Proposal concerns tribes
Hopi Tribe says proposal violates cultural beliefs
A proposal to create an “ecologically friendly” perpetual resting place on private lands within the Coconino National Forest may not be so restful for the 13 tribes that consider the nearby San Francisco Peaks sacred.
A proposal to create an “ecologically friendly” perpetual resting place on private lands within the Coconino National Forest may not be so restful for the 13 tribes that consider the nearby San Francisco Peaks sacred.
Better Place Forests, a San Franciscobased firm, purchased the land from a Phoenix owner and announced plans to create its third “memorial forest” on the property northwest of Flagstaff.
The company wants to place cremated remains around a selected tree on the parcel, which sits at an elevation of 8,400 feet. The property features ponderosa and southwestern white pine, quaking aspens and Douglas fir trees, as well as a meadow. The project, if it clears state and county regulatory hurdles, would be preserved as a conservation area.
But the 160-acre site along Hart Prairie Road lies within the boundaries of land deemed eligible to be designated a “traditional cultural property” surrounding the San Francisco Peaks and the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, and eventually, to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
And the idea may not sit well with tribes who have fought for more than 40 years to preserve the peaks and the surrounding area. A statement from the Hopi Tribe called the plan a “total violation of our religious and cultural beliefs” and one the tribe will never support.
One environmental advocate questioned why the plan’s backers never bothered to consult with the tribes, whose defense of the peaks is well known.
The proposed site is about 7 miles northwest of Arizona Snowbowl, the epicenter of a decades-long protest by tribes over the ski resort’s permit to use reclaimed wastewater to create artificial snow.
Tribes say the snowmaking process impedes their religious practices, since they hold the land, the water that seeps from the springs in the Peaks, and the plants used for healing and ceremonies sacred.
‘Traditional cultural property’
The concept of memorial sites where people can bury or spread their loved one’s ashes in an open land setting began in Great Britain; the first U.S. “conservation cemetery,” combining burial with ecological restoration and conservation, was opened in 1998.
Better Place Forests CEO Sandy Gibson said local residents and customers would appreciate that open lands are preserved for future generations.
“We purchased the last large private parcel within Coconino National Forest because it was such a beautiful site,” he says.
But the site’s location within an area that could become a traditional cultural property could add another obstacle.
The U.S. government defines a “traditional cultural property” as a property or place that is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices and beliefs rooted in a community’s history. Such sites are also important to the community’s traditional beliefs and practices.
The National Historic Preservation Act, which authorizes the historic place registry, requires considering the effect a project may have on the property. If it’s on federal or tribal land, a cultural resource study is required.
But it doesn’t restrict private property owners from using their property.
Some tribal leaders are alarmed at the prospect of spreading human ashes near one of their most sacred areas.
“The Hopi Tribe does and will never support the Better Place Forest proposition to introduce Natural Alternative Cemeteries on our ancestral Hopi Lands now in the ownership of Federal, state and Private Lands,” said a statement from the tribe emailed to The Arizona Republic.
“This is in total violation of our religious and cultural beliefs; if granted (it) will continue to bring harmful impacts to our Hopi people, Native tribes, nonnatives, land, water and the environment.”
Navajo cultural leaders say the project would affect traditional practices.
“The laying of human ashes on the San Francisco Peaks or in the traditional cultural property area is something we oppose,” said David Johns of the Diné Hataalii Association, an organization of traditional Navajo hataaliis, or healers. “We’re against that practice because we regard the San Francisco Peaks as a living person, and there should be no burials up there.”
Johns noted that the hataaliis are concerned that non-Native people don’t bother to consult with traditional cultural practitioners before spreading ashes in the area.
Navajo environmental activist Klee Benally said even a cultural property that hasn’t yet been finalized, such as the San Francisco Peaks, is still accorded the same protections as one that has.
“I think some of the main concerns would be if there are any traditional use areas that are still actively used by medicine practitioners in the area,” said Benally. “Many ceremonies require herbs, tree boughs or offerings made at certain trees.”
He said human remains in the area would deter tribal members from gathering or making offerings.
Local environmentalists also questioned the proposal.
“With all the publicity regarding the City of Flagstaff’s and the Forest Service’s disregard for and abuse of Native peoples’ religious and cultural concerns in the area, it is unfathomable that (the memorial forest owners) would not start by consulting the tribes,” said Robin Silver, co-founder and board member of the Center for Biological Diversity.
Gibson said he plans to consult with the tribes in the area to hear their concerns. He said he did consult with a local tribe on a previous project in Mendocino County, California.
When asked what he’ll do if the tribes say they don’t want a burial site so close to the San Francisco Peaks, he said, “I don’t think we can speculate (what the tribes will say about the project). We’ll talk to them about what we’re doing and about how beneficial it is to take a privately-owned land and permanently protect it, and ensure it’ll never be developed and always be maintained as a permanent open space for the community.”
Plan must clear state, county regulations
Better Place Forests must also comply with state and county regulations.
Cemetery-related zoning and permits are handled through the counties, in this case, Coconino County. There has been only one other approval for a cemetery or memorial park in the past 10 years, for a private cemetery off Arizona Route 87 near Flagstaff. It’s located on the other side of the peaks and is out of the traditional cultural zone.
Jess McNeely, assistant director of the Coconino County Community Development Department, said Better Place Forests has started the process to request the parcel be granted a conditional use permit for a burial site.
The firm has already completed a pre-application meeting with the county but has yet to file the formal application, said McNeely. Better Place must now prepare a citizen participation plan, which involves contacting neighbors and holding a neighborhood meeting before submitting the application.
Once it’s filed, the application will wind its way through reviews, public hearings before the county’s planning and zoning commission votes on it. If the commission’s decision is appealed, it would be referred to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. Gibson and Mark Forster, land manager for Better Place Forests, both said they are working through the process.
Would-be cemetery operators and cemetery plot salespeople must also obtain a license from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.
“Arizona law requires that before offering cemetery plots for sale, the owner or agent shall notify the department in writing, and obtain a certificate of authority,”
Real Estate Department Deputy Commissioner Louis Dettorre said via email. “Based on information available, it does not appear that cemetery plots are being sold.”
‘A more serious need for consultation’
At 8,400 feet elevation, the memorial forest’s accessibility would be limited in winter months. Hart Prairie Road is usually closed for at least part of the winter with only ATV or snowmobile access. Gibson said he would work around the closures because he believes most people prefer to visit during more clement weather.
Benally is still not a fan: “The effect would be that those areas would then be restricted, as we’d be deterred from gathering or making offerings in that area,” he said.
Although those activities don’t usually happen on private land, Benally said since the land is adjacent to and accessible through the national forest, he’ll be asking some questions.
“How could they ensure that the area is clearly marked so there would not be inadvertent access?” he said. “Would this practice increase private spreading of remains in the region?”
And if he confirms for himself that the memorial forest is within the traditional cultural property area, Benally said, “I think that there would be more serious need for consultation.”
A public hearing on the application is scheduled for Dec. 4 to consider Better Place’s application. To learn more, visit Coconino County’s website.