"We're way, way past the point where we should have had an answer," said Earl E. Devaney, whose office began investigating Clarke for potential conflicts of interest nearly two years ago.

The investigation focuses on whether Clarke, previously director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, improperly took part in meetings regarding an aborted land exchange between the BLM and Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration.

The land swap was called off after BLM whistle-blowers revealed that federal taxpayers could be cheated out of nearly nearly $117 million in mineral resources.

The inspector general's office has finished its fact-gathering and sent the report to the Office of Government Ethics, seeking an opinion on whether Clarke violated any of the standards for ethical conduct. It has been there for some time.

"I'm at the point that I'm getting very frustrated about it," Devaney said in an interview. He would not divulge how long the ethics office has had the report. He said he met with office representatives and hopes he will get the report back soon.

"I'm interested in seeing that resolved myself," he said.

A spokesman at the Office of Government Ethics said he could not comment on ongoing investigations and a BLM spokeswoman also declined comment.

In 2002, then-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt announced plans for a major land exchange consolidating federal land in Utah's San Rafael Swell and clearing the way for President Bush to potentially designate the area a national monument.

Negotiations resulted in an agreement to exchange 108,119 acres of state land in return for 139,979 acres of federal lands. Proceeds from the newly acquired state lands would go toward Utah's school system.

But BLM whistle-blowers said the deal was a $117 million taxpayer rip-off. Devaney's office investigated and reported in 2003 that federal officials negotiated away valuable mineral rights and sought to conceal the exchange's actual value from Congress.

That initial inspector general report also raised questions about Clarke's conduct in the matter. She participated in meetings and briefings on the issue, even though she had committed to remove herself from department actions affecting the Utah Department of Natural Resources.

After questions were raised about the land exchange, Clarke clarified her recusal to apply specifically to matters involving Utah land exchanges.