,

and it was very offensive to some of the people in Utah who then

themselves did some things that would be considered a little bit

unusual by almost anybody. And it was a very tense, difficult

thing. I had to really have them check their guns at the door almost before I held this meeting down in Moab, Utah.

And a lot of the problems were caused because, I think, of a failure on the part of those were then leading the BLM to be considerate of the needs of the people within the State and the laws that

literally they were called upon to enforce at that time.

Kathleen Clarke will enforce the laws. She will abide by the

laws. She will do this in the highest sense of statesmanship and

effort. We have total confidence in her and we believe that this

committee will benefit from having her insights with regard to

BLM lands, and we also believe that she is the type of a person

who we all owe a debt of gratitude to for being willing to work in

the Government to come here to Washington out of the beautiful

State of Utah and to do this very, very difficult and tough job.

So, we recommend her totally, as strongly as I possibly can, and

I would hope that this committee will immediately act on her nomination and get her to the floor and get her into this job as soon

as possible because it is an important job, as we all know, and she

is very capable of fulfilling it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important hearing today and for allowing me to make a few remarks on behalf of Kathleen Clarke, President Bush’s

nominee for Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

As the members of this committee know, the BLM oversees 264 million acres of

public land, or one-eighth of our nation’s land mass. This includes deserts, forests,

4

mountain ranges, grasslands, and arctic tundra. The BLM must manage these lands

for wildlife habitat, mineral and energy development, wilderness values, timber harvesting, archeological and paleontological resources, historic preservation, livestock

grazing, and recreation. Balancing these competing values is tough assignment, and

management decisions for BLM lands are often controversial.

I believe it was precisely for this reason that President Bush tapped Kathleen

Clark for BLM director. No stranger to land management, Kathleen has served as

executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources since 1998. Prior

to that, she was the deputy director from 1993-1998. Utah’s state lands are dispersed in a checkerboard pattern throughout Utah’s 22 million acres of BLM land

and 8 million acres of National Forest. Not only did Ms. Clarke have to manage the

state’s vast land holdings, but she was required to coordinate many of her decisions

with federal land managers. She has been a land manager in her own right, but

she knows as well as anyone can how national policies impact state and local interests.

For that reason, Kathleen Clarke is the right person for the job. She is a moderate, balanced professional who is well known for her ability to incorporate diverse

interests and to find solutions to complex situations. And Ms. Clarke is no stranger

to Congress or the legislative process. For six years she worked for Chairman Jim

Hansen, and she also worked for Senator William F. Bennett, not to be confused

with his son, my good friend Senator Robert Bennett. Kathleen has all the right

tools to lead the Bureau of Land Management. She is a fine American, and I might

add that if nominated, Ms. Clarke will be the first woman director of the BLM.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for holding this nomination hearing, and I

am grateful for an opportunity to sing the praises of Kathleen Clarke. I look forward

to her swift and successful confirmation. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much.

Before I call on Senator Bennett, let me just see if Senator Murkowski had any statement he wished to make at this point.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALASKA

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

I certainly want to join my colleagues in welcoming our nominee.

This is a difficult task, the Director of the Bureau, with responsibility for some 260 million acres of surface estate. A large portion is

in my State of Alaska, about 87 million acres out of the 260 million. The resource potential of these lands, whether it be grazing,

timber, oil and gas activities, is very important to the economy of

this Nation, as well as our energy self-sufficiency.

These lands are important, of course, for coal. Sixty percent of

the significant deposits of commercial coal are on Federal lands.

We have recently experienced a little episode in your State of

Utah, Senators, and I am sure that you could update us on that

if it was necessary. But I think it represents a reality that the

State of Utah is dependent on the revenues from land grants for

schools and that was taken over without a public process, which I

felt was extraordinary. The fact the announcement was made outside the State of Utah is even more revealing.

But rather than going back and reliving history, I think it is important to recognize that we have a tremendous obligation relative

to stewardship, and I think Kathleen Clarke is certainly up to the

challenges ahead and I look forward to working with her.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Bennett, why don’t you go right ahead with your statement?

5

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR

FROM UTAH

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity to add my voice to Senator Hatch’s in endorsing this

nomination and urging the committee to act in an expeditious way

to move it forward.

Kathleen Clarke has, I think, an interesting and very valuable

background to qualify her for this position. She understands the

Congress. Her first experience in governmental service was on my

father’s staff shortly after she graduated from Utah State University. So, she has served on the Senate side. On the House side, she

served as the State director for Congressman Jim Hansen who is

now chairman of this corresponding committee in the House. So,

she comes with congressional credentials that will serve her well

in understanding how the Congress works. We have had some experience with BLM directors who were well qualified from the administrative side, but maybe lacked an understanding of how the

Congress worked and what the oversight situation is. She does not

have that gap in her background.

Now, one of the problems with BLM, as we all understand, has

been sometimes in working with the States, not quite understanding the role that the State agencies play in managing lands. And

she served as a member of Governor Levitt’s cabinet as the executive director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources. So, in

that role, she has had to work with State agencies in a State that

is over 67 percent Federal managed. She has had to interact with

the Federal managers, and she knows how those agencies can work

together and how they maybe cannot. So, she comes with that perspective that I think is also very valuable.

Then, being the director of a State agency, a member of the Governor’s cabinet, she has had to put together an agency budget,

work with the State legislature in getting it adopted, and managing over 1,200 employees in seven State agencies. She was instrumental in organizing that office into seven divisions to give a degree of organizational harmony and structure that perhaps was not

there prior to her tenure.

I offer those examples of the credentials she brings to the job: understanding of the Congress, understanding of the State relationship with Federal agencies, understanding of management to put

together an agency and run it. I think we are very fortunate that

she is willing to do this.

I visited with her and know that her first reaction was that she

was not willing to do this. She is not one who came rushing for

Federal office or the glory of a Federal title. She has four children

of college age and wanted to remain in Utah. The administration

came after her and became insistent that she was the one they

wanted in this position. And I am delighted that she was willing

to answer that call from her country and say, okay, if you really

want me that badly, why, I will do it even though it represents

some kind of disruption of her personal circumstance.

I think we have here the combination of the perfect candidate,

the right kind of background, the right kind of temperament, the

right sort of understanding of the issues, and a response to a patriotic call rather than a personal agenda of things she wants to fulVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\78-372 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
6

fill. I am happy to add my full endorsement to that of Senator

Hatch and urge the committee to move promptly and affirmatively

on this nomination.

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, this morning I am pleased to introduce to the

committee Ms. Kathleen Clarke, President Bush’s able nominee to be Director of the

Bureau of Land Management. I thank the committee for holding this very important

confirmation hearing today. As many of my western colleagues can attest, the Director of the BLM holds substantial sway over significant portions of their states; in

my state of Utah the BLM is responsible for the stewardship of 23 million acres

or approximately 40% of the total land area. There is no more significant federal

agency in Utah than the BLM.

I cannot think of a better person to take the helm of the BLM to manage our public lands and its important resources than Kathleen Clarke. I have known Kathy

for many years. Kathy has had a very distinguished career, working for my father,

Senator Wallace F. Bennett, a few years after graduation from Utah State University, then working her way up to be Representative Jim Hansen’s district director,

and now finally working for the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources,

first as deputy director and for the last three years as its executive director. During

her tenure as executive director Kathy has transformed the DNR into a streamlined

organization of seven divisions all focusing on a common goal of integrated and holistic resource management.

Being the director of the DNR in a state that is 68% federally managed, Kathy

has worked closely with all of the federal land management agencies. As deputy director, Kathy helped develop the Natural Resources Coordinating Council. The

NRCC’s purpose is to provide a forum for state and federal land managers in Utah

to network and identify opportunities for collaboration and cooperation. I believe

Kathy will bring this forward looking approach to the BLM. Meaningful involvement

by states and localities in land management decisions will be a hallmark of her directorship.

Kathy also brings a very important but often overlooked skill to a federal agency,

that of an administrator. Kathy has developed an agency budget, submitted it to

and worked with the state legislature to secure funding, and she has managed over

1,200 employees in seven agencies. As executive director, Kathy has found budget

savings and improved customer service, all skills sorely needed in our federal agencies.

I greatly appreciate Kathy Clarke’s willingness to share her leadership, expertise,

and know-how with the BLM. I also appreciate the sacrifices she is making to be

the BLM director; Kathy has four college-aged children who will remain in Utah as

she serves the public here in Washington. I believe Kathy summed up her feelings

about this position very appropriately when she said ‘‘I love the West, and the only

thing that’s drawing me to Washington is my hope to help shape the West in a positive way.’’

Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this

morning in support of Kathy Clarke’s nomination. I greatly hope that the committee

will move this nomination to the floor quickly. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much for that statement.

I thank both of you for your strong statements.

Ms. Clarke, why do you not come ahead and we will go ahead

with your testimony.

The rules of the committee that apply to all nominees require

that nominees be sworn in connection with their testimony. Would

you begin by standing and raising your right hand please?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Ms. CLARKE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Please be seated.

Before you begin your statement, let me ask the three questions

that we address to each nominee that comes before this committee.

7

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

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

Ms. CLARKE. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. Second question: 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?

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, the third question: Are you involved or

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

Ms. CLARKE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. At this point, let me invite you to introduce any

family members you would like to and then to go ahead with any

opening statement.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Senator.

I am pleased today to invite two of my four children who have

joined me today. This is my son David Clarke, and his wife Rachel.

I also have a son Joshua Clarke here and a friend, Tacy Bracken,

and a sister-in-law, Amy Burton.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we welcome all of them and appreciate

their being here for this.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you not go ahead with your statement.

TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, NOMINEE TO BE

DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you.

First of all, I would like to say that I am very, very proud to be

an American and deeply honored to be nominated by President

Bush to serve my country during these challenging times. America’s darkest hours have always brought out the best in our people

and our leaders and have produced unparalleled resolve and unity.

Certainly the events of recent weeks helped to remind us that freedom is not a state of tranquility but that the battles we have won

before must be fought again and again.

They also remind us as public servants of the tremendous responsibility we have to make sure our public institutions are dynamic and able to respond to the changing needs of our Nation and

the forces of globalization. Today national interest takes on greater

meaning and our top priority should be to make sure our institutions can respond to the serious challenges now confronting our

Nation.

I would like to express my appreciation to President Bush and

to Secretary Norton for their confidence and their trust in my ability to manage the responsibilities and challenges that fall to the

Director of the Bureau of Land Management. If confirmed to this

position, I pledge to uphold the law and to work in a bipartisan

way in overseeing stewardship of the 264 million acres of Federal

8

land and 700 million additional acres of subsurface minerals under

BLM management.

As executive director of Utah’s Department of Natural Resources,

I am pleased that we have been able to pull together an agency

with multiple legislative mandates and divergent interests to work

toward common goals. We have involved communities in making

decisions and addressing problems that affect their lives. We have

worked with farmers and ranchers and landowners to identify ways

to enhance the economic productivity of their land while supporting

healthy natural systems. We have promoted public and personal

stewardship ethics and have launched initiatives aimed at preserving critical lands, reducing our consumption of water and energy,

protecting wildlife, and living with wildland fire, all the while

working to maintain a healthy economy. And we have made a difference.

Whatever success I have had in leading the department I attribute to the passion and commitment I have about the issues affecting our Nation, my confidence in our public servants and institutions, my faith in the goodness of the American people, and my

optimistic belief that the Nation’s best days lie ahead.

The BLM manages one-fifth of the public lands in the West, including land in 11 of the country’s 15 fastest growing States. In

1945, the West’s population was 17 million, and today it is over 60

million. Such rapid growth has heightened conflict and debate over

management choices affecting our public lands and natural resources. I do not believe we have the option of choosing between

the demands of growth and the imperative for conservation. We

must do both. This will require that the BLM take a balanced approach in conserving our public lands, while sustaining their productivity. We must be willing to take a fresh look at the agency,

keep and shore up what is working well, and reassess and renew

that which is not.

One of the keys in making organizations dynamic and able to respond to change is for its leadership to believe in and trust its people to make decisions and to take risks. Our challenge is to give

them direction and support and unleash their creativity. It is also

essential that the BLM work to overcome artificial bureaucratic

borders and share and focus resources with other agencies around

common problems.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs

the BLM to work with State and local governments in the management of public lands and to consult with all interested parties in

making decisions. I believe that we can find reasonable, workable

solutions to our problems if we are humble enough to realize that

sometimes the best ideas come from individuals and groups outside

our systems. It serves us well to remember that the real journey

of discovery lies not in seeing new landscapes but in having new

eyes.

Given the new economy and the crisis America faces today, we

must pay special attention to the laws that direct BLM to manage

public lands in a manner that recognizes our Nation’s need for domestic resources. Secretary Norton has set forth a vision for the

Department of the Interior that embraces the importance of protecting our natural resources and managing them in a way that

9

promotes a healthy environment and a strong economy. This is particularly important at this time in our Nation’s history, and the

BLM is in a key position to promote that vision. It would be a

privilege to be a part of that effort.

And Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment

to express to you and to the members of this committee how much

I look forward to working with the Congress, should I be confirmed.

The issues and problems we face will be solved much more successfully if we work together to find solutions, and I pledge to you

today that I will do that. As a former staff member to both a Senator and a Representative and a citizen who cherishes our representative form of government, I understand fully and appreciate

the important role of the Congress on behalf of the people of our

great country.

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

and I thank you too for your efforts and for those of your staff. I

am absolutely confident, should I be confirmed, that our relationship will be positive and productive. Thank you very much. And I

would welcome your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CLARKE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

First, I want to say that I am very, very proud to be an American and deeply

honored to be nominated by President Bush to serve my country during these challenging times. America’s darkest hours have always brought out the best in our people and our leaders, and have produced unparalleled resolve and unity. Certainly,

the events of recent weeks help to remind us that freedom is not a state of tranquility and that the battles we have won before must be fought again and again.

They also remind us, as public servants, of the tremendous responsibility we have

to make sure our public institutions are dynamic and able to respond to the changing needs of our nation and the forces of globalization. Today, ‘‘national interest’’

takes on greater meaning and our top priority should be to make sure our institutions can respond to the serious challenges now confronting our nation.

I would like to express my appreciation to President Bush and Secretary Norton

for their confidence and trust in my ability to manage the responsibilities and challenges that fall to the director of the Bureau of Land Management. If confirmed to

this position, I pledge to uphold the law and to work in a bipartisan way in overseeing stewardship of the 264 million acres of federal land and 700 million additional acres of subsurface minerals under BLM management.

As executive director of Utah’s Department of Natural Resources, I am pleased

that we have been able to pull together an agency with multiple legislative mandates and divergent interests to work towards common goals. We have involved

communities in making decisions and addressing problems that affect their lives.

We have worked with farmers, ranchers, and landowners to identify ways to enhance the economic productivity of their land while supporting healthy natural systems. We have promoted public and personal stewardship ethics and have launched

initiatives aimed at preserving critical lands, reducing our consumption of water

and energy, protecting wildlife, and living with wildland fire—all while working to

maintain a healthy economy. And we have made a difference.

Whatever success I have had in leading the department I attribute to the passion

and commitment I have about the issues affecting our nation, my confidence in our

public servants and institutions, my faith in the goodness of America’s people, and

my optimistic belief that our nation’s best days lie ahead.

The BLM manages 1/5 of the public lands in the West including land in 11 of the

country’s 15 fastest growing states. In 1945, the West’s population was 17 million

and today it is more than 60 million. Such rapid growth has heightened conflict and

debate over management choices affecting our public lands and natural resources.

I don’t believe we have the option of choosing between the demands of growth and

the imperative for conservation. We must do both! This will require that the BLM

take a balanced approach in conserving our public lands while sustaining their proVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\78-372 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
10

ductivity. We must be willing to take a fresh look at the agency, keep and shore

up what is working well, and reassess and renew what is not.

One of the keys in making organizations dynamic and able to respond to change

is for its leadership to believe in and trust its people to make decisions and take

risks. Our challenge is to give them direction and support and unleash their creativity. It is also essential that the BLM work to overcome artificial bureaucratic borders and share and focus resources with other agencies around common problems.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the BLM to work

with state and local governments in the management of public lands and to consult

with all interested parties in making decisions. I believe that we can find reasonable, workable solutions to our problems if we are humble enough to realize that

sometimes the best ideas come from individuals and groups outside our systems. It

serves us well to remember that ‘‘The real journey of discovery lies not in seeing

new landscapes but in having new eyes.’’

Given the new economy and the crisis America faces today, we must pay special

attention to laws that direct the BLM to manage public lands in a manner that recognizes our nation’s need for domestic resources. Secretary Norton has set forth a

vision for the Department of the Interior that embraces the importance of protecting

our natural resources and managing them in a way that promotes a healthy environment and a strong economy. This is particularly important at this time in our

nation’s history and the BLM is in a key position to promote that vision. It would

be a privilege to be a part of that effort.

And Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to express to you

and the members of this committee how much I look forward to working with the

Congress, should I be confirmed. The issues and problems we face will be solved

much more successfully if we work together to find solutions, and I pledge to you

today that I will do that. As a former staff member to both a senator and a representative, and as a citizen who cherishes our representative form of government,

I understand fully and appreciate the important role the Congress plays on behalf

of the people of our great country. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear

before you today, and thank you, too, for your efforts and those of your staff. I am

absolutely confident, should I be confirmed, that our relationship will be positive

and productive.

Thank you. I welcome any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for that very excellent statement.

Let me start with a few questions. One relates to fire management and that will be a responsibility, obviously, that you will

share with other agencies. The National Fire Plan that was put in

place last year had the Secretary of the Interior creating the Office

of Wildland Fire Coordination to ensure the implementation of the

plan and to coordinate all of the various agencies’ fire policies—

that includes the BLM’s policy—and to measure performance and

accountability.

It is my understanding that that secretarial order out of the Secretary of the Interior establishing the office expires on December

22, a little over a month from now, and it is unclear whether the

administration plans to eliminate this office. Given the recent GAO

report stating that the Federal Government needs to increase interagency coordination on fire management, I think it is important

that we try to keep this office in place. I did not know if you had

a chance to focus on that or if you have an opinion, but I would

be anxious to hear it if you do.

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have not personally gotten involved in the discussion regarding the fire coordinator’s office, but

I certainly would agree that there needs to be a high degree of collaboration and consultation between agencies within the Department of the Interior, as well as with the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture. And if confirmed, I would look forward to

working in a cooperative fashion with other agencies to make sure

11

we are addressing the wildland fire challenges that confront our

Nation at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the other obvious responsibilities you will

have in this new position will be deciding on what your funding

priorities are for the BLM in the coming years. One issue that we

have discussed repeatedly here in recent years has been the funding levels for this National Fire Plan. Unfortunately, the budget we

received earlier this year in the Interior appropriation proposal essentially eliminated the rehabilitation and restoration funding for

burned-over areas.

I would like any opinion you have as to what priority should be

assigned to continued funding of the Fire Plan for a significant

number of years. I think many of us on this committee have expressed our view that unless we can maintain this effort for 10 or

15 years, we are not going to really have the impact we need to

have.

Ms. CLARKE. I think the health of our natural resources, our

rangelands and forest lands, is certainly very, very critical. I am

not familiar with the budget discussions that may have taken place

at the Department of the Interior that included BLM relative to

the Fire Plan, so it would be premature for me to comment on why

those decisions were made. But I would certainly look forward to

working with this body and with my colleagues at the Department

of the Interior to prioritize properly budget needs within the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. One other issue that I discussed a little with you

when we had a chance to visit yesterday relates to the management of resources by focusing on watersheds. The BLM, as I understand it, has been actively pursuing a watershed approach to resource management in recent years. I mentioned the Rio Puerco as

one watershed within our State of New Mexico that we have tried

to have a focus on. Have you had experience with watershed management? Do you have views as to the appropriateness of that way

of organizing the BLM’s efforts?

Ms. CLARKE. I have had experience in watershed management

and have found it to be very useful. It certainly provides a basin

opportunity, a drainage basin or a watershed area where we can

go into a resource area and usually we get a lot of people that have

some common interests in that together. And I would look forward

to working on the Rio Puerco, I know, in your State which is an

area of great concern and to other watershed challenges throughout

the BLM.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Let me also just raise an issue that I have been interested in

now for several years and that is the funding for Youth Conservation Corps programs. You are familiar with the history of it I am

sure. But there was a period where Congress and the Federal Government provided significant funds to employ young people in the

summers to work in assisting with trail maintenance and other activities in our national forests and on our public lands generally.

Unfortunately, that has been cut way, way back, and we are in the

process of trying to begin to move this into a higher priority. I do

not know if you have had any experience with the Youth ConservaVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\78-372 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
12

tion Corps type activities in Utah. If you have or have any views

on the value of those, I would be anxious to hear them.

Ms. CLARKE. I have not had any direct experience, but I am a

firm believer in building citizen stewards throughout our Nation,

and I think it is the way we are going to be able to coalesce our

efforts to make sure we are conserving and taking care of our resource base. So, I would look forward to learning more about this

program and working with you on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine. Thank you very much.

Senator Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

As you know, Alaska is a pretty big piece of real estate, 365 million acres, and at Statehood, we were to receive about 104 million

acres. We are almost to the 50th anniversary of Statehood, almost

a lifetime has passed, and still we are short 16.3 million acres

which remain to be turned over to the State. As the head of the

agency with primary responsibility, I wonder if you could familiarize yourself with that agreement and give us some idea when we

might expect the full transfer of the land that was promised under

statehood. Forty-one million acres have been turned over to the

State. Forty-six million acres are in what they call interim conveyances, but another 16.3 million acres remain to be transferred.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I am not familiar with what may have

transpired or the reasons that this has not been completed, but I

would commit to you that I would certainly look into that and get

back with you.

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that, because a lifetime means

different things to different people. I think most people figure 50

years ought to be enough time for the Federal Government to fulfill

its promises.

A couple of other quick questions relative to your area of responsibility. In addition to the land conveyance issue, your responsibility also involves the renewal of the Trans-Alaska or the TAPS pipeline reauthorization.

As you know, this pipeline was built in the early 1970’s and has

transported about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in this

Nation for the last 27 years, or thereabouts. The pipeline had a 30-

year authorization. It is my understanding that the manner in

which this reauthorization will occur will require a full EIS. Yet,

we feel a little sensitive because, to our understanding, this is the

only pipeline renewal that has ever required a full EIS. They are

usually renewed on the basis of an environmental assessment. I

would ask you why this is different. Maybe you do not have the answer now.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I do not have the answer, and I do not

know what the justification is for demanding an EIS on this renewal, but I would certainly commit to you to take a look at that

and to make sure that we move forward expeditiously to get that

renewal in place in a timely fashion.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, if it would help you, I posed the same

question to the previous person that had your responsibility and

the explanation was, well, Alaska is different, which I will concede,

and secondly, it is controversial. Now, that does not satisfy most

of us.

13

Ms. CLARKE. I would be pleased to look into that.

Senator MURKOWSKI. We would like a little better explanation.

One of the concerns we have is what they call the cumulative impact assessment. In a full EIS you could say, well, what is the reauthorization of this pipeline for another 30 years going to have on

air quality in southern California. You could hire a whole bunch of

folks that could go down those rabbit trails. We are just concerned

about being treated fairly and in a responsible manner. We are not

trying to dodge the procedure, but I think we are entitled to an explanation and we will look forward to that.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you.

Senator MURKOWSKI. The last question is relative to mining in

Alaska. As you know, the previous administration did a pretty good

job of shutting down mining on public lands in this country.

Thanks to Secretary Norton, we have seen some of the more egregious sections of the regulation package nullified. There is a lot

more work to be done. The Secretary has reproposed the mining

regulations for a 60-day public comment period. It is especially important that we hear the concerns of all miners, including those in

my State of Alaska.

One of the issues is the area of bonding. It is a formidable problem for small miners. I do not know if you know how you are planning to proceed with the regulatory review at the close of the comment period and what steps you might be taking to make sure that

bonding regulations do not simply drive the small miners out of

business. I am wondering if you have any comments on either one

of those.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I have not been involved in any of the policy discussions relative to 3809 mining laws, but would commit to

you to get involved, should I be confirmed, and to make sure that

we are giving due consideration to the impacts of those regulations

on all parties.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate that. My time is up. I

want to wish you well and you certainly have my support.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Ms. Clarke. I enjoyed visiting with you yesterday, and

I think you know that I particularly want to talk to you about how

we might go forward working with you in a bipartisan way to build

on, I think, the very significant precedent that was set last year

on the county payments legislation. This was something that Senator Craig and I worked on and the Forest Service called the most

important bill in the last 3 decades for the agency. And I would

like to build on it.

It seems to me that the next step should really be one that involves additional protection for old growth while at the same time

ensuring that there be a substantial thinning program so we to get

some of that dead material off the forest floor: a significant forest

health initiative. I think there are a number of steps, some of

which come from Senator Craig’s past legislation that would expedite the planning process.

I will tell you I was disappointed that at the hearing that was

held on old growth in my subcommittee, the agency did not come

14

prepared to talk about old growth. They wanted to talk about just

about everything else. I do not expect anybody to agree with me on

everything, but I would like your pledge this morning that as we

go forward in a bipartisan way, trying to build on the very significant success of the last session, that you will work with us, work

with Senator Craig and me, in an activist kind of fashion. We are

going to come up with some definitions of old growth. As you know,

there are many differences of opinion there. But we need you at the

table, and the agency was not there at the hearing on old growth,

and I want that to change.

Ms. CLARKE. You have my commitment that we would be at the

table and willing to discuss and pursue options on that matter with

you, Senator.

Senator WYDEN. Okay.

Let me ask you a couple of questions about monuments. As you

know, there is a new initiative underway there, as well as the matter of the monuments that were designated by President Clinton

are reviewed by Secretary Norton. Secretary Norton sent out letters to Governors and elected officials with respect to their input,

and I think that is very welcomed. But I do not think that that is

a representative target group. I think there are a lot of other people who care about these issues, and I gather that you all received

thousands and thousands of unsolicited responses from citizens and

public interest groups.

I guess I would like to start by saying, have you read any of

those unsolicited letters?

Ms. CLARKE. I have not read any of the correspondence to the

BLM or to the Department of the Interior relative to the Secretary’s invitation for comments.

Senator WYDEN. Well, what are your thoughts on opening up the

process here if there is going to be a new system for dealing with

monuments to ensure again that we have everybody at the table?

I do not want to keep coming back to this, but I think the reason

that Senator Craig and I were able to get beyond some of the old

sort of positions where everybody has read their statement from

the last 20 years to each other is we brought everybody to the

table. I look at this monument process, and I sure do not see a diversity of citizen input on it. I can tell you people in Oregon feel

very disenfranchised by the limited audience that has been asked

to comment on the monument process. I want to work with you and

I want to work with the Secretary. I want to do what Senator Craig

and I did last session, but we cannot do it if we are only looking

at one side of the spectrum.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I am absolute believer in a broad, collaborative, open process for making important decisions that affect public lands and natural resources throughout the country, and that

would extend to decisions affecting those monuments. I would look

forward to working with you and this committee in that regard.

Senator WYDEN. So, would you say you agree with Secretary

Norton on the idea of only soliciting testimony from elected officials

and Governors, or do you agree with me that there needs to be

more efforts to get a diversity of opinion if there is going to be a

major policy shift here?

15

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I believe the Secretary was reaching out

in good faith. I have not discussed with her what her motivation

or rationale was for the approach she has taken. So, I would decline to comment on that at this point. But I think my understanding is that if there are significant requests for revisions in monument boundaries or monument management plans, that they would

turn to a delegation and ask that that be brought to the Congress

for review, which would give it a broader base.

I certainly, again, would be happy to get into this if I am confirmed. Many of these monuments are of great concern to communities, but I would work with you and with my colleagues at Interior, should I be confirmed, to resolve this issue.

Senator WYDEN. So, on the question of soliciting the input of

ranchers, conservation groups, environmental groups, you want to

go in the direction of getting that input before you make decisions.

Ms. CLARKE. I would welcome input from anyone who wants to

provide input.

Senator WYDEN. All right. Well, that is not being done now. I recognize that you will want to talk with the Secretary about it, but

I do not think that is how we are going to make real progress in

the natural resources area. You have got to give everybody a

chance to be part of the debate. That is not being done with respect

to monuments.

I have some other questions that I would like to furnish for the

record. In terms of the Cascade/Siskiyou monument, we have got

an opportunity now to have a major breakthrough because the big

timber companies and the environmentalists want to go forward

with a kind of exchange and purchase arrangement, and yet BLM

seems to be holding it up. My guess is you have not had time to

review that. I am going to ask about that in writing from you.

But those are the kinds of partnerships I want to see. What I am

troubled about is I seem to get the sense that partnerships are

something that are good when industry likes them. My sense is

partnerships have got to have both environmental and industry

considerations blended. That is what we did in our county payments bill and that is what I want to have happen on your watch.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Thomas.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir.

One of the things that does not seem to change is when BLM has

wilderness areas nominated, but there is never any action on them

but they go on forever. What is your view on that?

Ms. CLARKE. My understanding is we completed inventories of

BLM wilderness study areas and recommended those to Congress

back in 1991, and I think the BLM would welcome the action of

Congress on making a decision as to whether to actually make

those wilderness areas. There continues to be discussion in many

States as to additional wilderness study areas. I am not aware that

we are settling those. So, it would be a welcome opportunity to see

some of those resolved.

Senator THOMAS. But I think the question is I have no problem

with recommendations or nominations and considerations, but

16

nominating them should not be a permanent arrangement and that

is what has happened.

Ms. CLARKE. Certainly you are correct. As I say, I would welcome

the opportunity to make some firm decisions on many of those wilderness study areas and to try to resolve what the permanent status is of those lands.

Senator THOMAS. Some believe there ought to be a time limit. If

nothing happens in X number of years, why, it reverts to where it

was.

Ms. CLARKE. And I would turn to you folks to consider that possibility and would work with you in resolving those wilderness conflicts.

Senator THOMAS. Clean Water Action Plan—very important nonpoint source kinds of things—more and more becomes a method of

managing lands. How do you view working with the Clean Water

Action Plan?

Ms. CLARKE. I have worked with the Clean Water Action Plan

at the State and have found it to be a useful tool when we have

a cooperative effort in that regard. I know the Farm Bureau in the

State of Utah has taken a very aggressive action themselves to

work collaboratively with Federal and State agencies in pursuing

management plans on the ground that help them accomplish the

objectives and goals of the Clean Action Plan. So, I think appropriately used, it is a good tool.

Senator THOMAS. Local input I think is key.

Ms. CLARKE. Absolutely.

Senator THOMAS. As you know, on coal bed methane, much of

which is on Federal lands managed by BLM, the bottom line, of

course, is that there have been conflicting leases between coal and

gas. Do you think legislation is necessary to resolve those conflicts,

or do you think BLM could find some remedies?

Ms. CLARKE. I would certainly hope that we could find remedies

and solutions. We may need to turn to the Congress for some assistance if we find obstacles that need legislative remedies. But I

am a believer that there is usually opportunities to work together

and to move forward when we are willing to sit down together and

explore the challenges and look for those solutions.

Senator THOMAS. I was told a couple of years ago that BLM was

going to come up with some solutions, but the problem still exists.

Ms. CLARKE. I would be happy to look into it, find out what efforts may have been made to resolve those, and see what I can do

to add some momentum to that, if I should be confirmed, sir.

Senator THOMAS. I assume that the administration, through you,

will have some areas where they have different views than the last

administration. How do you ensure that the administration’s point

of view happens on the ground?

Ms. CLARKE. I think a leader has a responsibility to make sure

every person within that organization understands the goals and

objectives, the values that are driving that organization, and I

would accept responsibility to make sure that the folks within the

BLM at the ground level understand the rules of the road, as they

have been applied by this administration.

Senator THOMAS. Sometimes it appears to be different to get implementation all the way down to the ground.

17

Ms. CLARKE. Often it is, and we have career employees who have

been here, and I know that sometimes they can entrench themselves and sort of go into a bunker mentality. Again, I think that

is a leadership challenge to make sure you are getting the message

and the vision out there and that you are moving people forward

in a positive direction.

Senator THOMAS. Good. That never happens here, of course.

[Laughter.]

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, and we are pleased to have you

here. I certainly will support your nomination.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burns.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Clarke, thank you for coming today and being willing to take

this job.

There are two environmental EIS’s being done in the country,

and one of them is in Wyoming and one of them is in Montana with

regard to coal bed methane. And the BLM is a co-lead on those

things. We would certainly like to see those things completed as

fast as we possibly can.

Then also, in the last Interior appropriations, we put language

in there trying to inventory where we think our best prospects are

as far as energy development is concerned. I am still concerned

about this country and energy security. I know that on BLM and

Federal lands there is quite a lot of gas and there is quite a lot

of oil that has not been developed yet. And I would like that survey

to move forward.

In the areas of national monuments, we have a huge one now in

Montana as a result of the last administration, and the Secretary

has told us that she is unable to change the boundaries on those

that was in the original signed by President Clinton. We have got

some private lands inside those boundaries, and so I would like

your assurance that we will work with those landlocked landowners until we get legislation that can probably either make a

land trade or whatever. But we are just now starting that process.

And I would like your assurance on that.

Ms. CLARKE. You bet. I would be happy to work with you and

to work with those landowners until we can get this matter resolved.

Senator BURNS. Then I was going up across country here a couple of weeks ago. On watershed management, you said you had a

lot to do with that. We would like a little water to manage.

[Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. It is dry. Some of our country up there is in bad

need. I am going to try to get some more legislation about

offstream storage because I think right now if there is ever a time

in this country that we need some more storage of water, to store

it, to use it, to retain some of that spring runoff—it also has great

environmental value but also has great value to the country.

I will look forward to working with you. Even though you worked

for Jim Hansen, I will overlook that.

[Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. Good luck to you.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Senator.

18

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will be

brief this morning.

Kathleen, as you know, when we visited yesterday, I was suffering a bit of laryngitis, and it may be a little better but not where

I would like it.

Senator BURNS. Whatever you have been drinking, we got a bad

batch.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAIG. It is the absence of water in the West, Conrad.

It is my understanding, Ms. Clarke, that in your past State government position, you supported Conservation and Reinvestment

Act legislation, better known as CARA. Many of us on this side of

the aisle and many westerners opposed it not because of its wildlife

habitat, conservation, and reclamation incentives, but because

there was being developed a large trust fund for the purposes of

the acquisition of private lands to be made public.

I believe you said your State was 69 percent Federal. Your bordering State, my State of Idaho, is 63 percent Federal. And I have

held the position that we really do not need any more Federal acres

in our State. That is not to deny that there are not some lands that

are private that are extremely valuable and fragile resources that

we might not exchange Federal land with to acquire for Federal

protection, but just to acquire more depletes all kinds of economic

bases in the Western public land States.

I guess I am not asking you a question as much as I want to at

least confirm with you your commitment to work with Congress in

any Federal land acquisition project.

Ms. CLARKE. I would absolutely commit to that. I do not believe

the Federal Government should acquire lands in States unless they

are working with the local government there to make sure that it

is compatible uses. So, I would look forward to working with you,

Senator.

Senator CRAIG. Some of us have looked at a no net loss approach

toward any resolution of the offshore monies of the Land and

Water Conservation Fund that might ultimately move into a CARA

approach, and that is one that many of us, I think, in the West appreciate and recognize would be an important balance.

Given your involvement in R.S. 2477 right-of-ways, could you

please give me an overview of how you feel the BLM should address this issue?

Ms. CLARKE. I know that the BLM right now is working with the

Department of the Interior to try and resolve the lawsuit with the

State of Utah. I certainly have respect for those R.S. 2477 rights,

as they have been established by law, and would look forward to

the opportunity to work with all of those people involved in that

negotiation, and again, feel like it is appropriate that we do sit

down at the table and try to come up with negotiated settlements

to those disputes.

Senator CRAIG. Well, as you know, whether it be Idaho, Utah,

Wyoming, or other Western States, R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are oftentimes the only access that remains on public lands, and there

are a good many who would like to deny that access.

19

Speaking of roads or access and unroaded areas and the effort

that President Clinton tried a year and a half ago to be denied

largely by the courts that he could not do that, because Congress

was bound up in itself, better known as the roadless area review

initiative, that was attempting to put large tracts of unroaded

lands out of access or off limits, we still have on our public lands

predominantly Forest Service, but also BLM, a roads issue and a

roads problem. And this is an issue that will not go away.

Senator Thomas mentioned the issue of wilderness recommendations. The last administration was the first administration, since

the Wilderness Act, to not recommend any wilderness. They

thought they were going to be able to sweep it all in in one grand

style and were denied that by the courts.

I have recommended to Secretary Veneman and to Secretary

Norton that we have a process, and that I would be very anxious

to see this administration out recommending wilderness of that

which fell in to the RARE II roadless review process and the BLM

process. That is the way it ought to be done instead of to create

some arbitrary executive order that denies the congressional process.

My guess is this committee would be very active. Our Public

Lands Subcommittee that is now chaired by my colleague, Ron

Wyden—and Ron and I work very well together—would also be

very active in holding hearings and gaining the public input for

making those decisions instead of just letting it sit out there in

limbo and cause the conflicts that exist now that ultimately

brought President Clinton to an extraordinary effort that failed.

I do not necessarily expect a comment on that from you other

than to say it is an issue that begs solution and we ought to address it, if we can.

I mentioned to you yesterday that issue of Oust, a herbicide applied by the BLM to knock down cheat grass so that perennial

grasses could come back, usually applied after a fire scenario. And

fire management was mentioned. Of course, as you know from our

conversation, it was applied. The wind took it later, spread it

across private lands, destroyed crops, and created a liability that

could be approximately $100 million that I believe BLM has some

responsibility for.

The Idaho congressional delegation is going to be pursuing that

issue. I have made notice in the Appropriations Committee. The

Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has been very helpful

in trying to understand that with me. It is one of those unique

kinds of situations. We will work with you on it.

Lastly, I currently have a bill, S. 198, that deals with noxious

weeds. While the world is concerned about the health of our forests

and the large fuel buildup that is creating the catastrophic fire

events that we have seen the last number of years, there is something else going on not only on the Forest Service lands, but on the

lands that you are the chief steward for and that is noxious weeds.

They are in many instances totally making the land inaccessible to

human and wildlife and grazing livestock. We must—you must—

become an aggressive advocate of a plan that begins to work with

counties and States as a neighbor and as a landlord to resolve that.

20

The legislation I am talking about, the work we have done the last

couple of years, I think gets us a long way down that road.

You may wish to comment on that.

Ms. CLARKE. I certainly would commit to working with this committee and with the House of Representatives and my colleagues

both at Interior and in the Department of Agriculture, because this

is a very serious problem, and I would agree with your assessment

that it is a threat to the health of those lands and resources and

to those who use them.

Senator CRAIG. Well, the red light is on and my time is up. There

are several other questions that I may submit to you in writing.

Ms. CLARKE. Very fine.

Senator CRAIG. You are phenomenally well qualified to serve in

this capacity. And while the Director of the BLM may not make

headlines on the east coast, you have become one of my primary

landlords. You make headlines in Idaho and other Western public

land States. You are a very important person to us.

And as we wrestle through this energy crisis problem in our

country, you also will play an extremely valuable role with the subsurface issues and those that will talk out of both sides of their

mouth, advocating an energy policy but denying access to it. And

somehow we have got to work that out as a Congress. We are heading in that direction now, and I hope we can get there for the sake

of our country. And in the midst of all of that, you are going to be

caught in the whirlwind of making those decisions and helping provide the regulatory process that gets us to those resources.

Thank you very much.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Ms. Clarke, are you a native of Utah?

Ms. CLARKE. Yes, sir, I am.

Senator SMITH. Where did you grow up in Utah?

Ms. CLARKE. I grew up in Bountiful, Utah.

Senator SMITH. I am searching my memory of my own genealogy.

I wonder if we have some ancestors in common. Anyway, that is

not important here.

But what is important is my State is the 10th largest in terms

of size, in geography, in the United States, and you control more

than one-quarter of it. In 1937, a bunch of acts were passed relative to Oregon and California and the BLM lands, that they were

to be managed for the economic well-being of the counties involved.

I must tell you this is my own editorial comment, but I think in

the past decade, the fishing, farming, forestry industries have been

under assault in a way that has left them in economic extremes.

Oregon has benefitted much from high tech and tourism, but those

two industries just hit the wall and there are no skid marks. As

a consequence, Oregon has probably the highest unemployment in

America now.

And I guess I am asking for your commitment to go back to the

statutory directions on the BLM to manage these lands for the economic well-being of the counties. I wonder if that is your orientation.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I would commit to you to go back and not

only look at those statutes but seek to provide a balanced manageVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\78-372 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
21

ment scheme for those lands so that, as I indicated in my opening

statement, we are demonstrating concern for economic stability in

our country as well as for the natural resource base and making

sure that we are taking good care of that as well.

Senator SMITH. I would commend to you the work of the Oregon

congressional delegation on the Steens Mountain project that we

did together, Republicans and Democrats, environmentalists and

natural resource users, that instead of just declaring a monument,

we did something much better. We actually accounted for the economic and environmental values that were worthy of preservation,

and we preserved them both. I think it is a model, if this administration would pursue it, that I think would live up to its environmental duty and also its economic duty. I hope that can be a model

all over the West.

Are you aware of a policy in BLM that when BLM lands are on

fire, that you’re instructed to just let it burn and to keep off of it

private interests who would like to help put out the fire but are

being told they are not interested in their help and go ahead and

let it burn?

Ms. CLARKE. I am only distantly familiar with some of those regs

and have heard about them more as rumors. But I am not familiar

with details and certainly would want to take a look at that.

Senator SMITH. I would commend it to your investigation. These

are people, obviously, who want to graze cattle on public lands and

do so under permits and under the environmental obligations that

go with those permits. But they were told that it was supposed to

just burn. Obviously, that puts them out as well.

On the Steens Mountain, can you let me know if your Department needs any additional resources to carry out the implementation of its scoping process for its management plan?

Ms. CLARKE. Today, I could not answer that question, but Senator, I will be happy to look into that and let you know if we have

got sufficient resources to see that project through.

Senator SMITH. In that area, the Burns Paiute Tribe is intertwined in the history of that mountain, and it is important to assist

the tribe in recording and archiving its oral history. I hope your

Department will secure the funds that will enable that tribe to

move forward with this very important ancestral project.

Ms. CLARKE. I will certainly be willing to take a look at that and

see in what way we could provide some assistance.

Senator SMITH. Also, Kathleen, one of the primary concerns of

the Cascade/Siskiyou National Monument is the effect on property

inholders, those who have been, obviously, pursuing their livelihoods and now find themselves within the boundaries of a national

monument. I want to make sure that BLM is committed to protecting access rights for private property holders within the national

monument. I am hoping that you will come up with a management

plan that will reflect this.

Ms. CLARKE. I am not familiar with the details of the management plan of that monument, but certainly I would agree with you

that it is important that inholders be able to access their lands,

and we would work to find solutions to the challenges in those

areas.

22

Senator SMITH. I wish you all good things and hope to be regarded as a friend and an ally. I know the people of rural Oregon

are looking forward to your management of this important agency,

as it certainly does reflect very heavily upon what kind of condition

my whole State is in. Thank you.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know

it is difficult for you to stay here as long as you have to stay, and

I will try to be as short as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Wyden is going to ask additional

questions, so take what time you need.

Senator DOMENICI. In other words, even if I am finished, you

have to stay here.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. I am going to be here quite a

while, so go right ahead.

[Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. Well, listen, if I were the chairman, I would

rather hear Pete Domenici than Senator Wyden.

[Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. So, I am going to take a lot of time so you

will just get a little. Anyway, I am pleased that you are going to

stay around and ask some questions.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for calling the hearing. Obviously, we

need to get on with this nominee.

And I want to say to you, ma’am, I do not know you but you

come with very, very exciting recommendations. While you are taking on a difficult job, it appears to me from just observing you here

this morning, that you do that with a great deal of enthusiasm. Am

I right?

Ms. CLARKE. You are, sir. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. And even if it is difficult—and you know that.

There are many bridges that we have got to cross that we are not

quite sure how we are going to make it to the other side. You accept this as a challenge and you know a lot of work has to be done.

Ms. CLARKE. Absolutely. I think the only thing I am more passionate about than the lands of the West are the people out there,

and I would look forward to working with this group, as well as

with the people of the West to find solutions to the many challenges they face.

Senator DOMENICI. I do not know how much you know about the

State of New Mexico, but whenever the Southwest is mentioned

here, sometimes Senators leave our State off the list. But I guarantee you we are part of that. You will hear a lot from the little State

of New Mexico because of a couple of people around here, the chairman of the committee and myself. We are going to work very hard

with you about our problems.

So, let me start with one that is very, very difficult, and I want

to ask you for your commitment. We have grazing leases that you

all have issued out in our country, many of them in New Mexico,

Arizona, and a few other States. There has been an enormous backlog. It is not an issue about whether people are entitled to grazing

permits. It is an issue of your not being able to get them issued

by the expiration date, and they have already cleared for renewal,

23

and it does not get done. And so, we have had a very contentious

situation as to what should happen.

Those of us from the West have prevailed here and ultimately

with sufficient force, and the President of the United States had to

go along with us. And it is a simple proposition, and that is, if you

do not get them issued, there is no penalty imposed for the use of

the land and that you use them as if they were under lease until

the lease is issued.

Now, it would be much better if we had those leases issued, and

I am going to ask you if you will undertake a high level look at

that and see why we cannot get on with getting those done more

expeditiously. I know the chairman shares with me the desire that

we get that done. So, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you would let

me, that as soon as you have time, that you tell us how you can

get that done.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I commit that I certainly would look at

that. It is important that we not disrupt those operations and that

we be able to work efficiently with landowners so that they can

move ahead with their work. So, I would certainly be willing to

look at that and see what we can do to fix what may be broken.

Senator DOMENICI. You have got it right on the head when you

say so that landowners and leaseholders can get on with their

lives. There are some who did not understand that if you do not

have the lease, you do not have the proprietary interests, as small

or as large as one thinks they are, to conduct your business. To

borrow money, et cetera, people are asking where is the lease. And

if you do not have something that is as good as the lease, when you

are making them wait, then they do not have a lease, and that is

a very difficult thing for some of the rural families.

Ms. CLARKE. I appreciate that.

Senator DOMENICI. Secondly, I find that you have a very good

record of management in your job for your State, and there is no

question your management skills must be brought to this Department and we must get our work done better. So, I want to just lay

before you a situation and ask you again if you think you could

help.

I recently asked, after many years of oil and gas lessees complaining about things getting stuck in the mud—and I do not mean

the mud of a rig, just that we do not get them done. They run into

their own problems of different rules for the Forest Service than

yours out in the same oil field with reference to completing activities to get on with either cleaning up the premise or producing oil

and gas. From this meeting, I asked them to bring written information about the difficulties they are having. I do not want to hear

any more. They brought me a very good, detailed list of the kinds

of problems they were having because of the lack of uniformity of

application, for instance, between you and the Department of Agriculture.

I see no reason why people at your level cannot meet and decide

why two giant parcels of land that abut each other in the same

State are applying difficult rules and regulations about how clean

is clean, about what rule applies in terms of drilling and not drilling, how long you wait.

24

I wonder if I sent you kind of an inventory of these conflicts, if

you would take a look and see if there are some of these that can

be eliminated so we can be working off the same set of guidelines

unless there is a legal barrier to that.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I certainly would be willing to look at that.

I agree with your premise, that Government should work together,

and we should provide efficient service to our customers and be

somewhat transparent to them in terms of how we are dealing and

not have a multiple set of different standards and rules that apply.

I am good friends with Chief Bosworth of the Forest Service, and

if confirmed, I look forward to working with him to try and build

bridges between our agencies that will help us to accomplish that.

Senator DOMENICI. After you have had a chance to review that

list, I wonder if we gave you enough time to look at it, if you might

find time to come to the part of New Mexico where these problems

exist and perhaps spend a few hours at a meeting with the people

and anybody else who wants to attend analyzing from your standpoint which can be fixed and which cannot and why not. Could you

do that?

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I would look forward to the opportunity to

visit New Mexico and examine those issues with you.

Senator DOMENICI. I would be pleased.

Do you happen to know somebody that works for the Bureau of

Land Management in Alaska, a lady named Linda Randell?

Ms. CLARKE. I do not.

Senator DOMENICI. She works for the Bureau up there, and her

ability to get things done and the way she handles them—you remind me somewhat of that, and I would hope that you would run

into each other in your professional activities.

I ask that the remainder of my remarks, which are nothing but

good statements about you, be made a part of the record, as if

given.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Those will be included in the record.

Senator DOMENICI. I look forward to voting for you on the floor.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Wyden.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to be harmful to Senator Domenici’s causes, but

I think your point about environmental assessments and grazing is

absolutely right. We have got to get that done. And I wanted to ask

a couple of additional questions about grazing if I could, Ms.

Clarke.

Rangeland reform instituted a variety of standards for measuring

the health of public rangelands subject to grazing. But so far the

standards have only been applied in a limited sort of way. The Colorado office of BLM has applied these strategies to recreation management, which strikes me as a very attractive kind of concept.

Since maintaining the health of the land is ultimately the goal

of all BLM actions, would you be willing to incorporate these standards for land health into all agency decision making processes?

25

That would mean we would look at it for recreation, we would look

at it for energy exploration, we would look at it in a variety of

areas that go right to the heart of the mission of the BLM.

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I am not today familiar with the standards

for rangeland health, but I would look forward to the opportunity

to familiarize myself with those standards and to determine what

their applicability should be to all BLM interests and activities.

Senator WYDEN. One of the reasons I think westerners are so

frustrated—and Senator Domenici touched on it—is that these environmental assessments just go on and on and people just feel like

there is no predictability and there is no certainty with respect to

assessments and permits and the like, we have now got some people who genuinely are interested in retiring their permits. These

are individuals who would voluntarily relinquish permits.

Now, Senator Smith and I have been through a variety of debates in our State about what constitutes something that is really

voluntary, and my idea is it is not voluntary if the Government

makes your life so miserable on an ongoing basis, that you finally

say: I have got no choice: I am so-called voluntarily relinquishing

my rights. But some people do seem to want to retire grazing permits in a truly voluntary way because it is in their interest.

As BLM Director, would you support creating a program, a process so that when people do want to voluntarily retire a grazing permit, they would have an opportunity to do it?

Ms. CLARKE. Senator, I would certainly commit to getting into

that issue and trying to understand the pros and cons on all sides

of that. So, I look forward to working with the committee on addressing that possibility and the potential for using that as a tool

to manage resources.

Senator WYDEN. The last question I had is one that I think

would really give you a chance to talk about where you want to see

this agency head. I think you have responded to our questions

today. I intend to vote for you. I intend to support your nomination,

recognizing that it is clear we are not going to agree on everything

that comes up.

But I would like to get a sense of how you want to take this

major land conservation and management agency and figure out a

way to creatively ensure that as the mining and grazing and various economic considerations, energy production, are dealt with,

that we are also going to protect our national treasures. I think it

would be very helpful if you would sketch out for us how you think

you might go about that and particularly any ideas you have for

getting beyond some of the old impasses.

For example, what Senator Craig and I did on the county payments bill, instead of going off and saying we are going to run a

lawyer’s full employment program when there is a dispute, we said

that counties that can agree on ideas for local initiatives would get

the funds, and if they could not agree, the money would go somewhere else. And it created an incentive for people to work together.

I think I would be interested in your ideas in this area, as you go

to trying to ensure that this principal land agency balances economic considerations with the environmental side.

Ms. CLARKE. I believe that the work of the BLM is all about

quality of life for our Nation, and I refer to that because I think

26

we have interests at the BLM that relate to the economic stability

and vitality of the domestic resources within this country, but we

also manage lands that provide wonderful intrinsic values that we

all enjoy, recreation opportunities, wilderness values. And I do believe it is inherent on this agency to protect those values as well

as seeking to make sure the land is productive and meets the economic needs of not just the Nation as a whole, but of communities

that are in place in those areas.

I totally support the efforts that you are talking about to work

collaboratively. I have had very, very positive experiences in bringing together people polarized on all sides of issues and helping

them understand that they often have as much in common as they

have in conflict, and that if we build on the commonalities, we can

work together to find solutions that I think then are sustainable

because we are giving consideration and respect to the multiple

values and the multiple concerns that people have about the land.

As I said, I feel passionately about the land in the West. I love

it for its intrinsic values, but I am also greatly respectful of the

way that it provides a livelihood and a living to many of the cultures of the West that I think are important and that we ought to

respect and care for and also to meet the national needs of this

country in this precarious time.

Again, I am very much a fan and an advocate of innovation, of

collaboration. You referred yesterday, Senator, to working from the

bottom up, and I would welcome opportunities to engage communities and helping them to find and create solutions to the challenges. I appreciate the flexibility in the laws that govern BLM and

think it can be wisely used while we make sure that we are adhering to the standards that are set by the Congress as we govern

those lands.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Clarke, thank you very much for your testimony, and we will

try to act quickly on your nomination. And we wish you well in this

new position.

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(27)

APPENDIX

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF KATHLEEN CLARKE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. As a multiple-use agency, the Bureau of Land Management has perhaps the most difficult task of any Federal land management agency, with the inherent conflicts in decisions to conserve or develop natural resources. In recent

years, greater emphasis was placed on ensuring the BLM’s role as a major land conservation and management agency. As Director, what would be your vision of the

future of the BLM? Do you foresee any major management or policy changes?

Answer. I am committed to achieving the balance that the BLM’s mandate demands. In order to do that, I want to consider innovative approaches including partnerships with state and local governments, land users, and other public land stakeholders.

Insofar as major management or policy changes are concerned, I first want to gain

more familiarity with the Bureau’s wide range of programs and expertise, engage

in dialogue with BLM’s managers and employees, and talk with a broad range of

stakeholders. Further, I look forward to working with the members of this Committee and other elected officials to identify issues that should be addressed.

Question 2. The previous administration established the National Landscape Conservation System as an office within the BLM. What are your plans for this office?

Answer. I have no immediate plans to address organizational issues in the Bureau. I want first to become familiar with the BLM’s various offices and programs

and to discuss with employees, managers, and stakeholders how we can help make

the agency work better. Insofar as the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System is concerned, I intend to provide guidance for responsive planning processes and

ongoing direction to protect the resources and to work directly with communities

and partners.

Question 3. As you know, President Clinton designated several National Monuments under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Most of these monuments are administered by the BLM. In addition, Congress designated other BLM areas as National Monuments or National Conservation Areas. If confirmed, what actions will

you take to ensure that these areas will receive the staffing and funding necessary

to fully protect the resources they were designated to protect?

Answer. If confirmed as BLM Director, I will review funding and staffing needs

to properly manage the monuments.

Question 4. Is the BLM or the Interior Department considering making any

changes to either the management authorities or boundaries of any BLM area designated as a National Monument?

Answer. I understand that the Secretary has asked for public comment on the

management of BLM National Monuments and possible boundary changes. If confirmed, I will be working in consultation with her and with interested members of

Congress in addressing these issues.

Question 5. Our office received a BLM press release last week announcing that

the manager of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is leaving the

monument to assume a position at Grand Canyon National Park. Was this transfer

initiated by the monument manager or by the Interior Department?

Answer. I am unaware of the background and details of the recent announcement

regarding the manager of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Question 6. Have you been involved in any discussions regarding the transfer of

this employee from the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument?

Answer. I have had casual discussions related to management of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I have not had any involvement in decisions regarding personnel issues in the monument or transfer of the monument manager.

Question 7. In 1995, the BLM adopted new regulations governing its livestock

grazing program. Although the regulations were challenged in court, the U.S. SuVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:40 Mar 27, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\78-372 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
28

preme Court upheld them by a 9-0 decision. Do you support the current grazing regulations? If not, what areas will you recommend changing and why?

Answer. I have not reviewed the current regulations to determine whether or not

changes are needed. If confirmed, I commit to looking into this issue. If changes are

appropriate, I will work with BLM’s many constituents and with interested members of Congress to ensure that full public involvement occurs throughout the regulatory process.

Question 8. One of the major issues during the previous debate on grazing reform

concerned the need for BLM to take proactive measures to ensure the health of public rangelands. Where grazing is contributing to the failure to meet rangeland

health standards, do you think it’s important to take action on the ground to remedy

the situation?

Answer. The BLM must manage public lands for both current and future generations. In situations where grazing is contributing to a failure to meet the rangeland

health standards, I am committed to working to identify appropriate actions to meet

those standards.

Question 9. As a Utah resident, you are probably familiar with the issue of R.S.

2477 rights-of-way across Federal lands. As you know, the 19th century authority

granting these rights-of-way was repealed when FLPMA was enacted in 1976. However, there has been ongoing disagreement between various States and the Federal

government about the validity of rights-of-way that were grandfathered prior to

1976. In order to avoid annual legislative debates on the issue, Congress passed a

law prohibiting the Interior Department from implementing any final regulation related to the disposition of R.S. 2477 claims unless approved by a future Act of Congress. I understand that the Department is now in discussions with the State of

Utah regarding the State’s lawsuit claiming thousands of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way

across Federal lands in Utah. Although the R.S. 2477 issue is somewhat arcane, it

has tremendous implications throughout the west. Will you commit that to keep this

Committee informed prior to any decision by the BLM to adopt a policy recognizing

or denying R.S. 2477 rights-of-way claims?

Answer. Yes, I will work with the Committee and interested members of Congress

on the challenges presented by R.S. 2477 right-of-way claims.

Question 10. You have most recently represented the State of Utah as Executive

Director of its Department of Natural Resources. If confirmed, you will now represent the interests of the United States. Do you perceive any conflict between your

past position and your new responsibilities? What differences will you bring to the

R.S. 2477 issue as BLM Director in contrast to your position with the State of Utah?

Answer. If confirmed, I will rely upon the advice and counsel of the Office of the

Solicitor within the Department in representing the interests of the United States

regarding R.S. 2477 claims.

Question 11. Non-native invasive plants are a serious problem on lands across the

country. BLM lands are no exception. What plans do you have to address this significant ecological issue?

Answer. I agree that non-native invasive plants are a significant ecological issue

on all lands including BLM administered lands. If confirmed, I will work with our

many partners including local and county weed districts as well as other Federal

and State agencies and private landowners to prevent, locate, and control weed infestations.

Question 12. Sound, objective science plays a key role in good natural resources

decision making. A BLM Science Advisory Board was established in 1998 to advise

the Director on communicating BLM’s science needs to other agencies and the scientific community, and to help transfer new technology and science to BLM’s field

operation. The Board also assisted in the development of a BLM strategic science

plan. Are you committed to supporting good science at the BLM through your management and budget initiatives?

Answer. BLM’s resource decisions must be supported by good science. This is particularly important as the BLM begins the long term process of revising its Land

Use Plans. If I am confirmed, the strategic science plan will be considered as part

of BLM’s management and budget initiatives.

Question 13. What are your plans for the BLM Science Advisory Board?

Answer. I am not yet familiar with the work of the BLM Science Advisory Board.

My understanding is that the BLM has a strategic science plan that incorporates

a science advisory board. The integrity of science in the Bureau’s natural resource

decisions is of critical importance, and if confirmed, I will review BLM’s current

science strategy and work with the Committee if improvements need to be made.

Question 14. The previous Administration made a significant commitment to fulfilling the federal government’s tribal trust responsibility. President Clinton issued

a Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations With Native American

29

Tribal Governments, Executive Order No. 13084, and Executive Order 13175 on November 6, 2000, which expressly acknowledges the ‘‘unique legal relationship’’ of the

United States with federally recognized tribes and the rights of tribes to exercise

inherent sovereign powers over their members and lands. As BLM Director, what

leadership initiatives do you plan to undertake to ensure that the tribal trust responsibility is fulfilled?

Answer. Secretary Norton has made it a top priority of the Department to

strengthen the trust relationship we have with American Indians and Alaska Natives. If confirmed as the BLM Director, I will work closely with Secretary Norton

on this commitment to achieve greater intergovernmental communication and cooperation with Tribes.

Question 15. One concern that has been voiced by producers is the length of time

it sometimes takes to secure environmental compliance for the issuance of onshore

oil and gas leases. As you know, I have a strong interest in a well-run onshore oil

and gas leasing program. I want to ensure that we have both the benefit of the substantial oil and gas resources that are produced on BLM lands and that this production occurs in an environmentally sensitive manner. Would you support increasing

the authorization and funding for carrying out environmental compliance requirements necessary for the issuance of leases under the federal onshore oil and gas

leasing program?

Answer. If confirmed as BLM Director, I commit to ensuring that actions and decisions within the Bureau follow good environmental practices and represent a balanced approach to multiple use management that protects and supports healthy

natural systems. It is important to me to ensure the BLM has the resources it needs

to achieve that balance within a meaningful time frame.

Question 16. In past years there have been proposals to devolve BLM oil and gas

management responsibilities to the States. Have you had any involvement with this

issue in your position with the State of Utah? In general, what are your views on

this issue?

Answer: Over the past several years, there have been various proposals to devolve

BLM oil and gas management responsibilities to the States. I am aware of the recommendations outlined by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

(IOGCC), States, Tribes, and the BLM throughout the 1990s concerning this issue.

I know that many factors and circumstances have changed since devolution was

originally proposed. If confirmed as BLM Director, I will give full consideration to

all aspects of this issue, including original recommendations, changes in BLM programs and policies and current state and industry concerns. Staff from the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas, & Mining, have participated

in discussions relative to this matter, but I have not been personally involved.

Question 17. Recently, Secretary Norton wrote to me stating that the Administration would support legislative efforts to reform the Mining Law of 1872. Can you

provide more detail on what provisions the Secretary would support?

Answer. It is my understanding that the Secretary expressed a willingness to foster a dialogue on mining law reform. At this time, I do not have further details on

specific provisions, but I look forward to contributing to such a dialogue with the

Secretary, interested members of Congress, and other stakeholders.

Question 18. Does the Administration plan to transmit to the Congress legislation

to reform the Mining Law of 1872?

Answer. I am unaware of any plans to transmit to the Congress legislation to reform the Mining Law of 1872.

Question 19. At a recent hearing before the House Resources Subcommittee on

Energy and Minerals, a representative from the Department of the Interior testified

that the preferred alternative for H.R. 1913 (relating to the acquisition of private

subsurface rights within the Acoma Reservation) was a direct purchase of the subsurface rights from the NZ Corporation. In your opinion, can BLM resolve this issue

administratively?

Answer. This is a complex issue with which I need to become more familiar before

I am able to offer an opinion on the Bureau’s administrative alternatives. If confirmed as Director, I would like to learn more about this and will work with you

and other members of the New Mexico delegation.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

In late March of this year Secretary Norton sent letters to governors and elected

officials asking for their recommendations for planning of national monuments. I

sent a letter to the Secretary supporting the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

of Southern Oregon.

30

Even though the letters from Secretary Norton went out to a very limited audience, the Department of the Interior received responses from not only the governors

and elected officials to whom she addressed her letters but she also received an

overwhelming 6,000+ unsolicited responses from citizens and public interest groups.

Question. Aside from the legal requirements for public involvement in the planning process, how will you open this process up to a diversity of citizens and public

interest groups—particularly those who felt disenfranchised by the intended limited

audience for the Secretary’s March letter?

Answer. I believe strongly in coordination, cooperation, and consultation to further

conservation, and I commit to work closely with Tribal, State and local governments, diverse stakeholders, and interest groups to go the extra mile to achieve this.

Building broad-based partnerships with local communities is one of my top priorities.

Question. Will you speak with the local recreationists, conservation groups, ranchers and other interested stakeholders?

Answer. Yes I will.

Question. Can you assure me that the new plans will be based on adequate and

comprehensive data? Will these plans be based on a foundation of science to thoroughly analyze the impacts of the planning options?

Answer. I support the use of good data and the best available science in the development of monument plans.

Question. Secretary Norton hinted at boundary reductions. If boundary reductions

are presented for consideration, will you also present boundary expansion options?

Answer. The Secretary has stated that only Congress has the authority to change

either proclamation mandated authorities or make boundary adjustments to BLM

national monuments. I believe the BLM should give thoughtful consideration to all

Congressional proposals for boundary adjustments, whether they are for a reduction

or an expansion in size.

Question. It is my understanding that the BLM’s plan to issue a draft management plan for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was delayed at the direction of the Secretary’s office. It was supposed to be completed and released at the

beginning of January 2001, yet now it looks like it won’t be released until January

2002. That is unacceptable.

The draft Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument management plan must be released before the end of this calendar year so the people of southwestern Oregon

can begin assisting the BLM in the development of a management plan for this new

Monument. Can you commit to that?

Answer. It is my understanding that the Secretary is still evaluating responses

to her March 2001 letter to elected officials asking for comments on the new national monuments. I commit to familiarize myself with this issue and work with you

and other interested members of the Oregon Congressional delegation to move this

process forward.

Question. Before the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was designated much

of its area was protected as the BLM’s only ecological emphasis area (EEA): the

Cascade-Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area. In a rare and refreshing cooperative

venture, U.S. Timberland and local conservationists approached me about securing

$500,000 in appropriated funds to acquire, for BLM, 560 acres of key U.S.

Timberlands properties on the southeast slopes of Soda Mountain, next to BLM’s

recommended-for-wilderness Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area. The

Weyerhauser Corporation, which owns the mineral rights to that land, was also in

favor of the deal. Though I was able to secure $250,000 towards this purchase in

the FY 2000 Senate Interior Appropriations bill, the House Appropriations Committee cut funding for the project entirely on the grounds that ‘‘BLM didn’t want that

land.’’ BLM told us they would pursue this project with us in the future. They

haven’t. Ms. Clarke, it’s not every day that big timber companies and local conservationists in my state agree on a course of action. When they do, I want to encourage

such cooperation. What’s become of our request that BLM prioritize the purchase

of these Soda Mountain lands from U.S. Timberlands?

Answer. I am not familiar with this proposal. If confirmed, I will review the issue,

and work with you on it.

Question. There are other willing sellers in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, as well. The local BLM has a file of property owners who have contacted BLM

on their own initiative. What assurances will you give me that BLM will prioritize

acquisitions from willing sellers in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument?

Answer. I understand BLM has a long standing policy that it will only acquire

lands from willing sellers. If confirmed, I intend to continue this course on all BLM

managed lands, as well as in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

31

Question. Some of the most biologically important unprotected lands in the American west are in southwest Oregon’s Siskiyou Wild Rivers region, where public lands

are mostly managed by the Forest Service and BLM. Not only do the Siskiyou

Mountains host one of the most botanically diverse coniferous forests in the world,

but the rivers and streams here have perhaps the best remaining wild salmon

spawning habitat in the lower 48 states. I have consistently expressed my concern

to the agencies about public lands mining in this region—especially suction dredge

and placer mining in these rivers and streams. The economic benefits of mining

here are nil, while the damage to the wild fishery here from mining appears to be

considerable. Fortunately, a Federal Register notice last January 22 gave much of

this area a two-year time-out from new mining claims on both BLM and Forest

Service land in much of the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area and directed the agencies

to consider special management for the area beyond a longer withdrawal from mineral entry. To my dismay, Forest Service Chief Bosworth wrote Secretary Norton on

October 2, asking her to terminate this ‘‘proposed withdrawal’’ on Forest Service

land. To the best of my knowledge, neither agency has displayed the slightest intention of evaluating the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area for greater protection. Ms. Clarke,

I know you can’t speak for the Forest Service, but can you assure me that BLM will

comply with both the direction and intent, as written, of the January 22 Federal

Register notice regarding BLM lands in the Siskiyou Wild Rivers area? What compliance steps has BLM taken in the nine months since the Federal Register notice

appeared, and what compliance steps will they continue to take?

Answer. I have been informed that the BLM is fully complying with the intent

of the January 22 Federal Register notice by ensuring that no new mining claims

have been filed on the area. Additionally, I understand that the BLM is in the process of assessing what portions of the area should be permanently withdrawn from

mineral entry. As this process continues, I will make sure that the BLM keeps Congress informed.

Question. Ms. Clarke, as Secretary Norton pointed out in her testimony before the

committee, the new monuments are under-funded both for the planning process and

for managing the increased visitation to these important and special places.

Can you assure the committee that the plans will be funded to meet all Monument purposes as set forth in each Monument proclamation or statutory requirement? I would like you to provide the committee with a proposal for funding for

each monument, including funds and a proposed schedule for monument planning

starts and completions, within sixty days of your confirmation.

Answer. It is my understanding that the BLM is moving forward with the planning process for the new national monuments. I am fully supportive of the planning

process because it will provide important opportunities for local communities to be

involved in decisions for future management of their public lands. Funding for each

monument will be dependent on management decisions that are made as a part of

the planning process. I am not in a position to commit to a funding schedule for

them at this time, but if confirmed, I would be pleased to work with the Committee

on a proposed schedule of funding for BLM’s national monuments.

Question. Congress provided a nominal funding increase for land use planning in

FY 2001. What progress has been made in eliminating the planning backlog and updating of plans, and what progress is anticipated for FY 2002 at the level of funding

that has been provided?

Answer. Land use plans are the basis for all management actions on public lands.

It is my understanding that the 2001 funding increase for land use planning was

the initial funding to begin a ten year process of revising the BLM’s land use plans,

and that additional funding has been provided for FY 2002. If confirmed, I will keep

the Committee apprised of BLM’s progress.

Question. Coming from Utah you are undoubtedly familiar with the management

of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument—the first national monument to

be entrusted to the BLM. The BLM is also responsible for thirteen other new national monuments. Your management of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National

Monument will set the tone for management of each of the other national monuments under your direction.

I have been informed that the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument BLM manager in Utah has been told she must leave her job, and I am concerned when career

civil servants in the field are forced out by Washington, D.C. interference. My understanding is that it is illegal to remove a civil servant from a job simply because

anybody—a Senator, a county commissioner, a Congressmen, a Governor, local activists—doesn’t like him or her or the job he or she is doing. I would like a detailed

answer on why the Grand Staircase manager was forced out of her position.

32

Answer. I am unaware of the background and details of the recent announcement

regarding the manager of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Therefore, I am unable to provide the information you are requesting.

Question. What are your plans to instill confidence in the public as to your ability

to manage each of the other national monuments? How will you gain the public’s trust during the planning process?

Answer. I believe the key to building public trust and confidence in the monuments is through active public involvement and locally based solutions. I will provide leadership to ensure that the Secretary’s ‘‘4 Cs’’—consultation, communication

and coordination, all in the service of conservation—occur throughout the planning

process.

Question. Until recently, the National Park Service has been the primary caretaker of America’s national monuments. In fact, it wasn’t until 1996 that the BLM

had any significant role in the management of national monuments. As you are

aware, there is a lot of speculation regarding BLM’s ability to manage these monuments with the foresight necessary to conserve today’s diminishing resources for the

long term.

What will you do to ensure that the national monuments remain under your jurisdiction?

Answer. I am excited to have the new opportunity for BLM to be an effective

steward of these unique resources across the West. I look forward to engaging in

this process to promote the success of the monuments.

Question. How will you tap into the expertise of other agencies and organizations

to develop the long-term management strategies for an ecosystem-wide approach?

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to strengthen the consultation and cooperation

among Federal, State and local agencies and stakeholders which have been developed by the BLM for the national monuments and national conservation areas it

manages.

Question. How will you work jointly with the other three land management agencies to adapt the best land conservation practices for the new monuments?

Answer. If confirmed, I will work to collaborate and coordinate with the National

Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service in the development of

management plans for the monuments through the land use planning process. I intend to work in an open and cooperative fashion with the other bureau directors.

I will encourage and welcome their input into the land use planning process for the

new monuments.

Question. What do you recognize as the most significant resource issues that you’ll

face?

Answer. With regard to national monuments, there are numerous and diverse resource challenges. A balanced approach to conserving valuable resources and meeting the needs of communities is important. Developing partnerships with interested

citizens, interest groups and communities will be a major goal in terms of protecting

resources and getting public acceptance in complex land use plans and management

decisions.

Question. Are dams, pipelines, conveyances, transmission lines, rights of way, etc.,

appropriate in national monuments? If so, under what constraints? Are they appropriate in wilderness?

Answer. It is difficult to generalize about the types of permissible activities in national monuments because uses for a particular monument depend on the language

of the proclamation or legislation establishing the national monument. I will commit

to work with the Solicitor’s office to ensure that proposed activities within national

monuments are consistent with the law.

In general, these activities are not appropriate in wilderness areas, but they are

subject to valid existing rights. If confirmed, I will work with the Solicitor to manage wilderness in accordance with the law.

Question. How will you promote natural resource conservation in these new monuments?

Answer. I believe the best way to promote natural resource conservation in the

new monuments is to foster a sense of respect and appreciation for the resource values within these monuments.

Question. Will you be recommending to Congress that additional national monuments and conservation areas be designated?

Answer. At this time, I have not considered making any recommendations regarding monuments or conservation areas.

Question. In January of this year, the BLM published new guidance manuals that

address both its land use planning process (‘‘Land Use Planning Handbook’’) and the

evaluation of lands that may be determined suitable for wilderness designation

(‘‘Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures’’).

33

Are you committed to assuring that the BLM follows the new guidance articulated

in these new manuals, including evaluating lands for their Wilderness potential

under the guidelines set forth in the Wilderness Inventory handbook as a component of every new BLM land use planning effort?

Answer. I am committed to the health and protection of natural resources on

America’s public lands, including designated wilderness areas. If confirmed as BLM

Director, I will study the guidance issued in these new manuals and consider whether they constitute the best approach for resource protection.

Question. The BLM is responsible for managing a multitude of important natural

resource values, many of them fragile or at-risk including:

• 306 federally listed species

• 35 species proposed for listing

• More than 1,000 species identified by the BLM as sensitive

• More than 6 million acres of Wilderness Areas

• National Scenic Trails, National Monuments and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Moreover, Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA directs that,

‘‘. . . the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water

resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor

recreation and human occupancy and use . . .’’

How do you plan to serve the public interest in safeguarding these resources and

treasures, while simultaneously meeting the President’s request for increased energy production on our public lands?

Answer. If confirmed as BLM Director, I am committed to managing public lands

in a manner that recognizes the importance of protecting our natural resources and

managing them in a way that promotes a healthy environment and a strong economy. I do not believe we have the option of choosing between the demands of growth

and the imperative for conservation. We must do both.

Question. The President’s Energy Plan suggests that stipulations imposed on some

oil and gas leases to protect resource values such as wildlife habitat or riparian

areas should be weakened. Do you believe that too much protection has been afforded environmental values in the BLM’s oil and gas leasing and development program? If so, please explain how you intend to assure protection of the multitude of

resources values on the public lands that could be put at risk of damage from oil

and gas activities.

Answer. If confirmed as BLM Director, I commit to ensure that actions and decisions within the Bureau follow good environmental practices and represent a balanced approach to multiple use management that protects and supports healthy

natural systems.

Question. Currently, BLM sells oil and gas leases in sensitive areas on public

lands without first completing a site-specific environmental review of the area that

includes an opportunity for public participation. Indeed, rather than conduct current

environmental reviews and assessments, BLM relies on old and dated NEPA documents that typically did not include site-specific analyses. In addition, conditions

have changed to such an extent (new T&E species listed, critical habitat designated,

etc.) that many of these old NEPA documents are no longer accurate, therefore making reliance on these documents inappropriate.

Subsequently, when the leaseholder requests permission to drill, BLM completes

a site-specific environmental review, but unfortunately cannot implement many of

the restrictions and mitigation measure that the site-specific environmental review

indicates should be implemented because BLM is limited to those restrictions/stipulations that were initially incorporated into the lease itself. This process results in

many leases being sold in critical habitat, proposed wilderness areas, etc. with few,

if any restriction (i.e. *No Surface Occupancy* stipulation).

As BLM Director, what would you do to remedy this situation? Would you institute a reasonable process of review so that the BLM looks before it leases? In other

words, would you require that a site-specific environmental review be completed

prior to a parcel being offered in a lease sale?

Answer. I am informed that the BLM is currently involved in a public process to

update the Land Use Plans for areas containing high energy potential and important sensitive resources. This process includes consultation and collaboration with

other Federal agencies with regulatory oversight for the Endangered Species Act to

ensure that the leasing decisions contain the appropriate stipulations. I am not familiar with the specific details of the Bureau’s environmental review process, but

34

if confirmed, I will learn more about it and will work with you to identify the environmental review needs of our public lands.

Question. The BLM has been designated for a lead role in complying with provisions of Section 604 of the ‘‘Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of

2000’’.

Please provide the Committee with a status report on the progress that BLM has

made to date in complying with the EPCA amendment study requirements.

Answer. I understand that the BLM, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service,

Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, is in the process of preparing

reports on major oil and gas basins in the Rocky Mountain region as part of the

EPCA inventory. If confirmed, I am willing to provide a status report to the Committee and other interested members of Congress.

Question. Has the BLM decided upon the methodology to be used in assessing the

availability of public lands for oil and gas activities? If so, will you please provide

the Committee with a description of the methodologies the BLM will be employing

in making these assessments?

Answer. I have been informed that the BLM is still developing the methodology

to assess availability of public lands for oil and gas activities. If confirmed, I will

provide the Committee with the methodology.

Question. In your June 12, 1999 testimony before the Congressional hearing on

CARA, you were representing Utah’s Division of Natural Resources when you stated

that ‘‘CARA funding will allow biologists to monitor wildlife species and cooperatively manage important wildlife habitat so that many species never reach the

threatened or endangered list.’’ You expressed a clear concern for threatened and

endangered species. In fact, last year, you managed to work with the Utah State

Legislature to secure funding in the amount of $3 million to protect and recover endangered species. In your testimony regarding CARA, you also commented that

‘‘CARA revenues could fund purchases of conservation easements, which leaves the

land in private ownership, mostly ranches and farms, while preserving critical habitat for wildlife.’’ This suggests a clear concern for habitat and a vivid understanding

of the critical role that habitat plays in the health of a species.

How will you influence the planning and management of the 15 new national

monuments under direction to ensure that habitat is not only protected, as the law

requires, but also enlarged and enhanced for the long-term preservation of these

threatened and endangered species?

Answer. I understand that land use plans will be completed for each of the national monuments and that these plans will be prepared in compliance with their

individual Proclamations and BLM’s planning process. In addition to public scoping,

all completed land use plans undergo Endangered Species Act consultation with the

appropriate regulatory agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National

Marine Fisheries Service) as necessary to ensure that ESA issues are properly addressed.

Question. What will you do to increase funding for the ESA and to ensure that

the law is not compromised?

Answer. I have been informed that in response to a request from Congress, the

Bureau prepared a Report to Congress in March of 2001 entitled ‘‘Effects of Endangered Species Act Listings on Bureau of Land Management Programs and Activities.’’ This report was attached to the Bureau’s FY 2002 Budget Justification and

identified specific program needs and recommendations related to T&E species management. If confirmed, I will review these recommendations and stand ready to

work with all parties on ESA-related activities.

Question. Will you work to strengthen the Act to include habitat protection?

Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service has the primary responsibility within the

Department of the Interior for the administration of the Endangered Species Act.

As such, that agency would take the lead on any recommended changes to the Act.

I have been informed that the BLM is working on the important issue of habitat

protection by, among other things, taking proactive steps to identify key areas for

conservation and restoration of habitats for ‘‘at risk’’ species to prevent the need for

listing under the ESA.

Question. The Endangered Species Act has many far-reaching implications for the

BLM grazing permittees. How do you plan to ensure common sense and sound

science is being used across the board in the management of threatened and endangered species?

Answer. You are correct that Endangered Species management can have significant implications on BLM management of the many activities permitted on public

lands. I have always sought common sense solutions, using sound science, to resolve

resource conflicts. If confirmed, I will continue to do so as Director of BLM.

35

Question. When you were director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources,

you oversaw a drastic change in how the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources identified ‘‘state sensitive species.’’ In fact, it was widely reported that the changes you

implemented, namely providing an opportunity for industry to wade into a previously science-based sensitive species designation process, was done under pressure

from the oil and gas industry. In addition, under your watch, Utah Division of Wildlife Resource biologists and staff were discouraged from communicating directly with

their federal counterparts about either sensitive species or critical wildlife habitat

without first talking with politically appointed staff.

What assurance can you offer that if appointed Director of BLM you would ensure

that BLM biologists are encouraged to talk with their state counterparts, as well

as to speak openly about the pros and cons of a particular project?

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to encouraging and working with BLM biologists to consult, coordinate, communicate and work collaboratively with their counterparts at the State and local levels in an open, public process. This is an important principle for all programs in the BLM.

Question. The future of the BLM is at the crossroads. It can choose to continue

to build upon its progress in becoming the major land conservation and management agency, or it can choose to ignore its potential and the American public’s desire to protect our remaining lands.

What role do you see for the National Landscape Conservation System and its Office with the BLM Directorate?

Answer. I have no immediate plans to address organizational issues in the Bureau. I want first to become familiar with the BLM’s various offices and programs

and to discuss with employees, managers, and stakeholders how we can help make

the agency work better. Insofar as the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System is concerned, I intend to provide guidance for responsive planning processes and

ongoing direction to protect the resources and to work directly with communities

and partners.

Æ