Geothermal Projects and Indian Tribes: Dealing with Cultural Resources Issues Michael P. O’Connell...
-
Upload
abbey-thistle -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Geothermal Projects and Indian Tribes: Dealing with Cultural Resources Issues Michael P. O’Connell...
Geothermal Projects and Indian Tribes: Dealing with Cultural Resources Issues
Michael P. O’ConnellMichael P. O’ConnellStoel Rives LLPStoel Rives LLP
206-386-7692206-386-7692
O R E G O N W A S H I N G T O N C A L I F O R N I A U T A H I D A H O
www.stoel.com
Principle Federal Laws National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Section 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470f• Federal agency must “take into account the
effect of the undertakings on any” properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)• Federal agency must evaluate impacts of
proposed action and alternatives on cultural resources
www.stoel.com
Federal Land NHPA and NEPA apply to federal agency
actions Native American Graves and Repatriation
Act (“NAGPRA”) protects Indian human remains, funerary objects and cultural resources
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”) requires permit for removal of NAGPRA protected objects
NAGPRA and ARPA require agency consultation with tribes
www.stoel.com
Federal Land Cases Pit River Indian Tribe v. Forest Service,
(9th Cir. 2006) (BLM and Forest Service geothermal project approvals set aside for failure to take into account impacts on tribal cultural resources)
Comanche Nation v. U.S., (W.D. Okla. 2008) (Army construction project enjoined for failure to take into account impacts on tribal cultural resources)
www.stoel.com
Indian Reservations
Tribal cultural resource protection laws NHPA and NEPA apply to federal actions NAGPRA and ARPA apply Attakai v. United States, (D. Ariz. 1990)
(enjoined range fencing project pending consultation; consultation determined no tribal historic properties were affected)
www.stoel.com
Other Land
Most states have laws protecting Indian graves and cultural resources
NHPA and NEPA when federal action is involved
www.stoel.com
Other Land Cases
Lummi Nation v. Golder Associates, Inc., (W.D. Wash. 2002) ($4.25 million to settle state-law claims regarding impacts on Indian graves; site abandoned)
Port Angeles Graving Dock (Washington DOT abandoned site after three years and over $80 million investment, despite prior (inadequate) consultation with SHPO)
www.stoel.com
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs)
Properties of “traditional religious and cultural importance” to federally recognized Indian tribes may be “eligible for inclusion on the National Register.” 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(6)(A)
“Federal Agency shall consult with any Indian tribe . . . that attaches religious and cultural significance to [such] properties,” 16 U.S.C. § 470a(d)(6)(B)
www.stoel.com
NHPA Section 106
Federal agency must “take into account the effect of the undertakings on any” properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Like NEPA, section 106 is a “stop, look, and listen” procedural statute
Compliance is federal agency’s responsibility
www.stoel.com
Section 106 Process
Section 106 regulations apply to all federal agencies. 36 C.F.R. Part 800
Section 106 regulations prescribe a rigorous, multi-step process
www.stoel.com
1. Identify Interested Parties and Tribes
Agency official “shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify any Indian tribe . . . that might attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the area of potential effects [APE] and invite them to be consulting parties.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f)(2)
Interested tribes may be hundreds of miles from the APE
www.stoel.com
2. APE Determination
APE is area where undertaking may cause alterations to character or use of historic properties
Regulations require agencies to consult with the SHPO or tribes for this step; failure to do so may generate disputes regarding APE scope
Some section 106 consultations establish one APE for traditional historic properties and another for TCPs
www.stoel.com
3. Identify Historic Properties Within APE Consult with SHPO and any Indian tribe that
might attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties in the APE
Agency’s level of effort:• Reasonable and good faith effort to carry out
appropriate identification efforts
• “[T]ake into account confidentiality concerns of Indian tribes.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(1)
• Phased identification may be used for linear projects, large areas, or where access to property is restricted – § 800.4(b)(2)
www.stoel.com
4. National Register Listing Eligibility
For properties outside reservation, agency needs SHPO concurrence; inside reservations, THPO or Indian tribe
If SHPO/THPO does not concur, eligibility issue goes to the Keeper of the National Register
Agency must acknowledge that Indian tribes have “special expertise” in assessing eligibility of TCPs
www.stoel.com
National RegisterEligibility (cont’d) If the agency and Indian tribe disagree on
eligibility:• The action agency may agree to regard the
property as eligible and proceed to next step of assessing adverse effects
• Tribe may request the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to request an eligibility determination by the Secretary of the Interior under 36 C.F.R. Part 63
www.stoel.com
5. Assessment of Adverse Effects Agency must consider the views of
Indian tribes An adverse effect exists if an undertaking
may alter any characteristic that qualifies a property for National Register listing in a manner that would “diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.”
www.stoel.com
Assessment of Adverse Effects If a timely objection is made, the agency must
consult with the objector or request ACHP review.• If the ACHP timely responds, the agency must
prepare a summary “that contains the rationale for the decision and evidence of consideration of the [ACHP’s] opinion”
• The agency can adopt the ACHP’s response or affirm it’s no adverse effect determination; either way, the agency’s section 106 responsibilities are fulfilled.
www.stoel.com
Assessment of Adverse Effects
Agency and Indian tribe may agree to mitigation measures that support a no adverse effect determination
www.stoel.com
7. Resolution of Adverse Effects Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
• If agreement is reached at this step, set it forth in MOA Required MOA signatories
– Action agency– SHPO/THPO (if effects are within a
reservation) Invited signatories are not mandatory
– Indian tribes may be invited to sign for effects outside reservation
www.stoel.com
Resolution of Adverse Effects
Inadvertent discoveries protocol• May be included in MOA• If not, and inadvertent discovery is
encountered, consultation must be initiated Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Forest Service,
(Forest Service failed to consider alternatives that could have protected tribal member cultural and religious uses in land exchange)
www.stoel.com
8: Failure to Resolve Adverse Effects
Consultation may be terminated by agency, SHPO/TPHO or ACHP
Unless THPO or tribe is involved for on-reservation impacts, a tribe cannot terminate a consultation
www.stoel.com
9. Section 106 Program Alternatives Authorized by 36 C.F.R. § 800.14
• Alternate procedures • Programmatic Agreements (PAs) for
phased identification, large areas, corridor projects – 36 C.F.R § 800.14(b)(2)
• ACHP approval required Agency proposing program alternatives
must consult with affected tribes
www.stoel.com
Confidentiality Tribes frequently are concerned that
providing information may lead to looting or impede their use of sites
Under section 304,16 U.S.C. § 470w-3(a), an agency may withhold information from public disclosure• That would cause an invasion of privacy• Risk harm to historic resources• Impede use of a traditional religious site
by practitioners
www.stoel.com
Confidentiality (cont’d)
Agency head must determines that the information qualifies under section 304(a) and the Secretary of the Interior must determines who may have access.
Information not so protected is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and NHPA regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(d)(2)
www.stoel.com
Inadvertent Discoveries
PA or MOA may address what to do – if so, implement the plan
If not:• Initiate consultation if discovery occurs
after section 106 process is completed and agency has not approved the undertaking
• If agency, SHPO, and Indian tribes agree that property is of value solely for data recovery purposes, data recovery may be conducted under Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
www.stoel.com
Inadvertent Discoveries
• If undertaking has been approved and construction has commenced, agency must determine actions that resolve adverse effects, notify SHPO, interested tribes, and ACHP within 48 hours of discovery; SHPO, tribes, and ACHP have 48 hours to respond; agency must take recommendations into account, carry out appropriate actions, and report to SHPO, tribes and ACHP
On federal and Indian reservation lands, NAGPRA and ARPA also apply
www.stoel.com
Resources Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review
Process: A Handbook (ACHP November 2008) Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human
Remains and Funerary Objects (ACHP 2007) S. Hutt et al, Cultural Property Law: A Practitioner’s Guide to the
Management, Protection, and Preservation of Heritage Resources (American Bar Association 2004)
T. King, Places That Count, Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management (2003)
T. King, Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: An Introductory Guide (2000)
Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior