Law and Indigenous Cultural Heritage THE CHUITNA COAL MINE AND THE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Law and Indigenous Cultural Heritage

THE CHUITNA COAL MINE AND THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE

Legal Background

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

• “Significant environmental impact”? Federal government must prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS)

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

• Potential for impact to “historic properties”? Government must analyze impact and try to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate

Neither requires any particular outcome - just the process

NHPA – A Closer Look

The “Section 106 Process” 4 steps…

• 1 - is there a federal undertaking that might affect historic properties?
• 2 - Identify the affected area and the historic properties
• 3 - Assess the adverse effects to the historic properties
• 4 - Avoid, minimize, or mitigate

OK - what’s a historic property? How can a federal agency spot them? How does it know what’s an “adverse effect”?

Top left: Trustees for Alaska Other photos by author

Photo credit: Trustees for Alaska

Tyonek’s Response

Strategy: Get the Ch’u’itnu watershed determined eligible for the National Register Some obstacles:

• Turning the focus from archaeology and buildings to a holistic view of the landscape
• Lack of official guidance
• Narrow view of the area of potential effect

Where are we now?

Dakota Access Pipeline

Project overview Permitting process…ish Lawsuit filed July 2016 – based on the NHPA

• Inadequate consultation
• Inadequate surveys for cultural resources
• Failing to consider the impact of the whole project

Some Closing Points

Who “counts” as an expert? Limited reach of the Act Complex bureaucracy to navigate How is it possible to “mitigate” for these losses?

Photo credit: Rob Wilson