FINAL REPORT
TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
IN
GREA r I. \kMS DECISION-M \KI\G
ISSUES, I'k INCIPLES, AND POLICIES
June 1996
EPA
( iH)|HT;l! n r \ _'[(. i !!H 111
No. GL99535" U!!)
-------
TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
IN
GREAT LAKES DECISION-MAKING:
ISSUES, PRINCIPLES, AND POLICIES
FINAL REPORT
ORE A T LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
under Cooperative Agreement No. GL995357-OJ-0
with
GREA T LAKES NA TIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
June, 1996
David J. Siegler James A. Wojcik
A ttorney at Law Environmental Biologist
-------
GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
P. O. Box 9 Odanah. WI 54861 . 715/682-6619 FAX 715/682-9294
MICHIGAN
Bay Mills Community
Keweenaw Bay Community
Lac Vieux Desert Band
MEMBER TRIBES
WISCONSIN
Bad River Band
Lac Courte Oreilles Band
Lac du Flambeau Band
Red Cliff Band
St. Croix Chippewa
Sokaogon Chippewa
MINNESOTA
Fond du Lac Band
Mllle Lacs Band
June 21, 1996
Mr. Gary Gulezian, Acting Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Re: Cooperative Agreement No. GL995357-01-0
Dear Mr. Gulezian:
Enclosed please find the Final Report in the above-referenced project. This Report
summarizes issues, principles, and policies for tribal involvement in Great Lakes decision
making, as identified by the Great Lakes Basin tribes that participated in our study. Under
separate cover we are sending additional copies of the Report to Mark Elster for distribution.
The Report should be cause for hope, cause for concern, and cause for action: hope,
because it reveals a reservoir of tribal concern for the protection and rehabilitation of the Great
Lakes ecosystem; concern, because it shows that not enough has been done to facilitate the
expression of that concern through tribal involvement in Great Lakes policy making; and action,
because the report concludes with recommendations of specific policies and actions for bringing
tribes fully into the decision making process.
As the Report states, equitable treatment for tribes in such matters as decision making and
funding should be of concern not just for tribal advocates, but for advocates of the Great Lakes
ecosystem, for only with such treatment can tribes afford to focus directly on the environmental
issues involved, to the benefit of all.
Every tribe involved in this study has reviewed this Report. The Report represents the
concerns and recommendations of the participating tribes. Each tribe does, however, reserve the
right to take exception to any particular item. Or to supplement the discussion in whatever way it
deems fit.
-------
Mr. Gary Gulezian
June 21, 1996
Page 2
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission is pleased to have been of service
in completing this important project. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you
and your staff implementation of the recommendations we have made, and will be in touch with
Mark Elster on this point.
In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or
comments about the enclosed.
Sincerely,
ies H. Schlender
Executive Administrator
Enclosure
-------
TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT IN GREAT LAKES DECISION-MAKING:
ISSUES, PRINCIPLES, AND POLICIES
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Summary of findings
Great Lakes Basin environmental initiatives have to a large extent based their claims to
legitimacy and effectiveness on their inclusion of all governments - and sometimes their
inclusion of significant non-governmental interests - in the process. To the extent tribes
are excluded from the process - by deliberate decision, by informal barriers, or by lack of
financial support - both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the process is undermined.
This study has produced no easy answers for EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
or any other federal or state agency seeking ways to meet the reciprocal demands of the
tribes for improved involvement in the process and the demands of the process for
improved involvement of the tribes. To be sure, some of the action implications noted in
this Report, such as those dealing with education and information needs, are readily
understandable and should be readily implemented. But others, such as the issues of
equitable funding and support for tribal involvement, are less specific and will require
further outreach from the agencies to the tribes.
The proper format for tribal representation on policy-making bodies has been one of the
more important topics addressed by this study. Tribes must always have the option of
direct, individual representation on such bodies, to the same extent as enjoyed by the
states. But tribes must also be able to delegate to duly constituted intertribal organizations
such representational functions as they deem fit. When their welfare has required it, or
when practical, financial, or judicial demands have called for it, tribes have in the past
organized themselves around communities of interest. It is reasonable to suppose that
tribes may do the same, as a means of addressing Great Lakes environmental planning
issues, but only when such arrangements meet their needs.
Having been treated so inequitably in the past, tribes are keenly aware of equity issues
today. Representational and funding schemes that treat tribes differently from other
governments will only cause tribes to view the process as an issue of rights. Treated
equitably, tribes can afford to focus directly on the environmental issues involved.
Equitable treatment for tribes should therefore be not only a goal for tribal advocates, but
also for advocates of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Background
State, federal, and binational programs and working groups have proliferated over recent
years, all of which make policy decisions affecting the Great Lakes ecosystem. Some of
these decision-making processes are as relatively well-known and as formally organized as
the Lakewide Management Planning groups. "Others are lesTvisible^ndlnofe: informal.
Tribes, concerned thai trirJal issues'and perspectives should be incorporated in these
decisions, have sought entry into these processes. Despite some instances of success,
tribes' dissatisfaction with their involvement in these processes remains widespread.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has also recognized that the legitimacy of these environmental
planning processes requires meaningful tribal participation. Accordingly, GLNPO
contracted with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) to assist
Great Lakes Basin tribes in identifying the conditions for such participation.
Project methodology
Tribal interviews formed the heart of the project. In preparation for the interviews,
GLIFWC prepared a situation analysis entitled, "Tribal Involvement in Great Lakes
Decision-Making: Background and Principles," an attempt to summarize current Great
Lakes protection efforts, and to identify, on a preliminary basis, possible tribal interests
and avenues of participation. The paper was distributed to all tribes within the United
States portion of the Great Lakes Basin, and provided a common foundation for
understanding the issues facing the tribes.
Interviews followed. Using a structured interview format, GLIFWC researchers
attempted to ascertain each tribe's level of involvement in Great Lakes environmental
policy-making activities, the tribe's satisfaction with that level of involvement, and the
tribe's suggestions for improving that involvement. In order to place these "process"
concerns of the tribes in perspective, the interview also sought to identify the tribes'
substantive environmental concerns.
GLIFWC researchers met with representatives from nearly all of the tribes in the Basin,
and with representatives from properly delegated intertribal organizations. While
GLIFWC expressed an interest in meeting with as wide a range of personnel as possible,
the composition of the panels that met with GLIFWC was left up to each tribe. At
different tribes the interviews were conducted with different arrays of interviewees: tribal
councils; tribal chairs; natural resource committees; biological, planning, development, and
legal staff; and others.
Page - 2
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
A summary of each tribal interview was prepared and supplied to the tribe for comment
and correction. This Final Report is based on the summaries of the tribal interviews as
approved by the tribal representatives.
GLIFWC next convened a series of telephone conference calls among participating tribes
and intertribal organizations to discuss the issues, principles, policies, and action
implications identified in an earlier draft of this paper. This paper incorporates the
comments made during the conference calls.
This Report, which has been subject to lengthy review by the participating tribes, is the
end result of this project. It contains a statement of principles, policies, and action
implications, addressed to EPA, other federal agencies, and the states, detailing the means
by which the Great Lakes tribes believe they should participate in Great Lakes
environmental decision-making. Implementation of these principles, policies, and actions
may be neither automatic nor immediate, but at minimum this paper represents a plan of
action for achieving appropriate tribal policy involvement in Great Lakes environmental
decision making.
This paper has three main sections:
Section I summarizes the survey results. First there is a review of specific
environmental issues raised by the tribes. Then there is a summary of tribal comment
on five issues related to tribal participation in the decision-making process .
Section II proposes a set of six principles on which to found an approach to tribal
participation in Great Lakes decision-making.
Section III proposes 15 policies, and related action implications, based on the issues
discussed in Section I and the principles identified in Section II.
Participants
Between June, 1995 and February, 1996, researchers from the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission visited nearly every Tribe on the United States side of the Great
Lakes Basin. The Tribes visited were:
Bad River Chippewa Menominee Nation
Bay Mills Chippewa Oneida Nation/New York
Fond du Lac Chippewa Oneida Nation/Wisconsin
Forest County Potawatomi Pokagon Band of Potawatomi
Grand Portage Chippewa Red Cliff Chippewa
Grand Traverse Band of Saginaw Chippewa
Chippewa and Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa
Page - 3
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Hannahville Potawatomi Seneca Nation
Keweenaw Bay Chippewa Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Chippewa
Lac Vieux Desert Chippewa Stockbridge-Munsee
Little River Ottawa
Little Traverse Odawa
Combined, these tribes have reservations or reserved ceded territory rights in the
watersheds of all five of the Great Lakes. Their reservations are found in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York. The Onondaga, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Tonawanda
Seneca, and Cayuga tribes, in New York State, elected not to participate in this project,
and were the only Basin tribes not visited.
In addition, representatives of the following intertribal organizations from the region
participated in interviews:
Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority (COTFMA)
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
1854 Authority
Michigan Intertribal Council (MITC)
Information was also gathered on possible models for shared resource management,
representation, or information sharing from tribal representatives to the following
organizations:
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Pacific Salmon Commission
/. SURVEY SUMMARY
Environmental Interests and Problems of Great Lakes Tribes
In order to give context to the tribe's experiences and recommendations for involvement in
the process of Great Lakes environmental policy-making, the survey also probed the
tribes' substantive environmental concerns. A detailed review of those concerns is beyond
the scope of this summary. Instead, this summary seeks simply to identify those aspects of
the tribes' concerns that may be helpful in determining appropriate means for tribal
involvement in policy-making. Please see Appendix 1 for a complete quantitative review
of the survey results.
A number of assumptions underlie the tribes' concerns. For the tribes, the natural
resources of the Great Lakes must be protected and preserved for their own merit and also
for the people that rely on them. Tribal lifeways depend upon clean and healthy natural
Page - 4
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
resources for cultural, sustenance, and economic purposes. From this perspective, actions
that affect natural resources must be judged by their impact seven generation hence.
A wide variety of concerns unites most tribes in the Great Lakes basin: drinking water
quality, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment, and underground storage tanks. Most of
these issues are on the environmental agendas of most tribes, to some extent.
While many concerns are held in common by many tribes, some concerns are shared by
only smaller numbers of tribes. And although it is hard to find concerns that are unique to
one tribe, it is not at all uncommon to find a wide variation in the relative levels of
importance assigned by different tribes to particular issues. Geography, economics,
demographics, and history all contribute to the different interests, concerns, and
perspectives of the different tribes throughout the region.
Large and small reservations
Some tribes have very large reservations, such as the Menominees' 235,000 acre land base;
some tribes have very small ones; some tribes have no reservation at all. Tribes with
smaller reservations see themselves as more dependent on the quality of the off-
reservation environment, while at the same time feeling more acutely the need to balance
demands for housing and economic development with the need to preserve relatively
scarce - and that much more precious - on-reservation natural resources. Tribes with
larger reservations are no less vulnerable to the effects of off-reservation environmental
practices on their reservation resources.
Urban and rural settings
Some tribes are located near current, planned, or historically urban or industrial sites.
These tribes can readily identify local sources of air or water pollution and land use
disturbance and have often identified localized toxic and habitat threats. They have
sometimes become involved in attempts to remediate these local situations, or to prevent
new development from occurring in an environmentally destructive way.
Reservations are also found in agricultural areas. Tribes in these areas are concerned
about the effect of non-point source pollution from agricultural run-off, and also about
wetland conversion and aquifer depletion. Tribes in these areas, as in other areas, are
concerned about loss of habitat and loss of native plant and animal species.
Reservations that are more characterized by natural features such as forests, wetlands,
rivers, lakes, and lakeshore, are often concerned about wildlife and fishery health and
habitat. Concern about local issues, such as land use changes, forestry practices, and
mineral extraction, is often joined by interest in regional issues such as the introduction of
Page - 5
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
exotic species, acid rain, chemical use, mercury and PCB deposition. Tribal views of
appropriate use of wilderness resources may conflict with those of others.
Upstream and downstream
Tribes where commercial fishing is an important part of local culture and history tend to
see many environmental issues through the lens of the fishery. Development and dredging
can both result in loss of spawning habitat. Exotic species pose a chronic threat to an
important sector of the tribal economy. For these tribes, the problem of mercury and
other toxic pollution is complex, the tribes have an interest in seeing that fish advisories
adequately alert the public, including their members (who often will consume more fish
than other population groups), but they do not want advisories to overstate the risk offish
consumption, reducing demand for their product. They want an increased emphasis on
pollution prevention and on remediation, to remove the causes for advisories in the first
place.
While the commercial fishing tribes are on the shores of the Great Lakes themselves, other
tribes are at the other end of the watershed, with reservations at the headwaters or along
the rivers that feed the Great Lakes. These tribes often straddle the divide between the
Great Lakes and other watersheds. These tribes see themselves as being not so much
affected by the environmental activities of others in the watershed and beyond, except by
air deposition, as they see themselves and their neighbors as having the potential to affect,
for better or worse, the environmental health of the downstream environment.
Reservations and ceded territories
Some tribes possess reservations not only of land, but also of hunting, fishing, and
gathering rights on other lands once owned by the tribes and ceded by treaty to the United
States. In the Great Lakes Basin, tribes possess adjudicated ceded territory rights in much
of the waters of Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan, and in large tracts of Minnesota,
Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Tribes whose land reservations are in the watershed of one Great Lake may possess ceded
territory rights in the watershed of another Lake, and tribes whose land reservations are
not in the Great Lakes basin at all may possess rights in the watersheds of one or more
Great Lakes. These tribes may exercise hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in these
ceded areas and may therefore be keenly interested in environmental issues in these areas.
Often these tribes may have delegated responsibility for looking after ceded territory
environmental issues to intertribal organizations, such as GLIFWC, COTFMA, and the
1854 Authority.
Page - 6
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Change
One characteristic that is common to all tribal environmental agendas is that they are all
subject to change. Certain themes may persist, but specific problems may be resolved, and
other problems may arise. Priorities may change. New interests may develop. Old issues,
once thought resolved, may reappear.
It is in this context of commonality and diversity, stability and flux, that principles and
policies for tribal involvement in Great Lakes decision-making must be formulated. The
remainder of this summary is organized by five issues that were raised by the tribes during
the interviews. These issues suggest the principles that follow in the Section II, and the
policies and action implications that are found in Section HI.
Issue 1; The importance of involvement in Great Lakes policy-making processes
A large number of tribes rank involvement in Great Lakes environmental policy-making as
a high priority. A significant number of tribes rank such involvement as a low or medium
priority. The division is not always based on proximity to a Great Lake or usage of the
Lakes' resources.
Certain tribes see a clear relationship between current environmental policy-making
processes and their own immediate interests such as fishing, toxics control, and human
health. These include some of the tribes located on the Lakes themselves, and actively
engaged in natural resource usage. Other tribes, who rank the need for involvement
equally high, are near the Lakes but see only a potential future benefit from tribal policy
involvement. Some tribes have a reservation in the basin of one Great Lake, but have
members living or using natural resources in the basin of another Lake, and are therefore
concerned about both. Still other tribes, within the watershed but located some distance
from the nearest Great Lake, believe involvement is important because of the
interrelationship of all parts of the ecosystem, because of the effect the tribe itself might
have on the ecosystem, because they believe they have expertise in certain environmental
areas that they should share with other tribes, and because concern for the ecosystem is
simply a moral imperative.
Even while acknowledging that on-reservation concerns or on-the-ground projects may
make compelling demands on a tribe's attention, many of these tribes reject any supposed
inconsistency between an interest in these concerns and projects on the one hand and
involvement in long-term policy-making on the other. These tribes believe that short-term
projects are important for specific purposes, but that their long-term interests will be
disadvantaged if they are not in a position to influence policy formation.
Other tribes rank their interest as low or medium. Some of these tribes are some distance
from the Lakes themselves, and do not primarily think of themselves as Great Lakes tribes.
Page - 7
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
These tribes believe it is important to support other tribes who do wish active involvement
in policy-making, but do not wish that role for themselves. Other tribes are well aware of
the importance of long-term environmental policy-making, but are engaged in other
environmental projects which they deem a higher priority, and believe will have a more
immediate and direct impact on environmental health. Many tribes find local, on-
reservation environmental problems to demand the greatest attention, and have difficulty
seeing how time could ever be made to attend to larger, less immediate concerns.
Some tribes doubt the value of the policy-making process itself. They doubt whether the
United States and Canada have the political will to take decisive action on virtual
elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxins, control of acid rain, and other
economically-charged issues. Vital decisions affecting the environmental health of the
Basin are made outside the Basin and beyond the control of the Basin governments, state,
provincial, or tribal Others find the process so opaque, self-duplicating, and contradictory
that they wonder if anything of value can really be accomplished.
According to knowledgeable commentators, the tribes in New York State with whom the
researchers did not meet believe that current formats for involvement with federal agencies
pose a risk to tribal sovereignty.
At least one tribe believes that the whole issue of tribal involvement misses the point: it is
the responsibility of the federal government, not the tribes, to protect the natural resources
and the tribes' interest in them. The other tribes that assert a tribal role in the process
share the position that the federal government nevertheless retains a trust responsibility for
the protection of tribal interests and resources.
Issue 2: Education and information needs
Dissatisfaction with the quality of information received about Great Lakes environmental
programs, and the ability of tribes to absorb the information that is received, is widespread
throughout the Basin. The reasons for dissatisfaction vary widely: many tribes receive
too little information; some tribes receive too much information and in a form that is not
readily usable.
Underlying the need for tribes to receive appropriate information is the need for tribes to
develop a basic understanding of the issues and processes involved in Great Lakes
environmental policy-making. Environmental agencies and activists have created a
community and language that is difficult to break into without orientation and support.
Assuming that a level of basic understanding can be achieved and maintained, the
provision of information on continuing developments remains an issue. Some tribes
receive most of their information through intertribal organizations such as COTFMA,
GLIFWC, or the 1854 Authority. For some tribes, who appreciate the summaries and
Page - 8
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
analysis that these organizations often provide, this is the preferred routing. Other tribes
would like to receive information directly, or would like at least to be asked whether they
want their information directed to an intertribal agent.
Tribes that complain of receiving too much information note their lack of staff to digest
the information, the lack of clarity in the information that is sent, and the indiscriminate
types of material that are received.
Information that is received is often not timely: meetings are scheduled or comments are
requested within too short a time-frame to allow tribal participation.
All information that is sent is often routed to the tribal chair, from whose office the
information must be redistributed to appropriate staff.
The tribes lack well-developed staff contacts with EPA and other agencies that influence
Great Lakes policy-making. Without close staff contacts, information is restricted to
formal written communiques. The personal contacts that make interagency
communication timely, meaningful, and conducive to interagency cooperation are missing.
Issue 3; Financial constraints
Nearly every tribe in the Great Lakes Basin needs more financial resources if it is to be
involved in Great Lakes policy-making. Tribes need to be able to devote more time to
Great Lakes issues; additional time requires additional staff; additional staff requires
additional money. For most tribes, assigning staff time to follow Great Lakes issues is not
simply a matter of resetting priorities; most tribal staff time is already committed to other
activities through contracts with the agencies that fund the positions.
At a minimum, tribes need travel money to support existing staffer tribal council member
attendance at meetings. But most tribes realize that without continuous staff time
dedicated to following issues, participating in projects, digesting information, and
presenting policy options to tribal policy makers, mere attendance at meetings will do little
to increase tribal influence in Basin policy formation. In order to be true participants at
the table, tribes need to bring technical or policy expertise and involvement to the
activities that go on away from the table.
Some tribes, satisfied with the services their intertribal organizations are performing, still
would prefer to have the resources to analyze information in-house and represent
themselves on various bodies. Other tribes would be satisfied if their intertribal
organization received more support in order to do a more complete job.
Tribes assess their staff needs differently. In order to adequately participate in policy
organizations, some tribes believe a full-time staff person, and support, at each tribe is
Page - 9
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
necessary; some believe an additional half-time position would do; some feel that one
intertribal staff person per Lake would be sufficient, if funds for part-time tribal
involvement and support costs were also available.
Issue 4: Tribal recognition and representation
Nearly all tribes report problems either with formal recognition or informal recognition in
various Great Lake environmental activities.
Some tribes report no problems at all with formal recognition as governments with
governmental interests in the Great Lakes ecosystem. These tribes generally bring
technical expertise with them to the table, and are actively involved in technical aspects of
Great Lakes protection. These tribes often share the characteristics of being located
directly on a Great Lake or of having judicially recognized off-reservation hunting and
fishing rights throughout large tracts of land or water. Still, these tribes recognize the
continued need to develop and assertively present well-organized, thoughtful positions.
Other tribes, some quite large and active, report no recognition of their governmental
standing, despite known interests in important Basin issues. These tribes are often -
although not always - removed from the immediate shoreline of any Great Lake. These
tribes report that non-governmental "stakeholders" often seem to receive greater
recognition than the tribes.
The tribes in Michigan which have been recently recognized by the federal government
have a special problem. While formally recognized by Congress and the President, and
while generally sharing good relations with their local neighbors, practical recognition by
federal and state agencies is slow in coming, despite, in some cases, significant interest and
early involvement in environmental issues affecting the Great Lakes.
Throughout the Basin, LaMP and RAP recognition is uneven, as is reported receipt of
GLNPO requests for proposals. Tribes almost uniformly fail to receive information on
toxics programs. One tribe notes that it is one thing not to have time for involvement in a
project and to turn down an invitation to participate; it is quite another not to be asked at
all.
Even those tribes that report no problems with formal recognition often report informal
barriers to full participation. Decisions sometimes appear fore-ordained with vigorous
debate of the issues often lacking. An informally-imposed outsider status limits tribal
involvement to reacting to an agenda rather than helping to set the agenda. Tribes need
ownership of the process, not passive meeting attendance. When there is only one tribal
representative- and more particularly, when there is only one tribal representative who is
Indian- the tribal position can easily be isolated and silenced.
Page -10
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Tribes need to identify a source of leverage if their involvement is to matter. Technical
expertise, credibility, and a willingness to participate in committee work does, however,
seem to confer some authority on tribes. The ability of tribes to affect the environment,
either through their own direct actions or through their regulatory initiatives, also provides
a reason for other governments to reckon with tribes.
Tribal representation on policy-making bodies must take into account differences in tribal
thinking. Tribes are alike in one regard: they are consistently impatient with the common
fallacy among federal and state officials that all tribes are alike.
Tribes observe that representation is a separate issue from funding. While the tribes may
require federal funding to fully participate in various bodies, the right of tribes to
participate should be affirmed independent of the ability or willingness of the federal
government to provide such funding.
One tribe cautioned that any prescription for tribal involvement arising from this study
must not be geared solely to current structures and processes, but must anticipate future
developments as well.
Issue 5; The role of intertribal organizations
The role of intertribal organizations in tribal Great Lakes policy participation is potentially
the most contentious of the issues raised by this study. Federal and state agencies have
made no secret of their preference that tribes somehow be collectively represented at the
various tables where policy is formulated. Tribes have viewed this preference as an affront
to tribal sovereignty, and as fundamentally unfair, in that only they and no other
governments are asked to delegate their representation to someone else. Even putting
fairness issues aside, the collectivization of tribal representation runs counter to important
internal values of many Great Lakes environmental programs: decentralization, and an
emphasis on places over programs.
Some tribes have already delegated various aspects of their environmental activities in the
Great Lakes to intertribal organizations. COTFMA, GLBFWC, and the 1854 Authority
receive, analyze, and disseminate information for their member tribes, and represent their
member tribes at meetings dealing with such things as LaMPs and toxic initiatives. They
also participate in technical work, and provide comments to agencies on draft documents,
such as those coming from the Binational Program and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative. None of these activities by the intertribal organizations precludes direct tribal
involvement if a tribe so desires.
Tribes that have had the benefit of this type of intertribal assistance are generally in favor
of it. Tribes with small or over-utilized on-reservation environmental staffs report that
they prefer receiving materials that have already been digested and analyzed by intertribal
Page -11
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
staff. They appreciate the ability to send someone else to meetings who can report back
the highlights, and the policy decisions that have to be made, without having to invest
large amounts of time in attending the meetings themselves.
Tribes that do not belong to COTFMA, GLEFWC, or 1854 but that have taken part in
other intertribal ventures, also identify some intertribal role in Great Lakes policy-making
as beneficial.
Still, the ability of the intertribals, as currently formulated and staffed, to represent tribal
Great Lakes environmental interests is limited. COTFMA limits its activities to those that
have an impact on its primary concern, the fishery. GLBFWC's charge is somewhat
broader, but it too can only deal with issues in which the tribes share a common interest
and which are related to tribal off-reservation rights. Neither organization is authorized to
represent on-reservation issues on behalf of its member tribes, and no member tribe
indicated that an expansion of the intertribal's charge to encompass such authority would
be appropriate.
Many tribes expressed concern about delegating too much representative authority to an
intertribal organization. Tribes are seen as having too many conflicting or dissimilar
interests to be adequately represented by an intertribal organization. Intertribal
organizations have built-in political processes that distort individual tribal positions and
that can result in the sacrifice of local issues and issues that are important to smaller tribes
to regional issues and issues that are important to larger tribes. While sometimes
intertribal organizations provide technical assistance to individual tribes on reservation-
based projects, tribes commonly hold the position that on-reservation policy issues are
rarely appropriately delegated to an intertribal body.
Other tribes strongly endorsed the need for an intertribal role, within certain well-defined
limits. At minimum, tribes need to network and learn from the experiences of other tribes
in dealing with particular issues. Moreover, broad environmental problems usually require
a broad-based response. For the very reason that tribes have different viewpoints on
issues, tribes need to come together and find a mutually acceptable path so that they are
not divided and defeated.
This same message is underscored by the experience of tribal representatives to the Pacific
Salmon Commission and its regional boards, which set fishing regimens in the Pacific
Northwest. Tribes are recognized as full participants in PSC business, but are obliged to
select one or two representatives from among many tribes. The Northwest tribes have
come to believe that unanimity is all-important to their success: if they splinter, they lose.
Tribes supporting intertribal involvement do so conditionally. They believe that it is
important for tribes to come together to serve the tribes' purposes, not to satisfy the
convenience of other agencies. Thus information analysis and dissemination, technical
Page -12
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
assistance, mutual development of policy positions, and joint representation of issues on
which consensus has been reached, are all areas of involvement in which an intertribal
organization can be useful. Individual tribes must always, however, retain the right to
directly participate and to represent themselves, whenever they feel that their individual
views on an issue need to be advanced, and must always reserve the right to directly
receive information from agencies that might otherwise go to the intertribal. (See, for
instance the correspondence between Chairman Robert Peacock of the Fond du Lac Band
and James Schlender of GLIFWC, addressing the need to balance tribal and intertribal
tasks, attached to this report as Appendix 2.)
One tribe pointed out that this is indeed the way GLIFWC and its member tribes deal with
environmental issues that are within the scope of GLIFWC's charge: GLIFWC staff
research an issue, the GLIFWC board or one of its constituent committees discusses the
issue and achieves consensus, and a GLIFWC position is forwarded to the appropriate
agency. Meanwhile, individual tribes submit their own positions whenever they feel that a
particular tribal interest needs emphasis.
Certain characteristics of successful intertribal involvement have been identified by Great
Lakes Basin tribes, intertribal organizations, and tribal participants in the PSC and the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. These characteristics involve the nature of the issues to
be addressed intertribally, the qualities of the intertribal organization that is utilized, and
the decision-making processes of the body in which the intertribal will be participating.
A commonality of interest among the tribes is a prerequisite for intertribal involvement in
an issue. There may not be a common position among the tribes, at least at the outset, but
the tribes must at least determine that it is in their interest to develop a common position
before the intertribal can act. Common interests may often, but not always, be matters of
off-reservation regional importance. A tribe may not care to involve an intertribal
organization in a strictly local matter, or the tribes as a whole may not wish to expend
intertribal resources on a strictly local matter.
On the other hand, local matters can have regional implications, such as when a mine,
incinerator, or nuclear facility is proposed for a specific site, but may affect air or water
quality over a large area. Local issues may also be repeated at numerous locales. For
instance, leaking underground storage tanks are each located at a particular site, but the
problems they cause and the remedies they require are fairly common. Circumstances
such as these may call for united tribal action even though the problems are, strictly
speaking, on-reservation ones.
Certain qualities of the intertribal organization seem to be important in facilitating
successful intertribal cooperation. The intertribal effort must be institutional,
representative, and accountable. In other words, the effort must be housed in an
organization that can provide continuity and can lend technical, policy, and logistical
Page-13
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
support; the organization must be duly constituted by its member tribes' governing bodies;
and the organization must be obliged to regularly report back to, and receive direction
from, representatives of its member tribes.
If the organization does not rely solely on staff to represent tribal positions, but also
depends on tribal representatives to represent those positions, the intertribal should be able
to give sufficient support to allow those representatives the time to be thoroughly familiar
with the issues and the process. The intertribal organizations that support tribal
involvement in the PSC process have highly qualified technical and policy staffs, and use
them to extensively analyze and strategize situations with the tribal representatives.
The processes by which decisions are made by the policy body in which the intertribal is
participating will also determine the success of the intertribal. GLIFWC and COTFMA
both represent their member tribes on the Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, an organization which in 1980 took the lead in developing an integrated
ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the Great Lakes. Both the intertribal
organizations and their member tribes report satisfaction with the quality of tribal
involvement in the GLFC.
While only the intertribal organizations are the formal members of the GLFC Lake
Committees, tribal staff are welcome to participate in discussions and in technical work.
The function and structure of the organization are clearly spelled out in writing. Policy
making occurs slowly enough so that there is ample time for consultation with the
intertribal organizations' member tribes. Decision-making is by consensus so that policy is
not based on the number of votes one side or another can marshal. These are all
organizational characteristics which may be important in other intertribal efforts.
//. PRINCIPLES FOR TRIBAI. INVOLVEMENT
Included in GLEFWC's paper, "Tribal Involvement in Great Lakes Decision-Making" was
a preliminary set of principles proposed as a foundation for tribal policy-making
involvement. The principles, as modified and affirmed by the tribes, are repeated below.
1. Indian tribal interests must be recognized as governmental interests, not
as non-governmental stakeholder interests.
2. The United States retains a trust responsibility to protect the natural
resource interests of the tribes.
3. Tribal interests are unique in both type and degree when compared to the
interests of other governments.
4. Tribes are different from one another.
Page - 14
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
5. Tribal access to decision-making should not be limited by the federal
government's ability or willingness to fund such access.
6. Tribal participation in Great Lakes decision-making should be equitably
funded by the federal government.
///. POLICIES FOR TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
Based on the issues discussed above in Section I, and informed by the principles set out
above in Section II, policies can be developed that would define the terms of the
relationship between state and federal agencies on the one hand and tribes on the other
when dealing with tribal involvement in Great Lakes policy-making.
Issue 1: Importance of involvement
1. Tribal interests are diverse and subject to change over time, and can be
defined only by each tribe for itself.
Action implication: Agencies cannot decide internally -which tribes may be
interested in which programs, and should inform all potentially affected tribes unless
otherwise directed by the tribe.
2. Tribal interest in local issues and short-term projects is not inconsistent
with tribal interest in long-term planning and policy formation.
Action implication: Agencies should facilitate tribal participation in both types
of activities, and should not impose a false dichotomy between the two.
3. Legislative, regulatory, and policy decisions that affect the Great Lakes
ecosystem are not always made solely by governmental and other institutions within
the Great Lakes Basin, but may be made in national or international forums.
Action implication: Tribes need to be aware that involvement in Great Lakes
policy-making institutions may only partly address their need to protect the Great Lakes
environment. Agencies need to make more explicit the limits of particular policy-making
exercises, and need to alert tribes to other activities happening away from the Basin,
4. Tribal involvement in policy-making does not relieve the federal
government of its concurrent obligation to protect tribal rights and natural resource
interests.
Page-15
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Action implication: The federal government has an obligation to bring tribes in
as full participants in Great Lakes environmental policy-making. Its obligation does not,
however, stop there, for it retains an independent trust responsibility, dischargeable by
all federal agencies, to protect tribal interests.
Issue 2: Education and information
5. A basic understanding of Great Lakes environmental policy-making
structures and processes, and adequate on-going information, is fundamental to
informed tribal participation.
6. Staff-to-staff contacts with other agencies involved in Great Lakes policy-
making is fundamental to informed tribal participation.
Action implications: These two policies together suggest a number of strategies
which were identified by the tribes in the survey process:
EPA and other knowledgeable staff should meet with tribes three or four times a year
to brief tribes on current issues and underlying structures and processes. Tribal staff
will thereby gain not only substantive ktjowledge but informal acquaintance with
other agency staff working in the field.
EPA and other agencies need to inform tribes in the Basin about pending projects on
the same basis that states are involved, unless the tribe requests otherwise.
EPA and other agencies need to acknowledge that even under the best of
circumstances tribes will probably remain understaffed in this area relative to states,
and need to develop ways of presenting information in a more usable format than
currently exists.
7. Tribes require information on a timely basis.
Action implications:
EPA and other agencies need to provide meeting notices, documents upon which
comments are requested, and other time-sensitive transmittals in time for tribes to
adequately respond, or need to provide informal advance notice of the pending
release of any such transmittal.
EPA and other agencies need to develop an understanding with each tribe as to the
appropriate tribal contact person for different types of transmittals.
8. Information should go directly to each tribe, unless the tribe delegates an
intertribal organization to receive information on its behalf.
Page - 16
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
Action implication: Agencies should not assume that tribes want information
transmitted to them via an intertribal organization. Agencies should ascertain each
tribe's policy on this matter.
Issue 3: Financial constraints
9. Adequate funding is necessary for meaningful tribal participation in
Great Lakes environmental policy-making.
Action implications:
EPA should provide capacity-building grants to the tribes for the purpose of
participating in Great Lakes environmental policy-making.
EPA should provide access to funds for technical projects so that the tribes are able
to contribute to technical working groups and adequately review technical
documents.
Issue 4: Tribal recognition and representation
10. Tribal governments are governments with governmental interests in the
Great Lakes environment.
Action implications:
State and federal agencies need to accept tribal governmental status and full and
equal tribal participation in Great Lakes policy-making.
Invitations to participate in policy-making processes that are extended to states
should be extended on an equal basis to tribes.
11. Informal barriers to full tribal participation should be removed.
Action implications:
Greater.staff-to-staff contacts need to be instituted between tribes and other agencies.
Decision making needs to be based on full and open discussion among all
participants.
EPA and other agencies need to provide thorough orientation to tribes.
EPA and other agencies need to support the development of greater tribal technical
and policy capacities.
Page -17
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
12. Tribes differ from one another in their history, culture, geography,
economics, and demographics, and may differ with one another in their assessment
and approach to Great Lakes environmental issues.
Action implication: Tribes must be free to participate in their individual tribal
status in all processes, or to delegate representation as they see fit.
13. Tribal interests differ in some important respects from non-tribal
interests in kind and in degree.
Action implication: Tribes must be situated to see that policy-making is based on
environmental analyses that take into account unique tribal circumstances.
14. Representation is an issue that is separate from funding.
Action implication: Tribal rights to represent themselves in policy-making
processes must be affirmed independent of the federal government's ability or willingness
to fund such representation.
Issue 5: Intertribal organizations
15. Individual tribes, not intertribal organizations, are the sovereign decision
makers, and always retain the ultimate authority to directly participate in policy-
making, yet tribes may find benefits from carefully considered intertribal
cooperation and delegation.
Action implications:
Tribes may delegate to intertribal organizations those aspects of involvement in
Great Lakes environmental policy-making as further the tribes' interests. These
aspects may include information analysis and dissemination, technical assistance,
facilitation of the development of consensus policy positions, and representation of
consensus positions. When tribes have properly delegated specific authority to an
intertribal organization, agencies should deal with that agency according to the terms
of the delegation. Tribes retain the right to individually exercise any of these aspects,
either on a regular basis, or in particular instances.
Intertribal organizations participating in Great Lakes environmental policy-making
on tribes' behalf should identify or create internal processes that will assure
appropriate representation.
Intertribal organizations should clarify with all Great Lakes bodies with which they
work the structure and junction of the body, the decision-making process employed by
the body, and the opportunity for participation and consultation with member tribes
on technical and policy development.
Page-18
-------
Great Lakes Decision Making
Final Report
CONCLUSION
When tribes are fully involved in Great Lakes Basin environmental policy-making, both the
tribes and the quality of policy decisions will benefit. Meeting the information and
education needs of the tribes, responding to the funding concerns of the tribes, and
accepting the representational structures established by the tribes will all help to meet that
goal.
file: glsumm3.wps
Page -19
-------
-------
Appendix I. Summary of tribal responses to survey questions.
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #1 How often are environmental issues (water, air, or solid waste pollutions,
wildlife and fisheries management, controlling land use to prevent erosion, etc.) topics of
discussion at tribal council meetings?
a. Almost every meeting
b. Frequently
c. Seldom
d. Never
e. Dont know
8
9
2
0
0
42.1
47.4
10.5
0.0
0.0
Question #2 In the last two years, how many environmental issues have been raised at tribal
council meetings?
a. More than 10 issues
b: 5-9 issues
c. 1-5 issues
d. No issues
e. Dont know
10
3
5
1
0
52.6
15.8
26.3
5.3
0.0
Question #3 How much attention, compared to other environmental issues, has your tribe
aiven to the Great Lakes?
a. The most attention
b. Not the most, but a lot
c. Some attention
d. No attention
e. Dont know
4
5
10
0
0
21.1
26.3
52.6
0.0
0.0
Question #4 Which statement is most accurate? Fishing on the Great Lakes or its tributaries
is important for members of your tribe...
As a food source?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disagree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree
As a source of income?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disagree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree
Culturally?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disagree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree .
10
7
0
1
1
8
4
0
0
7
15
2
1
0
1
52.6
36.8
0.0
5.3
5.3
42.1
21.1
0.0
0.0
36.8
78.9
10.5
5.3
0.0
5.3
*Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #5 Which statement is most accurate? Members of your tribe often use the Great
Lakes for...
Recreational boating?
a. Stronalv agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disaaree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree
Swimming?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disagree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree
Drinking water?
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree somewhat
c. Uncertain
d. Disaaree somewhat
e. Strongly disagree
7
6
1
3
2
B
3
1
1
6
4
1
1
0
13
36.8
31.6
5.3
15.8
10.5
42.1
15.8
5.3
5.3
31.6
21.1
5.3
5.3
0.0
68.4
Question #6 Toxic substances (such as mercury or PCBs) in fish from the Great Lakes
or its tributaries are of what level of concern to members of your tribes?
a. Major concern
b. Some concern
c. Tittle concern
d. No concern
e. Dont know
13
5
0
1
0
68.4
26.3
0.0
5.3
0.0
Question #7 How many tribal members have altered their fish eating habits because offish
consumption advisories?
a. All
b. Many
c. Some
d. None
e. Donlknow
1
5
8
6
0
5.3
26.3
42.1
31.6
0.0
Question #8 How much is habitat loss or degradation a concern for members of your tribe?
a. Major conem
b. Some concern
c. Little concern
d. No concern
e. Dontknow
13
4
3
0
0
68.4
21.1
15.8
0.0
0.0
*Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #9 Are their specific habitats of interest to your tribe that are lost, degraded,
or in need of restoration?
a. Wetland
b. Shoreline
c. River
d. Upland
e. Open lake
16
9
10
9
5
84.2
47.4
52.6
47.4
26.3
Question #10 Are there
undisturbed but in need
specific habitats of interest to your tribe that are currently
of protection?
0. Wetland
b. Shoreline
c. River
d. Upland
e. Open lake
7
6
4
3
0
36.8
31.6
21.1
15.8
0.0
Question #11 What stresses do you believe are most threatening to the habitats you are
concerned with?
a. Toxics from land or water
b. Toxics from air
C. L,onu use?
d. Exotic species
e. Over fishing/hunting/overuse
f. Nutrient pollution
13
12
IB
10
9
7
68.4
63.2
94. /
52.6
47.4
36.8
*Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #12. Are there animal (including fish) or plant species that your tribe is particularly
concerned about that are increasingly difficult to find, in decline, depleted, threatened, or
endangered?
Comments:
None
All area native plants and animals native threatened due to disturbance
Birch trees
Standing's turtle
Brook trout
Canvasback ducks
Chubs
Deer
Deer may be contaminated by eating plants contaminated by air & water
Eaales
Fish in Kokagan Sloughs
Froos
Hunting of bear may have to be curtailed for tribal members
Lake trout
Lamprey and ruffe are major concerns for Lake Superior fish
Loss of hardwoods due to dearcutting affects deer habitat
Medicinal plants and herbs are being reestablished by tribal members
Medicinal plants in wetlands are threatened
Medicinal plants may be contaminated by toxics from air and water
Mocking birds
Moose
Most turtles are threatened
Pink lady slipper
Porcupine
Some concern over continuing resurgence of lake trout and lake herring
Stream fish threatened by ruffe
Sturgeon
Sweet grass and medicinal herbs
Tribal fishing is highly regulated-so fish populations are not threatened by us
Turtles
Walleye are becoming increasingly inedible due to mercury
White cedar
Whitefish
Whte pine
Wild rice
Wolf predation on deer
Wolves
Wood turtle
Yellow perch
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
0
1
8
1
1
1
3
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
15.8
5.3
15.8
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
15.8
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
15.8
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
0.0
5.3
42.1
5.3
5.3
5.3
15.8
Question #13 What stresses do you believe are most threatening to these species?
a. Toxics from land or water
b. Toxics from air
c. Land use
d. Exotic species
e. Over fishing/hunting/overuse
f. Nutrient pollution
9
7
15
10
5
3
47.4
36.8
78.9
52.6
26.3
15.8
'Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #14 How is your tribe involved in your Lake's LaMP?
a. On Task Force, Management Committee or Workgroup
b. Not on the committee but attend meetings
c. Represented by an intertribal organization
d. Members attend Forum meetings
e. Receive and comment on documents
f. Receive but usually do not comment on documents
g. Do not receive documents
h. Dontknow
3
0
6
3
2
7
8
0
15.8
0.0
31.6
15.8
10.5
36.8
42.1
0.0
Question #15 How is your tribe involved in RAPs?
a. On RAP committee
b. Not on the committee but attend meetings
c. Represented by an intertribal organization
d. Receive and comment on documents
e. Receive but usually do not comment on documents
f. Do not receive documents
g. No RAP in area
h. Dontknow
1
0
2
1
6
8
6
0
5.3
0.0
10.5
5.3
31.6
42.1
31.6
0.0
Question #16 How is your tribe involved in Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort activities?
a. On committee, task force.
b. Not on the committee but attend meetings
c. Represented by an intertribal organization
d. Receive and comment on documents
e. Receive but usually do not comment on documents
f. Do not receive documents
g. Dontknow
0
1
1
1
8
8
0
0.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
42.1
42.1
0.0
Question #17 Did your tribe submit a response to GLNPO's Request for Proposals for this
year?
Yes
No
If no, because-
a. Didntseeit
b. Too many other tasks to do
c. Didnt understand it
d. No staff to respond to it
e. No project interested in, dont want the money
9
10
6
0
0
4
0
47.4
52.6
31.6
0.0
0.0
21.1
0.0
Question #18 Your tribes's level of involvement with Great Lakes environmental protection
policy making, decision making, and activities is-
a. Just right
b. Not enough
c. Satisfactorily handled through existing intertribal arrangements
d. Too much
e. Do no want to be involved
f. Dontknow
4
15
2
0
0
0
21.1
78.9
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
'Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #22 Does your tribe have, or does tt plan to have in the future, any land use or
environmental regulations? If so, what?
Comments:
401 certification
Air quality Class I designation for reservation is not likely
Air quality and non-point pollution regulations being considered
Air quality permiting-to control brush fires
Air quality-seeking Class I designation for reservation
Conservation ordinance & code
Emergency response plan for toxic spilte currentty exist
Environmental Board of tribe hears environmental disputes-no court yet
Fisheries management and regulations
Forestry managment
Hunting and fishing regulations are expanding
Hunting and fishing regulations are poor
Land use ordinance drafted or in place
Land use regulated only on a case by case basis
Land use regulation limited to site assignment and building regulations
Monitoring of shoreline development along Wolf River
NEPA codes being developed
No environmental regulations in place yet
Non-point source pollution control program
PSD
Protection of wild turkey and other threatened species is tribal policy
Recreational waters designation ordinance
Recycling
Seek outstanding natural waters designation for Lake Superior
Soil erosion control ordinance
Solid waste ordinance
Storm runoff codes being developed
Treatment as State status is being sought
Tribe has planning agreement with EPA
Tribe is now a member on Manistee River Corridor Committee
Tribe is on county wide land use planning committee
Tribe needs to develop air & water regulations-unclear how to implement
WPDES permits
Waste control
Wastewater treatment
Water quality standards
Well head regulations exist through zoning
Wellhead protection
Wetland protection ordinance drafted or in place
When land becomes available to tribe, regulations will be similar to local area
Working on Treatment as State designation
Zoning rules for development currentty exist
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
5
1
1
5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
21.1
5.3
36.8
5.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
10.5
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
42.1
5.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
47.4
5.3
5.3
26.3
5.3
5.3
26.3
"Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question #23 Does you tribe belong to any intertribal organizations that may provide an
appropriate vehicle to facilitate tribal involvement in Great Lakes policy-making? If so, please
identify the intertribal organizations.
Comments:
No
Belong to 1854 Authority
COFTMA-on Great Lakes fisheries issues
Do not like being treated as a group-tribes are too individualized
EPA Region V Regional Operation Committee
:our State Assembly
GLIFWC
3LJFWC cannot represent tribes except for off-reservation issues
Great Lakes Fishery Commission-helped tribe to deal with federal bureaucra
Great Lakes Intertribal Commission
Great Lakes Tribal Commission
Great Lakes Tribal Commission-helped some but tribe has pulled out of it
Indian Fish & Wildlife Soctety-90% of poticy deals with enforcement
Interested in intertribal effort to digest information and disseminate info.
ntertribal Council helps on a limited basis-has its own political agenda
Michigan Intertribal Council-water quality, sanitation
Might accept technical assistance intertribalty, but prefer own staff
Minnesota Chippewa Tribes
Minnesota Intertribal Council
Missing grass roots input to build into process
Most tribes can do this themselves, but an intertribal can screen issues
Must have any intertribal agreement signed by all Michigan tribes to work
Meed information on local and regional issues
Need more funds to implement tribal interests e.g. regulate water quality
Not in COFTMA yet but do have recognized fishing rights
Often cooperate with the Menominee tribe to stop Crandon mine
Tribal consent is required for any intertribal action
Tribe is involved with Consumer Power Great Lakes Trust Fund-legal settiem
Tribe is with Ottawa Nation Tribe Resource Administrative Commission-hunti
Tribe may join with other Ottawa tribes to share jurisdiction on hunting/gatheri
Tribes prefer to be independent
Wisconsin Intertribal Environmental Committee.
nterested in cooperation with southern Michigan tribes
4
1
2
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
21.1
5.3
10.5
10.5
5.3
5.3
26.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
15.8
5.3
21.1
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
5.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
10.5
5.3
Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
QUESTION
Positive Responses Percent of Tribes*
Question *24 Has your tribe participated in an intertribal effort (of any sort) that might prove
a model for such intertribal involvement in Great Lakes policy-making? If so, please
describe such an effort.
Comments:
None
All Lake Michigan tribes may be in COFTMA after new agreement in year 200
Avoid intimidating environment for govt meetings
COFTMA works well for fisheries policy and biological indicators
COFTMA's role should include voting rights on LaMP
Canadian tribes need to be included in model
Coordination of 6-8 tribes or more could help set policy representation
Depending on issue, intertribal cooperation can and does occur
EPA liason position has helped to coordinate tribes
GLIFWC or other intertribal needs to meet with tribes on env. regulations
GLITC is a poor policy maker for tribal interests
GLITC-can be a forum for discussing G.L. issues, but lack consensus
Have coordinated hunting regulations withBay Mills and LAnse tribes
If all tribes had environmental person, could then coordinate participation
ndians need a department of their own at the federal level
Interagencv coordination is needed for government to direct programs to tribe
ntemet may be useful in sorting through issues
.akewide representative probably couldnt grasp individual tribe problems
Jason positions are too restrictive
Michigan Intertribal Council
Need executive summaries of documents-too much to read
Meed faster desemination of information-not enough time to make comment
Need help with per diem to participate
Meed tribal summaries on issues
Mo EPA multimedia person is here
Ottawa Nation Tribe Resource Administrative Commission
Policy makers need to recognize tribes as individual entities, not a group
Rotate tribal members on Great Lakes or Lake Superior committees
Tribe has casino intergaming compact with other tribes
Tribe would prefer to represent itself
Tribe would represent itself if issue conflicts with tribal position
Tribes are in developing agendas and planning-more than being on mailing li
Tribes need equal standing with anyone else to review issues in watershed
Tribes need representation at Great Lakes meetings
Voiflt Task Force
Wisconsin Intertribal Environmental Committee could help
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21.1
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
10.5
5.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
10.5
15.8
5.3
5.3
10.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
*Note: For multiple choice questions, we allowed more than one answer from the tribes. Thus, the sum of the percent of
tribes with responses may exceed 100% for these questions.
-------
-------
GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 9 . Odanah. WI 54861 . 715/682-6619 FAX 715/682-9294
MICHIGAN
Bay Mills Community
Kewecnaw Bay Community
Uc Vieux Desen Band
October 31, 1995
MEMBER TRIBES
WISCONSIN
Bad River Band
Uc Courte Oreilles Band
Lac du Flambeau Band
Red Cliff Band
St. Ctoix Chippewa
Sokaogon Chippewa
MINNESOTA
Fond du Lac Band
Milk Lacs Band
Mr. Robert B. Peacock, Chairman
Fond du Lac Band of Lake. Superior Ojibwa
105 University Road
Cloquet,MN 55720
Dear Chairman Peacock,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding work currently being done by GLIFWC under an
EPA/GLNPO grant. Your recognition that GLIFWC's work on Great Lakes issues over the years has been
effective in protecting the interests of the Lake Superior Chippewa Bands is appreciated and gratifying. As
you know, the environmental problems facing the many tribal communities and governments within the
Great Lakes basin are rarely simple. Some problems and issues like those addressed by Remedial Action
Plans are specific to an area. Others like the air transport of mercury and other contaminants are fed by
industrial sources both within and outside of the basin. It has been and continues to be a struggle for tribes
to develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to develop programs for remedying and protecting the
health of the environment and our people. Another part of this struggle is getting tribal concerns,
perspectives, and solutions heard and meaningfully integrated into scientific and policy decisions.
It is obvious that the Fond du Lac Band has made progress in securing scientific expertise and in
developing programs to deal with environmental issues facing the Band. Be assured that results of our
survey will not be in conflict with the implementation of Fond du Lac's current agreement with the
USEPA. Our GLNPO work will be a product of the advice and direction provided by the tribes. Thus, 1
am directing the principal investigators of the GLNPO survey to include a copy of your letter and my
response in their summary report and to provide your staff an opportunity to review a draft of this report
before it is finalized. Also, they should investigate how GLIFWC could assist in development of the Fond
du Lac Tribal and Community College - Environmental Institute. We remain open to any suggestions your
staff may have.
Again, thank you for your letter and feel free to contact me if you have any further comments or
questions.
Respectfully,
arnes H. Schlender
Executive Administrator
cc. Jim Zorn, Policy Analyst
Dave Siegler, GLNPO Policy Analyst
Neil E. Kmiecik, Biological Services Director
James Wojcik, GLNPO Environmental Biologist
-------
Eond du Lac Reservation
isiness Committee
105 bniversity Road.
ei.MN.'55720
one (218 (879-4593
x< 218) 879-4146
Kutxm H. i'cacock
ttrvurs /1 rcasurtt
icr j. belt*
Dm. I Councilman
tniuin Kabideaux
i;.i. II Councilman
l)ar...U Dlackcuer
]>IM 111 Councilman
iK MulllC!
RECEIVED
OCT 0 6 1995
G.LI.F.W.C.
ADMINISTRATION t
October 4, 1995
Jim Schlender
Great Lakes Indian Fish and .Wildlife Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
Dear Jim:
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission has requested our
Environmental and Natural Resources Program staff to identify our issues of concern
regarding the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This information
is being sought under a grant from the Great Lakes National Program Office [GLNPO]
of the USEPA to help them understand our concerns and to help focus the involvement
of Indian tribes in the various agencies and groups working on Great Lakes
environmental protection. GLIFWC has been working with these agencies and groups
on Great Lakes issues for years, and has been effective in protecting the interests of the
Lake Superior Chippewa Bands. The Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program and
Environmental Program have been working on a number of environmental and natural
resource planning, management, and research projects in the past several years which
help to protect and restore the resources of the Fond du Lac Reservation, the St. Louis
River watershed, as well as the Great Lakes basin.
The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe have officially entered into the Fond
du Lac / EPA Environmental Action Plan 1995-1997. This agreement identifies a
number of our environmental problems and concerns and establishes a partnership with
the USEPA Reg. V to try to implement the means to address them. There are portions
of this agreement which involve environmental projects which would have a broad and
general impact on protection of the region's environment, as well as the environmental
quality of our Reservation's air, water, and natural resources. The current initiative by
GLIFWC, is to identify issues and foster multi-tribal infrastructure on Great Lakes
environmental issues. This effort should not be in conflict with the implementation of
our current agreement with the USEPA. We would however welcome help in building
our "infrastructure" in dealing with our environmental problems.
One part of our future plans to increase our ability to solve environmental problems, is
our effort to work with the Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College-Environmental
Institute. The development of environmental and natural resource educational
-------
programs and research projects at this Tribal College would further our Band's
environmental goals, and would provide a place for American Indian students from the
region to acquire an education in a culturally appropriate setting. Cooperation from
GLIFWC in developing the Environmental Institute at this Tribal College would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Peacock
Chairman
FOND DU LAC, R.B.O
------- |