Native American Leadership in Public Land Management
The overarching policy issue of concern in this essay is Native American representation and leadership in public land management. More often termed co-management, this includes Native American involvement in the shared management of natural resources and decision-making that may impact tribal lands. While the Federal government has made efforts over the past few decades to increase tribal authority in public land management decisions on Native American territory, such is the passage of the Indian Mineral Development Act, amendments to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and revision of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regulations to extend “greater deference to tribes on decisions affecting tribal land”, proper co-management of public lands and natural resources, including proper adherence to and acknowledgment of tribal trusts and treaties, remains inadequate. By increasing Native American representation and leadership in the early stages of public land management decisions, Native American perspectives and preferences may be more readily incorporated into such decisions, ultimately increasing the equity and effectiveness of land management decisions and outcomes, including the protection and administration of natural resources in the United States.
Public land management in the United States has had a long history of colonialism and lack of Native inclusion. Spurred by the settlement of the West in the mid-19th century, Native Americans were “systematically killed, enslaved, or pushed onto isolated and undesirable land.” For example, in the mid- and late-19th century, as settlers moved West and the interest in preserving natural areas from industrial development increased, Native Americans were driven from their homelands, in areas including what is today Yosemite National Park, by encroaching settlers and local militia groups. After Yosemite was designated a national park in 1890, efforts to drive Native Americans from the land and restrict native access and traditional use of natural resources continued. These efforts, combined with overdevelopment of roads and buildings within the park, had damaging effects on the ecology of the park, reducing biodiversity, diminishing ecosystem health, and increasing the park’s vulnerability to catastrophic fires. Having been robbed of their ancestral homes, many Native American tribe have sought to regain access to and use of the sacred lands they historically inhabited.
Despite the fact that Native American tribes are “political entities enshrined in the Constitution”, they are the only entity (amongst others U.S. territories such as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc.) that lacks political representation in Congress. Tribes also lack adequate representation in many federal and state agencies, most importantly in those agencies administering public lands or agencies whose activities have significant impacts on public and tribal lands. According to the Society of American Indian Government Employees, a nonprofit organization representing Native American employees and native interests in federal, state and local government, Native Americans made up “1.7 percent of the federal workforce and 1.1 percent of the Senior Executive Staff” in 2014. This lack of inclusion not only robs Native Americans of equal representation in public land management decisions that may significantly impact tribal communities, but it may also ignore the Native perspectives of land management that may result in more effective natural resource management and environmental protection.
Lack of Native perspectives and traditional knowledge in public land management is also a major concern for equity in natural resources administration and environmental protection. Many state and federal government agencies operate under a predominantly Western worldview, which prioritizes scientific knowledge that is reflected in public land management policies and decision-making. Native American and tribal communities, however, carry a vastly different worldview on the natural world and environmental protection. Indigenous land care techniques incorporate both scientific ecological views and traditional knowledge based on the “principles of respect, reciprocity, relationship and reverence.” Due to this, in assessing environmental impacts, Native American methods and perceptions of land management and environmental protection can often clash with the Western perspective applied in federal land management policies, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
There are many recent examples of the ways in which government actions, combined with a lack of tribal representation and consultation, negatively and disproportionately impact Native American communities and tribal nations. Take for instance the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a highly controversial 1,200 mile crude oil pipeline stretching from North Dakota to Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which inhabits the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation along the border of central North and South Dakota, maintain that the Dakota Access Pipeline violates the Fort Laramie Treaty made between the Sioux and the United States in 1868, which “guarantees the undisturbed occupation and use of reservation lands surrounding the proposed location of the pipeline.” Through the construction of the pipeline, which would traverse sacred burial grounds and the Missouri River (a vital source of water for the reservation), the Standing Rock Sioux argue the pipeline would deprive the tribe of their ability to live on and cultivate the lands and their natural resources.
Another example of insufficient Native American inclusion in public land management decisions is the delisting of endangered species. In June of 2017, grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were removed from the endangered species list. This prompted a series of lawsuits from environmental and tribal groups, saying the action violated the Administrative Procedures Act when the federal government failed to consult tribes, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the delisting of grizzly bears, an animal sacred to Native Americans, violates Native American religious beliefs. The delisting of the gray wolf in 2020 brought about similar concerns and opposition as the gray wolf is also sacred in Native American culture.
A recent revision of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations is yet another example of a federal land management decision made without the consultation or consent of Native Americans. Included in the proposed revisions to NEPA is a narrowing of the public comment period, which could reduce tribal engagement and place restrictions on raising objections in litigation to those comments submitted during the comment period. This would negatively and disproportionately impact Native Americans and tribal communities as it would limit their input on federal projects that may negatively impact their land. Similarly, recent rollbacks made to the Clean Water Act have negative impacts on Native American communities. These rollbacks drastically reduced protections for wetlands, watersheds and streams throughout the United States, many of which fall on Native American lands, including the Navajo Nation, the Menominee Indian Tribe, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, leaving these essential sources of water “more vulnerable to pollution.”
Federal agencies must pursue co-management with “the capacity necessary to remain in more constant and dynamic dialogue with tribes”, moving past simply consulting tribes on a project-to-project basis and instead investing in long-term, cooperative partnerships. This long-term investment and building of relationships will provide a necessary foundation for effective co-management that will result in more equitable and effective public land and natural resource management solutions. Though co-management strategies have been implemented in the past, barriers and inconsistencies persist that reduce their effectiveness and success. Successful tribal co-management must not consult tribes as an afterthought, but instead must integrate tribal leadership and perspectives in the early development of plans and the decisions-making process as a whole. According to Sahir Doshi, a research assistant at the Center for American Progress, “agencies currently tend to develop plans without tribal input and then approach consultation as a procedural roadblock to achieving a predetermined outcome.” By increasing Native American representation and consultation in the early stages of public land management decisions, Native American perspectives and preferences may be more readily incorporated into such decisions, ultimately increasing the equity and effectiveness of land management and resource administration in the United States, especially where public land management decisions impact tribal lands or access to resources. Furthermore, incorporating co-management more readily throughout the entire decision-making process can increase awareness and adherence to the “trust and treaty obligations and the sovereignty principle [that] are not well-integrated into laws or agency decisions on public lands”.
By incorporating Indigenous representation and consultation in public land management, both at the federal and state level, tribal rights and treaties may be honored in ways that not only improve Native American access and use of natural resources, but may also prevent environmental degradation. For example, in Michigan, a highly controversial oil pipeline project was shut down due to its potential interference with a tribal treaty made in 1836. The treaty, which “ceded more than a third of the territory that would become Michigan [from Native Americans] in exchange for the right to hunt and fish on the land in perpetuity” would be violated in the chance of an oil spill. Similar treaties have been made with numerous tribal nations throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, exchanging ownership of the land for the continued use of the land’s resources, including the right to hunt, fish and gather food and firewood on the land. Many of these treaties and rights are not honored in current land management decisions, and often must be litigated in court. According to tribal representatives, “it’s not enough [for State governments] to recognize our right to harvest.” Alternatively, State governments “have a responsibility to stop harming and degrading” the lands and areas promised to tribes. Recognizing and honoring such treaties and obligations may be improved by incorporating Native American representation and consultation in the earlier stages of public land management decision making. Not only would this increase the equity of access and administration of natural resources for Native American communities, but it may also improve environmental protection of public lands as well.
Another example of successful co-management is the Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition and Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) in Utah. The designation of the monument and its co-management by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service (FS), and the Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition is a representative case of incorporating native leadership in administrative decisions regarding the monument and its natural and cultural resources. According to the Intertribal Coalition, co-management of the land would incorporate “both traditional [principles of respect, reciprocity, relationship and reverence] with scientific ecological knowledge for the first time on public lands.” Unfortunately, a year after the monument’s original designation, then-President Trump redrew the boundaries of the monument, shrinking it by nearly 1.1 million acres. Additionally, on numerous accounts, the Trump Administration failed to consult with the Bears Ears Intertribal Coalition on administrative decisions regarding the monument and its sensitive resources. These actions are a prime example of governmental ignorance to tribal perspectives and the world views that create conflicting preferences in public land and natural resource management.
Most recently, President Joe Biden’s appointment of New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland as the U.S Department of the Interior’s Secretary of the Interior marks a major step forward in incorporating Native American voices in high-level public land management decisions. As the first Native American cabinet secretary, Rep. Haaland will be a valuable and crucial voice for Native American communities as she oversees the federal department “tasked with protecting the [United States’] natural resources and honoring the government’s federal trust responsibilities”. This federal appointment is the first of many steps needed in order to increase Native American representation in the management of public lands in the United States.
Concerns with increasing Native American involvement and perspectives in federal and state land management decisions include the associated regulatory or economic burdens. Some may argue that the prescription of Native land management practices will prioritize ecological land values over economic values, potentially threatening economic development in local communities. As public land management agencies and policies tend to “emphasize the economic benefits of land”, incorporating Native American perspectives in the development and implementation of land management decisions may prioritize cultural uses of land rather than economic uses. Arguments are also made against the numerous environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act, NEPA, etc., that impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses and property owners. Many federal officials argue against increasing regulatory oversight through land management decisions, as they may impede projects and developments that may have positive economic impacts. Ultimately, incorporating Native American perspectives and leadership in land management policy decisions may be time-consuming and increase regulatory hurdles. However, these hindrances may be the necessary price for ensuring equity and inclusion in public land management, as well as the numerous environmental benefits.
Public land management in the United States has historically excluded Native Americans, lacking adequate representation of tribal nations and failing to incorporate Native perspectives and traditional knowledge in major land management decisions. Though concerns may arise around incorporating Native Americans in the development and administration of public lands, it is of utmost importance to correct past faults, honor treaties and trusts, and administer natural resources in an equitable, effective and sustainable manner. By increasing Native American representation and consultation in the early stages of public land management decisions, Native American perspectives and preferences may be more readily incorporated into such decisions, ultimately increasing the equity and effectiveness of land management and natural resource administration in the United States.
