INDIAN ASH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

Serial No. 103-5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1998 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-040916-0 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Aluka, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Mauach111etta Rcualeing Rqublwan Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, Weat Vll'ginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minneeota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DB LUGO, Vir,m Ielanda CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GF.JDENSON, Connectieut JOHN J. DUNCAN, Ja., Tenneuee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, RICHARD H. BAKER, Loui1iana 

American Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arlumau 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califor;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Dlinoia 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW Ill, Kentucky THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wiaconain 

DANIEL P. BBARD, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counael 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republwan Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, 

SAM GF.JDENSON, Connecticut RanAin,f Republwan Member 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DON YOUNG, Aluka 

Samoa RICHARD H. BAKER, Loui1iana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KEN CALVERT, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

TADD JOHNSON, Staff Director 

STEVEN J.W. HBBLBY, Counael 

MARIE HOWARD, Professwnal Staff Member 

BARBARA RoBLBS, Cleric RICHARD H. HOUGHTON, III, Republican Counael on Nalive American Affair• 

cm 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held February 18, 1993 ........................................................................... . 

Member statements: 

Bill Richardson ................................................................................................ . Eni F.H. Faleomavaega ................................................................................... . 

Witness statements: 

Panel consisting of: 

Hon. Wainwright Velarde, vice president, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 

Dulce, NM, accompanied by Rudy Velarde, member, Tribal Council, and assistant director, Jicarilla Apache Game and Fish Department ....................................................................................................... . 

s~:n,ra f11~! ~!:a~!!f~-- ~~~~.~~-- ~~~~~-- ~~ ... ~~ Gloria Notah, wildlife manager, Navajo Nation Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, on behalf of President Peterson Zah and the Navajo Nation .................................................................................................... . Panel consisting of: Hon. Thomas Mauleon, chairman, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians, Wisconsin, accompanied by Larry 

Wawronowicz, director, Chippewa Natural Resources Department .. James H. Schlender, executive administrator, The Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI ................................ .. Ken Poynter, enrolled member, Passamaquodd1 Tribe of Maine, and 

acting executive director, Native American Fish & Wildlife Society, 

Broomfield, CO ...................................................................................... . Fred DuBray, coordinator, Administration for Native American Bison 

Enhancemen~ Project, Cher,enne. River Sioux _Tribe, Eagle Butte, 

SD, and president, Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative .......................... .. Panel consisting of: Hon. Nelson Wallulatum, Chief, Wasco Tribe, and member, Tribal 

Council The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, OR, accompanied by Howard Arnett, Esq., tribal attornew ....... 

Susc:~:~~::n~.~~.~~.-~~~~~~~~~-~~~ ~~.~~·····~ Billy Frank:, chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, WA, accompanied by James R. Anderson, director .......... .. 

Jtnd¥~a~fC:.1¥:ii:awx ~~ .. ~~~~ ... ~~~~.~~~~~~~'. .. ~~~~. ~ 

APPENDIX 

FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMI'ITED FOR THE RECORD 

Testimony of Ferdinand Martineau, executive director, 1854 Authority .......... .. Statment of Harrison Talgo, Sr., chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San 

Carlos, AZ ............................................................................................................ . Statement of Brain Czech, director San Carlos Recreation & Wildlife Department, San Carlos Apache Tribe,z, San Carlos, AZ .............................................. . Testimony of Leonard C. Burch, {;hairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal CounT,!fh!=ci:f ~~th-·M;;a;;;u;~;;··~~~ti;~--~~;··cwj;j;;~~oi~;~··~~iy 

Fishery Management Authority, Sault Ste. Marie, Ml ................................... .. 

(III) 

Pa,e 

1 

1 

38 

3 

4 

24 

39 

46 

61 

87 

139 

147 

149 

165 

177 

180 

183 

190 

194 
IV 

TeeL~~f~~~.::.:.~~· .. ~.~.~'..~ .. ~~ ~~~-~~-~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~'. Testimony of Harry D. Early, Govemor, Pueblo of Laguna Tribe, NM ............. . Letter ftom Western Shoehone National Council <fated February 18, 1993 

regarding the management of Wildlife, etc ....................................................... . Letter ftom Robert B. Peacock, chairman, Fond Du Lac Tribe, dated March 

12, 1993 regarding the management and enhancement of Indian Fish 

and Wildlife resources, with attachments ......................................................... . 

Pace 

205 

217 

226 

244 
INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

AND ENHANCEMENT 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met at 9:44 a.m., in room 1310A, Longworth 

House Office Building, the Honorable Bill Richardson presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

will come to order. 

Indian fish and wildlife resources are an integral part of the economic and social structure of Indian tribes. Since time immemorial, 

Indian tribes have relied on fish and wildlife resources for subsistence, economic development, and cultural practices. Today, we will be hearing from tribal witnesses from across the 

nation about their efforts to improve the management of these important resources. We will also hear testimony about the lack of 

federal involvement in, and assistance for, tribal efforts to improve fish and Indian habitat, increase native fish and Indian popu- lations, and to undertake other conservation measures on tribal 

lands. 

I'd like to remind all the witnesses thai your entire written statements will be made part of the committee hearing record, so please feel free to summarize your statements within five minutes. 

[At this time, I request the background be made part of the 

record:] 

BACKGROUND FOR FEBRUARY 18TH HEARING ON INDIAN FlsH AND WILDLIFE 

MANAGEMENT 

HISTORY 

Indian fish and wildlife resources have been, and continue to be, an integral part of tribal economic and social structure. In most treaties with the Federal government, Indian tribes reserved the right to fish, hunt and· gather in their "usual and 

accustomed places". The right of Indian tribes to hunt, fish and gather have been 

the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As a general rule, IndiaJis 

eDj~y the exclusive rildlt to hunt and fish on their reservations. In United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 380-81 (1905) the Su~reme Court considered the right of 

the Yakima Indian tribe to hunt and fish at theu usual and accustomed places pursuant to an 1859 treaty. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court recognized the 

right of the Yakima Indian to use privately owned land in exercising their treaty fishing rights. Traditionally, the Courts have interpreted Indian hunting, fishing and gathering rights very broadly. Tribal rights to hunt, fish and gather liave been recognized by the courts to exist in ceded territories, aboriginal lands and on reservation areas. 

(1) 
2 

Similarly, courts have recognized the importance of tribal hunting, fishing and gathering rights to tribal aelf-eufficiency. Economic interests in tribal fishing rights as well as subsistence interests were considered by the courts in several cases in the 

northwest. 

In United States v. Waahington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), the district 

court recognized the treaty tiahing rights of the Tribes in Washington State and 

held that those fishing rights could not be limited by the Statea to certain species or type of fish, and these rights include wild fish and hatchery bred fish. In recognizing the rights of tribal regulation of hunting and fishing rights, the 

Ninth Circuit held in Settler v. Lameer, 507 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1974) that: 

"[i]t would be unreasonable to conclude that in reserving these vital [fishing] 

rights, the Indians intended to divest themselves of all control over the exercise of 

those rights. Prior to the Treaty the regulations for fishing had been established by 

the Tribe through its customs and tradition. The Indians must surely have understood that Tribal control would continue after the Treaty." 

The importance of fish and wildlife resources to Indian tribes have been and con- tinue to be recognized by the courts. While the courts have recognized the importance of these resources, the Bureau of Indian Aft'ain, Department of the Interior, 

has provided little support or assistance to tribal efforts to manage these resources. Efforts to improve fish and wildlife habitat, increase resident population of fish and 

wildlife, and undertake conservation measures have been leR entirely to Indian 

tribes. 

HEARING 

This hearing will focus on fish and wildlife management iaauea for Indian tribes. 

Indian tribes are faced with a multiplicity of iaauea surrounding the effective man- agement and enhancement of Indian fish and wildlife resources. These resources provide a significant resource base for subsistence, economic development and other 

cultural purposes for Indian tribes and their members. Many Indian tribes have ex- pressed concerns that existing federal laws do not adequately provide for the protection and m~ment of tribal fish and wildlife resources and do not address the 

operations of tribal facilities. 

The Committee will receive testimony from wide range of Indian tribes from very 

distinct regions of the country. The tribal witneaaea will provide teatimony on their 

ongoing efforts to improve fish and wildlife habitat, to cooperatively manage these resources with statea and other Indian tribes, to increase native fish and wildlife 

populations and to undertake con.servation efforts on these lands. In addition, tribes 

will testify about the federal trust responsibilities to enhance Indian fish and wildlife resources. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for two weeks. 

I'd now like to recognize the ranlpng member, Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no opening statement. I am interested very much in this 

issue, and again, in my home state, why fishing and hunting of 

course on the reservation is a very important item, and it pertains 

not only to the hunting and fishing itself, but the management of 

water. And there are jurisdictional problems there, so I'm interested in what we're doing. Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank my colleague. 

Our first panel this mornini will be the Honorable Wainwright 

Velarde, Vice President, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, from Dulce, New 

Mexico, accompanied by Rudy Velarde, Assistant Director, Game 

and Fish Department, and Ms. Gloria Notah, Wildlife Manager, 

Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Navajo Nation in Window 

Rock, Arizona. 

If you could please step up to the witness stand and take your 

seats. 

I'd like to welcome you to the Subcommittee, especially since 

both of you are my constituents. 
3 

Window Rock, Ms. Notah, you probably are a resident of across 

the border, are you not? 

Ms. NOTAH. That's correct .. Mr. RICHARDSON. So a special welcome to all of you. 

We'll start with Mr. Velarde, the Honorable Velarde. 

AB I mentioned, please keep your summarizing remarks to five 

minutes, and then we will proceed with guestions. 

So Hon. Vice President, please proceed. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE, VICE 

PRESIDENT, JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

RUDY VELARDE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, JICARILLA APACHE 

GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT; AND GLORIA NOTAH, WILDLIFE 

MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, NAVAJO 

NATION, WINDOW ROCK, AZ 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAINWRIGHT VELARDE 

Mr. VELARDE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

I'm Wainwright Velarde, Vice President of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. And I'm accompanied by Mr. Rudy Velarde, member of the 

Tribal Council, and Assistant Director of the Jicarilla Apache Game and Fish Department. · I'm very pleased to be here to provide this committee with an 

overview of the Fish and Wildlife Management Program of the 

Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and the major issues as we see them. 

I've prepared a formal statement and our Game and Fish Department has prepared a summary of our programs, that I would like 

to have entered into the record. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Without objection. [The information follows:] 
Jntroduct ion 

4 

THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE 

... o. • ox 'IJ0,7 • DUI.Cl:. HltW MDICO . 7,aa-0907 

JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE 

DULCE. NEW MEX I CO 

FISH ANO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

SUMMARY 

The following summary outlines the fish and wi ldl i fe resources 

and management prog rams on the Ji car i 11 e Apache Reservation. 

Specifics are provided o n tribal fi s h and wildlife management 

capa bilities, program funding sources, staffing, and income derived 

from hunt i ng and fi shing license sales. The Jicarilla Apache 'T ribe 

has an aggre ss ive , professional f is h and wildlife program which 

provides quality hunting & fishing opportunities to both indians 

and non-ind i ans. 

The Jicarilla Apa c he Indian Reservation is located in northcentral New Mexico and co n tains approximately 830,000 a c res of 

land. The entire reservation i s owned collectively by the J icarilla 

Apache Tribe; there are no individual private holdings within the 

reservation . There is only one town located on the reservRtion. 

Dulce, where the maj ority of the 2800 tribal members resid e. The 

rest of the reservation serves as habitat for indigenous wildlife 

s pecies including elk, mul e de er, black bear , mo untain lion 1 turkey 

and a wide \·ari ety o f non-game, s mal l game. and waterfow l specit:s. 

The Reservation contains 7 fishing lakes totaling 1200 surface 

acres , a 10 mile stretch of the ~avajo River, and an Smile stretch 

of Wi llow Creek. All of these wa ter support cold water fi s heries . 

The largest natural lake in New Mexico , Stinking Lake ( 1)00 

acres} , is located on the resen·ation and serves as the premier 

waterfowl breeding area i n New Mex ico. 

Pr imary land u ses on the Jica r illa Reservation are oil and ga s 

production, commercial timber pr odu ction. 1 livest ock graz ing a nd 

recreat ional hunting and fi s hing . 

fish a nd Wi l d life Po ou!a t ion s 

The Jicarilla Game and F ish department condu cts annual s urve ys 

co determine population size for dominant game s pecie s. Th e 

following fi g ures reflect th e mu s t current estimates. 

-1-
5 

Rocky Mountain Elk 

There are approximately J000 resident elk on the Jicarilla 

Reservation. This number swells to approximately 5000 elk during 

winter when elk migrate to the reservation from surrounding mountains in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The 

Jicarilla Reservation is a major wintering area for portions of the 

San Juan Mountains elk herd. 

Mule Deer 

There are approximately 3,500 resident mule deer and 5000 

winter migrant mule deer on the Jicarilla Reservation. The 

reservation has a well established reputation for producing 

exceptional trophy bucks , thanks to a conservative harvest 

strategy. 

Pronghorn 

Approximately 125-150 pronghorn roam the Jicarilla 

Reservation, decedents of animals transplanted from Colorado in the 

early l9S0's. This transplant has dovetailed well with similar transplant s made in recent years by the State of New Mexico and 

Bureau of Land Management on lands adjacent to the reservation. 

Black Bear/Mountain Lion 

The Jica rilla Reservation contains some of -the best black bear habitat in ?-.ew Mexico . Approximately 150 black bears reside yearround on the reservation. Mountain lions are relatively abundant due to the high numbers of mule deer and elk that constitute this 

species' prey base. Estimates of total lion numbers range from 60- 7 5. 

Turkey 

Turke y have been increasing in number and expanding their 

distribution in recent years. There are approximately 500-750 

turkey residing on the reservation. 

Waterfowl 

The Jicarilla Reservation contains the most extensive complex 

of wetlands in northern New Mexico and accounts for a significant 

proportion of the total waterfowl production in the state . 

Stinking Lake ha s long been recognized as a unique breeding site 

for resident waterfowl and a significant resting site for migrants. 

Counts of 10 . 000-15.000 waterfowl and waterbirds are common. The 

7 fishing lakes and innumerable ponds and wet meadows scattered across the reservation also harbor a variety of nesting waterfowl 

and add to the bioJogical diversity of the region. 

-2-
6 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

There are two active Peregrine Falcon nests on the Jicarilla Reservation, and young have been consistently fledged from both 

nests for the past 5 years. These endangered fa lcons are dependent 

on the abundant waterfowl associated with reservation wetlands. 

There have been sightings of unpa ired adult peregrines at two other 

locations on the reservation , and these birds may soon become 

established as additional breeding pairs. 

The mexican spo tted owl, a ca nd idate threatened species, also oc curs on the Jicarilla Reservation, albeit in low numbers. 

Golden eagle s nest on the Ji c ar illa Reservation, and the entire 

re s ervation s erves a s wi ntering grounds for both Bald and Golden 

eagles. Counts of 50-i S eagles each winter are common. 

Small game/Non-game 

The vast majority of land o n the Ji car ilta Reservation is 

undisturbed wild c o u ntry which su pports literally hundreds of 

mammal and bird species. The mix of habitat types and abundance of 

free water result in high biological diversity. 

Fishe rie S 

The Jicarilla Apache Reservation conta ins approximately 1200 

acres of fishing wat~i-s, inc l uding 7 fishing lake s rang ing from .15 -

4 50 acres i n s iz.e , a 10 mil e stretch or the Navajo River , and an S 

mile stret c h of Willow Creek. All of these waters support cold 

water fisheries and are maintained through annual stocking. Each 

year appro,c:imatel y 160,000 trout, ba ss and catfish, totaling 16,000 

pounds, are stocked in reser vat~on lakes. The se fi sh are stocked 

sole ly for the benefit of recreational fisherman. 

II, fish and Wildlife }tanasement Ca pabilities 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe ha s s ole jurisdiction over fi s h and 

wildli fe management and hunting and fishing recreation on the 

r eservat io n . The Jicar ill a Game and Fish Department , established 

in 195 9, is responsible for all fi s h and wildlife management 

programs, setting season dates and harvest levels for fish and 

wildlife populations . and conducting any habitat improvement or 5 

re searc h projects. Department staffing consists of 23 individuals. 

as s hown in t he ac compan y ing fl ow chart. 

Funding for the dep11.rtment is from two sources: 1) revenues 

derived from the sale o f hunting and fishing licenses and. 2) 9J63S wildlife and parks and outdoor recreation contracts from the 

Bureau of Jnt.lian Affairs. Revenues from the sale of hunting and 

fishing license s are dep osi ted annually in the Jicarilla Tribe"s 

i!'.eneral fund. -3-
I 

,t,. 

I 

Secrt.?tarial1 Di vision 

l Financial Officer 

2 Full-time Secr~taries 

JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE 

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Organizational Flow Chart 

Director I 

Assistant Director 

I 

Law Enforcement Division Parlts and Maintenance D

1 Sergeant..v 

8 Conservation Officers 

1 Supervisor 

2 Laborers 

1 Janitor/Grounds Keep

1 Mechanic 
8 

The Game and Fish Department submits on annual budget to the 

Tribal Council, based on need and income generated. In some years 

the approved budget exceeds the income generated, in other years 

income exceeds the approved budget. Funding levels for FY!993 

were: 

Jicarilla Game and Fish Department Funding 

Tribal Funds 

638 Contract Funds 

Total 

$507,432.36 

$133,250.00 

$640, 68 I. 36 

Since the Tribe is not eligible for Pittman-Robertson or 

Dingell-Johnson funds. a separate account has been established by 

the Jicarilla Tribal Council to generate funds for habitat 

improvement projects. Each year 10% of the total income derived 

from the sale of hunting and fishing 1 icenses is set aside in a 

Wildlife Management Account. These funds are used for habitat 

improvement projects, research projects, fish purchases or other 

fish and wildlife management activities not funded under the Game 

and Fish Department's annual budget. In FY1992 there was 

approximately $50,000.00 set aside in this account. 

Each division of the Game and Fish Department functions 

separately but in coordination with other department divisions. The 

major duties of each division are: 

A. Secretarial 

This division is responsible for selling fishing and hunting 

licenses, accounting related to '(jepartment expenditures and income, 

dispensing public information and all normal office secretarial 

work (word-processing, filing etc ... ) 

B. Law Enforcement 

This division is responsible for patrolling the 830,000 

reservation and enforcing the Game and Fish Code (Tit le 

Health, Safety and Welfare Code (Title 6) Tribal Offenses 

(Title 7), Traffic Code (Title 8), Range Code (Title 9) 

Environmental Protection Code (Title 14). 

acre 

10), 

Code 

and 

Al 1 employees of this division are commissioned offices of the 

Tribe and have jurisdiction to issue citations, arrest. and seize 

equipment from both indians and non-indians on the Ji car i I la 

Reservation. 

-5-
9 

C. Parks and Maintenance 

This division is responsible for the maintenance and of all 

department bui !dings, vehicles and equipment, as we! I as ma intenance of al I campground and recreac ional si ces on the 

reservation. It is also responsible for maintaining a 14,500 acre elk game park fence, and for feeding approximately 600 elk in the 

park during winter months. 

D. Biological Division 

This division is responsible for monitoring fish and wildlife 

populations; implementing game , fish and habitat projects and; 

provi ding recommendations for fishing and hunting seasons and 

harvest levels. This di v ision also addresses any potential impacts 

to fish and wildlife from other tribal and federal actions. 

Each year the Game 

completing, at a minimum, 

and F1sh Department 

the following tasks. 

is charged with 

Set annual fishing and hunting regulations. including 

season dates, legal weapons, bag limits , permit numbers 

et C ••• 

Monitor harvest of all fish and wildlife from the 

reservation by species, age and sex. 

Administer the tribes Animal Damage Control Program. 

Conduct aerial classification surveys to determine 

age:sex ratios for mule deer, elk and pronghorn 

populations. 

Stock res erva tion waters with fish for recreational 

fishermen. 

Monitor water chemistry, water levels and aquatic 

vegetation growth in re servati on lakes, as they relate to 

fish survival and recreational fishing. 

Mai ntain campgrounds located at 4 reservation lakes. 

Patrol reservation and enforce Tribal Codes. 

Assist tribal and ~lienc hunters during fall hunting seasons. 

-6-
10 

Manage the trophy hunting program for non- indian hunting clientele. 

Conduct wildlife surveys and impact assessments for other 

land use programs including timber sales, grazing 

programs, oil and gas exploration and road construction. 

Plan and implement habitat improvement projects. 

Maintain department building and storage sheds, 15 

vehicles , 2 snow-cats, 5 snowmobiles, 3 generators, 2 

boats/motors and other miscellaneous equipment . 

Winter feed approximately 600 elk in the Horse Lake Mesa 

Game Park. 

Promote the Tribe's hunting and fishing program through 

extensive mailings, public contact and display 

booths at hunting and fishing expositions. 

Prepare reports, data files, correspondence and funding 

proposals for department projects. 

Prepare and monitor contracts for animal damage control, 

data processing and map compilation, fencing projects and 

construction of wildlife waters . 

In addition to these annual tasks the Jicarilla Game and Fish 

Department posted several noteworthy accomplishments in recent 

years, including: 

Revision of the Tribal Game and Fish Code (Title 10) to 

include mandatory fines, a civil restitution schedule, and 

seizure and forfeiture statute; making this one of the 

nation's strictest Game and Fish Codes . 

For 8 years the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has requested and 

received approval for special migratory waterfowl seasons 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Tribes seasons have always been more conservative than federal 

guidelines. 

In FY1991 the Jicarilla Tribe received funding from the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council for the 

Jicarilla Wetlands Project. This project was aimed at 

improving waterfowl nesting success on the Jicarilla 

Reservation. 

-7-
11 

In 1982 the Jicarilla Game and Fish Depar tment began an 8 

year study to determine the migration pattern of mule deer 

and elk on and around the Jicarilla Reservation. Eighty 

nine elk and mule deer were captured, fitted with radiotransmitting collars, then released and tracked for up to 

4 yea rs. This study confirmed the migration patterns used 

by elk and deer and allowed the Tribe to refine its 

management program to account for migration of big game across tribal, state and federal jurisdictional boundaries. 

In 1989 the San Juan Interstate Wildlife Working Group was formed. This group of wildlife biologists from tribal, 

state and federal land management agencies along the 

Colorado - New Mexico border was formed to address the 

migration of mule deer and elk in the region. The 

impetus for establishing this group was the 

Jicarilla Tribes migration study mentioned above. 

In 1987 the Jicarilla Tribal Council closed all mule deer 

hunts on the Jicarilla Reservation for 3 years. This was done in response to declining mule deer numbers. The season reopened in 1990, and si nce then the number 

of permits issued has been very limited. In 1987 the tribe- began ur ging the State of New Mexico to curtail its mule 

deer hunts on state controlled lands around the 

reservation. Finally in 1992 all lands around the 

Jicarilla were placed under a restrict~d mule deer permit 

system by the New Mexico Game and Fish 

Department. 

In 1992 the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department received a $6,000 grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for a habitat project designed to increase forage for elk. The 

RMEF is widely recognized for its contributions to land 

management agencies conducting habitat improvement 

projects . 

III . Hunting and Fishing Opportunities/Income. 

Hunting 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe's hunting program is divided into 

two separate categories ; hunts for tribal members and hunts for 

non-member clients. 

-8-
12 

The tribal member hunts are designed to give tribal members 

opportunities to hunt mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, 

turkey and smal 1 game, primarily for recreational purposes. Al 1 

permits are limited in number and tribal members must adhere to 

specific season dates, bag limits and weapon restrictions. For 

information on the total number of hunting permits issued to tribal 

members in 1992 see Table I. 

The non-tribal hunting program is strictly a Trophy Hunting 

operation. Limited numbers of permits are issued to clients on a 

first-come or random drawing basis, depending on the hunt. Fees 

charged for these permits is relatively high and the emphasis is on harvesting trophy quality animals. All client hunters are required 

to hire Jicarilla Apache guides. Table 2 lists the number of 

client hunting permits sold in 1992. 

Total number of hunting 

hunting recreation provided in 

I icenses issued and user-days 

1993 is summarized below. 

License 

Elk 

Mule Deer 

Black Bear 

Mountain Lion 

Turkey 

Waterfowl 

Non-Game 

Total 

Jicarilla Apache Reservation 

Number Issued 

654 

140 

33 

18 

55 

115 

-1.J.§_ 

115 I 

User-days 

4,57 S 

1,260 

165 

ISO 

660 

575 

2.040 

9,458 

of 

In 1993 approximately 75r. of the total hunting licenses and 

user-days were accounted for by tribal members . The remaining 25% were accounted for by non-member client hunters . 

Table 3 summarizes income derived from the sale of tribal 

member hunting licenses on the Jicarilla Reservation in 1992. 

Table 4 s ummarizes income from the sale of non-member client 

hunting licenses in 1992. 

-9-
13 

Table l. 1992 Tribal Member Hunting License Sales. 

Jicarilla Apache Reservation. 

:--lumber Xumber Percent Chang e License . .\vaj !able Sold From 1991 

Spring Turkey 30 30 -14% 

Small/Non-game !'lo Limit 136 +12% 

Bear 15 6 -66% 

Mountain Lion 25 9 -25% 

Archery Elk-Bull 20 20 -ss·~ Archery Elk - Cow 10 s 

Rii le Bui I Elk 20 20 - 50% 

Cow Elk 500 29-t +87'~ 

Cow Elk!Dulce Res . ) 10 10 +233% 

,tu I e Deer - General 75 -s +JJ·?t 

Mule Deer - Senior 25 25 +150% 

Mule Deer - Elder No Limit 20 -15% 

-10-
14 

Table 2 . 1992 Non-Tribal Member Hunting License Sales, 

Jicarilla Apache Reservation. 

Number Percent Change 

License 

Number 

Available Sold From 1991 

Reservation Hunts 

Archery Bull Elk 5 

Early Bull Rifle 35 

Late Bull Rifle 20 

Cow Elk 100 

southern Cow Elk 50 

Mountain Lion 25 

Spring Turkey 25 

Spring Bear 15 

Fall Bear 10 

Mule Deer 20 

Game Park Hunts 

Bui I Elk 

Cow Elk 

Spring Bear 

Complimentarv 

Bull Elk 

Cow Elk 

Raffles/Donations 

Bui 1 Elk 

Cow Elk 

25 

30 

5 

-11 

3 0% 37 -2% 

17 -5% 

100 +85% 

5 l 

8 -33% 

25 0% 

15 +7 % 

7 -46% 

20 0% 

1 7 - 5% 

30 -11 % 

5 0% 

21 -36% 

2 -83% 

23 
15 

Table J . Summary of the 1992-93 tribal member hunting license 

revenue s , Jicarilla Apache Reservation. 

Total 

Li~ense Sold Price Income 

Spring Turkey 30 $20.00 $600 

Small/Non-Game 146 $10.00 $1460 

Bear 6 S20.00 $ 120 

Mountain Lion 9 $20.00 $180 

Archery Elk-Bow 20 $100 . 00 $2000 

Archery Elk-Cow 8 $ 20 . 00 $ 160 

Rif l e Elk-Bull .20 $ 100 . 00 $ 2000 

Cow Elk 294 $20 . 00 $5 88 0 

Cow Elk (Dulce Re s. ) 10 $100 . 00 $1000 

Mule Deer - Gen 75 50.00 $3 7 50 

Mule Deer - Senior 25 0.00 0 

Mule Deer - Elder 20 0 . 00 0 

Tota l $1 7 ,150 

-12-
16 

Table 4. Summary of 1992-93 non-tribal member big game I icense 

revenues, Jicarilla Apache Reservation. 

License Sold Price Sales 

Reservation 

Archery Bu 11 Elk J $4000 $12,000 

Early Bull-Rifle 37 $4000 $148,000 

Late Bui I-Rifle 17 $4000 $68,000 

Cow Elk 100 $400 $40,000 

Southern Cow Elk 51 $300 $15,300 

Mountain Lion 8 $250 $2 , 000 

Spring Turkey 25 $75 SI, 875 

Spring Bear 15 $650 $9,750 

fa! I Bear 7 $650 $4,550 

Mule Deer 20 $4.000 580,000 

Game Park Hunts 

Bui I Elk 17 $4,000 $68 . 000 

Cow Elk JO $500 $15,000 

Spring Bear 5 $650 $3,250 

Total S4 77 , 7 25 

Total Sales 1991-92 $492.500 

Difference $14 , 775 

-13-
17 

Fi·shing 

Fishing licenses are sold to tribal members and non-members on a unlimited basis. All reservation lakes and the Navajo River are open to the public. In 1993 there were 2,855 fishing licenses sold 

which generated approximately $15,000. There were approximately 

25,000 user-days recorded by fishermen on the Jicarilla Reservation 

in 1992. 

The fishing program on the Jicari I la represents the best 

potential for improvement of habitat, expansion of recreational 

opportunities and increased user-days and income. All of the 

reservation's lakes are at relatively high altitude and require 

aeration to prevent fish from dying during winter. However, the 

lack of funds to bring electrical power to there lakes prevents the 

tribe from installing aeration systems and fulfilling the potential 

of these lakes to provide recreational fishing opportunities. 

SUMMARY 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has a long history of managing its 

fish and wildlife resources to provide recreational hunting and 

fishing opportunities for indians and non-indians alike. The 

reservation has a we! I deserved reputation for producing 

exceptional trophy mule deer and elk; a product of conservative, 

professional management. The Jicari I la Tribe funded fish and 

wildlife management programs entirely with tribal funds- until 1982. 

Since 1982 the tribe has received a small 638 contract to assist 

the program, but today that contract amounts to only 20% of the 

total program budget . In 1988 the Jicarilla Tribe recognized the 

need for funding habitat improvement and research projects , and 

established the Wildlife Management Account. Ten percent of all 

license sales revenues are set aside annually in this account. 

The Jicarilla Game and Fish Department has been a leader in 

the region for research and management of mule deer and elk 

populations, and their conservative harvest program for mule deer 

is now being adopted by the State of New Mexico. The Tribe has 

shown a degree of commitment to their fish and wildlife resources and professionalism in the management of their resources equal to, or above most state game and fish agencies. This has been without 

the benefit of Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson monies that are avai !able to state wi Id! ife agencies. The Jicari I la 

Reservation already provides considerable hunting, fishing and 

outdoor recreational opportunities to the general public. With 

additional funding proposed under the Wildlife Enhancement Act, the 

Tribe can expand these opportunities, improve habitats and ensure the future of its fish and wildlife populations. 

-14-
18 

Mr. VELARDE. Located along the continental divide in Northwestern New Mexico, the Jicarilla Apache Reservation enjoys a richness 

of wildlife that would be regarded as a national treasure if it were 

located in a national park or a national forest. 

Because this treasure is located on Indian land, however, no one 

but us seems to feel any responsibility to protect it. 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe takes this r_esponsibility very seriously. 

Our culture and religion are tied very , closely to the natural 

world, and much of the wildlife in our region plays an important 

part in our ceremonial life. 

For more than 30 years, our tribe has been spending more than 

half a million dollars per year for enhancement and management 

of fish and wildlife resources on our reservation. 

We have a resident population of more than 3,000 elk and 3,500 

mule deer. Another 2,000 elk and 5,000 mule deer migrate into our 

reservation from higher elevations during the winter season. More Boone and Crockett mule deer have been taken from the 

Jicarilla Apache Reservation since 1960 than from any comparable 

area of North America. 

Elk and mule deer support a residential population of 60 to 75 

mountain lions throughout the reservation. 

An estimated 150 black bears reside year round on the reservation. Wild turkeys are prospering on the reservation and may number 750 birds. 

The most extensive complex of woodlands in Northern New Mexico is located on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. Sinking Lake, 

the largest natural lake in New Mexico is within the reservation 

and is a unique breeding site for residential waterfowl as well as 

significant resting sites along the Pacific flyway. Counts of ten 

thousand to fifteen thousand water birds are not uncommon. 

At least two active peregrine falcon nests can be found on the 

reservation. Small numbers of Mexican spotted owl have been reported on the Jicarilla reservation. 

Golden eagles' nests on the reservation, and both golden and bald 

eagles spend winter months on the reservation. Counts of 50 to 75 

eagles each winter are common. 

The Tribe's staff of 23 people for a reservation of some 850,000 

acres is almost three times as many people as the State of New 

Mexico devote to an area ten times the size of the reservation for 

fish and game management. 

In 1987, after ei:amining and cross-examining the Tribe's Game 

and Fish Department personnel in discovery proceedings, the State 

of New Mexico conceded that the Tribe has a far more intensive 

wildlife management program for the reservation than any other 

state has to offer. 

The Tribe was instrumental, in 1989, to establish the San Juan 

Interstate Wildlife Working Group, composed of wildlife biologists 

from state, tribal and federal wildlife management agencies along 

the Colorado-New Mexico border. 

In short, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has taken a leadership role 

in game and fish management for a significant portion of the Rocky 

Mountain region for both New Mexico and Colorado, but has re-
19 

ceived none of the assistance that both states receive from the Federal Government. 

We are convinced that if Congress were considering the DingellJohnson and Pittman-Robertson legislation today, Congress would 

make some provision for tribes to participate in those pro~ams. 

We urge this committee not to allow that original oversight to become an excuse for failing to correct an obvious injustice. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Velarde follows:] 
20 

THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE 

... o. aox • 07 • DUI.CK, NEW MIIXICO • 7 • aa-o1,o7 

TESTIMONY OF VICE PRESIDENT VELARDE 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

February 18, 1993 

Oversight Hearing 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Management and Enhancement 

Name and Capacity of Witness: 

Wainwright Velarde 

Vice Presi9ent, Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

TESTIMONY 

Chairman Richardson and Members of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs: 

My name is Wainwright Velarde. I am the Vice-President of the Jicarilla Apache 

Tribe. With me today is Rudy Velarde, the Assistant Director of the Jicarilla Apache 

Game and Fish Department. 

Fish and Wildlife Management by Indian Tribes is a topic of great importance to 

my Tribe, and I am honored to be here today to discuss these issues with this 

subcommittee. I will make some brief remarks, and then Rudy Velarde and I will respond 

to any questions from the subcommittee. We have provided the subcommittee copies of 

a more lengthy written statement summarizing the fish and wildlife management programs 

of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. 

The Jicarilla Apache Reservation is located in Northern New Mexico, within the 

congressional district of the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Richardson. 

The Reservation consists of over 830,000 acres of land, all of which is held in trust 

for the Tribe. Unlike many other Tribes, we do not have large tracts of non-Indian land 

within our Reservation. Because of this solid land base, our Tribal Government is able to 

manage our natural resources effectivcly1 without the state trying to impose its own laws 

and regulations on non-Indian lands within the reservation. 
21 

Testimony of Wainwright Velarde 

House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Oversight Hearing-Indian Fish and Wildlife Management & Enhancement 

February 18, 1993 

Page 2 

The Reservation population is approximately 3000, of whom 2800 are members of 

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe. The relatively small number of non-members residing on the 

Reservation strengthens the ability of the Tribal Government to manage our resources 

effectively. 

Off-reservation hunting and fishing rights are an important issue for many of the 

Indian tribes, but these are not issues for our Tribe. The treaty and executive orders 

establishing our reservation did not preserve the hunting and fishing rights the Tribe held 

in the larger area we occupied before the reservation was established. Our rights to 

manage fish and wildlife are confined to the boundaries of the Reservation. 

Within those boundaries, the Tribe has exclusive authority to manage fish and 

wildlife. The state of New Mexico has occasionally attempted to regulate hunting and 

fishing on our Reservation, but we have gone to federal court to stop that interference with 

our sovereignty, and the _federal court has supported our position. 

Our Reservation is rich in natural resources, including oil and gas, timber, good 

grazing lands, as well as fish and wildlife. We manage those different resources so that we 

are able to develop and enjoy each of them without causing unnecessary impacts on the 

environment or on other natural resources. 

For example, the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is a significant producer of natural 

gas. At the same time, our Reservation has been known for many decades as one of the 

best areas in the United States for trophy hunting of mule deer and elk:. We also have 

significant populations of bear, turkey and other game and non-game wildlife. In addition, 

the lakes and streams within the Reservation provide valuable habitat areas for fish and 

waterfowl. 

From this brief description of our Reservation and our Tribe, it is clear that the 

Jicarilla Apaches have been blessed with great natural resources. Still, it is important for 

this subcommittee to understand that we have had to work hard and to devote substantial 

amounts of the Tribe's income to protect and manage those natural resources. Specifically 

in the area of wildlife management, the Tribe has received very little assistance, financial 

or technical, from the United States or from the state of New Mexico. 

The Tribe established its own Game and Fish Department in 1959. The Department 

now consists of 23 full time employees, including a professional wildlife biologist, three 

biological technicians and 9 individuals working full time in enforcement of the Tribe's 

Game and Fish Code. 
22 

Testimony of Wainwright Velarde 

House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Oversight Hearing-Indian Fish and Wildlife Management & Enhancement 

February 18, 1993 

Page 3 

These numbers may appear small to those of you who are not familiar with our 

Reservation or with northern New Mexico. For comparison, the Game and Fish 

Department of the state of New Mexico has 7 law enforcement officers and 1 biologist for 

the entire northwest quarter of the state outside of Indian lands. That area is about ten 

times the size of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation. 

I mention these figures to show that our Tribe takes fish and wildlife management 

very seriously, and we are willing to put the necessary resources into an effective program. 

Our Game and Fish Department is fully qualified to conduct surveys and monitoring 

under the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. We review and comment on 

environmental assessments prepared for timber sales and oil and gas development. We 

have conducted radio telemetry studies to determine migration patterns of elk and mule 

deer. Those studies have produced valuable data that was not known to the game and fish 

departments of New Mexico or Colorado. 

It is also important for this subcommittee to know that our Game and Fish 

Department has cooperated with other tribes, the neighboring states and the federal 

government on issues arising from game and fish management. We were very active in 

initiating and establishing the San Juan Interstate Wildlife Working Group. That group has 

representatives from the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, the Southern Ute Tribe, the US Forest 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the states of Colorado and New Mexico. 

This group meets periodically to share information and coordinate management of 

migratory big game herds that pass through each jurisdiction. 

The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has a proven record of conservative and scientificallybased game management. For example, in 1987 our Game and Fish Department was 

concerned about the declining populations of mule deer. The state of New Mexico was 

permitting unlimited deer hunting in the areas surrounding our Reservation. We tried to 

get the state to limit the number of deer hunting permits for state-controlled hunts in 

surrounding lands. The state refused, because of the desire to continue getting revenue 

from unlimited permits sales. The Tribe then took the drastic step of completely 

prohibiting deer hunting within the Reservation for a three year period. This was a difficult 

decision for the Tribal Council, because deer hunting is a very important part of our 

culture. But the Council accepted the scientific evidence developed by our Game and 

Fish Department. At the end of the three year ban, we restored deer hunting on a very 

limited basis. As a direct result of our actions banning all deer hunting, the deer 

populations improved significantly. In addition, in 1992 the state Game and Fish 

department finally agreed to limit deer hunting on the lands surrounding our Reservation. 

We are pleased that the state has finally agreed to the conservative management policies 

for the deer herd first proposed and implemented by the Tribe. 
23 

Testimony of Wainwright Velarde 

House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Oversight Hearing--Indian Fish and Wildlife Management & Enhancement 

February 18, 1993 

Page 4 

We are very proud of our Game and Fish Department and the high professional 

standards it has achieved. This subcommittee needs to know that this level of success has 

not been inexpensive. The annual budget for the Game and Fish Department is 

approximately $640,000. Of that total, $133,000 comes from a PL 638 contract with the 

BIA. The remaining $507,000 comes from Tribal funds. Tribal funds cover 79% of the cost 

of operating the Game and Fish Department. 

We receive no funds from the state of New Mexico and no funds from the United 

States other than the PL 638 contract. We receive no money from the federal wildlife and 

fish restoration funds. We receive no technical assistance from the BIA or the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

In part because outside funding was not available to the Tribe, we created a special 

habitat fund to provide money for habitat improvement projects. 10% of the gross revenue 

from the sale of tribal fishing and hunting licenses is deposited in that habitat fund. The 

balance of the revenue from license sales goes into the general fund of the Tribe, to pay 

for the many .other governmental services we provide within the Reservation. 

We have spent scarce tribal revenues on the Game and Fish Department because 

we recognize the importance of proper management of fish and wildlife resources. But it 

is becoming increasingly difficult to pay for these programs without the kind of federal 

financial assistance that is available to all the states and territories. The Indian tribes are 

the only governments in the federal system who do not share in the federal wildlife and fish 

restoration funds. We believe this situation is grossly unfair, and must be corrected. 

The written materials submitted to the subcommittee provide additional details on 

our Game and Fish Department. 

Mr. Velarde and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 
24 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Ms. Notah. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA NOTAH 

Ms. NOTAH. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Gloria Notah. I'm a wildlife manager with the Navajo 

Nation's Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

I'm presenting testimony this morning on behalf of President Peterson Zah and the Navajo Nation. 

The Navajo Nation appreciates this opportunity to provide our 

concerns regarding Indian management of fish and wildlife programs on tribal lands. 

We commend the Subcommittee and the House Natural Resources Committee for addressing this issue. 

The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States, consisting of approximately 18 million acres of land 

which spans into the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. 

Navajo Nation lands contain valuable and critical habitat for numerous species of fish and wildlife. 

In addition, there are 9 federally listed threatened and endangered species found on Navajo Nation lands. 

In 1956, the Navajo Nation created the Department of Fish and 

Wildlife to manage the fish and wildlife resources on Navajo lands 

for the benefit of present and future generations. 

Subsequently, fish and wildlife management codes were established for the protection and enhancement of Navajo fish and wildlife resources. 

Although the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife manages 

to carry out its management responsibilities, the Department has 

confronted numerous obstacles in advancing this mandate. 

First and foremost is the lack of statutory authorization for Indian tribes, including the Navajo Nation to participate in and receive funding from any Federal programs. 

The Navajo Nation is unable to participate in Federal legislation, 

such as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, 

which is also known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson 

Act, and also the Endangered Species Act. 

The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Act assess excise 

taxes on fishing and hunting supplies and motor boat fuel. This Act 

generates over $400 million annually, and provides funding to all 

50 states and U.S. territories. 

However, this measure does not allow for Indian tribes, including 

the Navajo Nation, to participate in this Federal aid program. 

Indian tribes should be allowed to participate in Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson since tribal members contribute significantly to these programs when they purchase taxed hunting and 

fishing supplies. 

Furthermore, Indian tribes, including the Navajo Nation, contribute significantly to meeting the national demand for hunting and 

fishing opportunities. 

The Navajo Nation has a developed Fish and Wildlife management program, which provides recreational fishing and hunting to 

the demand of the general public, Indian and non-Indian alike. 
25 

Therefore, we should be afforded the same benefits given to 

states and territories under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson. 

Indian tribes are also excluded from receiving direct Federal 

funding under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Only states 

are authorized and funded to conduct inventories and develop management plans for threatened and endangered species. Indian tribes must apply to states to receive this funding. There 

needs to be an avenue in place where tribes can receive Section 6 

funding directly from the Federal Government, rather than 

through the states. 

In 1977, the Navajo Nation enacted its own Endangered Species Code. This code protects not only federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, but also threatened and endangered species that are indigenous to the Navajo Nation. 

There's a demand for individual threatened and endangered spe- cies management plans on the · Navajo that would address critical 

factors that are not currently addressed by the existing_ federal 

threatened and endangered species management plans and guide- lines. 

Those critical factors that are of concern to the Navajo Nation 

are cultural and traditional beliefs, economic feasibility, and economic development and land use priorities. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act must be amended to authorize tribes to receive funds directly for development of threatened and endangered species management plans. 

An additional obstacle facing the Navajo Nation in carrying out 

its management responsibilities is the continual decrease in funding allocations from the Bureau of Indian Affairs through the Indian Self Determination Act, also known as Public Law 93-638. 

In 1991, the Department contracted the total fish and wildlife responsibilities from the Bureau. This included three wildlife biologist positions. 

As a result of the continual decrease in funding, that's indicated 

in Attachment A of our written testimony, the Department lost 2 

of the 3 wildlife biologist positions at the end of 1992. , In 1993, the Department renegotiated with the Bureau and managed to increase the allocation slightly. However, this amount is 

still grossly inadequate for the Department to manage the Navajo Nation's vast fish and wildlife resources. 

A continued lack of P.L. 93-638 funding demonstrates the BIA's 

failure to uphold its trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation in the 

management of fish and wildlife resources. 

This lack of responsibility has forced the Navajo Nation to begin 

seeking alternative funding sources in other federal programs and 

th~ private sector. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of the Navajo Nation follows:] 
PETERSON ZAH 

PRESIDENT 

THE 

NAVAJO 

NATION 

26 

P. 0 . DRAWER 308 • WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515 • (60Z) 811- 6352-55 

TESTIMONY OF THE 

NAVAJO NATION 

BEFORE 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON 

THE OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN MANAGEMENT 

OF TRIBAL FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS 

MARSHALL PWMMEA 

VICE PftESIDINT 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Navajo Nation 

appreciates this opportunity to provide our concerns regarding tribal management of 

tribal fisheries and wildlife programs. We commend this Subcommittee and the House 

Natural Resources Committee for holding this oversight hearing. 

The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States, 

consisting of approximately 17 million acres which spans into the states of Arizona, 

New Mexico and Utah - - similar in size to the state of West Virginia. Navajo lands 

vary from mountains, to forests, to lakes and streams, to the well known desert dry 

red rock. These lands contain valuable and critical habitat for numerous species of 

fish and w ildlife such as rainbow trout, brown trout, largemouth bass, numerous small 

game species, pronghorn antelope, black bear, mule deer, and a small population of 
27 

elk and numerous furbearer and waterfowl species. There are nine federally listed 

threatened and endangered species found on the Navajo Nation, including an 

endangered fish located on the San Juan River IPtychocheUus .wc.uill and the 

Humpback Chub. 

In 1956, the Navajo Nation created the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife 

to manage the fish and wildlife resources on Navajo lands for the benefit of our 

present and future generations. Presently, the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife 

consist of four sections: Wildlife Law Enforcement; Management/Research; Natural 

Heritage; and, Animal Damage Control. The Wildlife Enforcement section is 

responsible for the enforcement of all fish and wildlife laws and regulations. The 

Management/Research section evaluates, monitors, manages and researches certain 

populations of small and big game, furbearers and game fish. The Natural Heritage 

section is responsible for the collection, management and dissemination of biological 

and ecological information on threatened and endangered species and communities. 

It is the only program of its type in the United States on an Indian reservation. The 

Animal Damage Control section oversees the alleviation of wildlife damage to 

agricultural resources such as crops and livestock. There are approximately thirty 

professional staff in the four sections of the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Twenty staff members are located in the central office in Window Rock, Arizona, and 

ten staff members are located in the field. Each person is charged with overseeing 

the Navajo Nation's vast land, habitat and species resources. 

The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife has confronted numerous obstacles 

in carrying out its responsibilities. Foremost is the lack of statutory authorization for 
28 

Indian tribes to participate in and receive funding from many federal programs. 

Another real problem is the competition for scare federal dollars and a lower priority 

given to fish and wildlife versus human needs which are so great. 

LACK OF TRIBAL PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife is constrained in efforts to enhance 

it's fish and wildlife programs by the inability of the Navajo Nation to participate in 

federal legislation such as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, 

otherwise known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Act (PR/DJ) and from 

the Endangered Species Act. These two acts are readily available to fund off 

reservation activities, but do not allow for tribal participation. 

Pittman-Robertson and PioqeU-Johnson Act IPR/PJl 

The PR/DJ Act assess excise taxes on fishing and hunting supplies and motor 

boat fuel. The PR/DJ generates over $400 million annually and provides funding to 

all 50 states and United States territories for a wide variety of recreational fisheries 

and wildlife enhancement projects. However, this measure does not allow for Indian 

tribes, including the Navajo Nation, to participate in this federal aid program. Tribes 

should be able to participate in PR/DJ since tribal members contribute significantly to 

these programs when they purchase taxed hunting and fishing supplies. Furthermore, 

the national demand for hunting and fishing expeditions on tribal lands by tribal and 

non-tribal members is immense. The Navajo Nation, through it's Department of Fish 

and Wildlife has met such requests by issuing approximately 2,100 big game permits 

in 1991-1992. Sixty-six percent were issued to tribal members and 34 percent to 

3 
29 

non-tribal members. In 1991, approximately 11,726 fishing and small game permits 

were issued. Of this total, 28 percent were issued to tribal members, 13 percent to 

non-tribal members and the remaining 59 percent was unknown. The Navajo Nation, 

like many other tribes, has a developed fish and wildlife management program which 

provides recreational fishing and hunting to the demand of the general public, Indian 

and non-Indian. Since Indian tribes contribute significantly to federal aid programs and 

meet the national hunting and fishing demand, they should be afforded the same 

benefits given to states and territories under PR/DJ. 

Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act 

Indian tribes are also excluded from receiving direct federal funding for wildlife 

management under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Only states are 

authorized and funded to conduct inventories and develop management plans for 

endangered species. Indian tribes must apply to states to receive such funding. Since 

states typically do not receive additional administrative overhead costs this is either 

assumed by the state or passed on to the tribe. This disincentive means tribes usually 

receive little or no Section 6 funding from the states. Furthermore, the interests of 

the state may be different than the tribe or, states may encroach onto the tribe's land. 

As to the latter, for example, the endangered fish IPtychpcheUus lu.cui.s) located in the 

San Juan River on the Navajo Nation is currently the subject of an extensive research 

program by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish which receives substantial 

Section 6 funding. The Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife receives no such 

funding for the study and management of this species whose prime habitat is located 

4 

68-141 - 93 - 2 
30 

in the Navajo Nation. The interest of the Navajo Nation must include our own 

independent studies and evaluation. Otherwise we are dependent on the state or 

outsiders as to the status of our own tribal species. 

Also, the guidelines under the Endangered Species Act for the management of 

threatened and endangered species are not site specific and do not address the 

conditions found on many Indian reservations. In 1977, the Navajo Nation enacted 

it's own endangered species code in an effort to address the particular conditions of 

threatened and endangered species indigenous to the Navajo reservation, including 

other federally listed species. However, funding is needed to further develop 

Individual species management plans which recognizes those unique factors found on 

the Navajo reservation. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act must be amended 

to authorize tribes to receive funds directly for development of their threatened and 

endangered species management plans. 

Land and Water conservation Fund 

Legislation should also redress the current inequities existing in federal funding 

of outdoor recreation programs under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 

(LWCA). The LWCA is a fund, drawn primarily from federal offshore oil and gas 

revenues, that is to be used towards the development of federal and state outdoor 

recreational resources and facilities. As is the case with federal aid programs for fish 

and wildlife restoration programs, tribes are systematically excluded from receiving 

funding under LWCA. Congress should amend the Act to make tribes eligible to 

receive direct federal funding for the development and/or restoration of tribal 

5 
31 

recreational facilities and resources on a basis equal to that of the federal government 

and the 50 states. 

DECREASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING 

A portion of the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife's 

Management/Research section and all of the Wildlife Law Enforcement section are 

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) through the Indian Self Determination Act 

(Public Law 93-638). Funding for these sections has continually decreased over the 

past four years. (See Attachment Al In 1990, the Navajo Department of Fish and 

Wildlife's "638 contract" allocation was $332,800.00. In 1991, this contract 

allocation totalled $260,800.00. In 1991, the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife 

contracted the total fish and wildlife responsibilities from BIA. This included three 

wildlife biologist positions. In 1992, the contract's total allocation dropped to 

$251,019.00 which was inadequate to fund all programs and activities under the P.L. 

93-638 contract. As a result of this continual decrease in funding, the Navajo 

Department of Fish and Wildlife lost two of the three contracted wildlife biologist 

positions at the end of 1992. In 1993, the original allocation to the Department was 

$258,433.00, which would have resulted in large cutbacks in programs and services; 

however, the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife renegotiated with the BIA and 

received an additional $25,670. Although funding was slightly increased in 1993, 

this amount is still grossly inadequate for the Navajo Department of Fish and Wildlife 

to properly evaluate and monitor the Navajo Nation's fish and wildlife resources 

spanning into three states. 

6 
32 

The current funding level of the Wildlife Law Enforcement section, which is 

completely funded under a P.L. 93-638 contract, is also insufficient. This section 

consists of five Wildlife Conservation Officers who must cover the entire Navajo 

reservation. These officers are responsible for enforcing tribal fish and wildlife laws 

and regulations and certain federal wildlife laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments 

of 1981, the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Non-Indian 

violators cited by these officers are prosecuted by the United States District Courts. 

Any fines assessed by the United States District Courts are reinvested in the Navajo 

Nation but remain w ith the federal government. Since the Navajo Nation Department 

of Fish and Wildlife does not receive sufficient •538• funding, it could utilize the 

assessed fines as an additional source of funding to effectuate its wildlife enforcement 

responsibilities. 

The continued lack of P.L. 93-638 funding demonstrates of the BIA's failure to 

uphold it's trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation in the management of fish and 

wildlife resources. This lack of responsibility has forced the Navajo Nation to begin 

seeking alternative funding sources in other federal programs and the private sector. 

TOWARDS TRIBAL SELF-MANAGEMENT 

The Navajo Nation, like many other Indian tribes, has the technical expertise 

and experience to manage it's own fish and wildlife resources . Also, it is increasingly 

being recognized by the courts that tribes, as sovereign governments, have the right 

to self-manage these resources. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Circuit 

stating the State of New Mexico could not enforce its wildlife management laws 

7 
33 

within the exterior boundaries of the Mescalero Apache Nation. Subsequent cases 

involving the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

have reaffirmed this position. In all these cases, the overriding factor in favor of the 

tribes was their experience and expertise in managing their wildlife resources. In 

observation of these facts, the Governor of New Mexico appointed in 1991 the 

Wildlife Working Group for cooperative management between the State and local 

Indian tribes. Last month, the State officially endorsed the Wildlife Working Group. 

The Navajo Nation looks forward to realizing the potential of this collaborative effort. 

CONCLUSION 

In sum, remedial legislation is urgently needed ( 1 l to recognize the governmentto-government relationship that exists between tribes and the federal government, by 

extending existing federal aid programs to tribes, and (2) to fulfill the federal 

government's trust responsibility to tribes by ensuring that they have the wherewithal 

to exercise their sovereign rights over their lands and resources. 

Tribal self-determination must mean that tribes have the authofity and 

sophistication to assume exclusive management of fish and wildlife resources on their 

lands. The greatest prohibitions are lack of statutory authorizations in significant 

federal acts and the lower priority of fish and wildlife in relation to other needs. The 

Navajo Nation urges this Subcommittee to overcome these two barriers by amending 

such federal laws and supporting increased funding as we have stated earlier. The 

Navajo Nation looks forward to working with this Subcommittee towards those goals. 

8 
34 

ATTACIMNT A 

DDJP rx•• NIP IXLPLXFI PIIMTHW 

fVlll)IXG Bil'!OaY roa BIJRIAU o• IIIJ)laJI UJ'Aial P.L.,, •• ,. COlilTUC'f 

I I I i 

II II 11 \ 1 

II II II : I 

II II II I 

II II II I 

II- II 111 I 
35 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Ms. Notah. 

I'd like to see if my colleague has any questions. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess my questions would be more simpJy for clarification. 

Do the agencies-for instance, Fish and Wildlife Service-participate in the programs that you speak of? 

Ms. NOTAH. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

the programs that I'm specifically referring to are programs that 

are only open to state participation. 

The point I think is that, at least from the Navajo point of view, 

that we have the same capabilities and the same technical expertise as state fish and game departments in managing our fish and 

wildlife resources. And therefore, we feel that we have the right to 

com_pete for these resources on the same level as a state does. 

Mr. THOMAS. But my question is, do you now get assistance from 

federal agencies in terms of the manatrement of wildlife? 

Ms. NOTAH. At least from the Nav9Jo standpoint, the only federal 

assistance that we receive right now is through our Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. THOMAS. I see. 

And who's eligible to utilize these fish and wildlife opportunities? 

Ms. NOTAH. We provide these opportunities both for tribal members and non-tribal members. 

Mr. THOMAS. And there are non-tribal members who pay licenses 

to _p_articipate on the tribe? 

Ms. NOTAH. But tribal members and non-tribal members pay to 

participate in these opportunities. Mr. THOMAS. There are, of course, Pittman funds and others, but 

as I recall, our state game and fish is largely funded by license 

fees. 

Is that true with l.ou? 

Ms. NOTAH. Thats correct, yes. · Mr. THOMAS. So as I understand it, your main interest is havinir 

an opportunity to participate in the Pittman funds and those fees'? 

Ms. NOTAH. That's correct. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank _you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

South Dakota, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

somewhat late this morning. We had a whi:p meeting going on outlining the legislative agenda for the remainder of this week and 

next week, and as well, I'm going to have to leave very soon for 

a caucus going on involving a subcommittee chairmanship that I'm 

going to be assuming. 

So I regret that I have all of these things going on at the same 

time, because this is a critically important hearing ~oing on today, 

and I commend you for your leadership in putting this together. 

I'm going to be reviewing the written testimony because I think 

it is vitally important. 

I have no questions here at this point. 

However, I would like to extend a s~al welcome to Mr. Fred 

DuBray who is the Coordinator of Admmistration for Native American Bison Enhancement Project at Cheyenne River in South Dakota. · 
36 

And I know that his testimony will be valuable in the overall 

work of this committee this morning. 

So, again, I'm looking forward to reviewing all of the testimony and working with my staff in that regard. 

And I apologize for having to leave here very soon now. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentleman from South Dakota for 

his statement, and we recognize his many responsibilities. 

Let me ask our two witnesses, what would you advise the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, and this 

subcommittee, to do in terms of carrying out the trust responsibilities to Indian tribes for the protection of tribal fish and wildlife resources? 

In other words, what should we do to carry out our trust responsibilities to protect your fish and wildlife resources? 

What would you like us to do that is not being done? 

Mr. VELARDE. Well, with the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, I think as 

far as the Secretary is concerned with the Interior Department, it 

should be recognized and, again, on three levels, I think. 

One is on the secretarial level. The Tribe would like to be recognized and be a part of this Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson bill together, also. 

We would also like the President to have an order designating such a proclamation or recognition of our sovereignty to be able to 

regulate and manage our own game and fish. And then on a legislative level, we would like to do likewise with 

the overall management of our reservations. Initiate some type of 

sovereignty bill to Sl!l)port those kinds of things. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Notah? 

Ms. NOTAH. Mr. Chairman, remedial legislation is urgently needed to recognize the government-to-government relationship that exists between tribes and the federal government, by extending existing federal aid _programs to tribes. 

And to fulfill the federal government's trust responsibility to 

tribes by ensuring they have the right to exercise their sovereign 

rights over their lands and resources. One of the major problems I think is that fish and wildlife matters are on a lower priority level in terms of other human needs. That needs to be increased. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, did you want to add to this? 

Mr. RUDY VELARDE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

My name is Rudy Velarde, and I would like to suggest that the 

BIA consider the tribes individually because we are, each tribe, all 

different. 

For example, rather than address us with a blanket type of a pol- icy, if you would consider each tribe individually, because we are 

individuals, just by the mere fact of population, geography and the 

size and location of tribes. 

Even re~arding the economic development of different tribes, we're all different. So if the BIA tries to address us with a general 

type of a rule, it really doesn't help most of us. -'But if they could consider us specifically, then they could accomplish more of their goals. 

Thank you very much. 
37 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Velarde, you mentioned the extensive wildlife data collection that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe undertakes. 

Are there similar types of efforts within the BIA that they are 

initiating, or would you call yours unique? 

Mr. RUDY VELARDE. No; there's no information like this in existence. To my knowledge, we're the only ones that have this information. It costs the Tribe a lot of money to generate this information, 

and we're very proud to have this information. 

And if anybody wants additional information, we're the main authority on what we're saying here, and we are recognized by the 

state courts and other hunting organizations throughout the United States. 

For example, the big game shows and other big game organizations, they're the ones-if you go over there and you mention 

Jicarilla, they know exactly where we're at and what we can 

produce. 

Thank.you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Of course, the Jicarilla's know this, but whenever members of Congress ask me where is the ideal place for recreational hunting, they mention the Jicarilla Apaches. I think you 

have a unique program there. 

Mr. RUDY VELARDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Through the years, we also have several articles in national magazines with regard to our reservation, so we're pretty well recognized as far as hunting and fishing programs that we have. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

I'm going to recognize my colleague. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, clarification. 

You speak of the sovereignty and that sort of business. 

Is there a confusion or an overlapping of jurisdiction with respect 

to state game and fish operations and fish and wildlife? 

Is there a question about who has the authority to manage wildlife on your reservation? 

Ms. NOTAH; Representative Thomas, if I may, I'd like to field 

that question. 

I don't think there's a confusion about who has the right to manage these resources, at least with the Navajo it's fairly well clear 

that the Navajo Nation does have that responsibility for their own 

resources. 

In many instances, we are doing just as much, or even much 

more than what the states are doing in terms of.--

Mr. THOMAS. So it's not a conflict of jurisdiction generally? 

Ms. NOTAH. No, it's not. 

Mr. THOMAS. It's really money. Is that it? 

Ms. NOTAH. It's primarily funding. 

Mr. THOMAS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank my colleague. 

Before I ask the Representative of American Samoa to chair the 

next panel, because I too, like Mr. Johnson, must leave because I 

have to go to the White House for a session with the Chief Executive, but I will return. 

I would like to thank this group of witnesses. 
38 

I'd like to have the Honorable Thomas Maulson, the Chairman 

of Lac du Flambeau Tribe in Wisconsin come up to the table. He 

will be accompanied by Larry Wawronowicz, Director of the Natural Resources Department. fn addition to Hon. Maulson, I'd like 

Mr. James Schlender, Executive Administrator for Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission from Odanah, Wisconsin. Mr. Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American Fish and Wildlife Society, Broomfield, Colorado. Mr. Fred DuBray, Coordinator, 

Administration for Native American Bison Enhancement Project, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from American Samoa and 

asks him to come and assume the Chair. 

Mr. MAULSON. Mr. Chairman, before you go---

[Mr. Maulson distributing gifts.] 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you for the gift. 

Do you wish me to pass it on to the President? 

Mr. MAULSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think there's some tobacco taxes in his packages. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [presiding]. First of all, I want to express, although in his absence, my appreciation for the outstanding leadership that the gentleman from New Mexico has undertaken, and not 

only for convincing the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Natural Resources that this is a very historical moment in the activities of the Committee on Natural Resources, that this is the first time that we have now established, 

in a long time, a specific subcommittee to handle Native American 

issues. 

I think we've come a long way, and I want to express that feeling for the record, especially to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. 

Bill Richardson, for his initiative and for his leadership in accomplishing this task. And now we have a subcommittee to address the 

issues and the needs of our Native American community throughout the country. ·I also want to express my personal thanks for the gift that has 

been presented here this morning. It's ironic that our Native Americans had originally used tobacco 

for purposes of a very spiritual ceremony among Native Americans, 

and that is when the peace pipe is passed. And the purpose of the 

smoke is to enhance and to give some sense of unity spiritually 

among the elders when they meet. And then when the Europeans got hold of it, they took it in a 

very different context. Now we're having very serious problems in 

the health, not only of the members of our country, but certainly 

throughout the world. 

But the irony of it all is that I think we've understood, also from 

the Native Americans, that tobacco was used to cure the ills of animals. 

But it's ironic that we now have problems of cigarette smoking 

in our country in a way that was never intended by the original 

users of tobacco; it was for a spiritual ceremony. 
39 

So I do accept, with p-atitude, the gentleman's 2ift;, and it will 

be placed prominently m my office. And maybe when we have a 

peace pipe ceremony, you'll come and smoke with us in my office. 

I want to thank the gentleman for this gift. 

I think, without question, we definitely do have some very serious problems, and this issue was posed to Secretary Babbitt about 

the need of our Native American community and the fish and wildlife, their needs, not only on reservations but the relationship that 

we have with the federal government, whether it be by regulation 

or bylaw. 

I don't know. Seemingly, there seems to be some confusion or 

just lack of any real sense of cooperation with the needs of our Native American community. 

So with that in mind, I want to proceed now and to hear from 

the testimonies of our friends here from Wisconsin and Colorado 

and from South Dakota. 

And, so, Mr. Maulson, would you like to proceed? 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. THOMAS MAULSON, CHAIRMAN, 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS, WISCONSIN, ACCOMPANIED BY LARRY 

WAWRONOWICZ, DIRECTOR, CHIPPEWA NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT; JAMES H. SCHLENDER, EXECUTIVE 

ADMINISTRATOR, THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION, ODANAH, WI; KEN POYNTER, MEMBER, 

PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE OF MAINE, AND ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN ~H & WILDLIFE SOCI• 

ETY, BROOMFIELD, CO; AND FRED DUBRAY, COORDINATOR, 

ADMINISTRATION FOR NATIVE AMERICAN BISON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, EAGLE 

BUTTE, SD, AND PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS MAULSON 

Mr. MAUISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I'd like to address this body and identify my Ojibwa 

name is Badawiiasch and I come from Wasagoning. Wasagonmg is 

known as Lac Du Flambeau in the English context. I'm an Ojibwa. 

I am the Chairman of the Lac Du Flambeau Band, and my reservation is located in the north central part of Wisconsin, many hours 

from here. · It is approximately 144 square miles, 98,000 acres of land, in- cluding 150 lakes, 34 miles of creeks and rivers and streams, enriched with hunting, fishing and all these things that were echoed 

by the prior people here. 

I know you have our testimony, and I'd like to just oversee it 

very liJditly. I hope that you will take that time because of the tobacco that we've brought here today to you, to · take a lot of time 

and listen, and see what Indian people are about today. 

We have a major struggle to control the resources on our reservation, my reservation, my people. Approximately 51 percent of our 

reservation is owned by non-Indian people. Today, we have an enhancement project going on in reference to 

making sure that our fish are plentiful for our people. But yet, the 
40 

State of Wisconsin does not return any type of revenues to my tribe 

in reference to making our hatchery operations go. 

I feel we have the state-of-the-art hatchery, but yet it was built 

in the 1936 era. It is old, but yet it is fundamental, and continuously doing the things that we ask it to do. 

I asked the legislation to state clearly the federal responsibilities 

to the tribes in references to the resources on reservation. 

We need legislative support of all its natural resource programs, 

because we are the stewards of the last 500 years for the people that put their foot on this island. We need that support from you legislators, as nation to nation. It's important that we get that type 

of support . . We have to continuously identify the problems that we do have. We have many non-native people living within the confines of my 

reservation, as I stated earlier, but yet no dollars cominJ. to my tribe in order to support its natural endeavor to exist as Ojibwa or 

Anishinabe people. We have many white state jurisdictional issues on my reservation which definitely cause problems in reference to the use of their 

resources on my reservation. 

We have many test cases out there, may it be the Montana case 

that deals with non-Indian people in reference to a jurisdiction. The State of Wisconsin has co-jurisdiction on my reservation also, 

but once again without putting any type of dollars in. We asked to support the fact that we need also, as you heard 

echoed here this morning, Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson 

dollars. We need those dollars to exist. 

We don't need them to rob Peter to pay Paul, or use them to 

switch one way or the other. We need those additional dollars. 

We have an Indian fish hatchery that deals with roughly over 50 

million walleye eggs annually, and millions of mussel eggs annually that are being taken from our hatcheries and used in our reservation waters. 

We have a reservation that has approximately 158 named lakes 

and many small lakes, and yet we have no control. Ninety-five percent of those bodies of water are used by the non-Indian people without any type of control by tribal government. 

But yet we continue to exist under these conditions. Fishing and 

hunting rights are essential to my people back home. 

So I know we have many items th9t are far greater than the 

summary that I have before me, that's before you, to digest. And 

I hope this committee will take a hard look at how it's going to impact Indian people across this coun~. 

We have been promised many things as Indian tribes, and yet 

gained little. 

So I hope that we can continue to create a better dialogue, Mr. 

Chairman. So I'm going to leave it that way. [Prepared statement of Mr. Maulson follows:] 
41 

TESTIMONY OF THE LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Tom Maulson, Chairman of the 

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Wisconsin. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Band to express our support for the 

enactment of legislation recognizing the tribal right to manage and regulate fish and wildlife 

resources and the federal obligation, under the trust responsibility, to assist the tribes in 

fulfilling their objectives in this vital area. I also appreciate the opportunity to share with 

you several specific concerns which the Band would suggest be considered for inclusion in 

the legislation. 

Let me begin by telling you something about our Reservation and our natural 

resources program. 

The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is located in north central Wisconsin --

described by many as the "Northwoods." The Reservation is approximately 98,000 acres, and 

includes 158 lakes, 34 miles of creeks, rivers and streams ( a total of 20,000 surface acres of 

waters), 55,000 acres of forested land, and 15,000 acres of wetlands. As this description 

suggests, the Reservation ecosystem is very diverse and supports many upland and lowland 

species of animals and plants. Our waters, lands, woods and skies brim with walleye, 

muskellunge, smallmouth bass, white tail deer, black bear, eagles, waterfowl, grouse·, 

songbirds, aspen, sugar maple, evergreens, and wild rice. 

The role of these resources in our culture remains the same as it has been from time 

immemorial. Band members rely on the Reservation's natural resources for subsistence, 

cultural, religious, medicinal and economic purposes. It is safe to say that the Reservation 

natural resources are one of our greatest assets, second only to our children. 

Non-Indians also use the Reservation's natural resources. Indeed, since the Lac du 

Flambeau Indian Reservation is a "checkerboard" reservation, there are many non-Indian 

people who own land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. These individuals -

- as well as many non-Indians who live off the Reservation -- use our lands and waters to 

hunt, fish, boat, hike, and for other recreational purposes. Indeed, 95% of the fishing done 

on the Reservation is done by non-Indians. 

The Band manages the Reservation's natural resources itself. This is done pursuant 

to the Band's Constitution, which provides that the tribal government has the constitutional 

responsibility to protect, conserve, and enhance the Reservation's natural resources for 

present and future generations. In fulfillment of this responsibility, the Lac du Flambeau 

Band has been operating the Tribal Natural Re_sources Department since 1_936. Currently, 
42 

the Department operates 9 programs: (1) fish culture, (2) fisheries management, (3) wildlife 

management, ( 4) conservation law enforcement, (5) forestry, (6) water resources, (7) 

resource marketing, (8) parks and recreation, and (9) multi-media. 

To better carry out the Band's constitutional responsibility for natural resources 

protection, we developed a ten year Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) which 

establishes a coordinated approach to the management of our diverse resources. 

Unfortunately, the implementation of the IRMP has been impeded by a lack of funding. 

However, we remain committed to the IRMP, which is vital to our ability to develop a 

sustainable economy, in which our natural resources and the Reservation environment can 

thrive while co-existing with our economic development initiatives. 

We see the enactment of fish and wildlife legislation as an important step towards the 

protection and enhancement of the Reservation's natural resources. In our view, the 

Committee should draft legislation that will define the federal government's commitment to 

and recognition of tribal natural resources departments, provide stable and continued 

funding for such departments, define the trust responsibility as it pertains to tribal natural 

resources, and recognize tribal jurisdiction over all natural resources and all persons within 

the exterior boundaries of the reservation. 

In fulfillment of these objectives, we are pleased to suggest for the Committee's 

consideration several specific initiatives for inclusion in the legislation. We also have 

concerns which are of a more immediate nature •· that may affect the FY94 funding for 

natural resources. We describe both of these matters below. 

A Prnposals for consideration as le&jsJatjve initiatives 

1. The le11isJation shouJd set forth the federal trust respoosibiHty for tribal 

natural resources. The legislation should clearly set forth the federal trust responsibility for 

the protection of tribal natural resources. In addition, it should strongly support the 

operation of tribal natural resource programs and seek to coordinate the existing federal 

programs which assist tribes in the operation of their natural resource programs. 

The protection and enhancement of tribal natural resources goes to the core of the 

federal trust responsibility. These resources, protected and secured to the tribes by treaty, 

have a vital role in the culture, religion, and economy of Indian tribes. The guarantees of 

the treaty •· reserving these rights to the tribes - are meaningless unless these resources 

receive the protection needed for them to thrive. This is exactly what the trust responsibility 

is intended to do - protect the guarantees of the treaties. The legislation should confirm 

that the federal role in the protection of these resources is a function of the trust 

responsibility and should commit the government to providing the necessary protections in 

its role as trustee. 

2 
43 

The legislation should also support, in accordance with the Self-Determination policy, 

the operation of tribal natural resource programs and should encourage the coordination of 

federal programs which impact on natural resource protection and enhancement. Presently, 

tribes deal with many federal agencies -- the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, among others -· on natural resource matters. Each agency may have its own Indian 

Policy -- which may or may not be the same as others. This creates inconsistencies in the 

implementation of the Self-Determination policy and makes it far more difficult for the 

tribes to coordinate their natural resource programs. These inconsistencies should be 

rectified by the inclusion of a clear and concise statement of the federal trust responsibility 

in the legislation and_ by its consistent implementation in accordance with the terms of the 

legislation. 

2. Inte&rated resource manaiiement plans should be supported. The protection and 

enhancement of on and off-reservation natural resources is vitally important to the tnbal 

future. Our culture, our religion and our economy all rely on the availability of the plants 

and animals on which we have depended from time immemorial and which our treaties 

provide us with a right to harvest. 

To protect these resources, our decisions in other areas -- economic development, 

environmental protection, and infrastructure development, for example -- must be made with 

an understanding of what· impact these decisions will have on our resource base and what 

alternatives are available. Initially, this will require that the tribes undertake the substantial 

task of acquiring the baseline data about the reservation resources and environment which 

is needed to develop such a plan. Once this information is acquired, it must be organized 

and stored in an efficient and cost effective manner which makes it accessible for planning 

purposes. The use of systems such as the GIS system, which many governments are now 

using, should be encouraged to enhance the utility of natural resource information. 

Developing this data base and converting it to a useful form will take time and require 

funding. This funding should be viewed as an investment in the reservation's future and 

should be provided for in the legislation. 

In sum, we believe it critical that the legislation support and provide funding for the 

development and implementation of integrated natural resource management plans, such 

as-that which the Band has sought to develop. Th_ese plans are essential to the tribes' ability 

to make decisions which are in ac·cordance with their religious, cultural, environmental, 

subsistence and economic objectives. The legislation should also recognize the tribes' 

inherent rights to make and implement decisions which are necessary to protect the 

reservation natural resources and environment 

3. The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Brendale and Montana should be 

le&islatjvely modified. Many states, relying on the Brenda/e and Montana decisions, generate 

substantial revenues from the sale to non-Indians of licenses to hunt on fee lands and fish 

on navigable waters within reservation boundaries. This occurs on our Reservation, on 

3 
44 

which over 95% of the people fishing are non-Indians. We generate no revenue from these 

users of our waters. Other tribes are in the same situation. 

This situation is unfair. Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign authority over the 

management of the reservation's natural resources. Furthermore, it is the tribes who 

actually manage the reservation's natural resources. Yet, when reservation fee land or 

navigable waters are involved, the Montana and Brendale decisions in many instances shut 

the tribes out of the economic benefit of non-Indian hunting and fishing activity. 

Both the Brendale and Montana decisions should be modified legislatively to make 

it clear beyond question that Indian tribes may regulate non-Indians utilizing the tribe's 

natural resources on fee lands and navigable waters within their territories and to insure that 

Indian tribes have the opportunity to generate revenues from these activities. 

4. Fish Hatchezy Construction and Qperatjons. We operate a very successful 

fish hatchery on our Reservation, which provides substantial benefit to the Indian and nonIndian community. Unfortunately, our facility -- which was built in 1936 -- is antiquated and 

in need of replacement. While we have made the best use of the facility that we could, the 

fact is that the wiring and plumbing in our facility is unsafe and hazardous. Moreover, as 

our program has grown we find that we have outgrown the hatchery -- we need a larger 

facility. 

Unfortunately, we find that there is no federal program available to provide funding 

for hatchery construction. In view of the increasingly important role that fish hatcheries play 

in natural resource management, we think it is important that the legislation address these 

needs, and provide a mechanism for hatchery construction funding. 

B. Problems potentially affectjn~ FY94 appropriations 

There are two actions which the Bush Administration had proposed for the FY94 

BIA budget which, unless reversed would have a serious detrimental impact on tribal natural 

resources programs. They are as follows: 

1. Proposed e)iminatjon of two BIA natural resources proifams. The BIA 

proposes to zero out funding for tribal hatchery operations ($2.99 million) and tribal 

management and development projects ($6.65 million), and instead seek to fund these 

programs with Dingell-Johnson Pittman-Robertson (DJPR) Act monies. To accomplish this, 

we understand that the Bush budget proposed that changes be made in the Interior 

Appropriations Act to make tribes eligible for DJPR funding, which would then be used to 

fund these programs. 

The Band operates a very successful fish hatchery, which makes a substantial 

contribution to the Reservation fishery, benefitting Indians and non-Indians alike. We know 

first hand how important tribal fish hatchery operations are to the economic well-being of 

4 
45 

many tribes. In addition, tribal management and development funds have enabled the Band 

and many other tribes to improve their fish and game management, promote tourism, and 

otherwise enhance the conservation and development of tribal natural resources. 

Elimination of a stable funding source for these important programs with no 

guarantee that ongoing projects will be continued -- as the Bush budget proposed -- would 

deal a severe blow to the· stable development of tribal natural resource programs, putting 

at risk the years of progress which these programs have made. 

The timing of this proposal is particularly bad because the tribes are now working to 

develop a legislative proposal to secure a share of DJPR funds for tribes. The Bush 

proposal would short circuit this work and pre-empt congressional efforts to address it as 

well. We urge the Committee to oppose any such proposal. 

2. Proposal to djsreaard Con&ressjonaJ djrcctjve concernioa agproprjatjons 

~- The second Bush Administration FY94 BIA budget proposal would also affect 

fish hatchery operations and tribal management and development funds as well as funding 

for the rights protection programs. (As the Committee is aware, the rights protection 

program encompasses a broad range of activities that enables tribes to implement their 

treaty hunting and fishing rights.) Over the las_t several years, Congress has added significant 

funds to all three of these accounts. The Bush Administration has consistently sought to 

eliminate these increases. While Congress has continued to restore them, the BIA does not 

distribute the restored funds until at least four months into the next fiscal year. This greatly 

disrupts the programs and makes long range planning impossible. 

During the FY 1993 appropriations process, Congress instructed the BIA to place 

increases in these programs into the base budget and to include them in its proposed budget 

for FY 1994. The Bush budget proposed to disregard this directive and to eliminate all addons for BIA natural resource programs. 

This manipulation of budget figures has real and disastrous consequences for the 

targeted programs, putting in serious jeopardy the ability of the affected tribes to protect 

reservation natural resources. We urge the Committee to oppose any such proposal. 

In conclusion, let me restate that the Reservation's natural resources are one of the 

biggest assets the Band has to provide cultural, subsistence, economic, and social 

opportunities for the tribal membership. By drafting comprehensive fish and wildlife 

legislation, Congress can fulfill the trust responsibility to tribes and assist tribal governments 

in fulfilling their responsibility to protect, conserve and enhance tribal resources for present 

and future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have about our concerns. 

5 
46 

Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Maulson. 

I know that for some of you perhaps this may be your first experience in coming to Washington and testifying before a Congressional hearing. It may also be to you a disappointment to see that 

not very many members are here to listen and to hear the testimonies of those who appear before the committee. 

But I want to give assurance to all of you that sometimes when 

you see this, don't be misled to think that the testimonies are not 

an important part of the whole hearings process. 

This is the very reason that we have everything, and I will submit this for the record, that all of your testimonies will be incorporated and be made part of the record. 

And before the committee can make a decision on given legislation, even for purposes of oversight, the fact is that we need to 

have a record. 

And this is the very reason why we're having the hearing. And 

as the Chairman has stated earlier, sometimes we have conflicting 

appointments or commitments-sometimes we have five appointments in the same given time. And I don't think there's any way 

that any of us can adequately address some of the problems affecting the Administration and the procedures that we have here on 

the hill. , 

But I want to give assurance to our friends who are testify this 

morning that it is very important, and that we will take your statements in all seriousness, and that hopefully by building this record, 

we will be able to develop the kind of legislation that will be helpful to meet the needs of our Native American community. 

So I just want to state that for the record. 

Mr. Schlender. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES IL SCHLENDER 

Mr. SCHLENDER. Mr. Chairman, my name is James Schlender, 

and I'm the Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

On behalf of the Commission's 13 member tribes, located in the 

States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, I'd like to thank you 

for the opportunity to appear here today regarding Indian fish and 

wildlife management and enhancement issues. 

In this testimony, I would like to refer the Committee to our 

written testimony regarding the comprehensive natural resources 

management programs that the Commission undertakes on behalf 

of its member tribes on more than 16 million acres of off-reservation lands and waters. 

In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest some 

of the ways we feel federal legislation could help to preserve and 

strengthen these kinds of natural resource programs. 

I will forego describing what we do and go right to the need for 

federal legislation. · , The Commission's activities are necessary to the protection of the 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources which continue to be central to 

the cultural, religious and economic lives of the tribal members we 

serve. 
47 

Despite the importance of these activities, there is no overall federal statutory mandate for the protection of natural resources that 

tribes use. 

This means that, for the most part, the _protection and mana~ement of tribal fish and wildlife resources depends upon the initiative of tribes and tribal organizations, and the uncertainty of the 

federal appropriations process. Tribal efforts to regulate their fish, wildlife and gathering rights should be supported and strengthened through federal legislation. 

From the Commission's experience, we would suggest that the 

legislation should address the following topics. , among others: 

First, tribes have the sovereign authority to re2\llate tribal members in the exercise of their treaty rights, as well as the authority 

to manage the natural resources subject to tribal member harvest. 

Federal law should clearly acknowledge the primacy of tribal selfregulation of treaty protected natural resources both on and off the 

reservation. 

Second1 the federal responsibility must go beyond the recognition 

of the trioal right to self-regulate with respect to natural resources. 

The United States must, in addition, provide tribes with the opportunity to participate fully with other governments on matters 

which have a substantial impact on tribal natural resources. 

The United States must assure the tribes of full representation and voting status on a government to government basis on any board or agency which is involved in decisions which affect tribal 

rights to natural resources. 

Third, when tribes entered treaties reserving their hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, those treaties were with the United 

States, and not with a single agency. The federal trust responsibility arising out of those treaties ap- plies to all federal dealings, and I underscore all. The responsibility 1s not limited just to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Yet, in dealing with issues affecting tribal treaty rights, the federal agencies differ greatly from one another. 

Our experience has been that in addressing tribal natural resource issues, the BIA has typically recognized that its actions 

must be consistent with the trust responsibility. The BIA has gen- erally supported the Commission's self-regulatory efforts. 

But certain other agencies do not always deal with the Commission in the manner of a trustee. The result has been an uneven and 

inconsistent relationship between the tribes and the various federal 

agencies whose actions affect natural resources. 

We would suggest that federal legislation should clarify that the 

federal trust responsibility applies across the board to all federal 

agencies in their dealings with tribal natural resource issues. 

The legislation should also mandate that the government-to-government relationship be institutionalized by these agencies through 

the establishment of Indian desks and other means. Too often, Indian desks are desks with just three legs. And we need to go beyond that. 

Fourth, while the Commission is proud of its natural resource 

management program and of its many accomplishments, there remain significant unmet needs. Additional member tribes of the 

Commission, particularly those in Michigan and Minnesota, are 
48 

now properly asserting and exercising their off-reservation treaty rights. 

The Commission must be able to provide the same level of natural resource management services to all of its member tribes. 

Right now, the Commission has sufficient funding to meet only one-third of the needs of its member tribes. 

In addition, environmental protection is becoming increasingly important. Stresses on tribal natural resources come from many 

areas, including environmental degradation. The Commission's member tribes require the means to assess the 

environmental impacts of pollution discharges into the air and 

water of the ceded territories, and to participate as equal partners in the development of state, federal, and international environmental protection regulatory initiatives. 

Tribal and inter-tribal natural resources self-regulation meant to 

perpetuate and enhance natural resources is not very useful if pol- lution destroys the very resources upon which the rights depend. 

Faced with these needs, tribes at the same time have faced 

threats to the continuation of funding for tribal natural resource 

programs. 

For example, in its FY '93 budfet proposal, the Administration 

proposed reducing the Commission s appropriation by about 39 percent. Such budget fights hurt tribal efforts to carry out a comprehensive natural resources management :program. Legislation supporting tribal self-regulation of natural resources 

would greatly enhance the position of tribes and tribal organiza- tions seeking to assure the funding needed to move forward in the 

area of natural resources management. Fifth, despite its best efforts, the Commission is not always able 

to find Indian candidates for its job openings. This is particularly 

true in the case of biologists. But a more comprehensive program, including federal scholarships and loans, is needed to help tribal 

members into the educational programs involving resource management. Finally and in conclusion, we appreciate the Committee's sensitivity to tribal needs regarding plant, wildlife, and fish enhancement. 

This is an area in which tribes and tribal organizations are exercising their self-governing authority to protect activities of longstanding and continuing importance to Indian people. We look forward to working with the Committee to help shape 

legislation to protect tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights and the tribal management and enhancement of those rights. 

Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Schlender follows:) 
49 

GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH i. WILDLIFE COMMISSION 

P. 0 . Box 9 , Odanah. WI 54861 , 715/6&2·6619 , FAX 715/6&2-9294 

MICHIGAN 

lly MJ11s Community 

ltwttnaw ll)'Communlty 

uc Vlewl llaffl lond 

• MEMIIEll TIDIES • 

WISCONSIN 

ladRIYttlland 

Lac Coune ~ land uc du Fl,mbau land 

lod CW!lilnd St. Croll< CJ,Jppew, 

~Chlppewa 

MINNESOTA 

Bois Forte land 

Fon<lduuclland 

Gmidl'orutlelland 

MillelA<slilnd 

TFSl'IMONY OF JAMF.S K SCHLENDER, 

BXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR 

of 

THB GREAT LAKFS INDIAN FISH & WllDLIFE COMMISSION 

Before the 

HoUIC Committee on Natural Resoun:ca 

Subc:ommitt.cc on Native American Affairs 

Febnwy 18, 1993 
50 

Testimony of 111111111 H. Schlender, Euc:ative .Adminiltrator 

of the <mat I..am Indian Fllh and Wildlife Cornrniakm 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is James H. Schlender and 

I am the Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 

(GUFWC). On behalf of GUFWC's thirteen member tnbes, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today regarding Indian fish and wildlife management 

and enhancement issues. 

The purpose of my testimony today is twofold: 1) to provide the Committee with 

information on the comprehensive natural resource management programs that GUFWC 

undertakes on behalf of its member tnbes; and 2) to suggest some of the ways federal 

legislation could help to preserve and strengthen these kinds of natural resource programs. 

I. GUFWC'S MEMBERSHIP AND PURPOSE 

GUFWC is comprised of 13 federally recognized tnbes in Wisconsin, Minnesota and 

Michigan (a list of our member tnbes is attached as Appendix A to this testimony). Each 

of our member tnbes entered one or more treaties with the United States, under which the 

tribes reserved off-reservation hunting, fishing and gathering rights in lands ceded to the 

United States. These treaty rights have been recogni7.Cd by the courts, including in the 

multifaceted Lac Courte OrejUes litigation ("LCQ" case), which is sometimes known as the 

Yw&tcase. 

GUFWC was established by the tribes to protect and regulate the use of their offreservation natural resources. Its purpose is to conserve and manage the fish, wildlife and 

other resources subject to tribal off-reservation treaty rights, to facilitate the development 

of institutions of tnbal self-regulation and management of natural resources, and to protect 

the habitats and ecosystems that support those resources from environmental degradation. 

The GUFWC member tribes have delegated to GUFWC a portion of their sovereign 

authority involving the regulation and management of treaty-reserved, off-reservation 

hunting, fishing and gathering rights. In carrying out this delegation of tribal authority, 

GUFWC formulates and undertakes a comprehensive natural resource management 

program. This program is designed to ensure that these off-reservation rights are protected 

and preserved for the benefit of present and future tribal members. 

GUFWC is an intenribal organization which, in our view, provides to its member 

tribes a high level of biological, management and other expertise. While it is often suggested 

in other contexts that tribes are reluctant to work together, GUFWC is proud to serve as 

an organization of tribes, working together in a coordinated manner for the common goal 

of protecting their off-reservation treaty rights. 
51 

As discussed in more detail below, GUFWC's major activities include providing 

biological asscssments of various species, monitoring the taking of fish, wildlife and plants, 

developing natural resource management plans and conservation codes, providing 

conservation officers to implement tn'bal law with respect to off reservation areas, preparing 

and presenting information to educate the public about the facts concerning off reservation 

treaty rights, assisting tn'bal couns in addressing violations of tnbal game and fish 

management ordinances, working with state, federal and foreign governments on issues of 

mutual concern, and providing educational opportunities for tn'bal members in the natural 

resources area. All these activities arc necessary to the protection of the fish, wildlife and 

gathering resources which continue to be central to the cultural, religious and economic lives 

of the tribal members we serve. 

II. GUFWC'S OFF-RESERVATION NATIJRAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM 

BjoJqigcal Assessments and Resqurce MqnjtQriQi- GUFWC conducts a variety of fish 

and wildlife assessments, monitors tnbal fishing. assists in tn'bal permitting, and provides 

other management assistance. For example, GUFWC performs the following: . 

GUl'WCT-aa)' 

Febt1wy IS. 1993 

, ... 2 

• Sample, monitor and prepare an annual report on tnbal commercial 

fish harvests in off-reservation areas of the 1842 ceded territory in 

Michigan. 

• Provide technical assistance to member tnbes regarding the 

management of the intertn'bal fishery of Lake Superior. 

• Monitor catch of tribal fishers from inland waters in the Wisconsin and 

Michigan ceded territories, and assist tnbe in managing harvest through 

permit systems or other means. This includes complete on-site 

monitoring of all open water spearing and netting. 

• Provide technical assistance and advice to member tribes regarding 

inland fishery resources, including assistance in negotiation and 

litigation, and inter-agency cooperative management projects. 

• Conduct fish population assessments and surveys of areas that have 

been or arc likely to be fished under treaty rights. These include fall 

electrofishing surveys during late summer and fall and mark-recapture 

population estimates. 

• Assist member tribes in managing wildlife and wild rice harvests in the 

ceded territories. 
52 

• Supervise tribal permit and registration stations for deer, bear, fisher, 

otter and bobcaL 

• Conduct studies of wildlife populations to provide information needed 

to manage tnbal harvesL 

Fjsh and WjJd)jfe Enforcement GUFWC also provides the staff and expertise to 

enforce tribal law with respect to the use of off-reservation natural resources. This includes: 

• As. authori7.ed by member tribes, be responsible for patrol, protection 

and investigative services in the areas of Michigllll, Minnesota and 

Wisconsin ceded by the 1836, 1837, 1842 and 1854 Treaties, including 

Lake Superior. 

• Maintain scheduled conservation enforcement tours of duty providing 

response capability, regular patrols and prevention services seven days 

a week. 

• Serve conservation related warrants, summonses and complaints as 

directed by tnbal courts. 

• Implement prevention, safety and education programs to prevent 

violations and accidents. 

All GUFWC wardens are fully-certified conservation officers who must complete 

basic police recruit or equivalent training within one year of being hired Each year, 

GUFWC wardens must attend forty hours of additional in-service training. To meet this 

requirement, GUFWC wardens have attended crowd control training, hazardous materials 

training, hunting and firearm safety training, accident investigation training, and boating 

safety water rescue training, among others. 

Public Informatjon and Educatjon Actjvjties. GUFWC engages in public information 

and education activities to increase public knowledge and understanding of tribal offreservation resource management activities, and of tnbal sovereignty and tradition. One of 

the primary goals of these activities is to raise public awareness and diminish conflict over 

off-reservation treaty rights. 

Specific public information education activities include: 

• Presentations by biologists and attorneys/policy analysts at schools, civic 

organizations, various public forums and professional conferences. 
53 

• Publication and dissemination of informational and educational 

materials, including newspaper, reports on .tnbal off-reservation 

harvests, booklets descnbing tn'bes and their treaty rights, and articles 

on GUFWC's resource management activities. 

• Production of informational and educational videos for use at 

presentations and for broadcasts such as television public service 

announcements. 

• Training sessions on tn'bes and tribal traditions and cultural for state 

departments of natural resource staff. 

• Information displays at fairs, including the Minnesota and Wisconsin 

state fairs, trade and sport shows, tn'bal pow-wows, and educational 

and professional conferences. 

Judicial Seryjccs. GUFWC assists member tn'bes in providing judicial services with 

regard to cases involving persons accused of violating applicable member tn'be offreservation ordinances for areas of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota ceded by the 1836, 

1837, 1842 and 1854 Treaties. 

III. GUFWC'S CO-MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIE.s 

Because the natural resources subject to tribal off-reservation treaty rights are in 

certain instances subject to the overlapping interests of many g011Cmments, GUFWC 

undertakes a wide range of co-management resource management activities with state, 

federal and foreign governments. Some of these activities are the direct result of litigation 

and court orders, while others are pursued as part of the general g011Cmment-to-g011Cmment 

relationship between tn'bes and other governments. 

For example, court orders in the ~ case provide for tnbal participation in any 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) committee involving the natural 

resources within the portions of the 1837 and 1842 Treaty ceded territories located in 

Wisconsin. These orders generally require the WDNR to recogniu tnbal representatives 

as official members of species advisory committees and any other committees created to 

manage or impacting the species involved and their habitat. They also generally require all 

reasonable efforts to reach consensus in the committees. GUFWC's member tribes have 

designated GUFWC biologists to serve as tribal representatives on these committees. 

Beyond the particular context of the ~ case, GUFWC represents its member 

tribes in the following bodies or committees: 

GUFWC Taaimooy 

F.-,y 18, 1993 

..... 
54 

• Great Lakes fisheey Commjssjon's (GLFC,) Committee of the WhoJe, 

Q.perations Subcommittee, Lake Superior TechnjcaJ Commjttee, Lake 

Superior Committee. Law Enforcement Committee, and Ruffe Task ~ - GLFC was established by the Convention on Great Lakes 

Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified in 

1955. ~ 16 USC§ 931, ct~- GLFC coordinates programs of 

research in the Great Lakes and makes recommendations which will 

permit the maximum sustained productivity of fish stocks. It also 

carries out sea lamprey control programs. The various GLFC 

committees on which GUFWC sits are comprised of governmental 

representatives from the Canadian and provincial governments and 

from the United States federal, state and tnbal governments. Their 

purpose is to advise GLFC's Canadian and United States 

Commissioners on technical and policy matters. 

• Technical Committees of the United States fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Mjssjssili!Pi Flyway Council - The Technical Committees, 

comprised of federal, state and tnbal biologists, advise the Flyway 

Council on the status of waterfowl populations and their habitat The 

Flyway Council, comprised of representames of state natural resource 

management agencies, makes recommendations to USFWS on 

migratory bird hunting season frameworks. 

• Great Lakes Panel of the USFWS Aquatic Nujsancc Species Task ~ - The Task Force, created by the Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, P.L. 101-646, 104 Stat 

4761, consists of representatives of federal, state and tnbal resource 

management agencies. Its purpose is to assist governments in 

preventing and controlling nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, 

including the z.ebra mussel and ruffe in the Great Lakes. 

GUFWC has also undertaken a number of specific co-management projects. These 

include: 

• Environmental Health Laboratoey Lake Superior Research Institute, 

Univeaity of Wisconsin-Superior - In 1990, GUFWC and UWSuperior entered into a cooperative agreement for the establishment 

of an Environmental Health Laboratory. This laboratory has 

undertaken a number of studies regarding the health effects of 

contaminated fish on Indian people. 

• Ceded Ierritozy Cooperative Wetlands Enhancement Project - Funded 

by GUFWC and in cooperation with Wisconsin Department of Natural 
55 

Resources (WDNR) and United States Forest Service resource 

managers, this project was designed to create, restore and enhance 

wetlands at various sites in Northern Wisconsin to increase habitats for 

breeding and migrating waterfowl 

• Fish Population Assessment Actjyjtjes - GUFWC works with the 

WDNR, the Michigan DNR, USFWS and member tnbes in its ongoing 

fish population assessment programs in Lake Superior and in inland 

lakes of the ceded territory. 

A joint fishery assessment of the Wisconsin ceded territory -

undertaken by USFWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, WDNR, GUFWC, 

and the six Wisconsin Chippewa Tnbes - led to publication of a report 

- Castin1 Uibt 1⁄4>AD the Waters; A Jojnt Fjshecy Asseisment of the 

Wjsconsjn c.eded Territocy (United States Department of the Interior, 

1991). This publication contained a series of recommendations on 

management of these resources. 

• - Sea Lampmy Control Prqiects - GUFWC works with GLFC, USFWS 

and state governments in lamprey control projects in and around Lake 

Superior. 

• Cocu,eratjye yw Enforcement Actjyjtjes - Cooperative law 

enforcement is an important aspect of GUFWC's co-management 

activities. To ensure effective enforcement of tnbal conservation laws, 

member tribes generally authom.e state conservation wardens to 

enforce tnbaJ off-reservation conservation codes, citing violators into 

tnbal court. Similarly, to ensure effective enforcement of state 

conservation laws, the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of 

Natural Resources authom.e tnbal and GUFWC wardens to enforce 

state law against non-Indians. 

IV. GUFWC'S EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIBAL MEMBERS 

GUFWC and its member tribes are committed to the education and training of tnbaJ 

members for the purposes of career opportunities in the natural resource management field 

Each year, GUFWC enters into student internship agreements with various schools and 

universities. One of the goals of the internships is to provide field experience to students 

of biology and natural resource management. Another goal is to train students so that they 

can engage in public information/education activities for their respective tnbes. 

OUFWC Tallmooy 

Fdlna,yl8, 1993 ,.,., 
56 

V. THE NEED FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION 

Ju the above discussion reflects, GUFWC's activities bring together some of the 

central themes of federal Indian policy • the preservation of historically and culturally 

significant activities of Indian people, the fulfillment of federal promises made to the tnbcs 

by treaty, the protection of significant Indian economic activity, the enhancement of sclfg011Cmment by tnbcs, the encouragement of tnbcs working on a g011Cmment to g011Cmment 

basis with states and the United States, and the promotion of educational opportunities for 

Indian people. Despite the significance of these themes in the natural resources area, there 

is no 011Crall federal statutory mandate for the protection of tnbal natural resources. This 

means that, for the most part, the protection and management of tnbal fish and wildlife 

resources depends on the initiative of tnbcs and tnbal organizations, and the vagaries of the 

federal appropriations process. Tnbal efforts to regulate their fish, wildlife and gathering 

rights must be supported and strengthened through federal legislation. From GUFWC's 

experience, we would suggest that such legislation should address the following topics, among 

others: 

1. Express federal recognition of tnbal natural resource management authority. 

A point often not understood by the public is that tnbal use of natural resources is 

only part of the 011Crall framework of tnbal involvement with those natural resources. Tnbcs 

also have the sovereign authority to regulate tnbal members in the exercise of their treaty 

rights, as well as the authority to manage the natural resources subject to tnbal member 

harvest. Federal law should clearly acknowledge the primacy of tnbal self-regulation of 

treaty protected natural resources, both on and off the reservation. 

The tnbal right to self regulation has been longstanding. For example, the Chippewa 

wild rice Chief had a traditional role of determining when the wild rice is ready for harvest 

and where tribal members may harvest it. The wild rice Chiefs role has been preserved and 

is part of modem-day tnbal off-reservation conservation codes. In essence, tnbcs have 

always been self-regulating in the context of natural resources. But today their ability to 

preserve this role depends to a considerable degree on the willingness of the United States 

to recognize and seek to further tribal efforts in this area. 

2. Full tribal participation in decisions affecting tribal natural resources. 

The federal responsibility must go beyond the recognition of the tnbal right to self 

regulate with respect to natural resources. The United States must in addition provide tribes 

with the opportunity to participate fully with other governments on matters which have a 

substantial impact on tribal natural resources. The United States must assure the Tnbcs of 

full representation and voting status on a government-to-government basis on any board or 

agency which is involved in decisions which affect tribal rights to natural resources. 

OUFWC T ... imooy 

Fcbru,y IS. 1993 

Pa,c7 
57 

GUFWCs co-management activities illustrate the types of bodies and committees in 

which tnl>cs must participate as full panncrs. These include processes under international 

agreements such as the Convention on Great lakes Fisheries Between Canada and the 

United States, B£ 16 USC § 93, '1 &lh federal legislative initiatives addressing issues of 

common concern, such as the Aquatic Nuisances Species Control Act, P.L 101-646, 104 StaL 

4761, as well as agencies of the federal g~mment, such as United States Forest Service 

in its management of national forests, the Environmental Protection Agency in its 

implementation of the Ocan Water Act and Ocan Air Act, and the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service in its implementation of the Great lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration AcL 

3. Recognition of trust responsibility by all federal agencies. 

When tnl>cs entered ucatics reserving their hunting, fishing and gathering rights, 

those treaties were with the United States, not with a single agency. The federal trust 

responsibility arising out of those treaties applies to Ill federal dealings with the tnl>cs, and 

is not limited to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Yet, in dealing with issues affecting tnbal 

treaty rights, the federal agencies differ markedly from one another. 

GUFWC's experience has been that - in addressing tnbal natural resource issues -

the BIA has typically recognized that its actions must comport with the trust responsibility, 

and has supported GUFWCs self-regulatory efforts. But certain other agencies have, in 

some respects, not dealt with GUFWC in the manner of a trustee. The result has been an 

uneven and inconsistent relationship between the tribes and the various federal agencies 

whose actions affect natural resources. 

We would suggest that federal legislation should clarify that the federal trust 

responsibility applies across the board to all federal agencies in their dealings with tnbal 

natural resource issues. The legislation should also mandate that the govcmmcnt-togovemment relationship be institutionalized by these agencies, through establishing Indian 

desks and other means. 

4. Adequate and stable funding to support tnbal self-regulation. 

As GUFWC's natural resource management program illustrates, the tnbal right to 

self-regulation requires certain clements of infrastructure if it is to be effectively exercised 

These elements - many of which arc mandated by court order - include a natural resource 

management program involving conservation codes, biologists, conservation law enforcement 

officers, tribal courts and judges, natural resource enhancement activities, public information 

and education activities, and co-management activities with other governments. 

GUFWC is proud of its natural resource management program and of its many 

accomplishments. In panicular, GUFWC's role in the LCQ case and the resulting 

management system in Wisconsin is notewonhy. But there remain significant unmet needs. 

OUFWC Taaimoay 

Fe"""'ry 18. 19'3 

Paa< 8 
58 

Additional member tribes of GUFWC - panicularly those in Michigan and Minnesota -

are now properly assening and exercising their off-reservation treaty rights. GUFWC must 

be able to provide the same level of natural resource management services to all its member 

tnbes. Right now, GUFWC has sufficient funding to meet only one-third of the needs of 

its member tnbes. 

Moreover, · for all the tnbes involved with natural resource management, 

environmental protection is becoming increasingly imponant. Historically, GUFWCs efforts 

have been fOCU$Cd on the affirmation of the existence of treaty rights and, once affirmed, 

on the implementation of those rights. However, management of tnbal member harvest is 

only part of the job. Stresses on tnbal natural resources come from many areas, most 

notably from environmental degradation. GUFWCs member tnbes require the resources 

and technical expertise to enable them to assess the environmental impacts of pollution 

discharges into the air and water of the ceded territories; to analy7.e and participate in 

permitting processes for new industrial development, such as paper mills, copper smelters 

and mining activities; and to participate as equal partners in the development of state, 

federal and international environmental protection regulatory initiatives. Tnbal and 

intennbal natural resources self-regulation is of limited utility if pollution destroys the 

resources. 

Faced with these challenges, tribes have simultaneously encountered ongoing threats 

to the continuation of funding for tribal natural resource programs. For example, in its FY 

93 budget proposal, the Administration proposed reducing GLIFWCs appropriation by 

approximately 39%. A similar proposal was made in FY 92. Congress routinely has rejected 

the Administration's proposed cutbacks. Ultimately, in the FY 93 Appropriations 

Conference Committee Report specifically directed: 

Unless specifically indicated otherwise, add-ons in the resources 

management program ( or recurring programs) are to be added 

to the base of the tnbe or tribal organization, and to be 

included in future budget requests, beginning in fiscal year 1994. 

These budget fights - which are typical of those faced by tribes in the natural 

resources area - impede GUFWC's efforts to carry out a comprehensive natural resources 

management program. Substantive legislation supporting tnbal self-regulation of natural 

resources would greatly enhance the position of tnbes seeking to assure the funding needed 

to move forward in the area of natural resources management. 

5. Tribal member career opponunities in natural resource management programs 

must be enhanced. 

Despite its best efforts, GUFWC is not always able to find Indian candidates for its 

job openings. This is particularly true in the case of biologists. As GUFWC's experience 

OUP'WC Te.a.imoay 

Fc-,ylS.1993 

,. .. , 
59 

with its student internship program illustrates, opponimities are available to Indian students 

interested in natural resource management careers. But a more comprehensive program -

including federal scholarships and loans - is needed to encourage interest by 1111d 

recruitment of tn'bal members into the educational programs associated with resource 

managemenL 

CONCLUSION 

We apJll'Cciate the C.ommittee's sensitivity to tribal needs regarding plant, wildlife and 

fish enhancemenL This area - in which tnbes and tn'bal organizations are exercising their 

self-governing authority to protect activities of longstanding and continuing imponance to 

Indian people - has been underserved by federal law. We look forward to working with the 

C.ommittec to help shape legislation to protect tn'bal hunting. fishing and gathering rights, 

and the tnbal management and enhancement of those rights. 

Thank you. 

GUFWCTalimooy 

Febru,y 11, 1993 

r.,.10 
60 

GI.JFWC'S MEMBER TRIBFS 

Wisconsin 

Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tnoe of Chippewa Indians 

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

Lac Coune Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

St Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

Sokaogon Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band 

Red Oiff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

Minnesota 

Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians 

Grand Portage Chippewa Tribe 

Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians 

Bois Forte Chippewa Tribe 

Michj~an 

Bay Mills Indian Community 

Keweena Bay Indian Community 

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

Appendix A 
61 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Schlender. 

Mr. Poynter. 

STATEMENT OF KEN POYNTER 

Mr. POYNTER. Good morning. 

My name is Ken Poynter, and I'm an enrolled member of the 

Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, and Executive Director of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society. The Society is a national tribal organization established to support the development of Indian tribal fish and wildlife management 

capabilities within a professional framework, and to promote information about Indian rights regarding their use of natural resources. 

The Society has evolved over the past 11 years into an organiza- tion of 1,000 professional biologists, managers and technicians, representing all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife management and 

conservation enforcement. 

The Society has obtained formal memberships from 70 tribal governments and 8 tribal organizational memberships. Our board of directors is comprised of 14 Native American people 

who represent all geographic regions of the United States. 

The federally recognized Indian tribes within the United States 

have jurisdiction over a reservation land base of over 52 million 

acres, or 81,250 square miles. 

Tribes also exercise jurisdictional authority over natural resources outside of reservations due to federal court decisions and 

voluntary cooperative agreements that mandate a co-management 

status between tribes and states in the Northwest and Great Lakes 

areas. 

Tribal lands coupled with the Ceded and Usual and Accustomed 

areas (over 38 million acres for which tribes maintain co-management jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management and utilization) total a natural resource base of over 140,625 square miles, 

containing more than a million acres of lakes and impoundments, and thousands of miles of streams and rivers. 

Combined reservation lands would constitute the fifth largest 

state in the United States. Adding the off-reservation areas would 

constitute a land mass comparable to the State of Montana. 

The State of Alaska alone has 45 million acres of land which supports native subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. The management of this subsistence resource, the source of life for the indigenous people of Alaska, is in complete disarray, with these peo- ple precluded in the management of the very resources which sustain them. 

It is essential that the magnitude of the resource base under 

tribal jurisdiction be fully understood in order to underscore the necessity for support of tribal resource management activities. 

Tribal land bases now contribute significantly toward meeting 

the demand for fisheries and wildlife recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, fisheries and wildlife funding options open to 

tribes have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for 

management, authority, or the demand for recreational opportuni- ties by the tribal and non-tribal user. 
62 

Tribes are now being recognized as prominent fisheries and wildlife management entities and are expecting full participation as 

partners in national fisheries and wildlife initiatives. 

Tribes must be accorded full :participation in these initiatives by 

virtue of the extent of reservation land bases, but also, and more 

important, because tribes are sovereign governments and must be 

dealt with as such. Sovereignty is a very important as~ect of tribal 

governmental operations and must not be ignored.or mmimized. 

Indian tribes have been reasse~g their treaty rights concerning the management of fish and wildlife resources. As the demand 

for fisheries and wildlife recreation in this country has increased, 

pressure has increased on the fisheries and wildlife resources on 

Indian reservations and other areas where tribes have jurisdiction 

and/or co-management authority. 

Tribes across the country now contribute significantly toward 

meeting_ the demand for fisheries and wildlife recreational opportu- nities. Unfortunately, recreational fisheries and wildlife funding options open to tribes have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for management, authority, or the demand for recreational opportunities by the tribal and non-tribal user. 

Over the years, the Society has requested proposals from tribes 

for fish and wildlife programs. I have brought along, as a visual 

aid, a number of P,roposals the Society has collected in the last 

three years of specific programs that have not been funded, and to 

demonstrate the need for increased funding for fish and wildlife 

management. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Poynter, did you mean to provide that 

as part of your testimony? 

Mr. POYNTER. I did submit it with my 75 copies. You have it for 

the record. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. POYNTER. As an example of the disparity in staffing levels, 

currently, the U.S. Forest Service manages 190 million acres of 

land for multiple use. They employ 1,320 fisheries and wildlife biologists and ecologists. 

In contrast, the combined tribal and BIA staffs equal about 300 

for over 95 million acres, most of whom are employed in positions of multiple duties, such as biologists/administrators. 

The Society feels that we're echoing some of the concerns here 

this morning of tribes, specifically the Navajo, that tribes need to 

particif.ate fully in the various federal aid programs. Specifically, 

Dingel -Johnson and Pittman-Robertson and WalloJ>-Breaux. 

We are also advocating the development of a Native American 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act, that would create an additional funding source for fish and wildlife enhancement in Indian 

countl')'. 

I will not read further from my testimony, since you have that. 

But I would just like to conclude by saying that, in the future, 

I would urge better coordination of these hearings, due to the limited funding that tribes have to operate with. It gets very expensive 

for them to send people here to Washington to participate in these 

im_portant forums. 

For example, next week, many different Indian organizations and 

tribes will be in town for various meetings. It would be to every-
63 

one's benefit if hearings of this type were scheduled during those 

weeks that tribes plan to be in Washington in order to increase 

tribal participation and to help reduce travel costs to them. 

Since this meeting was first announced, my office has been 

bombarded with calls from many tribes across the country, inquiring about the intent of this particular hearing, and their interest 

in participating. 

I would like to kindly suggest that due to the importance of natural resource program funding to tribes, that the Committee con- sider conductmg regional meetings to get full participation from as 

many different tribes as possible, and to better understand the different concerns specific to those regions. 

Thank you for your attention and interest. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Documents submitted by Mr. Poynter for the 

record m~y be found in their entirety in the hearing files.] 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Poynter with selected exhibits follows:] 
64 

NA. TIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILOLIFE SOCIETY 

750 Burbank Strut • 8roomflcld, Colorado 80020 

l>tloM: (303) 166-1725 • f AX: (303) 166-5111 

- Comments on Indian Fish and Wildlife Management and 

Enhancement to the U. S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Native American Affairs by: 

Ken Poynter, Executive Director, Native American Fish & Wildlife 

Society 

Good Morning, My name is Ken Poynter. I am an enrolled 

member of the Passamaquoddy 'Ilibe of Maine and Acting Executive 

Director of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society (Society). 

The Society is a national tnbal organization established to support 

the development of Indian tribal government fish and wildlife 

management capabilities within a professional framework, and to 

promote information about Indian rights regarding their use of 

natural resources. The Society has evolved over the past 11 years 

into an organization of 1,000 professional biologists, managers and 

technicians, representing all aspects of tribal fish and wildlife 

management and conservation enforcement. The Society has 

obtained formal memberships from 70 'Ilibal Governments and eight 

tribal organizational memberships including the 1854 Authority, 

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission, Columbia River Inter-'Ilibal Fish Commission, 

the Six Nations Council of Canada, the United South and Eastern 

Tribes, the Ojibway 1850 Treaty Council, and the Chippewa-Ottawa 

Treaty Fishery Management Authority, as well as the National 

Center for American Indian Enterprise Development and various 

State and University Fish and Wildlife Departments. Our 

Directorate is comprised of 14 Native American people, who 

represent all geographic regions of the Unites States. 

The Society is appreciative of the recognition by Congress of 

our efforts in promoting the professional development of tribal fish 

and wildlife management by taking up the concept of the Native 

American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act. The Society initiated 

this effort over two years ago as a means to highlight the glaring 

discrepancies in the support of the U.S. government for tribal fish 

and wildlife resource management. We sincerely hope that the 

result of this effort will be legislation which provides the tools 

needed by tribes for self-directed fish and wildlife management for 

the benefit of Indian people and their resources. 
65 

The federally-recognized Indian tribes within the United 

States have jurisdiction over a reservation land base of over 52 

million acres, or 81,250 square miles. Tribes also exercise 

jurisdictional authority over natural resources outside of 

reservations due to federal court decisions . and voluntary 

cooperative agreements that mandate a co-management status 

between tribes and states in the Northwest and Great Lakes areas. Tribal lands, coupled with the Ceded and Usual and Accustomed areas (over 38 million acres for which tribes maintain co- management jurisdiction for fisheries and wildlife management and 

utilization), total a natural resource base of over 140,625 square 

miles, containing more than a million acres of lakes and 

impoundments (gxclusiye of the 21,5%,800 surface acres of the Great 

Lakes Ceded Area) and thousands of miles of streams and rivers. 

Combined reservation lands would constitute the fifth largest state 

in the United States. Adding the off-reservation areas would 

constitute a land mass comparable to the State of Montana. The 

State of Alaska alone has 45,000,000 acres of land which supports 

native subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering. The management 

of this subsistence resource • the source of life for the indigenous 

people of Alaska - is in complete disarray, with these people 

precluded in the management of the very resources which sustain 

them. 

It is essential that the magnitude of the resource base under 

tribal jurisdiction be fully understood in order to underscore the 

necessity for support of tribal resource management activities. 

At least 9 officially recognized endangered avian species, 7 

threatened or endangered mammalian species, 11 threatened or endangered fish species, 12 threatened or endangered plant species, 

and 1 threatened reptile species occurs on reservation lands. Tribal 

fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon, steelhead trout, walleye 

and other species which support large and diverse fisheries. 

Wetlands occurring on reservations throughout the country support 

considerable waterfowl production and offer great enhancement 

opportunity. Tribal wildlife programs manage and enhance 

extensive wildlife habitat for innumerable animal and plant species. 

Tribes across the country have begun the process of involvement in 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and have 

developed regulations for 'Ilibal members and non-Indians for 

harvest of waterfowl. 'Ilibal land bases now contribute 

significantly toward meeting the demand for fisheries and · wildlife 

recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, fisheries and wildlife 

2 
66 

funding options open to Tribes have not kept pace with the 

expanding responsibilities for management, authority, or the demand 

for recreational opportunities by the tribal and non-tribal user. Tribes are now being recognized as prominent fisheries and wildlife 

management entities and are expecting full participation as partners 

in national fisheries and wildlife initiatives. 

Tribes must be accorded full participation in these initiatives by 

virtue of the extent of reservation land bases but also, and more 

importantly, because tribes are sovereign governments, and must be 

dealt with as such. Sovereignty is a very important aspect of tribal 

governmental operations, and must not be ignored or minimized. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Natural Resource Inventory 

System (NRIS) report, representing the only information available at 

this time, states that over 15 million user-days of pID21k use were recorded on Tribal lands in 1986. Seventy-two 'fribes were 

managing public fishing programs. The Confederated Salish & 

Kootenai Tribes, Montana; Fort Apache, Arizona; Leech Lake 

Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Pyramid Lake, Nevada; and Lower 

Colorado River, Arizona, each provided more than 250,000 days of 

public recreational use, most associated with fishing. The Eastern 

Band of Cherokees of North Carolina, alone, has provided over 430,310 of angler use days from 1987-1991. Sixty-one tribes 

managed public hunting programs, and at least 40 'fribes managed 

trapping programs on reservations which were open to non-Indian 

participation. Also 88 'fribes opened parts of their Reservations to 

public camping in developed, primitive, or wilderness camping areas. Indian reservations contribute significantly toward meeting the 

national demand for fishing and hunting opportunities. 

Indian tribes have been re-asserting their treaty-rights 

concerning the management of fish and wildlife resources. As the 

demand for fisheries and wildlife recreation in this country has 

increased, pressure has increased on the fisheries and wildlife resources on Indian reservations and other areas where tribes have 

jurisdiction and/ or co-management authority. 'fribes across the 

country now contribute significantly toward meeting the demand 

for fisheries and wildlife recreational opportunities. Unfortunately, 

recreational fisheries and wildlife funding options open to tribes 

have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities for 

management, authority, or the demand for recreational opportunities 

by the tribal and non-tribal user. As an example of the disparity in staffing levels, the U.S. Forest 

Service manages 190 million acres of lands for multiple use. They 

3 
67 

employ 1,320 fisheries and wildlife biologists and ecologists. In 

contrast, the combined tribal and BIA staffs equal about 300 for over 

100 million acres, most of whom are employed in positions of 

multiple duties, such as biologist/ administrator. 

The Society developed, in 1991, a needs statement and conceptual 

framework for legislation to assist tribal fisheries and wildlife 

management efforts, titled the "Native American Fish and Wildlife 

Enhancement Act". This was developed in response to the stated 

needs and desires of tribes for assistance and support. I submit this 

concept paper and draft bill to the Sub-committee as an expression 

of what is truly needed in supportive legislation. 

Federal Aids Programs 

The Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs 

are funding avenues used by the states and territories for fisheries 

and wildlife enhancement. These programs (Dingell-Johnson, 

Pittman-Robertson, and Wallop-Breaux) are Acts of Congress that 

tax fishing and hunting gear and motor boat fuel to support the 

recreational fisheries and wildlife enhancement programs of all the 

states and territories of the United States of America. These 

funding programs were instituted to provide a stable on-going 

funding base for fisheries and wildlife enhancement projects 

throughout the country. Presently, States and territories are 

sharing in the approximately $400 million per year derived from this 

program for the enhancement of their fish and wildlife resources. 

For example, in 1990 the State of Montana received $3 million for 

wildlife, $4.2 million for sport fish restoration, and over $200,000 for 

hunter education. The Montana Indian reservations, which 

constitute 5 percent of the state, received none of this money. 

At present, Tribes are precluded from participation in these 

programs for several reasons, among them specific provisions of the 

Acts. The first is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 

part 80 (the regulatory foundation for implementing the Acts) in § 

80.20 which states, in part " The State must control lands or waters on which capital improvements are made with Federal Aid funds." 

This provision would require Tribes to give up jurisdiction for 

projects to be funded on reservations. Another issue precluding 

tribal participation is that of civil liability. States and tribes both are 

unwilling to assume liability on projects over which they may not 

have complete control. Under the present regulations, tribes are theoretically able to request funding through the state(s) in which 

the tribe is located. In reality in many cases, though, tribes and 

4 
68 

associated states do not share priorities and strategies in their fish 

and wildlife management present, and to apply for these funds, the 

tribe would have submit projects for the approval of the state. Tribes are highly sensitive to issues of sovereignty, and will not 

abrogate their own treaty rights in order to participate in these 

programs. 

To correct this situation, tribes must be legislatively included as full participants in the Federal Aids programs. 

Endangered Species 

The Northern Spotted Owl, Florida panther, Black-footed ferret, 

Bald eagle, Mexican Spotted-owl, Colorado sucker, Zuni sucker; and 

over 200 races of pacific salmon are a few examples of species listed 

or considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. These 

species occur on tribal lands, impact tnbal resource management 

activities, and are utilized and managed by tribes. Currently, there 

is no means for formal consultation between tribes and federal 

endangered species managers due to a lack of recognition of tribes as governmental authorities within the Endangered Species Act. 

Also, tribes are prohibited from receiving funding for managing 

endangered species on their lands under the Endangered Species 

Act, for the same reason. 'llibes can contribute greatly to the 

protection and enhancement of endangered species if allowed. This 

legislation should contain provision for tribes to formally participate 

in the Endangered Species Act, if they choose to do so. 

Jurisdiction 

There should be a legislative remedy to the jurisdictional ambiguities 

which plague tribes in their attempts to manage their resources. This should uphold the sovereign integrity of the reservation 

boundary by affirming that tribes have jurisdictional authority over the management of all fisheries and wildlife within the exterior 

boundaries of the reservation. This authority should apply 

regardless of ownership or status of land, including allotted land, 

any land taken by any government agency for any reason, or any 

land set aside in right-of-way. 

Native American Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

There should be established a Native American Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation patterned after the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation to fund tribal fish and wildlife projects. 

5 
69 

Tribes are drastically underfunded for the enormous task of 

managing their fish and wildlife resources. This proposed 

legislation presents an outstanding opportunity for the enhancement 

of natural resources over which tribes have management or co- management jurisdiction. 

6 
70 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILOLIFE SOCIETY 

750 Burbank Strut • Broomfield. Colorado 80020 

Phone: (303) 166-1725 • f >.X: (303) 166-5111 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE S0OETY 

CONCEPT PAPER 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACT 

The Native American Fish & Wildlife Society (NAFWS) has 

evaluated the existing federal Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation acts to 

determine the degree of authorization that tribal governments and 

their programs have under their provisions. We have found that, 

historically, the tribes have been overlooked in the passage of these 

acts and, to this day, have been unable to include tribal provisions to 

support the management of fish, wildlife, and recreation resources that 

are of benefit to both Indian and non-Indian users. 

The Society's original effort to involve tnbes in federal 

legislative provisions occurred through evaluation of the Wildlife & 

Fisheries Enhancement Acts of 1937 and 1950, respectively (commonly 

referred to as the Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson Act). These 

Acts provide funding to states and territories but not to tribes and 

produce funding in excess of $4 hundred million annually. Similarly, the 

latest Wetlands and Conservation Act (Dec. 1989) has very limited 

tribal language and again demonstrates that tribes will not be able to 

compete with the state and private interests. Other legislation such as 

the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT & WILDLIFE COORDINATION 

ACT have no specific provisions for support of tribal fish, wildlife, and 

recreation management efforts.at this time. 

The real issue that confronts the tnbes is not only the lack of 

funding that occurs for these management purposes, but the lack of 

legislative protection that is missing in these acts for tribal sovereign 

jurisdiction. Tribal governments should define their roles in each 

aspect of fish, wildlife, and recreation management, determine their 

funding requirements, establish a means for moving funds to their fish, 

wildlife, and recreation management programs, and secure legislative 

protection to insure that they can maintain their programs forever. 

In this effort, the Society is developing the NATIVE 

AMERICAN FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACI This Act 

is designed to provide the authority for tribes to participate in the 

existing federal fish, wildlife, and recreation acts analogous to the state 
NAFWS Concept Paper 

Page Two 

71 

and US territory governments and will define a source of funding to 

meet tribal needs. The participation in the provisions of this Act 

should be voluntary on the tribal governments' part, but with such 

authorization, it is doubtful that the resource rich tribes would not find 

it to their advantage to become involved. 

The Society has developed a 'Iiibal Technical Involvement Plan 

to demonstrate how tnbes could become involved in FISH AND 

WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT MANAGEMEN"l; even sharing in the 

funding. We are ready to work with tribes to develop similar 

comprehensive plans for natural resource economic development, 

endangered species, wetlands, etc., but feel that this planning process 

must lead to a permanent piece of legislation to protect those tnbal 

interests that are being developed. The Society cannot secure such 

legislation in and of itself because tribal governments retain such 

authority as sovereign nations. We can technically support the process 

as the tribes request. 

We are, therefore, asking tnbal governments to become 

involved in a process of oversight hearings and legislation 

development. The Senate Select Subcommittee on Indian Affairs has 

tentatively agreed to assist in the hearings and in developing the 

Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act. A resolution of 

support of this effort by your organization will assist in beginning this 

process but, eventually, testimony by tnbal leaders will be required to 

pass such legislation. 

PROVISIONS OF THE 

NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT ACT 

The purpose of this Act is to guarantee tnbal governments full 

participation in the management of fisheries, wildlife, and recreational 

resources on 'Iiibal lands and within ceded territories as defined by 

court action under Tnbal treaty rights cases. And to further provide 
NAFWS Concept Paper 

Page Three 

72 

the . funding and the means to fund 'llibal professional management 

programs within the context of existing and future federal fish, wildlife 

and recreation management initiatives, acts and programs to insure a 

government-to-government relationship between 'Iribes and the 

federal government, into perpetuity. 

The following Titles are to be enacted to provide the 

authorization for Tribal Government fish, wildlife and recreation 

management programs to participate in the professional management of 

their Tribal resources. 

Wetlands Protection and Waterfowl Management: This Title will provide for direct involvement of 'llibes in the 

protection and preservation of 'llibal wetlands by their specific 

inclusion in all current or planned federal wetlands or waterfowl 

programs. 

Subsistence and Recreational Fisheries: · This Title will provide for direct involvement by 'llibes in all 

current or planned federal fisheries management programs. The Tribes 

will be authorized to participate on an equal basis in national and 

international anadromous fisheries management, inland sport and 

subsistence fisheries management decision making process and in the 

development of llibal Aquaculture Economic Development 

opportunities. 

Endangered Species: This Title will provide for Tribal professional management of 

endangered species of plants and animals occurring on or around 

Tribal reservation lands, ceded territories and/ or usual and accustomed 

areas of llibal interest by opening the Endangered Species Act to 

Tribal participation. 
NAFWS Concept Paper 

Page Four 

Wildlife Coordination: 

73 

This Title will provide for the consultation and coordination 

of state, federal, and private sector with Tribal Governments in 

management of resources on or near 'Inbal reservations, ceded 

territories, and within usual and accustomed 'Inbal areas by opening 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to 'Inbal participation. This 

provision will form the basis for comprehensive land use planning by 

Tribal Governments and will require that management entities consult 

directly with 'Inbes when their management activities will potentially 

affect 'Inbal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and/or resource management 

plans 

Self-Determination Management of Fish and Wildlife Resources: 

Under provisions of this Title, 1nbes will be authorized to 

select the management mechanisms best suited for their individual fish, 

wildlife and recreation management requirements . . Current use of BIA as the primary agency to deliver funds to Tribal fish, wildlife and 

recreation management programs overlooks P.L. 93-638 Indian SelfDetermination requirements. Alternative avenues for provision of 

assistance to 'Inbes through entities such as the US Fish &Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) would be opened. 

Distribution of Wildlife Parts: 

Provisions under this section will enhance and clarify the 

degree and level of participation by Tribal Governments in the 

procurement of wildlife parts for religious, cultural, and medicinal 

purposes. 

Integrated Resource Management: Through this Title, the 'Iribes will require a formalization of 

integrated resource management planning for the management of Tribal 

natural resources. 
NAFWS Concept Paper 

Page Five 

Indian Education and Training: 

74 

Under provisions of this Title, Tribal Governments will be 

authorized to participate in national education and training programs 

for fish, wildlife, recreation and environmental protection programs 

under the USFWS an~ the US Department of Education. 

Natural Resource Employment: 

Provisions in this Title will authorize 'Ihbes to participate in 

employment generating national programs, specifically to enhance 

resource management development within the tribal government 

structure and for tribal resource benefits. 

Funding of Native American Programs: This Section will authorize the funding necessary to implement 

the management programs of 'Ihbal fish, wildlife and recreation resources. There will be authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 

annually for the maintenance of a permanent professional Tribal fish, 

wildlife and recreation management program from sources outside of 

the current BIA budget. Federal taxations on minerals and outdoor 

recreation equipment could be targeted for such revenue. 
75 

1 NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE 

2 ENHANCEMENT ACT 

3 

4 

5 

6 A BILL 

7 

8 

9 To guarantee Tribal Governments full participation in the 

10 management of fisheries, wildlife, and recreational resources on 11 Tribal lands and within ceded territories as defined by court action 

12 under Tribal treaty rights cases. And to further provide the funding 

13 and the means to fund Tribal professional management programs 

14 within the context of existing and future federal fish, wildlife and 

15 recreation management initiatives, acts and programs to insure a 

16 government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the 

17 federal government, into perpetuity. 18 

19 

20 SHORT TITLE 

21 

22 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Native American 

23 Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1991." 

24 SECTION 2. The following Titles are to be enacted to 

25 provide the authorization for Tubal Government fish, wildlife and 

26 recreation management programs to participate in the professional 

27 management of their Tribal resources. 

28 

29 

1 
76 

1 Tjtle I 

2 Wetlands Protection and Waterfowl Management: This Title will 

3 provide for direct involvement of Tribal professional management 

4 programs in the protection and preservation of Tribal wetlands and 

5 the provision of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989; and 

6 specifically calls for the expansion of the Wetlands Conservation 

7 Council to a ten-member board of which one representative will be 

8 a Tribal delegate appointed by the Secretary of the Interior in 

9 consultation with Tribal Governments. This Title further provides 

10 for direct Tribal professional management involvement in the North 

11 American Waterfowl Management Planning process and 

12 implementation programs for waterfowl management such as the 

13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). 

14 

15 Tjtlell 

16 Subsistence and Recreational Fisheries: This Title will provide for 

17 direct involvement by Tribal professional management personnel in 

18 the planning and implementation of professional programs to 

19 manage 'Iribal Government fisheries interests for Tribal member 

20 subsistence, religious, cultural, commercial and Indian and no-Indian 

21 recreational purposes. The Tribes will be authorized to participate 

22 on an equal basis in the implementation of the National Recreational 

23 Fisheries Policy; will maintain direct involvement in national and 

24 international anadromous fisheries management, inland sport and 

2 
77 

1 subsistence fisheries management decision making process as 

2 represented by the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, et al); to 

3 participate in the development of Tribal Aquaculture Economic 

4 Development opportunities through the national planning process 

5 being initiated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), private 

6 sector and other state and federal agencies; and will be entitled to 

7 participate in current federal programs to enhance the public 

8 awareness of fisheries management requirements and responsible 

9 utilization of fisheries resources for recreational purposes. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Title III 

Endangered Species: This Title will provide for Tribal professional 

management of endangered species of plants and animals occurring 

on or around Tribal reservation lands, ceded territories and/ or 

usual and accustomed areas of Tribal interest. The Tribal 

Governments, under this Title, will be encouraged in the 

development of endangered species inventories, maintenance and 

rehabilitation plans, protective codes and ordinances, and regulatory 

systems to further the interests of national Endangered Species 

legislation. Tribes under this Title will be authorized to participate 

in the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 

1539), Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 663a), Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1371-1383), et al, as an equal partner 

with the USFWS and state governments in management of those 

3 
78 

1 endangered plants and animals of common interest to all parties. 

2 This Act will allow Tribal participation in all federal statutes and 

3 acts pertaining to fish and wildlife management to foster 

4 coordination and cooperation between Tribes and other 

5 management entities. 

6 

7 Title IV 

8 Wildlife Coordination: This Title will provide for the consultation 

9 and coordination of state, federal, and private sector with Tribal 

10 Governments in management of resources on or near Tribal 

11 reservations, ceded territories, and within usual and accustomed 

12 Tribal areas. This provision will form the basis for comprehensive 

13 land use planning by Tribal Governments and professional 

14 management staff and will require that management entities consult 

15 directly with Tribes when their management activities will 

16 potentially affect Tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and/ or resource 

17 management plans. Entities such as the Army Corp of Engineers, 

18 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

19 USFWS, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, 

20 Bureau of Reclamation, etc., will be mandated to consult with Tribal 

21 Governments prior to conducting their activities in the proximity of 

22 Tribal lands and amendment of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

23 Act (16 USC §661) may be considered by this provision. This 

24 provision will mandate full implementation of U.S. National Park 

4 
79 

1 Service and USFWS policy, as well as other agencies, for dealing 

2 with Tribes on a government-to-government basis. By this 

3 provision, Tribes will be able to develop comprehensive land use 

4 plans and zoning codes and ordinances to protect the integrity of 

5 Tribal resources while taking into consideration private, state, and 

6 federal interests within their area of jurisdiction. 

7 

8 Iilltl 

9 Self-Determination Management of Fish and Wildlife Resources: 

10 Under provisions of this Title, Tribes will be authorized to select 

11 the management mechanisms best suited for their individual fish, 

12 wildlife and recreation management requirements. Options for 

13 management are based upon a universal Trust responsibility that all 

14 federal departments and agencies have to Tribal Governments. 

15 Current use of BIA as the primary agency to deliver funds to Tribal 

16 fish, wildlife and recreation management programs overlooks P.L. 

17 93-638 Indian Self-Determination requirements as amended in 1988. 

18 Alternatives to the current system could be through the USFWS 

19 "Indian Fish and Wildlife Assistance Program," the "Federal Fish and 

20 Wildlife Enhancement Aides Program," administration by the 

21 USFWS, direct P.L. 93-638 funding through the USFWS, block grant 

22 programs through agencies such as the Administration for Native 

23 Americans, direct funding through the Native American Fish & 

24 Wildlife Society (NAFWS), wetlands initiatives through the 

5 
80 

1 Department of Agriculture, etc., or a combination of the above 

2 systems to ensure Tribal selection of the appropriate management 

3 support mechanism. 

4 

5 Title VI 

6 Distribution of Wildlife Parts: Provisions under this section will 

7 define the degree and level of participation by Tribal Governments 

8 in the procurement of wildlife parts for religious, cultural, and 

9 medicinal purposes. In respect to the Religious Freedom Act of 1982, 

10 Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 66$a), Marine Mammal Protection 

11 Act of 1972 (16 USC 1371-1383), Endangered Species Act of 1972 (16 

12 USC 1539), etc., Tribal members retain the right to possess wildlife 

13 parts and in certain situations, endangered species parts. This 

14 provision will require that a substantial portion of the animals 

15 currently being stored in the Federal Repository at Ashland, 

16 Oregon, be turned over to the Tribal Governments who will be 

17 responsible for the distribution of the appropriate parts to its 

18 membership in association with the NAFWS, et al. Under this 

19 provision, a concise means of delivery of these parts to the Tribes 

20 will be required of the USFWS to facilitate use by Tribal members. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

6 
81 

1 Title VII 

2 Integrated Resource Management: Through this Title, the Tribes 

3 will require a formalization of integrated resource management 

4 planning through Jevelopment of an annual summit meeting, et al, 

5 between federal departments, agencies with the Department of 

6 Interior, and Tribal technical and political leadership. Federal policy 

7 issues, long term planning, and fish, wildlife and recreation priorities 

8 will be developed to facilitate long-term permanent Tribal 

9 management of fish, wildlife and recreation resources. Issues of 

10 importance to Tribes such as relationships between wildlife, 

11 forestry, minerals, waters, mining, environmental protection, and 

12 resources education and training will be considered through this 

13 provision. Under Integrated Resource Management Planning 

14 (IRMP), all entities concerned with Tribal natural resource 

15 utilization would sit as equal partners at the resoure management 

16 table. Resource allocation would be decided by the Tribe in the 

17 public planning process, and implemented by the natural resource 

18 management entity under Tribal supervision. Formal adoption of 

19 IRMP by the Tribes will facilitate the establishment of formal 

20 relationships between Tribal national fish, wildlife, recreation and 

21 environmental protection organizations such as the Native American 

22 Fish & Wildlife Society, National Indian Education Association 

23 (NIEA), Inter-Tribal Timber Council (ITC), Inter-Tribal Agriculture 

24 Council (ITAC), Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), Native 

7 
·82 

1 American Rights Fund (NARF), Americans for Indian Opportunity 

2 (AIO), American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES), 

3 Inter-Tribal Environmental Protection Organization, American 

4 Indian Resources Institute (AIR!), and the Federal Government. 

5 

6 litle VIII 

7 Indian Education and Training: Under prov1s1ons of this Title, 

8 Tribal Governments will be authorized to participate in national 

9 education and ·training programs for fish, wildlife, recreation and 

10 environmental protection programs under the USFWS, such as the 

11 National Fisheries Academy and the national Environmental 

12 Education and Training Center as well as on-site wildlife training 

13 will focus on developing Indian people into professional managers, 

14 technicians, and program administrators. Agencies and departments 

15 responsible for environmental management such as the 

16 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy, 

17 Corp of Engineers, Department of Interio~ USFWS, National Park 

18 Service (NPS), BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, etc., will participate in 

19 education and training of Tribal members for careers in fish, wildlife, 

20 recreation, and environmental protection. The Department of 

21 Education will develop support programs to fund fish, wildlife, 

22 recreation and environmental protection education to encourage 

23 formal education of Tribal members in the technical and academic 

24 community. Incentives under this provision must be developed to 

8 
83 

1 encourage Indian graduates from education and training to return to 

2 Tribes to work with Tribal Governments in management of Tribal 

3 resources. Special incentives to Tribal Governments must be 

4 developed to prioritize their educational needs to support fish, 

5 wildlife, recreation and environmental protection education/ training 

6 for their membership. Incentives must also be developed to allow 

7 Tribal Governments to successfully compete for placement of Tribal 

8 members educated and trained under these provisions. Current 

9 thinking by federal agencies that Tribal members are "minorities" 

10 and that employment of these qualified individuals away from Tribal 

11 Governments perpetuates the lack of qualified people that Tribes 

12 currently experience. 

13 

14 TitleIX 

15 Natural Resource Employment: Provisions in this Title will 

16 authorize Tribes to participate in employment generating national 

17 programs, specifically to enhance resource management develop18 ment. Programs like the Job Training Partnership Act GTPA), the 

19 Youth Conservation Corps, American Conservation Corp, et al, must 

20 all have provisions to authorize Tribal Governments to participate 

21 in putting their people to work in fish, wildlife, recreation, and 

22 environmental protection programs. On-the-job training, work 

23 experience projects, and professional intern programs must be 

24 developed to accelerate the rate of employment of all ages of Indian 

9 
84 

1 people in socially acceptable activities heretofore unavailable within 

2 Tribal management structures. Permanent positions in professional 

3 management programs will have to be developed to achieve Tribal 

4 self-sufficiency in providing jobs for a variety of membership groups 

5 as well as to defend the integrity of the Tribal resource base. 

6 

7 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

8 

9 SECTION 3. Funding of Native American Programs: This 

10 Section will authorize the funding necessary to implement the 

11 management programs of Tribal fish, wildlife and recreation 

12 resources. Current funding levels are totally inadequate to meet the 

13 needs of resource management that Tribes are facing. The process 

14 for obtaining funding through direct government appropriations 

15 fails to provide long term stability to the management process. 

16 Under the provisions of this Act, a system to fund Tribal programs 

17 will be defined that will provide revenues to fund these activities 

18 through elements currenlly available to Tribal Governments and 

19 those that have historically been unavailable. Tribal Governments 

20 have the ability to tax in certain instances (e.g., liquor, minerals, 

21 trespass fees, etc.), to require permits for resource utilization (e.g., 

22 hunting licenses, recreational fishing permits, camping fees, etc.) and 

23 to impose severance taxes on mineral and forest resources. They 

24 also have vested interests in federal funds such as Dingell10 
85 

1 Johnson/Pittman-Robertson/Wallop-Breaux in that they are not 

2 exempt from paying federal taxes on sporting equipment, gasoline, 

3 boats, motors, and trailers, etc., and they do provide significant 

4 opportunities for recreation to the general public. These taxes have 

5 traditionally been reserved for use by states and territories, but 

6 constitute a model from which a similar mechanism can be developed 

7 to support the Tribal funding necessary to drive this Act. Of 

8 paramount importance to the funding programs is the ability to keep 

9 fish, wildlife and recreation funds in the fish, wildlife and recreation 

10 Tribal programs in competition with all other Tribal needs. The 

11 existing Federal Aides Program can again serve as a model upon 

12 which Tribal funding can be based. The use of federal funds to 

13 match Tribal contributions can provide political stability to the fish, 

14 wildlife and recreation management programs. Loss of Native 

15 American Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Act (NAFWE Act) funding if 

16 Tribes reprioritize their existing fish, wildlife and recreation federal 

17 monies or earned revenues from license sales, etc., could be a 

18 powerful tool to assist Tribal Governments in the decision making 

19 process. 

20 Non-Tribal funding of the NAFWE Act is justifiable as a 

21 result of key contributions that Tribal Government resources are 

22 making to the nation as a whole. Fish, wildlife and recreation 

23 resources are providing many opportunities for the general public 

24 to recreate and earn a living through guiding and tourism related 

11 
86 

1 activities on or around Tribal lands. Endangered and Threatened 

2 plant and animal species such as the Florida Panther, Grizzly Bear, 

3 Black Footed Ferret, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Mexican Spotted 

4 Owl, and Apache Trout, are frequently found within Tribal 

5 jurisdictions and are Tribal resources. Mineral deposits such as coal, 

6 gas, oil, uranium and others are being removed from Tribal trust 

7 lands with no reinvestment of revenues for environmental 

8 rehabilitation nor financial reinvestment in fish, wildlife and 

9 recreation management programs for permanent renewable economic 

10 development opportunities to Tribal governments. 

11 Provisions under this · section will devise a funding 

12 mechanism to incorporate permanent long term financial resources to 

13 consistently fund Tubal management initiatives. 

14 There will be authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 

15 annually for the maintenance of a permanent professional Tribal 

16 fish, wildlife and recreation management program. The Secretary of 

17 the Interior is hereby directed to develop a mechanism for direct 

18 funding of 'Iribal Governments for the purposes of carrying out the 

19 provisions of this Act. 

12 
87 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Poynter. 

Mr. DuBray? 

STATEMENT OF FRED DuBRAY 

Mr. DUBRAY. Good morning. 

My name is Fred DuBray. I'm the Director of the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe's Bison Enhancement Project, and President of 

the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative. 

I'm grateful for thhallportunity to present testimony before this 

subcommittee on be of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe membership and the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative. 

We appreciate your concern regarding the management and preservation of our precious fish and wildlife resources, and strongly 

support the drafting and passage of legislation that will enhance 

our management capability and ensure protection of our sovereign 

jurisdiction. 

Throughout the past several decades, management of our trust 

lands has been primarily focused on livestock production in the 

Plains area. 

The tribe has been influenced by heavily subsidized agricultural 

programs that tend to ignore provisions for fish, wildlife and recreational management, consequently putting these resources in serious jeopardy. 

More important, the lack of legislative protection of these fish 

and wildlife resources threatens our sovereign jurisdiction, as illustrated by the current litigation with the State of South Dakota in 

South Dakota vs. Bourland and Rousseau. 

This case arises from the state of South Dakota's assertion that 

the tribe lacks the capability to adequately manage the taken area 

lands along the Missouri River within the boundaries of the reservation. 

This dispute has directly evolved from the lack of legislative recognition and funding of the tribe as a full participant in fish, wildlife, and recreational management. And as typically in most state-tribal disputes, the prescribed solution by the state is to assume jurisdiction, thus undermining our 

sovereign jurisdiction. 

And that's one of the things that it leads to is not providing this 

legislative recognition and full support of funding. And in 1991, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe prioritized buffalo 

as an essential wildlife resource, and implemented restoration efforts based on traditional values, integrated with modem management principles. 

This recognition of buffalo as a critical species within the prairie 

ecosystem not only has major implications for the restoration of the 

prairie, but also for the socioeconomic, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing of our tribe. 

Because of the intrinsic relationship between the Plains Indian 

culture and the buffalo culture, the near decimation of the buffalo 

was mutually devastating to the Plains tribes. Our effort to restore 

these buffalo to our tribal lands provides us with a culturally sound 

focal point and spearheads our overall ecosystem approach. 
88 

The restoration of buffalo has renewed hope in many tribal members and has inspired the Tribe to develop an overall prairie management plan. . This prairie management plan was developed by an interdisciplinary team of tribal, federal, and environmental representatives, and presents a dramatic departure from control of prairie dogs by poisoning. 

It also covers 2.8 million acres of prairie encompassed by reservation boundaries. 

The primary goal of this prairie management plan it to allow 

prairie dogs, buffalo, black-footed ferrets, eagles, and many other 

wildlife species to coexist with livestock production and incorporate 

management techniques that are directed at multiple use. 

This alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs will restore, enhance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem for the benefit of our future generations. 

However, in order to implement these plans, adequate funding is 

absolutely essential, but currently unavailable. Although we have 

enjoyed widespread support from the BIA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, and several environmental groups, as well as the House 

Appropriations Committee, and responded to the congressional directive to develop an alternative plan to poisoning, we have yet to 

receive funding. 

Because the BIA lacks funding, and the tribe is ineligible for the 

funding granted to states by the Endangered Species Act, or the 

Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, this project can 

only be conducted with the support of Congress through special ap- propriations or other legislative action. 

Our current management enhancement efforts illustrate the fact 

that all federal fish, wildlife, and recreational legislation and aid 

that exists today has systematically excluded tribal governments from the funding mechanisms that would allow implementation of 

these culturally sensitive and environmentally sound management objectives. Our attemp_ts to receive funding through the Endangered Species 

Act and the Federal Aid Programs to states have been strongly op- posed by the states, who believe that making these funds available 

to tribes would diminish the availability of their funds, and thus 

threaten their management capability and control. 

We therefore need a funding mechanism that allows funds to be 

distributed directly to tribal governments, rather than expanding the federal agencies to carry out these management functions, 

which tends to perpetuate tribal dependence on our federal government. 

As the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes Bison Enhancement Project illustrates, buffalo can and are being successfully utilized by tribes 

as a culturally sound focal point in the restoration and enhancement of reservation ecologies. A cooperative plan for restorin~ buffalo on tribal lands is being coordinated by the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, which is an organization consisting of 24 member tribes. 

This cooperative effort to restore bison on Indian reservations is 

aimed at restoring the reservation ecologies in a manner that is 

both acceptable and appreciated by respective tribal members. 
89 

Most important, the restoration of buffalo to Indian people renews hope, and is perhaps the last viable effort that can protect tribal lands from the ravages of mismanagement, and quite possibly offers the last opportunity for grassroots tribal members to recapture the spiritual and cultural essence of their being and reaffirm the traditional values that are so important to the preservation of their culture. 

Because buffalo were the economic base of many tribes in the 

past, restoration of buffalo to the Indian community also offers a 

tremendous opportunity for economic development within a cultural framework. 

Although Congress responded to the lnterTribal Coo~rative's request for funding and appropriated $400,000 in 1992, $450,000 in 

1993, that falls considerably short of the $2 million that the 24 

tribes requested and needed in order to keep this thing going. Therefore, increased and continued funding is absolutely essential to ensure the success of this important restoration effort. 

In closing, I would like to remind the Committee of the critical 

role that fish and wildlife resources play in the daily lives of Indian 

peoP,le. For too long, Indian people have been denied the opportunity to develop and manage thell' own resources. 

The projects we have presented in this testimony are based on 

our traditional world view, which has become a driving rationale 

for natural resource management espoused by environmental experts across the world. 

We firmly believe that legislative action which recognizes tribes 

as full participants in fish, wildlife, and recreational management, 

will enable us to assume our rightful role in land stewardship and 

resource management. 

We respectfully request your recommendations to the Appropriations Committee for funding these most important projects. 

Thank you. [Prel)ared statement of Mr. DuBray and Prairie Management Plan follow:] 
90 

TESTIMONY 

TO THE HOUSE NATIJRAL RESOURCES SUB-COMMITTEE 

ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

BY 

FRED DUBRAY 

MEMBER, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE 

PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is grateful for the opportunity to 

present testimony before your sub-committee on behalf of the Tribe's 

membership and as a member Tribe of the lnterTribal Bison Cooperative. 

We applaud the fonnation of this much needed sub-committee and 

appreciate your concern regarding the management and preservation of our 

precious fish and wildlife resources. We strongly support ' he drafting and 

passage of legislation that will enhance our management capability and 

ensure protection of tribal jurisdiction over our fish and wildlife resources. 

Throughout the past several decades the management of our trust 

lands has been focused on livestock production, which is quite common on 

most reservations throughout the Plains region. Being located in an area 

where agriculture is the primary economic activity, the Tribe has been 

influenced by the heavily subsidized agricultural programs that tend to 

ignore provisions for fish, wildlife and recreational management, 

consequently putting these resources in serious jeopardy. This lack of 

support for our fish and wildlife resources has curtailed our efforts and 

stunted the development of our management capabilities. 

More importantly, the lack of legislative protection for our fish and 

wildlife resources threatens our sovereign jurisdiction over these resources as 

illustrated by current litigation with the state in South Dakota vs Bourland 

and Rousseau. This case arises from the state of South Dakota's assertion 

that the tribe lacks the capability to adequately manage the "taken area" 

lands along the Missouri River within the boundaries of the reservation. 

This dispute bas directly evolved from the lack of legislative 

acknowledgment of the tribe as a full participant in fish, wildlife, and 

recreation management, and the lack of necessary funding. As typical in 

most disputes between tribes and states, the state's prescribed solution is to 

assume jurisdiction and management control of the resources in question 

and consequently diminish Tribal authority and undermine the Tribe's 

sovereign status. In order to insure our government to government 
91 

relationship with the Federal government, it is essential that legislative acticn 

guarantees the Tribal government's full participation in the management of 

fisheries, wildlife, and recreational resources on Tribal lands and within 

ceded territories as defined by Treaty rights and associated court action 

regarding Tribal Treaty rights cases, as well as applicable Executive Orders 

and Congressional Acts. 

In 1991 the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe prioritized buffalo as an 

essential wildlife resource and implemented restoration efforts based on the 

Lakota world view, which recognizes that the inter-relationship and intrinsic 

value of all native species is necessary for the health and harmony of the 

environment. The recognition of buffalo as a critical species within the 

prairie ecosystem not only has major implications for the restoration of the 

prairie, but also for the socio-economic, cultural, and spiritual well being of 

the tribe. Because of the intrinsic relationship between the Plains Indian 

culture and the buffalo culture, the near decimation of the buffalo was 

mutually devastating to the Plains tribes. Because buffalo are a central 

element to the prairie, as well as to the Lakota culture, our efforts to restore 

buffalo to our Tribal land provides us with a culturally sound focal point and 

spearheads our overall ecosystem approach. The Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe's Bison Enhancement Project successfully integrates the importance of 

buffalo to the Lakota culture, religion, socio-economic well-being, and 

environmental health, which are all necessary components to sustainable 

natural resource development. The restoration of buffalo has renewed hope 

to many tribal members and has inspired the Tribe to develop a long-range 

restoration plan which includes the entire ecosystem within. the reservation 

boundaries. 

As a direct result of our buffalo restoration plan and in response to a 

congressional directive for the BIA to work with Tribes and in consultation 

with the USFWS to develop alternative plans for prairie dog controi the 

Tribe developed the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's "Prairie Management 

Plan." This comprehensive plan, developed by an interdisciplinary team of 

tribal, federal, and environmental representatives, presents a dramatic 

departure from control of prairie dogs by poisoning and covers 2.8 million 

acres of prairie encompassed by the reservation boundaries. The primary 

goal of the Prairie Management Plan is to allow prairie dogs, buffalo, black 

footed ferrets, eagles and many other wildlife species to coexist with 

livestock production and incorporate management techniques that are 

directed at multiple use. This alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs will 
92 

restore, enhance, and maintain the prairie ecosystem for the benefit of our 

future generations. 

In conjunction with the Prairie Management Plan the Tribe supports 

the re-introduction of black-footed ferrets onto the reservation as part of the 

alternative plan to poisoning prairie dogs. Because black-footed ferrets are a 

natural predator of prairie dogs, they too are a necessary component of the 

prairie ecosystem. Because black-footed ferrets are an endangered species 

Federal law requires that Tribes maintain compliance with the regulatory 

portion of the Endangered Species Act. The Tribe has cooperated with 

Federal regulations which require the BIA to conduct an Environmental 

Impact Statement regarding prairie dog control. 

However, in order to implement these plans adequate funding is 

absolutely essential, but is currently unavailable. Although we have enjoyed 

widespread support from the BIA, USFWS, and several environmental 

groups, as well as the House Appropriations Committee, we have yet to 

receive funding. Because the BIA lacks funding and the Tribe is ineligible 

for the funding granted to states by the Endangered Species Act or the 

Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, this project can only be 

conducted with the support of Congress through special appropriations or 

other legislative action. 

We offer these examples of our current management enhancement 

efforts to illustrate the fact that all Federal fish, wildlife and recreational 

legislation and aid that exists has systematically excluded Tribal 

governments from the funding mechanisms that would allow implementation 

of these culturally sensitive and environmentally sound management 

objectives. Our attempts to receive funding through the Endangered Species 

Act and the Federal Aid Programs to states have been strongly opposed by 

the states who believe that making these funds available to tribe's would 

diminish the availability of their funds, and thus threaten their management 

capability and control. Therefore, we firmly believe that legislation which 

recognizes Tribes as full participants in fish, wildlife, and recreational 

management is necessary and long overdue. We also need a funding 

mechanism that allows funds to be distributed directly to Tribal 

governments. Expanding the Federal Agencies to carry out these 

management functions will only perpetuate Tribal dependence on the 

Federal Government and add nedless layers to governmental bureaucracy. 

As the case of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe indicates, buffalo can 

and are being utilized by tribes as a focal point in the restoration and 

enhancement of reservation ecologies. This effort is being coordinated by 
93 

the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), an organization consisting of24 

member tribes interested in utilizing buffalo for ecological restoration on 

Tribal lands. Each member tribe of the ITBC has joined and expressed 

support of the organization through formal tribal council resolutions. 

Although each tribe has their own unique set of spiritual and cultural values 

attached to the bison, all recognize the need for re-establishing their intrinsic 

relationship with the buffalo. The cooperative effort to restore bison on 

Indian reservations is aimed at restoring the reservation ecologies in a 

manner that is acceptable and appreciated by the respective Tribal members. 

Most importantly, the restoration of buffalo to Indian people renews 

hope and is perhaps the last viable effort that can protect tribal lands from 

the ravages of mismanagement, and quite possibly offers the last opportunity 

for "grass roots" Tribal members to recapture the spritual and cultural 

essence of their being and re-affirm the traditional values that are so 

important to the preservation of their culture. Because buffalo were the 

economic base of many Tribes in the past, restoration of buffalo to the 

Indian community also offers a tremendous opportunity for economic 

development within a cultural framework. 

Although many private producers are rightfully raising bison as a 

profitable enterprise, there is an associated move to domesticate bison, 

strictly for commercial benefits. There is a tremendous amount of scientific 

evidence, as well as traditional Tribal knowledge, which indicates that bison 

must be protected as a wildlife resource in order for them to contribute to the 

preservation of the ecosystem. Just as Indian people themselves must be 

allowed to develop within their own cultural framework in order to 

successfully interact with their environment, the membership of the ITBC 

recognizes that buffalo have the same need,and have cooperatively agreed to 

facilitate that effort on their behalf. Just as salmon are recognized as an 

issue of subsistence and cultural survival to the tribes in the Pacific 

Northwest, the restoration of buffalo to Tribal lands is essential to the 

member Tribes of the ITBC. 

Although Congress responded to our request for funding and 

appropriated $400,000 toward our efforts in 1992 and $450,000 in 1993 it 

falls considerably short of the $2,000,000 necessary to fund all 24 of the 

Tribal projects submitted through the ITBC. We are grateful for the funding 

received, but only 10 Tribes have been able to secure funding with the 

$850,000 appropriated so far, which places the remaining projects on hold 

until future funds become available. If all 24 of the Tribal projects could 

secure initial start-up funding, the current appropriation level of$450,000 to 

68-141 - 93 - 4 
94 

$500,000 could adequately supplement those projects in need and insure the 

success of this important restoration effort. 

In closing, I would like to remind the commitee of the critical role that 

fish and wildlife resources play in the daily lives of Indian people. For too 

long, Indian people have been denied the opportunity to develop and manage 

their own resources. The projects we have presented in this testimony are 

based on our traditional world view, which has become a driving rationale 

for natural resource management espoused by environmental experts across 

the world. We finnly believe that legislative action. which recognizes Tribes 

as full participants in fish, wildlife and recreational management, will enable 

us to assume our rightful place in land stewardship. 
95 

PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

fortbe 

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX 

MAY 1992 
Croxen, Michael 

DuBray, Fred 

Eisner, Sherry 

Eklund, Daniel* 

Lilly, Wayland 0. 

Parr, KeMeth 

Rousseau, Narcisse 

Spotted Elk, Clara 

96 

usr OF PREPARERS 

Supervisory• Range Conservationist, 

CheyeMe River Agency. Bureau of .1.r.dian 

Affairs 

Coordinator, Adainistration for Native 

Aaericans, CheyeMe River Sioux Tribe 

Wildlife Biologist, Adainistration for Native 

Aaericans, CheyeMe River Sioux Tribe 

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pierre, SD 

Area Range Conservationist, Aberdeen 

Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Area Wildlife Biologist, Aberdeen Area 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Director, Game, Fish and Parks 

CheyeMe River Sioux Tribe 

Writing Consultant 

Lame Deer, Montana 

• Corrections made 15 June 1992 

The CheyeMe River Sioux Tribe acknowledges and thanks 

the University of Nebraska and Dr. Scott Hygnstro• for 

permission to reproduce an original work of art by Mark E. Marcuson. 
97 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In response to urgent circumstances regarding the 

Federal Government's trust responsibility to manage 

reservation lands and the need to maintain compliance with 

existing legislation regarding endangered species and 

environmental policy, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

proposes to implement a pilot range improvement project 

entitled "Prairie Management Plan". 

The proposed project presents a dramatic departure 

from traditional control of black-tailed prairie dogs 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) by poisoning on the Cheyenne River 

Reservation. For years, prairie dogs have been viewed as 

"pests " ; however, the near extinction of black-footed 

ferrets (Mustela nigripes), which rely totally on prairie 

dog towns as habitat and prairie dogs for food, has fostered 

a recognition of the delicate environmental relati onships 

and biodiversity necessary for a healthy prairie ecosystem. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a formal 

opinion: poisoning prairie dogs ·on the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Reservation will jeopardize the survival and/or recovery of 

black-footed ferrets. Additionally, Defenders of Wildlife 

and the Sierra Club have threatened litigation i f prairie 

dogs are poisoned without consideration to existing 

legislation. Thus, poisoning alone is no longer an 

acceptable management tool for prairie dog control. 

Studies have shown that prairie dogs alone are not 

responsible for range deterioration. The primary cause of 

prairie ecosystem degradation, and the associated loss of 

species diversity, has been a lack of funding to change 

outmoded range management practices. Outdated methods 

encourage overgrazing and conditions that give rise to 

prairie dog colonization. Notwithstanding this fact, 

livestock production is currently the leading industry on 

many Indian reservations, and will be for the foreseeable 

future. Thus, the challenge is to incorporate management 

techniques that are directed at multiple use. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's goal is to restore, 

enhance , and maintain the prairie ecosystem on 2.8 million 

acres encompassed by the reservation boundaries. This 

proposal is based on Lakota tradition, which recognizes the 

intrinsic value of all life forms in a healthy and . 

harmonious environment. Developed by an Interdisciplinary 

Team of tribal, federal and environmental representatives to 

reflect traditional Lakota views and improved range 

management techniques, this approach allows prairie dogs and 

i 
98 

many other wildlife species to coexist with livestock 

production. 

Benefits of the "Prairie Management Plan" will include 

the following: reduce the need for poisoning prairie dogs 

every three to five years; allow for the coexistence of 

prairie dogs with livestock; provide for the potential 

reintroduction of the black-footed ferret by compensating 

landowners for retaining prairie dog towns; maintain and 

enhance wildlife diversity, including those species 

associated with prairie dog towns; aid the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species; enhance populations of 

candidate species to prevent listing; and, increase the 

overall productivity of the range resource. 

The management techniques proposed in the pilot 

project have been successfully demonstrated by private 

landowners, but the Tribe and individual Indian cattle 

operators are unable to implement these strategies due to a 

lack of funding. If funded, this project will encourage the 

application of these management techniques on all lands 

within the reservation boundary, and on other reservations 

with similar management challenges. Thus, in addition to 

the compelling Endangered Species Act requirements for the 

project, there is considerable potential to demonstrate that 

improved management of prairie ecosystems is not only 

environmentally desirable, but also economically beneficial. 

Funding of $10,390,960 is required for a period of 

five years to achieve range restoration. This proposal, 

which not only includes range improvements (dams, wells, and 

fencing), but also management of endangered species and 

public education, costs only $7.00/acre for 1.4 million acres over a five-year period; poisoning is about 

$12.00/acre in reoccuring costs. Specific objectives for 

the first year cost $1.45/acre, or a total of $2,220,192. 

After the prairie ecosystem is restored, the annual 

management costs will be minimal. 

Because the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) lacks 

funding, and the Tribe is ineligible for the funding granted 

to states by the Endangered Species Act or the Federal Aid 

in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act, the project can only 

be conducted with the support of Congress through special 

appropriations. The Tribe suggests that funds be added to 

and "earmarked" from the BIA's Range Management and Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks programs. The project responds to the 

Congressional appropriation directive to the Department of 

Interior that the BIA reorganize its management efforts 

whenever possible to suspend poisoning and develop other 

alternatives for prairie dog management. More important, 

however, it assures compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act and the federal govnrnment's trust responsibility to 

Indian Tribes. 

ii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

Lakota World View 

99 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Prairie Dog Poisoning/Overgrazing 

Environmental Assessment Issues 

Chronology of Events ..... 

"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" APPROACH 

Environmental Impact Statement 

"Prairie Management Plan" Strategies 

PAGE 

i 

iii 

1 

1 

2 

4 

5 

8 

9 

9 

1. Development of Adequate Water on Rangelands 9 

2. Range Unit Fencing to Accommodate Grazing 

Rotation • • • . . • • . . . . • • . . • 10 

3. Wildlife and Fish Habitat. • . • • . • . . 10 

4. Endangered, Threatened or Candidate Species 11 

5. Public Education . . • • 12 

6. Interdisciplinary Team 13 

7. Bison Enhancement Project 13 

RESULTS AND BENEFITS 

Environmental 

Tribal 

Federal. 

National 

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 

Year 1 

Year 2-5 

APPENDICES 

14 

14 

14 

14 

15 

16 

16 

17 

18 

1 Interdisciplinary Team Members 19 

2 Cheyenne River Tribal Resolutions 20 

3 "Prairie Management Plan" Budget. 25 

4 "Prairie Management Plan" Position Descriptions 26 

iii 
100 

INTRODUCTION 

"Prairie Management Plan" is a proposed project based 

on Lakota cultural traditions and improved range management 

techniques which will result in restoration of the prairie 

ecosystem and the coexistence of prairie dogs and other 

wildlife species with livestock production on the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Reservation. Although the catalyst has been the 

matter of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

and black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes), the project is 

directed at correcting a much broader problem -- outmoded 

range management practices geared towards the single purpose 

of cattle production. 

For most of this century, prairie dogs have been 

systematically and successfully targeted for elimination 

through poisoning by livestock producers and state and 

federal agencies. Success has been measured by the 98% 

reduction in acres of prairie dog towns throughout the west: 

the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) is listed as a 

threatened species. A tragic result of the loss of prairie 

dog habitat has been the near extinction of the black-footed 

ferret which relies exclusively on prairie dog towns for 

food and habitat. In 1967, the black-footed ferret was 

listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition, several other endangered, threatened or 

candidate species on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation 

are linked to prairie dogs or their habitat. 

"Prairie Management Plan" is a unique response 

to federal mandates to facilitate black-footed ferret 

recovery. The pilot project will accomplish the goal of 

enhancing the prospects for recovery of the black-footed 

ferret in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. It 

will also facilitate restoration of the prairie ecosystem, 

an improved range resource for livestock production, and 

enhanced populations of many other wildlife species. 

Further, it will increase the capability for the government 

to fully exercise its trust responsibility to effectively 

manage reservation trust lands for the benefit of the Tribe 

and individual Indians. 

LAKOTA WORLD VIEW 

The Lakota world view and cultural beliefs are 

holistic -- based on a recognition of the interrelationship 

1 
101 

and intrinsic va1ue of a11 species, which is necessary for 

the hea1th and harmony of the environment (i.e. 

biodiversity). This traditiona1 wor1d view has become a 

driving rationa1e for natura1 resource management espoused 

by environmenta1 experts across the wor1d. The Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe be1ieves that they have an opportunity and 

an ob1igation to exercise 1eadership in 1and stewardship. 

The pi1ot project is an examp1e of integrating Native 

American values with scientific techniques to promote 

restoration of prairie ecosystems. 

PRAIRIE DOG _POISONING/OVERGRAZING 

For years, the federa1 government has promoted 

agricu1ture (principa11y catt1e production) on western 

reservations as a means of economic deve1opment and 

uti1izing the prairie grass1ands. This po1icy has been 

successfu1 in that grasslands are the most significant 

natural resource, and ranching is the 1eading industry on 

the Cheyenne River· Reservation. It has been a historica1 

assumption of the ranching community that concentrations of 

prairie dog co1onies pose a prob1em by competing with catt1e 

for forage and detracting from grazing and crop1and 

productivity. 

In the past the BIA, states and individua1 catt1e 

operators have subscribed to poisoning efforts because of a 

1ack of understanding of ecosystem dynamics, as we11 as 1ack 

of funding to imp1ement 1ong-term and capita1 intensive 

range improvements. Unti1 recent1y, for examp1e, Congress 

has appropriated approximate1y $400,000 per year to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for prairie dog poisoning. 

Studies indicate that poisoning of prairie dogs and 

the type of poisons used has directly contributed to the 

decline of the black-footed ferret. B1ack-footed ferrets 

require a certain thresho1d size and occupancy of prairie 

dog towns to survive. The extensive use of poisoning to 

reduce prairie dogs, together with cu1tivation and 

urbanization, have caused a lack · of suitable habitat for 

ferrets. 

Historica11y, prairie dog co1onization (and associated 

prairie ecosystem diversity) was dependent on the buffalo or 

bison (Bison bison). Buffalo, following their circular 

migratory paths, enhanced habitat for prairie. dogs by 

grazing grasses to suitable heights and creating dust 

wallows. The survival of prairie dog towns depended on 

buffalo or other grazers keeping grasses short. 

Over the years grazing practices (actually overgrazing 

of certain areas) have degraded rangelands by reducing the 

diversity and density of plants, the natural vegetative 

2 
102 

barriers and soil conditions which in turn encourages 

prairie dog colonization. Further, cattle selectively 

forage on desirable grasses, leading to a reduction in the 

mix of species. Agricultural lands may be devalued $3-7 per 

acre by lending institutions depending on the density of 

prairie dog colonies. 

Poisoning has averaged $12.00 per acre in reoccurring 

costs because applications of rodenticide are only temporary 

measures. It has been consistently shown that prairie dogs 

will increase to pre-poisoning levels within three to five 

years without the implementation of a range improvement 

program. The most dramatic example has been on the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation where massive poisoning was 

conducted in the mid-1980's only to see a current resurgence 

in prairie dog numbers. 

Range degradation is primarily related to a lack of 

funding for improvements, such as fencing, adequate water 

development and planned grazing management necessary to 

rotate or limit livestock to prevent overgrazing in certain 

areas. Degradation is exacerbated when cattle congregate 

near wetlands and riparian zones (particularly during 

drought), which also provide important habitat for many 

wildlife and fish species. 

In summary, the current prairie dog "problem" on 

western lands is not a simple matter. Several combined 

factors contribute to the problem: 

• the historic attitude of agricultural producers that prairie dogs are an undesirable part of the 

eco~ystem 

• the heretofore accepted practice of poisoning prairie dogs as a control mechanism has not taken 

into account the related effects on the prairie 

ecosystem, particularly on the black-footed ferret 

and other species which are associated with 

prairie dogs 

• a reduction of the natural mixed-grass forage and 

overall health of the prairie ecosystem is due in 

large part to the lack of adequate water, drought conditions and outdated grazing practices 

• overgrazing of the range creates "bare" spots which 

enhance prairie dog colonization 

Within recent years, the BIA has been promoting 

Integrated Natural Resource Management planning on Indian 

reservations which encourages multiple use management 

directed at both wildlife and agriculture. However, lack of 

tribal and BIA funding has impeded progress on this 

initiative. Only a few reservations have completed planning 

necessary for this management strategy and fewer have 

actually implemented the plan. Cheyenne River Reservation 

3 
103 

does not have this system in place. More significantly, with the exception of some limited funding for work on the 

northern spotted owl (Striz occidentalis), the BIA and 

Tribes have not received funding to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act on trust lands. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ISSUES 

The project proposes a solution to a dilemma faced by the Bureau of Indian Affairs over the management of trust 

range resources. on one hand, the BIA has a trust 

responsibility to the Tribe to effectively manage trust 

lands which currently have unacceptable concentrations of 

prairie dog colonies for agricultural production. On the 

other hand, the BIA has a responsibility to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act as it pertains to the recovery of 

endangered and threatened species, such as the black-footed 

ferret. 

In 1991, the BIA proposed to conduct limited poisoning 

of prairie dogs on the Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux 

Reservations and completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the Endangered Species Act. The BIA lacks sufficient 

funding, personnel and time to meet the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NEPA requirements for analysis 

of prairie dog/ferret complexes, the potential 

reintroduction of ferrets and evaluation of other 

endangered, threatened or candidate species associated with 

prairie dog towns. As a result, the BIA completed only an initial investigation for the Environmental Assessment 

required for prairie dog poisoning on the Reservation. The 

BIA's Environmental Assessment was published in September, 

1991. 

Due to budget constraints and lack of funding for 

overall range improvement, poisoning of prairie dogs has 

traditionally been the primary management alternative used 

by the BIA on reservation trust lands. However, under 

contemporary conditions continued poisoning of prairie dogs 

in relationship to endangered and threatened species is no longer feasible. Specifically, the USFWS has issued a biological opinion that the proposed poisoning of prairie 

dogs on the Cheyenne River Reservation would jeopardize the 

survival and recovery of the black-footed ferret. 

The proposed control measure through limited poisoning on both reservations has also been hindered by threatened 

litigation from the Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra 

Club because it could jeopardize potential recovery of the 

black-footed ferret and is therefore in violation of the 

Endangered Species Act. Additionally, these organizations 

disagreed with the conclusions reached under the NEPA 

procedures that proposed poisoning would not be a major 

impact on the enviro~t. 

4 
104 

In order to fully comply with NEPA and the Endangered 

Species Act, additional field work and evaluation of prairie 

dog complexes for suitability of reintroduction must be 

conducted on the Cheyenne River Reservation. Agreement 

between the Tribe, USFWS and BIA must be developed for ma_nagement of other endangered or threatened species. A 

socio-economic analysis of the effects which prairie dog 

management alternatives have on reservation economics is 

also necessary. The BIA has advised that approximately $200,000 is available to the Tribes under a P.L. 93-638 

contract to complete these requirements. The Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe plans to comply with these requirements in 

conjunction with the project. 

As a result of these factors, the BIA has determined 

not to conduct poisoning control of prairie dogs on the 

reservation, but has acknowledged that a lack of management 

could lead to a further deterioration of the range resource and a loss of economic benefits to the Tribe and individual 

Indian cattle operators. The failure of the BIA to address 

this problem could force the Tribe to litigate for breach of 

trust responsibility because lack of management could lead 

to a further degradation of the range resource. The 1980 

lawsuit by the American Farm Bureau against the U.S. 

Department of the Interior and BIA for failure to control 

prairie dogs on the Pine Ridge Reservation and other federal 

land holdings, for example, led to the provision of a multimillion dollar appropriation in the mid-1980's. 

It is the intent of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to 

resolve this "catch 22" situation through the "Prairie 

Management Plan", which will at once permit compliance with 

the Endangered Species Act and allow the federal government 

to exercise its trust responsibility for management of 

reservation lands. 

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 

The following series of events has precipitated the 

current situation and development of the Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribal "Prairie Management Plan": 

1964-79 

1967 

1980 

Black-footed ferret populations discovered in South 

Dakota, near Rosebud reservation, populations captured but die in captivity. Sightings recorded on Cheyenne River Reservation 

USFWS lists the black-footed ferret as endangered 

American Farm Bureau Federation files suit in Federal 

court against federal agencies, including BIA, for 

failure to control prairie dogs on Pine Ridge Reservation, Badlands National Park and National 

Grasslands 

5 
1981-5 

1985-6 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1990 

Sep 1990 

Oct 1990 

1991 

Apr 1991 

Jun 1991 

Sep 1991 

Sep 1991 

Sep 1991 

105 

Black-footed ferret population discovered in Wyoming, population is captured, bred in captivity and 

preparations for reintroduction are made 

Congress appropriates funding (approximately $10 

million) for Pine Ridge prairie dog control program 

through poisoning 

USFWS approves the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan 

that evaluates reintroduction on 10 suitable sites 

including three on Cheyenne River Reservation 

USFWS publishes the Black-Footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for compliance with Endangered Species Act 

Pine Ridge reports an increase in prairie dog populations 

Cheyenne River enacts a Tribal Resolution 

requesting funding for prairie dog poisoning 

USFWS recommends conservation measures on Cheyenne River requiring evaluations prior to any poisoning of 

prairie dogs 

Congress provides prairie dog control funds for 

Cheyenne River but directs BIA to work with the Tribe 

and USFWS to find alternatives to poisoning and to 

develop management to allow coexistence with 

prairie dog populations 

Cheyenne River Sioux Council adopts resolution to 

investigate feasibility of setting aside lands for 

black-footed ferret reintroduction 

USFWS notes that all prairie dog towns of 1,000 or more acres affected by federal actions or funding must 

be considered as possible ferret habitat 

BIA and USFWS initiate formal consultation pursuant to 

Endangered Species Act for Cheyenne River Reservation 

targeting 33,000 acres of potential black-footed 

ferret habitat 

USFWS Biological Opinion holds that the. proposed action to poison prairie dogs on Cheyenne River 

Reservation will jeopardize possible existence and/or 

recovery of black-footed ferret 

The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife notify the 

Secretary of Interior, Director of USFWS, and 

Assistant Secretary of BIA of potential litigation for illegal poisoning of prairie dogs 

BIA issues Environmental Assessment concluding that 

prairie dog control on Cheyenne River and Rosebud 

Reservations will be suspended, but acknowledges that 

prairie dog populations could expand and that 

environmental degradation of the range resource and economic loss to Tribe and individual tribal 

members could occur 

6 
Dec 1991 

1992 

Mar 1992 

106 

Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux Tribes initiate 

Interdisciplinary Team to develop management alternatives for prairie dogs 

South Dakota Legislature enacts legislation clarifying and limiting participation of state agencies in blackfooted ferret reintroduction, expresses concern over loss of income to private land owners as result of 

reintroduction efforts. 

Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club advise Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of their interest and support for 

proposed pilot project 

7 
107 

"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" APPROACH 

The proposed project is based on a simple but 

compelling assumption -- prairie dogs are a valuable and 

essential component of the prairie ecosystem. Therefore, 

natural resource management on the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Reservation should be conducted so that all wildlife species 

can maintain their rightful place in the environment in 

conjunction with livestock production. This approach 

emphasizes Lakota cultural traditions, biodiversity and 

integrated land management for multiple use. 

While studies have indicated that excluding or 

decreasing cattle grazing increases the cool- or warm-season 

grass density and reduces prairie dog colony size, this 

method of prairie dog control has historically been opposed 

or rejected by the livestock community. Effective 

management strategies require a significant capital 

investment in range improvement which is currently beyond 

the financial means of the Tribe or individual operators. 

The proposed management objectives are also long-term as 

opposed to the relatively "quick fix" of poisoning, however, 

the Tribe is confident that with adequate funding and 

support, individual operators will subscribe to the proposed 

management techniques, thus overcoming historical support 

for poisoning. 

The BIA acknowledges that substantial changes in 

grazing systems, resulting in more and taller vegetation 

would actually reduce the density of prairie dog towns. 

However, the Tribe and BIA lack sufficient resources to 

effectively develop and implement such grazing management 

plans. It would require approximately five years to change 

the dominant vegetation from buffalograss (Buchloe 

dactyloides) and blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilus) 

associations to western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and 

associated grasses which characterize a healthy ecosystem. 

Rangelands which are dominated by western wheatgrass are considered to be in "good to high-good" condition. 

Although the issues are complex, the solution is 

simple -- restoration of rangelands to a health mixed-grass 

ecosystem. When prairie lands are in a healthy vegetative 

state, prairie dog expansion is stabilized or occurs at 

acceptable levels, thereby allowing for the delicate balance 

and interrelationships of species necessary for 

biodiversity. Under appropriate management strategies, 

healthy prairie ecosystems can also sustain cattle 

production in harmony with wildlife species. Rehabilitation 

of the range will also result in many other benefits, such 

as the enhancement of other important wildlife populations. 

8 
108 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The Environmental Assessment addressing poisoning of 

prairie dogs on the Cheyenne River and Rosebud Sioux 

Reservations will be further developed into an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the NEPA process. 

"Prairie Management Plan" incorporates objectives required 

by the EIS: determine the density of prairie dog burrows on 

the remaining 10,000 acres of trust land (23,000 acres were 

surveyed for the EA), determine population status and 

habitat use for federally endangered, threatened, or 

candidate species, and conduct an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of prairie dog management. Improved range 

management techniques proposed by the pilot project will be 

applied to the entire 1.3 million acres of trust land on the 

Cheyenne River Reservation. 

Based on acceptance of the Preferred Management 

Alternative resulting from the EIS, limited use of poisoning 

on some areas (such as near croplands and cemeteries) may be 

initiated; provided, however, that these areas are 

unsuitable for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. 

Similarly, the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets will 

be evaluated during the EIS process. 

"PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN" STRATEGIES 

The proposed pilot project challenges historical and 

deeply ingrained western assumptions about prairie dogs and 

other wildlife: prairie dogs are not pests, rather they are 

a valuable and essential part of the delicate balance in the 

prairie ecosystem. Accordingly, the Cheyenne River Tribe 

does not contemplate eradication of prairie dogs in our 

"Prairie Management Plan". Rather, we propose a holistic 

philosophy based on improved range usage to restore the 

prairie ecosystem to a more natural state where prairie dog 

populations are maintained at acceptable levels through 

environmentally acceptable mechanisms which allow wildlife 

species to coexist along with livestock production. 

The link between prairie dog expansion and livestock 

grazing is well documented as well as a variety of 

recommended management alternatives which ar~ incorporated 

into the project including: 

1. DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE WATER ON RANGELANDS 

Prairie dog expansion is directly related to the lack 

of adequate water on western rangelands because cattle tend 

to congregate and graze in areas which are near water. Due 

to the sparsity of wells and water on reservation range 

units, areas in close proximity to water have become 

overgrazed while other areas within the range units are 

9 
109 

undergrazed. Prairie dog colonies expand in the areas of 

overgrazing because of shorter grass heights and bare ground 

which provides suitable habitat. 

The solution for maximum distribution and movement of 

cattle through range units is to develop water through 

drilling wells or constructing stock dams. During the fiveyear project period the Tribe will develop 903 new water 

sources, which will result in more dispersal of cattle 

throughout the range units, diminish overgrazing near 

limited "water holes" and decrease the degraded habitats in 

which prairie dog colonies flourish and expand. As a result 

of more dispersed cattle, the vegetation can recover and 

inhibit prairie dog colonization. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes rangeland 

development through the ASCS and SCS cost-sharing programs 

which will reimburse land owners for a portion of 

development costs. However, these programs are inadequately 

funded to meet the development needs on the Cheyenne River 

Reservation. 

2. RANGE UNIT FENCING TO ACCOMMODATE GRAZING ROTATION 

The Cheyenne River Reservation has many large range 

units, but it is currently difficult to rotate animals due 

to a lack of fencing. The Tribe will construct 682.5 miles 

of cross fencing on the range units to enable managers to 

rotate cattle on a regular basis. This will limit the 

overgrazing of certain areas and achieve a balanced use of 

grass. Fencing, of_ course, is related to water development 

on the range units. 

This technique will require education of individual 

operators because it requires a change in traditional 

grazing practices and it requires a more labor intensive 

approach to livestock management. It will also be necessary 

to adapt BIA policies and range compliance procedures to 

ensure that the rotation is conducted by individual cattle 

operators who lease Tribal and allotted lands. The 

implementation of regular and consistent cattle rotation 

will result in healthier vegetation which will restrict 

prairie dog expansion as well as increase carrying capacity 

{numbers of livestock) on the range. 

3. WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

"Prairie Management Plan" provides for a habitat setaside fund, which will compensate land owners for retaining 

prairie dog colonies to maintain biodiversity and to enhance 

populations of black-footed ferrets if reintroduction is 

selected as a Preferred Alternative of the EIS. · A total of 

142 different vertebrate and invertebrate species associated 

with black-tailed prairie dog colonies in South Dakota 

10 
110 

(listed in the EA). The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe identify 

many of these species as culturally important, including 

bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagles 

(Aquila chrysaetos), other raptors, deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus and 0. virginianus), pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana), sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes 

phasianellus), burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), coyote 

(Canis latrans), badger (Taxidea taxus), fox (Vulpes sp.), 

and rabbits (Leporidae). 

Construction of cross fencing and stock dams to 

disperse livestock throughout a range unit will also be 

beneficial to wildlife and fish. Restored grasslands 

provide food and cover for upland species. New stock dams 

create more areas for wetland nesters, such as waterfowl 

(Anatidae) or northern harriers (Cyanus circus), and may 

also provide additional suitable habitat for upland species 

that are only limited by water. Partial fencing of some new 

or existing dams to control access by livestock will enhance 

fish and wildlife habitat by restoring riparian vegetation, 

decreasing compaction around the dam, increasing the life of 

the dam, reducing non-point sources of pollution (feces or 

siltation) in the dam or downstream drainage, stabilizing 

stream banks, and preventing trampling or grazing of trees 

and shrubs. Trees and shrubs provide a vertical dimension 

to the otherwise homogeneous grasslands, resulting in a 

manifold increase in species diversity. 

Controlling access to dams and reservoirs is an 

accepted and encouraged practice for wildlife habitat 

enhancement. Tribes are not eligible for funding by the 

Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (DingellJohnson and Pitmann-Robertson), nor does USFWS have a legal 

means of directing funds to Tribes. However, funding for 

construction of some stock dams and cross fencing is 

available through the USFWS's North American Wetlands 

Conservation Project, the 1991 Farm Bill, the Agricultural 

Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Soil 

Conservation Service. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is 

actively seeking other sources of funding and submitting 

proposals, but it is unlikely that the range improvements 

needed could be met through these grants alone. 

4. ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR CANDIDATE SPECIES 

As previously noted, the BIA has not received general 

funding for endangered species work on reservation trust 

lands. Furthermore, only states (not Tribes) are eligible 

for funding allocated by Section 6 of the Endangered Species 

Act for population or habitat management. Until this is 

corrected, the Tribes must request special appropriations to 

manage endangered or threatened species on Reservations. 

11 
111 

"Prairie Management Plan" incorporates USFWS's 

Conservation Recommendations presented with the formal 

Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) Consultation in regard to 

poisoning prairie dogs. Population status and habitat use 

for endangered or threatened species associated with prairie 

dog complexes will be surveyed and monitored, and speciesspecific management plans will be written. Federally listed 

species probably occurring on the Cheyenne River Reservation 

include bald eagle, black-footed ferret (past sightings 

only), interior least terns (Sterna aantillarum), peregrine 

falcons (Falco peregrinus), piping plovers, (Charadrius 

melodus), whooping crane (Grus americanus) and the American 

burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus, status unknown). 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe proposes to adopt 

additional conservation measures for candidate species 

(species being considered for federal listing as endangered 

or threatened) associated with prairie dog complexes. 

Surveys to determine status and habitat use, monitoring, and 

written management plans will be developed for the 

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous hawk (B. 

regalis), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), long-billed 

curlew (Numenius americanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), and the northern swift fox (Vulpes velox). 

Population enhancement for these species now may prevent 

listing, and save millions of dollars in future 

reintroduction expenses. 

5. PUBLIC EDUCATION 

The underlying challenge of the project is to change 

the deeply ingrained western attitude that prairie dogs are 

"pests", to promote an understanding and appreciation for 

prairie biodiversity, and to secure the voluntary 

participation of livestock operators in the project. 

Specifically, it will be the responsibility of individual 

permittees, and tribal and BIA land managers to implement 

the range management techniques on leased trust lands. 

Although the Tribe has received an initial favorable 

response from cattle operators about the project, it will be 

essential to provide education to these operators on the 

benefits and the actual use of the proposed management 

techniques. 

The cooperation of the BIA and Tribal range managers 

is also critical to ensure compliance. For example, the BIA 

requires individual operators to annually submit operation 

plans which include lease stipulations on how the range 

units will be used. These plans will be modified from 

current modes to include the proposed management strategies. 

The Tribes and BIA must have adequate range and wildlife 

personnel and equipment to conduct monitoring, provide 

technical support to individual operators and to ensure 

compliance with the new management strategies. The success 

12 
112 

of the project hinges to a large degree upon the individual 

and Tribal cattle managers supporting and implementing the 

proposed range management techniques. 

Other goals are to increase public understanding of 

issues associated with the Endangered Species Act, 

particularly the black-footed ferret and other endangered, 

threatened or candidate species and of the general concepts 

of biodiversity and multiple- use land management. 

6. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM 

The project has been designed by an Interdisciplinary 

Team comprised of tribal, federal, state and environmental 

representatives (see appendix for list of members). This 

team will serve as an active working and advisory arm to the 

Tribal land managers responsible for implementing the 

project. The Team will also conduct annual evaluations and 

be responsible for the preparation of annual reports on the 

project. 

7. BISON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 

In accordance with cultural values and community 

economic development planning, the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe recently initiated a tribal bison herd project which 

compliments and will be integrated with the "Prairie 

Management Plan". The goal is to use 100,000 acres of 

tribal land for bison production within five years. This 

Bison Enhancement Project, and associated Wildlife 

Enhancement Project, is supported by the Tribe, 

congressional set-aside funds for the Inter-Tribal Bison 

Cooperative, and grants from the Administration for Native 

Americans and BIA. In the future, it is possible that bison 

production may be a viable component of the "Prairie 

Management Plan". 

13 
113 

RESULTS AND BENEFITS 

The project will result in a multitude of direct and 

indirect benefits. Following is a list of the more 

significant results which are anticipated: 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

* Increased or enhanced wildlife and fish habitats 

with resultant healthier populations 

* Maintenance and recovery of endangered wildlife 

species; enhanced populations of candidate species to 

prevent listing and reduced future needs for funding for 

recovery and reintroduction 

* Reduction in soil erosion and stabilization of 

stream banks and channels 

* Reduction of non-point sources of pollution, 

especially at dams and riparian areas 

TRIBAL 

* Maintain range conditions at or above present 

levels of productivity 

* Increased self sufficiency through cattle 

production 

* 

* 

Increased revenues from hunting and fishing 

Increased capacity for subsistence hunting 

* Increased public awareness and skills in range 

management to promote biodiversity and enhance wildlife 

* Increased coordination and cooperation with 

federal, state and private environmental interests 

FEDERAL 

* A reduction in the need for annual appropriations 

in prairie dog poisoning control funds over a five-year 

period 

* Averting the threat of litigation against the BIA 

by environmental organizations for violation of the 

Endangered Species Act and NEPA, as well as tribal 

litigation for violation of trust responsibility 

14 
114 

* Compliance with the Endangered Species Act and 

National Environmental Policy Act and related policy and 

regulation 

NATIONAL 

* Possible establishment of sites for reintroduction 

of black- footed ferret 

* The development and testing of model range 

management techniques which enhance biodiversity 

15 
115 

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS 

In order to be implemented, federal funds are 

necessary for a period of approximately five years. 

However, the funds required for the proposed "Prairie 

Management Plan" -- less than $2.00 per acre for the first 

year -- are actually less per acre than what would be 

required for traditional management through poisoning. Once 

the management objectives are completed, range conditions 

should be in a condition to sustain both cattle grazing and 

prairie dogs at acceptable levels with only minimum 

management efforts and funding. 

YEAR 1 

The first year budget requirement is $2,220,000 to 

conduct management activities on the 1 . 3 million acres of 

trust lands, which have been determined possible habitat for 

black-footed ferret reintroduction, but will eventually 

include all 2.8 million acres of reservation land. A 

complete budget breakdown of these costs is included in the 

Appendix. The activities which will be completed in year 

one include the following: 

1. Complete an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in accordance with NEPA 

($0). 

2. Conduct public and landowner education regarding 

Endangered Species issues and project objectives to 

facilitate support and voluntary cooperation in project 

($4,000). 

3. Conduct surveys of federally endangered, threatened or 

candidate species to determine status and develop management 

plans ($366,000). 

4. Identify prairie dog towns as suitable or unsuitable 

habitat and coordinate activities with landowners and the 

Tribe to establish habitat set-aside areas including payment 

to landowners ($585,000). 

5. Construct 137 miles of cross fencing on range units 

($273,000). 

6. Construct 195 water developments on range units 

($1,166,900). 

7. Build fences to control livestock access to dams to 

enhance wildlife habitat ($270,000) 

8. Interagency coordination with federal, state and tribal 

agencies and Interdisciplinary Team ($5,000). 

16 
116 

9. Design research protocol and techniques, conduct first 

year evaluation/report ($2,500) 

10. Investigate and pursue alternative funding sources ($0) 

YEARS 2-5 

Depending on the results achieved in Year 1, the 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe will submit detailed budget 

requests for future years of the project (see Appendix 3). 

The infrastructure developments are phased over a five-year 

period and the Tribe will also require continued support 

throughout the project to maintain technical and 

professional staff to conduct management activities. 

However, during the first year, the Tribe will actively 

investigate and pursue other sources of funding to help 

support and continue the project which could reduce the need 

for annual appropriations. The need for specific 

appropriations could be greatly reduced if Congress were to 

authorize Tribes to receive funds under the Endangered 

Species Act and other programs which could provide funding 

for project activities. 

17 
117 

APPENDICES 

1 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS 

2 CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL 

RESOLUTION 

3 BUDGET SUMMARIES 

4 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 
118 

APPENDIX 1: INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS 

TEAM LEADER 

Parr, Kenneth 

TEAM MEMBERS 

Carson, James M. 

Hawk Chasing, Elton 

Croxen, Michael 

DuBray, Fred 

Eklund, Daniel* 

Eisner, Sherry 

Heckert, Mark 

Hudson, Jim 

Lilly, Wayland G. 

Rousseau, Narcisse 

Area Wildlife Biologist, Aberdeen 

Area Office, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 

Supervisory Range Conservationist, 

Rosebud Agency, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 

Land Operations Officer, Rosebud 

Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Supervisory* Range Conservationist, 

Cheyenne River Agency, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 

Coordinator, Administration for 

Native Americans, Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe 

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD 

Wildlife Biologist, Administration 

for Native Americans, Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe 

Wildlife Biologist, Native American 

Fish & Wildlife Society 

Tribal Land Office 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Area Range Conservationist, Aberdeen 

Area Office, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 

Director, Game, Fish and Parks 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

* Corrections made 15 June 1992 

19 
119 

APPENDIX 2 - CHEYENNE RIVER TRIBAL RESOLUTION 

20 
120 

T R I B A L H E H O R A N D U H 

TO: SUPERINTENDENT, Cheyenne River Agenc/LJ) 

Arl,~oe 11,ompson. Tribal Sccret.iry ()>I 

DATE: 05/06/92 

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 145-92-CR: Sub11itting an application for the "Prairie 

Haaageaent Plan and tJiat this funding be appropriated by Congress as a 

1>ilot project to help aaaintain our land and othcT natural resources. 

Transmitted herewith is one (1) origin;1l copy nnd five (5) copie s of R~so l u cion No. 

145-92-CR, which was duly adopted by the Chcyenn~ River Sioux Tribal Council. during 

its regular session held on May 6, 1992. 

cc: Chairman 

Trl!asurer 

Central Records 

Councilmembe rs 

Planning Department 

File/ 2 

21 
121 

RESOLUTION NO. 145-92-CR 

WHEREAS. the Cheyenne River Sloux Tribe of South Dakota is an unincorporat~d Tribe of 

Indians, having accepted the provision of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stilt. 

984); and 

WHEREAS, the Tribe, in order to establish its tribul organization; to conSt!rv~ iti:,; 

tribal property; to develop its common resources; and co promote the ~en~ral 

welfare of its people, has ordained and es.;:ablished a Constitution and 

Dy-laws; and 

WHEREAS, the Cheyenne R:1.ver Sioux Tribe supports the management of rese rvation lands 

in a manner that is culturally and environmentally sound i and 

WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe needs range improvements, such HS cross fencing 

and water development, to better manage livestock grazing, and e nhanct: the 

prairie ecosystem; and 

WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recognizes that prairit: dogs re<1uire mnn.)g,ement 

to determine acceptable population levels so that livestock production and 

species diversi ty are maximized; and 

WHEREAS. the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe values specit!s diven;ity. including f~d~rally 

threatened, endangered, and species, such as the black-footed ferret and b,1lJ 

eagle (of which some species are of cultural/spiritual i.mpor.tance), but 

requires compensat1on to landowners for maintenance of cr.ittcal habitats; and 

WHEREAS. the Tribal Planning staff has worked in conjunction with the Bure au of lnJJ.:m 

Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an integrated 

management plan, entitled "Prairie Management Plnn 11 ; n ow 

TIIERHORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe s ubmits th e encl.<,ssu 

application for the "Prairie Management Plan"; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe req11t!sts r-hi s furHlin~~ b~ 

appropriated by Congress as a pilot project to he lp mainta :ln our land aud 

other natural resources. 

CERTIFICATION 

I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Cheyt!:nne Rivl!r Sioux Tribe. certify th~1t the 

Trihul Council is composed of fifteen (15) members, of whom 11, constituting iJ quorum, 

were present at a meeting 1 duly and regularly called, noticed. convened and held thi!; 

6th clay of May, 1992, Regular Session; and that the foregoing resolutjon was dul y 

ad opted at such meeting by an affirmative vote of 9 for, I against, 1 not voti11g 

(Vice-chairman) and 4 absent. 

22 
122 

T R l ll A L M E M O R A N » tt ~ 

TO : 

FltOM: 

SUl'F.RINTENDF.NT, Chey e nne River Agew 

Arlene Thompson, Tri.bnl Secretary \Ji DA'l'E: l/O9/ 9i 

SUDJ F.CT: RESOLUTION NO. 22-92-CR: The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is request i ng 

fundin1-t to develop a f'ra:lr.i c Do~ Control l'.L..m. which includes the n·introduccion of thl..' Hlnck-Footed Ft!rret, ln conjunction wlth w:iti.:r dcvclop1111!nt ,"'Lnd pa ~• curc Jcvclopuh.int for rotationo1l v,razlng patterns, that 

fundin~ for tllis pl:111 wlll i nclud~ rctmburN~mcnt to land owners f ur 

m.tin t.i.lninA cntl:rni~crcd spcct~s habitat throu~h Sec tion Six of the End:m p,c rcd Spe cies Act, and chat thl? trih•ll plannin•; staff will wr•rk in 

c- onjunction with the nurcnu of lndiun Affairs Lund Operations O!flcc 

and the U.S. l'ish and Wildlife Service to clevelop the Long Range Man-

.:i~cmcnt l

1 l an. 

Tn111smitted herewith is one (I) or11:inul copy and fiv e (5) copies of Resolution No. 

22-92-CR, which was duly adopt ed by th~ Cheyenne Rlvt:r Sioux Tribal Council, during 

its Regular J,mu.:iry Se ssion held on J«nunry 9 , 1992. 

cc: Chnirm;in 

Treas ure-r 

Councilmcmheri:. (15 ) 

Di s trict Officers (12) 

lanJ and Natural Re s ources 

l~red Uubr~y, ANA lltr ec cor 

Orville Heste s, Pl;1 nnl1l~ Oirector 

Fl l.,/2 
123 

RESOLUTION NO. 22-92-CR 

WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is an unincorporate..i Tribe 

of Indi.ans having accepted the provisions of the Act of June 18 1 1934 

(48 Stat. 984); and 

WHEREAS, the Tribe in order to establish its tribal organization, t o i.:on.s,! l"V~ itl::> 

tribal property, to develop its common resources, and to promote:: the general welfare of its people has ordained and established a Constilution and 

By-Laws; and 

WHERF.AS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe supports the managem1:nt of reservation lands 

in a manner that is environmentally sound; and 

WHERF.AS. the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recog1\izes thE! Black Tniled Fraire Dog as a 

major food source for hawks, eagles, coyotes, and other predators that currently migrate and exist on reservation lands; and 

WHEREAS, the Black-Footed Ferret is an endangered species protected by the Federal 

Government under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act and r ~quires 

the Prairie Dog as it's major food source; and 

WHEREAS, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has one of the few Prairie Dog Complexes 

that are suitable for the survival and recovery of the Black-Footed Ferret 

in a natural habitat; and 

WHr:REAS. the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe desires a management plan to control anrl 

retanl the growth of the Prairie Dog populations on the reser\latton; now 

TllEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cheyenne River SJpux Tribe is requesting fundJ ng 

to develop a Prairie Dog Control Plan. which includes the reintroduction 

of the Black-Footed Ferret, in conjunction with water d1.:,.,elopmeut unJ pa sture development for rotational grazing patterns; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funding for this plan will include reimbursement to 

land owners for maintaining endangered species habitat through Section Six 

of the Endangered Species Act; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the tribal planning staff will work in conjunction 1o11th 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Operations Of fice and the U.S. [i'!sh and 

Wildlife Service to develop the Long Range Management l'lan. 

CERTIFICATION 

I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, c~rtify that 

the Tribal Council is composed of fifteen (15) members, of whom lt.. cons titut1ng 

.i quorum, were present at a meeting, duly and regularly ca]leJ, noticed, convened 

and held this 9th day of January, 1992, Regular Session; and that the foregoing 

resolution was duly adopted at such meeting by an affirmative vote of 14 for, 0 against 1 0 not voting and l absent. 

24 
124 

APPENDIX 3: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN BUDGET 

OBJECTIVE 1: Implement and monitor planned range and wildlife 

enhancement projects involving construction of cross-fencing and water sources to disperse cattle away from impact areas, and construction of 

fences around dams to increase wildlife habitat. Based on EIS, control 

prairie dogs in some areas. 

YEAR 1 YEAR 2-5 TOTAL 

PER YEAR 

IMPROVEMENTS 

Cross-Fencing (683 miles) $273,000 $273,000 $1,365,000 

Fencin~ for Dams 270,000 270,000 1,350,000 

Dams ( 03! 903,000 903,000 4,515,000 

Wells (75 lil5....QQQ lil5....QQQ 5Z5,QOO 1,551,000 PERSONNEL 1,551,000 7,755,000 

Range Technicians (2) 32,016 32,016 160,080 

Right-of-Way Specialist (1) 26,797 26,797 133,985 Engineer/Survey Tech (1) 24,~00 24,~00 122,500 

Archaeolofist (1) 32, 18 32, 18 162,090 Fringe (2 %) 

1~ 1~ 

l5Q.....!l5Q 

729,105 EQUIPMENT 

Vehicles (4) 60,000 60,000 

Vehicle Fuel/Maintenance 10,800 10,800 54,000 

Office/General 

7~ 1H§8 

19.....QQQ 

133,000 

OBJECTIVE 2: For federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species conduct surveys, determine/monitor status, write management plans, and 

provide compensation to maintain prairie dog towns as critical habitat. 

Based on EIS, consider reintroducing black-footed ferrets. 

PERSONNEL 

Wildlife Biologist (2) g4·594 g4·594 261,9zo Wildlife Technicians ( 4) ~ ~ 320. 1 0 

Fringe (26%) 152,371 152,371 ~U:A§§ EQUIPMENT Vehicles (6) 90,000 io,ooo Vehicle Fuel/Maintenance 16,200 16,200 1,000 

Office/General ll..QQQ 1g:ggg 3..1....QOO 

129,200 202,000 

HABITAT SET-ASIDE FUND 160,000 160,000 800,000 

OBJECTIVE 3: Prepare and present workshops, seminars, or other 

educational materials on prairie ecosystems, biodiversity, grazing 

management, and endangered species to local groups and communities. 

PUBLIC EDUCATION 4,000 1,500 10,000 

$2,220,192 $2,042,692 $10,390,960 

25 
125 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST 

GS-11 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position involves conducting and coordinating an environmental impact analysis in conjunction with a range 

and wildlife enhancement project on the Cheyenne River 

Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Prepare, process and issue an environmental impact 

statement in compliance with federal trust responsibility on Indian lands and other laws and regulations, such as NEPA, 

NHPA, ARPA, FWCA, EDS, etc. 

B. Conduct scoping meetings, public hearings, 

environmental review, consultations and other methods of 

public involvement with Indian and non-Indian people. 

C. Involve the Indian people in decision-making in the 

EIS process. 

D. Prepare regular progress and annual reports. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Demonstrated ability to prepare an EIS. 

B. Knowledge of the requirements and procedures 

required under the various federal laws (NEPA, NHPA, Fish & 

Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act), 

regulations and Executive Orders (No. 11593) pertaining to 

environmental and cultural resource management. 

C. Ability to communicate and translate technical 

terms clearly, both orally and in writing. 

D. Knowledge of retained rights established by Treaty 

and/or recognized in law, especially numerous environmental 

laws in relation to trust responsibilities. 

E. Knowledge to interpret and understand Indian goals, 

philosophy and policy relating to the use, development and 

enhancement of trust natural resources. 

26 

68-141 - 93 - 5 
126 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

RANGE CONSERVATIONIST 

GS-8 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with a range and wildlife enhancement project on the Cheyenne 

River Reservation. 

II . MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Conducts range condition and utilization 

inventories, and recommends proper stocking rates and 

management practices. 

B. Conducts field investigation to determine 

compliance with terms of grazing permits. 

C. Assists with developing, implementing, and 

monitoring a major range improvement project. 

D. Makes contact with range unit permittees, Indian 

and non-Indian, concerning various range-related issues. 

E. Supervises Technicians, Aides, and Clerks. 

F. Assists with A.D.P. supervision and problemsolving. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Must have a professional knowledge, educational 

background and competence in Range Management. 

B. Must understand theories, practices and techniques 

of Range Conservation. 

C. Must have ability to discuss and advise on specific 

and complex range management and conservation practices. 

D. Must be knowledgeable in regulations pertaining to 

grazing permit and farm lease administration. 

E. Must have ability to prepare correspondence and 

reports in connection with resource management. 

27 
127 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

RANGE TECHNICIAN 

GS-4 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves range-related duties in conjunction 

with a range and wildlife enhancement project on the 

Cheyenne River Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Assists Range Conservationist in implementing 

federal and tribal grazing regulations and codes. 

B. Collects, compiles, and records field data 

regarding rangeland utilization surveys and permit 

compliance. 

C. Makes regular compliance checks, reports 

violations, and investigates complaints and problems. 

D. Delineates on maps, plats and/or aerial 

photographs, land-ownership and range unit boundaries. 

E. Observes and records general rangeland conditions. 

F. Assists Range Conservationist with ADP data 

compilation, modification and application. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. General knowledge of BIA and Tribal grazing codes. 

B. Knowledge of aerial photos and interpretation, 

topographic maps, legal descriptions, plat books and permit 

contracts. 

C. Basic knowledge of proper range use. 

D. Knowledge of land descriptions and land status 

legends. 

E. Ability to read livestock brands. 

F. Basic knowledge of ADP system. 

28 
128 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST 

GS-9 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with 

Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Range 

Management on the Cheyenne River Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Review Section 4 and 7 documents (e.g., listing 

packages, recovery plans, biological assessments, formal and 

informal consultation) for Threatened and Endangered 

wildlife and plant species. 

B. Conduct field evaluations for population and 

habitat status of candidate and listed species, and their 

response to a range and wildlife enhancement project. 

C. Prepare and implement management plans for listed 

or candidate species. 

D. Participates with other Federal and Tribal resource 

personnel on an Interdisciplinary Team to prepare an EIS. 

E. Supervises 2-4 Wildlife Technicians. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Knowledge of wildlife biology, especially 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species of wildlife 

and plants. 

B. Demonstrated knowledge of the Endangered Species 

Act, NEPA, and other environmental statutes. 

C. Demonstrated skill in data analysis, field 

techniques, literature search methods, impact assessment, 

and scientific methodology. 

D. Ability to evaluate complex biological issues and 

prepare appropriate recommendations and management plans 

with minimal supervision. 

E. Demonstrated ability to communicate orally and in 

writing (both technical and layman styles) with Indian and 

non-Indian individuals or groups. 

29 
129 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

WILDLIFE TECHNICIAN OR TRAINEE 

GS-4 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves developing professional skills in 

conjunction with Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate 

Species and Range Management on the Cheyenne River 

Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Works with Wildlife Biologist and other 

professionals performing technical and basic duties, 

especially with endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species. 

B. Participates in project planning and 

implementation. 

C. Participates in collecting and compiling basic data 

on species, population, or habitat data. 

D. Prepares field data for computer processing, 

performs error checks, and assists with data summarization, 

analysis, and reporting. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Knowledge of wildlife biology and associated 

sciences gained through academic or field experience. 

B. Knowledge of biological research programs, 

including field equipment and techniques. 

c. Ability to work long hours, during nights, and in 

rugged field conditions. 

D. Ability to identify wildlife species of the 

northern Great Plains, and a knowledge of their habits and 

habitats. 

E. Ability to communicate effectively orally or in 

writing. 

F. Ability to work cooperatively with individuals 

having diverse or conflicting interests. 

G. Knowledge of computer operation. 

30 
130 

APPENDI.X 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

ARCHAEOLOGIST 

GS-11 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

'fhis position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves professional duties in conjunction with 

the construction of range and wildlife improvements on the 

Cheyenne River Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Performs cultural resource inventories in 

compliance with tribal and federal regulations. 

B. Assists and directs onsite monitoring of surface 

disturbing activities on historical or archaeologically 

sensitive areas. 

C. Examines and evaluates the significance of cultural 

resources discovered prior to or during construction and 

recommends the appropriate mitigation measures to minimize 

the impacts to the resource. 

D. Prepares case study reports for effect 

determinations on project in accordance with Advisory 

Council Guidelines. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Professional knowledge of theories and field 

techniques gained through completion of a B.A. Degree in 

Anthropology, specializing in Archaeology. 

B. Knowledge of the environmental and cultural 

resources of the Northern Plains. 

C. Knowledge of the various tribes' policies, 

ordinances, and cultural attitudes toward their land and 

environment. 

D. Knowledge of federal cultural and environmental 

laws and regulatioBs in relation to trust responsibilities, 

such as NEPA, NHPA, etc. 

E. Ability to write clearly and concisely for work 

plans, management reports, and an Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

31 
131 

APPENDIX 4: PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT PLAN - POSITION DESCRIPTIONS 

ENGINEERING/SURVEYING TECHNICIAN 

GS-8 

I. SCOPE OF WORK 

This position is designated for Indian Preference in 

Hiring and involves professional work in the construction 

of dams and fences in conjunction with a range and wildlife 

enhancement project on the Cheyenne River Reservation. 

II. MAJOR DUTIES 

A. Responsible for the feasibility of and surveys for 

sound conservation structures, · including dams, dugouts, 

wells, and fences. 

B. Initiates design specifications, plans and on-site 

inspection of work progress and completion. 

C. Assures that the best equipment and measuring 

methods are used, corrections applied, and computations made 

so that accurate data are obtained. 

D. Makes personal contacts with property 

owners/lessees in gaining entrance to lands and in securing 

their cooperation in conducting surveys on their lands. 

E. Works effectively with Indian or non-Indian 

contractors, government agencies, and Tribal programs. 

III. RANKING FACTORS 

A. Knowledge of surveying principles including 

technical skills in the preparation of final surveying 

reports and maps. 

B. Know1edge of the concepts and techniques for proper 

land surveying. 

C. Knowledge of land descriptions, land status 

legends, and techniques of aerial photo interpretation. 

D. Skill in utilizing electronic programmable 

calculators, computers, and electronic field surveying 

equipment. 

32 
132 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank you gentlemen for the testimony that has been brought before the Committee. 

I think we seem to have a consistent theme across the board in 

terms of all those who have testified-and has been alluded earlier 

by the Chairman's statement-about the lack of cooperation, or 

even for that matter, assistance that we've received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Maybe I'm being repetitious for raising this question, but to all 

of you gentlemen, and I think I can ask the members of the panel, in your opinion, how much assistance has the Bureau of Indian Affairs given to your respective organizations in the past in handling 

this issue of fisheries and wildlife interests from our Native American communities throughout the country. And I just wanted to ask that in general form. 

Mr. Poynter, your comments are well taken in terms of what this 

Committee needs to do. Certainly better coordination is needed to 

maximize the participation of our Native American communities, 

especially because of the long distances that some of you have had 

to travel to visit us here in Washington. I'm sure it's also the intent of the Chairman, Mr. Richardson, 

that rather than you having to come to Washington, maybe there 

needs to be a reversal of the process. Maybe Washington needs to 

go to you and to hear directly from the tribal organizations. The 

members of the Committee would see and experience the realities 

of what the Native American tribes have had to face, not only for 

their economic, but certainly for their social needs at present. 

Now I think I want to assure Mr. Poynter that the Chairman 

will definitely take that into consideration, and it will certainly be 

my personal recommendation that we consider this. 

I Just wanted to ask that first question to all of you. In your opin- ion, on a scale of one to ten, what is your opinion of the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs ~ving assistance or lack of assistance to your respective organizations? I'd like to ask Mr. Mauleon first. 

Mr. MAULSON. Mr. Chairman, like I say, it's a great distance 

that we've traveled, and it's always good to bring your staff along. 

As you know, yourself, a chair person and a very busy person, that 

I like to have my technical director of our Natural Resource Department answer that on behalf of Lac Du Flambeau. 

Larry Wawronowicz, please, if you would. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please do so. 

Mr. WAWRONOWICZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this opportunity. 

I guess in terms of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or any federal 

agency which the tribe deals with in terms of trying to manage the 

resources within the reservation boundaries or on off-reservation, 

there always seems to be an inconsistency on how these departments deal with Indian tribes. · And in our testimony, we specifically state that there has to be 

somewhat of a consistency in which these organizations or federal 

agencies deal with Indian tribes by possibly coming up with a 

clearly defined statement of trust responsibility through legislation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, it seems in the past that we always have to come back to Congress during the Appropriations pe-
133 

riod to try to reenact dollars that were added by Congress to the 

programs, like Tribal Management Development Funds, fish hatchery operations, cyclical maintenance rehabilitation. 

Basically what happens here is that the tribes will come to Congress during appropriation period and ask for these appropriations. 

And what will happen the next go around is that the Administration will take them out, and the tribes will have to be here again 

to ask for the same dollars. 

So basically, we always take two steps forward and one step back 

word every appropriations period. 

Last year, for example, Congress specifically said·within their appropriations language, that Fiscal Year 1993 add-ons would be or 

should be, and directing the Bureau of Indian Affairs to put it on 

the base. 

You know, through the transition, the Bush Administration basically went ahead and wiped it all out. So we don't really know 

where we stand right now. But hopefully, we're not going to have 

to do that with the Clinton Administration. 

It's the inconsistent funding that really gives us the problems in 

terms of planning. We have 25 people that work for our Natural 

Resource Department that are doing very good jobs in trying to 

protect, conserve and enhance the resource, but as program managers, it's very difficult to plan for future development and for resource protection because of the inconsistent funding problem. 

It's a major concern. 

So I guess, in summary, I believe that, if Congress decides to put 

legislation forward, we do need a consistent and concise definition 

of how the trust responsibility pertains to natural resources in 

order for all the federal agencies the tribes deal with to have an 

idea how to deal with Indian tribes. 

I firmly believe that inconsistent funding is very much of a problem for planning purposes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to ask the question again, and 

please forgive me if I'm going to terrorize your name, as usually 

the members have terrorized my name. 

Mr. Wawronowicz, can you give me, by a scale of ten, one to ten, 

the one being the best and ten being the worst, your experience 

with the BIA. In your honest opinion, how do you rate the BIA in 

its working activities with your organization in the past, as you've 

started. 

Can you give me just a sense of your best opinion? 

Mr. WAWR0N0WICZ. One being best and ten being worst? 

Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. One being the best and ten the worst. 

Mr. WAWR0N0WICZ. Six. 

Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. Six. All right. 

Mr. Maulson? 

Mr. MAULS0N. Yes. That was a technical question to my director. 

But as a tribal chairman, I think regarding the obligation and 

the responsibility of the federal government to the Indian people 

across this country that we've just scratched the surface on these 

issues. So to ask me, as a tribal chairman, from one to ten, I probab!y couldn't give you that number because it's so high. 

So I would say we need a lot of work on that, Mr. Chairman. 
134 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I'm not intending to make the BIA the 

whipping boy of our hearing this morning, but consistently it seems 

that this has always been the constant theme in the years that I've 

served on hearings dealing with Native American issues. 

I understand that they've made, the past four years, a very diligent effort to reorganize the BIA. I don't know where we are with 

that. 

And adding more complications to the process is the fact that we 

have a new Administration, and we have new players. Let's keep 

our fingers crossed that hopefully, with the new Administration, we 

will get a better set of policies at least more consistently as compared, perhaps, to what we've had to deal with in the past. 

Mr. Schlender? 

Mr. SCHLENDER. Yes. I'd like to point out to yourself and to the 

Committee that I don't blame the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 

some of the concerns that have been raised here. 

The fact that our funding comes in at 39 percent less than what 

we put it in for, I put the blame for that on the President and on 

the Office of Management and Budget. It's been our experience that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the 

one that has the best understanding of what the trust responsibil- ity is, particularly in comparison to the many other agencies that 

we have to deal with in the federal government. 

For example, we deal with hydro relicensing projects in the 

states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. And the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has consistently obviated the tribe's 

ability to put conditions on the relicensing projects that are going 

forward. 

And so they have no understanding of what the trust responsibil- ity is to Indian tribes. 

The National Park Service has taken it upon itself to give its 

own interpretation as to what treaty rights is. 

In the area of Isle Royal, we have endeavored to try to have a 

dialogue with them regarding fishing around Isle Royal, commercial fishing, something that tribal members do in Lake Superior. And the National Park Service has said that they don't recognize the treaty rights. The tribes in our state have chosen not to sue the Federal Government, but instead have chosen to sue the states. But if the National Park Service is going to reflect the opinion of the Federal 

Government, then certainly a suit like that would have to go forward. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been very good in terms of pro- viding litigation support to tribes in the m1dwest. We have risen 

up to the top of their list in terms of getting litigation support. And 

tliat's been very helpful to the tribes in its fight against the states 

that do not recognize the treaty rights of the tribes. 

The Department of Labor has sued our or~anization, and it clearly is against the weight of case law and opinion that says that interference with the infrastructure, the intramural rights of tribes 

to be self-governing strictly in the area of treaty rights, the Department of Labor has chosen to ignore that. 

It's cost us more than $40,000 to get a win in the trial court 

level, and we're facing an appeal with the Department of Labor 
135 

right now. And so they have no understanding of the federal trust 

responsibility. 

The U.S. Forest Service has an uneven and inconsistent way of 

dealing with us. 

In one National Forest, the local forest manager there has taken 

it upon himself to enter into agreements with individual tribes for 

the gathering rights. 

The Ottawa National Forest manager has taken a different view 

on it and has said that for the neighboring tribe that's closest, he 

recognizes no rights for ~athering in there. 

The U.S. Forest Sel"Vlce has taken it upon itself to say in the 

boundary waters canoe area that treaty rights don't apply. And it's 

our reading of that legislation that the treaty rights were not abrogated by the boundary waters canoe area legislation. 

We have a pretty good relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and they seem to have a better understanding of what 

the trust responsibility is. But when we do fishing in the spring, 

where we go out and count fish to make sure there are viable fish 

populations that the tribes can SJ)E:ar, we have to pay the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service for their activities. 

Admittedly, we don't pay them the full value of what they give 

to us, but it seems to me rather inconsistent that our trustee has 

to secure and exact payment from the people that it owes a trust 

responsibility to. 

In the area of environmental protection, the EPA has come up 

with an Indian policy, but it's been very ineffective in the way that 

it deals with Indian tribes. 

Finally, and I don't like to sound as though I'm defending the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has too been 

inconsistent and uneven in the way that it deals with Indian 

tribes, particularly with organizations like ours that are inter-tribal organizations. 

In the past, it has taken the opportunity to say that it owes a 

collective trust responsibility to the tribes, and we've been very successful in going forward and being very effective and very successful in self-management, self-regulatory capabilities under the aegis of a collective trust doctrine. 

That collective trust doctrine has been overturned or put on its 

head with the idea of self-governance. Where the Bureau sees that 

its trust responsibility is to individual tribes. And so we've had 

tribes that have taken money out of the Commission, taken their 

1/1sth share and gone home with it. Luckily, those tribes have turned around and subcontracted back 

to us, because we do have an economy of scale there. 

And so we need to really solidify what kind of trust responsibility 

that the Bureau owes to organizations like ours that are inter-tribal organizations. Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. Well, you still didn't give me a number one 

to ten opinion of this issue that I've raised earlier. Mr. SCHLENDER. I wouldn't want to give them a grade, because 

I'm sure I would see that some place in testimony in the future, 

saying how good they were. 

But of the organizations that I mentioned, the other federal organizations, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has the best understanding 
136 

of what its trust responsibility is, compared to these other organizations that either ignore or just blatantly deny that there's any 

trust responsibility at all. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, you've certainly added a new perspective, also. I shouldn't say new, but that has been a constant theme 

that you've got the problems of the rights of the tribes, and you 

have the problem of the rights of the states. And then a whole host 

of rights of the different federal agencies fighting among themselves as to who's got the right theme or the right policy affecting 

the needs of Native Americans. 

I'm hopeful that, perhaps with the new Administration, there 

will be a sense of consistency by way of policy affecting the needs 

of Native Americans throughout the various agencies dealing with 

environmental issues, dealing with the rights, the hunting and the 

fishing and the wildlife, just as we've discussed this morning. 

So I appreciate your comment on that. 

Mr. Poynter? 

Mr. POYNTER. Five. 

In all fairness to the Bureau, I feel the Bureau is trying to do 

the best they can. 

I think maybe they could advocate for more funding for fish and 

wildlife management on behalf of tribes. 

I echo what Mr. Schlender says about they have probably the 

best understanding of trust responsibility. 

And, like Mr. Schlender, I feel that the other federal agencies 

need to come up to speed with the Bureau's understanding of trust 

responsibilities. 

There's inconsistencies in all the federal agencies. Talking to 

tribal wildlife managers and planners across the country, tribal 

members are looking forward to the potential of working with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the near future, since they're in 

the process of developing their Native American policy. 

The people I've talked to feel that the Service are the experts in 

fish and wildlife management, and probably the time is right to 

begin working with them directly in co-management areas. 

I would personally like to see the different federal agencies work 

more cooperatively and collectively together. 

You go to one agency, and although they have an Indian policy, 

they have no money behind it; specifically, the EPA, you know. 

And there's a lot of areas where they could be working together, 

you know, if they could all chip in here and there, they could get 

things done, whereas just putting it on a shelf and saying, well, we 

don't have adequate funding at this time, maybe in the future. 

But I feel that the time is right. Things have changed in the last 

year. I don't know what happened, but all of a sudden fish and 

wildlife issues are a high priority here in Washington with tribes, 

or at least Congress is looking at it that way. · In my book, they've always been a priority, but because of the 

IPS (Indian Priority System) that was in place at one time, those 

concerns for fish and wildlife management weren't considered priorities, because when the tribal chairman had to choose between a 

health center for his people and a fish hatchery, there was no comparison. 
137 

But now tribes are able to show that natural resources, specifically fish and wildlife, are high priorities in Indian country, and 

hopefully the funding will follow. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Poynter. 

Mr. DuBray. 

Mr. DUBRAY. Yes. As far as a rating from one to ten, that's very 

difficult to put a number on there, especially in light of the difficulty that the federal agencies, as well as the Congress, have in 

defining just what trust responsibility is and who is responsible for 

it. 

So I guess to answer your question though, right now, because 

of our situation, I would have to give them a ten. Because here we 

are on our way to the Supreme Court against the State of South 

Dakota threatening to undermine our very sovereign jurisdiction. 

And so in light of what these gentlemen say, I agree that it 

maybe is not necessarily the BIA's fault, but it is a federal trust 

responsibility that has been neglected. 

And so I know the Bureau tries as hard as they can to do the 

best they can with the limited funding they have, but some of the 

responsibility has to be shared by the whole Federal Government. 

And I think that all of the federal agencies need to recognize 

tribes as visible and full participants in the fish and wildlife resource management. 

The BIA, on the other hand, can't make that decision. They can't 

say that tribes can receive equal funding or equal status to a state, 

for instance. That has to come from here, from the Congress. 

And so I can't say that I put all the blame on the Bureau, and 

that's why I give them that kind of rating. But those are the kinds 

of things that need to happen. 

And from a Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal perspective, we feel 

that legislation is absolutely necessary that recognizes tribes as full 

participants and equal managers, as states are. 

Without that kind of legislation, when everybody comes to the 

table tojarticipate and receive a piece of the funding, tribes are 

neglecte . dne of the federal agencies goes, they get the money, they build 

up their capability to manage our resources. 

What we're suggesting is that we need that money directly out 

to our tribe and out to our reservations so we can build up our capability, not the Bureau's capability, not the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, not any other federal agency. We need to build our capability. 

Because our projects, we live on the land, these resources are 

very important to us, and we know them best how to manage them. 

And that has to be recognized by everyone involved. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I'm reminded of a statement made by Mr. 

John Wesley about the missionaries who are here to convert the Indians, and then he said, but who will convert me. 

And I want to raise again a measuring stick. Please don't feel 

that maybe I'm being simplistic, but I'm not specifically asking for 

a scientific method to say exactly where we are, as it was alluded 

to earlier by our friend from the Navajo Nation, because every tribe 
138 

has a different setting, a different history, and a different relationship with the federal government, as well as with the states. 

So understanding that diversity problems existing even among 

the tribes themselves, I think we also need to have you gentlemen 

express an opinion about the Congress. 

So using the same measuring stick, Mr. Maulson, one to ten, how 

do you think Congress has been behaving in dealing with Indian 

issues? 

Just the numbers. 

Mr. MAUI.SON. Very bad, number ten. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ten. 

Mr. Schlender? 

Mr. SCHLENDER. I think that the Congress--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, no explanation. Just give me the 

number. 

Mr. ScHLENDER. One is good and ten is bad? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ten is the worst. 

Mr. SCHLENDER. Ten is the worst. 

Three. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Three. You're being very generous. 

Mr. Poynter? 

Mr. POYNTER. Eight. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Eight. Mr. DuBray? 

Mr. DUBRAY. I'm going to have to go ten again. 

Mr. FALEOMA VAEGA. Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

This message will certainly be conveyed to the Chairman. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

For our next panel, we have the Honorable Nelson Wallulatum, 

the Chief of the Wasco Tribe and the Tribal Council Member of the 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon. 

Also Mr. Billy Frank, Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington, accompanied by Mr. 

James Anderson, the Director. And also Mr. Jim Harp, the Fisheries Manager of the Quinault 

Nation, in Taholah, Washington. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to apologize to Mr. Wallulatum if I 

mispronounced his name, but don't feel bad. It's just as bad for trying to pronounce Faleomavaega, so welcome to the club. 

But we would like to give you this opportunity now to please 

present your statement before the Committee. 

Thank you. 
139 

PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. NELSON WALLULATUM, CHIEF, 

WASCO TRIBE, AND MEMBER, TRIBAL COUNCIL, THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION, 

OR, ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD ARNET!', ESQ., TRIBAL ATTORNEY; BILLY FRANK, CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN 

FISHERIES COMMISSION, OLYMPIA, WA. ACCOMPANIED BY 

JAMES R. ANDERSON, DIRECTOR; AND JIM HARP, FISHERIES 

MANAGER AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, QUINAULT INDIAN NATION, TAHOLAH, WA 

STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON WALLULATUM 

Mr. WALLULATUM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee. 

My name is Nelson Wallulatum, and I am Chief of the Wasco 

Tribe and a lifetime member of the Tribal Council of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Accompanying me is our tribal attorney, Mr. Howard Arnett. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal 

Council concerning the proposal to enact national Indian fish and 

wildlife legislation. In our views, there are several things that national Indian fish 

and wildlife legislation should do, and several things it should not 

do. 

Let me first tell you what the legislation should not do. 

The legislation should not try to define or interpret treaty-reserved fishing and hunting rights. The circumstances of each tribe 

and each treaty are unique. 

Few legal principles can be applied across the board to all tribes 

and all Indian treaties. Broad legislative characterizations about the nature of all Indian 

treaty rights are very likely to misconstrue some treaty rights. 

The danger of misinterpretation is especially great for tribes such 

as Warm . Springs whose treaty fishing and hunting rights have 

been carefully defined by numerous federal court decisions over the 

years. 

In our view, it would be a mistake to try to codify these court 

rulings in national Indian fish and wildlife legislation. 

Now let me discuss what the le~slation should do. 

First and foremost, the legislation should assist the tribes in exercising their fish and wildlife management authority. Current federal assistance to tribal governments to carry out this 

most important function of their sovereign authority is inadequate. 

This inaaequacy is so great that it brin~ into question whether the 

United States Government is fulfilling its solemn trust responsibil- ity to protect Indian rights and resources. 

The circumstances of the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes illustrates the problem. 

Our tribe faces a huffe and complex task in trying to protect our 

off-reservation treaty nghts, as well as manage our on-reservation 

fish and wildlife resources. The 640,000 acres of the Warm Sprinp Reservation is almost entirely tribal trust land and contains pnceless habitat for deer, elk, 

eagles, salmon, and numerous other fish and wildlife species. 
140 

Managing just the fish and wildlife resources located on our reservation is an overwhelming task. However, in addition to our onreservation resources, our forefathers reserved off-reservation fishing, hunting, and food-gathering rights in our 1855 treaty with the 

United States that gives us a legally-protected interest in fish and 

-wildlife resources located many miles from the reservation. 

Because of our tribe's treaty fishing rights on the Columbia 

River, we have become involved in numerous proceedings concerning the Columbia River basin's salmon runs. 

These proceedings range from the International Pacific Salmon 

Commission negotiations to limit the Canadian catch of Columbia 

River salmon, to efforts under the Endangered Species Act to protect certain upper Columbia River salmon stocks, to self-regulation 

of tribal fisheries under the United States versus Oregon Columbia 

River Fish Management Plan. 

Furthermore, our tribe works very hard to protect our off-reservation hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ten million acres of north central Oregon that represent our tribe's treaty 

ceded area. Much of the ceded area is federal land managed by the 

United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

We constantly monitor the activities of these agencies to ensure 

protection of the habitat that supports our treaty hunting, fishing 

and food gathering rights in the ceded area. 

All of these efforts, both on-reservation and off-reservation, have 

taxed our staff and policy capabilities beyond our present means. 

In short, our legal management authority in the area of on-reservation and off-reservation fish and wildlife resources exceeds our ability to actually exercise that authority. 

We do not need more funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff. 

Instead, we need direct federal assistance to the tribe, to help us 

carry out our fish and wildlife management responsibilities. 

The federal government's trust duty to protect and preserve the 

fish and wildlife resources on which Indian treaty rights and sovereign authority depend is not fulfilled until this assistance is provided. 

The trust responsibility also requires more than financial assistance to tribal governments. The trust responsibility is a binding 

legal obligation of those federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and those who manage 

the fish and wildlife resources on which the tribe's treaty-reserved 

rights and sovereign authority depend. 

This legislation should lay out in clear terms the obligations 

these agencies have to protect, manage, and enhance the fish and 

wildlife resources that are subject to legally protected Indian 

rights. Finally, the legislation should establish the fundamental nature 

of the government-to-government relationship between the tribes, 

on the one hand, and the federal and state governments on the 

other. 

A commitment to support tribal participation in all fish and wildlife management activities where tribal legally protected interests 

are involved would help establish the status of the tribes as co-
141 

managers of the fish and wildlife resources along with the federal 

and state agencies. 

In conclusion, the Warm Springs Tribal Council hopes that you 

will consider these general observations in drafting national Indian 

fish and wildlife legislation. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff in 

developing this legislation. Thank you. 

[Prepared statements of Mr. Wallulatum follow:] 
142 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

THB COIIFBDBRATBD TRIBES OF THB WARM SPRINGS RBSBRVATION OF OREGON 

CONCBRHING 

NATIONAL IIIDIAH FISH AIID WILDLIFE LEGISLATION 

United states House of Representatives co-ittee on Natural Resources, 

Subco-ittee on Native American Affairs 

waabington, D. c. 

Fe~ruary 1e, 1993 

Good morning, Congressman Richardson and members of the Committee. 

My name is Nelson Wallulatum, and I am Chief of the Wasco Tribe 

and a lifetime member of the Tribal Council of The Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I am here today 

to testify on behalf of the Warm Springs Tribal Council concerning 

the proposal to enact national Indian fish and wildlife 

legislation. In our view, there are several things that national 

Indian fish and wildlife legislation should do, and several things 

it should not do. 

should not do. 

First, let me tell you what the legislation 

The legislation should not try to define or interpret treatyreserved fishing and hunting rights, The circumstances of each 

tribe and each treaty are unique. Few legal principles can be 

applied across the board to all tribes and all Indian treaties. 

Broad legislative characterizations about the nature of all Indian 

treaty rights are very likely to misconstrue some treaty rights. 

PAGE 1 
143 

The danger of misinterpretation is especially great for a tribe 

such as warm Springs whose treaty fishing and hunting rights have 

been carefully defined by numerous federal court decisions over the 

years. In our view, it would be a mistake to try to codify these 

court rulings in national Indian fish and wildlife legislation. 

Now, let me discuss what the legislation should do. First and 

foremost, the legislation should assist the tribes in exercising 

their fish and wildlife management authority. Current federal 

assistance to tribal governments to carry out this most important 

function of their sovereign authority is inadequate. This 

inadequacy is so great that it brings into question whether the 

United states Government is fulfilling its solemn trust 

responsibility to protect Indian rights and resources. 

The circumstances of the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes 

illustrate the problem. Our tribe faces a huge and complex task 

in trying to protect our off-reservation treaty rights as well as 

manage our on-reservation fish and wildlife resources. The 640,000 

acres of the Warm Springs Reservation is almost entirely tribal 

trust land and contains priceless habitat for deer, elk, eagles, 

salmon, and numerous other fish and wildlife species. Managing 

just the fish and wildlife resources located on our reservation is 

an overwhelming task. However, in addition to our on-reservation 

resources, our forefathers reserved off-reservation fishing, 

hunting and food gathering rights in our 1855 treaty . with the 

PAGE 2 
144 

United States that give us a legally-protected interest in fish and 

wildlife resources located many miles from the reservation. 

Because of our tribe's treaty fishing rights on the Columbia River, 

we have become involved in numerous proceedings concerning the 

Columbia River basin's salmon runs. These proceedings range from 

the international Pacific Salmon Commission negotiations to limit 

the Canadian catch of Columbia River salmon, to efforts under the 

Endangered Species Act to protect certain upper Columbia River 

salmon stocks, to self-regulation of tribal fisheries under the 

United States v. Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan. 

Furthermore, our tribe works very hard to protect our offreservation hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ten 

million acres of north central Oregon that represent our tribe's 

treaty ceded area. Much of the ceded area is federal land managed 

by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management. we constantly monitor the activities of these agencies 

to ensure protection of the habitat that supports our treaty 

hunting, fishing and food gathering rights in the ceded area. 

All of these efforts, both on-reservation and off-reservation, have 

taxed our staff and policy capabilities beyond our present means. 

In short, our legal management authority in the area of onreservation and off-reservation fish and wildlife resources exceeds 

our ability to actually exercise that authority. 

PAGll 3 
145 

We do not need more funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff. 

Instead, we need direct federal assistance to the tribe to help us 

carry out our fish and wildlife management responsibilities. The 

federal government's trust duty to protect and preserve the fish 

and wildlife resources on which Indian treaty rights and sovereign 

authority depend is not fulfilled until this assistance is 

provided. 

The trust responsibility also requires more than financial 

assistance to tribal governments. The trust responsibility is a 

binding legal obligation on those federal agencies, such as the 

Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, who 

manage the fish and wildlife resources on which the tribe's treatyreserved rights and sovereign authority depend. This legislation 

should lay out in clear terms the obligations these agencies have 

to protect, manage and enhance the fish and wildlife resources that 

are subject to legally protected Indian rights. 

Finally, the legislation should establish the fundamental nature 

of the government-to-government relationship between the tribes, 

on the one hand, and the federal and state governments on the 

other. A commitment to support tribal participation in all fish 

and wildlife management activities where tribal legally protected 

interests are involved would help establish the status of tribes 

PAGE 4 
146 

as co-managers of the fish and wildlife resources along with the 

federal and state agencies. 

In conclusion, the Warm Springs Tribal council hopes that you will 

consider these general observations in drafting national Indian 

fish and wildlife legislation. We welcome the opportunity to work 

with you and your staff in developing this legislation. 

Thank you. 

PAGE 5 
03-03-1993 12, 31 

147 

Slo • . d 85410 KARNOPP PETE1 _N ~t a. 1 • 

•VHLIIIID'l'UY 'l'U'IDIOIIY OI' '1118 

CODIDD&HD nuu OI' m 

'DIii lnDII IIIIDftlJ:Olf OI' OUIIOII 

COIICJIUXN D'HGDL DIDUII •in UD WILDLJ:H LIGJ:IL&'l'IOJr 

VIIJ:'l'ID l'l&UI IIOVII OI' IIIDUDl'&'l'J:VII• 

COIIIIJ:ft'D GIi ll&IIIML UIODOII 

IUBCQIIUftD cm Dlffl IIIDJ:CIU anuu 

F'.03 

Thi• •tat•a• nt •uppl ... nt• th• t •• tiaony of th• conf•d•rat•d Trib•• 

of th• wan lprinv• R••• rvation of Oregon cono•rnin9 Indian fi• h 

and wildlife una9 ... nt and •nbanc ... nt l•91alation d• liv•rad at 

th• coaitt••'• Pebruary 11, 1113 ov•r •iqbt h• arinq, 

Our •uppla• ntary t •• tiaony i• in ra• pon•• to •tatn•nt• ud• by •• vai-al vitn••••• at th• P•bruary 11 ov•r • ight b• arinq oonc•rninq t:ha need to ua• nd section I of the lndan9•r• 4 Spec!•- Act to parait tribal 9ov•rna• nt• to r•o•iv• direct federal funding for fish and 

wildlife una9 ... nt aotiviti••• Aeocrding to thu• tribal 

witn•••••• only •tat•• can now receive federal fund• to conduct 

inv• ntori•• and develop una9•-nt plan• for • ndanq•r• d •p• ci•• 

under section• of th• lndanqared Sp•oia• Act. The Warm Sprin9• 

Confedaratad Trib•• baliav•• that •-• ndlllent of any provi•ion• Of 

th• :&ndan9ar• d Speoi•• Act to include Indian tribe• 1• unn• c••• ary and could potentially und•r11in• tribal truty riqht•, 

Am• ndlllent of th• Endanq•rad Sp•ci•• Aot i• not n• o••• ary to •ddr••• 

what i• • H • ntially . a fundinq probla. Thia i •• u• can be dealt 

with by ot:h•r ••an•, If tribe• hav• inadequate fundinq to conduct r•• ourc• unaq•aant work th•y feel i• n• c••• ary under th• 

Endan9•r • d Sp• ciH Act, the Bureau of Indian Affair• ahould provide th••• tribe• with additional diacr•tionary fundin9 that could be u• ed for a variety of purpo•••, including work on Bndanq•red 

sp• ci•• Act i •• ue•• 'l'ha aoney would not ne04t•• arily be earmarked 

for Endan9•red specie• Act purpo•••, but could be u•• 4 for any appropriate fi•h and wildlife 111• na9a•nt activitia•, Th• 

!ndanqer•d Specie• Act do•• not need to be amended to qet thi• fundinq to tribal qov•rn111•nt•, . 

Of far vr• at•r concern to u• i• the pc•• ibilitr that any uendlllant 

to the ln4anqerad Specie• Act that a• ntiona tr bal 9ov•rna•nt• 111• y have th• effect of applyin9 th• Act to tril:I•• in a way that 

abr09at•• or r •• trict• their treaty ri9ht•• Pr••• ntly, th• 

Endanv•r•d Spaoiu Act and it• l•9i• lativ• hi•tory are •il• nt vith r •• p• ct to th• Act'• application to tribe• and it• iapact on Indian 

treaty riqht•, und•r PDnl4 lt:ltM y. Qt,QD, 471 U,S, 734, (11111), Convr••• cannot abroqat• or r•• triot Xndian tr .. ty riqht• in a •tatut• of q• n•ral application auoh a• th• lndanq•red Specie• Act 

without clearly indioatinq in th• lanqua9• of the •tatut• or in it• 

-1-
148 

03-03-1993 12 : 32 503.>885410 KARNOPP PE'TEh--cN ot a 1. P.04 

legidative hiatoey that "ConqreH aotually oonaidered the oontliot 

betv••n it• intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty riqhta on the other, and oho•• to reaolva that oon:fliot by 

abr09atin11 the treaty." .14, at 7'0. Pr• Hntly, no auoh lan!JUa!J• 

exiata in either the atatute or the l99ialativ• biatory o:f the 

lndangarad SpaoiH Act, By uendin11 Saotion d of the Act to 

include tribe• a• governaant• eli9ibla tor :fundinv under th• Act, a court aay be aialed that thi• rapraaant• a atatamant o:f 

conqraHional intent that th• Aet ahould be applied to tribe• even if the atfeot 1• to abrogate or reatriot treaty ri11hta, Thia • hould not be allowed to happen. 

Acoordir19ly, we ur11• th• Collllitt•• to draft Indian . tieh and 

wildlife levialation that provid•• adequate :financial aaaiatanoe 

to all tribe• tor fiah and wildlife una9 ... nt, and provid-• thoH 

tribe• that teal the need to undertalca certain aotiviti•• beoau•• 

of the lndan9ered Speoi-• Act with adeqUate raaouro•• for that 

purpo••• However, l99ialation ahould not mention the lndan9ered 

speci•• Aot nor attapt to amend the lndan9ered SpaoiH Aot to 

include tribe• within it• oovarage. such an ... nc111ant auat be 

avoided bacau• a it could very wall work to abroqate the traaty- reaarvad right• o:f wara Sprin11• and many other tribea. 

- -:z-
149 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. Mr. Frank? 

STATEMENT OF BILLY FRANK 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I'm Billy Frank, Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission. 

I belong to the Nisqually [phonetic] Tribe. And this is my friend, 

Nelson, plus the other panels here. 

And a second everyone of the panels, what they've said, natural 

resource people, tribal people. 

And with me today I have Jim Anderson./ our Executive Director 

of Northwest Indian Fish Commission, along with Jim Harp, a 

Quinault Tribal Nation member and the manager of their fishery 

in the northwest and along the Pacific Coast, and one of our commissioners of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission. We manage the Pacific salmon, the fish in northwest, as I think 

you know about. And because as from that great Samoa country, 

you have a lot of, we have a lot of ties together. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes. I have many members of my tribe in 

the State of Washington. I hope you look for them. 

Mr. FRANK. Right. And we have a lot of relatives. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. lt11 get a little cold up there, but-I appreciate it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FRANK. But I enjoy a lot of your questions about how important this Committee and the chairmanship of this Committee is 

and how it's ~etting better and better. Your question about Congress, about one to ten. We're educating 

now. You're seeing us in the halls of Congress. You see Steve right 

there. You see our other tribal people and other people of color in 

our Congress. 

That's great, because we've been left out of the plan, the Indian 

tribes throughout this nation. 

And when it comes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and that 

question, you know, I asked the tribes, can they afford that bureaucracy any more and your management. What they ought to be doing is getting the money to us. We want 

the money to manage in our homeland and in our own backyard because we are the managers. And we're good managers, positive 

manag~rs, workin~ with the states, working with the counties, 

working with the cities and the communities to bring our resources 

together to balance it out there for everybody, not just the Indian 

tribes. 

So we're dealing in long-range management in the Northwest. 

And I have some fish here I want to give to you right now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will accept it gratefully. Is it raw? 

Well, I'll be sure the Chairman gets some of it. Mr. FRANK. We11 have a big ceremony one of these days, right 

Tom? 

Mr. F ALEOMA V AEGA. Well, I'll be sure to bring my tribe also, and 

we11 have a big pow wow. You're going to have to furnish us some 

blankets, though, because it gets a little cold up there. . Mr. FRANK. We have them too. 
150 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to also extend an invitation to all of 

you to come to our humble islands in the South Pacific. Now the 

only problem is that I can't pay for your tickets, but you have an 

open invitation to come and visit us down there too. 

We might share a few things in common. 

Mr. FRANK. Okay. 

We have villages in the northwest that are over 10,000 years old, 

and we've been managing the resource for many many thousands 

of years, like your people. 

And our treaties of 1854 and 1855, have been signed, ratified, 

and been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in 1979, 

on our fishing rights, and a lot of principles come out of that as 

co-managers, along with the State of Washington. And very, very important principles were laid out in that decision. 

And we have to come to Congress to get our money. We don't 

come with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and sit here and ask for 

our money. We come and ask for money. 

We also try to get money over there. But it does not fit our needs 

of funding. 

We need money to manage. We need infrastructure. We need capability of sitting down with the State of Washington. They get federal money. How come we don't get federal money? 

Money for to meet our needs in our homelands to manage our resource. And make sure that that resource is going to be there for 

everybody from now on, the quality of life that we enjoy on our reservations and off of our reservations. 

We have a lot of problems from the society now that has moved 

here, and dumped garbage, poisons, poison in our water, poison in 

our animals, poison in our salmon. 

We have to start the healing in this country now. And the Indian 

tribes are the only ones that can do that, the only ones that can 

do that. 

The State ofWasllinJton for over a hundred years has been managing that resource, 1n1smanaging it. And we come to that management in 197 4. The Judge heard the Indian speak, made a decision 

confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Washington, made us co-managers in the Northwest, very unique. 

But the management has to be continually_ throughout the whole 

nation. And it has to be recognized by the United States Congress 

through legislation of government to government, of self-governance, of funding. 

It should be written very simple and very easy to coordinate with 

the United States. Senate and House legislation is needed in fish 

and wildlife management, so we don't have to run here every time 

we turn around to tell you we need more money. 

In the international treaty in the northwest, the salmon treaty, 

our salmon leave our homeland and travel clean over to Japan and 

in Russia. All those waters out there, jurisdiction after jurisdiction, clean up in the cold water in Alaska. All over there. 

And then our salmon comes home when it's adult, after seven 

years. And it comes back to our homeland, right to our rivers, right 

to our watersheds. 
151 

And our watersheds have to have a home for that salmon. And 

that's been our problem. 

The timber's all cut down, the mismanagement continued to happen. 

We've been managers now for 19 years since the Bolt decision. 

Nineteen years the Indian people have been managing our resource, and that's the salmon up there. 

And the phase two part of that decision was the habitat. We're 

trying to get everybody together in timber, fish and wildlife initiatives, water initiatives, work together to protect our resource. 

The Indian _people, in 197 4, there was no salmon. A minimum 

amount of salmon to manage. We have never gotten above that 

minimum yet. We're working toward a historical level of management somewhere in the future of a rebuild of all these stocks, but 

we're still way down here. 

And so we have many our needs. And we come to Congress and 

tell that story. 

I want to turn it over to Jim Anderson and Jim Harp. Jim has 

some reports that we've already made to the United States Congress and some reports that are very important that you understand who we are, and how we do our business. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:] 
152 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 6730 Manin ~ E., Olympia, WA 98506 Phone (206) 438-1180 

TESTIMONY 

OF THE 

NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

INTRODUCTION 

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and the member tribes we represent, 

are pleased to be appear before the Subcommittee to provide you with a briefing 

about fish and wildlife management issues of concern to the treaty Indian tribes in 

western Washington. 

We appreciate and support the Subcommittee's efforts to better understand the full 

range of Indian fish and wildlife management. We also support, in concept, the 

development of legislation which would more fully embrace tribal fish and wildlife 

management on a governmental basis. Through such efforts will come clarification 

of our natural resource related rights and responsibilities, as well as a better, more 

complete understanding of tribal management efforts by the citizens of the United 

States. 

As you know, the tribes have endured a long history of being misunderstood by nonIndian residents of this continent. Unfortunately, it seems at times that there has 

been little progress in this regard. But part of our message is that there has been 

progress in the Pacific Northwest. I also want you to know that with your continued 

support for our management efforts and programs we will continue this progress and 

show what a fine investment our efforts yield. 

We do not ask for much, Just that which is already ours. Just those rights which we 

have always retained. Just recognition of the sovereign status which has been 

formally recognized, but frequently ignored by this country since its inception. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

153 

February 18, 1993 

Page 2 

HISTORY OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST 

Just as the Constitution formed by the United States in the late 1700's derived much 

of its roots from Indian tradition, so. today do we continue to contribute to the good 

of this country. Nowhere is this more the case than in the Pacific Northwest, where 

the tribes have joined efforts with the state, as well as the federal government, to 

cooperate in managing natural resources upon which we all depend. 

Cultural perspectives of the Indian tribes are unique 

You have no doubt heard many things about the natural resources of the Pacific 

Northwest lately. You have heard of controversy between environmentalists and the 

timber industry, as well as between fishermen and the power companies, irrigators 

and many others. 

As you continue to hear these cries, we ask you to remember the Indian. The tribes 

have lived along all the rivers and waterways of the Pacific Northwest for thousands 

of years. Through the millenniums, we have shaped our existence around the fish, 

the trees and all other natural resources provided to sustain us. The meat kept us 

healthy, as did the spiritual and cultural strength we derived from these resources. 

Our tribal customs and ceremonies have always reflected harmony with nature, 

kinship with her elements and deeply felt gratitude for the gifts provided by Mother 

Earth. 

Throughout history, tribes practiced fisheries management 

Fisheries management is not a new thing to the tribes. We have managed fish from 

time immemorial. We have practiced conservation through the management of 

fishing efforts, as well as total utilization of harvested resources. We have provided 

for escapement of fish to the spawning grounds, and even used certain 

enhancement techniques long before non-Indians ever set foot on this land. 

When non-Indians did come, they learned how to survive from the tribes. But it 

wasn't long before they were claiming resources and lands for their own purposes, 

at the expense of the Indian people. Not long after that, the white society set about 

making treaties with the tribes, and herding tribal members onto small remnants of 

Indian land. 

Treaties signed but promises broken 

Approximately 800 treaties were signed with the tribes in the 48 states. With each 

we gave up more and more land and more and more resources. But each also 

represented retention of certain lands, and retention of resource harvest rights for as 

long as the grasses would grow and the rivers would run. With each also came a 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

154 

February 18, 1993 

Page 3 

constitutional guarantee of sovereign status and a trust relationship with the United 

States government. Much of the land that was left to us was considered useless by 

the non-Indians. And, as far as its ability to sustain us, the non-Indians were often 

correct. At the time of Columbus' voyages, more than 14 million people lived in the 

48-state area. By the early 1800's, less than a half million Indian people still existed. 

Our culture and way of life was shattered 

Of the 800 treaties established between the U.S. and the tribes, 370 were ratified by 

the U.S. Senate. Tribes whose treaties were not ratified did not receive their lands 

back. They were not permitted easy access to fish and game. They were, in fact, left 

to die. Others, like our member tribes, who signed treaties during 1854-55, also felt 

the cold hand of oppression. Our cultural ceremonies were banned. Our children 

were taken from us and placed in government schools and forbidden to speak the 

native language. Our young were introduced to a multitude ·of diseases and corrupt 

bureaucracy. In little more than a century, the proud, culturally rich indigenous 

people of this continent were interjected into our own "Dark Age". 

Tribal self-determination to reclaim treaty protected rights 

Nevertheless, we survived! We never forgot our heritage. From one generation to 

the next, our descendants somehow taught us what they had been taught. In my 

case, my father taught me to fish and to survive on the river. He taught me 

appreciation for nature, and he taught me the value of family. He died in 1984, at 

the age of 103. And now it is my turn to teach my sons, and to do what I can to 

leave them a better world to live in. 

In the 1960's and 70's, we Indians began to assert ourselves. We began to stand up 

for guaranteed rights that had long been denied us. First through demonstration, 

then through litigation, we fought for our rights, and we won. 

LEGAL BACKGROUND OF TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN 

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

As mentioned earlier, in the 1850's, the United States entered into treaties with the 

Indian tribes located in Washington Territory as part of the settlement of the West. 

In those treaties, negotiated with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, the Indians 

traded their interest in land of the territory for the exclusive use of lands within 

reservations, the right of continued fishing and hunting, and other guarantees. 

Tribes traded interest in territory for reservations and natural resource rights 

Provisions of the Stevens Treaties guaranteeing the tribes reserved rights to fish 

and wildlife were soon forgotten. State government and laws evolved to the point 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

155 

February 18, 1993 

Page 4 

that non-Indian settlers were allowed to monopolize the resources to the extent of 

almost total exclusion of the Indians. Federal and state institutions also allowed the 

urbanization and intensive development of the area, the rapid development of dams 

for electric power, unbridled logging and irrigation, and pollution of the watersheds, 

which reduced the quality and amount of accessible spawning grounds and rearing 

habitat for the treaty protected fisheries resource. 

US v. Washington litigation a turning point in natural rvsource management 

As a result of the forgotten promises of the federal govemment, the tribes sought 

redress and implementation of the treaties through the courts in the landmark 

decision, U.S. v. Washington. In this case, the U.S. District Court confirmed that the 

treaty Indian tribes have the right to take half the harvestable salmon originating in 

Washington waters. Five years later, in 1979, this case was fully upheld by the U.S. 

Supreme Court. While it was not the first time the federal judiciary upheld Indian 

rights, it did prove to be a monumental and significant case for Indian fishing and 

hunting rights across the country. 

State rvsistance to implement US v. Washington yielded to cooperation 

The state of Washington's resistance to the implementation of the case was 

legendary. Through 1983, the state stubbornly fought the tribes in court and sought 

to avoid implementing the federal court rulings upholding the tribes' fishing rights. 

Because the state and tribes could not work together, the court took over 

management of the fisheries resource by default. Almost every management 

decision was made by the court, with state and tribal biologist arguing before a 

federal magistrate every step of the way. 

It slowly became obvious that if the fish resource was of primary concern the job of 

managing it must be taken out of the hands of the court and placed back in the 

hands of professional managers-the tribes and the state of Washington. This 

provided the impetus for the state and the tribes to move away from litigation as a 

full time pursuit, and instead seek to develop cooperation. 

EVOLUTION OF CO-MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

In 1984, the state and the tribes met at Port Ludlow, Washington, to jointly structure 

a cooperative management concept. State and tribal officials emerged from this 

meeting cautiously proclaiming that the "new era of cooperation" had arrived and 

that negotiation and cooperation would be totally explored prior to the filing of any 

last resort litigation. 

It was not easy for tribes or the state leaders. Tribes had been used to winning 

cases, but had not seen any substantive changes in management, in spite of court 

orders. State officials were forced to reverse a century old tradition of dictating to 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

156 

February 18, 1993 

Page 5 

the tribes, and move toward recognizing tribal management prerogatives. 

Nevertheless, each began to realize the value of this approach. 

Early historical management planning efforts 

The Puget Sound Management Plan was negotiated and entered into the court for 

implementation. This plan has served as the framework for co-management 

between the Puget Sound tribes and the state. The state and the tribes from the 

Pacific Coast commenced negotiations for a management plan to implement the 

Hoh v. Baldrige case. This plan clarified weak-stock management responsibilities 

for the state and federal entities, and laid the foundation for watershed planning. 

Pacific Salmon Treaty 

Still later, in conjunction with sports and commercial user groups, state and tribal 

government officials worked with other states and the federal government to 

produce the U.S.-Canada Salmon Interception Treaty. This international agreement 

was obviously essential to good fishery management, but because of the complexity 

of the task, and the divergent viewpoints within the United States, the treaty was not 

successfully negotiated until cooperative management was in practice. 

Its existence has fostered essential annual and long range international negotiations, 

its implementation has moved fisheries management between the two countries 

closer together for the good of the resource, and the federal commitment has 

brought millions of dollars to Washington State alone over the past several years for 

such efforts as management planning, fish marking, stream research, and data 

analysis. 

Co-management is the foundation, or cornerstone, upon which many outstanding 

natural resource management programs have been constructed. Some of the 

structures we have built have, in fact, become national and even international 

models of cooperation in natural resoun;:e management. 

COMPREHENSIVE TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

The tribal approach to natural resource management is based on the recognition 

that, as Chief Seattle said, "all things are connected." This is a truth that transcends 

boundaries, as well as management activities, cultural backgrounds and economic 

pursuits. All things are connected, within a given watershed, as well as from one 

watershed to another, and from the ocean to the mountains. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

157 

February 18, 1993 

Page 6 

Centennial Accord and Environmental Memorandum of Understanding 

The Centennial Accord, a historic document of great magnitude negotiated during 

the state's centennial year of 1989, provides for a tribal/state government-togovernment relationship. Such a relationship, a first of its kind in the country, lays 

out the basic elements of sovereignty and decision making between the parties. 

This document is notable in the context of co-management because it 

institutionalizes, to a great extent, the relationship between sovereigns. Nowhere is 

such a relationship more critical than in the area of natural resource management 

and environmental protection. 

A State-Tribal Environmental Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also 

negotiated between the tribes and the state of Washington. This document 

identifies tribal and state environmental goals, and suggests a process to resolve 

environmental issues on a government to government basis. A copy of the 

Centennial Accord and the Environmental MOU are made available with this 

testimony. 

Each watershed is unique and ~quires individual as well as regional focus 

Within given watersheds or basins, however, the specific status of habitat and fish 

stocks will vary, due to differing terrain, water use and other environmental factors, 

as well as harvest and other mortality levels. These undeniable facts forced the 

conclusion that natural resource management must be tailored to suit local 

situations, as well as regional and global realities. In some areas, fish runs are 

strong and are comprised in large measure of wild stock. In others, wild stocks or 

their habitat have been decimated, and habitat and enhancement efforts are 

needed. 

There have been those who have tried to point the finger at one industry or another, 

or one cause or another, for declines in some fish runs. In some watersheds the 

major causes are obvious, such as the Elwha River where dams have totally 

blocked fish passage into headwaters that originate in the Olympic National Park. 

But, for the most part, a multitude of causes contribute to fish management 

problems, and thus the concept of comprehensive management . is appropriate. It is 

worth mentioning, incidently, that, given available habitat, most fish runs in the 

Puget Sound and coastal regions are in relatively good condition, and that many of 

these rivers support healthy percentages of wild fish. We credit the comprehensive, 

cooperative management approach driven by the U.S. v. Washington decision for 

this condition. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

158 

February 18, 1993 

Page 7 

Clearly, however, with a host of problems coming from many directions (salmon 

have to swim through every conceivable ownership in their migration), cooperative 

management must be followed. And, it is the way we have gone for the past eight 

years. 

Timber-Fish-Wildlife Process 

In addition to the U.S.-Canada Treaty mentioned earlier, the Timber-Fish-Wildlife 

(TFW) Process is one of the most well known co-management-related efforts, which 

brought together previously warring factions of the state, timber industry, tribes, and 

environmental organizations. The process changed forest practice rules governing 

state and private timber harvest and management It established a forum for all 

parties, including the tribes, to meet and work out differences. It also created a 

scientific committee charged with arriving at the "scientific truth," and the 

commitment to adapt forest management practices to the truth. Much has been said 

about this process over the past several years, but the principal philosophy of TFW 

demonstrates a truth we must all leam to accept...that people working together 

accomplish worthwhile things, while people fighting one another create waste and 

further hostility. 

Watershed Planning 

Cooperation in fisheries management has also been evident through regional 

watershed planning. An example is the Watershed Planning Process, which has 

called for the production of Comprehensive Resource Management Plans for every 

basin in the U.S. v. Washington case area. Joint management plans for each 

watershed are now in various stages of development. Harvest management, 

production and habitat restoration and protection measures are critical elements in 

each of these plans. Through the exchange of information and technology, as well 

as eggs and broodstock, the state and the tribes have made great progress in 

cooperative enhancement over the years. 

Long Live the Kings and Nisqually Task Force 

Some efforts, such as Long Live The Kings (which is having a positive impact in the 

Gray's Harbor region), and the Nisqually Task Force (which has helped keep the 

Nisqually River one of the most habitable rivers in the region) have, in fact, focussed 

on individual watersheds. These efforts, and others like them, are initiatives by the 

tribes and interested parties to solve problems and find solutions on the ground, in 

individual watersheds. 

Chelan Water Resources Planning Process 

It was clear from the beginning of cooperative management that water would 

eventually be a key link in the process. The health of fish, wildlife, vegetation and 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

159 

February 18, 1993 

Page 8 

people is utterly dependent on the availability of ample, clean water. Yet, even in the 

Pacific Northwest, there are water shortage and quality problems that have 

continually worsened over the years. 

The planning and allocation of water resources in all western states over the past 

century has consisted primarily of the granting of permits in response from 

individuals and groups wishing to exploit this precious resource. But the realization 

that water is a finite resource and that competitive demands for it easily exceed its 

availability have increased the complexity of water management decisions. 

In 1990, at the urging of the tribes, a series of tribal-state-user water resource 

planning retreats was held. Top ranking officials of state, tribal and local government 

interacted with representatives of business, agriculture, environmental organizations, 

recreation, hydropower, commercial fishing and other water-related interests to 

develop a cooperative water resource planning process. 

The result was a process now known as the Chelan Process. The basic goals of the 

"agreement" are to 1) manage water by hydrologic unit, 2) meet water needs first 

with resources within each respective unit, 3) work toward the tribes' general long 

term policy objective of achieving an overall net gain of the productive capacity of 

fish and wildlife habitats, and 4) accommodate growth in a manner that protects the 

unique environment of the state. The process was not designed to determine or 

resolve legal disputes. Nor was it intended to be the only option for water 

management in the state. But the process does provide an historic opportunity to 

promote ongoing cooperation in water management planning, and thus minimize 

conflict. 

Over the past two years, the Water Forum, a committee of affected parties, 

including tribes, has met to resolve a comprehensive workplan. If successful, the 

plan will advocate a statewide policy on instream flows, hydraulic continuity, 

groundwater planning, and other critical water considerations. Also during this time, 

pilot cooperative planning projects have been conducted on the Oungeness 

watershed in western Washington and on the Methow watershed in eastern 

Washington, to test the regional approach. 

Puget Sound Water Quality Program 

The tribes have been major participants in water quality, as well as water quantityoriented programs. The primary water quality-related programs involving tribes in 

the state have been the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) and a wide 

range of water quality programs supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

160 

February 18, 1993 

Page 9 

The Washington State Legislature created PSWQA in 1985, and charged it with 

developing a comprehensive plan for water quality protection in Puget Sound, to be 

implemented by state and local governments. The tribal seat, filled by NWIFC 

Commissioner Terry Williams, was established by the state in recognition of the 

important role of the tribes. The tribes have, as a result, been involved in every facet 

of Puget Sound water quality management efforts, ranging from the nomination of 

watersheds for inclusion in an early action program to address nonpoint source 

pollution problems to conducting shellfish programs to protect and enhance that 

resource. 

Model Water Quality Program Initiative 

The western Washington tribes have also linked up with state and local 

governments in efforts to manage off-reservation water quality problems. Financial 

support for tribal participation in this program has been made available to the tribes 

from several sources, including the Department of Ecology's Centennial Clean 

Water Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency. During the early years, 

the tribal focus has been directed at restoring and maintaining riparian and marine 

habitats that support finfish, shellfish and cultural resources. In addition, as 

sovereigns, the tribes are involved in planning efforts that affect their jurisdiction. As 

a result, each tribe also conducts on-reservation nonpoint source pollution and other 

water quality programs. 

Comprehensive water quality programs are also being conducted by the tribes in 

conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, the 

program will address specific water quality problems, propose changes in policy, 

regulations and laws, and seek control of nonpoint and point pollution. Some of the 

problems of particular concern cited by the tribes include sedimentation and water 

temperature increases due to poorly regulated logging; bacterial and chemical 

pollution from agriculture, as well as urban runoff and sewage; and increased 

pollution of all sorts caused by voids in regulations or by non-enforcement of 

existing regulations and laws. 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 

Our experiences in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate a high level of achievement 

and capability. Our management efforts stem from adherence to certain underlying 

principles and philosophies. The success of our approach has often been affected 

both positively and negatively by critical limiting factors. As such, we believe that it 

is necessary for you understand some of our lessons and findings. 
161 

Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

Tribes are managers of the resource, not simply users 

February 18, 1993 

Page 10 

It is important to note that tribes are natural resource managers. Such management 

is culturally based, and predates written history. It is also embodied in treaties, 

litigation and sometimes in legislation. Tribes are sovereign entities, and have 

primary management on-reservation. As such it is important to understand that 

tribes must have clear authority to enforce natural resource regulations on all lands 

within reservation boundaries. 

Shared responsibility with the states and federal governments on off-reservation 

resources are critical to fulfill treaty responsibilities. In some cases tribes have been 

clearly integrated in off-reservation planning and management efforts. In other 

cases, tribes have been excluded, either deliberately or because federal policy did 

afford tribal participation at the time of law passage. Support is needed for the 

tribes to be able to participate on fishery management councils and inter-state 

compacts as appropriate. It is also important that tribal governments have standing 

and the ability to fully participate in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting offreservation resources. 

The federal government has obligations to the tribes 

The federal government has outstanding obligations and responsibilities for the 

protection and proper management of fish and wildlife. This obligation extends 

beyond mere protection and management to insuring access and availability of 

natural resources to the Indian people. 

This obligation also transcends mere paternalism, and must reflect tribal interests 

and approaches. It must reflect a government-to-government approach which 

respects tribal self determination and self-governance. Tribes may be at different 

levels of understanding or interest, and the federal government must be positioned 

to meet the needs of the tribes on their term.s, and not the terms of the federal 

bureaucracy. 

Effective tribal management Is a function of infrastructure 

The ability of the tribes to effectively manage the natural resources we have 

depended upon since time immemorial requires that we have the capabilities for the 

next century. 

As a result of the US v. Washington decision, Congress appropriated funding for 

each tribe to develop their individual management programs. In addition, the tribes 

supported resources to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission to assist in 

implementing legal obligations. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & WIidiife Management 

162 

February 18, 1993 

Page 11 

Resultant staff capabilities have been extremely valuable in allowing the tribes to 

address critical management issues in a positive, solution oriented way. But if tribes 

are to continue this effort, additional commitments to management and support staff 

is essential. This is especially important given the increasing needs for 

environmental protection. 

Tribal infrastructure depends on adequate and stable funding 

Tribal natural resource management programs are second to none in their 

effectiveness and efficiency. But even the best programs faces limiting factors. One 

such limit is adequate and stable financial support. 

Tribal natural resource management programs have delivered many services to 

Indian people over the past several years. The programs have built a strong 

foundation for Mure community and economic growth. But without continued 

financial support, the programs will not continue to deliver the level of services 

needed to manage natural resources. 

The sources of funding for tribal natural resource management programs have 

included congressional appropriations through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Administration for Native Americans, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. In addition, other tribal revenues come from state programs and 

tribally-imposed fish taxes and other tribally generated funds. 

At the present time, the tribes do not have clear and specific access to DingelJohnson, Pittman-Robertson, Wallop-Breaux funds, forest legacy programs or Land 

and Water Conservation funds. Such access should be secured directly to the 

tribes. It should not have to come through the affected states, which may have 

different views of priorities and needs, and are often times adversarial to tribal 

interests. 

Without tribal involvement, overall natural resource management efforts will suffer, 

harming all interests in the state, region, and country. Tribal shellfish management 

programs, for example, are seen as a key to resolving critical issues surrounding 

beach certification procedures. In addition, tribal enhancement planning efforts offer 

an increase in finfish and shellfish availability for both tribal and other users. Tribes 

have also extensively participated in a number of forums designed to protect treaty 

harvest and habitat protection rights. These efforts, which benefit Indian and nonIndian alike, will suffer without tribal infrastructure. The need for tribal programs 

clearly exceeds existing funding levels. 
Testimony of the NWIFC 

on Fish & Wildlife Management 

163 

February 18, 1993 

Page 12 

It must be recognized that funding not only needs to be adequate in terms of 

amount, but also needs to be stable in its delivery to the tribes. One major problem 

tribes have faced over the past ten years has been fluctuations in funding due to 

misguided bureaucratic initiatives, lack of cost-of-living adjustments, inflation factors, 

and sequestration problems. 

Shortages caused by these problems create difficulties securing and retaining key 

staff. Tribes have seen a number of professional staff members leave their employ 

to take positions with collateral agencies offering more stability and pay. 

Training and professional development Is critical 

It is important for tribes to receive help with training and professional career 

development. Such assistance is critical if the tribes are ever to be successful in 

enticing Indian students into the field of natural resource management and 

environmental protection. 

In addition, tribal staff members need to keep current in their fields just like any 

other professional. Opportunities for further education and training and placement 

between federal agencies and tribes would be very useful to tribal programs. 

CONCLUSION 

Cooperation is the banner we wish to wave as we close out this millennium. Let us 

all pull together, so we can accomplish what none of us can accomplish alone. Let 

us all have the courage to take the stands we must take to secure a habitable world 

for our children of tomorrow, as well as our workers of today. Let us stand up to 

hard problems and make good decisions. Let us stand behind what we know is 

right, and fortify these positions with the words and actions of truth and dignity. 

We believe these objectives will be aided by legislation you are now considering, if 

you focus on a few core concepts we have spoken to, and make them cornerstones 

for an Indian fish and wildlife management act. 

The Indian tribes are waking up in this country, we are leaving the "Dark Ages" 

behind, and through cooperative efforts, we will be able to help save the natural 

heritage of this land for the benefit of future generations. 

Thank you. 
164 

Mr. FALEOMA VAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Frank. 

Without objection, gentlemen, your statements will be fully made 

part of the record. So I just wanted to note that. 

Mr.Anderson. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, thank you very much. 

I'll be brief, and I won't even try to follow Billy with my comments. 

I have the dubious distinction of often times having to follow 

Billy, and it's always very flat compared to his presentation. 

So what we would like to do is provide some information for the 

record. 

We have a document which was signed by the tribes in Washington State with the State of Washington called the Centennial Accord. And it was a government-to-government relationship that was 

documented in 1989 and we'll make that part of the record. 

It I guess shows the type of relationship that the tribes in Washington State have worked out with the State of Washington to 

work on issues in a cooperative and forthright manner, respecting 

each others sovereignty. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, the documents will be 

made part of the record. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Documents submitted by Mr. Anderson may be 

found in the hearing files.] 

Mr. ANDERSON. I have a couple of other excerpts from reports. 

One in particular is the Report of the United States of America to 

the United Nations' Conference on Environment and Development, 

in which the Northwest Tribal efforts were highlighted as a good 

example of how tribes and the state and federal government can 

work together in cooperative natural resources management. 

There's a memorandum of understanding that the tribes have negotiated with the State of Washington, it talks about how to work 

out environmental issues without necessarily litigating issues. It 

does reserve the opportunity to litigate, and that is available here. 

And finally, I have a series of reports, one on timber, fish, wildlife, one on the tribal water quality program, and one on our fishery management program and our annual report that go into great 

detail about programs that Billy has talked about, and show how 

we've been able to package certain things. 

And then, finally, we have a video tape here with four different 

videos on it, one about the Fish Commission and our member 

tribes, one on shell fish, negotiations and litigation that's very important to us right now, one on the timber, fish, wildlife initiative, 

which was a very ground-breaking pioneering effort, and finally a 

video that won an Emmy called "Moon's Prayer," and that talks 

about the tribal perspectives on the environment. And it was very 

well received, seen by hundreds of thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, it will be made part of 

the record. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The videotape may be found in the hearing 

files.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to ask you, Mr. Anderson, do you 

have just one tape? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I have one tape, but I'd be very glad to make 

other tapes available. 
165 

Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. Let me offer this as a suggestion for the 

tribal members of the organization. 

It would be very nice to have copies of the tapes be made to the 

members of the subcommittee specifically, and maybe with just a 

courtesy letter inviting the members on their own privacy and opportunity they might have, so they might see the videos that you 

have indicated earlier. 

I think it'll be a real good orientation for the members of the subcommittee if they are given copies of the videos. 

Mr. ANDERSON. We will do that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. FALE0MAVAEGA. Mr. Harp? 

STATEMENT OF JIM HARP 

Mr. HARP. Mr. Chairman, good morning. 

I'm pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views 

of the Quinault Indian Nation regarding concerns pertaining to the 

management of fish, wildlife, and plants. 

I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative 

of the Quinault Indian Nation up in the State of Washington, on 

the coast of Washington. 

We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal 

views on how the United States could improve the administration 

of its trust responsibilities towards Indian tribes. 

We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs has also initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope 

for legislative action concerning management of fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources of concern to Indian tribes, and urge that the 

House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to ultimately 

develop legislation that can be enacted into law. 

I would like to premise our statement with a few remarks that 

may help provide perspective and understanding of our views. 

Fish, wildlife, and plants have been central to our culture, economy and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the United 

States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to hunt, 

fish, and gather. 

Since then, time and again, Indian people have been jailed, abused, and forced to the courts when attempting to exercise treaty-protected rights. Only after lengthy and costly litigation affirming our rights, has the United States been willing to provide financial resources for management of the resources which comprise our 

heritage. 

In effect, the United States has historically taken the posture 

that our treaties have no meaning unless and until the courts say they do. 

We find such attitudes abominable. They have led to the depletion of important resources, erosion of sovereignty, reduction in 

management effectiveness, and diminishment of the legacy that we 

leave our children. 

The government to government relationship between Indian 

tribes and the United States which flows from the Constitution, 

treaties, and courses of dealings, must be strengthened and respected. 
166 

This relationship has been defined by numerous pieces of legisla- tion and executive orders, administered by the Executive Branch, 

and interpreted by the courts. 

The United States has obligations and responsibilities for protec- tion, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, 

soil, and water, so as to ensure access, sustained availability and 

suitability for use by Indian tribes and Alaska native peoples. 

The United States should serve as an advocate for the ereservation and exercise of these treaty rights, not sit idly by, a silent witness to their erosion. 

We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few 

fμndamental cornerstones to establish the foundation for future initiatives in fish and wildlife management. 

The foremost issue is to affirm the commitment of the United 

States to support, strengthen and enhance tribal management capabilities. This commitment should be reflected in two fundamental 

areas. 

First, tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management direction on-reservation should be fully supported. Our reservation 

was established as a permanent homeland for the people of the 

Quinault Nation. 

The policy of allotment has led to the fractionation and checker 

boarding of land on many reservations across the country. 

Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enormous problems when attempting to implement responsible resource 

management. 

Contending with trespass violations and enforcement of fish and 

game re~ations has become an administrative nightmare, fraught with junsdictional impediments to effective resource management. These problems are especially severe for fish and wildlife resources which of course recognize no political or ownership boundaries. 

We believe that the Congress and the Administration should recognize the primacy of tribal rights to manage fish and wildlife resources on-reservation. Support should be provided for development 

of effective enforcement of tribal fish and wildlife codes and regula- tions to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation boundaries. 

In addition, adequate fundin~ and professional development 

training programs are needed to improve tribal management skills 

and capacities. 

Second, the standing of tribal governments to participate in decisions involving off-reservation resource management issues, at 

least on a par with the states, should be supported. An affected tribal government should, at its own option, be entitled to take part in inter-jurisdictional decisions affecting off-reservation resources of concern. 

For example, standing for tribes to fully participate in specific 

regulatory activities, such as habitat protection, in stream flows, 

water quality, and FERC licensing, should be recognized. 

Further, current programs within the federal government provide for agreements with states for management direction of lands 

and resources, some of which Indian tribes have vital interests. 

This occurs without tribal consultation and participation. 
167 

Prescriptive measures are needed to prevent actions and agree- ments without tribal participation that involve either federal or onreservation lands. 

This would prevent agreements between states and federal agen- cies without participation and agreement of the affected tribes. Another example is, presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional fishery management councils have direct responsibility for develop- ing ocean fisliery management plans affecting the numerous salmon and other marine resources of Indian tribes. While these councils provide for representation by states, there 

is no specific provision for representation by Indian tribal governments. I ani privileged to serve as an at-large voting member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the State of Washington. However, specific representation for tribal governments is clearly warranted and should be mandated by law. In closing, the Quinault Nation stands ready to work with the 

Committee in developing reasoned and responsible approaches toward improving the management of our natural resource heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. [Prepared statement of Mr. Harp follows:] 
168 

Quinault Indian Nation POST OFFICE BOX 189 • TAHOLAH, WASHINGTON98587 • TELEPHONE(208)27&-a21 1 

TESTIMONY OF JIM HARP ON BEHALF OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION 

BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING LEGISLATION CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE 

RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO INDIAN COMMUNITIES 

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

I am pleased to appear before the Committee to express the views of the 

Qulnault Indian Nation regarding concerns pertaining to management of fish, wildlife, 

and plants. I am Jim Harp, Fisheries Manager and an elected representative of the 

Quinault Nation. 

We at Quinault are encouraged that Congress is seeking tribal views on how 

the United States could improve the administration of Its trust responsibilities toward 

Indian tribes. We are aware that the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs has 

also Initiated efforts to determine the necessity and scope for leglslatlve action 

concerning management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of concern to Indian 

tribes and urge that the House and Senate work in concert with Indian tribes to 

ultimately develop laglslation that can be enacted Into law. 

I would Ilka to premise our statement with a few remarks that may help provide 

perspective and understanding of our views. Fish, wlidllfa, and plants have been 

central to our culture, economy, and survival. Under the 1855 Treaty of Olympia, the 

United States assumed a trust responsibility to protect our rights to hunt, fish, and 

gather. Since then, time and again, Indian people bean Jailed, abused, and forced to 

the courts when attempting to exercise treaty-protected rights. Only after lengthy and 

costly litigation affirming our rights. has the United States been willing to provide 

financial resources for management of the resources which comprise our heritage. In 

affect, the United States has historically taken the posture that our Treaties have no 

meaning unless and until the courts say they do. We find such attitudes abominable. 

They have led to the depletion of Important resources, erosion of sovereignty, 

reduction In management effectiveness, and dlminishment of the legacy that we leave 

our children. 
Testimony of Jim Harp. QIN 

Indian Fish & WIidiife Enhancement 

169 

Paga 2 

February 18, 1993 

The government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the 

United States which flows from the Constitution, treaties, and course of dealings 

must be strengthened and respected. This relationship has been defined by numerous 

pieces of legislation and executive orders. administered by the Executive Branch, and 

interpreted by the courts. The United States has obDgatlons and responslbllltles for 

protection, proper management, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, soil, and 

water - so as to Insure access. sustained avallablllty and sultablllty for use by Indian 

tribes (and Alaska native peoples). The United States should serve as an advocate for 

the preservation and exercise of then treaty rights, not sit Idly a by slient witness to 

their erosion. 

We believe that the Committee's efforts should focus on a few fundamental 

"cornerstones" to establish the foundation for future Initiatives In fish & wildlife 

management. The foremost Issue Is to affirm the commitment of the United States 

to support. strengthen. and enhance tribal management capabllitles. This commitment 

should be reflected In two fundamental areas: 

First. tribal sovereignty and primacy to establish management direction onreservation should be fully supported. Our reservation was established as a 

permanent homeland for the people of the Qulnault Nation. The policy of allotment 

has led to the fractionation and checker boarding of land on many reservations across 

the country. Current land ownership patterns on our reservation cause enormous 

problems when attempting to Implement responsible resource management. 

Contending with trespass vlolatlons and enforcement of fish and game regulations has 

become an administrative nightmare. fraught with Jurisdictional Impediments to 

effective resource management. These problems are especially severe for fish and 

wildlife resources which, of course. recognize no political or ownership boundaries. 

We believe that the Congress and the Administration should recognize the 

primacy of tribal rights to manage fish and wildlife resources on-reservation. Support 

should be provided for development and effective enforcement of trlbal fish and 

wildlife codes and regulations to apply to all persons on all lands within reservation 

boundaries. In addition, adequate funding and professional development training 

programs are needed to Improve trlbal management skills and capacities. 

Second, the standing of trlbal governments to participate In decisions Involving 

off-reservation resource management Issues. at least on a par with states, should be 

supported. An affected tribal government should, at Its own option, be entitled to 

take part In inter-Jurlsdlctlonal decisions affecting off-reservation resources of concern. 

For example, standing for tribes to fully participate In specific regulatory activities. 

such as habitat protection, In stream flows, water quality, and FERC licensing should 

be recognized. Further. current programs within the Federal government provide for 
Taatlmony of Jim Harp, QIN 

Indian Fish & Wlldllfe Enhancement 

170 

Page 3 

February 18, 1993 

agreements with states for managament direction of land• and reaourcea, aome of 

which Indian tribes have vital Interests. Thia occurs without tribal consultation and 

participation. Preacrlptlve measures are needed to prevent ac:11ona and agrHments 

without tribal participation that Involve either federal or on-reservation lands. Thia 

would prevent agreements between atataa and federal agenclaa without participation 

and agreement of affected tribes. Presently, on the Pacific Coast, the regional fishery 

management council• have direct reaponalblllty for developing ocean fishery 

management plans affec:11ng the numerous salmon and other marine resources of 

Indian tribes. While thaaa counclla provide for rapreaantatlon by atatea, there la no 

specific provlalon for representation by Indian tribal governments. I am privileged to 

sit aa an at-large member of the Pacific fishery Management Councll for the State of 

Washington, however, apeclflc repreaantatlon for tribal governments Is clearly 

warranted and should be mandated by law. 

The Qulnault Nation stands ready to work with tha Committee In developing 

reasoned and responsible approaches toward Improving tha management of our 

natural resource heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this Important 

topic. 
171 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Harp. A couple of observations, and I will then ask a couple more ques- tions to the members of the panel. One of the things that I've noted over the years is that sometimes, perhaps with sincere and good intentions, several tribal organizations hire consultant firms here in Washington to represent their interests. 

But one of the things that I would certainly like to convey and 

to express this interest to the tribes is that whenever you're here 

in Washington, please make every effort to see the members themselves. 

Sometimes I think our tribal members think that only the consultant firms are the only ones that can see the members. 

There's nothing sacred about you not having to come and visit us 

directly. Because this lobbying game that goes on sometimes, in my humble opinion, gets lost in the quagmire of seeing that sometimes 

the information, or you don't really see the members themselves, 

and the message just doesn't come across. 

So I would like to encourage and pass the word out to Indian 

country, when you are here in Washington, please make every effort to visit the member delegations of your states, or even the 

members of the given subcommittees, whether it be in the Senate 

or on the House side. 

Visit with them directly. Talk to them. 

That's why we're here. 

And I would like to give that alert to all the tribal organizations, especially for the tribal leaders when they do come to Washington. Please make it, if you're working through our consultant firms or 

whatever organizations that do it, make sure that you require that 

they make appointments for you, and have you come visit with us 

directly. Tell us what your problems are. 

I never see many of our tribal friends who come from the various 

states, and I wonder why. And it seems that the only chance that I get to visit-and I'm 

sure this is true with other members-is when we have hearings. Then right after the hearing, everybody disappears. 

And I would like to make that note to encourage as many of our 

Native American leaders to come and visit with the members directly. Make appointments with us. Tell us what your problems 

are. 

Now I'm sure that there may be some sense of hesitation about 

not being able to speak proper English. 

I'm still learning the English language. My mom, to her dying day, could hardly speak English. But English is only a tool. And 

if you need to have a translator, then get yourself a translator, and 

make it known what your wishes are. 

This is one of the problems. Our whole educational system and 

the theories and the problems that affect Native Americans is the 

same thing that happened to us. 

We don't have a Bureau of Indian Affairs, but we have what I 

call an isolated Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we have the same 

problems that you are confronted with. 

And I don't mean to say this in a derogatory way, meaning that 

those people downtown are evil. But sometimes with the best and 
172 

sincere efforts, somehow things get lost in the cracks. And sometimes you have to keep ringing that bell, you have to keep 

scrinching in and making sure that somebody hears and pays a little more attention to the problems affecting Native Americans. 

So I would really like to pass that word onto all of our tribal 

leaders and friends out in Indian country. Come and visit the members. Make appointments with them. There's nothing sacred about 

that. 

Sometimes you need to not depend too much on our consultant 

friends. You come and see us. And if you think you have broken 

English, I can speak broken English too, you know. 

They call it pidgin English in Hawaii, but I really would like to 

offer that sense of encouragement to our friends. 

And again I go back to Mr. Poynter's comments that were made 

earlier. I couldn't agree with him more. And this is the directing 

that the Chairman definitely is going to take, a very active role. 

He's going to plan a series of hearings in the coming weeks and 

months. 

It is our hope that we will prepare a comprehensive legislation 

that will affect the needs of Native Americans dealing with wildlife 

and services and dealing with their economic needs. 

So I'm very encouraged. And this is not taking anything away 

from Chairman Miller and what he's had to do on an ad hoc basis 

since he took over the chairmanship of this Committee. 

But just the fact that Congressman Richardson in his initiative 

and the concerns that he's had over the years, that we've worked 

very closely together, and the fact that we now have an official subcommittee doing this, is a big, big change, dramatic change in 

what's happening here in the Congress. And I would also suggest to have you write letters directly to the 

Chairman, and give him a sense of encouragement. You know, 

sometimes we get very depressed down here. And we don't know 

from our heads down to our toes if we're doing the right thing ourselves. 

So give us a sense of direction. Let us know what's going on in 

Indian country. Sometimes, with good intentions, our friends downtown as well as even here, we don't know what's going on. 

But I think a direct communication, phone calls, or whatever it 

is that needs to get the attention not only of the Congress, but as 

well as of the Administration, we need to do it. I expressed my sense of frustration, I recall, last year. For four 

years, it's been on the books and by-law, that we're to establish a 

National Conference of Indian Education. Well, we did it but it was 

on a last minute basis, and was kind of a quick put together thing. 

We had the conference, so we have another study, after about a 

thousand other studies and conferences and meetings and commissions and councils, all retreads, in my humble opinion, knowing 

that the same problems that we're going to be talking about this 

year in and year out. 

But I really really hope that we're going to get some results this 

time. I want to commend Mr. Frank for his directness, and certainly 

you couldn't have said it better. 
173 

This is the constant theme that I've heard over and over again 

over the years. Indian tribes want funding directly to go to them 

to manage their affairs. 

Now here's the other side of the coin to this issue, Mr. Frank. 

And there are those of us who said, well, but we have to have some 

sense of accountability. This is the taxpayers' money. How are we 

going to make sure that that money is spent properly, and that it's 

not going to be wasted or mismanaged or there's any sense of corruption or fraud. 

This is the kind of thing that has its Washington mentality going 

on. And say, well, we have to have some sense of accountability for 

it. 

So that's the other side of the coin. 

And perhaps maybe we can get better suggestions or recommendations from Indian country, and perhaps it can be proven that Indian tribes can do a better job in managing the money that 

comes from the American taxpayers' pocket. 

So this is the kind of thing that goes on here. And hopefully you 

can give us better recommendations on how we can make improvements in this. 

I appreciate Chief Wallulatum's statement. You're not here askin~ for funds. You're here just to give you better management skills. 

Maybe this is another area that the Department of the Interior 

can look at. 

You're not here to ask for handouts. You just want something to 

make you more self-sufficient. This is another constant theme that 

I hear from our tribal friends across the country. 

I have asked previously for the opinions of the previous panel about how they feel about the Bureau of Indian Affairs as well as 

the Congress. 

But I think pretty much we've gotten a sense of how this hearing is starting. And please bear in mind that this is just the begin-

~te I said, I'm very very encouraged that the Chairman is going 

to bring our Committee to Indian country, rather than to always constantly have Indian country coming to Washington. I think it's 

high time that Washington needs to come and see for themselves, 

the members especially, what's happening out there. 

And I also want to express my profound reverence and res:eect 

for High Chief Wallulatum and Mr. Frank. And I think this 1s a 

one, constant cultural theme that I would like to say, you know, 

Steve and I are nothing but kids. 

And I always remember what Emerson said. That the years 

teach much which the days never know. And I always make that 

special note, my most profound respect for our elders here this 

morning. 

And I really, really appreciate your presence. It's given me a 

sense of greater responsibility and commitment, and I'm sure Steve 

feels the same way. . But we need guidance, we need your wisdom. All the smarts and 

education don't mean beans if we don't have the guidance from our 

elders. And I just want to let Chief Wallulatum know that and Mr. 

Frank. 
174 

I'm a chief in my own culture, but I'm a small chief. In fact, 

when the members of the council of chiefs in my village meet, my 

chieftain title is so small that I sit under a coconut tree outside the 

chiefs' council meeting. 

But nevertheless, it's my most profound respect for the culture, 

and this is something that I'm sure that there is a great sensitivity by the members to do this. 

But we do this both for the culture, but we also need to be progressive in our thinking. And the world has changed, and I couldn't 

agree more with Mr. Frank about the Bolt decision. It's made a tremendous impact on this whole issue of the rights of Indian to fish 

and wildlife. 

It's a controversial one, the problems with the rights of the states 

versus the federal government with the tribes. But I think we have 

to be constantly at it, or else things get lost on the way. 

So I just want to give that sense of my feelings and certainly to 

the members of the panel and my respect for your being here this 

morning. 

Mr. Frank? 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman. This is part of my little, I've got a 

little history for you. 

And I've got to say it to you. I can't say it to anybody else on 

the panel, but because of where you're from. 

But before the turn of the century, and that's a long time ago, 

well, there's some warm water comes by off of our coast about 40 

or 50 miles off of the mainland. 

And it comes around, from Alaska, it comes around and along 

the Pacific Coast, and then it goes down in the South American 

coast toward your country. And it's documented that you have 

some of our logs, and that you made canoes out of them and pad- dles. 

And canoes are part of our culture and spiritual life and the pad- dles that we have and make, and how we train our children to be 

good paddlers, and now even our women are paddlers. And you 

guys are certainly canoe people. 

But those logs, how they got out into that ocean, was from all 

the storms that took place and the high water and the snow runoff 

and the different things that takes place up there. 

Of course, there was hemlock, there was cedar, there was fir, different other types of spruce and different things that went out into 

the ocean. 

And sooner or later, they reached your country. And so that connected us a lot of ways, in more ways than one. It connected us 

people. 

And now today we can talk about how that connection was made. 

But we talk about that in our homeland and about your people over 

in those islands out there, because we're all one people. And now 

we're related to one another in different ways. 

We go to school with each other, and our cultures have met. But 

at that particular time, it met by our natural resource, and that 

was by logs in the way. 

And I just wanted to share that story with you. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Mr. Frank, I appreciate that. 
175 

I've always said, with humor, to my Native American cousins 

here that I don't know what happened to the rest of/ou, but we 

were the brave ones that went out into the ocean an sought out 

the mysteries out there. 

Mr. FRANK. Right. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In the western sea. 

You mentioned canoes. It's interesting to note that the catamaran, as we know them today, are the fastest vessels in the 

world. But if you don't realize it, that's a prototype of the Polynesian double hull canoe, believe it or not. . I was privileged to sail from Tahiti to Hawaii, which is about a 

2700 mile distance, on a prototype Polynesia double hull canoe, 

about five years ago. And we sailed by non-instrument; in other 

words, strictly on the waves and the stars and the moon, the whole 

works. 

And I wanted to say that it was one of the most spiritual experiences that I've ever had in my life. It was just like I was living a 

thousand years ago among my ancestors. 

And so I know that your fishing methods are exactly the same 

as ours, believe it or not. 

And there is some discussion about even our cousins, the Maoris 

in New Zealand, do the same type of fishing methods the way you 

do. And the ~ 1~:on is how is it, maybe by coincidence. I'd like to t · that it was more than just coincidence. 

But I really appreciate your comment on this issue. And I certainly want to thank you gentlemen and all the members who have 

testified earlier. 

Please, I encourage you write letters to the Chairman, let him 

know how you feel about these issues. Let's do something solid this 

time around concerning the needs of our Native American communities on wildlife and fisheries. 

And hopefully we will come up with a comprehensive piece of legislation in the coming weeks or months. And it's all going to depend on the kind of input that we get from Indian country. And this is the kind of thing that I know the Chairman is looking forward to. 

Again, I want to sincerely thank all of you for being here this 

morning. · I welcome you to come and visit my office. Please do so, because 

I'm leaving tomorrow. But, please, before you do come to Washington, make a sincere effort. Come and visit the members. Let them 

know how you feel about these things. And, again, I want to thank all of you, and I wish you Godspeed and safe return to your homes. 

The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.] 

APPENDIX 

FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITl'ED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Hr. Chairman, aembera of the coaaittee, ay n- is Ferdinand 

Martineau and I 11111 subllitting this written ateteaent to you as the 

Executive Director of the 1854 Authority. The Authority is en 

inter- tribal organization created by three of the signatories of 

the Treaty of 1854 between the United States and the Lllke Superior 

Chippewa . The Authority oversees the exercise of rights that -re reserved in the 5 aillion acres that was ceded by the treaty in 

what is now Northeastern Minnesota. Thia area includ .. the -•tern boundary of Lake Superior, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 

in Minne sota, Superior National Forest, and several aaaller state forests and parks. The Band• entered into litigation in 1985 in the 

case of Grand Portaae Band of toka Suoer1or, at, al y, State of Hi ooesota et. al. in a dispute arising under Article Eleven of the 

Treaty of 1854. Article Eleven states that the Chippewa residing 

in the territory ceded by the Treaty of 1854 • •ball have the right to hunt and fi• h tbezein ••• •. As litigation proceeded both • idea 

recognized the long term bitter consequences associated with this 

type of litigation in other area• around the country and requested a continuance to try to negotiate a settlement. The Bands goal in 

these negotiations was to reach a s ettleaent that established a relationship with the State and not to alter any rights under the 

Treaty of 1854. The negotiations resulted in the consummation of an Agreement between the Bands and the State that recognized the 

Bands rights in the Ceded Territory and required the development 

of an off-reservation conservation code to eanage the harvest of the nat\lral resources. The Banda de8J118d it necessary to develop an infrastructure for the _administration, biological, enforce• ent, 

financial, legal and public relation. The Authority has been in the 

process of trying to develop the infrastructure but because of 

budget limitation• has had only li• ited • uccess. 

Funding, or rather the lack of it, has hampered the Authority. As 

with all new initiative in Indian Country, the Authority has not had the benefit of any pre- existing source of funds and haa had to go directly to Congress for an appropriation. Since 1988· the 

Authority has came to Congress and requested funds to help in the 

development of it's infrastructure4 Each year has been a success 

and a failure for the Authority. The Authority has had • ucceas in 

being able to secure the funds necessary to Dlllintain the limited 

services that it's members have come to expect, but the Authority 

has not been able to • ecure the 111110unt that was requested. 

Currently the Authority receives approxi• ately $300, 000 per year. 

The current request that will be presented to Congress later this 

session is for approximately S2,000,000. The Authority currently 

employs 5 conservation officers that have the responsibility of 

patrolling the Ceded Territory (5,000,000 acres). The State 

currently employs 45 C.O's. to patrol the same area. The 

Authority's officers currently work as needed, which means that the 

coverage is sporadic and that the officers are not able to maintain 

a consistent or continuous schedule. In order to help alleviate 

this situation the Authority worked out a cross-deputization 

agreement with the State. A.ll the conservation officers in the 

Ceded Territory now are empowered to enforce each others code. This 

agreement has not worked to the Authority's advantage as it has 

(177) 
178 

given it's officers more to do while in the field. The Authority 

currently operates a court system, a registration system and an administrative system. Each of these are staffed by a very limited 

amount of personnel who have to handle more than their own job. The 

Authority does not employ any biological, financial, legal or public relations staff, not because there is no need for them but, 

because the money is not available to hire them. As stated earlier 

there is 5 million acres of land, rivers and lakes that make up the 

Ceded Territory. 

Within the Ceded Territory the Authority has to deal with a variety 

of governmental agencies. Each having it's own bureaucratic system 

of regulations that they must follow. Each agency must be worked 

with on an individual basis to bring them up to date with current 

laws and how they affect their relationship with the Authority and 

the practice of Treaty Rights in the Ceded Territory. Although the 

Authority has implemented a conservation code to regulate their 

members exercise of rights in the Ceded Territory, they have been 

slow in their acceptance that the Authority has jurisdiction over it's member in the harvest of the natural resources in the Ceded 

Territory. The Authority's presence and public education remain a high priority for the Bands. The Authority continues to work within 

the established framework to deal with the current issues in the 

protection of Treaty Rights. 

The environmental issues such as mining, timber harvest, disposal 

of hazardous material, air and water quality and a variety of other 

similar concerns have always been the forefront for the Bands of 

the Lake Superior Chippewa. The environment was an integral part 

of their lifestyle, culture and religion. All band members 

supported their way of life through harvest of the natural resources around them. Today that tradition continues through the 

Authority. The Bands have enacted very strict legislation on their 

reservations and are in the development stages for the Ceded 

Territory to protect this way of life for future generations of 

the Bands. Band members ara beginning to recognize the efforts of 

the Authority and are starting to practice traditional values more openly. 

Prior to the passage of P. L. 93-638 the Indian Self Determination 

and Education Act, tribal government played a limited role in the 

determination of it's future. The government enacted legislation 

designed to bring the Indian into the dominant society and to take 

away the traditional form of government. There was legislation that 

diminished the land base of the Bands and placed large portion of 

the reservations into private ownership, both Indian and non Indian. Most of this was done with little or no input from the 

Bands. Since P. L. 93-638 tribal governments have taken an active 

roll in the determination of their future. The Bands in Minnesota 

developed their infrastructures to handle the development 

reservations, and have begun to participate in the political 

process to develop good relationships with all the elected 

officials who represent them on a state and national level. They 

have became involved with lobbying efforts to effect the outcome 
179 

of legislation that affects them. Recently the Bands have turned 

the focus of their efforts to the Ceded Territory. The Bands 

recognized that the need for the natural resources to maintain the 

traditional lifestyle has placed a burden on reservation resources and they must now begin to use the Ceded Territory resources. As 

the Bands expand the practice of Treaty Rights outside their 

reservations new questions arise about the trust responsibility of 

the B. I. A. and the u. S. Government and the Bands. 

Clearly the B. I. A. has a trust responsibility on reservation but, 

just as clearly, not off the reservation. The system currently in 

place has a clear delineation of how the Bands and the B. I. A. 

work together with on reservation concerns. The problems surface 

when the Bands begin to exercise off reservation rights. There is a long term litigation process that is costly to the Bands and no clear role for B. I. A. to play. The Bands have to depend upon 

their own financial resources to undertake this battle and, if 

successful, the B. I. A. then becomes a fund mechanism for them. 

Although this statement is short in words the problems outlined 

here could fill several volumes of testimony. 

Legislation should be enacted that will allow the Bands access to 

the long term funding necessary to develop the infrastructure to 

enable them to be co-managers of the natural resources in the Ceded 

Territory. The jurisdictional questions should be dealt with by the 

agencies •in negotiations as they currently are. The environmental 

issues will cease to be a concern once the infrastructure has the 

staff to deal with them in an informed manner. Tribal participation 

is always a concern with the development of legislation and should 

be addressed throughout the whole process. The trust responsibility 

of the United States and the relationship between tribal government 

should be cleared up so all citizens understand it. The problems 

that exist in Indian Country are old. They are a part of our past, our present and unless things change our future. Once the problems 

of funding tribal programs is stable, the jurisdiction that the 

tribes retained in the Ceded Territory is clear, the enactment of 

tribal legislation for the protection of the environment of the 

Ceded Territory's natural resources is recognized, there is tribal 

participation in legislation and the trust responsibility of the 

United States between Indian people is clear accepted, then, the 

Bands will be recognized as the true keepers of the environment 

that they are . 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement before your 

committee in behalf of the Lake Superior Chippewa Bands of Bois 

Forte and Grand Portage. 

Megwich. 
Harrison Talgo, Sr. 

Tribal Chairman 

180 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE San Carlos Avenue 

P.O. Box 0 

San Carlos. Arizona 85550 

(602) 475-2361 

Fax (602) 475-2567 

Raymond Stanley 

Tribal Vice Chairman 

STATEMENT OF HARRI SON TALGO SR, CHAIR!L~N, SA:; CARLOS APACHE 

TRIBE , BEFORE THE SUBCOHfl!TTEE ON ~.H IVE A)IER I CAN AFFAIRS , 

COMMITTEE ON NATU RAL RESOU RCES , REGAR DING FISH AND WILDLIFE 

ACTIVI T IES 

FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, my n ame is Harrison Ta l g o 1 Sr . I am Chairman of the 

San Carlos Apache Tribe o f Ari zo na. I appreciate this opportun i t y 

to comment on pro bl e ms encount e r ed by the San Carl os Apache Tribe 

in i ts efforts to manage its wil dlife populations for protection 

of e ndangered o r threate ned speci e s and for subsistence hunting 

b y members of the Tribe and sports hunt ing by v isitors to our 

Rese rvation. This hearing will foc11s att entio n on o ne of the most 

neglected subjects of Fede ral trust manageme nt of Indian lands 

and their resour ces. 

The San Ca rl os Apache Tribe recommends that l egislation be 

e nac ted to (1 ) establish realistic fund ing levels f o r wildlife 

man a gement activities; ( 2) improve coord ination of wildl ife 

management of nearby Fede ral and state l a nd s with tribal 

management plans; and (3) provi d e scholarships a nd training to 

e nabl e tribes to empl oy their own membe r s in wildli fe management 

activities. I will direct my remarks today to the need for 

equitable levels of funding. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs fu nd i ng f or FY 199 3 provide s $28 

million for Wildlife a nd Parks. Of this amou n ~ approx imately twothirds is dedicated for use off-reservation i n con ne c tio n with 

treaty fishing-rights obligations, c J1 i e fly in the ~orthwest and 

Great Lakes regions. Of the remaining S9.5 million, $2,5 million 

i s for t ribal hatc hery O&M, leav ing SI. O mill ion for Tribal 

Ma na~ ement / Development Programs fT~DP). TMDP funds are 

available, under 6 38 co ntracts, t o enable tribes to: de v elop 

codes, o rdina nces, a nd r egulations for conservi ng fis h a nd 

wildl i fe resources on millions of acres of trust land; develop 

the mult i d isci plinary competence a nd professio nal expertise of 

tribes and intertribal f i sh and wildlife organizations; create 
181 

- 2 -

job- and income-producing programsi and manage public use and 

tourism. Of the entire $28 million, less than 2% is available for 

management of big-game and bird populations on approximately 51 

million acres of trust land. This works out to less than 2 cents per acre. The way the BIA structures its budget obscures the fact 

that very little of its wildlife and parks fund go to on- reservation wildlife management. We suggest that the Subcommittee 

consult with the BIA to arrive at a budget structure th.at more ' 

clearly displays how its funds are deployed to meet its several 

important on-reservation missions and to the extent feasible 

distinguish funding for fish, on the one hand, and all other 

species, on the other. 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe receives $65,000 of THDP funds for 

wildlife management on its 1.8 million-acre reservation (the 

fourth largest in the nation) or about 3 1/2 cents per acre. The 

Tribe also has allocated approximately $55,000 of other BIA funds to wildlife management at the cost of reduced funding for 

programs under the BIA's tribal priority system for allocation of 

appropriated funds. As a measure of the Tribe's concern _for its 

wildlife resources, it contributes about $696,000 of its Tribal 

funds, although it is one of the most impoverished tribes in the 

nation, With these funds, the Tribe tries to manage 75 species of 

mammals and 250 species of birds. Among the bird population are the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl and 

northern goshawk, The Mohave desert tortoise is also documented. These species are designated as endangered or threatened species 

or are candidates for designation. The Tribe's wildlife funding 

needs and management structure are described in the statement of 

Mr. Brian Czech, Director of the San Carlos Apache Recreation and 

Wildlife Department, which is appended to my sta~ement. 

It is our understanding that other land management agencies of 

the Federal government with comparable land and wildlife resources spend as much as 10 times more money on wildlife 

management per acre than the BIA makes available for management 

on the San Carlos Apache Reservation. We suggest that the 

Subcommittee ask the Department of the Interior and Forest 

Service to provide figures on comparative levels of funding. 

It has been suggested that Indian tribes should be made eligible to receive direct Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration (Dingell-Johnson, Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux 

programs) and Land and Water Conservation funds. Subject to 

certain conditions, we support this suggestion. We wish to 

stress, however, that tribes should be eligible for direct 

funding from these sources just as the United States territories, 

the District of Columbia, and the states are. At present, tribes 

must apply to the states for a share of these funds. This 

requirement violates the spirit of the government-to-government 
182 

- 3 -

relationship between the United States and the tribes and inv ites 

state interference in the internal affairs of the tribes. 

We further highlight our concern that the use of these fund s 

requires that a tribe allow public hunting on its reservation. 

Huch of our Reservation is open to off-reservation hunters and 

anglers, but not all of it. At least one tribe we know of has 

closed its entire reservation to public hunting. The Federal 

obligation to tribes respecting the protection and management of 

their trust resources must not be put at the sufferance of stat e 

gov ernments and off-reservation hunters and fishers. 

We believ e the primary source of Federal funds for tribal 

wildlife management should be the same source that provide s funds 

for other Federal land management agencies- -approp riated funds 

from the Treasury. 

In conclusion, the San Carlos · Apache Tribe requests that 

legislation be enacted to establish funding standards which are 

not less than those of other Federal land management agencies 

with comparable land and wildlife resources and that such funds 

be available to a tribe without regard to whether or not the 

reservation is open, closed, or partly closed to public use or 

the hunting of, or fishing for, certain spec ies is prohibited. 

Your interest in this vitally important issue and your longstanding commitMent to a better day for Indian tribes are deepl y 

appreciated. 
183 

THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE 

RECREATION & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT 

P.O. Box 97 

san Calios, Arizona 85550 

(602) 475-2653 

(602) 47S-2343 

BRIAN CZECH 

- ® COMMISSIONERS 

PaulNc:.ie,Jr. 

C1n1lsNellon 

--

STATEMENT OF BRIAN CZECH (DIRECTOR, SAN CARLOS RECREATION & 

WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE) TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

February 16, 1994 

The San Car1os Apache Tribe, Recreation & WIidiife Oepar1ment, very much appreciates the opportunity 

to present this testimony to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs. 

The most important point in this testimony is that the Tribe needs federal wildlife funding that is 

consistent with funding of landholdings administell!d by the U.S. Forest Service, Per1< Service, Fish & 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies. 

The San Carlos Apache Reservation consists of 1.8 million acres in eastem Arizona. The reservation 

varies in elevation from 1,900 to 8,300 feet above sea level. This corresponds with plant communities 

varying from lower Sonoran desert to mixed conifer forest. 

This is one of the most diverse biological communities of 

any contiguous landholding in the United States. Of 

particular interest is the wildlife ecology of the reservBllon. 

About 75 species of mammals and 250 species of birds are 

found, including ten big game species, eight small game 

species (not indudlng waterfowl), end dozens of neotropical bird species. la(lJe portions of the reservalion are 

de facto wilderness areas, induding the regionally famous 

Reference Map 

. n s .. c.too Arizonal___j- Apache Rn. 

"Mineral Strip" (that part of the reservBllon south of the Gila River). The status of threatened, 

endangell!d, and candidate species is summarized as follows: 

Species T& E status UM of ,.servatJon current man,ioement 

bald eagle listed several nests, probably over some nest protection only 

100 in winterina oooulation 

oereorine falcon listed several nestino sHes none 

spotted owi, candidate approximately 12 known pairs, monitoll!d by tribal Forestry 

Mexican subspecies approximately 35 identified Department due to lack of 

birds wildlife manaoement fundino 

northern aoshawk candidate oresence, nests documented none 

desert tortoise, candidate documented from several none 

Mohave sunc.nories areas 

Gila topminnow listed two of last ten known species maintained by San 

nnnulations Caries Fisheries Office 
184 

In addition to the diversity of wildlife populations, the reservation is famous for quality of many species 

(as measured by parameters such as body or antler size). Examples include: 

• the largest antlers ever produced by the species Cervus elaphus (elk, red deer, etc.) 

• two of the top ten bears on record 

• the pending world record mountain lion 

• record book pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, and Coues whitetail deer 

As prescribed by San Cartos Apache Tribal On!inance 7&-1 , the affairs of the Tribe pertaining to outdoor 

recreation and wildlife are administered by the San Cartos Rea-eation & Wildlife Commission, a fivetribal member body that provides policy decisions for the Recreation & Wildlife Department. Such 

commissions have been recognized as a key to success in tribal wildlife management. 

As the director of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, and as the Tribe's first wildlife biologist from 

1988 to early 1992, I testify that the federal funding level for wildlife management on the reservation is 

far short of any normal standards. This Is distressing, when the reservation ranks far higher than normal 

standards in its wildlife management needs and potential. 

The goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department Is to preserve, protect, and enhance wildlife 

populations on the reservation, for the benefit of the Tribe and for the benefit of the ecosystem itself. 

Currently the Department consists of a Law Enforcement Division and a WIidiife Management Program. 

The Law Enforcement Division is comprised of nine rangers, one dispatcher, and a security guald. The 

Wildlife Management Program consists of one wildlife biologist and one wildlife technician. Supporting 

staff for the entire Department includes a maintenance man and three secretaries. The current budget of 

the Department is about $696,000. $120,000 of this is federally funded. 

Please consider that: 1) Larger acreages (after the startup cost wrve Is overcome) require larger peracre expenditures due to motor vehicle operation/repair costs and time required by field personnel to 

access the resource, and, 2) Less developed acreages require larger per-acre expenditures due to 

diffiwlty of access, and, 3) Acreages with greater biodiversity require larger per-acre expenditures 

due to the variety of species and issues to handle. 

The San Carlos Apache Reservation is the fourth largest reservation In the United States and is one of 

the least-developed of all reservations (With only two significarit communities on the entire 1.8 million 

acres). And, I must re-iterate, the San Carlos Apache Reseivation has perhaps the most biodiversity of 

any contiguous landholding In the states. This indicates that the San Cartos Apache Tribe should be 

funded at a higher per/acre level than most federal acreages, not at a lesser level. 

To accomplish the goal of the Department, a budget of $1,775,000 is required, of which $1 ,200,000 is 

requested of Congress. The follOwing pages provide the justification for this budget. 
Information Branch 

Public Relations Unit 

Information Officer 

Seaetary (3) 

185 

Information Branch 

(No Branch Supervisory 

Education Unit 

Education Coordinator 

Intern (4) 

Information Officer - Answers public Inquiries pertaining to hunting, fishing, and other outdoor 

pursuits on the reservation. Prepares promotional and educational publications {for free and for 

revenue). Processes public comment data. Writes news articles and other press releases. 

Arranges promotional events. Documents how promotional activities result In increased 

revenue. 

Secretary - Answer.; basic Inquiries pertaining to outdoor pur.;ults on the reservation. Sells 

permits and other items. Maintains flies pertaining to permit sales and Department personnel. 

Sends information to those that request it. 

Education Coordinator - Organizes and gives presentations for tribal elementary and high 

schools. Assists schOOls In the Incorporation of Project WIid CU!Ticulum. Provides tours and 

presentations to visiting groups. Prepares educational handouts for public distribution. Serves 

as Information officer In absence of information officer. Supervises end assists interns in 

successfully completing their college cu!Tlcula. 

Intern - Attends college for two semesters per year, woru for Department other four months per 

year. Majors In wildlife science, administration of justice {with wildlife minory, or similar field. 

Prepares for professional position with Department or other tribal (!epartment or program. 

Performs wildlife technician or related duties while working for Department as intern. 
Wildlife Management Branch 

Population 

Unrt 

Population 

Biologist 

I ~~fest 

yogist 

Wildlife Technician 

186 

Branch Super,isor 

Habitat 

Unrt 

Forest Habitat 

Specialist 

I Range Habilat 

Specialist 

Wildlife Technician (2) I Wildlife Technician 

Nongame 

Unrt 

Biodiven1ity 

Specialist 

Animal 

Damage 

Control Agent 

senior Biologist- Coo«linates activities ol Wlldl~e Management Branch, asaim - biologists on an - basis, 

prevents duplicity of duties amongst subordinate biologists, conducts Geographic Information System activrties, coordinates 

coope,ative projects with stale and federal agencies. .. 

Population Biologist - Monrtonl population peramoters ol elk, mule deer, Coues deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn, 

desert bighorn, javellna, turltey, beer, lion, and sman game specios. Method1 indUde loot. horseback, vehicular, and aerial 

surveys. Identifies Hmiting flletors !or NCh species. Organizes resNrch projeCIS pertaining to game populations. Conducts 

statistical analyses on population trends and potantlal. 

Hervest Biologist - Monrtora he.-ts ol elk, muled-. Coues d-, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn, desert bighorn, 

javelina, lurltey, bear, lion, and smell game species. Anelyzet biological samples obtained from hervesl$. Provides data to population biologist and financial planner. Formulates ha,_ strategies In COMUltalion with population biologist and provides 

hervest recommendations to dinlctor. 

Wildlife Technician (Population Unrt)-Assms population biologist and harvMt biologist in con<!ucting wildlife end hunter 

surwya. Enters data into computer ftlN. 

Forest Habitat Specialist - Praperes and Implements habitat lmpr""""'8nl projects in forested and wooded araes. Conducts 

inyentOIY on Important forest habiblt fealuree such as turltey rooats, elk security corridors, elk calving arNs, nasting <es !or 

many speciN, etc. Plans controlled bums in forested araes to onhance forage !or big game species. Organizes research 

pertaining to wildlife in !or- and woodland•. PJOl/ldes dala to lol'MI wildlife planner. 

Forest Habitat Technician - Aoaim lores! habitat speclelist in habitat i--,torta. Conducts hal>iblt improvements. 

Supervises labor aewa. 

Range Habitat Speci-- Propares and implements hebitat improvement projects In rangelands. Conducts lnvontory on 

important range - features suet, es wot« holes, bighorn lembing aran, otc. Plans controJled range firas to enhance 

forage lor big game opecies. O<ga..- -.-ch pellaining to wildlffa in rangelands. Provides data to range wildlife planner. 

Range Habitat Technician -Assists range habitat specialist in habitat inventories. Conducts habitat improvements. 

Supervises labor craws. 

Blodlvarsity Specialist - Monttora populellons of lhraatoned, Wldangered, candidate, and sensitive species. Assists forest 

wildlife planner in d-oping gui<Mli- lot timber sale administration. Provides blologicaf assessments !or ollter tribal 

departmonts dealing with NEPA 0( Endangered Species Act requiram.11s. 

Animal Damage Control Agent • Controls populations of anlmels 11181 •n1 limiting populations ol big game and other valuable 

species. 
187 

To accomplish the goal of the Recreation & Wildlife Department, the future structure of 

the Department should be as follows. The budget required to implement this structure 

is $1,775,000 in 1993 dollars. Proceeding pages give breakdowns of each branch 

within the Department. 

Tribal Executive Director Tribal Council 

Recreation & Wildlife Commission 

Director's Office 

Law Enforcement Internal Planning 

Branch Branch 

lnfonnation 

Branch 

Wildlife Management 

Branch 

The Law Enforcement Branch Is responsible for enforcing Tribal Onllnance 7&-1 and annual 

Commission Onler.;. In addition, it assists other enforcement agencies in the enforcement of other tribal 

and federal conseivation laws, and assists the WIidiife Management Branch in data collection. The 

annual budget required to administer this Branch Is $TTO,OOO. This budget includes the director's salary 

and director's office expenditures. 

The Internal 9Iannlng Branch Is the support branch of the Department, providing both cum,nt support 

and preparatory support for the Department's Mure. This support can be physical, financial, or 

administrative. This is the Branch most Involved, along with the Ol!ector, In program development. This 

Bnlnch also coordinates Department efforts wttn the San cartos Planning Department. The annual 

budget required to administer this Branch IS $295,000. 

The Information Brandl is responsible for providing the public with information pertaining to rules, 

regulations, and orders of the Reaeatlon & WIidiife Commission, and for providing educational services 

to the reservation sdlool systems. The Branch also consists of tribal member trainees that will learn the 

duties of all administrative and professlonat positions In the Department. The annual budget required to 

administer this Branch is $205,000. 

The Wildlife Management Bra111;h is responsible for monitoring wildlife populations, monitoring the 

harvests of hunter.;, providing recommendatlons for hunting regulations, monitoring and improving 

wildlife habitat, and controHlng problem animals. The annual budget n,quired to administer this Branch Is 

$505,000. 
188 

Law Enforcement Branch 

Branch Supervisor 

Patrol Unit A Investigation Unit Support Unit Patrol UnilB 

Field Supervisor Investigator (2) Dispatcher (2) Field Supervisor 

I Security Guard I 

Game Ranger (6) Game Ranger (6) 

Chief Ranger - Administers and coordinates law enforcement activities. Manages the Law 

Enforcement Branch fleet. Conducts time-keeping of Branch personnel. Prioritizes investigation 

and enforcement activities. Coordinates training for rangers. Enforces all laws enforced by 

game rangers. Provides recommendations on revisions of tribal law. 

Field Supervisor - Supervises game rangers. Coordinates patrol efforts. Schedules game 

rangers' shifts. Assists chief ranger in coordinating training. Enforces all laws enforced by game 

rangers. 

Game Ranger - Enforces Code 78-1 and other tribal and federal laws. Serves processes and 

notices. Executes warrants and subpoenas Issued for violations of the provisions of Code 78-1 

Recreation & Wildlife commission Orders. Conducts searches without a warrant when there is 

probable cause to believe that tribal property is possessed in violation of the law. Seizes wildlife, 

evidence, and devices possessed in violation of the law. Collects data of use to the Wildlife 

Management Branch. 

Investigator- Conducts Investigations pertaining to Code 78-1 and other tribal laws. Assists 

game rangers in surveillance activities. Enforces tribal laws In absence of game rangers. Trains 

game rangers in investigation techniques. Coordinates undercover operations. 

Dispatcher - Conducts safety checks of all Branch per.sonnet Provides secretarial assistance to 

chief ranger. Answers phone calls. Manages law enforcement filing system. 

Security Guard • Keeps buildings and grounds secured during nighttime hours. 
Internal Planning Branch 

Range Wlldllfe Planner Foreot--

189 

Financial Planner 

Bookeeper 

Chief Planner - Coordinates with San Carlos Planning Department, provides guidance and assistance to 

Internal planners on an as-needed basis, coordinates any lobbying efforts undertaken by the Department, 

prevents duplicity of duties amongst subonllnate planners, conducts and coordinates Geograpllic 

Information System adivities, represents Department In planning activities with U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (Fisheries Assistance Office), plans office layout and construdlon activities, handles Department 

Insurance policies. 

Range Wildlife Planner - represents the Department in interdisciplinary planning sessions with cattle 

associations and Fire Management Program, assists cattle associations In preparation of management 

plans, develops bum plans and worlls with Fire Management Program to implement them, assists 

WIidiife Management Branch in preparation of range Improvement projects. 

Forest Wlldtlfe Planner - represents the Department In interdisciplinary planning sessions with Forestry 

Department and Fire Management Program, reviews timber sales, composes guidelines for timber 

management actlvllies, assists Wildlife Management Brancll in preparation of habitat improvement 

projects in wooded and forested areas, wntes grant proposals for habitat work in forests. 

Recreation Planner - represents the Department in Interdisciplinary planning sessions, writes grant 

proposals for outdoor recniatlon developments, develops campground facilities, develops interpretive 

facilities Including trails, signs, and Information points, intervil!W!I public to determine outdoor activity 

trends and demands. 

Maintenance Man - maintains Department property including buildings, grounds, and equipment. 

Campground Foreman - with help of TWEP WOl1c.ers, removes trash from campgrounds, helps with 

general upkeep of recreation facilities. 

Financial Planner - conducts studies on revenue maximization and optimization, maintains permit sales 

system, provides recommendations to Recreation & WIidiife Commission on annual permit fees, 

organizes marketing campaigns to inaease demand of 1850Urce, conducts major purchasing activities. 

Bookeeper - maintains accounting system of Department purchases and revenue accounts, conducts 

lesser purchasing activities. 

68-141 - 93 - 7 
LEONARD C . BURC H , CHAIRMA N 

VIDA 8 . PEA BODY, VICE CHAIRMAN 

C L EMENT J. FROST , COUNCIL MEMBE R 

LILLIAN I. SEIBEL, COUl<tCn. MEMBU 

H OW ARO 0 . RICHARDS, COUNCIL Ml.Mat.fl 

Q R IAN L . BOX, COUNCIL MEMB EII 

EVALYN L . H UDSON, COU NCIL MEMll[R 

190 

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBAL COUNCIL 

[f,J,./ /AJJu,n fl3u,/J;.,, POST OFFICE BOX 737 

IGNACIO, COLORADO 811 37 

303-563-4525 

FAX 303-563-4033 

U. S . HOUSF. OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RF.SOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

INDIAN FTSH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT 

Testimony of the Sout hern Ute Indian Tribe 

Leonard C. Burch, Chairman 

I am Leonard C. Burch, Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe . 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these wr i tten comments on 

issues relating to the management and enhancement of Indian fish 

and wildlife resources . 

The Southern Ute Indian Reservation l i es in southwestern Colorado, 

in Archu l eta, La Plata and Montezuma count i es. The exterior 

boundaries encompass 720,000 acres . Approximately 304,980 are 

Tribal owned and the remaining acres Non-Indian owned , resulting in 

a "checkerboard" land ownership pattern. Tribal membership within 

our tribe is 1250 members and our tribal headquarters is located in 

Ignacio , Colorado . 

Generat i ons of Native Americans have developed lifestyles, 

cultures, religious beliefs and customs around their relationships 

wi.th f i sh and wildlife resources. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is 

no exception . Today, however, some of this valuable heritage has 

been lost and there is danger of losing more . The ever-expanding 

human populations and the increasing demand for recreational 

opportunities has dramatically applied pressure upon tribal fish 

and wi ldlife resources. 

1n the past , reliance had been placed on Federal and State agencies 

to provide professional and technical support in the management of 

tribal fish and wildlife resources . However the level of 

assistance provide limited, if any assistance for the resources, 

except in setting seasons, baglimi ts and enforcement of NonIndians. 

Tribes in recent years, have begun to exert their jurisdiction over 

tribal fish and wildlife and have developed professional management 

programs employing "state of the art" techniques and strategies, 

balancing biological and ecological principles to insure sound 

management is afforded the fish and wildl i fe species . 
191 

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe recogn1z1ng the cultural, economic 

and recreational values of fish and wildlife resources created by 

tribal resolution in 1962, the Fish and Game Department. Since its 

inception, the Wildlife Conservation Department has gone through 

progressive changes. Antiquated wildlife codes and regulations were revised in 1969, 1976, 1985 and 1989. A cooperative agreement 

between the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Tribe was established in 1972. In 1988 , a proposal was initiated that 

outlined a logical approach to the development of professional 

tribal expertise and capabilities in managing tribal fish and 

wildlife resources. This proposal became reality in 1989 with the 

hiring of a tribal wildlife biologist . This proposal was further 

strengthen by the development of a Tribal Natural Resources 

Management Plan in 1990 . The plan integrated the developed fish 

and wildlife goals and objectives into a comprehensive Multi- resources plan . 

Although in the infancy stage of development, this program is the 

building foundation for the development of tribal expertise and 

capabilities in managing our fish and wildlife resources. The 

importance of natural resources to the tribe is exemplified by the 

dedication and commitment to the development of sound biological 

management programs to insure fish and wildlife resources can be 

enjoyed by future generations. 

The tribe's Wildlife Conservation Department has nine employees, a 

Department Director, Program Assistant, Wildlife Biologist, 

Wildlife Technician, and 5 Wildlife conservation officers. The 

tribe actively participates with the scientific wildlife community 

and is currently members of the Native American Fish and Wildlife 

Society, Inter-tribal Bison Cooperative, Wildlife Society, San Juan 

Interstate Working Group, Mule deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation and other organizations involved in the conservation and 

management of the fish and wildlife resources. The enforcement 

secti on of the department is given the enormous task of patrolling 

860 miles of tribal boundaries enforcing the Tribal Wildlife 

Conservation code. 

Revenues to fund the department is derived from the sale of hunting 

and fishing permits to Non-member sportsmen. Hunting permits are 

sold for mule deer, elk and mountain lion and produce about 

$125 , 000 annually. Revenues generated by the sale of permits are deposited into the Tribal general fund which are then reallocated 

to fund not only the department, but other tribal programs as well. 

We have spent an average of $284,954 annually since 1986 and in 

1993, $398,855 was allocated to the department. While the tribe 

has sought alternative funding from the state of Colorado and 

private organizations, little is available . We receive no federal 

funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs even though a P. L. 93-638 

grant proposal was submitted in 1989. The BIA Southern Ute Agency 

does not employ a Wildlife or Fishery biologist. Fortunately 

though, we have been able to receive limited technical assistance 

from the BIA Albuquerque Area Office Wildlife and Fishery 

Biologists. However, they are also responsible for coordinating 
192 

wildlife and f i sheries management actjviti es on 22 other 

reservations within the Albuquerque Area . 

Mr . Cha i rman and membe r s of the c ommittee, I am sure you will 

agree that we have done a commendable job despite our limited 

financial resources. Although, we have taken the initiative to 

develop our own capabilities, we have realized that present funding 

levels are not sufficient if we are to continue our progressive 

development. Federal funding to aid in the development of Tri bal 

fish and wildlife programs has been non-existent . This appears to 

be prevalent. not only with our Tribe but throughout Indian country 

as a whole . We are in dire need of assistance to remedy this 

situation . 

At this time I would like to respectfully present some 

recommendations for the subcommittees consideration. 

1. Direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fulfi ll their trust 

responsibility in fishery and wildlife management and direct 

more dollars for this effort . 

2 . Direct the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service to make available a 

set amount of the Pi ttman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson 

Administrative funds and the Reverted funds for tribal fishery 

and wildlife programs and proj ects. 

3. Work with congress to amend the Pittman-Robertson/DingellJohnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts to allow full tribal participation 

in funding of fishery and wildlife projects. 

4. Work with congress and the tribes to draft and introduce a 

Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act that will 

legislatively mandate and guarantee tribal governments full 

participation in management of fisheries and wildlife resources 

including adequate funding to rectify the budget shortfalls. 

5 . Consider the option of having the U. S . Fi sh and Wildl i fe 

Service be the primary agency to provide technical assistance 

to tribes. As you know, the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service's 

mission is 100 percent fishery and wildlife management 

oriented. Consequently , 100 percent of their funding and 

effort is allocated for that purpose . On the other hand, we 

find the BIA's mi ssion to be "complex" in that it deals wi th a 

multitude of programs including education, economic 

development, roads, law enforcement, social services, forestry , 

range, water r i ghts, and archaeology, to name a few. These 

individual programs must compete with one another for funding 

and unfortunately, fishery and wildlife resources management 

programs are usually under-funded , if even funded at all . We 

receive no direct BtA funding for fish and wildlife management 

programs . 
193 

If you require additional information regardi ng any of the items 

submitted in this testimony. I will provide you with details at 

your request. 

In closing, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe extends our sincere 

appreciation for the opportunity to submit written testimony. We 

wish you the best of luck with all your duties and sincerely hope 

that you will assist not only our tribe but all tri bes nation-wide . 

We look forward to working with the committee to enhance tribal 

fish and wildlife programs . 
194 

Albert (Big Abe) LeBlanc Building 

186 East Three Mile Road 

Sault Ste. Marie, Ml 49783 

(906) 632-0043 

Fax (906) 632-1141 

TESTIMONY OF FAITH McGRUTHER 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

of the 

CHIPPEWA-OTTAWA TREATY FISHERY MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 

Before the 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

March 17, 1993 
195 

Testimony of Faith McGnllher. Executive Director 

Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority 

COTFMA Organization and Functions 

The Chippewa-ottaw~ Treaty Fishery Management Authority 

(COTFMA) is an inter-tribal entity formed by its member 

tribes as a result of many years of litigation with the 

State of Michigan over the scope and extent of the right 

to fish in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes. 

created in 1981 by inter-tribal agreement bX the Bay Mills 

Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians, and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa, 

COTFMA was delegated the responsibility of "regulating the 

fishing activity by members of the Tribes". 

Fishing in the Great Lakes waters is guaranteed to the 

constituent Tribes by the Treaty of March 28, 1836 (7 

Stat. 491). Litigation with the state concerning the 

continued existence of this right, and the State's ability 

to regulate member fishing, proceeded simultaneously in 

State and federal courts in the 1970 1 s. The first 

decision on these issues was announced by the Michigan 

Supreme Court in People v. LeBlanc, 399 Mich. 31, 248 

N.W.2d 199 (1976). The Court recognized the paramount 

status of the treaty right, and established standards for 

permissible State regulation of treaty-protected fishing. 

Back in 1976, two Tribes were recognized as governments by 

the United States--the Bay Mills Indian Community and the 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Both Tribes 

had instituted conservation regulations applicable to 

their members' fishing activities in ceded waters. (See, 

for example, Conservation Code of the Bay Mills Indian 

Community (1973)]. Only tribal regulations applied to 

treaty fishers, as the State's regulations could not meet 

the standard required in LeBlanc. 

In 1979, the federal court affirmed the LeBlanc holdings regarding the viability of the 1836 Treaty's usufructuary rights and went so far as to find State regulation of any kind to be invalid as a matter of law. United States v. Michigan, 471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Mich. 1979) Federal 

regulations were promulgated in 1979 under then 25 C.F.R. 

Part 256 (now Part 249), which were withdrawn the 

following year. State efforts to regulate tribal 

commercial fishing activities were rejected by the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Michigan, 653 

F.2d 277 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124 

(1981) in favor of the tribal fishing regulations enacted 

by the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the newly-federally 

recognized Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa. 

-1-
196 

Those regulatory efforts culminated with the founding in 

1981 of the inter-tribal entity known as COTFMA, which 

ensured uniform minimum fishing regulations, while 

allowing the individual tribes to establish their own, more restrictive regulations if they so chose. 

Additionally, subsistence fishing remained the exclusive 

regulatory province of each tribe. These regulations were found to be effective in protecting the fishery resource by the United States District Court in an unreported decision in 1982. 

Since its founding, COTFMA has received funding from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to contracts issued 

under the terms of the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (commonly 

termed P.L. 93-638). In 1985, the U.S. District Court 

issued an order under which fishing in the 1836 treaty 

waters was allocated; under that order, funds for COTFMA's 

activities have annually been appropriated by the Congress 

of the United States, with certain funds additionally 

provided pursuant to the court's order for hatchery production, marketing assistance and fishing gear 

upgrading. These special purpose funds are supplemented by State monies provided under the terms of the court's 

1985 decree. All special purpose funds have been placed in a trust account, which COTFMA annually disburses with 

the consent of the United States and the State of 

Michigan. For the last several years, COTFMA' s annual 

Congressional appropriation has been $1.4 million . 

Federal financial support has always been based on the 

principle of the trust relationship the United States has 

undertaken in respect to Indian tribes. commonly cited in 

discussions about the rights reserved in the 1836 Treaty and the Tribes• efforts to implement and benefit from them 

is the 1981 statement of the Court of Appeals: 

The protection of those [treaty-guaranteed fishing) rights is the solemn obligation of 

the federal government, and no principle of 

federalism requires the federal government to 

defer to states in connection with the 

protection of those rights. The 

responsibility of the federal government to 

protect Indian treaty rights from encroachment 

by state and local governments is an ancient 

and well-established responsibility of the 

national government. 

United States v. Michigan, supra, 653 F.2d at 278-279. 

COTFMA's earmarked appropriation falls under the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, with funds administered under P.L. 93-638. 

Each funding cycle, the member Tribes determine which 

-2-
197 

management functions they choose to undertake by contract . . This determination is made by a six-member Board of 

Directors, comprised of the Chairpersons of the member 

Tribes and the Conservation Committee Chairpersons of each 

of the member Tribes. Serving ex officio on the Board are a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Before turning to the description of the components of the 

COTFMA areas of responsibility, it is important to outline 

the scope of the rights reserved under the Treaty of 1836. 

The si9natory Tribes not only reserved the right to catch 

the fish found in the · Treaty-ceded waters, but also 

reserved the right to regulate the manner and means by which their members would undertake that harvest. United 

States v. Michigan, supra, 471 F. Supp. at 273-274. This 

component is termed "effective Indian tribal selfregulation" by the appellate court in United states v. Michigan, supra, 653 F. 2d at 279. Effective 

self-regulation is not limited to the legislative function 

of rule promulgation; it also includes the enforcement of 

those regulations through the detection of violations of 

the Tribes' regulations (conservation wardens) and the 

adjudication of the resultant citations (conservation 

court). United States v. Michigan, supra, 471 F. Supp. at 

273. 

The rights guaranteed by treaty are meaningless, however, 

in the absence of a viable fishery. Whether termed an element of the treaty right, itself, or as an implementation of court orders regarding the treaty fishery, the Tribes must conduct fishery assessment and 

enhancement activities in order to protect the resource from irreversible harm. This is the element of tribal 

self-regulation termed "management." For the COTFMAmember tribes, management functions have been shared with 

the state of Michigan and the United States by the 1985 

court decree. Further, as the court recognized in its 

decree, access to the resource is essential in order to 

harvest its bounty; significant amounts of money and 

personnel have been expended in locating and developing docking sites and ramps for tribal fishing boats. 

Effective tribal self-regulation in the United states v. Michigan case area consists of the following elements: 

1. Enactment of conservation-based regulations governing the manner and means by which tribal members may exercise the right to fish in ceded waters; 

2. Staffing of conservation enforcement departments; 

3. Establishment of adjudicatory bodies to determine 

the existence of violations of the fishing regulations; 

-3-
198 

and 

4. Conduct of fisheries protection and enhancement 

programs and access development. 

COTFMA carries out all of the above 

functions, through the actions of the 

described. 

self-regulation 

entities next 

1. Regulations. The COTFMA Board of Directors enacts 

the uniform regulations applicable to all tribal members 

seekin9 to exercise the treaty right to fish. (The 

composition of the Board is described herein.) Each Tribe 

has the power to enact its own regulations governing subsistence fishing, as well as to implement commercial 

fishing regulations which are more restrictive than 

adopted by COTFMA. These regulations, as well as initial 

consideration of the uniform regulations, are adopted by 

each Tribe's Conservation Committee. 

2. Enforcement Personnel. Each of the member Tribes 

has a conservation department, which employs law 

enforcement personnel to detect violations of the COTFMA 

regulations and those enacted by each Tribe. Bay Mills 

and Grand Traverse Band's wardens are employed for this 

sole purpose. Personnel employed by the Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe are termed "public safety" officers, and combine 

general law enforcement duties with conservation 

enforcement responsibilities. Each conservation 

enforcement program is the subject of a contract with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs under P.L. 93-638. The Bureau 

supplements the enforcement staff with its own conservation warden component. 

3. Conservation court. Members of the Bay Mills 

Indian community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe who 

violate treaty fishing regulations are cited to appear before the Chippewa-Ottawa Conservation Court. This 

Court's exclusive purpose is to adjudicate such 

violations, for the two Tribes each separately maintain a Tribal Court for adjudication of other matters. The Court 

is administered by the Bay Mills Indian Community under a P.L. 93-638 contract. Distance from this forum for the 

Grand Traverse Band caused the Tribe to obtain a separate 

contract for adjudication of fishing violations in its 

Tribal Court. 

4. Management Functions. Fisheries assessment and 

enhancement activities are carried out by the Inter-Tribal 

Fisheries and Assessment Program, which is administered by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe under a P.L. 93-638 contract. 

The Program conducts population studies and analyses, 

operates a fish hatchery, stocks hatcheryproduced fish, advises the Board on the need for 

conservation regulations, coordinates its activities with 

-4-
199 

the United States, the State of Michigan and the Province 

of Ontario, and represents COTFMA on such bodies as the 

Great Lakes Fish commission and its Lake Committees. The 

Grand Traverse Band employs biological expertise for 

management of the fishery resource contained in Grand 

Traverse Bay, pursuant to a separate P.L. 93-638 contract. 

Access site identification, acquisition and development is 

conducted by staff employed by COTFMA under its master 

contract. 

COTFMA' s master contract also includes central staff to 

coordinate and facilitate the conduct of the selfregulation functions described above. The contract also 

provides financial support for Board members, who meet 

monthly to conduct business. 

An integral element of the fishery management task for the 

COTFMA member tribes is their participation in the 

Executive council, established by the 1.985 federal court 

order to facilitate resolution of disputes concerning fisheries enhancement, fishing access, user competition for available resources, and fishing regulation. That 

body is composed of the tribal chairs of the member 

tribes, along with a representative of the Michigan DNR 

and of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Council 

is required to undertake all actions unanimously, and must 

meet quarterly. The Council has no budget of its own, and 

receives administrative support from COTFMA staff. The 

Council's effectiveness is primarily as an informationsharing opportunity, as the unanimity requirement hinders 

it from taking any stand re9arding controversial matters--

and most matters confronting the Great Lakes fisheries resources are controversial. 

Treaty Fishery Management 

At first glance, it would appear that management of the 

tribal fishery is completely a matter of fisheries 

science, relating to the assessment of fish stocks over time and designing regulations to ensure harvestable 

surpluses over time. Any fishery manager would add the 

other elements of management which are not biological, meaning the politics of resource management are integral and sometimes obstructive of good policy implementation. 

Off-Reservation treaty natural resources are generally shared with other users. No court has ever indicated that 

the tribes' rights to resources are exclusive (althou9h 

there has been dicta to that effect) . In practice this 

has meant that allocation of harvest opportunity has been 

the biggest element of day-to-day management--who fishes 

where, when, and with what amount of gear. such 

management decisions are only effective in the absence of 

-5-
200 

conflict with other management entities. In the 

1836-treaty ceded waters, management conflicts exist not 

only with the State of Michigan, but with the other 

jurisdictions with regulatory authority over a portion of 

the same territory: the Province of Ontario and the states 

of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and in many 

cases, the Great Lakes states bordering Lakes Erie and 

Ontario. The tribes are justly proud of insisting upon 

and obtaining a voice in the Great Lakes Fisheries 

Commission, but that voice is muted by the number of 

jurisdictions whose views must be taken into account, and 

by the lack of overall management authority in that body. 

The areas of conflict increase exponentially when other 

aspects of resource management and protection are taken 

into account. They include: air and water pollution, non- indigenous species introduction, habitat degradation, soil 

erosion, shoreline development, water level regulation, and navigation restrictions. In these areas, the tribes' concerns about fishery resource protection and enhancement 

have no guaranteed listener, at all. Regulation of these 

subjects is a unpaltable stew of local, state and federal 

agencies, who often have no responsibility to consult with 

each other, and certainly feel no obligation to consult 

with the tribes. 

The contemporary status of treaty rights is less dependent on recognition by a court for viability, but of 

problematic worth to the tribal signatories. No permanent 

guarantee of a right to fish is of benefit if ( 1) there are insufficient fish to catch, or (2) the fish available are dangerous to consume, or tribal fishers are prevented 

by conflict from harvesting. The ability of tribes to 

protect the continued existence of their usufructuary rights is not known; years of litigation before the courts 

and administrative tribunals may be required before the 

right of the tribe to have mandated review of the impact on the treaty resource, prior to the issuance of a permit or license. Even more necessary is the establishment of a mechanism by which tribal concerns are taken into account 

by regulatory agencies in setting standards or in 

determining the need for enforcement actions. These 

mechanisms are certainly non-existent at present. 

The Need for Federal Legislation 

In general, the responsibility of the United states to 

protect tribal property (the trust responsibility doctrine) has developed from court decisions going back 

160 years. The courts since then have issued directives 

concerning the nature and scope of that responsibility, 

but there is no analogous comprehensive description of the 

duties of the United States in any legislative enactment 

-6-
201 

by the Congress. This presents continuing and numerous incentives for initiating further litigation--as court 

decisions are subject to differing interpretations as to 

their application to new factual situations. Litigation is a burden, too often borne by the least able to do so-- the Tribes. 

When it is .the United States which is asked to file suit on behalf of a tribe for protection of its trust property (fish and game, for example), there again exists many view 

points within the various offices in the Departments of 

the Interior and Justice as to what position the United 

states should adopt in carrying out its trust 

res1;>onsibility. This places the Tribes at the risk of 

losing trust property to an inter-agency decision-making 

process. 

Recommendation No. J. Therefore the Congress must enact 

comprehensive legislation which describes the nature and 

scope of the trust responsibility of the United States to 

protect and enhance tribal trust natural resources, 

wherever such may be located. 

The scope of the federal government's trust responsibility 

to protect tribal natural resources has usually been 

limited in practice to the U.S. Department of the 

Interior. However, many other Departments and agencies 

have programmatic responsibility to regulate conduct which 

has direct and substantial impact on tribal trust resources. The list which follows is not intended to be 

comprehensive, but certainly illustrates the extent to 

which the federal government as a whole is seriously deficient in protecting tribal trust property: 

* The State De~artment has a significant role in 

shaping u. s. participation in international regulatory/ 

informational/ management entities such as the Great Lakes 

Fisheries commission. The responsibility for control of 

the parasitic sea lamprey, which continues to threaten 

the Great Lakes fisheries, lies within this Department. 

* The commerce Department includes the U.S. Coast 

Guard, which establishes regulations concerning shipping 

and navigation in the Great ·Lakes. Such matters as oil 

spill control, ballast/ bilge discharges of non- indegenous organisms, (SEE, the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Control and Prevention Act) and safety regulation of vessels directly affect the health of the treaty fishery and the manner in which tribal fishermen may harvest the resource . NOAA regulations have a similar 

impact on the Great Lakes treaty fishery . 

-7-
202 

* The Defense Department also impacts the treaty fishery through its regulation of shoreline development 

and underwater dredging in the Army Corps of Engineers. Both activities have an immediate impact on fishery 

habitats and the ability of tribal fishers to gain access to the resource through marinas and boat ramps. The 

Corps's regulation of wetland management and development, in particular, significantly and directly impacts tribal 

lands. 

* The Department of Agriculture contains the US Forest 

Service, which directly affects inland fish and game 

resources, but also affects the Great Lakes treaty fishery 

through its boat access ramp policies. More 

significantly, the Department establishes toxin levels for 

fish sold for human consumption and has enforcement powers 

to prohibit the sale of contaminated fish. 

* The Environmental Protection Agency regulates both 

directly and indirectly the air and water pollutants which 

impact on the Great Lakes fishery. Al though discharge permits are generally handled by state agencies under 

approved plans, the EPA sets the standards. 

* The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses 

power plants which, when sited on the Great Lakes 

shoreline or tributary streams, adversely impact fishery 

habitat. 

Recommendation No, 2. It is essential for adequate protection by the United States of the trust resourc~s that all 

federal agencies and departments have that mandate and 

responsibility expressly declared in federal law. 

Tribes have fought long and hard to establish their right 

to manage, preserve and enhance their natural resources. Limiting COTFMA' s comments to off-Reservation trust 

resources, tribal self-regulatory capacity has been a le9al precondition for excludin9 states from regulating tribal member harvesting activities. That capacity is in 

the areas of biological assessment and monitoring, harvest 

regulations, and enforcement systems. These systems are not self-supporting, and have required financial support from the congress in order to function; the annual 

appropriations process includes funds earmarked for 

inter-tribal natural resource management programs. COTFMA 

itself receives its base budget from Congress to carry out 

its functions. 

What Congress gives, however, Congress can also take away. 

Tribal self-regulation (to the exclusion of State 

regulation) is hostage to the federal budget process. It 

is within Congress's power to end tribal self-regulatory capacity simply by reducing the funds necessary for 

-8-
203 

re9ulatory functions. This result not only ends tribal 

ability to manage resources according to their own goals and objectives, but also places trust resource protection in the hands of state agencies, whose hostility to tribal 

natural resource rights is endemic and real. To date, 

tribes have sought to ensure funding continuity by placing resource protection funds in the "base"; this strategy is 

only effective to the extent that Congress's budgetary 

process follows the same procedures as are currently in 

place. 

Recommendation No. 3. The United States must explicitly recognize, in the recommended trust legislation, that 

minimally adequate fundin~ of tribal trust protection/ 

management programs is an integral element of the federal 

government's trust responsibility and is not to be 

considered a matter of discretionary policy. 

As should be clear from the above comments on the state of 

tribal resource protection efforts, tribal infrastructure 

has developed in the area of fisheries and wildlife 

science and management. It does no good for the Tribes to 

have sophisticated management practices if they cannot 

obtain the ears of others whose decisions equally affect 

the status of tribal trust natural resources. The Tribes are currently voices calling in the dark; no one is 

required to hear what is being said. What is needed is more than a requirement for consultation with Tribes--that 

often means in practice that Tribes are advised by other 

entities of intende_d action and their comments and/or 

objections are not heeded. Tribes need to have accorded 

to them the same respect as other governments with 

responsibility for their lands and resources, and that 

includes mandated inclusion in any body established or subject to federal law concerning natural resources issues. 

Recommendation No. 4. Federal legislation should include 

mandatory inclusion of tribal representatives in any and 

all decision-making entities established or funded by the 

United states whose actions directly affect the viability 

of tribal fish, game, land and water resources. 

-9-
204 

Conclusion 

Tribal natural resources are the sinew of tribal culture 

and history, providing a continuity from times past to 

times beyond our ability to imagine. They are not 

artifacts of a lifeway which no longer has contemporary meaning. They constitute the basic economy of the Tribes 

in the 1836 cession of the Great Lakes. In order to ensure the continued existence of these resources for 

future generations, the United States must enact 

legislation which establishes the authority for all 

federal agencies to participate in the trustee's role of 

prudent management. 

-10-
205 

RED LAKE BAND 

of CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

TRmAL COUNCIL 

OrJanued April 18, 1918 t1wt1..i etn'1iMi1111 • D7-L.t.w, 

Ja11111,17f,1KI) 

OfflCERS: OE:R.\l.D r. BRUN, CholnMn DO&DY Vl'IU'R'FEAT!IJ:R, a..,.,..,, JAMEi ITHO,._'O, TrN,w.r 

DIITRJct ltl:PRESENTATIVES: ROMAN P. STATELY, JR. 

J'ADlAN COOK 

Red Lake, MN 66671 Phone 218-879-3341 • Fax 218-679-3378 LORNA L. FAtRD.\.NKS PN:8TOS OR.A.VII t..\WRE:-O'C.E &EDEAU AU.EN ESOLIIH, .m. TOM J. snu.o,w, JR. 

DMSION1 CUf'f'OnD C. lfAJlOY 

ADVISORY COUNCIL; 

f HEREDrf,\R'( CHJtPB 

CHIBP couwca. OP 111111 lru)'-4w•r·,....•-nind S..Jl..p \11\+p,;,n.abo, 

M•)'-•·•r 

Ahllah-mt-1y,,.,1hiJ 

N•-r-t1h-wo•b N, l\.w1tHi.-y,10-1hf.-

1ESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GERALD F. BRUN, CHAJRMAN 

RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

TRIBAL COUNCIL 

Before the House Committee on Natural Resources 

and its Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

February 18, 1993 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I am pleased to 

present testimony on behalf of the Red Lalcc Nation and its Reservation at this oversight 

hearing on fish and wildlife conservation in Indian Country. 

Red Like has a serious problem. Our natural resources, our fish and wildlife, are 

threatened on several fronts. Our wild game is being slaughtered by criminal trespassers. 

Our fish are being contaminated. Our water is being polluted, our air befouled. 

Our Reservation and aU of the life within it is very important to us. We arc striving 

to protect these resources but funds arc inadequate and only sporadically available. 

A comprehensive tribal fish and wildlife conservation and enforcement bill is needed. 

In general, we strongly support the bill proposed by the Native American Fish and Wildlife 

Society. 

We also ask that you consider several additional items in developing legislation: 

Red lake Enterprises: Red l ake Sawmill, Red Lake Fishing Industry, 

Red Lake Bingo, Red Lake Builders, Chippewa Trading Post-Red Lake & Ponemah 
206 

BEFORE THE HOUSE NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE 

GARDING TRIBAL FISH AND Wn.nLIFI! CciNSERV " 

strengthen Reservation trespass penalties to deter poaching on Reservations 

set aside funds to Tribes from the federal fish and wildlife conservation 

assistance programs 

authorize funds for stable and consistent comprehensive tribal government 

natural resource core management operations 

protect against environmental threats to Reservation fish and wildlife 

resources that are diminishing their value 

affirm that the United States' trust responsibility to Indian Tribes is the 

obligation of each federal agency, not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

direct each federal agency to deal with and fund tribal government fish, 

wildlife and environmental resource projects on an equal basis and a 

proportional level to that enjoyed by state and local governments 

My staff would be happy to work with the Subcommittee staff in refining these ideas 

into legislation. The rest of our testimony will focus on strengthening the Reservation 

trespass law and allocating funding to tribal governments. 

STRENGTHEN THE FEDERAL RESERVATION TRESPASS LAW 

The Problem. Poaching and other illegal hunting and fishing activity on Indian 

Reservations is on the increase, jeopardizing our fish and wildlife. In many cases, our 

commercial livelihood is based on maintaining and enhancing the value of our natural 

resources. When our natural resources are threatened, our jobs are threatened. In many 

cases, our subsistence culture is interwoven with our natural resources. When our natural 

resources are threatened, our way of life is threatened. 

Some of the more flagrant poaching violations are carried out by non-members over 

whom tribal governments like Red Lake have little or no enforcement powers. In such 

cases, we strongly believe Congress must modernize the federal-Indian law enforcement 

measures available to Indian Tribes and to their federal agency counterparts charged with 

conservation enforcement on Indian Reservations. 

-- PAGE 2 --
207 

TESTIMONY OF RED LAKE CHAJRMAN GERALD F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

BEFORE THE HOUSE NA11Vll AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMrr!EE 

REGARDING TRIBAL FISH AND Wl!DUFE CONSERVATION l.EGISIATION 

Both the penalties and the enforcement procedures on Indian Reservations now lag 

far behind state enforcement authorities on neighboring lands, making Reserva1ions 

increasingly inviting to lawless non-members who seek to gain a hunting or fishing advantage 

by carrying out illegal hunting or fishing with little risk of getting anyihing more than a slap 

on the wrist. 

The wildlife conservation law enforcement efforts of Tribes like Red Lake are 

increasingly frustrated by non-members who brazenly trespass on Reservation to hunt or fish, 

knowing full well they face only mild penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1165 if caught. This 

problem arises from the antiquity of the trespass statute penalties and from a chronic 

underfunding of tribal conservation enforcement efforts. An effective solution will require 

legislative amendment. 

Example From Our Experience. Our Tribe prohibits all non-member hunting on our 

closed Reservation. Last year, Red Lake Tribal Wardens discovered a group of non-Indian 

poachers several miles within the well-marked borders of our Reservation. Carcass drag 

marks and other evidence indicated the poachers appeared to have been hunting and killing 

moose and deer over a period of days. This occurred well after the state hunting season in 

nearby Minnesota had ended. 

Our tribal wardens approached the poachers who fled at high-speed. The wardens 

gave chase and eventually apprehended two non-Indians. Our wardens seized their rifles 

and related hunting equipment, as well as a sophisticated plexiglass tree stand for spotting 

game that was furnished with an elaborate heating system, chairs and other comforts. The 

wardens also seized two "snow-planes", multi-purpose vehicles on large skis that are thrusted 

by aircraft engine propellers. 

We were shocked that our Reservation game, preserved as it has been from sporting 

encroachments that have diminished wildlife populations in surrounding states, has now 

become so desirable that it attracts outsiders with the latest in heated tree stands and big 

game chase vehicles. Our Tribal Wardens were proud of their law enforcement work. But 

if this case turns out like all the rest, they will quickly become discouraged. 

Typically our wardens must release poachers at the edge of the Reservation and 

prepare the prosecution paperwork for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Weeks later the 

federal warden orders our tribal wardens to release property they have seized because the 

violator has paid a bond. Months later our tribal wardens must travel for hours to testify 

in federal court without reimbursement, often several times for each case. The outcome is 

--PAGE3 --
208 

ONY OF RED LAxE CHAIRMAN GERALD F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

BEFORE IBE HOUSE NATIVE AMERiCAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE . 

,f REGARDI_NO TRIBAL FISH AND 'NIWUFB CONSERVATION l.EGISIATION 

typically hollow -- poachers are cited by the federal wardens as Reservation trespassers 

under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1165, fined $100 to $150, and released 

with all their equipment. The maximum penalty under this law is a $200 fine and 90 days 

imprisonment. Section 1165 authorizes only the confiscation of any game seized, it does not 

authorize confiscation and forfeiture of a violator's poaching equipment. 

When these same U.S. Fish and Wildlife wardens prosecute fish and game violators 

on federal conservation and recreation areas, the maximum fine is $500 and one year 

imprisonment. The federal wardens may confiscate seized equipment and either use it or 

the proceeds from its sale to supplement the funding of local conservation enforcement 

efforts. 

In the surrounding state of Minnesota, state game wardens have even stronger 

penalties to bring against fish and game violators, who face punishments of hunting or fishing 

license revocation for life and a maximum fine of $3,000 and one year imprisonment. 

Additionally, state wardens can and do confiscate seized equipment and devote it or the 

proceeds of its sale to local conservation enforcement programs. 

All this adds up to some very simple reasons why any shrewd poacher is going to 

prefer to poach on an Indian Reservation rather than federal or state lands -- Indian 

Reservations are where most of the game is, where there are the fewest conservation 

enforcement officers, and where the possible penalties are the oldest and lightest. 

The Solution. In an attachment to this testimony, Red Lake proposes amendment bill 

language to strengthen the reservation trespass statute (18 U.S.C. § 1165). 

The objective is to amend the law to stiffen the penalties for prohibited non-member 

hunting and fishing on-Reservation, increasing the maximum fine from $200 to $3,000 and 

the maximum jail term from 90 days to one year, and authorizing tribal co11fisca1io11 and 

forfeiture of violators' poaching equipment and vehicles. 

This amendment is necessary to make Indian Reservations less attractive to poachers 

and other non-Indian trespassers. Tribal game wardens need this kind of support; otherwise 

their apprehension activities are nearly futile and our game is at even greater peril. 

The penalties in 18 U.S.C. § 1165 have not been altered for more than thirty years 

and inflation has eroded the impact of the maximum $200 fine. For example, if the $200 

maximum fine is adjusted for an average annual inflation rate of 5%, the maximum penalty 

•• PAGE 4 --
209 

ING TRIBAL FISH AND WllDL!FE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION 

of $200 in 1960 is really only $38.74 in today's dollars. Or, put another way, if the $200 fine 

set in 1960 had grown with inflation, it would be a $953 fine today. 

Inflation is not the only factor weakening conservation enforcement on Reservations. 

Criminals are getting more sophisticated. To maintain their effectiveness, state and federal 

enforcement measures are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One of the most effective 

of the new enforcement tools is the authority to seize and forfeit a poacher's equipment and 

vehicle. Like in the area of drug enforcement, taking the tools of the criminal enterprise has 

emerged as an important and effective measure in conservation enforcement by federal and 

state governments. These same forfeiture powers should be applied to Indian Reservation 

conservation enforcement efforts to assist under-funded tribal government conservation 

programs. 

For these reasons, Red Lake proposes that 18 U.S.C. § 1165 be amended to increase 

maximum penalties to a $3,000 fine, or one year imprisonment, or both, and to additionally 

vest tribal conservation enforcement programs with the authority to seize and forfeit to their 

programs' use all personal property used by the violator to carry out the violation. This 

would include forfeiture powers over hunting and fishing as well as all transportation 

equipment used in the criminal enterprise. 

We believe it may be most politically feasible to include a provision that would 

automatically apply the higher of either the new federal penalties we propose or the 

neighboring state's penalties for prohibited hunting and fishing on state-administered game 

preserves. Since state penalties vary from state to state, Congress could in this way ensure 

that penalties applied on Reservations are no less stringent than surrounding state penalties. 

SET ASIDE FUNDS TO TRIBES FROM THE FEDERAL FISH 

AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

Tribal governments are finding it increasingly difficult to manage their natural 

resource programs. Increasing numbers of people are residing upon and using the 

Reservation as populations swell and tribal members return home to live and work. This 

has resulted in increased reliance on natural resources for sustenance as well as increased 

environmental degradation. 

Nevertheless, in recent years BIA funding for natural resources has been declining 

in favor of modest increases targeted for human services programs. And what funding does 

- PAGE 5 -
210 

TESTIMONY OF RED lAKB CHAIRMAN GERALO F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 1 

BEFORll 1lll! HOUSE NA11VE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SuscoMMITIEE 

•' REGARDING TRIBAL FISH AND Wn.oUFli CONSERVATION l..EoISI.ATION 

come through to the tribal government level is sporadic and often project specific. There 

is a critical need for Congress to authorize and appropriate stable and consistent levels of 

funds specifically targeted for the comprehensive tribal government operation of its natural 

resource core management program. 

Funding for such a comprehensive program could have little impact on the federal 

budget because of the unique revenue collection and distribution mechanisms under the 

Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts. State and local governments, even the District 

of Columbia, now receive a proportional share of funds collected under these Acts from 

special taxes levied on the sale of licenses, permits, weapons, ammunition, gear, equipment, 

boats, fuel, and related consumer goods used in fishing and hunting activities. These funds 

are collected by the federal government and returned to states and local units of government 

in proportional shares for fish and wildlife restoration projects. 

But while some of the hunting and fishing activities occur on tribal lands, including 

those lands over which state and local governments have no jurisdiction or conservation 

responsibility, none of these funds are now allocated to tribal governments who do have that 

jurisdiction and responsibility. Nothing is allocated to Indian Reservations despite the fa ct 

that all Reservation fish and wildlife recreational activities contribute money to these funds. 

There is a strong case to be made, on basic fairness and equity, that tribal conservation and 

enforcement programs should get a share of these funds. 

In an attachment to this testimony, Red Lake submits proposed amendment language 

which would allocate to Indian Tribes a portion of the Dingell-Johnson and PittmanRobertson Act funds. We strongly support such a measure. However, we ask that in 

considering such an amendment, the Subcommittee make every effort to ensure that BIA 

officials are not permitted any discretion to reduce fish and wildlife related funding to Tribes 

because Tribes obtain Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson funds. Tribes need additional 

funds, and that is our objective in seeldng the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson 

funding. We make this request because we have heard BIA officials view such an 

amendment as a way for BIA to redirect BIA fish and wildlife funds into other areas of the 

BIA budget. We would oppose all such efforts and ask that you make sure BIA cannot do 

so. 

Please let us know if we can assist you in developing the legislation, in refining these 

proposed amendments, and in securing passage of a bill during this session of Congress. We 

sorely need early action on this critical topic. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. 

RLF&W08.TST 

0152/07203 

·-PAGE6--
211 

RESERVATION TRESPASS/POACHER AMENDMENT 

18 U.S.C. § 1165 (Indian Reservation trespass statute) 

18 U.S.C. § 1165 is amended to read as follows: 

§ 1165. HUNTING, TRAPPING, OR FISHING ON INDIAN LAND 

2 Whoever, without lawful authority or permission, willfully and knowingly goes upon 

3 any land that belongs to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or group and either are held by 

4 the United States in trust or are subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the 

5 United States, or upon any lands of the United States that are reserved for Indian use, for 

6 the purpose of hunting, trapping, or fishing thereon, or for the removal of game, peltries, 

7 or fish therefrom, shall be fined not more than ~ $3,000 or imprisoned not more than 

8 ninety says one year, or both, and all game, fish, ana peltries, vehicles, weapons, gear. and 

9 other hunting and fishing equipment in his possession shall be forfeited to the Indian tribal 

10 government exercising conservation authority over the Indian land upon which the trespass 

11 occurred. The forfeited property, or the proceeds therefrom, shall be used by said tribe in 

12 furtherance of its conservation enforcement activities. 

CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY THE RED LAKE NATION· PAGE 1 
212 

FEDERAL WILDLIFE ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT 

16 U.S.C. § 669 et seq. 

Popular Names: the "Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act" 

and the "Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act" 

16 U.S.C § 669g-1 is amended to read as follows: 

§ 669G-l. PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO AND COOPERATION WITH PUERTO RICO, GUAM, 

2 AMERICAN SAMOA, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Al'ID VIRGIN 

3 ISLANDS, ANO .AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. 

4 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of 

5 Agriculture of Puerto Rico, the Governor of Guam, the Governor of American Samoa, the 

6 Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, aoo-the Governor of the 

7 Virgin Islands, and the governments of Indian tribes, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), in the 

8 conduct of wildlife-restoration projects, as defined in section 669a of this title, and hunter 

9 safety programs as provided by section 669g(b) of this title, upon such terms and conditions 

IO as he shall deem fair, just and equitable, and is authorized to apportion to Puerto Rico, 

11 Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, &Afl--the 

12 Virgin Islands, and said tribal governments, out of the money available for apportionment 

13 under this chapter, such sums as he shall determine, not exceeding for Puerto Rico one-half 

I 4 of 1 per centum, for Guam one-sixth of 1 per cent um, for American Samoa one-sixth of one 

CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY nrn REO LAKE NATION - PAGE 2 
213 

TESTIMONY OF RED I.AKE CHAIRMAN GERALD F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

J- BEFORE THE HOUSE NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMrITEI! 

_REGARDING TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION 

per centum, for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands one-sixth of 1 per 

2 centu.m, QflS-for the Virgin Islands one-sixth of 1 per centum, and for the combined total of 

3 all of said tribal governments 2-and-one-guarter per centum, of the total amount 

4 apportioned, in any one year, but the Secretary shall in no event require any of said 

5 cooperating agencies to pay an amount which will exceed 25 per centum of the cost of any 

6 project, nor require any of said tribal governments to pay any amount toward the cost of any 

7 project. Any unexpended or unobligated balance of any apportionment made pursuant to 

8 this section shall be available for expenditure in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the 

9 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana lslands,--er-the Virgin Islands. or by said tribal 

10 governments. as the case may be. in the succeeding year, on any approved project, and if 

11 unexpended or unobligated at the end of such year is authorized to be made available for 

12 expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of the Migratory 

l3 Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.A. § 715 et seq.). 

CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY THE RED I.AKE NATION - PAGE 3 
214 

··% TBSTIMoNYbF RED LAKE CHAIRMAN GERALD F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

.,BEFORE THE HOUSE NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITl'EE 

REGARDING TRIBAL FIS!! AND Wll.DLIFE CONSERVATION l.EoJSLATION 

FEDERAL FISH ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT 

16 U.S.C. § 777 et seq. 

Popular Names: the "Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act", 

the "Fish Restoration Management Projects Act", 

and the "Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act" 

16 U.S.C § 777k is amended to read as follows: 

§ 777K. PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO AND COOPERATION WITH PUERTO Rico, DISTRICT OF 

2 COLUMBIA, GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTIIERN MARIANA 

4 The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the Secretary of 

5 Agriculture of Puerto Rico, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Guam, 

6 the Governor of American Samoa, the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern 

7 Mariana Islands, IHl&-the Governor of the Virgin Islands, and the governments of Indian 

8 tribes. as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e). in the conduct of fish restoration and management 

9 projects, as defined in section 777a of this title, upon such terms and conditions as he shall 

JO deem fair, just and equitable, and is authorized to apportion to Puerto Rico, the District of 

11 Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

12 IHKl--the Virgin Islands, and said tnbal governments, out of the money available for 

13 apportionment under this chapter, such sums as he shall determine, not exceeding for Puerto 

14 Rico 1 per centum, for the District of Columbia one-third of 1 per centum, for Guam oneCONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY TilE RED LAKE NATION· PAGE 4 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

JO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

215 

TESTIMONY OF RED LAKE CHAIRMAN G8RALo F. BRUN, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

l BEFORE TIII! HOUSE NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMrrrEE 

REGARDING TRIBAL FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LEGISLATION 

third of 1 per centum, for American Samoa one-third of 1 per centum, for the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands one-third of 1 per centum, aH4-for the 

Virgin Islands one-third of 1 per centum, and for the combined total of all of said tribal 

governments 2-and-one-guarter per centum, of the total amount apportioned in any one 

year, but the Secretary shall in no event require any of said cooperating agencies to pay an 

amount which will exceed 25 per centum of the cost of any project nor reguire any of said 

tribal governments to pay any amount toward the cost of any project. Any unexpended or 

unobligated balance of any apportionment made pursuant to this section shall be available 

for expenditure in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,-eF-the Virgin Islands, or by said tribal 

governments, as the case may be, in the succeeding year, on any approved projects, and if 

unexpended or unobligated at the end of such year is authorized to be made available for 

expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying on the research program of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service in respect to fish of material value for sport or recreation. For 

purposes of this section. the apportionments made to Indian tribes shall be adjusted 

eguitably so that no tribe shall receive less than one-guarter of 1 per centum nor more than 

5 per centum of the total amount apportioned to Indian tribes. For purposes of section 

777e of this chapter, the Secretary may finance up to 100 per centum of the total costs: 

CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY 1HE RED I.AKE NATION - PAGE 5 
216 

· TESTIMo~ OF AEo 'LAKB CHAIRMAN GERAlD F. Biu.Hl, FEBRUARY 18, 1993 

ORE,nm Hous~ NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITIEE 

0 TRIBAL flSIJ AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION l.EG!SLATIO 

Cl) of implementing a tribe's comprehensive fish and wildlife resource 

2 management plan, and 

3 (2) of a tribe's fish restoration and management project approved by the 

4 Secretary. and 

5 (3) of a tribe's acquisition of lands or interests therein and the construction of 

6 structures or facilities. 

7 Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 777e. the administrative costs of a tribe charged 

8 against programs or projects supported by funds made available under this chapter shall not 

9 exceed that tribe's indirect cost rate negotiated with the Office of Inspector General of that 

IO tribe's cognizant federal agency. 

CONSERVATION AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 BY TilE RED LAKE NATION - PAGE 6 
217 

TESTIMONY OF THB PUBBLO OF LAGUN1' 

TO THB 

SUBCOMMITTBB ON NATIVB AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF TKB COMMITTBB ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Honorable Congressman Bill Richardson, Chairman 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Manag-ent and Enhanc-ent 

Dear Mr, Chairman and Distinguished Members: 

My name is Harry D. Early and I am Governor of the Pueblo of 

Laguna Tribe of New Mexico. Membership within our tribe is 

comprised of 7,180 members and our land base consists of 

approximately 528,000 acres. Our reservation is located in 

northwest New Mexico, with our headquarters in the village of Old 

Laguna, which is approximately 45 miles west of Albuquerque. 

The Pueblo of Laguna Tribe (Tribe), like other Indian Tribes 

throughout North America, have developed strong ties with 

wildlife and other natural components of the universe • . Wildlife resources play an important part of our Tribal culture and 

tradition. 

Wildlife species such as deer and eagles are represented in 

tribal dances to pay homage and give thanks to the Great Spirit (Creator) who has given these magnificent creatures·to the 

people. our clan system is al~o based on natural components that occur within this universe. Some clans are named after the sun, 

water, eagle, turkey, roadrunner, badger, and antelope. Songs 

about deer, butterfly, and other wildlife species are also sung, again signifying the importance of these resources. 

Thus it was only fitting that our Tribe, in June of 1990, adopted 

the Laguna Wildlife Conservation Code (Code) which set the stage for wildlife management on our Reservation. This action was perhaps one of the most important steps taken by the Tribal 

council in recent history. With the enactment of this Code, we made a commitment to manage our wildlife resources and further 

declared that it is our policy "that all wildlife will be managed 

for human enjoyment and welfare, for traditional, cultural and 

scientific purposes, and to insure the perpetuation of wildlife." 

With the enactment of the Code also came the establishment of the 

Laguna Wildlife Conservation Program (Program) which is 

responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Code. In 

attempting to develop strategies to implement the policies set 

forth in the Code, we have come to realize that present funding levels are not sufficient. 

During the time our Code was being drafted and reviewed, we submitted a funding proposal for the Establishment of the Pueblo 

of Laguna Wildlife Management Program in the amount of $196,220. 

This funding proposal was included with others as part of the 
218 

Page 2 

Pueblo of Laguna Testimony 

House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement 

March 1, 1993 

initiative sponsored in Fiscal Year 1990 by the Native American 

Fish and Wildlife Society, This initiative resulted in the 

submission of a total funding package to the U.S. Congress. 

Unfortunately, our proposal was not funded . However, that did 

not prevent us with moving ahead with our plan to initiate a wildlife management program. In June of 1990, our Tribal council 

allocated $58,000 to establish the first tribal wildlife program 

and thus began our first official effort to address our fishery 

and wildlife management needs. 

Despite our limited funding and the fact that we have only two 

Wildlife Conservation Officers to patrol s2s-,ooo acres, we have 

made great strides in our efforts to curtail illegal hunting activities. We have also made excellent progress in re- establishing our native big game populations. We have recently transplanted pronghorn antelope to augment an existing herd in an effort to increase productivity. These newly transplanted 

antelope need to be protected or our efforts were in vain. We are also in the process of doing similar transplants with mule 

deer. We have· a1so implemented a successful mule deer and elk 

hunting program for tribal members. This system is currently 

operating under a application/drawing basis as we cannot yet 

accommodate all interested .hunters. Because of our increasing elk populations, we are also planning to open the elk hunt to 

non-tribal members as well. Because of this hunting program, we need to expand the collection of biological information so that 

sound harvest strategies can be developed. 

Prior to transplanting of the pronghorn antelope, we conducted an extensive state-of-the-art radio teleaetry project to determine 

home ranges, seasonal use, migration, and critical use areas. The information is now loaded into a Geographic Information 

System (GIS) and we now have established a antelope habitat model 

that can be used reservation-wide to determine suitable locations 

for additional antelope transplants. So you can see that we are serious in our attempts to provide effective and efficient 

management of our wildlife resources. But our efforts do not 

stop at big game management. 

It has long been our wish here on our reservation to establish a permanent water-based recreation facility that would satisfy our needs in sport fishing. Although we do have repairs pending on several reservoirs (Paguate Ponds and Seama) with completion scheduled soon, they will be used primarily for irrigation and 

consequently, sport fishing and other water-based activities will 

not be available. It would be in our best interest to have a large reservoir built strictly for water-based recreation 
219 

Page 3 

Pueblo of Laguna Testimony 

House sub-co111111ittee on Native American Affairs 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement 

March 1, 1993 

activities. Since we are located between two major cities 

(Grants and Albuquerque being located approximately 20 and 40 

miles to the west and east, respectively), I am sure you can see the enormous potential we have to benefit economically from 

water-based recreation activities including fishing. 

Two existing reservoirs that also deserve mention are the Mesita 

and New Laguna Reservoirs. Both reservoirs have historically 

provided excellent waterfowl habitat and still have enormous potential as waterfowl reserves but siltation over the past years 

has just about filled both reservoirs. The New Laguna Reservoi r once sported a decent recreational warm water fisheries but has 

since been reduced to a bog because of siltation. The earthen 

spillway has also been breached in an effort to remove the silt 

but to no avail. Downstream agriculture uses for farming have 

also suffered due to the lack of irrigation water. 

The Rio San Jose was once touted as a good quality fishery but 

due to upstream water quality degradation and siltation of the 

majority of the stream, the fishery has been seriously degraded 

and is almost non-existent. 

As you can see from this short synopsis of our surface water 

situation, we are in dire need of assistance to remedy this 

situation. Mr. Chairman, being from New Mexico and being 

familiar with our Reservation, I am sure you can relate to our concern for our lack of ability to store water. As you know, 

water is the "lifeblood" of our Pueblo people. 

Another item I would like to bring to your attention is the 

inequity in federal funding that appears to be prevalent not only 

with our Tribe but throughout Indian country as a whole. 

Direct federal funding has been non-existent although the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) has contributed matching funding for 

winter big game aerial surveys. However, this came to a halt 

this past winter and we funded our own aerial survey. Since then, we have been unsuccessful in obtaining any federal funding from 

the BIA. Fortunately though, we have been able to receive 

technical assistance from the BIA Albuquerque Area Office 

Wildlife and Fishery Biologist's. However, they are also 

responsible for coordinating wildlife management activities on 22 

other Indian reservations in Southern Colorado and New Mexico. Not only are they stretched pretty thin but these job responsibilities are proposed to be shifted to the local BIA 

agencies under the proposed BIA Reorganization Plan. However, we are unaware of any plan by the Agency to fund these positions. 
220 

Page 4 

Pueblo of Laguna Testimony 

House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement 

March 1, 1993 

As you may also be aware, the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport 

Fish Restoration Programs, more commonly known as the PittmanRobertson/Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts {Acts), provide 

federal funds derived through various excise taxes on sport 

fishing and hunting equipment and motor boat fuel, to the states 

and territories of the United States. These are apportioned 

annually through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based on formulae that include land and surface water acreage, number of 

permits sold and population. The territories, as we understand, 

receive a set percentage each year. 

In 1992, records indicate that the State of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish received $2,802,800 for Wildlife Restoration, 

$279,000 for Hunter Education, and $3,636,284 for Sport Fish 

Restoration. This amounts to a grand total of $6,764,665 

apportioned under these Acts to the New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish. In 1992, a total of $353,400,000 was apportioned 

nation-wide and to the territories for fishery and wildlife 

enhancement . In the meantime, our tribe had to use its own financial resources to manage its wildlife resources, including 

species that are both migratory and resident. 

We, as well as other tribes statewide, are not eligible for any 

of this funding because the language of the Acts limit 

participation to states and territories only. We are of the 

opinion that this is discriminatory and unequitable since our tribal members pay this same excise tax when they purchase 

taxable sporting equipment. To further illustrate this inequity, the territory of Guam, whose land base is 135,680 acres, received 

$927,000 in 1992. In comparison, our land base totals 528,000 acres (five times greater than Guam) and we did not receive one cent of these federal aid dollars. Because of our decreasing 

tribal revenues we could only allocate tribal dollars in the 

amount $85,000 in the same year. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee, I am sure you will 

agree that we have done a commendable job despite our limited 

financial resources. It is our opinion that it would be in our best interest and in line with "true tribal self-government" if we were able to establish our own tribal in-house capabilities to 

manage our fishery and wildlife resources. By establish our own tribal staff, only then can we begin to manage our resources from a "true tribal perspective." It is our estimation that it would 

require funding in the amount of $344,000 to begin addressing 

these needs. We certainly do hope that you will be able to 

assist us in this regard and would be happy to provide you with 

the details of this funding requirement. 
221 

Page 5 

Pueblo of Laguna Testimony 

House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement 

March 1, 1993 

In an effort to begin to address some of our problems, I would 

like to respectfully present some recommendations for the Subcommittees consideration. 

1. Direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fulfill their trust 

responsibility in fishery and wildlife management and direct more dollars for this effort. 

2. Direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make available a set amount of the Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson 

Administrative Funds and the Reverted Funds for Tribal 

fishery and wildlife programs and projects. 

3. Work with Congress to amend the Pittman-Robertson/DingellJohnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts to allow full tribal 

participation in funding of fishery and wildlife projects. 

4. Work with Congress and the Tribes to draft and introduce a Native American Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Act that will 

legislatively mandate and guarantee Tribal Governments full 

participation in management of fisheries and wildlife resources including adequate funding to rectify the budget 

shortfalls. 

5. Consider the option of having the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service be the primary agency to provide technical 

assistance to Tribes. As you know, the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services' mission is 100 percent fishery and 

wildlife management oriented. Consequently, one hundred 

percent of their funding and effort is allocated for that 

purpose. On the other hand, we find the BIA's mission to be 

"complex" in that it deals with a multitude of programs 

including education, economic development, roads, law 

enforcement, social services, forestry, range, water rights, 

and archaeology, to name a few. These individual programs 

must compete with one another for funding and unfortunately, fishery and wildlife resource management programs are usually under-funded. In our tribal situation, we have 

received no direct BIA funding. 

6. Provide financial assistance to establish a new reservoir 

for water-based recreation with emphasis on sport fishing and to restore our valuable wetlands at Mesita and New 

Laguna Reservoirs. 

7. Seriously consider funding, on an annual basis, our Pueblo 

of Laguna Wildlife Conservation Program, as requested. 

68-141 - 93 - 8 
222 

Page 6 

Pueblo of Laguna Testimony 

House Sub-committee on Native American Affairs 

Re: Indian Fish and Wildlife Management/Enhancement 

March 1, 1993 

If you require additional information regarding any of the items 

presented, I will be happy to provide you with full details at 

your request. 

In closing, the Pueblo of Laguna extends a sincere thanks to you 

Mr. Chairman and the Distinguished Members of your committee for 

allowing us the opportunity to submit written testimony. We wish 

you the best of luck with all your duties and sincerely hope that 

you will assist not only our Tribe but all Tribes nation-wide. 

We will ask that the Great Spirit guide you and give you the 

strength you need to work on behalf of all your constituents. 

Keeping in line with our well known "PUeblo 

invite you all to visit our Pueblo someday. 

would especially like for you to come visit 

Council someday soon. Thank you! 

hospitality", we Mr. Chairman, we with our Tribal 
223 

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA 

Resolution No. 09-93 

At a duly called meeting of the Pueblo of Laguna Council 

held on the fl nd day of N\a.rch , 1993, the following 

resolution was adopted. 

WHEREAS, the P.ueblo of Laguna is concerned about the 

efficient and effective management of its fishery and wildlife 

resources; and 

WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna has enacted wildlife codes 

and regulations to ensure that their resources are managed 

properly; and 

WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna has totally funded its 

Wildlife Conservation Program, without financial assistance 

from any other governmental, state, or private source; and 

WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna desires that the Congress of 

the United States make adequate funding available for the 

Pueblo and other tribes for the establishment and maintenance 

of sound tribal fishery and wildlife management programs; and 

WHEREAS, the Pueblo of Laguna supports the efforts of the 

House Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee 

on Natural Resources in its mission to provide adequate support 

to tribes in the area of fishery and wildlife management and 

enhancement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of 

Laguna hereby submits written testimony on behalf of support to 

tribes in the area of fishery and wildlife management and 

enhancement. 
224 

Resolution No. 09-93 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of Laguna requests 

the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs of the Committee on 

Natural Resources to consider our recommendations. 

ATTEST: 
225 

Resolution No. 09-93 

C E R T I F I C A T I O N 

The foregoing resolution was enacted upon by the Council of 

the Pueblo of Laguna on the ci nd day of rY\ a..rch , 1 993, by 

a vote of~ for, ..Ji__ opposed, _sj.._ abstaining, at a duly 

called meeting at which a quorum of the Pueblo Council was 

present. 

ATTEST: 
226 

WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL 

f.O. BOX 1.\0115 

DUCKWATER. 1W 89314-0115 

TELEl'HONE/FACSIMIU: (702) 863-0332 

To: House of Representative 

Colllllittee on National Resources 

Sub-C011111ittee 

Native American Affairs 

February 18, 1993 

From: Western Shoshone Wildlife & Plant Resource C011111ission 

Subject: Management of Wildlife and etc. 

Management problems of fishery and wildlife conservation are as varied 

and as changing as the habitats themselves. They depend on various kinds of 

land use and on human population pressure. Basically, the role of wildlife 

managernent is to keep animal populations optimal, diversified, and hanoonized 

with the environment in order to satisfy the needs of man. These needs are economic, recreational, scientific, educational, social. A soWld management 

policy also requires some basic conservation concepts, including ecological 

and biological considerations and a respect for native plants and animals, 

which should always have priority over exotic species. The developnent and 

application of management measures to obtain the greatest sustained public 

benefit from wildlife, or any other natural resource, should never be allowed 

to go so far as to threaten a species or subspecies with extinction. 

Wildlife management includes restoring, protecting, conserving, and 

maintaining animal populations. All these stages require successful co- operation with the environment, a long-term, ecologically based policy, and 

synchronization with other kinds of land use within and outside the area involved. No rnanagernent can ever be successful if it is not based on biological research. 

Modern wildlife rnanagernent nrust fWlction by planning ahead, foreseeing 

the future's tremendous human pressure on habitat and wild animals. It can draw a great deal from numerous human mistakes and land misuse during past 

centuries to reduce as far as possible man's detrimental impact on the environment and wildlife. Much of the damage done to wildlife and its habitats 

during past centuries is irreparable. Nevertheless management measures should include environmental restorations designed to put back the natural 

interactions that lead to wildlife fertility in a healthy landscape. 
227 

MANAGEMENT & CONTROL OF SHOSHONE RESOURCES ARE: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8 . 

Trapping 

Hunting 

Fishing 

Gathering (plants and pinuts) 

Mustangs 

Wildlife Reserves 

Water Use/Rights 

Seeding/Native Grass and Trees 

Sincerely Yours, 

Allen !t:>ss 

Chairman, WSWPRC 

Page 2 
228 

IIAJORCONCERNSOFTHEWESTERNSHOSHONENATION 

1. 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley is still valid. 

2. Management and control of Western Shoshone resources: 

-Trapping 

- Hunting 

- Fishing 

- Gathering Rights 

-Mustangs 

- Wildlife Refuges - Water Rights/Water Use 

-Land 

- Plants 

-Other 

3. Western Shoshone interests: 

- Maximum Land Retention - Ranching Operations/ 

Livestock Grazing - Farming Operations 

-Mining 

- Oil & Gas Exploration - Geothermal 

- Water Rights/Water Use - Leasing 

- Jurisdiction 

- Smoke Shops/Truck Stops - Private Enterprises - Tribal Enterprises - Royalties 

-Taxation 

- Monetary Distribution - Culture/language/Traditions 

- Religious & Sacred Areas 

(Protection and Control) - Education - Other. - Passports 

4. Environmental issues: 

- High level nuclear waste dump/transportation routes - Nuclear testing - Rights-of-way lor railroads and roads - Contamination of water and air - Hazardous waste and products 

-Air space/overflights - Telephone/telegraph 

- Transmission lines - Other 

5. Since time immemorial, the Western Shoshone People continue to live on their nation's 

homelands. 

6. Western Shoshone issues require Western Shoshone participation and determination to 

put together our best possible comprehensive legislative package. 
Preamble: 

229 

western Shoshone Wildlife and Plant Resource Code 

Enacted october 3, 1987 

A Code adopted by the Western Shoshone Nation to protect the wildlife 

and plant resources subject to its jurisdiction and the natural beauty 

of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands. 

Whereas, from time immemorial the Western Shoshone Nation has practiced 

conservation to protect the invaluable wildlife and plant resources subject to its jurisdiction from waste and excessive exploitation, and 

has been proud of the great natural beauty of its ancestral lands, and 

Whereas, from time immemorial the Western Shoshone Nation has exercised 

sovereignty over its citizens and territory, and, 

Whereas, the United States of America, by the Treaty of Ruby Valley, 18 

stat. 689, ratified on October 21, 1869, and recognized the sovereignty 

and aborigional rights of the Western Shoshone Nation, 

Now, Therefore, the Western Shoshone National Council hereby adopts this 

Code to protect the wildlife and plant resources within the jurisdiction 

of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands. 

A. Jurisdiction. 

This Code shall be applicable to all persons exercising or purporting 

to exercise the hunting, fishing, trapping, or gathering rights reserved to the Western Shoshone Nation by treaty and arising out of 

aborigional use and occupancy within the boundaries of the Western 

Shoshone ancestral territory. 

B. The Western Shoshone Wildlife and Plant Resource eo-ission. 

1. Establishllent and PUrpose. 

The western Shoshone Wildlife and Plant Resource co-ission 

(hereinafter referred to as the "CollllDission") is hereby established for the purpose of implementing and enforcing this 

Code. The Commission shall have authority to implement this 

Code by appropriate regulations. 

2. Duties of the co-ission. 

The Commission is directed·' ~o: 

(A) to enforce the provisions of this Code; 

WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 1 
230 

(B) to report on the operations of the Co-ission to the Western 

Shoshone National council (herein referred to as the 

"National council"); 

(C) to plan and execute programs and activities for the 

conservation and enhancement of the wildlife and plant 

resources, including the management of animals and plants injurious to the communities, livestock and crops; 

(D) to design, implement and supervise a plan for control, 

disposition, elimination and prevention of plant and animal 

diseases; 

(E) to coordinate with the National Council, coU1unity leaders and 

individuals to formulate a plan to further develop the 

wildlife resources; 

(Fl to develop a plan of public education and public relations, 

informing the community of the commission's goals and 

objectives; (G) to prepare written materials intended to keep the public informed of the applicable laws; 

(ff) to judiciously recommend to the National council expenditures 

necessary to the development of wildlife resource potential; 

(I) to report bite cases, outbreaks of diseases, potential health 

problems and other significant events to the United 

States Public Health service and other agencies as necessary; 

(J) to represent the Western Shoshone Nation at state wide or regional wildlife planning meetings; 

(Kl to seek federal, state and local funds and technical 

assistance in the further development of the Western Shoshone 

wildiite programs; 

(L) to render emergency assistance to the federal or state law 

enforcement officials, or to individuals needing emergency medical care or who risk extreae exposure to the natural 

elements; 

(M) to design, implement and supervise a plan for control, 

disposition or elimination of animals injurious to the 

wildlife resources of the Western Shoshone Nation; 

(N) to maintain a system of recording and preserving all items or wildlife seized in the course of co-ission duties; and, 

(0) to maintain fiscal records ·of the commission's income and 

expenditure. 

3. Enforceaent Authority . 

WSWPRC 

(A) The Co111111ission shall exercise enforcement authority through special conservation officers or game protectors it may commission. Such conservation officers or game protectors 

may issue citations for violations of this Code, Regulations and/or take into custody any citizen of the Western Shoshone 

Nation without warrant for violation of the same after first 

having considered: 

CODE & REGULATIONS 2 
231 

1. Whether the person has identified hi111Self satusfactorily; 2. Whether detention appears reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm to himself, to another, to property, or breach the peace; 

J. Whether the person is a local resident so as to provide reasonable assurance of his or her appearance ?>efore the 

Western Shoshone Nation Tribal court, or whether there is 

substantial liklihood that he will refuse to respond to the 

citation; and 

4. Whether the person has previously failed to appear in 

response to a citation issued pursuant to this section or other lawful process of the Western Shoshone Nation. 

(Bl Any conservation officer or game protector may search without . warrant any conveyance, vehicle, game bag, game basket, game 

coat or other receptacle for game animals, game birds or fish, or any package, box, tent, camp or other similar place which 

he has reason to believe containes evidence of violations of 

thic Code & Regulations pertaining to hunting and fishing. 

(C) Any conservation officer or game protector aay seize without 

warrant all game animals, game birds,fish or parts thereof 

taken, killed, transported or possessed contrary to this Code 

& Regulations; and any dog, gun, vehicle, trap, net, seine, 

decoy, bait, boat, light, or other device used in hunting, fishing or trapping, or held with intent to 1>e used for 

purposes violating this Code & Regulations 

(D) 

c. Regulation. 

1. co .. ission Bmpowered to Regulate. 

The commission shall promulgate such regulations as it deems 

proper and necessary to carry out the policy of the Western 

Shoshone Nation with respect to hunting, fishing, trapping, 

gathering, and all other activities considered in this Code 

within the Western Shoshone National jurisdiction. such 

regulation may establish closed and open seasons, closed 

areas, bag and catch limits, gear restriction, permit 

requirements, and any other provisions that the Commission 

deems necessary to carry out the policies and provisions of 

this code. 

2. Review By the National Council. 

The National council shall take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this Code and may review and may amend all 

regulations of the Co1DJDission by resolution. 

WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 3 
232 

3. Notice of Regulations. 

Proposed regulations, other than emergency regulations, shall be 

communicated to the public at least ten (10) days prior to 

enactment. All regulations promulgated by the co-ission shall be 

communicated to the public as widely as is necessary, i ncluding providing information with respect to such newspaper, broadcast media, and any other media that are likely to bring 

such news to the attention of the general public, and shall make 

copies of such regulations available to all persons. 

4. Bffective Date of Regulations. 

Regulations shall become effective upon promulgation by the 

Commission. 

5. Baergency Regulations. 

The Commission may promulgate emergency regulations governing 

hunting , fishing, trapping, or gathering within the Western 

Shoshone National jurisdiction but no such regulation shall 

remain in effect longer than fifteen (15) days. 

6. Noncoapliance with Regulations. 

Failure to comply with regulations properly promulgated under this 

section shall be a violation of this Code. 

o. Proof of Identity. 

1. Identification cards. 

Any person in any activity governed or permitted by this Code 

shall have on his or her person any license, permit, identification card, or other document required by regulations adopted pursuant to this statute while engaged in any such 

activity. 

E. Prohibited Acts. 

1. Hunting in Violation of Closed Seasons, Bag Liaita, or Closed 

Areas. 

It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, trap, or fish during the respective closed seasons thereof. It also shall be 

WSWPRC 

unlawful for any person to kill, take, or catch any species of 

birds, animals, or fish in excess of the number fixed as the bag limit. It also shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, fish, or trap for any birds, fish or animals within the boundaries of any 

CODE & REGULATIONS 4 
233 

closed area . 

2. Hunting While Intoxicated. 

It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with firearms while 

under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 

3. Wasting Wildlife 

It shall be unlawful for any person to per11it any animal or any 

person to permit any animal or any part of it needlessly to go to 

waste after killing it. Trophy hunting is prohibited. 

4. Obstructing Law Officers 

It shall be unlawful for any member to resist or obstruct any Conservation Officer or other duly authorized tribal law 

enforcement officer or other peace officer in the discharge of 

his duty while enforcing the provisions of this statute or other regulations promulgated under this statue. 

5. Interference with Galle Control Signs 

It shall be unlawful for any person to destroy, tear down, shoot 

at, deface or erase any printed matter or signs placed or posted by or under the instructions of the Fish and Game Commission to 

assist in the enforcement of tribal hunting and fishing regulations. 

P. Enforce•ent 

l. Violations of this Code, regulations made pursuant to this Code, or conditions of permits given pursuant to this Code, shall be 

punished by appropriate criminal or civil proceedings in the 

Western Shoshone Nation Tribal courts. 

2. Any game, fish, pelts, and any hunting, fishing, trapping gear and any receptacles, vehicles, machinery, dog, or waterborne craft 

obtained by, used in, or intended to be used in violation of this 

Code may be seized, confiscated, and impounded by Western Shoshone 

law enforcement officers and conservation officers. 

J. Violators of this Code may have hunting, fishing or gathering 

privileges suspended for any length of time deemed appropriate by the Commission in its regulations. 

4. Western Shoshone law enforcement officers and conservation 

officers may inspect all fish and wildlife taken or transported, and may search without warrant any vehicle, boat, box, outhouse, 

hunting camp, game bag, or other package, where there is a 

WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 5 
234 

reasonable belief that fish, game wildlife or part thereof is 

possessed in violation of this Code. 

s. Property seized or confiscated pursuant to this Code may be 

forfeited and given away or sold at the discretion of the 

adjudicating Western Shoshone Nation Tribal court, after proper notice of hearing on action to forfeit has been given to known 

owners, and a hearing has been held. 

(A) Notice of action to forfeit shall be given by sUJD11ons to owners. 

(B) A hearing on action to forfeit shall be held fifteen (15) 

days after actual service of summons or last data of 

publication. 

s. In the event that the court orders forfeiture of any articles 

seized, such articles shall be turned over to the Western 

Shoshone National Council for the use and benifit of the Western 

Shoshone Nation. If any articles are not declared forfieted by order of the court, they shall be returned to the owner after 

the case has been concluded and the fines paid, if any. 

6. The court may also, upon a showing of probable cause by a sworn statement of a conservation officer or game protector, issue a search warrant and direct the search to be made in any place wherein it is allegedthat any game animal, glllle bird, or fish, or any part thereof taken or in possession contrary to this Code, 

Regulations, is consealed or illegally kept. Such warrant shall 

authorize the search of any building, enclosures of vehicles, and 

any appartment, chest, box, locker, crate, basket, package, or other receptacle to be opened and the contents thereof to be 

searched provided that the scope of the warrant is limited the 

Western Shoshone Nation's treaty hunting area boundaries. 

G. Penalty 

Any person who shall violate the provision of this Code or any regulation properly promulgated pursuant to it may be guilty of an offense, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to 

confinement for not more that (3) months or to pay a fine of not more that $300.00, or both, with costs. 

B. Revolving Fund 

All fees collected by the CoJDJDission or fines exacted as punishment shall be placed in a fund which may be used at the direction of the 

National Council for Co111111ission operating costs. The comaission 

shall give the National Council an accounting of such funds on demand. 

WSWPRC CODE & REGULATIONS 6 
235 

WESTl!RN SHOSHONE NAffONAL COlJl'(CIL 

r.o. BOX 1'60115 

DUCKWATl!R. 1W 8931-4-0115 

TELEPHONE/f'ACSIJIIIU: (701) 863-0331 

WESTZltN SHDSHQNZ WttDttrz & PLANT !ESDVICI CDKSllVHlDN CDMMlSSlQH 

MANAGEM:Nr OF WIID HORSES 

!::.":1<00(,'CTICN 

n-.e wild :m.:stangs, long a symbol of the vanishing west, has provided Nevada, 

ir.deed t."le Naticn, wit."1 :nany of the conundruns COMected with preserving natural 

::escurces in the f3ce of growing urbanization and multi-use ·of Western lands. 

rn Nevada , ~e wild horses became a protected group after a long emotional battle 

led by "Wild Horse Annie" in 19--. Ranchers were prohibited fran trapping or 

sr.ooting t.~e :nustangs they considered a nuisance as they grazed grasslands 

ir.te~de::: fer cattle or laiob procuction. 

71:e long ter:n result of this protection has left the wild horses worse off than 

t.e:::re . Their freeccxn to ream has been protected, but that freedan now means 

f::~= to die f::an scarvaticn or thirst as no successful range management 

~rcgrQ~ has been instituted to support them. 

1'!',e Eureau of Land Ma,1aganent has struggled to meet the intent of the law, but 

r.as found tr.at t:ureaucratic design and methods-based upon legislation designed on 

the East -:::st is not canpatible with the natural forces at play in the high 

ocu.-.::a1:i deser~ of Nevada. 

Talk about tad stuff 

i::ad genet~cs, cost over runs, etc 

! t has been stated that the United States Goverranent stewardship in regard to :-ative Americans has gone through five official phases: kill them off, train ::nen, adopt them, relocate them, forget them. 

Treac.i,ent of wild horses can be equated to the above: shoot them, primary 

training prog::arn, adopt a horse program, relocate through helicopter roundu~s, leave uiem co scarve and desicate. 

Give,: this ex-..erience, the -------·------------proposes to 

1ns::.otute a ten year Wi!d Horse Management plan that will 
METHOD 

Years One and Tho 

236 

l. overcane past failures; 

2. rely on natural forces to upgrade stock; 

3. restore a balance of reason to discussion of the issue; 

4. provide a mechanism of self support, 

thereby lessening demands on public 

budget. 

Reducing the herds to a size that can co-exist with the land will be the main 

focus of scage one. Determination of natural foliage, available water, demands 

cf cattle/sheep ranching, other wildlife constraints will be variable factors. 

In the designated range areas for reduction of wild horses, good water hOles with 

easy access will be determined by on-site survey. water entrai;ment will be used 

to attract the stock into the area for round up by helicopter, dirt bike, an 

ccnventional horse back methods. 

Transportation of horses out of the area will be by pull trailers, gooseneck and 

regular diesel livestock trucks/trailers. Shipping fever shots will be 

administered. 

Horse herds to be left at designated areas will be upgraded to good stock by 

culling by color, size, breed and oonfiguration and by introduction of high 

powered scallions. 

Years 'Three and Four 

Permanent water hOle corrals will be built and proper stock water tanks and 

watering troughs inscalled. Permanent feed systems will also be devised. 

Reduction of herds would continue as range dictates. CUlling of surplus stock 

"°uld continue according to age, size, color and sex. Colored hOrses "°uld be 

held back to escablish oolored hOrse herds. 'lbis could include a herd of stickly 

Indian Pinto ponies. Both colored horses and Pintos are in demand. 

By keeping back all big boned mares and fillies and turniJ)g out draft horse 

scallions, a herd for third world meat cons1.111ption could be established. 

The same process oould be used to create a herd of mules, by introducing burros 

to one herd. 

Years Four and Five 

Annual reduction of base herds would begin to take place. Young stallions (2-

3 years) "°uld be gelded; cripples and standard oolors culled. 

Sales of horses "°uld begin to support managanent costs. 

2 
237 

Years Six through Ten 

Range developnent should be in operation. Basic herd sizes are established. 

Annual round-up reduction of horse herds will be in place. 

Other Management Techniques 

Vaccination 

AS long as horse herds. are left on their own natural range above congested 

elevations, Nature has provided a disease free envirom-.ent. It is the 

incarceration in storage facilities and exposure to crowded environments that 

contaminates. 

vaccinations will be administered to stock moved into wild horse sanctuary or in 

sit:uations required for transport. 

Hoof Tr ir.ming 

By having horses in their own habitat, again fobther Nature will resolve the 

;;:roblen. Running on the natural terrain will keep hOoves and legs in top shape 

withcut application of ~ificial methods. 

casturization 

This will be done to all 2 and 3 year olds during the annual trapping, depending 

on sales and .range dictates to be detemined annually. 

Wild Horse Sanctuary 

It is proposed that the majority of wild horse management will be performed on 

high altitude range lands away fran population centers. It is also proposed that one range land sanctuary be located with easy access to the mre populated areas as an education center. · · 

Planned field trips for all ages of school children could provide not only 

information and appreciation for the horses themselves, but at a secondary level, 

through history and government classes, provoke discussion and information about 

such topics as the Taylor Grazing Act, responsibilities and constraints of the 

Bureau of Land Management, and long tum ilnplicationa of the !oll.stang Protection 

Act. 

This facility i.oul.d also be open to the general public, providing not ooly an additional tourist attraction, but again, another forun fi::an which to .iJq)art 

visual as well as factual information. Only be having a well infor:med public can 

t.>,e issues of management in a changing world be discussed in a manner that 

fosters t.'ie best results for all. · 
238 

Administration 

This program shall be part of the Division of Shoshone Nation Natural Resources. 

The Shoshone Nation will contract with Kahnee, Inc. to develop, institute, and 

rranage the above program. Kahnee, Inc. (KI) shall maintain a full year 

management team of--persons who will also recruit and train support staff for 

each heard area as it is established. These wranglers will be primarily drawn 

fran the scattered Shoshone cannunities throughout Nevada or frQn prison and DUI 

units where outdoor, cowboy work is an appropriate alternative to jail tilre. 

(see Appendix for proposed staffing pattern). 

Results/Benefits 

It is envisioned that by establishing and maintaining small, healthy herds that 

the key issues of this controversy will be addressed. 

The Anerican public will be served in its desire to protect and sustain bands of 

wild horses. These bands, tx,,,,,,ever, will not be subjected to the slow death they 

currently suffer through inbreeding, lack of forage and water, and malicious 

attacks by vandals. The species itself will be strengthened and better able to 

enjoy survival in natural surroundings. 

The cattlemen, the sheepherder, and now the military (an expanding user of the 

Nevada rangeland) will also be served by this managanent plan. Horse herds, by 

virtue of assured water and feed sources, will not need to invade other grazing 

areas for survival. Should a herd stray fran its designated territory, anyone so 

impacted will have a permanent, "ready-to-go• crew, familiar with both the 

terrain and the herd, that can humanely rrove them back to where they should be. 

The Nevada public will be served with an additional education center and a 

positive approach to a problem that has st'.rfflied and drained time and energy fran 

all sectors. The problems of canpeting land use, of changing public values, and 

of shifting econanic forces are not unique to Nevada, yet the wild horse 

management issue is specifically in its area, needing local resolution, not 

application designs frQn Metro areas that do not experience this unique 

canbination of factors. 

The Shoshone Nation, in meeting its responsibility to future generations by 

prO'l'Cting and practicing conservation and stewardship of the natural resources of 

its territory, will also be stimulating avenues of m,ployment for its people, 

creating another tourism asset for the region, and dmaustrating a COtlt effective 

method of resource management. 

And sanewhere, looking into a vast landscape unfettered with architectural 

creations, a small child will be inspired watching a 111.lStang reach for the wind. 

4 
239 

WESTERN SHOSHONE WILDLIPB, PLANT RBSOORCB COIIKISSION 

WILDLIFE PR0GJlAll 

FIRST YEAR BUDGB'l' BXPLANATIOlf 

SECTIOJI l 

PERSONNEL: 

This section of the Wildlife Program is budgeted for 5 persons. A chief 

game warden, a secretary and three game wardens. All positions will 

work lOOt on program activities. 

The Chief Ga~e warden will: carry out the policies, code, regulations 

of the Western Shoshone Wildlife & Plant Resource co-ission (WSWPRC); attend all meetings of the Western Shoshone National Council (WSNC), 

WSWPRC, , other Tribal, State ' 

Federal meetings as is necessary. Will manage the wildlife 

program for the protection, propagation, restoration, introduction and 

maintain public relations to the best of his/her ability, as well as maintain communication and regular reports to the WSWPRC on the status 

of the program, i.e. budget, property assigmDent, employee :manag-.nt, 

patrol scheduling, safety, defence training, incident reports, 

judicial, technical recommendations, etc. Act as secretary of the 

WSWPRC, without voting power. Salary figure for this position is 

appropriate to similar positions with other Tribal organizations. 

The secretary will: be responsible for for: maintaining program 

administrative, program, and compliance records: document and 

co1111Dunication from the WSNC/WSWPRC: scheduling and revisiting prograa 

activities and work travel: handling program activities; co-unications 

and correspondence. Salary figures for this position is appropriate to 

similar positions with other Tribal organizations. 

Game Wardens will: enforce with full power and authority the provisions 

of the WSWPRC Code, Regulations: as peace officers for the service of 

such legal process, including warrants and subpoenas, as may be required in the performance of their duties. 

Fringe Benefits: 

The amount budgeted is for fringe benefits on salary for program staff. 

The current fringe benefit rate is 20.·621. The total is baaed on the 

following breakdown: FICA- 7.Slt; SUTA- 1.201: SIIS~ .911: Retirement4.00I; Health Insurance- 7.0ot. 

Consultant, contract Services: 

There are three categories of contract and consultant services, Wildlife 

Biologist consultant, bookkeeping services, audit, legal consultant. 

Wildlife biologist will study existing and new research data and compile such technical information for the review of the WSWPRC, under the 

direction of the Chief Game Warden. 

Bookkeeping & audit will services the financial dealings of the WSWPRC, and maintain the accuracy of the WSWPRC accounting services. 

Legal consultant is necessary in defining the legal uncharted waters of 

WSWPRC jurisdiction thereby avoiding legal challenges, litigation, and/or negotiating remedies and producing reco1D1Dendations on the 

development of applicable regulations, etc •• 
240 

•ON-PBRSOIIIIEL: 

Office space lease/ rental, utilities and janitorial services are necessary for the constant and effective implementation of the WSWPRC 

Code, Regulations; and basing operations of the Wildlife Progrlllll. 

Rental, lease, and purchase of equipment is key to the ability of the 

Wildlife Program, conservation and enforcement of the WSWPRC Code, 

Regulations. 

Consumable supplies will be used in the maintenance and operation of the 

Wildlife Program offices and vehicles. 

Telephone, copies and postage are necessary for the timely compilation, and dissemination of information to various Tribal, State, Federal 

entities and the general public, as well as for the internal operation of the Wildlife Program. 

Insurance is necessary to prevent liability and loss of the WSWPRC. 

Official co-ission travel is for the Chief Game Warden and WSWPRC 

Co111JDissioners both in and out of state, as is determined necessary. 

WESTERN SHOSHONE lfl:LDLIPE, PLAIIT RESOURCE <XlllKISSIOM 

WILDLIFE PR0GRAM 

FIRST YEAR BlJDGB'l' BXPLltJIATIOII 

SECTIOJI 2 

PERSOJIHEL: 

This section requires five animal handlers required to maintain the 

safety of the wildlife resource manag81Dent activities, and iaple-nt to 

objectives of the Wildlife Program. These positions are at a rate 

appropriate to other positions within other Tribal organizations. 

PIUJIGE BEMEPITS: 

The amount budgeted is for fringe benefits on salary for program staff. 

The current fringe benefit rate is 20.621. The total is based on the 

following breakdown: FICA- 7.511; SUTA- 1.20\; SIIS- .91\; Retirement4.00\; Health Insurance- 7.00\. 

HOii- PERSOJINEL: 

Rental, lease and purchase of equipment for the implementation of the 
241 

WBSTERll SROSHOIIE WI:LDLrFE • PLAN'!' RBSOURCB 001111ISSIOJI 

WXLDUFE PROGRAll 

BODGBT 

FY 1993 

----=---•-•-=~--a••••-•••--•••------•,------w-nm-•••----- 5ection 1- Resource Conservation• Nanageaent 

I. PERSOMJIEL 

A. salaries• Wages. 

(1) Chief Game warden 

(1). Game Warden 

(1) Game Warden 

(1) Game Warden 

(1) Secretary 

B. Fringe Benefits. 

FICA--------------

SUTA--------------

SIIS--------------

Retirement--------

Health Insurance--

7.51% 

1.20% 

.91% 

4.00% 

7.00% 

c. Consultant• Contract services. 

Consulting Wildlife Biologist 

Bookkeeping Services & Audit 

Legal Consultant 

II. NON-PERSOMJIEL 

A. Office Space. 

Lease/ Rental 

Utilities 

Janitorial services 

$ 

Sub Total $ 

$ 

20,000.00 

18,000.00 

18,000.00 

18,000.00 

16,000.00 

90,000.00 

6,759.00 

1,080.00 

819.00 

3,600.00 

6,300.00 

Sub -------=---- Total $18,558.00 ,--

$ 28,000.00 

10,000.00 

5,000.00 ~a=-=-==-=•-=1::at--=--= 

Sub Total $ 43,000.00 

$ 3,500.00 

2,000.00 

1,000.00 

-----=------

Sub Total $ 6,500.00 

B. Rental, Lease or PUrchase of Equipment. 

(3) Desks@ $200.00 Ea. $ 600.00 

300.00 

600.00 

5,000.00 

(5) Chairs@ $60.00 Ea. 

(4) File Cabinets@ $150.00 Ea. 

(1) Personal Computer W/Periferals 
242 

(l) Typwriter 300.00 

(l) Self Contained Portable 

ID cuiera/Lallination Machine 3,500.00 

(3) 4WD Trucks W/Extra Tanks@ $18,000.00 Ea. 54,000.00 

(3) camper Shells@ $1,600 Ea . 5,400.00 

(3) Field Radios & (1) Base Radio 14,200.00 

(3) Tire Chains, Basic Tools & First Aid Kits 460.00 

Incidentals 3,000.00 =m• Sub Total $ 87,360 . 00 

c. consumable supplies. 

Offi ce Supplies $ s,000.00 

Fuel & Engine Fluids 10,000.00 

-~---TM Sub Total $ 5,000.00 

D. Telephone, Copies & Postage . 

copi es $ 1,800.00 

Tel ephone @ $200.00 Per Mo . 2,400.00 

Telephone Installation & Deposit 300.00 

Regular & Bulk Postage 500.00 

Sub Total $ ----= s,000 . 00 

B. Insurance. 

Vehicle Insurance $ a,000.00 

Professional Liability Insurance 4,000.00 

Sub Total $ 12,000.00 

F. Official Coaaission Travel. 

In State/Local $ 3,000. 00 

out of State 3,000.00 

Sub Total $ 6,000 . 00 

Sub Grand Total$ 273,418.00 

--- - ------- ------------~ 
243 

section 2- Mustang, Wildlife Habitat Restoration 

I. PERSONHBL 

A. Salaries, Wages. 

(1) Handler 

(l) Handler 

(1) Handler 

(l) Handler 

(1) Handler 

B. Fringe Benefits. 

FICA--------------

SUTA--------------

sIIs--------------

Retirement--------

Health Insurance--

II. MOM-PERSONHEL 

7.51\ 

l.20\ 

.91\ 

4.00\ 

7.00\ 

$15,000.00 

15,000.00 

15,000.00 

15,000,00 

15,000.00 

Sub 

---------=~-

Total 

Sub Total 

$ 75,000.00 

$ 5,632.50 

900.00 

682.50 

3,000.00 

5,250,0Q 

$15,465.00 

A. Rental, Lease or Purchase of Bquil9Bllt. 

Helicopter Rental & Per diem@ $3,325 a day x 10 

Trap Fence & Traps (Mustang & Beaver) 

$ 33,250.00 

- 600.00 

6,000.00 

7,000.00 

Mustang & Elk stock Transportation Truck 

Holding . Pen Timber Poles 250@ $30.00 

Breeding Stock 

B. Consuaable Supplies. 

Native Grass Seed 

Vetrinary supplies 

I 

Feed 600 x $ 2.00 X 60 days 

7,!500.00 =-,--=~-, Sub Total $54,350.00 

10,000.00 

1,000.00 

72,000,00 

-

Sub ---------- Total $83,000.00 

Sub Grand Total ·$227,815.00 

Section 1 Total $273,tlS.00 

Section 2 Total 221,Jis.oo 

Grand Total $501,233.00 
244 

Fond Du Lac Reservation 

Business Committee !OS Univmiiy ROid, 

Cloque~ MN S5720 Phone (218) 879-4S93 Fax (218) 879-4146 

Seic rcury/Treuurer 

Pa.c:r J. Deloe 

Di1L f Councilman 

Clifton Rabideau 

Disc. It Cou.ncibn.M 

Herman Wisc 

Diel III Councilman 

Gcorae °"pull 

Ei.ccudvc Director 

I. Jean Mulder 

March 12, 1993 

Honorable Bill Richardson, Chair 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

1522 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 20515-6201 

Dear Chai rman and Honored Committee Members: 

As Chai rman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, I wish to express my appreciation for this 

opportunity to present testimony, regarding the 

management and enhancement of Indian Fish and Wildlife 

resources, to the subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

of the Committee on Natural Resources. The Fond du Lac 

Reservation is a sovereignty, created by the 1854 Treaty 

of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The Fond du Lac 

Band is one of the three Chippewa Bands which retain 

specific Treaty rights within the 1854 Ceded Territory of 

Minnesota, and is also on of six Bands within the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. We are also a member 

Reservation of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission. Our Reservation encompasses 100,000+ acres, 

and is located about 20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. 

There are presently some 4, 200 Fond du Lac Band Members. 

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake superior Chippewa is 

committed to managing, protecting, and enhancing the 

natural resources which are a vital part of our culture, 

identity, and livelihood. In order to accomplish these 

goals we have developed Tribal Programs in Conservation 

Enforcement, Natural Resources, Forestry, and 

Environmental Management. The Fond du Lac Reservation 

has an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) which 

provides a set of management goals and an assessment of 

the resources and environmental conditions on the 

Reservation. We also have a Ceded Territory Conservation 

Enforcement Program, and have plans to develop a 1854 

Ceded Territory Natural Resources Program. These 

Programs have been developed in cooperation with the 

United States Government through the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because of its Trust Responsibility. 

The Fond du Lac Reservation recommends that, in order to 

manage and enhance the natural resources of the Band, 

Tribal programs must receive the funding support as primary recipients, along with State and Federal agencies under all legislation affecting natural resources and 

environmental protection. This will fulfill the Trust 

Relationship we have with the u.s. Government. 
245 

This Trust relationship continues to be essential in order tor Native Alllericans to manage and enhance fish and wildlife 

populations, the habitat they need to aurvive on, and the 

environmental protection to ensure and intact and healthy 

ecosystem. The efforts which we undertake directly benefit aore citizens than our own Band Members. Beyond the 

aanagement and protection ot the natural resources on our own Reservation, we have expended considerable efforts to initiate participation in, and support ot joint Tribal, 

local, State, and Federal natural resource and environmental 

projects and programs. In many instances this level of 

co-itment and support has been significant; especially when 

"outside" forces which oppose the protection of natural resources and the environment have etalled action by other 

government agencies. Examples of the natural resource management efforts undertaken by Fond du Lac will be 

presented later in this document, and more specific reco-endations to the Federal government will also be 

presented. As in our written .testimony and Resolution to the Senate Select Co11111ittee on Indian Affairs, (Attach. A, 

January 4, 1993) we request equitable access to the Federal 

Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs 

(Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson/Wallop-Breaux). our Band 

Members have helped support these programs for many years through the Federal taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, however we have never had access to these funds for natural resource enhancement projects. 

We also must reco-end that if these funds are made 

available to Tribal programs that other Federal agencies 

should not reduce their support for the programs because of 

this. The result would be a net loss in our capabilities to manage our natural resources. The "Federal Aid" funds are for specific projects, and do not have the same function as base program funding from the BIA. 

The President should direct 0MB and the Department of 

Interior to include natural resource add-ons, pay increases, 

and COLA's in Tribal base budgets, without reducing funding 

in other Indian Programs. The draft of the National Indian 

Fish and Wildlife Resource Management Act of 1993 is a positive approach to solving many current natural resource management problems. We support this initiative and will comment further when the final bill is aubmitted to Congress. 

There are a number of specific policy and legislative reco-endations within the Report of the Long's P~ak Working Group on National water Policy America's waters; A New Era 

of sustainability. December 1992. we wish to expand on some of the specific reco11111endations within this report. The 

following recommendations will express our views. 

---------------FOND DU LAC, R.B.C .. ---_. 
246 

The Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program has been working on a large FERC Relicensing project on the st. Louis River. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory co-ission (FERC) regulations and their application and interpretation by FERC have been a major problem tor Tribes and Federal and State resource agencies. In order to protect the instream flows, and restore the watershed and wetland ecosystems which have been 

adversely impacted by the hydropower systea, we reco11mend 

the changes as stated within this report. Specifically, we will be sending a letter to President Clinton to appoint 

FERC Commissioners which are sensitive to Tribal resource concerns and support equal value protection of ecological 

and non-power values. Furthermore, the EPA along with the u.s. Fish and Wildlife service should be able to recommend 

and require operational changes ot hydropower systeas which 

affect the water quality, instream flow, and watershed 

ecosystems. Funds should be provided by the hydro-power companies in order tor Fedetal, Tribal, and state resource agencies to maintain, enhan~e, and restore the affected 

aquatic resources. The F~ should be reformed in order to reflect the changes sugges~ed here, and in the Report. These reforms have also been recommended jointly by the 

Izaak Walton League and American Rivers. 

The 1991 Wetlands Delineation Manual should be revised 

according to regional variations and recommendations of the 

National Academy ot Sci ences. The restoration and 

maintenance of wild rice in its natural environment (not to be confused with •paddy rice•) should also be addressed in 

all federal regulations and prograas involving wetland 

protection and enhancement. Wild rice is a genetically diverse •wild crop• which is becoming endangered in many 

wetland ecosysteas. 

Our Natural Resource Program is currently working on a large 

wetland and wild rice restoration project on the 

Reservation. We are also cooperating with the Minnesota 

Department ot Natural Resources (MDNR) and other Bands on a Wild Rice Council which is trying to address the issue of 

the loss of unique wild rice beds on many lakes and rivers. 

We strongly recommend that Tribal (93-638) Natural Resource 

Programs should be dealt with as a separate program within 

the BIA, and not through the Forestry Program. Furthermore, 

the funds for Natural Resource Programs should be allocated more directly in this same fashion, and more support for 

these prograas and our environmental needs is also needed. 

In order to address the serious concerns we have about the 

mercury contamination ot the fish from our regional lakes 

and rivers, we have conducted extensive research on assessing the levels of mercury in fish, and initiated a study of mercury levels in subsistence fishermen. A copy of our moat recent mercury Assessment, Mercury CODC&DttatiODS 

----------------FOND DULAC,R.B.C .. ----"' 
247 

in Fish from the st, Louis River on and near the Pond du Lac Reservation, october-1992, is attached. The intor111ation is 

proving valuable as it shows the changes in mercury levels 

in walleyes throughout much ct the watershed, and its 

relationship to contaminated sediments and also runoff from 

forested watersheds. The current problem is mainly the 

ongoing airborne fallout of mercury, which increases mercury concentrations in game fish by 3t to St per year! At this rate the public will be unable to safely consume these fish 

in a matter of years. 

our Natural Resource Program in cooperation with the 

University ot Minnesota/Duluth is proposi ng to conduct 

ground-breaking research on the means to mitigate for 

mercury contamination in aquatic ecosystems to prevent the 

uptake of mercury into the food chain and thereby decrease 

the mercury levels in game tish. If an economical and safe 

way is found to accomplish this, the fish will again be safe tor subsistence use and will also save a multi billion 

dollar recreational industry in this region. One problem is 

that the funds available in the EPA Region 5, Great Lakes 

Program Office are quite inadequate to fund all of the assessment research needed in the Great Lakes area for the 

States and Reservations research proposals. The $1 Million now available should be substantially increased and 

mitigation research should become a major focus in order to clean up these ecosystems and not just continue endless 

assessments. our research proposal to EPA-GLNPO is 

attached . 

The Fond du Lac Environmental Program is one of the newly funded "Multi-Media• Tribal environmental programs funded by the EPA. Although this is a relatively new program is has 

greatly expanded our capabilities to address the many 

environmental problems on our Reservation. We therefore 

urgently request that this entire program be fully funded by 

the EPA, and that Native American staff be employed to oversee this program in the Washington D.C. office. In 

addition to this the BIA Environmental Office should meet the needs of environmental problems on reservations, by expanding its objectives and by providing meaningful funding. 

The Fond du Lac coamunity College is a Tribal college which 

is jointly funded by the State of Minnesota . The new campu• is now complete and some 650 students attend classes ther•• The Community College and the Fond du Lac Reservation are working on developing an Environmental Institute which would contract for environmental research and also provide a major educational role at the college. We will be seeking assistance in the near future to help with the development of this concept. 

FONDDULAC,R.B.c.----
248 

I again wish to thank the Subcollll!littee on Native American 

Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources for this 

opportunity to submit this written testimony. If you staff 

have any questions regarding these comments please refer 

them to Larry Schwarzkopf, FDL Natural Resources Manager, 

(218) 879-4593 ext.55. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ Robert B. Peacock 

Chairman 

---------------FONDDULAC,R.B.C. 
Ctuitm1n 

ltobatD. PcaQX.t 

$ccrcury/Tru,11rcr 

rua J. Deloe 

Din I Covr,,c-1!1N11 

CliAon Jbbide.1111 

OhL II C•acilm.an 

Ucu•M11 Wi1• 

E.1.enti•c Direct« J. Jue J.Mdn 

249 

Janua,;y 4, 1993 

senate select committee ·o;, 'Indi·an .Aff aif;. 

Attn: Patricia M. Zell or Pete Taylor 838 senate Hart Office Building Washington, o.c. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Honored Comaittee Members: 

(Attachment A) 

The Fond du Lac Band of Lalce superior Chippewa is 

actively engaged in the manageaent and enhancement of 

natural resources under jurisdiction of the Band. In the 

past we were dependent upon the federal government to provide technical assistance tor management purposes. The .Fond du Lac Band wishes to continue the development ot our• resource 11anagement cap.abilities. In order to develop and mai ntain these capabilities; the Band needs 

equitable access to the sources or funds which sustain 

state fish and wildlife -nag ... nt progrus; the Federal 

Aid in Spart Pish• , Wildlife Restoration Programs 

(D1ngell-Johnson/Pittllan Robertaon/lfallbp-Breawc). 

These progra111S currently are not available for Tribal 

management of fish and wildlife resources which is 

inequitable and diecriminatory in view of the fact that 

these prograJIS are financed through taxes on fishing and 

hunting equipment and boat fuel which is paid by both 

Band •embers and non-Band mubers utilizing tribal fish 

and wildlife resources. 

The Band hereby requests that an equitable mechanism be 

established to distribute federal funds to tribal 

governments tor participation in all federal fish, 

wildlife and re=eational enhancement progra111S, especially the Dingell-Johnson/PittJlan Robertson/WallopBreaux, North American Wetlands Coneervation Act, and the 

Land and Water Act. 

our, request. or itupport ,WDl)ld.. aalJ,ist us in dllV'1.opj.ng olll;'. 

inte~nal manageJD81lt ~•pahilitles, thus proteeting ·the resources that are essential to our well-being. 

Sincerely, 

t"7')-...:_

~~ 

. \.. ~ '") . ~;-

Chairman 
250 

Fond Du Lac Reservation 

Business Committee JOS Uni\'C~ ily Rnati, 

Cir ·. MN S~7:?0 

!% .21 8) 879-4S93 i'"' (2 18) R79:4i46 

Sccrclaty/Trcuurcr 

!lclcr J. Ocl'oe · 

Di,L I Counc ilman 

Clirion Rabiduux 

DisL II Councilman 

llcrmanWisc· 

Din. III CCMlncilman 

Gcorae Oupwis 

Executive Director 

I.JcttlMUlder . 

RESOLUTION # /00</' /tj3 

The Foncf du Lac Reservation Business Committee, on behalf · of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake superior Chippewa, hereby 

enacts the following Resolution: 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

WHEREAS, 

the Fond du Lac Reservation is a $overeignty; 

created by the Treaty of Septelllber 30, 1854 

10 Stat. 1109, as the perpetual home of the 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 

which possesses the inherent jurisdiction and 

authority to exercise regulatory control 

within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac 

Reservation, and 

it. is the sovereign obligation of the Fond du 

Lac Reservation Business Committee, as the 

Governing Body of tjle Fond du Lac Band, under 

the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 u.s.c. 

section 461 et seq., and in accordance with 

the Indian ·Self Determination Act, 25 u.s.c. 

section 450 et seq.-, to assWDe 

responsibilities of Self-Government, and 

the Fond du Lac Band wishes to exercise its 

jurisdiction over the management of fish, 

wildlife, and recreation resources within the 

reservation boundaries by developing new and/or expanding upon existing professional 

management capabilities; and 

the Fond du Lac Band has learned of the 

existence of federal fish and wildlife 

enhancement funding opportunities through the 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish & Wildlife 

Restoration Programs (Dingell-Johnson/Pittman 

Robertson/Wallop-Breaux), and further 

understands that these progr11111S currently are not available for Tribal management of fish 

o.nd wHlllJ,ftt J:.IHJQ.w:cea wli:ich ,is. i1u1quitahle. i,.,id .fii,cniiftri!itOJ:J:;, .-•IJ<l . 

these programs are fil'lanced through taxes on ~ishing and. hunting· equipment and -boat fuel · which is'pa'id by !3oth Band members and non- Band members utilizing -tribal fish and 

wildlife resources; ~nd 

the · Fond du ·Lac Band holds ~neficial title 

to the resources on 100,000 acres of. land 

providing opportunities for religious, subsistence, recreational, and commercial 

activities for Tribal members and visitors; 

and 
WHEREAS, 

251 

RESOLUTION # /001./ /tf3 

the Fond du Lac Band has developed 

management projects that will enhance the 

fish and wildlife populations of the Fond du 

Lac.Reservation, and the tec~eational and 

subsistence usu tor the reservation 

residents and visitors. 

NOW THEREPORE BB IT RESOLVED, the Fond du Lac 

Reservation Business Coamittea hereby requests that the 

federal funding available to state fish and wildlife 

programs be made available to tribal governaents to conduct fish and wildlife management activities; and, 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Fond .du Lac Reservation 

Business COlllll~ttee _requests than ~n equitable mechaniBII 

be established to distribute federal funds to tribal 

governments tor participation in all federal fish, 

wildlife, and recreation enhanc-t progruas, especially the Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Rqbertllon/Wallop-Breaux, North American w•tlanda Conservation Act, and the Land 

and Water Act, etc.; and, 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Fond du Lac Reservation 

Business Committee supports the Native American Fish, 

Wildlife society in its efforts to provide technical 

services to tribal governaenta in the development of 

sound professional fish and wildlife and recreation 

initiatives. 

We do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly presented and enacted u:~by a vote of 3 for, against, a quorum of being preiierit"at a s£ial Meeting of the Fond u c Reservation Business 

Coamittee held on JN1u~S , 1993, at the Fond du Lac 

Reservation Business COIIIU e offices in Cloquet, 

Minnesota. 

~~~--~·~· .. ··· ... ~ .. -~ .· ·.· .··. ,. . .. .. 

o - :. PellCl>C~a~p· •-~~-.0.:..:./'llreas~ 

--------------POND DULAC,~ 
252 

Repon on the St. Louis River Water Resources Project 

Ticle: MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH FROM 1HE ST. LOUIS RIVER ON 

AND NEAR IBE FOND DU LAC INDIAN RESERVATION 

by 

J. A. Sorensen, G. E. Glass, K. W. Schmidt, and G. R. Rapp, Jr. 

Archacomctry Laboratory 

University of Minnesota, Duluth 

10 University Drive 

Duluth, MN 55812-2496 

October 1992 

Prepared for 

Larry Schwankopf, Biologist, with the Natural Resource Dcpamncnt of the Fond du Lac 

Indian Reservation; Cloquet, MN 
253 

Mercury Concentrations in Fish from the St. Louis River on and near the Fond Du Lac 

Indian Reservation 

Introduction 

The Minnesota Dcpanment of Health (MOH) has listed separate advisories for three main 

segments of the St. Louis River (abOve Ooquct, below Ooquct, and below Fond du Lac) in 

the May 1992 Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory (MOH, 1992). The upper two sections 

of the river are the most relevant to the concerns of the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation 

(FOUR) because they are part of the northern and eastern boundaries of the F0Lm. The 

fish contaminants of concern, listed by the MOH, are mercury (above Cloquet) and mercury 

and PCBs (below Cloquet). ln general, the advisory lists one meal per week as the restricticn 

for most species and sizes. Below Ooquet, however, the advisory suggests that meals should 

be restricted to one per month for yellow perch, carp, and larger walleye. 

Because of several landfills, waste disposal sites, municipalities, industries, and the construction 

of several reservoirs along ~ St Louis River (StLR) there exists a potential for locally higher 

mercury concentration "hot spots" (StLR RAP, 1992; Bodaly et al., 1984). The limiicd data 

from which the consumption advisories are derived are inadequate to detect these potential 

hot spots and may, thus, be inadequate for advising the public to limit consumption of fish 

along this river stretch. 

The objective of this study was to quantify mercury concentrations in fish commonly caught 

and eaten by local fishennen in conjunction with the data needs -for the Subsistence 

Fishennen/Mercury Study on the FDLIR and to provide baseline infonnation for evaluating 

_possible mercury sources and transports. This work was initiated as part of a larger project 

studying St. Louis River Water··Resources being conducted by the Natural Resource Program 

ofFDLIR. 

Study Design 

Thirteen StLR fish study areas (Figure I) were selected between Chambers Grove (near 

southeast comer of FDLIR) and Paupores (near nonhwest comer of FDLIR). The goal was to 

collect the widest possible range of fish sizes per species from each area in order to model 

mercury concentrations as a function of fish size. Results of this modeling should give better 

2 

68-141 - 93 - 9 
I 

t 

I 

I 

I ' · I 

t;-;-:-+,,111~~~ 

...... 

254 

-~ 

3 
255 

resolution to fish consumption concerns in addition to providing infonnation on mercury 

contamination sources. 

Because fish may in some cases be highly mobile and slow to change mercury levels in 

response to new surroundings, results must be interpreted carefully. That is, some areas may 

show both high and low fish mercury levels indicating a mixture of both local and transient 

fish. For those areas as well as "upstream input areas" additional measurements of mercury in 

medium (such as water, plankton, and sediment) that respond differently (temporally) to 

mercury contamination are needed. For this purpose we chose to sample water (fast mercury · 

response), plankton (intermediate response), and sediment (slow response; downstream 

mobility only). Appendix A describes each sampling site and indicates fish movement 

constraints resulting from various dams. 

Methods and Materials 

Fish Sampling. During the summer of 1990, personnel from the FDLIR made several 

sampling visits to two sites on the St. Louis River (near Broolcston and Cloquet) to collect 

various game fish for mercury analysis. A total of 62 fish were collected using boch trotlines 

and gillncts as follows: black crappie (!), channel catfish (26), northern pike (3), northern 

redhorse sucker (3), white sucker (6), rock bass (7), smallmouth bass (11), and walleye (5). 

In 1991 additional sites on the St. Louis River were added to the survey staned in 1990. A 

total of 152 fish were collected in 1991 as. follows: black crappie (!}, bluegill sunfish (1), 

channel catfish (64), nonhcrn pike (IS), northern redhorse sucker (2),-whitc sucker (2), rock 

bass (2), smallmouth bass (29), and walleye (36). A summary of the fish collection inventory 

is shown in Table I; site locations arc defined In Figure I and Appendix A; and sampling 

dates and raw data are given In the Appendix B. 

Immediately after the fish were collected, weights and lengths :were measun,d and fillets were 

removed and frozen. The samples were sent to the UMD/ERL-D (University of MinnesotaDuluth / Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth) mercury laboratory and kept frozen 

until analyzed. 

4 
256 

Table I. Inventory of Fish Sampling from the SL Louis Rive,& 

site black bluegill channel nonhcm n.rh. rock sm. walleye white Total 

number craonie catfish nike sucker bass bass sucker ' 

1590 0 ·o 2 0 0 0 I II 0 14 

1610 0 0 12 3 0 0 13 4 0 32 

1654 0 0 I 4 0 0 12 II 0 28 

1710 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 

1740 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 

1760 0 0 2311581 4 /2 21 21021 3 /I 21 4 (22) 6/Ul 3 /1 2) 45 (22 23) 

1762 0 0 II 2 0 0 0 3 0 16 

1763 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 

1m 1 (1.0) 1(01) 11 (It 0) 5'14) 3f3.m 6(60) 10(90 6(4.2) ~,s.m 48 /408\ 

1782 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 

1790 · 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

1800 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

1802 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Total 2(1 I) I (01) 90(2664) 18 (3 15l S (3 2) 9n.21 40(11 ?O\ 41 ,s-..., 8 (6.21 214 /62 152) 

•Entries arc forthe 1991 sampling year excep< for sitcS 1760 and 1777 whete 1990 samples were also 1811:en. The totals 

fort~ individual yeatS'{l990,199I) arc shown within !he parentheses. 

Other Sampling. Water, plankton (mesh size > 8011), and sediment were sampled by 

personnel from UMD in October of 1991 05 sites for water, 4 sites for plankron, and 10 sites 

for sediment) and again In June _1992 (11 sites for water, 11 sites for plankton, and 1 site for 

sediment) using the methods described in Glass et al. (1990) and Sorensen et al. (1990). 

Analytical Methods 

Mercury (total) measurement methods 11t1lized cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry 

(CVAI:,.) approved by the USEPA (1983) with modifications for standardizing operating. 

procedures and screening reagents for lowest levels or Hg content to ~uce the blank value. 

General details for analysis and quality assurance are published in Glass et al. (1990) and 

Sorensen et al. ( 1990). Specific details regarding fish analysis are ·given in Olson et al. 

(1975) Mercury concentrations in fish are expressed .in tenns of wet QSSUe weight while 

those for plankron and sediment are in tenns of dry sample weight. 

Fish ages were detennincd by peBonnel from the FDLIR by counting 1Mulv growth rings 

on scales. In some cases ages were repotted as greater thans (e.g. S+ yr), and were treated as 

the next highest half-year ages for ail analyses in this repon (e.g._ S+ yr= 5.5 yr). 

s 
257 

Results 

Quality Assurance 

The results of the quality assurance analyses of mercury measurements of various 

environmental samples are shown in Table II. Accuracy and precision of the measurements 

are within acceptable limits of expectation. The sampling precision values for plankton and 

water ue high and may be due -to ·variant flow conditions encountered and values near the 

detection limit (for water). 

Table II. Analytical Charactcrislics of Mercwy MeasuremenlS' 

paramelel % erecisionb <J, refC!fflCC %spike 

lab• field =veif recovery 

fish 6(35) 100(22) 94 (11) 

plankton 4 (2) 56(13) 103 (10) 83 m· 

- 11 (4) SI (25) 97(1~ 97 (8)' 

sediment 9(5) 30(4) 95(3) 114 (3) 

•Numbers in parentheses refer 10 the number of samples or sample pairs usocialed with the enuy. 

"Precision divided by mean measurement x lOO'I,. 

CJ>recision for fish is based on replicate analyses of the same ftllet. 

dCenified reference maierials are as follows: walleye• Nat. Res. Cncl, Canada DORM-1 dogfish 

muscle; water• Nat. Bureau of Stds 1641b water; and sediment. NaL Bweau of Slds 1645 

Buffalo R. sedimenL 

•Jncludes SL Louis River water samples from Sorensen ct al. (1992a) 

An additional check was made for internal consistencies in the data by testing the 

relationships among fish size parameters (length, weight, and age). Plots of these 

relationships ale shown in Figures ·2, 3, and 4 where power cwves (Y=A •XB) have been fined. 

The weight vs length plots in Figure 2 show no significant outlier points relative to the fined 

curves. However, numerous depanures from the fitted curves (suggesting varying growth 

rates) are found in Figures 3 and 4 where length and weight are plotted against age. This is 

especially true for the case of_ channel catfish where several weights. (or lengths) are 

significantly above the norm: Many of those outliers (danq;ircles) are from channel cauish 

taken from !he Fond du Lac Reservoir (site 1610). 

Mercury in Fish. Summaries of fish mercury concentration statistics for each species across 

all sites are given in Table III and a summary of species length, weight, and age are given in 

Table IV. Individual results for each fish ale given in Appendix B. 

6 
... l . I Blick Croppit 

... ~ 

l 

i"'f/ ... 

" 

·, 

II .. II 

Ltngth, cm 

-..I 

.... Northern rikt .... 

UH 

n/ .. 

J H .. 

"' 

.I ~ 

i .... 

.... / ' ... ,,,..,ft. .. , . --·· II 

Ltn11h, cm 

Uff UH 

s ... ,.-~.~-i,~~ .. I

] l Chonntl C11nsh 

iJ I 

'"' 

. I 

.... .. .... 

I .. 

i i 

/- 

.. 

~ 

I i , ... ... 

... 

f ._ _ __,_____,_ , .•••••.. 

" II 

" .. II II .. 

Ltn11h, cm Ltn&lh, cm 

- -, .. .. .... r····-··---·-··- ··-

I ; N. Rtd lfor1t Sucktr • Whitt Surktr 

:; .... t UH 0 .. • • 

• .c 

... ! ,cl 

.. .. 

'j i 

I 

__ _ .,,.,, ..! . ,. 

" " II .. .. Ltncth. cm Ltn11h, tm 

Figure 2 . . Relationships between weight and length for each fish species. 

follows: open circle• sile 1590, closed circle - site 1610, X • silc 1710, o

1740-1763, and closed squares sites 1777-1802. 
u 

JO~ jll 

! 15 r / .4 

\\ 

.! 10 

Black Crappie 

• 

A&<, yr 

00 80 

70 

60 

B so 

,! 40- .. ,: 

JO j 

JO 

18 

• 0 

~-

1 

I 

5 

o· 0 

0 

/ 

• D 

70 

" 

50 

e 40 

.4 

J 30 

20 

18 

• 

. 0 oie ·--:.] 

•• 

·'-~ a:, 0 

• 

D 

..;o 

x• 

Channtl Catfish 

0 5 10 15 20 

A&<, yr 

D 

-·-----IJ 

Northttn Plkt 

10 

A1e, yr 

50 -~ 

.. 8 E 30 .. 

4 

\\ 

.! 20 

0 

10 

Small Mouth 81

I 2 J 4 5 

A&<, yr 

50 --..--..--..--..-

40 

! JO 

.4 

1 20 

10 

• 

• 

• 

• 

White Sucke

. .__...__...__~-

• • 

A&<, yr 

Figure 3. Reta1ionshlps between length and age for each fish species. S

follows: open circle. site 1590, closed circle • site 1610, X. site 1710, open 

1740-1763, and closed squares sites 1777-1802. 
250 l 

10n 

f. 

... l J 

I: 

·f 180 :r. 

50 

0 

0 

I() 

t ~ 3000 1500 

0 

Black Crappit 

Small Mouth Bass 

• 0 

•••• E 2008 • • B 1000 . E 

J r 0 • .. f eiil 0 i 0 

i :r. uoo •• 0 @ 

500 

• 

• 

Ch1nntl C11rish 

0 0 

I 1 3 4 . s 0 s IO 15 10 0 I 1 3 4 s 

A&•, yr. A&t, yr A&t, yr 

1500 

4000 I 

Northtm Pike I · White S11cktr 

30D0' 

E 

.. 

i 1000 L 0 

'G 

:r. 1000 1 

l 

,J 

.,,,.-- 0 

J 4 . , .. 10 

Aat, yr 

Ii 1000 

.. 

f 

:r. S00 

6 

A&t, yr 

I 

Agure-4. Relationships be1wcen weight and age for each fish species. S

follows: open circle • site 1590, closed circ.lc • si1e 1610, X • slle 1710, open 

1740•1763, and closed squares sites 1777-1802. 
261 

Table Ill indicates, overall, that black crappie arc the lowest in mercury concentration while 

channel catfish arc the highest. A more quantitative and accurate comparison may be 

accomplished, though, by taking into account fish size and location. Both of these factors 

have been shown in other studies (e.g. Sorensen et al., 1990) to strongly influence fish 

mercury concentrations In order to address these dependencies, we determine or 

mathematically model the relationship between mercury concentration and fish size for each 

sampling site. 

Table m. Statistical Summary of Mercury in Fish for Each 

Species Across All Sampling Sites 

species n mete!!£i concenttation (oob} 

min max mean median 

black crappie 2 62 130 96 96 

channel catfish 90 152 1860 466 412 

nonhcm pike 18 158 640 339 305 

redhorse sucker 5 318 718 457 375 

white sucker 8 -124 366 272 288 

rock bass 9 130 608 344 334 

sm. bass 40 117 758 352 307 

walleye 41 136 1486 438 358 

Table IV. Statistical Summary offish Size Parameters for Each Species Across All Sampling Sites 

species n• length (cm) weight!&!!!) age~) 

min max mean median min max mean median min max mean median 

blaclc crappie 2 20.1 24.1 22.1 22.1 113 ZJ.1 170 170 3.5 4 3.8 3.8 

channel calfish 90 2S.9 64.8 47.6 49.0 113 2807 1090 1049 2 16 7.7 8 

northern pike 18 34.8 74.4 54.0 54.4 2S5 3090 1144 1021 2 9 4.3 3.5 

redhcrse sucker 5 35.1 45.7 43.0 45.0 510 1362 1010 im 6 6 6.0 · 6 

white Silclcer 8 34.8 45.0 41.7 43.jl S68 1134 879 908 4 8 5.3 5 

rock bass 9 15.2 26.9 21.2 22.9 '85 454 262 340 3 9 5.4 5 

sm. bass 40 16.3 40.4 30.6 31.1 85 1021 486 459 2 s 3.6 4 

walleye 41 2S.9 54,l 35.1 33.S 142 1729 461 340 2 6 3.1 3 

'Ages were not determined for all fish; the n value for the age statistics are 2, 83, 10, 3, 6, 9, 20, and 41 for black 

crappie through walleye, respectively. · 

Before modeling lhe fish mercury concentration data we must resolve two issues: 1) can fish 

mercury concentration data from two sampling years (1990 and 1991) be merged? and 2) 

which fish size parameter is the most appropriate? Figure 5 shows the relationships between 

mercury levels in catfish and fish lenglh for two sampling regions along the river with the two 

sampling years delineated. Wi_th the exception of three outliers (all from 1991) !here is no 

significant difference between lhe two years. 

10 
262 

Channel Catfish 

Sites 1760 & 1762 Sites 1777 & 1782 2000 1500 

.,,, • ,D C. C. C. C. 

c 1500 c • ,$! .!:'! ;; ;; 1000 .. .. • c 

.. c ., .. 1000 "' l!! 0 8 t,) 

>, t' 500 .. 

::, 500 ::, u 

.. .. t 

.. ::;; ::;; 

30 40 so 60 7 0 30 40 so 60 70 

Length,an Length, an 

Figure 5. Mercury concentrations in channel catfish for two regions of the SL Louis River. 

Symbols arc as follows: squares - sites 1760 and 1777, circles - sites 1762 and.1782, white -

1990 samples, and black - 1991 samples. 

The statistical relationships between size and age variables arc givc;n in Table V as Pearson 

correlation coefficients (using log transformed variables) between fish mercury 

COQCCntrations and fish size parameters (lengtl), weight. and age) for each species and site 

where sufficient data were available. In general, fish length scores slightly higher than weight 

and significantly higher than age in correlating with mercury residue levels. The results 

suggest a power relationship of the following form 

(I) CHg = A• L8 

where Cttg is the mercury concentration in fish, L is the fish length. and A and B are 

constants that vary depending on fish species and body of water. This is the same expression 

used for walleye and northern pike for 65 Minnesota lakes by Sorensen et al. (1990). 

11 
263 

The constants A and B for each species and site are found by regression and are shown in 

Table V. These constants and equation (1) are then used to calculate a reference mercury 

concentration for each species and site for a chosen reference fish length. The reference fish 

lengths for walleye and northern pike are 39 cm and 55 cm, respectively, based on several 

considerations (Sorensen er al., 1990). For other species, the median lengths given in Table 

IIIA are used as the reference lengths. 

Table V. Site and Species Specific Summary of Statistical Analyses of Mercury in Fish 

correlation• of Hg cone reg=ionc referenced rere,cnced 

species n with fish size 11arametecs constants Hg cone. 95% conflnL 

Sile length weight ·agcb A B (ppb) (ppb) 

-- -- channel carfuh 

1610 12 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.0738 2.20 393 366 • 422 

1710 4 0.97 0.97 t 2.52 i.54 994 871 • 1135 · 1760 23 ·0.67 0.66 0.54 0.581 l.67 385 358 • 414 

1762 11 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.00382 2.98 420 361 - 488 

1763 10 0.44 0.46 0.16 6.93 1.05 410 368 - 457 

1m 11 0;91 0.88 0.93 I.OS 1.54 426 404 - 449 

17B2 10 0.72 0.70 0.83 0.0442 2.44 586 503 - 682 

Mrth.ern pike 

1654 4 0.89 0.94 0.93 1.19 1.38 294 253 • 342 

1760 4 0.95 0.95 . t 108 0.254 298 295 • 301 

1777 5 0.76 0.72 t 0.480 1.63 332 294 • 375 

white sucku 

1777 5 0.80 0.55 0.87 0.00217 3.15 326 271 - 392 

rock bass 

1777 6 0.86 0.93 0.34 0.0128 3.28 375 327 - 429 

smallmouth bass 

1610 13 0.87 0.82 t 0.289 2.08 371 349 • 395 

16S4 12 0.87 0.89 0.81 0.883 1.74 349 327 • 372 

1760 4 0.53 0.18 t 0.00091 3.76 373 281 - 494 

1777 10 0.44 0.37 0,2l! 0.328 l.95 263 218 - 319 

walleye 

1590 11 0.89 0.92 0.81 0.599 1.90 474 435 - 516 

1610 4 0.51 0.34 0.03 0.0121 3.00 726 216 • 2438 

1654 II 0.84 0.82 0.27 0.00110 3.57 S19 436. 618 

1760 6 0.64 0.63 0.18 1.92 1.46 401 349 - 460 

1777 6 0.24 0.27 0.08 309 284 • 336 

'Correlations are for log-transfonncd variables. · · 

bAges were not determined for all fish; at indicates insufficifflt dala for the age-Hg cone. correlation. Olhec 

age entries are derived from the same number of data points as weight and length cnlries except for 

smallmoulh bass sites 1654 and 1m where n (forage) are bolh nine. 

CRegression·cquation is: Hg conc(ppb) a Ax length(cm)B. 

dRefcrencc mercury concentrations arc calculated using lhc regression equation for lhc following fish 

lengths: SS cm nonhem pike and 39 cm walleye (Sorensen ct al., 1990) and median lengths (Table IV) for 

olhcr species. 

12 
264 

From Table V it is clear that channel catfish from site 1710 (Scanlon Dam) have significantly 

more mercury contamination than fish from the other sites. Mercury in walleye from site 

I 6 IO (Fond du Lac Reservoir) arc also high but there is a high degree of uncertainty 

associated with those results because of the small range of fish sizes and few samples 

collected. 

Figure 6 shows the site specific relationship between mercury concentrations in fish and 

length for various species. In general, one finds that individual data points from the smaller 

confined river stretches (sites downstream of 1740) exhibit less variabilities about the 

modeled curves than those for sites above the last barrier within the study area (I 740 and 

above). 

For the dcwnstream sites, the fish mercury data are adequate to describe the mercury 

exposure within those areas. However, some upstream sites (e.g. 1760 and 1762; channel 

catfish), clearly show the influence of fish that have been subject to different mercury 

exposures. From this data one may hypothesize the existence of one or more mercury 

source(s) somewhere within or above that stretch of the river. 

Consumption Advi1ory Leve/1. Of the 214 fish analyzed, 15 fell within the MOH advisory 

category 1, 180 were in category 2, and 19 were in category 3. Tilese categories are defined 

in the footnotes in Table VI. 

As a final application of the regression constants in Table V and equation (1) we may 

calculate the fish lengths that correspond to the MOH mercury consumption advisory levels. 

Table VI summarizes the results of these calculations for each species and site listed in Table 

V. These calculations were extended to 20% above/below the maximum and minimum fish 

lengths sampled. 

Mercury in Water. A basic statistical summary of mercury in water, plankton (>80u), and 

sediments are given in Table VII while the raw data for each sample are listed in Appendix C. 

Mercury concentratior:is in water can be characterized as mostly between the detection limit of 

2 ng/L and 4 ng/L. The variabilities at some sites could be a result of varying amounts of 

particulates in the water sample that have been shown to contain significant amounts of 

mercury (Glass et al., 1990). The sites with samples higher than average mercury in water 

concentrations are 16S1 (Forbay Laite), 1780 (St. Louis River at Hwy 31), 1820 (St. Louis 

River at Gowan), 2710 (Stoney Brook at Hwy 31), and 28S0 (Whiteface River at Hwy 226). 

13 
1 

f 

i 

1 

i 

.! 

• 

t 

i 

! 

l 

~ 

I 

• 

C•""' ....... , t .. , ,. ,. 

Otk IHIJ 

L1•1••• •• 

Wall•!• 

... _.-'a.,. .. , •· tM4• lfffl 

... .,. 

, ... , ...... . ........ .. 'S••• M••" ••n -••-'~--· .. .. '"'' 

• 

r· 

........ 

Cam,, 

....... a...t. (NM""' 

..... , . jS1La ..... ,_. .ta. I .... .,.., 

.. 

Ltttlllo, •• 

a..,, ... 

Cull .. c,u1t• 

• ... ;::.· ,~;.:'" LI l--11 " • • "'' • . • 

CJlM 110) 

.......... l.01111, •• 

Ln1111o, 

c 

ltU •~

L

....

..... 

{"

Lff

Figure 6. Site specific relationships between mercury concentrations an
266 

Table VI Fish Lengths Corresponding 10 various Consumption Advisory Levels (MDH, 199t)• for Sites 

along the St. Louis River 

water body site# species fish length (inches) where indicated advisory is equaled 

160 ppb 660 ppb 1000 ppb 2810 ppb 

Chambers Grove 1590 walleye < 12.2 .. 15.7 19.7 tt 

Fond du Lac Reservoir 1610 channel catfish 12.9· 24.6t tt tt 

sm.bass 8.2 16.2i tt tt 

walleye 9.4• 1S.Oi ti tt 

Thomson Reservoir 1654 nonhempike 13.7 > 24.Sii tt it 

sm.bass 7.8 17.6t tt tt walleye 11.0 16.5i 18.St tt 

Scanlon Dam 1710 channel catfish < 10.2•• 14.6 19.2 > 25.Stt 

SILR above town of Cloquet 1760 channel catfish 1 t.4• 26.6i tt tt nonhe.-npike < 1s.8•• > 25.3tt ti tt sm. bass 9.8• 14.2t 15.9t tt walleye < 12.1•• 21.St tt tt 

moulh of White Pine River 1762 channel catfish 14.0• 22.5 2S.9t tt 

SILR above White Pine River 1763 channel catfish < 15.2** > 28.6tt tt tt 

mouth of Cloquet River 1777 channel 'catfish 10.3• 25.8t tt tt norlhem pike 13.8• > 25.2tt tt tt white suclcer 13.8 > 17.7tt tt tt 

roclc bass 7.0• IO.St 12.2t tt sm. bass 9.4• > 15.9ti tt tt walleye < 10.0 ... > IS.lit tt tt 

SILR above Cly rd.31 1782 c:hanne1 catfish 11.3• 20.2 24.0t tt 

•advisory categories: O!loml e1212ula1iao Hia~c Bia emm1a1mo 

(I) less than 160 ppb Unresuic:led one meal per week 

(2) 160-660 ppb one meal per week one meal per month 

(3) 660-2810 ppb QDC msal m maol.b 012 ,.1ms11mmism 

greater lhan 1000 ppb FDA restriction for commeccial use •extrapolated below actual range of fish sizes c:ottectcd (up 10 20'A, below sl1_Ulllest fish) 

••below 20% extrapolation range; entries wilh "<" indicate lenglh of smallest fish sampled · 

textrapolatcd beyond actual range of fish sizes collected (up 10 20$ above largest fish) 

ttbeyond 20% extrapolation range; entries wilh "> • indicate lenglh of largest fish sampled 

Mercury in Plankton. In some cases (e.g. sites 1590 and 1654) mercury in plankton data are 

extremely variable and depend highly on the plankton density in the water column (low 

densities yield high mercury concentrations). The highest consistent concentrations were 

found at site 1710 (Scanlon Dam) and coincide with the highest concentrations observed for 

mercury in fish. 

15 
267 

Mercury in Sediment. The highest sediment concentrations were observed at site 1775 (St. 

Louis River at Hwy 2), 1780 ~St. Louis River at Hwy 31), 2280 (mouth of Midway River at 

the Thomson Reservoir), 2720 (mouth of Anichoke River). These results indicate that I) the 

Midway River may be draining an area that is significantly contaminated with mercury, 2) 

there may be several mercury source areas in the upper StLR contributing 10 the observed 

levels in fish, and 3) additional sediment samples above the Scanlon impoundment are needed 

to better identify potential upstream mercury sources. 

Table VII. Statistical Summary of Data Relating 10 Water, Plankton, and Sediment Samples 

parametec n min max mean median 

Hg in water (ng/L) 52 1 9 3 2 

Hg in plankton (ppb) 28 48 4260 532 245 

plankton density in water (mg/m3) 31 0.1 65.9 15.2 6.8 

Hg in sediment (ppb)" 13 15 97 41 30 

% moisture in sediment 13 15.4 96.8 40.9 29.7 

•Analyzed as a wet sample. 

Summary and Conclusions 

Mercury in Fish and Consumption Advisories. Mercury concentrations in fish show that most 

fish from the sites sampled can be categorized by MOH criteria as being restricted to one 

meal per week for the general population (MiMesota). For our sample group it appears that 

the chaMel catfish, redhorse sucker, and walleye are the highest in mercury while the black 

crappie and bluegill sunfish may be the lowest. though more data is necessary to confirm the 

latter . 

.Mercury Concentration in Fish vs Fish ungth. The mercury concentrations in channel 

catfish, northern pike, white sucker, rock bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye taken from these 

St. Louis River sites follow a power relationship with fish length. More data is needed 10 

define the mathematical relationship for black crappie, bluegill sunfish, and redhorse sucker. 

ChaMel catfish taken from the Scanlon Darn were significantly higher in mercury than fish 

from all other sampling sites. Sites above the Scanlon impoundment have a mixrure of fish 

with both high mercury levels, approaching those at the Scanlon dam, and levels that are 

significantly lower. This data suggests that one or more mercury source(s) exist somewhere 

within or upstream that stretch of the river. 

16 
268 

Mercury in Water, Plankton, and Sediment. Mercury levels in water showed some sites were 

higher than average concentrations, possibly indicating watershed inputs. Mercury 

concentrations in plankton were highest at site 1710 (Scanlon Dam), the same site where the 

highest mercury levels in fish were observed. The mouth of the Midway River and three sites 

above the town of Cloquet showed the highest mercury contamination in sediment. More 

sediment analyses from the upstream areas of this study and beyond are needed 10 bener 

identify potential mercury sources. 

References 

Bodaly, R.A .• R.E. Hecky, and R.J.P. Fudge. 1984. Increases in Fish Mercury Levels in Lakes 

Flooded by the Churchill River Diversion, Northern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 41(4):682-691. 

Glass, G.E .• Sorensen. J. A., Schmidt, K. W .• and Rapp. G. R., Jr. 1990. New Source 

Identification of Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 

-24(7): 1059-1069. 

Olson, G.F., Mount, 0.1., and Snarski, V. M. 1975. Mercury Residues in Fathead Minnows, 

Pimephales promelas Rafinesque. Chronically Exposed to Melhylmercury in Water. Buller. 

Environ. Contam. Tox. 14(2):129-134. 

MDH. 1992. Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory. Minnesota Depanment of Heallh, 

Minneapolis MN. 

StLR RAP. 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan• Stage One Repon. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul MN. 

Sorensen, J.A., G.E. Glass, K. W. Schmidt, and G.R. Rapp, Jr. 1992a. Mercury Concentrations 

in Fish from the St. Louis River near the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation. Repon to Foil<! 

du Lac Indian Reservation. Ooquet, MN. 

Sorensen, J.A., Glass, G. E .• Schmidt, K. W .• Huber, 1. K., and Rapp, G. R .• Jr.: 1990. Airborne 

Mercury Deposition and Watershed Characteristics in Relation to Mercury Concentrations 

in Water, Sediments, Plankton. and Fish of Eighty Northern Minnesota Lakes. Environ. Sci. 

& Technol. 24(11):1716-1727. 

USEPA 1983. Mercury Method 245.1 Revised 3/83. EPA-600/4-79-020. 

17 
269 

Appendix A 

St Louis River (StLR) Watershed Sampling Site Descriptions 

river sam lctv"" 

site stretch• site descriotion fish water olankton sediment 

1590 1 Un""r SI.LR Estn.arv at Chambers Grove ,/ ,/ ,/ 

1610 2 · Fond du Lac Reservoir ,/ ' ' 16S1 3 ForbavLake " ' 1654 4 Thomson Reservoir ,/ ' 1710 s Scanlon Dam [mnnmvlm,,nt ' v ' 1740 6 SI.LR at MN hi11:hwav 33 brid11:e ' ' ' 1760 6 SI.LR above citv ofCtoouet <near Pine ls.) ' 1762 6 mouth of White Pine River 

1763 6 SI.LR 1/2 mile above White Pine River ' " " ' 1775 6 SI.LR at Hwv 2 " "-

1777 6 mouth of Cloauet River 

1780 6 StLR at Hwv 31 " ,J ,J ,/ 

1782 . 6 SI.LR 1/2 mile above SL Louis ctv rd 31 ' 1790 6 SI.LR near train uessel near Broolcslon ' 1800 6 SI.LR 8 miles above Brookslon 

1802 6 SI.LR at Pauoan!.S ' "' " ' 1820 · 6 SI.LR at Gowan ' ,J 

1860 6 StLR at Hwv 29 ' "' ' 2280 4 mouth of Midwav River ' ' 2432 6 Cloouet River below Hwv 7 ' "' ' 2710 6 S10nev Brook at Hwv 31 ' ' 27W 6 Anichoke River at Hwv 3 ' ' 2830 6 Bi,r Savanna River at Hwv 2 

2840 ' 6 Floodwood River at Hwv 2 ' ,J 

2850 6 Whiteface River at Hwv 226 ' " " 

•River saetches are defined in terms of regions within which fish may migrate unimpeded by barriers {dams). 

A-1 
270 

Appendix B 

Summary of Mercury Measurements for 214 Fish Collected from the St. Louis River 

Species Site FDLIR Date Date Weight Length Age Hg Cone.• Code collected analyzed (lb-oz) (in) (yrs) (ng/g) 

black crappie 1777 B-7 08/29/90 05/01/91 0-8 9.5 4 130 

black crappie 1740 C-1 06/28/91 01/08/92 0-4 7.9 3+ 62 

bluegill sunfish 1777 D-6 07/12/91 01/08/92 0-7 6.6 4 63 

channel catfish 1760 7 10/03/91 12/20/91 5-4 24.4 9 765 

channel catfish 1760 A-2 06/25/91 01/15/92 2-6 19.7 10+ 634 

channel catfish 1760 A-2 09/01/90 03/22/91 3-5 21.6 10+ 492 

channel catfish 1760 A-3 06/25/91 01/15/92 1-0 14.5 . 5+ 179 

channel catfish 1777 A-3 08/29/90 05/01/91 2-7 20.2 II 519 

channel catfish 1760 A-4 06/25/91 01/24/92 0-10 13.0 5 204 

channel cair1Sh 1760 A-5 06/25/91 01/15/92 1-0 14.5 s 244 

channel ·catflSh 1760 A-6 06/25/91 01/15/92 · 0-12 14.2 6 232 

channel catfish 1177 A-6 08/29/90 05ftll/91 1-13 18.5 8 443 

channel catfish 1777 A-6b 08/29/90 05/01/91 lsl3 18.S 8 516 

channel calfish 1760 A-7 06/25/91 01/11/92 0-12 13.7 6 203 

channelcadish 1760 A-7 08/01/90 03/01/91 2-0 17.8 9+ 538 

channel catfish 1760 A-8 06/25/91 01/11/92 1-12 17.l 8+ 419 

channel catfish 1760 A-8 08/21/90 03/01/91 2-0 18.4 8 387 

channel catfish 1760 A-8C 08/21/90 03/2'2/91 2-0 18.4 8 421 

channel catfish 1m A-9 08/29/90 05/01/91 1-4 17.0 7 309 

channel catfish · 1762 B-5 06/26/91 01/15/92 1-12 18.0 7 294 

channel catfish 1762 B-5 b 06/26/91 01/15/92 1-12 18.0 7 313 

channel catfish 1777 B-6 08/23/90 03/2'2/91 2-4 20.3 9 528 

channel catfish 1760 B-8 08/01/90 03/01/91 3-7 20.5 7 367 

channel catfish 1760 C-1 0Mll/90 03/01/91 .3-4 21.6 8 456 

channel catfish 1760 C-3 08,/01/90 03/01/91 1-4 16.l 6 218 

channel catfish 1760 C-4 08/01/90 03/0l/9i 2-8 20.0 10 212 

channel catfish 1760 C-5 08/01/90 03/01,'91 · 3-4 20.5 12 312 

channel catfish 1760 C-6 08/21/90 03/01/91 3-0 20.2 13 523 

channel catflSh 1760 C-6 C 08/21/90 03/2'2/91 3-0 20.2 13 510 

channel catflSh 1760 C-8 08,/01/90 03/01/91 2-0 18.0 · 8 440 

channel catfish 1760 C-9 08/01/90 03/01/91 2-0 18.2 7 368 

channel catfish 1777 C-10 08/29/90 05/01/91 2-6 19.5 10 392 

channel catfish 1760 D-1 08/01/90 03/01/91 1-8 17.5 6 289 

channel catfish 1777 D-2 08/29/90 05/01/91 2-6 19.2 8 384 

channel caif'lSh 1777 D-3 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-0 14.4 5 210 

channel catfish 1777 D-3b 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-0 14.4 s 206 

channel catfish 1m D-4 08/25/90 03/15/91 0-12 · 14.0 6 275 

channel catfish 1m D-6 09/01/90 03/2'2/91 3-0 20.1 11 554 

channel calfish 1m D-6b 09/01/90 03/2'2/91 3-0 20.1 11 491 

channel catfish 1790 E-1 07/19/91 01/11/92 0-12 13.8 6+ 439 

channel calfish 1790 E-2 07/19/91 01/11/92 0-12 14.0 7 593 

channel catfish 1m E-3 09/01/90 03/01/91 0-7 11.2 4 204 

channel catfish 1m E-9 10/13/89 03/22/91 4-0 23.4 12 492 

channel catfish 1760 E-10 09/01/90 03/2'2/91 3-6 21.8 16 m 

channel catfish 1762 F-1 07/26/91 01/15/92 2-9 20.5 356 

channel catf1Sh 1762 F-2 07/26/91 01/15/92 1-10 18.1 6+ 263 

channel catf1Sh 1760 F-2 08,/01/90 03/01/91 2-8 20.0 9 740 

channel catf1Sh 1762 F-3 07/26/91 01/15/92 4-15 24.5 1800 

channel catfish 1700 F-4 08/01/90 03/01/91 4-0 21.8 9 265 

channel catf lSh 1762 F-7 07/26/91 01/15/92 3-8 22.3 11+ 278 

channel catfish 1762 F-12 07/26/91 01/15/92 2-3 19.4 10+ 822 

channel calflSh 1762 F-15 07/26/91 01/15/92 2-12 21.2 11+ 478 

B-1 
271 

Species Site FDLIR Date Date Weight Length Age Hg Cone.• 

Code collected analyzed (lb-oz) (in) (yrs) (ng/g) 

--- channel catfish 1762 F-18 07/26/91 01/15/92 2-9 21.1 9+ 632 

channel catfish 1762 F-18 b 07/26/91 01/15/92 2-9 21.1 9+ 593 

channel catfish 1762 F-19 07/26/91. 01/15/92 2-9 19.1 30') 

channel catfish 1762 F-20 07/26/91 01/15/92 1-2 15.9 5+ 287 

channel catfish 1762 F-22 07/26/91 01/15/92 1-3 16.8 367 

channel catfish 1782 G-1 08/01/91 01/11/92 3-4 22.0 10+ 1161 

channel catfish 1782 G-3 08/01/91 01/15/92 1-2 15.9 6+ 363 

channel catfish 1782 G-S 08/01/91 01/11/92 2-1 18.2 9 9(i() 

channel catfish 1782 G-7 08/01/91 01/15/92 3-2 21.0 10 576 

channel catfish 1782 G-7b 08/01/91 01/1S/92 3-2 21.0 10 5S4 

channel catfish 1782 G-8 08/01/91 01/15/92 1-14 17.9 6+ 222 

channel catfish 1782 G-9 08/01/91 01/15/92 2-4 18.5 8 567 

channel catfish 1782 G-10 08/01/91 01/11/92 2-10 19.6 9 500 

channel catfish 1782 G-12 08/01/91 01/15/92 0-13 14.0 6+ . 260 

channel catfish 1782 G-13 08/01/91 01/11/92 0-11 13.9 6 304 

channel catfish 1782 G-13b 08/01/91 01/11/92 0-11 13.9 6 286 

channel catfish 1782 G-14 08/01/91 01/11/92 0-14 15.2 5 339 

channel catfish 1763 H-1 08/03/91 01/11/92 4-9 24.9 10+ 349 

channel catfish 1763 H-2 08/03/91 01/15/92 4-6 23.8 10+ 4n 

channel catfish 1763 H-4 08/03/91 01/11/92 2-1 19.2 9+ 267 

channel catfish 1763 H-5 08/03/91 01/15/92 2-10 20.S 6+ 613 

channel catfish 1763 H-6 08/03/91 01/15/92 1-10 17.7 6+ 430 

channel catfish 1763 H-8 08/03/91 01/15/92 3-0 20.8 9+ 628 

channel catfish 1763 H-9 08/04/91- 0lf}A/92 3-4 21.8 10 485 

channel catfish 1763 H-12 08/03/91 01/15/92 2-1 19.1 9:t- 324 

channel catfish 1763 H-13 08/03/91 01/15/92 3-0 21.2 9+ 6(,() 

channel catfish 1763 H-14 08/03/91 01/11/92 1-2 15.2 8+ 284 

channel catfish 1763 H-14 b 08/03/91 01/11/92 1-2 15.2 8+ 271 

channel catfish 1800 1-l 08/13/91 01/24/92 4-15 24.4 10 993 

channel catfish 1800 1-2 08/13/91 01/24/92 0-13 14.S 6 181 

channel catfish 1802 K-1 08/14/91 01/11/92 1-12 16.1 4+ 196 

channel catfish 1802 K-2 08/14/91 Ol/fl/92 3-2 21.1 8+ 47S 

channel catfish 1610 T-3 08/28/91 01/0&92 0-12 13.1 2 152 

channel catfish 1610 T-5 08/30/91 01/0&92 4.5 22.0 5+ 543 

channel catf1Sh 1610 T-6 08/30/91 01/03/92 4-6 22.2 4 452 

channel catf1Sh 1610 T-6b 08/30/91 01/03/92 4-6 22.2 4 541 

channel.catfish 1610 T-7 08/30/91 01/0&92 2-12 20.0 3 496 

channel catf ash 1610 T-8 08/30/91 01/0&92 1-4 16.0 3 282 

channel catfish 1610 T-9 08/30/9f 01/0&92 S-6 23.7 s 397 

channel catfish 1610 T-10 08/30/91 01/0&92 4-12 23.0 7+ 996 

channel catfish 1610 T-11 08/30/91 01/0&92 3-0 20.2 5 440 

channel catflSh 1610 T-12 08/30/91 01/0&92 4-14 22.4 6 511 

channel catf 1Sh 1610 T-13 08/30/91 01/03/92 4-12 22.8 5 583 

channel catfish 1610 T-14 08/30/91 01/03/92 1-2 15.4 3 256 

channel catfish 1610 T-15 08/30/91 01/0&92 2-2 18.3 s 301 

channel catflSh 1654 U-11. 08/31/91 01/03/92 . 6-3 2S.S 8 1088 

channel catflSh 1710 V-1 08/29/91 · 01/0&92 0-4 10.2 3 332 

channel catflSh 1710 V-1 b OP./J.9/91 01/08/92 0-4 10.2 3 298 

channel catflSh 1710 V-2 08/J.9/91 01/0&92 0-10 14.1 563 

channel catf1Sh 1710 V-3 08/J.9/91 01/08/92 0-4 10.4 45S 

channel catfish 1710 V-4 08/J.9/91 01/0&92 3-4 20.S 1131 

channel catf1Sh 1S90 W-12 08/31/91 01/08/92 3-6 20.4 7 404 

channel catf1Sh 1590 W-13 08/31/91 01/08/92 3-2 21.1 8 858 

B-2 
272 

Sp.ccics Sile FDLIR Date .Date Weight . Length Age Hg Cone.• 

Code collected analyzed (lb-oz) (in) (yrs) (ng/g) 

northern pike 1760 5 10/03/91 12/20/91 3-0 21.6 297 

northern pike 1760 6 10/03/91 12/20/91 0-14 15.8 279 

northern pike 1762 B-4 OM.6/91 12/20/91 1-0 16.9 4 344 

northern pike 1762 B-6 06/26/91 01/03/92 6-13 29.3 8 444 

northern pike 1777 D-1 07/12/91 12/20/91 2-4 21.2 268 

northern pike 1777 D-4 07/12/91 12/2()/1)1 2-4 20.S 5 258 

northern pike 1760 F-3 ~1/90 03/01/91 4-8 25.3 3 314 

· northern pike 1760 F-7 . 08/21/90 03/01/91 1-12 19.S 9 284 

northem pike 1760 f.7b 08/21/90 03/01/91 · 1-12 19.5 9 280 

nonhern pike 1760 F-7 c 08/21/90 03/22J91 1-12 19.5 9 289 

northern pike 1777 F-9 07/31/90 03/22J91 1-0 16.5 3 250 

nonhempike 1777 1-1 08/09/91 01/24/92 3-11 25.2 597 

northern pike 1777 1-2 · 08/09/91 . 01/24/92 3-8 24.7 351 

northern pike 1610 T-4 08/28191 12/2()/1)1 3-0 24.2 425 

northern pike 1610 T-3t 08/30/91 12/20/91 3-7 23.7 377 

northern pike 1610 T-31 b 08/30/91 12/20/91 3-7 23.7 429 

nonhem pike 1610 T-32 08/30/91 12/2()/1)1 3-7 24.1 640 

northern pike 1654 U-12 08/31/91 12/2()/1)1 1-8 20.7 3 211 

nonhempike 1654 U-13 08/31/91 12/2()/1)1 0-9 . 13.7 2 158 

northern pike 1654 U-22 08/31/91 12/2()/1)1 0-13 15.2 2 196 

northern pike 1654 U-22b 08/31/91 12/2()/1)1 0-13 15.2 2 200 

northern pike 1654 U-28 08/30/91 12/2()/1)1 3-0 24.5 4 · 416 

n. rcdhorse suclcer 1m A-4 08/29/90 05/01191 2-8 17.7 6 549 

n. redhorse sudctt 1m A-5 08/29/90 05/01/91 2-8 18.0 6 318 

n. redhorse sucker 1760 A-13 06/25/91 01/11/92 2-0 17.1 718 

n. redhorse sucker 1760 A-14 06/25/91 01/11/92 1-2 13.8 324 

n. redhorse sucker 1760 A-14b 06/25/91 01/11/92 1-2 13.8 304 n. redhorse sucker 1777 B-9 08/29/90 05/01/91 3-0 18.0 6 375 

whitesuckec 1760 A-10 06/25/91 01/11/92 2-6 17.6 312 

white suclcer 1760 A-11 06/25/91 01/11/92 2-8 173 276 

white sucker 1777 C-2 09/28/89 03/22J91 2-0 17.5 s 366 

white sucker 1760 C-7 08/21/90 03/01/91 2-4 173 8 278 

white sucker 1760 C-7 c 08/21/90 03/22J91 2-4 17.3 8 278 

white sucker 1777 D-8 08/25/90 03/15/91 2-0 IS.1 s 204 

white suclccr 1777 E-4 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-12 17.7 5 317 

white suclcer 1m E-5 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-4 13.7 4 124 

white sucker 1m F-8 09/28/89 03/22J91 1-6 14.7 s 299 

roclcbass 17<,0 A-9 06/25/91 01/11/92 0-3 6.0 7 130 

rock bass 1760 A-10 08/21/90 03/01/9i 0-4 7.0 4 161 

roclcbass . 1760 A-tQ< 08/21/90 03/22J91 0-4 7.0 4 138 

roclc bass 1760 A-12 06/25/91 01/11/92 0-12 9.0 9 5()1) 

roclc bass 1m B-3 09/01/90 03/Z}/91 0-12 9.6 5 334 

rock bass 1777 D-9 08/24/90 03/22J91 0-12 9.0 3 608 

rock bass 1m D-10 08/25/90 03/15/91 0-6 7.3 . s 199 

rock bass 1777 E-6 09/01/90 03/22J91 0-12 9.2 6 442 

roclc bass 1777 E-7 09/01/90 03/22J91 1-0 10.6 7 585 

rock bass 1777 E-7b 09/01/90 03/22J91 1-0 10.6 7 568 

rock bass 1777 G-2 08/29/90 05/01/91 0-6 7.3 3 149 

smallmouth bass 1760 8 10/03/91 12/20/91 1-4 12.7 S33 

smallmouth bass 1760 9 10/03/91 12/20/91 1-6 13.8 636 

smallmouth bass 1760 A-1 07/31/90 03/22J91 1-4 12.4 4 219 

smallmouth bass 1m B-1 09/0VJO 03/22J91 1•2 12.3 290 

smallmoulh bass 1777 B-2 07/31/90 03/22J91 1-6 12.6 4 210 

B-3 
273 

Species Sile FDLIR Date Dace Weight Length Age Hg Cone.• 

Code collecced analyzed (lb-oz) (in) (yrs) (ng/g) 

--- smallmouth bass 1777 B-10 08(29/90 05/01/91 0-12 11.0 3 226 smallmouth bass 1777 D-5 07/12/91 01/08/92 0-10 10.2 3 143 

smallmouth bass 1777 D-7 08/25/90 03/15/91 0-10 10.3 3 117 

smallmouch bass 1777 E-2 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-l 12.3 4 300 

smallmouth bass 1777 E-8 08/25/90 03/15/91 0-10 10.5 3 267 

smallmouth bass 1777 F-5 08/29/90 03/22/91 0-10 10.0 3 200 

smaUmoulh bass 1m f.5b 08/29/90 03/22/91 0-10 10.0 3 228 

smaUmoulh bass 1777 F-5 b 08(29/90 03/22/91 0-10 10.0 3 215 

smallmouth bass 1760 F-6 08/21/90 03/01/91 " 1--0 11.8 4 429 

smallmouth bass 1760 F-6 C 08/21/90 03/22/91 1--0 11 .8 4 433 

smallmouth bass 1777 F-10 08/29/90 05/01/91 0-12 10.6 3 136 

smallmouth bass 1777 G-1 08/29/90 03/22/91 0-12 10.7 3 410 

smallmouth bass 1777 G-1 b 08/29/90 03/22/91 0-12 10.7 3 354 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-18 08/30/91 01/08/92 1-11 14.4 526 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-19 08/30/91 Ol/08/92 1-12 15.1 629 

smallmoulh bass 16,0 T-19b 08/30/91 01/08/92 1-12 15.1 619 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-20 08/30/91 Ol/03/92 1-6 13.4 404 

smallmoulh bass 1610 T-21 08/30/91 01/03/92 1-4 13.0 621 

smallmoulh bass 1610 T-22 08/30/91 01/08192 0-11 10.8 246 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-23 08/30/91 01/03/92 1-8 13.7 448 

.smaUmoulh bass 1610 T-24 08/30/91 01/03/92 1-0 12.3 373 

smallmoulh bass 1610 T-25 08!30/91 01/03/92 1-5 13.2 451 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-26 08/30/91 01/03/92 0-11 10.7 174 

smallmoulh bass 1610 T-27 08/30/91 01/03'92 2-4 15.9 662 

smallmoulh bass 1610 T-28 08/30/91 01/03m . 0-14 11.5 280 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-28b 08/30/91 01/03/92 0-14 11.S 276 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-29 08/30/91 01/03/92 0-5 8.2 220 

smallmouth bass 1610 T-30 08/30/91 01/03/92 1--0 11.0 313 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-1 08/28/91 12/lOl)l 1-12 14.6 4 S32 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-2 08/28/91 12/lOl)l 1-14 14.5 758 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-3 08/28/91 12/lOl)l 1-12 13.8 4 408 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-14 08/31/91 12/lOl)l 1-14 14.7 6 774 

smallmouth bass 1654 U-1S 08/31/91 01/03/92 1-3 12.2 5 438 

smallmouth bass 1654 U-16 08/31/91 01/03/92 1-4 12.7 5 338 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-17 08/31/91 01/03/92 0-3 6.4 2 134 

smallinoulh bass 1654 U-18 08/31/91 12/20/91 1--0 12.0 242 

smallmoulh bass 1654 U-19 08/31/91 01/03/92 0-13 11.1 4 264 

smallmouth bass 1654 U-19b 08/31/91 01/03/92 0-13 11.1 4 239 .smallmoulh bass 1654 U-20 08/31/91 01/03/92 1-6 13.2 358 

smallmoulh bass 16S4 U-21 08/31/91 12/20/91 0-14 11.7 4 289 

smallmouth bass 1654 U-2lb 08/31/91 12/20/!H 0-14 ·11.1 4 294 

smallmouth bass 1654 U-27 08/30/91 12/lOl)l 1-4 12.S 4 321 

smallmouth bass 1590 W-14 08/31/91 0l/08192 0-13 10.5 268 

walleye 1760 1 10/03/91 11/27/91 1-14 17.0 3 403 

walleye 1760 2 10/03/91 11/27/91 1-14 17.2 3 493 

walleye 1760 3 10/03/91 11/27/91 2-4 "18.7 4 609 

walleye 1760 4 10/03/91 11/27/91 0-12 13.2 3 505 

walleye 1760 4b 10/03/91 11/27/91 0-12 13.2 3 545 

walleye 1760 A-1 06/25/91 11/27/91 0-9 12.1 2+ 274 

walleye 1762 B-1 06/26/91 11/27/91 0-8 11.9 3 362 

walleye 1762 B-2 06/26/91 11/27/91 0-6 11.0 2 589 

walleye 1762 B-3 06/26/91 11/27/91 0-8 12.1 5 3S3 .walleye 1760 B-4 08/21/90 03/01/91 0-14 13.9 4 204 

walleye 1760 B-4 b 08/21/90 03/01/91 0-14 13.9 4 216 . walleye 1760 B-4< 08/21/90 03/22/91 0-14 13.9 4 237 

walleye 1777 B--S 07/31/90 03/22/91 0-7 11.4 2 274 

B-4 
274 

Species Site FDLIR Date Date Weight Length Age Hg·conc.• 

Code collected analyzed (lb-oz) (in) (yrs) (ng/g) 

walleye 1777 D-2 07/12/91 I lfl.1/91 0-9 12.2 4 272 

walleye 1777 D-3 07/12/91 llfl.1/91 0-8 11.2 3 305 

walleye 1777 D-3 b 07/12/91 I lfl.1/91 0-8 11.2 3 333 

walleye 1777 D-5 08124/90 03/22/91 1-6 15.1 3 303 

walleye 1777 E-1 08/25/90 03/15/91 1-0 14.3 3 285 

walleye 1m F•l 07/31/90 03/22/91 0-12 13.2 3 348 

walleye 1m F•l b 07/31/90 03/22/91 0-12 13.2 3 365 

walleye 1610 T-1 08/28191 10/29/91 0-5 10.2 2+ 278 

walleye 1610 T•l b 08/28/91 1()/29/91 0-5 10.2 2+ 268 

walleye 1610 T-2 08/29/91 10/29/91 0-5 11.0 2 349 

walleye 1610 T-16 08/30/91 10/29/91 0-6 10.8 2 136 

walleye 1610 T-17 08/30/91 10/29/91 0-10 12.4 2 412 

walleye 1654 U4 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-6 10.6 . 3 150 

walleye · 1654 U-5 08/28/91 IOl29/91 0-10 12.3 3 . 203 

walleye 1654 U-6 08/28/91 10/29/91 1-0 15.4 4 465 

walleye 1654 U-7 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-9 12.0 2 230 

walleye 1654 U-8 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-9 · 11.9 3 291 

walleye 1654 U-9 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-13 13.5 2 358 

walleye 1654 U-10 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-8 12.3 3 211 

walleye 1654 U-1~ 08/28/91 10/29/91 0-8 12.3 3 240 

walleye 1654 U-23 08/31/91 10/29/91 0-10 12.2 3 163 

walleye 1654 U-24 08/31/91 10/29/91 0-12 13.S 3 488 

walleye 1654 U-25 08/31/91 10/29/91 0-9 12.3 2 198 

walleye 1654 U-26 08/31/91 10/29/91 0-8 11.9 2 188 

walleye 1590 W-1 08/31/91 11/21/91 1-0 14.S 3+ 641 

walleye 1590 W-2 08/31/91 11/21/91 0-14 14.2 3 540 

walleye 1590 W-3 08/31/91 11/21/91 1-14 17.5 4 S66 

walleye 1590 W4 08/31/91 11/21/91 2-5 18.8 4 864 

walleye 1590 W-5 08/31/91 11/21/91 1-14 17.8 3 780 

walleye 1590 W.fJ 08/31/91 11/21/91 1-2 IS.I 3+ 654 

walleye 1590 W-6b 08/31/91 11/21/91 1-2 IS.I 3+ 648 

walleye 1590 W-7 08/31/91 11/27/91 1-6 14.9 3 727 

walleye 1590 W-8 08/31/91 11/27/91 0-9 12.2 3 443 

walleye 1590 W-9 08/31/91 11/27/91 3-13 21.3 6 1486 

walleye 1S90 W-10 08/31/91 11/27/91 0-12 13.S 3 411 

walleye 1590 W-lOb 08/31/91 11/27/91 0-12 13.5 3 416 

walleye 1S90 W,11 08/31/91 11/27/91 3.7 20.S 6 1120 

walleye 1590 W-11 b 08/31/91 11/27/91 3-7 20.S 6 1164 

• Advisory Ca!egories of Minneso1a Heallh Dcputment : 

caiegory 1: less than 160 ppb noratriclion 

category 2: 160 ID 660 ppb one meal per week 

category 3: parer thin 660 ppb one meal per 1110111h excepc for high risk individuals -

eat none for bRlst feeding and pregnant women, women who may become pregnant in 

the next several yeas. and children under age six. 

bDuplicate analysis from same fillet. 

CReplicale analysis using different fillet from same fish. 

B-S 
275 

Appendix C 

Mercury in Water, Zooplankton, and Sediment 

Sile Name Collection Wa,a Plankton Sediment 

I.D. # Date Hg Cone. Hg Cone.• Density" %Ware, H• Cone.• lne/e\ 

Year (ng/L) (ppb) (mg/m3) Content Wet< Dry' Dav 

StLR at ChambClS Grove 10/'2691 < 1 t 0.1 

1590 lO!Ur,"Jl < 1 4260t (4050)t 0.4 

6/22/92 3 < 134 4.7 "1??/0? 3 1361145) 7.8 

Fond du Lac Reservoir 10/26191 2 217 6.8 

1610 10/26/91 2 228 5.4 

6122192 1 < 78.3 17.1 "1??/0? 3 342 4.7 

Forbaylake 6122192 2 152 12.4 

1651 ,:no,02 9 273 15.5 

Thomson Rescnoir 10/2£,'91 2 t 0.3 

1654 10/26/91 2(2) 2930 . 10.8 

6/22/92 2 289 65.9 lir]'}JO'l 3 201 62.0 

SILR above Scanlon Dam 10/26/91 3 808 6.1 

1710 IO!Ur,"JI 3 860 1.4 

6/22/92 . 3 636 10.8 un_m_ 2 626 54.3 

StLR Cloquet at Hwy 33 ~~ 4 784 3.1 

1740 3 103 4.7 

White Pinc R. at mouth 10/31/91 <2 35.3 (49.7) 16.8 (25.8) 14.7 (23.5) 

1762 Ul/:31191 <2 

SILR at Hwy 2 10/31/91 <2 45.4 49.0 42.7 

1775 10131/91 <2 

SILR at Hwy 31 10/31/91 <2 58.6 56.5 59.0 (62.8) 

1780 10/31/91 6 

6/30/92 3 318 6.2 MUl/0? 5 < 48.2 6.2 

StLR above Brookston 10/31/91 47.3 24.7 29.5 

1800 

StLR at Gowan 6/29/92 6 77.9 41.9 

1820 6/19/92 4 < 385 1.5 

StLR at Hwy 29 10/31/91 <2 25.8 29.7 (29.2) 18.6 

1860 10/31/91 <3 27.0 39.8 (28.4) 29.4 

10/31/91 <2 

~~ < 1 95.8 12.4 

4 2112 3,1 

Midway R., Thomson Res 10/31/91 <2 34.6 86.6 72.4 

2280 10/1J/lll <2 

Cloquet R. below Hwy 7 10/31/91 <2 39.S 25.2 26.8 

2432 10/31/91 <2 (<2) 24.2 15.4 14.9 

10/31/91 <2 

6/30/92 5(4) 312 1.5 

6110/92 3 124 9.3 

S10ncy Brook at Hwy 31 10/31/91 5 35.4 21.6 25.1 

2710 10/31/91 4 

C-1 
276 

Site Name Collection w- Plankton Sediment 

I.D. # Dare HgConc. Hg Cone.• Density'> t.W~ ff• Cone.• In•'•' 

Yea- I Dav (n•t1.l (...,t,\ (m2/m3) Content Wef Orv< 

Artichoke R. at Hwy 3 10/31/91 <2(<2) 79.4 96:8 114 

2720 10/31191 <2 

Big Savama R. 11 Hwy 2 10/31/91 4 

2830 10/31/91 4 

Floodwood R.11 Hwy 2 10/31/91 <2 33.6 47.4 19.3 

284-0 (0/31191 <2 

Whiteface R. at Hwy 226 6/29/92 4 127 20.1 43.1 16.8 19.0(20.2) 

2850 (,rJ_9m 7 84.4 26.4 

aconccnll'llions are expressed on a dry weight basis. Multiple values reponed far the- dale are field rq,licales. Values 

given in paientheses are laboratory duplicalCS. bptanlcton dry weight density. in the water column. 

•sediments wue analyzed both we1 and dry, all values but rcponm on dry weight basis. 

t Value is either unuseable (not reported) or has high uncertainty due to small mass of zooplankton collected. 

C-2 
'1:17 

Fond du Lac Reservation 

Natural Resource Program 105 University Road 

Cloquet, MN 55720 

(218) 879-4593 ext.62 

TO: u.s Environmental Protection Agency 

Great Lakes National Program Office 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, IL 60604 

FROM: Larry Schwarzkopf 

Program Manager Fond du Lac Natural Resource Program 

DATE: December 8, 1992 

RE: Demonstration Project for Sediment Contaminant 

Mitigation 

The Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program in 

cooperation with the University of Minnesota-Duluth, the 

University of Wisconsin-Superior, and the Environmental 

Research Laboratory-Duluth proposes the Demonstration 

Project for the Sediment Contaminant Mitigation to the Great 

Lakes National Program Office. 

The st. Louis River and Lake Superior continues to be an important aquatic resource of the Fond du Lac Band of 

Lake Superior Chippewa. The continuing problem of toxic 

contaminants which prevents the safe consumption by our band 

members and the general public needs to be addressed. We 

have conducted cooperative research with UMD and the 

EPA/ERL-Duluth to quantify mercury concentrations in the 

fish, plankton, sediments, and water on the st. Louis River 

watershed. In addition to our current proposal we are 

mailing a copy of our September 1992 report, Mercury concentrations in Fish. Plankton. and water from the st. 

Louis River Watershed Including Reseryoir Lakes. In order 

to remedy this situation we feel that research is needed to 

find an efficient means to remediate the toxic sediments to 

prevent uptake of mercury into the aquatic food chain. This 

innovative approach to remediating toxic sediments could be 

replicated in similar situations in other Areas of concern in the Great Lakes. 
1 

278 

12-8-92 

Demonstration Project Proposal for Sediment Contaminant Mlligatlon 

Princ_iple investigators: Universily of ~~esola -Duluth. J. Sorensen 2~8-525-7423 

· and q : Rapp, Jr., and · 

Fond du Lac Indian Reservali.011 - l.. Schwarzkopf 

The objecti,c of ibis proposed project is to clemonserate and enluate the effectiveness 

and applicability of ,arious metbods of redllcing eediment contaminant caused residue leYels 

in fish llld odler biota. Thia WIidt will be caaied out wiehia a sedes of enclosed arus al one 

or more known sediment CX)DfJJmfnatecf idtes In the St Louis RIYer and Estuaiy located in high 

,alue habitat areas and/or near slmlm inputs. 

Sediments that have accumulated behind the reservoir clams contain high amounts of 

various coalamiDaDts as a result <IC past indualrial practices/disclwges wilhiu the SL Louis 

Ri,cr w~tershed. Figure I shows mercwy conce.ntnti<>!IS as a flUICtiOG of depth in a sediment: 

t9rc talten .from the Thomson ReaerYoir .where ·the 300 .. cm total ',()IC depth represents a 

sedimenl accumul~tion since 1907. The large peak represents ·· niercwy impacts dwing lhe 

l950's and early l960's. 

Although. contaminant .conceutlalioas in aediment are significant, other coalaminant 

90lll'CeS must also be.considered. A comparilCXl of mercwy in water concentralions for 

nrious locations along lhe SL Louis Rinr Estuary and &ribularies (Figure 2) reveals the 

existence of watershed mercwy sources. In addition, mercwy oonccntrations in fish as a 

function of location (Figure 3) re,ads mcrcuzy malerninatioil pioblems from known 

aecimeatbotspou. 

The mclosed areas would be recwigular (20ft x 40ft). bordered with walla of snow 

fencing co,ered with reinforced plastic meeting on three sides and nalUr.11 shoreline 011 the 

fourth side. Bach enclosed area wonld COllfine (or be stocked with) local benthic eating 

young fish at the start of the field eeaaoa and analyzed (along with other biota) al the start. 

midcDe. and end of the field season for condition, growth. and le,els of contaminants such as 

PCBs, PAHs, memay, and other factcn wbm appropriate. The effecliveuas of each 

mitigatiYe tall will be detcnnined by comperiag filh condition and contaminant 

cancenlnii-in treated ff mrtreated mc:lmed - (m additioa to fllh from adjacent areas· 

outside thQ ead.oaed ->- Each Rlidue nmclion method being telted wwld be nm in 

duplicate, and therefore a block of 6 adjacent enclosed areas. (4 treatments and 2 controls) 

will accommodate 2 simullallenus test conditions. 

The mitigation strategies selected for demonstration must be cost effective . and . 

~cticabl~ to. iniplemenL Am.Olig mitigation, "1111egif:S .to.·.be.dem~, , ~ .l)- Kdi111~_; 

wrf~-:~~on bairiira such:• coieniig•ei!climeiiii wit!i' crt:an·or c1~ea'.c!lm~ts -r~ 

the same water body, 2) addition of contaminant bindfng·sobstrates. such as solid pellet 

absorbants, encapsulatom, or mesh of ~ar pn,pertillS. and 3) in-place treatment to remove 

surface sediment fractions (e.g. organic; carbon) that arc : highest in contaminants. B~cause 

some lelllS (e.g. sediment covering) may mitigate some contaminants more effectively th.'ID 

othm, simultaneous measurements ~d assessments regarding PCBs, PAHs, and mercury 

would also be made when applicable. 
279 

2 12-8-92 

Shoreline enclosed areas like those described above are currently being used in 

Minnesota by the University of Minnesota-Duluth researchers as a tool for mercury 

mitigation studies on Crane/Sand Point Lakes and at Indian Point on the SL Louis River. 

Another UMD project is also working on sediment contaminant processing techniques that 

would be demomtrated in the enclosed areaa on the SL Louis Rivcc Estuary. 

Thia proposed project would be a joint effort conduct.ed by ltafl' al the Univenity of 

MinnesoCa-Duluth and the Food du Lac Natinl Resources Department and Commuoity 

C.ollege and is estimated to cost $175,000 for Year 1 and $125,000 for Yea- 2 to demODlllrate 

and assess the three treatment strategies that are judged to be the most cost effective and 

practicable. 

2000 

1510 

1000 

soo 

0 

Core Deptb, an 

Figure 1. Mercury concentrations (dry weight basis) at various depths in a sediment 

core taken rrom the Thomson Reservoir in 1992 (J. Sorensen, unpublished data: do not 

cite, copy, or quote). 
3 

15 

10 

5 

0 

280 

nearWLSSD 

(• 15 • cfL ) 

Klnpburr~ 

Inlet to Pokegama Bay 

/ 

12-8-92 

Ullle Pokegama River 

/ 

_011nr 

SI~ Going Upstream ror the Lower SL Louis Rlnr 

Figure 2. Mercwy concentrnlioas in waler ns a funclion of sampling sites going upstream 

for the lower SL Louis Ri•er. Grey bars reprcscul SL Louis Ri•er samples while black bars 

represent tributaries lo the SL Louis Ri•er (J. Soremen, unpublished data: do not cite, 

copy, or quote). 
4 

281 

12-8,-92 

p 800 Pt 

Pt 

' 

~ 700 

! 600 

1:1 

u 

(JI 500 cr, 

.a 

A 400 

-3 

e 300 

ti 

l:I 

0 200 

0 

~ 100 

~ ti 

:r:: 0 

i i ae = = 'ii' 

e ll4 ll4 ! 

0 -c " ... .. = .., ~ ~ 0 0 t! ,-1 ... .. .. .. e 

-= .. .. IC ... fq JI, ,., 

J l 0 t -1 ! ,-1 .. ~ 

u 0 " "' :. 

.!l 

~ 

Figure 3. Mercury concentrations in 39 cm walleye within the SL Louis River 

Watershed. Calculated from 1991 data (Sorensen et al.; FDL report, 1992). 
282 

Memorandum 

To: David Cowgill, EPA - Great Lakes National Program 

Office, Chicago 

From: Larry Schwarzkopf, Fond du Lac Natural Resource 

Manager 

Date: January 28,1993 

Re: Demonstration Project for sediment contaminant 

Mitigation 

The Fund du Lac Natural Resource Program in cooperation with 

the University of Minnesota-Duluth has submitted the 

proposal, Demonstration Project for sediment contaminant 

Mitigation, to the Great Lakes National Program Office of 

the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of the original 

proposal is attached. At this time I would like to propose some modifications of our original study design that would 

focus our objectives and provide a more efficient study. The original proposal would investigate on site methods to 

remediate contaminated sediments on the st. Louis River 

reservoirs and estuary. The basic objectives would remain, 

however we would concentrate our efforts on mercury and PCB, 

and would test only for some specific PAH's and organic 

compounds, such as pyrane, anthracene, flouranthene, and biphenyl. A means to decrease the cost of PCB analysis is 

also being considered to decrease the study budget. 

The project could be designed as a three year study, which 

would give us an additional sampling season to analyze biotic uptake of contaminants, and additional mitigation 

strategies could be tested with the same number of 

enclosures • . Another benefit of this change is that it would 

allow time to test alternative binding agents. We are planning to conduct a computer search for additional binding 

compounds which would have similar properties for binding 

mercury or PCB (ie. QSAR Model). Promising compounds will 

be tested in the enclosures for their effectiveness in 

binding contaminants. 

The three mitigation strategies mentioned in the attached 

original proposal would remain basically the same. There was a comment regarding the third strategy, as to whether it 

would involve dredging. This is stated in the proposal as: "3) in-place treatment to remove surface sediment fractions 

(e.g. organic carbon) that are highest in contaminants." 

The method would involve new techniques and equipment that 

is currently being developed to remove fine particulates 

and/or organic fractions, which are commonly associated with 

mercury and PCB. After the highly contaminated fractions 
283 

are removed or treated the cleaner sediments could be 

returned to the site. Sediment removal with specialized 

equipment to minimize resuspension of toxic sediments has 

already been developed, and could be incorporated into this new technology when full-scale remediation is implemented. 

This would prevent the resuspension of sediments that is 

associated with the typical means of dredging. 

The first strategy mentioned in the report would involve 

testing treated particles and mesh which would bind the 

contaminants. These binding agents and their carrier could 

be left in place or could be removed after they have become a toxic sync. The use of a polymer mesh may be useful in 

stabilizing sediments in areas which would otherwise be 

scoured by river currents. 

Another approach which might prevent biotic uptake would be 

to inject binding agents into the deeper sediments. In many areas these underlying sediments have higher levels of 

contaminants then the overlying sediments of Lecent origin. The data on mercury levels of fish from these areas show 

that active biotic uptake is still occurring. I am mailing a copy of our October 1992 report, Mercury Concentrations in 

Fish. Plankton. and water from the st. Louis River watershed 

Including the Reservoir Lakes. This report clearly shows 

the incr_eased levels of mercury in fish from areas where 

high levels of mercury in the sediments remain or other 

factors are contributing to increased mercury methylization. 

The original cost estimates for the study could be scaled 

down, and we would request that recommendations on total or yearly project grant levels be provided to us. If you have 

any additional questions regarding this proposal please 

contact me at (218-879-4593), or John Sorenson at (218-525-

7423). 

0 
ISBN 0-16-040916-0 

90000