5880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

‘‘The use of Nitroxides in the

prophylactic and therapeutic treatment

of cancer due to genetic defects’’ and

corresponding foreign patent

applications to Varian Biosynergy, Inc.,

having a place of business in Palo Alto,

California. The patent rights in these

inventions have been assigned to the

United States of America.

The contemplated exclusive license

may be limited to use of topical or local

tissue application of compounds

disclosed and claimed in the invention

for the protection of normal tissue

against radiation damage caused by

radiation therapy of diseased tissue.

DATES: Only written comments and/or

applications for a license which are

received by the NIH Office of

Technology Transfer on or before May 8,

2000, will be considered.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the

patent application, inquiries, comments

and other materials relating to the

contemplated license should be directed

to: Norbert J. Pontzer, J.D., Ph.D.,

Technology Licensing Specialist, Office

of Technology Transfer, National

Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive

Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD

20852–3804; Telephone: (301) 496–

7736, ext. 284; Facsimile: (301) 402–

0220; E-mail: np59n@nih.gov. A signed

Confidential Disclosure Agreement will

be required to receive copies of the

patent application.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective

radioprotective drugs could

significantly improve the therapeutic

ratio of radiation therapy by protecting

normal tissues and allowing greater

doses of radiation to be delivered to the

tumor. One approach to avoid

protecting the tumor is local application

of the radioprotective drugs to adjacent

health tissue. The patent applications

claim a new class of metal independent

nitroxide compounds that appear

capable of protecting tissue against

radiation damage if clinically useful,

non-toxic formulations that deliver

sufficient local tissue concentrations

can be developed.

The prospective exclusive license will

be royalty-bearing and will comply with

the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C.

209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective

exclusive license may be granted unless,

within 90 days from the date of this

published Notice, NIH receives written

evidence and argument that establishes

that the grant of the license would not

be consistent with the requirements of

35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Properly filed competing applications

for a license filed in response to this

notice will be treated as objections to

the contemplating license. Comments

and objections submitted in response to

this notice will not be made available

for public inspection, and, to the extent

permitted by law, will not be released

under the Freedom of Information Act,

5 U.S.C. 552.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Jack Spiegel,

Director, Division of Technology Development

and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer.

[FR Doc. 00–2632 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Assistant Secretary—

Water and Science; Central Utah

Project Completion Act; Notice of

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Assessment for the Conversion of a

Portion of Strawberry Valley Project

Water From Irrigation to Municipal and

Industrial Use

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary—Water and Science,

Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Assessment for the

conversion of a portion of Strawberry

Valley Project (SVP) water from

irrigation to other beneficial uses

including municipal and industrial

(M&I) use.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the

Department of the Interior, Central Utah

Project Completion Act Office will

prepare an Environmental Assessment

on the conversion of SVP water from

agricultural to municipal and industrial

use.

The SVP, authorized December 15,

1905, is one of the earliest Reclamation

Projects. The SVP water from the

Colorado River Basin is stored in the

enlarged Strawberry Reservoir. The SVP

water is then conveyed through the

Diamond Fork System into the Great

Basin where it is delivered through

natural stream courses to the Spanish

Fork River diversion structure and into

the Strawberry Power Canal. The SVP

service area is located in south Utah

County, Utah. The Strawberry Water

Users Association is responsible for the

operation and maintenance of the SVP

and contractually uses Central Utah

Project (CUP) facilities to store and

convey SVP water.

Suburban development in the SVP

service area has resulted in agricultural

land being taken out of production,

annexed into the cities, and developed

into residential areas. Under the

authority of the Water for Miscellaneous

Purposes Act of 1920 (43 U.S.C. 521),

the Secretary of the Interior has

authority to approve converting a

portion of the SVP water from irrigation

to M&I use. This conversion will: (1)

authorize the conversion of SVP water

from irrigation to M&I use; (2) ensure

the orderly marketing of CUP and SVP

M&I water; (3) provide an adequate

water supply to the cities; (4) generate

revenue to fund the rehabilitation of

SVP facilities; and (5) eliminate

unauthorized use of SVP water within

the service area. Of the total SVP annual

average water supply of about 71,000

acre-feet, approximately 10,200 acre-feet

has already been converted and an

additional 1,800 acre-feet will be

converted from irrigation to M&I use in

the foreseeable future with the

opportunity to gradually convert

additional amounts as growth continues

in the area.

The Environmental Assessment will

identify potential effects of the proposed

action and determine whether those

effects are significant. Alternatives

identified at this time include the

proposed action and the no action

alternatives. Issues to be analyzed

include impacts on wildlife, cultural

resources, special status plants and

animals, and water resources.

DATES: Public scoping comments

relating to issues and potential

additional alternatives will be accepted

for 30 days following the publication of

this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Scoping

comments should be sent to: Program

Coordinator, CUP Completion Act

Office, Department of the Interior, 302

East 1860 South, Provo UT 84606–6154.

Comments, including names and

street addresses of respondents will be

available for public review at the CUP

Completion Act Office and will be

subject to disclosure under the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA). They may be

published as part of the Environmental

Assessment and other related

documents.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Ronald Johnston,

CUP Program Director, Department of the

Interior.

[FR Doc. 00–2640 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Proposed Finding Against Federal

Acknowledgment of the Steilacoom

Tribe of Indians

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5881

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h),

notice is hereby given that the Assistant

Secretary proposes to determine that the

Steilacoom Tribe of Indians, c/o Mrs.

Joan Ortez, P.O. Box 419, Steilacoom,

Washington 98388 does not exist as an

Indian tribe within the meaning of

Federal law. This notice is based on a

determination that the tribe does not

satisfy all of the criteria set forth in 25

CFR 83.7 and, therefore, does not meet

the requirements for a government-togovernment relationship with the

United States.

DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i),

any individual or organization wishing

to challenge the proposed finding may

submit factual or legal arguments and

evidence to rebut the evidence relied

upon. This material must be submitted

within 180 calendar days from the date

of publication of this notice. As stated

in the regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(i),

interested and informed parties who

submit arguments and evidence to the

Assistant Secretary must also provide

copies of their submissions to the

petitioner. Names and addresses of

commenters on the proposed finding are

generally available under the Freedom

of Information Act.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

finding and/or requests for a copy of the

report of evidence should be addressed

to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention:

Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research. Mail Stop 4660–MIB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.

Lee Fleming, Chief, Branch of

Acknowledgment and Research, (202)

208–3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is published in the exercise of

authority delegated by the Secretary of

the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

The Steilacoom Tribe of Indians (STI)

asserted that it was eligible for

consideration under 25 CFR 83.8 as the

continuation of the Steilacoom band

which signed the Treaty of Medicine

Creek on December 24, 1854, and that

the Steilacoom were recognized as a

tribe by the Federal Government in the

1930’s. The evidence did not show that

the STI descends from the ‘‘Steilacoom’’

group which was a party to the treaty.

In addition, the evidence demonstrated

that the Steilacoom organizations of the

1920’s and 1930’s were dealt with only

for the purpose of prosecuting claims

against the Federal Government.

Therefore, because the petitioner did

not provide substantial evidence of

unambiguous prior Federal

acknowledgment, the STI petition has

been evaluated under the provisions of

25 CFR 83.7. The STI meets criteria

83.7(d), 83.7(f), and 83.7(g), but does not

meet 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and

83.7(e).

Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the

petitioner have been identified as an

American Indian entity on a

substantially continuous basis since

1900. For the period from 1900 through

1925, the evidence did not show any

external identifications of an existing

Steilacoom Indian entity. In 1925, seven

people described in BIA minutes as

‘‘Steilacoom Indians’’ attended a claims

meeting. The claims group appeared in

BIA records through the late 1930’s.

There was also an effort in the later

1930’s to organize a Steilacoom Tribe of

Public Domain Indians of Washington

under the IRA. There were no Federal

identifications of any Steilacoom entity

between 1941 and 1951. Federal

identifications of the claims

organization resumed in 1951 and

continued until the final judgment

award in 1974. In 1953, it was included

on the list of groups with which the BIA

discussed proposed termination

legislation.

In 1952, a longtime local resident of

the Steilacoom, Washington, area,

testified on behalf of the claims

organization that she could still identify

a Steilacoom tribe. During the 1950’s

and 1960’s, the State of Washington

Department of Fisheries recognized the

BIA ‘‘blue cards’’ issued to persons

listed on the rolls of claims

organizations. On this basis, an official

of the Washington State Game

Department stated in 1971 that he

considered the STI as a bonafide tribe

representing a continuation of the

historical Steilacoom band.

The evidence in the record for this

proposed finding did not include any

other identifications of an existing

Steilacoom entity in local newspapers,

by local or regional historians, or in

scholarly works for the period prior to

the 1970’s. In February 1974, the

Steilacoom Indian Tribe incorporated

within the State of Washington as a

nonprofit organization. From 1974 to

the present, the Steilacoom Tribe of

Indians has regularly been identified as

a non-recognized Indian tribe by Federal

and State agencies, in newspaper

articles, by local historians, and by

scholars.

The evidence was not adequate to

demonstrate that STI has been identified

as an American Indian entity on a

substantially continuous basis for the

entire period since 1900. The STI does

not meet criterion 83.7(a).

Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a

predominant portion of the petitioning

community comprise a distinct

community and have existed as a

community from historical times until

the present. The petitioner did not

demonstrate any of the five forms of

evidence listed under 83.7(b)(2) at any

point in time since the beginning of

sustained contact with non-Indian

settlers.

Section 83.7(b)(1)(iii) states that a

petitioner may show significant rates of

informal social interaction which exist

broadly among the members of a group.

In order for this to occur, there must

first be a group. The evidence showed

that the ancestors of the current STI

membership did not, historically,

constitute a group whose history could

be traced through time and place. The

petitioner’s ancestors in the 19th

century consisted of several different

categories of unconnected people (see

discussion below under criterion

83.7(e)).

The evidence did not demonstrate

that persons from any one of these

different categories regularly interacted

either with persons from other

categories or with persons identified in

the historical record as Steilacoom

Indians (83.7(b)(1)(ii)). The petitioner

did not show significant rates of

marriage within the group at any time

since record keeping began in the mid19th century (83.7(b)(1)(i)). From first

sustained contact with non-Indians

until the present, the ancestral families

and current members of the STI have

intermarried primarily with nonIndians.

There was no evidence that there was

a significant degree of shared or

cooperative labor or other economic

activity among STI ancestral families in

the past (83.7(b)(1)(iv)). Participation by

STI members in commercial fishing in

the 1970’s was by invitation of federally

acknowledged tribes, and did not

involve a significant degree of shared or

cooperative labor among the STI

membership. For the modern period, the

evidence showed that there was intra

family social and economic interaction,

but little interfamily association. The

petition contained no evidence of

patterns of institutionalized

discrimination or other social

distinctions by nonmember either in the

past or in the present (83.7(b)(1)(v)).

There was no evidence that the

ancestral families or current members of

the STI had any shared sacred or ritual

activity, or cultural patterns, that

encompassed most of the groups

(83.7(b)(1)(vi) and (vii)).

Section 83.7(b)(1)(viii) lists one

possible form of evidence for

5882 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices

community as: ‘‘[t]he persistence of a

named, collective Indian identity

continuously over a period of more than

50 years, notwithstanding changes in

name.’’ There was no named, collective

identity between 1854 and 1925. At

different times during the 1925–1941

period, two Steilacoom claims

organizations existed. There are no

membership lists of these organizations.

Therefore, it was not possible to

determine to what extent, if any, the

petitioner’s ancestors identified with

either or both, or to what extent the

membership of the earlier period

overlapped with that of the post-1951

group, the petitioner. Regardless, these

organizations did not continue for a

period of 50 years. There was an

approximate 65 percent overlap

between the 1950’s lists and the lists for

the group from the mid-1970’s to the

present. The STI incorporated in 1974

and has existed continuously since that

date. The identity asserted by the formal

organization of a group is entitled to

weight as representing the views of the

membership. However, the existence of

a formal organization is not in itself

sufficient evidence to show collective

group identity.

The evidence in the record was not

sufficient to demonstrate the existence

of community from historical times to

the present. The STI does not meet

criterion 83.7(b).

Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the

petitioner has maintained political

influence or authority over its members

as an autonomous entity from historical

times until the present. The evidence in

the record does not show the post-treaty

existence of an autonomous Steilacoom

band. The STI petition did not present

the types of evidence described under

83.7(c)(2). The evidence in the record

under 83.7(c)(1) did not demonstrate the

exercise of political authority of

influence over the petitioner’s ancestors

as a group, whether as members of a

‘‘Steilacoom’’ entity or any other entity.

The individual extended ancestral

families of the modern STI, throughout

the second half of the 19th century and

first quarter of the 20th century were not

connected with one another in such a

way as to permit any kind of bilateral

political relationship.

Because there was no identifiable

entity in the later 19th and early 20th

centuries, there were no identifiable

group leaders or governing bodies prior

to 1925. In so far as the petition

mentioned individual 19th century

Steilacoom Indians as leaders, there was

no evidence that most STI ancestral

families associated with them. In so far

as it mentioned identified STI ancestors

as leaders, there was no evidence that

their influence extended beyond their

own family line.

There was very little evidence

concerning mobilization of resources

from members of family lines ancestral

to the STI for any common purposes

from the mid-19th century until the

formation of the Steilacoom claims

organization in 1925. Since the

membership of the Steilacoom claims

organization in the 1920’s and 1930’s is

unknown, there was no evidence to

show the level of support provided by

its members even for this limited

function. There was no data indicating

that there were any common purposes

among the STI ancestral families other

than the prosecution of claims prior to

the development of concern over fishing

rights in the 1950’s.

For the modern period, approximately

30 out of 612 members attend meetings.

Other STI activities such as work

toward Federal acknowledgment and

representational and educational

activities directed at the wider

community have been conducted

primarily by a small group of members.

There was very little evidence

concerning communication between

leaders and members and the minutes

provided little data concerning internal

conflicts, if any, and their resolution.

The STI does not meet criterion 83.7(c).

Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the

petitioner provide copies of the group’s

current constitution and by-laws. The

STI meets criterion 83.7(d).

Criterion 83.7(e) states that the

petitioner’s membership must consist of

individuals who descend from a

historical Indian tribe or from historical

Indian tribes which combined and

functioned as a single autonomous

political entity. Of the 612 STI

members, only three from one nuclear

family have been documented as

descendants of persons who, in the 19th

century and first quarter of the 20th

century, were identified as Steilacoom

Indians. The 91 per cent of the current

STI members for whom the petitioner

submitted data descend primarily from

two other categories of Indian ancestors.

Just under two-thirds descend from

Indian women who, between 1839 and

1870, married men who had recently

come to the region of Fort Nisqually in

Pierce County and Cowlitz Prairie in

Lewis County, most as employees of the

Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). The

petition asserted that these Indian

women were Steilacoom and that they

maintained their Steilacoom tribal

affiliation. Contemporary records did

not verify this assertion. Their children

and grandchildren described them

variously as Nisqually, Puyallup,

Cowlitz, Clallam, Chimacum, Quinault,

Duwamish, Skokobish, Yakima, and

Snohomish in affidavits made between

1910 and 1918. None of these affidavits

described an ancestress as Steilacoom.

The other one-third of the STI

members with documented Indian

ancestry trace their lineage to Canadian

Indian tribes through Red River metis

families from Manitoba. The petition

asserted that these Red River families

were adopted, sometimes by way of

intermarriage, into a continuously

existing Steilacoom tribe during the

second half of the 19th century.

However, the few documented

intermarriages did not take place

between Red River immigrants and

Steilacoom Indians. Rather, they took

place between Red River immigrants

and the non-Steilacoom Indian/HBC

descendant families described above.

The identified STI ancestral family

lines can all be documented to the mid19th century, but the limited

documentation available concerning the

claims organization did not indicate that

a significant proportion of the families

were associated with the Steilacoom

claims organization of the 1920’s and

1930’s. The family lines adopted into

the STI in the 1950’s included families

whose Indian ancestry was Cowlitz,

Cowlitz/Quinault, Lummi, Red River,

and Colville, and who were previously

unconnected with one another. Thus,

although the petitioner’s membership

consists of Indian descendants, it does

not consist of ‘‘individuals who descend

from a historical Indian tribe or from

historical Indian tribes which combined

and functioned as a single autonomous

entity.’’ The STI does not meet criterion

83.7(e).

Criterion 83.7(f) states that the

petitioner’s membership must be

composed principally of persons who

are not members of any acknowledged

North American Indian tribe. The STI

meets criterion 83.7(f).

Criterion 83.7(g) states that neither the

petitioner nor its members can have

been the subject of congressional

legislation that has expressly terminated

or forbidden the Federal relationship.

The STI meets criterion 83.7(g).

Based on this preliminary factual

determination, the Steilacoom Tribe of

Indians should not be granted Federal

acknowledgment under 25 CFR Part 83.

As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) of the

revised regulations, a report

summarizing the evidence, reasoning,

and analyses that are the basis for the

proposed decision will be provided to

the petitioner and other interested

parties, and is available to other parties

upon written request. Comments on the

proposed finding and/or requests for a

copy of the report of evidence should be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Notices 5883

addressed to the Office of the Assistant

Secretary—Indian Affairs, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention:

Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research, Mail Stop 4660–MIB.

Comments on the proposed finding

should be submitted within 180

calendar days from the date of

publication of this notice. Third party

comments must be provided to the

petitioner as well as to the Federal

Government. After the close of the 180-

day comment period, the petitioner has

60 calendar days to respond to thirdparty comments.

After the expiration of the comment

and response periods described above,

the BIA will consult with the petitioner

concerning establishment of a time

frame for preparation of the final

determination. After consideration of

the written arguments and evidence

rebutting the proposed finding and

within 60 days after beginning

preparation of the final determination,

the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs

will publish the final determination of

the petitioner’s status in the Federal

Register as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1).

Dated: January 14, 2000.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00–2635 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO–220–1020XQ]

Call for Nominations for Northwest and

Front Range Resource Advisory

Councils (Colorado)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Call for nominations.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to solicit nominations from the public to

fill positions which have recently been

vacated on two Colorado, Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), Resource

Advisory Councils.

These councils provide advice and

recommendations to BLM on

management of the public lands. The

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the

Interior to involve the public in

planning and issues related to

management of lands administered by

BLM. Under Section 309 of FLPMA the

Secretary has selected 15 member

citizen-based advisory councils that are

established and authorized consistent

with the requirements of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As

required by the FACA, Resource

Advisory Council members appointed to

the council will reflect a balanced

membership representative of the

various interests concerned with the

management of public lands and users

of the public lands.

The position to be filled on the

Northwest Resource Advisory Council is

Public-at-Large in Group 3.

The position on the Front Range

Resource Advisory Council which is

being filled is also Public-at-Large in

Group 3. Nominees must be residents of

Colorado. All nominations must be

accompanied by letters of reference

from represented interests or

organizations, a completed Nomination/

Background Information Form, as well

as any other information that speaks to

the nominee’s qualifications.

DATES: Completed Nomination/

Background Information Forms and any

other necessary information should be

received in the appropriate office on or

before March 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: For more information and a

Nomination/Background Information

Form, contact the appropriate BLM

office:

Northwest Resource Advisory Council—

Bureau of Land Management,

Northwest Center, Attn: RAC

Nomination, 2815 H Road, Grand

Junction, Colorado 81506.

Front Range Resource Advisory

Council—Bureau of Land

Management, Front Range Center,

Attn: RAC Nomination, 3170 East

Main Street, Canon City, Colorado

81212.

Completed Nomination/Background

Forms should be returned to the

appropriate address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken

Smith (719) 269–8553; for information

about the Front Range Resource

Advisory Council or Lynn Barclay (970)

826–5096 for information about the

Northwest Resource Advisory Council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Individuals may nominate themselves

or others. Nominees will be evaluated

based on their education, training, and

experience of the issues and knowledge

of the geographical area of the Council.

Nominees should have demonstrated a

commitment to collaborative resource

decision making.

Dated: January 29, 2000.

John Carochi,

Acting Front Range Center Manager.

[FR Doc. 00–2701 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA–320–1820–XQ]

Notice of Resource Advisory Council

Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management

Northeast California Resource Advisory

Council, Susanville, California.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in

the Federal Advisory Committees Act

(Public Law 92–463) and the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act

(Public Law 94–579), the U. S. Bureau

of Land Management’s Northeast

California Resource Advisory Council

will meet Friday, March 10, 2000, at the

Bureau of Land Management’s Eagle

Lake Field Office, 2950 Riverside Drive,

Susanville, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting begins at 8 a.m. in the Eagle

Lake Field Office Conference Room.

Agenda items include an update on

Grass Banking, a status report on a

proposal to list the sage grouse under

the Endangered Species Act, and a

report from the council’s off highway

vehicle working group. The council will

also hear reports on the status of a

proposal to designate a National

Conservation Area is parts of the Black

Rock Desert and High Rock Canyon, and

other proposals for special area

designations. Time will be set aside on

the agenda for public comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact BLM Alturas Field Manager

Tim Burke at (530) 257–4666.

Joseph J. Fontana,

Public Affairs Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–2683 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO–700–00–0777–XQ–1784]

Southwest Resource Advisory Council

Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice; Southwest Resource

Advisory Council Meeting.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Southwest Resource Advisory

Council (Southwest RAC) will meet in

March, 2000 in Paonia, CO.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Thursday, March 9, 2000.