MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
TWENTY-FIRST MEETING MAY 31, JUNE 1, and 2, 2001
KELSEYVILLE, CALIFORNIA

Background

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review
Committee was established under the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C 3001), which was signed into law by
President George Bush on November 16, 1990.

Per the review committee's charter û

"The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. Specifically, the
Committee will be responsible for:
"1. Monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the inventory
and identification processes and repatriation activities required
under sections 5, 6, and 7 of Public Law 101-601 to ensure a fair
and objective consideration and assessment of all available
relevant information and evidence;
"2. Reviewing and making findings relating to the identity or
cultural affiliation of human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, or the repatriation of
such items, upon the request of any affected party;
"3. Facilitating the resolution of any disputes among Indian
tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants, and
Federal agencies or museums relating to the repatriation of human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural
patrimony, including convening the parties to the dispute, if
deemed desirable;
"4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human
remains that are in the possession or control of each Federal
agency and museum and recommending specific actions for disposition
of such remains;
"5. Consulting with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations,
and museums on matters pertaining to the work of the Committee
affecting such tribes or organizations;
"6. Consulting with the Secretary [of the Interior] in the
development of regulations to carry out Public Law 101-601;
"7. Performing such other related functions as the Secretary [of
the Interior] may assign to the Committee;
"8. Making recommendations, if appropriate, regarding future care
of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
cultural patrimony which are to be repatriated; and
"9. Submitting an annual report to Congress on the progress and
any barriers encountered in carrying out the Committee
responsibilities during the year."

Review committee members are appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior from nominations by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations, traditional Native American religious leaders,
national museum organizations, and scientific organizations.

The review committee reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The
Assistant Director, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships,
National Park Service (NPS) currently serves as the Designated
Federal Official (DFO), a position that may be delegated to another
Federal employee required by section 10 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1994). Through the DFO, NPS
provides administrative and staff support to the review committee on
behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.

Additional information about the review committee û including the
review committee's charter, membership, meeting protocol, and dispute
procedures û is available at the National NAGPRA program Website,
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/ (click on "Review Committee").

The 21st Meeting of the Review Committee

The 21st meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Mr. Armand
Minthorn at 8:30 a.m., Thursday, May 31, 2001, at Konocti Harbor
Resort & Spa, Kelseyville, CA. The following review committee
members and NPS staff participated:

Review committee members:
Mr. Armand Minthorn, Chair
Mr. Garrick Bailey
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. Lawrence Hart
Ms. Vera Metcalf
Mr. John OÆShea
Ms.Rosita Worl

NPS staff:
Mr. John Robbins, Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships, and DFO, NAGPRA review committee,
NPS, Washington, DC
Ms. Carla Mattix, SolicitorÆs Office, U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI), Washington, DC
Ms. Andrea Warren, National NAGPRA consultant, Washington, DC
Ms. Lesa Hagel, National NAGPRA consultant, Rapid City, SD

The following persons were in attendance during some or all of the
meeting:
Ms.Mary Adair, Museum of Anthropology, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS
Ms.Marsha Adler, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
Ms. Ellen Auriti, University of California, Oakland, CA
Ms. Joanne Barker, San Francisco State University, San Francisco,
CA
Ms. Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA
Ms. Victoria Bradshaw, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Jim Brown, Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur
Bank Rancheria, Clear Lake, CA
Ms. Gloria Bullets-Benson, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Cedar
City, UT
Mr. Jack Burns, Zion National Park, NPS, Springdale, UT
Ms.Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Mr. Jeff Carr, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA
Ms. Virgilia Casella, Berkeley, CA
Ms. Terri Castaneda, Department of Anthropology, California State
University,
Sacramento, CA
Mr. Gregg Castro, Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation
Association, San Jose, CA
Ms. Rosemary Caye, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Elmo, MT
Ms. Claire Charlo, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Pablo,
MT
Ms. Yolanda Chavez, Ukiah, CA
Mr. Ronald Chiago, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
Scottsdale, AZ
Ms. Carmen Christy, Yokayo Tribe, Ukiah, CA
Ms. Vicki Christy, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fallon, NV
Ms. Cynthia Clearwater, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of
California, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Brad Coutant, Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of
Reclamation, Billings, MT
Mr. Steade Craigo, FAIA, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Barbara Crandell, Native American Alliance of Ohio,
Thornville, OH
Mr. Lee Davis, Anthropology Department, San Francisco State
University, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Butch Denny, Santa Rosa Rancheria, Tachi Tribe, Lemoore, CA
Mr. Lyndon Desjarlais, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt,
ND
Ms.Linda Dick Bissonnette, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Columbia, CA
Mr. Christopher Dore, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Clayton Dumont, Jr., San Francisco State University, San
Francisco, CA
Mr. Donald Duncan, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Talmage, CA
Ms. Janet Eidsness, Cultural Heritage Resource Management, Felton,
CA
Ms. Kimberly Elliott, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Covelo, CA
Ms. Geri Emberson, California Indian Assistance Program,
Sacramento, CA
Mr. Brian Ewart, Ann Arbor, MI
Ms. Gillian Flynn, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution,
Washington, DC
Ms. Midge Fox, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University
of California,
Berkeley, CA
Mr. Fred Frampton, U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest, Sparks, NV
Mr. Hector Franco, Santa Rosa Rancheria, Lemoore, CA
Mr. Lalo Franco, Santa Rosa Rancheria, Tachi Tribe, Lemoore, CA
Mr. Maurice Frank-Churchill, Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Austin, NV
Ms. Larri Fredericks, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA
Ms. Reba Fuller, Tuolumne Tribal Council, Tuolumne, CA
Ms. Regina George, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State
University, Rohnert
Park, CA
Ms.Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, Lawrence, KS
Ms.Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY
Ms. Pauline Grenbeaux, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Kirstie Haertel, NPS, Seattle, WA
Mr. Richard Harjo, Sr., Nevada Indian Commission, Reno, NV
Ms. Cleone Hawkinson, Friends of America's Past, Portland, OR
Mr. Bill Helmer, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Death Valley, CA
Ms. Paulette Hennum, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Holly Hensher, Karuk Tribe of California, Orleans, CA
Mr. Brent Hicks, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, WA
Mr. Richard Hitchcock, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Robert J. Hoard, Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS
Mr. David Hostler, Hoopa Museum, Hoopa, CA
Ms. Kathleen Hull, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA
Ms.Andrea Hunter, Repatriation Review Committee, Smithsonian
Institution, Northern
Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Ms. Deborah Hutt, Round Valley Indian Tribes, Covelo, CA
Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Mr. Michael Jablonowski, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA
Mr. Glenn Jeff, Santa Rosa Rancheria, Lemoore, CA
Mr. Joseph Joaquin, Tohono O' Odham Nation, Sells, AZ
Ms. Elizabeth Kallenbach, Museum of Anthropology, California State
University, Chico, CA
Mr. Brian Kemp, University of California, Davis, CA
Ms. Karen Kirkendall, Dumna, Fresno, CA
Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ
Ms. Rebecca Landes
Ms. Allyson Lazar, Seattle, WA
Ms. Rhonda Lueck, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO
Ms. Mandy Marine, California Department of Transportation, Fresno,
CA
Mr. Martin Martinez, III, Redwood Valley Reservation, Redwood
Valley, CA
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville, OH
Ms. Sarelle McCoard, Oakland, CA
Mr. Robert McLaughlin, Anthropology Department, University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL
Ms. Buffy McQuillen, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, CA
Mr. Bob Metcalf, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Nome, AK
Ms. Fawn Morris, Yurok Tribe, Crescent City, CA
Ms. Patricia Murphy, Dumna/Kechayi Tribe, El Cajon, CA
Ms.Karen Nissen, California Department of Transportation, Fresno,
CA
Ms. Martha Potter Otto, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH
Mr. Peter Palmer, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, San
Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
Ms. Deborah Porter, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley, CA
Mr. Robert Price, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Ms. Shirley Ramirez, Table Mountain Rancheria, Friant, CA
Mr. Jim Red Moon, Dumna, Fresno, CA
Mr. William H. Richards, Sr., Smith River Rancheria, Smith River,
CA
Ms. Dale Ann Sherman, Eureka, CA
Mr. Bruce Stiny, California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, CA
Ms. Laura Tom, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Cedar City, UT
Mr. Keith Turner, Dumna/Mono Tribe, Auberry, CA
Ms. Norma Turner, Dumna/Mono Tribe, Auberry, CA
Ms. Cathy Van Arsdale, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO
Mr. Robert Wood, California Native American Heritage Commission,
Sacramento, CA
Mr. Frederick York, Pacific West Region, NPS, Seattle, WA

Mr. Minthorn welcomed the review committee members and members of the
audience and stressed the importance of the public's support and
assistance of the review committee. Mr. Don Duncan, vice-
chairperson, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Talmage, CA, gave the
opening invocation. The review committee members and NPS staff
introduced themselves.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. Minthorn gave a brief review of the agenda.

Implementation Update

Mr. Robbins explained that information on NAGPRA implementation was
contained in the review committee membersÆ binders, with copies of
some reports available for the public.

Notices of Disposition: Since 1995, 27 Notices of Disposition have
been published in newspapers, accounting for 75 sets of human
remains, 46 funerary objects, and 5 objects of cultural patrimony.
One notice was subsequently rescinded. No notices have been
published since the December 2000 committee meeting.

Summaries: Summaries have been received from 1,058 institutions.

Inventories: Inventories and statements of no inventory have been
received from 903 institutions. Inventories from 174 institutions
have been entered into the database.

Federal Register Notices: As of May 27, 2001, 530 Notices of
Inventory Completion have been published accounting for 23,791 sets
of human remains and 496,901 associated funerary objects. As of May
27, 2001, 190 Notices of Intent to Repatriate have been published,
accounting for 49,673 unassociated funerary objects, 904 sacred
objects, 259 objects of cultural patrimony, and 384 objects that are
considered to be both sacred objects and objects of cultural
patrimony.

Grants: Between FY1994 and FY2001, 333 grants have been awarded; 207
grants to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, accounting
for $11,518,105, and 126 grants to museums, accounting for
$6,175,580.

Civil Penalties: Six institutions have been determined to have failed
to comply with the requirements of NAGPRA and were granted limited
periods of forbearance from civil penalties. Four assertions of
failure to comply are under investigation. Three assertions of
failure to comply are under review. Three assertions of failure to
comply were evaluated and declined. This represents no change since
the December 2000 review committee meeting. The status of the
forbearance institutions was discussed in detail later during the
meeting.

Regulations: Proposed regulations on civil penalties are under review
by NPS. Regulations on future applicability, disposition of
culturally unidentifiable cultural items, and disposition of
unclaimed cultural items remain to be drafted. In response to
concerns expressed by the review committee regarding the progress of
regulations, Mr. Robbins explained that his staff was currently
decreasing due to the resignations of two consultants. He indicated
that staff assigned to these topics would be in place no earlier than
the end of summer 2001. Ms. Mattix explained that the civil penalty
regulations were in effect as interim regulations with the full force
and effect of law.

Trafficking: Ten individuals have been successfully prosecuted on
trafficking charges. This represents no change since the December
2000 review committee meeting.

Status Reports

Mr. Robbins reviewed a series of reports. Copies were included in
the committee binders and were available for the public.

Status of Grants: The grant report included a summary of all grant
proposals, a summary of all grant awards, and a list of FY2001
grants, with copies of the two corresponding Certificates of
Apportionment. The total FY2001 grants awarded was $2,386,380. The
balance of grant money for FY2001 is $49,500, which was reserved for
repatriation grants. Four repatriation grants for the transfer of
cultural items from museums or agencies to Native American groups
have been awarded in FY2001 to date. The remainder will be expended
in FY2001. In response to a question from Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Robbins
explained the grant process. The solicitation for proposals was
available at the beginning of the fiscal year, and the proposals were
due in December. Following a staff review of the proposals for
completeness and clarity, the grant review panel reviewed the
proposals. This year the panel included individuals from the
National Museum of the American Indian, the DOI Museum program, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and NPS Santa Fe office. The panel
included three Native American individuals. The grant review panel's
list of recommendations was forwarded to the Secretary of the
Interior for final decision and signature on the Certificates of
Apportionment. The grant awards were made on May 9, 2001.

Mr. Bailey asked if any analysis of tribal grant recipients had been
done. Mr. Robbins stated that the grant process for FY2001 was the
same as in previous years, and added that no analysis has been done.
He explained that the grant program currently did not have a training
and outreach component but that an education and development position
was one of the positions advertised for the National NAGPRA office.
The review committee members discussed developing a priority system
for the grant process. Mr. O'Shea suggested giving priority to
first-time grantee proposals. Ms. Worl asked that an analysis of the
grant program be done when new staff is hired for the National NAGPRA
office. Analysis should describe increasing need for grant support
and characterize the types of needs. Mr. Minthorn recommended that
the review committee focus on the grant process. Mr. Bradley agreed
with the need for review of the grant process but stated that the
grant process has been successful in aiding the completion of
inventories, and collaboration between museums and Indian tribes.
Mr. Robbins stated that the grant program and National NAGPRA program
would welcome the experience and comments of the review committee to
continue to develop the grant program. Mr. Bradley stressed the need
for the review committee and the National NAGPRA staff to work
together to improve the grant program, as well as other NAGPRA
implementation tasks.

Status of Forbearance Museums: The forbearance report included
background information, a section on current status, and a section on
future work.

Background: In 1995, a number of museums applied for and received
three-year extensions to the deadline for submitting inventories
under NAGPRA. In November 1998, six of the museums requested further
extensions. After meetings with Mr. Donald Barry, Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, DOI, the six museumsÆ
requests were denied. In May 1999, the Assistant Secretary wrote to
the museums stating that DOI would forbear assessing civil penalties
if the museums completed their inventories according to schedules
detailed in the letters.

Status: All six museums submitted inventories to the National NAGPRA
office on schedule. The deadlines were as follows: American Museum
of Natural History, 100 percent submission by June 30, 2000; New York
State Museum, 100 percent submission by April 30, 2000; Phoebe A.
Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 100 percent submission by June 30,
2000; Ohio Historical Society, 100 percent submission by May 31,
2001; Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, 100 percent submission
by February 29, 2000; and Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology,
100 percent submission by May 31, 2001. At this point, Ms. Barbara
Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, presented Mr.
Robbins with the museum's final submission.

Future Work: Mr. Robbins explained that the six museumsÆ submissions
were received by NPS on time, but that no assessment of the
forbearance submittals has been completed by NPS. Increased National
NAGPRA staff will allow the assessment of all NAGPRA inventories and
summaries, without special regard for a museumÆs prior forbearance
status.

Review Committee Discussion: In response to a concern raised by Mr.
Minthorn, Ms. Mattix explained that she helped draft the letters from
Assistant Secretary Barry to the forbearance museums. The Secretary
of the Interior and Assistant Secretary Barry made the decision not
to assess civil penalties in an attempt to encourage the completion
of inventories and to allow the distribution of information to tribal
communities as soon as possible, rather than assessing large fines
and further delaying the dissemination of information. Ms. Mattix
added that the letters contained a strict schedule for each museum's
compliance and a statement that the civil penalty process would begin
if the inventories were not completed as scheduled. Mr. O'Shea
stated that this strategy worked in terms of getting museums in
compliance. Mr. Bradley agreed and thanked the forbearance
institutions for their efforts in completing their inventories. He
explained his reservations about the forbearance process, including
concern that the consultation process would be shortchanged and the
inventory process would be further complicated.

Status of Information Management Systems: The information management
systems report provided a summary of information management within
the National NAGPRA program and public access to information through
the National NAGPRA program Website and the Native American
Consultation Database (NACD). Between December 2000 and May 2001,
the NAGPRA data management system was improved and refined, utilizing
a new, user-friendly Access database. The Access database allows
systematic entry, retrieval, and tracking of data and provides a
comprehensive, accurate record of files and information related to
NAGPRA. The database is comprised of linked modules, so that a
search on tribal name will yield all grants and notices linked to
that Indian tribe as well as associated contact name, reservation,
and land claims.

The National NAGPRA program Website provides information to the
public on grants, the text of NAGPRA and NAGPRA regulations,
implementation guidance, a searchable database of published notices,
documents relating to the review committee, and contact information
for National NAGPRA program staff. An August 2000 update reflects
the current administrative organization and provides direct links
between the home page and pages dealing with specific NAGPRA topics.
In May 2001, two lists -- inventories submitted by museums and
summaries submitted by museums -- were removed from the Website
because the lists inaccurately reflected the status of NPSÆ
assessment of inventories.

In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn regarding staffing
assignments, Mr. Robbins explained that he is proposing coordination
between the public outreach position and the database management
position. Mr. O'Shea asked if database information was going to be
available on the Website. Mr. Robbins stated that he was not sure at
this point, but felt that a first priority is access to National
NAGPRA data, and how this complicated task might be completed is not
yet known.

Status of Staffing: The staffing report consisted of an
organizational chart of DOI, an organizational chart of NPS cultural
resources programs in the Washington offices, an overview of National
NAGPRA staffing, the FY2001 workplan, the FY2001 budget for the
National NAGPRA program, and the FY2001 budget for the NAGPRA grants
program.

The review committee expressed concern that the National NAGPRA
program does not have its own program manager. Mr. Robbins explained
that in response to concern about NPS' responsibilities for NAGPRA
implementation within NPS, NPS was asked to propose three
alternatives for administering its NAGPRA responsibilities. The
first alternative called for no change in the implementation of
NAGPRA by NPS. The second alternative called for reassigning NAGPRA
responsibility to the Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Stewardship and Partnerships. The third alternative called for
reassigning of NAGPRA responsibility to the Associate Director,
Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships. The second
alternative was chosen, and Mr. Robbins was hired into the Assistant
Director position in October-November 1999.

Mr. Robbins explained that the four types of positions advertised for
the National NAGPRA program systematically address the different
aspects of the program's work. Notice work would have a lead person
on a rotating basis. Databases, regulations, review committee, and
public outreach and grants would each have staff devoted to each
topic. Mr. Bradley explained some of the history preceding the
change in NAGPRA implementation and expressed support for Mr.
Robbins' efforts in managing National NAGPRA. Ms. Worl expressed
concern about the lack of progress in some areas.

Mr. Robbins then reviewed National NAGPRA staffing. The National
NAGPRA program began CY2001 with eight full- and part-time staff
members, plus the program manager. All staff members were temporary
hires through NPS's cooperative agreement with the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. During January-
April 2001, cumulative staff time was distributed as follows: 2.5
persons devoted to notices, 1.5 persons devoted to grants, 1.25
persons devoted to database work, and .75 person devoted to the
review committee. Work on regulations and Web postings was
contributed by Park NAGPRA staff in the Archeology and Ethnography
program. Following two resignations in April 2001, cumulative staff
time was distributed as follows: 2 persons devoted to notices, .25
person devoted to grants, .75 person devoted to database work, and .5
person devoted to the review committee. Temporary assistance on
grant work is provided by Heritage Preservation Services program.
Beginning in June 2001, the National NAGPRA program will assume
responsibility for Web postings and one part-time staff member will
work full-time for the month of June. Anticipated cumulative staff
time for June 2001 will be 2.5 persons on notices, .25 persons on
grants, .75 persons on database and Web work, and .5 person for the
review committee.

In FY2001 appropriations, National NAGPRA had a $400,000 base funding
increase. In FY2001, National NAGPRA was established as a separate
program within the National Center for Cultural Resources. Work on
hiring permanent NPS employees to staff the National NAGPRA program
began in Fall 2000 with a target hire date of January 31, 2001.
After delays due to Federal hiring restrictions in January and
February 2001, the new staff positions were advertised in March 2001
and applications for all positions were due by May 9, 2001. A
recruiting plan was developed to reach diverse candidates. New staff
may be in place in late Summer 2001at the earliest. The positions
must go through review at the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
office at the time that lists of candidates eligible for selection
are prepared by the NPS personnel office. The EEO office reviews
each list to ensure that lists for the positions include at least two
candidates that represent different types of diversity. If these
requirements are not met, the positions must be re-advertised. Mr.
Robbins added that he does not have access to information about
applications that have been received, and that he would give the
review committee an update at the Fall 2001 meeting.

Mr. Robbins also commented on the unusual hiring environment for
these positions including that 1) the review committee, among others,
advocates removing the program from NPS; 2) redundant employees in
specialty positions may be difficult to reassign within NPS if
National NAGPRA is removed from NPS; and 3) the possibilities for
reassigning new employees outside of NPS are unknown.

In response to a question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Robbins explained
that Mr. Martin Sullivan, former review committee member, represented
the review committee at the July 25, 2000, NAGPRA oversight hearings,
at which Mr. Sullivan recommended that NAGPRA be removed from NPS,
and presented the review committee's recommendations developed at the
Juneau meeting on April 4, 2000. Mr. Bradley pointed out that the
review committee now includes new members, who might not agree with
the past recommendation for removal. Mr. Bradley stated that he was
not in favor of the recommendation and suggested that the review
committee discuss the subject in more detail later in the meeting.

Status of Federal Register Notices: The Federal Register notice
report builds upon a report to the review committee in December.
Between December 1, 2000, and May 1, 2001, 74 Notices of Inventory
Completion and Notices of Intent to Repatriate were logged. Of the
1,010 total notices logged, 702 have been published in the Federal
Register, at an average publication rate of 98 notices per year since
the 1995 inventory submission deadline. As of May 1, 2001, the
backlog of notices to be published was 312 notices, of which 54 were
considered priority due to formal repatriation claims. Two of the
priority notices are on hold at the request of the museum or agency,
50 are in progress towards Federal Register publication, and 2 are
not yet assigned to staff. In June 2000, 41 notices were in
progress, meaning receiving staff attention and in process towards
Federal Register publication, compared to 170 notices in progress as
of May 1, 2001. January through June 2000, an average of eight
notices per month was published. July through December 2000, an
average of 17 notices per month was published. January through April
2001, an average of 24 notices per month was published. In CY2000,
92 priority notices were published. To date in CY2001, 59 priority
notices were published. The National NAGPRA office has contacted
every museum and Federal agency that has submitted priority notices
but has not completed the notice publication process. Any notice for
which there is not a response will be considered ôon holdö at the
request of the museum or Federal agency.

The second part of the report contained a graph, which provided
additional notice information. The graph showed the totals of all
notices received, all notices published, unpublished notices, active
notices, notices in progress, priority notices, notices published per
month, priority notices published per month, and notices received per
month.

Mr. Bradley commended the efforts of the National NAGPRA office to
address the notice backlog. Ms. Worl asked for clarification of
priority notices. Mr. Robbins explained that Notices of Inventory
Completion are considered priority when the National NAGPRA office is
notified of a formal repatriation claim. Ms. Worl asked specifically
about a situation where the Huna Heritage Foundation has made a
formal claim to the University of Pennsylvania Museum for Snail House
cultural items. Ms. Warren explained that the university has not
submitted a notice. Mr. Robbins stated that due to time concerns the
National NAGPRA office is concentrating only on notices that have
been received. Ms. Worl and Mr. Robbins agreed to review this matter
and report to the review committee at a future meeting.

Discussion of Federal Agency Compliance

The National NAGPRA programs report of Federal agency compliance
summarized agency contact information, whether an agency has
responded to review committee requests, and collection status, and
includes the date that agenciesÆ response to the letter sent by the
National NAGPRA office was received. Mr. Robbins stated that he met
with officials from several Federal agencies, including NPS, to
discuss how to improve the responses of Federal agencies to the
review committee's requests for information. Two main issues were
raised. First, the usefulness of the responses would be in direct
relationship to the nature of the question; more focussed questions
would lead to higher quality and more substantive responses. Second,
the agencies expressed reluctance to appear before the review
committee without some guidance regarding questions that might be
asked. Mr. O'Shea pointed out the large number of agencies that
reported no collections subject to NAGPRA. Mr. Robbins explained
that this information is useful to determine the total universe of
NAGPRA and to eliminate the need to contact those agencies with no
collections subject to NAGPRA.

The review committee discussed various ways to improve Federal agency
NAGPRA compliance and reporting. Mr. Minthorn expressed concern
about BIA's prediction of NAGPRA full compliance in 2007 and reports
from other agencies that predicted compliance later than that. Mr.
Bradley expressed appreciation for the National NAGPRA programÆs
summary report on Federal agencies and expressed concern that some
agencies had provided no information to the review committee. Mr.
Bradley suggested targeting specific agencies and asking for
information on important issues, and specifically mentioned the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, and
Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. Minthorn added Cleveland National
Forest and Sierra National Forest. Ms. Metcalf stated that the U.S.
Air Force summary would be a good model in terms of format and type
of information provided. Mr. O'Shea suggested having a future review
committee meeting in Washington, DC, to improve the response by
Federal agencies. The request for information could include some
open-ended questions to help identify problem areas in compliance and
repatriation efforts. Mr. Hart asked about a suggestion that he made
at the Nashville meeting to highlight noncompliant agencies in an
issue of the CRM magazine. Mr. Robbins explained that evaluating all
Federal agencies regarding their NAGPRA compliance was difficult, but
stated that he would consider the topic of Federal agency NAGPRA
compliance for a future issue of CRM.

Discussion of Request Regarding the Disposition of Culturally
Unidentifiable Human Remains û U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Zion National Park

Mr. Jack Burns, Assistant Chief, Division of Resource Management and
Research, Zion National Park, thanked the review committee for the
opportunity to speak. Zion National Park is located in southwestern
Utah. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Burns has worked with 7 Indian
tribes interested in final disposition of Native American human
remains currently stored at Zion National Park. Mr. Burns explained
that Zion National Park and the 7 Indian tribes were requesting the
review committee's support for the parkÆs determination that 10 sets
of human remains are culturally unidentifiable and for
the parkÆs proposal to repatriate the Native American human remains
to the group of 7 Indian tribes. These Indian tribes have
demonstrated their cultural relationship to lands within and
surrounding Zion National Park.

Mr. Burns gave a brief overview of Indian cultural history in and
around Zion National Park. A number of Indian sites in the park date
from the Archaic through the Formative or Puebloan periods to the
Protohistoric period. The archeological record demontrates Native
American occupation of Zion National Park and the surrounding lands
for approximately 8,000 years. Ancestral Puebloans, also known as
Virgin Anasazi, and Numic speaking people, known today as Southern
Paiute, occupied Zion National Park. Archeological evidence is
present to a lesser degree for a third culture, the Parowan Fremont.
The archeological record also provides evidence of long-distance
trading that occurred in all directions. Archeologists believe that
Numic speaking people moved into southern Utah from the Great Basin
region around 1100 A.D. This occupation overlaps with the Ancestral
Puebloan period of B.C. 500 to 1300 A.D., a coexistence of 200 years.
The ethnohistorical records support the cultural relationships of the
seven Indian tribes with Zion National Park through oral and written
histories and federally recognized land settlements.

Of the 10 sets of human remains under consideration, 3 were donated
with no information regarding provenience or archeological context.
A fourth set of human remains was removed from a rock shelter on park
land in 1964. The remaining six sets of human remains were recovered
from four prehistoric archeological sites, two sites located on park
land and two sites located on private land adjacent to the park.
Three sets of the remains from park land were recovered during
legally authorized excavations conducted in the 1930s and in 1996.
One set of human remains was recovered from an archeological site on
private land during a legally authorized excavation conducted in
1933. Two sets of human remains were removed from a site on private
land and donated to Zion National Park's museum collection in 1962.
No funerary objects, as defined under NAGPRA, were associated with
any of the 10 sets of human remains. All of the human remains have
been examined and recorded by professionally qualified physical
anthropologists, who have determined the age and gender of each
individual when possible, based on the physical characteristics and
condition of the skeletal material.

In 1991, park staff began consulting with Indian tribes regarding
repatriation, with the assistance of the Utah Indian Affairs Office.
Between 1992 and 1995, park staff conducted an item-by-item inventory
of the human remains in the collection. During this process, three
sets of human remains were discovered missing that were eventually
located at the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ, and
returned to the park. One set of human remains, recovered during an
excavation in the park in the 1930s, is still missing and efforts
continue to locate the remains. In 1994, the park contracted with
the University of Arizona for an ethnographic study of the Southern
Paiute, which provided a better understanding of Paiute perspectives
and interests in Zion National Park. In 1995, the park initiated
formal consultation with 29 Indian tribes who were thought to have
potential affiliation or an association with the park. A Notice of
Inventory Completion was mailed to 29 tribes in 1996 and, based on
correspondence and telephone conversations, 13 tribes expressed some
level of interest in participating in the park's NAGPRA process.
Meetings were held in 1996, July 2000, and November 2000 with
interested tribes. Eventually seven tribes showed interest and are
currently involved in the proposed repatriation.

At the November 2000 meeting, tribal representatives articulated
guiding principles for disposition. The 10 sets of Native American
human remains need to be returned as closely as possible to their
original burial locations. A core tribal committee was formed to
work with the park. The core tribal committee would seek disposition
for the human remains through a joint claim as Indian tribes with
cultural relationships to the land based on oral traditions,
historical relationships, and other evidence. While determination of
specific cultural affiliation of the human remains is not possible,
NPS recognizes that some evidence, including tribal perspectives on
their relationships with the human remains, archeological and
historical interpretations of tribal relationships to the lands, and
U.S. Indian Land Claims Commission decisions indicate that the tribes
are a reasonable group to which these remains might be returned. The
preponderance of the evidence does not confirm affiliation to any one
present-day tribe, band, or clan. A plan for reburial of the human
remains will be developed. All participating tribes must agree to
the principles of the final disposition plan in order for the
agreement to become effective. Tribes may elect not to participate
but understand that the disposition process will continue without
them. The park has determined that there is no scientific
justification for retaining these Native American human remains for
further research. Mr. Burns stated that Zion National Park feels
that the park has met the requirements of NAGPRA.

Ms. Laura Tom, tribal chair, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, explained
that Zion National Park is considered Southern Paiute country. The
Southern Paiute are in concurrence with Zion National Park's report
and determination. The lack of archeological information leaves
doubt as to whether the remains belong to Southern Paiute, Ute, Hopi,
Zuni, or any other tribe. Tribal elders have directed that it is the
tribes' responsibility to take care of these human remains that the
remains need to be returned to their original locations.

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Program,
explained that the Indian tribes have worked very hard to reach a
consensus on the final disposition of these human remains. The
Indian tribes have diligently consulted with Zion National Park and
agree that the information available on the 10 sets of human remains
warrants classification as culturally unidentifiable. Mr.
Kuwanwisiwma expressed appreciation for the review committee's
principles and process regarding the disposition of culturally
unidentifiable remains. The Hopi Tribe highly recommends that the
review committee concur with Zion National ParkÆs determination and
allow the park to expeditiously repatriate these human remains.

Mr. Kuwanwisiwma explained that the Hopi Tribe disagrees with NPS'
position that scientific information is in the public domain and
available for further scientific inquiry and use, and added that this
point was never discussed or agreed during the consultation process.
Further scientific inquiry could set a precedent, which could impede
the return of these human remains. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma commended Zion
National Park and the other tribal members for their diligent work on
this matter.

Ms. Gloria Bullets-Benson, director of the language program, Paiute
Indian Tribe of Utah, explained that she participated in the
consultation process. As tribal chair of the Kaibab Paiute Band
during part of the consultation process, she was aware of the canyon
in Zion National Park and its spiritual meaning to the Southern
Paiute people. She agreed that Zion National Park has made a
determination that should be supported.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for
the presentation and excellent model for the disposition of
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. O'Shea stressed the
importance of the determination that these 10 sets of human remains
were culturally unidentifiable and the consultation that followed to
develop a disposition proposal. Mr. O'Shea appreciated that Zion
National Park considered the possible future scientific value of
these human remains. In response to a question by Mr. O'Shea, Mr.
Burns explained that following a legally authorized excavation in the
park
in the 1930s, some of the human remains were sent to the repository
at Northern Arizona University. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma clarified that his
earlier statement regarding disagreement with public access to
scientific information was a procedural concern.

Mr. Bailey expressed his opinion that the cultural affiliation of the
human remains could have been identified more closely.
Mr. Kuwanwisiwma replied that in his opinion there was insufficient
evidence to make a cultural affiliation with one group and expressed
satisfaction with the decision by Zion National Park that the human
remains are culturally unidentifiable. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma was
satisfied that Zion National Park upheld its NAGPRA responsibilities.
In response to a question by Mr. Bailey, Mr. Burns explained that the
Navajo Tribe was part of the initial consultation efforts but later
chose not to participate in the process. Ms. Metcalf asked about the
potential for competing claims. Mr. Burns stated that competing
claims were a possibility, although every effort has been made to
include as many Indian tribes as possible. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma
explained since the Indian tribes were willing to work together, this
repatriation should proceed. In response to concerns raised by
Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Burns explained that the decision to move ahead
with the disposition of these human remains without the participation
of all potentially affiliated tribes was made by the tribal
representatives. Other tribes were given the opportunity and some
chose not to participate. The search for the missing human remains
will continue and the tribal representatives will decide whether the
disposition will proceed without the missing remains.

Mr. Minthorn pointed out that the proposed burial location for these
human remains was on Federal land and expressed his appreciation for
Zion National Park's willingness to consider re-burial within the
park, and for the possible precedent set by this repatriation. Mr.
Hart expressed appreciation for the excellent model, and for the
efforts of all participants. He added his opinion that there is no
scientific justification to retain Native American human remains.
Ms. Worl complimented Zion National Park for the exemplary process
and consultation efforts, and complimented the tribes for forming the
core tribal committee to work with Zion National Park. At the
request of Ms. Worl, Mr. Burns described the proposed reburial
location. Parunuweap Canyon was closed to the public in 1992 and is
being considered for a research area for sensitive species. The
canyon is approximately 15 miles long and has the highest
concentration of archeological sites in the park. During the site
selection process, consideration will be given to security concerns
and ease of accessibility for tribal elders.

Mr. Robbins explained that letters from the review committee
regarding culturally unidentifiable human remains requests have cited
three points: the recommendation of the review committee, a
requirement for publishing a Notice of Inventory Completion, and a
statement that documentation compiled as part of the inventory
process shall be considered public information. Mr. Robbins
clarified a procedural question by Mr. O'Shea regarding the
Secretary's approval of recommendations of the review committee and
explained that starting in 1995 the approval process for
recommendations of the review committee was delegated to NPS. The
review committee unanimously concurred with Zion National Park's and
the 7 Indian tribes' proposal for disposition of the 10 sets of
culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mr. Robbins agreed to
prepare correspondence that states the review committeeÆs concurrence
with the proposed disposition.

Discussion of Status of Disputes

The National NAGPRA programÆs report on the status of disputes
summarized each dispute heard or submitted for consideration by the
review committee in three categories: 1) disputes for which there has
been a finding, 2) disputes that are being considered by the review
committee, and 3) disputes that have been received by the National
NAGPRA program but not yet discussed by the Chair and DFO. Three
disputes had findings after consideration by the review committee.
Three disputes are in the ôconsideredö category. Two disputes were
heard by the review committee which issued comments but not a
finding. One dispute was scheduled for the Kelseyville meeting but
was postponed. Nine disputes have been received by the National
NAGPRA office but have not been discussed between the Chair and DFO.
Mr. Robbins added that the review committee might want to discuss
what information would be helpful in considering or scheduling the
disputes.

Mr. O'Shea asked for clarification of the status of the dispute
between the Hopi Tribe and Mesa Verde National Park, which is listed
as pending the National Park System Advisory Board's current review.
Mr. Robbins explained that the park is currently taking no action
until the review is completed. He added that he cannot provide a
blanket statement of which repatriations would be affected by this
review, but repariations would be considered on hold on a case-by-
case basis. In response to a question by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Robbins
stated that while the initial time frame for the review has passed,
it is possible the review would be completed sometime within the next
two meetings of the advisory board. Mr. Bradley pointed out the
importance of this review to clarify the status of present and future
disputes. Mr. Robbins added that all information requested for the
review from the National and Park NAGPRA programs and the parks has
been provided.

The review committee members expressed concern over the large number
of pending disputes. At the current rate of two disputes per year,
the pending disputes could take over five years to consider, not
including new disputes that might be brought to the review committee
during that time. Various solutions were discussed, including
extending meetings by one day in order to accommodate two disputes
per meeting and appointing a subcommittee to help the Chair and DFO
determine the priority of pending disputes. Mr. Minthorn asked Drs.
Bradley, Worl, and Bailey to serve on the dispute subcommittee.

Regarding dispute PEN010, American Indian Intertribal Association and
University of Toledo, Mr. Bailey asked whether the association had
standing before the committee as an intertribal association and not a
federally recognized group. Mr. Robbins explained that Ms. Mattix
had prepared an opinion that there is no definitive, legal
requirement regarding who constitutes an affected party for proposing
a dispute, and that the review committee may determine whether a
person, tribe, institution, or some other group is an affected party
regarding disputes. Mr. Bailey suggested informing parties if the
review committee determines that a party with no standing has brought
a dispute. Mr. Hart raised similar concerns about PEN013, Sand Creek
Massacre Descendant's Trust and Cheyenne Tribal Governments. He
explained that the trust does not have legal standing to make this
claim and added that if this dispute did come before the review
committee he would recuse himself from the discussion. Mr. Robbins
added that the letter from the trust purports that an attachment,
which was missing from the submission and was subsequently requested,
includes information of why the trust is an affected party. Ms. Worl
suggested that the review committee discuss the affected party issue
in more detail and adopt formal language regarding how parties are
determined to have standing in the dispute process.

For dispute PEN006, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Mr. Robbins explained that this dispute was
accepted for consideration and was scheduled for the Kelseyville
meeting, but was postponed both at the request of the Fallon Paiute-
Shoshone Tribe and due to some questions regarding BLMÆs
participation in the dispute discussions before the review committee.
Mr. Robbins explained that the National NAGPRA program received a
letter from BLM indicating that the letter and previously submitted
reports would serve as their statement to the review committee.
After discussion, review committee members decided to consider the
dispute at the next meeting, relying on written submissions if BLM
chooses not to participate. Mr. Robbins suggested that the decision
to hold the dispute at the November meeting should be confirmed with
the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. Mr. Minthorn asked Ms. Worl to
chair any discussions regarding this dispute at the November meeting.

Two disputes are on hold pending responses to requests from the
National NAGPRA office for additional information or clarification:
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (PEN007), and Sand Creek Massacre Descendant's Trust and
Cheyenne Tribal Governments (PEN013). Mr. Robbins suggested that the
review committee adopt language to formalize the process to put
disputes on inactive status either at the request of the parties or
through lack of action on behalf of the parties. This was discussed
later in the meeting.

At least five disputes need to be discussed by the Chair and DFO for
consideration by the review committee: Ho-Chunk Nation and Field
Museum (PEN009), American Indian Intertribal Association and
University of Toledo (PEN010), Narragansett Indian Tribe and Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (PEN011), Piro-Manso-Tiwa and
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument (PEN012), and Western
Apache NAGPRA Working Group and Denver Art Museum (PEN015). Mr.
O'Shea suggested prioritizing these disputes in order to more
expeditiously schedule the disputes.

Two disputes are on hold pending the ongoing review by a subcommittee
of the National Park System Advisory Board: Hopi Tribe and Mesa
Verde National Park (PEN008), and Hopi Tribe and Aztec Ruins National
Monument (PEN014).

Discussion of Reburial on Federal Lands

Mr. Robbins explained that in response to a request from the review
committee at the Nashville meeting, the committee members were
provided a copy of a draft version of a report commissioned by the
NPS Southeast Regional Office on behalf of Natchez Trace Parkway.
Mr. Minthorn asked for a list of all Federal agencies that permit
reburial on their lands and cited Zion National Park as a good model
for reburial and subsequent protection of burials on Federal lands.
Mr. Minthorn expressed concern about BLM's policy prohibiting
reburial on their lands. Ms. Worl asked Mr. Robbins for a verbal
summary of the Federal agencies cited in the report.

Ms. Mattix explained that NAGPRA does not deal specifically with what
happens after a disposition or repatriation. DOI does not have a
departmentwide policy dealing with the issue of reburial on Federal
lands. The various statutes and regulations of each agency govern
this matter. NPS has a policy that permits reburial if cultural
items were originally removed from land within park boundaries, and
reburials on NPS land have occurred. BLM has written policy guidance
based on their management issues. One reason BLM prohibits reburial
on BLM land is due to security concerns regarding their large land
base. Other land-managing agencies within DOI are BIA, Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
agencies do not have explicit policies on reburial and all have made
case-by-case decisions that allowed reburials. Mr. Bradley asked for
a copy of BLM's written policy guidance on the issue of reburial on
BLM lands.

Ms. Worl pointed out that the review committee has the responsibility
to make recommendations regarding reburial and the future care of
human remains. She suggested using NPS policy as a model that could
be recommended for governmentwide use and included in the committee's
report to Congress. Mr. O'Shea agreed with Ms. Worl's suggestion.
He added that the review committee might also want to address
concerns such as future security and protection of remains and having
a central location or other solution for cases where human remains
cannot be reburied where they were found due to construction or other
activities. Mr. Minthorn stated that any policies developed should
allow for solutions to these concerns on a case-by-case basis in
conjunction with each agency's Indian policy. Ms. Metcalf asked if
NAGPRA grant funds would be available for site security. Ms. Mattix
explained that grant funds could be used for one-time expenses, such
as burial containers, but not for recurring costs.

After discussion, the committee members agreed to the following: "The
review committee recommends that the Department of Interior develop
and pursue a uniform policy and procedures that permit the reburial
of repatriated human remains and/or other NAGPRA-related materials at
secure, protected burial sites on all Federal lands from which they
were removed. The committee further recommends that the most
appropriate solutions to reburial on Federal lands will emerge from
consultations between agencies and tribes, and that the Secretary of
Interior share these policies and procedures with other non-DOI land-
management agencies." The committee intends to include this
recommendation in their report to Congress.

1999/2000 and 2001 Reports to Congress

The review committee agreed to combine the reports for 1999, 2000,
and 2001 into one report to Congress. In addition, the organization
of the report was changed to emphasize the recommendations of the
review committee, followed by the historical background and committee
activities. The following outline reflects the changes made in the
organization of the report, as well as committee member assignments
for drafting the report. The members agreed to submit their portions
of the report to Mr. O'Shea by the end of June 2001. Mr. O'Shea will
assemble the report in draft form and distribute it to the review
committee members for comment. The final version will be ready for
submission to the National NAGPRA program by September 2001 for
producing of the final report.

Outline for the 1999/2000/2001 Report to Congress
1. Specific Recommendations
a. Committee Recommendations for Disposition of Culturally
Unidentifiable Human Remains (Mr. Bradley)
b. Reburial on Federal lands (Ms. Metcalf)
2. Introduction
a. Background
b. Statutory duties of the review committee (Ms. Worl)
3. Committee Activities (National NAGPRA staff)
a. Narrative of activities
b. Statistics for 1999 and 2000
4. Committee Duties (Ms. Worl)
a. Committee decisions and recommendations
5. Specific Observations
a. Staffing and funding (Mr. OÆShea)
b. Statute compliance (Mr. Minthorn)
(1) Compliance by Federal agencies
(2) Compliance by nonfederal museums and universities
(a) Institutions under forbearance
c. Contamination of collections (Mr. Bailey)
d. Protection of graves on nonfederal lands (Mr. Bradley/Mr. Hart)
e. Status of the Hopi/Chaco Culture NHP dispute (Mr. OÆShea)
6. Conclusions (Mr. Bradley)

NAGPRA Implementation in the Western United States

California State Parks

Ms. Pauline Grenbeaux, chairperson, repatriation committee,
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), explained that
CDPR has been very active in NAGPRA since early in the process,
having had the fourth and sixth repatriations under NAGPRA. Despite
difficulties in the early years, CDPR has successfully consulted with
Native Americans, made cultural affiliation determinations, and
worked to implement NAGPRA with the cooperation of CaliforniaÆs
Native American Heritage Commission. After hearing concerns about
the contamination issue from people in California, CDPR has begun
pesticide testing at museums, which will be discussed by Ms. Paulette
Hennum later in the meeting. Ms. Grenbeaux emphasized that
consultation was a very important factor in the success of CDPR 's
NAGPRA implementation efforts.

In response to a question by Ms. Worl, Ms. Grenbeaux explained that
while CDPR does not have a formal reburial policy, CDPR works through
the Native American Heritage Commission for cultural items found
after the passage of the California State law in 1984. For cultural
items found before 1984, CDPR feels that it is their obligation to
find a place for reburial in a State park. Mr. Minthorn requested
more information on the Native American Heritage Commission. Ms.
Grenbeaux introduced Mr. Rob Wood, a commission staff member.

Mr. Rob Wood, Native American Heritage Commission, explained that he
was one of two staff members for the commission and that his
territory was southern California. Mr. Wood introduced Ms. Fawn
Morris, a member of the committee and the Yurok Tribe. The 1984
California State law makes no distinction between federally
recognized and unrecognized tribes. The commission has a most likely
descendant list, which contains information on federally recognized
and unrecognized tribes, as well as lineal descendants. To be on the
list, individuals must submit paperwork tracing their ancestry to
village sites or cultural areas. When human remains are found and
determined to be Native American, the commission is called. The
commission notifies the appropriate individual using the most likely
descendant list. Whether the human remains were found on State or
private land, the most likely descendant works with the landowner to
dispose of the human remains with dignity. In cases where the
location of the burial is in a disputed territory, all of the most
likely descendants and the landowner must reach an agreement.

In response to a question from Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Wood explained that
the commission compiles all information relevant to each case in a
confidential database. Ms. Grenbeaux stated that the most likely
descendant could negotiate additional study of human remains, which
is limited to nondestructive scientific testing. Mr. Bradley
expressed appreciation for CDPR 's creative consultation process and
model.

Discussion of Contamination of Cultural Items

Symposium on Contamination of Cultural Items

Mr. John Robbins, NPS, described a conference in West Virginia in
April 2001 on the contamination of cultural items. The review
committee was provided a copy of the preliminary conference
proceedings. The final conference proceedings are scheduled to be
published in December 2001. The conference was funded through a
grant administered by NPS through the National Center for
Preservation Technology and Training, and the conference organizer
was the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections.
Mr. Robbins read the stated purpose of the conference: "The goal of
this symposium was to bring together Native Americans, museum and
preservation professionals, scientists, public health officials, and
attorneys actively working on the problems of pesticide residues.
This group was brought together to identify and develop paths toward
resolution of the numerous difficult issues surrounding the use and
repatriation of contaminated collections."

The objectives of the symposium --
? Identify current scholarship regarding collections survey,
development of testing methods, risk assessment, and treatment of
contaminated collections
? Determine additional research and training needs
? Help to develop appropriate conservation strategies
? Encourage communication among the various stakeholders and to
disseminate information through print and Internet publications.

Section 10.10 of NAGPRA regulations states that the museum or Federal
agency official must inform the recipients of repatriations of any
presently known treatment of cultural items with pesticides,
preservatives or other substances that present a potential hazard to
the objects or persons handling the objects. Mr. Robbins explained
that the symposium refined the participants' understanding of the
word ôhazard,ö which at the conference was viewed as an industrial
hygiene term intended to call the attention of recipients of cultural
items to hazardous materials. Risk is a personal reaction to a
hazard and can vary from individual to individual. The conference
focussed on the nature and types of contamination, the nature and
types of hazard, the types of risk, and the potential for mitigating
contamination.

Review Committee Discussion: In response to questions from Mr.
Minthorn about future symposiums, Mr. Robbins explained that this
group is now concentrating on publishing the final conference
proceedings and will subsequently determine their course of action.
Possible areas for research include removing pesticides, chemical
treatment of pesticides to reduce pesticide hazard or risk, and
developing barriers for pesticide-treated materials where adequate
chemical mitigation is not possible. Mr. Minthorn stressed the
importance of developing a process to resolve the issue of
contamination of cultural items. Ms. Worl suggested that determining
strategies to implement mitigation measures and obtaining funding for
mitigation falls within the review committee's responsibilities. Ms.
Mattix explained that NAGPRA regulations do not go beyond informing
recipients of presently known hazards. DOI has not had any further
interpretation about who would be responsible for mitigation, which
potentially might fall outside of NAGPRA and into other areas of law
regarding the transfer of property held by Federal or private
entities. Ms. Worl stated that in her opinion the review committee
should address this issue but wanted to make sure the review
committee could legally proceed with this matter.

Mr. Bradley urged a realistic approach, recognizing the problem of
contamination and the possible limitations for mitigation.
Mr. O'Shea agreed with Ms. Worl that the issue of contamination was
within the review committee's purview, although he did not feel the
committee has the expertise to develop mitigation strategies. The
review committee could provide an oversight service, encouraging the
process and reporting on progress. Mr. Minthorn stressed the value
of education, especially by the National NAGPRA program. Mr. Hart
commended the actions of the organizers and participants of the
conference, and urged the review committee to have oversight of this
issue. Mr. Robbins added that NPS volunteered to support the paper
publication of the conference, proceedings and provide Website space
and support. Mr. Minthorn asked Ms. Worl to head a subcommittee on
the contamination of cultural items, focussing specifically on what
steps the review committee can take to assist with this issue.

San Francisco State University/Hoopa Tribe

Ms. Lee Davis, director of the California Studies Program, San
Francisco State University and director of the Pacific West Center
for Regional Humanities, explained that she has worked in museums and
with California Indian tribes for 25 years. She described a
conference in San Francisco organized by the Environmental Protection
Agency tribal committee. NPS has awarded a grant to CDPR to fund a
conference and develop educational materials for Indian tribes and
museums on the contamination issue and handling techniques. The
conference was held at San Francisco State University in November
2000 on the subject of contamination of museum collections and
implications for NAGPRA, and included one full day for the
development of recommendations. The recommendations and conference
summary are available on the San Francisco State University Website
and the conference papers will be published in the Collection Forum
in approximately three weeks.

NAGPRA requires that museums and Federal agencies report any
presently known contaminants on cultural items. Recipients of
cultural items have to assume the worst because complete histories
are not known for all items. Conference recommendations address the
following topics: health, testing, removal, education, and
collaboration. Conference participants focussed on education since
not all contaminated cultural items will be treated successfully and
education is necessary to help protect those who come into contact
with contaminated cultural items. In addition to the hazards for
museum personnel, contaminated artifacts are often returned to tribal
communities where the artifacts are handled and therefore may pose
different and often greater health risks for tribal people.

Ms. Davis discussed specific recommendations developed at the
conference. The importance of safety guidelines for handling
potentially contaminated items was stressed. Two conservators, Ms.
Monona Rossol and Ms. Jane Sirois, developed safety guidelines at the
conference which have been given to museums and Indian tribes.
Copies of the safety guidelines were provided to the review committee
members. San Francisco State University has tested rooms and
artifacts. Testing is difficult because there are no industry
standards for testing museum environments for contamination. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does the
testing, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) develops procedures and standards for testing in
specific environments. Ms. Davis suggested that the review committee
encourage NIOSH to develop procedures and standards for testing
museum environments, which OSHA could implement. Ms. Rossol and Ms.
Sirois recommended that newly hired staff should have baseline
medical examinations with regular medical monitoring during
employment and that museums should undertake epidemiological studies
of past and present museum workers. Basic medical research should be
conducted to determine the short- and long-term effects that
different pesticides could pose for human health. Conference
participants recommended testing museum environments and all items
that are to be returned to tribes for possible contamination.
Although current science does not allow for removing all
contamination on artifacts, research should be conducted to develop
methods that reduce or remove pesticides from objects and museum
environments. Education of Native Americans and museum personnel who
handle potentially contaminated cultural items is extremely
important. Ms. Davis expressed enthusiasm about the review
committee's oversight and coordination efforts regarding this topic
and appreciation for the subcommittee headed by Ms. Worl.

Mr. David Hostler, Hoopa Valley Reservation, explained that over the
past 2 years he has received 17 out of 52 items requested from the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. He
recently viewed over 500 Hoopa items at the Field Museum but has not
yet made any request. He expressed concern about receiving any
cultural items because the Field Museum has only returned 2 items in
the last 10 years. Mr. Hostler expressed concern about repatriating
contaminated cultural items due to the spiritual nature of the items
and their use in dance ceremonies. He explained the tragic
circumstances leading to the loss of cultural items and the tribeÆs
struggles to repatriate and safely use cultural items in traditional
ceremonies. Mr. Hostler described recent discussions with Ms.
Barbara Isaac of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
which were unsuccessful due to the museum's claim that the tribe does
not have legal title to the cultural items.

Mr. Peter Palmer, professor of environmental and analytical chemistry
at San Francisco State University, thanked the review committee for
the opportunity to speak at the meeting. He explained the chemical
analyses of cultural items recently repatriated to Mr. Hostler of the
Hoopa Tribe. He added that spot testing was used in the analysis of
the items, although that may not be the best method for determining
the presence and levels of contamination. Multiple, minimal samples
were taken from each of the 17 items that were repatriated to the
Hoopa Tribe, with the permission of Mr. Hostler. Each item was
subjected to two types of analysis, atomic absorption spectrometry to
detect various metals and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to
detect a wide range of organic-based pesticides. One-quarter of the
28 samples was found to have mercury at varying amounts. No arsenic
was detected.
The samples contained in varying amounts naphthalene, DDT,
dichlorobenzene, thymol, and lindane. Although the pesticides were
found at lower concentrations than mercury, Mr. Palmer recommended
handling the objects with gloves.

Mr. Palmer described a second case study of the museum environment at
San Francisco State University, looking specifically for mercury in
drawers and on the cultural items, which resulted in finding
widespread mercury contamination. Exposure testing performed by a
certified industrial hygienist found widespread mercury contamination
in the floor cracks in the lab and some arsenic contamination.
Airborne mercury testing found appreciable levels of mercury present
in the air in the lab. Dermal exposure studies showed that microgram
quantities of mercury and arsenic could be transferred by handling
these objects.

Mr. Palmer is investigating other case studies. Sampling can be
nondestructive and spot testing utilizing swabs and wipes can provide
viable results. He stressed the need for testing personnel to be
properly trained and to follow the procedures of quality assurance
and control in order to get reliable results. In addition, the
instrumentation required to do the testing is complicated and
expensive. A large consideration will be who pays for the analyses.
Mr. Palmer expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work with
Mr. Hostler and Ms. Davis, stressing the importance of
interdisciplinary cooperation.

Review Committee Discussion: In response to a question from Mr.
O'Shea, Mr. Palmer explained that contamination levels varied greatly
on individual artifacts. This could be attributed to the application
methods. Mr. O'Shea stated that although the methods described by
Mr. Palmer are not simple, they are also not exotic. Any major
university would be able to perform these analyses. The technology
exists for the development of a broad-based system for systematically
testing cultural items. Mr. Robbins emphasized the importance of
tribal consultation. Mr. Minthorn expressed appreciation for the
presentations on the conference and models for dealing with
contamination. He urged Mr. Hostler to consider pursuing dispute
proceedings if necessary in their dealings with the Peabody Museum of
Anthropology and Ethnography. Ms. Worl pointed out that many tribes,
including her own, are still trying to develop a way to deal with
contaminated ceremonial items.

California State Parks

Ms. Paulette Hennum, CDPR, Sacramento, offered her assistance to Ms.
Worl and the subcommittee on the contamination issue. CDPR, with the
help of San Francisco State University, applied for a NAGPRA grant
which was funded at $45,000 to hold six workshops throughout the
State of California. The workshops will focus on education about the
contamination issue and will encourage museum and tribal people to
work together. Ms. Yolanda Chavez will work as an instructor and
coordinator, along with Mr. Niccolo Caldararo. A simple safety kit
has been developed and will be featured at the conferences. Each kit
will contain a protective smock, nitrile gloves, dusk masks, and
laminated handling instructions.

Mr. Bruce Stiny, CDPR, Sacramento, explained contamination testing
that was conducted at the California State Indian Museum. At a
conference in May 2000 at the Robinson Rancheria, Mr. Niccolo
Caldararo spoke about methods of minimizing exposure to pesticides
and chemicals in museum environments. To do this, Mr. Caldararo
recommended limiting access to collection storage areas where
concentrations of chemicals might be the highest. The California
State Indian Museum has a unique problem because the storage facility
is located in the exhibit areas of the museum. Due to this unusual
and potentially hazardous arrangement, a decision was made to test
the air quality in the museum.

The testing will be done in two phases. First, the air was tested to
determine the potential for inhalation of hazardous vapors or dust by
visitors or staff. This testing was completed during normal
operating conditions on a regular business day. Tests were done for
20 biopersistent pesticides and none was found. Tests for over 50
volatile organic compounds indicated that almost none was present.
Amounts present were well below any recognized threshold. No arsenic
was found, and very low levels of mercury were found, well below
established limits. The second phase of testing will monitor an
employeeÆs completing typical housekeeping for objects inside display
cases. Mr. Stiny hopes to present the second-phase findings at the
next review committee meeting.

Review Committee Discussion: In response to a question by Mr. O'Shea,
Mr. Stiny explained that testing priorities were developed in
response to funding considerations. The priorities are 1) testing
air quality due to the large number of visitors and staff in the
facility, 2) testing effects on people who handle the objects, and 3)
testing cultural items individually as funding allows. Ms. Hennum
raised the possibility of approaching chemical companies for funding.
She also pointed out that the Hopi Tribe is continuing repatriation
efforts but is not taking physical possession of the cultural items.
This is an option for Indian tribes to consider that does not halt
the repatriation process. Ms. Hennum thanked the National NAGPRA
staff for their assistance in the grant process.

Ms. Metcalf asked if CDPR would be willing to share information from
the education program. Ms. Hennum stated that the information would
be posted on CDPR's Website and presented Ms. Metcalf with a safety
kit. Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the aggressive and
inclusive way that CDPR and San Francisco State University have
addressed this issue. Mr. Hart agreed with Ms. Hennum's suggestion
to have museums continue to curate contaminated cultural items after
repatriation. Mr. Hart also suggested that in some cases it is
appropriate to make duplicate ceremonial items and gave an example
relating to the Cheyenne Tribe. Mr. Bradley added that once
repatriation is complete, Indian tribes determine the disposition of
the items, and he gave examples of long-term curation agreements
between Indian tribes and the Robert S. Peabody Museum, Andover, MA.
Mr. O'Shea explained that the contamination issue is of primary
concern for organic artifacts -- artifacts made of wood, hide or
fabric -- that were likely to break down or be attacked by insects.
Archeological collections of stone tools and pottery were rarely
treated with pesticides.

Discussion of Forbearance Institutions - Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology

Ms. Barbara Isaac summarized the museum's forbearance compliance
completion efforts. The museum has collections from 45 of the 50
States. The museum's inventory contained the following information:
3,142 culturally affiliated Native American human remains by State,
6,729 culturally unidentifiable human remains by State, 69 non-Native
human remains by State, 187 Native American human remains with no
State, 13 non-Native North American human remains with no State, and
411 human remains under the control of or transferred to other
institutions or agencies. This accounts for a total of 10,551. In
addition, 313 human remains were unknown as to country, 61 came from
other countries, 43 were primates, 4 were other fauna, 230 were
casts, 7 were objects, and 997 were numbers that were lost through
reassociation. In addition, the museum reports 4,378 culturally
affiliated associated funerary objects and 11,367 culturally
unidentifiable associated funerary objects.

In the last 6 months, the museum contacted 250 Indian tribes through
2,191 consultative interactions by facsimile, telephone, U.S. Mail,
and e-mail. The total number of consultative interactions during the
forbearance period was 5,027. In the last six months, repatriations
have occurred to the Kumeyaay, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians of Michigan, Karuk Tribe of California, and Big Valley Band
of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria. Ms. Isaac explained
that the museum has now fulfilled its forbearance assignment and
should be formally released from forbearance status. Any further
review is the responsibility of the National NAGPRA program. The
formal release is important due to the ineligibility of forbearance
institutions for NAGPRA grants.

Review Committee Discussion: Mr. Minthorn commended Ms. Isaac on her
work with the museum and her efforts to fulfill the museum's
forbearance requirements. In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn,
Ms.Patricia Capone explained that collections were transferred to
return outstanding loans or to consolidate collections. If one
institution had a significant portion of a collection and another
institution had a minor portion, the minor portion would be combined
with the major portion of the collection in order to facilitate
consultation and repatriation. Collections that are under other
control are those collections that are in the possession of the
museum but under the control of a Federal agency. The museum works
with those agencies on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Isaac added that
the NAGPRA staff at the museum would now inventory the remainder of
the museum's collections across the world.

In response to a question by Mr. Hart, Ms. Isaac clarified that
culturally affiliated associated funerary objects were connected to
culturally affiliated Native American human remains and unassociated
funerary objects have been culturally affiliated but not associated
with any human remains. Ms.Capone added that NAGPRA definitions
state that if an object is intended solely for burial purposes it is
considered an associated funerary object even if there are no human
remains. Mr. Robbins explained that in the case of associated
funerary objects, the objects and the human remains could be at
different NAGPRA-bound institutions. In response to a question by
Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Robbins agreed with Ms. Isaac that the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology has satisfied their forbearance
agreement. Mr. Hart described a repatriation ceremony during which
Ms. Isaac and Mr. Tom Killion, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, helped reunite two parts of an individual
that had been separated for over 130 years and a dramatic
demonstration of power by a spiritual leader present at the ceremony.

Discussion of Implementation of NAGPRA within NPS

Mr. Bradley expressed concern that the review committee was currently
on record as being in favor of moving the administration of NAGPRA
from NPS to another office. He asked the individual committee
members to go on record with their current positions on the
implementation of NAGPRA within NPS and to identify priority issues
for the National NAGPRA staff.

Mr. Bradley explained that he felt the best way to implement NAGPRA
would be to work with NPS and identified developing regulations on
the disposition of culturally unidentifiable remains as the highest
priority. Mr. O'Shea agreed with Mr. Bradley. While Ms. Metcalf
agreed with most of Mr. Bradley's points, she raised the conflict of
interest issue and added that hiring additional staff was a priority
along with the regulations. Mr. Minthorn stated that the committee
members are hardworking and productive and have the same objective,
to help with repatriation efforts of Indian tribes and museums. He
agreed that the development of regulations needs to remain the review
committee's priority. The joint responsibility of the review
committee and NPS is to implement NAGPRA. Mr. Minthorn stated that
the positions set forth at the Juneau meeting and the Senate
oversight hearings with Senator Inouye were clear.

Mr. Hart explained that he was satisfied with the changes implemented
by Ms. Ann Shields from NPS' proposed choices. Mr. Hart felt that
regulations on culturally unidentifiable Native American human
remains should be a priority, although he added that Indian tribes
could move ahead with repatriations in the meantime. Ms. Worl
expressed concern about the conflict of interest in terms of NPSÆs
having the responsibility to implement NAGPRA and at the same time
being subject to NAGPRA. She explained that the conflict of interest
was and still remains widely perceived in the Native community. Ms.
Worl expressed additional concern about the unacceptable record of
NPSÆ implementing NAGPRA, resulting in a lack of progress in some
areas like regulations. In addition, she was concerned about NPS's
budget and appropriations. Ms. Worl stated that attempts to deal
with contamination of cultural items would require a significant
amount of funds. Mr. Bailey agreed with Ms. Worl's comments, but
explained that he supported NAGPRAÆs staying with NPS because any
significant change could disrupt the process.

Mr. Bradley suggested that the review committee place the following
statement on the record: "Although the review committee still has
concerns over issues of conflict of interest, implementation of the
statute, and funding priorities, the committee expresses its
willingness to continue to work with the National Park Service for
the implementation of NAGPRA." The review committee agreed with the
statement, although Ms. Worl expressed hesitation. Ms. Worl
explained that while she remains willing to work with NPS, she would
continue to seek the removal of NAGPRA administration from NPS.

In response to a question by Mr. Robbins, Mr. Bradley explained that
as staff is hired one priority would be developing regulations, which
does not change the priority to concentrate on the notice backlog.
In response to Ms. Worl's comments, Mr. Robbins explained that NPS
has sought and received $195,000 emergency funding in FY1999 and a
$400,000 base funding increase effective in FY2001

Corrections or Amendments of Juneau Meeting Minutes

Mr. Robbins explained that at the Nashville meeting the review
committee expressed concern that Mr. Martin Sullivan signed the
Juneau minutes prior to full review committee discussion or approval.
After discussion at the Nashville meeting, the review committee
decided to let the Juneau minutes stand as signed, with the option to
amend the minutes at the Kelseyville meeting if necessary. Although
no technical changes to the Juneau were requested, the review
committee members again expressed concern with the process and
requested that minutes be considered draft until formally reviewed
and adopted by committee members at a subsequent meeting. On a
related note, Mr. Hart stressed the importance of conducting proper
closing ceremonies, which was not done at the Juneau meeting due to
time constraints.

Discussion of Nashville Minutes

Mr. Bradley had a technical correction on page 16, second paragraph,
last sentence: Mr. Duane Alire, Superintendent, Pecos National
Historical Park. The review committee unanimously agreed to approve
the minutes of the Nashville meeting.

Mr. Bradley explained a request from an audience member to have draft
minutes available to the public prior to the meeting. After
discussion, review committee members agreed that meeting minutes
would be approved before being available to the public. Mr. Robbins
added that after the review committee approves meeting minutes, an
electronic version is available to the public on the National NAGPRA
Website.

Mr. Robbins summarized the review committee's requests from the
Nashville meeting and the progress made to date by the National
NAGPRA program --
? Page 4: Determine an estimated total universe of Federal agencies.
Work is continuing on the request for the total number of Federal
agencies.
? Page 4: Determine an estimated total universe of museums. The
National NAGPRA program provided the review committee members with
the index of museums found in the annual handbook of the American
Association of Museums. The index of 7,934 museums is divided into
approximately 12 self-identified categories, within which museums
are listed only once. Mr. O'Shea suggested comparing the
categories that were most likely to be relevant to NAGPRA with a
list of museums that have submitted summaries and inventories to
try to identify noncompliant institutions.
? Page 5: Provide an organizational chart of DOI and NPS. The chart
was included in the review committee binder. Mr. Bradley asked for
an updated chart with individual names.
? Page 6: Request for background information on the dispute between
Hopi Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical Park for Ms. Worl
and Mr. Bailey. This information was sent following the Nashville
meeting.
? Page 6: Determine whether Chaco Culture National Historical Park
was proceeding with repatriation efforts. Mr. Robbins reported
that the repatriation was on hold pending the results of the
National Park System Advisory Board subcommittee review.
? Page 7: Request for a copy of the National NAGPRA budget. The
budget was provided at the Nashville meeting and an updated version
was included in the review committee binder.
? Page 7: Request for a copy of the civil penalty regulations. Ms.
Mattix agreed that although the review committee members could not
see the final civil penalties rule, which is now in process, a copy
of the interim civil penalties regulations could be provided. Ms.
Worl again asked the National NAGPRA program for clarification of
the situation involving the Raven Rattle and the Taylor Museum.
Ms. Worl explained that she has raised this issue at previous
meetings and is concerned about possible statute of limitations
considerations.
? Page 16: Request for development of possible procedures for
technical changes to past recommendations of the review committee.
Mr. Bradley clarified this request as stemming from a second
presentation by Carlsbad Caverns National Park adding human remains
to a previous culturally unidentifiable human remains repatriation
request. After discussion, the review committee agreed that
technical adjustments to quantities and types of cultural items
could be accomplished through a corrected Federal Register notice.
Changes in Native American groups consulted or proposed for
cultural affiliation would require further consideration by the
review committee.
? Page 18: Check on the status of the letter from the Chickasaw
Nation. This item has not been completed. Ms. Mattix requested to
see the letter and obtain more background information.
? Page 20: Request to track all Indian tribes that have appeared
before the review committee, as well as the major issues brought
before the committee. This item has not been completed. Mr.
Robbins explained that the National NAGPRA office considers this an
important topic, which will be addressed as soon as possible.

Meeting Protocol Clarification

Mr. Robbins explained that the meeting protocol is available on the
NAGPRA Website and suggested that the review committee incorporate
the meeting minutes procedure as part of the meeting protocol.
Committee members agreed. Mr. Robbins explained that the National
NAGPRA office had received several questions concerning the meeting
protocol. One question focuses on the certification requirement
listed in item (3) of the meeting protocol. Other questions arose in
relation to the requirement for submission of a summary for proposed
presentations. Mr. O'Shea explained that these requirements were the
result of a presentation at the Santa Fe meeting wherein a dispute
hearing informally developed with only one party present. In order
to prevent that situation, the review committee developed item (3) in
the meeting protocol. Mr. Bradley suggested wording that would give
priority to representatives of Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations, Federal agencies, or museums. Mr. Robbins suggested
that the dispute resolution protocol could prohibit discussion during
the public comment sessions of disputes that have been accepted by
the review committee. Mr. O'Shea suggested distinguishing between
formal presentations and public comment. Mr. Robbins added that the
National NAGPRA office could continue to make scheduling decisions
based on time requirements but added that the review committee would
need to have a more formal process to consider presentation content.
Mr. Hart stressed the importance of allowing the public an
opportunity to comment, regardless of their affiliation with Indian
tribes or museums. Ms. Worl suggested formalizing the review
committee's practice to meet at geographically diverse locations per
item (1). Mr. Robbins added that the National NAGPRA program would
find it helpful if both the meeting location and dates were decided
two meetings minimum in advance. Mr. Minthorn agreed to work with
Mr. Robbins and Ms. Mattix in revising the meeting protocol,
including a formal review by the general law division of the DOI
SolicitorÆs office as requested by Ms. Mattix.

Dispute Resolution Procedures

Mr. Bradley explained that he drafted some language for amendment of
the dispute resolution procedures. The first amendment would be item
(6)(C): "Once the committee Chair and the Designated Federal Official
have determined that the committee will hear a dispute, the parties
will only address the committee and its members through the process
outlined in these procedures." Mr. Robbins suggested that the same
language should appear in the meeting protocol. The committee
members agreed unanimously to incorporate the proposed language in
the dispute resolution procedures.

The committee members agreed unanimously to incorporate additional
language proposed by the National NAGPRA staff for clarification of
the responsibilities of disputing parties, as follows--

(3.9) If the committee Chair and the Designated Federal Official
decide jointly that additional information is needed to
determine whether the dispute is appropriate for the committee
to consider, the Designated Federal Official will send a letter
to the involved parties.
(a) Failure on the part of the party that initiated the
dispute to respond to this request will indicate that the
proposed dispute is no longer active.
(1) The Designated Federal Official will inform the review
committee Chair of the status of the proposed dispute,
send a letter acknowledging the proposed dispute status to
the involved parties, and place the proposed dispute on
inactive status.
(2) At such time that the Designated Federal Official
receives a letter providing the additional information and
requesting that the proposed dispute be re-activated, the
Designated Federal Official and review committee Chair
will consult and jointly decide whether the proposed
dispute is appropriate for consideration by the review
committee.

(4.9) The Designated Federal Official will send formal notification
to the involved parties using registered/return receipt mail
service. Statements from each party involved must be sent to the
Designated Federal Official no later than 90 days following
receipt of formal notification.
(a) If the involved parties need more than 90 days to respond,
a request must be received by the Designated Federal Official
no later than 15 days before the end of the 90-day period.
(b) The request should indicate the amount of time needed to
respond, which should not exceed 90 days, and should indicate
circumstances surrounding the extension.
(c) The Designated Federal Official will inform the review
committee Chair of the extension, and send a letter to the
involved parties acknowledging the extension.
(d) If the involved parties require over 90 days to prepare
statements, the proposed dispute will be placed on inactive
status until receipt of the statements.

The National NAGPRA program will update the dispute resolution
procedures to incorporate the review committee's changes. The Chair
of the review committee will sign the updated dispute resolution
procedures, which will then be posted on the Website.

Upcoming Meetings

The Fall 2001 review committee meeting will be held November 17, 18,
and 19, 2001, in Cambridge, MA, at the invitation of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, reiterated the invitation Ms. Isaac explained
that the museum plans to erect a totem pole presently being carved by
the Tlingit to replace the totem pole that the museum is returning to
the Tlingit in June 2001. The totem raising ceremony is tentatively
scheduled during the November meeting, and all attending the meeting
will be invited. Ms. Isaac explained that she will retire from her
position at the museum at the end of June, but hopes to assist in the
preparation for and attend the November meeting.

Ms.Patricia Capone, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, seconded the invitation by Ms. Isaac. Ms.Capone
emphasized the opportunity for Indian tribes to schedule repatriation
visits to the museum and attend the review committee meeting.

Mr. Bailey extended an invitation for the review committee to meet in
Spring 2002 at the Gilcrease Museum or the University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK. He offered to arrange location and dates in coordination
with the National NAGPRA program. After discussion, the review
committee agreed to meet in Spring 2002 in Tulsa, OK. The review
committee members tentatively discussed holding the Fall 2002 meeting
in Washington, DC.

Nomination Process

Mr. Hart's term on the review committee expires in September 2001.
Mr. Robbins explained that he would speak with the NPS policy office
to determine the possibility of a subsequent appointment. Mr. Hart
expressed his willingness to serve an additional term of three years.
Mr. O'Shea clarified that Mr. Hart will be considered a member of the
review committee until a successor or Mr. Hart is appointed.

Public Comment

Ms. Norma Turner Beal (phonetic), Dumna Tribe, discussed her heritage
including the tragic circumstances of some of her ancestors' deaths,
resulting in the removal of cultural items from the area. She
described difficulty as a nonfederally recognized tribe to return
these cultural items to their rightful place. She explained some of
the problems faced by federally recognized tribes from gambling
casinos and alcohol that have resulted in culture loss. She
described efforts by her people to regain their culture and implement
traditional ceremonies.

Ms. Patricia Murphy Bratlin (phonetic), Dumna and Kechayi Tribes,
described her background and expressed her opinion that the
discussion of ancestral human remains is offensive. She also found
Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover's apologies on behalf of the BIA
offensive and stated that a Native American should not have to
apologize for the Federal government's actions. The Dumna Tribe was
one of the tribes forced to help build Fort Miller. The ancestral
remains under the fort are Dumna and should be returned. She
explained that her family went through contamination testing and
removal in their home, which was very expensive. Unfortunately, some
family members still have related health problems.

Mr. Jim Brown, Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank
Rancheria, welcomed the review committee and explained that Konocti
means "a spirit lady" and is the name of the mountain behind the
resort where the review committee meeting convened. Six Indian
tribes remain in Lake County, with a combined land holding of only
1,400 acres. There is a high density of archeological sites in the
county. The Indian tribes in the area prospered as fishermen and
gatherers and were sovereign long before the U.S. government came to
the area. Area Indian tribes traded with each other. In 1849 Indian
men were sold to mining camps for hard labor. During the signing of
the 1850 treaties, Indian children were sold at the courthouse into
slavery. He described the history of his tribe and the various names
that they have been forced to use under rules of Federal recognition.
Mr. Brown explained that he worked for the Native American Education
Center in Lakeport, CA, and that part of his work was educating the
school system about the atrocity of requiring Indian students to
construct models of missions. He compared this to requiring Jewish
children to construct models of Nazi concentration camps. Mr. Brown
described difficulties in NAGPRA implementation that he has
encountered, including not being allowed access to cultural items at
University of California-Davis and a reluctance on the part of some
tribal leaders to get involved in repatriation issues. He described
a loss of tribal culture experienced by his tribe. Congress took 22
years to sufficiently fund the Indian Self-Determination Act, and Mr.
Brown sees a strong correlation between that act and NAGPRA. Indian
tribes do not have sufficient resources to effectively implement
NAGPRA. He thanked the review committee for listening and urged
their understanding of the problems of California Indian tribes.
Mr. Brown shared items of tribal and family history with the review
committee and other meeting participants.

Mr. Gregg Castro, council tribal chair for the Salinan Nation, gave
honor and respect to the Pomo people. He emphasized the value of
hearing about the contamination issue and explained that he learned
about the issue at a Society for California Archeology conference in
April. The contamination issue is large and complicated, and
financially beyond the scope of any tribal organization or
institution. Therefore, the Federal government will have to be
responsible. He suggested presenting the problem as a human issue
rather than just a Native issue, because many people will be
affected. In addition, central or regional laboratories could be
utilized to test and attempt to decontaminate the most important
cultural items, with a central repository controlled by Native people
used to temporarily hold other items until they can be
decontaminated. Mr. Castro expressed concern about a former request
for repatriation for which the review committee recommended return of
culturally unidentifiable cultural items held by Fort Hunter-Liggett
to the Salinan Nation. He explained that once the Federal agency
discovered that the Salinan Nation was not federally recognized, the
process stopped. He stated that Ms. Janet Eidsness would explain the
situation in greater detail.

Ms. Claire Charlo, Confederated Salish and Kootnei Tribes, explained
that since the passage of NAGPRA in 1990 many States have implemented
State repatriation acts. In the last State legislative session, the
Montana Repatriation Act was passed. The act is similar to NAGPRA
except that it extends jurisdiction over to private lands and
persons, including private individuals and corporations.

Ms. Yolanda Chavez, former NAGPRA director for the Lake Country
Intertribal NAGPRA Consortium, expressed appreciation that the review
committee accepted her invitation to meet in northern California.
She stressed the urgent need for additional funding, both for
increased levels of tribal NAGPRA implementation and to address the
critical issue of contamination of cultural items. She asked what
could be done to improve funding levels. Mr. Robbins suggested that
individuals contact their local Congressional delegation. Ms.
Metcalf described previous efforts of review committee members to
lobby Congress for additional funds. Mr. Minthorn added that Senate
oversight hearings might be another way to highlight this issue. Mr.
Bailey urged the public to focus on the contamination issue when
trying to get additional NAGPRA funding. Ms. Worl agreed with
Mr. Robbins that the best course of action would be to contact
Congressional representatives, and suggested that additional funding
might be found outside of NAGPRA, for instance through public and
private foundations. Indian tribes also need to make NAGPRA a
funding priority.

Ms. Chavez suggested that cultural items be tested for
cross-contamination once they are transferred to holding facilities
or museums. She stressed the difficulty and importance of dealing
with the contamination issue. Ethnographic objects and artifacts are
sacred to people who have waited so long to get them back. The
knowledge that cultural items are contaminated with something that is
a health risk cuts to the very heart of NAGPRA as tribal communities
try to determine how to deal with contaminated cultural items. Ms.
Chavez expressed her willingness to serve on the review committee's
subcommittee on contamination of cultural items. She thanked the
review committee for their efforts and asked Drs. Bradley and O'Shea,
as directors of museums, to report on the work being done at their
museums to deal with pesticides.

Ms. Carmen Christy, Yokayo Tribe, stated that the U.S. government has
a long history of injustice against Indian people and the people of
California. Her ancestors purchased 160 acres in the late 1800s and
then gave the Federal government one acre for a school. The Yokayo
Tribe signed the 18 unratified treaties with the three commissioners
from the U.S. government, which should have been honored even though
they were not ratified. Ms. Christy explained that after President
Nixon signed the 1975 Indian Self Determination Act, the BIA clerk
who transferred the list of tribes left the Yokayo Tribe off the
list. The Yokayo Tribe discovered this in 1988 and is required to
re-petition for acknowledgement. She thanked the review committee
for attempting to right the wrongs of the U.S. government of over 100
years ago. As long as the U.S. government, universities, and museums
hold their cultural items, Indians in Pomo country will live in
constant turmoil and unrest. Ms. Christy recommended that any Pomo
items that cannot be returned need to be burned in the Pomo
tradition.

Ms. Vicki Christy, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, expressed
appreciation for the review committee's scheduling the dispute
between the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe and the BLM for the November
2001 review committee meeting. She explained that the tribe expects
the BLM not to participate in the discussions but stressed the
importance of the review committeeÆs making a determination based on
the evidence due to the time, resources, and energy expended by the
Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe in providing the documentation.

Mr. Lyndon Dejarlais, integrated resource coordinator, Turtle
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, read a statement prepared on
behalf of Mr. Kade Ferris, archeologist and historic preservation
officer, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. Mr. Ferris
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to address the review
committee. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is a
federally recognized Indian tribe located in north-central North
Dakota. As a sovereign nation, the Turtle Mountain Tribe has an
inherent right to protect and preserve ancestral burials and to bring
home those ancestors who were desecrated or stolen. Economic
constraints have prevented full participation in the NAGPRA process,
which has led to a general failure in the NAGPRA process. To correct
this failure, more equitable distribution of funding under the NAGPRA
grants program is needed to include impoverished Indian tribes in the
process. Since 1995, no North Dakota Indian tribe has received
funding under NAGPRA and only two grants were given to South Dakota
Indian tribes, an amount slightly over $51,000 divided among seven
Lakota and Dakota Indian tribes. The Turtle Mountain Tribe has
submitted three collection review grant proposals during this period
and has been turned down each time. The funding distribution of
NAGPRA grants needs to be examined for possible alternatives that
would lead to greater inclusion of Indian tribes. Formulaic and
permanent funding for Indian tribes is the best and only answer to
eliminate funding inequities. During a Senate oversight hearing in
April 2000, funding levels of over $10 million were identified as a
target to create national equity for Indian tribesÆ participating in
NAGPRA. In fiscal year 2000, 51 percent of all museum and university
grants were funded, accounting for $622,820. This money could be
used to benefit Indian tribes. Until funding is received, the Turtle
Mountain Tribe's need to find and return ancestors and sacred objects
will remain a dream. The review committee and NPS have the power to
solve this problem.

Ms. Janet Eidsness explained that she has been a cultural resource
consultant for 25 years. As a private and agency cultural resource
person in California, she has encouraged people to look to Federal
lands as a possible place for repatriation and reburial because of
the protection afforded to Federal lands. She is familiar with
reburials of private collections from Federal lands on U.S. Forest
Service and NPS lands in the State of California. Ms. Eidsness
pointed out the long-term responsibility under NAGPRA for managing
human remains in either reburial sites or archeological sites with
the original burials in place. California cemeteries are dedicated
so that the land title and use is specifically registered as such.
Ms. Eidsness wondered if this process could be used on Federal lands
to potentially remove such lands from public use. She asked if
NAGPRA grant money could be used for security devices for reburial,
such as the remote sensing devices used by Lava Beds National
Monument. Local tribes could be involved in these grant awards in
stewardship programs where volunteers work on site preservation and
security. Ms. Eidsness expressed appreciation for the hard work of
the review committee and the National NAGPRA staff. She offered to
assist in any possible way with NAGPRA implementation. She explained
that California does not have a repatriation law but is looking at
draft legislation. The California State law discussed earlier at the
meeting is a law that deals with the rightful need to protect Native
American remains discovered during construction or archeological work
on private and State lands. Assembly bill 978 is a proposal for
repatriating Native American human remains and other cultural items
to culturally affiliated Indian tribes, possibly including
nonfederally recognized groups. Following Mr. Castro's presentation,
Ms. Eidsness explained that the recommendation was made for return of
culturally unidentifiable cultural items from Fort Hunter-Liggett to
the Salinan Nation. Once the agency determined that the Salinan
Nation was not federally recognized, the process stopped. Mr.
Minthorn asked Mr. Robbins to follow up with Ms. Eidsness and Mr.
Castro on this issue.

Mr. Brian Ewart, independent, explained that he was present as a
member of the public concerned with the important issues involved
with NAGPRA. Although far from perfect, NAGPRA is a reasonable
attempt to seek balance between legitimate interests. The public has
a stake in the fair implementation of NAGPRA so that Indian tribes
receive the justice and respect that they are due. He commended the
committee for giving Indian peoplesÆ concerns thoughtful
consideration. A perspective that has not been as evident at this
meeting is the public's stake in ensuring preservation of the
integrity of the nation's museums, educational institutions, and
other sources of knowledge. While museum and religious experiences
are different, they are not mutually exclusive. An object may have
significant spiritual value to one individual and significant
interpretative value to another. NAGPRA strives to seek the balance.
Mr. Ewart expressed concern about the committee's balance in
resolving repatriation disputes. While the temptation may be strong
to stretch NAGPRA beyond the letter of the law, an unintended
consequence may be to undermine the committee's legitimacy and
ability to help. If an agency attempts to comply with NAGPRA in good
faith and submits a detailed report with a finding of no cultural
affiliation, the committee needs to uphold the finding and not grant
repatriation. The review committee needs agency compliance and
public support. NAGPRA cannot solve all tribal concerns, but the
review committee can do more to help Indian tribes if they seek
balance and are careful not to alienate Federal agencies and the
public.

Mr. Fred Frampton, Intermountain Region NAGPRA coordinator, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, explained that the delay in completing the
U.S. Forest Service's national inventory was due in large part to
last year's disastrous fire season. He reported that Mr. Frank
Wozniak, NAGPRA coordinator, Southwestern Region, U.S. Forest
Service, said that the inventory is forthcoming and begs the
committee's apologies. Mr. Frampton reported that the Intermountain
Region of the U.S. Forest Service -- southern Idaho, Utah, Nevada,
parts of eastern California, and a small part of Wyoming -- worked
diligently to meet the requirements of NAGPRA. Of the 17 sets of
human remains in the region, 8 have been returned, 7 have a signed
agreement for return, and the other 2 have been included in a notice
published in the Federal Register. He is hopeful that all will have
been returned by the end of Summer 2001. The Intermountain Region is
committed to returning human remains as close as possible to the
original burial site, as was the case with seven of the returned
human remains. In response to a question from Mr. O'Shea, Mr.
Frampton indicated that the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
consisted of 6.5 million acres and reported 5 sets of human remains.
He agreed that was a low number and explained that they were
attempting to determine whether there were any remains in other
museums. In response to a question by Mr. Minthorn, Mr. Frampton
explained that he did not have any information specifically regarding
Cleveland National Forest or Sierra National Forest.

Mr. Lalo Franco, Santa Rosa Rancheria, explained that a few years ago
the Rancheria reburied Native American human remains that were at
Fresno State University on the Santa Rosa Rancheria. He expressed
his appreciation for the way that Indian people work together for the
common good of reburying remains. The coalition is extending to
include tribes in the great San Joaquin Valley. He explained that an
important spiritual movement is happening in the valley. Indian
people own their past and the cultural items of their ancestors, not
other people. Mr. Franco explained that they were warned that
negative forces would work constantly to impede the process but that
they cannot stop the work. With the help of the review committee,
hopefully the ancestors can be returned.

Mr. Franco asked what the deadlines were for inventories and what he
could do to get more information on institutions holding inventories,
including foreign holdings. Mr. Franco thanked the review committee
for their leadership and courage. Mr. Robbins explained that
institutions had no new deadlines for completion of inventories.
Some institutions were granted extensions to the initial deadline and
six institutions went into forbearance as discussed earlier at the
meeting. Mr. Robbins added that there was currently no list of
museums that would be subject to NAGPRA, although the review
committee has asked for this information and the National NAGPRA
office has looked at different ways of compiling the list. Mr.
Robbins stated that the National NAGPRA office currently works only
with the materials that are prepared and sent by museums and Federal
agencies required by NAGPRA. He added that museums and Federal
agencies were required to submit inventories in both a paper and
electronic format. Once the National NAGPRA office completes a
review of all submittals according to some standard and institutions
that have not met the standard have been contacted, electronic
versions of the information can be made available to the public. Mr.
O'Shea stressed the importance of public access to this information,
especially to facilitate repatriation of culturally unidentifiable
human remains. Mr. Franco added that he hoped that the testing
process for contamination does not delay the repatriation process.
He explained that efforts to have local city and county governments
set aside land for reburials resulted in reopening the old Santa Rosa
Rancheria cemetery for reburials. He expressed concern about
replication of cultural items for profit or study. Mr. Robbins also
explained that NAGPRA does not address international repatriation.

Ms. Martha Graham, American Museum of Natural History and chair of
the repatriation committee for the Society for American Archeology
(SAA), expressed appreciation on behalf of SAA for the review
committee's efforts on the implementation of NAGPRA. SAA continues
to assert that NAGPRA seeks a balance of legitimate interests of
Indian tribes, science, and the public. The review committee helps
to maintain that balance and offers a forum for exploring common
ground and models for NAGPRA implementation.

Ms. Graham asked about an earlier comment by Mr. Robbins regarding
the possible move of the NAGPRA program to another office. Mr.
Robbins stated that at the Juneau meeting the review committee passed
a resolution to remove National NAGPRA responsibilities from NPS.
Ms. Graham urged the committee members to consider the disruption
that could occur due to reorganization when developing
recommendations regarding the administration of NAGPRA.

Mr. Richard Harjo, chairman of the Nevada State Indian Commission and
chief of staff for Nevada State Senator Randolph Townsend, explained
that outside of his various official positions he was addressing the
review committee on a personal level. During the last State
legislative session, the Indian Commission along with State Senator
Townsend developed a repatriation bill. The bill was not successful,
but plans are underway to introduce the legislation at a future
session. Mr. Harjo reported that the Nevada State Museum, as well as
other Federal agencies, is waiting for regulations before dealing
with culturally unidentifiable human remains in their collections.
He expressed concern that the present rate of dealing with culturally
unidentifiable human remains is much too slow. He thanked the review
committee and the National NAGPRA staff for their work in
implementing NAGPRA and in providing technical assistance. He
explained that many museum people at the hearing on the proposed
legislation were upset at having to pay for contamination remediation
in addition to the repatriation expenses. Mr. Bradley encouraged Mr.
Harjo to pursue the State repatriation legislation and expressed hope
that review committee actions regarding culturally unidentifiable
human remains would help form a process to deal with this issue in a
more expedient manner.

Cleone Hawkinson, president, Friend's of America's Past, explained
that Friend's of America's Past is a nonprofit organization that
promotes the rights of scientists and the public to learn about
America's prehistory. The effectiveness of the review committee
depends on how well the committee carries out its responsibility to
provide consistent, balanced, and lawful recommendations on issues
brought before the review committee. The review committee must hold
the U.S. Constitution above all other interests. Native American
religions are not entitled to special exemption from constitutional
constraints and preference cannot be given to one group's religious
beliefs over other views. Indian tribes that present sacred evidence
to support a claim must decide what is more important, religious
privacy or establishing a claim in accordance with the law. The
Constitution limits the use of oral tradition and religious beliefs,
which means that while the committee can compare religious beliefs to
find relationships for purposes of affiliation, the actual use of
religious beliefs cannot be accepted as proof of a claim.

Congress provided carefully crafted tribal affiliation requirements
in NAGPRA, but did not provide for coalition claims. While limited
exceptions can be made in specific circumstances for coalition
claims, coalitions have become a convenient catch-all to resolve
claims that are not supported by the evidence clearly required by
NAGPRA. The review committee should carefully examine any coalition
making a claim and the evidence that a coalition might present.
Loosely formed or overly broad coalitions could become the focus of
legal action, which could undermine the committee's credibility in
cases supported by the committee. When multiple tribes are making a
competing claim, NAGPRA requires that the agency determine which
tribe has the closest relationship for the claim. In the Kennewick
case, former Secretary Babbitt chose to ignore this requirement as
well as the requirement that only federally recognized tribes may
make claims. Federal agencies and the review committee do not have
this discretion. Indian tribes must meet the requirements of the
statute and the review committee must base its recommendations on the
quality of the evidence presented.

Congress spent considerable effort to balance the interests of Indian
tribes, scientists, and museums, while also recognizing the public
interest. Congress rejected arguments of Native Americans who
claimed that they have a human right to control all prehistoric
objects and sites that they consider culturally important. Likewise,
Congress rejected the claims of scientists and museums that wanted to
retain anything that they consider of scientific interest. To ensure
that this statute would not be misconstrued as authorizing every
claim, Congress adopted language to limit the statute and created the
review committee to oversee its implementation, envisioning a
committee that would offer fair and reasoned recommendations to
assist agencies in making decisions. In the 10 years since NAGPRA
was passed, the committee has developed few objective standards to
apply to the various lines of evidence needed to reconcile or weigh
conflicting evidence. Notably absent are important standards on the
need to measure and consistently apply the phrase ôpreponderance of
the evidence.ö One way for the committee to overcome being viewed as
a one-interest lobby is to acknowledge the benefits of scientific
study and the public's interest in America's prehistory. The
committee should actively recommend scientific study in cases of
uncertainty, especially those from the ancient past. It is time for
the committee to bridge the growing chasm between tribal views, and
the scientific and public interest in the past. The committee must
uphold the Constitution, create meaningful standards, and apply them
fairly using common sense. The committee's credibility and the
legitimacy of its work are at stake.

Mr. Richard Hitchcock, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,
University of California-Berkeley, introduced the staff members of
the museum present at the meeting: Mr. Robert Price, vice chancellor
of research; Ms. Cindy Clearwater, deputy director of the museum; Ms.
Ellen Auriti, office of the president; Mr. Otis Parrish, cultural
attach‰; Ms. Victoria Bradshaw, NAGPRA collections manager; Ms.
Kathleen Hull, senior museum scientist; Ms. Larri Fredericks, senior
museum scientist; and Ms. Deb Porter, database manager.

Ms. Barbara Isaac, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, responded to comments by Mr. David Hostler. Ms.
Isaac explained that the museum looks forward to working with Mr.
Hostler and the Hoopa Valley Tribe and that this situation is nowhere
near a dispute as consultations are just beginning. Ms. Isaac
explained some testing conducted by the museum in 1997 with the Hopi
Tribe, where some contamination was found. She stressed the
importance of testing and asked if the results of the testing of
Hoopa Valley Tribe's items with Mr. Hostler and Mr. Palmer could be
shared with the Peabody Museum to help track pesticide use in the
museum.

Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Hopi Tribe, emphasized the importance of
dealing with the issue of pesticide contamination of cultural items.
The Hopi Tribe has declared a temporary moratorium on repatriation
and physical return of items to the Hopi Reservation for use. He
expressed concern about the amount of time that has passed since this
problem was first identified, and the continued return of heavily
contaminated objects to Indian tribes. He explained that the Hopi
Tribe is working with the Arizona Poison Control Center in sampling
and testing objects and studying the types and levels of human
contact with the objects. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma notified the National
NAGPRA staff that the Hopi Tribe would like to make a formal
presentation on the contamination issue at the November review
committee meeting, which would include presentations by staff of the
Arizona Poison Control Center. He urged proactiveness on this issue
and thanked the review committee for the opportunity to make this
presentation. Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the
presentation and commended the Hopi Tribe for their work on the
contamination issue. He hoped that the increased staff in the
National NAGPRA program would allow for more education and outreach
concerning this issue. Mr. Robbins added that work on the
contamination issue is continuing by several groups.

Ms. Mandy Marine, California Department of Transportation, explained
that this was an emotional topic because she was both an Indian and
an archeologist. She expressed amazement that in 2001 Native
Americans were still defending their dead and their right not to be
unearthed and studied. As a scientist, she is fascinated with
archeological sites because they are traces of her past. She
explained that many Native Americans practice their traditional ways
but not as a religion. In fact, some Native Americans are Catholic
or Christian. She thanked the review committee for the opportunity
to speak and for their great work on NAGPRA implementation. As a
member of three nonfederally recognized tribes, she explained that
nonfederally recognized tribes are willing to work in umbrella-type
situations with federally recognized tribes in order to participate
in the NAGPRA process.

Mr. Martin Martinez, tribal council member, Redwood Valley
Reservation, Pomo country, explained that he buried his sister the
week before the meeting and was glad that he did not have to worry
about her being disturbed. Native people live in two different
worlds, the traditional world and under the Constitution of the U.S.
government. He explained that listening to the opinions of others
does not disturb him. The review committee is doing the important
work of advising the government on what to do with the remains of
Native Americans. Indian tribes need to step forward and claim what
is theirs. He expressed support for all Indian tribesÆ trying to get
back their belongings. He explained that a lot of Native Americans
were murdered in Covolo, a nearby prison camp. Artifacts were found
and removed and need to be returned. He stated that he would sing
healing songs for those who do not believe that Native Americans have
the right to get back what belongs to them, because all Indian tribes
have that right.

Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, expressed
appreciation and respect for the work of the review committee in the
implementation of NAGPRA. Ms. McCoard provided the committee members
with a U.S. map showing which States do and do not have federally
recognized tribes. She explained that 19 of the 50 states do not
have federally recognized tribes, although many of these states have
large Native American populations. Indian tribes from these States
are disenfranchised from the NAGPRA process and have to rely on the
generosity of federally recognized tribes to work with them in the
NAGPRA process. Ms. McCoard asked the review committee to stress
this problem in their report to Congress. Mr. Bradley gave examples
of repatriations that have occurred with nonfederally recognized
tribes. He stated that there would not be one straightforward
solution because this is not one straightforward problem. Each area
of the country has its own unique recognition issues. Ms. McCoard
added that Ohio does not have a State Indian commission because the
legislature has decided that no legislation will be passed unless
every Indian person in Ohio agrees.

Ms. Fawn Morris, Yurok Tribe, explained that she was speaking
personally. She has a heavy heart because of the ancestors that need
to come home but cannot because some Indian groups are not federally
recognized. She stressed the urgency of getting ancestors home and
reburied.

Ms. Karen Nissen explained that she was with the California
Department of Transportation but was speaking personally at the
meeting. At contact, an estimated 300,000 Aboriginal people were in
California. By the turn of the century the number had decreased to
20,000. The California Indian tribes need help to return the human
remains that have been found. She added that the town of Kelseyville
is named after one of the perpetrators of the Bloody Island Massacre,
which occurred nearby.

Mr. Jim Red Moon, Dumna Tribe, explained that he was present at the
meeting with elders and other people from the Dumna Tribe, direct
descendants of the Dumna people and the lineal descendants of the
human remains from the Mountain Lake area. On behalf of the Dumna
Tribe, he requested a list of all institutions that have possession
of their cultural items. Mr. Red Moon stated that a significant
amount of the Dumna traditional area is within a California State
park and explained that they have met with park representatives and
worked with the Native American Heritage Commission. He explained
that as a nonfederally recognized tribe the Dumna people have no
rights under NAGPRA. Nonfederally recognized people are still Native
American. He stressed the importance of returning ancestors to their
traditional homelands and urged the review committee to find a
process to include the participation of nonfederally recognized
Indian tribes. Ms. Worl added that NAGPRA was human rights
legislation. She explained that the review committee has heard many
examples of States working to facilitate repatriation with
nonfederally recognized Indian tribes. Ms. Worl suggested an
investigation into the history of NAGPRA to determine why NAGPRA
restricts repatriation to federally recognized tribes when the law
was supposed to be civil rights legislation. She proposed bringing
this topic to the next NAGPRA Senate oversight hearing.

Ms. Dale Ann Frye Sherman explained that, although she belongs to the
Yurok and Tolowa Tribes, she is speaking personally. She asked for
clarification of the staffing situation at the National NAGPRA
office. Mr. Robbins explained that the staff is currently decreasing
but that NPS is hiring permanent staff, which will be NPS employees
instead of consultants.

Closing Remarks

Ms. Metcalf and Mr. Hart thanked the hosting tribal groups, the Pomo
and the Yurok, for their hospitality. Mr. Bradley expressed
appreciation for the comments from the public and the public's
courtesy, friendship, and straightforwardness. Ms. Worl expressed
appreciation for the hosting tribal groups and stressed the
importance of the publicÆs attending these meetings to show their
interest and demonstrate the significance of this work. Mr. Minthorn
thanked the members of the audience for their attendance and
participation and the hosting tribal groups for their hospitality.
He urged continued participation in NAGPRA implementation.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 2, 2001.

Approved:

Mr. Armand Minthorn, Chair Date
Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Committee

REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 31, June 1, and 2, 2001; page 21