[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO MORE STANDOFFS: PROTECTING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND ENDING THE CULTURE
OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT ATTACKS AND ABUSE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-270 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Chair
DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Republican Member
Joe Neguse, CO Louie Gohmert, TX
Diana DeGette, CO Tom McClintock, CA
Debbie Dingell, MI Paul Cook, CA
Steven Horsford, NV Bruce Westerman, AR
Jared Huffman, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ Daniel Webster, FL
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA John R. Curtis, UT
Ed Case, HI Russ Fulcher, ID
Paul Tonko, NY Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
Vacancy
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, October 22, 2019........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Fennell, Anne-Marie, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Washington, DC............................................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Nichols, Dan, Rancher and Former County Commissioner,
Diamond, Oregon............................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Tubb, Katie, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation,
Washington, DC............................................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Walker, Dr. Peter A., Department of Geography, University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oregon..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 38
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NO MORE STANDOFFS: PROTECTING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
AND ENDING THE CULTURE OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT ATTACKS AND ABUSE
----------
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Debra A.
Haaland [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Haaland, Lowenthal, Tonko,
Grijalva; Webster, and Curtis.
Ms. Haaland. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands will now come to order. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on anti-public lands extremism.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record,
if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Haaland. Thank you all for being here today for the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
hearing on combating anti-public lands extremism.
We are here today, in part, to review the results of a
recent Government Accountability Office report detailing the
impacts of anti-government extremism on public land managers
and Federal facilities. As we will hear, that report found some
shocking details about the threats these Federal employees face
just doing their jobs.
Federal land managers and law enforcement personnel have
been followed around in stores, had their homes staked out, and
have even faced attempted murder at the hands of those who
promote anti-government ideologies. I hope that we can all
agree that this is unacceptable. These people are hardworking
public servants employed by the Federal Government. No one
should face fear and harassment in their place of work or in
their communities.
I also think it is important that we keep the larger
context of these incidents in mind, because these extremist
ideologies do not develop in a vacuum. Anti-government rhetoric
more frequently being adopted by officials in positions of
power is being used as a weapon against our public lands and
the public servants who manage them. Attempts to push this
ideology into the political mainstream has a very real impact
on people's lives.
As GAO found, ``Some field unit employees said that in
certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats a normal
part of their job. . . . Officials described being threatened
while off duty, such as being harassed in local stores or being
monitored at their home, which officials said in some cases
they did not report because it was a common occurrence.''
If we could turn to the screen, we will see a handful of
statements public officials have made in recent years.
[Slide.]
Ms. Haaland. ``What Senator [Harry] Reid may call domestic
terrorists, I call Patriots,'' former Senator Dean Heller of
Nevada on the 2014 armed Bundy militia standoff in Bunkerville,
Nevada.
``The BLM has become a bureaucratic agency of--basically--
terrorism. So, at what point do we band together as elected
officials and say, `Enough is enough of the BLM?' '' And that
was from State Representative Michele Fiore of Nevada.
``The federal government, the BLM, the Forest Service, the
FBI, the DEA, any of those guys, they're not elected. Those
other entities, they answer to me.'' Beaver County (Utah)
Sheriff Cameron Noel.
``You, the people of Nevada, not Washington bureaucrats,
should be in charge of your own land. I will fight day and
night to return full control of Nevada's lands to its rightful
owners. Its citizens.'' And that was from Senator Ted Cruz of
Texas.
This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012, Utah
Governor Gary Herbert signed the Utah Transfer of Public Lands
Act, which required Federal agencies to cede ownership of most
Federal land to state control after 2014.
A researcher at the University of California, San Diego
found that in the year after Utah and other western state
legislatures made their land transfer demands, those states saw
a nearly 11 percent increase in violence directed at Federal
public lands employees.
In that context, it is particularly disappointing to see my
Republican colleagues invite a witness today with little
experience on the issues we are here to discuss, and who has
written favorably about giving away Federal land to state and
private control.
Former BLM Director, Bob Abbey, said in 2014, ``The
political rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increased
tension, and there is a belief because of that rhetoric that it
is OK to do certain things outside the law, and some people
believe that they are going to get away with it.''
Today, I hope we can examine this rhetoric and the danger
it creates, so that we can consider how to protect public
employees, promote collaboration, and end the culture of
threats and violence.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Haaland follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debra A. Haaland, Chair, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
Thank you all for being here today for the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Public Lands hearing on combating anti-public lands
extremism.
We're here today, in part, to review the results of a recent
Government Accountability Office report detailing the impacts of anti-
government extremism on public land managers and Federal facilities. As
we'll hear, that report found some shocking details about the threats
these Federal employees face just for doing their jobs.
Federal land managers and law enforcement personnel have been
followed around in stores, had their homes staked out, and have even
faced attempted murder at the hands of those who promote anti-
government ideologies. I hope that we can all agree that this is
unacceptable. These people are hard-working public servants employed by
the Federal Government. No one should face fear and harassment in their
place of work or in their communities.
I also think it is important that we keep the larger context of
these incidents in mind, because these extremist ideologies do not
develop in a vacuum. Anti-government rhetoric more frequently being
adopted by officials in positions of power is being used as a weapon
against our public lands and the public servants who manage them.
Attempts to push this ideology into the political mainstream has a very
real impact on people's lives.
As GAO found, ``Some field unit employees said that in certain
circumstances, they consider receiving threats a normal part of their
job . . . Officials described being threatened while off-duty, such as
by being harassed in local stores or being monitored at their home,
which officials said in some cases they did not report because it was a
common occurrence.''
If we could turn to the screen, we'll see a handful of statements
public officials have made in recent years:
``What Senator [Harry] Reid may call domestic terrorists,
I call Patriots.''--Former U.S. Senator Dean Heller (R-
Nev.), on the 2014 armed Bundy militia standoff in
Bunkerville, Nevada.
``The BLM has become a bureaucratic agency of--basically--
terrorism. So, at what point do we band together as elected
officials, and say, `Enough is enough of the BLM?' ''--
State Representative Michele Fiore (R-Nev.).
``The federal government, the BLM, the Forest Service, the
FBI, the DEA, any of those guys, they're not elected. Those
other entities, they answer to me.''--Beaver County (Utah)
Sheriff Cameron Noel.
'`You, the people of Nevada, not Washington bureaucrats,
should be in charge of your own land . . . I will fight day
and night to return full control of Nevada's lands to its
rightful owners. Its citizens.''--U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-
Texas).
This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012, Utah Gov. Gary
Herbert signed the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act, which
``required'' Federal agencies to cede ownership of most Federal land to
state control after 2014.
A researcher at the University of California, San Diego, found that
in the year after Utah and other Western state legislatures made their
land-transfer demands, those states saw a nearly 11 percent increase in
violence directed at Federal public lands employees.
In that context, it is particularly disappointing to see my
Republican colleagues invite a witness today with little experience on
the issues we're here to discuss and who has written favorably about
giving away Federal land to state and private control.
Former BLM director Bob Abbey said in 2014, ``the political
rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increased tension, and there
is a belief because of that rhetoric that it's OK to do certain things
outside the law and some people believe that they're going to get away
with it.''
Today, I hope we can examine this rhetoric and the danger it
creates, so that we can consider how to protect public employees,
promote collaboration, and end the culture of threats and violence.
______
Ms. Haaland. With that, I would like to recognize Ranking
Member Curtis for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely no one in
this room, on either side of the aisle, condones violence or
threats against Federal employees. It is unfortunate that I
feel I need to even make that statement.
Our boots on the ground are often in difficult positions.
They may have to enforce unpopular laws and regulations that
have a great impact on local communities and people's
livelihoods. Their safety should be, and is, of the utmost
importance.
While I am supportive of the practical recommendations made
in the GAO's report we are looking at today, I am concerned
that the title and narrow focus of this hearing may be
misleading. I take issue with the assertion made that there is
a widespread problem of anti-government threats and abuse
occurring in the West. Being from the West and representing a
state with a high percentage of public land, I would like to
set the record straight.
Calling for local ownership and control of public lands
does not embody an attack on the Federal Government. As a
matter of fact, many of my constituents feel just the opposite.
The vast majority of my constituents impacted by the Federal
Government's public lands management decisions are hardworking
taxpayers raising families and contributing to their
communities. They love the beautiful public lands that surround
them, and want to be good stewards of them and part of the
decision-making process. This does not make them bad people.
They are not dangerous or threatening to Federal land managers
in the field. In fact, I frequently hear how much they
appreciate and work well with the local agents of these Federal
agencies.
Landowners and users who disagree with specific management
decisions should not be made to feel that somehow they will be
placed on a government watch list of potential threats.
Villainizing Westerners, and those who disagree with management
decisions, does nothing to build the bridge of trust and
cooperation that is vital to proper stewardship of the land.
And, as is the case with most of our politics, finger pointing
and divisiveness is counterproductive in the long run.
We will hear from the GAO witness today regarding the
report that the Full Committee Chairman asked them to compile,
which looks at the progress that the BLM, Forest Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service have all made
in recent years to bring their human-occupied facilities into
compliance with post-9/11 Federal security standards.
This report, while important to consider, only took into
account 4 years' worth of data of recorded threats among the
four land management agencies, which each had different and
often inconsistent methods of recording. There also does not
appear to be a way to differentiate between the most serious
threats of violence and incidents as minor as a parking ticket.
I believe Republicans on this Committee largely support the
recommendations made in the GAO report for the agencies to
continue to make progress in taking common-sense efforts to
secure Federal facilities. However, nothing in the report makes
any mention of the existence of a ``culture of anti-government
attack and abuse,'' which is the title of this hearing.
My hope is that, through the testimony of the witnesses
here today, we can all learn the powerful lesson that the vast
majority of citizens are not like those in the rare, high-
profile, headline-grabbing incidents that will be showcased
today. My constituents do not wish to have conflict, and
naturally seek compromise and cooperation from their
government.
I hope to hear examples today of how Federal land managers
and local citizens have worked to listen to each other, seek
mutual understanding, and come up with collaborative, on-the-
ground solutions which netted the most positive outcome for all
concerned.
As a committee, we should be promoting and fostering more
of these cooperative and collaborative efforts, which will do
far more to facilitate safety than spending even tens of
millions of dollars to create hardened, secure fortresses.
With that, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the witnesses
for being here today. I look forward to their testimony, and I
yield my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Absolutely no one in this room, on either side of the aisle,
condones violence or threats against Federal employees--unfortunately,
I feel the need to make that perfectly clear.
Our boots-on-the-ground are often in difficult positions. They may
have to enforce unpopular laws and regulations that have a great impact
on local communities and people's livelihoods. Their safety should be,
and is, of the utmost importance.
While I am supportive of the practical recommendations made in the
GAO's report we are looking at today, I am concerned that the title and
narrow focus of this hearing may be misleading. I take issue with the
assertion made that there is a widespread problem of anti-government
threats and abuse occurring in the West. Being from the West and
representing a state with a high percentage of public land, I would
like to set the record straight.
The vast majority of my constituents impacted by the Federal
Government's public lands management decisions are hard-working
taxpayers raising families and contributing to their communities. They
love the beautiful public lands that surround them and want to be good
stewards of them and part of the decision-making process. They are not
dangerous or threatening to Federal land managers in the field.
Landowners and users who disagree with specific management
decisions should not be made to feel that somehow they will be placed
on a government ``watch list'' of potential threats. Villainizing
Westerners, and those who disagree with management decisions, does
nothing to build the bridges of trust and cooperation that is vital to
proper stewardship of the land. As is the case with most of politics,
finger pointing, and divisiveness is counter-productive in the long-
run.
We will hear from the GAO witness today regarding the report that
the Full Committee Chairman asked them to compile, which looks at the
progress that the BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service have all made in recent years to bring their
human-occupied facilities into compliance with post 9/11 Federal
security standards.
This report, while important to consider, only took into account 4
years' worth of data of recorded ``threats'' among the four land
management agencies which each had different, and often inconsistent,
methods of recording. There also does not appear to be a way to
differentiate between the most serious threats of violence and
incidents as minor as a parking ticket.
I believe Republicans on this Committee largely support the
recommendations made in the GAO report for the agencies to continue to
make progress in taking common-sense efforts to secure Federal
facilities. However, nothing in the report makes any mention of the
existence of a ``culture of anti-government attack and abuse,'' which
is the title of this hearing.
My hope is that through the testimony of the witnesses here today,
we can all learn the powerful lesson that the vast majority of citizens
are not like those in the rare, high-profile, headline-grabbing
incidents that will be showcased today. My constituents do not wish to
have conflict, and naturally seek compromise and cooperation from their
government.
I hope to hear examples today of how Federal land managers and
local citizens have worked to listen to each other, seek mutual
understanding, and come up with collaborative on-the-ground solutions
which netted the most positive outcome for all concerned.
As a Committee, we should be promoting and fostering more of these
cooperative and collaborative efforts, which will do far more to
facilitate safety than spending even tens of millions of dollars to
create hardened, secure fortresses.
With that, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the witnesses for
being here today and look forward to their testimony.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Now I would like to
turn to our witness panel.
Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
minutes, but you may submit a longer statement for the record,
if you choose.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left, and red when time has expired.
After the witnesses have testified, Members will be given
the opportunity to ask questions.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dan Nichols, rancher and
former Harney County Commissioner.
Mr. Nichols, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN NICHOLS, RANCHER AND FORMER COUNTY
COMMISSIONER, DIAMOND, OREGON
Mr. Nichols. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today. My name is Dan Nichols, and I am a self-employed rancher
of 41 years, a BLM permittee, a past permittee on the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge, a five-term retired county
commissioner, a High Desert Partnership board member, and a
participant in three of the five ongoing collaborative
initiatives in our community.
The economy of Harney County is natural resource-based,
with a reliance on the multiple-use concept of public lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, and the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Harney County lies in the
southeast corner of Oregon, and is 75 percent federally and
state owned. It has a land mass of 10,120 square miles, larger
than six West Coast states, but only has a population of 7,380
people, of which 5,200 are registered to vote.
A quick look at an Oregon State map and one would
incorrectly assume that the area is basically uninhabited. My
comments to you today come from this perspective.
Real Americans, especially in the largely federally owned
and managed 11 western states, are not being listened to, much
less heard. Opinions and desires of the populace residing well
outside of rural communities are politically driving issues
that result in legitimate grievances with Federal land
management policies. Much of what is often described as anti-
government is really coming from a place of feeling excluded,
or being on the losing end of unbalanced natural resource
management.
In the course of doing their jobs, Federal employees become
the local messengers of new policies and regulations, resulting
in them becoming the recipients of the frustration and anger of
the people that are not being listened to.
Our community has issues of concern with Federal land
management. We are not unique in that regard. What does make us
unique is the manner in which issues of potential dissension
and polarization are resolved. A culture of collaboration has
been established in Harney County that enables a diversity of
opinions to be respectfully and collectively considered. A
positive attribute of the process has been working directly
with the Federal employees in our community. Through that
interaction, the community has gained an appreciation for them
as professionals, individuals, and contributing members in our
community.
Collaboration also provides a venue for discussion of
issues with the broader community beyond Harney County. For us,
the term ``community'' includes those with an interest and a
commitment to participate, including stakeholders from outside
the local area who care about issues in ways that we may not
always appreciate. It is necessary to have them at the table,
as well.
Because the collaborative process gives everyone an
opportunity to speak and listen, we learn and better understand
each other's views. It is a setting where real voices are heard
and understood by those from areas that are the source of many
of the problematic issues.
Collectively, through collaborative efforts, Harney County
residents have found the ability to meet our interests.
Following are some examples: the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act of 2000, which was sponsored and
written by Congressman Greg Walden; the recent Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Plan; and the Harney County
Wildfire Collaborative and Harney County Wetlands Initiative.
The culture of collaboration has changed the ways we deal
with complex and controversial issues in Harney County. Real
benefits have been achieved for the local community, the
Federal agencies, and the natural resources we all care about,
urban and rural alike. We can all learn from the lessons of
people that are successfully bridging divides.
Our experience can provide the opportunity for Congress to
develop a format for a much-needed larger discussion. I ask for
your support of a larger collaborative to produce meaningful
progress in addressing legitimate grievances and concerns of
the American public.
Collaboration is recognized as a successful approach to
issue resolution in Harney County, the state of Oregon, and
needs to be implemented on a national level, as well.
Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Nichols, Rancher and Former County
Commissioner
Our nation is divided. Divisions exist between urban and rural
America and within Congress. Simplistic red state/blue state depictions
of this division only serve to aggregate conflict, reinforce
polarization and harden lines that prevent collaborative and
constructive problem solving in our communities. These divisions
manifest themselves on the ground in many ways, including conflicts
over natural resource management and militant anti-government protests
like the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We can and
must do better.
Being an individual with strong opinions I have come to appreciate
that much can be gained by understanding and addressing the opinions of
others. There are lessons to be learned from the armed occupation of
the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, as well as Harney Counties
experiences with the government's management of public lands resources.
It is important to note that the majority of ranchers in Harney County
did not support armed occupation of the Refuge. But at the same time,
there are legitimate grievances with Federal land management policies.
Without a forum in which to air and address these concerns--and a fair,
collaborative process by which to resolve them--we continue to push
more people toward the hostile, unacceptable approaches adopted by
individuals such as the Bundys. Much of what is often described as
being ``antigovernment'' is really coming from a place of feeling
excluded or on the losing end of unbalanced natural resource
management.
There are many examples here in Harney County where the ranching
and farming community has come together with multiple stakeholders--
including the environmental community as well as state and Federal
agencies--to find common ground without vilifying each other. In fact,
the common ground comes from learning to better understand one another.
Oregon was ground zero for the spotted owl wars and the resulting ESA
listing that caused irreparable damage to local communities and divided
citizens. But more recently, the people of Harney County drew from this
negative experience and worked with government and a diversity of
interests to develop a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
that prevented the need for a similar outcome for Greater sage-grouse,
which resulted in a 2015 decision to not list that bird.
Collectively, through collaborative efforts, Harney County
residents have found the ability to meet our interests, while
addressing the interests of the larger community of stakeholders, in
the following examples:
The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
Act of 2000
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
The Harney County Wildfire Collaborative
Eastside Forest Collaboratives including the Harney County
Restoration Collaborative
This Subcommittee should not pass up the chance to learn from these
lessons of people bridging divides. It is an opportunity for Congress
to develop a format for a much needed ``larger discussion.'' I ask for
your support of a larger collaborative that will produce meaningful
progress in addressing legitimate grievances. This is recognized as a
successful approach to issue and conflict resolution in Harney County,
the state of Oregon and should be on a national level as well.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mr. Nichols.
The Chair now recognizes Professor Peter A. Walker,
Professor of Geography at the University of Oregon.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER A. WALKER, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY,
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, EUGENE, OREGON
Dr. Walker. My name is Peter Walker. I am a professor of
Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of
Oregon.
I personally observed the 2016 armed occupation of the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon.
After the occupation, I conducted research in Harney County for
more than 2 years, including over 100 in-depth interviews with
individuals representing all parts of the community. My
observations are recorded in my book, ``Sagebrush
Collaboration: How Harney County Defeated the Takeover of the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.''
A lot can be learned from the Malheur Refuge occupation for
preventing such incidents, and for safeguarding Federal
employees and enabling them to work constructively in rural
communities.
The great majority in Harney County opposed the Malheur
occupation, and rejected the militants' plan to launch an anti-
Federal Government revolution from Harney County. I use the
word ``militants'' because they used armed force and military-
style tactics to achieve a radical political goal. The
situation was explosive, and almost certainly, if the community
had heeded the calls of the militants, lives would have been
lost.
Harney County rejected the militants' call to revolution,
in large part because the community had invested for decades in
building collaborative approaches to solving precisely the kind
of resource management issues the militants said could only be
resolved through armed force.
In the past, there had been a lot of hostility between the
community and Federal agencies. But by the end of the 1990s,
Harney County was tired of fighting, and especially tired of
litigation. The existing system was failing to produce outcomes
that almost anyone wanted, and when people knew that
regulations would be coming, they wanted to get ahead of the
process and make sure local voices would be heard.
Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, tribes, and Federal,
state, and county workers intentionally built a culture of
collaboration. The community bet that better solutions could be
found by building relationships and really listening to each
other, humanizing those with whom they might see things
differently. For decades, over one-on-one phone calls and cups
of coffee at kitchen tables, the community created their own
ways to solve problems. When outside militants proposed violent
confrontation, the community had a better way.
Federal employees were central to this history. Ironically,
the outside militants had no idea that Harney County was
recognized nationally as something of a poster child for
collaborative approaches, including building positive
relationships with Federal workers. The militants believed by
vilifying and harassing Federal employees, they would rally
support for their cause. The militants' leader later said that
he never met a Bureau of Land Management--or, by implication,
any Federal--employee who is a ``good person.''
By 2016, most people in Harney County just didn't see it
that way. Through collaboration, Federal employees were
contributing to better problem-solving, in large part by making
themselves more integral parts of the community and, above all,
by listening. No longer just uniforms and badges, Federal
employees were friends and members of the community. And Harney
County does not like members of the community being harassed.
When the Malheur occupation ended, ranchers with allotments
on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge held a dinner to honor
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who had borne much
of the harassment from the outside militants, to reaffirm that
the Federal workers are valued members of the community.
As a nation, we are enormously fortunate that, by chance,
the militants chose Harney County. The community literally told
the militants to go home. We should see the relatively peaceful
outcome of the Malheur occupation as hopeful evidence that
conflicts between rural communities and Federal agencies can be
minimized, and, in at least some cases, win-win solutions can
be found that defy the divisive culture that afflicts our
Nation today.
But Harney County is much like many other places. The
experience of collaboration in Harney County demonstrates
principles that can be applied in other rural communities. That
is my most important message. In Harney County, I saw that
endless division and conflict do not need to define who we are
as a nation, and how Federal employees work in our communities.
There are better ways. America can do better, and Harney County
proved it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Peter A. Walker, Professor of Geography and
Environmental Studies, University of Oregon
My name is Peter Walker, a professor of Geography and Environmental
Studies at the University of Oregon. I personally observed the 2016
armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney
County, Oregon. After the occupation I conducted research in Harney
County for more than 2 years, including over 100 in-depth interviews
with individuals representing all parts of the community. My
observations are recorded in my book, Sagebrush Collaboration: How
Harney County Defeated the Takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge.
A lot can be learned from the Malheur Refuge occupation for
preventing such incidents, and for safeguarding Federal employees and
enabling them to work constructively in rural communities.
The great majority in Harney County opposed the Malheur occupation
and rejected the militants' plan to launch an anti-Federal Government
revolution from Harney County. (I use the word ``militants'' because
they used armed force and military-style tactics to achieve a radical
political goal.) The situation was explosive, and if the community had
heeded the militants' call, the Malheur occupation almost certainly
would have ended with many lives lost.
Harney County rejected the militants' call to revolution in large
part because the community had invested for decades in building
collaborative approaches to solving precisely the kind of resource
management issues the militants' said could only be resolved through
armed force. In the past there had been a lot of hostility between the
community and Federal agencies. But by the end of the 1990s, Harney
County was tired of fighting--and especially tired of litigation. The
existing system was failing to produce outcomes that almost anyone
wanted; and when people knew regulations would be coming, they wanted
to get ahead of the process and make sure local voices would be heard.
Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, tribes, and Federal, state and
county workers intentionally built a culture of collaboration. The
community bet that better solutions could be found by building
relationships and really listening to each other--humanizing those with
whom they might see things differently. For decades, over countless
one-on-one phone calls and cups of coffee at kitchen tables, the
community created their own ways to solve problems. When outside
militants proposed violent confrontation, the community had a better
way.
Federal employees were central in this story. Ironically, the
outside militants had no idea Harney County was recognized nationally
as something of a poster child for collaborative approaches, including
building positive relationships with Federal workers. The militants
believed vilifying and harassing Federal employees would rally local
support for their cause. The militants' leader later said he never met
a Bureau of Land Management (or, by implication, any Federal) employee
who is a ``good person.'' By 2016, most people in Harney County just
did not see it that way. Through collaboration, Federal employees were
contributing to better problem-solving in large part by making
themselves more integral parts of the community, and by listening. No
longer just uniforms and badges, Federal employees were friends and
members of the community. And Harney County does not like members of
the community being harassed. When the Malheur occupation ended,
ranchers with allotments on the Malheur Refuge held a dinner to honor
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service employees who had borne much of the
harassment from outside militants, to reaffirm that the Federal workers
are valued members of the community.
As a nation we are enormously fortunate that by chance the
militants chose Harney County. The community literally told the
militants to ``Go home.'' We should see the relatively peaceful outcome
of the Malheur occupation as hopeful evidence that conflicts between
rural communities and Federal agencies can be minimized, and in at
least some cases win-win solutions can be found that defy the divisive
culture that afflicts our nation today. But Harney County is much like
many other places; the experience of collaboration in Harney County
demonstrates principles that can be applied in other rural communities.
That is my most important message: in Harney County I saw that
endless division and conflict do not have to define who we are as a
nation and how Federal employees work in our communities. There are
other ways. America can do better. And Harney County proved it. Thank
you.
background
This testimony addresses the armed occupation of the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, by armed anti-
government militants in January and February 2016. On January 2, 2016,
somewhere between 10 and 20 armed individuals seized the wildlife
refuge and called on social media for ``thousands'' more to come, with
their arms. At the peak, only an estimated 50 individuals occupied the
refuge, though several hundred supporters from outside the area stayed
in motels and other facilities in nearby Burns, Hines, and other
locations. Although the occupiers claimed that their actions were a
``peaceful protest,'' they also stated their readiness to die, and that
they would respond with armed force if law enforcement attempted to
intervene. For 24 days, law enforcement took no direct action against
the occupiers (the wildlife refuge is in a remote area where the
occupation represented little or no threat to human life). On January
26, 2016, most of the main leaders of the occupation were arrested
while attempting to travel in two private vehicles from the wildlife
refuge to the town of John Day, Oregon, in nearby Grant County. One
militant, after attempting to flee a traffic stop and being stopped at
a roadblock, was shot and killed by Oregon State Police after failing
to comply with police orders and then reaching for a handgun. All but
four of the remaining occupiers fled the wildlife refuge in the
following hours, with the last holdouts surrendering on February 11,
2016.
The militants publicly stated that the purpose of their takeover
was to secure the release of two local ranchers from imprisonment for
arson on Federal land, and to ``give back'' the refuge land to the
``rightful owners,'' who they identified as ``ranchers, loggers, and
miners'' (notably excluding the local Burns Paiute Tribe, who have the
only historically irrefutable claim to being the original ``owners'' of
the land that makes up the refuge). The takeover attracted worldwide
media attention. Outside the media spotlight, however, the militants
acknowledged a more ambitious goal: to make Harney County the first
``federal-free'' county in the American West, serving as an example for
other communities that they hoped would follow Harney County's lead.
The militants based their political ideology on a religiously inspired
interpretation of the United States Constitution, in which the Federal
Government is seen to have little or no jurisdiction in states outside
Washington, DC. In the militants' view, the highest authority in the
land is the county sheriff--whose authority supersedes even the
President of the United States. This interpretation is similar to the
anti-Federal posse comitatus movement of the 1970s, as well as the
modern ``sovereign citizen'' movement, although the leaders of the
occupation attributed their inspiration to Biblical interpretation. The
armed seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, along with the
2014 armed standoff against Federal employees and law enforcement at
Bunkerville, Nevada (led by the same Nevada-based family) represented a
major, armed escalation of the anti-Federal public lands ``sagebrush
rebellion'' of the 1970s and 1980s.
The militants' plan to overthrow the Federal Government hinged on
persuading local ranchers to symbolically repudiate their Federal
grazing contracts, followed by a declaration that the ranchers are the
true owners of the land. The militants promised that seized Federal
lands would be ``defended'' by armed ``Patriots'' (referred to locally
as ``the militia''). The occupiers arranged a ceremony, held on January
23, 2016, at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, at
which the occupiers pleaded for local ranchers to publicly renounce
their Federal grazing contracts and to declare their grazing allotments
to be their own private land. However, no Harney County ranchers
participated in the event (only one rancher, from New Mexico, did so).
In the nearby communities of Burns and Hines (the main population
centers of Harney County) militia aligned with the armed occupiers at
the Malheur Refuge engaged in a campaign of harassment of Federal
employees and local law enforcement officers who refused to cooperate
with the occupiers. The occupiers also attempted to establish a new de
facto county government in the form a ``committee of safety,'' which
the militants formed with a small group of local supporters. The goal
was to seize control of local government and to intimidate Federal
workers.
The community of Harney County overwhelmingly rejected the
militants' goals and in particular their armed methods. No public
opinion surveys were conducted at the time, but in my observations it
was clear that the majority of the community opposed the militants. On
January 19, 2016, for example, the armed occupiers arrived unannounced
at a community meeting in the Burns High School gym. It was the only
occasion during the occupation when militants met with a cross-section
of the community. The county judge stood and told the militants to ``Go
home,'' and the great majority in the room then stood and chanted ``Go
home, go home, go home.''
The impression that the majority in the community opposed the
militants was supported later that year in a series of local elections
in which local ``pro-militia'' and ``anti-militia'' candidates filled
the election roster. ``Anti-militia'' candidates for county
commissioner won a total of about 80 percent of the primary vote, and
the ``anti-militia'' winner of the general election won with more than
95 percent support. In June 2016, a recall against the county judge,
seen widely as a referendum on the militia occupation, failed--with
more than 70 percent opposing the removal of the anti-militia county
judge. Therefore it can be said with confidence that 70-80 percent of
the community was ``anti-militia.'' However, the elections were widely
interpreted as referendums on the anti-government ideology represented
by the militants, not their armed methods. When I asked local people
how much of the community they believed supported the anti-government
ideology and the militants' armed methods, the estimates of support
ranged from 3-10 percent. In addition, much of the local support for
the outside militants appeared tied to efforts to release the pair of
local ranchers in Federal prison for arson; when those ranchers
received a presidential pardon in July 2018, local support for the
outside militants appeared to all but disappear.
It is important to note that while the media at the time often
described the militants as ranchers, in fact only one of the outside
militant leaders, and only two active local supporters, could even
plausibly be described as working ranchers. The overwhelming majority
of outside militants and local supporters had no direct interactions
with Federal resource management agencies. The occupation of the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was primarily an ideologically-based
anti-Federal Government political movement, not a movement of ranchers,
loggers, or other resource users. Among the outside militants,
including members of the self-declared ``Patriot'' movement, there was
strong representation of broader racist and xenophobic political groups
that had for decades specifically adopted the position of promoting a
``second American revolution.'' While the main leaders of the Malheur
Refuge occupation did not come from this broader political movement,
the ``Patriot'' groups that supported the occupation appeared to be
attracted by the armed, revolutionary aspects of the ``hard stand'' at
the Malheur Refuge.
impacts on malheur national wildlife refuge
Although the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has today mostly
recovered from the disruptions associated with the militant takeover in
January and February 2016, the disruption at the time was significant
and continues to some extent to the present. In addition to the
immediate interruption of operations during the occupation (from
January 2, 2016 to February 11, 2016), the occupiers left behind
extensive physical damage (including disturbance of Native American
cultural artifacts), and the refuge itself became the site of an
extended criminal investigation. Other Federal agency offices,
including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
offices in nearby Burns were also closed for extended periods due to
concerns for employee safety. Staff were able to return to work at the
MNWR headquarters using temporary structures by the end of February
2016; but with extensive vandalism to important files and physical
damage to buildings, the refuge headquarters remained closed to the
public for more than a year, fully reopening in March 2017.
The impacts of the militant occupation of the MNWR also included
the very substantial disruption of the lives of refuge staff and loss
of long-term institutional knowledge. At the time of the occupation,
most staff were evacuated out of Harney County because of safety
concerns. The result was that staff had to leave their personal and
professional lives behind while hostile occupiers searched through
their private and professional information left behind at the refuge.
Staff felt violated, and some perceived their physical safety to be in
danger. Well after the occupation the traumatic effects remained deeply
felt by some employees. Of the 16 full-time employees at the refuge at
the time of the occupation, 4 resigned from their positions at least in
part because of the trauma they experienced. In the near term the
impacts on the operation of the refuge were significant, as the
departing employees possessed highly specialized knowledge accrued over
decades of service. In some cases, because of organizational changes
within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, vacated positions were not re-
filled with on-site staff.
Despite the very substantial disruption and losses of expertise,
the MNWR displayed remarkable resilience, in part because of its status
as one of the gems in the National Wildlife Refuge system. After the
occupation, questions arose as to whether qualified professionals would
be willing to take positions at the Malheur Refuge so soon after the
traumatic events of the 2016 takeover. Quickly, however, the vacated
positions were filled with qualified professionals. Some of the new
employees expressly stated that they were attracted by the excellent
reputation of the Malheur Refuge as a ``success story'' and its
innovative efforts to work constructively with the community through
collaborative processes such as the Malheur Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, coordinated by the local non-profit High Desert Partnership.
collaboration and the high desert partnership
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the community of Harney
County displayed remarkable resilience despite the extraordinary
disturbances associated with the militant occupation in January and
February 2016. In large part this resilience can be attributed to an
investment the community and the refuge had made over the previous two
decades in developing collaborative ways to promote deep engagement of
all stakeholders in decision-making for natural resource management.
Exhausted by legal fighting and resource management failures, in the
late 1990s and early 2000s a small group of individuals including local
ranchers, Federal and county employees, conservation groups and others
set out to find a different way forward.
Much of this effort to promote deeply engaged stakeholder
collaboration was organized by a remarkable locally-based non-profit
organization called the High Desert Partnership. Formally established
in 2005, the HDP focuses on building relationships among members of the
community who represent different perspectives but are not firmly
invested in specific outcomes.
By building these relationships, the HDP strives to find
innovative, win-win solutions to social-ecological problems in a manner
that avoids adversarial interactions. As a private non-profit, the HDP
is relatively free to pursue paths not directly mandated or constrained
by government rules.
The decision to create the HDP was motivated by conflict-ridden,
failed interactions in the past. Local rancher Gary Marshall and
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge manager Chad Karges knew the refuge
would be required to begin developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) by 2010, and they set out to study collaborative methods and
relationship-building to be ready for the CCP process. They invited
participation from outside stakeholders including conservation groups.
Marshall and Karges knocked on doors and shook hands throughout the
local community to build the relationships and trust needed to persuade
a community more accustomed to conflict with the Malheur Refuge to give
the new non-adversarial, collaborative approach a try. The High Desert
Partnership does not do projects; it builds relationships and
facilitates conversations with the intent to find collaborative win-win
solutions to problems that might otherwise result in conflict and
litigation. The group does not advocate particular outcomes; it
supports dialogue in pursuit of positive outcomes for the ecology,
economy, and community.
The signature accomplishment of the HDP's approach was its
establishment of a diverse working group of about 30 stakeholders to
craft the 2013 Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which detailed
the goals and methods for managing the refuge for the following 15
years. After 3 years of dialogue, the working group produced a 779-page
document that became what the HDP describes as the nation's first
collaboratively created comprehensive conservation plan. Given the
contentious relations between the Malheur Refuge and the local
community in the past, the fact that local ranchers and farmers, the
Burns Paiute Tribe, and county government, as well as conservationists
and agency officials, all endorsed the plan was an astonishing
achievement. Possibly the most powerful evidence of success is the fact
that the Malheur CCP was the first plan of its scale in Harney County
for many years that was not sued. Then-refuge manager Chad Karges
observed, ``No one thought it could be done.'' After the plan was
approved, the CCP working group continued meeting to collaboratively
decide on necessary adaptions in the plan's implementation.
The High Desert Partnership has become more than just an
institution, it has become part of the life and culture in Harney
County--a proactive, non-adversarial, relationship-based approach
sometimes described locally simply as ``the Harney County way.'' The
HDP itself has expanded to support a range of initiatives including but
not limited to natural resource management--focusing on management of
wetlands and forests, but also a wildfire collaborative as well as
initiatives to support local youth and business entrepreneurship. The
``Harney County way'' has also spread to many other local community-
based initiatives beyond the HDP, including habitat management for sage
grouse and a major local groundwater planning initiative.
recommendations for federal policy
The existence of collaborative organizations in Harney County was
crucial in enabling local residents to reject rhetoric by outside
militants that the Federal Government--embodied in local Federal
employees--represents ``tyranny'' and ``abuse.'' The primary goal of
local collaborative organizations in Harney County has been to build
relationships, communication, and trust between stakeholders. Through
their participation in collaboratives, Federal employees were able to
build goodwill and trust within the local community. Collaboratives
provide a neutral, safe environment where residents can come to know
Federal employees as individual people doing the best they can,
sometimes under difficult circumstances. Mutual trust, respect, and
even friendships are often a direct result. When Federal employees
become humanized in this way, anti-government rhetoric--including
efforts to threaten and harass Federal workers--is unlikely to find a
receptive audience. As one rancher observed to me, ``Collaboration is
what inoculated us from the [militant] disease.''
This is a crucial observation. Almost everyone I spoke with in
Harney County after the 2016 Malheur Refuge occupation agreed on one
thing: if the occupiers had attempted the same kind of standoff against
Federal agencies and staff in a different community that had not
invested in building collaborative relationships, the outcome would
likely have been far worse--including the very real possibility of a
bloodbath that clearly some of the occupiers wanted. Such an event that
would have likely inspired further anti-government violence for decades
to come.
If collaboration is one important way to build better relationships
between Federal agencies and local communities, an important question
is how such initiatives can be promoted at a wider scale. The
experience of collaboration at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
represents a very important opportunity. At a time when this country
has seen unprecedented polarization, the community in Harney County
came together to find common ground on this historically conflicted
landscape. The success of this project matters because at a time when
Americans are often cynical about reaching across political,
intellectual, social, environmental and economic divides, Harney County
as well as outside stakeholders intentionally chose to take a different
path and have maintained that resolve in the face of unprecedented
challenges.
In some ways the development of such approaches depends
fundamentally on local initiative and individual personalities. Almost
by definition these are things that the Federal Government cannot
provide. This does not mean there is no constructive role for Federal
Government in promoting such approaches. Federal Government can play an
important role in encouraging the growth of such initiatives by
reducing barriers within Federal agencies that may inhibit the
development of local collaboratives, and by supporting initiatives with
high potential or proven records of encouraging effective collaborative
resource management.
federal policy to support collaboration
Reducing Institutional Barriers
In the example of the 2013 Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
the initiative that led to the creation of a successful collaboratively
created management plan required deviation from usual Federal agency
policy by allowing Federal managers at the local level to draft a plan
through a stakeholder process that encouraged input from all interested
parties from the very beginning of the planning process. This method of
engaging the public departs from standard procedures in which agency
staff draft a plan and put it out for public input near the end of the
process. The collaborative approach initially met substantial
skepticism from Federal managers above the local level, who were
concerned about delegating to the local level too much control over the
planning process. In the case of the Malheur Refuge, local managers had
to go to considerable effort and even put their professional careers at
risk to persuade higher-level managers that the locally-based
collaborative approach could produce a sound plan in compliance with
all Federal standards. Drawing inspiration and confidence from the
positive outcome at the Malheur Refuge and other successful
collaborations, Federal Government can facilitate local collaboration
by reducing policy barriers and enabling local managers to engage in
promising collaborative initiatives without unduly jeopardizing their
careers.
In addition, Federal policy can be modified to support the very
important challenge of sustaining collaborative initiatives once they
are established. Harney County's High Desert Partnership, for example,
faces the challenge of recruiting future managers at the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge who understand and are committed to the
collaborative approach. Ensuring that refuge leadership (as well as
agency leadership at USFWS and the Department of the Interior) remains
supportive of the collaborative efforts will be crucial. As transitions
occur, special care will be needed to ensure that new personnel are
truly steeped in collaboration and committed to continuing the work
that is underway. This is an important and rare skill, and new
leadership should have extensive demonstrable experience working within
this type of framework.
Federal policy can also encourage collaboration by reducing career
advancement policies that in effect encourage frequent relocation.
Successful collaboration requires building relationships of trust in
Federal employees. Relationships of trust tend to develop over extended
periods of time, as Federal employees become recognized as members of a
community. Many of the Federal employees I spoke with in Harney County
complained that advancing their careers within the Federal agencies
often requires relocation. Personnel turnover is inevitable in large
agencies, and successful collaboratives can and do cope with changes in
Federal agency staff. However, such changes can slow down or alter the
momentum of collaborative efforts, and the Federal Government should
re-consider personnel policies that may force agency staff to choose
between advancing their careers and developing the kind of longer-term
ties to local communities that enhance their capacities to engage in
effective local collaborations.
In addition, I was told by local Federal employees that agencies
could do more to encourage staff to engage in community activities,
including collaboration. Some employees expressed concern that employee
engagement with local community life is not fully encouraged by agency
management. While engagement in community life during non-working hours
is obviously up to the individual employee, Federal agencies should
consider efforts to communicate to staff that within appropriate
guidelines such local engagement is allowed and encouraged.
Greater Flexibility in Funding
Higher levels of government discretionary funds and flexibility in
funding requirements could be of great value in helping collaborative
organizations to operate sustainably and effectively. One challenge for
collaborative organizations is that by definition they cannot be funded
by membership fees--all stakeholders must be equally welcome and able
to participate in the collaborative process, no matter their financial
status. In practice this means that participation must be free for all
those who wish to participate. This creates obvious financial
challenges that can at least in part be addressed by Federal policy.
In Harney County, the non-profit High Desert Partnership provides a
good example of the complex funding challenges. The HDP does not
directly engage in problem-solving projects but instead helps to
facilitate the conversations and relationship-building that are
essential for a wide range of other more project-oriented initiatives
(from wildfire and wetlands management to youth development). This
model, while proven successful in terms of positive local results,
poses funding challenges because many grant-making institutions, both
public and private, tend to steer their funding streams toward specific
problem-solving rather than collaborative capacity-building. In
addition, because the mission of the HDP is to be a neutral party,
there is great sensitivity to appearing to be financially beholden to
any specific outside interests, especially those that might be
perceived as having particular political agendas.
Presently the HDP is funded through a complex and shifting mix of
state and Federal support, grants from private foundations, and private
donations. Private funding, whether through foundations or individual
donations, is an important part of the mix but tends to be
unpredictable, posing substantial challenges to building and
maintaining organizational capacity. State and Federal funding poses
its own challenges including reporting requirements and constraints on
the flexibility of how funds can be spent. While fully recognizing the
importance of accountability and compliance with existing government
policy (for example, Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements),
collaborative organizations by definition function differently and do
not necessarily conform to conventional practices, creating problems of
``fit'' between agency funding requirements and the flexibility needed
to make the collaborative model effective. It is important to note that
collaboration is very different from some other forms of community
involvement, such as Resource Advisory Councils. Whereas the RACs serve
as sounding boards for existing or proposed policies put forward by
agencies, collaborative organizations such as the HDP build management
plans directly from the local community. HDP staff observed to me that
at times they are questioned as to why they should receive funding when
other mechanisms for public input such as the RACs are already in
place. These are both valuable approaches, but they are very different
and they should be seen as complementary rather than redundant.
In addition to facilitating funds to support collaborative
processes, the Federal Government should consider greater investment in
on-the-ground implementation. Many collaborative organizations are
getting close to large scale implementation of projects. Too often
Federal agency leadership appears satisfied with collaboration as an
end unto itself, but ultimately the value of collaboration must be
measured by its ability to deliver substantive improvement on the
ground. There exists substantial public skepticism about these
collaboratives because they can be seen as diversions that consume a
lot of time and energy but fail to deliver outcomes. The ability to
maintain collaboration in Harney County and to inspire other similar
efforts ultimately will depend on the ability to demonstrate that
collaboration delivers results on the ground that exceed what would
have been accomplished under more tradition conflict driven pathways.
Changing Perceptions of Federal Employees
The militants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in
2016 failed in large part because they assumed that the deep hostility
they held toward Federal Government and Federal employees was shared by
the majority of people in Harney County. Thanks partly to Harney
County's long-standing effort to build a culture of collaboration, that
assumption proved largely false. Although there are certainly tensions
between some Federal employees and local residents, I was told over and
over that Harney County experienced a sea change from the attitudes
prevalent in the 1970s-1990s, when animosity between Federal employees
and the community ran deep. Today, Federal employees are more commonly
seen as neighbors and friends. And in many cases, Federal employees are
themselves members of local families.
Friction does, however, still exist, and more can be done to break
down unnecessary barriers. Federal Government can help break barriers
between Federal employees and local communities with modest policy
shifts. For example, I was told that there are simple things that can
be done such as allowing Federal employees to work more often without
uniforms. Uniforms create psychological separation, and contribute to
seeing agency employees as tools of government power rather than as
people. One rancher observed that when his daughter, who was born and
raised in the community, began working for the Bureau of Land
Management and put on an agency uniform, she found friends she had
known all her life treated her completely differently, as if she was
not part of the community, not a friend who cares--not even as a person
at all.
The history of uniformed Federal resource agents dates to the
earliest period of Federal forest management, when forests were
literally patrolled by soldiers. Today, when tensions between Federal
Government and some communities are already too high, it may be time to
re-examine anachronistic policies that invoke notions of a war between
government and its people. Such notions are all too easy to exploit by
those who seek to kindle an actual war between the Federal Government
and the people.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Professor Walker.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell, Director
of the Natural Resources and Environment Team at the U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
You have 5 minutes, Ms. Fennell.
STATEMENT OF ANNE-MARIE FENNELL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Fennell. Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss our report on how the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service protect their employees and secure their facilities
across nearly 700 million acres of lands that they manage. My
statement today summarizes our findings.
For the four Federal land management agencies, I will
discuss: (1) what is known about the number of threats and
assaults against their employees; (2) approaches agencies take
to protect their employees; and (3) the extent to which the
agencies met Federal facility security requirements.
First, available Federal law enforcement data show a range
of threats and assaults against the four Federal land
management agency employees in Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017.
The severity of these incidents range from phone threats to the
stabbing of an employee outside of a Federal building. The
number of incidents varied by agency. For the 5-year period,
there were 88 incidents for BLM, 66 for Fish and Wildlife
Service, 177 for Forest Service, and 29 for Park Service. FBI
data for this time period showed the FBI initiated under 100
domestic terrorism investigations into potential threats to
these four agencies.
The majority of these investigations involved BLM, as well
as individuals motivated by anti-government ideologies. For
instance, the FBI investigated a case where a BLM officer
received over 500 harassing phone calls and several death
threats. Once the officer's personal information was posted on
Twitter.
However, the number of actual threats and assaults is
unclear, because not all incidents are captured in the agency's
databases for various reasons. For example, some incidents are
investigated by local and state law enforcement, and may not be
included in Federal databases. In addition, land management
agency employees do not always report all threats. Some said
that, in certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats
as a normal part of their job.
Second, Federal land management agencies use various
approaches to protect their employees, such as building
relationships with local, state, and Federal law enforcement
entities. For instance, the Las Vegas police kept a patrol car
outside a field unit in Nevada during a high-profile court
case. Agency officials noted factors that can affect their
ability to protect employees, such as those in remote
locations. Also, the number of field law enforcement officers
at the four agencies has declined from Fiscal Years 2013 to
2018, with Forest Service experiencing the largest decrease of
22 percent.
Third, the four land management agencies have not completed
all facility security assessments required by Federal standards
developed by the Interagency Security Committee, or ISC. Agency
officials cited various reasons for not doing so, including a
lack of resources, training, and expertise. Not complying with
the ISC requirements to complete these assessments could leave
agencies exposed to risk to protecting their employees and
facilities. While Fish and Wildlife Service has a plan to
complete its assessments, BLM, the Forest Service, and Park
Service do not.
The ISC standard also requires that agencies conduct
assessments using a methodology that meets certain key
requirements. The Forest Service meets and the Park Service
partially meets these key requirements. BLM and Fish and
Wildlife Service have not yet established methodologies.
Without compliant methodologies, agencies may not identify all
the risks their facilities face, or the countermeasures to
mitigate those risks.
We made six recommendations calling for agencies to develop
a plan to conduct assessments and methodologies to comply with
ISC requirements. The agencies agreed, and noted a number of
steps they were going to take to implement the recommendations.
Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Curtis, and members of
the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I am
pleased to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fennell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne-Marie Fennell, Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Chairwoman Haaland, Republican Leader Young, and members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our recent
review of how four Federal land management agencies--the Forest Service
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (Park
Service) in the Department of the Interior--protect their employees and
secure their facilities. In 2014, a report by the Department of
Homeland Security predicted that the rate of violent domestic extremist
incidents motivated by anti-government ideology would increase in the
coming years, with a focus on government facilities and personnel,
among other targets.\1\ Recently, there have been several high-profile
incidents on Federal lands involving individuals motivated by anti-
government ideologies, according to agency officials, including an
armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural
Oregon in 2016. The refuge was occupied for nearly 6 weeks by armed
individuals and damages to the land and facilities at the refuge, plus
the local, state, and FWS law enforcement responses, cost over $9
million, according to local and Federal officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence
Analysis, Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to
Government Officials and Law Enforcement, IA-0201-14 (July 22, 2014).
The four Federal land management agencies have law enforcement
divisions that protect their employees and secure their facilities
across nearly 700 million acres of Federal lands.\2\ To do so, agencies
employ uniformed law enforcement officers who patrol Federal lands,
respond to illegal activities, conduct routine investigations, and
record information about incidents in their agency's law enforcement
data system.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While all four agencies' law enforcement officers also have
responsibilities for ensuring visitor safety, for the purposes of this
testimony statement, we focus on their responsibilities for protecting
employees and securing facilities.
\3\ Each agency has its own terminology to refer to its uniformed
field law enforcement personnel. For example, BLM's uniformed field law
enforcement officers are known as rangers, while FWS' field law
enforcement officers are known as Federal Wildlife Officers. For the
purposes of this testimony statement, we use the term law enforcement
officer across the four land management agencies. Each agency also has
investigative special agents who conduct investigations of serious
crimes but are not responsible for responding to threats and assaults
against employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on the agency, its law enforcement officers may also
provide expert advice in assessing the security of their agency's
facilities. Specifically, the four agencies are required to follow
Federal facility security standards developed by the Interagency
Security Committee (ISC).\4\ One such standard--the ISC Standard--
defines the criteria and processes executive agencies and departments
are to follow when assessing risks to their facilities through facility
security assessments and provides key requirements that the assessment
methodologies must include.\5\ Based on the results of the assessments,
the ISC Standard further guides agencies and departments in determining
which protective measures (referred to as countermeasures)--such as
identification badges, blast-resistant windows, and security gates--to
implement. In previous work, we found that some Federal agencies had
not fully followed the ISC Standard, leaving agencies' facilities and
employees exposed to risk.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ISC is chaired by Department of Homeland Security. Its
mandate is to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security in and
protection of buildings and facilities in the United States occupied by
federal employees for nonmilitary activities. As of June 2019, 60
federal departments and agencies were members of the ISC. The ISC was
established by executive order following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Executive Order 12977, 60
Fed. Reg. 54411 (Oct. 24, 1995), as amended by Executive Order 13286,
68 Fed. Reg. 10624 (Mar. 5, 2003). Executive Order 12977 refers to
buildings and facilities in the United States occupied by federal
employees for nonmilitary activities as ``federal facilities.''
\5\ Interagency Security Committee, The Risk Management Process for
Federal Facilities: An Interagency Security Committee Standard
(Washington, DC: November 2016). As of June 2019, the November 2016
version of the ISC Standard was the most current.
\6\ See, for example, GAO, Federal Facility Security: Additional
Actions Needed to Help Agencies Comply with Risk Assessment Methodology
Standards, GAO-14-86 (Washington, DC: Mar. 5, 2014), and GAO, Federal
Facility Security: Selected Agencies Should Improve Methods for
Assessing and Monitoring Risk, GAO-18-72 (Washington, DC: Oct. 26,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today summarizes the findings of our September 2019
report on Federal land management agencies' efforts to protect their
employees and secure their facilities.\7\ Specifically, for the four
Federal land management agencies, I will discuss (1) what is known
about the number of threats and assaults against their employees, (2)
the approaches the agencies used to protect their employees from
threats and assaults and factors affecting their ability to do so, and
(3) the extent to which the agencies met Federal facility security
assessment requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Federal Land Management Agencies: Additional Actions
Needed to Address Facility Security Assessment Requirements, GAO-19-643
(Washington, DC: September 25, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop the findings we outlined in the report on which this
testimony statement is based, we analyzed data on the number of
incidents of threats and assaults against land management agency
employees from the four agencies' law enforcement databases for fiscal
years 2013 through 2017--the most recent data available at the time of
our review. We also obtained data for this time period from the FBI on
investigations into potential domestic terror threats to land
management agencies.
Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with
officials during site visits to a nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the
35 regional or state offices and 14 field units across the four Federal
land management agencies. Finally, we assessed whether the agencies had
conducted required facility security assessments on their occupied
facilities and examined the extent to which their facility security
risk assessment methodologies complied with two key requirements in the
ISC Standard.\8\ Additional information on our scope and methodology is
available in our September 2019 report.\9\ The work upon which this
testimony statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The ISC Standard outlines four key requirements for facility
security assessment methodologies. Specifically, methodologies are to
(1) consider all 33 of the undesirable events identified in the
Standard; (2) evaluate the three factors of risk--threat,
vulnerability, and consequence--for each undesirable event; (3) produce
similar or identical results when applied by various security
professionals; and (4) provide sufficient justification for deviations
from the ISC-defined security baseline. We selected the first two key
requirements for our analysis because we could objectively verify
agencies' compliance by reviewing and analyzing agency documentation
and interviewing agency officials.
\9\ GAO-19-643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available Data Show a Range of Threats and Assaults against Land
Management Agency Employees, but Not All Incidents are Captured in the
Data
Available Federal law enforcement data show a range of threats and
assaults against the four Federal land management agencies' employees
in fiscal years 2013 through 2017.\10\,\11\ The severity of
these incidents ranged from threats conveyed over the telephone to
attempted murder and included an incident in which an employee was
stabbed outside a Federal building. The number of incidents of threats
and assaults varied by agency. For example, for fiscal years 2013
through 2017:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For the purposes of this testimony statement, employee refers
to land management agency employees, volunteers, and contractors,
unless otherwise noted.
\11\ The land management agencies' data systems were not
specifically designed for reporting threats and assaults against
employees and do not include the suspect's motivation for a crime--such
as anti-government extremist ideologies. Additionally, to varying
degrees, agency officials reviewed their respective data and removed
incident data that appeared not to constitute actual threats or
assaults to employees. For these reasons, and because we determined
that not all incidents are captured in the data, we did not analyze the
data for annual trends.
BLM data included 88 incidents of threats and assaults
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
against BLM employees;
FWS data included 66 incidents of threats and assaults
against FWS employees;
Forest Service data included 177 incidents of threats and
assaults against Forest Service employees; and
Park Service data included 29 incidents of threats and
assaults against Park Service employees.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Park Service data included employees only and did not include
volunteers or contractors.
Further, FBI data for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 show that the
FBI initiated under 100 domestic terrorism investigations into
potential threats to Federal land management
agencies.\13\,\14\ Our analysis of the FBI data showed that
the majority of the domestic terrorism investigations involved BLM.
Additionally, the majority involved individuals motivated by anti-
government ideologies. For example, the FBI investigated one case in
which a BLM law enforcement officer received more than 500 harassing
phone calls and several death threats after a subject posted personal
information about the officer on the social media platform Twitter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The exact number of domestic terrorism investigations
initiated by the FBI into threats and assaults to land management
agencies is law enforcement sensitive information. The FBI receives
information from a variety of sources, including from confidential
human sources; public tips; and state, local, tribal, and federal
partners. Land management agency officials told us they refer only the
most serious incidents to the FBI--such as the armed occupation of
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. According to FBI officials, an
investigation into a domestic terrorism threat may only be initiated if
there is information indicating potential violent criminal activity
committed in furtherance of ideology.
\14\ According to FBI officials, the FBI does not collect
intelligence or conduct investigations based solely on constitutionally
protected activity--such as individuals exercising their right to free
speech. Further, every subject of a domestic terrorism investigation
must have individual predication (i.e., mere association with another
subject is not sufficient for predication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the number of actual threats and assaults against Federal
land management employees is unclear and may be higher than what is
represented in available data, because not all incidents of threats and
assaults against land management agency employees are captured in the
agencies' databases. There are several reasons why this may be the
case. Specifically, some incidents of threats and assaults are
investigated by local or state law enforcement and may be recorded in
their data systems rather than in the land management agencies'
systems. Additionally, officials from two agencies we interviewed said
that when a single incident involved multiple offenses, the less
serious offenses are unlikely to be recorded in the data system and,
therefore, the entirety of what occurred may not be captured.
Further, land management agency employees do not always report all
incidents of threats. For example, some field unit employees said that
in certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats as a normal
part of their job. Some officials also described being threatened while
off duty, such as being harassed in local stores or being monitored at
their home, and they said that in some cases they did not report the
incident because it was a common occurrence. However, even in more
high-profile incidents, agency officials told us that employees may not
always report threats to agency law enforcement. For example, agency
officials we interviewed cited specific incidents around the time of
the 2016 armed occupation of FWS' Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that
they did not necessarily report to their agency's law enforcement.
These incidents included individuals holding anti-government beliefs
who followed a teenage girl wearing a BLM shirt around the local
grocery store and threatened to burn her house down, and agency
employees who had shots fired over their heads while working in the
field. According to officials at two agencies, many employees were
traumatized by the Malheur occupation and some did not return to work,
including some who transferred to other agency field units.
Land Management Agencies Use Various Approaches to Protect Employees,
but Several Factors May Affect Their Ability to Do So
Federal land management agencies use various approaches to protect
their employees from threats and assaults, including deploying agency
law enforcement officers to protect employees and resources and
building relationships with external law enforcement entities and the
public. Specifically, when necessary, agencies deploy additional law
enforcement officers to assist their local officers. For example,
during the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,
FWS officials reported deploying FWS law enforcement officers from
around the country to field units in western states to provide
additional security for FWS employees.
Agency officials we interviewed also told us that they build
relationships with local, state, and other Federal agency law
enforcement entities to help protect employees and resources in the
field and to assist with coordinating law enforcement responses. Such
relationships are important because not all field units have a law
enforcement officer, and those that do often rely on local law
enforcement for assistance in responding to incidents of threats or
assaults against agency employees. For example, officials we
interviewed at a field unit in Nevada stated that during a high-profile
court case involving the agency, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department kept a patrol car outside the field unit for several days to
help ensure field unit employees' safety. Finally, officials at several
field units we visited stated that their law enforcement officers are
focused on educating, rather than policing, visitors.
Agency officials we interviewed cited several factors that can
affect their ability to protect employees. Specifically, agency
officials noted that employees are required to interact with the public
as part of their official duties and may wear uniforms, which makes
them easily recognizable and can put them at risk of being threatened
or assaulted. (See Figure 1.) Additionally, agency officials stated
that it can be difficult to protect employees because, as part of their
field work, employees may be dispersed across hundreds of miles of
Federal lands and may be located hours or days away from the nearest
agency law enforcement officer. For example, as of fiscal year 2018,
BLM had 194 field law enforcement officers to cover the 245 million
acres of land managed by BLM.
Figure 1: Examples of Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park
Service Employee Uniforms
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8270.001
.epsSources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (left photo); National
Park Service (right photo).
Further, the number of agency field law enforcement officers at all
four land management agencies declined from fiscal year 2013 through
fiscal year 2018. For example, BLM experienced a decrease of 9 percent,
while the Forest Service experienced a decrease of 22 percent, the
largest decrease among the four agencies. Finally, agency officials we
interviewed said that the risk to employee safety posed by individuals
holding anti-government sentiments can be unpredictable and that
incidents of threats and assaults against employees by such individuals
are generally sporadic.
Land Management Agencies Have Not Met Certain Facility Security
Assessment Requirements
The four Federal land management agencies have completed some but
not all of the facility security assessments on their occupied Federal
facilities as required by the ISC Standard. Agency officials cited
various reasons for not doing so, including lack of resources,
training, and expertise. Not complying with the ISC Standard's
requirement to complete facility security assessments on all occupied
facilities could leave Federal agencies exposed to risks in protecting
their employees and facilities. While FWS has a plan to complete its
assessments, BLM, the Forest Service, and the Park Service do not.
Specifically:
FWS. FWS has conducted five facility security assessments
on its approximately 465 occupied facilities. According to
FWS headquarters officials, FWS employees have limited
physical security expertise to conduct facility security
assessments; therefore, the agency has developed a plan to
meet the ISC Standard's requirement using contractors.
BLM. BLM has conducted 21 facility security assessments on
its approximately 280 occupied facilities, but officials do
not know when they will complete the remaining assessments
and do not have a plan to do so.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ According to BLM and Interior officials, Interior's Office of
Law Enforcement and Security completed 16 of the 21 facility security
assessments on behalf of BLM. The other five were completed by BLM
state office officials in Colorado whom Interior officials had trained
to conduct facility security assessments.
Forest Service. The Forest Service has conducted at least
135 facility security assessments on its approximately
1,135 occupied facilities, but officials do not know when
they will complete the remaining assessments and do not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
have a plan for doing so.
Park Service. The Park Service has conducted at least 148
facility security assessments on its approximately 1,505
occupied facilities, but officials do not know when they
will complete the remaining assessments and do not have a
plan to do so.
The ISC Standard requires that agencies conduct assessments using a
methodology that meets, among other things, two key requirements: (1)
consider all of the undesirable events (e.g., arson and vandalism)
identified in the ISC Standard as possible risks to facilities, and (2)
assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequence for each of these
events. The Forest Service's methodology meets these two requirements
and utilizes an ISC-compliant facility security assessment methodology
developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Park Service's
methodology partially meets the requirements because it does not
include a step to assess the consequences of specific undesirable
events, as required by the ISC Standard. BLM and FWS have not yet
established methodologies for conducting facility security assessments,
although officials we interviewed from each agency stated that they
intend to develop an ISC-compliant methodology. Specifically, BLM
officials told us that they plan to hire a security manager who will
develop an assessment methodology but did not know when the manager
would be hired. FWS officials we interviewed provided a high-level
description of what they expected to be included in their new
methodology. However, FWS's description did not indicate that the
agency would evaluate the consequences of specific undesirable events,
as required by the ISC Standard. Without developing a plan for
conducting all of the remaining facility security assessments and using
a methodology that complies with ISC requirements, agencies may not
identify the risks their facilities face or identify the
countermeasures they could implement to mitigate those risks.
Based on these findings, we made a total of six recommendations to
the four land management agencies, including that:
BLM, the Forest Service, and the Park Service each develop
a plan to conduct all required facility security
assessments agency-wide;
The Park Service update its facility security assessment
methodology to address the consequences of specific
undesirable events in order to comply with requirements in
the ISC Standard; and
BLM and the Forest Service each develop facility security
assessment methodologies that comply with requirements in
the ISC Standard.
The four land management agencies generally concurred with our
recommendations and provided examples of actions they plan to take to
address our recommendations, including revising policies and developing
new tools, training, and data system modules.
Chairwoman Haaland, Republican Leader Young, and members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Ms. Fennell.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Katie Tubb, Senior Policy
Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Ms. Tubb, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATIE TUBB, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Tubb. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you
today, and for the interest in examining Federal lands issues.
Decision making on Federal lands has been contentious for
many years--decades, if not longer. In some respects, that is
not surprising, given that there is potential for conflict when
Federal lands consume large parts of the West. This has major
implications for states and individuals, and their ability to
foster a promising place to live with economic diversity,
property, and other tax revenue for services like education and
public safety, physical space, and access to lands for a
variety of cultural, recreational, and economic activities.
Further, management on these lands is diverse and spread
across multiple agencies and bureaus, governed by a complex of
overlapping and often conflicting laws, missions, and
regulations, which different administrations have implemented
in drastically different ways.
A litigation culture all but invited by broad, unclear, and
outdated laws has led to perverse incentives. And when people
feel that they are not being listened to, or the levers of
power are out of reach, tensions spill over. Undoubtedly, civil
servants are also in a difficult place navigating these laws.
When it comes to conflict, Federal, district, and unit
offices should ensure their staff are adequately equipped for
their own safety. Just as important, staff should be trained to
handle and diffuse conflict toward solutions. However, to go
overboard is to miss the point, and Federal actions can
wittingly or unwittingly create unnecessary tension. Federal
actions, again, real or perceived, to slow-walk leases and
permits, being unwilling to seek compromise, failing to be
present and available to the community, or escalating the
severity of charges can create or exacerbate conflict.
Ultimately, I believe Congress needs to do a wholesale
review of the Federal estate and the laws governing it.
However, even in this broken system, there are examples of
collaboration amongst conflicting interests that have yielded
good results.
I think those boil down to some basic principles of
cooperative federalism, the first being that solutions are
site- and situation-specific. Specific decisions reflect the
unique circumstances, histories, and priorities of communities
and land users. Americans can and do successfully pursue varied
and competing interests with creative, nuanced compromises.
This requires relying on people who directly benefit or are
harmed by those decisions.
Second, solutions rely and respect the role of private
property owners. Rather than being irrelevant or a barrier to
public land management solutions, private property owners can
be great assets and, in fact, ownership is a powerful incentive
for stewardship.
Third, solutions empower states and communities. And while
there are many degrees of and ways to accomplish this,
empowering states and communities to drive decision making has
proved effective. States and communities already share the cost
of maintaining Federal lands, whether by the liability of no
management, the lost opportunity of poor management, or the
infrastructure needed to support management.
My written testimony offers examples of how each of these
have resolved conflict, among those the Utah Grazing
Improvement Program; the White Mountain Apache Tribe Successful
Forest Management Program; the Forest Service's use of its Good
Neighbor Authority; Wyoming's exception under the Antiquities
Act; and the Federal Lands Freedom Act proposed in the 115th
Congress.
I would like to draw just one example, that being the 1984
compromise for Forest Service and BLM lands in northern
Arizona. Within the broader, protracted national debate over
wilderness area designations, a coalition of interests came
together to seek resolution in a more timely fashion. I think
it is very interesting who formed this coalition. It was a mix
of energy companies and groups like the National Parks
Conservation Association, Sierra Club, National Wildlife
Federation, Local Chambers of Commerce, the Grazing Advisory
Board, and a variety of local, state, and Federal politicians.
The discussions resulted in an all but universally satisfying
compromise with the Arizona Wilderness Act. The compromise
created nine wilderness areas, including the BLM's first. It
also allowed for uranium mining and timber production within
painstakingly negotiated boundaries.
The point is, coming to solutions is hard work and
complicated work. The way forward through collaboration is
rarely clear cut and easy with an obvious outcome. But I think
the more Congress can encourage, agencies pursue, and states
and private individuals initiate collaborative approaches, the
better chances we have of reaching solutions through conflict.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tubb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katie Tubb, The Heritage Foundation
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and for
your interest in examining Federal lands issues. Decision making on
Federal lands has been contentious for decades, if not longer. The
Hammond and Bundy cases are unfortunate, more recent examples of
conflict that escalated to the loss of one man's life and put many
others in danger.
In some respects, it is not surprising that there is such potential
for conflict. While not exclusively a Western issue, Federal management
covers vast tracts of the West. This has major implications for states
and individuals, and their ability to foster a promising place to live
with economic diversity; property and other tax revenue for services
like education and public safety; physical space; and access to lands
for a variety of cultural, recreational, and economic activities.
Further, management of these massive and diverse lands is
disjointed, being spread across multiple departments and bureaus
governed by a complex of overlapping and often conflicting laws,
missions, and regulations as well as historical uses and arrangements
predating certain Federal laws. Different administrations have
interpreted and implemented the same laws guiding management in
drastically different ways to either encourage access to Federal lands
or heavily restrict their use. Special interest groups leverage these
complexities to pressure elected leaders and bureaucrats to enact
policies that benefit powerful constituencies. A litigation culture all
but invited by broad, unclear, or outdated laws has led to perverse
incentives. Non-action by Federal agencies is rewarded not because
bureaucrats are generally bad or incompetent, but because Federal
employees soon learn that taking no action is safe. Delay, study,
hearings, and re-hearings are ``acceptable'' activities. Deciding
something may create a job-threatening political firestorm.\1\ At worst
decisions are never reached, and at best agencies expend extensive
resources not on management but rather to bullet proof decisions with
reams of analysis for the inevitable legal challenge. When people feel
they are not being listened to or the levers of power are out of reach,
tensions spill over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jack Spencer, ed., Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles
of the American Conservation Ethic, The Heritage Foundation, July 27,
2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/environmental-
conservation#EightPrinciples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it is unsurprising that people are passionate about Federal
lands. Conflict comes in many shapes and sizes. There of course were
the cases of the Hammonds and Bundys which made national headline news.
But there are dozens of other cases that, though they do not make
national news, are no less impactful to the local communities and
individuals. Controversial national monument designations in Utah and
off the coasts of Massachusetts, or just last week, the issue of
roadless area designations in Alaska, are ready examples of conflict
over Federal lands, all the way down to the use of cabins in Ottawa
National Forest in Michigan and eminent domain issues in Smokey
Mountain National Park.
When it comes to conflict, individual district and unit offices of
the Federal land agencies should not be irresponsible and ensure their
staff are adequately equipped for their own safety. Just as important,
staff should be trained to handle and diffuse conflict toward
solutions, if possible. However, to go overboard is to miss the point
and Federal actions can wittingly or unwittingly create unnecessary
tension. While it is popularly easy to caricature and parade the faults
committed by private landowners in the Bundy and Hammond cases, Federal
land managers and bureaucrats were not faultless, either. That incident
aside, Federal actions to slow walking leases and permits, being
unwilling to seek compromise or inflexibility to seek agreeable
alternatives, failing to be present and available to the community, and
escalating the severity of charges can create or exacerbate conflict.
Management of Federal lands is a two-way street at least.
That said, I would like to use the remainder of my testimony to
focus on ways conflict on Federal lands has been or could be resolved.
Ultimately, I believe Congress needs to take a wholesale review of the
Federal estate and the morass of conflicting and overlapping laws
governing it. However, even in this broken system there are examples of
collaboration amongst conflicting interests that have yielded good
results. Those successes boil down to some basic principles of
cooperative federalism.
1. Solutions Are Site and Situation Specific
Rather than centralized policies, site and situation specific
decisions reflect the unique circumstances, histories, and priorities
of communities and land users. Americans can and do successfully pursue
varied and sometimes competing interests on Federal lands. Coming to
creative compromises requires relying on people who will directly
benefit from wise management decisions or be marginalized by poor ones.
Coming to such solutions is hard, complicated work. Take for
example the process to reach a compromise for land use plans on Forest
Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in northern
Arizona. Within the protracted national debate, study, and re-analysis
of wilderness area designations, a coalition of interests came together
to try to resolve land-use issues in a more timely fashion for an area
in northern Arizona known as the Arizona Strip.
It is perhaps worth noting that the Federal Government's inability
to move forward in Arizona caused tension, apparently among all
parties. According to Representative Mo Udall (D-UT):
``Since 1979 Arizonans who used the forests for livelihood, for
recreation, for scientific purposes, and for much more, have
labored under the uncertainties of interim management.. . .
This has hurt people in Arizona, causing frustration and
confusion. Miners are not sure where to invest their
exploration in development dollars. Ranchers wonder about the
future management of their grazing allotments. Conservationists
fear the loss of critical, sensitive lands in the fragile
Arizona environment.
The Forest Service goes about its job without any clear
direction from the Congress. Lawsuits in other states threaten
court-imposed land management regimes that would benefit no
one. The current administration launches a senseless, costly
and resource-wasting process called RAREII [Roadless Area
Review and Evaluation II] to paw over the inventory again.''
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System,''
Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 1983,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/Adjudications/documents/
SRP_Initial_Disclosure/SRP08318%20-%20SRP08765.pdf (accessed October
21, 2019).
Consequently, an attempt at more timely resolution was initiated by
a group of private companies and environmental interests. Months of
extensive discussion began between Energy Fuels Corporation, Western
Nuclear Corps, the Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation
Association, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Grazing
Advisory Board, local chambers of commerce, and, ultimately, the BLM,
USFS, and Arizona's Federal delegation. Discussion resulted in an all
but universally satisfying compromise with the Arizona Wilderness
Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, H.R. 4707, 98th Congress, 2nd
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The compromise created nine wilderness areas, including the BLM's
first designated wilderness areas. It also allowed for uranium mining
and timber production within painstakingly negotiated boundaries. It
represents the concept of multi-use lands enshrined in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act \4\ and is itself, in the words of BLM's
Director Robert Burford, a ``unique piece of legislation'' of hard-won
consensus among competing interests. The National Parks Conservation
Association described the Act as an ``exciting adventure in the
democratic process'' which it was pleased with in substance and process
and supported ``with great enthusiasm.'' \5\ The legislation had the
support of both Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Udall,
long-time chairman of the House Interior Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Lands Management and Policy Act of 1976, Sec. 102, 94th
Congress: ``[I]t is the policy of the United States that . . . public
lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the nation's need for
domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public
lands.''
\5\ ``Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System,''
Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 1983,
http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/Adjudications/documents/
SRP_Initial_Disclosure/SRP08318%20-%20SRP08765.pdf (accessed October
21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent Federal land management plans by the BLM and USFS
reflected this compromise. Unfortunately, the Obama administration
unilaterally rescinded this arrangement in 2009 and formally withdrew
over 1 million acres from mining activities for 20 years in a 2012
public land order by the Secretary of Interior.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 11 (January 18, 2012), pp. 2563-
2566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not always perfect, local expertise leads to successful
environmental policy that is more responsive and better suited to
unique landscapes. Time and again, states and communities have been
able to come to creative, nuanced compromises that reflect their unique
circumstances, priorities, and histories.
2. Solutions Respect the Role of Private Property Owners
Rather than barriers to public land management solutions, private
property owners can be great assets. In fact, ownership is a powerful
incentive for stewardship. Property rights turn environmental resources
into assets rather than liabilities, and markets lead to more creative
and desirable solutions. Unfortunately, Federal approaches can
disincentivize collaboration and partnerships with private property
owners. Conflict often arises when property owners are seen as
opponents or irrelevant to a solution. Current regulatory and
management approaches often devalue private property, and Federal
management often fails to utilize market based solutions that could
make land and resources more profitable to the benefit of Federal
lands.
Take, for example, Utah's voluntary Grazing Improvement Program
(GIP) set up in partnership with the state, Federal Government, and
private property owners. Grazing is a deep part of Utah's heritage and
an important part of the local economy. However, the sheer volume of
Federal lands is itself a source of tension for Utahans. Sixty-three
percent of Utah is owned by the Federal Government, and, consequently,
Federal land management plans and designations acutely impact the
livelihoods of residents. According to the Utah Farm Bureau:
``There are 45 million acres of rangeland suitable for
livestock grazing in Utah. Of that, 33 million acres or 75
percent is controlled by the BLM and Forest Service. The
Director of the BLM manages more land in Utah than the Governor
elected by the people of Utah. Our future in Southern Utah, in
most of Utah and across the American West is being dictated by
a distant, disconnected central government. And that distance
is not just based on geography.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Utah Farm Bureau, ``Monument Review, MS-1530,'' Statement of
the Utah Farm Bureau to Secretary Ryan Zinke, U.S. Department of
Interior, undated, https://www.utahfarmbureau.org/Article/File/
get?path=Files%2Farticle-109549%2FBears%20Ears%201.pdf (accessed
October 21, 2019).
For decades, government responses to environmental degradation on
rangelands have revolved around reducing access to land and reducing
permissible herd sizes.\8\ This naturally exacerbated frustration and
economic hardship for ranchers, but further did not solve rangeland and
watershed damage. As described by Utah's Department of Agriculture and
Food, there was a ``disconnect between the regulatory regime and good
grazing practices.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, ``Change in Utah
Federally Permitted AUMs 1940-2005,'' https://ag.utah.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2019/05/History-of-AUM-Reductions.pdf (accessed October 21,
2019). See also Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, ``GIP
History,'' May 21, 2019, https://ag.utah.gov/farmers/conservation-
division/utah-grazing-improvement-program/gip-history/ (accessed
October 21, 2019).
\9\ Doug Warnock, ``Utah's Grazing Improvement Program Develops Key
Principles,'' Capital Press, December 29, 2016, https://
www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/utah-s-grazing-improvement-
program-develops-key-principles/article_f7fb1059-45ab-50a0-9e94-
4bebc3a7c102. html (accessed October 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passed in Utah's legislature in 2006, the GIP aims to bring
together ranching, environmental, and state and Federal Government
interests together to apparent good effect for both ranchers and the
environment.\10\ The GIP established local and state advisory boards to
engage at the local, state, and Federal levels to develop and propose
consensus recommendations for Federal lands management decisions, and
implement rangeland projects. This involves groups like the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, BLM, state agriculture and natural resource
departments, Utah Farm Bureau, Nature Conservancy, Utah Cattlemen's
Association, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Wool Growers Association, Trout
Unlimited, local landowners, and state universities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ashley Longmore and Troy Forrest, ``The History and Overview
of Utah's Grazing Improvement Program,'' Rangelands, Vol. 38 No. 5
(October 2016), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0190052816300554?via%3Dihub (accessed October 21, 2019).
\11\ Michele Straube and Lorien Belton, ``Collaborative Group on
Sustainable Grazing for U.S. Forest Service Lands in Southern Utah:
Final Report and Consensus Recommendations,'' December 2012, https://
ag.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sustainable-Grazing-for-
Southern-Utah-Forests.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019). For a BLM
example, see Bureau of Land Management, ``BLM Seeks Public Comment on
the Bison Fence Environment,'' U.S. Department of Interior, August 16,
2018, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comment-bison-
fence-environmental-assessment (accessed October 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, the program is proving effective from both ranching
and environmental perspectives. Rather than overemphasizing herd size,
Utah's approach emphasizes actively managing herds, distribution, and
rotation to keep cattle from overusing lands and streams. Installing
water systems, fences, and new plants have reduced soil erosion,
improved streams and water quality, decreased the spread of invasive
plants and species, and reduced dry underbrush that is fuel for
wildfires. This has further benefited ranchers with healthier, more
productive rangeland for herds.
Under a system of property rights and rule of law, they have power
incentive to maintain and enhance their environment.
3. Solutions Empower States and Communities
Perhaps a variation on the themes of the first two points,
empowering states and communities to drive decision making has proved
effective. While there are many degrees of and ways to accomplish this,
one good example is the experience of the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
Management of forests on tribal lands contrasts starkly with
neighboring Federal lands, to great environmental and economic benefit
for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The White Mountain Apache Tribe
manages their own forests, mimicking the natural burn and growth cycle
by clearing logs and brush that could become fuel for fires. Doing so
also provides jobs for the tribe, which boasts its own logging
industry.
While they work with the Department of the Interior and Forest
Service to develop land-management plans, critically, the tribal
council is in the driver's seat. According to Robert Lacapa, former
forest manager with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the White Mountain
Apache Tribe: ``Our constituency is on the reservation, and we have
about 16,000 tribal members. Nobody from New York. Nobody from
California. Our primary interest group is right here.'' \12\ This
protection allows the Tribe to complete more forest treatments more
quickly according to the interests of the tribe. It has paid off--the
damage and intensity of forest fires on tribal lands has been markedly
less than on neighboring Federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Valerie Richardson, ``Apaches Stave Off Wildfires with Timber
Industry, Active Forest Management,'' Washington Times, September 2,
2018, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/2/apache-
forest_management-fights-wildfires/ (accessed October 21, 2019).
Reflecting on the stark contrast between tribal and federally
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
managed lands, Lacapa stated:
``Unfortunately for the Forest Service, they can get somebody
back East or back West that can put a stop to any of their
[National Environmental Policy Act requirements]. The public
has really limited their effectiveness in using prescribed
burns and harvesting as tools. And that's really bad for us.
It's not just about what we can do here locally [on the
reservation], but on a landscape basis.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
The simple truth is, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has powerful
incentives to be good stewards of their environment as part of their
livelihoods, economic opportunity, culture, recreation, and other uses
of the land around them. Their community directly benefits from good
management decisions and is hurt by poor ones. Fortunately, their
unique situation allows them to plan as a community and utilize local
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
expertise and priorities.
There are other small-scale examples worth considering to empower
states and communities.
Under its Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service has
contracted with 32 states to complete management work on
national forests.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Jason Hayes, ``Conflict to Cooperation: Collaborative
Management of Federal Lands in Michigan,'' Property and Environment
Research Center and the Mackinac Center, October 30, 2018, https://
www.perc.org/2018/10/30/conflict-to-cooperation-collaborative-
management-of-federal-lands-in-michigan/ (accessed October 21, 2019).
See also U.S. Forest Service, ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' U.S.
Department of Agriculture, https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/farm-
bill/gna (accessed October 21, 2019).
The EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission have partnered
with many states, which under formal agreements may assume
certain regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic Energy Act, respectively.
The Antiquities Act grants the state of Wyoming an
exemption from unilateral presidential action by requiring
congressional approval for any monument designation.
The South Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 made
68,000 acres of Federal land near Las Vegas available for
purchase and generated proceeds for Nevada's General
Education Fund, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and
Federal conservation and maintenance projects.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Bureau of Land Management, ``Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act (SNPLMA),'' U.S. Department of Interior, https://
www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/SNPLMA_
New%20About%20Page.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019).
The Federal Lands Freedom Act proposed by Senator James
Inhofe (R-OK) in the 115th Congress, though not passed,
would have allowed states to submit their own regulatory
programs for energy permitting and development on Federal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lands in lieu of Federal requirements.
There does not seem to be a sustained drive in Congress to expand
the role of states on Federal land-management decisions. However,
states can utilize local creativity and accountability without the
added baggage of national political battles and Federal regulatory
processes. States already share the cost of the maintenance of Federal
lands, whether by the liability of no management, the lost opportunity
of poor management, or the infrastructure needed to support development
of resources.
The way forward through collaboration is rarely clear cut and easy
with an obvious outcome. If it were, we would not be having discussions
like this today. Shifting more control from Washington to those with
direct knowledge of the land in question and a clear stake in the
outcome of decisions would be a step in the right direction. But the
more Congress can encourage, agencies pursue, and states and private
individuals initiate collaborative approaches, the better the chances
of reaching solutions through conflict--solutions that offer better,
nuanced, and creative approaches to benefit people and the environment.
______
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Ms. Tubb. Thank you for that
valuable testimony. The Chair will now recognize Members for
their questions. Under Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be
recognized for 5 minutes. I will start with Mr. Tonko.
You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Haaland, and thank you for
bringing this hearing together. And thank you to our witnesses
for your input.
The unfair and negative treatment of Federal employees
harms our Nation. It threatens the loss of institutional
knowledge, and undermines the performance of the agency in
service of the American people. Elected officials and others in
positions of power and public trust should not be able to use
these employees as political pawns. Even the way we talk about
them can have a personally dangerous and professionally
devastating consequence on these individuals, to say nothing of
undermining the serious and important work that they do.
No one, no matter where they work, should feel like they
are being held hostage in their own home, or have shots fired
over their heads while working. Surely, we can manage at least
this minimum standard of humanity for our own Federal
employees.
In this divisive time, our words matter more than ever.
Public land managers are already being harassed and sometimes
attacked, and we have a duty to rise above this toxic political
climate in our words and in our actions.
My first questions are to Ms. Fennell. Your report says
Federal land management experts experience threats and
intimidation, including being monitored at home and harassed at
the grocery store as part of their daily lives. It is so common
that some don't even report it to their colleagues any more.
That sounds like a more dangerous reaction than a difference of
opinion about land management.
Could you tell us more, please, about some of the
experiences that have been reported?
Ms. Fennell. Some employees have not reported various
incidents because they informed us that, under certain
circumstances, they may consider that just a part of their
regular job duties. Some, however, indicated that it depends on
the particular circumstances, so what may appear to be a threat
for one employee may not be perceived as that for another.
There is judgment that is involved, in terms of whether they
come forward, in terms of reporting potential threats.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And in your testimony you briefly
mentioned that many employees were traumatized by the Malheur
takeover, with some never returning to work, or transferred to
other agency field units. Can you briefly elaborate on the
impact that threats and literal assaults on Federal employees
have had on retention and institutional knowledge at our
Federal land management agencies?
Ms. Fennell. Well, some of the employees informed us that
that was indeed the situation from the Malheur experience, that
they were traumatized by the event and chose to ask for a
transfer, or not return immediately to work. That was an
illustrative example of the situation that occurred there.
But we did not hear consistent examples throughout, in
terms of how many transfers there had been requested. So, we
don't have specific information to respond to that question.
Mr. Tonko. Do you expect that you will get additional
information?
Ms. Fennell. It was not part of our particular scope for
our review, but that is something that we can follow up with
the agencies and get back to your staff.
Mr. Tonko. OK, that is great. Thank you.
And, Mr. Nichols, how has Harney County changed since the
takeover? And what are some of the social consequences you have
seen resulting from this kind of violence perpetrated in the
name of taking back the land?
Mr. Nichols. Harney County was elated it was over with.
Things haven't changed dramatically within the community, other
than there is division to some degree where there wasn't before
over several things.
But, basically, the community got back on its feet,
rolling, and doing what we have always done, and that is
working together and trying to survive all of the things that
we have to survive in our community. It has been a very
positive reaction to the whole situation, and we are moving
ahead, moving forward.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Professor Walker, you spent a great
deal of time interviewing local residents since the Malheur
takeover. What kind of long-term social damage did this inflict
upon them?
Dr. Walker. As Commissioner Nichols said, I think,
generally, the community has bounced back. It is still a
community that works very well together.
I think there has been a lot of long-term damage to
specific individual relationships. There are people who still
tell me that they won't patronize businesses that belong to
people who they perceive to be on the other side of the issue.
I think there is a general sense of wariness, of suspicion
about others in the community that there was not before the
Malheur occupation.
On the other side, I would actually say that, in my
observation, if anything, the damage to some of those
relationships, some individual relationships, has actually been
countered by a reinforcement of a commitment to working
together through the collaborative model.
I attended the very first--to my knowledge, the very
first--collaborative meeting in an initiative of the High
Desert Partnership known as the Harney County Restoration
Collaborative, the Forest Collaborative, in March 2016, right
after the occupation ended. And the facilitator of that group
told me that the attendance at that particular meeting was
higher than he had ever seen before.
So, it is a mixed bag. There is some damage, but there has
also been a reaffirmed commitment to the collaborative model.
Mr. Tonko. I thank you. I have well exceeded my time, and I
apologize, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. The Chair recognizes
Ranking Member Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Walker, on page 24 of the GAO report it reads, ``Agency
field officials said that building relationships with the
public, both visitors and local citizens, can help keep their
employees safe by cultivating trust and reducing potential
tension.'' After hearing your testimony it sounds like that
could have been written based on a case study in your area.
Would you agree with that?
Dr. Walker. I am sorry, can you say that again?
Mr. Curtis. The report says that the best way to keep the
Federal employees safe is to build relationships of trust. And
it sounds to me like----
Dr. Walker. Yes, I would generally agree with that. I think
that, really, you should be asking Mr. Nichols.
Mr. Curtis. OK. Mr. Nichols, please?
Dr. Walker. Mr. Nichols ranches in that community, but my
quick understanding is that relationships in that community
prior to the establishment of the collaborative culture that
Commissioner Nichols refers to was quite bad. And since then
that trust has been built in ways that really served the
community well under pressure. Yes.
Mr. Nichols. I would agree.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. And maybe to both of you, as the world
looks back on your community and this incident--this seems to
me like a rhetorical question, but maybe it is not. Would you
both rather be remembered for the relationship-building with
the Federal employees or this one incident?
Mr. Nichols. The relationship with the employees or what,
sir?
Mr. Curtis. My point is, and my fear is, that the topic of
this hearing is focusing on all that is bad. And what I am
hearing from your community is there is a lot that is good.
And the question is, I am assuming you would rather be
remembered for the relationship building that you all have done
and not this one incident.
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir. Like I referred to earlier, the
Bundy occupation is over and done. We have moved on. Yes, there
are differences of opinion about things. There always is, there
always will be. But there isn't the hostility and the
aggression toward one another or anyone else that was evident
during that time.
Basically, it was total anarchy in our community for a
month, 6 weeks. That is not a good place to be, not a good
place at all.
Mr. Curtis. It is my sense that it is also not a reflection
on who you are as a community.
Mr. Nichols. No.
Mr. Curtis. Much more on the relationship-building side.
Mr. Nichols. It is.
Mr. Curtis. I think all of you have spoken today about the
importance of building relationships to solve problems without
creating more divisiveness.
I was very fortunate to be part of an Emery County public
lands package that was signed into law this year. And that, to
me, was a perfect example of how locals are working together
with the Federal agencies to find harmony and peace in these
difficult public land conflicts.
My county worked daily with local BLM officials. And
because of that they came to better decisions. And when I go
down in that county I hear great things about the local
representation from BLM down there, and I feel like it was a
win-win.
Ms. Tubb, I am curious. The title of today's hearing
alleges a widespread culture of anti-government attacks and
abuse. Let me just read that again, ``a widespread culture of
anti-government attacks and abuse.''
First of all, do you agree with this characterization of
the epidemic level threat of an anti-government activist?
Ms. Tubb. No, I don't. And I think it is not characteristic
to label all conflict as anti-government. As I think we have
said across the panel, these are passionate issues because they
affect people's lives. That doesn't mean they are anti-
government.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. Thank you. Your testimony, you argue that
it is important for Federal land management agencies not to
create unnecessary tension. What are some ways agencies can
diffuse tension and encourage better relationships?
Ms. Tubb. I think it is absolutely the relationship
building and seeking compromise. Granted, I think land managers
have a very difficult position to play because of the
underlying law and regulation. Nevertheless, I think there are
enough tools in there to create a give-and-take amongst land
managers and the people affected by their decisions.
Mr. Curtis. We have heard--and I want to endorse that we
need to keep our Federal employees safe, and I wouldn't want
anybody to think that I felt otherwise, but I would like to
take advantage of this opportunity to share my concern that it
doesn't always feel like this is a common concern for all
Federal employees. And in law enforcement, even local law
enforcement, I would hate to compare the statistics that we
have heard today for Federal law enforcement threats versus
local law enforcement. And I believe the number of lives lost
in local law enforcement would far exceed this.
So, I would like to just end my time with a plea for care
and concern for all Federal employees, all law enforcement. We
have not even talked about those down at the border. I have
been down there, I know they are receiving threats on a
consistent basis, and I want to make sure that we keep all of
them in mind as we work to make their environment safer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, as I say, thank
you to all the panelists. I want to start with Ms. Fennell.
In your testimony, you stated, as I read, that at the close
of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of field law enforcement
officers at each of the four land management agencies has
declined since Fiscal Year 2013, and that decline makes it more
difficult to protect employees. Can you first elaborate on the
impact that these declines have had on employee safety?
Ms. Fennell. It is one of a number of factors that have
impacted the Federal Land Management Agency's efforts to
protect Federal employees. The law enforcement officer decline
ranged from 7 percent for the Park Service to 22 percent for
the Forest Service from 2013 to 2018. The officers have a vast
amount of land in which to survey, as well, so the number of
law enforcement officers per millions of acres of the land is a
fairly small ratio.
There are various efforts that are underway to try to
address that particular issue we heard about from the Federal
land management agencies, including the spirit of sharing law
enforcement officers to address various events that may be
occurring, just as one way to address the decline in the
numbers of law enforcement officers in the field.
Dr. Lowenthal. Can you help me understand why there was the
decline in law--was it just fiscal? Why was there a decline in
law enforcement from 2013? It was not a time of great
reductions in the U.S. economy. In fact, we were beginning the
recovery by then.
Ms. Fennell. It was not the focus of our line of
questioning, because we were looking at the various factors
that can impact their ability to protect employees. However,
what law enforcement officers had indicated is that there had
been budget and resource constraints contributing to the
decline.
Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Nichols, you know that President Trump
pardoned the Hammond family in 2018. You know that.
Mr. Nichols. I know that.
Dr. Lowenthal. Yes. I am just asking you. Can you tell me
how that family is perceived in Harney County?
Mr. Nichols. Well, sir, you are asking me my perception? My
perception is there are two different ways of looking at them.
They are outstanding people, and they are good community
members. But, apparently, something was out of sync with the
Department of Justice, and that course of action took place.
Other than that, I don't believe it is my place to be answering
that type of a question.
Dr. Lowenthal. I was just asking what the community felt
about this, or perceived of it, not about--was it much of a
reaction?
You indicated your reaction, in that you thought they were
excellent people. I am just wondering whether there was much
community reaction when this took place.
Mr. Nichols. OK. The community reaction--the community is
made up of people that are different in their opinions. It went
a variety of different ways.
Dr. Lowenthal. I am going to yield back. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Ms.
Fennell, in preparing the report, how often did land managers
describe the public misconceptions about land use law, or what
Federal agencies really do, as you were doing your report?
Ms. Fennell. In terms of the Federal land management
agencies and their efforts to protect their employees, they
noted a number of different factors that can impact their
ability to protect their employees, including the need to
ensure that they have opportunities to inform the public and
visitors about the land that they are managing, and any
particular incidents that might arise.
So, it was part of an opportunity for dialogue with the
public who would be visiting their lands that that topic would
arise.
Mr. Grijalva. And a little bit of a followup, Professor
Walker. You are a scholar on land use and political history
behind land use laws. Could you explain a bit more about the
misrepresentations of the Constitution that the anti-public
land, anti-government activists rely on and, more pointedly,
how courts have ruled on this issue throughout our history?
Dr. Walker. I am sorry, sir, I couldn't quite follow the
question.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. The misrepresentations of the
Constitution that a lot of the anti-government, anti-public
land activists on this issue rely on, and how the courts have
ruled on unconstitutional issues regarding public land, in
particular.
Dr. Walker. How did the misrepresentation of the
Constitution----
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Dr. Walker. I actually think that is a very important
question. The militants of the Malheur Refuge have a very
idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution, to put it
mildly. Their interpretation is that the Federal Government has
no jurisdiction over land or, really, over almost any other
issues outside of Washington, DC.
And my belief is that that has given a lot of sense of
legitimacy to a broader anti-government movement out there. And
it is expressed in particular through social media, where
people seem to express opinions that anti-government
activities, political activities, up to and including violence,
is justified because the government has overstepped its
constitutional authority.
That constitutional interpretation is not supported by any
legal scholars or historians or the U.S. Supreme Court. But
when the militants spread that kind of mythology, it gives
legitimacy to the anti-government movements, including violent
ones.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the Chair
holding this hearing, because it is about the health and safety
of the agency employees, the land management, and I think it
is--let's not minimize what happened in Oregon. And it happens
in Arizona, that these folks, public servants, do come under a
great deal of not only political, but personal attacks,
threats, harassment, and that their well-being should be a
priority. And this hearing is a step in that direction.
You know how things get misrepresented, let's take one
example that was mentioned. The Arizona Wilderness Act was
important to the state of Arizona. The important thing to note
here, it was a wilderness bill and not a resource conservation
bill. So, to equate it with anything else that is going on, I
think, is a mistake. The Act did not consider threats to clean
water. It did not consider how to protect the Colorado River
watershed. It did not consider the impacts of uranium mining,
which is key to the future discussion.
The majority of the lands considered in the Grand Canyon
mineral withdrawal under Obama were never even reviewed during
the drafting of the wilderness bill. And staffers who helped
draft the Wilderness Act have testified on record that
conflating their bill with the withdrawal is simply incorrect.
Yet, somehow we hear these arguments making this false
comparison between the Arizona Wilderness Act and the mineral
withdrawal.
I don't see how any of this, that line of thinking,
justifies extremist attacks on Federal employees. It is
insulting to, I think, Federal land managers who get harassed
in the supermarket, followed home, in their cars, get graffiti
painted on their houses, get attacked at work, to be told that
the Arizona Wilderness Act is just too much for reasonable
people to handle.
I think we can make bipartisan progress on this, but we are
here because anti-government rhetoric de-humanizes government
employees, period. And those employees are being threatened and
harassed because they are doing their jobs, and we need to
discuss how we improve their living and working conditions as
we speak, and what protections we extend to them.
We are not here, I don't think, with any misinformation. I
think the GAO report is pretty clear.
And I think we have an obligation to do something about it,
Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I would recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Professor Walker, you spent time with the Bundy militia at
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. Did the views they
shared with you sound anything like what you have heard
elsewhere?
In your opinion, was the militia expressing commonly held
sentiments about how the American people want their public
lands managed?
Dr. Walker. Commonly held opinions in Harney County, or
generally?
Ms. Haaland. Really, anywhere that you have been.
Dr. Walker. Yes.
Ms. Haaland. Yes.
Dr. Walker. The short answer is no. This is a very small
community of anti-government activists. That particular group
that is centered on the Bundy family is really a very small
group of individuals.
But what I am concerned about is that they give a sense of
legitimacy to wider-spread anti-government groups.
What happened at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was
that the Bundys came to the wildlife refuge, and they began
from a particular ideological perspective having to do with
religious interpretations of the Constitution. But what they
were advocating for was, essentially, an overthrow of the
Federal Government, a replacement of the existing Federal
Government.
I asked the leader of the group directly whether he was
really advocating for an overthrow or a replacement of the
existing Federal Government. And he said yes. They made that
message very clear.
And other groups who have also advocated for the
replacement of the existing Federal Government heard that
message, and they heard the message that the Federal Government
is broken, it is broken beyond repair, it needs to be replaced,
and it is the duty of patriots through armed force to re-
establish constitutional government.
My concern is that some of those groups outside--you know,
this is nationwide. Some of those groups have latched on to the
Bundy family as giving a feeling, an impression, an image of
legitimacy to their movement. Their movement, to a large
degree, has a history tied to racism, xenophobia, anti-
immigrant policy, and those sorts of ideologies. And the Bundy
family has given a sort of more appealing public face to those
movements. And in that sense I think that, even though their
size as a group is very small, they have given legitimacy to
wider-spread movements. That is my concern.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Nichols, in your testimony you stated that Harney
County is almost like a poster child for collaborative
approaches. I was wondering if you could briefly explain how
Harney County residents worked with Federal land managers to
collectively solve problems, rather than arguing, getting
frustrated, and taking it out on Federal land managers.
Do you have any suggestions of ways this Committee can
encourage the use of approaches like this more widely?
Mr. Nichols. Yes, I do. We have proved over and over in
several different cases that sitting down and talking things
through with everyone that has a vested interest in an issue is
beneficial to the cause, beneficial to the result, the
community, and especially the Federal land agencies involved.
Over the course of years, things have changed dramatically
in Harney County. We never were ``anti-government,'' but there
have been and there still are things that need to be discussed
and looked at. And that goes everywhere.
Like I said, all across America. During the occupation, I
got calls, literally, from Maine to California. And no matter
how small the Federal land mass was in a state, there were
still issues with it. That is not to say it is all bad, it
isn't something that can't be overcome, but, again, the people
need to be listened to and that is quite a broad question.
You people are listening today. We appreciate that. But the
time needs to be spent like we do in a collaborative process.
It takes a long, long time to get to truly know the other
people, their ideas, and their values. And what we have come to
learn is everybody's values are about the same thing. It is
just how you come to the end results that are different.
And I can't express enough how we need to start
communicating people to people, not an idea nor an agenda nor
an organizational affiliation, but people to people. And until
that happens--we all want protection of our Federal employees.
That is paramount to them doing their job.
But that is not looking at the cause of the problem. The
cause of the problem is something going on in our society.
Protection is necessary, but, quite honestly, we shouldn't have
to be protecting our Federal employees. That should be
something ingrained in the people themselves. It is a societal
problem. It is a lack of communication.
And, again, things aren't as horrific in the western United
States as some of the things I have heard today are. There are
places, undoubtedly.
My son works for the Federal Government. He has for 16, 17
years. Where he works right now, he loves it. And the people
that they are serving love the services that they provide. It
is basically a recreational type of a service within a forest
in central Oregon. Where the rub comes in, quite often, as in
the land masses, is that people are trying to make a living.
They are paying taxes, they are raising children. Generational.
They are taking care of the land. And there is always a threat
of something coming down the pike and disturbing that. And,
again, it isn't an anti-government, it is a fact of frustration
and wondering what the future holds.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
insight. It has been very helpful today.
Do you have any other questions?
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
hearing, and the hearing record will be open for 10 business
days for these responses.
Again, we are very appreciative that you all took the time
to come here. Thank you so very much.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Haaland
-- PowerPoint Presentation on Examples of Anti-Public Lands
Extremism Rhetoric
[all]