In 2016, a coalition of tribal nations persuaded President Barack Obama to not only establish Bears Ears National Monument but stipulate that it would be co-managed by tribes and federal agencies. Since then, tribal-led campaigns have strategically — and successfully — sought Antiquities Act protections for ancestral lands from Avi Kwa Ame in the Mojave Desert to Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni near the Grand Canyon. Tribes are currently leading or involved in campaigns for the recently proposed Kw’ts’án, Chuckwalla and Sáttítla national monuments in California and Bahsahwahbee in Nevada. And any day now, the Biden administration is expected to expand Berryessa Snow Mountain National Mounument in California, a move that may also expand tribal participation in the monument’s management.
Like previous national monuments, some of these designations have faced political backlash. At a hearing in late March, House Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chair Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., called the Antiquities Act an “obsolete law” that “ignores local communities,” while his Republican colleagues invoked Bears Ears as an example of the law’s flaws. Despite the grandstanding, federal agencies and the five tribes that comprise the Bears Ears Commission are pursuing their vision of co-management.
In early March, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service released a draft management plan for the 1.36 million-acre monument. The draft, which is open for public comment until June 11, has five options, including the one preferred by the tribes and agencies — “Alternative E” — which would center the traditional knowledge and priorities of five tribes. Those tribes — the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and the Pueblo of Zuni — led the initial campaign for the monument, while 25 other tribes supported it.
What’s the context of the Bears Ears plan?
Alternative E is the product of nearly two years of collaboration between the two federal agencies and tribal historic preservation officers, elected officials and traditional knowledge-keepers from the five tribes. The plan is historic in that it is the first to be created so collaboratively between tribes and the feds, and is a significant step in determining what shared management of Bears Ears might look like on the ground. (It’s not, however, the first national monument to be co-managed by a federal agency and a tribe. For example, the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the National Park Service began co-managing Grand Portage National Monument in 1999).
“Our tribal lands and resources extend far beyond our current reservation boundaries,” Christopher Tabbee, vice chairman of the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee and co-chair of the Bears Ears Commission, said in a statement in March. The collaborative plan, he added, “is a model for federal agencies to incorporate tribal knowledge and expertise into land-management plans and practices,” something that is “needed now more than ever.”
Its success has made it a model: Multiple national monument campaigns have reached out to the Bears Ears Commission for insight and support, said Craig Andrews, Hopi Tribe vice chairman and co-chair of the Bears Ears Commission. Over the past few years, the Biden administration has supported tribal expertise in land management through policy initiatives, funding and agreements with tribal nations. At the annual White House Tribal Nations Summit in December, the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture announced that they had formed more than 190 new co-management and co-stewardship agreements with tribes in 2023. (Co-stewardship is an umbrella term for federal and tribal collaboration on land management, whereas co-management is a narrower term that refers to shared legal authority.) Last year, the USDA alone invested almost $70 million in such agreements.
What’s in the plan backed by the commission and the feds?
As explained in the draft plan, the preferred management alternative, Alternative E, “recognizes spiritual, cultural, and ancestral connections to the landscape and protects Indigenous traditional uses of the Monument.”
Alternative E would maintain 88% of the monument for grazing, or about 1,194,529 acres. It would focus on plant restoration and returning natural fire to the landscape, in coordination with the commission tribes, and require the active restoration or improvement of habitat for native fish and wildlife. It would protect 100% of the monument’s dark skies and create a special management plan to “identify any activities that degrade tribes’ cultural practices requiring darkness.” It would also mandate the strict protection of paleontological resources.
The plan would put some limits on recreation; recreational shooting, for example, would be prohibited, though hunting would still be allowed. It would maintain current climbing routes, such as those at Indian Creek, but climbing would be prohibited on or near cultural sites, and routes could be closed if such sites are harmed. The plan would require approval for any new climbing routes involving the installation of bolts and anchors into rock faces — a practice that has harmed cultural sites elsewhere in Utah and the West — and would also allow for “resource rest,” which may mean more extensive seasonal restrictions or limitations on group sizes and the length of visits.
What challenges remain?
A common shortcoming of co-stewardship efforts is a lack of funding for participating tribal governments. So far, Interior has provided $250,000 to each tribe on the Bears Ears Commission to assist with planning efforts, travel and other expenses, but there is no guarantee of future funding. And political tensions continue to hamper the process: The state of Utah has sued the federal government over the legality of the monument, and has rejected a proposal to trade state lands within the monument for other lands outside its boundaries.
Educating state officials and the public about the tribes’ relationship with the land and their cultural resources in the monument is another challenge, said Andrews. Tribal officials are participating in the public hearings on the draft management plan alternatives, and Andrews says he values the opportunity to share a Hopi perspective and converse with people, including those who don’t support the national monument. “I welcome that. So that way, at least we get to talking with one another. And maybe they don’t know why we’re doing this,” Andrews said. “I think that’s the best way to convey and build relationships — to be there in person and talk to them face to face, human to human.”
Federal and tribal officials are hosting meetings, both in person and virtually, to answer questions about the Bears Ears draft management plan. Comments on the plan will be accepted until June 11.
- Virtual Meeting on Thursday, May 2, 2024, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. MDT. Register to attend on Zoom.
- Twin Arrows, Arizona, open house on Monday, May 6, 2024, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. MDT at the Twin Arrows Casino Resort, 22181 Resort Boulevard, Twin Arrows, AZ 86004
- Albuquerque, New Mexico, open house on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. MDT at the Albuquerque Marriott Courtyard, 5151 Journal Center Boulevard., Albuquerque, NM 87109
- Monument Valley, Utah, open house on Thursday, May 16, 2024, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. MDT at Monument Valley High School, U.S. State Highway #163, Monument Valley, UT 84536
This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, funded by the BAND Foundation.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
