one for two ongoing violations related to the current operations of the history center as well as the wichita tribes planned additional construction at the very same site plans that they outlined in their environmental assessment back in two thousand fifteen the it would undertake before commencing construction later and they took sixteen so the construction of the history center does preclude the testing on that literal piece of ground on the entire side of the better side of the original their site in the form school we cannot our testing that we've been requesting ever since we started engaging in this dialogue several months before the wichita tribe commenced construction and that g p are testing that kind of mission keeps on requesting was specifically promised to my client in january twenty sixth and in a letter that the wichita tribes president terry party wrote to the cattle nation stating that their own expert john warner the cat and their archaeologist and able to more than fifteen had done a study at the site and as a part of the basis for our challenge underneath another that an h p and second of all their attorney told this court just a little bit over a year ago when the court said counsel do you have additional plans for construction of a site and the attorney for the tribe said yes we  assert that at this stage of our view before we had any kind of factual inquiry those statements plausible enough to be taken as true yeah if they have evidence that subsequent to their you know argument here for the chordal over a year to the planning constructions of those sites then our claims about the faults you know the fact that they didn't consider alternatives in the end yes the fact that they didn't adequately publish the firing of no significant impact these that the merits of our underlying claims would under the pier the finding of nursing is going to impact the decision to not undertake an environmental impact study on the engine not consult with the kind of nation as well as to not properly  challenge well we're in a situation here that you know the agency had completely detached itself once the tribe or the local government or participate takes on that role of the responsible entity so there is no recourse before had  it's out right i don't know of any requirement at all my understanding of the law and the regulations is that there is no recourse to be taken with hide your your issue or simply with the local into t the responsible entity that has taken office duties and  identified the attempt to overcome move messages based specifically on what is contained in the environmental assessment that was provided by wichita affiliated tribes one clarification here center being poor at the time that this initial dispute arose and in the background you can see the grass hut and or being constructed those were part of the construction that was taking place was with the history center at the time those projects had been completed in the dance area to the dance area has not been completed the dance area was abandoned and it was abandoned because the tribe chose voluntarily to move the location of the history center to make it further away from the site of interest that our expert mr northcote identified as a potential side that initially made eligible what the record is it in the record i believe it is you are at the time that we were before the district court we were operating under the same facts that we had when this court determined that the case was moved and that was the history center was complete as were the buildings connected to it which were the arbor big grass house those were in my fact i believe the grass house on the arbor were completed prior to the completion of the history something that was the project that was identified in the day and that was the project that was completed the pictures you mentioned  on page seventy seven sixteen eighteen those pictures were before district court correct they were and they were before this court previously ok so are we down to the grass or excuse me the dance ground we are down to the  argued this previously in the tenth circuit and the history center was complete the other items were complete as well and at that point the tribe had determined that they were not going to proceed with the dance around  and that really gets into the question of sort of the speculation associated with these other projects that were mentioned in mr northcote presentation in his official study he basically interviewed folks on the ground and got a sense of what may happen in the future with respect to this twenty acre parcel and summarised of that do you think that could be attributed to status to any one  airport neighbors where there were planned certainly for some other things to be done none of those are interdependent on the establishment of the building of the history center in the grass  and with the knowledge and understanding and support of the bureau of indian affairs surveyed these twenty acres an addition to another fifty one acres associated contiguous with them for the purpose of which having the so exclusive governmental authority and jurisdiction as between the three tribes and that's just one indication of over a century record of how the d the particular property in question so these statements and allegations to sort of shock the conscience about the potential for burials of deceased children just belies the record  itself that all three of the tribes have approved over a lengthy period of time together with the bureau regular agricultural leases on that property the tribes themselves specifically gave exclusive governmental that they were various associated with and if you look at the contemporaneous record of the united states there are governmental surveys which actually call into question whether or not this was the location of the riverside school or whether it perhaps of controversy associated with that we don't believe that the court was referring to some sort of specific you know use or or planning time and in fact we don't believe that to the allegation that which john affiliate tried to violated in an h p a despite the record reflecting even after the timeframe for consultation had ended us has to do with the history center and what they're asking for is for the parties to have a conversation about whether or not relocation is appropriate and that is the district court below aptly noted there's been lots of cars sation there's a building built with taxpayer funds and it's been appropriately operated in maintained and opened and there's really no allegation that anything associated clear that there is one site on the entire twenty acre area that has the potential to become either historic site but only after further investigation and then only if there were center so where approximately five hundred feet away now from that one particular site so they've taken great pains to avoid any potential problems associated with that the idea that we would have a conversation about future  relocation would actually be a discussion about whether we're going to tear the building down and move it somewhere else you can imagine a host of problems that creates both with respect to which stars effort the degree that we have gone beyond the administrative procedures act currently there is no waiver associated with that and our suggestion to the court is that we are outside the bounds of the administrative procedures act saying well i think you could you didn't find either way the fact of the matter is that there's not a lot of controversy associated with the claim that they're making currently means that there is no jurisdiction for the score at the same very briefly appreciate your honor's reference to the prior panels discussion of ongoing operations and a remedy tailored to that and certainly that is an argument of complaint so in addition to asking for a remedy to deal with the additional construction i would urge you to look at