OPA

A plan for the distribution and use, of more than $9 million awarded by the Indian Claims Commission to the Lake Superior and Mississippi Bands of Chippewa Indians fs being published in the Federal Register, the Bureau of Indian Affairs announced today. The award is additional compensation for land in Wisconsin and Minnesota ceded by the Indians in 1837 and 1847.

According to the plan, approved by Congress and made effective February 1, Indians from 14 reservation groups in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan will share in the award. They are descendants of the Lake Superior and Mississippi Chippewas involved in the 1837 and 1847 treaties.

Division of the award among the various beneficiary groups will be based on a historic population formula, using census and annuity rolls for the period 1937 to 1941.

The reservation groups that have adopted plans for the use of their shares will distribute 80 percent to individuals on a per capita basis. The remaining 20 percent will be invested and programmed for tribal and community purposes.

The shares of those groups that have not adopted a utilization plan will be held and invested by the Secretary of the Interior until proposals are adopted.

Interior Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard has announced that public hearings will be held at seven locations between March 28 and April 13 on proposed formulas for distributing Johnson-O'Malley Act funding to schools serving Indian students.

Six alternative proposed formulas were published in the Federal Register March 9 for review and comment. The formulas will be revised according to comments received by May 1 and submitted to a vote of the tribes. The formula chosen by the tribal vote will be published as a final rule.

The 1978 Education Amendments Act (P.L. 95-561) requires that the distribution formula be established as a regulation in this manner.

The Johnson-O'Malley funds are used to provide supplemental programs for Indian students in public schools and other non-Federal education programs. In fiscal year 1979 the appropriation for this purpose, serving approximately 171,000 students, was $31,675 1 000.

The current distribution formula is based on the number of eligible Indian students for whom funds are sought, multiplied by a national average per-pupil expenditure and a weighting factor which is intended to take into account the differences in education costs among the states.

The public hearings will be held in Anchorage, Alaska, March 28-29; Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 29; Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 6-7; Sulphur, Oklahoma, April 9-10; Fort Hall, Idaho, April 6-7; San Diego, California, April 9-10; and Nashville, Tennessee, April 12-13.

For additional information contact Judith Zundel, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; 18th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240 (202 343-4576).

Written comments on the proposed formulas should be sent to the above address for the attention of Deputy Assistant Secretary Rick Lavis.

Anson A. Baker, an enrolled member of the Mandan-Hidatsa Tribe, has been appointed Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Billings, Montana Area Office, Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs Forrest J. Gerard announced today. The appointment was effective April 8, 1979.

Baker has been Superintendent of the Blackfeet Agency at Browning, Montana since 1976.

The Billings Area includes the seven reservations in Montana and the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. James Canan, who was the Billings Director since 1962, is now Field Project Manager for the BIA's Management Improvement Project.

Baker, 51, has also served as the Superintendents at the Fort Peck, Crow Agencies in Montana and the Fort Berthold Agency in North Dakota.

He began his career with BIA in 1951 as a property and supply clerk in the Aberdeen, South Dakota, Area Office. He later worked at the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Agencies in South Dakota and the Fort Belknap Agency in Montana. His first assignment as an agency superintendent was in 1967.

Zane O. Browning, a Chickasaw Indian, has been named Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Agency at Ardmore, Oklahoma, Interior Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard announced today.

Browning has been Program Analysis Officer in the BlA's Muskogee Area Office.

The 43-year-old Haskell Indian School alumnus has worked for the Bureau since 1955. He studied Business and Public Administration at Oklahoma State and Oklahoma University. He also completed the Interior's Departmental Management Training Program.

Browning's first BIA job was at Sequoyah School in Oklahoma. He has since worked in various administrative positions in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has appointed Bernard W. Topash as the field representative for the Siletz Indian Tribe, Interior Assistant Secretary Forrest Gerard announced today.

The position is a newly created office to serve the Oregon Indians who were accorded federally-recognized tribal status by legislation passed November 18, 1977.

Topash, a Snohomish and Potawatomi Indian, has been Administrative Manager of the BIA's Fort Hall Agency in Idaho.

A 41-year-old veteran of the Marine Corps, Topash began his career with He has held increasingly responsible jobs in the Bureau in 1962. Montana, Washington, Minnesota and Idaho.

He is an alumnus of the University of Portland, where he studied Business Administration.

Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus said today that Burnett Construction Company of Durango, Colo., has been awarded a $4.5 million contract by the Bureau of Reclamation for construction of 40 miles of collector drains on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project near Farmington, N.M.

The contract is for work on the 10,000-acre Block No.2 of the 110,000- acre project.

When the Navajo Irrigation Project is complete, it should provide more than 6,550 farm-oriented and related jobs and an improved standard of living for more than 33,000 Navajo Indians, Commissioner of Reclamation R. Keith Higginson said.

Burnett's contract covers the construction and installation of drainage inlets, road crossings and inclined drops, as well as excavation of nearly 1 million cubic yards of soil. The Bureau engineer's estimate for the project was $3,886,920.

Interior Secretary Cecil ·D. Andrus said today that the proposed Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will provide a more orderly process for deciding which Federal land will be developed and which will be protected as wilderness.

Andrus said the current Federal organization makes it difficult to assemble and fully analyze the information choices available.

"Until we have the organizational framework to assemble this data, to analyze this data, and to propose comprehensive policies and programs based on these find­ings, we will continue to literally wander through the wilderness, our fate left to uncoordinated decisions based sometimes on fact and sometimes on emotion, but lacking relevance to the total needs of man, society and nature," Andrus said in remarks prepared for the Wilderness Resource Distinguished Lecture Series at the University of Idaho in Moscow.

The proposed Department would consist of all agencies now in the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service which would be transferred from the Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the Department of Commerce.

"We would have coordinated, consistent and efficient programs and policies to decide which areas should be designated as wilderness," Andrus said in describ­ing benefits of a DNR. ''We would eliminate situations where actions by one agency on land it manages impairs the wilderness potential of adjacent or nearby land administered by another Federal agency. We will be able to actually manage our Federal lands and resources rather than to continue playing a guessing game with each agency pursuing its own goals."

The Secretary noted that both industry and environmental groups have criticized the Federal government for its wilderness program.

"With DNR we will have a focal point; we will have one department were we can establish a policy and a rationale for it," Andrus said. If the policy displeases industry, industry will know where to place the blame. And just as industry has a "target to draw a bead on if it feels shorted, so do conservationists, preservationists, environmentalists and the like.”

The Secretary said that this still would amount to only 5 percent of the total gross area of the United States.

"Five percent is precious little to set aside for the regeneration of the natural world essential to maintain a planet worth living on," Andrus said.

Proposed regulations effecting major developments and changes in the administration of Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs were published May 22 in the Federal Register, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Rick Lavis said today.

The regulations implement certain provisions of Title XI of the Education Amendments Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-561); and, the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-471).

The regulations implementing provisions of P.L. 561 deal with Indian education policies, the establishment of a new line authority structure in BIA education programs, school funding allocations, a new education personnel system, student rights and responsibilities, and school construction applications and procedures.

The regulations implementing the Community College Act prescribe procedures for providing financial and technical assistance to Indian community colleges and, in a separate part, to the Navajo Community College.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Lavis said that for the past five months, task forces comprised of tribal leader nominees, Bureau field and headquarters staff, and private sector individuals have devoted considerable time and energy to developing the regulations.

The proposed section on Indian Education Policies includes a statement of mission followed by 26 specific policy areas. The statement of mission is "to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with the tribes' needs for cultural and economic well-being in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. The Bureau shall manifest consideration of the whole person, taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical and cultural aspects of the person within family and tribal or Alaska Native village context."

Another part of the proposed regulations covers the line authority delegation from the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs to the Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs who will supervise and direct all personnel substantially involved in Indian education as provided in Section 1126 of the Act.

The section on BIA education personnel authorizes employment and payment procedures which are patterned, after local public school district procedures (contract) and, therefore, are considered more responsive to the needs of Indian tribes and school administrators. These procedures are primarily controlled at the local school level with the hiring and discharge of school employees subject to Indian school board approval. P.L. 561 exempts these Indian school positions from many of the Federal personnel provisions.

The proposed rules on the allocation of BIA Indian education funds includes, as a major element, a uniform direct funding formula for all BIA supported schools including those operated by tribal groups under contracts with the Bureau. The formula is based on average daily membership at the schools, adjusted by weighting factors such as the grade levels of the students, special programs to meet special needs of the students, geographic factors affecting the cost of programs and other student cost elements.

Comments on the proposed regulations should be sent to Deputy Assistant Secretary Rick Lavis, Department of the Interior, 18th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

There is a 45 day review period for the Community College regulations and 30 days for the other regulations.

The Department of the Interior today released the attached letter from Attorney General Griffin B. Bell to Secretary Cecil D. Andrus concerning the legal principles governing the conduct of the Department of Justice in litigation for the purpose of protecting Indian property rights secured by statutes and treaties.

Honorable Cecil D. Andrus

Secretary of Interior

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As you know, the Department of Justice has long represented the United States in litigation for the purpose of protecting Indian property rights secured by statutes or treaties. This has been and will continue to be an important function of this Department, and I would like to set forth my understanding of the legal principles governing its conduct.

In fulfillment of the special relationship contemplated in the Constitution between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, the Congress has enacted numerous la\vs and the Senate has ratified numerous treaties for the benefit and protection of Indian tribes and individuals, their property and their way of life. Where these measures require implementation by the Executive Branch, the administrative responsibility typically resides with the Secretary of the Interior. 43 U.S.C. § 1457 (10). The Attorney General is in turn responsible for the conduct, on behalf of the United States, of litigation arising under these statutes and treaties. This obligation in Indian cases is but one aspect --albeit an important one -- of the Attorney General's statutory responsibility for the conduct of litigation in which the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party or is interested. 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 519.

The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General perform, their duties here, as in all other areas, under the superintendence of the President. We are the President's agents in fulfilling his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where a particular statute, treaty, or Executive Order manifests a purpose to benefit all Indians or a tribe or individual Indians or to protect their property, it is the obligation of the responsible Executive Branch officials to give full effect to that purpose. In your role as Secretary of the Interior, you are charged with administering most of the laws and treaties applying to Indians and are often in a policy formulating role with regard thereto. And where litigation is concerned, it is the duty of the Attorney General to ensure that the interest of the United States in accomplishing the congressional or executive purpose is fully presented in court.

The Executive and Judicial Branches have inferred in many laws extending federal protection to Indian property rights the intent that the Executive act as a fiduciary in administering and enforcing these measures. , Where applicable law imposes such standards of care, faithful execution of the law of course requires the Executive to adhere to those standards. Thus, it in no way diminishes the central importance of our respective functions to acknowledge that they find their source in specific statutes, treaties, and Executive Orders or to recognize that they are to be performed with the ,same faithfulness to legislative and executive purpose as are the obligations devolving upon this branch of the federal establishment generally.

A significant portion of the litigation with which we Are here concerned relates to property rights reserved to a tribe by treaty or in the creation of a reservation or property which Congress has directed be held in trust, managed, or restricted for the benefit of a tribe or individual Indian. When the Attorney General brings an action on behalf of the United States against private individuals or public bodies to protect these rights from encroachment, he vindicates not only the property interests of the tribe or individual Indian, as they may appear under law to the United States, but also the important governmental interest in ensuring that rights guaranteed to Indians under federal laws and treaties are fully effective.

There is no disabling conflict between the performance of these duties and the obligations of the Federal Government to all the people of the Nation. The functional thesis upon which our form of. Government is premised --the Separation of Powers --pre-supposes that the people as a whole benefit when the Executive Branch enforces the laws enacted, and protects Indian property rights recognized in treaty commitments ratified, by a coordinate branch. The fact that an identifiable class realizes tangible benefits from litigation brought by the Federal Government does not distinguish Indian cases from many civil rights, labor, and other cases. Just as we go to court to enforce the laws designed to protect minorities from discrimination or disenfranchisement by the majority, we must litigate when necessary to protect rights secured to Indians without reference to whether any present majority of the citizenry would profit from, or otherwise embrace, that action.

It is important to emphasize, however, that the Attorney General is attorney for the United States in these cases, not a particular tribe or individual Indians. Thus, in a case involving property held in trust for a tribe, the Attorney General is attorney for the United States as "trustee," not the "beneficiary." He is not obliged .to adopt any position favored by a tribe in a particular case, but must instead make his own independent evaluation of the law and facts in determining whether a proposed claim or defense, or argument in support thereof, is sufficiently meritorious to warrant its presentation. This is the same function the Attorney General performs in all cases involving the United States; it is a function that arises from a duty both to the courts and to all those against whom the Government brings its considerable litigating resources.

The litigating position adopted by the Attorney General on behalf of the United States may affect your administrative and policy-making functions. Accordingly, with respect to all litigation in which the Attorney General represents the United States in protecting Indian property rights secured by statutes or treaties, this Department would expect to receive --and would most carefully consider --the advice of your Department, possessing as it does the primary policy responsibility in Indian matters.

Where there are other statutory obligations imposed on the Executive in a particular case aside from those affecting Indians, faithful execution of the laws require the Attorney General to resolve these competing or overlapping interests to arrive at a single position of the United States. In arriving at a single position, however, we must also take into account the rule of construction now firmly established that Congress' actions toward Indians are to be interpreted in light of the special relationship and special responsibilities of the government toward the Indians.

And, finally, the President's duty faithfully to execute existing law does not preclude him from recommending legislative changes in fulfillment of his constitutional duty to propose to the Congress measures he believes necessary and expedient. These measures may --indeed must --be framed with the interest of the Nation as a whole in mind. In so doing, the President has the constitutional authority to call on either of us for our views on legislation to change existing law notwithstanding the duty to execute that law as it now stands.

I look forward to close cooperation between our two Departments in these matters.

An analysis of how States and Indian tribes can develop coal mine reclamation plans to comply with provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is available from the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining (OSM).

"This guide is intended to assist coal-producing States and Indian tribes in preparing their coal mine reclamation programs so that they can qualify to receive funds for reclaiming their abandoned mine land," said Walter N. Heine, OSM Director.

"The Surface Mining Act requires States and Indian tribes to have OSM approval on both their reclamation and regulatory programs before they can qualify for half the fees currently being collected from coal operators," Heine added.

The model plan was developed by an engineering consulting firm under a $96,000 contract with the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and OSM. The plan incorporates ideas submitted by States and Indian tribes as well as the expertise of reclamation specialists in OSM, the ARC and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the Department of Agriculture.

"With this guide, the 25 coal-producing States and the Crow, Hopi and Navajo Tribes should be able to draft their mine land reclamation programs in accordance with our regulations," Heine added.

Under the Act, coal mining companies pay fees of 35 cents a ton for coal that is surface mined, 15 cents a ton for deep-mined coal and 10 cents a ton for lignite Since October 1, 1977, when the fee system became effective, coal producers have paid more than $235 million into the fund.

In addition to the 50 percent to be returned to the States and Indian tribes where the coal is currently being mined, up to 20 percent is used for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) conducted by Agriculture's SCS and $10 million is earmarked for use under the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP) for hydrology studies. The balance is reserved to the Secretary of the Interior for the Federal reclamation program.