DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-204 Before the Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-204 Before the Federal Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-204 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Federal-State Joint Board on ) Universal Service: ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Promoting Deployment and ) Subscribership in Unserved ) and Underserved Areas, Including ) Tribal and Insular Areas ) FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: August 5, 1999 Released: September 3, 1999 Comments Due: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register Reply Comments Due: 90 days after publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a statement; Commissioner Tristani issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................2 II. CURRENT LEVELS OF DEPLOYMENT AND SUBSCRIBERSHIP........................................................8 A. PENETRATION RATES .......................................................................................................................................8 B. AVAILABILITY AND COST OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.....................................................................9 C. IMPEDIMENTS TO INCREASED PENETRATION..................................................................................................12 III. TRIBAL LANDS..............................................................................................................................................16 A. JURISDICTION.................................................................................................................................................17 B. DEFINING “TRIBAL LANDS”...........................................................................................................................23 C. HIGH-COST SUPPORT MECHANISMS...............................................................................................................25 D. REVISIONS TO LIFELINE .................................................................................................................................30 IV. DESIGNATING ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 214(e)(6)......................................................................................................................................................................33 V. UNSERVED AREAS -- IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 214(e)(3) ...................................................38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-204 A. OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................................38 B. DEFINING “UNSERVED AREA” .......................................................................................................................39 C. DETERMINING WHEN A COMMUNITY IS UNSERVED.......................................................................................40 D. DETERMINING WHEN NO COMMON CARRIER WILL PROVIDE SERVICE .........................................................40 E. IDENTIFYING CARRIER OR CARRIERS BEST ABLE TO SERVE UNSERVED AREAS............................................40 F. ORDERING CARRIERS TO PROVIDE SERVICE ..................................................................................................48 VI. UNDERSERVED AREAS...............................................................................................................................49 A. DEFINING “UNDERSERVED AREA”.................................................................................................................49 B. EXPANDING LINKUP TO INCLUDE FACILITIES-BASED CHARGES....................................................................49 C. SUPPORT FOR INTRASTATE TOLL CALLING ....................................................................................................51 D. EXPANDED AVAILABILITY OF TOLL LIMITATION DEVICES ............................................................................51 E. PUBLICIZING AVAILABILITY OF LOW-INCOME SUPPORT................................................................................52 F. SUPPORT FOR RURAL HEALTH CARE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................53 VII. INSULAR AREAS ......................................................................................................................................56 A. DEFINING “INSULAR AREA”...........................................................................................................................56 B. RURAL HEALTH CARE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................58 C. ACCESS TO TOLL-FREE SERVICES IN INSULAR AREAS ...................................................................................60 VIII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ......................................................................................................................62 A. EX PARTE PROCEDURES.................................................................................................................................62 B. COMMENT FILING PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................62 C. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................63 IX. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX A: COMMISSION MEETINGS ON INDIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES – LIST OF ATTENDEES 65 APPENDIX B: OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO TELEPHONE SERVICE TO INDIANS ON RESERVATIONS −COMMISSION HEARINGS .................................................................................................67 APPENDIX C: OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO TELEPHONE SERVICE TO INDIANS ON RESERVATIONS – PARTIES FILING COMMENTS.........................................................................................69 APPENDIX D: COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROPOSALS AND EXAMPLES................................................71 APPENDIX E: ARIZONA PROPOSAL CONCERNING UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT FOR INITIAL CONNECTION CHARGES ....................................................................................................................83 APPENDIX F: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS..................................................84 I. INTRODUCTION 1. An important goal of the Telecommunications Act of 19961 is to preserve and advance universal service in a competitive telecommunications environment.2 The 1996 Act mandates that “consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and 1 See Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act), amending the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., (the Act). 2 47 U.S.C. § 254(b). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-204 those in rural, insular, and high[-] cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services . .”3 Congress also directed that the support mechanisms employed by the Commission for this task should be “specific, predictable and sufficient.”4 Through decisions adopted over the past two years, the Commission has been striving to ensure that federal universal service support mechanisms for high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools and libraries, and rural health care providers, enable consumers to obtain telecommunications services that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.5 2. The absence of telecommunications service in a home puts its occupants at a tremendous disadvantage in today’s society. Parents cannot be reached when urgent situations arise at school. Job seekers cannot offer prospective employers a quick and convenient means of communication. People in immediate need of emergency services cannot contact police departments, fire departments, or medical providers. In short, telephone service provides a vital link between individuals and society as a whole. Given the importance of telephone service in modern society, it is imperative that the Commission take swift and decisive action to promote the deployment of facilities to unserved and underserved areas and to provide the support necessary to increase subscribership in these areas. 3. The Commission took additional steps in the Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration toward realizing Congress’s goal of bringing telecommunications services to all regions of the nation.6 Specifically, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board), we adopted the framework for a new, forward-looking high-cost support mechanism for non-rural carriers.7 This new high-cost support mechanism is intended to ensure 3 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3). 4 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(5). See also 47 U.S.C. § 254(d). 5 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing a Joint Board, 11 FCC Rcd 18092 (1996) (May 1996 Notice); Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87 (Jt. Bd. 1996) (First Recommended Decision); Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, 12 FCC Rcd 8776 (1997), as corrected by Errata, CC Docket No. 96-45 (rel. June 4, 1997) (First Report and Order); Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10095 (1997); Second Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 18400 (1997); Third Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 22801 (1997); Fourth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Lands of Federally Recognized Tribes of the United States
    132°W 131°W 130°W 129°W 128°W 127°W 126°W 125°W 124°W 123°W 122°W 121°W 120°W 119°W 118°W 117°W 116°W 115°W 114°W 113°W 112°W 111°W 110°W 109°W 108°W 107°W 106°W 105°W 104°W 103°W 102°W 101°W 100°W 99°W 98°W 97°W 96°W 95°W 94°W 93°W 92°W 91°W 90°W 89°W 88°W 87°W 86°W 85°W 84°W 83°W 82°W 81°W 80°W 79°W 78°W 77°W 76°W 75°W 74°W 73°W 72°W 71°W 70°W 69°W 68°W 67°W 66°W 65°W 64°W 63°W 48°N 46°N 47°N Neah Bay 4 35 14 45°N Everett 46°N Taholah CANADA Seattle Nespelem 40 Aberdeen 44°N Wellpinit Browning Spokane 45°N Harlem Belcourt WAS HIN Box Wagner E GTO Plummer Elder IN N MA 10 Pablo E SUPER Wapato IO Poplar K R Toppenish A 43°N New L Town Fort Totten Red Lake NT 44°N O Lapwai RM Portland VE Sault MO Sainte Marie NTANA Cass Lake Siletz Pendleton 42°N K NH NORTH DAKOTA Ashland YOR EW 43°N Warm N Springs LA KE No H r Fort U t Yates Boston hw Billings R TS e Crow ET 41°N s Agency O S t HU Worcester O R N AC RE eg Lame Deer OTA NTARIO SS GON io MINNES E O MA 42°N n Sisseton K A Providence 23 Aberdeen L N I 39 Rochester R A Springfield Minneapolis 51 G Saint Paul T SIN I C WISCON Eagle H 40°N IDA Butte Buffalo Boise HO C I 6 41°N R M o E cky M SOUTH DAKOTA ou K AN ntai ICHIG n R A M egion Lower Brule Fort Thompson L E n Grand Rapids I io New York g 39°N e Milwaukee R Fort Hall R west 24 E d Detroit Mi E 40°N Fort Washakie K WYOMING LA Rosebud Pine Ridge Cleveland IA Redding Wagner AN Toledo LV 32 NSY PEN Philadelphia 38°N Chicago NJ A 39°N IOW Winnebago Pittsburgh Fort Wayne Elko 25 Great Plains Region Baltimore Des Moines MD E NEBRASKA OHIO D
    [Show full text]
  • Federally Recognized Indian Tribes
    Appendix C: Federally Recognized Indian Tribes The following tribal entities within the contiguous 48 states are recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. For further information contact Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone number (202) 208-7445.1 Figure C.1 shows the location of the Federally Recognized Tribes. 1. Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 2. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California 3. Ak Chin Indian Community of Papago Indians of the Maricopa, Ak Chin Reservation, Arizona 4. Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas 5. Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of the Creek Nation of Oklahoma 6. Alturas Rancheria of Pit River Indians of California 7. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 8. Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine 10. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 11. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation, California 12. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin 13. Bay Mills Indian Community of the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Bay Mills. Reservation, Michigan 14. Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California 15. Big Lagoon Rancheria of Smith River Indians of California 1Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 220, November 13, 1996. C–1 Figure C.1.—Locations of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. C–2 16.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 60 Years after the Enactment of the Indian Country Statute - What Was, What Is, and What Should Be Winter 2008 The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias William Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William Wood, The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 317 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss2/1 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wood: The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villa THE TRAJECTORY OF INDIAN COUNTRY IN CALIFORNIA: RANCHERIAS, VILLAGES, PUEBLOS, MISSIONS, RANCHOS, RESERVATIONS, COLONIES, AND RANCHERIAS William Wood* 1. INTRODUCTION This article examines the path, or trajectory,1 of Indian country in California. More precisely, it explores the origin and historical development over the last three centuries of a legal principle and practice under which a particular, protected status has been extended to land areas belonging to and occupied by indigenous peoples in what is now California. The examination shows that ever since the Spanish first established a continuing presence in California in 1769, the governing colonial regime has accorded Indian lands such status.
    [Show full text]
  • San Andrés, Old Providence and Santa Catalina (Caribbean Sea, Colombia)
    REEF ENVIRONMENTS AND GEOLOGY OF AN OCEANIC ARCHIPELAGO: SAN ANDRÉS, OLD PROVIDENCE AND SANTA CATALINA (CARIBBEAN SEA, COLOMBIA) with Field Guide JÓRN GEISTER Y JUAN MANUEL DÍAZ República de Colombia MINISTERIO DE MINAS Y ENERGÍA INSTITUTO COLOMBIANO DE GEOLOGÍA Y MINERÍA INGEOMINAS REEF ENVIRONMENTS AND GEOLOGY OF AN OCEANIC ARCHIPELAGO: SAN ANDRÉS, OLD PROVIDENCE AND SANTA. CATALINA (CARIBBEAN SEA, COLOMBIA with FIELD GUIDE) INGEOMINAS 2007 DIAGONAL 53 N°34-53 www.ingeominas.gov.co DIRECTOR GENERAL MARIO BALLESTEROS MEJÍA SECRETARIO GENERAL EDWIN GONZÁLEZ MORENO DIRECTOR SERVICIO GEOLÓGICO CÉSAR DAVID LÓPEZ ARENAS DIRECTOR SERVICIO MINERO (e) EDWARD ADAN FRANCO GAMBOA SUBDIRECTOR DE GEOLOGÍA BÁSICA ORLANDO NAVAS CAMACHO COORDINADORA GRUPO PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDADANA, ATENCIÓN AL CLIENTE Y COMUNICACIONES SANDRA ORTIZ ÁNGEL AUTORES: 315RN GEISTER Y JUAN MANUEL DÍAZ REVISIÓN EDITORIAL HUMBERTO GONZÁLEZ CARMEN ROSA CASTIBLANCO DISEÑO Y DIAGRAMACIÓN GUSTAVO VEJARANO MATIZ J SILVIA GUTIÉRREZ PORTADA: Foto: Estación en el mar Cl. San Andrés: Pared vertical de Bocatora Hole a -30 m. El coral Montastraea sp. adoptó una forma plana. Agosto de 1998. IMPRESIÓN IMPRENTA NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA CONTENT PREFACE 7 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND 8 2. STRUCTURAL SETTING AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE ARCHIPÉLAGO 9 2.1 Caribbean Piafe 9 2.2 Upper and Lower Nicaraguan Rises 9 2.3 Hess Escarpment and Colombia Basin 11 2.4 Islands and atolls of the Archipelago 12 3. CLIMATE AND OCEANOGRAPHY 14 4. GENERAL CHARACTERS OF WESTERN CARIBBEAN OCEANIC REEF COMPLEXE (fig. 7)
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Nature of Indian Reservation Roads
    American Indian Law Journal Volume 0 Issue 1 Trial Issue Article 3 April 2017 The Public Nature of Indian Reservation Roads M. Brent Leonard Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj Recommended Citation Leonard, M. Brent (2017) "The Public Nature of Indian Reservation Roads," American Indian Law Journal: Vol. 0 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol0/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian Law Journal by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Public Nature of Indian Reservation Roads M. Brent Leonhard Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. For those who live on, or work for a tribe that has, a checkerboard reservation1 the problem of right-of-way access is common place and often insidious. It is not unusual for someone to throw up a gate and block road access to various lands claiming that they have not granted a right-of-way to others who regularly use that road. In addition to the actions of individuals, a tribe may have a good reason to block access to certain areas. Unfortunately, in these situations it is most likely that there is no easily discernable record of the road beyond a few maps, and there may be no recorded easement at the BIA Title Plant or with the county.2 The public nature of Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) can play a role in helping to resolve these kinds of right-of-way disputes on reservations.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Bullet No
    SEARCH BULLET NO. 236 ashineon, D.C., U.S.A. November 1979 I Poior t Md,tiniq"Q - CARI88EAN g o i 5r LvuajJ =& 8' SEA v'"i'"r? aJ,bdd-,D The White Horra , VENEZUELA - Jort Vai Gwat rcbw '& .; ",& THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Scale of Mlles III I d I bog Rod Heights In Feet SOME ASPECTS OF THE ECOLOGY OF REEFS SURROUNDING ANEGADA, BRITISH VIRGIIY ISLANDS 1. 2. by R.P. Dunne and B.E. Brown Introductory Description Anegada is a most unique island from many aspects. Northernmost of the American and British Virgin Islands and easternmost of the Greater Antilles, it is a flat limestone island, 17 km long and 4 km wide with a total area of about 14.94 square miles (9,567 acres 54 sq km), It is set aside from the other British Virgin Islands, being some 19 km from Virgin Gorda, its closest neighbour. It lies in distinct contrast to the volcanic and mountainous landscapes of the Virgin Group, with a maximum elevation of only 8 metres, To the north and east (windward side) the island is edged by extensive reefs beyond which stretches the Atlantic Ocean. On the leeward side, a shallow sea (2 to 8 m) separates Anegada from the main Virgin Island Group. His tory Schmburgk (1832) is the earliest authority on the island, having visited it in 1831 when he completed a most extensive survey. He writes: 'Of its history little is known; there is no likelihood that it was settled early. Ere Labat, the only early writer who speaks of the Lesser West India islands, observes, that aborigines used it as an occasional rendezvous, where they procured great quantities of conchs (~trombusgigas); and large piles of these shells are still to be seen at the east end of the island, but nowhere else ; which seems to prove decidedly that it was not permanently accupied, but merely resorted to from time to time.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843
    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.
    [Show full text]
  • San Andres Y Providencia
    San Andres y Providencia Overview: San Andres and Providencia is an archipelago in the Caribbean, and one of ColombiaÂ’s 32 Departments. Territory: The Department is composed of the three main islands of San Andres, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, and eight atolls (Alicia Bank, Serranilla Bank, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Quita Sueno Bank, Serrana Bank, Roncador Bank, Cayos del Este Sudeste, and Cayos de Albuquerque). San Andres and Providencia are both a long chain of hills skirted by coastal plains. Originally the islands were covered by lowland tropical rainforest, but this has been mostly destroyed. Location: 710 km (440 miles) northwest of Cartagena, Colombia; 180 km (110 miles) off eastern coast of Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea. Latitude and Longitude: 12 58 N, 81 68 W Time Zone: GMT -5 Total Land Area: 44 EEZ: 350000 Climate: The archipelago has a humid, tropical lowland climate with average year-round temperatures of 27 degrees celsius. The islands are humid for six months of the year and hot and dry for the remaining six months. Average annual rainfall is 2,000 mm (1,900 mm in San Andres, and 1,532 mm in Providencia). Natural Resources: Fertile soil, marine resources. ECONOMY: Total GDP: 2002 229,600,000.00 USD 2001 220,800,000.00 USD 2000 269,570,000.00 USD Per Capita GDP: 2002 2,964.64 USD 2001 2,926.68 USD 2000 3,669.43 USD % of GDP per Sector: Primary Secondary Tertiary 2002 3.48% 0.76% 95.76% 2000 2.6% 0.5% 96.9% % of Population Employed by Sector Primary Secondary Tertiary External Aid/Remittances: Any aid that comes to the islands is coming from a national level.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress
    Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Updated July 21, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46647 SUMMARY R46647 Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview July 21, 2021 and Selected Issues for Congress Tana Fitzpatrick Tribal lands can have a complicated and intermingled mix of land ownership statuses. Specialist in Natural The history between federally recognized Indian tribes (hereinafter, Indian tribes or Resources Policy tribes) and the United States—dating back centuries—continues to affect current land issues for tribes. Three early 19th century Supreme Court cases, known as the Marshall Trilogy, established a basic framework for federal Indian law and the roots of the federal-tribal trust relationship. These cases determined that tribes have the right to reside on lands reserved for them, but the United States has ultimate title; tribes are “domestic dependent nations”; and states cannot impose their policies within Indian territories. Centuries of shifting federal policymaking also profoundly affected the treatment of tribal lands. In the 1800s, policymaking focused on renegotiating treaties with tribes, leading to the formation of reservations and often resulting in tribes ceding to the United States larger tracts of land for smaller parcels. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, in an effort to assimilate tribes and their members into mainstream American culture, Congress authorized lands communally held by tribes to be allotted to tribal members, leading to millions of acres passing out of trust and into different ownership statuses. In the 1930s and 1940s, Congress ended the allotment policy and granted more administrative control to tribes with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA).
    [Show full text]