Flagstaff Indigenous Commission presses staff to clarify how regional land use plan will use Indigenous knowledge

Flagstaff Indigenous Commission members on April 3 pressed planning staff to clarify how the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan draft would recognize Indigenous knowledge and how those policies would be implemented.

Staff member Sarah said the team is accepting revisions through April 16 and will send a revised draft to the City Council, the Board of Supervisors and city and county Planning and Zoning Commissions ahead of a May 2 retreat. “We’re doing revisions right now through April 16,” Sarah said. After the retreat staff will do another round of edits and the plan will then proceed to legal review and public hearings over the summer.

Why it matters: commissioners said they want wording that both honors Indigenous cultural contributions and gives concrete guidance that can be used by staff, attorneys and decision-makers. Several commissioners emphasized the plan should avoid vague or purely aspirational language that would be difficult to apply in legal or technical land-use processes.

Discussion and details

Commissioners and staff focused on two draft policies, RS 7 and RS 10, that address Indigenous knowledge and community engagement. Elsa (staff member, Flagstaff City) read RS 7 aloud: “recognize and incorporate indigenous knowledge and cultural practices into natural and cultural resource affairs and projects.” She and other staff said RS 10, which the draft places in a neighborhoods-and-equity section, emphasizes neighborhood-level engagement and outreach.

Staff said RS 7 and RS 10 were intended as distinct approaches: RS 7 to bring Indigenous knowledge holders or practitioners into technical resource decisions (for example, cultural-burning practitioners contributing to prescribed-fire plans) and RS 10 to ensure proactive neighborhood-level engagement when projects affect vulnerable or historically disadvantaged populations. "Engaging people is, like, go out and gather the current generation of people in Flagstaff," Sarah said; by contrast, she said, "asking that you bring in Indigenous knowledge ... more says, go get the expert or the people who are the carriers of this indigenous knowledge and bring them into your process and your thinking." Lauren (staff member, Flagstaff City) agreed the two policies reflect different operational needs and would likely require different implementation steps.

Commissioners urged staff to solicit and record concrete examples and to preserve both policy approaches where appropriate. Commissioner Lamont Baya recommended that when the plan lists contemporary tribes it should use alphabetical order to avoid implied ranking. Commissioner Francis and others pressed staff on whether public comments would be incorporated and how much of the commission’s written feedback could be folded into the draft before it is circulated to elected officials.

Staff described the review schedule and limits: after the April 16 close of the staff revision window, the draft will go to the May 2 retreat for direction from elected and appointed decision-makers; that retreat’s direction may require additional revision and legal review before summer public hearings. Sarah said staff had already shared the full public comment spreadsheet — about 2,400 comments — with the elected and appointed officials who will see the draft before the retreat.

Jurisdiction and limits

Staff cautioned that the plan cannot override other legal processes. In response to questions about Snowbowl and federal land decisions, staff noted that federal NEPA decisions and Forest Service land-use approvals are outside the scope and legal authority of the regional plan. "That NEPA decision is never gonna look at this document and say, oh, maybe we missed something," staff said; similarly, operational utility decisions (for example, whether to provide water service) are not strictly land-use decisions the plan would control.

Next steps and participation

Staff asked commissioners to submit written comments as soon as possible; they suggested a deadline of April 9–13 to have materials incorporated before the April 16 cutoff. Staff also announced two public open houses (April 15 and 17) and a May 2 retreat at the Aquaplex. The revision timeline includes a post-retreat editing round and additional legal review before summer public hearings.

Ending

Commissioners and staff agreed to continue the exchange in writing and at the May 2 retreat. Staff said they would record and note where commissioner feedback had been shared with elected officials so commenters can see how their written input was addressed.