REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN INDIAN COUNTRY
SPONSORED BY
The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V -- Chicago
AND COORDINATED BY
The National Congress
of American Indians
NCAI Fund
Oneida Rodeway Inn
Green Bay, Wisconsin
December 3-4, 1986
-------
f -
n-
MK
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
/9-U*
vn
;r
n
vo
Cm
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Suzan snown Marjo
Chayanna & Craak Nations
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
Reuben A Snake. Jr.
Wmnabago Triba
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
John F Gomales
San 110*10030 Puablo
RECORDING SECRETARY
Faith Mayhew
Klamath Triba
TREASURER
Bulord L. Rolin
Poarch Bind ol Craaks
AREA VICE PRESIDENTS
ABERDEEN AREA
John w Steele
Ogtalt Sioux TnBt
ALBUOUERQUE AREA
Benme Salas
Zia Puablo
ANADARKO AREA
Juanua Ahtone
Kiowa Triba
BILUNQS AREA
Burnett L, Whiteplume
¦ Nortnam Arapaho* Triba
JUNEAU AREA
Enc Morrison
Thngit
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
Hillary Wauicau
Manommaa Triba
MUSKOGEE AREA
Pamela Iron
Charokaa Nation
NORTHEASTERN AREA
Rovena Abrams
Seneca Nation
PHOENIX AREA
Thomas R White
Gila Rivar Indian Community
PORTLANO AREA
Allen v Pinkham, Sr.
Nat Parca Triba.
SACRAMENTO AflEA
Denis Turner
Pmcon Band of Lutsano
SOUTHEASTERN AREA
Billy Cyprejj
Mtccosukaa Triba
REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
SPONSORED BY
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V - CHICAGO
AND COORDINATED BY
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
NCAI FUND
ONEIDA RODEWAY INN
GREEN BAY. WISCONSIN
DECEMBER 3-4, 1986
LU O O) 46-9101
-------
REPORT ON THE NCAI/EPA CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
ONEIDA RODEWAY INN, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
DECEMBER 3-4. 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EASE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY REPORT 2
III. TRIBAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7
IV. EDITED CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT 11
A. WELCOMING AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 12
B. STATEMENTS AND PANEL PRESENTATIONS 23
C. TRIBAL RECOMMENDATIONS 58
APPENDICES
A. CONFERENCE AGENDA
B. MEMORANDUM TO TRIBAL LEADERS
(INCLUDING EPA INDIAN POLICY)
C. LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
D. NEWS REPORTS
(INCLUDING ARTICLE FROM VOL. 51. NO. 6 OF THE
SENT(NEL/BLILLETIN-NCA/NEWS, DECEMBER 20, 1986)
E. NCAI COMMENTS ON THE EPA INDIAN PRIMACY WORKGROUP
PROPOSED DRAFT REGULATIONS FOR THE SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its
"Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations." The policy promised to give special consideration to tribal
interests when making agency policy and to involve tribal governments in
decisions and management of environmental programs affecting Indian
resources. (The Policy is included in Appendix B.)
EPA programs are primarily administered through Regional Offices, and,
accordingly, the Regional Offices have the lead responsibility for implementing
the EPA Indian Policy. In September 1986, Region V asked the National
Congress of American Indians NCAI Fund to conduct an Environmental
Conference. The objectives of this conference were:
(1) to promote cooperation and dialogue between the tribes in Region V
and EPA regarding implementation of the EPA Indian Policy, and
(2) to provide tribes with a forum in which to raise environmental
concerns and make recommendations to EPA.
The Conference provided EPA Region V management and staff an opportunity to
provide information to tribal leaders and staff regarding EPA programs and the
availability of technical assistance. The conference also provided an
opportunity for tribal leaders and staff to meet with EPA regional office
management and staff to discuss their environmental concerns, current
activities and needs and to educate EPA management and staff regarding treaty
rights and tribal sovereignty. Tribal participants included representatives from
Indian governments bordering the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
It is apparent from the statements of both the EPA and tribal participants,
which are reported in the Edited Conference Transcript, that both of the
objectives were achieved. It is also apparent that ail concerned realized that
this groundbreaking conference was only a beginning in the implementation of
the EPA Indian Policy.
-------
Page 2
II. SUMMARY REPORT
The conference began with welcoming remarks by several speakers. Purcell
Powlest, Chairman, Oneida Executive Committee, and host to the conference,
was the first to offer words of welcome. Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region V, was neit. He noted that EPA is the first federal
agency to formulate an Indian policy in accordance with the Federal Indian
Policy established by President Ronald Reagan. The EPA Indian policy, which
was adopted on November 8, 1984, embraces both the principle of tribal
sovereignty and the doctrine of the federal trust responsibility. Mr. Adamkus
pledged to cooperate and work with tribes toward successful implementation of
the EPA Indian Policy. Frank Covington, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator,
expressed sincere interest in working with the tribes, but he also cautioned
against unrealistic expectations, saying, "EPA's resources are finite, and there is
no new pot of gold." He asked the tribal respresentatives what their
expectations were for the conference, and he engaged the participants in a
brainstorming session to identify some of these expectations. Robert
Springer, EPA Assistant Regional Administrator for Planning and Management,
was the final EPA speaker to offer welcoming remarks. His remarks included a
recitation of the points in the EPA Indian Policy, in order to help the
participants focus on the objectives of the conference.
Welcoming remarks were then offered by two tribal representatives. Janes H.
Schlender, Executive Director, Great Lakes Indian Pish and Wildlife
Commission, said, "It's very heartening to hear the Indian Policy of EPA." He
also said that it is important for EPA to recognize the history of the tribes in the
region as it begins to develop relationships with the tribes. Hilary Waukau,
Member, Menominee Tribal Legislature, and NCAI Minneapolis Area Vice
President, stressed the importance of recognizing Indian treaty rights and tribal
sovereignty when addressing environmental problems.
For the most part, the substantive agenda of the conference was organized
according to EPA programs, so that EPA management and staff could explain
each of the major programs to the tribal participants, and so that the tribes
could share information about environmental programs in which they are
involved. Topic I was the Clean Water Act. with an emphasis on water quality
standards, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the
-------
Page 3
Clean Lakes Program. This topic was explored by Charles H. Sutfin, Director,
Water Division, EPA Region V, and B. Leigh Price, Visiting Professor, Arizona
State Univerity College of Law.
Topic I was followed by a tour of the Oneida Reservation, which included a
presentation by Jim Reck, Public Relations, Ft. Howard Paper Plant. Bobbi
Webster, Editor of the Oneida Tribal Newspaper, Kalihwsaks. guided the tour
and provided information about the history, government and development of
the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin.
After lunch and small group discussions, there was a panel session on Treaty
Rights and Environmental Protection on Indian Lands. Speakers on this panel
included Lloyd Powless, Member, Oneida Executive Committee, who described
how awareness of environmental issues has grown among tribal leaders in
recent years. He said, "I think the philosophy of tribes started to become
clearer...that as tribal governments it was our responsibility to protect the
environment." Allen J. Allery, Area Director, Indian Health Service, then
explained the role of the IHS in promoting environmental health, in the context
of recognizing tribal sovereignty and Indian treaty rights. Charles McCuddy,
Land Operations Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Agency, discussed
the environmental program of the BIA in the context of the federal trust
responsibility.
Topic II was a discussion of the Clean Air Act, featuring David Kee, Director,
Air Management Division, EPA Region V, who explained the program for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of air quality. Jim Ziegler, Wildlife
Program Manager, White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,
discussed the Tribe s air quality program.
Topic III was the EPA Pilot Project on the Menominee Reservation, which is
concerned with solid waste and hazardous waste management and surface and
groundwater quality protection. B. Leigh Price provided the background in-
formation on this pilot project. He said that it will stand as a symbol to the
entire country that a state and a tribe can work together. Kenneth Westlake,
EPA Region V Project Officer for the pilot project, provided more detail on the
pilot project. He said, "EPA is going to have to take the bull by the horns in
future years as it implements its Indian policy to provide additional resources
to tribes to make the concept of an Indian-EPA partnership a reality." David
-------
Page 4
A. Hildreth, Assistant District Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), provided some perspective on the role of the state in planning
and implementing this pilot project. Brian S. Cooke, Pilot Project Planner,
Menominee Tribe, discussed the regulatory program that has been developed,
giving credit to Wisconsin DNR for the progressive environmental regulations
which served as models in the development of the Menominee regulatory
program.
The formal sessions of the conference adjourned for the day after Topic III.
However, the participants scheduled two additional sessions for the evening.
One evening session was concerned with the environmental impacts that the
proposed Exxon zinc and copper mine might have on the Sokaogon Chippewa
(Mole Lake), Forest County Potawatomi and Stockbridge-Munsee Reservations
and EPA's comments on the environmental impact statement (EIS). The other
evening session was a tribal caucus, in which consensus was developed around a
set of points to be discussed on the second day.
There was also a meeting of a group of federal agency representatives, EPA,
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS) and U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) to discuss ways to improve communication and cooperation.
Lloyd Powless and NCAI Fund staff participated in this meeting. The group
agreed to explore the possibility of entering into a memorandum of
understanding at the regional level to address cooperation, joint meetings and
training coordination. Region V EPA Indian Affairs Coordinator Kestutis
Ambutas was designated to take the lead in drafting the memorandum, which
will be circulated among the tribes.
On the second day of the conference, the planned agenda was revised in order
to allow time for discussion of the consensus points which had been developed
in the tribal caucus. The second day's program began with Topic IV, the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Charles H. Sutfin explained the two existing Safe
Drinking Water Act Programs to the participants, and also talked about the two
new programs created by the 1986 amendments to the Act. Ton E. Flora,
Associate Area Director for Environmental Health, Indian Health Service, gave
background information on a memorandum of understanding between the EPA
and IHS. John Spangberg. Environmental Health Specialist, Oneida Tribe,
discussed the Tribe s concern with the Ft. Howard paper plant sludge ponds.
Larry Bailey (Red Lake Chippewa), Circuit Rider for the Minnesota Rural
-------
Page 5
Water Association, discussed their work with Minnesota and Indian govern-
ments.
The next session was an unscheduled discussion of the points of consensus
developed by the tribal representatives. These points have since been refined
and are included in the next section, Tribal Recommendations. The Edited Con-
ference Transcript, part IV of this report, contains extensive passages of the
dialogue that took place during this session. This was a very productive session.
The federal and tribal participants established some solid areas of common
ground, including the recognition of four general areas of need:
1. The need for better consultation between EPA and the Indian
governments regarding the implementation of the EPA Indian policy
in general, and statutory programs like the Safe Drinking Water Act
and Superfund in particular.
2. The need to improve the dissemination of information to tribes about
environmental issues so that Indian governments can participate in
planning meetings and generally respond to issues at a sufficiently
early stage to assure that their concerns are taken into account.
3. The need for financial and technical assistance to tribes so that they
can afford to participate in environmental planning and review
processes and so that they can attain the expertise to really contribute
to these processes.
4. The need for greater coordination among the many federal agencies
whose activities affect the environment of Indian country.
Topic V included presentations on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as "Superfund"). Basil Constantelos,
Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region V, gave the participants an
overview of the programs established pursuant to these statutes and responded
to many questions about suspected Superfund sites.
-------
Page 6
Topic VI was the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Greg Czajkowski, Environ-
mental Scientist, Environmental Services Division, EPA Region V, explained two
programs under TSCA dealing with PCBs and asbestos in schools. John Tice,
Biologist, Environmental Services Division, EPA Region V, gave an overview of
pesticide programs under FIFRA.
After the session on Topic VI, the conference adjourned. The participants were
in agreement that it had been a most productive conference. The remarks of
the speakers, as well as the participants, are included in much greater detail in
the Edited Conference Transcript.
NCAI and the NCAI Fund were represented at the conference by Gail Chehak,
Natural Resources Coordinator, Robert Holden, Natural Resources Researcher,
and Hilary Waukau, Minneapolis Area Vice President.
-------
Page 7
III. TRIBAL RECOMMEND AT IONS
The following recommendations were made by the tribal representatives at the
conference. These recommendations were transmitted to Region V in a letter
from NCAI Executive Director Suzan Shown Harjo to Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator, dated January 12,1987. Copies of this letter were sent
to the tribes in Region V.
1. The Indian governments are anxious to become fully involved in EPA
programs and want to improve communication between EPA and the
tribes. They ask that EPA:
(a) provide them with notice and access to EPA meetings with the states;
(b) add the tribal governments and designated representatives from this
meeting to all EPA public information lists, including publications and
press releases; and,
(c) utilize publications and meetings of the NCAI, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council and the
American Bar Association Committee on Native American Natural
Resources to provide information to tribal governments on EPA
programs, rulemakings and activities.
2. To promote the government-to-government relationship between the tribal
governments and EPA, the tribal governments urge EPA to establish an
"Indian Desk" in Washington, D.C., to advocate the viewpoints of Indian
tribes, and to communicate to the tribes actions of potential concern to
them. It would seem self-evident that the best person to represent Indian
interests in EPA would be an Indian person appointed after consultation
with Indian tribes.
3. Tribes are concerned with the lack of coordination on environmental issues
and programs between federal agencies which share in the U.S. treaty,
statutory and fiduciary responsibility to the tribes. The tribal governments
encourage EPA to coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Indian Health Service (IHS), Department of Housing and Urban
-------
Page 8
Development (HUD), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service
(NPS), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other
appropriate agencies. The tribal representatives recommend that EPA
conduct regularly scheduled meetings with these agencies to coordinate
activities, and that these meetings be open to the tribal governments.
4. The Indian governments are dissatisfied with the lack of tribal
governmental participation in the Safe Drinking Water Primacy Working
Group and ask that it be expanded to include a representative designated
by NCAI; that all EPA Indian Workgroups, such as the National and
Regional Indian Workgroups, include tribal representatives; and that other
special workgroups, such as the Safe Drinking Water Primacy Workgroup,
Indian Lawyer Working Group and Superfund Primacy Workgroup, if
established, include tribal representatives. The tribes would like notices,
agendas and minutes of all such meetings sent to the tribes.
5. The Indian governments are concerned that the process to develop draft
regulations to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, as
well as the draft regulations, will become a model for all other statutes
which include Indian specific provisions. The tribal governments support
the comments submitted by NCAI, which include a call for more tribal
governmental participation in the working group, increases in allocations to
tribes, flexibility to allow for total waiver of tribal matching funds and a
10% maximum match, rather than a 10% minimum match.
6. The tribal governments need EPA to work closely with them to develop a
process for consultation and cooperation on such issues as enforcement on
Indian lands, jurisdiction, grant criteria and equity between the large and
smaller tribes in the region, as well as to resolve conflicts and develop a
plan and procedures for implementing the EPA Indian Policy.
7. The tribal governments would like to see an increase in funding to
implement the EPA Indian Policy. In addition to the program areas, the
tribes need training to develop the expertise to obtain primacy and keep
abreast of changes in technology, attend state planning meetings and hire
staff to develop programs, interpret data and respond to requests for
comments. Tribes would like EPA to explore further the circuit-rider
approach as a possible solution. The tribal governments want EPA to assist
-------
Page 9
the tribes to break into the state planning processes as equal partners in
negotiations, and to help them find funding to participate.
8. The tribal governments want EPA to establish a government-
to-government relationship with them and oppose any attempts to use
outside organizations in lieu of this direct relationship, except when the
organization has been designated by the tribal governments.
9. The tribal governments are concerned over reports that the Colville Pilot
Project has been asked to provide more technical justification to support
stricter water quality standards than justification required for any state.
This is disturbing, as the pilot projects will indicate whether EPA's review
of tribal standards will be the same as states and deferential to the tribes.
The tribal governments want more information sent to them about the
pilot projects and recommend that EPA provide information about the pilot
projects at one of NCAI's national meetings.
10. The tribal governments request that EPA meet with them on a regularly
scheduled basis in order to promote understanding, provide consultation,
discuss program activities, receive training and develop guidance on issues
of sovereignty, jurisdiction, enforcement and compliance.
During the development of regulations and implementation of the new
Indian-specific provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and other
legislation, the tribes in Region V would like quarterly meetings between
EPA and the tribal governments. The tribes ask also that EPA assist them
in obtaining funding for tribal representatives to travel to these meetings
by identifying and requesting additional EPA dollars or by urging BIA to
assist tribes through a Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and BIA.
11. The tribal governments request that EPA use the term "Indian country"
when referring to Indian lands, rather than the term "Reservation" or other
possible terms which could exclude extensive Indian territory. "Indian
country" is an understandable term of art in law. Use of other terms could
serve to create confusion in definitions and jurisdiction, and possibly could
lead to law suits or legislative clarification which could be avoided by the
use of the standardized "Indian country" term.
-------
Page 10
Finally, the tribal governments have asked NCAI to commend Regional
Administrator Valdus V. Adamkus, Deputy Regional Administrator and
Conference Co-Chair Frank Covington, Indian Affairs Coordinator Kestutis K.
Ambutas and the participating Division Directors and staff of EPA Region V for
conducting this conference and for their openness and willingness to work with
the Indian governments in Region V to implement the EPA Indian Policy. NCAI
has received numerous calls and letters eipressing thanks for such an
informative and productive meeting. The cooperation and substantive
presentations by EPA were instrumental in setting the tone for future mutually
beneficial relations between EPA and the tribal governments.
-------
Page 11
IV. EDITBD CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION
This is an edited transcript. It contains summaries of the presentations which
were made during the conference, as well as summaries of the question and
answer sessions which followed the panel presentations. Most of the
summaries include extended quoted passages; a few of the presentations are
quoted in their entirety rather than being summarized. Long quoted passages
are indicated by indentation of the left margin; short quotations are enclosed
within quotation marks.
The transcript is divided into three parts:
A. Welcoming and Introductory Remarks
B. Statements and Panel Presentations
C. Tribal Recommendations
Dividing the transcript into three parts in this way results in a slight alteration
from the order in which events actually occurred, since the discussion of the
consensus tribal recommendations actually took place between Topics IV and
V. However, it was felt that separating the recommendations from the
substantive presentations would make the transcript easier to use as a
reference document.
-------
Page 12
PART A. WELCOMING AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Wednesday, December 3. 1986
Conference participants were welcomed by Purcell Powless, Chairman of the
Oneida Executive Committee, to the Oneida Reservation and the Oneida
Rodeway Inn. Mr. Powless expressed their pleasure in hosting a meeting such
as this. He also said that he wondered why it had taken so long for the EPA to
take the initiative in meeting with the tribal governments of the Great Lakes
region.
Valdas V. Adimkus, Regional Director. EPA Region V:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Environmental
Protection Agency, I am pleased to welcome you to this summit. I really
mean summit, because we have a lot of federal representatives here, and
we have our local government representatives, tribal chiefs, and so I think
this meeting is going to give us an opportunity to address some really
important issues and come to some important decisions. 1 agree with the
statement that was made earlier, that it took us a long time to get
together. I'm not going to look for reasons, or point the finger, why it took
us so long. The important thing is that we are here to address
environmental issues that are important to all of us.
One of the factors which I should mention as to why it has taken us so
long is that EPA is a young organization, and we are carrying an awesome
responsibility. In the fifteen years that we have been in existence we
have come a long way, and our record is something we can all be proud of.
We started with a simple assumption, that we have to take care of the
clean water and make sure that it is available to all of us. But I have to
tell you that we are aging very fast. Everyday we are finding more and
more problems. We are looking at the water itself and we are finding
different aspects. We are not just talking about wastewater treatment,
but we are also talking about protecting the groundwater, surface water,
-------
Page 13
deep well injection, atmospheric toxic loading into the water. So in this
area alone we have tremendous problems, not even talking about waste
management, not talking about air pollution problems. The list is growing.
Everyday we are identifying more issues, more expanding and better
technology, and we are getting more sophisticated. Many governmental
units are involved in addressing these issues. We are dealing with state
governments. We are dealing with municipal governments and with the
general public. In this meeting today we are here to deal with local
problems and Indian issues.
I do not believe that we will agree on all points. But I hope we are
already in agreement on our basic objective: that we seek to ensure a
clean and healthy environment which sustains and protects our people
and our natural resources.
We are here today because we are serious about working with the
implementation of EPA's Federal Indian Policy. As many of you may
know, EPA is the first federal agency to formulate a tribal policy in
accordance with President Reagan's Federal Indian Policy. That policy
recognizes the principle of tribal self-government...which I hope to help
put it into practice. The President's policy accords to tribal governments
the same degree of sovereignty enjoyed by other entities and it proposes
that the federal government deal with the tribes on a government-to-
government basis. While these two principles are well-established, the
President's policy goes further by making the most explicit statement at
the Presidential level of the importance of fostering actual
self-government for Native Americans.
On November 8, 1984, EPA announced its own "Policy for the
Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations."
Unfortunately, this is only now becoming reality. Central to the Agency's
policy is the commitment, which it clearly states, "to give special
consideration to tribal interests in making Agency policy and to ensure the
close involvement of tribal governments in making decisions and
managing programs affecting reservation lands."
-------
Page 14
What this means in practice is the continuation of EPA's ongoing efforts to
protect human health and the environment on Indian lands while
gradually increasing Indian control over such programs. At the same
time, EPA has no desire to impose elaborate programs where they are not
needed.
Two major areas hamper us. First, while the interest in environmental
management among Native Americans is evident, the necessary skills and
resources are too often in short supply. Second, almost all EPA statutes
traditionally lacked the language necessary to empower the Agency to
deal with Indian tribes in a way analogous to states. However. Congress,
in amending EPA's major statutes, is attempting to incorporate language
which will enable the Agency to develop and fund environmental
programs on Indian land.
This is why we are here today, from a practical point of view, to listen to
your priorities, to find out exactly what the needs are, to give answers to
the people who are working locally with the problems, and to provide you
with the necessary tools to approach us. I believe one very important
issue is that we have different governmental representatives here who
are involved in environmental program implementation in this area. We
have to coordinate together the answers to what the concerns and needs
are in each community and then develop close cooperation, making sure
that the programs are working and the goals are being reached. I have
brought with me today the senior staff to be available for two days for
close consultation with you, to provide you with the necessary information
and to find out first-hand from you exactly what concerns all of you.
In that spirit, 1 believe that we have made a first step which will lead to a
continuation of our dialogue and the results we all expect. With that I
wish you a very fine two-day seminar. Thank you very much.
-------
Page 13
Frank Covington, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region V:
Mr. Covington made brief introductory remarks. He said that the agenda for
the conference had been drawn up with intention of providing information
about EPA programs to the tribal representatives. But he noted that one of the
basic objectives of the conference was to provide the tribal representatives
with a forum in which to inform EPA about their concerns. In order to
demonstrate EPA's good faith in wanting to hear the concerns of the tribal
representatives, he offered to revise the agenda. He asked the participants to
tell him what they wanted from the conference and to tell him what would
make the conference worthwhile for them. He opened the floor to suggestions,
and a brainstorming session took place with each item noted. The brain-
storming points that were developed during this session were pursued further
during the tribal caucus which took place during the evening, and a list of
tribal concerns and recommendations was developed. In response to this, the
agenda for the second day was revised, and a block of time was devoted to the
discussion of the tribal recommendations.
Robert Springer, Assistant Regional Administrator
for Planning and Management, EPA Region V:
When Suzan Harjo sent her October 20, 1986, notice for our NCAI/EPA
conference, she stated two objectives for our meeting: (1) to promote
cooperation and dialogue between the tribes and EPA regarding im-
plementation of the EPA Indian Policy; and (2) to provide tribes with a
forum in which to raise environmental concerns and make
recommendations to EPA.
Each of you has a copy of the EPA Indian Policy in your conference
materials. I would like to review the nine points in the policy so that we
can actually focus our discussion on the objectives for the conference. My
intent is not to cover how the policy is being implemented or whether it is
being implemented. There are two days of discussion for that. My
purpose is simple - to make our later discussion easier by looking
together at the policy which brought us to this meeting. I will begin by
stating each policy point and then make an observation about that point.
-------
Page 16
The EPA Indian Policy states that:
1. The Agency stands ready to work directly with Indian tribal
governments on a one-to-one basis (the "government-to-government"
relationship), rather than as subdivisions oT other governments. Region V
has made a beginning in this area through the efforts of Indian Affairs
Coordinator Kasey Ambutas and program staff in the Region. This
conference itself is another indication of our effort to work directly. By
the end of the conference we will have looked through the progress we
have made to date and will have identified issues we need to follow up on.
2. The Agency will recognize tribal governments as the primary parties
for setting standards, making environmental policy decisions and
managing programs for reservations, consistent with Agency standards
and regulations. Some examples of this are: Region VIII has delegated
the pesticides program to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. In Region IX the
Colville Tribe is awaiting promulgation of water quality standards by
headquarters. Region V is currently working with the Menominee Tribe
on a hazardous/solid waste pilot project with promulgation eipected by
early 1987. During this conference we can discuss other possible tribal
roles.
3. The Agency will take affirmative steps to encourage and assist tribes in
assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities for
reservation lands. The third policy principle is similar to the second. I
expect that we will hear about the initiation of the first Clean Lakes
Program in the country and the circuit rider program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and other program management activities. We should
look carefully at what has been done and what should be done.
4. The Agency will take appropriate steps to remove existing legal and
procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with tribal
governments on reservation programs. While this is primarily an BPA
headquarters responsibility, the region does participate in headquarters
-------
Page 17
work on legislation and regulations. This conference should help the
region s managers to understand legal and regulatory issues of concern to
the tribes so that we can affect our headquarters processes. The Indian
Workgroup, of which Kasey is a member, has been dealing with several
procedural impediments. The legal workgroup (which Mark Radell will
join) has been working on changes to statutes and regulations.
5. The Agency, in keeping with the federal trust responsibility, will assure
that tribal concerns and interests are considered whenever EPA's actions
and/or decisions may affect reservation environments. In fact, this is the
second objective in Ms. Harjo's invitation. So, a large portion of the
conference agenda should relate to this conference objective and policy.
6. The agency will encourage cooperation between tribal, state and local
governments to resolve environmental problems of mutual concern. We
have one effort underway. The Menominee pilot project will result in a
three party agreement between the tribal government, the state and EPA
Region V which will identify the program responsibilities of all three
parties (who does monitoring, inspections, enforcement, etc.). The pilot
will be discussed in more detail this afternoon. The policy encourages this
approach in resolving other environmental problems,
7. The agency will work with other federal agencies which have related
responsibilities on Indian reservations to enlist their interest and support
in cooperative efforts to help tribes assume environmental program
responsibilities for reservations. We have representatives from BIA, IHS
and USGS at this conference, agencies with whom we need to develop
better coordination in regard to environmental programs on reservations.
We have an opportunity now to address tribal concerns through a region
specific agreement between IHS and EPA. We must look for other
opportunities to improve coordination.
8. The Agency will strive to assure compliance with environmental
statutes and regulations on Indian reservations. While we have not had a
problem in this area to date, we should discuss situations where the tribe
may find itself in violation of EPA statutes. There have been instances of
non-compliance in the past; there will be instances in the future. If
-------
Page 18
anyone is worried about non-compliance ~ this conference is a good
chance to discuss how to deal with non-compliance.
9. The agency will incorporate these Indian policy goals into its planning
and management activities, including its budget, operating guidance,
legislative initiatives, management accountability system and on-going
policy and regulation development processes. This is primarily handled
by headquarters documents, but Region V has been very active in
encouraging headquarters to deal with these questions of funding and
program recognition. This conference should provide more information
for us to act on.
James Schlender, Executive Director,
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission:
I think it s very important to recognize the history of the tribes in the
region as EPA begins to develop relationships with the tribes. There are
29 tribes in Region V. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC) is composed of 11 Chippewa Tribes bordering the
states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. We have some of our
people who have been working with EPA, and GLIFWC has a subcontract
through the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) to do a tribal survey
for the EPA. The GLIFWC does some work in the area of the environment,
and Alan Ruger is our environmental biologist. But the primary thrust of
our Commission is to implement the hunting, fishing, trapping and
gathering rights of the Chippewa tribes which were guaranteed in Indian
treaties and reaffirmed by the federal judicial system in the Voiat
decision.
It's very heartening to hear the Indian policy of EPA. Indian tribes have a
trust relationship with the federal government arising out of the history of
dealing between the United States and the tribes and through the history
of Indian treaties. It's interesting to note that in the last few years, EPA
has been the only federal agency to come out with an Indian policy. I
think that it is laudable, and it is also something that is achievable in a
very practical sense through the outline of the plan that EPA has put
-------
Page 19
forward. I think it could mark a new era in the federal-tribal relationship
that could set a new standard for federal agency action with respect to
dealings with Indian tribes.
The EPA Indian policy is clearly derived from the policy of self-
determination. Broadly speaking, there have been five periods of federal
policy with respect to Indian tribes ranging from treaty-making,
allotment, reorganization, termination and self-determination. I think that
another positive thing we can look forward to is that the EPA is a young
federal agency. It is not hampered by past involvement in the
administration of past federal policies toward Indian tribes, many of
which were disastrous. For example, the Menominee Tribe went through
the termination process and it had disastrous consequences for them.
Given those two things — the relative youth of the EPA and the fact that
the EPA policy is clearly based on the current policy of self-determination
and government-to-government relationships — this bodes well for both
the federal government and for the tribes. As I said before, it could set
the standard for federal agency action with respect to Indian tribes in the
implementation of its policy.
On the other hand, the lack of its implementation could result in the same
old thing....
I see some barriers to implementing the EPA Indian policy. Foremost
among them, and it's not a new barrier but it's one that we see all the
time, except in the old days of the 060 during the war on poverty, is the
problem with funding. Funding is certainly a problem and EPA has to look
for funding within its existing budget to address the problems and
concerns of Indian tribes. In the future, the budgetary process will have
to involve Indian tribes in the planning.
There are statutory limitations that were alluded to before, because when
Congress passes legislation, unless Indians are visible and prominent for
whatever reason, Congress tends to forget about Indian tribes and forgets
that they are governments, forgets that they have a special relationship in
the history of America.
-------
Page 20
Another barrier that I've noted in documents that EPA puts out and
documents that were subcontracted through the University of Michigan, is
the tendency on the part of EPA to substitute its judgment for the
judgment of tribal decision makers. To overcome this we need to have an
increased EPA presence at the tribal level, whether that's a person at
every tribe or whether that's through some tribal consortia. And we also
need to have a tribal presence at the EPA level. One of the concerns that
should be brought out from this conference is the fact that EPA has an
Indian working group that helps to implement the Indian policy and yet
there are no representatives of tribes on that Indian working group. This
is something that needs to be looked at and remedied.
EPA is also in its youth and is willing to enter into a cooperative
relationship with Indian tribes, EPA often mouths the words that Indian
tribes are independent sovereigns. Tribes very often have had to deal
with agencies of the federal government and state governments. Very
recently we have had to deal with the siting of high-level radioactive
waste. In dealing with the State of Wisconsin, the radioactive waste siting
review board was very glib in refering to tribes as Indian nations and
then treating them as some sort of second cousin to municipal
governments....
Tribes have a great many environmental problems on their reservations.
Here in this part of Wisconsin we have a great deal of concern about
drinking water. Both ground and surface water quality controls baseline
data has to be developed for Indian tribes. Certainly for the GLIFWC our
concerns range from Lake Superior to the inland lakes and rivers of the
tri-state area. We are also concerned about wetlands protection. Very
often the thrust of the GLIFWC is to protect game species, and sometimes
we tend to forget about our responsibility to preserve a diverse
ecosystem. The area populated by the member tribes is characterized by
wetlands — the headwaters of the Chippewa River, the headwaters of the
Flambeau River - and so wetlands protection is very important.
On the reservations themselves a real concern is that of solid waste
disposal, the landfill sites. Even more ominous than that is the problem of
midnight dumping. Dumps we see on the reservations could benefit very
-------
Page 21
greatly from a cooperative arrangement with the EPA and their
experience with solid waste disposal.
Tribes have an opportunity here in the next couple of days to make
significant contact with personnel in the EPA, and they should take
advantage of that opportunity by asking questions of EPA and
disseminating that information back to the tribal level. It is incumbent
upon tribal officials to get to introduce themselves to the EPA officials, to
get to know who is working with water and who is working on air quality,
and finding out what EPA can do for you.
Tribes very often must strive to centralize their experience and their
contacts within the tribe. It is difficult at best. EPA has to recognize that
when we try to centralize experience, particularly with an elected official
that may not be around after next year s election. We really need to
centralize some sort of experience or formulate a routine so that the
experience is not lost if that individual is not reelected.
EPA has embraced the principle of a one-to-one government relationship,
and that that should not be subverted through intertribal consortia.
Consortia such as the GLIFWC can help to minimize the cost for the EPA
and can help to deliver the services to Indian tribes. But it should not be
a substitute for the one-to-one government-to-government relationship
that is embraced in the EPA Indian policy.
EPA, in some of its writings has regarded Indian tribes as America s first
stewards. We need to keep that in mind as we move toward a position of
co-stewardship of America. Funding constraints may limit the availability
of service, but it should not color the way in which the tribes are regarded
and their quasi-sovereign status. I wish you all a good and fruitful
conference and encourage you to question the progress of EPA regarding
the implementation of their Indian policy. Thank you very much.
-------
Page 22
Hilary Waukau, NCAI Minneapolis Area Vice Chairman
and a Member of the Menominee Tribal Legislature:
Good morning. I would like to say to my brothers and sisters that I'm
happy to be here to welcome you to this area as the NCAI Area Vice
President Tor Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. This is just an example
of how NCAI works with the Indian people to bring the people to the issue
and sometimes the issue to the people. There is a lot of input from tribal
people here, and that's the only way you can resolve it, as Mr. Schlender
just mentioned, on a government-to-government basis, using Indian
treaty rights and tribal sovereignty....
It seems ironic that the Indian people, who practice environment,
protecting the environment, to live with the environment, on the
environment and for the environment, come here to look for protective
measures to help us protect our resources. We had a little meeting about
a week ago, EPA was there, and they say that they are an enforcement
arm. With that in mind I would like to ask them to help us enforce some
of the things that are going on in the State of Wisconsin with regard to
degradation of the environment, particularly the pollution that is
anticipated with the Exxon project and the nuclear waste dump siting. I
think we will be getting into a lot of these issues. The Menominee Tribe, 1
am a member of the Menominee Tribal Legislature, had a meeting last
night of our mining impacts board. We are also working on rules on
groundwater, solid waste and other hazardous materials. So we are really
drafting our ordinances to cover all of these things to protect us from the
outside, not to protect us from ourselves. We have to put out a protective
screeen to regulate how other people come into our land and try to use it.
We have the makings of a good conference here, and again I would like to
say to you, on behalf of NCAI, "Welcome." I would like to talk to all of you
later, and I look forward to a good conference. Thank you.
-------
Page 23
PART B. STATEMENTS AND PANEL PRESENTATIONS
TOPIC I: THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Charles Sutfin, Director, Water Division, EPA Region V:
Mr Sutfin explained the programs that implement the mandates of the Clean
Water Act, which serves as the basis for water pollution control programs. The
Act relies on a system of permits to control point sources of pollution and
establishes a framework for enforcement of standards through the issuance of
permits. Mr. Sutfin explained how standards are set and how the permitting
system known as the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System works.
The Act provides for the delegation from EPA to the states of certain
authorities, including standard setting and permit issuance. The state first
determines the uses for which any given body of water will be designated.
Standards for various pollutants are then set to protect those uses. Discharging
pollutants into bodies of water is prohibited unless the discharger has been
issued a permit. In this way the aggregate levels of various pollutants are kept
below the limits that have been established to protect designated uses.
The Act provides for grants to municipalities for the construction of municipal
sewage treatment plants. The Act treats tribes as municipalities in the way
that tribes are eligible for receiving these grants. The Clean Water Bill which
the Congress passed in 1986 {which was vetoed but has since been enacted into
law] contains provisions authorizing the delegation of certain authorities from
EPA to tribal authorities.
Mr. Sutfin talked about the future of programs under the Gean Water Act and
the areas which are currently planned for emphasis in the near future. These
areas of emphasis include dealing with toxic substances, combined sewage
overflows, penalties for non-compliance and improvements in the
pre-treatment program for industrial wastes discharged into municipal waste
treatment facilties.
-------
Page 24
Mr. Sutfin also briefly described the Clean Lakes Program, which is a national
program to demonstrate lake restoration and control of eutrophication. Region
V has made grants for the Clean Lakes Program to the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe. He said that under the provisions of the current law, grants to tribes
require state participation, and the grant to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe was
made through the State of Minnesota. He noted that this requirement may
change under the new amendments. There is no money in this program
currently, and there is a restriction on making grants for new projects, but
authorization for such grants is included in the new amendments.
B. Leigh Price, Visiting Professor, Arizona State University College of Law:
Mr. Price provided some additional detail and perspective in the discussion of
the Clean Water Act. Saying that the Act establishes a partnership between
EPA and the states, he noted that the vetoed Clean Water Act amendments of
1986 contained provisions to bring Indian governments into this partnership.
In the context of the regulatory regime established by the Act, he said that the
basic decision to be made for any given body of water is just what uses will be
protected. Standards are based on protecting designated uses, and the permit
system is designed to keep aggregate levels of pollution below limits set to
protect designated uses. So, deciding what uses will be protected is the basic
decision. He noted that water quality in Indian country has direct impacts on
tribal health and welfare, and it is therefore a matter that is within the scope
of tribal sovereign authority.
Under the current law the tribes do not have the authority to designate uses
for those bodies of water that are within or flow through their reservations.
Thus they have no way to exercise any control over upstream sources of
pollution. The states do have some limited control over upstream pollution
sources. If an upstream state designates uses which allow more pollution than
is consistent with uses designated by the downstream state, the matter can be
referred to the Administrator of EPA for resolution.
The new amendments [which were vetoed but which have since been enacted
into law] direct EPA to take regulatory action to bring the tribes into the
partnership established by the Clean Water Act. The amendments direct EPA
-------
Page 25
to promulgate regulations providing for the treatment of tribes substantially
like states. Thus EPA will have to develop a strategy to assure that bodies of
water in Indian country are protected and funding is available to allow tribes
to become partners in protecting water resources. Mr. Price said that EPA's
strategy should include ways to assure that tribes will be able to receive grant
funds under section 106, set standards under section 303. issue permits under
section 402 and protect wetlands under section 404.
Mr. Price concluded by saying, "It's important for the tribes to understand that
this is all voluntary on their part. They need not take on the whole program at
once." They could start with a part of the program and build their programs as
they develop their expertise. He added that, for tribes that choose not to take
on the responsibilities of administering Clean Water Act programs, EPA is
committed, in its Indian policy, to fulfill the mandate of the Clean Water Act in
Indian country, subject, of course, to limits on EPA resources.
TRBATT RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ON INDIAN
LANDS
Lloyd Powless,
Member, Oneida Executive Committee:
My involvement in environmental issues started back in the middle to late
seventies with mining issues, and the tribes that were directly affected,
Forest County Potawatomi. Sokaogon Chippewa and the Menominee. At
that time I was working at Wisconsin Indian Resource Council which
worked with all of the tribes in the State raising funds for Indian
communities, and this issue arose.... I think it did a good thing for us. It
began developing a network of Native Americans that worked together on
environmental issues. This was needed, and it is still needed today. From
that issue, all of the tribes became involved, even though they might not
have been directly affected by the mining issue. We became aware that
we needed each other's help, and we started looking at treaty rights in all
areas. We started discussing openly with each other what treaty rights
meant, what mineral rights were and what position we should take. The
-------
Page 26
philosophy of tribes started to become more clear. Tribal governments
realized that it was our responsibility to protect the environment, to
protect against mining, to protect against abuses of hunting and fishing, to
protect the air quality and the water quality. Many of the people that are
here today, I've been working with since that time.
From that came involvement in the radioactive waste issue and the siting
of the repository, Wisconsin being included in the group of states being
considered for a possible second repository. In the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, because of involvement of Tribes out in Washington, issues of tribal
sovereignty were involved in the development of that bill. And again, we
had to look a little more closely at what our rights are. And so we started
at that time to try to open that door and establish a consultation process
through which federal agencies and Congress would have to deal with
tribes on this issue, the siting of a repository.... And again we had the
same group and a few others. Each issue has added a few more people to
the group. On that issue it was a committee established by the National
Congress of American Indians that brought the tribes together, and we
met with affected Tribes from the State of Washington, Idaho and
Oregon....
Environmental protection began to take a lot of the time that I had,
because I started to see how important these environmental issues are,
and how closely tied they are to treaty rights and to our philosphy as
tribal governments about what our responsibilities are. This became one
of the things that we discussed in our business committee on a regular
basis. Our Environmental Health Specialist. John Spangberg, started to
take on these environmental issues and he gave us the technical assistance
that we needed. We then started tying into EPA, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, USGS and all the agencies that should be
dealing with us and protecting our interests. Terry Jordan, one of our
game wardens, started to deal with hunting and fishing rights and with
our reservation boundaries. All this made us look more closely at our
treaty rights.
I think that when we start working with these agencies, there is a learning
process that you have to go through. I've been lucky enough to be
-------
Page 27
involved with it for several years now and I can t give you a definitive
answer to a lot of your questions about what is tribal sovereignty. It
means different things to different tribes as to what they have done and
how far they have gone with it. But 1 think that you, EPA. need to be
involved in that discussion of what treaty rights are, about what the tribes
are trying to do, about what our rights and responsibilities are. And then
you can start to make decisions and help when we bring you issues. And
then you will understand why we are bringing you those issues and why
we get upset when we are not consulted and why we get frustrated when
you don't do the things that we think should be done....
Part of our responsibility as tribal governments is that we have to keep a
consciousness about environmental issues. We may get blamed, you
know, if Fort Howard is shut down.... We would get blamed for that, and I
think that we need to make it clear that we cannot back off from bringing
out what is going on and finding out if there is a danger there. We are
trying to protect what we have, not just for our tribal people, but for the
whole community. We live here. This is our Reservation. We are going to
protect it, and we are going to make people aware of any problems that
we see. Then we can sit down and negotiate and discuss and study the
problem and come to a solution. We don't have that luxury of sitting back
and letting things take place. Right now we are a little frustrated with
federal and state agencies because we feel they are not doing enough,
quickly enough. We have to deal with that, with all the bureacracies and
the chain of command. As tribes, it is our responsibility to keep that out
in the open, to keep saying what we feel is wrong, to keep studying, to
keep monitoring logs, to keep air quality stations so that we can continue
gathering data and feeding it to the agencies, saying 'There is a potential
problem here. What are going to do about it?" We can't back off from
that, and we won't
It's good that we are getting to this point where the agencies of the state
and federal governments are coming here. They are listening to us. But
we've been through this before. WeVe had meetings like this before.
They have listened to us. We are still trying to get things done. It's nice
that you are here. And it's nice that you are listening. But I think it's
time that, if we look around and see the environmental issues that are in
-------
Page 28
this country, it s time that we start taking some action. It's time that we
start cutting the white tape, and start moving ahead. We met with Mr.
Adamkus this morning, and he explained some of the worldly
environmental issues, and his perspective on dealing with Russia and
some other countries on environmental issues all over the world. We
would like to help deal with those, but we have our own little corner of
the world that we have to keep looking out for. That's important to us.
There may be problems in Hungary. There may be problems in Russia.
There may be problems in Green Bay. And we will try to help with those.
But our main concern is our reservation and our people. We are going to
keep looking at that area until we get some satisfaction from the agencies
of the federal government and the state government. This may be a start,
another start, and I hope that we can start getting to some good solutions
rather than just being frustrated and mad for another six months and then
calling another big meeting of all the heads of departments, and you are
going to listen to us, and everybody will let the steam out, and then we
will be safe for another six months. I don't think that we can deal with
environmental issues like that any longer. They are too important.
Allen J. Allery, Area Director, Indian Health Service:
Mr. Allery stated that the Indian Health Service (IHS) is very concerned about
the environment, since the quality of the environment is one of the most
important aspects of health. The goal of the IHS is to raise the health of Indian
people to the highest possible level and to do this within the context of
recognizing the sovereignty of Indian nations and their treaty rights. IHS
recognizes the values that Indian people have in conserving natural resources
and protecting the environment.
He explained the three primary functions of the environmental health branch
of IHS. First, is environmental health services, which provides technical
assistance and services dealing with sanitation, solid waste and inspections of
public buildings. Second, is the "121" projects or sanitary facilities
construction. He noted room for improvement in coordinating with Indian
tribes and other agencies in this area. The third area is operation and
maintenance, which he noted has been a big problem for IHS.
-------
Page 29
He then vent into a little more detail on these three areas. He repeated that
coordination has been a problem with the "121" projects and said that the
tribes had taken it upon themselves to achieve better coordination.
He said that solid waste is still a major problem on most Indian reservations
and that the current IHS strategy is to haul it off the reservations to
non-Indian land.
In the operation and maintenance area, he noted the success of the circuit
rider that EPA has contracted with the Minnesota Rural Water Association. He
gave credit to EPA and expressed the hope that this program will be continued.
In response to a question, Tom B. Flora, IHS Associate Area Director for
Environmental Health, explained that IHS can provide technical assistance, and
limited financial assistance, for the development of solid waste programs. He
said that IHS is encouraging tribes to close dumps and establish containerized
systems in which solid wastes are hauled off reservation. He said that there is
a threshold at which this becomes minimally feasible because many generators
of waste will pay.
Charles McCuddy, Land Operations Officer,
Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Agency:
I'm not here to defend the Bureau. I am going to state facts. As far as
the agency and Minneapolis Area have been involved with environmental
protection in the past ten years — that's when I became Land Operations
Officer - we initiated a study in 1976 of ground and surface water on the
Mole Lake Reservation with the assistance of our sister agency, USGS,
Water Resources Division. That was probably the most intensive water
monitoring project, 1 believe, the Bureau had done to date, and possibly,
has done. There are still some short areas in there, but overall it was a
pretty good project. We also started air monitoring about 1980,1 believe.
EPA provided the shelter. The Bureau purchased the equipment. And it
was just hand-to-mouth type monitoring. Central Office did not recognize,
or refused to recognize, we had some major problems. We expanded
-------
Page 30
water resources investigations and air monitoring to the Forest County
Potawatomi Tribe, which is located on the northeast side of the proposed
Exxon project. And the Menominees have been involved, to what degree I
don't know because I don't work with them. Since 1976 the Central Office
has bestowed upon the agency a little more money every year in water
resources. We have been able to involve the Bad River Tribe to monitor
acid deposition and fluctuations of Lake Superior on their wild rice crop.
Also, Bad River Tribe has a paper mill sludge disposal problem. The
American Can Company has a rather significant site on one part of the
Reservation and a lesser site on another part. And USGS again, has
established ground water monitoring wells and are doing testing on that.
Other tribes have become involved. We are doing a water study at Lac du
Flambeau and St. Croix, for various reasons. We've also added
Stockbridge-Munsee because of the pending impact of the nuclear waste
repository project. That just started last year. Oneida was started in
1985. We were able to give the Tribe a little bit of agency money early on
to determine the impacts of some abandoned land fills on Duck Creek. But
again, Central Office was not responsive. I know this sounds like sour
grapes, but it's facts. So I'm just telling it the way it is.
As far as monitoring or reviewing environmental impact statements, for
example, the Exxon mine project, the nuclear repository project, again
Central Office didn't do much. I had to resolve the problem by involving
the Bureau of Land Management, another sister agency, as far as the
nuclear repository, and they responded on behalf of the agency on the
technical aspects of that. Our preparation of environmental assessments
at the agency level basically has been in regard to Bureau of Indian
Affairs road construction projects on the reservations, bridge projects,
reconstruction and such.
To summarize things, all I can say is that I am glad the tribes are able to
recognize the problems that exist, are able to address this, and that they
have taken the bull by the horns. Because overall, the Bureau has been
pretty lax in doing a suitable monitoring job, as far as I am concerned,
basically because of funding and because of staffing.
-------
Page 31
In response to questions, Mr. McCuddy said that the BIA is not involved in the
issuance of environmental permits and that if a parcel of tribal land becomes
polluted the BIA is at least in part responsible, under its trust responsibility,
for cleaning up the pollution. In response to the question: "Is there any
consideration being given to BIA and EPA entering into some sort of agreement
so that not only do the responsibilities of each agency get defined, but also so
that the resources of each agency can be used in the same direction?" He
expressed interest in such an agreement, but said he could not speak for the
national level. The questioner said, "What we are seeing now is no coordination
at all." To which Mr. McCuddy replied, "Exactly right, and it needs to be done."
TOPIC II: THB CLBAN All ACT
David Kee, Director, Air Management Division, BPA Region V:
Mr. Kee said that the primary emphasis of the Clean Air Act is cleaning up
dirty air. He used slides to show where the areas of dirty air are and to show
that the air quality of the reservations in the Great Lakes region is generally
quite good. He then proceeded to explain the EPA program for the prevention
of significant deterioration, or PSD, which is the program established pursuant
to the Clean Air Act which is concerned with preserving the quality of dean air.
He explained that the PSD regulations establish different three classes for how
much deterioration is allowed to occur as a result of two types of pollutants,
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, and he explained that tribes, as well as
states, have the authority to redesignate their lands as either class I,which
allows very little degradation, or class III, which allows the kind of degradation
that is associated with some kinds of industrial development.
He said that Region V has never received a request from a tribe to redesignate
in either direction, and he wanted to point this out and make sure that the
tribes understand that they have this authority. He also expressed BP As
willingness to work with any tribe that may want to pursue redesignation.
-------
Page 32
Jim Ziegler, Manager, Wildlife Program,
White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa:
Mr. Ziegler has been involved in the design and implementation of an air
quality monitoring program for the White Earth Reservation, a program carried
out through a grant from Region V. The White Earth Band of Chippewa
determined that there is a need for this program because of tribal concern for
the potential impacts on human health and natural resources from air
pollution, and because there was a lack of baseline data against which to
measure any such adverse impacts.
The White Earth program has five objectives. The first objective is to gather
baseline data, Gathering data will allow for trends to be noted and will provide
some information about the causes of any changes which are noted.
The second objective is the operation of a total suspended particles (TSP)
network. There are five TSP sampling stations spread throughout the
reservation. This network of sampling stations is used to determine the
amount of particulates at five locations, as well as the presence or absence and
amounts of heavy metals, pesticides and hazardous components of wood
smoke.
The third objective is the operation of an acid deposition monitoring network.
Rainfall is monitored for its pH level, and the soil and lakes are monitored for
their buffering qualities. Through the program it has been determined that
47% of the Reservation is potentially sensitive to acid deposition. Some lakes
have been found with a pH level lower (more acidic) than would have been
eipected. Mr. Ziegler noted that the lack of baseline data makes it hard to
know what a "normal" pH level should be.
The fourth objective is the operation of a meteorological system through which
records are kept on atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction,
precipitation, temperature and humidity. This data is useful for having an idea
about locations and sources of pollution and for helping to explain pollution
episodes.
-------
Page 33
The fifth objective is data analysis and submission. TSP concentrations are
monitored in-house. The program contracts for laboratory analysis of heavy
metals, pesticides and wood smoke. Data is submitted to both federal and state
data banks, through which it is available for the use of others. The State of
Minnesota does performance audits on the equipment used in the program, a
technical assistance service which is provided, in a sense, in exchange for
receiving the data from the program. Mr. Ziegler said, "There has been a good,
cooperative working relationship between the Tribe and the State."
Mr. Ziegler noted some of the accomplishments of the program. Four TSP
monitoring sites have been in operation since November 1984. Two acid
deposition monitoring sites have been in operation since October 1986. The
meteorological system has been in operation since November 1984. A wood
smoke pollution study was conducted during three winter months of 1985- 86.
The findings of the program, to date, are that, with the exception of a few
episodes, TSP has been well within EPA standards. Heavy metals, pesticides
and hazardous components of wood smoke are all present, but are not thought
to be above acceptable levels. However, Mr. Ziegler noted that EPA has not yet
informed the Tribe regarding just what levels it believes to be acceptable.
Mr. Ziegler identified three basic benefits to the Tribe from operating the air
quality monitoring program. First, the Tribe does not have to rely on others to
monitor air quality. Second, the program provides useful information to the
Tribe s Health and Human Services Division and Natural Resources Division.
Third, the program enables the Tribe to deal more effectively with state and
federal agencies on issues related to human health, the environment, natural
resources and air quality. Mr. Ziegler concluded by saying, "I have enjoyed
working with EPA over the past two years. It was a learning experience for
EPA as well as for the Tribe, and I'm happy to have been able to contribute to
EPA's learning curve in working with Indian tribal governments."
Gary Gulezian, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Section,
Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region V:
Mr. Gulezian said that radon in homes has recently been recognized as a major,
if not the major, environmental health problem in the United States. Radon is
an odorless, colorless and tasteless gas that comes from the radioactive decay
-------
Page 34
of uranium in soil and bedrock. Radon has been released into the air in this
way for millions of years, and it is normally quickly diluted to levels which do
not pose a threat to health. However, under certain conditions in can build up
to unhealthy levels in homes.
Radon is dangerous to human health because of its radioactivity. Once formed,
radon undergoes further radioactive decay, forming tiny charged particles
called "radon daughter products." These particles become attached to dust
particles in the air. When breathed in, these particles lodge in the linings of
the lungs and undergo further radioactive decay, causing cell damage which
may result in the development of cancer. Mr. Gulezian noted that radon in
homes is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States,
accounting for an estimated 5,000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year.
Whether or not radon is a problem depends upon whether the soil or bedrock
in an area contains uranium. If uranium is present in sufficient quaniities for
radon to be given off, the radon can enter a home through any opening
between the living space and the soil, such as cracks in the foundation wall,
openings for pipes and conduits, crawl spaces and basements with earthen
floors. Mr. Gulezian presented a slide of a map of the United States showing
that, for substantial areas of the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan,
the soils and bedrock do contain uranium. He pointed out that many reser-
vations are located in these high risk areas. He said that there is only one sure
way to find out if a home has a radon problem, testing with radon detectors.
He mentioned two relatively inexpensive kinds of radon detectors which are
described in the handout material. If a home is found to have a radon
problem, there are two main ways to reduce the health risk: sealing the
openings to prevent radon from entering the home and ventilation to keep the
concentration of radon from exceeding acceptable limits.
Finally, Mr. Gulezian described the EPA Radon Action Program. The goals of
this program are to determine the extent of the problem, to reduce exposure to
radon in existing housing and to prevent radon problems in new housing. The
approach of this program is nonregulatory. The emphasis is on providing
technical assistance and encouraging states. Indian tribes and the private
sector to take responsibility. He encouraged concerned tribal representatives
to contact EPA for assistance.
-------
Page 35
TOPIC III: EPA PILOT PROJECT ON THE MENOMINEE RESERVATION -
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SURFACE AND
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
B. Leigh Price, Visiting Professor,
Arizona State University College of Law:
Mr. Price explained that part of EPA's strategy to implement its Indian policy
has been to fund tribal pilot projects, and he described the history of the
Menominee pilot project, which he helped develop during his work at EPA
headquarters. He traced the origin of the project to a gasoline spill that had
occurred several years ago on the Menominee Reservation. In that case, the
state had gone in and cleaned it up, but the attoneys for the state had become
upset because, among other things, the state's actions had gone beyond the
reach of its insurance coverage. This experience gave the tribe, EPA and the
state an awareness of the need for, and a frame of reference in which to
negotiate, a pilot project. Mr. Price said:
The basic logic, the underlying assumption, the thing that makes dis-
cussions possible in this arena has been, at least in my opinion, has been
Wisconsin's willingness to accede to the jurisdiction of the tribal govern-
ment and the fundamental power of tribal government for making
decisions regarding what happens on the reservation.
The particular pilot that is being developed at Menominee is one for the
control of hazardous wastes. Again coming out of the prior experience of
that gasoline truck spill. What we have been working toward, and what
has been negotiated, in broad outlines between the Tribe and State, is one
in which the Tribe makes the decisions. The Tribe is the party with the
authority, with the sovereignty, and the Tribe says this is what we want to
see, these are the rules that should govern hazardous wastes. And the
Tribe promulgates a tribal code which would ultimately be enforced by
the Tribe and not by the State. What the State has to offer in this kind of
setting is that the State has capabilities. They have laboratories, they
have technical ability, that can be used to support the tribal government's
ability to make decisions for the Reservation and carry them out through
-------
Page 36
the enforcing of the law. This approach, with a division of labor, can be
structured into a program which would take over from EPA what would
otherwise be EPA's responsibility, in a program for the management of
hazardous waste on a reservation.
As such, this idea, which is very new, and, again, which 1 think is made
possible by Wisconsin's ability to accede to tribal authority in the area, is
something that stands as a symbol, in a sense, to the entire country. There
are, in my experience, nationally, states throughout the country, the worst
example being the State of Washington, with the State of New Mexico not
much further behind, that have argued very hard to EPA that EPA should
not have promulgated the policy it did because, as these States argue, only
the state, as they see it, has the ability to regulate the environment This
obviously is not our position and it obviously is not the tribes' position.
But they have been there making the argument that tribes can't do it.
And in a sense what EPA is doing is something of an experiment. There
are not a lot of precedents for it. And one of the things that we wanted to
do was to be able to show the world that states and tribes can work
together, with the major negotiating sticking point being accession to tribal
sovereignty. As long as States like Washington are fighting and going to
court over the issue of who calls the shots, there cannot be cooperation.
Once tribal sovereignty is acceded to, in places where tribes are recognized
by the courts as having authority over reservation affairs, then it becomes
possible to work together as equals, to work together on the basis of
comity the way nations work together on the basis of comity.
With that sort of overview, to see if we could find a way to do this and
find a way that it would work, we set about with the Menominee Tribe,
the State of Wisconsin, through the DNR. and the EPA to see what we could
negotiate and develop in that area. That was our overall view, and that
was the objective we began with.
-------
Page 37
Kenneth Vestlike, Project Officer for the
Menominee Pilot Project, EPA Region V:
Mr. Westlake began by noting that, in addition to the gasoline spill, the
Menominee Tribe was also interested in establishing a pilot project because of
an underlying concern with the possible impacts of the proposed Exxon mine.
EPA's overriding interest was to find an example in which the theoretical
document — the EPA Indian policy — could be brought to a real life situation in
which a tribe would essentially run its own affairs, with EPA oversight. Mr.
Westlake said:
EPA is not giving up its trust responsibilities to provide for a clean and
safe environment for citizens of the reservations, but it is recognizing that
the tribe is sovereign and we can work within that concept of sovereignty
to give the tribe a greater say in how affairs are run on the reservation.
Among the goals we set up when we developed this program is that we
wanted the Tribe to set up tribal rules that could be enforced within the
tribal court system for management of their own environmental affairs.
EPA and, in this case, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
would provide primarily an oversight role and a technical assistance role.
This does not constitute a formal delegation. As you have heard earlier
today, most of the national environmental laws do not provide for a direct
delegation from the federal level to the tribe to run a program. So what
we are doing here in the form of an experiment is to establish an informal
mechanism for the tribes to operate certain portions of the program.
Presumably based on the experience that we develop in this program, we
will have a better case to make when laws come up for reauthorization as
to how we should go about making this delegation of a more formal part of
our environmental statutes at the federal level.
We wanted to develop a program that met the specific needs of the
Menominee Tribe, after all it it their specific Tribal rules that we are
developing and implementing. We do want to develop something that will
be a pilot that can be used elsewhere, that other tribes and other states
can look at as a model, but fundamentally, we wanted to do something
that would serve the specific needs of the Menominee Tribe, given their
-------
Page 38
geography, land uses, and the situations surrounding their Reservation.
We recognize that with the Menominee model what we are still in the
process of developing is not likely to be adaptable to all tribes. The
Menominees have a fairly large Reservation. They have a fairly good
body of expertise within house. They have the administrative capability
to do some things that smaller tribes that lack resources and lack
expertise are not going to be able to do, for all practical purposes. What
we think will happen in the case of smaller reservations is that there will
have to be a greater direct federal role, or we might use the model that is
being developed now by the Minnesota Rural Water Association, where
one staff person provides services to a number of small reservations. That
also holds some promise for some reservations. In the Menominees' case,
we see them as largely being able to conduct their own affairs, with some
specific oversight from EPA.
The tribal program focuses on four basic areas: solid waste management,
hazardous waste management, surface water quality protection and ground
water quality protection. Because most federal environmental statutes do not
allow for formal delegation to the tribes, the program has been designed so
that tribal rules will be at least as stringent as federal rules. As the project
moves from planning to implementation, there will be a body of tribal
regulations, which will have to be discussed and passed by the tribal
legislature. There will also be a memorandum of understanding among EPA.
Wisconsin DNR and the Tribe which delineates responsibilities for making the
program work. There will also be a series of annual work plans.
EPA anticipates making a follow-up grant to the Tribe, but Mr. Westlake said,
"Ultimately, I think we are going to look primarily to the Tribe s own resources
to sustain this program over the longer term." Acknowledging that this is a
problem, since most tribes are not in a position to bring a lot of resources to
bear on taking on a new administrative role, he added "EPA is going to have to
take the bull by the horns in future years as it implements its Indian policy to
provide additional resources to tribes to make the concept of an Indian-EPA
partnership a reality."
Mr. Westlake commended the Tribe for their perserverence in this process.
During the two years of the project there have been three different tribal
-------
Page 39
chairmen. "Any time a single initiative can survive that kind of turnover in the
political establishment, it shows that there is an underlying commitment to the
program on the part of the Tribe." He also expressed appreciation to Dave
Hildreth and the staff of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for
their extraordinary level of contribution to bringing the project to fruition.
David A. Hildreth, Assistant District Director,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:
Mr. Hildreth described the role of the State DNR in the project, which was
primarily providing advice and technical assistance in planning and in the
development of the regulations. He expressed the intention to continue to
perform this role during the implementation process.
The first step of course was to develop a memorandum of understanding which
provided a framework for EPA and DNR and the Menominee Indian Tribe to
work together on environmental protection issues. Through the MOU,
Wisconsin DNR committed to provide assistance to the project, and quite a lot of
DNR staff time was spent in the development of the regulations.
The second step was the environmental program development This included
identifying the main concerns and developing the regulations. This is the
activity in which the DNR spent most of their time and effort The key to this
whole step was to try to develop effective regulations that would be workable
once they were implemented.
The next step is the implementation of the regulations. The Menominee Indian
Tribe is working toward that right now. For the DNR, the role is technical
assistance and advice. Mr. Hildreth gave several examples of the kinds of help
that the DNR can provide. He said:
Some examples of things that we can provide would be training in moni-
toring techniques, training on inspection techniques, operation and main-
tenance waste water treatment plants or water supply systems. We can
provide technical assistance in the review of various plans that would be
submitted to the tribe for the regulations. We can perform joint field
-------
Page 40
inspections for hazardous waste sites, solid waste sites, or other facilities
on the reservation. There should be a choice made here at some point as
to whether the Tribe wants to train their own people to do these
inspections, or whether they would like to have people from the state
acompany them on the inspections. Either way would be fine with us. We
also can review and interpret data, troubleshoot potential problems, such
as waste water treatment plants or water supply systems. Taste and odor
problems are things that sometimes occur in water systems, and we would
be glad to have people come in and help out with those. As far as direct
monitoring, though, we have very limited capability to provide that If
there is a special monitoring project that you would have, we could
probably work something out. Or if there is something that relates to our
ongoing programs, we could direct some of those resources toward the
reservation, something like VOC, volatile organic contaminants, monitoring
or pesticide monitoring in wells is something that we are doing around the
state, and if the Tribe would like we could direct some of those samples
toward the reservation.
The final step in the process is the development of an annual work plan, in the
Menominee Indian Tribe identifies what it would like to do, and then the DNR
determines how much support would be needed in order to accomplish those
things in any given year. Desires must be balanced with the amount of
resources that are available. An annual work plan will help minimize
misunderstandings and also help keep the lines of communication open
between the tribe and the state and the federal government.
Mr. Hildreth said that the Wisconsin DNR is definitely in support of the
development of environmental protection programs on Indian reservations.
"As neighbors with common concerns for the protection of the environment, we
feel that it is in everybody's best interest to work together in these programs."
He expressed the hope that other Wisconsin Indian Tribes will follow this
example.
-------
Page 41
Brian S. Cooke, EPA Pilot Project Planner,
Menominee Indian Tribe:
Mr. Cooke gave an overview of the regulations that were developed under the
pilot project. The regulations govern four subject areas: solid waste
management, hazardous waste management, groundwater quality protection
and surface water quality protection. The regulations are patterned on state
regulations. Mr. Cooke said that this is because Wisconsin has some
progressive environmental laws which provided appropriate models for the
tribal regulations. He also said that using the state regulations as models
makes it easier for the state to provide assistance when requested, since they
do not have to become familiar with a different regulatory approach.
The solid waste management regulations cover the transportation, transfer and
disposal of solid waste, as well as provide siting and design criteria for new
landfills. There is a fee schedule that accompanies the various steps in the
landfill planning design and operation process, and there is a provison for
payments to be made into escrow accounts so that there is sufficient money
available to dose out and maintain the landfill after it's closed in the event that
the owner or operator fails to do so. Mr. Cooke said:
These regulations can serve as a model for other tribes of the region, and
hopefully there is at least the primary format in these regulations that can
be followed by other tribes. Of course more specific areas will have to be
looked at and changed to fit the individual tribe's situation. There is also a
fee schedule that accompanies the various steps in the landfill planning
design and operation process. This would pertain to situations in which a
private operator may want to undertake a landfill on the reservation. In
most cases though it's the tribe itself that maintains its landfills.
The hazardous waste management regulations are also patterned after
state statutes to some extent, NR-181, which is the Wisconsin
Administrative Code governing hazardous waste mangement. The tribal
regulations are. however, more stringent in several areas than either state
or federal regulations. These regulations address the generation,
short-term storage and transportation of hazardous substances, not just
wastes, but substances as well, also including nuclear materials, explosives
-------
Page 42
and PCBs. Ail hazardous waste generators on the reservation are
regulated, regardless of size. There are also feasibility and plan of
operations report requirements for hazardous waste generators, similar to
an operator wanting to undertake construction of a landfill on the
reservation. There are siting and design criteria for locating a facility
which, as a byproduct of its manufacturing process, produces hazardous
waste. Long-term storage and disposal of hazardous substances are
completely prohibited on the reservation. The hazardous material
transportation licensing scheme is going to be in effect, and that's going to
be based upon the amount and toiicity of the material to be transported
as well as its frequency of transport. The Tribe does not tax, and in order
to support the implementation of this program this will be a means to
provide revenue to the Tribe in order to carry out regulation of hazardous
waste transporters. Another stringent requirement of the regulations is
prior notification for shipments of hazardous materials through the
reservation. Emergency preparedness plans are required for hazardous
materials generators as well as hazardous waste transporters.
The groundwater quality protection regulations contain public health and
public welfare standards, they delineate where the standards shall apply, and
they include preventive action limits and enforcement standards. There are
also provisions for ground water use limitations. Preventive action limits serve
as a forewarning that something is being contaminated by a specific substance
and that some type of remedial action should be taken before the actual
enforcement standard is attained or exceeded.
The surface water quality protection regulations contain two specific use
designations: cold water aquatic life and industrial use. There are categories of
standards and guidelines for the application of those standards. The
regulations also contain provisions for use limitations of surface water and
provisions for monitoring.
Mr. Cooke concluded:
Some of the specific concerns, I think, that are going to arise in regard to
implementing the regulatory program once the regulations are adopted as
tribal ordinances. One is that in some instances, particularly in regard to
-------
Page 43
siting landfills, it could be a case of the tribe enforcing upon itself. In this
instance the department that is responsible for planning the landfill and
so forth, designing it, would also be the same entity that would be
responsible for complying with the standards. But again, the Tribe may
also consider other alternatives. It presently has several open dump sites
on the reservation. So what we are looking for eventually is complete,
possibly off-reservation, transport of solid waste. Nonetheless, the
regulations are there in the event that a new landfill would be initiated on
the reservation and the existing open dump sites closed. Another area of
concern for the Tribe is that enforcement of the hazardous substance
transportation regulations against off-reservation transporters could be
too much of a burden for the tribal police department, especially if the
Exxon mine is developed north of the reservation and there are significant
quantities of hazardous materials being transported through the
reservation by both rail and highway. That remains to be seen, the
volume and types of materials that could be transported. Another area of
concern is the enforcement of provisions that are more stringent than
federal regulations. This could prove difficult for the Tribe, since the EPA
could not enforce provisions that are any more stringent than what the
federal regulations provide. So this would leave the Tribe up to its own
devices to take enforcement action on those areas that are not covered by
the federal program.
This presentation was followed by an extended dialogue about whether or not
EPA can enforce a tribal regulation which is more stringent than the federal
regulation.
Leigh Price added:
If the EPA goes in and takes people into federal court for violation of the
standard. The tribe can certainly enforce it Even if EPA decides it cannot
enforce a more rigorous standard, the tribe can proceed to set that
standard and enforce that standard in tribal court. It's entirely within the
tribe's prerogative, as a matter of its own sovereign power. This morning
I was discussing water quality. Water pollution travels with the water.
Air pollution blows with the wind. In order to gain some kind of
regulatory control over off-reservation polluters, you need to have either
EPA or the upstream state to be beholding to enforce in such a Way that
-------
Page 44
the reservation is protected. With hazardous, you don't have such a
transport problem, and the basic problem we were having, as 1
understood it, was enforcing against on-reservation pollution sources. The
tribe can only eiercise its sovereign powers over on-reservation polluters.
If you are going to go off-reservation, you need some mechanism wherein
you are utilizing the federal scheme, such as we were discussing with the
Gean Water Act. This is a problem that you don't get under RCRA.
Further questions?
A participant asked, "Let's say there is a federal standard that exists for Indian
land. Why would that not be enforceable by EPA?"
Leigh Price responded:
I hesitate to answer because I know what I am going to say will sound
terribly legalistic and complicated. Maybe an easier way would be to say
it's a moot issue, because whenever we promulgate a program, let's say we
are talking about the Menominee program right now, we will promulgate a
federal program for the Menominee Reservation, of which certain
components will be managed by the state, certain components will be
managed by the Menominee, and, conceivably, others would be managed
by the federal government. In the act of promulgating a program for a
specific piece of territory, arguably, we did rulemaking. Arguably, we
made a regulation under law. And arguably at that point, we have
promulgated a further federal standard.... We've discussed this issue, the
lawyers of EPA from various regions,... and this issue of enforceability of
more rigorous standards has come up under virtually every EPA program.
The general consensus is that, yes, we can enforce, through rulemaking or
whatever, we can find our way to enforce more rigorous standards set by
tribes. When it comes to the hazardous problem, I was not aware that we
had made some kind of determination to the contrary. So if we have, I
would like to look at the memo for further detail.
Brian Cooke:
I would like to make a point that this is not an academic discussion, that
the Menominees are in fact going to establish more rigorous, more
-------
Page 43
restrictive, regulations. They will be enacted, and then the question of
enforcement will not be an academic question. If we are unable to enforce
at the tribal level, who then are we going to call on? And at that point,
what will happen?
Leigh Price responded:
The issue will be forced and a decision will be made. It is tribal
enforcement that makes this work, and looking at the law to the extent
that I have, I think you are going to win your enforcement action without
any need to refer back to the federal government. As a final statement,
EPA needs to be able to give a clear, definitive answer to Menominee and
other tribes as to whether we consider more rigorous standards
enforceable, whether it's RCRA, water, air or whatever, and, secondarily, if
they are not now enforceable, what needs to be done in order to make
them federally enforceable? I can't give you a clear answer, but I will
take your message back to the lawyers.
-------
Page 46
Thursday, December 4, 1986
TOPIC IV: THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Charles H. Sutfin, Director, Water Division, EPA Region V:
The Safe Drinking Water Act was first enacted in 1974 and most recently
amended in June of this year. It includes authorization for four main
program areas. Two of the programs were authorized in the 1974 Act and
two new programs were authorized in the 1986 act Rich Freeman, an
Environmental Scientist in the Safe Drinking Water Branch of the Water
Division, has responsibility for the Public Water Supply Program, which is
the program for regulating the quality of drinking water for community
and non-community water systems, and the Underground Injection
Control Program, which is a program for regulating the construction and
operation of wells that are used for the underground injection of wastes.
In the Office of Ground Water, which is also in the Water Division, we have
centered the responsibility for the two new programs under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Wellhead Protection Program, which is a program
for protecting public drinking water wells from contamination, and the
Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program, which is a demonstration
program for protecting sole sources of drinking water or sole source
acquifers which are used as sources of drinking water. I want to go into
each of these programs and describe them in a little more detail.
First of all the Public Water Supply Program. There are two types of
public water supply systems that are defined in the Safe Drinking Water
Act First, the community water systems which has 15 or more service
connections or serves a population of 25 or more residents. Currently in
Region V, on Indian lands there are 83 community water systems.
Another category is called non-community water systems, and these are
systems that serve transient populations such as hotels, headstarts,
schools, hospitals, even bingo palaces are non-community water systems.
We are just now working on an inventory of non-community water
-------
Page 47
systems on Indian lands this year. The reason there are two different
types of water system defined in the law is to distinguish between the
level of monitoring and the number of parameters that would be
regulated for these systems. For non-community systems there are only
three parameters that are regulated with standards, and the monitoring
for those three parameters is less frequent. Currently for community
water systems there are 22 parameters for which there are drinking
water standards established. The new Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments that were passed this last summer vastly expand the scope
of the program, from 22 parameters to 108 parameters by 1991. It's
being expanded to include more volatile organic contaminants, pesticides,
a whole list of parameters that are actually defined and listed in the law
for which we are required to establish drinking water standards along a
fixed time frame in the next few years. Tribal personnel are responsible
under the program for collecting samples for bacteriological analysis,
microbiological analysis, and to report the results to Region V.
The Underground Injection Control Program, is a program for regulating
the construction and operation of underground injection wells. The
program is designed around five classes of wells. A class I well is a well
that is designed to inject underground, below sources of drinking water,
hazardous or non-hazardous wastes. Class II are wells that are involved
in oil and gas production, primarily for brine disposal or for enhanced oil
recovery. Class III wells are wells that are used for solution mining. Class
IV wells are banned. These are wells that are involved in the
underground injection of hazardous wastes above or into underground
sources of drinking water. If we discover any, we shut them down. Class
V is sort of all others. These are wells that are injecting non-hazardous
wastes into or above underground sources of drinking water. Now we are
trying to do an inventory and assessment of class V wells in all the states
in the region.
At the present time there are no UIC programs on Indian lands because
we have not found ray UIC weUs. We are trying to do in inventory of
those wells it this time using the Minnesota Rural Water Association and
Larry Bailey to do that inventory. In terms of the States that the Indian
lands we in, Minnesota does not allow underground injection wells, except
-------
Page 48
for class V wells. Minnesota has not been granted primacy from EPA, so if
an underground injection veil was to be constructed and operated in
Minnesota, it would be regulated by us. Michigan currently regulates all
classes of wells under a state authorized program, but we also have
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act for regulating those
wells, class I as well as all the other classes of wells in the State of
Michigan. The State of Michigan has no primacy. Wisconsin has banned
all injection wells, and so therefore there is no underground injection
activity in Wisconsin. We have granted primacy to the State of Wisconsin,
but the funds that are involved in that program are used primarily for
them to operate their ground water protection program to insure that
their ban on underground injection wells is carried out within the State.
As I said at the outset, we are conducting an inventory of UIC wells on
Indian lands, and none have been identified to date, but we expect to find
some in northern Michigan where there is considerable oil production
activity.
The Office of Ground Water, of which Bill Melville is a member of the
staff, is the lead office in the Water Division for operating the Sole Source
Aquifer Program and the Wellhead Protection Program, and I'll get to a
description of those programs in a second. A major function of that office
is to provide technical assistance to tribes on ground water protection. At
the meeting last night we discussed the Exxon mine situation and the idea
of providing assistance to the tribes on the groundwater aspects of that
project, and that office would be available to provide that kind of
assistance. We also serve to provide information to states and tribes on
ground water on a regular basis. We use the Q & M Sarviceline publication
through the Minnesota Rural Water Association to make information
available on ground water, and we are also regularly distributing ground
water communications throughout the region of general interest nature.
The first new program under the Safe Drinking Water Act is the Wellhead
Protection Program, and the emphasis of that program is to make funds
available to local agencies to develop management plans to protect public
water supply weilfields and recharge areas. Primacy is not required in
order to get a wellhead protection program grant from us. This is sort of
an independent program and it is solely for the purpose of developing a
-------
Page 49
management plan for wellhead protection areas. We are mandated by the
law to come up with guidance and regulations for this program by
December of 1987. There will be special provisions in this guidance that
will relate to Indian tribes. The draft of that information will be available
by June of 1987, and, assuming Congress appropriates funds and those
funds are approved by the President, grants will be made available
nationally in fiscal year 1988 to both develop those ground water
protection plans as well as to implement those plans. The Safe Drinking
Water Act authorizes, I think it's 30 to 35 million dollars per year for this
program, nationwide. What is acutally appropriated, of course, depends
upon the appropriations process.
The neit new program is the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program.
This program has evolved out of a provision in the 1974 act that provided
for designation of sole source aquifers. These are aquifers that represent
the sole source of groundwater supplying a public water supply system
that serves at least 50% of the population in the area of the aquifer. The
original purpose of this provision in the law was to insure that where
there was a sole source aquifer designated under the original law, that
federal activities, that is, activities that are funded by the federal
government, would not serve to contaminate that sole source aquifer. The
net result of the program was for us to have to evaluate the groundwater
impact of any federal activity in the sole source aquifer area. That was
the original law. The new law builds on that original program and allows
us to make grants to local agencies to demonstrate effective programs for
protecting sole source aquifers. The regulations that are being developed
for this program, and they are due under the law by December of 1987,
are being worked on nationally now. We expect to have drafts out to June
or July, and then we will find out a lot more about how the program will
work. Our Groundwater Office chief is on the national cogifliiitee for
coming up with those regulations, in fact she is back in Washington today
working on that. The schedule is to try to come out with a draft sometime
this summer.
The requirements of the law are that is order to petition for a sole source
aquifer demonstration grant are, first of alt, you have to demonstrate that
the aquifer is a sole source of drinking water, define the tote source from
-------
Page 50
a hydrogeologic standpoint, document the vulnerability of the ground-
water in the area of a sole source aquifer and demonstrate that
replacement of the sole source aquifer would be an economic burden. This
is the test for defining what is a sole source aquifer. Applications for
designation as a sole source aquifer must be submitted to EPA by June of
1988. Successful applicants will then be considered for a demonstration
grant, and the demonstration grant would be for the purpose of
developing a management plan to protect that aquifer. If there is any
intention to use this process, I think it's safe to say that the earlier the
better. As soon as the criteria for establishing a sole source aquifer and
for applying for a demonstration grant are clearly stated, either in draft
form or in final form, I think it behooves somebody that wants to take
advantage of this program to move quickly because there are 4 million
dollars available annually, I believe, for this program. That's not much to
go around, nationally....
The new amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act have specific
provisions for Indian tribes, consistent with the national Indian policy for
EPA. The first point is that the tribes are to be treated as states and
considered for primacy as the states are under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The national Indian Primacy Workgroup has drafted up the
necessary regulations. Rich Freeman of the Water Division is on that
workgroup, and I believe that copies of those regulations have been made
available to you all, and we have received some comments. The proposal
is to promulgate those regulations by December of 1987. That's required
by the law.
What does primacy mean? It means essentially that if a tribe applies for
primacy and they are granted primacy, then they are responsible for
carrying out the Safe Drinking Water Act for public water supplies or for
UIC on Indian lands. By carrying out I mean establishing the standards
and enforcing those standards. Tribes in order to get primacy must meet
minimum eligibility requirements. First they must adopt drinking water
standards that are at least as stringent as EPA standards. Secondly, they
have to identify a tribal authority responsible for implementing
requirements of the program. Thirdly, they have to identify sources of
funds to match federally available funds, and demonstrate that necessary
-------
Page 51
laboratory capabilities are available, either from the tribe or
off-reservation sources. Money available for this region, in fiscal year
1986 we received $35,000. For the UIC program we received $30,000 in
fiscal 1986. Under the draft regulations that are being worked on for the
new amendments, Rich tells me that Region V can expect to receive about
$85,000 for fiscal year 1988 and UIC another $30,000. That's fiscal
year 1988 because the primacy regulations don't go into effect until
December 1987. Tribes can apply for primacy as soon as the regs are
promulgated. They will go into effect 60 days after they are promulgated
in December 1987.
Mr. Sutfin talked about some of the things that Region V is currently doing for
tribes under the Safe Drinking Water Act. including providing technical advice
through their contracted circuit rider. Larry Bailey of the Minnesota Rural
Water Association, disseminating information and sponsoring workshops, con-
ducting joint sanitary service surveys, in cooperation with the Indian Health
Service, and analysing samples for tribes for chemical and radiological stan-
dards and volatile organic contaminants. He gave credit to Rich Freeman in
the Region V public water supply program, calling him the "sparkplug" in
getting all this started.
Ton B. Flora, Associate Area Director for
Environmental Health, Indian Health Service:
Mr. Flora gave some background on a memorandum of understanding between
EPA and IHS. He explained that IHS constructs Indian community water
systems and then turn them over to the tribes, stepping out of the picture
except for technical assistance. The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate the
provision of technical assistance.
A dialogue folloved, in which an BPA speaker explained that the allocation of
funds to tribes which may apply for primacy will not mem that the smaller
tribes will lose services from BPA.
The way the allocation formula goes for the states is that it is based on the
number of community water systems, the number of non-community
-------
Page 52
water systems, land area and population served by the community water
systems. Those are the four key factors that go into this magic formula
that is applied. With the Indian lands, because of the number of small
reservations, there is going to be a fudge factor, that will be such that,
depending on the number of tribes that do decide to apply for primacy,
this fudge factor will be such that not all the money can be drained. We
don't want any small reservation to not be able to benefit from the
program. So that is going to be a limiting criteria on the tribes that do
apply for primacy. We may have a pot of $85,000, but that has to be
distributed among 29 reservations, most of whom, in our region, are not
expected to opt for primacy....
Basically what would happen is that the tribe, for a public water supply
program, if they were to meet the minimum requirements for eligibility
and were to apply for primacy, they would be eligible for a two-year
start-up grant. Over that two-year period they would receive funding
from our agency that would allow them to develop a program. That
program plan would be reviewed annually to make sure that some mile-
stones that we would negotiate are met. At the end of those two years, if
they have gotten their program up to speed like we would eipect, then
they would take the whole program. We do not, in the drinking water
program have any partial delegation. It's either full primacy or now
primacy, at this point....
With the PWS program on Indian lands, it's not a high tech type program,
to the degree that UIC is. So we recognize that there are resources needed
to run a PWS program, public water supply program, resources basically
in terms of manpower to go out and take the samples, properly maintain
the records, and things of that sort. That's a people type of a thing, it's not
a high tech type of thing. The UIC program, where you might want to
have a little bit more technical expertise and develop it. there is a
three-year start-up grant. The learning curve can be accomplished in two
years for PWS, and we are willing to go with a two-year start-up grant.
-------
Page 33
In response to the question of whether a group of tribes could apply for
primacy and share a program, Mr. Suftin answered:
That's on the table for discussion. I can see where in Region V, maybe an
entity like Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, or Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission may be designated to be the lead primacy. We are
open to talking about those sorts of things. Those things are still open to
discussion, and we welcome any ideas you have on that. The comment
period on those draft regulations was December 2. That's not to say that
you can t still have some input into it. That was just a formal time period.
They are all still very rough draft proposals. This idea was something that
I presented in our meeting in September, was the idea that in our region
that might be appropriate, but it really opens up a can of worms, and it
really has to be hammered out. I don't think it's something that we can
come to a conclusion on right now. But I would be interested in hearing
how that might come about. Who would want to be a lead agency? And
how the tribal chairmen would agree to it. There are all kinds of
questions that come to mind. We are open to considering that sort of
thing. Does anybody have any ideas on that? Does it sound like
something to think about more seriously? Is there any precedent for
that? Is there a central representative group that could take the program
now and run the program?
Another participant asked, "Will the Safe Drinking Water Act monies permit
the tribes to better pay for the services that are required for water testing?"
The response was that, under the Drinking Water Program, EPA currently pays
for laboratory analyses for inorganics and VOCs, and, if a tribe takes primacy,
these costs will become the responsibility of that tribe, using grant funds, in
part, If a tribe wants to upgrade an existing tribal laboratory, rather than con-
tract for the analyses, EPA grant funds could be used to purchase the necessary
equipment. However, it was noted that contracting may be more appropriate,
since there may not be a sufficient work load to justify the purchase of such
equipment.
-------
Page 54
TOPIC V: RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA).
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST) AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND LIABILTT ACT
(CERCLA OR "SUPERFUND")
Basil Constantelos, Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region V.-
Mr. Constantelos provided a brief overview of the two statutes, beginning with
RCRA. He explained how the regulatory program to control hazardous
substances has evolved from a concept of "cradle to grave," which assumed that
substances would eventually be buried in landfills, to a concept of production-
destruction which looks toward the destruction of hazardous substances. He
described how the regulatory regime is becoming progressively more
restrictive, using lower threshold amounts, regulating more substances, and
pushing toward "ultimate" technologies.
He then briefly explained the Superfund program, noting that the law was
amended on October 17, 1986, and now provides that tribes be afforded
substantially the same treatment as states. He is seeking for input from tribal
governments to help him carry out this mandate. He gave an example of one
aspect of the program in which EPA cannot treat tribes the same as it treats
states. Preliminary assessments of suspected hazardous waste sites have
normally been contracted to the states, but he said that this will not work with
sites in Indian country since tribes generally do not have the technical expertise
to conduct such assessments.
There was a considerable amount of dialogue about the Superfund program.
Participants asked such questions as whether it really makes any difference
whether a request to put a site on the Superfund list comes from a tribe or a
state. He answered that any citizens can make such a request, but EPA does ask
the state if it wants a site listed. Since the law has been amended, EPA will now
ask the tribe if a site is located in Indian country. But he said whether or not a
site is listed depends upon a mathematical model called a "hazardous ranking
score." This model includes a number of parameters and is not necessarily
limited by the number of people who might be affected.
-------
Page 55
There was much discussion about the Fort Howard site, which is partially within
the Oneida reservation. Several tribal participants expressed suspicion
regarding the investigation of this site by the State. Mr. Constantelos said that
he was not familiar with the details and would tend to think that the State had
done a thorough investigation. However, because of the recent change in the
law, it seemed to him that EPA should look at the site again. He agreed to
pursue it.
He also mention a provision in CERCLA which mandates a survey, in consultation
with Indian tribes, to determine the extent of hazardous waste sites on Indian
lands. The national office of EPA had contracted with the Council of Energy
Resource Tribes (CERT) to conduct this survey. There was some discussion
about how to include tribes that did not particpate in that survey, but, at this
point, there are no answers to this question.
In response to a question about how long it takes to deal with a hazardous
waste site once it has been identified, he acknowledged that some sites will take
a long time to get cleaned up. But he also noted BPA's authority under CERCLA
to respond to hazards, such as truck or train accidents, which pose an immediate
threat to health and safety.
TOPIC VI: TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) AND FEDERAL
INSECTICIDE. FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDB ACT (FIFRA)
Greg Czajkowski, Environmental Scientist,
Environmental Services Division, EPA Region V:
Mr. Czajkowski explained that the two programs administered by his division in
region V which he thought would be of most interest to the tribes are the
programs concerned with PCBs and with asbestos.
He began by alerting the participants to some potential problem areas to be
aware of regarding PCBs. He said to be aware that pole-mounted electrical
equipment may contain PCBs. He also said that road oiling is rural areas can be
a very serious problem, since waste oil commonly contains some PCBs and this
is an area in which federal regulations are hard to enforce. Another potential
problem area is scrapping of electrical equipment for the metal content.
-------
Page 36
The other program that he talked about was the program for abatement of
asbestos hazards in schools, pursuant to the Asbestos in Schools Hazard
Abatement Act (ASHA). He explained the process by which schools can apply to
participate in this program, and said that EPA sends out letters every year to
schools to inform them about the program. Letters intended to reach Indian
schools have been sent to the BIA. If tribal representatives feel that this is not
an adequate way to get the word out, he asked them to provide feedback and
ideas for alternatives. He also explained that technical assistance is available
from EPA regardless of whether or not a school has been approved for abate-
ment funding. Technical assistance in one year could be a step toward receiving
abatement funding in a subsequent year.
One of the tribal participants described a problem in trying to get the BIA to
deal with an asbestos problem in the Oneida tribal schools. He said, "Dealing
with BIA is like beating your head against a wall. After six months of letters
and phone calls they referred it to Albuquerque, and then Albuquerque said
they didn't have travel money." Mr. Czajkowski replied that EPA does have
inspectors and travel money, and if a tribe requests assistance someone will be
sent to help. He informed participants that at least one person on BIA's
Albuquerque staff recently completed one of EPA's asbestos training courses, so
BIA may be better able to help. He added, "But regardless of what the BIA
does, we would also like to help you out."
John Tice, Biologist, Environmental Services Division, EPA Region V:
Mr. Tice made a brief presentation on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). He explained that, although EPA regulates pesticides
on a national level, regulation at the local level is generally done by the states.
There are two FIFRA programs which states can operate. One is the certification
and training program. Agricultural, industrial and other uses of pesticides are
prohibited unless the applicator has been trained and certified. The second
program is the enforcement program. All Region V states operate both
programs, and, consequently, EPA operates neither program in Region V.
-------
Page 57
Mr. Tice said the tribes could apply to EPA to operate one or both of these
programs and noted that the Northern Cheyenne Tribe is involved in a pilot
project to operate pesticide programs on its Reservation. But he also noted that
both programs currently require substantial matching contributions, require-
ments to which the tribes would be subject.
EPA Region V lacks the resources to carry out enforcement activities, due to the
fact that ail the states in the Region operate their own programs. The state
programs are currently available to the tribes. Anyone can participate in the
training program, and states will also carry out enforcement actions in Indian
country, if requested by the appropriate Indian government. They will not
come into Indian country without being asked. If the tribes consider this
situation to be a problem, EPA is willing to meet with tribal representatives to
discuss possible alternatives, according to Mr. Tice.
-------
Page 38
PART C. TRIBAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this session was to respond to the sixteen points developed
during the brainstorming session on the first morning, as well as additional
points that were raised during the tribal caucus of the previous evening.
Co-Moderator Frank Covington said, "We are probably not going to be able to
answer everything to your satisfaction, but we are going to give it our best
shot." Robert Holden, NCAI Natural Resources Researcher, and Gail Chehak,
NCAI Natural Resources Coordinator, co-moderated this session. They first took
a few minutes to express appreciation to Region V staff for asking NCAI to help
in carrying out the EPA Indian policy. They also explained the representative
nature of NCAI, for the benefit of those who were not familiar with NCAI, and
directed the attention of the EPA representatives to a resolution which was
passed during the NCAI 43rd Annual Convention regarding the Safe Drinking
Water Act, which was endorsed by the tribal caucus.
Gaiashkibos, Chairman, Lac Courtes Oreilles Tribe, and Hilary Waukau,
Member, Menominee Tribal Legislature, had been selected in the previous
evening's tribal caucus to summarize the feelings of the tribal caucus and to
present their requests, concerns and recommendations.
Gaiashkibos, Chairman. Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe:
Good morning.... People ask me what goes on in tribal government, and I
say that tribal government spans all the issues that you would see in any
type of government, various communities in the United States, in the
counties and the townships and the states and the federal government.
The main concern that the tribes have is the constant erosion of our tribal
sovereignty. If you approach that in a positive sense, and you want to
work cooperatively with the tribes, then your policy will go a long way.
It's non-threatening....
I would like to remind BPA that you have a golden opportunity right now,
with your Indian policy statement, to get a lot of mileage out of that
statement, and really implementing that. And I say, "Don't blow it." I'm
-------
Page 59
going to quote you with regard to trust responsibility and the
government-to-government relationship. Your Policy states that "the
Agency will endeavor to protect the environmental interests of the Indian
tribes when carrying out its responsibilities that may affect the reser-
vations." You listen to that statement. I read those words, and I take those
words to heart. If you can implement those standards and address the
concerns that the Mole Lake Reservation has in regard to mining, that
would be a shining example of a very positive first step forward to the rest
of the tribes. Looking out for Mole Lake's interests and protecting their
environment and their environmental concerns will go a long way.
To take that one step further and continue on with that line of thinking,
one of the greatest resources that we have is our future generations, our
children. I see America living for today, and utilizing their resources for
today, with very little foresight for future generations. The Indian will
take notice when you talk about the environment, because we have to have
clean, safe water. The threat of nuclear dumps is constant upon our lands.
Some of the other issues that we are facing really have no consequence if
the environment is polluted, if the water is polluted and the land is
polluted. And I ask EPA to clean up your own yard first. You made some
mistakes in the past. Don't make those mistakes in Indian country. Don't
make those mistakes on Indian lands. Our resources are very precious,
that's what I'm saying. Work jointly with us, and help us to protect our
environment and our resources. And we will go a long way together.
BUary Waukau, Member, Menominee Tribal Legislature
%nd NCAI Vice President for the Minneapolis Area:
Thank you. Good morning, my brothers and sisters, and my friends, EPA.
I've been involved in tribal affairs since 1952. I'm getting to be an old
timer now. I'm 64 years old, and it makes my heart happy to see the
emergence of some of our young tribal leadership like just got up here and
spoke. The torch is being passed on to our younger generation. I'm glad to
see that they continue the philosophy of Indian people and Indian thinking
on all the issues that we hold sacred and dear to us.
-------
Page 60
I'm the Minneapolis Area Vice President for NCAI, representing the tribes
bordering the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, and I'm going
to present a matter of consensus of ail the tribal people meeting here
yesterday and late last night.... I was really enthused by the input of all
the people on the issues pertaining to EPA, and I was enthused by the
response by EPA of what they can do, and will do for Indian peoples in the
preservation of our environment I made a statement yesterday that it's
ironic that we again have to fight to protect our environment, which I've
been doing all these years. But it's good to get a helping hand from an
agency such as EPA. I appreciate all the personal contact with the staff
people here and the leaders of EPA. You've been wonderful listening. It's
the first time in my dealing with Bureau people and other agencies that
I've experienced the enthusiasm and genuineness exemplified here today.
So I thank you for that. We appreciate you coming here and taking time to
meet with us on all these issues.
We have some points that were developed in the course of our meeting
yesterday and late last night. But before I go into that, One statement has
to be made crystal clear, when we mention of tribal sovereignty and trust
responsibility, and that is that the tribes, by dealing with EPA and
acquiescing and working within the framework of the statutes that govern
EPA, are in no way implying any intent to waive the trust responsibility of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We cannot do that, and we won t do it. They
still have the basic trust responsibility for Indian affairs, and this is one of
the Indian affairs.
So. First. The tribes want to work with EPA in developing guidance on
enforcement in Indian country.
Tribes do not want EPA to require more justification, on technical grounds,
when the tribes establish stricter standards, and which states are not
required to.
Tribes want EPA to use the tribes' definition of Indian lands, including
using the term "Indian country."
Tribes want to work with EPA to develop a process of consultation.
-------
Page 61
Tribes do not want EPA to use the Safe Drinking Water Indian Primacy
Working Group as the "model" for the implementation of other statutes.
Tribes want more governmental representation on the Working Group.
Tribes want meetings to be open, and oppose the 25% match. Tribes
support a waiver or a match up to a maximum of 10%. The tribes want an
increase in allocations.
Tribes need more training and more funding to develop the expertise to
implement programs and to respond to requests for comments. At the
present time, few tribes have the staff or the information to respond to
these requests for comments on underground injection, nuclear waste
dump sites, etc.
Tribes want EPA to improve their communication to the tribes and to use
existing intertribal organizations like NCAI, Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and Great Lakes Indian
Tribal Council. Tribes request notices and minutes of meetings of all
groups dealing with tribal issues, and to be added to all EPA publications
and press release mailing lists.
Tribes want EPA to develop an Indian desk position at the national level.
We're not satisfied with just a regional level. We want an Indian desk at
the national level, where we can funnel things into them. Tribes want
Indian preference to apply and need to be consulted during the selection
process.
Tribes need financial assistance to develop their own environmental
departments, and to hire staff to help them develop their programs and
interpret data and request for comments.
Tribes want to see the federal agencies involved in environmental
protection to improve coordination. Tribes would like to have regular
meetings with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Protection
Agency, Indian Health Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Pish and Wildlife Service, Department of
Transportation and others. When appropriate, tribes would like to
participate or be observers to these meetings, and have reports and
minutes of the meetings.
-------
Page 62
Tribes want representation on all EPA working groups dealing with Indian
issues, national and regional, including special working groups, such as the
Safe Drinking Water Act Primacy Working Group, Superfund Primacy
Working Group, if established, Indian Lawyers Working group, etc.
Tribes need financial assistance to attend planning meetings, including
state meetings, to keep abreast of technical issues. That's a real important
point, because the 638 contract dollars that the tribes have to operate
under and the locally generated dollars are not enough money to send
representatives to these meetings. We need that extra help and support to
guarantee that the representatives of tribes go to these meetings.
Otherwise we're just sitting reading about it in the newspapers, and that
doesn't do us any good.
Tribes want quarterly meetings with EPA to discuss programs, receive
training and develop guidance on issues like jurisdiction. We would like
EPA to assist tribes in finding funding for travel to attend these meetings.
We would like, formally, on behalf of the group here, to eitend thanks to
EPA staff people for coming here and working with NCAI. We also want to
thank NCAI staff for making this meeting possible. It was a real fruitful
meeting.
We would like to have EPA implement these issues and concerns. We do
not want to have the great feeling that something will be done and be let
down when these things are not done. We often go to meetings with
agencies and bureaus in government, and we have a wonderful feeling
when we leave the meeting, but when we get back home, the cold hard
reality sets back in. What has been done? What will be done? We would
like EPA to continue to work on this and to keep this spirit alive. You are
the hope of Indian peoples in helping us to protect the earth.
We request written response to the tribes through NCAI on all of the points
listed here. These points will be revised by the NCAI staff and formally
presented to you.
Again, I thank you.... I also want to thank the Oneida people for being so
-------
Page 63
good to the other Indian tribes and to compliment you on the example you
are making for other Indian tribes on what can be when your leadership
exerts the power that they have, and the people work within the
framework of their tribal constitutions and tribal government. Thank you.
Frank Covington:
I listened closely to the comments, and I think the speakers expressed
themselves very eloquently. We have a great deal of sympathy and
interest in the views that you have expressed. I hope this shows in the
fact that we came here. This is unusual for us to get all of our management
plus our staff together at a remote location away from the office. But we
wanted to do this for a variety of reasons. We wanted to open serious
discussions with you, and we wanted to display the seriousness of our
intent.
While we have a lot of sympathy with the statements that you've laid out,
and I can assure you that we will make a good faith effort to address them.
I have to be honest, and I'm sure that there are some things you've asked
for that we are not going to be able to deliver immediately. But we are
going to do whatever we can. We have direction from our national
Administrator, Lee Thomas, that he is serious about wanting to implement
our Indian policy and to do so expeditiously. But he did give us a caveat:
"Don't raise unrealistic expectations." So I'm not trying to dampen
anything, but it isn't going to do us any good to go away from this meeting
having implied that we can or will do everything or do everything
immediately. We do have some limitations. But nonetheless, we are going
to do our best.
What I thought we would try to do, with your agreement, we will take the
points that went up on the board yesterday, and I'll give you the EPA
response at this time.
-------
Page 64
"How can tribes implement effective systems?"
Frank Covington:
These points were offered by the White Earth representative. I asked for a
little interpretation this morning to make sure I understood, and I'll do my
best to respond. How can tribes implement effective systems? I take that
to mean effective environmental systems, whether it's the setting of
standards, the monitoring that goes along with that once standards have
been set, the construction and operation of waste water and water supply
and solid waste systems.
I will respond to this by breaking it into two pieces. One is information,
and the other is, what I will label for the moment, program. First of all, we
are prepared to conduct a regular and sustained effort from here on to
improve our communication and information flow. I think one of your
recommendations was to make maximum use of existing Indian
organizations, as one means of doing that. Certainly that makes sense to us.
We will try to find ways to get you on mailing lists. We will try to
otherwise keep you informed on things of tribal interest so that you can
use your newsletters. Where you have meetings, where it s something of
mutual concern we will try to send representatives, if we are invited, to
discuss the matter. Anything that will work, that's within our resources. 1
think as we have opened this dialogue we are open to other suggestions as
we go along. I see this as not the definitive meeting, but rather a
beginning. There may evolve, out of our continuing discussions and
communications, other ideas.
One of the things that we need when we get to the matter of what I call
programs, the more physical side of this thing, the development of systems.
Perhaps some of you know what those needs are now. but some of you
may not yet know what your needs are. We are going to need to hear from
you. however, what is needed. 1 know the Exxon meeting last night was a
specific case in point, in which you made explicit requests or suggestions
about what your needs and desires are in a case like that. We will need to
know with a degree of certainty what is needed, and we will, at least on a
case-by-case basis, do our best to respond and deliver program assistance.
We are already involved with some of you on a limited basis. We have a
-------
Page 63
pilot program. There are opportunities for other technical assistance or
program assistance, and once we commit money to something, it's not our
practice, whether we're dealing with an Indian tribe or anyone else, to
leave the money on a stump and walk away and say, "I hope it works out,
folks." But rather, we will have project officers assigned to that to keep
communication lines open, and to give you our advice and guidance as we
go on, to try to help you resolve problems and also to let you know what
you have to do to live up to your contractual commitments, so that neither
of us are in trouble. We have another organization called the Inspector
General who likes to come around after the fact and make some judgments
as to whether federal funds have been appropriately used. Obviously,
none of us want to spend time going around sweeping up after that. That
is not productive.
"Need EPA to assist tribes in becoming informed," and "Need more
funding to develop tribal expertise."
Frank Covington:
In approximate numbers, we are spending a little over two million, close to
two-and-a-half million dollars a year. At a recent meeting in Atlanta of all
our Regional Administrators, Administrator and top national staff, Region V
Chicago, Region VIII Denver and Region IX San Fransisco, all of which have
pretty sizable Indian tribal programs and efforts, made a presentation
describing the present situation and the need for increasing our level of
commitment and, specifically, our thoughts on how we might proceed. We
made a definite pitch for FY '87, and we would hope for FY '88, that we
could double that amount, to upwards of $5 million. That's not a great
amount, but it is an increase. At the moment, I don't know how it's going
to come out. We are supposed to hear back from the national program,
after they have discussed the matter with the Administrator, whether they
will accept what the regions have advocated. We will try to keep you
informed as we hear something.
-------
Page 66
Ed Fairbanks, Director, Division of Resource Management,
Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe:
We have had offers from all agencies to share information, and normally,
it's like Hilary says, we will find something in the newspaper after the fact
and then have to call the agency to send us the information. By the time
we get the information and find the expertise either in our organization or
in local organizations to analyze it, the due date for our comments has
already passed. What I would like to see EPA do is to develop a plan or a
procedure that will start now, on a continuous basis, informing the tribes of
what you are doing with your policy and your working groups that are
forming concepts for your policy and direct information on the programs.
So that when the clean water bill passes, and the amendments are enacted,
we are informed and we are able to start making informed decisions. Also
we have reached the point where we can start obtaining the expertise to
implement the programs that are being offered. So what we need is not
iust an offer to provide the information, but a procedure to disseminate it
10 US-
Kestitus Ambutas, Indian Affairs Coordinator, EPA Region V:
I think there has been a major shortcoming to date in the Agency's system
for sharing this information. I know that at the EPA Indian Work Group
meetings in Washington, the regions basically complained about that to the
national program offices, that we need a more consistent approach in
assuring that information will be shared with states and at the same time
shared with tribes. There is an effort underway to formalize that request,
and an initial attempt at trying to increase tribal involvement was done in
the work group that was set up for the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are
learning about how that approach has worked or isn't working. Other
program managers are going to try to get a headstart on the upcoming
regulations that we will be drafting in house. These are things that we are
pretty well aware of. Each regional office has a public affairs office and we
intend to have various documents and information and technical guidance
papers and all of that kind of information sent directly to the tribes in our
region, and we will be working with our division directors to come up with
lists of things that would be useful for tribes to have so that they can be
prepared to deal with these issues that have very short timeframes.
-------
Page 67
A participant questioned the way in which EPA established its work groups for
carrying out the Indian policy. He compared it to the way that the Department
of Energy has proceeded with developing its policies and rules regarding the
nulcear waste dump. He said that DOE always seemed to present its policies
without tribal involvement and without explaining the process used to develop
a policy. He said that the tribes do not want EPA to proceed in the same way.
As a counter example, he noted the migratory bird regulatory program of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said that at first there was tribal opposition to
this program, in part because of the way that the FWS proceeded. But now the
FWS is more sensitive to tribal treaty rights, and negotiations with FWS have
become more positive. He concluded, "Don't send us your policies or your
regulations as they have already been developed. Allow us to participate all the
way into it, so that we both get something."
Robert Springer, Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA Region V:
The response that Frank was making was. I think, to a general thing.
Something needs to get started and he identifed a process that the region
would start now. But when we get down to specifics, EPA rules and
regulations, there are points that are around to deal with that. We get into
such a wide range of possibilities, all kinds of things that EPA issues
regulations on. EPA is one of the major regulatory agencies in the country.
Tribes have got to tell us what you really want to focus on. We need to
know where and when to identify those. 6PA is issuing regulations day
after day, hour after hour, on all kinds of things from who can park cars in
downtown Chicago to whether or not a site makes the Superfund list. This
is going on constantly. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Here's a
general answer. Let's get a process established, then the hard part, once
we've got a process, is how do we deal with the advance on each individual
issue?" That is not easy to respond to in an overall sense. I don't know
how to get to that specific, because the range is so wide. And we are not
sure which issues are really important Do the Oneidas also have an
interest, for example, in applicator certification pesticide roles on their
lands? Out west one tribe has. Do the Oneida? Do the Chippewas? Maybe
not. And it's hard for us to figure that out 1 think that's the dilemma. We
can't figure it out. and we need a process by which tribes come back and
say, "That's one that concerns us." And we do want to talk about that.
-------
Page 68
An unidentified com mentor said: I guess what comes down from what we
heard in the meeting of the tribes last night is that you have an Indian work
group. That's fine. But there are no Indians involved in it.... The tribes have to
have that input, or at least need to know what happens at these meetings.
Otherwise, we're just defeating our whole self- determination policy.
Hilary Waukau:
You mentioned a starting point for the protection of the environment. I
alluded to this in January over in Wausau, in regard to the high level
nuclear dump siting. The Indian people received this land and have kept it
for hundreds of years, thousands of years, as it is. Because of the advances
of modern technology, you've polluted the atmosphere. You've polluted the
air we breathe. You've polluted the rain. You've polluted the ground and
the groundwater through dump sites and acid rain. Now they want to go
underneath and pollute what's underneath us. It's time for the outside
world to recognize that what the Indians have been doing for hundreds of
years, protecting the environment, the white man has to do starting at a
point in time. I think the time is now. Because you've reached the point of
environmental degradation that's of such large proportions that one of
these days you're going to self-destruct. You're not going to be able to
come back and do things over. You'll be like the liver in an alcoholic when
he reaches 51%. it doesn't regenerate. I think you are fast approaching
that time. And my older people always tell me to be careful and protect
that environment, and tell everyone you can to protect it. Because one of
these days, this highly technological society is going to be a big boom, and
that's going to be all she wrote. That's going to be the end.
-------
Page 69
"When will EPA work with tribes on a basis equal to the states?
Tribes do not want EPA to impose different criteria on tribes than
states, i.e. having to justify more stringent standards, as we have is
what has occurred in the Colvilie Pilot Project."
B. Leigh Price provided some background on the Colvilie pilot project. He said
the Tribe has decided on more stringent standards and that EPA did request the
Tribe to support its higher standards with technical justification, although such
justification is not required from states. An EPA speaker said that the Clean
Water Act explicitly delegates to states the authority to set standards and it
precludes EPA from disapproving such standards. This would change if the law
is changed. Leigh Price then attempted to explain the standard of review
employed by federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is
known as the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Apparently EPA is concerned
that a more stringent standard adopted by a tribe, and promulgated through
EPA rulemaking, might be challenged in court, and it wanted to be sure that the
standard would survive legal challenge.
Ed Fairbanks, Leech Lake, brought this subject home to a Minnesota context.
He noted that, with reductions in funds available for waste treatment facilties in
rural areas, there is some sentiment in Minnesota for lowering the standards
that apply to such facilities. He said that the Leech Lake Band would promote a
policy of non-degradation, but that, if the State lowers its standards, the Leech
Lake Band does not have the technical expertise or funding to provide a
technical justification to support higher standards.
Frank Covington acknowledged that this may become a problem if sources of
funding for waste treatment are reduced. Then the discussion returned t® the
matter of where the burden of proof lies in the event that a standard is
challenged in court.
Charles Sutfin explained that the standard may have to be justified if the
challenge arises when the standard is promulgated. There must be a reasonable
scientific basis for a standard. If the standard is not arbitrary, the courts tend
to defer to the judgment of regulatory agendo* Once the standard is set, it
cannot be challenged during the permitting process. The regulatory agency
-------
Page 70
does not have to show that violation of the standard would cause environmental
harm, only that the standard has been properly promulgated.
Leigh Price pointed out that the adoption of a standard by a tribe for
enforcement in tribal court would be governed by the law of the tribe, not by
the standards of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. However, what EPA
is doing in the pilot projects is promulgating tribal standards as EPA standards,
and so the Administrative Procedure Act is relevant.
Frank Covington apologized for not having a definitive answer, and said that
EPA would provide more information to the tribes about the Colville pilot
project. He then proceeded to the third point.
"How can we resolve the questions or issues of conflicting juris-
dictions? Tribal participation in EPA work groups is needed."
Frank Covington:
My general reaction is if we're going to run into conflicting jurisdictions, or
if it is a question of no or doubtful jurisdiction, this will be handled on a
case-by-case basis. We will really need to know what are the concerns.
That's as far as I'll go with that one right now.
Kasey Ambutas said that some discussion of these issues has already been
occurring informally with the national Indian legal work group. One participant
said, "Isn't that the very issue we're questioning. The Indian lawyers group,
who are they and how was it formed and what are its activities?"
Another participant said that the tribal caucus is concerned that the process
used for consultation in the Safe Drinking Water Act may become the model for
subsequent regulations, and that it is not an acceptable approach.
Robert Holden suggested that EPA's Indian Lawyer Work Group meeting be
coordinated with the Federal Bar Association's annual Indian law conference
and the American Bar Association's annual Indian environmental law con-
ference, and that the EPA Indian Lawyer Work Group invite tribal repre-
sentatives to meet with them.
-------
Page 71
Lloyd Powless suggested that minutes of these EPA work group meetings be
sent to tribal chairmen, to facilitate coordination and keep the tribes informed.
"What technical assistance can EPA provide and how do tribes
request the assistance?"
Frank Covington:
As I understood Dwight Wilcox in this particular case, he's opened the door
on a broad issue. He had something fairly specific in mind, if I heard him
correctly, he said, "When we are going after a grant, you have the practice
of sending us one of these nifty grant packages that are very simplified
and reduced and only about this thick. Sometimes it's not as
self-explanatory as one might hope. How do I get my questions answered
so I can do a good job of making the application? How do I get a program
started?" Let me answer that in a broader context. First of all, I hope
there is some recognition that right now there is some existing level of
technical assistance being provided. It varies. It's spotty. It'll vary from
media to media. It'll vary from tribe to tribe. We will look for ways to
improve that, and, in part, it will be on a case by case basis. To you Dwight,
or to anyone in your immediate situation who is applying to get a grant
started, direct your questions to the specific division director or his
designee, and ask for some help and advice and guidance. If it relates to
water quality standards or the Clean Water Act. Mr. Sutfin or his staff, or
David Kee for the air. We'll do our best to respond to your specific needs
and go beyond just the cold printed page.
But this leaves open to me a basic issue, and we're going to have to work
together to find some answers. And those answers could be cm a spectrum
about that wide. It could run on the one extreme where tribes are
equipped to, prepared to, and want to run the entire environmental
program at some future date.... On the other extreme, a tribe, for whatever
reason, may not want to run any program, and EPA will end up with all the
responsibility for environmental issues affecting their reservations. In
between those two extremes, there are a variety of combinations. Some
tribe specific, some media specific.... We might have programs where the
-------
Page 72
tribes develop programs with the states, some kind of cooperative
relationship. We might find ourselves in certain cases where it might be
desirable to have a three party agreement between the tribe, the state and
EPA, or a two party agreement between the tribe and EPA. Or we might
find that it would be desirable to have some region-wide Indian
organization, such as the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission,... Or anything else that we might cook up, all of which would
lead to the provision of technical assistance. The only point I'm trying to
make is that we're open. There are a lot of options that we could pursue,
and we need to hear from you as we go along. At the same time, because
we all have finite resources, we're going to have to find some mechanism
or means it seems to me to come to some understanding with you as to
what you sense your real needs are and what your priorities are, because
we can't take them all on. So we would look to you for sort of a needs
survey, I guess.
Having said that, and having reflected on some one-on-one conversations
I've had, I'd like to make an observation. We, EPA, are here because we
want to work with you and we are going to do our best to be of some
assistance. But remember, EPA wears many hats. We are not just a
granting agency. We are not just a technical assistance agency. I have to
remind you that first, last and always, we are a regulatory and law
enforcement agency. The fact of the matter is that compliance is what we
are about, and I think you share that. You want compliance with
environmental laws to protect your lands. So we have a variety of ways to
try to work with you. There will be times when a grant or special project
may be the answer. There may be other times that technical assistance or
advice will be the answer. And there will still be other times when it may
be necessary that we undertake some kind of an enforcement action. And
I just make that observation as a reminder of our multiple roles, and it
provides us with a variety of ways to work with you to achieve compliance.
-------
Page 73
"We need to develop an EPA-tribal process for implementing the
Indian policy. We recommend that there be quarterly EPA-tribal
meeting with funding assistance for travel for one representative
from each tribe. There is also a need to improve communication
through using tribal organizations such as NCAI. GLIFWC, etc.. by
using their meetings, publications and networks."
Frank Covington:
Taking it from the bottom, and I think we can say right here from the
Region V perspective, we will do our best to make use of that suggestion.
With regard to the quarterly meeting with you, and with funding
assistance for travel, I understand this will be in written form and we will
give you a written response. I'll give you a gut reaction to it. Not likely
folks. Not because of indifference, but believe it or not, we have some
dollar constraints, too. That's my personal opinion, not the official agency
response, but as long as I'm here, that's my reaction. Maybe we could
come up with some negotiated alternative to that. Other comments related
to developing a process, all of the discussion we've had on the preceding
four items apply. ... I think 1 made the comment in the opening session
that we really need this process, and we are going to have to set some
priorities on what we can do.
"Clarify the criteria on implementing the primacy option. How will
small tribes participate? Vhat are the limits and criteria for
grants?"
Charles Sutfin responded that this was covered during the morning session.
He reiterated the criteria in the draft regulations. He also referred to the
funding formula which will insure that tribes which do not opt for primacy will
not be faced with a reduction in services.
-------
Page 74
"Need to urge and develop tribal representation on EPA Indian
groups. Need to have tribal participation in national and regional
EPA groups, such as lawyers, safe drinking water and so forth, any
work group dealing with tribal issues. Such groups should hold open
meetings, with tribal observers invited. Agendas and minutes of
working groups should be sent to the tribes."
Frank Covington: "I think we've got the message on that, and we responded
earlier."
"How will EPA assist tribes to keep up-to-date in technology
changes? (e.g. land fill vs. incinerator)." How will EPA assist tribal
participation in state/federal agency planning processes?"
Tribal representatives explained that they were asking EPA to not only treat
them on a basis equal to the states, but to actually advocate equal status of
tribes to the states.
Ed Fairbanks, of Leech Lake:
If we approach the state and say this, they are not going to be looking at us
as co-workers and co-managers. They are going to be looking at us as
people who are attempting to get money away from them, and that's where
your role comes in.... Instead of being invited to come to one of the state
hearings to testify, we want to sit down with EPA and the State and Leech
Lake at the same table and say, This is what we perceive. This is your
program, and this is how we fit together. EPA is satisfied and we're
satisfied.' There's a big difference. We don't want to be invited to the
hearings. We want to sit down and negotiate.
Frank Covington said, "I think that's what we are trying to deal with."
-------
Page 75
"How can ve develop a basis of understanding of tribal, state and
federal roles and responsibilities? How will federal agencies move
toward greater cooperation and coordination?"
Frank Covington:
As we told you yesterday before we broke up, we were going to have a ...
meeting between the representatives from EPA, USGS, IHS and BIA. We
met this morning ... and we made some progress in terms of reaching a
broad agreement, and we will draft an initial memorandum of
understanding. The scope of it is being left open, but we threw out such
things as monitoring, training and a couple of other ideas. Could we find a
way to enhance the coordination and cooperation, reinforcing the use of
available resources? One of the things that came up here before, that I
said "Not much chance of that," to was the idea of quarterly meetings and
you want EPA to pay to send twenty-nine representatives, and so forth.
One of the thoughts that we had, which, along with other actions, might
help in the direction of your intent, was that EPA will tour with IHS and
BIA when they have periodic meetings with tribes. Is there any way to
put some of these meetings back to back? Or maybe share a common
agenda? Or do something, because you are already going to some meetings,
and rather than make you go to two or three or four, is it feasible to do
some consolidation...? I'd like your comments.
Some brief dialogue then occurred in which it was noted and agreed that the
representatives of the federal agencies had been quite willing and open to
develop a memorandum of agreement. Frank Covington said that he had
volunteered Kasey Ambutas, the regional EPA Indian desk, to put together the
first draft.
"How will EPA enforce tribal standards with industry and private
sector?"
Frank Covington: I wish I had a pat answer on this one. If the question is
tribal standards, and you're speaking of tribal ordinances, ai opposed to
what was being used as an example earlier, the Colville Tribe's situation,
-------
Page 76
wherein it seemed to be the idea that the Tribe would put together the
standards which, ultimately, we would approve and promulgate, and make
them federal. That's one situation. And 1 can say, clearly, yes, if there is a
violation of that, we will enforce. If it's a tribal ordinance, and we have not
participated and it's not under our legal wing, I see no way for us to
enforce that. That's something that you would look to your own judicial
systems to enforce.
A participant asked about situations in which there is no tribal ordinance,
referring specifically to the Fort Howard paper plant sludge ponds.
Frank Covington responded that he would be willing to engage in consultation
with tribes about the Fort Howard paper plant or any other problem to see how
the need for enforcement might best be met.
"EPA needs to deal with tribes on a government-to-government basis
and not through organizations."
There was brief dialogue in which it was clarified that this is not a contradiction
of the earlier point which the urged the use of intertribal organizations to
disseminate information. The tribes explained that intertribal organizations are
not decisionmakers, except in those cases in which authority has been
specifically delegated from the tribes, and that they are accountable to the
tribes. There was also discussion about EPA, in recent years, having contracted
with Indian organizations which were not really constituted by or accountable
to the tribes.
Laura Coyhis, of the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe:
How exciting it is that EPA is finally acknowledging tribes as governments.
Even in the past when we used the term government-to-government, we
had to stop and think about what it means in reality,... You know what I
would do first? I would get our Indian desk, and I'd tell him to take the
staff and sensitize them to what government-to-government means. In
this room you have valuable resources, and it wouldn't take but one time.
I guess what I'm saying is, and I learned this from Russell Jim from the
-------
Page 77
Yakima Nation, we must educate each other. And Hilary Waukau said the
same thing, we must continue to educate each other. That's something that
could be done right away.
Frank Covington:
I think I can accept that suggestion. It's a reasonable one, and Kasey can
help us honor this, he's the Indian desk. My expectation is that when we
return to the regional office, over the next couple of weeks or so, we will
have some discussion among the senior staff about what has occurred here,
what we've heard, what we feel obligated to do. I'm going to try to
translate that into some concrete action within the agency. Among the
things that I think we could reasonably do is find a way to get the word
down into the project officer level among the staff that, you know, this is
something we need to pay more attention to and be more sensitive about.
It's going to be a continuing effort. It's not going to be a one shot deal. We
will have aberrations, people will make mistakes, and we will have to
correct them, and I understand that. But it's a good suggestion, and I will
try to follow it.
Bd Fairbanks, Leech Lake:
If I could build on something Laura said. Before adminstrators can
sensitize staff, I believe that the administrators and division heads should
first go out and see what the problem is first hand, as you had an
opportunity to do yesterday. My suggestion is that maybe administrators
and division heads be required, in the very near future, to visit at least two
or three reservations in each state in their region to be sensitized, first
hand, to what is happening on those reservations. What you can do
personally, and I don't mean staff level, I mean you meeting with the tribal
chairs for half a day or maybe a full day, and discuss with them the
problems and issues that they face. This is going to help you to go back
and work on your staff. And I'd like to take that one step further. The
question was how do the reservations get to you their priorities, and how
do you address their priorities now? A suggestion may be, in the idea of
sensitizing your staff, the reservation* may send to you one, two, three,
four, five priorities that they are facing right now. Then the region would
take the appropriate staff or division or section and make a list of the top
-------
Page 78
two or three that have been sent in by the twenty-nine reservations. And
do a circuit. Readjust your travel policies and prioritize so that they will
send a staff person or a couple staff persons to each reservation to spend a
half day dealing with that one specific issue, so that that reservation has all
the information, including the law, right now, so we have that little bit
more expertise. And then if Reagan pocket vetoes the bill next year, we do
it again, and we have three or four more items, and you reprioritize so
that your staff are having that first hand knowledge of what's going on on
the reservations and are able to provide that immediate expertise to our
staff. And then we'll start to get a staff-to-staff relationship.
Frank Covington: Very constructive. Very good.
"How will EPA involve tribes in consultation prior to making
decisions affecting tribes?"
Robert Springer:
Consider an example. If we want to go buy an overcoat but you sell shirts,
how's that going to work? If the tribes could sit down and figure out the
real priorities that you have as tribes, and rank them and figure something
out for twenty-nine tribes in this region, and if we could go through some
process together to figure out what that means, and how to respond. That
would take us much further down the road, with a lot of technical
assistance meetings that can cover so many different aspects of things. It's
very hard to figure out where we are trying to get to. If we understood
what the tribes feel, specifically now, we can respond better. We can bring
overcoats when people need overcoats, rather than shirts....
So I guess what I'm really after is, does that recommendation feel right to
everybody in here or does it not feel right to somebody? Because, I for one
would like to go back and sit down with Kasey, the Indian desk, and figure
out what we are going to do to carry it out. At this moment we have
national guidance for the next year. That national guidance is a
requirement that program officers write in guidance requirements on
Indian programs. They are supposed to be in there. Who put them in
there? Well, people like me. We wrote in what we thought were the right
-------
Page 79
objectives for water, air, wastes, toxics and pesticides throughout the
agency. Now, we are going to send that stuff out. How does that relate to
anything that's going on. That's part of the problem. How do we get from
these folks sitting up there writing all this stuff to what are the needs of
these twenty-nine reservations? We can negotiate a way to change what
that list is from Washington. We'll argue about it, but we have to get to
something. The recommendation is legitimate. It makes sense. But I'd like
to figure out what to do about it. If it doesn't, someone is going to say
"That's not the way I want to do that.'" And we ought to know that before
we get into it.
Leigh Price:
Ed Fairbanks and I have been talking about his idea of riding a circuit, and
part of what he is saying is that it's impossible, in terms of resources, for
EPA to send out somebody from every program to every tribe to sit down
and talk about it. Maybe within a few years, but something couldn't be
done immediately. So one way to address the reality of resource
limitations at EPA would be to ask the tribes. "What programs do you think
at this time you are most interested in?" And if the tribes came in with a
priority of three, then it might be possible to send somebody out on those
programs. The tribe wants to do air, the tribe wants to do pesticides, they
might have a toxics problem. They would like to have three staffers from
those areas come and sit down. That prioritization scheme gives you a
place to start. Maybe for the next year there could be three more priorities
set up. But prioritization in that sense means, the tribe says 'These are
what we think our priorities are now with our present knowledge." After
there is more expertise and more transfer of information, tribes may know
better, any given tribe may know better what its priorities are.
Frank Covington:
I'm going to insist we move on in a moment. But first I want to throw
something out. I have stood up here and poor mouthed and said, "Gee, how
poor we are." And in fact we don't have as much as we feel we need. But
we haven't realiy spoken about the fact that we have two thoughts that
we'd like to pursue with you. One, is whether or not it might be feasible to
work with you to develop tribal-BPA agreements. We have state-!PA
-------
Page SO
agreements, and have had those for a number of years. That is a way that
we approach the states, and try to take the broad view, recognizing
limitations on resources, and decide on what the most important
environmental issues are that we ought to be working on together in the
coming year. These have been agreed to, generally, at the regional
administrator level and the governor level and sometimes the department
head level, and that's been a useful mechanism to focus our efforts. I'm
just throwing out the concept. We can't resolve anything today. I'm just
asking you to think about it. We are willing to find somebody here among
the twenty-nine tribes that might be willing to take that on as a step
towards doing some of the things we are talking about.
My other thought is, Kasey's got $40,000 in his piggy bank of contract
services that could be made available. I can't tell you who the organization
would be, but it is a resource that could be used to address certain
technical problems. Now if you could overcome any biases or concerns
about the organization, you know, we might have something to talk about.
I just wanted to put a couple of apples or plums or whatever out there.
The question was asked, "How long will that technical group continue doing this
service?"
Kasey Ambutas:
My understanding is that the initial selection of the Council of Energy
Resource Tribes (CERT) was for a three year period, starting in fiscal.FY '85.
So my understanding is that that is through FY '87. There's always a
possibility of having that renewed. Just for the record, since there was a
lot of keen interest objecting to why our region should spend its $40,000
through CERT, our regional position, which was in writing and every other
way and was sent to the Office of Federal Activities, was that that was not
our preference, and that was not what the tribal governments wanted. But
that's where the money is and I have a tendency of going after where the
money is, and in fact we received $60,000 additional in 1986 to do the
survey that David Ziegler from GL1FWC brought up. And so, you know, this
isn't the preferred method of operating, but we do all we can. I just
wanted to let you know that the decision to select CERT was a national
decision, made in headquarters, and it had nothing to do with regional
-------
Page SI
input, because there were other regions that felt the same way as we did....
When their contract runs out, there's a question about whether it's
renewed.
Frank Covington:
But in terms of the process of setting priorities, we will have in the mail, as
soon as I get back and get the packages put together, a copy of the draft
EPA guidances for water, air, wastes, pesticides and toxics. We are going to
send them to the tribal chairmen. Now, that's going to immediately lead to
"What is all this?" And then the thing is you can call me or call Kasey and
we will try to get through it. It's late in the ball game, but we are not done
commenting on the draft EPA national guidance for how these programs
will be implemented in the next year. It will not say how each state's
going to do anything. It says what the states are expected to do. That's
what it s written for. And what the region is expected to do, and it will
have Indian program objectives in it, but not tribe-specific. And so, we'll
send it out. We'll let you know how much time you have to respond.
There is some time, but not a lot. But it is the starting gun for each
organization figuring out what it's going to do for the next year.
"Ask that BPA use the tern 'Indian country' when referring to tribal
lands."
Frank Covington responded, "I'm going to absolutely give you that one, at no
cost." It was emphasized that this would mean BPA would accept the tribes'
definition of what that is. Prank Covington asked if there was a catch, and if
the tribes' preference for the term is more than semantic. Leigh Price
explained that the definition of Indian country could have several meanings, to
which Frank Covington responded, "Maybe I'm not empowered to give that one
away. I'll take it back and consider it."
A participant added:
I think that there are some things that probably haven't been brought out
in these points. One of them is included in the possibility that BPA and BIA
-------
Page 82
and IHS might join together to fund the tribes. We should see if EPA could
explore the possibility of using that mechanism of working with the other
federal agencies and letting out 638 contracts with the tribes as a way to
implement any terms of the acts that don't allow EPA to fund tribes
directly. It's a process that hasn't been identified and could possibly be
used. I think another thing that needs to be done, particularly in the area
of funding and getting money to the tribes, is the whole area of tribal
involvement in future budget deliberations of the EPA. Tribes haven't
been involved in that, and I think we need to see from EPA, as they point
out in their criteria with respect to tribes' willingness and ability to
prioritize environmental concerns, I think we need to see EPA's willingness
to prioritize its Indian policy implementation, too, and include it in future
budgets. Or we will be like floating a boat across the ocean that we have to
continue to bail out. It's better to start out with a good boat than do a
stopgap measure every year, then use the eicuse that we don't have the
money in the budget.
I think to that, along with EPA and BIA joining in functions, combining
resources, that EPA could immediately get a presence at the tribal level
through joint funding of a circuit rider or some other person at the tribal
level. Because I think, as the underground storage program points out, that
where EPA has a presence at the tribal level, the tribes tend to respond in
ways that EPA likes to hear. They like to have us respond to their
comments; they like to have us respond about what our needs are. Oneida
and Menominee have had a greater level of involvement with EPA and
these are the two tribes that have responded. I think too that all this
points out that the need to have an EPA presence at the tribal level, so that
you can begin to highlight for tribal officials what's available and what
they should focus their attention on. I think also that EPA can immediately
begin to show a tribal presence at EPA levels, through its hiring practices.
I think those are all things that are achievable within the very short term.
-------
Page S3
"Tribes do not want EPA to use the process of Safe Drinking Water
Primacy Group as the model for tribal consultation; there must be
tribal government representation. Also recommended is vaiver of
the matching requirement when necessary, allow in-kind matching,
and have a 10* maximum match."
Frank Covington:
If I'm not wrong, you've spoken to that I believe in a letter we've received
at the national level. As I recall, the letter I saw addressed these points. I
guess my only response is, all right, those are things that you have into the
system and they will be considered, and there should be an answer
forthcoming. That response would be out of the national level.
"Hire an Indian desk in D.C.. with consultation with tribes, and have
the position on a permanent basis."
"Urge BIA to provide funds to tribes for travel for participation in
meetings and so forth."
"Want BP A to deal government-to-government. Do not want EPA to
erode tribal sovereignty."
Frank Covington:
I think that tribal sovereignty has certainly been a central theme
throughout the conference. I think we've heard that message.
I really do thank you for your contributions and input to this process. We
will do our best to try to follow-up. I apologize for not being able to give
you definitive and complete answers, but 1 want you to think that we did
give you our best shot at it. And we will follow through.
-------
APPENDIX A
CONFERENCE AGENDA
-------
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
VV /.#«r
December 2, 1986
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Suzan Shown Harjo
Cheyenne & Creek Nations
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
Reuben A Snake, Jr
Winnebago Tribe
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
John F Gonzales
San tldefonso Pueblo
RECORDING SECRETARY
Faith Mayhew
Klamath Tribe
TREASURER
Buford L. Rolin
Poarch Qand of Creeks
AREA VICE PRESIDENTS
ABERDEEN AREA
John W Steele
Oglala Sioux Tribe
ALBUQUERQUE AREA
Bennie Salas
Zia Pueblo
ANADARKO AREA
Juanita Ahtone
Kiowa Tribe
BILLINGS AREA
Burnetl L Whiteplume
Northern Arapahoe Tribe
JUNEAU AREA
Eric Morrison
Thngit
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
Hillary Waukau
Menominee Tribe
MUSKOGEE AREA
Pamela Iron
Cherokee Nation
NORTHEASTERN AREA
Rovena Abrams
Seneca Nation
PHOENIX AREA
Thomas R White
Gila River Indian Community
PORTLAND AREA
Allen V Pinkham, Sr.
Nez Perce Tribe
SACRAMENTO AREA
Denis Turner
Rincon Band of Lui&eno
SOUTHEASTERN AREA
Billy Cypress
Miccosukee Tribe
Dear Friends:
The National Congress of American Indians NCAI
Fund takes great pleasure in welcoming you to
the Environmental Issues Conference of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region V Office and the
Indian Governments with territory bordering the
EPA Region V area.
We are pleased to assist EPA in its efforts to
implement its Indian Policy and to establish
ongoing dialogue in Indian Country in furtherance
of its treaty, statutory and fiduciary obligations
as an agent of the United States.
We commend the EPA Region V for sponsoring this
meeting in order to learn more about the specific
needs and concerns of Indian Governments. And,
we offer special appreciation to the Oneida Tribe
of Wisconsin for assisting us in the agenda planning
and on-site coordination for this important Conference.
Our staff will work with the EPA Region V staff
to prepare a final report with the recommendations
and issues presented at this Conference. We hope
that this Conference will be the beginning of
a process to raise and resolve issues and develop
a network of cooperation on environmental matters.
Sincerely,
Suzan"Shown Harjo
Executive Director
804 D STREET, N.E. • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 • (202) 546-9404
-------
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V
ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE
Oneida Rodeway Inn, Green Bay, Wisconsin
December 3-4/ 1986
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
Tuesday# December 2, 1986
4:00 p.m. Registration
7:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m. No Host Reception
7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, December 3, 1986
8:00 a.m. Registration
9:00 a.m. Invocation
9:15 a.m. Welcome Remarks - Purcell Powless, Chairman, Oneida Executive
Committee, and Valdas V. Adamkus, EPA Region V Regional
Administrator
Introductory Remarks - Kestutis K. Ambutas, EPA Region V Indian
Affairs Coordinator, and James Schlender, Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission Executive Director
Topic It The Clean Water Act* Water Quality Standards and the
National Pollutant Discharge Emission Standards Program
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
11:15 a.m. Tour of Oneida Reservation and Howard Paper Plant
12:45 p.m. Buffet Luncheon - Small Group Discussions
1:30 p.m. Treaty Rights and Environmental Protection on Indian Land -
Suzan Shown Harjo, NCiAI Executive Director, and Lloyd Powless,
Member, Oneida Executive Committee
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference Agenda
Page Two
Wednesday, December 3f 1986 (continued)
2:00 p.m. Topic II: The Clean Air Act and Air and Radiation Programs
2:30 p.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
3:30 p.m. Topic III: EPA Pilot Project at the Menominee Reservation on
Solid Waste Management and Surface and Groundwater Protection
4:00 p.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
5:00 p.m. Small Group Discussions
6:00 p.m. Summary and Closing
Thursday, December 4, 1986
9:00 a.m. Invocation
9:10 a.m. Introductory Remarks - EPA Public Affairs Office and Office of
Regional Counsel
9:45 a.m. Topic IV: The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Underground
Injection Control Program
10:15 a.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
11:30 noon Buffet Luncheon - Small Group Discussions
12:30 p.m.
Topic V: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Program and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
also known as Superfund)
1:30 p.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
2:30 p.m. Topic VI: The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and Federal
Insecticide, fungicide and Rhodenticide Act (FIFRA)
3:00 p.m. Discussion - Tribal Concerns
4:00 p.m. Recommendations for Future Cooperation, Summary and Closing
-------
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUM TO TRIBAL LBADBRS
(INCLUDING THE EPA INDIAN POLICY)
-------
"V
October 20, 1986
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Suzan Shown Har/o
Cheyenne <& Creek Nations
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
Reuben A Snake, Jr
Winnebago Tribe
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
John F Gonzales
San lidetonsct Pueblo
RECORDING SECRETARY
Faith Mayhew
Klamath Tribe
treasurer
Butord L. Rol»n
Poarch Band of Creaks
AREA VICE PRESIDENTS
ABERDEEN AREA
John W Steele
Og/a/a Sioux Tribe
ALBUQUERQUE AREA
8ennie Sal as
Zia Pueblo
ANADARKO AREA
Juanita Ahtone
Kiowa Tribe
BILLINGS AREA
Burnett L Whiiepiume
Northern Arapahoe Tribe
JUNEAU AREA
Eric Morrison
Thngit
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
Hillary Waukau
Menominee Tribe
MUSKOGEE AREA
Pamela won
Cherokee Nation
NORTHEASTERN AREA
Rovena Abrams
Seneca Nation
PHOENIX AREA
Thomas R White
Gila River Indian Community
PORTLAND AREA
Allen V Pmkham. Sr
Nei Perce Tribe
SACRAMENTO ARIA
Denis Turner
Rmcon Band of Lui$eno
SOUTHEASTERN AREA
Billy Cypress
Miccosukee Tribe
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Indian & Native Government Leaders in
EPA Reqion V
Suzan Shown Harjo, Executive Director
SUBJECT: NCAI/EPA Conference, December 3-4, Oneida Rodeway
Inn, Green Bay, Wisconsin
On November 8, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued its "Policy for the Administration of Environ-
mental Programs on Indian Reservations." The policy
promised to qive special consideration to tribal interests
when making aqency policy and to involve tribal governments
in the decisions and management of environmental programs
affecting Indian resources. The EPA Indian Policy is
attached, along with an article which appeared in the
January/February 1986 issue of the EPA Journal, "An Indian
Policy at EPA."
In this past year Congress has reauthorized the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act, Clean Water Act and Superfund to include
tribal-specific provisions, recognizing tribal development
and management of applicable programs in Indian country.
Responsibility for implementing the Indian Policy has been
placed at the regional level. Region V, which includes
Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois,
has asked the National Congress of American Indians NCAI
Fund to conduct an Environmental Conference to promote coop-
eration and dialogue between the tribes and EPA regarding
implementation of the EPA Indian Policy, as well as to
provide tribes with a forum in which to raise environmental
concerns and make recommendations to EPA.
The Environmental Conference will be held on December 3-4 at
the Green Bay/Oneida Rodeway Inn, 2040 Airport Drive, Green
Bay, Wisconsin, 54307-2617, (414) 494-7300. Rooms are
available at government rates of $39/single and $45/double.
Please return the enclosed card or call the Rodeway Inn for
reservations. Transportation is provided by the hotel to
and from the airport. The Inn has agreed to provide a
buffet luncheon at $5.00, including tax and tip, for the two
days of the meeting. An environmental tour of the local
area is planned for the afternoon of December 4.
804 D STREET, N.K. • W ASHINGTON. DC. 21)002 • (202) 346-9404
-------
Memorandum - Indian Government Leaders
October 20, 1986
Paqe Two
The Conference will provide an opportunity for tribal
leaders and environmental staff to meet with tne SPA
regional administrator and division directors to share your
concerns, activi ties, needs and in forma t ion about trea ty
rights. EPA staff will provide information about their
programs and technical assistance available to tribes, and
will consult on specific tribal concerns.
The final agenda is beinq developed now, the NCAl staff will
be contacting tribes in Reqion V for comments and sugges-
tions. Please contact Gail Chehak, Natural Resources
Coordinator, or Robert Holden, Natural Resources Researcher,
for any other information at (202) 546-9404 or Kestutis
Ambutas, Federal Facilities Coordinator/Indian Affairs
Coordinator, EPA Region V, at (312) 353-1394.
Enclosures: EPA Indian Policy
EPA Journal Article
Hotel Reservation Card
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
INDIAN POLICY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Attached are two documents which were adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on November 8, 1984, relating to Indian Tribes
and Federal programs for protection of reservation environments:
1) EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on
Indian Reservations.
2) Indian Policy Implementation Guidance.
These documents lay the groundwork for EPA management of the Agency's
regulatory programs on reservation lands. The cornerstones of the Policy
and Guidance are the principles of Indian "self-government" and
"government-to-government" relations between the Federal Government and
Tribal Governments. Through Implementation of the Policy, the Agency
hopes to realize the long-range objective of including Tribal Governments
as partners in decision-making and program management on reservation lands,
much as we do with State Governments off-reservation.
In the beginning, implementation of the Policy will be slowly paced, as
the Agency will need to seek legislative authority in many areas and go
through a lengthy budget process before we can carry out the principles
of the Policy and directives of the Guidance In a comprehensive manner.
In the first year, however, we will begin to seek statutory changes, modify
regulations, and work on selected pilot programs. These pilot programs will
Investigate problems associated with Tribal regulation of water and air
quality and the handling and disposal of hazardous materials on reservation
lands. The experience will help both EPA and the Tribes develop models for
dealing with these problems in the special legal and political context of
Indian reservations.
Environmental programming that will Involve Tribal Governments in the
Federal regulatory process on a significant scale 1s a new endeavor for EPA
and Tribes alike. To be successful, we will need cooperation and assistance
from all sectors and would welcome your on-going support.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact
Leigh Price, National Z?k Indian Coordinator, at (202) 382-5051.
Attachment
-------
11/8/84
EPA POLICY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The President published a Federal Indian Policy on January 24, 1983,
supporting the primary role of Tribal Governments 1n matters affecting
American Indian reservations. That policy stressed two related themes:
(1) that the Federal Government will pursue the principle of Indian
"self-government" and (2) that 1t will work directly with Tribal
Governments on a "government-to-government" basis.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously Issued general
statements of policy which recognize the Importance of Tribal Governments
1n regulatory activities that Impact reservation environments. It 1s the
purpose of this statement to consolidate and expand on existing EPA Indian
Policy statements In a manner consistent with the overall Federal position
1n support of Tribal "self-government" and "government-to-govemment" rela-
tions between Federal and Tribal Governments. This statement sets forth
the principles that will guide the Agency in dealing with Tribal Governments
and 1n responding to the problems of environmental management on American
Indian reservations 1n order to protect human health and the environment.
The Policy 1s intended to provide guidance for EPA program managers 1n the
conduct of the Agency's congressionally mandated responsibilities. As
such, It applies to EPA only and does not articulate policy for other
Agencies In the conduct of their respective responsibilities.
It Is Important to emphasize that the implementation of regulatory
programs which will realize these principles on Indian Reservations cannot
be accomplished Immediately. Effective Implementation will take careful
and conscientious work by EPA, the Tribes and many others. In many cases,
1t will require changes In applicable statutory authorities and regulations.
It will be necessary to proceed 1n a carefully phased way, to learn from
successes and failures, and to gain experience. Nonetheless, by beginning
work on the priority problems that exist now and continuing 1n the direction
established under these principles, over time we can significantly enhance
environmental quality on reservation lands.
POLICY
In carrying out our responsibilities on Indian reservations, the
fundamental objective of the Environmental Protection Agency 1s to protect
human health and the environment. The keynote of this effort will be to
give special consideration to Tribal Interests 1n making Agency policy,
and to Insure the close Involvement of Tribal Governments 1n making
decisions and managing environmental programs affecting reservation lands.
To meet this objective, the Agency will pursue the following principles:
-------
-2-
1. THE AGENCY STANDS READY TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS (THE "GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT" RELATIONSHIP), RATHER
THAN AS SUBDIVISIONS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS.
EPA recognizes Tribal Governments as sovereign entitles with primary
authority and responsibility for the reservation populace. Accordingly,
EPA will work directly with Tribal Governments as the independent authority
for reservation affairs, and not as political subdivisions of States or
other governmental units.
2. THE AGENCY WILL RECOGNIZE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AS THE PRIMARY PARTIES
FOR SETTING STANDARDS, MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DECISIONS AND MANAGING
PROGRAMS FOR RESERVATIONS, CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.
In keeping with the principle of Indian self-government, the Agency
will view Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal parties for
making decisions and carrying out program responsibilities affecting
Indian reservations, their environments, and the health and welfare of
the reservation populace. Just as EPA's deliberations and activities have
traditionally Involved the Interests and/or participation of State Govern-
ments, EPA will look directly to Tribal Governments to play this lead role
for matters affecting reservation environments.
3. THE AGENCY WILL TAKE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO ENCOURAGE AND ASSIST
TRIBES IN ASSUMING REGULATORY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR RESERVATION LANDS.
The Agency will assist interested Tribal Governments In developing
programs and 1n preparing to assume regulatory and program management
responsibilities for reservation lands. Within the constraints of EPA's
authority and resources, this aid will include providing grants and other
assistance to Tribes similar to that we provide State Governments. The
Agency will encourage Tribes to assume delegable responsibilities, (1 .e.
responsibilities which the Agency has traditionally delegated to State
Governments for non-reservation lands) under terms similar to those
governing delegations to States.
Until Tribal Governments are willing and able to assume full responsi-
bility for delegable programs, the Agency will retain responsibility
for managing programs for reservations (unless the State has an express
grant of jurisdiction from Congress sufficient to support delegation to
the State Government). Where EPA retains such responsibility, the Agency
will encourage the Tribe to participate 1n policy-making and to assume
appropriate lesser or partial roles In the management of reservation
programs.
-------
-3-
4. THE AGENCY WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO REMOVE EXISTING LEGAL AND
PROCEDURAL IMPEDIMENTS TO WORKING DIRECTLY AND EFFECTIVELY WITH TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS ON RESERVATION PROGRAMS.
A number of serious constraints and uncertainties 1n the language
of our statutes and regulations have limited our ability to work directly
and effectively with Tribal Governments on reservation problems. As
Impediments 1n our procedures, regulations or statutes are Identified
which limit our ability to work effectively with Tribes consistent with
this Policy, we will seek to remove those Impediments.
5. THE AGENCY, IN KEEPING WITH THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY, WILL
ASSURE THAT TRIBAL CONCERNS ANO INTERESTS ARE CONSIDERED WHENEVER EPA'S
ACTIONS AND/OR DECISIONS MAY AFFECT RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTS.
EPA recognizes that a trust responsibility derives from the his-
torical relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes
as expressed 1n certain treaties and Federal Indian Law. In keeping
with that trust responsibility, the Agency will endeavor to protect
the environmental Interests of Indian Tribes when carrying out Its
responsibilities that may affect the reservations.
6. THE AGENCY WILL ENCOURAGE COOPERATION BETWEEN TRIBAL, STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RESOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF MUTUAL CONCERN.
Sound environmental planning and management require the cooperation
and mutual consideration of neighboring governments, whether those
governments be neighboring States, Tribes, or local units of government.
Accordingly, EPA will encourage early communication and cooperation
among Tribes, States and local governments. This 1s not intended to
lend Federal support to any one party to the jeopardy of the Interests
of the other. Rather, 1t recognizes that 1n the field of environmental
regulation, problems are often shared and the principle of comity
between equals and neighbors often serves the best Interests of both.
7. THE AGENCY WILL WORK WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WHICH HAVE RELATED
RESPONSIBILITIES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS TO ENLIST THEIR INTEREST AND
SUPPORT IN COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO HELP TRIBES ASSUME ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RESERVATIONS.
EPA will seek and promote cooperation between Federal agencies to
protect human health and the environment on reservations. We will
work with other agencies to clearly Identify and delineate the roles,
responsibilities and relationships of our respective organizations and
to assist Tribes 1n developing and managing environmental programs for
reservation lands.
-------
-4-
8. THE AGENCY WILL STRIVE TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
ANO REGULATIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
In those cases where facilities owned or managed by Tribal Governments
are not 1n compliance with Federal environmental statutes, EPA will work
cooperatively with Tribal leadership to develop means to achieve compliance,
providing technical support and consultation as necessary to enable Tribal
facilities to comply. Because of the distinct status of Indian Tribes and the
complex legal issues Involved, direct EPA .action through the judicial or
administrative process will be considered where the Agency determines, 1n Its
judgment, that: (1) a significant threat to human health or the environment
exists, (2) such action jnould reasonably be expected to achieve effective
results 1n a timely manner,* and (3) the Federal Government cannot utilize
other alternatives to correct the problem in a timely fashion.
In those cases where reservation facilities are clearly owned or managed
by private parties and there 1s no substantial Tribal Interest or control
Involved, the Agency will endeavor to act 1n cooperation with the affected
Tribal Government, but will otherwise respond to noncompliance by private
parties on Indian reservations as the Agency would to noncompliance by the
private sector elsewhere 1n the country. Where the Tr-fbe has a substantial
proprietary Interest 1n, or control over, the privately owned or managed
facility, EPA will respond as described 1n the first paragraph above.
9. THE AGENCY WILL INCORPORATE THESE INDIAN POLICY GOALS INTO ITS PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING ITS BUOGET, OPERATING GUIDANCE, LEGISLA-
TIVE INITIATIVES, MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND ONGOING POLICY ANO
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.
It 1s a central purpose of this effort to ensure that the principles
of this Policy are effectively Institutionalized by incorporating them into
the Agency's ongoing and long-term planning and management processes. Agency
managers will Include specific programmatic actions designed to resolve prob-
lems on Indian reservations 1n the Agency's existing fiscal year and long-term
planning and management processes.
William 0. Ruckelshaus
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ J' WASHINGTON. D C 20460
\
NOV 8 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Indian Policy Implementation Guidance
FROM: Alvln L. Aim
Deputy Administrator
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
Ofricc or
THE a OM INISTPATO0
INTRODUCTION
The Administrator has signed the attached EPA Indian Policy. This
document sets forth the broad principles that will guide the Agency 1n
Its relations with American Indian Tribal Governments and 1n the adminis-
tration of EPA programs on Indian reservation lands.
This Policy concerns more than one hundred federally-recognized
Tribal Governments and the environment of a geographical area that 1s
larger than the combined area of the States of Maryland* New Jersey,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. It 1s an
Important sector of the country, and constitutes the remaining lands of
America's first stewards of the environment, the American Indian Tribes.
The Policy places a strong emphasis on Incorporating Tribal Govern-
ments Into the operation and management of EPA's delegable programs.
This concept 1s based on the President's Federal Indian Policy published
on January 24, 1983 and the analysis, recommendations and Agency Input
to the EPA Indian Work Group's Discussion Paper, Administration of
Environmental Programs on American Indian Reservations (July 1983).
TIMING AND SCOPE
Because of the Importance of the reservation environments, we must
begin Immediately to Incorporate the principles of EPA's Indian Policy
Into the conduct of our everyday business. Our established operating
procedures (Including long-range budgetary and operational planning acti-
vities) have not consistently focused on the proper role of Tribal Govern-
ments or the special legal and political problems of program management
on Indian lands. As a result, It will require a phased and sustained
effort over time to fully implement the principles of the Policy and to
take the steps outlined 1n this Guidance.
-------
-2-
Some Regions and Program Offices have already made individual starts
along the lines of the Policy and Guidance. I believe that a clear
Agency-wide policy will enable all programs to build on these efforts so
that, within the limits of our legal and budgetary constraints, the Agency
as a whole can make respectable progress in the next year.
As we begin the first year of operations under the Indian Policy, we
cannot expect to solve all of the problems we will face 1n administering
programs under the unique legal and political circumstances presented by
Indian reservations. We can, however, concentrate on specific priority
problems and Issues and proceed to address these systematically and care-
fully in the first year. With this general emphasis, I believe that we
can make respectable progress and establish good precedents for working
effectively with Tribes. By working within a manageable scope and pace,
we can develop a coordinated base which can be expanded, and, as appropriate,
accelerated in the second and third years of operations under the Policy.
In addition to routine application of the Policy and this Guidance 1n
the conduct of our everyday business, the first year's Implementation effort
will emphasize concentrated work on a discrete number of representative
problems through cooperative programs or pilot projects. In the Regions,
this effort should include the Identification and initiation of work on
priority Tribal projects. At Headquarters, 1t should Involve the resolution
of the legal, policy and procedural problems which hamper our ability to
Implement the kinds of projects identified by the Regions.
The Indian Work Group (IWG), which 1s chaired by the Director of the
Office of Federal Activities and composed of representatives of key regional
and headquarters offices, will facilitate and coordinate these efforts.
The IWG will begin Immediately to help Identify the specific projects
which may be ripe for implementation and the problems needing resolution
1n the first year.
Because we are starting 1n Mm1d-stream," the implementation effort
will necessarily require some contribution of personnel time and funds.
While no one program will be affected in a major fashion, almost all Agency
programs are affected to some degree. I do not expect the investment in
projects on Indian Lands to cause any serious restriction 1n the States'
funding support or 1n their ability to function effectively. To preserve
the flexibility of each Region and each program, we have not set a target
for allocation of FY 85 funds. I am confident, however, that Regions and
program offices can, through readjustment of existing resources, demonstrate
significant and credible progress 1n the Implementation of EPA's Policy 1n
the next year.
-------
-3-
ACTION
Subject to these constraints, Regions and program managers should now
Initiate actions to Implement the principles of the Indian Policy. The
eight categories set forth below will direct our Initial Implementation
activities. Further guidance will be provided by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for External Affairs as experience Indicates a need for such guidance.
1. THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS WILL SERVE AS
LEAD AGENCY CLEARINGHOUSE AND COORDINATOR FOR INDIAN POLICY MATTERS.
This responsibility will include coordinating the development of
appropriate Agency guidelines pertaining to Indian Issues, the
Implementation of the Indian Policy and this Guidance. In this effort
the Assistant Administrator for External Affairs will rely upon the
assistance and support of the EPA Indian Work Groi/p.
2. THE INOIAN WORK GROUP (IWG) WILL ASSIST AND SUPPORT THE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IN DEVELOPING ANO RECOMMENDING DETAILED
GUIDANCE AS NEEDED ON INDIAN POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS. ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL SHOULD
DESIGNATE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE INDIAN WORK GROUP AND PROVIDE
THEM WITH ADEQUATE TIME ANO RESOURCES NEEDED TO CARRY OUT THE IWG'S
RESPONSIBILITIES UNOER THE DIRECTION OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
The Indian Work Group, (IWG) chaired by the Director of the Office of
Federal Activities, will be an important entity for consolidating the
experience and advice of the key Assistant and Regional Administrators on
Indian Policy matters. It will perform the following functions: Identify
specific legal, policy, and procedural Impediments to working directly
with Tribes on reservation problems; help develop appropriate guidance
for overcoming such impediments; recommend opportunities for Implementation
of appropriate programs or pilot projects; and perform other services 1n
support of Agency managers In Implementing the Indian Policy.
The initial task of the IWG will be to develop recommendations and
suggest priorities for specific opportunities for program implementation
1n the first year of operations under the Indian Policy and this Guidance.
To accomplish this, the General Counsel and each Regional and Assistant
Administrator must be actively represented on the IWG by a staff member
authorized to speak for his or her office. Further, the designated
representatlve(s) should be afforded the time and resources, Including
travel, needed to provide significant staff support to the work of the
IWG.
-------
-4-
3. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD UNDERTAKE ACTIVE OUTREACH AND
LIAISON WITH TRIBES, PROVIDING ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO ALLOW THEM TO WORK
WITH US IN AN INFORMED WAY.
In the first thirteen years of the Agency's existence, we have worked
hard to establish working relationships with State Governments, providing
background Information and sufficient Interpretation and explanations to
enable them to work effectively with us 1n the development of cooperative
State programs under our various statutes. In a similar manner, EPA managers
should try to establish direct, face-to-face contact (preferably on the
reservation) with Tribal Government officials. This liaison Is essential to
understanding Tribal needs, perspectives and priorities. It will also foster
Tribal understanding of EPA's programs and procedures needed to deal effec-
tively with us.
4. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO MEET
TRIBAL NEEDS, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY COMPETING PRIORITIES AND BY
OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY.
As Tribes move to assume responsibilities similar to those borne by EPA
or State Governments, an appropriate block of funds must be set aside to
support reservation abatement, control and compliance activities.
Because we want to begin to implement the Indian Policy now, we cannot
wait until FY 87 to formally budget for programs on Indian lands. Accordingly,
for many programs, funds for Initial Indian projects 1n FY 85 and FY 86
will need to come from resources currently planned for support to EPA-and
State-managed programs meeting similar objectives. As I stated earlier, we
do not expect to resolve all problems and address all environmental needs on
reservations Immediately. However, we can make a significant beginning
without unduly restricting our ability to fund ongoing programs.
I am asking each Assistant Administrator and Regional Administrator to
take measures within his or her discretion and authority to provide sufficient
staff time and grant funds to allow the Agency to initiate projects on Indian
lands 1n FY 85 and FY 86 that will constitute a respectable step towards
implementation of the Indian Policy.
5. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, WITH LEGAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE
GENERAL COUNSEL, SHOULD ASSIST TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AS
THEY HAVE DONE FOR THE STATES.
The Agency has provided extensive staff work and assistance to State
Governments over the years 1n the development of environmental programs
and program management capabilities. This assistance has become a routine
aspect of Federal/State relations, enabling and expediting the States'
assumption of delegable programs under the various EPA statutes* This "front
end" Investment has promoted cooperation and Increased State Involvement
1n the regulatory process.
-------
-5-
As the Agency begins to deal with Tribal Governments as partners in
reservation environmental programming, we will find a similar need for EPA
assistance. Many Regional and program personnel have extensive experience
in working with States on program design and development; their expertise
should be used to assist Tribal Governments where needed.
6. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL
COUNSEL SHOULD TAKE ACTIVE STEPS TO ALLOW TRIBES TO PROVIDE INFORMED INPUT
INTO EPA'S DECISION-MAKING AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES~"!HTCIT~AFFECT
RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTS.
Where EPA manages Federal programs and/or makes decisions relating
directly or indirectly to reservation environments, full consideration and
weight should be given to the public policies, priorities and concerns of the
affected Indian Tribes as expressed through their Tribal Governments. Agency
managers should make a special effort to Inform Tribes of EPA decisions and
activities which can affect their reservations and solicit their input as we
have done with State Governments. Where necessary, this should include provid-
ing the necessary Information, explanation and/or briefings needed to foster
the Informed participation of Tribal Governments 1n the Agency's standard-
setting and policy-making activities.
7. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD, TO THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE
EXTENT, INCORPORATE TRIBAL CONCERNS, NEEDS AND PREFERENCES INTO EPA'S POLICY
DECISIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AFFECTING RESERVATIONS.
It has been EPA's practice to seek out and accord special consideration
to local Interests and concerns, within the limits allowed by our statutory
mandate and nationally established criteria and standards. Consistent with
the Federal and Agency policy to recognize Tribal Governments as the primary
voice for expressing public policy on reservations, EPA managers should, within
the limits of their flexibility, seek and utilize Tribal Input and preferences
1n those situations where we have traditionally utilized State or local Input.
We recognize that conflicts in policy, priority or preference may arise
between States and Tribes as 1t does between neighboring States. As in the
case of conflicts between neighboring States, EPA will encourage early communi-
cation and cooperation between Tribal and State Governments to avoid and resolve
such Issues. This 1s not Intended to lend Federal support to any one party in
Its dealings with the other. Rather, 1t recognizes that in the field of environ-
mental regulation, problems are often shared and the principle of comity between
equals often serves the Interests of both.
Several of the environmental statutes Include a conflict resolution mechan-
ism which enables EPA to use Its good offices to balance and resolve the con-
flict. These procedures can be applied to conflicts between Tribal and State
Governments that cannot otherwise be resolved. EPA can play a moderating role
by following the conflict resolution principles set by the statute, the Federal
trust responsibility and the EPA Indian Policy.
-------
-6-
8. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL
SHOULD WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS, CONSISTENT
WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT.
The EPA Indian Policy recognizes Tribal Governments as the key
governments having responsibility for matters affecting the health and
welfare of the Tribe. Accordingly, where tribally owned or managed
facilities do not meet Federally established standards, the Agency will
endeavor to work with the Tribal leadership to enable the Tribe to
achieve compliance. Where reservation facilities are clearly owned or
managed by private parties and there 1s no substantial Tribal interest
or control Involved, the Agency will endeavor to act 1n cooperation with the
affected Tribal Government, but will otherwise respond to noncompliance by
private parties on Indian reservations as wer do to noncompliance by the
private sector off-reservation.
Actions to enable and ensure compliance by Tribal facilities with
Federal statutes and regulations include providing consultation and
technical support to Tribal leaders and managers concerning the Impacts
of noncompliance on Tribal health and the reservation environment
and steps needed to achieve such compliance. As appropriate, EPA may
also develop compliance agreements with Tribal Governments and work
cooperatively with other Federal agencies to assist Tribes In meeting
Federal standards.
Because of the unique legal and political status of Indian Tribes
1n the Federal System, direct EPA actions against Tribal facilities
through the judicial or administrative process will be considered where
the Agency determines, in its judgment, that: (1) a significant threat to
human health or the environment exists, (2) such action would reasonably be
expected to achieve effective results 1n a timely manner, and (3) the Federal
Government cannot utilize other alternatives to correct the problem 1n a
timely fashion. Regional Administrators proposing to initiate such action
should first obtain concurrence from the Assistant Administrator for Enforce-
ment and Compliance Monitoring, who will act 1n consultation with the Assis-
tant Administrator for External Affairs and the General Counsel. In emergency
situations, the Regional Administrator may Issue emergency Temporary Restrain-
ing Orders, provided that the appropriate procedures set forth 1n Agency
delegations for such actions are followed.
-------
-7-
9. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL
SHOULD BEGIN TO FACTOR INDIAN POLICY GOALS INTO THEIR LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING BUDGET, OPERATING GUIDANCE, MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
In order to carry out the principles of the EPA Indian Policy and work
effectively with Tribal Governments on a long-range basis, 1t will be necessary
to Institutionalize the Agency's policy goals 1n the management systems that
regulate Agency behavior. Where we have systematically Incorporated State needs,
concerns and cooperative roles Into our budget, Operating Guidance, management
accountability systems and performance standards* we must now begin to factor the
Agency's Indian Policy goals Into these same procedures and activities.
Ag«ncy managers should begin to consider Indian reservations and Tribes
when conducting routine planning and management activities or carrying out
special policy analysis activities. In addition, the IWG, operating under the
direction of the Assistant Administrator for External Affairs and with
assistance from the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
will Identify and recommend specific steps to be taken to ensure that Indian
Policy goals are effectively Incorporated and Institutionalized 1n the Agency's
procedures and operations.
Attachment
-------
An Indian Policy
at EPA
by Jack Lewis
Etting Little Owl. right, and Byron Bad
Bear, water supply operators at the
Crow Reservation's surface water
treatment plant near Billings. Mont..
discuss water turbidity with Robert
Hayes of the Ind.nn Health Sen ice. far
left The session is port ot a training
program cu-spu.-Norecj bv the Service
and" EPA.
EPA is the first federal agency to
formulate an Indian Policy in
accordance with President Reagan's
Federal Indian Policy. In the /irst of two
articles in this section. Jack Lewis,
Assistant Editor of the journal, explains
the substance of EPA's policy and the
impact it will have on the
environmental quality of U.S. Indian
reservations. In the second article, A.
David Lester, the Executive Director of
the Council of Energy Resource Tribes,
gives an Indian perspective on
environmental protection.
Few people realize how vut
America's Indian territory is. Across
the United States then are 278 Indian
reservations covering an expanse of land
as big as New England, New Jersey, and
Maryland combined. Approximately
700.000 people—only hall of them
Indian—live on those reservations.
The environmental problems of the
Indian reservations—like many of their
other problems—have tended to take a
back seat to those of the 50 states. EPA's
legislative authorities are principally
built on federal-state relationships, so
there has been a tendency for Indian
problems to fall between the cracks.
That is why we can be particularly
proud of the fact that EPA ii the fitst
agency of the federal government to
formulate specific plans for
implementing the President's Indian
Policy.
This policy recognizes the
principle of tribal self-government that
was written into the Constitution, but
long ignored in practice. After decades
of abuse, the concept was reformulated
in the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934, but it failed to gain real
momentum until the 1960s, in 1970,
President Nixon issued a
self-determination policy that reaffirmed
the importance of tribal sovereignty.
President Reagan's Federal Indian
Policy resembles older policies in two
respects: it accords to tribal
governments the same degree of
sovereignty enjoyed by the states, and it
proposes that the federal government
should deal with the tribes on a
government-to-government basts. Those
two tenets are well established.
President Reagan's Indian Policy
extends them by making the most
explicit statement at the Presidential
level of the importance of moving
Indians toward actual self-government,
That goal requires a concerted
approach to strengthening both the
economies and the governments of the
tribes The new Federal Indian Policy
recognizes that tribal self-government is
meaningless without economic
prosperity. To this end. the President
formed a'Presidential Commission oh
Indian Reservation Economies, which
has identified ways of strengthening the
economic life of the reservations
through changes in federal law, private
sector involvement, and other means.
The Federal Indian Policy also calls
for bolstering tribal governments so that
they can move from dependency on
federal funds and expertise into actual
decision-making. To this end. the
President has recommended training to
help tribes develop managerial skills.
He has also recommended action to
clarify the legal privileges of tribal
governments, especially in terms of tax
status-
On November 8.1984, EPA
announced its own "Policy for the
Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations." EPA
was the first—and. to date, remains the
only—sgtncy of the federal government
that has formulated its own version of
the President's Federal Indian Policy.
EPA stressed that the "keynote'' of the
agency's Indian policy, like the
President's, would be "to give special
consideration to tribal interests in
making agency policy and to ensure the
close involvement of tribal governments
Cc3a^&s*','
-------
Jr. Tom ot a saivmiil. spnr...:'-^ This scnrrul :.-i .:k. W-.h
¦ ::ci/ br fhf Co!t-.'.V (r-ncJeratea
;)h>i
making decisions and managing
-svironment programs affecting
nervation lands." In practice, this
r progress. OFA reports to EPA's
assistant Administrator for External
Affairs, whose new incumbent is
Jennifer Joy Manson.
EPA realized from the outset that
tribal control over environmental
protection would differ fundamentally
from state control. After all. the
environmental problems found on
Indian reservations are far less complex
than those that plague America's urban
and industrial areas. Some reservations
are beginning to feel the encroachment
of pollution problems, especially those
associated with mining and energy
development, but most still enjoy a
relatively pristine natural environment,
marred only by isolated problems, such
as faulty sewage treatment or waste
disposal practices.
EPA has no desire to impose elaborate
environmental programs on tribes that
do not need them. The agency realizes
that grinding poverty and massive
unemployment are emergencies
distracting tribal leaders from
environmental protection. But EPA is
finding that even tribes with the most
pressing economic constraints take a
keen interest in tackling whatever
environmental problems face their
reservations. Reverence for nature is so
deeply ingrained in Indian culture that
EPA does not have to propagandize for
environmental protection. The interest
is there but. all too frequently, the
needed skills and resources are not.
EPA. for its part, is also running up
against frustrating limitations. Almost
all of EPA's statutes lack language
empowering the agency to deal with
Indian tribes in a way analogous to its
dealings with the states. Congress is
now considering amendments to three
of EPA's most important statutes—the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Water Act. and the Superfund law.
These amendments will enable the
agency to develop and fund on Indian
reservations programs similar to those
in the states—and eventually to delegate
to the tribes authority over the water
programs.
Progress is also being made along a
number of different fronts. EPA's
regional offices are increasing outreach
and technical assistance efforts on
Indian reservations. The agency is also
gathering much-needed information
about the nature of the problems on the
reservations. With Americans for Indian
Opportunity. EPA is sponsoring a
national survey of Indian tribes. The
results of this survey should be
available next )une. In addition. EPA's
Superfund office has completed an
initial survey of hazardous waste
problems on 25 reservations,
preparatory to a broader national
survey.
EPA is also forging ahead with four
pilot projects that will serve as
prototypes to guide the agency in
implementing its version of the Federal
Indian Policy. Problems encountered in
the pilot projects—and solutions
formulated—will be valuable as the
agency charts its course in the monthfo
and years ahead. Project funding comes
from EPA. with additional resources
furnished by the tribes themselves.
The pilot projects now in progress
are:
• Region 5: A project on the
Menominee Indian Reservation in
northern Wisconsin for developing solid
and hazardous waste management
programs as well as surface and
ground-water protection.
The Menominee Reservation consists
of 233.000 heavily wooded acres in
northern Wisconsin. Unlike most other
tribes which were forcibly removed
from their native lands in the
nineteenth century, the Menominee
Tribe has been in continuous possession
of these forests since time immemorial.
With a population of 6.500. the tribe
does not generate a great deal of waste.
The Menominee now have four open
dumps for solid waste, recently
inspected with the help of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. The tribe plans to tighten
requirements for future landfills—and if
funds can be found, to upgrade those
that exist.
When it comes to hazardous waste,
the Menominee have decided to be even
more stringent than the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requires
them to be. Their draft tribal regulation
would altogether prohibit the disposal
of hazardous waste on the Menominee
Reservation.
The reservation has few sources of
hazardous waste other than a sawmill
and several gas stations. Menomihee
leaders hope to have outside collectors
drive in to pick up their hazardous
waste. Commercial collectors could be
put off. however, if the tribe goes ahead
with a proposed "user fee'' on
transporters of hazardous waste who use
Menominee roads.
In 1986, the tribe hopes to draft water
quality standards for surface and ground
water. Of particular concern are
inadequate sewage treatment and
leaking underground storage tanks.
However, additional funding may be
required to complete this aspect of the
pilot project, which is now running
behind schedule.
• Region 8: A project on the Fort
Berthold, N.D.. reservation of the Three
Affiliated Tribes (Hidatsa, Mandan. and
Arikara) for the purpose of developing
an integrated environmental protection
program addressing problems in all
media (air. water, pesticides, and solid
waste).
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Three Affiliated Tribes live on
980.000 ictN of prairie flatlands in
western North Dakota. Aside from light
industry and farm ranching, the
reservation offers few employment
opportunities to Its 7.000 raaidanta.
Unemployment hovart at a staggering 80
percent.
Oil, natural gas. and coal have
attracted companies to the region. These
have generated leasing revenue, a few
jobs for Indians, and many pollution
problems. Air pollution is a particular
concern. Hydrogen sulfide, for instance,
emanates from many gas wells on the
reservation.
During fiscal year 1985, the Affiliated
Tribes received grant funds from EPA in
the areas of air and pesticides. The air
grant was used to set up two new
monitoring stations, which have already
gathered a great deal of valuable
meteorological data. The pesticides
funds went toward formulating the first
Jndian-dra/ted pesticides code that
appears likely to receive EPA approval.
Progress was also mada in the areas of
water and solid waste. Soma of the Fort
Berthold paaticidea money was used to
monitor ground-water contamination
from 700 improperly discarded
Csticide containers, which tha Tribes
ve removed. In addition, an EPA
grant to tha Council on Energy Resource
Tribes has helped the Fort Berthoid
Tribes to develop a management plan
for solid waste. This grant funded
remedial action at open burning dumps
as well as an inventory of the Tribes'
solid waste facilities.
• Region 9: A project for developing a
tribal implementation program to ensure
visibility standards on the Navajo
Reservation that spreads into New
Mexico. Arizona. Utah, and Colorado.
Ensuring visibility standards is only
the most ambitious aspect of this
multi-faceted air project. By striving for
the highest level of air quality, this
project will also ensure that EPA's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) standards are met.
Concern for air quality on the Navajo
reservation is certainly warranted. With
165.000 residents, it ranks as the most
populous of American Indian
reservations. These people live on a
16.000.000 acre reservation, which is
the sit* at ambitious coal-mining
operations. In addition, a variety of
power plants—many serving distant
cities—are generating pollution both on
and off tha reservation.
Tha EPA-Navajo pilot project will
gather baseline air quality data and
compile an emissions inventory of all
pollution sources. The compilation of
this data will begin next spring with the
opening of the first of several
monitoring stations. Data from these
stations will be shared with interested
state as well as federal agencies.
The objective is to develop an
approved Tribal Implementation Plan.
This will establish an ongoing air
quality management program for the
tribal government.
• Region 10: A project for
implementing a Water Quality
Management Plan on tha reservation of
the Confederated Colville Tribes in the
State of Washington.
The Colville Tribes live on 1.400.000
acres in north central Washington The
sEB"uAav *996
29
-------
mountainous terrain of the reservation
fosters a logging economy. but more
than 50 percent of the tribe is
unemployed.
Water Quality Management Plans are
required under Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act. The Colville Confederated
Tribes are the first in the nation to
develop the capability to implement
their own plan.
The Colville Tribes met their financial
commitment to the project, but found
that staffing cutbacks stemming from a
downturn in the timber induatry left
them with insufficient personnel to
meet the project schedule.
Supplementary funds from the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Indian Affairs are expected to become
available early in 1986. These should
permit the Colville Pilot Project to wrap
up late in 190&.
Substantial progress has already been
made. In January 1965, the Colville
Business Council approved an
important slate of tribal ordinances as
components of its Water Quality
Management Plan. These are very
similar to those already adopted by the
State of Washington, and therefore
should foster harmonious tribal-state
relations.
An Administrative Procedures
Act—also passed in January 1985—has
committed the Colville Tribes to fixed
channels of appeal and judicial review
when any of their Water Quality
Management Plan decisions are
contested. This has allayed the anxiety
of non-Indians on the Colville
Reservation who feared that their views
would not receive a fair hearing.
According to Deborah Gates of EPA
Region 10, the Colville Administrative
Procedures Act is so innovative that it
"can serve as a model for other Tribes in
developing environmental programs.''
In August 1985, the Colville Tribes
signed a Cooperative Agreement with
the State of Washington. A comparable
agreement between the Colville Tribes
and EPA is nearing completion. These
agreements mark important milestones
in a federal/state/tribal relationship that
has in the past been marred by
litigation.
These steps toward developing the
capability of four American Indian
tribes to deal with their environmental
problems represent progress. But they
are still a far cry from integrated
environmental programs on 278
reservations nationwide. For the
foreseeable future, EPA will continue to
play a very active role in seeing that
environmental standards are met on the
nation's Indian reservations.
EPA cannot meet such responsibilities
without the vigorous support of all the
agency's various program offices. A
good example of the Kind of support the
programs can give is a training and
technical assistance program sponsored
by the Office of Drinking Water (ODW).
In August 1985. ODW awarded
$140,000 to the Foundation of California
State University at Sacramento to train
44 Indian water supply officers from
seven reservations in Montana,
Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Over the coming year, three different
methods of training—correspondence
lessons, classroom demonstration, and
on-site demonstration—will be used to
prepare these officers for the Water
Supply Certification Tests in their
various states.
Face-to-face contact is vital to the
success of any project requiring
cooperation with Indian tribes. That is
why the field work of EPA's regional
offices is so crucial. Most EPA regions
have reservations, but Indian-related
activity is most intense in Regions 5. 6.
8, 9, and 10.
The administrative tangles can get
very complex. Take the Navajo Nation,
for example. Every decision the Navajo
tribe makes first must pass through a
complex series of legislative and
administrative decisions, just at the
tribal level. Then the encroaching
prerogatives of no fewer than four states
must be considered: Arizona, New
Mexico. Utah, and Colorado. Finally,
the Navajo Division of Resources has to
deal with three different EPA regions:
Region 6 in Dallas. Region 8 in Denver,
and Region 9 in San Francisco.
From this crazy quilt of conflicting
cultures and jurisdictions, orderly
progress does somehow emerge, it takes
a lot of haggling and fine-tuning, and
requires a never-ending interchange of
ideas, skills, and resources. But no one
on the Indian reservations of the United
States would question the value of local
control over local issues, and its
superiority to the paternalistic and
sometimes heartless policies of the past.
The prospects of making the Reagan
Administration's Indian Policy a success
seem particularly promising in the area
of environmental protection. America's
Indians bring to that mission a
commitment to the sanctity of nature
that is fully shared by EPA's staff and
by EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas.
Tlie transfer of control to tribal
governments will be gradual, both
because of the current atmosphere of
fiscal stringency and the highly
technical nature of EPA's programs. But
the agency has a good start and can
point to areas of real achievement. On
this foundation. EPA will continue
building in the yeers ahead, with the
ever-increasing participation of t
America's tribal governments. -
coa 'O'
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
-------
THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V
ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE
List of Participants
Tribal Representatives:
Mr. Fred A. Ackley
Tribal Judge
Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe
Route 1, Box 328
Crandon, Wisconsin 54520 (715) 478-2604
Mr. Tony Bennon
Member
Oneida Tribal Council
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365 (414) 869-2214
Mr. Jim Brun
Forestry Technician
Red Lake Band of Chippewas
P.O. Box 5 50
Red Lake, Minnesota 56671 (218) 679-3341
Mr. Brian S. Cooke
EPA Pilot Project Planner
Menominee Tribe
Box 397
Keshena, Wisconsin 54135 (715) 799-3341
Ms. Sharon House Cornelius
Tribal Attorney
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365 (414) 869-2771
Ms. Laura Coyhis
Director, Elderly Program
Stockbridge-Munsee Tribe
Route 1
Bowen, Wisconsin 54416 (715) 793-4111
Mr. Edward Fairbanks
Director
Division of Resource Management
Leech Lake Reservation
Box 308
Cass Lake, Minnesota 56633 (218) 335-2207
Gaiashkibos
Chairman
Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe
Tribal Office, Route 2
Hayward, Wisconsin 54843 (715) 634-8934
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
Page Two
Mr. Mike Gurnoe
Member
Red Cliff Tribal Council
Rural Route 529
Red Cliff, Wisconsin 54814
Mr. J.R. Holmes
Mining Impact Coordinator
Forest County Potawatomi
P.O. Box 346
Crandon, Wisconsin 54520
Mr. Terry Jordon
Warden
Oneida Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Mr. Floyd W. Jorgensen
Park Service Program
Red Lake Band of Chippewas
P.O. Box 550
Red Lake, Minnesota 56671
Ms. Rita Keshena
Tribal Attorney
Menominee Tribe
Box 397
Keshena, Wisconsin 54135
Mr. Leo La Fernier
Vice Chairman
Red Cliff Tribal Council
P.O. Box 529
Bayfield, Wisconsin 54814
Ms. Virginia Lovell
Kalihwisaks
Oneida Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Mr. Robert Nygoord
Commission on Indian Affairs
Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe
206 Greenough Street
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783
Mr. John Persell
Director
Water Quality Program
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
P.O. Box 217
Cass Lake, Minnesota 56633
(715) 779-5805
(715) 478-3827
(414) 869-2214
(218) 679-3361
(715) 799-3341
(715) 779-5695
(414) 869-2214
(906) 635-6050
(218) 335-2252
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
Page Three
Ms. Lois Powless
Member
Oneida Tribal Council
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Ms. Reann Porter
Secretary
1018 Pearl
Oneida Tribe
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Mr. Lloyd E. Powless, Jr.
Member
Oneida Executive Council
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Mr. Purcell Powless
Chairman
Oneida Executive Committee
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365
Mr. Alan Ruger
Environmental Biologist
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
Mr. James H. Schlender
Executive Director
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
Mr. Gary Schuettelz
Environmental Health Specialist
Menominee Tribe
P.O. Box 397
Keshena, Wisconsin 54135
Mr. David Siegler
Policy Analyst
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Fish and Wildlife
Commission
P.O. Box 9
Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
Mr. Ervin Soulier, Jr.
Natural Resources Coordinator
Bad River Tribal Council
P.O. Box 39
Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
(414) 869-2214
(414) 869-2214
(414) 869-2214
(414) 869-2214
(715) 682-6619
(715) 682-6619
(715) 799-3361
(715) 682-6619
(715) 682-9119
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
Page Four
Mr. John Spangberg
Environmental Health Specialist
Oneida Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365 (41 A) 869-2214
Ms. Jo Swamp
Tribal Attorney
Oneida Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54155-0365 (414) 869-2214
Mr. Michael Swan
Senior Aquatic Bilogist
Water Quality Program
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
P.O. Box 217
Cass Lake, Minnesota 56633 (218) 335-2252
Mr. Hillary Waukau
Member
Menominee Tribal Legislature
P.O. Box 397
Keshna, Wisconsin 54135 (715) 799-3341
Ms. Bobbi Webster
Editor
Kalihwisaks
Oneida Tribe
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, Wisconsin 54116-0365 (414) 869-2214
Mr. Dwight Wilcox
Reservation Biologist
White Earth Reservation
Box 418
White Earth, Minnesota 56591 (218) 983-3285
Mr. James Ziegler
Manager
Wildlife Program
White Earth Reservation
Box 418
White Earth, Minnesota 56591 (218) 983-3285
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Mr. Charles McCuddy
Natural Resources Specialist
Great Lakes Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Ashland, Wisconsin 54806-0273 (715) 682-4772
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
Page Five
Indian Health Service:
Mr. Allan J. Allery
Area Director, Indian Health Service
203 Federal Building
P.O. Box 7604
Bimiji, Minnesota 56601 (218) 751-7701
Mr. Tom E. Flora
Associate Area Director for
Environmental Health
Indian Health Services
Federal Building, Room 305
Bimiji, Minnesota 56601 (218) 751-7701
State Representatives:
Mr. Bob Barnum
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
101 South Webster
Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608) 266-8736
Dr. Robert E. Deer
Area Director
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
200 North Jefferson, Suite 511
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301 (414) 497-4025
Mr. Steven Dodge
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
101 South Webster
Madison, Wisconsin 5370"? (608) 266-8736
Mr. David A. Hildreth
Assistant District Director
Lake Michigan District Headquarters
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
1125 North Military
Box 10448
Green Bay, Wisconsin 50307 (414) 497-4052
Mr. Mike Lutz
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608) 266-8736
Mr. Mark Schuelle
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 79?1
Madison, Wisconsin 53707 (608) 266-8736
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
Page Six
U.S. Geological Survey:
Mr. Robert Lidwin
Director
Water Resources Division
U.S. Geological Survey
1815 University Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53701 (608) 252-2488
Other:
Mr. Larry Bailey
Circuit Rider
Minnesota Rural Water Association
Rout e 1
puposky, Minnesota 56667
(218) 685-5197
Mr. B. Leigh Price
Visiting Professor
Arizona State University
School of Law
Tempe, Arizona 8 5287
(602) 965-6317
Media:
Mr. Warren Bluham
WDUZ Radio
810 Victoria Street
P.O. Box 36
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305
(414) 468-4100
Mr. Quincey Dadismea
Milwaukee Sentinel
914 North Forth Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
(414) 224-2198
Mr. Mark Daniels
WGEE-WIXX
115 South Jefferson Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301
(414) 435-3711
Mr. Bob O'Meara
Associated Press
918 North Forth Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
(414) 225-3580
Ms. Judy K. Moore
Green Bay Daily News Chronicle
P.O. Box 2467
Green Bay, Wisconsin 5430C
(414) 432-2941
-------
NCAI/EPA Environmental Conference
page seven
Media; (continued)
Ms. Stephanie Reid
Green Bay Press-Gazette
P.O. Box 19430
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54307-9430 (414) 435-4411
Mr. Vic Watia
United Press International
744 North Forth Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 (414) 433-0869
-------
APPENDIX D
NEWS REPORTS
-------
MILWAUKEE SENTINEL
* «
EPA, Indians discuss impact
of new Clean Water Act
¦jr Qateejr DiII—m,
Charles H. Satfln. EPACIeaa Wa-
ter DivMoa chief ia Region S, mM
the biggest Impact of the bill oa
lndtaas it a provision that gives the
tribes the fame statue as states la
with the EPA.
Tike dkUb aaMaded versloa of
the Ckaa Water Act of 1#» was
aaaMMwiNy' approved la the. final
hours al the Mth Congrees to tiM
It past its "suaset" date ef Dec. 31.
|
5 that he would aHpw the bill to die
without his slgasture. But leaders
Irani both parties say the bill —
which provides federal funds for
cleaning up sources of water pollu-
te* — wiH be the first oae passed by
the 100th Coagraas whea It <
Protec*
tloa A|taqr alfldals MM Wifcii
day with Mhs Isadora (rasa sis
¦liWstMlltp states oa ways In which
aa aaeaded Cleaa Water Act wM
affect the trite*.
Court rsMag that they arc sovereign
Boventaeats oatslde state jarisAc-
Ooa. The tribes aoar are sabfcct to
state priority drclrtoai oa federal
grants far
water <
, TMa wM allow the tribes, Sutfla
said, to set water-quality staadarda
and guidelines for determining re-
was part
Wedaesdey's
cf a coaftreats oa the <
sponsored by EPA's Regloa S —
OMo, Indiana. IIMeois. Wiacoasia,
MkMgaaaad Ml ant sola - aad the
Natioaal Congress af Aawricaa ladJ-
aas at the Indlaa-owaed Rodewsy
laa hen. Indians sdeadtag the two-
day oieetlag represent 29 tribes or
la the six
st fictions oa wastewafter-dlacharge
permits.
Hilary Waufcau, a ¦eaiber of the
Meaonlnee tribal hglslatars aad a
vice president of the NCA1. aifced If
that meant the EPA wesfd saforce
water-quality staadards
by i tribe tows river fr
stream violator.
Sutfia said the EPA would aaforce
such standards.
The Meaomiaees fear the state
will Hcease wastewater discharges
from a proposed Ezzoa Corp. ziac
aad copper mine la Forest County,
upstream of the Ifeaoailoee Reserrs-
tlon la the WoU-River, watershed,
without restrictions striageat eaoagh
to protect the wster quality of the
river.
A public heering oa the eavlroe-
meatal Impact statement oa the mine
— the scientific tfsta on which coadl-
tioos in the mining Hcease wfil be
based — Is scheduled for late March
la Craadoo.
-------
I^TThe Green ^
News-Chronicle
Locatty owned and operated for and about the people of Northeastern Wisconsin
EPA, Oneidas discuss water act
By Don Butter
An official from the Environmental
Protection Agency's Water Division
addressed the Safe Drinking Water
Act and what regional Indian tribes
can expect from amendments to the
act during a conference Thursday at
the Oneida Rodeway Inn.
Charles Sutfin, the EPA's Water Di-
vision director for Region 5, said Indi-
ans in the 29-tribe region would be
eligible to split 985,000 in the fiscal
year 1988 to protect a sole source
aquifer in Indian communities.
The money, which would protect the
water-bearing layer of the earth,
would be $50,000 more than the region
received this year. The money would
be available if the tribes met primacy
requirements set by the EPA.
Kegion 5, one of 10 national EPA di-
visions. includes Ohio, Indiana, Illi-
nois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wis-
In June, President Reagan
approved a series of amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The amendments included provi-
sions to deal with Indian jurisdictions.
Among those addressed by Sutfio
were:
^ Authorization for the EPA to
treat Indian tribes as states under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Indians may
be given responsibility for public wa-
ter systems and underground injec-
tion control, and may be provided with
grant and assistance.
^ Hie EPA, in conjunction with the
Indian Health Service, must conduct a
survey of drinking water on Indian re-
servations within a year of enact-
ment.
^ Within 18 months, the EPA
announces its final regulations spe-
cifying those provisions which treat
the Indian tribes as states.
Under these amendments, Sutfin
said, Indian tribes would be treated as
states and would be eligible for feder-
al grants.
Sutfin also talked about three other
amendments to groundwater-related
provisions.
For underground injection cootrots,
the EPA will take inventory and
assess all wells injecting wastes below
a drinking water source in Region 5.
Sutfin said the EPA expects to find
those types of wells in Upper
Michigan.
k wellhead protection program,
which would protect area around
wells supplying public drinking water
from contamination, would be set up.
States are given three years to submit
to the EPA a plan identifying contami-
nants and adopting control measures.
Indian tribes would again receive
assistance from the EPA.
Marc Lanan
Charles Sutfin
-------
10 A THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL Thursday. December 4. IBM
Tribes urged
to seek help
from EPA
Orm Bay, Wis. —AP— Congrees
and the states often forget about
providing money for Indian tribes for
environmental problem! on reserva-
tions when there ia a budget crunch,
an Indian official aid at a conference
Wednesday.
There needs to be an increased
presence by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency at the tribal level and
an Increased tribal presence at the
EPA level, said the official, James
Schlender, executive director of the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission.
He spoke to delegates at a two-
day environmental conference of the
National Congress of American Indi-
aas and the EPA.
An EPA official said tribes should
pressure Congress to protect envi-
ronmental standards on reservations.
"The clean lakes program Is terri-
bly popular with many congress-
men, «!d Char let H. Sottta, t direc-
tor of the EPA's water division in
Chicago. If you dont think there's
enough money In there, let them
know."
President Reagan. last month
vetoed the Cletn Water Act as
revised by Congress.
Under the law as it stands, the
EPA nukes greats directly to the
states, which may allocate funds to
tribes. An Indian amendment to the
act would permit direct funding to
reservations.
B. Leigh Price, professor of Indian
Law at the Arizona State University
College of Law, said the Indian
amendment so far has fared better
than expected, partly because of lob-
bying by Navajo tribe members.
"It appears the Indian amendment
win he Intact ia Congm* latest pre-
pesaL But it behooves you to wnch It
closely," Price said.
He said the niendnwiit would
allow tribes to promulgate water
standards tad provide for gnata
directly to the tribes ratbsr than
leaving tt up to priorities eel hy the
itatee.
Schlaa^r nil these wan nan
environmental problems on neorva
tioos, Including wetlands prntsctton.
"A real ooneem is aoM warta
dispoenl andthe pallwi of tka aM*
night dunwar," ha aatf. referring to
Uwaa who tihpUy «*oae * wartaa
on reeecvetJone.'
-------
Green Bay Press-Gazette
Thursday, December 4,1986
Powless:
Oneidas
must watch
over land
By Stephanie Reid
01 the Prsss-Gazstts
The Oneida tribal government
doesn't have the luxury of ignoring
environmental issues affecting the
reservation, Oneida Executive
Committee member Lloyd Powless
said Wednesday.
"We need to make it clear we
can't hack off from bringing out
what is going on and finding out if
there is a danger there and trying
to protect what we have, not just
for tribnl people but all people in
the community," Powless said.
"If this is our reservation, we're
going to protect that," he said. "We
are going to make people aware of
any problems we see that are there
and then we can sit down and nego-
tiate and study to come to a
solution."
Powless made his^nmmentK dur-
ing the first dav of a two-da on-
ference at the Ontida Kodew • inn
which attracted fnduui loadn" md
federal and state environmental of-
ficials from Wisconsin and
Minnesota.
The U.3. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the National Con-
gress of American [ndians spon-
sored the event to give tribal
leaders and environmental staff an
opportunity to discuss their con-
cerns with regional EPA officials.
Powless said tribes are "fed up
with state and federal agencies be-
cause they are not doing enough
quickly enough."
"But aa tribes I think it's our
responsibility to keep that out in
the open, to keep saying what we
think is wrong, to keep studying, to
keep monitoring wells so we ctn
keep feeding data to the agencies
and saying there is a potential
problem her* and what are you
going to do about it," Powleas said.
He lauded the state and federal
agencies for their willingness to
meet with tribes at conferences,
but said that doesn't go far enough.
"It's time that we take some ac-
tion," he said.
Charles McCuddy, natural re-
source specialist for the Great
Lakes agency of the Bureau of In-
dian Affairs, criticized his agency
for not doing more concerning envi-
ronmental issues affecting the
reservations.
-------
MILWAUKEE SENTINEL
»»»OBy§Si^VSHliBQv Of
vows to cooperate with Indians
•Ways would be woiln* oat
trftes with Ittle aoaey co«M get
HeMM 1% oftheaoaejri
fori
UK
voald be 1MM la the
tntfuois "¦¦ iM as
we removed." Under pre-
fer a training a*
' technology wonldbe i
they
•The ECU «nM imfc to imiM the Ira
of Indian AfMn, the US ffmUBghal Sot*. the
ETA.
The
by the
effecting the
lie taeM«««y tnm a mut that the EPA
aee the phnae "Ma conntiy," rather than
EPA "tribal lands," In Its r«^|)atiaBe after lawyers said
that "taflu eowttjr could be Interpreted to
¦gee all the land that a tribe bad ceded la the port
and over wblch It still had eoae kind of
rights.
The Lake Superior Cblppewaa hoM audi
al rights to bunt, trap, fish and gather wild
in his office.
•An attempt would be nude u> include Indians produce over a wide area of northern TYIirnnda
-------
l^T The Green j
News-Chronicle
Locatty owned and operated for and about the people of Northeastern Wisconsin
FHday. Dtnimfcyf, If
Oneidas discuss water
EPA,
An official from the Environmental
Protection Agency's Water Division
addressed the Safe Drinking Water
Act and what regional Indian tribes
can expect from amendments to the
act during a conference Thursday at
the Oneida Rodeway Inn.
Charles Sotfin.tbe EPA's Water Di-
vision director for Region 5, said Indi-
ans ia tbe 29-tribe region would be
eligible to split 185,000 in the fiscal
year 1988 In protect a sole source
aquifer in Indian communities.
The money, which would protect the
water-bearing layer of the earth,
would be $50,M0 more than the region
received this year- The money would
be available if the tribes met primacy
requirements set by the EPA.
Refioa 5, one ti It national EPA di-
viiioas, includes Ohio, Indiana, Illi-
nois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wis-
In June, President Reagan
approved a series of amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The amendments included provi-
sions to deal with Indian jurisdictions.
Among those addressed by Sutfin
were:
^ Authorization for the EPA to
treat Indian tribes as states under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Indians may
be given responsibility for public wa-
ter systems and underground injec-
tion control, andmay be provided with
grant and assistance.
~ The EPA. in conjunction with the
Indian Health Service, must conduct a
survey of drinking water on Indian re-
servations within a year of enact-
ment.
Within 18 months, the EPA
announces its final regulations spe-
cifying those provisions which treat
act
the Indian tribes as states.
Under these amendments, Sutfin
said, Indian tribes would be treated aa
states and would be eligible for feder-
al grants.
Sutfin also talked about three other
amendments to groundwater-rdated
provisions.
For underground injection controls,
the EPA will take inventory and
assess all wdls injecting wastes below
I drinking water source in Region 5.
Sutfin said the EPA expects to find
those types of wells in Upper
Michigan.
A wellhead protection program,
which would protect area around
wells supplying public drinking water
from contamination, would be set up.
States are given three years to submit
to the EPA a plan identifying contami-
nants and adopting control measures.
Indian tribes would again receive
assistance from the EPA.
Charles Sutfin
-------
SENTINEL/BULLETIN - NCAI NEWS
Vol. 51, No. 6
December 20, 1986
National Congress
of American Indians
804 0 Street, N.E.
Washington, DC. 20002
202-546-9404
NCAI FUND COORDINATES FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CONFERENCE
FOR EPA RECIOH V AHP MINNEAPOLIS AREA TRIBAL COVmUIHENTS
In a groundbreaking conference, Indian governments whose territories border
the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan met with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region V to discuss environmental concerns and EPA's
implementation of its Indian Policy.
The two-dav meeting was coordinated by the National Congress of American
Indian's NCAI Fund at the request of EPA Region V and took place on December 3
and 4 at the Oneida Rodeway Inn, Green Bay, Wisconsin. A similar meeting is
planned for EPA Region IX, January 7-8, in San Francisco (see previous
article).
The NCAI/EPA environmental issues conference was the first formal issues meet-
ing between EPA regional officials and program directors and tribal officials
ana program managers. EPA Regional Administrator Valdas K. Adamkus, pledged
to cooperate and work with tribes toward successful implementation of the EPA
Indian Policy. He said he would prioritize tribal concerns in Region V and
would urge meaningful policy implementation at the EPA national level.
Conference Co-chairs Frank Covington, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, and
Oneida Tribal Council Member Llovd Powless agreed that the meeting was the
beginning of improved dialogue and a stronger relationship between EPA and the
Indian governments in Region V. Covington also said, "We really want to work
with you and will make maximum use of available resources, but I caution you,
we don't want to raise unrealistic expectations. EPA's resources are finite
and there is no new pot of gold."
The Conference included panel presentations on the Clean Water Act, Water
Quality Standards, the National Pollutant Discharge Emission Standards Program
and Clean Lakes Program; the Clean Air Act: Reclassification, Acid Rain and
Radon? the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Underground Injection Control
Program? the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)*, the Underground
Storage Tanks (UST) Program and Comprehensive Environmental Response; the
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund); and the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
During the conference, EPA also met with the following on specific pressing
issues: the Oneida Tribe about contamination of the reservation by the Ft.
Howard Paper Plant sludge ponds; the Menominee Tribe about its EPA Pilot
Project on solid waste management; and the Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake),
Forest County Potawatomi and the Stockbridge-Munsee Tribes about EPA comment
on the. Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a proposed Exxon zinc and copper
mine and the potential impact on their Reservations.
After concerns were expressed by the tribes about inter-agency coordination,
EPA met with representatives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian
Health Service (IHS), U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), NCAI and the Oneida Tribe
to discuss cooperation. The agencies agreed to draft a memorandum of under-
standing to address cooperation, joint meetings and training coordination.
Region V EPA Indian Affairs Coordinator festutia Ambutas was designated to
take the lead in drafting the memorandum, which will be circulated among the
tribes. NCAI and the NCAI Fund were represented by Natural Resources
Coordinator and Researcher Gail Chehak and Robert Holden, and Minneapolis Area
Vice President Hilary Waukau, who also serves on the Menominee Tribal
Legislature.
-------
NCAI FUND ENVIROMENTAL CONFERENCE (continued)
Waukau said that it was "Rood to get a helping hand from EPA to assist us in
protecting our lands. We have been impressed with the enthusiast) and genuine-
ness of the EPA staff. However, we want to make it very clear that we want to
work on a government-to-government basis and are not waiving tribal
sovereignty or RIA's trust responsibility to assist tribes in protecting the
environment. We look forward to working with EPA."
The Indian governmental representatives requested NCAI to convey the following
recommendations, needs, concerns and requests to the Region V Administrator
Valdas V. Adamkas for response:
1. The Tndian governments are anxious to become fullv involved in EPA
programs and want to improve communication between EPA and the tribes. They
ask that EPA:
(a) provide them with notice and access to EPA meetings with the states;
(b) add the tribal governments and the designated representatives from
this meeting to all EPA public information lists, including
publications and press releases; and
(c) utilize publications and meetings of the NCAI, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council and the
Federal Bar Association Committee on Native American Natural Resources
to provide information to tribal governments on EPA programs,
rulemaking and activities.
2. To promote the government-to-government relationship between the tribal
p.overnments and EPA, the tribal governments urge EPA to establish an "Indian
Desk" in the Washington D.C. Office to advocate the viewpoints of Indian
tribes, and to communicate to the tribes actions of potential concern to them.
It would seem self-evident that the best person to represent Indian interests
in EpA would be an Indian person appointed after consultation with Indian
t r ibes.
3. Tribes are concerned with the lack of coordination on environmental issues
and programs between federal agencies which share in the U.S. treaty,
statutory and fiduciary responsibility to the tribes. The tribal governments
encourage EPA to coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian
Health Service (IHS), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and other appropriate agencies. The tribal
representatives recommend that EPA conduct regularly scheduled meetings with
these agencies to coordinate activities, and that these meetings be open to
the tribal governments.
4. The Indian governments are dissatisfied with the lack of tribal govern-
mental participation in the Safe Drinking Water Primacy Working Group and ask
that it be expanded to include a representative designated by NCAI, and that
all EPA Indian workgroups include tribal representatives, such as the National
and Regional Indian Workgroups and other special workshops, such as the Safe
Drinking Water Primary Workgroup, Indian Lawyer Working Group, and Superfund
Primacy Workgroup, if established. The tribes would like notices, agendas and
minutes of all such meetings sent to the tribes.
5. The Indian governments are concerned that the process to develop draft
regulations to implement the Safe Drinking Water Amendments, as well as the
draft regulations, will become a model for all other statutes which include
Indian-specific provisions. The tribal governments support the comments
- 24 -
-------
NCAI FUND ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE (continued)
submitted by NCAI, which include a call for more tribal governmental
participation in the working group, increases in allocation to tribes,
flexibility to allow for total waiver of tribal matching funds and a lot
maximum match rather than 10% minimum.
6. The tribal governments need EPA to work closely with them to develop a
process for consultation and cooperation on such issues as enforcement on
Indian lands, jurisdiction, grant criteria and equity between the large and
smaller tribes in the region, as well as to resolve conflicts and develop a
plan and procedures for implementing the EPA Indian Policy.
7. The tribal governments would like to see an increase in funding to
implement the EPA Indian Policy. In addition to the program areas, the tribes
need training to develop the expertise to obtain primacy and keep abreast of
changes in technology, attend state planning meetings and hire staff to.
develop programs, interpret data and respond to requests for comments. Tribes
would like EPA to explore further the circuit rider approach as a possible
solution. The tribal governments want EPA to assist the tribes to break into
the state olanning processes as equal partners in negotiations, and to help
them find funding to participate.
8. The tribal governments want EPA to establish a government-to-government
relationship with them and oppose any attempts to use outside organizations in
lieu of this direct relationship, except when the organization has been
designated by the tribal governments.
9. The tribal governments are concerned over reports that the Colville Pilot
Project has been asked to provide more technical justification to support
stricter water quality standards than justification required by any state.
This is disturbing, as the pilot projects will indicate whether EPA's review
of tribal standards will be the same as states and deferential to the tribes.
The tribal governments want more information sent to them about the pilot
projects and recommend that EPA provide information about the projects at one
of NCAI's national meetings.
10. The tribal governments request that EPA meet with them on a regularly
scheduled basis in order to promote understanding, provide consultation,
discuss program activities, receive training and develop guidance on issues of
sovereignty, jurisdiction, enforcement and compliance.
During the development of regulations and implementation of the new
Indian-specific provisions of Safe Drinking Water and other legislation, the
tribes in Region V would like quarterly meetings between EPA and the tribal
fovernments. The tribes ask also that EPA assist them in obtaining funding
or tribal representatives to travel to these meetings by identifying and
requesting additional EPA dollars or urging BIA to assist tribes through a
Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and BIA.
11. The tribal governments request that EPA use the term "Indian country"
when referring to Indian lands, rather then the term "Reservation" or other
possible terms which could exclude extensive Indian territory. "Indian
country" is an understandable term of art in law. Use of other terms could
serve to create confusion in definitions and jurisdiction, and possibly could
lead to law suits or legislative clarification which could be avoided by the
use of the standardized Indian country" term.
- 25 -
-------
M4SIN4IG4N
ACHRONCUOFMf
LAKE
SUPERIOR
_ OJtBWAY
JANUARY, M*
MASWA1CAN MOI rout
CPA POLICY rot tn
ADMINISTRATION OP
1NVII0NMINTAI#
PROGRAMS ON INDIAN
RESERVATIONS
NmaNl S, IM4
MTHinmnw
Tilt NiMtti fib'
liabed • Federal lediaa
Poller Jeaoary 24,
1913, eupportieg tbe
primary role of tribal
Ooverameate la aiuin
effecting Aairfcn
Indian aeactoUoae. TW
policy atreeead two tolead
ibcaai: (1) Uti llM
Federal Ooveraaeat wilt
puna* lk« principle of
IndJaa "»eJf-|©*a/»»eai#
and (2) tba (i win «Mfe
directly «(ih Tribal
Govenimeata m e 'gov-
eriaiiMO-imtaaiil'
baiie.
Tbe Kavlnaanul
Protectioa Ageacy (SPA)
haa prevloaaly leaned
geacrel ctateaoate of
policy wbieb moiilu
the importance of Tribal
Ooverameate la rano*
latory ecilvUtee • last
impact reeervetloe ea*
vironaente. h It iba
purpooe of tble auiaacai
10 cooaolidata aad eapead
on aaletiag RPA laidlaa
Policy etateaeaie hi •
ffiUHf totilflMl with
tba overall Federal
poahioa , la rapport of
Tribal "eelf-goveraCMaf
and 'goveraaeet-io-
fovaraftai' releiioae
betweeo Pedorel m4
Tribal Oovataawata. TMe
Miumai eea 1Mb iba
priaciptoa tbat will g»Me
rbo Apoay >• deiHaf
with Tribal Oovemaeaie
nod la rwpewai to ibe
probleai oa eavlroa-
aaiul management ea
MnricM IWiu re ear-
vnrione lo eider to aware
baaaa baalib aaj tba
environment Tba Policy
le intended va provide
goMance far BPA pro*
|raa aaai|M ia tba
»m*w af iba Agency's
coagraaaieaelly aeadetod
lajnulHHtioe, As aaeb,
k aggUee to VA only end
doe* not a«»c elate policy
far oibar Agenda* ia tba
coadtaM of ibaif reepac-
tive raapoaiibiiitia*.
It ia important to
eapbeelae thai tba la*
picaeatetioa af regale-
lory ywyiaa which will
roailaa tbaaa principle
oa lallaa Reeervctione
ceaaot bo aaaoanHebnd
imaediatcly Effective
impleaeetetlea will tab*
cwafal aod coaecieoitoeo
waik by BPA. tba Tribee
aal aiaay otbara. la
meay caaee. it will
rofalte change* la ap-
plicable atetuatory aa-
tborilica mi ragoietieee.
It •III ba neaeeeery to
hi a earofetJy
pr«i?aai for racer*
vatioaa (eelea tba State
baa aa eaprca fnai af
Jariallciioa fna Con*
grea aafflclaat io aaapon
delegation to iba State
Qevcrnmuut), Vb*d BPA
retain* aaeb reapoaai-
bility, tba Agency will
•acoarai* tba Tribe to
partleipata la policy*
making mi to aaaaaM
epproariete laaaar or
partial rolaa la tba
¦Mi|aaati of veeer*
vat>oo prograaa.
4. THI AGENCY WEA TAKE
APPROPRIATE STEPS TO
REMOVE EXWRNOUKM.
AND PROCEDURAL IM-
PEDIMENTS TO WOMUNO
OIMCTLY AND EF1VC-
TIVBLY WITH TRIBAL
OQVEEHMENTS ON WW-
V ATOM PROGRAMS.
A a amber of aartaaa
coaatralata m4 anear-
talatiaa ia tba language
of aor ataiaua aa<
rafalatioaa bava llaitoi
oar ability to work
dlraatly mi affactivaly
wltb Tribal OovaraoMata
oa faaarvafioa problaaa.
As iapadiaaata ia oar
pra«a4ara«, ftgalatioat
or atatataa an MmiIIM
wbkb Iftaali aor abWty to
•oil alrirciWaly with
Ttiboa mtiMaii wltb
tbia Micy, wa will aaak to
Conference on
Environmental
Issues
aooaaaaoa mi failaraa.
aai ta |tia tapariaaaa.
Noaatbalaaa. by bo*
flaaiaf wort oa tbo
priority pvoblaaa ibat
aatat aow mi cootloabm
la tbo Jiractioa aa*
ubliaba4 oo4or tbaaa
priaciplaa. ovar tim wa
eta aliaificaaily aa*
baaaa oavlroaaaatal
faoliiy oa raaarvaitoa
FOR RESERVATIONS, CON-
SISTENT WITH AOENCY
standards AND reg-
ulations.
la kaapiai witb Aa
priacipla of liiiaa aalf*
(ovtraaMt, tba Agaacjr
will viaw Tribal Oovara-
neaia a* tba appropriate
noaPadaral partiaa fai
making Jecialoaa aa4
carrylag oat prograa
raapoaaibiliMai affaciias
Ia4faa r«aar«atiaa», tbair
enviroaaaais, ul tba
liealtb cad walfara of tbe
raaervatioa popalaca.
laat aa BPA'a deBbamleae
and activitioa bate
iraditiooally iavolvod tba
iatetem miht partlci*
paiioa of State Oovara*
ami, EPA will toob
diractly io Tribal Oav*
role for manara affaatlag
raiarvatioa tatiroa*
laaata.
3. THE AOENCY WEi. TAKE
AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO
BNC0UM0S AND ASS0T
TRIBES IN AtBUMINO
REGULATORY AND PRO-
ORAM MANAOKMBUT RE*
SPONSttflJTtES FOR RES-
ERVATION LAND!
Tbo A|oacy will
aatlat iataraatad Tribal
Ooventaaaata la iatalaa
ill prtinai aod la
praparlag to aaaaao
rafolatory aaO prograa
maaagaaaat raapoaai*
bilitloa far raMrvatioa
laada. Wltbia tba
coaatralata of BPA'a
aatbority aod reaoaiaaa.
tbia aid will iaalodt
a Tribaa
If it# Qnrar—aw*. Tba
Aaaaay aill aaaooraaa
Tjku gjk
naaa io aaaaa aaagaaa
la carryMB oat oar
taapaaalM»ilob aa tadtaa
raaarvMiooa, tba faada>
aaaatal' objoeti** of tba
EOTiroaaeatal Protactioa
Afoaay U t« protect
baaaa baaltb mi tba
Tba bay*
aota of tbia effort will be
to give epecial coaiid-
•ratlea ta Tribal intemta
ia aakiag Agaacy policy,
aod to iaaara tba claaa
iavolvaaaat of Tribal
Ooveraaeate ia aabia|
daeiaioaa aad aaaegiag
aaviroaaeaial proframa
affecting rea«(«atioa
laadi.' Ta ataat ibis
ob^activa, tbe Afaacy will
periaa iba tallowing
priaciplai:
1. THE AOENCY STANDS
READY TO WORK DASCTLY
WITH INDIAN TRIBAL
OOVRRNhCNTS ON A ONE-
TO-ONE BASS (THE "00V-
nMNTTOOOVEBNbttNT
RELATIONSHIP). RATHER
THAN AS SURDI VISIONS OP
oneioovERNbews.
EPA raco|aUa«
Tribal Oovaraaiaata aa
aovareifa eatitiea witb
priairy aatbority aad
reapoaaibility for tbe
raacrvatioa aopolace.
Aecordiasly. EPA will
worb directly wltb Tribal
Oovaraaaatt •« iba
iadapeadaai aatbority for
raaarvatloa affairt, aad
aot at potitiaat tab*
dlWeioaa of , Biataa ar
other goveraatfttal
aaita.
2. THE AOENCY WILL
MCOONOI TRIBAL GOV-
BRNWBNTS AS THE
PRIMARY PARTIES FOR
SETTINO STANDARDS.
MARMO ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY DBCISIONS AND
mpMtttiHUn «twk tta
«I«J ta« irMlitM^lj
••Uli'rt i* luit
IMMIM r*f •••¦
»Hn«M l(M» wMn
dm tf»Hw n ikm
pmnt MwUm »
Siaiaa.
VJatil Tribal Om-
aaata.
3. THE AOENCY, IN
KEfPtNO WITH THE
FEDERAL TRUST RESPON-
SIBtLfTY. WILL ASSURE
THAT TRIBAL CONCERNS
AND INTERESTS ARB
CONSIDERED WHENEVER
SPA'S ACTIONS AND/OR
DEOSIONS MAY AfVECT
REHRVATION
ENVEtONbSHTt.
WA iceopiaee thai $
tract reapoaaibility'
darlvot fraa iba bia*
tartcal ralatioiabip ba-
twaoa , Federal Oov*
eraaoai aad fadiaa
Tribea aa atpraaaod la
certaia ireatiai aad
Fadarol lodlaa Law. la
bceplos with tbet trnt
reapoaaibility, tbe
Ageacy will eadeavor , to
protect ibe eaviros*
laeatal iateraaia of ladlaa
Tribaa wbea carvyiag eat
Its reaaoaaibintica thai
aay affect tba r asar-
vatioaa.
6. THE AOENTY Wil l.
BNCOUMOBOOOPEJUTION
BETWBEN tRIBAL. STATE
AMD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO RESOLVE ENVIRON-
MENTAL PEOBLEMS OF
MUTUAL CONCERN.
Soaad eaalroaaaa*
ial pleaatag aad laaaaca-
aeat rMt^a tba eoopar-
atioa aad laateel
aoaaldaraiiM of aaigk-
borias gaveraiaeati,
wbatbtr tbaaa gavata-
aeati be Ni|kboti«|
Simoi. Tribea, or local
aalta of govaraaeai.
Acaordia^ly, BPA will
iaca«rt|i early aoa<
maaHatiaa aad ctawi-
ttaa aaaaR tribaa, VMM
aad local gavaraaoati.
Tbia U aot iwaadad a
lead Fadaral lappari a
aay oaa /any * ^
iiiiiily af tba
of lit otbar. ftubaf, b
racafRttoi Ail ta tbe
field af eaviroaaaatal
V
EPA will aaak aad
aroaotc cooperatioa
batweM Federal aseacita
to protect baaaa health
aad ibe eaviroaataat oa
reaervatioaa. We will
work witb wher efeacica
(o clearly idaotlfy aad
daliaaate the rolaa,
recpoMibiliiies aad re*
latioaibipe of oar re*
ipective orgaaliaiioea
aad io aaetat Tribaa ia
developiag aad aiM|ii|
aaviroaaaatel programa
for aearvMloa laoda-
I. THE AOENCY WILL
STRIVE TO ASSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH EN-
VIRONMENTAL STATUTES
AND REGULATIONS ON
INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
la tbaaa caaaa wbea
faeillilea owaed • or
aaaa|«d by Tribal
Ooveraaeate era aoi la
coaplieaaa wltb Federal
eaviroaaeatal aetataa,
VA will wort taopeta-
lively witb Tribal leader-
ebip a deaetep aeaae a
aebieve coaplieaec. pro*
vidiag iMbaical aappon
aad coaeatteiiaa aa
aeceaaery ta caabM Tribal
feeilltlea ta eoaply.
BacMH of tbe diatiaci
ttetae of ladlaa Tribal
lad tba caatplea legal
iaaaae iavolvad. diraci
EPA act loo tbroagb ibe
jadicial or edaUHatfetiae
proeeea wW ba aoatidetad
wbea tbe A^a«y 4a
leraiaa. ia lie jadgaeat,
tbai: (I) a algarflcaat
tbaa a baaaa beat* or
the eeviroaaeat eaiata.
(2) aaeb ectioa woald
aiaaaibly be etpected a
eebieve effective reaalta
a a tlaaty mmmr. mi
(3) iN Federal Oovera-
aeat cimm etillae otber
altoraethrea a comet ibe
froblea 1a a Hataly
aabioa
la (boa euei wMf«
raaervetioa faciliiiea are
clearly ewaad or «ana#ed
%y private partial and
ibere ia ao aabtiaatial
Tribal iaaraat or cuatrol
iavolvcd. the Agency wilt
eadeevor to act ia
cooperatioa wiia ibe
effected Tribal Govern-
aaat, bat will otber«i«e
raapoad io aoacoaplia-
ace by private parttea oa
lediea aeervMioaa m the
Ageacy woald io
aoacaapHaact by ibe
!>riveie aector alitwbere
a tbe coaatry. Wbara
tbe Tribe ba a mbaaatial
proprietary iateraei ia. or
ceairol over, ibe
privately owaed or
enaiged facility, BPA will
reepaad aa Aacribed ,ia
tbe firat parairapb
t THi AGENCY WILL
INC0RP0RAT8 THESE
INDIAN POLICY GOALS
INTOm FLANMMO AND
management Acnvmss.
WCLUDDIQ ITS 1UDCBT.
OPtEATtNO GUIDANCE.
LBGitLATtVB INITIA-
TIVES, MANAGEMENT
ACCOWTAEVJTY SYSTEM
ANDONOQINOPOUCY AND
EMULATION DEVELOP-
>MTI fPb-
idalslilirUL
Sifc Dnakifli Wntf Act
Thin Acl regulelei public
water supply lyeicm* and
I he underground in-
/cction control Mi sol*
source aquifer programs.
CPA it currently drafting
rules io implement ibe
IVI6 amendments an-
thorUing EPA to treat
iribea aa iiaica for
parpoaaa of delegating
program reapoaaibiliiy.
Region V coaiact far tbia
program i< Ricbard
Frcamaa.
"/T"* ftfl- Tba CWA
regalaic* any point-
aoarce ie.g.. pipe, ditch)
of waier pollaiioa by
reqairmg every peraon
placing efflacat ia a
aavigahir wattr to firai
gat a permit. Paralia ere
iaavad either by EPA ar by
atatea with delegated
aatbority a do ao. Tbe
CWA alao provide* for
>ec. 404" .permita. iaaaad
by the Army Corpa af
Engiaaen. prier le the
damping af dredge or All
materia) ia waian, in-
cluding weileada. Tbe
CWA paaaad Coagrea laat
year wiib Median"
amendaieait ilmiler to
ibe SDWA, bai Prea.
Reagan vetoed, ibe bill for
other rtitnii Con-
greuioaai leaden plan io
reiatrodaca iba bill ia
Jamwy. Cbarfea Saffa ia
the Regioa V Director of
the CWA program.
Cuamrt heftime
CEACLA, ibe M/ardovs
wasic clean- up law. waa
recently amended m allow
uibe> >o be treated e*
siaiaa. similar io the SDWA
and CWA bttt mottv CPA
rule-making will be
required io implement ibe
change.
&UA
RCRA
rcgalataa tbe prodactioa.
iran«portation. and dia-
poial or deatruriion of
haaerdoaa maieriala. ia-
ciedieg aaeb common
iiemi aa dry cleaning
waatei. RCRA was re-
aatbariied in 1414
wiiboal addition of aay
"Indian" language BPA
thu* retaim direct re-
sportaitMliiy for earorctng
RCRA oa India* react-
vanons. RCBA and
CERCLA an both aader
tN direction at ftegioa V
of Bail Cenatanteloa
Air Afi Tbe Or an
Air Act aim* m protect the
nations air quality by
catabhsbing utandardt
ihai "diriy" artea are
auppoaed io improve
while standards for
"clean" aieaa are deigned
to prevent ngnifuint
deierioration of air
qaalMy At Region v.
David Kec ta tbe program
director
IlillltlBllllillllltlilK
__ fall
reapeaiibilHy far dole*
g«bl« praaraaa. tbe
Atetey atll rata* a*
ptiaeipic af «paiiy
betwaoa aaaale aod
aeigbbara ana ea«w«
tba bea iaaeaeM of ba*.
?, THE AGBNCY Wll
WORK. WITH OTMW
IuSSjSukiedi
EILITIBI ON
THEflt
SSSSf!
BRPQral
It ia a ceatral
of tbia effort to
_ ibet tbe ptiaciplea
of tbit Poiisy are
effectively iaatilaiioit.
eiietd bp incarporatmg
them lew tbe Ageacya
ongoing and long-term
planniag aad manage-
mm praceaa. Agency
aaaagera will iaclade
epectlic programmatic
aetiaoa detigoed w re-
ceive pabteaa an Indian
raaervationa ia tbe
Agtftcy * liiftiag fiK«l
year and laHg-tera
^taaiat a«4 tkMt|t-
PROOHAM WPQWII.
VA1KMS.
Uiiileeil aa page S)
-------
Conference
(centtnart tnm MM
TU» is Jm rim time
ia my dealing with
(adanl afaaciaa rt"*41
Hlfeatilia »»4
uioeoeas r»« ^
Hillary Waakta.
Meaomiaaa Ugislatuia.
"Tba EPA IndU*
Policy eoald , th*
staadard for federsl
aiaacy * ralatiOB-
ihipa." Jaataa Scblaadar.
OLIFWC Eaeeativa Ad-
ministrator.
"Yod bava • •«'•••
opportunity rt|bi aow to
(et | loi of ia
implamaatlaa tbe policy
tttwoni- w'l Wo*
Gaiashkibos, Lk Courts
Oraillaa Tribal Cbair«aa.
]|(| wfN MM 01
ths raaetioae to tbe
EavitoatMiial laauai
CoBferaac* organised by
the Environment Pr*«
taction A|«cyi (8M)
Regis* Varfiki NatioMl
Coagrasa °1 America®
Ind.aas (HCAl), hostad
December 3 and 4 by tfca
OMt nx
l| o mt ? Much of the
Upper Midwest is in
geological area* where
radon may be found.
Home tetiiftg kite can
help you determine if
your hous« ts collecting
radon. Beware houses
right next door to each
>t(her cjn have easily
hffereni ration readings.
UuUUL'1 Often 'datively
simple and mcipcnsive
improvement* wan retard
• he entry ra%lun
Fof mi»g ininfrni
liua EPA his nf.<»Wiiion
on radon gcncfalty on
radon rcdubiton. and on
where inoo<-
tormg devices. Contact
them ai 230 S Dearborn
Street. Chicago. IL 60604.
(J121333-2203
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1917 71*417
------- |