Reimagining U.S. Federal Land Management through Decolonization and Indigenous Value Systems

U.S. Federal Land Management Areas (FLMAs) are grounded in settler colonialism, including Indigenous land dispossessions and violations of Tribal treaties. This critical thought-piece is written by Indigenous scholars to reimagine FLMAs (especially recreation areas) through decolonization and the Indigenous value systems embedded within the “four Rs”: relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, and redistribution. We reweave conceptions about parks and protected areas, reimagine park management, and reconfigure management foci to reflect Indigenous value systems shared by Indigenous peoples. We emphasize a need for Tribal comanagement of FLMAs, the inclusion of Tribal land management practices across ecosystems, and the restoration of Indigenous land use and management rights. Land and recreation managers can use this paper to 1) decolonize park management practices, 2) understand how Indigenous value systems can inform park management foci, and 3) build a decolonized and reciprocal relationship with Tribes and their ancestral landscapes.

The Use of Citizen Science to Achieve Multivariate Management Goals on Public Lands

Federal land management agencies in the US are tasked with maintaining the ecological integrity of over 2 million km2 of land for myriad public uses. Citizen science, operating at the nexus of science, education, and outreach, offers unique benefits to address socio-ecological questions and problems, and thus may offer novel opportunities to support the complex mission of public land managers. Here, we use a case study of an iNaturalist program, the Tribal Nations Botanical Research Collaborative (TNBRC), to examine the use of citizen science programs in public land management. The TNBRC collected 2030 observations of 34 plant species across the project area, while offering learning opportunities for participants. Using occurrence data, we examined observational trends through time and identified five species with 50 or fewer digital observations to investigate as species of possible conservation concern. We compared predictive outcomes of habitat suitability models built using citizen science data and Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. Models exhibited high agreement, identifying the same underlying predictors of species occurrence and, 95% of the time, identifying the same pixels as suitable habitat. Actions such as staff training on data use and interpretation could enhance integration of citizen science in Federal land management.

Response to the Journal of Forestry Article: “US Forest Service Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act: Fast, Variable, Rarely Litigated, and Declining”

The Fleischman et al. (2020a) article on US Forest Service (FS) implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) correctly identified a decline in the number of NEPA analyses, but several conclusions were not supported by the data used. After analyzing their and other relevant data, we reached substantially different conclusions. Using FS budget data, we found budgets supporting NEPA analyses to be flat to increasing. Likewise, using FS accomplishment data, we found several FS land-management activities increased as others remained flat or decreased. The three types of NEPA analyses took statistically significant different times to complete, and time to complete analyses declined little over 15 years. We also found that litigation rates varied substantially by NEPA analysis type, resource purpose, and FS region. Conducting NEPA analyses is a necessary step in federal land management. However, resources invested in NEPA analyses represent an opportunity cost, and the success of the FS is better measured by on-the-ground accomplishments rather than number of NEPA analyses produced. Study Implications National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses are required for management of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Forest Service (FS) devotes substantial effort to conducting NEPA analyses, and the use of NEPA analyses in litigation against NFS management activities is well documented. Land managers and the public need an accurate understanding of how the FS is implementing NEPA. A recent Journal of Forestry article about NEPA assumed that NFS budgets and land management activities declined with the number of NEPA analyses. By contrast, data from the FS shows (1) NFS budgets have been flat to increasing, (2) several NFS accomplishments have been flat to increasing, (3) the time to complete a NEPA analysis varies substantially by the type of analysis, (4) the amount of time the FS takes to complete NEPA analyses has declined very little over the past 15 years, and (5) litigation of NEPA analyses varies by the type of analysis, FS region, and resource purposes. Although conducting environmental analysis is a necessary step in federal land management, completing NEPA analyses is not a substitute for accomplishing on-the-ground management activities, and resources invested in NEPA analyses represent an opportunity cost to the FS.

Doing Work on the Land of Our Ancestors: Reserved Treaty Rights Lands Collaborations in the American Southwest

The intent of this article is to raise awareness about an underutilized funding mechanism that possesses the capacity to help tribal and federal land management agencies meet their goal of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems to historic conditions in the American Southwest. We attempt to achieve this through an exploration of the Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL) program and how it has been used to implement collaborative fuel management projects on National Forest lands. RTRL is a funding program administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that is designed to protect natural and cultural resources important to tribes on non-tribal lands that are at high risk from wildfire. Over the last year, our research team has studied the RTRL program in the Southwest by conducting in-depth, face-to-face interviews with tribal land managers as well as U.S. Forest Service tribal liaisons and other personnel who work with tribes. Our interviews revealed enthusiasm and support for RTRL but also concern about the fairness of the program as well as insufficient outreach efforts by the U.S. Forest Service. In response, we propose a policy alteration that (we contend) would incentivize the BIA to increase funding allocations to the RTRL program without losing the support of partnering agencies. The aim is to strengthen and expand shared stewardship efforts between tribes and federal land management agencies. We situate these implications against the backdrop of the Pacheco Canyon Prescribed Burn, an RTRL funded project that was instrumental in containing the Medio Fire that broke out in the Santa Fe National Forest in the summer of 2020.

Winning by Threat of Force

Cliven Bundy has grazed livestock on federal land through the last three sagebrush rebellions. The story of the Bundy family ranch, northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada, illustrates the frustrations that many ranchers had with evolving federal land management over the last fifty years, as they went from being the dominant users of federal rangeland to one of multiple, competing users. It also illustrates some of the dominant ideologies and arguments that drove the last three conservative rebellions against federal authority, particularly those rooted in American civil religion and popular constitutionalism. And it encapsulates the evolution of western rebellion, from a regional, political challenge to federal authority to one that drew armed support from across the national. Having faced down federal law enforcement with armed militias, the Bundy family continues to graze livestock on federal land without authorization.

Glenn Beck’s Common Sense

The Patriot Rebellion during the Obama administration demonstrated just how well conservative western frustrations with federal land management were woven into a national conservative challenge to federal authority, and it illustrated how well-integrated the militias were in conservative politics. Indeed, the line between mainstream and extreme political protest were blurred considerably compared to the Sagebrush Rebellion. The Patriot Rebellion was led by the largely Christian Tea Party movement, which used the language and symbols of the American Revolution to condemn the Obama administration and the federal government generally as unconstitutional tyrants. And it was carried further by the armed Patriot Movement, in which people claimed they were prepared to kill for the Constitution.

“This Precious Heritage of Desert”

The Sagebrush Rebellion erupted in 1979 out of anger over changing federal land law and management. In particular, many westerners were frustrated by expanding restrictions on grazing and road access, which threatened economic development. The Nevada State Legislature launched the rebellion when it passed legislation claiming ownership of all unreserved federal lands within its boundaries. Other western states followed Nevada. The Sagebrush Rebellion helped elected Ronald Reagan to the White House, and his first interior secretary, James Watt, gave considerably more control over federal land management to the states, thereby effectively ending the rebellion.

“Weirdness in the West”

Unlike the Sagebrush Rebellion, which remained largely regional, the War for the West enjoyed national support through a conservative infrastructure of media, think tanks, public interest law firms, foundations, advocacy organizations, and militias. Frustrations over federal land management were knit into a broader, civil religious story of the American paradise lost, in which the federal government was portrayed as a tyrant bent on trampling the US Constitution, particularly Bill of Rights. The War for the West was led by the mainstream Wise Use Movement, which linked property rights to gun rights and religious freedom, and by the more extreme militia movement, driven by dark conspiracy theories and a profound antagonism toward the federal government. In the Republican Revolution, led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party struggled to hold together these mainstream and extreme factions to gain and retain power. This further integrated conservative, Western anger with federal land management into national politics.