US vs LEONARD PELTIER 21st Century "gold" WATER

X-Originating-IP [207.179.186.14]
From Robert Quiver <tatankanajin@hotmail.com
Subject Fwd [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes
Date Mon, 14 Jun 1999 172122 PDT

Please Post the following

Title VI - Land Theft trudges forward in Pierre SD
But Janklow not seen in building.....
Subject [VERY LONG] CPT meeting notes
Date Sun, 13 Jun 1999 220729

Following is a compilation of notes taken by Christian Peacemaker Teams
observers attending the following meetings

--Joseph Westphal meeting with Treaty Council, Rapid City, June 8
--2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI, Pierre, June 9-10

These are detailed notes and very long -- enter at your own risk -)

(notes are summaries of statements made, not direct quotes, unless in
quotation
marks)

abbreviations
COE = Corps of Engineers
GSN = Great Sioux Nation
BHSNTC = Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council
NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
OST = Oglala Sioux Tribe
SRST = Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
CRST = Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
CCST = Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
RST = Rosebud Sioux Tribe
LBST = Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs
EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
USFWS = US Fish & Wildlife Service
SDGF&P = South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Treaty Council Meeting with Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal
Tuesday, June 8, 1999 2 - 5 pm
Alpine Room, Rushmore Civic Center, Rapid City, SD

-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette

Present around 50 people.  Primary speakers are from BHSNTC,
Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal for the COE, and
representatives of SRST.

Joseph Westphal, Asst Sec of the Army and head of the COE
--COE did not support or oppose the Act during the legislative
process, but is simply charged by Congress with the task of
implementing it.  Believes there is strong support for the Act in
Congress and that funding for implementation of the Act will be
appropriated.  COE is just trying to do its job and implement the
Act as quickly and efficiently as possible.
--COE is trying to have a relationship with both the state and
the GSN that will allow them to efficiently complete the
environmental and wildlife habitat mitigation work required by
the Act.
--COE is working across the country to improve relationships with
tribes and improve tribal policy.  There are serious issues
related to cultural sites along the river, and COE would like to
deal with those issues in a sensitive and appropriate way.
Didn't mention treaty concerns.

Chief Oliver Red Cloud of BHSNTC
--Treaty rights issues important.  It appears that Congress
doesn't recognize the Sioux' treaty rights.
--Invited those present to ask Westphal whatever questions they
might have.

Jesse Taken Alive, SRST Tribal Council member, representing the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (which withdrew from negotiations
regarding the legislation, although it has land within
reservation boundaries along the river under Corps management),
was invited to speak by Chief Red Cloud
--SRST is on record opposing the legislation.  Contrary to false
reports otherwise, SRST is still in firm opposition to it.
--Asked if participation in this meeting qualified as
participation in the COE consultation process of implementing the
legislation.  Westphal said, in essence, that it did, and Jesse
requested for the record that it be made clear that SRST
participation in the meeting did not in any way convey their
consent to continued implementation of the legislation.
--Gave Westphal copies of the various SRST Tribal Council
resolutions stating opposition to the Act.
--SRST is in favor of land being returned to the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Tribe, and is in favor of federal
trust funds allowing those tribes to complete wildlife habitat
mitigation and other work along the river, but is absolutely
opposed to any land transfer to the state.
--Washington DC thinks the tribes have been properly consulted
and are OK with this legislation, but that is not true.
--A hundred years ago, we were fighting over this land.  Now
we're here talking about it.  The only thing that hasn't changed
is that the land is still being taken from us.
--In July of '97, in the process of forming the legislation,
Daschle said that if the tribes along the river could not come to
an agreement, the process would not continue.  Yet he continued
with the legislation even after all but two tribes withdrew and
registered their opposition.
--We are very concerned about the differences between what we are
told will happen and what actually happens.
--You need to get us a hearing in Washington DC regarding this
legislation.

Westphal response
--COE not included in the process at all prior to passage of the
legislation.  We simply have to implement it.  We plan to do
that, maintaining full compliance with all relevant legislation,
including NEPA, NAGPRA.

Jesse Taken Alive
--Five or six years ago, we (SRST) tried to get the Corps to
return our taken riverfront lands administratively, as they're
supposed to do under the eminent domain takings law.  We had to
jump through so many hoops, and this long bureaucratic process.
We still haven't gotten our lands.  Why is this Act being pushed
forward like this?  Where are the hoops in front of this
legislation that we had to jump through?

Tex Hall, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Hidatsa,
Mandan, and Arikara), with reservations upriver in ND, but
ancestral remains in the land to be transferred
--Our ancestors' remains are affected by this legislation.  We
have federal protection for those sites, through NAGPRA and other
laws.  Concerned this protection won't last under state
administration.
--We haven't been included in this process, we haven't been
consulted.  We request oversight hearings on this legislation.

Westphal
--We need to be realistic here and define what exactly
"consultation" means.

A CCST Tribal Council member addressed Westphal regarding other
unrelated issues on Crow Creek Reservation.

Westphal told a mostly irrelevant and somewhat offensive story
about the Mapuche Indians in Chile, where he was born.

Jesse Taken Alive
--Asked Westphal to read Article 12 of the 1868 Ft Laramie
Treaty "No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the
reservation herein described... shall be of any validity or
force... unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of
all the adult male Indians... occupying or interested in the
same..."
--"All we're asking is, let's not break these treaties anymore."

Chip Smith, secretary to Westphal
--Clause 607(a)(3) of the Mitigation Act does state that "Nothing
in this Title diminishes or affects any treaty right that is in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act."

Westphal
--If this legislation is in violation of treaties, that may be
something for the courts to decide.

Elder Johnson Holy Rock of the BHSNTC
--Leaving OST, SRST, RST, and CCST out of this legislation and
including CRST and LBST is a classic divide and conquer.
--The US doesn't claim the right to unilaterally alter or nullify
treaties with other countries.  Why do they do it to us?

Peter Capossela, attorney for SRST
--Thanks for paying attention to us, finally.  All these years
we've hardly been able to get anyone in the COE Omaha office to
even answer the phone, and now finally with this bill you're
coming all the way out here to meet with us.
--A 1994 Act of Congress required that the Corps return unused
riverfront land within SRST reservation and Ft Berthold
reservation (in ND).  The Corps still has not implemented that
transfer.  Why does this new Act, passed just last October, get
priority?  We all know why -- because the state is getting land.
So only tribes who agree to give up Treaty lands to the state
will get their land back, it looks like.
--The Mitigation Act is self-contradictory and thus non-
implementable.  Sec 605(a) requires that land containing Nat Am
cultural sites be transferred to the state of SD.  Sec 605(h)
states specifically that NAGPRA will continue to apply to this
land, and yet NAGPRA specifically states that it only applies to
federal lands.

Jesse Taken Alive
--If we go to court and challenge this legislation and win, we'll
still lose the land.  The court will let the land go to the state
and try to give us compensation for it.  Anywhere else in the
country where land is taken away illegally, it is given back.
Here in Indian Country, we just get "compensated."
--Sec 605(a), mandating the transfer to the state, also
contradicts Sec 607(a)(3), requiring that no treaty rights be
affected, because 1868 treaty guarantees this land to GSN.
Repeatedly asked if any COE representatives present could tell
him which specific treaty rights are referred to by 607(a)(3),
and how COE will deal with that clause.  Westphal responded that
COE needs to study the issue.  Verbally committed COE to doing an
internal "treaty analysis" as part of studying the issues
involved in implementing the Act.

Eileen Iron Cloud, OST member from Pine Ridge
--Mentioned LaFramboise camp and CPT, requested oversight
hearings on Act.

Peter Capossela
--Congress is not as firmly behind this as you (Westphal) seem to
think.  The Senate select committee on Indian Affairs is
deferring to Daschle, but the House committee on Resources is
ready to schedule hearings on the merits, just waiting on Rep
Thune from SD to give his OK (protocol issue).

Westphal
--Verbally committed to contacting representatives and Senator
Daschle to request oversight hearings on the Mitigation Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd Partnership Meeting to Implement Title VI (Mitigation Act)
Wednesday, June 9, 1999 -- 1030 am - 500 pm
Tuesday, June 10, 1999 -- 900 am - 1245 pm
Iron Horse Inn, Pierre, SD

-- notes by CPTers Carl Meyer, Jake Kaufman, and Patty Burdette

Present
David Vader, COE Nat Am Coordinator
Candace Thomas, COE Title VI (Mitigation Act) Project Manager
Paul Wemhoener, COE Operations Manager for Omaha District
James Crews, COE
Paul Blakey, COE
Peg O'Bryan, COE
Gordon Bailey, Army General Counsel
Chip Smith, aide to Asst Sec of the Army Joseph Westphal
Eric Washburn, aide to Sen Daschle
Tom Young, BIA Aberdeen (Day 1)
Paul Hoffman, BIA hydrologist (Day 1)
John Cooper, Sec of SD Game, Fish, and Parks (Day 1)
Rick Collignon, SD Game, Fish, and Parks
Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Nell McPhillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Jandreau, LBST Tribal Chairman
Scott Jones, LBST public relations director
Joel Bich, LBST biologist
Louis DuBray, CRST Tribal Vice-Chairman (Day 1)
Haroll Frazier, CRST Tribal Council member
Steve Emory, CRST Attorney General
Tom Van Norman, CRST attorney
various other representatives of CRST, LBST, BIA, and COE
Reginald Cedar Face, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 1)
Isaac White Face, Treaty Council elder, Oglala (Day 2)
Emily and Eileen Iron Cloud, Pine Ridge Oglala (Day 2)
Paul Robertson, South Dakota Peace and Justice (Day 2)
Tom Cheyenne, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
Rich Shangreaux, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
Clayton "Boots" Quiver, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
Angelo Horse, LaFramboise camp (Day 2)
Melinda Martin, Pierre camp supporter (Day 2)
CPT observer Carl Meyer
CPT observer Bob Epp (Day 1 am, Day 2)
CPT observer Jake Kaufman (Day 1 pm, Day 2)
CPT observers Patty Burdette and Ron Friesen (Day 2)

(Day 1)
In review of Memorandum for Record from 1st Title VI
Implementation Partnership Meeting (April 12-13, 1999, Wash DC),
CRST rep Harold Frazier noted that two items (Items 9 and 41)
dealing with treaty concerns were included in the list of issues
yet to be resolved.  Said he had understood that all present at
the last meeting had agreed that those would be deleted.  General
agreement with that (no-one there to object), so items were
deleted.

[note COE will still consider the treaties in doing their Title
VI Implementation work.  This larger partnership group, however,
will not discuss them as an issue to be resolved in the
implementation of Title VI.]

Washburn
--Textual amendments to Title VI giving fishing and hunting
rights to CRST and LBST along with land and clarifying that USGS
water-flow impact study won't affect tribal water rights are in
Water Resources Development Act, which has not yet passed, but is
expected to.
--COE has been directed in Kosovo relief funding bill to
reprogram $800,000 into implementation of Title VI for FY1999.
--FY2000 Appropriations bill in Senate Appropriations Committee
contains $3 million in funding for the COE to implement Title VI.
House Appropriations Committee has not yet met to consider FY2000
appropriations.  Expects that somewhere between $2 and $3 million
will be appropriated for Title VI implementation in final bill.
--Senate select committee on Indian Affairs has agreed to oversee
process of applying NAGPRA to land that is not under federal
control (ie land that will be transferred to the state under
Title VI).  This should not be an obstacle to implementation of
Title VI.

Jandreau
--We appreciate the participation of all those who care to be a
part of this process.
--Let's get this transfer done and stop going over all this old
ground in discussions.

DuBray
--We just want to get this land transfer done as quickly as
possible.
--We all know this transfer won't affect water usage, so let's
not let the USGS water-flow impact study hold this thing up.

Cooper
--We've got to move this process along quickly.  (LBST and CRST)
Chairmen Jandreau and Bourland are taking heat over this Act from
"uninformed vested interests."
--The Governor (Janklow) has "no ulterior motives" in this Act.
His only goals are
      a) resolving jurisdictional issues
      b) maintaining recreational facilities along the river
      c) wildlife habitat mitigation
--Supports categorical exclusion under NEPA (ie no EIS) on land
transfer to tribes.  Thinks state should get one as well, because
the land use won't change.
--Rumors have been going around about planned industrial or
commercial development along the river.  They are not true.  The
Governor has no such plans.
--State would like to lease recreation areas along river from COE
within a month or two, prior to the actual land transfer, which
will probably take years.
--State wants to prepare for Lewis and Clark bicentennial
celebration by making sure rec. facilities are up to par.  COE
has not maintained them adequately, and state would like to begin
upgrades ASAP.
--State is taking cultural resource concerns very seriously and
wants them fully addressed in the implementation process.
--Land surveys (which may take years) are not necessary for the
transfer to take place.  We know what land we're talking about.

Young
--BIA formally requests that some of the funding for Title VI
implementation be directed to BIA to cover their costs.

Washburn
--We need a cost estimate from you so we can appropriate funds in
Congress.

DuBray and Jandreau both objected to BIA taking implementation
funding.

Emory
--CRST would like extension on comment period to get written
comments to COE.

Cooper
--State is working on forming an Advisory Commission to make sure
that federal regulations under NAGPRA and other laws, which
according to Title VI apply to lands transferred to the state,
are properly applied.

Cedar Face
--These tribal governments (CRST and LBST) are basically an
extension of the federal government.  They don't represent the
Sioux Nation and they don't represent me.  Why are you dealing
with them on land issues?

Cooper
--We're trying to make sure everyone is represented and heard in
this process.

Jones
--Yesterday Westphal met with BHSNTC and promised to take a look
at the treaty issues... your concerns are being addressed.

Hoffman
--clarification re earlier request from CRST... there is no
deadline on the comment period for the USGS waterflow impact
study.

DuBray
--CRST formally requests a meeting with USGS hydrologist Dan
Driscoll to discuss the waterflow impact study.

(break for lunch)

Jones
--Long history of LBST frustration (understatement) facing COE
indifference to cultural sites "washing away."
--COE has been "criminally negligent" in its caretaking of
Lakota, Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa cultural sites along the
river.
--LBST views this legislation as best opportunity to finally get
land back from COE and take care of sites properly themselves,
but needs funding to do this.
--Land was taken by COE over fifty years ago... now finally with
this bill we have an opportunity to get back what is rightfully
ours.

McPhillips
--COE hasn't done its environmental job, USFWS is involved to
make sure proper NEPA procedures are followed in transfer, and to
make sure everyone receiving land under Title VI drafts a
"General Plan" for preserving endangered species wildlife habitat
along river.
--USFWS sent COE a proposed General Plan every ten years or so,
COE never acted.

Emory
--Why should CRST and LBST be held to higher environmental
standards than COE was, when they have much less funding?

Thomas
--Let's get work teams formed to handle all these implementation
issues.
--Is each party (COE, SDGF&P, BIA, LBST, CRST) ready to name one
person as project manager, to be contact person and conduit for
all information re Title VI implementation?  These five people
will then form the Coordinating Team.
-- Candace Thomas for COE
-- Rick Collignon for SDGF&P
-- Tom Young for BIA
 

Emory, Frazier, Jandreau, Jones, etc
--CRST and LBST aren't going to just go along with COE plan for
doing all this.  We need more than one person to be primary
contact, because we're overstretched w/ personnel and all of us
have other duties besides Title VI.  We're sovereign governments
and you can't just dictate this process to us like this.

(Work team formation put on hold)

Washburn
--Daschle open to special legislation this summer allowing land
transfers to CRST and LBST to go through quickly, after which
tribes can contract w/ COE to get funds to do cultural site,
habitat mitigation work.  We can start working on this
legislation as soon as next week.

Young
--Treaty issues involved here are major and important.  Shouldn't
they be discussed in this process somewhere?

Emory
--NO!  Treaty issues are not relevant to this implementation
process, due to the 1889 Allotment Act and subsequent court
decisions.

Thomas
--Asst Sec Westphal did promise Treaty Council in Rapid City that
COE will study treaty issues as part of implementation process,
but this partnership group may not be the appropriate place to
address those concerns.

Emory
--Treaty Council is not legally representative of federally
recognized Sioux tribes, tribal governments are legally elected
representatives.  Treaty Council does not have the right to
request the COE to study our treaties.  Only the tribal
governments have the legal right to discuss treaty issues on a
govt to govt basis with the US govt.

--COE, an arm of the Dept of Defense, is not an appropriate place
for the US govt to address treaty issues.

(funding issues discussed for rest of pm; covered more thoroughly
in discussion below, day 2)

(Day 2)
CRST requests formal apology from COE for comment made by Project
Manager Thomas to CRST Atty Genl Emory after meeting yesterday.

(Background Emory said "The problem with this whole process is
that I wasn't at the first Partnership meeting in Wash DC," to
which an annoyed and stressed Thomas responded "As far as I'm
concerned, you shouldn't be at any of these meetings.")

Thomas  It happened in private and should be resolved in
private.

Emory Disagree it should be handled in private.  Presence of
Attorney General directed by CRST tribal govt, therefore her
comment insult to CRST govt.

(Thomas later formally apologized to Emory and CRST on behalf of
COE)

Court stenographer at future meetings requested by CRST and LBST.

introductions...

Tom Cheyenne, Lakota remarks relates the history of white/Lakota
relations re treaty/gold/money.  We talk, we write it down but
the land goes and we get nothing.  There is no land for our
tiyospaye and our families.  The people The common man has no
chance to speak.  I am a common man, I am here to speak for the
people.  The dead are there in this land.  The whites talk, but
God is there.  Now the whites have everything.  Today we talk
some more.  The whites always just want us to get out of the way.

Steve Emory, response in Lakota All of the land is God's, but
the organization / boundaries (?) need to hold it (title).  These
people are not all part of the government.  Today we have our
women and children to care for.  Who will do this?  You say the
people.  Remember what has happened before.

Isaac White Face, in Lakota commends Tom for speaking, and for
what he said.  Cautions Steve not to forget, with all his
education and money, to listen to the things Tom said.  Says
white man's education and money changes your mind.  Rebukes Steve
as an elder. (Gives a handshake and thanks to Tom, Emily, Eileen,
and Paul, then leaves meeting)

Emory Thanks Tom and Isaac for speaking from their hearts and
for speaking for these things.

Emily Iron Cloud relates the history of her family and work with
Black Hills.  You took these lands to finance your first
colonies.  You take our resources.  We have not been able to
utilize our land, our water etc.  You take these things without
our consent.  Six tribes are formally opposed to this transfer.
Daschle is a criminal for not allowing us to have a hearing.  You
cannot do this, take the actions, take these lands without the
consent of entire Sioux Nation.  We do not oppose CRST and LBST
getting land or funds, just transfer to state.

Eileen Iron Cloud This will not happen.  State of South Dakota,
you will not receive this land.  Washburn, take this to Sen
Daschle six tribes have asked for hearings - is that too much to
ask, to be heard?  Also, '94 JTAC for SRST - still nothing done.
Why move so fast on this?  We know you want this land.

Paul Robertson, SD Peace and Justice Center Official position
calling for oversight hearings on Title VI.

Rich Shangreaux, Teton Nation You are trying to control the
future of our nation.  All you see is the money you will make.
You are making my elders cry -- you don't do that.  How can you
all work so hard to hurt our people?

Charmaine White Face Freelance writer from Wounded Knee
district, 8 children, 14 grandchildren.  Started writing in 1994
abt this - elder man from CRST forwarded alert to her.  Col Volz
spoke abt govt to govt relationship.  Do you uphold the
constitution?  How can an act of legislation supersede the
constitution or a treaty, the supreme law of the land?  Prophecy
- when women come forward it will be a battle of spirit.  Women
are spiritual warriors.  We pray for Daschle and Janklow for good
health -- not just physical but mental, spiritual, emotional.  We
will fight for our future, children.  You have to listen with
your hearts, not just your minds.

Following these comments, COE called for break in meeting.
Allowed bureacrats and functionaries time to stand around talking
about fishing and clear the emotional energy from the room.

Gov Janklow arrived during this break and requested that COE
lease all recreation sites along river to the state for
improvements, immediately.  COE responded that upon receipt of a
formal request, sites could be leased to state within thirty
days.

(meeting reconvened)

Wemhoener, representing Col Robert Volz (district manager for
Omaha district)
--Gov Janklow is interested in leasing more recreation sites
along river from us, as we have leased them in the past.  Janklow
will write official letter requesting these leases.

Frazier
--If SD can lease these sites from Corps, why can't we?  CRST
would like to lease four rec sites between Cheyenne River
Reservation and Oahe Dam.

Wemhoener
--Send COE a formal request and we will consider it.  Those four
sites in particular currently not leased to anyone else.
--(Proceeded to presentation re funding for Title VI
implementation)
--COE is funded by Congress on a project-by-project basis, it has
no general program funds.  Title VI is a project, Army is the
action agent for implementation of Title VI.
--Candy Thomas is COE Title VI Project Manager, responsible for
budget, schedule and oversight.  She is the responsible agent for
COE.
--COE can do work necessary for Title VI implementation in-house,
contract it out, or any combination of the two.  Contracts
possible w/ tribes, state, any other federal agency.
--U.S. Govt currently holds title to the lands affected by Title
VI.  Under Title VI, those titles will be transferred to the
state of South Dakota and to the BIA to hold in trust for the
tribes.
--COE has been directed by Congress to reprogram $800,000 from
other projects for implementing Title VI in remainder of FY1999.
COE tentatively plans to use roughly $300,000 of those funds to
do preliminary inventory work on protection of cultural sites,
$400,000 to pay for partnership meeting costs, and the remainder
is free for other necessary work.
--COE is not a funding agency.  It is not authorized to
distribute funds from project budgets to other entities, apart
from contracting for specific work on the project.
--Once Congress actually appropriates funds for this project, COE
will work with tribes and state to implement requirements of
Title VI.  To date this is an unfunded project.  $800,000 was not
appropriated, merely redirected from other COE projects.
--Leasee of rec areas on river are responsible for upkeep,
maintenance etc.  This is a funding drain on responsible agency.
Agency leasing sites (eg SD) must guarantee COE that they will
get the funds somewhere. [implied CRST and LBST don't have the
money necessary to do this]
--Title VI is silent on COE taken lands within SRST and CCST
reservation boundaries.  Some rec sites within those reservations
are currently leased by SD.  Under Title VI, US govt will retain
title to those lands, and COE will continue to maintain them.
COE will honor leases to state until term of lease expires.
--New appropriations from Congress for FY2000 (possibly $3
million?) - use depends on how appropriations are written into
law.  In current Senate Appropriations version, $3 million is
appropriated to COE as one lump sum for Title VI implementation.
In the end, there may be other limitations, restrictions, or the
money may be subdivided and allocated by Congress for specific
purposes.  Until that bill passes, no one can say how much money
will be available for anything.

Emory
--Let's be honest here.  There's a big difference between
authorization and a mandate.  Title VI authorizes certain
activities, doesn't mandate them.  Right now there are 0 dollars
available for anything.  The tribes need money to do their own
assessment and interpret USGS water-flow study, etc.  The
$800,000 is up for grabs, and it should go to those who need it
most; the tribes.

Wemhoener
--COE cannot begin until Clinton signs appropriations bill into
law.  Congress has said no action until appropriations, and COE
must abide by that.  This is all interim funding, since it will
be seven or eight years before trust funds mandated by Title VI
for tribes and state are fully capitalized and available for use.

Emory
--In the absence of mandated (trust fund) funding, the tribes
have no tax base to fund anything because you all stole it from
us.  Now the state of SD has this tax base.
--Also, funds from taxes on fishing & hunting licenses sold, etc,
goes to state of SD.  We get none of that money either.
--Legislation needed to give tribes preference in contracting for
services w/ COE anywhere in Indian Country to make up for these
imbalances.

Wemhoener
--At minimum, it will take two years to complete the land
transfer process with all preliminary work necessary.  That's an
extremely optimistic estimate, only possible if COE is fully
funded to complete work (EIS, cultural sites, wildlife work etc).
If less than fully funded, will take longer.  We may even have to
survey the land to be transferred; that's a monumental task and
could well take years by itself.
--COE Draft Implementation Plan (w/ multi-year implementation
budget) due for review in August.

List of work teams decided upon
--Coordinating Team (Legislative, Funding, Misc subsumed)
--Real Estate (USGS / Rec Areas subsumed)
--Cultural Resources
--NEPA process (Legislative/Jurisdictional)
--Consultation

Names from each party for teams to be submitted by June 18.
Teams should meet and have something ready to present by next
meeting.

Next meeting
July 20 & 21 on CRST reservation.

Memorandum Agreement, Sep 6, 2000