I found the following very interesting reading, so I asked permission to post it here for others to see though it may be posted on other sites as well.  But since others know of my interest in this area as well as the work I've been doing, I decided to post it here also for those as well as others to see.  Upon receiving the permission last nite, February 27, 2000, I started creating this page.  For those of you who are also interested about what is happening with the Dine'h in Black Mesa., I'd suggest you read this.  It reminds me of a quote I heard long ago.  It goes something like this though I don't remember who wrote it:  "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." There seem to be more and more deceptions arising the more I  read and research this topic, including the illusive declassified documents I've been trying to locate regarding the Dine'h and Black Mesa.  You may feel the same way after reading this.
 
 

Black Mesa Risk Assessment

> Public Law 104-301 mandates the removal beginning February 1, 2000, of all Dineh living
> on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe as a result of PL 93-531. The process is being
> managed by the Office of Navajo-Hopi Indian
> Relocation (ONHIR), an independent federal agency. ONHIR has reported
> that as few as 11 families may be subject to removal. After careful
> review of census data and other federal documents relating to this
> issue, we have concluded that this figure may significantly understate
> the number of people at risk.
>
>
> Summary of Findings
> We analyzed and cross checked two documents. The first was the list of
> families called the "A" and "B" lists which were derived from a 1992
> census, and which were used as the basis for the 1995 Settlement
> Agreement between the Hopi Tribe and the United States, which was
> ratified and incorporated into PL 104-301. The second document was an
> internal ONHIR document dated July 2, 1999 which listed the signatories
> on leases as of that date. The following points were derived from this
> examination:
>
> 580 families were listed on the "A" and "B" lists which were based on
> a census performed in 1992.
>
> A list of lease signatories prepared in July of 1999 shows signatures
> from only 157 of those families. This means that as many as 423 families
> may not be accounted for.
>
> The "A" and "B" list may substantially undercount the population. For
> example,  the 1999 signatory list included 7 homesites and 145 signers
> who did not appear on the "A" or "B" list. Their appearance  on
> the 1999 list strongly suggests that there are more unprotected people
> (non-signers,for whatever reason) who have not been counted in any census
> but may, nevertheless, be legitimate residents of HPL.
>
> This data suggests to us the following:
>
> The government and the Hopi Tribe have not conducted a thorough and
> accurate census on the HPL.
>
> That without such a census it appears illegal in accordance with PL104-301
> to proceed under the terms of the Accommodation Agreement, because
> we cannot know how these unaccounted for people are impacted by these
> terms (presumably because they were on the A and B lists they are
> entitled to either homesites or relocation benefits).
>
> The Settlement Agreement between the US and the Hopi Tribe, which
> like the AA is also a part of PL104-301 and stipulates cash and land
> payments based on such an accurate census, may not be undergoing proper
> implementation. This last point involves the slippage in terminology from
> "head of household" (Settlement Agreement) to "homesite" (a term that is
> vague when used to suggest the number of families and individuals present
> on the HPL). More precisely, the Settlement Agreement between the US
> and the Hopi Tribe, incorporated as a part of PL104-301, stipulates that
> 25 million dollars and 500,000 acres of land are due the Hopis based on
> the premise that specified percentages of Navajo "heads of household" on
> the HPL will sign the AA.
>
> The "A" and "B" list gives a total population of 1627, which is 2.8 times
> the number of families. In the 1980's, the relocation office used a
> multiplier of 4.5 to convert families to total population, which may be
> more accurate than the census count. If the higher multiplier is used and
> if the undercount in the 1992 census is as high as in the list of
> signatories, the population of Dineh on HPL subject to removal could be as
> high as 3300.
>
> These conclusions were based exclusively upon the two federal
> government documents, and we can supply copies of the database in which
> the correlations were tabulated.
>
> A key issue is the extent to which the families subject to removal are
> eligible for relocation assistance. These families are not actively
> cooperating with the ONHIR, which contributes to their exclusion from
> the official list of "non-signers".  This non-cooperation derives from
> the long-term resistance of the people to federal intrusion into their
> community. ONHIR has used this cooperation to its advantage, in that
> enables the agency to understate the ultimate consequences of its
> programs and to minimize the obligation of the federal government with
> respect to the provision of relocation benefits. If these people are not
> actively brought into the process, they will lose the opportunity to file
> for relocation benefits before the scheduled closure of the program. While
> this will minimize the financial outlays by the federal government,this
> will increase the ultimate hardship upon these people. Since they live on
> the and without the protection of leases, they will ultimately be
> discovered, upon which they would be treated as trespassers without any
> rights - subject to the confiscation of their property without compensation
> and eviction with no place to go.
>
> The review of these documents clearly indicates a need for an immediate
> and independent review of this issue. Otherwise, the use of inaccurate
> data will lead to the imposition of a terrible hardship on these people.
>
>
>
> Notes on Findings:
>  Precedence:
> The underestimation of the consequences of US policy with respect to
> Black Mesa has been a consistent feature of this policy. In 1974,
> government officials testified that the proposed relocation law would
> would cost $40 million to provide relocation benefits. Total expenditures
> are now estimated at over $400 million. In 1977, the federal mediator
> implementing the relocation law estimated that the proposed partition of
> the Joint Use area would result in the relocation of 3,495 Navajos. Over
> 12,000 people have already been relocated and over 3,000 remain on the
> land.
>
>
> Undercounting:
> The 1995 Settlement Agreement between the US government and the
> Hopi Tribe (which was ratified and incorporated into PL 104-301 in 1996)
> was based on a census performed in 1992. The current ONHIR data
> indicates that this census was completely inaccurate. In order to appear on
> the current ONHIR list of lease signatories, a person must meet the
> criteria specified in ONHIR regulations 25cfr sections 700.138-139:
> They were residents in 1974. They were heads of households by July 7,
> 1986 They are now on HPL. Thus, any signatory would have been a resident
> in 1992 and should have been listed in the census.  Instead, 45% of these
> people (145 of 320) were not listed in the census.
>
> Furthermore, it might be argued that the current ONHIR list is
> statistically biased toward further undercounting. The people who would
> have been missed in the 1992 census are also likely not to be among the
> group of people currently cooperating with ONHIR, so that the
> undercount the overall population may be substantially higher than the
> ratio found in NONHIR's list of lease signatories.
>
>
>
> Analysis of Data
> Attached below is a database that cross-checks the "A" and "B" lists with
> the 1999 list of lease signatories. Columns include:
> Homesite:    The homesite as identified in the 1992 census.
> NumFamilies A-List: Number of "A" list families listed for this site
> Num A-Leases:  Number of the A-list families at this site whose
> signatures appear on leases
> NumFamilies B-List: Number of "B" list families listed for this site
> Num B-Leases:  Number of the B-list families at this site whose
> signatures appear on leases
> Spouses:  Cases where people appear as separate signatories on the
> 7/8/99 list who appeared in a single family entry with their spouse on the
> A or B list
> Num Xtra Signers: Number of signatures for this site from people not on
> the A or B list
>
> The column totals support the statements made in the letter. We also note
> the following:
>
> The summary sheet prepared by the government and attached to the "A"
> and "B" list miscounted the total number of families, as errors made in
> computing the totals for Forest Lake and Tolani Lake. The correct total is
> 580 (258 "A" and 322 "B"), not 570 (253 "A", 317 "B").
>
> Many of the 423 non-signing families live at homesites where at least one
> family has signed a lease. The status of these families is not clear, as in
> many cases they would not qualify as "immediate family" of the signers. If
> all families at sites with at least one signer were protected from removal,
> the number of protected families would increase to 324 of the 580.
>
> The list of signers does not support a statement that has been made by
> some officials that signatures had been obtained for 75 of the 112 "A"
> Signatures have been obtained at only 52 of the 112 "A" list sites,
> which is 46% of the sites. The other 23 sites are either "B" list sites or
> sites not appearing on either list.
>
> In addition to containing signatures of people not on the "A" or "B"
> list, the 320 lease signatures includes 18 cases of separate listings for
> spouses who were combined as a single entry in the "A" or "B" list. For
> example, the "A" list shows "John & Rena Lane" as a family, where as the
> signature list records them as 2 separate entries. The signature list may
> also include other family members who would normally have been considered
> members of a single family. Consequently, the 320 lease signatories should
> not be interpreted as representing 320 of the 580 families in the "A" and
> "B" list.
>
> The "A" and "B" list gives a total population of 1627, which is 2.8 times
> the number of families. In the 1980's, the relocation office used a
> multiplier of 4.5 to convert families to total population, which may be
> more accurate than the census count. If the higher multiplier is used and
> if the undercount in the 1992 census is as high as in the list of
> signatories, the population of Dineh on HPL subject to removal could be as
> high as 3300.
>
>
> Home  NumFam  NumA-   NumFam  Num B  Spouses Num Xtra  Tot.
> site  A list  leases  B-List  Leases    Signers  Sgnrs.
>
>
> Coal Mine Mesa
> C1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C2 1 0 5 0 0 0 0
> C3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
> C4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> C5 0 0 8 1 0 0 1
> C6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
> C7 0 0 4 1 0 1 2
> C8 1 0 5 0 0 0 0
> C9 2 2 5 0 0 0 2
> C10 2 0 1 0 0 1 1
> C11 7 5 2 1 1 6 13
> C12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
> C13 10 8 0 0 1 1 10
> C15 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
> C16 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
> C18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C19 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
> C20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C24 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
> C25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
> C26 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
> C27 2 1 6 3 0 1 5
> C30 2 1 0 0 0 2 3
>
>
> Forest Lake
> FL1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
> FL2 5 0 5 0 0 0 0
> FL3 0 0 7 4 0 0 4
> FL4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
> FL6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
> FL7 5 2 3 0 0 5 7
> FL8 1 0 2 0 0 6 6
> FL9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> FL10 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
> FL11 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
> FL12 1 1 6 2 0 0 3
> FL21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> FL23 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
>
>
> HardRock
> H1 8 5 5 1 0 6 12
> H2 3 1 1 0 0 0 1
> H3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H4 3 1 5 4 0 3 8
> H5 3 1 5 0 0 0 1
> H6 3 0 6 0 0 0 0
> H7 2 2 0 0 0 0 2
> H8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
> H9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H10 2 2 2 1 1 2 6
> H11 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
> H12 5 5 2 0 1 0 6
> H13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H14 1 1 2 1 0 0 2
> H15 1 0 5 5 0 5 10
> H16 1 1 0 0 1 2 4
> H17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H19 2 1 1 1 0 4 6
> H21 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H26 1 1 0 0 1 0 2
> H 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H31 2 2 2 0 2 1 5
> H33 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H35 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H36 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
> H37 3 1 0 0 1 0 2
> H39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H40 4 4 3 1 0 2 7
> H41 3 1 1 0 0 0 1
> H43 2 0 5 1 1 0 2
> H45 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H46 4 1 1 1 1 2 5
> H47 1 0 1 1 0 2 3
> H48 3 1 0 0 0 0 1
> H49 2 2 2 2 1 5 10
> H50 0 0 23 0 0 0 0
> H51 1 1 0 0 0 1 2
> H52 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> H54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> H61 1 1 4 4 0 3 8
>
>
> Jeddito
> J1 1 0 0 0 0 6 6
> J4 3 3 0 0 1 5 9
> J6 3 2 2 0 0 0 2
> J8 3 2 2 0 0 2 4
> J11 0 0 0 0 0 7 7
> J13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> J14 0 0 2 1 0 1 2
> J25 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
>
>
> RedLake
> R1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
> R3 4 4 0 0 1 1 6
> R7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> R9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> R10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> R11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> R12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
>
>
> Teesto
> TE1 1 0 6 1 0 0 1
> TE2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
> TE3 5 0 2 0 0 0 0
> TE4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0
> TE6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TE8 4 4 0 0 0 2 6
> TE9 0 0 3 0 0 1 1
> TE10 1 0 5 0 0 0 0
> TE11 2 2 4 2 0 0 4
> TE12 5 1 0 0 0 0 1
> TE13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> TE14 0 0 5 4 0 3 7
> TE15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TE17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> TE18 3 2 4 1 0 0 3
> TE20 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TE21 3 0 5 0 0 0 0
> TE22 2 1 4 2 0 14 17
> TE23  1 0 0 0 0 0 0
> TE24 1 1 3 0 0 1 2
> TE25 3 1 4 2 0 1 4
> TE26 1 1 1 1 0 1 3
> TE27 3 2 2 0 0 0 2
>
> TE29 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
> TE30 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
> TE32 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TE33 2 2 2 0 0 4 6
> TE35 7 3 4 2 0 1 6
> TE38 1 0 0 0 0 6 6
> TE45 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TE46 1 0 0 0 0 4 4
> TE50 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
>
>
> Tolani Lake
>TL1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
> TL2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> TL3 3 0 4 0 0 0 0
> TL6 3 1 3 0 0 0 1
> TL10 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
> TL12 1 0 3 3 1 1 5
> TL13 3 2 7 1 0 4 7
> TL14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
> TL15 2 1 1 0 1 0 2
> TL16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TL17 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
> TL18 0 0 11 0 0 0 0
> TL20 10 6 0 0 1 1 8
> TL21 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> TL22 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
> TL23 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
>
>
> Whippoorwill
> W2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
> W3 1 1 0 0 0 1 2
> W4 1 1 6 1 1 0 3
> W10 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
>
>
> Shonto
> S1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
> S2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
>
>
> Low Mountain
> L2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
> L3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
>
> Total 258 100 322 57 18 145 320
 
 


the wolf is my messenger






For access to other pages at this site, please use the dropdown menu below.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

"We will be known by the tracks
we leave behind"
Dakota Proverb

 

created February 28, 2000, by Louve14