United States
                        Environmental Protection
                   Solid Waste And
                   Emergency Response
           November 1996
                                                           TRIBAL  CONFERENCE  ON
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

  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)

Jim Mathews (Introduction), EPA/Office of Solid Waste
   and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Mike Connolly (Keynote), Campo Band of Kumeyaay

   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-

Developing Cooperative
Agreements for Solid Waste

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
 • Federal and State environmental poli-
  cies, as yet, have not addressed Tribal
  compliance regarding landfill clo-
 • Sharing limited resources across pro-
  grams and between parties helps
  stretch these resources.
 • Establishing a professional commit-
  ment  today will help plan  for
  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
 • 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

 • 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
 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

  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

Planning for the Future: Solid
Waste Management Alternatives

Cecil Antone (Co-Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of
Nancy Oien (Co-Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of
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

   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
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-
  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-
  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;

• 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.
Moderator - Deb Madison, Fort Peck Tribes
Michael P. Vogel, Director of the Montana State
  University Extension Service Pollution Prevention
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

  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

  •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
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

  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.
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
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.
Alberta Tippeconnic (Moderator), Inter Tribal Council of
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
  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.

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
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

                                       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
  •  42 USC §7474 [CM §164], Air quality
     redesignation for Indian Reservations and
     resolution of State/Tribal disputes.
  •  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
  •  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.
   •  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
   •  50 Federal Register 64,339 (December 14,
     1994) Final Rule, "Indian Tribes, Eligibility for
   Statutory Treatment of Tribes
   •  42USC§4368b
   •  40CFR§35SubpartQ
   •  58 Federal Register 63,876, "Indian Tribes:
     General Assistance Grants for Environmental
  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.
  •  40 CFR Part 124, Procedures for  ,
     Decisionmaking, Tribe with TAS defined as a
  •  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
  •  42 USC §11049(9) [EPCRA §329(5)], Definition
     of. State includes,".., any other territory or
  .   possession over which the United States has
  •  40 CFR Part 355, Makes EPCRA applicable to
  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.
  •  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.
   •  40 CFR §171.10(a), Tribal Certification
   •  "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
   •  15 USC §2602(13) fJSCA §3(13)], Definition
      of State includes"... any other territory or
      possession of the United States."
   •  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
   •  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.
   •  61 Federal Register 2583, Proposed Rule:  •
   :   State/Tribal Permit Program Adequacy
      Determination: Municipal Solid Waste
   "•  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
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.
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
s, »• JLJWA "•"**
Program Activities
• Notification and
Response Plan
• Response Coverage:
Tribal Coalition
• Outreach/Education:
Awareness training
'\*~ _ „ »'>,. / "" -^- ^V JJ^MiAi
• EPA coordination, indirectly through Tribal
• EPA General Assistance Program (GAP)
• EPA Emergency Planning Grant through
• 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
• Moderate to limited
Program Activities
TERC/LEPC Formation
Emergency Response Plan
Hazards Analysis
Awareness Training
Response Coverage:
• Direct EPA coordination
• EPA Emergency Planning and GAP
• 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^ /- ' ^", . '
• Direct EPA coordination
• Core/PASI and other
Superfund cooperative
• 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-
 •  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-
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.
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
 Jim Fletcher (Moderator), Chair, Tribal Operations
 John Banks, Vke Chair, Tribal Operations Committee
 Tany Williams, EPA American Indian Environmental
 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
   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
 • Strategic planning and budget recom-
 • 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.
 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

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.
LaDonna Harris (Moderator), Americans for Indian
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-
   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
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

  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.
 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.

 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
   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.
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.

 Maureen Ross (Moderator), EPA Grants Administration
   Division (GAD)
 Elizabeth Bell, EPA American Indian Environmental
 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-
 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

   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-

  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

  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
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

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

  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-
• 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

  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

• 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-

• Identifying areas in which EPA will
  plan for and carry out direct imple-

• 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-
  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
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-

   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

 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-
   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

 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-
 • Development and implementation of
  an open burning ordinance and per-
  mit program;
 • Title V permitting program feasibility
 • Use of memoranda of agreement and
  cooperative work programs;
 • Operation of an air quality program;
   Training available to Tribes through
   the Indian Training Program at North-
   ern Arizona University.
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

  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

  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.
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

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.                    .•>    ?
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
   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-
 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

 Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management
 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
 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
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
  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
 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
Margaret Vick, Moderator, Attorney
Raymqs Edwards, San Carlos Apache Tribe Utility
Tom Crawford, President of the Native American Water
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-
•  Professional qualified Tribal environ-
   mental workforce;

•  Protection of public health;

•  Cost effectiveness; and

•  Improved service.
 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),

 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-
   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.
Ralph Smfih (Moderator), U.S. DOE Carlsbad Area
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
 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
 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.
 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-
   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.

 Third National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management


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
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.
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
Portland OR 97204
Cynthia Crist
P.O. Box 737
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

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

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

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

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
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
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

George Jones

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
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
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5305W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use