[Senate Hearing 107-351]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-372 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 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
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
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.
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.
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, 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?
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 fulfill. 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 Conservation 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.
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 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?
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 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
non-point 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.
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.
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.
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. 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
management 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.
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, 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.
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? 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 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.]
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. Supreme 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 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.
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.
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.
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'').
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 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.
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.