This is information addressing the specifics of the matters raised by Dr Tom
King and the Indian County Today article.  It was provided to me by Terry
Klein of the SRI Foundation and is used with his permission.  I post it in
order that readers can see both sides of the particular matters raised by
those parties and judge for themselves.

"Dr. Lynne Sebastian cannot respond to the material on Dr. Tom King's blog
because it is his rebuttal testimony in an alternative energy licensing case
that is currently in the process of being heard before the California Energy
Commission.  As an expert witness in this matter, it is inappropriate for
Dr. Sebastian to discuss her testimony in the case before the hearings are
completed and the Commission has made its decision. 

As for the Indian Country Today article, it references two cases in which
Dr. King and Dr. Sebastian served as expert witnesses for different parties.
The first case, a proposed mine near Yuma, Arizona, was a federal
undertaking; the second case, a proposed gravel quarry, was a county
permitting hearing in Riverside County, California.  In both cases,
government- to-government tribal consultation (for the federal undertaking)
and opportunities for tribal input, testimony, and submission of written
materials (the local government proceedings) had already taken place before
Dr. Sebastian became involved.
In both cases, Dr. Sebastian was asked to review the administrative record,
including the information provided by the tribes, and offer opinions about
procedural questions having to do with compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act in the federal case, and about National
Register of Historic Places requirements in the local government case.  In
neither case did Dr. Sebastian offer opinions on the cultural value of
sacred places or tribal history or religious beliefs.

Section 106 is about balancing preservation and development.  Many different
parties have the right to participate in Section 106 consultations and to
have their views heard and considered.  No one party should be allowed to
prevent the views of another party from being heard and considered under the
Section 106 process."

Ian Burrow