Bill Overview
Title: Tribal Cultural Areas Protection Act
Description: This bill provides for the preservation of tribal cultural sites on public land, including by establishing the Tribal Cultural Areas System, setting forth requirements related to land management, and authorizing certain actions by tribes.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: People with an interest in or connection to tribal cultural sites or heritage
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Tribal cultural sites are often located on public lands in various parts of the world, especially in countries with significant indigenous populations.
- The bill specifically relates to tribes, indicating it will impact indigenous groups that have a recognized tribal status.
- Tribal cultural sites can be of historical, spiritual, or cultural significance to indigenous people.
- The impact will not be limited to members of the tribe but could also include those involved in land management and preservation.
- The general public interested in the preservation of cultural heritage might also take an interest in such bills.
Reasoning
- The policy targets tribal cultural sites, which suggests that direct impacts will primarily affect indigenous communities and tribes that have historical and cultural ties to these sites.
- The communities involved in the management of these areas, including the federal and state land management agencies, will also be stakeholders.
- Residents living near these tribal cultural sites may experience changes due to increased preservation efforts which might restrict certain land uses but improve cultural education and tourism opportunities.
- Given the protection budget, cost constraints will be significant, and may limit the number and extent of tribal cultural sites that can be fully protected and managed over the years.
- This policy will likely have minimal direct impact on the broader public, but may interest those involved in cultural heritage, anthropology, and history.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Cultural Liaison (Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help us protect our sacred sites from degradation and external threats.
- The funding will aid in training younger members of the tribe for conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Land Management Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will streamline efforts and provide a structured approach for managing tribal cultural sites.
- There will be additional responsibilities to ensure compliance with new regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Historian (New Mexico)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a positive step toward preserving the cultural heritage of Native American tribes.
- It's important that these areas are protected for future generations to appreciate and learn from.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Farmer (North Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry the policy might limit my access to land I've used for years.
- However, I understand the need to respect and preserve these sites as they are important to my neighbors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate Student, Anthropology (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an exciting development for anyone interested in cultural heritage.
- It could lead to more research opportunities and increased funding for academic projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tribal Elder (Oklahoma)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring these areas are protected aligns with our mission to educate our youth about their heritage.
- I'm hopeful that this policy will lead to better collaboration between tribes and government agencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's inspiring to see my cultural heritage being protected at a national level.
- This could promote more awareness and understanding in the broader community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Utah)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding from this policy could really enhance our cultural education programs and preservation efforts.
- I'm excited about the potential for stronger community partnerships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Wildlife Conservationist (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the policy as a win-win for both biodiversity and cultural preservation.
- It's important to approach conservation with a respect for cultural contexts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy represents a much-needed investment in protecting our national heritage.
- I hope this will lead to more policies acknowledging and respecting indigenous rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $82000000 (Low: $56000000, High: $107000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $58000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $115000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- Tribal sovereignty and self-determination must be respected throughout the implementation process.
- Cooperation between federal, state, and tribal entities is crucial for effective policy execution.
- Adequate funding and resources are necessary to support the preservation and protection efforts.