Tag: Tribal Cultural Resources

  • Shellmounds and Their Relationship to the Waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Basin

    In the Indigenous Bay Area, water and life have always gone hand-in-hand. It was impossible to tell where the sea truly ended on this coast. Even inland, the San Francisco Regions’s natural aquatic resources are used with reverence, and traded throughout the region (and beyond.) Salmon connect the sea to the rivers, streams, and lakes of California, and they are a living link shared by many Indigenous People in California.

    Did the First People of the Bay Area Benefit from the Waterbodies and Waterways through Sustenance Fishing?

    It is without any doubt that the First People of the place we now call the San Francisco Bay Area have used, worn, consumed, or cultivated almost all of the things in the pre-contact environment. This includes the natural aquatic resources of the San Francisco Bay Region.

    You already know about salmon; edible plants, like kelp, eelgrass; but, think even smaller, like byssal thread–the stuff that holds mussels together in their beds–which was mainly used as an adhesive. These are the Traditional & Cultural Tribal Beneficial uses.

    It’s established that Indigenous people engaged in Sustenance Fishing, individually.

    As a group, Tribes engaged in Tribal Sustenance Fishing by working together to catch or gather larger numbers of natural aquatic resources like fish, shellfish, and vegetation, to be able to feed their group (or Tribe).

    The shellmounds’ very existence is proof that this is true because of the sustained consumption, gathering, and use of shellfish it would take to gather the amount of shells used for the burials, and cemermonies, that shellmounds physically represent, and immortalize [as tangible evidence of this use.]

    Consider also, the sheer amount of tools, currency, jewelry, and clothing, which is made from shells proves a continuous Tribal Cultural Beneficial Use for the last 10,000 years.

    Surely, the shellmounds are the emodiment of the Traditional, Cultural, and Sustenance, Tribal Beneficial Uses for the WaterBodies of the San Francisco Bay Region?

    Yes, Indigenous People have engaged in Sustenance Fishing, and Tribal Sustenance Fishing in all of the waterbodies in the San Francisco Bay Region for at least 10,000 years. And, that Sustenance-based use directly influences the innumerable Traditional, Cultural, [and Ceremonial] uses in First People’s societies.

    Natural Aquatic Resources and Indigenous Ceremony

    The less opaque “Tribal Beneficial Use” of the waterways and waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Region (or “Basin”) are their ceremonial uses and connections.

    This is because ceremonies for things like funerals, and ancestor worship has not been performed at shellmounds regularly in the region since approximately the 1770’s [which is when the Bay Area began to be invaded, and occupied, by Spain, Mexico, and the United States (in that order.)

    But not all was lost. The First People of the San Francisco Bay Area are alive and well.]

    Shellmounds, today, exist on private property, and are inaccessible to the Indigenous people whose blood relations are buried there. While it is difficult to compel land owners to grant Easements For Tribal Beneficial Uses… Government Agencies and Departments should create policies granting such Cultural Easements For Tribal Beneficial Uses upon request.

    It should be assumed that water, and the proximity to it, played a large role in the selection of the location shellmounds, because shellmounds are found almost exclusively near the shores and riverbanks of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    We should also assume that funerary practices included natural aquatic resources (like shellfish, fish, vegetation) which were gathered and used as ceremonial objects, to make special clothing, for the ceremony, or things given to the decedent for use in the afterlife; or, to protect their body on earth; or, for other myriad reasons, including: it was their favorite [object here.]

    It’s not surprising then, that the amount of direct influence shellmounds and the waterways and waterbodies of the San Francisco Bay Region have on each other leave almost no corner of the Bay Area untouched.

    Composite map of San Francisco Bay Basin Plan Waterbodies shown in lines and polygons.

    There are three sets of data here. Just like there are three colors.

    The green features show the San Francisco Bay Basin Waterbodies.

    Yellow features are part of the wider network of waterbodies to which shellmounds are connected.

    Red features show where shellmounds and basin waterbodies are intrinsically linked.

    To get these results, I had to:

    1. Find the data.
    2. Import them into my GIS software.
    3. Fix geometries. (It helps to make a spatial index.)
    4. Reproject to NAD83 California State Plane Zone 3
    5. Find features for layers which matched the location of shellmounds within my margin of error, and with consideration to the average size of shellmounds recorded.
    6. You know, then do the cosmetic stuff, as you can see in the picture above.

    Consider the Confidentiality of Tribal Cultural Resources

    Is this a bad time to point out that N.C. Nelson’s Shellmound Map was hand-plotted, using a completely different geographic coordinate reference system? I think that matters….

    Besides that: the confidentiality of Tribal Cultural Resources has now been codified. And, providing shellmound location data to any non-indigenous organization would totally negate the idea of data sovereignty.

    Use This Information As Another Reason to Listen to Indigenous Voices

    It is an ethical obligation for Indigenous People to be included, respected, and listened to in the planning process. Not just to check the boxes on the Environmental Impact Assessment, or after a burial has already been disturbed.

    Tribal Cultural Resources, and Tribal Beneficial Uses must also be taken into account when facilities Water Treatment Plants, Oil Refineries, and Quarries, seek to renew their license to operate.

    Especially when those facilities generate large quantities of hazardous waste, endanger nearby communities, and deprive indigenous people of their beneficial use of natural aquatic resources and Tribal Cultural Resources through:

    1. The illegal occupation of unceded land. (No, for real, the treaties were never ratified. Indigenous people in the Bay Area never gave away anything, and never will.)
    2. Destruction of Tribal Cultural Resources to create infrastructure, like levees, landfills, and larger things like water treatment plants, and municipal dumps (many are on the shores of the San Francisco Bay Basin).
    3. Forced Extinction and Endangerment of Native Plants and Animals, especially whales, fish, shellfish and aquatic vegetation.
    4. The spoiling of natural resources through pollution, dumping, and paving.

    … Among other things.

    The Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Basin are not only Tribal Cultural Resources, they are intrinsically connected with the Tribal Beneficial Uses of this region’s natural aquatic resources.

  • Open Letter to City Hall: Reach out to other affected tribes before granting exclusive rights to their land

    We sent out numerous letters to City of Oakland Officials, today. [Here’s the contact list we used.] This is what the letter said:

    Alameda Native History Project
    2201 Shoreline Drive #6334
    Alameda, California 94501
    (510) 747-8423
    info@alamedanativehistoryproject.com

    October 31, 2022

    Oakland City Council
    Oakland City Hall
    1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
    Oakland, CA 94612

    -VIA EMAIL-

    Re: Proposed Cultural Conservation Easement at Joaquin Miller Park (Agenda Item #10 22-0849)

    Dear City Council Members, and Staff,

    I am writing to ask you to include all Ohlone people in the planning and consultation for the proposed cultural easement at Sequoia Point, in Joaquin Miller Park. Currently, there are only plans recognizing one Ohlone tribal group, the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.

    However, if Sequoia Point is to be treated as a Tribal Cultural Resource, then Tribal Consultation should take place with all of the Ohlone tribal groups. I know that you are familiar with Tribal Notification Requirements; so it’s especially dismaying that Tribal Consultation was not solicited from any or all of the groups in the Native American Heritage Commission’s Tribal Consultation Lists.

    These groups include, but are not limited to:

    1. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
    2. Confederated Villages of the Lisjan
    3. Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
    4. Indian Canyon Mustun Band of Costanoan
    5. Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
    6. Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe
    7. The Ohlone Indian Tribe

    Granting exclusive rights to use, and access, a Tribal Cultural Resource, as an easement in perpetuity, without consulting with other real parties in interest ( i.e., these other tribal groups) is a serious mistake that does not have to be made.

    Please reach out to other affected tribes before granting exclusive rights to their land.

    Sincerely,

    Gabriel Duncan

    Alameda Native History Project
    2201 Shoreline Drive #6334
    Alameda, California 94501
    (510) 747-8423
    info@alamedanativehistoryproject.com


  • Oakland City Council: Vote No on Ohlone Cultural Easement at Sequoia Point

    It’s not the fact that Sogorea Te Land Trust may be receiving a Cultural Conservation Easement grant of 5-acres of land, called Seqouia Point, in Oakland’s Joaquin Miller Park that bothers me.

    Or that this is the product of Libby Schaaf’s (Mayor of Oakland) unilateral dealings with Corrina Gould (Spokesperson for Sogorea Te Land Trust, alleged Tribal Chair Person of Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.)

    It’s the fact that other local Ohlone tribal groups weren’t consulted during the process of creating the easement we see proposed today.

    Also: this still isn’t LandBack. It’s just an easement.

    Land is not being conveyed from the City of Oakland, to any entity, as Sogorea Te Land Trust claims. An easement just gives them the right to use Sequoia Point as they chose, within the parameters of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the City of Oakland and Sogorea Te Land Trust. The City of Oakland retains ownership of the 5-acre area in Joaquin Miller Park–part of Oakland’s Recreation and Parks Department.

    There are some important limitations listed in the propose ordinance you can find in the City of Oakland – Calendar. This includes a clause regarding public access, as well as permit free operations within the scope of the agreement and zoning requirements.

    But this is a small part of a large document, that also excludes the Sequoia Point land grant, and (possibly) any future projects at the Point, from certain CEQA, NAGPRA, and AB52 Rules, which have requirements that projects on or near Tribal Cultural Resources must follow a consultation and scoping process with representatives of all the tribal groups of the area.

    Bypassing these requirements would completely preclude any other tribe’s rightful claim to be a part of, or hold a share of interest in, this easement. Other tribes would not get a say in what happens at Sequoia Point, a place which other Ohlone groups claim as a part of their tribal homeland. Where each of the Ohlone Tribal Groups should share an equal interest, and have an equal voice.

    The most curious part of the Agenda Report, regarding the “Cultural Conservation Easement to Sogorea Te’ Land Trust in Joaquin Miller Park” is the section marked “Public Outreach / Interest”. This section, in its entirety, states:

    City staff and the Land Trust have conducted substantial outreach. The Land Trust, both with and without City staff, met with the Friends of Joaquin Miller Park several times to receive input and feedback about the project, and the organization enthusiastically supports the project. District 4 Councilmember Sheng Thao hosted an online Town Hall about the project on September 13, 2022. More than one hundred people registered for the meeting and participants expressed strong support for the project and no opposition. The Land Trust and City staff have also presented the project multiple times to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The Commission recommended formal and enthusiastic approval at its meeting on September 14. Since the project was publicly announced on September 8, 2022, there has been a broad expression of support and enthusiasm from the public at large.

    City of Oakland Agenda Report for Item # 10 22-0849, on for City Council Meeting Nov-1-2022
    The passage above contains no mention of City Staff attempting to contact other tribal groups in the area.

    Proponents of the easement appear to have had one very popular online Town Hall, and contacted the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and the Friends of Joaquin Miller Park, for their opinions.

    But there is no mention of either City Staff, nor Sogorea Te Land Trust, reaching out to any other Ohlone Tribal Group in this area other than the Confederated Villages of the Lisjan Nation, INC.–who is conveniently fronted by the same person as the Sogorea Te Land Trust, Corrina Gould.

    Most projects or proposals on this scale would require some form of Tribal Consultation, or Scoping; this proposal especially, because–for all intents and purposes–Sequoia Point is being considered, or treated, as a Tribal Cultural Resource.

    When a city is creating an Environmental Impact Report or Assessment for any proposed public project (or project on public lands) they must exercise due diligence in requesting from the Native American Heritage Commission a list of tribes to consult regarding possible Tribal Cultural Resources possibly affected by the project, and develop ways to avoid or mitigate damage to those resources.

    This is an example of a 2019 Tribal Consultation List for Richmond, California.

    2019 Tribal Consultation List for Richmond, California – This list is public record and was included as part of an EIR filed in the City of Richmond, California.
    As you can see, there is more than one Tribal Organization to consult with. There are seven organizations on this Tribal Consultation List, next to the associated tribes composing those organizations.

    FYI: No, this list is not radically different in Oakland, California. I couldn’t find one quickly enough to use as an example. But please believe me, it looks the same, and still has more than one Tribal Organization. [… It’s also really difficult to track down one of these lists outside of an Environment Impact Report/Assessment.]

    My point is: cities are required to send letters to every single one of these organizations requesting consultation. Those letters, and replies by tribal representatives, must be filed in the Environmental Impact Report/Assessment; along with a report regarding the request for consultation and any subsequent consultation and scoping activities.

    The law requiring requests for consultations, and the consultation lists, were created and required in order to ensure that Native American land rights are respected; Native American Graves, and Cultural Resources are preserved, and protected from desecration.

    This is done by codifying the Tribal Consultation process in the California Environmental Quality Act; thereby ensuring that Native American Tribes have a voice, and a say, in what happens on their traditional homelands, to their sacred places, and tribal resources.

    The preamble of AB52, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, both specifically state this is the legislative intent of these laws.

    The well-defined and accepted procedure of the Tribal Consultation Process was not followed to create the proposed Sequoya Point Cultural Easement.

    To grant this land to one Ohlone group, without even talking to the others, is wrong; and in opposition to the Equity of all Ohlone People of the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Choosing to award one single tribal group with land grants, while simultaneously excluding all others, sows division among indigenous people. And it interferes with tribal sovereignty in a way that disenfranchises thousands of indigenous people from having ownership of a place and project that is supposed to be for them.

    The City of Oakland is meddling in tribal politics in the same way the US does in the Middle East. Or Haiti. Or any other place where people have turned around and said, “maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.” Where the actual people living in those countries have done things like burn flags, and tell us to get out. [Judgments reserved.]

    The same way that some tribes were denied recognition by the US Government for petty, arbitrary reasons from the start–just as other Tribes were arbitrarily, and capriciously unrecognized [“removed from the Tribal Rolls”] during the Termination Era for the same.

    This meddling is unwelcome, and sets a dangerous precedent across the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as California. The precedent that Tribal Consultation doesn’t matter.

    Tribal Consultation matters.

    All Ohlone Tribal Groups should be consulted, and have an equal share–and an equal voice–in the Ohlone Cultural Easement at Sequoia Point.

    Excluding the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as other tribal groups, from what’s happening at Sequoia Point, is not equitable. And the easement should not go forward without proper consultation with all affected tribes of the this area. Especially since this is a land grant made in perpetuity,


    https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/tribal/ – Governor’s Office of Planning and Research “Tribal Resources”

    PDF – Native American Heritage Commission, Tribal Consultation Under AB52: Requirements and Best Practices

    http://www.muwekma.org – Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area website


  • The Side Effects of Institutional Gatekeeping of Tribal Knowledge & Native American Sacred Sites and Cultural Assets

    From the beginning of my life, I never had the opportunity to learn about my culture, or where I was from. For the first 12 years of my life, I never even saw another Paiute person.

    This was because I was adopted at birth. I knew that I was Native American. That I should be on a reservation somewhere in Central California. But, instead, I found myself in Alameda; trying to navigate the expectations and life plans set by my new, white, parents.

    This kind of estrangement is common.

    It comes in many different forms, for many different reasons. Boarding schools are pointed to, most often. But cultural estrangement started in California with the Mission System. It continued on through Mexican Occupation, when the missions were secularized, and “Spanish” land was granted to Mexican citizens, and select Indigenous People, who were associated with the Missions as ranchers and herders, or were deeded land in some other way. This was actually the first Native American “buy-in” that occurred in California.

    When the American government came in, their imperative was to destroy or pacify people who they viewed as “savage”, and sub-human. Giving land to these people who Americans found so hard to wipe off the face of the planet was unheard of. All land, property, and wealth held by the First Californians were immediately seized, destroyed, or transferred to white interlopers.

    Some Native Americans went into hiding. Claimed to be Spanish. (They already spoke Spanish.) …Leaned into their baptismal names.

    This was the second estrangement.

    American Occupation came with a number of different attempts to destroy, pacify, and ultimately assimilate and “breed out the savage”. Each of these attempts divided (and sub-divided) tribal groups; moved us farther and farther away from our homelands, each other, and purposely tried to destroy everything linking us to the old ways. This was a sophisticated attempt at genocide, and population control; and people need to stop minimizing effects of this recent history on Indigenous People in America, today.

    Native American People have been forced to live as Prisoners of War since the 17th Century. For more than three centuries, Indian Children and Infants were taken from their families, and placed into Missions, Orphanages, Boarding Schools, and worse. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was legal for White Women to take Indian Children away from their families, and keep them as “wards”. [Like in the series “Them”.]

    So it’s not uncommon for a Native American Person to be so estranged from their family and culture. To have such a conflicted self-image of what it means to be Native American, and what Native American really is. For Spanglish to be spoken on the rez out here, in California. For former “Mission Indians” to be so heavily involved in the Catholic Church, and the veneration of the Missions.

    But what if a Native American Descendant from California doesn’t want to go to the Catholic or Mormon church to find out about their own people?

    What if they’re tired of listening to a narrative from white people’s perspective? From the Eastern U.S. perspective of tribes like Dine, Lakota, Sioux? From the perspective of people who view Native America as a homogeneous group?

    Where does someone go to find the stories of their specific tribe? The songs of the place they come from? Pictures of their ancestors? The history of their reservation? Where their ancestors lived before that?

    Where do you go when your only sources are generic, pan-Indian narratives, and single-page, one-sentence mentions of your tribe?

    I decided to search historic newspapers, museums, government, and institutional records.

    Historic Newspapers are hard to locate. And even harder to read for free. Many of these newspapers were taken out of circulation, and stored on microfilm. Even more are locked behind Ancestry.com (and affiliate) pay gates, specifically. It is interesting to note that “Ancestry” is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, though.

    Museums store items by the Date Received; not by Keyword, or Subject–which shows that Museums have historically been about accounting and fundraising more than they were about collecting items which they intend to reference, much less curate. This makes the situation even more problematic, because researchers are expected to do the work of tracking something down, and often times creating a new library information system in the process. [Basically, re-cataloging every single object to find the two or three that were actually being sought after.]

    The amount of free labor some museums get on the backs of unpaid researchers is very disproportionate to the amount of useful information researchers actually find when laboring for said museums.

    Government Records only had to be stored for a certain period of time. Certainly, anything more than 100 years old was more likely to be destroyed, than it was preserved. Much of the City of Alameda records were converted to microfilm; combined with transcriptions of the Official Alameda Newspaper of Record, then simply labeled “Historic Rolls”.

    Much of these rolls contained little to no useful information, and was simply a transcribed duplicate of several newspaper reels, which were also available. Still, missing records stymied my search. It almost seemed as if things were intentionally removed from the City of Alameda Historical Record between 1910, and 1960.

    Other cities which were consulted, like Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Hayward, do not have historic newspapers from before the early 1900’s. These inquiries were usually passed on to local museums. Then on to local genealogical and historic societies–where the inquiry usually died. This is to say that there are no contrasting reports available from other historical newspapers (yet.)

    Governmental Chain of Custody

    Furthermore, because of the changeover from Spanish, to Mexican, to American hands: the chain of custody of important documents was broken each time the land changed hands. The U.S. Government was not interested in keeping prior records[; which also explains the fundamental lack of understanding of tribal cultures American anthropologists still experience to this day.]

    This is why the “California Land Grants” case happened, in 1851. Because rich Mexicans (and Spanish ex-pats) were getting jilted out of their land they had old titles to, by white people, who claimed their American land deed superseded any other. (I mean, this is consistent with the U.S. policy of west-ward expansion during the late 1800’s, to test Mexico’s control over ‘The West’, and eventually gain control of California–among other territories.)

    Mission/Spanish/Mexican records are still somewhat of a mystery and records were basically abandoned “as the vine withered”.

    This is because many of the missions and forts Spain installed in California were actually remote forward operating bases.

    Paperwork flowed back through California, to Mexico, and over the Atlantic Ocean, to Spain–when everything was working as planned. This organization was already broken down by “Corporate Office”, “Regional Managers”, “District Managers”, “Store Managers”, “Shift Managers”, and Baristas.

    So, when the Spanish were sent back to Spain, those documents stayed here, were hastily mailed out, or were destroyed.

    When the Missions were secularized, those documents were abandoned, taken by cardinals (or whoever), or destroyed.

    Anything that wasn’t specifically removed and preserved was probably destroyed in the [totally righteous] fires that destroyed many of the the San Francisco Bay Area Catholic Missions the first time.

    So, when it comes time to track down the records of these organizations; it’s necessary to chase them all the way back to the original departments and agencies which created them. This search almost always leads to institutions like the University of California, at Berkeley.

    Why? Because, it turns out, the University of Berkeley Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, and the U.C. Berkeley Library has the largest collection of relevant materials within 50 miles.

    Institutional Records and Academic Studies

    Academic Institutions, like The Smithsonian, and the University of California, made their names on robbing the graves of Native American and Indigenous People all around the world.

    Thousands upon thousands of bones, and cultural artifacts are in the custody of these institutions, waiting to be returned to their descendants, and laid to rest in the manner of each of their hundreds of individual tribes. More than half of the remains are “tribally unaffiliated”; and stay in limbo, because they have no living descendant to receive them, and no ancestral land to be laid to rest in.

    The “researchers” who did this physically separated people from their final resting places, mixed and miss-matched parts of other people’s bodies together, failed to properly label our ancestors, and now have what amounts to a “spare parts bin” of archaeological malfeasance.

    As much as Archaeologists and Anthropologists would like you to believe the opposite, these bones were found by systematically cutting open cemeteries, and removing rows of bodies under the guise of “legitimate scientific research”.

    They did this all the while wondering, “Where did these people disappear to?”

    Knowing full well that Indian Wars were raging nearby.

    Conflicts such as:

    Sioux Wars – 1854-1891 in the Great Plains
    Ute Wars – 1850-1923 in Utah
    Apache Wars – 1854-1924 in the South-West

    They wondered…

    Even with the knowledge that an Indian Reservation or Indian Town existed within 100 miles of any place mentioned in any anthropological or archaeological study/survey from 1860-1920.

    These “ethnologists”, anthropologists and archaeologists were living through the California Land Grant Cases.

    Anybody in the business of “antiquity” should well know the whereabouts and disposition of any of the Indigenous People whose graves, bones, and property they were “studying”, or auctioning off to private collectors.

    Especially when the battles were making front page news daily.

    There is no answer for this willful ignorance, and unethical exclusion of important facts and datum. The narrative of Native American History, as told by colonizers, is full of these types of falsities, and lies by omission. And things like this really call to question the accuracy, and reliability of any of these works.

    If you can even get access to them.

    Institutional Gatekeeping of Tribally Affiliated Knowledge/Artifacts

    Because Universities, Museums, and other Grave Robbers (“hunters of antiquities”, “tomb raiders”, etc.)–as well as Ethnologists, Linguists, and Archaeologists–stole bodies; sacred, ceremonial, and cultural artifacts; caused the damage and loss of cultural land and sites; and attributed Native American intellectual property to themselves, instead of to the Native American creators of said property;

    And,

    Because of the sustained and forceful objections to the theft and kidnapping of Native American Bodies and Culture by Native Americans, and The Public; as well as demands for the return of Native American Remains and Items & Artifacts:

    The Native American Graves Repatriation Act was enacted Federally, and by the State of California to protect the Graves, Remains, Cultural Sites, Artifacts, and Other Native American Objects within the State; as well as to create a framework for the repatriation of Native American remains in the possession of Universities and Institutions.

    The Native American Heritage Commission was created in California to directly administer these efforts. In 1982, the Commission was authorized to make a determination of “Most Likely Descendant” when Native American remains are found. Most Likely Descendants are people or tribal groups who have documented ties to the land where Native American Graves were disturbed, and Native American bodies have been found. The Native American Heritage Commission is charged with assisting Tribal Notification, and the process of Tribal Consultation by the Most Likely Descendants.

    The tribal consultation process only offers two ways to “mitigate” the damage to Native American Graves, Remains, Landmarks, Objects, and/or other Funerary Things:

    1. Re-bury the remains in a place where they will not be disturbed;
    2. Remove the remains, and return them to the Most Likely Descendant for proper burial.

    The process of notification goes something like this:

    1. Human remains found, notification to Coroner.
    2. Coroner determines remains are Native American, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (CalNAHC).
    3. CalNAHC provides a notification list to property owner. This list contains the contact information for Tribal Groups who are Most Likely Descendant(s) of the Native American body found.
    4. Tribal Group is notified and only has a certain amount of time to make a response as to how the Native American remains should be treated, or how a project can avoid disturbing cultural resources.

    If the Tribe does not respond within 30 days of notice, the developer or property owner will be able to continue work, unencumbered by the Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act. And, in the case of housing development, the building process will be allowed to be streamlined, via AB 831, an act relating to housing, and declaring the urgency thereof.

    But, if the Most Likely Descendant and Property Owner are not able to reach a compromise….

    Say the MLD wants absolutely no more development of the land; and the property owner (CalTrans, Ruegg & Ellsworth, San Rafael Rock Quarry, etc.) is unable to reach a compromise, the desecration will be allowed to continue if the developer simply alleges they tried their best. The construction just won’t be “streamlined”, and will have to go through the normal Environmental Assessment procedure; and will likely still result in the destruction or desecration of Tribal Cultural Resources.

    The aforementioned refers to situations where Native American Graves and/or Remains (funerary objects, etc.) have been found.

    CalNAHC also plays a role when Public Entities, like Caltrans, Amtrak, Los Angeles Public Works, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Bay Recreation and Parks Department, the City of Menlo Park, etc., want to develop anything on what’s considered “public land” or subsidized by public funds.

    We’re talking: Public Works Projects, Improvement Projects…. Things which translate into freeway on or off-ramps, giant rain water caches underneath Glen Cove Park (in Vallejo, California), water pumps in Alameda, Treasure Island, San Francisco… BART stations, Water Treatment Plants… And more.

    All of these places around us started as project proposals.

    And each proposal needs to comply with local, state, and federal law. Each facility, site, or subject property–after being built–needs to operate in compliance with local state, and federal law.

    Namely: CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act.

    CEQA was one of the first set of laws that recognized Native American Graves, Objects, etc., as being valuable, and worth saving.

    Because of CEQA, when these proposed public works projects, projects on public land, or projects using public money, are submitted, they are also required to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

    You’ve probably seen the Public Notice of Hearing(s) that are posted on the front of buildings, or on the fences outside of where buildings once stood.

    These are Required Notices to The Public. You. These hearings decide the very fate of the sacred places which have, up to this point, become Shopping Malls, and Subdivisions with Waterside Parks.

    These Notices tell you when a Water Treatment Plant, Waste Management Facility, Shooting Range, or Quarrying Operation has an upcoming Permit Hearing.

    In fact, multi-year operations, like the San Rafael Rock Quarry, are required to resubmit an Environmental Impact Report periodically, and submit to a public hearing (to the County Board of Supervisors, in this case), to keep their permits, and continue operating.

    These EIA’s are often very long (more than 40 pages,) and contain a multitude of very technical information regarding the current state of the land intended to be “used”, and the speculative impact of the operations intended upon said land (e.g. pollution, destruction of natural habitat, etc.) The specifics change with every project. However, the demands of the Environmental Impact Assessment remain constant.

    Recently, the passage of Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) codified the inclusion of a single question regarding “Tribal Cultural Resources”:

    Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

    a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

    b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.”

    Because of this, the California Native American Heritage Commission is charged with yet another duty: maintaining a Tribal Contact List for CEQA Purposes, per AB 52 (CA PRC §21080.3.1…); and when Cities and Municipalities create their General Plan [among other things], per SB 18 (CA GOV §65352.3).

    The California Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, and the authoritative statutes empowering the California Native American Heritage Commission, specifically state the importance of the “confidentiality of information regarding specific identity, location, character, and use of those [Native American] places, features, and objects.”

    In the courts, this has often played out as the misreading of statute from “confidential” to “secret”. However, statutes surrounding the confidentiality of Native American (Tribal) Cultural Resources simply state that NAHC is “not required” to disclose certain records, or information specifically enumerated in the California Government, and Health & Safety Codes.

    The statutory scheme, as it stands:

    requires Tribal Cultural Assets to be listed (in a confidential appendix) in Environmental Impact Assessments. The specific information regarding the Tribal Cultural Resource is hidden. But general, non-confidential information regarding the Existence Of A Tribal Cultural Resource that could be significantly effected by a proposed project should be published and made available to the general public. [PRC §21082.3(f)]

    These public sections of the Proposed Environment Impact Report, or Proposed Negative Impact (“Declaration”), which mentions “Tribal Cultural Resources”, will be small. Maybe the heading won’t even catch your eye. And the “general information” presented on the document will minimize the existence of Tribal Cultural Resources, even though the report is supposed to clarify how significantly the Tribal Cultural Resource will be affected.

    In fact, the EIR, or Negative Impact Declaration, is supposed to tell you how damage to Tribal Cultural Resources could have been mitigated, or the circumstances behind why the destruction of Tribal Cultural Resources was “unavoidable”. It should say whether or not Tribal Consultation (or “Scoping Activities”) were conducted or concluded, or if an agreement was reached with the direct Lineal, or Most Likely Descendants of the Tribal Cultural Resource.

    The EIR, or Negative Impact Declaration should make it clear whether or not the tribe even responded to invitations for consultation. That information should be in bold. But it’s not. And, who actually knows how to read an Environmental Impact Report?

    At some point, we have to realize that our ignorance is being taken advantage of every day.

    The fact that we are distracted every single waking second is an advantage that is being leveraged against us in the long wars of attrition against corporations and governments who want nothing more than to exploit our land, and tear the bodies of our ancestors out of the ground to build condos that cost $1.5-2M, each.

    This is why property owners refuse to register Native American Historical Sites. Because this land is worth more money than many of the people who live on it will see in our entire lives. This land is worth more than us. And erasing us, or creating a statutory scheme that makes it easy to disregard Native American objections to the desecration and theft of our land, also makes money for themselves while they do it.

    This is a Billion dollar industry that Native American “Consultants” are sucking the dew off of in only the most parasitic, “bottom-feeder” kind of way. The disrespect to the bodies of our elders. Our great grandparents…. It’s all just for the zero’s.

    No matter how the statute is written. No matter how much commitment legislators and politicians can claim to have, the easy-out that Developers and Governmental Agencies has hinges upon the responsibility of a Tribal Organization to respond to these “invitations” for tribal “scoping” and “consultation”.

    The statute presupposes that Government Agencies and Developers are law-abiding. But, when it comes to the required “consultation” with Native American Tribes, Lineal, or Most Likely Descendants… all of the exceptions hinge upon the “nonparticipation” of Native Americans.

    (d) In addition to other provisions of this division, the lead agency may certify an environmental impact report or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource only if one of the following occurs:

    (1) The consultation process between the California Native American tribe and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded [in an agreement with Tribal Consultants.]

    (2) The California Native American tribe has requested consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, or otherwise failed to engage, in the consultation process.

    (3) The lead agency has complied with subdivision (d) of Section 21080.3.1 and the California Native American tribe has failed to request consultation within 30 days.

    Assembly Bill 52

    According to Assembly Bill 831, housing projects meeting the above criteria would still be “streamlined”, removing most of the public response and permit hurdles necessary for quick development.

    The problem is that Native American Graves, Cemeteries, Cultural Sites, and Sacred Lands are still being given the green-light for demolition.

    They are being rubber-stamped for desecration by a function of law that simply added Notification, and “Due Process” instead of actual Justice, and Accountability.

    There must be a way to advocate for Native American Tribal Cultural Resources, like Graves, Cemeteries, and Sacred Places, when Lead Agencies and Private Developers receive no response through the Tribal Contact List.

    Either the Native American Heritage Commission must step up for all of these places, or they need to devise an apparatus that will allow true conservation work (the very basis of NAHC’s Mission) to take place without them.


    Stay tuned for more.