DOCSLIB.ORG

Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 190 55 0.01278% Citizen Potawatomi Nation- Absentee Shawnee OTSA Oklahoma Cleveland County 120 35 Citizen Potawatomi Nation- Absentee Shawnee OTSA Oklahoma Oklahoma County 0 0 Citizen Potawatomi Nation- Absentee Shawnee OTSA Oklahoma Pottawatomie County 70 20 Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association 700 293 0.44726% Akutan ANVSA Alaska Aleutians East Borough 15 10 Aleutians West Census Atka ANVSA Alaska Area 15 4 False Pass ANVSA Alaska Aleutians East Borough King Cove ANVSA Alaska Aleutians East Borough 80 30 Nelson Lagoon ANVSA Alaska Aleutians East Borough 10 4 Aleutians West Census Nikolski ANVSA Alaska Area 25 20 Sand Point ANVSA Alaska Aleutians East Borough 110 30 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Aleutians West Census St. George ANVSA Alaska Area 50 20 Aleutians West Census St. Paul ANVSA Alaska Area 220 115 Aleutians West Census Unalaska ANVSA Alaska Area 175 60 Aroostook Band of Micmac Aroostook Band of Micmac Trust Indians Land Maine Aroostook County 70 65 0.03681% Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck) 1905 960 0.77916% Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Daniels County 0 0 Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Roosevelt County 1785 900 Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Sheridan County Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Valley County 120 60 Association of Village Council Presidents 3190 2249 3.43306% Akiak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 80 45 Wade Hampton Census Alakanuk ANVSA Alaska Area 125 85 Atmautluak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 65 35 Chefornak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 65 50 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Wade Hampton Census Chevak ANVSA Alaska Area 180 135 Eek ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 60 55 Wade Hampton Census Emmonak ANVSA Alaska Area 175 100 Goodnews Bay ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 90 80 Wade Hampton Census Hooper Bay ANVSA Alaska Area 240 200 Kasigluk ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 110 80 Kipnuk ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 125 85 Kongiganak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 70 60 Wade Hampton Census Kotlik ANVSA Alaska Area 135 105 Kwethluk ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 155 90 Kwigillingok ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 60 45 Wade Hampton Census Marshall ANVSA Alaska Area 85 60 Mekoryuk ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 75 50 Wade Hampton Census Mountain Village ANVSA Alaska Area 160 105 Napakiak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 95 70 Napaskiak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 75 35 Newtok ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 70 55 Nightmute ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 60 40 Wade Hampton Census Nunam Iqua ANVSA Alaska Area 30 20 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Nunapitchuk ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 95 65 Oscarville ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 15 4 Wade Hampton Census Pilot Station ANVSA Alaska Area 110 80 Wade Hampton Census Pitkas Point ANVSA Alaska Area 35 25 Platinum ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 15 10 Wade Hampton Census Russian Mission ANVSA Alaska Area 60 40 Wade Hampton Census Scammon Bay ANVSA Alaska Area 110 85 Toksook Bay ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 125 70 Tuluksak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 75 65 Tuntutuliak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 75 55 Tununak ANVSA Alaska Bethel Census Area 90 65 Berry Creek Rancheria and Off- Berry Creek Rancheria Reservation Trust Land California Butte County 30 15 0.00041% Blackfeet Tribe 2575 1310 1.06323% Blackfeet Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Glacier County 2400 1205 Blackfeet Indian Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land Montana Pondera County 175 105 Bristol Bay Native Association 1465 686 1.04717% Dillingham Census Aleknagik ANVSA Alaska Area 55 25 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Lake and Peninsula Chignik ANVSA Alaska Borough 30 15 Lake and Peninsula Chignik Lagoon ANVSA Alaska Borough 30 10 Lake and Peninsula Chignik Lake ANVSA Alaska Borough 20 4 Dillingham Census Clarks Point ANVSA Alaska Area 20 15 Dillingham Census Dillingham ANVSA Alaska Area 470 155 Lake and Peninsula Egegik ANVSA Alaska Borough 10 4 Dillingham Census Ekuk ANVSA Alaska Area 0 0 Dillingham Census Ekwok ANVSA Alaska Area 40 25 Lake and Peninsula Igiugig ANVSA Alaska Borough 15 15 Lake and Peninsula Iliamna ANVSA Alaska Borough 20 0 Lake and Peninsula Ivanof Bay ANVSA Alaska Borough 0 0 King Salmon ANVSA Alaska Bristol Bay Borough 50 10 Lake and Peninsula Kokhanok ANVSA Alaska Borough 40 25 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Lake and Peninsula Levelock ANVSA Alaska Borough 30 20 Dillingham Census Manokotak ANVSA Alaska Area 90 55 Naknek ANVSA Alaska Bristol Bay Borough 100 25 Dillingham Census New Koliganek ANVSA Alaska Area 45 25 Dillingham Census New Stuyahok ANVSA Alaska Area 90 65 Lake and Peninsula Newhalen ANVSA Alaska Borough 40 25 Lake and Peninsula Nondalton ANVSA Alaska Borough 50 25 Lake and Peninsula Pilot Point ANVSA Alaska Borough 10 4 Lake and Peninsula Port Heiden ANVSA Alaska Borough 15 4 Dillingham Census Portage Creek ANVSA Alaska Area 0 0 South Naknek ANVSA Alaska Bristol Bay Borough 25 10 Dillingham Census Togiak ANVSA Alaska Area 155 115 Dillingham Census Twin Hills ANVSA Alaska Area 15 10 Lake and Peninsula Ugashik ANVSA Alaska Borough 0 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Caddo Indian Tribe 345 180 0.04181% Caddo-Wichita-Delaware OTSA Oklahoma Blaine County 0 0 Caddo-Wichita-Delaware OTSA Oklahoma Caddo County 165 65 Caddo-Wichita-Delaware OTSA Oklahoma Canadian County 0 0 Caddo-Wichita-Delaware OTSA Oklahoma Grady County 0 0 Kiowa-Comanche-Apache-Ft Sill Apache/Caddo-Wichita-Delaware joint-use OTSA Oklahoma Caddo County 180 115 Kiowa-Comanche-Apache-Ft Sill Apache/Caddo-Wichita-Delaware joint-use OTSA Oklahoma Grady County 0 0 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 54770 19110 4.43933% Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Adair County 4390 2220 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Cherokee County 7735 3090 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Craig County 2080 635 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Delaware County 4570 1880 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Mayes County 5875 1785 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma McIntosh County 230 110 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Muskogee County 3445 1100 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Nowata County 1390 490 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Ottawa County 830 245 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Rogers County 7880 1930 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Sequoyah County 5620 2095 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Tulsa County 6035 2235 Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Wagoner County 775 305 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State County American or Below State Households Greater of Allocation 150% FPL or 60% SMI Cherokee OTSA Oklahoma Washington County 3915 990 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 1790 1095 1.17206% Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Dewey County 1245 715 Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Haakon County 0 0 Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Meade County 0 0 Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Stanley County 0 0 Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Sully County 0 0 Cheyenne River Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land South Dakota Ziebach County 545 380 Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes 5220 1645 0.38214% Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Beckham County 560 185 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Blaine County 435 290 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Caddo County 0 0 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Canadian County 2375 475 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Custer County 930 375 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Dewey County 150 45 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Ellis County 0 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Kingfisher County 360 150 Cheyenne-Arapaho OTSA Oklahoma Roger Mills County 85 20 Attachment 2 - Tribal Tabulation and Allocation Percentages Total Native American Total Native Households at Proportionate Percentage of Grantee Reservation / Home Land State
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indian Cri'm,Inal Justice
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 1 I . ~ f .:.- IS~?3 INDIAN CRI'M,INAL JUSTICE 11\ PROG;RAM',"::llISPLAY . ,',' 'i\ ',,.' " ,~,~,} '~" .. ',:f,;< .~ i ,,'; , '" r' ,..... ....... .,r___ 74 "'" ~ ..- ..... ~~~- :":~\ i. " ". U.S. DE P ----''''---£iT _,__ .._~.,~~"ftjlX.£~~I.,;.,..,;tI ... ~:~~~",­ TERIOR BURE AIRS DIVISION OF _--:- .... ~~.;a-NT SERVICES J .... This Reservation criminal justice display is designed to provide information we consider pertinent, to those concerned with Indian criminal justice systems. It is not as complete as we would like it to be since reservation criminal justice is extremely complex and ever changing, to provide all the information necessary to explain the reservation criminal justice system would require a document far more exten::'.J.:ve than this. This publication will undoubtedly change many times in the near future as Indian communities are ever changing and dynamic in their efforts to implement the concept of self-determination and to upgrade their community criminal justice systems. We would like to thank all those persons who contributed to this publication and my special appreciation to Mr. James Cooper, Acting Director of the U.S. Indian Police Training and Research Center, Mr •. James Fail and his staff for their excellent work in compiling this information. Chief, Division of Law Enforcement Services ______ ~ __ ---------=.~'~r--~----~w~___ ------------------------------------~'=~--------------~--------~. ~~------ I' - .. Bureau of Indian Affairs Division of Law Enforcement Services U.S. Indian Police Training and Research Center Research and Statistical Unit S.UMM.ARY. ~L JUSTICE PROGRAM DISPLAY - JULY 1974 It appears from the attached document that the United States and/or Indian tribes have primary criminal and/or civil jurisdiction on 121 Indian reservations assigned administratively to 60 Agencies in 11 Areas, or the equivalent.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Element
    Tribal Element Three federally-recognized Indian Tribes, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes, occupy areas of present-day Snohomish County. These Tribes and their ancestors are a land and water based people, part of a larger group of aboriginal Tribes and First Nations known as the Coast Salish peoples, who live around the Salish Sea in what is now Washington State and the Canadian Province of British Columbia. The Coast Salish Tribes and First Nations have lived here since time immemorial, enjoying a landscape rich in natural resources. Coast Salish lifeways are tied to the natural environment of the Pacific Northwest, especially the Salish Sea. Today the Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish, and the Tulalip Tribes are sovereign nations recognized by the United States government. Each Tribe has its own government with its own governing charter or constitution and set of general laws. These Tribes reserved lands in what is now Snohomish County as Indian reservation homelands. The Tribes have important historic and cultural sites both on and off their reservations. Each Tribe continues to exercise off-reservation rights reserved under treaty with the United States, including the right to fish in usual and accustomed fishing grounds and the right to hunt and gather on open and unclaimed lands. Snohomish County acknowledges the historic and present-day connection between tribal people and the land base, and recognizes each Tribe’s sovereignty. Snohomish County is committed to partnering with the Tribes to protect and preserve Tribal cultural and treaty resources, the natural environment, and sacred cultural areas. The relationship between these Tribes and Snohomish County is especially important when activities of county government, particularly land use regulation, have implications for one or more Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Trust Asset Appendix
    Platte River Endangered Species Recovery Program Indian Trust Asset Appendix to the Platte River Final Environmental Impact Statement January 31,2006 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado TABLE of CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 The Recovery Program and FEIS ........................................................................................ 1 Indian trust Assets ............................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Indicators ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Background and History .................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 Overview - Treaties, Indian Claims Commission and Federal Indian Policies .................. 5 History that Led to the Need for, and Development of Treaties .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on Indian Township Passamaquoddy Tribal Lands In
    A REPORT ON INDIAN TOWNSHIP PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBAL LANDS IN THE VICINITY OF PRINCETON, MAINE Anthony J. Kaliss 1971 Introduction to 1971 Printing Over two years have passed since I completed the research work for this report and during those years first one thing and ttan another prevented its final completion and printing. The main credit for the final preparation and printing goes to the Division of Indian Services of the Catholic Diocese of Portland and the American Civil Liberities Union of Maine. The Dioscese provided general assistance from its office staff headed by Louis Doyle and particular thanks is due to Erline Paul of Indian Island who did a really excellent job of typing more than 50 stencils of title abstracts, by their nature a real nuisance to type. The American Civil Liberities Union contrib­ uted greatly by undertaking to print the report Xtfhich will come to some 130 pages. Finally another excellent typist must be thanked and that is Edward Hinckley former Commissioner of Indian Affairs who also did up some 50 stencils It is my feeling that this report is more timely than ever. The Indian land problems have still not been resolved, but more and more concern is being expressed by Indians and non-Indians that something be done. Hopefully the appearance of this report at this time will help lead to some definite action whether in or out of the courts. Further research on Indian lands and trust funds remains to be done. The material, I believe, is available and it is my hope that this report will stimulate someone to undertake the necessary work.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Primer
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIMER Alaska Municipal League Alaskan Local Government Primer Alaska Municipal League The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, Table of Contents nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 163 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, Purpose of Primer............ Page 3 representing over 97 percent of Alaska's residents. Originally organized in 1950, the League of Alaska Cities............................Pages 4-5 Cities became the Alaska Municipal League in 1962 when boroughs joined the League. Boroughs......................Pages 6-9 The mission of the Alaska Municipal League is to: Senior Tax Exemption......Page 10 1. Represent the unified voice of Alaska's local Revenue Sharing.............Page 11 governments to successfully influence state and federal decision making. 2. Build consensus and partnerships to address Alaska's Challenges, and Important Local Government Facts: 3. Provide training and joint services to strengthen ♦ Mill rates are calculated by directing the Alaska's local governments. governing body to determine the budget requirements and identifying all revenue sources. Alaska Conference of Mayors After the budget amount is reduced by subtracting revenue sources, the residual is the amount ACoM is the parent organization of the Alaska Mu- required to be raised by the property tax.That nicipal League. The ACoM and AML work together amount is divided by the total assessed value and to form a municipal consensus on statewide and the result is identified as a “mill rate”. A “mill” is federal issues facing Alaskan local governments. 1/1000 of a dollar, so the mill rate simply states the amount of tax to be charged per $1,000 of The purpose of the Alaska Conference of Mayors assessed value.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Stonington, Connecticut
    HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX FOR BOROUGH OF STONINGTON, CONNECTICUT An Annex of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan PREPARED FOR: Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments DATE: June 2005 COMMUNITY CONTACTS Andrew M. Maynard Warden Robert Scala Burgess Judy DuPont Burgess Jeff Hoagley Fire Chief William Teixeira Assistant Fire Chief SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS STAFF James S. Butler, AICP Executive Director Lin da Parquette Senior Planner Colleen Bezanson GIS Specialist Thomas Seidel Senior Planner CONSULTANTS DELTA Environmental Services, Inc., Branford, CT. Wilbur Smith Associates, New Haven, CT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 A. Setting........................................................ 1 B. Purpose of Annex .............................................. 1 C. Plan Development and Public Involvement . 2 II. HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT..................................... 3 A. Residential .................................................... 4 B. Commercial / Industrial .......................................... 5 C. Critical Facilities ............................................... 5 D. Transportation Corridors ........................................ 5 III. HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES................................. 7 A. Prevention .................................................... 7 B. Property Protection ............................................. 9 C. Emergency Services ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newark Earthworks Center - Ohio State University and World Heritage - Ohio Executive Committee INDIANS and EARTHWORKS THROUGH the AGES “We Are All Related”
    Welcoming the Tribes Back to Their Ancestral Lands Marti L. Chaatsmith, Comanche/Choctaw Newark Earthworks Center - Ohio State University and World Heritage - Ohio Executive Committee INDIANS AND EARTHWORKS THROUGH THE AGES “We are all related” Mann 2009 “We are all related” Earthen architecture and mound building was evident throughout the eastern third of North America for millennia. Everyone who lived in the woodlands prior to Removal knew about earthworks, if they weren’t building them. The beautiful, enormous, geometric precision of the Hopewell earthworks were the culmination of the combined brilliance of cultures in the Eastern Woodlands across time and distance. Has this traditional indigenous knowledge persisted in the cultural traditions of contemporary American Indian cultures today? Mann 2009 Each dot represents Indigenous architecture and cultural sites, most built before 1491 Miamisburg Mound is the largest conical burial mound in the USA, built on top of a 100’ bluff, it had a circumference of 830’ People of the Adena Culture built it between 2,800 and 1,800 years ago. 6 Miamisburg, Ohio (Montgomery County) Picture: Copyright: Tom Law, Pangea-Productions. http://pangea-productions.net/ Items found in mounds and trade networks active 2,000 years ago. years 2,000 active networks trade and indicate vast travel Courtesy of CERHAS, Ancient Ohio Trail Inside the 50-acre Octagon at Sunrise 8 11/1/2018 Octagon Earthworks, Newark, OH Indigenous people planned, designed and built the Newark Earthworks (ca. 2000 BCE) to cover an area of 4 square miles (survey map created by Whittlesey, Squier, and Davis, 1837-47) Photo Courtesy of Dan Campbell 10 11/1/2018 Two professors recover tribal knowledge 2,000 years ago, Indigenous people developed specialized knowledge to construct the Octagon Earthworks to observe the complete moon cycle: 8 alignments over a period of 18 years and 219 days (18.6 years) “Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio” Ray Hively and Robert Horn, 1982 Archaeoastronomy (Supplement to Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR BOARD of INDIAN APPEALS Kickapoo Tribe Of
    INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Southern Plains Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs 42 IBIA 258 (03/29/2006) United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS 801 NORTH QUINCY STREET SUITE 300 ARLINGTON, VA 22203 KICKAPOO TRIBE OF INDIANS OF : Order Affirming Decision THE KICKAPOO RESERVATION : IN KANSAS, : Appellant, : : v. : Docket No. IBIA 04-98-A : SOUTHERN PLAINS REGIONAL : DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN : AFFAIRS, : Appellee. : March 29, 2006 The Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas (Tribe) seeks review of an April 2, 2004 decision of the Southern Plains Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Regional Director; BIA), in which the Regional Director concluded that BIA was not statutorily required to accept certain property in trust for the Tribe. The property at issue consists of three tracts of land, consisting of 74.81 acres, more or less, located in Brown County, Kansas. The property is generally referred to as the “Highway 75 (Simon) tract.” For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Regional Director’s decision. Background On January 5, 1979, the United States Court of Claims awarded judgment to the Tribe in Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 315, see The Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, The Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 719, 618 F.2d 119 (1979), and Congress subsequently appropriated funds to pay the judgment. As required by the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, 25 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • To: Chairman Lance Kinzer and Members of the House Judiciary Committee
    To: Chairman Lance Kinzer And Members of the House Judiciary Committee From: Steve Cadue Tribal Chairman Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas 1107 Goldfinch Road Horton, Kansas 66439 Re: HB 2553 – Nemaha-Brown Watershed Funding Bill Date: February 29, 2012 Good afternoon Chairman Kinzer and Members of the House Judiciary Committee. I am Steve Cadue, Tribal Chairman of the sovereign Kickapoo Nation and I appear before you today to oppose HB 2553. I am opposed to the continuing damaging effort of the Nemaha Brown Watershed District to prevent the Kickapoo Tribe of securing a safe and dependable water supply. Water is life and yes, for the Kickapoo people it is a matter of Life or Perish. We depend on water for a total life-sustaining need including drinking water, health conditions and spiritual blessings. Our Kickapoo people utilized and are dependent on water before the coming of the white man. The United States Supreme Court, Winters v. United States (1908) cited Indian tribal rights original use of water and declared Indian tribe’s use of water before the coming of the white man. Our Kickapoo treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land and is under the protection of the federal trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribes. Water is a sacred element in our Kickapoo traditions. Water is life. Our Kickapoo tribal reservation homeland is a federally recognized reservation and exists due to treaty agreements with the United States of America. We settled in the land that was called the Kansas territory in the treaty of l832 on the western banks of the Missouri river at Leavenworth.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
    [Show full text]
  • AIHREA2012 Annual Report
    AIHREA The American Indian Health Education is important and we we have established an academic Research & Education Alliance want to increase the number of pipeline to improve the educational (AIHREA) is an alliance of organi- American Indians entering the attainment of all American Indians. zations whose mission is to partner health professions and conducting We have scholarships available and collaborate with American health research. To meet this goal, to help! Indian peoples, Nations, communi- ties, and organizations to improve the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of American Indians throughout the United States through quality participatory research and education. The two primary organizations involved are the Center for American Indian Community Health (CAICH) at the University of Kansas Medical Center and the Center for American Indian Studies (CAIS) at AIHREA Collaborators: Johnson County Community American Indian Council, Inc. College. We partner and collabo- Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Title 1 Program rate with numerous other organiza- Chickasaw Nation tions, conducting research with and Children's Mercy Hospital Center for Environmental Health providing services to the American Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Indian community in the Denver Indian Health and Family Resources Heartland and around the country. First Nations Student Association (University of Kansas) We use community-based partic- Haskell Indian Nations University Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska ipatory research (CBPR) in all of Kansas City Indian Center our studies. CBPR is a type of Kickapoo Diabetes Coalition research that involves community Kickapoo Head Start members in all parts of the research Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas process. Almost 80% of our team Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center members are American Indians Oglala Lakota Nation from many different Nations across Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Ponca Tribe of Nebraska the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Health Program Tool-Kit
    Tribal Health Program Tool-Kit Updated 1/26/2016 CRIHB Options 2015 California Rural Indian Health Board, Inc. 4400 Auburn Blvd., 2nd Fl. Sacramento, CA 95841 (916) 929-9761 [email protected] www.crihb.org 1 Table of Contents Page # High-Level Screening and Eligibility 4-31 . Client High-Level Screening and Eligibility Form……………………………………........... 5 . Benefit ID Number Instructions………………………………………………………………………. 6 . IHS Eligible Criteria…………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 . Tribal Affiliation Codes……………………………………………………………………………………. 9-29 . Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)………………………………………………………………… 30-31 Service Codes 32-44 . Acupuncture Services……………………………………………………………………………………… 33 . Audiology Services………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34 . Chiropractic Services………………………………………………………………………………………. 35 . Dental Services……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36-40 . Podiatry Services…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41-43 . Speech Therapy Services…………………………………………………………………………………. 44 Submitting Claims to CRIHB Options 45-63 . Claims processing and payments via Humboldt Independent Practice Association……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46-50 . Claims submission via clearinghouse: Office Ally……………………………………………. 51-57 . Check claim status via Humboldt Independent Practice Association……………... 58-61 . Sample UB-04 Claim Form: Medical……………………………………………………………….. 62 . Sample UB-04 Claim Form: Dental………………………………………………………………….. 63 CRIHB Options Policies 64-88 . 101 — Program Description…………………………………………………………………………… 65-66 . 102 — Eligibility for
    [Show full text]