United States Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste And Emergency Response (5305W) EPA530-R-96-052 November 1996 TRIBAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT CONTENTS Waste Management on Tribal Lands 1 Pollution Prevention 4 Superfund Technical Activities 5 Watershed Analysis & Management Programs E Congressional Direction on Environmental Protection.. 6 CSKT Programs 6 Geographic Information Systems and the EPA 6 Stream and Wetland Rehabilitation Projects 8 Superfund Financial Activities .... 8 Date Collection Strategies to Support Environmental Programs ..9 Tribal Operations Committee (TOC) Topics 10 Natural Resource Damage Assessment 10 Display of Environmental Information Systems 11 Linkages in Environmental Capacity Grants 11 Non-Governmental Funding of Environmental/ Educational Projects., 11 Environmental Justice Grants 12 Grant Administration and Management 12 Application of NEPA.TEPA and Land Use Planning.... 12 Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEAs) 12 Tribal Water Quality Standards—Theory to Practice 13 Tribal Air Quality 14 Alaska Issues 14 State/Tribal Cooperative Endeavors—Multi-Program 14 Tribal Water Quality Labs 15 Pesticides Use & Management—Establishing a Successful Tribal Program — 15 Ground Water Contamination 16 Federal Facilities „ 16 Tribal Emergency Response Commissions — 17 Tribal Certification for Water and Wastewater Operations 17 Non-Point Source Discharge—CWA 319/305b 17 Tribal Emergency Response Team 18 Project WET 18 UST and Risk-Based Corrective Action 19 Conference Attendees 21 INTRODUCTION On May 21-23, 1996, the Third National Tribal Conf er- ence on Environmental Management in Poison, Mon- tana brought together 500 participants representing over 120 dif- ferent Tribes, Native Alaskan Villages, Tribal Consortia, and organizations. U.S. Government Agencies represented were the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, .Department of Defense, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Indian Health Ser- vice. Hosted by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Res- ervation, the "Hands on Indian Country" provided a forum that encouraged a sharing of concerns and recommenda- tions on how EPA and Tribes can continue their progress in making envi- ronmental protection in Indian country a reality: This proceedings document summarizes the 37 sessions presented at the conference, where Native Ameri- can speakers outnumbered non-Indian speakers by almost three to one. Also included is a list of all conference attend- ees. For more information on the conference or these proceedings, please contact Felicia Wright, Indian Program Manager, Office of Solid Waste at (703) 308-8634. WASTE MANAGEMENT ON TRIBAL LANDS Jim Mathews (Introduction), EPA/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Mike Connolly (Keynote), Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians A series of five sessions on solid waste provided opportunities for experts to speak about their experiences with solid waste management on Tribal lands. Mr. Mike Connolly initiated the ses- sions with a discussion about the treatment of Tribal sovereignty by Con- gressional bills (e.g., the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act). He also spoke about the growth in Tribal environmen- tal program capacity, and how some municipalities are now turning to nearby Tribes for technical expertise. The Campo Band, for example, is the first Tribe to receive an approved municipal solid waste landfill permit program un- der RCRA Subtitle D. Mr. Connolly also described the cooperative agreement between the Campo Band and the State of California as an example of State/ Tribal coordination. Under the terms of the voluntary cooperative agreement, the State can inspect Campo facilities, while the Campo can inspect any facil- ity that generates waste that enters the Tribe's reservation. One of the benefits of this agreement is that the California EPA supported the Campo Band during the EPA permit program approval pro- cess. Developing Cooperative Agreements for Solid Waste Management Susan McMichael (Moderator), State of New Mexico Everett Chavez, All Indian Pueblo Council Earl Hawes, Quechan Indian Tribe The first of five sessions on solid waste management on Tribal lands, this session examined the potential advan- tages and weaknesses of State-Tribal cooperative agreements, which combine the agencies' financial, administrative, ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management personnel, and equipment resources. It described the experiences of Tribes and States currently working together on solid waste management issues. Mr. Everett Chavez spoke about the improved relationship between the State of New Mexico and the All Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC), which has become a "professional commitment to environ- mental issues." While the AIPC/New Mexico relationship is good, Mr. Chavez noted that State/Tribal relationships in general could be better, as many States continue to hold prejudicial perspec- tives of Tribal capabilities. By overcoming this barrier, a State/Tribal cooperative agreement will help lay the foundation for a committed working re- lationship. Mr. Chavez outlined three major reasons to consider State/Tribal agreements: • Federal and State environmental poli- cies, as yet, have not addressed Tribal compliance regarding landfill clo- sures. • Sharing limited resources across pro- grams and between parties helps stretch these resources. • Establishing a professional commit- ment today will help plan for tomorrow. Chavez emphasized that these agree- ments should not force Tribes to compromise their sovereignty. These agreements should be mutually benefi- cial to both parties. Some Tribes may consider forming inter-Tribal coopera- tive agreements for solid waste management. In closing, Mr. Chavez noted the importance of having inter- Tribal arrangements to promote "Good Neighbor Policy." Mr. Earl Hawes concurred with Mr. Chavez's discussion of the issues faced by Tribes, and introduced several mechanisms available to promote pro- fessional relationships between Tribes and other governments. These include cooperative agreements, joint powers agreements, memoranda of understand- ing (MOUs), memoranda of agreement (MOAs), interagency agreements, and mutual aid agreements. To help deter- mine the need for such agreements, Tribes should ask themselves several questions: • What are the positions of the Tribal Council and the county, and what does each want from the other? • Does the Tribe have access to ad- equate legal counsel for future negotiations on lease agreements? • Does the Tribe have a solid waste plan that incorporates recycling/waste re- duction and is' attractive to the county? • Will the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) back the Tribe's participation in such an agreement? Open Dumps and Landfills: Closure and Permitting Issues Darrell Gerlaugh (Moderator), Gila River Indian Community Mike Puhuyesva, Hop! Tribe Earl Hawes, Quechan Indian Tribe David Nelson, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe This session focused on Tribal expe- riences in closing open dumps, addressing environmental problems, and solving technical difficulties. It also discussed lessons learned from the pro- cess of permitting a landfill. Mr. Earl Hawes of the Quechan Indian Tribe provided several good sources of information to help Tribes when closing open dumps and going through the land- fill permit process. According to Mr. Hawes, it is, the environmental manager's responsibility to inform the Tribal Council about environmental is- sues. It is key to determine the Council's position on open dumps. The Tribe may also need legal council to help explain the ramifications of the Resource Con- servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to the Tribal Council. He discussed that as a result of the Bluelegs and Salt River cases, Tribes are legally and financially responsible for their solid waste. A Tribe could be liable for cleanup costs of open and illegal dumps on a reservation. Mr. Mike Puhuyesva of the Hopi Tribe discussed the Hopi's experience switch- ing from open dumps to garbage collection service. The Hopi reservation is located on a series of mesas, and trash was routinely dumped over the sides of the mesas. To clean up these open dumps, the Hopis primarily relied on manual labor because equipment could not reach trash within the washes. To manage their municipal solid waste, the Hopi constructed a landfill. It was a chal- lenge to change the Tribal members' ways and convince them to pay for gar- bage collection and disposal services. The Hopi landfill conforms with RCRA Subtitle D, even though it disposes less than 20 tons per day. And although not required, the Tribe elected to use moni- toring wells, liners, arid a leachate collection system. Several issues the Hopi's have tried to address include the spreading of litter from wind, and ensur- ing that the Indian Health Service's (IMS') inventory of open dumps is correct. Puhuyesva advised Tribes to accom- pany IHS and BIA personnel on an audit of sites, and meet with them to convince them of what needs to be done on their reservations to address environmental problems. Mr. David Nelson of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe noted that his Tribe has approximately 190 open dumps, each about 0.5 acre in size, created by Federal agencies. These sites have been on Tribal lands since the 1960s. IHS and BIA have allowed disposal on these lands and should be responsible. A BIA survey showed only one site on Chey- enne lands not in compliance, but the Tribe knew there were more. As a result, the Tribe passed a new solid waste or- dinance with more stringent requirements than the new municipal solid waste landfill criteria under 40 CFR Part 258. After the ordinance was drafted, it was presented to the Tribal Council and fliers explaining the new regulations were sent to all homeowners and renters on the reservation. Public service announcements and television advertisements also educated the com- munity about the new ordinance. In May 1994, the Tribe applied for EPA landfill permit program approval. The Tribe would like to receive program ap- proval to gain flexibility for alternative liner and groundwater monitoring de- signs. Approval would also reduce burdensome financial assurance re- quirements. EPA has not yet approved the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's pro- gram. Nelson expects that upon EPA approval of the Tribe's program, the states of Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming will challenge the approval in court. ------- Planning for the Future: Solid Waste Management Alternatives Cecil Antone (Co-Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Nancy Oien (Co-Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Darrell Gerlaugh, Gila River Indian Community Eugenia Quintana, Navajo Nation Larry Alflen, Zuni Entrepreneurial Enterprises, Inc. (ZEE, Inc.) . This session focused on the develop- ment of integrated solid waste management for Tribes, with the goal of encouraging Tribal decisionmakers to evaluate the appropriate mix of waste management activities. Mr. Cecil Antone, President of the In- ter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), an association of 19 Tribes in Arizona, spoke of ITCA's role in assisting Arizona Tribes with solid waste management. ITCA received money from Congress to make grants available to all Arizona Tribes developing solid waste manage- ment plans. These grants may be used to characterize waste streams, assess solid waste management options such as source reduction, recycling, and composting,'and educate Tribal commu- nities. Thirteen Tribes currently participate in the ITCA project. ITCA plans to help Tribes locate funding to implement their plans. Mr. Darrell Gerlaugh of the Gila River Indian Community discussed the Tribe's open dumping experiences. The Tribe is between several towns and has a lot of open land. People dumped garbage into more than 200 illegal dumps on this open land. Gila River started a solid waste planning board and developed a plan to close the dumps. Under the man- agement plan, the planning board distributed 90 gallon containers to resi- dents and purchased two trucks to collect the trash. A route for twice- weekly pickup was developed for the trash vehicles, and the trash collection is subsidized by the Tribe. All trash is brought to a transfer station. Recyclable materials are removed and the remain- der is sent to a BFI-owned landfill. Under the arrangement with BFI, Gila River pays no tipping fees as long as it does business exclusively with BFI. One issue was to convince the Tribe to pay for garbage collection. Gerlaugh explained how he conducted a public outreach and education campaign to gain support for the waste management plan. His many activities included at- tending and speaking at all dommunity meetings and speaking to the Head Start program to teach children about the im- portance of waste management and encourage them to teach their parents. Due to these educational efforts and a decision by the Community to subsidize solid waste management costs, support for solid waste management activities has increased. Gerlaugh discussed various solid waste management alternatives the planning board considered implement- ing. Gila River contemplated building either a regional or community landfill, but ruled against these options because the community would be accountable for post-closure care and financial assis- tance—-burdens the community did not want to assume. The community de- cided a feasible alternative was to build its own materials recovery facility to recycle paper, cardboard, glass, plastic, and bulk steel. Mr. Gerlaugh noted that the Tribe is interested in expanding its recycling program and exploring other programs such as bioconversion (i.e., creating a propane-type gas from the waste) and composting. , Ms. Eugenia Quintana of the Navajo Nation discussed a joint recycling initia- tive with the Pueblo of Zuni. An inventory of open dumps on the reser- vation showed that much of'tne waste Was recyclable, but no recycling centers were accessible in the Region. The Na- vajo received a grant from EPA Region 9 for $30,000 to design and establish a re- cycling operation. The operation includes collecting and marketing news- print, cardboard, glass, and cans. The Tribes have begun to establish a collec- tion route for the Zuni Pueblo and transfer stations within the Navajo Na- tion. The goal is to divert 25 percent (and maybe up to 50 percent) of trash to recycling. Quintana pointed out that recycling can benefit Tribes by foster- ing economic development,^extending the life of its landfill, and decreasing dis- posal fees. The Navajo Nation is looking for funding for capital and equipment costs. Larry Alflen from Zuni Entrepreneur- ial Enterprises, Inc. (Z.E.E.), spoke about how the Pueblo of Zuni planned and obtained funding for recycling efforts, and worked on the Zuni-Navajo recycling initiative discussed by Ms. Quintana. In 1990, Z.E.E., Inc., a non-profit organiza- tion dedicated to finding employment opportunities for disabled Zuni adults, developed and implemented a commu- nity recycling .program. This program employs 15 people and recycles be- tween 75 and 80 tons of waste per year. In 1992, Z.E.E., Inc. assisted the Zuni Tribal government in developing a solid waste management plan whose key com- ponents were a transfer station and a recycling program. Alflen advised that intense public edu- cation is necessary for a successful waste management program. In the Zuni's case, a video called "Healing the Land" and a curriculum for school chil- dren (K-12) were particularly effective. According to Alflen, Tribal communities must establish cooperative systems for community recycling (e.g., working with another Tribe or local community) in order to develop economies of scale. He cautioned that working alone, a commu- nity recycling program will lose money. Financing Opportunities and Revenue Sources for Solid Waste Management Activities Darrell Gerlaugh (Moderator), Gila River Indian Community Richard Stefanic, Bureau of Indian Affairs Alberta Reed, White Mountain Apache Tribe Gerald Wagner, Blackfeet Environmental Program This session discussed how to find funding for solid waste management ac- tivities. The session also explored potential sources of revenue, such as tipping fees, collection fees, and revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. Mr. Rick Stefanic of BIA described the potential opportunities available to Tribes for solid waste management fi- nancing: user fees, tipping fees, sales or other tax, revenue from the sale of recyclable materials, and grants and loans from the Federal government or private institutions. He then identified the capabilities of BIA, EPA, HUD, and IHS, available grants, and contact names and phone numbers. Ms. Alberta Reed of the White Moun- tain Apache Tribe noted that her Tribal Council approved an application to HUD for a landfill; which was built under a $1,1 million Indian block grant program. Ms. Reed explained that the White ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management Mountain Apache also needed to estab- Ijsh a trash collection program, which HUD monies could not pay for. The Tribe received a loan from the Department of Agriculture for equipment, including three trucks, dumpsters, and collection containers. This equipment was to be used for residential collection only. Due to the small amounts of commercial solid waste generated on the reserva- tion, it was not feasible for the Tribe to enter the commercial waste collection business. Instead, a private company picks up commercial waste and dumps it at the Tribal landfill, where it must pay a tipping fee. Tribal staff are providing technical support and contract admin- istration, and the Council committed $500,000 per year to pay the loans. Now the Tribe charges $5 per month for col- lection and would have to increase fees to $15 per month to break even. So far, the Tribe has closed eight dumps; twelve remain open. One issue is that the Tribe has only reached half of the Reservation with Its public outreach efforts. Mr. Gerald Wagner, Director of the Blackfeet Environmental Program, dis- cussed his solid waste program. He services eight other communities out- side of Browning, MT, and charges residents $11 per month. He also charges hotels and business. It would be difficult to charge residents more for collection, which would be necessary for the solid waste program to break even. In the meantime, the Tribe has to subsidize the program. The program employs two full-time workers and pro- vides part-time work for developmentally disabled Tribal mem- bers. The Blackfeet Tribe received a grant from EPA to start a recycling program that collects paper, cardboard, and alu- minum. The issues Mr. Wagner confronted included persuading his community to utilize collection systems instead of open dumps, as well as justi- fying the cost of the program. The Tribe also received another small grant from EPA to perform a feasibility study on solid waste management on the reser- vation. Wagner also discussed the Blackfeet's experiences with obtaining funds for closing open dumps. The Tribe has closed all but one of the dumps on the reservation, yet people continue to dis- card their trash haphazardly across the reservation. BIA had promised funding to assist the Tribe in closing the dump, but the Tribe elected to keep the dump open for economic reasons. Tribal Solid Waste Training Needs Assessment Forum Dare// Gerlaugh, Gila River Indian Community Jacey Johns, Navajo Nation Calvin Murphy, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Mike Puhyesva, Hopi Tribe Eunice Tso, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) This forum, sponsored by ITEP, dis- cussed solid waste training needs among the Tribes and provided an op- portunity to begin consulting with Tribes on their training needs. It began with presentations from various indi- viduals on topics including • Tribal codes and regulations; • Source reduction and recycling; • Cooperative agreements; • Landfill planning, siting and operation; and • Public education. Several issues and concerns were raised during the discussion. One indi- vidual raised, the issue of public education and community programs. The challenge is to mobilize the commu- nities through self-help programs that could lead fo rediscovering pride and overcoming apathy. An elder in the group emphasized the need to get back to tradition and take responsibility for the environment. The group expressed a need for train- ing in the areas of community education; coordination of regional solid waste management efforts; developing solid waste programs that make good "eco- nomic sense" for Tribes; technical training in the area of basic safety, dump closure, landfill siting, recycling, and source reduction; and professional cer- tification programs for landfill operators and inspection. Nancy Oien, solid-waste coordinator, Inter-Tribal Council of Ari- zona, emphasized the need for training that is applicable to Tribal personnel rather than State personnel This forum provided a good founda- tion to begin exploring training needs, but more input is necessary to deter- mine the solid waste training needs. Mike Connolly stated that "training needs are very diverse; it depends on the size, location, and waste stream for each Tribe." ITEP will continue the needs assess- ment by conducting a survey this summer. The survey will be mailed and followed by a phone call. It will assess the status of each Tribe's current solid waste management program. The sur- vey will explore what type of training is needed as well as what training has been available and effective. The survey and its results are very important and will serve as the basis for recommendations to EPA regarding future Tribal training needs. Parties interested in participat- ing in the survey should contact Eunice Tso at (520) 523-1478. POLLUTION PREVENTION FOR NATIVE AMERICANS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CASE STUDIES Moderator - Deb Madison, Fort Peck Tribes Michael P. Vogel, Director of the Montana State University Extension Service Pollution Prevention Program Todd MacFadden, Pollution Prevention Technical specialist for the Montana State University Extension Service Pollution Prevention Program Pollution prevention (P2) means re- ducing or eliminating pollution at the source, prior to recycling, treatment or disposal. Pollution prevention also means conserving and protection natu- ral resources. Increasingly, Native Americans are discovering that pollu- tion prevention make sense, and are finding ways to incorporate P2 in their communities. This session presented a brief over- view of pollution prevention, and focused on several useful pollution pre- vention resources available to Native Americans from the Montana Pollution Prevention Program. Tim Chavez then highlighted the development of the Pol- lution Prevention/Waste Minimization Program and brief case studies of the All Indian Pueblo Council/Pueblo Office of Environmental Protection. Michael P. Vogel presented a brief overview of pollution prevention, and the elements of a successful pollution prevention plan. Todd MacFadden highlighted briefly some of the recent pollution prevention ------- projects developed with Montana Native Americans: •Pollution Prevention and Cultural Preservation in Native American Com- munities, a ten-week educational guide for Tribal colleges. •The First national Tribal Pollution Prevention Conference. Over 220 in- dividuals from 63 Tribes and 7 states converged in Montana to exchange P2 resources and ideas. •Environmental Justice Through Pol- lution Prevention. The Montana P2 .• Program is currently working with three Montana Indian Nations to de- velop a model pollution prevention program. SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES Dave Evans (Moderator), EPA/Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) Rey Rivera,,EPA Region 5 Ted Garcia, All Indian Pueblo Council Shaun West, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Christine Psyk, EPA Region 10 This panel discussion provided an overview of Superfund technical activi- ties. It focused on how Superfund impacts Indian lands and the opportu- nities and experiences of Tribal involvement in the program. Mr. Rey Rivera, the EPA Region 5 Superfund Tribal Coordinator, discussed how Region 5 is working to enhance Tribal participation in Superfund. Re- gion 5 developed and. provided site assessment funding to three Tribal con- sbrtia, one each in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This funding helps the Tribes understand the Superfund process; supports training, travel, and equipment; and allows the Tribes to oversee the activities of EPA and potential responsible parties (PRPs). Mr. Ted Garcia from the All Indian Pueblo Council Office of Environmental Protection (POEP) identified many Superfund and environmental justice is- sues. He summarized POEP's activities and site assessment and response ac- complishments over the past five years. He raised the issue that the Hazard Rank- ing System for placing sites on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) does not account for cultural impacts (e.g., sa- cred areas, uses of surface water for ceremonial purposes, and land use is- sues). In addition, unlike theState's, the Tribes have no mechanism for imple- menting EPA's deferral program and address sites in lieu of Federal action. The environmental justice issues Mr. Garcia identified included Tribal sover- eignty, the inability to list sites on the NPL, differing views of environmental risks and priorities, and Tribal Superfund liability. Mr. Shaun West, of the Office of Envi- ronmental Services for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, discussed the pros and cons of Tribal consortia agreements and identified Superfund activities con- ducted by the Inter Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC). In 1992, ITEC was estab- lished to represent 29 of 36 Tribes in Oklahoma because not all Tribes had the staff and funds to support their own Superfund programs. The advantages of consortia agreements are that smaller Tribes do not have to use current or hire new staff, the consortia complete report- ing requirements, and member Tribes are still able to participate in Superfund activities. The disadvantages of the agreements are that individual Tribal programs may not receive equal atten- tion if they do not have a Superfund site and may prevent Tribes from building their own environmental capabilities. Ms. Christine Psyk, the EPARegion 10 Superfund Tribal Coordinator, discussed how the Region provided outreach to its Tribes and tried to identify Tribal needs. Of the 87 NPL sites in Region 10, only two are on or near Indian lands. Ms. Psyk noted that several non-NPL activities are ongoing in the Region, including provid- ing communityright-to-knowtraining for responding to chemical emergencies and technical assistance to the Tribes or Tribal consortia on issues not within the traditional Superfund program. Ms. Psyk indicated that EPA needs to de- velop a cross-environmental program to deal with Tribal environmental issues. Region .10 has developed a Tribal guide book in an effort to address this need. The book includes information on the Comprehensive Environmental Re- sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), Underground Storage Tanks (UST), environmental justice, and lead programs. One Region 10 issue is that no one is responsible for coordinating all cross-environmental program pieces. Dave Evans concluded the session with a note that his office is beginning an effort to plan for an enhanced role for States and Tribes in Superfund. One workgroup will focus exclusively on steps to enhance Tribal Superfund pro- grams. Workgroup members are currently being sought. WATERSHED ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Dave Somers (Moderator), Pacific Watershed Institute Daren Driscoll, Suquamish Tribe Deborah Flynn, Suquamish Tribe Mary Linda Pearson, Suquamish Tribe Scott Crowell, Suquamish Tribe Pacific Watershed Institute (PWI) is currently working on development of the National Tribal Watershed Analysis Project under a grant from USEPA. The project is designed to adapt State and Federal watershed analysis and manage- ment methods for use on Tribal lands across the country. PWI developed the first version of the Washington State Watershjed Analysis Guide in 1991, and Mr. Somers served as the Tribal/BIA rep- resentative on the Federal Watershed Analysis Coordination Team in 1994-95. Under the national program, which will be developed over a period of at least three years, PWI will produce an analysis guide, a management frame- work, and a monitoring guide. PWI anticipates that there will be at least four Tribal pilot programs funded around the country to work with PWI on develop- ment of the guides and to test implementation Reservation Resource Protection Ordinance: Using a Watershed Planning Approach to Hurdle Legal and Policy Barriers to Protecting Natural Resources on the Port Madison Indian Reservation The Port Madison Indian Reservation, located on the Kitsap Peninsula, is com- prised of two land areas totaling 7,762 acres with a checkerboard pattern of fee and trust ownership. The reservation is fringed with approximately 12 miles of saltwater shoreline and occupies all or a portion of 14 small watersheds. These watersheds direct water into numerous ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management small streams and wetlands, shallow and deep aquifers, two large saltwater marshes, and a large palustrian bog. Streams and wetlands on the reserva- tion support the production of salmon and other species. The Kitsap Peninsula does not have an annual snowpack ac- cumulation, increasing the importance of shallow groundwater as a source of base flow in streams and wetlands. The Saquamish people's culture and economy is tied closely to the natural environment. Tribal members fish and gather shellfish both for subsistence and trade, as they have done historically. Hunting is also a part of the Saquamish people's history and contemporary cul- ture, as is the use of native plants for weaving .carving, ceremonies and medi- cines. The Port Madison Indian Reservation is now the homeland for the Saquamish Tribe and is where many Tribal members reside. As the Tribe con- tinues to grow in population and economic prosperity, the number of Tribal members living on the reservation Is expected to grow. Therefore, it is im- portant for the Tribe to plan for economic and residential growth on the reservation, while protecting the natu- ral resources and environment that are vital to the Tribe's culture and economy. TheTribe is developing a Reservation Resource Protection Ordinance, which would establish regulations to protect water and other natural resources from the impacts of land use and develop- ment activities occurring within the reservation. In formulating the ordi- nance, the Tribe addressed legal and policy issues enveloped in regulating fee and trust land on a checkerboard reser- vation. The regulations are intended to apply to all lands on the reservation, in- cluding fee and trust lands, in addition to other governments' regulations that apply to these lands. The regulations utilize a watershed planning strategy and aim to protect water-dependent natural resources on the reservation that are vital to the Tribe's cultural and economic interests. Watersheds on the reservation and their outstanding features are identified. The watersheds were grouped into three classes based on their natural resource sensitivity and the conservation goals of the Tribe. A maximum impervious surface threshold, intended to conserve specific natural resources in each water- shed group, was established. The land use and development activities that oc- cur within each watershed would be limited by the amount of existing imper- vious surface already in the watershed and the impervious surface threshold for that particular watershed. The regu- lations also require stream and wetland buffers, protection of critical aquifer re- charge areas and retention of native forest open space. CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Alberta Tippeconnic (Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Margaret Vick, Attorney-At-Law, Arizona Eric Eberhard, Dorsey and Whitney This panel discussed the implications of Congressional policies on Tribal en- vironmental protection programs. It provided a legislative update, as well as methods for tracking legislation, and described strategies to educate and in- form Congress about Tribal governments and their environmental concerns. Ms. Margaret Vick and Mr. Eric Eberhard spoke about Congressional di- rection for environmental protection in Indian Country. According to the speak- ers, environmental legislation, in general, does not appear to be moving in any direction through the current Congress. However, if last year's passage in the House of the Clean Water Act Amendments, HR 961, is any indication, Congress is moving toward decreasing Tribal involvement. Historically; Congress has been "lost," as each piece of environmental legisla- tion has treated Tribes differently (Table 1 provides citations to the treatment of Tribes in the major environmental acts and regulations). In contrast to Congres- sional direction, the Clinton Administration and EPA are taking great strides toward promoting enhanced Tribal involvement. This is the result of years of effort by Tribes and their advo- cates within EPA. EPA regulations now acknowledge the jurisdiction of Tribal Governments and are becoming consis- tent in the treatment of Tribes, even though the governing laws remain con- fusing. Ms. Vick warned that when Congress and EPA do not move in the same direction at the same time, a ten- sion results between the "law" that ex- presses the intent of Congress and the implementation of the "law" through regulations and administrative action. Thus, a Tribe can comply with all regu- latory requirements and obtain primacy, but still become embroiled in litigation if an opponent challenges EPA for ex- ceeding the authority of the statute by granting primacy. In addition to the discussion on stat- utes, Mr. Eberhard spoke about current efforts to reauthorize various statutes, including the Endangered Species Act. As Congress debates more than 20 pro- posed bills, no consensus exists in Indian Country as to Tribal perspective on the Act. CSKT PROGRAMS Bill Swaney (Moderator), Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Lewis McLeaod, CSKT Lloyd Jackson, CSKT Paula Webster, CSKT Georgia Case, CSKT Mary Price, CSKT This panel discussion described the structure and function of the environ- mental programs of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) in- cluding air quality monitoring, wetland protection, and water quality manage- ment. Panelists presented the CSKT's use of a multidisciplinary approach to resource management on the Slatehead Reservation. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND THE EPA—A NEW BEGINNING CloAnn Villegas (Moderator), Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tony Sells, EPA Region 8 Implementing a geographic informa- tion system (CIS) involves a large monetary commitment from a Tribe. This presentation discussed why Tribes decide to implement CIS and the vari- ous types of financial and data acquisition assistance available to sup- port CIS efforts. A particular focus was on the effectiveness of CIS for Tribes who are considering enhanced involve- ment in EPA programs, and the necessity for acquiring system hardware, soft- ware, and data. To date, more than 100 ------- Native American Tribes use this technol- ogy to map their reservations, inventory cultural resources, track leases and land records, assess impacts of development on surrounding lands, and explore eco- nomic development opportunities.: Ms. CIoAnn Villegas highlighted the functionality and capability of GlS. She described the power of CIS to deliver an end product in map form. According to Ms. Villegas, what EPA is currently do- ing with data directly affects implementation of a CIS. EPA must look at data in one location and develop how they relate to CIS capabilities. For CIS to perform statistical analyses, it must be coupled with other environmental models, such as SAS, EPA's standard sta- tistical package. Three items necessary for GIS to func- tion are hardware and software, expertise, and the type of data the sys- tem requires. Approximately 80 percent of the time and money invested in GIS is in data acquisition and data conversion. Tribes should contact their EPA Regional GIS contact to acquire the bulk of the necessary data. Mr. Tony Sells discussed GIS involve- ment, with the Internet. He stressed that specific GIS capabilities within EPA are housed on the Internet. EPA maintains the homepage in Headquarters, http:// www.epa.gov. Within the homepage, top- ics related to GIS .include an ENVIROFACTS page, a page on National Geospatial Data Clearing House, and pages for each region. For example, Re- gion 8's home page is FTP://R8DG10.R08£PA.GOV/HOMEyHTML. Table 1 — Environmental Laws Affecting Indian Tribes Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §7405 [CM §105], Grants to tribes without separate TAS. • 42 USC §7601 (D) [CAA §301 (D)], Tribal authority. • 42 USC §7474 [CM §164], Air quality redesignation for Indian Reservations and resolution of State/Tribal disputes. Regulations • 50 Federal Register 43,956 (August 25,1994) Proposed Rule, "Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management." • 50 Federal Register 20,804 (April 27,1995) Proposed Rule, "Federal Operating Permits Program." • 50 Federal Register 64,339 (December 14, 1994) Final Rule, "Indian Tribes, Eligibility for Program Authorization." Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §7405 [CM §105], Grants to tribes without separate TAS. • 42 USC §7601(0) [CAA §301(0)], Tribal authority. ... • 42 USC §7474 [CM §164], Air quality redesignation for Indian Reservations and resolution of State/Tribal disputes. Regulations • 50 Federal Register 43,956 (August 25,1994) Proposed Rule, "Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Mangement." • 50 Federal Register 20,804 (April 27,1995) Proposed Rule, "Federal Operatin Permits Program." • 50 Federal Register 64,339 (December 14, 1994) Final Rule, "Indian Tribes, Eligibility for Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42USC§4368b Regulations • 40CFR§35SubpartQ • 58 Federal Register 63,876, "Indian Tribes: General Assistance Grants for Environmental Programs." Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §300j-11 [PHSA§1451], Tribal authority. • 42 USC §300]-1 (g) [PHSA §1442], Technical assistance to Tribes. • 42 USC 300j-6(c) [PHSA §1447], Indian rights and sovereignty unaffected. • 42USC§300f(10),(14)[PHSA§1401], Definitions of Indian Tribe and inclusion of Indian Tribe as municipality. • 40 CFR Part 35, Financial Assistance.and resolution of State/Tribal disputes. Regulations • 40 CFR Part 124, Procedures for , Decisionmaking, Tribe with TAS defined as a State. • 40 CFR.§142.72, Treatment of Tribes as States, revised as follows: • 50 Federal Register 64,339 (December 14,1994) Final Rule, "Indian Tribes, Eligibility for Program Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §§11001-11050, No reference to Indian Tribes. • 42 USC §11049(9) [EPCRA §329(5)], Definition of. State includes,".., any other territory or . possession over which the United States has jurisdiction." Regulations • 40 CFR Part 355, Makes EPCRA applicable to Tribes. Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §9601 (36) [CERCLA §101 (36)], Definition of Indian Tribe. • 42 USC §9626 [CERCLA §126], An Indian Tribe shall be afforded substantially the same treatment as a State for consultation. Regulations • 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart 0, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions. •; Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 7 USC §136u [FIFRA §24], Cooperative Agreements with Indian Tribes. Regulations • 40 CFR §171.10(a), Tribal Certification Plans. • "Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plan Regulation," drafted August 1994, unpublished. Proposed rule authorizes Tribes to develop and implement their own management plans. Statutory Treatment of Tribes ' • 15 USC §§2601-2692, No reference to Indian Tribes. • 15 USC §2602(13) fJSCA §3(13)], Definition of State includes"... any other territory or possession of the United States." Regulations • None for Tribes. • Funding is available for lead paint, asbestos, and radon programs. Statutory Treatment of Tribes • 42 USC §6903(13) [SWDA §1004(13)], Indian Tribe included in definition of municipality. • 25 USC §§3901-3908, Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, authorizes Indian Health Service to identify and assess open dumps on Indian lands. Regulations. • 61 Federal Register 2583, Proposed Rule: • : State/Tribal Permit Program Adequacy Determination: Municipal Solid Waste Facilities. "• 61 Federal Register 30471, Proposed Rule: "Authorization of Indian Tribes' Hazardous Waste Programs under RCRA Subtitle C." • See also Back Country Against Dumps (BAD) vs. EPA, no. 95-1343 (D.C. Circuit). ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management STREAM AND WETLAND REHABILITATION PROJECTS Deb Madison (Moderator), Fort Peck Assiniboine and Stoux Tribes Gary Passimre, Confederated Tribes of CoMlle Cindy Crist, Southern Ute Tribe MaxDodson, ERA Region 8 This panel highlighted EPA's approach to addressing pollution abatement un- der the Clean Water Act (CWA) and gave examples of Tribal restoration in Indian country. Panel members described Tribal participation in the management and abatement of pollution on Reserva- tion water resources as provided in section 518 of the CWA, as well as ways in which Tribes can fulfill related re- quirements, such as the completion of management plans. SUPERFUND FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES Dave Evans (Moderator), EPA/OERR Carolyn Douglas, EPA Region 9 Diana Matone, Wavajb Nation Pat Marietta, GHa River Indian Community David Ostrander, EPA Region 8 John Ferguson, EPA/OERR This panel discussion provided an overview of financial assistance that can support Tribal involvement in Superfund. Specific examples of Tribes' use of Superfund financial assistance were described. Mr. Dave Evans introduced the ses- sion and described the extent of Superfund's financial assistance to Tribes. Ms. Carolyn Douglas spoke about Region 9's efforts to enhance the in- volvement in Superfund of the 140 Federally recognized Tribes in Region 9. The Region has developed a strategy for providing assistance and program devel- opment that is proportionate with the needs of each Tribe. Based on an indi- vidual Tribe's capabilities, resources, training, equipment, and risk from envi- ronmental problems, EPA and the Tribe prioritizes annual resources (Table 2). Ms. Diana Malpne spoke about the Na- vajo Nation's Superfund program, established in 1988 with a cooperative agreement (CA) with EPA. The most dif- ficult aspect of setting up the program was determining Region jurisdiction, as Navajo territory straddles Region 6 and Region 9. In 1990, Region 9 became the Navajo Nation's EPA partner. With Core Program, site assessment, and support agency CAs, the Navajo Nation's accom- plishments include 80 site discoveries, 127 preliminary assessments, oversight of two NPL cleanups, and an emergency cleanup. One particularly complex en- vironmental problem is 22 sheep dip vat sites scattered throughout the Reserva- tion. Rather than treat each site separately, the Navajo Nation is manag- ing the cleanup of all sites as an "aggregate site" as provided under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. The Navajo Nation expects to complete development of its hazardous waste code, which will include cost recovery and voluntary cleanup provisions, in the Fall of 1996. Ms. Pat Mariella discussed the envi- ronmental problems facing the Gila River Indian Community, including prox- imity to the Phoenix metropolitan area (the fourth most populous Indian com- munity in the U.S.), the community's 374,000 acres, serious problems with il- legal dumping, and substantial planned growth. The Gila River Indian Commu- nity contains the most hazardous waste facilities on Tribal lands in the U.S. The Indian Community is working with EPA Region 9 to structure a "block CA" which would consolidate numerous individual CA into one funding mechanism and in- crease the ability of the Tribe to direct funds to the highest priority activities. Mr. David Ostrander provided an over- view of EPA's Brownfields Initiative, which is designed to empower States, cities, Tribes, communities, and other stakeholders in a timely manner to pre- vent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or Table 2 — Development of a Tiered Tribal Corrective Action Program mpt ijf 184 ' ,-, US | „, , ,(,, ...tiistj.'s- ^ * Tribe/Risk Capabilities • Very few if any sources or reported releases • Very limited program infrastructure ™T™'?W|GOR¥ s, »• JLJWA "•"** Program Activities • Notification and Response Plan • Response Coverage: Federal/State/Local/ Tribal Coalition • Outreach/Education: Awareness training '\*~ _ „ »'>,. / "" -^- ^V JJ^MiAi Support • EPA coordination, indirectly through Tribal coalition • EPA General Assistance Program (GAP) • EPA Emergency Planning Grant through coalition • FEMA/DOT/HMEP training and planning grants as necessary • Site assessment and clean up by EPA • State OSC Tribe/Risk Capabilities • A number of potential sources .and/or reported releases • Moderate to limited management infrastructure Program Activities TERC/LEPC Formation Emergency Response Plan Hazards Analysis Awareness Training Response Coverage: Federal/State/Local/Tribal Coalition Support • Direct EPA coordination • EPA Emergency Planning and GAP grants • FEMA/DOT/HMEP training and planning grants • Site assessment and cleanup by EPA • State OSC Li-^-J L~. Tribe/Risk Capabilities • Numerous potential sources; history of significant releases • Management infrastructure capable of operating complex environmental program ^' '"^CATEGORY 3^ f Program Activities • Development of multi-program corrective action and site assessment programs • Initial emergency response capability • Response Coverage: Tribal/Federal/ State/Local Coalition • Full Emergency Planning and Preparedness Program, including advanced training and exercises • Hazards analysis * , 1^ /- ' ^", . ' Support • Direct EPA coordination • Core/PASI and other Superfund cooperative agreements • EPA Emergency Planning and GAP grants • FEMA/DOT/MEP training and planning grants • Complex site cleanup by EPA • State OSC ------- under-used, industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelop- ment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Among the activities outlined in EPA's Brownfields Action Agenda are the Brownfields Pilots. EPA is funding up to 50 pilots by the end of 1996 at up to $200*000 each. The pilots are exploring innovative approaches to solving brownfields problems and providing a growing knowledge base to help direct the Brownfields initiative. In addition to these pilots, Region 8 is looking for ways to obtain discretionary funding to sup- port more efforts. Mr. John Ferguson presented an over- view of EPA's Local Governments Reimbursement (LGR) Program. Feder- ally-recognized Indian Tribes that are covered by SARA Title HI comprehensive emergency response plans are eligible for reimbursement of up to $25,000 in- curred in responding to hazardous substance threats. The LGR program typically covers the following activities: • Erecting security fencing or other site security measures; • Controlling the release source; • Containing released substances; and • Controlling runoff that could contami- nate drinking water sources. Eligible materials and expenses under the LGR program include • Disposable materials and supplies; • Rental or leasing of equipment; • Special technical services and labora- tory costs; • Services and supplies purchased for an evacuation; • Compensation of overtime; and • Decontamination of equipment. Incidents involving petroleum, natural gas, crude'oil, or any other fraction that is not designated a CERCLA hazardous substance are specifically excluded from the LGR program. The reimbursement process is as fol- lows: • Notify Federal authorities (e.g., EPA Regional office or the National Re- sponse Center at 800/424-8802) within 24 hours of the incident. Failure to notify authorities within the 24-hour period results in automatic disqualifi- cation of the application for reimbursement; . * * • Pursue cost recovery from all sources, including insurance companies, re- sponsible parties, and State funds; • Obtain an LGR application by contact- ing the EPA Regional office or the LGR HelpLine at (800) 431-9209; • Provide adequate cost documenta- tion, including invoices, sales receipts, and leasing agreements. Applicants also must demonstrate that costs do not supplant budgeted funds; and 8 Obtain the signature of the highest ranking official on the application, and submit the application within one year of the date of completion of the re- sponse. For more information on the LGR pro- gram, contact the LGR HelpLine at (800) 431-9209. Dave Evans concluded the session with a note that his office is beginning an effort to plan for an enhanced role of States,and Tribes in Superfund. One workgroup will focus exclusively on steps to enhance Tribal Superfund pro- grams. Workgroup members are currently being sought. DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Libby Hatpin-Nelson (Moderator), Tulalip Tribes Chris Holm, Bois Forte Dave Somers, Pacific Watershed Institute The focus of this session was on strat- egies used by three different Tribes to collect data needed to support a specific tribal environmental program. In each case, the Tribes had to address funding, staffing, or time limitations, and/or fu- ture problems and liabilities associated with a data collection program. Each of the presenters discussed these consid- erations as the basis for the specific data collection strategy developed, and de- scribed the resulting data collection effort or program. The strategies were intended to serve as examples with po- tential application to other Tribes, as well as encourage session attendees to contribute to the session by sharing in- formation regarding strategies they have used successfully to support their envi- ronmental programs. Libby Halpin Nelson described a project involving cooperative data col- lection called the Snohomish River Basin Fish Mapping Project in western Wash- ington. This project required a large amount of information to be collected and organized in a very short period of time, and on a very limited budget. In- formation included, for example, distribution of salmonids throughout the basin, and promary spawning, rear- ing, and holding areas. The information was digitized as a GIS database, and will be made available to the Tulalip Tribes and other resource-managing entitites in the region. It also serves as a good ex- ample of cooperation between tribes and local governments leading to en- hanced project results, and assuring use of the data by county and state govern- ments, in addition to the tribes. Chris Holm discussed the importance of sound planning for data collection (and interpretation) with respect to de- signing and implementing tribal water quality standards. His discussion cov- ered (1) the process through which Bois Forte assumed jurisdiction over its wa- ter resources, (2) use of Bois Forte water quality data to model potential prob- lems in data interpretation and definition of tribal water quality stan- dards, and (3) protocols for data collection, management, and interpreta- tion as suggestions to circumvent potential future conflicts with State and Federal agencies over implementation of water quality standards. Dave Somers discussed the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP), spon- sored by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission as an example of a compre- hensive data collection strategy. The project established a five level analysis strategy, beginning with the quantifica- tion of direct loss of habitats and proceeding to an assessment of habitat conditions relative to each life history stage of the salmon and steelhead stocks present. This project analysis and as- sessment utilized only existing information about relevant habitats, and did not include new field reconnais- sance. Dave discussed the analytical approach adopted by SSHIAP and pre- liminary results from selected watersheds within the project. ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management TRIBAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (TOC) TOPICS Jim Fletcher (Moderator), Chair, Tribal Operations Committee John Banks, Vke Chair, Tribal Operations Committee Tany Williams, EPA American Indian Environmental OHica Cacti Antona, InterTrfoal Council of Arizona This panel updated the activities of the Tribal Operations Committee (TOC) and EPA American Indian Environmen- tal Office. It also offered an opportunity to provide information and recommen- dations to TOC's Tribal members. TOC members discussed their own regional developments as they pertained to rela- tionships forged with EPA. Consistent with EPA Indian Policy, EPA's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes, environmental laws, regulations, policies and guidance, the mission of the TOC Is to protect and improve the con- ditions of the Tribal health and the environment in Indian Country. The TOC/EPA relationship will not substitute for the government-to-government rela- tionship between the U.S. and Tribal governments. Mr. Cecil Antone discussed the evolu- tion of TOC. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner convened the first TOC meet- Ing on February 17, 1994. At this first meeting, Tribal representatives of the TOC presented three recommendations: • Reaffirm the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and the EPA State/Tribal Concept Pa- per on jurisdiction; • Establish a National EPA Indian Envi- ronmental Office; and • Increase funding for Tribal environ- mental programs. In response to these recommenda- tions, Administrator Browner announced the formation of an EPA Se- nior Leadership Team for Tribal operations. This Team's role was to help develop: • Strategic planning and budget recom- mendations; • Updated implementation guidance for EPA's Indian policy; and • Organizational recommendations. TOC met several times during 1994, which resulted in the establishment of the American Indian Environmental Of- fice (AIEO), reaffirmation of the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and the July 14, 1994 Ac- tion Memorandum, and increased funding for Indian programs. The session concluded with several questions, including how Tribes are in- volved in the budgeting offices of other Federal agencies. The panelists sug- gested that the Tribes use their relationship with EPA as an example of how to incorporate Tribes into other Federal organizations. Another question posed was how TOC was going to ensure that Tribal representatives have input into EPA "operational" decision-making affecting Indian Country. The panelists stated that TOC plans to develop a net- work within all EPA Regions. Currently, there are 19 Tribal TOC members from nine EPA Regions. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT Michael O'Connel, Attorney (Moderator) Phillip Cernera, Coeurd'Alene Tribe Bill Sullivan, Puyalup Tribe The session provided an overview of the authority of Tribal governments to recover damages for injury to natural resources under federal laws such as the Superfund law and Oil Pollution Act and Tribal laws such as the Puyallup Hazard- ous Substances Control Act. Under the federal Superfund law and Oil Pollution Act, Federal, State and Tribal govern- ments are authorized to recover damages for injury to natural resources caused, respectively, by a release of haz- ardous substance or a discharge of oil. The Puyallup Hazardous Substances Control Act provides a similar remedy as a matter of Tribal law. Damages are recovered from parties responsible for a release of hazardous substance or dis- charge of oil causing injury to natural resources on a strict liability basis, sub- ject to certain defenses. Damages recovered under these laws are used to restore, replace, or acquire the equiva- lent of injured resources. By way of examples, damages may be used to re- store fishing habitat, or to restore the grazing capacity of land injured by a re- lease of hazardous substances or discharge of oil. Remedies afforded by these laws are in addition to remedies available under common law theories such as nuisance and negligence or for violation of treaty rights. These laws also may provide rem- edies where a release of a hazardous substance or discharge of oil occurs off reservations, but contamination mi- grates across reservation boundaries, and where a Tribal government has in- terests in an off-reservation fishery injured by such contamination. Coeur d'Alene.Basin Restoration (Ecosystem Management) Phillip Cemera, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Office, Coeur d'Alene Tribe The Coeur d'Alene basin stretches from the Bitterroot Mountains at the Idaho-Montana border westward to Lake Coeur d'Alene. The basin is well known for its mineral resources as it once was for the abundant fish and wildlife that existed throughout the area. Over 100 years of mining in the upper reaches of the basin has left a toxic legacy of lead, zinc, and cadmium contamination that has been labeled the worst example of heavy metals pollution in the world. This pollution (over 100 million tons of mine wastes) has affected the entire water- shed which consists of over 100 miles of streams, thousands of acres of wet- lands, fioodplains, uplands, 12 lateral lakes associated with the Coeur d'Alene River, and the majority of Lake Coeur d'Alene. The Coeur d'Alene Tribe is ac- tively pursuing actions that will clean up the sediment contaminants and restore the natural resources in the Coeur d'Alene basin. The spiritual significance and economic importance of these lands and waters remain as vital to the Coeur d'Alene today as they were in the past. The discussion described the prob- lems that exist in the basin (heavy metal contamination combined with lake eutrophication) and the integrated ap- proach the Tribe is taking to restore the basin's natural resources. These efforts include the Tribe's participation in the Bunker Hill Superfund Project, the Coeur d'Alene Basin Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), and the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project. Both the Superfund cleanup and the NRDA are being conducted pursuant to CERCLA, also known as Superfund Law. The Bun- ker Hill Superfund site, located upstream of the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, is one of the largest cleanups undertaken by the USEPA in the nation. The Bunker Hill project involves a complex site cover- ing 21 square miles, wherein heavy 10 ------- metals have contaminated ground and surface water and soils. The NRDAis one of the first of its type in the nation. The Tribe has joined forces with the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture to conduct the Damage Assessment. The Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project is aimed at addressing metals source abatement and nutrient management for Lake Coeur d'Alene: The fear is that as eutrophication accelerates, metals bound to sediments at the bottom of the lake will remobilize into the water col- umn which could lead to the death of the aquatic and terrestrial biota associ- ated with the lake. DISPLAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS LaDonna Harris (Moderator), Americans for Indian Opportunity Judi Kane, Americans for Indian Opportunity JeflTumarkin, EPA/Office of Solid Waste This presentation described the com- ponents of the INDIANnet Information System, the first national, Indian-owned computer network designed to provide information to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. It provided information on how to access INDIANnet electroni- cally. Ms. LaDonna Harris began the session with discussion of the origin of INDIANnet and its mission to help en- sure'Indian access to the Internet. She recommended Tribes establish "system connectivity" within their own govern- ments first, which will help Tribal agencies—including those with environ- mental management responsibilities—with access to impor- tant information, e.g., sacred sites and cultural landmarks. Ms. Judi Kane and Mr. Jeff Tumarkin demonstrated INDIANnet, including its homepage and linkages to other Internet sites and EPA systems. INDIANnet dem- onstrations continued throughout the conference in the vendor area. For in- formation about INDIANnet by mail, contact: Americans for Indian Oppor- tunity, 681 Juniper Hill Road, Bernalillo, NM 87004. INDIANnet's .electronic ad- dresses are: [URL] http://indiannet.hills.net [telnet] indiannet.hills.net [via modem] 605-348-8802 LINKAGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY GRANTS ^ ? Judi Chapman (Moderator), Native American Technologies, Inc. Lee Roberts, EPA Region 8 Sadie Hoskie, EPA Region 8 Carey Clough, EPA Region 8 This panel discussed EPA's General Assistance Program (GAP), Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), and water quality management grants program. It also discussed how Tribes may admin- ister grants in a complementary and appropriate manner. Mr. Lee Roberts spoke about EPA's wa- ter quality grants, Clean Water Act (CWA) §106 program, and how activities under the GAP and §106 programs can be linked. Section 106 has been used by the Tribes in the past to build water quality program infrastructure. Coordi- nating the grants can help meet Tribal needs. GAP activities, such as develop- ing codes, ordinances, and eligibility determination packages, are linked to other Federal agencies such as the Bu- reau of Land Management (BLM). Developing codes and ordinances is also linked to a CWA activity, adjusting and changing water quality management plans. The §106 program can support monitoring activities that are connected to RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Roberts recognized a need for core funds to build and support water qual- ity programs. PPGs may be a solution that allows Tribes to move funds around environmental programs as needed. One issue with the §106 program is that Tribes have to compete for funds. Ms. Sadie Hoskie discussed the origin of GAP funds and how they are linked to Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEAs). The GAP program developed out of a multimedia grant program in 1991 and served as a pilot grant mecha- nism to provide Tribes flexibility to develop environmental programs. GAP funding started at $4 million in 1993 and is projected to be $28 million in 1997. The statutory authority actually has a funding cap of $15 million, which needs to be lifted. GAP funds have been used to support other delegation programs (e.g., UST) and to fill Superfund voids. TEAs are the planning tool which iden- tifies environmental program needs, objectives, and priorities to be funded by the GAP program. Mr. Carey Clough co-chaired the na- tional taskforce on PPGs. Mr. Clough noted that any entity which currently re- ceives a multimedia grant is eligible for a PPG. A PPG is not a block grant, so the money is expected to be used for per- formance-based environmental protection. Therefore, Tribes and EPA negotiate PPG activities. Once the money is merged, it loses its special con- ditions, which creates fewer opportunities for audits. Funding is based on historical activities and a State or Tribe applies for the total from last year. One issue is EPA culture. If PPG funds are transferred from one media program to another, the EPA office providing funds that ultimately are used to sup- port a different program may not have an incentive to provide the same amount next year. Mr. Clough expects swings of less than 20 percent, so the program people can be assured that the base pro- grams will remain adequately funded. EPA Regions and the States and Tribes need to work together—it is going to take time to change the Regional mind set. The PPG can include 16 ongoing cat- egorical grants. Also, competitive grants such as environmental justice and pol- lution prevention grants can be included, but with a different negotiation process. TEAs are the policy documents that identify the Regional Office and Tribal agency responsible and set pri- orities. The PPG is the financial part of the package. NON-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL/ EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS William French (Moderator), Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) June Otow, Manager, Corporate Development, RCAC Pat Hurley, Salish Kootenai College This presentation described addi- tional sources of funding that are available to Tribes to support environ- mental programs. Many Tribes have not had adequate access to the information. This panel assembled a group of people who can either help Tribes find that type of funding or are a private source of funding themselves. 11 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management The session covered four areas to help Tribes leverage funds from non-govern- mental sources: (1) Funding sources available through corporations, national organizations and bank loans, bank foun- dations and private foundations; (2) Becoming attractive to other sources of funding; (3) Finding foundations and cul- tivating relationships; and (4) Building educational programs from outside tribal sources to retain capacity within a Tribe; and leveraging funds and ser- vices from Tribal Colleges. Bill French, Executive Director from Rural Community Assistance Corpora- tion (RCAC), a non-profit outreach and technical assistance outfit, spoke about his organization's work, and provided in- formation on how to find private foundations and other outside funding sources including banks and bank foun- dations. He also discussed and handed out information on how to find these organizations, directories, and founda- tions that have given to Native American entitles. June Otow, Manager of Corporate De- velopment for RCAC talked about how Tribes can Identify supportive corpora- tions and foundations and how Tribes can position themselves to compete for funds from these entities. Pat Hurley of the Salish & Kootenai College discussed how tribes use Col- lege resources to supplement their programs, and how educational pro- grams can help build tribal capacity. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GRANTS Patrida Henry Denham (Moderator), EPA Region 8 KJrn Clausen, Oglala Lakota Nation Rosa Main, Fort Betaap Reservation £ David Evans, Bums Palute Trfoe JayUitfBwolf, Northern Cheyenne Tribe Nick Isham, Lac Courts Oreilles Tribe This panel discussed grantees' suc- cesses achieved through the support of grant funds from EPA's Environmental Justice Program, including the small grants and the college/university part- nership (CUP) grants. Panelists described environmental justice activi- ties In Indian country and activities for American Indians off Tribal lands. GRANT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT Maureen Ross (Moderator), EPA Grants Administration Division (GAD) Elizabeth Bell, EPA American Indian Environmental Office David Gomez, EPA GAD Patricia Simon, EPA GAD This presentation introduced EPA's fi- nancial administration programs and described the EPA grants administration process. The discussion covered the three phases of a grant: pre-application and application; project administration; and closeout. The panel also discussed audit procedures and preparation activi- ties. APPLICATION OF NEPA and TEPA, LAND USE PLANNING and TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mike Spry (Moderator), Portage Environmental Gillian Mittlestaedt, Tulalip Tribes Charlotte Roe, U.S. Department of State/Office of Environmental Policy Valerie Ferry, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation This presentation describing ap- proaches taken to protect the environment in the development of Tribal resources covered the applica- tions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), Tribal environmental policy assess- ments (TEPAs) by the Tulalip Tribes, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation's use of NEPA/TEPA in land use planning, and the transboundary applications of NEPA. Mr. Mike Spry of Portage Environmen- tal discussed CSKT's application of NEPA and some of NEPA's advantages—includ- ing meeting Federal requirements and serving as an effective planning tool— and disadvantages —including that BIA determines NEPA requirements and makes the decisions. Through close co- operation, the CSKT and the BIA Flathead Agency are able to conduct thorough, defensible NEPA analyses to allow projects to move forward in a timely manner. Ms. Gillian Mittlestaedt from the Tulalip Tribe discussed the purpose and development of TEPAs, which serve as a tool for Tribes to exercise their sover- eignty and determine what to review. TEPAs also replace NEPA, designates the Tribe as the final decision maker, and allows the Tribe to control the timing and length of the review process. TEPA was developed because Tribes needed to balance economic development and environmental protection, and NEPA was found to be inappropriate. Ms. Mittlestaedt noted a 1984 national study recommending that • NEPA be applied consistently to all Federal agencies; • Tribes be treated as sovereign govern- ments; and • Tribes be involved earlier in the pro- cess. Ms. Mittlestaedt is also hoping to de- velop a model TEPA in the future. Ms. Charlotte Roe discussed examples of international environmental agree- ments, including the North American Agreement on Environmental Coopera- tion (NAAEC), which is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Article 10.7 of NAAEC provides a deadline of January 1997 to issue recommendations regarding the notification, assessment, and mitigation of proposed governmen- tal projects which are likely to cause significant transboundary impacts. The U.S. is currently developing draft trilat- eral transboundary environmental impact assessment procedures with Mexico and Canada. EPA is working with the Tribes to obtain their input into this process. Ms. Valerie Ferry described the land use laws and processes that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation is developing. Ms. Ferry also noted that the Tribe developed wetlands regula- tions based on local models, so adjacent towns cannot say the regulations are unacceptable. TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (TEAs) Terry Williams (Moderator), EPA American Indian Environmental Office Rita Jojolla-Adelott, Isleta Pueblo Casey Ambutas, EPA Region 5 Kathy Hill, EPA Region 10 Clancy Tenley, EPA Region 9 This discussion addressed Tribal En- vironmental Agreements (TEAs) which are negotiated agreements between EPA 12 ------- and a Tribe that identify Tribal environ- mental conditions and priorities for EPA funding and technical assistance. Terry Williams opened the discussion on TEAs by emphasizing the importance of including Tribal Cultural values and traditions within the agreement. By in- tegrating traditional values into Tribal environmental programs, these pro- grams can be more responsive to Tribal concerns. Mr. Ambutas described TEAs in EPA Region 5. According to Mr. Ambutas, TEAs have four purposes: • Establishing a multi-year plan; • Identifying top Tribal priorities • Clarifying the role of EPA or how EPA will be involved; and • Establishing an annual process for re- visiting agreements. The agreements comprise separate categories, including jurisdiction, emer- gency planning, and multiyear plans to determine priorities that vary from Tribe to Tribe. Region 5 meets with the Tribes on a quarterly basis to discuss any is- sues and to maintain communication. Ms. Hill described the TEA process in EPA Region 10. Because of extreme di- versity among the 266 Tribes located in Region 10, Ms. Hill developed templates for TEAs based on a three-tiered ap- proach: • Tier 1 establishes a framework for the working relationship between EPA and the Tribe; • Tier 2 provides a format for those Tribes choosing to focus on environ- mental assessments; • Tier 3 establishes a framework for those Tribes which are ready to de- velop and implement specific action plans. In meetings with Tribes, Region 10 has realized that many Tribes will use two or more of the tiers, depending on their level of experience and expertise in vari- ous media. Ms. Jojolla-Adelott spoke about TEAs from the Tribal perspective. Prior to es- tablishing a TEA, a Tribe must assess the needs of its program, including program infrastructure to protect water, land, and air within its jurisdiction; regulatory framework; socioeconomic impacts; and cultural impacts. By researching these issues, the Tribe can help ensure that its TEA with EPA addresses these con- cerns to the extent practicable. Mr. Tenley discussed TEAs from a na- tional perspective, and outlined the main purposes for establishing TEAs. These purposes include • Promoting strong environmental pro- tection in Indian Country; • Recognizing Tribal sovereignty in en- vironmental protection of treaty resources; • Understanding Tribal environmental needs and identifying areas in which Tribes shall assume responsibility; . • Developing, implementing, and main- taining comprehensive Tribal environmental programs; • Establishing long-term environmental capacity for Tribes to operate pro- grams; • Identifying areas in which EPA will plan for and carry out direct imple- mentation; • Involving Tribes in EPA planning when addressing specific Tribal problems; • Building equal partnerships and work- ing together as Tribes establish priorities for environmental protec- tion; and • Enhancing and fostering communica- tion between EPA and the Tribes to eliminate discrepancies in expecta- tions. Mr. Tenley noted that several factors impact a Region's approach to address- ing Tribal issues. These factors include: • Emergency response; • Grant flexibility; • A process for communication; • A method for monitoring progress; • Resolution of State/Tribal jurisdic- tional disputes; and • Language to ensure adherence to trust responsibility. TRIBAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS—"THEORY TO PRACTICE" Fran Wilshusen (Moderator), Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Michael O'Connel, Stoel, Rives Law Firm C.S. Sodhi, Chehalis Tribe Gillian Mittlestaedt, Tulalip Tribes Carla Fisher, EPA Region 10 Bill Swaney, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Tribes throughout the country are at varying stages in determining whether or not to incorporate the development of water quality standards as part of their water quality protection efforts or developing and adopting standards. This panel discussed the status of the development and implementation of Tribal water quality standards. It in- cluded practical information and tools to assist in development efforts and evaluate the utility of Tribes in develop- ing and adopting standards. It included discussion on the legal implications sur- rounding the adoption of Tribal water quality standards. Mr. Michael O'Connel, spoke about the scope and application of the Clean Wa- ter Act (CWA) sections 401 and 402 for Tribes. The focus of the discussion was on the implementation of Tribal water quality standards to projects within In- dian reservations as well as the consequences of implementating Tribal water quality standards to projects out- side Indian reservations. Section 303 of CWA directs Tribal and State govern- ments that develop water quality standards take into consideration the use and value of water resources for propagation of fish and wildlife, public water supplies, recreation, and other purposes. Issues related to situations where EPA is the NPDES permit issuing authority on a reservation and a Tribal government has or has not adopted Tribal water quality standards were ad- dressed. Mr. C.S. Sodhi discussed the relation- ship between water quantity and water quality standards. Government water quality standards heavily impact Indian lands. Less than 20 Indian Tribes have water quality standards that have been approved by EPA. Ms. Gillian Mittlestaedt addressed the relationship between management of Tribal water quality standards and other 13 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management Tribal water quality programs. Three decision exercises related to water qual- ity Issues were presented: 1) What do standards do for the Tribe now? 2) How do standards relate to other Tribal wa- ter quality activities? and 3) How to best allocate resources to maximize stan- dards. Ms. Carla Fisher authored the Tribal Water Quality Standards Template and re- viewed its purpose and development. The template was created using the Washington state water quality stan- dards with several elements added to address issues important to Indian Tribes. The additional elements in- cluded criteria for groundwater, wetlands, biocriteria, wildlife, and sedi- ment. Resource requirements, human health concerns, aquatic life concerns, and flexibility were all considered while developing the template. Mr. Bill Swaney brought the session to a close by discussing how the CSKT applied for a treatment of State desig- nation (TAS) in 1993. After a two-year process and public comment, EPA ap- proved the TAS in 1995. CSKT then adopted final water quality standards. The State of Montana then filed suit against the Tribes in Federal District Court claiming that EPA did not have the authority to let Tribes establish their own water quality standards. The court ruled in favor of EPA and the Tribes. The State of Montana intends to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. TRIBAL AIR QUALITY Ism's McLeod (Moderator) Confederated Salish and Kootena! Tribes Jay Uttfewolf, Northern Cheyenne Tribe BiHNevmKer, Montana Power Virgi Masayesva, Northern Arizona University This session addressed air quality program issues faced by Tribes nation- wide: • Development and implementation of an open burning ordinance and per- mit program; • Title V permitting program feasibility studies; • Use of memoranda of agreement and cooperative work programs; • Operation of an air quality program; and Training available to Tribes through the Indian Training Program at North- ern Arizona University. ALASKA ISSUES Sandra Borbridge (Moderator), Americacorps Program Brenda Schwantes, KodiakArea Native Association Gary Idelburg, EPA Flore Lekanof, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Tribe This session addressed the unique challenges faced by the Native Alaska Villages in remediating environmental contamination. Panelists described ground water monitoring alternatives for landfills, military sites with contami- nation and environmental justice concerns, and sanitation issues in rural western Alaskan Villages. Ms. Brenda Schwantes of the Kodiak Area Native Association presented a slide show on her Tribal lands. Primary issues for this Nation are the lack of ad- equate sanitation, remoteness, and difficulty in reaching the villages. Every community has an open dump, but there are no roads for heavy machinery to reach the dumps, and if they could, it is difficult to repair the machines. In addi- tion, soil is not available to cover the dumps. Another issue is the environ- mental impact of debris and machinery from World War II at military bases and installations. Ms. Sandra Borbridge of Americacorps Program and moderator of the session summarized Gary Idelburg's Geographic Information Sys- tem (CIS) work with EPA Region 10. Mr. Idelburg, who was not able to attend the conference, is in the process of map- ping military sites located in Alaska since World War II and identifying the location of Alaskan Native villages. A fi- nal report on this work is due out shortly. Mr. Flore Lekanof of the Aleutian/ Pribilof Islands Tribe is working on a grant from the Department of Defense and the Association of Native Americans to assess the cleanup needs for 150 mili- tary sites in the Aleutians Islands. One issue is that the Aleutian Tribe needs to identify their concerns and voice them to Congress so more money can be ap- propriated for the cleanup of these sites. Another major concern is the human health and environmental impacts of leaking materials from a 1971 atomic blast. Mr. Lekanof is determining the extent of the damage. One panelist discussed the University of Alaska at Fairbanks and its challenge of identifying World War II drums in the wetlands. Some are leaking contami- nants such as DDT and fuel oil, which could impact the subsistence-based economy. Ms. Alicia Porter of the Yukon area noted that there are 56 villages with 20,000 people. All villages have sewer and solid waste problems. EPA funded three Vistas Americacorp Programs that have pioneered a solid waste manage- ment program. This program consists of developing recycling and household hazardous waste collection programs, trying to bring a landfill into compliance with EPA standards, providing HAZWOPPER certification, and initiating a pollution prevention roundtable. The landfill issues are unique because the ground is flat, unstable, and the soil is sandy or silty. Therefore, gravel is not available to provide landfill cover. STATE/TRIBAL COOPERATIVE ENDEAVORS—MULTI-PROGRAM Greg Lind (Moderator), EPA Region 9 John Banks, Penobscott Indian Nation Marc Radell, EPA Region 5 Perry Bunting, Mille Lac Ojibwa Tribe This session offered both Tribal and EPA perspectives on a variety of coop- erative endeavors undertaken between Tribes and States to resolve jurisdic- tiohal disputes over who has the authority to regulate and enforce envi- ronmental laws within reservation boundaries. The session described case studies of agreements with three differ- ent Tribes, including how the agreements were developed, the advan- tages and disadvantages, and results. Mr. John Banks spoke about Tribes working with States regarding water quality concerns. State-Tribal interac- tion is not a new concept. In fact, in the 18th century, before the Federal govern- ment had begun institutionalizing its programs, Tribes in the eastern U.S. dealt mostly with States regarding con- servation and environmental management. Today, dams and other hydroprojects are negatively impacting water quality, resulting in elevated lev- els of dioxins and contaminated fish. To help solve this problem, Tribes are turn- ing to the 1980 Land Claim Settlement 14 ------- Act, which reaffirms Tribal Authority to regulate taking of wildlife, affirms suste- nance fishing rights, and addresses jurisdictional issues. It does not, how- ever, address water rights. While litigation regarding water quality issues in the Act is expected, Tribes are imple- menting water quality monitoring programs using the "affirmed fishing rights" as their argument. Mr. Banks described a cooperative ef- fort between the Penobscot Nation and the State of Maine. The Penobscot River is an important resource for the Penobscot Nation, and as such the Tribe had conducted comprehensive sam- pling of the river to monitor its quality. The Tribe offered the State of Maine its water quality data to satisfy the state's §305(b) requirements under the Clean Water Act. In return, the State proposed signing a Water Quality Cooperative Agreement with the Tribe, whereby the Tribe would continue to be responsible for all water quality sampling on the river. These samples help monitor im- pacts of pulp and paper discharges to the river. This cooperative agreement is a good illustration of how a State and a Tribe can reach common objectives as a result of the Tribe developing a pro- fessional program and ensuring good quality data. Mr. Marc Radell spoke about the indi- vidual environmental agreements between States and Tribes. Specifically, he discussed the agreement signed by the Grand Portage Tribe and the State of Minnesota; EPA served as facilitator during negotiations. As provided under section 518(d) of the Clean Water Act, the State/Tribal agreement helps ensure consistent implementation of water quality standards in Lake Superior and resolves jurisdicational disputes regard- ing the surface water between the shore and nearby islands. Also, the agreement states that the State and Tribe will no- tify each other of suspected problems with the water quality and will either act independently or defer to EPA to miti- gate the problem. Mr. Radell concluded his presentation with three lessons learned from implementing this agree- ment: (1) Have a "can do" attitude—begin the negotiation with agreed-upon principles and move into more controversial issues from there; (2) Respect others' concerns and sov- ereignty; and (3) Use a facilitator (e.g., EPA) to recommend neutral solutions. Mr. Perry Bunting discussed a coop- erative effort between the^State of Minnesota ancithe Mille Lac Ojibwa Tribe to assess the feasibility of a re- gional waste water treatment facility. Using funding from EPA and technical assistance from the Army Corps of En- gineers, the State and the Tribe worked with other city, county, and state offi- cials in the study. The Tribe received a state award for its contribution to the cooperative effort. Mr. Bunting noted that obtaining signatures and letters of support, which is linked to Tribal sov- ereignty, was the biggest obstacle to getting the cooperative effort off the ground. .•> ? TRIBAL WATER QUALITY LABS Gary Bums (Moderator), Chehalis Tribe LuisZamora, Taos Pueblo Dan Kusnierz, Penobscot Nation Jeanne Mourrain, USEPA/NERL • Gary Burns has set up an EPA Certi- fied lab. The lab is also certified by the State. Gary discussed how he estab- lished the lab and the procedures that the lab performs in-house, including collecting water samples and other wa- ter quality data with field equipment, taking the tests and analyzing the re- sults. He also gave an overview of the Chehalis water resource program. There was a demonstration of water quality monitoring and an example of the pro- cess and equipment needed. Jeanne Mourrain spoke about the EPA Lab certification process and reviewed its standards. Ms. Mourrain oversees the certification process. She spoke about how to go about applying for a certifica- tion and what types of certification are available. Luis Zamora shared his experiences in setting up a lab and initiating a project to train five pueblo college students through a water quality/environmental science program. The students have experienced first hand actually putting the lab together, from organizing cabi- nets and shelves to setting up the equipment. While attending environ- mental science courses at the N. New Mexico Community College, students will also have hands on instruction and projects doing stream and habitat as- sessments and water quality sampling and chemical analysis. The project will help ensure that the Pueblo will main- tain the capacity to administer its own water quality program as well as give the students the chance to earn a 2-year de- gree or certificate. As part of their training, the students will be required to pass on what they are learning by giv- ing presentations to other Tribes and at environmental conferences. Dan Kusnierz spoke about the Penobscot Nation's certified lab and surface water quality program. He also gave an overview of some of the field work and tests that the Tribe performs. Now that the Tribe has an established lab, they plan to put on a workshop to train other,Tribes on analysis tech- niques this fall. Dan also performed a spectro-photometric analysis demon- stration. PESTICIDE USE AND MANAGEMENT—ESTABLISHING A SUCCESSFUL TRIBAL PROGRAM Mark Versch, Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Dr. Patricia Marietta, Giia River Indian Community Clement Martinez, Gila River Indian Community In this session, presenters identified and described specific program admin- istration concepts for establishing an environmental regulatory program. These fundamental program manage- ment concepts are necessary elements if a Tribe is to receive a delegation of regulatory program authority. Mark Versch, Director of the Environmental Protection Department for the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska spoke on how he helped to establish the Tribe's environ- mental program. Conner Byestewa, Director of the Environmental Regula- tory Office for the Colorado River Indian Tribes explained how under the Federal Insecticide, Fugicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Colorado River Indian Tribes have incorporated pesticide and agricultural law with a goal of achieving Integrated Pesticide Management. Patricia Mariella, Director of the Depart- ment of Environmental Quality, and Clement Martinez, Pesticide Control Of- ficer for the Gila River Indian Community discussed Gila River's pesticide pro- gram. This program was established in 1982 and is one of the oldest Tribal pes- ticide regulatory programs in the United States. 15 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION BemadetteTsoste (Moderator), New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Osrin Steen, Bo& Forte Reservation This session described recent hydrogeologic characterizations of the floodplain at the Uranium Tailings Reme- dial Action Site in Shiprock, New Mexico, and the Nett Lake Dump and its poten- tial to contaminate a nearby community water system. Speakers also discussed Investigation methods and findings. An Investigation of the Nett Lake Dump and its Potential to Contaminate the Community Water System Darin Steen, Environmental Specialist, Bois Forte Reservation, Nett Lake, MN An investigation was conducted at a thirty (30) year old solid waste dump site to determine the hydrogeologic con- ditions and the potential to contaminate the Nett Lake community water wells located six hundred (600) feet away. Soil and ground water quality data were col- lected, and the soil stratigraphy was mapped at the site to check for the pres- ence of contamination and determine whether ground water was flowing in the direction of the community water sup- ply. The proximity of the dump to community water wells serving the Nett Lake village made the investigation a Tribal Council priority; the Council wanted to determine the public health risk from this potential source. The project planning and design was achieved at the Tribal level by environ- mental staff, however, an environmental consultant firm and laboratory in north- eastern Minnesota was contracted to do the soil and ground water sampling and analyses using their Geoprobe System and lab services. The environmental consultant also performed the survey- Ing necessary for determining surface and ground water elevations and as- sisted in the interpretation of hydrogeologic data. The Geoprobe system used in the study is a hydraulically-driven probe that collected soil and ground water samples downgradient from the dump where ground water contamination is likely to flow. Soil cores collected at two to four foot intervals down to the ground 16 water table were used for soils mapping and analysis. Ground water samples were collected by lowering a tube inside the probe rods and pumping water out with a vacuum pump. Ground water pa- rameters including temperature, pH, and conductivity were collected in the field, however, other parameters requir- ing special analytical procedures were tested for in the laboratory. Volatile Or- ganic Compounds (VOCs), metals, and nitrates analyses were performed be- cause they are known to cause adverse health effects and are primary indicators of a contamination problem. Elevations of the sampling locations, the depth of the ground water table, and the commu- nity well logs were used for developing a conceptual model of ground water flow in the area surrounding the dump site. The laboratory results for the soil and ground water samples showed no signs of contamination at the project site, however, the hydrogeologic information obtained did provide evidence that ground water from the dump area does flow in the direction of the community wells. One recommendation from the study was to consolidate and cap the waste at the site as a precautionary measure. In conclusion, the EPA funded investigation provided the Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council with impor- tant data on a potential ground water contamination source and was an excel- lent opportunity to educate the public on solid waste and ground water protec- tion issues. Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Floodplain at the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Site in Shiprock, New Mexico Bernadette Tsosie, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology The U.S. Department of Energy's Ura- nium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site at Shiprock, New Mexico, was studied to determine the behavior of the contaminant plume within the un- confined aquifer in the floodplain. To characterize the aquifer, the Institute used geologic data obtained form moni- toring well lithologies, water-level measurements, electrical conductivity (EM), reflection seismic data, and water chemical analysis. Ms. Tsosie explained that lithologies from monitoring well logs and seismic reflection were used to define the floodplain stratigraphy and a paleotopography map. The stratigraphy consisted of alluvial gravels overlying courser outwash gravels that were de- posited an erosional terrace cut into Mancos shale. Paleo-channels were iden- tified by fluctuations in lithology elevations from the monitoring well logs and seismic reflection data. The larger outwash gravels may be a major factor in controlling the water and contaminant flow directions in the floodplain. The outwash gravels contain larger pore space than the alluvium showing the preferential flow pattern in the outwash gravels. Water-level measurements were collected on a monthly basis, to deter- mine the interaction of the flow in the adjoining San Juan River within the floodplain aquifer. Conductivity surveys traversed the floodplain to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of a salt contaminant plume. Electrical con- ductivity indicated the vertical and horizontal extent of the salt contaminant plume, because the conductivity is af- fected by the concentration of SO/ and NO3 salt contaminants in the groundwa- ter. Movement of the contaminant plum was determined from chemical water analysis from existing wells over the last eight years. Comparison of chemical analysis and conductivity readings were used to determine if movement of the plume varied with flows in the San Juan River. Correlation of all four results in- dicated the general direction of groundwater flow and how the lithology influences the groundwater and con- taminant movement within the floodplain. FEDERAL FACILITIES Renee Winn (Moderator), EPA Office of Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Emma Featherman-Sam, Oglala Lakota Nation Mervyn L Tano, Council of Energy Resource Tribes This session discussed the Federal Fa- cilities Environmental Restoration Dialog Committee's final report, which provides a framework for sustaining community involvement for all parties involved in Federal facility cleanup de- cisions. The report also described the Oglala Lakota Nation's Badlands Bomb- ing Range Project (BBRP), the Restoration Advisory Board process of public involvement, and concerns of the Oglala Lakota Nation regarding the ------- cleanup and environmental restoration of the Range. Ms. Emma Featherman-Sam described the BBRP. In 1942, the Department of Defense (DOD) took 2.7 million acres of land from the Oglala Lakota Nation to establish the Aerial Gunnery Range of the Badlands Bombing Range. DOD se- lected this land because of its sparse population, lack of urban areas, consoli- dated ownership under the Department of Interior, and poor economic area (Sh- annon County, South Dakota, is one of the poorest counties in the United States). Pilots who trained here missed their targets, so recent land surveys have found unexploded ordinances and bombing fragments both within and out- side (up to 25 miles from) the boundaries of the Range. After the war, the then-War Department presented these lands for Tribal ownership; the Oglala Lakota Nation purchased 124,000 acres. Beginning in May 1995, the Oglala Lakota has conducted an assessments of past military activities at the Bad- lands. The Tribe has had difficulty with these assessments, as both the military and the South Dakota National Guard have not provided the necessary docu- ments to support the Tribe's research. To help mitigate any further problems, the Tribe conducts cultural training for non-Indians during meetings of the BBRP Restoration Advisory Board. The Tribe is coordinating its field assessments with a separate Rural Supply System project, performed by the Corps of En- gineers, to lay pipes for drinking water in uncleaned areas. Mr. Mervyn Tano discussed the re- cently released "Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee Report," which emphasizes the importance of Restoration Advisory Boards and provides information on funds available to Tribes. He noted that Tribal representation by an association (e.g., the equivalent to State represen- tation by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Of- ficials) is needed to provide collective technical expertise to its members. Mr. Tano spoke about recent efforts by EPA and Congress to judge risk of hazardous waste sites on the basis of population. In the case of the BBRP, the argument that "no one lives there" can be made, resulting in little effort to clean up the area. However, people want to move to the Badlands, and Mr. Tano noted that Indians are the fastest growing segment of the population. Consequently, the Badlands—and similar places—must be cleaned up and made available for people to live. Future land use of prop- erties should be made as an interim, not final, step. Planners should work toward unrestricted use to ensure safety for fu- ture generations, according to Mr. Tano. Currently, Ms. Feathermah-Sam works for the Oglala Lakota Nation as Director for the Badlands Bombing Range Project (BBRP). The Tribe received a grant in May 1995 from the Administration for Native Americans (of the Department of Health and Human Services) to conduct "Mitigation of Department of Defense Activities on Indian Lands." This grant is being implemented by the BBRP. The activities of the BBRP include adminis- tration, historical research, environmental investigations, public in- volvement, seeking of additional funding, the eventual environmental res- toration of the former Badlands Bombing Range (BBR) and return of all remaining lands to the Tribe. Ms. Featherman-Sam presented infor- mation on the history of the former BBR, current activities of the BBR Project, Restoration Advisory Board process of public involvement, and concerns of the Oglala Lakota Nation regarding the even- tual clean-up and environmental restoration of the former Badlands Bombing Range. (TERC), Tribal experience in Minnesota, State of Montana initiatives to support Tribal activities, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe operational TERC. TRIBAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMISSIONS Moderator: LaVonne Johnson - Introduction Panelists: Patrick McMullen - Where to Begin; Glenn Cekus - The Minnesota Tribal Experience; Fred Cowie - State support in MT; Lloyd Jackson - CSKT Operational TERC In 1986, Congress enacted the Emer- gency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as SARA Title HI. The purpose of the Act. is to improve the ability of Tribes/States and local communities to protect pub- lic health and safety and the environment from chemical hazards. Tribes have various options to comply with Title III. This panel discussed the various options, initial processes in- volved in establishing a Tribal Emergency Response Commission TRIBAL CERTIFICATION FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS Margaret Vick, Moderator, Attorney Raymqs Edwards, San Carlos Apache Tribe Utility Authority Tom Crawford, President of the Native American Water Association John Roanhorse, Water Quality Coordinator, ITCA, Inc. This session was a discussion of the de- velopment and administration of the Tribal Water Operator Certification Pro- gram. The Tribal Water Operator Certification Program was developed by the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona 0TCA), Inc. as a cooperative effort with the U.S. EPA, Indian Health Service, and Association of Boards of Certification. In addition, Tribal utilities, the Tribal Op- erator Work Group, and the State of Arizona have acted in an advisory role on the development of policies and rules of the Program. The voluntary program provides an alternative to state and mu- nicipal certification and is specifically for operators working on facilities lo- cated on Tribal lands. The purpose of the program is to develop an environ? mental workforce that protects the public health in the area of safe drink- ing water and the proper collection and treatment of wastewater. There are several benefits of Certifi- cation: • Professional qualified Tribal environ- mental workforce; • Protection of public health; • Cost effectiveness; and • Improved service. NONPOINT SOURCE-319(h>- PROGRAM REQUISITES AND FUNDING Barbara Burkland, EPA Montana Operations Office Debi Madison, Ft. Peck Assiniboine Sioux Tribe DanKusnierz, Manager, Water Resources Program, Penobscot Nation Barbara Burkland explained section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 17 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management which provides financial assistance for the abatement of water pollution caused by nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources of water pollution are multiple, diffuse sources of pollution. Primary nonpoint sources Include runoff from urban areas, farming, mining, and forestry. Pollution carried from nonpoint sources includes sediment, oil and gasoline, agricultural chemicals, nutrients, heavy metals, and toxic substances, as well as bacteria, viruses, and oxygen-demanding com- pounds. Before being able to obtain funding for a nonpoint source program, a Tribe must have an EPA-approved nonpoint source assessment and management plan. Other clean water act funding re- sources can be used to prepare these required reports. Ms. Burkland also described the com- ponents necessary in a Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Plan and how they can be incorporated into other documents, such as an application for Water Quality Standards, a305(b) docu- ment, applications for funding under 106, 104(b)(3), and grants offered by other agencies. Debl Madison explained how she ac- cessed nonpoint source funding, both through the State of Montana's nonpoint source program and through EPA's set aside for Tribes under Section 319. Debi also briefly discussed the two nonpoint source projects she is implementing: a study of nitrate contamination in an aquifer and a wintertime feeding opera- tion for cattle. Dan Kusnierz described how the Penobscot Nation is currently in the pro- cess of doing preparation work needed to qualify for 319 funding. He shared his experience and how they are using 104(b)(3) funding to the assessment and management plan. TRIBAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM — FORMATION/HAZMAT Ralph Smfih (Moderator), U.S. DOE Carlsbad Area Office S/SVB Long Chase, Westinghouse Curtis Wiiams, Mescalero Apache Tribes This presentation described efforts of the Department of Energy's Carlsbad Area Office (DOE-CAO) to forge coopera- tive relationships with Tribal governments regarding the transport 18 across Tribal jurisdictions of radioactive Transuranic (TRU) Waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Panelists discussed DOE-CAO's provision of tech- nical assistance and funds to train public safety officials and other emergency re- sponders of Tribal governments. Mr. Ralph Smith led the discussion by providing an overview of the emergency response planning and training required for the safe transport of TRU waste from throughout the nation to WIPP. A sub- stantial amount of radioactive waste has been generated by 50 years of nuclear weapons production. Among the envi- ronmental problems facing DOE is the need for consolidation and long-term disposal of TRU waste from defense weapons research. TRU waste was des- ignated as a separate radioactive waste category in 1970 by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). TRU waste contains primarily long-lived and man-made ra- dioactive isotopes. The relatively low radiation levels of TRU waste led to its past treatment and storage as low-level waste. In 1970, AEC recognized the need for better isolation of TRU waste from the environment. Thus, WIPP, a DOE project in southeastern New Mexico, is being studied for its suitability as a per- manent waste disposal site. The mitigation and transportation of TRU waste will have a direct impact on States on the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB). Four of the defense facili- ties that generate TRU waste are located in the southern and mid-western re- gions: Argonne National Laboratory Ollinois), Mound Facility (Ohio), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Tennessee), and the Savannah River Site (South Caro- lina). TRU waste from these facilities will be shipped to WIPP. These shipments will travel either by truck or rail through 13 States: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Caro- lina, Tennessee and Texas. Western States will also be impacted by TRU Waste transported from Hanford (Wash- ington), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Idaho), Rocky Flats (Colo- rado), and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California). The attendees at the session raised major concerns about the transport of the TRU waste through Indian Lands. Many wanted DOE to suggest alternative routes. Mr. Steve Long Chase and Mr. Curtis Williams representing the Tribal communities stated that all people are responsible for the transport of nuclear waste. They stressed that DOE wants to work with the Tribes and in no way wants to pose any harm to Tribal envi- ronments. Mr. Williams stressed that he has worked with Mr. Long Chase and DOE to develop an emergency response concept to deal with hazardous waste transportation. Every Tribal member needs to become educated through community outreach on emergency re- sponse planning. DOE currently maintains cooperative agreements with SSEP, Western Governors' Association, and Tribal governments that allow States and Tribes to discuss TRU waste transportation planning and emergency response. PROJECT WET Leo Bird (Moderator), Montana State University Project WET Montana will sponsor and coordinate Project WET and Project WILD-Aquatic workshops for teachers on all seven reservations in Montana during 1996-97. Project WET (Water Edu- cation for Teachers) promotes awareness, appreciation, and knowledge of Montana's water resources by distrib- uting classroom-ready teaching aids to teachers. Project WILD-Aquatic is a supplemental aquatic education pro- gram for teachers that provides activities designed to help students un- derstand aquatic environments. Workshop participants will receive the activity guides at the workshops. Mr. Bird described the program, say- ing that the goal is to provide reservation educators with a solid foun- dation of water-related activities, ideas, and local resource agency and Tribal college contacts to help them promote water education with their students. The program aims to teach kids how to think, not what to think, so they can make re- sponsible decisions about water management in the future. These work- shops will also use local Tribal resource professionals as role models to encour- age Native American students to choose water-related careers. Persons interested in talking to teach- ers and students about careers in water resources or water education should contact Leo Bird at Project WET Mon- ------- tana, (406) 994-6079 or write to 201 Culbertson Hall, Montana State Univer- sity; Bozeman, MT 59717. A statewide network of Native American facilitators has been developed to facilitate work- shops on each reservation, but the program is always looking to add those interested to the network. UST AND RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION BHILienesch (Moderator), EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks Kim Clausen, Oglala Lakota Nation PaulJohnson, Arizona State University This session discussed the under- ground storage tanks (USTs) cleanup problems of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. It also presented the basics of risk and a risk-based corrective action (RBCA) training program being provided nation- wide. Ms. Kim Clausen of the Oglala Sioux Tribe discussed the cleanup of USTs at the Pine Ridge Reservation. One issue is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns many leaking USTs on the Reser- vation. BIA claims it does not have the money for cleanup. The Tribe created its own UST code. The Tribal code in- • eludes fuel oil, even though it is not regulated by EPA, because it is still a con- taminant of concern. The UST sites were cleaned up with grants from several rev- enue programs: the General Assistance Program (GAP); environmental justice; leaking underground storage tanks (LUST); and spill prevention, control, and countermeasure. Dr. Paul Johnson of Arizona State Uni- versity provided an overview of the RBCA training which he conducts na- tionwide. He discussed the historical risk assessment perspective and the development of RBCA. The Tribal issues regarding RBCA are that the number of USTs for the Tribes is smaller compared to the national level. The UST settings are in rural areas. Hence, compliance may not be as high since there are less stringent regulations in the rural than urban areas. USTs tend to impact the drinking water more than in urban com- munities because the Tribes depend on ground water, while metropolitan areas generally do not. Other issues include the limited financial resources of the Tribes to clean up sites and cultural con- cerns (i.e., sacred water bodies that need to be pure or sweet grass and dance areas that cannot be excavated). Dr. Johnson described the current cor- rective action process and how the RBCA process provides regulatory agen- cies and Tribes more flexibility to build their own risk-based guidance. 19 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management 20 ------- Conference Attendees William Ackley 2820 County D, PO Box 91 Lac du Flambeau WI 54538 Barry Adams P.O. Box 2029 Browning MT 59417 IVIdrk Adcirns 300-120th Ave NE, Building 4 BellevueWA 98005 Thomas G. Aitcheson 6300 Stirling Road, Suite 105 Hollywood FL 33024 Larry Alf len P.O. Drawer 989 Zuni NM 87327 Dee A. Allen P n R*W fi7 r.\J. DOX D t Lac du Flambeau WI 54538 Eddie Almond P.O. Box 455 Cherokee NC 28719 Ccirol Aloisio 1600 Clifton Rd, MS E-28 Atlanta GA 30333 Kestutis Ambutas 77 W. Jackson Chicago IL 60604 Timothy L. Amsden 726 Minnesota Ave Kansas City KS 66101 Sam Anderson P.O. Box 194 Laguna NM 87026 Rodges Ankrah 401 M St. SW, 2162 Washington DC 20460 Sammy Annis P.O. Box 1332 Eagle Butte SD 57625 Cecil Antone, ITCA 4205 N 7th Ave, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85013 Stephen Aoyama 12300 Twinbrook Parkway #610 Rockville MD 20852 Don Aragon P.O. Box 217 Fort Washakie WY 82514 Dave Archambeaue P.O. Box D Ft. Yates ND 58538 Naomi Lynn Archuleta • P.O. Box 1099 San Pueblo NM 87566 Leo Ariwite P.O. Box 306 Blackfoot ID 83221 Rod Ariwite P.O. Box 637 Fort Hall ID 83221 Victor Ashenfelter 4201 Tudor Ctre Dr., Suite #210 Anchorage AK 99508 BillAuberle P.O. Box 15600 Flagstaff AZ 86011 Richard Baldes 170 North First Street Lander WY 82520 Stan Baldwin P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall ID 83203 John Banks 6 River Road Old Town ME 04468 Lisa Barnes 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22 102-3838 Valerie Bataille-Ferry 104 Pequot Trail, Box 3202 Mashantucket CT 06339-3202 Jean Belille 2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 200 Boulder CO 80302 Elizabeth Bell 401 M Street, SW (4101) Washington DC 20460 Sylvia W. Bell 12816 Norwood Lane Ft. Washington MD 20744 Pete Berger P.O. Box 2029 Browning MT 59417 Carol Bergquist N-14911 Hannahville Road Wilson MI 49896 Christine E. Berini 105 University Rd Cloquet MN 55820 Bridget Beru P.O. Box 15600 Flagstaff AZ 86011 Eugene Big Soldier Jr. RRl,Box721 Perkins Ok 74059 John Ray Bigmeat P.O. Box 547 Cherokee NC 28719 Leo J. Bird 201 Culbertson Bozeman MT 59717 Richard Black P.O. Box 220 Schurz NV 89427 Robert V.Blatt RR#lBox544 Box Elder MT 59999 Pamela Boaze P.O. Box 241 Whittier nc 28789 Tim Bontrager 200 Research Drive Manhattan ks 66503 Arlene Boss Washington DC 20460 Tracy Padgett Bottjer 5811 Jack Springs Rd Atmore al 36502 Larry Brockman 1200 6th Ave Seattle WA 98107 Claudeo Broncho P.O. Box 570 Fort Hall ID 83203 Annette Bryan 300 Desmond Dr. SE LaceyWA 98503 Perry Bunting HCR67Boxl94 Onamia MN 56359 Art Burbank P.O. Box 365 Lapwai ID 83540 Barbara Abel Burkland 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096 Helena MT 59626 Gary Burns P.O. Box 536 Oakville WA 98568 21 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management Rob Burnslde P.O. Box 638 Pendelton OR 97801 Tony Burrell P.O. Box 837 Sells AZ 85634 Thomas Burton 1280 Terminal Way. Suite #35 Reno NV 89502 John Bushman 200 Independence Ave Washington DC 99999 Henry Butterfly P.O. Box 2029 Browning mt 59417 Conner Byestewa Rtl,Box23-B Parker AZ 85344 Roy Cameron 104 Pequot Trail, Box 3202 Mashantucket CT 06339-3202 Christy Camp 75 Hawthorne St San Francisco CA 94709 Timothy Dean Gantry 3596 Passmore Rd., P.O. Box 11106 Rock Hill SC 29731 James Carpenter 1600 Clifton Rd., MS E-28 Atlanta GA 30333 Georgia Case P.O. Box 278 Pablo MT 59855 Joann Catalano 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22102-3812 Glenn A. Cekus 77 W. Jackson SC-9J Chicago 1L 60604 Phillip Cernera 424 Sherman Ave Suite Courd'Alene ID 83814 Linda Chambers 508 2nd Ave SE Ronan MT 59864 William A. Chantry SOON. Lee Alexandria VA 22314 JudI Chapman Native American Technologies (NATEC) (406) 543-7746 Joseph M. Chavarria P.O. Box 580 Espanola NM 87532 Regis Chavarria P.O. Box 580 Espanola NM 87532 Everett Chavez 401 M St SW Washington DC 20460 Ronald Chicago RtlBox216 Scottsdale AZ 85256 William Clarise 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco CA 94105 Kim Clausen P.O. Box H Pine Ridge SD 57770 Keely Clifford 5305 W 401 MStSW Washington DC 20460 Kerrigan Clough 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver Co 80202-2466 Chance Cole P.O. Box 38 Pablo MT 59855 Doug Cole 1435 N. Orchard St. Boise ID 83706 Michael Connolly 1600 Buckman Springs Rd CampoCA 91906 Margaret Cook 4205 N. 7th Ave., Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 850 13 Woody Corbine 514 Mt. Rushmore Rd. Rapid City^D 57701 Fred Corey P.O. Box 772 Presque Isle ME 04769 Sally Corey 7100 N. Broadway, Suite 76 Denver CO 80221 Elizabeth A. Cotsworth 401 M St. SW (5301) Washington DC 20460 Larry Crane 991 IChula Blvd. Tsuu T'ina AB Sarcee AB Donald W. Creek 811SW6th Portland OR 97204 Cynthia Crist P.O. Box 737 IgnacioC081137 Scott Cromwell P.O. Box 498 Suquamish WA 98392 R. Kim Cunningham P.O. Box 365 Lapwai ID 83540 Julie Curtiss P.O. Box 2946 Window Rock AZ 86515 Rodney L. Danzeisen P.O. Box 25007, D-8610 Denver CO 80225 Elaine Davies 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22102-3838 Gary Davis 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Scott Davis P.O. Box 516 Fort Yates ND 58538 Lisa DeJongh 632 S. 6th Ave. Pocatello ID 83201 Patricia Denham 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver Co 80202 Michael Dennett 14636 N.E. 95th St. Redmond WA 98052 Marcella DeVargas 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver Co 80202 Doug Dixon 401 M. St. SW Washington DC 20460 Max H. Dodson 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Kathy Dolan 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Robert Doore P.O. Box 22 10 Browning MT 59417 22 ------- Carolyn Douglas 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco CA 94105 Kevin Dowell 2125 19th St., Suite 203 Sacramento CA 95818 Tom Downy P.O. Box 549 Siletz OR 97380 Karen Driscoll P.O. Box 498 Suquamish WA 98392 Carlyle Ducheneaux P.O. Box 590 Eagle Butte SD 57625 Charlene R. Dunn 401 M Street, SW (5101) Washington DC 20460 James Dunning P.O. Box 636, 25 N 2nd St. Black River Falls WI54615 Dennis W. Dupuis P.O. Box A Pablo MT 59855 Brian K. Eagleman RR#1 Box 544 Box Elder MT 59999 Raymos Edwards P.O. Box 1330 San Carlos AZ 85550 Clem Egger 345 Courtland St. NE Atlanta GA 30365 Roxanne L. Ellingson P.O. Box 402 SchurzNV 89427 Dave Evans 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22102 David Evans 5404 Gainsborough Dr. Fairfax VA 22032 E. David Evans HC-71 100 Pasigo St. Burns OR 97720 Thomas Evans 4201 Tudor Ctre Drive, Suite #210 Anchorage AK 99508 Garry Farmer 1099 18th St. Suite 1960 Denver CO 80202 Alanna K. Farrow P.O. Box 638 Pendleton OR 97801 . , Emma Featherman-Sam P.O. Box H Pine Ridge SD 57770 John Ferguson 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22102 John Ferguson 401 M St SW (5204G) Washington DC 20460 Charles F. Finan Rt 1 Box 11-FA Plummer ID 83851 David A. Fishbaugh 2110 Overland Ave, Suite 124 Billings MT 59102 Carla Fisher 1200 Sixth Ave OW-130 Seattle WA 98101 James J. Fletcher 11581 Potero Road Banning CA 92220 Kesne Carl Flores P.O. Box 7470 Citrus Heights CA 95621 Larry Flurnoy 5811 Jacksprings Atmore AL 36502 Debroah Flynn P.O. Box 498 Suquamish WA 98392 Curtis Francisco P.O. Box 3256 Albuquerque NM 87190 Virgil Frazier P.O. Box 737 IgnacioCO81137 Kalyn Cherie Free P.O. Box 44378 L'Enfant Plaza Station Washington DC 20251-4292 William French RCAC 2125-19th St Sacramento CA 95818 Stuart W. Fricke P.O. Box 477 GrandviewWA 98930 John Froman P.O. Box 1523 Miami OK Michael Frost P.O. Box 737 IgnacioCO81137 Darlene Punches 77 W. Jackson Blvd G-9J Chicago 1L 60604 Susanne Gabbard 515 6 SE Miami OK 74354 Dennis Gamache 14636 NE 95 Street Redmond WA 98052 Jean Gamache P.O. Box 104432 Anchorage AK 99510 Ted Garcia P.O. Box 3256 Albuquerque NM 87190 Maureen Geary #7 Fourth St., Suite 46 Petaluma CA 94952 Lewis B. George 3596 Passmore Rd., P.O. Box 11106 Rock Hill SC 29731 Darrell Gerlaugh P.O. Box 97 Sacaton AZ 85247 Patrick C. Glenn 4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000 Arlington VA 22203-1804 Beverly Goldblatt 401 M Street SW, 5306W Washington DC 20460 David S. Gomez 401M Street SW, 3903F Washington DC 20460 Robert Gomez P.O. Box 1846 Taos NM 87571 Fred Gonzalez Rt l,Box23-B Parker AZ 85344 Kris Goodwill P.O. Box 209 OneidaWI 54155 Dennis Grams 726 Minnesota Ave. Kansas City KS 66101 Tim Grant Macy NE 68039 23 ------- Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management Tcmpa Graves 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202-2466 Rosalie E. Green 401 M St., SW (5306W) Washington DC 20460 Ansley Griffin MacyNE 68039 Sue Groves P.O. Box 248 Towaoc CO 81334 Walter R. Guggenheimer 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco CA 94105-3901 Scott Gustin 555 Absaraka Sheridan WY 82801 Jennifer Hagen P.O. Box 130 TokelandWA 98590 Dave Haire 480 Whispering Pine Lane Hamilton MT 59860 Matt Hale 401MSt.SW(5303W) Washington DC 20460 Scott Hall P.O. Box 39 UskWA 99180 Libby Halpin-Nelson 7615 Totem Beach Road MarysvilleWA 98271 Jon Hare P.O. Box 536 OakvilleWA 98568 Alan Harlan MacyNE 68039 James Harris P.O. Box 985 17 Las Vegas NV 89193 LaDonna Harris 681 Juniper Hill Road Bernalillo NM 87004 Michael J. Hartnett 345 Courtland St. Atlanta GA 30365 Robin Harwick Las Vegas NV 87701 Jim Havard 401 M Street SW (2378) Washington DC 20460 Earl E. Hawes P.O. Box 11352 YmaAZ 85366 Sharri Hawkins 1 1581 Potrero Road Banning CA 92220 Tom Hayden P.O. Box 536 OakvilleWA 98568 James Heckman HC3 Box 2 New Town ND 58763 Donna Heffner P.O. Box 173 Dayton MT 59914 Judy Hervig 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Elda Hevewah P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall ID 83203 Jennifer Hickman 2221 Rio Grande Blvd NE Albuquerque NM 87104 Mary High P.O. Box 4339 San Felipe Pueblo NM 87001 Libby Hines 5811 Jack Springs Rd Atmore AL 36502 Chris Holm 5344 Lakeshore Drive PO Box 16 Nett Lake NM 55723 Sadie Hoskie 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 John M. Hostak 10013 TrevinoLPNW Albuquerque NM 87114 Ralph Houck 999 18th St. Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Glenda House 2730 San Pedro NE Albuquerque NM 871 10 Steve T. Howdeshell P.O. Box 244 Galeen AK 99741 Connie Howe P.O. Box 159 Crow Agency MT 59022 Kathy Howkumi Rt. 11, Box 208 SanteFeNM 87501 Bernadette Hudnell P.O. Box 6013, Choctaw Branch Philadelphia MS 39350 Joseph Hughart 1600 Clifton Road MS E-28 Atlanta GA 30333 Pat Hurley P.O. Box 117 Pablo MT 59855 Donna Isaac RtlBox216 Scottsdale AZ 85256 Donna Jackson 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver CO 80202 Paul Jackson 4201 Tudor Center, #210 Anchorage AK 99508 Maggy Jacobs 610 E. Bridge Street Redwood Falls MN 56283 Rachel Jacobson P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station DC 20444 Justin James, Jr. P.O. Box 189 Taholah WA 98587 Rebecca Jamison 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco CA 94105 Beth Janello P.O. Box 6008 Bernalillo NM 87004 Lloyd Jesse 1609 Brier Park Road Medicine Hat AB 1 Nancy John P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah OK 74465 Jacey Johns P.O. Box 339 Window Rock AZ 865 15 LaVonne Johnson 401 M Street SW (5101) Washington DC 20460 Rita Jojola-Aydelott P.O. Box 1270 Isleta NM 87022 Bruce Jones P.O. Box 189 Taholah WA 98587 24 ------- George Jones IL Geraldine Jones P.O. Box 529 Fort Defiance AZ 86504 Joseph Juan P.O. Box 837 Sells AZ 85634 David Jumper 6300 Stirling Road Hollywood FL 33024 Robert Jurenka P.O. Box 25007 Denver CO 80225 Judi Kane 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW Suite 506 Washington DC 20007 Meghan Kelly 401MStSW(5102G) Washington DC 20460 Zane Kelly P.O. Box A Pablo MT 59855 Fred Kerpel 345 Courtland Street Atlanta GA 30365 Daniel King P.O. Box 365 OneidaWI 54155 Edward Kisto P.O. Box 837 Sells AZ 85634 Anthony (Sam) Kitto RR2 Box 163 NiobraraNE 68760 Kristine K. Knutson 301 S. Park, DWR 10096 Helena MT 59626 Pete Kompkoff 4201 Tudor Center, #210 Anchorage Ak 99567 Daniel H. Kusnierz 6 River Rd Old Town ME 04468 Genevra Kyle 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean VA 22102-3838 Sandra Lamb 8330 316th Place SE Issaquah WA 98027 Todd Lamkin 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax VA 22031 Dan Landeen P.O. Box 365 Lapwai ID 83540 Ralph Langemeier 726 Minnesota Ave Kansas City KS 66101 David R. LaRoche 401 MStSW (6102) Washington DC 20460 Randy Laskowski 2969 Airport Road Helena MT 59601 Al LaTourette 15624 SE llth St. BellevueWA 98008 Elliot Laws 401 M St. SW (5101) Washington DC 20460 Vivian Lee 2464 Lower Hoh Rd. Forks WA 98331 Christine S. Lehnertz 999 18th St. Denver CO 80202 Flore Lekanof 401 E. Firewood Lane, Suite 201 Anchorage AK 99503 Bill Lienesch 401 M St. SW (5401G) Washington DC 22044 Greg Lind 75 Hawthorne st. San Francisco CA 94105 Jay Littlewolf P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer MT 59043 Gabriela Lombard! 401 M St. SW (2181) Washington DC 20460 John D. Long P.O. Box 647 Cherokee NC 28719 Steve Longchase P.O. Box 2078 Carlsbad NM 88221 Debbie Madison P.O. Box 1027 Poplar MT 59255 Diana J. Malone P.O. Box 3289 Window Rock AZ 86515 Keith Manwell. P.O. Box 507 Dulce NM 87528 Marty Marchaterre 2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 400 Arlington VA 22201 Patricia Mariella P.O. Box 97 Sacaton AZ 85247 Mary Lou Marino 200 Research Drive Manhattan KS 66503 David E. Marshall P.O. Box 278 Pablo MT 59855 Philip Martin P.O. Box 189 TaholahWA 98587 Robert J. Martin 401 M Street, S.W. (5101) Washington DC 20024 Clement Martinez P.O. Box 97 Sacaton AZ 85247 Yvette M. Martinez P.O. Box 6008 Bernalillo NM 87004 Virgil Masayesva P.O. Box 15004 Flagstaff AZ 86011 Joe Massey 1445 Ross Ave Dallas TX 75202 Jim Mathews 401 M St. SW (5101) Washington DC 20460 Monty Matlock P.O. Box 470 Pawnee OK 74058 Jonathan Matthews P.O. Box 365 Lapwai ID 83540 Jeanne Maurrain 224 Hepowiltrace Hillsborough NC 27278 Deborah Maxwell 345 Courtland Street Atlanta GA 30365 Katherine Maxwell P.O. Box 268 Charlestown RI02813 ------- United States Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W) 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 ------- |