Native American Concerns and State of California Low- Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility: Mohave, Navajo, Chemehuevi, and Nevada Paiute Responses Item Type Report Authors Stoffle, Richard W.; Evans, Michael; Jensen, Florence Publisher Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Download date 28/09/2021 10:04:23 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/271233 DRAFT NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOW -LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY: MOHAVE, NAVAJO, CHEMEHUEVI, AND NEVADA PAIUTE RESPONSES Report Submitted To: Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Menlo Park, California Submitted by: Richard W. Stoffle Michael J. Evans Florence V. Jensen With the Assistance of: Weldon Johnson, Sr. Dan Bulletts Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan July 15, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: PROJECT AND METHODS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 4 FORMAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS 4 DAY -BY -DAY CHRONOLOGY 6 CHAPTER TWO: NATIVE AMERICAN EXPRESSED CONCERNS 10 CONCERNS: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC 10 CONCERNS: ETHNIC GROUP AND TRIBAL GROUP 12 MOHAVE INDIAN EXPRESSED CONCERNS 12 MOHAVE GENERAL CONCERNS 12 Health Risks 12 The Desert as a Sacred Place 12 Water 13 Plants and Animals 14 MOHAVE SPECIFIC CONCERNS 14 Ward Valley Water 14 Ward Valley Plants and Animals 14 SUMMARY OF MOHAVE CONCERNS 15 NAVAJO INDIAN EXPRESSED CONCERNS 15 NAVAJO GENERAL CONCERNS 15 Plant Use 15 NAVAJO SPECIFIC CONCERNS 16 Southern Ward Valley and Cadiz Valley 16 Danby Section Camp: Indian Homes 16 CHEMEHUEVI EXPRESSED CONCERNS 17 CHEMEHUEVI GENERAL CONCERNS 17 Water 17 Plants and Animals 17 CHEMEHUEVI SPECIFIC CONCERNS 18 Sacred Trails 18 Ward and Palen Valley Plants and Animals . 19 Mountain Cave 19 SUMMARY OF CHEMEHUEVI CONCERNS 19 NEVADA PAIUTE EXPRESSED CONCERNS 20 NEVADA PAIUTE GENERAL CONCERNS 20 Water 20 Attachment to Place - Pahrump Valley 20 Attachment to Place - Silurian Valley 20 Plants and Animals 20 Transportation 21 Wind 21 NEVADA PAIUTE SPECIFIC CONCERNS 21 Plants 22 Animals 22 Hunting 23 Sacred Sites 23 Proximity to Homes 23 SUMMARY OF NEVADA PAIUTE CONCERNS 23 SUMMARY OF INDIAN ETHNIC CONCERNS 24 CHAPTER 3: NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS DERIVED FROM ON -SITE VISITS 26 PAHRUMP CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS . 28 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 28 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 30 Water 30 Wind 30 Desert Tortoise 30 Sacred Sites 31 CHUCKWALLA -FORD CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 32 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 32 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 32 DANBY CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 32 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 32 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 32 Plants 32 Animals 35 WARD VALLEY CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS . 35 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 35 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 37 Plants and Animals 37 Camping Areas 37 BRISTOL CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS . 37 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 39 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 39 CADIZ CANDIDATE SITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 39 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 39 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 41 FENNER VALLEY -NORTH CANDIDATESITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 41 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 41 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 41 FENNER VALLEY -SOUTH CANDIDATESITING AREA: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 43 DESCRIPTION OF ZONES 43 DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS 43 Plants and Animals 43 Historic Occupation 45 CHAPTER 4:NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS DERIVED FROM INTENSIVE WALKOVERS 46 SILURIAN VALLEY: EXPRESSED CONCERNS 47 Plants 47 Animals 48 WARD VALLEY: MOHAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS 48 ii Plants 48 Animals 48 Insects 49 Minerals 49 WARD VALLEY: CHEMEHUEVI EXPRESSED CONCERNS 49 Plants 49 Animals 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY 51 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Siting Objectives and Criteria 52 APPENDIX 2: Developing a L -LRWD Site 56 APPENDIX 3: Tribal Addresses 60 APPENDIX 4: Chronology of Ethnographic Work 63 APPENDIX 5: Tribal Resolutions 70 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Analysis of Interactions - November 5 TABLE 2: Analysis of Interactions - January 7 TABLE 3: Analysis of Interactions - Total 8 LIST OF MAPS MAP A: Siting Study Map 2 MAP B: Candidate Siting Areas 27 MAP C: Pahrump Candidate Siting Area 29 MAP D: Chuckwalla -Ford Candidate Siting Area 33 MAP E: Danby Candidate Siting Area 34 MAP F: Ward Valley Candidate Siting Area 36 MAP G: Bristol Candidate Siting Area 38 MAP H: Cadiz Candidate Siting Area 40 MAP I: Fenner Valley -North Candidate Siting Area 42 MAP J: Fenner Valley -South Candidate Siting Area 44 iii CHAPTER ONE: PROJECT AND METHODS INTRODUCTION This is a Phase 1 ethnographic study regarding American Indian concerns specific to a proposed State of California low -level radioactive waste facility. The State of California is required to find a location for their own low -level radioactive waste by the U.S.Congress in the Low -Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law 96 -573). This Congressional Act was set into motion because the Statesof Nevada and Washington refused to be,in their words,"the low -level radioactive waste dumping ground forthe entire U.S." (Leagueof Women Voters 1984:2). Guidelinesfor the disposalof low -level radioactive waste were provided by the federal government through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 26,1983 (Chapter 10, Part 61, Code of Federal Regulations). Consistent with the federal guidelines, the State of California adopted a set of criteria (see Appendix 1) for finding a low -level disposal facility. Initial screening of possiblesites by the California State Department of Health Services indicated further considerationof 18 geological basinsin southeastern California (see Map A). The State hired U.S. Ecology to continue the screening process of looking for a technically suitable site. U.S. Ecology is proceeding with the selection of a candidate site in three phases (see Appendix 2 for more details) as agreed to by the State of California. - Phase 1. During Phase 1 the 18geological basins -- a study area of over 7,000 square miles -- were evaluated forsite suitability. From this evaluation 16 smaller site candidate areas were identified (see Map B). After additional studyand review, 3 to 5 candidate sites will be chosen. -Phase 2. During Phase 2 the 3 to 5 sites will be intensively studied and a preferred candidate site will be chosen. - Phase 3. During Phase 3 theCalifornia State Department of Health Services will have an independent environmental assessment conducted. Applications for the license will be considered during this period. One site will be chosen for the low -level radioactive disposal facility. 1 Native American concerns have been considered during Phase 1 and Phase 2 and are expected to be considered throughout the following phases. Phase 1(January 1986 to early 1987)involved eliminating portions of the 18basins based upon inputsfrom public meetings, a Citizens' Advisory Committee, state and federal agencies, and available scientific findings.Phase 2 (February 1987 to early 1988)involved intensive study of three primary sites, each being 4 square miles in area. Native American concerns came fromthoserecorded duringprevious Environment Impact Assessments, comments by Indian people at public meetings, and the Indian representative on the Citizens' Advisory Committee who was chosen by the Native American Heritage Commission. Interviews with potentially affected tribes began in October, 1986. U.S. Ecology hired the private consulting firm Cultural Systems Research, Inc. to coordinate the ethnographic interviews. Three ethnographic research teams were asked to conduct interviews among the 19 potentially affected tribes(see Appendix 3 for a list of tribal contacts). One of these three ethnographic teams -- headed by Richard Stoffle at the University of Michigan -- was asked to conduct interviews among the (1) Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, (2) Colorado River Indian Tribes, (3) Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, (4) Pahrump Indian Group, (5) Las Vegas Paiute Indian Tribe, and (6) Moapa Paiute Indian Tribe. This reportis based upon three periods of ethnographic research. The first interview period occurred between September 1, 1986 and December 1,1986. The second interview period occurred between January 5, 1987 and January 16, 1987. The third interview period occurred between April 13, 1987 and May 2, 1987. The first set of ethnographic interviews focussed on Native American cultural concerns that were located anywhere within the 18 geologic basins. Because the study area was so extensive, it was inappropriate to travel with Indian people to any of the areas under consideration. Interviews were conducted with Indian people in their homes orat the tribal office.These concerns were presented in the first draft of this report which was issued on December 1, 1986. Native American concerns expressed during the first interviews were utilized -- along with other types of exclusionary criteria -- in narrowing the areas under consideration from 18 basins to 16 smaller site candidate areas. Wherever "site- specific" (see next chapter for definition) cultural features were identified by the Indian people, these areas were excluded from further consideration. Most "semi- specific" concerns also were excluded from further consideration (see next chapter for details). The second set of ethnographic interviews focussed on the 16 site candidate areas.These study areas, while much smaller in 3 area than the initial 18 geological basins, were still too large and too dispersed to have each one visited by each potentially affected tribe. These ethnographic interviews, therefore, involved bringing at least one tribal elder to one of the 16 site candidate areas. The tribe was asked to select the elder or elders they wished to represent