A FISH CONSUMPTION SURVEY OF THE
UMATILLA, NEZ PERCE, YAKAMA, AND
WARM SPRINGS TRIBES OF THE
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

Technical Report 94-3

October, 1994%#
5,-,.;.

I!#

Columbia River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commissi

729 N.E. Oregon(503) 238-0667

OR 97232

St., Portland,Columbia

River Inter-Tribal

Fish Commission(CRITFC)

CRITFC was created in 1977 by resolutions of the four Pacific Northwest
IndianTribes which participated in this survey: the Nez Perce Tribe; the Confederated Tribesof the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon and; the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakama Indian Nation in Washington(collectively referred to as CRITFC’s member
tribes).
CRITFC was formed to coordinate the management and protection of the tribes’ treaty
fishery resource and to implement the tribes’ fishery policies and objectives in the
Columbia Basin. The governing body of CRITFC, the Commission, consists of the Fish
and Wildlife Committees of each tribe. These Commissioners establish CRITFC policy
and direct staff. CRITFC staff consists primarily of biologists, attorneys and otherprofessionals
who provide legal and technical assistance to the tribes on issues
relating to protection, enhancement
and sustainable use of the fishery resources in the
Columbia River Basin. CRITFC is accountable only to its member tribes and not to thestates, the Bureau of Indian Affairs or any other entity.

This project was funded through a Cooperative Agreement between CRITFC and theEnvironmental Protection Agency’s Office of- Policy, Planning and Evaluation (USEPA,
OPPE), Cooperative Agreement # CX818196-01.
EPA Project Officers:

Gerald Filbin and Craig McCormack

CRITFC Project Managers:
Proper citation

Anne Watanabe(formerlyand Herald Shepherd

USEPA, OPPE).
(formerly

CRITFC).

for this report is:

CRITFC (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission).
1994.
A fish consumption
survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs Tribes of the ColumbiaRiver Basin. CRITFC Technical Report No. 94-3. Portland, Oregon.

ABSTRACT
During the fall and winter of 1991-I 992, a survey was conducted among ColumbiaRiver Basin Indian tribes to determine the level and nature of fish consumption amongindividual tribal members.
The survey was initiated to test the hypotheses thatIndians in that region consume more fish than non-Indians, that the national fishconsumption rate of 6.5 grams per day (gpd) used by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) to develop human health based water quality criteria
might not be applicable to tribal members, and that a human health risk might exist
among tribal members from exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(dioxin)and other waterborne
toxic contaminants.
We also wished to consider whether
water quality standards based on the estimated national fish consumption
rate andadopted for waters in the Columbia River Basin were appropriate with regard to thefindings of the survey. The survey consisted of interviews made at four ColumbiaRiver Basin tribal reservations (Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Yakama and Umatilla) andwas based on a stratified random sampling design. A total of 513 tribal members atleast 18 years old were directly surveyed.
These respondents
also provided
informationfor 204 children age 5 or younger.
Information
obtained included a
breakdown of consumption by age group, season, species consumed, parts of the fishconsumed, preparation methods, and changes in patterns of consumption
over timeand during ceremonies
and festivals.
Survey respondents
aged 18 and older
consumed an average of 58.7 gpd while children aged 5 and younger consumed anaverage of 19.6 gpd. These rates are respectively, approximatelynine times andthree times higher than the estimated national fish consumption rate and seriously callinto question the applicability and adequacy of using a national fish consumption rate
to protect tribal members’ health. Both adults and children consumed salmon andresident trout more than any other fish species. The fish fillet and skin were, overall,
the two most consumed fish parts but respondents also consumed the head, eggs,
bones and organs of almost all fish species consumed.
Although this consumption
data signals a potential increased health risk to tribal members, consumption
data
alone does not tell us the extent to which tribal members are exposed to waterborne
toxics. Consequently,
as phase two of this project, information in this report will be
combined with data on fish tissue contaminant levels in fish collected and consumed
from Columbia River Basin tribal fisheries.

itTABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

5.....................................

6..........................................

LIST OFTABLESLISTOFAPPENDICES.......................................

8

LISTOFCHARTS..

.........................................

IO

LISTOFFIGURES

11..........................................

1212...........................................
INTRODUCTION
Survey Objective ......................................
Background12.........................................

The Fishery Resource12...................................

Degraded

Water Quality.................................

Statementof Significanceof Data and Applications

13..............

15..........................................
METHODOLOGY
Sample Design .......................................
Sample Frame ...................................
...................
Sample Size and Tribal Representation...............................
Selection Procedure...................................
Weighting Factors
Unweighted
Data .................................

16
16
16
16
16
17
17

......................................
Survey Methods.................................
Target Population..........................
Questionnaire Development

18
18
18

................................
The Survey Questionnaire
24-Hour Recall ...................................
.............................
Seasonal Consumption
Rate of Fish Consumption Throughout The Year ............
Fish Species. ....................................
Change in Consumption Over the Last 20 Years ............
Fish Parts Consumed ...............................
Fish Preparation Methods ............................
....................................
Breastfeeding
Source of Fish Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18
19
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
21

Fishing Site Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ceremonial Consumption of Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Data Collection

Procedure. . . . . . II . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Quality Assurance/Quality
Control in Survey Implementation
Pretest ........................................
Interviewer Training...............................
Use of Food Models ...............................
Internal Technical Review............................
Outside Technical Review ...........................
Independent Peer Review ............................
Procedures for Protecting Confidentiality.................

.......

Data Processing......................................
Data Entry and Audit ...............................
Data Analysis ....................................
Statistical Tests ..................................
Outliers ........................................
Individual Response Rate Calculations...................
SURVEYRESULTS.........................................
Completed Surveys ....................................

22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27

Demographic Information................................
Location of Respondents............................
Sex of Respondents...............................
Age of Respondents...............................

27
27
27
27

Rates of Adult Fish Consumption...........................
Fish-Consumers
Only ..............................
Fishers ........................................
Rates of Consumption for Demographic Categories..........
Seasonal Rate of Fish Consumption.....................
Dietary Recall ....................................
Women Who Have Nursed or Currently
Are Nursing Their
Children ...................................
Consumption of Different Species by Adults ...............
Consumption
by Fish Trophic Level .....................
Consumption of Specific Parts by Adults .................

28
29
30
30
30
32

Respondents Whose Fish Consumption
Has Changed
Over the Last 20 Years i ................................
Type of Change ..................................
Quantifiable Change ................................

32
33
34
36

38
38
39

‘41

Children ,...........................................
Age When Children Begin Eating Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
Children’s Consumption Rates . e . D . . . . I . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
Consumption of Different Species by Children. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Consumption of Specific Parts by Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
Fish Preparation

40
40
41
41
41

Methods. . . . . . . s m. z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Origin of Fish Consumed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Fish Harvesting. . . . . . . . . m. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . 46

Ceremonial Consumption of Fish . . 0 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , . . .
Frequency of Ceremony Attendance. . . . . , . . , . . . . , . . . . . .
Frequency of Fish Consumption at Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amount of Fish Consumption During Tribal Ceremonies. . . . . . .

56
56
56
57

DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Comparisons With the Estimated National Fish Consumption Rate for the
U.S. Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Comparisonof Rates from Other Surveys

Adult Rates of Fish Consumption
Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60, . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 62

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O.......................

62

Sources of Fish , . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 62
Ceremonial

Use of Fish . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Seasonal Fish Consumption, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Historical Changes in Fish Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decrease in Fish Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase in Fish Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Loss of Columbia River Basin Fish Runs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65
65
65
65

LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Uncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Location Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gender Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timing of Survey and Length of Survey Period . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Response Rates on Individual Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-Fish-Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67
67
67
67
68
68
68
69

69
69
70
70

Origin of Fish Consumed............................
Children........................................
Fishing Sites ....................................
Dietary Recall ....................................
Additional

Research

RECOMMENDATIONSTABLES70...................................

AND DATA APPLICATIONS. . . ....................................

72...................
..m...

...

73

APPENDICES.............................................

106

REFERENCES.............................................

170

t%
ru?l
-9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CRITFC would like to acknowledge
all Technical Panel members for their invaluableassistance in producing this report. CRITFC is particularly grateful to the following
people for dedicating their time and talents to this project: Harold Shepherd (formerly
CRITFC); John Platt (CRITFC); Craig McCormack, Washington Department of Ecology(formerly U.S. EPA); Steve Helgerson, Health Care Finance Administration(formerly
Indian Health Service); Gerald Filbin, U.S. EPA; Sarah Bermann, UniversityofPittsburgh Medical School (formerly Bruce Company); Danielle Dixon and Roxanne
Bogart (formerly Bruce Company); Matthew Schwartzberg,
CRITFC; Margaret McVey,
ICF, Inc. and; Amin Abari, ICF, Inc.
CRITFC is especi’ally grateful to the tribal governments and their staff for this survey
could not have been completed without their devotion and commitment
to thisproject. Finally, CRITFC wishes to thank all tribal members who contributed their time
to participate in the survey.

5

LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1

Summary of Reasons Indicated by Interviewers for Why Tribal
Members Did Not Participate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

TABLE 2

Summary of Locations of Surveyed and Non-Surveyed Individuals
with Respect to the Interview Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

TABLE 3Sex of Surveyed

TABLE 4Age of Respondents

TABLE 5

Number of Fish Meals Consumed by All Adult Respondents (FishConsumers and Non-Fish Consumers) Per Week -Throughout theYear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

TABLE 6

Average Serving Size (oz.) - Adult Fish Meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 7

Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult
Respondents(Fish Consumers
and Non-Fish
Consumers)
Combined - Throughout the Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

TABLE 8

Number of Fish Meals per Week Consumed by Adult Fish
Consumers Only - Throughout the Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

Average Serving Size (oz.) of Adult Fish Meals - Fish Consumers
Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ../.........

84

TABLE 9and Non-Surveyed

Individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . .

75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

79

TABLE 10

Number of Grams per Day Consumed by Adult Fish Consumers
Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

TABLE 11

Fish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Sex . . . . . . . . , . . . .

87

TABLE 1 laFish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Age. . . . . . . . . . . .

87

TABLE 11 b Fish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Location. . . . . . . . .

87

of High Fish Consumption. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . 88

TABLE 12MonthsTABLE 13Comparison of Grams of F/sh Consumed by Tribal Members on a
Daily Basis During Months of High Consumption
vs. Months of
Low Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

TABLE 14Months, of Low Fish Consumption
6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

TABLE 15

TABLE 16

Number of Weekly Fish Meals: Nursing Mothers
Have Nursed ....................................

or Mothers Who

Consumption by Women Who Have Breastfed..........................
Other Female Respondents.

Compared

TABLE 17

Fish Species Consumed

TABLE 18

Consumption of Fish Species by Adults
Species .........................................

TABLE 1991
to All92

by All Adult Tribal Members.........

93

Who Eat the Particular
94

Grams of Fish Species Consumed Each Day by Fish Consumers
and Non-Fish Consumers ............................

95of Fish Parts .......................

96

TABLE 20Adult Consumption

TABLE 21Age When Children Begin Eating Fish

TABLE 22

Number of Fish Meals Consumed

TABLE 23

Serving Size (oz.) of Fish for Children

TABLE 24

Children’s

TABLE 25

Fish Species Consumed

TABLE 26

Consumption

TKBLE 27

Children’s

Table 28

Use of Fish Preparation

Table 29

Frequency

Fish Consumption...................

per Week by Children
Age Five or Under98......

99....................

by Childrenof Fish Parts
Methods.......

Year ........

Rates - Throughout

by Children Who Consume

Consumption

97

the Particular Species...................

......................

of Use of Fish Preparation

Methods

100
101. . 102
103
IO4.............

105

LIST OF APPENDICESAPPENDIX

1

Formulas for Calculating

APPENDIX

2

Weighting

Formulas for Calculating

Weighted

APPENDIX

3

Technical

Panel and Peer Reviewers. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDIX

4

CRlTFC and Tribal Approval

APPENDIX

5

Copy of Questionnaire

APPENDIX

6

List of Resident Fish Species in the Columbia

APPENDIX

7

List of Anadromous
Fish Species in the Columbia River
Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I29

APPENDIX

8

List of Other Fish Species in the ColumbiaRiver Basin. . . 130

APPENDIX9

Map of Fishing Sites Along the ColumbiaRiver Basin. . . . 131

APPENDIX

IO

Government
Requesting
SampleLetterfrom Tribal
Participation in the Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

APPENDIX11

Job Announcements
for Survey
Coordinators
andInterviewers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

APPENDIX

12

Locations of Tribal Members
Reasons for Not Participating

APPENDIX

13

Fish Consumptionof Persons Who Fish for Personal
Consumption or for Use by Their Tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

APPENDIX

14

Consumption Data for Months of Highest Fish Consumption(May and June) . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .‘I43

APPENDIX

15

Consumption Data for Months of Lowest Fish Consumption(January and December) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

APPENDIX

16

Comparison of Fish Consumption(gpd) Throughout
theYear of Persons Who Ate Fish in the 24 Hours Preceding
the Survey vs. Persons Who Did Not Eat Fish in That Time
PeriodWeighting

Factors. . . .‘. , . . . . . 106

and Coordination

Means. . . . 107. . . . . . . . . II0. . . . . . . . a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 1River Basin. 128

from Interview
Site and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I47

8

APPENDIX

17

Consumption Rates of Women Who Have Given Birth and
Who Breastfeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,148

APPENDIX

18

Chi-Square

APPENDIX

19

Increase and Decrease in Weekly Fish Meals Over the Last
20Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I50

APPENDIX

20

Age of Infant When Breast Feeding Ceased or Will Cease

APPENDIX

21

Chi-Square
Frequencies

APPENDIX

22

Percent of Fish Obtained

APPENDIX

23

Travel Distance from Home to Fishing Sites . . . . . . . . . . . 158

APPENDIX

24

Tribal Fishing Sites for Resident and Anadromous
FishSpecies - By Tribe . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

APPENDIX

25

Attendance

Test Comparisonsof Fish Parts Consumed. . . 149

. 153

Analysis of Food Preparation
Methods-Useand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 154
From Various Sources

and Fish Consumption. . . . . . . . 155

at Tribal Ceremonies. . 166

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1
Chart 2Fish Consumption Estimates Presented................................
Tribal Celebrations

IO

in Other Surveys......

61
63

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure IO
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Kgure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29

i . : .......
...........
Age Groups of Adult Respondents....
Grams per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents.....................
Months of High Fish Consumption.......................
Months of Low Fish Consumption............
Anadromous Fish Species Consumed by Adults
Resident Fish Species Consumed by Adults ...............
Adult Rate of Consumptionof Anadromous Fish Species ......
Adult Rate of Consumption of Resident Fish Species ..........
Adult Consumptionof Anadromous Fish Parts .............
Adult Consumptionof Resident Fish Parts ................
Change in Consumption
Over the Last 20 Years ............
Rate of Consumptionof Anadromous
Fish Species by Children(Data Represents Fish Consumers Only) ...................
Rate of Consumptionof Resident Fish Species by Children (Data
Represents Fish Consumers Only) ......................
Anadromous Fish Species Consumed by Children ...........
Resident Fish Species Consumed by Children ..............
Children’s Consumptionof Anadromous Fish Parts ..........
Children’s Consumptionof Resident Fish Parts .............
Fish Preparation Methods ............................
Nez Perce Tribe-Anadromous
Fish Fishing Sites ............
Nez Perce Tribe-Resident
Fish Fishing Sites ...............
Warm Springs Tribe-Anadromous
Fish Fishing Sites ..........
Warm Springs Tribe-Resident
Fish Fishing Sites ............
Yakama Tribe-Anadromous
Fish Fishing Sites ..............
Yakama Tribe-Resident
Fish Fishing Sites .................
Umatilla Tribe-Anadromous
Fish Fishing Sites ..............
Umatilla Tribe-Resident
Fish Fishing Sites .................
........
Frequency of Fish Consumption at Tribal Ceremonies
Amount of Fish.Consumed
at Tribal Ceremonies ............
Comparisonsof Consumption
Rates-CRITFC
Data vs. U.S.
Average (6.5 gpd) ................................

11

28
29
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
60

INTRODUCTION
In 1990, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)’ entered into a
Cooperative Agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (USEPA, OPPE) to formally conduct “A Fish
Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs Tribes of
the Columbia River Basin,” hereinafter referred to as the Columbia River Basin Fish
Consumption Survey (CRBFCS). This survey is unique in that it is the only interviewbased survey to date that examines fish consumption
rates and patterns of Native
Americans who reside in, catch and consume fish from the Columbia River Basin.
Survey Objective
The objective of the survey was to ascertain individual tribal members’ consumption
rates, patterns, habits and preparation
methods of anadromous and resident fish
species caught from the Columbia River Basin.
Background
Tribal interest in conducting such a survey of tribal members was in response to theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) investigation of the humanhealth risks from exposure to dioxin (tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
or 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
and other waterborne toxics through ingestion of contaminated fish. Because the four
surveyed tribes fish for both ceremonial and subsistence purposes from the ColumbiaRiver Basin, they questioned the adequacy of USEPA’s use of an estimated national
per capita fish consumption
rate of 6.5 grams per day (gpd) (USEPA, 1980) whendeveloping human health based water quality criteria for toxics.
Tfie Fishery Resource
The Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama and Warm Springs tribe (collectively referred to as
CRITFC’s member tribes) each possess fishing rights reserved by treaties signed in the
1850s with the United States government.
Under the U.S. Constitution,thesetreaties are considered the “supreme Law of the Land.” These treaties reserve to thetribes the right to take fish destined to pass their “usual and accustomed”
fishing
places (Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 stat. 945; Treaty with theYakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951; Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11,
1855, 12 Stat. 957; Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12
Stat. 963). Among the fish that tribes have treaty rights to harvest are the salmonids
and resident species originating in streams and lakes flowing throughout the ColumbiaRiver Basin as well as those anadromous
species that return to their spawning
grounds in the Columbia River Basin.
The importanceof fish, especiallysalmon, to the tribes cannot be overstated
12

for thefishery resource is not only a major food source for tribal members, it is also an
integral part of the tribes’ cultural, economic and spiritual well-being.
The importanceof the tribes’ treaty fishing rights has received long-standing
legal recognition.
In a1905 decision, the U.S. Supreme court stated: “The right to resort to the fishingplaces in controversy was a part of larger rights possessed by the Indians, upon theexercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not muchless necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed.”
United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905).
Thus, as ceremonial and subsistence fishers, CRITFC’s member tribes rely on theprotection and enhancementof water quality in the Columbia River Basin sufficient
to protect treaty resources from harmful exposure to waterborne
pollutants.
The
consistent declitie of fish runs, the loss of adequate fish habitat, and the documented
degradation of water quality in the Columbia River Basin have heightened the tribes’
concern for the fishery resource and the health and livelihood of tribal members.
Degraded

Water Quality

The Columbia River system is the fourth largest watershed in North America anddrains over 250,000
square miles, with 85% of the watershed located in Oregon,
Washington and Idaho, the three states where the surveyed tribes reside. Although
the total amount of tribal reservation land for these four tribes is approximately
2.8
million acres, the tribes’ aboriginal and ceded areas encompass 41 million acres and
31 Columbia River sub-basins, a majority of the Columbia River Basin.
Throughout
the Columbia River Basin, certain resource uses such as hydroelectric
dams, grazing, agriculture and forestry have contributed to the decline of the salmon
runs. Numerous industrial sources (including eight U.S. pulp and paper mills, one
Canadian pulp mill and ten aluminum plants), agricultural drainages carrying pesticides
and insecticides,
sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, abandoned
landfills, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,and the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory continue to load toxic and radioactive wastes into the Columbia Riversystem threatening both the health of tribal members and the fishery resource. Manyfederal and state sponsored investigations
have revealed the prevalence of toxic
chemicals in Columbia River fish and sediments.
For human health risk assessment purposes, USEPA has identified an individual’s rateof fish and shellfish consumption
as the key exposure variable (USEPA, 1989).
Others have further identified ingestion of contaminatedfish as the most significant
pathway of human exposure to bioaccumulatable,
persistent and toxic chemicals inaquatic environments (Rifkin and LaKind, 1991). Moreover, because waterborne toxics
tend to bioaccumulate
in aquatic organisms, the general human population is exposed
to significantly greater doses of certain chemical contaminants from fish consumption
than from waterand atmosphericsourcescombined(Humphrey,1983).
13

Consequently, noncommercial and subsistence fishers can be particularly susceptible
to exposure to toxic pollutants (Institute of Medicine, 1991).
Fish biomonitoringstudies conducted
outside the Columbia Basin have clearly demonstrated
thepersistence
and bioaccumulationof certain
chemicalpollutants
in aquatic
environments
and the potential
for health problems due to consumptionofcontaminatedfish (Fiore et al., 1989; Cordle et al., 1978; Cooper et al., 1991; andTollefson and Cordle, 1986).
Within the Columbia River Basin, state and Federal agencies have consistently
documented water quality problems, including toxic pollution.
The majortoxics
ofconcern identified in the Columbia River Basin are organochlorine
pesticides, dioxins
and furans, polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCB), heavy metals, and radionuclides (USEPA,
1992). Toxics have been identified at levels of concern in various parts of the basin,with the greatest concentrations
measured in either sediments or fish tissue (USEPA,
1992). These pathogens and toxics in fish and sediment samples collected from theColumbia River Basin present the greatest threats to human health.
In 1986, USEPA initiated its National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF)(USEPA, 1992a) to monitor levels of toxic chemicals in fish tissue at numerous sites
across the country, including the Columbia River Basin.
The most ,toxic dioxin
congener, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD),
was found in samples
from 70 percent of all the national sampling sites, including samples collected fromthe ColumbiaRiver Basin (USEPA, 1992a).
Total PCBs and DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloro-ethylene),a breakdown
product of the insecticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane)
were also found in Columbia River fish tissue. The State ofOregon has listed all of the Columbia River within the state’s borders (river miles O309) as violating the water quality standard of .013 parts per quadrillion (ppq)
adopted for 2,3,7,8-TCDD(Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, 1992).
Washington State has specifically identified the Columbia River mainstem downstreamof Priest Rapids Dam and the entirety of the Snake River within Washington State as
violating Washington‘sdioxin water quality standard,
which is also .013 ppq(Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992).
The Lower Columbia River Bi-State Program, initiated in 1990 by the Oregon andWashington
State legislatures,conducted an extensive reconnaissancesurvey ofwater, sediment, and fish tissue samples collected from the Lower Columbia River(downstream of Bonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean). Results of the Bi-State survey
indicate a widespread occurrence of metals, pesticides, PCBs, and dioxin and furancompounds in fish tissue (Tetra Tech, 1993).
These results are consistentwithhistorical measurements of fish tissue concentrationsof metal and organic compounds
measured in national surveys conducted by USEPA and the United States Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) (Schmitt, C.J., et al., 1990).
From 1986 to 1991, the U.S. Geological

Service (USGS) collected14

and analyzed soil,..

-sediment, water, and fish tissue samples from the Yakima River basin as part of the
USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Sixty-five of the ninety
pesticides analyzed for were found in samples from this subbasin -(USGS, 1993).
Although the insecticide DDT has been banned for over 20 years (since 1972), highconcentrationsof DDT, DDE, and DDD (dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethane)continue tooccur in sediment and fish tissue samples (USGS, 1993). The USGS report concludes
that fish in the Yakima River basin have among the highest concentrationsof TotalDDT (T-DDT) which includes DDT, DDE and DDD, in the nation and that the Yakima
River’s 1990 level of T-DDT was IO times higher than the chronic-toxicity
criterion
for the protection of freshwater aquatic life established by USEPA. Yakama tribal
members consume both resident and anadromous fish caught from the Yakima river.
Statementof Significanceof Data and Applications

Because ceremonial and subsistence fish consumption
patterns are not currently
accounted for in existing water quality criteria and standards for dioxin and other toxic
pollutants in the Columbia River Basin, CRITFC and its member tribes expect federal,state and tribal regulatory agencies to incorporate information in this survey whendeveloping and re-evaluating human health based water quality criteria and standards
for toxics as well as in other regulatory
and policy decisions relating to risk
management, pollution prevention, remediation and environmental justice.
The consumption rates established in this report should be combined with site-specificfish tissue monitoring data to determine actual exposure and damage to ColumbiaRiver Basin Indians and their treaty protected resources resulting from toxic, heavy
CRITFC and its member tribes encourage
metal and nuclear waste contamination.
other tribes and populations
to utilize this survey’s methodology
in future fishconsumption surveys.

15

\

3I
-.I
‘1

‘“‘9

1

-4
7 I

METHODOLOGY
Sample Design

Sample Frame
Survey respondents were selected from patient registration files provided by fourIndian Health Service (IHS) unit .health centers located on the reservations of theparticipating
Tribes.
These files are open-ended
and used for determininganindividual’s eligibility to receive health services from the Indian Health Service Center.

Sample Size and Tribal Representation
The population sizes of each of the four Tribes at the time of the sample selection
Based in part on financial and logisticalranged from 818 to 3872 individuals.
constraints,
a total sample size of 500 interviews
was chosen for the survey.
Because the population sizes of the Tribes varied to such an extent, a self-weighting
sample (i.e., a sample selected in proportion to the eligible population of each Tribe)
would not have provided very useful results for the smaller reservations because of
the small number of interviews that would have occurred there. Instead, the sample
was selected so as to yield approximately equal numbers of interviews from each of
the four Tribes. Thus, approximately
125 interviews per tribe were sought. Basedon an expected overall response rate of 70 percent of individuals selected from IHS
lists, 744 total individuals were randomly selected from the 4 lists, with roughly thesame number chosen from each tribe: 182 from Yakama, 180 from Umatilla, 202from Nez Perce’, and 180 from Warm Springs.
Selection

Procedure

Before the selection procedure occurred, the following individuals were eliminatedfrom the IHS clinic lists: persons who were not at least 18 years of age, persons who
were identified as not being members of the primary reservation Tribe, and persons
who were identified as not living either on or near the reservation.
Names on the lists were selected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) using asystematic probability sampling method, in which a sampling interval was calculatedby dividing the total number of names on each tribes’ IHS patient registration list by
the number of names desired from that Tribe. The names of persons to be contacted

1Note that the sample size for the Nez Perce Tribe was slightly larger than those for the other tribes. Thiswas due to a request by the Tribe to increase the sample size by 20 persons because some difficulties were expected
in locating enough persons to be interviewed.

16

were then identified by the sampling interval. The starting point was chosen using arandom start method, which was a random number between 1 and the calculated.
interval number.
The IHS clinic lists for each Tribe were then cross-referenced
with tribal enrollment
lists to ensure their accuracy. Individuals were excluded from the sample if they wereidentified as deceased or unenrolled, if they had moved out of the area, or if they
These individuals were replaced by eligible
could not otherwise be interviewed.
members using the same selection method as for the original names.
As tribal members wete contacted to participate in the survey, it became evident thatseveral persons identified in the final sample set had died, had moved out of thesurvey area, or could not be contacted.
Several of these persons were then removed
from the sample set and replaced with the names of other tribal members using thesame selection procedure described above. In some cases, persons identified in thesample who were eligible respondents but who ,had moved out of the survey area
(e.g., to Seattle) had returned to the reservation to visit and were surveyed.

WeightingFat tors

Data were collected for the survey using stratified systematic sampling, with each of
the four Tribes considered an independent stratum, or subpopulation.
The final resultspresented in this text represent all four Tribes as a single population.
To obtain an unbiased estimate of the population mean of a set of pooled data, it wasnecessary either to utilize a self-weighting
sample or to weight the collected dataaccording to the proportion of each subpopulation
sampled. The Survey design did
not utilize a self-weighting
sample because of the small number of interviews thatwould have occurred on the smaller reservations.
Instead the samples for each of thefour Tribes were selected to be essentially the same size. However, the population
sizes of the four Tribes at the time of the sample selection ranged from 818 to 3872
individuals.
Therefore, the data were weighted
before they were pooled, using
weighting factors based on the population sizes of each tribe. Since the percentage
of individuals represented
in the larger Tribes is smaller than the percentage
ofindividuals represented in the smaller Tribes, it was necessary to give more weight toresponses from individuals in the larger Tribes (Appendicesl-2 for weighting
formulas).
Un weigh ted Data
The majority of the data presented in this report has been weighted to reflect the fishconsumption
habits and patterns for the overall tribal population.
However, data
concerning each individual Tribe (i.e., in the section concerning potential biases in the17

survey and the section concerning locations of fishing sites) were not weighted.
Inaddition, data provided by survey respondents concerning the fish consumption habits
and patterns of children living in their households were not weighted because of the
low number of children represented in the survey.

Survey Methods
Target Population
The target population included all tribal members ages 18 and older who lived on ornear the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla or Nez Perce reservations.
Respondents
provided consumption information for themselves and one child five years of age or
younger residing in the respondent’s
household. Respondents who consume fish arereferred to as fish consumers and respondents who do not consume fish are referred
to as non-fish-consumers.
Questionnaire

Development

CRITFC and the USEPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation established atechnical panel to assist in the design and implementationof the survey. The panel
consisted of representatives
from CRITFC and toxicologists,
epidemiologists,
healthscientists, and environmental
scientists from the Indian Health Service (IHS), theCenters for Disease Control(CDC), Washington
and Oregon State Health
Departments, and the Region 10 and headquarters offices of USEPA (Appendix 3).
Members of the technical panel helped determine the following: the focus of thesurvey; the target population;questionnaire
design and content; coordination
andsurvey procedure and; the allocation of tasks necessary to complete the project.
USEPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation(OPPE) coordinatedthedevelopment of the questionnaire.
(Appendix 4 for CRTIFC and tribal coordination).

The Survey Questionnaire
The 17 page survey questionnaire(Appendix 5) included approximately
34 questions
concerning demographics,
24 hour dietary recall, seasonal, annual and daily fishconsumption rates, changes in fish consumption over the last 20 years, consumptionof fish parts, fish preparation methods, breast feeding, location of Columbia River
Basin fishing sites, sources of fish consumed and fish consumption
as a result ofcultural and other special events. Survey respondents were asked questions about
their consumption of different species of fish as well as consumption of specific fish18

parts. Respondents were also asked to provide information about consumption of fish
species and fish parts for one child five years of age or less residing in the
respondent’s
household.
A brief description of key questions and corresponding
Similar information is provided for those questions
questionnaire numbers follows.
also pertaining to children’s consumption.

24-Hour

Recall (Ill- I)

The 24-hour dietary recall was asked of adult respondents
with overall individual fish consumption
rates.
Seasonal Consutip

for comparative

analysistion (Ill-2,3,4,5)

To better understand seasonal variations and correlationsin
consumption, respondents
were asked to estimate the two months of the year during which they consume themost fish (i.e., when their fish consumption
rate is the highest) and the two monthsof the year during which they consume the “least” fish (i.e., when their fishconsumption rate is the lowest). Note that although the terms “most” and “least” do
not represent quantified amounts of fish, respondents were also asked to estimate theaverage number of fish meals per week they consumed during the two months
identified as least and highest months of consumption.
Rate of Fish Consumption

Throughout

The Year (Ill-6,7;

W-5,7 for children)

Respondents were asked about the number of fish meals they consume over the year
in general and during the seasons when they eat the most fish and the least fish. Fishmeals included breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.
Since the term “fish meals” did not indicate a quantified amount of fish and may
reflect different amounts in ounces depending on the respondent and on the meal,
respondents were asked to estimate the average serving size in ounces of fish eaten
during fish meals. To aid respondents in estimating amounts of fish consumed, foam
sponge food models approximating
four, eight, and twelve ounce fish fillets were
provided.
Fish Species Consumed(Ill-9, IV-6 for children)

Ten Columbia River Basin fish species were specifically listed in the questionnaireforrespondents to provide consumption information about. Because different fish species
may be exposed to varying levels of toxic pollution depending on their life history, theten species listed on the survey were separated into anadromous fish (those that areborn and reside in a river system for one to three years, migrate to the ocean and19remain there for up to several years, then return from the ocean to the river to spawn)
and resident fish (those that remain in the river their entire lives).’
The anadromous fish specified on the questionnaire
were salmon/steelhead
trout*,
lamprey, smelt, and shad. The resident fish specified on the questionnaire were trout,whitefish, sturgeon3, walleye, squawfish,and sucker (Appendices 6-8 for speciesnames).
Respondents
were also asked to provide information
concerning,theirconsumption of other fish species not identified in the questionnaire that may or may
not originate in the Columbia River Basin.
Fish species were also separated into their appropriate trophic levels. Second trophic
level fish, those that are mostly herbivorous, include shad, smelt, sturgeon, sucker,
whitefish, and small trout. The carnivorous third trophic level fish include salmon,
walleye, lamprey, squawfish, and large trout. Since trout are considered both second
and third level fish, these species have been placed in a separate category:
second/third level fish (CRITFC, 1993).
Change in Consumption

Over the Last 20 Years (Ill-8)

To help characterize the historical pattern of tribal fish consumption
and aid indetermining
the cultural and/or environmental
causes for changes in tribal fishconsumption over time, respondents 30 years old and older were asked if their or theirfamily’s current pattern of fish consumption
differs from the pattern of consumption
they experienced 20 years ago. These questions may also aid in predicting future
increases or decreases in tribal fish consumption.
Fish Parts Consumed(111-9, IV-6 for children)

Respondents were asked to identify the fish parts they usually consume for eachspecies. Fish parts listed on the survey were: fillet, skin, head, eggs, bones and otherorgans. Respondents were also asked to provide the same information for one childfive years of age or younger residing in the respondent’s household.

2

Salmon and steelhead trout were listed together on the survey questionnaire rather than as separate fish
species. For the remainder of the report, references to salmon also include steelhead trout and references to trout
will be for resident trout only.
3

Although sturgeon below Bonneville Dam are considered anadromous, we have delineated this species as
resident because the majority are located above Bonneville Dam and are now considered resident fish. Also,
because the tribal commercial fishery begins above Bonneville dam, tribal members do not catch sturgeon below
Bonneville dam.

20

Fish Preparation

Methods(IV- 1)

Because toxic chemicals may attenuate out of fish flesh when prepared by certain
methods, respondents were asked about the different methods used to prepare fishin their homes and how often a particular method is used.
The questionnaire
specificallyinquired about the use and frequencyof the following
preparation
methods: pan frying, deep frying, poaching, boiling, baking, broiling, smoking, drying,
Respondents
also were asked to provide
eating raw, roasting, and canning.
information concerning how often they use each method, given the following threechoices: at least once per week, at least once per month but less than once per week,or less than once per month.
Breastfeeding(Ii/-g, IO, I I, 12,731

Because certain toxic contaminants can be passed to newborn infants from mother’sbreast milk, female respondents were asked whether they have given birth, and if so,whether the child or children had been or are being breast fed. These respondents
were also asked at what age their child ceased or will cease breastfeeding.
Source of Fish Consumed[V- I,41

To verify where respondents were obtaining the fish they consume, respondents wereasked to estimate what percent of the fish they consume is from the following
sources: self-harvestor harvest by a family member; friends who fish; tribal
ceremonies; tribal distributions;grocery stores or; “other.”
Respondents were asked
to identify these “other” sources. Information on sources of fish are presented as thesum of individual responses as well as the weighted means for each source.
F,%hing Site Locations(V-2)

In order to provide a more detailed account of the origin of fish obtained by tribal
fishers, participants were asked to identify the specific locations within the ColumbiaRiver Basin where they fish for particular species. Those participants who indicatedthat they fish for themselves or the Tribe identified fishing sites on a map of theColumbia River Basin provided by the interviewer displaying numbered sites along theriver’s mainstem and tributaries (Appendix 9). Sites selected by survey respondents
do not however, include all of the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing areas utilized
by tribal members and do not reflect any one tribe’s exclusive use of a fishing site.
Ceremonial

Consumptionof Fish {VI- 1,2,3)

To substantiate the cultural importance and prevalence of fish to the four surveyed
tribes, respondents were asked questions about their attendance at tribal ceremonies
and their consumption of fish at these events.
21

Data Collection

Procedure

An incentive method was used to limit the cost and duration of the project. Due tothe large distances between residences and the frequent movement of individuals on
reservations, interviewing door-to-door was considered unduly time consuming andexpensive. Monetary incentives ($40/person)
were used to encourage individuals tocome to a central location on the reservation to be surveyed.
Survey participants
were notifie‘d of the time and location for interviews by letters signed by tribal
government officials (Appendix 10).
After the initial invitation letter was sent to tribal members, interviewers
were
instructed to make at least four attempts to contact an individual by phone and finally,
to make an attempt to conduct a door-to-door interview. The survey instrument was
designed to allow interviewers up to four recorded attempts to interview an individual.
Reasons were provided by the interviewer
for why an individual could not beinterviewed for each attempt made. In most cases, more than four attempts weremade to contact an individual by phone. If these attempts were unsuccessful, theinterviewer would then attempt a door-to-doorinterview. Of all the door-to-door
attempts made by interviewers, only one individual was contacted and interviewed bythis method. A total of 513 interviews were completed in a three week period.

Quality Assurance/Quality

Control in Survey implementation

PretestA survey pretest was conducted during October 1991.
One Warm Springs tribal
member and one Umatilla tribal member were hired to interview approximately
10
tribal members each from their respective reservations.
The interviewers
wereinformed as to the purpose of the survey and were instructed by phone on basic
surveying procedure and techniques.
The pretest lasted approximately one week andrespondents were paid from 5 to 10 dollars for participating.
The results of the pretest were used to determine the time required to administer the survey and to identify
potential problems with interpretation or delivery of survey questions.
As a result of
the pretest, some of the questions in the survey questionnaire were modified.
Interviewer

Training

Nine tribal members (three from the Nez Perce, two from the Yakama, two from theWarm Springs, and two from the Umatilla Tribe) were hired to conduct interviews at
locations on each of the tribal reservations.
Interviewers surveyed only members of
the Tribe to which the interviewer belonged.

22

A three-day training session for interviewers was conducted by a representative from
CDC at CRITFC’s office in Portland, Oregon in October 1991 i During the training
session, interviewers were instructed in surveying procedure and techniques, including
locating interviewees,
obtaining accurate data, prevention of bias in responses toquestions, use of food models to assist respondents in determining amounts of foodconsumed, and quality control. In addition, the questionnaire was reviewed questionby-question to eliminate potential misunderstandingon the part of the interviewers
The training included practice interviews in the presence of anand interviewees.
instructor.
Lastly, interviewers were directed to make the following
survey respondent before beginning the questionnaire:statementof purpose to each

We are conducting
a survey to understandfish eating patterns as well as other dietary
patterns
and health-related
behaviors4ofNative Americans in the Pacific Northwest.
The information given in this survey will assist
the [name of Tribe] in documenting
actualrates of dietary fish consumption,
ways inwhich fish meals are cooked and prepared, thetypes of fish species regularly consumed, andlocations where fish are caught or obtained.
Use of Food Models
Foam sponge food models approximating
four, eight, and twelve ounce fish fillets
were provided to aid respondents in estimating amounts of fish consumed.
In ternal Technical Review
Final drafts of the report were submitted to several CRITFC and tribal staff for review
and comment.
Each tribes’ governing body and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission were formally briefed on the report data for final approval. All submittedcomments were addressed in subsequent edits.
OutsideTechnical Review

4 In a separate effort to simultaneously obtain other non-dietary information from tribal respondents during thefish consumption survey interview, a separate behavioral risk questionnaire was developed. A policy decision wasmade by the Nez Perce tribe to ask these behavioral risk questions to Nez Perce tribal members participating in thefish consumption survey. Members of the other three participating tribes did not participate in the behavioral risk
survey but were presented with the same introductory statement.

23

Several drafts of the report were submitted to members of the technical panel and toseveral USEPA staff for comment and review. All panel members and all USEPA staff
submitted comments either in writing or verbally to CRITFC.
IndependentPeer Review

A final draft of the report incorporated all prior solicited comments and was submitted
to an independent peer review panel (Appendix 3). The peer review panel, selectedby CRITFC, consisted of nine individuals from across the country esteemed in thefields of epidemiology, toxicology, survey methodology
and statistics.
Procedures

for Pro tee ting Confidentiality

Information revealing participant identity was removed from survey questionnaires
immediately after respondent names were verified with the master sample list. Thus,
respondents cannot be identified from the individual questionnaires.
Confidentiality
agreements were signed between any contractors and CRITFC stating that none of
the information provided in the database or the survey would be revealed before
release of the final report. In addition, following completion of the report, all relevant
information
was returned to CRITFC. Lastly, general information and conclusions
reached as a result of the survey were reviewed for confidentiality
by the Commission
and CRITFC’s member Tribes before release to USEPA or the public.

Data Processing
Data Entry and Audit
Survey data were entered by computer into EPI Info Version 5.1, a Center for Disease
Control statistical database package used for analysis of epidemiological
data.
Entered data were subsequently
reviewed for missing answers or mistakes in data
entry and corrections were made from the original questionnaires.
A second complete audit of the database was conducted by a private consulting firmwith CRITFC’s approval to ensure that the final survey results would reflect the highand low estimate ranges for the responses provided on the questionnaires.
For
example, respondents
often would provide a range of responses regarding their
In these cases, the lowest number in the range wasestimated fish consumption.
recorded in the database, even if that number were 0.00.
In addition, data wereconsistently rounded down before being entered into the database. This second audit
involved a question-by-question
review of each survey with necessary changes madeto the original database.

24

Data Analysis
To obtain the most accurate estimated mean rate of consumption
for the entire setof respondents,
the consumption
rate for each respondent in grams per day wasdetermined from the data on serving size and weekly fish consumption collected in thesurvey. For example, the fish consumption rate of an individual who consumes 2 fishmeals per week and 8 ounces per fish meal is 64.8 gpd. The calculation is as follows:000

8 ounces x 2 meals per week5 = 16 ounces per week
16 ounces per week/7 days per week = 2.28 ounces per day
2.28 ounces per day x 28.35 grams per ounce = 64.8 gpd

Once the consumption
rate for each respondent was calculated in grams per day(gpd), the average and distribution of these individual rates were calculated.
Thus,
the mean rate of consumption for adults throughout the year was calculated using thisThe reported mean consumption
rate
method, with the mean reported in gpd.
estimate also includes those respondents
that were not fish consumers and thus
represents the estimated consumption
rate of the entire tribal population sampled.
Responses to questions concerning the number of fish meals consumed by adults
each month and the number of ounces consumed by adults at each meal wereanalyzed to determine if a correlation existed between these parameters,
but nosignificant correlation was found. The remainder of this document will present theappropriate results in terms of the number of grams consumed per day (gpd). The
mathematical conversion from ounces to grams resulted, in some cases, precision in
the data to the 100th decimal point. In those cases, all data were rounded to thenearest tenth.
EPI- was used to calculate weighted frequencies
and proportions.
Programs forcalculating weighted means also were developed using EPI and results were verified
using the automatic weighted mean option in SAS Version 6, produced by the SAS
Institute.
Some Chi-square analyses were performed using Lotus l-2-3.
Statistical

Tests

Analysis of the fish consumption
rates indicated that the data were not normally or
log-normally distributed, nor were any other standard data transforms likely to yielda normal distribution.
The untransformed
data and log-transformed
data were tested

5

In cases where the response was given as meals/month, the calculation
ounces x meals/month = ounces per monthounces per montW30.4 days per month = ounces per day
ounces per day x 28.35 grams/ounce = grams per day

25

was

as follows:for normality using SAS’ PROC UNIVARIATE option, which produces a test statistic
for the null hypothesis that the input data values are a random sample from a normal
distribution.
If the sample size is less than 2000, the Shapiro-Wilkastatistic,W, iscomputed.
The W statistic is the ratio of the best estimator of the variance (basedon the square of a linear combination of the order statistics) to the usual corrected
sum of squares estimator of the variance. W must be greater than zero and less thanor equal to one, with small values of W leading to rejection of the null hypothesis.
The Shapiro-Wilk statistic is very sensitive to any deviations from normality, and thetest showed that the data was not normally distributed.
Ou tliers
Outliers, those data points that seemed unreasonably high due to discontinuity
indistribution,
were identified in responses to some survey questions.
A total of five
outliers were identified and these data points were ignored in all calculations.
Of thefive data outliers, one was for a child’s estimated number of meals per week, twowere adult mens’ estimated meals per week and two were adult womens’ estimatedmeals per week, including one woman who breastfed her child.
Individual

Response Rate Calcufa tions

Since some survey respondents opted to not answer certain questions, a response
rate is provided in most tables representing summary results for each question. The
response rate was calculated by dividing the number of responses by the total numberof persons who should have answered the question. For example, the response rate
for the question concerning women who have given birth is 98.9 percent because 285
females were surveyed and only 282 of these women answered this question.
The
response rate for questions is referred to in the report as RR. In those instances whenoutliers were identified and ignored in the final data calculations, the response rate
was also modified to exclude those responses. Thus, the response rates provided in
the report that omit outliers are referred in the report as RR’.

26

SURVEY RESULTS
Completed

SurveysAn overall response rate (RR) of 69.0 percent of the sample was obtained andincluded 126 completed interviews from the Warm Springs Tribe (RR = 70.0%), 123
completedinterviews
from the Yakama Tribe (RR = 67.6%),
133 completedinterviews from the Nez Perce Tribe (RR = 65.8%), and 131 completed interviews
from the Umatilla Tribe (RR = 72.8%).
Approximately
43 percent of non-responses in the sample represent those individuals
who could not be contacted by phone or other means or who had moved out of thesurvey area. For 25.2 percent of the non-surveyed group, interviewers provided noreason for lack of a tribal member’s participation(Table 1).

Demographid
Location

Informationof Respondents

The Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Warm Springs reservations cover approximately
4445 square miles. Four hundred fifty-two respondents (88.1%) lived on one of thesefour reservations and 61 (11.9%) respondents lived off reservation (RR = 100%).
Individuals close to the interview site were more likely to be surveyed than thosefurther away (P ~0.001).
Of the individuals living within IO miles of the interview site,
74% were surveyed and 26% were not surveyed. The percent surveyed dropped off
with increasing distance such that 67% of individuals between 31 and 70 miles of thesurvey site were surveyed (Table 2)(Appendix 12 for information on each tribe). Nineof-the 14 individuals living beyond 70 miles from the interview site were surveyed.
Sex of Respondents
More females (57.9%) participated in the survey than males (42.1%) (RR = 100%).
A significant difference exists between the number of males and females who weresurveyed and those who were identified in the original sample but were not surveyed(p < 0.05) (Table 3).

Age of Respondents
The majority of survey respondents (58.7%) were between the ages of 18-39 years;
31.4 percent were between the ages of 40-59 years; and 9.9 percent were at least

27

0

I
18-29

50-39

40-49

50.ti9

60-69

70-79

80-89

I

90-99

Age OfJars)
Figure 1
60 years old.
FQure 1).

Age Groups of Adult

Respondents

The mean age of respondents

was 38.9 (0.64. SE’) years (Table 4,Rates of Adult Fish Consumption
Adult tribal members consumed an average of 1.71 (0.11 SE) fish meals per weekthroughout the entire year (RR = 97.5%) (Table 5). Approximately
75 percent ofrespondents indicated that they eat up to 8 ounces of fish per fish meal (Table ‘6).
Approximately
17 percent of respondents
eat 12 ounces at each serving, and 1.1
percent of respondents eat as much as 20 to 24 ounces. The mean of individual
estimates of an average serving of fish is 7.83 (0.16 SE) ounces.

6.

SE = the standard error of the mean

28

The average rate of consumption
by all surveyed adults throughout the year for all
The 90th
species from all sources was determined to be 58.7 (3.64 SE) gpd.
percentile of consumption was between 97.2 and 130 gpd, the 95th*percentile
wasat approximately
170 gpd; and the 99th percentile was 389 gpd (Figure 2, Table 7)(RR = 97.5%).
These data include both fish consumers and non-fish-consumers.

Legend-.*.-.*.
.-.-.-.*.
-:.:.:.: .-;.
-......
. . . . . . . . . . . ..
.-.*.-.-.-.-.
*...-.
-:.:.:.z.:.:. .. ...-.
....

120

e.....

0

Figure 2

Fish-Consumers

I

::
::
j:

oy AM Adult Respondents

Grams per Day or twn

Only

Seven percent of respondents indicated that they were not fish consumers. Excludingthese individuals, surveyed individuals composed solely of fish consumers consumed
an average of 1.85 (0.11 SE) fish meals/week(Table 8) and 8.42 (0.13 SE)
ounces/meal (Table 9). The mean rate of fish consumption for fish consumers only
was 63.2 (3.84 SE) gpd (Table 10) (RR = 97.3).

29

Fishers
Almost half (48.7%)of the tribal members surveyed caught fish for personal
consumption or for use by their Tribe (RR = 99.4%). Fish consumption rates for nonfishers and individuals who fish for themselves or for their Tribe are similar. However,the distributions,which are not normal, are significantly
different (p = .OOOl)(Appendix 13). The variances of the means differ in three ways: 14 percent of nonfishers are also non-fish eaters while only 3 percent of fishers are non-fish eaters;
fishers representing the high end of the consumption range tend to eat more gpd than
non-fishers; and fishers representing the low end of the consumption range (above 0.0gpd) tend to eat less gpd than non-fishers.
Rates of Consumption

for Demographic

Categories

Male tribal members consumed significantly more fish than female tribal members withmales averaging approximately
63 gpd and females averaging approximately
56 gpd=0.0005)(Table11).
Althoughthedifferencesarenotsignificant(p>0.05),
it(P
is interesting to note that respondents ages 60 years and older consumed an averageof 74.4 gpd of fish which is more than the average rate for persons age 18-39 years
or persons age 40-59 years (Table 1 la) and individuals living on-reservation
consumed, on average, more grams of fish per day than those living off-reservation(Table 11 b).
Seasonal Rate of Fish Consumption
Almost 42 percent of respondents indicated that most fish was consumed during themonths of April through July (Figure 3, Table 12) (RR = 100%). Approximately
18
percent of the total number of respondents stated that they eat the same amount offish each month of the year; 7.0 percent said they do not eat fish at all and; about 0.6
percent do not know in which months they consumed the most fish.

For all months identified as high fish consumption
months by the entire population
sampled (i.e., fish consumers
and non-fish consumers
combined)
respondents
consumed an average of 87.9 (4.80 SE) gpd of fish (Table 13) (RR= 99%).
For
approximately
26 percent of respondents,
the two months of highest fishconsumption
were either May and June, June and July, or July and August. For themonths of May and June, the two most frequently chosen high fish consumption
months, survey respondents consumed an average of 2.93 (0.18 SE) meals/week or
108 (7.63 SE) gpd (Appendix 14) (RR = 99.6%).
When asked about the months of lowest fish consumption,
56.7 percent ofrespondents indicated that they eat the least fish during the months of November
28 percent ofthrough February (Figure 4, Table 14) (RR = 96.9%). Approximately
30

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jui Aug Sep Ocl Nov Dee X
MonthFigure 3

MonfhsY

Zof High Fish Consumpfion

respondents
estimated either January and February, January and November, orNovember and December as their two months of least fish consumption.
Overall, thetwo most frequently estimated months of low consumption
were December andJanuary. In addition, 3.38 percent of the respondents indicated that fish consumption
is equally low for all months except those during which they eat the most fish.
For all months identified as low fish consumption
months by the entire population
sampled, respondents consumed an average of 26.4 (1.39 SE) gpd (Table 13) (RR =94.3%).
In January and December, the two most frequently chosen months of low
fish consumption,
survey respondents consumed 0.86 (0.06 SE) meals/week or 30.7
(2.19 SE) gpd (Appendix 15) (RR = 97.6%).
Overall, the mean rate of consumption
in high months (April-July) is over three times
higher than the mean rate of consumption
in low months (November-February)andthe mean rate of consumptionin May and June is over three times higher than themean rate of consumptionin December and January.

31LEGE’ND
X - All Months
the Sam
Y - Nevwdevwiy
Z - Unknown
Q’EY2
Exoept Two
Highest Months
JtmkbMarApcMayJunJdA~SapoctNwI)bcX

Y

Z

Q

MO&l

Figure 4

MOnMS Ot Low Hsn GonsumptIon

DTetary Recall
Approximately
19 percent or 1 out of every 5 respondents,
indicated that they had
eaten fish within the 24 hours preceding the survey interview;
81.3 percent ofrespondents had not consumed fish during this period (RR = 100%). The overall rateof consumption
reported by respondents who had consumed fish in the 24 hours
preceding the survey was compared to the overall rate of consumption
reported byrespondents
who had not consumed fish during that period (Appendix 16) (RR’ =97.5%). Individuals who ate fish during that time period estimated significantly higher
overall consumption rates (61.8 gpd)(6.03 SE) than those who did not eat fish duringthat period (57.9 gpd) (4.28 SE) (p = .0013).
Women Who Have Nursed or Currently

Are Nursing

Their Children

Of the 88 percent of women respondents
who had given birth (RR = 98.9%),
approximately
42 percent indicated that they currently are breast feeding or have32

breast fed their children (Appendix 17) (RR = 98.8%). These women consumed anaverage of 1.75 (SE 0.17) fish meals per week (Table 15) (RR* = 98.1%).
Nursingmothers or mothers who have nursed ate an average of 59.1 (6.42 SE) grams of fish
per day (Table 16). Therefore, on average, women who breast feed or had breast-fed
consumed nearly the same amount of fish as the tribal population in general.
The average rate of fish consumption
for all women except those who are or havebreastfed is 54.0 (6.60 SE) gpd and the average rate of fish consumption for women
who have given birth but never breastfed is 57.1 (7.90 SE) gpd (Appendix 17). Thereis no significant difference between either of these rates and the average rate of fishconsumption for women who are or have breastfed (for the first comparison,p sO.05; for the second comparison, p > 0.05).
Consumptionof Different

Species by Adults

Salmon was consumed by the largest number of respondents (92%) (RR = lOO%),
followed by trout (70%) (RR = 1 OO%), lamprey (54%) (RR = 100%) and smelt(52%) (RR = 99.2%) (Figures 5-6, Table 17). Some respondents
also provided
information concerning other fish species they consume, including bass, black cod,catfish, chiselmouth,
crappie, halibut, Alaskan cod, blue gill, and red snapper.
The average rate of consumptionof anadromous species for only those respondents
who consume fish was 28.8 (1.45 SE) gpd and the average consumption
rate ofresident species was 10 (0.77 SE) gpd (Figures 7-8, Table 18). Table 19 illustrates
overall consumptionof individual fish species by both fish consumers and non-fishconsumers. These rates were determined by combining the average consumption rate
for each individual who consumes a particular species with the average serving sizein ounces for that individual and then calculating
the mean of the individual
consumption
rates.
Overall, ail four Tribes consumed significantly
more gpd ofanadromous fish than resident fish (p < 0.05).
Data concerning
frequencyof overall (fish consumers
and non-fish consumers)
consumption are generally consistent with data concerning the rates of consumptionof each species: 92.4 percent of tribal members consumed salmon, and these
individuals ate on average 23.7 (1.16 SE) gpd. Approximately
70 percent of the tribal
population consumed trout, and these individuals ate on average 6.62 (0.57 SE) gpd.
Although only 22.8 percent of the tribal population
consumed whitefish,these
individuals ate on average 1.93 (0.36 SE) gpd (Tables 17, 19, Figures 7-8).
Overall, in order of the species listed in Table 19, more salmon is consumed than trout
or any other species (p < 0.0001); more trout is consumed than lamprey or any otherspecies listed after it (p < 0.0001); more whitefish is consumed than sturgeon or any
other species listed after it (p < 0.05); and more sturgeon is consumed than walleye
or any other species listed after it (p < 0.0001).

33

(Data Represents Ail Adult Respondents)

SalmonSmelt

LamPreY

Shad

SpeciesFigure 5

Consumption

Anadromous

Fish Species Consumed

by Adults

by Fish Trophic Levelin terms of consumption of fish by trophic level, tribal members consumed an averageof 5.31 (0.54 SE) gpd of second level fish (shad, smelt, sturgeon, sucker, whitefish
and small trout), 6.62 (0.57 SE) gpd of trout, and 26.6 (1.32 SE) gpd of third levelfish (salmon, walleye, lamprey, squawfish and large trout). Overall, tribal members
consumed significantly
more third-level fish than either trout (p < 0.05) or secondlevel fish (p < 0.05), but there is no significant difference in the rates of consumptionof trout and second level fish (p > 0.20).

34

(Data RepresentsAll Adult Respondents)
Bo/I

Whitefish

Sturgeon

WalleyeSpedeS
Figure 6

Resident Fish Species Consumed

35

by Adults

Sqpwfis h

Sucker(Data Represents Both Fish Consumers and Non-Fish Conwmers)
26 I
24

Salmongure 7

Consumption

WPmY

Shad

Smelt
Species

Adult Rate of Consumptionof SpecificIof Anad,romous

Fish1 Species

Parts by Adults

Respondents indicated that the following
eggs, bones, and other organs.

fish parts were consumed:fillet, skin, head,

Overall, fillet and skin were the two most consumed fish parts for ail ten species listedon the questionnaire with the fillet being the number one consumed fish part for ail
species except lamprey and smelt (Table 20). For lamprey and1 smelt, the skin was
the most consumed fish part.
in addition, more than 40 percent of respondents
indicated that they consumed salmon head and/or eggs; 37.4 percent of respondents
consumed smelt heads; 46.4 percent of respondents consumed smelt eggs; 27.9
percent of respondents consumed smelt organs and; approximately
12% consumed
sturgeon eggs (Appendix 18 for Chi-square test comparisons).

36

(Data Represents Both Fish Consumers and Non-Fish Consumers)
8/1

c32
$
1

0
Whitefish

Figure 8

Walleye
Sturgeon
spi3cies

Adult Rate of Consumption

Squwfishof Resident Fish Species

37

Sudw

.

0

Salmon

Smelt

Shad

of Anadromous

Fish Parts

LamPBY
specksAdult Consumption

Figure 9

Respondents

Whose Fish Consumption

Has Changed

Over the Last 20 Years

Approximately
70 percent of respondents who were older than 30 years believed they
and/or their families currently consume a different amount of fish than they did 20
years ago (RR = 99.4%).
Type of Change
Of the 70 percent who indicated a change, 26.2 percent indicated an increase in fishconsumption;
68.5 percent indicated a decrease in fish consumption;and 5.4 percent
said they eat different species of fish now, but have not changed their overall fishconsumption
level. Some respondents indicated both a change in the level of theirpersonal fish consumption and a change in the types of fish they eat. Data for these
individuals were included in the above percentages reflecting increases or decreases
said they now
in consumption(Figure 11). Overall, 4.2 percent of respondents38TroutFigure 10
consumeconsumeWhbfmhSturgeon

Adult Consumption

Walleye Squawfiih

speciesof Resident

more and different types of fish,less and different types of fish.

Quantifiable

Sudw

Fish Parts
and 0.6 percent. indicated

they

now

ChangeFor the 26.2 percent who indicated that they or their families eat more fish now than
20 years ago, the average increase in the number of fish meals consumed is 2.41
(0.37 SE) meals per week (Appendix 19) (RR = 100%).
For the 68.5 percent who
eat less fish per week now than 20 years ago, the average decrease in the number offish meals consumed is 2.83 (0.28 SE) meals per week (Appendix 19) (RR = 100%).
The change in the number of grams consumed per day over the last 20 years could
not be calculated because the respondents only provided data concerning the current
number of ounces consumed per fish meal by themselves, nol: their families.

39

- -.

EalLetx

EatDllbmtsped~

ChangeInConsumptionqgure 11

Lbgmd
Cwsume Diftkent Amount and Difkent Speck

Change in Consumption

Over the Last 20 Years

ChildrenInformation on fish consumption was obtained for 204 children; 45.8 percent of thesechildren were male.(RR = 98.5%).
Age When Children Begin Eating Fish
The average age when children began eating meals that include fish was 13.1 (0.71
SE) months (Table 21). In addition, approximately
71 percent of these children
started eating fish by the end of their first year. Approximately
216 percent of children
However, the average age of infants
started eating fish by the age of 6 months.
when mothers ceased breast feeding was 7.64 (0.62 SE) mont:hs (Appendix 20).

40

Children’s

Consumption

Rates

Approximately 83 percent of the 204 tribal children five years of age or younger about
whom information was given ate fish. Children who consumed fish ate an averageof 1 .I 7 (0.11 SE) fish meals per week (Table 22), and 3.36 (0.18 SE) ounces permeal (Table 23). The average rate of fish consumption for these children is 19.6
(1.94 SE) gpd (Table 24) (RR = 95.1%).
Consumptionof Different

Species by Children

Respondents indicated that children, like adults, consumed more salmon and trout
than any other species (Figures 14-15, Table 25). Frequency alf consumption of theother eight species also closely follows the pattern of consumption among adults.
Children described by survey respondents tended to have higher rates of consumptionof salmon (19.0 (1.47 SE) gpd) than any other fish species (Table 26, Figures 12-I 3).
The large standard error of the mean consumption rate for whitefish reflects the factthat one respondent indicated that his/her child consumes 60 meals of whitefish permonth; all other respondents
who answered this question estimated 2 meals permonth or less. Although 60 meals per month could be considered an unreasonable
response when compared to other responses to this question, it is equivalent to 15
meals per week, which was not determined to be an unreasonable response whenSomecalculating the rate of children’s
fish consumption
throughout
the year.
respondents also indicated that their children consumed other fish species, including
bass, black cod, catfish, crappie, and blue gill.

Consumptionof Specific Parts by Children

As in the case of adults, fillet and skin are consumed the most frequently by children.
Respondents indicated that their children consumed fillet more frequently than any
other fish part for all ten species (Figures 16-l 7, Table 27). Skin was the second
most frequently consumed fish part for all ten species, with the skin of lamprey andsmelt consumed the most.

41

0SalmonSmelt

LampreyShadsfJeclesigure 12Rate of Consumptionof Anadromous
Represents Fish Consumers Only)

42

Fish Species by Children (DataIWhitefish

igure 13

Fish Preparation

I

Rate of Consumptionof Resident
Represents Fish Consumers Only)

I

I

Walleye
Sturgeon
SpiCBS

Squawfish

Fish Species

suckerby Children(Dal

Methods

Of all surveyed respondents,
70.3 percent indicated that they regularly prepare themeals in their households (RR = 100%). The largest number of respondents (98.3%)
indicated that they bake their fish, and the second largest number of respondents(79.5%) pan fry their fish (Figure 18, Table 28). These two methods were compared,
and the frequencies of use were found to be significantly
different (p < 0.005):
Baking, the method used by the largest percent of respondents,
was used the mostoften, with 34.6 percent of respondents using this method at least once per week and81.1 percent of respondents baking their fish at least once per month (Table 29).
Approximately
75 percent of respondents indicated that they can their fish, and 64.9
percent of these persons do so at least once a month. Although only 39.3 percent
of respondents broil their fish, 68.2 percent of these persons use this method at least
once per month. In addition, the methods of smoking or roasting fish are used by
43

-loo
-1
90
80
70
al
50
40
30
20
10
L

0

I

ShlOtlSmelt

LamPreY

Shad

speciesFigure 14

Anadromous

Fish Species Consumed

by Children

66.2 percent and 71.3 percent of respondents respectively, but only 41 .O percent of
pe?sons who roast their fish do so at least once per month and (only 46.4 percent of
individuals who smoke their fish do so at least once per month. Only 3.2 percent ofrespondents eat their fish raw, but 34.4 percent of these individuals do so at least
once a month.
The Chi-square statistical test was used to compare the weighted frequencies of
positive and negative responses to questions concerning the use of each preparation
method.
Each method was compared to the next most frequently used method(Appendix 2 1).

Origin of Fish Consumed
Overall, respondents obtained 87.6
sourcescombined:
self-harvesting,ceremonies, and tribal distributions.

(1 .I SE) percent
of fish from the following
harvestingby family
members,
friends,
Survey respondents obtained the most fish on
44

VW&fish

Sturgeon

Walleye

SquawFish

SuckerSpeciesFigure 15

Resident Fish Species Consumed

by Children

average through harvesting by themselvesor their families (Appendix 22), andaFproximately
55 percent of surveyed individuals stated that at least 50 percent of
the fish they eat is obtained from these sources (Figure 30). Thus, approximately
88
percent of the fish that tribal members consume originates from the Columbia Riversystem.
In addition, 17.4 percent of tribal members obtain 50 percenl: or more of their fishfrom tribal distribution,
8.3 percent obtain a major portion of fish from ceremonies,
and 11.2 percent from friends who fish. Approximately
7 percent of respondents
obtain 50 percent or more of their fish from grocery stores and 2.9 percent from othersources, including restaurants, warehouses, or purchases from tribal fishers (Appendix
22). These fish may or may not have been harvested from the Columbia River basin.
Appendix 22 provides information
concerning
other sources of fish indicated bysurvey respondents.

45

0SalmonFigure 16

Children’s

Smelt
LamPreY
Species
Consumptionof Anadromous

Shad

Fish Paw

Fish Harvesting
Approximately
49 percent of respondents indicated that they harvest fish for personalor tribal consumption(RR = 99.4%).
More than 57 percent of these persons travel
more than 75 miles to harvest fish (Appendix 23).
Fishing sites used by the Tribes are located throughout the basiin (Appendix 24). All
sites displayed on the map of the river system (Appendix 9) Iwere chosen at least
once. In most cases, however, two or three sites were used by a majority of tribal
members for obtaining either anadromous or resident fish.
For example, for catching resident species, 55.7 percent of Nez Perce respondents
fish at the South, Middle and North forks of the Clearwater River (Figure 20); 98.4
percent of Warm Springs respondents fish the Deschutes River (Figure 22); 44.2
percent of Yakama respondents fish along the Columbia River mainstem between
McNary Dam and the confluence with the Sandy River, while 25.2 percent fish the
Klickitat River, and 22.8 percent fish the Yakima River (Figure 24); and finally, 66.1
46

Tlwt

Whitelish

Sturgaon

Walleye Squawfirh

Suckm

SpeciesFigure 17Children’s

percent of the Umatilla

Consumption
respondents

of Resident

Fish

Parts

fish the Umatilla River (Fiigure 26).

fish theFor catching anadromous
fish, 46 percent of Nez Perce respondents
Clearwater River and 24 percent fish the Salmon River Mainstem, Middle and South
forks (Figure 19); 75.2 percent of Warm Springs respondents fish the Deschutes River(Figure 21);. and 53.3 percent of Yakama respondents fish along the Columbia Rivermainstem from Chief Joseph’s Dam to the Sandy River confluence (Figure 23); and43.6 percent of Umatilla respondents fish the Umatilla River and 21.8 percent fishalong the Columbia River mainstem between Priest Rapids Dam and the Sandy River
confluence (Figure 25).

47

BA-BakiA
Bo=Ehibd
BR=BmiledCA-cbamcd
DF-DetpPdal
DR-D&iPF-PanFlial
PO-pbachad
l&i-Raw

RO=Raseted
SM-smoked

0BA

Figure 18

PF

CA

BO

Fish Preparation

RO DR SM BR
Preparation Method

Methods

48

DF

PC

RA

Legendq ClezuwaterR.
cl Snak:eR.
q SalmaR.

ll.OW-.4%•lll

Grande Ronde R.
Columbia R., malnstem

q Otherigure 19

Nez Perce Tribe-Anadromous

Fish Fishing Sites;49Legend!BBi Clearwa&w R.
17 Sna!keR.
@ Salmon R.
Grande Ronde R.
m Columbia R., mainstem
H
Other

q

igure 20

Nez Perce Tribe-Resident

Fish Fishing Sites.50

Legend-7.2%

Figure 21

Warm Springs Tribe-Anadromous

5-l

EiBi Desohutes R.
Colulmbia R., mainstem
cl
Other

Fish Fishing !Ytes

90.4%-1.8%

igure 22

Warm Springs Tribe-Resident

52

Fish Fishing Sites

I@ Deschutes R.

L-l Hood R.

Legendq Columbia R., m&stem
0
Gem1arlyCk
q Fif&enmilg
Ck

63.3%

•j

Lewis R.
•NII Willamette R.
Yakima R.
CowMtz R.
Klickitat R.
El OtherHood R.
Waslhougal R.
Umatilla R.

igure 23

Yakama Tribe-Anadromous

Fish Fishing Sites

53

-,
1

Legend-7.8%

Cohmbia R., mainstemcl

Klic.+dtat
R.
Yakima R.
other

262%’

Figure 24

q

Yakama Tribe-Resident

54

Fish Fishing Sites

Legendqqcl

Umatilla R.
Twtnnon R.
Columbia R., mainstem
liEI Deschutes R.
Grande Ronde R.
Walla Walla R.
Johln Day R.
Snake R.
Othlef1.8%.

q21.8%'

Figure 25

Umatilla Tribe-Anadromous

Fish Fishing Sites

55

Legendqc]

Umatilla R.
Coiulmbia R., mainstem
Grande Ronde R.
John Day R.

Walk Walla R.

q Other

Figure ZB
Ceremonial

Umatilla Tribe-Resident
Consumptionof FishFrequent y of Ceremony

Attendance

Fish Fishing Sites

The survey data indicates that 93.3 percent of tribal members from the four Tribes
have attended ceremonies or traditional events (Appendix 25). in addition, 52.4
percent of tribal members attend ceremonies at least one to three times per month,and approximately
15.3 percent of individuals attend ceremonties or events at least
four to six times per month.

Frequent y of Fish Consumption

at Ceremonies

Of the 93.3 percent who do attend ceremonies, 72.6 percent of respondents eat fishat nearly every ceremony they attend and 83.7 percent of respolndents eat fish during
at least half of the ceremonies they attend (Figure 27) (RR = 100%).
56

80 I

Rarely/neverigure 27
AmountFrequency

At appic.112
Frequency of Consumption
At < II2of Fish Consumptionof Fish Consumption

DuringNeatly allat Tribal Ceremonies

Tribal Ceremonies

The majority of respondents (59.8%) indicated that they eat approximately one to two
6-ounce servings at each ceremony
Approximately
40.2 percent of respondents
typically eat more than this amount during tribal ceremonies (Figure 28) (RR =100%).
Finally, data concerning the amount of fish consumed at ceremonies based on’thefrequency of attendance at ceremonies indicated a relationship between frequency of
ceremony attendance
and fish consumption
at ceremonies, such that the more
frequently an individual attended ceremonies, the more likely he/she was to consume
fish at those ceremonies.

57

-\
,

6-12

Figure 28

Amount30-38
18-24
Amount (ounces)of Fish Consumed

at Tribal Ceremonies

58

>36

DISCUSSION
Comparisons
PopulationWiththe EstimatedNational

Fish Consumption

Rate for the U.S.

Numerous national and state surveys have been conducted over the past three
decades to determine the fish consumption
rates of the U.S. population and various
subpopulations.
However, none of these surveys have comprehensively
studied the
ceremonial and subsistence consumption
habits of Columbia River Basin Indians.
in developing their Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for various chemicals,
USEPA estimates national per capita fish consumption
at 6.5 gpd (USEPA, 1980).
This value was derived from data obtained from the National PUrChaSe Diary Survey
conducted in 1973-1974(SRI, 1980) and includes all commercially-harvested
andrecreationally-caught
freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish. According to resultsfrom CRiTFC’s survey, the average fish consumption
rate of Umatilla, Yakama, Nez
Perce, and Warm Springs tribal members is approximately nine tiimes greater than the
average consumption rate estimated for the general U.S. population.
The rates of tribal members’ consumption
across gender, age groups, persons wholive on- vs. off-reservation,
fish consumers only, seasons, nurs#ing mothers, fishers,
and non-fishers range from 6 to ‘I 1 times higher than the national estimate used by
USEPA. The consistency of these results suggest that USEPA’s AWQC and state
adopted water quality standards for the Columbia River basin based on a consumption
rate of 6.5 gpd may not be sufficient to protect the health of Native Americans living
and consuming fish caught in the area (Figure 29 for some connparisons).

,

59

U.S. Nationsl Avg. (6.5 opd)

CRITFC Data (except U.S. data)igure 29

Comparisons(6.5

Comparisonof Consumption

Rates-CRITFC

Data vs. U.S. Average

gpd)of Rates from Other Surveys

Although results from other surveys vary considerably, estimates of fish consumption
rates provided by these surveys are consistently lower than estimates determined by
the Columbia River Basin Fish Consumption
Survey (CRBFCS), even those reporting
estimates for tribal populations.
As detailed in the results section, tribal members represented by the CRBFCS
consumed an average of 58.7 (3.64 SE) gpd of fish, and the top five percent,conkumers consumed more than 170 gpd. Because a qualitative comparison of othersurveys reveals some interesting differences, a brief overview of fish consumption
estimates from other selected national, state and local consumption
surveys isprovided in the following chart:

60

Chart 1: Fish Consumption

Presented

Estimates

in Other Surveys.

Estimate of fish consumption

National

14.3 gpd

National estimates for consumptionof all sources of fish.

12ad

Mean estimate for women
50 years old

Purchase Diaryrate

Description

Survey with Reference

SRI (1980)
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture(1986)
5

Northwest

Pulp and Paper Association

Beak Consultants

Michigana@Mean for children ages i -5 years
old.

7.91 gpd (1982)
14.59 gpd (1987)

Estimated consumption rates ofColumbia River basin sport fishers
with families. Includes consumptionof all sipeoiee caught, based on
fishery landings and population
census data.

20.41
36.48

Estimeted consumption rate forColumbia River basin sport fishers
only. Includes consumption of all
specieci caught.

(1989)

Sport Anglers Survey

ages 19-

gpd (1982)
gpd (1987.13 gpd (1982)
1.05 gpd (1988)

Estimeted consumption rates forgeneral1 population for fish caught inlower Columbia River Basin.
Excludes sport fishermen and Native
Americans.

5.6 gpd (1982)
16.37 gpd (1988)

Estimated consumption rate of
Native Americans (Warm Springs,
Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla tribes)
based ton retained landings andtribal population.

24.3 gpd

Native Americanarea.

anglers in survey

23.1 gpd

Native Americans

age 60 and older.

11ad

50th percentile(West, P,, et al., 1989)

Penobscot

River Users Survey

Maine Dept. of Natural Resources(1991)

48

ad

90th percentile

Survey of Maine Anglers

5.0 gpd

All Maine anglers

6.4 gpd

Maine fish consuming

ChemRisk(1991)

61

anglers

Adult Rates of Fish Consumption
CRITFC and the tribes have reported a mean consumption rate of 58.7 gpd which
includes all respondents (fish consumers as well as non-fish-consumers)
so that themean rate would be most representative of the entire tribal polpulation. However, it
is important to note that for assessing human health damage from ingestion ofcontaminated fish, it may be more accurate to use estimates based on fish consumers
only such that the population most affected will be adequately alccounted for. The rateof consumption for fish consumers only was 63.2 gpd.
Children
Although further studies are needed to determine actual fish consumption
rates ofchildren, the survey data suggest that similarities exist between fish species and partsconsumed by children living in the households of respondents and the respondents
themselves.
Adults indicated that children also consumed salmon and trout mostfrequently.
Also like adults, children consumed the fillet and skin of all ten species
more frequently than other fish parts. These similarities make sense since families
who eat together tend to consume the same foods in general. In addition, the data
show that children about whom information was given consumed approximately
3times more fish than the average rate estimated for the general U.S. population.
Although young children consumed less total amount of fish per day than adults, thedata indicates that children’s average consumption per body weight would actually
exceed that of adults.
Sources of Fishtribal members
obtain on average
As ColumbiaRiver subsistence
fishers,
aFproximately 88 percent of their fish from harvesting by themselves or their families,
friends, ceremonies, or tribal distributions.
Almost half (48.7%) of survey respondents
indicated that they fish for personal
However, approximately
77 percent ofconsumption
or for use by their Tribe.
respondents stated that on average 41.3 (1.59 SE) percent of the fish they consume
is obtained through fish-harvestingby themselves or their family members. Thus, fishharvesting by both survey respondents and their family members appear to be major
sources of fish.
Ceremonial

Use of Fish

Cultural events, such as tribal ceremonies, are an integral part of tribal culture, andcould influence the rate of fish consumption
by Native Americans in the ColumbiaRiver basin. As survey data show, 93.3 percent of tribal mebmbers have attended
ceremonies or traditional events and over half of these people attend ceremonies at62least ‘l-3 times per month. Tribal distributions of fish (e.g., at feasts and celebrations)and ceremonies are important sources of fish. Respondents indic:ated that they obtainon average 23.2 (1 .I 5 SE) percent of fish from tribal distributions and.1 1.3 (0.08 SE)
In general, there appears to be a positive relationshippercent from ceremonies.
between attendance at ceremonies and fish consumption:
the more often a person
attends ceremonies, the more likely he/she is to consume fish at those ceremonies.
In addition, almost 60 percent of persons who attend ceremonies eat at least 6 to 12
ounces of fish at the events,. and about 9 percent consumed more than 36 ounces offish at the events.
Although tribal meetings and ceremonies often occur on a weekly basis for events
surrounding funerals, memorials, name-givings and medicine clances, specific tribal
feasts and celebrations occur on an annual basis, as detailed in the following chart(I 992 Annual Report, CRITFC).
Chart 2:
Dste

Tribal Celebrations
Celebration/Feast

Feb.

*Lincoln’s Day Pow-wow*All-Indian Men’s & Women’s Basketball Tourneyl Washington Birthday Pow-wow
l E-peh-tes Pow-wow
l Speelyi-Mi Annual Indian Trade Fair
eAll Indian Invitational Basketball TournamentsRoot and Salmon Feastsl Wyam Pow-wow
aRock Creek Longhouse Pow-wow*Root Feastl Mat’Alvma Pow-wow & Root Feastl National Indian Day*Satus Longhouse Pow-wow*Pi-Ume-Sha Treaty Days
*Chief Joseph Memorial*Fathers’ Day Fish Derby*Treaty Days-Tiinowit
International Pow-wow
aAnnual Treaty Day All-Indian Rodeol Annual Treaty Day All-Indian Golf Tournement*Annual Yakama Indian Encampment
aTreaty Day Commemoration
Pow-WowaEagle Spirit Father’s Day Celebrationl Talmaks Camp MeetingaPow-wow,
Rodeo, Pioneer Fair/Indian Village*Huckleberry
Feast*Nez Perce War Memorial (Big Hole)*Chief Looking Glass Pow-wow*Pendleton Round-Up & RodeoaNational Indian Days Celebration*Nez Perce War Memorial & Four Nations Pow-wow~Kah-Hilt-Pah POW-WOW*Mid-ColumbiaRiver Pow-wow
aveterans’
Day Pow-wow
l Thanksgiving POW-WOW*Christmas Pow-wow/Celebrationl Simnasho Traditional Pow-wow
sAlI-Indian Holiday Basketball Tournament@New Year’s POW-WOW

Mar.

Mar./Apr.
Apr.
Apr./MayMay

Jun.

Jun./Jul.
Jul.
Aug.

Sep.
Oct.

Nov.
Dec.

63

Warm Springs
Nez Perce
YakamaNez Perce
YakamaYakamaYakamaYekameYakamaWarm Springs; Nez Perce; Umatilla
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
YakamaWarm Springs
Nez Perce
Umatilla
YakamaYakamaYakamaYakamaYakameWarm Springs
Nez Perce
YakamaWarm Springs; Yakama
Nez Perce
Nez Perce
Umatilla
YakamaNez Perce
YakameYakamaUmatilla; Warm Springs; Yakama
Warm Springs
Umatilla; Yakama
Warm Springs
Warm Springs
Warm Springs

As can be seen in the above chart, major annual tribal ceremonies occur during 1’1months of the year, and several ceremonies occur each month. Approximately
58%
of the ceremonies listed above occur during the period extending from April throughSeptember, which are the most frequently chosen months of hiigh fish consumption
by surveyed respondents.
Approximately
28 to 33 percent of major celebrations
occur in May and June, the two months of highest fish comsumption, while 11
percent occur in January and December, the two months of least fish consumption.
These results combined with data concerning the frequency and amount of fish eaten
at ceremonies reinforce the theory that ceremonies play an important role in Native
American fish consumption.
Seasonal Fish Consumption
Pacific salmon and steelhead migrate to and spawn in gravel beds in the tributariesof the Columbia River. The young fish that are born generally migrate to the ocean
after spending a I-3 years in the freshwater.
After 1 or more years, depending on thespecies and stock, the fish return to the river system to spawn. The following chart
illustrates the months during which Oregon and Washington
State salmon andsteelhead migrate from the ocean to the Columbia River system to spawn (Oregon
Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Fisheries, August 1993).
Chart 3:

Salmon and Steelhead

Species

Seasonal

Migrations

Return to River Svstem

Spring chinook salmon
Summer chinook salmon
Fall chinook salmon
Sockeye salmon
Coho salmon
Chum salmon
Pink salmon
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead

Mar-May
Jun-Jul
Aug-Sep
Mar-Jul
Aug-Nov
Sep-Mar
Aug-Sep
Nov-AprMar-Ott

Overall, salmon and steelhead migrations mostly occur during the months of Marchthrough October.
These migration
months cbincide with months of high fishconsumption as reported by survey respondents.
In addition, the majority of annual
tribal ceremonies occur during these months.

64

Historical

Changes in Fish Consumption.
Decrease in Fish Consumption
Respondents who indicated that their own and/or their family’s fish consumption haschanged over the last 20 years were also asked about the reason for this change.
While the answers to this question varied, some consistency
was apparent.
For
example, more than half (61 %I) of the 69 percent who eat less fish indicated that they
eat less fish now because there are fewer fish in the Columbia River Basin, fishingseasons are more restricted than before, they are catching fewer fish than they did
less, or fish are “not available”.
in previous years, Tribes are distributing
Approximately
36 percent of individuals who eat less fish now indicated reasons
related to changes in taste, family size, or their access to fish sources (e.g., fishingsites, distributions,family members who fish). The remaining 3 percent did notindicate a reason for their change in consumption.
Increase in Fish Consumption
On the other hand, approximately
26 percent of individuals indicated an increase infish consumption over the past 20 years. Approximately
82 percent of these peopleindicated that they eat more fish now for dietary reasons, because he/she or family
members have developed a taste for fish, their family size has increased, or he/she ora family member fishes more now. Eleven percent of respondents indicated that they
consume more fish now because more fish is available. However, in some cases, it
is unclear whether the increase in availability is due to an increase in the person’s
accessibility to the source of fish (e.g., change in fishing habits, or in closer proximity
to streams or tribal distributions) or whether there exists a quantitative increase in theamount of fish available from the source. The remaining 7 percent did not indicate
a reason for change.
Loss of Columbia River Basin Fish Runs
Fish count and harvest data collected in the basin support reasons for decreased
consumption that relate to overall decreases in fish harvests and availability of fish.
These data also contradict statements of increased consumptionthat relate to anincrease in the amount of fish available in the basin. However, it is possible thatcertain sites currently have more fish available due to introduction of hatchery-raised
fish. In-river run size of Columbia basin salmonid stocks, estimated by the Northwest
Power Planning Council (NWPPC, 1985) to have been 7 0 million to 7 6 million adultfish before 1850, has declined to about 1.2 million adult fish in 1992 (Palmisano etal., 1993).
In general, as fish populations have been decreasing, ceremonial and subsistence
catches have been sharply curtailed. The number of upriver (above Bonneville Dam)spring chinook entering the Columbia has dropped from over 130,000
in 1960 to65approximately
110,000 in 1990 and Indian harvest has dropped from over 60,000
fish in 1960 to only 6,900 in 1990. Summer chinook numbers iin the Columbia River
have fallen from approximately
140,000 fish in 1960 to 28,000 in 1990 with Indian
harvest declining from over 55,000 fish in 1960 to less than 100 in 1990. Finally,sockeye salmon numbers have decreased from 180,000 fish in I!960 to approximately
50,000 in 1990 and Indian harvest for sockeye has dropped from 120,000 in 1960
to only 2400 fish in 1990 (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and ‘Yashington Dept.
of Fisheries, 1991).
Since the start of this project in 1990, four stocks of salmon have been listed under
the Endangered Species Act. Consequently, tribal harvest has lbeen greatly reduced
because of low ,returns of fish to the Columbia River Basin. In order to meetescapement goals .for individual species of salmon, tribes have continued to curtailtheir harvest while efforts to increase fish runs through mitigation and fish production
continue.
Should such efforts succeed, it is likely that consumlption of fish by tribal
members will approach that of historical times and will thus be higher than it is today.
Indeed, data from CRITFC’s fish consumption
survey illustrate that a significant
portion of tribal members consume less fish today than they d~id twenty years ago
mainly because fewer fish exist in the river system.

66

LIMITATIONS
Uncertainty
Although problems with data accuracy and bias appear to be minimal, there are someissues relating to the methodology
and responses received that could potentiallycreate a bias in the overall consumption data. However, any potential bias could, in
actuality, bias the data in either direction such that estimated consumption
rates oftribal members could be increased or decreased if critical elements creating potential
bias were removed.
Sampling

Bias.

Because the sample population was selected from patient registration lists provided
by the Indian Health Service (IHS), it is possible that the sample population had somehealth related biases affecting their diet. Although the IHS patient registration lists
includes all tribal members who register for IHS services and is not necessarily
exclusive of tribal members needing or receiving health care, no criteria were applied
to the initial sample selection procedure to eliminate those tribal members withparticular illnesses or health problems that could influence their dietary habits.
Without further investigationof each person’s health history, it is impossible toidentify if a significant proportion of respondents have certain health conditions that
require them to consume more or less fish.
LocationBias

A majority of the interviews (99.8%) were carried out at a central location on eachreservation.
Of all attempts made to contact interviewees on a door-to-door basis,
oily one participant was reached and interviewed at their horne. During preliminary
phases of the survey, concerns were raised that the use of monetary incentives toencourage interviewees to come to a central location may result in a higher responseof those individuals living closer to the survey area, thus re:sulting in a bias in thesample.
It is plausible that individuals living closer to the interview site were more willing orable to travel the required distance. For reasons which outweighed the monetary or
personal incentive to participate, those living farther away may have been unable orunwilling to travel and might have preferred to have the interview conducted at theirhome. Thus, only 8% of those surveyed lived beyond 30 miles from the interview
site whereas 15% of the non-surveyed
individuals lived beyond 30 miles from theinterview site. However, 53% of surveyed individuals lived within 10 miles of theinterview site and 41% of non-surveyed individuals lived within 10 miles of the survey
site. Similarly, of the 14 individuals living beyond 70 miles of the survey site, 64%
were surveyed and only 36% were not.
67

The top four reasons identified by interviewers
for why an individual could not beinterviewed were, respectively: 1) moved out of survey area; 2) no reason listed; 3)
a total refusal to be interviewed and; 4) no phone or a disconnected
phone. Thesefour reasons accounted for 86% of the reasons listed by interviewers for unsuccessfulinterviews.
Other reasons listed that may contribute in some way to location bias
include: mental or physical disability; in prison; not at home when contact was
attempted and; simply missing the scheduled appointment.
Gender Bias
Statistical analyses of the gender of individuals surveyed and not surveyed reveal that
more females were surveyed than males and more males were not surveyed thanfemales. Considering that males eat significantly more fish on average than femaleswith males consuming about 13 more grams per day than females, a bias in favor of
female individuals in the sample could create a lower estimate of overall tribal fishconsumption.
Also, males who ate more fish may have been more likely to participate
in the survey than males who ate less fish and those males who ate less fish, may
have been non-respondents.
Timing of Survey and Length of Survey Period
Conducting the survey during. a period of high or low fish consumption
could bias
individuals’ responses,
It is plausible that people would tend to indicate higher orlower consumption rates in accordance with when they were questioned about theirconsumption
such that an individual would estimate a lower rate if they werequestioned during a month of low consumption and a higher rate if questioned during
a period of high consumption.
Since this survey was conducted during November, amonth of low fish consumption as reported by survey respondents, consumption rates
pFovided in this report could underestimate actual tribal consumption.
Also, respondents may be likely to under-report consumptionof fish species not inseason at the time the survey was conducted
and may have over-reported
consumptionof fish species in season during the interview period.
However, any
possible bias resulting from the timing of the survey would be addressed if the survey
were conducted over an annual cycle with re-surveys of initial respondents.
Response

Rates on individual

Clues tions

The lack of a 100 percent overall survey response rate may present uncertainties thatcannot be fully characterized.
Although some individual questions had response rates
as low as 75 and 80 percent, response rates for the key findings on adult fishconsumption
had response rates very close to or at 100 percent.

68In general, when presented with uncertainties in individuals’. responses, criteria were
For example,
employed to produce a low-end estimate of fish consumption.
responses deemed unreasonably high (i.e., outliers) were not included in calculationsof consumption rates. Outliers were removed from data sets of weekly consumption
estimated by four adults and for one child. In addition, when respondents indicatedranges of ounces or meals, the lower end of the range was used to calculate rates
even if the response was reduced to zero ounces or fish meals consumed.
Non-Fish-Consumers
Survey results indicate that only 7 percent of tribal members rarely or never ate fish.
Because the percentage of non-fish-consumers
was so low, the 90th, 95th and 99th
percentiles of consumption
for the entire population was the same as for those
The uncertainty
surrounding
this low
respondents
who consumed the species.
estimate of the number of Native American non-consumers could be produced in partby sampling bias. For example, individuals in the sample who were not surveyed were
never questioned about their like or dislike of fish or their overall fish-consuming
habits. It is possible that some of those non-surveyed individuals failed to participate
because they thought that their contributions
would be meaningless if they did not eat
fish. Therefore, fish consumers may be slightly over-represented
in the respondent
pool thereby creating an overestimationof fish consumption rates.
Origin of Fish Consumed
Questions concerning weekly fish consumption,
serving size, species and fish parts
were directed at fish consumed from the Columbia River basin as well as “other”
sources. Therefore, rates of consumption
represent fish obtained from all sources.
The question concerning sources of fish clarifies the percentages of fish consumed
th%t originate from self/family member harvesting, ceremonies, and tribal distributions.
Because the tribal commercial fishery is designated along the mainstem of theColumbia River from the McNary dam to Bonneville dam and throughout
the manytributaries within the Columbia River basin it is assumed that fish obtained during
these activities and events originate from the basin.
Children
Although a more detailed portrait than that presented in this report of children’s fishconsumption is required, it is worth noting that some respondents provided the same
information for their child’s consumption as they did for their own. Although it is notunreasonable for a child to consume similar amounts of fish as adults, the uncertainty
surrounding responses to questions about children’s consumption may have resulted
from misinterpretationof the question or the convenienceof indicating
similarinformation.
Any resulting bias in information provided for children’s consumptionisdifficult to predict and analyze.
69

:i
,

Fishing Sites
Survey questions concerning fishing sites were specifically requested-for only the 10
species listed in the survey. Only six people from one Tribe identified “other species”
that they consumed.
Moreover, some individuals, instead of identifying a numberedsite on the map provided, specified names of sites that could not be identified on themap (e.g., reservoirs, lakes, etc.) These sites were not included in the analysis offishing site usage. Therefore, results describe fishing sites used by Native Americans
for obtaining only the ten species listed on the questionnaire and may not describe thefull extent of fishing sites used throughout the basin.
Dietary Recall
Respondents who consumed fish during the 24 hours preceding the survey interview
estimated significantly higher overall consumption rates than those who did not eat
fish during that period. This difference could be due to several factors. First, persons
who had so recently consumed fish may have been more likely to overestimate thenumber of fish meals they eat each week than those who had not consumed fish forseveral days or several weeks. On the other hand, individuals who ate fish during thistime period may be more accurate in the data they provide concerning the number ofounces they eat in each meal. It is also possible that persons who consume highamounts of fish throughout the year would have been more likely to have consumed
fish during the 24 hours preceding the interview than individuals who consume lessfish throughout
the year.
Thus, these persons would not necessarily
beoverestimating
their yearly intake.
Regardless of the reason(s) for the difference in consumption rates, the overall rateof consumption for consumers and non-consumers
is likely to be a low estimate sinceth2 survey was conducted during the season (October through February) identified by
the majority (53.0%) of respondents as months of low fish consumption.

Additional

Research

Although this report provides detailed informationon the fish consumption
rates,
patterns and habits of tribal members, several issues require further investigation,
especially if a complete health damage assessment is to be conducted.
For example,
while this report provides informationfor only one child in the householdof
respondents
with children a more thorough investigationof fish consumption
byNative American children as a clearly defined subpopulation may be useful to confirm
the accuracy of these findings.
In addition, this report does not provide estimates ofconsumption that take into account varying body weights.
Given the differences in70

body weight and size between
should be calculated.

ethnic groups, fish consumption

estimates

in g/kg/day.

The questionnaire also did not request information on trimming of fat, puncturing, andskin removal which in conjunction with certain cooking methods can greatly influence
the contaminant loading in fish tissue and thus an individual’s actual exposure to toxic
pollutants from ingestion of fish tissue.
Also, consumption
data alone do not define an individual’s
exposure to toxic
pollutants. Indeed, this fish consumption survey report is not a health risk assessmentof tribal members who consume fish. To conduct a health risk assessment of tribal
members from consumptionof fish, fish consumption data need to be applied withinformation
identifying
actual levels of toxics in the fish tissue individuals
areconsuming. Information from this survey, particularly the data which identify fish
species most consumed, fish parts of each species most consumed and fishing site
locations can be used to adequately design a fish tissue analysis sampling plan. By
based on actual
coordinating
data in this way, a health damage assessment
population-specificdata can be conducted of tribal members.

71

RECOMMENDATIONSAND DATA APPLICATIONSGiven the cultural, economic and dietary importance of fish to CRCTFC’s member
tribes, results from Federal and State agency sponsored water quality and fish tissue
studies have intensified
tribal concern of increased human health risks fromconsumption of potentially contaminated fish. As is evident from the results obtained
from this survey, the average fish consumption rate of Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce,and Warm Springs tribal members is approximatelynine times greater than thenational average consumption
rate of 6.5 gpd used by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the majority of states in calculating
human health based ambient water quality criteria and standards for toxics.
As identified in this survey, the rates of consumption
across gender, age groups,
nursing mothers, fishers and non-fishers range from 6 to 11 times higher than thenational estimate recommended by USEPA. Should the production and escapement
numbers of salmon species increase, tribal harvest will be increased and tribal
The
consumption
will most likely increase from rates reported in this survey.
consistency of these results suggest that USEPA’s and state adopted ambient water
quality criteria and standards for toxic pollutants based on the national estimated fishconsumption
rate of 6.5 gpd may not be sufficient to protect Native Americans
residing in the Columbia River Basin.
Because State and Federal monitoring studies of contaminant levels in Columbia River
Basin fish tissue and river sediments suggest an increased risk to Columbia River
Indians from consumption of potentially contaminated fish, CRITFC and its member
tribes expect the information gathered from this survey to be used by federal, state
and tribal regulatory agencies to more accurately estimate health damage fromingestion of fish contaminatedby water borne toxic pollutants.
Such a human health damage assessment should include a re-evaluation of certain
water quality criteria and standards currently deemed adequate to protect humanhealth. The consumption rates established in this report should ideally be combinedwith site-specific fish tissue monitoring data to determine tribal members’ actual
exposure to toxic pollutants.
CRITFC and its member tribes encourage other tribes
and populations to utilize this survey’s methodology
in future fish consumption
surveys.

72

TABLES

Summary of Reasons Indicated
Did Not Participate

TABLE 1:by Interviewers

for Why Tribal Members

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Moved out of survey area - M (6)60

26.136

No reason listed - NRL (12).

58

25.2%

Total refusal - TR (91’

48

20.9%

32

13.9%

a

3.5%

6

2.6%

5

2.2%

4

1.7%

3

1.3%

Wrong phone number - WP (12)’

2

0.9%

Prison - P (12)

1

0.4%

Member of another tribe - 0 (12)

1

0.4%

Refusal during interview

1

0.4%

1

0.4%

230

100%

Reason (questionnaire

code number)

No phone or phone disconnected- NP (I 2).

Not enrolled - NE (12)Not at home; revisit necessary- NH (3 and 7).

Deceased - D (8)Mental/physicaldisability

Missed appointment- MP (111 l- MA (4)’- R (10)

Removed from survey; unreliable

(2)

Total
-c Indicates that reason could be associatedbiaswith a location

73

TABLE 2:

Summary of Locations of Surveyed
Respect to the Interview Site

and Non-Surveyed

Individuals

with

.

&weighted Frequencies (Percentages)

Miles From
Interview Site

Non-Surveyed
Au

Surveyed71< = 10268 (74)

94 (26)362 (iO0)

11-30

203 (67)

100 (33)303 (100)

31-70

32 (52)30 (48)62 (100)

> 70

9 69

5 (36)

14 (100)

Unknown

1 (33)

2 (67)3 ww

513 (69)

231 (31)744 (100)**All of the nine persons who lived greater than 70 miles from the interview site weresurveyed

74

TABLE 3:

Sex of Surveyed

Tribe

Population

Umatilla

and Non-Surveyed

Unweighted
Frequency (percentmale) Non-Surveyed

Unweighted
Frequency(percent male) Surveyed

Size (percent male)

8 18 (47.7%)
9

Individuals

13 1 (52.0%)
I

49 (51 .O%)I

Nez Perce

1440 (42.5%)

133 (40.6%)

68 (56.0%)

Warm Springs

1531 (47.3%)

126 (46.0%)

54 (50.0%)

Yakama3872 (46.5%)

123 (39.0%)

59 (57.6%)

75

i

TABLE 4:Age of Respondents

22-23

20

3.6Ok

13.3%

24-25

37

8.1%

21.5%

26-27

I 26

I 4.6Oh

26.0%

28-29

27

5.6%

31.6%

30-3 1

34

5.7%

37.3%

32-33

26

4.9%

42.2%

34-35

17

5.4%

47.5%

36-37

26

5.9%

53.4%

38-39

24

5.2%

58.7%

40-4 1

18

3.8%

62.5%

42-43

I 13

I 2.5%

I 65.0%

44-45

16

3.3%

68.3%

46-47

24

5.2%

73.5%

48-49

15

3.5%

76.9%

50-54

35

7.5%

84.4%

55-59

36

5.7%

90.1%

a-64

19

3.3%

93.4%

65-69

16

2.3%

95.7%

70-74

15

3.1%

98.8%

75-79

8

1 .O%

99.8%

80-89

1

0.1%

99.9%

90-l 00

1

0.1%

100%

Total

I 512

I 100%.

I

N = 512Weighted Mean = 38.9 veers
Weighted SE = 0.64
RR = 99.8%’ The term “weighted” used throughout these tables means that the data were weighted by Tribe before they
were combined.

76

TABLE 5:

Number of Fish Meals Consumed by All Adult Respondents(Fish
Consumers and Non-Fish Consumers) Per Week -Tlhroughout the Year.

77

11 N = 500
Weighted Mean = 1.7 1 meals
Weighted SE = 0.11
Outliers = 4
RR = 98.2% total;
97.5% if outlier considered a nonresponse78TABLE 6:

Average Serving Size (oz.) - Adult Fish Meals

24.0

2

0.3%

Total

513

100%

100%

N = 513Weighted Mean = 7.83 ounces
Weighted SE = 0.16
RR = 100%

79

TABLE 7:

Number of Grams Per Day of Fish Consumed by All Adult Respondents(Fish Consumers and Non-Fish Consumers) Combined - Throughout the
.
Year

80

N = 500
Weighted Mean = 58.7 gpd
Weighted SE = 3.64
90th percentile: 97.2 gpd < (90th) < < 130 gpd
95th percentile - 170 gpd
99th percentile = 389 gpd
Outliers = 4
RR = 98.2% total; 97.5% if outlier considered a nonresponse81TABLE 8:

Number of Fish Meals per Week Consumed
Only - Throughout the Year
Weighted
Cumulative

Number ofmeals

Unweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

24.0

1

0.2%

99.8%

30.0

1

0.2%

100%

Total

464

100%

82

Percent

by A.dult Fish Consumers.

11 N = 464
Weighted Mean = 1.85 meals
Weighted SE = 0.1 1
Outliers = 4
RR = 98.1% total;
97.3%
if autlier considered a nonrewonse83

TABLE 9:

Average Serving Size (oz.) of Adult Fish Meals - Fish Consumers

Cumulative

an = 8.42 ounces

84

Percent

Only

TABLE 10:

Number of Grams per Day Consumed
Only

by Adult Fish Consumers-

Number ofgrams/dayUnweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Cumulative
Percent

81.0

8

2.1%

82.1%

97.2

27

6.5%

88.6%

130

9

3.1%

91.6%

146

8

1.6%

93.2%

162

4

0.8%

94.0%

170

1

0.5%

94.4%

85

II

Number of
11 arams/dav

II

I

Unweighted
1 Freauencv

I

I

Weighted
Cumulative
I Percent

Weighted
I Percent

194

10

2.6%

97 .O%

243

1

0.1%

97.1%

259

1

0.2%

97.2%

292

1

0.2%

97.4%

324

3

0.8%

98.2%

340

1

0.5%

98.6%

389

?

0.3%

98.9%

486

4

0.6%

99.5%

648

1

0.2%

99.7%

778

1

0.2%

99.8%

N = 464Weighted Mean = 63.2 gpd
Weighted SE = 3.84
90th percentile: 97 gpd < (90th) < 130 gpd
95th percentile: 170 gpd < (95th) C 194 gpd
99th percentile - 389 gpd
Outtiers = 4
RR = 98.1% total;
97.3% if outlier considered a nonresponse

86

/I

II

II

TABLE 11:

Fish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Sex

N

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean (gpd)

Weighted

Sex
Female

278

58.0

55.8

4.78

Male

222

42.0

62.6

5.60

Total

500

100

58.7

3.64

SE

l 4 outliers were excluded

TABLE 11 a:

Fish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Age

N

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean (gpd)

WeightedAge (years)
18-39

287

58.8

57.6

4.87

40 - 59

155

31.6

55.8

4.88

60 & older

58

9.6

74.4

15.3

Total

500

100

58.7

3.64

SE

‘4 outliers were excluded

TABLE 11 b:

Fish Consumption

Throughout

the Year by Location

N

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean (gpd)

Weighted

Location
On Reservation

440

88.1

60.2

3.98

Off Reservation

60

11.9

47.9

8.25

Total

500

100

58.7

3.64

‘4 outliers

were excluded

87

SE

Months

TABLE 12:

Month

I

Unweighted
Frequencyof High Fish Consumption
Weighted
I PercentJanuary15

1.4%

Februarv

17

1.6%

March

21

2.2%

April

103

9.7%

May

11.6%

128
I

I

June

123

10.8%

Julv

110’

9.8%

August85

8.1%

September

75

7.4%

October53

5.5%

November

35

3.4%

December27

2.8%

All months
the same

152

18.1%

Never/ rarely
eat fish72

7.0%

Unknown8

0.6%

I 1026’

I 100%

Total

40 persons answered
RR = 100%

both May and June

*Each respondent was asked to identify two months of highest fish consumption; hence, there were 1026 total responses, andeach person who answered that they rarely/never eat fish, that all the months are the same, or that the months’are unknown
were counted twice.

88

TABLE 13: Comparison of Grams of Fish Consumed by Tribal Members on a Daily
Basis During Monthsof High Consumption
vs. Monthsof LOW.
Consumption=
Mean

WeightedSE

Response Rata

N

Weighted
bpd)

Months of High
Consumption

508

87.9

4.80

99.0%

Months of Low
Consumption

484

26.4

1.39

94.3%

Seasonal
Consumption

=

1
1
,.. a
.*I
4
.I

89

Months

TABLE 14:of Low Fish Consumption

MonthUnweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

January

146

15.6%

February

91

9.1%

March

32

3.1%

April

22

2.2%

Mav

23

2.4%

September

26

2.6%

October37

3.4%

November88

8.7%

December

151

16.2%

All months
the same

102

7.6%

Never/ rarely
eat fish72

7.4%

Unknown20

2.9%

All months
the same
except the 2highestmonths

40

5.9%

Total

I 994.

RR = 96.9%*Each respondent was asked to identify two months of highest fish consumption; since the response rate for this question wasless than 100 percent, there were 994 total responses. As a result, it was necessary to double count the following responses:
rarely/never eat fish, all months the same, unknown, and all months are the same except the two highest.

90TABLE 15: Number of Weekly Fish Meals: Nursing
NursedNumberof MealsUnweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

11

11.4%

11.4%

0.1

I1

10.4%

111.8%

0.2

4

2.2%

14.0%

0.3

2

1.2%

15.2%

0.4

8

3.5%

18.7%

0.5

4

2.8%

21.4%

1 .o

31

33.5%

54.9%

2.0

23

25.4%

80.3%

3.0

9

8.9%

89.2%

4.0

4

3.8%

93.0%

5.0

2

2.8%

95.8%

.

0.8%

1

6.0
I

96.6%

I

I

7.0

1

2.0%

98.6%

8.0

1

0.7%

99.3%

10.0

1

0.7%

100%

Total

103

100%

N = 103
Weighted Mean = 1.75 meals
Weighted SE = 0.17
Outliers = 1
RR = 99.0% total;
98.1% if outlier considered a nonresponse

91

Mothers

or Mothers

Who HaveTABLE 16:

Consumption by Women Who Have Breastfed
Other Female Respondents

N

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean (gpd)

Weighted

Women
Women Who Have
Breastfed

103

35.7%

59.1

6.42

All Other Female
Respondents

175

64.3%

54.0

6.60

Total

278

100

55.8

4.78

l *l outlier not included

92

SE

Compared

to AllTABLE 17:

Fish Species Consumed

by All Adult Tribal Members

Lamprey

513

54.2%

100%

Trout

513

70.2%

100%

Sturgeon

509
I
1 513
I
513

52.1%
I
1 22.8%I
24.8%

Walleye

511

9.3%

99.6%

Squawfish

513

2.7%

100%

Sucker

513

7.7%

100%

Shad

512

2.6%

99.8%

II

Smelt

II

Whitefish

99.2%
I

II
100%

I

II
100%

93

.\

TABLE 18:

Consumption
Speciesof Fish Species by Adults Who Eat the Particular

Variables
Grams per day

Fish meals per monthN

Weighted(meals)mean

WeightedSE

94

Weighted
Mean (gpd)

WeightedSE

Response
Rate

TABLE 19:
II

Grams of Fish Species Consumed
and Non-Fish Consumers
I

I
Weighted
Mean (gpd)

SpeciesN

IISalmon

I 509

I 23.7 a8

484

6.6 b

II

Trout

II

Lamprey

2.4 c

500
I

II

Smelt

Each Day by Fish Consumers

I
494

I

2.4 c
I
98.6%

Whitefish

506

1.9 c

0.36

Sturgeon

50.4

0.8 d

0.13

I 98.2%0.3 e
II 0.2 e

0.09

99.2%

II Sucker

1 509
I
I 513

0.07

100%

Shad

511

0.05 0

0.03

99.6%

Squawfish511

0.04 e0.02

1 99.6%I --II

Walleye

II

I

Total
Anadromous

28.8

1.45

I

-

I

IITotal Resident

I--

I 10.0.77.

’

Consumption rates for species designated by the same letter are not significantly different from one another.

95

TABLE 20:

Adult Consumptionof Fish Patis

Parts
Skin

FilletWeighted
percent that
consumeSpeciaeN

Head
Weighted
percent that
consume

N

Bones

Eggs
Weighted
percent that
consumeN

N

Weighted
percent that
consume-N

Organs
Weighted
percent that
consume

Weig

htad
N

Perce
nt
that
oonsu
me

Salmon

473

96.1%

473

56.8%

473

42.7%

473

42.8%

473

12.1%

470

3.7%’

Lamprey

249

86.4%

261

89.3%

250

18.1%

250

4.6%

250

6.2%

250

3.2%

Trout

365

89.4%

365

68.6%

365

13.7%

364

8.7%

365

7.1%

362

2.3%

Smelt

209

78.8%

209

88.9%

210

37.4%

209

46.4%

210

28.4%

.206

27.9
%

Whitsflsh

126

93.8%

124

53.8%

125

15.4%

126

20.6%

125

6.0%

124

0.0%

Sturgeon

i21

94.6%

121

18.2%

121

6.2%

121

11.9%

121

2.6%

121

0.3%

Walleye

46

100%

46

20.7%

46

6.2%

46

9.8%

46

2.4%

46

0.9%

Squawfish

16

89.7%

16

34.1%

16

8.1%

16

11.1%

16

6.9%

16

0.0%

Sucker

42

89.3%

42

60.0%

42

19.4%

42

30.4%

42

9.8%

42

2.1%

Shad

16

93.5%

16

15.7%

16

0.0%

16

0.0%

16

3.3%

16

,O.O%

TABLE 21:

Age(months)

Age When Children Begin Eating Fish

Unweighted
Percent

Unweighted
Cumulative
Percent

0.6%

0.6%

3

1.2%
I
I 1 .a%1.8%
I
I 3.6%

2

1.2%

4.8%

5

3.0%

7.8%

30

18.0%

25.7%

10

6.0%

7

4.2%

4

2.4%

10

6.0%

2

1.2%

42

25.1%

5

3.0%

74.9%

3

1 .a%

76.6%

Unweighted
Frequency

2

6.0

8.0

77.2%

16.0
18.0
24.0

14

8.4%

92.8%

30.0

1

0.6%

93.4%

‘N = 167
Unweighted Mean = 13.1 months
Unweighted SE = 0.71
Respondent Unsure = 3
Child has not started yet = 12
RR = 89.2% total: 81.9% of data were used97

IHlSLt

1 Numberof Meals
I

0.0

LIL:

iuumoer

1 Unweighted
FrequencyI42

0T tlsnlvleals Consumed

1 Unweighted
Percent
I
21.5%

1 c”u”,“u”l$zd
Percent
I
21.5%

0.1

3

1.5%

23.1%

0.2

7

3.6%

26.7%

0.3

2

1 .O%

27.7%

0.4

a

4.1%

31.8%

0.5

6

3.1%

34.9%

0.6

3

1.5%

36.4%

1 .o

a3

42.6%

79.0%

2.0

24

12.3%

91.3%

3.0

7

3.6%

94.9%

4.0

3

1.5%

96.4%
I

I

I
5.0

2

1 .O%

97.4%

6.0

2

1 .O%

98.5%

N = 195
Unweighted Mean = 1.17 meals&weighted
SE = 0.11
Outliers = 1
RR = 96.1% total;
95.6% if outlier considered a nonresponse98

per weetc try ciniiaren

TABLE 23:

Serving Size (oz.) of Fish for Children Age Five or Under

Number ofOuncesUnweighted
Cumulative
Percent.
Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

II

N = 201
Unwaighted Mean = 3.36 ounces
Unweighted SE = 0.18
RR = 98.5%

99TABLE 24:

Children’s

Fish Consumption

0.0

41

21 .l%

21.1%

0.4

1

0.5%

21.6%

0.8

1

0.5%

22.2%

1.6

5

2.6%

24.7%

2.4

1

0.5%

25.3%

3.2

6

3.1%

28.4%

4.1

7

3.6%

32.0%

4.9

3

1.5%

33.5%

6.5

4

2.1%

35.6%

a.1

23

11 .S%

47.4%

9.7

2
I

1 .O%
I

48.5%
I

12.2

5

2.6%

51 .O%

13.0

1

0.5%

51.5%

16.2

41

21.1%

72.7%

19.4

1

0.5%

73.2%

20.3

2

I 1 .O%

74.2%

24.3

4

2.1%

76.3%

32.4

21

10.8%

87.1%

4x.6

a

4.1%

91.2%

54.8

6

3.1%

94.3%

72.9

4

2.1%

96.4Ok,

31.0

2

1 .O%

97.4%

37.2

2

1 .O%

98.5%

162.0

3

1.5%

100%

rotal

194

100%

v = 194
Jnweighted Mean = 19.6 gpd
Jnweighted SE = 1.94
3utliers = 1?R = 95.6% total; 95.1% if outlier considered

a nonresponse

100

Rates - Throughout

Year

TI 4BLE 25:

Fish Species Consumed

by C
Response
Rate

Specie6N

Unweighted Percent ofChildren that Consume
the Species

Salmon

202

82.7%

99.0%

Lamprey

201

19.9%

98.5%

Trout

202

46.5%

.99.0%

Smelt

201

22.4%

98.5%

Whitefish

201

10.9%

98.5%

Sturaeon

201

10.9%

98.5%

Walleye

201

2.5%

98.5%

Squawfish

201

1 .O%

98.5%

Sucker

201

2.0%

98.5%

Shad

197

1.5%

96.6%

101

TABLE 26:

Consumption

by Children Who Consume the Particular Species.

Variables

7 .
fish

Specie6Nmeals per month

Unweighted
mean (meals)

Grams per day

Unweighted
SE

Unweighted
Mean (gpd)102

Unweighted
SE

Response
Rate-

TABLE 27:

Children’s

Consumptionof Fish Parts

Parts
Skin

Fillet.
SpeciesHead

N

Unweighted
percent that
consumeN

coneume

Salmon

167

97.6%

167

Lamprey

36

97.2%

Trout

so

Smelt

Unweighted
percent thatN

Unweighted
percent that
consume

26.1%

167

37

83.8%

96.6%

90

41.1%

42

al .o%

41

Whitefish

20

100%

Sturgeon

20

WalleyeOrgans

Bones

Erm

N

Unweighted
percent that
consume

13.8%

167

.37

6.4%

as

73.2%

18

100%

4

SquawfiehN

Unweighted
percent that
consume

N

13.2%

167

3.0%

167

0.6%

37

0.0%

37

0.0%

37

0.0%

3.4%

as

4.6%

a9

0.0%

88

0.0%

41

17.10%

41

24.4%

41

12.2%

41

9.8%

27.8%

19

6.3%

19

10.6Oh

19

0.0%

19

. 0.0%

20

10.0%

20

0.0%

20

5.0%

20

0.0%

20

0.0%

100%

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

2

100%

2

60.0%

2

0.0%

2

0.0%

2

0.0%

2

0.0%

Sucker

4

100%

4

25.0%

4

25.0%

4

26.0%

4

0.0%

4

0.0%

Shad

3

100%

3

0.0%

3

0.0%

3

0.0%

3

0.0%

3

0.0%

.

6,

Unweighted
percent
that
consumeTable 28:

Use of Fish Preparation

Methods

MethodN

Weighted
Percent Who
Responded Yes

Panfried

477

79.5%

100%

Deepfried

475

26.1%

99.6%

Poached

476

16.9%

99.8%

Boiled

477

73.4%

100%

Baked

I 476

I 98.3%

I 99.8%

Broiled

477

39.3%

100%

Smoked

476

66.2%

99.8%

Dried

476

66.9%

99.8%

Raw

475
I

ReBpOn66

3.2%
I

Rate

99.6%
I

Roasted

477

71.3%

100%

Canned

477

75.3%

100%

104

Table 29: Frequency

of Use of Fish Preparation

105

Methods

APPENDICESAPPENDIX 1:
I.

Formulas for Calculating Weighting Factors

Calculation of Weiphtine Factors U&w EPI
A.

Formula: (Population Size of Tribe/Sample Size of Tribe); divide this number
the lowest of the four numbers

Tribe

Po~ulation/SamDle Final Weighting: Factor

Umatilla(818/131) = 6.246. 2416.24 = 1.00

Nez Perce(M-40/133) = 10.8 10.816.24 = 1.73

warm spring(1531/126) = 12.2

Yakama(3872/123) = 31.5 31.5/6.24 = 5.05

12.216.24 = 1.96

106

APPENDIX

2:

Weighting

Formulas for Calculating

Weighted

Means.

The following weighting factor formula, recommended
by the Centers for Disease
Control, was used to calculate the weighted mean of a set of clata:

Weighting

Factor:

The following
WeightingWi

formulaFactor:=N,,/nhwhere observation i is from tribe h, N, = thepopulation size of the individual tribe and n,, =the sample size of the individual tribe.

was used to calculate

wi = (N,n)/(Nn,)

the weighting

factor for each Tribe:

where observation i is from tribe h, N = thepopulation size of all four Tribes combined, N,= the population size of an individual tribe, n= the sample size of all flour Tribes combined,
and nh = the sample size of an individual
tribe.

The weighting factors were then used in the weighting option in SAS for determining
weightedmeans, frequency distributions,and percentiles.
The weighted
mean,variance and standard error are computed by SAS as foiiows:
Weighted

Mean:

Weighted
Variance:

X,

=

i=m

i=m

~WiXi/

1 Wi

i==l

i=l

SW2 =~Wi(Xi-Xw)2

where Wi = the weighting factor theindividual tribe; Xi = the individual data point;
and m = the number of data points, and theweighted mean = X w.
/(n-l)
Where wi is the value of the weight of
the ith observation and Xi is the valueof the ith observation and m = numberof data points = II = sample size of ail
four tribes combined.

i=l

WeightedStandard

error of the mean = s,/n”‘5This formula is consistent with formulas for calculatingas:weightingfactors that are typicallypresented

in Statistical

texWdS

Cochran, William C., Sampling techniques (second editionL New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.. 1993.; Dixon Wxfrid
Massey, Frank Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analvsis (fourth editionL New York: McGraw-Hil~iPublishing co.
SAS Institute,

Inc. 1995. SAS User’s Guide: Basics; Version

5 Edition. CarY, NC: SAS Institute.

107

Such

J. andAPPENDIX3:TECHNICALPANEL MEMBERSTECHNICAL

Craig R. McCormack(formerly Environmental Protection
Toxics Clean-Up Program
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 985047600(206) 438-3012

PANEL AND PEER REVIEWERS

Dana Davoli
EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101(206) 553-2135

Agency)Joel Mulder(formerly EPA - Region 10)

Steven D. Helgerson
Health Care Financing Admin.
2201 Sixth St., MS-RX-42
Seattle, WA 98121(206) 615-2310
John C. Plan
Columbia River Inter-Tribal
729 NE Oregon
Portland, OR 97202(503) 238-0667

Harriet M. Ammann
WA Department of Health
Office of Toxic Substances
P.O. Box 47825
Olympia, WA 98504(206) 586-5405

Fish Commission

David Cleverly
USEPA
Office of Health and Environmental
401 M St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460(202) 260-89 15

Floyd Frost
Epidemiologist
Lovelace Institute2425 ridge Crest Dr., SE
Alberqueque, NM 87108(505) 262-7748
Assess.
Roseanne M. Philen
Medical Epidemiologist
Health Studies Branch
Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects (F-46)
Centers for Disease Control
4770 Buford Hwy. NE
Atlanta, GA 30341(404) 488-4682

Gerald Filbin
USEPA
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
401 M St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460(202) 260-8099

Roseanne M. Lorenzana(formerly OR Health Division)
EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

Rick-Albright
EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101(206) 553-8514

Jonathan R. Sugarman
Indian Health Service
2201 Sixth St, Rm #300
Seattle, WA 98 121(206) 553-5423

Steve Roy
Former Indian Coordinator
EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101(206) 553-2118

Skip Houseknecht (deceased)
USEPA
Office of Water
401 M St, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460(202) 260-7055

Howard Goldberg
Center for Disease Control
Division of Reproductive Health4770 Buford Hwy. NE
Atlanta, GA 30341(404) 488-5257

Ernie Kimball
Indian Health Service
2201 Sixth St., Rm. #300
Seattle, WA 98121

108

APPENDIX 3 (cont’d)
PEER REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS

Dr. Rolf Hartung, Ph.D.
Dept. of Environ. & Indust. Health2504 School of Public Health
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109(313) 971-9690

Dr. Patrick West, Ph.D
University of Michigan
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dana Bldg.
430 E. University
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109(313) 764-7206

Dr. Dale Hams, Ph.D.
CENTED, Clark University
Worcester, MA 01610(508) 751-4622

Dr. Douglas S. Robson, Ph.D
150 MacLaren St., PH6
Ottawa, Ontario K2P OL2(613) 594-5511
Dr. Clayton L. Stunkard
1511 Leister Dr.
Silver Spring, MD 20904(301) 384-4674
Dr. H. Joseph Sekerke, Jr.
State of Florida
Toxicology and Hazard Assessment
Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services
1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399(904) 488-3385
Dr. Mary Yoshiko Hama, Ph.D
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Food Consumption Research Branch6505 Belcrest Rd., Rm. 339
Hyattsville, MD 20782(301) 436-8485
Dr. Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D
Stateof North Carolina
Dept. of Env. Health & Natl. Res.
Division of Epidemioiogy
P.O. Box 27687
raleigh, NC 2761 1(919) 733-3410
Dr. Yasmin Cypel, Ph.;
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Food Consumption Research Branch6505 Belorest Rd., Rm. 339
Hyettsville, MD 20782(301) 436-8478

109

APPENDIX 4:

CRITFC and Tribal Approvaland Coordination

CRITFC’s participation in the survey required approval from both the Commission andthe independent tribal governments.
CRITFC staff presented thle survey protocol andcopies of the draft questionnaire
to the tribal governments during the spring andsummer of 1991. Approval of the survey was first obtained by the Commission in
April, followed by the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee in June 1991, the Boardof Trustees of the Umatilla Tribes and the Warm Springs Tribal Council in July 1991,
and the Yakama Tribal Council in August 1991.
Following tribal approval, CRITFC obtained the endorsement of and staff assistancefrom IHS. A tet-ter was addressed to the Seattle IHS office, then circulated to theregional and national IHS Research Committees.
The Portland area ResearchCommittee approved the survey in July 1991, and approval from the National
Research Committee was obtained in October.
In addition, aplproval for the survey
was obtained from the IHS Yakama Service Unit, the Warm Springs Service Unit, theNorthern Idaho Service Unit (Nez Perce), and the Yellow Hawk Slervice Unit (Umatilla).

A project coordinator
was retained by CRITFC’s Portland office to coordinate thefederal and tribal agencies involved in the survey, supervise interviewers, conduct theoperations of the survey, and oversee data entry.
The c’oordinator
was also
responsible for overseeing
technical edits and statistical anallyses prepared by a
private environmental consulting firm contracted by CRITFC.
USEPA provided the grant to fund the project, provided technical consultation,
andSeattle-based
coordinated the development of the project protocol and questionnaire.
IHS staff assisted in developmentof the questionnaire
ancl provided technicalconsultation, a compilation of the Tribes’ IHS clinic lists from which the sample wasdrawn, and a database program used to enter and analyze the collected data. CDC’s
Division of Reproductive
Health in Atlanta, GA conducted the interviewer
training
sessions, provided technical consultation, and conducted the survey sample selection.
Tribal officials from the Warm Springs, Yakama, Umatilla, and Nez Perce Tribes
obtained office space that was used for conducting interviews and correspondingwithsurvey respondents.

ii0

QUESTlONNAlRE NUMBER _ _ _ _1991 Columbla’Rlveraaa

INTERVIEWER
VISIT

InterTribal

Fish Commission

Mont: Day.

Survey of Fish Consumptlon

Month2 Day

and Related Issue,sMonth3 Day

Day

Month

DATE

-J---a--.

TIME

--‘--

.

---- :

m-s-:

-

-.

RESULT*
NUMBEROF.INTERVIEWERl

RESULTCODES:

1 Compleled InteMew at b
2 Completed Inlsrvlsw al fenlral lo~4tf011
3 NOI 11home al Urns ot Mall; rrrlatt need4 ~u4d appotntmrnt at central IocAon;s Movrd wtthln turvay are&
8 Moved oul 01rutvsy area

NAME:
ADDRESS:

10 Rshraaldudno thr Intrtirw bythr rerpondent or other farnlty mpmi>er
11 Mpondsnt mentally or physIcally dlwbled
12 othtr (speoffyj
i%yc&:~~..
.

PHONE:

II----SOCIAL SECURlTY NUMBER:-QUESllONNAlRE NUMBER _ _ _ _1991 Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission Survevof F‘Ish Consumption and Related Issues,.

INTRODCCTIONHII My name Is ~~~)00000000000[
and I represent the iname of f&e of person be/ng Infervlewed). We are conducting asurvey to understand fisheating patterns as well as other dietary patterns and health-related behaviors of Natlve Americans
In the Northwest. The Information given in thls survey will assist the [name.of tribej In doCumentlng actual rates of dietaryfish consumption, ways In which fish meals are cooked and prepared, the types of fish species regularly consumed, andlocations where fish are caught or obtalned.

NOTE T!ME !NTERV!EWBEG!NS: --*-- -AM;P;yl..

11-l What was the month and year of your blrth?
MONTH

YEAR

(INTERVIEWER: CALCULATE AND REMEMBER AGE FOR LATER USE)
It-2 So you are now

years old?

,

2

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _II-3 Are you an enrolled member of the [name of tribe]?
Yes ........................................
No .......................................
l **

II-4

IF NO, TERMINATE INTERVIEW ***SEX OF RESPONDENT
MALE ............
FEMALE ..........

II-5

:

1
2

:. , . . .
.................
..,...
.................

Do you live on ihe [name of trlbe] reservation or off-reservation?
,8
2

ONTHERESERVATlON ........................
OFF-RESERVATION...........................

2.

Ill-1 I am now golng to ask you to remember all of the food and drlnks that you ate yesterday, from the time you woke
up In the morning until the time you went to sleep for the nlght. In additlon to asking you about the type of food, I’ll
show you some examples of serving sizes In order to determine the amount you actually ate.
[See 24 hour recall dietary Intake form]

3

I

QUES-IIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _DlETAFiY INTAKE - 24 HOUR RECALL
Jntabs Day
Sunday . . ..I..............
1 Thurrday . . . . . ..*..........I
Monday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Friday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..aTurdry .*..I...*..,,,.,.*.
3 Saturday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...7
Wednesday . . , . . , . . . , , . . . . .4

~terdewef 0 Odn Ion of InformOUOQ
Rellabl~ . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.......*.....V....~..
1
Unablotoroallonrormonmrah.............. 2
Unrehblrforothrrrrawnr. . . . . ..,. . . . . . . ,....
3

COMMENTS (Give he no. when appropriate):

4@take Was
TypIcal ..,,,....
e...... . . . . . . . . 1
2
Conddrrably Iru than typIcal
Conddsmbly mom than typic.%!* : : : : : 3

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER _ _ _ _DIETARY INTAkE,‘CONTINUATION PAGE
.,

Une
No.
15
16
17
18

L
Hour

Mln

I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I

I
I
I
I,
I
I
II

Food and Beverages,.

Amount(o=.lComplete

Descrlptlon

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _Ill-2 During which two months of the year would you say you eat the most ffsh?
January .......................
February .......................
. March ........................
April ...........................
May .........................
June .........................
July ..........................
August.. ......................

:
3
4
ii

September .....................
October ......................
November .....................
December.. ...................
All months the same .............
......
tfev&/‘dyeat fish [Skip to Q. IV-21.. ... ... .... .. ..

9
10
11
12
66
77
68

ii

ill-3 During the months you indicated you eat the most fish, about how many meals of fish do you eat on a weekly basis?
(Remember to include fish consumed for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks).
Avg. # of ffsh meals weekly: -(two hlghest months)

Ill-4 During which two months would you say you usually eat the least flsh?
January .......................
.--.y .......................
t=ebl-.UUIMarch .........................
April ...........................
May .........................
June .........................
July ..........................
August ........................

1
:
i
6

i

September .....................
October ......................
November .....................
December .....................
All months the same ..............
;rn’;lyeat fish [Skip to Q. IV-l].. ... ... .... .. .. ......
All months except 2 marked
in questlon Ill-2 are equally low ...

9
70
11

12
66
77
88
99

Ill-5 During the months you indicated you eat the least flsh, about how many meals of fish do you eat on a weekly basis?
Avg. # of fish meals weekly: -(two lowest months)
6

QUESTlONNAlRE NUMBER _ _ _ _Ill-6 On average, throughout the year, about how many fish meals weekly do you eat?
average # of fish meals weekly:(throughout year)*.

Ill-7 What 1sthe Bveraae portion size of fish you eat In a meal that includes fish?
[SHOW THE RESPONDENTFOOD MODELS, AND ENTER THE AVERAGESERVING SIZE IN OUNCES]
Average serving size (ounces): III-3 IF RESPONDENT IS YOUNGER THAN 39 YEARS OF AGE, SKIP TO QUESTION III-9a) Has the number(amourit) of fish consumed by you or your famlly changed over the last 20 years?
Yes . . . 1

No. , . 2*** IF NO, GO TO QUESTION III-9 ***If yes, wh6t has the change been?
eat more fish now ........................
........................
eatlessflshnow
eat different types of fish now ...............

123b) Can you estimate how many more fish meals weekly, or how many less fish meals weekly, you or your family eat
now as compared to the time before your fish consumption changed7
now eat fish meals more per week than before
now eat fish meals less,per week than before
Ill-9 I am now going to ask you .some questions on specific tvpes of fish that can be obtained from the Columbia River
Basin. For each type of fish I mention, I am going to ask you several questions concerning how often you eat it andwhich parts of the fish are usually eaten.
[See TABLE I]
7

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER _ _ _ _TABLE 1. Types of Fish and Parts Consumed (Respondent)~(clrcl? Yes If commonly

eaten)&p;:<,.:.r.

Average number ofmeals per month

Skln

Head

Eggs

..

”

Other
OrgansSalmon and Steelhead

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes.. 1

Yes...1
No...2(If YES, go to, next columns)

No..2

No..2

No..2

No.. 2

No..2

No..2

Lamprey (Eel)Yes. . 1

Yes..1

Yes..1

Yes.1

Yes. . 1

Yes..1

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes.. 1

No..2

No..~’

No..2

No a.2

No..2

No..2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . I

Yes. . 1

Yes. . I

Yes. . I

Yes. . 1‘No..2

No..2

No .‘, 2

No..2No.. 2

No.. 2

Yes. . 1

Yes..1

Yes. . 1

Yes..1

Yes.. 1

Yes..1

No.:2

No..2

No..2

No.. 2

No .:. 2

No..2

Yes. . I

Yes..1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes..1

Yes. . 1

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

Yes. , 1

Yes. . 1

Yes..1

Yes. . 1

Yes.. 1

Yes. . 1

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

No..2

Yes...1

No...2

Resident Trout
Yes . . . 1

No. , .2

Smelt
Yes . . . -I

No . . .2

Whitefish
Yes , . . 1

No’...2

SturgeonYes...1

No...2

WalleyeYes...1

No...2
8

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER _ _ _ _OTHERS (list)
1.

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _IV-1 Please tell me about how ffsh Is usually (throughout the year) prepared or cooked In your home (more than 1 selection fromthe followfng may be given). Please also Indicate how often fish Is prepared/cooked in that particular manner.

Is the fish ever...

Yes. . . 1 -->QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER ---IV-2 Do you regularly prepare the meals In your household?
Yes. . .I
No.. .2*.
IV-3 Are there any children 5 years or younger living In this household?
Yes.. . 1
No.. .2
IF NO, GO TO QUESTION IV-Q

IV-4 Please provide the following lnformatlon for the youngest person in your household who is 5 years of age or less:
Flrst Name
Sex

Male. . . . . 1
Female. . . . 2

Weight __ pounds
Height_ feet, _ _ inches

IV-5 Throughout the year, what is the mportion size of fish this chfld eats in a meal that includes fish?
[SHOW THE RESPONDENTFOOD MODELS, AND ENTER THE AVERAGE SERVING SIZE IN OUNCES]c
Average serving size (ounces): _ _ ounces 77 = Eats no fish
IV-6 A few minutes ago you described which types of fish you eat and which parts are normally consumed. This
Information was put into Table 1 (SHOW TABLE). For the child listed in question 4, please provide the Same
Information on the separate Table 3 (DURING THE INTERVIEW, THE INTERVIEWER SHOULD SHOW THE
PRNIOUSLY COMPLETED TABLE 1 AND ASK THE RESPONDENTTO CONCENTRATE ON THE DIFFERENCES
BRWEEN WHAT THEY EAT AND WHAT THE CHILD EATS.)11I

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _TABLE 3. FOR CHILD UNDER FIVE: Types of flsh and Parts Consumedw
ij,jType of Fish(circle Yes If commonly.
eaten)

Average number ofmeals per month

3therFillet

Skin

Head

Eggs

Salmon and Steelhead

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes . . . 1 No , . .2
(if YES, go to next columns)

No.. 2

No . .2

No..~’

No . .2

No. . 2

No . . 2

Lamprey (Eel)Yes. ..I

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

c-i-

No. .2

No . .2

No. .2

No . .2

No. . 2

No : .2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No.. 2No. .2

No . .2

No. .2No. .2

No . . 2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No. .2No. .2No. .2

No..2

No . .2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No.. 2No. .2

No . .2

No . .2

No. i 2

No. -2

Yes. , 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2

No . .2

No. .2

No.. 2No. .2No. .2

Yes.. , 1

Yes. . 4

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No. .2

No : .2

No. .2

No. -2

Yes. . . 1

No. . .2

Resident Trout
Yes. . . 1

No. . . i

-.

Smelt
Yes. . . 1

No. . .2

Whitefish
Yes . . . 1

No. . .2

Sturgeon
Yes . . ..I

No...2

WalleyeYes. . . 1,

No . . .2

12OrgansQUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _.
(CONTINUED)
Type of Fish

Squawfish
Yes. . . 1

No. . .2

SuckerYes. . . 1

No. . .2

Shad
Yes. . .I

No. . .2

i;gg?ptf):

Average number ofmeals per monthi

I . ..

..

Other
OrgansFilletSkln

HeadYes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

9es. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No. .2No. .2

No. a2

No . .2

No . .2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2

No.. 2

No. 02No. .2No. .2

No . a2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2

No . .2

No. .2No. .2--No. .2

No . .2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No. .2No. .2

No . .2

No . .2

Yes. . 1

No.. 2
VP@
IY”., II

Yes . . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No..

2No. .2No..

2No. .2No. .2

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

Yes.. 1

‘Yes. , 1

Yes. . 1

Yes. . 1

No. .2No. .2

No . .2

No. .2

No . a2

No . .2

OTHERS (list)
1.

2.

3.

13

I

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER _ _ _ _IV-7 On average, throughout the entire year, about how many fish meals weekly does the child eat?
Average number of fish meals weekly
IV-6 At what age (in months) did the child begin eating meals that include fish?
_ _ months
7 7=notyet
8 8 = unknown
IV-9 IF RESPONDENT IS MALE, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION
l-he next few questions are being asked to get better information on the diet of very young children.
Have you ever given birth? Yes . . , 1
IF NO, SKIP TO NEXT SECT!ON

No. . .2.

IV-10 In what month and year was your last child born?
IV-11 Was this baby breast fed? Yes . . . 1_ _ month 19 __year

No. . .2

IF NO, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

IV-12 At what age (in months) did you stop breast feeding this child?
’__ months ->SKIP TO NEXT SECTION
7 7 = still breast feeding --> CONTINUE TO QUESTION IV-13

IV-13 At what age (in months) do you plan to stop breast feeding your child? _ _ months

14

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER _ _ _ _V-lDo you catch fish for either personal consumption or for use by your Tribe in some way?
Yes . . . 1 No. . .2
IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION V-4

V-2 Please indicate on this map (show map) where you usually catch the following fish species.
REFER TO MAP TO HIGHLIGHT (numbered)(list numbers of sites)
Sa!mon & Stee!headLamprey (eel)Resident Trout
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
SuckerShad

POINTS ON THE RIVER

0 = Doesn’t catch this type of fish

I

QUESTIONNAIRENUMBER _ _ _ _V-3 About how far from home do you usually travel to fish?
O-5 miles ..............................
6-10 miles .............................
11-15 miles ............................
16-20miles ............................
21-25 miles ............................
26-50 miles ............................
51-75 miles ............................
,76-lOOmlIes ..... ......................
more than 100 miles ......................
V-4 of all the fish you eat, approximately what percent do you get from: (INTERVIEWER: READ OPTIONS)Fish caught by yourself or family members
Grocery stores
Other sources:
Friends who fish
Ceremonies
Distribution by the tribe
Other (llst)

16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

.

’

1) On average, throughout the year, how often do you attend ceremonies or ‘other community events?
never (-> End of IntervIew) .....................
lessthani tlmepermonth ......................
1-S times per month ...........................
..........................
46tlmespermonth..
#. ...........
more than 6 times per month .......

0
1
2
3
4

2) How often do you eat fish at these ceremonies?
rarely/never (-> End of Interview) ...............
less than l/2 of the ceremonies or events ...........
............
atabout1/2oftheceremonlesoreventsat nearly all ceremonies or events .................
6) How much fish do YOUusually consume at each of these events?
none ......................................
J--I-2 6oz SKVII~ys ..............................
34 6oz servings ..............................
............................
6660zservings..
more than 6 602 servings .......................

..

0
1
2
3
0
i
2
3
4

CONCLUSION
Again, thank you for your cooperation In participating In this survey. Your particlpatlon will significantly contribute to
information needed to help protect your natural resources and provide guidance for public health programs for your tribe.
NOTE TIME INTERVIEW ENDS: _ -:- _17

List of Resident Fish Species in the Columbia

APPENDIX 6:Squawfish
Northern

Squawfish- Ptychocheilus

oregonensis

SturgeonWhite Sturgeon - Acipenser transmontanus(populations above Bonneville Dam)
SuckermouthLongnose suck - Catostomus Catostomus
Bridgelip suckermouth - Catostomus columbianus
White suck&mouths- Catostomus commersoni
Largescale suckers - Catostomus macrocheilus
Mountain Sucker - Catostomus platyrh ynchus
Trout
Brown Trout - Salmo trutta
Bull Trout - Salvelinus confluentus
Brook Trout - Salvelinus fontinalis
Lake Trout - Salvelinus namaycush
WalleyeStizostedion

vitreum

Whitefish
Lake Whitefish - Coregonus clupeaformis
Mountain Whitefish - Prosopium williamsoni

128

River BasinAPPENDIX

7:

List of Anadromous

Fish Species in the Columbia

SalmonSea-run cutthroat trout - Oncorh yncus clarki
Pink salmon - Oncorh yncus gorbuscha
Chum salmon - Oncorhyncus keta
Coho salmon - Oncorhyncus kisutch
Rainbow-Steelhead
Trout - Oncorh yncus mykiss
Sockeye salmon - Oncorh yncus nerka
Chinook salmon - Oncorh yncus tshawytscha
Lamprey
Pacific Brook Lamprey - Lampetra pacifica
Western Brook Lamprey - Lampetra richardsoni
Pacific Lamprey - Lampetra tridentata
Shad
American

Shad - Alosasapid

issimaSmelt
Longfin Smelt - Spirinchus thaleichth ys
Eulachon - Thaleichth ys pacificus
SturgeonWhite Sturgeon - Acipenser transmontanus(populations below Bonneville Dam)

129

River BasinAPPENDIX 8:

List of Other Fish Species in the ColumbiaRiver Basin.

Bass

Microp terus spp.
LargemouthBass - Micropterus

salmoides

Bluegill
Lepomis macrochinus
Cod
Gadus spp:
Crappie
Black crappie - Pomoxis nigromaculatus
CatfishChannel catfish - ictalurus
Halibut
Hippoglossus spp.

punctatus

Perch
Perca spp.
Yellow Perch
Perca flavescens
Red Snapper- Sebastodes

ruberrimus

130

i Map of Fishing Sites[ Along the Columbia:I River Basin

I

1
TETRA TECAPPENDIX

10:

Sample Letter from Tribal Government
in the Survey

Requesting

Participation

Dear -,I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected to take part in the Columbia River Basin Fish Consumption
sponsored by the - Tribes. Approximately
125 tribal members will be surveyed to obtain infolrmation about fishconsumption.
The information collected will be used to ensure that state and federal governmlents are adequately
the water resources upon which our fisheries and our tribal members depend.

Surveyprotecting

Please sign up for an interview by calling (###I any time of the day or night beginning on October Zlst.
Interviews
will beheld Monday through Friday, October 31 - November 20 at the Community Counselling Center (phone: ###I. See theenclosed schedule for interview time.
The information which You provide during the interview and your identity will be kept completely confidential.
In addition,
you will receive a $40 after the questionnaire is completed and verified to cover time and transportation
expenses to theCounselling Center office.
If you are unable to attend an interview,
The informationthat you provide

please call the above number anyway

is extremely

importantto the welfare

Sincerely,
Chairman,
Off-Reservation

Fish and Wildlife

Committee

132

to verify Your address.

of the Tribe.

Your assistanceis appreciated.

APPENDIX

Job Announcements

11:

for Survey Coordinators

and Interviewers

Job Announcement
POSITION:PROGRAM:
DUTIES:.

Survey Interviewer
Columbia River Basin Fish Consumption Survey
tribe survey to obtain information
1. Participates in
effort to better protect tribal fishing rights.
2. Participatesin training

3. Assists in scheduling
4. Conducts

session from Septemberof interviews

prescheduled--

about fish consumptionof tribal members

in an

in “The Dalles” Oregon.

-

as needed.

interviewsof respondents at designated locations and house-to-houseand records
Keeps complete records of respondents and surveys conducted.
Reviews
to assure all required data is present. Must assure strict confidentialityof participants

responses on survey questionnaire.
completed questionnaires
and information obtained.

5. Provides survey participants
6. Meets regularly
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Knowledge

with incentive

with local coordinatorand/or experience

to turn in and review

in conducting

2. Ability and skill in effectively
communicating
economic, and educational ranges.

completed

and interactingwith individuals

tribe and be able to understand4. Graduationfrom high school required.

College experience

5. Experiencein conducting

surveys

to conduct

7. Ability

confidentiality

and information.

of participantsin areas of promptness,to exercise

self-initiativeof age,and speak the native dialect.

preferred.

own means of transportation

9. Ability

and groups of a variety

preferred.

6. Required to provide
to maintainwork.

personal interviews.

3. Must be member of the

8. Dependability

SALARY:

payment checks.

timeliness,in performinginterviews.

and accomplishingassignments.

the work at an acceptablelevel with little supervision.

(
positions)S6lhour

These are temporary positions that will be expected to last approximately
15 days but may last longer or shorter dependingon the length of the project, Interviewers
will be compensated for any travel which is necessary after completion of the
project. At least one interviewer
must be female as female participants may not be willing to provide certain informationofa personal nature to members of the opposite sex.
Please send Cover letter and Resume to:isHarold Shepherd
Survey Coordinator
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
975 S.E. Sandy Blvd., Suite 202
Portland, Oregon 97214

B

i

133

APPENDIX 11 (cont’d)
Job Announcement.

Local Coordinator
POSITION:PROGRAM:
Columbia River Basin Fish Consumption Survey
tribe survey to bbtain information about ,fish consumptionof tribal
DUTIES:
1. Participates inmembers in an effort to better protect tribal fishing rights.
in “The Dalles” Oregon.
2. Participates in training session from September
3. Supervising, training, observing, evaluating, and retraining interviewers and assisting
interviewers with difficult cases.
4. Maintenance of production standards, reviewing work for completeness and accuracy;
Transmitting completed rnaterials to Survey
reassigning for further work when necessary.
Coordinator.
5. Assists in scheduling of interviews as needed.
6. Conducts prescheduled interviews of respondents at designated locations and house-to-house
Keeps complete records of respondents andand records responses on survey questionnaire.
surveys conducted.
Reviews completed questionnaires to assure all required data is present. Must
assure strict confidentialityof participants and information obtained.
7. Provides survey participants with incentive payment checks.
8. Meets regularly with Survey Coordinator to review completed questionnaires and discuss
progress, problems, etc.
OUALIFICATIONS:
1. Experience and/or knowledge in conducting personal interviews.
2. Ability and skill in effectively
communicating
and interacting with individuals and groups in avariety of age, economic, and educational ranges. Ability to train others to use these techniques.
tribe and be able to understand and speak the native
3. Must be member of thedialect.
4. Graduation from high school required. College experience preferred.
5. Experience in conducting surveys preferred.
6. Required to provide own means of transportation
to conduct interviews.
7. Ability to maintain confidentialityof participants and information.
8. Dependability in areas of promptness, timeliness, and accomplishing assignments.
9. Ability to exercise self-initiativein performing work and ensuring that interviewers
perform workat an acceptable level.
SALARY:$8/hour.

This is a temporary position that will be expected to last approximately
15 days but may last longer or shorter
depending on the length of the project. The Coordinator will be compensated for alny travel which isnecessary after completion of the project. Please send Cover letter and Resume to::Harold Shepherd
Survey Coordinator
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
975 SE. Sandy Blvd., Suite 202
Portland, Oregon 972 14

134

APPENDIX

12:

Locations of Tribal Members from Interview
for Not Participating

Locations of Yakama Surveyed Individuals
Interview Site: Toppenish, WA Administrative

Building

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Miles fromInterview Site

42

34.2%

8

30

24.5%

c5

20

16.3%

21

6

5.0%

18

3

2.4%

48

Granger, WA

3

2.4%

12

Harrah, WA

3

2.4%

15

Seattle, WA

3

2.4%

158

Zillah, WA

2

1.6%

6

Parker, WA

2

1.6%

12

Yakema, WA

2

1.6%

23

Dallesport,

2

1.6%

80

1

0.8%

86

1

0.8%

118

Juliaetta

1

0.8%

206

Klickitat

1

0.8%

70

Unknown

1

0.8%

Total

123

100%

City/Town
Wapato,WA

Toppenish,

WA

White Swan, WA
Brownstown,

WA

Goldendale,

WA

WA

Lyle, WA
Pendleton,

OR

’

135

Site and Reasons

APPENDIX

12 (cont’d)

Locations of Yakama Non-Surveyed
Participating

Individuals

and Reasons Given for Not

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Miles frominterview Sitefrequency)

20

34.0%

<5

NPfS);NRL(lWapato, WA

11

18.6%

8

NP(G);NRL(S)White Swan, WA

13

22%

21

NP(-/);NRL(G)Yakima, WA

6

10.2%

23

NP(3);NRL(3)

2

3.5%

18

NPfl)

Unknown2

3.5%

Zillah, WA

I 1

I 1.7%

16

I NRL(1)

The Dalles, OR

1

1.7%

79

NRL(1 1Goldendale,

1

1.7%

48

NP(l)

Harrah, WA

1

1.7%

15

,NRL(l)Parker, WA

1

1.7%

12

lNP(1)

Total

59

100%

City/Town
Toppenish,

WA

Brownstown,

WA

WA

Legend for Reasons:Reason6

NRL(2)

NP = No Phone; NRL = No Reason Listed

136(unweighted

1)

APPENDIX
LocationsInterview

12 (cont’d).

of Warm Springs Surveyed Individuals
Site: Warm Springs, OR Community Center

City/Town

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Miles from interview
Site

Warm Springs, OR

124

98.4%

<25

Madras,

2

1.6%

15

126

100%

OR

Total

Locations of Warm Springs Non-Surveyed
Participating

I

Unweighted
Freauencv

CitvKown

individuals

Unweighted
I Percentand Reasons Given for Not

Mile6
from
I Interview Site

Reason (unweighted
I freauencv)

Madras,

OR

2

3%

15

M(2)

Portland,

OR

1

2%

100

M(l)

Parker, WA

1

2%

185

MI11

Salem, OR

1

2%

165

M(l)

Warm Springs, OR

49

90%

<25

NRLfPl);Mf12);TR(4);NP(4);MA(3);WP(2);MP(l);D(l);RI(l)‘9Tkegend for Reasons:M = moved out of survey area; NRL=no reason listed; TR=total
refusal; NP=no phone or
disconnected;
MA = missed appointment; WP = wrong phone number; MP =mental/phyeicaldisability; D =deceased;
RI -refusal during interview
i
‘3

137

APPENDIX

12 (cont’d)

Location of Umatilla Surveyed Individuals
Interview Site: Mission, OR Tribal Council Chambers,
Headquarters.
Board of Trustees,I

Unweighted
Frequency

City/Town

Miles from Interview

1 Unweighted
Percent

II

102

77.8%

5

15

11.4%

19

Pilot Rock, OR

6

4.6%

20

Weston,

OR

3

2.3%

27

Cayuse,

OR

2

1.5%

6

Irrigon, OR

1

0.8%

60

Athea,

1

0.8%

25

1

0.8%

55

I 131

100%

Pendleton,
Adams,OR

OR

OR

La Grande, OR

IITotal

Site

ii

-I

138

TribalAPPENDIX

12 (cont’d’)Location of Umatilla Non-Surveyed
Participating

Individuals

and Reasons Given for Not

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Miles fromInterview Site

Reasion (unweighted
frequency)

31

63.3%

5

M(1 E;);NP(4);MP(3);TR(3)NH(3);RIl );D(l)Adams, OR

6

12.2%

19

M(4):;NH(l):D(l)

Cawse.

4

8.2%

6

TR(P);NH(l);D(l)

3
I
1 2

6.1%
I
I 4.1%

24.1%
I
1 2.0%
I
100%

City/Town
Pendleton,

OR

OR

II

Milton Freewater

11 Pilot Rock, ORII-

Hermiston,

II

OR
I

1

La Grande, OR

Total

I
49

34
I

I

NP(3)

I 20

I NP(l);M(l)36

NP(1 );M(l)I
1 M(l)
I

I
55
I
_..

I

Leaend for k3esons:R = removed from survey, unreliable; NH = not at home; M = moved out of survey area; D= deceased; TR = total refusal; M = mental/physicaldisability; NP = no phone or phone <disconnected139

APPENDIX

12 (cont’d)

Location of Nez Perce Surveyed Individuals
Interview Site: Lapwai, ID at Northern Idaho Public Health Service

City/Town

Unweighted
Frequency

Unweighted
Percent

Miles fromInterview Site

Lapwai, ID

83

62.2%

<IO

Kamiah, ID

19

14.3%

60

Clarkston,

WA

5

3.8%

14

Culdesac,

ID

4

3.0%

9

Kooskia, ID

4

3.0%

68

Lewiston,

ID

7

5.3%

13

Spaulding,

ID

3

2.3%

4

Juliaetta,

ID

1 3

I 2.?%

1 16

Moscow,

ID

2

1.5%

36

1

0.8%

18

Spokane, WA

1

0.8%

123

Orofino,

1

0.8%

35

133

100%

Asotin,

Total

ID

ID

140

APPENDIX

12 (cont’d)

Location of Nez Perce Non-Surveyed
Participating

Individuals

141

and Reasons Given for Not

APPENDIX

13:

Fish Consumption of Persons Who Fish for Personal
Consumption or for Use by Their Tribe.
Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean kmd)

Weighted SE

N

No

245

51.7

57.8

5.70

Yes

253

48.3

69.9

4.61

Total

498

100

68.8

3.65

Harvestl *4 outliers

Fish

not included

142

APPENDIX

14:

Consumption
Data for Months of Highest Fish Consumption(May and June)

Number of Fish Meals Consumed
June)

by Adults per Week - High Mlonths (May andNumber ofmeals

Unweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

1

0.4%

0.4%

0.2

1

0.4%

0.8%

0.4

7

1.7%

2.5%

0.5

3

1.1%

3.6%

1 .o

62

26.5%

30.2%

2.0

53

25.4%

55.6%

3.0

36

19.2%

74.8%

4.0

25

12.8%

87.5%

5.0

7

3.3%

90.9%

6.0

1 3

1 2.6%

1 93.4%

7.0

5

1.9%

95.3%

10.0

2

0.6%

95.9%

12.0

2

2.2%

98.1%

14.0

1

0.4%

98.5%

15.0

2

1.5%

100%

Total

I 210

I 100%

I

N = 210Weighted Mean = 2.93 meals
Weighted SE = 0.18
RR = 99.6%

143

4
“r

APPENDIX

14 (cont’d)Fish Consumption

for May and June by Age

Age (years)

Unweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean fgpd)

18 - 39

114

55.4%

130

40 - 59

65

31.4%

78.6

60 & older

31

13.2%

82.9

Total

210

100%

108

Fish Consumption

for May and June by Sex

Sex

Unweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Mean fgpd)

WeightedSE

Female11958.3 16

97.3

9.4

Male

91

41.7%

122.1

12.6

Total

210

100%

107.8

7.63

Summaryof Consumption

Rates During May and June

Rate ofconsumptionNgrams/day

210

108

7.63

meals/week

210

2.93

0.18

Weighted
I Mean (gpd)

Weighted

144

SE

1.

APPENDIX

15:

Consumption Data for Months(January and December)

Number of Fish Meals Consumed
December)

Fish Consumption

by Adults per Week - Low Months

Numberof mealsUnweighted
Frequency

Weighted
Percent

Weighted
Cumulative
Percent

0.0

64

25.9%

25.9%

0.1

1

0.3%

26.2%

0.2

I 26

I 7.1%

I 33.3%

0.4

7

1.7%

35.0%

0.5

5

1.5%

36.5%

0.6

1

0.3%

36.8%

1 .o

94

50.7%

87.5%

2.0

14

7.9%

95.4%

3.0

5

2.7%

98.1%

’

of Lowest

N = 221Weighted Mean = 0.86 meals
Weighted SE = 0.06
RR = 97.6%

145(January

andAPPENDIX

15 (cont’d)Fish ConsumptionII

Age (years)

for January and December

I

Unweighted
Frequency

by Age( z’h;;;d( E~IB,~;;;~)

1 Eighted

18-39

131

58.1

27.1

2.8

40 - 59

72

33.2

31.6

3.1

60 & older

18

8.62

50.9

11.8

Total

221

ioo

30.7

2.2

Fish Consumptidn

for JanuaryI

1 EE;d) ;;~;i;~)1 E&tedII

Sex

Unweighted
Freauencv

and December(1by SexFemale

128

58.3

32.9

3.2

Male

93

41.7

27.5

2.7

Total

221

100

30.7

(I

2.2
,-

Summaryof Consumption

Rates for January and December

Rate ofconsumption

N

Weighted(apd)

Gremsidey

221

30.7

2.19

Meals/week

221

0.86

0.06

Mean
Weighted

146

SE

APPENDIXll 4 outliers

16:

Comparison of Fish Consumption (gpd) Throughout the Year of
Persons Who Ate Fish in the 24 Hours Preceding the Survey vs.
Persons Who Did Not Eat Fish in That Time Period

not included

147