Cordes Junction Interchange Environmental Assessment ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PDF Version for Printing

Introduction

The junction between Interstate 17 (I-17) and State Route (SR) 69 in Yavapai County, Arizona, now carries far more traffic than it was originally designed to accommodate. The interchange needs to be redesigned and rebuilt. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) initiated an Environmental Assessment process to develop alternatives for improving the interchange. However, the redesign will need careful review because Native American cultural materials have been discovered nearby. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its accompanying regulations define how such resources must be identified, evaluated, and considered during a Federal undertaking, such as this Federally funded highway improvement. Section 106 requires that these tribes be informed of, and involved in any decision-making process that may affect their historic and cultural legacy. Tribal participation in discussions about these resources will become a part of the official record for the project and will be reflected in the project's environmental impact documents.

Environmental justice is not solely about disparate health or economic effects -- it also applies when the cultural and historical resources of protected groups are potentially affected by a Federally funded transportation project. Also, Native American Tribes are different than other minority groups affected by the environmental impacts of transportation projects. Tribes are sovereign governments, analogous to State governments in certain (but not all) ways. Interactions among tribes, the FHWA, and State DOTs should be structured as a government-to-government relationship. Consultation with tribes is therefore different from traditional public involvement outreach. Reaching out to tribes is still crucial if Federal and State agencies want to be sure that environmental justice concerns are understood and addressed. Transportation officials need to adapt their outreach efforts to this special relationship.

Arizona has a particularly rich cultural and archaeological heritage. The State has been home to many different cultural groups over thousands of years. Evidence of these groups can be identified by artifacts they left behind, many of which are well preserved because of the area's arid desert environment. Many tribes in the region trace their ancestry back to these earlier groups. For these tribes, the handling of archaeological artifacts is not just important in protecting their cultural heritage, it provides continuity in maintaining their current way of life.

Generally, there are two kinds of projects in which Native American tribal participation, with an emphasis on environmental justice, is most likely to occur. Transportation projects conducted on or partially on Indian-owned land are the most obvious. These should always be conducted with the direct participation of the relevant tribes. But tribal participation is also required when transportation projects have the potential to affect historic resources on lands used by Native Americans in the past. Because all of this country was once owned and used by native tribes, transportation planners must be ready to consult with the appropriate tribal governments even when tribal historical resources are found far from any present-day tribal settlements.

This case study describes a small project that confronted the discovery of protected historical resources. The case illustrates an effective working relationship between Federal, State, and tribal governments _ a relationship that was built even though tribal participation in the early parts of the project was not as extensive or proactive as it should have been. The project described is ongoing, so the final results of this consultation are not yet known. Still, the case shows how different governmental agencies can work together on planning projects, and at the same time respond to their respective mandates, and strive to serve their constituencies in the best way possible.

The Region

The Interstate 17/State Route 69 intersection, also called the Cordes Junction Traffic Interchange, is located at Milepost 262.7 on I-17 in Yavapai County, Arizona. I-17 is the north-south interstate connecting Flagstaff and Phoenix. The area is predominantly rural in character, with a small commercial node adjacent to the interchange. The communities of Cordes Lakes, Spring Valley, and Mayer are each located within a few miles of the intersection. Arcosanti, an artists' colony/utopian community and a popular tourist attraction, is located 2.4 miles northeast of the traffic interchange.

Cordes Lakes and Spring Valley are the two residential areas closest to the project site. Cordes Lakes is a subdivision with 3,614 lots on 1,299 acres immediately to the southwest of the interchange. In 1996 it had approximately 2,500 residents. Spring Valley is several miles to the northwest of the interchange and has a school, 897 lots, and 13 tracts on 350.7 acres. The Arcosanti community currently has fewer than 100 residents, but has a projected population of 5,000 by 2050.

Growth in recreational and tourist travel, local residential populations, and travel-related business on the I-17 corridor are all contributing to increased congestion at this interchange.

What Happened

The existing I-17/SR 69 interchange is badly congested. Built in the early 1960s, the intersection now serves well over 10,000 cars on an average day, and planners predict that this volume of traffic will more than double by 2020. Because it uses an outdated intersection design, local traffic and through traffic are forced to mix, causing traffic congestion and delays. Businesses and residents have complained to both the Federal and State highway authorities, asking that the intersection be upgraded and improved.

Several State and Federal laws provide protection for cultural, historical, and traditional resources that might be affected by government action such as road repair and construction. In summer 1999, the regulations implementing one of those laws, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), had been amended to place a major emphasis on the role of Federally recognized tribes, in the process of reviewing any Federal action that has an impact on historic resources linked to the tribe. The proper treatment of historic, cultural, and traditional resources associated with a tribe or minority group is an important aspect of environmental justice.

At this point ADOT and FHWA worked together to identify local tribes with ancestral associations to the area that should be consulted about these resources. The FHWA sent letters to seven identified tribes, describing the interchange project, the archaeological findings, and the tribes' rights to participate in evaluating these sites. Several tribes responded to these letters, most emphasizing that the ADOT and FHWA had an obligation to carefully document and protect the cultural resources in the area. Most tribes that responded simply wanted to be allowed to review and comment on any reports or decisions related to these historical resources.

Tribal Involvement Deepens. By October 1999, two of the seven tribes had asked to participate more fully in the process of evaluating the potential historic sites at the I-17/SR69 interchange. These tribes, the Hopi and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, toured the sites with Dr. Lindauer. The visits were intended to encourage tribal representatives (from both the tribal government and the tribal cultural resources offices) to communicate their thoughts and concerns about the historic resources at the site directly. Although some of the discussions leading up to the site visits were informal, the FHWA and the ADOT also made an effort to communicate formally (through letters and follow-up phone calls) with the tribal governments involved to keep them informed of project developments.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community representatives had already expressed similar concerns. The tribe's cultural resources coordinator and a representative of the tribal government toured the site with the ADOT representative, making close observations of the archaeological evidence at the site. Pottery shards, ashy soil, and other evidence suggested to the tribal observers that burials might possibly be present at the locations near the interchange. The tribal representatives suggested that ADOT and the FHWA test the sites further to determine if they were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and indicated that they should conduct data recovery at sites determined to be Register eligible. The tribal representatives also recommended that the Arizona State Museum prepare a burial agreement, which would clearly define how human remains would be handled and buried if they were found at the site. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community representatives expressed a preference for alternative alignments that did not impact these sites.

Building Trust. After the Cordes Junction site visits, ADOT's staff archaeologist discussed the day's events with each group of tribal representatives. The tribal representatives expressed specific concerns to the archaeologist, which were then verified by verbally reiterating each point with them. Later, these points were documented in writing. Copies of letters outlining each tribe's concerns were subsequently sent to the tribes. Although such an effort might seem redundant, it is an excellent way to build trust in a working relationship. The logic behind such careful communication is clear. State or Federal transportation officials will find themselves working with these tribal representatives again in the future. The quality of ADOT's interactions with tribes is an important component in this ongoing professional and personal relationship.

After the site visits, ADOT commissioned an Addendum to the original archaeological assessment. In this document, which was sent to the tribes for review, the boundaries of the two identified sites at the interchange were redrawn to reflect the broader extent of artifacts seen during the field visit with Hopi tribal representatives. Once the boundaries were redrawn, however, it became clear that the sites were now within the boundaries of the draft alternatives for the redesign of the Cordes Junction interchange. By this time the FHWA had begun to revise the EA and was considering new layouts for the Cordes Junction interchange. But, as the FHWA stated in a letter to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community:

It is unlikely this site can be avoided given its location and therefore, this project would have an `adverse effect' on a historic property as a result. FHWA would prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to address the adverse effect to this property. However, because the preferred alternative has not yet been selected, FHWA will delay completing a draft MOA until a preferred alternative has been selected.

The FHWA recommended that these sites were eligible for listing as archaeological sites. The letters from the FHWA to the tribes formally asked them if the tribes concurred that the sites were Register-eligible. The tribes were also asked if they concurred that there would be an adverse effect on these resources. When archaeological sites that would be affected by a project are significant for the information they contain, the FHWA has an obligation to develop alternatives that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to those historic properties. If the sites were listed and adverse impacts could not be avoided, the FHWA and ADOT would have some specific obligations to document and preserve the material at the sites to the degree possible. The FHWA has an ongoing obligation to consult with the tribes, through their tribal historic preservation office, about how to resolve these adverse effects once they are identified.

Environmental Justice and the Weight of History. There has been a history of unfair and unequal treatment of Indian Tribes by Federal and State governments. Transportation practitioners and others can learn to be more fair and responsive to tribes. The NHPA and other laws give formal rights of participation and consultation to tribes, but those formal rights must be supplemented with an honest and open understanding of tribal needs and differing cultural perspectives. The ADOT and the FHWA are beginning to establish a good working relationship with many tribes in the region by actively listening to their concerns. It is that understanding, as much as any formal adherence to the requirements of laws and presidential orders, that will make it possible to achieve environmental justice when interacting with the tribes.

The Section 106 process is a means of access for minority and low-income populations to participate in Federal decisions or actions that may affect such resources as historically significant neighborhoods, buildings, and traditional cultural properties. The Council considers environmental justice issues in reviewing analysis of alternatives and mitigation options, particularly when Section 106 compliance is coordinated with NEPA compliance.

Effective Environmental Justice Practices

Several effective environmental justice practices were demonstrated on this project:

• Government-to-Government Tribal Relations. The Federal and State government participants in this project were consistent about notifying and contacting tribal governments with current and ancestral associations to the area to inform them of the status of the project. They were particularly attentive to the need to make regular formal contact with the representatives of the tribal government to discuss important issues, rather than only contacting their counterparts within the tribal bureaucracy.

• Regular Contact and Updates. The FHWA and ADOT provided area tribes with information about, and opportunities to participate in the evaluation of historic, cultural, and traditional resources at the site. When site conditions changed, or when new information was discovered, it was relayed quickly -- formally and informally -- to the interested tribes. Tribal governments were regularly informed of the content of informal discussions (such as the discovery of a more extensive artifact scatter near the interchange) in ways that helped to build trust.

• Sensitivity to Tribal Cultural Views. Agency staff who interact regularly with the tribes are developing an evolving knowledge, awareness, sensitivity, and understanding of tribal concerns and viewpoints. This understanding can help transportation agencies more quickly and comprehensively assess the impacts of their plans both in the transportation systems planning and project development phases.

Challenges Ahead

Broader Challenges. Consultation on this project did not start as early as it should have, but it was successful once it was begun. The consultation activities described in this case study to involve tribes came about not as the result of a concern for environmental justice, but because of the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, which strengthens tribes' voices in identifying, evaluating, and assessing the impacts of Federal actions on historic resources. Different tribes can have very different traditions, but for many, the protection of their cultural and natural heritage will be of pressing importance. An appeal for environmental justice should be expected when a region or site could be irreversibly and irretrievably disturbed by a transportation project.

Sensitivity to cultural differences is a hallmark of effective environmental justice practice. As with all cultural groups, tribes have distinct values, traditions, and needs. Understanding and responding to these needs requires planning practitioners to put aside their assumptions and to listen openly to tribal concerns. Cultivating this sensitivity is not always easy in the face of task deadlines and schedules, but it is a necessary part of the transportation planning process. Only by listening to and understanding tribal concerns, including those about environmental justice, can transportation professionals carry out the DOT's stated policy of designing solutions and tailoring programs that effectively respond to tribal transportation and cultural needs. That is a challenge that faces all practitioners who interact with Native Americans and their tribal governments.

Environmental justice concerns for tribes encompass more than access to and use of traditional cultural properties or items of cultural patrimony. Federal and State transportation agencies must make a greater effort to be knowledgeable, sensitive, and aware of the needs and heritage of tribes, and to incorporate that understanding into their activities. Informal conversations with transportation practitioners who were not involved in this particular case revealed the following challenges:

• Some Federal, State, and local transportation practitioners do not understand the requirements of a government-to-government relationship. Some discussions revealed an open and deep skepticism about the motives behind tribal involvement efforts to preserve unique tribal rights and resources. Their preservation goals were viewed more dimly as gambits for more control over resources.

• While some MPOs have successfully integrated tribal participation into their planning process, others have assumed that tribal involvement is primarily a Federal concern. MPOs need the active participation of both individuals and tribal governments to identify and address the transportation needs of Native Americans.

• Proactive tribal participation in statewide transportation planning is being successfully promoted in some States, but has not been a priority in others. Efforts to involve tribes in the early stages of transportation planning have been hampered by a lack of interest (sometimes on the part of agencies, sometimes on the part of tribes), a lack of knowledge, resources, or trust.

• Most tribes do not have the resources or the administrative infrastructure needed to be effective partners in the transportation planning process.

• Even if a State has no reservations within its borders, or a reservation is far from a project location, there may still be historic resources, such as traditional cultural properties, associated with a tribe. It is the Federal agency's responsibility to identify and contact such tribes.

Taken together, the issues cited above pose some special challenges and illustrate that tribal environmental justice can be a difficult issue. The history of bias and injustices toward Native Americans cannot be overcome without hard work. Native Americans are both U.S. citizens and members of sovereign, tribal nations -- often with different religions and world views. To remove any gap in understanding, transportation practitioners and tribal representatives must continue to engage in serious, open dialogue in order to develop positive and open working relationships.

Lessons Learned

• The NHPA Section 106 requirements have increased formal contact between the FHWA, ADOT, and the tribes. The regular, often one-on-one conversations between tribal representatives and transportation officials have improved knowledge, awareness, competency, and understanding about tribal cultural issues and may lead to better tribal consultation in other areas.

• Early and frequent contact with the tribes helps ensure that their concerns about historic, cultural,

• and traditional resources are heard and understood.

• It is possible to make mistakes and still have a positive outcome. The key is to acknowledge the errors once they are discovered and take responsible steps to correct them in subsequent meetings and project documentation.

References

Cordes Junction/I-17 Traffic Interchange Draft Environmental Assessment, October 1998.

DOT Order 5610.2 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

DOT Order 5301.1 Department of Transportation Programs, Policies, and Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

FHWA Chief Counsel, Legal Opinion Re: Federal-Aid Participation in Payments for Tribal Services Under the National Historic Preservation Act, March 17, 2000.

Indian Reservation Roads Program, Transportation Planning Procedures and Guidelines.
http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/irr/

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470w-6.

Owen Lindauer, Ph.D.
Environmental Planning Office,
Historic Preservation Section
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue, MD 172A
Phoenix AZ 85007
(602) 712-6819

Steven D. Thomas
Environmental Program Manager
FHWA, Arizona Division Office
234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330
Phoenix, AZ 850042220
(602) 379-3918

Ron Chiago
Cultural Resources Coordinator
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
10005 E Osborn
Scottsdale, AZ 85256

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director
Cultural Preservation Office
Hope Tribe
P.O. Box 123
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
(520) 734-3755

Archaeological artifacts photos courtesy of Dr. Owen Lindauer, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist.

FHWA Home | FTA Home | Cases | EJ Contact
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration - Federal Transit Administration