We are posting the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 because it is relevant to what Native Scents does and to the communities that we serve.

We hope you find it useful.

The PDFs below had to be broken into seveal peices because the original 330-page document was to large for me to upload all at one time. 


AIRFA – Pages 1 – 52

AIRFA – Pages 53 – 104

AIRFA – Pages 104 – 136

AIRFA – Pages 137 – 181

AIRFA – Pages 182 – 230

AIRFA – Pages 231 – 287

AIRFA – Pages 288 – 330


The text below was converted to text from a PDF.

There are may typos due to that conversion. 



ED 190 329.

RC 012 180 TITLE

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

INSTITUTION Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

NOTE339p.: Some pages may not reproduce well due to small or broken type.

EDPS PRICE MF01/PC14 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS-Alaska Natives: *American Indian Culture: *American Indians: Attitudes: Beliefs: Conservation (Environment): Cultural Background: *Federal IndianRelationship: Federal Legislation: Government Role:
Hawaiians: Land Use: *Religion: Religious Conflict: *Religious Discrimination: Tribes: Trust Responsibility (Government):
-United States History: Values IDENTIFIERS* American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978: Cemeteries: *Cultural Preservation: ReligiousFreedom: Rituals: Traditionalism



The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 requires federal agencies to respect the customs, ceremonies, and traditions of Native American religions. This report and its recommendations are the result of a multi-agency cooperative effort with Native traditional and tribal leaders to assure that the interference and insensitivity of the past will not be repeated in future practice. Part I provides an historical treatment of the pertinent events and actions which have resulted in the protection of the religious freedom of American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, andNative Hawaiians. Part IT contains President Carter’s statement upon approval of Public Law 95-341: a summary of the establishment and activities of the Task Force to implement the Act and prepare this report to the Congress: summary statements of Task force member agencies: and a brief”record llf.,consultation with Native traditional-religious leaders, as required by the Act. Part III contains recommendations on land: on access to sacred sites and objects: and, on ceremonies and traditional rites, as they relate to federal agency practice. Part IV contains a narrative treatment of other issues identified as priority concerns during consultations, with discussions advanced as concepts for subsequent federal and tribal recommendations to the Congress. (Author/AN)



Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be mewe

from the original document.



P. L. 95-341Federal Agencies Task Force Zhairman, Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior

August 1979



00(F XAC Ti V AN 4 ItIvt pI ROMTHE PE RSION OP OHOAN.7.N!,ON 011,toNl’IN67POIN IS or v F Vs, OW 00,NON’,






Section 2, of the American Indian Religious Preedcat Act of 1976(P.LI.951-341) requires a zeport to congress one year from approval of the Act, containing the results of an evaluation undertaken in omultation withNative traditional religious leaders, con-
cerning administrative and legislative Changes considered necessary for the protection and preservation of the religious cultural rights and practices of the American Indian, Esktmor

Aleut and Native Hawaiians.


11 Executive Summary

Native American tribes, nations and peoples survive as distinct groups within the American society.The policy of theUnited States is bo support their right to Cultural and political integrity, while assisting them to adapt to the rapidly changing economic and technological conditions of the modern world. All cultures Change with the times and adapt to the conditions of their environment, as a matter of survival.The question is %tether theUnited States government arid’American society have put, unwarranted pressure on these culture to change.

Native traditional religions are the fabric of Native American cultures. At one time, the repression cf American Indian andNative Haaaiian religicas by government agents was common practice and these religious were held up to ridicule ty American society. ‘Partly out of ignorance and partW as a result of these’ regrettable practices and attitudes, federal policies and practices not directed toward Native traditional religions were also hostile or indifferent to-their religious values.And, %ten the official policy of deliberate repression was ended, no comprehensive revieaw as made of residual incidental impact of federal practices onNative American religicas.

For example, Native American people have been denied access to sacred sites on federal lands for the purposes ct worship.%henthey have gained access, they have often been disturbed during their worship by federal officials and the public.Sacred sites have been needlessly and thoughtlessly put to other uses which have desecrated them. Native people have been denied the opportunity together natural substances which have a sacred significance and have been disturbed in their use when they have been able to gather them.

Indian beliefs regarding care and treatment for the dead have not been respected by government officials in the past. At border crossings into Canada and Mexico, sacred objects, practices and customs have not been respected.In public institutions,
including both prisms and schools, Native Americans have been denied equal rights ba their religious practices, and opportunitieshave been given-to Christian denominations to proselytize whileNative traditional religious leaders have been excluded.


In light of this history and the lack of a comprehensive review of the effect cf past practices, the Congress passed the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341, 42 On 1996).OnAugust 11, .1978, President Carter approved the Resolution, recognizing it as °an important action to assure the religious free poni of all Americans:”

The Act includes American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo and Native Hawaiian people in its provisions. Here, as in the Resolution, thetetes American Indian, Native American and Native are used inter-changeably, with the last two terms used primarily in this report.

It is important that the reader recognize that there are significant differences in federal law and policy in relation to American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. ‘However, while the legal, treaty and reservation distinctions do exist; the basic traditional values and spiritual relationships are barely distinguiShable.

Federal agencies are mow required by law to respect the customs, ceremonies and traditions of NatIve American-religions.For one yearthe agencies have examined their policies and-procedures, working withNative traditional and tribal leaders to assure that the interference and insensitivity of the past will not be repeat in future practice.

This report and its recommendations are the result cta multi-agency cooperative effort, undertaken in close consultation with practitioners cf the Native traditional religions.

With this new policy, it Ls now possible to administrativelyaccommodate most of the Native religious needs under existingstatutoryauthority, as delineated in Part III, It eccemendations. Many agencies have achieved results in removing ,Native religiousfreedom impediments; have developed internal medhanismslor continuing consultationonspecific concerns; are preparing policies which will enhance Native religious freedom nationally; and have ineorporated the new policy-into existing procedures and practices of their field offices.

Several agencies’ initiatives have been combined into Task Force recatherdations for uniform administrative procedure. Where it has been determined that administrative accommodations cannot be made under existing statutory authority, the Task Force has developed recommendations for legislative action concerning federal land-use designations for Native sacred sites, Native religious use of site-specific lands,
protection of s1t-.9 against vandalism and non-tribally controlled excavations, strengthening of conservation and antiquities laws and the exportation of significant objects in Native religious use. Those recommendations are currently being reviewed within the Administration.


; )

fartI, IntroduCtion.,” provide an historical treat:rent of the pertinent eients 4-1fct ons which have resulted in the wetection of the religious freedom of *American Indians, Alduts, Eskimos andNative flesaiiins.

Part II, Categorical Action Under the contains the President’s statement upon approval ot P.L.134l;a sunnerY of the establishment and activities of the Task Force to implement theAct and prepare this report to the Congress; sweaty ‘statements ofTask Force meter-agencies; and a brief record of consultation with Native traditional religious leaders, as required by the Act.

PartIII, Recommendations, follow the categorical areas ofCongressional note in the Resolution: land end access to sacred sites, including cemeteries; sacred objects, including those…lgethered, transported and possessed by museums; and ceremonies and traditional rites, as they relate to federal mency practice. Examples of administrative responses to the expressed concerns are found throughout this section, together with`reozonendations for°
uniform administrative procedure.

aPart ry, Conclusion, contains a narrative treatment of other issues identified as priority concerns during consultations, with discussions advanced as concepts for subsequent federal and tribal recommendations to the Congress.

lbe Appendices include an account4of the progress and passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in the 95th Congress, relevant materials on the Act itself, initial evaluations and reports cg Task Force member-agencies; tabular presentations of problems identified during the periOd of consultation and guides to the consultations ani written submissions.


°MU ct Contents


Executive Summary

…/’19C.Summary Statements, Member ikgencies. 26D Consultation\43III.RECOMMENDATIONSAi.Land51B.Land – Cemeteries64C.Sacred Objects68D.Sacred Objects -Border Crossings73E.Sacred Objects – Museums76F.Ceremonies and Traditional Rites82TV.CCNCLUSICV881Amendices0.

A.Legislative History
B.Task Force Memoranda and Federal Agency Evaluations

C.Record of Consultation


A missionary cmce undertook to instruct a group of Indians in the truths of his only religion. He told them of the creation cf the earth in six days, and of the fall of cur first parents by eating an apple.

The courteous savages listened attentively, and, after thanking him, one related in his turn a very ancient tradition concerning the origin of themeize. But the missionary:plainly showed his disgust and disbelief, indignantly saying:

‘What I delivered to you were sacred truths, but this that you tell me is mere fable and falsehood!”

The-Soul of the Indian Charles East mang

Historical Treatment of Native American Religions

The incident involving the exci.ange cf creation stories gives aneloquent testimony to the manner in which non-Indians have generally received the Indian religious tradition. While proclaiming their own traditions to be infallible and literal truths, non-Indians have not accorded other religions the same courtesy.Indeed,, Eastman’s story.
continues with the Indians reproving the missionary for his lick cfmonners and his violation of the rules cf civility:

The Spanish, uncertain about the theological status of the Natives, and to make certain that conquests proceeded according to Christian principles, idepted the famOus “Requirement,” which had to be read formally to the Indians they encountered before any hostilities could commence.The Requirement° began with a brief history of the, world since its creation, continued with an account of the establishment of the Papacy and described the donation by Pope Alexander IV of the lands then occupied by the Indians to the kings of Spain.
The Indians, after hearing these sacred words, were supposed to acknowledge the lordship of the kings cf Spain and to altO4 the Christian faith to be preached to them.Failure to surrender to theSpanish by the Indian justified whatever cruelties then followed and made the ensuing war theologically proper. While harsh in the extreme, this formalization ct religious conflict at least had a theological and doctrinal base that the Europeans understood and wtlich the Indians came rapidly to understand and abhor4(

The Pilgrim Fathers adopted a similar posture: They ladked the absolute authority Which the Papacy gave to the Spanish but consoled themselves with sermons by JohnCotton, Cotton Mather andIncrease Mather, or the strong opinionsdrf William Bradford.

Conflict was not long in coming after the landing oE the Pilgrims.
When John Robinson wrote to William Bradford in 1623, 46 expressed great concern about the killing of severalIndians:”Concerning the killing of those poor Indians, of which we heard at first by report,
land, since by more certain relation.Oh, how happy a thing had it been, if you had converted some before liou killed anylny Later,

when the whited of Massachutes surrounded the principal village of the Pequots and burned it wiall the Indian inhabitants, Bradford was to rematk in his History of Plymouth Plantation:

Those that seaped. the fire were, slaine with sword; some hewed to pieces, others rune throw with their rapiers, soas they were quicklydispatchte, and very few escaped.Itwas conceived they thusdestroyed about 400, at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fryer, and the streims of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stinck and sentettere of; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully them, thus to inclose their enemies in their hand; and give them so speedy a victory over so-proud and insulting anenimie4(

Repulsive as this history must be, it is important that it be understood in the broader historical perspective.The adoption of the United States Constitution, with its prohibition of any govern-
mental establishment of religion and guarantees of religious freedom, signified’a new sense of religious maturity greatly transcending previous views of the relationships of Christians’and Natives.

Post-Revolutionary pressures on the tribes east of the Mississippi represented great difficulties.During the first three-quarters of American political existence) Christian missionaries werecriticallyimportant in providing educational services to the tribes and interceding for them with government officials.Indeed, the Rev. Samuel Worcester and some other committed missionaries, leatning of the dilemma presented by the Supreme Court decision inCherokeeNation v. Georgia y, which denied the Cherokeesst andi.nj-i-ErVirng a sait against the state, voluntarily accepted the laws cf the Cherokees, thereby suffering arrest and imprisonment by the state and initiating the opmanion case, Worcester V. Georgia§if which upheld the treatY rights of the tribe.

Involvement of the ndssionaries in tribal affairs was not cit the.basis of Indian religious freedom, but primarily for the purpose of converting the Natives. Freedom of religion became quickly submerged idler: missionary endeavors and government policy became synonymous, Andrew Jackson, in his second Annual Message, described the progress in removing the Five Civilized Tribes from their homelands in theSouth and justified the Removal policy with the optimistic prediction that:

It will separate the Indians from imnsdiate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power cf theStates; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard theimspgressof’decaY, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection cf theGovernment and through the influence of gccd opunsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian opmmunity4(

The opalescence of government and religious goals which was adhieved before the Civil iftr’ became the predominant theme of interpretation for both churches and government agencies.CommissionerTaylor, a member of the Indian Peace Commission cf 1867-68, remarked.in1868 in his annual report as Commissioner of Indian Affairs:

…Assuming that the government has a right and that it is its duty to solve the Indian question definitely and decisively,.it becomes necessary that it determine,-at once the ioest and speediest method of its solution, and then, armed with right, to act in the interest of both races.

If might makes right, we hre the strong and they the weak; and we would do no wrong to proceed by theCheapest and nearest route to the desired ends and could, therefore, justify ourselves in ignoring these natural as well as the conventional rights of theIndians, if they stand in the way, and, as their lawful masters, assign them their status and their tanks, or put them out of their own way and ours by extermination with the sword, starvation t.or by any other method.

But Twlor, recognizing that such a course cfaction would be a step backwards uniorthy of theUnited States, argued:

If, however, they have rights as well as ue, then cleakly it is cur duty as well assound policy to so solve the question of their future relations with ts and each other, as to secure their rights and promoti their highest interest, in the simplest, easiest, and most eau:apical way possible.

But to assume they have no rights is to deny the fundamental principles ofChristianity, as well as to contradict the whole theory won which the government has uniformly acted towards them; we are therefore bound to respect their rights, and, if possible, make our interests harmonize with them4(

That Christianity and federal interests were often identical became an article cf faith in every branch of the government and this pervasive attitude initiated the contemporary period cfreligicus persecution cf the Indian religions.It was rot, to be certain, a direct attack on Indian tribal religion? because of their=Met with Christianity, but anoblique attack on the Indian wayof life that had as its by-prcduct the transformation cf Indiansinto American citizens.Bad a _nristian denomination or sect, orthe Jewish community been subjected to the same requirementspriorto receiving affirmationct their legal and political rights, the outcry would have beentremendous.But Indians, forming anexoticccurtunity which fewdiiderstood, uere thought to be the proper.objectof this concern.Thus the SupreMe Court, indeciding an irportantlas suit involving a conflictbetween the Missouri, Kansas, andTexas Railroad’ Ca:pawand the Osage Indians, justified its decisionas folloos:

Thcugh the la4 as stated withreference to.the power ofthe gcmernment to determine theright of occupancy ofthe Indiaps to’their lands has alwaysbeen recognized,
it is to be presumed, as stated by this courtin theButtz case, that in its exercisethe United States willbe governed by sudh considerations of justice aswillcontrol a Christianle.in their treatment of anBilpran and depe ent race… Emp asisadded47—
Legislation also bore the imprint of thisattitude.Mr.Perkins,
Representative fran Kansas, war:ay endorsedthe Dawes SeVera a.; Acton the floor of .Scuseof Repysentatives, proclaiming:




This bill is in; keeping with the sentiment of thecountry, as it Ls, in my judgment, resconsive 63 thebest interests of the Indians, the best interests ofthe wlhites, and the best interests of the countrygenerally.It has the wars indorsement and approval ofthe Secretary of the Interior, of the Commissioner ofIndian Affairs, and of allthOseV o have given attentionto the’subject ce the education, the Christianization,
and the development of the Indian race4g/

Church groups enthusiastically endorsed the Dawes Act amd pushed foritq passage.Bishop,Hare cl thefpiscopal Church, when informed ofits enactment, was heard to rema#k that “time will shaa whether theworld or the Church will be more alert to take advantage of theOccasion.” The-Church cameln a distant second.
The,executive branch, charged wtth administering the Indianagencies, represented the government’s most persistent presence insuppressing the tribal religions.Most` agents were political.
appointees, chosen for a long time with the consent of Churchgroups, and their religious bias was enhAhced and strengthened by adreadful ignorance of the. parameters of tribal religions.Interpret-
ing religion’es primarily a belief system according to the familiaroutlines of institutional religion with which they were familiar,
many of the agents %ere horrified with the Indian ceremonial lifeand sought ways to suppress it.Very few non-Indians could distin-
guish between a.war dance and any other kind of dance. Since the wardance in popular fiction, from James Fenimore Cooper to dime novels,
was Characterized as a prelude to savagery, dancingigas particularlydistasteful to non-Indians who were charged with performing variousfunctions dealing with the tribes.

,Examples of the sustained campaign oonducted by federalem-
ployees against Indian dancing are numerous and in aLmost everyinstance the dances are characterized as representing barriers togovernment objectives in- an unrelated field such as economic devel-
opment, education, and reservation government.The prohibitionagainst danOing was, in a larger context, the effort to transformIndian social, life into a replica of the non-Indian social lifesinee dancing was. cmly the external and most obvious expression of adeeper, more sublime, and more skchisticated social manifestation ofthe Indian personality.In 1877, the Indian Agent for the YanktonSioux reported his attempt to educate the Sioux to a’different form

of economic activity.” He identified their social functions as ahandicap in their progress toward this goal:

As bong as Indianslive in villages they willretainmany of the.ir oldand injurious habits.Frequentfeasts, calamity in food,heathen ceremonies anddances, constant visiting – thesewill continue asbong as the people live togetherin close neighbor-
hoods and villages … I trust thatbefore anotheryear is ended theywill generally be located uponindividual lands of farms.From that date willbegin their real and permanentprogress41(

This then was taken up by officialsin the Bureau of INdianAffairs.%ten the regulations under whichthe Indian courts wereto be operatedmere revisedby Commissioner Thomas Morganin 1892,
the first offense specified in the newregulations read:

(a) Dances, etc.- Any Indian whoshall engage inthe sun dance, scalp dance, cc wardance, or anyother similar feast, so called,shall be deemedguilty of an offense, and uponconviction thereofShall he punished for the firstoffense by the with-
holding of his rations for not exceedingten days orby imprisonnent for not exceedingten.daysfamd forany subsequent offenseunder this clause he shall bepunished by withholding his rationsfor not less thenten nor more than thirty days, orby imprisonment formot bess than ten nor morethan thirty days42/

Suppcesston of religious practicesby the reservation agentswas a major factorin the reluctance of theImdians to adopt the*lite man’s ways and, since it alienated thepeople unnecessarily,
inhibited government programs during thetime it was enforced.
Indians quickly found ways to subvertthe Bureau of Indian Affairsregulations.The Lummi and Nooksack peoplesof Washington Stateperformed their most importantceremonies on national holidaysdeliberately informing their agent that they wereperforming theserituals to honor the United States. Thesuppression of Indiandancing continued until the IndianReorganization Act of 1934 andIndian religious freedom was cne ofthe most important reformsinitiated by John Collier as IndianCommissioner.A scant twelveyears before Collier’sreform, however, the Office of IndianAffairs released Circular No. 1665 (April 26,1921) whidh read:

The sun-dance, and all other similar dancesandso-called religious ceremonies are constdered

“Indian Offenses” under existing regulations,and

corrective penalties are provided.I regard such

restriction as applicableinvolves ….the reckless

frequent or prolonged…Ain ‘fact anydisorderlyperformance that promoteslioentiousness, idleness,
shiftless indifference to


to any dance whlchgiving way of propertyperiods of celebrationor plainly excessivesuperstitious,cruelty,
danger to health, andfamily welfare.

In reviewing the history of federal treatment ct IndianreliIicns, it is important to note that little deliberate effort wasmade to eliminate religious practices becaussot their theologicalcontent./n this respect,, the-American treatment has been signifi-
cantly more intelligent and responsive than previous treatmentct Indian religicns by both the Spanish and English oolonialofficials.There is one significant exception to this rule, however,
and that consists of the violation of the sacred Pipestcne Quarry inMinnesota.The quarry was a religious site of great importance totribes for nearly a thousand mile radius.The quarry was under theprotection of the Yankton Stoux pecple and in their treaties theytcok particular pains to ensure its sanctity.Acoording to researchdone by their attorney, Jennings C. Wise (at one time an AssistantAttorney General of the United States), this quarry was deliberatelydamaged by the construction of a railroad through it in 1691 at theinstigation of federal officials and missionaries who wished todestroy its value as a religious site.According to Wise, thesacred ledges which created the falls were deliberately blasted toerase all traces of their former outlines and to render themuselessfor ceremonial purposes.

In recent decades, there has been oonsiderable interest inrestoring both sacred lands and access to sacred places Within the.
various federal lar d-. to the religious leaders ct the respectivetribes,A major positive step in this respect was the return of theBlue Lake area to Taos Puebdo in 1973 and.Mount Adams to the YakimaNation in 1974.Although these land restorations were oontroversialat the time, they have been accepted as a tangible expression of thedesire by the federal 9overnment and non -IDdians to Flake amends forthe previous suppression of Indian ceremopial life.Neither sacredsite was diverted to other uses because of its religous significance,
however, and so the solution of these specific problems is mcre inline with the types of oontinuing problems suffered by practitionersof Indian religions than the Pipestone Quarry situation.

The most critical aspect of past federal treatment of Indianreligious activities, practices, and sacred Locations is tnat abuseshave for the most part arisen because of ignorance or misunder-
standing on the part of the non-Indian.The treatment exemplifies




what can happen to a religiousminority when its tradition isradically divergent from that of amajOrity in a society.Fortun-
ately, there are no major theologicalbarriers to confront but onlythe ladk of precise knowledge,coupled with a lack of respect whichsuch ignorance brings.In order that the progressalready made beused as a cornerstone for enduring andfundamental Changes, it isnecessary to probe deeper into thetheoretical gulf Which presentlyseparates the IndianreligioOstradition from that tradition whichis commonly accepteerby the non-Indianmajority.Only when some ofthe assumptions and presuppositions areclarified and each side canunderstand and communicate with the other can trueunderstandingoccur to prevent futureconflicts in this delicate area ofreligiouspractice and freedom.One of the present difficultiesplaguingnon-Indians is the question of when protectionof religion becomesits establishment.The next section deals specifically withthis question.

Religion and Culture

4Vi;ast difference exists between the major or”world” religionsand tht religions of smaller tribal groups.This difference can beseen in every instance of contact,whether between the westernreligious traditions and the tribal peoples theyhave encounteced orthe established eastern religions and the=responding tribalpeople they have encountered. The largerreligions can best bedescribed as “commemorative” religions. Thatis to ‘say, thesereligions trace their origins back.to aspecific person or event(The EkOdus, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.)and the major portion ofthe religi\bp deals with commemoratingthese sacred events in theproper ceremonies andrituals (Holy Communion, Passover, etc.).

The larger religions have as themainstay of their beliefs thedoctrine that their particular interpretationof reality is the mostaccurate expression of ultimate truth.In most instances this truthis revealed by the founder of the religion to aspecific group ofdisciples with instructions to preach and teach others toacceptthe body of truths which has been set down.From this orientation,
doctrines, dogmas, creeds and catechisms have beenderived whichare said to express the truth ofthe religion in more expanded andintelligible form.Doctrines concerning the person of Jesus andBuddha each took nearly half a millenium to formulate.In eachgeneration, the theological enterprise of most majorreligions – butthese two in particular – has been to restate the sacredtruths for

cs-the society of its time.


Because of the extreme complexity ofthis enterprise and theabsolute nature of the claims made by the majorreligions, in eachinstance religious institution:7ihave been necessary so that thebeliefs and formulas of the religion are not dilutedby succeedinggenerations.Religion in many traditions, but particularly in thetradition of,tne west, has become an institutionalactivity andwhenever this institution has too closely aligneditself with thepolitical, social, economic, or educational structures,dissidertgroups seeking to return to thetradition have been produced.Thereligious tradition thus grows and expands through theproduction ofbeliefs,and interpretations, heretical in one generation, theaccepted interpretation in later generations.

Since these religions are commemorative and depend upon aleenactment of the original revelation, thelocation of rituals andceremonies is not nearly as important as the continuingtradition inwhich the original truth is manifested.History and cosmic processthus become critical to these religions andeventually the claim isadvanced that their oonception of deity includes dominance overthehistorical process. Whether this process is conceived as aninexorablemotion of a series of events, chronology of thereligion is criticallyimportant and appels are continually made bo the “Faithof OurFathers” with efforts in worship devoted to as close arecapture oforiginal events-as is possible.The “laws” of God, as expressed indoctrine, dogmas, creeds and catechisms, are infallibleguidelinesfor relating to. the mardh of history or thecosmic process.

Western perples, particularly those presentlyinhabiting theUnited States,rginate from thismtradition.Many of the firstpeople to arrive on these shores came because of theoppression theyexperienced when a select group A individuals dominated theirreligious institutions and forced them to accept beliefs andpracticeswhich they considered foreign, heretical, or unfaithful tothetradition.From these bitter experiences came the demand, upontheadoption of the Constitution, but first incorporated inVirginia’sBill of Rights, that no religiouspistitution could beestablishedby or become the official religionv of the politicalinstitutions.
Thus religious controversy which has plagued Europeani Christendomand which had flourished briefly in establisheddenomiiationalexpressions in the colonies, had to be Laid to rest permanently.



The smaller or tribal religions representthe opposite polo ofhuman experience.Instead of ccevemorating events, thesereligionsare what could best bedescribed as “continuing” religiGns in thatthey are not traced to a.founding orfounder.Their orDlin isclouded beyond recovery and almost all ctthem can be said to beolder, in a chronological sense, than the foundulreligions since wemust assume that they existed in one form oranother before thefounding of any of the major religions, almostall ct which can tedated with a fair degree of accuracy.

The tribal religions do not incorporate a setof establishedtruths but serve to perpetuate a set of ritualsand ceremonies whichmust be ccnducted in accordancewith the instructions given in theoriginal revelation of eacti ;Articular ceremony orritual.Ofcritical importance in this respect is the mannerin which ceremoniesarise.These religions have the ability and propensity toexperiencenew revelations and each new ceremonywhich Li received by thereligicus community is given for a specific purposeand must beperformed at the place and in the manner, andwherever the originalrevelation demands, at the time designated.American Indian tribalreligions, in many instances, have acknowledged thatthe presentceremonies, given to them at the beginning of thisworld, must beperformed continwously or great harm and destructionwill ccme tothe people.

hb doctrines, dogmas, creeds, orcatechisms are permitted inthese religions since these statements aresecondary to the ceremonies and basically comentaries on them orinterpretations of theoriginal revelations and this kind of speculationLs an absolute- violation of the ceremonyitself.Instruaions are passed fromindividual to individual as tribal elders perceive thepersonalities,
capabilities, and temperaments of younger tribal members.Since theinstructions generally pass from inlividual to individual, andsincethe test is the successful transmission of the task, noinstitutionscan arise in thesereligions.Only one interpretation is possiblein each generation.

Religious growth is possible when a tribal individual receivesa particular ceremony andinstructions respecting it.Heretical anddissident groups, until very recently, did not exist becausetherewas no central set ofbeliefs against which such contentions couldhave been measured.Either the ceremonies helped to fulfill tribalexistence or they didn’t and the test was in their efficacy, not

their logic or rationallty.Divergent traditions within a tribe,

because they %ere all acceptable ceremonies, came to share theceremonial yeAr and were recognized as dealing with specificsituations.Unlike the larger religions, the ceremonialyear didnot commemorate specific chronological historical events, andsome ceremonies were reserved for occasions that warranted them.
Not all ceremonies needed to be performed each year in themannerthat the Christian year follows the life and passica of Jesus,
for example.Some tribes in the Pacific Northwest had a “raindance” in a region where it rains continually.The purpose of thisdance was severely retitricted, however, andwas used only once ortwice in each generation cn those occasions whenan unusual snadhad made travel impossible.7he dance brought rain which meltedthe snag and restored conditions to normal.

The most distinctive difference between the tribal religionsand the larger religions in theological terms must certainlyrevolve about the idea of creation.For the-larger religions thediety is the Creator who institutes natural laws which thengovernthe operation of physical nature, in most instances placing withinour species an ability to recognize although not always fulfill therequirements of the mnral dimension of the natural law.Thisnatural lmd is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and itis to the free exercise of human oonscienoe recognizedin this lawthat the signers of the Constitution appeal.The ethics of otherlarge religions have similar versions whereby they incorporatecosmic process and human conscience.But in this understanding acritical distinction is made between the worldas created and theactual processes by which it operates.

The tribal religions regard the worldas a continual processof creation and their concept of creator is sthplyone of identity,
not one of function.With the world in a continual state ofgrowtho’creation being continuous, the mguirement laidupon thehuman species is to move with cosmic growth and participate Ln itsince we are part of it and do not stand outside it.The primaryessence of the tribal religions is to remain in a constant andconsistent relationship with nature and morAl and ethicalconsider-
ations must originate in a world which demandsmature responsibil-
ity.Customs which adjust to the natural world and its inhabitantsthus dominate the tribal religions where laws and institutionsare

the dominant factors in the larger religions.


%ben the freedom cf religionis discussed in the context ofthe tribal traditions, it isthe right to adjust to and maintainrelationships with the natural world andits inhabitants that isaddressed. Since each living entityis unique no authority candetermine in advance what the specificoccasion will require apartfrom the tradition which Ls beingpassed dcmn. The ceremonies andrites themselves set fairly preciserituals and reveal in theperformance of the acts their continuingefficacy. While no futurerevelations can be ruled out, it would bethe rarest cl events fora new ceremony tobe introduced.Except in the most remote areasof Indian country, the urbanization cfNorth America has precludedboth Indian and non-Indian from the oanstantrelationship with thenatural woad that would be conducive to therevelation of furtherceremnies.

The establishment of a religion is not aprdblem when viewedfrom within the tribal context althoughtribed today live withinthe larger society.Establishment Ls fundamentally the impositionby the political institution offorms of belief and practice whidhare in conflict with or aredistasteful to people of a differenttradition.Protecting Indian religious practicesfrom curiosiryseekers, casual obeervers, andadministrative rules and regulationsis the only practical way that religiousfreedom can be assured toIndian tribes and Native groups.It is not the establishment oftheir religion because their religions, notbeing proselytizingreligions, seek to preserve the ceremonies,rituals and baliefe,
not to spread them.

Complaints occasionally arise that NativeAmerican religionshave an exclusivity which, if protected,would mean the establishmentct a tribal religion, in contrast to theseparation cf church andstate which forms the basis ofAmerican civil freedoms.But thiscompaaint is based upon the transfer ofcultural attitudes andbeliefs, most of which reveal the ladk ofunderstanding of Indiantribal religions, to the actual practices ct thereligicns them-
selves.Not only are non-Indians excludedfrom some tribal religiousceremonies, but the unpurified Indians fromoutside the particulartribal traditions are excluded also.Unlike institutional religion,
the tribal religions do not depend uponcommunity participation,
but upon the proper performance of theceremonies.Exclusion iscentral to many ceremonies because participationis restricted todesignated religious figures within the =immunityacconding to thenature of the ceremony.Just as certain figures are the only caesordained or designated to perform certain functionsin the institu:
tional religions, so-in the tribal religionsi there canbe no

ceremonies unless the proper perwons perform them.


Native American Religious Freedom

The American Constitution representeda milestone in humanthought.Separation of church and state and theguarantee of thesanctity of individual religious beliefwere radically new conceptsin human government uniquely Americanin cperation if not origin.
The American experience has beenone of building upon the LOUndationsestablished by the Constitutional fathersand each generation hasimproved upon and sharpened theunderstanding of religious freedomin this country.

6The Indian Reorganization Act recognized thedifference in thecultural base of Anerican Indian communitiesand established aprincipae of non-interference in Indian religiousactivities.
Lifting the threat of intervention didnot, however, guaranteereligious freedom for American Indiansbecause the nature ofgious differences precludedproper understanding of the elementsinvolved in tribal religions.During the 1970s with the restorationof the sacred lands of Taos Pueblo andYakima Nation, additionalrecognition was given to the_Indian religioustraditions and itssanetimes special needi for preserving intactthose places sacred toparticular Indian relieions and communities.

House and Senate religious freedom resolutions enactedin the95th Congress made explicit sentiments and understandingswhich hadbeen implicit and growing during the precedinghalf century.Itmarked a formal recognition that interpretationof the freedom ofreligion and establishment clauses inthe American Constitution weresufficiently broad to include religions ofhistorically and cultural-
ly different peoples.This resolution recognized also thatpasttreatment ofAmerican Indian religious ceremonies andpractices haabeen uneven.and has been conducted inan atmosphere of misunder-
standing and lack of information which hadat times produced hard-
ships unnecessarily.

In recent decades, American society has becomemore sophis-
ticated about the nature of religiousconscience and more concernedabout establishing guidelines for institutionalactivities so as topreclude them from unnecessarily creatinghardships for individualswho sincerely attempt to live fulland constructive lives basedon amature understanding of human existence.The modern period can besaid to have originated withthe dissenting opinions in th’Macintosh 12/ case in 1931.That case dealt with the question of

2 0


whether the statutoryrequirements fOr naturalizationwere satisfiedby an applicant wbo testifiedthat he was not willingto commithimself beforehand to beararms in defense of the UnitedStateasince he wished toreserve the right of moral judgnentuntil con-
fronted with a specificfactual situation that demandedsolution.
Thereafter a line ctcases leadimg directly to U.S.v. See9er 14,/,
whidh affirmed the exemptionfrom the Universal MilitaryTrainingand Service Act of 1948for conscientious objectors,served toexpand publicawareness of the social value ctinformed individUalconscience.Today there Ls considerableconcern with protectingthe right of individualdhoice and personalgrowth in all areas oflaw.

The western tradition isbased largelyupon the principle ct,
individual choice with theassumption-that individualshonestlyseardhing for solutions willarrive at understandingnct.radicallyvariant from the teadhingsof the major religionsas they have beentraditionally experienced.The case of the AmericanIndian hasstrong parallels to this principae,its only caveat beingthat thedhoice has already beenmade, by a comnunity, priorto contact withother societies, and thatcommunal conscience requiresthat theceremonies be continuedas they have traditionally beenconstitutedand practiced.Chce this perallel isunderstood, the problem ofreligious treedonict tribalpeoples should presentlittle difficulty.
A few examples of misconceptionof die situation shouldillustratethe manner inwhiclh shortsightedor misguided interpretation ofthebehavior and beliefs of/ndian communities hasprecluded Indianreligions from assumingtheir rightful place inthe mosaic whichconstitutes the Americgnreligious freedom tradition.

In 1882 the Sioux medicineman Crow Dog killed a leadingdhiefof his tribe, SpottedTail.Under the tribal traditionsCrow Dogand his family made adequateoompensation for the killingand thematter was considered closedby the Sioux.Since Spotted Tailwasa well-known chief who had consistentlysided with the UnitedStates, his murder set offa wave of public concern andCrcw Dogwas tried by a federal court inDeadwood, South Dakotaand foundguilty of first degreemurder.His case was takento the SupremeCourt on a question of jurisdictionover the subject matter and theCcurt found for Craw Dog’sposition.Noteworthy is the commentbythe Court in its opinionthatimpositionof an external federallaw

upon the Sioux:


tries them, not by their peers, nor by thecustoms of their people, nor the lam of their land,
but by superiors ct &different race, accordingtothe lad ot a social state of whidh they havean*perfect conamption, andiAhiCh is opposed to thetraditicas of their history, to the habits of theirlives, to the strcagest prejudices of theirsavage,onature; one which measures the red man’s revengermaxims aihe white man’s moralitY.(Emphas

,Viewing the Indian religicus tradition throughculturally-biasedglasses, the Court characterized the Sioux penalty formurder as the”red man’s revenge,” describing the federal lawas the “whiteman’s morality.”In point ct fact, the Sicux traditica requiredthat Coepensation be made to the family of tbs victimand did notrequire retribution except in the mostsevere circumatances.The”white msn’s morality,” hoolever, demanded retributionin the form ofcipital punishment.The descriptions of each way of dealing withthecrime derive not from an understanding in thejurisprudential sensebut from popular ndscciicepticas about who the peopleare.Today, thetwo different approaches to the crime naght be Characterized inreverse order, describing the white man’s morality assavage andbarbaric and the Indian approach humane andsophisticated.Indeed,
several states have adcpted compensation to victimsof crimes as aprinciple of their criminal and civil codes.

In 1884, Senator Henry Dawes ofMassachusetts visitedthe FiveCivilized Tribes ct /ndian Territory (ncwthe state of Oklahoma)toexamine their method of land tenure,a practice which derived directlyfrom their religioas understanding of human relationshipsto theearth. Reporting the nextyear to the 1885 Lake Moho* CcaferenceWhiCh conaarned itself with the formulationof Indian, policy, DaWS8remarked:

The head chief told us that therewas not a family inthat whole Nation that had nota ham’ of its cwn.
There was not a pauper in that Nation, andthe Nationdid not owe a dollar.It built its cwn capitol…aniit bailt iisschoolsand,its hospitals.Yet the defectct the system was apparent.They have not got as faras they can go, because they own their land incommon.
It is Henry George’s system, and under thatthereis no enterprise to makeyour home any better than thatof your neighbors.There is no selfishness, whidh isat the bottom of civilizatica.Till this pecple willconsent to give up their lands, and divide themamongtheir citizens so that eachcan own the land he culti-
vates, they will not make muchmore prcgress. 11/



Discovering a politicalsystem with complexinstituttons whichdid not cwe a centand experienced no povertywithin its societyshould have made SenatorDawes take noticeand learn.With hiapredetermined idea ofcivilization, however, hecould only describethe state cfwell-being of the Indians as anegative situation.
Today as we strive tocreate Great Societiesand resolve the problemsof poverty, education,health care and the like,most Americanswishthey could achievethe standard of civilizedexistence enjoyed bythe Five CivilizedTribes in the 1880s.

These examples shouldforewarn us that applicationof a rigidset of criteria tohuman behaviorowithoutconsidering alternativesis dangerous at bestand generally hazardousin its contemplation.
The, dreadful povertyand crime statisticswhich. plague American/ndian communities today arethe result cf misinformedneglect ofthe Indian religioustradition and the impos#ionct a set ctexternal instittxionsand criteria on Indiancommunities.NOdeliberate effort was made todestroi the Indiih institutionsbecause of their divergentreligious beliefs andpractices.Yet fewpeople in the previouscentury understood thelarger parameters ofsocial reality and tended toprejudge the Indian traditionacoordingto the principlesof their own culturaltradition.

With the enactment ofthe American IndianReligious FreedanAct, our Nation isbeing afforded the opportunityto correct pastinjustices and to begin ariewwith regard to treatmentcf those whoadhere to the tenetsof.traditional Native religions.In countlessways in the pastand presInt, both ourgovernment and curpeoplehave proved themselvesecitial bo Challengesinherent in new beginnings.
This will be no exception.




1.THE SCUL OP THE INDIAN, CharlesEastman, Houghton Mifflin Co.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 119-120

2.ARISPOTLE AND THE AMERICAN INDIANS, LewisHanke, Indian UnivetsityPress, Bloomington, Indiana, 1959.pp. 15-16

3.TUE INDIAN AND THE WHITE MAN, WiloombWashburn, Anchor-Doubleday,
Ned Yotk, 1964, pp. 176-177

4.THIS COUNTRY WAS CURS, VirgilJ. Vbgel, Harper fi Row, New York,
1972, pl. 42

5.5 Pet. 1 (1831)
6.6 Pet. 515 (1832)
7.RiChardson, J.D. ed. A Compilationof the Messages and Papers of,the Presidents, II,p. 519

8.Report of the Commission of Indian Affairs,1869, p. 16

9.Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RailwayCO. v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114,116-118, (1894)

10. Congressional Record, 49th Congress, 2nd Session, December 15,188611.Reports of the Commissioner of IndianAffairs, (1877), pp. 75-7612.Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, (1892),p. 2913.283 U.S. 605 (1931)
14.380 U.S. 163 (1965)
15.Ex Parte Crow Dog, 19 U.S. 556,571 (1883)
16.Lake Mohonk Conference Proceedings,1885, pl. 43




A.%tile House

Cn Atsgust 12, 1978, the President issued the follaaingsigning statement on Senate Joint Resolution 102 on AmericanIndian Religious Freedan:

I have signed into law S.J. Res. 102, the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.%his legislation setsforth the policy of the United States to protect and preservethe inherent right of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, andNative Haaaiian people bp believe, express and exercise theirtraditional religions.In addition, it calls for’a year’sevaluation of the Federal agencies’ policies and proceduresas they affect the religious riglhts and cultural integrity ofNative Americans.

It is a fundamental right of every American, as guaranteed’by the Fjrst Amendment of the Constitution, bp worship as heor she paeases.%his act is in noway intended to alter thatguarantee or override existing laws, but is designed toprevent government actions that would violate these Constitu-
tional protections.In the past government agencies anddepartments have on occasion denied Native Americans access bpparticular sites and interfered with religious practicesand customs where such use conflicted with Federal regulations.
In many instances, the Federal officials responsibae for theenforcement of these regulations were unaware ct the nature oftraditional native religious practices and, consequently, ofthe degrf 1 to whith their agencies interfered with suchpractices.

.lhis legislation seeks to remedy this situation.

I an hereby directing that the Secretary of the Interiorestablish a task force comprised ct representatives ct theappropriate Federal agencies.They will prepare the report bpthe Congress required by this Resolution, in consultation withNative leaders.Several agencies, including the Departmentsof Treasury and Interior, have already taken commendable stepsto implement the intent of Ws Resolution.

I welcome enactment of this Resolution as an important

action to assure religious freedom for all Americans.



B.Task Force

Pol lowing-theappioval ofihe American Indian ReligiousPreedam Act (P.L.95-341; 42 USC 1996),the President’ssigning statement andthe Act were circulatedto legislativeofficer. of all agencies,without regard to theirpotentialapplicability under theevaluation mandate.Cn January 26,1979, the Secretaryof the /nteriortransnitted a memorandumto all federaldepartments, agenciesand instrumentalities,7callin; attention to theevaluation requirementsand requestinga form responseby February 121indicating relevancy andrepresentation.- This form wastransmitted twice to non-responding agencies.(Agencies not listed inthis sectionfailed.to,responi to all’canikunications.)

Nearly 90 agencies responded to theinquiries on TaskSome participation.Of these, thirty camied positivedeclarations as appropriateinstrumentalitiesunder theAct, inciluding theDepartments ofAgriculture, Commerce, Defenee, Energy, HMI HuD,Interiot, Justice, Navy, Transportation and Treasury; aswell as the Advisory

iisqHistoric Preservation,American FolklifeCen 1MnvironmentalProtection Agency, NationalEndomentfor theHumanities,’Tennessee Valley Authorityand theU.S. Cammission cnCivil Rights.’Me evaluations oftheseand other participatingagencies arestmmarized in the follaiing section.

a.Convents from RespondingAgencies

Several agencies, while declining Task Forceparticipation, offered earlyevaluatiors worthy of note:

Office of Personnel Management -The Office of Per-
somel Managementhas no programresponsibilities whichwould make us an appropriate agencyto be cn this TaskForce.However, you should be awareof the fact that TitleIV (entitled”Adjustment of Work Schedulesfor ReligiousObservance”) of P.L. 95-390,September 29, 1978,requiresthe Canmission (nay OPM) toprescribe regulationsprovidingfor work schedules to acoanmodateemployees’ religiousbeliefsthat requiretheir absence from work.Conceivably, the proposed Task Force mayreach conclusions which wouldrequire OPMmodification of our regulations asthey affectAmerican Indians, Eskimos,Aleuts and native Hadaiians who are federalemployees.The possibility of any modifications becoming necessary because of P.L.95-341 appears to usremote.If any change does become necessary, fran Ones



pint of ‘view the change would be too slight to warrantCfM’s perticipetion al the Task Force.(Assistant Directorfor, Policy Analysis, Feb. 9, 1979)

Veterans Administration – You will note thatwehave indicated the Veterans Administration doesnot havepolicies, procedures, guidelines, rules, regulationsorstatutory authorization relevant bo American IndiansAlaska Natives or Native Hawaiians, within the context ofP.L. No. 95-341.I should mention that the VeteransAdministration does have a regulation, VA Regulation 5062(38 CFR S 13.62), which requires that, incases where VAbenefits are due an thcanpetent adultcc minor Indian, %tois a recognized ward of the Government, those benefitsmaybe awarded to the superintendentor other bonded officerdesignated by the Secretary of the Interior to receivefunds under 25 USC S 14.However, Cie cannot see that thisregulation can, in any way, be consideredas having animpact cn the religious rights and cultural integrity ofNative Americans.

In addition, the Veterans AdMinistration entered intoan agreement in 1978 with the Department of the Interior,
Interagency Archeological Services, regarding excavationson IVA prcperty.Pursuant to this agreement, the VeteransAdMinistration has recently requested Dr. Bennie Keel ofyour Atlanta office to assist in determining the properdisposition of Indian remains whichwere discovered someyears ago at the Bay Pines, Florida, VA Medical Center.
We expect that any such future discoverieson VA propertywill be handled in the sauemanner.Again, ue do notbelieve that this type of activityor procedure is contem-
plated by P.L. 95-341.Certainly, the rarity of itsoccurrence (this was the first such episode that wecanrecall) would seem to argue againstany active task forceperticipation by this agency.(Administrator, Feb. 22,1979)

U.S. Postal Service -In examining the legislativehistory of that Act,we find that one factor before theCongress was the matter of U.S. Customs Service enforcementof laws concerning the inportation of certainoantrolledsubstances used in some Native Arerican reltgiouscere-
monies.%tile the Postal Service administerscriminaland civil mailability statutes that apply bosome con-
trolled substances (18 U.S.C. 1716 and 39U.S.C. 3001), uefind no indication that the mailabilitystatutes have beenconsidered relevant to the issues which ledthe Act to be

adopted.(The Postmaster General, Feb., 16, 1979)


National Credit UnionAdministration – As of August 31,1978, the foaming(percentages) breakdown ofNative Amer-
icans were full-time emplcyeesct NCUA: GS-4 – 2%; GS-12 – 3%;
GS-13 – 1%.NCUA’s policies to assurecompliance with therights of all employees areexplicitly broken down /n theagency’s Equal CpportunityAffirmative Attion Plan.Inregards to the legislation,this agency will take steps toassure Native Americansthe riglht to observe theirreligiouspractices.This policy will be incorporatedinbo cur person-
nel regulations to assurecompliance.Cur agency has nodirect authority for the enforcementof regulations assuringNative Americans access toparticular sites for oonductingvarious religious practices and custcmsto preserve theirculture.In view of this, we do notbelieve it is necessarythat we appoint a policy-leveldesignee to serve on the TaskForce to review government-widerecommvdations and parti-
cipate in preparing the Report toCcagress on implementingthe American Indian ReligousFreedom Act cf 1978.(Admin-
istrator, Mar. 12, 1979)

Administrative Conference of theUnited States – TheAdministrative Conference of the unitedStates does not havepolicies, procedures, guidelines,rules, regulations orstatutory authorization relevantbo Ameecan Indians, AlaskaNatives or Native Hawaiians,within the xntext of theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Attcl 1978 (P.L. 95-341).
The only activity that theConference has undertaken relating_Ito the rights ct Americantndians was its adoption in 1972 of( a Recommendation ca oonflicts ofinterest in legal disputes; involving the natural resources of Indiantribes.Recommend-
ation 72-2 states that theseconflicts stem from the FederalGOvernment’s dual status as trusteeof the land and waterrights of American Indians and aslitigant in disputesbetween Indians and Federal agenciescharged with responsi-
bility for protecting Indian interests.The Recommendationsuggests that legislationshould be enacted to establidh anindependent Indian Trust CcunselAuthority to assure adequateprotecticn of American Indians’ clairrs tonatural resourcesand that, in the absence of suchlegislation, the Departmentof the Interior and the Departmentct Justice should takeapprcpriate steps to ameliorate theseconflict of interest

prdblems.(Executive Director, Feb. 1, 1979)

Department of Labor – The only regulations issuedbyihe Departmentct Labor relative to American Indians arethbse implementing the Comprehensive Employment and Training

6111(CETA).Acareful review of these regulations showsing that impinges upon any asopect of American Indian

reltgicus life.I might add thaethese regulations, whichuere just recently rewritten, have been reviewed byacrosssection of the leadership of American Indian groups who have-received CETA grants.In addition, the Indian and Native

American CETA Coalition, representing magy tribal and urban/ndian organizations, worked very closelrwith the Departmentct Labor in the preparation of the regulations, and all oftheir significant suggestions were adopted.(Secretary ofLabor, Feb. 15, 1979)

b.Listing of Resppnding -Agencies

The folloaing is a listing ct other departments, agen-
cies and instrumentalities which =ducted reviews underP.L. 95-341, determining that:’-fl,their/Mandates, functionsand authorities do not apply to the Act; or 2) their policiesand procedures are in canpliance with the Act.

Arms Control anti Disarmament Agency, Cannission al Fine Arts,
Cannadity Futures Traling Canmission, DelAware RiverBasin Can–
mission, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Farm CreditAdministration, Federal Communications Commission, FederalElection Commission, Federal Home Loan Bank Board, FederalLabor Relations Council, Federal Mediation and ConciliationService, Foreign Claims Settlement Comission of the UnrkedStates, General Services Administration, /nterior (Board ofIndian Appeals, Bureau ct Mines, Geological Survey, PublicAffairs, Territorial Affairs, Micronesian Status Negotiations),
International Cormunications Agency, International Trade Com-
mission, Interstate Commerce Canmission, National Academy ofSciences, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Justice (Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. ParoleCommission), Labor Department, National’Capital Planninj Com-
mission, National Commission cn Libraries and InformationScience, National Science Foundation, National TtansportationSafety Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OccupetionalSafety and Health Review Commission, Overseas Private Invest-

ment Corporation, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation,


Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation, Postal Rate Commission,
President’s Council on PhysicalFitness and Sports, SelectiveService System, Small BusinessAdministration, SmithsonianInstitution, Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home,Susquehanna RiverBasin Commission, Transportation(U.S. Coast Guard, FederalAviation Administration, FederalHighway Administration,
Federal Railroad Administration,National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, Research andSpecial Programs Admini-
stration, Urten TransportationAdministration), U.S. RailroadIiatirement Board, Treasury (Internal RevenueService).


In establishing the Task Force,the Secretary of Interiordirected that the report to the Congresste based on theinternal agency evaluations andconsulfation with Nativetraditional religious leaders, asrequired by the Act.
Agency evaluations_ arecontained in Appendix B and summarizedin Section C of vhis R2port.

Cn April 2, 1979, the Task Force wasconvened for thepurpose cf settingschedules for receipt of agency assess-
ments, discussing theconsultative process and meeting withtribal religious leaders andIndian legal advisors.The TaskForce members called for thescheduling of consultations cchearings prior to the preparation ctthe report, to allow Dorfull consideration of the .NativeAmerican ooncerns.

During June and July, ten oonsultations wereconductedby the Task Force in Alaska,Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, New Melxico, North Carolina,Oklahoma, South Dakotaand Washingtcn.Sollwing these meetings, which are detailedin Section D, the Secretary of theInterior convened a workgroup to meet for two weeksin July to prepare the report tothe Congress.

Task Force coordination was undertaken by theInteriorAssistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, as well asthefunction of maintaining liaison with thenon7governmentalconsultaticn project (which is discussed laterin thissection) and the American Indian comminity generally.Costsinvolved in the field consultations and other workof the-
Task Force were absorbed by the InteriorIndian Affairsoffices, with the exception of travel costsincurred lay other

agencies’ representatives.


Composition of this Task Force illustrates the generalprdblem encountered by Native Americans as they approachthe federal structure:1) point of entry – whidh officewithin eadh agency deals with their concerns; and 2) level ofdecision-naking – who has the authority to respand to theirconcerns.These points are reflected in the divergent levelsof response to this federal pcaicy participation effort.
Below is a partial listing of Task.Force nemberShip by titleand office, indicating 1) agency perception of Native Americanreligious freedom as an organizational issue (i.e., civilrights, law and order, equal opportunity, economic develop-
ment, anthropology, archaeology, public affairs, programs);
and 2) the institutional level of attention afforded theNative American interest.

Department of Agriculture, Sorest Service, RecreationManagement Staff, Assistant Director, Dispersed Recreation.

American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Directorand Deputy Director.

Commerce Department, Economic Development Administration,
Special Assistant for Indian Affairs.

Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretaryfor Manpower, Reserve Affairs am3 Logistics (Equal Opportunity).

Cepartnent of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Intergovern-
mental and Institutional Relations, and Specialist for IndianAffairs.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the DeputyAdministrator, Staff Assistant.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, DeputyAssistant Secreary for Human Development Services, andChairman, Intra-Depertmental Council on Indian Affairs.

Department of Housing and Urban Deve Lament, SpecialAssistant to the(Indian Affairs).

Dep4rtment ofe Interior: Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs ihd-Special Assistant for Legislation and Liaison;
Bureau of Land Management, Cultural Resource Program Leader,
Division of Recreation and Cultural Resources; Bureau ofReclamation, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity; Fish andWildlife Service, Deputy Associate Director, Wildlife Manage-
ment, and Office of Wildlife Assistance; Heritage Conservationand Recreation Service, Office of the Director, Acting Chief,
Division of State Programs, and Interagency ArcheologicalService, Archaeologist; National Park Service, Staff Archeo-
loaist, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Land and WaterResources, Special Assistant.



Justice Department, Associat Deputy AttorneyGeneral.
National Endowment for the amenities,Division of SpecialPrograms.

Departsrent of the Navy, DeputyUndersecretary, ani Officeof General Counsel.

Thnnessee Valley Authority, Office ofNatural Resources,
Manager and Cultural Resource ProgramStaff.

Department of Transprtatica,Assistant Secretary forGovernmental and Public Affairs, Chief,Cceminity PlanningAssistance, and thief Counsel, Civil Rights.

Ireasury Department, Customs Service,Chief Counsel.
U.S. Cc:mission on Civil Rights,Assistant General Camel.




1.Eepartment of Agriculture

a.FOrest Service

The Forest Service has had a continuing policyto seekout and involve the public in the development ofmanagementdirectbon. Cover the years localmanagers have workedclosely with representatives of Pliangroups in theplanning and decision-making process. This inputhas beengiven full consideration in the formation of policiesandprocedures, both on a national and a local basis.With thepassage of the American /ndian Religious Freedan Agtra newawareness of the needs of the Native American is occurringwithin the Agency.

&task force was formed to revied and evaluatethepolicies and procedures of the Forest Servicerelevant toAmerican Indian religious freedom and to recommendobangesas necessary. An interim policy was established directing,4line management officials at all levels that:

“In the preparatory stage of landnanagenent planning,
native traditional religious leaders will be notifiedof all public involvement activities and invitedtoprovide input.If an issue ooncerning /ndian religiousfreedan is identified, the culturalresource overviewfor the forest plan should provide substantiveback-
ground on the traditional Indian religiouspracticeswithin the planning area.When examination and consul-
tation determine a need to protect andpreserve certainlands or sites, this will be ccoomplished inandthrough the land management plsn.

“Eadh application by traditional Native Americanstouse National Forest System lands for religiouspurposesshall be carefully considered.The careful consider-
ation shall include those instanceswhere a requestinvolves an area under restrictions whidhwould nor-

mally preclude the activity.”


Review by field offices has notidentified any policies orprocedures thich have a negative effect on ccwill result inabridgement of the religious freedom ofNative Americans.
During consultation however, representativesof the NativeAmerican Rights Fund identified such concerns aspermitrequirements, closure orders and cultural resource managementthat may infringe upon Indian religious freedan.In response,
the Cultural Resources section of the ForestService Manualhas been rewritten to reflect the concernsof the Act. Inaddition, the Civil Rights and Permitting Sectionswill berevised to direct the Forest Service to oonsider the needsofAmerican Indians in these potentially sensitive areas.

The Forest Service will Continue to review thesepotentialconflict areas in close cooperation with traditionalreligiousleaders or their representatives to assyre the protectionand preservation of Native American religious rightsamdpractices.

2.Department of Energy

For purposes of the Inter-agency Task Force onIndianReligious Freedom, the Cepartment of Energy (ECE) hasiden-
tified the protection of sacred sites as a potentialproblemarea during the evaluation ofprocedures required in theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Agt.TO avoid in a system-
atic :Ismer future religious infringements, the DOEis consid-
ering as a possible approach the following process,either asa regulation cc as an internalissuance.

The DOE is interested in seeing that the freeexerciseof religion is protected efficiently without setting up anunnecessarily cumbersome mechanism.Therefore, it seemslikely that the process will be integrated into the environ-
mental review process which is already established, perhaps aspart of the Environmental impact Statement.The process wouldlikely apply to both substantial involvement by DOE or directauthority for DOE’s proposed activity which affects anyspecific site for whidh an environmental review is required.

Before the DOE would proceed with its proposed activity,
an investigation would be made to ascertainif the site atissue is related to the religious rites or cerenmies or Ls asacred site of any traditional religion which is currentlybeing practiced by any American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut cc

Native Hawaiian.


If the investigationfinds indicative’ that thesite iscurrently a subject ofreligious practices, thenthe’Nativetraditional religiousleaders shall be consulted,in order todetermine whether the DCEprcpased action wouldinfringe onthe free exerciseof religion in any wayand to gain anunderstanding of any imact cmthe Native Americantraditionalreligions. %V foreseethat the most difficultissue for theDOE will be whetherits proposed alterationof a site woulddeny access to a sacredsite or.ctherwise infringe onthe fveoexercise ct religion.
If consultationindicates that the prvosed DOEactionmay infringe onthe free exercise ofreligion, then alternateplans will be preparedwith additional consultationwith theNative traditionalreligious leaders.Alternate plans whichdo not infringe on thefree exercise of religionwill beexamined to determinewhether they adequately meetthe goalsct the DCE for thesite.

The CCE will nakeall deliberate effort toadopt a oourseof action consistentwith the policy enunciatedin P.L.
95-341. We are very awareof the rulings of theUnited StatesSupreme Cturt thatthe Federal government maynot abridge thefrte exercise ofreligion unless there is aoompelling govern-
mental interest at stake.

If no alternativeis feasible and DCE finds uponoonsul-
tation that its proposedaction would deny the freeexercisect religion, then thedifficult question must beasked:
How crucial is theproject? To safeguard againstthe answerbeing made by the programpeople most intimatelyinvolved inthe project, the findingwill be made within theenvironmentalreview, as previously noted.Within the DOE the AssistantSecretary for Environmentis structurally separatefrom themajor program offices.

If the DOE’s proposedaction is deemed to becompelling,
and must proceed, thenthe findings andjustification would bereviewed by the IR Secretariat,which includes the IndianAffairs Clfice.Then the findings andjustifications, accom-
panied by the Intergovernmentaland Institutional Relationsreport, will be forwardedto the Secretary forwritten appnovalbefore a final action is taken.Upon the Secretary’sfinalapproval, notice will begiven.The findings And justifi-
cation will be published andoammunicated to the native

traditional religious leaders orother concerned parties.


3.Eezertment of Health, Education and Welfare

a.Administration on Aging

The AdMinistration on Aging may provide social and nu-
tritional services to the Indian elderly under Title III andTitle TV of the Older Americans Act.Title III is a Stateadministered formula grant program, while Title TV is a newprogram that provides direct funding to Indian tribes andorganizaticos as defined by the Indian Self-Determination andEducation Assistance Act (PA,. 93-638).The Older AmericansAct provides for the acquisition, alteration, renovation or°
construction ct facilities for use as multipurpose seniorcenters.Bowyer, Section 37(a)(14)(A) ( iv) requires that amultipurpose senior center funded under ‘Title III “will not beused and is not intended to be used for sectarian instructionor as a place for religious worship.°This provision doesnot apply to programs under Title IV.Howeier, to date therehas been no appropriation of funds for the Title Iv programs,
thus all services currently provided to elderly Indians aregoverned by the provisions of Title I.

b.Education Division

The Assistant Secretary for Education indicates thatthe only agency which falls under the purview of the AmericanIndian Religicus Freedom Act is the Institute for MuseumServices.The Institute currently is evaluating its policiesand procedures to determine compliance with the Act.

c.Indian Health Service

The policy of the Indian Health Service (IHS) duringthe oourse of administering health services to AnericanIndians and Alaskan Natives is bo protect and preserve theinherent right of all Native Americans bo believe, express andexercise their traditional religions.Ihe IHS recognizes thevalue and efficacy to traditional beliefs, ceremonies andpractices ct the healing ct body, mind and spirit.Faith ismost often an integral part of the healing process and providessupport for purposeful living. It is, therefore, the policy qgthe IHS to encourage a climate of respect and acceptancein which an individual’s private traditicnal beliefs beccrie apart of the healing and harmonizing force within his/her



The IBS staff has beeninstructed to inform patients theyhavethe freedom to practiceNative religion when desired bythe individual or family memberin case of minors, or when thepatient’s conditicm is such thathe/she cannot make therequest.%ben an IHS patient (guardian -family member)
requests assistance inobtaining the services cf a Nativereligious practitioner, every effortwill be made to comply.
Sudh efforts might includecontacting a Native practitioner,
providing space or privacy within a hospital roamfor aceremony, and/or theauthorization of contract health carefunds to pay for Native healer consultationwhen necessary.

Eadh IHS Area Office has the responsibilityto consultwith the Native Americans within their respected area asto the desire of each tribein relation to their religiousbeliefs concerning autopsy and other postmortemoperations,
disposition cf a dead body, disposal cf alimb or disposal/
burial of a fetus, and to comply in respect tothe belief.
Individual consent is required by the IHSbefore actionon any cf the above,canbe made.Since a person’s Nativereligious beliefs are often very personal,the patient’sright to privacy must be respected inthese matters.No IHSemployee should be guilty of uninvitedprobing into cc inter-
ference with a patient’s private beliefs.Many Indianpatients prefer to say ncthing aboutthese beliefs andpractices.This is a right that must be respected.

Within this policy, IHS staff mustcontinue to be awareof, sensitive to and respectful towardtraditional beliefs andpractices of the Native Americans.Procedures which wouldtend to interfere with, dilute cc modifythese historicbeliefs and practices must Le avoided.Care must Le exercisedso that IHS support,in whatever form it takes, does nctbecome a wedge which creates dependency orwrests control fromthe chosen and honored Nativepractitioners of ancient andeffective healing practices.The goal is that there berespect and coaplemntary interfacebetween the two systems ofmedicine and religion.Care must be taken that apparent IHSand federal beneficence does not become a meanscf destroyinga system of healing which hasboth a long history and =tem-
porary relevance.

3 7


d.Rehabilitation Services Administration

The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) indicates that all of its policies and procedures are in compliance with the Amsrican Indian Religious Freedom Act.It is the policyof the RSA to modify traditional rehabilitation services to accomodate the religious convictions and practices of its service clientele.

0.Social Security Administration

The self-assessment conducted by the Sccial SecurityAdministration did not reveal any policies or procedures which need to be addressed.However, the agency is willing tocontinue its review if Native American religious leadersvishto provide specific examples ct areas whfCh should be examined.

4.Department of the Interior

a.Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), among all thefederilagencies, has had the longest and most extensive relationstyipwith American Indian tribes, nations and peoples.For ov’e acentury and a half, BIA has carried out this Nation’s policyregarding Indians.This policy has varied greatW over theyears but until fairW recent times has been preoccupied withreligious conversion and social acculturation.

The more modern and enlightened policy has been one ofrecognitton of the strengths that are inherent1n traditionand social bonds and building upon those strengths.ThisFolicy became cur law with the enactment ct P.L. 93-638, theIndian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ct1975.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Agt is in keepingwith the policy of Indian self-determination, and the BIAactively supported its enactment.The President, afterapproving P.L. 95-341, directed the Secretary ct Interior toestabliska federal agency task force for implementationof the law.The Office of the Assistant Secretary of theInterior for Indian Affairs has coordinated these efforts cobehalf ct the Secretary and the BIA has been an active part-
icipant in the consultative process, taking positive steps

to facilitate Indian religious freedom..\


One identified problemis the conflict betweenfederalemployment practices and thetraditional religious obligationsof many of the 12,000Indian BM employees.The AssistantSecretary for Indian Affairshas directed the KA to develop aplan which will seek to accomodateemployees’ religiouspractices requiring time away fromwork, and to study the sameprdblem as it affects studentsin B/A schools.

Many problems regarding the BLAoperated schools are beingmet through contracting operationof those schools bo tribesand setting up Indian parent schoolboards.This is beingdone under authority of the /ndianSelf-Determination’andEducation Assistance Aort.

‘Ihe newly published BIA regulationsunder the EducationAmendments of 1978, take specific noteof,the religiousfreedom rights of Indian students.25 CFR, Part 31(a), statesBIA policy to: “promote and respectthe right to culturalpractices, consistent with the provisionsof the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom ARC,*

In 25 CFR, Part 31, thefollowing are recognized: 1) theright to freedom ct religion, and theright tote frce fromreligious proselytization; 2) theright to cultural self-
determination based upon tribal thoughtand philosophy; 3) theright to freedom,of speech andexpression, including choice ofdress, and length ct hair; 4) the basicright to an educationrequirin? a staff which recognizes, respectsand accepts thestudents cultural heritage, its values,beliefs and dif-
ferences; and 5) the right to a meaningfuleducation whichshall be designed to insure thattribal elders and membershaving a practicing knowledge of tribal customs,traditions,
values and beliefs are utilized in thedevelopment and imple-
mentation ct cultural programs.

The B/A is currently developingregulatiors for implemen-
tation of the National Historic PreservationAct, pursuant tothe regulations issued by theAdvisory,Ccuncil on HistoricPreservation.The BIA regulations will also address otherstatutes relating to cultural resources.Special attention isbeing given to P.L. 95-341 in the developmentof these regu-,
lations, which will help ensure that BIA activitiesandprograms are conducted in a mannerconsistent with the American

Indian Religious Freedom Act.


The BIA recegnizes that, because ct its special responsi-
bilities to Indians, other federal agencies are likely torequest BIA participation as a cooperating agency in thepreparation of environmental impact statements on prcposedactions whidh may affect the free exercise of Indian religiactivity.The BLA will assist other agencies in these assess-
ments to the extent its resources permit.

b.Bureau of Land Management

Pursuant to the reqyirements set forth ty the American’Indian Religious Freedan Act (42 U.S.C. 1996; P.L. 95-341)
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated an etialuatice ctrelevant policies and procedures, in order to determineFeasible impacts upon the religiousvractices and beliefs ofNative Americans.%here present cc poteritial incacts wereidentified, recommendations were made regarding the need for’either ifteinmal adjustments or changes in legislation.

Many separate Fotential impacts revolve around the BLM’sland-use management deciskons.In ‘developing ‘ts land-usecams, the ELK is guided by the principle ofmUltiple-usenenagement of the public lands, as set forth by the FederalLand Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701).
Relying on the inventory of the resources add values, the BLM,
through its planning process, considers the present andpotential uses of the land and formulates management plansbased upon these uses.The BIM, therefore, has the overallpolicy and direction to incorporate socio-cultural values,
suet* as Native American religicus ooncerns, into its land-useplanning and maragement systems.Many of the potentialimpacts upon Native American religious freedom can be avoidedthrough use of these existing systems.

The BLM, through its cultural resource program, willcontinue to evaluate its policies and procedures relevant’to Native American religious concerns and will work towardproviding full consideration ct socio-cultural values intts land-use planning and management systems.(See Appendix

BO BLM, for initial evaluation of policies and programs.)

c.Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the Fishand Wildlife Service (FWS)isto provide thefederal leadership to oanserve,protect and-
enhance fiih and wildlifeand their habitats Dorthe continu-
img benefit of the people.

In dmapliance withrequirements ct P.L. 95-341, the FWShas evaluated its policies’andprocedures in consultationwithNative traditional religiousleaders, in order to determineappropriate changes necessary to protectand preserve NativeAmerican religious cultural rightsand practices.

The PAS assessment of commentsreceived during formalconsultations identified someproblems which have beenrecti-
fied through policy dhangesand formulation.These changesinclude initiating a religious-awarenessprogram for handling,
;reaming, storing an3 shippingeagles and eagle parts fromthe time a specimem isobtained to the tube the requesteditems are mailed to the applicant.In addition to all eaglefeathers and feet, goldeneagle heads and breast boneswill

now be available toappaicants through cur permit system.Aneo policy has alsobeen instituted makingavailable excessbuffalo on National WildlifeRefuges for Native religiousceremonial purposes.(See Appendix B, FWS, forinitialevaluation of policies andprograms.)

d.Heritage Conservation andRecreation Service –
Interagency ArcheologicalServices

In order to determinepossible impacts upon thereligiouspractices and beliefs ct NativeAmericans, pursuara to therequirements set forth by the AmericanIndian ReligiousFreedom Act ot 1978, InteragencyArcheological Services (IAS)
has initiated a review ifN3 relevant xaiciesand procedures.

The primary concerns revolvearound the potential impactct archeological investigations onceremonial and habitationsites, and human osteologicalremains at these sites.Indeveloping policy relating to thesearcheological investiga-
tions, IAS is giuded by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Actof 1969 (P.L. 91-190); ExecutiveOrder 11593; the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (P.L. 93-291);Recovery of Scientific,
Prehistoric, Historic, and ArcheologicalData: Methods,
Standards, and Reporting Requirements(36 CFR 66); arA theNational Register of Historic Places andComprehensive State-
wide Historic Survey and Plans (36 CFR60, 61).The concernsof Native Americans can be metthrough these legislative acts,
either through amendments or additions.(See Appendix B, HCRS,

far initial evaluation ofpolicies and programs.)


e.National Park:Service

On February 4, 1978, the National Park Service (NPS)
issued Special Directive 78-1.This committed the NPS to a_policy of concern with, informed awareness of and sensitivityto Native American issues, resources and sacred sites.Thisdirective has served as an imetus to develop inplenentingguidelines, which is an co-going process.

With the’signing of the American Indian Religious FreeSomAct, the NPS has held consultations with Native Americanadvocacy, secular and religious represOntatives, and is anactive Ferticipant in the subject TaskiForce.

An assessment of the impacts of NTS legislative mandates,
regulations, Folicies and program on Native American religionshas teen prepared.In consultation withlNative Americanrepresentatives, these impacts are now under study at the parklevel and reoommendations Dor future action are being prepared.

Through its natural and cultural resourtes ptograms, theNTS will continue to carry out its mandated missions, whilebeing alert to possitae inpacts co Native American resources.
Where necessary or practicable, such impacts will be avOidedor minimized through alternative actions.(See Appendix Et,
NPS, Dor initial review cl policies and programs, and NTSrecord of consultation.)

5.Department of the Navy

The Department of the Navy has been an active participantin the subject task force and has evaluated relevant policiesand procedures in light ct the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Att in order to determine what, if any, impact mayoccur upon the religious practices of Native Americans.TheNavy has identified two specific problem areas at China Lake,
California, and Kahoolawe, Hawaii.The Navy is diligentlyworking to allow the desired access to theseareas in a mannerwhich Ls both safe to the participants and not disruptivetothe Navy’s mission.In May of 1979, a message was sent to allNaval stations by the Secretary making themaware of therequirements of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and fadvising them to give deliberate consideration to legitimatereligious concerns of Native Americans.The Navy will continueto omperate with Native traditional religious leaders in anongoing effort to ensure the free exercise of religious rightswhile at the same time ensuring the safety of all personnel

and the completion of its military mission.


6.Cepartment of the Treasury

a.CUstans Service

After President Carter signed into law theAmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, theCommissioner ofCustoms, Robert E. Chasen, issued apolicy statement cnSeptember 18, 1978, entitled “Policy to Protectand PreserveAmerican Indian Religious Freedan.”The policy statementtransmitted a copy of the Joint Resolution signed by thePresident, together with the press release of theWhite Houseon the subject.Ok copy of that policy statement is attachedas Appendix B.)

In that policy statement, theCommissioner directed allPort Directors, District Directorsand Supervisory CustomsInspectors, who have Customs officersworking under theirsupervision and who are responsible for examining andclearingarticles accompanying American Indians crossing ourlandborders, to make certain that Custams officers workingundertheir supervision are fully aware of this federalpolicy ofprotecting and preserving for American Indianstheir inherentright to believe and practice their traditionalreligion.
They are instructed to institute measures to assurethat, inthe course of their examination for Custcas purposes,theytreat more sensitively the variousarticles that are used byAmerican Indians in the exercise of their religiousandcultural beliefs.


In addition, to implepent this policy,aCustoms IndianAffairs Cammittee was established.The first meeting of theCommittee was organizationi in nature and was held in Albu-
querque, New Mexico, wherrepresentatives of the AmericanIndian Law Center and tNative American Rights Fund providedan excellent backgroundbriefing to the newly appointedcommittee members.It was decided that future meetings of theCdmmittee should be held in different sections of the countryso that as many tribalrepresentatives as possible would havean opportunity to surface localproblems they may be havingwith Customs officers upon crossing the border.

The second meeting of the Cuctoms committee was held inBurlington, Vermont, on November 29 and 30, 1978.TVenty-six.
Indian participants attended together with the local Associate’-
Regional Ccxnmissioner of the Immigration and NaturalizationService and two representatives from Canadian Customs.

4 3


The third meeting was held in Tucson, Arizona, on February13 and 14, 1979.Sixty-seven Indian representatives partici-
pated together with representatives from the Immigration andNaturalization Service, Department of Agriculture, Bureau ofLndian Affairs, American Indian Law Center, Native AmericanRights Fund and the offices of Senator Barry Goldwater andCongressman Morris Wall.

A fourth meeting of the Committee was held in June 1979in Great Falls, Montana.More than 100 Indian representativesand government officials attended.Canada was represented byCUstcms and Agriculture officiais.,

%tile serving initially as a catalyst for the expressionof apparently long-held grievances on the part ct the respec-
tive Indian tribes or bands represented,,the meetings haveestablished a dialogue or comminications-link with dedicatedIndian representatives who have brought to Customs attentioncertain problems which should be addressed and, hopefully,
resolved.Sometimes the problem was merely a lack of uni-
forndty in the application of established rules and procedureson the part ct Customs officers in a particular port ctentry.%herever this %es brought to our attention, steps %ereimmediately taken to correct the matter and toassure uniform-
ity in the future.Sometimes the problem stemmed from anunawareness on the part of scae Indians to the full extent oftheir rights as returning residents to bring articles withthem into the United States or that they could registervaluable personal possessions with Customs before leaving theUnited States in order to awaid any hassle or possibleassess-
ment ct Customs duty on their return.

In this regard, %e had a news release prepared which high-
lights the daily and monthly entitlements to exemptions frompayment of duty and sindlar rights which would be of particularinterest to residents who live at or near the border andcrossinto Canada or Mexico on a frequent or even daily basis.
Copies of this news release were disseminated for publicationin tribal or other newspepers thatare circulated amongst



In an effort to compile a ompletelistin? of the variouskinds cf natural objects which have areligious purpose orsignificance to Native American Indians,reprints of the liststhat were admitted into the record ofthe hearing on theJoint Resolution before the U.S. SenateSelect Committee onIndian Affairs were distributed tospiritual and trilaalleaders.lbey were requested to review thelists and add tothem any articles which they believeshould be included andreturn them.Once oampiled, such a referencemanual will benede avai able to Customs officers who maybe confronted withsuch articles so they will be able toauthenticate, on thespot, their stated religious purpose.

At each.of the regional meetings, alocal CUstons repre-
sentative was designated as a contact paintavailable toIndian representatives whenever a problemwith Customs officersarises In that particular border area.We believe that mostproblems will be able to be resolvedlocally.In the event Itcannot be resolved at that level thenit will, of course, beelevated to an appropriate policy-makinglevel for resolution.

6nly tma problems have surfaced so farwhich have not beenable to be completely resolved at thelocal level.Cne in-
volves the manner and extent ofexamination of medicine bundlesand sacred articles, which Is beingaddressad at the nationallevel.A booklet for Customs officersis in preparation withthe oocperation of the Yaqui Indians whichillus4:rates theYaqui sacred masks and other sacred objectswhich ,:.re broughtinto the United States from Mexico.It is hoped that thisbooklet will make Customs officials more awareof Yaqui sacredobjects.Ibis particular project may serve as a model tobefollowed in resolving similar problems with otherIndiantribes which arise out of insensitive handlingby Customsofficers cf their sacred or religious articles.

The other problem involves the long-heldgrievance ofIndians on both sides of the United States-Canadianborder thattheir rights under the Jay Treaty to cross and recrosstheborder freely and bo carry personal goods dutyfree acrosssuch borders have been held by courts to beabrogated.Thissubject was discussed at some length at the Burlington, Tusconand Great Falls meetings.The Indian representatives mostdirectly concerned have expressed the hope that arecommendationwill be made to the President that appropriate corrective

legislation bo restore such rights should be enacted.



The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was createdby the Naticoal Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L.
89-665, 16 USC 470 as amended) to advise the President andCongress on matters of historic preservation and to review andcomment upon the impact of federal undertakings on historical,
architectural, arCheological and cultural resources ct NationalRegister significance.Section 106 ct the National HistoricPreservation Act requires that Federal agencits submit forreview and comment by the Council all undertakings affectingproperties included in or eligible for the National Registerct Historic Places.The National Register does not listproperties significant solely for religious reasons.Churches,
for example, are listed ala for arthibactural or historicalreasons or if they contribute to the character of an historicdistrict.Cduncil =marts on sites of,religicus significanceto Native Americans occuretherefore, only when such sites arelisted in the National Register for other than religiousreasons.

Buried artifacts, human burials and religious sitesthat happen to be associated with significant archeologicalsites are all likely examples cf situations where the valuesexpressed in Public Lwa 95341 could be incorporated with thevalues already covered under the Historic Preservation Act.
Section 106 review and final resolution is based upon aprofessional assessment of the impact that “causes or maycause any change, beneficial cc adverse, in the quality of thehistorical, architectural, archeological or cultural character-
istics that qualify the property to meet the criteria of theNational Register.” Since some properties in California,
Washington and Idaho have been entered into the NationalRegister for reasons of cultural significance to American.
Indians fululer criteria (a) “Broad Historical Associations’s],
and do not have associated archeological cc historical re-
sourcei7The Council has the potential of being asked tocomment cn the effect ct federal undertakings to these kindsof properties.Its oamment, however, wouId be limited to theimpacts covered under the Historic Preservation Act and theCouncil’s Regulations (36 CFR 800), and would not be construed

to be participation in the undertaking itself.

8.American Polkli e Center, Libraryof Congress

The ArrericanfIdian Religious PreedcutAtt of 1978 isvery much in accord withthe stated purposes ct theAmericanPolklife Preservation Act of 1976 (P.L.94-201) to “preserveand present American folklife.”Native Americans are avery *portant elementin American folklife, and they havecontributed greatly to the cultural richnessct the Nation.

The American Polklife Center firmly believesthat thereligicus rights and cultural integrity ct NativeAmericansare in need ct preservatica.Nbne of the provisions of theCenter’s enabling legislation interferes withthe intendedpurpose of the American IndianReligious Freedom Act.Infact, out authority directs us bo assistin the accomplishmentof the purposes of this declaration,within existing personneland financial resources ct the Centeraethe Library ofCongress.

It is cut view and that ct thefolklife community thatNative Americans be encouraged andassisted in preservingtheir religicus and tribal beliefs and customsfor present andfuture generations. One useful approachis through orderly andthorough documentation ct these traditions.

The Center is anxious to encouragethe preservation ofthese traditions primarily at the locallevel and in regionaloc national archiveswhen consistent with the policies oftribal leaders.The Library of Congress with thefinancialassistance of the Bureau ct Indian Affairsis undertakinga major project totransfer approximately 3,000 wax cylinderrecordings to magnetic tape as part of aneffort to preservethese recordings which oontain in large partmaterials con-
cerning Native American traditions.she cylinders are theproperty of the Library, the Smithsonian andthe NationalArchives.When the duplication is completed, thecollectionwill be maintained by the Library and, in addition,copieswill be made available to appropriate tribalinstitutions.



9.Commission on Civil Rights

Putrsuant -to the implicaticsts and thrust of the AnericanIndian Religials Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1996, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights evaluated its policies and pro-
cedures as4hey may impact on Indian religious freedom.The

Commission ori Civil Rights is not an agency which aimin-
isters.federal laws, regulations or policies pertaining toIndian religious freedom; it, however, does have the authorityto study issues of religicus freedom;idsmke recommendationsconcerning such issues to Congress.

A review, of past projects indicated that there had been naCamnission studies pertaining to religious discriminstionagainst Arrerican Indians.In order to receive input for thereview, the Ctamission actively participated in the consult-,
at ion process with Anerican Indian religjois le0ers.Thisspring, the Canmission sponsored a consultation concenningreligicus discrimination which specifically included Indianissues.Several Carrnission publications have been revised toexpand coverage of Indian religious discrimination issues.

10. National Endownent for the Thrnanities

The National Endowrrent for the Humanities is fullyccmmitted to the implementation of the Arerican IndianReligicus Freedom Act of 1978.All Endoment policy andprograns are developed and administered in harmony with thegoals of this Act.The En:lament firmly believes that the.
protectial of Native American cultural rights is consistentand in accord with the-agency’s stated goals as directed bythe Congressional act which established the National Endow-
ment for the HLananities in 1965.

These goals are: (1) to pranote public understanding anduse of the hunanities and to relate the hunanit les to currentconditions of national life; (2) to improve the quality ofhutanities prcgrams in educational institutions, and toencourage and assist nontraditimal ventures in humanisticlearning; _(3) to enrich and broaden the intellectual founda-
tions for humanistic endeavors, and to support scholarlyadditions to humanistic knowledge and (4) to sustain andenhance essential facilities and resources which undergirdhumanistic pursuits and to help inform the future role ofhumsnist Lc concerns.




The Endowment Lsestablishing an internal agency taskforce to monitor and promote theapplication of Public Law95-341 in the areas of new agencypolicy calsiderations, grantapplic,tion guidelines, grant evaluationprocedures and agencystaff education on thesignificance of the Lad to all areasof Endowment podicy and programs.

Tem National Endowment for theHumanities views theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Act (P.L.95-341) as asignificant measure in advancing researdh,education andpublic activity in the humanities.

11. Tennessee Valley Authority

In_accordance with the policy setforth in the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Actethe TtnnesseeValley Authority(ra) initiated a review of itspolicies-4nd procedures todetermine possible infringements upon thtfree exercise ofreligion bytiative Americans.

WAhas,not Ldeniified any Agencypolicy or procedurewhidh directly interferes with theexercise of traditionalreligion by Native Americans, although someAgency activities(uch as construction) could have animpact upon these reli-
gious concerns.TVA is actively seeking toaccommodate thereligious. rights of Native Americans,and is taking steps tofurther incorporate the relOicus owernsof Native Americansinto the environmental reviews of proposedactivities.Inaddition, consideration of Native Americanreligiais concernsis being factored into the land managementand planningfunct ions .

TVA recognizes its responsibilitiesunder P.L. 95-341amdwill continue to actively eValuateits activi ies andprocedures relevant to the religious needsand coiperns ofNative Americans.(See Appendix IS for initial eveationof policies and programs.)




1.Federally-Funded Religious Freedomect

Prior to the enactment of P.L. 95-341several federalagencies explored possibilities for an eective consultationprocess which would: 1) allow for two-waicommunicationsbetween the Native traditional religicusileaders and thefederal agencies; 2) provide to the Natilve American religiouspracOtioners the legal and technical Opertise necessary toevaulate past and proposed federal actions; 3) accord theopportunity for Native Americans to present their undilutedviews as a part- of the record; and 4) permit the federal4alencies, particularly those with minimal past dealings

with Native Americans, towork directly with those who areaffected by administrative actions.

TO facilitatt this process, three agencies entered intoan agreement to jointly fund two Native American legalassocia-
tions for a parallel study to the governmental assessmentrequired by the Act.Parties tO the inter-agency agreement%ere the Administration for Native Americans (DREW),theCbmmunity Services Administration amd the Bureau of /ndianAffairs, with project liaison actjyities coordinated by theInterior Assistant Secretary for Idian Affairs.

The religious freedcm project was =ducted by the American/ndian Law Center and the Native American Rights Fund.The.-legal associations established a project advisory board.
oomprised of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiiantribal and religious leaders.Project acttvities included: 1).
notifying Native Americans of the Act, proposed federalactions and Task Force consultation’s; 2) conducting legal,
historical and cultural research on issues and problemsidentified by religious practitioners, tribes and agencies;
and 3) assisting the Task Force and member-agencies to preparetheir reviews.

Project and advisory representatives partlz4rated inall pthases of the implementation of P.L. 95-341, includingthe preparation of the final report in draft.They met withthe Tatk rorce at its April 2 meeting in Washington, D.C.,
and its June 7-8 consultation on the Cheyenne River Sioux



2.Member-Agency Consultation

Before passage of the AmericanIndiar Religious FreedomResolution in the Senate, the CustcasSeivice established itsCommittee on Indian Affairs (whichis detailed elsewhere inthis report).The Customs Committee has metwith AmericanIndians in key locations at the northernand southern borderscf the contiguous United States for the purposeof adressingAmerican /ndian ooncerns, religious andotherwise.One of theTask Force consultations was held inconjunction with theCustoms Committee, which will oontinueits activities beyondthe required evaluation period.

The National Park Service (NPS) hasalso established aninternal mechanism for continuingoonsultaticn on theseissues.All NPS regions now have regionalcoordinators whoserve as liaisoh withlocal, regional and Washington NPSoffices and Native Americans. -As a result ofongoing consult-
ation, many park areas have waivedfees for Native Americanspiritual visits and have accommodatedtraditional religiouspractitioners’ needs for access to :lamedsites and gatheringplants for ceremonial purposes.The NPS is presently consult-
ing with Native Americans on suchpolicy matters as archaeolo-
gical research, sacred site protection,burial ground dis-
turbance and the concept of credentialsof eminence, as wellas with specifictribes and groups on an issue-by-issue basis.
Arecord of NPS consultation can befound in Appendix B.

The U.S. Commission col CivilRights, under its authorityto study issues of religiousfreedati and make recatmnlationsto Corigress, participated in theTask Force consultations andspecifically included American Indianissues in Commission-
sponsored consultation concerningreligious discrimination.
During the period of consultation, the ForestService en-
couraged its Regional Foresters-e4StationDirectors and AreaDirectors to work with the religiousfreedom project andNative leaders in order to gain wareness of theNativeAmerican reiigious issues.Several Regions have met withlocal religious leaders as a result of thisdirection.
Likewise, the Department ct Energy has prcnotedlocal-levelconsultation with Native tribal and religious eldersregardingcontertiOlated sites and projects.

The individual agency consultations have opened new com-
munications and already.have produced results to thesatia-
faction of those agencies, tribes and groups concerned.?\
Examples of these results – most notably with the Bureauof f;
Land Management, Department of the Navy, and theFish andWildlife Service – are provided in Part III of this Report.



3.Task Force Consultation

F011owimg the April 2 Task Force meeting, ten consult-
ations were scheduled throughout the oountry.hbtices ofconsultation were sent by the Department of the Interior andthe religious freedom project to Native traditional religiousleaders, Native Hawaiian groups, American Indian and AlaskaNative tribes and villages andNative American national andregional organizations.Additionally, notices were sent toall BIA Area amd AgencyOffices and the NPS Hawaii StateMice fordistribution, as well as to Task Force nether-

=ies.Local coordinators for each consultation dis-
ted notices in their areas and, where appropriate,
notified tribal and regional press and officials.

Consultation sites were selected for a variety of reasons,
including Oesire of the local tribes and:INative communitiesfor sudhauneeting,the needs on issues of particular regions,
the availability of local coordinators and the specificinterests of agencies active in the process.(Notices ofconsultation, dharts of identified ooncerns and guides to thetranscripts appear in Appendix C.)

The first consultationwas held at the Cheyenne RiverSwiftbird Project, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, SouthDakota, June 7-8, 1979, which was selected: 1) because theDepartment of Justice haa an interest in a consultationfocuiing primarily on ihe needs ot Native American prisoners,
and 2) because of its location on a reservation where federalor national /ndian meetings are seldom held.Swiftbird is afederally-funded alternative incarceration center for Indianinmates.It has special provisions for the religious andcultural needs ct Intc4seciple and its only fence is cnetu ilt to keep the suring buffalo herd from scattering.
Federal representatives of the Departments of Justice and the/nterior and the U.S. Commission cn Civil Rights met withreligious leaders fram the Cheyenne River Sioux and otherSioux reservations, as well as the religious freed=projectadvisory board, on issdes related to penal institutions andthe full range ct concerns identified by the projectrepresentatives.

The second consultation was held in Cass Lake, Minnesota,
at the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Council Chambers, June11-12, 1979, where statenents concerning Native Americanprisoners were also raised, in addition to those of the Tribeand surrounding region.’Me Depaemnents of Health, Dducationand Welfare and the Interior were represented (SocialSecurity Administration, BIA and NPS), along with the Customs

Service and Forest Service.


The thirdconsultation washeld in Honolulu, Hawaii,
co June 13.Coordinated by the National Park Service StateDirector and atended by local representatives of Task Forcemember-agencies, the consultation involved Native Hawaiianreltgious leaders and practitioners from several of theIslands.The Department ofthe Navy held a special consult-
ation on the morning of the same day, in connection withongoing litigation, and participated inthe afternoon sessionof the general consultation.

The fourth consultation took place on June 14-15, 1979,
at the Chief Joseph Cultural Center on the ConfederatedTribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelan,Washington.
Respresented were theDepartnent ofthe Navy, Tennessee ValleyAuthority, U.S. Cmmission on Civil Rights, Forest Service andDepartment of theInterior (BIA, BL)4, EMS, ItCPS and NPS).Asguests of the Nez Perce Bard, Indian people of all tribes andreligions Reservation-wideattended, as well as Indians frmother tribes throughout the Northwest.

The Customs -Service Canittee on Indian Affairs andthe Task Force combined efforts for a singleconsultationon cross-border issues, June 19-20, 1979, at Great Falls,
Montana. Arrerican and Canadian Indian people fran New York toWashirgton acrossthe U.S.-Canada borderattended,along withCanadian and U.S. Custcus officials, and Fish and Wildlife,
Pprest Service, Indian Affairs and U.S. Commission on CivilRights representatives.0

The consultation at the Pueblo of Zuni took place cnJune 22-23, 1979, with religioUs leaders from most of the19 Pueblos, as well as Apache, Navajo and Ute representatives.
The Zuni religious leadership, following many hours of internaldiscussion, attendedthe proceedings and made statements atthe consultation’s end.Never before had they participated insuch a meetingin their ceremonial positions.Federal repre-
sentation included theDepartment ofEnergy, Tennessee ValleyAuthor ity,.U.S. Cartrnissicn on Civil Righter Ferest service andthe Departnent of the Interior (BIA, Brit,WS, HCRS and NPS).

In Norman, Oklahoma, June 26-271 1979, the seventh consult-
tion was held at the University of Oklahoma, attended byDIEN, DOE, Interior and WA representatives and by religious-leaders of tile Arapaho, Cheyenne, Kickapoo, Kioda, Muscogee

and other tribes fran Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado.


The eighth and ninthoonsultations were held co June 29,
in the Reno-Sparks TribalBuilding, Reno, Nevada, and June30 at the Qualla Civic Center,Eastern Band of CherokeeIndians, Qualls Boundary, CherOkee,Notth Carolina, whereInterior and TVA representatives metwith local leaders andrepresentatives.And, the final consultation, conductedbythe BIA and NPS in Anchorage,Alaska, on July 12, 1979, wasattended by Native Alaska pecplerepresenting state-wideconcerns.

Testinony was taken fran all personswho wished to,makestatements, with priority attentiongiven to the Nativetraditional religious leaders.In some instances,°the reli-
gious leaders preferred to make no statement orbo speak onlythrough representativiis.Some religious leaders spoke in-
formally to the federalrepresentatives, but were precluded bytribal customary law from appearingformally in a non-
ceremonial capacity.Still others, whose religions carry nosuch prohibitions, preferred toawait the report of the TaskForce, in order to ascertainthe sincerity of the federaleffort.Several of those elders who did makestatements spokein their language, and theirtranscribed remarks were trans-
lated into the English languageby persons of their choosing.

Some of the! Native religicusleaders and practitionersexpressed fear that this Att andits implementation wouldgenerate a new.wave ofreligious persecution, while mostfelt that the law would help thenin their goal of religiousfreedom.The Cheyenne Sacred Arrow Keeper, Mr.Edward RedHat, attended the too days ofthe consultation in Norman,
Oklahoma, stating at its oonclusion:

NI knew it was supposed to help thepeople, and now Istill have my ceremonies.I just got through at theceremonies here not too long ago, Arrow Ceremony,SunDance, and I was sick..butit really helped, and I hear alct of people here talking.That’s real good talk theynake….I was thinking all the time, they aregetting4

help….That was the first time I know that pecplelistening

about this Indian religion.And I was up in Washingtonlast summer and I made a speech over there,and that’s how

this religion came up. They passed on it, and Ifeel good.”


Ihe oonsultation at Zuni Pueblo began with a detailedlisting of needs and concerns of the Mescalero Apadhe reli-
gicus leaders, succinctly stated by Ms. Bernice Yucce:

“What I have to put before ycu, all of you, is the riglhtthat the Indian people have to have relbgicn whereverthey want and wherever they meet because, to a whitepeople, religion is cpen to them.Wherever they go,
there’s a church. ‘There’s the Bible; the Bible isopen tothem in public.And our Indian people are set back; theywould not let us go to the mountains…to worshipas wewant; to the federal land, it’s restricted to us.Theyhave restricted us from entering the state and federallands to get cur food and to practice cur religicusways.

°There are four mountains Chat repregept the MescaleroApaches…ahis is our freedom of relbgion before theWhite man came.We are there, praying for our people, notcnly for our people but for the whole United States sothat we have freedom, that there will be no war, thatwe’ll have peace.That’s why we have these four mountainsand they are all sacredtous.

*And, for food, ue needtoget Ln there Dor mescal,
sumacs, berries, and cane fran the mosquero.INTe use thatfor religicus reascms.And for the Indian feathers whichare not free to us, ue have to steal them to get it andthat’s not fair.Asfor the white person, they don’t haveto steal for their relbgicn; they don’t have to fight fortheir relbgion.But our Indian people have to fight andthat’s not fair.We should be free to get cur eaglefeathers as we wish, as we did a bong time ago.We shouldjust keep that.

“And for the plants and paint in basketweaving, wu get itfram the yucca flowers and to a white man, that’s thestate flower.We respect the New Mexico State Flower,
too, but that was a fccd a bong time before the whitemancame.We used it for food and for basketmaking.Today,
we have to steal it.And for the mosguero, today we haveto pay for it; mescal is our food.Among the Apachepeople, this is cur food.It’s given to us by our fathersfor strength and for our uses.gly are we stopped from



“And for the Indian bananas forour people, the Apachepeople, that’s their fax:, our food.It was long before,
we used the bananas.That’s our food.Why do we have togo out and steal that? Wt go out of the reservation,uetry to get it.Somebody else holds a gun againstus andsaid, ‘That’s mine.That’s my land.Stay out of it.’
And it’s ins4de the federal land and that’snot fair.Andit’s ins4de the state land and that’snot fair.

“And for the ‘White Sands, this is goinginto the medicinepart…At need the sage that ueuse for our religicusmedicines.We have to steal that and that’s not fair.Wehave to go behind the bushes bo get itand there’s othermedicines in the federal land thatwe should get free, asan Indian, because God gave us a different religion.Gbdgave us different medicines bo live by, to ‘liveby’ meansto help people, our people, togo on.. This is curstrength.Tnis is our belief.%V Sfiould keep it.That’sthe way us Apaches look at it.And there’s dirt and rocksthat we need to get outside ofour reservation, butthere’s the gun to stopus, against us, too.We need, ourpeople need it.We feel that we should be free togetit.

“And for the cane fro= themosquero, we should have thefreedom to get that, to use it.We use a lot of that.
And that’sumac berries,we try to go out and get it.Thewhite pecvle, they don’tuse it.The other people mayuseit, but among our Apache people,we use it for the cere-
monial purposes, of using it for bringingup cur younggirls, coming of age.That’s what we need, and Iwant tosee that we have the freedom to use that.And the medicine,
ue should have the freedom to cross the borderof NtwMexico to get whatwe want from there instead of beingstopped.We should go get it outas free people, likeyears ago.

“The mesquite beans,we are stopped from getting mesquitebeans from the highway peopleor other federal lands andthat’s not fair forus.These are our food, for Apache


peoples, and we wish Chat itill go on so that we’ll havethings that were given tousGpd for our people,ourIndian people for now gettingand for the purpose of.
having freedom in the UnitedStates.And this is why I:
stand before you today, thatI hcpe that yuu will respect

my wishes on behalf of my Mescaleroreligious leaders.”


These consultations,extensive and rich as they were,
point to the need forcontinuing dialogue at the tribaland local level, and tothe need for cogoingCcngressionaloversight.Many problemsidentified in consultaticn areunderCongressional consideration atpresent, particularlywithregard bo Native Hawaiianclaims and federalrelationship,
Alaska Native lands andprotection of sacred sites andobjectsof Native Americans.Cther *portant Nativereligious freedamissues are before the courts orin varying stages ofnegotia-
tion.Significant issues in thesecategories, which are nctwithin the executive forum, areaddressed only generally here,
althcugh they may have beenmajor topics of discussion duringconsultaticn sessions.

The concerns raisedthroughout the consultation periodappear in condensedform in Part III, Recommendations, asstatements of issues andexamples of identifiedproblems.
General concerns expressedby Native traditionalreligicusleaders, agency representativesand others are addressed in

Part IV, Conclusion.




1.Background – Statement of Issues

7he attadhment of the Native American people to the landb3 a fact well noted in American history.Treaties, agree-
ments, executive orders and special statutes have providedfor a land base for most Indian governments and their citizen-
ry.While the use of the reservation system in this oountryhas successfully accomplished the intended purpose, the rigidapplication-of this same system, over time, has produced anunintended result.Many Native people have been effectively’denied access to off-reservation areas used for the gathekingof natural products necessary for healing and ceremonialpurposes, and access to areas containinTsacred sites orholyplaces revered in Native traditions.

Many of these places are now held by the federal govern-
ment for a variety of purposes, most of which are compatiblewith the Native religious use.The accommodation of Nativereligious uses within federal land management programs musttake into account their desire for these lands to renin intheir natural state.

The indigenous natural substances of the land are anintegral part of the Native religions.Proper gathering ofthe natural products is essential to ensure the4%efficacy inlater use.The time chosen for the gathering may be deter-
mined in a number of ways:1) the immediacy of the needfor a particular substance;2) the problems of arrangingtravel to distant places for a specific natural product; and3) the tribal traditton or the individual’s particularbelief, which may require a certain period for gathering,
often based on the occurrence of the seasons or other naturalevents, with the time of day prescribed similarly.

The persons who are to engage in the gathering may besubject ba specific religious laws regarding their immediatepast behavior, and may have undergone preparatory rituals.
The presence of others is often controlled because of beliefsthat the substance itself may be affected by the proximity,
behavior or condition of all persons.Those who are togather the substance are often required to achieve a properstate of mind prior to entering the physical presence of the

natural product to be gathered.


The place of the gatherim may bedetermined bytrecliticn, ‘mown availability of the naturalproduct andaccessibility, or may involve a ritual search.The gather-
ing may be carried out immediately or it may takeplace fora long time, depending onthe amount needed and the reli-
gious instructions governing supply and method ofgathering.
The amount gathered varies according tothe purpose of thegathering:one deer four times a yearfor certain cere-
monies, a snall collection of first shoots of aparticularplant, a year’s supply of clay to make paint,for example.

The Native peoples of this country believethat certainareas of land are holy.These lands may be sacred, forexample, because of religious events which occurredthere,
because they contain specific natural products,because theyare the dwelling place orembodinent of spiritual beings,
because they surround or oontain buriaL grounds orbecausethey, are sites conducive to communicating withspiritualbeings.There are specific religious beliefs regaMingeachsacred site which form the basis for religious laws govern-
ing the site.These laws may prescribe, for example, whenand for what purposes the site may or must bevisited, whatoerenonies or rituals may or must take place at thesite,
%hat manner of conductmust or must not be cbserved at thesite, who may or may not go to the site and the Consequencesto the individual,group, clan or tribe if thelaws are notobserved.

The ceremonies mayalso requirepreparatoryrituals,
purif ication rites or stages of preparation.Both activeparticipants and observers may need tobe readied.Naturalsubstances may need to be gathered.Those who are un-
prepared or whose behavior or condition may alter theceremony are often notpermitted to attend.The properspiritual atmosphere must be observed.Structures may needto be built for the cererrony or itspreparation.Theceremony itself may be brief orit may last for days.Thenumber of participants may range fran one individual to a

large group.

Bothi gathering of sUbstances and ceremonial uses offederal lands are limited by federal laws, re’llationspractices, including certain federal procedures deferring torestrictive state lams or practices, particularly in thehunting, fishing and gathering areas.Native religious usehas not been specifically included in the purposes for whidhthe land is held by the federal agencies, nor has it beenrecognized as a use of such land.The American Indian,
Religious Preadult Act recognizes the need for a type ofpermanent easement for Native religious gathering and Ilse ofthe federal lands, which is discussed later in this section.

The accamodation of Native religious use of federallands has been accomplished in an uneven and arbitraryfashion, often implying arduous litigation cc speciallegislation.Physical access to lands has been denied toNative people because of necesssry military considerations,
and sone federal lands have controlled access because ct thepurposes for whiCh the land is held, such as primitive andwildlife management areas.Native access is also limited byfire-control regulations.

This controlled access has Severely limited the Nativereligious use, or has placed the Native peoples’ use outsidethe protection of the law.Gathering of natural prcducts orsubstances on sore federal land is controlled by specificstatutes.Regulations on other lands allow for waiver of feesand exceptions for personal use, which now may be used fornative religious gathering.Theleasing of some federal landseffectively prevents the Native religious use of these lands,
and especially affects the gathering of natural products,
which are often destroyed or damaged by the lessee’s use ctthe land.The gathering cf a specific plant or animal may beforbidden or limited by conservation statutes. Prdhibitions onthe building of structures may limit Native use of ceremonialsrequiring” the building or erecting of arbors and other struc-
tures.The comdition of jurisdiction, in scae cases, may,
subiect the Native religious use to state and territoriallaws.



.Physical access to the landand its natural products mustalso include thepreservation of the natural conditionswhichare the sine v_e, nonof that access.The efficacy of thenatural Faucts W. the spiritualwell-being of the sacredsites are dependent upon physicalconditions.Changing ofphysical oonditionsthe spraying and logging of trees,
unlimited trapping or removal ororiginal species, alterationof the terrain throughriver channelization, dams and othernethodsnot only damages thespiritual nature of the land,
but may also endanger thewell-being of the Native religiouspractiticners in their role and religiousobligation asTuirdians and preservers of the naturalcharacter of specificland areas.

Preservation of the natural characterof the land is oftenmade needlessly difficult throughsuch managerent practices aschaining to remove natuxel trees,failure to prevent over-
grazing during dry periods andoverlooking of sources ofnon-point source water pollution.These practices endangerthe natural supply of the substancesrequired by the Nativereligions, and may damage the characterof lard areas whichare extremelysensitive to the actions and consequencesofmodern life.

Inadequate control of tourisnthreatens the offeringsleft at sacred sites and gathering areas.Often, easementsacross Native lands aregranted to the general publicwithoutregard to their bract upon sacredsites and the privacy ofNative religious practitioners.Vandalism at holy places,
especially burial sites and ruins,endangers their veryexistence.Rituals which require differing formsof privacyhave been covertly observed,interrupted and affected throughthe presence and activities ofunauthorized &servers.Theprivacy needed for rituals variesfran tribe to tribe, rangingfran the exclusion of certainnembers of the group franplant-gatherin§ and other rites tothe-exclusion of allnon-participants for the duration of the ceremony.All restric-
tions are designed to assure that therituals and ceremoniesare oonducted, performedand observed, without interruption

and in accordance with NativeAmerican religious laws.


The following section discussesprdblem areas encounteredin the Native religious use of federallands.(A tabularpresentation of problems identified in consultations appearsin Appendix C.) Section 3 contains statutoryauthorities foractions taken and to be taken by the federalentities intmplementing the United States policy of preservingandprotectim the Native traditional religions.Section 4delineates the Task Force recommendations for uniformadmin-
istrative procedure pursuant to the American IndianReligiousFreedan Act and recommends statutory-changein federal landlaws n.eoessary to adequittely administer theAmerican IndianReligibus Freedom Act.

2.Identification of Problems – Response

During the period of consultation; manyproblems en-
countered in the Native religious use ofederallands werecalled to the attention of the Task Foroe.Several ct theidentified problems are being addrel.sed by theappropriateagencies and, although resolution may not have beenreadhed bythe time of writing, dialogue and the sesrdh forsettlementcontinues La each problem and policy area.

Many of these problems are La litigation orbefore theCongress at present, as noted in the tables in Appendix C.
Same of the problems were addressed by theappropriateagencies prior to enactment of P.L. 95-341. As part of thecontinuingrevaluation process, some of these problem areas maybe examined in light of the policy commitment to thereligiousfregdom of Native Americant.It isinportant tonote hereihat certain problems result from adverse policies of thedistant past and may defy resolution, particularly whereirrevocable physical change has rendered the subject landsinaccessible.

Several specific problems have been resolved by mutualagreement between the affected agency and Indian tribe orNative group; several general prdblems affecting more than onetribe cc Native group have been addressed bypolicy determin-
aticns within an agency.The following examples indicate thevariety of agency approaches to resolution of identifiedproblems.




Coso Hot Springs – The Department of the Navy has enteredinto an access agreement with the Cwens Valley Paiute andShoshone Band of Indians, providing for the Indian religioususe of themedicinal muds and waters ct the area.The COWHot Springs figure prominentW in the /ndian religious historycC this area as a sacred paace for spiritual and physicalrenewal and curing.

The Department of Navy acquired the Ccso Hot Springs andsurrounding lands following World War II, whereupon the ChinaLake Naval Weapons Center was established.Because of itsuse as ammunitions storage site, certain security restrictionswere placed on its public use and access, including a prohibi-
tion against overnight and extended visits, bathing in thesprings and entry without an escort.

Folliming a year-long dialogue regavding national securityneeds and tribal religious needs, the Department of Navyagreed to lift certain prohibitions on the duration of visitsand authorized activities to allow for the tribal religioususe of Coso Sot Springs. In a Memorandum of Understanding, theparties agreed that: the weekend and other visits will notinterfere with the Navy mission; the scheduled visits arereserved exclusively for members of the Ogens Valley Pauits-
Shoshone Bard of Indians and/or the Kern Valley Indian Cott-
munity, with other requests for visits determined on a case bycase basis; and nedicine men who are visiting these tribes arealso covered by the agreement.The Prayer Site, Coso HotSprings, the cad resort of the same name and A designatedovernight caving area constitute the agreement area.

The agreement -ecognizes the provisions of P.L. 95-341and may be reviewed.at the request of either party followingthe submission of the President’s evaluation to the Congress.
All parties agree to scrupulously adheretothe HistoricPreservation Act and to diligently pursue a preservation andmanagement plan for the Coso Hot Springs National Register ofHistoric Places site.The tribal people agree that thesprings and pond must not be permanently disturbed, and thatthey assume all risks associated with the hot springs area.
Finally, the Navy will provide an escort who, upon requestduring any ceremony, shall withdraw to a discrete distance and

shall not intrude on traditional rites.


Allocation of Buffalo on FederalLands -The problem ctthel-N–7-3’1–V—-r–3uffoonederaaoaccesstl lands receivedprominent mention throughout theconsultatico period bytraditional Indian people whosereligions are based on orinvolve the American bison. These Indiantribes and peopleutilize every part of the buffalo,although the significanceand need for a particular part ofthe animal varies from tribebp tribe arid religion boreligion.Certain Indian religionsneed buffalo meat for ceremonial feasts,while sane ceremoniesrequire the presence of a live buffalo amongthe participants.
In other religions,certain ceremonies cannot begin until theparticipants have eaten buffald tongue, and samecannot con-
tinue unless a buffalo Skull isavailable.Tritel religiouselders also spoke of the “spiritualsickness” which occurswhen their people are unable to seeand live near buffalo.

Under the federal oonservation program,the Americanbison has made so spectacular a recoveryfrom its previouslydiminished state that the herds onNational Wildlife Refugelands are thinned periodicallyand the excess buffalo soldunder the lottery system. The Fishand Wildlife Service, inresponse to the Indianreligious need, is developing apolicywhidh will make available a percentageof the excess buffalofor Indian religious purposes.She buffalo will be madeavailable at the fall roundup.This allocation policy,
including provisions for methodsoftaking, will be devel-
cped and implemented in continuingoonsultation with Indiantraditional religious leaders.

California Desert Conservation Plan – An excellentexample cf a federal agency workingin close tonsultation withAmerican Indians to achieve a mutuallydesirable goal is foundin the California Desert ConservationPlan (C)CP).Establishedby the Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct, the CDCP isdesigned to protect the California Desertenvironment –
including lands in Adzona and Nevada – andits cultural,

archaeological and historical resources andsites.


In implementingthis Plan, the Desert PlanningStaff ofthe Bureau of Land Management(ELM) has initiated aninventoryof Native American areasof concern.Their findings indicatethat more than twentytribes and Indian groups havesacredsites located in thecowarea.In ascertaining thelocationsand significance of thesesites, the Staff ethnologist hasworked closely with tribalelders, religious leaders andcouncils.In many instances, sitesof significance wererevealed only after the Indians wereinformed of the protection-
ist intent of the project aildassured Chatnosite-specificpublic disclosure would be made.Under BLM staff policy,onlyChose areas previously known tothe public can be identifiedpublicly. These include Pilot Knob,Intaglio, CcedhillaValley, Saline Valley andPanamint Mountains, which arevillage sites and burial groundspresently threatened by uebanencroadhment.Other protected areas includethose used forthe gathering of plants andherbs used for nutritional,
qpiritual and medicinal purposes.

Aftwr an evaluation of themltidiscipinary study, the BEMhopes to develop an innovativeapproach to the managementandprotection of these designated areas,involving arrangementsfor the affected tribes and BLKto share theresponsibility inadhieving their mutual goal ofpreserving thPge sacred areas.
Actively seeking the cooperationct Indian tribes inascertain-
ing what areas are ofsocio-cultural and religioussignificanceto them,and the BLMefforts to preserve and protectthosesites for Indian use, Ls withoutprecedent.

The lifestyle and heritageof the Native Arerican groupsin the area demonstrates arelationship with the desert oftremendous time and depth, andthese lands and retources areanecessary part of anongoing traditional lifestyle.Thisinitial step by the BLK towardidentifying Native Americanvalues and concerns in theCalifornia Desert will ensuretheir participetion in the long-rangemanagement of thearea.



3.Statutory Authorities for AdministrativeAction

a.Ibis section contains existing statutoryauthoritiesfor actions taken and to be taken by the federalentitiesin implementing the United States policy of preservingandprotecting the Native traditional religions.’The foliatingstatutes provide authority for federal land useplanning,
management and regulation in terms broad enough torequireor permit the consideration of Nativereligious practices:

i.Bureau of Land Management

43 USC 2 (general authority in Secretary of Interior toWaiiiiterpublic lands)

43 USC 1739(a) (authority in Secretary of Interior toestablish advisory councils witivmembers who representmajor citizen interests in land use planning andmanagement)

43 USC 1739(e) (requires public participation inpubliclands planning and management)

43 USC 1701(a)(8) (Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct, policy includes protection of the quality ofhistorical, ecological and ardhaeological values)

43 USC 1702(c) (definition section includesnaturalscience and historical values in multiple use)

43 USC 1761(a)(7) (authorizes rights ct way)
43 USC 1763 (authorizes right of way corridors)
ii.Public Lands

43 USC 1732 (multiple use-sustained yieldmanagementpolicy; Secretarial authority to regulate use,
occupancy and develcpment ct public lands througheasements, permits, leases, licenses and rules and totake other action necessary to prevent degradation)

43 USC 1712(f) (requires provisicn for public involve-
ment in formulation of public lands plans and programs)

43 USC 1714 (Secretarial authority to make land with-
drawals under certain procedures)



vi.Fish and Wildlife Service

16 USC 668dd Wildlife Refuge System (prohibits des-
truction, disturbance of natural growth and taking offish and wildlife, authorizes Secretary to restrictland uses, hunting anS fishing to allow compatible useand access)

vii.Department of Defense

102668 (authorizes the Secretary of a militarypartment bo grant easements on military lards for anypurpose “he considers alvisable”)

10 USC 2671(d) (grant of wildlife jurisdiction tostates does not modify Indian rights granted “by treatycc otherwise’)

viii.Eepartment of the Interior

31 USC 483(a) Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act (freepermits for activities on federal lands)

b.In addition to the statutes listed above, the follcwingstatutes provide authority for protection of areas ornatural resources important to Native religious practices:

i.Department of Transportation

us_c_1151 t_nm(requires special effort by DOT topreserveeauty of park, recreation, wildlife,
waterfowl and hiotoric areas)

Cffice of Surface Minilg

30 USC 1201 et seq., (prctectton of Indian and non-Indianlands fram adverse environmental effects of surfacemining)

ILLDepartment of Defense

16 USC 670a (authority for cooperative Defense-Interiorprogram to develop wildlife, fish and game conservationand rehabilitation on military reservations)

92 Stat. 921 (sUbstantially increases the amount ofmoney available to Defense and.Intertor for conservation

and rehdbilitation of wildlife on military lands)


iv.Wild amlenic Rivers

16 USC 1284 (Secretarial authority to limit huntirg)
v. Wilderness Preservation Slates

16 USC 1131 (provides for establietunent of wildernesssystem to protect wilderness character of designatedareas)

16USC 1133(c) (prdnibition of or limits on oommercialenterprises, roads,motor vehicles inwilderness areas

vi.National Environmental Policy Act

42 USC 4321 et seq. (encourages harmony between humansand environment; requires-environmental impact statements

for motor federal actbon significantly affecting theenviroilment)

vii.Mining on Federal Lands

30 U3C 183(cancellation cf mining permits forTffuceton1y withpermit caulitions)

viii.Geolo3ical Survey.

43 LW 31a(controlof mineralleasing through landFassificatiou)

ix.Tennessee Valley Authority

43 USC 831u(authorizes paanning for natural resourmconservat on)

4.Task Force Recourendations for Uniform AdministrativeProcedure

The Ttsk Force recommends a number of administrative actionsthat oan be taken to solve some of the problems experienced byNativeArnericansin this area.First, eadh federal agency canaccommodate Native American religious practices bo the fullestextent possible unier existing federal lard ars3resourcemana9enentstatutes.This accommodation could be reflected in eadh age’sregulationb, policies and enforcement procedures with regard toaccess to federal land areas, gathering and use of natural substantesendowed with sacred significancebyNative Amer,ican religious groups,
provisions for group and individual activities on fe3eral lands and

any other appropriate sabject matter.


Eaeh federal agency can also revise existing regulations,
policies and practices to provide for separate considerationct any Native Amerizan religious concerns prior to making anydecision regarding use of federal lands and resources.

The appointment of American Indians, Alaska Natives andNative Hawaiians to existing boards, commissions and othercitizen dvisory grcups affecting federal land and resourceplanning, management and practices should be considered byfederal agencies.Eadh federal agency cculd determine whetherit would be apprcpriate to create new boards, commissions andother citizen advisory grcups designed specifically to assureadequate consideration of Native religious concerns La federalland and reurce planning, management and practices.

Tb the fullest extent allowed under existing statutoryauthority, each federal agency can reserve and protect federa]
areas of special teligicus significance to Native 4mericans ina manner similar to its reservAtion and protection of areas ofspecial scientific significance.They can also provideexemptions from restrictions on access to and gathering, useand possession cf federal property for Native American religicuspurposes siznilar to those provided for scientific purposes.

Finally, whenever any federal agency cedes jurisdictionDor any purpose to a state, it can reserve federal jurisdictionover Native American land and resources use by Native Americansfor rellgicus purposes.

5.Recommendation for Congressional Consideration

The Task Force has developed a number of recomendations forCongressional consideration in this area.These recommendationsare currently being reviewed within the AdminiAtration.7neyooncern federal land-use designation for areas 67rntaining sacredsites or shrines of the Native traditional relig!ons, and site-
specific federal land statutes which do not allow for Nativereligious uss ot federal property or federal land.Tha TaskForce is also concerned about protecting information ooncenningsensitive Native religious matters and sacred sites given toland-managing agencies, similar to the provisions of 16 0SC 470a(4).
‘Me enactment of S.490 or H.R.1825 is urged as both bills contain

provisions for conf identiality with :espect to these sites.


RecurrendationsB.Land – Cemeteries

1.Background – Statement of Issues

Native American religions, alongwith most cther religicns,
provide standards for the care and treatmentof cemelerieshuman remains.Ttibal custcaary laws generallyinclude stan-
dards of ccnduct for the care and treatmentof all cemeteriesencountered and human remains uncovered, aswell aa for theburial sites and bodies ct their own ancestors.(aVounded inNative American religicus beliefE,these laws may, for example,
require the performance ct certain typesof rituals at theburial site, specify who may visit thesite or prescribe theprwer disposition ctburial offerings.

The pcevalent view in the societyof applicable disciplinesbs that Native American human remains arepublic property andartifacts for study, display and culturalinvestment.It isunderstandable that this view isin conflict with an repugnantbo those Native pecple whoseancestors and near relatives areconsidered the property at issue.Most Native Americanreligicus beliefs dictate thatburial sites once completed arenot to be disturbed ccdisplaced, except by natural occurrence.

Access to burial sites co federallands is necessary forpractiticners of those Native Anericanreligions which requirethe performance of ceremonies atthese burial sites.(Theissue of access to federal landsis treated in the preceedingsection.)Access to these burial sitesis necessary in orderto continue the use of thesite as a burial ground for thcseNative Americans whcaa religionsrequire burials at thesesites.

The disturbance of Native Americanburial sites cn federallands may be purposeful orinadvertent.Purposeful disturb-
ances include authorizedarchaeolcgical and educational use ofthe site, as well as illegalabuse, pillage and vandalism ofthe site.Inadvertent displacements usually occurwhen federalroads, dams or cther construction projectsproceed in theabsence of adequate site surveys andwithout consulting theaffected Native Americans.Therefore, most existing protectisn

is contained in administrative operatingpolicies.


The next section identifies specific problems in this area,
followed by a listing of existing statutory authorities forfederalact ions.(A list ing of specif ic problem ident if iedduring the consultation period appears in Appendix C.)

2.Identification ofProblems – Response

Although such statutes as the Antiquities Act of 1906 existto protect and preserve the cultural property of the UnitedStates, these laws carry only miror penalties and have beensuccessfully challenged in litigation and severe limitationsplaced on theirenforcestent.

It is the policy of Interagency Archeological Services, themajor federal agency involved in the disturbance of hymnremains by federal oonstruct ion, toreqt4refield officers toccnsult with relatives or tribal governments, in those caseswhere remains can beidentified. A similar policy isflatenforced by sate Army Corps of Engineersoffices, the Bureau ofLand Management and the Tennessee ValleyAuthority.

The Bureau of Land Management (BIM), inresponse toP.L. 95-341, is reviewing its policies and procedures pertain-
ing to the issuance of Antiquity Actpermits for archeologicalwork on BIM-administered land.AntiquityActpermits areissued by theDepartmentalConsulting Archeolcgist (DCA) in theOffice of Archeology andHistoricPreservation of theHeritageConservation and Recreation Service.However, the 8114 has theresponsibility forprocessingandevaluatingpermit applica-
dons that involveactions onBLM-administered land and for pro-
viding recamtendationsto the DCAregarding such applications.

The BM has developed draft proceduresfor processing andevaluatingAntiquity Actpermitapplications,rrostof which arealready in effect.For example, before an applicationforresearch excavation on B114-administeredland can be evaluated,
an EnviramentalAnalysis Record (EAR) must beconducted inorder toascertain the effect ofthe act ion (i.e., issuance ofan AntiquityAct permit) on all valuesandresources inthearea of work.Included in theanalysis is a consideration ofsocio-cultural inpacts on Native

American religious values.


In addition to providing NativeAmerican input during theERR process, the ELK is encouragingAntiquity Act permitappaicants to consult with local Native Americanreligious/
tribalArcup leaders prior to stibmittal of anapplication forardheological researcK–In this way, Native American concernscan be identified early in the processof determining whetherto grant an application.

Included in the ECM draft Antiquity Penult proceduresisa stipulation concerning hunanburials which would be attachedto any permit issued for archeologicalinvestigations onBI14-administered land.If tunan burials are encounteredduring excavation, all work must stop in theimedizte areaand the responsible BLM officer must benotified.Appropriateparties must he contacted and consultedvincludinglocalNative Americans, the State Historic PreservationOfficer, andthe county coroner.Recommendations as to how best to proceedwould be based on this consultation process.

3.Statutory Authority for AdministrativeAction

Statutesunder whichNative American burial sites cnfederal Land may be protected:

16 USC 431-433(requires permits for archeologicalexcavations on federal lands)

16 USC 461, et seq.(provides for the preservation cthisboric sites)

16 USC469eet seq.(provides for preservation ofarchaeological data subject to flooding by dau con-

16 USC 470, et seq.(expands federal role in historicpreservation)

18 USC 641(theft of government property)

18 USC 1163(federal penalties for theft ct tribalproperty)

18 USC 1361(destruction of government property)


23 MC 138 (Secretaryof TransFortatica authorizedtoplan in order tominimize harm to lard ofhistoricsign if icance)

42 USC 4321, et seq.(NEM – federalressmsibilityto preserve historicand cultural aspects ofnationalheritage)

4.Recoreendation for CongressionalConsideration

In order to fullyinclement the policiesexpressed in42 MC 1996, the Task Forcehas developed legislative recce-
=Mations concerning burialsites on federal lard and pro-
tection of those sites.Itree recamerdations arecurrently

under review within theAdrainistration.



1,Background – Statement of Issues

Native traditional religions are based on thenaturalenvironment.Their practitioners rely on natural substancesDor their religious observances.Certainwildlife, plantsand minerals – which may be worn, carried orsimply present –
are considered sacred anifundamental to the religicus andceremonial life.

The sacred objects of a ceremony or religion maybe, forexample, the salmon, eagle, buffalo, kit fox,hawk, shark,
snake, deer, moose, elk, squirrel, turtle,bcwhead or butter-
fly. Scme religions or ceremonies may bioldvenerable claws,
feathers, beaks, tusks, hides, fangs cc quills;while parti-
cular plants – such as sage, tobacco, mescal, yucca,sweetgrass, cedar, peyote – arecentral to ethers.Drums, arrows,
masks, prayer feathers, pipes, tctems,medicine bundles andother objects made frum natural materials areheld sacred incertain Native religions.Natural prcducts may be roots orrocks, berries, gourds, leaves, shells orturquoise – theymay be consumed, buried,held, carried or observed, and arecommonly used for healing, purification ccvisicos, accordingto religicus cusbomary law.

2.Identification of Problems – Response

In recent times, many animals, plants andmineral materialshave not been available Dor use in NativeAmerican religions.
NonrNative settlement of the country and the introduction ofnon-indigenous species inevitably led to a greatreductionce the natural animal and plant species.Meet notable wasthe almost complete annihilation of the buffalo, onceextensively used in the religicns of the PlainsIndians.

This scarcity of natural substances used in NativeAmericanreligions was exacerbated by large federal constructionprojects which greatly affected wildlife habitats andrendered

inaccessible many deposits of mineral substances.


Prior to this century, many American Indian tribes andNative Hawaiian groups were removed by federal action to areasaway from their traditional homelands, often far from fishing,
gathering and hunting grounds.Time and distance have notdiminished the need of many Native religious practitioners andleaders to return periodically to these places.%bile sonetribal religions and geographical situations allow Dor thesubstitution of comparable materials, most do not.Despitegreat difficulty involved in these journeys, many religiousleaders and practitioners travel to their traditional placesto gather materials necessary for religious purposes.Oncethe journey is made, sane are unable to gather the neededmaterials because of regulatory provisions or administrativeprocedures.For those Native people who are precluded frantravel or from gathering, the continued, practice of theirdeeply held religious beliefs beoomes almost an *possibility.

In an effort to preserve the natural species of thecountry, conservation laws %ere passed.Because Nativereligious use of these species %ms taken into account only inthe Bald Eagle Protection Act, these laws have not remediedpordblems in obtaining these species for Native religioususe.
Objections have been raised regarding existing administrativeprocedures under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. These pvo-
cedures are being revised now by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
in consultation with Native religious and tribal leaders.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Ems) is also respondingto a Native religious need in a related area.During the TaSkForce oonsultation in Oklahoma, traditional Muscogee leadersspoke of the need to take squirrel for ceremonial feaststhroughout the year.Leaders of the KiCkapoo also spokeof their need for 32 deer each year for religiouspurposes.
The religioas ceremonial need arises year-round, and onlycoincidentally with the Oklahoma huntingseasca.Similarsituations were addressed by other tribal leaders tn consult-
ations thrcughout the country.As a matter of policy ratherthan statutory obligation, the FWS honors the applicablestate fish and game regulations on federal lands under itscontrol.The FWS recognizes that state regulations developedprior to enactment of P.L. 95-341may not have taken theseunique needs into acoount at time ct prcmulgation,and thatthey do n3t meet these expressed needs at present.The FWS

D3 nod addressing theseooncerns.


Many Native ktericans are unaware of presentstatutoryand regulatory provisions allowing for thegathering ofanimals, plants and mineral substances onfederaltlands.Forinstance, fee waivers and use permits for most of suchtakingare allowed under existing statutoryauthorities, as outlinedin the previous section dealing with federal lands.To lessenthe problem of lack of information in the Nativeand tribalmornm it ies Endreservations, the Interior Assistant Secretaryfor Indian Affairs will undertake a vigorous effort todis-
seminate relevant information nationwide.This effortwillbeocordinated with theappropriate federal agencies.

Native American religious use of peyote, allowedunderthe statutory authority of the Administrator ofthe DrugDIforcement Administration, is needlesslycanplicatedthroughthe use of the distribution system under Texasregulations.
Although Arrerican Indians only arepermitted to use peyotefor religious purposes, only non-Indians are theauthorizeddistributors.Further complications arise in the use ofform ill-suited to the needs of many ofthose who usepeyote in religious ceremonies.

Increasing difficulties in obtaining peyotefor religioususe may be relieved administrativelybyallowing traditionalIndian religious harvesting of peyote on federal lardsin theSouthwest andallowing the importation of peyote fran Mexicofor Native religious use.The Drug Enforcement Administrationwill continue toCOtrault with practitioners oftraditionalpeyote religions and the Native Arrerican Church onthisissue.

Appendix C contains atabular presentation of examples ofproblems identified by practitioners of Nativereligions inobtaining, possessing ani using the animal, plant andmineralnaterial necessary for religious use.Statutory authoritiesand applicable Task Force recammerdations foruniform admin-

istrative procedure are then stated.


3.Statutory Authorities for Administrative Actions

Statutes authorizing or permitting theuse of plants,
animals and mineral materials by practitionersof NativeAmerican religions:

16 USC 668a(Native American religioususe of eaglespermitted.)

16 USC 1371(b)(Marine Mammal Protection Act, provisionfor Alaska Native subsistenceuse whid: may be applied toreligious use.)

16 USC 1539(e)(1)(Endangered Species Act, provisionforAlaska Native subsistenceuse which may be applied toreligious use.)

16 USC 704(Migratory Bird Treaty Act, provisionallowing Secretarial determination for taking,killingand posse3sion.)

21 USC 954 953(Allows importation and exportation ofpeyote, a =trolled substance, at discretionof AttorneyGeneral for lawful purposes.)

30 USC 601(Authorizes Secretaries of InteriorandAgriculture to dispose of mineral materialson publiclands.)

16 USC 66843d(d)(National Wildlife Refuge System,
Secretarial interpretation that traditionalNativereligious uses, suChas gathering ct herbs and plants,
are oompatible with the major purposes cfmost refuges.)

4.Task Force Recommendations for UniformAdministrativeProcedures

To further enable Native Americansbo gather and usesacred objects, it Ls the recommendationof the Task Forcethat the Secretaries of Interior,Agriculture, Canmerce andTreasury should establish a joint uniformset ct administrativeprocedures to govern the dispositionof surplus wildlife andplants or parts thereof whidh havebeen oonfiscated or gatheredunder the jurisdiction and oontrcact the respective Secretaries.
TOthe fullest extent allowed under existingstatutory authority,
the uniform procedures should be designedto increase the avail-
ability of natural productsto wtive American practitionerscf

Native traditional religions.


5.Reccamendations forCongressional Consideration.

the fifth, sixth,seventh and ninthwhereas clauses ofthe Joint Resolution onAmerican Indian ReligiousFreedomaddress the conservationlaws as they relate tothe NativeAmerican relWous useand possession ofsacred objectsprotected by statute:

* * *

Whereas the lack of aclear, comprehensive,and

consistent Federal policyhas often resultedinthe abridgment ctreligious freedom fortraditionalAmerican Indians;tWhereas such religiousinfringements result fnanthe

lack of knowledge ccthe insensitive andinflexibleenforcement of Federalpolicies and regulationspremised on a varietyof laws;
Whereas such laws weredesigned for suchworthwhile

purposes asconservation and preservationclnatural species and resourcesbut were neverintended to relate toIndian religiouspracticesand, therefore, werepessed withoutconsiderationcf their effect ontraditional American/ndianreligions;

Whereas such laws attimes prohibit the useand

possession of sacred objectsnecessary to theexercise of religiousrites and ceremonies

Resolved … henceforthshall it be the policyof the

United States to protectand preserve torAmericanIndians their inherentright of freed= tobelieve,
express, indexercise the traditionalreligions cCthe American Indian,Eskimo, Aleut, andNativeHemaiians, including butnot limited to … useand possession ofsacred objects.

This policy indicates thatadministrative accommdationsreganiing Native religious usecl the protectedenvironmentare nowpermissible under 42 USC 1996 andthe discretionaryauthority of the Secretaryof the Interior.The guidingprinciple for the natureand extent of anyaccommodation wouldbe the preservationcl the threatenedspecies.Therefore, nospecific recommendationis made at this timeregarding anyconservation law the Congress mayconsider in the future.





D. SacredObjectsBorder Crossings

1.BackgroundStatement of Ilsues

North American Indians,Es)dmos)and Polynesians travelledand traded freelythroughout the westernhemisphere prior tothe arrival of th( Europeans.Much of the trade which wasdeveloped involved raw materialsfor use in makingarticles2-
such as tools, jewelry, basketsand clothes.Many cl theseitems %ere used for religious purposes.There was also asteady trade in items purelyfor religious use,includingmedicinal and spiritual herbsfrom each area.These itemsvaried from Central Americanparrot feathers for usein Puebloceremonies to abalone shellsfrom the west ooast usedin thecentral plains.

%hen the boundarylines for the presentoountries %eredrawn, not only were manytribal groups divided, butmuch ofthe indtgenous trade wascurtailed.Crossings were restrictedas the borders %eresurveyed and CustomsService facilitiesbuilt.Sacred objects weresometimes searched, resultinginthe impairment of theirspiritual qualities.Confusion andmisunderstandings about duties onthe part of NativeArericans,
together with the borderofficials’ lack of knaaledge ofNative American religiouspractices, led to oonfiscationsofsacred objects, plants,feathers and anixnal parts.

2.Identification of ProblemsResponse

On SepteMber 15, 1978,the Cammissioner of Custom;issueda policy statemententitled “Policy to Protect andPreserveAmertcan Indian ReligiousFreedom” (pArlidh appears inAppendixBp Customs Service).The Commissioner’s statementinstructsCUstoms officials toinstitute measures to assuresensdtivetreatment in the coursect Custom examinations ofthe articlesused by American Indiansin the exercise of theirreligiousamd cultural beliefs.

Prior to approval cf theAaerican Indian Religious FreedomAct, the Commissioner ofCustoms established aCommitteeon Indian Affairscanposed of district directorsfrom each ofthe geographic areas whereborder problems are presented.
This committee has held severalregional meetings with Native.
Americans to discuss specificproblems so that they might beresolved at the local level.The oommunication links established through these meetings haveresulted in a continuingdialogue to bring specific problemsto the attention cf

appropriate officials.


An additional problem encountered in this area L3 theillicit sale and theft of Native sacred obdects, resulting inthe sale or resale of these objects abroad.Many sacredobjects are owned by the tribal or Native group, with physicalcustody transferred to successive tribal citizenry or grogpmembers.

The Custars Service Indian Affairs Committee has met withtribal representatives tn various parts ct the country, inan effort to determinespecific problemareas where, perhapsduetoa ladk of knowledge or unawareness of Native Americanbeliefs or customs, CUstoms officers may be handling sacredobjects in an insensitive manner.At one of these meetings, arepresentative of the Yaqui Tribe identifieda problem arisingin connection with the importation from Mexico of sacredmasksand otim, paraphernalia, which could be mistaken for oammercialimportations and thus handled in a mannet`which would not beproper for sacred objects.

In order to assist Customs officers in identifying thesacred Yaqui objects, the Ttibe permitted Customs to photographthe sacred objects and the oeremnies Jr, which they%ere used.
The photographs were then retleled by tribal elders andselected ones were assembled into a booklet with explanatorymaterial.This booklet will be distributed to Custcas officersat’the appropriate ports of entry to assist them in idetif,yingthe sacred objects, so that they might be treated by Custcasofficers with due respect and sensitivity.

In addition to Che problems involving transportation ofsacred objects across international borders, the CustomsService Indian Affairs Committee also requested input fromNative Americans regarding other problems with Customs.
During the two meetings along the Canadian border, the North-
eastern tribes and, to a lesser extent, the Blackfeet/BloodTribes expressed great concern regardinga diminution of theprivileges their tribes had under the Jay Treatyto freepassage regardless of citizenship and to the duty-free entry oftheir usual goods and effects.Recent cot….7t decisions haveheld that these provisionswere abrogated by the War of 1812.
Although domestic Legislation continued the privilegeuntil the

1890s, such provision was repealed in 1897.


Indian representatives have requested Customs assistanceEn drafting legislation bo reaffirm these privileges, alsorequesting that the duty-free privilege be extended to house-
hold appliances Whidh are purchased in cne country and broughtonto the reservation En the other oountry for the sole use ofthe purchaser.In addition, several tribal representativessuggested legislation which would treat Indian tribes asdevelopirg nations to enable handicrafts to br imported freeof duty under GSP-General System cl Preferences provisions.
Canada would have to enact similar legislation for the Indiansto achieve their stated goals.Representatives of CanadianCUstoms were piesent at the meeting where the duty-freesubject was discussed and indicated that a revision oftheIndian laws was under study and the Indians should make theirwishes known to the Canadian Parliament.

Appendix C contains a tabular presentation of some of\thecustoms problems faced by practitioners of Native Americanreligions.

3.Task Force Reoommendations for Uniform AdministrativcViocedike

It Es the recommendation of the Task Force that, wtencrossing the borders of the United States, Native Americanscarrying articles for use in the Native traditional religionsshould be treated with respect and dignity and, to the extentpermitted under existing statutory authority, according totheir own religious laws.It Ls also reoammended that,
insofar as is possible, the United States Customs Serviceshould assist Native Americans with problems encountered withcounterpart agencies of other countries in regard to Nativereligious practices.

4.Reccuirendation for Congressional Consideration

The Task Force has developed legislative recommendationsconcerning the tariff schedule of the United States, theexport by ncn-Native Americans of sacred objects, and the JayTreaty.Those recromendations are currently being reviewedwithin the Administration.




E.Sacred CbjectsMuseums1.BackgroundStatement of Issues

Equally elaborate concepts of personal property havedeveloped in both.Native American and western legal traditions.
The problems presented by the presence ct Native Americansacred objects in museums will be resolved only throughcareful determinations ct what constitutes essential fairnessin these conflicts between culturally distinct systems.

Sacred objects and their proper care and treatmentvaryfrom tribe to tribe.Scue sacred objects are wrapped bundlesoantaining hundreds ct articles, othersare distinctly shapedrocks or carefully prepared ceremonial clothing.The care ctthe sacred obdect may involve, for example, a simple ritualbefore or after its use, periodic offerings of tobacoaorcedar, or intricate restrictions upon what actionsareallowed in the physical presence of the object.

Often the Native American equivalent of legal ownershipis reserved in the tribe or groupas a whole and the interestof the individual owner cr keeper resembles physical custody.
Ibis is especially evident of those sacred objects used inceremonies participated in by the tribe or group asa whole.
It is also evident of those sacred objects whose use isanintegral component of a tribal ceremonial cycle.In mostcases, Native Americans never envisioned any separation ctthese objects from the tribe or group.

Many sacred objects exist, and the proper care, treatmentand disposition of each object is contained in the tribalcustomary laws.Classification of sacred obdects by type isbest done accoroing to each tribe’s particular distinctions,
tut under most systems it seems probable that the vastmajority of items in museums are not of current significancein the practice of the Native religion.Significant itemsmay vary widely but will most probably include:

1)Sacred objects whidh serve a continuing religious

function, for example, objects whosepresence serves

as a guard or protection for land;


2)Sacred objects whose proper dispositicn according

to tribal customary law was disturbed, forexample,
sun dance offerings, whidn are pccperly supposedtobe allowed to disintegrate;

3)Sacred objects which were illegally”converted”

under tribal custanary law, forexample, some pipebundles are not to Ee transferred outsideof thetamily, group or tribe.

Ine consequences to the tribecc group of the absence ormistreatment of a particular objectmay be such that the freeexercise of the Native religion isseverely restricted.Eadhcase presented by practitioners of Nttive Americanreligicnsleeking proper treatmentor return of sacred objects must beJonsidered with proper understandin5ancicircumspection.

2.Islernofbems-ReseThe problems experienced by NativeAmericans in theuse and possession of sacred objects whichare controlledby federal and rublicmuseums are best examined within thecontext of acquisition methods and relatedlaws and regulation414

Mus,m) accession records show thatsome sacred objectswere sold by their origf,nal Nativecwner or cuneLs.Inmany instances, however, the dhain of title doesnot lead totlie original miners. Smt religiousproperty left ortginadownership during military confrontations,was included inthe spoils of war anti evontuallyfell to the wntrol ofmuseums.Also in tines past, sacred objectswere lost byNative owners as a msult of ‘.essviolent pressures exertedby federally-sponsored missiunariesand Indian agents.

Most sacred objects were stolen frcmtheir originalwaive owners. In othercases, religious property was con-
verted azidsold by Native peoplewho did not have ownershiportitle to the sacred object.

Today in many parts of thecountry, it Ls common for “pothunters” to enter Indian and publiclands for the purpose ofillegally exprcpriating sacred objects.Interstate traffiCkingin and exporting of such propertyflourishes, with some ofthese sacred objects eventuallyentering into the possession

cf museums.


Many sacred objects are taken fam Native graves locatedon Indian and public lands and donated to museums by personspossessing federal p*rmita under 16 USC 432.By statute, allsuch gathering is undertaken for permanent preservation inpublic museums.NO provision exists in 16 USC 432 and 43 CFRPart 3 for Native use and possession ct sacred objects takenin this manner.(ftoblems related to the protection ofNative sacred sites and couteries are oontained in Part C ofthis Report.)

Cnce touseuns obtain possession of sacred objects, NativeAmericans have little legal ground for recovery for religioususe.For the most pert, the museums have ignored the requestscf numerous tribes and Native religious groups for return oftheir sacred objects.Cne recent exception is the Denver ArtMuseum’s return to the Zuni bow priests of a war god (ahayuta), which was stolen from them and,later donated to themuseum.At present, the Pueblo of Zuni is negotiatingwith the Smithsonian Institution for the return of anotherwar god. Nhile there have been other returns – kiva masks toHopi elde:s by the Heard Museum, and the 1977 WheelwrightMUseum return of 11 medicine bundles to Navajo medicine men –
these examples are the exception.

Many problems related to museum prasession of Nativesacred objects are based upon the manner of display, hami-
ling, care and treatment cf the objects.Many of thetribal and/Or religious groups wish the return of theirobjects, while others may wish only to work with museums b..)
assure against desecration of the objects.

The museums of the Departments of the Army, Navy andAir Force are presently reviewing their holdings for anyobject that may be of religious significance to practitionersof Native American traditional reltgions.Shculd any suchobjects be identified, the appropriate Native religiousleaders will be notified and invited to discuss its return,
long-term loan and/Or care and handling.

The Institute of Museum Services (IMS-D104), which fundsprivate museums and institutions, has suggested that a surveybe =ducted to determine the extent of museum holdingsnationwide that mould be clairied by Native American religicusleaders.IMS prcposes that the assessment should be oonductedin light of the following issues: legality of claim tospecific artifacts; method of resolving oonflicting claims;
and the oonseguences of establishing a precedent of returnimia part of museum collections to the original owners.



An excellent example of federal/tribal/institutionalcooperation cn the removal and disposition of tribal heritagematerial can be found in the Cmette Archaeological Project.
%ben an incortant ardhaeological site was discovered on theMakah Indian Reservation cn the Washington coast, the Makahpeople were divided on the issue of permitting excavation.
Ttibal members were eager to learn more about their tritelhistory but feared the religious implications of the dis-
turbance of this ancient site.

The Makah Ttibal Council and Washington State Universityprofessors worked out an agreement to ensure that the sanctitycf the site would be protected, that the participetion of theTtibe in decisions regarding the project would be guaranteedand that the artifacts and other materials would remain in thepossession of the Ttibe.

TO honor the agreement’s final provision, the Tribe andCniversity worked together to solicit funds for a major museumon the Makah Reservation.The museum building was funded bythe Environmental Protection Agency.The National Endowmentfor the Arts and the Crown Zellerbach Foundation contributedfunds for th ,.? displays, and the National Endowment for theHumanities funded a language program whidh is run through themuseum.

The project was conducted with respect for the Makahtraditional beliefs and needs, to the benefit of all partici-
pants.The Makah Museum, which opened cn June 2, 1979,
provides housing for the artifacts and jobs for the people.
The Makah people have learned more about their past from thisunique site and have the tangible evidence of their richheritage.

3.Statutory Authorities for Administrative Action

a.The following statutes provide authority to prdhibitthe removal of Native traditional sacred objects fromNative American possession and from public and Indian lands,
and to assure Native use and possession of sacred objectsnecessary for the exercise of traditional rites andceremonies:

i.16 USC 433 (prdhibitv excavation and removal

ZEany objects of antiquity located on landsowned cc controlled by the United States



16 USC 432 (requires federalpermits fcc ex-
aValai7ind removal of antiquities located onlands owned or =trolled by theUnited Statesunder uniform administrative rules)

iii18 MC 1163 (a criminal cdfense to steal cc

possess stolen propertybelonging to any Indiantribal organization)

b.The following statutory authorities empcmerfederalfunding authorities to protect Nativereligious freedomagainst infringement by museum whichreceive federalfunds.

i.42 USC 2000a (all persons shall enjoyfull and

equal enjoynent of facilities, privilegesandadvantages in any place of,publicacoommodationor paace ofexhibition or entertainment withoutbeing discriminated against onreligious grounds)

42 USC 2000d(no person may be denied thebenefits of or be subjected to discriminationunder any program or activity receivingfederalfunds)

iii. 42 USC 2000d-1 (requires all federaldepaxtments

and agencies which are empowered to IMWDfederalgrants to effectuate 2000d by rules,regulationsand orders, utich may be enforced by thetermin-
ation of or refusal to grant federal funds)

iv.20 USC 965(empowers the Director of the

Inst tute of Museum Services to make federalgrants to museums)

v.C’ti.).915JcI2OUS,(empowers the National

-Pain-diticnsh—Ofte Arts and Humanities to grantfederal financial assistance to musemms)

20 USC 65a(a) (authorizes theDirectorof theNational Museum under the direction of theSecretary of the Smithsonian Institution topcovide federal financial and other assistanceto museums and educational institutions)

5 f;


4.Task Force Recommendations forUniform Administrativeftccedure

The TaAk Force recommends a number ofadministrative actionsthat can be taken to solve some of the problemsexperienced byNative Auericansin this area:

a.Federal museums Should decline to acquire for their col-
lections objects known to be of current religicussignificanceto American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo or NativeHagaiian traditionalreligions, and should inform sudh Native American tribal andreligious leaders of the presence on the market or in non-Nativehands of such objects as come to their attention.

b.Federal museums should return to the tribe of originobjectsin the museum’s possession, as towhich unoonsentingthirdparties assert no cwnership interest, thAt were used or valuedfor religious purposes at the time of their lossfromanAmerican Indian tribe or Native American community, and uerealienated from that oommunity contrary to standards fordisposition of such objects then prevailing in that community,
provided that the successor ormoderntribe or oomuunityreauests them as needed for current religiouspractice.

C.Federal museums should consult traditional Nativereligiousleaders for guidance as to the museums’ practices regardingekhibition and labeling, conservation, and storage ofIndian,
Eskimo, Aleut and Haaaiian sacred objects in their pcasession.

d.Federal museurs should facilitate periodic ritual treatmentby appropriate religious practitioners of sacred objects intheir possession, at the request of such practitioners.

5.Recommendations for Congressional Consideration

The Task Force has developed legislative recommendationsconcerning theft or other unauthorized removal from Indian orEskimolands of objects of current religious significance to occupants ofthose lands; the export ofimportantitems ct the Native Americanpatrimony, sacred and other; the interstate transport or receipt ofstolen NativeAmerican religious items; and the intentional con-
version, theft, sale and possession of sacred objects belonging toNative Americans not presently protected by 18 USC 1163.Thosereocumendationsare currently being reviewed within the Administration.

The Administration continues to recommend enactment of S.490 orH.R.1825, similar proposals entitled, “Archaeological ResourcesProtection Act of 1979,” with the amendments offered in the Admin-

istration’s reports on these bills.


RscaomATIoNsP. Ceremonies and Traditional Rites

1.Back9round – Statement of Issues

Participation in ceremonies and traditional rites Lsan intrinsic part of the free exercise ct Native Anericanreligicns. A, wide variety of ceremonies exists for suchdiverse purposes as the healiog of diseases, the renewal ofrelationships with specific spiritual beings, the abservanceof seasonal and generative changes affecting particularsacred objects, the celebration of name-giving and initiationsinto spiritual societies and for the preparation of bodiesfor birth and death.

Tribal and societal customary leaf; details the religicusobligations of those involved and may decree, for instance,
the duration and manner of preparation, the appropriateattire and appearance, the method of arrival and leave-taking,
the proper conduct before and after the ceremony.Tribaltraditional law may also mandate attendance and participation,
as well as set standards for exclusion, and my proscribeconversation ooncerning details of certain ceremonies.
Failure to observe these laws may hold severe ccnsequencesfor the individual practitioner or the group as a whole.

These traditional ceremonial obligations have relationto certain federal practices and institutions.Many NativeAmericans are employed, housed and schooled by the federalgovernment.Federal employment practices, geared towards adifferent ooncept of time and scheduled holidays, may inter-
fere with these employees’ needs and obligations regardingdates and duration of ceremonial events.Buildings construc-
ted on Indian reservations with federal funds may nct Inte-
grate relevant tribal cultural and religious concepts.

Native Americans in federal health care, educational orpenal institutions may experience difficulty in access bonecessary ceremonies and rites.Buildings constructed onIndian reservations with federal funds may not integraterelevant tribal cultural and religious concepts.NativeAmerican children in some foster and adoptive homes may bedenied access to the cultural and religious life of their

tribes and Native communities.


Some American Indiannational divisions do not coincidewith the geographical boundariesof the United States.Commoncultural traditions pontinue onboth sides of the border,burproblems are often encounteredwhen related people must crossborders tn order to fulfill reltgiousceremonial obligations.
(Cross-border issues involving transportationof sacredobjects are discussed in Part III, D.)

Exbmples of problem areas andadministrative responsesare outlined in the nextsection, followed by a list ofexisting statutory authorities for these responses.(Part-
icular problems identified are tabulatedin Appendix C.)

2.Identification of Problems – Response

Identification of specific problems in fhis areais dif-
ficult, due to the existence of sanctionsin many NativeAmerican religions against divulginginformation about oere-
monie3 and traditional rites.Throughout the period ofconsultation there was an underlyingsuspicion that infor-
mation would become the basis tor furtherprabing into theNative religious history and would resultin excavations oftraditional ceremonial sites bythe Npplicable disciplinesand agencies.History and post practice do little to allaythis fear.

Child Welfare – Many problems identifiedduring the oon-
sultation sessions relate to the NativeAmerican childrenwho have been separated fram theirfamilies, tribes andcultural heritage by pl3cement infoster or adoptive homes.
This problem was addressed effectively in the95th Congresswith the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Actof 1978,
P.L. 95-608.

This Act establishes standards for the placementof Indiandhildren and serves to prevent the breakup ofIndian families,
recognizing that Indian children have been separatedframtheir parents and raised outside their homes at ashockinglyhtgher rate than non-Indian children. The Act is nowbeingimplemented by the affected federal agencies and stateandtribal courts, but its reversal effectswill not be felt fora generation.Thus, this problem area will oontinue tobe identified as a Native religious freedomimpediment inrelation to many of those Children removed from theirhomesprior to 1978.



Education – Problems regarding federal educationalinsti-
tutions are being resolved through the oontractingof thoseschools to tribes and the revision of BLA educationalpoliciesto ensure that the freedom cf religion of studentsis notabridged.Increasing emphasis on the cultural oontent offederally-funded Indian education programs will necessarilyincrease the students’ awareness cf Native Americanreligiousheliefs.

in the newly published BIA regulations under theEducationAmendrents of 1978 (25 USC 2010, 2013), the religious freedomrights of Indian students are specifically noted in 25 CFRPart 31a, as the BIA policy to: “promote and respectthe rightto cultural practices, consistent with theprovisions of theAmerican Indian Reli.,gious Freedom Act.”

In 25 CFR Part 31, the folloding are recognized: 1)theright to freedom of religion and the right to be free fromreligioas proselytization; 2) the right to cultural self-
determination based upon tribal thought and philosophy; 3) theright to freedom of speech and expression, including choice ofdress, and length of hair; 4) the basic right to an educationrequiring a staff whidh recognizes, respects and accepts thestudents’ cultural heritage, its values, beliefs and dif-
ferences; and 5) the right to a meaningful education whichshall be designed to insure that tribal elders and membershaving a practicing knowledge of tribal customs, traditicms,
values and beliefs are utilized in the developaent andimplementationof cultural program.

Employment – Certain of the conflicts between federal-
employment practices and Native religious obligations werediscussed during the consultation period.Uniqpe problemsarise where federal agencies are located upon the premises ofan Indian Pueblo.Acommon occurrence is the closing of thePueblo for religious ceremonies; often, there is no advancenotice of the ceremony, the Pueblo people are required toremain at home, non-Pueblce are forbidden to observe andanyone working at the Pueblo must stay away.

This affects primarily the staffs of the Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA) and Indian Health Setvices (IBS).TheTaskForce was advised by the BIA school superintendent at SanFelip2 Pueblo that federal emplcDrent procedures do notprovido for staff disposition when religious ceremoniesp:ohi’cAt nuo-Pueblo staff from going to wotk.Thuse both1c, (,-.1 Eon-Pueblo staff are forcedtotake annual leave.



The major goverrunental employersof Native Americans,
the BIA and the IHS, areexamining their employment practicesas they affect thereligious obligations cl some tribes.The18.5 is discussing theproblem with its Indian Health Board.
The Interior Assistant Secretary forIndian Affairs hasdirected the BIA to develop a plan that seeksto accommodateemployees’ religiov practices requiringtime.away from work,
and to examine the Problem as itaffects student time awayfrom sch071.6

ThiS plan is to be developed in consultationwith theaffected employees and tribal and traditionalreligiousleaders.It is authorized under the FederalEmployeesFlexible and Compressed Work Schedules Actof 1978, asamended, which requires the Office of PersonnelManagementto prescribe regulations topermit federal employees to engagein compensatory work for tine lostwhil% meeting religiousrequirements.

Facilities – Problems with design of federally-funded ccfederally-constructed facilities may be resolvedthroughconsideration of the problem in discussion with thetribe orgroup affected.The Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Ls presently revising its regulations toprovide for thebuilding cl homes which take into account traditionalandcultural factors in design and materials.

The new Public Health Service facility at LagunaPuebloincludes space specifically designed for Nativereligious use.
Title IV or the 1978 amendments to the OlderAmericans Act forthe funding cf multipurpose senior centers onreservationsdoes nct include the prohibition of religious useof centersfound in Title III of the Act co thefunding of centersoutside of Indian country, demonstrating thecontinued ware-
ness by the Congress of the rightof Indian tribes bo practicetheir religions.

Health Care – Problems related to health carefacilitiesareadequately and Appropriately addressed in the newlydeveloped policy of tts Indian Health Service, andin PublicHealth and V:!terans Ad nistration facilities.Official policyprovides for the consideration of the religious needs ofpatients and for accommodations for Native religiousceremoniésand practices.During the Task Force consultations, abuses ofthis policy were specifically mentioned and decried by DRO4

and IHS representativeth.


The RehabilitationServices AdministrationconsidersNative American religionsin itscounselling of NativeAmericans.Recent anerdnents totheRehabilitation Actpermittim tribal operationofrehabilitation programs willfacilitate the use of NativeArerican religious beliefsandceremonies in therehabilitation of disabledNative Americans.

Immigration – The RickapooInlians of this countryardMexim have a longstandingborder-crossing agreenent whichdoes notimpede their travelsin fulfillment ofceremonial-\
obligations.Theirprocedural arrangementwith the appropriatelocal officials allowsfor earlyresolution of specificdifficulties encountered.(Cross-borderproblems relativetothe transportation ofsacred objects are detailedin SectionIII, D.)The Yaqui Tribe ofArizona has experienceddifficultywith the entryinto the United Statesof Yaqui people fromMexico, whose participationis essential, tocertain ceremonies.

The tribes whose peoplereside on both sides ofthe borderfind it ironic that they aresubject to imigrat ion laws atall, as their territorialresidence predates the nationaldivisions by many centuries.However, through the CustomsCommittee on Indian Affairs,these tribes are workingwith theappropriate agencies, as well astheir Canadian anti Mexicancounterparts, on particularproblems as they arise.Immigra-
tin restrictions on theCanalian border have beenremoved,
ani present lawsregarding entry into the country aresuf-
ficiently broad to permit entryof renters of related groupsfor Native Anericanreligious cerenonies.

Penal Institutions -Native Anericanshave a dispro-
portionately high arrest andincarcerationrate – the highestof any identif iable groupin the country. Nativepeopleincarcerated in federal prisonsand federally-funded stateinstitutions are subject to thepolicies of the Bureau ofPrisons and the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration.
Many ,Native Americanprisoners experience substantialdif-
ficulty in the practice ofceremonies and traditionalrites,
possesslon of sacred objects and accessto spiritual leaders..

In federal prisons whereinrates’ religious beliefsare recognized asincOrtantto the rehabilitative process,
Native American religious needs arebeing administrativelyaLmorrtnndated within existingstatutory authorities andpolic4presently applied to thepractice of other religions.,



The Bureau ct Ptisons Ls presently preparing a policystatement cn this subject.Additionally, it has established aspecial liaison team to work with the Office of ChaplaincyServices as a clearinghouse for Native concerns; modifiedprisoner placement and transfer criteria regarding the reli-
gieus and cultural needs of Native prisoners; and permitted ona test-case basis sweat lodges, yuwipi ceremonies and posses-
sionofsome items necessarytothe practice of Nativetraditional religions.

The issue ct use and possession of peyote Ls treatedseparately, however, because of its status as a controlledsubstance.The Task Force heard the views ct traditionalpeyote religion and Native American Church leaders on thissdbject, %to maintained that the peyote cermmonies couldaid in rehabilitation and that Native American.prisonersshould have access to peyote roadmen, or,ceremorgal leaders.
However, they todk the position that peyote itself shouldnot be brought inbo the prisons.

Examples of the problems faced by Native Americans infederal penal institutionand federally-funded state insti-
tutions are given tabular representation in Appendix C.

3.Statutory Authorities for Administrative Actions

5 USC 5550a (authorizes compensatory tim off forfederal employees for religious observances)

8USC 1359 (exempts Canadian Natives from immigration

25 USC 450 (Indian Self-Determinatbon and EducationrsiTiEFFi Act of 1975- allows for contracting ofgovernment programs to Indian tribes)

25 USC 1901 ‘Indian Child Welfare Act ct 1978 – allowsiliRiffcant tribal direction in child custody andpl a ceme nt decisions)

29 USC 750 (allows tribes bo establish rehabilitationprograms for the disabled)

TitleIV of the 1978 amendments to the 1965 OlderAmericans Act (funaing provIsions for senior centerson reservations allows for their use for NativeAmerican religious ceremonies under Title III of the




Speculat ive Poss lb il it les

The American Indian Religicus!Freed= Act and the changes infederal policy which it mandatesinevitably bring forth speculationregardirg rerrote future possibilitiesthat can be detrimental tothe spirit of the law and to thesubject as a whole. *en thepeople of Tacs Pueblo sought to restoretheir sacred Blue Lakearea, forces cpposingthe restoration inurediately began tospec:lateabcut possible convercial use ofthe heavily timbered lards. Thereturn of Mount Adams to theYakima Naticn also spawnedconsiderablespeculation abcut the manner in whichthe Yakima pecple might usethe lard.

Generally, speculative questionsregarding the Act’s inpactfall into threecategories which can be easilyidentified:(1)
pcssible future conmercial use; (2)possible future controversyover minerals, cannercialtimber or water, which might bedeclaredreligious by Indians and Natives in an-eff,At to seize oorArol 7ofthe resources; and (3)possiblefuture appropriation’ of Indianreligicus rites, ceremonies and substancesby ncn-Indian groups.
Although few facts can be found todemonstratethe viability ofthese fears, nevertheless, wheneverthe subject of protectingNativereligious freedan and its exercisearises, these issues areraised in an attempt to both clarifyard deter further action cnthe proposal.

A cannon tharacteristic ofthe speculative possibilityis its abstract quality.tio one points out specificlocationswhich might beplaced in jecpardy byguaranteeing religicus freedomto Indians. Whatspecific locations, mountains, rivers orvalleys.are being discussed whenthese issubs are raised? Askingwhether abroad and firm guarantee mightpose future problemsLs simplyOletorical unless specific instances are madeavailable as part ctthe inquiry.Neither traditicnal tribal nor anyother religicusgroups are able to guaranteecomplete separation from ccntroversy,
unless they are given specific factualsituations to which they canrespond.



Another common characteristic of thespeculative possibilityis the Act’s supposed national impact.Protecting the boundariesof state and church are certainlyimportant, but bo guaranteereligious freedom to American Indians does notnecessarily mean theestablishment of traditional Native religions overand above otherreligions.All religious bodies face the possibility that somefuture action of the state may conflictdirectly with one or moreof their beliefs. It Ls importanttoremember in this respect thattraditional Native religions are’not belief systemswhich requireaction in theabstract.Indian tribes and Native groups, as amatter of course, do not speculate on dutiesowedtoeither religionor the state without furtheroonsideration of the specific factualsituation which might be encountered in theindividual case.Thus,
without venturing into comparison with any presentlyconstitutedreligious body ccaposed of non-Indians, it Ls pnssible tostatethat traditional ‘Native religions have littledhance of creating anational crisis in the thurdb-state relationWp.

Considering the three major categories ofspeculative questionsoutlined above, it is difficult to find asubstantial reason forelapsing that any would beccae critical factorsinhibitingtheenforcement ct legislation, rules or regulationsto guaranteeAmerican Indians freedam of religion./t is probably necessary,
however, to review the three categories anddiscuss some of thepossibilities which might be considered, anddemonstratethefutility of speculatiw on remote possibilities.

Possible Future Commercial Use

The major sites of Native American religiousceremonialsare already well known,and any future controversy mustrevolve around known sites, nct any additionalsites thatndght came into being.hb tribes that are presently con-
tituted and possess a living religious tradition canbeexpectedtomove beyond thcse ceremoniesand rituals they areusing already.The known shrines and sites originateincreation and migration traditions, whichbytheir very nature

are foreclosed for the remainderof this world.


Tribal religious people do not commemorate eventsof historical importance as patriotic religious shrinesin a manner comparable to others. Thus, where non-
Indians venerate Gettysburg, Arlington Cemetery and Mt.
Rushvore as American shrines – giving rise to RobertBellows’ eloquent description of civil religion as acritical factor in the American emotional constitution –
Indians do not venerate the Custer Battlefield, SandCreek or any pdace that aould be said to describe sameof the moot important incidents of recent history. It isthe non-Indian who is just now discovering the religiousvalue of4laces, and the danger of ned shrines springinginto beidoes not come from the Native Americantraditicnal people.

Oaumercialism with accompanying conflict alreadyexists with respect V3 recreational expansion in severalgeographical areas of traditional religious significance tothe Indian tribes and Native groups.In view cl the =-
temporary demand for a changing, more energy-consciouslife-style, approval of increased recreational developmentmight be withheld for reasons having nothing to do with,
traditional Native religion, particularly in light ofalternative sites which could be developed withe_ut injury toeither the recreation industry or the Native shrines andsacred places.

American Indian resources have hardly been developed innon-sacred piaces on most reservations.The danger indiscovering additicral locations where development would behampered by protecting the Indian use is minimal.But assumingthat such a situation might occur, if the location Ls on aresemation, then Indians have the same rights as any otherlandowner and should not be forced tc) develop their lands. Thebest way to anticipate controversy and avoid it wculd be tosurvey the locations with real potential for conflict and

begin planning now to confront these situations.


Native Efforts to Make Places ReligiousAmther occaronly citecrexample. is the instance in whichIndians, dismvering that a certain place*hasminerals,
water or other resources, would declare the area to bereligious and lay claim to it. This possibility projectsbehavior that can be anticipated fi.au non-Indians to Indians,
anti is nothing more than a projected fear.No instance ofthis type of claim is known.Most Native people wouldstuttnarily reject such an idea. fran the very beginnirg.Shouldsuch a situation occur, the motives behindthe claim would bequite evident, and both Indians and non-Indians would act toprevent such a possibility fran caning to fruition.Theproblems of evaluating such a claim do rot differ inherentlyfran those of othe:situations which call for the exposure offraud.
Viipriat ion ofNativeCereronials bNon-Natives

In this area the responsibility. lies %bonywith thenon-Natives tohelp Natives preVent non-Natives frau ex7loitingNative culture.lbo much ;of this exploitation now occurs withrespect to Native history, dances,arts,craftsandsongs; andnost political bodies do nothing toprevent it.Sacred danceshave been duplicated by non-Indian dance troupes, and thisappropriation has been vigorously protested by Indians, with’no visible results.StIould ncn-Nativesstartto appropriatesubstances, costanesof particular religious significanceor such specific materials as eagle feathers, Indians andNatives would act in concert with agencies to do as muchas islegally possible to prevent such activities. Its Dotdifficult to demonstrate that almost all Indtrai;ceremonies,
dances and songs originated in aneventhaving the power andstatus ofrevelation byhigher powers. Simply copying Nativerituals is not practicingreligion, as almost all theologiansand historians of religion wouldtestify.Indian replicationof Christian ceremonials, forexample, vslould not be within theChristian tradition, and would be identified as a very recentinnovation, and traditional Native religions areentitled to

the-same recognition and protection.


Neither law nor religionsustains itself by refusing to act onthe chance of remote possibilitiesthat are raised by speculativeventures alone.The Constitution itselfmight not have beenadopted or even written had the statesmenof those days refused toact because ct the remotepossibility that it would-be misused byunknown future generations. Metherthe Founding Fathers would nowcomplain about the way publicbusiness is conducted is beside thepoint, since cne cannot speak Dor personageslong since departed.
In the same manner, contemporarydevelopments must confront contem-
porary and foreseeableconditions.They must nct be subjected toremote possibilities with no factualstructure to Which one canrespond.

Definition of Consulting Class

Tbe American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act requires thatadministrative review occur in oonsultationwith Native traditionalre4igious leaders, with ‘Native” meaningAmerican Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo and Nativelimaiian people.

Important to the issue of=Insulting class under thc Act are:
1).the definition ofen AffericanIndian; 2) the federal relation-
ship to’American Indian, Aleut,Eskimo and Native Hawaiian peopleand governments; and 3) thedistinction, where it exists, betweenNative governments recognized bythe United States and Native’traditional governments, which may or maynot be federally-

There are almost as many definitionsof who is an Indianunder federal law as there arestatutes,,programs cw other reasonsDor defining an Indian.Accamon misconception amongboth Indiansand non-Indians Ls that anIndien is a person who is one-fourthdegree or more of Indian blood and a me .-rofafederally-
recognized tribe.This generalized defincombining as itdoes a nurrber-of ccncepts, is notuseful for ..4..ses of theAmerican Indian ReligiousFreed= Act.

The concept of federal recognitiondescribes the political/
relationship between the United States and anIndian tribe. Recog-
nition of a tribe by the Department ofthe Interior involveseligibility Dor federal services forIndians nnder a number ofstatutes, a trust relationshipbetween the United States and tribesand pweemption ct much of thepolitical power of the state on the=
tribe’s reservation.All of these elements of federalrecognitionconoern the status ofthe tribe itself as a political body and not

necessarily that of individual Indians.


An individual Indian, on the other hand, may enjoy the legalstatus,of an Indiar in two basic ways:1) the individual’s tribalmembership, or citizenship, which is a political relationshipbetween the individual and the tribe and for political purposesdefined and controlled by the tribe; 2) an individual may beconsidered an Indian within a definition of eligibility establishedin a statute by the Congress for a particular purpose, suchaseligibility for a service program created to benefit a class ofIndians as specified in the statute.This latter kind of specificdefinition embodies the attention of Congress rather than thepolitical membersiztip of the tribe or the social and culturalcharacteristics of a individual tribe.

In fact, the tribal political deftnition and the Congressionalstatutory definition serve different purposes and may encompassdifferent though overlapping groupe.For example, a federalprogram may’be designed to serve Indians of one-fourth or moredegree of blood of federally-recognized tribes.Igdividuals of thetribes with hishly restrictive membership requirements, one-half,
for example, might have the blood quanturn necessary to qualify forfederal services, but not for membership if their blood quantum isbetween one-fourth and one-half.One tribe may require members tohave been born on the reservation, making it possible to be a full-
blood of that tribe and still not eligible for membership.In thecase of tribes with more lenient membership requireiments, individualsmay be enrolled tribal members, but lacking one-fourth degree blccdquantum, and ineligible for federal services.

A third purpose for defining an Indian concerns interests inindividual and tribal property.An individual may be ineligiblefor both tribal membership and federal services but still ownan interest in trust or restricted property and be subject tofederal supervision in its management.Congress has defined theclass of people eligible to share in a claims judgment, whichmaybe substantially different from the contemporary tribal membershipor reservation service pcpulation.Federal law may require thata person be allowed to participate in tribal property interests,
even though the tribe has divested that person of tribal membership.

The above definitions are directed at the purposes for whichthe definitions are suited – p)litical, property or services.Noneis suitable for the purposes ct the American Indian ReligiousFteedcm Act, which Ls designed to protect the cultural and religiousinterests of individual Native Americans and .Indian tribes andNative groups as cultures, rather than simply as political entities.
Perhaps the best approach to definition is to view the matterwithin the functional cultural context: individuals whoare acceptedas Indian in the community in which they live.



For the purposes of theAmerican Indian Religious FreedomAct, the political relationships betweenthe trite and the UnitedStates, as gcmernments, or between thetribe as a government and anindividual Indian tribal citizen are clearly irrelevant, asis theeligibility of an individual Indian for a particularfederalprogram.Instead, the relevant considerations would appear tobewhether an Indian is sincerely attempting toexercise a firstamendment right which Ls a matter cf federallaw and, where appli-
cable, whether an individual Indian isauthorized to perform aparticular ceremony or possess a certain sacredobject, whidh Ls amatter ct tribal law or dust=

Am stated at the outsetof this report, the status of theUnited States relationship with NativeHawaiian and Alaska Nativepeoples is under Congressional jurisdiction atpresent and subjectto change. Vats is also the casewith those’ American Indian tribeswhose relatidnship with the United Stateshaarbeen the subject of ahtanding act cf termination.

This relationship between any non-federally-recognizedNativegroup and the United Statescould change in the future as a resultof actions in any of the three branchesof government.In 1978,
the Department cl the Interior undertookthe federal acknowledgementproject, in recognition of the possibility that there aretribalgrcups who should receive,but do not, the benefit cf the specialfederal-Indian relationship.

Under the administrative recognition process,the essentialfactors in determining whidh Indian groupswill be adknowledged asIndian tribes are: whether the group has teenidentified ‘as anIndian tribe on a substantially continuous basis inhistoricaltimes to the present; and whether the tribe hasinhabited a specificarea and has maintainedtribal political influence cc authorityover its members.The group must show that it Ls =posed prin-
cipally of persons who are Dot nembers of anotherIndian tribe, andit cannot be a tribe which has been terminatedby Act cf Congress.

At present, there are nearly 500 governmentalentities,
including Indian tribes, pueblos, bands, rancherias,communitiesand Alaska Native villages and oorporations, which arerecognizedas eligible for BIA trustservices.Thus far, over fifty Indiangroups have petitioned the Secretaryfor recognition as Indian



Cover the next ten years, this administrative process, coupledwith Congressional considerations of the ongoing Native Hawaiianand Alaska Native claims and relationships, will have clarified thepresently confused definitions,ot tribe, Native and Indian.Forfederal agencies in their consultative processes, this means thatmany’ Native groups not presently “recognized” may be in thiscategory soon, while few nod included will be.excluded in thefuture.

Tribal and Native governing bodies can be expected to altersomewhat their structure and relationship to their traditionalreligious leaders over the miming years, aS federal policy continuesto acknowledge that culture and traditions are the fabric of triballife.

Nbt all societies are structured in the same way and thereis a considerable variety in their institutions, their oonompts andtheir organization categories.Federal policies to “civilize”
the Indian people have restricted the free exercise of Indianreligions, frequently due to an inability to understand the integralnature ct Indian cultures and the pervasive role of religion inIndian life. A persistent theme in the history of federal Indianpolicy has been to introduce institutions and procedures to Indiantribes Which would appear to be Indian versions of civilized artsof government, but which had the effect of fragmenting Indiancultures and imposing unsuitable structures on otherwise integratedcultures.

Certainly, the changed circumstances of reservation, life mayhave dictated some adaptation on the part of Indian cultures.Thehindsight of history teaches that lasting and effective adaptationscannot he dictated frau outside the culture, but can only emergefrom within as a natural process which draws on the inner strengthsof the culture and its people.

Historically, federal agencies have sought to underminetraditional Indian means of self-government and impose non-Indianforms and procedures.These have fragmented the authority andeffectiveness of the traditional cultural means of bringing aboutsocial harmony throuo a combination of,religious and politicalinstitutions.To a Large degree, Indian tribes have adoptedconstitutional forms of government, not as a natural adaptation tonew circumstances in their lives, but out of a oonviction that onlya constitutional form of government would have a hope of achieving’

any semblance of recognition by federal and state governments.


In a number of cases of federally-recognizedtribes, theadoption of a oonstitutional form of tribal.government resultedin the ooncentration of political power in the hands of a moreaccommodating and acculturated segment of the tribal population.
At the same tine, the balance of the tribe founditself unable toparticipate in tribal self-government, because of religiousbeliefs proscribing the style and pattern of behavior reguiredforsuccessful manipulation of a oonstitutional representative form ofgovernment.

In many instances, then, federal policy has created apol-
itical stalemate within the Indian tribes.The federal governmentrecognizes and deals exclusively with the constitutional formof government, which oontrols tribal land and resources,formalpolitical institutions, law-and-order systems and setvice deliveryagencies. At the same time on many reservations, the effectiveauthority in the life of the tribe – filling.tret of the traditionalroles of religious, political and social control – isstill anoutgrowth of the traditional Indian culture, which makes littleAdistinction between religion and other aspects of human life..
*-,In these traditional cultures, all laws arespiritual (in thesense of life and substance) andform the foundation of government;
Vnereas, in western cultures, laws are separate from religion(inthe sense of prayer and a sometimes obligation) and thurdh mattersremain distinct from government.

As long as this stalemate and fragmented self-governmentisallowed to continue, Indian people will be denied the effectiveright to adapt themselves to modern circumstances in a way that isappropriate to their beliefs.Real progress tn dealing with socialand economic problems will be frustrated, and the reality oftribalconstitutional government will be that it is more accountable tothe federal government than to its omn people.)

In recognizing these facts, one does not denigratethe sin-
cerity, leaderehip, honesty or sacrifice cl generations of electedtribel officials who have tried to assure a semblance of tribalsurvival in the face of the realities of past federal policies thatpaaced premiums on aSsimilation and penalities on cultural dis-
tinctiveness. It is consistent with the intent of Congress inpassing the American Indian.Religious Freedom Act to recognizethat a more flexible approach to tribal self-government may wellresult in the evolution of forms of government which are adapted tothe needs of the present day, while still consistent with fun-

&mental Indian religious beliefs.


As the fiftieth year of the landmark Indian Reorganization Actnears, it is an opportune time for tribal leaders, appropriateagencies and the Congress to closely examine the extent to whidhthe present forms and structures of tribal governments have beenimmted from the outside and are inapptcpriate to the needs andreligious beliefs of the Indian cultures and individuals which theynow represent.Sudh Scrutiny would have the intention ct increasingflexibility in federal policy and in the structure of tribalgovernments, allowing for the full flowering of these cultyreswhidh have contributed so much to our present systeni of government.

Religious Freedom – Future Steps

TOday, American society is making rapid gains in understandingas it confronts various problems.Ah maltitude cf legislationwithin the last two decades has served notice that the values ofthe majority are breaking down artificial bairiers and now approach-
ing a holistic view, comparable in most respects to the traditioncarried forward by the Afferican Indian community.But the potentialfor damage, albeit unwittim; tO the Indian religious traditionsremains the same as it always has been.Decisions by the peopledesignated and authorized to aiminister institutional programs andenforce rules, regulations and statutes are nOt always grounded ina sophisticated understanding of the issues inoolved.More often,
they reflect the popular conceptions of .the time ani in manyinstances these oonceptions are remnants of past beliefs, notexpressions of the most intelligent cc progressive thinking cf theday.

Many issues raised by the pessage of the Meriden IndianReligious Freedom Act reflect the prejudices and rigidity of pasteras and not the matured *understanding whidh characterizes ccntem-
porary America.Behind many objections may lurk the suspicionwhidh the unfamiliar invokes in the mind before it comes toa moreperfect understanding.It is clear from the direction of growth inunderstanding that has characterized American society in thiscentury and from the adoption of a specific statement on AmericanIndian religious freedom.by the Congress, that a policy of removingbarriers to Indian religious freedom is perceived as the next stepin the growth of American religious freedom ;And political maturity.
Such a step synthesizes progress already made in preventing notslimly the establishment of a denomination under the Constitution,
but the entrenchment of a particular mature]. interpretation with

the longstanding traditionik of the indigenous peoples.


If, as Nr. Justice Holmes once remarked,the FourteenthAmendment did nct enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’sSocial Statisticsineither did it nor the Constitution entrendhdiggiiirgoir77Yinstitutional participation-as the criteria foridentifying,
respecting, protectimg and understanding religiousactivities.
Instead of the presumption that religicesactivities must occur infamiliar forms and in restricted patterns ofbehavior, federalofficials must come to recopize the integrity ofinternal dis-
cipline which the Indian tribal traditionsemphasixt. The require-
ment ie merely a change ct attitude from thenegative prohibitionon behavior because other groups do notfollow the same pr6ceduresbo a pceitive encouragement ct allowingIndians the freedom ctexpression critical to the performance ct theirceremonies:

In the future, as in the past, therewill be mistakes #11 theinterpretation ct laws, rules and regulationsrand acertaindegree of friction between misinformedfederal officials ‘andpractitioners ct the Indian religions.Past experience has shbwrithat, when properly informed as bo the importanceof specificpractices, all branches ct the federal9overnment make everyeffortto support and protect the practiceof.Indian religion:

In summary, ihe American IndianReligious Freedom Act is amajor and positive step in protecting Indianreligious activitief#
from mistaken or thoughtless interference.It does not constitutethe establishment cf a religion.The premises of Native tribalreligions differ so fundamentally from thereligions of themajority in perspective and practice that thetraditional dangersagainst which the establidhment clause guards do notexist.
Although past injustices have teen visited uponpractitioners ofNative tribal religions, for the most part therehas not been asystematic suppression of Indian religions because they:werereligions, and the injustices have been the productof a broaderiliiikiiiFension of the nature ct culture and society.Moving mowto adjust attitudes and viewpoints to supportthe formal protectionof tribal reltgions is a further step in thematuring process Whidhhas proven so beneficial bo American society inthis century.

SaLtgrcund – Legislative HistorySigningStateMent, August 12, 1978Joi.nt Resolution – Americanlndion Religious Freodam,
P.10. 95-341

Department of the InteriorStatement on S.67. Mes9 102,
February 27, 1979

Department of Agriculture Statement on04, Rees 1021February 27, 1978.’

.InteriorAssistant Secretary – IndianAffairs Memorandum

Proposing Intr&-Departmental Task Force onUsue ofAmerican Indian Religious Freedom,February 24, 1376

President’s Letter to36natorAboureik on Issue of VeligiousPOWOR for Anerican Indians, November29, 1977

Senator Atourezk’s Letter tothe President on Issue of/Religicus Freedom for AmericanI9dians,
Wommber 16, 1977


1 5




Senate Joint Resolutton 102 was introduced onDecember 18,

1977, and referred to the Senate Select Committee onIndianAffairs.A companion peasure, H.J. Res. 738, wasintroduced onFebruary 14, 1978, and referred to the HouseInterior Subcanmitteeon Public Lands and IndianAffairs.These historic measuresvripposed to set forth United States policy to protectamd.preservethe inherent right of Anerican Indian,Eskimo, Aleut and NativeHawaiian people to believe, express and exercise theirtraditionalreligions.

The resolutions recognized thatabridgements of NativeAmerican religious freedom had resultedfrom a lack of consistentpolicy and insensitive, inflexible regulatoryenforcement at.the:
federal level.Federal laws pertaining to the preservation ofendangered speciese.for example, inadvertentlyinfringe on therbghts of Native people became their interest wasmot consideredby the Congress in pessing such laws.

Effc,rts to organize Indian concern beganin the early 1970s,
follaaing the arrest of members of the Cheyenneand Arapaho Tribesof Oklahoma for sale and possession of eaglefeathers in vjoaationof the Bald Eagle Protection Att.Strict enforcement of this lawagainst the Nation’s only people with areligious duty attachedto feathers causedconsiderable concern amongtribes throughoutthe country.At a 1974 national meeting oftraditional Nativereligious leaders tn New Mexico, concerns were expressedthatwilderness and wildlife conservation laws had theeffect ctinhibiting Native pecple exclusively in theexercise of theirreligion.Access to ceremonial sites, evencemeteries, had beendenied.Sacred relics had been confiscated, and purifiedmedicinebags opened and desecrated by authorities at stateand nationalborders.As a result cl this meeting and subsequentnegotiattonswith federal officials, certain administrativeaccommodations weremade in regard to the Anerican Indian use andposseesion cf eaglefeathers.

In 1977, the Senate Select Committee onIndian Affairs heldseveral conferences to address ways to alleviate theadverse impactof .pertinent laws and procedures on theNative religions.Althoughthere was clear potential for legislative action, consensusatthese conferences was that much could begained from executiveaction and a consultation process with traditionalNative religiousleaders. It was agreed that close consultation at every stageof the effort,would better’define problem areas andafford theenforcing agencies a clearer view of changes needed.The Committeechairman,-Mr. Abourezk, commnicated this intended action bothe%bite House.The President responded on hbvember 28, 1977,withassurances of “thorough, sensitive, and promptattentton andconsideration.”.9,



On February 24, 1978,the Senate Committeeheld hearingson S.J.Res. 102.Testimony was receivedfrom more than thirtytraditionalAmerican Indian andHawaiian Nativereligious leadersexpressingenthusiastic support forthe measure.The All-IndianPueblo Counciloffered commendationfor the Committee’s”deep and unwtveriminterestin the preservationof the Indianccauunity, theirreligion and theirculture.” 2/ The Churchof Hawaii Nei%rote, “Mahalo nuiloa foryour efforts on our behalf.”3/ The Crowrepresentative observed,_”The laws thatprotect birds, animals,yaants andour Mother Earthfrom people Whohave no respect forthese thingsserve to inhibit thefree exercise of religionand the freeuse cf religious artifactsandfree access to religioussites when. theseAnerican Indianspose nothreat to,them.”

Statements by Committeemembers were no lesssuppurtive.Mr.Bartlett of Oklahomastated:

Ne do not.needto add continuedviolation ofAmerican Indianreligious freedomto the long list ofrights consistentlyabridged by theFederal gcmernment.
It should be a relativelysimple matter toestablish afederal policy topreserve and protect Indianfreedom.of religion, anddevelop a new sensitivito traditionalIndian’ culture.”

Mr. Inouye of Hawaiiexpressed his supportof S.J. Res. 102,relating it to hisknowledge of Nativeculture and religionin hishome state:

“… despite the progressive demiieof the Hawaiianculture including itsreligious component,certaintraditions and beliefsremain.To those individualswho still harborthese traditionsand beliefs, theability to freelyexpress and practice themis ofutmost importanceto their identityas Hamsiians and totheir spiritualwell-being.” y.

On march 12, 1978,S.J. Res. 102was reported amended bytheSenate.Senate Report No.95-709 contains thisobservation fromMr.Abourezk:

1.American Indian Reliious Freedom:Hearis on S.J. Res. 102Before

the SelectCommittee on Indanfa rs, 95c Cong.,Sess. 17(staitem-no.
2.id.# p. 46.3.laT,p. 25.4.p. 7.5. 1E; p. 9.




“Even the most ardent conservationist cannct match theneed of traditional Indians for preserving eagles andhawks.For some paains Indians, much cf their religion. depends on the existence of these vecies.Yet, prohibitingthe possession arid exchange by Indians cf feathers inone’s family for generations, or the use of feathersacquired legally does not help preserve endangeredspecies.It does prevent the exercise cf AmericanIndian religions.AlthoUgh the enforcement prcblemscreate more,diffIcult administrative issues and requiremore careful consideration of regulation changes in this,
area,’ it is possible to both uphold the intent of thelaws and alloW for religious freedom.” .§1

Co April 3,.1978, S.J. Res. 102 passed the`Senate as reported.by a voice mote.

Cn July 17i 1978, Mr. Udall cf Arizona, a co-sponsor of the.Resolution, delivered an eloquent and persuasive floor statement onH.J.-Res. 738 consent action:

“It is stating the obvious to say that this countrywas the Indianslcog before it was ours.Sor manytribes, the land is filled with physical sites ctreligious and sacred significance to them.Can we notunderstand that? Our religions have their Jeruse4ems,
Mount Calvarys, Vaticans and Meccas.%V hold sacredBethlehem, Nazareth, the Mcunt Of Olives, and theWailing Wall.Bloody wars have been fought because ofthese religious sites.

* * *

“It is the intent of this bill to insure thatthe basic right of the Indian people to exercisetheir traditional religious practices is not in-
fringed without a clear decision on the part of theCongress or tge administration that such religicuspractices must yield to scare higher consideration.”3/

Co July 18, 1978, H.J. Res. 738 was amended and passedavoice vote.And, on August 11, 1978, the American Indian ReligiousFreedcat Act was apporcved.The President oancluded his signingstatement co this note:”I welcome enactment of this Resolutionas an important action to assure religious freedom for all Americans.”

6.D. Rep. No. 95-709, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1978).

7.. Rec. H6872 (1978)(daily ed. July 18, 1978)(remarks of Rep.


42 U.S.C. 1996Public Lao 95-341, 92 Statute 469S.J.R. 102-and Senate Report No.95-709 – March 21, 1978H.J.R. 738 and House Report No. 95-1108 -June 19, 1978

December 15, 1977Intrcduced in the Senate by’Mr. Abourezk,

Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Matsunaga, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Gravel and Mr. Goldwater,
C.R. VOL 123, S. 19765.
Referred to the Senate Select Committee onIndian Affairs.

February 24, 1978March 12, 1978April 3, 1978April 5, 1978July 17, 1978

July 18, 1978July 18, 1978July 19, 1978July 27, 1978August 11, 1978

Hearings in the Senate before the SenateSelect Committee cn Indian Affairs.

Report amended by the Senate.
Report No. 95-709.

Passed the Senate as reported by a voice vote.
C.R. vca. 124, S. 4590.

Peferred to the House Committee cn Interiorand Insular Affairs.

,Statement in the House by Mr. Udall relative toconsent action on House Joint Resolution738.
vca. 124, H. 6842.

Amended to contain text of H.J.R. 738 aspassed by a voice vote.

Passed the House as amended by a voice vote.
C.R. VOL 124, H. 7017.

Explanation of vote on H.J.R. 738 by Mr. Cohen.
C.R. VOL 124, H. 7017.

House amendments agreed to by the Senateby avoice vote.C.R. VO1.124, S. 11988.

Approved by the President to become P.L. 95-341.




Office of the White House Press SecretaryMOI011i410…..0111411111.11.MM


The Presidenthassigned S.J. Res. 102, which declaresFederal policy to protect freedom of religious belief and exerciseon th part of Native Americans.A report to the Congress isrequired in twelve months after anExecutive Branch evaluationof this issue.The resolution is designed prima ily to assurethat Fedreal programa (such as Federal land management andcustoms procedures) are administered to accommodate and besensitive to traditional native religious beliefs and practices.

The President issued the following statement on S.J. Res. 102:


I have signed into law S.J. Res. 102, the American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978.This legislation sets forth thepolicy of the United States to protect and preserve the inherentright of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiianpeople to believe, txpress and exercise their traditionalreligions.In addition, it calls for a year’s evaluationof the Federal agencies’ policies and procedures as theyaffect the religious rights and cultural intczrity of NativeAmericans.

.It is a fundamental right of every American, asguaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, toworship as he or she pleases.This act is in no way intendedto alter that guarantee or override existing laws, but ladesigned to prevent government actions that would violatethese Constitutional protections.In the past governmentagencies and departments have on occasimdenied NativeAmericans access to particular sites and interfered withreligious practices and customs where such use conflictedwith Federal regulations.In many instances, the Federalofficials responsible for the enforcement of these regulationswere unaware of the nature of traditional native-religiouspractices and, consequently, of the degree to which theiragencies interfered with such practices.

This legislation seeks to remedy this situation.

I. am hereby directing that the Secretary of tha Interiorestablish a task force comprised of representatives of theappropriate Federal Mencies.They will prepare the reporto the Congress requ red by this Resolution, in consultationWith Native leadersSeveral agencies, including the Departmentsof Treasury and Interior, have already taken commendable stepsto implement the intent of this Resolution.

I welcome enactment of this Resolution as an important

action to assure religious freedom for all Americans.



S. J. Res. 102

WC LAW 95-341


Binttlitfth Congress of the %lotted Atatesor Smerica

AT Mt INCOND 112111110t4

Basso ass4 &Id as th. Cky of lireshinosen on Thursday. Ike iskreavash day ifjoposmSRI thootared nine hundred old sarawspeilks


&arias Dam 111110ms Friar

Manes the heeds» of videos kw ell people ie as; Womb do%
fundamantal so the dementia struebee tit the Mtn% Statse lad* is iursolssd by Iho Nine Ameadamt efil the Weed &Mae

inseam the United Sates bra teeditimally rejected the maamt ofa government Maytag isdividuals the eight to panties their sell.
glue sad, es a nsair,–bes lasolted hem a Ike misty et teligiselheritages in this seseney ;
Maw the selkyiewe Nubian et dm Amadeu ladies fee well esNed» Illashea mad itaweilsa) ars ma bawd pelt of their sal-
-Sum treditim sad MAW% seth realms tondos tka t Ala ofImam ideality and »lee mime ;
41n11111111 the traditional Amadeu’ ladiaa taligioas, as ea illegalwCieefIodise; life, aro bedispeemble tad ineplemehis;

tho bah of a du; umprobensive, aad mmaidentpolity bra often milted In the ebricipseet of relialeastee treditioaal Amodesa Wiens;
Moms ask Wiens isfriammeab Tema Mb the baud bweledse or the insomnia. sad Wobble »Woman of Peewit poll-.else sad notation premised on s vathty if laws;

Wham mob lam wen dedgmod foe sulk wonherklis moms eamweriation sad piesevalies of estrus3 spoke sad neseeme betwen mem inteedel to Met* to Wien odigions jumbles Ind,
‘Mesta»,without mmidoestits of Stir ahm eatraditionalIndiraMune ouchen sadlisielr icyArnevima !adieu mewsto sewed duein their redeem, Mediae temstariee;
Moue web laws m times peohibitlio um sad poomdoe of sawed

*met weeemerysorbe menus et relieses rites sad meemonkeItlinde traditional Amovism Win senieosim haft bees

intedheedmiliwod ia a few imitator bands Now, then-
flee, ha is

lboolevel by She hack mai Nous of dorrosmeattoosIA. Waldltemot of Ameba I a &servo beembled, That hssesteed; it shall 16ski pokey of the United “Nato to reset and penal» far Antrim*
Indians Net lawn» right of tendon to belier , swungeisesise the traftionst Milderw of tho Amnion ladies,
Aleut, and Native Itewsliaes . including but sot limited Is lama toekes, me tad poommise of mend *woe, sadns*
the bodes to wankip

brae* sanmerelale midi IndiaAim

line.LasPouliot IMO direst the »ries Mini depommeets,

end ether iminmagelitimhe eadaimerias

b sookate that *Miesyeesedm.esemberienwiek mese ‘redbird olliateas loudenear to donut.* eopre.
friar obeererameeetag to Ineset and prawn Native rtresrimasad madam Twelve baths ettern_sporeval


admiulatestin pollee aadsad fag tormansurbikme baley Moe Ow *Mad» alba



traWkarAs loose of lerfNIMONVIs


Irdra”osalsobliamileilastaar.sed^asides. of U. se,ifriorziova_

AppRovEDAUG1 1 Wei





Mr. Chairman, members of the Committ*e, and staff, my name is GeorgeGoodwin, I am a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs.

We recommend passage of S.J. Res. 102 with clarifying language whichwill be presented to you today by tile Department of Justice.Thatlangue,e would insure that no provision of the resolution would beconstrued as amending existing law.

Mr. Chairman, we support and endorse the policy.of the United States

expressed in S.J. Res. 102 to protect and preserve for American Indians./

their right tu believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions.

Indians have often experieuced interference with, and sometimes outrightbanning of, their rel4gious ceremonies and theobjectiand artifactsassociated with those ceremonies.That interferencejs often the resultof administrative regulations and policies carried out with littleawareness or concern for their impact on the practices of traditionalIndian religion.

We believe that in order to make the policy of Ind4an self-determivationmeaningful it is necessary for the Federal government to address theconflicts between its policies and procedures and the practice of

traditional Indian relgions.

S.J.’Res. 102 goes further than just stating policy, however.Itdirects the President to direct the various Federal departments,
agencies, and other instrumentalities responsible for administering lawswhich affect Indian religious freedom to evaluate their policies, inconsultation with Indian Native religious leaders, in order to determineand implement changes whirh may be necessary to protect and preserveNative American religious cultural rights and practices.

A group of representatives from the various agencies whose activitiesimpact on traditional Indian customs and practices met last Novemberwith representatives of this Committee to discuss possible conflictsbetween their activities and Indian religious customs.It was decidedat that meeting that such an interagency group should operate as a taskforce to be coordinated by the Department of the Interior.An importantgoal of such a task force, decided at this initial meeting, is toconsult with Native American religious leaders in order to accommodateIndian tradition wherever possible in enforcement procedures and policies.

On-going convcrsations with the other federal agencies responsible foradministering laws which affect Indian religious practices encourage usthat there is widespread interest and support for a review of adminis-
trative procedures with a view to identifying and correcting, wherepossible, problems Indian traditionalists have with the ways our lawsare being enfotced.With such interest extending from the highest

levels in this Aoministration and among the various Departments, we are

encouraged that such a review will be an effective one with gratifyingresults.Certainly, the Department of the Interior will welcome andcooperate with a congressional directive for a formal review of ourprocedures in protecting Indian religious rights.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this most important subject.
My associates and I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee

may wish to ask.






Honorable James AbourezkChairman, Select Committee onIndian AffairsUnited States SenateWashington, D.C.20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Iappreciate the opportunity to comment on S.J. Res.102.The.
protection and preservation of religious freedom forAmericanIndians is vital to-their cultural integrity and to thedemocratictraditions of this country.

I know you are aware of my special interest andpersonal involve-
ment as a Member of Congress in the manyneeds and problems ofAmerican Indians.Because of this concern, several weeks agoIestablished a Native American Task Force in the DepartmentofAgriculture.to improve the effectiveness of USDA’s programs asthey apply to Nat;ve Americans.

The Task Force, composed of four of my assistantsecretaries andsupporting agency staff people as required, willreport to mequarterly.It occurs to me that a system such as our TaskForcemight be the type of vehicle that could be createdin other executivedepartments to deal with the purpose of S.J. Res. 102, aswell as themany other issues and problems thatconfrcnt American Indians.

The difficulties experienced by American Indiansin practicing theirtraditional religions have already been discussed by ourTask Force.
I thoroughly support your efforts to resolve anyconflicts betweenAmerican Indian religious practices and Federal policies.You may beassured I will cooperate fully with any Presidentialdirective havingthat objective.

The Office’-of Management and Budget advises that thereis no objectionto the presentation of this report from thestandpoint of the Adminis-
tration’s program.


1 15




United States Department of the Interior




FEL 2 1 1978

Assistant Secretary – Energy and MineralsAssistant Secretary – Land and Water ResourcesActing Assistant SecretAry – Policy,Budget, and AdministrationAssistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife andParks

Fr)m:Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs

Subject:Indian Religious Freedom Bills

One of the important issues that hasfaced this Administration, andmore specifically the Departmentof Interioi, is one of a basicrecogni-
tion of the rights of Indian people topractice their religion, traditionsand customs.In an attempt to yeaffirm these rtghts,S.J. Resolution l02has been introduced in the Senate and H.J.Resolution 738 has been intro-
duced in the House.Copies of both are attached.

Oftentimes, these rights may conflict withvarious administrativeprocedures and practices of the variousBureaus within the Department.
These conflicts deal with the possessionfq Indians of eagle feathers forceremonial purposes, carrying out religiouspractices on public lcnds,
or gathering roots andplants for medicinal purposes within parkboundaries.

I am proposing that the various AssistantSecretaries form an intra-agencyraskjórce to deal with this issue and analyze oureespective rules andregulations which we use to administer our programsand develop an actionplan which would recognize the FirstAmendment rights of Indian people.

I would appreciate it if you would name a personor pers.,ns whom youfeelcould serve on a task force to addressthis issue and work towardfinalizlng a plan of action.

Please notify Deputy Assistant SecretaryGeorge Goodwin, extension4174,
by March 1 on whom your representativewill be.The initial meeting willbe scheduled the following week.





WASHINGTONNovember 28, 1977

To Senator James Abourezk

Thank you very much for your letter of November 16and the background information on the issue ofreligious freedom\.for American Indians.

I have requested my Counsel, Bob Lipshutz, tocoordinate with Stu Eizenstat, the Secretary ofthe Interior, and the Attorney General, for thepurpose of working with you and yourCommitteeon this matter.

Please be assured that this will be giventhorough, sensitive, and prompt attention andconsideration.

Best personal regards.


Honorahle James AbourezkUnited States SenateWashington, D. C.20500


President Jimmy CarterTHE WHITE HOUSEWashington, D. C.20503

Dear Jimmy:

APPENDIX ANovember 16, 1977

I went you to have this copy of the background memorandumprepared by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the issueof religious freedom for American Indians.

Given your stand for human rights around the world andthe significance of your own religious experience, Ihave confidencethat you will give this problem your carefulconsiderAtion.Itis an area which is readily supported by mostAmericans and the-
concept is certainly fundamental to the Bill ofRights.

Key Senate and House leaders have indicated strongsupportfor a Congressional Resolution on this matter which I plan tointroduce later this month.The Resolution would clarify thatthe Federal policy is to protect and preserve therights ofIndians to their religious and cultural integrity.As a practicalmatter, the most effective approach should comefrom the Executive.
A policy directive from you can directly addressthe neglect andinsensitive regulations which have prevented Indians fromtho free.exercise of their traditional religions.

I am


Thank you for your concern.With warmest personal regards,



Le4-tadictgames Abourezk,STImanSenate Select C.G1imittee

on IndianAffairs

Appendix B

Memorandum, National Endowent for the Humanities Deputy

thairman, Preliminary Evaluation ofIssues Related toCompliance withiy”95-341, August 6, 1979

Letter, U.S. CUstans Service Chief Counsel, Report Revievand Comment, August 3, 1979

latter, Department of the Navy, Deputy Under Secretary ofthe Navy, Summary Statement, August 2, 1979

Letter, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Intra-

DepartmentalCouncil on Indian AffairsChairman,
Transmittim Swaim Statement ofIndian Health Service,
July 26, 1979

14emorandunt, NationalParkService, InteriorDeputy Assistant

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Consultationwith Native Atterican Traditional ReligiousLeaders,
Jaly 20, 1979

Memorandum, Secretary of the Interior,Preparation of FinalReport Required by P.L. 95-341, June 27, 1979

Letter,Secretary of Health,Education and Welfare,Trans-

mitting Evaluationsof Administration on Aging,
Rehabilitation Services Adminsitration, EducationDivisich and Social Security Administration, May 31, 1979

Memorandum, Fish and WildlifeService, InteriorAssistant

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Review ofPolicy and Procedures for their Mmpact on NativeAmerican Raigious Freedans, May 151 1979

Letter, Forest ServiceDeputyChief,Evaluation of Policies andProcedures as a Result of P.L.95-3411 May 101 1979

Memorandum, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Assistant

Secretary forLand and Water Resources, PreliminaryEvaulAtion of Issues Related to Ccxrpliance withP.L.95-3411April 17, 1979

Memorandum, National 14k Service, Interior Assistant Secretary

for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Internal Review andRecommendations to the Task Force cnImpletentationof the krericanIndian Religious Freedan Act of19781

April 12, 1979


Letee, Tennessee Valley Authority, Manager, Office of Natural

Resources, /nitial Report Concerning the TVA’sImplementation of the Indian Religious Freedom Actcf 1978, April 12, 1979

Letter, Department of Comiterce, Economic Development

Administration Special Assistant for Indian Affairs,
Reporting National Marine Fisheries Service as onlyCOmmerce unit that may apply under P.L. 95-341,
April 9, 1979, March 29, 1979

Letter, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Inter-

agency Archeological Services Ardhaeologist, Report cfSteps to Implement 7:14. 95-341, April 5, 1979

Agenda, April 2, 1979, Meeting ct the Task Force to Prepare

the Averican Indian Religious FreedoliAct Implemen-
talon Report

Letter, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Assistant General

Counsel, Report on Relevance to P.L. 95-341,
March 30, 1979

Memorandum, Department of Energy Specialist for Indian Affairs,

Initial Submission to Task Force cn Religious Freedom,
Match 30, 1979

Letter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Report on

Department-vide Survey Regarding P.L. 95-341,
March 22, 1979

Memorandum* Arrerican Foiklife Center Director, Internal Review

and Recararendations Pertaining to Ixaplementation ofP.L. 95-341, March 16, 1979

Letter, U.S. Customs Service Chief Counsel, Report cnImplementation of P.L. 95-341, Mardh 6,1979

Letter, Department of Housing and Urban Development,d

Special Assistant to the Secretary – Indian andAlaska Native Programs, Review on P.L. 95-341 inProcess, February 26, 1979

Memorandum, Secretary of the Interior, Establishment of

Task Force to Prepare the Report to the Congress onMmplementation of P.L. 95-341, January 26, 1979





OAugust 6, 1979MEMORANDUM


Secretary of the InteriorATTN: ‘Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs

Patricia McFateAktODeputy Chairman

Preliminary Evaluation of Issues Related to

Compliance with the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act, P.L. 95-341


The National Endowment for the Humanities is fullycommitted to the implementation of the American IndianReligiousTreedom Act of 1978.All Endowment policy andprograms are developed and administered in harmony withthe goals of this Act.The Endowment firmly believesthat the protection of Native American cultural rightsis consistent and in accord with the agency’s statedgoals as directed by the Congressional act whichestablished the National Endowment for the Humanitiesin 1965.These goals are:

— to promote public understandingand use of thehumanitiessand to relate the humanities to current con-
ditions of.national life;

— to improve the quality ofhumanities programs ineducational institutions, and to encourage and assistnontraditional ventures in humanistic learninv,

— to enrich and broaden theintellectual founda-
tions for humanistic endeavors, and to support scholarlyadditions to humanistic knowledge;
— to sustain and enhance essentialfacilities andresources which undergird humanistic pursuits and to helpinform the future role of humanistic concerns.



The Endowment ie establishing an internal agency taskforce”to monitor andsfromote the application of Public Law95-341 in the areas of new agency policy considerations,
grant application guidelines, grant evaluationprocedures,

and agency staff education on the significance of the Lawto all areas of Endowment,policy and programs.

The National Endowment for the Humanities views theAmerican Indian Religious Freedom Act (P.L. 95-341) as asignificant measure in-advancing research, education, and

public activity in the humanities.



Ms. Suzan MarjoSpecial Assistant to the AssistantSecretary for Indian AffairsU. S. Department of InteriorWashington, D. C.20240

Dear Ms. Harjo:



This is in response to your request forreview andcomment upon the proposed report tothe President pursuantto P.L. 95-341, theAmerican Indian Religous Act of1978.
You also requested a succinct statementsummarizing theactivities of the Cu.stoms Serviceundertaken pursuant toowthe Act.

I have reviewed the draft copyof the report and findit to be excellent, both insubstance and format.You andall who participated in itspreparation are to be highlycommended.Being somewhat familiar with thelarge’volumeof facts, data,,etc. which youreceived by way of input, Ihave a real appreciation forwhat you have accomplished.
The report is well organized andWell written.

As discussed with you onthe telephone, I believethat, for purposes ofclarification, it would beappropriate to make a couple ofinsertions in the pageswhich cover the subject areasin which the CustomsServicehas a particular interest.In accordance with yoursuggestion, I am enclosing a coupleof draft paragraphs,
for your consideration,which may accomplish thatobjective.

Also enclosed is a summarystatement of what theCustoms Service has doneduring the past year to carry outthe spirit and purpose ofthe Act.

I have also reviewed the copyof the transcript of theGreat Falls consultation and amenclosing certain pageswith needed corrections madethereon.


With the expectation that this summary will beincluded in the report end that the clarifications referredto above will be made, I fully concur in the proposedreport, and to the recommendations made as to the contentof the proposed Executive Order and needed legislation.

In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity to saythat it was a real privilege to have had the opportunity toserve with you and others on the Inter-Agency Task Force tocarry out this very Important and significant project.


1.08414 4101.1444:

Thaddeus RojekChief Counsel







Imamma. 3300-05Issue maul September 15, 1978

SUSACT:Policy to Protect and Preserve American Indian Religious Freedom

PURPOSETo transmit Policy Statement 3300-02.
BACKGROUNDPresident Carter has signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 102, theAmerican Religious Freedom Act of 1978.It sets forth the policy ofthe United States to protect and preserve for American Indian, Eskimo,
‘Aleut and native Hawaiian people their inherent right to believe, expressand exercise their traditional religions.

The intention of the resolution is to assure that certain Federalprograms which affect.Indians (such as Customs inspection procedUresand Federal land management) are administered in a manner whichreflimtscian awareness of and sensitivity to the traditionaiIndian beliefs andpractices and to the various sacred and natural articles and objects(such as medicine bags or bundles, certain animal parts, hoofs, horns,
certain grasses, reeds, herbs, roots, etc.) used in the exercise ofthose religious beliefs and customs.

An interagency task force establifthed by the Secretary of the Interior isdirected to evaluate agency policies and procedures which affect thesereligious rights and report to ‘the President and Congress in 1 year thesteps taken to implement this resolution.The Customs Service is repre-
sented on that task force and will participate fully in the efforts ofthat group.In addition Customs has established an American IndianAffairs Committee made up of representatives from each of the affectedregions.Regional Commissioner Albert G. Bergesen is the chairmemof this committee which has already met with Indian representatives.
It has been learned fram meetings held to date that sometimes a lackof knowledge or an unawareness of native Indian cultural or religiouscustoms, practices, and beliefs on the part of Customs officers hasled to insensitive handling or treatment by them of objects or articlesconsidered sacred by Indians.Sometimes insensitive handling of sucharticles or objects by Clistoms officers has rendered them valueless forthe religious, spiritual or cultural purpose they were intended to serve.

Attached for further background and ready referenceare a copy of theJoint Resolution and the related White House Press Release.


The attached policy statement sets forth the Federal policyand setsforth measures to be undertaken by Customs to implement the Federalpolicy.





DMERMEg.L.AEREMOvALAN’PAGRemove:NoneINSERT:Policy Statement 3300-02in a binder marked:
Policies of the United States Cistans Service


INFAACommissioner of Customs





HUMMER:3300-02M T3300-05

September 15, 1978

Policy to Protect and Preserve American Indian Religious Freedom

Recently enacted Senate Joint Resolution 102, the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978, sets forth policy of the United States to protectand preserve for American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts and native Hawaiipnstheir inherent right to believe and practice their traditional religions.
It is essential to assure that Federal programs which affect Indians(such as border inspection procedures) are administered in a mannerwhich implemeLts that policy.

Through both an inter-agency task force and Customs Indian AffairsCommittee, we will attempt to identify and define problem areas moreprecisely, to identify and perhaps catalog the various articles andobjects which have religious significance to the respectiVe Indiantribes and will evaluate our policies and procedures in consultation withIndian religious leaders in order to determine what changes could orshould be made in order to protect and preserve native American Indianreligious cultural rights and practices.

In the interim, to carry out the spirit and purpose of the declared Federalpolicy, you should make certain that all Customs officers under yoursupervision who are responsible for examining and clearing articlesaccompanying American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts and native Hawaiianscrossing our land borders or otherwise arriving in the UnitedStatesare fully aware of this policy ald its intentand purpose.You shouldinstitute measures to assure that such Customs officers are madeaware or more aware of the traditional Indianbeliefs and practicesin order to insure that in the course of their inspection andexamine-
tionthey treat more sensitively the various articles that are usedby Indians in the exercise of their religious and culturalbeliefs.

You will be provided with appropriate guidelines covering thissubjectonce they have been formulated.

Ali a Service we want to do whatever we can to carry out thispolicy ofassuring religious freedom for all Americans.





Ms. Suzan HarjoU.S. Department of InteriorOffice of the SecretaryWashington, D.C.20240

Dear Suzan:

2 August 1979

The following statement is forwarded for inclusion in theevaluation and reports section of the task force report to thePresident:

The Department of the Navy has been anactive participant in the subject taskforce and has evaluated relevant policiesand procedures in light of the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act in orderto determine what, if any impacts mayoccur upon the religious practices ofNative Americans.

The Navy has identified two specificproblem areas at China Lake, Californiaand Kahoolawe, Hawaii.The Navy isdiligently working to allow the desiredaccess to these areas in a manner whichis both safe to the participants andnot disruptive to the Navy’s mission.

In May of 1979 a message was sent toall Naval Stations by the Secretarymaking them aware of the requirementsof the American Indian Religious FreedomAct and advising them to give deliberateconsideration to legitimate religiousconcerns.of Native Americans.

The Navy will continue to cooperatewith native traditional religiousleaders in an ongoing effort to ensurethe free exercise of religious rightswhile at the same time ensuring thesafety of all personnel and the com-
pletion of its military mission.



mitzi 4 Wertheim



July 26, 1979

Mr. Forrest GerardAssistant Secrettry for

Indian AffairsBureau of Indian AffairsRoom 46001951 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.20245

Dear Mr. Gerard:

The Indian Health Service (IHS),within the Departmentof Health, Education, andWelfare, has completed anevaluation of its policies and proceduresto’determinecompliace with the American IndianReligious FreedomAct.The Indian Health Service has statedthat itrecognizes the value and efficacy oftraditional beliefsand practices and is committed topreserving the inherentright of American Indians.to express andexerci-se theirtraditional religious beliefs.


Enclosed is the full text of the IHSevaluation reportwhich details the agency’s policies andproceduresrelevant to the American IndianRaligious Freedom Act.
The report is transmitted to youfor inclusion in theTask Force report to Congress onimplementation of theAct.




A. DdVliester

CkiirrnanI tra-Departmental Councilon Indian Affairs





Policy and Procedures in reference to P.L. 95-341


eport to the Task Force td03repare the Report to theCongress on Implementation of the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341)


1. The policy of the Indian Health Service during thecourse

of administering health services to American Indians andAlaskan NatiVes (referred jointly as Native Americans)
is to protect and preserve the inherent right of allNative Americans to believe, express and exercise their.traditional religions.

2. The Indian Health Service has continued to recognize the

value and efficacy to traditional beliefs, ceremonies, andpractices of the healing of body, mind and spirit.Faithis most often an integral part of the healing processand provides support for purposeful living.It is, there-
fore, the policy of the Indian Health Serlice toencouragea climate of respect and acceptance in which an individual’sprivate traditional beliefs become a part of the healingand harmonizing force within his/her life.


1. The ifidian Health Service Staff has been’instructed to inform

patients they have the freedom to practice native religionwhen desired by the individual, member of their family incase of minors, or when the patient’s condition is such thathe/she can not make the request.

2. When an Indian Health Service patient (guardian-family member)

request assistance in obtaining the services of.a nativepractioner, every effort will be made to comply.Suchefforts might include contactinga native practitioner,
providing space or privacy withina hospital room for aceremony, and/or the authorization of contract health carefunds to pay for native healer consultation whennecessary.

3. Each Ares Office of the Indian Health Service has the

responsibility to consult with the Native Americans with-
in their respected area as to the desire of each tribe in

relation to their religious beliefs concerning Autopsy and

Report to the Task Force cont..

other Postmortem operations, disposition of dead body,
disposal of a limb, disposal/burial of fetus, and complyin respect to the belief.Individual consent is required bythe Indian Health Service before actiOn on any of the abovecan be made.

4. Since a person’s religious and native beliefs are often Very

personal, the patient’s right to privacy must be respectedin these matters.No Indian Health Service employee shouldbe guilty of uninvited probing or interference in a patient’s/private beliefs.Many Indian patients prefer to say nothing/about these native beliefs and practices.This is a right(that must be respected.

5.(Withinthis ,policy, Indian Health Service staff must continue

to be ilWare of,,sensitive tav and respectful of traditionaleliefs and practices of the Native Americans.Proceduresw,ich would tend to interfere with, dilute, or modify thesehitoric beliefs and practices must be avoided.Carefulnessmiist be exercised so that Indian Health Service support, inwhatever form it takes, does not become a wedge whichcreates dependency or wTests control from the chosen andhonored native practitioners of ancient and effective healing.practices.The goal is that there be respect and complimen-
tary interface between the two systems of medicine andreligion.Care must be taken that apparent Indian HealthService and federal beneficence does not become a means ofdestroying a system of healing which has both a long historyand contemporary relevance.


i/ItA/Dr. Emery. Johnson:M.D.

Assistaht1 Surgeon General

DireozoiJ’, Indian Health Service



United States Department of the Interi.or


JUL S1979

To:Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs

Attention:Susan lisrjo, Legislation and Liaison’

De,putIThrough:Astistant’ Secretary for Fish and Wildl

DeputyDirector, National Park Service

JUL2 0 1979d Parks

Subject;Consultation with Natiye American Tradiiional Relio4ous

Leaders (P.L. 95-341).1.

Attached is an interim report of the National Park Service’sconsultations to date with Native American traditional religious leadersregarding compliance with P.L. 95-341.

Although this is as much as we are able to furnish at this times. meetingsare continuing and we will do a periodic compilation of the datareceived.This data will become part of the information base utilized inour ongoing planning and management activity.If the Task Force or youroffice should desire, we will be happy to share information on contactsand other activity as it becomes available.

This document should be considered as a supplement to the “Assessment ofCompliance Requirements of P.L. 95-341 for the National Park Service”
which we submitted to you on April 2, 1979.





July 10, 1979Office of ManagementPolicy




The consultation process employed by the National Park Servicetoidentify issues to be addressed in complying with P.L. 95-341,AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act, drew from inVolvement with NativeAmericansthat span a number of years and varieties of activities.

In the Past, Devils Tower National Monument has been used forspecialcere,monies by the Sioux and Cheyenne Tribes.Badlands National Park,
.Mourfi Rushmore N*tional Monument and Wind Cave NationalPark have allowedvarious Native American groups access for considered spiritual needsonSeveral occasions.Aloha Week is held annually at Halemaumau Crater,
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

Badlands, Theodore Roosevelt and Wind Cave National Parks have suppliedbdffalo for spiritual needs as a result of road kills, problemanimalsand surplus stock.(An interesting example is that Wind Cave NationalPark supplied the tip of a buffalo heart, liver and lungsto a medicineman in Oklahoma).

Many park areas have permitted Native Americans to gather certain plantsfor ceremonial purposes and have gatheved mid shipped certain plantstomedicine men.Areas that collect fees have rnd will continue to waivefeet for spiritual visits by Native Americans.

Pipestone has been obtained from Pipestone National Monument and giventolocal religious leaders.The National Park Service works cooperativelywith the Navajo Indians in preserving the ruins at Canyon deChelly.

Planning and management activity for National Park Service.areas always

seeks to.involve members of the concerned populace.Planning forYosemite has involved members of the American Indian Council of MariposaCounty.Planning for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has involvedmembers of the QUitabaquito Tribe and Death Valley staff maintain contact.with members of the Shoshone and Paiute Tribes.

As part of the consultation process, a key person from each National ParkService Region has been appointed to act as a regional coordinator forfacilitation of efforts involving Native Americans.This coordinatorwill terve as a liaison between local, regional and Washington Officestaff within NPS and will assure continuance of the consultation processbeyond August, 1979.

NPS consultation efforts to date have also included several contacts withSusan Harjo, Special Assistant to the Assistant SecretaryBureau of

Indian Affairs and members of the Advisory Board of’the Native American–

Rights Fund.Jackson Moore of Cultural Resotirces, NI’S, WashingtonOffice, Roger Kelly, Historic Preservation, Western RegionalOffice andBill Fields, Federal, State and Indian Assistance, SouthwestRegionalOffice, represented NPS at 6 of the Task Force hearings held acrossthecountry.Robert Barrel, State Director for Hawaii, arranged for the TaskForce hearing in Hawaii.He also, along with Edmund J. Ladd, PacificArcheologist and Russell Apple, Pacific Historian, represented NPS atthehearing.

The specific assessment issues as presently set forth havebeen discussedwith representatives from the following groups:Duckwater (Shoshone),
Ely (Shoshone), Gashute, Pit River, Atsuwegi, YavapaiApache,Papago,
Modoc, Piscataway, Upper Skagit, Nez Perce, Lummi, Chiricahua,Havasupai,
hualalapai and KaibadPaiute Tribes; TimbaSha Shoshone Band TribalCouncil, Morongo Indian Reservation (Cahuilla and SerranoTribes),
American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Native Hawaiians(3 groups),
Nftive American groups frcm the Channel Islands (5meetings).

All groups agree that the major issues have been identified.However,
priority differs from tribe to tribe.In many cases, the tribalepresentatives pointed out that their responses were notnecessarilydefinitive answers as the voice for the tribe as awhole.Several willconsider the Assessment more fully, discuss it withtheir individuali

/tribes and provide NPS with more detailed comment if they deem it’necessary.

j Therewas indication that someNatiye Americans do not wish to reveali sites or plants of religious significance because religiouspractices are!secret and they feel that this isthe best protection for the site.Theyi would however, welcome more interaction regardingnon7religious matters.

iThe majority agreed with the credentials ofeminence concept, though somefelt that there were no people left who wouldqualify.It was suggestedthat the terminology could be offensxve to someand that it shouldtherefore be amended to read:

“by virtue of their experience and positionwithin a NativeAmerican group, are recognized by their people tohaveauthoritative knowledge of their group’scultural valuesand beliefs.”

Consultation split about fiftyfifty regardingarcheological research.
Those against generally want sites preserved andundisturbed.They also

felt that under no circumstances should gravesbe disturbed.

Those for research would like to have the research done by ananthropologist whom they are familiar with; would want to examine theproposal before it is initiated and have input before final decisionregarding project is made.The Native Hawaiians would like to see sometype of schooling funded for natives to become archeologist andanthropologists.There is also concern over control and ownership ofartifacts.

Some of the participants (Native Hawaiians and Piscataway) indicateddesire for preferential treatment in use ofareas.They also felt thatsome sites should be restricted to natives only.

The groups in Hawaii indicated a preference for being referred toas”Native Hai.Jaiian” instead of “Native Polynesian”or “Native American.”

This initial effort did not allow a great deal of time for considerationof the issues.We will therefore, make further contact with those -whowish to consider the issues more fully.We will also continue ourinitial an.d followup contacts with Native American traditional religiousleaders as an integral part of the NPS planning/management process.



United States Department of the Interior



TO:Assistant Secretary – Policy, Budgetand Administratim

Assistant Secretary – Energy andMineralsAssistant Secretary – rid, and Wildlifeand Parks/Assistant Secretary – Indian AffairlAssistant Secretary – Land and WaterResources


SUBJECT:Preparation cl Final Report requiredby the AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act, P.L.95-341

In order to meetthe requirements of theAmeriosn Indian ReligiousFreedom Act, there will be atwo-week intensive work period,extend-
ing from July 9-20, duringwhich time a work group will assessallacjency reports, reviewall consultation transcripts, and preparethedraft final report forclearance.Please make available duringthisperiod your religious freedomtask force representative and/or a .
skilled writer for this work group.The Assistant Secretary forIndian Affairs should benotified by June 29 cl the name ct yourrepresentative who will report tothe work group in Room 6343 at10:00 a.m. co July 9.

Thank you for your cooperation.



WAY a 1 1979

The Honorable Cecil AndrusSecretary of the Interior18th & C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.10240

Dear Cece:



I am transmitting toyou a brief report summarizingself-assessments undertaken by variousHEW agencies incompliance with your guidanceon implementation of theAmerican. Indian ReligiousFreedom Act.As indicated in thereport, the Indian Health Service isstill evaluating itspolicies and procedures.We expect a comprehensiveevaluation from the Service bymid-;June.

As you will see, thereappears to be some confusionregarding the practices and policLesthat ate relevant tothe Act.I understand that representativesof yourDepartment, HEW and Indian Leadersare meeting to clarifythe specific concerns with regardto HEW programs.

Sincere y,

oseph A. Califano,


American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Summary of HEW AgenciesSelf-Assessments

Administration on Aging

The Administration on Aging mayprovide social andnutritional services to the Indian elderlyunder Title IIIand Title VI of the Older Americans Act.Title III is aState administered formula grant program,while Title VIis a’new program that providesdirect funding to Indiantribes and organizations as defined by theIndian Self-
Determination and Educati7 Assistance Act(P.L. 93-638).

The Older Americans Act prayidesfor theacquilition,
alteration, renovation or Onstruction offaciAitiesfor use as multipurpose senibr centers.HoweVier, Section307(a)(14)(A)(iv) requires that a mu.ltipurposeseniorcenter funded under Title III”will not be used and isnot intended to be used forsectarian instruction or as-N

a place for religiousworship.”This provision does notiapply to programs under Title VI.However, to datetherkhas been no appropriation of fundsfor the Title VI progr&krts,
thus all services currentlyprovided to elderly Indianzare\//
governed by the provisions of Title III.

Rehabilitation Services Administration

The Rehabilitation ServicesAdministration (RSA) indicatesthat all of its policies andprocedures are in compliancewith the American IndianReligious Freedom Act.It is thepolicy of RSA to modify traditionalrehabilitation servicesto accommodate thereligious convictions and practicesofits service clientele.

Education Division

The Assistant Secretary forEducation indicates that theonly agency which falls underthe purview of the American/ndian Religious Freedom Act is theInstitute for MuseumServices.The Institute curxently isevaluating itspolicies and procedures to determinecompliance with theAct.


Social Security Administration

The self-assessment conducted by the Social SecurityAdministration did not reveal any policies or procedureswhich need to be addressed’:However, the agency iswilling to continue its review if Native Americanreligious leaders wish to provide specific examplesof areas which should be examined.

Indian Health Service

The Indian Health Service currently is evaluating itspolicies and procedures to determine compliance with the


United States Department of the Interior

In Reply Refer To:




MAY 1 0 1979

MemorandumTo:The Secretary of the InteriorThrough:Assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.4)

From:Dire; .or, Fish and Wildlife Service

Subject:Review of the Fish and Wildlife Service Policy ind Proceduresfor their Impact on American Indian’s Religious Freedoms

The enactment of P. L. 95-341 (American Indian Religious Freedom) wasmotivated by the feeling that Congress, in passing laws such as theEndangered Species Act of 1973, the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection.
Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, may have failed to considertheir impact on the religious practices of Native Americans and that theFish and Wilelife Service, in implementing the laws, could have interferedwith or denied Indian religious rights.

In compliance with section 2 of P. L. 95-341, the Fish andWildlifeService has evaluated its policies and procedures in consultation withnative traditional religious leaders in order to determine appropriatechanges necessary to protect and preserve Native America:, religiouscultural rights and p7actices.

Our efforts to comply with the Public Law included several meetingswithspecial assistants (Susan Harjoe and Sue Hvalsoe) to the AssistantSecretary – Indian Affairs and corresponding and meeting withrepresentatives from the Native American Rights Fund and the AdvisoryBoard of Indian Leaders.Other efforts to identify conflicts includeinformation gathered from our regional, area, and field offices.A copyof the questionnaire provided to the Regions is attached with theRegions’responses to the questions.

1.Eagle Regulations.

a.Potential woblems.As authorized by the Eagle ProtectionAct, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d, the Service has issued regulationsthat

restrict the taking, possession, and transportction cf bald and

golden eagles and any parts thereof.
regulations may have an impact on thefeathers and other items in religiousthis impact has been minimized by thepolicies discussed below.

50 C.F.R. 22.11.Theseuse by Indians ofpractices.However,
regulations and

b.Success stories.

(1) Indian religious permits.In accordance with the EagleProtection Act, the Service’s regulations authorize the issuanceof permits to allow eagles to be taken, possessed, or transportedfor the religious purposes of Indians.50 C.P.A. 22.22.

(2) Depository at Pocatello, Idaho.The Service has establisheda depository in Pocatello, Idaho, for storing etigles that areconfiscated or accidentally killed.Upon requ6At and throughthe religious permit system, eagles or parts of eaglas arefurnished to Indians for their religious ceremonies.TheService believes the eagle depository is a major stwoess storyinvolving our efforts to protect a resource and at the same.timeassist Native Americans in conducting their religious ceremonialactivities.


The Advisory Board of Indian Religious Leaders made severalcomments on the Service’s depository.Representatives from theBoard were concerned that as individuals, any Indian couldobtein eagle feathers from the Service.They recommend thatfeathers be issued to religious leaders within the tribe and.individual Indians could acquire them through the religiousleaders.Their rationale was that this would reduce the numberof eagle permit applications, minimize issuance time, and helpcontrol illegally acquired feathers.Our present regulationsrequire each applicant to attach a certification from a dulyauthorized official of the religious group that the applicant isauthorized to participate in the tribal religious ceremonies.Itis possible that permits are issued to deceptive applicants.
However, the Service believes that under the First Amendment,
eagle items should be available to any person who genuinelyutilizes them for religious purposes, and for that reason isnot willing to limit its distribution to religious leaders.TOalleviate this problem it would seem appropriate for the tribalcouncils to provide the Service with the names and titles ofcertifying officials whom they think should represent their respectivetribes in these matters.


1 12

The Advisory Board was also concerned that the heads and/orfeet are removed from eagle skins which they receive afterbeing processed in the National Wildlife Health Laboratory.
Some Indian religious practices require the head and feet ofthe birds.A revised policy is being reviewed by the Servicewhich will provide for maximum utilization of the carcasses forreligious purposes and biological studies.

(3) Exemption for old items.As provided in the Eagle Act,
16 U.S.C. 668(a), the Service has issued regulations whichallow the possession and transportation without a permit ofbald eagle items that were lawfully acquired before June 8,1940, and of golden agle items that were lawfully acquiredbefore October 24, 1962.50 C.F.R. 22.2(a).

(4) Limitations on investigation and prosecution.TheSecretary of the Inte7ior’s Policy Statement on Indian Useof Bird Feathers, dated February 5, 1975, permits AmericanIndians to engage in the following activities without fearof Xederal prosecution, harassment, or other interference.

(a) American Indians may possess, carry, use, wear, give,
loan, or exchange among other indians, withoutcompensation, all federally protected birds, as wellas their parts or feathers.

(b) American Indians who wish to possess bird feathersor parts to be worked on by tribal craftsmen for eventualuse in Indian religious or cultural activities may transfersuch feathers or parts to tribal craftsmen without charge,
but craftsmen may be compensated for their work.

In addition, the Solicitor’s Office reviews and mustapprove all investigations and prosecutions of Indianswhich do occur, in order to insure that such actions arenot contrary to the Secretary’s Policy Statement.

2.Migratory_ Bird Regulations.

a.Potential problems.As authorized by the Migratory Bird TreatyAct, 16 U.S.C. 703-711, the Service has issued regulations thatrestrict the taking, possession, and transportation of migratorybirds and any parts thereof.50 C.F.R. 21.11.As with theeagle regulations, the migratory bird restrictions may have animpact on the use by Indians of feathers and other items inreligious practices.However, this impact has been significantlylessened by the regulations and policies discussed below.



b.Success stories.

(1) Authorized annual hunting.Subject to a number of Federaland State restrictions on methods, shootinghours and bog limits,
designated species of migratory birds may be lawfullyhuntedduring the open season each year.See 50 C.F.R. 20.11 – 20.26,20.101 20.109.Also, subject to certain restrictions ontime,
custody, and marking, lawfully taken migratory gamebirds may bepossessed and transported. 50 C.F.R. 20.31-20.44.

(2) Exemption for old items.As with eagles, the Service hasissued regulations which allow the possessimandtransportationwithout a permit of migratory bird items that werelawfullyacquired before the date their species becameprotected by theMigratory Bird Treaty Act.50 C.F.R. 21.2(a).

(3) Limitations on investigation and prosecution. Seeparagraphb(4) of section entitled “Eagle Regulations.”

c.Real problems.The Service’s migratory bird regulationsdo not have any provision specifically authorizingpermits forIndian relig4ous purposes.However, the migratory bird treatieswith Canada, Japan, and the Soviet Unionallow taking of anumber of species by Eskimos and Indiansfor subsistence papoose,
and section 704 of the Migratory Bird TreatyAct allows theissuance of regulations that are compatiblewith the treaties.
Convention for the Protection of MigratoryBirds, August 16,1916, United States-Great Britian (on behalfof Canada), art.
II, paragraph 1,3,39 Stat. 1702,.T.S.No. 628; Convertion forthe Protection of Migratory Birds and Birdsin Danger ofExtinction, and their Environment, Mar. 4,1972, United States-
Japan, art. III, para. 1(e), 25 U.S.T.3329, T.I.A.S. No. 7990;
(Cite to Soviet Treaty).

To the extent that subsistence includesreligion, section 704appears to authorize regulationsallowing permits for taking,
possession, and transportation for Indianreligious purposes.


3.Endangered and .Threatened Species RegulatiOns.

a.Potentialimdblems.In accordance with the EndangeredSpecies Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543, the Service has issuedregulations which restrict the taking of endangered andthreatened species in the 4United States, its territorial

sea, and on the high seas.50 C.Fal. 17.21(c), 17.31(a),
17.40-17.48.The Service’s rgulations also prohibit thepossession or transportation of any endangered or threatenedspecies that are taken unlawfully.50 C.F.R. 11.21(d),
17.40(b)(1)(ii), 17.42(a)(1)(ii), 17.44(a)(1).A list ofendangered and threatened species.is found in 50 C.P.A. 17.11.
In the case of certain species, the Service’s, restrictionsmay have an impact on Indian religious practices.However,
this impact has been alleviated by the regulations and policiesdiscussed below.

b.Success stories.

(1) Exception for taking by Alaska Natives.As providedin the Endangered Species Act, likU.S.C. 1539(e), theService has issued regulations which allow the taking ofendangered and threatened species by Indians, Aleuts, orEskimos who ace Alaska Natives residing in Alaska, if thetaking is “primarily for subsistence purposes.”50 C.F.R.
17.5.To the extent that subsistence taking includes takingfor religious purposes, the impact on.Alaska Native religionof the Service’s endangered and threatened species restrictionsis mitigated by the native exemption.

(2) Exception for old items.In accordance with theEndangered Species Act, 161538(b), the Servicehas issued.regulations which NiIow possession, transportation,
and other non-commercial activities consistent with theAct’s conservation purposes that involve endangered orthreatened species “.. held in’captivity or in a controlledenvironment on December 28, 1973” .50 C.P.A. 17.4. Thisexemption covers items from wildlife removed from the wildon or before Denamber 28, 1973.Since many items used inIndian religious practices are from animals killed longbefore December 28, 1973, the Service’s exemption for old. itemssignificantly lessens the impact on Indian religion ofits restrictions on endangered and threatened species.

(3) Limitation on investigation and prosecution.Steparagraph b(4) of section entitled “Eagle Regulations.”


.1 4 5

c.Real problems,.With the possible exception of theauthorization of subsistence taking by Alaska Natives, theService’s endangered and threatened species regulations donot allow taking by Indians for religious purposes.Thereason for this is that the Endangered Species Act does notauthorize any such regulation.However, since endangered andthreatened species are, by definition, those which ars presentlyor foreseeably in danger of extinction, 16 U.S.C. 1532(4), (15),
1533(a) (1), the Service does not recommend amendments to theAct to allow taking for religious purposes.The strain of thistaking would only further jeopardize the existence of endangeredand threatened species.

4.Marine Mammal Regulations.

a.Potantial problems.In accordance with the Marine MammalProtection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371(a), 1372(a), the Service hasissued regulations that restrict the taking of marine mammals.
50 C.F.R. 18.11.The Service has also issued regulations whichprohibit the possession and transportation of marine mammals thatare taken unlawfully.50 C.P.A. 18.13(b).The marine mammalssubject to the Service’s regulations are polar bears, sea otters,
walruses, dugongs, s d manatees.50 C.F.R. 18.3.Polar bearsand walruses may by of religious significance to Alaska Natives.
However, the U.S. populations of these species occur only inAlaska and adjacent waters, and any adverse impact the Service’srestrictions may have on Alaska Native religion appear to beminimized by the exceptions described bel4w.

b.Success stories.

(1) The native exemption.As provided by the Marine Mammal Act,
the Service has issued regulations allowing Alaskan Indians,
Aleuts, and Eskimos to take non-depleted species in a nonavastefulmanner for subsistence purposes.50 C.P.A. 18.23.Thetscope ofthis native exemption is presently the subject of litigation.SeePeople of Togiak v. United States, No. 77-0264 (D. D.C. Apr. 3, 1979).
However, to the extent that subsistence taking includes taking forreligious purposes, the impact on Alaska Native religion of theService’s marine mammal restrictions is mitigated by the nativeexemption.


(2) Uception for old items.In accordance with ths Marine MammalAct, 16 U.S.C. 1372(e), the Service hasalso iisued regulationswhich provide that the above restrictions do not apply to anymarine mammal taken before December 21, 1972.SO C.F.R. 18.14.
As was pointed out with respect toendangered and threatenedspecies, since many marine mammal items used in AlaskaNativereligion are from animals killed long before December 21, 1972,
the Service’s exemption for old items signiVcantlylessens thereligious impact of its marine mammal restrit:tions.

5. “Regulations Restricting Access andActivities on LandsAdministered by the Service.

a.Potential_problems.In accordance with the National WildlifeRefuge System Administration Act and other statutory authority,
16 U.S.C. 460k, 668dd(c), the Service has issued regulationswhichrestrict public entry into fish hatchery areas und areas includedwithin the National Wildlife Refuge System.50 C.F.R. 26.21(a),
70.4(a).The Service’s regulations also generally prohibit anydisturbing of animali or plants within these areas.50 C.F.R.
27,51, 70.4.

These restrictions may’hive an impact on Indian religious practices.
For example, historical and archelogical surveysduring refugemaster planning have revealed that many areascontain Indian burialsites as well as cemeteries still in use.Also, the AdvisorYBeard of Indian Leaders pointed out that vegetationused forceremonial purposes is often located on lands administeredby theService.

b.Success stories.For areas within the Refuge.System, theRefuge System Administration Act authorizes theService to issueregulations that,”… permit the use of any areawithin the Systemfor any purpose …and (also) access whenever (the Director)
determines,that ouch uses are compatible with themajor purposes….”
for which the area was established.16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)((1)(A).
Pursuant to this authority, the Service hasissued regulationsauthorizing permits for access to refuge areas and forcollectionof plants thereon.50 C.F.R. 26.22(b), 27.51.

6.Indian Fishing Regulations.

a.Potential problem and success story.Another conflict identifiedfT the Service involves the Service’s enforcement ofthe Department’sfiehingfregulations for the Klamath River in California and the use


of salmon for ceremonial purposes by the lucs1 Indians.However,
this problem appears to be solved, since the Department hasrecently published a revision of the regulations (March 20, 1979)
that providas, among other things, tho latitude for Native Americansto catch fish for religious ceremonial activities.




uccLitAi re*
YUIA) 1??

te *slily Refer Pet


Te:Segieval Mottoes, Regime 1, 2, 2. A. $,A. andAissLis Area birector

PrectiAsmaciaterairoctee,lea an MEW*Sorriest

Skpbjeat.Caw lieges with Punta Law. qb-341 (Amadeu ladies Religionsresedes)

the purposes l P. L. 0-341Americas bodies Seligises Vesedec–Fils toJaws that amities’ policies asd practices ate breestr 11 easelisseevia the toustitatioes1 **junction agaisat ebridgis; the lees exerciseof


Mr Act was setivated by the feetiss that tosagress, is passingexeilova ea the Wildersese Act ths tudseitered SpacieS Act, the Sold eadGolden Seaga Protection Act, amid the Mammy !Arc ?testy Mgimmgeerlected their impact sad that the executive softies Is semis,
est the Iv:possibilities had isterfeeedwither dasied the religioseEWA. Of settee Amalgams.

Attiched fee your istrestion is a eery of the retlie Labasi a pies*
tO1441414 Crab the ‘Mite Muse.

lo rder limit ore say *amply with this legislation,it is Upper:At I.
.idectity asy real monists betvees est ILO asd wildlife loves”embalms. ctipallet** s* timrequireseate fer Asorieso tedieraI.
practice 041r IreLigiesir freedom.

TO !altars that ‘moon I very tight dealt*. es tbisimetter,it Isssential to teed,. eessests by Lecesber 1, 11170.Please distribute

istersaties regeset to the Ares Wiese esd SAC Sistelets esdergot their prapipt riepess*.Tluc “Mee f Wildlife Assistesce I.
essposeible tot devellopisg.the lead I. this sasigsasat eel If Ise hews

es, esestieue ‘mutt Jobe Lardwell(32-2202).

el.List specific situations there a controversy bee occurred regattassoave American religious practices and Service involvememt.

a.Were Service reetrictioas required for the managemeat of theastural resource

b.Was the impediment a result of e law, regulation, or policy?
Wetly discuss including tbs scope of tbe specific esellet.

2.List-religious ceremonial places r structures which exist onService controlled lands and the tribe or tribes (religious weeps)

3.List tribes in your area with which you have had contact and thespecies uhich were the religious subject of your contact.

4.List ony other tribes la your ere& which you ars aware of burhavesot had contact with.

3.Identify coomunication problems, if any, with native Americanreligious leaders.Were the problems resolved?If so, how?If sot,

G.List eny piecing “success” stories la respect to Service cooperationwith sative American religious practices. ‘Include any measures wedertabanto provide flexibility within Service legal or policy grounds to beresponsive to requirements of satire American religious seeds.



If you are unsure of whether tha prectites are Ilieligious” or otherwise”oeltural” Identify thua and sote your questions.

444Directorate reading fiLeDO-Chron. PileCIA

pas atisneirdwelliibb Unne



Director, FWS, Washington, D.C.(RF)


FROM:Regional Director, FWS, Region 2 (RF)

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICERegion 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

DATIL:November 27, 1978

SUBJECT:Compliance with Public Law 95-341 (AmericanIndian Religious Freedom)

In response to Harvey Nelson’s November3 request, we are providing thefollowing information for this Region.

1.We are not aware of any situationwhere a controversy has occurred.

2.There are no ceremonial places orstructures on Service controlledlands in Region 2.

3.We (LE) have been in contact withall tribes in this Region re eagles.
4.We are not aware of any tribesin this Region that have not had contact.
5.There are no known communicationsproblems.
6.Our enforcement officers probablydistribute more eagle parts (from

central depository in Idaho) forreligious ceremonial purposes thanany other Region.Needs are filled on an “as available”basis.

Save Enertv and You Serve America!



“g4=. Regional Director, Twin Cities, MN (MBAC)

uLmcnCompliance with Public Law95-341WA



TV TheDirector, Ws Washington, D.C. (AFW) (FWS/WA-11181)

We have not identified any real conflicts between our fish and wildlife laws,
regulations, or policies annEe requirements for American Indians to prac-
tice their religious freedom.

Historical and are,dological surveys during refuge master planning haveindicated that most areas contain Indian burial sites including an activecemetery.However, there are no apparent conflicts over any of thesesites.

We have issued 41 eagle feather loan agreements within this region.
No other restrictions have been imposed.


Buy U.S. Savings elands Regularly on the Payroll Savings Planso. to

OSA 10,11102 Os CM)lei”1″





FWS/LE LAW 15TO:Director (VI)

FROM:ACtingArea Dixector, Alaska,
Andorage, Alaska

SUBJECT:Problems with Public Law I 95-341 in Alaska

R741011 E. TUDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 9950310071 276-3800

DATE:November 20 , 1978

lbdate we have not had any wallets here in Alaska between theService and Native grows over the use of wildlife for religiouspzposes. We can only recall three requests fran Natives foreagle feathers.’No of these were filled and cne is a recentrequest that has not been processed at this titre.

71e State has already had problems; the moose taken out of _Amonfor a potlatch.We believe this case is before the State SupremeCowt.In light of P. L. 95-341, and depending cm what happensin the State case, serious prcblems could develcp in the future.





SUITE 700To.Director, PWS, Washington, D.C.(AM OrTON CORNER MASSACHUSETTS 02158

FROMILesional Director, PWS, Region5DATE

SUBJECT.Ompliance with Public Law 95-341Mori= India% neligious Fresdart)

Please find attached copies ofDelmarva and 11=W:um Area Officereplies.

L.E. Districts 12 and 13indicated there had been no antActs orcontra-
versies involving kerican IndianPeligious Freekim.L.E. Districts 11’sresponse is incluSedin John Green’s response franths Delnarva Area Office.

Attactsrentt \


Imam November 28, 1978

armor& Area Manager,Delmarva Area Office


IsysactsPublic Law 95-341 (American Indian ReligiousFreedom)

ve:Regional Director (ARW)

Attn:John Peterson

This is in response to Mr. Harvey K. Nelson’s memoof November 3, 1978.
We have reviewed the programs in the Delmarva Area and we are not awareof any conflicts or controversy between fish and wildlife.laws,policy,
or regulations and American Indianreligious freedom.

We have three Indian Tribes in our area all inVirginia.These arethe Pamunkey Tribe, Mattaponi Tribe, and theChickahominy Tribe.ThePamunkey and Mattaponi are located on reservations(estimated et 200acres and 50 acres in size,respectively) near West Point, Virginia.
The Chickahominy is not an organized Tribe,evidently it is just arecognized group living along the ChickahominyRiver southeast ofRichmond.None of the Tribes fall under the jurisdictionof the BLA.

Our Fishery Assistance Office at GloucesterPoint, Virginia ha: participatedwith members of the Mattaponi Tribe andIcthyology Associates in gatheringshad eggs for planting in the SusquehannaRiver.I understand the Tribealso takes shad spawn and replants them onthe reservation.

Other FWS involvement with the Pamunkey Tribe hasbeen by our LE people.
The Pamunkey Chief has a valid EndangeredSpecies Permit, renewed am-wally,
to maintain a quantity of Eaglefeathers used in their religious ceremonies.
These feathers aie on loan to him under permit.No problems have beenencountered with the Tribe over the permit.LE conducted an audit 2 yearsago in regards to the permitand found everything in order.

Both the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi Tribes are exemptfrom Virginia Statehunting laws.They are required to purchasefederal migratory duck s..ampsand do so.The Pamunkey’s also operate a commercialwaterfoul day hunton the Pamunkey River.The Pamunkey chief is required to pay rent totheGovernor of Virginia amounting to one male hornedwhitetailed deer anaually.
(A little bit of trivia there.)

This is the extent of our iavolvement with IndianTribes in this Area.
I have discussed the above with SAC Kensinger andSRA Davenport.1.6: waaagreed that I would include the data relative toLE involvement in myreport.


1810,1U.S.Slavings Bonds Regulariy on the P4yroll Saving:: Planoetic.404.yonummioiA CV. 7.7.)


“SI111.041. 4 A evies% 1164.., I41)





November 13, 1978UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTmemorandum

SAC, L.E., District 12, Lawrence, N.Y.11559FWS/WA-11181Compliance with Public Law95-341(American Indian Religious Freedcm)

Re ional Director, Region5,Boston, Mass.

District 12 reports no controversy occurring involving the Service’s

law enforcement activities and native American religious practices.

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings PlanOPTIONAL FORM NO. 10

(REV. 1.70)sAnom*441 CP14)


OAT* s




November 22, 1978Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, Ga.
Compliance with Public Law 95-341 (American IndianReligiousif414Freedom)



Associate Director, Fish and WildlifeResources!, Washington, D.C.

In response to your memorandum(FWS/WA-11181) dated NoveMber 3,1978, no Area Offite or SAC District withinRegion 4 reports anyconflict.: between fish and wildlife laws,regulations, etc. andthe religious freedom of AmericanIndians.

SAC, District 8, did, however, refer totechnical assistanceoffered the Choctaws in establishing aWildlife Law EnforcementProgram on their reservation.Also, SAC, District 9, pointed toassistance given in the locatingof eagle feathers and parte tobe used in religious ceremonies(copies of thestwo responsesattached).)



Buy U.$. Savings Boids Regularly on the Payroll Savings PlanNo.

(Rtv.7-711)llA MAR (a CM littI11016411



“”CNovember 14, 1978



ArTblorsSAC Graham, L.E. District 9, Atlanta, Georgia

ulIVECTsCompliance with Public Law 95-341 (American Indian Religious Freedom)

TesPublic Affairs Officer, Atlanta, Georgia

The following information Is submitted in response to the Acting RegionalDirector’s memorandum dated November 6.

Questions listed on page 2 of Mr. Nelson’s November3memorandum areaddressed in order.

1. No knowledge of such situations occurring In L.E. District 9.2. More properly answered by land management divisions.
3. Lower Creeks.Assisted tribal members to obtain eagle feathersfor religious purposes.

4. Not aware of any.
5. None.
6. Assistance with recovery and distribution of eagle parts.

Charles E. Graham

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on tha Piiyro II Savings Plan

(REV. 7-74)

SSA nowt (41 erN) 101-11.6








SAC, District 8, L.E. New Orleans, La.
Compliance with Public Law 95-341(American Indian ReligiousFreedom)

Regional Director, PWS, Atlanta, Georgia

In response to Mr. Lankford’s memoof November 6, 1978 andMr. Nelson’s memo of November 3, 1978the following are an-
swers to questions concerningthis subject:
6.The only Indian Reservation(Choctaw) in LE District 8 islocated near Philadelphia,Mississippi.The SAC Officewas contacted by thetribe to assist them in establishinga Wildlife LawEnforcement Program on the Reservation.Wecorresponded and met withthe Choctawsin assisting themwith this project.Their”Religious”or”Cultural”
customs.have never conflicted with thelaws enforced bythe service in this district.
I have also reviewed Public Law95-341 and veport no problemswith compliance in this district.

Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings PlanirsiA.ilwoorroweat Oplatir Onion 11111411414/049111MEV. 9.74)

Ri 531



TO:Associate Director- Fisheries -71DATE: November 24, 1978Washington, D.C.

FROM:Regional Director


1147SUBJECT:Response to Inquiry Regarding’Compliance

with Public Law 95-341 (American IndianReligious Freedom)

Listed below is a summation of theresponses received on theabove subject:


1.No known controversy has occurred in Hawaiiwith respect toaboriginal religious practicesor rights.

2.Hawaiian Islands National Refuge.Nihoa Island- Island was

inhabited 1200 to 1300 A.D.Many stone structures (housefoundations and ceremonial sites)are still visible.

Necker Island- Several stone images and statues werecollected by early exploring parties.Several are on displayin the Bishop Museum in Honolulu.Also, numerous templesites and low terraces are still discernable.There isinterest in these islands for expansion of the commercialfishery and it is conceivable that certain individualsmightuse ancestral religious rights as a vehicle to gainaccessto these islands for ulterior purposes.If necessary refugeregulations could be adjusted to provide for religiousvisits as long as the endangered species and otherrenewableresources are adequately protected.Under any circumstancesthe number of people who would want to visit these islandsfor legitimate religious/cultural purposes would be few ifany since there is no recent (700 years) tradition for this.

3.None4.None5.None6.There has been no FWS interaction with ethnic Hawaiians

in this area.



There are, no known serious conflicts in regards to the above subject.
However, conflicts could arise in the future on the Klamath Riverin regard to enforcing fishing regulations.

This past fishing season, an in-season regulation adjustment,
closing all fishing below Highway 101 bridge was put into effect.
Some IndTinis said this interfered with their right to take fish forceremonial purposes.Future regulations should probably be writtento provide for this need.

In addition, at Pyramid Lake, the Endangered Species Act may conflictwith the religious needs of cui-ui and Lahontan Cutthroat trout byIndians.We have not discussed this with the Tribe nor have theyexpressed to us their religious beliefs in regard to cui-ui and/orLahontan Cutthroat trout.


The taking of bald eagles without permits by Indians in NorthwestWashington is a continual problem.

A definite success stony is the distribution of eagles, eagle parts,
and other raptor feathers to Indians throughrut the United Statesfor religious purposes.During FY 1978, 528 shipments were forwardedand permits issued to Indians by the Pocatello Supply Depot, undercontract to Law Enforcement.The shipments included 221 wholegolden and bald eagles, and 1,023 parts of eagles and raptors(tails,
wings, claws etc.).Similar shipments have been made during theprevious four years.


1.There have been no controversies regarding Native AmericanIndian religious practices.

2.No religious ceremonial places or structures are present.
3.Have not contacted or been contacted by any Tribe.
4.Colville Tribe and Kalispill Tribe5.Have had no reason to contact local Tribes regardingreligious matters.




I.Local Yribes have expreued no concern about religious freedombeing inhibited by FWS.

2.The Medicine Creek Treaty Tree is located adjacent to refuge

lands.We plan a Medicine Creek Treety Tree interpretiveexhibit on refuge dike trail.

3.Have had contact with the Nisqually Tribe, but nothing onreligious practices was discussed.

4.Puyallups, Steilacooms and Squaxin5.No problems



2.No known controversies have occurred involving Native Americanreligious practices and FWS involvement.

2.No known religious ceremonial places or structures exist onthe refuge.

3.The Yakima, Spokane and Colville Indian Reservations are located

within .150 miles of the refuge, but no contact has been madewfth any leaders of the Reservations.


This office has no fishery problem regarding Indian ceremonial fishingsince most Tribes require the Indians to personally catchceremonialsalmon.

001sE AREA OFFICENegative report

“*.14%.,4:40120′ kkge°14.

litliasn H. Moe’


U.S. FISH A WILDL/FE SERVICEale$42anal Director, Region 6, Denver, CO


DRUM at NOW MU TMCOI to Wm picked up

112431721 Corplaince with Public Law 95-341 (American IndianReligious Freedom) LAW 15

In response to your faxform dated December12, 1978, we are providingthe following;

1.List specific situations where a controversyhas occurred regardingnative American religious practices and Serviceinvolvement.

a.Were Service restrictions required for the managementof thenatural resource?

b.Was the impediment a result of a law,regulation, or policy?
Briefly discuss including the scope of thespecific conflict.

Numerous investigations and prosecutionshave been conducted in Region 6involving the illegal taking Ana sale ofeagle feathers and migratory birdfeathers wilith have religious significanceto many American Indians.Innone of these cases wasthe issue of religious freedomraised by the subjectof the investigation.Nor have we been able to identifyspecific or generalsituations in Region 6 where a controversyhas occurred regarding nativeAmerican religious practices and Serviceinvolvement.

2.List religious ceremonialplaces or structures which exist enServicecontrolled lands and the tribe ortribes (religious groups) affected.

No religious ceremonialplaces or structures exist onService controlledlands in Region 6.

3.List tribes in your arta withwhich you have hadcontait and thespecies which were thereligious subject of your contact.

We have had no contact with anytrifr_.; involving religious subjects,exceptfor the issuance of permits to possesseagle parts shipped from thePocatello, Idaho depot.4 These contactsinvolved individual Indians ratherthan tribal entities.

Faxform 1 of 2

4.List any other tribes in your area which you are aware of but havenot had contact with.


CrowSalishKootenaiGros Ventre-AssihiboneAssiniboneSiouxNorthern CheyenneChippewaCreeWyomingArapahoShoshone

North &ActaPlIndan-MidatsalOaraDevils Lake SiouxChippewaKrises

IowaKickapooPotawatomiSacFoxMesquakieNebraskaOmahaSanta SiouxWinnebago

south DakotaSiouxSantA SiouxOglala SicuxSisseton MIAWahpeton SiouxYankton SiouxColoradoMouache UteCapote UteWeminuche UteUtahOoshutiUte

S.Identify communication problems, if any, with native American religiousleaders.Wert the problems resolved?If so, how?If not, explain.

We have had no-communication problens Oth American Indian religious leaders.

6.List any specific “success” stories in respect to Service cooperation

with native American religious practices.Include any measures under-
taken to provide flexibility within Service legal oe policy grounds tobe responsive to requirements of native American religious needs.

The only “success” story we can provide in respect to Service cooperationwith native American religious practices is that we do not have nor havewe had any complaints, controver-f or problems in this area.

Faxform 2 of 2



Resources, FWS,Washirgton, DC

FROMActing AssistantRegional DirectorDATE:December 1, 1978Federal Assistance,FWS, Newton Corner, MA

rnem r


Associate Director,Fish and Wildlife




Compliance ith Public Law95-341 (American IndianReligiousFreedom)

In response to theabove subject matter, FederalAssistance hashad no conflicts orinvolvement with the AmericanIndians and,

therefore, submit no comments.

14P04111 MON 110. 10460/ SOO IINIfftweIM111 641 IIII111 11.114


MemorandumTO: Regional Director, Newton Corner (ARW)Wilt: November 28, 1978ram: Area Manager, HarrisburgArea OfficeausjecT: Compliance withP.L. 95:-341 (American IndianReligious Freedom)
(Associate Director Nelson’smem of November 3, 1978)

This memo servesas a confirmation of the telphoneconservation ofNovember 27, 1978, with JohnPeterson and Dick St. Pierreof my staff.
Our response is for AreaII only and conformsto the six points raisedin Mr. Nelson’smemo.

1.List specific situationswhere a controversyoccurred regardingnative American religiouspractices and Service involvement.

The Cayugas of the SenecaNation have namA MontezumaNWR andother Federal lands in centralNew York as historic huntingand fishing grounds whichthey wish to acquire tosatisfyquestionable treaty commitments.DOI Solicitors have advisedus that the claim is groundless, butmay end up in a financialsettlement.

2.List religious ceremonial placesor structures which existonService controlled lands and thetribe or tribes (religiousgroups)


3.List tribes with whichwe have had contact and the species whichwere the religious subject ofyour contact.

Fishery Assistance in Warren,Pennsylvania, and Wildlife Assistancein Albany, New York, havehad contact with theSeneca Nation-
but not on matters of religiousimportance.Several years agothe Seneca Nation asked aboutthe legality of keeping eaglefeathers for ceremonialpurposes.

11064.4 416

,Biey U.S. Semisep Bode &plod,ex the Payroll Serhop Pi



4.List any othertribes in your areawhich you are awareof but havenot had contactwith.

TribeReservationLocationIroquoisMohawkSt. RegisNiagara Co., NYOneidasOnondagaOnondaga Co., NYOnondagaOnondagaOnondaga Co., NYCayugasCattaraugusCattaraugus Co., NYSenecasAlleganyCattaraugus Co., NY

CattaraugusCattaraugus Co., NYTonawandaGenesee Co., NYTrscarorasTuscaroraNiagara Co., NY



5.Identify communicationproblems..

None6.List any specific”success” stories..


Suffolk Co., NYSuffolk Co., NY

Please let us knowif additionalinformation is needed.

*1.List specific ituations where a controversy has occurredregardingnative American religious practices end Service involvement.

a.Were Service restrictions required for the management ofthenatural resource?

b.Was the impediment a result of a lew, regulation,or policy?
Briefly discuss including the scope of the specific conflict.

2.List religious ceremonial places or structures which existonService controlled lands and the tribe or tribes (religious groups)

3.List tribes in your area with which you have hadcontact and thespecies which were the religious subject ofyour contact.

4.List any other tribes in your area which youare aware of but havenot had contact with.

5.Identify communication problems, if any, with native Americanreligious leaders.Were the problems resolved?If so, how?If not,

6.List any specific “success” stories in respect to Service cooperationwith native American religious practices.Include any measures undertakento provide flexibility within Service legal or policy grounds to beresponsive to requirements of native American religious seeds.


* If you era unsure of whether the practices are “religious”or otherwise”culturel” identify them and note your questions.

se tDirectorate reading fileDD-Chron. FileOFk



P. 0. Box 2417Washington, D. C.20013

Honorable Forrest J.GerardAssistant Secretary ofInteriorWashington, D. C.20240

Dear Mr. Gerard:

1700MAY 1 0 1979

This is in response toSecretary Andrus’ January26, 1979,
letter regarding Agencyaction on evaluatingpolicies andprocedures in order todetermine appropriatechanges neces-
sary to protectand preserve NativeAmerican religiousculturalrights and practices.

The Forest Servicehas had a continuingpolicy to seek outand involveindividuals and groups inthe developmentofmanagement direction.Over the years local managershaveworked closely withrepresentatives of Indian groupsin theplanning and decisionmakingprocess.This input has beengiven full considerationin the formation ofpolicies andprocedures, both on anational and a localbasis.With thepassage of theAmerican IndianReligious Freedom Act a newawareness ofthe needs of theNative American isoccurringwithin the Agency.

As a result of theAct, this Agency hastaken the followingactions:

September 13t 1978 -An informal task groupbegandeveloping Agency policy.Coordination on keyissuesbegan with theDepartment representativefor IndianAffairs.

A task forcecomposed of representatives-6-f-CiViI-Ri-ghts;-Recreation, Landsand Land ManagementPlanning Staffs wasestablished to implementthe NativeAmerican ReligiousFreedom Act.The objectives ofthisgroup,chaired by a member ofthe Civil RightsStaff,
were torecommend policies andprocedures for decisionsand to assistWashington Office Staffs,Regional Foresters,
Station Directors andArea Directorsin reviewing theirpolicies, directives andprocedures as required bythe Act.


Mr. Forrest J. Geratd2

November 141_1978 – A letter was sent to the field establishingTnterm polierrOr implementation of the American IndianReligious Freedom Act.Line management officials, at alllevels, were informed that until further direction is avail-
able,the following direction will apply.”In the prepara-
tory stage of land management planning, native traditionalreligious leaders will be notified of all publicinvolve-
ment activities and invited to provide input.If an issueconcerning Indian religious freedom is identified, thecultural resource overview for the forest plan shouldprovidesubstantive background on the traditionalIndian religiouspractices within the planningarea.When examination andconsultation determine a need to protector preserve certainlands or sites, this will be accomplished in&nd through theland management plan.

Each application by traditional Native Americansto useNational Forest System lands for religiouspurposes shallbe carefully considered.The careful consideration shallinclude those instances wherea request involves an areaunder restrictions which would normally preclude the activity.
A typical example of this situation would bea request toenter an area subject to fire closure.To the extent theproposed use or activity is considered consistent withexisting laws and regulations, a specialuse permit maybe issued,”

February 151979- To assist in complying with the Act,
orest Service task force members met with representativesof the American Indian Law Center and the Native AmericanRights Fund Committee to havea background briefing, toshare ideas, make suggestions, and to gainawareness ofthe Native Americans’ religious issues.As a result ofthis meeting, it was determined that theNative AmericanRights Fund Committee will be available to provideaware-
ness sessions at the request of the Regional Foresters,
The Native American Rights Fund Committee indicateditsinterest in bringing local traditional religiousleadersto these sessions to assist in providing localperspective.

March 121 1979- A letter was sent to Regional Foresters,
Station 1Directors and Area Directors informing them ofthe availability of the Committee to participate in aware/
ness sessions, and requesting that they make theirown

arrangement, if sessions are desired.

Mr. Forrest J. Gerard

April 2, 1979A meeting was held at the Department of theInterior with members of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, otherAgencies’ and Departments’ Task Force members.The purposeof this meeting was to discuss preparation of theAmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act Implementation Report and tomeet with the Native American traditionalreligious leaders.
As a result of the above meeting, the Forest Serviceisseeking to meet with the Native American Rights FundCommitteeto further discuss issues and opportunities that maybeencountered in implementing the Act.

April 23, 1979 – The Forest Service task force met to compilefield reports on the affects of Forest Service policiesand procedures on the American IndianReligious FreedomAct.This review revealed that the agency has notidentifiedany policies or procedureswhich have a negative affect onor will result in anyabridgement of the religious freedomof the Native Americans.In our consultation with representa-
tives of the Native American Rights Fund, they were oftheopinion that some of our permit requirements, closureorders,
cultural resource management program as well as other areasmay infringe upon IndianReligious Freedom.

We are planning to continue the Agency reviewof these potentialconflict areas in close cooperation withtraditional religiousleaders or their representatives to assure the protectionandpreservation of Native American religious rights andpractices.

If you have any question concerning theinformation provided, wewill be happy to respond.Our Agency representative, JohnLeasurecan be reached at 447-8618.


Jal. MI

De ety Chief

United States Department of the Interior



APR 1 2 7979

To:Assistant Secretary, Indian AffairsThrough:Assistant Secretary, Land and Water ResourcesFrom:Director, Bureau of Land ManagementSubject:Preliminary Evaluation of Issues Related to Compliance Withthe American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341

8100 (370)

I.INTRODUCTION.The American Indian Religious Freedom Act(P.L. 95-341) requires all Federal Agencies to evaluate their policies andprocedures in order to determine possible impacts upon the traditionalreligious practices and beliefs of Native Americans.Those policies andprocedures which appear to infringe upon such religious practices andbeliefs must be identified, and recommendations regarding the need foreither internal adjustments or changes in legislation must be made.

The Cultural Resource Program within the Bureau of Land Management’s(BLM’s) Division of Recreation is coordinating the BLM’s efforts incomplying with the requirements of P.L. 95-341.In order to assess therequirements necessary for the Bureau to comply with P.L. 95-341, thefollowing steps are currently being carried out:

1.Review of relevant BLM policies and procedures for impact onNative American religious freedoms.

2.Field level review of present or potential conflicts withBureau policies, procedures, and operational practices, and the intent ofP.L. 95-341.

3.Development of recommendations for resolving conflicts betweenBureau policies and procedures and the protection of Native Americanreligious rights.

4.Consultation with Native traditional religious leaders and

Native American groups and organizations.

Based on initial comments submitted by the various BLM Divisions and fromthe ELM State Offices, it is possible to identify some general issues andconcerns, several specific present or potential conflicts, and generalrecommendations relevant to the intent of P.L. 95-341.

1 72


The following represents apreliminary evaluation only.The purpose is toisolate the major areasof concern in order that theBLM can betterapproach the responsibilityof identifying the criticalissues and ofdetermining what specificchanges are necessary to ensureehat NativeAmericans are guaranteedthe right of religious expression.

The issues raised below pointout that any evaluationof matters relevantto P.L. 95-341 musttake into account the extremeand unquestionablecomplexity of the situation.There is no such thing as oneNativeAmerican religion; there arehundreds of Native American”religions”
(i.e., systems of beliefand practices), each withits own dynamic andoften unique character.Any attempt to makegeneralizations regardingNative American religions or to usesuch generalizations withrespect toconducting evaluations oi Federalpolicies and procedures is toreducethis situation to ameaningless simplicity.In order to be usefulandmeaningful, an evaluation of therelationship between Federalpoliciesand procedures and theintent of P.L..95-341 mustbe an ongoing processand must be coupledwith the identification, bytraditional Native Ameri-
can religlousleaders, of specific \areas of concern.Only through acontinuing program of evaluationcan\sound recommendationsbe maderegarding changes which maybe necessary to ensureNative Americanreligious freedoms.



1.A common themethroughout many of the commentsreceived hasbeen the difficulty inevaluating BLM policiesand procedures in light ofP.L. 95-341 without aclear knowledge of the natureof Native Americanreligions at each locallevel and the explicit concernsof specific NativeAmerican groups who mayhave religious interestsrelated to public lands.
Ii is impossible to identifyconflicts and critical issueswithout directinput from Native Americanleaders and groups.

2.The Native American communitydoes not necessarilyviewtheir concerns as a series ofisolated conflicts (also seeNo. 3 below),
The various specific concernsoften relate to suchcentral matters as theconsideration of Native Americanviews in the BLM’sinventory, evaluation,
and planning systems.

3.Defining and setting parameters onwhat constitutes NativeAmerican religion or definingsuch terms as”sacred” and “ceremonial” mayprove difficult.With most EUro-Americanculture groups, it isoftenquite easy to separate whatmight be considered”religious” activities

from other more”secular” behaviors.With many Native Americangroups, it


is difficult to isolate religious or sacredconcerns from other culturalactivities.They are often inextricably linkedtogether and form asingle system of belief and practice.In addition, there are problems oftribal differences in belief andorganizational differences in belief andpractice.Defining, integrating, and establishingparameters on thesebeliefs and practices will bean extensive, ongoing, and controversialprocess.

4.Related to No. 3, it may, insome cases, be an infringementupon religious belief for certain Native Americansto divulge the tenetsof their religion.In such cases, it will be difficultto identify sacredsites and areas, since the act of doingso would be an infringementitself.

5.The BLM presently lacks the capability neededto conduct acomprehensive and ongoing evaluation ofmatters relevant to NativeAmericans.

B.Recommendations.Related to some of the issues presented above,
the following general recommendationsare offered:

1.Develop an ongoing Federal program to evaluate the relationship between Native American religios beliefs and practices and Federalpolicies and procedures.

2.Identify all Nativeerican groups who have a directreligious interest in lands adanistered by the Federal land managingagencies.Identify the tribal and/or religious leaders of each group, soas to facilitate direct communication and consultation with them.

3.Fully integrate the consideration of sociocultural valuesinto all Federal land managing agencies’ inventory, evaluation, andplanning systems and encourage participation at the local level by NativeAmericans, as well as other ethnic and public interestgroups, so as toprovide direct input regarding their interests andconcerns.

4.Develop an educational program in order to provideinformation to Federal Agencies regarding Native Americanconcerns.

5.Establish and maintain cctoperation between Federal Agencies

regarding matters dealing with Native Americans.


III.SPECIFIC ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS.The following presents somespecific issues and recommendations which have been identified asrelevantto P.L. 95-341.

1.Native Americans are often reluctant to identify and makepublicinformation related to sacred sites, areas, or objects, or to the set ofbeliefs and practices related to them.All explicit exemption from theFreedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) is needed for data related tosacred areas in order to allow the BLM and other FederalAgencies to offerNative Americans some assurance that such information will remain confidential.

2.The Endangered Spe.ies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531; P.L.93-205)
provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened speciesoffish, wildlife, and plants.The use o.c. such endangered resources byNative Americans for religious-purposes may conflict with the requirementsof this legislation.To date, no requests have been reported within theBLM for use of endangered species.This does not rule out that suchrequests may be made in the future.

iktWhile eagle feathers can presently be obtained, through a permitting1system froM theFish and Wildlife Service, requestalby Native Americans

for use of other animals, plants, or fish may presentbasic conflicts withthe Endangered Species Act and other conservationlegislation.If theconflicts cannot be resolved through regulatory changes,legislativemodifications may become necessary.

3.Native Americans may consider as sacred any areaswhich furnishsubsistence resources for their group.The request for access totraditional collecting areas (e.g., fishing, acornand pinenut areas) maypresent conflicts with existing BLMland use designations and localmanagement goals.Such stress could be identified during theBureau’sClass I inventory (existing data compilation) studiesand the informationconsidered during the planning process.
4,Requests by Native Americans for possessionand/or use ofarcheological materials (artifacts) recovered fromBLM administered land,
which are normally stored and occasionallydisplayed in museums havingcuratorial capabilities, present an extremelycomplex situation.Thereappears to be much variationbetween native groups regarding attitudetoward such artifacts.Some groups consider such artifactssacred anddesire to use them for religious purposes.Some groups wish to be presentduring the excavation of archeological materials inorder to perform certain rituals, and want artifacts returned tothe soil after analysis.Afew Native Americans are involved in conductingarcheological investigations



It is difficult to fully assess the situation, since there isno consensusamong Nati..e American individual groups regarding archeological materials.
The BLM’s California State Office is currently working with California’sNative American Heritage Commission to develop prredures for loanofheritage objects (artifaLts) to Native American groups.After furtherevaluation and consultation with Native Americangroups regarding theseconcerns, the BLM will be in a better position to make recommendations.
Legislative clarification regarding the ownership of archeologicalmaterials may become necessary.

5.Conflicts pertaining to the possession anduse of archeologicalmaterials may relate to a more basic concern which focuseson theattitudes and beliefs of Native Americans toward archeological and anthro-
pological research.While attitudes vary, many Native Americans opposesuch studies of their culture.The BLM will need to address thissituation and take a policy position.

6.The excavation of burial sites associated with Native Americansraises a eensitive issue.The BLM will have to establish a policyregarding such excavation.The policy should establish a consultationprocess that would be put into effect should aboriginal burials beencountered on BLM administered land.Such a process may include contact-
ing all interested parties, including local Native American leaders, theState Historic Preservation Officer, and the county coroner, if appropri-
ate.Recommendations covering how best to proceed would be based on thisconsultation process.

7.Antiquities Actpermite1/are required for conducting arche-
ological and Paleontological work on Federal lands.Item 8(g) of thepermit does address the exploration or excavation of burials on Indianlands and reservatious.

There may be problems on other Federal, non-Indian lands if the potentialeffects of actions under the authority of an Antiquities Act permit onsuch things as Native American sacred sites or areas are not taken intoaccount.
1/Antiquities Act Permits within the Department of the Interior are

issued by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist, HeritageConservation and Recreation Service, under the authority of theAntiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 432, 433; P.L. 59-209); TheUniform Rules and Regulations (43 CFR Part 3) carry out the provisions

of the Act.


To ensure that Native.American concerns areconsidered, a pre-permitconsultation could be required between the applicantand the appropriatelocal Native leaders.In addition, special stipulations covering NativeAmerican concerns could be added to the permit.

8.The Bureau has only received a few requests fromNativeAmericans for access to sacred sites for religious purposes.In thoseinstances where such requests have been made,there have been no problemsaccommodatini them.The potential for conflict does exist, though,betweenrequests’for use of land by Native Americans and thedesignation of theland for.a specific use by the Bureau.Such conflicts could be resolved byconsidering Native American concerns earlyin the Bureau planning process(see No. 9 below).

9.Many separate potential conflicts revolvearound the Bureau’sland use management decisions.Such decisions involve both land useallocations and designations of sites or areasto special systems.
Examples of such land use decisionsincludes the following:

a.Designating an area as a wildernessstudy area or nominatingan area for inclusionin the National Wilderness PreservationSystem(Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131, P.L.38-577).

b.Designating an area as an area ofcritical environmentalconcern (ACEC) for protectionand preservation purposes (Federal LandPolicy and Management Act of1976, 43 U.S.C., 1701 et seq. P.L.94-579).

c.Nominatiag a property for inclusion in theNational Registerof Historic Places (National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966, asamended, 16 U.S.C. 470, Pt.89-665).

d.. Allocating an area for:

1.Recreation use.
2.Livestock grazing.
3.Mineral leasing.
4.Timber harvesting.
5.Habitat protection.
6.Floodplein management.

7.Other uses.


In developing its land use plans, the Bureau is guided by the principle ofmultiple-use management, as set forth in the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976.During the Bureau’s planning process, allresources and land use alternatives are considered in formulating amanagement plan for a given area.By fully integrating Native Americanand other socio-cultural concerns iuL the Bureau’s planning process, manypotential confl!.cts could be avoideo..It is possible that many land useda.cisions are and can be extremely co’^patible with Native Americanconcerns.For example, designating an area for wilderness or as an ACECmay serve to protect end preserve those same areas that carry religioussignificance for Native Americans.Input by Native Americans during theinventory and planning proccsses will ensure that ther concerns areconsidered.

10.Potential conflicts could occur in land transfer, permit,
withdrawal, and other actions which convey a degree of land use control toan entity other than the Bureau.The conflict would occur where landshaving unknown (to BLM) religious significance or importance to NativeAmericans were sold or a land use authorized to an entity other than BLM.
In those cases where Native Americans are restricted from access to areasof religious significance, a conflict could occur.

There is no information to indicate such conflicts have, in fact, occurredin the past.However, to insure that such conflicts do not occur in thefuture, the Bureau’s Division of Lands and Realty intends to requirecontact with Native Americane, in the vicinity of anylands where landsor realty actions are proposed, todetermine whether or not the landsunder consideration have religious significance.This requirement will beincluded in Land Reports, which are prepared as a part of Lands andRealtyactions.

11.The Bureau’s Division of Rangeland MAnagement hasidentified apotential conflict with some land treatment practices, such as chaining ofpinon pine areas.However, these potential conflicts could be identifiedthrough the Bureau’s planning system and the environmental assessmentprocedures.

12.The use of herbicides for controlling plants that arepoisonous to cattle and for controlling over-domination of a plant speciesin an area may inadvertently affect plantshaving religious importance toNative Americans.Prior consultation and proper planning could avoid

these conflicts.


13.In Alaska, the Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act providesopportunity for Alaska Natives toidentify and select such lands as burialgrounds and traditional fishing camps.This has taken place over the pastseveral years with the assistance of theBureau of Indian Affairs and theNational Park Service.If situations arise in the futureinvolving BLM-
administered areas, satisfactory solutions could beachieved with the aidof such organizations as the jointFederal-State-Native councils, sub-
sistence councilsand so forth.
14.The BLM depends heavily on NativeAmerican firefighting crewsin its fire suppression program.The Bureau is aware of the impacts thiscould have on Native Alierican religiouspractices.Therefore, it has beenand will continua to ‘)e a poltcy toallow crews to return to their homesfor any recognized religious pu-pose.

IV.SUMMARY.The Bureau, in the de,relopment andrevision of land use

obsetves the principle of multiple useand utilizes a systematic,
intercLtscir4,nary approachachieve an integrated consideration ofthevarious resources and valuesassociated with the puUic lands.

Relying on the ‘.nventoty of the resourc’sand values, the Bureau, throughits planning ,considers the present and potential usesof the landand formulatei..1.13ement plans based uponthese uses.The Bureau, there-
fore, has the overall policy anddirection to incorporate socio-culturalvalues, such as Native A.strican religious concerns,into its land useplanning and management systems.Many of the potential conflictsidentified above could be avoidedthrough use of these systems.The.BLM’sCult-tral Resource Program willbe working toward providing specificguide-
lines for full considerationof socio-cultural values in theinventory andplanning system.

The purpose of the precedingdiscnssion has been to present apreliminaryevaluation ol matters relevant tc P.L.95-341.The Bureau will continue togather information dealing withN.solive imerican religious concernsandidentify any conflicts that mayresult .4:rom Bureau policy andprocedures.
Additional information and reportswill tx. forwarded to the TaskForce foruse in preparingthe report to Contress onimplementation of P.L. 93-341.


Acting Associate

D. KIPLY bitIrLit T.

United States Department of the Interior



To:Secretar; of the InteriorAttentioi.:Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife andParks

Director, National Park oervice


APR 21979

National Park Service Internal Reviewand Recommendationsto the Task Force on Implementation of the AmericanIndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978

The attached document, “Assessment of ComplianceRequirements of P.L.
95-341 for the National Park Service,”details the major issues ofconcern to the Service and to Native Americans in relatingto ReligiousFreedom Jane Park Preservation andManagement.It also includesourrecommendations as to how these issues should beaddressed.We plan toprepare a more detailed report that will contain backgrounddata forPark Service use.That report, when completed, will be sharedwith theTask Force.

We have appreciated the ass:.stance ofSuzan Harjo of the B1A inarranging meetings with appropriate Native AmericanOrganizations.TheNative American Rights Fund, theAmerican Indian Law Center, theCalifornia Indian HeritageCommission and the advisorygroup of Indianreligious leaders uere helpful in reviewingour draft material andassisting us to appreciate theirconcerns.Sharon Allender of theOffice of the Soliciter, also assistedsignificantly in interpretingthe legal ramifications of thevarious legislation.

The Service has a mandate thatincludes significant responsibilitiesfor the care, preservation andinterpretation of sites related tohistoric and prehistoric NativeAmerican cultures.We therefore havespecial interest in the preservationof Native American traditions.Westand ready to assist in the Department’sTask Force and requestonopportunity to reviev and contributeto the work of that Task Forceasit develops its material.We also believe that involvamentdirectly

2 1979


with those most affected by our performance isessential, and requestan opportunity to participate inthe public involvement process

mandated by the Act and to be conducted by theDepartment.





Legislation5Po:icyand Regulations. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO6National Park Service Actionsoeillsoomoilloomfboollooss7-

mikreh 23 IL1$011




Public Law 95-341, approved August 11, 1978 states “that henceforth itshall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve forAmerican Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, andexercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut,
and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, useand possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship throughceremonials and traditional rites.”It further directs the President to”…direct the various Federal departments, agencies, and otherinstrumentalities responsible for administering relevant laws to evaluatetheir policies and procedures in consultation with native traditionalreligious leaders in order to determine appropriate changes necessary toprotect and preserve Native American religious cultural rights andpractices.Twelve months after approval of this resolution, thePresident shall report back to the Congress the results of hisevaluation, including any changes which were made in administrativepolicies and procedures, and.any recommendations he may have forlegislative action.”

The mission of the National Park Service, — to preserve and provide forthe appropriate use of natural and cultural resources of nationalimportance, — identifies it as an agency with inherent concern for theconservation and interpretation of Native American cultures as well asinherent responsibility to honor commitment to the exercise of religiousfreedoms by Native Americans.Units of the National Park Systemencompass historic and archeological parks, monuments,memorials,
seashores and recreation areas.Many of these were established tocommemorate the cultural heritage of the Native American orhistoricalevents associated with that heritage.Sitka National Historical Park inAlaska is the site of the Tlingit Indian resiscance of 1804; Casa GrandeNational Monument in Axizons encompasses ruins of a massive four-storybuilding constructed of hip-lime desert soil by Indians mho farmed theGila Valley 600 years ago; Hovenweep National Monument and Mesa VerdeNational Park in Colorado protect and interpret pre-Columbian cliffdwellings; Ocmulgee National Mounument in Georgia and Knife River IndianVillages National Historic Site in North Dakota protect remains of moundsand villages which tell the story of the cultural evolution of thefarming Indian village civilizations in the Eastern United States;
Natchez Trace Parkway generally follows the old Indian traces, or trail,
between Nashville, Tennessee and Natchez, Mississippi.Other parkscontain significant archeological sites such as Shiloh National Military

1 5 3

contain significant archeological sitea auch as Shiloh National MUlitaryPark in Tennessee with its village mound complex Which was a hub ofceremonial and trading activities for the region.Big Bend NationalPark, Texas, Glen Canyon ,National Recreation Area, UtahrArigona andCanyonlands National Park, Vtah contain numerous prehistoric remains ofNative Americans.More than 20 Nattional Park areas are locatedcontiguous to Indian reservations.

Recent additions of monuments in Alaa.ka contain archeological resourcessignificant to Aleuts, Egkimos and American Indians.

To assess the requirements of the National Park Service necessary tocomply with P.L. 95-341, the follawing steps are being carried out:

Item 1.Review of Servicewide documents for impacts on Native Americanreligious freedoms–Management Policies, Code of Federal Regulations,
Directives, Guidelines, ProgramObjectiwes, etc.

Itez 2.Inventory of each park to determine conflicts between parkprocedures and Native American religious practices.

Item 3.Dtvelopment of recommendationr for resolving conflicts indocumeuts or practices.

Item. 4.Consultation with native traditional religious leaders and

Native American organizations.


ASSESSMENT TO DATERegional Offices have conducted a park by park assessment of actionsrequired to comply with P.L. 95-341.The Washington Office Divisionshave conducted similar asseswments.An initial review of NI’S managementpolicies and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 36-Parks) Forests andPublic Property and CFR 43-Public Lands: Interior) has been done by theOffice of Management Policy.This material, along with the NPS NativeAmerican Task Force Report of June 30, 1978 iS being studied.Thefollowing broad needs have been identified:

1.To develop a program to assure consistent Servicewide treatment ofNative American Religious Freedom issues and to guide generalrelationships with Native American groups.This will require a thoroughreview and revision of relevant NPS Policies, Directives, Guidelines andCFR’s.

2.To develop a research program to identify, inventory and evaluatetraditional religious uses and practices related to sites or resources onpark lands in order to:

a.provide for physical protection and appropriate [privacy of] use

of sites;
b.allow reasonable and prudellt access to sites and provision for

the collecting, taking or receiving of natural resources used inthe exercise of Native American religious practices;

c.identify end protect those sites and resources within parks

that Are associated with Native American cultural and religiousheritage;

d.develop adequate baseline data necessary to formulate generalprogram and management decisions.

In addition, the following issues need explication and resolution to theextent possible:

1.The conflict between the equal protection end the First Amendmentrights of other park visitors and the public use caudate of park areasand the desire on the part of Native Americans to be assured of privacyor exclusive use and to enforce standards of decorum against othervisitors when the native americans are exercising their religiousfreedoms.

2.Legislative authority for special physical protection of Pitagi inparks related to Native American Cultural heritage and used for

religious/cerimonial purposes is not clearly spelled out.


3.The Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of sites if theyare carried in a Service irventory.Native American grout; and theService may prefer that th.1.s inventory be kept confidential.

4.There is conflict between the generally accepted principle of freedomof academic/scientiiic inquiry and Native American beliefs and attitudestowards anthropolobical and archeological studies of their culture, pastand present.TheLe is not, at this tlme any consensus among NativeAmericans concerning the need for and scope of academic research.Nanyare suspicious of the motivations behind such studies.Most NativeAmerican groups have developed fairly successful means of protectingtraditional religious beliefs and esoteric ceremonial knowledge.SomeNative Americans claim that it violates their religious beliefs to be thesubject of study, asserting that it is an exploitive and desecratingactivity.Other Native Americans favor anthropological research, butprefer to undertake it themselves and retain control over what is madeavailable to external sources and what is retained as esoteric knowledge.
Still others see such research as a necessary means to record and hold onto traditional practices and beliefs that are being lost from theirculture.The Service will need to take a policy position on the extentto which anthropological and archeological studies infringe upon NativeAmerican religious practices.

5.There is a conflict between contemporary Society’s perceived right toknowledge and understanding of current and past lifeways and the right ofNative Americans to protect from desecration sacred and esotericknowledge concerning their religious values and practices.This isrelated to the broad issue that information acquired in the conduct ofService programs is in the public domain and in conformity with ourpolicy of acquiring and presenting accurate and factual interpretation ofhistory.

6.Concern about potential expansion of use of park lands fortraditional religious activities and their potential adverse impacts onpark resources or general public use.Accordingly, we shall set limitson use based on adequate research.The underlying purpose of thisresearch should be to enable the Service to balance the relative values,
needs and benefits of its programs (i.e., resource preservation,
archeological investigation) against the Native Americans interests inthe exercise of their religious beliefs, and to formulate alternativestrategies to minimize the degree of government impingement thereon.
However, in no event should the Service compromise the basic mandates

embodied in authorizing legislation.

5RECOMMENDATIONSLegislationI.Seek legislation to provide a blanket amendment to all National ParkSystem statutes to give the Secretary of the Interior discretionaryauthority, providing it will not compromise the basic values for which anarea was established nor significantly alter established strategies forresource management — to allow, under special circumstances (criteria tobe developed by individual bureaus at a later time) the taking of surplusanimals and plants except endangered or threatened species.Such takingwould be judged on a case by case basis and would be, so far asmanageaent could determine for bona fide endeavors.

2.Seek legislation or procedures to provide excepted appointments,
hiring as consultants or the payment of nonsalary expenses to NativeAmericans who, by virture of their experience and position within aNative American group, possess “credentials of emminence” certifying themto be knowledgeable in their group’s cultural values and beliefs.

3.Seek legislation to exempt the Service from the requirements of theFederal Advisory Committee Act in utilizing Native Americans in anadvisory capacity for .addressing Native American issues relevant to theuse and administration of the National Park System.e Act.

4.Seek legislation that will clarify the ownership of artifacts andestablish a process for addressing, consistent with other legalrequirements, public policy and scientific values, requests by NativeAmericans for the return of sac.red objects associated with traditional

Native American religious practices or special treatment of such objects.


PolicyjEldjleaulations1.As an interim measure, refine and update Special Directive 78-1toprovide an immediate blanket revision to existing policies andregulations so that within existing authority reasonable accommodationaan be made to Native Americans religious practices.

2.Expand the definition of Native Americans in Special Directive 78-1to Include native descendenzs on Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands andAncrican Samoa.

7stablish a policy to provide that the results of anthropologicalresearch in parks, or supporting park programs, be made available, inanunderstandable and usable manner to groups affected, especiallyNativeAmericans.

4.establish as part of our program development guideline,a processinsuring consultation with Native American groups affected in determining

– General Management Plans- anthropological and archeological research- areas of esoteric knowledge or sites of religious valueThis consultation wdll not compromise the scientific validity of thestudy nor the managerial usefulness of the data.

5.Establish a process by which to resolve use, ownership and possessionconflicts as regards religious freedom between NPS and Native Americans.
Process will be based on legislation, management policies, availableresearch data and sound management techniques.

6.Establish a policy with regard to excavating burial sites associatedwith Native Americans as follows:

When it is knowm or expectecrthat burial sites will be distuxbed byService projects, including research, consultation with theappropriate Native American group will be initiated by the Service.

Burials from the historic period will be reinterred by the Serviceorthe Service will assist the appropriate Native American group intheir reinternment, unless specifically requested to dispose of theremains in another manner.The Service reserves the right toarcheologically excavate the remains and to undertake on-the-siteanthropological measurements of skeletal material on the generalprinciple of advancing scientific knowledge of the human past.Thisdoes not applyto any burial that can reasonably be linked to knownliving descendents.In such an instance, the wishes of the livingclescendents will be respected. Descendents will be defined by the

:relevant Native American group and NPS staff.


Burials from the prehistoricperiod will not be reinterrednor turnedover to NativeAmerican groups for reintermment.They will be madeavailable for scientific study onthe principle of advancingscientific knowledge of thehuman past.(Except!** say be made forprehistoric sites where theconnection to contemporary NativeAmericans is known or thepossibility is strong.)Notwithstanding,
consultation with appropriateNative American groups concerningsuchburials will occur prior to theirremoval.The purpose of suchconsultation will be todetermine their viewu and toaccommodatetheir reasonable and feasible requestsfor special treatment of muchremains provided it will notcompromise the scientificvalues of theresearch.

7.Amend NPS policy on “Acquisitionand Care of Historic Objects” (p.
v-II) to state that ‘no suchmaterials will be acquiredwhere there isreasonable doubt that those from whomthey are received have the right todispose of them”.

8.Issue regulations governingappropriate decorun, and use andprotection of park resourcesassociated with NativeAmerican traditionalreligious practices.

In addition to thelegislation, policy and regulationsdetailed above,
NPS will undertake thefollowing actions:

1.Where subsistence hunting,collecting, foraging, fishingand othertraditional cultural activities or usesare authorizedby law, conductresearch to establishbaseline data to determinethe impacts of theseactivities on the conservationand public use of park resources.

2.Develop a comprehensiveinventory by park unit as tothe current andanticipated impacts of P.L.95-341.

3.Establish research program toacquire baseline data necessarytosupport policyanalysis, program evaluation,and managerial decisionsrelated to Native American useof and impacts on park resourcesandvisitor activities.

4.Establish Regional and park programsfor consulting wia Native

American leaders.

5.Continue to provideto Native Aserican Groups technicalssistance inmilieus setters and assistance is deVeleplatprogress to tecoid andinterpret theircultural bietory.

6.Continue full implementation ef title IV ofP.L. 95-390 (rPM letter550-70), which provides forcoSpeesatory time off for employeeswhosereligious beliefs require that theyabstain frost work during certainperiods of the work-day/week.

7.Initiate revision of relevant nodes,sanagement policies, directives,



April 12, 1979

The Honorable Forrest J. GerardAssistant Secretary of Indian AffairsU.S. Department of the InteriorWashington,DC20240

Dear Mr. Gerard:

In response to Secretary Andrus’smemorandum of January 26,1979, enclosed is the “Initial Report Concerningthe TennesseeValley Authority’s Implementation of theIndian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978.”

If you have any questions concerningthe report, please feelfree to contact me.


Thomas H. Ripley,nag

Office of Natural Reso rces


The following is an initial report concerning the TennesseeValley Authority’s (TVA) implementation of the Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978.During evaluation of its policies and proceduresas required by the Act, TVA has thus far concentrated on two generalareas of conceru:(1) protection of and access to sacred sites,
and (2) protection of and access to sacred objects.

Protection of and Access to Sacred Sites

The Agency has general policies and procedures governingaccessto and protection of TVA property, including land whichcontains Indian sites.A copy of the TVA Code on these policieshas previously been forwarded to the Department of the Interior forthe info:mation of the task force on Indian religious freedom.Tosummarize, most TVA properties are open to the public.However,
access may be -estricted in areas in which there is danger ofinjury to persons o property.

Due to incidents of vandalism and collection of artifactsby unauthorized persons, sensitive archaeological sites are consideredrestricted areas and may be fenced, posted, and patrolled for theirprotection.Also, sites are sometimes fenced to identify andprotect them from Agency authorized construction or mining activities.

However, procedures exist by which personsmay be permittedto enter a restricted area when there is a legitimate reason fortheir presence.These procedures have proveh to be efficient in

the past, and they appear to be flexible enough to ‘Accommodate

requests for access tosacred sites by practitioners of nativetraditional religions.

A problem concerning access and protection of sacredsites can occur when a proposed activity of theAgency may alter orpermanently restrict access to a sacred site.In the event thatsuch a situation exists, it is TVA’s intent to seek asolutionwhich will satisfy both the needs and goals of the Agency and therights of Native Americans to meaningfully express their re1igiousbeliefs.

TVA is considering as a possible approach the use of theestablished environmental review process to identify any potentialinfringements on Ile free exercise of religion which might occur es

Aa result of a proposed Agencyactivity.During the review process,

TVA would investigate the project area todetermine whether it iscurrently considered asacred site or is related to religiousacLivities of any native traditionalreligion.

If the site is found to be a subject of currentreligiouspractices, the Agency would consult withnative traditional religiousleaders to determine whether theproposed activity would infringeon the freeexercise of native traditional religion.If it isfound that the proposed activity would infringe onthe free exerciseof native traditional religion, then the Agencywould prepare andexamine alternate plans in consultationwith native traditionalreligious leaders.

If the alternatives are not feasible and the proposedaction is deemed necessary to carry out tile Agency’s programs orobligations, the justification for proceeding with the action



would be reviewedby asppropriate staff within 114 which isresponsible for coordinating compliance with hictoric andculturalpreservation requirements.The review’s findings and justificationfor proceeding with the action would be included ispart of theenvironmental documentation which is prepared andtransmitted tothe Board of Directors for its review along with the staffrecom-
mendation with respect to tbe project.A summary of the review’sfindings and justification for proceeding with the actionwould becommunicated to native traditional religious leaders and otherinterested parties, along with notice of the finaldecision by theBoard of Directors.

Protection of and Access to Sacred Objects

A second potential problem area which TVA has identifiedconcerns access to sacred objects wtich are recovered on Federalproperty during construction, authorized excavation of archaeclogicalsites, or other activities.As a general matter property recoveredfrom lands there belongs to the United States.Artifacts may belent for temporary periods to museums which meet standards establishedby the American Association of Museums, but the artifactsmusteventually be returned to the designated Federal repository.

A problem can arise when permanent possession of publiclyowned artifacts, including sacred objects:is soughtby any othergroup or individual.A number of issuea are involved in suchsituations, including right of ownership, availabilityof archaeo-
logical materials for scholarly research, and whensacred objectsare involved, the free exercise of religion.This is a situation

which may be faced not only by Federalagencies with land management

responsibilities, but also by otherorganizations and institutions.
The caretaking of artifacts is an areain which the task force maybe helpful ia finding an appropriateand satisfactory resolution ofthe complex issues involved.

The protection of sacred objects isrelated to the protectionof archaeological sites.The Agency is responsible for theprotection’of significant archaeological resources onTVA’ property.TVA activelyseeks to avoid impcting significantarchaeolgical resources by itsactivities.However, when it is found that anapproved activitymust impact an archaeologicalsite, TVA contracts with qualifiedprofessional.; to conduct appropriate data recovery.

A large number of archaeologicalsites on TVA propertyare not impactedby Agency activities, butneed protection fromvandalism and other disturbances. ‘Due tothe remoteness of manysites and the dispersed natureand size of the land areaswhichmust be patrolled, theAgency has sometimes found itdifficult toprovide adequate protection forsensitive sites.In order toprovite better protection forsites and the objects containedwithin them, TVA is in the processof increasing itsbudget’ior theexecution of this responsibility.

TVA recognizes a need for moteadequate protection forarchaeological resources.Under pre3ent law, it isextremelydifficult to prosecute persons accusedof unauthorized collectionof artifacts.Legislation to strengthen theability of agencies toprotect archaeological resources onFederally owned public lands isneeded.The task force should analyzeand consider supportinglegislation whIch would appropriatelyincrease the protection ofarchaeological resources, including sacredsites and siscred objects.

1 9 5

April 9,1979

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEEconmslIe DeviiIopment AdmInistraVonWashington, D.C. 20230

Honorable Forrest GerardAssistant Secretary for Indian AffairsU.S. Department of the InteriorWashington, D. C.20240

Dear Mr. Gerard:

This is a follow-up to the American Indian Reliyious Freedom Actof 1978 Task Force meeting of April 2.At this meeting the membersof the Task Force were requested to have a report in by April 9identifying any issues, status and problems of issues and anyrecommendatrons.

AsIstated in my letter of March.29, the only operating unit ofthe Department of Commerce that may have policies and procedureswhich may affect this act is the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) which is part of the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA).

This unit (NMFS) has idertified the Alaskan bowhead whale huntand the activity in the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwestas the two primary current situations which involve potentialimpacts on Native American religious beliefs and practices.

As the harvesting of the whales are being regulated internationallyby the international Whaling Convention and nationally by theU.S. Whaling Convention Act, itis recommended that a meeting beheld with representatives of NMFS and the Task Force working staff.

Also, at the same time the salmon issue of the Pacific Northwestwhich comes under President Carter’s Federal Task Force on WashingtonFisheries can be discussed.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has been working very closelywith the Alaskan Eskimos and the American Indians on both of theseissues.It would be most advantageous if an immediate meeting can

be held to discuss the problems and issues of both these matters.


After the meeting ofApril 2,Idiscussed several matterswithSam DeLoria regardingthe Economic DevelopmentAdministration (EDA).
He stated that EDA maywant to review howthe funding of projectson Indianreservations may have problemswith the protection ofIndian historical, religiousand cultural sites.

We have reviewed thisissue and wish to report thatall applicationsto EDA onconstruct;on type projects must beformally assessedwith respect to compliancewith the “Procedures for theProtectionof Historic and CulturalProperties,” which is publishedby theAdvisory Council on HistoricPreservation (Chapter VIII, PartBOO,
36 CFR).In the case of Indianreservation projects, allappliceionsare viewed bythe State Historic PreservationOfficer (SHPO).

The assessment mustsummarize the results ofconsultations with theSHPO and, based uponthe review process and theviews of the SHPO,
must state whether ornot a covered propertywill be affected bythe constructiunproject.If there is affect, allof the stepsand protective measures taken tocomplete the “procedures” mustbe detailed, and theaffected property and the natureof the affectmust be described.The assessment must alsoinclude the resultsof the coordination processbetween EDA and theAdvisory CouncilonHistoric.Preservation.

Prior to project approval,the agency must make aformal findingthat such a project.willnot significallyaffect the quality ofthe human environment.

Following project approval, everyconstruction contract isreviewedto assure thatthe contract tems andconditions reflect anyspecialrequirements placed upon theproject as a result of theSHPO reviewand determinations ofEDA.

Additionally, all contractors must agreeto facilitatethe preser-
vation and enhancementof structures and objectsof historical,
architectural or archaeologicalsignificance and when suchitemsare foundand/or unearthed during the courseof project construction,
to consultwith the State HistoricPreservation Officer fordispositionof the items.(Ref rence – National Historicand Preservation Actof 1966 – 80 Stat. VI5,16 USC 470 – and ExecutiveOrder No. 11593of May 31, 1971.)


After you and your Task Foece staff hive had the opportmnity toreview this letter and have questions or desire additionalinformation,
please no not hestitate tor WI.


6RAY Ed. TAN.RTask ForcMember Representative

De artment of Commerce




Economic DevelopmentAdministrationWashington, D.C. 20230

Honorable Forrest GerardAssistant Secretary for IndianAffairsU.S. Department of theInterior.
Washington, D. C.20242Dear Forrest:

This is a status report onthe activities to dateregarding theint2rnal reviews and evaluationsof all the operatingunits ofthe U.S. Department of Commerce asthey may affect thereligiou5rights and cultural integrityof Native Americans.

Enclosed is a listing of theCommerce operatingunits that wehave determined have noaffect on theAmerican.indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978.There may be some concernsby the Indianreligious leaders pertaining to one.or more ofthese operatingunits that can be addressedwhen questions arise.

There is one operatingunit of Commerce, theNational Oceanicand Atmospheric.Administration,that may have policiesand proceduresthat may have to beevaluated to more fullydetermine how they affectthe Indian religious andcultural rights.It is my understandingthat a member of yourstaff, Ms. Sue Hvalsoe spentsome timewithNOAA to determine what arethe Indian religiousand cultural rights.
Due to the uncertaintyof what all theserights may be,representativesof NOAA will be inattendance at the April2 meeting to obtainadditional information so thatrecommendations in their act,ifnecessary, can betaken care of..

Ilook forward to seeing you atthe April 2 meetingof the TaskForce and to receive abriefing on how inputfrom the tribal-religious leaders Will beobtal.ned to assist usin providing theinformation required.


RMY E.1 TANNERSpecissistintfor Jndin Affairs

closu e


Bureau of the CensusBureau of Economic AnalysisEconomic Development AdministrationInternational Trade AdministrationMaritipe AdministrationNational Bureau of StandardsNational Fire Protection and Control AdministrationNational Technical Information ServiceOffice of Product’ StandardsOffice of TelecommunicationsOffice of Minority Business EnterprisePatent 6 Trademark OfficeU.S. Travel Service

General Counsel

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFCOMMERCENational Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationNation& Marine Fisheries ServiceWashington. D.C. 20235

p r.1979


TO:Raymond E. Tanner

Special Assistant for Indian AffairsEcwnomic Development Administration,DoC

FRUN:Terry L. LeitzellAssistant Administrator forFisheries

SUBJECT:American Indian Religious Freedom Act

This is a supplement to our memorandumof March 21, 1979,
concerning laws andpolicies that the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) administerswhich may affect American Indian religiousrights and practices.

In that memorandum, wedescribed in general terms the natureofthe provisions of lawsunder our responsibility which mightaffectAmerican Indians, Eskimos,Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians.We havesince sent a package ofmaterials concerning the AmericanIndianReligious Freedom Act to ourregional offices and research centersand have requested fromthem inform’ation-regardingtheir activitiesin these areas.A copy of the package isattached.

In addition, aftersurveying National MarineFisheries Serviceactivity from our perspectivehere in Washingtou we haveidentifiedthe’Alaskan bowhead whale.huntan0 the activity in thesalmon fish-,
tries of the PacificNorthwest as the two primary currentsituationsunder our purview whichinvolve potential impacts onNative American.
religious beliefs andpractices.In this memorandum, we wouldliketo describebriefly theicsituations andthe NMFS role in them.

The subsistenceharvest of bowhead whalesby Alaskan Eskimosis a traditionalactivity with complex, persuasiveconnections tothe Eskimo religionand social and political structure.Harvest ofwhales is regulatedinternationally by the InternationalWhalingConvention and nationallyby the U.S. Whaling ConventionAct.Inaddition, the bowheadwhale is listed as”endangered” under theEndangered Species Actof 1973.Under this Act and theMarineMammal Protection Actof 1972, exceptions havebeen made for sub-
sistince whaling byindigenous peoples.The issue is one oftrade-
offs–harvesting whalesfrom thia population constitutes somedangerto the whalepopulation, but not allowing a harvestconstitutes edanger to the health.and well-being of the Eskimoswho participatein the hunt.National Marine FisheriesService personnel have par-
ticipated significantly inassessment and considerationof the

religious, social, andcultural implications of variousharvest


levels and management regimes.The most recent of these acttvitieswas IINFS plrticipation In oegatiaing international panels of expertsin cultural anthropology, nutrition, and wildlife science coeveneein Seattle in February 1919 under the auspices of the InternationalWhaling Commission to assess and document the place ofthe bowheadwhale hunt in the social and cultural structures of the NorthAlaskanEskimo.Repoils from these meetiegs are available sled will formpartof the basis upon which a working group of the InternationalWhalingCommission will base consideration of that stoup’s future actions.
One of the major findings of the reports from these malewas thatthe Eskimos, themselvee, exist be integrally involved in the develop-
ment of a management regime and in the assessment of the cuweentreligious and cultural context within which whaling occurs.We havefollowed, and will continue to fellow, these recommendations throughthe use of public hearings, seeking the active participation ofgroups sucti as the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in the developmentof management alternalives, and by other means.Unfortunately, someof the issueS in the bowhead whale fishery are currently under litiga-
tion.For tbatreason, we recommend that, aside from ongoing U.S.
involvement with the International Whaling Commission and the currantNMFS research and monitoring programs, no further specific action betaken in this caie with respect to the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act until the legal issues have been resolved.

In the Pacific Northwest, the sa ton and certain other fisheryresources form an integral part tl the complex of religious andcultural activities of the American Ind an tribes in the region.
Using salmoh as a specific example, although most of the salmon man-
agement is under the jurisdiction of the states, NMFS has played arole in bringing the Indian end other interests together In two ways.
First, the Pacific Fishery ‘Management Council, with whom NMTS works7closely in developing and implementing management plans for the sal-

mon resources under the Council’s jurisdiction, has Indian represen-
tation on many of the Council’s advisory boards and panels.Second,
and more general, NMFS representatives have bean prominent on theregional teams of President Catter’s Federal Task Force on WashingtonFieheriea.This task force has broad responsibilities in the investi-
gation of the many problems which exist in the region’s fisheries,
including those involving Indian peoples.At every step in the taskforce and regional team activities, consultations were made betweeetask force or team personnel and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission (Portland, Oregon), the Northwest Inter-Tribal Fish ppm-
‘mission (Olympia, Washington), and many local tribes end groups.It



has been NM generalpolicy to makeallocations forsubsistence andceremonial uses wherethese needs or uses canbe demonstrated.Alongwith other activitiescentered in ourregional officein Seattle, theactivities cited aboveconstitute NMFS ongoingattempts to deal on aninformed basis with theseissues.,

Similar to the caseof the bowhead whaleissues, inlie:: ofN?”S ongoing activityin this area, werecommend that nofurther spe-
cific action in theNorthwest salmon casebe takenwithrespect tothe American IndianReligious Freedom Actuntil thePresident’s taskforce has had anopportunity to presenttheir recommendationsin fulland all concernedparties have had anopportunity toreview andrespond to theirfindings.

These are the twomajor currentsituations withinNMFS purviewwhich bear directly onmatters set outin the AmericanIndian Reli-
gious Freedom Act.There are, of course,other situationswhichwill arise anddemand our attention.As we pointed outin our mem-
orandum of March21, we wouldwelcome anyinformation resultingfromyour taskforce activitieswhich would help usto identifyAmericanIndian religiousand culturalactivities ofwhich we may notbe awareand upon which ouractions may have animpact, orwhich would in anyother vay aid usin compiyingwith the intentof this Act.


tc:Arva JacksonDirector, Officeof Civil Rights,NOAA

I concurir/

Eldon V. C.GreenbergGeneral Counsel,NOAA






MAY 4197g


National Oceank: anø Atmosprsvaw. o4aminestr1tranNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Northwest Region1700 Westlake NorthSeattle, WA98109

In reply r4fer to:FNOVE-COR

To:Winfred H. Meibokm, Executive DirectoruF)U.tle



From:Regional Director, FNU.
Subj:American Indian ReliO6s i’reedom ActThis is in response to your memorandum F3/MKO dated April 6, 1979,.
concerning the “American Indian Religious Freedom Act”.In that’memorandum, you requested by May 10 our comments relative to4ctivttieswithin the Northwest Region which may fall under the purview of theAct.

To date we have Iiid only one incident (case repOrt attached) in whichAmerican Indians raised the Issue of religion While taking seals pro-
tected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. .Subsequent contactwith the tribal religious leader developed information that matinemammals have been-taken historically to manufacture articles of native—lithiditraft; ‘but-that-no religlous E1g ifiähchisto-rical’Or’dtherwise,
was attached.to the taking.

Discussions WO GCNW.indicate presentregu1attorLtakingof marine mammals by natives (native,exception) und r the Marine MammalProtection Act appear broad enough to permit modifica ion to allow takingfor religious purposes, if it becomes necessary.Thpresent regionalinterpretation of tte Marine Mammal Protection Actxtends the nativeexception to natives residing in the lower 48 on tkie.coest of the NorthPacific Ocean, but only for the purposes of createTng and selling authenticnative articles of handicraft and clothing.This interpretation appearsin conflict with one contained in a memorandum from Temy L. Leitzellto Arva Jackson dated March 21, 1979 (page 2, paragraph F).If in factthe Marine Mammal Protection Act native exception is held applicableonly to Alaskan natives, as is the Endangered Species Act, then amendmentsto both acts will be necessary to permit American Indian religious andcultural practices, if any, in the lower 48.

Recent Federal Court decisions have recognized that Certain treatyIndians have salmon fishing rights not extended to non treaty fishermen.
In U.S. vs WaOlington the court recognized the Indians right to have the




2 ;4

MAY 41579Date:
Subj:American Indian Religious fteedomAct

opportunity to harvest up to 50%of the returning.salmon, and also theright to harvest salmon forceremonial purposes.The court concludedthat the salmon caught forIndian ceremonial purposes were notto beincluded in the computation for divisionof catch.This case and othershave had a direct effect on salmonmanagement and enforcementcarriedout under the Sockeye or PinkSalmon Fishing Act of 1947 andthe Fishery-Conservation and Management Act of 1976.In fact, today four ColumbiaRiver tribes petitioned the Federal Court toclose the offshore trollseason set under theauthorfty of the Fishery Conservationand ManagementAct o’f 1976.This request was based on the argumentthat not enoughsalmon arrived at the.Indians usual andaccustomed fishing grounds toallow the opportunity to harvest 50%and to exercise their ceremonialfishing rights.

We have been aware for sometime that Indians have rights whichexceedthose of other United Statescitizens and have been in contactwithvarious tribes and Indianorganizations attempting to make our programsresponsive to Indian peoples needswherever possible.We are planninga series of meetingsin the near future.with thevarious northwestIndian tribes to discuss what,if uny, religious significances areattached to the taking, importing, orpossessing of marine mammals.
At the same time we will discusscertificates of inclusion issued underthe Marine Mammal ProtectionAct and religious and culturalpractices,
if any, associated with the actof fishing.We will advise you as soonas these meetingshave been concluded.

Donald R /3osonAttachment


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERGeNational Oceania and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine riehiariecServiceP.0. Box 1668, Juni au,. Aktiska99802

Dots:April 19, 1979

To:Fx3 – Winfied H.Mei.A.pnljt_fift 1;)
From:FAKHarry..Rietzesublct:American Indian Religious Freedom Act

(Reference Mr. Meibohm’s memo dated April 6, 1979)

0160/ to Attn. at

We have reviewed the provisions of the subject Act and agree with thestatement in your,,above referenced memo that NMFS has dealt in areason-.
able and effectivelRarttr with these matters in those cases in whichthey have arisen and\t we will continue to do so in the future.
Members of your immediate staff are familiar with our programs in Alaskaand we assume they will furnish any information the task force mightrequire.Regional personnel are available to provide specific infor-
mation to the Central Office staff.


National Oceanic arta pis trou*ptiairIftee vvv..

Duval Building.9450 Koger BoulevardSt. Petersburg, Florida33702

April 17, 1979FSE2/CMF

TO:Winfred H.MeibohJ40

Executive Director, NMFS,
Washington, D.C., Fx3


William H. Stevenson

rlronlionarDirector, FSE

SUBJECT:American Iildian ReliiiousFreedom Act

This is in response to your memoof April 6, 1979requesting ourcomments on thepotential or actual impactof subject Act onactivitiesin this region.We foresee little or noimpact on Indian religiousfreedomresulting from the lawsadministered and enforced bythe Southeast Region.
To the best of ourknowledge only one AmericanIndian has been involvedinany of ourenforcement cases (animport seizure) which was notrelated toreligious articles oractivities.Habitat ‘protection programshave notaffected any IndianReservations to date but wewill be alert to anyIndianreligious considerationsin the future.


APR2 3’ic379



United States Department of the Interior



1895 Phoenix BoulevardAtlanta, Georgia30349


The HonorableForrest J. GerardAssistant Secretary of InteriorWashington, D. C.20240

Dear Mr. Gerard:

This is in response to the task force meeting of April 2, 1979relatingto the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (PL 95-341). Atthis meeting, as you will recall, it was requested that Federal agencieswhich may be impacting Native American religious freedomsubmit a reporton the policies which they feel impact these freedoms.

As desigrated representative of Interagency Archeological Services, Iamreporting the steps which this agency has undertakento implement thisAct.

The policy of Interagency Archeological Services has always beento pro-
tect any archeological resource threatened by construction activity.
Although it is c-ar eesire to leave theseresources in the ground undis-
turbed, it .2.s often necessary to excavate them when there is.no othermethod available to prevent their loss.

It is through these excavations that Interagency Archeological Servicesmay be impacting the religiour freedoms of the Native Americans of theUnited States, primarily through the disturbance ofaboriginal burialsand their associated grave offerings.

In order to provide a mlisure of consistency inthe treatment of humanremains, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service–ofwhichInteragency Archeological Services is a branch–has developeda policydelimiting guidelines on the disposition of humanremains.This policystates:

Where archeological investigations conducted by HCRSas an authorizedFederal Undertaking disturbs markedor identified deliberate inter-
ments of human remains, all prudent and feasible efforts willbemade to identify and locate those whocan demonstrate direct kin-
ship with or descent from those interred individuals.The Depart-
mental Consulting Archeologist, in consultationwith those mostclosely related members, will determine within45 days the properdisposition of those remains. No remainswill be reinterred untilafter appropriate documentation and studyare completed.


This section of the po4.icyaddresses itself to those tribes of whichthere is an historical record, orwhere there is a knowledge ofindi-
viduals in the area about the grave(s)discovered.In this way, thebones of relatives of living peoplewill not be stored in a museum oreducational institution.

lf there are no individualswho can demonstratedirect kinshtp for aburial or group of burials, yetthere is demonstratableethnix affinityto specific living groupsof Native Americans,”… all prudent and fea-
eible efforts will be made toseek out traditionalspiritual leaders,
ciders or spokesmen for these groups.The Departmental ConsultingArcheologist, in consultation withthese leaders, will make adecisionwithin 45 days concerning the properdisposition of the remains.”
Again, no remains will bereinterred until after appropriatedocumen-
tation and study are completed.

In the event that theosteological remains “cannot beidentified with cspecific contemporary ethnic orNative American group, theintereste ofa particular group arenot applicable, butthe agency or institutioncharged with the care or custodyof the colleetion shallcontinue tomaintain the collection withresponsible aud sensitiveattitudes inkeeping with the dignity and respectto be accorded toall exhumed humanskeletal remains.”

The policy further statesthat the Federal agencyresponsible forfunding the archeological data recoveryprograms which recovertheinterred human remains willbear the necessary expensesfor properdisposition of these remains.

The concern for thereligious practices of NativeAmericans and otherethnic groups isdemonstrated through theimplementation of thispolicy,
as it shows a concernfor those individuals who aredescendants of theinterred individuals.A conscious effort isbeing required to contactall those whose religiouspractices are involved,instead of allowingthe excavation and storageof individuals who may berelated to livingethnic groups.The burial policy istruly nondiscriminatingtoward anyethnic group.No differentation is madebetween Native Americans,Afro-
Americans, or Anglo-Saxons(“whites”).If the human remains canbeidentified to any specificethnic group, they willbe reinterred afterthe skeletal material arestudied.

It is the disturbanceof these interments,however, which is themajorconcern of manyNative American groupsthroughout the United States.
Many times these burials arediscovered through constructionactivities(by being unearthed with powermachinery).Other times they may appearas darker areasin the ground which turn out tobe burial pits insteadof the storage pits or trashpits they were originallythought to be.
Andin other instances, theburial pit may be recognizedfrom thebeginning.


The excavation of thesL burials provides information about the religiouspractices, dietary practices, and physical structure of the humangroupsof the past, as well as other information.The groups who are stillpresent can benefit from the scientific study of the burials throughanincreased awareness of their history and social customs.This informationis lost when a burial is encountered by a “pothunter” (a, person who digsarcheological sites for the artifacts found in them).

For comparison purposes, the scientific methods employed by the profes-
sional archeologist in the excavation of a burial (dental picks, brushesand other small tools) insures that nearly every bit of information thatis present is recovered.A pothunter, in his quest for the burial goodswhich are often found with an interment, rarelycares about the bones ofthe burial, and even more rarely about the historical, societal,orcultural information present.Usually any bones encountered are left inthe pile of dirt dug out of the grave–any reburialsare either acCi-
dental or an attempt to prevent the discovery of the site by otherpot-
hunters or by a qualified archeologist.

As shown above, the excavation of aboriginal burials is important inproviding various classes of information to the general and scientificcommunities.And, as an attempt to gain an understanding of NativeAmerican concerns about this issue, the Interagency ArcheologicalServices office in Atlanta, Georgia, has sent copies ofthis policy toNative Americans asking for responses, comments, and questions about thepolicy. Feedback has been negligible at this point, although it is hopedthat concerns will be made known through time.

In summary, then, it may be stated that IAS is attemptingto change thepolicy of total curation of any human remains thatmay be recoveredthrough archeological investigations to a policy where there isconcern

for the Native people of the United States, regardless of theirorigin.

United States Departmentof the Interior



Opening Remarks-Assistant Secretary – IndianAffairsForrest J. Gerard

Overview-Status Report – SpecialAssistant to the

Assistant Secretary – IndianAffairsSuzan Shown Rarjo

Introduction-Task Force Members andProject RepresentativesStatus Report from TaskForce MembersStatus Report fromProject RepresentativesDiscussion – Report Preparation

1.Consultation2.Public participation3.Task Groups4.Field Meetings5.Schedule

6.Deadlines for Draft Report


Waskoksion. D. C. 20425

Mr”. 3Honorable Forrest J. GerardAssistant Secretary for IndianAffairsDepartment of the InteriorWashington, D.C.20240

Dear Mr. Gerard;

Thank you for your letter of March 5, 1979, concerning the American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978.Iam pleasedto serve as the U.S. Comissionon Civil Rights representative to the Task Force pceparing the report tobe submitted to the Congress under P.L. 95-341.

-AlthOUgh the Cteuistion’is-protably not anAgendy-which AdMinisters ccenforces federal laws, regulation or pcaicies, it is an agency with authorityto study issues of religious discrimination, and to make recommendationsconcerning such issues to the President and Congress.

In order to comply with the spirit cf the work of the Task Force I haveenclosed a brief outline ct the functicas of this agency which haveanimpact on American Indian Religious Freedom issues.


Paul AlexandeAssistant General Counsel



A Functional Descriptionof theU.S. Commission on CivilRightsFor the Task Force onAmerican Indian ReligiousFreedom

The U.S. Cemmission onCivil Rights is established as afactfindingagency within theExecutive Branch.It is authorized by theCivil RightsAct of 1957, as amended,to study and oollectinformation concerning legaldevelopments constitutingdiscrimination or denials ofequal protectionof the laws under theConstitution because of race, color,religion, sex,
age, handicap ornational origin, or in theadMinistration of justice.

The Cormission also hasauthority to appraise the lawsand policies ofthe Federal Government,and to serve as a nationalclearinghouse forinformation with respect to thesedenials of equal protectionof the lawor discrimination.In addition, theCommission has jurisdiction toinvesti-
gate allegations ofvoting rights deprivationsbased on these grounds.

Agency FunctionsEmployments.

The Federal Employees F2exibleand Compressed librk Schedules Actof1978 rewires agencles to makereasonable accommodations to thereligiousneeds of its employees.The Commission has recentlyamended its attendanceregulations to allow employees toobeerve religious obligationsduring thenormal work day and to make qp thetime outside the normal work schedule.
This provision does not pertain to anyparticular denamination, andwouldapplyto krerican

Indian religious observances aswell as to others.


The Agency has a Complaints Office for the purpose of, referring civilrights complaints to agencies which have authority to take appropriate actions.
There is a separate file for records of religiausdiscrimination complaints,
but these have not been categorized by denomination.In the future, thereligion involved in the complaint will be noted, and will be traceable shouldthe need arise.

Cmplaintz lodged with regional office staff are routinely forwarded tothe Washington, D.C. Office.On occasion, staff will be in a position to providemore immediate assistance, and will do so on an ingormal basis.For example,
some regional office staff have assisted withccriolairlts involving interferancewith Indian religious observances in prisions.
projects.Based on our revieo of pa:A projects, and current paanning process therehave been no projects nor are any currently contemplated designed-to specificallyaddress religious discrimination againzt American Indians.There will, howeverbe a consultation sponsored by the COmmission in April 1979 to learn more about

the nature and extent cd religious discrimination.. A consultation is a toolused by the Commission to asseMblepersons knaoledgeable in a specific civilrights area and to hear their viewsand suggestions.It is expected that theconsultation will provide a.basis for future CamisSion studies or perhapshearings on the sUbject of religious discrimination.There will be toopresentations at the consultation on the isPae of religious discrimination

against American Indians.

Clearirlhouse Functions

a Is3

*The Commission’ statute authorizes the agency to act as aclearinghousefor civil rights information.Among the vehicles currently used to performthis f Tcrtion are the Civil Rights ClearinghouseLibrary located at theCommission’s headquarters, the Civil Rights Digest(a quarterly magazine)
and Clearinghouse reports issued by the Agency onvarious civil rights issues.
The Commission clearly has the statutory authority to useall of these neansto communicate to the public facts and issuesinvelving religious discriminationagainst American Indians.To date, the only clearinghousepublication utichhas dealt with American Indian religiousfreedom is the American IndianCivilRights Hand000k.This publication, which is now beingupdated, is intended asa general guide to Federal civilrights laws and their applicability toIndianpeople living on and off reservations.

Publication of articlesordocuments specifically dealing with the issueof religious discrimination against Indians could be auseful contribution ofthis Commission.Suggestions by the Task Force involving Indianreligious’issues wculd be consideredby

this agency for publication asappropriate.

DOI Form AD.! OAII 2.1


DATEMarch 30, 1979rnernorandum-

REPLY TOKathryn Harris TijerinaATTN OFSpecialist for IndianAf airs/IR


Religious Freedom forAmerican Indians

To.Susan Harjo

Special Assistant tothe Assistant Secretary

Bureau of IndianAffairs/DOI

The attached is ourinitial effort for reviewand submissionto the Inter-agencyTask Force on.IndianReligious Freedom.



For purposes of theInter-agency Task Force onIndianReligious Freldom, the Department of Energyhas identifiedthe protection of sacredsites as a potential problem areaduring the evaluation ofprocedures required in theAmericanIndian Relitgious Freedom Act,Public Law 95-341, 42 U.S.C.§1996.
To avoid in a systematic mannerfuture religious infringements,
the Departmept.isconsidering as a possible approach thefol-
lowing processe.either as aregulation or as an internalissuance.

The Department of Energyis interested in seeingthatthe free exercise ofreligion is protectedefficiently withoutsetting up an unnecessarilycumbersome mechanism.Therefore,
it seems likely thatthe process will beintegrated into theenvironmental review processwhich is already established,
perhaps/as part of theEnvironmental Impact Statement.Theprocess wouldlikely apply to bothsubstantial inlrolvementby DOE or directauthority for DOE’s proposedactivity whichaffects any specific sitefor which an environmentalreviewis required.

Before the Departmept ofEnergy would proceedwith itsproposed activity aninvestigation would be made toascertainif the site at issue isrelated to the religiousrites orceremonies or is a sacred siteof any traditional religionwhich is currently beingsincerely practiced by anyAmericanIndian, Eskimo, Aleut and NativeHawaiian.


– 2 –

If the investigationfinds indications thatthesq4/
is currently a subjectof religious practices,then thenative traditional religiousleaders shall be consultedinorder to determine whetherthe pepartment’sproposed actionwould infringe on the freeexercise of religionin any wayand to gain an understandingof any impact onthe NativeAmerican traditionalreligions.We foresee thatthe mostdifficult issue for the Departmentwill be whether itsproposed alteration of asite would deny access toa sacredsite or otherwiseinfringe on the free.exercise of religion.

If consultation indicatesthat the4roposedDepartmOntIaction may infringe on thefree exercise ofreligion, trienalternate plans will beprepared with additionalconsults-
tion’with the native traditionalreligious leaders.Alter-.
.nate. plans whichdo not infringe cnthe free exerciseofreligion will be examined todetermine whether theyadequatelymeet the goals ofthe Department of Energyfor the site.

The DOE will makeall delibccateeffort to adopt a courseof action consistentwith the policyenunciatedin\V,.L. 95-341.
We are very awareof,the rulings of’theUnited States SupremeCourt that the Federalgovernment may notabridge the freeexercise of religion unlessthere is a compellinggovernmentalinterest at stake.


If no alternative isfeasible and DOE finds upon con-
sultation that its proposed actionwould deny the freeexercise of religion, then thedifficult question must beasked, how crucial is the project.To safeguard againsttheanswer being made bythe program people mostintimately in-
volved in the project, the findingwill be made within theenvironmental review, as previouslynoted.Within the DOEthe Assistant Secretaryfor Environment is structurallyseparate from the major programoffices.

If the DOE’s proposedaction is deemed to be compellingand must proceed, then thefindings and justificationwouldbe reviewed by the IRSecretariat which includes theIndianAffairs Office.Then the findings andjustifications, ac-
companied by the Intergovernmentaland Institutional Relationsreport, will be forwardedto the Secretary forhis writtenapproval before a final actionis taken.

Upon the Secretary’sfinal approval notice will begiven.
The findings andjustification will be publishedand com-
municated to the nativetraditional religious leaders or

other concerned parties.



(Equal Opportunity)

WASHINGTON, O. C. 203012’PPPtcrn

The Honorable Cecil. B. AndrusSecretary of the InteriorU.S. vepart:ment, of the InteriorOffice of the SecretaryWashington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Andrus:

This responds to your memorandum of January26, 1979, concerningimplementation of the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of1978 (P.L. 95-341).

The Department of Defense has completeda department-wide surveyof all programs, policies, regulations,etc., in an effort todetermine which, if any, adverikely affetthe ability of NativeAmericans to exercise their religiouscultural rights and practices.
We have identified only two items whichalfect, or which may affect,
the ability of Native Americans to exercisetheir religious rights:

(a)The Department of the Navy currentlyrestricts accessto two military installations (ChinaLake, California and a smallisland 25 miles off the coast of Maui,Hawaii) which are claimedto be religious sites by American Indiansand Native Hawaiians,
respectively.In both instances, the Departmentof the Navy hasbeen working aggressively withrepresentatives from each groupto reach a solution.The Navy uses these designatedareas formissile and bomb impactareas.

(b)The Department of the ArmyPamphlet No. 165-13, “ReligiousRequirements and Practices,” identifiesthe use of peyote by theNative American Church in theirreligious practices.The use ofpeyc,te, a consciousness alteringsubstance, is contrary to ArmedForces regulations relating to drugsand alcohol.

Mr. Manuel Oliverez of thisoffice will represent the DepartmentOf Defense on the InteragencyTask Force to Prepare the Reportto the Congress on Implementation ofthe American Religious

Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341).


We wIll continue toreview and monitor futureregulations, etc.,
of this department to insure compliancewith P.L. 95-341.


M. Kathleen Carp nter

Deputy Assistant Secretary


TOSecretary of the Int

FRCWAlan JabbourDirector, Amerolklife Center


SUBJECT :Internal Review and Recommendatims Pertaining to Implementationofthe American Indian ReligiouJ Freedom Art.of 1978.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 isvery muchin accord with the stated purposes of the American FolklifePreservationAct of 1976 (P.L. 94-201) to “preserve and present American folklife.”
Native Americans are a very important element in American folklife,andthey have contributed greatly to the cultural richness ofthe Nation.

The American Folklife Center firmly believes that the religiousrights and cultural integrity of Native Americansare in need of preserva-
tion.None of the provisions of the Center’s enabling legislation inter-
feres with the intended purpose of the American Indian ReligiousFreedomAct.In fact, our authority directs us to assist in the accomplishnentof the purposes of thls declaration, within existingpersonnel and financialresources of the Centir at the Library of Congress.

It is our view and that of the folklife community that NativeAmericans be encouraged and assisted in preserving their religiousandtribal beliefs and customs for present and future generations.One usefUlapproach is through orderly and thorough documentationof these traditions.

The Center is anxious to encourage the preservation of thesetraditions primarily at the local level and in regionalor national archiveswhen consistent with the policies of tribal leaders.The Library of Cor7resswith the financial assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairsis undertakinga major project to transfer approximately 3,000 wax cylinder recordings tomagnetic tape as part of an effort to preserve these recordings whichcontainin large part materials concerning Native American traditions.The cylindersare the property of the Library, the Smithsonian, and the Rational Archives.
When the duplication is completed, the collection villbe maintained by theLibrary and, in addition, copies will be madeavailable to appropriate tribalinstitutions.






The HonorableForrest J. GerardAssistant Secretary of InteriorWashington, D. C.20240

Dear Mr. Gerard:


WU 10

This is in response to Secretary Andrus’ memorandum of January 26,1979, regarding implementation of the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 and your letter of March 5, 1979, on the samesubject..

As the designated representative to the Interagency Task Forcefrom the Treasury Department, United States Customs Service, I amreporting the steps which the Customs Service has undertaken toimplement the Act since it was signed into law by President Carter onAugust 11, 1978.

On September 15, 1978, the Commissioner of Oustoms, Robert E.
Chasen, issued a policy statement entitled “Policy to Protect andPreserve American Indian Religious Freedom.”The policy statementalso transmitted a copy of the Joint Resolution signed by thePresident together with the press release of the White Rouse on thesubject.A copy of that policy statement is enclosed for yourinformation and ready reference.

In that policy statement, the Commissioner directed all PortDirectors, District Directors snd Supervisory Customs Inspectors, whohave Customs officers working under their supervision who are respons-
ible for examining and clearing articles accompanying American Indianscrossing our land borders, to make certain that Customsofficers workingunder their supervision are fully aware of this Federal policy of pro-
tecting and preserving for American Indians their inherent right tobelieve,and practice their traditional religion.They are instructedto institute measures to assure that ‘such Customs officers aremadeaware (or more aware) of the traditional Indian beliefs andpracticesin order to insure that, in the course of their examination forCustomspurposes, they treat more sensitively the variousarticles that areused by American Indians in the exercise of their religious andcultural beliefs.


To the extent that the insensitivity Which has sometimesledto embarrassment and frustration on thepart of American Indians istraceable to a lack of understandingr knowledge of these matterson the part of soMe of our Customs officers, I believe thatthisdirective of the Commissioner of Customswill go a long way towardresolving that problem for the future.

The policy statement also bringsto the attention of Customsofficers that there has been steblishedmot pply a Customs IndianAffairs Committee but alsoan Interagency Task Force which willattempt to identify and define problemareas more precisely, toidentify and perhaps cataloguethe various articles and objectswhich have religious significanceto the respective Indian tribes,
and to have policies and proceduresreevaluated in consultationwith Native traditional religious leadersin order to determinewhat changes could or should be made inorder to protect andpreserve Native American Indian religious cultural rights andpractices.

We believe that the Interagency Task Forcecan play a mostsignificant role in assisting the Customs Serviceto perfectadditional procedures to implement the American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act.If, for example, we were toprepare an appropriateguidebook or manual forour Customs officers concerning the subjectof sensitive treatment or handling of sacred articlesand medicinebundles in the course of Cuetams examintion, it wouldbe necessaryfor us to identify such objects, et least ina general manner.Atthe same time, we understand that certain Native trnditionalreligious leaders might be seriously offended ifwe were to usephotographs of sacred articles or medicine bundles for suchpurpose.On the other hand,it is conceivable that if approachedand presented properly, the Native traditional religious leadersmight consent to the use of some representative photographsorillustrations if they fully understand the need andpurpose towhich they will bc put.In this regard, the task force could serveas an intermediary between Customs and such traditional leaders inan effort to obtain their coneent.

Furthermore, to assist us in informing Customs officersof thevarious kinds of natural objece whichheve a religious purpose andsignificance to Native Americans,we would like to compile ascomplete a listing of such articlesas possible.A partial list ofIndian Religious Articles was admitted intothe record mede at the

hdarings on the Joint Resolution before the UnitedStates Senate

Select Committee on Indian Affairs onFebruary 24 and 27, 1978.A copyis enclosed for your information andready reference.We would like tosubmit this list to the Native traditionalleaders for their review andcomment, together with a requestthat they add to that list anyarticles which they believe should beincluded.Perhaps the task forcecould also serve as the intermediarywith the Native traditionalleaders for such pur?ose.We would be able to provide the taskforcewith reprints of the list for distribution tothe traditional leaders.

As indicated in the policy statement issuedby CommissionerChasen, a CUstoms-Committee on American IndianAffairs has beenestablished under the Chairmanship of AlbertC. Bergesen, RegionalCommissioner for the Los Angeles Region./ also serve on thatCommittee as its legal advisor and Washingtonrepresentative.Othermembers represent each of the Customsregions Where Indians cross theland borders, i.e., Boston, Chicago,San Francisco, Los Angeles andRoyston.The names of the Committee members,their addresses and a mapreflectia-/ the geographical alignmeat of our regional structureis-etielosed.

The first meeting of the Committee wasorganizational in naturc.
It was held in Albuquerque, NewMexico, on July 13, 2978, whererepresentatAyes of the American IndianLaw Center and the NativeAmerican Rights Fund provided an excellentbackground briefing to thecommittee.It was decided that futuremeetings of the Committee shouldbe held in different sectionsof the country so that as manytribalreprsentatives as possible wouldhave an opportunity to surface localproblems they may be having withCustoms officers upon crossing theborder.

The second meeting of the Customscommittee was held inBurlington, Vermont, on November29 and 30, 1978.Twenty-six Indianparticipants attended togetherwith the local Associate RegionalCommipsioner of the Immigration andNaturalization Service and tworepresentatives from the Canadian Departmentof Revenue — the Canadiancounterpart of the U.S.Customs Service.Alist of the guestparticipants is enclosed for yourinformation.


The third meeting of the Customs Committeewas held in Tucson,
Arizona, on February 13 and 14, 1979.Sixty-seven Indian repre-
sentatives participated together with representativesfrom theImmigration and Naturalization Service, Department ofAgriculture,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, American Indian LawCenter, Native AmericanRights Fund, and the offices of Senator BarryGoldwatet and CongressmanMorris Udall.When a typewriten list of attendees is available,Iwill forward it for your information.

A fourth meetine of the Committee ispresently scheduled formid-June 1979 In Great Falls, Montana.The following meeting.is tobe held at a yet-to-be-determined site somewherein the mid-West nearthe United States-Canadian border.

Each of the regional meetings held to date hasbeen veryproductive, particularly insofar as having servedas a catalyst forthe expression of apparently long-held grievanceson the part of therespective Indian tribes or bands represented.A dialogue orcommunications link has been established with dedicated/ndianrepresentatives who have brought to our attention certain problenswhich should be addressed and, hopefully,.resolved.,Sometimes theproblem was merely a lack of uniformity in the application ofestablished rules and procedureson the part of Cuotoms officersin a particular port of entry.Wherever this was brought to ourattention, steps were taken to correet the matter and toassureuniformity in the future.Sometimes the problem stemmed fromanunawareness on the part of some Indians of the full extent Of theirrights as returning residents to bring articles with them intotheUnited States or that they could register valuable personalpossessions with Customs before leaving the United States in ordertoavoid any hassle or possible assessment of Customs dutyon theirreturn.

In this regard, we had a news release prepared whichhighlightsthe daily and monthly entitlements to exemptions frompayment of dutyand,similar rights which would be of particular interestto residentswholive at or near the border andcross info Canada or Mexico on afrequent or even daily basis.Me diaseminatee copies of this newsrelease at the Tucson meeting with the hope that it mightbepublished in tribal or other newspapers thatare circulated amongstIndians.We could make additional copies available fora widerdistribution if the task force has access toan mailing list of

publishers of such newspapers.

At each of the regionalmeetings, a local Customsrepresentativewas designated as acontact point available to!ndian representativeswhenever a problem withCustoms officers arises inthat particularborder area.As noted earlier, webelieve that most problems thathave bee$ expressed to date canbe’resolved locally.In the event itcan not beresolved at that level then itwill, of course, beelevated to an appropriatepolicy-making level for resolution.

Only two problems have surfaced sofar Which have not been ableto be completelyresolved at the local level.One involves themanner and extentof examination of medicinebundles and sacredarticles which, as notedabove, is being addressed etthe nationallevel.The other involves thelong-held grievance ofIndians on bothsides of the UnitedStates-Canadian border that rightsgiven themunder the Jay Treaty to crossand recross the borderfreely and tocarry personalgoods duty free acrosssuch borders have beenunlawfully abrogated.This subject was discussedat some length atboth the Burlington andTucson meetings.The Indian representativesmost directlyconcerned have expressedthe hope that thisparticularsubject will be includedin the report to thePresident, togetherwith a recommendationthat appropriate correctivelegislation torestore suchrights be enacted.

If you have anyquestions concerning anyof the foregoing Iwillbe happy to respond.I can be reached bytelephone at 566-5476.Ilook forward to seeing youat the upcomingmeeting of the taskforceon April2, 1979.

Sincerely yours,


haddeus Rojek



February 26, 1979

The Honorable Cecil D. AndrusSecretaryU.S. Department of the InteriorWashington, D.C. 20240

Dear Mr. Andrus:

Your letter of January 26, 1979 regarding theformation of a task force to prepare the Rcport toCongress on Implementation of the American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341) has beenassigned to this office for reply.


We are in the process of coordinating evaluationsand internal reviews at the Department of Housing andUrban Development, and the preparation of recommendationswill be completed and mailed to you no later thanMarch 12, 1979.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a substantivecontribution to the President’s policy which willassure religious freedom for all Americans.

incerely yours,

ElPirmaeIrvin Santiagg:66Special Assistant-to the Secretary

for Indian and Alaska Native Programs

United States Departmentof the Interior



All Federal Departments, Agencies61 Instrumentalities

Secretary of the InceriorTask Force to Prepare the Report tothe Congress onImplementation of the American IndianReligious FreedomAct of 1978 (P.L.95-341)

The American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978 setsforth thepolicy of the Pnited States to protectand preserve the inherentright of American Indian,Eskimo, Aleut and Native Hawaiianpeopleto believe, expressand exercise their traditionalreligions.

The Act calls for an evaluationof the Federal agencies’policiesand procedures, as theyaffect the religious rightsand culturalintegrity of Native Americans, andrequires that the Presidentreport the agencies’findings and recommendations tothe Congress inAugust of this year.The preparation of this reportaccords us theopportunity to rethink antiquatedpolicies, to develop uniformapproaches and procedures,and to measure existing practicesagainstpractical experience.

Specifically, the Act mandates that:1) the Federal departments,
agencies and other instrumentalitiesresponsible for administeringrelevant laws evaluate theirpolicies and procedures, inorder todetermine appropriate changes necessary toprotect and preserveNative American religiouscultural rights and practices;2) theevaluation be conducted inconsultition with Native-traditionalreligious leaders; and 3) the President:wort to the Congress theresults of the evaluation,including any changes which weremade in’administrative policies and procedures,and any recommendations forlegislative action, within twelvemonths after approval.

Upon signing S.J. Res. 102into law, tht President directedthat “theSecretary of the Interiorestablish a task force comprised ofrepresentatives of the appropriateFederal agencies (to) prepare thereport to the Congressrequired by this Resolution, inconsultationwith Native leaders.”The report will be based uponthe internalreviews of the appropriate agenciesand the work of the Task Forcewill be undertaken in consultationwith Native religious and tribal



If any office within your jurisdictionfalls within the category ofappropriate agencies, 1 am requesting that:

1.The attached form be returned no laterthan FebruaryAL

12, 1979, along with any questions you mayhave regardirr.
the mandate or work of the Task Force(all questionswill be answered upon receipt of form)

2.The internal reviews and recommendations’becompletedand sent to me no later than March 12,1979

3.The policy-level designee(s) be available for aTaskForce meeting on March 26, 479..

I look forward to working with the TaskForce on the report to theCongress.Thank you for your cooperation in this importanteffort.

S.etary of theInterior



United States Departmentof the Interior






name of department, agency orinstrumentality)
does not have policies, procedures,guidelines, rules, regulationsor statutory authorizationrelevant to American Indians,AlaskaNatives or Native Hawaiians, withinthe context cd P.L. 95-341.


(name or department, agency orinstrumentality)
is an appropriate Federal entitywith policies, procedures,
guidelines, rules:regulations orstatutory authority relevantto,American Indians, Alaska Natives orNative Hawaiians, withinthe context of P.L. 95-341.

3.The following person(s) will serve asthe policy-level designee(s)

on the Task Force toreview government-wide recommendationsandto plan for preparation of theReport to the Congress on Implemen-
tation of the American Indian ReligiousFreadcm Act of 1978.


rN.United States.Department ofthe Interior




Completion and eeceiptof Task Forcedesignation forms

Completion and receipt ofall internalreviews, recommendationsand relatedmaterial

Digest of all reviews and recommenda-
tions and overview report to TaskForce Members

Meeting of Task Force to planforpreparation of draft reportand tomeet with Native tradition.al religiousleaders

Preparation of draft report anddis-
tribution to Task Force Members forreview and comment

February 12, 1979

March 12, 1979March 12-21, 1979

March 26, 1979March 27- April 30, 1979

Meeting of Task Forceto review draftreportMay 7, 1979

Draft report circulated forreveiw andcomment by Native traditional religiousleaders and Indian triballeaders

Task Force meetingto prepare finalreport, based upon consultationandreviews, for submittal to thePresident

Report submitted to thePresident

Report submitted to theCongress

May 21, 1979

June 25, 1979July 16, 1979

August 10, 1979

&Fendix C

Key to Tablesof Issues Raised inConsultation

Examples of SpecificProblems in the Useof FederalLands (1 – 22)

Examples of SpecificProblems Relating toCemeteries(1 – 7)

Examples of SpecificPrdblems Relating toSacredObjects (1 – 7)

Examples ct SpecificPrdblems Rslating toBorderCrossings (1 – 61

Examples of SpecificPrdblems Relating toMuseums(1 – 3)

Examples of SpecificProblems Relating toCeremoniesand TraditionalRites (1 – 13)

List and Summary ofWritten Submissionsfor the Record

Memorandum, /nteriorAssistant Secretary forIndian Affairs,
Scheduled Consultations,May 25, 1979

Nbtice, Schedule ofReligious FreedomConsultations,
May 28, 1979

Nbtice of Consultation,Cheyenne RiverSwiftbird Project,

Cheyenne River SiouxReservation, South Eakuta,
June 7-8, 1979

hbtice of Consultation,Minnesota ChippewaTribal Chambers,
Cass Lake, Minnesota,June 11-12, 1979

Memorandum, NationalPark gervice, StaffArdhaeologist’sReport ct Cass 144,Consultation, July 12,1979

Nbtice of Consultation,Hcaolulu, Hawaii: June 13,1979

Memorandum, NationalPark Service, HawaiiState Director’sReport of HawaiiConsultation, July 11, 1979


Notice of Consultation, Chief Joseph CulturalCenter,

COnfederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
Nespelem, Washingtca, June 14-15, 1979

Memorandum, Seattle Naval Legal Services Mice,Reportof Colville Consultation, July 3, 1979

Memorandum, Olympia Fish and Wildlife ServiceArea Cffice,
Report ct Colville Consultation, June 28,1979

Memorandum, National Park Service, StaffArchaeologist’sReport of Colville Consultation, July 18, 1979

Notice of Consultation, U.S.Customs Service Ccandttee onIndian Affairs, Great Falls,Mcatana, June 19-20, 1979

hbtice of Consultation, Pueblo of Zuni,Zuni, New Mexico,

June 22-23, 1979…-

Memorandum, National Park Service, StaffArchaeologist’sReport of Zuni Ccasultation, July 13,1979

NOtice of Ccnsultation, Universityof ONlahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma, June 26-27, 1979

Notice of Consultation, Qualla CivicCenter, Eastern Band of

Cherokee Indians- Qualla Boundary, Cherokee, NorthCarolina, June 29, 197S

Memorandum, National Park Service, GreatSmoky Mountains

Superintendent’s Report of CherokeeConsultation,
June 29, 1979

Notice of Ccnsultation, Reno-SparksTribal Facilities Building,
Reno, Nevada, June 30, 1979

Memorandum, National Park Service,Western Regional

Archaeologist’s Report of Reno CcasultationJuly 24, 1979

Memorandum, Juneau Area Office,Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Area Director’s Report of Alaska Consultation(July 12, 1979), July 19, 1979

Survey to Native Americanson P.L. 95-341 Implementation,

tARF-AILC Religicus Freedan Project,

September 14, 1978






Alaska, July 12, 1979r…Colville RialrViltiOnoNeoplasm, Washington, June14-15, 1979

GGreat Palls, Montana,June 19-20, 1979HHonolulu, Hawaii,June 13, 197914 .,. Cass Lake,
Minnesota, June 11-12, 1979NNorman, Oklahoma, June26, 1979O … Wien, Oklahoma,Jima 27, 19792…Cherokee, North Carolina,June 29, 1979RRenb-Sparks, Neubia, June30, 1979SEiwiftbird, Scuth Dakota,June 7-8, 1979… Zuni,Naw Mexico, June22-23, 1979

limber following keylettier refers to pageof consultationtro.xript.
MCUMENTATIONV … WrittenSubmittalsNumber Sollosing keyletter refers to documentindex briber.


Caribou Sand

AthahascanAlaska NativeAlaska Nat iveAlaska Nat iveAladka Native

Barrow, AlaskaEskimo

Beaufort Sas,lakiso



successful bmplementationofP.L. 95-341 requires permanentconsultative mechanism

religion endangered by depletion,
theft of natural resources

religion has natural resource base,
which is threatened

la,priority ct subsiatance use in6-2 land allocations, 1ESZAlaplemintat ion

oebin threatened by park expansionproposal – UPS

deo project way harm traditionalreligion and culture (ACE)

federally-granted samments on Nativeland damage subsistancevagetationAEHAI)

MOM land with sacred site subjecttl taxation

NM regulations prohibit traditionalregulations under reviewhousingi ignore cultveral values indesign

absling and caribou hunting reg-
ulations violate traditionalrequirements ()AA/PW3)

off -.hors drilling disrupts whale

migratioca (cou








LAM (2)
IOCATICIVAGREfeCUPWorth Slop,EskimoAlaska



IMsistrial pollution threatenssubvistence

animals will vanish if hunting notcarefully conducted accceding totradition



AlaskaEskimolack of scams 0 beluga whale*,As73to ugruk (NWFS/NOWDalii

Alaskabeim,convicted for taking moose forin litigationAa76oersmonial purposes

AlaskaEikisoregulation of ritual hunting andAsS6fishing (FAS/HOAA)

AlaskaAlaska Nativefish 6 oame regulations viola44Aall2Native custom

CaliforniaPomotaboo thrown off the lend41114

1…::CalitorniaPe=regulations hinder traditionalAs114subsistsnos (FAS)

CaliforniaPaoindustrial pollution thrastans(41.15%stir, fish

Point Conception, ChumashLNG terminal on sacred siteAa116CaliforniaDs10

Worth Slope,’EskimoNational Petroleum Reserve, vastAs120Alaskaareas off-limits, with Inupiattraditional fishing camps, other uses

TAND (3)
LOCATICWISURE(GraMPADOLDISMMREFAnaktuvult Pass,Eskimohad to resort to mining powar tokWAlaskaoverride Stai peredt for maintenancecamps an sacred site

AlaskaEskimospring utaling oetemony cancelledDIC action ((Pi closableAs122by bodmad whale moratoriumexception)Da13,16

Mt. Morinley,Athsbascanreturn mountain and park to itsA1126Alaskaoriginal name, Denali

OklahomaRiowslack of access to sites inaccess by PAS permit11114Wichita National Wildlift Asfuge

Pt. Sill,nomlack of access to sites, MedicineNs14,136CAlahcsaSluff usad as Amy training IlrO4

Tem*Mowspeyote lands in private ownershipVa37

of oil companies, ranchers,
dealers, land cloud to Indianharvesting

TexasAimsselling peyote to hippiesDEA sonitceing11s37

scAlester. AmmoAldkapoocan’t take dear because of Army11;45Depot, Okla.adherence to state game leesunder 10 USC 2671

CklahomeEickapoogathering moomosso by FMB end VS pcxmit11:49

TOMASUteWald laws don’t extend toA:120

private peyote fields

Mountains, Okla. Caddo

Wichita WARWichita.


Ut ah


OklahomaOklahomaOklahomaOklahomaBear Butte,
South Dakota




MID (5)



Newmax i toOklahoma

OklahomaOklahoeaOklahomaNow MilezialNew MexicoNew MexicoNevadaYcemai teNat tonal Park



CheyenneIslets PuebloIslets PueblaIsleta Puablo


nations interfered withreligious retreat

roundup of buffalo, doer, elEnot offered to Indians

lack of amass to gatheringsites in PS Lands

access to sites notprotected,
complaints sworn by non-IndianseainstOtis

la& of acmes to sites

Stii abandonment at tribal townsystem

la& of acmes bp private landtor hunting, gathering

having to pay private landownersfor usa of tribal grounds

gathering tarts on private landgathering heron featherslock of scams bp sits, need cfprotection from recreational uses,
commercial development

PROBLEMS?iiRriiatoction for sacred sitas andoarempnial grounds, and possessionof Bear Putte, SD

hunting and gathering cn foulerreservation land

competition for land uae at sites

request to statetohunt dserautof seamm

request for dear for Green CornDeno, and Spring Feast ceressonies

hunting and gathering requirementsfor Teistaistas (Choyanne) caremnny

mare stringant laws for worthunting and fishing

access tp sites prevented by Land\

lack of access tel emintaintopeoff-resavation

cwnerahip of sites bi dint cfomiginal use not honored

access to herbal gathering p4acee

NPS consultation deadline cndaveloossnt Wes sham


ipe-ial ume permits available

FWS examining policy andprocedures

somas by special usepermit

litigated in favor cd tribaltam system (Bari° v.MAW* )
0:130:2403 54 ,
Os 57Os 9362PIS review


23701950:1330:142,150Ds 11


Os 150





Nevada*mhosP ine Nut lit .%WaneNevada




Reno, NevadaPancolperks

North CarolinaEastern,Cherolows

LAM7 )


KahoolehaIsland,Nit inNa.iiHawaiian


volcanoesNational Park

man Valley,
Cebu, Hedaii


HawaiiHawaiiKaneche NOWKahoolase Is.,


Hera I I


Nat iveMai ian


Nat iv/
Ham limn

Nat iveHam i ion

Nat iv,
Ham i

NatlyeHam i Ian

Native KarelianNative Hawaiian

Nat iveHam b ion


stets *mention to devolution ofNil land to tribes

lack of federal control an stateand private land

state hunting and fishing regulationsenforced on reservation

BLN unomperative in discussingconsolidation of tribal luriadiction

SLR uncooperative in assisting intribal wildlife management planning

non-Indians poaching Christmas treesan resarvation

land problems relative to Klamathterainat inn aid Edison Ch !lapin(Klamath Indian who didn’t takektormination money, barite hOrielard)

local agreements often contravenedby agency chain of =nand

sweat lodge needs singleeuse firepermit under city cubdoor batbecueregulations

prose:Nation of sites

PROBLEMSsit. used as bombing range

amass, destruction by aerialbombardment

no place to worship Pale, MPSrestrictims

use as bombing range

religious sibes aro oft-limitsOMPS)

gm:thermal davelcvsant threatensPals, fire ged

laCk of access for gathering please,
ceremonies (MPS)


1337in litigation11.143

PP permit for ChilcolinP465remaining on lend – admintotre-DIMtive and legislative conveyanceix JAI 611P101:4

ki 72

in litivation, OS Navy

lack of access for Mahuna leadersUB Navy pumas access

bovbing of islands

no National Pagistar sites ofNative Hawaiian religiousskplificence

no Native sites under HistceicPreservation Act





LAND (8;

HawaiiHawaiiHedaiiAlahole Point,


NativeNat iveNat iveNat WeNat lyeCrab?
Bear Butte, SDSioux

Bladk Hills, SD SicuxBlack Hills, SD SiouxBlack Hills, SD Sioux




religious site destruction, nofederal rehabilitation assistanoe

lack of access for Natives; too muchaccess for non-Natives

lack of access to gatheringindigenous resourows

water reeources being dissipated,
affront to Kane, water god

lcet title to Ulumau Village

roads and does in sacred sites

tcurists invade privacy ofceremonies

urani,:m mining threatens sacredsites

Black Hills not for sale

lack of access to sites

Native Americanaccess to peyote on federal landChurch






Various sites


ArizonaMinnesotaMille Lacs Bee., ChimewaMinnesota

Guadalupe Peak,MeacaleroOrgan Mcuntain,ApacheThree Slaters,
Oscura Peak, NW

white Sandn,mescalero

N. Mexico’Apache

access to peyote land forecLosedby wilderness designation proposal

PEOBLEMSlack of privacy from tourists

right to gather and use indigenousnatural prcducts

Native customary laws on sites to berecognized as law

NPS doesn’t want Indians Ln tosea& up the park

industrial pollution threatens Sitespower plant effluent threatens sites

ppllution kills medicine plantslack of access to deer on rs land \\
awn arrested for spearfishing forfuneral ceremony

lack of access to sites

Ledk of access to sites; leekcf access to sage gathering,
cther plants, rocks, *oilsSTAMJS.REF



Ms 20

court of claire decision toaward cash

PS permit pending







LAND (10}

New MexicoNew MexicoLincolnNatiolla !crest

New Mexico

New Mexico


Moe Pueblo

Mews leroApache

Santa ClaraPueblo

Sante ClaraPueblo

James Mountain,Santa ClaraNew MexicoPueblo


Nett Lake Res.,

Twin Lake-
wild Rice River,



1AND (11)




WashingtonNVA Mexico

New mmxioo

Santa Fe,
Citola NaticnalForest, N4

Jemes Mountain,
Ned mexico

1.Citola NWN, NM




Santa ClaraPueblo

San FelipePueblo

San FelipePueblo

San Felipe



lack of access to sites for yucca,
mosquero, rndian bananas, suracberries, dirt, rocks

lack of access to sesguite beansalong highways

lack ofaccess toceremonialmaterials

Amrest Service limits aeoese toGuadalupe Peak

access to sites not to be qualifiedby excessive regulation

access to sites for collectingfeathers and parts limited byconservation laws

geothermal developmentthreatensSacred site

,FS/NPS hunting and fishingarrests; sane laws apply equallyto sport andsubeistenzla

state game laws epply onreservaticm land


dun project adjacent to remervationthreatens ricing, fishing, hunting;
no prior consulation (ACE)


access to cereronial lard of f-
reservaticn oonflicts with statelaws

modern tribal development overhistoric sites should be unhamperedby preservation regulations

post office parking ram locatedcn 1000 year old caepsite without*act statement or consultation

prayer sites, gathering sites haveno trespass’ sRgns

need access to tipi poles cm FS land

access V3 sites tor subsistence endrites

fear c/ eventual foreign ownershipof sites

lack c/ access to sites

lack of access to Sites

lack c/ access to sites\

RIS revising procmaires

EIS ompies to Puebaos,
tours of Sits







M:821483Cs 6C165Park Service Special Cdrective11878-1 acomerodates access forgathering

access by FS permit



LAW (12)

Nee MexicoSan FelipeAmigo

Hew MexicoSanta ClaraPueblo

Hew MexicoSanta ClaraPueblo

Wm Waco,NavajoArizona

Nee Mexico

Santa ClaraPueblo


gan FranciscoHopiPeaks, Arisen&

Ar isona

Ar bonaAr bona

lack of ammo to animals forceremonial use

develapeft threatens site

lack od acmes to animals foroeremonial use an federal land

state geme laws honored on federelland, limiting access forceremonial use

lnek of access to animals torcermmonial use on federal land

swum dmvelopsent thrweAms sites

led: of access to sites

use ard restoratice of site:
develcgment threatens site

Hopipcivate meters charge fees foroeremonial use of property

Napidented access to Douglas Fir houghs

MqPileek of access to sites foc tobaccoand herbal medicine

IAND (13)
ILICtd7CliefitalltetIOUPAn isms


lack of access to clay ard mineralsites

HopiNepitederally-essisted homing builtan sacred mite

HopiHopifederally-funded water en& sewer

lines disrupt site use andpreservation

Notevilla. ASliqpicivic building an sacred lard

Ar lama

ArizonaHew itesioa

Nqpifederal and tribal governments don’t

rem:miss mnd.00nsult with religiousleaders

HopiMIA development program:don’trempond to traditicral needs

lack of access to sacred potteryclay, herbs, swims on state andprivets land


mount Taylor,Acmanmt. Flagstaff,Puebloeagle Peak,
&bite mcuntain


New Mexico

Aooma Pueblo..
Amos Pueblo

lack of access to sites

residential development on sites

tourist trespass co sites



8144S148S162,41FS decision to petedt ski8:63,72dovelorment on administrative1:87,220













San FranciscoPeaks, AZ

ColoradoNew Mexico

Redondo Peak

six Rivers,
National Forest,



(Nqpi, Zuni,
white MaintainApache)

.Ute Mountain DU;

Santa ClaraPueblo.

Santa ClaraPueblo



IAND (15)
WCATICSIIIR113k3RCUPGrand CanyonNational Park

mouth of theLittle ColoradoRiver

New Mexico

New Mexico

Now maxim

New mexicoNew Mexico

New Mexico

Trice Falls,

‘sop medicine

Lake, Mont.




eineral resource developmentthreatens sites

access, development aroundsacred mountains

115 personnel rude totraditional medicine men

lack of access.; bno many inter-
rogations an acrems dpr herb-
gatheringi no sbmpleyemmsnantpermit for acmes

e ki deve1opment1 non-Indiandrinking and carousing at sacredsite

holding ceremonies ott-mosrestion

need protection of and scamto 17 mourttpiii peaks

geothermal developer* maythreaten site

FS logging and access road,
Gasquet-Crleans Sped

conflict of archaeological endsacred use classif Sod ions

PECIBLD4Slack of access to sites

acmes b3 sits for criticalceremonial denied by SIM losses

no *seamark rights an pilgrbmapepath across private range land

problem of.revealimj location ofewe sites (fear ct vandalise,

Zunino tribal consultaticel an fed/trigdevelops,*str ipminiN, roods

Zunilack of amok to sites



stripmining destroys sites onaboriginal land, on public &meinlard under Act of 1872

Santo Domingoerosion of tribal Land tamPOW:110

Blackfootlack of physical access (Mp8)


electric fence prevents accessto site, prevents pee animalsfrom crossing onto reservation:-2



IS – adminiatrative MealSilei0147,58

OM committal

fano, *Owe, by Crew ?ribsto control tonal* bard onreservation,







U04) (16)
Great BearBladcfeetWildernessArea, Mont.





ColvilleAlaska Natives



mount Taylor,
New Mexico

LAND (17)


CoconinoNaticmal Prost



Mount TaylorBlanca PeakHesperus PeakBladk Mesa, AZwashington





Colsab is River,Co1v1111Mash ingon

Osistf JosephColville

Dee, Nash insatte



divergint HUI requirements ofA.
MPS, no prism consultation

oil & gas drilling disrupts sitesdempite 16 USC 480-431

no prior ccmsultation by DSOS onsites in path of development

oil wells in midat cf traditionaltipi ring

trails and roads disrupt sites

access to Sweetgrass Bills,
Cypress Bills, Writing-on-Stone

site development in Canada

allotment applications denied byBU4 because of conflicting inter-
pretation of private land use

need protection for enumeratedsacred sites

ceremonial fishing grosndsuranium mine threatens sacred area


commercial logging and circlermining

ladk cf access to sites, no tribalcontrol over non-Native access tobites; lack of access to gatheringplaces

non-indigonous plants used bo reseedstripained area drive out medicinalherbs

ladk of access bo sites – PSlimicof atoms to sitesladk of access to siteslist of native florarepairs on a dam withoutNative consultation

nailing, hunting, gathering rightsshmild ta guaranteed by treaties

dams on river stoppedsubsistencesalmon fishing

ceremonial fishing at base of dam

halted by Mato gage officials



G120601211O 214021501229

O 379O 20



17: 470:57



Cs 125






Star Lake-
Usti, NavajoReservation

CdocninoNational PM!

Hawaiilab* Neesiian.


Native Hawaiian

Leeward Mande, Native Hawsiian-

HawaiiNative Hawaiian

HawaiiNative Somalian

reservation does not share in

v wishington decisionEihing rights

FEWInthrop fish hatchery nolonger takes trout eggs for hatching

‘logging OeStrqp huckietsrey patches’

SLR erwirormental impact statementon stripmine felled to considerMeligicua freedom Act

opposing developmant en MenPranciseo Smirks

essaMents to aboriginal atomsneeded, need ifiventety etNative religious sites

1P81 ladk of understamding otNative beliefs ceuesetmeecration

SS has ‘no tromps.’ signsat some sites

Smola Island wed as aerialgunnery range, destroying birds:
home of Shark (family meukua)

Pearl Harter otf-limits

MID (19)

HawaiiNative Hawaiian

\ftint Conception,CtsimeashCal i forn la

?Mae/AI LC hal ig iousFreedom Project

telayanc hal igicauePreedce Project

WashingtonNisqually’WashingtonNiaquallyWashingtonII !equal ly


konohikis (reliious attestedfishing rights) denied

ladk of access to sacred siteslack of access to site

lack of access to sites

no laws to protect holy places

holy places for Nstive religieususel %hy cultural pecblews havepeevented officials applying existingstatutes to protection et sites

lad’ of access to mountains, to:mountain campsites

lack of SC40118 to hudklebarrygrounds

Potest Service no longer allowsawes, to commercially unusablecedar trees for ceremoniallonghouse frames

lack ct access to shellfish.
halibut, meals, whales

agremaant signed with

private owner




0:83,64g471 -83









LRND (20)


Pyramid Lake,NashceNevada

Nisqually Rhear,NisquallyWasnington

Alder Dam,NiaquallyWashington


North ForkNiaquallySkokomishand CentraliaDiversion, Nisqually R.


Port Lewis,NisquallirWashington


LMCD (21)


New music°19 Pueblos

New NexiooNew MexicoNmv Mexico

19 Pueblos19 Pueblos19 Pueblos


non-Indian opposition to transferof fishing rights bo Indians onreservoir

dispute ewer state fishing pecsitrequirements At site

decline of salmon and stselheadMRS

dna failed to provide springsalmon access

WITS pram2tes saltwater catcheswhich prevent conservation ofWiviclual ceremonial runs

artificial hatcheries amd diversionof hatching sites v3 other usesfails to =eider traditionalceremonial sits

Commerce Dept. fails to regulatecyean trcal fleet at.txpense ofceremonial fish runs

Muck Creek chin habitat used byUS Army as rocket range and tankoourse

lack of access to black carrots,
Eehrhe’ roots


jurisdiction on reservation underthose Whoee enforcement against abuseis inadequate and whoa’ understandingct Indian religious needs is minimal,
federal jurisdiction should be decreased,
tribal jurisdiction increased

all lands traditionelly occupied andtravelled by Pueblos, and ability toccusune with those lands, are importantto religious practice; any subjectfederal policy should be applied toall Lmnds, not only isolated sacredspots

need statutory framework 62r protectionof religious practices, lands, objectscm same basis as protection foreoclogically sensitive areas

agencies need directives for tribalconsultaticm for prceodures forunrestricted tribal access to and useof sites, with minimal ce-no doe-
umemmation and no permit requirements

need Sor unrestricted religiousceremonial hunting and fiehing, withmanagement reliance on tribalconservation traditions, notartificial quote system


Os 109




Di 110Dill0

Di 110

1AND (22)

wocicelleNs«Mexico19 Pueblos

NiwNAKIVO19 Pueblos

NewMaxim19 Pueblos


1need for protection of esters ofreligious significance, with nofedoral actions to dtainiah ordegrade natural flows takmn withoutdue comultaticeiwith affectedtribes

&SAMSneed directive to those towniesinitiating or approvingproisatsaractions affecting sacred lands orrbjects to notify and =gull withtribes in land-uae planning, withoutlimitation to throe thstanoes whereenvironmental law applies

Pueblo lepdars find no changer infedoral lani-eanaging agencies’practices since pssamge of P.L. 115-341;
more Chan Executive Order needed tochang attitudesa


South DakotaSiouxopposes disintormentarahooleao Is.,Native Hawaiiantombing range is Native cemeteryin litigatkon, Dept of Navy11Hawaii

HawaiiNative Hawaiiandisturbance ct burials11,11820

Mille Lace Res.,lhippewahousing development an fee-patentN461Minnesotaland throatine cemetery

HawaiiNative Hawaiianarchasologiais don’t got prior111122approval from Hativws on excavatkans

Grand CouleeOkanogan-waited 40 years for Bureau ofCi3Det, WashingtonColvilleReclasation to reinter bodies

disturbed by dam construction andflooding; remains left in trees in’um= beaement

WashingtonOolvilladisruption of burials; disinters**Colville/ACE agreement regard-C149,50

due to flooding from dam oanstruc.inr reintstment and divagationtical (ACE, EuRec)ot teMaini

Tulsa, Okla.BIA referred bodies disturbed byCita

highway construction to0 Univ. ofOkla. without ccmsulting Indians

monismBlackfootMEW funds used to enforce stateINS developing policy04194

law reinterring traditionalabove-impand burials

MontanaBlackfeetdesecration of burials0191


MIME (2)

TigitnindaMNorthwest..Nes termLcs AngelesNes Pero,


We Mexico

New MexicoZuni

New Mexico,ZuniBr/WM

New !MUMZuniNew MexicoZuniNew MexicoZuniNew maximZuni

Santa ClaraPueblo

LCCATICN/PRIEMSFCUPAleut !anPribilof IslandIs lards, Aladta Aleut

kleiska&Like Native



Chief JosephColvilleWashington

mime Valley,Native


pnint Conceptien,Chuemencalitornia


Link River,


Big tend Des,ki Loiz

CcreRalISMSprotection of remainsdealing in Skulls; a relative’sskull beihg used as an ashtray

tritml anti-vandalism laws don’tapply to non-Indians; outside lesenforcement agencies fail to enforcetheir own soti-vanlalisa statutse

excavation and removal of artifacts;
BR 1825 not specifically protectiveof sites off-resevation

not always prior consultation onsite development

site identification based onarchaeological, not sacred value;
btormt conflict bettleen Went-
ifioation and privacy of use

sites on private land; sites onstate land; unsatisfactory000peretion from state agencies

art market values encouragevandalize; enforcement problemresulting from Disc decision

theft, vandalise, graverohbing

no US *placentation of UNESCOcultural property convention

WIZlegislatiOn pording

legislation pending


archaeological disinterment,
US Army, ?Crest Service

ardheological disintermentwithout consultation

easements on federal landdestroy cemetery Sites

denied access V) cemeteries;
denial continued use ofcemeteries

dispositicm cd funerary artifacts

bombing range; Native trespassconvicticna; insecticide sprayingall on sacred site

12G terminal project threatenscemetery

vandalisedevelopment on cemetery grcund

disinterment for development,
Army Corps of Engineers

site disturbed ti develapment

wcrking egremmvnt betweenColville and Army Corp oftngineers0134401345














Klamath Fells,





Pierre, SOSioux


Coe CreekUllnua



Now MexicoZunimewMexicoZuniNew Mexico24511i

New MexicoZuniNowMem i coZuniOklahcraaSouthernCheyenne




North CarolinaEastern


North Carolina(Eastern


REEdidiaintama, no =irate:mar&
astariale on Oregon burial sitsproemial las

alatinistrator of Oman burialground protection las haeno enforcement pomr

apecial laws on Indian sitesinsult ing! rather adamant uigeneral gramrobbing laws

tourist off ice publicity salaamsits vandalirm

low has aim penalties, indifferentinformant

landf ill threatens matety

MPS denied karial for Chief Turleylegislation pendingTayac in Piecatemy Capital Park

archaeological disinteraant

lambs* cemetery to Momhousing developer*

no atom to carmeterim forburials, no excavation %desaltprior tribal apgroval


no protection for off-mervationsites

archmologista have no mechanism for=malting with tralitional leaders

no enforuement of site protectionlaws

Pueblo antiquities law doesn’textend to non-Indian vandalism,
the sailor cause

no maintenance of off-reserwationsits,

no protection Osinst digging upgraves

disintormant without =went

disinterment of remains

no protection of turials andartifacts lay NIG

Inaufficiant cataloguing ardsurveying of sites

Tllioo Dom to flood cemetszyaim

archaeological disintermentDo 41


Ds 45


at 450145Ds 48D150DI 510.53Ds 58




Wit to reinter all Menke*

halted 1878, WA will aiiraer

all amerkee resins

MIME (6)




Kettle Palls,


Ow lee City,


Wirth County,

Now Norio*

cowman (7)




no ritual reintereant afterflooding ed cemetery by dam

disturbing burial site,

bodies shouldn’t be boAChed byundertaker for threedays

Grand Coulee Dm flooded sites

remains frog aria ardnaeologioalsites not reinterod with propertraditional ceremony

burial sites cmreservoir boltswsehing amyl no propor reintereent

pot hunters vandalising sites atCoyote’s Punch Bowl, Steerbost Park

oseeteries meant to be peomment

urben development endangersNative burial sites

Munireligiaus values should take pre-

cedence bar archaeological onesin matters of exhumations; inundationneed not te sufficient cause forsochumat ions dispos it ion of gringo:dedoould be controlled by tribe


VARP/MIC iteligicus /reeksProject.

Carson Valley,Wastioe


disturbances of burial sites

retembendvions on treatment ofburial sites

savage wetly& project threatens12,000 year oil %whoa and pre-
Iteshos burial site-






Cs143Cs145C,149Ds 62

Ds 69



AlaakaAthahmanconviction for poesreaical 02 soca,

am funerary getlatch ostemonr(Carlpm Frank came)

Alaska&nisi ducks and geese for wringceremony undo

Oklahomalack of access 62 eagle bathos

wichita WAN*Chita-Caddogovernment mmamkgage dem, elk,
Oklahomabuffalo not available to Indians


Okl arms



buffalo hides auctioned by govern.
sant prepared improperly kWceremOnial use

moupdrinking ceremonial interruptedby state rangers looking for cutofseason squirrels

in litigation, on appeal

PSI revieeing psoardlaree

Mel develoPiha RIMY andmoodures

1011 dmloping policysalprooklutas

eagle feathers from Pocatello’NOrevisingdamaged in shippingprocedures

uteforesees troubls taking eaglefeathers across state lines



OklahomaOklahomaNow maximMiskoseeCharmsChayanne

Islet& Pueblo

Great smokyMate=
National Park(birdies

ScalthoestMeadeOklahomaMawsAlaskaAlaska Native

IlluestaCh ippewa

Sadism, lix


proscribing Morbid medicine illegalgetting ample feathers, *male partsreligious leader stopped incourtroom for carrying sacred pipe


commercial traffidking inmedicinal herbs

commercial traffiOking inplants and animals

sport hunting depastes animalsfor ceremonial use

need for feathers and hite parts

ladk of access to ramp (lily)
gathering for ceremonial festival

lack of access 62 featherslack of acmes to featherssubmisteval laws fail to protectreligious usage

Poostallo &sanitaryhos feathersbut not parts for sun dance, bead,
talons, wings, bones for whistles

red tape to get eagle parts; localagent ignorant ot promodure

=aye at airpoet &stmoy medicine


reaisinv proratingAul,






ISEMRE031360115008150agreement roadbedwithMaXPOE oweislwi procedures;
ocher parts now availableIts27116iacaea res$131


NAM CM= (3)

Ar izoneAr Jean.
Ar isona



Taos Feeble

Banta ClaraPueblo

Santa ClaraPablo

San FelipePueblo



Ar I zonaHopiAr lions

SACM2) MEM (4)
Ar izonaNopi

New MexicoHewMexicoColoradoNew MexicoNew MexicoNew maxim

Nmw MexicoHowmaxicoNoe Mimic°



Me mountainUrea PuebloSuniZuni

Sun iZuniSuni


lad: of =sae to yucca, protectedas state flower

state highway department stopsteeplite bean gathering

lack of access to eagle feathers,
%Otter feathers

eawitoreental laws limit accessto feather gathering

casercialiution of oersmonialaster ial

trouble when (riming animalsacross state lines

lack of access to feathers

ladc of access to eagle featherseagle feather dispute with Napa&
access to eagle feathers forprayer st idcs

whites on reservation stealprayer feathers, disrupt shrines

lack of access to muffle feathers


pimple livingtcosloestoeaglenesting areas, endangering eagles

ladc of access to eagle feathers,
ogle parts

lack of mous to heron, dud:

Utolack of (mesa to eagle feathers

lack of access to feathersle& of access to eagle feathersproblem of trying to quantifyobjects of we

la& of aeons to featherslack of access to twigs&lays in getting bothersdistribution of eagle partspollution&AIWA medicinal Pliassays at airports damage medicinebundles

Ple revising prooedares

resrevising precedentsRISrevising procedMres

Peg revising pro:name

NB revising procedures

revising procedurasPPR revising pocedstes

rmsrevising proceduresFM revising prucadoes


$111$s18$ s241112611130$8593,62t:65:78$181





IA_BIZINECATmumsMaMEmontanaCrawvtrif iscatad aveninsais at silioat6404boarding, Dewar

NontanaCrowcomercial sales oompeta withGUMgathering medicinal pima&

MontanaCrowculling bear population has no611211

provision for priority Indian uss(MAPS)

Montanacrowselling bearskins and neat ai;Gal,

auction and not Indian prioribius*

MamaNes Pariallcommercial pale of heats and plantsChM*IntimWsPereslack of amassto tools loathersits rovisins pizoosiotoGs351MamaPaiganlack of access to eaglo bathes.PRO revising proosdure4436uMcgrtanaCrowlack of access to eagle, otherIfill revisingproosmkge44366featherso eagle parts

/Mt amCrowneed eagle feathers and pacts1116 revising proceduere44641for comamonial use6h364

MCCUinii(Wiganconfiscatim eagle feathers44372MontanaComred tape at Pocatello depositoryPie revising procadures44364minnssotaCh iPpoostate has asobarsow licensingMann:agosystemto us. Pocotollo ils000ttoty

&WM C113/103(6)
LOGICICWIRIZZAWOUPMOMNMMMinnesotaChippewastates unaxparat ha in feather0*301Winnebwodistribution

SouthwestWOOwhitssillegally in possaawn08392of *ogle feathers

OklahomaPawneedisposal of animal carcasses andDal

parts fails to consider Nativeneeds (PMS/OPS)

Pler(40Niccomitselack cle access to angle ItethicaFa revising prooadums13167

mashinitalCalvin.not ono* water for sabreCs1I0to survive dams

navaiiNative nawaiianoutline of bourns at ues ofOM

and access to ;tants an5animals and natural products

NM/RUC Religious Freedomrecommendations cm right toDif6

%Frol.ctuse natural pooducts

Rhode IslandNarragansettlack of access to planes,DOWPeagle feathets, seals

mmvadaPaiutelack of access to deer puts.WIPPpoints

WyomingArapaholadc of amass bo tipi poles,COMP


11:C_LAT1 ,MaffslaMCregonKlamathMainePenobscotCal i torn iaTomFla idaOleairoleOklahumaimWashingtonYam:wally


Washington4I Leval lyWashingtonNisqually




US-Nexico Cordernow&
tEmtftioa borderUS CordersUS-Canada border

LU-Mexico border


US-Canada border

DS-Canada border

US-Canals border



depletion of salmon jeopardisesTint Saloon ceremony

lack of acmes to oernionial foodeostate spraying erdangere fiddlshoude

lack of =was to feathers ex)
abalone shells

lack of acmes to water, turkey aidother birds of the iveogladu

lack of asses to buffalo forsun dame

introduction of fall saloon bi statedepleted spring salmon ors, used forspring ceremonise

Canada and Alaska fishers interceptlocal f lab stocks

mot enough salron and sambaed forommonial purposes

ohm salmon dwirdlirq, important falldun used for winter ceremonies,
weddings, be orals

LNG distribution of hatchery chumto tribes for ceremonial use halted

threat of competition from siort!Was%) for stooelhead


Nat iceMarian Ousrch




MOLDSlackof acmes to sites acmes tordermeteoric hinders passage acrossborder

wet detour 400 miles to clearcustom

mowing with peyote

f inding official with authorityto dear peyote at customs port

border officials riflingmedicine bundles

bringing peyote into Canada

mowing with peyoteresent mearcbes and ceismes

Jay Treaty rights

bringire animal parts acmesborder

ming duty on ceremonial gifts,









Oh 460s21


acitteRS (2)

aeneiZgeMSEUS-Mexico border

te-alexico Wader

LB-Cando borderIS borders

US borders119 IxedersUs bordersUS bordersuS-Nexico borderUS-Canada borderLE-Canada border

U3-Canada bonier

EarceRs (3)



Nes Pero’, Crow,


MALItorder croesing for ardicine

crossing with amemonial NM

opening medicine bundles

horses, groceries, sweet grassat customs ports

hours of operatic’s of patoisports

border officialsignorantetNative languages

recruiting Netts’ animaimporting moose Meat, fish nets%
*porting mesquite °hernialcrossing with implementsport of entry hoursof optretion

bringingpeyoteinto Canada, may bewaergencyand nottime to attainpermit

US-Canada borderSagan,
Crow, Blackfoot

W.-Caned& borderTwig’s

LB-Canada borderSalieh-NootanaiBlood/Blackfeet

LS bordersCrowuS-Canada border

uS-Canada borderUS-Csnada borderuS-Canada borderUS-Canada borderGB-Canada borderuS-Canada border

LB-Canada border

W-Canada border

Blood, Crow



Blood, Crow



examining end desecratingmedicinebundles

cross-border tradingin medicinalplants


tribal cosperstitm with CAistilla0825derails hi preperina tenilLm-
tuition with isrmemial objects

Gs 21,330834

08370839ongOing prograstith Papaw0140


crossing border with plant material

confiscating pcyote, other objects

fishing rights under Proclamation of1865

paying aity oh giveaway hew

coeherecen veterinary process forbringing horses across bonder

crossing with tower, otter pelts Mcrossing with kinnikinnik (tots’s’)
lock ad acme across border*potation of ‘high-rist’ categoryfor Indians by Canadian custom

discriminstory meardhom bi Canadacustoms,RCMP

snode for giveawayceremoniss

not duty-free














9£t :9











sinasaapsjuco Ispacq-smoao uo AbITad
Istwouto pot is3 30 uolvmpacco ou

0061900;;0 v 2493011 30 MT
UOIrre9 MIA spy% Sulesoao
asi;Tqlqaxl emu 69009 U0 Anp
*some Trpalos Ts/uomalso fargaym

iapaos ;a gamut Am, Lamm;

lumasemi sgumwelloul

iv jo *saamosinums /vow;
Jo ormao asTuN jo pods{
esa;-uolmnbaa pus saaj,Alop

map pus ervaai,e osTialue
‘IslusTd onousEipul 30 uoduri
asap.uotmobsa pug aaap.A.Inp

nvPinve imalbstai 30 WAR
011123-20140Inbe1 pus oan,11.4np

slNals Amu Air

fleAMT*2 MIA cr; Burl) 4,4 uags
U699 oft vos174ismio 04 emus


ssinpaooad sTqvuossaaun

spod asatp 29
saucy 44114 890A, 03 *Torun

A.23unoa mum/ u7 =aft usTpuT

mega A3my

936.14n0 Aq pamaTA
aq 01 1ou gvaccto mucesaao

Maar soyuc0M0 01 199009

aspaos ;It Arms paumn auTala6

spuasaam uo pimp IVA ucd
osnloaq ainsodia jo paw arkosd

sloglits; OTes, troll% buIsemo
sbuITTIK ‘spoofs &mum*

fam-amb vow vuOI 191S0uae4in

aapsoq 220239 929009


tem.13. .3sp0 s speurD-fin

PrcrTil ‘Peso

soled 9.611
soled saN
noise/ sas
soled las


2aPlo1 MitarD-911
aaPlaq 1PRN3–91
laP30:1 Wvur”-S1

441204 WRAra-911
219xicl VIR910-43111


;amp/gm usip201 sn

3001,10./6 saapaos sn
slontba/ aspics vpsusp-su
isso-essid743) –
s,Aos Asoos sapsoq icamo-gs


poop/ .2apaoq speuvo-sn


,ocsass liaPlog sn

A020 349201 vpirlio-en

1UO2UOM ,Aalua
slucd glluos
Tao pus Awma,D
scan 2800q1Piculla-st)



ascioq insurj-sn
aepaoq irpouri-ss

Am* pp
M°30 1106 4214 ‘UfbIed




11-1i:Pioq SC)

own agooqvpsurj-el
4″3 104104 sePeulr-S11




US-C4rada borderOra.

no consultation with Indians on0:261declarations’

EXPIMPiES OF SPECIFIC mews =Num 14LNUOSUMSIDCATICWIRIBE/GROU?PPOPLEMSr.1.3e1-84REFAlaskaAlaska Nativesuseums won’t return burial cbjeCtaAs55OklahomaCherokeeremains and artifacts inMUSSNIS01117Nevadacommercial exploitation ofRa55artifacts

waahingtonColvilleartifacts in museumsC:48MontanaPeiganceremonial objects in museums.0242MontanaPeiganmuseums not all under federal0:242regulation

montanaBlockftetinternational market for cultural0:339

artifacts encourages theft ofIndian objects

montanaBlackfeetartifacts in private ownership0:340leaving country

\\ttial lweuttam Perceart market for artifactsG4346

Itotwito. CanadaNea Percetr Dud art !fact s in artG: 340gallery

Montanaaccwtrafficiting in artifacts by mommusa,01358hobtyists, taridermists

At lamaZuniSmithsonian possession of illegallyongoing discussion between1:80taisan war god, Fuetlo wants beckSuni and Saithsonian

AriaonaHopitribe wants custodismahip ofSISOpotshards, objects

ArizonaNavajomuseums seising artifacts1:140


New Mexico


lack cd access to museum personnelto petition for return cf cbjects

Irmatribe wants ume of suseurns’ col-

lections: joint-use agreementsdesired

SmithsonianZuniInstitution, DC

Palm SpringsMojaveMuseum, Calif.

Denver ArtZia PuebloMuseum, Colo.

Denver ArtZuniWaimea, Colo.

Smithsonianlie PuebloInstitutUss, DC

smithsonianInst it ut ton

New York

Bishop Museum,
Honolulu, HA

StockbridgeMuseum, Mass.

museum doesn’t return Beer Clanreligious icons

sacred medicine bundle broken openand scattered through ool/ection

otremonial object in suseumcollection

war god stolen from Zuni& inpossession ofisuseum

stolen Snake Society ;tote 4n displsy

Mescalero Apacheskull cl Chief Mangus Colorado incollection

IroquoisNative HawaiianStockbridge-
Plunsae Band

LOCATIOWIRIBMGROUPGradhutten, Ohio Stockbridge-
Mimes Band

Peabody Museum,
Harvard Univ.

Pipestone Natimonument

Santa Fe, NH

Beaten tribesSiouxZia Pueblo

Heye Foundation,CrowNew York City

.State Museum,
Bismarck, ND

state museum won’t return wampumbelts

tikis, kohula fishing godsin collection

1745 tribal bible warted fortribal museum

PROBLEMSskeleton on display

extensive collect ion of caremoisialobjects

sacred pipes imprverlydimplayed

suseum has me of 16 remainingceremonial war shields

museum holding emdicine bundles,
other sacred objects

Siouxmuseum hes pipes, medicine bags,
other artifacts

OklahomaCreekHistorical Society

Sioux Museum,
Rapid City, SD

Dakotah PrairieHumus, SD

medicine bags imprcparly dieplayed

Sims*pips, medicine bags imprecerlydisplayed

Siouxmuseum displays pipes not tobe viewed

Prayer RadsSiouxMuseum, writton, SD


Native HawaiianColvilleColville

museum has prayer rods end pipes

Hawaiian issues co museumsartifacts should be Ln tribal controlno tribal museum exists bo houseartifacts to be received intotribal control

neptiated return, 1979


Smithsonian says this isnot in its posaession –
it hes skull of CertainJade, Whims

Mato legislation pending














early federsUreenetionedmiasionaries endangeredtraditional religion, ceremonies

BCM easements on Mettle propertydisturb privacy of wcmship

children taken from parents Priboarding schcol officdals, resultsin loss of culture, retbgices

Native culture suppressed by secularend religicus institutions: beliefsvalid even though uncodifiei

Noma quantum controversygetting peyote for ceremonies

Oklahoma,Motive AmericanTexasChurch

TausNative AsericenChurch




COCNITON/TRIBE/OROUPMcAlesterprison, Okla.



Oklahoma CityOklahoma






Haws ii


Native Hawaiian

lax enforcement of peyote laws,
peyote not cleaned correctly

sbmqp dances suppressed by ICA/
elected gwernment as mast

non-traditional tribal governmentsystem harmful totraditionalMuskogee peopl and governmentsystem

clan identification repleokod byt400d quantum


access to ceremonial toolsdenied







students’, workers’ absence torBLA developing policy in keeping 0:61oeraeonieswith CVM regulations

sweat lodges for Lmeates007

swearing oaths on Bible with0n99raised hand offensive

city fire code forbids sweat lodge

access of irmetes to religiousleaders

whites filmingcormanies0n134

non-cermeonial use of stickball



BIA doesn’t recognise tradtionalleaders, who continue the tribe, butlistens to political leaders,atmdcm’t uphold traditions

city fire code classes sweet lodgeas outdcor barbecue, must getsingleuse permit

military insensitive tonative





IDIVT_IM,MaggEHataiiHawaiiHasa LiScuthDakotaSins

NativeNativeNat ive

South DakotaSicux

CrowSouth DakotaSioux

South DakotaSiouxsouth DakotaSicux

Englewood PC2PCI Iteqpoc


Smith DakotaSiouxLeaverborth

Pierian traP


PCI Dmilewood

rel Lageckr Luna State Priam

Tam State Prison

K amm; State PrisonNaraiKarelianKara i Lan

MinnesotaState Reformatory

Minnesota State Priem


NPCC Npbraska

New Mexico State prison

prejudice against Native religionno pcotection of ceremoniesNative religion regacded as deadrecognition of sacred pipe and hoopin schools, prisons, hospitals

inmate access to sweat kelpspeyote abuse by Whitesleave from work bor religiousobservances

objection to undertaken, embalming

no Indian cultural programs inschools

Lime denied bundle and pipesweat Dodo at Lompoc

lack of bicultural education

inmatedenied peyote cerescmy ofNative ;American Churdh

biota* denied access to objects,
religious leaders

PROBLEMSinsate denied objectssadicine man searched, medicinetundle opened, inmates deniedsweat lodge

inmates denied sweat lodge, pipe,
accessto loaders

denied marriage carummy

forcible haircut, denied sweatlodge, religicus divrimination

denied sweat lodge, acmes toleaders, obdects

denied sweet lodge

denied sweatlodge,ceremonies,
neural prcducte

denied sweat lodge, pipe,
medicine bags

denied access to religion

denied access to Native AmericanChUrch ceremony

hair regulations

settled in litigation(Bear Ribs ease)

request granted 1979

administrative appealpending

RIMSrequest granted 1979in litigation

sweat lodge granted 1979,
other relief pending

request warp

objects granted after





LOCATICEARZWONOUPNorth Dakota State PrisonOregon State Prison.

Oregon State CorreotionalInstitution

PCC VirginiaNP Nassachussets

Oklahoma state Priam,
South Dakota

lerik leeter

South DakotaSiouxSouth DakotaSiamPoint Conception,ChuneshCalifornia

South DakotaSioux

South DakotaSicux

LOCATION/TRIBE/GROUPNative American Church

Native American Church

Nitive American ChurchNative American ChurchNative American ChurchSouth DakotaSiamWisconsinWisconsin

Sioux Falls, SI) state Prison

PSOSLAMSdenied emeat 10dgedenied access to religious objects,
natural products

denied braided pair when long hairapproved

hair regulationsdenied sweet loticis.ipe

denied AMMO to religious leaders,
objects, natural products, ceremonies

failure bo investigate civil rightsviolations in federallr-fundedstate ;risco;

searches of medicine men andmedicinebundles

traditional culture not used esrehabilitation technique

MS terminal developeent anceremonial land

BIA ex-offender program under-
funded, understaffed,inadequate

neglect of wcsen inmates’ rights

PEPrequest pending88




mottled by litigationt499


\ZD card program in CaliforniapscegAms

denial of enlistment in militaryservices, prosecution andconiiscaLion of pxyots.

states uncomerative in implementingregulation cm peyote use; federalgovernment fails to monitor stateviolations

poor pennit controls, egploitationof peyote by non-Natives

can expenses ct peyote religionpractitioners be deducted frog taxes

fr:-_?Atm a religico in Indianboe,ding schools, rights of Church

no teaching sic= language, ar,S,

ineste denied pipe ceremony

medicine bundles searched; goosesto inmates

&mom trying to practice traditionalreligicn’branded tnnublenaker,
athitrary tranmfers of Natives

WA program in 8wiftbird8






=maim (7)
ItCATICWIMPIGNOUPLeech Lake,CliiepreaIlinnesota


Minnesote State Friaon,


WashingtonUSF McNeil IslandWee Noi4eil

ChehalioSicusIndian School



CEREMMeleS (8)

WashingtonMontanaMontanaMontanaNew Mask°
ArhxeueNew Mexico

Ar isons


ColvilleBlackfeetNes ParCeBlackfootSanta ClaraPueblo


NopiHopiNavajoUte Mountain Ute


arrests in oonoection with ntligiouspractice; sewn arrested it is hard tojustify activity when religion pro-
hinits disomesionof rites

attitudes of Feison wardens baoeremontess fears of drugs, violence

wardel refused request forNative American Church cheplaincy

strip searches cf medicine manstampering with pipes

inmate access to ceremoniesdenied sweat Lodgedieplain donied ume of pipe, ear,
feathers, cedar, buffalo *al,.
sweet grass1

BIA superintendent denied sweat lodge

IMS a4missiorus questial cn religicuspreference fails to provide forsyncretist or dual affiliation

INS denial of such traditinal birthrites as raving uMbilical oord


denied taking nerves:or:Lel objects tntoprison

Feyote abuse in boarding schoolsbynon-peyote religion practitioners

no cultural, tribal history orlanguage education in BLA schools

missionary suppression of traditionalreligion

suppression.of languaees in BIAschools

fear of having to reveal secretstn order bo comply with Act

ether trital police stopped reliyicuspilgrimage

need for Fcivacy of ceremonies andsites

tourists disrupt ceremonies;
ccevercial exploitation

edssicnary interference withtraditional practice

IPS fails to maelse treditional












LocanewriaBfitiPM!NAMmousREFNew MexicoZunilegal system fails ba recognizeZ1172;spiritual ommberns

New MexicoZuniprayers for all small birds amdZ4215religicus rights

J4lew MexicoZunioutdoor lighting interferes withZ4226tfasting period

Mew MexicoZunilaws protect what is anknoom to themZ:232

New MexicoAILSAreligious uorld-view say preventDil

recourse to secular inatitutions forredress of grievances

New MexicoAILSAtribal mufti’ unable to protectDlrel ig imia freedom

San FeliFe PuehaoBIM staff barred from Pueblo &ringBIA davelopirq policyD42

ceremonies have no administrativeleave1 \

San Felipe PuetaoBLA official appointed to ceremonialDs2

poet as Pueblo Governor’s aide lacksleave ct absence procedures

Oklahomaillegal peyote use0:4

0k:showMulkogeesuppression of amp dance,Ds5

cerembnial fires, other ceremoniesby BIA/elected official

LOCATICW/MBE/GROUPPROBLEMSSZATUSREPOklahcnaMaskogeedecline of tribal townsD:6Oklahcmasuit to amend religicus pcaicy ofOklahcma Dept of CorrectionsD:10,53

Cklahoma state prisons, Littleisuued policy memorandum grantingRaven v. Hess, on access toaccessreligicus elide= and ceremonialobjects

AlaskaEskimoreligious ceremonial practices

WashingtonColvillehistorical struggle of IndianShaker Church

WaahingtonColvilleuse of peyote rejected; use of

Shaker songs and instruments bynon-Sheivers

Oregonpeyote atueeWashington

USP Steilacoom, Washington

Washington State ;prisons

to insure protection cfNative American Church\\

inmate denied access to ceremonialcojects

inmates denied access to traditicralreligions

oreoon S’AeSiouxdenied sweat lodgesprisons

Fort Carson, OolOradopeyote possession by enlistedman







LOCATlaieTRIBEAROUPWeld Ceunry, Colorado



tudent’s lcmg hair denied byoverturned cn religicus grounds0:55sdhool boardin pokrywka v. Weld County SchcolDist.

WashingtcnColvilleneed for Indian language classes

WashingtonColvilleceremony at WashingtonState Univ.
broken up by local police

Utah State Wiganhair standards violateinmate’sceremonial practices

South DakotaSicuxceremonies have role inrehabilitaticn of ex-offenders

NARF/AILC Religicus

Freedau Project

LE Parole Cammissionshculdconsider parole treatment ofNative inmatee; certain parolecriteria discriminate againstNative American Churcb members



explanation of why OIR rarelyD:101takes religious freedom cases

Tuscarora, Rosebud Sioux,explains religicus practiceCh102other,
and beliefs regardingtraditional

Native hair styles and custarsexplains why it is unnecessaryD:103to require short hairof inmates

Native innate hair issue,
0:104Crowe v. Erickson

LOCATIWTRIEE/GROUPPROBLEMSAlaskaEskimoconsultations have no interpretersAlaskaTlingitneed for more bilingual school

facilities and programs; schccasnot responsive toNative culturalneeds



Fort Lewis,Nisquallyreligicus smokehouses ma longerDs109Washingtonpennitted at Muck Creek area

Port Lewis,Nisquallysweat ceremonies interruptedby0:109Washingtonartillery shelling

AlaskaTlingitgirl taken frcm Native tens, placedA:82in non-Native foster hale

AlaskaTlingitIndian Child Welfare Act exemptsht105

Mormons from foster homeprovisicns

AlaskaTlingitAlaska continues tO remove NativeA:121

children from North Slope to non-
Native foster homes

Fort Hall,Shoehone-traditional dances, ceremonies andDIREPIdahoBannockreligious activities should be

protected under state and federallews as Us Native American Church(e.g., sun dance, warm dance, etc.)

Arizona,ticci,ccnflict between traditicnal andZ:110SouthwestNavajo,non-traditional fcmms of governmentSOklahoma,Cheyenne,on reservaticmsWO

South DakotaSioux



SouthwestNavajolack of bilingualism in federalibil36

agencies limits their ability toserve Indiana

Californiawant consultations in CaliforniaWONortheastwant consultations in the NortheastVGNavajowant consultations at Navajo,S/GSultanaCrowfederal direutives not laploseritedNI127locally

New Mexico19 PueblosPueblo leaders find no chcmge inD1110

federal land-qmanaging agencies’practices since passage ofP.L. 95-341

Neit mexico19 Pueblos

New York

need for unrestricted hunting andfiehing for religious ceremonialpurposes

Iroquoisneed return of wampum belts and

other objects necessary to certainceremonial and traditionalr-governmental functions


Ds 110Dz





Letter, Afterican Indian Lawcultural resource classification notStudents Association, July 9,1979, ccnsonant with sacredsite; Park Service(9 leeirecognizes archeolcgical, nct sacred

significance of sites; competitionforland use; examples of sites: SanFrancisco Peaks, Siskiyous, Hawaiiansites, Kt. Taylor, Coso HotSprings,
Cherokee burial grcunds, Reinter.;
&edge, Tace sites; tribal governmentsmmy be unsynpathetic totraditionalvalues; religious world-view mayereventtraditicnal pecple from petitLeningforredress because of Lepurity ofsecularinstitutions; tritel courta not cat-
petent to prctect religicusfreedom,
appeal hem tribal courtimpossible.

staff of BIA school (and allnen-Pueblos),
barred frcm San Felipe Pueblo andetherPueblos during ceremmies whichbeginwithcut public announcement, have noadministrative leave from federalettployment; BLA eneiceees eppointedtoPueblo Governor’s staff, anunavoidableobligation, should have TPA arrangementsV..1A

2.Letter, VelentinoCovdeva,

Superintendent, BIA Schoolat San Felipe Pueblo, to’reek Force, June 28, 1979

3.White House Memorandum, May 3.

1979, letter, Thomas Bancyacya toPreeident Carter, April 3, 1979,
and mailgrat, Hopi elders toPresident Carter, Miry 1, 1979

4.Statement, Ilmmas J. Berner,

July 16, 1979

protest lard claim settlement;
comunite center at Hotevilla, AZ onsacred site

impertance of pottery in thetraditions of the Catawba TribeofSouth Carolina; senate ofresearchon the story of Catadoapottery frompreeDobedoian times to the present;
clays are traiitionally obtainedfrcrcnly one section of the CatavbaRiver


5.Letter, on CreekNation

letterhead, to MadisonDecktret, no date(unofficial, unauthorizedcorrespondence)

6.Agenda, Kings and Warriors

Meeting, Weogufkee, Okla.,
june 23, 1979

7.Paper, Legal ActionSupport

Prcdeet, Bureau of SccialScience Research, Inc.,BermSwift and Gary Bickel,’Compar-
ative Parole TreatmentofAmerican Indian andnon-Indianinmates of US FeeeralPrisoca,
FT 1973, 197424 pp.

8.Resoluticm and cover letter,

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma,
March 3, 1979

9.Letter, to AttorneyGeneralState of Cklabcma,May 17, 1979

10.Cover letter, NetiveAmerican

Rights Fund; LawsuitStipulation,
and Crder on Distissal,elanLittle Raven v. Merman Hess,
CV 77-I67C, USDistrict Court,
Eastern District,Oklahoma;
memerandum, Oklahana DeptofCorrecticns 09090301 Rev4Aug78.

11.Formal submission tothe Taek

Force, Edward Red Hat,ArrowKeeper, Tsistsistas(Cheyenne).
4 pp.


to illustrate suppressionoftraditicnal religion; forbidsstomp dance, ceremonialfires,
“jam sessicns,” ‘all nightshindigs”

discussion of tribal towns

discrLnination against Indiansreflected in parole statistics

requesito Okla. Dept. of WildlifeSupervision to hunt deer outofseason

request for deer forGteen CemnDance and SpringFeast cerenenies

mit to amend peacticeof religionpolicyeof Oklahoma prisonsyieldsaccess to spiritualleaders (specif.
Native American) and accesstodbjects (specif.feathers, fans,
beads, gourds, drums)andto literature

on hunting ardgathering revinenentspertinent to theTsistsistasceremonies; requestfor more stringentlaws for ;port huntingand fishing;
access to Bear Butte,SO, ittprotection franmotorcycles, tcurism,
etc.; proposal tocreate a Board aTraditicnal TribalMembets; access benamed sites

2 f ;


12.Alaska OCS Socio-eccromic Studies

Program, Bureau of Land Manageeent,
*Beaufort Sea Region SocioculturalSystems’ (TeChnical Report 1,
Contract AA550-CT6-41)

13.Special Report to the International

%haling Commission, Coarerce Cept,
n&awhead hhales’ pp 58-62

14.William A Cquilluk,le of

Kauweraks Legends of the Nort ernEskimo (AMU Press 1973)

IS.Transcripts, Alaska EskimoWhaling Conmission, 11 Sep 77

16.Statement ofSr., Eskimo,

17.Dorothy Jean

Masks, Art 6


Raymond Neakok,
in translation

RaY, ‘EskbnoCeremony pp

18.Robert F. Spencer, North

Alaskan Eskimo: A si-i-in Ecology

and Society (Cover, NY)


acknowledges (I) the strcog religiousand cultural role whaling plays inEskimo villages; (2) subsistenceccaprises 60-70% Eskimo food, anduneeployment in cash economy terms isverf highs (3) subsiatence andculture are inseparable; (4) describeshunting and food distribution.

aCknowledges inportance of )owhead%bale to Eskimo comunity; culturaldependence noted, though hard toquantify by non-Natives, concludesthat there are no alternative foodsources.

collection of stories, legends andoeremonies by an Alaska Native.

Inapiat testimony on proposed IWC banon b:whead hunting, in translation, onan Inupiat needs, culture, subsistence,
religion and way of life.

problems caused by US; statement ofenvironment/animml relationships

religious purposes of dancing (1) tohonor spirits of animals, (2) toirmure continuing food supply; usesof masks to conrunicate with animalWirits1 ceremonies to fuse spiritualand mundane worlds, to solLdify inter-
tribal relations.

Eskimo whaling (charms, songs, takingand greeting ceremonies, closing theseason), caribou hunt (shamans usedbo call caribou, taboos oteerved,
charms and songs, thanking thecaribou, basic oan(epts of ritual andreligion are magnified in hunting).


19.North Slope Borough Planning

Commission “Nuicput Villages ACultural Plan”, Feb 79

20.Letter, Frederick Torrisi,
Attorney, 9 Jul 79

21.Letter, Walter Echo Hawk,
Native American Rights Fund

22.Letter, Walter Echo-Hawk, NARP,

to Task Force, June 15, 1979;
Consent Judgment and Decree,
Bear Ribs et al. V. Taylor et a).,
177185 RJX(0), US DistrictCourt, Central District,
Cal iforn la

23.Articles of Inoorporation and

Bylaws, Indian Shaker ChurchoCWashington; Credentials ofAuthority, Indian Shaker Churchto Pearl Charley and Mary AnnCharley; Minutes of meeting,
Indian Shaker Church, Mellott,
hA, October 19, 1974; Statementof Pearl Charley; Statement ofMarianne Charley; Statement ofMargaret A Charley; Statement ofT.B. Charley

24.Statenent ct Anita Cheer


comprehensive background coInupiat perspectives andsurvival

Bureau of Land Management denieshundreds of Native land Allotmentapplications because “the ancientvalue of sharing land andresources conflicts with Westernideas about the ownership ctland.”

Fish & Wildlife Service and Alaskafish and game policies–dingdospoaal ct animal carcasses andputs fail to oansader Nativereligious needs

successful attempt to installsweat lodge in Lompoc FC1

“hard t ime getting help to Wildor renxiel” cturches; ‘we wereoonfined to jail cells:” peopleharrass the church because ofworship through the Holy Spirit;
no church building on ColvilleReservation

atuse of hallucinogenic plant cnColville Reservation contrary to

cur teaching


ZS.Resolution 1978-347, Colville

District Engineer, US Amy Corpsof Engineers, Seattle District toChairman, Colville BusinessCouncil, May 1, 1979′

26.Statement of Nelson Iukes,

Director, Nempelem CaerunityCenter

27.Letter, Charlie White Dirt,
Northern Cheyenne, January1,1979

28.Article, East Oregonian,

May 19, 1979, ‘State PoliceSeize 31 Pounds of Peyote’

29.Letter, George M. Nanankin bo

Task Foroe, June 15, 1979;
petitions Ln sepport of NativeAmerican Church; letter,
Candace E. Rolle-Rart toAssistant Secretary – IndianAffairs, June 13, 1979; Statementof Diana Tculcu

30.Statement ct William Charley, Sr.

31.Correspondence pertaining to

attempts to institute a sweatlodge at Chemawa IedianSchool

32.Letter,NativeAmerican Rights

Fund to Chaplain, US Penitentiary,

Steilacoon, WA, March 16, 1979



agreement an disposition ct artift.ctsassociated with Chief Jcmeph DamProject

otdects bo peyote in religious cere-
monies; privacy Of Indian ShakerChurch denied as non-Shakers useShaker songs and instruments

requeating federal assistance inprotecting Bear Butte, sacredCheyenne site (12/18/78 Resolutionof Northern Cheyenne TribalCouncil)

an peyote Abuse

toinsureprotection ofNative American Churchceremonies

testiironyof miraculoushealing of Indian Shakers

sweat lodge not installedat Chemawa Indian School

prison denied request of H.J.
Luna bobring religious itemsintoprison


33.Letter, Harold Belmont, Seattle

Indian Alooholian Program, toWashington Department of Al-
cohol Abuse, June 27, 1979


Statement, T.B. CharleyStatement, Ed8ie Palnanteer, Sr.
Cover letter, Frank Alby toTask Force, June 27, 1979;
letters to Oregon officials

37.Articles, Klamath Falls (Ore.)
BeraLd and News, February 13,

38.Article, Salem (Ore.) CapitalJournal, February 13, 1978

39.Article,ian, August 28,1979, APte. ne

40.Article, Oregon Journal, Cttober26, 1978

41.Article and letter, CapitalJournal, October 29, 1978, AP

42.Article, Cregon Statesman,

March 15, 1179; Article, ‘Journal,”
March 16, 1979, Article, Capital,
Journal, May 16, 1979

43.Bill, aregon Senate, SB 631, 1979

and House amendments


inmates denied access to andpractice of traditional religionsin Washington State prisonsystem

Colville sacred sitesceremonial fishing groundsdenial of sweat lodges inCregon prison system

Looting of sites, interviewwith state archeologist;
Indian views on Oregon 1977burial site protect ion laws

eevelcfrent at Li* RiverNative cemetery site

burial sites disturbed byCorps of Engineers atBb; Bend Dam, SD

barial site atindustrialPark

disruption of burial and noreintennent

on Cregon burial siteprotection law

Indian burial site protect ionleg islet ion



44.Cover Letter, Frank Alby toTask Force, June 27, 1979

45.Minutes of Meet ingCantatas ion

en Indian Services, State ofCregon, ‘Fretecting IndianBurials’ and appendices.
February 8, 1979



An ardheologist for theState Historic PreservationOffice, administering theIndian burial site protectionlaw, laid that office had noenforcement powers and mustrely on police who may notbe aware of law.Prosecutorfor Yakima Nation said theYakimas were unwillingtoparticipate as ccnsultants indetermining disposition ofsites because sites shculdbe treated only under generalgrave sobbing statutes.TheDirector of the Klamath CountyMUseum said tourist promotionin that area emahasised arrow-
head hunting and vandalism.
Axember of the Ccw CreekUmpqua Band of Indians saidpot hunter told him he wasnot deterred by law withminimal penalties and inaifferentenforcement.Also present wererepresentatives ct Fish &
Wildlife Service, BonnevillePower Authority, Rarest Service.

46.Appendices: ORS 97.740, ORS 97.745, Oregon Indian burial site

aRs 97.750, ORS 97.990, Article,protection statutesAmerican Antiquity, 39:1974:1,
‘American Indians and AmericanArelaeology:’ unidentified lournal,
Thomas F. Xing,*ArcbaeologicalLawand the American Indians” 1977 OregcnLowe of Interest to Inaian Tribes, etc.,
especially HB 2626; Background menorandum,
Ccroxissico cOIndian Services, on legislationto protect Indian burials, February 3, 1977


47.Letters, Joyce Griffen ba

WS -IA and to Director, ForestService, both June 14, 1979

48.Letters, Mr 6 Mrs Terry MUey,

tolask Force and BIA, Apriland June, 1979; Article, Alexandria(Indiana) Times Tribune, no date,
‘Before Time, the LandWaited – forPlane Regional Facilities Flan,
City of Alexandria (IN) lOwn cfOrestes, April 1979. MaPS of MonroeOtaunty, Indiana, etc.

49.Letter, John Garcia, Indian Coancil

ct California to Sen. Hayakawa,
Cttcter 24, 1979, transmittal toDIA and response, Director ofTrust Responsibilities

93.Letter, Chief Alden Windsong

Blake to Rep. Margaret Heckler,
April 26, 1979, and transmittals

51.Letter, G.K. Sapier to the

President, May 24, 1979, andarticle, Lancaster (Penna.)
Intelli.jencer, May 3, 1979,
dArehaedlogists Await Dig Approval

52.Article, Purcn (S.D.) paily

Plainsman, June 25, 1911, dAncientIndlan village in danger”

53.Letter, Native American Rights

Fund to Assistant Attorney General,
State of Oklahoma, October 2, 1978,
and Stipulaticn and Crder onDismissal, Alan J. Little Ravenv. Hannan Hess, CV 77-165-C, USDistrict Court, Eastern District,
Cklahcma, 1978


developer* of ski area en San Fran-
cisco Peaks; uraniummining at Mt.
Taylor; lumbering and mining ofcinders in Cooanino National Forest

landfill in Alexandria, Indianathreatens burial sites, town site

expansion of Lick Observatory(Univ et Calitarnia at SantaClara) on Junipero Sfttil Peak,
a sacred site

government premised Chief TurkeyTayac, Piscatemmi, burial rightsat Piscataway Nationel CapitalPark, not honored

ardhaeological claimtoburialsite Ln county park threatensintegrity ofremains

NationalHistoric Landmark withgravesites to Demme a housingdevelopent, Pierre, SD

prisonproblems:access toreligicus implements, to naturalproducts, to spiritual leaders.

right to hold religious meetings


54.Letter, Native American Rights

Fund to 113, 4th Inf Div, Ft.
Carson, Colorado, Cctcber 27,1978

55.Cover letter, Native American

Rights Fund to Task Force andMenorandus of Decision, Samuel


a et al. v. Weld CounSchtoDistrictet al., Civil-C-AilTii-i24786, 1974. DistrictCCurt, Ccunty of Weld (Colorado)

56.Letter, Native American Rights

Fund to Superintendent, ChemawaIndian Sodlool, March 21, 1979

57.Testimony of Buffalo Tiger,
Chainban, Micoosukee Tribe

58.Letter, Jack Jackson, Navajo

Medicine Men’s Association toNative American Rights Fund,
June 21, 1979

59.Letter”John J Wood, Associate

,Professor of Anthropology.
Northern Arizona University,
to A/S-1A, July 10, 1979, andPaper, J.J. hbod 4 W.M. Vannette,
“Preliminary Assessment of theSignificance of Navajo SacredPlaces in the Vicinity of Big Mt.,
Arizona,” 38 pp., cont/acted bythe Navajo-Hopi Indian RelocationCsmnissico

2 ‘7 3


peyote possession by NativeAmerican Church member in US Army

denial of student’s long hairoverturned co religious groundsalone;

sweat lodge denied

access ti3 sites; trite shculdhave authority to restrict accessto non:Indians; collecting ofnon-endangered plants and anbnals;
possessLon of eagle feathers;
access to cemeteries for burials,
no violation of burial sites withouttribal apprcval

acCeSS to sites at San Franciscoreeks, Mt. Taylor, Blanca Peak,
Hesperus Peak; ncn-native (hencenon-ceremonial) plants used toreseed stripmined land drivesout native species of greatvalue to religious practice;
list of native flora on BlackMesa and elsewhere; list of museums\ with religicus objects, includingNavajo National Monument

%ftlocaticnof Navajos occupyingBlg Mt. to outside Hopipartitioned area of the JointUse Area, Arizona


61.Letter, Burgess Primeuar, NARF, to

Task Fccce, July 27,1979; Letter,
Ftul E Frye, DNA -Pecple’s LegalServices, to NARF, July 17,1979withcut stated enclosures

62.Transmittal to AIS-LA; Letter,

Sen. Hayakawa to Secretary ofInterior, Ane 26, 1979; Letter,
Matt Murray to Sen. Hayakawa,,
June 7, 1979


Bureau of Land ManagementEnvirormental Impact Statementon Star Lake-Bisti coal stripedning prceosal, NavajoReservation, fails to oonsiderAmerican Indian ReligicusFreedcm Act

Marin Ccunty, Californiaurban develoevent overAmerican Indian burial sites

63.Letters, G.A. Vtn Cotten to theceposing develcement cn San

President, MarLti 13, 1979, SidFrancisco Pe&s, ArizonaJaffe to BIA, March 2, 1979;
Telegram, Elizabeth Park to theSecret4.7y of Interior (SOI), Febniary23, 1479; Letters, A.E. Rockwell toSOT, Fetcuary 20, 1979, L.D. Averyto Interior Cept., February 22, 1979,
Jack Kirschman to SCT, February, 1979,
L.V. Weslowski to SDI, February 24, 1979,
Robert Faller to SC1, n.d., BJi. Rcyto SOI, March 19, 1979, Catherine Gatscoto SCI, February 15, 1979, Rathleen Clarkbo SOI, March 7, 1979; Mailgrans,
Devinier Singh to SOI, Febcuary 24, 1979,
Rachel Dee to SOI, February 26, 1979;
Letters, Ed Sutton to SOI, February 23,1979, Richard Searle to SOI, February 28,1979; Mailgrams, C.D. Lind to the President,
and to SOI, February 22, 1979, LaConnaHarris to SOI and Assistant Secretary –
Indian Affairs, February 23, 1979, unsignedto SOI, February 22, 1979, Barbara Sires to901, February 22, 1979, Diana Carol, et al.,
to SOI and to Assistant Secretary -IndianAffairs, February 25, 1979; letter, N.B.
Srwed to the President, March 23, 1979;
Mailgran, Edith Neece to SOI, February 26,1979; Letters, Leilani Squire to thePresident, February 17, 1979, Rhonda Friendto SOI, n.d., Vonn Ritter to 931, n.d.,
S.E. Ttstin to the President and 931,
March 23, 1979, James Blue Wolf to SOI, n.d.,
T.P. Pox to SOI, n.d.



64.Letter, M.A. Strewn to SW, January

7, 197e and to Robert Gregg,
December 4, 1978; Article, un-
identified newspaPer, “DevelceeentDeciSien due co Snow Bewl,” December23, 1978; Mailgram, Medicine WheelTMICh to 901, February 22, 19791Letters, Pat Hill te SO1, February 12,1979, Sherry Muyres to President andto 931, March 1, 1979; Leaflets (2)
“Say! San Premise° Peaks;” Letters,
James COnd? r}lesen to 901February 22,1179, J Rcbar to 901, Febriary 21, 1979.

opposing deve lacer nt crSan Franciseo Peaks, Arizona

65.Letter, John Silva to DIA, Zoly 5, 1979

66.Letter, Native American Nuritage

Cum:mice, State of California toTask Force, June 20, 1979 andmeilgram, June 22, 1979

6′.i’,5ter, W.W. Downes,to BIA,ha,r standards at Utah State

1979Prison violate inmate’s eeremonialFew:- ices

60..,Hall to the President,

S.>.a(.4! Interior and AssistantSicr./ – Indian Affairs, July 16,1v7e

69.letter, T.J. Ferguee, Zuni

Archaeological Pregram, to HCRS-IAS,
July 19, 1979

70.Letter, Walter Eetc-Sawk, NARF to’,en. Dale Bumpers

71.Tetter, Ttudy L. Leiner, Chairpersze

ei Pismo Heritage Council, July 2C,

72.Statement, Jely 19, 1979, Pismo

Beritage Ccencil

easements to aboriginal areas ofNetive Hawaiians necessary: needfor inventory of Native Hawaiiansites

religicus values should takeprecedence over archaeological cnesLn questions of exhumations:
inundation of sites need nct hpsufficient reason to exhume burials:
dispositicn of gravegocds shouldbe in oontrol of tribe

disturbances of burial sites

seeking protectken for the PismoChuma e village site

preeeeali to avoid damage toChews.; Inoian village site-
urees erLeaeolog;cal an’historicapark status


73.Memorandum of Concern – San Ftan-

cisco Peaks, NARF/AILC AmericanIndian Religious ereedcws Project,
January 17, 1979


development at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona

74.Affidavits of Tom Watson, Noverrberdevelopmert at San

13, 1978, M.C. Mitchell, November 28, Peaks, Arizona1978, F.D. Tsosie, November 17, 1978;
Resolution, Navajo Medicinemen’iAssaciation, n.d.; Resolution, NavajoNation Health Symposium, August 14,1978; Resalution circulated cm NavajoReservaticn; Statement of Emil Tso, Jr.,
Statement of Fred Kaye, Statement ofTeinnijinnie Singer; Resolution ofTuba City Careunity Chapter, June 27,1974

75.Letter, Robert E Lewis, Goeernor,

lereblo of Zuni to Secretary ofInterior, March 12, 1979

76.Letter, Boyden, Remedy, Rarney and

Cwena to Assistant Secretary –
/ndian Affairs, April 5, 1979

77.Letter, L.J.L. Riley to Secretary

of Interior (501), February 22, 1579;
Telegram, Throes Seiler, et al., toSO/, Febeeary 23, 1979; Telegram,
Barbara Klide to SOI, February 22, 19

78.Mailgram, Colleen Wells to Secretaryof Interior, February 8, 1979

79.Letter, John MadKinncn, DNA –

People’s Legal Services, toAssistant Secretary – IndianAffairs, June 18, 1979; fetter,
John MacKinnon be Task Force,
January 12, 1979; Letter, JohnMadKinnon to Secretary of Interior,
Novmnber 21, 1978

80.Letter, American Indian Law

Center to Task foece, January 12,



(levels-went at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona

development at San FranCiScoPeaks

development at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona


developrent at San FranciscoPeaks, Arivona

developrent at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona

develcpment at San Francisco

Peaks, Arizona


81.Letter, M.A. Brewn to NARF,
December 4, 1978

82.Letter, M.A. Brown to M.A.

Keerick, July 27, 1978/ Article,
unidentified periodical, no title

83.Epigraphical transcription;

general description of SanFrancisco Peaks, Ar izona

84.Letter, Mika Cccper, to

Setretary of Interior,
June 21, 1979

85.Letter, Rev. Garrett Lear to

Secretary of Interior, June 16,1979; specimen of petition

86.Statement of Anne tOeakeakaokalani

Kauaihilo, no date; advertisement,
Honolulu Star-Bulletin andAdvertiser, June 11, 1978

87.Statement of Kecni Agard, nember,
Congress of Native Hawaiian People


develppnent at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona

develcpment at San FranciscoPeaks, Arizona

inadequate notice of ocnsultaticns:
Naticnal Park Service administrators,
%no control mast of Native sites,
do not understand Hawaiian heritageand thus cause desecration; Fish &
Wildlife Service has posted ‘notrespassing’ signs on many LeewardIslaed sites which contain Nativereligicus and cultural sites; KaulaIsland used as aerial gunnery range,
destroying bird populaticn, is homeof Shark Ifanily anakual; PearlHarbor, a religicus Shark area, off –
limits to Natives; naval barbing ofKahoolawe Island; Wonohikis (religicusoriented fishing rights) denied

supports protection and revival ofNative Hawaiian religicn

US Navy should have control overKahoolawe Island, because “Howmany ko’a or small fishing shrinesdo we need to tell a simplepagan story?”

sumarizes oral testimony of Ks Agard


88.Letter, Peggy Hao Ross to Secretarymemorizes oral testimony of Peggy

of Interior, June 13, 1979; Letter,Ha’o RossPeggy Hao Rces to the President,
April 19, 1979; Letter, LilimkalaniRoss to HD 14th Naval District,
no date; Letter, 14th Naval Districtto Ms. Ross, December 22, 1977/ LatterThird Fleet to MS. Ross, December 23,1979, Letter, Ms. Ross ba the President,
January 6, 1978; Letter, Secretary ofthe Navy bo Ms. Ross, February 2, 1978;
Statement of Liliookalani Kooweskome,
April 13, 1978: Letter, Peggy Hao Rossto HD, Third Fleet, April 26, 1979;
Aaticle, “Navy Tests its Strength’,
n.p., n.d.; Flyer ct ‘Oha’naHawai’i

89.Testimony of Brown & Bettencourt,

attorneys for Native HawaiianLegal Ccmporation, June 1979,
“Prcposal Legislation…1” Letter,
Cynthia H. Thielen to Secretary ofCefense, May 4, 1979; Letter, Ms.
Thielen to Task Foie*, June 7, 1979;
Letter, Haunani -Kay Trask bo BD,
Third Fleet, Kay 11, 1979; Letter,
Third Fleet to Dr. &vett Aluli,
May 29, 1979; Letter, Cynthia H.
Ttielen to Third Fleet, June 4, 1979;
Letter, Ms. Thielen to Task Force,
June 21, 1979

90.Statement, Nolan Chock, June 12,1979

91.Statement, Randy He’ano Kalahiki,
Sr., June 13, 1979

92.Statement, Bob Stauffer, Native

Hawaiian Legal Corporation, January1979, to Advisory Board, ReligicusFreed3M Project, NARF/AIIC

proeosed legislation fPraccess to Native Hawaiianreligious sites; requestsfull Navy consultation withreligious leaders; attacksNavy consultation an issueof Kahoolawe Island, claimaNative arrests and two deathsfor trespass cn island;
oomplains that Navy’s June13, 1979 consultaticn was by’personal invitation only.’

summary of oral testimonyof Mr. Chock

summary of oral testimonyof Kr. Kalahiki

cutlines Hawaiian religiousissues concerning wildlifeani plants, access to sacredsites, museums ani artifacts,
employment, ard recannendaticnsfor remedial acticn



93.Letter, Jade Netone, Chairman,

Rime Chapter, Native NrericanChurch, to NARF 6 Jtile 1979

94.Statement of John Flynn,
7 June 1979

95.”Pipe Ceremony ard Sweat Wage*

Archie fire Lane Deer, 4 April1979

96.Policy Statement, Advisory Board

of Religious Freedom Project,
NARF-AIW, 8 July 1979

97.Document, *Sacred Sites: Cultural

Problems Prevent AdequateProtect ion,” Rel igicus FreedanProject, NARFAILC, July 7, 1979

98.Letter of Walter Echo-Hawk,

June 22, 1979; Article, “Compar-
ative Parole Treatment of AmericanIndian and Mon-Indian Inmates inUS Pederal Prisons, FY 1973-74,*
Bureau of Social Science Research

99.100 .

101. Letter, James Schermerhorn,
Direetor, OIR, Mardi 30, 1979

102. Xffidavits of Mari Bear Andersen,

Crew Dog, Deward WaVeer, Rebert

‘Manes, Jerold Levy, and others


request irq further consult at icsi atAnadarko, Oklalxrna

FL 95-341 has been irstrimental inaccess conflict at Point Conception,
California. Agreenent was signed withprivate landowner and enforced by courts.

backgrcund overview of cererronies andtheir role in rehab i 1 itat icn of Nat iveArerican ex-of fenders

propeses recarrendat ions on treatment ofburial sites, on access to sacred placesand cn right to use natural preducts

consultat ion discuss ion &mile nt ; nolaws specifically protect holy placesfor Native religicus use; why culturalproblems have prevented federal officialsfrom applyirg exist irq laws to prctectholy places; suggest icn that specificlegislation may be indicated to provideclear guidelines

16 Parole Omission should evaluateits procedures; certain parole criteriaipso facto discriminate against membersof Native Arterican Churdi

denials of religious freedomby OSP settled by litigation

MP-Massachusetts denied Nativesgemat lodge and sacred pipe

explains why OIR rarely takesNative religious freedom cases

explains religious beliefs andpractices regarding traditionalNat ive hair styles and curaris


103. Affidavit of Wayne Woolverton;

Deposit ion of Robert Raines,
correct ions administrator

104. Brief filed in Crowe V. Erickson

105. Test irony of Arillie Fire Lane Deer;

Intervenors’ initial and replybriefs filed in FEFC preceding

106. Staterent, “Plaikni Villages Rebirth

of the Spirit;* Letter, MerlesRirrbol, Chairman, Klamath Tribe, toEdison Chilcquin, n.d.; Letter,
Mel Ton.asket, President, ArericanCouncil of Nrerican Indians, to Mr.
thilcquin, December 7, 1974; Letter,
Gordon Settles to Rep. Ullman, June29, 1978; Lettere.;layton Schultz,
Klamath, June 30, 19781 Letter,
Roby E. Harlan, Mayor, Chiloquin,
Oregon, to Rep. Ullman, June 30, 1978;
Letter, Nell Kuonen, Klamath County(0re.) Cammtssioner, toRep. Ullman,
June 30, 1978; Letter, Ms. Henan toRep. Ullman, June 30, 1978; Letter,
Gecrge Manuel, Pres ident , Nat icnalIndian Bretherhood, Ottada, Canada,
to Mr. Chilequin, December 7, 1974;
Letter, Wineffe National Forest toMr. Chilcquin (part), August 30, 1976;
Press release, draft, July 2, 1976.


explains why it is unnecessaryto require prisoners to wearshort hair

Native innate hair issue

development at PointConception, California

Edison Chiloquin case; mansilo refused settlerrent inKlamath termination act ionwas granted occupancy rightsto National Forest land forconstruction of cereronialstructures.

107. Editorial, Carson City Devada Appeal, opeoses, inter al ia, transfer of

June 29, 1979ownersh ip-arcira-O-rse Reservo ir

fishing rights to Duck ValleyBand of Indians and absence ofstate fishirq permits in additionto Indian cnes at Pyramid Lake.

108. Article, “Ancient Indian site in

Valley threatened by developrrents,
Nevacla Appeal, June 25. 3979;
Article, -“Stnxjg1L to save Indiansite,” Nevada Appeal, June 26, 1979;
Art icle,’Controvers sal subd iv is ionCIK’d,” Nevada ?weal, June 29, 1979.

sewage wetlands project threatens12,000 year old intact Washoe andfre-Washce burial site in CarsonVal ley , Nevada.



109. Letter, Bill Fruit, Jr., Vice

Chairman, Northwest IndianFisheries Commission, toTask Force, July 30, 1979,
and Statement, Bill Frank, Jr.,

2 s 1


religicus strokehouses no Longerallowed at Muck Creek, Pt. Ledis;
decline of salmon and steelheadruns on NisquallyRiver: AlderDam on Nisqually River, 1940s,
failed to provide spring salmonaccess: introduction offallsalmon by state depleted springseam runs, used for springceremonies; Bureau of CcumercialFisheries (WS) prceotedsaltwater catches ibich preventedconservation on individual runs:
artificial hatcheries and diversionof hatching sites to other usesfails to oonsbier traditionalceremonial fishing sites, e.g.,
Notth Fuck, Sleolesnish River,
Centralia Diversion, NisquallyRiver; Canada and Alaska fishersintercept stocks; Ccmmerce Dept.
fails to regulate ocean trollfleet at expense cf censnonialfisheries: not enough fiah evenfor ceremanial purpases; Chumsalm)n for winter ceremonies,
funerals, weddings are 9one,
including important fall thumrun on Nisqually River,all chumon Puyallup and GteenRivers; ESEdistribution program cf hatcherychum to tribes for ceremonial usediscontinued this year; Muck Cteekchum habitat used by US Army, Ft.
Lewis, as rocket range and tankcourse; threat of ccmpOitionfromsport fishers on steelhead runs,
imortant winter cereconial fish;
lack of access to black carrots,
Fehrhe’ roots; lack of access tomountains, to nountain campsites;
lack of access ba huckleberrygrounds; FS no Longer allowsaccess to careercially enusablecedar trees for ceremonial-Iceghouseframes; lack of access to shellfish,
to halibut, to seals and whales;
sweat ceranonies interrupted byartillery shelling at Fort Ledis.


110. Statement, Delfin J. Lovato,

Chairman, All Indian PuebloCouncil, August 9, 1979Position Paper RegardingAmeriCan Indian ReligiousFreedom – AIPC reiiiew ofdraft final report, generallyagreeing with repctt butraising points of specialconcern to the 19 PuebLos


all lands traditionally occupiedand travelled by Pueblos, andability to cormune with thoseLands, are ineortant bo religiouspractice; any subject federalpolicy should be ppplied to allLands, not only isolated sacredspots, but also U3 broad areasfor Pueblos to oammune withheritage lands; Pueblo leadersfind no change in federal land-
menaging agencies’ practicessince pasaage of P.L.
mare than Executive Ctderneededto chan9e attitudes; needstatutccy framnendc for protectionof religious practices, lands,
ctdects on sane basis as protec-
tion,for ecologically sensitiveangle; agencies need directivesfor tribal consultation forptocedures for unrestrictedaccess to and use of sites,
ctdects, with minimal or nodocumentation and no permitrequirements; any statutory ortegulatory scheme should ensureunrestricted religicus ceremonialhunting and fishing, includingareas under state control,withsenagenent reliance on tribalconservation traditicns, ratherthan artificial quota systemFectection of waters of religioussignificance, with no federalacticns ba diminish cc degradenatural flows taken withoutdueconsultation with affectedtribes; agencies initiating orapproving projects or actiormaffecting sacred lands ccobjects should be required tonotify and consult with affectedtribes in land-use planning,
without limitation to thoseinstances where existingenvircomental Law applies


S 2


111a letter, My So 1919, frau

Mord R. Thaw, President,
The ?adoration of NdftheastAWN* IMA Ccuhcils, to MAInk Amos

NI, Submission@ Religicus ?madam

Peolect of the Native AsaricanRights PUndiaserican tndian LawCanter, Ifkamery of federally-
Related Native Religious Problemsas of My 5, 1979′


P.Lo 95-341 very important b3 thetraditkmal lifestyles of AlaskaNattmesf those who depend ufon thesulasistence way of life Should beable to participate in hearingsfmost people who depend an subsist-
ence living are oW the waters ccin amps for the sager gatheringfood and materials 63r the whitentagdest that every effort be madeto conduct hearings either in earlyspring or sid-fall.

Wolof’ identified by means ofelsurvey cl all tribes andiastive


United States Departmentof the Interior




TO:Members, Task Fe..)roe to Implementthe AmericanIndian Religious Freedom Act

FROM:Assistant Secretary – IndianAffairsSUBJECT:Scheduled Consultations

As most of you are aware,field consultations with Nativetraditionalreligious leaders have been scheduledthroughout the United Statesduring the month of June.Notices of consultation havebeen mailedto Native tribes,organizations, individuals and BLAfield officesfor their information anddistribution.The notices have beenprovided to the DOI/HEW/CSA-fundedproject, which is assistingwiththe implementation of P.L. 95-341,for distribution through theproject advisory body of religiousand tribal leaders.Individualnotices are attached for yoursupplementary distribution.

Upon receipt of this schedule,please imdicate by return callto myoffice the consultation meetings youwill attend and the name andcontact number of yourrepresentative to those meetings youcannotattend.Those who have provided thisinformation to Ms. Suzan Harjoneed not further confirm.For confirmation andfurther logisticalinformation, you may contact Ms.Harjo, Ms. Susan Hvalsoe(both at343-6031), Ms. Mozelle Henry or Mr.Rodger Boyd (both at343-7163).
Thank you in adyance forexpediting this process..

I wish you much successin the consultationmeetings.In additionto those listed in theattachment, sdhedules and sites arenowbeing finalized for meetings inAlaska and elsewhere.This infor-
mation will be circulated as soon asall dates and arrangements aremade.



June 7 and 8

Cheyenne River Swiftbird ProjectCheyenne River Sioux ReservationEagle Butte, South Dakota

Focus:Religious traditions and customsin relation to prison facilities,
mdlitary installations and schools.

June.11 and 12Minnesota Chippewa Tribal ChambersCass Lake, Minnesota


Fbcus:Ceremonial hunting, fishingand gathering; access to ceremonialgrounds, sacred sites and gatheringareas; and other issues relatingto the Bureau of Prisons, the IndianHealth Service, the U.S. CustomsService and the Social SecurityAdministration.

June 13National Park Service FacilitiesHonolulu, Hawaii

June 14 and 15

June 19 and 20

General Consultation with NativeHawaiian representatives.

Chief Joseph Cultural CenterConfederated Tribes of the ColvilleReservationNespelem, Washington

Focus:Burial sites, cooperativestudy and construction agreements,
access to sacred sites, and theuse and disposition of ceremonialobjects and artifacts.

U.S. Custcms Service Committee onIndian AffairsConference Roam – Holiday InnGreat Falls, Montana

Focus:Cross-border travel, trans-
portation of sacred objects, andother issues being considered bythe U.S. Custams.Service Committee

on Indian Affairs.

June 22 and 23

June 26 and 27

Zuni Recreation CenterPueblo of ZuniZuni, New Mexico

Pocus:Access to sacred sites,
ceremonial grounds and gatheringareas; ceremonial andtraditionaluse of animals andbirds; and theuse and oollectionof naturalproducts.

University of OklahomaOklahoma Memorial Student UnionBuildingDining Room #6 – 900 Asp StreetNorman, Oklahoma


Focus;Use of natural products,animals andbirds in religious ceremonies; accesstoceremonial and religious areas; andNativetradition and custom in regard toeduca-
tional and health facilitiesand practices.

s 6

United States Department of the InteriorOFFICE OFTHE SECRETARYWASHINGTON, D.C.20240


June 7 and 8

MAY 2 8 1979

Cheyenne River Swiftbird ProjectCheyenne River Sioux ReservationEagle Butte, South Dakota

Focus:Religious traditions and customsin relation to prison facilities,
military installations and schools.

June 11 and 12Minnesota Chippewa Tribal ChambersCass Lake, Minnesota

Focus:Ceremonial hunting, fidhingand gathering; access to ceranonia1grounds, sacred sites and gatheringareas; and other issues relating to theBureau of Prisons, the Indian HealthService, the U.S. Custams Service andthe Social Security Administration.

June 13National Park Service FacilitiesHonolulu, Hawaii

June 14 and 15

June 19 and 20

General Ccnsultation with NativeHawaiian representatives.

Chief Joseph Cultural CenterConfederated Tribes of the ColvilleReservaticnNespelem, Washingtal

Focus:Burial sites, cooperativestudy and construction agreements,
access to sacred sites, and theuse and disposition of ceremonia’objects and artifacts.

U.S. Customs Service Committee onIndian AffairsConference Room – Holklay InnGreat Falls, Montana

Focus:Cross-border travel, trans-
portation ct sacred otljects, andother issues being considered bythe U.S. Customs Service Commdttee

on Indian Affairs.

June 22 and 23Zuni Recreation Center

Pueblo of ZuniZuni, New Mexico

Focus:Access to sacred sites,
ceremonial grounds and gatheringareas; ceremonial andtraditionaluse ct animals andbirds; and theuse and collection ofnaturalproducts.

June 26 and 27University of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Memorial Student UnionBuildiogDining Room #6 – 900 Asp StreetNorman, Oklahoma

June 29

June 30

July 12

Focus:Use of natural products,animals andbirds in religious ceremonies; access toceremonial and religiaas areas; andNativetradition and custom in regard toeduca-
tional and health facilities andpractices.

Cualla Civic CenterAcquan RoadEastern Band of CherokeeIndiansQualla BoundaryCherokee, North Carolina

Reno/Sparks Tribal Facilities Building34 Reservation RoadReno, Nevada

Anchorage AgencyBureau of Indian AffairsConfcrence Roan1675 C Street, Kaloa BuildingAnchorage, Alaska

Focus ct final three consultations:
Protection and preservation cftraditional,
ceremonial and religious objects,customs,
practices, sites and artifacts.

Local contact, North Carolina:Maxine Hill,
Museum of the Cherokee Indian(704-497-3481).

Local contact, Nevada:Harold Wyatt,
EXecutive Director, Inter-TribalCouncil ofNevada (702-786-3128).

Local contact, Alaska:John Hope, Officeof Tribal Gperations, Bureau ofIndian Affairs(907-586-7198).


United States Department of the Interior




‘Cheyenne River Swiftbird ProdectProject FacilitiesCheyenne River Sioux ReservationJune 7-8, 1979 (Thursday and Friday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m. each day)

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 sets forth thepolicy of the United States to protect and preserve the inherentright of American Indian, Esktho, Aleut and Native Hawaiian peopleto believe, express and exercise their traditional religions.

The Act calls for an evaluation of the federal agencies’ poXiciesand procedures, as they affect.the religious rights and culturalintegrity of .Native Americans, and requires that the Presidentreport the agencies’ findings and recommendations to the Gcagress inAugust of this year.Ttie preparation of tilis report accords us theopportunity to rethink antiquated governmental policies, to develop.
uniforM approaches and procedures, and to measure existing practicesagainst practical experience.The Act mandates that the eValuation_
be conducted in consultation with. Native traditional religiousleaders.

The Task Force to Implement*the American Indian ReligiousTreedcmAct will cOnduct a series of corpultation meetings in JuneAh.roughoutthe United States.Ihe consaltation at Swiftbird will focus onreligious traditions and customs of.Native peoples in relation toprison *facilities, military installations and schools.The consul-
tation and Official record will be open to those wishincibto addressthese subject.areas, as well as other topics related to the Nativereligious concern.

For more information, please contact:Suzan Shown Harjo, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Secretary – IndiekAffaira (202-343-6031),
Melvin Garreau, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Ttihel Council(605-964-4155), or Rick Williams, Director., Cheyenne River SwiftbirdProject (605-733=2466).

-Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs



United StatesDepartment of theInterior



Tribal ChambersMinnesota ChippewaTribeCass Lake,MinnesotaJune 11-12, 1979(Monday and Tuesday)
(Starting ata.m, eachda)

The AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct of 1978 setsforth thepolicy of the UnitedStates to protectand preserve theinherentright of AmericanIndian, Eskimo, Aleutand Native Hawaiianpeopleto believe, evressAnd exercise theirtraditional religions.

‘The Act calls for anevaluation of thefederal agencies’policiesand procedurec, asthey affect thereligious rights andculturalintegrity of 14ativeAmericans, and requiresthat the Presidentreport theagencies’ findingsand recommendationsto the CongressinAugast of this year.The preparation ofthis report accords ustheopportunity to rethinkantiquated governnentalpolicies, to developuniform approachesand procedures,and to measureexisting practicesagainst practicalexperience.The Act mandatesthat the evaluationbe conducted inconsultation with Nativetraditional religousleaders.

The Task Force toImplement the AnericanIndian ReligiousFreedomAct will conduct aseries of consultationmeetings in Junethroughoutthe United States.The consultationwill focus onceremonialhunting, fishing andgathering; access toceremonial grounds,sacredsites and gathering areas;and other issuesrelating to tne Bureau.
of Prisons, theIndian Health Service,the U.S. CustomsService andthe Social SecurityAdministration.The consultationand officialrecord will be opento those wishingto addressthese subject areas,
as well asother topics relatedto the Nativereligious concern.

.For moreinformation, paease contact:Suzan ShownHarjo, SpecialAssistant to theAssistant Secretary -Indian Affairs(202-343-6031),
or GeorgeV. Goodwin,Executive Director,Minnesota ChippewaTribe(218-335-2252).

Assistant Secretary – IndianAffairs


itt spipmr amaUnited States Department of the Interior




JUL 1 2 1979

Chief AnthropologistFroa:Staff ArcheelogiatSubject:Cass Lake, Minaesota

Chaired by Jackson W. Moore, Jr.,TTMember, National Park Service.
Panel included Toe hoots, surr. USFS: Woody Sneed,surr. ZIA: MarearetMeLit arum ligreau of Customs, Jeanne Rubin,ours. nrw.
Observers included Jack Backer, Hine. DNR. RalphTown and Jim Mattson,

A, number of Chippewa of all ages catered theroom, oat end listened, andthen departed.Along the vocally articulate were Melvin lads,a Rio=
vorkin with’indisus who are incarcerated in tha Federal_and Stateprisons (but whose forearm wae tatoosd “A.I.M.”): RichardDrawee, aChippewawith the Mioneeote Departaent of Corrections, Lent Tupper,
Attorney for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Terry O’Briii,reporter forCalamity Outreach, Northern Community ladle Station EAXS-FM, GrandRapids, Minnesota; a Winnebago Nely Man (Native American Cburch)fromNedison, Wisconsin.

First issues reised concerned the rights of tediaas whoare imprisonedin Federal wad State correctional institutions to practice traditionalreligion.la the Great Lakee area the Federal inevitutione*haw sorers”
flexibility than the Stets prisons.Specific ffending peactices are:

Dismantling f sediciae bundles, defiling and neutralising than,

prabing,and perforating pipes;
Handling, probiag, adn perforatiat drams:
Strip-sebichieg the priests/RolyNen;
Denial f pesmiselor to construct moat lodges;
Punishing pris4aers ‘vho request these rights with solitary and/ewtreaders to ether feeilities.

Disney was espreased by tbo audience that the Bureau ofresew wasmotrepresented on the panel, despite the listing of PriseeereRights as amajor iambasMu **soda.The Chair observed that the Task Feces couldmake so direct ismect ea the State facilitiesbecausethe

Act /*plied


only to the UeecutiveBranch of the !federalGovernmenthowever, thoseState institutionswhich relied uponVederal funds end assistancewouldbe affected, inproportion to suchreliance.A pledge was alsomade torequest the Durumof Prisons to ancourssethe State facilities toinitiate reform compatiblewith the intent of thsArt,Tbe Chaircellc,: the Task ForceCoordinator and’requestedthat he ask the Sureauof Prisoeu to attend atLeast one ther hearin&.

Iseues directed to theBureau of Customsincluded the sameoffensestoward sacred objects,plus tht interruptedmovements of tribes,elan.,
and familiar whoselands ere divided bythe U.S. – Canadianborder.
Mrs. Maki was very awakeof and sensitive tothese problems.The Le-
diens couceded that the U.S.Customs personnel were woresenstitve endaccommodating than thrCenadiens.This apparently stomafrom the factthat the U.S. abidedby the terse of theJay Treity until it MISab-
rogated by the CanadianGovernment when it acquireddomdniou tatustheJay Treaty had beensiened. eot by Canada,but by Great Britain.Despiterelative,,ensitivity, manymedicine buedles andother objects havebeendesecreted, neutralized, enddamaged by U.S. Customeofficials and byStatepersonnel am men. Mrs.Maki reaffirmed acommitment by herregion (of which sheis Director) toeducating inspectorsand the screen-
ing of applicants forthose posts to weighsensitivity and awarenessofNAtive American relisiouaissues as a factorin selection.

Thu need was expressedto gain muchquicker access toeagle feathers.
and other bird madanimal parts than at present.Since the NIS, IS,andState organizationsall transfer theireagles, and otherwild and endan-
gered speciecarcassma to theTWS, Messrs. Townand Mattsonresponded.
luitial application is tothe legiorealEnforcement Ageet, whoprocessesit and refers it tothe Regional Director.The applicationla thentransmitted to theNotional tepository atPocatello, Idaho, whereparteare selected,if available, bychr000logical priority’,mad mailed totheapplicant.The process average*about 6 months.This is a hardshipinthat Native Americanceremonies are not allconducive to leng-termschedulingnoet, in fact, areplanned no longer intothe future themtwg wseke.Tbe FWe observerssaid that they would conveythis testimonyto Mt. Johnlisrdws11,:their Task tortemember.The esuel request wasmade to P,S not topive eagle parts tojust any Indian,but to thoseapplicants certified by atribe as religiousloaders.

Accra* to sacred sites,end to places togather oubstances endmaterialswee said to beinadequate without theability to take justsufficientgame to provisionthe participants.Swamples were citedof Indiansbeing ejected or arrested onparka and forestefor taking a deer srcuttiug lodge polar.They were frequentlyunaware whetIterthose landswere in A Federal or aStat ‘system, however.Mt. Backer statedthatState lawn had to apply toState lands.*peers. boots, Moore,and Town

stated that those concernsyould be addressed.


Mr. Kent Tupper, attorney, addressed each agency. Including the Minnesots D.:citing inetances which were in conflict with treaty rights a.

Os the practice of Native Anerican traditional religions.Realleged thet the NPS has abridged the right of the Grand Portage band tobuild a tsarina – off the WPS arse – because it is oe a ignificantarcheological site.The Chippewa do not consider the Site significantand poiet out that earlier Fox and Chippewa had caws and villages atever) site where they would want to place a imilar (or other) facilitytoday.Then as now. they Located at the most suitable site.It wasauggerted frou the Chair that it me7 have been the RCRS, rather than theNP$ that objected to the site of the marina.If the proposed marina emsto be very close to Grand Portage NM. then the NPS would object becauseof the visual intrusion into a historic scene.Mk. Tepper rep4ed thatIndeens hould not be restricted as to what they can do on Indian laudto a greater extent than the General Services Administration. Of theteo. the more Latitude should be extended to the Native Americans. Theexample cited was in Minneapolis recently when they wanted to constructa parking ramp for thr Post Office Building.Archeologist. deterninedthat there was a significant prehistoric site there. but the G.S.A.
overrode all protests and built:the parking ramp.TN: Chair. awl thepanel conceded that the G.S.A. action reflected an improper end perhapsillegal decision.

Mr. Tupper stated that the Minnesota DNR daily violated treaty rights byinterfering with fishing activities on State lands, which are clearlyaffected by valid treaties.Offered a chance to respond, M. Backerstated that these issues would be resolved in the courts.

Further testimoey was taken on the wielatiOe of the rights of Holy Mento enter and administer to their co-religionists in the prisons.Inaddtion to strip-searches, defilation of paraphernalia, etc., the Wis-
consin facilities seized peyote, and in sone eases paraphernalia.TheOmar observed that the actual use Of peyote, nd its effects, are sotunderstood by non-participants.It was suggested that perhaps slides orfi10-strips could be prepared, with appropriate narrative to convey tothe prison officials just what does and dots not occur during theseobeervances.It was also suggested that, where a significant number ofNative Americans are present in a facility, that Holy Men representingthe Midewiwin, Native Anerican Church, etc., might obtain residentChaplain status.The Winnebego Holy Man tated that anthropologists,
for one reason sr another, are told liss about what the Native AmericanChurch really is, then they teach these distortions in the class mama.
He urged the Task Pore. to attend the National Conference at the NativeAmerican Church at Tama, Iowa, that cominit Saturday.The Chair ex-
plained that this would be an impossibility.

/s/ Jackson W. Macre, Jr.

Jacksonli. Moore, J.

cc:George Gowns, Office of Policy Management

ir,uzen Ratio, Bureau of Indian Affairs

aanita Alvarez, Fish and Wildlife and ParkeohnBardwell, Fish and Wildlife Service-WA

I) (I ,)

United States Departmentof the Interior



Farrington High SchoolAuditorium

Honolulu, HawaiiJune 13, 1979(Wdnesday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m.)

The AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct cl 1978 setsforth thepolicy of the UnitedStates to protectand preserve theinherentright of AmericanIndian, Eskimo, Aleutand Native Hawaiianpeopleto believe, expressand exercise theirtraditional religions..

The Act callsfor an evaluationof the federalagencies’ policiesand procedures, asthey affect thereligious rights andculturalintegrity of NativeAmericans, and requiresthat the Presidentreport theagencies’ findingsand recourendationsto the CongressinAugust of this year.The preparation cfthis report accords ustheopportunity to rethinkantiquated governmentalpolicies, to developuniform approachesand procedures,and to measureexisting practicesagainst practicalexperience.The Act mandatesthat the evaluationbe conductedin consultationwith Nativetraditional religiousleaders.

The Task Forceto.ImpIement theAmerican IndianReligious FreedomAct will conduct aseries of consultationmeetings in Junethroughoutthe United States.The consultationand official recordwill beopen to thoseAnd traditionalleaders and elderswishing to addresstopics related tothe Native Hawaiianreligious concern.

For moreinformation, pleasecontact:Suzan Shown Harjo,SpecialAssistant to theAssistant Secretary -Indian Affairs(202-343-6031),
Bob Barrel, NationalPark Service StateDirector (806-546-7584),or

John Hough,Assiatant to theSecretary, SeattleOffice (206-399-0814).

IN IWO’ Art ZR TO112217



United States Department of the Interior




JUL 1 1 1979

Assistant Secretary, Indian AffairsAttention’Suzan Harp

State Director, Hawaii

subject;Religious Freedom Consultation, Honolulu, Hawaii,
June 13, 1979.

Here’s the original and one copy of the transcript of the consultationheld in Honolulu on June 13.We have kept one copy in this office andhave told people it’s available for review here.In addition, thereare copies of supplementary written testimony andsome adeitionaltestimony from peoplewho were unable to or did not choose toattendthe consultation.There is also enclosed a summary of the meetingprepared by Commander Cummins, U. S. Navy, who sat quietlyin theconsultation as an observer.I think Commgnder Cummins’ notesarevery much worthwhile.A list of those who spoke is enclosedas is thesign-in sheet that includes others who were only observers,plus alist of government officials present.

There are,
at least.

I think, fewer incomprehensible Hawaiian phrases thanIThe general tenor of the testimony should be pretty clearThe following words show up often enougb to needtranslation.

Aina – the land.Considered more than just earth and stones, Implying”mother earth.”

Mana’o – feelings, belief.Implies coming from the soulas well asthe. brain.

Kupuna – ancestor, old one; implying wisdom and knowledge of oldHawaiian ways.

Despite the short notice, perceived conflict with the Navy consultation,
and relatively light turnout, I thought the consultation went prettywell.We Feds took our raps for past practices as wellwe Should.Hut

the general tone was constructive, and I think that there willbe many


who will want to work with ustoward detailing the ways toallow andencourage freedom ofnative Hawaiian religious practices.

More written testimony may yetarrive.If it does, I will send it toyou’even though it may be toolate for task force consideration.Ifany of this memo orof the testimonies is confusing,please give me acall.We in the National Park.Service inHawaii certainly view this asa first halting stepin a long path leading towardmutual understandingand accommodation.

Robert L. Barrel


United States Department of the Interior





Chief joseph Cultural CenterConfederated Tribes of.the Colville Reservation

Nespelem, WashingtonJune 14-15, 1979 (Thursday and Friday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m. eadh day)

The American Indian Religious FreedoM Act of 1978sets forth thepolicy of the United States to protect andpreserve the inherentright of Aaerican Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and NativeHawaiian peopleto believe, express and exercise their traditional religions.

The Act calls for an evaluation of the federal agencies’policiesand procedures, as they affect the religious rightsand culturalintegrity Of Native Americans, And requires that thePresidentreport the agencies’ findings and recommendations to theCongress inAugust of this year.The preparation of this report accordsus theopportunity to rethink antiquated governmental policies,to developuniform approaches and procedures, and tomeasure existing pTacticesagainst practical experience.The Act mandates that the evaluationbe conducted in consultation with Native traditionalreligiousleaderS.

The Task Force to Implement the American Indian ReligiousFreedomAct will conduct a series of consultatjon meetings in Junethroughout.the United States.The consultationwill,foous on issues regard-
ing burial sites, cooperative study and constructionagreements,
access to sacred sites, and use and disposition of cereionialobjects and artifacts.The consultation and official record willbe open to those wishing to address these subjectareas, as well asother topics related to the Native religiousconcern.

Por more information, please contact:Suzan Shown Harjo, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs (202-343-6031),
AlAubertin, Chairman; Colville Tribal Council(509-634-4591), AndyJoseph, Chairman, Colville Planning Committee (509-634-4591ext.
232), and Adeline Fredin, Colville Tribal Historian(509-634-4954).


Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs



3 Ouly 1979

From:Officer in Charge,Naval Lectal ServiceOffice, SeattleTo:Jud5e Advocaie Generalof the Navy

Subj:American indianReligious Freedom Act –Task Force

Consultation on the ColvilleReservation, 14-15 June1979; report of

Ref:(a) Telcon Officeof the GeneralCounsel (Mr. Richard

Cornelius)/Naval Legal ServiceOffice, Seattle(CDR Pinsoneault)of 11 June 1979(b) Telcon Officeof the GeneralCounsel (Mr.Richard

Corneliusj/Naval LegalService Office,Seattle(LT,Oliver) of 21 June1979

()) Subject Report

1.In accordancewith the requestexpressed in reference(a),
th,Ls office sent arepresentative to thesubject religiousfreedom consultation14-15 June 1979.

2.Lieutenant John T.Oliver, JAGC, USN,participated in theconference and preparedthe report.A preliminaryverbal.summary wassubmitted in reference(b).This final reportisincluded as enclosure(1).I have commendedLT Oliver ontheexcellence of his report.

Copy to:
Richard CorneliusOffice of the GeneralCounselDepartment of the NavyWashington, D.C.203.60

Susan S. HarjoSpecial Assistant tothe AssistantSecretaryDepartment of theInterior

Washington, D.C.20003

American Indian Religious Freedom Act — Task ForceConsultation on the Colville Reservationo 14-15June 1979

Ref:(a) American Indian Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95%-341,

42 U.S.C.A. 1996.
(b) 1978 U.C.C.C.A.N. 1262

Encl:(1) Task Force Membership

1.Background:Reference (a) expresses the policy of theUnite( States toward insuring the rights of native Americansto practice their traditional religions.This report summar-
izes tnat meeting.:The names and,addresses of the otherparticipants are provided in enclosure (1).

2.-Discussion.Reference (b) provides the legislativshistory and parpose behind the subject Act:Identified areasof unacceptable interference included the denial to. nativeAmericans of access to certain physical locations, unreasonablerestrictions on the use of substances, and actual interferencein religious events.Testimony given during the subjectconsultation focused on four general categories of substantialconcern:

a.Restrictions on access to land and resources,
including religious sites, hunting areas, and fishing grounds;

b.Interference with traditional Indian burial sites;
c.Possession and use of peyote and religious implements;


d.Development of the cultural and religious heritageof native,.Americans.

3.These topics will be discussed seriatim:,

a.Access to Lands and Resources.Much of the testimonygiven atfgeconsultaElon wii-11574;11with anger, especially.
whe&discussing the manner in which the rights of access toreligious sites and to pursue traditional Indian practices ofa quasi-religious nature had been destroyed.A movie shownFriday morning, entitled “The Price We Paid,” focused on the,
loss of the Columbia River as a result of the Grand CouleeDam Twoject.Although the dam was a tremendous boon to.theentire Northwest, little benefit accrued to the Colville-areaIndians.Meanwhile, the traditional fishing, huntivng, andreligious sites of the river valley were inundated in thereservoir.Even though salmon had been the basis for the diet(approximately 504) and much of the culture, no provisions weremade for salmon ladders in the dam construction.Today, theColville-area Indian must buy salmon, often canned orfrozen, brought in from the crest.Ed Palmantee, Sr., atterexplaining the religious significance and practical proceduresfor catching and distributing salmon prior to completion ofthe dam, turned to discuss the present paucity of fish and gameon the reservation–and restrictions which have been imposedon Indians going off the reservation to traditional huntingareas.Moses Dick, of the YakiAa tribal council, noted thesignificance of various ceremonies, including the salmon anddeer ceremony, to the Seven Drums religion.Albert Louile, a

cause c6lebre among the proponents of the peyote-based Native

AMericanChurch (NAC) and anIndian “culturalrenaissance,”
and Nndy Joseph,the host ofthe meeting, spokeof spiritualsitee in thenorthern half ofthe reservation,and area whichwas promisedbut neverdelivered to theColville-area tribes.
That large tractis new underthe control ofthe U.S. ForestService, whichguarantees no rishtto access orto hunt andfish.’ There wasuniversal agreementthat access tonativeAmericanstraditionally tied toidentifiable sacredsitesough+ to beunrestricted.Moreover, there wasconcensus thatteriliel elders ought tobe able to regulateaccess tooutsidersto avoiddisturbing sacredsites.

b.Burial Sites andReinterment.In theThursday morningsession, two membersof i.he ColVilleHeritage Board,including0Moses George,its chairman,spoke on thequestion of protecting

Indian bStrialsites.Their position wasthat as much aspossible, such sitesought to be leftundisturbed.Andy.
Joseph, a key memberof the tribe whoacted as hostfor the

meeting, stressedthat /ndianpeoples were morethan competentenough to devCloparchaeological sitesand handle thereloca-
4tion of berialgrounds with littleoutside assistance.me.

Joseph alsotestified that thecultural richnessevidenced inarchaeologicalexcavations of Indianruins ought toend up inmuseums andexhibits on thereservations.This led togeneralagreement thatall materialdiscovered duringIndian-approvedarchaeological excavationsshould he the soleproperty ofthe native Americansconcessed.Tribal eldersshould deter-
mine the dispositionof any artifacts,reinterment ofremains, and relatedmatters.

Since Indianburial grounds arelikely to turn upat anytime duringconstruction workin many areas,it was arguedthat a policy isneeded in dealingwith the problem.Forexample, a burialsite was uncovered onVandenberg AFSduringeXcavation inconjunction withthe space shuttleprogram.
Rejnterment wasindicated, but longdelays have beenintroduced by personseager tostudy the remainsand thoseaverse to violatingthe sacredground at all.In theMeantime, time has beenlost incompleting theconstruction.
Other cases werecited wherereburial was putoff for periodsin excess offortY years–aninexcusable affront.tonativeAinerican people.

c.Peyote and ReligiousImplements.The use of peyoteasanhallucenogenic drugduring religlousceremonies oftheNative AmeeicanChurch (NAC) wasclearly the mostcontroversialeubject of teeconsultation,One minoritygroup,largely com-
posed of personsunder 35 years of agesargued thatthe NACwas a bonafide religionand that peyote wasahsolutely.’.
essentialto-its practice.Elwood J. Koshiway,an NAtmedicine man fromOklahoma, observedthat the”tools” ofreligious instructionand worship inthe NAC includedgourds,
eagle feathers,cedar, sweet grass,tobacco, and aboveallpeyots.a petition waspresented in supportof the NAC,
including the religioususe of peyote,and condemningtheprosecution andharrassment of ?AC.members asviolative oftheFirst Amendment.Albert Louis, aspiritual andculturalmentor among youngColville-area Indians,argued fortolera-
tion of all typesof religiouspractices.A numberof younepeopls (between20 and 35 yearsold) testifiedthat peyoteuse was a “wayof life” and thepersecution of itby federaland state agents wasreprehensible.


In contrast, a clear majority ofthose present, especiallymoet of the rider witnete!:, condemned pr?yotpw:e as a “recontphenUmenon” totally foreign totraditional Indian worshipintho Northwost.Cd MOnac3han, an alcohol counselorwith theColville Federation, argued that itwould he impossibletocontrol the t,pread of pow)te ifit were permitted duringreligious rites.He termed the drug “very,very dangeroee”ye.
one more destructive infJuence in Indianlife,Anita Cheer,ateacher in the reservation school,expressed great concern aboutthe indiscrtminateuse of “peyote buttons” among schoolchildren.Sam Sampson of the Colville TribeBusinest Councilclaimed that peyote endarieredthe health, security, andgeoeral welfare of the reservation,and thus could and shouldbe prz)scrihed by the elders.The general attitude appearedto be strongly against theuse of peyote.

d.Cultural and Reli.gjous. Heritage.Under this generaltopic area were severalspecificsubjects:

tly Sweat_Houses.There was a good deal of testimonygiven about the Noi-r&iestIndian institution of “sweathouses”
Or “lodges” in which steam heat ina traditional settingexpunged guilt and wrongful attitudesduring “purification”
ritee.Harold Belmont, Project Coordinatorfor the SeattleAlcohol Treatment Center and FrankAlbey, faculty member atthe Chemawa Indian School, testifiedthat sweat lodges wereparticularly effective ih treatingyoung Indian, who were”walking in darkness” of alcoholism,drug usage, crime,
or undergoing the intense culturalidentity crises commonto Indian young people.Even though sweat lodges wereanearly universal religious practiceof Northwest Indians,
and their success in rehabilitationprograms is demonstrable,
penitentiary, school, and reservationadministrators haveproven reluctant to include sweat lodges, whichcost closeto nothing, as .part of the permissablecultural and religiouspractices at their facilities,

(2) Original Indian Shaker Church.A great deal oftime was spent listenine to sincere,emotional defenses ofthij faith, and how bibledenominations-eCatholic and Protes-
tant-have sought to supplant theShaker church on thereservation.The Shaker church is a combinationof traditionalIndian religious practices and thegospel messege.Althoughin existence only since 18E, a large proportionof theColvillearea Indians are Shakers.The Shakers testified,
inter alta, that the right of Indians to visittraditionalTe.ligious sites, especially inthe mountains in the Northernhalf of the original reservationgrant, ought to be preserved.

(3) Tradi_tional_IndianRel.igious.Peliefs.MosesGeorge, the chairman of the-CoivalleHeritage board, stressedtho long history of the “realreligions” of native Amercans.
This religion centeredon the strength and purity of body andmind deriving from a rightrelationship with the mountains,
the forests, and the rivers.He argued that the influenceof western man and the Christianreligion has led to a crisisof identity among nativeAmericans manifested in alcoholism,
dru9 use, and suicide,

(4) Medical.Treatment. The insensitivetreatment ofnative American patient:37ln hof…pitaland outpatient facilities


was criticisedby Dr. MarkEmanuel of WSW.To properly careFor Indian healthproblems, Westerndoctors mustunderstandthe psyche andmedical proceduresof the people tobe treated.
Provisions eust be made,in many cases,for specialfood,
drink, and way of approachinglife and death.There has.beena tendencypin-thepast to treatIndian patientswithoutsensitivitl, and for thepatients to remainunassertive.Thisis changing.Dr. Emanuelrelated an annecdoteof a youngIndian woman who recentlydemanded that herbaby’s umbilicalcord be preserved,since she believedthat by lieepingtherord with her, thechild would alwaysbe safe and returnto hetA refusal toprovide an’exception to”hospital rules”in thiscase on thebasis that “it’s neverbeen done before”wasinsensitive snd Inexcusable.

(5) OutsideInfluences,Lack of strongcultural andreligious heritageiT7ery prevalent in=temporaryIndianlife./sadcr,:e Tom, a. dramaticolder spiritualleader,
observed thet thisleads to despondency,alcoholism, drug ese,
sexual promiscuity,and in a lar9enumber of cases,suicide.
He noted an .analogybetween traditionalIndian and pureChris.
tian teachings andstrecIsed the needof Indian youngpeople tolearn and appreciatethe infinitewe’alth of thier culture.
This genera,1 theme wasrepeated byvirtually every onewhotestified.Marie Grant, of theCultural ResourceCenter,
descried the’century-longeffort ofmissionaries’and’government to destroythe trappingsof Indian culture.Shenoted-the recent resurgenceof interest inpracticing the)0ttraditional way of life,where “to do aninjustice to a

neighbor Wasunthinkable,”

e (6)Surlal Practices..!The question ofcontemporaryburial practiCeswas7.1.51-iiirby Moses Dickand VirginiaAndrews,
both members of theSeven Drumsrel’eton,In thattraditionalreligion, a dead bodyis to be treatedreverently and, onlyby speciallyqualified handlers,?he Seven Drumsbelievethat Indian corpses notafforded properrespect ondturialprocedures may not cometo life again.Moreover, theybelievethat once the bodyis interred, Itought not bedisturbed.

(7) Music.end_CulturalEducation., Phil George,a veryarticulate young memberof-the Nes. Percetribe presentlyserving as astudent coenselor etthe Universityof Washington,
stressed the specialsignificance of musicin the life ofnative American-peoples.He arguedthat the OfficeofEducation ought tobe an integralpart of thetask force,
since cultural andreligious studyengendered amongIndiansand ethers Wouldshow positive results.me arguedthat thepresent policy isto give littleor no supportto the studytof Indian music orculture, evenin.predominantly Indianschools.

4. SumMarand Application,Many of theproblems discussed

at tAnrcosuTirCion are-Mir relevantto the militaryservices

However, there arefour problem areaswhere additionalstudyand action isindicated to fairly meetthe purpose ofthe Act:

.ai?ccess toMilitary_Reservations.The federal gavern-
ment owni-7cthiTFOIT alarge proportionof the openland inthe U.Se, especiallyin the west andSouthwest.Militaryreservations comprise asignificant part ofthis land.Amap providedto the taskfor.ce by thisoffice showed aminimumof juxtapositionof Indian andmilitary landsthrough the U.S.



Procedures ebreeld be developed ahdpromulgated by whichconcerned ledien leadersCan make known to proper authoritiesthe existeece o-f berwe fide religioaaSites on military lands.
Accommodating suck aecessrequests would involve an ad hocbalaneina 04 security and safetyihterests with the mandateof the subject Act.By placing the elms for identifyingsitesof religious significenceon the lndaans concerned and fordeveloping an appropriate accomodationon the militaryauthoraties, difficulties should beminimized.Any goodfaith implementation ofthe Act woulA require making allparties aware of the procedures.Moreover, the federalcommitment to Indian reiigiousfreedom shoeld continue tobe emphasized,

b.purial. Sitem_on Milktartiteservationa.Every effortshould be made to avoid disturbangknown or suspected burialgrounds or other religious siteson federal lands,If this isnet possible, relocation of thesite should he accomplishedina dignified manner, following the desiresof Indian leadersfully integrated into the decisionmaking process.Desires ofarchaeologists to study the siteand any remains and artifactsought to be entertained, butshould not override theexpresseddesires of the tribal leadership.Since burial grounds arelikely to be encountered duringconstruction on militaryreservations practically anywhere,those involved in projectmanagement should be aware of the proceduresfor involving-
native American leadership ina respectful yet rapid reloca-
tion of burial grounds onto Indianlands.

c.Peyote and Religious Implemehts.As an hallucinogen,
peyote is categorically unacceptable foruse on militaryreservations.Such use cannot be permittedeven when analyredea a religious practice protected by the f.:onstitution,sincethe good order and disciplineof the military service requirescertain limitations on Civilianfreedoms.Perhaps an Indianserviceman or woman.who admits partakingof peyote duringreligious activities whileon the reservation ought not becategorized as a “drug user” forsecurity screening purposes,
but even this is well within thediscretion 0 the ArmedServices.While one has a right to practice one’sreligionwithout state interference,one does not have a Constitutionalright to a security clearanceor a government job.Items ofreligious significance withno demonstrable security risk,
such as gourds, eagle feathers, andsweet grass, ought notto be proscribed by military authorities.If a Christian maykeep a bible in his locker,a member of the Native AmericanChurch (NAC) ought to be ableto keep the trappings of hisbelief, so longas no security problems are thereby presented.

d,Promoting the)t,ligious Rerillgs_of_liatiyeAmericans.

As much as possible, militaryauthorities ought to permit andto promote, including making availablethe necessary resources,
the religious and culturalpractices and heritage of nativeAmericans.7f practical, a base commandershould grantrequests to permit the building of “sweathouses” byinterested persons.Military hospital.administrators, especiallythose with a significant number of Indianpatients, ought to-review their procedures and training.toinsure maximumSensitivity to religious and cultural needs.’Effectivemedical care dictatesas much.This would likely require



a greateridentification of the desiren ofthe nativeAmerican serviceman andhis family in treatment,includin9matters pertaining to burial care.It would also involvegreater awareness ofdoctors, nurses, andadministrativetopersonnel of the needs of peopleof minority religions in”lgeneral.As the consciousness ofnative Americans expand,
military authorities should welcomethe opportunity toenhance the cultural fabric of ourlandThis isespecially true in view of the greatcontributions madeby native American servicemanto our nation’sdefense.

5.Follow-up Reports.A verbatim transcriptof the subject-on51T-Onura-S-TiTiii.ained.fi Oesired, a copy can beobtained from Susan S. Harjoat the addressprovided in

enclosure (1).


SuAan Shown Harju, Dept. of InteriorSpecial ASsistant to the AssistantSecretaryWashington, D.C.20003202-343-6031

Jackson W. Moore, Jr., Nati.mal Park ServiceArcheologist, Cultural ResourcesWashington, D.C. 20240202-523-5444

Joe E. Watkins, Interagency Archeological Services(Department of Interior)
1895 Phoenix Bluvd.
Atlanta, GA.30349404-996-2520 Ext: 346

Woody SneedCongressional RelationsBIA19th And C St. NWWashington D.C. 20240202-343-5706

Paul AlexanderAssistant General Counsel, U.S. Comminon Civil Rights112) Vermont Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024202-254-6755

Fred E. OlneyU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service2625 Parkmont LaneOlympia, WA.98502

‘John T. Oliver, LT, JAGC, USNNaval Legal Services OfficeSeattle, WA.98115206- 52 7- 3271

Thomas A. HootsLeader-Recreation PlanningRoom 4144P.O. Box 2417U.S.D.A. – Forest ServiceWashington D.C. 20013202-447-3520

Letitia L. OliveriraCultural Resources ProgramTennessee Valley AuthorityForestry Bldg.
Norris, Tenn.37828615-632-4411

Y.T. WitherspoonCultural Resources Spec.
Bureau of Land flanagementOregon State OfficePortland, OR.97200

Ward r. WEAKLYBureau Archeologist/AnthropologistBureau of ReclamationP.O. Box 25007 D.F.C.
Denver, Colorado80225303-234-4348

3 0 3



TO:Regional Director, RegionalOffice (RD)DATE:June 28, 1979Portland, Oregon

FROM;Staff Specialist(Fisheries), Area OfficeOlympia, Washington

SUBJECT:American Indian ReligiousFreedom Act Hearing, Nespelem,WashingtonJune 14 and 15, 1979

At the request of Bill MeyerI attended the hearingsin Nespelem,
Washington on P.L. 95-341(American Indian Religious FreedomAct).TheTask Force to Implementthe American IndianReligious Freedom Actconducted the consultations.Task Force members and otherFederalrepresentatives presentincluded:

Suzan Harjo

Paul AlexanderJackson MooreTish OliveraJack WeatherspoonLt. John OliverJoe WatkinsWoody SneadTom Hoots

Assistant Secretary’s OfficeIndian Affairs – Chairperson

Civil Rights Commission,D.C.
National Park Service, D.C.
Tennessee Valley AuthorityBureau of Land ManagementU.S. NavyHeritage Board – DOIBIA – CongressionalRelationsForest Service, D.C.
This report coverstestimony that is relative toFish and WildlifeService responsibilitiesand was prepared from my notes.More specificinformation and information onother areas of testimony canbe obtainedfrom the official recordof the hearings.

A number of witnesses wereunable to present oraltestimony because oflack of time.Their written testimonywill be submitted to theTaskForce at a later date.Through informal discussionsI learned some ofthe concerns of theseindividuals and have includedthem in this report.




savegnergy atid You ServeAmerica!


Regional Director

Page 2June 28, 1979

1.Indian Fishing

Several witnesses presented testimonydescribing the religious signif-
icance and importance of salmon.Religious ceremonies were performedduring all phases of salmon fishing.Medicine men were present duringthe construction of salmon traps.Supporting posts for the trapsweretied together in a ceremonialmanner by the medicine men.One Colvillewitness said that therewere three salmon trap sites of religious signif-
icance.These were located at:1) Kettle Falls, 2) mouth ofthe TwispRiver (Methow River system), and 3)Methow River immediately downstreamof the mouth of the Chewack River.

Women and chili:it-en were forbiddento venture outside when the firstsalmon were expected.A religious ceremonywas held after the firstsalmon catch.Because salmon were suchan important part of theirlives, during the first fishceremony the entire fish was eaten toensure that the salmon would always return.

In eddition to the first fishceremony, the eating of salmor was impor-
tant at all other religious ceremonies.Salmon was served at marriages,
funerals, memorials, and,on Sundays.A religious ceremony was also heldwhen a young poy caught his first fist..

The Colvilles said that because of theconstruction of Grand Coulee andChief Joseph Dams theywere the first Columbia River tribe to lose theirfishing.Fish once comprised over 50 percent of theirdiet. .The damsdestroyed their way of life, eating habits, anda significant part oftheir religion.They now must purchase most of theirceremonial fishfrom the coast at greatexpense.

The Colvilles said tnatup to now they have received nothing for theloss of the salmon.Sam Sampson, council member, mentioned thatthefish and Wildlife Service stockstrout on the reservation but that theprogram will be discontinued in FY 1981.He said that the tribe’sattorney in Washington, D.C. is getting informationtogether on thispolicy change but did not indicate whataction they planned to take.

The Colvilles have asked for $13.5 million forthe loss of the salmonbut expect to receive only $3.25 million ina claims case which is nowbefore the Court of Claims.

Sam Sampson also testified that the tribe’sonly access to salmon fish-
ing is limited to a very small fishery locatedimmediately below ChiefJoseph Dam.Salmon, mainly chinook and sockeye, hold inthe colderwater of the Columbia River below Chief Joseph Dam untilthe watertemperature drops in the Okanogan River.Last year the Washington

Department of Fisheries attempted to close thisfisheny because of the

Regional Director

Page 3June 26, 197)

poor conditionof the runs but the tribesucceeded in keeping it open.
Mr. Sampson said the tribewould fight to keep thisFishery open againthis year.Mr. Sampson referred to therecent agreementbetween theDepartment of Interior and theNez Perce Tribe in Idahowhere the tribewill receive salmon carcassesfroM Service hatcheriesbecause of thepoor salmon runs inthat area this year.He said that theColvilleswould be talking to their attorneysabout working out a similar arrange-

Moses Dick of the YakimaTribe testified that theYakima River wasclosed this year because of the poorreturn of fish.We said that it isdifficult to obtain fish for theirreligious ceremonies becauseof thepoor fishing.Ocean fisheries intercept alarge percentage of the fishdestined foe the Yakimafishing areas.

Ken Hansen, a memberof the Samish Tribe inPuget Sound, testified thathis tribal members are denied accessto salmon fishingbecause they arenot recognized by theFederal government.He requested thatthe TaskForce assess the Department ofInterior’s policy of notrecognizingtribes.


A number of individualstestified about the ceremonialand religioussignificance of eagle feathers.Eagle feathers are sacred,often buriedwith the dead and also are wornlike flags.A major concern raised atthe consultation was thelong delay in processingrequests for eaglefeathers and other eagle partsby the Service.Some individuals saidthat responses often took morethan a year.

Another concern was thecondition of the feathers upontheir receipt.
One individual felt thatthe birds were notbeing properly handled atthe depository inPocatello, Idaho.He suggested thatIndians that areaware of the propermethods of handling thebirds shodd be giventheopportunity to advise theService on how to keep thefeathers in goodcondition.

3.Migratory Bird RegulationsNo testimony waspresented on this subject.
4.Endan ered and ThreatenedS ecies Re ulationsNo testimony waspresented on this subject.
5.Marine Mammal Regulations

No testimony waspresented on this subject.

Resoonal Director

Page 4June 28, 1979

6.Regulations Restrictira Access and Activities on LandsAdministered ITIFTService

The point was raised that historical and archaelogical surveys onFederal lands can’t be fully evaluated if only State and Federal agen-
cies are involved.Tribal involvement must occur to enswe that areasare thoroughly searched for sites of historical and archaelogicalsipificance.

It has the general opinion of the witnesses that burial sites should beleft undisturbed unless they are threatened with destruction.Anexampje was given by Colville witnesses for burial sites located alongLake Roosevelt.Erosion caused by fluctuations in pool elevation isexposing Pld destroying burial sites.Under such circumstances most ofthe witnesses felt that the remains should be moved by tribal members toother locations for burial.



\:.)Frederick E. Olney


cc:Office of Wildlife Assistance, DC

Tom Parisot, PDF, DC



United StatesDepartment ofthe Interior



JUL1 C 1979

MemorandumTo:Chief AnthropologistFromStaff ArcheologistCTask Force hearings(PL 95341), ColvilleKeservation,

Chaired by 7askForce CoordinatorSuzan Shown Marjo.Others on zhepanel includedmyself, T1 member-NTS; Paul Alexander,TT member-Civilrights Commission, TomHoots, surrogate-NTSYrtshOliveira, eurrogate.

Jo e Watkins, TTmember, ins. WoodrowSeeed. surrogate- MA.

surrogate- 7:;Ward Weakly,surrogate-iY..Andy Soeephs,Chairman ofthe Council forthe ConfederatedTribes of eolvillestructured theformat and served as’hose.Some 150 were inattendance.

Issues raisedincluded the following!

7.Protection forsacred sites

2.Protection for gravesespeciallymarked gravea.Dismay was ex-
precaed that they areetlll waitingfor the reburialof many burialswhich have been in museumstorage casesfor 40 years!

3;U.S. and CanaldianCustomb officialsinterrupt the freeflow ofvisitation betweenfrieade and relativesettiiicialjy 41vide4by theinternational boundary.

I.When Canadian Indianscome down tohelp them pray,Colvillers ‘paythem with “gifts’ at”give-waaysand th4o the customsofficials taxthem when they crossback into Caoads,The reversealso happens.These”give-aways” art probablythe modernforms of tbspotlatch.

5.Prisoners’ rights arebeing violated illthe lIcederal prIsansin theState of Washington.Examples:Christian end lewlebeltoritywo arecourteously andallowed to ministerfrael7; tra4ittonalIndian religiousleaders siresearched, ometimesetrip-tietrchad, theirparaphernaliahsndled and abused.When leaving oilthe ferry,tbe Indian religiousleaders were made toceasedrwenting ane chanting,WW1 VA4″disturbingthe peace,” while agroup offundamentalist Chrlstianomere aingitif


hymne accompanied by taubourines and gutters.The State of Oregon, onthe other hand, has enacted legislation !Implementing TOGAMS whicheomply with PL

6.BIA and HEW called upon to iatroduce s trong Wien emlturalprogram at indian eheole like Chemawa.Three years of correspondencehoving AwrOsistance tegdh a program on the part of school administratorsAtas produced.

7.Representatives of the Iodise Shaker Church recapitulated the originof their church, and ita early persecution by rhe “Bible denominations.
They then attacked the Native American Church avid itsuse of drugt(peyote).

8.A near-universal opposition to ercheological disturbance of sites,
pies of objects to be retained bymuseums only as long as they couldpreserve aod protect them “with dignity”: such obiects should never bedestroyed or discarded, however, but returneA to Indians!

9.Andy Joseph discussed the Colville “Tribe’s” contract to doanarcheological survey (thus termineting any further protests shoutnon-
(unerary archeology).He conceded that there was sone coeflict with theState Archeolosisc.

10.The HEW VAS charged with insensitivity, ignorance,-and violatingIndian religion and tradition.An *sample given was the intimidatingmanner of physicians end nurses which made pregnant women and new uothersafraid to demand the navel cords of their infants, which are very importantto traditional Indians.

11.The Forest Service, and by implication all land-manegint agencies,
vere taken to task for not allowing the taXiog of tipi poles for temporary,
ceremonial structures.

11..=S0Pile Shekars and Roman Catholics asserted that religious freedomWAS not needed at Colville Reservation, that what they presently had vaswhet’s-they intended to keep:the 7 Drum Religion of the beet Net Perce(ShirAiLlis%), Borah Cathelic (Christian), Shaker (Christian variant).
SOni: Proteetants (Christian).They denounced the Native Averican Churchin unisou as being “alien…now-traditionalat Cojville…umable tocontrol their peyote supplies, letting it get away from them and iotothe hands of the youth.

13.Several members of the Native American Church defended their faith,
describing its benefits and pod worts, and haw weeded itwas by theyews Indiane who.go back and forth between the reservations and theurban communitiesu- Tbey contrasted bow established theyare elsewherewith how they are persecuted by the BIA police snd byethe “establishmentIndiana et Colville Reservation.Pleas were made to the Tesk Force fordirect assietence.



A film “The Price WePaid” was presented vhichreviewed the lierd timesof the 19J u for the Nation as awhole, and which tuotivstedPresidentRoo.sevelt to order the constructionof the Grand Coulee Dam.The ColvilleIndians had lived well at that time,with plentiful almon,farmland.
pee.But the [Executive Uranch ofthe] Government took theft land.
flooded it, built dair with nofish ladders so,thAt thesalmon could nolonger coMe upstream to spawn -all to sake jobs for theWhite people.
They made many promises Ofreimbursement, of providing theIndian,’ withreduced cost electricity from the powerplants – none of will&haa everbeen kept.Congress did not, and hat; mot,sanctioned the Lake Rooseveltwith latislatIve authority.Theprant (a) their salmon, whet1.2erby

fish-ladders or what; (b) ?Roneyor their land;(c) the reduced rateelectricity they were promised.They also want free aecess totheirsacred sites at Kettle Falls and elsewhere.Discussions with Superintendent

irt indicate that the park willallow them access to KettleFalls byboatjust like anybody else.

There was much testimony aboutthesignificance(of salmon it the culturesoreligiovA of the Salishan peoples.The first-takins’ceremonies were

conducted by adult males, since thesalmon and the rattleanake cameout at the same time inMay.Since the buildinA of thedams salmon hasto be bo,…ght and importedfrom the coast.It has a differeot colorandtexture and cannot beprocessed on skewers.Tribute was paid to thedaysbeFore civilization. when Indiansenjoyed life.After civilization/ndians were “herded like cattleto waste-lands andkept there.Theirlanguage and their culture wassuppressed.The role of the firsttakingsceremonies for all foods wasdescribed,,showing hoo.4 itinter-relaredwith subsequent vision-questsand other revelations andeutorings toftnally evolve a Healer.Healers are etill acknowledgedand respectedby aLt of the religions atColville Reservation.

rurther testimony by a Yakimashaman and a NativeAmerican Church ministerexpressed the belief that abody (or skeleton) shouldonly be handled byir own people.Otherwise, it cannot comeback to lift in thehereafter..
Some Roman Catholics also saidthat it la Wrong for a graveto be disturbedonly The. People should handle abody.Most agreed, however,that It iswronp thavc, bones washing down theriver.The Colville citizens’putup 114.000 toretrieve skeletons for reburialwith “incomplete RomanCatholic” rites.They want the numerouearcheoloocal sites protectedfrom pot-hunters.They have negotiated with theCorps of Ungineere tohave artifacts turned over to thetribe once it gets a properfacilityfor them:funds art being sought.

All openings, receasee, andclosings were adcompanied by7 Drum ritualand multi-faith prayers.

Council Chairman Josephscouducted a tour to the Universitya Vsshington

archeological field camp, gild several sites.This is & vet, large camp’



with balwaee operations in progress at severalof the sites.DT. ManfrpdJannin v. explained thatthe investigatesW. cemeteries, and that anyburiala encountered by chance ererecorded, covered back up. and theTribal Council immediately notified.Otherwise, standard archeologicalprocedures arc followed.

/a; Jacksoa W. Moore, Jr.
Jackson W. Moore, .7!r.

cc.Daniel J. Tobin, Jr., Associate Director M60

George Gowans, Chief-Office of Management PolicyF. Rose Holland, Jr., Assistant Director-Cultural ResourcesJuanita Alvarez, Special Assistant-FWV

Suzan Harjo, Special Assistant-1A

, ..at AV

United StatesDepartment of theInterior



U.S. CustomsService Committee onIndian Affairs

Conference Room -Holiday Inn

Great Falls,MontanaJune 19-20, 1979(Tuesday and Wednesday)
(Starting at’ 9:00 a.m.each day)

The AmericanIndian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 setsforth thepolicy cf theUnited States toptotect amd preservethe inherentright of AmericanIndian, Eskimo,Aleut and NativeHawaiian peopleto believe, expressand exercisetheir traditionalreligions.

The Act callsfor an evaluationof thefederal agencies policiesand procedures, asthey affect thereligious rights andculturalintegrity clNative’Americans, andrequires that thePresidentreport theagencies’ findingsandrecommendatiOns to the CongressinAugust ofthis’year.The preparationcf this reportaccords us theopportunity to rethinkantiquatedgovernmentalpolicies, to developuniform approachesand procedures,and to measureexisting practicesagainst practicalexperience.The Actmandates that theevaluationbe conductedin consultationwith Nativetraditional religiousleaders.

The Task Forceto Implementthe AmericanIndian Religious-Freedom’4Act willconduct a seriescf consultationmeetings in Junethroughoutthe UnitedStates.The consultationwill focus oncross-bordertravel,,transportationcf sacredobjects, and otherissues beingconsidered by theU.S. CustomsService Committee onIndian Affairs.
The consultationand officialrecord vill be opento those wishingto addressthese subject areas,as well asother topicsrelated tothe Nativereligious concern.

For moreinformation, paeasecontact:Suzan Shown Harjo,SpecialAssistant to theAssistant Secretary -Indian Affairs(202-343-6031)6orWinston E. Pitman,District Director,U.S. CustomsService(406-453-7631).

Assistant Secretary -Indian Affairs


United States Department of the Interior



Zuni Recreatico Center

Pueblo of ZuniZuni, New MexicoJune 22-23, 1979 (Friday and Saturday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m. each day)

The American Indian Religious Freedon Act cl 1976 sets forth thepolicy of the United States to protect andpreserve the inherentright of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and Native Hawaiian peopleto believe, express and exercise their traditional religions.

The Act calls for,an evaluation of thelederal agencies’ policiesand procedures, as they affect the religious rights and culturalintegrity of Native Americans, and requires that the Presidentreport the agencies’ findings.and recommendations to the Congress inAugust of this year.The preparation of this report accordsus theopportunity to rethink antiquated governmental policies, bo developuniform approaches and procedures, and to measure existing practicesagainst practical experience.The Agt mandates that the evaluation.be conducted in consultation with Native traditional religiousleaders.

The 7tsk Force to Implement the American. Indian Religious FreedomAct will conduct a series of consultation meetings in June throughoutthe United States.The consultation will focus on access to sacredsites, ceremonial grounds and gathering areas.; ceremonial andtraditional use cf animals and birds; and theuse and collection clnatural products.The consultation and ctficial record will beopento those wishing to address these subject areas, as well as Othertopics related to the Nativeireligious concern.

For, more information, paease oontact:Suzan Shown Harjo, SpecialAssistant to the Assistamt Secretary- Indian Affairs (202-343-6031),
ca.Rcbert Lewis, Governor, Pueblo of Zuni (505-782-4461).

9.4Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs




r,% .1 .1,1A:-.I

ki.PLY KU. Lit *au:

United.States Department ofthe Interior




JUL 13 1$73

To.Chief Anthropologist

Prom.Staff Archeologist

Subject’PL 95-341 Task ForceHearings, Zuni letervation,U.M.

This hearing waschaired by Suzan Shown Parjo,TT Coordinator.The TVPanel consisted o/Jackson V. Moore, Jr.-, TTmember- BPS. Johr Bardwell,
TY member- To!,Letitia Olivetti,urroate-tVA, Pau] Alexander,TFmember- Civil !tightsCommission. Joe Watkine,TT member- VLU,WoodrowSneed, surrogate-SIABradley, surrogate-BIMDee Green, surrogate-
Lt.,.observers incliadedBili Field, Min,Southwest Region.Present athis own expensewas.rdmond 3. Ladd,Pacific’Archeologiat, NPS.en thesecond day, Mr. Ladd wouldiepresent the Pueblo of Zuni,his permanenthome.

Governor #ob Lewis,of Zuni Pueblo, opene,1the meeting withintroduc-
tions of Eliepueblo’s secular leadership.After a prayer.in Zuni,M.
Harjo directed thepanel to Introducethemselves and provide’sbriefovervfew on their agency’sstatus vis-a-viscompliance with FL95-341.

The Mescalero Apachepresented the initialtestimony.They compared theease andavailability of theJudeo-Christians in theirreligious ob-
sorvencea to therestrictions against theApaciten in cooductingtheirobservances.They cannot vorship atsacred mountain anddesert siteswithout sneaking in tothen (uany are privateland, which the Act cannotdirectly affect).They have to stealtraditional food andsubstances,
as they mustteal eagle feathers.A long inventoryof flowers endother plant forms,exaential to religionand culture, must beeithertolen or bought.

lorder crossings ars aserious and frequentproblem to theMaecalero;
mad the plea vasmade to amempt them fromthese restrictionswhichdivide families andcommunities.

A witness from Taos, acomber of the Pt 95-341Advisory Board,testifiedto some length thatLadians do notdestroy nature.Re then statedthatthe National Park Service set atrap for Indianscatching eagle feathersend arrested them.(This has happened in the past.Unfortunately, it


occurred again at Grand Canyon just three days beforethe hearing.Parkofficials concedecl that the.timingwas very bad and that they are nowreviewing these procedures.In their defense, the Indians hatinot re-
quested a specialAge permit.)

He concluded his testimony with the observation that, fromthe beginning,
too short a time frame had been allowed for Native Americanresponse toFederal agencies’ plans for compliance with the-Act.

Santa Clara Pueblos’s witness expressed the need foraccess to sacredsites on short notice- that certain observances are not cyclicallyalicheduled but responsiveto a circumstance; in other words, emergenciescome up. He was also concerned that there had been inadequateconcernfor, and communication with, NativeAmericans when legislation wasdrafted for the Antiquities Act, The Bald Eagle Act,the Migratory BirdAct, and the National Environmental-Policy Act.Who will control landsunder development in the future?Foreign ownership of private landadlacent to Santa Clara is very disturbing.The Santa Clarans want tokeep their traditional sacred resources to Oemselves- in secret – toshare with.the neighboring pueblos.

The Lt. Governor of the Pueblo of San Felipe (48,000 acres)stated thateach year the religious leaders havemore trouble acquiring game toaccompany ceremonial meetings and observances.He feels that the FirstAmendment should protect Native American religion againstred tape andindustrial development.Access is needed by San Felipans to Santa Feand Cibola National Forests, andto the National Wildlife Refuge.Heproposed “zoning specifications” for theprocurement of wild game thevear,round for religious occasions.They have never taken more than wasneeded; the maximum was four deer.

The Chairman of the Hopi Nation stated that the Hopiwere steadilylosing both their shrines and their eagle-catchingplaces.nefore. usthere was no Government, no state, andno Navajo – just Us!”Tbt SanFrancisco Peaks “cannot be possessed by the WhiteMan nor by the Navajo:
The White Man made treaties with the Hop !. and hassince disregardedthem.”(ex.Collection of fees by the USFS foraccess to conductceremonies.)”The Navajo have prevented Hopis fromtaking an eagle onthe disputed lands.”

The USFS does deny access to holymen, so the Hop4.want the San Fran-
cisco Peaks returned to them.The USFS representative responded thatthere have been no complete closures of Foreststo Native Americansexcept during periods of fire hazard.

The Chief Priest of the Singer Society (Hopi)added that White visitorsregularly take shrine offerings andartifacts, desecrating the holyplaces.The Navajo also prevent the collection ofsacred substances.
The Hopib”do notwant to deny access to their reservation, just that

they want non-Hopis torespect their religion.”


On the qui.61..loo of Native Ametican objectsin museums.They must bereturned!

Concern1n8 etwles, the Hopi uggest aprovision for blanket permits toAother feathers and parts:perhaps the Secretaries candelegate thepermitti% authority to thetribal governments, since theyknow vhoneede thernand who ‘doesn’t.They feel that noFederal, State or Mavajopo.ice should have the ripht toprevent Hopis from patheringfeathersand substancee.MMny eagles have now leftbecause people live within3feet of tbtir vesting areAs.There ‘would be controls.The Hopialso eApreSsed the lee0 ofancestral Pueblo ruins forprotection.TheAntigutties Act of 1906 has never beenadequate because it has noteeth.
They Can’t tet the U.S. nietrictCourte totake any action onvandalism

reservations under current legislation.They also stressed the needfor prtvacy in their sacred places, toavoid corruptive forces dpring.
ceremonies.The Hopi lack jurisdiction overtwo-thirds of their reser-
Vntion, and the Federalagencies do not exercise protectiveauthority inthetr jurisdiction.
eviis ofiterations

435practicedthesi are,

from Old Oraibi stated thatthe old prophesies aboutthenventions have come true.Pollution, drunkenness, drugs,&l-
oaf the lendscape, theloss of Hopi lands, etc. were all pro-
a result of ehe acceptanceof alien ways, permissiveness(allby ehe Tribal Government), etc.The Old Oraibiansknow whoand they will accept no newlaws from any source!

An Arapaho religious leaderalso spoke for the JicarillaApache.Se-
CAuW of dim1Gishing sourcesand increasing regulations,four clans have

to consolidate eagle, crane,and gene dutX feathers, as well asother resceercee.The Arapaho and Jicarilla areconcerned that theirrel;,:ons and cultures may notbe preserved.Thes, request exemptionfrorn some of the resulatory laws.

*l :etlite testified as anindividual.He received his rites,.feathers from his father.He usee a lot of eaglefeathers.
,’,:!eat che widespreall misuseof eagle feathers by his”bro-
therat pow-wows.He wants people. te atonusing the feathers ine;way,.He grew Up with ‘oldfolks And knows that eaglefeathersare A wny to invokeGod.
An individual fror adifferent Pueblo, PaulTofayahheld aloft e copy

.decryill ft as another example ofwhat Native Americanshave to go throuth.Despite an obvious anddefinite impact on them, noNative Americans were consultedduring the drafting of thebill.TheTesk Force Coordinator agreed to look Intothat portion of the billwhich affects Native Americans mid set whatchanges might be obtained”on the RM.”

On the second day Edmond J. Ladd appeared as awitness for the ZuniTribe. with his uncle, GovernorLevis, he participated in seetingswiththe reliFious leeders and various secularfactions until 3:30 a.m.Itwas then decided that traditionwould be broken and the religiousleaders

3 Is


voula meet, asa group, outside of a religiove context, and conferdirectly with the Task Force.before takinF the floor, theNavajo, theNative American Church, and the StateArcheologist were to he heardfrom.

The Navajo Nen’s Aasociatiou expressedconcern about teligiens paraphernalia being burned and destroyed.Their associationuas formed to dealvath this since the Tribal Governmentis sometimes too cumbersometo dopo.They were also concerned abouta lack of centrolm on private. andnon-profit institutions coming in fromoff the reservation andcarryingoff objects to non-reservationmusasums.

A Flagstaff, Arizona lavyer, VanHuffer, spae for several clientvoupoof Native Americans concerninethe San Francisco Peaks.These peaks,
tnaoa8e1,by the USFS. contain sites sacredto various tribes.He exessedthat access without appropriate ambienceis meaningless.He refuted theum claim that the consultationwhich they received conformswith theAct.Consultation should preceed, not coincidewith, the planning pro-
cess..He expressed a need for regulationato make a sacred area safefor once and for all.At present, the DST’S can acknowledge rhasignifi .
cance of a sacred site in one context, butturn arouod next month andplan a new development for it, requiringthat the protese be repeatedover and over again.Fot instance, saving a site froma mining proposaldoesn’t save it fora subsequent timbertng proposal,or later a ski-liftproposal.

A Ute Mountain Ute said he.hopes thislaw will enable the Native Ameri-
can Church to hold services off-reservation. He has hadgood cooperationfrom the State of Colorado, the usrs, andthe WPS is procuring substances-
Navajos, have helped too.lie hopea that the WativeAmerican in-put andthe lask Force efforts will havetangible results.Most have not.

It was prOnted out from the floor thatseventeen peaks surround the Zunicountry which ere important to Zuni religion.They need legislativeprotection, and special designations.The shrines on the peekswerethere before the establithment of theFederal 87vernmment.Dr. NedDamson suggested that any artifact takenfrom Indian or Federal Landsshould be in the returnablecategory.

The Zuni Tribal Archeologist, T../.Ferguson,asserted that culturalre-
ources have spiritual, ac yellas physical, qualities.He proposedthat a NationalRegiater of Sacred Sitee btestablished which would beadministered differently and separatelyfrom the National Register ofHistoric Places.Sacred sites are different from historiclater), endtheir esoteric qualitiesare much more endangered.lie sees dangers; inthe State of New Mexico List ofCultural Properties.Sacred objects arebeing stolen now as in thepast.Tribe.’ muaeums which receiveFederalmoney might, themselves, be impacted by law.He proposed a’SacredObjects Actas a companion to the Aatiquitteg Act.

Vo/ce Coordinator Narjodrafted a MemoitnndiAm of Agroleoentberueuh

the Ai.616tant Secretary, IndianAffairsthe Matilto’kInt Scctetnrv,

Fis).1 and Wildlife and Parks toestablish a National Resist…ftof SacreciSites and paesed it along tothe Panel members.

AilLadd introduced the Zunireligious leaders (exceptfor the BullheadSociety which demurred).He explained in Zuni whathe was going to doalid then explained the Zuni pantheon,origin myths, and howthey evolvedto their currentcondition.Presumably no truly esotericiniormatkonVati COAVeled tO

It was clear, from Mr.Ladd’s revelations, that theZuni consumption ofeaele feathers is substantial.All significant occasionsrequire theofferine of prayer plumes, and eventhe poorest Zuni mustoffer them atleast.three times a year.Plumes are not re-cyclable,but must be vused

lc-; of the RainBear, and Clown Sociatieetressed:the needfor Native Americans to reviewplans well in advance ofprojects so thatalternatives can bediscussed: there are War Idolsstill in the Smith-
sonlan institutionthey must be returned in order toprotect the wholenf.i. help in maintaining theorsacred sates.

t!to thiswhole procedure frequentlyAttached Ed and the leadersfor breaKine their traditons,and for foreatingdissention among Zunisthese profane andsacrilegious proceedings.Theyaccused the tribal councilof toadying to the Whiteswho will use theinformation ta.get rich.and/orfamous at the expense ofthe Zuni.Even

the religious leaders eachaddressed the Task Force,Mr Ladd inter-
preting, and expressedgratitude at its formationand its presence atZuni.

Other Santo Domineo and Hopi stateeentsfrom the floor coveredthedestructive impacts of Federallegislation such as thelf172 Mdning Law,
another law whichgave away’ PebbleMountain (where Indians are nowdenleci access to sacred sites),and others where no Indianconsultationwas sought-

The State Archeologist,Curt Schaarsna, discussedthe New Mexico CulturalProperties Act.It included tiny recognizedcultural rroperty regardletsof ownership.Included in the laneuase ofthe Act Is the requirementthat it must always be inconformity to Federal historicpreservationlaws.Listed properties can be keptconfidential.Excavation is avoidedif possibl e. purely ecientific reasonsare inadequate.

/5/ Jackson R. Moore,Jr.
Jackson ‘W. Moore, Jr.

cc:Daniel J. Tobin, Jr.,Associate Director-M& 0

George A. Cowans,Chief-Office of ManagementPolicyF. Ross HolAand, Jr.,Assistant DirectorzGulturalResourcesJuanita Alvarez, SpecialAssistant-1WSuzan harjo, SpecialAssistant-IA


oho…A…go goo /


United States Department of the Interior



University of OklahomaOklahoma Memorial Student Union Building

Dining Room #6 – 900 Asp Street

Norman, OklahomaJune 26 and 27, 1979 (Tuesday and Wednesday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m. each day)

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 sets forth thepolicy of the United States to protect and preserve the inherentright of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut and Native Hawaiian peopleto believe, express and exercise their traditional religions.

The Act calls for an evaluation of the federal agencies’ policiesand procedures, as they affect the religious rights and culturalintegrity of Native Americans, and requires that the Presidentreport the agencies’ findings and recommendations to the Congress inAugust of this year.The preperation of this report accords us theopportunity to rethink antiquated governmental policies, to developuniform approaches and procedures, and to measure existing practicesagainst practical experience.The Act mandates that the evaluationbe conducted in consultation with Native traditional religiousleaders.

The Task Force to Implement the American Indian Religious FreedomAct will conduct a series of consultation meetings in June throughoutthe United States.The consultation in Oklahoma will foews on theuse ct natural products, animals and birds in religious c!aremonies;
access to cerenonial and religious areas; and Native tradition andcustom in regard to educational and health facilities practices.
The.consultation and official record will be open to those wishingto address these subject areas, as well as other topics related tothe Native religious concern.

For more information, please contact:Suzan Shown Harjo, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs (202-343-6031),
or Clydia Nahwcoksy, Director, Cultures and Arts of Native Americans(405-360-4420).

Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs


United States Departmentof the Interior



Qualla Civic Center

Acquan RoadEastern Band of CherokeeIndians

Qualla BoundaryCherokee, North Carolina

June 29, 1979 (Friday)
(Starting at 9:00 a.m.)

The American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978sets forth thepolicy of the United Statesto protect and preservethe inherentright of American Indian,Eskimo, Aleut and NativeHawaiian peopleto believe, expressand exercise theirtraditional religions.

The Act calls for anevaluatico of the federalagencies’ policiesand procedures, as theyaffect the religiousrights and culturalintegrity of NativeAmericans, and requires that thePresidentreport*the agencies’findings and recommendationsto the Congress inAugust of this year.The preparation of thisreport accords ustheopportunity to rethink antiquatedgovernmental policies, todevelopuniform approaches andprocedures, and to measureexisting practicesagainst practical experience.The Act mandates that theevaluationbe conducted inconsultation with Nativetraditional religiousleaders.

The Task Force toImplement the AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct will conduct aseries of consultationmeetings in June throughoutthe United States.The consultation willfocus on ceremonialprotection and preservationof traditional, ceremonialand religiousobjects, customs, practices,sites and artifacts.The consultationand official recordwill be open to thosewishing to address thesesubject areas, as well asother topics related tothe Native religiousconcern.

For more information,please contact:Suzan Shown Harjo,SpecialAssistant to the AssistantSecretary – Indian Affairs(202-343-6031),
or Maxine Hill,Museum of theCherokee Indian (704-497-3481).

Assistant Secretary – IndianAffairs



Orient SmdkylMoontains National ParkCatlinburg, Tennebsee 37738

A3823July 3, 1979


To;Regional Director, Southeast RegionAtention: Paul Swartz

From:Superintendent, Great Smoky MountainsSubject:American Indian ReligiousConsultation, June 29, 1979Pursuant to Mr. Swartz’s telephonerequest of June 27, Great SmokyMountains National Park provideda representative for subject meeting.
Staff Park Specialist Roger Millerattended and submitted a report,
copy of which is enclosed.

We are happy to hole been of servicein this matter and hope thatourparticipation wiltbear fruit and betterunderstanding of Indianaffairs.

ogeedMerrill D. Beal


ki kl*WM 10:

United States Departmentof the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICECrent Smoky Mountains NationalParkCatlinbuil, Tennessee37738

July 2, 1979

MemorandumTo:SuperintendentFrom:Staff Park SpecialistSubject:The American Indian Religious Freedom Actof 1978

Mr. Woody Sneed – BIA,.WASO,opened the meetingwith introductoryremarks welcomfngparticipants.He said the meeting wasto identifyproblem areas involving access topublic lands for Indianreligiousactivities and to identify sitesimportant to thoseactivities.
Present at the meeting were:Duane King of CheiokeeMuseum, inbehalf of the Cherokee Tribe;Bob Blankenship,Tribal Planner; BillFields, SWRO; Jim Ryan, SERO;Woody Sneed, BIA-WASO;Joe Wadkins,
Interagency Archeological Center;Trish Oliveiras, TVA;and myself.

A statement was read byDuane King of the CherokeeMuseum, in behalfof the CherokeeTribe.The religious areasidentified by him wereall outside the Park; themajor one being Chota,former capitol ofthe Cherokee Nation, located onthe Little TennesseeRiver withinthe area where the TellicoLake would be formedby closing the TellicoDam.He pointed out that preservationof cemeteries wasimportantas well aspreservation of religiousritual sites.

He said in 1978 TVAarcheological excavations werestopped at therequest of the CherokeeTribe.Trish Oliveiras of TVAsaid TVAwas committed toreinterment of remains.

Duane King said that”Toqua,” a religious riversite, located inMonroe County, was similarto the Christianversion of “Jonah andthe Whale.”

When asked if there were anyPark related religious accessorsite preservation problems, BobBlankenship replied thatgatheringramps bordered onreligious ceremony.He said that therehad beensome controversy overgathering them in thePark, but thatmeetingswere held andthe matter appeared to beresolved.He did say thatremps do not grow onthe reservation and thatIndians have to rely

on getting themin the Park.

Bill Fields asked if squirrels were nota part of their religiousceremony and King said that they do have significance but accordingto Bob Blankenship supplying them is nota problem since State.
hunting seasons do not extend into the reservation.

Jim Ryan asked if there were any Indian cemeteries in the Park andBo; Blankenship said he knew ofnone.

Bill Fields suggested that amap be produced showing sacred ritualsites and cemeteries.Woody Sneed said maybe the medicinemen ofthe tribe would not want to reveal their locations.Bob Blankenshipsaid that might be true in some case.

The meeting adjourned until 1:30p.m. for a presentation by BuffaloTiger from Florida.At 1:30 p.m., Buffalo Tiger announced he couldnot stay for the presentation and lefta written statement, copyattached.

This appeared to conclude the meeting and I left, though Woody Sneedsaid they would remain in session until 2p.m. in the event othersshowed up.


United StatesDepartment ofthe Interior




Reno/Sparks Tribal FacilitiesBuilding

34 Reservation Road

Reno, NevadaJune 30, 1979(Saturday)
(Starting at=9:00 a.m.)”

The American IndianReligious Freedam Actcf 1978 sets forththepolicy of the United Statesto protect and preservethe inherentright of AmericanIndian, Eskimo, Aleutand Native Hemaiianpeopleto believe, expressand exercisi’-theirtraditional religions.

The Act calls for anevaluation cf the federalagencies’ policiesand procedures, as theyaffect the religiousr)ghts and culturalintegrity of NativeAmericans, and requiresthat the Presidentreport the agencies’findings, and recammendationsto the CongressLaAugust of this year.The preparationof this report accords ustheopportunity to rethinkantiquated governmentalpolicies, to developuniform approaches andprocedures, and to measureexisting practicesagainst practicalexperience.The Act mandatesthat the evaluationbe conducted inconsultation with Nativetraditional religioasleaders.

The Task Force toImplement the AmericanIndian Religious FreedomAct will conduct aseries of consultationmeetings in June throughoutthe United States.The .00nsultationwill focus on protectionandvmservation cf traditional,ceremonial and religiousobjects,
customs, practices,sites and artifacts.She oonsultationandofficial record willbe open to thosewishing to address thesesubject areas, as well asother topics related tothe Nativereligious =cern.

For moreinformation, please contact:Suzan Shown Harjo,SpecialAssistant to the AssistantSecretary – IndianAffairs (202-343-6031),
or Harold Wyatt,Executive Director,Inter-Tribal Council ofNevada(702 -786 -3128).’

Assistant Secretary -Indian Affairs



.**.4. .



United States Department ofthe Interior





To:All Regional Directorsand Managers, Harpers TerryCencer

and Depyer Service CenterActingFrom:Associate Director, Management,and Operations

Subject:PL 95-341 Task Force Fearing Report,Reno, NevadaThe enclosed report is foryour information.Like those distributedpreviously, it should bea useful supplement to the on-going park-levelconsultations with Native Americantraditional religious leaders.


f)A6anielJ. Tobin, Jr.

cc:Herbst, Assistant Secretary FW?

aurd, Assistant Secretary IA


Vnited StatesDepartmentof’the interior







JUL 2 4 1979

Regional Director, WesternRegionChief, Division cfCultural Resource Management,Weoii9rnRegionAssociate Regional Director,Resource Managementand Plaoning,
Western RegionRegional Archeologist,Western Region

PL 95-341, AmericanIndian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978Task Force Hearings, Reno,Nevada, June 30, 1979

This hearing waschaired by Suzan ShownHarjo, DeoaKtment TaskForceCoordinator and SpecialAssistant to AssistantSecretary, Indian Affairs.
The Task Force panelconsisted of Ms. Harjo AsMember with WilliamOlsen(BLM), Richard Hanes(BLM), Jeff L. Kenyon(BUREC), and Roger Kelly(NPS)
as agencyrepresentatives.A list of personsspeaking is enclosed.
About 25 personsattended the session which wasrecorded by a court re-
porter.There were many criticismsand complaintsregarding the lackof publicity and advanceannouncements for themeeting (see enclosedannouncement).

Principle points in testimony aresummarized below with surnamesofspeakers:

1.”Shrines” and other types ofheritage locations shouldhave thesame legal protectionand standing as other typesof historic or culturalresources.ln modern times, manysuch places are outsideof Native Amer-
ican communities’ lands orcontrol and should beafforded preservation.
Village or burial sites onnon4ederal lands are in greatestneed ofstrong protection,both legal and survillance.Federal actions suchas establishmentof Wilderness Areasan restrictutilization of heri-
tage places, but isoften done with ut NativeAmerican input.(Shattuck,
Lucero, Johnson,d’Azevado, Smart)

2.”Spiritual Laws” of Mother Earth cannotbe compared withFederallaws.Why shpuld NativeAmericans trust this PublicLaw and the Govern-
ment when other laws andExecutive Orders have notbeen followed?
Speakers opposed to any lawthat pertains to religiousbelief of NativeAmericans.(Smart, Shattuck, Lucero,DeLorme, Sampson)



3.The California Native American HeritageCommtssion and the MariposaCounty Native American Councilare attempting to perpetuate heritageandtraditions in California.Major concerns of bothgroups are:access toheritage locations, protectionof burial areas, clarificationof arti-
fact ownership and changingsome State laws.Regardless of theage ofthe artifacts or burials, it isagainst beliefs to disturbor destroy andpermanently “cart off” these, materiels.In Yosemite, the MariposaCouncil has recently heldits 5th annual kote or ritualgathering.TheCouncil is now workingon a census of the 400-500 Indianpeople in Mari-
posa County.The Council has been working withNPS since 1976on GeneralManagement Plan aspects relatingto Native Americanconcerns.- Althoughpermitted use of basket-makingplants has been much betterrecently thanin the past, use of theseresources in the park and elsewhereis anotherconcern oi the Council.(Johnson, Parker)

4.Acquisition and transferto Native Americangroups of parcels ofland containing heritageresources (“spiritual land”) isone way Federalilencies can help preserve significantresources or sites.ELM has donethis in California and the TaskForce should look intothis.Administra-
tive actions on the locallevel are not legilly equalto Congressionalaction in acquisitionsor transfers.As an example, thecurrent case ofEdiscn Chiloquin in southernOregon was dIscussedas a negotiated transfer’involving Senator Ullman’soffice, local USPS and theNative Americancommunity.(Olsen, Clark, Cain, Shattuck,

5.The Act does not address theapparent conflict between religiousfreedom and freedom of scientificinquiry,of citizens.Is Congressionalaction necessary forestablishment of waysas to how archeologists/
anthropologists and NativeAmericans can interact?Some knowledgableresearchers at the local levelrefuse to become middlemenbetween agenciesand Native Americans.A dilemma exists betweenNative American feelingsabout tribal cultural resources/sitesandmandates”of historicpreserva-
tion logis)ation. .Botharcheologists and NativeAmericans seekpreserva-tion of culturalresources, but differ omecientific/spiritualmeanings.
(Gordon, d’Azevalo,Kenyon, Gibb, Olsen. Hanes,Harjo, Johnson)

Most of the persons attendinee meeting had little familiaritywith theAct due to poor advanceannoe…:ement.Goirernor Lucero,CommissionerJohnson, Professor d’Azevadoand Federal itencyrepresentatives had readthe document.At one point, Ms. Harjorequested that I outlinetheWestern Region’sconsultation process, which Idid, noting that eacharea Superintendent was attemptingto contact appropriate localpersonson compliance to the Act and relatedmutual concerns.Upon request, Igave a copy of the NPS ComplianceAssessmigt documentto the Governor

of Isletit Pueblo.


Ms. Marjo summarized theDepartment Task Forcetimetable in July -Augustand the intent of the Actwhich was to removeillegal “roadblocks” tothepractice of Native Americanreligions and to foster theestablishment ofspecial arrangements or agreementsfrom Federal agencies toNative Amer-
ican groups andindividuals.The Act will not”return the North AmericanContinent to theIndians” or redress past grievances.She cautioned thatNative Americans should notexpect these kindsof actions forced uponagencies by the. Act but thatthe Act sets up thosespecial relationshipsand arrangements for NativeAmericans so that thoseconsiderations can-
not be said by others tobe unconstitutional.



Roger E.elly, Ph.D.
JUL 2 4 1979

gional DirectorDatecc.
WAS0(400)–George GowansWASO(567)–Chief AnthropologistScovill


Persons speaking at Reno, Nevada consultationon PL 95-341, AmericanReligious Freedom Act of 19113. June 30, 1979

Steve Cain. Member of Reno/Sparks Colony communitiRod Clark, Citizen,,RenoWarren L. D Azevado,Apthropologist, Univetsity ofNevadaThelma DeLorme, Member of Reno/Sparks ColonycommunityRobert Gibb, Attorney for Washo Tribe,NevadaGarland Gordon, Interagency ArcheologicalServices, HCRS, San FranciscoRichard Hanes, Bureau of Land ManagementArcheologist, RenoJay Johnson, Mariposa County Indian CouncilCommissioner, CaliforniaNiltive American Heritage Commission

Roger E. Kelly, National Park Service Archeologist,San FranciscoJeff L. Kenyon, Bureau of ReclaiationArcheologist, DenverAlvino Lucero, Governor of Isleta Pueblo,New MexicoWilliam H. Olsen, Bureau of Land ManagementArcheologist, SacramentoJulia Parker, Member of Mariposa County IndianCouncil, Yosemite, CaliforniaDewey Sampson, Member of Reno/Sparks ColonycommunityPaul plattu, Isleta Pueblo, NewMexicoMr. Srart, N4tive American Church Elder,Nevada Shoshonean community

Several unidentifiedpersons of Reno/Sparks Colony community

4°4.0No ISA

N r06





Juneau Area OfficeP. 0. Box 18000Juneau, Alaska 99801

To:Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairsAttention:Susan Harjo – Code 100C

From:Area Director, Juneau AreaOffice

July 19, 1979Subject:Consultation Session P.L. 95-341,July 12, 1979

The session was conducted atthe Bureau of IndianAffairs AgencyConference room in Anchorage.The session was called toorderat 10:15 a.m. by JohnHope, Area Tribal OperationsOfficer.
There were approximatelythirty-five persons inattendance.
A total of Twenty personsoffered testimony.In addition topersons testifying,those in attendance includedmedia people.
Both the Anchorage DailyNews and the AnchorageTimes wererepresented; as was Channel 13(KIMO), which gave footage ontheevening news, and KUAC radiostation for the Universityof Alaska,
Fairbanks.Also, Ron McCoy from theSpecial Assistant to theSecretary’s office and Ellen HopeHays from the National ParkService attended the session.

All Persons who wished to beheard were given ampleopportunityto be heard.

Prior to the meeting a newsrelease was issued and mailed to546 village councils,village and regional corporations,
non-profit corporations, andagencies announcing themeeting.

The response was good whenconsidering the time of the year.
Ideally, more lead-time and appearancesin such places asBarrow, Bethel, Kotzebue,Unalakleet, Ft. Yukon, and Juneauwould nrove\!lore beneficial.

I am attaching’a copy of the newsrelease we issued, as wellas a copy of the storyappearing in the AnchorageDaily News.





JUNEAU AREA OFFICEBOX 34000JUNEAU, ALASKA99802Phom.(907) 586-7178


June 27, 1979NEWS RELEASE

Juneau, June 27 — Alaska Natives will havean opportunity to voice theirviews on how federal agencies’ policies andprocedures affect traditionalrelirious rights and cultural practices.That opportunity will come duringaconsultation in Anchorage Thursday, July12.The session starts at 1,0a.m, inthe Bureau of Indian Affairs conferenceroom, 1675 “C” Street.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Actof 1978 sets forth as governmentpolicy that the rights of American Indians,Eskimos, Aleuts and Native Hawaiiansto believe, express and exercise their traditionalreligions will be protectedand preserved.

One part of the Act requires an evaluation of federalagency policies and*procedures in consultationwith Natives.The Act also requires the Presidentreport to the Congress the results of the consultations.The July 12 session isin preparation for that report.

John Hope, chief of BIA’s Tribal Operations Branch inJuneau, will conductthe consultation.”The Anchorage session will give Ala:ka Nativesan opportunityto focus on ceremonial and traditionaluse of natural produc:s, animals and birdswhich are important in the religious and cultural lifestyleof Alaska Natives,”
Hope said.”Persons making presentations will also be ableto address access totraditional fishing, hunting and gathering areas,”he continued.

Hope emphasized that the official record wouldbe open to Natives wanting totalk about religious ceremonies and oracticesor any other topic related to Nativereligious concerns.Appointments are not required.



Native American RightsFund


P.L. 95-341Surveto Native Americans

The Native American Rights Fundis an Indianinterest law firm whose primary concernis the preservationrand protection of Indian rights andresources.In the pastyears, NARF hasrepresented hundreds of Indian groups,Indianorganizations, and tribal groups inlegal matters pertainingto Indian law andIndian religion.CurrentlyNAFF isinvolved in a project entitled”The American liAianReligiousFreedom Act” (P.L. 95-341) which wassigned into law byPresident Carter on August 11, 1978.

The purpose of P.L. 95-341is to insure to theNative American the right tobelieve, express, and practicehis religion in his traditional wayby clearly establishinga comprehensiveand consistent federalpolicy directedtoward protecting and preservingNative American religiousfreedom.Historically, the lack ofknowledge, unawareness,
insensitivity and neglect haveoften been the keynotesofthe federal government’sinteraction with traditionalIndianculture and religion.Needless to say, manytraditionalNative Americans have beenprohibited from exercisingtheirright by federal policies andregulations.– in the accessto religious sites,including cemeteries, useand possessionof peyote and feathers, useand possession of sacredobjects,
harvesting of certain plantsand herbs, and thefreedom toworship through ceremoniesand traditional rites.

These infringements havesometimes come aboutthrough the enforcement ofpolicies and regulationsbasedon laws which arebasically sound and which manyof the NativeAmericans strongly support.

Some of the federal lawsinvolved are for thepreservation of wildernees-areasand the preservationofendangered species; othersinclude the AntiquitiesAct, theBald Eagle Act, and theMigratory Bird Treaty Act.Althoughthe intentions of many of theselaws were good, theresultswere sometimesdevastating to traditionalNative Americans.
Congress, obviously, did notconsider the impact of itslegislation in regard to thereligious freedom of NativeAmericans.

Among other things, it isthe insensitive enforce-
ment proceduresand administrative policydirectives which

have interfered with theculture and religious practicesof

Native Amerk an Rights Fund

of Native Americans.As the result of these infringements-
and the lack of a clear federal policy, the Presidentman-
dated, through the American Indian Religious FreedomAct,
to direct the various federal agencies to review theirpolicies and procedures and to identifyany changes whichwould remedy this situation.Additionally, the Presidentappointed a federal task force in the executive branchtoinvestigate these problems and to recommend solutions,
through the consultation with traditional Indian religiousleaders.Following a twelve-month review, the task forcewill report back to the President and willprepare a finalreport to Congress.

In conjunction with this federal agercy effort,
NARF, the lead organization in the Implementation Project,
will perform a parallel review of the affected federalagencies’ policies and procedures, making certain the taskforce does not overlook any area of concern to the NativeAmerican, and recommending solutions, and suggestinganylegislative changes deemed necessary.To broaden the baseof tribal input, an Advisory Board has been selectedtoassist the Implementation Project.The Advisory Board ismade up .of fifteen persons with an interest in maintainingand preserving Native American religion.The board will beto the greatest extent possible representative of thereligious and cultural interest of the American Indian,
Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian.They will be responsiblein representing their group-4n providing MARF-with issues ofconcern to their respective areas and possible solutions,
as well as giving direction to the project.

Hopefully, the enclosed questionnaire will indicatewhich tribes or groups are experiencing problems with thefollowing identified areas of concernmuseums, sacred sites,
border issues, use and possession of peyote and feathers,
harvesting certain plants and herbs, and use and posseasionof skins, hooves, horn, and skulls in religious practices.
The purpose of this survey is to1) inform your group ofthe American Indian Religious Implementation Project;2)
request that you supply us with input on the already identi-
fied issues;3) provide us with any additional areas ofconcern related to the federal government, and which pertainsto the practice of Indian religion: and, perhaps, put us incontact with native people in your area who could assist usin fulfialing our tack.

We are very honored and proud to be able to workon a project of this nature and with the potential to assistso many Native Americans in reasserting their desire topractice their religion.We request your assistance inhelping us to fulfill this mandate by answering as completely

es possible the following survey questions:

Native American Rights 1-und



We have tentatively identified thefollowingareas of concernmuseums, sacred sites, andborder issues.
Many teibes have admitted having problems inretrievingreligious artifacts belonging to their tribe.If that isthe case here — and if the artifacts arebeing held by auseum receiving federal funding,please answer the questionsin this section.

1.Can you provide NARF with an inventorylistof known religious artifacts identified by yourtribe to bestored in museums?If so, what artifacts would you like tosee returned to your tribe?

2.In the event they are returned, whowill beresponsible for their care?

3.Would these artifacts be again used inreligiousceremonies?If not, where would they be kept?

4.Does your tribe operate a tribally-ownedmuseum?
if so, what is the methodology forcategorizing, preserving,
and storing the artifacts?(Give answer in detail)

5.If your answer to the above was yes,what kindof security do you employ in protectingartifacts?(Explain)

6.Can you proVide the name,address, and curatorof museums which retain your religiousartifacts?(If known)

\7.If known, how are these museumsowned andfinanced?(Federal, State, private, church)

8.Are your artifacts on loan?If so, for how


9.If not on loan, hew were theyobtained fromyour tribe?Were they stolen, lost, bought.etc.7How longago did the separationoccur?

10.Are sacred objects (bundles,medicine bags,
pipes, masks, dolls) opened fordisplay contrary to yourbelief and/or objections?(Explain).

11.Can you state the religioussignificance ofthese sacred objects to your tribe?(Explain)

12.Has your tribe tried negotiatingwith museums

in retrieving artifacts?If so, with what results?

Native fkmerican Rights Fund

13.Can you provide suggestions on how a commonpolicy can be developed and established among tribes inretrieving pre- and post-historic remains and religiousartifacts?

14.Some museums would be willing to releasereligious artifacts if they had the assurance that theartifacts would be properly cared for.Can your tfibe givesuggestions for guidelines in preserving and caring forartifacts to be utilized by all tribes?

15.If museums were unwilling to give back arti-
facts, could your tribe, or -would your tribe be willing to,
buy them hack?


Many tribes are unable to conduct religious cere-
monies and rites, due to the prohibition of use andposses-
sion of certain animal parts, feathers, and harvestingcertain plants.If that is the case here, please answerthe questions in this section.

1.Identify religious and cultural activities,
ceremonies, rituals, and the like, which require animalsubstance, animal parts, plants and other actual materials.
What are these substances?

2.Identifyproblems with the law enforcementofficials which Indians may have encountered in the collect-
ion of or possession of such icemA for use in such activities.

3.Please identify the law being applied, orknown, also if there would be any problems too,for each tribeto come up with a list of the objects or articles used in

any religious or cultural practice to supplement the listthat is contained in the hearing appendix.


If your tribe is experiencing problems in access-
ing sacred sites and burial sites located on federally-ownedland or parks, please Answer the questions in this section.

1.Do you have or know of any endangered sacredsites which we should investigate?If so, where are theylocated?

2.How are these sites owned?(Tribe, private,
State, Federal)


Native American RightsFund

3.What significance do such sites holdand towhat extent are they being utilized?(Explain)

4.What problem& if any, have youencountered inregards to these sites?(Explain)

5.What problems, if any, have youencountered inregards to burial sites?(Explain)

6.Have you had any problems relative tothedesecration of burial sites?(To what extent)

7.Are you aware of any litigation orcourt orderprohibiting desecration of burial sites orsacred sites?

8.What is your policy in regard toremoval ofremains off the reservation?

9.Do you have any kind of agreementwith theU.S. Corps of Engineers or anyother federal agency forprior consent for removal ofremains?

10.Do.you have any kind of agreementwith anygroup(s): archaeologists regardingremoval of remains?

11.Do you have any suggestionsfor a common policyamong tribes forpriox1 consent before excavation proceduresbegin?If so, what are they?

12.Identify any religious orcultural activitiesthat require access to aspeciNt. site location.It wouldhelp if you would identify thesite.

13.Identify problems with the lawenforcementofficials which Indians mayhave encountered in obtainingaccess to such sitelocations.

14./dentify the level of thelaw enforcementproblem which may have occurred,whether federal, state orlocal.Identification of the lawenforcement agency involved.


If your tribe or group isinvolved with borderdisputes (either U.S./Mexico orU.S./Canada) in a contextinvolving the practice of Indianreligion, kindly respond tothe following questions:

1.Which border is your tribe/groupinvolved with?
What is the geographicallocation of your tribe/group?


Native American Rights Fund

2.Does the nature of your present problem relateto either the immigration or customs laws of the two countries?

3.Which federal agency is primarily involved?

4.Give us a comprehensiNe description of thenature of the problems.Are you aware of any Canadian-bornNative American being denied the beuefits of American citizen-
ship(i.e. food stamps, A.F.D.S. pigments, work permits, etc)?
If so, is this based upon a federal agency’sassessment thatsuch Canadian-born Native American is an alien?(Explain)

5.Have you any thoughts in regard to a proposedsolution?If so, please pass that on to Us.

Because we ate under a time deadline, we would very much appreciate it if you would give this matter yourimmediate attention and return the survey to us within thirtydays.If we can be of any assistance, please call (303) 447-


Thank you very much for your assiatance in this