IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .2 , _ _. ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) _',* ,-_ ........... Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96CV01285 ) (Judge Lamberth) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, ) et al_.__., ) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS _ OPPOSITION TO QUAPAW TRIBE'S MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF The Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury (collectively, "Defendants") file this opposition to the Motion of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah) to File Brief Amicus Curiae ("the Quapaw's Amicus Request"). The Quapaw's proposed amicus brief does not meet the standard for being helpful to the Court because this is an IIM, not a tribal case, because the Quapaw's concerns are more appropriately directed to Congress and to the Department of the Interior, because it would focus on the Quapaw's narrow interests, and because the parties already address the tribe's concerns that are relevant to this lawsuit. Moreover, adding the Quapaw's proposed brief to the record would burden the Court and the parties, and potentially encourage other interested tribes to file similar amicus requests, thus further burdening the Court and the parties. No statute or rule exists delineating the standard for assessing an amicus request at the District Court level. -1- This court is not aware of any rule or statute that prescribes the procedure for obtaining leave to file an amicus brief in the district court nor is this court aware of any rule or statute which furnishes standards to guide the court in determining whether leave to file an amicus brief should be granted. United States v. Gotti, 755 F. Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). However, such guidance does exist in the Rules of the Supreme Court, and in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. SUP. CT. R. 37 1 states: An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 provides mostly procedural guidance to those wishing to file an amicus brief, but also states, "Any other amicus curiae [other than a government entity] may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing." FED. R. APt'. P. 29(a). Case law also provides some guidance as to when a court should permit the filing of an amicus brief. "Other functions served by amicus curiae are to provide supplementary assistance to existing counsel and insuring a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision." Gotti, 755 F. Supp. at 1158. In most cases, "'new issues raised by all amicus are not properly before the court in the absence of exceptional circumstances.'" Verizon Internet Servs., Inc. v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., No. 02-MS- 0323, 2003 WL 141147, at '15 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2003) (quoting Gen. Eng'g. Corp. v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 805 F.2d 88, 92 (3d Cir. 1986)). _ Courts may be less likely to I See also Verizon Internet Servs. v. Recording Indus. Ass'n. of Am., No. 02-MS-0323, 2003 WL 141147, at '15 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2003) (quoting Universal City Studios, Inc. v. (continued...) * -2- permit the filing of amicus briefs in cases that have developed an extensive record. See New York v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1233, 2002 WL 31628215, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2002) ("Given the extensive record created during over 32 trial days of testimony and argument, the presentation of additional information which the parties did not themselves present would serve little purpose.") Ultimately, the Court enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether to accept an amicus brief. Id. ("Since an amicus curiae does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the Court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.") The Quapaw's proposed amicus brief would not meet these standards, and thus would not be helpful to the Court. This is an IIM case, not a tribal case. Tribal-specific concerns like those of the Quapaw do not belong in this IIM litigation. 2 The Court should therefore not permit the Quapaw to import their tribal-specific issues into this I1M lawsuit. Much of what the Quapaw Tribe attempts to present through its proposed amicus brief is more appropriately addressed directly to the Department of the Interior or to Congress. The tribe's proposed amicus brief will contain "[s]uggestions for modifications to both the... _(...continued) Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 445 (2nd Cir. 2001)) ("'Although an amicus brief can be helpful in elaborating issues properly presented by the parties, it is normally not a method for injecting new issues..., at least in cases where the parties are competently represented by counsel.'") 2 In fact, the "Tribe is involved in similar litigation as a party seeking to enforce the... government's trust responsibility." The Quapaw's Amicus Request at 3. The Quapaw's case in the Northern District of Oklahoma is one of many similar lawsuits brought by individual tribes against Interior. At this time, the Department of Justice is litigating numerous cases brought by Indian tribes in various courts around the country. See e.g., Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation v. Norton, No. 90-2-4-10540 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 7, 2002) (One of the Court's decisions in Assiniboine is reported at 211 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D.D.C. 2002) (case not referred to Calendar Committee for random assignment because of relation to Cobell v. Norton)). -3- government's and the plaintiffs' reform proposals .... "The Quapaw's Amicus Request at 4, 5. The proposed brief will also discuss "the nature of the.., government's trust responsibility to 'direct service' Indian tribes .... "Id. at 5. Such suggestions for government trust reform and such analyses of the government's trust responsibilities are more properly before Interior and Congress rather than before the Court. Although Interior must consult with tribes on trust reform, see e.g., Department of the Interior Fiduciary Obligations Compliance Plan, Jan. 6, 2003, at 11, this duty should not extend to responding to the Quapaw's amicus brief in the context of this IIM litigation. The Court should also deny the Quapaw's Amicus Request because the tribe's proposed amicus brief would impermissibly inject new issues into the case. Throughout its amicus request, the Quapaw consistently focuses on the unique perspective that its amicus brief would bring to the case. "The extent of this federal management.., gives the Tribe and its members a perspective.., that is different from that of many other Indian nations and their members." The Quapaw's Amicus Request at 2. "As a so-called 'direct service' tribe, the Quapaw Tribe stands in a unique position .... "Id. "In view of its somewhat unique perspective, the Tribe believes that it could be of assistance to the Court concerning the issues at hand." Id. at 3. "[T]he Tribe has a unique interest and has developed unique claims .... "Id. While these unique issues are undoubtedly important to the Quapaw Tribe, the Court should not consider these new issues or perspectives in this IIM litigation in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Verizon, 2003 WL 141147, at '15 (quoting Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 805 F.2d at 92). Because no such exceptional circumstances exist in this litigation (and the Quapaw Tribe points to none in its request), the Court should deny the Quapaw's Amicus Request because the Quapaw's proposed -4- amicus brief would inject new issues into this case. See id., (quoting Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429, 445 (2nd Cir. 2001)). In the same vein, the Court should deny the Quapaw's Amicus Request because the issues the tribe seeks to brief are too narrow. Along with describing the tribe's unique perspective, the Quapaw's Amicus Request also states, "Neither the plaintiffs nor the.., government are in a position to adequately represent the Quapaw Tribe's interest in ensuring that the.., government's trust responsibility to it is described and articulated in a manner that protects the Tribe's longstanding interests .... "The Quapaw's Amicus Request at 4. "Unless the Quapaw Tribe is permitted to file a brief as amicus curiae, itAs interests ... may not be presented adequately to this Court." Id. (emphasis added). In its conclusion, the tribe states that its proposed amicus brief will suggest modifications to the plaintiffs' and the government's "reform proposals that comport with the trust responsibility that the.., government has to the Quapaw Tribe as a 'direct service' tribe." Id. at 5. These quotes indicate that the Quapaw tribe intends to focus its proposed amicus brief on its own insular interests rather than on the issues already before the Court and affecting the parties to the litigation. The Court should not permit the filing of an amicus brief addressing such narrow issues. See Microsoft, 2002 WL 31628215, at *1 ("Court failed to see a need for the presentation of additional material, some of which appears to be concerned with rather narrow and parochial matters. ,,3) The Court should be especially wary of considering such narrow matters where, as in this case, the parties themselves have already developed such an 3 The Microsoft court rejected the additional material, characterizing the information proffered by the putative amici as "akin to 'unsworn expert testimony.'" 2002 WL 31628215, at * 1. Likewise, the Quapaw's proposed amicus brief would likely constitute untested and unsupported evidence about the tribe and its trust assets, how Interior has historically treated the tribe, and the alleged impacts of trust reform on that particular tribe. -5- extensive record. See id. ("Given the extensive record created during over 32 trial days of testimony and argument, the presentation of additional information which the parties did not themselves present would serve little purpose.") Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a), an amicus curiae "may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing." In this instance, not only have all parties not consented to the Quapaw's Amicus Request, but ill fact all parties oppose the Quapaw's Amicus Request. Although the Court retains great discretion in deciding on the Quapaw's request, the Court should hesitate to grant the request in the absence of consent from either party. Gotti, 755 F. Supp. at 1158 (Amicus request denied where the brief was "not accompanied by the written consent of either party .... ") Under the Supreme Court standard, an amicus brief should contain relevant information not already brought to the Court's attention by the parties. Sue. CT. R. 37 1. Given the voluminous information already presented to the Court by the parties in this litigation, it is difficult to imagine how the Quapaw Tribe could present any relevant matter not already in the record. To the extent that the Quapaw Tribe would present new material to the Court, it would not likely be relevant to this particular litigation. The presentation of such new material to the Court, whether new and immaterial or old and cumulative of other matter already in the record, would burden the Court and its filing should therefore not be favored. Id. The filing of the Quapaw's amicus brief would not only burden the Court, but would also burden the parties. The parties to this suit have plenty of pleadings from their opponents to respond to, and should not have to divert their focus from the case in chief to respond to an amicus brief. -6- Another potential danger to the Court and to the parties of granting the Quapaw's Amicus Request is that other interested tribes may follow the Quapaw's lead and also seek to file amicus briefs. 4 There are approximately 180 reservations that contain allotments to different Indian tribes. See Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories, Response to Interrogatory No. 1 (dated Jan. 23, 2003; Attachment 1). If the Court grants the Quapaw's Amicus Request, it is likely that other groups of Indians will follow suit. There would then be other amicus requests that the parties would have to respond to, and which the Court would have to address. Such a scenario would truly burden the Court as well as the parties. As complex as this litigation is, neither the Court nor the parties would benefit from the Quapaw's proposed amicus brief. The Court should not consider the Quapaw's tribal concems in this I1M litigation. The Quapaw's concerns are more properly addressed to Congress and the Department of the Interior. The Court and the parties should focus solely on the trust reform plans presented by the parties, rather than being distracted by the Quapaw's analyses and proposals. CONCLUSION The Quapaw's proposed amicus brief does not meet the standard for being helpful to the Court. The tribe's proposed brief does not belong in this IIM case. The tribe's concerns are more properly addressed to Congress and the Department of the Interior. Moreover, the tribe's proposed brief will focus on the Quapaw's narrow interests without addressing any relevant matters that the parties have not already brought to the Court's attention. Filing the Quapaw's 4 As of this time, the National Congress of American Indians has already filed a request with the Court to file an amicus brief. -7- proposed amicus brief would burden the court and the parties, and potentially set a burdensome precedent if other tribes also seek to file amicus briefs. Put more simply, the tribe's proposed amicus brief is neither necessary nor helpful to the Court or to the parties. [I]t "may be thought particularly questionable" for the court to accept an amicus when it appears that the parties are well represented and that their counsel do not need supplemental assistance and where the joint consent of the parties to the submission by the amicus is lacking. Gotti, 755 F. Supp. at 1159, (quoting Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (lst Cir. 1970)). Therefore, the Court should deny the Quapaw's Amicus Request. Dated: February 10, 2003 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General STUART E. SCHIFFER Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Directpr X?" t /dANDKA P. SPOONER D.C. Bar No. 261495 Deputy Director JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ Senior Trial Attorney JOHN J. SIEMIETKOWSKI Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 (202) 514-3368 (202) 514-9163 (fax) -8- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al__:, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:96CV01285 ) (Judge Lamberth) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, ) et al_._., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER Having considered the Quapaw Tribe's Motion to File Brief as Amicus Curiae, and having considered the parties' responses to said Motion, it is hereby Ordered that: The Quapaw Tribe's Motion is DENIED. The Quapaw Tribe may not file a brief amicus curiae. Dated: Hon. Royce C. Lamberth U.S. District Judge ce: Sandra P. Spooner, Esquire John T. Stemplewicz, Esquire Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 Fax (202) 514-9163 Dennis M Gingold, Esquire Mark Kester Brown, Esquire 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Fax (202) 318-2372 Keith Harper, Esquire Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 Fax (202) 822-0068 Elliott Levitas, Esquire 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Alan L. Balaran Special Master 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 Joseph S. Kieffer, III Special Master-Monitor 420 - 7 th Street, N.W. Apartment 705 Washington, D.C. 20004 Amy S. Koch, Esquire Cameron McKenna LLP 2175 K St., N.W., Fil2h Floor Washington, D.C. 20037 Telefax: 202-466-0077 Jason B. Aamodt, Esquire The Wrightsman Mansion 1645 S. Cheyenne Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 Telefax: 918-583-6104 Stephen R. Ward, Esquire Conner & Winters, P.C. 3700 First Place Tower 15 E. Fifth St. Tulsa, OK 74103-4344 Telefax: 918-586-8547 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I declare under penalty of perjury that, on February 10, 2003 1 served the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to Quapaw Tribe's Motion to File Amicus Brief by facsimile in accordance with their written request of October 31, 2001: Keith Harper, Esq. By Hand upon: Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, N.W. Joseph S. Kieffer, III Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 Special Master Monitor (202) 822-0068 420 7 th Street, N.W. Apartment 705 Dennis M Gingold, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20004 Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. By facsimile upon: Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Amy S. Koch, Esquire (202) 318-2372 Cameron McKenna LLP 2175 K St., N.W., Fifth Floor By U.S. Mail upon: Washington, D.C. 20037 202-466-0077 Elliott Levitas, Esq. 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Jason B. Aamodt, Esquire Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 The Wrightsman Mansion 1645 S. Cheyenne Ave. By facsimile and U.S. Mail upon: Tulsa, OK 74119 918-583-6104 Alan L. Balaran, Esq. Special Master Stephen R. Ward, Esquire 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Conner & Winters, P.C. 12th Floor 3700 First Place Tower Washington, D.C. 20006 15 E. Fifth St. (202) 986-8477 Tulsa, OK 74103-4344 918-586-8547 Jay St. John . )x (_ _lmm IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) EI,OUISE PEPION COBELL et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ' v. ) No. 1:96CV01285 ) GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of ) (Special Master Balaran) the Interior, et al__, ) (Special Master-Monitor Kieffer) ) Defendants. ) ) DEFENDANTS' JOINT RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH SET OF INTEI_ROGATORIES Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants provide this joint response CResponse") to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories"). This Response reflects the Defendants' good faith diligent efforts to consider and investigate the subject matters covered by the Interrogatories and to respond to each of the Interrogatories within the allotted time. The statements made herein are based upon the information known as of the date of this response and are subject to correction, modification and supplementation if and when additional relevant information becomes known to a Defendant. This Response is, therefore, subject to change, and Defendalts reserve the right to correct, modify or supplement any or all of the responses herein as Defendants determine to be necessary or appropriate. The Interrogatories as propounded seek information responsive to one or more of 49 individual interrogatories. All of these Interrogatories are subject to one or more objections, which are asserted below. General Objections are objections that apply to ever3, interrogatory in these Interrogatories and are to be read as forming part of the response to each of the 49 l Attachment 1 Defs' Opp to Quapaw Tribe's Motion to File Amicus Brief _"_ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FOURTII SET OF INTERROGATORIES Without waiving the foregoing objections and subject to them, Defendants respond to each individual Interrogatory as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify by name and geographic location the reservations of which any portion was ever allotted to individual Indians. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE: Defendants object to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the term "reservations." Plaintiffs did not define the term. Not all lands which are considered "reservations" for purposes of Federal law are lands which have been formally proclaimed as reservations under statute. For example, the so-called "informal reservations" of Oklahoma, although not formally designated as reservations, have been held to be such (for the purpose of preventing taxation by the state) by the Supreme Court in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Bank of Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991). Similarly, certain Indian lands in California are called "Rancherias," and have not been formally designated as "reservations," but ranchcrias are "for all practical purposes" considered to be reservations. Solicitor's Opinion, M-28958 (April 26, 1939); 1 Op. Sol. On Indian Affairs 891 (U.S.D.I. 1979). Defendants further object that the interrogatory is over broad, oppressive and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information about historical reservations which had portions allotted to individual Indians at some time in the past, but for which no allotted portions have survived to the present time. The names of reservations subject to allotment in the past, but which subsequently have had all allotted lands removed from trust status, are not readily retrievable. Accordingly, substantial research would have to be performed to add the names and 12 ,ra hic g g p locations of reservations which currently include no lands held in trust for individual Indians. For example, land within the Klamath Reservation was allotted to members of the Klamath Tribe beginning ils 1895. Pursuant to the Klamath Ten:nination Act of 1954.25 U.S.C. 564 et seq., all trust land held for the tribe and tribal members lost trust status. Although Congress restored federal recog_ition to the Klamath Tribe in 1986, the restoration did not revive the original reservation or any trust land, including allotments. Rather, the Secretary was directed to accept into trust status, for the Tribe only, any parcel of land conveyed to her. By this authority, the Tribe has accumulated various parcels of trust land which by statutory direction constitute the "new" Klamath Reservation, but the new Reservation includes no allotments held for the benefit of individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, the Interior Defendants provide the following information. The following list represents the reservations named by the Regional Offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on information in their possession. This list does include the "informal reservations" of Oklahoma and the "rancherias" of California mentioned above. Navajo Nation, Arizona Fort McDowell, Arizona Pascua Yaqui, Arizona Salt River Pima-Maricopa, Arizona Havasupai, Arizona Hualapai-Big Sandy, Arizona Hualapai, Arizona Yavapai-Apache, Arizona Yavapai-Prescott, Arizona Torito-Apache, Arizona Camp Verde, Arizona Hopi, Arizona Kaibab Paiute, Arizona 13 Ak-Chin (Maricopa Ak-Chin), Arizona Gila River, Arizona : Cocopah, Arizona Colorado River Tribes, Arizona (also located within Cali fomia) :: Fort Mojave, Arizona (also located within California and Nevada) San Carlos, Arizona Tohono O'odham, Arizona San Xavier, Arizona White Mountain, Arizona Agua Caliente Reservation, California Augustine Reservation, California Cabazon Reservation, Califomia Chemehuevi, California Fort Independence Reservation, Cali fomia Hoopa Valley ReserYation, California La Jolla Reservation, California Morongo Reservation, California Pala Reservation, California Pechanga Reservation, California Rincon Reservation, California Round Valley Reservation, California Sycuan Reservation, California Torres-Martinez Reservation, California Yurok (formerly, Hoopa Extension) Reservation, California Big Sandy Rancheria, California Big Valley Rancheria, California Blue Lake Rancheria, California Elk Valley Rancher/a, California Greenville Rancher/a, California Guidiville Rancheria, California Hoplaad Rancher-ia, California Mooretown Rancheri a, CaE fomia North Fork, Rancheria, California Picayune Rancheria, Calitbmia Pinoleville Rancheria, California Redding Rancheria, California Redwood Valley Rancheria, California Robinson Rancheria, California Rohnervi lie Rancheri a, Cali fornia Scotts Valley Rancheria, California Sheep Ranch Rancheria, Call fomia Smith River Rancheria, California Table Mountain Ranchcria, California 14 r r: !' Upper Lake Rancheria, California Southern Ute, Colorado Coeur d'Alene Reservation, Idaho Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho, Idaho Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, ldaho Nez Perce Reservation, Idaho ! Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Indians of Utah, Idaho Iowa, Kansas (also located within Nebraska) Kickapoo, Kansas Prairie Band Potawatomi, Kansas Sac & Fox of Missouri, Kansas (also located within Nebraska) Keweenaw Bay Reservation, Michigan L'Anse Reservation, Michigan Saginaw Chippewa Reservation, Michigan Ontonagon Reservation, Michigan Isabella Reservation, Michigan Fond du Lac Reservation, Mi_mesota Grand Portage Reservation, Minnesota Bois Forte (Nett Lake), Minnesota Leech Lake Reservation, Minnesota Red Lake Reservation, Minnesota Mille Lacs Band, Minnesota White Earth Rcscrvation, Minnesota Upper Sioux Reservation, Minnesota Fort Peck Reservation, Montana Northern Cheyemle Reservation, Montana Crow Reservation, Montana Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana Blackfeet Reservation, Montana Flathead Reservation, Montana Omaha Reservation, Nebraska Santce Sioux Reservation, Nebraska Winnebago Reservation, Nebraska Acoma Pueblo, New Mexico Jicarilla Apache, New Mexico Laguna Pueblo, New Mexico Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico Duckwater Shoshone, Nevada Duck Valley Shoshone, Nevada (also located within Idaho) Ely Colony, Nevada Goshute, Nevada (also located within Utah) Shoshone Paiute, Nevada Battle Mountain Band of Te-Moak Tribe, Nevada 15 Elko Band of Te-Moak, Nevada South Fork Band of Te-Moak, Nevada T' Fallon Reservation, Nevada Falloll Colony (Rattlesnake Hill), Nevada Fort McDcnnitt, Nevada Walker River, Nevada Washoe, Nevada Winnemucca Indian Colony, Nevada Yerington Paiute, Nevada Reno Sparks, Nevada Ruby Valley, Nevada Yomba, Nevada Las Vegas Colony, Nevada Odgers Ranch, Nevada Lovelock, Nevada Moapa, Nevada Spirit Lake Sioux Reservation, North Dakota Three Affiliated Tribes, North Dakota Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Cheyenne-Arapaho, Oklahoma Citizen Band Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Oklahoma Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Kaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Kiowa, Comanche & Apache, Oklahoma Otoe-Missouri Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Pawnec Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Sac & Fox Nation of'Oklahoma, Oklahoma Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Wichita, Caddo & Delaware, Oklahoma Confederated Tribes of Grand Rondo, Oregon Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon Siletz Reservation, Oregon Umatilla Reservation, Oregon Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, South Dakota Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Lower Brule Sioux Reservation, South Dakota :! Rosebud Sioux Reservation, South Dakota Oglala Sioux Reservation, South Dakota i Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Reservation, South Dakota i ii I Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation, South Dakota !i_ 16 '_ ,t Yankton Sioux Reservation, South Dakota Skull Valley, Uttih :_ Uintah & Ouray, Utah '_ Chehalis Reservation, Washington b Hoh Indian Reservation, Washington Jamestown Band of Klallam Indians of Washington, Washington Lower Elwah Reservation, Washington Quilcutc Rescrvation, Washington Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation, Washington Skokomish Reservation, Washington Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington Lummi Reservation, Washington Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington Nisqually Reservation, Washington Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington, Washington Port Gamble Reservation, Washington Puyallyp Reservation, Washington Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of'Washington, Washington Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington, Washington Port Madison Reservation Suquamish Tribe, Washington Swinomish Tribe, Washington Tulalip, Washington Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington, Washington Spokane Reservation, Washington Kalispel Reservation, Washington Quinault Reservation, Washington Yakima Reser_'ation, Washington Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Forest County Potawatomi Rese_'ation, Wisconsin Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) _.eservation, Wisconsin Lac Courte Orcilles Reservation, Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau Reservation, Wisconsin Oneida Reservation, Wisconsin Red CliffReservation, Wisconsin St. Croix Reservation, Wisconsin Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Reservation, Wisconsin Stockbridge-Munsee Reservation, Wisconsin Wind Ri vet Reservation, Wyoming INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each reservation that YOU are called to identify in Interrogatoo' No. 1, identify by listing separately, with appropriate summary information, each and eyed_ ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT and the size of each such ORIGINAL ALLOTMENT (i.e., the number of acres). 17