Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00513 <br /> <br />REVISED DRAFT (#IO)-Augustll, 2004 <br />Clean Version <br /> <br />Tribes. Accordingly, it is important to establish a mechanism to evaluate the <br />effectiveness of consultation from both sides. Each Federal agency and each Tribe will <br />document what they consider to be an unsatisfactory or somewhat unsatisfactory <br />consultation process, This evaluation should focus on the satisfactoriness of the proccss, <br />filii"" ihan me outcome, but the parties may also choose to record comments regarding <br />outcomes. When one or the other party considers consultation unsatisfactory, they will <br />document this in a letter or report to the other party and discuss ways to improve the next <br />exchange of infonnation. <br /> <br />Within sixty (60) days of the end of each fiscal year, the Tribes and Federal <br />agencies will exchange reports. These reports shall be discussed in consultation meetings <br />pursuant to Part 4 and Part 5. <br /> <br />I Much of the language in this section is adapted from a document published by the National <br />Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), entitled GUIDE ON CONSULTATION AND <br />COLLABORA llON WIlli INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND lliE PUBLIC P ART/CIP AT/ON OF <br />INDIGENOUS GROUPS AND TRIBAL MEMBERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING (Nov. <br />2000), (hereinafter NElAC Guide)available for download on the website of the EPA Office of <br />Environmental Justice, at www.eDa.gov/coIDDliance/environmentaliustice/index.html. (Click on <br />NEJAC. then Subcommittees, then Indigenous Peoples.) The final sentence (calling for telling a <br />tribe if its recommendations have not be accepted) is adapted from the BIA "Government-to- <br />Government Consultation Policy (Dec, 13. 2000), adopted pursuant to Executive Order 13175. <br />Consultation and Coordination with lndian Tribal Governments (Nov. 6,2000). This final <br />sentence states a point that was raised by several tribal representatives in the meetings we have had <br />working on this Consultation Plan. <br /> <br />The main reason for drawing on the NElAC Guide rather than the BIA policy is that the focus of <br />the BIA policy is generally not appropriate for this Consultation Plan, in that the B1A Policy is <br />designed to facilitate consultation with tribes on major policy issues, issues that may be addressed <br />through rule-making and/or legislation. In the context of this Consultation Plan. we are more <br />concerned with ensuring that federal agencies act in accordance with existing laws and regulations. <br /> <br />2 Time frames will vary depending on the nature of the proposed action. If consultation has been <br />effective under part 4 and/or section 5.C, and if the HPP is in fact developed and implemented, the <br />number of proposed actions subject to this protocol may be relatively small, In any case, federal <br />agencies should be aware that, if the proposed action would adversely affect one Or more historic <br />properties, 60 days is not likely to be sufficient to resolve the adverse effects; if there are no <br />adverse effects, however. it may be long enough to conclude the section 106 process, <br /> <br />'Under the ACHP regulations, if the undertaking would affect reservation lands, the THPO is the <br />required party and the federal agency decides. in consultation with the THPO. which other parties <br />should be included, ~800.3(f)(3); see also ~800,2(c)(A). If the undertaking only affects places <br />outside reselVation boundaries, each Tribe has a right to be a consulting party (which the Federal <br /> <br />34 <br />