Two hours prior to her Senate hearing, which would have made her the next director of the Bureau of Land Management, Kathleen Sgamma got a call from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. She was in the process of getting into a car with her family to head to the Capitol when he informed her that she had to withdraw her nomination.
Sgamma told E&E News by Politicoregarding the exchange that occurred last May. Burgum, she informed the reporter, “essentially said that I had failed the vetting process.”
The justification provided by Burgum wasa leaked memoSgamma sent a message to oil and gas executives after the January 6th assault on the Capitol. “I am appalled by the violence that occurred yesterday and by President Trump’s part in promoting false information that fueled it,” she stated.
We need to listen to and embrace those we disagree with, even if they don’t show the same respect,” she wrote. “By making this effort both individually and as a community, we might eventually see political leaders who more accurately represent the values of our country.
Before being nominated for the BLM position, Sgamma, who is from Buffalo, New York, served as the president of the Western Energy Alliance, a Denver-based group representing the oil and gas industry. This organization promotes extractive industries in the Intermountain West, a region where she had been employed for two decades.
A graduate of MIT and Virginia Tech, Sgamma has several years of experience serving as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, and she characterized herself as someone who has a “natural inclination toward public lands.”
Where this tendency frequently leads to conservationists, Sgamma “took the road less traveled,” becoming a strong advocate for oil, gas, and natural resources. She regularly provided testimony in Congress for her clients and was featured in court cases involving reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act that affected the companies she represented. Sgamma was also a named contributor toProject 2025’s section on the Department of the Interior.
Four years following the writing of that memo, Sgamma’s attempt to enter the administration of the same political figure she had written about saw a rather sudden conclusion. She remains “still disappointed” with how events unfolded, but emphasized that “if there was any resentment, it has completely disappeared by now, that’s for sure.”
The Deseret News recently interviewed her regarding the key focuses for managing public lands, renewable energy, the Bundy family, sales of public land, and ways the BLM can restore its authority and public confidence. The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Deseret News: WWhat were your main concerns at that time, and what do you believe are the most significant challenges currently confronting the Bureau of Land Management?
KS:My main concerns are what I believe are the most significant challenges facing BLM. First and foremost, the focus is on unlocking American energy. Naturally, this is a top priority for the president, so it would have been mine as well. I believed the secretarial order,Unleashing American Energy” — with the extensive list of tasks that needed to be completed — is accurate.
Another key focus is determining how to complete the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process efficiently, ensuring it is legally sound. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed by Congress, set a requirement that NEPA be completed within two years and should not exceed a reasonable number of pages.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act provides protection for the bureau in court regarding our RMPs (resource management plans). They don’t need to be scientific studies or lengthy research endeavors. We have witnessed judges scrutinizing BLM NEPA in the past (scrutinize in a legal sense means to closely examine small details in search of errors), and Congress has clearly stated, “No — it is meant to assess environmental impacts that are roughly related and to complete the process within a reasonable timeframe, so that we can achieve it in America.”
Thirdly, the goal is to leave the land in a better condition than we discovered it. Keep advancing efforts to eliminate invasive species and reduce fuel buildup to manage wildfires more effectively. Is there a way to address the wild horse population so they aren’t damaging the landscape and displacing native species?
Regulation and renewables
DN: What do you believe the role of regulation has in the context of BLM? It can be a controversial aspect of land management, and I’m interested in learning how you handle that conflict with NEPA or other regulations.
KS:I somewhat overlooked it because my main focus was on tapping into American energy. Within that executive order, there was a lot of information regarding permits, so the BLM needs to return to standard procedures for permitting, not only for oil and gas but also for ranchers.
They require an update to their permitting policy. We should not leave ranchers in a state of uncertainty about whether they will receive renewal of their grazing permits every decade. Therefore, consistency across various regulations is essential at the BLM.
DN: One of the areas facing the greatest challenges with regulation is renewable energy — such as geothermal projects in Utah. What do you believe is the role of renewable sources in shaping America’s energy future?
KS: There are specific regions that have geothermal potential, and we should be able to harness these resources too — we have excellent opportunities in Utah, Nevada, and throughout the Western region. The approval process should be straightforward and completed within a reasonable timeframe when considering renewable energy sources, as well as critical minerals that are crucial for renewables and numerous other uses.
A critical minerals mine required 19 years to navigate the NEPA process. That’s absurd. We understand how to conduct mining. We are aware of ways to reduce the effects of mining. Contemporary mining practices are designed to safeguard the environment, so this should only take a few years, not 19.
DN: What about wind and solar power? Some people are complaining that, in an attempt to promote extractive leases, the current administration is imposing limitations on other forms of renewable energy.
KS:Certainly, there needs to be confidence in all types of energy sources. The issue with wind and solar is that they require a significant amount of land to generate relatively small amounts of power. During the previous administration and under Obama, there was a preference for renewable sources like wind and solar compared to oil and gas.
They allocated more resources to that area, while wind and solar projects generate no income for them. Oil and gas do. (The Biden and Obama administrations) expedited their NEPA (reviews) and completely overlooked the effects of mining operations. They disregarded the consequences for birds and other wildlife.
Not entirely, I mean wildlife is affected — especially desert animals, with solar energy — but they tend to minimize it. Therefore, the permitting and NEPA process for renewable energy should acknowledge these impacts. It shouldn’t be given preference over oil and gas. It should be a balanced approach.
DN: When it comes to tapping into America’s energy capabilities, should attention be given to the effects of burning fossil fuels and their influence on the climate?
KS:It seems we’ve moved beyond the idea that simply eliminating fossil fuels will fix climate change. We currently lack alternatives that can perform all the functions of oil, gas, and coal. Without real substitutes that are consistently reliable, don’t require extensive land use, and don’t involve excessive mining—something we aren’t capable of doing to fully replace oil, gas, and coal with renewable sources—it’s unrealistic to believe we can switch entirely to wind and solar power. That’s just not feasible.
Top and most suitable land use
DN: Is there a possibility for the future of BLM to strike a balance between those who focus on preservation and those who emphasize the use of natural resources?
KS:That is the role BLM plays. It is the red-headed stepchild among federal land management agencies. Everyone favors the National Park Service, and we confine national parks, which reflects a clear preservationist approach.
However, BLM has a multi-purpose agenda, and it must balance these various uses. It needs to balance preservation with productive activities on suitable working landscapes. It will never satisfy everyone. There will always be people criticizing it, but that’s simply the reality of multiple-use areas. You need to have a thick skin.
DN: In your opinion, what is the most effective and optimal way to utilize our public lands?
KS:Certainly, the optimal use varies depending on the location in question. Clearly, the optimal use of Arches National Park is solely for preservation. The optimal use of the Uinta Basin, however, is for oil and natural gas exploration, as it holds significant resources. Therefore, it depends on the specific area you’re considering, and what the most suitable and beneficial use is.
DN: What about regions where the purpose is uncertain and also highly controversial, such as Bears Ears or Grand Staircase?
KS:That’s an excellent illustration of why issuing decisions from above without involving the public — such as national monuments being established by the president — often leads to the greatest disputes. President Clinton designated Grand Staircase-Escalante secretly, without informing Utah, as he was aware that those living in the area would object to the move.
The designations under the Antiquities Act do not necessitate a NEPA review — it is the sole significant federal action on public lands that lacks this requirement. As a result, they do not undergo any form of public involvement. This leads to ongoing disputes, such as those seen with Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. It remains an unresolved issue indefinitely.
Who is responsible for overseeing national parks?
DN: Who is the most effective caretakers of public lands?
KS:In the end, private landowners consistently maintain their property more effectively than federal officials, without any doubt. It is evident that private forests are managed more efficiently than those handled by the Forest Service, for instance.
That doesn’t imply there aren’t truly well-maintained forests or areas within the BLM land management system. However, federal agencies are consistently under-resourced; they never have sufficient funding. And when you own something, you tend to care for it more diligently.
Private organizations, followed by those that are most directly involved. Entities at the county and state levels are more closely connected to the land than federal bureaucracy is.
One advantage of the BLM is that many of its staff are located in the Western region. There are highly committed land managers who are well-connected with local conditions and effectively handle land management within their given limitations. However, when the idea of transferring lands to states is brought up, it often causes strong negative reactions.
I would list it in this sequence: private, followed by those nearest to the ground, and then — as a final option, since there is so much public land — the federal government.
DN: What were your thoughts on the contentious actions taken by the Senate and House committees on natural resources to include land sales in the reconciliation bill?
KS:Well, it’s returning to my previous remark regarding how people become extremely upset when discussing the transfer of any land to the states. The conversation is focused on transferring land for housing developments, for instance, in areas like Las Vegas, or other locations such as St. George that are limited by federal land.
Let’s not overreact. Not every acre of BLM or federal land is Yellowstone. If there are areas where a more beneficial and elevated use would be to support a community with affordable housing or infrastructure, then let’s pause. It’s not the end of the world. The lands remain safeguarded. Wilderness areas continue to be protected.
DN: Utilizing public land for low-cost housing – what do you believe is the validity of this approach?
KS:It’s a minor quantity we’re discussing. If it were millions upon millions, or tens of millions of acres, that would be different. However, if it’s a sensible amount of land in a suitable location—already close to development, not isolated in the middle of nowhere—then, once more, let’s approach this with common sense.
That’s the thing with federal lands, isn’t it? Unless it’s a presidential proclamation covering tens of millions of acres, such as under the Antiquities Act, each and every acre managed by the BLM must go through a land-use planning process. Any decision must comply with NEPA. Therefore, you need to examine the local effects, on the ground, and consider which specific area we’re discussing. Where exactly is it located? What are the various uses in that region? What other natural resource values exist there that require protection?
It’s a highly meticulous procedure carried out with intention. You must acknowledge the Black Lives Matter movement for their significant effort and enduring challenges.
The Bundys, trustworthiness, and the days ahead
DN: Talking about enduring gunfire, there has been much coverage suggesting that the Bundy family confrontation demonstrated that BLM couldn’t enforce its own regulations. Do you believe there’s a method for the agency to regain some of its reputation?
KS:The Bundy standoff was one of those instances where BLM staff didn’t receive much backing. The Bundys definitely felt they were being treated unfairly. In some areas, it will never be the same again.
But let’s be honest, the federal government created that situation by pressuring ranchers. The Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM had some overly aggressive federal workers. There were environmental organizations attempting to remove ranching and using the federal government to achieve that. The Bundys were especially determined and did not manage the situation well, eventually going far beyond the acceptable limits.
When there is a conflict over resources, you must establish trust with individuals. You need to gather everyone at the table. You must listen to all perspectives. You have to put in the challenging effort of collaborating with all involved parties, regardless of how difficult they might be.
DN: In situations where those stakeholders pose a threat of violence?
KS:Certainly, the Bundys clearly went beyond their limits and faced consequences as a result. However, the federal government also exceeded its authority. A federal bureaucracy that remains within its responsibilities, adheres to the law, avoids excessive actions, and fairly considers conflicting interests… you must demonstrate to all involved parties that you are attentive to their perspectives, that you are incorporating their feedback, and not attempting to remove them from the land. This way, when you have to make difficult decisions that won’t please everyone, you have a record of doing so properly.
DN: Do you think that preserving nature and extracting natural resources can coexist?
KS:Oh, certainly. Since we have regions that are protected — hundreds of millions of acres of wild areas and national parks, where there is no development. However, we also have hundreds of millions of acres of functional landscapes that have helped build the nation’s wealth.
It’s a misleading option that suggests we must choose between preserving the environment and utilizing our resources. We are capable of and already do both: we exploit our natural resources and simultaneously safeguard the land.
It’s a balance. It’s not an either-or situation. Is there an effect? Definitely. There is an effect from oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, and farming, but we work to minimize it. We decrease the likelihood of incidents or ensure that the effects remain as minimal as possible, effectively managing those risks.
We offer an energy source that not only fuels America, but also supports global success.
