1

Consolidated Comments from February Consultation Calls and National Tribal Air 

Association (NTAA) Webinars: Clarifying Tribal Participation in the TRI Program

February 7, 2011 Consultation Call (Participant list contained in separate file)

February 28, 2011 Consultation Call (Participant list contained in separate file)

March 17, 2011 NTAA webinar (Participant list contained in separate file)

(Over 40 participants, 25 logged in to GoTo Meeting, others followed slides due to exceeded 

capacity. Participant list provided by NTAA.

March 30, 2011 NTAA Webinar (Participant list contained in separate file)

(NTAA requested a second webinar due to the overwhelming interest in the first webinar. Ten 

tribes expressed interest in a second webinar. Three tribal representatives actually participated, 

representing the following tribes: Ft Belknap Indian Reservation (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine 

Tribes), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Montana), and Southern Ute Tribe.

Blog Comments: Blog open for comment through March 31, 2011

General Comments

One of the participants asked what is meant by “Indian country” and “tribal lands?” EPA 

explained that “Indian country” was being used as defined in the US Code (18USC1151). The 

commenter explained that tribal lands and Indian country are not interchangeable and asked how 

ceded lands or checker boarded areas would be treated (3.17.11 NTAA webinar).

One commenter from the Alaska Big Village Network explained that the Red Dog mine has a lot 

of impact on Alaska native people, even though it is not within Indian country. Another 

commenter also representing Alaska Big Village Network and a member of the Yupik Tribe,

commented on the situation for TRI reporting in Alaska and expressed concern over the amount 

of toxics in people’s food, fish and wildlife from bioaccumulation of these chemicals. One 

commenter from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma stated that what is of interest to tribes and 

would be of interest would be those facilities NOT covered by the TRI Program (3.17.11 NTAA 

webinar).
2

A commenter from the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin asked the following question: What about the 

Exchange Network? Isn’t it aimed at two-way data flows? TRI is a one-way data flow. How 

would tribes participate in the EN? EPA staff mentioned that the TRI Program is the lead on the 

TRI Data Exchange and would be better able to answer those questions, but noted that there will 

soon be the ability to choose either a more streamlined, initial method of electronic reporting 

(without full EN infrastructure) or the traditional EN development for those interested in flowing 

other media data and receiving TRI data. EPA mentioned that the TRI Program would be 

working with EPA Regions and Tribes, if the rule is finalized, to discuss options available to 

tribes for electronic receipt of data from facilities (3.17.11 NTAA webinar).

A representative of the Seminole Tribe asked if EPA had worked with some of the tribal 

consortia to present this information. EPA has briefed the National Congress of American 

Indians and worked with Regional Indian program coordinators. EPA mentioned that Institute 

for Tribal Environmental Professionals is another group to contact. The commenter from the 

Seminole Tribe mentioned that the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) is a good group to 

work with. (There is currently a USET meeting in Arlington, VA). EPA did e-mail the 

consultation package to USET and discussed the upcoming consultation with a, USET

representative, in late January 2011.

Tribal Government’s Responsibility to Receive TRI Facility Information (Facility 

Reporting)

One commenter from, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, commented that “facilities 

that may affect the tribe,” should also be required to report to the tribe, not just those facilities in 

Indian country (3.17.11 NTAA webinar).

Two commenters (from Northern Cheyenne Tribe and Ft Belknap Indian Reservation (Gros 

Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes) mentioned that it would be preferable if TRI reports could be 

submitted to the tribal leader (chairperson or equivalent) with a copy to the Tribal Environmental 

Director. There were questions as to the feasibility of two contacts for report submittals and 

(internally) as to how this would work with electronic reporting (3.30.11 NTAA webinar)
3

EPA Region 5 inquired as to whether facilities located in ceded territories would be required to 

report to the tribe. EPA responded by stating the facility would be required to report to the tribe 

and EPA if the facility is located on land that meets the definition of Indian country, as stated in

US Code (18USC1151). Using TRI tools, Tribes can search for or locate facilities outside of 

Indian country, but of tribal interest (e.g., within their known ceded territories and/or areas for 

which they have retained treaty rights). (2.7.11 Consultation Call)

One commenter from the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, inquired as to whether only facilities 

located in Indian country would be required to report to the Tribe and EPA. EPA’s current 

proposal for facility reporting would only impact those facilities located in Indian country. Yes. 

Approx. 51 facilities operating in Indian country right now (2.28.11 Consultation Call). 

One commenter from the Winnebago Tribe also stated that each tribe is a little bit different. The 

level of tribal council involvement is different, so it’s difficult to know which organization each 

tribe will designate to receive TRI information. (2.28.11 Consultation Call)

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe supports this addition of a Tribal point of contact for both 

facilities and EPA for report submissions. The Tribal Emergency Response Committee 

potentially will appoint Leech Lake’s point of contact. (Posted on blog by Brandy Toft, Leech 

Lake Band of Ojibwe, March 30, 2011 at 8:20 pm)

It was good that EPA held a call for Tribal personnel that missed the 2 calls previously in Feb. It 

is good that you are going to include tribes in this, but I believe that until they find/get a point of 

contact, that they send the information to the President of our Tribe and also the Environmental 

Director until said person is appointed. (Posted on blog by Kermit Snow, Ft Belknap Indian 

Reservation (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes), March 31, 2011 at 9:44 pm),

Opportunities for tribal leaders to Request EPA Administrator add a Facility to the TRI 

One commenter from the Santee Sioux Nation stated that this was not really a consultation call 

as elected officials were not participating. EPA explained that tribal leaders were notified by 
4

mail of two scheduled consultation calls held in February 2011. This webinar was held at the 

request of NTAA, and in the interest of providing information to tribal representatives who were 

interested in learning more about EPA’s current considerations with respect to this proposal and 

having an opportunity to provide feedback (3.17.11 NTAA webinar).

One commenter from the Santee Sioux Nation asked if the tribal chair could designate another 

individual to petition the Administrator in place of him/her. A commenter from the Southern Ute 

Tribe asked who would determine thresholds for facility reporting. EPA explained that the 

reporting thresholds have already been determined and are in the regulation (3.17.11 NTAA 

webinar).

A commenter from the Ft Belknap Indian Reservation (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes) 

agreed with EPA’s current proposal and felt that tribes should be treated equally to states in the 

TRI Program. A commenter from the Southern Ute Tribe also agreed with EPA’s current 

proposal (3.30.11 NTAA webinar).

One commenter asked whether the opportunity to petition would apply to a facility that is in 

close proximity but not on tribal land. (2.7.11 Consultation Call)

A commenter from the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, inquired as to whether EPA would 

consider a recommendation from a tribe that has a concern about a facility located outside Indian 

country boundaries, even if it has direct impacts on tribal lands. EPA indicated that this comment 

would be considered in development of the proposed rule and added that currently, anyone has 

the right as a citizen to contact EPA and express concern about a facility. (2.28.11 Consultation 

Call).

One commenter from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa agrees with being able to 

add chemicals, and being able to add facilities. The commenter also agreed with the previous 

commenters regarding the importance of the ability to express concerns about facilities located 

outside Indian country. The same commenter stated that it is important to have an opportunity to 
5

voice concerns and add facilities/chemicals, but also thought it was important to be able to 

express concern about facilities that are more than 10 miles away, especially if they’re upstream 

from tribal lands. This commenter stated that it is good that we can add chemicals regardless of 

location, but wanted EPA to also keep in mind that in addition to land within tribal boundaries, 

many tribes also have ceded territories (2.28.11 Consultation Call). Also cross-referenced under 

“Opportunities for Leader to Petition to Add Chemical(s) to the TRI”

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe supports the provision for the Tribal Chairperson, as equivelent 

to State Governors, to apply TRI reporting requirments to a facility (ies) located in Indian 

Country. (Posted on blog by Brandy Toft, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, arch 30, 2011 at 5:22 

pm)

Opportunities for leaders to Petition EPA’s Administrator to add/delete a chemical from 

the TRI

A commenter from the Southern Ute Tribe asked whether the chemical had to be released on the 

reservation for a tribe to request it be added to TRI. EPA explained that a tribal leader could 

petition to add any chemical of concern, regardless of its release location. A commenter from 

the Northern Cheyenne Tribe explained that coal bed methane is of concern because the 

extraction process often has detrimental impacts to streams and other water sources. Is coal bed 

methane (extraction process) covered under the TRI Program? EPA explained that there are 

sectors, such as coal bed methane, that are not covered under the TRI Program, however a tribe’s 

concerns /questions could always be relayed to EPA (3.30.11 NTAA webinar).

One commenter from the Southern Ute Tribe asked whether all chemicals had the same reporting 

threshold. EPA explained that there are different thresholds depending on whether the facility is 

manufacturing, processing or otherwise using the chemical. There are also much lower 

thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs). The same commenter also 

asked what occurred if a facility released more than the required thresholds. EPA explained that 
6

the thresholds aren’t a maximum, but rather a minimum threshold to require reporting for 

facilities releasing these toxic chemicals (3.30.11 NTAA webinar).

A commenter from the Ft Belknap Indian Reservation (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes) 

asked how the thresholds applied to Oil and Gas Exploration. EPA explained that oil and gas 

exploration are not currently covered under the TRI Program. One commenter explained that 

there are coal-fired power plants north of the Northern Cheyenne reservation. The tribe has 

started wet deposition monitoring on the reservation because the power plants release mercury. 

The same commenter asked whether there was a way to find out about off reservation facilities 

of interest. EPA explained that the TRI.NET tool provides the ability for tribes to see which 

facilities are specific distances from a point location even if it is not actually on the reservation 

(3.30.11 NTAA webinar).

A commenter from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, agreed with being able to 

add chemicals, and being able to add facilities. The commenter also believed that the comment

[regarding expressing concerns about facilities located outside Indian country] is important. The 

commenter stated that it is important to have an opportunity to voice concerns and add 

facilities/chemicals, but also believes it’s important to be able to express concern about facilities 

that are more than 10 miles away, especially if they’re upstream from tribal lands. The 

commenter also stated that it is good that we can add chemicals regardless of location, but 

wanted EPA to also keep in mind that in addition to land within our tribal boundaries, many 

tribes also have ceded territories (2.28.11 Consultation Call). Also cross-referenced under 

“Opportunities for Leaders to Request to Add a Facility to the TRI”

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe does support Option #1 setting the Tribal Chairperson to 

officially petition EPA, in the same manner as State Govenors, to add a chemical(s) to the list of 

chemicals covered by the TRI. (Posted on blog by Brandy Toft, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, 

March 30, 2011: 5:22 pm)
7

Electronic Submittal of TRI facility reports to tribes

One commenter from the Cherokee Nation noted that there are several Memoranda of 

Agreement (MOAs) between different states and departments and inquired as to whether EPA 

would do something similar with Tribes if this rule goes through. EPA explained that that is one 

of the things that will be addressed in the proposed rule. EPA is currently considering if we 

bring tribes into this reporting, how we might adjust the TRI state data exchange network so that 

tribes can participate in the same way that states do. (2.7.11 Consultation Call)

Tribal Coordination with the TRI Program

A commenter from the Winnebago Tribe liked the idea of the tribal environmental department 

being on the TRI bimonthly call. (2.28.11 Consultation Call)

A commenter from the Ft Belknap Indian Reservation (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes), 

stated that he thought this was a good idea. In some cases, he has attended calls/meetings if 

delegated by the current representative (3.30.11 NTAA webinar).

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe supports the provision for the Tribal Chairperson to appoint a 

designee to participate on the TRI Coordinators Calls and to receive the TRI reports. This will be 

beneficial information for the Tribe’s Emergency Response Committee. (Posted on blog by 

Brandy Toft, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, March 30, 2011 at 8:11 pm).

State Access to TRI Reports for Facilities Located in Indian country

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe wholly supports the notification and receipt TRI Data Exchange 

report(s) in Indian Country. (Posted on blog by Brandy Toft, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, March 

30, 2011 at 8:31 pm)