Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Two case studies explore how the 

CEC’s North American Pollutant 

Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) 

Project can better serve indigenous 

and tribal communities

September 2007

Overview

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC) North American Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) Project tracks and publishes information on the 

amounts, sources and handling of toxic chemicals generated by industrial facilities 

in North America. The CEC’s Taking Stock report and database provide a matched 

dataset of industries and their emissions of chemicals being reported to the National 

Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in Canada, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 

the United States and, as of 2007, the Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC) in Mexico. 

A key goal of the CEC’s PRTR Project is to provide information for decision-makers at 

all levels of society. In order to assess North American tribal and indigenous communities’ awareness and/or use of PRTR information, the CEC commissioned two case 

studies: one in the Baja California region on the US-Mexico border, and the other in 

the Great Lakes region on the Canada-US border. 

The objectives of the studies included: 

•	 Obtaining information from the communities about their health and environmental concerns, particularly relating to toxic substances;

•	 Discovering if the communities are aware of and/or make use of PRTR data; and

•	 Identifying effective strategies for communicating PRTR information to tribal and

indigenous communities and for involving them in CEC programs. 

While these studies were conducted in a fairly informal fashion and are not 

statistically conclusive, the results do reflect the kinds of comments the CEC has 

received from indigenous and tribal representatives relative to PRTR information. 

The case studies reveal similarities in terms of communities’ environmental concerns 

and their awareness or use of PRTR information: 

•	 Overall, indigenous and tribal communities are not aware of PRTR databases;

of those that are, very few individuals know how to make use of the data.

•	 The communities are concerned about the potential health, environmental and

cultural impacts of toxic substances and expressed the need for PRTR-related 

outreach activities and materials tailored to their specific needs.

•	 A key challenge facing these communities is the lack of resources or expertise

to fully research the potential impacts of industrial emissions.

At the annual PRTR Consultative Group meeting, held in San Diego in November 2006,

the CEC organized a special, one-day session for representatives of indigenous and 

tribal communities to discuss their concerns relating to toxic chemicals. The session 

generated a great deal of interest and the CEC has received feedback from participants wishing to continue collaborating on this topic. 

These case studies were produced for 

the Secretariat of the Commission for 

Environmental Cooperation. The information contained herein is the responsibility 

of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the CEC, or the 

governments of Canada, Mexico or the 

United States of America.

Publication Details

Publication type: Background paper

Publication date: September 2007

Original language: English

Review and quality assurance procedures:

Presented to PRTR Officials/PRTR 

Consultative Group – November 2006 

Party review: 22 June – 20 July 2007

Toxic Chemicals

and Indigenous Communities
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

2 Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities

The Two Study Areas

The border regions of North America were chosen as the focus of these studies 

because they seemed appropriate for assessing the awareness and/or use of 

at least one of the North American PRTR databases available at the time (i.e., 

Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory—NPRI; the US Toxics Release 

Inventory—TRI; or the CEC’s Taking Stock Online database of matched North 

American facilities). 

The Baja California Case Study examines the experience of the Rincon Band of 

Luiseño Indians, located in San Diego County, California, on the border with

Mexico. The US-Mexico border zone is a dynamic region defined as the land 

area 100 kilometers on either side of the border. The international border in 

the middle of this 200 kilometer zone has separated many indigenous communities whose historical territories once included lands in both the US and 

Mexico. Today, the indigenous population of the US–Mexico border numbers 

approximately 40,000, including residents of nearly 60 US and Mexican tribal

nations and indigenous communities. These nations and communities cover 

almost three million acres of land within this zone.1

Located within the territory of the Rincon Reservation is a boat-building and 

repair plant, and the community has expressed some concern about emissions from this facility. 

The Great Lakes Case Study focuses on the experience of two First Nations 

communities in Ontario, Canada, on the border with the US state of Michigan.

This Great Lakes border region is a rich economic zone featuring natural resources (lakes, agricultural land) as well as some areas with high concentrations of industry.

Aamjiwnaang First Nation, located near Sarnia, Ontario, came to the attention

of the public when Ontario health professionals observed a marked decrease

in male births over female births. 

Like Aamjiwnaang, Ketegaunseebee (Garden River) First Nation is very close 

to a city (Sault Ste-Marie, Ontario), and proximat e to industrial facilities, including steel, forestry, pulp and paper, and petrochemical plants. 

1 Wilken-Robertson, The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: Tribal Environmental Issues of the Border Region, (SCERP 

Monograph Series, no. 9, 2004), 15.

The CEC wishes to thank Ron Plain, Paula Stigler 

and Hiram Sarabia, who worked closely with 

these communities to develop the case studies.

 

Ron Plain is from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation 

located in Sarnia, Ontario, in the Canada-US 

Great Lakes region. He is founding member of 

the Aamjiwnaang Environment Committee and 

has been very active in raising awareness about 

the unique environmental problems facing his 

community. 

Paula Stigler is an Air Quality Specialist who 

has worked for the Pala Band of Mission Indians 

in San Diego, California. She is very involved in 

environmental issues affecting tribes in the border region and is member of a number of task 

forces through the US Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

Hiram Alejandro Sarabia Ramirez is associate 

researcher with the University of California at 

San Diego’s Superfund Basic Research Program 

(SBRP). He worked closely with Paula Stigler 

on the Baja California case study, through the 

university’s Community Outreach Core project.

This is an environmental justice project involving the communication and sharing of SBRPgenerated knowledge and tools with tribal 

communities affected by hazardous waste sites 

and toxicants. 
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities 3

The Rincon Band’s Reservation is located in 

northeast San Diego County in Southern California and comprises approximately 4,000 

acres of land. The majority of the people 

living on the Reservation are Luiseño Indians, with 651 registered tribal members and 

a community population of approximately 

1,495 persons. 

The facility of concern to the population is 

Survival Systems International Inc. (SSI), located in the center of the tribal community 

near homes, apartments, tribal businesses 

and a daycare. SSI is a privately-owned, nontribal company on tribal fee land2

 and has reported releases of both acetone and styrene 

since 1998. Since the company is within the 

Reservation boundary, the tribe should be 

able to regulate and inspect the business if 

it has the capacity to do so and if an agreement is made between the tribal government 

and the facility. However, the objective of 

this study is to explore if the Luiseño Indians are aware of or use PRTR data, and how 

knowledge of PRTR and emissions information may prepare them to explore and address their concerns about emissions within 

or near their reservation.

Study Methodology

Of the 26 federally-registered tribes along the 

US side of the border, 24 have environmental programs funded by the US EPA and/or 

tribal funds.3

 A simple survey was sent out 

electronically to all of these tribal environmental programs. 

The following is a sample of the questions 

that were asked in the survey: 

•	 Are there any facilities releasing toxics/pollutants (including air emissions, 

wastewater discharges, solid waste or that 

operate landfills or underground storage 

tanks) in or around your tribal lands? 

•	 Do you know what a PRTR database is?

•	 If yes, have you ever used a PRTR database before?

•	 Would you be interested in participating in the development of a model (case 

study) to improve the accessibility and 

utility of PRTR databases for tribes? 

Initially, only one environment department 

responded to the survey, indicating it was 

unsure of any nearby facilities and had never 

heard of PRTR databases, but would be interested in receiving more information. 

Maps were then created showing the US 

tribes in the border region and TRI-listed 

facilities.4 Also, the National Atlas online 

mapping tool was used to identify tribal 

lands in the United States with TRI-registered facilities and to obtain specific information on these facilities and evaluate the 

efficacy of online mapping resources for 

use by tribal communities. After the maps 

were created, data searches were completed 

using the Taking Stock and TRI databases 

for those facilities located within approximately 10 miles of tribal lands in California, Arizona, Texas and Baja California. 

This research identified the Rincon Band 

in San Diego County as a possible participant for the study, since the Rincon Reservation has a TRI-listed facility located on 

its land.

The Rincon environment department was 

contacted by phone and stated it had not 

used PRTR databases before, but would 

Baja California Case Study: PRTR Data and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

2 Fee land is any land that is not held in trust by the United 

States of America and is owned by individuals who may 

or may not be members of the tribe. The owner pays 

state and local government taxes but still may fall under 

tribal jurisdiction.

3 Because data from Mexico’s PRTR (the Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes—RETC) were 

not available until the later stages of this study, it was 

not possible to develop a case study for an indigenous 

community from Mexico, and only one from the United 

States was chosen.

4 As the Mexican RETC database became available, the 

coordinates for facilities in Baja California were mapped 

along side the US tribal lands and the Baja California 

indigenous communities (these coordinates had to be 

converted in order to display them and while some were 

found to be inaccurate, the exercise was valuable for 

showing the potential of mapping tools).

US Tribal lands and PRTR reporting facilities

Legend

PRTR facilities

Tribal Lands

US/MX Border Zone

Created on 10/27/06 by Paula Stigler Data source: PRTR
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

4 Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities

be interested in using this tool to find out 

what types and levels of toxicants were being released from the facility located in the 

center of the community. Data searches had 

revealed that styrene and acetone were the 

chemicals being released; therefore, information on potential short- and long-term 

health effects associated with exposures to 

these contaminants was gathered via the 

Internet, (e.g., ATSDR and US EPA online 

toxics databases). 

Community Concerns

The Rincon tribe believes that there is a lack 

of inspections of the Survival Systems facility 

and is concerned with the jurisdictional issues regarding who is in charge of overseeing 

these inspections. Some community members have made a few complaints of a smell 

emanating from the facility. These concerns 

were brought to the attention of the Rincon 

environment department. 

The following information about styrene (one 

of the main substances being released by this 

facility and reported to the US TRI), was obtained through the Internet resources mentioned above. 

Styrene is a synthetic chemical also known 

as vinyl benzene, ethenylbenzene, cinnamene or phenylethylene. It dissolves easily in some liquids, but not in water. Billions of pounds of styrene are produced 

each year to make products such as rubber, 

plastics, insulation, fiberglass, pipes, boats, 

automobile parts and carpet backing.5

 Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the US EPA and can be detected 

by the human nose at very low levels; however, regular exposure reduces the ability 

to smell the chemical.6

 Some of the potential short-term health effects of exposure 

include:

•	 Irritation of the nose, throat and eyes

•	 Gastrointestinal effects

•	 Symptoms such as headache, dizziness

and fatigue 

•	 Slower reaction times, reduced manual

dexterity, and impaired co-ordination 

and balance.

Potential long-term health effects include:

•	 Increased damage to the genetic material 

in one type of blood cell (lymphocytes) 

•	 Effects on the central nervous system

(CNS), such as headache, fatigue, weakness, and depression, CNS dysfunction, 

hearing loss, and peripheral neuropathy.7

Study Results

This survey showed that there is a general 

lack of knowledge within US border tribal 

communities regarding PRTRs. While the 

Rincon tribe was concerned about the possible effects of environmental pollutants being 

released by the local facility, the community 

was not aware of existing PRTR databases. 

When several of the tribal environment 

departments were eventually contacted following this study, a number of them stated 

that they were aware of the US Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), but that they found 

the database difficult to manipulate and not 

very useful. 

During the CEC’s annual PRTR Consultative 

Group meeting held in San Diego in November, all of the indigenous participants were 

receptive and interested in obtaining more 

information after receiving basic information about some of their own communities.8

The Mexican indigenous representatives 

were unaware of any Mexican or US PRTR 

databases and were unacquainted with any 

of the facilities near their communities that 

might be of concern. 

How PRTR Data Could Benefit the 

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

This study demonstrates the usefulness of PRTR 

databases in identifying industrial emissions of 

chemicals and their potential to empower indigenous communities to make informed decisions and engage in informed dialogue with 

regulatory entities and industry.

It is imperative that tribal communities be 

well informed regarding activities that are 

5 See <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts53.html>.

6 More information can be found at <www.epa.gov/iris>.

7 See <www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts53.html>.

8 Meeting of the CEC’s North American Pollutant Release 

and Transfer Register (PRTR) Consultative Group, San

Diego, November 2006 (see: <www.cec.org/>).

Created on 10/27/06 by Paula Stigler Data source: PRTR

California Tribes and PRTR reporting facilities

Legend

PRTR facilities

Tribal Lands

US/MX Border Zone

Pechanga

Pauma-Yuima Pala

La Jolla Los Coyotes

Torres-Martinez

San Pasqual Santa Ysabel

Mesa Grande

Barona Inaja

Capitan Grande

Sycuan Viejas

Jamul

Cuyapaipe

La Posta

Manzanita

Campo

Juntas de Neji

Rincon
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities 5

occurring on or near their lands in order to 

protect their health and environment. It is 

foreseen that the information provided by 

PRTRs can help tribes/communities to:

•	 Learn of contaminant sources and identify

potential environmental and health issues; 

•	 Improve enforcement and regulation;

•	 Present information to tribal leaders;

•	 Conduct outreach to community members 

and relay important information to protect 

public health;

•	 Enter into dialogue with industry and

government agencies to address environmental health concerns and issues;

•	 Develop emergency and disaster planning;

•	 Manage natural resources; and

•	 Plan for community growth (placement

of industry, housing, infrastructure, 

schools, etc.).

Historically, tribal communities have had 

limited capacity and resources to address 

potential environmental health issues arising from the presence of pollutants on or 

near their lands. However, in recent years, 

tribes in the United States and some Mexican indigenous communities have begun to 

develop environmental programs and build 

their capacity to understand and monitor potential environmental health hazards. 

On the US side of the border, there are 26 

federally recognized tribes and of those, 

24 have environmental programs funded 

by the US EPA and/or tribal funds. However, tribal environmental programs often 

do not have an environmental health component within their departments. In the 

United States, Indian Health Services (IHS) 

provides tribes with environmental health 

information, but there is little interaction 

between the tribal environmental departments and the IHS. 

Almost all the tribal members and representatives who were given hands-on demonstrations of the Taking Stock, RETC and 

TRI web sites during the CEC’s Consultative Group meeting in San Diego found

them to be potentially useful tools for 

informing communities of chemicals being released and transferred from nearby 

facilities. It seemed the mapping of the facilities through the National Atlas site and 

Arc View (RETC) had the most impact. It 

is recommended that visual displays, such 

as maps and charts, be provided in order 

to improve imparting this important information to tribal communities. It is important to provide assistance on how to visually display the data and/or provide more 

information on mapping tools.

As many indigenous communities in Mexico do not have Internet access or even mail 

service, it is critical to develop alternative 

educational and outreach methods in order 

to familiarize them with the data. As of December 2006, Mexico released an online database of toxic releases called the Registro de 

Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes

(RETC). The CEC’s annual Taking Stock report and database will draw upon these data 

in 2007 and thus tribes on both sides of the 

border can have access to them. 

It is anticipated that PRTR databases can become an important resource for tribes and 

environmental health research along the 

US-Mexico border region with the collaboration of tribal nations and communities, 

and with further development of the Mexican PRTR system. 

Recommendations to improve indigenous 

community access to PRTR data:

•	 Provide appropriate workshops, training

and educational materials for the communities, as well as organizations (e.g., 

non-profit organizations, health agencies, 

etc.) working within these communities.

•	 Demonstrate the usefulness of the new

RETC database for border communities.
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

6 Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities

Ketegaunseebee First Nation, (Garden River

Indian Reserve No. 14), is located on the 

Trans-Canada highway, eight miles east of 

Sault Ste-Marie, Ontario, Canada and 10 

miles from the border with Sault Ste Marie, 

Michigan, United States. Ketegaunseebee has 

an on-reserve population of 1015, with 1076 

members living off-reserve. 

Within Ketegaunseebee territory, there are 

nine facilities registered with Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). 

The industries located upwind and upriver 

of Ketegaunseebee, include forestry, pulp 

and paper, petrochemical, steel and municipal water treatment facilities.

Study Methodology

The methodology involved discussions, for 

the most part with community residents. 

These discussions were purposely informal, 

as it was felt that “interview”-style information-gathering would have constrained participant responses. 

Separate discussions were held with Ketegaunseebee residents, including:

•	 A group discussion with fifteen Ketegaunseebee residents in a formal setting;

•	 Discussions during a Chief and Council

meeting; 

•	 Information exchanges with residents

in informal groups; and

•	 Individual conversations.

Community Concerns

Discussions held with community residents 

revealed that they did not know whether they 

should be concerned about specific chemicals; however, heavy metals were identified 

by one community member, the environmental officer for the Chiefs of Ontario (an 

organization of First Nations communities). 

She stated that she had some knowledge of 

Canada’s NPRI (although she did not really 

know how to use the information) and expressed some concern about the possibility of 

local industrial emissions of heavy metals. 

There was general agreement among residents that the upstream and upwind industries posed a potential health threat. In addition to industrial releases, the pollution 

sources identified as being of immediate 

concern included truck and other vehicle exhaust, as well as road salt. 

The cultural and human health impacts of environmental contaminants identified by Ketegaunseebee residents include the following:

•	 Hunting: game and fowl contamination

by industrial releases and road salt;

•	 Medicines (sweet grass, cedar, sage, etc.):

contamination by industrial releases and 

road salt; and

•	 Fishing: fish contaminated by chemicals.

Study Results

The community of Ketegaunseebee has very 

little knowledge of Canada’s NPRI database, 

or other PRTR database (prior to this study, 

almost all community members had never 

heard of such databases). Moreover, study participants who were shown examples of the data 

found the information to be interesting, but 

could not think of how to best use the data. 

Following the study, the community has begun 

to discuss how to gain a better understanding 

of the potential harm that could be caused by 

exposure to emissions.

How PRTR Data Could Benefit the 

Ketegaunseebee First Nation 

PRTR data would be one source of information to help educate residents of Ketegaunseebee about what is being released by industries 

in the vicinity of their community. The data 

could benefit the community in many ways, 

such as providing direction for:

•	 Studies of the potential effects of

industrial emissions on human health;

•	 Determining the need for precise testing

of soil, sediment and water, perhaps 

leading to the design of water and air 

modeling studies of industrial releases.

PRTR data would also provide a basis for dialogue between the community and industry 

and government, in relation to health concerns of the community. This can give the 

citizens of Ketegaunseebee a sense of empowerment and environmental awareness. 

An identified concern is how to understand 

and make use of PRTR data (e.g., “X” amount 

of a particular compound, released into the 

air over a calendar year, translates into how 

much risk?). In order for PRTR data to be 

useful to Ketegaunseebee:

•	 PRTR-related educational materials

that are meaningful to residents should 

be developed and made available.

•	 Relevant agencies should provide

support for further studies, in the form 

of financial resources as well as training 

of community members. 

Great Lakes Case Study, Community #1: PRTR Data and the Ketegaunseebee First Nation
Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, 

dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, 

aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, 

budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation

of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

Toxic Chemicals and Indigenous Communities 7

Aamjiwnaang First Nation, 

(Sarnia Indian Reserve No. 

45) is located within the city 

limits of Sarnia, Ontario, 

three miles from the border 

with Port Huron, Michigan, 

United States. Aamjiwnaang 

has an on-reserve population 

of 850, with 1100 members 

living off-reserve. 

There are 52 companies registered with either Canada’s 

National Pollutant Release 

Inventory (NPRI), or the 

US Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), within 10 miles of 

Aamjiwnaang territory. The 

industries (petrochemical, 

petroleum, rubber and polymer plants) comprise Canada’s largest concentration of 

chemical plants. 

Study Methodology

The methodology involved 

discussions, for the most part 

with community residents. 

Overall, these discussions 

were purposely informal, as it was felt that 

“interview”-style information-gathering would

have constrained participant responses. 

Separate discussions with participating community members included:

•	 Meeting with 50 Aamjiwnaang residents

in a formal setting;

•	 Discussions held during Chief and

Council meetings;

•	 Exchanges during environment

committee meetings;

•	 Community information meetings;

•	 Informal discussions with groups of

residents; and

•	 Individual conversations.

Community Concerns

Aamjiwnaang First Nation came to the attention of the public when officials from the 

Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario 

Workers noticed a marked decrease within the community in the number of male 

births compared to female births. Scientists are exploring the possibility that this 

abnormality may be caused by the heavy 

concentration of industry surrounding the 

community. Therefore, Aamjiwnaang has 

been the subject of research, particularly 

relating to the possible source of endocrinedisrupting chemicals affecting the sex ratio. 

The skewed sex ratio was assessed over the 

period 1984–2003, as part of a communitybased, participatory research project. The 

project is described here:

Numerous factors have been associated with 

a decrease in the proportion of male births 

in a population, including a number of environmental and occupational 

chemical exposures...Although 

there are several potential factors that could be contributing 

to the observed decrease in sex 

ratio of the Aamjiwnaang First 

Nation, the close proximity 

of this community to a large 

aggregation of industries and 

potential exposures to compounds that may influence sex 

ratios warrants further assessment into the types of chemical 

exposures for this population. 

A community health survey is 

currently under way to gather 

more information about the 

health of the Aamjiwnaang 

community and to provide additional information about the 

factors that could be contributing to the observed decrease in 

the proportion of male births 

in recent years.

REF: Environ Health Perspect 113:1295–1298 (2005). 

doi:10.1289/ehp.8479, available 

via <http://dx.doi.org/> [Online: 

17 August 2005]

In terms of health concerns, there was general agreement in the community that local industry emissions were a health threat. 

Residents mentioned their concerns about 

endocrine-disruptors, as well as other chemicals, such as heavy metals (e.g., mercury 

and lead). Body Mapping9

 was conducted to 

examine the possible health impacts of exposures to emissions. The results revealed 

the following:

Great Lakes Case Study, Community #2: PRTR Data and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation

A close-up view using the CEC’s mapping tool for Google Earth shows the Aamjiwnaang 

First Nation reserve’s proximity to industrial facilities reporting PRTR information.

© Google Image / DigitalGlobe

Fibrex Insulations

Royal Group Technologies Ltd

Imperial Oil

Cabot canada Nova chemicals

Imperial Oil

Bayer Inc

Imperial Oil

Lanxess Inc

Dow Chemical Canada inc

Praxair canada inc

Suncor energy products inc

city of sarnia

city of sarnia

Shell Canada

waste management of canada BaseLL canada

Shell chemicals canada

HP Pelzer 

automotive

Systems inc

Takata petri inc

WIRTZ MANUFACTURING CO

INC PLANT 2

LEAR CORP AUTO ANODICS INC

WIRTZ MANUFACTURING CO

INC PLANT 1

Sarnia, Ontario

Port Huron, michigan

AamjIwnaang first nations reserve

Shell Canada

9 Body Mapping is the reported data of community 

members who participated in health questionnaires. 

The self-reported health information is translated into a 

variety of color-coded stickers and placed strategically on 

drawings of human bodies (Adult Male, Adult Female, 

Child Male, Child Female). The resulting information is a 

visually accurate picture of the health status and concerns 

of the community. This information, properly catalogued 

and documented, will provide the basis for cause-effect 

investigations of the residents’ illnesses and concerns.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200, Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9 T 514-350-4300 F 514-350-4314 info@cec.org - www.cec.org

•	 Reproductive disorders,

•	 Learning and behavioral problems,

•	 Skin disorders,

•	 Respiratory problems,

•	 High blood pressure,

•	 Headaches,

•	 Thyroid problems,

•	 Kidney problems, and

•	 Cancers.

The cultural impacts of industrial pollution 

identified by community members during 

discussions included the contamination of 

game, fowl, fish, and medicines (sweet grass, 

cedar, sage, etc.). In addition, members of 

Aamjiwnaang expressed concerns regarding 

exposure to pollution through participation 

in outdoor ceremonial activities. 

Study Results

The situation relating to chemical awareness 

in the Aamjiwnaang community is vastly 

different from that of Ketegaunseebee First 

Nation, as a result of the highly-publicized 

birth-ratio phenomenon. Canada’s NPRI 

was not unfamiliar to the Aamjiwnaang 

Environment Committee, community leaders and health professionals. Some citizens 

could also recall having seen PRTR data 

during presentations given at public meetings in the past (although none were using 

the data).

To a certain degree, PRTR data are already 

benefiting the community, through ongoing 

research conducted by external agencies into 

the possible causes of the birth ratio skewing. The community is also participating in 

efforts to examine legal avenues to pressure 

the government to consider cumulative effects of emissions when issuing Certificates 

of Approval.

How PRTR Data Could Benefit the 

Aamjiwnaang First Nation 

In terms of the usefulness of PRTR data, community members who were shown the data 

during the course of this study could not think 

of ways to use the information. The consensus was that designated health professionals 

would best know how to use that information. Therefore, to address the residents’ lack 

of knowledge about PRTR information, it is 

recommended that:

•	 Educational material be developed to help

health staff better acquaint themselves 

with PRTR data. Regional workshops 

geared to community leaders and health 

professionals would help in this regard.

•	 The information needs to be rendered

meaningful to residents (e.g., “X” 

amount of a particular compound, 

released into the air over a calendar year, 

translates how?)

Cultural impacts of the pollution were of 

great concern. Practicing many cultural activities has been affected or impeded because 

of the potential harm. It would be important 

to incorporate traditional aboriginal knowledge into any future plan to address the potential impacts of emissions.

The ranking of facilities in the PRTR databases was something participants liked 

about the data. The thought was it could be 

used as a motivation for industries to improve their environmental performance. In 

order to promote this, a newsletter could be 

sent out to local communities, identifying 

facility rankings.

Participants agreed that the Canadian NPRI 

web site can be difficult to navigate. The target 

audience needs a user-friendly medium. The 

<pollutionwatch.org> site is a good example of 

a user-friendly site. Participants suggested that 

Environment Canada reassess the NPRI site format for general ease of use and the ability of the 

data to be understood by the target audience.

A key challenge facing these communities 

is the lack of resources and expertise for 

conducting studies to assess the potential 

impacts of industrial emissions. Financial 

and technical support from outside agencies 

would be required to address these needs.

Pathways

Transportation-related

Modes

Air

Wheel

wells

Cabin

Ballast

water

Dredge

spoil

Canals that connect

waterways

Hull,

surface

fouling Superstructures

(e.g., oil rigs, dredges)

Cargo

holds

Cars,

trucks, 

ATVs

Trains,

subways Construction,

firefighting

vehicles

Hikers,

horses,

pets

Land

Freshwater and marine

Containers and packing materials Mail, Internet 

shipping companies

Travelers

Plant parts

Whole plants Other live

animals

Livestock

Plants and 

plant parts

Live seafood

(freshwater

and marine)

Pet, aquarium,

water-garden

trade

Non-pet 

animals (research, zoos,

fur, racing, 

hunting,

breeding)

Aquaculture

Bait

Seeds Belowground

(bulbs, roots, 

culms, tubers) Aboveground

(cuttings, budwood, etc.)

Plant trade (aquatic

and terrestrial)

Non-food animals Food (transportation of organisms

or consumption)

Commerce in Living Organisms

Wood

Other plant

materials

Soil

Seaweed Baggage

Humans as

disease 

vectors

Consumables

Plants and

animals (e.g., 

pet shows, 

rodeos, 

garden 

shows)

While a small number of individuals participating in the study showed some awareness 

of PRTR databases, in general, there is a real 

lack of knowledge about how to use such information. Community members expressed 

the need for assistance in using and interpreting the data in ways that are meaningful (for 

instance, more visual information, including 

the use of maps). 

These case studies attempted to communicate the benefits of PRTR data to study participants and, in so doing, revealed obstacles 

facing these communities. Such obstacles 

include a lack of coordination among community environment departments and external agencies and, in particular, the lack 

of resources to fund impact studies and the 

expertise required to carry out the studies. 

Despite these challenges, it is anticipated 

that PRTR data can become an important 

resource for environmental health research 

in tribal and indigenous communities across 

North America. With the knowledge gained 

through these case studies, the CEC may 

evaluate ways to make PRTR information 

more accessible and meaningful to tribal and 

indigenous communities in North America.

Concluding Remarks