Native American Consultation in Resource Development on Federal Lands
Publication year | 2002 |
Pages | 113 |
2002, January, Pg. 113. Native American Consultation in Resource Development on Federal Lands
Vol. 31, No. 1, Pg. 113
The Colorado Lawyer
January 2002
Vol. 31, No. 1 [Page 113]
January 2002
Vol. 31, No. 1 [Page 113]
Specialty Law Columns
Natural Resource and Environmental Notes
Native American Consultation in Resource Development on Federal Lands
by Connie Rogers
Natural Resource and Environmental Notes
Native American Consultation in Resource Development on Federal Lands
by Connie Rogers
Natural resource companies must comply with myriad laws
regulations, and procedures regarding Native American
interests on federal lands. This article discusses how
complex cultural differences can make this compliance process
time-consuming, frustrating and expensive for all involved
This month's article was written by Connie Rogers
Denver, an associate at Holme, Roberts &
Owen llp - (303) 861-7000.
Mining companies and others developing natural resources on
federal lands must increasingly address the effects of such
development on Native Americans and North American Indian
tribes. Numerous federal statutes and regulations require
federal agencies to consider the effects of projects on
public lands on Native American culture and religion. These
laws compel federal agencies to consult with tribes, and to
investigate and consider their concerns before undertaking
projects on federal lands.
The difficulty in achieving a consensus on the use of public
lands is exacerbated by fundamental differences in the way
much of Native America and the predominant culture view the
world. At the risk of being overly simplistic,1 the
European-derived dominant culture emphasizes defined property
rights and separation of the secular from the religious.
Native Americans, on the other hand, generally make no
distinction between the sacred and the secular. They tend to
hold a radically different view of private and collective
property rights, which emphasizes place-based religions.
Moreover, for both protective and religious reasons, Native
Americans usually have a profound need for secrecy about
their beliefs and sacred sites.
Even with resource-friendly tribes, cultural differences may
create challenges in reaching agreements on the use of
federal lands. Furthermore, where tribes are interested in
blocking development projects on public lands, various
federal statutes provide effective vehicles for extended
debate and delay. This article focuses on requirements for
"consultation," outlining this rather amorphous
process and identifying concerns and pitfalls for both
resource companies and tribes.
Two Solicitors' Opinions: The Imperial Project
Glamis Gold Ltd.'s Imperial Project in the California
Desert Conservation Area, a proposed open pit gold mine,
provides a glimpse of uncertainty and delay in the review of
cultural issues under various federal requirements. The
proposed mine is located near the Quechan Tribe's
reservation. It is in undisturbed ground surrounded by desert
tortoise habitat, and a wilderness area. The area has been
extensively mined.
Glamis filed a proposed plan of operations with the Bureau of
Land Management ("BLM") for an open pit gold mine
in Imperial County, California in 1994. Two draft
environmental impact statements ("EIS") that
generally favored approval of the Glamis plan were released
in 1996 and 1997. In 1999, the BLM received comments from the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("Advisory
Council"), which recommended that the BLM "take
whatever legal means necessary to deny the proposal for the
project" because of alleged degradation of "the
sacred and historic values" of the area.2
After receiving the Advisory Council's recommendations,
the BLM requested an opinion from the Solicitor of the U.S.
Department of the Interior ("Solicitor"). Based on
justification from that Solicitor's opinion3 ("1999
Opinion") and new BLM regulations issued in November
2000 that regulate hardrock mining on federal lands4
("3809 Regulations"), on January 19, 2001,
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt denied the Glamis
plan of operations on the grounds that the plan would result
in "undue impairment" to the public lands.
The 1999 Opinion laid the groundwork for both the new 3809
Regulations and the Imperial Project denial by revising (and
some say expanding) the definition of "unnecessary or
undue degradation" to include activities that would
result in "substantial irreparable harm" to
significant scientific, cultural or environmental resource
values."5 [Emphasis added.] This interpretation gave the
BLM authority to deny a mining plan of operations on federal
lands based on its effects on Native American religious
practices, cultural activities, and values.6
On October 23, 2001, the new Solicitor took the almost
unprecedented action of rescinding the 1999 Opinion,
effectively saying that it was contrary to law.7 The next
week, the Department of the Interior again issued revised
3809 Regulations, which removed the "substantial
irreparable harm" standard.8 In addition, on November
23, 2001, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton vacated the
Record of Decision, allowing permitting to begin once again
on the Imperial Project.9
The Imperial Project is an extreme example of protracted
cultural conflict over the use of public lands. Additionally,
the 1999 Opinion and 3809 Regulations only apply to hardrock
mining. However, most of the federal laws and regulations at
issue in the Imperial Project permitting review also apply to
other activities on federal lands, especially natural
resource development. A review of federal land regulations
may help to emphasize the complexity of the cultural conflict
issue.
Federal Land Laws
Requirements for consideration of or consultations regarding
cultural resources and Native American concerns about federal
actions on federal lands appear in ten different federal
statutes and two executive orders, as well as in numerous
agency regulations, memoranda, guidelines, bulletins,
manuals, handbooks, and interagency programmatic agreements.
The status of the subject lands, identity of interested
tribes, and identity of agencies with jurisdiction over the
subject lands dictate which statutes, regulations, and agency
guidelines come into play. By far, the most important
governing statute is the National Historic Preservation Act
("NHPA").10 Most pertinent to development issues is
Section 106 of NHPA ("Section 106"), which sets
forth the consultation requirements for historic and
"traditional cultural properties"
("TCPs").
Almost all of the federal statutes that regulate federal
lands address cultural or historic resources. In addition to
NHPA, these include the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act ("FLPMA");11 National Forest Management Act
("NFMA");12 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act ("SMCRA");13 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920;14
General Mining Law of 1872;15 National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 ("NEPA");16 American Indian Religious
Freedom Act ("AIRFA");17 Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA");18 and
Archeological Resources Protection Act ("ARPA").19
In addition, executive orders on sacred sites20 and Native
American government-to-government consultation21 are used to
frame the relationship between tribes and federal agencies
concerning the evaluation of Native American cultural
concerns on federal lands.
Executive Order on Indian
Sacred Sites
Sacred Sites
The Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites ("Sacred Site
Order") requires that in managing federal lands, a
federal agency must: (1)accommodate access to and ceremonial
use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners
(2)avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred
sites; and (3)maintain the confidentiality of such sites.
However, sacred sites may be protected only as
"permitted by law," to the "extent...
To continue reading
Request your trial