|
|
|
||
|
The Kennewick Man Case | Court Documents | Communications with the CourtNotice of Filing of Federal Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Request to StudyLois J. Schiffer Aimee S. Bevan Kristine Olson FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBSON BONNICHES, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants Notice of Filing of Federal Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Request to StudyFederal defendants hereby provide the United States Army Corps of Engineers' ("Corps") response to plaintiffs' requests to study the ancient human remains discovered near Kennewick, Washington in July, 1996. See the attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Response to Requests for Scientific Study - Kennewick Man Human Remains ("Corps Response to Study"). In June 1997, the Court remanded this case to the Corps to determine the proper disposition of the human remains and to respond to plaintiffs' requests to study the remains. Bonnichsen v United States, 969 F. Supp. 628 (D. Ore. 1997). The Department of the Army subsequently entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Department of the Interior in which the Department of the Army, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3002 (d)(3), delegated its responsibility for determining the appropriate disposition of the remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"), 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013, to the Secretary of the Interior. See March 24, 1998 Interagency Agreement, Attachment 2 t the Corps Response to Study. Under the Interagency Agreement, the Secretary of the Interior accepted responsibility for determining if the human remains are "Native American" within the meaning of NAGPRA and, if so, the appropriate disposition of the remains under NAGPRA. Id. After a thoughtful and thorough analysis founded upon consultation with the claimant American Indian tribes, consideration of input from the plaintiffs, osteological assessment, sediment analysis, lithic analysis, radiocarbon analysis, and cultural affiliation studies focusing on archeology, biology, history, ethnography and linguistics, the Department of the Interior determined that the human remains at issue in this case are "Native American" aand that the proper disposition of the remains is to the coalition of claimant Indian tribes. See September 21, 2000, letter from Secretary Babbitt to Secretary Caldera, Attachment 3 to Corps Respnse to Study. The cultural affiliation and DNA reports upon which the Department of the Interior based its decision regarding the proper dispositionofthe remains under NAGPRA are attached to this filing. See Exhibits 1-7. The cultural affiliation reports will be available to the public on the Department of the Interior's website, http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/, immediately following the filing of these documents with the Court. Based on the Department of the Interior's determination that the claimant tribes are legal custodians of the remains under NAGPRA and on the legal analysis provided by the Department of Justice which cncluded that plaintiffs do not have a First Amendment right to study the remains, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has denied plaintiffs' requests to study. See Corps Response to Study. Pending resolution of the instant lawsuit, the Corps, in accordance with the Court's June 27, 1997 Order, will retain custody of the remains and will continue to curate the remains in a manner that preserves their potential scientific falue. Id. at p. 7. Once legally permitted to do so, the Corps will transfer these human remains to the claimant tribes by following the procedures set forth at 43 C.F.R. 10.6(c) Id. These procedures include publishing general notices of the proposed disposition and respecting traditional customs of the claimant tribes when transferring custody. 43 C.F.R. 10.6(c). The Department of the Interior and the Corps are currently in the process of compiling the administrative record underlying their respective decisions. Federal defendants respectfully request that the Court schedule a status conference in order to establish a schedule for future proceedings in this case. Dated this 25th day of September 2000. Respectfully submitted AIMEE S. BEVAN KRISTINE OLSON TIMOTHY W. SIMMONS
Return to Communications with the Court |
|