Position on the nomination of Kathleen Sgamma to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. We also work to protect the surrounding landscapes to protect wildlife corridors, historical resources, watersheds and much more. On behalf of our nearly 1.6 million members and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose the nomination of Kathleen Sgamma to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Among her many responsibilities, a BLM Director must advance the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple use mandate as explained in the law:

“a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.”

This mandate demands a leader that will balance the many uses of these public lands. A BLM director must understand and demonstrate that conservation, wildlife and watershed protection and historic preservation are not lesser uses to minerals management but co-equal under the law. This is especially true because the agency manages national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, national wild and scenic rivers and national scenic and historic trails—places where conservation, scenic, scientific and historic resources and values are the paramount use. More than 80 national parks are adjacent to BLM’s nearly 250 million acres.

Unfortunately, Ms. Sgamma has not shown a willingness to consider the full range of values of the lands BLM manages or an interest in how they connect to the health of national park lands, wildlife corridors, air and water quality and to natural and cultural resource protection. Instead, Ms. Sgamma’s own public testimony demonstrates a concerning lack of consistent support for balancing FLPMA’s values. For example, although in 2021, before this committee, Ms. Sgamma stated that multiple use “includes conservation as well as oil, natural gas and other productive uses,” she argued in 2023 that FLPMA “does not list conservation as a use” when opposing the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. This rule simply clarified and supported FLPMA’s direction to BLM to “preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition,” i.e., conservation.

At the same time, she has devalued FLPMA’s tools like Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and withdrawals that support BLM’s multiple use and sustainable yield mission. RMPs play an outsized role in the conservation and development of all uses on BLM lands around parks. The collaborative planning process and public engagement led by local BLM offices ensures management decisions are coordinated with industry and the most geographically impacted communities. Recent RMPs show attention in addressing conflicting needs by allocating energy availability to its development potential and existing infrastructure while mitigating areas of potential conflict with conservation needs. Instead of advocating for the staffing and funding needed to implement effective, efficient RMPs, Ms. Sgamma said in 2023 congressional testimony to the House Committee on Natural Resources that she has “never seen a [RMP] completed by any administration that does not lock away more land from oil and natural gas leasing…,” a perspective at odds with BLM’s data showing at least 85 percent of its lands are open for oil and gas leasing. Additionally, Ms. Sgamma has criticized the use of FLPMA’s withdrawal authority multiple times in testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee arguing that withdrawals “are meant to halt leasing and development on federal lands” when instead they are intended to protect specific places from permanent harms including pollution impacts of mining and other energy development.

The nominee has sought to weaken protections for public lands where oil and natural gas extraction may occur. This includes opposition to common sense reforms to the nation’s oil and gas program, as mandated by P.L. 117-169. As president of the Western Energy Alliance, Ms. Sgamma pushed to reduce the royalty rate the American people receive for oil and gas production on federal land below rates set by states such as New Mexico and Texas, arguing it would reduce production on federal lands: “If the federal government were to increase the royalty rate, it would further make public lands non-competitive with non-federal lands, and further drive companies off those federal lands.” Federal lands have instead seen record oil and natural gas production. She also pushed to reduce bonding requirements, calling them “excessive.” Lowering bonding rates below even state-set levels for oil and natural gas shifts the responsibility for the cleanup of pollution left behind by private companies to American taxpayers, potentially adding to the over 15,000 orphaned well sites BLM estimates to be on federal lands.

The balance of private commercial and industrial uses — whether oil and gas development, mining or recreation — and conservation effects the health of the water, air, and historic and cultural resources that national parks share with BLM lands. Vocal support for all the multiple and balanced uses and benefits of BLM lands, including conservation and protection within these and adjacent public lands like America’s national parks must be a prerequisite for any BLM director. Ms. Sgamma has demonstrated in her own words that she does not meet that standard. Therefore, NPCA respectfully asks you to oppose her nomination for this important post.