The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) partnered with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Dr. Jamie Donatuto, and Swinomish Elder Larry Campbell† to evaluate implementation of two Tribal consultation laws in California, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), with an emphasis on the impacts on Native American Tribes. Together, the laws require consultation with California Native American Tribes when local governments create or amend general or specific plans and undertake development projects that trigger the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ELI conducted background research, interviewed Tribal, agency, and local government representatives along with consultants and experts on the laws; conducted a survey of California Tribes; and partnered with two Tribes on case studies of their experiences with consultation. In addition, Dr. Donatuto completed a set of Indigenous Health Indicators (IHIs) with one of the partner Tribes, which the Tribe may use to advance its goals for holistic Tribal health in Tribal planning and the Tribe’s interactions with local and state agencies.
Authors
Greta Swanson, Cynthia Harris, Cecilia Diedrich, Zoe Vogel, Jesse Ferraioli
Related Organizations
- Pages
- 26
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- Analysis of Tribal Consultation Under California SB 18 and AB 52 1
- Introduction Background 3
- Purpose of project and questions investigated 4
- Overview of SB 18 and AB 52 5
- Tribes to which the consultation mandate applies 5
- Decision-making processes in which consultation is required Weight and deference given to Tribal expertise and Indigenous Knowledge 6
- Subject of consultation 7
- Reaching a decision after consultation Confidentiality of Tribal information 9
- Notice requirements and consultation timeline 10
- Tribal involvement in managing cultural sites and resources 11
- Case studies 13
- Interview and survey synthesis and recommendations 15
- Prior to and in conjunction with consultation 15
- Confidentiality 15
- Relationships 16
- Resourceslimiting burden of consultation on Tribes 16
- Education 17
- Institutionalizing agency procedures and knowledge 18
- Ex ante protection of Tribal cultural resources and places 19
- During the consultation process 20
- Notification 20
- Consultation timeline and process 20
- Consideration of Tribal expertiseIndigenous Knowledge 21
- Outcomescreative mitigation 22
- After consultation is concluded 23
- Accountability 23
- Comparison of SB 18 and AB 52 with recommendations 24
- Conclusion 26
