\ ,- Environmental ImlpafZ' Sgaternent - - . 'for the"Me\lada.l.Test Site
and QffSte Locations E
Central Nevada dian Assessments:
Statement for-th-e Nevada i-- -_--_- Test Site and Off-Site e Locations in the State of-Nevada.. - Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada
Volume 1
Appendix G
U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada 1 With Significant Contributions from the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
'I American Indian Assessments: I Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site
I .. And Off-Site Locations in the I State of Nevada
A Native American Resource Document
Prepared By
' American Indian Writers Subgroup Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations
June 26.1996
-3 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
. Volume 1, Appendix G I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... G-1 I G.l American Indian Writers Subgroup (AIWS) ...... G-4 G.l.l First AIWS Meeting ...... G-4 G. 1.1.1 Nevada Test Site Environmental Impact Statement
I' NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.3.5.3 Farming and Ranching...... G-30 G.3.5.4 Mining ...... G-30 G.3.5.5 Political Integration and Community Cohesion ...... G-31 G.3.5.6 Waste Transportation and Tribal Enterprises...... G-31 , G.4 Environmental Consequences ...... G-31 G.4.1 Summary of American Indiari Responses to the NTS Action Alternatives .... G-33 G.4.2 American Indian Cultural Resources Impacts ...... G-35 1 G.4.2.1 American Indian Place by Action Comments, Alternative 1 ...... G-35 G.4.2.1.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-35 G.4.2.1.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-35 G.4.2.1.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex ...... G-36 G.4.2.1.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 ...... G-36 G.4.2.1.5 Project Shoal Area ...... G-37 G.4.2.1.6 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-37 G.4.2.1.7 Eldorado Valley ...... G-37 G.4.2.1.8 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-38 G.4.2.1.9 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-38 G.4.2.2 American Indian'Place by Action Comments, Alternative 2 ...... G-38 G.4.2.2.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-38 1 G.4.2.2.2 Tonopah Test Range ...: ...... G-39 4 G.4.2.2.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex ...... G-39
G.4.2.2.6 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-40 G.4.2.2.7 Eldorado Valley ...... G-41
I 'i- ...
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.4.2.3.6 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.7 Eldorado Valley ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.8 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.9 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-45 G.4.2.4 American Indian Place by Action Comments, Alternative 4 ...... G-45 G.4.2.4.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-45 G.4.2.4.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-46 G.4.2.4.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex ...... G-46 G.4.2.4.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 ...... G-46 G.4.2.4.5 Project Shoal Area ...... G-47 G.4.2.4.6 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-47 G.4.2.4.7 Eldorado Valley ...... G-47 G.4.2.4.8 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-47 G.4.2.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-48 G.4.3 Occupational and Public Health and Safety Radiation' Impacts ...... G-48 G.4.4 Environmental .Justice and Equity Impacts ...... G-48 G.4.4.1 Alternative 1 - Continue Current Operations (No Action)...... G-48 G.4.4.1.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-48 G.4.4.2 Alternative 2 - Discontinue Operations ...... G-49 G.4.4.2.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-49 G.4.4.2.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-50 G.4.4.2.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-50 G.4.4.2.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-50 G.4.4.3 Alternative 3 - Expanded Use ...... G-51 G.4.4.3.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-51 G.4.4.3.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-51 G.4.4.3.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-51 G.4.4.3.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-51 G.4.4.3.5 Eldorado Valley ...... G-52 G.4.4.3.6 Dry Lake Valley ...... : ...... G-52 G.4.4.3.7 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-52 G.4.4.4 Alternative 4 - Alternative Use of Withdrawn Lands ...... G-52 G.4.4.4.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-52 . G.4.4.4.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-53 G.4.4.4.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-53 G.4.4.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-53 G.4.4.4.5 Eldorado Valley ...... G-53 G.4.4.4.6 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-54 G.4.4.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-54 G.4.5 Social and Economics Impact ...... G-54 G.4.5.1 Alternative 1 - Continue Current Operations (No Action) ...... G-54 G.4.5.1.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-54 G.4.5.1.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-56 G.4.5.1.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-56 G.4.5.1.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-56 G.4.5.2 Alternative 2 - Discontinue Operations ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-56
G-iii Volume 1. Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.4.5.3 Alternative 3 .Expanded Use ...... G-56 G.4.5.3.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-56 G.4.5.3.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-56 G.4.5.3.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.3.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.3.5 Eldorado Valley ...... G-57 G.4.5.3.6 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-57
. .. ~-- ..... ~ ~ ~ ~~ G.4.5.3.7__ . ~~ Coy-ote Springx-alley . .-zLtj ;...... -...... - . G-57-.-- ...... G.4.5.4 Alternative 4 - Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.5 Eldorado Valley ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.6 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-57 G.5. Mitigation Recommendations ...... G-57 . G.5.1 American Indian Cultural Resources ...... G-58 G.5.2 American Indian Socioeconomics ...... G-60 G.6 American Indian Consultation Procedure ...... G-61 G.6.1 Outline of Consultation Procedures ...... G-62 G.6.2 Consultation Issues ...... G-63 G.7 Transportation Study ...... G-64 G.7.1 Consultation ...... G-64 G:7.2 American Indian Transportation Issues ...... G-65 G.7.3 A Faulty Transportation Assessment (Attachment F Nevada Test Site Rail Access Study) ...... G-66 G.7.4 Conclusion - A Fatally Flawed Attachment ...... G-67 G.8 Framework for the Resource Management Plan ...... G-67 G.8.1 American Indian Participation ...... G-67 G.8.2 How American Indian Participation may be incorporated into the Resource Management Plan ...... G-68 G.8.3 American Indian Ecosystem Perspectives ...... G-70 G.8.4 Comments to Resource Management Plan ...... G-71 G.9 References ...... G-73 G.10 List of Preparers ...... G-79
List of Attachments
Attachment A . Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site ...... A-1
Attachment B . One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the NevadaTestSite ...... B-1
Attachment C . American Indian Consultation Model ...... C-1
Volume 1. Appendix G G-iv NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
List of Figures
Figure G.1 . American Indian region of influence for the NTS EIS ...... G-14
List of Tables
Table G.1 . American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS ...... G-16 Table G.2 . American Indian traditional-use animals present at the NTS ...... G-20
G-v Volume 1. Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
I
Volume 1, Appendix G G-vi L
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I APPENDIX G I AMERICAN INDIAN COMMENTS FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I I I SUMMARY I Amendment of the United States Constitution rights I I of American'Indian people to have access to lands I The Native American Resource Document is a I and resources ' essential in the conduct of their I summary of opinions expressed by the Consolidated I traditional religion. These rights are exercised not I Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) I only in tribal lands but beyond the boundaries of a I regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for I reservation (Stoffle et al., 1994b). I the Nevada Test Site and Other Off-Site Locations I I within the State of Nevada (NTS EIS). The I To reinforce their cultural affiliation rights and to I document contains (a) general concerns regarding I prevent the loss of ancestral ties to the NTS, I long-term impacts of the U.S. Department of I 19 tribes and organizations aligned themselves I Energy's (DOE) operations on the NTS and (b) a I together to form the CGTO. This group is formed I synopsis of specific comments made by the I by officially appointed representatives who are I American Indian Writers Subgroup (AIWS) for I responsible for representing their respective tribal I various chapters of the NTS EIS'. I concerns and perspectives. The primary focus of I I the group has been the protection of cultural I The Native American Resource Document was I resources. The DOE and the CGTO have I produced in response to consultation required for I participated in cultural resource management I the NTS EIS, in accordance with DOE I projects, including the Yucca Mountain Project I Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government I (Stoffle 1987; Stoffle and Evans 1988, 1990, 1992, I Policy. The consultation focused specifically on I Stoffle et al. 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, I four alternative management decisions concerning I 1990b), @e Underground Weapons Testing Project I the future mission of the NTS and related off-site I (Stoffle et al. 1994b), and ongoing consultation in I locations in Nevada. However, the present CGTO's I compliance with the Native American Graves I response to this consultation is not limited to EIS I Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) for the I alternatives, but also integrates relevant I Nevada Test Site Collection (Stoffle et al., 1996a). I recommendations made by Indian people for I I previous DOE projects in which American Indians I While this American Indian Resource Document I participated. I provides recommendations that target the I I preservation of American Indian religion, culture, I The CGTO has a long history of relationships with I society, and economy, many of the comments I the DOE. In 1985, the DOE began long-term I presented here focus heavily on cultural resources. I research concerning the inventory and evaluation of I This emphasis is the product of continued cultural I American Indian cultural resources on the NTS I resource management consultation between the I area. This research was designed to comply with I DOE and the CGTO, which has reinforced Indian I the American Indian Religious Freedom Act I people's awareness of the wealth of cultural I (AIRFA), which specifically reaffirms the First I resources present at the NTS. On the other hand,. I the potential impacts of NTS actions on other I essential aspects of Indian life, such as health and I A detailed summary of the NTS EIS consultation i socioeconomics, are virtually undocumented. This process can be found in Nevada Test Site Environmental I is due to the absence of consultation and research Impact Statement - Summary of Meeting with Native I on the long-term effects of radiation exposure, Americans. Mercury, NV, March 17-19. 1995 (May 1995) nuclear waste transportation and storage on the life and in Section A of the American Indian Comments for the I Nevada Test Site - Environmental Impact Statement I of Indian communities. Being a minority group, (June 15, 1995). I American Indians have also been overlooked in
G-1 Volume 1, Appendix G 1( NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I regard to issues of Environmental Justice. The I impacts to cultural resources, Environmental I CGTO recommends that these issues be I Justice, health, and socioeconomics, which are I systematically evaluated by the federal government. I categorized by the EIS as part of the "affected I The opportunity given to the CGTO to contribute I environment." This section also includes a brief I their written comments to the NTS EIS is a highly I discuss2on on political integration. I positive step the DOE has taken toward voicing I I Indian concerns. I After introducing the American Indians' view of I I the NTS, Section G.4 addresses the envirlqn_m_ental. ------. I The NTS-EIS is a document that-(a) evaluates the- - -I consequences- of 'proposed -NTS actions and ... . - 1- impacts, consequences, and cumulative effects that I discusses specifically the position of the CGTO I alternative management decisions about the future I toward each alternative management decision for I mission of the NTS will have on the environment, I the NTS EIS. I (b) proposes strategies for mitigating adverse 1 I impacts of the various programs and project I In the view of Indian people, the ideal mitigation I activities being considered under each proposed I strategy would be to avoid any action that further I alternative, and (c).develops a Framework fir the disturbs NTS lands. However, the CGTO is aware I Resource Management Plan for the NTS. The that actions must be taken to restore NTS lands and I specific organization and content of an EIS is resources and keep the site safe and clean for future I required by the law. The Native American human use. The CGTO recommendations for I Resource Document, therefore, is organized mitigating adverse consequences of such actions are I according to the sequence of topics discussed in the summarized in Section G.5. I NTS EIS. In the sections that follow this I introduction, the document briefly reviews past and Section G.6 explains step-by-step consultation I present relationships between Indian people and procedures that American Indians would like I NTS lands, examines impacts of past and present federal agencies to follow in order to achieve I NTS programs and activity projects on American positive government-to-government consultation I Indian religion, culture and economy, and relationships. This section is complemented with I summarizes the CGTO's position regarding the Attachment C, a detailed Consultation Model I future mission of the NTS. In short, the Native originally produced for the U.S. Department of I American Resource Document describes the nature Defense (DoD) that was reviewed and edited by the I of the relationship between Indian people and NTS AIWS. Section G.7 contains the American Indian I lands, from an all-encompassing overview to comments on the Transportation Study (Appendix I I specific discussion about impacts, consequences, of the NTS EIS). I mitigation, and management. I The Native American Resource Document I The Native American Resource Document begins concludes with a response to the draft document I with a summary of formal interactions between the entitled Framework for the Resource Management I CGTO members and NTS EIS management Plan. The Native American Resource Document I (Section G.l). In Section G.2, the members of the explains the importance of taking into consideration I American Indian Writers Subgroup explain their ecological categories of Indian people for resource I role in the production of this document and the management. This section (Section G.8) also I responsibilities and difficulties they had to confront provides a brief picture of future co-management I throughout the writing process. relationships between the DOE and the CGTO that I could potentially be implemented as part of the I Section G.3, Native American Overview, stresses mission of the NTS. I the central role that NTS lands have had in I American Indian life from antiquity to I contemporary times. Moving from the concept of I cultural landscape as a whole to the resources I contained in a landscape, this section also examines
Volume 1, Appendix G G-2 12 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I American Indian Participation in the NTS EIS I Gaylene Moose Big Pine Indian Tribe, I I California I The CGTO consists of the following tribes and I official Indian organizations: Representing the Southern Paiute: I I. Southern Paiutes Betty Cornelius Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona I Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Arizona Don Cloquet Las Vegas Indian Center, I Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Nevada I Moapa Band of Paiutes, Nevada I Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Nevada I Coordinator I Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Nevada I I Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe, California I Richard Arnold Pahrump Indian Tribe, I Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona I Las Vegas Indian Center, I I Nevada I. Western Shoshones I I I Sponsors, Organizers, and Facilitators 'I Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Nevada I I Ely Shoshone Tribe, Nevada I Department of Energy Nevada Operations OfJice I Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada I I Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, California I Mary Ellen Giampaoli NTS EIS Manager I I Robert Furlow Environmental Protection I. Owens Valley Paiutes and Shoshones I Division I I I Benton Paiute Tribe, California I ' International Technology Corporation I Bishop Paiute Tribe, California Las Vegas, Nevada I Big Pine Paiute Tribe, California I Lone Pine Paiute Tribe, California Caroleen K. Toyama IT Contact Person I Fort Independence Paiute Tribe, California Geraldine Quintana Public Relations I Linda Cardenas IT Project Manager I. Other OfJicial Indian Organizations I Science Applications International Corporation I Las Vegas Indian Center, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada I Southern Paiute Tribal Chairman's I Association, Arizona, Nevada, Utah Robert Smith Coordinator, Cumulative I Owens Valley Board of Trustees, California Effects I I American Indian Writers Subgroup Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology I. University of Arizona, Tucson I Representing the Western Shoshone: I Richard Stoffle Associate Research I Maurice Frank Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Anthropologist I Nevada M. Nieves Zedeno Research Associate I Glen Hooper Diane Austin Research Associate I David Halmo Anthropology Extern I Representing the Owens Valley Paiute/Shoshone: Maria Banks Student Assistant I Maria Porter Student Assistant I Neddeen Naylor Lone Pine Indian Tribe, I California
G-3 Volume 1, Appendix G I ~ I ,r
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.l American Indian Writers Subgroup addressed in the American Indian sections of the NTS EIS: On March 17-19, 1995, representatives of the CGTO met with'U.S. Department of Energy, 1. That American Indians have lived on NTS Nevada Operations Office (DOEN) personnel lands since these people were created regarding American Indian participation in the preparation of the NTS EIS. The CGTO's 2. That American Indian culture, economy, recommendations covered a wide range of issues. religion, and health could be -- - ____ -_ ------proposed-NTS EIS alternatives One CGTO recommendation was that two I representatives from the Western Shoshone, 3. That the NTS EIS actions could have long- I Owens Valley Paiute, and Southern Paiute groups term and cumulative consequences for I be appointed to write the American Indian American Indian culture, economy, religion, I perspective for the NTS EIS. The CGTO . and health. I recommended that all six members of the AIWS I be provided with funding, technical assistance, G.l.l.1 Nevada Test Site Environmental Impact I and resources to participate in writing the Statement Implementation Plan Review. The I American Indian perspective for the NTS EIS. plan contains comments and recommendations I Richard Arnold, executive director of the made by the CGTO during the March 1995, NTS 1 Las Vegas Indian Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, EIS American Indian consultation meeting. The I would coordinate the activities of the AIWS. The plan refers to American Indian consultation as a I draft text produced by the AIWS was reviewed by main component of the scoping process and as a I the DOE/NV and incorporated into the Final NTS critical source of information regarding the impact I EIS, as well as being an appendix to the NTS EIS. of NTS EIS proposed alternatives on natural and cultural resources important to American Indians. The DOE/NV accepted this recommendation, offering to compensate the writers for their The AIWS noted that three major issues discussed services and travel expenses, and to provide the in the plan still do not address American Indian AIWS with funding, technical assistance, and. concerns:' socioeconomic, health and safety, and resources needed to write the American Indian Environmental Justice and equity. The AIWS felt perspective for the NTS EIS. The DOEN and that the CGTO should be systematically consulted the CGTO agreed that the AIWS should meet in about these critical issues and their direct and Las Vegas, Nevada, as frequently as needed to cumulative effects on American Indians living in complete the writing tasks. The Bureau of the vicinity of the NTS. Applied Research in Anthropology (BARA), University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, was G.1.1.2 Outline of Writing Tasks. The AIWS contracted by the DOE/NV to assist the AIWS made the following three decisions regarding the with this work. writing of the American Indian perspective for the NTS EIS: I G.l.l First AIWS Meeting I 1. The AIWS will produce short technical I The first meeting of the AIWS was held essays to expand sections of the NTS EIS, I May 1-5, 1995, at the offices of IT Corporation in particularly those sections that refer to Las Vegas, Nevada. The goal of this meeting was cultural resources, economics, and health. to develop a writing strategy, draft an outline of These essays could be included in the main writing tasks, and produce draft text. The text of the NTS EIS. (BARA), University of Arizona, facilitated the meeting and all AIWS members were present. The 2. The AIWS will also produce an Native Indian AIWS identified three major issues to be Resource Document that will become an NTS EIS appendix.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-4 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3. The text produced will be included in the sections on Environmental Justice and equity, report entitled American Indian Comments social and economic impacts, and waste for the NTS EIS. transportation and tribal enterprises, and produced draft text on mitigation to be included in G.1.1.3 Draft Text. The AIWS produced short Chapters 5 and 7. The AIWS’s main activities essays that document the American Indian focused on a discussion of the meaning of perspective, for the NTS EIS. mitigation and related concepts in the NTS EIS. The AIWS reviewed the archaeology section of G.1.2 Second AIWS Meeting Chapter 5 of this EIS, as well as all other available text, in order to establish a proper style for the The second meeting of the AIWS was held American Indian text. May 22-26, 1995, at the offices of IT Corporation in Las Vegas, Nevada.’ The goal of this meeting In addition to the writing activities, the AIWS was to complete portions of Chapter 4 and reviewed information about other EIS projects, continue writing sections of Chapter 5 of the NTS such as Hickinson Petroglyph Recreation Park, EIS. The BARA facilitated the meeting, and all Navy Project Shoal Area Land Withdrawal, and seven members of the AIWS attended. the Solar Request for Proposal. The AIWS suggested that, to obtain an integrated view of The AIWS completed the write-up of draft text for present and future activities in the area and Chapters 2 and 4 of the NTS EIS and drafted evaluate potential impacts, it is necessary to tie sections on Environmental Justice and equity, these outside projects to the NTS EIS. social and economic impacts, and waste transportation and tribal enterprises to be included 6.1.4 Review of the Framework for the in Chapter 4. Resource Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site Additionally, the AIWS produced draft text for the cultural resources section in Chapter 5, A key issue of this meeting was the discussion of Environmental Consequences. This text included DOE/NV’s commitment to prepare a resource (1) an overview of potential impacts of the NTS management plan outline for the NTS. MaryEllen EIS alternatives on American Indian cultural Giampaoli, NTS EIS Project Manager, and Kurt resources and (2) specific comments on the Rautenstrauch, EG&G Energy Measurements, potential impacts of programs and activities Inc., the DOE/NV contractor who prepared the proposed for each of those alternatives. The outline, led the discussion. The Framework for AIWS also discussed mitigation issues for the Resource Management Plan, Volume 2 of the proposed programs and activities. Final NTS EIS, describes how DOE/NV will prepare the Resource Management Plan following G.1.3 Third AIWS Meeting the release of the Record of Decision. The AIWS reviewed the outline and drafted an action plan to The third meeting of the AIWS was held address the outline. June 9-12, 1995, at the offices of IT Corporation in Las Vegas, Nevada. The goals of this meeting G.1.5 Fourth AIWS Meeting were to complete and edit the cultural resources section of Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS and to Two AIWS meetings were held in Las Vegas, produce draft text on mitigation issues for Nevada, after the public review period for the proposed programs and activities. The BARA Draft NTS EIS (issued January 1996). . The main facilitated the meetings and all AIWS members purposes of these meetings were (1) to review and were present. edit the Draft American Indian Comments for the NTS EIS, (2) to respond to public comments on The AIWS completed and edited draft text for document, and (3) to write additional text for Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS and expanded Chapter 4 inclusion in the NTS EIS. The meetings were
G-5 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I sponsored by the DOE/NV and facilitated by the I information on American Indian nuclear risk I University of Arizona. I perception was collected from the AIWS. This I I information was developed into a section on I The fourth AIWS meeting was held at the Science I Environmental Justice for Chapters 4 and 15' of the Applications International' Corporation offices in I NTS EIS. Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 18-21, 1996. I Present at this meeting were: I On Wednesday, March 20, 1996, the AIWS met I with DOE officials to discuss the current- . - - -AI WS- - - - - . . I Arnerican-Indian-inToliGmEi3inthe %fS EFS, as Betty Cornelius I well as other consultation issues. The DOE/NV I Richard Arnold I officials present at this meeting were Don Elle, I Maurice Frank I Director of the Environmental Protection Division; I Don Cloquet I Kathy Izell, Assistant Manager for Environment, I I Safety, Security, and Health; Joe Fiore, Acting I University of Arizona I Deputy Manager; Terry Vaeth, Acting Manager; I Richard Stoffle I and Robert Furlow, Project Manager and Agency I M. Nieves Zedeno I Point of Contact for American Indian consultation. I I I At this meeting, the AIWS refined the original list I On Thursday March 21, 1996, MaryEllen I of writing tasks and identified those tasks to be I Giampaoli, NTS EIS manager, and Timothy I complete: before the Final NTS EIS is issued. Killen, task leader of the Draft Frameworkfor the I The writing tasks were: Resource Management Plan, gave a brief I presentation of this document to the AIWS. The I 1. Socioeconomic issues AIWS decided to focus on comments for the I Resource Management Plan at the following I 2. Risk perception meeting. The text produced the fourth AIWS I meeting and was compiled into a workbook to be I 3. Summary of the CGTO position regarding the submitted to the CGTO for review and comment. I four NTS EIS alternatives I G.1.6 NTS EIS Consultation Meeting with I 4. Waste transportation study I the CGTO I I I 5. Comments on the Draft Framework for the I On April 15-17, 1996, the DOE/NV conducted a I Resource Management Plan I consultation meeting at the NTS with the CGTO I I representatives to update them on the changes, I 6. Consultation procedures I final schedule, and public comments for the NTS I I EIS. The NTS EIS manager provided updated I 7. hecutive summary. I information on these issues. The AIWS gave' a I I report of activities and writing tasks completed I The AIWS completed the write-up of text on I during the fourth AIWS meeting. The CGTO I socioeconomic issues, specifically, the impact of I reviewed and commented on the draft text I NTS alternative actions on tribal employment and I developed by the AIWS .and offered suggestions I education. This section is suggested for inclusion I for expanding sections of this text. I in Chapter 4 of the NTS EIS (Volume 1). An I I outline of American Indian consultation I The AIWS also presented a draft of their paper I procedures was also drafted for Chapter 8 of the I entitled Voicing American Indian Concerns I NTS EIS (Volume 1). A draft executive summary I through an Indian EIS Writing Team to CGTO I for Appendix G and summary of the CGTO I representatives. The AIWS explained that this I position regarding the four NTS EIS action I paper will be presented at the Meetings of I alternatives were completed as well. Additionally, I National Association of Environmental
Volume 1, Appendix G G-6 I, NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Professionals in Houston, Texas, on June 4-6, I Framework for the Resource Management I 1996. The CGTO approved this presentation and . I Plan. I recommended that the DOE/NV fully support this I I effort. I The following section is an excerpt from the paper I entitled Voicing American Indian Concerns I G.1.7 Fifth AIWS Meeting through an Indian EIS Writing Team. The AIWS I will present this paper at the annual meeting of the I After the CGTO meeting the AIWS continued National Association of Environmental I working on the write-up of new text for the Professionals in Houston, Texas. The excerpt I NTS EIS. The fifth AIWS meeting was held at the explains how the AIWS proceeded to write this I offices of Science Applications International text, their role and responsibilities. in the I Corporation in Las Vegas, Nevada, on production of the American Indian Resource I April 18-21, 1996. The main goals of this meeting Document, and the difficulties they had to I were (1) to incorporate the CGTO comments, and overcome throughout the preparation of text for I complete and edit the text developed during the the NTS EIS. A copy of the published proceedings fourth AIWS meeting, (2) to focus writing efforts paper (National Association of Environmental on the Transportation Study and the Framework Professionals Conference Proceedings) will be the Resource Management Plan, and (3) to available through the DOEW Environmental for ' complete an expanded inventory of American Protection Division Office after June 7, 1996. Indian traditional-use plants and animals for the I NTS EIS. The AIWS also completed sections of 6.2 Voicing American Indian Concerns I text on Perceived Risks and Environmental Justice Through an Indian EIS Writing'Team I to be included in Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS. I Prepared By: I On April 21, the AIWS completed the write-up of I new text for Appendix G, as well as sections of Richard Arnold, Pahrump Indian Tribe, I text to be included in four chapters of Volume 1 Pahrump, NV I and in three chapters of Volume 2 (Frameworkfor Don Cloquet, Las Vegas Indian Center, I the Resource Management Plan) of the NTS EIS. Las Vegas, NV I By the end of the fifth AIWS meeting, new text Betty Cornelius, Colorado River Indian Tribe, I produced for the two volumes of the NTS EIS and Parker, AZ I for Appendix G included: I Maurice Frank, Yomba Shoshone Tribe, I I Austin, NV I Glossary I Glen Hooper, Yomba Shoshone Tribe, ,I Austin, NV 0 Executive Summary I Gaylene Moose, Big Pine Indian Tribe, Big I Pine, CA 0 AIWS meeting paper I Neddeen Naylor, Lone Pine Indialr Tribe, I Lone Pine, CA 0 Summary of the CGTO position regarding the I NTS EIS alternatives I G.2.1 Abstract I 0 Socioeconomic Issues I An American Indian writing team appointed by the I 19 members of the CGTO prepared text for direct 0 Environmental Justice I inclusion in the NTS EIS, prepared under the I supervision of the DOE/NV. The procedure of 0 Consultation Procedures I having American Indians work directly on this EIS I has produced relevant text in a timely manner, 0 Comments on the Transportation Study I while keeping secret certain knowledge about I Indian cultural resources. 1'7 G-7 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I G.2.2 Excerpt Introduction I Indian EIS writing team possible. The paper I I includes how the DOE/NV EIS writing team I American Indian concerns are by law and I trained the Indian writing team so that Indian EIS I regulation to be incorporated into the I text would be produced under common I environmental impact assessments of planned I assumptions and with similar quality controls. I federal projects. Tribes do not consider I The paper ends with a general model for involving I themselves as “stakeholders” as defined, but rather I American Indian tribal governments and I a sovereign government within the boundaries of I organizations into the EIS- prpcess,_ using -the. -I -1ndianBIS-writingte-am-approach. . -. -I the United-States-who-havea-unique relationship- I and status unlike any other. All too often tribal I I input is gathered through regularly scheduled I G.2.3 Issues in the Functioning of the I public scoping meetings. This approach is not the I Subgroup I appropriate manner in which to involve Indian I I tribes. These tribal governments, and the people I G.2.3.1 Translating Ideas. Members of the I they represent, generally desire to have their I AIWS had to learn about this EIS and how to I environmental action preferences fully voiced in I translate American Indian concerns into the EIS I the NTS EIS on a government-to-government I language. When members of the CGTO talk I basis. I among themselves, they do so from the perspective I I of a common culture and history. Many issues are I Two factors directly impact the quantity and I understood, and these remain an unspoken I quality of Indian participation: (1) the time I dimension of American Indian conversations. I permitted for their involvement; and (2) the level I Some issues are specific to gender; there are issues I of confidentiality that can be provided to protect I that women are assumed to know about and when I cultural resources. Time is needed for Indian I discussion turns to these subjects men listen rather I tribes to understand what actions are being I than speak. Other issues involve respect for age; I proposed and to learn what rules govern the I elders have a special place in these Indian I production of this EIS so that knowledgeable tribal I societies, so when they speak special attention is I members can be selected to participate and devote I given. Even the style of speech is an understood I sufficient time for the identification and evaluation I issue of communication, because there is an I of potentially impacted resources. When past I appropriate amount of time after a speaker ends I American Indian studies can be used as a base, I his presentation before someone else should speak. I shorter evaluation periods are appropriate; I There are certain understandings that should not I unfortunately, there is a national tendency to I be expressed in public communication, especially I involve tribes late in this EIS process or not at all. I when non-Indians are present. When certain I Indian people demand rights of meaningful I issues are discussed, Indian speakers may be I involvement and confidentiality of information I accused of “Talking Too Much or Telling Too I shared about sacred places and natural resources I Much.” All these dimensions of culturally based I used in ceremonies, and do not want these I Indian communication can be challenged when I threatened by being made public during this EIS I AIWS members translate their assessments of I process. Indian people would prefer not to I potential project impacts into the language of the I participate in this EIS unless they can be assured I EIS . I that sharing culturally sensitive information with I I the agency will afford more protection rather than I The amount of responsibility placed on the AIWS I threaten cultural resources. This paper describes I members is in direct proportion to the amount of I the formation and successful performance of the I consultation that has occurred between the agency I first American Indian EIS writing team established I and the culturally affiliated tribes. When the I and supported by a major federal agency. The I AIWS has years of consultation on which to build I paper describes how past DOE/NV consultations I an EIS argument, they are more confident of what I with the 19 members of the CGTO provided the I variables they suggest and of ways to study the I foundation of knowledge and trust that made the I issue. Key here is the issue of cultural
Volume 1, Appendix G G-8 I&
~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I confidentiality, because certain issues may be debate is not encouraged, because of the mutual I inappropriate for public discussion. The AIWS respect observed and the ongoing relationships I will always be concerned about "Not saying too between the committee members is considered I much to non-Indians." If the issues have emerged more important than a specific issue under I in previous consultation studies, however, the discussion. I AIWS can simply raise the variable and cite the I report. The NTS consultation has produced The EIS process is a virtual battle-ground of- I 10 years of issues raised and studies completed, so debate over which variables should be included, I when talking about cultural resources, the AIWS how much data collection is needed, and the I worked from a position of strength. When they amount of report space to allocate for presenting I moved to topics that had not been previously the findings. EIS teams typically have dozens of I assessed, however, they were much more tenuous experts who represent the subject in the agency, I about raising issues and suggesting research and generally have not and will not again work I methodologies and anticipating the findings of directly with one another. The DOE EIS writing I systematic research. team, for example, consisted of 80 experts with I more than 1,082 years of collective professional I G.2.3.2 Negotiating Text. In an EIS, all research and EIS preparation experience. Their I variables, levels of analysis, and descriptive text is performance is judged by their unit in the agency I negotiated. By this, it is understood that according to how much attention the EIS devotes I something like the relationship between economics to their subjects. Good debate resolutions are I and residence on a reservation or radiation and air often described as being when everyone is equally I as a living organism cannot become a variable for unhappy about the decision. In this environment, I consideration in the EIS unless a strong and the AIWS had to change the rules under which I reasonable argument can be made by someone that they would operate and become each other's first I it is potentially impacted by the proposed actions critic. If they could not convince each other, then I under consideration. Generally, variables are I they probably could neither convince the EIS I established very early in the scoping stages of an I writing team nor the agency decisionmakers who I EIS. Clear cause and effect hypotheses must be I would use the findings to formulate a Record of I described before a variable is included and before I Decision. I a study can be designed to assess potential I I impacts. Once a variable becomes a part of the I G.2.3.3 Supporters and Detractors. The Indian I EIS analysis, it is necessary then to specify the I writers' involvement in this EIS process would not I type and level of analysis required to fully or I have occurred or been as successful without the
I appropriately assess the potential impact of the I foresight and continuous commitment of key I I proposed project on it. A study design is agreed I federal employees and program managers who I to, funds are allocated, and a research team is I supported the American Indian writing effort. I selected to conduct the research. When the I Since the inclusion of Indian writers in an EIS had I analysis is completed, the EIS team must decide I never been undertaken previously by the DOE, I how much space to allocate for presenting the I various apprehensions developed, as might be I findings. Since all EIS text is negotiated, the I expected. Interestingly enough, during this EIS I further along the EIS process proceeds the more I scoping period, many of the concerns about the I difficult it is to change the structure of the I potential adverse effects of American Indian I document. Early involvement of Indian writers I involvement were voiced by individuals who I assures them a better chance to produce and argue I neither worked on the EIS study team nor worked I the EIS studies and findings. I with the DOE/NV. These concerns ranged from I I questioning the appropriateness of actually I Consensus decisionmaking characterizes how most I including American Indian perspectives in an EIS, I American Indian committees operate. In this I to the fear of setting a precedence within the DOE I context, alternative views are carefully expressed I and in other federal agencies. I so as not to imply others are incorrect. Forceful I
G-9 Volume 1, Appendix G 14 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1 I Throughout the development of the actual text and I To further ensure that the text developed by the I the final source document, those individuals who I Indian writing team was appropriate and consistent I originally expressed doubts about the process I with the rest of the EIS document, ongoing I regained their confidence, and eventually I critiques of Draft Indian text were requested by I concluded that American Indians should be I the Indian writers. Key people were identified 'Iincluded in the EIS process in order to share I from the EIS writing team to help critique the I important cultural information relating to the area. I format and style of the EIS text produced by the I Additionally, the Indian writers provided I Indian writers. These key pegplg _poss_essed.-
I- .interpretative-information that many-times-either -I previous -cross-Tulthal interactions and had I expanded or contradicted the conclusions of other I experience with diverse populations. This type of I scientists involved in the EIS. Often times, I background proved to be invaluable throughout I reconsideration and estimations about the I the entire process. I cumulative effects on their reservations were I I provided, which were typically overlooked or I G.2.4 Where Do We Go From Here? I misunderstood. Many of those who initially were I I considered detractors have now seen the I After completion of the final text, the AIWS made I demonstrated value of Indian writers in the EIS. I a formal presentation to the entire CGTO for I Both the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and I review and acceptance. This presentation I the U.S. Forest Service (not initial critics) have I provided an opportunity for writers to describe the I now contacted the CGTO about similar I EIS process, dilemmas, and a comprehensive I involvement in their agency's EIS and resource I overview of the text. Members of the CGTO were I management plans. I asked to thoroughly review the document, make I I editorial changes, and provide any new I G.2.3.4 Trainers. How do you get a team of I information not previously addressed. This I Indian people up to speed quickly so they can I information was then synthesized by the AIWS for I understand what data and writing rules govern the I inclusion into the text. I production of an EIS? Probably one of the most I I challenging tasks for both the American Indian I This particular meeting was a very intense I writers and the DOE scientists was learning about I experience due to the complexities surrounding the I each other's frame of reference. According to one I NTS EIS. However, when discussions revolved I member of the AIWS, although we never fully I around familiar topics such as Indian place names, I understood each other, a better understanding and I or plant and animal identification, the demeanor of I familiarity was achieved. This was followed by I the meeting changed drastically. At the I explanations about the scientific outcomes and I conclusion of the meeting, the CGTO made I data in a manner which was responsive to the I various recommendations including support for the I needs of the Indian writers. Some of the primary I AIWS to present this paper describing their I ways of presenting this information was to respond I experiences with the NTS EIS. I to direct questions, provide background I I information about the project, thoroughly explain I The CGTO hopes that their effort will encourage I the study design, and finally concluding with an I other federal agencies to include American Indian I analysis and interpretation of scientific findings. I tribes and organizations into their EIS processes I This approach worked successfully and allowed I and to encourage American Indian tribes and I the presented information to be discussed among I organizations to become actively involved in the I the writers who in turn formulated the information I protection of their interests. I within their own cultural context and frame of I reference. Occasionally, difficulties arose due to I Over the last decade, the DOE NV has supported the complexities of a sitewide 'EIS and in I a series of systematic American Indian studies that understanding the relationship, if any, to other I have provided an extensive set of elders' opinions EIS's and environmental assessments that were I about the cultural significance of the lands and the occurring simultaneously within the DOE. I natural resources of the NTS. Despite this Volume 1, Appendix G G-10 I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I extensive effort, many studies are yet to be NTS lands have been withdrawn by the Federal i I undertaken, and some kinds of studies are yet to be Government since 1943. c I proposed. Naturally, a full assessment of potential I projects requires a complete database of American Despite the loss of some traditional lands to I Indian opinion regarding a variety of topics. As pollution and reduced access, Indian people have I new studies are completed, Indian people will be neither lost their ancestral ties to, nor .have I able to speak with increasing confidence when forgotten, their cultural resources on the NTS. I invited to participate in the assessment of potential There is continuity in the American Indian use of I DOE activities. and broad cultural ties to the NTS. Indian people I have cared for NTS resources and will continue to I The AIWS and the CGTO are becoming do so. I recognized for their knowledge and expertise I gained throughout the EIS process. Their efforts The NTS land was part of cultural landscapes that I can serve as a model for involving American extended many miles in all directions. Because I Indians in future EIS efforts. Already other Indian this land is a part and not the whole, it is, I tribes and federal agencies are reviewing this therefore, essential that DOE determinations of I process and considering similar American Indian cultural affiliation, ancestral ties, and impact of I participation in the management of Indian holy NTS actions and programs on traditional Indian I lands. culture, religion, and society be made according to I the broad regional use of NTS lands. I G.3 Native American Overview I Recognizing this continuity in traditional ties I G.3.1 Centrality Issue between the NTS and Indian people, in 1985 the I DOE began long-term research involving the I For many centuries, the NTS has been a central inventory and evaluation of American Indian I place in the lives of American Indians. The NTS cultural resources in the area. This research was and nearby lands contain traditional gathering, designed to comply with the AIRFA, which ceremonial, and recreational areas for Indian specifically reaffirms the First Amendment of the people. From antiquity to contemporary times, United States Constitution and protects the rights this area has been used continuously by many of American Indian people to have access to lands tribes. It contains numerous ceremonial resources and resources essential in the conduct of their and power places that are crucial for the traditional religion. These rights are exercised not continuation of American Indian culture, religion, only in tribal lands, but also beyond the and society. Until the mid-l900s, traditional boundaries of a reservation (Stoffle et al., 1994a). festivals involving religious and secular activities attracted Indian people to the area from as far as To reinforce their cultural affiliation rights and.to San Bernardino, California. Similarly, groups prevent the loss of ancestral ties to the NTS, came to the area from a broad region during the 17 tribes and organizations have aligned hunting season and used animal and plant themselves together to form the CGTO. This resources that were crucial for their survival and group is formed by officially appointed cultural practices. representatives who are responsible for representing their respective tribal concerns and Many non-Indian peoples hold a different view of perspectives. The CGTO has established a long- these lands. For example, the U.S. Federal standing relationship with the DOE. The primary Government has maintained the perception that the focus of the group has been the protection of NTS is. a ,remote wasteland with very low cultural resources. The DOE and the CGTO have population density and other characteristics that participated in cultural resource management make it ideal for developing defense and energy projects, including the Yucca Mountain Project projects. Because of this “wasteland perception,” (Stoffle, 1987; Stoffle et al., 1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b, 199Oc; Stoffle and Evans, 1988,
G-11 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I 1990, 1992) and the Underground Weapons of our elders and have officially supported these Testing Project (Stoffle et al., 1994b). conclusions. American Indian studies focus on one topic at a time so that tribes and organizations ! The extensive information compiled through long- can send experts in the subject being assessed. . term research sponsored by the DOE demonstrates The following is a list of studies that are required that American Indian cultural resources are not for a complete American Indian assessment: ! limited to archaeological or historical remains of native ancestors, but include all natural resources, I 1. Ethnoarchaeology - the interpretation of the 1 - ___ - - -i ----as wgll-as geological formations contained in the .- . ~.- -physical-artifacts produced- by- our- IidiiT- NTS landscape. Natural resources constitute ancestors critical components of American Indian daily life I and religious beliefs. Plants and animals are a I 2. Ethnobotany - the identification and interpre- source of food, raw materials, and medicine. I tation of the plants used by Indian people (I I Ritual practices cannot be properly carried out I i Ethnozoology the identification and interpre- without plants and animals. Similarly, natural I 3. - 1 landforms mark locations that are significant for tation of the animals used by Indian people keeping the historic memory of American Indian I I 4. Rock art the identification and interpretation people alive and for teaching children about their I - I culture and history. of traditional Indian paintings and rock 1 peckings \ This land and its resources are well-known by I American Indian people, who consider the NTS as I 5. Traditional Cultural Properties - the identi- I a central part of their cultural landscape. This fication and interpretation of places of central knowledge .has allowed them to be self-sufficient cultural importance to a people, called and to transfer all their cultural values and Traditional Cultural Properties; often Indian I practices to future generations until this day. I people refer to these as “power places” I G.3.2 American Indian Cultural Resources I 6. Ethnogeography - the identification and 1 interpretation of soil, rocks, water, and air I G.3.2.1 Nevada Test Site. The CGTO knows, 1 based upon its collective knowledge of Indian I 7. Cultural Landscapes - the identification and culture and past American Indian studies, that I interpretation of spatial units that are American Indian people view cultural resources as culturally and geographically unique areas for 1 being integrated. Thus, certain systematic studies American Indian people. of a variety of American Indian cultural resources 1 must be conducted before the cultural significance When all of these subjects have been studied, then of a place, area, or region can be fully assessed. it will be possible for American Indian people to Although some of these studies have been I assess three critical issues: (1) What is the natural 1 conducted on the NTS and nearby lands, many condition of this portion of our traditional lands? studies still need to be completed. In some I (2) What has changed due to DOE activities? and portions of the NTS, a number of American Indian I (3) What impacts will proposed alternatives have studies have been conducted, while in other areas on either furthering existing changes in the natural i studies have not begun. A number of studies are environment or restoring our traditional lands to currently planned. their natural condition? Indian people believe that i the natural state of their traditional lands was what Indian people can fully assess the cultural existed before 1492, when Indian people were fully significance of a place and its associated natural ’ responsible for the continued use and management and cultural resources when all studies have been of these lands. completed and our governments and tribal organizations have reviewed the recorded thoughts
Volume 1, Appendix G G-12 1J NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The NTS and nearby lands were central to the I Amendment of the U.S. Constitution rights of Western Shoshone, Owens Valley Paiute, and American Indian people to have access to lands and Southern Paiute people (see Figure G-1, American resources essential in the conduct of their traditional Indian region of influence map). The lands were religion. These rights are exercised not only in central in the lives of these people and so were tribal lands, but also beyond the boundaries of a mutually shared for religious ceremony, resource reservation (Stoffle et al., 1994a and b). use, and social events (Stoffle et al., 1990a and b). When Europeans encroached on these lands, the To reinforce their cultural affiliation rights and to numbers of Indian people, their relations with one prevent the loss of ancestral ties to the NTS, another, and the condition of their traditional lands 17 tribes and organizations have aligned themselves began to change. European diseases killed many I to form the CGTO. This group is formed by Indian people; European animals replaced Indian officially appointed representatives who are animals and disrupted fields of natural plants; responsible for representing their respective tribal Europeans were guided to and then assumed control I concerns and perspectives. The CGTO has over Indian minerals; and Europeans took Indian established a long-standing relationship with the agricultural areas. DOE. The primary focus of the group has been the protection of cultural resources. The withdrawal of Nevada’s lands for the use of the War Department as an aerial bombing and gunnery I The DOE and the CGTO have participated in range in 1942 (Executive Orders No. 8578 of cultural resource management projects, including October 1940 and No. 9019 of January 12, 1942) the Yucca Mountain Project (Stoffle, 1987; Stoffle and later the final land withdrawal of February 12, et al., 1988b, 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c; 1952 (Public Law Order 805), for use by the Stoffle and Evans, 1988; 1990; 1992;) and the Atomic Energy Commission, continued the process Underground Weapons Testing Project (Stoffle of Euroamerican encroachment on these Indian et al., 1994a and b). These studies are used in this lands. Pollution and destruction followed in the report, along with the collective knowledge of the form of bombs and atomic testing, thus causing I CGTO, as the basis of the comments in this NTS some places to become unusable again for Indian EIS. The cultural resource management projects people. On the other hand, many places were sponsored by the DOE have been extremely useful protected by this land withdrawal because for expanding the inventory of American Indian pothunters were kept from stealing artifacts from cultural resources beyond the identification of rock shelters and European animals were kept from archaeological remains and historic properties. grazing on Indian plants. The forced removal of Indian people from the NTS lands was combined To date, the DOE/NV’s American Indian Program with their involuntary registration and removal to in the Environmental Protection Division has distant reservations in the early 1940s. Indian I supported the in-depth study of 107 plants and more people were thus removed from lands that had been I than 20 animals that are present on the NTS. These central in their lives for thousands of years. I plants and animals (see Tables G-1 and G-2) were I identified by Indian elders as part of their traditional Despite the pollution and destruction of some I resources. Attachments A and B contain all plants cultural resources and the physical separation from I and animals that are both present on the NTS and the NTS and neighboring lands, Indian people potentially will affect American Indian cultural continue to value and recognize the central role of I resources within an area roughly bounded and these lands in their continued survival. Recognizing I known from various sources to have been used by this continuity in traditional ties between the NTS I either Western Shoshone, Southern Paiutes, or and Indian people, the DOE in 1985 began long- I Owens Valley Paiutes. Attachments A and B also term research . involving the inventpry and I contain the Indian names for these plants and evaluation of American Indian cultural resources I ani mal s . in the area. This research was designed to comply 1 with AIRFA, which specifically reaffirms the First I
G-13 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Table G-1. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page 1 of 4)
Scientific Name I Common Name I GC/Ul'TR I YM I PMlRM 1 1. Ambrosia dumosa 2. Amelanchier utahensis 3. Amsinckia tesselata 4. Anentopsis californica - 5. ArabiLpulchra- - _-_ _- - - -- 1 6. Artemisia ludoviciana sagebrush, wormwood 7. Artemisia nova black sagebrush 8. Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush 9. Atriplex canescens X 10. Atriplex confertifolia shadscale 1 1. Brodiaea pulchella 12. Calochortus bruneaunis 13. Calochortusflexuosus 14. Carex spp. 15. Castilleja chromosa 16. Castilleja martinii 17. Ceratoides lunata 18. Chenopodiumfremontii Fremont goosefoot 19. Chrysothamnus nauseosus rabbitbrush X X X
ra virarnensis var.
NOTE: American Indian traditional-use plants present in the NTS area are identified in the project reports entitled Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada (YM) (Stoffle et al., 1989b) and Native American Cultural I Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas. Nevada Test Site (PM/RM)(Stoffle et al., 1994b). This table includes traditional-use I plants identified in the Colorado River Corridor Study (GC) and in the Utah Test and Training Range Study (UTTR) that are also I present at the NTS (see NTS EIS, Table 4-38).
Volume 1, Appendix G G-14 h NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I
Table G-1. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page 2 of 4)
I Scientific Name Common Name 32. Ephedra nevadensis Indian tea X X' X 33. Enhedra viridis Indian tea x X 34. Eriastrum eremicum I desert eriastrum I I 35. Eriononum'inflatum I deserttrumwt XI II 36. Erodium cicutarium ' herringbill X 31. Euphorbia albomarninata rattlesnake weed X X 38. Geastrum spp. earthstar X 39. Cilia inconspicua eilia X 40. Grayia spinosa spiny hop sage 41. Gutierrezia microcephala I matchweed 42. Juncus mexicanus wire grass 43. Juniperus osteosperma juniper, cedar 44. Krameria pawifolia range ratanv 45. Larrea tridentata I creosote bush X 46. Lewisia rediviva I bitter root 11 X X X 48. Lichen lichen X X ,I
5 1. Mentzelia albicaulis desert corsaee
~ ~ 52. Mirabilis multiflora r four
53. Nicotiana attenuata 1 ~ coyotetobacco 54. Nicotiana trinonoahylla I Indian tobacco X I X II 55. Opuntia basilaris I beavertail cactus x I x-I 11 56. Opuntia echinocarpa golden cholla cactus SI. Opuntia erinacea Mojave prickly pear 58. Opuntia polycantha grizzly bear cactus 59. Orobanche corymbosa broomrape, wild 60. Onzoosis (Stiua)hvmenoides Indian riceerass 61. Penstemon.floridus 1 Panamintbeard tonw; 62. Penstemon pahutensis I Pahute beard tonwe
NOTE: American Indian traditional-use plants present in the NTS area are identified in the project reports entitled Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada (YM) (Stoffle et al., 1989b) and Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute andRuinier Mesas, Nevada Test Site (PMRM) (Stoffle et al., 1994b). This table includes traditional-use . plants identified in the Colorado River Corridor Study (GC) and in the Utah Test and Training Range Study (UTTR) that are also ' present at the NTS (see NTS EIS, Table 4-38). NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .
Scientific Name Common Name GCRI'ITR . YM PMlRM 63. Peraphyllum ramosissimum squawapple X 64. Phragmites australis cane, reed X X 65. Pinus monophvlla Dinvon Dine X X
~ ~ mesquite 66. Prosopis glandulosa X X - -_-- - -
- 67.- Prosopispubescens ------screwbean-- -- ~ X 68. Psorothamnus polydenius dotted dalea X 69. Purshia glandulosa buckbrush X 70. Purshia mexicana cliffrose X
~~ 11 ?1 I Purshin tridentata 1 buckbrush I I 1-x 11 11 72. Quercus gambelii I scruboak I 1x1 x II 73. Rhus aromatica skunkbush, sumac 74. Rhus trilobata var. anisophylla sauawbush 75. Rhus trilobata var. simplicifolia squawbush X 76. Ribes cereum white squaw currant 77. Ribes velutinum desert gooseberry 78. Rosa woodsii woods rose 79. Rumex crispus curly dock, wild rhubarb 80. Salk exigua willow X 81. Salk gooddingii black willow X 82. Salsola iberica Russian thistle x 83. Salvia columbariae chia sage 84. Salvia dorrii purple sage, Indian X 85. Sarcobatus vermiculatus greasewood X 86. Sisymbrium altissimum tumbling mustard 87. Sphaeralcea ambigua globe mallow X 88. Stanleya pinnata Indian spinach X 89. Stephanomeria sp. spinosa spiny wire lettuce, gum X X 90. Stipa speciosa bunchgrass 91. Streptanthella longirostris wild mustard X 92. Streptanthus corahtus wild mustard X 93. Suaeah torreyana seepweed X
94. Symphoricarpos longiflorus' snowberry X
NOTE: American Indian traditional-use plants present in the NTS area are identified in the project reports entitled Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada (YM) (Stoffle et al., 1989b) and Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada Te!t Sire (PM/RM) (Stoffle et al., 1994b). This table includes traditional-use plants identified in the Colorado River Corridor Study (GC) and in the Utah Test and Training Range Study (UTTR) that are also present at the NTS (see NTS EIS, Table 4-38).
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-16 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.STATEMENT
Table G-1. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page 4 of 4)
~ ~___ 107. Yucca schidigera I Mojave yucca ;Spanish X
NOTE: American Indian traditional-use plants present in the NTS area are identified in the project reports entitled Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada (YM) (Stoffle et al., 1989b) and Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada Test Site (PMIRM) (Stoffle et al., 1994b). This table includes traditional-use plants identified in the Colorado River Corridor Study (GC) and in the Utah Test and Training Range Study (UTTR) that are also present at the NTS (see NTS EIS, Table 4-38). NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Table G-2. American Indian traditional-use animals present at the NTS Scientific Name Common name
Alectoris chukar chukar
Ammospermophilus leucurus white-tailed antelope squirrel
Amphispiza bilienata black-throated sparrow
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail
Canis latrans coyote
Cicadidae spp. cicada
Cnemidophorus tigris western whiptail lizard
Canis latrans coyote
Colaptes auratus northern flicker
Crotalus spp. rattlesnake
~ Eutamias dorsalis cliff chipmunk
Felis concolor mountain lion
Felis rufus bobcat
Formicidae formicinae mound-building ant (red and black ant)
Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle
Odocoileus hemionus mule deer P Ovis canadensis bighorn sheep Sauromalus obesus chuckwalla
Svizella breweri Brewer's sparrow
Stagmomantis spp. praying mantis
Sylvilagus spp. cottontail
Vulves velox kit fox Zunaida macroura I mourning dove NOTE: American Indian traditional-use animals are identified in the project report entitled Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada Test Site (Stoffle et al., 1994b). This table presents only a oartial lis1 of traditional-use animals present at the NTS (see I NTS EIS, Table 4-39). To date, no systematic or extensive animal studies have been conducted at the NTS.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-18 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I The CGTO knows that the actions considered in the I therefore, at this time, it is not possible -to I NTS EIS potentially will affect American Indian I completely assess the cultural significance of this I cultural resources within an area roughly bounded I area. I by where these people live today on their traditional I I lands (see Figure G-I). The proposed NTS EIS I G.3.2.1.2 Rock Valley, Section 4.1.10-The actions will have cultural effects within this region I CGTO knows that the Rock Valley hydrographic of influence because of the cultural centrality of I area contains a wide range of important cultural these lands to all three ethnic groups (Western I resources, including plants, animals, archaeological Shoshone, Owens Valley Paiute, and Southern I sites, and minerals. One formal American Indian Paiutes). Within this region of influence, specific I plant study involving tribal elders who are plant actions will have direct local impacts. Ultimately, I experts was conducted in Rock Valley as part of the however, any action that moves the NTS away from I Yucca Mountain Project. A total of 32 medicine or back towards its natural state has influence on all I and food plants in upper Rock Valley were Indian people. I identified as part of the Yucca Mountain Project I ethnobotany study (Stoffle et al., 1989b). Another I The CGTO recognizes that some of the actions I 10 traditional-use plants were identified at the proposed in the NTS EIS will have direct impacts I northeast base of Little Skull Mountain near the on other Indian tribes and organizations. For I divide between Rock Valley and Jackass Flats example, the Project Shoal Area is located on the I (Stoffle et al., 1988a). Some of the important traditional lands of Northern Paiute people. The I animals in the valley include rabbit, turtle, coyote, Eldorado Valley actions potentially impact the I and whiptail lizard, which were used for food, Mohave people. The return of radioactive waste to I ceremony, and eye surgery. Systematic American I the NTS has permitted and potentially will permit I Indian studies of animals and archaeology have not I people like the Alaskan natives to have their lands I been conducted in Rock Valley; therefore, a I restored to a natural state (see Project Chariot I complete assessment of the cultural significance of . I Report, DOEMV, 1994). Therefore, the CGTO I this area is not possible at this time. I defines the No Action Alternative region of I I influence map in an effort to focus on the cultural I G.3.2.1.3 Fortymile Canyon and Jackass Flats, I concerns of those people having traditional ties to I Section 4.1.10-The CGTO knows that the I the NTS itself, but in so doing does not intend to I Fortymile Canyon and Jackass Flats hydrological I preclude the cultural concerns of other Indian ethnic I area contains a wide range of important cultural I groups. I resources, including plants, animals, archaeological I I sites, minerals, and power places. Three formal I G.3.2.1.1 Mercury Valley, Section 4.1.10-The I plant studies were conducted in this area as part of I CGTO knows that the Mercury Valley hydrographic the Yucca Mountain Project; these studies identified I area contains a wide range of important cultural 13 traditional-use plants (Stoffle et al., 1988a). I resources, including plants, animals, and I archaeological sites. This knowledge comes from Fifteen formal ethnoarchaeological studies were I frequent visits by CGTO members to this area. conducted in this area as part of the Yucca I Observed plants in this valley include Indian rice Mountain Project; these studies identified numerous I grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), prince's plume archaeological resources in this area, dating as early I (Stunleyu pinnatu), yucca (Yucca Baccutu), and as Clovis (10,000 years ago) (Stoffle et al., 1989a). I sacred datura (Duturu meteloides). These plants Also present in this area are important minerals, I represent sources of food, fiber, and medicine. which were extracted by Indian people to make I Some important animal resources are rabbit, turtle, tools and other stone artifacts. Traditional quarry I coyote, and chuckwalla. These and other Indian sites and localities are associated with these mineral I cultural resources found in Mercury Valley were resources. At least one power place known to be I and continue to be critical in the lives and culture of I associated with traditional healing ceremonies is I Indian peoples. No systematic American Indian I located in this area. Fortymile Canyon is well- I studies have been conducted in Mercury Valley; I known among Indian people who continue to use
G-19 Volume 1, Appendix G I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OREGON IDAHO
~ -----
CALIFORNIA 1 Benton Paiute Reservation 2 Timbisha Shoshone Reservation 3 Bishop Paiute Shoshone Reservation 4 Big Pine Paiute Shoshone Reservation 5 Fort Independence Paiute Reservation 6 Lone Pine Paiute Reservation 7 Yomba Shoshone Reservation 8 Duckwater Shoshone Reservation 9 Pahrump Paiute Tribe 10 Lss Vegas Paiute Indian Colony 11 Las Vegas Indian Center 12 Chemehuevi Reservation 13 Colorado River Indian Tribes 14 Moapa Pauite Reservation 15 Shivwits (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 16 Cedar City (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 17 Indian Peaks (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 18 Kanosh IPauRe Indian Tribe of Utah) 19 Koosharim (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 50 0 50 100 Miles 20 Kaibab Paiute Reservation 21 Ely Shoshone Tribe P 0 100 Kilometers Source:.. Admted fmrn D'Azevedo. 7986 Range - ~ 50- -__ -7
Figure G-1. American Indian region of influence for the NTS EIS
Volume 1, Appendix G G-20 -
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
either its traditional Shoshone name Dogowyu According to Indian people interviewed in the Hunumpi (Snake Wash) or the Owens Valley name 1930s (Steward, 1938), the Ogwe‘pi District Towuhonupi (Snake Canyon) to describe it. The contained agricultural lands next to springs and I canyon was a significant crossroad where numerous streams in Oasis Valley itself, while the uplands traditional Indian trails from distant places like formed by nearby mountains contributed pine nuts Owens Valley, Death Valley, and the Avawtz and deer to the diet of the Indian people (Stoffle et Mountains came together (Stoffle et al., 1989a). al.. 1990b). The Ogwe’pi District was an important While many American Indian studies have been place for Indian trade and ceremonialism. Mineral conducted in this area, other cultural resources have hot springs were used by Indian people for curing, not been systematically studied. Other needed thus further increasing the cultural importance of studies include rock art (which is called in Southern the Oasis Valley core area. During much of the Paiute rumpituxwinup or literally “storied rocks”) historic period, Indian people continued to live in (Stoffle et al., 1995), power places, and animals. Oasis Valley and use the surrounding uplands of the Ogwe’pi District. Much of the Oasis Valley G.3.2.1.4 Buckboard Mesa, Section 4.1.10 - hydrological basin has not been systematically I The CGTO knows that the Buckboard Mesa studied by American Indian people. Therefore, at hydrological area contains a wide range of this time, it is not possible to fully assess the important cultural resources, including plants, cultural significance of all places in the Oasis I animals, archaeological sites, minerals, and power Valley. I places. Two ethnoarchaeological site visits have been conducted in this area. One study was focused G.3.2.1.6 Gold Flat, Section 4.1.10-The on a power rock and a series of petroglyph panels CGTO knows that the Gold Flat hydrological area located at the southern end of Buckboard Mesa contains a wide range of important cultural (Stoffle et al., 1994a) and the second study included resources including plants, archaeological sites, and a visit to rock shelters containing obsidian nodules, power places. This conclusion is based on artifacts, and Indian rock paintings. To the north of American Indian studies conducted along the Buckboard Mesa is an extensive area of obsidian central and northern portions of Pahute Mesa. nodules which were significant in many ways to These studies identified 42 species of Indian plants Indian people. Scrugham Peak, a volcanic cone, found in this area (Stoffle et al., 1994b). American was preliminarily identified by Indian people as a Indian archaeological studies in this area document place of traditional power and ceremony. A full the presence of living areas, food and tool cultural assessment of this place and its role in the processing areas, burial sites, and power places. Buckboard Mesa area awaits systematic American Initial animal studies indicate the presence of Indian traditional cultural property studies. While culturally significant species, such as hawks and some American Indian studies have been conducted eagles. At this time, it is not possible to make a full I in this area, only a few archaeological sites have cultural assessment of this hydrological area been assessed. There have been no systematic because only the Pahute Mesa has been studied and studies of plants, animals, and traditional cultural additional studies are planned to assess rock art and properties. traditional cultural properties.
G.3.2.1.5 Oasis Valley, Section 4.1.10-The G.3.2.1.7 Kawich Valley, Section 4.1.10-The I CGTO knows that the Oasis Valley hydrologic area CGTO knows that the Kawich Valley hydrological is a part of the agricultural core area of a much area contains a wide range of important Indian larger Indian district called Ogwe’pi by the Indian cultural resources, including plants, animals, people who used this farming, gathering, and archaeological sites, and places of both power and medicine area. The cultural significance of the ceremony. This knowledge comes from a series of Ogwe’pi District is well established by document systematic American Indian studies on Pahute Mesa research (Stoffle et al., 1988b), one plant area study, regarding plants and animals and by selected I one archaeological study area (Stoffle et al., 1994a), observations by individual Indian people. A total of and by interviews conducted, during the 1930s. 42 plants were identified from 6 plant locations,
6-21 Volume 1, Appendix G I3 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
36 of which are still used today (Stoffle et al., valleys have similar levels of cultural significance. 1994b). Interviews with Indian expeits about No systematic Indian studies have been conducted an'imals indicated a number of culturally significant in Emigrant Valley, so a complete cultural species, including hawks and eagles, and-a unique assessment is not possible at this time. species of ant valued as both food and medicine. Archaeological studies at sites indicate the presence G.3.2.1.9 Yucca Flat, Section 4.1.10-The of living areas and places where food and plants I CGTO knows that the Yucca Hat hydrological area
were processed (Stoffle et a]., 1994b). Kawich contains a wide variety------of culturally- important_ - - .. - Valley-containsan-impofi-~t-triil-Ged within fie - Indian resources, including plants, animals, current memory of Indian people. Members of the I archaeological sites, rock paintings, and ceremonial Kawich family visited this area and recounted areas. Systematic American Indian studies have family memories of Kawich Valley and the use of been conducted along the southern rim and base of Pahute Mesa. Individual Indian people identified Rainier Mesa, in the Eleana Range, on the places in Gold Meadows where places of power and northeastern flank of Shoshone Mountain and along ceremony traditionally occurred, but no systematic the western edge of Yucca Flat itself. Plant studies interviews on this issue have been conducted. The indicate that 2 species are located in the more arid I CGTO has recommended that the Gold Meadows lowlands, 13 species at Tippipah Spring, 21 species area be set aside for special protection and use by at Captain Jack Spring, 11 species at White Rock Indian people because of the concentration and Spring, and 4 species on the mesa rim (Stoffle et al., variety of Indian cultural resources it contains. The . 1988a). The few interviews with Indian people cultural significance of the entire Kawich Valley about animals observed in this area do indicate that hydrological area cannot be assessed at this time many significant animals are present, including because studies have been limited to Pahute Mesa mountain lion, deer, and hawks. The area is and because both traditional cultural properties and archaeologically complex with major camps located animal studies are planned for the area. at permanent springs and food and tool processing places scattered throughout the area. All the springs G.3.2.1.8 Emigrant Valley, Section 4.1.10-The in this area were permanent Indian camps. I CGTO knows that the Emigrant Valley hydrological White Rock Spring, Toshatirnbibah, had a major area contains a wide variety of important cultural settlement call Tunava in the late 1880s and was a resources, including plants, animals, and central place for interethnic gatherings. Indian archaeological sites because it is next to people came to these ceremonies from distant Gold Meadows and Rainier Mesa areas communities. These ceremonies included major (Stoffle et a]., 1994b). Indian people have annual rabbit drives and dances that lasted up to a requested access to this area but have not been month (Steward, 1938). This spring was the home permitted to either visit or conduct systematic of a regional chief whose name was Wangagwana interviews here; therefore, all current information (Steward, 1938). The White Rock Spring was about this area derives from recorded and occupied by Indian people until the 1930s and used unrecorded Indian oral history. It is known that an until the mid-1950s after the NTS was officially Indian man who received the Anglo name Panamint withdrawn from public use. The cultural Joe Stuart was from the Belted Range, which is the significance of the western portion of this western boundary of the Emigrant Valley (Steward, hydrological area is well established; however, no 1938). Steward's Indian interviews conducted in studies have been conducted in the central, eastern, the 1930s indicated that, in the late 1800s, there and southern portions of this area. Because were 15 known locations of Indian camps in the additional American Indian studies are planned and Belted Range (Steward, 1938). Steward's some areas have not been studied, a full cultural interviews revealed that the Indian people of these zissessment of this area is not possible at this time. Belted Range villages associated with the Indian people in the Kawich Range to the east and the G.3.2.1.10 Frenchman Flat, Section 4,l.lO-The Beatty people to the southwest. These data support CGTO knows that the Frenchman Flat hydrological I the tentative conclusion of the AIWS that the two area contains a wide variety of plants, animals, and
m3> Vo; 1, Appendix G 6-22
~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I archaeological sites of cultural importance to Indian involvement of Indian people in these traditional people. Systematic studies of both plants and lands. These were among the last areas lived in archaeology sites have been conducted in the west- before Indian people were forced out of the area to central portion of this area. A total of 20 plant live on more distant Indian reservations. As a result species were identified at 2 plant study locations, of oral history, Indian people know there are various with 2 species identified on a flat area near the types of cultural resources located in this study area, eastern flank of Mt. Sayler and another 18 species but cannot provide site-specific information about identified at Cane Spring (Stoffle et al., 1988a). A these areas at this time. No Indian people officially complete cultural assessment of this area is not I representing the CGTO have visited the possible at this time because past studies were Double Tracks Test Area or any otherportion of the geographically and topically restricted. NAFR Complex, although such interviews have been requested and one initial meeting with an G.3.2.1.11 Tonopah Test Range, Section 4.1.10- NAFR Complex archaeologist has occurred. The CGTO knows that the Tonopah Test Range Therefore, it is not possible to fully assess the contains significant cultural resources, including cultural significance of the Double Tracks Test Area plants, animals, archaeological sites, and places of at this time. historic value to Indian people. This is known from Indian interviews conducted in the 1930s (Steward, G.3.2.1.13 Area 13, Section 4.2.10-The 1938) and from recent plant, animal, and I CGTO knows that Area 13 contains significant archaeology studies conducted south of this area in cultural resources, including plants, animals, comparable environments (Stoffle et al., 1990b, I archaeological sites and places of historic value to 1994a and b). These studies document long-term Indian people. This is known from Indian and extensive involvement of Indian people in these interviews conducted in the 1930s (Steward, 1938) traditional lands. These were among the last areas and recent plant, animal, and archaeology studies lived in before Indian people were forced out of the conducted south of this area in comparable area to live on more distant Indian reservations. As environments (Stoffle et al., 1990b, 1994a and b). a result of oral history, Indian people know there are These studies document long-term and extensive various types of cultural resources located in this involvement of Indian people in these traditional study area, but cannot provide site-specific lands, These were among the last areas lived in information at this time. No Indian people officially before Indian people were forced out of the area to representing the CGTO have visited the Tonopah live on more distant Indian reservations. As a result Test Range or any other portion of the Nellis of oral history, Indian people know there are various Air Force Range (NAFR) Complex, although such types of cultural resources located in this study area, interviews have been requested and one initial but cannot provide site-specific information about meeting with an NAFR Complex archaeologist has I these areas at this time. No official representatives occurred. Therefore, it is not possible to fully I of the CGTO have visited Area 13 or any other assess the cultural significance of the portion of the NAFR Complex, although such Tonopah Test Range at this time. interviews have been requested and one initial meeting with an NAFR Complex archaeologist has G.3.2.1.12 Nellis Air Force Range Complex, occurred. Therefore, it is not possible to fully Section 4.1.10-The CGTO knows that the assess the cultural significance of Area 13 at this Double Tracks Test Area contains significant time. cultural resources, including plants, animals, archaeological sites, and places of historic value to G.3.2.2 Project Shoal Area, Section 4.3.10. This Indian people. This is known from Indian study area is not within the traditional lands of the interviews conducted in the 1930s (Steward, 1938) I Indian people represented by the CGTO. It is and from recent plant, animal, and archaeology I recommended by the CGTO that the DOE EIS team studies conducted south of this area in comparable directly contact Indian tribes and organizations environments (Stoffle et al., 1990b, 1994a and b). having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. These studies document long-term and extensive The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute,
G-23 Volume 1, Appendix G 33 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake and in Dry Lake Valley (Brooks et al., 1975). Previous Lovelock Paiute. studies have been geographically limited, so a complete cultural assessment of the Dry Lake G.3.2.3 Central Nevada Test Area, Valley is not possible without visiting other portions I Section 4.4.10. The CGTO knows that there are a of the valley. variety of cultural resources contained in the Central Nevada Test Area. Information about this area G.3.2.5 EMorado Valley, Section 4.5.10. The comes from previous ethnographic research I CGTO knows that the Eldorado Valley study area -(Steward71 93 8)-and-recent-archaeology-reports- -contains-a-wide-variety-of-cultural-resources,. - (Edwards and Johnson, 1994). The areacontains a including plants, animals, and archaeological sites. number of cultural resources of special interest to This knowledge is derived from previous American I the CGTO. These include (1) hot springs, (2) a cold Indian cultural resource studies of the area spring, (3) petroglyph panels, and (4) more than conducted during the Harry Allen-Warner Valley I 100 archaeological sites. Earlier archaeological (Bean and Vane, 1979) and Intermountain Power research conducted by the University of Nevada Project (Stoffle and Dobyns, 1982; Stoffle, 1983) Las Vegas collected between 20,000 to 30,000 studies of Indian concerns along various proposed artifacts. The simple fact that so many artifacts power line routes and the Ivanpah Generating were recovered from this small area indicated the Station Study (Bean and Vane, 1982) conducted in long-term involvement of Indian people with this a neighboring valley. Identified Indian plants I site. The CGTO has requested the opportunity to include creosote (Larrea fridentata),desert trumpet visit the area as part of this EIS in order to more (Erigonum inflaturn), and Indian tea (Nevada fully understand its cultural significance. Until this ephedra). Indian animals include bighorn sheep site visit occurs, it is impossible to more fully assess (Ovis canadensis), desert tortoise (Gopherus the cultural significance of this area. agassizii), and speckled rattlesnake (Croatalus mitchellii). The valley is a theme of-songs that are G.3.2.4 Dry Lake Valley, Section 4.6.10. The sung at funerals and also in the Cry Ceremonial. I CGTO knows that the Dry Lake Valley area There are both spiritual and physical Indian trails contains a wide range of important cultural associated with this valley. Eldorado Valley trails resources. This knowledge derives from previous were used by Pahrump and Las Vegas Paiutes to American Indian cultural resource studies of the travel to places along the Colorado River, especially area conducted during the Harry Allen-Warner Cottonwood Island. Traditional Indian trails are a Valley (Bean and Vane, 1979) and the significant Indian cultural resource because they Intermountain Power Project (Stoffle and Dobyns, were both physical and spiritual paths (Latrd, 1976). 1982; Stoffle et al., 1983) studies of Indian The Ivanpah Generating Station Study concluded I concerns along various proposed power line routes. that the MuCullough Mountains (which defines the These power line study areas were located in the western edge of Eldorado Valley) are of much bottom and along the eastern edge of Dry Lake concern to Indian people, both Southern Paiute and Valley. During these studies, elders identified a Mohave. According to the Ivanpah study, these wide range of plants, animals, and archaeological Indian people have trails, sacred sites, plants, and sites within this valley. A 1982 mail survey of animals of cultural importance in the MuCullough Indian people indicated an “Intensity of Concern” Mountains, the associated Eldorado Valley, and in score of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale (Stoffle and Dobyns, the Eldorado Mountains (Bean and Vane, 1982). A I 1982). A 1983 on-site visit to the Dry Lake Valley 1975 study of the Navajo-McCullough transmission 1 I area indicated numerous rock shelters that Indian line right-of-way further indicates the presence of people considered very significant and the presence traditional-use plants, early Pinto Series-style of 10 Indian plants (Stoffle et al., 1983). The projectile points, numerous lithic scatters, and cultural assessment of the Navajo-McCullough grinding stone fragments that are related to the seed right-of-way indicated the presence of eight plants gathering activities possibly of the later Paiute identified elsewhere as American Indian plants, peoples (Brooks et al., 1975). Previous studies have numerous archaeological sites, and artifact scatters been geographically limited to a few places within
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-24
~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Eldorado Valley or in neighboring areas, so a I Rocks can also be self-willing, inasmuch as they complete cultural assessment of the Eldorado Valley I can reveal.themselves to people and act on people. is not possible without visiting other portions of the I Crystals, for example have a self-willing, animate valley with Indian people. I power and will reveal themselves to a person whom I they desire to be with. If this person picks them up, G.3.2.6 Coyote Spring Valley, Section 4.7.10. I the person will have great luck. The luck, however, Coyote Spring Valley is an area on the west flank of I is taken away from others and eventually people I the Meadow Valley Mountains. The CGTO knows I will come to recognize this fact and single out the that this site contains a wide variety of I excessively lucky person as having used some American Indian cultural resources. The site was I nonhuman power at the expense of his or her studied by Indian people during the Intermountain I people. Usually the person takes the crystal back to Power Project (IPP) (Stoffle and Dobyns, 1982). I where it had revealed itself and returns it with an Nine Indian-use plants were identified during that I explanation of why it was being returned. I on-site visit, including white bursage (Ambrosia I dumosa), four-winged saltbush (Atriplex I Radioactivity was interpreted as being the angry canescens), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), desert I action of a powerful rock that had been quarried trumpet (Eriogonum infatum), matchweed I without its permission and had its power used for (Gutierreziamicrocephalu), range ratany (Krameria I purposes it did not agree to. Now the remains of the parvifolia), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), I rock (radioactive waste) is angry and it is taking its prince’s plume (Stanleya pinnata), and Wolfbeny I anger out on things around it. Plants, animals, (Lycium andersonii) (Stoffle and Dobyns, 1982). I people, water, and even the air itself can be hurt or The large. desert tortoise was observed at this I even killed by the radiation from the angry rock. location. .The area contains portions of an original I Indian people express the belief that past radiation Indian trail-wagon road from Moapa Valley to I releases have contaminated plants and animals Pahranagat Valley. Archaeological survey of the traditionally used for foods and medicines. IPP corridor revealed 9 sites and 20 scattered finds Spiritual people believe that they can see and feel (Tucker et al., 1982). Known Indian cultural radiation, that it has unique colors. This is why they resources exist in the Coyote Spring Valley area, can neither eat nor collect some plants, animals, and but it is impossible to fully understand the potential minerals in some areas. It is now impossible for impacts to cultural resources without additional Indian people to go to certain places, do certain systematic on-site resource studies by Indian people. ceremonies, and eat certain foods because radiation from the angry rock has been released. I G.3.3 Occupational and Public Health and I Safetymadiation Air: Living and Dead - Indian people express the I belief that the air is alive. There are different kinds I Indian people believe that various perceived risks of air with different names in Indian language. The I are present and occur as a result of DOE activities. Creator puts life into the air which is shared by all I Although there are no Indian words for terms such living things. When a child is born, they pull in the I as radiation in the Indian language, early air to begin its life. The mother watches carefully to I ethnographic studies supported by the DOE make sure that the first breath is natural and that I documented a traditional view of radioactivity that there is no obstruction in the throat. It is believed centers on the perception by Indian elders of that if the day of birth is a windy day, it is a good radiation being produced by an angry rock (Stoffle day and the child will have a good life. According I et al., 1989a). Briefly this view is as follows: to one elder: I I Rocks have power. It is recognized that some rocks “The seasons-like winter, spring, summer, and I have more or different power than others. Breaking fall-they’re all important when a child comes into I a rock or removing it from its place without fully the world because their spirit is tied in with the I explaining these actions not only releases the power harvest, or hunt; they say that it gets kinda like into I inherent in the rock, but also angers the rock. their blood and they become hunters or farmers.
6-25 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I You can listen to the wind, the wind talks to you. I with retrospective assessment of the risks that were I Things happen in nature. Our people had weather I involved by being close to the blasts and from using I watchers, who are kinds of people who will know I 'the natural resources in the area. Indian people I when crops and things should be done. They watch I continued to regularly enter the NTS to hunt and I the different elements in nature and pray to ask the I collect long after atomic testing began. Today, the I winds to come and talk about these things. I eyewitnesses are elders talking about when they I Sometimes you ask the north wind to come down I were younger in the 1950s. A few of these accounts I and cool the weather. The north wind is asked to I are provided in order to explain to non-Indian - - __ - ~___ ~ .~ - __ I -blow away the footsteps of thepeople who-hxe I people' the-IniiatTperception-of risk-derived from- I passed on to the afterlife. That kind of wind helps I these experiences. I people, it is positive. The wind also brings you I I songs and messages. Sometimes the messages are I A Western Shoshone woman, who still lives near I about healing people, a sign that the sickness is I the NTS, recounted her memories of being a young I gone now from the person, or that it is coming to I woman during the blasts. According to her: I get that sickness to take it away, or it is coming to I I bring you the strength that you need to deal with I "After the bombs (aboveground atomic explosions), I the illness. '' I my people (Shoshonepeople) would kill the animals I I in the area andfind something wrong with them. I But air can be destroyed by radiation that has I They would kill a deer, but when the hide was I been released by the angry rock, thus causing I skinned off it would just pull apart. When they saw I pockets of dead air. There is only so much alive air I the mushrooms going up (atomic bomb blasts), they I which surrounds the world. If you kill the living I knew something was bad. The people (my family I air, it is gone forever and cannot be restored. Dead I and others) were in the mountains picking pine nuts I air lacks the spirituality and life necessary to I when one of the blasts went off; it felt like an I support other life forms. Airplanes crash when they I earthquake. I was there, about 8,000 feet. The I hit dead air. One member of the CGTO compared I little animals ran away. The old people looked up I this Indian view of killing air with what happens I into the swaying trees and asked what would I when a jet flies through the air and consumes all of I happen to those little (bird) nests up there. We I the oxygen, producing a condition where another jet I Indian people do not go up in the trees, so we will I cannot fly through the air. The atomic blast I not disturb the birds. I consumes the oxygen like the jet, killing the air. I I While this comparison of the Western science view I After some of the blasts occurred, the old people I of dead air from burning seems close to the Indian I told us not to pick the pine nuts offthe ground, so I perspective, the latter has a "life force" component I after that time we just took the green cones from the I that makes killing air more significant than just I trees. This made fewer pine nuts available to us. I consuming its natural components. I Lots of animals seemed different after the blasts. I I The migrating birds did not come through after I Some Indian people who were present during the I that. The rabbits, of which we were eating a lot at I aboveground atomic blasts believe that the sickness I that time, were not right. We developed a way to I they have today came from the radiation. To some I test themfor sores. Many rabbits we could not even I of these people, the effects of the radiation were in I skin properly, the skin would just fall apart. The I addition to what happened when the air itself was I chuckwallas and tortoises disappeared, like the I killed. Some elders today say that even when the I migrating birds. The old people told us that the I plants survive the effects of radiation, the dead air I plants are not maturing properly, so the tortoises I killed them or made them lose their power, their I and chuckwallas are dying. Both the Indian women I spiritual power to heal things. I and the Indian cattle lost their unborn children I I (through miscarriage) at this time. I BLAST RADIATION-The aboveground atomic I I detonations were witnessed by many Indian people. I Many of the essential plants were affected by the I Today, these Indian eyewitness accounts are told I blasts, either directly or because the rain wouM not
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-26 ?+ I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I come. Those old basket makers would say the I are afraid of many things and places in this whole I willows were really brittle afrer that, they were hard I area, but we still love to come out and see our land. I and would not split easily. Even the greasewood I We worry about more radiation being brought to I became bad too-it is related to the tortoises and I this land.” I the playas (dry lakestthe Shoshone songs sing I I about the tortoises and the greasewood together. I If the DOE wants to better understand our feelings I The old ones would say that when the plants go I about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they I away, it (what we need to live) will not be there for I should support a study of risks from radiation I us anymore. So, we will go away too. One elder is I designed, conducted and produced by the CGTO. I remembered as saying, “What will become of us?“ I At this time there has not been a systematic study of I You know they (the elders) would talk like that I American Indians perceptions of risk. Therefore, it I when they saw what was changing around them. I is not possible to provide action-by-action I I estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe I A Southern Paiute man remembered his mother I it is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that I (who is still living) telling him stories of the atomic I Indian people may better address the actual cultural I blasts and their effects on plants and animals. His I impacts of proposed DOE actions. There have been I mother would travel with her family to hunt and I recent workshops funded by the National Science I gather plants. They (old Paiutes) say that the deer I Foundation to understand how to research the I would come down over the Bare Mountains and I special issue of culturally-based risk perception I collapse. People would eat other deer that they had I among American Indian communities, and at least I killed for themselves, but when they tried to make I one major project has been funded. Although this I clothing out of the hides, the hides would fall apart. I is a relatively new topic of research, it is one that I Plants in the area don’t grow as big anymore and I can be more fully understood by research that I were not preferred because they lost some of their I deeply involves the people being considered. To I power as food and medicine. I understand our view of radiation is to begin to I I understand why we responded in certain ways to I A Southern Paiute woman recounted the story of I past and present, and why we will continue to I one of her tribal elders who personally experienced I respond to future DOE activities. I the blasts. This elder currently lives on the I I Colorado River Indian Reservation hundreds of I 6.3.4 Environmental Justice and Equity I miles to the south of the NTS, thus again I I reinforcing the need to talk with Indian people I Federal agencies are directed by Executive I regardless of where they live today. (Name I Order 12898 to detect and mitigate potentially I withheld) is a 78 year old Chemehuevi woman who I disproportionately high and adverse human health I lived in this area when she was young. She was I or environmental effects of its planned programs, I here when the blasting occurred and she I policies, and activities to promote nondiscrimination I remembers the white flashes. She has vivid I among various populations in the United States. I recollections of seeing all of this and now that she I The CGTO knows of three violations of this act that I is older, she has cancer and is real afraid. She I have derived from past NTS programs, policies, and I feels good when she comes to the NTS as part of the I activities. These are (1) holy land violations, CGTO studies, but she is real afraid of the rocks I (2) health violations, and (3) cultural survival- and the plants because of what has happened. She I access violations. Evidence for each of these says what happened to them, happened to her. violations varies. There is no question that only the I holy lands of Indian peoples have been, continue to Perceptions such as these are well known among be, and will be impacted by NTS actions. There is the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute and Owens no question that only Indian people have lost Valley Paiute people of this region. These cultural traditions because they have been denied perceptions of risks from radiation are frightening, access to places on the NTS where ceremonies need and remain an important part of our lives. We will I to occur, where plants need to be gathered, and always carry these thoughts with us. Today, people where animals need to be hunted in a traditional
G-27 Volume 1, Appendix G 31 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
way. There is no scientific evidence, and there have experienced, and will continue to experience, never will be, to completely document the physical breakdowns in the process of cultural transmission health risks of Indian people deriving from NTS- due to lack of access to NTS lands and resources. produced radioactivity. Indian people have such No other people have experienced similar cultural -poor health care and there are so few of them that it survival impacts due to lack of access to the NTS. is difficult, if not impossible, to establish the I Recently, the DOE has accepted a CGTO collective health impacts of radiation. Studies of recommendation to open access for American how Indian people perceive themselves to be at risk Indians who must conduct their traditional __ - - - from- radioactivity- and-what -social--and cultural- - ceremonies-and obtain resources-within NTS-lan'ds,- impacts derived from these risk perceptions can be provided that these lands are not contaminated; conducted, but these have not been conducted. areas set aside for Indian use would be cleaned up. Unfortunately, land disturbance and irreparable G.3.4.1 Holy Land Violations. American Indian . contamination of the soil and underground water people who belong to the CGTO consider the NTS may render many locations unusable. lands to be central in their lives today as these lands have been since the creation of these people. The To date, a systematic evaluation of traditional places NTS lands are part of the holy lands of Owens within the NTS has not been made by Indian Valley Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Southern people; therefore, no specific statements about Paiute peoples. These holy lands have been access to particular locations can be made at this polluted and their resources damaged by long-term time. An important exception is the activities involving radioactive materials. The I recommendation of the CGTO that the Gold CGTO perceives that the past, present, and future I Meadows area be set aside for exclusive Indian use pollution of these holy lands constitutes both because it contains a concentration of important Environmental Justice and equity violations. No cultural resources. The DOE/NV has acknowledged other people have had their holy lands impacted by the importance of this area to Indian people and will NTS-related environmental pollution and damage. make every effort to protect it.
G.3.4.2 Health Violations. The lives and health of American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land Indian people who have occupied this area since violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and their creation have been seriously threatened by I (3) cultural survival especially access violations. continued exposure to radioactivity. This threat is not limited to Indian people who live in the These concerns are discussed in Section 4.1.10, immediate vicinity of the NTS and use its resources Cultural Resources, and Section 4.1.1 1, on a regular basis, but extends to those Indian Occupational and Public Health and SafetyMadiation. people who share resources that have been collected on the NTS region. Indian people fear the I There has not been a systematic study of these continuous invisible peril of radioactive I issues for any of the areas examined in this EIS. contamination and its cumulative effects on future I The CGTO maintains that past, present and future Indian generations. These Indian people have I activities on the NTS have, are, or will experienced, and will continue to experience, health I disproportionately impact the American Indian effects and perceived risks from NTS radioactivity. I people. The CGTO should be funded to design, I conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian G.3.4.3 Cultural Survival - Access Violations. I Environmental Justice study, before new activities One of the most detrimental consequences of NTS I are approved. . operations for the survival of American Indian I culture, religion, and society has been the denial of I G.3.4.4 Tonopah Test Range. Indian concerns access to their traditional lands and resources. Loss I include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived of access to traditional foodstuffs and medicine I risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, have greatly contributed to undermining the cultural I especially access violations. There has not been a well-being of Indian people. These Indian people I systematic study of these issues for the Tonopah
Volume 1, Appendix G G-28 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Test Range. The CGTO maintains that past, I past activities in the Eldorado Valley have impacted I present and future activities on the Tonopah Test I these American Indian Environmental Justice issues, I Range have, are, or will disproportionately impact I especially Holy Land violations. The CGTO should I these American Indian Environmental Justice I be funded to design, conduct, and produce a I issues. The CGTO should be funded to design, I systematic American Indian Environmental Justice I conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian I study before new activities are approved. I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I I are approved. I G.3.4.8 Dry Lake Valley, Section 4.6.12. I I American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I G.3.4.5 Project Shoal Area, Section 4.3.12. I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I There has not been a systematic study of these issues I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I for the Dry Lake Valley. The CGTO maintains that I There has not been systematic study of these issues I past activities in the Dry Lake Valley have impacted I for the Project Shoal Area site. I these American Indian Environmental Justice issues, I I especially Holy Land violations. Any activities I This study area is not within the traditional lands of I occumng near Indian reservations further precludes I the American Indian people represented by the I future opportunities for expansion and access to these I CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be funded I DOE NTS EIS team directly contact American I to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I Indian tribes and organizations having traditional I American Indian Environmental Justice study before I lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following I new activities are approved. I tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River I I Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I G.3.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley, Section 4.7.12. I I American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I G.3.4.6 Central Nevada Test Area, Section 4.4.12. I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I American Indian Environmental Justice concerns I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks I There has not been a systematic study of these issues I from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially I for the Coyote Spring Valley. The CGTO maintains I access violations. There has not been a systematic I that past activities in the Coyote Spring Valley have I study of these issues for the Central Nevada Test I impacted these American Indian Environmental I Area. The CGTO maintains that past, present and I Justice issues, especially Holy Land violations. This I future activities on the Central Nevada Test Area I area was traditional lands for Southern Paiutes, I have, are, or will impact these American Indian I especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities I Environmental Justice issues. Even though the I occumng near Indian reservations further precludes I CGTO has not been permitted to visit the area, the I future opportunities for expansion and access to these I area is especially important due to the concentration I lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be funded I of cultural resources. Therefore, this area provides a 1 to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I special opportunity for the DOE to undue past I American Indian Environmental Justice study before I Environmental Justice impacts. The CGTO should be I new activities are approved. I funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I I American Indian Environmental Justice study, before I G.3.5 Outline of Social and Economic Issues I new activities are approved. I I I G.3.5.1 American Indian Region of Influence. I G.3.4.7 Eldorado Valley, Section 4.5.12. I Within this region of influence, there also are several I American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I Indian reservations, tribal enterprises, tribally I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I controlled schools, tribal police departments, and I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I tribal emergency response units. The following I There has not been a systematic study of these issues I reservations are located within the designated region I for the Eldorado Valley. The CGTO maintains that I of influence: Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Las Vegas
G-29 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Paiute Tribe, Moapa Paiute Tribe, and the Yomba Indian students and non-Indian students from nearby I Shoshone Tribe. In addition, there are tribes which communities. This program is funded through the I are located geographically outside of the region of Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, which operates I influence, but are potentially impacted by NTS Headstart sites elsewhere in Nevada. Indian students I activities. One of these tribes is the Timbisha also attend non-Indian public schools. I Shoshone Tribe, based in Death Valley, California. I I I This tribe is actually located closer to the NTS than I G.3.5.3 Farming and Ranching. The NTS
- - -. - I many towns in northern Nye County. As a I contains__ __ valuable______resources--~- for Ameri-cw- Indian- consequence of -this proximity, people-from We- - I economy that were lost not only to Euroamerican 1 I Timbisha Shoshone Tribe are a part of the social and I encroachment but also to land withdrawal, pollution, I economic region of influence of the NTS. For I and radioactive contamination. The NTS is in a I example, students from the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe I desert region where water is the most crucial source. I attend public school in Beatty, Nevada, whereas I Springs located within the NTS and in its immediate I many Shoshone students from Tacopa, California, I vicinity were the place of Indian settlement and I attend school in Pahrump, Nevada. Timbisha tribal I traditional farming until the first half of this century. I members work and shop in Clark and Nye counties. I Although much of the well-watered land in the I I aboriginal territory was lost to Euroamerican settlers, I The Pahrump Paiute Tribe, located in Pahrump I by the turn of the century American Indian families I Valley, is composed of Indian people who have been I owned small farms in the area both for their own I historically recognized by state and federal agencies I consumption and for commercial purposes. I as qualified to receive services as Indian people, and I Livestock was also a part of the Indian economy. I who as a group are currently seeking federal I Foodstuffs and stock forage were grown and sold by I acknowledgment. I Indian people to supplement wage labor (Stoffle et I I al., 1990a). With decreased access to spring and I G.3.5.2 American Indian Education. Under I agricultural fields, and with some pollution of land I federal and tribal law, American Indian children can I and water, traditional Indian farming was seriously I be educated in tribally controlled and federally I impacted. I certified schools located on Indian reservations. I I Federal funds are available through the Indian I G.3.5.4 Mining. American Indian people played a I Education Act for the education of Indian children. I major role in the development of mining in the region I Compensation from the federal government is I of the NTS. Many local American Indians were I provided to any school district that has entered into a I active prospectors on their own behalf, locating their I cooperative agreement with federally recognized I own mining claims. Many of the producing mines in I tribes, whether it be public, private, or an I southern Nye County, for example, were located by I Indian-controlled school. I local American Indian people, whose knowledge of I I minerals had been developed throughout centuries of I One tribally controlled elementary school is in Nye I mineral collecting. The NTS was one of the areas I County. It is operated by the Duckwater Shoshone I where Indian people conducted their mining I Tribe. In 1995, the school had 32 students enrolled I activities. Several American Indian people guided I from preschool to 8th grade, who were taught by I Euroamerican prospectors to valuable ore deposits, I 3 full-time certified teachers; these included I providing them with transportation, food and I 2 certified elementary teachers, 2 teaching assistants, I lodging, and teaching them about minerals, water I 1 preschool teacher, and 1 teacher under Chapter 1 I resources and trails. Yet, American Indians were not I Program. Using these numbers, the student-to- I made equal partners in mineral development as they I teacher ratio was 10.66:1 (Duckwater Shoshone I may have expected and may have been promised Tribe, 1996). I (Stoffle et al., 1990a). Perhaps because mining was I seen as a primarily Euroamerican economic activity, A tribally operated Headstart Program is located on I the rights of American Indians to claim mines was the Moapa Paiute Indian reservation. The program is I never made explicit. Mining was further precluded open to all eligible preschool students. Both included I when the NTS land was withdrawn. Thus,
Volume 1, Appendix G G-30 ~
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Euroamerican settlers began a process that was G.4 Environmental Consequences I continued by the withdrawal of NTS lands. I This section contains the overall and integrated I G.3.5.5 Political Integration and Community responses of the CGTO to five categories of actions. I Cohesion. The process of fragmentation of Indian These have been packaged into the . categories: I nations into small, increasingly isolated communities (1) Defense Program, (2) Waste Management I began with Euroamerican settlement and continued Program, (3) Environmental Restoration Program, I with the withdrawal of NTS lands. The loss of (4) Nondefense Research and Development Program, I cohesion has lowered the ability of Indian people to and (5) Work for Others Program. This section I (1) negotiate, (2) resolve conflicts, (3) keep peace, provides a summary of each project and a general I and (4) share resources. The White Rock Spring response by the CGTO which includes at least one I area was traditionally where all activities promoting recommended action. I community cohesion and political integration took I place. When Indian people were denied access to Defense Program. The Defense Program involves ’ I White Rock Spring, they lost a central place shared actions that range from complying with the nuclear I by the three ethnic groups. Without this central weapons test moratorium of 1991 that precludes new I place, the three ethnic groups did not meet as often. underground nuclear testing to maintaining a state of I Eventually, the lack of contact weakened interethnic readiness to resume unlimited nuclear tests if so .I relationships and, to some extent, caused an overall instructed by Congress. The CGTO believes that I loss of political power and skills among the groups. any future nuclear testing will continue to adversely I The political strength of the three ethnic groups, to impact American Indian cultural resources. Studies I some extent, has been restored with the NTS have shown that nuclear testing has caused rock I American Indian consultation program, which has shelters and petroglyph panels to be destroyed when I provided the opportunity for the three ethnic groups the edges of rock outcrops break off due to ground I to meet on a regular basis, work together, find vibrations generated by the test (Stoffle et al., I common ground, and speak with one voice. 1994b). Studies have shown that plants have been I removed so that roads, power lines, drill pads, and I G.3.5.6 Waste Transportation and Tribal water ponds can be built as part of constructing the I Enterprises. Other major concerns of the CGTO are underground test chambers. Indian people express I the impact and cumulative effects of NTS operations the opinion that some plants have been polluted due I on the tribal economy, particularly regarding the to releases of radioactivity from underground tests. I issue of radioactive waste being transported across Indian people also express the opinion that some I reservation lands. To date, only minimal efforts have plants are dying or do not flourish because they are been made to investigate socioeconomic impacts of not being prayed for (“talked to”) and used in a NTS actions on Indian tribes and organizations. traditional manner by Indian people. Indian people Ongoing research by the AIWS on such effects express the concern that animals and their habitat suggests, for example, that continued or increased have been harmed by underground tests. Indian transportation is detrimental to the economic success people express concern that future underground tests of tribal-owned businesses and may increase the will continue to crack the earth, releasing value of insurance policies. Currently, there are no radioactivity into the large underground water compensation measures planned nor mitigation systems who are themselves alive, as well as being a efforts taken by the federal government to improve basis for all other life and a part of the earth itself. the socioeconomic problems of tribes and Many Indian people indicated that they were organizations directly affected by NTS operations. emotionally and spiritually troubled by ground- Similarly, no efforts have been made to distribute disturbing activities and underground nuclear tests. equally the benefits and losses caused by NTS Even in areas where American Indian studies have operations among Indian and non-Indian populations. occurred, there have not been studies of petroglyphs, power places, or cultural landscapes. Some areas have not been studied at all. It is not possible to
G-31 . Volume 1, Appendix G
I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
completely assess the potential impacts of future participate in a formal study of this issue. Indian underground tests on these cultural resources. people have not studied the cultural impacts of siting any of the existing waste facilities. So, Indian people Another major component of the Defense Program would like to become a part of a retrospective involves construction of a tritium production and assessment of these facilities, as well as to participate recycling facility, expanding stockpile management in the assessment of siting all new waste facilities. responsibility, storage and disposal of weapons- I The CGTO recommends that adequate funds and usable fissile materials, and counterproliferation time be provided so that Indian p3ople can conduct . .- -~ - -- .- - - --I -Ese_ach_ _and_-development.- - - -The - CGTO- -has- sy stiiiiiiitic~di~-o~-~~~e-management programs. I insufficient information and understanding of these issues to make a complete assessment of their Environmental Restoration Program. The impacts on cultural resources. There are some Environmental Restoration Program involves actions observations that can be made at this time. The NTS that would return disturbed land to its natural is a holy area that is central to these Indian people. In condition. Up to 1,800 monitoring wells and access general, the more fearful activities that occur here and roads are a part of this effort. All alternatives involve the more ground disturbance that occurs, the more some environmental restoration and monitoring; cultural risks will be involved if Indian people use however, Alternative 3 would require more these lands. The more such activities occur on these restoration because it would disturb more land. lands, the longer and more difficult it will be to Indian people believe that the natural condition of the restore these lands to their natural condition. land existed before 1492 when Europeans arrived. The land was in a natural condition when it was Waste Management Program. The storage of managed and used by Indian people. For example, radioactive and mixed waste generated by the DOE Indian plant management techniques involved will be an ongoing responsibility regardless of which spiritual interactions like praying and conducting EIS alternative is selected. This program minimally ceremonies for the plants, as well as physical actions involves the storage of existing waste. and waste like selective burning, transplanting cuttings and generated during the environmental restoration of seeds, pruning of plants like Tumar (Stanleyu NTS lands. Under Alternative 3, waste could be pinnutu) and willow, and “whipping” pine nut trees received from any DOE facility, which would cause to make them fuller. Indian water management current NTS waste disposal locations to be filled and techniques involved spiritual interactions that new waste facilities to be sited and operated. Indian satisfied the water and its occupants like Water people hold both traditional and scientific views of Babies, who need to know why Indian people are radioactivity. The former builds on the view that using the water. Water ceremonies assured both rain rocks are alive; radioactive rocks are powerful, but and snowfall; for example, by praying for a continued they can become “angry rocks” if they are removed relationship between wet snow and the little black without proper ceremony, used in a culturally bugs who are responsible for making the snow inappropriate way, disposed of without ceremony, become wet. Generally, Indian people managed the and placed where they do not want to be (Stoffle land according to religious teachings. From the et al., 1989a and 1990~).Another issue is the ethics Indian perspective, environmental restoration should of relocating radioactive waste from other American proceed according to Indian culture and with the Indian lands so those people can live without fear of participation of Indian people. The CGTO radioactivity (see Project Chariot, DOE/NV, 1994). recommends that adequate funds and time be I In general, after properly removed rocks have been provided so that Indian people can conduct . used, they are either returned to their place of origin systematic studies of environmental restoration or to a place of cultural significance. The practice of actions. dealing with “bad medicine” or neutralizing negative forces was a part of the traditional culture. So, the Nondefense Research and Development Program. question of “how to dispose of radioactive waste in a There are a variety of planned actions considered culturally appropriate manner” could be resolved if within this category. Many of these are related to the time and resources were provided to tribes to National Environmental Research Park, which
Volume 1, Appendix G G-32 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
permits universities and other federal agencies to and nuclear weapons defines the NTS as a place of conduct research. Other projects involve testing destruction, which promotes an image that is alternative vehicle fuels, testing techniques for inappropriate for a place for peaceful relations handling chemical spills, and building alternative between Indian ethnic groups. energy generators like solar collectors. Indian people view each of these as potentially impacting cultural I The CGTO knows from.past experience, but not resources. More cars potentially endanger the desert formal study, that military training exercises and tortoises. University students studying biology may weaponry tests can adversely impact cultural find and collect arrowheads or remove plants that are resources. Military people move across the land on significant to Indian people. Solar collectors involve foot and in vehicles without either the time or the scraping the land. Indian people believe they should purpose to pay attention to the plants that are being be involved in assessing the impacts of all these crushed, the animals that are being dislocated, or the proposed actions. archaeology materials underfoot. Cultural resources ’ are damaged when conventional weapons are fired Only Indian people know which places are nearby. Often geographically distinctive power appropriate for visits by non-Indian people and how places, like the big white rock near Rattlesnake to collect plants, animals, and soil samples so that Ridge, are targeted without regard or knowledge of these activities do not disrupt the land and its their cultural significance. Without a formal study, associated spirituality. Only Indian people can the exact impacts of military training exercises will provide guidance for proper behavior; however, a I not be fully understood. Thus, the CGTO guidance document has not been collectively recommends that adequate funds and time be produced and approved by the CGTO. On the other provided so that a guidance document can be hand, with proper guidance by Indian people, developed. university students and other members of the public may leam about the beauty and cultural significance I 6.4.1 Summary of American Indian of these lands and begin to change national I Responses to the NTS Action perceptions of these lands from one of a wasteland to I Alternatives I one of an Indian holy land. Thus, the CGTO I recommends that adequate funds and time be I The response of the CGTO to the four action I provided so that CGTO members can develop and I alternatives proposed for the NTS and discussed site- field-test an American Indian public education I by-site in the previous paragraphs can be program for the NTS. I summarized as follows: I Work for Others Program. This program contains I Alternative 1: Continue Current Operations two major subcategories of activities: the I Conventional Weapons Demilitarization Program I Under this alternative, the DOE will continue with its and Defense-related Research and Development I current operations and interagency project activities Program. The first program involves the shipment, I in each of the programs listed above. There will be storage, disposal, and destruction of conventional I little or no change planned for the future mission of weapons. The second program involves military I the NTS. training.exercises and weaponry tests. I I CGTO Response to AUernative 1: The CGTO in principle approves of the Conventional I Weapons Demilitarization Program, because world I .The CGTO opposes Alternative I because of our peace will reduce the need to use the NTS for nuclear I strong cultural ties to the land. Nevada Test Site weapon production, storage, assembly, and testing. I operations have adversely impacted the land, causing I On the other hand, the CGTO believes that if the I irreparable damage to traditional resources. If NTS NTS becomes the place where most or.al1 weapons I operations continue,.it is expected that damage will are stored, disassembled, and disposed then the NTS I be increased and more land will be wasted. Access lands will be polluted. The presence of conventional I to culturally significant spiritual places and use of
. (3-33 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I animals, plants, water, and lands may cease because I development activities would continue and expand. I Indian people's perception of health and spiritual I A solarenergy production facility would be built. I risks will increase if nuclear weapon testing, I I assembly, storage, disassembly, and disposal I CGTO Response to Alternative 3: I continues. Nondefense programs are expected to I I cause adverse impacts if these prdduce more ground I The CGTO opposes Alternative 3 because of our I disturbance or if they bring in people who trample I strong cultural ties to the land. Under expanded use, I it is expected that the conti.n.u.ation.and.expansion-of- - - - - __ - - - I and destroy traditional resources. ___-__-__------___.----I .- I current operations, as well as the implementation of I Alternative 2: Discontinue Operations I additional defense and nondefense project activities I I and programs would irreparably damage American I Under this alternative, all current and planned I Indian cultural resources present at the NTS. I programs, activities, and operations would be I Expansion of NTS operations would conceivably I discontinued. Only activities conducted in support of I require use of land that is yet untouched, and would I decommissioning, radiation monitoring, and security I worsen the risk of radioactive contamination. I functions necessary for human health, safety, and I Potentially, American Indian access to resources and I security would be maintained. Environmental I sacred sites would be even more restricted. I restoration would not be done. All defense and I Expanded use would be detrimental for the I nondefense programs would be discontinued. I socioeconomic development and health of Indian I Inactive waste disposal sites would be abandoned. I communities. I Only a minimum of low-level radioactive and mixed I I waste disposal capacity would be maintained to I Alternative 4: Alternate Use of Withdrawn I support closure of the NTS. I Lands I I I CGTO Response to Alternative 2: I This alternative will evaluate the impacts associated I with locating new programs and project activities at I The CGTO supports Alternative 2 because it would the NTS, including nondefense research and I allow the land to heal and perhaps return to its development programs, expansion of the Spill Test I natural condition. The CGTO recommends that an Facility in Area 5, and various types of personnel I evaluation of areas that can be restored for human use ,training for locating, containing, handling, or I be made and that environmental restoration activities transporting hazardous materials, radioisotopes, I be included in this alternative. Access to culturally fuels, explosives, and other materials. Under this I significant places should be allowed. The DOE alternative, waste management operations, waste- I should continue to protect all cultural resource sites. generating operations, and ongoing NTS I environmental restoration activities would continue. I The CGTO would like to have the right of first However, the DOE would not maintain a state of I refusal in the event that NTS lands are turned to readiness for nuclear testing at the NTS. I public use. I The NTS would be opened for unprecedented I Alternative 3: Expanded Use public access to some of the most remote areas, I including areas that contain American Indian rock I Under this alternative, expanded use of NTS and its shelters, archaeological sites, and petroglyphs. I resources would be made to support national Educational and recreational activities would be I programs of both a defense and nondefense nature. pursued. The potential for turning back lands to the I Current defense programs would continue, and a public domain would depend on the ability to I variety of defense-related projects currently under achieve established cleanup and safety levels. I consideration would be pursued. Waste management I operations would increase and storage/disposal areas 8 I expanded. Waste transportation would be increased I as well. Environmental restoration and research and 1.14 Volume 1, Appendix G G-34 I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I CGTO Response to Alternative 4: I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I The CGTO tentatively supports Alternative 4 with I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the I reservations regarding certain components of this I well and access road monitoring program, but will I alternative. Aside from the concerns already be positively impacted by actions that return I expressed regarding waste-related pollution and disturbed lands to their natural condition in a I ground disturbance, the CGTO expects that opening culturally appropriate manner and with the I the NTS to the public will adversely impact participation of Indian people. I traditional resources, particularly petroglyphs,
GIarchaeological sites, and rock shelters, because of Nondefense Research and Development I their appeal as tourist attractions. Heavy traffic will Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that I trample plants, hurt animals, limit American Indian American Indian cultural resources will be I access to sacred sites and power places, and adversely impacted by increased visits by students I interfere with traditional practices. and researchers who collect artifacts, visit sacred I areas, and remove plants or animals. Cultural I The CGTO would like to have the right of first resources could be positively impacted if students I refusal in the event that the NTS lands are turned to and researchers receive proper guidance by Indian I public use. people regarding how to visit places and interact I with the environment. I G.4.2 American Indian Cultural Resources I Impacts Work for Others Program Under Alternative 1, I it is expected that American Indian cultural I G.4.2.1 American Indian Place by Action resources will be adversely impacted if the NTS I Comments, Alternative 1. continued to be a place where weapons are stored, I disassembled, and disposed. These actions have I G.4.2.1.1 Nevada Test Site continued and will continue to pollute these lands. I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is The presence of conventional and nuclear weapons I expected that American Indian cultural resources defines the NTS as a place of destruction, which I will be adversely impacted if further underground promotes an image that is inappropriate for a place I nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for peaceful relations between Indian ethnic groups. I for construction. Access to culturally significant places will be reduced because Indian peoples’ American Indian cultural resources will continue to perception of health and spiritual risks will increase be adversely impacted by military training exercises if additional testing, storage, disassembly, or and weapons tests. disposal of nuclear and conventional weapons occur. G.4.2.1.2 Tonopah Test Range
Waste Management Program. Under Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian expected that American Indian cultural resources I cultural resources will continue to be adversely will be adversely impacted if further aboveground I impacted because the waste has not been disposed nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to for construction. I culturally significant places on the NTS will be I reduced because waste isolation facilities increase Waste Management Program. Under I Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I risks. cultural resources will not be impacted because there is no Waste Management Program on the Tonopah Test Range and none has been identified for this alternative. 45 G-35 Volume 1, Appendix C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I culturally significant places will be increased if Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I environmental restoration is successful, thus cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and I natural lands are scraped during environmental I spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I people wish to be involved in identifying I will be increased if environmental restoration is I environmental restoration methods and in ,the I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception I evaluation of restoration success. I of health and spiritual risks associated with this _-_._ _.. ------! _-___.-- I area;- - Indian -people wish to be involved in I Nondefense Research and Development I identifying environmental restoration methods and I Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that I in the evaluation of restoration success. I American Indian cultural resources will be I I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I Nondefense Research and Development I during any nondefense research and development I Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that I actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the American Indian cultural resources will be I Double Tracks site on the NAFR Complex. I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I I during any nondefense research and development I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, I actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the it is expected that Amencan Indian cultural I Tonopah Test Range. I resources will be adversely impacted if the Double I I Tracks site continues to be a place where weapons I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, I are researched and developed. These actions have I it is. expected that American Indian cultural I and will continue to pollute these lands. American I resources will be adversely impacted if the Tonopah I Indian cultural resources will continue to be I Test Range continues to be a place where weapons adversely impacted by military training exercises I are researched and developed. These actions have and weapons tests. I continued and will continue to pollute these lands. I American Indian cultural resources will continue to G.4.2.1.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 I be adversely impacted by military training exercises I and weapons tests. Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is I I expected that American Indian cultural resources I G.4.2.1.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex I will be adversely impacted if further nuclear safety I I tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for I Defense Program. At this time, no defense actions I construction. In this alternative, however, there are I are planned for the Double Tracks site on the NAFR I no plans for additional tests at the Area 13 site on I Complex; therefore, American Indian cultural I the NAFR Complex. I resources will not be adversely impacted under this I alternative. Waste Management Program. Under I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under cultural resources will not be impacted because I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian there is no Waste Management Program on the I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted Area 13 site on the NAFR Complex and none has I because there is no Waste Management Program on been identified for this alternative. I the NAFR Complex and none has been identified I for this alternative. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I Environmental Restoration Program Under I cultural resources on the Area 13 site on the I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian NAFR Complex will be adversely impacted if I cultural resources on the NAFR Complex will be natural lands are scraped during environmental I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped restoration. Access to culturally significant places I during environmental restoration. Access to will be increased if environmental restoration is
Volume 1, Appendix G G-36 4!-Q NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception there is no Waste Management Program on the of health and spiritual risks associated with this Central Nevada Test Area and none has been area. Indian people wish to be involved in identified for this alternative. identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian Nondefense Research and Development cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that will be adversely impacted if natural lands were American Indian cultural resources will be scraped during environmental restoration. Access adversely impacted if the Area 13 site on the to culturally significant places will be increased if NAFR Complex continues to be a place where environmental restoration is successful, thus weapons are researched and developed. These reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and actions have and will continue to pollute these spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian lands. American Indian cultural resources will people wish to be involved in identifying continue to be adversely impacted by military environmental restoration methods and in the training exercises and weapons tests. evaluation of restoration success.
Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, Nondefense Research and Development it is expected that American Indian cultural Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that resources will be adversely impacted if the Area 13 American Indian cultural resources will be site on the NAFR Complex continues to be a place adversely impacted if the Central Nevada Test Area where weapons are researched and developed. becomes a place where weapons are researched and These actions have and will continue to pollute developed. No such actions are planned for this these lands. American Indian cultural resources alternative, so American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted by military will not be adversely impacted. training exercises and weapons tests. Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, G.4.2.1.5 Project ShoalArea-This study area it is expected that American Indian cultural I is not within the traditional lands of the Indian resources will be. adversely impacted if the I people represented by the CGTO. It is Central Nevada Test Area becomes a place where recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS EIS weapons are researched and developed. No such team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations actions are. considered in this alternative, so f having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. American Indian cultural resources will not be The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, adversely impacted. Walker River Paiute, and Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. G.4.2.1.7 Eldorado Valley
G.4.2.1.6 Central Nevada Test Area Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is because no Defense Program activities are expected that American Indian.cultural resources scheduled for Eldorado Valley. will be adversely impacted if further nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for Waste Management Program. . Under construction. In this alternative, however, there are Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources no plans for additional tests or construction at the will not be impacted because no Waste Central Nevada Test Area. Management Program ‘activities are scheduled for Eldorado Valley. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian Environmental Restoration Program. No cultural resources will not be impacted because environmental restoration activities are planned for
G-37 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to G.4.2.1.9 Coyote Spring Valley American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 1. Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted Nondefense Research and Development because no Defense Program activities are Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is Waste Management Program. Under constructed and operated. Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Waste Work for Others Program. . It is unlikely that Management Program activities are scheduled for Work for Others Program activities will be Coyote Spring Valley. implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no adverse impacts on American Indian resources are Environmental Restoration Program. No expected under Alternative 1. environmental restoration activities are planned for Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts G.4.2.1.8 Dry LQke Valley to American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 1. Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted Nondefense Research and Development because no Defense Program activities are Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. American Indian cultural resources at Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if Waste Management Program. Under a solar production facility is constructed and Alternative 1, American Indian cultural resources operated. will not be impacted because no Waste Management Program activities are scheduled for Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that Dry Lake Valley. Work for Others Program activities will be implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, Environmental Restoration Program. No. no adverse impacts on American Indian resources environmental restoration activities are planned for are expected under Alternative I. Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian resources are expected under G.4.2.2 American Indian Place by Action Alternative 1. Comments, Alternative 2.
Nondefense Research and Development G.4.2.2.1 Nevada Test Site Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, there will adversely impacted if a solar production facility is be no further defense testing and storage activities; constructed and operated. however, overflights and monitoring will continue in keeping with the International Arms Control Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that Treaties. American Indian cultural resources will Work for Others Program activities will be no longer be impacted by defense activities; implemented in Dry Lake Valley. Therefore, no however, ovefflights and monitoring have the adverse impacts on American Indian resources are potential for impacting American Indian cultural expected under Alternative 1. resources. Indian people require further information before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of this Defense Program alternative.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-38 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Waste Management Program. Under I of health and spiritual risks associated with this Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I area. Indian people wish to be involved in I cultural resources will continue to be adversely I identifying environmental restoration methods and I impacted because the waste has not been disposed I in the evaluation of restoration success. I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to I culturally significant places on the NTS will be I Nondefense Research and Development I reduced because waste isolation facilities increase I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual I American Indian cultural resources will be i risks. I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I during any Nondefense Research and Development 1 Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Program actions. At this time, no actions are Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian 1 planned for the Tonopah Test Range. I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the I I Monitoring Well and Access Road Program, but I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, I will be positively impacted by actions that return I it is expected that American Indian cultural I disturbed land to its natural condition in a culturally I resources will be adversely impacted if the Tonopah I appropriate manner and with the participation of I Test Range continues to be a place where weapons 1 Indian people. I are researched and developed. These actions have I I continued and will continue to pollute these lands. I Nondefense Research and Development I American Indian cultural resources will continue to I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I be adversely impacted by military training exercises American Indian cultural resources will not be I and weapons tests. I adversely impacted by visits by students and I I researchers. I G.4.2.2.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex I I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, it is I it is expected that American Indian cultural I expected that American Indian cultural resources I resources will not be adversely impacted. I will not be adversely impacted because no defense I I actions are planned for the Double Tracks site on I G.4.2.2.2 Tonopah Test Range the NAFR Complex. I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, there will Waste Management Program. Under I be no belowground nuclear testing, so American Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I Indian cultural resources will not be adversely cultural resources on the Double Tracks site will not I impacted. be adversely impacted because there is no Waste I Management Program there and none is planned in I Waste Management Program. Under this alternative. I Alternative 2, there will be no Waste Management I Program on the Tonopah Test Range and none has Environmental Restoration Program. Under I been identified for this alternative, so it is expected Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I that American Indian cultural resources will not be cultural resources on the Double Tracks site will be I adversely impacted. adversely impkted if natural lands are scraped I during environmental restoration. Access to I Environmental Restoration Program. Under culturally significant places will be increased if I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian environmental restoration is successful, thus I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and I natural lands are scraped during environmental I spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I people wish to be involved in identifying I will be increased if environmental restoration is I environmental restoration methods and in the I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception I evaluation of restoration success.
G-39 Volume I, Appendix G $7 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Nondefense Research and Development I G.4.2.2.5 Project ShoalArea-This study area I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I is not within the traditional lands of the Indian I American Indian cultural resources on the Double I people represented by the CGTO. It is ‘I Tracks site will not be adversely impacted by I recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS EIS I discontinuing research and development actions. I team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations I I having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, .I American Indian cultural resources will be Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock I adversely impacted if the Double Tracks site Paiute Tribes. I continues to be a place where weapons are I researched and developed. These actions have I G.4.2.2.6 Central Nevada Test Area I continued and will continue to pollute these lands. I I American Indian cultural resources will continue to I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, it is I be adversely impacted by military training exercises expected that American Indian cultural resources I and weapons tests. will be adversely impacted if further nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for G.4.2.2.4 Nefi Air Force Range Complex Area 13 construction. In this alternative, however, there are Defense Program; Under Alternative 2, American no plans for additional tests or construction at the Indian cultural resources will not be adversely Central Nevada Test Area. impacted because there are no plans for additional tests at the Area-13 site on the NAFR Complex. I Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian
Waste , Management Program. Under I cultural resources will not be impacted because Alternative 2, American Indian cultural resources I there is no Waste Management Program on the will not be adversely impacted because there are no I Central Nevada Test Area and none has been I waste facilities at the Area 13 site on the I identified for this alternative. .I NAFR Complex. I I I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I will be adversely impacted if natural lands are I natural lands are scraped during environmental I scraped during environmental restoration. Access I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I to culturally significant places will be increased if I will be increased if environmental restoration is I environmental restoration is successful, thus I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception I reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and I of health and spiritual risks associated with this I spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian I area. Indian people wish to be involved in I people wish to be involved in identifying I identifying environmental restoration methods and I environmental restoration methods and in the I in the evaluation of restoration success. I I evaluation of restoration success. I Nondefense Research and Development I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I Nondefense Research and Development I American Indie cultural resources in the Double I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I Tracks site will not be adversely impacted by I American Indian cultural resources will be I discontinuing research and development actions. I adversely impacted if the Central Nevada Test Area I I becomes a place where weapons are researched and I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, I developed. No such actions are planned for this I it is expected that American Indian cultural I alternative, so cultural resources will not be I resources will not be adversely impacted because no I adversely impacted. I Work for Others Program actions are being planned. I I
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-40 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, I Management Program activities are scheduled for I it is expected that American Indian cultural I Dry Lake Valley. I resources will be adversely impacted if the Central I I Nevada Test Area becomes a place where weapons I Environmental Restoration Program. No I are researched and developed. No such actions are I environmental restoration activities are planned for I considered in this alternative, so American Indian I Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted. I American Indian resources are expected under I I Alternative 2. I G.4.2.2.7 Eldorado Valley I I Nondefense Research and Development I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, American Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted American Indian cultural resources will be I because no Defense Program activities are adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I scheduled for Eldorado Valley. Constructed and operated. I I Waste Management Program. Under G.4.2.2.9 Coyote Spring Valley I Alternative 2, American Indian cultural resources I will not be impacted because no Waste Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, American I Management Program activities are scheduled for Indian cultural resources will not be impacted Eldorado Valley. because no Defense Program activities are scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. Environmental Restoration Program. No environmental restoration activities are planned for Waste Management Program. Under Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to Alternative 2, American Indian cultural resources American Indian resources are expected under will not be impacted because no Waste Alternative 2. Management Program activities are scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that Environmental Restoration Program. No American Indian cultural resources will be environmental restoration activities are planned for adversely impacted if a solar production facility is Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts constructed and operated. to American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 2. Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that Work for Others Program activities will be Nondefense Research and Development implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no I Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I American Indian cultural resources at expected under Alternative 2. I Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if I a solar production facility is constructed and G.4.2.2.8 Dry Luke Valley I operated. I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, Amencan I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I Work for Others Program activities will be because no Defense Program activities are I implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. I no adverse impacts on American Indian resources I are expected under Alternative 2. Waste Management Program. Under I Alternative 2, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Waste
G-41 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I G.4.2.3 American Indian Place by Action I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I Comments, Alternative 3. it is expected that American Indian cultural I resources will be impacted if the NTS continues to I G.4.2.3.1 Nevada Test Site be a place where weapons are stored, disassembled,
I \ and disposed. These actions have continued and I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, it is will continue to pollute these lands. The presence I expected that American Indian cultural resources of conventional and nuclear weapons defines the I will be adversely impacted if new Defense Program NTS as a place of destruction, which promotes an I operations are undertaken or if current underground image that is inappropriate for a place for peaceful I nuclear tests are expanded into previously unused relations between Indian ethnic groups. American I areas. Access to culturally significant places will be Indian cultural resources will continue to be reduced because Indian peoples’ perception of impacted by military training exercises and weapons health and spiritual risk will increase if additional tests. testing, storage, disassembly, or disposal of nuclear and conventional weapons occur. I G.4.2.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-Under I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I Alternative 3, it is expected-that American Indian I further aboveground nuclear tests occur or if new I cultural resources will continue to be adversely I areas are used for expanded testing programs. I impacted, in particular if waste storage facilities are I I expanded because the waste has not been disposed I Waste Management Program. Under I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I significant places on the NTS will be reduced I cultural resources will not to be adversely impacted I because waste isolation facilities increase Indian I because there is no Waste Management Program on I peoples’ perception of health and spiritual risks. I the Tonopah Test Range and none has been I I identified for this alternative. I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by an Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian expansion of the well and access road monitoring cultural resources will be adversely impacted if program, but will be positively impacted by actions I natural lands are scraped during environmental that return disturbed lands to its natural condition in I restoration. Access to culturally significant places a culturally appropriate manner and with the I will be increased if environmental restoration is participation of Indian people. I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual risks associated’with this Nondefense Research and Development area. Indian. people wish to be involved in Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that identifying environmental restoration methods and American Indian cultural resources will be in the evaluation of restoration success. adversely impacted by increased visits by students and researchers who collect artifacts, visit sacred Nondefense Research and Development areas, and remove plants or animals. Cultural I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that resources will be positively impacted if students and I American Indian cultural resources will be researchers receive proper guidance by Indian I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped people regarding how to visit places and interact I during any nondefense research and development with the environment. actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the Tonopah Test Range.
Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be impacted if Tonopah Test Range
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-42 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I weapons research and development programs are I impacted by military training exercises and weapons I expanded. These actions have continued and will I tests. I continue to pollute these lands. American Indian I I cultural resources will continue to be adversely G.4.2.3.4 Nefi Air Force Range Complex Area 13 I impacted by military training exercises and weapons I tests. Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, it is I expected that American ,Indian cultural resources I G.4.2.3.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex will be adversely impacted if nuclear safety tests I continue or increase and if natural lands are scraped I Defense Program. At this time, no defense actions I for construction. In this alternative, however, there I are planned for Double Tracks site on the I are no plans for additional tests at the Area 13 site I NAFR Complex.. Under Alternative 3, however, it is I on the NAFR Complex. expected that American Indian cultural resources will I not be adversely impacted under this alternative. I Waste Management Program. Under I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under I cultural resources will not to be adversely impacted Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I because there is no Waste Management Program on I cultural resources will-not -be adversely impacted I the Area-1 3-site-on .the_NAER_Complexand none I unless a Waste Management Program for the I has been identified for this alternative. I NAFR Complex is begun, and there are no plans I I identified for this alternative. I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I cultural resources of the Area 13 site on the Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I NAFR Complex will be adversely impacted if cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I natural lands are scraped during environmental I natural lands are scraped during environmental I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I restoration. Access to culturally significant places will get increased if environmental restoration is I will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this I of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in I area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and I identifying.environmenta1restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. I in the evaluation of restoration success. I Nondefense Research and Development I Nondefense Research and Development I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I American Indian cultural resources will be I American Indian cultural resources will be I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I during research and development. These actions I during any nondefense research and development I have continued and will continue to pollute these I actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the I lands. American Indian cultural resources will I Double Tracks site on the NAFR Complex. I continue to be adversely impacted by military I I training exercises and weapons tests. I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I it is expected that American Indian cultural I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I resources will be impacted if weapon research and I it is expected that American Indian cultural I development programs continue or are expanded at I resources will be impacted if weapon research and I the Double Tracks site. These actions have and will I development programs continue or are expanded at I continue to pollute these lands. American Indian I the Area 13 site. These actions have continued and 1 cultural resources will continue to be adversely I will continue to pollute these lands. American I Indian cultural resources will continue to be
6-43 Volume 1, Appendix G 53 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I adversely impacted by military training exercises I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I and weapons tests. I it is expected that American Indian cultural I I resources will be impacted if weapon research and I G.4.2.3.5 Project Shoal Area -This study I development programs are implemented in the I area is not within the traditional lands of the Indian I Central Nevada Test Area. No such actions are I people represented by the CGTO. It is I planned for this alternative, so American Indian I recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted. I 'EIS team directly contact Indian tribes and I I organizations having traditional lands in the Project I G.4.2.3.7 Eldorado Valley I Shoal Area. The following tribes were suggested: I I Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, American I and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I I because no Defense Program activities are I G.4.2.3.6 Central Nevada Test Area I scheduled for Eldorado Valley. I I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, it is I Waste Management Program. Under I expected that American Indian cultural resources I Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources I will be adversely impacted if nuclear tests continue I will not be impacted because no Waste I or increase and if natural lands are scraped for I Management Program activities are scheduled for I construction. In this alternative, however, there are I Eldorado Valley. I no plans for additional tests or construction at the I I Central Nevada Test Area. I Environmental Restoration Program. No I I environmental restoration activities are planned for I Waste Management Program. Under I Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I American Indian resources are expected under I cultural resources will not to be adversely impacted I Alternative 3. I because there is no Waste Management Program on I I the Central Nevada Test Area and none has been I Nondefense Research and Development I identified for this alternative. I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I I American Indian cultural resources will be I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I constructed and operated. I cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area I I will be adversely impacted if natural lands are I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I scraped during environmental restoration. Access Work for Others Program activities will be I to culturally significant places will be increased if implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no I environmental restoration is successful, thus adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I reducing Indian peoples' perception of health and expected under Alternative 3. I spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying G.4.2.3.8 Dry Lake Valley environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources. will not be impacted Nondefense Research and Development because no Defense Program activities are Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped Waste Management Program. Under during weapons research and development. No Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources such actions are planned for this alternative, so will not be impacted because no Waste cultural resources will not be adversely impacted.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-44 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
.I Management Program activities are scheduled for I implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, I Dry Lake Valley. I no adverse impacts on American Indian resources I I are expected under Alternative 3. I Environmental Restoration Program. No I I environmental restoration activities are planned for G.4.2.4 American Indian Place by Action I Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to Comments, Alternative 4. I American Indian resources are expected under I Alternative 3. G.4.2.4.1 Nevada Test Site I I Nondefense Research and Development Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that expected that American Indian cultural resources I American Indian cultural resources will be will no longer be impacted by defense activities; I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is however, oversight and monitoring have the I constructed and operated. potential for impacting American Indian cultural I resources. Indian people require further information I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of I Work for Others Program activities will be this Defense Program alternative. I implemented in Dry Lake Valley. Therefore, no I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are Waste Management Program. Under I expected under Alternative 3. Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I cultural resources will continue to be adversely I G.4.2.3.9 Coyote Spring Valley impacted because the waste has not been disposed I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to I Defense Program. ‘UnderAlternative 3, American culturally significant places on the NTS will be
I Indian cultural resources ~ will not be impacted reduced because waste isolation facilities increase I because no Defense Program activities are Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual I scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. risks. I I Waste Management Program. Under Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I will not be impacted because no Waste cultural resources will be adversely impacted by I Management Program activities are scheduled for monitoring well and access road activities, but will I Coyote Spring Valley. be positively impacted by actions that return I disturbed lands to its natural condition in a I Environmental Restoration Program. No culturally appropriate manner and with the I environmental restoration activities are planned for participation of Indian people. I Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts I to American Indian resources are expected under Nondefense Research and Development I Alternative 3. Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I American Indian cultural resources will be I Nondefense Research and Development adversely impacted by visits by students and I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that researchers. I American Indian cultural resources at I Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I a solar production facility is constructed and it is expected that Amehcan Indian cultural I operated. resources will be impacted if activities at the Spill I Test Facility in Area 5, the Treatability Test Facility I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that in Area 25, and the newly renovated I Work for Others Program activities will be decontamination pad in Area 6 are expanded. It is expected that American Indian cultural resources
G-45 Volume 1, Appendix G .6’i NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
will continue to be adversely impacted by military I Waste Management Program. Under training exercises and weapons. I Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted. I G.4.2.4.2 Tonopah Test Range I I I Environmental Restoration Program Under I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is I Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian expected that American Indian cultural resources I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I will not be impacted by defense activities; however, I natural lands are scraped during environmental I overflights and monitoring have the potential for I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I impacting American Indian cultural resources. will be increased if environmental restoration is I Indian people require further information before successful, thus reducing Indian peoples' perception I completely evaluating the cultural impacts.of this of health and spiritual risks associated with this I Defense Program alternative. area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and I Waste Management Program. Under in the evaluation of restoration success. I Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted Nondefense Research and Development I because there are no actions planned. Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I I American Indian cultural resources will not be I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I impacted because no actions are planned. Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I <\ I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I natural lands are scraped during environmental I it is expected that American Indian cultural I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I resources will be impacted if the Double Tracks site I will be increased if environmental restoration is I continues to be a place where weapons are I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples' perception I researched and developed. These actions have and I of health and spiritual risks associated with this I will continue to pollute these lands. American I area. Indian people wish to be involved in I Indian cultural resources will continue to be '. I identifying environmental restoration methods and I adversely impacted by military training exercises I in the evaluation of restoration success. I and weapons tests. I I Nondefense Research and Development I G.4.2.4.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I I American ,Indian cultural resources will not be I Defense Program. Under Alternative. 4, it is I impacted because no activities are planned under I expected that American Indian cultural resources I this alternative. I will not be impacted. I I I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I Waste Management Program. Under I it is. expected that American Indian cultural Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I resources will be impacted by military training I cultural resources will not be impacted because I exercises and conventional weapons tests. I there is no Waste Management Program on the I I Area 13 site and none has been identified. .IG.4.2.4.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex I I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I that American Indian cultural resources will not be I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I adversely impacted. I natural lands are scraped during environmental I I restoration. Access to culturally significant places I will be increased if environmental restoration is I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples' perception
Volume 1, Appendix G G-46 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I of health and spiritual risks associated with this Nondefense Research and Development I area. Indian people wish to be involved in Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I identifying environmental restoration methods and American Indian cultural resources will not be I in the evaluation of restoration success. adversely impacted.
I' Nondefense Research and Development Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that it' is expected that American Indian cultural I American Indian cultural resources will be resources will not be impacted. I adversely impacted if military training exercises and I weapons tests continue. G.4.2.4.7 Eldorado Valley I I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, American I it is expected that American Indian cultural Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I resources will be impacted if military training I because no Defense Program activities are I exercises and weapons test continue. scheduled for Eldorado Valley. I I G.4.2.4.5 Project Shoal Area-This study area Waste Management Program. Under I is not within the traditional lands of the Indian Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources I people represented by the CGTO. It is will not be impacted because no Waste I recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS EIS Management Program activities are scheduled for I team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations Eldorado Valley. I having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. I The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Alternative 4, no environmental restoration I Paiute Tribes. activities are planned for Eldorado Valley; I therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian
I G.4.2.4.6 Central Nevada Test Area resources are expected. ' I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is Nondefense . Research and Development I expected that American Indian cultural resources Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that will not be impacted. American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I Waste Management Program. Under constructed and operated. Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I cultural resources will not be impacted. Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I I Work for Others Program activities will be I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no I Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area I expected under Alternative 4. I will be impacted if natural lands are scraped during I I environmental restoration. Access to culturally I 6.4.2.4.8 Dry Luke Valley I significant places will be increased if environmental I I restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, American I peoples' perception of health and spiritual risks I Indian cultural resources will. not be impacted I associated with this area. Indian people wish to be I because no Defense Program activities are I involved in identifying environmental restoration I scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. I methods and in the evaluation of restoration I I success. I Waste Management . Program. Under I Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources I will not be impacted because no Waste
G-47 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Management Program activities are scheduled for I no adverse impacts on American Indian resources I Dry Lake Valley. I are expected under Alternative 4. I I I Environmental Restoration Program. No I G.4.3 Occupational and Public Health and I environmental restoration activities are planned for Safety Radiation Impacts I Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I American Indian resources are expected under Perceptions of radiation effects are discussed in I Alternative 4. Section 4.1.1.11 and are well known among the I Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute and Owens I Nondefense Research and Development Valley Paiute people of this region. "These I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that perceptions of risks from radiation are frightening, I American Indian cultural resources will be and remain an important part of our lives. We will I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is always carry these thoughts with us. Today, people I constructed and operated. are afraid of many things and places in this whole I area, but we still love to come out and see our land. I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that We worry about more radiation being brought to I Work for Others Program activities will be this land. I implemented in Dry Lake Valley. Therefore, no I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are If the DOE wants to better understand our feelings I expected under Alternative 4. about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they I should support a study of risks from radiation I G.4.2.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley designed, conducted and produced by the CGTO. I At this time there has not been a systematic study of I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, American American Indians perceptions of risk. Therefore, it I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted is not possible to provide action by action I because no Defense Program activities are estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe it I scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that I Indian people may better address the actual I Waste Management Program. Under cultural impacts of proposed DOE actions. There I Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources have been recent workshops funded by the National I will not be impacted because no Waste I Science Foundation to understand how to research I Management Program activities are scheduled for I the special issue of culturally-based risk perception I Coyote Spring Valley. I among American Indian communities, and at least I I one major project has been funded. Although this I Environmental Restoration Program. No I is a relatively new topic of research, it is one that I environmental restoration activities are planned for I can be more fully understood by research that I Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts I deeply involves the people being considered. To I to American Indian resources are expected under I understand our view of radiation is to begin to I Alternative 4. I understand why we responded in certain ways to I I past and present activities, and why we will I Nondefense Research and Development I continue to respond to future DOE activities." I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I I American Indian cultural resources at I G.4.4 Environmental Justice and Equity
I Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if I Impacts I I a solar production facility is constructed and I I operated. I G.4.4.Z Alternative Z - Continue Current I I Operations (No Action). I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I I Work for Others Program activities will be I G.4.4.Z.Z Nevadu Test Site-The CGTO I implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, I knows that the actions considered in the NTS EIS
Volume 1, Appendix G G-48 '5% NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I potentially will disproportionately affect the the Indian people by eliminating contamination and I American Indian people. As discussed in restoring surface disturbance areas with traditional I Section 5.1.1 .lo, Cultural Resources, and Indian plants and animals. Perceived risks I Section 5.1.1.1 1, Occupational and Public Health potentially can be reduced when radioactivity is I and SafetyRadiation,the American Indian impacts reduced by the physical and spiritual restoration of I include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will reverse if I risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, any environmental restoration activities increase the I especially access violations. present and future access of Indian people and their I children to places where cultural transmission I The effects of Alternative 1 on American Indian occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived I Environmental Justice issues are discussed below only by American Indian people, an Environmental I by program. Justice impact would occur. I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is Nondefense Research and Development I expected that all three American Indian Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy all three American Indian Environmental Justice Land violations occur whenever a portion of impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur traditional land and its resources are taken away whenever a portion of traditional land and its from Indian people by contamination or surface resources are taken away from Indian people disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more whether this occurs by contamination or use by radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. students and researchers. Perceived risks will not Cultural survival impacts will occur if any defense increase unless more radioactivity is brought to or activities reduce the present and future access of created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will Indian people and their children to places where occur if any research and development activities cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts reduce the present and future access of Indian would be perceived only by American Indian people and their children to places where cultural people, an Environmental Justice impact would I transmission occurs. .Because these impacts would occur. I be perceived only by American Indian people, an I Environmental Justice impact would occur. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, I it is expected that all- three American Indian Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy it is expected that all three American Indian Land violations occur whenever a portion of Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy traditional land and its resources are taken away Land violations occur whenever a portion of from Indian people by contamination or surface traditional land and its resources are taken away disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more from Indian people by contamination or surface radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. I disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more Cultural survival impacts will occur if any waste I radioactivity or hazardous waste is brought to or management activities reduce the present and future I created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will access of Indian people and their children to places I occur if any military training exercises and weapons where cultural transmission occurs. Because these I tests reduce the present and future access of Indian impacts would be perceived only by American I people and their children to places where cultural Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact I transmission occurs. Because these impacts would would occur. I be perceived only by American Indian people, an I Environmental Justice impact would occur. Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Alternative 1, it is expected that all three American I G.4.4.2 Alternative 2 - Discontinue Operations. Indian Environmental Justice issues would occur. I Holy Land violations can be reversed when a portion I G.4.4.2.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian of traditional land and its resources are returned to I impacts include: (1) Holy Land violations,
G-49 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural future consultation with American Indian tribes I survival, especially access violations. These through the CGTO. Therefore, it is essential to I impacts for all sites are discussed in establish both the physical access to places and I Section 5.2.1.10, Cultural Resources, and agreements that will facilitate access to these places. I Section 5.2.1.11, Occupational and Public Health The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, I and Safetymadiation. These impacts would only be and produce a systematic American Indian I felt by American Indian people. Therefore, a Environmental Justice study, before new activities I disproportionate impact would occur. There has not are approved. I been a systematic study of these issues for the NTS. I The CGTO maintains that past, present, and future G.4.4.2.3 Project Shoal Area-American I activities on the NTS have impacted, are impacting, Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I or will impact these American Indian (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I Environmental Justice issues. Although survival, especially access violations. These impacts I Alternative 2 involves no new activities, it contains are discussed in Section 5.2.3.10, Cultural I the possibility of adversely impacting American Resources, and Section 5.2.1.11, Occupational and I Indian issues. For example, if road maintenance is Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I discontinued, it may be difficult for American been systematic study of these issues for the Project I Indian people to return to the area. Also, if Shoal Area. I DOE/NV Environmental Protection personnel are I not available, there may be a difficulty in This study area is not within the traditional lands of I maintaining consultation with American Indian the American Indian people represented by the I tribes through the CGTO. Therefore, it is essential CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I to maintain both the physical access to places and DOE NTS EIS team directly contact American I the agreement that facilitates access to these places. Indian tribes and organizations having traditional I The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following I and produce a systematic American Indian tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute; Walker River I Environmental Justice study, before new activities Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I are approved. I G.4.4.2.4 Central Nevada Test Area-
I Program-by-program ' impacts are assessed in American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I Section 5.1.1.12. violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I G.4.4.2.2 Tonopah Test Range-American These impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.4.10, I Indian impacts include: (1) Holy Land violations, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.2.1.11, I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural Occupational and Public Health and I survival, especially access violations. These Safetymadiation. There has not been a systematic I impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, Cultural study of these issues for the Central Nevada Test I Resources, and Section 5.2.1.11, Occupational and Area. The CGTO maintains that past, present and I Public Health and Safetykadiation, for all sites. future activities on the Central Nevada Test Area I There has not been a systematic study of these have disproportionately impacted, are issues for the Tonopah Test Range. The CGTO disproportionately impacting, or will maintains that past, present and future activities on disproportionately impact the American Indian the Tonopah Test Range have disproportionately people. Although Alternative 2 contains no new impacted, are disproportionately impacting, or will activities, it contains the possibility of adversely have a disproportionate impact on American Indian impacting these issues. Even though the CGTO has people. Although Alternative 2 involves no new not been permitted to visit the area, the area is /- activities, it contains the possibility of adversely especially important due to the concentration of impacting American Indian issues. If DOE/NV cultural resources. Therefore, this area provides a Environmental Protection personnel are not special opportunity for the DOE to undo past available, there may be a difficulty establishing environmental justice impacts. The CGTO should
Volume 1, Appendix C G-50 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I be funded to design, conduct, and produce a I occur. The CGTO should be funded to design, I systematic American Indian Environmental Justice I conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian I study, before new activities are approved. I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I I are approved. I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I I Section 5.1.1.12and are not repeated here. I Program-by-program 'responses are assessed in I I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I. G.4.4.3 Alternative 3 - Expanded Use. I I I G.4.4.3.3 Project Shoal Area-American I G.4.4.3.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I survival, especially access violations. These I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.3.10, Cultural I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.1.10, Cultural I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.11, Occupational and I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.11, Occupational and I Public Health and Safety. There has been no I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I systematic study of these issues for the Project I been a systematic study of these issues for the NTS. I Shoal Area. I The CGTO maintains that past, present and future I I activities on the NTS have disproportionately I This study area is not within the traditional lands of I impacted, are disproportionately impacting, or will I the American Indian people represented by the I disproportionately impact the American Indian I CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I people. Under the Expanded Use Alternative 3, there I DOE NTS EIS 'team directly contact American I is a high potential of adverse impacts to these I Indian tribes and organizations having traditional I issues. As more activities occur, both risks from I lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following I radiation and reduced access from land disturbance I tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River I is expected to occur. The CGTO should be funded I Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I I American Indian Environmental Justice study, I G.4.4.3.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I before new activities are approved. I American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land I I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I Action-by-action responses are assessed in I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I These impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.4.10, I I Cultural Resources, and Section 5.3.1.11, I G.4.4.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I Occupational and Public Health and I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I SafetyRadiation. There has not been a systematic I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I study of these issues for the Central Nevada Test I survival, especially access violations. These I Area. The CGTO maintains that past, present and I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.2.10, Cultural I future activities on the Central Nevada Test Area I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.11, Occupational and I have disproportionately impacted, are I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I disproportionately impacting, or will I been a systematic study of these issues for the I disproportionately impact the American Indian I Tonopah Test Range. The CGTO maintains that I people. Under the Expanded Use Alternative 3, I past, present and future activities on the Tonopah I there is a high-potential of adverse impacts. AS I Test Range have disproportionately impacted, are I more activities occur, both risks from radiation and I disproportionately impacting, or will I reduced access from land disturbance is expected to I disproportionately impact the American Indian I occur. Even though the CGTO has not been I people. Under the Expanded Use Alternative 3, I permitted to visit the area, the area is especially I there is a high potential of adverse impacts. As I important due to the concentration of cultural I more activities occur, both risks from radiation and I resources. Therefore, this area provides a special I reduced access from land disturbance is expected to I opportunity for the DOE to undo past
G-51 Volume 1, Appendix G (4\ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Environmental Justice impacts. The CGTO should I G.4.4.3.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American I be funded to design, conduct, and produce a I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I systematic American Indian Environmental Justice I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I study, before new activities are approved. I survival, especially access violations. These I I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.7.10, Cultural I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 1, Occupational and I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I Public Health and Safetyhtadiation. There has not I I been a systematic study of these issues for the I G.4.4.3.5 Eldorado Valley-American Indian I Coyote Spring Valley. The CGTO maintains that I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I past activities in the Coyote Spring Valley have I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I disproportionately impacted these American Indian I survival, especially access violations. These I issues, especially Holy Land violations. This area I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.5.10, Cultural I was traditionally land for Southern Paiutes I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 1, Occupational and I especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities I Public Health and Safetyhtadiation. There has not I occurring near Indian reservations further precludes I been a systematic study of these issues for the I future opportunities for expansion and access to I Eldorado Valley. The CGTO maintains that past I these lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be I activities in the Eldorado Valley have impacted I funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I these American Indian issues, especially Holy Land I American Indian Environmental Justice study I violations. This constitutes a disproportionate I before new activities are approved. I impact on the American Indian people. The CGTO I I should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I systematic American Indian Environmental Justice I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I study before new activities are approved. I I I G.4.4.4 Alternative 4 - Alternative Use of I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Withdrawn LQnds. I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I I I G.4.4.4.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian I G.4.4.3.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I survival, especially access violations. These I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.1.10, Cultural I impacts are discussed in Section 5.3.6.10, Cultural I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 1, Occupational and I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I been a systematic study of these issues for the NTS. I been a systematic study of these issues for the Dry I The CGTO maintains that past, present and future I Lake Valley. The CGTO maintains that past I activities on the NTS have disproportionately I activities in the Dry Lake Valley have I impacted, are disproportionately impacting, or will I disproportionately impacted the American Indian I disproportionately impact the American Indian I people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. I people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high I Any activities occumng near Indian reservations I potential of adverse impacts to these issues, even I further precludes future opportunities for expansion I though most DOE activities would be discontinued. I and access to these lands for any purpose. The I The continuation of waste management operations I CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and I and the physical activities associated with I produce a systematic American Indian I environmental restoration and other planned I Environmental Justice study before new activities I activities, are expected to cause both risks from I are approved. I radiation and reduced access from land disturbance. I I The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I and produce a systematic American Indian I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-52 cop NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I G.4.4.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I are approved. I American Indian Environmental Justice concerns I I include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I especially access violations. These impacts are I I discussed in Section 5.4.4.10, Cultural Resources, I G.4.4.4.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I Health and Safetymadiation. There has not been a I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I systematic study of these issues for the Central I survival, especially access violations. These I Nevada Test Area. The CGTO maintains that past, I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.2.10, Cultural I present and future activities on the Central Nevada I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and I Test Area have disproportionately impacted, are I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not I disproportionately impacting, or will I been a systematic study of these issues for the I disproportionately impact the American Indian I Tonopah Test Range. The CGTO maintains that I people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high I past, present and future activities on the Tonopah I potential of adverse impacts. As more activities I Test Range have disproportionately impacted, are I occur, both risks from radiation and reduced access I disproportionately impacting, or will I from land disturbance is expected to occur. Even I disproportionately impact the American Indian I though the CGTO has not been permitted to visit I people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high I the area, the area is especially important due to the I potential of adverse impacts to these issues. As I concentration of cultural resources. Therefore, this I more activities occur, both risks from radiation and I area provides a special opportunity for the DOE to I reduced access from land disturbance is expected to I undo past Environmental Justice impacts. The I occur. The CGTO should be funded to design, I CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and I conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian I produce a systematic American Indian I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I are approved. I are approved. I I I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I Section 5.1.1.12and are not repeated here. I I I G.4.4.4.3 Project Shoal Area-American I G.4.4.4.5 EIdorado Valley-American Indian I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I survival, especially access violations. These I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.3.10, Cultural impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.5.10, Cultural I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not ,I been systematic study of these issues for the Project been a systematic study of these issues for the I Shoal Area. Eldorado-Valley. The CGTO maintains that past * I activities in the Eldorado Valley have I This study area is not within the traditional lands of disproportionately impacted the American Indian I the American 'Indian people represented by the people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. I CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, .I DOE EIS team directly contact American Indian and produce a systematic American Indian I tribes and organizations having traditional lands in Environmental Justice study before new activities I the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were are approved. I suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, I Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
6-53 Volume 1, Appendix G ca3 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I G.4.4.4.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian 6.4.5 Social and Economics Impact I concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural G.4.5.I Alternative I - Continue 'Current I survival, especially access violations. These Operations (No Action). I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.6.10, Cultural I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and G.4.5.1.1 Nevada Test Site-This section I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not describes the American Indian concerns associated I been a systematic study of these issues for the Dry with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by I Lake Valley. The CGTO maintains that past the CGTO. I activities in the Dry Lake Valley have I disproportionately impacted the American Indian Indian people prefer to live in their traditional I people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. homelands. One reason for this preference, is that I Any activities occurring near Indian reservations Indian people have special ties to their traditional I further precludes future opportunities for expansion lands and a unique relationship with each other. I and access to these lands for any purpose. The When Indian people receive employment near their I CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and reservations they can remain on the reservation I produce a systematic American Indian while commuting to work. This pattern of I Environmental Justice study before new activities employment tends to have positive benefits for both I are approved. the Indian community and tribal enterprises like I housing. The reservation Indian community has the I Program-by-program responses are assessed in participation of the individual and his (her) financial I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. contribution. The individual payment for housing I is tied to income level, so the more a person earns I G.4.4.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American with the job the more they pay to the tribal housing I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, office, thus making tribally sponsored housing more I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural economically viable. I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.7.10, Cultural When employment opportunities decline on I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.1 1, Occupational and reservations, however, often times Indian families I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not must move away from their reservations to seek I been a systematic study of these issues for the employment. These situations have resulted in I Coyote Spring Valley. The CGTO maintains that approximately one-half to two-thirds of the tribal I past activities in the Coyote Spring Valley have members in the CGTO region of influence moving I disproportionately impacted the American Indian away from their reservations. I people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. I This area was traditionally land for Southern Paiutes As Indian people move away from reservations due I especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities, to employment opportunities, Indian culture is I occurring near Indian reservations further precludes threatened because the number of families living on I future opportunities for expansion and access to reservations declines. Tribal members who choose I these lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be to relocate from their reservations impact I funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic reservation economies, school, housing and I American Indian Environmental, Justice study emergency services. Both schools and economies I before new activities are approved. are impacted because federal funding available to I tribes is based on population statistics. I Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. With local employment opportunities such as those I offered by NTS to neighboring tribes, prices of tribal housing rise because they are based on income. If a positive balance between increased income and increased cost of living in tribal
Volume 1, Appendix G G-54 bq NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I reservations is achieved, then, both individual This dilemma occurs on a regular basis and I members and the tribe benefit from employment potentially impacts the livelihood and cultural well- I opportunities. However, continued salary raises being of off-reseryation employees and their I may tip the balance toward a sharp increase in cost families. When off-reservation individuals choose I of living, making it unable for tribal members to to return .to their homelands to participate in I continue living in the reservation. traditional ceremonies, they risk their jobs or I disciplinary actions against their children who I Tribal housing programs become jeopardized if attend public schools due to excessive absenteeism. 'Ivacancies occur in tribal housing projects and I cannot be reoccupied. If vacancies occur, tribal Should an emergency situation resulting from NTS I revenues and federal funding will be adversely I related activities including the transportation of I impacted and will make it more difficult to expand I hazardous and radioactive waste occur, it could I housing programs in future years. Additionally, I result in the closure of a major reservation road. I vacant units require more maintenance. If tribal I Many of the Indian reservations within the region of I members are unavailable to occupy a tribal housing I influence are located in remote areas with limited I unit, then tribes make units available to non- I access by standard and substandard roads. Were a I Indians, and this too potentially impacts Indian I major (only) road into a reservation to be closed, I culture. The increased presence of non-Indians on I numerous adverse social and economic impacts I a reservation or in an Indian community reduces the I could occur. For example, Indian students who I privacy needed for the conduct of certain I have to travel an unusually high number of miles to I ceremonies and traditional practices. When non- I or from school could realize delays. Delays also I Indian children are in constant interaction with I could occur for regular deliveries of necessary I Indian children, it creates a situation that potentially I supplies for inventories needed by tribal enterprises I disrupts cultural leaming opportunities that occur in I and personal use. Purchases by patrons of tribal I everyday life. I enterprises and emergency medical services in route I I to or from the reservation could be dramatically I Small rural reservations must have a sufficient I impeded. Potential investors interested in expanding I number of people to generate an emergency I tribal enterprises and on-going considerations by I response capability. The need for emergency I tribal governments for future tribal developments I services will decline as people move away from the I may significantly diminish because of the perceived I reservation. Tribal members employed in these I risks associated with NTS related activities I emergency service occupations may move away I including the transportation of hazardous waste.
I because of their marketable skills. ' Tribal revenues I I for administration, school, housing and emergency I Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, the I services will be reduced accordingly, due to a I Defense Program would produce a total of I decline in population size. 4,274 jobs. It is expected that a percentage of these I jobs would be filled by tribal members from I When Indian people move away from their reservations within the American Indian Region of I reservations several dilemmas occur. Typically, Influence. Many of these Indian people will move I Indian people experience a feeling of isolation from away from their reservations to take these jobs I their tribe, culture and family. When an Indian causing the socioeconomic impacts discussed I person relocates to an off-reservation area, the above. Increased employment can positively impact I individual finds that there are fewer people of their American Indian employees and their families; I tribe and culture around them. As a result, Indian however, this off-reservation employment is I people must decide on the appropriateness of expected to adversely impact the social structure I practicing traditional ceremonies in the presence of and cultural activities on the reservation. I non-Indian people. Indian people are continually I tom between the decision to stay in the city or Waste Management Program. Under I return to the reservation to participate in traditional Alternative 1, the Waste Management Program I ceremonies and interact with other tribal members. would result in no change to total current
G-55 Volume 1, Appendix G (P5 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
/ I employment. No American Indian socioeconomic I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I impacts are expected. I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I I Section 5.1.1.3. I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration I G.4.5.1.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I Program would create approximately 1,129 jobs. I American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to I Although this is approximately one-third the I fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for I number of jobs created by the Defense Program, it I tribal members from the CGTO region of influence I is anticipated that a higher percentage of American I are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. I Indians would be attracted to the Environmental I I Restoration jobs because they are more consistent I G.4.5.2 Alternative 2 - Dtcontinue Operations. I with American Indian land preservation values. I I American Indians have special skills that may be I G.4.5.2.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian I especially critical to Environmental Restoration I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I activities, and the CGTO has specifically asked that I employment opportunities for tribal members from I Indian people be involved in these programs. i the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I American Indians have asked to be involved when I Section 5.1.1.3. .I soil mediation actions remove contaminated soil, I I and afterwards, during habitat restoration. I G.4.5.2.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I Nondefense Research and Development I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I Program. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I be created by the Nondefense Research and I Section 5.1.1.3. I Development Program. Were existing research I I programs, especially the National Environmental I G.4.5.2.3 Project Shoal A rea-American I Research Park Program, to integrate American I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I Indians into the study designs, it is possible that a I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I few more Indian people would be employed. These I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I shifts in employment are expected to be minor, so I Section 5.1.1.3. I no American Indian socioeconomic impacts are I I expected. I G.4.5.2.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I I American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, I fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for I no new jobs would be created by the Work for I tribal members from the CGTO region of influence I Others Program. No American Indian I are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. I socioeconomic impacts are expected. I I I G.4.5.3 Alternative 3 - Expanded Use. I Site Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, no I I new jobs would be created by the Site Support I G.4.5.3.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian I Activities. No American Indian socioeconomic I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I impacts are expected. I employment opportunities for tribal members from I I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I G.4.5.1.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I Section 5.1.1.3. I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I G.4.5.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I Section 5.1.1.3. I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I G.4.5.1.3 Project Shoal Area-American I Section 5.1.1.3. I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I 1 Volume 1, Appendix G G-56 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I G.4.5.3.3 Project Shoal Area-American I G.4.5.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I tribal members from the CGTO region of influence I Section 5.1.1.3. I are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. I I I G.4.5.3.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I G.4.5.4.5 Eldorado Valley-American Indian I American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for I employment opportunities for tribal members from I tribal members from the CGTO region of influence I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. I Section 5.1.1.3. I I I G.4.5.3.5 Eldorado Valley-American Indian I G.4.5.4.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I employment opportunities for tribal members from I employment opportunities for tribal members from I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Section 5.1.1.3. I Section 5.1.1.3. I I I I G.4.5.3.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I G.4.5.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I employment opportunities for tribal members from I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Section 5.1.1.3. I Section 5.1.1.3. I I I G.4.5.3.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American I G.5. Mitigation Recommendations I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members (NOTE: The AIWS understands that the mitigation I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in recommendations may be divided between NTS EIS I Section 5.1.1.3. chapters and within chapters behind each alternative I discussion. Despite the need for breaking this I G.4.5.4 Alternative 4 - Alternate Use of section into its component parts, the AIWS wanted I Withdrawn Lands. their thoughts on mitigation to be held together in I this, their own, document.) I G.4.5.4.1 Nevada Test Site-American Indian I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE (NOTE: The Council on Environmental Quality’s I employment opportunities for tribal members from definition of Mitigation (40 CFR Part 1508.19), I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in which guides EIS actions, “includes (a) avoiding the I Section 5.1.1.3. impact altogether by not taking a certain action or I parts of an action, (b) minimizing impacts by I G.4.5.4.2 Tonopah Test Range-American limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in its implementation, (c) rectifying the impact by I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in environment, (d) reducing or eliminating the impact I Section 5.1.1.3. over time by preserving and maintaining operations I during the life of the action, and (e) compensating I G.4.5.4.3 Project Shoal Area-American for the impact by replacing or providing substitute I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I resources or environments.” The DOE has adopted I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I this definition (10 CFR Part 1021.104).) I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Section 5.1.1.3. 1 G-57 Volume 1, Appendix G lQ7 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Federal and state agencies that must comply with I The CGTO considers that the natural and spiritual legal requirements for the management and balance of the NTS landscape has been profoundly protection of American Indian cultural resources upset by prolonged nuclear testing activities and have developed, in the last few years, fairly standard that the land must be purified and the spirits procedures for funding and implementing present appeased in order to fully restore the environment to and future mitigation programs. The vast majority its previous condition. Through ceremonies, prayer, of these programs have focused on mitigating and offerings, American Indian people will archaeological and historic sites to the exclusion of contribute to increase the benefits of mitigation and other resources found in the American Indian will aid in restoring the spiritual harmony of cultural landscape. Only recently have American impacted landscapes. Indian plants been incorporated into mitigation programs, but these have concentrated mostly on There are a number of proposed NTS actions that endangered plant species. Animal studies, which are of great concern to Indian people because of require a more complex methodology, are only now their adverse impact on the American Indian being developed. Other components of the cultural landscape. To avert or mitigate such impacts, the landscape, such as geological formations, are not I CGTO recommends that the DOEN fund systematically considered for mitigation unless they systematic American Indian studies to: have potential for tourism. I Identify those areashesources that are A key problem of existing procedures for irreparably damaged, as well as areashesources implementing mitigation is the lack of an integrated that can be restored for human use approach to resources that takes into consideration the functional and reproductive interdependence of I Avoid further ground-disturbing activities American Indian cultural resources. In the view of I the CGTO, there is not one type of resource that can I Make mitigation of restorable areas a top continue to reproduce and be of use to the American priority Indian people without the continuation of all other resources. For Indian people, an adversely I Replace lost plant and animal species integral impacted resource will most certainly affect the to the spiritual landscape spiritual harmony of the land as a whole. I Avert or minimize damage to geological Unfortunately, laws and regulations designed to formations important to the spiritual landscape protect American Indian cultural resources (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act) treat each I Implement environmental restoration resource in isolation, without considering that a techniques that require minimum ground- specific resource is but one component of the disturbing activities American Indian cultural landscape. I Develop systematic consultation with I G.5.1 American Indian Cultural Resources American Indians so that potentially impacted I resources can be identified, alternative I The CGTO recommends that mitigation programs solutions discussed, and adverse impacts
implemented at the ' NTS fully incorporate the averted assistance of American Indian people so that adverse impacts on American Indian resources can I Give American Indian people access to be efficiently averted. American Indian people adversely impacted areas so that they can know the NTS landscape in great depth and thus contribute their knowledge, purification can help scientists with the identification of plants, ceremonies, prayers, and offerings to the animals, geography, archaeological sites, and restoration of the natural and spiritual harmony traditional cultural properties that have been or will of the NTS landscape. be adversely impacted by NTS programs and activities.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-58 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
In addition to these .recommendations that derive A. Alternative 1, (No Action, Continue from analysis of potential action and alternative Current Operations). The CGTO opposes impacts to American Indian cultural resources, the Alternative 1 because of our strong I CGTO made the following stipulations and cultural ties to the land. I recommendations at the first CGTO meeting with the DOE NTS EIS study team: B. Alternative 2, (Discontinue Operations). The CGTO supports Alternative 2 with I 1. Consultation with the CGTO does not relieve the inclusion of access and protection of the DOEN of its obligation to maintain a all cultural resource sites. government-to-government relationship with American Indian tribes. C. Alternative 3, (Expanded Use). The CGTO opposes Alternative 3 because of 2. The DOENmust consult with all culturally our strong cultural ties to the land. affiliated tribes and organizations belonging to I the CGTO. The CGTO recommends that lands set aside for exclusive Indian use continue to 3. The DOEMV should incorporate other be kept free, secure, and monitored for American Indian tribes and organizations contamination of radioactivity and
when considering activities away from , hazardous waste. (i.e., outside the American Indian region of influence) the NTS. The CGTO recommends that the Gold Meadows area be set aside for exclusive I 4. The CGTO recommends that the DOEN Indian use because the area contains a incorporate wherever possible in this EIS the concentration of important cultural I “Final Tribal Recommendations to the DOE’ resources. prepared at the second mitigation meeting, NTS AIRFA, October 1-3, 1993. D. Alternative 4, (Alternate Use of With- I drawn Lands). The CGTO tentatively I 5. The CGTO recommends that’ the DOEMV supports Alternative 4 with reservations incorporate wherever possible in this EIS all regarding certain components of this former American Indian recommendations alternative. I made by the CGTO to the DOE. I The following statements are specifically adapted I 6. The CGTO recommends the continuance and from the first CGTO meeting by the AIWS to expansion of the American Indian consultation reflect new information compiled during the work program. of the AIWS. Each of the following recommendations applies specifically to a situation I 7. The CGTO recommends that they be actively where the DOE has selected an alternative. The involved in the planning, developing, and recommendation of mitigation by the AIWS does monitoring of all future DOEMV ground- not imply they support the alternative; it merely is disturbing activities. the best way of responding to alternative impacts on American Indian cultural resources. 8. Public meetings are not the proper way to consult with tribes and organizations. They If Alternative 1 is chosen, the following are should not be considered “stakeholders” as recommended: defined by the DOE. 0 Continue AIRFA Compliance Program 9. Responses to the various NTS EIS alternatives: 0 Expand American Indian ethnographic studies
G-59 Volume 1, Appendix G ~~
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Conduct land-restoration ceremonies RestrictAimit access to culturally sensitive areas I 0 Provide access to the CGTO and limit access to culturally sensitive areas. 0 Continue AIRFA Compliance Program.
0 Continue American Indian monitors needed . G.5.2. American Indian Socioeconomics for cultural resources investigations This section describes the American Indian 0 Provide for American Indian monitors needed concerns associated with implementing for oversight of land and DOE activities. Alternative 1, as summarized by the CGTO.
If Alternative 2 is chosen, the following are When Indian people are hired, special problems recommended: emerge for themselves, families and reservation communities. The DOE can assist in mitigating 0 Continue AIRFA Compliance Program these problems by recognizing the exact nature of the problems and developing a culturally responsive I 0 Turn back land to the CGTO (designate approach to mitigating the problem. For example, areas for exclusive Indian control) an Indian employee may be required to attend a ceremony on the reservation. When this situation 0 Provide for American Indian monitors occurs, the DOE could grant special leave status to needed for oversight of land and DOE I the employee to participate in the ceremony. activities I Children of the Indian employee may go to non- I Indian schools, causing cross-cultural stresses. The 0 Conduct land-restoration ceremonies. I DOE could potentially mitigate this situation by I developing an American Indian outreachleducational If Alternative 3 is chosen, the following are I program directed at the school system and the recommended: I surrounding communities. Cultural awareness I activities could be implemented similar to the 0 Continue AIRFA Compliance Program I Yucca Mountain Project's outreach program in I which knowledgeable Indian people share various Expand American Indian ethnographic I aspects of their culture. The DOE could encourage studies I other Indian employees to participate in the I development and implementation of these culturally 0 Conduct land-restoration ceremonies I specific programs. I Provide access to the CGTO and limit access I Reservation problems resulting from the loss of to culturally sensitive areas I tribal members to external employment with the I DOE/NV cannot be fully identified without a Continue American Indian monitors needed 1 systematic study of these issues involving the tribes. for cultural resources investigations I It is recommended that this issue be mitigated by I the DOEN, and be specifically addressed by the Provide for American Indian monitors I DOE/NV Diversity Council. The CGTO needed for oversight of land and DOE I potentially can serve as a management consultant to activities. I the DOE for the development and implementation I of culturally specific programs that address the If Alternative 4 is chosen, the following are unique issues that may arise due to off-reservation recommended: migration caused by the employment of Indian people. 0 Designate joint-use area for three ethnic groups
Volume 1, Appendix G G-60 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I G.6 American Indian Consultation Procedures I established a working relationship with culturally I I affiliated American Indian tribes regarding cultural I American Indian tribes are sovereign nations who I resources at Yucca Mountain and the NTS since I acknowledge the U.S. government and expect that, I 1985. There are, however, numerous other areas of I in return, the US. government recognize tribal I great concern for tribal governments that are I sovereignty. In a memorandum dated I currently addressed in the NTS EIS, but that have I April 29, 1994, President William J. Clinton wrote I not been explored or systematically subjected to I ''I am strongly committed to building a more I consultation with tribal governments. Some of these I effective day-today working relationship reflecting I areas are: I respect for the rights of self-government due the I I sovereign tribal rights." American Indian I 0 Landuse I governments expect that federal agencies and state I Risk assessment I officials will honor President Clinton's explicit I 0 Socioeconomic issues I commitment to building such a relationship and I 0 Nuclear waste transportation I follow his mandate (Executive Orders Nos. 12875 I 0 Environmental restoration I and 12866, DOE, 1994). Accordingly, government I 0 Mitigation. I officials must implement comprehensive I I consultation policies that take into consideration the I The ATWS is aware that at present there are I vast cultural, social, and political diversity of I programmatic EISs taking place without the direct I American Indians, as well as the needs, concerns, I involvement of American Indian people. This lack I and impacts that are shared by our nations. I of involvement is a source of great concern for I culturally affiliated tribes. The gravity of past and American Indian tribes are not considered as, nor do I proposed future nuclear and defense-related they fit the definition of, businesses or I programs and activities at the NTS and other areas "stakeholders." Formal government-to-government I withdrawn by the DOE calls for a broadening of the consultation with tribal governments require I scope of American Indian consultation programs. I diplomacy. U.S. government officials who are in I As stated in the American Indian Policy (DOE, I charge of maintaining friendly and productive day- I 1994), the DOE must identify and seek to remove I to-day relationships with foreign countries, such as I impediments to working directly and effectively I Japan, Mexico, or Germany, must acquire I with tribal governments on DOE programs and I knowledge on the languages, culture, and politics of I activities. The DOE has already recognized that I those countries in order to best represent the I there may be certain procedural impediments which I interests of the United States of America and to I limit or restrict the ability to work effectively and I achieve success in international economic and I consistently with American Indian tribes. In I political negotiations. Yet, there is little or no I keeping with the American Indian Policy, which I interest among government officials to educate I requires government-to-government consultation, I themselves as to how American Indians living in 1 this federal agency must make every effort to I their own country, organize themselves culturally I remove such impediments. In the following I and politically. How, we ask, are federal agencies I paragraphs we present a step-by-step consultation I and state officials going to succeed in following I procedure that is culturally and politically I President Clinton 's mandate if they do not work at I appropriate. I improving their knowledge of American Indian life I I ways? I ,The following consultation procedures are drawn I I both from past and current consultation I The AIWS, who represents the concerns of the I relationships between DOEN and the CGTO. I CGTO for the NTS EIS, suggests a series of I Furthermore, these procedures reflect the need for I procedures.for implementing a comprehensive, day- I adjustments on consultation strategies for future I to-day consultation relationship with the DOE. The I DOE programs and activities that may potentially I Environmental Protection Division of DOEN has I impact the traditional culture and contemporary I maintained its commitment to consultation and has I well-being of Indian people. Therefore, this section 71 6-61 Volume 1, Appendix G - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I not only highlights the accomplishments of I should request that the tribal government I DOE/NV consultation with tribal governments, but I review this information and appoint an Official I also points out procedures that have yet to be I Tribal Contact Representative(s) who will I developed and implemented. Because the NTS EIS I directly interact with DOE officials. If I will be read by government officials from sister I representatives have already been appointed, I DOE facilities and .perhaps by other federal and I then the DOE has the responsibility to keep the I state agencies as well, the AIWS expects that the I tribal contacts informed and periodically I following consultation procedures will serve as a I double-check whether new representatives I model for future interaction between tribal I have been appointed by the tribal government. I governments and federal and state agencies. It is I I important to note that specific consultation I. Agency Point of Contact. A permanent agency I procedures should be approved by tribal I p.oint of contact should be appointed for all I governments at the onset of each consultation I DOE consultation activities (e.g., cultural I process. I resource management, NTS EIS write-up). I This individual(s) must have prior knowledge I G.6.1 Outline of Consultation Procedures of consultation procedures and American I Indian culture, long-range vision, and be I Initial Notification. A formal letter addressed responsible for maintaining long-term I to the tribal government head or chairperson consultation with the tribes. Continuity in I must be sent to inform the tribe of any consultation relationships achieved and I proposed action that may affect American maintained between the DOEN and the I Indian resources and/or may impact the well- CGTO could not have been possible without I being of tribal members. Initial formal letters the commitment of responsible and I must be followed up to ensure that the tribal knowledgeable agency officials. I government is aware of the proposed action I and has received copies of 21 pertinent I. Memorandum of Agreement. Consultation I documentation. When a Notice of Intent is I with the CGTO representatives is a productive I part of an ongoing consultation relationship, it I opportunity for sharing information and I should also be sent to official tribal contact I voicing common tribal concerns regarding I representatives. I DOE programs and activities at the NTS and I other areas withdrawn by the agency. I Pertinent Documentation. A non-technical I However, there are more specific impacts of I document that clearly and concisely presents I these programs and activities that directly I the scope and goals of the proposed action, I affect those tribes that live in the vicinity of the I including an explanation of potential effects I NTS. For example, radioactive waste I and consequences of such action, both positive I transportation affects directly the Moapa I and negative, should accompany the Notice of I Paiute and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribes. A I Intent. I Memorandum of Agreement between the I federal agency and the affected tribal I Formal Visitation. A request for a formal I governments should be signed before I visitation with the tribal government(s) to I implementing a proposed action. I make an oral presentation of the proposed I action and its effects and consequences should I. Information Updates. Tribal governments I follow a Notice of Intent. Presentations must I involved in consultation with the DOE must be I be concise and no more than 15 minutes. I kept informed of the progress of programs and I Visual aids and non-technical language will I activities, modifications of the original action I greatly facilitate communication. I plans, and changes of agency personnel that I I may affect the consultation relationship. Draft I Official Tribal Contact Representative. For I reports should be sent to the tribal I new proposed actions, the federal agency I governments for review and comment.
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-62 12, NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0 Indian Monitoring Program. Appointing I. Comanagement. Ideally, tribal governments Indian Monitors is essential for ensuring that I who are involved in consultation with the DOE cultural resource management and mitigation I should share tasks and responsibilities in the of adverse impacts of DOE programs and I management of resources that are significant activities to American Indian cultural resources I for Indian people. Future agency efforts is conducted in an appropriate manner. The. I should target the development of a resource involvement of officially appointed Indian I co-management plan. Monitors in archaeological research at the NTS, for example, has been successful and I. Funding. Funding for consultation, including will continue to be so in the immediate future. Official Tribal Contact Representatives Monitoring should be expanded to other areas meetings, site visits, task subgroups, and of potential impact to American Indian culture monitoring should be provided for the and well-being. continuation of current compliance programs and future projects. I. Formation of American Indian Task I I Subgroups. Ideally, tribal governments should I Time Allowance. Tribal governments are often I be directly involved in the design and I overworked and understaffed. Proposal I implementation of programs and activities that I reviews by the tribal council, personnel I could potentially impact Indian culture and I appointments, and review and comment of I society. This involvement can be made draft documents take time. Agencies should I possible if task subgroups formed by Official send notices of intent and any other I Tribal Contact Representatives are allowed to documentation within a reasonable timeframe I work alongside federal agency planners or so that tribes can respond on a timely basis. I managers. For example, during the Proposal and document review periods should I preparation of the Draft NTS EIS, the CGTO be 30 to 45 days. I suggested to DOE/NV that a subgroup of its I I Official Tribal Contact Representatives I G.6.2 Consultation Issues I (representing three ethnic groups) be allowed I I to write American Indian text directly into this I Land Use. Land has no monetary value for I EIS. This task subgroup became the AIWS. A Indian tribes. Indian people do not recognize I positive response from the DOEN was boundaries other than their traditional I needed to demonstrate that American Indians territories. Land was traditionally respected I can work effectively with federal agencies. It for its ability to sustain the people I is expected that Indian task subgroups will economically, spiritually, and socially. I become an established consultation procedure. American Indian perspectives on land use I should be incorporated into all federal agency I. Regular Meetings Between Agency Managers programs and activities that will potentially I and OfJicial Tribal Contact Representatives. transform the natural landscape of traditional I Periodically, DOE managers should agree to a Indian land or impact its biological resources. I formal meeting with tribal representatives to I share information on current and future plans, Is Biological Resources. The DOES projects and I ongoing consultation, needs and concerns of I activities have impacted the region's plant and I both the tribes and the agency, and policy I animal species. A number of them are I updates. These meetings are useful for I currently candidates for listings as either I reassuring both agency managers and tribal I threatened or endangered. Indian people have I governments that consultation is being I deep knowledge of the biological resources of I conducted in a culturally and politically I the area and should participate directly with I appropriate manner and for mutual benefit. I scientists responsible for the protection of its I I biological resources. Although systematic I traditional-use plant studies have been
6-63 Volume.1, Appendix G I i NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I conducted in Yucca Mountain, Pahute Mesa, I to risks of accidents, spills, and adverse I and Rainier Mesa, American Indians would I impacts of transportation on tribal economies. I like to see the DOE take a step further and I The cumulative effects of long-term nuclear I invite them to assist the agency in the planning I waste transportation through tribal lands would I and implementing of ecosystem management I be traumatic and potentially life-threatening to I programs at the NTS. I the well-being of the Indian people. I I I. Air Quality and Climate. The DOE should I The DOE has the responsibility to assist I make an effort to record systematically the I neighboring tribes in developing an emergency I adverse effects of nuclear testing on the air I response management program in regard to I quality of American Indian communities I transportation of low-and high-level nuclear I located near the NTS. I waste as it passes through tribal lands. A I Memorandum of Agreement should be signed. I. Visual Resources. All land forms within the I I NTS have high sensitivity levels for American I. Geology and Soils. Severe disturbance of the I Indians. The ability to see the land without the I geology and soils in large portions of the NTS I distraction of buildings, towers, cables, roads, I has been caused by repeated nuclear testing I and other objects is essential for the spiritual I (e.g., mountain sides, craters). These impacts . I interaction between Indian people and their I have made certain areas unfit for human use. I traditional lands. Landscape modifications I These areas have become inaccessible to I should be done in consultation with American I American Indians for religious purposes. I Indians. I I I. Surface Hydrology and Groundwater. Surface I. Occupational and Public Health and Safety. I waters of the NTS, the Tonopah Test Range, I The DOE’S programs and activities are I and the NAFR Complex are not used for I performed in accordance with the regulations I human consumption. Animals in these regions I of the Occupational Safety and Health I must drink this water: they do not have a I Administration. Tribes that live near the NTS I choice. Water pollution also puts plant I would like to be included in systematic I communities in jeopardy. Tribal governments I research aimed at ensuring that public health I are concerned that the migration of polluted I and safety measures devised by the DOE I water from contaminated areas into land I extend into tribal lands and communities. I outside the NTS will have long-term adverse I I effects. I. Nuclear Waste Transportation. Portions of the I I current road system within the western United I The AWS reviewed and edited the Consultation I States is based on ancient pathways and trails I Model produced for the U.S. Department of Energy I of Indian people. The Southwest Desert Trail I Legacy Project (Stoffle et al., 1994~).A detailed I System was not used for trivial activities but I version of this American Indian Consultation I for trade, commerce, pilgrimage, and often for I Model, which has been tailored to meet current I a hasty retreat or to pursue an enemy in the act I DOEN consultation procedures, is included in I of warfare. Trails were used to relay important I Attachment C of Appendix G. I messages to distant tribal groups. I 0 I G.7 Transportation Study I Tribal governments would like to cooperate I I with the DOE in the development and I 6.7.1 Consultation I implementation of safe transportation policies. I I However, no systematic consultation with I The compilers of the NTS EIS Transportation Study I tribal governments has bekn conducted to date. I refer to meeting with various American Indian I Indian communities located along I individuals, groups, and tribes. The interactions are I transportation routes are continuously exposed I listed as tables and discussed throughout the text.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-64 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I These meetings do not constitute full government- I specifically refers to American Indian consultation I to-government consultation with American Indian ’ I on a government-to-governmentbasis. I tribes, nor have they led to an American Indian I I transportation study. Instead, the meetings simply I G.7.2 American Indian Transportation I informed Indian people that an NTS EIS I Issues I transportation study was being conducted. I I Information about pending studies is an important I Although some American Indian transportation I first step in consultation with American Indian I. issues were suggested during the NTS EIS scoping I tribes and organizations; however, no additional I period and again raised in the CGTO meetings with I consultation steps were taken. The Transportation the Transportation Study team, the report does not I Study, tlierefore, cannot be supported by the include these issues. Despite a record of meetings I American Indian tribes and organizations with American Indian people, groups, and tribes, I represented by the CGTO. the study does not present critical American Indian I concerns. These include, among others, the impact I Especially disturbing to the CGTO is an apparent of radioactive and hazardous waste travel along rail I confusion regarding the purpose of CGTO and highway on nearby existing and planned I consultation during the NTS EIS. For example, the American Indian businesses, especially those of the I response to Question #16 (D-8, D-9) where a public Moapa Paiute Tribe and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe. I response raised the issue of the DOE going to the American Indian people, especially elders, express I tribes for consultation, rather than them having to a fear of radiation as an “angry rock” which can I come to the DOE. The writers of the Transportation I impact people as it travels, even though it remains I Study responded by referring to the CGTO I packaged and no transportation accident occurs to I involvement with other portions of the NTS EIS as I spill the contents of the package. Although this I though it was an example of consultation specific to I perception of radioactivity was expressed by I the transportation study. This is an incorrect I American Indian people in the 1987 DOE I statement, in as much as the CGTO was informed I archaeology study, the nature and extent of this fear I by the DOE NTS EIS Transportation Study team I has not been addressed by the transportation study. I that the CGTO did not have to respond to I American Indian people also express concern that I transportation issues because the Transportation I places of spiritual power are being and could be I Study team was working directly with the tribes in I additionally harmed by the transportation of I a parallel but separate consultation. The CGTO is I radioactive and hazardous waste. American Indian I only now, responding to the Transportation Study I people are currently reacting to these concerns by I because it neither identifies nor assesses American I worrying about the past and current impacts of I Indian impacts. I waste transportation and by avoiding certain places I I they believe have been adversely impacted by the I American Indian tribes are not 44stakeholders”and, transportation of radioactive and hazardous waste. I thus, meetings designed to elicit the opinion of I public stakeholders are not an appropriate method The CGTO recommends that the cultural concerns I for consulting with tribes who are to be addressed of other American Indian tribes and organizations I on a government-to-government basis according to should be included in the Transportation Study. I the President of the United States. Thus, there are The CGTO understands that the Transportation I misleading and incorrect statements in Chapter 2, Study is focused on what it called “local issues” I Stakeholder Issues, that indicate that American (Volume 1, Appendix I, p. 1-I), but is not certain I Indian tribes were given the opportunity to identify why other Indian tribes, who potentially are I issues during public meetings. No public meetings impacted by transportation and who live in the West I should be considered as a replacement for and Southwest, are not included in this study. I government-to-government consultation. All When most statistics cited in the report are I reference to American Indian consultation should be statewide from Nevada, why are other Nevada I removed from this section of the report unless it Indian tribes not considered in this transportation study?
G-65 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I The CGTO would like to know if probability I sites of historical importance, and cultural I calculations are based on transportation safety I landscapes. I nationwide or in the local area of the Transportation I Study. If the calculations are based on national 0 The archaeological site analysis in I statistics, why were local statistics not used instead, Attachment F is limited to a review of I given the local-issue focus of the analysis. previously recorded sites. While such an I analysis is certainly appropriate as a beginning I The CGTO recommends that recent rail derailments of an assessment, it cannot be used to make I in the west and southwest be incorporated into the conclusions about potential impacts to these I probability calculations of railroad accidents. sites unless their cultural significance has been I evaluated by American Indian people. Also, I The CGTO would like to express the opinion that previous archaeology studies were not I the probability of either railroad or highway conducted with the railroad development in I accidents has increased and is increasing owing to mind, thus their sampling methods and study I domestic acts of violence directed at the federal locations do not correspond with the ground I government, its employees, and its activities. These disturbing activities that would be associated I increased accident probabilities should be with the construction of a railroad. Also, I calculated into the Transportation Study and the previous archaeological studies were not I report should clearly inform readers how these conducted with the guidance, participation, I accident trends and potential domestic terrorist and review of American Indian tribes and I activities were incorporated into the transportation organizations and, thus, do not reflect current I analysis. DOENpolicies of involving Indian people I in these studies. I G.7.3 A Faulty Transportation Assessment I (Attachment F, Nevada Test Site Rail I. The cultural resource analysis in Attachment F I Access Study) I fails to reflect the well-known and well- I I documented cultural significance of the area I Attachment F contains a faulty assessment of I around the Spring Mountains. The area is I potential impacts to American Indian cultural I where the Creator transported all Southern I resources that would occur if a variety of new I Paiutes into existence, and, therefore, gave I railroad tracks were constructed connecting the I them the mandate to use and protect these I NTS with existing railroads. The cultural resource I lands. As such, the area around the Spring I analysis contained in this study was conducted I Mountains is the center of the Southern Paiute I without the involvement of the CGTO who serve as I Holy Land, and it is literally filled with places I guides, participants, and monitors of all cultural I of utmost cultural significance. I resource studies associated with the NTS. As a I result, the study cannot be considered to be even a I. Much of this analysis suggests it is about I preliminary assessment of potential American I Yucca Mountain rather than about proposals I Indian cultural resource impacts. I properly considered in the NTS EIS. Beyond I I the frequent reference to Yucca Mountain in I Some of the more significant flaws in the study are I the study, there is Figure F-1 which I as follows: I specifically indicates that all of the considered I I routes lead only to the Yucca Mountain Site. If I 0 The study in Attachment F is limited to an I the Transportation Study is to be used as part I analysis of archaeological remains, thus failing I of the Yucca Mountain EIS, then the CGTO I to consider the full range of American Indian I would like to be advised and have the I cultural resources which include, among I opportunity to respond to the Transportation I others, Indian plants, animals, traditional I Study as a component of the Yucca Mountain I cultural properties, mineral deposits, water, I study. Some other flaws in the Attachment F I study are as follows:
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-66 ?b NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I. The Moapa P$ute Indian Reservation is G.7.4 Conclusion - A Fatally Flawed I missing from the transportation maps. Attachment F
0 Figures F-2 and F-4 incorrectly identify the The study in Appendix F is fatally flawed and “Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation” as the should not be used for its expressed purpose which “Paiute Indian Reservation.” is: I I. The term “Southern Paiute Reservation” is to support a dialogue with Nevada used in the text (F-29) to refer to the stakeholders...( and be) a basis for starting “Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation.” a formal discussion of this issue I (Volume 1, Appendix I, Attachment F, I. The term “Indian Reservation” is used without page F-1). I a defined boundary oh Figure F-1 . Since there I is no place with this name, the term could be The CGTO believes that a reasonable dialogue I referring to the “Walker River Paiute Indian about potential impacts cannot be begun with I Reservation”. or the “Yomba Shoshone Attachment F because it fails to involve an I Reservation”. It should also be pointed out that American Indian assessment component in the I the “Duckwater Shoshone Reservation” is cultural resources sections. Were a dialogue to I located between railroad routes #8 and #9, but begin without involving American Indian issues, it I this important place is missing from the figure. would be a violation of both cultural resource I The “Ely Shoshone Reservation” is also protection laws and regulations, and would not be in I missing from the map. keeping with past DOEN commitments to I involve American Indian tribes and organizations in I. The analysis of Stateline Route (F-30) fails to such discussions. I mention the Pahrump Paiute Tribe, which is a I member of the CGTO and which is currently G.8 Framework for the Resource Management I seeking federal recognition. An especially Plun I important omission is the Pahrump Paiute I Tribe’s plan to have lands withdrawn for a G.8.1 American Indian Participation I new reservation in the Pahrump Valley once I the Pahrump Paiute Tribe receives tribal American .Indian ethnic groups whose aboriginal I recognition. territories included the NTS lands have accumulated I centuries of knowledge on the resources present at I. The study has an “error of omission,” when it this site. Through continued use, Indian people I states that impacts on cultural resources are developed a profound understanding of the cycles. I regulated though Section 106 of the National of resource renewal and natural transformation of I Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (F-28). In the landscape, the relationships between plants, I fact, cultural resources are also regulated by animals, minerals, water, air, and landforms that I the AIRFA of 1979 and the NAGPRA of form the ecosystem, and the spiritual and healing I 1990. All three cultural resource acts specify power of this land. Elders describe their relationship I the critical role of American Indian tribes and with the NTS lands: I Indian organizations in the identification and I assessment of cultural resources. “When you come to this land you feel at home, it gives you a peaceful feeling, the land, the mountains, the birds. Like when I cross over the mountains and see Owens Valley. In the old times the people used to come together and have social gatherings and pow-wows. When we came together here [at Gold Meadow] in 1993 it was the
6-67 Volume 1, Appendix G 77 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
first time after at least 50 years that the We use the proposed steps of development of the three ethnic groups had the opportunity to Resource Management Plan to offer a framework get together. It felt very peaceful to be for American Indian participation: back home among Indian people. This opportunity for tribal elders to return to Step 1. Review Information and Identify this holy place was an important Resources. Since 1987 the DOEN has worked pilgrimage after being kept forcefully with the CGTO to identify American Indian away from this land for all those years. It resources first at Yucca Mountain and currently at was a special gift for tribal elders who the NTS. Systematic studies of American Indian still remembered Gold Meadow, and for resources include archaeological sites, traditional the younger people who experienced this cultural properties, and plant resources in Pahute pilgrimage with us.” and Rainier Mesas. These studies demonstrate not only how important this land and its resources are American Indians can contribute this knowledge to for Indian people but also how valuable traditional the development of a comprehensive and culturally knowledge can be for developing the Resource sensitive Resource Management Plan for the NTS Management Plan. Other American Indian by: resources present at the NTS that need to be systematically investigated are: 0 Assisting the DOEN in the development of methods of identification, inventory, and 0 animals preservation of American Indian resources minerals 0 rockart I. Sharing values and perceptions that Indian water I people place on the resources at the NTS 0 air I 0 soils I. Broadening and refining the goals that 0 landforms. I DOEN will use to guide the conservation I and culturally appropriate use of those Currently, American Indian participation in the I resources protection and management of resources at the NTS i is not limited to compliance with section 106 of the I. Identifying American Indian priorities and Historic Preservation Act, but includes 10 years of I constraints on resource management goals, and consultation with DOEN, including the AIRFA I compliance program, the NAGPRA compliance I. Bringing American Indian views on traditional program, and the direct participation of American I ecosystems so that the principles of ecosystem Indians in the writing of sections for the NTS EIS. I management can be incorporated into the Consultation that may be implemented in the future, I Resource Management Plan in a culturally specifically that related to the Resource I sensitive manner. Management Plan, will be successful if it is built on past and present relationships between the DOW Ultimately, the goal of American Indian and the CGTO. Participation in the Resource Management Plan is to develop a long term co-management plan for the Step 2. Develop Management Goals for . cultural resources present at the NTS. Resource Issues and Constraints. Throughout the years of nuclear testing and other defense-related G.8.2 How American Indian Participation operations conducted at the NTS, American Indians may be incorporated into the Resource were extremely concerned by the American Management -Plan government’s lack of regard for the tragic effects that these activities had on cultural and environmental resources and the minimal response to public concerns on these activities. The CGTO
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-68 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
is concerned that alternative NTS missions and CGTO, the Kaibab Southern Paiute Tribe, is activities4efense-related or not-may continue to currently developing a multimedia management negatively impact Indian resources at the NTS. The plan for their own resources along the Colorado goal of the CGTO is to participate as a partner in River Corridor, including resource identification, the development of strategies that the DOEN data collection, field monitoring, and long-term could use to minimize or even completely eliminate education programs on the conservation impacts to their critical resources. management of resources by tribal people. In the near future, American Indians will have the Step 3. Develop Management Actions to Reach technical knowledge and tools to actively the Goals. The CGTO is concerned that the current collaborate with the DOENin the development of Frameworkfor the Resource Management Phn has land-use planning tools. An agreement which excluded the sovereign nations from the drafting of includes DOEN’s sponsorship of technical the list of management actions that the DOERW training of Indian people on this step would greatly may take during land-use planning and resource accelerate learning and improve collaborative management. The CGTO expects that its member efforts. tribes and organizations be invited to coordinate and . cooperate with the DOENto reach this goal. A American Indians would like to be invited to critical issue that must be addressed in the future is examine, discuss, and provide recommendations on the socioeconomic impact that NTS activities have suitable land uses and compatibility between future had on neighboring tribal lands. The CGTO land-use alternatives and cultural concerns of Indian considers that an expansion of DOE/NV’s existing people. It is important for the DOEN to working relationships and a negotiation of understand that, in the American Indian point of agreements with neighboring tribal governments is view, “land-disturbing activities” are not limited to essential for developing a positive and effective co- construction or land restoration, but include well management strategy. drilling, waste disposal, opening of the NTS to public use, and other alternative programs and Step 4. Identify, Collect, and Summarize Data actions being considered in this EJS. Needed to Implement the Management Actions. A comprehensive and culturally sensitive Resource Step 6. Implement the Resource Management Management Plan should include systematic Plan During Land-Use Planning. American identification and data collection on American Indian governments would like the DOEN to Indian resources and on contemporary issues of engage in government-to-governmentconsultation concern for tribal governments, such as health and during the selection and design of new projects, so safety, Environmental Justice, socioeconomic that Indian people can evaluate in detail and follow impacts, and risk assessment of nuclear waste closely the development and progress of projects transportation. The current working relationship that can potentially affect their traditional resources. between the DOENand the CGTO includes the I American Indians consider the selection of suitable identification and partial data collection on I locations for new projects a critical step in all NTS American Indian cultural resources. However, I proposed programs and activities and thus would issues of concern for the contemporary well-being I like to be directly involved during the evaluation, of Indian people have yet to be addressed. I decisionmaking, and implementation stages. American Indians would like to participate in the I identification, collection, and summary of data I Step 7. Monitor Resources and Adaptively needed to implement management actions. I Manage. An American Indian monitoring I program is currently in place and has been Step 5. Develop the Land-Use Planning Tools. I sponsored by the DOEN since 1993. This American Indian resources should be systematically I monitoring program is currently limited to incorporated into the evaluation of management I archaeological research at the site. Indian tribes actions and mapping of data collected through I would like to expand the monitoring program to Step 4. At least one member organization of the I other ground-disturbing activities that may affect
6-69 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I wildlife, forestry, water, air, soils, and minerals of I G.8.3 American Indian Ecosystem I importance to Indian people. Ideally, a training I Perspectives I program to provide American Indians with I I background knowledge and monitoring skills would I Ecosystem management is a term that is being used I complement traditional knowledge on ecosystems I in the current Framework for the Resource I and would help implement a culturally sensitive I Management Plan in response to recent federal I monitoring strategy that is positive and feasible for I guidelines. Indian people have a unique view of I both the DOEN and tribal governments. I ecosystems and culturally established procedures for I Expanding the American Indian monitoring I using them in a sustainable manner. These cultural I program to include other resources and training I ways, which could be called ecosystem management I Indian monitors would greatly enhance the I strategies, have been developed out of thousands of I DOE/NV’s ability to identify, collect, and I years of experience living on and learning from the I summarize the data needed to implement the I NTS ecosystems. The Indian ecosystem approach I Resource Management Plan (Step 4). I reflects what is being called cultural landscapes I I (Stoffleet al. 1996b) elsewhere in cultural resource I A long-term goal of the CGTO has been to achieve I management .. I co-management of the NTS. Co-management is a I I term that seems to best describe the relationship I The meaning of a natural ecosystem is a key issue I between the DOEN and the CGTO who have I within the Indian people’s view of ecosystem I come together over the past 10 years to jointly I management. According to traditional ecosystem I identify and suggest mitigation recommendations to management perspectives, natural ecosystems I protect American Indian cultural resources. This contain Indian people interacting with the physical I co-management relationship must be identified and I environment, plants, and animals. After thousands I addressed in detail during the implementation of the I of years of interacting with American Indians, the I Resource Management Plan. Tribal governments plants, animals, and physical resources of the NTS I would like to continue having the opportunity to have adjusted to this relationship. Indian people I voice their concerns whenever culturally and believe that the land is to be used in a culturally I socially unacceptable proposals are being evaluated I appropriate manner or it becomes infertile. “Talk to I by the DOEMV. I it” is what Indian people say. The plant to be I picked, the animal to be hunted, the mineral to be I Step 8. Periodically Review and Update the mined, the water to be drunk, all need to be talked I Plan. American Indians are not just one more to so they understand why they are being used and I resource within the NTS lands, nor are they so they can willingly give themselves over to the I independent “stakeholders.” Tribal governments I service of Indian people. In return, the picked plant I are sovereign nations which, under President comes back thicker, the animal herd is stronger, the I Clinton’s mandate (American Indian Policy, DOE, mineral deposits are used in religious ceremonies, I 1994), must be addressed in a government-to- I and the water satisfies one of its purposes. The I government consultation. Tribal governments I view of a natural landscape containing Indian I would like the opportunity to follow up the I people interacting with the landscape is already I development and implementation of the Resource I expressed in previous NTS EIS comments as well I Management Plan, engage in formal consultation I as in previous NTS documents (Stoffle et al., I whenever new programs and activities are being I 1990a). I evaluated, and participate in land-use management I I strategies, including mapping and inventory of I I resources, monitoring, and risk assessment I evaluations. Maintaining communication between I the DOEMV and tribal governments will ensure I that the Resource Management Plan is responsive I to cultural concerns and the well-being of Indian I people.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-70 23-D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Defining an American Indian Ecological Unit is a 6.8.4 Comments to Framework for the critical issue for implementing an ecosystem Resource Management Plan management strategy that includes cultural resources. Indian people often accept American Indian participation in the protection and geographically unique units like hydrological management of resources at the NTS is not limited basins as reflecting traditional adaptive units. to compliance with Section 106 of the Historic However, these geographically unique units are Preservation Act, but includes 10 years of bound together into larger culturally-based units. consultation with the DOEN, including the Ultimately it is cultural, not natural geography that AIRFA compliance program, the NAGPRA reflect the mind of Indian peoples' adaptation. compliance program, and the direct participation of Cultural-geographic units identified by past studies American Indians in the writing of sections for the are the (1) local use area, (2) district, and (3) holy NTS EIS. Consultation that may be implemented land or' nation. Additional cultural-geographic in the future, specifically that related to the units are the (1) regional landscape, (2) ecoscape, Resource Management Plan, will be successful if (3) story-scape, and (4) landmarks (Stoffle et al. it is built on past and present relationships between 1996b). The AIWS would like the Resource the DOENand the CGTO. Management Plan to consider using American Indian cultural-geographic units as part of the base management plan.
6-71 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-72 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.9 References
REGULATION, ORDER, LAW
10 CFR Part 1021.104 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Energy: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,.DC, 1995.
40 CFR Part 1508.19 EPA, “Protection of the Environment: Council on Environmental Quality,” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1995.
DOE Order 1230.2 DOE, “American Indian Tribal Government Policy,” Washington, DC, 1992.
EO 8578 Executive Order, “Withdrawal of Public Land for Use of the War Department
as an Aerial Bombing and Gunnery Range, Nevada, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1940.
EO 9019 Executive Order, “Revoking in Part and Modifying Executive Order 8578 of October 29, 1940, and Reserving Public Land for Use of the War Department 0 as an Aerial Machine-gun Range, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1942.
EO 12866 Executive Order, “Regulatory Planning and Review, ” Office of the President, . Washington, DC, 1993.
EO 12875 Executive Order, “Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1993.
EO 12898 Executive Order, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Zncome Population, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1994.
PL Order 805 Public Land Order (PL Order), “Withdrawing Public Lands for Use of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; Partial Revocation of Executive Orders Nos. 8578 and 9019,” Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Register, 1952.
GENERAL
Amstein, 1969 Arnstein, S.R., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 217-224, 1969.
I Bean and Vane, 1978 Bean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Denver-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line, Cultural Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1978.
G-73 Volume 1, Appendix G 83 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Bean and Vane, 1979 Bean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, Allen- Warner Valley Energy System, Western Transmission System, Ethnographic and Historical Resources, Cultural System Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1979.
Bean and Vane, 1982 Bean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, The Ivanpah Generating Station Project Ethnographic (Native American) Resources, Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1982.
Brooks et al., 1975 Brooks, R.H., D. Olson, J. King, G. King, R. Leavitt, and P. Anderson, I Prehistoric and Historic Research Along the Navajo-McCullough Transmission Line Right-of- Way, Nevada Archaeological Survey, University I of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 1975.
I Cernea, 1991 I Cemea, M.M. (ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural I Development, New York, Oxford University Press, 1991.
I D’Azevedo, 1986 I D’Azevedo, W.L. (ed.), 1986, Great Basin, Vol. 11, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, 1986.
I Deloria, 1985 I Deloria Jr., V., Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration o I Independence, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, 1985.
I Deloria and Stoffle, I Deloria Jr., V., and R. Stoffle (eds.), Sacred Sites Protection Strategies - I 1994 I Legacy Project, Preliminary report prepared for the National Park Service and I the U.S. Amy Environmental Center, Bureau of Applied Research in I Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.
I Dobyns, 195 I Dobyns, H., “Blunders with Bolsas,” Human Organization, 10:25-32, 1951. .r:
I DOE, 1994 I U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Memorandum for the Heads of Executive I Departments and Agencies, Government-to-GovernmentRelations with Native I American Tribal Governments, Washington, DC, 1994.
I DOEN, 1994 DOE, Nevada Operations Office (DOEM), Project Chariot Site, Assessment and Remedial Action Final Report, DOEN368, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.
Duckwater Shoshone Personal Communication with Kim Townsend, 1996. Tribe, 1996
Edwards and Johnson, Edwards, S.R., and W.G. Johnson, A Status Report on the Hot Creek 1994 Archaeological Collection: Project Faultless Area, Nye County, Nevada, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.
Euler, ,1966 Euler, R.C., “Southern Paiute Ethnohistory,” Anthropological Paper No. 78, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, 1966.
Fowler, 1979 Fowler, D.D., and J.F. Matley, “Material Culture of the Numa: The John Wesley Powell Collection, 1967-1880,” Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 26, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1979.
Volume 1, Appendix G 6-74 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Fowler, and Fowler, Fowler, C.S., and D.D. Fowler, “Notes on the History of the Southern Paiutes 1971 and Western Shoshonis,: Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 95- 113, Salt Lake City, UT, 1971.
I Gore, 1993 I Gore, A., Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, New York, I Plume, 1993.
I Greaves, 1994. I Greaves, T. (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A I Sourcebook, Society for Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City, OK, 1994.
I Halmo, 1994 I Halmo, D.B., “With One Voice: Collective Action in Cultural Impact I Assessments,” Practicing Anthropology 16(3):14-16, 1994.
I Laird, 1976 Laird, C., The Chemehuevis, Banning, Malki Museum Press, 1976.
I LeVine and Shweder, I LeVine, R., and R. Shweder (eds.),” Properties of Culture: An Ethnographic I 1984 I View,” in Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Se& and Emotion, pp. 67-87, I Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
I Merriam, 1979 I Merriam, C.H., “Indian Names for Plants and Animals Among California and I Other Western North American Tribes,” Baliena Press Publication in I Archaeology: Ethnology and History 14, Robert F. Heizer (assist.), Socorro, I NM, 1979.
I Morrissey, et al., 1994 I Morrissey, W.A., J.A. Zinn, and M. Corn, “Ecosystem Management: Federal I Agency Activities,” in CRS Report for Congress, Library of Congress, I Washington, DC, 1994.
I Palmer, 1978 I Palmer, W.R., (1946) Why the North Star Stands Still and Other Indian I Legends, Zion Natural History Association, Zion National Park, Springdale, I UT, 1978.
\\ I ‘Yarentaeu, 1988 I Parentaue, R., Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, \ I University of Montreal Press, Montreal, Canada, 1988. \ I Piesnall, 1936 I Presnall, C.C., Zion-Bryce Nature Notes, Zion Natural History Association, I Zion National Park, Springdale, UT, 1978.
I , Ruppert, 1994 I Ruppert, D., “Buying Secrets: Federal Government Procurement of Intellectual I Cultural Property,” in Intellectual Cultural Property Rights for Indigenous I Peoples: A Source Book. Tom Greaves (ed.), pp. 111-128, Society for I Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City, OK, 1994.
I Sapir, E., Kaibab Paiute Linguistic and Ethnologic Field Notes, Manuscript I No. 2643 in American Philosophical Library, Philadelphia, PA, 1910.
I Steward, 1938 Steward, J.H., “Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups,” Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 120, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1938.
G-75 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Stewart, 1939 Stewart, O.C., “The Northern Paiute Bands,” Anthropological Records, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 127-149, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Stoffle and Dobyns, Stoffle, R.W., and H. Dobyns, Nuvagantu: Nevada Indians Comment on the 1982 Intermountain Power Project, Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole I. Transmission Line Nevada: Ethnographic (Native American Resources), Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, WI, 1982.
Stoffle and Dobyns, Sotffle, R., and H.F. Dobyns, Nuvagantu, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983 Reno, NV, 1983.
Stoffle and Evans, Stoffle, R.W., and M.J. Evans, “American Indians and Nuclear Waste Storage: 1988 The Debate at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 75 1-767. 1988.
Stoffle and Evans, Stoffle, R.W., and M.J. Evans, “Holistic Conservation and Cultural Triage: 1990 American Indian Perspectives on Cultural Resources,” Human Organization, I Vol. 49, NO.2, pp. 91-99, 1990.
Stoffle and Evans, Stoffle, R.W., and M.J. Evans, “American Indians and Nuclear Waste Storage: 1992 The Debate at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” in Native Americans and Public I Policy, Fremont, J. L. and L. H. Legters, (eds.), pp. 243-262, University of i I Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992.
Stoffle, 1987 Stoffle, R.W., Native Americans and Nuclear Waste Storage at Yucca I Mountain, Nevada: Potential Impacts of Site Characterization Activities, I Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987.
Stoffle et al., 1983 Stoffle, R.W., H. Dobyns, and J.M. Evans, Nungwu-Uakapi: Southern Paiute Indians Comment on The Intermountain Power Project Intermountain- Adelanto Bipole I Transmission Line, Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, WI, 1983. / I Stoffle et al, 1987 I Stoffle, R.W., M.W. Traugott, F.V. Jensen, and R. Copeland, Social I Assessment of High Technology: The Superconducting Super Collider in I Southeast Michigan, Survey Research CenterKenter for Political Studies, I Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987.
I Stoffle et al., 1989a Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, and C. Harshbarger, Native American Interpretation of Cultural Resources in the Area of Yucca Mountain, Interim Report, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, I 1989.
Stoffle et al., 1989b Stoffle, RIW., M.J. Evans, D.B. Halmo, W.E. Niles, and J.T. O’Farrell, Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, I Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1989.
Volume 1, Appendix G G-76 t i i NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i I Stoffle et al., 1988a Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, and D.B. Halmo, Recommended Actions for i Reducing Potential Adverse Esfects on Native American Cultural Resources I Caused by Site Characterization Activities, Institute for Social Research, 1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988. Stoffle et al., 1988b Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, J.E. Olmsted, and M.J. Evans, Annual Report, i I Native American Cultural Resource Studies, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, report prepared for Science Applications International Corporation, Institute for I Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988.
I I I Stoffle et al., 1990a Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, J.E. Olmsted, and M.J. Evans, Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Institute for Social 1 I Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1990.
It Stoffle et al., 1990b Stoffle, R.W, D.B. Halmo, M.J. Evans, and J.E. Olmsted, “Calculating the Cultural Significance of American Indian Plants: Paiute and Shoshone I Ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain,” American Anthropologist, I Vol. 92, pp. 416-432, 1990.
Stoffle et al., 199Oc Stoffle, R.W., J.E. Olmsted, and M.J. Evans, Literature Review and Ethnohistory of Native American Occupancy and Use of the Yucca Mountain Region, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, I 1990.
Stoffle et al., 1994a Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, and M. Dufort, NAGPRA Consultation and the Nevada Test Site: Final Report of Subgroup Activities, Bureau of Applied I Research in Anthropology (BARA), University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.
Stoffle et al., 1994b Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, D.B. Halmo, M.E. Dufort, and B.K. Fulfrost, Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Institute Technical Report No. 84, BARA, I University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.
I Stoffle et al., 1994c I Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, M.N. Zedeno, B.W. Stoffle, C. Kesel, American I Indians and Fajada Butte: Ethnographic Overview and Assessment for Fajada I Butte and Traditional (Ethnobotanical) Use Study for Chaco Culture National I Historical Park, (BARA), University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.
I Stoffle et al., 1994d I Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo,.M.J. Evans, and D.E. Austin, Piapasa ‘Uipi’ (Big I River Canyon), prepared for the National Park Service, Bureau of Applied I Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.
I Stoffle et al., 1995 Stoffle, R.W., L.L. Loendorf, D.E. Austin, D.B. Halmo, AS. Bulletts, and B.K. Fulfrost, “Tumpituxwinap (Storied Rocks), ” Draft, BARA, University of I Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1995.
I Stoffle et al., 1996a I Stoffle, R.W., N. Zedeno, D. Halmo, and D. Austin, NAGPRA Consultation I and the Nevada Test Site Collection, BARA, University of Arizona, Tucson, I AZ , 1996.
G-77 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Stoffle et al., 1996b I Stoffle, R.W., D. Halmo, and D. Austin, “Cultural Landscapes and Traditional I Cultural Properties: A Southern Paiute View of the Grand Canyon and I Colorado River,” accepted for Publication in American Indian Quarterly, 1996.
Stoffle et al., 1996c Stoffle, R.W., D. Austin, D. Halmo, and M. Banks, Southern Paiute Ecoscape Perspectives: Applied Ethnographic Study of Cultural Resources at Zion National Park, Utah and Pipe Springs National Monument, Arizona, preliminary draft prepared for National Park Service, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1996.
Train, 1957 Train, P., J.R. Henrichs, and W.A. Archer, Medicinal Uses of Plants by Indian Tribes of Nevada, Lawrence: Quarterman Publications, Inc., 1957.
Tucker, 1982 Tucker, G. C., D. Christensen, and T. McEnany, “Results of Archaeological Investigations A long the Nevada Section of the Proposed Intermountain Power Project, Adelanto-Bipole I Transmission Line, ” Nickens and Associates Inc., Montrose, CO, 1982.
~ Volume 1, Appendix G- G-78 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
G.10 LIST OF PREPARERS
Neddeen Naylor Tribal Elder - Council Member Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations
Don Cloquet Tribal Elder Board Member - Las Vegas Indian Center Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations American Indian Writers Subgroup
Betty Cornelius Tribal .Elder Museum Director - Colorado River Indian Tribes Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations American Indian Writers Subgroup
Maurice Frank Contracts, Grants, and Cultural Resources Expert Vice Chairman - Yomba Shoshone Tribe Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations American Indian Writers Subgroup
Gaylene Moose Cultural Resources Expert Native American Youth Sports Coordinator - Owens Valley Big Pine Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations American Indian Writers Subgroup
Glen Hooper Cultural Resources Expert Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations American Indian Writers Subgroup Yomba Shoshone Tribe
.. G-79 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT t
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Volume 1, Appendix G G-80 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Attachment A I I THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR AMERICAN INDIAN I TRADITIONAL USE PLANTS PRESENT ON THE NEVADA TEST SITE
Appendix G,Attachment A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
%Appendix G, Attachment A Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 1 of 35)
~ ~
Scientific Name ' Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni Group Names Group Names Abies concolor White fir a-ta-vees I =-govies I I I I Abronia turbinata White sand verbena put-zooh-boh-hombes Abronia sp. White sand verbena bah-Fn-boh-hombes Achillea millefolium Milfoil yarrow i'itsikwasipi' Achillea sp. Yarrow i'itsikwasipi' toh-&-tone-g-gahs coo-s-pah-wah-zip8 --tonegas toh-&-tonega8 dogow&-wan-guh' toe-&- tong-ga' dona-angas rn-0V8 &,-ronzee-ahs Agave utahensis var. Kaibab agave kaiva uusivb kaibabhensis Agave utahensis var. Utah agave yaantb nanta' utahensis . Yant' Agave sp. Agave, Mescal Yant (mp)'
~ ~~ ~ Agropyron smithii Western wheat grass paxankwa' Agropyron sp. Wheat grass paxankwa' "I
~~ ~ Agrostis exarata Spike bentgrass NFf
Allium sp. Wild onion kwichasi' bah-zuh-seeg ' ' un-zee8 Amaranthus albus Pale amaranth toki-mont' tokimont' ._
~ Amaranthus Redroot pigweed kumuttt' retrojrexus . .. - . . . . . Amaranthus powellii Powell's amaranth, kumuttt' Pigweed pun-kont' ia~ieA-I. inree nunarea ana 3my-rour Amencan inaian iraaitionai use riants rresent on tne Nevaaa lest site (Page 2 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Amaranthus sp. Pigweed toki-mont' tokimont' ku-mont' pun-kont' Callloot' punkont' kumutd Y Ambrosia dumosa White bursage, katsiav' tmnpisangwavb 5 .. Burrobush Y Ambrosia Ragweed, NF artemisiijolia
Amelanchier Saskatoon service- toyabe' tuvwamptif alnijolia berry
~~~ ~ Amelanchier Utah serviceberry mgwmnp' kwiyav' dub-hee yemba' I utahensis ttrwfampa' toyaba' NF Amelanchier sp. Serviceberry tii-ab' (k)4 toyabe.' kwiyav' tuvwampn' mgwump' toyaba' kwiyav' trmgWUlTlp 1 Amsinkia tesselata Fiddleneck NF
Androstephium Funnel-lily NF brevijlorum Anemopsis Yerba mansa cheu-m-iv (mp)' NF californica tchupaniv' Anemone tuberosa Desert thimbleweed, NF Windflower . ---
Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 3 of 35)
~~ ~ .. Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names to'nchavi' ton ts ab i ' bee-ah-bogo' !c&& na-huah' &O' &-&boquah' Apocynum Dogbane, NF' cannabinurn Indian hemp Arabis pulchra Pretty rockcress I I Arabis sp. Rockcress toxopakuv' &Q-Zeah' Arceuthobium sp. Mistletoe San-hap' &tsav4 Not-toi-yum
~~~ Arctostaphylos Green-leaf ararmnpipi' patula manzanita
~~~ Arctostaphylos Pointleaf manzanita, ararmnpipi' ada'dimpipi' pungens Mexican manzanita Arctostaphylos sp. Manzanita ki'-app'e (k)' ararmnpipi' a-rai'-um-piv Q6 ada'dimpipi' tim-go'-op (Iv)~ Arenaria sp. Sandwort h-eenut-zoo' Argemone sp. prickly POPPY -esha-ah-goo-wha' uesda' sav-eedump' m-sag-weeduh' m-sag-gee-gee' Artemisia bigelovii Bigelow sagebrush sangwav" Artemisia Tarragon sangwavi' Pa' dracunculus Artemisia Water sage, huipata- sangwavi' ludoviciana Louisiana I sangwavb* pass-palls' wormwood, Sane herb sangwa' pa'sangwav" Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Tradona Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 4 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic I Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Lrtemisia nova 3lack sagebrush iangwavd sua'piv' iangwav' . a-hoe-be' b-boh-hobe' U-bhobe' baho i' Lrtemisia spinescens Bud sage, Button PQet-see-abs ,rush mie-up' bbuhtaha-o-quahs b-ba-tahcm-oh-quah' Eemisia tridentata Big sagebrush po-ho'-be (1~)~ sangwavi' m-guh-yoom' NF' sahng-wav' sangwa' M-hoe-be' sah-wahb' Q4 sanwa'bi' bah-v&-hoe-bes sangwav"." Iu!l-wawys hQB-hoe-bes paheesh &-wad a-wah-be' M-ombe' a-hoe-be' . a-wawys d-wah-be' wah-wpee' poi' pohovie bahopi' povi' ph6-be (PS)~ 4rtemisia sp. Sagebrush 'initp'" ' chumavb m-vah-hoe-be' po-ho'-be (1~)~ sangwa' w-oh-hoe' sahng-wav' sangwavi' coo-m-pah-zips sah-wahb' (l~)~ sanwa'bi' coo-s-pah-wah-zips sangwav"." Pa' a-vah-hobe: m-hobe' pa'sangwav" pass-pahs' huipata- sdmapweep' sangwavb.' sah-ap-weep' &zo-bas coo-~-wy-up' -see a-wah-zip' koh-see-wah-ahs Goo-see quatz-oh- pah-&-oh-buhs bahs wat-d" coo-see-sah-wah-bes whood-m-tah-=-oh- coo-see sah-wad auah' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 5 of 35)
~~~~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic ~ Group Names Group Names
Asclepias speciosa Milkweed ~ nah--dahnat- ut-&av' &-ah bee-sha divo-oh-wip' 1 -tizuaha wee-&-a-nuh' &-&no- koa toh-hawkquee' --be-sha-no-koa bee-sha-wannup' E-gee-wanna' Asclepias sp. Milkweed, broad -hewove9 --nag we-ii'-vimp (PS)~ leaf NF'
~ ~~ Asterfrondosus Leafy aster todss-tonega' Aster sp. Aster w h-nut-zoo' dimbe-be-&-zeea duh-na-m-go' 4stragalus Milkvetch NP Draelongus 4stragalus purshii Milkvetch w 4stragalus spp. Locoweed NP h-bah-hay nut-zoo' d-joomb' guP-wuh-ghu' ~quee' / 4triplex canescens Four-wing saltbush skumpb murunibi' noo---up' tonoh' tonob 4triplex confertifoiia Shadscale w kakumb" oavi' 4triplex lentifomis Big saltbush w 4triplex sp. Saltbush kakumb' oavi' skumpb que-aheque' tonob murunibi' I oari' I I 97 Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 6 of 35) Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 7 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic I Group Names Group Names Carex douglasii Sedge
Carex sp. Sedge
~ Castilleja chromosa Early Indian NF angawi&bu" NF paintbrush
Castilleja Paintbrush mquee-ah-B-tumb' linariaefolia do&ow&-die-umn
~~ Castilleja martinii Narrowleaf NF paintbrush Castilleja sp. Indian paintbrush NFd
~~ Caulanthus Squaw cabbage NF d-numb' crassicaulis Ceratoides lanata Winterfat NF
Cercoparpus Curl-leaf mountain tonumpi' . Dunumbe' &&-numben ledifolius mahogany humbe'(mp)8 deQ-peen U-nombe' -be-8 4eQbe-buh-a' &&apeen mben -bee-boh-& Wnambe' mwn
Cercocatpus sp. Mountain-mahogany to-namp' Q4 bumbe' too-num'-be (PS)~ tonmnpi' dunurnbe' too-namp'-pe4 to6-nam-I~~ %enactis douglasii Douglas dusty- hoot-.gg-eva* toh-kquah' yitch-a das-&*-ahn maiden si-j&ivS witch-&-numban vahn-gan-gooie' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 8 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Chamaebatiaria Fernbush u-0-wah taha-0- ting-e-buh' millefolium quaf?
Chenopodium Fremont goosefoot sax'watikup' u'uphi' fremontii
Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot sax'watikup'
Chorizanthe rigida Rigid spine-flower sand karnuhurusanuv' kanumuvusanuv'
Chorizanthe sp. Spine-flower SlUlUv' kamanurtt'
Chrysothamnus Rubber rabbitbrush s'kumpl e sikump' a-bape' nauseosus sikompb pantus'kumpd su'pimba' sikump' NF Chrysothamnus Little rabbitbrush see-=-pee8 tah-h-see-goop' =aha-m-bup-ee' viscidiforus tah-bee-she-goop' Qh-ba-see-bup-e'
Chrysothamnus sp. Rabbitbrush koo-chum'-ahv (Iv)~ sikump' sig-um-bip' (PS)~ koo-ham'-mah sikmpf hav' (c)~ s'kumpGe sikomp' Cirsium mohavense Desert thistle tsief
Cirsium sp. Pink thistle manavipb Claytonia sp. Spring beauty NP ' Clematis Virgin's bower, Wild a-wanna' a-wanna' ligusticifolia clematis &l-wannup'
Coleogyne Blackbrush NF" e ramosissima NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A-9 Appendix G, Attachment A aI\ \ Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 10 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens VaUey Ethnic Group Names Group Names Daleafremontii (see Fremont indigo bush . Psorothamnus fremntii)
Dalea polyadenia Smokebush ma-gQph-du-hoo' moh-mdu-hoop' ma-gpph-tu-hoo' rnoh-gpQg-du-hoopie' Dalea sp. Indigobush ieramidja'
Datura meteloides Sacred thorn-apple, moa-nump' main-oph-weep' mobs' Sacred datura, momomp4 mainophweep' Jimsonweed momompa' manopweep' mimip' m0h-B(mp)' man-op-weep'
Datura sp. Jimsonweed mu-maup' Q6 main-oph-weep' moa-nump' man-op-weep' momompb*e mainophweep' momompa' manopweep' mimip' Delphinium parishii Larkspur NF Vescurainia pinnata Tansy mustard aka' hahck' aku' WU" NP Descurainia sophia Tansy mustard, ahk" PoYah" Herb sophia .I Vescurainia sp. Tansy mustard ahk" hahck' , kdUC ak' I' aka' Ok' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 11 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Dichelostemma Bluedicks NFf pulchellurn
Distichlis spicata saltgrass e'-shii (1~)~ NP pas-shoo-turn (PS)~ ongavi" e-soov' (c)~ rno-nump' (k)4 6-hah S&-GD4 Bhah s&N> Dyssodia Scale glandweed sakwapib NFf -ahndah-gah nut-tah-zoorn* oentachaeta (=D. thurberi)
Echinocactus Cotton-top cactus tash" NF NF polycephulus
Fchinocactus sp. Barrel cactus pavio' tmnar (rnP)' mar (lv)(p)f Tchinocereus Engelmann usivwuits' manavd hedgehog wgelmannii cactus tule" kchinocereus Claretcup cactus chuamanav cacuusov'xobi' riglochidiatus i'mamanavib ova'xobi' kchinocereus sp. Hedgehog, Tule tule" ova'xobi' cactus chuamanav cacuusov'xobi ' i'mamanavib usirwuits (lv)(p)' usivwuits' NFd khinochloa sp. cockspur NFf
:leochurispalustris Spikerush NF'
'leocharissp. Spike rush pahrasiev' I bumohap' w 'lymus cinereus Wild rye w NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
B 9 E w0
Appendix G, Attachment A A-12 Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 13 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni Group Names Group Names NF Ephedra sp. Mormon tea, too-troop' (c)4 tutuupi' too-toom'-bip (PS)~ Jointfir,
Indian tea hoo-toop' Q4 utuupi' tup, tupb tutu'pi' u'tuup' tutupi" ' YamPC tutupe' hutuupc tu-@JJef tu'up" Equisetum Smooth scouring sakwa-'ivi-pb paxwav' kvigatum rush Fquisetum sp. Scouringrush b&-see-noo*
I _d NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
6)
a rA
Appendix G, Attachment A A-14 Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 15 of 35)
Scientific Name I CommonName Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic 1 Group Names Group Names Fritillaria I Spotted missionbells, atropurpurea I Leopard-lily
~~ Garryaflavescens 1Ashy silktassel ka'ninkwap' Gaura coccinea ' Scarlet beeblossom NEf I Gilia aggregata Scarlet gilia, (see Ipomopsis skyrocket aggregata)
Gilia congesta (see Ballhead gilia Ipomopsis congesta) I ? 0 Gilia inconspicua Floccose gilia (see Ipomopsis inconspicua) Glycyrrhiza lepidota Desert root, NF American licorice Grayia spimsa Spiny hop sage NE Grindelia squamosa Gum plant tonaa' &-&tongan' a-nah cav-oh-mah' &&-J&l-gQQpah-rah8 woh-&-gum' P Gutierrezia Matchweed, NF" yainupb tavishepi' microcephala Small-head waarumpb w3 2 snakeweed x ,c: Gutierrezia Snakeweed, s'kumpd =-@peg 3, sarothrae Matchweed . too-a-se-ooh-goope' -toom-bee-see-bupe' U w Haplopappus acaulis Stemless pau'p' apu'p' E Goldenweed 47 Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 16 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Haplopappus sp. Goldenweed pau'p' apu' p' ah-kump' (k)4 m-kuk'
Helianthus sp. Sunflower ah-kump' (k)4 akamp'
~ ~~ ~ Heliotropium Heliotrope &be-manabe' -tu-ma-nabe' i-y&-oh-ho' curassavicum wa'ateyowimpi' i-yah-oh-ho' &-man-ah-be' Hermidium alipes I Four-o'clock &-wov-bee' hove9 I mdimba-wah-rumb' I
Hilaria rigiah Big galleta ffolodiscusdumomus Mountain spray &-U-nut-tiz-u-wabbe' tahke-wh' tot-iip' wah---oh-guag m-huhnabbe' ~~___~~~~ ~ Hymenoclea salsola White cheesebush, paiab' Burrobush
Ipomoea sp. Morning glory
Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia, anka'siti' a-wah-ggEish' --mo-wanya' Skyrocket d-~tahxm-oh- =-give' --mutz-oh-y-newie' quaha m-piute' tin-ah-piute' NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
B 1 .- .cE
A-17 Appendix G, Attachment A a \ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
8 iii
m % 4 Yq 4 C
-0 e!
3 4
Appendix G,Attachment A *A-18 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
b ... a a a c
?- a a c
k
c 0
-06 4
.w .Y 3
A-19 Appendix G,Attachment A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT
23 k CI
C
B
3
Appendix G, Attachment A A-20 Table A-1. Three Hundredl and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 21 of 35)
~ ~
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names ~ Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names I Menneiia kvicaulis I Blazing star NF
Ment'zelia oreophila Blazing star, h'U' stickleaf
I ~ ~~ ~ Mentzelia sp. Stickleaf, Desert ku'u". corsage + Mimulus guttatus Monkey flower g&-vitchquanna8 1 pahn-zah-wtum'
Mirabilis multijlora Colorado toxo'owatsiv' tukwivib four-o'clock 3 ~ i Monardella Western bee bairn =-boo rnoh-m-up8 too-m-see-k8 ggy-moh' odoratissima I - m-abba-hoben Muhlenbergia Scratchgrass wichavi rna'apb asperfolia
Muhlenbergia sp. Muhly nutavi' Nastumum oficinale Watercress pamavttb parmaxunanaf' Nicotiana attenuata Coyote tobacco koapi' -bah-rnoh' -new-& bah-hoon' NF koap' pooee-bah-hoon8 poo-a-pah' koaop' poo-ee-bah-moh* =-bas tsaw-wap' poo-s-buh-hoon8 NF koap' tohdquah' Nicotiana Indian tobacco, koapi' saxwaxwapi" pombi" trigonophylla Desert tobacco nungwukoap' koapb mmgwakoap' ntmgwakoaDb Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 22 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Nicotiana sp. Tobacco, Wild ko-od6 koap' tobacco se-wah'-wahp (iv)4 koaop' ko-ahp (c)~ saxwaxwapi' sow-wow'-wahp (k)4 ' nungwukoap'
' sB-wah'-gwah%4 ntmgwakoap' koapi' tsaw-wap' Oenothera pallida Pale sixob evening-primrose
Opuntia basilaris Beavertail cactus manavb yuavimpu' nugwia' yuavi' yuavimpi' a-vomb' yuavimp' navtrmp' w-gay-bes NF Opuntia echinocarpa Golden cholla, Silver NF wiatimbu' cholla
Opuntia erinacea Mohave prickly yuavipb manavd pear, Grizzly bear manavi' cactus f Opuntia Engelmann prickly manavb phaeacantha pear I I Opuntia polyacantha Central prickly pear usivuwitsc Opuntia spp. Tuna, "Tule" cactus manavb manavi' yuavimpi' yuavimpd yuavipb yuavimpu' usivwuits' yuavimp' namp' yuavi' manavimpi' manavimp' 7- Orobanche cooperi Broomrape tu'U' NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A-23 Appendix G, Attachment'A -.+9 Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 24 of 35)
~ Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Peraphyllum Squawapple ramosissimum
Phlox moh-m-zee-gyg-ah' &-&-hah-tonegan" h-ah-ee-go" queea-too-nabba' tu-k-man-up" gyg:go-dun-um" NF SQgQdiv-oh-sah' so-a-ron-zee-ah" Phragmites australis Common reed, Giant p~'-r~(k)6 paxampb. ' NF pihavi' common reed, Cane, pa-gimp (1~)~ pa'xamp' Honey dew Pah-gumP' Phragmites Common reed, moh-d-koh (mp)" wo-a-cau-pu" communis Honey dew P~gumP' hohgohkoh' pa-hump' Phragmites sp. Reed p~'-r~(k)6 hoh-goh-koh' pa-gump (W6 paxampb. ' pahgump' hohgohkoh' Physalis crassifolia Groundcheny Physalis sp. Groundcheny Physaria chambersii Chambers' twinpod tah-&-gee-noob" NFf &pah-dayS Pinus monophylla Singleleaf pinyon, tu-vap' (1~)~ tu'Uv' wahpic ' tuvap' toov' (c)4 tuva' tuVah' tuva' &bah'-kah-bub (k)4 tuva' &-pees tibag tuvapGe tuvwap' WahP' (PSI4 sahn-a;& wah-pee' tu-bapee" wah'-pe4
mbee" ' -wah-pee' sah'-nah-wah'-pe4 Ip-bas Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 25 of 35)
I Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine yu-vim' (1~)~ wung-gah-be4 6-gump' (k)4 wun-k&be (PS)~ yu-wim'p Pinus sp. Pinyon tu-wop' (k), (lv)6 ma' tu-vap' (1~)~ tiVah' toov' (c)4 tuva' tii-bah'-kah-bub (k)4 tuvapGe yu-vim' (1~)' tU'Uv" 6-gump' (k)4 tuvwap'
Pinus sp. Sugar pine wi-ah'-kah-tum (PS)~ Plantago major Common plantain -weedee' -woo-dee" Pluchea sericea (see Tessaria sericea) Poa bigelovii Bluegrass NF Poa fendleriana Muttongrass, uxwishuv' Bluegrass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood sovipb c Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen sing-gah-ve*~~ I r --up'
Dopulustrichocarpa Black cottonwood sing-gah-ve' a-gopg -so-ho-be' -su-nabbe' m-soo-nap' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 26 of 35)
~~ ~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic I GroupNames . Group Names Populus sp. Cottonwood sho-wid (k)6 sovipb s6-o-vimp' (PS)~ so-vwip (ivy s6-vip (k)4 sah'-hah-be4 sah'-vip (ivI4 sig '-ge4
I I Porophyllum gracile Odora pa'kwitupip'
Porophyllum sp. Odora m-guidobe (mp)'
Portulaca sp. Purslane topuene' to-puene'
Prosopis glandulosa Torrey mesquite opimpb 'opimpd o'phi' var. torreyana 'op' o'pimb"
Prosopis pubescens Screwbean kwiym' 'opimpu (mp)' wi'ump' quee-a-umb' kwierum' Prosopis spp. Mesquite 'Op' kwiyad opimpb quee-et-umb' 'opimd quee-etumb' Prunus andersonii &-awie' NE;' m-zon-ips I &-nab-bee8 Prunus fasciculata Desert almond tonopi' tonapi'
Prunus virginiana Chokecherry tonap' tonapi' doh-&-ah-boo-e' toh-a-a-be' Prunus sp. Chokecherry tonap' tonapi' tonopi'
Psathyrotes annua Turtle back &-moh-goon-a-bu* a-nip'
Psathyrotes Turtle back ka-~-yah-gave' see-boh mo-geeg-ub' gy~~-&nut-zoo8 ramosissima -sebu-moh-gQoq-a-bu' a-yah-gava' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 27 of 35)
~~ ~______Scientific Name 1 CommonName Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Psoralea sp. 1 Scruf-pea kwaovi' Psorothamnus I Fremont indigo-bush kaatamomrp' ieA-~dja(mp)' =-um-be' fremontii iermdjaf tuh-goo-busseemp' Psorothamnus Dotted dalea muipuh' NF" polydenius
Purshia glandulosa Buckbrush u'nup" hunavi" ~_____ Purshia stansburianu Cliffrose map.' uhnop' hunavi" (=Purshia mexicana uh-u(mp)' NFd ---be-ah-huh-nabbe' and Cowania huh-nabbe' hunap. mexicam) Purshia tridentata Bitterbrush, unap' huh-na-bee' -huh-nabbe' NFf -linna-huh-nabbe' Purshia sp. Cliffiose hunap' hunavi'
Quercus gambelii Gambel oak, Scrub tuav' kwiav" tsiginoh' Oak tsigino" we'a'
Quercus sp. Oak kwi'-uv (k)6 tommnpi' w6-ah (ps)4 wiya' to-mum-piv (1~)~ tuav' hEm'-pah (c)' kwiav" kwe'-av4 tomump' we-am'-pe (c)' tomumpi' hem'-pah (c)' Rhus aromatica Skunkbush, Sumac i'is su'uvs u'upc Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Trac itiona Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 28 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Vhus trilobata Squawbush e-is' huiupi' :all varieties) i'isi' su'uvimpd i-siv' (1~)~ i'isi' shen-pimp' (1~)~ suuvimp' stmvb i'is' shoavib -see-a-wimp' siuvimpu' see-awimp' huupi' su'uvd ' see-a-wimp (mp)' su'uv" I Rhus sp. Skunkbush, i'is' su'uv' nat'-soo 6'k4 Lemonade- berry, Sumac, Poison oak
~ Ribes aureum Golden currant bgumbe" NP hpgumbe' poh-oh-bis'
Ribes cereum White squaw currant NF' NF bogombi' ______~ Ribes velutinum Desert gooseberry NF NF NF Rorippa sp. Watercress w Rosa woodsii Woods wild rose pikikurump' S-awie' siwa'vif NF cimbi' S-avvie' B-am-bip'
Rosa sp. Wild rose tsi-am-piv su'impipi' t~C-ab'~~ pikikurump' Rubus sp. Raspberry nagauvwrmatmnpipi' see-am-bip' Rumex crispus Curly dock, nambitu' Pah-B-ah' k-h-no-ko' Wild rhubarb =-pah-=-ub' pah-=-ub' dim-woo-ee' =-pa-=-ah* new-wha no-ko' . . '.
Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 29 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
~ ~~ Rumex. sp. . Rhubarb nambitu' kU'Ub m-rah-zip" u-kono-be' m-kono-gip' &-konobe' nut-zoo' Salazaria mexicana Bladder sage w Salk exigua Coyote willow kwishisuuvi' su'huva' coo-see see-bupe' m-vee' suh-ee-be' Salk gooddingii Goodding willow suuvi'
I I Salk sp. Willow kahn-nahv (1~)~ kanavi' se-06-be (PS)~ su-hu-vee Sah'b (c)4 kah-nav' sB-yu'b4 kah-nahv' kahnav' sB-yu-be4 sah-kahv' pakanavb so6-be4 kan-av' (k)4 pawaxanav" ka-nav (1~)~ Salsola iberica Russian thistle, manavipb manav' Tumbleweed
Salvia columbariae Chia sage, sangwav' PaSiitS' pacita' pacita' California sage saywav' patsits' r- Salvia dorrii Purple sage, nungwukoap' NF Indian tobacco kwatamanum' kanarukoapb Salvia sp. Sage siguwiipi' nungwukoap' m-gwanna' PaSiitS' kwatamanum' suh-=wee-up' sangwav' saywav' tova-abba-hobe' see-ewe-up' sigimwiap' u-tim-ba-zip' seegoowe-up' &-nuh &-wabbe' see-goo-we-up (mp)' too-& she-gin-oops ntmmtrkoapb Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 30 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Sambucus sp. Elderberry koo-Mdu-nef who-hie' koog-oo-gip' &boo' ko-n6-wip' (c)~ koo_noocb4 kunukwi' kunuxwi'
Sarcobatus Greasewood yah-tahmp' (1~)~ yah-tamp'4 to-nbbe (PS)~ vermiculatus tah-a-be' tone+&-bee' &&no-be' w Scirpus acutus Hard-stem bulrush to'oivi' Scirpus validus Soft stem bulrush, to'oivi' I Tule I Scirpus sp. Bullrush, Big- round I he'- taw (1~)~ to'oivi' -1 si'n-vib" tule pow-ahv' manavd pah sip4 bah-si"p4 Sclerocactus sp. .Fishhook cactus, manavd w Pineapple cactus Selinocarpus difisus Moonpod w Senecio sp. Groundsel w Sisymbrium Tumble mustard wa'ai' altissimum Smilacina stellata Solomon-seal -esha-tone-ub' mquawie' A-toh-voh' E-hawie' Uquawie' wom-M-nomb' Smilacina Sp. False solomon-seal, Coyote beny Solanum sp. Nightshade ahdveee na-tizuah' I Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 31 of 35)
~ ~______Scientific Name I CommonName Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Solidago sp. Goldenrod NFZ Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle mamoiv" mamuivb
~ Sphaeralcea Apricot tupwivb* NF ambigua globemallow, Desert globemallow
Sphaeralcea sp. Globemallow tupwiv" ku'pinav (mp)' M-ohcombee' kupinav' NP --nocomb' Bquoy no-ko' -weedah-gom' I weedohcomb' Sporobolus airoides [ Bunchgrass, Alkali sacton Sporobolus sp. Dropseed postushukunf kwakwai' I pas-tu-shu-kunf I Stanleya pinnata Prince's-plume, ttnnaP-' nambid tuhuara' yuhuara' Indian spinach namvit' tumaru' tu'mara' NF turn&' nambitu' wo y-m-numb' tmnm' tmnaru' who-mbuh' -whoo-goop' Stephanomeria Wire lettuce NP
NF NF Gum bush Stephanomeria Slender wirelettuce tuwishanakupb w tenuifolia Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 32 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Stipa comata Needle-and-thread W grass Stipa hymenoides Indian ricegrass wa'ai' Wai' pacita' (see Oryzopsis hymenoides) Stipa speciosa Desert needlegrass NF NP Stipa sp. Indian ricegrass wa'aiv' Streptanthella Wild mustard, NF.' longirostris Long-beak fiddle- mustard Streptanthus Heartleaf NF.' cordatus twistflower, Wild mustard Suaeda torreyana Seepweed NF &-rumb (mp)' mem' Suaeda sp. Seepweed ahrr' sah-apweep' aah-apweep' NF (W(P)' Swertia White-margined NFd albomarginata swertia Swertia sp. Swertia kwiu' -see &-oh-sawa' Symphoricarpos Long-flower NFL' &-ah-vee' long iflorus snowb e ny Tamarix sp. Tamarisk pantmnaavttb
Tessaria sericea Arrow weed d-wape (mp)' *,+' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 33 of 35)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names 1 Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic I Group Names Group Names Tetradymia Gray horsebrush pah-ea-h-boh-be' canescens pah-vah-bah-hoe-be8 I tah-k-ee-gmp' Tetradymia sp. Horsebrush &Q-l&&-see-goop-ee8
Thalictrumfenderi Meadow rue
Thamnosma mntana Turpentine bush kaiva sixwanab
Thelypodium Wild cabbage nambitu' w integriyolium
Townsendia Eaton's townsendia NFf fcapigera Townsendia sp. Townsendia Iw Typha domingensis Cattail, ___i__toyh' Southern cattail Typha latifolia Cattail, taWe'-vah (iv)4 pantusahwavb toyh' NF Broad-leaf cattail to-oiv (k)4 NF taw'-e4 ta'ivb toe Cattail taw-e'-vah (1~)~ tonovi' to-oiv (k)4 tonoz'
~ ~~ Urtica sp. Nettle que-M-noop' queequawn-oops b y-u-ah' Valeriana sp. Valerian, w , Tobacco root Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 34 of 35)
______~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley.Ethnic Grouu Names I Group Names Veronica anagallis- Speedwell NF aquatica P Viguiera multiflora Showy goldeneye NF' Vitis arizonica Canyon grape, Wild i'av' NP muvasi' grape kuripsup' Vitis spp. we'ump'
Wyethia sp. Mules' ear taxuichaxantiip' tikoitcixantipi' tixu?si taxanti' tixu'si taxantip' taxu'itcaxantip' Yucca baccata Banana yucca, Blue uusivb- uusi' NF yucca wiisivb tcimpi' tachmnpi' 0-u-se' tachurnpi' U'wivi'
Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree tachmnpi' umpu' NF Yucca kanabensis Kanab yucca I Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca, tachump" uusivi' Spanish bayonet u'vimp" uusiv' tachmnpi'
Yucca sp. Yucca cho-m'-pik Q6 uusi' Sam-ah'-vip (l~)~o-u-se' tsam-a-vip' uusivi' tcimpi' tachurnpi' u'wivi' uusiv' wiisivb UUS' 1 tachmnpi' I I --T - 7.:
Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 35 of 35)
~ ~ ~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names komie-a-den-up8 tah-b-e-goh' -tah-bah-she-gos paniculatus
I see-goh-oh8 tah-vah-see-go8 II I Zigadenus sp. Meadow death komzie-a-den-up* -see-go oh-buh8 Camas
Gramineae Grass pa-wah' (Iv)~ ~-gweeb"(k)~ Sah'-nip' (grass family) hoo-wev' (c)~ u-gu'-siv (k)6 S6-nip4 u-@v' (k) (1~)~ 00-kwiv' Ship' Pah'-mah-hap4 I
' Work done by Powell between 1867-1880: a Stoffle et al., 1996 NF = Not found; mentioned in (Fowler and Matley, 1979) Stoffle et al., 1994 text but no Indian name ' Work done by Euler between 1956-1966:(Euler, Stoffle et al., 1994b given. 1966) Stoffle et al., 1989b (c) = Chemehuevi Work done by Palmer before 1946: (Palmer, 1978) Stoffle et al., 1990 (k) = Kaibab Work done by Merriam between 1902- 1935: ' Stoffle and Dobyns, 1982 (Iv) = LasVegas, (Merriam, 1979) Stoffle and Dobyns, 1983 (mp) = Moapa Paiute Work done by Sapir in 1910: (Sapir, 1910) Stoffle et al., 1983 (p) = Pahrump.Paiute Work done by Powell in 1873: (Fowler and Fowler, 8 Names by CGTO members; April I996 NTS EIS meeting. (ps) = Panamint Shoshone 1971) ' Work done by Presnall in 1936: (Presnall, 1936) Work done by Train between 1935-1941:(Train, 1957) Handbook of North American Indians-Great Basin (Vol. 11, "OwenS Valley Paiute") D'Azevedo, 1986 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTXL IMPACT STATEMENT
1
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
P
, Appendix G, Attachment A I
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I
Attachment B
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONAL USE ANIMALS PRESENT ON THE NEVADA TEST SITE
Appendix G, Attachment B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENT
i', ,
This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 1 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethni~ Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Family Antilocapridae
Antilocapra americana Pronghorn Antelope Won'-sits &)6 wahntz &)4 WZUl-Zeeg wants 5* (ivy Waknch4 wahn-ze4 Waantsi' Wongs4 Family Bovidae
&is. cdnriS Desert Bighorn Sheep Na'-guts NdP
Na'-kw (1~)~ ~ Nahk4 Naaxa' Nah-gah4 Nahk &I4 I Naaxb Ovis sp. Bighorn Sheep Nah& (c)~ .. Wah'-soo-be (PS)~ Nahk' Wali-siip"4 Wah'-sOo-pe4 walls-pe4
Family Canidae
Canis latrans Coyote Yo-go-wo'-tsi Sin-nav4 E-shah-wi'-pah (PS)~, Yoxovwits5 Shin-nah-ab4 Ejap'-pah4 Yoxovutsis Ttrrasuna'av" 1. E'-jah4 . Stmangwav? Turahsunav" . . E'chah4 Ttrrasunag Sin-nav' (c)~ It'-=" TurasinaJ Yo:go'-bits (k)4 TS'-rZ-shin'-nav (1~)~ Canis sp. Coyote tu-er-shin-avi' Duhvoe-ee-jahg &-shag Vulpes maerotis Kit fox I Kuida moss-sugueeg Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 2 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Grow Names Group Names
Vulpes sp. I Fox ys-rp (iv)4 Y6-putch (Iv)~ Ye-putch-ah (PS)~ Yu-pats (c)~ I Yu-pitch ’-e4 Wah’-ne4 Fox sah-vi’-puts (k)4 Sin-nants4 Wo’-tse-ah (PS)~ Hb-pats (k)6 Tah-vahn-set4 Wah‘-ne4 Un-si‘ats (k)6 Hon-za4 Wah-je’-ah4 Hunt-si’ (IV)~ Onsi‘itsb wo’-tse-ah4 Tavangwaimpitsi’ Onsi’ikammb Wa-nib Hon-d’ (Iv)~ Hon-ze (c)~ Wo-tsi-a‘ (small) Family Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer Tu-we-ah4 T00-hoo-e~ m-yah (ps)4 Yu-00-e~ Ttrxiab Dil’-he4 Too-hoo’-e (Iv)~ Tii-hE“* Tii-hE’-yah4 Tiid (k)4 To6- ho’-yah4 IOdocoileus sp. Ti’-ats (k)6 Tuhi’ Duhayet‘ Tahenah‘ I Deer Tu-i (Iv)~ Tuhuya‘ Ti-hi6 Tuhena‘ Tuxia’ . TB-he’ (Iv)~ Tu-he-nahg Tuuyi‘ NP
Family Cricetidae . Neotoma sp. . Wood Rat Kats (k)64 . Kahts4 Kow’-w& (PS)~ Kaatsis Katsb Kah” Kaht’ (k)4 Kahts’ (Iv), (c)~ .. -- Wood Rat
~ -- Rat Ets (Ivy
Mouse Poo-e’-chet (k)4 Pooe-chet4 Poo’-i (PS)~ Poo-e-tsets4 Poo-inchets4 BO‘-N~ Poo-in’chets (Iv)~ Poo-in’-jets (c)~ p0’-ni4 I I I poo-nah4 I Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 3 of 23)
~~~~ ~ ~ Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Ethnic Group Names Group Names Mouse Pu'ichats'. Moi (s)' Poong-way-szhee8 Piim poo'echet (k)4 Family Equidae
Equus sp. Horse Kah-wi'-yu (ps)4 . . Kah-vah'4 Poo'nk4 Wah-ai-ar (c)' Bun'-go4 Family Erethizontidae
Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine Ymgmnpatsi' Ye-num-puts' Ye-num-puts (k)4 YP4 Ye-hum-puts' NP I Erethizon sp. Porcupine yli* (iv)4 Yiilig (c)4 YiY-hU (PS)~ Ye-num'-puts (k)'. Yen'" YiY-hii' yo'-hah4 Tsa'-gwit6 Family Felidae I Fefis concolor Mountain Lion Tu-ma'-mu-in6 (1~)~ Too-koo-puts4 Too-km'-muts (ps)' Too-ku-vitchsg Tukumumutsi5 To-ko-mo-muts4 Toi-y5-too'-koo4 Piaruku5 Too-kmmo-munc h' To-ko-bitch' 'Kummo-muts (k)' piarulp Mi'-yum-be' Too-ko6-mo-munch T&koo'-muts (c)' Kong'-gwi-tu-nu6 (iv)4 ~~ LYm ncfus Bobcat, Wildcat Tukupatsb Tukuvits' NF
Lynx sp. Bobcat, Wildcat To-kO'-puts Q6 T6k (1~)~ Doo'-ko-vitch' Tukutsi' Mo-sahts' Too'-ko-vitch4 Tukupats5 Tukuvits' Too'-ko-bitch' NP Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 4 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens VaUey Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names ynx sp. Bobcat, Wildcat NF ‘amily Geomyidae
Thomomys sp. Pocket Gopher Mayampitsis Mweem-puts4 Yu-ab’-bitch @s)~ Mii‘e (c)~ ~iie(1.1~ YB’-hah-vitch4 Me-im’-put (k)4 YB’-hah’-vitch4 Ye-hah’-vitche4 -_ Gopher NFf
;amily Heteromyidae
Dipodomys sp. KangarooRat Pi-yu-ah4 Tah-we-tat4 Pi’-yu (PS)~ pi’& (c)4 Pi-im’-buts4 Bi’-e4 Ti-wii’-tet (k)4 tom-we-a-tats’ pi’-yu4 pi’ (1Vl4 Perognathus sp. Pocket Mouse Pi-im-buts (k)4 %milyLeporidae kpuscalifornicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit Kaamb- Kamuntsi‘ Lepus sp. Rabbit ~~i-voots’(1Vl4 Kahm’ (IV),(c), (k)4 Kah’-moo (ps14 Tah-voots’ (c)‘ Tg’-boo’-tse (PS)~ Tah-wuts’ Tah’-bo4 Tah’-bot-se4 ~ah’-mo~ ~ah’-mo~ ~ah’-mah~ Be’-ah gah’-mo4 Be’-ah qah’-mo4 Ta-vut’-si6 Tsi-gut’-si6
0 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 5 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethni Ethnic Group Names Group Names &pus sp. Rabbit Ka-mut’-si6 To-ha’-kum6 -_ Jackrabbit Kamb’ Kamusi‘ Kuma‘ Tavusi’ Ka-muag -- Rabbit Tsok-um (k)6 w Kamb‘
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail Ta-vw6ts‘ (k)6 Tah-vuts4 Ta-vets (1~)~ Ta-voots4 Tavutsi’ Tawsb Tah-~~ts(k)4 Tavuuts‘ Tah-boots4
Sylvilagus sp. Cottontail Taviti‘ Tavuuts‘ Dah-voo’ Taputsi‘ Ta-votsig Family Mustelidae I I Spilogale putorius Western Spotted Skunk 1 mbo-ne Kah-bo-na4 Kah Bo-na4 Spilogale sp. Skunk Kah’-bo-nI (1~)~ Kah’-bene (c)~ I Yu-hah4 I Kah’bo-nE (k)4 Y
Skunk Pu‘-ni.(k)6 Po-na4 Po-nE’GtA (PS)~ e 51 Poni‘a’ Po-ne-ets4 B3n-he-atz4 5 Po&’ (k)4 PoNIb Baw’-ne-y5ts4 Po-ne-ets (1~)~ Pbne’ (c)~ Po-hoi‘-ats4 Po’-nint6 bo-ho-yetzg Taxidea tams Badger Hoon4 tfnampatsi’ ~0chi-e~ tfnampatsb /35 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
‘O-
I
Appendix G, Attachment B B-6 .. Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 7 of 23)
~~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Grow Names
~ ___~ skiits (ky Skuts5.b Hoo’-kijn-tah-bi’ (PS)~ O-’gun‘-to-ats (k16 sikuts5. Tg-vah’-che (PS)~ Si-kuts’ (1~)~ skuutsc K6ng‘-ah (PS)~ SC-koots (lv)‘ Un-tsup’ (k)4 0-wun’dah-vi (PS)~ Su-koots’ (c)~ Tah-vats‘ (1~)~ Eng’-wah (PS)~ Skoot’ (k)4 Tah-vahts (c)~ T~eep‘~ Skwe’Gts (Iv)~ Tav-vat‘ Q4 Che’-gah4 sii-pe’ (c)4 Ho-uri-tii-vats (c)~ Kiimp4 Aw-oi’chits Ah-wun’ tah-vat Wung-gwah’-rah-bi4 Ye-we‘-set &)4 M Koom’-pi4 C he‘-gii4 Woh‘-i4 Dah’-wah-ni4 Tah’-bi-i4 Tsi’-pish6 Tav‘-a6 Ko’-gWi6 Family Vespertilionidae I Pacha‘ats5 Pahchats4 Ho‘-no-vitch4 Pat-sats4 Pats-ats (h)‘ Ho-no-bitch (PS)~ Paht-sats (c)~ Pacha‘atsb Ho’-e-nah vitch‘-e4 ..
:amily Iguanidae Iguanids
Crotaphytus collaris Collared Lizard Kan’-ne moi-kar-rat’ Tom-po’-tsat’ (1~)~ Turn’-bo-tats’ (PS)~
pomp-ots-ats7 Tum-bo-tats (PS)~ Po‘-goche4 Towm-Do‘-tsuts (c)~ Tern’-im-boi4 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 8 of 23)
Scientific Name I CommonName 1, Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Nmes Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic I I Ethnic Group Names Group Names Zromphytus collaris 1 CollardLiwd I Doo-kor‘-a-ke4
Gambelia wislizenia Leopard Lizard Chah-a-mi-ahv Q4 Neu-mah-zing-ahts4 Sow’-~e-vah‘~ Too-ar-rah4 Si-vah (Iv)~ Sah‘-we-vah4 sah-we’-vah (c)~
Sauromalus. obesus Chuckwalla saxwant5 sahk-war-rah4 sow-war’-rah (ps)4 Chah-kwar-rah (k)4 Tsah wahr‘ Sah-gWar’-rah4
Sceloporus magister Desert Spiny Lizard Tsahng-ahv Ching-ki-ahng-ah4 Chahng-ahnt~~ Tsang-ants4 tsang-a7 Sceloporus sp. Lizard Changa” Ching-ki-ahng-ah4 Tsahng-ahv (k)4 Tsang-ants4 Chahng-ahnts4 Changa’ changats‘ b ‘1 su-gu’-pits (kl6 Moxwia’ Tim’-puts6 Mu-gwi’ (Iv)~ Suxuputsi5 Pa’-vo-go-nai6 ~ompotsatsi~ Mow’-wav’-ve (c)~ Poh-gwua-geea Tsang-ants (1~)~ Tsahng-ahv4 Po-goi’xhe (PS)~ Tsmg-ah’ (c)‘ Ah-wah’-poi (ps)* Ki’e-too-ar (ps)4 Tii’-moi4 DB’-hoi4 Dem’-mon-zah4 ?amily Colubridae Colubrids
Lampropeltus Common Kingsnake Sing-ump (k)‘. . Shing-aht4 Sung4 Nun-too-nav4 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 9 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names I Western Shoshone I Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
' Pituophis mehnoleucus Gopher Snake, Pine Oxompatsi' Kaw-kum-puts' &'-go (PS)~ I Ko-hum-buts (k)' oxopatsb PaS'-sB-wah'-kah' Kaw' (c)4 Ko-hum'-buts' I Snake Ta-na'-kuts (1~)~ Kwi'-uts (1~)~ Pah-soo'-go (ps)' €'&'-we-& (lv)' S&-ung'-ah (c)~ Ki'-ar-&'-rah (ps)' Nun'-too-nav' (1~)~ Ah-wah-rum pg-at Ni-boo'-ah-gwah-tso' (c)' (PSI' Nindin'-av (Iv)~ Pah'-ro ahv' (k)' PaS-se-neu' Pah-we'ets (c)' Gawk'' Sing'-ump (k)' €'ah'-rah go-ah4 Ki'-yzi gar'-rah4 Wun'-gah-rah4 ?amily Viperidae I Pitvipers ~ Crotalus sp. Rattlesnake To-go'-avw To-go-ahb (k)' 0-ld-ga (1~)~ To-ko-ahv4 Do-gowahg Toxoavi' To-go-av-ve4 Tanakitsi' Kwe-ets (c)' To'-go-av'-ve (Iv)' To-go-ahb' (k)' I I
I Bud Wi'-chits (k), (1~)~ Witsi'tsib Ko'-cho6 Che-pah' Witsi'tsi' whochodl knily Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Eagles Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Wit se-mor-rat (k)' Pah-rahm-puts' Kwe-sahp' Kwe-sahp' Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 10 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Accipiter sp. Hawk, goshawk Kwen-noonts-a-mord Ku-shav-i7 Q4 Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Kwahn-ants (k)4 Kwanantsb Mung4
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Kwi-nat'-sits Q6 Ta-ah kwah-nahts' W Kwanantsits'- ' Kwen-nan-zits4 Kwah-nah-bits (k)4 Kasav" Se-kan-na kwahn-ant4 Quinnah' Qua-nats-its7 Circus sp. Hawk, Hanier Oong-aur-ats7 Haliaeetus leucocephqlus Bald Eagle Si-kwah (k)4 Piasakwanantsb Piakwanantsb - Eagle Kwi'-nants (k)6 Kwanants' Kwi'-na6 Quing-aW Mung-?-puts (1~)~ Kwanantsi' Kivi-na6 Bia' quinahe
I Hawk G'in-nee8 Ing'-a-kwi-na6 Sah-na qui-nag Ki'-ni6
0
Family Alaudidae Larks Eremophila alpestris Homed Lark Tmanwintsi'tsi' Te-we4 t-se4 Nwa witsi'ts' Te-rah we-cha-its4 Ter-rah-we-che (k)4 Ne-vow-we-tsits4 Family Alcedinidae Kingfishers Ceryle sp. Kingfisher Wun-na-tus (k)4 Wun-nah-taht4 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 11 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Family Anatidae I swans, Geese. ~ucks T Anus clypeata Shoveler Pa choog (k)4 I Anus platyrhymhos Mallard Duck 00-chuxa5 Choog4 I Pe-at choog (k)4 Parnvb ChoocM Uuchuxab Amsp. Duck Chuxa’ Chuxb
Bran& canadensis Canada Goose Chakoad To-o-pah4 Ah-vin-kay-raht Koo-res-sen4 Nu’-gud6
Oxyurajamaicensis Ruddy Duck Pi-ah-kwits Q4 Family Ardeidae Herons, Egrets, Bitterns Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Pah-too-kOO ko-Vah Pah-ko0r-k~~~ Wus’-sa6 kahnt4 1- Nah-kwah4 - Bittern Tah-wah woo-ne-ker- Choo-goob (n)4 I rit (k)4 I Family Caprimulgidae Nightjars I Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser Nighthawk Tuwawitsi’tsb I Chordeiles sp. Nighthawk Du-va-goB I T~o-gow-wit-se~ Phalaewptilus sp. Poorwill Pan-no-witch (k)4 Pi-na-wits4 Pah-nah-kwits4 I Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 12 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Family Cathartidae American vultures I - Cathanes aura Turkey Vulture Whu-gump'-uts (k)6 We-koo-puts4 whi-ku'-puts (ivy Week' I ~ikumpatsi~ w We-kum-buts (k)4 I vulture Wi'-ho6 Wee-hooB I I Wee-whom-binch8 Family Charadriidae Plovers Charadrius vocifencs Killdeer Pantaxaits' Pah-re kmits' Bah-zah-weeg Pan-te-geetch Pa-roo-gooe'ts4 Pahn-tig-wits4
Family Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zemida macroura Mourning Dove Ivovb I Ayovb Dove Ai'-yuv (ky High-we8 Hay-wee8
Oi-uv Ha-o'v' HiUvC -- l Pigeon I I-VOV~ I Family Corvidae Jay, Magpies, Crows Aphelmom coerulescens Scrub Jay NP Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Paht-kot4 Ah-tah-bits4
-- Crow A'-ta6 Cuta-puzeeg NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENT& IMPACT STATEMENT
=
00 0 ~ 0 -; ."6 a
B f
1 5
c,2
5i D .Y -4
J B-13 Appendix G, Attachment B , 4 '13 B Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site b (Page 14 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
____~~~~ ~ ~ Subfamily Emberizinae American Sparrows and m Towhees Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated Sparrow w I Junco sp. Junco Ne-war-rum po-kuts Noo-war-rum po- Q4 koots' Nu-wer-rowk' ~____~ Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee Tam pe-ats (k)'
Pipilo sp. Towhee E-se-voo-it (k)4 Tim-mah-tin4 Ke-we-rit-se4 sd ~~ ~ CI P Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Kam pe-ats (k)' Y u-~o-ro-whats~ Zonotrichia leucophrys Whitecrowned Sparrow Yu-rah-vaht (k)' We-tsids' Se-wechaet'
sparrow Wu'iatsis Y u-oo-ro-whats' Kam pe-ats (k)4 Subfamily Icterinae American Blackbirds and Orioles
Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Paxachakapi' Pah-ran-to-twit' Pah rahtS-kahD'
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Pah-ranch Che-kahp Cha-kahp'
Q4 ' Pah-ran-zu-wit' Too we-tse4
~~~ Blackbird I Bah-gan-zukqwue* NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7
-J
'C3
-
0s Yx 'E 6 0
I
B-15 Appendix G, Attachment B 3 \ Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 16 of 23)
~ ~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Hirundo pyrrhonota cliff Swallow Pah-sah-rok-pets4 wah-pas-so-pe4
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Tim-pow-we-ger-rit Pas-ser-ro-pe'ts4 0' Tim-pah-ro-we-it4
Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green Swallow Pas-ser-ro-it (k)' Pan-no-av4
Zamily Laniidae Shrikes
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Tah-tso-noint (k)4 Tundun-nois4 Tahcho-noint'
Lmius sp. Shrike Tah-tso-noint (k)' Tundun-nois' Tahcho-noint4 w Camily Laridae Gulls, Terns, Allies
Lam sp. Gull Tosa payamputsi Pi-yam%' (white Che-yu& Family Mimidae Mockingbirds and Thrashers
~~ Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Yampb Mimus sp. Mockingbird Yampa' Yahmp' YamP Yam'p4
Toxostoma sp. . Thrasher Sah-wah-gooet (k)' Moe-pah-num-bits4 Family Muscicapidae Old World Flycatchers and Allies Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 17 of 23)
~ __ ~~ Scientific Name Common Name Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group N&es Group Names Sialia sp. Bluebird Shok’-wai’ants (k)6 San-nappo-chet Nung-un‘-chots (1~)~ Sa-kwahn at-so-its4 Saxwang wintsi‘ts’ Sah-wah-wits4 Turdus migratorius American Robin Angka- Sko-we-che-it4 kwaa‘nangwants5 Se-kon kno-av (k)4 Se-kin-kon-av4 Sin-kum4 Say-kungquav’ Turdus sp. Robin Sue-gwee-cok-cd Family Paridae Chickadees and Titmice
~~
Fx Parus gambeli Mountain Chickadee Tse-gut Q4 Moche-et4 .I- Family Pelecanidae Pelicans Pelecanus American White Pelican Pa-go-mm-nav (k)4 erythrorhynchos
Family Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants Phalacrocorax sp. cormorant I Pa-at-kut (k)4 1 Pah-wungzits4 I I Family Phasianidae Pheasants, Grouse,
~ ~ Aka?
Quail Ka’-ka (k)6 , Ka-ka (1~)~ Tounga-ah-hahB Woodpeckers and Wrynecks
~~ Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Un-ka-kwo-nau-ants Kah-kwah-nah-aha4 (k)6 ~
Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 18 of 23)
:amily Podicipedidae
Podilymbus sp. Grebe Koo-hoot-kit
knily Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, Coots Fulica americana American Coot Sah-sit 0<)4 Keych sahts4 Sats' Recurvirostridae Avocets and Stilts
Himmropus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt Too-wee-yoot (k)4 Recurvirostra americcuta American Avocet Tuviyu yu'tsi' Mi-an Koo-wit4 Koo-weet (k)4 knily Sittidae
Sirra sp. Nuthatch Kan-ka-rik-ket (l~)~Yu-ve-nants4 To-pah-we-kent4 %mily Strigidae Typical Owls Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 19 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic I Ethnic Group Names I Group Names Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl 1 Muku‘uts‘ Ku‘-hu6 Bubo virginianus Great Homed Owl Md-puts (k)6 Moo-oo-put4 Mo-o’-puts (1~)~ Mo-o-puts4 Moopats’ Mooe-pwits4 Mo-puts (k)4 Muupatsb Owl Muuputsi‘ Am-mo-puts4 Mu-hd Moohd Muku‘uts‘ Mo-se-ah-kaw-bits4 Muum-bitchg Wah-now-kwits (k)4 Ahn-kah-re Mo-put
Wanakwitsi’ Family Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Hummingbird Mu’-tuchats (k)6 Ah-to-e-tsets4 Bi‘si’i’ Pishcootg Mootuchats’ Moo-tin-zits4 Pi-a-gun‘to-wit& Mo-te-tcheh (k)4 Mutuchatsb Sung’-o-wit-si6 Mo-too-tsahts4 Family Troglodytidae . Wrens
Catherpes mexicanus Canyon Wren Tumpikia hoxotsi’ Timppe-ke yah- Tim-pe-ah-soot (k)4 hots4 Tim-pe-its4 Toom-pe-tah ah-bit4 Tom-pike-aw-sauts’ Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren Too~hing-ing~ NF Tampikix~&~ I
Troglodytes sp. House Wren Wu-nat tim-be ro-put T’kes-se chim-mits4 w4 ;amily Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 20 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Tyrannus verticalis Westem Kingbird Chuxu’uvi* Wahts-koo-its4 Che-goo-ritch (k)4 Too-pe-wats‘
Sayomis Saya Say‘s Phoebe Chu-huv’
-- Frog Wah’-gah’-tsets (1~)~ Hah’-pah wah’-ah- Pah-woo’-go’ (PS)~ Yha-gua-zahB Wah-raht’ (k)4 tuts (c)4 Wah‘-k0-ah4 Bi’-yahqwat-sah4 Pi’-ah guz-zah4
1 Scorpion Wah’-wah-tsets (1~)~ Tah-wur’-rum-kwe- Woo‘-vah-tah (ps)4 Wahm’-bah-kwits (c)~ pitch Gwe‘-bum4 Kwe’-bentz‘
Spider Mo-kwam’-be (1~)~ Mo-kwahmp’ (k)4 Ku’-kwats6 NFB Hoo-kwahmp’ (c)~ so-wats’ (PS)~ Ah’-mah-so‘-ans4 s0‘-wants4 s0-ar’-rah4 Tarantula Nah’-soo-waht’ (PS)~ . We-gaht’-sawt k)4 Nah’-we-tsoi’m-bitch‘ Ni’-soo-ar’-rah4
Insects I I Mutillidae sp. Velvet ant Ant T’siev (wood)” Ah-see-ah8 I Tuhsiev (wood)” I I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
B-21 Appendix G,Attachment B - 0 \ Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian‘Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site .-’ (Page 22 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names
Pi-ran’doo-no (PS)~ We-win’-koo-rets (c)~ He’-tso-saw4 Bah’qah-mo’-anz4 Pah’-ran-do’-ro4
Flea Mo’-pits (1~)~ Mo’-pitch-i (k)4 Mo-e’-ve-hah (PS)~ Mu‘e-vee-hag Mo’-bits (c)~ Ah‘-ne-moi4 Ah’-nah-woi“ Mo’-pits6 Mu‘-i\P A’-niv (sand)6
Grasshopper At’-tah-kah-peets (1~)~ Ar’-ron-kah’-pit (k)4‘ Ah-tung’-ge (ps)‘ Ah’-tah-kah-bits’ (c)~ Ah‘-ting4 Ah’-tunqque4 At ’-tan’-ge”
Lice Se-ap’-pit (Ic)~ Bo’-seetts (PS)~ Pooh-ze-ahE Pu-si ‘-a6 3 I LOUSe b
Mosquito Moa’-av’-ve (1~)~ Mo-ahv’ Q4 ’ Mo’-vo~ NFB Mo’-av (c)~ Mo-avw6 Wah-waf-rah (PS)~ Maw‘-paw4 Ahng-5’-ve4 Moth Moo-goo’-run-zits (1~)~Mo-woo’-ran-tut (k)4 Pe-ag’-gah moo-rung- Mo-goo’-ro-bats (c)~ we (PSI4 Pe-ag’-gah4 Pe’-ag’-gah4
Stink BUP Ku’-i-tsat6 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 23 of 23)
Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic I I I Ethnic Group Names , I GroupNames -- Tick ' Pooh-E-ah'
-- . worn -. PE-av' (k)' Pish-shg-war'mh (ps)' wo'-ah-h4 Woo-ah'-be4
-- Yellowjacket We-koots (lv)' Pah-watch'-av (k)' Pi'-yah (ps)' 0'-hah ben' Pi'-nah4 Be'-hah-moo4
' Work done by Powell between 1867-1880 (Fowler and Stoffle, Austin, Halmo, and Banks (1996) NF = Not found; mentioned in text but no Indian Matley 1979) Stoffle, Halmo, Evans, and Austin (1994) name given. Work done by Eulerbetween 1956-1966: (Euler 1966) Stoffle et al. (1994) (c) '= Chemehuevi Work done by Palmer before 1946: (Palmer 1978) Stoffle et al. (1989) (k) = Kaibab Work done by Memam between 1902-1935: (Merriam e Stoffle, Halmo, Evans, and Olmsted (1990) (lv) = Las Vegas 1979) ' Stoffle and Dobyns (1982) (mp) = Moapa Paiute Work done by Sapir in 1910 (Sapir 1910) Stoffle and Dobyns (1983a) (p) = PahrumpPaiute Work done by Powell in 1873: (Fowler and Fowler 1971) Stoffle, Dobyns, and Evans (1983) (ps) = Panamint Shoshone ' Work done by Presnall in 1936: (Presnall 1936) Names by CGTO members; April 1996 NTS-EIS * Work done by Train between 1935-1941: Vrain 1957) meeting. Handbook of North American Indians-Great Basin (vol. 11, "Owens Valley Paiute") 1989 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
b$Appendix G,Attachment B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Attachment C
AN AMERICAN INDIAN CONSULTATION MODEL
.. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Appendix G, Attachment C
~ 1% I
NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
~ I ATTACHMENT C
I I I AN AMERICAN INDIAN CONSULTATION MODEL I I I 1 I This attachment has been reviewed and edited by the I Step 1: Defining Consultation I American Indian Writers Subgroup from the original I 1 I source entitled, “A Consultation Model” by Richard I Step 2: Establishing Cultural Affiliation I Stoffle. This original article was published in I I I Sacred Sites Protection Strategies - Legacy Project, I Step 3: Contacting the Tribes I a preliminary report prepared for the National Park I 1 I Service and the U.S. Army Environmental Center, I Step 4: Having An Orientation Meeting I edited by Vine Deloria, Jr., and Richard Stoffle, I I I produced by the Bureau of Applied Research in I Step 5: Forming A Consultation I Anthropology, University of Arizona, in 1994. I Committee i I I I Attachment C presents an American Indian I Step 6: Conducting Site Visits I I consultation model, a version of which was I I originally developed for the U.S. Department of I Step 7: Developing Mitigation I I Defense Legacy Project (Deloria and Stoffle [eds.], I Recommendations I 1994). This model is based to a great extent on the I I history of consultation relationships between I Step 8: Maintaining Ongoing Interactions I I DOE/NV and tribes and organizations for the Yucca I and Monitoring I Mountain Project and the NTS, and also includes I ! I published and unpublished information on American I Step 9: Bringing a Consultation Process t I Indian consultation procedures across the country. I to Closure. I I As such, it describes nine ideal steps for developing I I a consultation relationship with American Indians I These consultation steps are discussed in their ! I who are culturally affiliated with lands held by a I logical sequence of occurrence. The first I DOE facility. These steps are suggested on the basis I consultation step is to decide what type of 1 I of the past history of consultations sponsored by I consultation relationship is desired. The second step I DOEN and on an analysis of other consultation I is to specify, using cultural and historical research, ! I relationships. Examples of relationships between I which American Indian people or peoples have I American Indians and other federal agencies are I traditional ties to DOE lands. The third step is to I I used throughout so that the model will be as I establish government-to-government relationships I instructive as possible. These steps suggest how a I between formally recognized American Indian tribes I process might occur, but they need not always be I and American Indians with special federal standing I followed to achieve an acceptable consultation. I and the DOE. The fourth step is to have an I Instead the nine steps suggest a logical sequence of I orientation meeting, where DOE begins to meet and I decisions and actions that normally would be I talk with American Indians. The fifth step is to form I involved in developing a consultation relationship. I an American Indian consultation committee and I It is important that the DOE works with the involved I establish mutually agreed upon procedures for its I Indian tribes to design a consultation relationship I operation. The sixth step is to bring American I reflecting their needs, the needs of the involved I Indian cultural resource experts to the DOE lands so I DOE facility, and the protection requirements of the I that traditional cultural resources can be identified, I cultural resources under consideration. The ideal I related to sites, and initial management I steps are: I recommendations can be made. Mitigation I I recommendations are the seventh step, followed by I ongoing interactions and monitoring as the eighth
c-1 Appendix G, Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I step. Finally, because some consultation I facility must make is how much decisionmaking I relationships do not last, the ninth step involves I power can and will be shared .with Indian people. I bringing the consultation relationship to a closure. I Once the range of decisionmaking sharing is I I established, it should be clearly identified at the I The following model for developing a consultation I outset of the consultation so that it can become a I relationship is presented here on the assumption that I part of the American Indian people’s decision to I there is no pre-existing relationship. While I participate in the consultation. I DOEN facilities currently have consultation I I relationships with American Indians, there are I C.l.l General Consultation I specific programs and activities, such as the I I Transportation Study, which have yet to enter into I More U.S. federal agencies (including the DOE) are I formal consultation with tribal governments. Thus, I becoming involved in general consultation with I at the suggestion of the American Indian Writers I American Indians. This establishes a permanent I Subgroup, this consultation model was edited and I relationship with American Indian groups that have I formatted as an attachment to Appendix G, so that I cultural ties to the lands and resources managed or I it can be used as a guide for future DOE and I affected by the federal agency or DOE facility. I American Indian consultation processes. I General consultation should be based on extensive I I research concerning cultural resources that Native I C.l Defining Consultation I groups identify as being located on lands of concern. I I Cultural resource studies should consider at least the I “Consultation” is a term that is commonly used to I following (1) archaeology sites, (2) petroglyphs, (3) I describe a process by which American Indian I human burials, (4) traditional cultural properties, (5) I peoples with traditional ties are identified and I plants, (6) animals, (7) minerals, and (8) water. I brought into discussions about cultural resources on I Cultural resource studies also cai consider impacts I DOE lands. Consultation involves a fundamental I to American Indian cultural practices (like a I decision on the part of the DOE to share some I traditional healing ceremony) that are not tied to I decisionmaking with American Indians. American I specific places. Each of these cultural resources I Indians are asked to share in the decision to identify I should become the subject of a separate study so that I resources needing protection. They are also asked I Native groups can contribute persons with special I to share in the decision to prioritize which cultural I knowledge about the topic. General consultation I resources will be protected first. Indian people are I should be based on a strong information foundation. I asked to share in the decision to select from among I I a variety of management practices those that most I A major advantage of general consultation is that it I appropriately protect the cultural resources in the I can occur in the absence of a specific project I context of other resource uses. Indian people are I proposal, which is evaluated under specific laws I asked to share in the long-range planning and I and, usually, as part of an environmental impact I monitoring of these cultural resources and lands that I statement. Often, the laws that govern specific I hold them. I project studies add third parties to discussions I I between the DOE and American Indian peoples, I According to scholars who study consultation I which can confuse and limit discussions. General I (Cemea, 1991; Dobyns, 1951; Parenteau, 1988), the I consultation occurs when it is desired by the DOE I quality and success of the consultation process I and the Indian people and is not limited by time or I depends directly on the degree to which I issue. It is the perfect environment for discussing a .I decisionmaking power is shared. Arnstein’s (1969) I complex relationship designed to protect cultural I studies demonstrate that any consultation process I items of greatest significance. Another advantage of I can be characterized as falling on a scale from 1 to 8 I general consultation is that it produces a strong I where participation without shared power is called I information base for identifying cultural resources I “manipulation” and where sharing power, even to I for both the DOE and American Indian people. I the point of negotiating with the agency, is called 1 I “partnership.” The primary decision that a DOE
Appendix G, Attachment C c-2 I 1 NEVADA TEST StTE FtNAL. ENVtRONMENTAL tMPACT STATEMENT I I Through various cultural studies, the Indian people I C.1.2 Specific Consultation I have developed a set of recommendations that I I I suggest how to best manage these resources. Most I There is always the need for conducting specific I I American Indian cultural resources located on or I consultation regarding cultural resource issues I affected by the DOE will become known through the I associated with DOE facilities and activities. For I process of general consultation. This will reduce the I example, when general consultation has identified I I number of times that DOE activities will have to be I all types of cultural resources, grounddisturbing I stopped and modified because of unanticipated I activities may unexpectedly unearth a human burial 1 I discoveries of cultural resources. If DOE activities I or an object of great Native ceremonial significance. I were to impact cultural resources not previously I The DOE may wish to use some portion of their I I identified, procedures would be in place for I reserve lands for an activity that was not considered I informing the Native people about the discovery, I during general consultation. Also, the U.S. ! I and those Native people would have procedures in I Congress may pass new laws regarding the I place for helping the DOE minimize adverse I management of cultural resources that potentially I impacts to the newly discovered cultural resources. I would alter the existing relationship between the I I American Indian people and the DOE. One such I General consultation is the only way to build true I law is the Native American Graves Protection and I and stable partnerships between U.S. federal I Repatriation Act (1990), which specifically requires I agencies and American Indians. Often, project- I certain types of information to flow between the I driven environmental assessments bring federal I DOE as a federal land manager and American ! I agencies and Native people together, and afterwards I Indian people with ties to those lands. I they decide to move to general consultation as a I I means of resolving problems before projects I Specific consultation is limited by the scope of the I precipitate specific cultural respurce decisions. I specific law that is being complied with and the I Native people approach cultural resource I proposed activity that is being evaluated. Native I management from what has been termed “holistic I people often are frustrated by specific consultations I conservation” (Stoffle and Evans, 1990). They I because they are limited to those project-specific I respond positively to holistic studies that bring into I issues and cultural resources that are being assessed. I consideration as many factors as possible, so the I The DOES responses are too often limited by third I DOE can better understand the complex inter- I parties who legally participate in the assessment. I relationship between cultural resources and other I Nonetheless, a series of specific consultations can I aspects of Native lifeways. Interestingly, the new I produce the foundation from which to build general I U.S.federal initiative for “ecosystem management” 1 consultation. For a DOE facility that currently lacks I closely reflects the philosophical orientation of I any kind of relationship with American Indian
I Indian people. According to Gore (1993) ‘I... some I peoples, general consultation is recommended as the I people now define themselves in terms of an I initial step in the consultation process. I ecological criterion rather than a political I I subdivision.” For example, the people of the Aral I C.2 Establishing Cultural Affiliation I Sea and the Amazonian Rain Forest define I I themselves in terms of these all-important I There are many ways’that American Indians have I ecosystems. In March 1994, 18 U.S. federal I established cultural affiliations to lands held or I agencies demonstrated their ecosystem management I affected by the DOE. At the general level, I activities to the U.S.Congress (Morrissey et al., I American Indians established these ties because they I 1994). Native people have responded in a positive I lived on the land long enough for a culturally shared I way to federal agencies who are willing to consider I connection to occur. The basic question asked I cultural resources from an ecosystem perspective. I regarding cultural affiliation is, “What American I I Indian peoples or ethnic groups lived here?” I I The nature of the relationship between American I Indians and the land is cultural. The concept of
c-3 Appendix G, AttachmentC \9? NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I culture (LeVine and Schweder, 1984) implies that a I held or affected by the DOE. The term “ethnic I phenomena (1) is shared in that it represents a I group” means people who share a common culture. I consensus on a wide variety of meanings among I Perhaps an example will serve to clarify the I members of an interaction community, (2) that it is I complexity of moving from ethnic affiliation to that I connected and ultimately comprehensible only as a I of contemporary American Indian organizations I part of a larger organization of beliefs, norms, and I which actually would be contacted about the I values, and (3) that people who share a culture make I consultation. I sense of new information in terms of a cultural I I rationale founded on a single collective formula. I Officially, the U.S. government prefers to deal with I Simply, the connection between American Indians I American Indian groups on a government-to- I and lands held or affected by DOE facilities is I government basis. The well-established federal I abstract, complex, and non-trivial. Assessing this I position was recently reaffirmed by the President in I relationship is best accomplished by professionals I a memorandum of April 29, 1994, entitled I trained in the study of cultural systems, in I Government-to-Government Relations With I consultation with potentially culturally affiliated I American Indian Tribal Governments. The National I American Indian people. I Congress of American Indians, which is the National I I Association of Tribal Chairs, also supports I Most laws, regulations, and guidelines that cause I government-to-government relationships. Such a I federal land-holding agencies to consult with I relationship recognizes the “dependent nations- I American Indians do not define what is meant by the I within-the-nation” status of American Indian tribes I term “cultural affiliation.” Some laws do define this I (Deloria, 1985). This relationship should be the I concept; for example, the term is defined very I foundation of all consultation. The consultation will I specifically by the Native American Graves I be incomplete, as discussed above, without a I Protection and Repatriation Act. It is important to I procedure for additional ethnic group inputs from I note that when a DOE facility adopts a broad I non-tribal government sources. It is suggested, I definition of cultural affiliation for most kinds of I therefore, that federally unrecognized Native groups, I cultural resource studies, they can still narrow the I American Indian organizations, and pan-Indian I consultation process when needed for the Native I organizations be added to the consultation when it I American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act I can be demonstrated that they do represent special I and then resume American Indian interactions based I ethnic group perspectives relevant to the cultural I on the broader definition. Flexibility is needed I resource management issues of concern to the DOE I when establishing consultation relationships with I facility. Finally, individuals from the Native ethnic I American Indians. I group who otherwise would not be able to share I I important cultural insight, can be added to the I Cultural affiliation of DOEN facilities was I consultation as “interested parties.” The I established at the onset of the Yucca Mountain I recommendations of interested parties and non-tribal I Project (Stoffle, 1987). Sixteen tribes belonging I Indian organizations, however, must be subsumed I into three ethnic groups (Western Shoshone, I under the recommendations of the officially I Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute) were I recognized tribal governments. I found to be culturally affiliated with Yucca I I Mountain and the NTS. A decade of consultation I C.4 Having an Orientation Meeting I with these ethnic groups forms the foundation of a I I successful relationship between the DOE/NV and I Contacting potential culturally affiliated tribes and I American Indians. I American Indian organizations should be conducted I I in a manner appropriate to the consultation. If it is I C.3 Contacting the Tribes I to be a project-specific consultation, the information I I given to Native people should reflect that project. I Cultural affiliation studies basically establish which I On the other hand, if a general consultation is I American Indian ethnic groups potentially have I desired, then a very different essay and set of I traditional, aboriginal, or historic period ties to lands I materials is needed. Although project-specific
Appendix G, Attachment C c-4 @ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I consultation can lead to a mutual decision to begin I and have the opportunity to exchange cultural I general consultation, the orientation meeting should I resource views and strategies with other Native I have a clear purpose and deal only with the issues I leaders. The Native government's need-to-know I actually under consideration at the time. I before making key cultural resource decisions I I should be respected and addressed in the I In general, letters, maps, and diagrams appropriate I consultation process. I to the issues to be discussed should accompany the I I initial communication with American Indian groups I C.5 Forming a Consultation Committee I and tribes. Such letters describe the agency that is I I making the contact and the purpose of the contact. I The decision to form an American Indian I Recently, a video letter was used to inform almost I consultation committee has been the key to the I 24 tribes about an assessment of cultural affiliation I success of the consultation when many tribes and I and concerns for Chaco Culture National Historical I American Indian groups are culturally affiliated with I Park (Stoffle et al., 1994~).The video letter was I DOEN lands under consideration. The I about 17 minutes long and began with the park I consultation committee stands as a meta- I superintendent discussing the goals of the study. I organization between the tribal governments and the I This was followed by photos of places in the park I federal agency managers. The committee is I which were the focus of the study. Clear I composed of and chaired by Indian people. As such, I instructions for becoming involved in the study I the consultation committee is able to resolve certain I closed the video. The video letter was well- I issues relating to the process of consulting. In the I received by the American Indian government I early stages of consultation, for example, the I leaders, who said it permitted them to make an I committee may resolve issues such as how many I informed decision about whether or not to send I days are needed to complete an ethnobotany study, I representatives to the park. I or it may decide how best to prepare progress I I reports to be submitted back to Native governments. I Letters alone generally are inadequate for most tribal I By meeting together and acting in unison, native I governments to gain sufficient understanding of an I people belonging to different tribes and ethnic I issue under discussion so that the government can I groups are able to draw on common information and I respond to a project. Many letters therefore are not I to speak with a single voice. The clarity and I answered. Follow-up telephone calls are always I consistency of the American Indian requests will I necessary to provide further information, but most I influence the DOES ability to respond effectively I tribal governments require that a consultation I and acceptably. I request for their people's time, and perhaps, tribal I I resources, be made in person. Cultural resource I The consultation committee may be asked to resolve I specialists and agency personnel should meet with I problems that would otherwise be impossible for I tribal councils (or their officially chosen I either the DOE or the tribal governments. After the I representatives) to explain the project and answer I consultation committee understands both the laws I questions. I that are driving the consultation process and the I I management needs of the DOE, the committee may I The members of tribal governments and American I be asked to determine when sufficient information I Indian organizations tend to be unfamiliar with the I has been collected so that recommendations can be I legal aspects of cultural resource questions, although I made to both the tribes and the agency. If there are I they generally believe decisions about such issues to I disagreements among the tribes or ethnic groups, the I be highly significant. This presents an information I consultation committee can be asked to resolve these I gap problem for most Native government leaders. I in closed executive session. Halmo (1994) has I One solution to the information gap is for the U.S. I recently studied the benefits of a consultation I federal agency to invite government leaders to visit I committee participating with the DOE to understand I a portion of the study area as part of an orientation I the cultural resource impacts of the underground I meeting. During the meeting, government leaders I atomic testing program on the NTS. He concludes I can learn firsthand about what is being discussed I that this program's success came largely because of
c-5 Appendix G,Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I the consultation committee’s efforts to adjust the I American Indian consultation program in the United I process to meet the needs of 3 major ethnic groups I States. I represented by 16 tribes and 3 Indian organizations. I I I C.5.1 DOE/NV and Indian Consultation I The NTS American Indian Religious Freedom Act I I compliance program was initiated by the DOEMV I While US. federal cultural resource laws require I in 1990. The goal of the program was to bring the 1 government-to-governmentrelationships, DOEN I agency into compliance with the provisions of the I consults with federally recognized tribes, I NTS American Indian Religious Freedom Act, I unrecognized tribal groups, and Indian organizations I which was passed in 1978. Compliance was to be I such as the Las Vegas Indian Center, and pan-ethnic I achieved by establishing consultation relationships I associations. Thus, the open policy of DOW I with tribal governments and Indian organizations I moves beyond the letter of the cultural resource laws I whose members have historic and current cultural I to reflect their spirit. The DOEMV has been I ties to the lands in south-central Nevada that had I engaged in a continuous program of consultation I been withdrawn from the public domain by the I with these 19 Indian corporate organizations for 8 I U.S. government in the 1950s for purposes of testing I years. I atomic weapons. The NTS American Indian I I Religious Freedom Act compliance program was to I The nature of the consultation process led this I document tribal and ethnic concerns for cultural I program to be successful from both a human I resources that would potentially be adversely I relations and policy standpoint. One feature of that I affected by ground-disturbing activities associated I success has been the coalescence of several tribes I with the national program of underground nuclear I and Indian organizations into a group that could I weapons testing. I speak with one voice (Halmo, 1994) when tatking to I I the DOEMV. Several features in the consultation I Sixteen tribes representing three American Indian I process including systematic, regular social I ethnic groups (Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, I interaction, combined with a respect for Indian I and Owens Valley Paiute) were identified as having I autonomy in decisionmaking, has shaped the context I such ties to NTS lands. Five Indian ethnic and I that allowed a new corporate group to evolve. I pan-Indian organizations also have been consulted I I during the program. This work (Stoffle et al., I C.5.2 The Consolidated Group of Tribes and I 1994b) built on theyucca Mountain Project. I Organizations I I I Meetings included representatives of each of the I Indian tribal governments are inundated with I involved tribes and Indian organizations, the I projects, requests, and paperwork, all needing I DOEMV, and the University of Arizona I attention. Many tribal government officials, I ethnographic research team. The first three years of I therefore, simply do not have the time or energy to I the program culminated in two mitigation meetings, I be involved in every activity that affects various I out of which tribal representatives submitted a series I aspects of the lives of their people. For this reason, I of recommendations to the DOE/NV regarding I officials appoint representatives and confer I continued consultation, strategies for protecting the I responsibility to them to participate in the project, I various categories of cultural resources, and tribal I obtain information, and keep the tribal council up to I participation in future cultural resource planning, I date on the progress of the project. I fieldwork, and policy formulation. I I I Tribal representatives involved in DOEN I The DOE/NV favorably responded to the tribal I consultation decided by consensus to “incorporate” I recommendations, and accepted the vast majority of I themselves as a unit, called the Consolidated Group I them with standard stipulations such as I of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) to more I contingencies in funding and schedule. The result I accurately reflect the group’s corporatism in I of this program has been that the DOWcurrently I representing the interests of 16 tribes and 3 Indian I has what may be one of the most comprehensive I organizations (Halmo, 1994). In taking this action,
Appendix G, Attachment C C-6 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
members bear the responsibility for representing the archaeological sites that were slated for ground- interests of not only their own tribes, but of all the disturbing activities. As part of the American Indian other tribes and Indian organizations involved in the monitors program, Indian monitors received training CGTO. Today, the DOE/NV explicitly recognizes in archaeological survey, collection, and analytical the CGTO as the vehicle for consultation. techniques. The most recent monitoring effort has Consultation presently occurs directly with the resulted in the formal distribution by the DOE/NV members of the CGTO with the approval of tribal of a monitors report of activities to each of the leaders who are fully cognizant that duly appointed involved tribes and organizations. . individuals represent their interests regarding cultural resources on the NTS. C.5.4 The Native American Graves Protection I I and Repatriation Act Subgroup I The CGTO emerged from existing tribes and I I American Indian organizations who collectively I That the CGTO will continue to function in the I conceived and created it. The CGTO is not, I future is evidenced by the fact that the NTS I however, a homogeneous, harmonious collection of I American Indian Religious Freedom Act compliance I individuals who uniformly share the same .I program opened the door to other phases of I conventional understandings. Members of the group I consultation such as that concerning archaeological I have contending and sometimes conflicting interests I materials related to the Native American Graves I regarding the cultural resources located on what can I Protection and Repatriation Act. I best be described as the intertribal lands that are I I now incorporated as the NTS. In mitigating the I A Native American Graves Protection and I disposition of NTS cultural resources, however, I Repatriation Act “subgroup” was appointed by the I Indian rather than tribal-specific concerns are I CGTO in March 1994. This was the first time that I represented by the CGTO. CGTO members have I the CGTO had appointed a subgroup to conduct any I decided to take action in concert and speak with a I significant business and, therefore, marked a point I common voice whenever such an action is I at which sufficient confidence was reached in both I appropriate; this seems the best way to influence I the DOEM and the CGTO itself. The six I DOEMpolicies. I members of the Native American Graves Protection I .I and Repatriation Act subgroup represent the Owens I Face-to-face meetings were an important component I Valley Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Southern I of the consultation strategy and were routinely I Paiute ethnic groups. The subgroup evaluated and I scheduled throughout the duration of the NTS I selected potential Native American Graves I American Indian Religious Freedom Act compliance I Protection and Repatriation Act items from among I program. These meetings provided the context in I the 450,000 items in the NTS collection for Native I which representatives of no less than 19 contending I American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act I groups, including 16 Indian tribes, 3 Indian I consultation with representatives of the 16 involved I organizations, and the DOE/NV, each with its own I tribes. I agendas and interests, could negotiate and reach I I compromise solutions that were acceptable to all I The new challenge of Native American Graves I involved parties. Such intimate forms of I Protection and Repatriation Act was successfully I consultation are likely to bring about the formation I met by the members of the subgroup in a series of I of new corporate groups that have the purpose of I three meetings. The subgroup selected about I resolving issues and defending common interests in I 200 items that are potentially (1) unassociated I cultural preservation. I funerary objects or (2) sacred objects as these
I I concepts are defined in the ’ legislation. The I C.5.3 American Indian Monitors I subgroup also structured the Native American I I Graves Protection and Repatriation Act viewing I As a result of CGTO recommendation, Indian I procedures so that consultation occurred in a I monitors from each of the involved ethnic groups I culturally appropriate manner. I have participated in data recovery activities at
c-7 Appendix G, Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I The CGTO served in a review and advisory capacity I about archaeological sites may know little about the I to their respective tribes regarding Native American I traditional use of plants. A Native person who I Graves Protection and Repatriation Act I specializes in fishing ceremonies may have little I recommendations on the disposition of items from I knowledge of petroglyphs and curing ceremonies. I the NTS collection. In the future, the CGTO will be I Native cultures, like all cultures, are differentially I involved in studies of Traditional Cultural I held in the minds of specialists. I Properties, animals, petroglyphs, and other types of I I cultural resources on the NTS. I The term “study” is used to separate research that is I I needed to prepare a cultural resource inventory from I C.5.5 The American Indian Writers Subgroup I what are sometimes described as American Indian I I “tours.” Occasionally, federal agencies will simply I Stimulated by the success of the Native American I bring American Indians to the lands under I Graves Protection and Repatriation Act subgroup, I discussion and ask them individually or in a group I DOE/NV agreed to sponsor the formation of an I what is out there. These tours are usually organized I AIWS which produced Appendix G as well as text I and conducted by agency personnel who are not I for direct inclusion in Volume 1 of the NTS EIS. I professionally trained in scientific methods I Public response to this unique DOE initiative has I associated with cultural resource studies. The I been highly positive and may open the door to future I agency tour guides rarely have a hypothesis about I participation of Indian people in the production of I what resources may be present and so, naively I EISs throughout the country. A detailed description I believe, that they can simply ask for information and I of the formation and function of the AIWS is I the American Indian will completely share all I provided in Appendix G. I pertinent information. American Indian tours were I I more common decades ago before there was an I C.5.6 Future Subgroups I extensive body of research about how to conduct I I studies with American Indians and what to expect I To continue with the American Indian Religious I from such studies. I Freedom Act compliance program, the DOWhas I I funded a rock art study, which will begin in the I C.6.1 Forming a Study Design I summer of 1996. A rock art subgroup will be in I I charge of the site selection and research design for I Since American Indians have become aware of the I future site visits by American Indian elders. I quality of information that is needed to make I I convincing policy recommendations on federal I C.6 Conducting Site’Visits I lands, they are demanding to participate in the I formulation of study designs that are culturally and I “What is out there?” This is the fundamental scientifically valid. A recent analysis of American I question that must be addressed in any consultation. Indian research studies suggests that the design of I The answer will not come directly from tribal the study can directly influence the findings and the I governments, but they will send cultural experts who recommendations (Stoffle and Evans, 1990). An I can identify various cultural resources located on analysis of 11 projects suggests that Indian people I DOE lands. Native government leaders can appoint will have greater impacts on land use decisions if the I. representatives to a consultation committee, and study design permits them to identify and select for I during the operation of that committee, a Native special protection those places, plants, and I based inventory of cultural resources can be archaeology sites that have the highest cultural I planned. significance; this process has been called “cultural I triage” (Stoffle and Evans, 1990). When it is I American Indian cultural resource studies should be difficult for Indian people to demonstrate how to I conducted separately, whenever possible, because move from cultural concerns to land management I tribes and Native groups will send different types of recommendations that protect the most cultural I cultural specialists depending on what is to be items, it becomes the responsibility of the scientist I studied. The Native person who can speak at length I to help make this translation. For example, it is
Appendix G, Attachment C c-8 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I possible to calculate the cultural significance of I If someone asks a Native person to come to DOE
I individual Indian plants so that specific places where ’ I lands and identify places and things that are sacred, I the plants grow can be assigned value, and I this person is likely to respond that all is sacred. If I protection can be afforded to those places with the I on the other hand, the Indian person is asked to I highest plant scores (Stoffle et al., 1990b). I identify which objects in a museum collection are I I needed in a current religious ceremony as defined by I C.6.2 Defining Basic Concepts I Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation I I Act, the person will be able to make a discriminate I It is essential that all parties to a study agree on what I decision. The answer is often framed by the I is to be studied. It is common for Indian people, I question, but it can also be influenced by the amount I agency personnel, and study scientists to assign I of time the Native person has to share herhis I different meanings to the same term. One of the I cultural resource perspective and herhis confidence I most commonly misunderstood terms is “sacred.” 1 that deeper cultural resource insights will have more I This report devoted three earlier chapters towards I protective influence than simple “holistic I explaining and illustrating the concept of sacred, I conservation” statements. I especially regarding those places of great cultural I I significance such as the origin mountain of an Indian I C.6.3 Assuring Participation I ethnic group. The concept of sacred is really a non- I I Indian concept that creates a division between the I The federal agency must approach the study of I sacred and the profane. Most Indian people do not I cultural resources with caution when seeking I believe such a division exists. Indian cultures, and I American Indian participation in land management I there are hundreds of variations, contain many I decisions. This is because American Indians will I ceremonies designed to assure proper behavior I weigh the potential benefits from increased I towards and communication with the natural I protection against the potential that if cultural I environment, other humans, and the supernatural. I resources become known they will be threatened, A I These ceremonies literally translate everything I Kaibab Paiute elder, for example, indicated that he I touched by an Indian person into a sacred object. I wanted to protect traditional trails, but that he would I For example, a Shoshone Indian woman who makes I not reveal their location because once known they I willow baskets will keep the shavings that have been I could be followed to previously undiscovered Indian I produced by smoothing the split willows. I camps. Native people often say that revealing I Eventually, she prays over these shavings and I Indian plant usages causes the plants to be taken by I returns them to a natural area near her camp. The I non-natives who profit from sale of the plants. The I Shoshone woman considers these willow shavings I curing power associated with certain places can be I as sacred. Indian people also have ceremonies I reduced if the place and its function becomes known I associated with great life transitions-birth, first to other ethnic groups, including other Indian I menses, death-that use and create sacred objects people. Agency personnel should be aware that I that are more generally recognized by others, such Native experts who are sent to identify cultural ‘Ias Euroamericans. Finally, there are sacred objects resources are subject to ethical conflicts, emotional I that are specifically defined by U.S. federal laws stress, and even fear of reprisal. Indian experts I such as Native American Graves Protection and express concern about violating traditional norms I Repatriation Act. So the concept “sacred” could against sharing knowledge with outsiders. Concern I refer in any given discussion to many categories of is also expressed over how other tribal members and I items, some defined by law, some defined and even future generations of tribal members will I mutually recognized by Indian and non-Indian alike, evaluate the sharing of information. Basically, the I and some exclusively perceived as sacred by Indian question they ask is whether or not more good than I people. harm will come from sharing cultural knowledge I (Greaves, 1994). I Great care must be taken in the formulation of study I concepts and when discussing the meaning of these When American Indian tribes and organizations I concepts with Native government representatives. send experts to represent cultural concerns, they p!! c-9 Appendix G,Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I expect that the shared information will be used to set I The report should receive a technical review by the I policies to better protect cultural resources. To I Native experts and members of the consultation I accomplish this, the identifications of the experts I committee before being sent for draft review by the I must be systematically recorded so they can be I federal agency. This will assure that the report does I written into a scientifically and ethnically acceptable I not contain information that should not be revealed, I report. In general, interviews should be conducted in I and that the information it does contain is accurate. I private so that the Native person does not have to I When the technical review is complete’the report I share the information with others. An interview I should be given a draft review by the federal agency. I form should be prepared in advance with the I Then the draft report should be sent to the American I assistance of the consultation committee or informed I Indian group or tribal government for official review I Native people so that similar questions are asked of I and approval. Final reports should be available to I each expert and there is a place to record their I other federal agencies seeking to achieve similar I answers. Tape recorders can be used as backup, but I goals and in need of case data for developing or I only used with the expert’s permission. Experts’ I refining their own consultation processes. The I confidentiality should be assured, unless they wish I public has a right to know about significant land I to go on the record regarding some aspect of the I management decisions made by federal agencies, I study. I even if these are in consultation with American I I Indians and have some element of confidentiality I Group interviews can be conducted when individual I that will continue to be respected. The final report I interviews are either not desired or impossible to I and perhaps portions of the information (not the I conduct. Group interviews tend to produce I data) used to make the decision (Ruppert, 1994) I “consensus data” which means that members of the I should be available to the public. I group discuss possible answers and provide one I I answer to the interviewer. The weakness of group I c.7 Developing Native Mitigation I interviews is that some people are not willing to I Recommendations I express their opinions in the presence of others. The I I strength of group interviews is that people have the I Cultural resource technical reports should focus on I opportunity to talk over a response while in the field. I the cultural resources under study and should not I Focus group interviews are a special type of group I attempt to make government-level policy I interview and they require special preparation and I recommendations. Technical reports are the basis I training for the focus group facilitator. I for proceeding with mitigation discussions and I I eventual recommendations from the American I C.6.4 Presenting the Findings I Indian governments to the DOE. Policy decisions I I occur after the Native recommendations are I The report presenting the findings of the I combined with what the land management agency I consultation process being discussed should be more I can and will do to incorporate American Indian I than a pure description of what was said by the I recommendations. It is important that this point in I Native experts. Some attempt should be made to I the decisionmaking process has been thoroughly I translate the thoughts of Native experts into I considered by the agency before the consultation I information that can be used by federal agency land I began (See Section C.l, Defining Consultation.) I managers. In general, Native concerns should be I I contextualized by providing findings from published I Native policy recommendations should derive from I historical and ethnographic literature that I three sources: (1) Native experts during the on-site I demonstrate how the expressed cultural concerns fit I interviews, (2) consultation committee, and I into the overall culture of the ethnic group. I (3) Native organizations and tribal governments. I Translation into management information and I These three sources of recommendations represent I contextualization will help achieve the goals of I a hierarchy of decisionmaking authority that is I building American Indian concerns into land I inversely related to the degree of information about I management policies. I the resource. Native experts are knowledgeable I I about the cultural resource and, because of their on- \s!Q Appendix G, Attachment C c-10 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I site experiences, are aware of factors that could have I (2.8.1 Mutual Trust I either adverse or positive impacts on its protection. I I Native experts are charged by their tribes and I When people get to know each other through face- I organizations with identifying what is out there and I to-face interactions, they create a basis of I making preliminary recommendations. The report I understanding that can be used to establish what is I should consolidate all Native expert I called “trust.” The term “trust” is not being used I recommendations by place and resource, and these I here to refer to the legal “trust relationship” that I should be presented to the consultation committee. I exists between the U.S. government and American I Committee members have a long-term relationship I Indian peoples. Instead, the term “trust” is used as I with the project and are generally aware of what is I it is more generally understood, as confidence in the I possible in terms of resource management on the I honesty, integrity, reliability and justice of another I DOE facility. It is up to them to consider the I person or organization. I recommendations of the Native expert; if possible, I I resolve conflicting recommendations and add I People do meet, but the DOE and American Indian I recommendations. ,The final cultural resource I consultation occurs within the context of I decision recommendations in a government-to- I government-to-government relationships. One of I government relationship belongs to the tribal council I the great dynamics of mutual trust is differences I and advisory board of a Native organization. They I between the people and the agency relationships. I tend to follow the advice of their appointed Native I First and foremost, Indian people must believe that I experts and consultation committee members; I their participation in consultation is more likely to I however, they can add or modify recommendations. I protect cultural resources than would saying nothing I I at all. Decisionmaking should be shared (insofar as I Recommendations that have passed with some I it is appropriate and possible), and the decisions I consensus through this hierarchy of Native I must have some identifiable positive impacts (see I decisionmaking should be seriously considered by I C.8.4, Monitoring Plan below). I the DOE facility. The strength of the I I recommendations depends, in part, on whether or I Trust derives from the history of relationships I not they remain within fededlaws that govern land I between the DOE facility and its personnel, and I management decisions by the DOE facility. In I American Indians. This history may go back to a I addition, the Native recommendations should be I time when the Indian people were at odds with the I within’the agreed upon limits of power sharing I federal government during the nuclear testing era. I decided upon by the facility when the consultation I Trust also derives from more recent interactions I process began. If the recommendations are within I about DOE facility policies like the transportation of I these limits, then credible cultural resource I low-level radioactive waste and the location of waste I recommendations should be adopted by the DOE I repositories. It is important to address these issues I facility. I early in the consultation process. In fact, it is likely I I that Indian people will raise these issues as I 62.8 Maintaining Qngoing Interactions and I stipulations before they are willing to proceed with I Monitoring I consultation. Concerns about past relationships are I I often raised in holistic conservation statements made I “Partnership” is a term often used to described the I by Native elders and leaders in early consultation I desired outcomes of consultation relationships I meetings. Stipulations are not debatable by the I between American Indians and DOE. facilities. I DOE, which instead will have its own stipulations it I Partnerships require shared power, mutual respect, I may wish to express at this time. Trust cannot be I and mechanisms for sustaining a long-term I negotiated. Trust can emerge from long-term I relationship. Partnerships can be established when I interactions especially when consultation begins I the American Indian people and the DOE facility I with clearly expressed stipulations. Trust must be I establish (1) mutual trust, (2) a common knowledge I earned and mutually shared. I base, (3) a cultural resource management plan, and I I (4) a monitoring plan. . I \GJ c-11 Appendix G, Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I Any consultation relationship will depend, in part, I C.8.3 Cultural Resource Management Plan I on the individuals involved. Friendly and I I professional relationships have the potential of I Federal facilities produce overall land-use plans I overcoming any negative historic relationships I usually including specific plans for wildlife, plants, I between the American Indian people and the DOE. I and cultural resources. An American Indian cultural I Unfortunately, personnel change in both Native I resource management component could be I organizations and DOE facilities. Mechanisms I developed in each of these plans. Possibly more I should be in place to assure that consultation I difficult, but nonetheless important, would be to I partnerships can survive personnel change. I include American Indian cultural resource I I management comments in discussions of minerals I C.8.2 A Common Knowledge Base I and water. I I I A primary goal for every DOE and American Indian I The recommendations produced by the hierarchy of I consultation is to create or contribute to a common I American Indian decisions (experts, consultation I knowledge base that is shared by both. Native I committee, tribal governments) should be organized I groups send their most knowledgeable experts to the I to reflect how the information can be incorporated I DOE facility to identify cultural resources. These I into facility management plans. Early coordination I thoughts should not be lost. Federal agencies cannot I with the consultation committee should produce I afford to forget what has been told to them by I both information and recommendations that fit how I Native groups. Similarly, most DOE facilities have I the facility manages natural and cultural resources. I initial archaeology, botany, and animal studies that I I can be shared and used by Native groups. The I C.8.4 Monitoring Plan I challenge is to develop a single, shared pool of I I information that can be used by both the DOE and I There must be some way of knowing whether or not I the Indian people to know what is out there and to I American Indian consultation has influenced the I understand what is happening to it. I condition of cultural resources contained on the I I DOE facility. Because it is impossible to constantly I Geographic information systems are being used by I monitor all cultural resources located on DOE lands, I many federal agencies and Native groups to I monitoring timeframes and monitoring locations I inventory and keep track of resources distributed I must be chosen. Basically, the timeframe questions I across an extensive landscape. Geographic I are: How fast are culturally significant changes I information systems are expensive and difficult to I occurring to any specific cultural resource? Does the I use, but innovative interactive multimedia data I quality, quantity, or distribution of medicine plants I systems that can draw on some similar information I change seasonally, annually, or over a period of I systems components are being developed. An ideal I years? Damage due to erosion or vandalism to I data base could be used simultaneously by the I archaeology sites may be occurring sporadically; I Native people at their homes and the DOE facility. I monitoring should occur at least once a year, and I This is likely to require that a multimedia program I more sensitive sites monitored more often. I be developed that can use and make easily I I accessible the products of the geographic I Monitoring locations should be decided in terms of I information systems data analysis. The geographic how well they represent a certain cultural resource. I information systems and multimedia system should Monitoring samples should be selected with full I be updated easily when new information comes from input from the Indian people. Monitoring I Native expert visits or science studies. It should techniques will vary, from ground level photography I contain photos, video, sound clips, maps, and text. of petroglyph panels to remotely sensed data from I Finally the geographic information systems and satellites showing the distribution of plants. When I multimedia system should restrict access to certain ground disturbance is to occur, Native monitors may I portions of the database to reflect both the DOE and be hired to oversee activities. The results of all I the Native concerns for selective distribution of data monitoring efforts should be provided to the I and information. members of the consultation committee and Native
\b$ Appendix G,Attachment C c-12
~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
sporadically; monitoring should occur at least once I those experiences." In most cases, Native people a year, and more sensitive sites monitored more I lump most federal agencies together, so the often. I mistakes of one agency are transferred to another. I Monitoring locations should be decided in terms of I "Project analogs" is the technical term used to how well they represent a certain cultural resource. I discuss the process of evaluation of a current Monitoring samples should be selected with full I proposal in terms of past proposals. For example, input from the Indian people. Monitoring I during the social impact assessment of the techniques will vary, from ground level I Superconducting Super Collider for the state of photography of petroglyph panels to remotely I Michigan it was discovered that local people sensed data from satellites showing the distribution I responded to this new and quite unique proposal in of plants. When ground disturbance is to occur, I terms of how the involved state and federal agencies Native monitors may be hired to oversee activities. I had behaved with past projects (Stoffle et al., 1987). The results of all monitoring efforts should be I The proposed collider, a massive and generally provided to the members of the consultation I positive project, was being evaluated in terms of committee and Native governments at regular I how the Michigan Department of Natural Resources intervals. Regular feedback on the condition of I had conducted a public access for hunters program, cultural resources is the only way to maintain an I how a state utility had handled a cross-county ongoing relationship with Indian people. I pipeline project, how a cement company had dealt I with air pollution, and how state politicians had C.9 Closing a Consultation I proposed a prison for the area. These small-scale I and highly localized projects were not similar in any Today, most U.S.land-managing agency initiatives I respect to the Super Collider proposal, but the local to establish American Indian consultation I people drew upon them as historic analogs for relationships are intended to be ongoing because I deciding whether or not to trust the state of Native people's views will become part of the I Michigan and private business, and support the information base for making, monitoring, and I Superconducting Super Collider proposal. adjusting on-going land management decisions. I Still, some consultations are designed to end. These I C.9.2 Maintaining Positive Relations may be project-specific consultations designed to I I provide a narrow range of findings for the I Relations between the DOE and American Indians I evaluations of a project or action proposal. I began 50 years ago and is often recounted as a I Sometimes the DOE facility itself is closing. I history of adversarial relationships. All lands I Whatever the reason for termination, how it occurs I currently held or affected by DOE facilities once I has implications for both the involved Indian people I belonged to an American Indian ethnic group. I and the U.S. federal agency. I Nonetheless, many Indian people have been I I employed by DOE facilities and have begun to I C.9.1 Making Analogs I establish positive relationships with Native people I I focussed on cultural resources. ,It is important at I Anyone who has made a presentation before a tribal I this moment in the history of relations between I council or Native governmental body has I American Indians and the DOE to create positive I experienced some council or audience member I analogs. So each effort is important. No positive I standing up and talking at length about some other I action of the DOE will go unrewarded, because I project that occurred many years in the past that did I American Indians respond well to being involved in I not end in a positive way. Most presenters want to I decisions about their traditional resources. There I say, "That is not what I am talking about, it I are small and terminal consultations, but each has I occurred a long time ago and I (or my agency) was I the potential of being a positive analog. The I not involved." The point presented by the I remaining chapters of this report bring together I American Indian, however, is well taken; "We have I many of these successes. I seen your kind before and here is the summation of
C-13 Appendix G,Attachment C
~~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank