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
With Significant Contributions from the Consolidated Group of 'Tribes and Organizations NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMfi.NTAL 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
Volume 1, Appendix C. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank KEVADA TEST SITE FIAAI. E.VVIRONMENTAI .IMP.~CT STATLWI'.~~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMERIC*\N INDIAN COMMENTS FOR THE. NEVADA TEST SITI- ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... G-l G . I American Indian Writers Subgroup (AlWS) ...... G-4 G.1 . 1 First AIWS Meeting ...... G-4 G . I . I .I Nevada Test Site Environmental Impact Statement Implementation Plan Review ...... G4 G.I.1.2 Outlinc of Writing Tasks ...... G-4 G.Ll.3 DraftText ...... G-5 G.l.3 Second AIWS Mceting ...... G-5 G.I.3 Third AIWS Meeting ...... G-5 G . I .4 Review (if the Fromeworkfor Yhe Resmrrce Marqcrnrrtr /'hi for thc Ncvadu Test Site ...... G-5 G.I.5 Fourth AIWS Meeting ...... G-5 G.1.6 NTS EIS Consultation Meeting with the CGTO ...... G-6. G.l.7 Fifth AIWS Meeting ...... b-7 (3.2 Voicing American Indian Concerns Through an Indian ElS Writing Team ...... G-7 G.2.1 Abstract ...... G-? G.2.2 Excerpt Introduction ...... G-8 G.2.3 Issues in the Functioning of thc Subgroup ...... G-8 G.2.3.1 Translating Ideas ...... c1-8 G.2.3.2 Negotiating Text ...... G-9 G.2.3.3 Supporters and Detractors ...... G-9 G.2.3.3 Trainers ...... g10 G.2.4 Where Do We Go From Here'? ...... g-10 G.3 Native Amei-ican Overview ...... G-l 1 G.3.1 Centrality Issue ...... G-I 1 G.3.2 Americaii Indian Cultural Resources ...... 6-12 G.3.2.1 NcvadaTestSitc ...... g12 G.3.2.1 . I Mercury Valley, Section 4.1.10 ...... G-14 G.3.2.1.2Rock Valley, Section 4.1 . 10 ...... G-14 G.3.2.1.3 Fortymile Canyon and Jackass Flats . Section 4.l.lO, ...... G-14 G.3.2.1.4 BuckboardMesa,Section4.1.10 ...... G-21 G.3.2.1.5 Oasis Valley, Section 4 .I. 10 ...... G-21 G.3.2.1.6 GoldFlat,Section4.1.10 ...... C-21 G.3.2.1.7 Kawich Valley, Section 4.1.10 ...... G-21 G.3.2.1.8 Emigrant Valley, Section 4.1.10 ...... G-22 G.3.2.1.9 Yucca Flat, Section 4.1. 10 ...... C;-22 '3.3.2.1 . 10 Frenchman Flat, Section 4.1 . 10 ...... G-22 G.3.2.1. I1 Tonopah Test Range, Section 4 .I. 10 ...... G-21 G.3.2.I . 12 Nellis Air Force Range Complex, Section 4 .I. 10 ..... G-23 G.3.2.1.13 Area 13, Section4.2.10 ...... G-23 G.1.2.2 Project Shoal Area, Section 4.3.10 ...... <;-23 '3.3.2.3 Central Nevada Test Area, Section 4.4.10 ...... G-24
Gi Vnlume 1, Appendix C; NEVADA TE.FT SIlE FllVAl. E~~'~'l~~~~~~ll~.~TAl.IMPACT STATEMEST
G.3.2.4 Ilr! Lake Vallry . Section 7.6.10 ...... G-24 K3.2.5 Eldorado Valle) . Sectl(ln 4.5.10 ...... G-24 G.3.2.6 Coyote Spi-ing Valley . Section 4.7.10 ...... G-25 G.3.3 Occupatitmal and Public 1Ic;ilh and SiifctyiRndiation ...... G-25 G.3.4 Eii\ironiiieiiral Justic-2 aiid tquity ...... G-27 G.3.4.1 Holy Land Vicilatlons ...... G28 G.3.4.2 Health Violation\ ...... (3-28 G.1.4.3 Cultural Sur\ival - Access Violations ...... G-28 G.3.4.4 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-28 G.3.4.5 Project Shoal Area . Secrion 4.3.12...... G-29 G.3.4.6 Ceiitral NevadaTest Area . Section 4.4.12...... G-29 G.3.3.7 Eldorado Valley, Section 4.5.12...... (3-29 G.3.3.8 Dly Lake Valley . Secuon 4.0.12...... G-29 G.3.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley . Sectton 4.7.12...... G-29 G.3.5 Outline of Social and Econom~cIssues ...... G-29 G.3.S.I Ainericati Indian Region (I[ Influence ...... G-29 G.3.5.2 American Indian Educarion ...... G-30 G3.5.3 Farming and I Volume 1, Appendix G Gii NEVADA TfiST SITE FNAL EIvVlRON.WLVTAI .IMPACT STATEMENT G.4.2.3.6 Central Nevada Test Area ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.7 Eldorado Vallcy ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.8 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-44 G.4.2.3.9 Coyote Spring Vallcy ...... G-45 G.4.2.4 American Indian Place by Action Comments, Alternative 4 . . G-45 G.4.2.4.1 NevadaTest Site ...... G-45 G.4.2.4.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-46 G.4.2.4.3 Nelhs Air Force Range Complex ...... G-46 (3.4.2.4.4 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 (3.4.2.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-48 (3.4.3 Occupational and Public Health and Safety Radiation Impacts ...... G-48 G.4.4 Environmental Justice and Equity Impacts ...... G-48 (3.4.4.1 Alternative I - Continue Current Operations (No Action) ...... G-48 G.4.4.1.1 NevadaTest Site ...... G-48 G.4.4.2 Alternative 2 - Discontmue Operations ...... G-49 G.4.4.2.1 NevadaTest Site ...... (3-49 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 NevadaTest 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 (3.4.4.4 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 NevadaTest 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 lmpact ...... 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.S.l.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-56 G.4.5.1.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-56 G.4.5.1.4 Central NevadaTest Area ...... G-56 (3.4.5.2 Alternative 2 - Discontinue Operations ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.1 Nevada Test Site ...... G-56 (3.4.5.2.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-56 G.4.5.2.4 Central NevadaTest 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 NcvadaTest Site ...... (3-56 G.4.5.3.2 Tonopah Test Range ...... (3-56 G.4.5.3.3 Project Shoal Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.3.4 Central NcvadaTest Area ...... G-57 G.4.5.3.5 Eldorado Valley ...... 6-57 (3.4.5.3.6 DryLakeValley ...... G-57 . 7 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-57 tive 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 EldoradoValley ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.6 Dry Lake Valley ...... G-57 G.4.5.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley ...... G-57 (3.5. Mitigation Recommendations ...... G-57 G.5.1 Amencan Indian Cultural Resources ...... G-58 G.5.2 American Indian Socioeconomics ...... G-60 G.6 Amencan 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 '3.7.3 A Faulty Transportation Assessment (Attachment F Nevada Test Site Rail Access Study) ...... G-66 (3.7.4 Conclusion -AFatally Flawed Attachment ...... G-67 G.8 Frcirneworkfor the Resource Mririagemrnr PIun ...... G-67 G.8. I Ainerican Indian Participation ...... G-67 G.8.2 How American Indian Participation may be incorporated into the Resource Management Plan ...... G-68 (3.8.3 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 Prcparers ...... G-79 List of Attachments Attachment A . Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on theNevadaTestSite ...... A-I Attachment R . One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the NevadaTestSite ...... B-I Attachment C . American lndian Consultation Model ...... C-I \'olume 1. Appendix G ti-iv ~ ~~ ~~ ~ - .. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT List of Figures Figure G-1. American Indian region of intluence for the NTS EIS ...... G-14 List of Tables Table G-I. American Indian traditional-use planrs present at the NTS ...... G-ih Tahlc G-2. American Indian traditional-use animals present at the NTS ...... G-20 NEVADA TEST SIT.? FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Volume 1, Appendix G G-vi ~- -~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE I:I.VAI. ~::'NVIKOS,IICST,.11.IMP.4C'I STA TEMLVT ! APPENDIX G I AMERICAN INDIAN COMMENTS FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I 1 I SUMMARY I Amendment of thc United States Constitution rights I I uf American Indian people to have access to lands i The Native American Resource Document is a 1 .ind resources essential in the conduct of their I summary of opinions expressed by the Consolidated traditional religion. These rights arc exercised not I Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) ~ only in tribal lands but beyond the boundaries of a i regarding the Environmental Impact Statemenr for reservation (Stofflr et al., 199Jb). I the Nevada Test Site aiid Other Off-Site Ixxiitioiis i I within the State of Nevada (NTS EIS). The I To reintorce thcir cultural affiliation rights and to I document contains (a) general concerns regarding I prevent the loss of aticestral ties to the NTS, I long-term impacts of the U.S. Department of I I9 tribe> and organizations aligned themselves I Energy's (DOE) operatioiis on the NTS and (b) a I togelher to forni the CGTO. This group is formed I synopsis of specific comments made by the i by ot.ficially qqminted representatives who arc I American Indian Writers Subgroup (AN'S) for I responsible for representing their respective tribal I mrious chapters of the NTS EIS'. I concerns and perspective?. The primary focus of I I [he griitip lids been the protection of cultural I The Native American Resource Document was i irc\ources. 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), the Underground Weapons Testing Project I the future mission of the NTS and related off-site I (Stoffle et al. I 994b), and ongoing consultation in I locations in Nevada. However, the present CGTO'q 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 thi.; American Indian Resource Document I participated. I provides reciimniendations 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 comnients I the DOE. In 1985, the DOE began long-teriii I presented liere focus ticavily on cultural resources. I research concerning the inventory and evaluation of I This cinphasis is thc producl iif continued cultural I American Indian culturd resources on the NTS I rewiircc man:igement consultiition between thc I area. This research was designed to comply with I DOE and the CGTO, which has ireinftircetl Indian I the American Indian Religious Freedoin Act I people's awuciicss of the wealth of cultural I (AIRFA), which specifically reaffirms the Firs1 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 socioeconomics. are virtually undocumented. This I i\;clue to the absence of consultation and research I oil tht. long-term effects of radiation exposure. I nuclear waste transportation and storage on the life I ut Indian coiiiniunities. Being a minonty group. I .Xmericari Indiaiis ltave alw been overlookcti 111 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL EIVVIHO.VMLI\TAL IMI'AACT .\TATEZfEST I regrird to issues of Environmental Justice. The I impacts 10 cultural resoiirces, Environmental I CGTO recommends that these issues he I Justice, health, and socioecoiioiiiics. which are I systematically evaluated by the federal government I caregonzed by thc ElS as pat? of the "affected i The opponunity given to the CGTO to contnbure ! environment." This section also includes a bnzf I their written comiiients to the NTS EIS is a htghly I discussion on political inlegratton. I positive ~tepthe IIOli has taken toward voicing I ~ Indian concerns. I After introducing the American Indians' VICW of I I the NTS, Section G.4 addresses the environmental I The NTS EIS is a document that (a) evaluates the I consequences of proposed NTS actions and I impacts, consequences, and cumulative effects that I discusses specifically the position of tlie CGTO I alternative management decisions ahout 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 i I impacts of the various programs and project I In the view ol Indian people, the ideal mitigiition I activities heing considered under each proposed I strategy would be to avoid any action that further I alternative, and (c) develops a Frrimrworkfiir the I disturbs NTS lands. However, the CGTO is aware I Rrsourcr Mirrinjirrnerit /'kin for the NTS. The I that actions must bc taken to restore NTS lands and I specific organization and content of an EIS is I resources and keep the site safe and clean for future I required by the law. The Native American I human use. The CGTO recommendations tor I Resource Document. therefore, Is organized I mitigating adverse consequences of such actions are according 10 the sequence of topics discussed in the ! suminarired in Section G.5. NTS EIS. In the sections that follow this I introduction, the document briefly reviews past and I Section G.6 explains step-by-step consultation present relationships between Indian people and I procedures that American Indians would like NTS lands, examines impacts of past and present I federal agencies lo follow in order to achieve NTS programs and activity prqjects on American I positive government-to-government consultation Indian religion, cultiire and economy, and I relationships. This section is complemented with suiiiinarizes the CGTO's position regarding the I Attachment C, a detailed Consultation Model future mission of the NTS. In short, the Native I originally produced for the U.S. Depatinent ot Amei-icm Resource Document describes the nature I Defense (DoD) that was reviewed and edited by the olthe relationship between Indian people and NTS I AIWS. Section (3.7contains the American Indian lands, from an all-encompassing overview to I comments on the Transportation Study (Appendix I specific discussion ahout impacts, consequences. I (if the NTS EIS). mitigation, and management. I I I The Native Amcrican Resource Document I The Native American Resource Document begins I concludes with a response to the draft document 1 with ii summary of formal interactions between the I entitled Frmnriwrkji~rihc Rcwiirce Mnttajientrtil I CGTO memhers and NTS EIS management I Plari. The Native American Resource Documcnt I (Scction G.l). In Section (3.2, the memhers of the I explains the importance of taking into consideration I American lndian Writers Subgroup explain their I ecological categories of Indian people for resource I role in the production ol this document and the I mirnagement. This section (Section GI;) alsc i responsibilities and difficulties they had to confront I provides a hriel picture of future co-management I throughout the writing process. I relationships hetwcen the DOE and the CGTO that I I could potentially be implemented iis part of the I Section (3.3, Native Anierican Overview, stresses I mission of the NTS. I tlie centrill role that NTS lands have had in I American Indian life from antiquity to I contemporary times. Moving from the concept ot I cultural Itindsciipe :IS :I whole to the resources I contained in a Inrtdscapc. this section also examine? 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 I official Indian organizations: I Representing the Southrrri Paiute. I I. Southern Paiutes I Betty Cornelius Colorado River Indian I Tribes, Arizona I Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Arizona I Don Cloquet Las Vegas Indian Center, I Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah I Nevada I Moapa Band of Paiutes, Nevada I I Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Nevada I Coordinator I Pahtump Paiute Tribe, Nevada I I Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe, California I Richard Arnold Pahmmp Indian Tribe, I Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona I Las Vegas Indian Center, 1 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 Office I Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada I I Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, C.alifomia I Mary Ellen Giampaoli NTS E1S 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 I Las Vegas, Nevada I Big Pine Paiute Tribe, California I ! Lone Pine Paiute Tribe, California I Caroleen K. Toydma IT Contact Person 1 Fort Independence Paiute Tribe, California I Geraldine Quintana Public Relations I I Linda Cardenas IT Project Manager !a Other Official Indian Organizations I I I Science Applications International Corporation I Las Vegas Indian Center, Nevada I Las Vegas. Nevadu I Southern Paiute Tribal Chairman’s ! I Association, Arizona, Nevada, Utah I Robert Smith Coordinator, Cumulative I Owens Valley Board of Trustees, California I Effects I I I American Indian Writers Subgroup I Bureau of Applied Rescarch in Anthropology I I University of Arizona, Tucson I Representing the Western Shoshone: I I I Richard Stoffle Associate Research I Maurice Frank Yomba Shoshone Tribe, I Anthropologist I Nevada I M. Nieves Zedeno Research Associate I GlenHooper I Diane Austin Research Associate I I David Halmo Anthropology Extern I Repre.~entingthe Owens Vulley PuiuteBhushone: I Maria Banks Student Assistant I I Maria Porter Student Assistant I Neddeen Naylor Lone Pine Indian Tribe. I I California G-3 Volume 1. Appendix G ~ ~ ~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I G.l American Indian Writers Subgroup addressed in the American Indian sections of the I NTS EIS: I On March 17-19, 1995, representatives of the 1 CGTO met with U.S. Department of Energy, 1. That American Indians have lived on NTS I Nevada Operations Office (DOElNV) personnel lands since thzse people were created I regarding American Indian participation in the I preparation of the NTS EIS. The CGTO's 2. That American Indian culture, economy, I recommendations covered a wide range of issues. religion, and health could be affected by the I proposed NTS EIS alternatives I 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, C.I.I.1 Nevada Test Site Environmentallmpact I and resources to participate in writing the Statement lmplernentation 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 I 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 a5 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 DOElNV 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 DOENV 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 C.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 AlWS will produce short technical I Thc first meeting of the AIWS was held essays 10 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 Vcgas, 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. (RARA), University of Arizona, facilitated the mecting and all AlWS rnembcrs were present. The 2. The AIWS will also produce an Native Indian AlWS identified three major issues to be Resource Document that will become an NTS EIS appendix. Vulurnr I, 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 lndian 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 projccrs, 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 Soiar Request for Proposal. The AIWS suggested that, to obtain an integrared 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 Tections 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 G.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 DOEINV's commitment to prepare a resource (I) 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 Fromewirk for AIWS also discussed mitigation issues for the Resource Mariagenierit 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 Vcgas, Nevada. The goals of this meeting I G.1.5 Fourth AlWS Meeting were to complete and edit the cultural resources I section of Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS and to I Two AIWS meetings were held in Las Vegay, produce draft text on mitigation issues for I Nevada, after the public review period for the proposed programs and activities. The BARA I Draft NTS EIS (issued January 1996). The main Ilcilitated the meetings and all AIWS members I purposes of these meetings were (I) to review and wcre present. 1 edit the Draft American Indian Comments for the I NTS EIS. (2) to respond to public comments on The AIWS completed and edited draft text for I document, and (3) to write additional text for Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS and expanded Chaprer 4 I inclusion in the NTS EIS. The meetings were I sponsored by the DOEiNV and facilitated by the 1 information on American Indian nuclear risk I University of Arizona. I perception was collected lrom the AIWS. This I I information was developed into a section on I The fourth AIWS meeting was held at the Science I Environmentdl Justice for Chapters 4 and 5 of the I Applications International Corporation officcs in 1 NTS EIS. I Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 18-21. 1996. I Present at this meeting were: On Wednesday, March 20, 1996, the AlWS nier I with DOE officials 10 diwtw thC curreill I AIWS American Indian involvcmenr in the NTS EIS, as I Betty Cornelius well as other consultation issues. The DOEINV I Kichard Arnold officials present at this meeting were Don Elk, I Maurice Frank Director of the Environmental Protection Division; I Don Cloquet Kathy Irell, Assistant Manager for Environment, I Safety, Security, and Health; Joe Fiore, Acting I Universir,' of Arizoiiu Deputy Manager; Terry Vaeth, Acting Manager; I Richard Stoffle and Robert Furlow, Project Manager and Agency I M. Nieves Zedeno Point of Contact for American Indian consultation. I I At this meeting, the AlWS refined the original list On Thursday March 21, 1996, MaryEllen I of writing tasks and identified those tasks to be Giampaoli, NTS EIS manager, and Timothy I completed before the Final NTS EIS is issued. I Killen, task leader of the Draft Frumrwurk jur the I The writing tasks were: I Resuut-ce Manngemeiit Plm, gave a brief I I presentation of this document to the AIWS. The I I. Socioeconomic issues AiWS decided to focus on comments for the I Resource Management Plan at the following 1 2. Risk perception meeting. The text produced the fourth AlWS 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 the CGTO I I 5. Comments on the Draft FriitnebvurkJor the On April 15- 17, 1996, the DOE/NV conducted a I Resource Mntingetnrtit Plan consultation meeting at the NTS with the CGTO I representatives to update them on the changes, I 6. Consultation procedures final schedule, and puhlic comment5 for ths NTS I EIS. The NTS EIS manager provided updated I 7. Executive summary information on these issues. The AIWS gave a 1 report of activities and writing tasks completed I The AlWS completed thc write-up of text on during the fourth AlWS meeting. The CGTO I socioeconomic issues. specifically, the impact of reviewed and commented on the di-alt text I NTS alternative actions on tribal employment and developed by the AIWS and offei-ed suggehtionr I education. This section is suggested for inclusion 1 for expanding sections of this text. I in Chapter 4 of the NTS EIS (Volume I). An I I outline of American Indian consultation I The AIWS also presented ii draft of their paper ( proccdurcs wits ;ilso drafted for Chapter 8 of the I entitled Voiciiig Airierir.iiri Iiidirrrr Coiicenis I NTS EIS (Volume I ). A dmit executive summary rhroyyh (111 Irirliuri E1.Y \Vritiii,q Tentii to CGTO I lor Appendix G and summary of the CGTO I representatives. The AIWS explained that thiy I position regarding the four NTS EIS action I paper will he presented at the Meetings ol I alternatives were completed as well. Additionally, I National Asbociation of Environmcntal I Professionals in Houston, Texas, on June 4-6, 0 Framework for the Kesource Managemrnt I 1996. The CGTO approved this presentation and Plan. I recommended that the DOEiNV fully support this I effort. The following section is an excerpt from the paper ~ entitled Voii,i!tg Americnii Itiiiirin Coitcerizs I G.1.7 Fifth AlWS Meeting I throiigh mi lniliiirt EI.5 WrifirrfiTmw. The AIWS I I will present this paper at the annual meeting of the I After the CGTO meeting the AIWS continued I National Association of Environmenral I working on the write-up of new text for t'ne i Professionals in Houston, Texas. The excerpt I NTS fils. The fifth AIWS meeting was held at the I explains how the AlWS proceeded to wire thlh I ofrices of Science Applications International I text, their role and responsibilities in the I Corporation in Las Vegas, Nevada, on I production of the American Indian Resource I April 18-21. 1996. The main goals of this meeting I Document. arid the difficulties they had to I were (I J ro incorporate the CGTO comments. and I overcome throughout the preparation of rexr for 1 coinplere and edit the text developed during the the NTS EIS. A copy of the published proceedings I fourth AlWS meeting, (3) to focus writing efforts I paper (National Association of Environmcntai 1 on the Transportation Study and the Framework I Professionals Conference Proceedings) will be I fui- rhe Resource Mann~emenlPlan. and (3) to I available through the DOEiNV Environmental I complete an expanded inventory of American I Protection Division Office after June 7. 1996. I Indian traditional-use plants and animals for the I I NTS EIS. The AlWS also completed sections of ! G.2 Voicing American Indian Concerns I text on Perceived Risks and Environmental Justice I Through an Indian EIS Writing Team I to be included in Chapter 5 of the NTS EIS. I I Prepared By: I On April 21, the AIWS completed the write-up of 1 I new text for Appendix G, as well as sections of I Richard Arnold, Pahrump Indian Tribe, I text to be included in four chapters of Volume I I Pahrump. NV I and in three chapters of Volunie 2 (Frameworkfor I Don Cloquet. Las Vegas Indian Center, I the Resoirrcr Murmgement Plan) of the NTS EIS. I Las Vegas, NV I By the end of the fifth AIWS meeting, new text I Betty Cornelius, Colorado River Indian Tribe, I produced lor the two volumes of the NTS EIS and I Parker, A% 1 Tor Appendix G included: I Maurice Frank. Yomba Shoshone Tribe, 1 I Austin, NV I Glen Hooper, Yomba Shoshone Tribe. I Austin, NV I Executive Summary I Gaylene Moose, Big Pine Indian Tribe, Bis I I Pine, CA I AIWS meeting paper I Neddeen Naylor, Lone Pine Indian Tribe, I Lone Pine, CA I 0 Summary of the CGTO position regarding the I I NTS EIS alter-natives I C.2.1 Abstract I I 0 Socioeconomic Issucs An American Indinn writing teain appointed h) the I9 rncmhers of the CGTO preparcd text for dircct I 0 Environmental Justice inclusion in the NTS EIS, prepared tinder the I supervision or the DOWNV. The proccdurc oi. I 0 Consultation Procedures having American Indians work directly on rliis EIS I ha& produced relevant text 111 it rimrly manner, I 0 Cornmerits on the Tmnhportation Study while keepins secret cemitii knowledge abnur Indian cultural resources. I G.2.2 Excerpt Introduction Indian EIS writing team possihle. The paper i includes how the DOEINV EIS writing team I American Indian ccuiccrns art' by law and I irained the Indian writing team so that Indian EIS ! regulati~iti to he incwporntrd into rhc I text would be produced under common I environinental impact a\\e\\iiieiirs of planned I assumptions and with similar quality controls. federal projects. Tribcs do nut consider I The paper ends with a general model for involving themselves ar "stakeholders" as defined. hut rather i American Indian tribal governments and ii sovereign governmznt within the boundaries of I organizations into the EIS process, using the the United States who have a unique relationship I Indian EIS writing team approach. and status unlike any other. All ton often tribal I input is gathered through I-cgularly scheduled I G.2.3 Issues in the Functioning of the public scoping meetings. This approach is not the I Subgroup appropriate maiiiier in which to involve Indian I I trihes. These tribal pvernmeiits. and the people I G.2.3.1 Translating Ideas. Members of the I they rcprewnt. generally tlevrt: to have their I AIWS had to learn about this EIS and liow to I cnvironiiieiitiil action prcterences iuliy voiced in I rranslate American Indian concerns into the EIS I the lvTS F,IS on a goveriiiiient-~o-go~'erniii~ntI language. When members of rhe CGTO talk I bast\. I nrnong themseives, they do so from tlie perspectibe ! I of a common culture and history Many issues are I Twu !actor\ directly impact the quantity and I understood, and these remain an unspoken quality 01 Indian participation: (I)the time I dimension of American Indian conversations. pcrmiited iw their involvement; and (2)the Icvel I Some issues are specific to gender; there are issues of confidentiality that can he pruvlded to protect I that women are assumed to know about and when cultut-al resot~~ces.Time i\ iiecded for Indian I discussion turns to these subjects iiieii li5tcn rather tribes to understnnd what actions are being I than speak. Other issues involve respect for age; proposed aid to kxn what rule? govern thc I dders have a special place in these Indian production of this EIS so thai knmvledgcahle tribal I societies, so when they speak special attention is member\ can he selected to participate and devote I given. Even the style of speech is an understood 4liilicictIt time for the idenrification and evaluation I issue of communication, because there is an of potcntially impacted rcsoiirccs. When past I appropriate amount of time after a speaker ends Ainericari Indim studies can be used as a base, I his presentation before someone else should speak. shorter eviiluatioii periods are appropriate; I There are certain understandings that should not irnloriuliately, there i\ ii national tendency to I be expressed in public coiiiiiiuiiication, especially involve tribes liit~in this EIS process or not at all. I when non-Indians are present. When certain Indian people dciiiiiiid rights of meaningful ! issues are discussed, Indian speakers may be i iiivol~einent and confidentiality (if information I accused of "Talking Too Much or Telling Too 1 shared about sncl-ed places and natural resources I Much." All these dimensions of culturally based I used in ccrcrnonies, and do not want these I Indian cornmunicaiion can be challenged wlieii I thrciitciitd by beinp iiiiide public during this EIS I AIWS members translate their assessments of I procesr. Indiiin pcople would prcfcr not to I potential project impacts into the language of the I p;ii~ticil)iite in this Ills unIc\s they ciiii be assured I EIS. I that sharing citl1iir;iIly senvtive iiif'iirniation with I I tlic agency nil1 allird iiiorc protection rather than I The amount of responsibility placed on the AIWS I threaten ctiltti~-~l~-esources. This paper dc I mcmbers is in direct proportion to tlie aniount (if I thc formation md succc~sfulperloriiiance of the I consultation that has occurred between tlie agency I first Aiiic~-ic.iinIndian EIS nritinp teain established I ;ind the cultui-ally affiliated tribes. When the I and supported by ;I majcir icderd agency. lhe I AIWS has years ofconsult;rtion on which to build i paper dc\ci~ilxshow pa\t IXIEINV consulkitions I an 11s argument, they are m~reconfitlent of what I \vith rtic 10 iiiciiihct~\of the CGTO provided the I variables they suggest and of ways to study the i founclati<,n oi hriowlcdpe iiiid tru\t that iiiiidc the I isbue. Key here is the i\\ue of ci~IIur;iI I confidentiality, because certain issues may be 1 debate ib not encouraged, hecauv of the mutui I inappropriate for public discussion. The AIWS I re\pecr ohserved iind the nngoing relationships I will always be concerned about "Not saying too I between the committee members is considered I much to non-Indians." If the issues have emerged 1 inore important than a specific issue under I in previous consultation studies. however. the I dixussion. I AIWS can simply raise the variable and cite the I I report. The NTS consultation has produced I The EIS process is a vtrtual bAttk-ground of I 10 years of issues raised and studies completed, so I debate over wjhich variables should be included. I when talking about cultural resources, the XIW5 I how much data collection is needed, and the I worked from a position of strength. When they I amount of report space to allocate for presenting I moved to topics thar had nor been previously I the findings. EIS teams typically have dozens of I assessed, however, they were much more tenuous I experts who represent the sub~ectin the agency, I about raising issucs and wggesring research I and generally have not and will not again work I methodologies and anticipating the findings of I directly with one another. The DOE EIS writing I systematic research. i teain, for example, consisted of 80 experts with I I more thari I .OX2 years of collective professional I G.2.3.2 Negotiating Text. In an EIS, all I reseal-cli and EIS preparation experience. Their I variables, levels of analysis, and descriptive tcxt is I performance is judged by their unit in the agency I negotiated. By this. it is understood that I according to how much rttteiitinii the EIS devotes I something like the relationship between economics I to their subjects. Good dehatc resolutions are I and residence on a reservation or radiation and air I sften described as being when everyone IS equally I as a living organism cannot become a variable for I unhappy ahout tlie dccision. In this environment, I consideration in the EIS unless a strong and I the AN'S had to change the rules under which I reasonable argument can be made by someone that I they would operate and become each other's first I it is potentially impacted by the proposed actions I critic. If they could not convince each other. then I under consideration. Generally, variables are ! 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 he 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 contirtuous commitment of kq 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 elfort. I selected to conduct the research. When the I Since tlie inclu\ion of Indian writers in an ElS had I analysis is completed, the EIS team must decide I never hecn undertaken previously hy the DOI-., I how much space to allocate for prescnting the I \'xinus apprehensions developed, a'r rnight be I findings. Since all €3.5 text is negotiated, the I expected. Intercstingly enough. during this EIS I further along the EIS process proceeds the more I scoping period, many of the coiiccrns ahout thc 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 involvemrnt 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. 1 with the DOEINV. These concerns ranged from I i questioning the ;ippropriateness of actually I Consensus decisionmaking characterizes how most I including r\mencan Indian perspective in m EIS. I American Indian committees opcrale. In this I KI the Iwr of wtting a precedence within die DOE I context, alternative views are carefully expressed I aid in other federal ngencie$. I so as not to imply othcrs are incorrect. Forceful I Ihi-ougliout the deveiopiiient of the actual text and I To further ensure that the text developed by the I hi- final source document, those individuals who I Indian writing team was appropriatc and consistent I i)ripitiaII> expressed doubts about the process I with the rest of the blS document. ongoing i repitted tlictr confidence, and eventually I critiques of Draft Indian text were requested by I crincludctl that American Indians should be I the Indian writers. Key people were identified I iiicliitii.d in the I!IS procesr in order to share I from the EIS writing team to help critique the I iiiipiii-i;ini cultui-ill inf.cirmation relating to the area. I format and style of the EIS text produced by the I Additiiin;illy, tlie Indian writers provided I Indian writers. These key people pmwssed I tnterpret;itt'x information that many times either I previous cross-cultural interactions and had I cxp;iiidcd 01-contradicted the conclusions of other I txperience with diverse populations. This type of I \cientistb inviilvrd in the EIS. Often times, I background proved to be invaluable throughout I r-eciin.,icleratiiin and estimations about the I the entire process. ciitiiiikittve effect., mi theii- reservations were I ! ptmvitied. \vhich were typically overlooked or I G.2.4 Where Do We Go From Here? ~ tiiis~~iii~~r~ii~~i~i.Many oi those who initially were I i io~i!,~dcrcd demccors have now seen the I After completion of the iinal text. the AIWS made I demonstrated \,:due ot Indian writers in the EIS. I a formal prehentation to the emire CGTO for Bii~Iithc 11.5. Bureau of Land Management and I review and iicceptancc. This presentation ! tliz I:.S. bwest Service (not initial critics) have I provided an oppoilunity for writers to dcscribe the I tiow cont;icted Ine CGTO about similar I EIS process, dilemmas, and ii comprehensive ! iti\o!\emeiit in theii- agency's ElS and resource I overview of the text. Metnhers (if the CGTO were I lll~lllqelllclltplans. I asked to thoroughly review the docuinent, make I editorial changes, and provide tiny new I G2.3.4 Trainers. How do you get a team of I information not previously addressed. This I Iitdiiiti pco[>le tip to spccd quickly so they can I information was then synthesized by the AIWS for I uiidcintmcl nliilt dat,i ancl writing rules govern the I inclusion into the text. priodiictioti of xi EIY? Probably one of the most I I cl!alienfing tasks for both the American Indian I This particular meeting was a very intenbe I \\i-itcrx atid the I)Oli xicntihth was learning about I experience due to the coniplexities surrounding the GICIIother's iGirtlc oi ieference. According to one I NTS EIS. However, when discussions rev~lved inicnihct~cii the AIWS, although we never fully I around familiar topics such as Indian place names, iiiidcrskxd eiicli other. :I hetter understanding and I or plant and animal identification. the demeanor of fiiiiiiliiii~~iy\\a\ iictiicved. This was followed by I the meeting changed drastic;illy. At the ! cxpl;iiiations ahout the scientific outcomes and I conclusion of the meeting, the CGTO made I data in ;I tiinnner which was responsive to the I various recommendations including soppoi-t for the iiccdi oi the Indian writcrs. Some of the primary I AIWS to present this paper describing their I u'ays oi presenting this information was to respond I experiences with the N-IS EIS. I iii dtrcc~ qtic.;tiotis. provide background I ! iitloriii:i!ioit ahout tlic project. thoroughly explain I The CGTO hopes that their effort will encourage I the \tidy design. and finally concluding with an I other federal agencies to include American Indian I mialpis aiiJ interpretation of scientific findings. I tribes and organiLations intci their EIS processes i This appimicli worhed successfully and allowed I and to encourage American lndian tribes and I tlie Imsented iitforination to he discussed among I organizations to become actively inbolvrd in the I tlic \LI-I!~~110 in turii formulated the information I protection of their interests. I nitliin thcir iiwn ciiltur:iI contexi and frame of I I I-efei-ence. Occa\ionally, d icultics arose due to I Over the last decade. tlie DOE NV ha\ \upported ! the coitiplcxities of il sitewitle EIS and in I a serieb of systematic American indl;ln studies that uniler~catidingtlie relationship, if any, to other I have provided an extensive set of elders opinions EIS'.: iiiid eiivt~-ui~nentalassessments that were I about the cultural sisnificance of.thc lands and the iccurt'ing ,litlllll;riii~)u.;iy within thc DOE. I naturai resources of tlie NTS. I)cspite rhls NEVIUIA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEN1 I extensive eflort, many studies are yet to be NTS lands have been withdrawti by the Federal I undertaken, and some kinds of studies are yet to be Government since 1943 I proposed. Naturally, a full iissessment of potential I pro.jects requires a conipletc database of American Despite the loss of some traditional lands to I Indian opinion regarding a variety of topics. As pollution and reduced acce~s,Indian people have I new mdies are completed, Indian people will be neither lost their ancestral ties to, nor have I dble to speak with increasing confidence when forgotten, their cultural resources 011 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 AlWS and the CGTO arc becoming do so. I recognixd for their knowledge and expertise I pined throughout the EIS process. Their efforts The NTS land was part of ciiltiiriil landscapes thar I can sene as a model lor involving American extended many miles in all directions. Because 1 Indians in future EIS efforts. Already other Indian this land is a part and not the whole, it is. ! tribes and federal agencies are reviewing this therefore, essential that DOE dcterminntionr 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 pi-ogvanis on traditional Indian I lands. culture, religion, and society be made according to I the broad regional use of NTS lands. I G.3 Natibe American Overview I Recognizing this continuity in traditional ties I G.3.1 Centrality Issue between the NTS and Indian people, iii I985 the I DOE began long-term research involving the ~ 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 coiitinuation of American Indian culture, religion, only in tribal lands, but also beyond the and society. Until the mid-l900s, traditional boundaries of a reservation (Stoftle ct al., I %Ma). lestiv;ils invol\'ing religious and secular activities attracted lndian 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, canie to the areR from a broad region during the 17 tribes and organirations have aligned lhunting 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 rcsponsiblc 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 Ciovernment has maintained the perception that the focus of the group has been the pi-otection of NlS is a remote wasteland with very low cultural resources. Thc DOE and the CGTO have population density and other charactel-istics that participated in cultural resoiirce n~anageincnr make it ideal for dcveloping defense and energy projects, including the Yucca Mountain Pi-oject pro~ccts.Recaiisc of chis "wasreland perception.' (Stoftle, 1987; Stoffle et al.. IOXXh, 1989a. I%%, 1990a, 1990h. 1990~;Stofflr and Evans. 1988, ti-11 Volume 1. Appendix G NEVMA 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 rcscarch 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 as well as geological formations contained in the physical artifacts produced by our Indian 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 Ritual practices cannot be properly carried out I without plants and animals. Similarly, natural I 3. Ethnozoology - the identification and interpre- landforms inark locations that are significant for tation of the animals used by Indian people keeping the historic memory of American Indian I people alive and for teaching children about their I 4. Rock art -the identification and interpretation culture and history. of traditional Indian paintings and rock peckings This land and its resources are well-known by American Indian people, who consider the NTS as I 5. Traditional Cultural Properties - the identi- a central part of their cultural landscape. This fication and interpretation of places of central knowledge has allowed them to he 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 interpretation of soil, rocks, water, and air I G.3.2.1 Nevada Test Site. The CGTO knows, based upon its collective knowledge of Indian I I. 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 being integrated. Thus, certain systematic studies American Indian people. of a variety of American Indian cultural resources nust 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 he possible for American Indian people to Although some of these studies have been I assess three critical issues: (I)What is the natural 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 Amcrican 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 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 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 placc and its associated natural responsible for the continued use and management and cultural resuurces when all studies havc been of these lands. completed and our govcrntncrits and irihai organizations have reviewed the recorded thoughts Volume 1, Appendix G G-12 ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The NTS and nearby lands were central to the I Amendment of the US. Constitution rights of Western Shoshone, Owens Valley Paiute, and American Indian people to have access to lairds and Southern Paiute people (see Figure G-I, American resources essential in the conduct of their traditional Indian region of intluence map). The lands were religion. These rights are exercised not only iii 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., 1994, and b). use, and social events (Stoffle et al., 1990a and b). When Europeans encroachcd 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 k~lledmany I to form the CGTO. This group is formed by Indian people; European animals replaced Indian officially appointed reprcsentatives 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 perspeclivec. The CGTO has over Indian minerals; and Europeans rook Indian established a long-standing relationship with the agricultural areas. DOE. The primary focus of the group has heen the protection of cultural resources. The withdrawal of Nevada's lands for the use of the War Ikpartment 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 YuccaMountain Project (Stoffle, 1987; Stoffle and later the final land withdrawal of February 12, etal., 1988b, 1989a. 1989b. 1990a, 1990b, 1990~; 1952 (Public Law Order 805). for use by the Stoffle and Evans, 1988; 1990; 1992;) aiid the Atomic Energy Commission, continued the process Underground Weapons Testing Project (Stoftle of Euroamerican encroachment on these Indian et al., 19948 and b). These .;tudies are uszd in this lands. Pollution and destruction followed in the report, along with the collcctive knowledge of the form of bombs and atomic testing, thus causing I CGTO, as the basis of the comnients iii this NTS some places to become unusable again for Indian EIS. The cultural resource nianqynent 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 Am-rican 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 DOEINV'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-I and G-2) were I identified by Indian elders as part of their traditional Ilespitc the pollution and destruction of some I resources. Attachments A and H contain all plants ctiltural resources and the physical separation from I and animals that are both present on tht. NTS and the NTS and neighboring lands, Indian people potentially will affect American Indian ctiltilritl continue to value and recognize the central role of I resources within an area roughly hounded and these lands in their continued suwival. Recognizing I known from various sources to havc lxcn used hy this continuity in traditional ties between the NTS I either Western Shoshone, Southern Paiutes, oI and Indian people, the DOE in 1985 began long- I Owens Valley Paiutes. Attachrncnt\ A arid H BISO term research involving the inventory and I contain the Indian names for rhese plants atid evaluation of American Indian cultural resources I animals. in the area. This research was designed to comply I with AIKFA, which specifically reaffirms the First I GI3 Volume 1. Appendix (; NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL HNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMHNT Table G-1. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page I of 4) NKVAUA TEST SITfi FINAL ENVIX0N.MENTAL IMPACT STATEMKaVT Table G-I. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page 2 of 4) NOTE. American Indian traditional-use plants present in the NTS area arc identified in the piujcct reports emiilctl ;Vnii~ American Plan1 Rvrources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevruirr (YM) (Stoffle et al., 198Yh) and Nuiw .Atnertcutz Cr GlS Volume I, Appendix C __~ - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEEMENT Table GI. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Page 3 of 4) 77. Rhrs ieluli,ium desert gooseberry X 78 I 92. Stre/>tanthu.s cordairr wild mustard X 93 Slmrd" lnrreynnn scepweed X 94. .S,niplioricarpos lunRi/lonu snowherry X Volume 1, Appendix G G.16 ~~ ~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FLVAL ENVIRONMENTAI. Ihfl’llCT .STATlMI Tablc (2-1. American Indian traditional-use plants present at the NTS (Paged of 4) NOTE: Amerlcan Indian iradltlonal-ure plarrtr present In the NTS maare idcntlfxed in the projcct icpnm, cntltted Nrriivt. American Plant Rrsources in the Yucca Mouniain Area, luuwdn (YM) (Sloftle ct al.. 1989hj and nu in.^ Arwrican Culiiiroi Raource on Paliute and Ruinier Mesas, Nevudo Test Site (PM/RMI (Stofflc et al.. 1994h). lhls tahle mludes tradctinn;ll-usc plants identified In the Colorado River Corridor Sludy ICC) and in the Utah Test and Traimng Rangc Study (UTIR) that :ire also present at the NTS (sec NTS EIS, Table 438). G-17 Volum 1, Appendix G ,VEVADA TEST SITE FINAI, Eh'VIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATb.MEA'T Table G-2. American Indian traditional-use animals present at the NTS NOTE: American Indian traditional-use animals arc idcnlilied in rhc projccl rcpon cntitlcd Nnirw Aniurrcun Cuiiirmi Kt.soirnp.s on Pahure and Rmiier Mpsm h'wodo 7esr Sitc (SloCllc el al.. lYY4h). This table presents only a Dartial list offradilional-uce animals present at thc KTS (ICC I NTS EIS. Tahlc 4-39), To dale. no systcmiilic or extensive animal studies have heen condocled at the NTS. Volunie 1, Appendix G G-18 ~~ ~ ~ XEVXUA TfiST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEJII~.~.VT I Thc CGTO knows that thz actions considered in the I therefore, at this time, it I; not pi~\itiIt to I NTS ElS potentially will affecr American Indian I completely asses\ thc citltiir:il ~r~iiil'icaticc01' thi' I cultural rewurces u,ithin an area roughly hounded I area. I by \here 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. Scctiori 4. f,/I) 'I'lie iicrions will have cultural effects within this region I CGTO knows that the Rock Valle) h~di~it";iphic of influence because of the cultural centrality of I area contains a wide rangc of iiiipoi~t;itit cuIttiriil thehe land\ lo all three ethnic groups (Western I resources, including plants. anitnd\, ~ircii~ieiilc~~~c~il Shoshone. Owens Valley Paiute, and Southern I sites, and minerals One formul .American Indian Paiutes) Within this region of influence, specific I plant study involving tribnl eldcrs \%hoiirr p1;int actions will have direct local impacts. Ultimately, I experts was conducted in Rock Vrillq as p;in or tlic however. any action that nioves the NTS away from I Yucca Mountain Project. A total of 12 iiiedicine or hack towards its natural \rate has influence on all I and food plants in upper Rock \allc! wet-e Indian pcople. I identified as part of the Yucca Mouniain PI-C~CC~ I ethnobotany sttidy (Stofflc ci ill., I %9hi. Aiiotlicr I The CGTO recognizes that some of the actions I 10 traditional-u\c platir. vxic iclciiitl'ied ,it 1111' proposed in the N?'S EIS will have direct impacts I northeast base of Little Skull Clorint;iiii ti~wtiii' [in other Indian tribes and organizations. For I divide between Rock V;ille! iiiiil Iwh:ik.. I.l,it\ example, the Project Shoal Area is located on the I (Stoffle et al., IOXXa). Some of the i!iipon.m~ traditional lands of Northern Paiute people. The animals in the valley iticliidc rabbit, !ttrlli. ~n!~itc. Eldwado Valley actions potentially impact the and whiptail lizard, which nere iixd lor fond, Mohave people. The return of radioactive waste to ceremony, and eye surgery. Syslcmatic Aniciican I tlie NTS has permitted and potentially will permit Indian studies of animals and ;ircIi;ieol(ig Iiiihe tiL~it I peoplc like thc Alaskan natives to have their lands been conducted in Rock Valley: tlwrctorc. ;I I restored to a natural state (see Project Chariot complete assessnient of the cuI(ur;iI \igtiificiiiicc ill. I Report, DOE/NV. 1994). Therefore, the CGTO this area is not possible at thiy time. I defines the No Action Alternative region of I influencc map in an effort to focus on the cultural G.3.2.1.3 Fortymile Canyon arid Jackass F1ut.s. I concctnis of those people having traditional ties to Section 4.1.10-The CGTO knob\ tha! thc I the NTS itself, but in so doing does no1 intend to Fortymile Canyon and Jackass Flat? hydroloyical I preclude tlie cullural concerns of other Indian ethnic area contains a wide range of impnrttiiit citlttiral I groups. resources, including plants, aiiini;ils. arch;icolo$xl I sites, minerals, and power plxes. Thtw fot-mil I G.3.2.1.1 Mercury Valley, Section 4.l.IO-The plant studies werc conducted in hi\ area :I> pit-t 01 I CGTO knows that the Mercury Valley hydrographic the Yucca Mountain Projcct; thestudxs idcntttictl I area containb a wide range of important cultural 13 traditional-use plants (Stollle CI al.. I%8Sc~i. I resources, including plants, animals, and I archaeological sites. This knowledge comes from Fifteen formal ethno;irclinr(ilo~i~~il\tudic\ \+cre I Frequent visits by CGTO members to this area. conducted in this area as pitif i>f tlic Yiicc;~ I Observed plants in this valley include Indian rice Mountain Pmject; these studies ideiitii'iecl iiittneroii\ I grass (Or~zopsis hwirrioides), prince's plume archaeological I-esources in this area. datiti; >I\ OREGON IDAHO Legend CALIFORNIA 1 Benton Paiute Resewation 2 Timbisha Shoshone ReSeNatlOn 3 Bishop Paiute Shoshone ReSeNation 4 01g ~lnePaiute Shoshone Reservation 5 FO~independence Paiute Resewation 6 Lone Pine Palute ReSeNatlOn 7 Yornba Shoshone ReSeNatlon 8 Duckwater Shoshone ReseNatlon 9 Pahiurnp PaiuteTribe 10 ias Vegas Palute lndlan Colony It Las Vegas Indian Center 12 Chemehuevi ReSeNatlOn 13 Colorado R~erIndian Tnbes 14 Moapa Paulte ReSeNatlOn 15 Shlwits (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 16 Cedar City (Pauite Indian Tribe Of Utah) 17 Indian Peaks (Pauite Indian Tnbe 01 Utah1 18 Kanosh (Pauite Indian Tribe of Utah) 19 Koasharem (Paulte lndlan Tribe Of Utah) 0 50 100 Miles 50 20 Kaibab Paiute Resewation .- 21 Ely Shosllone Tribe r- TTR Tonapah Test Range 50 0 100 Kilometers Source Adapted from DAzevedo 7986 Figure G-1 American Indian region of influence for the NTS EIS Volume 1, Appendix G G-20 ~ ~ ~ either its ~raditional Shoshone name Do~owyrr According to Indiun peoplc intervtewed in the Ifimunipi (Snake Wash) or the Oweni Valley tiam 11130s (Stward. 1938). the 0,r~wpillsirlct 7~owdimiupi(Snake Canyon) to describe it. The contained ayricultui-al laid\ twxt to \priii;\ and I canyon was a significant crossroad where nuinerons ytreatns in Ouv\ Vallej itwlt, nhtlc ttie iipliind\ rfiiditional Indian trails froin diytant places likc formed by nearby iiioiiiit:iiti\ co~iirihuredpine IIUIS Owens Valley, Death Valley, and the Avawtz and decr to thc diet ofthc Indiaii pcoplir tStinffe ct Mounrains came together (Stoftle et al., I989a). al.. 1 WOb!. The Opwj>! I>isirict \\a. ;in impoinmi While many American Indian studies liave been place tor lridian trade and ~~remonialisrn.Mineral conducted in this area, other cultural resources have hot springs were uicd by liidix pcnple for curing, not been systematically studied. Other needed thus funher iiict-asitig he ~LII~LII-~Iiiiip~~rtiitice if studies include rock art (which is called in Southern the Oasis Valley core itreti. Dttr-ing much of the Paiute iuntpiruwinap or literally “storied rocks”) historic period, Indian people continued to live in (Stoffle et al., 1995). power places, and animals. Oasis Valley and use [he sulTorlndiny uplands of thc Ogiw jii 1)istricI. Much IJ~’ the Oasis VnIky G.3.2.1.J Buckboard Mesa, Section 4.1.10 - hydrological basin h:is not been zysietnaticdl? I The CGTO knows that the Buckboard Mesa studied by .4meiican Indian people. Therefore. itt hydrological area contains a wide range of this tinic, it ii tior poksihle tcn full) iisjess the important cultural i-esources. including plants. cultural figmficancc of dl places in the 0;isis I animals. archwological sites, minerals. and power ?alley. I place>. Two ethnoarchaeological site visits have been conducted in this area. One study was focused G.3.2.1.6 Gold Flat, Section 1.I.IO-’The on a power rock and a series of petroglyph panels I CGTO knows thd the Gold Flat hydrological area located at the southern end of Buckboard Mcsa contains a wide range of important cultural (Stoffle et al.. 1994a) and the second study included I resources including pl;tnts. archaeological sites. and a visit to rock shelters containing obsidian nodules, power places. This co~icI~~sionis based (111 artifacts, and Indian rock paintings. To the north of American 1ndi;in studies conducied almy the Buckboard Mesa is an extensive area of obsidian central and northerii portions of Pahute Mesa. nodules which were significant in many ways to These studies identified 42 species of Indian plants Indian people. Scrughani Peak, a volcanic cone, found iii this area (Stoffle et 31., l994h). 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 prexnce of lridian traditional cultural property studies. While culturally significant species, such as hawks and some American lndian studies have been conducted eagles. At this time, it is iiot 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 Pdhute Mesa has been studied and studies of plants, animals, and traditional cultural additional studies are planned to assess rock an and properties. traditional cultural propenics. G.3.2.1.5 Oasis Valley, Section 4.1.10-The G.3.2.1.7 Kawich Valley, Section 4.1.IO-The I CGTO knows that the Oak Valley hydrologic area I CGTO knows that the Kawich Valley hydrological is a part of the agricultural core area of a much area contains a wide range of ilnportant Indian larger Indian district called Ogwe’pi by the Indian cultural resources, including plants. aniiniils. people who used this farming, gathering, and I archaeological sites, and places of both pnwcr and medicine area. The cultural significance of the ceremony. This knowlcdge comcs from il wries of Ogw’pi District is well established by document systematic Amci-ican Indiaii \rudir, on Pahim Mcsrr research (Stofflcet al.. 1988b), one plant areastudy, regarding plants and anniials and by x?lecied I one archaeological study area (Stoffle et al., 19941). observations by individual Indian peoplc. A tovai ol and by interviews conducted during the 1930s. 42 plants were identified froin 6 plant locations. G-21 Volume 1. Appendix (; - ~- NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME,VT 36 of which are still used today (Stoftle et al.. valleys have similar levels of cultural \ignificance. I994b). Interviews with Indian experts about No systematic Indian studies have been conducted animals indicated a number of culturally significant iii Emigrant Valley, so ;I complete cultural species, including hawks and eagle?, and a unique assessment is not possible at this time. species of ant valued as both food and medicine. Archaeological studies at sites indicale 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 Flat hydrological area were processed (Stoffle et al.. l994h). Kaw~ch contains a wide variety of culturally impcirtanr Valley contains an important trail used within the Indian resources, including plants, rmimals. currenr 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 hax rainily memories of Kawich Valley and the use of been conducted along the southern rini and bast oi Pahute Mesa. Individual Indian people identified Rainier Mesa, in the Eleana Range. 011 the places in Gold Meadows where places of power and northeastern flank oi Shoshone Mountain and along ceremony traditionally occurred, hut 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 iiriu I CGTO has recommended that the Gold Meadows lowlands. 13 species at Tippipah Spring. 21 species area he set aside for special protection and use by at Captain Jack Spring, 1 I species at White Rock Indian people because of the concentration and Spring, and 4 species on the mesa rim (Stofllc et al., variety of Indian culttirill resources it contains. The 1988a). The few interviews with Indian people cultiiral significance of the entire Kawich Valley about animals observed in this area do indicate that hydrological area cannot he 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 C.3.2. I,8 Emixrant Valley, Section 4.1.1 0-The in this arca were permanent Indian camps. I CGTO knows that the Emigrant Valley hydrological White Rock Spring, Toshntimhihmh, had a malor area contains a wide variety of important cultural settlement call Turirivrz 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 ma.jor (Stoffle et al,, 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 Wmgogn,artn inrerviews here; therefore, all current information (Steward, 1938). The White Rock Sprin,0 was about this area derives f.rom 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 IS 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 culturill interviews revealed that the Indian people of these assessment 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 Fhf,Secfion 4.1.10-The Beatly people to the southwest. These data suppoll I CGTO knows that the Frenchman Flat hydrological I the tentative conclusion of the AIWS that the two area contains a wide variety of plants, animiils, and Volume 1, Appendix G G-22 ~- ~~ NEVADA 1Ii'ST SITE FIXAI ENVIRONMESTAL IMPACT STATEME.VT I archaeological sites of cultural importancc to Indian involvement of Indian people in these traditional people. Systematic studies of both plants and lands. These wcre ainong the last areas lived in archaeology sites have heen 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. Ac a result species were identified tit 2 plant study locations, of oral history. Indian people know there air viirious with 2 species identified on a flat area near the types of ciilttiral resources located in this study area, eastern flank of Mt. Sayler and another 18 species but cann~tprovide site-specific information about identified at Cane Spring (Stoffle er al., 1988a). A these xeas at thib time. No Indian people officially complete cultural assessnicnt of this area is nor representing the CGTO have visited the possible at this time because past studies were Double Tracks Test Area or any other portion of the geographically and topically restricted. NAFR Complex, although such interview habe 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. I The CGTO knows that the Tonopah Test Range Therefore, it is not possible to fully assas the contain^ significant ciiltural resources, including cultural significance of the Double Tracks Tesr Area I 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, Sectiori 4.2.10-The 1938) and from recent plant, animal, and CGTO knows that Arca 13 contains significant archaeology studies conducted south of this area in cultural resources, including plants. animals, comparable environments (Stoffle et al., l990b. 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 envirtinments (Stoffle et al., 1990b, 1994a and bj. a result of oral history, Indian people know there are These studies document long-term and extenhive various types of cultural resources located in this involvement of Indian people in these traditional study area, hut 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 I representing the CGTO have visited the Tonopah live on more distant Indian reservation$. As a result Test Range or any other portion of the Nellis of oral histoly, Indian people know there are \,arious Air Force Range (NAFR) Complex, although such types of cultural resources located in this study arm, interviews have been requested and one initial hut cannot provide site-specific information about meeting with an NAFR Complex archaeologist has these areas at this time. No official representatives occurred. Therefore. it is not possible to fully 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 ha\,e been requested and one initial meeting with an NAFR Complex archaeologist has G.3.2.1.12 Nelfiv Air Force Range Complex, occurred. Therefore, it is not possible to fully I 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, I 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) Indian people rcpresented by the CGTO. It is and from recent plant, animal, and archaeology recommended by the CGTO that the DOE ETS 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 suggcsted: Fallon Paiute, C-23 Volume I, Appendix ti ~ ~ NEVADA 1I:‘ST SITE FINAL b;NVIRONMENTAI, 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 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 Eldorado Valley, Section 4.5.10. The comes from previous ethnographic research I CGTO knows that the Eldorado Valley study area (Steward. 1938) and recent archaeology reports contains a wide variety of cultural resources. (Edwards and Johnson, 1994). The area contains a I including plants, animals, and archaeological sites. number of cultural rcsources of special interest to I This knowledge is derived from previous American the CGTO. These include (I) 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 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 Pact 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 site. The CGTO has requested the opportunity to include creosote (Lnrren widentutu), desert trumpet visit the area as pan of this EIS in order to more (Erigonum ir$larum), and Indian tea (Nevadu fully understand its cultural significance. Until this ephedra). Indian animals include bighorn sheep site visit occurs, it is impossible to more fully assess (Ovis runadensis), desert tortoise (Gopherus the cultural significance of this area. ugnssizii), 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. 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 (Laird, 1976). 1982; Stoffle et al., 1983) studies of Indian The Ivanpah Generating Station Study concluded 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 1982). A 1983 on-site visit to the Dry Lake Valley 1975 study of the Navajo-McCullough transmission 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 assehsment 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 G-24 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEME~VT Eldorado Valley or in neighboring areas. so a I Rocks can also be self-willing, inasmuch as they complete cultural assessmenr of the Eldorado Valley I can reveal themselves to people and act on people. is nor 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. C.3.2.6 Coyote Spring Valley, Section 4.7.10. I the person will have great luck. The luck. houcvcr. 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 our 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 dumosu), four-winged saltbush (Atriplex I Radioactivity was interpreted as being the angry cariescerisj, salt grass (Disfichlis spicata), desert I action of a powerful rock that had been quarried trumpet (Eriogonnm inputrrm), matchweed I without its permission and had its power used for (Gutirrrezia microcephala),range ratany (Krameria I purposes it did not agree to. Now the remains of the parvgolia), desert willow (Chilopsis liriearis), I rock (radioactive waste) is angry and it is taking its prince’s plume (Stdeyn piririutu), and Wolfberry I anger out on things around it. Piants, 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 2ven 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 I traditionally used for foods and medicines. IPP corridor revealed 9 sites and 20 scattered finds I Spiritual people believe that they can see and feel (Tucker et al., 1982). Known Indian cultural I radiation, that it has unique colors. This is why they resources exist in the Coyote Spring Valley area, I can neither eat nor collect some plants, animals, and but it is impossible to fully understand the potential I minerals in some areas. It is now impossible for impacts to cultural resources without additional I Indian people to go to certain places, do certain systematic on-site resource studies by Indian people. I ceremonies, and eat certain foods because radiation I from the angry rock has been released. I G.3.3 Occupational and Public Health and I I Safetymadiation I Air: Living and Dead - Indian people express the I I belief that the air is alive. There are different kinds I Indian people believe that various perceived risks I of air with different names in Indian language. The I are present and occur as a result of DOE activities. I Creator puts life into the air which is shared by all I Although there are no Indian words for terms such I living things. When a child is born, they pull in the I as radiation in the Indian language, early I air to begin its life. The mother watches carefully to I ethnographic studies supported by the DOE I make sure that the first breath is natural and that I documented a traditional view of radioactivity that I there is no obstruction in the throat. It is believed centers on the perception by Indian elders of I that if the day of birth is a windy day, it is a good radiation being produced by an angry rock (Stoffle I day and the child will have a good life. According I et al., 1989a). Briefly this view is as follows: I to one elder: I I 1 Rocks have power. It is recognized that some rocks I “The seasons--like winter, spring, suriimer, arid I have more or different power than others. Breaking I full-they’re all importarit njheu n child comes into I a rock or removing it from its place without fully I the world because their spirit is tied iri with the I explaining these actions not only releases the power I harvesr, or hum; they say that it gas kinda like into I inherent in the rock, but also angers the rock. I their blood and they become hunten or furrners. G-25 Volume 1, Appendix G ~ ~~ - NEVADA TEST SITE I,'lh'AL E.W'IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMI 1 Yorr can listen to the ~,in(l,the wind talks to yo~i. I with retrospective assessment of the risks that were I Thrngs huppeli in nutiire. Our people hrrd weather I involved by being close to the blasts and froin using I warchers, who ure kinds of people who will know I thc natural resources in the area. Indian people I IV~PII crops and things shotrlri he done. They wutcti I continued to regularly enter the NTS to hunt and I 11ie rli$j%rerifeletnenfs in nafure ond pray to irsk the I collect long after atomic testing began. Today, the I winds to wtne crnd talk nhout these 1hing.s. I eyewitnesses are elders talking about when they I Sornerirnes you ask the north wind to conw dow1 I were younger in the 1950s. A few of these accounts I rind cool the writher. Thr north x:irid is asked to I arc provided in order to explain to non-lndian I hlmv nwny the .footstep uf the. people who huw I people the Indian perception of risk derived froin I pussed on to the afferhfe. Thrrt kind of wind helps I these experiences. I people, it is positive. The wind also brings you I I songs arid mrssage.s. Sonretimes the messages we I A Western Shoshone woman. who still lives near I !rbont henling people, u sign that the sickness is I the NTS, recounted her memories of being a young I qoiw now from the person, or that it is coming to I woman during the blasts. According to her: I vet fhut .sickness to take it awry, or it is conring ro I I bring you the strength that you need to deal bcith I "Affer the hornbs iabo~~egroiriidotoniic e.rplo.sions), I the illnrss. " I my people (Shoshone people) noulri kill the arrinials I 1 in the area rind find sornethirrg wrong with them I But air can be destroyed by radiation that has I They would kill (1 deer, hut when the hide M'US I been released by the angry rock, thus causing I skinned offir would just pull apnrr. When they .sw I pockets of dead air. There is only so much alive air I the niushrooms going lip ~uroinicbomb blasts), they I which surrounds the world. If you kill the living I knew sonierhing was hail. The people (in? f&riiIy I air, it is gone forever and cannot he restored. Dead I und olhrrs) were i11 the niouritains picking pine inits I air lacks the spirituality and life necessary to I when one of the blasts went 08)if ,felt like (in I support other life forms. Airplanes crash when they I earthquake. I wus there, about 8,000 feet. The I hit dead air. One member of the CGTO compared I little aninmls run awuy. The old people looked up I this Indian view of killing air with what happens I into the swaying trees crnd usked what n.ould I when a jet flies through the air and consumes a11 of I happen to those little (bird) nests up there. We I the oxygen, producing a condition where another jet I Iridiun people do riot go up in the trees, so wt' will I cannot fly through the air. The atomic blast I not disturb the hirds. I consumes the oxygen like the jet, killing the air. I I While this cornparison ofthe Western science view I Afrer .some of the blasts occnrrt~i.the old people I of dead air from burning seems close to the Indian I told us not to pick the pine IIIL~Sojj'the grorrnd, so I perspective, the latter has a "life force" component I Vulume 1, Appendix ti G-26 NEVADA TEST SITE FI,VAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT I conie. Those old hasket makers would say /he are afraid of many things arid places in thi.s whole I willows were really brittle uper that, they were hard iirea, hiit we still love to coine oiit irrid see onr Iantl. I arid would nor split easily. Even rile greasen.ood We n.orrv uhout more rarlinriori being hroiifiiir to I becumr had too-it is related to the tortoises and this /uiid." I the plri)a.s (dry lakes)-the Shoshone songs .sing I nhoirt the tortoises and /hi, greusewood rogether. If the DOE wants tu better understand our feelings I The old uiie.s woiilrl say that when the plants yo about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they I awiiy, it (rvhar we need to livej rvill not he theruji)r should support a study of risks from radiation I IIS aiiymure So, we will yo away roo. One elder is designed, conducted and produced by the CGTO. I remembered ii.r suying, "Whnt will become of us .7" I At this time there has not been a systematic study of I Yorr know they (the elders) would tulk like that I American Indians perceptions of risk. Therefore, it I when thPy SLLW ivhut WNS chongiiig aronnd thetn. is not possible to provide action-by-action I estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe I A Soiithrrn Paiute mcin remeniherPd his mother it is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that I (who is rtill living) telling him srories oj the arornic Indian people may better address the actual cullural I blasts arid their qffects on plants and animal^. His impacts of proposed DOE actions. There have been I mother would travel with her.fnniily to hunt and recent workbhops funded by the National Science I gnttierplunts. They (old Pniutesj say that the deer Foundation to understand how to research rhe I would come down over the Bare Mountains mid special issue of culturally-based risk perception I collapsr. People would eor other deer that the.v had among American Indian communities. and at least I killed for themselves. bur when the) tried fo inake I one major project has been funded. Although this I clothing out ofthe hides, the hides would,fall apart. I is a relatively new topic of research, it is one that I Plnrits in the areu don't grow CIS big aiiymore arid I can be more fully understood by research that I were not preferrerl because th~ylost .sonti' oftheir I deeply involves the people being considered. To I powr us food mid medicine. I understand our view of radiation is to begin to I I tinderstand why we responded in certain ways to I A Soirtherri Paiute ~vomuiiri~coiinterl rhe story of past and present, and why we will continue to I one nf her tribal elders who personull), experienced I respond to future DOE activities. I the Ihsts. This elder currently lives on the I I Coiorado River ln&m Rr.srri,atiori hinirlred.~[If 1 G.3.4 Environmental Justice and Equity I ini1cJ.s to the soiith of the NTS, thus a,yniri I I reirijorcing the nerd to tolk with lndiari people I Federal agencies are directed by Executive I regnrtl1e.s.~ of where the) live today. (Nume 1 Order I2898 to detect and mitigate potentially I wirhheldj is o 78 yeur old Chemehuevi iconran who disproportionately high and adverse human health I liwi in tlrir ure G-27 \ dume 1, Appendir <. __~ - 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 froin radioactivity and what social and cultural ceremonies and obtain resources within NTS lands, 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 cleancd 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 ac this pollutcd 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 DOEM 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 .lo, immediate vicinity of the NTS and use i& resources Cultural Resources, and Section 4.1.1 I, on a regular basis, but extends to those lndian Occupational and Public Health and SafetyRadiation. 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 exammed 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. opcrations for the survival of American Indian I culture, rcligion, and society has heen the denial of I G.3.4.4 Tonopah 7est Range. Indian concerns access to their traditional lands and resources. Loss I include: (I)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 heen a well-bcing of Indian people. These Indian people I systematic study of these issues for the Tonopah Volume I, Appendix G rr-2s 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 1 especially Holy Land violiitmns. 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 Environinental Justice I conduct, and aroduce a systematic American Indian I study before new activities are approved. I Environmental Justice study, before new activities 1 I are approved. I G.3.4.8 Dry Lake Valley, Section 4.6.12. I I American Indian conceins include: (I) 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: (I) Holy Land 1 (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and 1 There has not bcen 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 occurring near Indian reservations rurther 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 1 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: (I) Holy Land I G.3.4.6 CentralNevada 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: (I) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks I There has not ken 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 occurring near Indian reservations funher 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 imponant due to the concentration I lands for any purpose. The CGTO should he funded I of cultural resources. Therefore, this area provides a I to design, conduct, and produce a syiterniitic I special opportunity for the DOE to undue past I American Indian Environmental Justice study before I Environmental Justice impacts. The CGTO should he I new activities arc 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 lssues I new activities are approved. I I I G.3.5.1 American Indian Regiurt of Influence. I G.3.4.7 Eldorado Valley, Section 4.5.12. I Within this region of inlluence, there also are several I American Indian concerns include: (I) Holy Land I Indian reservations, tribal enterprises. tribally I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and I controlled schools, tribal police depmiincnrs. and I (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. I tribal emergency response units. The rollowing I There hanot been a systematic study of these issues I reservations are located within the dcsign;ued region I for the Eldorado Valley. The CGTO maintains that 1 of influence: Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, La Vegas NEVADA TEST SITE FLVAI. ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT I Paiute Tribe, Moapa Paiute Tribe, and the Yomba I Indian students and non-lndian students from nearby I Shoshone Tribe. In addition, there are tribes which I communities. This program is funded through the I are located geographically outside of the region of I Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, which operarcs I intluence, but are potentially impacted by NTS I Headstart sites elsewhere in Nevada. Indian students I activities. One of these tribes is the Timbisha I also attend non-Indian public schools. I Shoshone Tribe, based in Death Valley. California. I I This tribe is actually locatcd 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 American Indian I consequence of this proximity, people from the I economy that were lost not only to Euroamerican I Tiinhisha Shoshone Tribe are a part of the social and I encroachment hut also to land withdrawal, pollution, I economic region of intluence of the NTS. For I and radioactive contamination. The NTS is in a I example, students from the Timhisha Shoshone Tnhe I desert region where water is the niost cmcial source. I attend public school in Beatty, Nevada. whereas I Springs located within the NTS and in its immediate I many Shoshone students from Tucopa, California, I vicinity were the place of Indian settlement and I attend school in Pahrump, Nevada. Tiinhisha tribal I traditional fmning until the first half of this century. I inieinhers work and shop in Clark and Nye countieb. I Although much of the well-watered land in the I I aboriginal territory was losr to Euroamencan settlers, I The Pahrump Paiute Tribe, located in Pahrump I by the turn of the cenrury 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 pan 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 soin? 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 Irmn the federal govcmment is I of the NTS. Many 1oc:il American Indians were I provided to my 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 he 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 ininerals had been developed tht-oughout centuries of I One tribally controlled elementary school is in Nye I miiicral 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 wet-c taught by I Euroamerican prospectors to valuable ore deposits, I 3 full-timc certified teachers; these included I providing them with transportation, food and I 2 certilied eleinenlary teachers, 2 teaching assistants, I lodging, and teaching them about minerals, water I I preschool teacher, and 1 teacher under Chapter 1 I resources and trails. Yet, Atnericm Indians were not I Program. Using there numbers, the student-to- I made equal partners in mineral dcbelopment as they I teacher ratio was 10.66:1 (Duckwatcr Shoshone I may have expected and may have been promised I Ti-ibc, 1996). I (Stoftle ct al., 1990a). Perhaps because mining was I I seen as ii primarily Euroamerican econotiiic activity, I A tribally operatcd Head\txt Program is located on I the rights of Amct-tcitn Indians to claim mines was I the Moapa Paiute Indian reservation. The program IS I never made explicit. Mining was further precluded I open to all eligihle preschool studcnts. Both included I when the NTS land was wttlidr;iwn. l'hus, NEVADA TEST SITE FIIVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEIVT I Euroamerican settlers began a process that was (2.4 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 lkvelopment Program, I cohesion has lowered the ability of Indian people to and (5) Work for Others Program. This section I (I) negotiate, (2) resolve conflicts, (3) keep peace, provides a surnmary 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 iiivolves 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. undergound nuclear tcsting to maintaining a state of I Eventually, the lack of contact weakened interethnic readiness to resume unlimited nuclear tests il 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. my future nuclear testing will continue to adversely I The political strength of the three ethnic groups, to impact American Indian cultural resoitrces. 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 (Stoftle 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 action.; 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 suggehts, for example, that continued or increased have been h‘med 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 valuc of insurance policies. Currently, there are no radioactivity into the large underground water compensation measures planned nor mitigation systems who are themselves aliye, 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 orgnnizations directly affected by NTS operations. emotionally and spiritually ti-oubled by ground- Similarly, no efforts have been made to distribute disturbing activities arid underground nuclear lebts. 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 peiroglqphs. power places, or culturiil landscapc5. Some areas have not been studied at all. It is not possibie to 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. a5 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 people can conduct I research and development. The CGTO has systematic studies of waste 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 restoratinn and monitoring; cultural risks will be involved if Indian people use however, Alternative 3 would require niore 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 he 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 (Scnriiryn NTS lands. Under Alternative I, waste could be pinnnta) and willow, and “whipping” pine nut trees received from any DOE facility, which would cause to make them fuller. Indian water management current NTS wa.te 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 arc 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 hlack 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 placcd where they do not want to be (Stoffle land according to religious teachings. From the et 31.. 1989a and 1990~).Another issue is the ethics Indim perspective, environmental restoration should I 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 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 restoratinn or to a placc of cultural significance. The practice of actions. dealing with “bad mcdicine” or neutralizing negative forces was a part of the traditiondl 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 iiianner” could be resolved if within this catcgory Many of these arc I-clatcd 10 I 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-hdian 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 lean about the beauty and cultural significance I G.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 militaq I theNTS. training exercises and weaponry tests. I I CGTO Response to Alternative I: Thc CGTO in principle approves of the Conventional I Weapons Demilitarization Program, because world I The CGTO opposes Alferrintive I bemuse uf our peace will reduce the need to use the NTS for nuclear I strong cultural ties to the land. Nevada Teht Site weapon production. storage, assembly, and testing. I operations have adversely impacted the land, causing I On the other hand. thc CGTO believes that if the I irreparable damagc to traditional resources. If NTS NTS becomes the place where most or all 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 G-33 Volume 1, Appendir G ~ ~~ NEVmA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I animals, Dlants. water, and lands may cease because I development activities would continue and expand. I Indian people's perception of health and spiritual 1 A solar-energy production facility would he built. I risks will incrcase if nuclear weapon testing, 1 I assemhly, srorage, disassembly, and disposal I CGTO Response lo Alternative 3: I continues. Nondefense programs are expected to I cause adverse impacts if these produce more ground The CGTO opposes Alternaliie 3 hecnirse uf oiir I disturbance or if they bring in people who trample srrong culturirl ties to the lanrl. Under expanded use, I and destroy traditional resources. it is expected that the continuarion and expansion of I current operations, as well as the implementation of I Alternative 2: Discontinue Operations additional defense and nondefense project activities I and programs would irreparably damage 4merican I Under this alternative, all current and planned Indian cultural resources presenr at the NTS. I programs, activities. and operations would he Expansion of NTS operations would conceivably I discontinued. Only activities conducted in support of require use of land that IS yet untouched. and would I decommissioning, radiation monitonng, and security worsen the risk of radioactive contamination. I functions necessary for human health, safety, and Potentially, American Indian access to resources and I secuiity would he maintained. Environmental sacred sites would be even more restricted. I restoration would not he done. All defense and Expanded use would be detrimental for the I nontlcfense programs would he discontinued. socioeconoinic development and health of Indian I Inactive waste disposal sites would be abandoned. communities. I Only a ininiiiiuin of low-level radioactive and mixed I waste disposal capacity would he maintained to Alternative 4: Alternate Use of Withdrawn I suppoil closure of the NTS. Lands ~ I CGTO Response lo Alternative 2: This alternative will evaluate the impacts associated I with locating new programs and project activities at I Thr CGTO suprmr1.s.. Alternutive 2 because if woirld the NTS, including nondefense research and I rillm tile Lind ro heal unrl perhaps return ro irs I development programs, expansion of the Spill Test I rimturd condition. The CGTO recommends that an I Facility in Area 5, and various types of personnel I evaluation of areas that can be restored for human use 1 training for locating, containing, handling, or I be made and that environmental restoration activities 1 transporting hazardous materials, radioisotopes, I he included in this alternative. Access to culturally 1 fuels, explosives, and other materials. Under this I significant places should be allowed. The DOE 1 alternative, waste management operations, waste- I should continue to protect all cultural resource sites. I 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 he 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 he made to support national Educational and recreational activities would he I programs or both a defense and nondefense nature. pursued. The potential for turning hack lands to the I Cul-rent 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 he pursued. Waste management I operations would increase and storage/disposal areas I expaiidcd. Waste transportation would be increased I 2s well. Environmental resroration and research and NEVADA TEST SITE FIh‘AI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I CG’I’O Response to Alternative 4: I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian 1 I’he CGTO teiitnrii~ely.sripports Alrernutiw 4 w,ith I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the I riJservntioii5 regnrdilirtg certain conipnnenr.\ of thlr I well and access road monitoring program. but will I altemrzrivr. Asidc from the concerns already I be positively impacted by actions that return I expresscd regarding waste-related pollution and I disturbed lands to their natural condition in a I ground disturbance, the CGTO expects that opening I culturally appropriate manner and with the I the NTS to the public will adversely impact I participation of Indian people. I traditional rcsources, particularly petroglyphs, I I mchacological sites, and rock shelters, because of I Nondefense Research and Development I tlicir appeal as tourist attractions. Heavy traffic will I Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that tramplc plants, hurt animals, limit American Indian I American Indian cultural resources will be I ~~ 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 Thc 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 I Work for Others Program Under Alternative I. I I it is expected that American Indian cultural I G.4.2.1 American Indian Place by Action I resources will be adversely impacted if the NTS I Comments, Alternative I. I continued to be a place where weapons are stored, I I disassembled, and disposed. These actions have I G.4.2.1.1 Nevada Test Site I continued and will continue to pollute these lands. I I Defense Program. Under Alternative I, it is I The presence of conventional and nuclear weapon5 I expected that American Indian cultural resources I defines the NTS as a place of destruction, which I will be adversely impacted if further underground I promotes an image that is inappropriate for a place I nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped I for peaceful relations between Indian ethnic groups. I lor construction. Access to culturally significant I places will be reduced because Indian peoples’ I American Indian cultural resources will continue to perception of health and spiritual risks will increase I be adversely impacted by military training cxcrciscs if additional testing, storage, disassembly, or I and weapons tests. disposal of nuclear and conventional weapons occur. I G.4.2.1.2 Tonopah Test Range I Waste Management Program. Under I 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 I will be adversely impacted if further aboveground I impacted because the waste has not been disposed I nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to I for construction. I culturally significant places on the NTS will be I I reduced because waste isolation facilities increase I Waste Management Program. Under I Indian peoples’ perception of health and spiritual Alternative I,it is expected that American Indian I risks. I cultural resources will not be impacted because I there is no Waste Management Program on the Tonopah Test Range and none has been identified for this alternative. G-35 Volume 1, Appendix G ~~ ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I culturally significant places will be increased if Alternative I, 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 environmental restoration methods and in the I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception evaluation of restoration success. I of health and spiritual risks associated with this I area. Indian people wish to be involved in Nondefense Research and Development I identifying environmental restoration methods and Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that I in the evaluation of restoration success. American Indian cultural resources will be I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I Nondefense Research and Development 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 American 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 I, 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 Ne& Air Force Range Complex Area 13 I be adversely impacted by military training exercises I and weapons tests. Defense Program. Under Alternative I, 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. 1 resources will not be adversely impacted under this I I alternative. I Waste Management Program. Under I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under I cultural resources will not be impacted because I Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian I there is no Waste Management Program on the cultural resources will not be adversely impacted I Area 13 site on the NAFR Complex and none has because there is no Waste Management Program on been identified for this alternative. the NAFR Complex and none has been identified for this alternative. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian Environmental Restoration Program Under cultural resources on the Area I?site on the Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian NAFR Complex will be adversely impacted if cultural resources on the NAFR Complex will be natural lands are scraped during environmental 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 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 I,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 increahed 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 I, Nondefense Research and Development it is expected that American Indian cultural Program. Under Alternative I, 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 I, G.4.2.1.5 Project ShoalArea-This study area it is expected that American Indian cultural is not within the traditional lands of the Indian resources will be adversely impacted if the 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 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 Euorado Valley G.4.2.1.6 Central Nevada Test Area Defense Program. Under Alternative I, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted Defense Program. Under Alternative I, 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 I, 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 C, ~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATI?’MEhrT Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to C.4.2.1.9 Coyote Spring Valley American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 1 Defense Program. Under Alternative I,Americnn Indian cultural resources will not bc 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 fur Others Program. It is unlikely that Management Program activities are scheduled for Work for Others Program activities will be Coyote Spnng 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 C.4.2.1.8 Dry Lake 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 I, 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 1. Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian resources are expected under G.4.2.2 American Indian Place by Action Alternative I. 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, overflights and monitoring have the adverse impacts on American Indian resources are potential for impacting American Indian cultural expected under Alternative I. resources. Indian people require further information before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of this Defense Program alternative. Volume 1, Appendix C; G-38 ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIXONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEME.VT Waste Management Program. Under of health and spiritual risks associated with this Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I area. Indian people wish to he 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 rcsources will he I risks. I adversely impacted if natural lands arc rcraped I during any Nondefense Research and Development I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Program actions. Ar this time, no actions are Airernative 2, it is expected that American Indian I planned for the Tonopah Test Range. I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the I I Monitoring Well and Access Road Program, hut 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 he adversely impacted if the Tonopah I ippropriate manner and with the participation of I Test Range continues to be a place where weapons I 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 he I and weapons tests. I adversely impacted by visits by students and I I researchers. I C.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 he 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 I the NAFR Complex. I I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, there will I Waste Management Program. Under I he no belowground nuclear testing, so American I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I Indian cultural resources will not he adversely I cultural resources on the Double Tracks site will not I impacted. I be adversely impacted because there is no Waste I I Management Program there and none is planned in I Waste Management Program. Under I this alternative. I Alternative 2, there will be no Waste Management I I Program on the Tonopah Test Range and none has I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I been identified for this alternative, so it is expected I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I that American Indian cultural resources will not be I cultural resources on the Double Tracks site will he I adversely impacted. I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I I during environmental restoration. Access to I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I culturally significant places will be increased if I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I environmental restoration is successful, thus I cultural resources will he 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 he increased if environmental restoration is I environmental resroration methods and in [he I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception I evaluation of restoration success. G-39 Vulume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. 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 bc 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 he 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 be adversely impacted by military training exercises I expected that American Indian cultural resources I and weapons tests. I will be adversely impacted if further nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for I (3.4.2.2.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 I construction. In this alternative, however, there are I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, American no plans for additional tests or construction at the I Indian cultural resources will not be adversely Central Nevada Test Area. I impacted because there are no plans for additional I tests at the Area 13 site on the NAFR Complex. Waste Management Program. Under I Alternative 2, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under cultural resources will not be impacted because I Alternative 2, American Indian cultural resources there is no Waste Management Program on the I will not he adversely impacted because there are no Central Nevada Test Area and none has been I waste facilities at the Area 13 site on the identified for this alternative. I NAFR Complex. 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 cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area I cultural resources will be adversely impacted if will he adversely impacted if natural lands are I natural lands are scraped during environmental scraped during environmental restoration. Access restoration. Access to culturally significant places to culturally significant places will be increased if will be increased if environmental restoration is environmental restoration is successful, thus successful, thus reducing Indian peoples’ perception reducing Indian peoples’ perception of health and of health and spiritual risks associated with this spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian area. Indian people wish to be involved in I people wish to be involved in identifying identifying environmental restoration methods and environmental restoration methods and in the in the evaluation of restoration success. I I evaluation of restoration success. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I Nondefense Research and Development American Indian cultural resources in the Double Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that Tracks site will not be adversely impacted by American Indian cultural resources will be discontinuing research and development actions. adversely impacted if the Central Nevada Test Area becomes a place where weapons are researched and Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, developed. No such actions are planned for this it is expected that American Indian cultural alternative, so cultural resources will not be resources will not be adversely impacted because no adversely impacted. Work for Others Program actions are being planned. Volume 1, Appendix G G-40 NEVADA TEST SITE Flh'AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME.VT Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 2, I Management Program activities are scheduled for it is expected that American Indian cultural I Dry Lake Valley. resources will be adverseiy impacted if the Central I Nevada Test Area becomes a DIXZ where wemons I Environmental Restoration Program. No are researched and developed. No such actions are environmental restoration activities are planned lor considered in this alternative, so American Indian Dry Lake Valley; therefore. no adverse impacI5 10 cultural resources will not he adversely impacted. American Indian resources arc expected under Alternative 2. C.4.2.2.7 Eldorudo Valley Nondefense Research and Development Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, American Program. Under Alternative 2. it is expected that Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I American Indian cultural resources will be because no Defense Program activities are I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I ;cheduled for Eldorado Valley. I constructed and operated. I I I Waste Management Program. Under I G.4.2.2.9 Coyote Spring Vulley I 4lternative 2, American Indian cultural resources I I will not bc impacted because no Wasrc I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2,American I Management Program activities are scheduled for I Indian cultural resources will not he impacted I Eldorxlo Valley. I because no Defense Program activitieh aic I I scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. I Environmental Restoration Program. No I I environmental restoration activities are planned for I Waste Management Program. Undei- Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I Alternative 2, American Indian cultural rewurce.: I American Indian resources are expected under I will not be impacted because no \VMK I Alternative 2. I Management Program activities are \cheduled for I I Coyote Spring Valley. I Nondefense Research and Development I Program. Undcr Alternative 2, it is expected that Environmental Restoration Program. Nu I American Indian cultural resources will he environmental restoration activities are planned for I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts I constructed and operated. to American Indian resources arc cxpectcd under I Alternative 2. I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I Work for Others Program activities will he Nondefense Research and Development I implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no Program. Under Alternative 2, it is expected that I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are American Indian cultural resources at I expected undcr Alternative 2. Coyote Spring Valley will he adversely impacted if I a solar production facility is constructed and I C.4.2.2.8 Dry Lake Valley operated. I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 2, American Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I Work for Others Program activities will be I because no Defense Program activities are I implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therelorc, 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 C-41 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FIMAL 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 exoected 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 proiiiotes an I ciperations 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. Amencan 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. G.4.2.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-Under Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian I Waste Management Program. Under cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I Alternative 3, it is expected that American Indian further aboveground nuclear tests occur or if new I cultural resources will continue to be adversely areas are used for expanded testing programs. I imoacted... in oaticular if waste storage~ facilities are 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 he 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. Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Alterriativc 3, it is expected that American Indian Environmental Restoration Program. Under 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 bc adversely impacted if program, but will be positively impacted by actions natural lands are scraped during environmental that return disturbed lands to its natural condition in restoration. Access to culturally significant places a culturally appropriate manner and with the will be increased if environmental restoration is participation of Indian people. 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 Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that resources will be positively.. impacted if students and American Indian cultural resources will be researchers receive proper guidance by Indian I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped people rcgarding how to visit places and interact I during any nondefense research and development with the environment. I actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the I Tonopah Test Range. I I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I it is expected that Amencan Indian cultural I resources will be impacted if Tonopah Test Range Volumc I, Appendix G G-42 NHVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I weapons rcsearch and development programs are I impacted by military training exercises and weapons I expandcd. These actions have continued and will I tests. I continue to pollute these lands. American Indian I I cultural resources will continue to he adversely I G.4.2.3.4NeUis Air Force Kange Complex Area 13 I impacted by military training exercises and weapons I I tcs1s. I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3. it is I I expecred that Amencan Indian cultural resources I G.4.2.3.3 Nellis Air Force Range Complex I will he adversely impacted if nuclear safety tests I 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 a-e planned for Douhlc Tracks site on the I are no plans for additional tests at the Area 13 site I NAFK Complcx. Under Alternative 3, however, it is ! on the NAFR Complex. expected that American Indian cultural resources will I not be adverscly 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 Maiiagcmcnt Program on I cultural resources will not be adversely impacted I the Area 13 site on the NAFK Coniplex and none I unless a Waste Management Program for the I has been identified for this alternative. I NAFK Complex is hcgun, 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 he adversely impacted if cultural resources will he adversely impacted if I natural lands are scraped during environmental I natural lands are scraped during cnvironmental ! 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 he involved in I area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and I identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. I in the evaluation of restoration success. 1 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 1 American Indian cultural resources will he I American Indian cultural resources will be I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped ! 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 timc. no actions are planned for the I lands. American Indian cultural resources will I Douhlc Tracks site on the NAFK Complex. I continue to he 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 a1 I resources will he impacted if weapon research and I the Douhlc Tracks site. These actions have and will I development programs continue or arc expanded at I continue to pollute these lands. American Indian I the Area 13 site. These actions have continued and I cultural resources will continue to he adversely I will continue to pollute these lands. American I Indian cultural resources will continue to be G-43 Volume 1, Appendix G .NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I adversely iiiipacted by military training exercises I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 3, I and weapons tests. it is expected that American Indian cultural I resources will be impacted if weapon research and I G.4.2.3.5 Project Slioal Area -This study ievelopment programs are implemented in the I area is not within the tradition:il lands of the Indian I Central Nevada Test Area. No such actions are ! people represcnted hy thc CGTO. It IS I planned for this alternative. so Amencan Indian I recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS I cultural ircsource'r will not he adversely impacted. I EIS team directly contact Indian trihes and I I organizations having traditional lands in the Project I G.4.2.3.7 Eldorado Valley I Shoal Arm The following tribes were suggested: I I Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake I Defense Program. Under Alternativc 3, American I and 1,ovelock Paiutc Tribes. I Indian cultural resources will not he impacted I I because no Defense Program activities are I G4.2.3.6 Central Nevada Tesf Area I scheduled for Eldorado Valley. I ! I Det'ense Program. Under Alternative 3, it is I Waste Management Program. Under I expected that American Indian cultural resources I Alternativc 3, American Indian cultural resources I will he adversely impacrcd if nuclear tests continue I will not be impacted because no Wasre I or increase and if natural lands are scraped for I Management Program activities are scheduled for I constniction. In this a!ternative, 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 Alternativc 3, it is expected that American Indian I American Indian resoiirces are expected under I cultural resource5 will not to he adversely impacted I Alternative 3. I hecausc 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 altertialive. I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I I American Indian cultural resources will he 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 cultiiriil resources on the Central Nevada Test Area I I will hc adversely impacted if natural lands are I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I scraped during environmental restoration. Access I Work for Others Progam activities will he I 10 culturally significant places will he increased if I implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no I environmental restoration is successful, thus I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I reducing Indian peoples' perception of health and I expected under Alternative 3. I spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian I I people wish to be involved in identifying I G.4.2.3.8 Dry Lake Valley I environmental restoration methods and in the I I evaluation of restoration success. I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, American I I Indian cultural resources will not he impacted I Nondefense Research and Development I because no Defense Program activities are I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. I American Indian cultural resources will be I I adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped I Waste Management Program. Under I during weapons research and development. No I Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources I such actions are planned for this alternative, so I will nor be impacred because no Waste I cultural resources will not he adversely impacted. Vnlume 1, Appendix G G-44 ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME.VT 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 tinder Alternative 3. I Environmental Restoration Program. No I I environmental restoration activities are planned for I G.4.2.4 American Indian Place by Action I Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I Comments, Alternative 4. I American Indian resources are expected under I I Alternative 3. I G.4.2.4.1 Nevada Test Site I I I Nondefense Research and Development I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I expected that American Indian cultural resources I American Indian cultural resources will be I will no longer be impacted by defense activities; I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I however, oversight and monitoring have the I constructed and operated. I potential for impacting American Indian cultural I I resources. Indian people require further information I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of I Work for Others Program activities will be I this Defense Program alternative. I implemented in Dry Lake Valley. Therefore, no I I adverse impacts on American Indian resources arc I Waste Management Program. Under I expected under Alternative 3. I Alternative 4, it is expected that Amencan Indian I I cultural resources will continue to be adversely I G.4.2.3.9 Coyote Spring Valley I impacted because the waste has not been disposed I I of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to I Defense Program. Under Alternative 3, American I culturally significant places on the NTS will he I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I reduced because waste isolation facilities increase I because no Defense Program activities are I Indian peoples' perception of health and spiritual I scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. I risks. I I I Waste Management Program. Under I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Alternative 3, American Indian cultural resources I Alternative 4, it is expected that Amencan Indian I will not be impacted because no Waste I cultural resources will be adversely impacted by I Management Program activities are scheduled for I monitoring well and access road activities, but will I Coyote Spring Valley. I be positively impacted by actions that return I I disturbed lands to its natural condition in a I Environmental Restoration Program. No I culturally appropriate manner and with the I environmental restoration activities are planned for I participation of Indian people. I Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts I I to American Indian resources are expected under I Nondefense Research and Development I Alternative 3. I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I I American Indian cultural resources will he I Nondefense Research and Development I adversely impacted by visits by students and I Program. Under Alternative 3, it is expected that I1 researchers. I American Indian cultural resources at I I Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if I Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, I a solar production facility is constructed and I it is expected that American Indian cultural I operated. I resources will be impacted if activities at the Spill I I Test Facility in Area 5, thc Trcatahility Test Facility I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I in Area 25, and the newly renovated I Work for Others Program activities will be I decontamination pad in Area 6 are expanded. It is expected that American Indian cultural resources G-45 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMLLVT will continue to be adversely impacted by military 1 Waste Management Program. Under training exercises and weapons. I Alternative 4, it is expectcd lhat American Indian I cultural resources will not he advcrwly impacted. I G.4.2.4.2 Tonopah Test Range I I I Environmental Restoration Program Undcr 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 will not be impacted by defense activities; however, I natural lands arc scraped during environmental overflights and monitoring have the potential for I restoration. Access to culturally significant places impacting American Indian cultural resources. will be increased if environmental restoration is Indian people require further information before successful, thus reducing lndian peoples' perception completely evaluating the cultural impacts of thic; of health and spiritual risks associated with this Defense Program alternative. area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and I Waste Management Program. Under in the evaluation ot restoration s~icces 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 lhai I I American Indian cultural resources will not he 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 he a place where weapons are I successful, thus reducing Indian peoples' perception I researched and developed. These actions have and of health and spiritual risks associated with this will continue to pollute rhese lands. American area. Indian people wish to be involved in Indian cultural resources will continue to be identifying environmental restoration methods and adversely impacted by military trainin& exercises in the evaluation of restoration success. and weapons tests. Nondefense Research and Development G.4.2.4.4 Nellis Air Force Range Complex Area 13 Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is impacted because no activities are planned under expected that American Indian cultural resoiirces this alternative. will not be impacted. Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, Waste Management Program. Under it is expected that American Indian cultural Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian resources will be impacted by military training cultural resources will not be impacted because exercises and conventional weapons tests. there is no Waste Management Program 011 the I Area 13 site and none has been identified. I G.4.2.4.3NeUis Air Force Range Complex I I Environmental Restoration Program. IJnder 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 1 cultural resources will be adversely impacted if I adversely impacted. I natural lands are scraped dunng environmental 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 ~ ~~ NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATBMENT I of health and spiritual risks associated with this I Nondefense Research and Development I arca. Indian people wish to be involved in Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I identifying environmental restoration methods and I American Indian cultural resources will not be I in the evaluation of restoration success. adversely impacted. Nondefense Research and Development Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that it is expected that American Indian cultural American Indian cultural resources will be resources will not be impacted. adversely impacted irmilitary training exercises and weapons tests continue. G.4.2.4.7 Eldorado Valley Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, Defense Program. Under Alternative 4. American 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. I scheduled for Eldorado Valley. I I I G.4.2.4.5 I'rojectShoalArea-This study area I Waste Management Program. Under I is not within the traditional lands of the Indian Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources people represented by the CGTO. It is will not be impacted because no Waste recommended by the CCTO that the DOE NTS EIS Management Program activities are scheduled for team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations Eldorado Valley. having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. The Following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Environmental Restoration Program. Under Walker Kiver Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Alternative 4, no environmental restoration Paiute Tribes. activities are planned for Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian G.4.2.4.6 Central Nevada Test Area resources are expected. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, it is Nondefense Research and Development expected that American Indian cultural resources Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that will not he impacted. American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is Waste Management Program. Under constructed and operated. Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted. Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I Work for Others Program activities will be I Environmental Restoration Program. Under implemented in Eldorado Valley. Therefore, no I Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area expected under Alternative 4. I will he impacted if natural lands are scraped during I environmental restoration. Access to culturally G.4.2.4.8 Dry Lake Valley I significant places will be increawd if environmental I restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, American I people\' perception of health and spiritual risks I Indian cultural resources will not be impacted I associated with this area. Indian people wish to he 1 because no Uefense Program activitics are I involved in identifying environincntal restoration 1 scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. I methods and in the cvaluation or restoration 1 I succcss. I Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4. American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted becausc no W~asre ti-47 Vcilume 1, Appendix G ~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Managenlent 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 I Safety Radiation Impacts I Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to I I American Indian resources are expected under I Perceptions of radiation effects are discussed in I Alternative 4. I Section 4.1.1.11 and are well known among the I I Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute and Owens I Nondefense Research and Development 1 Valley Paiute people of this region. “These I Program. Under Alternative 4, it is expected that I perceptions of risks from radiution are frightening, I Amencan Indian cultural resources will be I rind remain an important part of our lives. We wdl I adversely impacted if a solar production facility is I always carry these thoughts with us. Today, people I constructed and operated. I ore afraid ofniany things and places in this whole I I area, but we still love to come out and see our Imd. I Work for Others Program. It is unlikely that I We worry about more radiation being brought to I Work for Others Program activities will be I (his land. I implemented in Dry Lake Valley. Therefore, no I I adverse impacts on American Indian resources are I If the DOE wants to better understand our feelings I expected under Alternative 4. I about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they I I should support a study of risks from radiation I G.4.2.4.9 Coyote Spring Valley I designed, conducted and produced by the CGTO. I I At this time there has not been (1 systematic study af I Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, American I American Indians perceptions of risk. Therefore, it I Indian cultural rebources will not be impacted I is not possible to provide action by action I because no Defense Program activities are I estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe it I scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. I is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that I I Indian people may better address the actual I Waste Management Program. Under I cultural impacts of proposed DOE actions. There I Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources I have been recent workshopsfinded by the National I will not be impacted because no Waste I Science Foundation to understmid how to research I Management Program activities are scheduled for I the special issue of culturallybased risk percrplion 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 ,fitlly 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 a solar production facility is constructed and II I operated II G.4.4.I Alternative 1 - 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.I.I Nevada Test Site-The CGTO I implemented in Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, I knows that the actions considered in the NTS EIS Volume 1, Appcndix G C-48 IVEI.'ADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENT.4L IMPACT STAThMEST potentially will disproportionately affect the I the Indian people by eliminating contamination and American Indian people. As discussed in I restoring surface disturbance areas with traditional Section 5.1.1.10. Cultural Resources, and I Indian plants and animals. Perceived risks Section 5.1.1 .I 1, Occupational and Public Health I potentially can he reduced when radioactivity is and Safetymadiation, the American Indian impacts I reduced by the physical and spiritual restoration of include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived I the NTS. Cultural surwval impacts will re\erse if risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, I any environmental restoration activitics increase the especially access violations. I present and future access of Indian people and their I children to places where cultiiral transmission I The effects of Alternative 1 on American Indian I occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived I Environmental Justice issues are discussed below I only by American Indian people, an Environmental I by program. I Justice impact would occur. I I I Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, it is I Nondefense Research and Development I expected that all three American Indian I Program. Under Alternative I, it is expected that I Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy I all three American Indian Environmental Justice I Land violations occur whenever a portion of I impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur I traditional land and its resources are taken away I whenever a portion of traditional land and its I from Indian people by contamination or surface I resources are taken away from Indian people I disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more I whether this occurs by contamination or use by radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. I students and researchers. Perceived risks will not Cultural survival impacts will occur if any defense I increase unless more radioactivity is brought to or activities reduce the present and future access of I created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will Indian people and their children to places where I occur if any research and development activities cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts I reduce the present and future acce5s of Indian would be perceived only by American Indian I people and their children to place5 where cultural people, an Environmental Justice impact would I transmission occttrs. Because thcsc impacts would occur. I he perceived wily by American Indinti people, an I Environmental Justice impact would occur. Waste Management Program. Under Altcmative 1, I it is expected that all three American Indian I Work for Others Program. Under Altcmntive I. Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy I it is expected that all three American Indian Land violations occur whenever a portion of I Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy traditional land and its resources are taken away I Land violations occur whencvcr a poirion of from Indian people by contamination or surface I traditional land and its resources are taken away I disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more I from Indian people by contamination or surface I radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. I disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more I Cultural survival impacts will occur if any waste I radioactivity or hazardous waste is brought lo or I management activities reduce the present and future I created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will I access of Indian people and their children to places I occur if any military training exercises and weapons I where cultural transmission occurs. Because these I tests reduce the present and future access of Indian I impacts would be perceived only by American people and their children to placcs where cultural I Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact transmission occurs. Because these impact\ would I would occur. be perceived only by Amencan Indian pcople, an I Environmental Justice impact would occur. 1 Environmental Restoration Program. Under I Alternative I, it is expected that all three American G.4.4.2 Allernalive 2 - Discontinue Uperatioris. I Indian Environmental Justice issues would occur. I Holy Land violations can be reversed when a portion G.4.4.2.1 Nevada Test .Site--Aincrican Indian I of traditional land and its resources arc returned tc impacts include: (I) Holy Land violations, NEVilDA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I future consultation with American Indian tribes I survival. especially access violations. These I through the CGTO. Therefore, it is essential to I impacts for all sites are discussed in I establish both the physical access to places and I Section 5.2.1.10, Cultural Resources, and I agreements that will facilitate access to these placcs. I Section 5.2.1.1 1, Occupational and Public Health I The CGTO should he funded to design, conduct, I and Safetyrnadiation. These impacts would only be I and produce a systematic American Indian I felt by American Indian people. Therefore, a I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I disproportionate impact would occur. There has not I arc approved. I been a systematic study of these issucs for the NTS. I I The CGTO maintains that past, present, and future I G.4.4.2.3 Project Shoal Area- American I activities on the NTS have impacted, are impacting, I Indian concerns include: (I) Holy Land violations, I or will impact these American Indian I (2) perceived risks from radiation. .ind (3)ciiltural I Environmental Justice issues. Although I survival, especially access violations. These impacts 1 AIterndtive 2 involves no new activities, it contains I are discussed in Section 5.2.3.10. Cultural I the possibility of adversely impacting American I Resources, and Section 5.1.1. I I, Occupational and I Indian issues. For example, if road maintenance is I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not I discontinued, it may be difficult for American I been systematic study of these issue5 for thc Projccr I Indian people to return to the area. Also, if I Shoal Area. I IIOE/N V Environmental Protection personnel arc I I not available, therc may he a difficulty in I This study area is not within thc traditional lands ot I maintaining consultation with American Indian I the American Indian people reprcsenred by thc I tribes through the CGTO. Therefore, it is essential I CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I to maintain both the physical access to places and I DOE NTS EIS team directly contact American I the agreement that facilitates access to these places. I lndian tribes and organizations having traditional I The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, I lands in the Project Shoal Area. Thc following I and produce a systematic American Indian I tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute; Walker River I Environmental Justice study, before new activities I Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock P'aiutc lribes. are approvcd. I I G.4.4.2.4 Central Nevada Test Area- Program-by-program impacts arc assessed in I American Indian concei-ns include: (1 ) Holy Land Section 5.1.1.12. I violations, (2) perceived rihks from radiation. and I (3) cultural survival, especially access violatioiib. G.4.4.2.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I These impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.4.10, Indian impacts include: (I) Holy Land violations, I Cultural Resources, and Section 5.2.1.1 I, (2)perceived risks from radiation, and (3)cultural I Occupational and Public Health and survival, especially access violations. These I SafetyRadiation. There has not been a systematic impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.2.10, Cultural I study of these issues for the Central Nevada Test Resources, and Section 5.2.I. 1 1, Occupational and I Area. The CGTO maintains that past, present and Public Health and SafetyRadiation, for all sites. I future activities on the Central Nevada Test Area There has not heen a systematic study of these I have disproportionately impacted, are issues for the Tonopah Test Range. The CGTO I disproportionately impacting, or \\ill maintains that past, present and future activities on I disproportionately impact the American Indian the Tonopah Test Range have disproportionately I people. Although Alternative 2 contains no nwi impacted, are disproportionately impacting, or will I activities, it contains the possibility of adversely have a disproportionate impact on American Indian I impacting these issues. Even though the CGTO has people. Although Alternative 2 involves no new I not bcen permitted to visit the area, the area is activities, it contains the possibility of adversely I especially important due to the concentration of impacting American Indian issues. If DOE/NV I cultural resources. Therefore, this area provides a Environmental Protection personncl are not I special opportunity for the DOE to undo past available, there may be a difficulty establishing I environmental justice impacts. The CGTO hhould NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIROiVMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT I he funded to design, conduct, and produce a I occur. The CGTO should he funded to design, I systematic American Indian Environmental Justice I conduct, and produce a systematic Amencan 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 .I .I2 and are not repeated here. I Program-by-program responses arc ascessed 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: (I) Holy Land violations, I concerns include: (I) 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. Thew I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.7.3.10, Cultural I impacts arc discussed in Section 5.3. I. 10, Cultural I Resources, and Scction 5.3. I. I I, Occupational and I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 1, Occupational and I Public Health and Safety. There has been no I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. 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 ol I impacted, are disproportionately impacting, or will I the American Indian people reprehenled by the I disproportionately impact the American Indian CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I people. Under the Expanded Use Alternative 3, there DOE NTS EIS team directly contact American I is a high potential of adverse impacts to these Indian tribes and organirations having traditional I issues. As more activities occur, both risks from lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following I radiation and reduced access from land disturbance tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River I is expected to occur. The CGTO should be funded Paiute, Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I American Indian Environinental Justice study, G.4.4.3.4 Ceritra[ Nevada Test Area-. I before new activities are approved. American Indian concerns include: (I)Holy Lmd I violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation. and I Action-by-action responses are assessed in (3) cultural survival, especially accexs violations. I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. These impacts are discussed in Section I Cultural Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 I. I G.4.4.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-American Occupational and Public Health and I Indian concerns include: (I) Holy Land violations, SafetyfRadiation. 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 oti the Central Nevada Test Area I Resources, and Section 5.3. I. 11, Occupational and I have disproportionately impacted, are I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not I disproportionately impacting, or will ~ 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 15 especially I there is a high potential of adverse impacts. As important due to the concentration of culturai I more activities occur, both risks from radiation and resources. Therefore, this area providcr it \peciai I reduccd access from land disturbance is expected to I opportunity for the DOE to undo lpi\i G-51 Vcilurne 1. Appendix ti 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: (I) Holy Land violations, I rystematic American Indian Environmenral 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. I I, Occupational and I Section 5. I. 1.12 and are not repeated here. I Public Health and SafetyiRadiation. There has not I I been a systematic study of these issues for the I G.4.4.3.5 Ehiorado 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 Vallcy have I (2)perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I disproportionately impacted these American Indian I \iirvival, 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 rraditionally land for Southern Paiures I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.1 1, Occupational and I especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. 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 he 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. 1 iinpact on thc American Indian people. The CGTO I I should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a I Program-by-program responses are I hystematic American Indian Environmental Justice I Section 5.1.1.12 antl are not repeated here. I sludy before new activities are approved. I I I G.4.4.4 Alternative 4 - Alternative Use of I I'rogrrim-by-program responses are assesscd in I Withdrawn Lands. I Section 5.1.1. I2 and are not repeatcd herc. I I I G.4.4.4.I Nevada Test Site-American Indiali I G.4.4.3.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I concertis include: (I) Holy Land violations, I coiiceriis include: (I) Holy Land violations, I (2)perceived risks from radiation, and (3)cultiirnl I (2)perceived I-isks from radiation, and (3)cultural I survival, especially access violationy. Thcsr I survival, especially access violations. These I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.1.10, Cultural I impacts are discussed in Scction 5.3.6.10, Cultural I Resources. and Scction 5.4.1. I I, Occupational and I Resources, and Section 5.3.1.I I, Occupational and I Public Health and SaletyiRrrdiation. There has not I Public Health and Safetymadiation. There has not I been a systematic study of these issues for the NTS. I been II systeinatic 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 Amei-ican Indian people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. I people. Under Alternative 4, there is a hifh , Any activities occurring near Indian reservations I potential of adverse impacts to these issues, cvcn II fittiher precludes future opportunities for expansion I though most DOE activities would he discontinued I and access to these lands for any purpose. The I The continuation of waste manayment operations I CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and I and the physical iicti\,ities associated with I producc a systematic American Jndian I envtronmcntal restoi-ation and othcr planned I Environmetital Justice study before new activities I activities, itre cxpectcd to ciiusc both t-isks Irom I ;ire appt-ovcd. I radiation antl rzduccd access from liliid dihiurh;iiitr I I The CGTO should he Iundcd to destgt~.conduct. I Prr)gr;irii-by-program responses are assessed in I and produce a systematic American Indian 1 Scction 5.1.1 .I2 and are not repeated herc. Volume I. Appendix (+ (&52 NEVADA TEST SITE' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Environmental Justice study, before new activities II G.4.4.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I are approved. Il American Indian Environmental Justice concerns I I include: (I) 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: (I)Holy Land violations, I Health and SafetyRadiation. 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 he 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.I, 1.12 and are not repeated here. I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. I I I G.4.4.4.3 Project Shoal Area-American I G.4.4.4.5 Eldorudo Valley-American Indian I Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, I concerns include: (I) 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 I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.5.10, Cultural I Resources, and Section 5.4. I.1 I,Occupational and I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.1 I, Occupational and I Public Hcalth and SafetyRadiation. There has not I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not I been systematic study of these issues for the Project I been a systematic study of these issues for the I Shoal Area. I Eldorado Valley. The CGTO maintains that past I I activities in the Eldorado Valley have I This study area is not within the traditional lands of I disproportionately impacted the American Indian I the American Indian people represented by the I people, especially the issue of Holy Land violations. I CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the I The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, I DOE EIS team directly contact American Indian I and produce a systematic American Indian I tribes and organizations having traditional lands in I Environmental Justice study before new activities I the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were I arc approved. I suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiure, I I Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. I Prograin-by-program responses are aswssed in I I Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here. ti-53 Volume 1, Appendix ti NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I G.4.4.4.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I (2.4.5 Social and Economics Impact I concerns include: (I) Holy Land violations, I I (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural I G.4.5.1 Alternative 1 - Continue Current I survival, especially access violations. These I Operations (No Action). I impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.6.10, Cultural I I Resources, and Section 5.4.1.1 I, Occupational and G.4.5. I. 1 Nevada Test Site-Thi s section I Public Health and SafetyKadiation. There has nor describes the American Indian concerns associared I been a systematic study of these issues for the Dry with implementing Alternative I, as summanzed by I Lake Valley. The CGTO maintains that past the CGTO. I activitics in the Dry Lake Valley have I disproportionately impacted the Amencan 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 I lands and a unique relationship with each other. I and access to these lands for any purpose. The I When Indian people receive employment near their I CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and I reservations they can remain on the reservation I produce a systematic American Indian I while commuting to work. This pattern of I Environmental Justice study before new activities I employment tends to have positive benefits for both I are approved. I the Indian community and tribal enterprises like I housing. The reservation Indian community has the Program-by-program responses are assessed in participation of the individual and his (her) financial Section 5. I .I .I2 and are not repeated here. contribution. The individual payment for housing is tied to income level, so the more a person earns C.4.4.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American with the job the more they pay to the tribal housing Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, office, thus making tribally sponsored housing more (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3)cultural economically viable. survival, especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.7. LO, Cultural When employment opportunities decline on I Resources, and Section 5.4. I .I I, Occupational and reservations, however, often times Indian families I Public Health and SafetyRadiation. There has not must move away from their reservations to seek I bceii 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 I As Indian people move away from reservations due I especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities, I to employment opportunities, Indian culture is I occurring near Indian reservations further precludes I threatened because the number of families living on I future opportunities for expansion and access to I reservations declines. Tribal members who choose I these lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be I to relocate from their reservations impact funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic I reservation economies, school, housing and American Indian Environmental Justice study I emergency services. Both schools and economies before new activities are approved. I are impacted because federal funding available to I tribes is based on population statistics. Program-by-program responses are assessed in I Scction 5. I,I. 12 and are not repeated here. I With local employment oppoitunities such as those I offered by NTS to neighbonng tribes. pnces of I tribal housing rise because they are nased on I income. If a positive balance between increased I income and increased cost of living in tribal Volume 1, Appendix ti G-54 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I reservations is achieved, then, both individual I This dilemma occurs on a regular basis and I members and the tribe benefit from employment I potentially impacts the livelihood and cultural well- i opportunities. However, continued salary rases I being of off-reservation employees and their I may tip the balance toward a sharp increase in cost I families. When off-reservation individuals choose I of living, making it unable for tribal members to I to return to their homelands 10 participate in I continue living in the reservation. I traditional ceremonies, they risk theii- jobs or I I disciplinary actions against their children who I Tribal housing programs become jeopardized if I attend public schools due to cxcessive absenteeism. I vacancies occur in tribal housing projects and 1 I cannot be reoccupied. If vacancies occur, tribal 1 Should an emergency situation resulting from NTS I revenues and federal funding will be adversely I related activities including the transportation of I imoacted and will make it more difficult to exoand I hazardous and radioactive waste occur, it could I housing programs in future years. Additionally, result in the closure of a major reservation road. I vacant units require more maintenance. If tribal Many of the Indian reservations within the region of I members are unavailable to occupy a tribal housing influence are located in reinote areas with limited I unit, then tribes make units available to non- access by standard and substandard roads. Were a I Indians, and this too potentially impacts Indian major (only) road into a reservation to be closcd, i culture. The increased presence of non-Indians on numerous adverse social and economic impacts I a reservation or in an Indian community reduces the could occur. For example, Indian students who I privacy needed for the conduct of certain have to travel an unusually high number of miles to I ceremonies and traditional practices. When non- or from school could realize delays. Delays also I Indian children are in constant interaction with could occur for regular deliveries of necessary I Indian children, it creates a situation that potentially supplies for inventories needed by tribal enterprises I disrupts cultural learning opportunities that occur in and personal use. Purchases by patrons of tribal I everyday life. enterprises and emergency medical services in route i to or from the reservation could be dramatically I Small rural reservations must have a sufficient impeded. Potential investors interehted in expanding number of oeoole to generate an emereency tribal enterprises and on-going considerations by .. ~ -. response capability. The need for emergency I tribal governments for future tribal developments serviccs will decline as people move away from the 1 may significantly diminish because of the perceived reservation. Tribal members employed in these I risks associatcd with NTS related activities emergency service occupations may move away I including the transportation of hazardous waste. because of their marketable skills. Tribal revenues I for administration, school, housing and emergency Defense Program. Under Alternative I, the services will be reduced accordingly, due to a Defense Program would produce a total of decline in population size. 4,274jobs. It is expected that a percentage of thcsc jobs would be filled by tribal members from When Indian people move away from their reservations within the American Indian Kegion of reservations several dilemmas occur. Typically, Influence. Many of these Indian people will move Indian people experience a feeling of isolation from away from their rcscrvations to take these jobs their tribe, culture and family. When an Indian causing the socioeconomic impacts discussed person relocates to an off-reservation area, the above. Increased employment can positively impact individual finds that there are fewer people of their American Indian employees and their families; tribc and culture around them. As a result, Indian however, this off-reservation employment is people must decide on the appropriateness of expected to adversely impact the social stmcture practicing traditional ceremonies in the presence of and cultural activitics on the reservation. non-Indian people. Indian people are continually torn between tlic decision to stay in the city or Waste Management Program. Under return to the reservation to participate in traditional Alternative I, the Waste Management Program I ceremonies and interact with other tribal members. I would result in no change to total current G-55 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I mployment. 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. I .3. I Environmental Restoration Program. Under I I Alternative I, the Environmental Restoration I G.4.5.1.4 Central Nevada Test Area- I Program would create approximately 1,I 29 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. I. I 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 - Discontinue Operations. I with American Indian land preservation values. I I American Indians have special skills that may be I G.4.5.2.1 Nevnda 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 reniove contaminated soil, I I and afterwards, during habitat restoration. I G.4.5.2.2 Tnnopah Test Range-American I I lndian socioeconomic impacts due to lluctuations in I Nondefense Research and Development I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members I Program. Under Alternative I, no new jobs would I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I he 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 Prnject Shoal Area-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 he employed. These I from the CGTO region of influence we 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. I .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 Tnnopah Test Range-American I Section S.1.1.3. I Indian sociocconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I I DOE employincnt opportunities for tribal members I G.4.S.3.2 Tonopah Test Range-American I from the CGTO region ofinflucnce we discussed in I Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I Section 5.1.1.3, I DOE employment opportunities for tribal membcrs I I from the CGTO region of intluence are discussed in I G.4.5.1.3 Prnject Shoal Area-American I Section 5.1.1.3. I Indian soc10(3conomicimpacts due to fluctuattons in I Volume 1, Appendix G G-56 A’EVADA 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 emp!oyment 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 arediscussed 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 inemhers Cram the CGTO region of influence I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I are discusscd in Section 5. I .1.3. I Section 5.1.1.3. I I I C.4.5.3.5 Eldorado Valley-American Indian G.4.5.4.6 Dry Lake Valley-American Indian I socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE I employment opportunities for tribal members from employment opportunities for tribal members from I the CGTO region of influence are discussed in the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Section 5.1.1.3. Section 5.1.1.3. I ~ G.J.5.3.6 Dry lake Valley-Amencan Indian G.4.5.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley-Amencan I rocloeconomic impacts due tu fluctuations in DOE Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I employment opportunities for tribal members from DOE employment opportunities for tribal members 1 the CGTO region of influence are discussed in from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I Section 5. I. I .3. Section 5.1.1.3. I I G.4.5.3.7 Coyote Spring Valley-American G.5. Mitigation Recommendations I Indian sociocconomic impacts due to fluctuations in I DOE einployment opportunities for tribal members (NOTE: The AIWS understands that the mitigation I from the CGTO reeion- of influence are discussed in recommendations may he divided between NTS EIS i Section 51.1.3. I chapters and within chapters behind each alternative I I discussion. Despite the need for breaking this , C.4.5.4 Alternative 4 - Alternate Use of I section into its component parts, the AIWS wanted I Withdrawn Lands. I their thoughts on mitigation to be held together in I 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 resources or environments.” The DOE has adopted I DOE employment opportunities for tribal members this definition (10 CFR Part 1021.104).) I from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in I ScLtion 5.1.1 3. G-57 Volume 1, Appendix (, ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal and state agencies that must coniply with I The CGTO considers that the natural and spiritual legal requirements for the management and baiance 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 l?w years, fairly itandard that the land must he purified and the spirits procedures for funding and irnplenienting present appeased in order to fully restore the environment to and future mitigation pi-ograins. The vast nia,jority its previous condition. Through ceremonies, prayer, of these programs have focured on mitigating and offerings, American Indian people will archaeological and historic site.: 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 ha\,e American impacted landscapes. Indian plants been incorporated into mitigation programs. hut these have concentrated mostly on There are a number of proposed NTS actions thar 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 DOENV fund systematically considered for mitigation iinless they systematic American Indian studies to: have potential for tourism. I. Identify those arras/resources that are A key problem of existing procedures For irreparably damaged, as well as areadresources 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 rcsources. In the view of I the CGTO, there is not one type of resource tliiit can I. Make mitigation of restorable areas a top contititie to reproduce and he of use to the American priority Indian people without the ~ontiniiiitionof a11 other resources. For Indian people. an adversely I. Replace lost plant and animal species integral impacted resource will most ccrtiiinly 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 dc\igncd to formations important to the spiritual landscape protect American Indian cultural resources (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act) treat oilcli I. Implement environmental restoration resource in isolation, withoiit considering that a techniques that require minimum ground- specific resoiirce is hut one component of thc 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 mitigalion 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 rcsources 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 cim help scientists with the identification of plrints, ceremonies, prayers, and offerings to the animals, geography, archaeological sitcs, and restoration of the natural and spiritual harmony traditional culturi propeitie5 that have been or will of thc NTS landscape. be advcrsely impacted by NTS programs and activitics. Volume 1, Appendix <> (;-5X 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 I. Consultation with the CGTO does not relieve the inclusion of access and protection of the DOENV 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 DOENV must 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 DOENV should incorporate other he 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 he set aside for exclusive I 4. The CGTO recommends that the DOENV Indian use because the area contains a incorporate wherever possible in this EIS the concentration of important cultural “Final Tribal Recommendations to the DOE’ resources. I .. 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 DOE/NV 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 16 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 11 The CGTO recommends that they he 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 DOENV ground- not imply they supporl 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 I is chosen, the following are should not he considered “stakeholders” as recommended: defined by the DOE. Continue AIRFA Compliance Program 9 Responses to the various NTS EIS alternatives: Expand American Indian ethnographic studies G-59 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIROYMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0 Conduct land-restoration ceremonies 0 Restrict/limit access to culturally sensitive areas I 0 Provide access to the CGTO and limit access to culturally sensitive areas. 0 Continue AIRFA C.ompliance Program 0 Continue American Indian monitors needed I G.5.2. American lndian Socioeconomics for cultural resources investigations I I This section describes the American Indian 0 Provide for American Indian monitors needed I concerns associated with implementing for oversight of land and DOE activities. I Alternative 1, as summarized by the CGTO. I If Alternative 2 is chosen, the following are I When Indian people are hired, special problems recommended: emerge for themselves, families and reservation communities. The DOE can assist in mitigating Continue AIRFA Compliance Program these problems by recognizing the exact nature of the problems and developing a culturally responsive 1 Turn back land to the CGTO (designate approach to mitigating the problem. For example, areas for exclusive Indian control) an Indian employee may he 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 the employee to participate in the ceremony. activities Children of the Indian employee may go to non- Indian schools, causing cross-cultural stresses. The Conduct land-restoration ceremonies. DOE could potentially mitigate this situation by developing an American Indian outrzachieducutionul If Alternative 3 is chosen, the following are program directed at the school system and the recommended: surrounding communities. Cultural awareness activities could be implemented similar to the 0 Continue AIRFA Compliance Program Yucca Mountain Project's outreach program in which knowledgeable Indian people share various 0 Expand American Indian ethnographic aspects of their culture. The DOE could encourage studies other Indian employees to participate in the development and implementation of these culturally 0 Conduct land-restoration ceremonies specific pro,-rains. 0 Provide access to the CGTO and limit access Reservation problems resulting from the loss of' to culturally sensitive areas tribal members to external employment with the DOE/NV cannot be fully identified without a 0 Continue American Indian monitors needed systematic study of these issues involving the tribes. for cultural resources investigations It is recommended that this issue be mitigated by the DOENV, and he specifically addressed by the 0 Provide for American Indian monitors DOEiNV Diversity Council. Thc CGTO needed for oversight of land and DOE i potentially can serve as a managernent consultanr to activities. I the DOE for the development and implementation I of culturally specific programs that addres.; the 1I Alternative 4 is chosen, the following are I unique issues that may arise due lo off-reservation I recommended: I migration caused by the employment of Indian I people. Designate joint-use area for three ethnic I group.; Volume 1, Appendix G G-60 - --~ NEVADA TEST SITE F1,VAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I G.6 American Indian Consultation Procedures I established a working relationship with culturally 1 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 ircknowledgr the U.S. government and cxpect that. I 1985. There are. however, numerous other areas of I in return, the U.S. governincnt recognize tribal I great concern for tribal governments that are I sovereignty. In a memorandum dated I currently addressed in the NTS EIS. hut that have I Apnl 29, 1994, President Williaiii .I.Clinton wrote I not been explored or systematically subjecred to I "I am wongly committed to building a more I consultation with tribal governments. Some of these I eflcctive day-to-day working relationship reflecting I areas are: I respect for the rights of self-government due the I I sovereign tribal rights." American Indian I Land use I governments expect that federal agencies and state I 0 Risk assessment I orficials will honor President Clinton's explicit I Socioeconomic issues I comiiiitnient to building such a relationship and I 0 Nuclear waste transportation I follow his mandate (Executive Ordcrs 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 AIWS 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 arcas "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 linited 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 I 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 '5 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 1 relationships hetween DOENV 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 DOEMV 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 G-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 DOENconsultation 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 1 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 1 I important to note that specific consultation I. Agency Point ufContact. A permanent agency I procedures should be approved by tribal I point of contact should be appointed for all I governments at the onset of each consultation DOE consultation activities (e.g., cultural I process. 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 I maintained between the DOE/NV and the I Indian resources and/or may impact the well- 1 CGTO could not have been possible without I being of tribal members. Initial formal letters I the commitment of responsible and I must be followed up to ensure that the tribal I knowledgeable agency officials. I government is aware of the proposed action I and has received copies of all 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 opportunity for sharing information and I should also be sent to official tribal contact voicing common tribal concerns regarding I representatives. DOE programs and activities at the NTS and other areas withdrawn by the agency. I Pertinent Documentation. A non-technical However, there are more specific impacts of I document that clearly and concisely presents these programs and activities that directly I the scope and goals of the proposed action, affect those tribes that live in the vicinity of the I including an explanation of potential effects NTS. For example, radioactive waste I and consequences of such action, both positive transportation affects directly the Moapa I and negative, should accompany the Notice of Paiute and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribes. A I Intent. Memorandum of Agreement between the federal agency and the affected tribal I Formal Visitation. A request for a formal governments should be signed before I visitation with the tribal government(s) to 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 G-62 . Inrlimn Moniroring Program. Appointing I. ['fi-~ii~iiL[i,yi,iiii,iir. Ideally. tribal governments Indian Monitoi-s is essential for ensuring that I who at-c i~i\~ol\wIin consultation with the DOE cultural resource management and mitigation I Fhould share tilsks and rehponhihilities in the of adverse impacts of DOE programs and I management of resnurces that are significant activities to American Indian cultural resources I for Indi;in people. Future agency efforts ih conducted in an appropnate manner. The I should target the clevcli)pnient of a resource invdvemenr of officially appointed Indian I co-nlallilgelll('llt plan. Monitors in archaeological research at the NTS, for example, has been successful and I. FimdIyx. Funding for consultation, including will continue to he so in the immediate future. I Official Tribal Contacr Representatives Monitoring should he expanded to other areas I meetings, site visit?, task wbgroups, and of potential impact to American Indian culture I monitoring should he provided for the and well-being. I continuation of current compliance programs I dnd furtit-c ptmiccts. I. I.'onnutioii if American Indian Task I I Suh,qroup.s. Ideally, tribal governments should I. Time A//~~wmrc.Ti-ibal governinents are often I he 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 he made draft documents take time. Agencies should I possible if task subgroups formed by Official scrid notices ol intent and any other I Tribal Contact Representatives are allowed to documentation within n reasonable timeframe I work alongside federal agency planners or so that tribes ciin respond on a timely basis. I managers. For example, during the Propohal and docuinent 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 Official Tribal Contact Representatives G.6.2 Consultation Issues I (representing three ethnic groups) he allowed I to write American Indian text directly into this . /mil 1J.w. I,and has no monetary value for I EIS. This task subgroup became the AIWS. A Indian trihes. Indian people do not recognize I positive response from the DOE/NV 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, hpiritually, 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 Betwern Agency Mnnagrrs I programs and activities that will potentially I nnd Official Tribal Contact Kepresentntives. I transform the natural landscape of traditional I Periodically, DOE managers should agree to a I Indian land or impact its biological resources. I formal meeting with tribal representatives to I I share information on current and future plans, I. Biu10,yicul Kr.soiirce.7. The DOE'S 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 niimber of them are I updates. These meetings are useful for I currently candidates for listings as either I reassuting both agency managers and tribal I threatened or endangered. Indian people have I governments that consultation is being I deep knowledge 01 the hiological 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 G-63 Volume 1, Appendix G NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ~~ I conducted in Yucca Mountain, Pahute Mesa, to risks of accidents, spills, and adverse I and Rainier Mesa, American Indians would impacts of transportation on tribal economies. I like to see the DOE take a step further and The cumulative effects of long-term nuclear I invite them to assist the agency in the planning waste transportation through tribal lands would I and implementing of ecosystem management be traumatic and potentially life-threatening to I programs at the NTS. the well-being of thc Indian people. I I. Air Qudiry nnd Clin~itr.The DOE should The DOE has the responsibility to assist I make an effort to record systematically the neighboring tribes in developing an emergency I adverse effects of nuclear testing on the air response management program in regard to I quality of American Indian communities transportation of low-and high-level nuclear I located near the NTS. waste as it passes through tribal lands. A Memorandum of Agreement should be signed. I. Visunl Resources. All land forins within the I NTS have high sensitivity levels for American Geology und Soils. Severe disturbance of the I Indians. The ability to see the land without the geology and soils in large portions of the NTS I distraction of buildings, towers, cables, roads, has been caused by repeated nuclear testing I and other objects is essential for the spiritual (e.g., mountain sides, craters). These impacts I interaction between Indian people and their have made certain areas unfit for human use. I traditional lands. Landscape modifications These areas have become inaccessible to I should be done in consultation with American American Indians for religious purposes I Indians. I Soface Hydrology arid Grouiitlwnter. Surface I. Occupational arid Public Health and Safeq. waters of the NTS, the Tonopah Test Range. I The DOE’S programs and activities are and the NAFR Complex are not used lor I performed in accordance with the regulations human consumption. Animals in these re,’nlOllS I of the Occupational Safety and Health must drink this water: they do not havc a I Administration. Tribes that live near the NTS choice. Water pollution also puts plant I would like to be included in systematic communities in jeopardy. Tribal governments I research aimed at ensuring that public health are concerned that the migration of polluted I and safety measures devised by the DOE water from contaminated areas into land I extend into tribal lands and communities. outside the NTS will have long-tern1 adverse I effects. lo Niiclear Wuste Trunsportarion. Portions of the I current road system within the western United I The AIWS reviewed and edited the Consultation I States is based on ancient pathways and trails 1 Model produced for the U.S. Department of Energy I of Indian people. The Southwest Desert Trail 1 Legacy Project (Stoffle et al., 1994~).A detailed I System was not used for trivial activities but 1 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 DOE/NV consultation procedures, is included in I of warfare. Trails were used to relay important I Attachment C of Appendix Ci. I messages to distant tribal groups. I . I G.7 Transportation Study I Tribal governments would like to cooperate I I with the DOE in the development and I G.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 been conducted to date. 1 refer to meeting with various American Indian I Indian communities located along 1 individuals, groups, and tribes. The interactions are I transportation routes are continuously exposed 1 listed as tables and discussed throughout the text. Volume 1, Appendix ti G-64 - ~~ ~~ -- NEVADA TEST SlTE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATKMhVT I These meetings do not constitute full government- I specifically refers to Anierican Indian consultation I to-eovernmcnt- consultation with American Indian I on a government-to-go~eruinentbasis. 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 Jndian 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 additlonal I period and again raised in the CGTO meetings with I consultation steps were taken. The Transportation I the Transportation Study team, the report does not I Study, therefore, cannot be supported by the I include these issues. Despite a record of meetings I American Indian tribes and organizations I with American Indian people, groups, and tribes, I represented by the CGTO. I the study does not present critical American Indian I I concerns. These include, among others, the impact I Especially disturbing to the CGTO is an apparent I of radioactive and hazardous waste travel along mil I confusion regarding the purpose of CGTO I and highway on nearby existing and planned I consultation during the NTS EIS. For example, the I Amencan Indian businesses, especially those of the I response to Question #16 (D-8, D-9) where a public I MoapaPaiute Tribe and the Las Vegas Paiure Tribc. I response raised the issue of the DOE going to the I American Indian people. especially elders, express I tribes for consultation, rather than them having to I 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 refrmng 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. 1 that the CGTO did not have to respond to I Amencan 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 transportatiori of I a parallel hut separate consultation. The CGTO is I radioactive atid hazardous waste. Amencan 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 “stakeholders” and, I transportation of radioactive and hazardous waste. I thus, nieetings designed to elicit the opinion of I I public stakeholders are not an appropriate method I The CGTO recommends that the cultural concerns I for consulting with tribes who are to be addressed I of other American Indian tribes and organizations I on a government-to-government basis according to I should be included in the Transportation Study. I the President of the United States. Thus, there are I The CGTO understands that the Transportation misleading and incorrect stateinents in Chapter 2, I Study is focused on what it called “local issues” Stakeholder Issues, that indicate that American I (Volume I, Appendix I, p. I-l), but is not certain Indian tribes were given the opportunity to identify I why other Indian tribes, who potentially are issues during public meetings. No public meetings I impacted by trarisportation and who live in the West should be considered as a replacement for I and Southwest, are not included in this study. government-to-government consultation. All I When most statistics cited in the report are reference to American Indian consultation should be I statewide from Nevada, why are other Nevada removed from this section of the report unless it I Indian tribes not considered in this transportation I study? G-65 Volume 1, Appendix ti NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I The CGTO would like to know if probability 1 sites of historical importance, and cultural I calculations are based on transponation safety I landscapes. I nationwide or in the local area of the Transponation I Study. If the calculations are based on national 0 The archaeological site analysis in statistics, why were local statistics not used instead, Attachment F is limited to a review of given the local-issue focus of the analysis. previously recorded sites. While such an analysis is certainly appropriate as ii beginning The CGTO recommends that reccnr rail derailments of an assessment, it cannot be used to make in the west and southwest be incorporated into the conclusions about potential impacts to these probability calculations of railroad accidents. sites unless their cultural significance has been evaluated by American Indian people. Also, The CGTO would like to express the opinion that previous archaeology studies were not the probability of either railroad or highway conducted with the railroad development 111 accidents has increased and is increasing owing to mind, thus their sampling methods and study domestic acts of violence directed at the federal locations do not correspond with the ground government, its employees, and its activities. These disturbing activities that would be associared increased accident probabilities should be with the construction of a railroad. Also, calculated into the Transportation Study and the previous archaeological studies were nor report should clearly inform readers how these conducted with the guidance, panicipation, accident trends and potential domestic terrorist and review of American Indian tribes and activities were incorporated into the transportation organizations and, thus, do not reflect current analysis. DOE/NV policies of involving Indian people in these studies. I C.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 around the Spring Mountains. The area is I potential impacts to American Indian cultural where the Creator transported all Southern I resources that would occur if a variety of new Paiutes into existence, and, therefore, gave I railroad tracks were constructed connecting the them the mandate to use and protect these I NTS with existing railroads. The cultural resource lands. As such, the area around the Spring I analysis contained in this study was conducted Mountains is the center of the Southern Paiute I without the involvement ofthe CCTO who serve as Holy Land, and it is literally filled with places I guides, participants, and monitors of all cultural of utmost cultural significance. I resource studies associated with the NTS. As a I result, the study cannot be considered to be even a 0 Much of this analysis suggests it is about I preliminary assessment of potential American Yucca Mountain rather than about proposals I Indian cultural resource impacts. properly considered in the NTS EIS. Beyond I the frequent reference to Yucca Mountain in I Some of the more significant flaws in the study are the study, there is Figure F-l which I asfollows: specifically indicates that all of the considered I routes lead only to the Yucca Mountain Site. If 1 The study in Attachment F is limited to an the Transportation Study is to be used as part I analysis of archaeological remains, thus failing of the Yucca Mountain EIS, then the CGTO I to consider the full range of American Indian would like to be advised and have the I cultural resources which include, among opportunity to respond to the Transportation I others, Indian plants. animals, traditional Study as a component of the Yucca Mountain ! cultural properties, mineral deposits, water, study. Some other flaws in the Attachment F study are as follows: Volume 1, Appendix G G-66 ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I* The Moapa Paiute Indian Reservation is (2.7.4 Conclusion - A Fatally Flawed I missing from the transportation maps. Attachment F Figures F-2 and F-4 incorrectly identify the The study in Appendix I-’ is fatally flawed and “Las Vegns Paiute Indian Reservation” as the should not he 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 I, Appendix I, Attachment F, I. The term “Indian Reservation” is used without page F-I). I a defined boundary on Figure F-l . 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 Amencan 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 DOE/NV 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 Plan 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 Amencan 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 the,ir 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 Meadow1 in 1993 it was the G-67 Volume 1, Appendix G ~~__~ ~~~ 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 ldentify this holy place was an important Resources. Since 1987 the DOE/NV 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 pilgnmage 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 DOE/NV in the development of methods of identification, inventory, and animals preservation of American Indian resources minerals rockart I. Sharing values and perceptions that Indian 0 water I people place on the resources at the NTS air I soils I. Broadening and refining the goals that 0 landforms. I DOElNV 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 DOE/NV, 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 impkmented 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 DOE/NV Ultimately, the goal of American Indian and the CGTO. Participation in the Resource Mariagement Plan is to develop a long term comanagement 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 Mariagement Plan government’s lack of regard for the tragic effects thar these activities had on cultural and environmental resources and the minimal response to public concerns on these activities. The CGTO Volume 1, Appendix G G-68 ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIROhrMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT is concerned that alternative NTS missions and CGTO, the Kaibab Southern Paiute Tribe, is activities-defense-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 DOE/NV 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 DOEiNV in the drvclopment of Framework for the Resource Management Plan has land-use planning tools. An agreement which excluded the sovereign nations from the drafting of includes DOENV’s sponsorship of technical the list of management actions that the DOENV 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 DOENV to 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 DOE/NV 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 10 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 inthis EP. 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 DOE/NV 10 Indian resources and on contemporary issues of engage in government-to-government consultation 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 rehources. between the DOE/NV and 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 Step 7. Monitor Resources and Adaptively needed to implement management actions. Manage. An American Indian monitoring program is currently in place and has been Step 5. Develop the Land-Use Planning Tools. sponsored by the DOE/NV since 1993. This American Indian resources should be systematically monitoring program is currently limited to incorporated into the evaluation of management archaeological research at the site. lndian tribes actions and mapping of data collected through would like to expand the monitoring program to Step 4. At least one member organization of the other ground-disturbing activities that may affect G-69 Volume 1, Appendix G ~- ~~ ~~ ~~ NEVIIDA TEST SITE FINAL Eh'VIRONMENTAL 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 prograin to provide American Indians with I I background knowledge and monitoring skills would I Ecosystem management is a term that is being used comDlement traditional knowledge on ecosvstetiis I in the current Framework for the Resource I I I and would help tmplemenr a cultorally sensitive Munagenterit Plnri in response to recent federal I monitoring strategy that is positive and feasible for guidelines. Indian people have a unique view of I both the DOE/NV and tribal govet-nments. ecosystems and culturally established procedures for I Expanding the American Indian monitoring using them in a sustainable manner. These cultural 1 prograin to include other resources and training ways, which could he called ecosysrem ninriagrment I Indian monitors would greatly enhance the struregies, have been developed out of thousands of I DOED4V's ability to identify, collect, and years of experience living on and learning from the I summarize the data needed to implement the NTS ecosystems. The Indian ecosystem approach I Resource Mnnrrgernent Plrrn (Step 4). reflects what is being called culrurril landscapes I (Stoffle et al. 1996b) elsewhere in cultural resource I A long-term goal (if the CGTO has been to achieve management, I co-management of the NTS. Co-management is a I term that seem to best describe the relationship The meaning of a natural ecosystem is a key issue I between the DOE/" and the CGTO who have within the Indian people's view of ecosystem I come together over the past 10 years lo jointly management. According to traditional ecosystem I identify and suggest mitigation recommendations to management perspectives, natural ecosystems I Drotect .4mcrican 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 durinc! the itndementation of the I of years of interacting with American Indians, the I I Resource Maticrgrriierit 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 appropriate manner or it becomes infertile. "Tak to I by the UOE/NV. it" is what Indian people say. The plant to he 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 he 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 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- and the water satisfies one of its purposes. The I government consultation. Tribal governments view of a natural landscape containing Indian I would like the opportunity to follow up the people interacting with the landscape is already I developincnt and implementation of the Resource expressed in previous NTS EIS comments as well I Matiu,yt'nirrrt Elm, engage.~ in formal consultation 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 DOE/NV and tribal governments will ensure I that the Resorrrcr Mnnugemerit l'fnn is responsive I to cultural concerns and the well-being of Indian I people. Volume 1, Appendix G G-70 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Defining an American Indian Ecological Unit is a G.8.4 Comments to Framework for the I critical issue for implementing an ecosystem Resource Management Plan I management strategy that includes cultural I resources. Indian people often accept American Indian participation in the protection and I geographically unique units like hydrological management of resources at the NTS is not limited I basins as reflecting traditional adaptive units. to compliance with Section 106 of the Historlc I However, these geographically unique units are Preservation Act, but includes 10 years of I bound together into larger culturally-based units. consultation with the DOE/NV, including the I Ultimately it is cultural, not natural geography that AIRFA compliance program, the NAGPRA I 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 (I) 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 (I) regional landscape, (2) ecoscape, Resource Management Pian, will be successful if (3) story-scape, and (4) landmarks (Stoffle et al. it is built on past and present relationships between 1996b). The AlWS would like the Resource the DOENV and the CGTO. Munugement Plan to consider using American Indian cultural-geographic units as part of the base management plan. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Volume 1, Appendix G G-72 ~~ -~ h’EVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT G.9 References REGULATION, ORDER, LAW I0 CFR Part 102 I. 104 US. Department of Energy (DOE). “Energy: National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Code of Federal Rrguiatioiis, 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 Regulurions, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, US. Government Printing Ofrice, Washington, DC, 1995. DOE Order 1230.2 DOE, “American Indian Tribal Government Policy,” Washington, IIC, 1992 EO 8578 Executive Order, “Withdrawalof Public Larid for Use of the Wur Depurtnient as uii Aerial Bonihirig and Gnnnen’ Range, Nevuda. ” Office of the Presidenr. Washington, DC, 1940. EO 9019 Executive Order, “Revoking Li Part and Modifsing Executive Order 8578 oJ’ October 29, 1940, arid Reserving Public Larid for Use of the Wur Department as un Aerial Machine-gun Range, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1942. EO 12866 Executive Order, “Regularory Planning and Review, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1993. EO 12875 Executive Order, “Enhancing the lnrergovernmeritnl Purttwrship. ” Officc of the President, Washington, DC, 1993. EO 12898 Executive Order, “FederalAcrioris lo Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popu1ation.s arid Low-Income Population, ” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1994. PL Order 805 Public Land Order (PL Order), “Withdrawing Public Lands for Use of the US. Atomic Energy Commission; Partial Revocation of Executive Orders Nos. 8578 and 9019,” Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fedrral Register, 1952. GENERAL Arnstein, 1969 Arnstein, S.K., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, ./ourmi ofthe American I hrtiture ofPlmners, 217-224, 1969. I Bean and Vane, 1978 Rean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, Persistence and Power: A Stiidy ufNurivr American Peoples in fhr, Sonorari Desert and rhe Denver-Paio Verrle High I Voltuge Trunsmixsion Lbie, Cultural Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1978 G-73 Volume 1, Appendix G - ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAi. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Rcan and Vane, 1979 Bean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, Al/eii- Warner Valley Ener,qy Systeni. W(,sterri Transniission System. Ethnographic unrl Historicd Resources, Cultural System Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1979. Bean and Vane, 1982 Bean, L.J., and S.B. Vane, The Ivaripah Generating Stafiori Project Ethnographic (Nurive American) Resources, Cultural Systems Research, Inc Menlo Park, CA, 1982. Brooks et al.. 1975 Brooks, R.H., D. Olson, J. King, G. King. K.Leavitt, and P. Anderson. P rehistoric nnd Historic Research Along the N~ivnjo-McCirllou~Ii Trarisniissiori Line Right-of- Wuy, Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 1975. I Cernea. 1991 Cernea, M.M. (ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rum1 Development, New York, Oxford University Press, 1991. I D’ Azevedo, 1986 D’Azevedo, W.L. (ed.), 1986. Great Bnsin, Vol. 11, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, 1986. I Deloria, 1985 Deloria Jr., V., Behind the Truil of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX, 1985. I Deloria and Stoffle, Deloria Jr., V., and R. Stoffle (eds.), Sacred Sites Protectioii Srrutegic2s - I 1994 Legmy Project, Preliminary report prepared for the National Park Service and the US. Army Environmental Center, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994. I Dobyns, 1951 Dobyns, H., “Blunders with Bolsas,” Hunian Organization, 10:25-32, 1951 I DOE. 1994 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, Washington, DC, 1994. I DOEINV. 1994 DOE, Nevada Operations Office (DOENV), Project Chariof Sire, Assessnienr and Remedial Action Final Report. DOEINV 368, 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, N,ye 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, 1967-1 880,” Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 26, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1979. Volume 1, Appendix G G-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, SaltLakeCity,UT, 1971. I Gore, 1993 1 Gore, A,, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, New York, I Plume, 1993. I Greaves, 1994 I Greaves, T. (ed.), lrirellectunl Property Rights for Indigenous Peopies. 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. 1 Laird, 1976 Laird, C., The Chemehuevis, Banning, Malki Museum Press, 1976. I LeVine and Shweder, LeVine, R., and R. Shweder (eds.),” Properties of Culture: An Ethnographic I 1984 View,” in Culture 7%eory: Essays on ,blind, SeK nruf Emotion, pp. 67-87, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984. I Memam. 1979 Memam, C.H., “Indian Names for Plants and Animals Among California and Other Western North American Tribes,” Bulieua Press Puhlicntion irr 4rchaeology: Ethnology and History 14, Robert F. Heizer (assist.), Socorro, 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 Reportfor Congress, Library of Congress, I Washington, DC, 1994. I Palmer, 1978 Palmer, W.R., (1946) Why the North Star Stands Still arid Other Irrdinri Legerrds, Zion Natural History Association, Zion National Park, Springdale. UT, 1978. I Parentaeu, 1988 Parentaue, R., Public Participation in Environmentul Drcisiori-Makirrg, University of Montreal Press, Montreal, Canada, 1988. I Presnall, 1936 Presnall, C.C., Zion-Bryce Nature Notes, Zion Natural History Association, Zion National Park, Springdale, UT, 1978. I Kuppert, 1994 Ruppert, D., “Buying Secrets: Federal Government Procurement of Intellectual Cultural Property,” in /rifellrctualCulturui Prupet-ty Riglitsfor Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book. Tom Greaves (ed.), pp. 11 1-128, Society for Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City, OK, 1994. I Sapir, 1910 I Sapir, E., Kaibab Paiute Linguistic orid 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,” Ruruan of Americnri Ethnology Birlleftri No. 120, Smithsonian Institution, Washlngton. DC. 1938. G-75 Volume I, Appendix G -- - ~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FIh’AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Stewart, 1939 Stewart, O.C., “The Northern Paiute Bands,” Anthropological Records, Val. 2, No. 3, pp. 127-149, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Stoftle and Dobyns, Stoftle, R.W., and H. Dobyns, Nuvapritrr: Nrvadu Iudiuns Comment on the 1982 Intermountain Power Project, I~iterniouritain-Adela,lroBipole I. Trarismission Line Nevada: Ethnographic (Nutive American Resources), Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, WI, 1982. Stoffle and Dobyns, Sotffle, R., and H.F. Dobyns, Nnvagautu, 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. 751.767, 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 Pittsburgh Press, Pittshurgh, PA, 1992. Stoffle, 1987 Stoffle, R.W., Native Anrericaws and Nuclear Waste Storage at Yucca I Mountain, Nevudu: Potential Impacts of Site Churucterizatioti Activities, I Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987 Stoffle ct al., 1983 Stoffle, R.W., H. Dobyns, and J.M. Evans, Nungwu-Uakupi: Southern Paiute Indians Comnieut on The Iuterinountuin Porver Project Intermourituiw- Adelanto Bipole I Trunsmission Line, Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, W1, 1983. 1 Stoffle et al. 1987 I Stoffle, R.W., M.W. Traugott, F.V. Jensen, and R. Copeland, Social I Assessment of High Technology: The Superconrlrtctirig Super Collidrr in I Southenst Michigan, Survey Research CenterKenter for Political Studies, I Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 1987 I Stoffle ct al., 1989a Stoftle, R.W., M.J. Evans, and C. Harshbarger, Native Americun Interpretafion af Cultural Resources in the Area of Yucca Mountain, Interim Report, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, I 1989. Sloftlc et al., 1989b Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, D.B. Halmo, W.E. Niles, and J.T. O’Farrcll, Nntivr Anlericari Plant Resources in the Yucca Mourrtuin Area, Nevariu, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1989 Volume 1, Appendix G C-76 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Stoffle et al., 1988a Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, and D.B. Halmo, Recommended Actionsfor- Reducing Potential Adverse Effects on Native American Cultural ResourcxJ Caused by Site Characterization Activities, Institute for Social Research, 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 Native American Cultural Resource Studies, Yucca Mountain. Nerda, report prepared for Science Applications International Corporation, Institute for I Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988. 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 I Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1990. 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 Ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain,” American Anthropologist, I Vol. 92, pp. 416-432, 1990. Stoffle et al., 1990c Stoffle, R.W., J.E. Olmsted, and M.J. Evans, Literature Review and Erhnohistory of Native American Occupancy and Use of the Yucca Mountain Region, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, M1, I 1990. Stoftle 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 1 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, BAKA, 1 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994. I Stoffle et al., 1994c 1 Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, M.N. Zedeno, B.W. Stoffle, C. Kesel, American 1 Indians and Fajada Butte: Ethnographic Overview and Assessmentfor Fajadu I Butte and Traditional (Ethnobotanical) Use Study for Chaco Cultur-e 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, Piapasn ‘Uipi’iBig 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. Loend0rf.D.E. Austin, D.B. Halmo, AS. Bulletts, ,and B.K. Fulfrost, “Tumpituxwinup (Storied Rocks), ” Draft, BAKA, University of I Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1995. I Stoffle et al.. 1996a 1 Stoffle, R.W., N. Zedeno, D. Halmo, and D. Austin, NAGPRA Consultation I and the Nevada Tesr Sire Collection, BARA. University of Anzona, Tucson, I AZ, 1996. NEVAIlA 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 ofthe 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 ofplants by Indian Tribes of Nevada, Lawrence: Quarterman Publications, Inc., 1957. Tucker, 1982 Tucker, G. C., D. Christensen, and T. McEnany, ‘‘Results ofArchaeologicai Investigations Along 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 Organirations Don Cloquet Tribal Elder Board Member - Las Vegas Indlan Center Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations ,4merican Indian Writers Subgroup Betty Cornelius Tribal Elder Museum Director - Colorado River Indial1 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 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Volume 1, Appendix G G-80 ~ ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Attachment A THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY -FOUR AMERICAN INDIAN I TRA,DITIONALUSE PLANTS PRESENT ON THE NEVADA TEST SIT1 Appendix G. Attachment A ______- NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix G, ,\ttarhment 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 Ethnic Group Names m-povie 4hies concolor I White fir a-ta-vee' I R 4bronia turhimra I White sand verbena 4hronia SD. I White sand verbena ~~ 4chillea millefolium 1 Milfoil varrow i'itsikwasiai' I --F--4chillea sp. 4,qave ufuhensis var. Kaihab agave kaihahhensis 4gave utahensis var. Utah agave itahensir 4,qave sp. Agave, Mescal 4gropsron smirhii Western wheat grass 4,qropjron sp. 1 Wheat grass igrosfis exnrufu I Spike bentgrass tllium sp. 1 Wild onion tmarunrhus olbus 1 Pale ainaranth I Redroot pigweed Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 2 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Grow Names Amaranthus sp. Pigweed toki-mont' tokimont' ku-mont' pun-kont' camwt' punkont' kumutd Ambrosia dumosa White bursage, kntsiav' tnmpisangwavb Burrobush Ambrosia Ragweed NF irtemisilfolio 4tnelanchier Saskatoon service- toyabe' tuvwampd ilnrfolia beny 4melanchiei Utah serviceheny mngwamp' kwi yav' -duh-hee yemba' xtahensis tnvwamp.' toyaba' \rIx 4melanchier sp Serviceberry ti-ab' (k)' 10yatd kwiyav' tnvwamp' mgwump' toyaba' kwiyav' tvngwttmp' Inrsinkia tesselato Fiddleneck NF Funnel-lil y NF Yerba mama :heu-&-iv (mpY NF chew-m-ivR chupaniv' NF Irienroiie tubcrosu Desert thimbleweed, UP Windflower Table A-I. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 3 of 35) Scientific Name Comnion Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Angelica sp. Angelica to'nchavi' tontsabi' -bee-ah-bogox && na-hush' &OK __be-ah boquah* Apocynuni Dogbane. NF' cnnnabiwurn Indian hemv Arabis pulchra Pretty rockcress ak' ahk' I I 11 Arabis sp. toxopakuv' -don-zeah' Mistletoe Arctostaphylos Green-leaf arammpipi' I I I1 uutula manzanita Arctosraphdos Pointleaf nianzanita, arammpipi' ada'dimpipi' uunzeiis Mexican manzanita II ~~ Arcto.rtuphdos sp. Manzanita ki-app'e (k)' arammpipi' y&he-wat-um8 I a-rai'-um-piv (k)' ada'dimpipi' tim-go'-op (Iv)~ Arenaria sp. 1 Sandwort -boo-ee nut-zcd A,-gemonr sp. Prickly poppy -esha-ah-goo-wha' u-%-da8 =-%-dumpR m-sag-wee-duh' m-sag-gee-gee' Artemisin higelovii Bigelow sagebrush sanewavb NP ,4 rremiria Tarragon sangwavi' pas' drucurrculus I II Arremisio Water sage. hurpata- \angwavr' ludob,icianu Louisiana sangwavb ' pawpahh' wormwood, Sage herh sangwa' pa'\angwav' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 4 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethi Group Names sangwavd sua'piv' bah-=-numb sangwav' U-hoe-be8 tovabe-hehobe' I hahopi' Irtemisia spinescens 1 Bud saze, Button a-see-ab' asie-up' brush h-buhtah-m-o-quah' I -ku-ba-tat-m-oh-quah' po-ho'-be (Iv)' sangwavi' b&-guh-yoom' NF. sahng-wav' ' sangwa' &-hoe-be8 sah-wahb (k)' sanwa'hi' &-y,&hoe-bes sangwav" &-wavy* &-hoe-be8 pal*& sah-wavvy' sah-wah-be' U-ombe' &-hoe-he' -sah-wavvy' -sah-wah-he* wah-m-pee8 pvi' pohovi' hahopi' mvi' w-h6-be (ps)' rfemisia sp. :agebrush ihhp'" ' chumav' &!-vah-hoe-be8 po-ho'-be (Iv)~ sangwa' &-oh-hoe' sahng-wav' ' sangwavi' coo-m-pah-zip' sat-wahb (k)' sanwa'bi' coo-s-pah-wah-zip* sangwav'.' pas' &-vah-hobe: w-hobeR pa'sangwav' pass-pahs' huipata- salmapweep' sangwavb.' salm-ap-weep' -wadzo-ba' coo-see-wy-up* -coo-see &-wah-zip8 m-z-wah-ah" -_coo-see quatz-oh- pah-W-oh-buh8 bah' wat-&' -_coo-see-sat-wah-be* whood-see-tah-m-oh- coo-see sah-wdvvy" uuah' NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A-5 Appendix G, Attachment A ~~~~ ~ Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 6 of 35) I Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni, Group Names Group Names Wild oats hw-wev' (c)' Bacchuris sp Seepwillow koauwb kanavb Bulsamorhizu sp. Balsamroot key-gah-da-m' __coo-see quah-soap' ah-!&' ah-h-pah' &!-kukR -_coo-see ah-kuhR Berberis frrmoiifii Freemont's barberry tonip' Berberis reperis Creeping barbeny cor-m-nup pah-& NF -so-gl?-diem' poo-h-wee-dah8 -so-gl?-du-yembe' -toh-yuh-tu-vuh-bu-huhX Berberis sp. Oregon grape, tonip' Barberry Rerula sp. Birch un-pi'-yu-nin-jump kai'-shu-imp (k)6 who-ghee-juup Brickellia Mohave Brickell -sahn-a wap' oblonaifoliu bush Brodiaeu ~ulchelln Desell hyacinth NF sigo' Moss NF Culochorrus Sego lily sixu'd se'go< hruneaunis Culochorfus Weakstem mariposa sixo'd s1go' kogi' flrxuosus sixn'u' iego lily Wochomrs sp. Sego lily. sixo'o' sigo'o' Marioosa lilv 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 Ethni, Group Names Group Names Carex douglasii Sedge NF Curex sp Sedge sambivd NF Cusiilleja chromosu Early Indian NF angawitarnbu' NF paintbrush Casrilleja Paintbrush w-quee-ah-~-turnb8 linariaefolia M-die-ud Castilleja murtinii Narrowleaf NF pantbrush Castilleja sp. Indian paintbrush NF' Caulanthus Squaw cabbage NF crassicaulis Ceratoides lanaiu Winterfat NF Cercoparpus Curl-leaf mountain tonumpi' Dunurnbe' dd-nurnbe' ledifolius mahogany -dunumbe'(mp)8 --pees &-nombe' &he-' mbe-huh-&' -toobap-ee' --beR m-bee-hoh-ah8 -too-narnhe' m-pee' Tercocurpus sp. Mountain-mahogany to-namp' (k)'l -dunurnbe' too-num'-be (ps)' tonrrmpi' dunurnbe' too-namp,-peJ toharn-be' Zhaenacris rlouglusii Douglas dusty- hoot-S-eva' toh-k-quah' witch-& das-ah-&-ahR maiden si-af-ivR witch-ah-nuniba8 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 1 Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Chamaehatiuria Fernbush w-o-wah tah-u-o- ting-wee-buh' miilefidiuni I quah8 Cheno~iorlrum Fremont goosefoot sax'watikup' u'uphi' fremontii I Chenoiiodium SP. 1 Goosefoot sax'watikup' Chorizanrhe rigidu Rigid spine-flower sannvf kamuhurusanuv' I '' kanumuvusanuv' Chorizunthe sp. 1 SDine-flower sanav' kamanum' Chrysorhamtius Rubber rabbithrush s'kump',' sikump' -see-bape* fruu,wosus sikornpb pantus'kumpd su'pimba' sikmnp' NF Chq'sothumtrus Little rabbitbrush see-s-pee% tah-b-see-goop' waha-see-bup-ee" ~isrrdiflorris I tah-&-shc-goop8 ---oh-ha-see-bup-eR 7hhrvrothamrius sp. Rabbitbrush koo-chum-ahv (Ivl4 sikump' sig-um-bip' (PS)~ koo-&am'-mah sikamp' hav' (c)~ s'kump'.' sikomp' ". xrium nmhuvmw Desen thistle tsiev' -'irsiutn sp. Pink thistle 7a~roniusp. Spring beauty NFf I I ll Xt'nirihs Virgin's bower, Wild ;~ustic$~liu clematis 'nlro,i.?.lir Blackbrush wtio.si,wiriiu Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 9 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Croup Names Croup Names Comandra umbellata Bastard toad-flax I NF' Cordvlanthus SD Birdsbeak I -tim-hah-hay nUt-/,ooJ Cornus stoolinifera Doewood I NF Cornus SD. Do~wood I NF Cotyphantha Fishhook cactus. manav' vivipara var. desertii CorvDhantb cactus Cotyphantha Foxtail cactus manad yuav' NF vivipara var. msea I manav' Cowania mexicana Cliffrose (see Purshia I rtansburiana) Crepis sp. Hawksbeard &-&-div-o-wip* -bee-shd-no-goR I -bee-jee b-o-wip' Clyptantha sp. Cryptantha I NF Cucurbita Coyote gourd, ankompi' ahn-ncquav' m-nono' betidissirnu Missouri gourd &!-no-quav (mp)8,r amocup' -amo-cup' Cuscuta spp Dodder canaU-&-sha8 -too-vah-saahK Zyrnoprerus globosus Coltball spring- ye-&' ye-&' parsley .vmopterus sp. Spring-parsley nampip' 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 Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Psororhamnus Dalea polyadenia Smokebush Dalea sp. Indigohush ~~ Datura meteloides Sacred thorn-apple, Sacred datura, Jimsonweed Datura sp Jimsonweed Ikn' hahck' wah' iku' ku'u' VF poyah' kscuruinia sp. Tansy mustard ihkc hahck' :u'uC ak' IIkU' ok' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page I I of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni Crow Names Group Names Dichelosfemmu Bluedicks NFf pulchellum Disfichlis micata Saltgrass e'-shiI (Iv)' NP pas-shoo-turn (ps)' ongavi' e-soov' (c)~ mo-nump' (k)4 6-hah s6-nip' 6-hdh s6-nip4 Dyssodia Scale glandweed s&wapib NFf &-dah-gah nut-tah-zoomR penfachaefa (=D fhurberi) Echinocactus Cotton-top cactus tash' NF NF poljcephalus ? Echirrocactus sp Barrel cactus pavio' trrmar (mp)' c tamar (Iv)(p)' Echirrocereus Engelmann usivwuits' manav' hedgehog enfelmannii cactus Echinocereus Claretcup cactus chuamanav cacuusov'xohif triglochidiams i'mamanavih ova'xohi' ~~ ~~ Echinocereus sp Hedgehog, Tule tule' ova'xobi' cactus chuamanav cacuusov'xohi' 3 i'mamanavih usirwuits (Iv)(p)' U 3 usivwuits' NP xe Echinochloa su. CocksDur NFf r*. 3 Eleochrrris palusIris hikerush NP' 2 0 Eleochnris .sp Soike rush oahrasiev' i bumohaD' NP 3 Wild rye Nd P Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 12 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic GrouD Names Group Names Elymus elymoides Sauirrel tail saxwanartotsivuaium' Elymus triricoides Beardless wildrye, NFI Creeping wildrye Elymus sp Wildrye, Wheatgrass ph-hoe-buh wah- saxwanartotsivuaium" pay-&-guave' -hava" NF' w-ron-zip' sah-wah-havwa' wal-havva' Fncelia farinosa White brittlebrush NF 4ncelia frufescens Brittlebush sana ichb ar. resinosa tuwichb ?ncelia virginensis Virgin encelia, sana ichb tuwich' all vceties) Brittlebush suopiv' ?nceliapsis Nakedstem anga-gpahp' iudicauli~ --see &-kuk8 'phedru viridis Indian tea tupb tutu'pi' m-roombe' turup' tupb utuupi' m-m-be' NF tutuupi' u'tuup' tutumbi' xjproop-ee' typm-ee8 NF too-rooD-eeR I~DI~A-I. I nree HUndred and sixty-Four American Indian 1 raditionai use Ylants Yresent on the Nevada lest site (Page 13 of 35) ~ ~~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnii Group Names Group Names NF Tphedra sp. Mormon tea, too-troop' (c)' tutuupi' too-toom'-hip (ps)' Jointfir, Indian tea hoo-toop' (k)' utuupi' tup, tupb tutu'pi' u'tuupC tutupi'.' yatup' tutupe. hutuup' tU-Upe' Equisetum Smooth scouring sakwa-'ivi-pb paxwav' laevigarum rush Equiserum sp. S c o u rin gru sh k-see-noo8 Eragrosfis sp. Love grass NF+ Eriastrum eremicum Mohave eriasuum NF I NF Erigeron sp. Daisy & na-tizuah' kah-m-ah8 a-eenut-zoo' bsietat-hah-she- too-&-man-oh' llJ I Eriodicryon Narrow-leaf yerha wee-p-a-uh (mp)*, kutsa'rimpi' ~-pat-~-ums angustfolium santa weepo-enub' pa'sinipi' I Eriogonum inflafum Desert trumpet, papakunrm' papakumm(pY usarambokup' Bladderstem, Indian papakurum"" pipeweed I Eriogonum Wild buckwheat wee-guy-womb-mutr-zee~ b-ga-see-ga %-ubR microfhecum Eriogonuni Butterballs e-paw-taw-the' &-donup' ovalifolium Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 14 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethn Group Names Group Names Eriogonum Buckwheat brush NF caespiiosum ~~ ~ ~~ Eriugonum Sulphur flower na-k-donipR -wadda-e-goh' -bah-hoe-TeeR umbellatunz -naka-donup8 Eriogonum sp. Buckwheat &-paw-taw-the8 Erodium cicurarium Storksbill. Heronhill wyuvimp' Euphorbia Rattlesnake weed tuvika'xaiv' tava'namu'obi' -nah-com-bmt-rip# albomarginaia tuvipukaxi' tuvipaxghaiv' twvipukaxi' Euphorbia sp. Spurge tuvipaxghaiv' tava'namu'obi' nah-&-boh-zip8 tuvika'xaiv' twvipkaxi' -nah-wal-go bud-zip8 tuvipukaxi' tah-wee-carih' tah-=-Carib (mp)' Eururia lanuia Nhite sage, Winter b-s-ah-wah-be" --she-shu-bah8 -shee-shuh' at tub--' Callugiaparadoxa ipache plume muupb ~orsellesia rlevada greasebush bas-un-dmk m-zoo' revadensis Vhite-margined wertia :rarinicr arionialrr raxinus sp. sh warn-pip (k)" tmv' wan-pimp' (1~)~' NP 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 Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethn Grow Names Grour, Names Fritillaria Spotted missionbellr NF atropurpurea Leopard-lily Garpaflavescens Ashy silktassel ka'ninkwau' Gaura coccinea Scarlet heeblossom NF* Cilia aggregara Scarlet gilia (see lpomopsis Skyrocket aggregara) Cilia congesta (see Ballhead gilia lpomopsis congesra) Cilia inconspicua Floccose gilia (see lpomopsis inconspicua) I Glycvrrhiza lepidota Desert rwt, NP American licorice Grayia spinosa Spiny hop sage Crindelia squarrosa Gum plant sah-nah cav-oh-N-ah' sah-nah-!&g-ah-rahR Surierrrzia Matchweed, NF yainupb nicrocephala Small-head wammpb snakeweed Snakeweed, i'kump'l see-gupe' Matchweed too-gp&se-ooh-goopex Yaplopappus acaulis Stemless Jau'p' apu'p' Goldenweed 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 Gruup Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Haplopappus sp. Goldenweed pau'p' apu'p' Helianthus annuus Common sunflower ah-kump' (k)' -hah-kuk' Helianthus SD Sunflowel ah-kump' (k)' akump' Heliorropium Heliotrope -tube-manahe' -tu-ma-nabe' i-y&oh-ho' curassavicum wa'ateyowimpi' I-yah-&hog -tu-man-ah-hex Henidium alipes Four-o'clock -he-wov-beeR -hewuvey' Heuchera rubescens Alum rmt @-dimha-wah-rumb' Hilaria rigida Big galleta NF Holodiscus dumomus Mountain spray -oh-~~nut-tir-u-wabheR tah-see-vuh' tot-zip' wah-=-oh-guay8 @-mnabbe8 I Hymenoclea salsolo White cheesehush, paiab' Burrobush lpomoea sp. Morning glory NF I I II Ipomopsis aRgregara Scarlet gilia, anka'siti' p&wah-mishR mgc-mo-wanyax I Skyrocket m-mutr-oh-y-newie8 -teni-piuteR Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 17 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic I Group Names Group Names Iponiopsis congesra Ballhead gilia &-oh-nupR -he-he-vah8 -_bee-ah-du-hux bee-k-vahR -hoe-n? -hoo-naR h-ni' -sah-tone-7Re8 sah-m-zee-yungR lpomopsis Floccose gilia NF inconsoicun lpomopsis sp. Cilia -eck-m-hu-binga8 too-& man-a-baR -din-ah-=-goom8 sigh-yd-gad too-& too-ben-aba' -duh-na-ee-go8 si-~-gum* -too-man-aba' -duh-nah-=-go* -duh-ndh-=-gum" -tin-ah-s-go' NF fris missoicriensis Wild ins &-g-toob-ah" poo-m-rubR &-sag-ee-dah" poo-gmeyroop' &-sag-ee-duhR &-sag-e-dump' &.-sag-gee-gee" w-e-dump' NF+ 'va arillurfs Poverty weed quee-u-tee-navag __too-ha-bahba' -du-du-zip' -too-du-zip8 NP pa'sip' sonophi' NF luncus sp. Rush paxwav' pauvh NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Appendix G, Attachment A A-18 ~~ Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 19 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnlc Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Larreu rridenrara Creosote bush yatamp' ' yd'ta'mpl' ya'tamp1' yatampi' yatumbh NF peppergrass Lepidium Desert pepperweed NF+ rasiocarpum NF Pepperplant Bitter rmt NF gungah' Lichen Lichen NF timvavsuchicu' humlewisii Blue flax, Wild flax b-ah-nooma' po-W-tir-uah' &?-ee nut-tah-zmm8 booie na-W* NF b-eenut-zmP b-9nut-zm' ppena-nut-tiz-zmhs ithaspermum Gromwell, -nem-ish-aw' uderale Stoneseed -nom-ish-aw* nmafiumsp. Biscuitroot, NF Indianroot .upinus spp. Lupine queeduh-quen-ahR ,ycium andersonii Anderson woltbeny U'UpWIVlh u'up1' huupi' huupia' u'upd hu'upc pa'u$ u'upf - Lyciunr pallidurn Pale wolfberry u'up1' pa'up' huupi' 1 huupia' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 20 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni Group Names Group Names Lycium sp. Squawberry, u'up' u'up' Wolfberry pa'upd,' u'upi' hu'up' pd'up''' u'upwivib U?U$ Lygodesmiu spiriusu Indian gum plant, Skeleton weed Mahoniu repens Creeping barberry :see Berberis repens) Murrubium vulgare Common horehound I quee-ban-oob8 w Melilorus ulbu mite sweet-clover I NF' Melilorus indicus Yellow sweet-clover I NF~ Menodoru Spiny Menodora I NF' huupi' pinescens I denodoru sp. Menodora I NF' 4enrha amensis Field mint, American wild mint 4enrka sp, Mint paxwa'nanimpi' paxananumpi' &-guanna* pah-auanna* pah-Wna-ayR &-ouanna-& --boh-nay* oah-quanna-ahR toh-see-ten-ava' fenrzeliu ulbicnulis Desert corsage, ku'u' NF pacitac kua' White-stem ku'u' kua'. c ma'kua' 3lazinestar I Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 21 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Mirubilis mulrif2oru 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 Ethni Group Names Grour, Names Nicotinna sp. Tobacco, Wild ko-op'6 koap' pah-hum'-be (ps)' tobacco sC-wah'-wahp (Iv)' koaop' ko-ahp' (c)' saxwaxwapic sow-wow'-wahp (k)4 nungwukoap' sC-wah'-gwah'b' nnngwakoap' koapi' tsaw-wap' Oenathera pallida Pale sixoh evening-primrose Oyurrtia basiluris Beavertail cactus manavh yuavimpu' nugwia' yxavi' yuavimpi' -nah-vomb8 yuavimp' navnmp' -wo-gay-he8 NP 7punfiaechinocarpa Golden cholla, Silver NF wiatimbu' cholla 7punfiaerinarea Mohave prickly yuaviph manavd pear, Grizzly hear manavi' cactus 3puntia Engelmann prickly nanav' hneacantha pear ?punria yolyacantha Central prickly pear ?punria spp. Tuna, "Tule" cactus nanavb manavi' mavimpi' yuavimpd /uavipb yuavimpu' isivwuits' yuavimp' iavnmp' yua\i' nanavimpi' manavimp' Brmmraoe u'u' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 23 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnlc Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Orobanche Broomrape, Wild tU'UL tu'tum" corymbosa asparagus tu'du' Orobanche Broomrape tU'U' fasciculara Orobanche sp. Broomrape, Indian tu'u' -too-hoox bg asparagus -tue-hoo' NF -too-ee' OOZOpSlS Indian ricegrass wa-i' wa'if wai" wai' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 24 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Peraphylluni Squawapple suovi' ramosissimum Phacelia sp. Phacelia NF Phlox sp. Phlox moh-m-ree-s-ahR &hah-tonegan8 -din-ah-ee-go8 quee-&-too-nabba8 tu-k-man-up' =-go-dun-um* NF m-a-div-oh-sah8 so-eo-ron-ree-ahs Phragmires australis Common reed, Giant ~o'-N(k)6 paxampb,' NF pihavi' common reed, Cane, pa-gump (1~)~ pa'xamp' Honey dew pah-gump' Phragmires Common reed, moh-m-koh (mp)R wo---cau-puR zommunis Honey dew pahgump' hohgohkuh' pa-hump' Phragniites sp. Reed po'h (k)' hoh-goh-koh' pa-gump (Iv)6 paxampb.' pahgump' hohgohkoh' Phvsalis rrassifolia Groundchemy NP Physalis sp. Groundchemy NF' Phwaria chambersii Chambers' twinpod tah-&gee-noobx NF -tah-pah-day" nionophylla Singleleaf pinyon, tu-vap' (Ivy tU'UV' wahpi'. ' tuvap' tmv' (c)4 tnvai tuvah' tuvaC t&bah'-kah-bub (k)4 tuva' &-pee* tibay tUvdp"' tuvwap' wahp' (PS)~ __sahn-a-& wah-pee' tu-bap-ee" wah'-pe4 -too-bee' -wah-pee' sah,-nah-wah'-pe4 ttua' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 25 of 35) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Group Names Group Names 'inus ponderosu Ponderosa pine p-vim' (1~)~ 6-gump' (k)' yu-wim'p' 'ltlUS sp. Pinyon tu-wop' (k), (1~)~ trrva' =-govie' tu-vap' (Iv)~ tivah' toov' (c)4 tuva' tG-bah'-kah-bub (k)4 tuvap',' yu-vim' (Iv)' tu'uvi 6-gump (k)' tuvwap' yu-wim'p' inus sp. Sugar pine wi-ah'-kah-tum (PS)~ I lanrqo major Common plantain =-dee" woo-dee' I luchea sericea Arrow weed ,ee Tessuria v-icea) oa bigelovii Bluegrass NF' Muttongrass, uxwishuv' Bluegrass opulus fremontii Fremont cottonwood sovipb quaking aspen Black cottonwood Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Nanies Populus sp. Cottonwood sho-wip' (k)" sowph so-o-vimp' (p~)~ so-vwip (1~)~ so-vip (k)' sah'-hah-be4 sig'-ge4 Porophyllum gracile Odora pa'kwitupip' Porophyllum sp. Odora E-guidobe (mp)' Porfulacu sp. Purslane topuene' to-puene' Prosopis glandulosa Torrey mesquite opimph 'opimpa' o'phi' Yar. forreyana Sop' o'pimb' Prosopir pubescens Screwbean kwiyard 'opimpa (mp)' wi'umpc quee-&umhH ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Vros~~pisspp. Mesquite 'Op' kwiyard opimpb quee-et-umb' 'opimd quee-etumb' nrunus nndersonii Desen peach -sahn-avvie' NF -hahn-zon-ipx -sahn-nab-bee8 'runus fascirulufu Desen almond tonopi' tonepi' 'runus r,irginiuna Chokecherry tonap' tonapi' doh-&-ah-boo-e* toh-&a-booeR 'runus sp. Chokecherry tonap' tonapi' tonoui' ~ ~ 'suthvrorP.s unriua Turtle back -sebu-moh~goon-a-hux y&nipx '.wrrhjrotes 'rude hack ka-&-yah-gaveS -see-boh mo-m-ub' w-bn~t-zoo~ nnrosir.sima sebu-moh-gwpa-bu8 s&-yah-gava8 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 Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names Group Names Psoruleu so Scruf-oea kwaovi' Psororhaninus Fremont indigo-bust kaatamonup' /-=-midla (nip)* u-um-he" fremontii I-eramidjar tuh-D-buss-e-empR Psorotkumnirs Dotted dalea muiputi NF' oolvdenius Purskiu alunduloru Buckhrush u'nup' hunavi' Purshiu sruriskurimia Cliffrose map' uhnop' hunavi' (=Purshiu niexicunu uh-m (mp)R NP be-ah-huh-nabbe' and Cowanin ___ M-nabhe8 hunap~ mexicunu) Purskiu tridrntuia Bitterhrush. unap' -huh-na-bee' -huh-nabhe' NF __linna-huh-ndbhe8 Purskiu sp. Cliffrose hunap' hunavi' Quercus gunzhelii Gambel oak. Scrub tuavC kwiav' tsiginoh' oak tsigino' we'a' Oak kwi'-uv (k)' tomnmpi' we-ah (ps)' wiya" to-mum-piv (Iv)~ tuav' hh-pah (c)' kwiav' kwe'-av' tomunip' we-am'-pe (c)' tomumpi' him'-pah (c)' Skunkbush, Sumac i'is SU'UV U'UP' Table A-1. Three Hundred and Sixty-Four American Indian Traditional Use Plants Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 28 of 35) Scientitic Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Group Names Group Names Khus trilohato Squawhush e.is' 4 huiupi' (all varieties) i'isif sn'nvimp' i-siv' (1~)~ hii shen-pimp' (1~)~ smvimp' smvb i#isr shmvib -see-a-wimp' sirrvimpu' see-awimp' huupi' su)uvd.f see-a-wimp (mp)' SU'UVC Rhus .sp. Skunkbush, i'is' SU'Uvr nat'-soo $k4 Lemonade- berry, I Sumac, Poison oak 9ibes uureum Golden currant l&-gumhe8 NF -ho-gumhe8 poh-oh-bisR I Pibes cereum White squaw currant NF' NF hogomhi' I Pibes velutinum Desert gooseberry NF NF I NF ?orippa sp. Watercress NP ?osa woodsii Woods wild rose 3ihkururnp' -see-avvie' siwa'vit' NF cimbi' -see-avvie' -see-am-hip' hasp. Wild rose si-am-piv (Iv)' sn'impipi' ts6-ablb4 iikikurump' tubus sp. Raspberry -see-am-hip* :urnex cri.r,,us Curly dock. iamhitu' pah-=-ahh -be-&nQ-ko8 Wild rhubarb W-pah-s-uh' pah-=-ubR b-woo-eeK =-pa-B-ahx 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 Ethnii Group Names Group Names Runiex sp. Rhubarb narnhitu' ku'ub -hah-rah-zip8 &-kono-he' -tuha-kono-gip' -tuha-konohe' nut-zoo' Salazaria mexicam Bladder sage NEi Salix exigua Coyote willow kanavh.' -soo-veeR kwishisuuvi' su'huvd' U-nav (mpjX suh-%-he8 coo-= s-bupe' coo-~eesuh-=-beR suh-ee-wee' -soo-vee8 suh-ee-bex Yalix gaoddingir Suodding willow pakanav' pawaxanav' suuvi' Yalix sp Willow kahn-nahv (Iv)~ kanavi' se-oo-be (psj4 iu-hu-vee' sahh (cj4 kah-nav' se-yu'bi kal-nahv' ' kahnav' sZ-ywhe" sah-kahv' pakanavh soo-be' kan-av' (kj' pawaxanav' ka-nav (Ivj6 ?alsalu iherica iussian thistle, manaviph manav' rumbleweed jahia columbariae 3hia sage, sangwav' pasiits' pacita' pacita' Mifornia sage saywav' patsits' iulviu riorrii 'urple sage, nungwukoap' NF ndian tobacco kwatamanum' kanarukoaph ialvia sp ;age riguwiipi' nungwukoap' -kahn-gwanna* pasiits' kwatamanum' \uh-m-wee-upR iangwav' saywav' tow-abba-hobex ;ee-a-we-up' siginiwiap' M-tim-bawtpb reegoowe-up' m-nuh ah-wabbe' see-m-we-up (mpjX too-& she-gin-oop' imigwakoapb 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 Ethn Group Names Group Names Sumbucus sp. Elderberry koo-M-du-ney' who-w -duh-he-yemba' h-oo-gip' -hw-booR -du-yembeR ko-n&wip' (c)' koo-noo'" !&tied kunukwi' Sarcoburus Greasewood yah-tahmp' (Iv)' yah-tamp" to-n6-be (PS)~ vermicularus tah-uh-be' tone-&-bee" -toh-no-beR NF' Scirpus ~icutuus Hard-stem bulrush to'oivi' Scirpus validus Soft stem bulrush, I Tule Ycirpus sp. Bullrush, Big round he'- taw (Iv)' to'oivi' s?n-vib4 pow-ahv' (k)4 manav' pah sip' bah-si"p4 Sclerocacrus sp. Fishhwk cactus, manavd NP Pineapple cactus ?elinocurpus difisus Moonpod NF ieiiecio sp. Groundsel NF iisjmbriunz Tumble mustard wa'ai' ;nrilucinu srelluru Solomon-seal &-tone-ubn &-quavvieR -wah-toh-voh* m-havvie' u-quavvie8 wom-~-nombx 'mduiinu sp. Fakc \oIomo"~scJl. NF Coyow hmy :n1rr,iu,n sp. Nightshade ah-&-= na-LiLuah" 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 Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni GIUUDNames Grouo Names Soiiduno so. Goldenrod NFZ Sonchus oleruceus Common sow-thistle mamoivb mamuivh Sphaerulceu Apricot tupwivb.' NF ambiguu globemallow. Desert globemallow Sphaerulceu sp Globemallnu tupww' ku'pinav (mp)' gwipoh-combeeR kupinav' NP a-no-comb' -see-quoy no-ko8 -wee-dai-gomR wee-&&-comb8 Sporobolus uiroides Bunchgrass, Alkali sacton Fporobolus sp. Dropseed postushukunt' kwakwai' pas-tu- yhu-kunt' Prince's-plume, turnarb ' nambitd tuhuara' yuhuara' Indian spinach namvit' tumaru' tu'mara' NF tumaf ' nambltu' woy-W-numb8 trrmara' trrmaru' who-D buh' whoa goopH Wire lettuce NP Spiny wire lettuce, NFr NF Gum bubh Slender wirelettuce tuwishanakupb NP NF* 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 Ethni Group Names Group Names Stipu comata Needle-and-thread erass Stipa hymenoides Indian ricegrass wa'ai' wai' pacita' (see Otyzopsis hymenoides) T r- Stipu speciosa Desert needlesass NF I 1 NF Pipa sp Indian ricegrass wa'aiv' I I Streptanthella Wild mustard, NF-' 'ongirorrris Long-beak fiddle- mustard Yfreptanthus Heartleaf NF.' rordatus twistflower, Wild mustard juueda torreyana Seepweed NF -ah-rumb 1 atem' I iuaeda sp. Seepweed ahrr' sah-ap-weep' aai-ap-weep' NF (IvKp)' ;werriu White-margined NF ilhomarginata swertia ;wertiu sp. Swertia kwiu' 1 --see b-oh-savva' I :+niphuricarpos Long-tlower NF- ' -sahn-ah-veex iiigiflorus rnowberry I I umarix sp. Pamarisk pantumaavd I I 'essuriii srricea krrow weed -sah-wape (mp)8 Np.c. t 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 Western Shoshone Ethnic Owens Valley Ethni Group Names Group Names Tetrudvmiu -nah-g&-ha-boh-be' cunescens &-"h-bah-hoe-be8 tah-b-ee-gwp" Tefrudymiu sp. Horsehrush _-too-hah-see-goop-ee' -coo-see see-bup" cw-see see-bup-e' Thalicrrum fendleri Meadow rue I b-oo-guay' Thumnosm monfunrr Turpentine bush kaiva sixwanah -mo-gun-dug moh-m-du-wp8 Thelypodium Wild cabbage nambitu' NF' inrenrifolium I Townsendiu Eaton's townsendia NF' scupiEeru Townsendiu sp Townsendia I NF' T?phu donlingensis Cattail, toyh' NF Southern cattail Cattail, taw-e'-vah (Iv)' pantasahwavh toyh' NF Bruad-leaf cattail to-oiv (k)' NF taw'-e' tO'ivb Cattail taw-e'-vah (Iv)' tonovi' to-oiv (k)4 tonoz' ta-oiv' Urrica sp Nettle quee-U-noop8 quee-quawn-oop' by-B-ahR Vuleriunu sp. Valerian, NF' 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 Ethni Group Names Group Names Veronica anagallis- Speedwell NF NF aquafica Viauiera multiflom Showy goldeneye NFf Vitis arizonica Canyon grape, Wild i'av' NP muvasi' erave kuripsup' Vifissvv Graoe we'ump' Wyethia sp Mules' ear taxuichaxantiip' tikoitcixantipi' tixu'si taxanti' tixu'si taxantip' taxu'itcaxantip' Yucca buccata Banana yucca, Blue uusivb.' uusi' NF yucca wiisivb tcimpi' tachurnpi' o-u-se' tachumpi' u'wivi' Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree tachampi' umpu' NF Yucca kanabensis Kanab yucca NP Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca, tachumpc uusivi' NF Spanish bayonet u'vimp' uusiv' tac hmnpi' Yucrrr sp. Yucca cho-ram'-pik (k)h uusi' sam-ah-vip (k)4 o - u - se ' tsam-a-vip' uusivi' tcimpi' tachurnpi' u'wivi' uusiv' wiisivh uusf tachampi' NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT + -a ? 5 P .- Ya -- A-35 4ppendix G, Attachment A ~~ ~ ~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix G, Attachment A ~ ~~~ I NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Attachment B ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITIONAL USE ANIMALS PRESENT ON THE NEVADA TEST SITE I Appendix G, Attachment B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix G, Attaehmeot B 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 Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Mammals Family Antilocapridae Pronghorn Antelope Won'-sits (k)6 Wahntz (k)' Wan-zeeg Wants '.(lv)' Waknch' Wahn-ze4 Waantsi' >amilyBovidae Ovis canadensis Desen Bighorn Sheep Na'-guts (k)6 Nah'" Na'-k" (Iv)~ Nahk4 Naaxa' Nah-gah4 Nahk (k)4 Nanb ovis sp. Bighorn Sheep Nah'-gah (Iv)~ Nah"" (c)' Wah-soo-be (ps)' Nahk' (k)' Wah'-siip'" Wah'-Soo-pe4 wahs-pe4 'amily Canidae Cunis iurmns Coyote Yo-go-wo'-tsi (k)' Sin-nav4 E-shah-wi'-pah (PS)~ Yoxovwits' Shin-nah-ab' E-jap'-pah' Yoxovatsi' Tnrasana'av' E'-jah' Sanangwavi' Turahsunav' E'-chah' Tnrasanav' Sin-nav' (c)' It'-za" Tmasinav' Yo-go'-bits (k)4 Cunis sp. lovote tu-er-shin-avi' Duhvoe-ee-jahp Ee-shae Vulpes niaerofis Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethni I Ethnic Group Names Group Names VUliJPS Sp. Yi-ip (Iv)~ Ybputch (Iv)~ Ye-putch-ah (psJ4 Yu-pats (c)~ Yu-pitch'-e' Wah'-ne4 Sah-vi'-puts (k)4 Sin-nand Wo'-tse-ah (PS)~ H6-pats (k)6 Tah-vahn-~et~ Wah'-ne' Un-si'-ats (k)6 Hon-za4 Wah-je'-ah' Hunt-si' (Iv)~ Onsi'itsb Wo'-tse-ah4 Tavangwaimpitsi' Onsi'ikarumb Wad Hun-22' (Iv)' Hon-ze (c)' Wo-tsi-a6 (small) knily Cervidae I Odocoileus heminnus 1 Mule Deer Tu-we-ah4 Too-hci-e' Dfi-yah (p~)~ Yu-oo-e' Taxiab Dfi'-hee Too-hoo'-e (1~)~ Tfi-hE'4 Tu-hb-yah' Tii-6' (k)' To6-ho'-yah' Odocoileus sp Deer Ti'-ats (k)h Tuhi' Duhayet' Tahenah' Tu-i (Iv)' Tuhuya' Ti-hi6 Tuh'ena' Taxia' Ti-he' (Iv)' Tu-he-nah' Tuuyi' NP Nrotoma bp. Wood Rat Kats (k)"' Kahts4 Kow'-wah (ps)' Kaats? Kaatsb Kah'4 Kaht' (kJ'l Kehts' (Iv). (c)' Kit? (IvJ6 Piruniyxrus sp. Mouse Poo-e'khet (k)' Poo-c-chet' Poo'-i (psY Poo-e-tsets4 Poo-in-chets' Bo'-ni4 Poo-in'-chets Poo-in'-iets (cY Po'-ni' Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 3 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Western Shoshone Ethnic Group Names Mouse Pu’ichats’ Moi (s)‘ Po-an’khah (ps)‘ Pdm poo’-e-chet (k)4 Family Equidae Equus sp. Horse Kah-wi’-yu (ps)’ Kah-vdh” Poo’nk4 Wah-ai-ar (c)‘ Bun’-go‘ Family Erethizontidae Erzrhizon dorsutum Porcupine Yungmnptsis Ye-num-puts‘ Ye-num-puts (k)4 Ye-hum-puts’ NFh Erethizon sp Porcupine YV~(iV)4 Yiuig (c)4 Yu’-hG (ps)‘ Ye-num’-puts (k)‘ Yen”‘ Yt’-hi? Yo’-hah4 Tsa‘-gwit6 Family Felidae Felis concolor Mountain Lion Tu-ma’-mu-ints (Iv)~ Too-koo-puts‘ Too-koo’-muts (ps)‘ Tukumumutsi’ To-ko-ma-muts‘ Toi-yB-tw’-koo‘ Piaruku’ Too-koo-mo-munch‘ To-ko-bitch‘ ‘Kummo-muts (k)4 Piarukb Mi’-yum-be4 Too-kd-mo-munch Tb-koo’huts (c)’ Kong‘-gwi-tu-nuh (W Lynx mfis Bobcat, Wildcat Tukuptsh Tukuvits‘ NF Lynx sp. Bobcat, Wildcat To-ko‘-puts (k)‘ Took4 Too’-kuo’-vitch (ps)‘ TGk (Iv)~ Took‘ Doo’-ko-vitch‘ Tukutsi’ Mo-sahts’ Too’-ko-vitch‘ Tukupts’ Tukuvits‘ Too’-ku-bitch‘ NP Too-koo’-puts (k)‘ To’-ko-pik6 Table B-I. 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 Ethnic Group Names -Groi Lynx sp. Bobcat, Wildcat NF - Fannly Geomyidae - Thomomys sp Pocket Gopher Mayampitsis Mwe-em-puts‘ Yu-ab’-bitch (ps)‘ Mfi’-e (c)~ Mfi-e (Iv)‘ YB’-hal-vitch4 Me-im’-put (k)‘ YB‘-hah’-vitch‘ Ye-bah’-vitch-e‘ Gopher NF Family Heteromyidae Dipodomys sp. Kangaroo Rat Pi-yu-ah‘ Tal-we-tat‘ Pi’-yu (PS)~ Pi’-& (c)~ Pi-im’-buts4 Bi’-e4 TZ-wH’-tet (k)4 tom-we-a-tats’ Pi’-yu4 ~~ Perognarhus sp. Pocket Mouse Pi-im-buts (k)‘ Family Leporidae kpus califamicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit Kahm (k)‘ Kaamb Kamuntsi‘ kpus sp. Rabbit Kahm’ (Iv), (c), (k)‘ Kah’-moo (PS)~ Ti’-boo’-tse (ps)‘ Tah’-bo‘ Tah’-bot-se4 Gah’-mo‘ Kah’ho’ Kah’-mah‘ Be’-ah gah’-mo4 Be’-ah qah’-mo4 Ta-vut’-si6 Tsi-gut’-si6 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 Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Ka-mut’-si6 To-ha’-kumh Jackrabbit Kamb Kamusi’ Kuma‘ Tavusi‘ Ka-mua’ Rabbit Tsok-um (k)6 ll -- I I Kamb‘ Sy/vi/agusaudubonii Desert Cottontail Ta-vwots’ (k)6 Tah-vuts‘ Ta-vets (1~)~ Ta-vnnts‘ TavutsC’ Tavutsb Tah-wuts (k)‘ Tavuuts‘ Tah-hoots‘ Tavuuts‘ Dah-vooc Taputsi‘ Ta-votsig I 1 11 Family Mustelidae I I Spi/op/eputorius Western Spotted Skunk Kahbo-ne (k)‘ Kah-ho-d I I Kah Bo-na4 I I1 Spilogale sp Skunk Kah’-bo-ni (lv)‘ Kah’-bo-ne (c)’ Yu-hah* I1 I I Kah’bo-nE (k)4 I I ll Skunk Pu’-ni (k)6 Po-na‘ Poni’a* Po-ne-ets‘ Bo’n-he-at2 Po-n*’ (k)4 Baw’-ne-yZts‘ Po-ne-ets (Iv)‘ Po-ne’ (c)‘ Po-hoi’-ats4 Po’-ninth Taridea faxus Badger Hun (Iv)6 Hmn4 ttnamputsi’ To-chi-e’ Un-nam-hut (k)‘ tinampmsb Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 6 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Taxidea sp Badger Hmn' (Iv), (c)' Un-nam'-hut (k)' Ho'-nah4 Hm'-nah' Hm-nah4 Ho'-nan6 Hm'-nah (ps)' Weasel Pabrook' (c)' Bah'-bitch-e't' Pal-ve'-chit (k)' Bah'-tsm-gw4 Pah'-mm-kah'' Sm'-sm-gah (ps)' 'amily Procyonidae Bassariscus astutus Ringtail Kal-gmts' te-av-ats' Bassariscus sp. Ringtail Hb-run'-tal-vahts (c)' Kah'-wo-dze'-ah (ps)' :arnily Sciuridae Ammospermophilus White-tailed Antelope Tava'ad Ta-hats' leucurus Squirrel Tav-vat (k)' Ta-vats' Euramias sp. Chipmunk Ta-vwbts (k)' Tavarungkwits5 Woi-che (ps)' 0gun'-to-ats (k)' Oi-chits (k)' Woi'4 0'-i-chots (Iv)' 0-gon tav-vah-ats4 Wah'-oi' Dxontava'atsi5 Ho-a-tsits' Woh'-oi' rava'atsi5 Tavarungkwitsb Wo-i'-tsi6 Ho-8'-tsits (Iv)~ Ko-e'-tsets (c)' a-oits-its' Cirellus sp Ground Squirrel 3'itsitsi' Ki-vah skoots4 Ing'wa' 4w-oi-chits (k)' Skwe-ets4 Zip-pe (field dwelling)P Guhm-be (white belly, lives in desert)% 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 Ethnii Ethnic Group Names Group Names Squirrel Skits (k)6 skutss. ’ Hw’-kCin-tah-hi‘ (PS)~ 0-’gun‘-to-ats (k)‘ Sikuts’.’ Ti-vah’-che (ps)‘ Si-kuts‘ (Iv)‘ Skuutsc K6ng-ah (PS)~ St-kwts (Iv)‘ Un-tsup’ (k)‘ 0-wun’-dah-vi (ps)‘ Su-kwts’ (c)‘ Tah-vats’ (Iv)‘ Eng’-wah (ps)‘ Skoot’ (k)4 Tah-vahts (c)‘ Tseep” Skwe’-Bts (Iv)~ Tav-vat’ (k)‘ Che’-gah‘ Skp’(c)4 Ho-wi-&vats (c)~ KGrnp‘ Aw-oi’-chits (k)‘ Ah-wun’ tah-vat (k)4 Wung-gwah’-rah-bi‘ Ye-we’-set (k)4 NF Koom’-pi’ u-wish-its’ Che‘-gZ‘ Woh‘-i4 Dah’-wah-ni‘ Tah’-bi-i‘ Tsi’-pish6 Tav’-a6 Ko‘-gwib :amily Vespertilionidae I Bat Pacha’ats’ Pah-chats‘ Ho’-no-vitch4 Pat-sats‘ Pats-ats (1~)~ Ho-no-bitch (ps)‘ Paht-sats (c)‘ Pacha’ats’ Ho’-e-nah vitch’-e‘ PB’-tsats (k)‘ Reptiles amily Iguanidae 1 Iguanids I Croiaphytus collaris Collared Lizard Kan’-ne mai-kar-rat’ Tom-Po’-tsat’ (Iv)‘ Turn’-bo-tats’ (PS)~ (k)‘ pomp-ots-ats’ Tum-bo-tats (ps)‘ Po’-go-che4 Towm-m’-tsuts (c)‘ Tem’-im-bd Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 8 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Eth Ethnic Group Names Group Names Cromphjrus collaris Collard Lizard Dm-koi-a-ke' Gambeliu wislizenia Leouard Lizard Chah-a-mi-ahv (k)' Neu-mah-~ing-ahts~ So~'-we-vah'~ Too-a-rah' Si-vah (lv)' Sah'-we-vah4 Sah-we'-vah (c)' Suuromalus obesus Chuckwalla saxwant5 Sahk-war-rah4 Sow-war'-rah (ps)' Chah-kwar-rah (k)4 Tsah wahr' Sah-gwar'-rah' Tsah-wahr' (Iv)' sa-wha-rha' Sow-wahf (c)' Chah-kwar'-rah (k)' ~ Sceloporus mugisrer Desert Spiny Lizard Tsahng-ahv (k)' Ching-k-ahng-ah' Chahng-ahnts' Tsang-ants' tsang-a' Sceloporus sp. Lizard Cha~~ga.~ Ching-k-ahng-ah' Tsahng-ahv (k)' Tsang-ants' Chahng-ahnts' Changa' changats' Lizard Su-gu'-pits (k)6 Moxwia' Tim'-puts' Mu-gwi' (Iv)~ Saxuputsi' Pa'-vo-go-nai' Pompotsatsi5 Mow'-wav'-ve (c)' Poh-gwua-geeg Tsang-ants (1~)~ Tsahng-ahv4 Po-goi'khe (ps)' Tsang-ah' (c)~ Ah-wah'-poi (PS)~ Ki'-e-tm-ar (ps)' Ti~'-moi' DE'-hoi' Dem'-mon-zah' Familv Colubridae Io 1u b rid s Lampropeltus Zommon Kingsnake Sing-ump (k)4 Shing-aht' Sung' Nun-too-nav' 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 Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic G~OUDNames Group Names Pituophrs rnelanoleuzus Gopher Snake, Pine Oxomputsi’ Kaw-kum-puts‘ Ko’-go (PS)~ Ko-hum-buts (k)‘ Oxopatsb Pas’-sZ-wah’-kah‘ Kaw’ (c)‘ Ko-hum’-buts4 .. Snake Ta-na’-kuts (Iv)~ Kwi’-uts (Iv)~ Pah-soo’-go (ps)4 Tah-go-ahe Pah’-we& (Iv)‘ Siu-ung’-ah (c)~ Ki’-ar-rir’-rah (PS)~ Nun’-too-nav’ (Iv)‘ Ah-wah-rum pi-at NB-boo‘-ah-gwah-tsoo’ (c)‘ (PSI4 Nin-din’-av (Iv)’ Pah-ro ahv’ (k)4 P&-se-neu4 Pah-we’ets (c)~ Gawk’4 Sing’-ump (k)‘ Pah’-rah go-ah4 Ki’-yi gar’-rah4 Wun’-gah-rah4 Family Viwridae Pit Vioers Rattlesnake To-go’-avw (k)‘ To-go-ahh (k)“ To-to’-a‘ O-lo’-ga (1~)~ To-ko-ahv‘ Do-gowahg Toxoavi’ To-go-av-ve‘ To-go’-ah (ps)‘ Tanakitsi’ Kwe-ets (c)~ To’-gwah‘ To’-go-av’-ve (Iv)‘ To-go-ahh’ (k)’ ~o-qo’-ah‘ To’-go-ah4 II I1 Birds ~~~ ~ -. Bird Wi’-chits (k), (Iv)‘ Witsi’tsih Ko’-cho‘ Chee-pahs Witsi’tsi’ who-chcd Family Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Eagles Acciprrer cooperir Cooper’? Hawk Wit se-mor-rat (k)‘ Pah-rahm puts’ ll Kwe-\ahp4 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 Accipifer sp Hawk, goshawk Kwen-noonts-a-mord Ku-shav-i7 (k)' Aquila chrysaeros Golden Eagle Kwahn-ants (k)' Kwanantsb Mung4 Bureo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Kwi-nat'-sits (k)* Ta-ah kwah-nahts4 NF Kwanantsits',' Kwen-nan-zits4 Kwah-nah-tsits (k)' Ktrsavb Se-kan-na kwahn-ant4 Quinnah' Qua-nats-its' Circus SD. Hawk. Harrier Oone-aur-ats' Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Si-kwah (k)4 Piaskwanand Piakwanantsb Eagle Kwi'hants (k)6 Kwanants' Kwi'-nah Quing-ah& Mung-i'-puts (Iv)' Kwanantsi' Kivi-na6 Bia' quinahg Hawk Gin-nee8 Ing,-a-kwi-na6 Sah-na qui-nag Ki'-ni6 Family Alaudidae Larks Eremophila alpesrris Homed Lark Turanwintsi'tsi3 Te-we-wit-se' Nava witsi'ts' Te-rah we-cha-its4 Ter-rah-we-che (k)' Ne-vow-we-tsits4 Family Alcedinidae Kingfishers Ce& sp. Kingfisher U'un-na-tus (k)' Wun-nah-taht' 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 Swans, Geese, Ducks Anas clypearu Shoveler Pa chwe (k)' Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Duck Oo-chnxa' Chwg' Pe-at choog (k)4 ChwCh4 Anas sp. Duck Chnxa' Chnxb NF Puh-yuh-ahg Branra canadensis Canada Gwse Chakoad To-o-pah4 Ah-vin-kay-raht (k)' Kw-res-sen4 I .. Goose I Nup-gud6 Oqurajamaicensis Ruddy Duck Pi-ah-kwits (k)' :amily Ardeidae Herons, Egrets, Bitterns Ardea herodius Great Blue Heron Pah-too-koo ko-vah Pah-kwr-kuv4 Wus'-sa' kahnt' I II Nah-kwah' I1 Bittern Tah-wah woo-ne-ker- Chw-goob (n)' rit (k)' I < 2amily Caprimulgidae Nightjars ? Chordeiles ucuripennis Lesser Nighthawk Tuwawitsi'tsb i i C Chordeiles sp Nighthawk Mono'opangwits' Mo-mo-pits4 Du-va-goP 3 Pe-utch (k)' Mum-nio-paht' Too-gow-wit-se' ci c Fi Phaluenoprilus sp Poorwill Pan-no-witch (k)4 Pi-na-wid : Pah-nah-kwits4 5 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 I Ethnic Group Names Group Names Family Cathartidae American vultures Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Week' Wikumparsi' .. Vulture Wi'-ho6 Wee-hoog Wee-whom-hinchg Fanuly Charadnidae Plovers Bah-zaI-wee' Pan-te-geetch (k)' Pa-roo-goo-e'ts' Pahn-tie-wits' Family Columhidae 1 Pieeons and Doves Zenaida macroura I Mournine Dove Ivovb -1 Avovb Dove Ai'-yuv (k)6 High-wee8 Hay-wee' Iyovi5 He-ov' Oi-uv (k)' Hiav' .. I Piaeon I-VOV~ >amily Corvidae Jay, Magpies, Crows Aphelocoma coerulescens Scrub Jav NP I Corvus brachyrhynrhos I American Crow Paht-kot4 I Ah-tal-hits' A'-ta6 Cuta-puzee' HiK I crow Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 13 of 23) ~~ Scientific Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names corvus corm Common Raven A-ta'-puts (k)6 Ah-tah-pah-ki'p' A-ta'-puts (1~)~ Tabkwahts' Atapt? Ah-tah-pwits' Atakots' Tah-kwots (k)' Atakotsh Cyanocirta sp. 0-go'-chi-ok (k)' Sik-k~o-ra-gwuts~ --+--- 0x0-ChdyakU' Ho-gon Tsi-ahk4 Ah-run Chi-abk (k)' Gymnorhinus Pinyon Jay Aanga' Tuvawitsi'tsb Guy-nutzg cyanocephala Ahng Uv-ve (k)' Tuvavwitsiits' Ki-vah witch et' Tuuv watsits' Ahng-av' Yamp' Ahng4 0ng'-a (k)6 I Wi-at'W Pica sp Magpie Mama'kwa'yav? Mah-mahk kwi-ahv' Kwi'-da-wo-i6 Cui-ta' go'yap Mah-kwi-ahv (k)4 Mah-mah-kew-ahs4 Qwithe-woy-yohp Mah-mah-kwe-as' Family Cuculidae Cuckoos, Roadrunners, Anis Geococcyx sp. Roadrunner Nants (k)' KO cha bo'ki4 Unnup-pie I Wuts (k)' I 00'ts' 'anuly Emhenzidae Emberind Finches and I Allieq Subfamily Cardinalinae 1 Cardinal-Grosbeaks Passerinea cyanea Indigo Bunting NP Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 14 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethni Ethnic Group Names Group Names Subfamily Emberizinae American Sparrows and Towhees Amphispiza bilineafa Black-throated Sparrow NP Junco sp Junco Ne-war-rum po-kuts Nm-war-rum po- (k)' koots' I Nu-wer-rowk' Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee Tam pe-ats (k)' Pipiio sp Towhee E-se-voo-it (k)' Tim-mah-tin' Ke-we-rit-~e~ I Spizeila pusserina Chipping Sparrow Kam pe-ats (k)' Yu-oo-ro-whats' I Zonorrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Yu-rah-vaht (k)' We-tsids' Se-we-cha-et' I .. sparrow Wu'iatsis Yu-oo-ro-whats' Kam pe-ats (k)' Subfamily Icterinae American Blackbirds and Orioles Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Paxachakapi5 Pah-ran-to-twit4 Pah rahts-kahp' Euphagus cyanocephulus Brewer's Blackbird Pah-ranch Che-kahp Cha-kahp' (k)' Pah-ran-zu-wit4 Too we-fse4 ~~ Blackbird Bah-gan-zuk-qwueP Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 15 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic GrouD Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Group Names lcrerus sp. Oriole Oangwintsi'ta (yellow 0-ow-wit-se' bird)' Wahts-ke-it4 0-ah-we-tsits' Sturnella sp Meadowlark Iitotsi5 Kah-nah-we tse-its4 Pa'-tsi-ton6 A-taw (k)' Te-ve-uk' Tu-we-uk' Subfamily Parulinae Wood-Warblers I ~ Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler 1 Ka-na-wits-its' I Subfamily Thraupinae Tanagers I I Piranga ludovicianu Western Tanager, Oo-win-nt (k)' Mountain Tanager Family Falconidae Falcons and Carcaras I I Falco sparverius Sparrow Hawk, Kmin'ang kats' Te-ze-nah-kahts' Ku-ti'-ta' Amencan Kestrel I Ku-we-nah-kut (k)' Kwan-an-tsits' I Family Fringllidae Old World Finches and Allies I Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch We-etch (k)' We-ets' I Waw' We-we-ets' I Carpodacus sp. Finch We-etch (kj' ~e-ets' I Wawl I We-we-ets' Grosbeak Wah-pum-wer-rah-kd Ker-re-t~awt~ 1 (kj' I Kan-now we-tsc-its' I I Gus-se-nav (k)' Family Hirundinidae Swallows 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 I Western Shoshone I Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Hirundo pyrrhunota Cliff Swallow Pah-sdh-rok-pets' Wah-pas-so-pe' I Hirundo rushca Barn Swallow Tim-pow-we-ger-rit Pas-ser-ro-pe't~~ (k)' Tim-pah-ro-we-it' Tachyci,wu thrilossina Violet-green Swallow Pas-ser-ro-it (k)4 Pan-no-av4 'amily Laniidae Shrikes I*mius Iudob,icianus Loggerhead Shrike Tal-tso-noint (k)' Tun-dun-nois' Tah-cho-noint* Lanius sp. Shrike Tah-tso-noint (k)' Tun-dun-nois' Tah-cho-noint4 NF" amily Laridae Gulls, Terns, Allies Laws sp. Gull Tosa payamptsi Pi-yam'b' (white gull)' Che-pchd Ntd amily Mimidde Mockingbirds and Thrashers Northern Mockinehird Yanipb Mimus sp Mockingbird Yampa' Yahmp' Yamp (k)' Ydm'p' Thrasher Sah-wah-goo-et (k)4 Mo-e-pah-num-bits' imily 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 Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnis Ethnic Group Names Group Names Sialia sp. I Bluebird Shok'-wai'ants (k)6 San-nap-po-chet (kj4 Nung-un'-chots (1~)~ Sa-kwahn at-so-its' Saxwang wintsi'ts' Sah-wah-wits4 Turdus migrutorius American Robin Angka- Sko-we-che-it' k~aa'nangwants~ Se-kon kno-av (k)' Se-kin-kon-av' Sin-kum' Say-kung-quav' Turdus sp. 1 Robin Sue-gwee-cok-coo% amily Paridae 1 Chickadees and Titmice Pmus gambeli 1 Mountain Chickadee Tse-gut (k)4 Mo-che-et4 mily Pelecanidae 1 Pelicans Delecanus American White Pelican Trythrorhvnchos I imily Phalacrocoracidae 1 Cormorants ~ ~~ ~halucrucorarsp. I Cormorant Pa-at-kut (k)' Pah-wung zit?' imily Phasianidae Pheasants, Grouse, I Quail 4karb ~ 1 Quail Ka'-ka (k)" Ka-ka (Iv)" Tounga-ah-hahc .mily Picidae Woodpeckers and I Wrynecks -~lluptesUUrafliS Northern Flicker Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 18 of 23) ~~ ~ Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Group Names Anyka-kwanangwav' Kwah-nah-~ant~ Un-kah (k)4 Ungkakwa-nangwavb Kwx-nah-kits' Colaptes sp. Flicker Angka-qua-no-wunco' Melunerpes lewis Lewis' Woodpecker Po-wah-che-nint (k)' So-wan-nat4 Ahn-kah-pi-ah we-tse' ~ Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Peep-e-wor-et (k)4 Pe-pe-po-wunts' .. Woodpecker Piipung' wants? Pe-po wantz (k)' Du-ga-hiii' Pe-po-wuntz (s14 Peep-wunts' ~~ ~ Familv Podicioedidae I Grebes ~ Podihmbus SD. 1 Grebe Koo-hoot-kit (kI4 Family Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, Coots Fulicu umericuna Sah-sit (k)' Ke-yuCh Sahts' Sat? ~~ ~ Familv Recurvirostndae I Avocets and Stilt5 ~ Himantoous mexicunus I Black-necked Stilt Too-we-e-yoot (k)& Recumvrrostru omericanir American Avocet Tuvi yuyu'tsi' Mi-an Koo-wit4 ~~ I Koo-weet (k)' Family Sittidae Sirru sp. Nuthatch Kan-ka-nk-ket (k)' Yu-ve-nants4 To-pah-we-kent4 Family Strigidae Typical Owls I I 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 Nimes Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnb Ethnic Group Names Group Names Athenr cuniculurio I BurrowinE Owl Muku'uts' Ku'-hu6 Bubo virginianirs Great Horned Owl Mo'-puts (k)" Moo-oo-put' Mo-0'-puts (Iv)~ M o - o - p u t s Moopats' Moo-e-pwits' Mu-puts (k)' Muuptrtsh Owl Muuputsi' Am-mo-puts4 Mu-hu6 Moohooe Muku'utsl Mo-se-ah-kaw-bits' Muum-bitch' Wah-now-kwits (k)4 Ahn-kah-re Mu-put (Up Wanakwitsi' ~~~~ amily Trochilidae Hummingbirds ~~ Hummingbird Mu'-tu-chats (k)6 Ah-to-e-tsets' Bi'si'i' Pish-cootY Mootuchats' Moo-tin-zits4 Pi-a-gun'to-wit-si6 Mo-te-tcheh (k)' Mutuchtttsb Sung'-o-wit-si6 Mo-too-tsahts' amilv Tronlodvtidae Wrens Carheryes niexicanus Canyon Wren Tumpikia hoxotsi' Timp-pe-ke yah- Tim-pe-ah-swt (k)' hots' Tim-pe-its' Toom-pe-tah ah-bit4 Tom-pike-aw-sauts' irrlpbrctes obsvlrru.s Rock Wren Too~ching-ing~ Tumpikixotsb I NF rroylo&res sp. House Wren Wu-nat tim-be ro-put T'kes-se chim-mils4 I I (k)' imily 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 verricalis Western Kingbisd Chaxu’uvi’ Wahts-koo-itsd Che-goo-ritch (kj‘ Tw-pe-wats‘ I I II S(i?ornis saya Say’s Phoebe Chu-huv’ Amphibians II .. Frog Wah’-gab’-tsets (Iv)‘ Hah’-pah wah’-ah- Pah-woo’-go’ (psj‘ Yha-gua-zahg Wah-raht’ (kj4 tUtS (cj‘ Wah’-ko-ah4 Bi,-yah-qwat-sah4 Pi’-ah guz-zah‘ Arachnic Scorpion Wah’-wah-tsets (lvj’ Tah-wur’-rum-kwe- Woo’-vah-tah Wahm’-bah-kwits (cj4 pitch (kj4 Gwe’-buntz’ Kwe’-bent? Spider Ma-kwam’-be (Ivj4 Mo-kwahmp’ (kj4 Ku’-kwats6 Hoo-kwdhmp’ (c)4 So-wats’ (PS)~ Ah,-mah-so’-ans‘ So’-wants‘ So-as-nh‘ Tarantula Nfi’-e-saw’-bits (Iv)4 Noo’-WE-saw’-pig Nah’-soo-waht’ (ps)‘ We-gaht’-sawt kjJ icY Nah’-we-tsoi’m-bitch‘ N2 ’-soo-ar’-rah4 Insects Ahng-ahv’ (black) Hu-wit’ (large Ah-see-ahg (kI4 Ahng-e-ve (black) To’-ats (small black)‘ (IVj4 Table B-1. One Hundred and Seventy American Indian Traditional Use Animals Present on the Nevada Test Site (Page 2 1 of 23) Scientific Name Common Name Southern Paiute Ethnic Group Names Western Shoshone Owens Valley Ethnic Ethnic Group Names Grow Names ru’siev‘ On’-tat (black) (c)‘ A’% (mound building)6 Tas’-se-av (1~)~ Tas’-se’-ev (red) Ani’e (wood)’ w4 4ng-av’ (c)~ On’nee (wwd)’ ras-se’-av (k)‘ Ta’-siv-av6 Wahnts (red) (c)‘ Un-kav’-tu-si (red)6 ?as-se’-av (red) (k)‘ Tas’-se-wuts-tse (ps)‘ Ah’-ne4 Ho’-we-dah4 H6-e-dah4 Tun-gah‘-vitch (hlack) (PS)‘ Ho’-we-dah (black)‘ Too-kah-pe’-pah (red)‘ Beetle Bumblebee iee-moo’-r;ihm (Iv)~ Sho-em’ mo-ro-ram 3’-he-wo4 ;e’-nioo-rahmo (kid (cI4 Be’-hah-mw‘ Butterfly \s’-se-wuts (Iv)‘ Yah’-s-wut (k)‘ 4h’-se-wer-ruii’ (ps) \h’-se-ruts’ (cj4 &-;’-peI-Nnl ’-yup-pur-ruq’-: 4p’-per-r(x, -ge Wi‘-ah-bos’-se Centipede ,ing-urnp (k)4 Cricket I~~kaht’~sah-rix,’-bit rhln’-H-pltch (ps)‘ 144 :hE-roots’ (kj4 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 Ethni Ethnic Group Names Group Names Dragonfly We-wing’-ga-rits (IV)~ Ah’-witch (kid Pi-ran’-doo-no (ps)‘ We-win’-koo-rets (cJ4 He’-tso-saw‘ Bah’-qah-mo’-anz‘ Pah’-ran-do’-ro4 Flea Po’-ahv (k)4 Mo’-pits (Iv)* Mo’-pitch-i (k)‘ Mo-e’-ve-hah (pa)‘ Mu’e-vee-hac Mo’-bits (c)‘ Ah’-ne-moi‘ Ah’kah-woi” Mo‘-pits6 Mu’-iv6 A’-niv (sandi6 Grasshopper At’-tah-kah-peels (Iv)’ Ar’-ron-kah’-pit (k)‘ Ah-lung’-ge (PS)~ Ah’-tabkahbits’ (cj‘ Ah’-ting4 Ah’-tunq-que‘ At’-tan’-ee’‘ Lice Se-ap’-pit (k)4 Bo’-seedts (us)4 Pooh-ze-ah8 Louse Pu-si’-a6 Mosquito Mo-m‘-av’-ve (Iv)‘ Mo-ahv’ (k)4 Mo’-vob NF Mo’-av (c)‘ Mo-avw‘ Wah-war’-rah (ps)4 Maw’-paw‘ Ahng-e’-ve‘ Moth Moo-goo’-run-zits (Ivj‘ Ma-woo’-ran-tut (k)‘ Pe-ag’-gah moo-rung- Mo-goo’-ro-tsats (c)‘ we (ps)‘ Pe-ag’-gah‘ Pe’-ag’-gah‘ Stink Bug Ku’-i-tsat‘ 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 1 Ethnic Group Names Group Names II -- Tick Pwh-ze-ahP Worm PE-av’ (k)‘ Pish-sh&-war’-rah (PS)~ Wo’-ah-beJ Ww-ah’-be4 Yellowjacket We-koots (1~)~ Pah-watch’-av (k)‘ Pi’-yah (ps)‘ 0’-hah ben‘ Pi’-nah4 Be’-hah-moo‘ ’ Work done by Powell between 1867-1880: (Fowler and Stoffle, Austin, Halmo, and Banks (1996) NF = Kot found: mentioned in lext but no Indian Matlcy 1979) Stoffle. Hlmo, Evans. and Austin (1994) name given. ’ Work done by Euler between 1956-1966: (Euler 1966) ‘ Stoflleetal. (1994) (c) = Chemehuevi ’ Work done by Palmer bcforc 1946: (Palmer 1978) * Stufflsetal. (1989) (kJ = Kaibah ‘ Work done by Memam between 1902-1935: (Memam Sloffle. Halmo, Evans, and Olmsled (1990) (Iv) = Las Vegas 1979) ‘ Stoifle and Dobyns (1982) (mpJ = Moapa Paiute ’ Work done by Sapirin 1910: (Sapir 1910) Stoifle and Dobyns (1983a) (pi = Pahmmp Paiute ’ Work done by Powell in 1873: (Fowler and Fowler 1971) Stoffle, Dohyns, and Evans (1983) (PSI = Pananunt Shoshone Work donc hy Presnall in 1936: (Presnall 1936) Names by CGTO members; April 1996 NTS-EIS ’ Work done by Train between 1935-1941: (Train 1957) meeting. ‘I Handbook of North American Indians-Great Basin (vol. I I, “Owens Valley Paiute”) 1989 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix G, Attachment B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Attachment C AN AMERICAN INDIAN CONSULTATION MODEL 4ppendix 6, Attachment C ___ ~~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix G, Attachment C ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I ATTACHMENT C I I AN AMERICAN INDIAN CONSULTATION MODEL I I I This attachment has been reviewed and edited by the 1 Step 1: Defining Consultation I American Indian Writers Subgroup from the original I I source entitled, “A Consultation Model” by Richard I Step 2: Establishing Cultural Affiliation I Stoffle. This original article was published in I I Sacred Sites Protection Strategies - Legacy Project, I Step 3: Contacting the Tribes I a preliminary report prepared for the National Park I I Service and the U.S. Army Environmental Center, Step 4: Having An Orientation Meeting I edited by Vine Deloria, Jr., and Richard Stoffle, I produced by the Bureau of Applied Research in Step 5: Forming A Consultation I Anthropology, University of Arizona, in 1994. Committee I I Attachment C presents an American Indian Step 6: Conducting Site Visits I consultation model, a version of which was I originally developed for the U.S. Department of Step 7: Developing Mitigation I Defense Legacy Project (Deloria and Stoffle [eds.], Recommendations I 1994). This model is based to a great extent on the I history of consultation relationships between Step 8: Maintaining Ongoing Interactions I DOE/NV and tribes and organizations for the Yucca and Monitoring I Mountain Project and the NTS, and also includes I published and unpublished information on American Step 9: Bringing a Consultation Process I Indian consultation procedures across the country. to Closure. I As such, it describes nine ideal steps for developing 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 I of the past history of consultations sponsored by I consultation relationship is desired. The second step I DOEDJV and on an analysis of other consultation I is to specify, using cultural and historical research, relationships. Examples of relationships between I which American Indian people or peoples have American Indians and other federal agencies are traditional ties to DOE lands. The third step is to used throughout so that the model will be as establish government-to-government relationships instructive as possible. These steps suggest how a between formally recognized American Indian tribes process might occur, but they need not always be and American Indians with special federal standing followed to achieve an acceptable consultation. and the DOE. The fourth step is to have an Instead the nine steps suggest a logical sequence of orientation meeting, where DOE begins to meet and decisions and actions that normally would be talk with American Indians. The fifth step is to form involved in developing a consultation relationship. an American Indian consultation committee and It is important that the DOE works with the involved establish mutually agreed upon procedures for its Indian tribes to design a consultation relationship operation. The sixth step is to bring American reflecting their needs, the needs of the involved Indian cultural resource experts to the DOE lands so DOE facility, and the protection requirements of the that traditional cultural resources can be identified, cultural resources under consideration. The ideal related to sites, and initial management steps are: recornmendations can he made. Mitigation recommendations are the seventh step, followed by 1 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 DOENV 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 can 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 he 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 (Cernea, 1991; Dobyns, 1951; Parenteau, 1988). the I consultation occurs when it is desired hy the DOE I quality and success of the consultation process I and the Indian people and is not limited by time or I dcpcnds directly on the degree to which I issue. It is the perfect environment for discussing a I decisionmaking power is shared. Amstein’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 I I “partnership.” The primary decision that a DOE Appendix G, Attachment C c-2 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Through various cultural studies, the Indian people I C.1.2 Specific Consultation I have developed a set of recommendations that I I suggest how to best manage these resources. Most I There is always the need for conducting specific 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 number of times that DOE activities will have to be I all types of cultural resources, ground-disturbing I stopped and modified because of unanticipated I activities may unexpectedly unearth a human burial 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 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 (1 990), 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 resource 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” I 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) ” ... 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, activities to the US. Congress (Monissey et al., I American Indians established these ties because they 1994). Native people have responded in a positive I lived on the land long enough for a culturally shared way to federal agencies who are willing to consider I connection to occur. The basic question asked cultural resources from an ecosystem perspective. I regarding cultural affiliation is, “What American 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,Attachment C ,VEVzWA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRO.VMENTAL 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 organizatlons I part of a larger organization of beliefs. norms, and which actually would be contacted about the I values, and (3) that people who share a culture make consultation. I sense of new inform;ition in teriiis of a cultural I rationale tounded on a singlc collcctive fbrinula. Officially. the U.S. government prefers to deal with I Simply, the cimnection between American Indians American Indian groups on a government-to- I and lands held or affcctcd by DOE facilities is goveiriment hasis. The well-established federal .. I abstract, complex. and non-trivial. Assessing this position was recently reaffirmed by the President in I relationship IS best accomplished by profess~onals a memoi-andum of Apnl 29, 1994, entitled I trained in the study of ciiltiiral systems, in Government-to-Government Relations W~th 1 consultation with potentially culturally aflilintcd Ainerican Indian Tribal Governments. The National I Anierican Indian pcoplc. Congress of Amencan Indians, which is the National I Association of Tribal Chairs, also supports I Most laws, regulations, and guidelines that cause goveriiment-to~governrnent relationships. Such a I federal land-holding agencies to consult with relationship recognizes the “dependent nations- I American Indians do not define what is meant by the within-the-nation” status of American Indian tribes I term ”culttiriil affiliation.” Smie laws do define this (Deloria, 1985). This relationship should be the I concept; for example, the term is dctined very foundation of all consultation. The consultation will I specifically by the Native American Graves be incomplete, iis discussed above, without a I Protection and Repatriation Act. It is important to procedure for additional ethnic group inputs from I note that when a 1>OE facility adopts a broad non-tribal government sources. It is suggested, I definition of cultural affiliation for most kinds of thereforc, that fcderdly unrecognized Native groups, I cultural resource studies, they can still narrow the American Indian organizations, and pan-Indian I consultation process when needed for the Native I organizations he 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 rehume 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 ! when establishing consultdtion relationships with I facility. Finally, individuals from the Native ethnic American Indians. I group who otherwise would not be able to share I I important cultural insight, can be added to the Cultural affiliation of DOEiNV facilities was I consultation as “interested parties.” The established at the onset of the Yucca Mountain I recommendations of interested parties and non-tribal Project (Stoffle, 1987). Sixteen tribes belonging I Indian organizations, however, must he subsumed into three ethnic groups (Western Shoshone, I under the recommendations of the officially Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute) were I recognized tribal governments. found to be culturally altiliated with Yucca I Mountain and the NTS. A decade of consultation I C.4 Having an Orientation Meeting with these ethnic groups forms the foundation of a I successful relationship between the DOE/NV and Contacting potential culturally affiliated tribes and American Indians. American Indian organizations should be conducted in a manner appropriate to the consultation. If it is C.3 Contacting the Trihes to he a project-specific consultation, the information given to Native people should reflect that project. Cultural affiliation studies basically estahliqh which On the other hand, if a general consultation is American Indian ethnic groups potentially havc desired. then a very different essay and set of traditional, aboriginal. or histoiic period ties to lands inaterials is needed. Although project-specific 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 should be respected and addressed in the In general, letters, maps, and diagrams appropnate consultation process to the issues to be discussed should accompany the initial communication with Amencan Indian groups C.5 Forming a Consultation Committee and tribes. Such letters describe the agency that is making the contact and the purpose of the contact. The decision to forin an American Indian Recently, a video letter wds used to inform almost consultation committee has been the key to the 24 tribes about an assessment of cultural aftiliation wzcess of the consultation when inany tribes and and concerns for Chaco Culture National Historical American Indian groups itre culturally affiliated with I Park (Stoffle et 31.. 1994~).The video letter was DOE/NV lands tinder consideration. The I about 17 minutes long and began with the park I consultation committee stands as a nieta- l superintendent discussing the goals of the study. l organization between the tribal governments and the I This was followed by photos of places in the park I federal agency managers. The coininittee 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 consultatiun committee is able to resolve certain closed the video. The video letter was well- I issues relating to the process of consulting. In the received by the American Indian government early stages of consultation, for example, the leaders, who said it permitted them to make an coininittee may resolve issues such as how many informed decision about whether or not to send days are needed to complete an ethnobotany study, representatives to the park. or it may decide how best to prepare progress reports to he submitted back to Native governments. Letters alone generally are inadequate for most tribal By meeting together and acting in unison, native governments to gain sufficient understanding of an people belonging to different tribes and ethnic I issue under discussion so that the government can 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 he asked to determine when sufficient information I Indian organizations tend to he unfamiliar with the has been collected so that recommendations can he I legal aspects of cultural resource questions, although made to both the tribes and the agency. If there are they generally believe decisions about such issues to disagreements among the tribes or ethnic groups, the be highly significant. This presents an information consultation committee can he asked to resolve these gap problem for most Native government leaders. in closed executive session. Halmo (1994) has One solution to the information gap is for the US. recently studied the benefits of a consultation federal agency to invite government leaders to visit committee participating with the DOE to understand a Dortion of the study area as part of an orientation the cultural resource impacts of the underground atomic resting program on the NTS. lie concludes meeting. Dunng the meeting. government leaders _. I can learn firsthand about what is belng discussed I that this propam's success came largely because of c-5 Appendix G, Attachment C ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~______I the consultation committee's efforts to adjust the I American 1ndi;tn coiisuIt;iticm progl-am in tlic L!nitcd I process to meet the needs of 3 major ethnic griiups I states. I represented by 16 tribcs and 3 Indian org~ini7.~ttiotis. I I I (XI I>OE/NV and Indian Consultation I The NTS American Indian Keligious k-reedom i\ct I I compliance program was initiated by the L)OI Appendix G, Attachment C C-6 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I members hear the responsibility for representing the I archaeological sites that were slated for ground- I interests of not only their own tribes, but of all the I disturbing activities. As part of the American Indian I other tribes and Indian organizations involved in the 1 monitors program, Indian monitors received training I CGTO. Today, the DOENV explicitly recognizes I in archaeological survey, collection, and analytical I the CGTO as the vehicle for consultation. techniques. The most recent monitoring effort has I Consultation presently occurs directly with the resulted in the formal distribution by the DOE/NV I members of the CGTO with the approval of tribal of a monitors report of activities to each of the I leaders who are fully cognizant that duly appointed involved tribes and organizations. I individuals represent their interests regarding I cultural resources on the NTS. C.5.4 The Native American Graves Protection I and Repatriation Act Subgroup I The CGTO emerged from existing tribes and I American Indian organizations who collectively That the CGTO will continue to function in the I conceived and created it. The CGTO is not, future is evidenced by the fact that the NTS I however, a homogeneous, harmonious collection of American Indian Religious Freedom Act compliance I individuals who uniformly share the same program opened the door to other phases of I conventional understandings. Members of the group consultation such as that concerning archaeological I have contending and sometimes conflicting interests materials related to the Native American Graves I regarding the cultural resources located on what can Protection and Repatriation Act. I best he described as the intertribal lands that are 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 1 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 DOEN and the CGTO itself. The six I DOENV policies. members of the Native American Graves Protection I and Repatriation Act subgroup represent the Owens I Face-to-face meetings were an important component Valley Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Southern I of the consultation strategy and were routinely Paiute ethnic groups. The subgroup evaluated and I scheduled throughout the duration of the NTS selected potential Native American Graves I American Indian Religious Freedom Act compliance Protection and Repatriation Act items from among I program. These meetings provided the context in the 450,000 items in the NTS collection for Native I which representatives of no less than 19 contending American Graves Protection and Kepatriation Act I groups, including 16 Indian tribes, 3 Indian consultation with representatives of the 16 involved I organizations, and the DOENV, each with its own tribes. I agendas and interests, could negotiate and reach I compromise solutions that were acceptable to all The new challenge of Native American Graves I involved parties. Such intimate forms of Protection and Repatriation Act was successfully I consultation are likely to bring about the formation met by the members of the subgroup in a series of I of new corporate groups that have the purpose of three meetings. The subgroup selected about I resolving issues and defending common interests in 200 items that are potentially (1) unassociated I cultural preservation. I funerary objects or (2) sacrcd 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 reconirnendation. 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 ti, Attachment C NEV‘VIUIA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE.WE,VT I The CGTO served in a review and advisory capacity 1 about archaeological sites may know little about the I to their respective tribes regarding Native American 1 traditional use of plants. A Native person who I Graves Protection and Repatriation Act I specializes in fishing ceremonies !nay 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 yeparate 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 soinetiiiies described as Ainerican Indian I I “tours.“ Occasionally, federal agencies will vmply I Stimulated by the success of the Native American I bring Ainei-ican Indians to the lands under I Graves Protection and Repatriation Act subgroup, I discussion and ask them individually or in ii group I DOEiNV 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 scientilic methods I Public response to this unique DOE initiative has I associated with cultural rcsoiirce Ytudies. 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 comm~ndecades ago before there was an I C.5.6 Future Subgroups extensive body of research about how to conduct I studies with Amei-icnn Indians and what to expect I To continue with the American Indian Religious I from such studies. I Freedoin Act compliance program, the DOE/NV has 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 1 charge of the site selection and research design for I Since Amencan 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 lands, they are demanding to participate in the I formulation of study designs that are culturally and “What is out there?” This is the fundamental scientifically valid. A recent analysis of American question that must be addressed in any consultation. Indian research studies suggests that the design of The answer will not come directly from tribal the study can directly influence the lindings and the governments, but they will send cultural experts who recommendations (Stoftle and Evans, 1990). An ciin idcntify various cultural resources located on analysis of 11 projects suggests that Indian people DOE lands. Native government leaders can appoint will have greater impacts on land use decision5 if the rcpresentntives to a consultation committee, and study design permits them to identify and select lor during the operation of that committee, a Native special protection tliosc places, plants, and based inventory of cultural resources can he archaeology sites that have the highest cultural planned. significance; this process has been called “cultural triage” (Stoffle and Evans, 1990). When it is American Indian cultural resource studies should be difficult for Indian people to demonstrate how tu conducted separately, whenever possible, because move from cultural conccriis to land management tribes and Native groups will send different types of recommendations that protect the mos~cultural cultural specialists depending on what is to be items, it becomes the responsihili~yof the scientist I studied. The Native person who can speak at length I to help make this translation For example, it IS Al,pendix G, Atlarhmenl C C-8 hrEV/lIIA TEST SITE FIAXL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME.NT 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 specitic 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 (Stofllc et al., 1990b). I identify which objects in a museum collection ‘ire 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 il discriminate I It is essential that all pal-ties ton study agree on what I decision. The answer is often framed by the I is to be studied. It is conimon 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 meaning\ to the same term. One of the I cultural resource perspective and herhis confidence I niosl commonly misunderstood terms is “sacred.” i 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 cultiiral I I significance such as the origin mountain of an Indian I C.6.3 Assuring Participation I zthnic group. The concept of sacred is really anon- 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 or variations, contain many I decisions. This is because American Indians will I cerenionics 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 he 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 woinaii who makes I not reveal their location hecause 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 ii natural area near her camp. The I non-natives who profit from sale of the plants. The I Shoshone wonian 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 I to other ethnic groups, including other Indian I menyes, death-that use and create sacred objects I people. Agency personnel should be aware that I that are more generally recognized by others, such I Native experts who are sent to identify cultural I as Euroamericans. Finally, there are sacred objects I resources are subject to ethical conflicts, emotional I that are specifically defined by USfederal laws I stress, and even fear of reprisal. Indian experts I such as Native American Graves Protection and I express concern about violating traditional norms I Repatriation Act. So the concept “sacred” could I against sharing knowledge with outsiders. Concern I refer in any given discussion to many categories of I is also expressed over how other tribal members and I items. some defined by law, some defined and I even future generations of tribal members will I mutually recognized by Indian and non-Indian alike, I evaluate the sharing of information. Basically, the I and some exclusively perceived as sacred by Indian I question they ask is whether or not more good than I people. I harm will come from sharing cultural knowledge I I (Greaves, 1994). I Great care must he taken in the formulation of study I I concepts and when discussing the meaning of these I When Amencan Indian tribes and organirdtton? I concepts with Native government representatives. 1I $end experts to represent cultural concerns. they 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 revicw by the I must be systematically recorded so they can be I federal agency. This will assure that the repon doe5 I written into a scientifically and ethnically acceptable not contain information that should not be revealed, I report. In general, interviews should be conducted in and that the information it does contain is accurate. I private so that the Native person does not have to When the technical review is complete the repon I share the information with others. An interview should be given a draft review by the federal agency. I form should be prepared in advance with the Then the draft report should be sent to the American I assistance of the consultation committee or informed Indian group or tribal government for official review I Native people so that similar questions are asked of and approval. Final reports should be available to I each expert and there is a place to record their other federal agencies seeking to achieve similar I answers. Tape recorders can be used as backup, but 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 that will continue to be respected. The final report I interviews are either not desired or impossible to and perhaps portions of the information (not the I conduct. Group interviews tend to produce data) used to make the decision (Ruppert, 1994) I “consensus data” which means that members of the should be available to the public. I group discuss possible answers and provide one I answer to the interviewer. The weakness of group c.7 Developing Native Mitigation I interviews is that some people are not willing to Recommendations I express their opinions in the presence of others. The I strength of group interviews is that people have the Cultural resource technical reports should focus on I opportunity to talk over a response while in the field. the cultural resources under study and should not I Focus group interviews are a special type of group attempt to make government-level policy I interview and they require special preparation and recommendations. Technical reports are the basis I training for the focus group facilitator. for proceeding with mitigation discussions and I eventual recommendations from the American I C.6.4 Presenting the Findings Indian governments to the DOE. Policy decisions 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 contextualized by providing findings from published 1 Native policy recommendations should derive from historical and ethnographic literature that I three sources: (1) Native experts during the on-site demonstrate how the expressed cultural concerns fit 1 interviews, (2) consultation committee, and into the overall culture of the ethnic group. I (3) Native organizations and tribal governments. Translation into management information and I These three sources of recommendations represent contextualization will help achieve the goals of I a hierarchy of decisionmaking authority that is building American Indian concerns into land I inversely related to the degree of information about management policies. I the resource. Native experts are knowledgeable I about the cultural resource and, because of their on- Appendix G, Attachment C c-10 I hitc experiences, are aware of factors that could have I c‘.8.1 Rlutual Trust I tither adverse or positi\,e impacts on its prorection. I I Nattvc experts ai-c charged by their trihes and I When people get to know cach other through face- I orgaiii~a~i~iii~with idcntifying what is out there and I 10-face interactions, they create a basis of I making preliminary recommendations. Thc repoil I undcrstanding that can he used to establish what is I should consolidate all Native expert I called ”trust.” The term “trust” is not being used I rrconrmcndations by placc and resource, and these I here to refer to the legal “trust relationship” that I should hc presxted to the conwltation committee. I exist? between the U.S. government and American I Committec mentbcr\ 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 inore generally understood, as confidence in the I possible in ternis of resource management on thc I honest). integrity, reliability and justice of another I IIOE facility. It IS up to them to consider the I person or organization. I rec~tiiit~end~itioiisof the Native expert: if possible, I I resohe 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 relatioiiship belongs to the tribal council I the great dynamics of mutual trust is differences 1 and adviwry hoard of a Native organization. They I between the people and the agency relationships. I tcnd to lollow the advice of their appointed Native I First and foremost, Indian people must believe that I experts and co~i~ultationcornmittee 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 he shared (insofar as I Hecoinmendations that have passed with some I it is appropriate and possible), and the decisions I con~rnsi~sthrough this hierarchy of Native ! miis1 have some identifiable positive impacts (see I decisiomnaking Yhould be seriously considered by I C.X.4, Monitoring Plan helow). I the IIOE facility. The strength of the I I recoti~tiiendatio~~sdepends, in part, on whether or I Trust derives from the histoly of relationships I not they rernnin within federal laws that govern land I hetween the DOE facility and its personnel, and I management decisions by the DOE facility. In I American Indians. This history may go hack to a I i~dditiiin, 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. ! decided upon by the lacility 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 1 these limits, then credible cultural resource I low-level radioactive waste and the location of waste I reco~nniendationsshould he adopted by the 1)OE I repositories. It is important to address these issues I lacility. I early in the consultation process. In fact, it is likely I I that Indian people will raise these issues as I C.8 Maintaining Ongoing Interactions and I wpulations before they are willing to proceed with I hlonituring I consultiltion. Concerns about past relationships are I I often raised in holistic conservation statements made I “Pnrtnership” is a term olten used to described the I by Native elders and leaders in early consultation I desired oiitconies of consultation relationships I meetings. Stipulations are not debatable by the I hetween American Indians and DOE fxilities. I DOE, which instead will have its own stipulations it I P;irtnerships require shared power, mutual respect, I may wish to express at this time. Trust cannot he I and mechanisms for sustaining a long-term I negotiated. Trust can emerge from long-term I relationship. Partnerships can he established when I interactions especially when consultation begins I the American Indian people and the DOE facility I with clearly expressed stipulation^. Tnist must be 1 establish (I ) mutual ttust, (2)a common knowledge I earned and mutually shared. I habe. (3) a cultural iresource managrnent plan, and 1 I (4) ii monitoring plan. I r-I1 Appendix (;, Attachment C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Any consultation relationship will depend, in pat, I C.8.3 Cultural Resource Management Plan I on. the individuals involkd. 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 resource management component could be I organizations and DOE facilities. Mechanisms developed in each of these plans. Possibly more I should be in place to assure that consultation difficult, but nonetheless important, would be to I partnerships can survive personnel change. include American Indian cultural resource I management comments in discussions of minerals I C.8.2 A Common Knowledge Base and water. I I A primary goal for every DOE and American Indian The recommendations produced by the hierarchy of I consultation is to create or contribute to a common American Indian decisions (experts, consultation I knowledge base that is shared by both. Native committee, tribal governments) should be organized I groups send their most knowledgeable experts to the to reflect how the information can be incorporated I DOE facility to identify cultural resources. These into facility management plans. Early coordination I thoughts should not be lost. Federal agencies cannot with the consultation committee should produce I afford to forget what has been told to them by both information and recommendations that fit how I Native groups. Similarly, most DOE facilities have 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 monitor all cultural resources located on DOE lands, I many federal agencies and Native groups to monitoring timeframes and monitoring locations I inventory and keep track of resources distributed must be chosen. Basically, the timeframe questions I across an extensive landscape. Geographic are: How fast are culturally significant changes I information systems are expensive and difficult to occurring to any specific cultural resource? Does the I use, but innovative interactive multimedia data quality, quantity, or distribution of medicine plants I systems that can draw on some similar information change seasonally, annually, or over a period of I systems components are being developed. An ideal years? Damage due to erosion or vandalism to I data base could be used simultaneously by the archaeology sites may be occurring sporadically; I Native people at their homes and the DOE facility. monitoring should occur at least once a year, and I This is likely to require that a multimedia program more sensitive sites monitored more often. I be developed that can use and make easily I accessible the products of the geographic Monitoring locations should be decided in terms of I information systems data analysis. The geographic how well they represent a certain cultural resource. I infomation systems and multimedia system should I Monitoring samples should be selected with full I be updated eady when new infomation comes from I input from the Indian people. Monitoring I Native expert visits or science studies. It should 1 techniques will vary, from ground level photography I contain photos, video, sound clips, maps, and text. 1 of petroglyph panels to remotely sensed data from I Finally the geographic information systems and I satellites showing the distribution of plants. When I multimedia system should restrict access to certain 1 ground disturbance is to occur, Native monitors may I portions of the database to reflect both the DOE and 1 be hired to oversee activities. The results of all I the Native concerns for selective distribution of data I monitoring efforts should be provided to the I and information. I members of the consultation committee and Native Appendix ti. Attachment C c-12 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL l;NVIRONME,\TAL IMPACT STATkMEVT I sporadically; monitoring should occur at least once I those experiences." In most cases, Native people I a year, and more sensitive sites monitored more I lump most federal agencies together, so the I often. I nristakes o[ one agency art;: transferred to another. I i I Monitoring locations should he decided in term\ of I "Project analog\" is the technical term uscd to I how well they represent a certain cultural re?ource I discus\ the proceys of evaluation of a current I Monitoring samples should be selected with full I proposal in terms of past propasas. For example. I input from the Indian people. Monitoring I during the social inpct asscssnlent of the I techniques will vary. from ground level I Superconduciing Super Collider for the \rate oi I photography of petroglyph panels tc reinotelq I Michigan it was discovered (ha1 local people l sensed data from satellites showing- rhe distribution I responded to this new and quite unique proposal ~n of plants. When ground disturbance is to occur, 1 rernis of how the involved stare and federal agencies Native monitors may be hired to oversee activities. 1 had behaved with past prolccts (Stolllc et a., 1987). The results of all monitoring efforts should be Thc proposed collider. it massive iind generally provided to the members of the consultation positive project, was being evaluated in terms di committee and Native governments at regular how the Michigan Departmenr of Natural Resources intervals. Regular feedback on the condition ol had c~iidticieda piihlic access for. nunters program, cultural resources is the only way to maintain irri how a stare utility had handlea a cross-count> ongoing relationship with Indian people. pipeline project. how a cement company had dealt with air pollution. and how state politicians had C.9 Closing a Consultation proposed a prison for the area. These sinall-scale and highly localized projects were not similar in any Today, most U.S. land-managing agency initiatives respect to the Super Collider proposal, hut the local to establish American Indian consultation people drew upon them as historic analogs for relationships are intended to be ongoing because deciding whether or not to trust the state of Native people's views will become part of the Michigan and private business, and support the information base for making,- monitoring,. and 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 consnltations designed to 1 provide a narrow range of findings for the I Relations between the DOE and Anierican Indians evaluations of a project or action proposal. i began 50 years ago and is often recounted as a Sometimes the DOE facility itself is closing. I history of adversariai relationships. All lands Whatever the reason for termination, how it occurs currently held or affected by DOE facilities once has implications for both the involved Indian people belonged to an American Indian ethnic group. and the U.S. federal agency. Nonetheless, many Indian people have been employed by DOE facilities and have begun to C.9.1 Making Analogs establish positive relationships n,ith Native people focussed on ctiltural rcsonrccs. It is important at Anyone who has made a prcsentation before a tribal this moment in the history of rrlations between council or Native governmental body has Americnn Indians and the DOE to create positive experienced some council or audience member analogs. So each cffort is important. No positive standing-. u~. and talking- at length. about some other action of the DOE will go unrewarded, because I project that occurred many years in the past that did American Indians respond well to being involved in I not end in a positive way. Most presenters want to decisions ahout their traditional resources. There I say, "That is not what I am talking about, it are small and terminal consultations, hut each has I occurred a long time ago and I (or my agency) was the potential of being a positive analog. The I not involved." The point presentzd by the reniaining chapters 01. this repor-r Dnng together I American Indian, however, is well taken; "We have many of these succeshes. 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 Appendix G, Attachment C C-14 *C.S. WVEILhXLXi PRINTING OFFICE. 1996-78s-118 ~ ~____ ~