California Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Project Cultural Resources Surveying: Ethnographic Resources Candidate Site Selection Phase Item Type Report Authors Stoffle, Richard W.; Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Publisher Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Download date 24/09/2021 06:40:47 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/271232 C Ud0UU3GCSYMY DQ of DDDI YE SUMS SELEMiliO P11-1144ZE Cultural Systems Research, Inc. For WEeo1ogy June 1987 CALIFORNIA LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY PROJECT .......... ....................................:.V::::::.::................... .......... .....:....:........ï ... :;'ÿá }}::{?; x: vi:R;:: ::>::`:: :v:v:r{:: ::'r}}i:{:. ..1... :::::::.::ï:::}'r:: i:: .. .}Y{}:}:{' :?}}?:; _.n. ...N r.VW : ?i:'j '.%{. .}}; :r:.;;.v: r v4i:' ::?/}.f?{r'}i}i:hnf:r4}:}:?}:??}}:ï'::\}:'f r r v :::: ::: r:: ; :: y;,: ::'>:?.}4v}v::?.r'.. ï .,4' :w:?Y::.'v'f'{4.7¿ny.;h;::%;"Y;.n`:}S{':+ f.,.,.,yr,rï.,r,..! : ::v: ?':.Y{r{:f{.ï}:.}v:.ti .}??,.^,{v '.:,..{id!b.'.$: v. ?f..'::x?r:..ri.: $}}v.:?ç3:^}}i{}:.ï: 'F+C::^ï ::::...f.:.,{ ?v.:{ 'rr :. ..:{.}_ ÿ" f{{::}' , .1.}' {i:ti:.. r:;r . i?f.::: }.: vY :rv}:ï :v}4vJ.}:-} f.n r 8!. Y:.J:r::.;.. '.. }. :ï }C'.¡ti : . :: .. ....;. v.ti;x ::. :: ' ...... ,ía"..a}: ... A{r: ;Y;obvs óuyç-0gy,&xp .... .: .:. ........... : ..ï . ...; .. ...... .. ... 7cw,5,:. f¡ .: M: f . ..4i \M1:{: :.:¿:k}:< '}: , dS { . k . .-. tiv.\' t k.`}:{'.}¡{?,:}}r:}:::$'r}}:v:::J};${:5;;::_:r:',v.}', :. ...,,:'.;?'...t. ^.';.:tfá::^:}4.titik .+ .. .. ..................(f:::: ::.:: f:{: ?ti ':r ' Y ppppçQgq;ç . i:'. :v;{.i k{{{;C, {4f ' A . ; K'^Sr .::,: I ti: ''' r.:.: ..r{ti ;'. 1 {{,,,, . :vA: kJCf . 'JfC;Vr,r.yy}:Vÿ' ?' }.};.\Y\ fr :r.4.11 ::.t'}V{}fy.r,+,.,.,r}:+{ r..82'f}r,+: L^ .:dr..{,cfzc }titi;w'vi '+.'vi k. {..iÑlv3' ,' r;.;r.:v CALIFORNIA LOW -LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYING: ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES CANDIDATE SITE SELECTION PHASE Report Prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. 823 Valparaiso Avenue Menlo Park, California 94025 for US Ecology,. Inc. 1600 Dove St. Suite 408 Newport Beach, California 92660 June 30, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Acknowledgements v CSRI Staff vi List of Maps vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Phase I 2 Phase II 4 Phase III 5 CHAPTER II. THEORY 7 PHASE I REPORT CHAPTER III. PHASE I METHOD 9 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS OF RESEARCH CRITERIA. 14 TRADITIONAL HOMELANDS OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE STUDY AREA 18 NUMIC- SPEAKING PEOPLES 20 Western Shoshoneans 20 Kawaiisu 20 Owens Valley Paiute 21 Chemehuevi /Southern Paiute 21 TAKIC - SPEAKING PEOPLES 22 Serrano /Vanyume 22 Cahuilla 26 YUMAN- SPEAKING PEOPLES 26 Mohave 26 Quechan 28 ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY . .30 NUMIC- SPEARING PEOPLES 30 Western (Panamint) Shoshone 30 Ethnography 30 Ethnohistory 35 Southern Numic- Speaking Peoples: Kawaiisu. .40 Ethnography 40 Ethnohistory 42 Southern Numic- Speaking Peoples: Southern Paiutes /Chemehuevi 44 Ethnography 44 Ethnohistory 47 TAKIC - SPEAKING PEOPLES 52 The Cahuilla and the Serrano /Vanyume 52 Ethnography 52 Ethnohistory 55 YUMAN- SPEAKING PEOPLES 61 Mohave 61 Ethnography 61 Ethnohistory 65 Quechan 69 Ethnography 69 Ethnohistory 69 SENSITIVE SITES 71 1. Bristol Lake Basin 72 2. Broadwell Lake Basin 72 3. Cadiz Lake Basin 72 4. Coyote Lake Basin 73 5. Cronese Lake Basin 73 6. Danby Lake /Ward Valley Basin 74 7. Mesquite Drainage Basin 75 8. Pahrump Valley 75 9 and 10. Palen and Ford Lake Basins 76 11. Panamint Valley 77 12. Saline Valley 78 13. Searles Lake 81 14. Sheep Hole Basin 81 15. Silurian Lake Basin 81 16. Silver Lake Basin 82 17. Soda Lake Basin 82 18. Superior Valley 83 PHASE II AND III REPORT 84 CHAPTER V. PHASE II AND PHASE III METHODS 85 A. Phase II Methods 85 Chronology 86 Preliminary Tasks 86 Kawaiisu 89 TAKIC - SPEAKING PEOPLES San Manuel Indian Reservation 90 Morongo Indian Reservation 90 Agua Caliente Indian Reservation 90 Torres - Martinez Indian Reservation 91 Cabezon Indian Reservation 92 YUMAN- SPEAKING PEOPLES 92 Quechan Indian Reservation 92 Mohave 93 NUMIC- SPEAKING PEOPLES 93 Western (Panamint) Shoshone 93 Chemehuevi: Chemehuevi Indian Reservatio 94 Chemehuevi: Twentynine Palms Indian Reservation 94 Southern Paiute 95 BARSTOW URBAN INDIAN COMMUNITY 96 B. PHASE III METHODS 97 CHRONOLOGY OF FIELD WORK 97 CHAPTER VI. RESULTS OF RESEARCH 103 RESULTS OF OFF -SITE CONSULTATIONS (PRIMARILY PHASE II) 103 Introduction 103 Criteria 105 ii Kawaiisu 109 Takic- Speaking Peoples: The Cahuillas and Serranos . 116 Quechan 119 Panamint /Death Valley Shoshone 120 Native American Concerns: Colorado River and Pahrump. .123 Ethnic and Tribal Group Concerns: Introduction ..125 Mohave Expressed Concerns 126 General Concerns: Health Risks 126 General Concerns: The Desert as a Sacred Place 126 General Concerns: Plants and Animals . 128 Specific Concerns: Introduction 128 Ward Valley Water 128 Ward Valley Plants and Animals 128 Summary of Mohave Concerns 129 Najavo Expressed Concerns 129 General Concerns: Introduction 129 General Concerns: Plant Use 130 Specific Concerns: Southern Ward Valley and Cadiz Valley 131 Danby Camp: Indian Homes 131 Chemehuevi Expressed Concerns 131 General Concerns: Introduction 131 Water 132 Plants and Animals 132 Specific Concerns: Sacred Trails 132 Ward and Palen Valley Plants and Animals. 134 Mountain Cave 134 Summary of Chemehuevi Concers 135 Southern Paiute Expressed Concerns 136 General Concerns: Water 136 Attachment to Place 136 Plants and Animals 136 Transportation 137 Specific Concerns: Introduction 138 Animals 138 Hunting 139 Sacred Sites 139 Proximity to Homes 139 Summary of Southern Paiute Concerns 140 SUMMARY OF TRIBAL CONCERNS: COLORADO RIVER GROUPS 141 RESULTS OF TRIPS TO CANDIDATE SITING AREAS (PHASE III) Bristol 143 Broadwell 144 Cadiz 145 Chuckwalla 145 Coyote /Alvord 146 Danby 147 Fenner North 147 Fenner South 149 Pahrump 150 Panamint 154 Searles Central 155 iii Searles South 156 Silurian 157 Silver 158 Soda North 158 Ward Valley 159 REFERENCES 161 Appendix: Tribal Addresses iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In conducting this study, CSRI has had the assistance of many individuals and institutions. Foremost among the many whom we wish to thank are the Tribal Chairpersons and other Native Americans who were so generous with their time and energy. In addition, we wish to express our gratitude to the following: U. S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Ethnographer Robert Laidlaw Garth Portillo Patricia McLean Joan Oxendine California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Richard Milanovich Paige Talley Sacramento office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs The Phoenix office Dr. Catherine Fowler of the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno Lester Ross of the San Bernardino County Museum Daniel McCarthy Michael Lerch Dr. Phil Wilkie, Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California, Riverside Harry Lawton, authority on southern California history and ethnography CSRI STAFF Principal Investigators: Lowell John Bean, Ph.D. Sylvia Brakke Vane, M.A. Field Ethnographers: Nancy Peterson Walter, Ph.D. Jackson Young, B.A. Research Assistant and Secretary: Karla Young, B.A. From the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Richard W. Stoffle, Ph.D. Michael J. Evans, M.A. Florence V. Jensen vi LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Siting Study Area 10 Map 2. Traditional Territories of Numic- Speaking People. .19 Map 3. Showing Cahuilla and Serrano Territory within California 24 Map 4. Showing Mohave and Quechan Territory at Western edge of Southwest 27 Map Set 1. Candidate Siting Areas Showing Sensitivity Ratings 161 vii CHAPTER I.INTRODUCTION This report describes the results of an ethnographic study per- formed by Cultural Systems Research,Incorporated (CSRI)for US Ecology, Inc.The study Is part of US Ecology's efforts to select a site for the disposal of Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) for the State of California, and describes the work undertaken prior to selection of three candidate sites by - US Ecology.A detailed description of the overall process leading to this decision in contained in "Candidate Sites Selection Report" (US Ecology, June, 1987). Additional ethnographic studies are scheduled as part of US Ecolo- gy's efforts to compare the three candidate sites.The results will play apartinselectingasinglepreferredsitefordisposalfacility development.A separate report by CSRI will include information gained in that phase of work. Federal legislation (Low -Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, Public Law 96 -573) makes states responsible for disposal of LLRW, which medical, educational, research, and industrial facilities generate. Guidelines for disposal of the wastes were provided by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on January 26,1983(10 CFR 61).The State of California in AB 1513 in 1982 and SB342 in 1983 directed the Department of Health Services to draft a plan for the management,treatmentanddisposalof LLRW thatmetthe NRC regulations, and to choose a private company to select a site and develop a facility. The California Department of Health Services applied the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission'ssitescreeningcriteriatothestate,and developed a composite map that showed the desert of southeastern Cali- fornia to be the largest area likely to meet the criteria.US Ecology, having been selected by the California Department of Health Services as its license designee to site, build and operate California's Low Level 1 Radioactive Waste (LLRW) disposal site, proceeded in the spring of1986 to choose a number of